Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[IronParrot]

In many ways, I agree with you that Sam is the hero, but Frodo's strength of will to carry the Ring so long is certainly admirable, and I wouldn't call him a wimp.
And if that's why you can't call him a wimp in the book, for the exact same reason, you can't call him a wimp in the movie.

I'd go on, but I just wanted to post something short to claim the "500th reply" position.

[Black Breathalizer]

Even the smallest (and meekest) person can change the course of the future.

This is certainly a key theme of the book. If some here want to argue that the characters are "a theme" unto themselves, then it seems to me that Jackson still had to design his movies -- and characters -- with this larger theme in mind. If Frodo stood out from the others due to his daring, courage, and bravery, he would have had the audience viewing him as "the special one" rather than the "everyman" character Tolkien created. I believe Tolkien would have preferred an audience reaction of "geez, Frodo didn't act much different than I would have in that situation" versus, "wow, what a hero!"

The more we see ourselves in Frodo the closer Jackson brings us to Tolkien's own vision.

[Elfhelm]

Haven't we already established that Frodo is not an Everyman figure? And it's obvious to me that Sam is more significant even for Jackson.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

There is a big difference to me. It seemed to me that Frodo carried the Ring out of bravery; he's always seemed like a sort of "Suffering Hero" to me. Elijah Wood only seems to me to carry the Ring to stop everyone from arguing. And his mannerisms and portrayal of Frodo (his or Jackson's, I don't know which) just make him seem weaker to me, like someone who is just doing something he is forced to do, while in the book it seemed to me that he was carrying the Ring out of willful desire to stop the evil and save the Free Peoples from enthrallment or destruction of the Dark Lord.

[IronParrot]

"There is a big difference to me. It seemed to me that Frodo carried the Ring out of bravery; he's always seemed like a sort of "Suffering Hero" to me. Elijah Wood only seems to me to carry the Ring to stop everyone from arguing."
And how is that not bravery? How is that not a sacrifice of his central interest to return to the Shire, in favour of doing what's right?

"And his mannerisms and portrayal of Frodo (his or Jackson's, I don't know which) just make him seem weaker to me, like someone who is just doing something he is forced to do, while in the book it seemed to me that he was carrying the Ring out of willful desire to stop the evil and save the Free Peoples from enthrallment or destruction of the Dark Lord."
I would argue that in the film, Frodo demonstrates a certain awakening to the fact that it is his burden and responsibility, after confronting a tremendous amount of self-doubt. Perhaps this awakening comes a little later in the film than it does in the book, but note a key scene.

At the end of The Fellowship of the Ring (film), he has a flashback to an earlier conversation with Gandalf:
Frodo: "I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened."

Gandalf: "So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you."
It is at this precise moment that, with absolute finality, he firmly decides to face his responsibility as the Ring-bearer, and go off to Mordor alone. That, to me, is the final sign that Frodo has accepted the nature of his burden. It takes him all of the second half of the film (the equivalent of Book II) to realize this, but he does. That, to me, is growth as a character. It is furthermore in line with the book, as I will demonstrate below.

One thing you must note is that in the film, the possibility of even destroying the Ring isn't introduced until the Council of Elrond, whereas in the book, it was brought up as early as "The Shadow of the Past". This is a critical difference because in the first half of the film, Frodo does not know that the destruction of the Ring is even possible. Therefore, the defeat of Sauron cannot be his motive. But instead, his motive for leaving the Shire is saving it from peril.

In the book, the Cracks of Doom are mentioned early on, and there is ample opportunity for this little gem of dialogue:

'I do really wish to destroy it!' cried Frodo. 'Or, well, to have it destroyed. I am not made for perilous quests. I wish I had never seen the Ring! Why did it come to me? Why was I chosen?'

'Such questions cannot be answered,' said Gandalf. 'You may be sure that it was not for any merit that others do not possess: not for power or wisdom at any rate. But you have been chosen, and you must therefore use such strength and hearts and wit as you have.'

'But I have so little of any of these things! You are wise and powerful. Will you not take the Ring?'
As you can see, Frodo has self-doubt. Frodo needs a kick in the pants from Gandalf to get a sense of the responsibility laid upon him. The only reason why such dialogue in the same vein does not appear in the film until Moria is because that is the first opportunity for Frodo to contemplate the task of the Ring's destruction, which was not part of his mandate until after he sets out from Rivendell.

[Black Breathalizer]

Excellent post, IronParrot!!!!!

As IronParrot clearly pointed out, PJ can only be accused of taking a longer time to show Frodo's resolve than Tolkien did. But movie Frodo came to the same conclusions and showed the same resolve by the end of FOTR as book Frodo. Achieving THAT was considerably much more important to the telling of the tale than whether Frodo dropped his sword in fear on Weathertop.

[Mrs. Maggott]

But the whole point of the story is that Frodo willingly accepts the burden of the Ring WITHOUT a "kick in the pants" by anybody! After offering the Ring to Gandalf in Bag End, Frodo's actions are completely voluntary. Even in the Council of Elrond when there is dead silence as each member tries to determine how to accomplish the destruction of the Ring, it is Frodo who steps forward and offers to take the Ring although no one is "looking at" him or in any way suggesting that he has any more obligation to the Quest than that which he has already accomplished in bringing the Ring to Rivendell.

In the film, Frodo also "volunteers", but it is more in the nature of someone who doesn't like the noise attempting to stop a loud argument. There is nothing in that scene of the selfless acceptance of one's "cross" without any external considerations such as takes place in the book.

These may appear to be "small" distinctions, but their meaning is "large". It is not enought to "end up" in the same place if the means of getting there has changed the vision of the tale. And that is what has taken place in these films.

[Elfhelm]

I think you're trying to hard to find things you don't like. Most people, even readers like us, think the way he showed the Ring manipulating people to argue was just awesome.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
I think you're trying to hard to find things you don't like. Most people, even readers like us, think the way he showed the Ring manipulating people to argue was just awesome.
No, it is not a matter of "trying to find things" not to like. It is an understanding of the original story which apparently was beyond Jackson and perhaps some others as well. Simply because the difference between the two appears to be "trifling", does not make it so! It makes a tremendous difference whether or not Frodo chooses of his own free will and without constraint or coersion to accept this burden. If he is coerced or forced in any way, then Tolkien's whole story about simple, ordinary people rising to great heights of heroism is simply "gone". It may not make much of a difference to those who are merely looking at externals, but if one is following the true meaning of the tale as intended by its creator, it makes fully as much difference as it would have if Frodo refused to take the Ring at all! A deed coerced is not the same as one freely done and a burden inflicted is entirely different from one willingly accepted - and that's what the story is all about or at least it's a major theme within it.

[Elfhelm]

I guess, then, that I could say it is "beyond some people" to realise that Frodo was never the hero of the story. It doesn't even matter to me if Frodo chose out of free will or was manipulated by the Ring, because it is Samwise who carries Frodo up Mount Doom in the end, and Gollum who brings his own end by breaking his vow and that's how the Ring is destroyed. Frodo is, in my arrogant opinion, just the porter.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
I guess, then, that I could say it is "beyond some people" to realise that Frodo was never the hero of the story. It doesn't even matter to me if Frodo chose out of free will or was manipulated by the Ring, because it is Samwise who carries Frodo up Mount Doom in the end, and Gollum who brings his own end by breaking his vow and that's how the Ring is destroyed. Frodo is, in my arrogant opinion, just the porter.
I would defer in this matter to the opinion of the author for whom Frodo and the other hobbits are in fact the heroes of the story.

However, Frodo may be in your opinion, "just the porter", but Samwise would never had been in a position to carry anyone up Mt. Doom had Frodo not freely accepted the burden of the Ring and managed to get to Mt. Doom in the first place, admittedly with the help of Sam and the rest of the Fellowship. However, without Frodo, Sam is back cutting the verge.

[Elfhelm]

Once again, if we must always defer to the opinion of the author, why bother discussing anything, since the Letters are some sort of inarguable truth?

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
In the film, Frodo also "volunteers", but it is more in the nature of someone who doesn't like the noise attempting to stop a loud argument. There is nothing in that scene of the selfless acceptance of one's "cross" without any external considerations such as takes place in the book.I view that scene from the movie COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than you, Mrs. Maggot. I see Frodo staring at the ring and suspecting that it is causing the strife that has overcome this distinquished council of elders. Then he sees a vision of flame leap across the ring and KNOWS in his heart that the ring is up to no good.

Frodo's volunteering to take the ring to Mordor had nothing to do stopping a loud arguement and everything to do with realizing -- as book Frodo did -- that he is less suspectable to the ring's influence and is the one to "see it through to the end."

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Once again, if we must always defer to the opinion of the author, why bother discussing anything, since the Letters are some sort of inarguable truth?
To whom would you defer if not the author? You seem ready enough to "defer" to Jackson's interpretation as far as the films are concerned, so why not at least as far as the book is concerned, defer to Tolkien?

Oh, and by the way, I am sorry that you misunderstood my earlier post. I did not mean you when I said that some of the nuances had "escaped" Jackson "and others". Rather, I was speaking of those film critics who had nothing but glowing praise for his work, many of whom declared that he had "faithfully" interpreted the original. Obviously, they know little or nothing about the "original".

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I view that scene from the movie COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than you, Mrs. Maggot. I see Frodo staring at the ring and suspecting that it is causing the strife that has overcome this distinquished council of elders. Then he sees a vision of flame leap across the ring and KNOWS in his heart that the ring is up to no good.

Frodo's volunteering to take the ring to Mordor had nothing to do stopping a loud arguement and everything to do with realizing -- as book Frodo did -- that he is less suspectable to the ring's influence and is the one to "see it through to the end."
There is a world of difference between the book's silent contemplation of fundamentally committed allies trying to determine how to achieve the destruction of the Ring and the free-for-all among rivals and feuding parties which takes place in the film.

In the book, Frodo steps forward simply because he realizes that no one - even these most powerful persons of Middle-earth - has a ready answer to the problem and that it has become increasingly clear the burden is his alone to bear by virtue of the decision of some Higher Power.

In the film, it is apparent that what remains of the free peoples of Middle-earth are about to engage in suicidal internecine warfare as illustrated by the image of the bickering elves, dwarves and men reflected in the fiery surface of the Ring (and thus does the Director inform the audience of their ultimate fate even without the Ring). It is in light of this situation that Frodo steps forth to volunteer. In other words, he is "coerced" and "influenced" by the obvious dischord that exists among the free peoples of Middle-earth and therefore, his decision to bear the Ring is no longer one of personal obligation to the fate of the Ring because he has become enmeshed therein. Instead it is presented as an attempt to forestall inevitable destruction arising not from Sauron's Ring (or even from Sauron himself), but from long-standing petty jealousies and rivalries that have nothing whatever to do with hobbits or Sauron or the Ring!

The result of the decision is the same, but the reason for it is completely different.

[IronParrot]

"But the whole point of the story is that Frodo willingly accepts the burden of the Ring WITHOUT a "kick in the pants" by anybody! After offering the Ring to Gandalf in Bag End, Frodo's actions are completely voluntary. Even in the Council of Elrond when there is dead silence as each member tries to determine how to accomplish the destruction of the Ring, it is Frodo who steps forward and offers to take the Ring although no one is "looking at" him or in any way suggesting that he has any more obligation to the Quest than that which he has already accomplished in bringing the Ring to Rivendell.

In the film, Frodo also "volunteers", but it is more in the nature of someone who doesn't like the noise attempting to stop a loud argument. There is nothing in that scene of the selfless acceptance of one's "cross" without any external considerations such as takes place in the book."
Then you're not criticizing the film at all, but rather your interpretation of Frodo's motives in that scene. I see nothing in that scene that explicitly outlines his motives as such. I see no contradiction between his willingness to take the Ring there and the similar situation in the book. It looks like you're reaching for contradictions. The part in the first paragraph that I highlighted in bold - that is exactly what happens in the film, and this - unlike your interpretation of Frodo "trying to stop an argument" is explicit.

Pick an easier target next time. You complain about people misunderstanding the book - yet at the same time, you commit what can be construed to be a misunderstanding of the film.

Frodo takes the Ring, and the argument ends there, yes - but this does not contradict the fact that it is a selfless and willing action that goes far, far beyond the call of duty! There is no conflict here! If Frodo isn't taking the Ring willingly, then he must be taking it unwillingly, no? So wouldn't that imply that everybody else was arguing as to intentionally force Frodo into taking it? No! He... still... claimed... the... burden... HIMSELF! Independently! Responsibly! (puff puff, pant pant)

To whom would you defer if not the author? You seem ready enough to "defer" to Jackson's interpretation as far as the films are concerned, so why not at least as far as the book is concerned, defer to Tolkien?
As I said about a hundred pages ago, yes, defer to Tolkien regarding his written material. Do not defer to Tolkien in the analysis of the filmic material, because a) Tolkien hasn't seen the film or commented on it, since he's dead, and b) Tolkien doesn't know a darn thing about filmmaking.

As for works like Letters, the reason why they are so valuable to us is because they are completely open to analysis! Not only do we get a sense of what Tolkien thought - but we are able to deconstruct and read between the lines so we can get a sense of what kind of person he was.

Oh, and by the way, I am sorry that you misunderstood my earlier post. I did not mean you when I said that some of the nuances had "escaped" Jackson "and others". Rather, I was speaking of those film critics who had nothing but glowing praise for his work, many of whom declared that he had "faithfully" interpreted the original. Obviously, they know little or nothing about the "original".
The same can be said for a lot of film critics on the other side of the fence. This is not just present in the praise of the film, but also among the few detractors. A lot of film critics - even the most reputed ones, who are excellent at analysing cinematic material eloquently and thoroughly - fell into the trap of pretending they knew the book. Even Roger Ebert (whom I respect a lot, though I only agree with him about 60% of the time) had a great review of LOTR's cinematic qualities, but he complained about the apparent lack of focus on Hobbits and clearly had no idea what he was talking about (even stating, in a contradictory passage, that he was not well versed enough in the book to nitpick about the adaptation).

Therefore, leave the critics out of the equation. Their purpose and mandate is to analyse LOTR as a film - which is the deciding factor of what we would like to term "quality".

This thread here has nothing to do with cinematic quality, but rather the connections between book and film.

[Elfhelm]

So you're really complaining that the hostility between the peoples is enacted at this point instead of revealed through the narrative? It's been a rule of drama for a long time to show not tell. Tolkien does a lot of telling. If you are going to hate the movie for every time Jackson shows through action something Tolkien describes in the narrative then you are basically prejudiced against the medium.

[Wayfarer]

Do you think the shouting match that Jackson portrayed was faithful to the spirit of Tolkien?

I did not. I thought the entire treatment of the races was more taken from D&D than it was directly from middle earth.

[IronParrot]

There is a world of difference between the book's silent contemplation of fundamentally committed allies trying to determine how to achieve the destruction of the Ring and the free-for-all among rivals and feuding parties which takes place in the film.

In the book, Frodo steps forward simply because he realizes that no one - even these most powerful persons of Middle-earth - has a ready answer to the problem and that it has become increasingly clear the burden is his alone to bear by virtue of the decision of some Higher Power.

In the film, it is apparent that what remains of the free peoples of Middle-earth are about to engage in suicidal internecine warfare as illustrated by the image of the bickering elves, dwarves and men reflected in the fiery surface of the Ring (and thus does the Director inform the audience of their ultimate fate even without the Ring). It is in light of this situation that Frodo steps forth to volunteer. In other words, he is "coerced" and "influenced" by the obvious dischord that exists among the free peoples of Middle-earth and therefore, his decision to bear the Ring is no longer one of personal obligation to the fate of the Ring because he has become enmeshed therein. Instead it is presented as an attempt to forestall inevitable destruction arising not from Sauron's Ring (or even from Sauron himself), but from long-standing petty jealousies and rivalries that have nothing whatever to do with hobbits or Sauron or the Ring!

The result of the decision is the same, but the reason for it is completely different.
Okay, so in the book, nobody has a ready solution. In the film, nobody has an acceptable solution on which they can all reach a consensus. In both cases, Frodo comes forward and solves the problem. What is this so-called fundamental difference?

And if the arguments of others were the major thing that "coerced" him to take the Ring (and I say "coerced" mockingly): how come, immediately before, he hears the beckoning of the Ring? Is that not a factor that awakens him to the fact that this task was appointed to him?

And if he is willing to settle an argument between everybody else by taking on the responsibility himself, is that not leadership? Is that not bravery? Above all, is that not the sacrifice of his own interests? Think about what it says about Frodo's character. The fact that his line, "I will take the Ring!" settles an argument adds to his existing motives in the book. It doesn't nullify them!

Your entire argument rests on the claim that somehow the book is nullified, and you have failed to demonstrate this.

And one thing that Elfhelm is indeed right about: at this point, we are not yet aware of the fundamental cultural conflict between Elves and Dwarves. That has not yet been revealed, because in the film, there has been no opportunity to do so. We don't even see Dwarves until the Council of Elrond. So where else do we establish this historically-motivated emnity? Are we to assume that there is complete trust between them? Wouldn't that draw complaints from the purists who would claim that the Elf-Dwarf relationship has been undermined?

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
So you're really complaining that the hostility between the peoples is enacted at this point instead of revealed through the narrative? It's been a rule of drama for a long time to show not tell. Tolkien does a lot of telling. If you are going to hate the movie for every time Jackson shows through action something Tolkien describes in the narrative then you are basically prejudiced against the medium.
I beg you to reread The Council of Elrond. Aside from two comments about the elf-dwarf feud, there certainly is no such contretemps as occurs in the film. Indeed, it is quite a civilized gathering. Jackson makes it into a bar-room brawl in order to give Elrond another chance to be "catty" about men in general and Aragorn in particular.

[IronParrot]

I beg you to reread The Council of Elrond. Aside from two comments about the elf-dwarf feud, there certainly is no such contretemps as occurs in the film. Indeed, it is quite a civilized gathering. Jackson makes it into a bar-room brawl in order to give Elrond another chance to be "catty" about men in general and Aragorn in particular.
I have been reading that chapter over and over again for the past half an hour. I see where you're getting at in that the book takes it more patiently - but the validity of your argument basically ends there.

The book is allowed to take its time and give characters the room to flesh out their arguments because the Council of Elrond is so bloody long! The film simply doesn't have time for this. There is a further fallacy in your argument that there is complete mutual trust and cooperation between the different races in the book. This is not so.

Gloin, in particular, is rather confrontational. Let's take a look at this excerpt, when he responds to Legolas:
'You were less tender to me,' said Gloin with a flash of his eyes, as old memories were stirred of his imprisonment in the deep places of the Elven-king's halls.

'Now come!' said Gandalf. 'Pray do not interrupt, my good Gloin. That was a regrettable misunderstanding, long set right. If all the grievances that stand between Elves and Dwarves are to be brought up here, we may as well abandon this Council.'
And let's look at how he questions the Elves:
'Ah, alas!' cried Gloin. 'When will the day come of our revenge? But still there are the Three. What of the Three Rings of the Elves? Very mighty Rings, it is said. Do not the Elf-lords keep them? Yet they too were made by the Dark Lord long ago. Are they idle? I see Elf-lords here. Will they not say?'
There is a Dwarf-Elf conflict. It does not break out thanks to the mediation that Gandalf offers. Gandalf does not have this opportunity in the film due to the pace of the scene alone. There is no long-winded storytelling going on, so there is no basis for getting everybody to shut up and keep listening, since there's nothing else to listen to. Also, the various arguments of everybody present at the Council are not presented in full, so they don't have a full palette of prior reasoning to work with when deciding what to do with the Ring.

In both cases, the Elf-Dwarf animosity is the same. What differs is the level of restraint. That difference can be attributed to the fact that the scene does not allow everybody to develop their arguments in full, due to time constraints. It is perfectly natural that such a "shouting match" would break out.

There is a big difference between the nature of the Council of Elrond in the book and the film. That difference is that in the film, the scene isn't two hours long. All else follows.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by IronParrot
As I said about a hundred pages ago, yes, defer to Tolkien regarding his written material. Do not defer to Tolkien in the analysis of the filmic material, because a) Tolkien hasn't seen the film or commented on it, since he's dead, and b) Tolkien doesn't know a darn thing about filmmaking.
Whether or not Frodo is the hero in the books has nothing to do with filmic material.

[IronParrot]

That statement you quoted there was a response to a completely tangential argument, regarding the sanctity of Letters and related compilations, and was not made regarding the topic of Frodo's heroism.

[Wayfarer]

It is perfectly natural that such a "shouting match" would break out. Natural to /WHOM/?

I will not insult you by suggesting that you have no knowledge of Tolkien, as you obviously do. But you seem to miss the way the innate characters of the races have been changed.

In middle earth, Elves do not shout. They do not yell, or lose their temper. Elves to not act 'catty'. They are civilized beings, and even when Feanor and his sons spoke and acted in passion they did not become wild and uncontrolled.

Dwarves, likewise, were said to be long-suffering. They endure hardship easily, and hold fast in friendship and in emnity. They are not brash, they are not violent. They are slow, deliberate, thoughtful.

It is not thematic for either of these races to engage in the kind of pointless bickering that jackson displays. But as with many other instances they are fundamantelly changed in the films.

[Elfhelm]

I don't know, Wayf, I think elves do lose their tempers sometimes. They just don't lose them at little hobbits. So maybe they seem kindly and civilized to Bilbo, who wrote the Red Book. They sure seem to me to lose their tempers in the Silmarillion.

Sure dwarves are brash and violent. At least they seem so in The Hobbit.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
In middle earth, Elves do not shout. They do not yell, or lose their temper. Elves to not act 'catty'. They are civilized beings, and even when Feanor and his sons spoke and acted in passion they did not become wild and uncontrolled.Maybe this is just me, but I would not describe Legolas's behavior as being wild and uncontrolled. He simply stood up and said, "Have not heard what Master Elrond has said? The ring must be destroyed."

If Legolas had jumped up, sneered at Boromir, shouted a few choice curse words and waved his fists around, then I'd be right there with ya, Wayfarer. :)

[Elf Girl]

Legolas is an Elf. Elf, singuler. However, Elladen, Elrohir, Galdor, Gildor, Figwit ( :D ) and all the other Elves stood up and argued heatedly, rising to shouting.

[Elf Girl]

Look.

[Elf Girl]

http://www.quintessentialwebsites.com/lordoftherings/movieshots_bk2/fotr_b2c02_scene3.htm

You'll find some heated arguing.

[Elfhelm]

Whereas Fëanor's body was consumed by flame after his death because he was such a placid philosophical soul?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

He was most definitely a fiery and passionate Elf, I doubt any-one would disagree with that. :) Especially if they knew the meaning of his name (which if I remember was imparted by prophetic insight from his mother Miriel). He spoke with passion to the Noldor (but I don't think shouted), and he drew his blade on both Fingolfin and Olwe. But Feanor was undoubtedly one of a kind. How many other Elves were consumed from within upon their deaths? Also, the Elves seem as a whole to be more composed during the latter years. There seem to be quite a few records of Elves acting "brash", or getting swept away by their passion in the Elder Days, but afterwards I don't remember much.

The Dwarves in the Hobbit did not strike me as very brash or violent. Proud, most certainly, and no doubt somewhat brash or violent, but I can see them arguing, most certainly. Dwarves would not take well to insults, methinks.

By the way, Elf Girl, I'm pretty sure that Erestor actually sat calmly during the shouting match.

[Elf Girl]

:rolleyes: Fine. Scratch Erestor.

[Black Breathalizer]

The critical comments about the elves' behavior in the Council of Elrond would be valid if we are taking about a normal situation.

It is clear in the film version that the ring is affecting the council members' actions. It appears that only Frodo and Elrond are immune and aware of what's really going on. So even if you believe the elves standing up and arguing with the dwarves is out of character for them, the scene is still completely logical given the ring's power to corrupt all around it.

[Elf Girl]

*comes in very quietly* I agree with BB on that.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
I agree with BB on that. :) :) :)

[Elf Girl]

Aargh! Must you expose my failing! ;)

[Black Breathalizer]

I was thinking when I started this thread that we'd be discussing things such as Jackson's cinematic sensitivity to Tolkien's love of nature and disgust with the way the industrial age was ruining the environment. But instead, my Purist counterpoints continually point to so-called "problems" with the film character portrayals as a major "theme" flaw.

I think it's clear to all readers here that IronParrot and I have completely destroyed the Purist arguements regarding the "weak" Frodo. But I still hear some snide remarks about Gimli, Pippin, and Merry. But frankly, after watching both movies numerous times, I can't see where PJ missed the mark on them except that he gave all three of them some funny lines to say. Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I could have sworn that all three of them showed a playful sense of humor in the books as well.

The problem, as I see it, is that Purists look at one early film scene and then make broad, sweeping statements about the "changed" character based on it without noticing or appreciating a zillion other examples of how the character GREW since that one scene. Both Pippin and Merry are great examples of film characters that got dumped on big time by the Purists after FOTR but then (surprise, surprise...just like the books) developed in TTT and will develop even more in ROTK.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I think it's clear to all readers here that IronParrot and I have completely destroyed the Purist arguements regarding the "weak" Frodo.

:rolleyes: Silly. :p

[quote]But I still hear some snide remarks about Gimli, Pippin, and Merry. But frankly, after watching both movies numerous times, I can't see where PJ missed the mark on them except that he gave all three of them some funny lines to say. Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I could have sworn that all three of them showed a playful sense of humor in the books as well.
The problem, as I see it, is that Purists look at one early film scene and then make broad, sweeping statements about the "changed" character based on it without noticing or appreciating a zillion other examples of how the character GREW since that one scene. Both Pippin and Merry are great examples of film characters that got dumped on big time by the Purists after FOTR but then (surprise, surprise...just like the books) developed in TTT and will develop even more in ROTK.

Pippin was portrayed as a dolt in the movie, right up to the point when Merry said "There won't be a Shire". At which point, he suddenly grew clever and brilliant enough to fool an ancient, wise being, the Eldest of the Living Creatures. This seems like too much, too soon to me.

As for Merry, I don't have that much of a problem with him. He didn't seem Merry to me, I remembered him being more responsible, but he wasn't bad. I think he just gets grouped with Pippin. ;)

As for Gimli...um...I won't touch this. :p


It appears that only Frodo and Elrond are immune and aware of what's really going on.

Tut, tut, BB. How many times have you watched the movie, and yet you missed Erestor? ;):p

[Melko Belcha]

As I have said before the characters make the story, if the characters are changed then it changes the story for me. And no I do not think you have proven that Frodo is not weak in the movie, after viewing FotR and TT I feel Frodo is very weak compared to the Frodo in the book. The #1 reason I have reread LotR so many times is because of the characters, the #1 reason I have watched the movie so few times is because of the characters. You act like the characters are only a small part to the story but to me they are the main part of the story and PJ failed badly at bringing those characters to the screen. I can handle the changes in the storyline, but I will never accept some of the characters in the movie (Elrond, Aragorn, and Faramir are at the top of that list).

[Black Breathalizer]

If you don't see the book characters in the films, that's your problem, Melko Belcha. Please don't go around whining that PJ's version is bad simply because you don't get it. The characters were thoughtfully researched and brought to life with great care and concern for getting it right by the individual actors and their director.

Most fans of the books I know have been blown away by the film performances and appreciate the way the film version has expanded our appreciation of the characters we've all grown up to love from the books. I'm sorry for you that you didn't have the same experience.

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Most fans of the books I know have been blown away by the film performances and appreciate the way the film version has expanded our appreciation of the characters we've all grown up to love from the books. I'm sorry for you that you didn't have the same experience. [/B]

Sorry but my friends who are fans of the book are sickened by the portrayal of some of the characters in the movie and I look at most of the changes like Aragorn and Faramir as a disrespect to Tolkien. If it takes dumbing down the characters and tearing away the roots to who the characters are make you appreciate the book more then you must have no understanding of the book. And if you call the 180 they pulled on Faramir getting it right then I would hate to see what they would have had to do to make you say they got it wrong. Just because you know people that don't mind the changes does not in anyway prove to me that they got it right, I know way to many people who feel the way I do, and even more that are more upset with the movies then I am.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Most fans of the books I know have been blown away by the film performances and appreciate the way the film version has expanded our appreciation of the characters we've all grown up to love from the books. I'm sorry for you that you didn't have the same experience.
Expanded our appreciation. I assume I am not included in that 'we'. Just because 'most fans of the books BB knows' have been 'blown away' by the films doesn't make my opinion invalid.

Thank you for your concern. :rolleyes:

[squinteyedsoutherner]

There is one thing that keeps coming up in this thread that is absurd (posted over and over by BB and the Bird) and that is the assertion that: the changes made were necessary in order to make a "good film", and that people who don't like those changes ("purists":rolleyes: ) don't understand this necessity.

I would remind everyone that many professional film critics such as Roger Ebert (not my personal favourite, but perhaps North America's most well known) as well as many others, argued that although the film was worth seeing on it's technical merits, the essence of Tolkien had been lost in all the action, and the Hobbits had been upstaged by the race of men.

If you are arguing that what happened to the story in the film "had to be that way because it's a film, and not a book" than you are arguing with many professional critics who seem to be of the opinion that it did not "have to be that way", and in the case of Ebert, stated in his review (on the tv show) that the film would have been better had it been more faithful to the spirit of Tolkien, pointing precisely to the expansion of Helm's Deep as one specific example of expanded violence at the expense of the book's lighter charm, which is largely missing from the film.

There were other ways this film could have been made, THAT IS SIMPLY A FACT, and one of them would have been to reduce the amount of action/violence and increase the ammount of character development. I, along with many critics, fans of the book and many who post here, would have prefered that approach to a shield surfing Legolas.

[Melko Belcha]

"'The Two Towers' is one of the most spectacular swashbucklers ever made...it is not faithful to the spirit of Tolkien and misplaces much of the charm and whimsy of the books, but it stands on its own as a visionary thriller...What one misses in the thrills of these epic splendors is much depth in the characters...The details of the story--who is who, and why, and what their histories and attributes are--still remains somewhat murky to me...Jackson has steered the story into the action mainstream. To do what he has done in this film must have been awesomely difficult, and he deserves applause, but to remain true to Tolkien would have been more difficult, and braver." --Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Thanks Melko:)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
then I would hate to see what they would have had to do to make you say they got it wrong

Judging from his posts, I would hazard a guess that the answer would be "Stick to the book".

The characters were thoughtfully researched and brought to life with great care and concern for getting it right by the individual actors and their director

False. Researched, perhaps, but when it came to bringing them to life, I cannot possibly agree, or even see how someone thinks "Quest...mission...thing" twat is equivalent to Pippin, even in the first part of LOTR.

Go Ebert! :D

[Sheeana]

Yep, gotta love Ebert.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

The other one (Roger?) hasn't even read LOTR, I think...:eek:

[Black Breathalizer]

LOL...you gotta love the way you purists operate. I've been told many times that the critical praise given to PJ "doesn't mean squat." Now you all go and rally behind...Roger Ebert!?!?!?!?

:D

To squinteyedsoutherner: Yes, there are many ways the films could have been done. But that doesn't mean that other ways would have been anywhere near as successful from an artistic or storytelling perspective as PJ's. His results speak for themselves.

[Elf Girl]

Yeah, thanks Melko Belcha. :) :) :)

[squinteyedsoutherner]

I knew you wouldn't understand the previous posts breathalizer.

There is no rally. The arguement is that if the most well known and influencial film critic in North America can argue that the film is a "mainstream action" film, that the "charm" of Tolkien is missing, that the hobbits have been upstaged, that the character development is weak; than it is rather stupid to suggest that people here are "book purists" who don't underdstand film, when they argue the very same thing.

Perhaps when people accuse Hollywood of catering to the lowest common denominator, which they often do, they are refering to people like you -- who are, shall we say ............easily entertained.

[Lizra]

Lowest common denominator to some maybe :eek: .....to me movies are just entertainment, :rolleyes: take a ride and (try to) have a little fun! :) I have always rankled at people trying to tell me why or why not I should enjoy something. I didn't care for the heavy handed Helms Deep battle myself, but there it is. (so, so what! :D ) I'm still excited about seeing extended TTT, and RoTK, who knows what cool stuff I'll find! I'll take what pleasures I can get, and ignore the rest! Nothing's perfect, these movies are fun and exciting to me. I always have the books and my imagination, but it's GREAT to have some beautiful movies to take me a few hundred steps further than looking at a picture. The things I don't like (wargs, ear picking hobbit dolt ) I'll just ignore. I personally think it's pointless to fixate on what I don't like...HEY! there's a lot of stuff I DO like. :) I'm not sure if this is capturing Tolkien's vision...but for me, it really boils down to capturing MY vision. So..I guess I'm off topic in a way! ;) I just refuse to jump on the "I hate those movies" bandwagon. Loosen up people! :D (Can you spell C H E A P ...T H R I L L S ? ) ;) Woo hoo...bring em on!

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
The arguement is that if the most well known and influencial film critic in North America can argue that the film is a "mainstream action" film, that the "charm" of Tolkien is missing, that the hobbits have been upstaged, that the character development is weak; than it is rather stupid to suggest that people here are "book purists" who don't underdstand film, when they argue the very same thing.

Perhaps when people accuse Hollywood of catering to the lowest common denominator, which they often do, they are refering to people like you -- who are, shall we say ............easily entertained. Watch it there, squinty, your elitism (which is at the heart of your side's issues with the film adaptations) is showing again.

I have appreciated your new arguement though. Now, instead of calling you Tolkien Purists, I can call you all Roger Ebertists!!! :D

[Elf Girl]

*gag* I prefer Tolkien Purists, thanks.

I agree with squinty's post exept for:

Perhaps when people accuse Hollywood of catering to the lowest common denominator, which they often do, they are refering to people like you [BB]-- who are, shall we say ............easily entertained.

[Melko Belcha]

"Jackson departs from the book by incorporating an unnecessary battle with orcs and warg wolves just to enhance a subplot between Aragorn and Éowyn (Miranda Otto), the niece of Rohan’s King Théoden (Bernard Hill). Also, Gondor warrior Faramir (David Wenham) is a lot more like his brother Boromir, who perished at the end of the first installment, instead of his own man. This results in his dragging Frodo and company to the battle of Osgiliath, an event mentioned in the books but at which no major character participates. Jackson’s Two Towers also ends surprisingly early, only about two-thirds of the way into the book." - George Wu

"Part two, The Two Towers, picks up right where the first one ends, and the special effects are even more spectacular. But the middle part of a trilogy is always the toughest to tell. And it's even tougher in this case, because of our expectations. This movie simply doesn't match up to the first. In the middle book, on Middle Earth, the fellowship is divided. The film intercuts three separate stories — tough to do under the best of circumstances — but impossible here because two of the three are better read than seen." - Joel Siegel

"Deeply Disappointed! They are just few words to say about this film. Though The Fellowship had some minor glitches, it was a well done adaptation of the book. But The Towers is just so disappointing. No problem with the special effects and the scenery (even if it really is darker than the original), but why, oh God, why did Peter Jackson have to change the storyline? There's no reason to do that. The whole book offers suspense enough, so why change all the parts. All year long I couldn't wait till yesterday. Now, I'm no longer looking forward to The Return of the King. Style, form and language: brilliant, Content: failed!" - Patrick Luedemann, Germany

"It is understandable that much has to be missed out, but what spoiled the film for me was the additional material which never happened in the book. The Elves never came to Helm's Deep, Aragorn never fell off a cliff and nearly drowned and as for the nonsense with Frodo and Sam being forcibly taken to Osgiliath and Frodo offering the Ring to a Nazgul - what on earth was the director thinking of? He certainly badly misunderstands the character of Faramir, who is the most noble character in the whole book, a contrast with his brother Boromir. This is a crucial part of the central underlying study of this work - i.e. the corrupting influence of power (the ring) and how each central character measures up to this test.The director has also mistakenly pandered to political correctness and radically changed the storyline in order to expand the role of Arwen. On the bright side, Gollum was sensationally good." - Robin Woodward, UK

"What has Peter Jackson done? This was a massive disappointment, I am a huge fan of Fellowship, I thought the plot differences between film and book were necessary and helped the film. But The Two Towers has been hacked about, it lacks continuity, action jumps about from story to story. Scenes have been invented for a Hollywood blockbuster feel and perhaps the most unforgivable is the treatment of the character of Faramir. I will still see the third film but I no longer look forward to it in the same way as after the first movie." - Niall Mahoney, UK

The Times - "What we don't get is close and consistent tension. Like most trilogies, The Lord of the Rings sags in the middle. Jackson's middle episode is a vast schematic piece of action with large damp patches of wooden acting. The camera seems forever on a horizon, gazing across distant plains at humourless armies of yodelling orcs. At times it feels like a giant game of toy soldiers. "

I can find more if you like!!!!!

[Elf Girl]

*applause*

[Black Breathalizer]

I'm sorry, but posting negative reviews here is just plain ridiculous, Melko Belcha. What am I supposed to do?...go "wow, I guess I was wrong..MB found critics who didn't like it." You and everyone else reading this thread knows that for every ONE you can find, I can find NINE who loved it.

Wanna bet what the critics are going to say after ROTK??? :)

[Elf Girl]

I believe what Melko was saying is that you can't say we are the only people who didn't like the movies. The reviews prove that we are not a small elitest class.

And if you can find 54 positive reviews and post them here, I will be deeply impressed.

[azalea]

At the risk of annoying everyone, I'm going to remind you all to stay on topic, please. This argument is turning into one that is more appropriate for the "What did you think of TTT" thread at the top of the forum. Let's go back to what we were discussing before in here: a literal translation vs. non-literal, but one that captures the spirit of the book. Thanks.:) (And feel free to continue the tangent argument in the other thread.:) )

[Elf Girl]

That's not exactly what we're discussing. I think we should be discussing whether PJ captured Tolkien's vision. After all, no one is asking for a literal interpretation.

[Melko Belcha]

Sorry azalea, but the point I trying to make is that there are alot of people who feel that the films failed to capture Tolkien's vision. And BB, I can bet that out of those 9 there is a good chance that 6 or 7 of the people have never read the books, or only read the books after seeing the movie.

[Black Breathalizer]

As has been beautifully illustrated by IronParrot and 'moi' with a number of irrefutable examples, Jackson has done a masterful job of capturing Tolkien's vision on film. The nay-sayers here have a little clique that emboldens them to think they are more than just another far right fringe group of Tolkien book geeks. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) ;) :)

The only thing I've heard from the Purists in this whole thread is that Jackson didn't give you YOUR vision of LOTR. When it's pointed out to you that Jackson's LOTR is just as valid a representation of Tolkien as your own, we get idiotic drivel like, "well, Roger Ebert said..." Give me a break. :rolleyes:

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
As has been beautifully illustrated by IronParrot and 'moi' with a number of irrefutable examples, Jackson has done a masterful job of capturing Tolkien's vision on film. The nay-sayers here have a little clique that emboldens them to think they are more than just another far right fringe group of Tolkien book geeks. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) ;) :)

The only thing I've heard from the Purists in this whole thread is that Jackson didn't give you YOUR vision of LOTR. When it's pointed out to you that Jackson's LOTR is just as valid a representation of Tolkien as your own, we get idiotic drivel like, "well, Roger Ebert said..." Give me a break. :rolleyes:

It has NOT, by ANY MEANS, been "illustrated". You have merely stated that it is your opinion, and given some lengthy rhetoric to "prove" that it is accurate. If that is illustrating that he did it well, does this mean that whoever is the longest-winded must be right? :rolleyes:

The nay-sayers here have a little clique that emboldens them to think they are more than just another far right fringe group of Tolkien book geeks. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) ;) :)

:rolleyes: I could insert some rude comments about not giving a rat's behind about Tolkien and his work right about here...

The only thing I've heard from the Purists in this whole thread is that Jackson didn't give you YOUR vision of LOTR. When it's pointed out to you that Jackson's LOTR is just as valid a representation of Tolkien as your own, we get idiotic drivel like, "well, Roger Ebert said..." Give me a break.

Ah. So you're telling me that PJ thought that it was Arwen who went to the Ford, not Frodo by himself, and that Merry and Pippin just tripped over Frodo and said "Cool, an epic quest to destroy an ancient item of great evil! Sounds cool, I'm in!" and that Galadriel turned into a demonic monster, rather than "beautiful beyond enduring", that Faramir took Frodo to Osgiliath, rather than aiding them? If that is the case, then either he never read the book, or he is illiterate. Don't know where the additions came in...he most have fallen asleep while reading the skewed synopsis. :rolleyes:

My point is that it is NOT an interpretation. It is a a rewriting, an "improvement".

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Quoting an influencial film critic while discussing a film is not idiotic drivel - do you not see the stupidity of your posts?

This is idiotic drivel - it doesn't even make sense.

"Jackson has improved Tolkien"
"Jackson understands Tolkien's vision better than Tolkien"
"Jackson has brought more skill to his craft than Tolkien did to his"
"Peter Jackson is God"

[edited]

edited by azalea: please be careful about the personal comments you make.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
As has been beautifully illustrated by IronParrot and 'moi' with a number of irrefutable examples, Jackson has done a masterful job of capturing Tolkien's vision on film. The nay-sayers here have a little clique that emboldens them to think they are more than just another far right fringe group of Tolkien book geeks. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) ;) :)

The only thing I've heard from the Purists in this whole thread is that Jackson didn't give you YOUR vision of LOTR. When it's pointed out to you that Jackson's LOTR is just as valid a representation of Tolkien as your own, we get idiotic drivel like, "well, Roger Ebert said..." Give me a break. :rolleyes:
First of all, you did not make your point with irrefutable examples, [edited], or else others would not be disputing the dribble that you have so irresponsibly puked upon this thread.
If PJ had been successful in capturing Tolkien's vision, which he has obviously not done, there would not be those among us to argue against your point of view. There are clearly significant changes from the book in which examples have clearly and concisely been provided to you. And it has been explained to you in clear and simple language that even you should be able to understand, that these significant changes to the story line, as well as the characters, changes the basic themes of the story itself.
However, you are much like many to whom Hollywood tries to appeal to. [edtied] And I forgive you for your limited vision and your incapacity to recognise the difference between the great works of a great literary artist and the failed attempt by a Hollywood lackey to bring a great adventure from a wonderful piece of classic art to the big screen.

[Lizra]

I find all that name calling offensive. Please, I don't think using spoilers means you have license to flame-bait shamelessly! :eek:

[Artanis]

Lizra is the one person that make most sense in this thread :rolleyes:

[azalea]

Sorry, Ruinel, but I had to edit your post. Please, I know this can be a frustrating debate, but it is important that we keep it civil, and not resort to name-calling. Thank you.

Edit:
Facts for everyone to keep in mind about this thread:

You are not going to change anyone's mind about the movie.

No one can really KNOW if Jackson captured the "spirit" of Tolkien's vision or not, because each reader has his own ideas about what that "spirit" is. It can be argued effectively, but it is ultimately subjective.

Tolkien cannot speak for himself in this matter, although we have Letters that can be used in arguing the points. However, although Tolkien surely had his own ideas about why he wrote it and what it is about, he could not dictate that to his readers unless he had decided to explicitly write it out in the published work. He wrote a story, which he had published. In doing so, he was permitting each reader to form his own ideas about the spirit of the work.

In titling this thread "literal" vs. vision, I don't think (and I think he said this) BB meant literal as in word for word. I think he meant Did Jackson, despite the changes he made to the original story, capture the essence of LotR and its themes? and If not, what specifically did he change that failed to capture that essence and why did it fail, and How would sticking to the text in that instance have better conveyed the theme in question while still remaining feasible in the cinematic sense? Or something along those lines. This has been an interesting topic so far, and can continue to be as long as we can keep a sense of humor about it, or at least some emotional distance.

MB, I wasn't referring to your post in specific, but to the general path down which the thread was heading. (Plus I was afraid BB would ACTUALLY post all those other reviews!:eek: ;) )

[Ruinel]

Sorry, I'm having a crappy day. But, that was nothing compared to what I wanted to say.

[azalea]

In that case, thanks for exhibiting restraint in your post.;)
I'm sorry you're having a bad day.:(

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by azalea
In that case, thanks for exhibiting restraint in your post.;)
I'm sorry you're having a bad day.:(
:( Thanks. I'll make a serious effort not to do this in the future.

[Elfhelm]

To be fair, though, BB did use the terms geek and idiotic, as well as leaned on the word purist in a negative way. Surely an intelligent fan of Tolkien can be forgiven for getting upset at being called idiotic.

That said, I have also eloquently spoken on behalf of PJ in this thread, as well as condemned some things I felt were unconscionable (such as the excessive splatter). But I'm not an admin so I guess I don't get the nod. ;)

[Ruinel]

:) Thanks.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Yes, I most definitely admire you for that. :)

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Yes, I most definitely admire you for that. :)
:confused: who? :confused:

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Elfhelm.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Elfhelm.
Ah. Ok. ;)

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The only thing I've heard from the Purists in this whole thread is that Jackson didn't give you YOUR vision of LOTR.

If we were arguing that PJ did not capture our vision of LotR then the argument would be more along the lines of The Shire (which I did like) didn't look like I had pictured it, or Moria (again I liked) wasn't the Moria I thought of, or that the Balrog looked nothing like what I think it looks like (this one is true, I laugh everytime I see that thing). That is not captureing a persons own vision, and is pointless to argue because that is all a matter of opinion.

But changing things that are described in detail in the book and changed in the film have nothing to do with my vision but Tolkien's vision. My vision of Treebeard is the Treebeard Tolkien clearly describes in the book, a wise and ancient creature, not the Treebeard in the film, a creature who dosen't even know what's going on around his borders. My vision of Faramir is the Faramir described in the book, a very noble man like the kings of old, not the film Faramir that is a carbon copy of his brother.

I am upset with the films because Tolkien describes characters (his vision of the characters) and alot of the characters of the film are totally different then the way Tolkien described them. I am not talking about looks either, but personality. My vision of the characters are the way Tolkien described them and intended them to be, not some guy who cares nothing about the characters, but only cares about the money that finds its way into his pockets.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
My vision of Faramir is the Faramir described in the book, a very noble man like the kings of old, not the film Faramir that is a carbon copy of his brother.
Book Faramir is so much different from Movie Faramir. Book Faramir is nothing like his brother. His is noble, as you said. But I felt that he was far less desperate and of a calmer temperment than Boromir... who, to me, seemed hell bent on getting the One Ring (albeit for what he thought was good intentions). I had an immense respect for Book Faramir. Movie Faramir was none of these things. He was the anti-Book-Faramir. And this was very disappointing.

[Wayfarer]

The only thing I've heard from the Purists in this whole thread is that Jackson didn't give you YOUR vision of LOTR. Oh really?

Well, to be honest, it's true. Jackson has not given me my vision of LOTR. Nor has he given us something close to Tolkien's vision of LOTR.

I think it's pretty clear to any reasonably thinking person that Jackson has given us one thing, and one thing only. And that's Jackson's vision. And that's not worth the price of a cheap ace-books paperback.

The arbitrary, ridiculous changes to character, to plot, to history, to the world in general, make it obvious that Jackson cares little for exquisite craftmanship of Tolkien's Middle Earth.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Well, to be honest, it's true. Jackson has not given me my vision of LOTR. Nor has he given us something close to Tolkien's vision of LOTR.This just means that you don't understand Tolkien nearly as well as you'd like us all to believe. :)

[Coney]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
This just means that you don't understand Tolkien nearly as well as you'd like us all to believe. :)

*sigh*

Why do people even bother posting replies to you BB.......?

You might as well be cut 'n pasting you post's from the long deceased "Jackson has improved Tolkien" thread :rolleyes:

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
This just means that you don't understand Tolkien nearly as well as you'd like us all to believe. :)
(Although, I am hesitant to respond for Wayfarer as I know he is a big boy and can handle his own attacks. But, as many of you already know, I have very little self restraint.)

Actually, I think it is you, BB who doesn't understand Tolkien as well as you believe you do. You have worked so hard at proudly expounding the glory of PJ's 'improvements' upon Tolkien's literary masterpieces. You claim to have read the books, yet you keep making references which only exist in the movies that PJ has made, NOT in the books.

Those references by others, for whom you call 'purists', have been laid before you like little colored alphabet blocks, simply and elegantly, but you have dismissed them. You have no logical argument for anything you have said here. Give it up, [edited by me]. You [edited by me].

[Edited by me: lots of foul insults with a special emphasis on BB's parents being closely related; quite a lot of violent acts ... which I am now aware is not allowed here... (too bad about the chipper shredder smilie though... that was a work of art :D );a lot of foul language, which I will admit is well beyond the PG-13 level of this board; well, you get the picture. ;) ]

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Ruinel
(Although, I am hesitant to respond for Wayfarer as I know he is a big boy and can handle his own attacks. But, as many of you already know, I have very little self restraint.)

Actually, I think it is you, BB who doesn't understand Tolkien as well as you believe you do. You have worked so hard at proudly expounding the glory of PJ's 'improvements' upon Tolkien's literary masterpieces. You claim to have read the books, yet you keep making references which only exist in the movies that PJ has made, NOT in the books.

Those references by others, for whom you call 'purists', have been laid before you like little colored alphabet blocks, simply and elegantly, but you have dismissed them. You have no logical argument for anything you have said here. Give it up, [edited by me]. You [edited by me].

[Edited by me: lots of foul insults with a special emphasis on BB's parents being closely related; quite a lot of violent acts ... which I am now aware is not allowed here... (too bad about the chipper shredder smilie though... that was a work of art :D );a lot of foul language, which I will admit is well beyond the PG-13 level of this board; well, you get the picture. ;) ]

Then why doesn't it say "Last editted"? :p

[Lizra]

Originally posted by Ruinel


Give it up, [edited by me]. You [edited by me].

[Edited by me: lots of foul insults with a special emphasis on BB's parents being closely related; quite a lot of violent acts ... which I am now aware is not allowed here... (too bad about the chipper shredder smilie though... that was a work of art :D );a lot of foul language, which I will admit is well beyond the PG-13 level of this board; well, you get the picture. ;) ]

Don't you have anything better to do than this? Less is more. :rolleyes:

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Lizra
Don't you have anything better to do than this? Less is more. :rolleyes:
Then don't focus on this... focus on the 'less' part. Sorry. Anyway, all that is to be said has been said. BB has nothing new to say and his arguments are stale and boring. :rolleyes:

[Black Breathalizer]

I have provided numerous examples of how Jackson has communicated Tolkien's various themes through his films. The ONLY arguement I've gotten in return is that "the characters are a theme and Jackson hasn't gotten them right." Even though this is questionable as a "theme," when I explore this line of debate further, all I get is "Well Frodo was weak because he dropped his sword on Weathertop" or "Aragorn is self-doubting and needs an elf maiden to bolster his confidence."

Ironically, the same people who love pointing to a specific scene to support their negative view of some of the film characters are unable (or unwilling) to see how the character development scenes build on each other to support a differing view. I find this curious.

So if you want to shut me up, then back up your positions with CONCRETE EXAMPLES instead of hiding behind generic "Jackson sucks, blah, blah, blah" criticisms. Mrs Maggot was misguided but he/she was prepared to back up his/her perspective. If I've missed a point you wanted me to address, then share it with me. I'm ready for a spirited debate...but alas, too often I feel like the heavyweight boxing champion surrounded by a bunch of 100-pound hecklers who are willing to step into the ring with me. :)

[Melko Belcha]

Sorry, I just had to laugh at BB's last post. Just to let you know I am a member to 2 other Tolkien forums besides this one and the people here are actually pretty nice when it comes to their dislikes of the movies. You would not believe the conversations I have read about people disliking the movie and how it failed to capture the spirit of Tolkien's work. There are many people out there that enjoy the movies but feel that it was a bad adaptation. Get over it BB, PJ is not perfect. Many critics dislike the LotR books because it does not follow the typical guidelines for a novel, many fans dislike the movies because it follows the typical Hollywood BS. PJ was to afraid to take a chance and make a movie that would capture the spirit of the book, instead he made a typical action adventure movie.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
1) I have provided numerous examples of how Jackson has communicated Tolkien's various themes through his films. The ONLY arguement I've gotten in return is that "the characters are a theme and Jackson hasn't gotten them right." Even though this is questionable as a "theme," when I explore this line of debate further, all I get is 2)"Well Frodo was weak because he dropped his sword on Weathertop" or "Aragorn is self-doubting and needs an elf maiden to bolster his confidence."

3) Ironically, the same people who love pointing to a specific scene to support their negative view of some of the film characters are unable (or unwilling) to see how the character development scenes build on each other to support a differing view. I find this curious.

4) So if you want to shut me up, then back up your positions with CONCRETE EXAMPLES instead of hiding behind generic "Jackson sucks, blah, blah, blah" criticisms. Mrs Maggot was misguided but he/she was prepared to back up his/her perspective. If I've missed a point you wanted me to address, then share it with me. 5) I'm ready for a spirited debate...but alas, too often I feel like the heavyweight boxing champion surrounded by a bunch of 100-pound hecklers who are willing to step into the ring with me. :)

1) Examples to you, not to me.
2) Anything which could possibly suggest that Jackson was imperfect, and Tolkien was more than a hack, you automatically discount, for no more reason that that.
3) The scenes conflict, and do not do anything. There is very little character development. Jackson does it in leaps and bounds, when it should be gradual
4) We havem you just ignore everything but sin offering to Jackson.
5) Arrogant ****. :rolleyes:

You said that it took a lot of time and work to convince yourself that Jackson was in fact the superior of Tolkien etc. etc. and so on and so forth. So why do you insist on trying to convince us?

edited by azalea -- I don't know about anyone else, but where I come from that word has a meaning similar to calling someone a d*** or p**** so I edited it.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Examples to you, not to me.Where are your examples?
Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
2) Anything which could possibly suggest that Jackson was imperfect, and Tolkien was more than a hack, you automatically discount, for no more reason that that.I'm still waiting.
Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
3) The scenes conflict, and do not do anything. There is very little character development. Jackson does it in leaps and bounds, when it should be gradualThis is a perfect illustration of purist talk...all Jackson bashing with zero percent specifics to back it up.
Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
4) We havem you just ignore everything but sin offering to Jackson.
5) Arrogant twat. :rolleyes:This really advances your arguements.
Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
You said that it took a lot of time and work to convince yourself that Jackson was in fact the superior of Tolkien etc. etc. and so on and so forth. So why do you insist on trying to convince us? I never said Jackson was better than Tolkien. I never said that Jackson's story was better than Tolkien's. My crime? I had the audacity to say that Jackson IMPROVED ON PARTS OF THE STORY. I would also add the original was better in most parts. If you are going to bash me, at least get your facts right.

I'm not sitting here and saying the movies are without faults. But I find myself defending them on a regular basis because of the trashing they continuously receive from people like you.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

1) I've given them, but you don't listen, so there's no point in continuing.

3) All right, I'll give. I.E. Aragorn. There was VERY little that happened between when he was anti-Men, and "I will die as one of them!"

You said that Jackson brought more to his craft than Tolkien did to his. You said that Jackson was truer to Tolkien than Tolkien was. You have said countless things which, when put together, say "Jackson was better than Tolkien."

I never said that Jackson's story was better than Tolkien's. My crime? I had the audacity to say that Jackson IMPROVED ON PARTS OF THE STORY.

Um...you started a thread that said "Jackson has Improved Tolkien" in the title. How is that not saying that Jackson's was better...and I didn't see anything about parts of the story.

Definition of "improve" from dictionary.com:

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.

Sounds to me like if he improved it, then it is better.

But I find myself defending them on a regular basis because of the trashing they continuously receive from people like you.

That is plain and simple a lie. Why is it then that you are constantly starting up threads for this purpose? You stir up probably 80-90% of the trashing of the movies in this forum. I personally think that they are good movies, and enjoy them. I had no problem whatsoever with them, until I met you. :)

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
All right, I'll give. I.E. Aragorn. There was VERY little that happened between when he was anti-Men, and "I will die as one of them!" After Boromir chastised Aragorn for having so little faith in men, the following took place:

1. Aragorn was able to resist the temptation of the ring;

2. Aragorn held a dying Boromir in his arms. He acknowledged how Boromir fought with honor to protect the hobbits after his "fall from grace."

3. Aragorn gave his word to Boromir that he would not let the white city fall.

4. Boromir acknowledges Aragorn's legacy with his dying breath;

5. Upon their first meeting, Aragorn notices Eomer's lack of faith and sees a part of his old self.

6. Aragorn meets Eowyn and is impressed with her iron will.

7. Aragorn assures Gandalf that the defenses of Helm's Deep will hold.

8. Aragorn's brush with death shows the audience his determination and faith in the face of pain and exhaustion.

9. Aragorn argues with King Theoden and his visible frustration makes it clear he questions the King's ability to lead his people through this nightmare alone.

10. Aragorn is aware of all of the women and children in Helm's Deep who are dependent upon his leadership.

Did I make all of these things up, Gwaimir Windgem?

[IronParrot]

Allow me to interject here regarding the "improvement" point:

I won't presume to speak for BB, but I get the sense that Jackson "improved" on Tolkien in the sense that the vast majority of the changes he made served the film in an appreciable way. Nay, I'd say almost all of them. That doesn't mean I agree with every change in the film - but I can see that such changes were reasoned and justifiable.

Jackson did not "improve" on Tolkien's text in the sense that the story, on the whole, was a lot richer. That simply can't be done in the space of ten hours of footage, considering the monumental scope of Tolkien's work.

It's a tough difference to wrap your head around, yes, but there is a huge difference there.

Regarding film critics:

Most film critics - both those in favour of and against the film as an adaptation - either knew jack-all about the source material, or failed to demonstrate that knowledge to me in the span of 500-1000 words or whatever their editorial limits are. In a discussion regarding the adaptation, quoting film critics is useless. Their job is to appraise the film as a film. I have a lot of respect for film critics - far more than almost everybody I know - and their qualifications are in the judgment of how well a film succeeds as an independent entity. Yes, Ebert complained about the lack of focus on the hobbits or whatnot, but plainly didn't know what he was talking about and even admitted he was not really deeply versed in the books. It was an uncommonly weak moment for him, as his argumentation is typically much better than that. The same goes for the film critics who praised the movie for being practically the most faithful adaptation of all time, which it clearly wasn't (because it made - hush - changes!).

In a discussion such as this one, where we are talking strictly about the adaptation, we'd best continue to rely on those who know Tolkien's work well. On the other hand, these same Tolkien scholars are not as qualified to talk about the film's cinematic achievements.

The key point to keep in mind - on both sides of this debate - is that a film's quality as an adaptation, and its quality as a stand-alone film, are mutually exclusive.

[IronParrot]

One thing I should point out is that ironically enough, some of the differences in the film served it's portrayal of Tolkien's story better than it would have if it stuck to the minor, nitty-gritty details. The timeline compression, the portrayal of how some characters change over time - these are all replacements of brilliant things in the book that would be bad expository technique in a film. You can't relegate Arwen to the appendices, nor can you have a full-length Council of Elrond. Even the changes with Faramir - which left me with a sour taste at first - made a whole lot of sense when you take the whole story into account, and where it's heading in ROTK. Details provided upon request.

I think it's far more important that the film kept true to Tolkien holistically, instead of attempting to niggle on the minor points. I fail to see how Frodo not taking a swing at Weathertop or crying out for Elbereth at the Ford of Bruinen suddenly undermines him completely as a character. That argument rests on the assumption that in the book, such actions are foundational to Frodo's personality in the first place, and that he is nothing without them. That is simply not true. (And if asked to support this with evidence, I might as well plop a copy of The Lord of the Rings in front of you.)

Where this whole debate really becomes convoluted is when you consider that Tolkien himself boiled everything down to minor details, which is an entire discussion altogether (and perhaps one that already exists a few pages back on this thread). But as cunning a linguist and writer as Tolkien was, this naturally lends him to having a prejudice against the film medium entirely - and Tolkien really didn't know a darn thing about cinema.

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Yes, I most definitely admire you for that. :)

High-fives Gwai, who is our finest example of self-restraint in this thread. Sorry, next post will be on topic.

---
later
---

After reading all the posts since I last was here, I find that IP in his last post has stated a case I have tried to state many times. I won't dilute it by repition. But, IP, don't think that little pun went by unnoticed. ;)

[Melko Belcha]

IP you are right that Tolkien did not know cinema, but just because PJ is a director doesn't means he's a screenwriter. It doesn't mean he understands the reason Tolkien had things play out or characters act a certain way. I dosen't mean he is a story teller, something that Tolkien was. I dosen't mean he understood what Tolkien wanted to come across from his work. Just because PJ knows what looks good through a camera dosen't mean that he knows everything about the story he is filming. And just because he's a director does not mean he knows what the public would like and except. Just because he read the book does not mean he understood the book or the author who wrote it.

[azalea]

Originally posted by azalea

No one can really KNOW if Jackson captured the "spirit" of Tolkien's vision or not, because each reader has his own ideas about what that "spirit" is. It can be argued effectively, but it is ultimately subjective.

Tolkien cannot speak for himself in this matter, although we have Letters that can be used in arguing the points. However, although Tolkien surely had his own ideas about why he wrote it and what it is about, he could not dictate that to his readers unless he had decided to explicitly write it out in the published work. He wrote a story, which he had published. In doing so, he was permitting each reader to form his own ideas about the spirit of the work.



Okay, I thought about this after I wrote it and wanted to clarify, because it didn't come out the way I intended.

There are indeed lesser themes (since it's been stated that Tolkien himself only acknowledged one key theme) and crucial elements that are indisputably contained within the work (IOW, it is a "fact" that such and such a theme is an element of the work). When I say it becomes subjective I mean that when each person retells the story, either to another who asks "What is it about?" or to himself in his own mind as he mulls it over, different aspects of the story will come out to each person as being crucial to capturing the spirit of the work. This is what I meant by the spirit being subjective.
The theme of "the power of the powerless," so to speak, is indisputably an element that pervades the story. But each person will identify different parts of the story that they think are crucial to conveying that theme in a film. Likewise, a theme that one person believes is indipensible, another may feel is minor and dispensible in the context of a cinematic dramtization.

I hate that Gimli was made into such a comic figure, but that in itself doesn't nullify the work as a successful adaptation. The personality of dwarves in ME is not a make or break element within the story. Do I like it? No. Was it necessary? NO. But does it make the film fail as an acceptable adaptation? No! You can say that about several of the changes made. He made a lot of unnecessary changes, but to me, the heart of the story is still there. It doesn't surprise me that there are people who disagree, because they are of course coming away from the story itself with a different sense of its "spirit."
I also think that a lot of people disliked the minor changes so much that they don't WANT to see it as an acceptable adaptation. That is fine, too. But those of us who enjoyed the movies (for the most part or a lot) and were fans of Lotr before could take offense when people say "you didn't 'get' Tolkien's work if you think PJ's movies are a good adaptation." I don't because I'm very easygoing and am secure in the fact that I have been a lover of ME for many years, and indeed I "get" it.

I completely agree with the person who said it is frustrating because PJ did so many things "right" that the unnecessary changes made it so much more frustrating. Yes, and I would argue that nonetheless, the "spirit" of the work remains.
I would have preferred a "literal" adaptation (not word-for word, but one that stuck to the books rather than made changes to the storyline), but as it stands, I find it an enjoyable movie that brings to life the story of Frodo's quest.

[IronParrot]

IP you are right that Tolkien did not know cinema, but just because PJ is a director doesn't means he's a screenwriter. It doesn't mean he understands the reason Tolkien had things play out or characters act a certain way. I dosen't mean he is a story teller, something that Tolkien was. I dosen't mean he understood what Tolkien wanted to come across from his work. Just because PJ knows what looks good through a camera dosen't mean that he knows everything about the story he is filming. And just because he's a director does not mean he knows what the public would like and except. Just because he read the book does not mean he understood the book or the author who wrote it.
But then who defines what constitutes an "understanding" of Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings? Since when was there a concrete standard of interpretation? If anything, Tolkien put the story first and the meaning second. That was pretty much the point of that preface to the book (second and later editions).

I'm not sure what you mean about PJ not being a screenwriter, when he has screenwriting credit on every single film he has directed. Also, I would once again point out that a good deal of the major changes can indeed be accredited to Philippa Boyens, who was hired in the first place because she was already an established Tolkien scholar. So you might go on to argue that just because she studies Tolkien doesn't mean she "understands" him, but then you might as well take all of the literary criticism surrounding LOTR and toss it out the window.

The fact remains that while Tolkien had a certain motive behind doing certain things in his book, that should not restrict people from reading behind the lines. That does not suddenly set some sort of rigid standard by which one derives the "correct" interpretation. I'm sure Shakespeare is rolling in his grave because of the hordes of scholars dissecting his work line by line and attributing secret meanings to him, when he probably wrote a good deal of those lines because they were pretty (or for some other sinister purpose that people are missing). As azalea pointed out, it is indeed subjective.

So how do we judge if Peter Jackson & co. "understood" what they were doing? Well, we look at the final product that they produced. And that means the entire product, which is a greater entity than the sum of its parts.

Are there changes I disagree with? Once again, yes. As I've pointed out before, I whined about cutting the Scouring of the Shire before it was even announced that such a cut was to be made. I lamented the fact that Treebeard didn't mark his entrance with that great line, "Almost felt you liked the Forest! That's good! That's uncommonly kind of you." But these changes, even if I disagree with them on a personal level, are still justifiable at the objective level of what everybody sees on the screen, when taking the whole thing into perspective.

Let's look at it logically:

If removing or changing something from the book suddenly makes the entire film collapse, what does that imply?

It implies that such an element was absolutely critical to the book for the story to make sense.

And you know what? That's exactly the problem that many of these changes are trying to solve. There simply isn't enough time to include everything Tolkien wrote. So if something doesn't make sense due to omission... you need to work around it. And working around it means making changes. And making changes means the story will still make sense.

Example: the film has no appendix by which to talk about Aragorn and Arwen. Therefore, there needs to be some device to introduce Arwen, without going off on too big a tangent from the central story, or dragging the pace to a dead stop. The solution? Well, you all saw it. The consequence was that Frodo didn't get to ride out to the Ford alone, but that was a minor sacrifice to make. Does the change undermine Frodo as a character? As I've pointed out before, no. But does leaving the original situation intact - yet still omitting Appendix A - completely undermine Arwen as a character, thus also slashing away a major part of Aragorn's motivations? You bet it does.

Tolkien's work is a challenge to adapt simply because he did build it like a house of cards. But if you take something out, you have to reinforce it with something new - you don't just let the whole thing crumble, just because adding things is so evil and should be avoided.

[IronParrot]

As a case study, let's examine a nice and controversial additive change in The Two Towers: the warg attack on the way to Helm's Deep.

Now, it was of course quite a shocker when I saw the film for the first time, but maybe we should take a look at the problems it resolves.

In the book, the women and children of Edoras are shipped off to Dunharrow, while the Rohirrhim go to Helm's Deep to fight off the invasion from Isengard.

The film is constrained first by time, and then by linearity. It doesn't have the luxury of sending everybody off to two places at once. Visually, it would confuse the audience. So the way it's done, not only do you have less traveling here, but you get to see Eowyn develop as a character without tarrying around in Edoras for too long. By putting the civilians and the military in one place, there is a visual idea that the stakes of this battle are really high. This is as opposed to verbally saying, "We'd better win this battle or they'll get to the women and children at Dunharrow." What it's saying visually is, "We'd better win this battle or we're screwed right now."

So, everybody goes to Helm's Deep. Now think about Middle-Earth's geography: if the women and children are going to cut across the hills all the way to Helm's Deep, why wouldn't Saruman try to waylay them? He'd be stupid not to! It's a golden opportunity.

Put two and two together, and you get a warg attack there. And it's not like a warg attack is un-Tolkienlike, since the book has a big one in II.3 ("The Ring Goes South").

[Melko Belcha]

The wargs scene is actually one of the main additions I find completley worthless.

So, everybody goes to Helm's Deep. Now think about Middle-Earth's geography: if the women and children are going to cut across the hills all the way to Helm's Deep, why wouldn't Saruman try to waylay them? He'd be stupid not to! It's a golden opportunity.

Ok lets look at the geography. The Rohirrim had been living at Edoras for 500 years and their closed refuge is about a day and a half ride from Edoras. Really good king to send his people out into the open plains when they are under attack.

By putting the civilians and the military in one place, there is a visual idea that the stakes of this battle are really high.

There were civilians at Helm's Deep, the people of Westfold.

The scene wasted to much time that could have been spent with, IMO, more important things like character development. But what we get is a typical Hollywood action scene with hyenas on steroids.

[Wayfarer]

I note with a sigh that the extended lengths that you're going to to try and justify X, Y and Z component of the film really isn't as bad as it seems only make them seem more like... well, like screw-ups which need to be explained away and justified.

Iron Parrot, above you have argued that the aforementioned attack resolves problems, and yet you fail to realize the problems it creates.

Let me add to what Melko has already said. Helm's deep was, at the time of the battle, inhabited by the much of the population of the westfold. That's quite a few people.

In the films, however, after a brief scene which depicts an attack on generic Rohirrim, we are given to believe that somehow the tiny population of Edoras is the really important group. Why? Why does the population of Edoras make it any more dramatic than the much larger group of civilians that were already there?

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
I note with a sigh that the extended lengths that you're going to to try and justify X, Y and Z component of the film really isn't as bad as it seems only make them seem more like... well, like screw-ups which need to be explained away and justified.I, for one, appreciate IP's explanations. You may disagree with his perspective, but he always gives well-thought out reasons for his positions.Originally posted by Wayfarer
In the films ... after a brief scene which depicts an attack on generic Rohirrim, we are given to believe that somehow the tiny population of Edoras is the really important group. Why? Why does the population of Edoras make it any more dramatic than the much larger group of civilians that were already there? The point was to wipe all ALL of the men and women of Edoras. Since the majority were not housed behind the walls of Helms Deep, it became Saruman's number one target.

[bropous]

I sincerely can't roll my pantslegs up high enough for some of the sophistry vomited forth in this screed.

You know, Peter J. raised the cash, took a huge gamble, and it's currently paying off. Read it, deal with it, live with it. He didn't ask your permission. Tough.

J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" it ain't. Quite simply, NO film could ever be so.

Some folks can revel to their dying day that they are part of a super-secret-decoder-ring-in-Elvish-only club of elites. Me, I don't care, frankly, at this point whether Jackson included this-or-that in his films. Tolkien's world will never be lessened in my own imagination.

Too bad so much time and effort is wasted in such useless "how many angels can dance on the head of a balrog" arguments.

Go outside. It's spring. Smell the flowers. Feel the love. I'm climbing mountains. See y'all in winter.

:D

[Lizra]

Hi bropous! Wait for me! :) I need to put on my red lipstick! Har har har! :)
I'm glad this thread got out of the gutter! It's a case where you should agree to disagree. There could be a scale from..."Tolkien's writing is sacred, no movie should ever be attempted"....to ..."As long as there are elves, hobbits, dwarves and a wizard named Gandalf, I don't care". I think I would fit in at...."Tolkiens books stand on their own, but I enjoy films that take a few liberties, in the name of entertainment".

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Lizra
1) It's a case where you should agree to disagree.
2) Tolkiens books stand on their own...

1) I definitely agree; I've tried it a number of times.
2) No offense, but that sounds rather funny. :D

[Lizra]

Rephrase it for me, Mr. hoo hoo :rolleyes: ;)


I forgot the "me" part! :D sorry!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

:eek: :(

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Lizra
Hi bropous! Wait for me! :) I need to put on my red lipstick! Har har har! :)
*folds arms across chest and taps foot on floor* Excuse me... but the topic of this thread is 'Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation', not beauty tips. Can we please stop spamming? This is getting out of hand. :) ;) :D


......... just joking. :D

[Lizra]

I'm serious Gwai! I was just teasing! If you were here, I would have pinched you and winked! :) So how would you phrase the first level of "How I tolerate changes of Tolkien's work when making a movie"?
You are right...my quick dash off "stands on it's own" does sound funny. :)

[Lizra]

Oh, yes...I left out the word "me"! :o

[Lizra]

Originally posted by Ruinel
*folds arms across chest and taps foot on floor* Excuse me... but the topic of this thread is 'Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation', not beauty tips. Can we please stop spamming? This is getting out of hand. :) ;) :D


......... just joking. :D

That was a private joke about some PM's. sorry :)

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Lizra
...I'm glad this thread got out of the gutter! It's a case where you should agree to disagree....
I'm trying really hard not to be critical of these statements. However, I feel the need to make a brief comment on them.

If we agree to disagree, then what is the point of continuing to post in any thread at this or any forum? If we do not debate our sides, why would we come here and challenge other views?

There are poignant sayings that involve thermal energy and removing yourself from a partitioned interior section of a dwelling specificly designed for the preparation of nutrients that I could post here that would be appropriate for my response to your own post but would inevitably invoke negative repercussions on me. Therefore, I will not post them here.

It is unfortunate that I have offended you with my posts and perhaps you should shelter your eyes and scroll down when you see my avitar or nick. And by the way, it is fortunate for those that do enjoy reading my posts that I'm not off spending my time baking cookies for the neighbor kiddies or dulling my brain by sitting in front of the TV watching soap operas while pondering the best detergent for getting out the skid marks in someone else's underwear. Instead I'm using my mind in interesting and unusual ways, utilizing the intelligence, curriousity and imagination that I possess. And, just to let you know, I'm happy here in the 'gutter'. So. thanks, you are too kind. And... you have a nice day.
:) http://smilies.crowd9.com/contrib/ruinkai/FIREdevil.gif

EDIT (by me). I would like to add that this post in no way reflects my opinion of homemakers in general. But was intended as a focus toward anyone who posts comments like a child, and acts like a hypocrite. If you're going to dish it out, you better be able to take it.

[Strongbow]

personally i think that the movies are ok.
they are very flawed but to addapt a series of this scope for filmis an insane task. Not everyone out there reads tolkien believe it or not. So PJ was/is faced with this predicament: Striking a balance between (1) making a totally literal interpretation wich would baffle the viewers who havnt read the books and take many many hours a piece to watch (2) making the movie short enough to view in theaters (3) keeping any plot that he includes going.

Therefor he had to remove some entire plots werent completly necesary for the main storyline. Sure we love some stuff that is missing, or done slightly different, but you have to realize that making a complete and literal interpretation wouldnt be appropriate for the situation

[azalea]

Strongbow: Just out of curiousity, what do you think of the things he outright added in that we "know" didn't happen, such as Aragorn falling off the cliff? Do you think it would have been better to eliminate that sequence and include, say, more dialogue between Treebeard/ the ents and the hobbits? IOW, would the movie have still "worked" AND been even better because it stuck to the source material more?

[Wayfarer]

J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" it ain't. That's the problem.
Quite simply, NO film could ever be so.That's an excuse.

I do not see any way whatsoever that a movie which advertises itself as 'Tolkien's Lord of the Rings', and is not, is an acceptable situation. I do not ask the impossible task of a perfect film, only a reasonable portrayal of Tolkien's world. The absolute rubbish that has been thrown in by Jackson bothers me to no end.

Strongbow: I am not in the least bit convinced that your post was well thought out or even original thought. It is barely worth replying to, and that because of the argument, which is common to the point of being overused.

I understand the nescessity of altering things during the transition from text to film. I simply dissagree that the changes made were justified.

I have not complained about replacing Glorfindel with Arwen, because that small change makes sense.
I disagree vehemently with the change in the Fords of Bruinen scene, however. That change reduced one of the most climactic scenes in the first book, the amazing cliffhanger that ends part one, to... trite crap. Is this nescessary? Does it make a better film? Absolutely not!

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by Ruinel
1.) If we agree to disagree, then what is the point of continuing to post in any thread at this or any forum? If we do not debate our sides, why would we come here and challenge other views?
2.) It is unfortunate that I have offended you with my posts and perhaps you should shelter your eyes and scroll down when you see my avitar or nick.


1.) I agree!

2.) Clue: Click on the profile button. Scroll to the bottom. If you really don't like someone, just add them to your ignore list. Then if he posts some silly bunch of insults, which is all he really ever does, his post will only say "This person is on your ignore list". If you really WANT to read that person's tripe, despite your past experience, you can click a link to display the post anyway, but I don't recommend it because it will just be more of the same. :)

I would say I agreed to disagree before coming here, and I also agreed to express WHY and HOW I disagree, for the amusement of all who think me a fool. :) :p

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
2.) Clue: Click on the profile button. Scroll to the bottom. If you really don't like someone, just add them to your ignore list. Then if he posts some silly bunch of insults, which is all he really ever does, his post will only say "This person is on your ignore list". If you really WANT to read that person's tripe, despite your past experience, you can click a link to display the post anyway, but I don't recommend it because it will just be more of the same. :)

Lizra, I hope you are reading this, and taking note. Please feel free to put me on your ignore list if you really don't like what I have to say. By doing so, you will no longer be offended by anything I post. :) Have a nice day filled with sunshine and happiness. :)

As for me: I'm a big girl :) , and I can take care of myself. ;) I don't need an ignore list to sheild my delicate eyes from other people's posts. :D

[Wayfarer]

: I'm a big girl , and I can take care of myself. I don't need an ignore list to sheild my delicate eyes from other people's posts. Oh, so tempting. So very tempting. ]:D

[Elfhelm]

Back on topic, why shouldn't a screenwriter create one "might-have-been" scene to accomplish the result of several scenes that wouldn't fit?

And is there a maximum number of these might-have-been scenes allowed before the readers of the book think it is too drastic a change?

And is the number of such scenes less for fanatical fans?

And should screenwriters be guided in the opinions of casual readers, or be totally governed by the fanatical fans?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
I'm trying really hard not to be critical of these statements. However, I feel the need to make a brief comment on them.
Geez, Ruinel, your first post against Lizra was bad enough, but the second was worse :( So I'll say as you did - I feel the need to make a brief comment on them.

If we agree to disagree, then what is the point of continuing to post in any thread at this or any forum? If we do not debate our sides, why would we come here and challenge other views?
Informed debate between people with differing viewpoints is fun and intellectually stimulating - I think the "agreeing to disagree" part just means that we can accept the right of another person to have a view that differs from ours, without descending into personal attacks.

.... And by the way, it is fortunate for those that do enjoy reading my posts that I'm not off spending my time baking cookies for the neighbor kiddies or dulling my brain by sitting in front of the TV watching soap operas while pondering the best detergent for getting out the skid marks in someone else's underwear. Instead I'm using my mind in interesting and unusual ways, utilizing the intelligence, curriousity and imagination that I possess. What, doing loving acts for others is wrong? Do you have a videocam in Lizra's house? I don't think she is brainless "hausfrau" by any means - she's intelligent and funny and a good poster. She does have a bit of a temper sometimes, 'tho, just like, um, er, .... you! :D However, she can apologize (did you see her apology several posts up?) Can you?

EDIT (by me). I would like to add that this post in no way reflects my opinion of homemakers in general. But was intended as a focus toward anyone who posts comments like a child, and acts like a hypocrite.
Well, take a look at your last 2 posts and see if some of your comments match this criteria.

I like you both, and I like to read (most of) your posts - they're insightful and intelligent and funny. Now just cool your jets and make up, please!

[Lizra]

What is the point? Everybody is just repeating themselves over and over. Those that enjoy an immature insult fest are having a good time, but it's boring to me. Great idea Ruinel, you are on my ignore list now. Never used it before, but the time is right! :)

[Elfhelm]

Aw, c'mon Rian! Some bozo who is too good for us comes back after hiatus just to call us vomitting sophists, before wandering off again and Lizra says wait for me, I'm doing my lips????? It's all off topic!

As to "agree to disagree" meaning not descending to personal attack, it doesn't. Personal attack is a logical fallacy called "ad hominum" which, by definition is sophistry. Agreeing to disagree means dropping an argument. But we are enjoying ourselves! Why should we drop it? Heck, it's the most active thread on the entire board! If we drop it, what in the moot will we talk about? We've started other threads, but they just lie there half-ignored.

As to sophistry, as I said, it means to argue with logical fallacy. He who made the charge used so many fallacies, it would make a textbook example in the rules of Logic as what not to do! So just ignore him and move on.

We have a right to argue this point. People should not stoop to personal attack. I will point out that BB is continually whittling at people with little insults, and it's uncool. Ruinel isn't the only guilty party. Doesn't make her less culpable, though... hehe

Can we get back to the argument? You all let a personal attacker drag us off topic.

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by Lizra
but it's boring to me.

Boredom is self-inflicted. Can we go back on topic?

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Lizra
Great idea Ruinel, you are on my ignore list now. Never used it before, but the time is right! :)
YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Geez, Ruinel, your first post against Lizra was bad enough, but the second was worse So I'll say as you did - I feel the need to make a brief comment on them.
What, doing loving acts for others is wrong? Do you have a videocam in Lizra's house? I don't think she is brainless "hausfrau" by any means - she's intelligent and funny and a good poster. She does have a bit of a temper sometimes, 'tho, just like, um, er, .... you! However, she can apologize (did you see her apology several posts up?) Can you?
Well, take a look at your last 2 posts and see if some of your comments match this criteria.
There is nothing wrong with doing things for others. And that is why I had to rethink that post. I certainly do not want to insult someone who chooses to stay home to raise kids.

I would have left her alone if not for her follow up post. If she can't take it she shouldn't be dishing it out. Sorry, that's my philosophy. As you said, I've got a temper sometimes, and it shows, but I get over it very quickly. I'm usually quick to overlook a slight and quicker to accept an appology, but if it keeps coming you better prepare for fire.

I don't know her well, and she doesn't know me well. But what I have experienced from her posts leaves me with an impression quite different from yours, RÃ*an. And I value your opinion. So, if you say she's intelligent, then I'll be patient and wait to be enlightened. When I see that, I'll retract my statement and appologize to her.
I like you both, and I like to read (most of) your posts - they're insightful and intelligent and funny. Now just cool your jets and make up, please!
Don't worry, RÃ*an, I'm not mad. I'm indifferent. Like I said, I don't know her and if she wants to put me on an 'ignore list' that might be in her own best interest, as I seem to upset her so much. Because I have no intentions in second guessing my posts to protect her delicate nature.

EDIT: Ah, yes... here it is... my first (or was this my second) apology to Lizra.
Yeah, you are right. *hangs head in shame* I apologize. I've edited myself. I'm having a bad day, but that's no excuse. .... Hope you forgive me.

[Rían]

by RÃ*an (I love quoting myself!)
However, she can apologize (did you see her apology several posts up?) Can you?

You can indeed apologize, Ruinel, and very well. I had forgotten that post - thanks for reminding me. I remember reading it and thinking it very handsome.

by Ruinel
Because I have no intentions in second guessing my posts to protect her delicate nature.

'delicate nature'?? *mwwffpphhht* *tries to not laugh* :D I wouldn't describe Lizra that way! She's one pretty down-to-earth person! (I'm thinking of 'delicate' in the uncomplimentary sense of the word - someone who falsely pretends to be offended just for effect or to get attention or to be a snob).

She's very intelligent in a way that I admire (and that I'm NOT - I tend to be analytical/methodical) - she has the ability to cut right thru the superfluous *runs to dictionary, changes an incorrect "u" to an "e") stuff right to the heart of a matter in a very insightful way. I value her opinion, altho we disagree in some major areas!


*sees steam coming out of Elfhelm's ears*

Um, ok, back on topic -

I was just thinking about this today - how many of you more devoted Tolkien fans (the ones that have read LoTR multiple times, and prob. also the Sil and HoME books and UT) that saw the movie didn't notice some of the changes from the book until several viewings of the movie? I'm in the "more devoted" category, so is Ruinel and many others here. I'm talking about little things like at the very beginning, when Galadriel talks about the rings - "three were given to the elf lords", then "7 to the dwarf lords", etc. Well, the elves MADE their own rings! It makes it sound like Sauron made them and gave it to them, which is completely wrong. But Cate Blanchett's voice is so lovely, I didn't even catch it for awhile.

Also when Elrond said in the council something like "I've called you all here", when actually they all come for their own reasons. I've always liked that part in the book, that Elrond didn't summon them, but they all just "happened" to come at the same time. As Gandalf said, there are other forces at work besides Sauron!

[Black Breathalizer]

People seem to forget that a discussion board is about discussion. I don't particularly care for the comments that Wayfarer makes in his posts. I suspect he feels the same way about mine. But I would never put him on "ignore" or anyone else for that matter. Wayfarer's comments infuriate me, but nevertheless, they challenge me and push me to further articulate my own points in response. Based on many of the posts here, maybe I've challenged some of you purists out there to further define your positions as well.

Real, passionate debate on both sides of an issue is interesting to read and follow. I suspect it's the reason this thread is still hanging around. People on either side should be applauded for their passion, not asked to apologize for it. Personally, I don't even mind direct verbal attacks on me (otherwise known as flaming) as long as it's done in a way that's halfway funny or interesting to read. Whatever is said or argued here, we all need to keep in mind: this...is...all...for...fun. :)

[Rían]

Oh, and another one that really irked me that I DID notice right away - in Galadriel's summary again - that "within each ring was bound the power to rule their race" (or something like that). Yuck! NOT!!

[Rían]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
People on either side should be applauded for their passion, not asked to apologize for it.
I agree, unless their passion causes them to insult someone else. That's MY HO; your HO may differ. :)

Personally, I'm absolutely thrilled to be able to talk with so many intelligent Tolkien lovers, and I've enjoyed many lively debates here. I've learned a tremendous amount (this from a person who had read LoTR prob. about 10 times before joining Entmoot, also read Sil). I now have 5 HoME books, as well as UT and Letters. Horray for Tolkien and his incredibly beautiful work! Sometimes it just breaks my heart with its beauty. It is certainly a passionate work, and it inspires passion, too.

[azalea]

Just one more off--topic comment for EVERYONE to keep in mind: We do have RULES about behavior here, as well as appropriate post content. While it is tempting to stretch the limits of those rules, it always ends up in off-topic back-and-forth stuff like this, which, self-inflicted or no, IS boring, especially for poor newbies that happen upon these threads.

That being said, Elfhelm brought up some EXCELLENT and thought-provoking questions regarding the topic at hand:

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Back on topic, why shouldn't a screenwriter create one "might-have-been" scene to accomplish the result of several scenes that wouldn't fit?

And is there a maximum number of these might-have-been scenes allowed before the readers of the book think it is too drastic a change?

And is the number of such scenes less for fanatical fans?

And should screenwriters be guided in the opinions of casual readers, or be totally governed by the fanatical fans?

I'm interested to know everyone's thought on this, and to post my own, but alas, I have to get offline right now. I'll post mine later if you post yours now.:)
Hmm, I see that as I've been writing this people have been posting, so the whole post may seem out of place at this point but so be it.:p

Edit: AHH, I'm never going to get offline at this rate, but I had a funny vision of BB as Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men: "You want me in this thread, you need me in this thread, etc.":D If it weren't for him we wouldn't have this oh-so-lively and interesting thread, no?:)

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
'delicate nature'?? *mwwffpphhht* *tries to not laugh*
That impression is what she left on me. But as you say... I may be wrong in my assessment of her. And I will wait for that impression to be changed by her posts. As I've said before, I don't need an 'ignore list'.

Enough wasted time on this... back to the real topic: bashing BB. ooops... ;) did I say that... my mistake....

...I'm talking about little things like at the very beginning, when Galadriel talks about the rings - "three were given to the elf lords", .... Well, the elves MADE their own rings! It makes it sound like Sauron made them and gave it to them, which is completely wrong....
I'm glad that I'm not the only one that sees this. It completely contradicts the story written in LotR, as well as, The Sil. And you are correct, the impression left on the viewer is that Sauron gave the Rings of Power to the Elf Lords, when in fact they were forged in secret by Celebrimbor and given to them. Celebrimbor died in torment at the hands of The Enemy, taking that secret to his grave for the sake of Galadriel, who he loved. And that beginning, albeit beautifully spoken by K.B., was completely wrong.

BB no one particularly cares for the comments that you make. :) If Wayfarer's posts push you to articulate your response, then when will we be graced with that? :) And don't worry, I don't attack children. You are, what, about 12 years old? Right? :) Sorry, I can't check your profile right now to see if I'm right. I'll just have to go by my gut instinct. :)

[azalea]

Originally posted by Ruinel

BB no one particularly cares for the comments that you make. :)

See my edit in the post above yours.:)

[Rían]

Ruinel - and doesn't the "rule the race" thing just make you gag! Perhaps the rings for the men and the dwarves were for that (tho I don't recall anywhere where their purposes were stated), but NOT the elven-rings. Those were to preserve beauty. (altho Galadriel left Valinor because she did want to "rule there a realm at her own will." - from the Sil)

Now I'm thinking there was something in Letters about the rings for the men and dwarves....

[Wayfarer]

People seem to forget that a discussion board is about discussion. I don't particularly care for the comments that Wayfarer makes in his posts. I suspect he feels the same way about mine. But I would never put him on "ignore" or anyone else for that matter. Wayfarer's comments infuriate me, but nevertheless, they challenge me and push me to further articulate my own points in response. Based on many of the posts here, maybe I've challenged some of you purists out there to further define your positions as well.

Oh yeah, still got it. ;)

[Rían]

(hee hee - good edit, azalea!)

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Ruinel - and doesn't the "rule the race" thing just make you gag! Perhaps the rings for the men and the dwarves were for that (tho I don't recall anywhere where their purposes were stated), but NOT the elven-rings. Those were to preserve beauty. (altho Galadriel left Valinor because she did want to "rule there a realm at her own will." - from the Sil)

Now I'm thinking there was something in Letters about the rings for the men and dwarves....

Mad? Well, at first, it confused the hell out of me because I didn't know what Kate B. was talking about. Were these different rings from our story? Must be, because the Elven Rings ruled no one. It made the Elves look power hungry, and so weak that they could not rule their own people without some ring that Sauron gave them.
... the Three that had last been made, and they possessed the greatest powers.... and of all the Elven-rings Sauron most desired to possess them, for those who had them in their keeping could ward off the decays of time and postpone the weariness of the world.
and...
Seven rings he gave to the Dwarves.... The Dwarves indeed proved tought and hard to tame; they ill endure the domination of others, and the thoughts of their hearts are hard to fathom, nor can they be turned to shadows. They used their rings only for the getting of wealth; but wrath and an overmastering greed of gold were kindled in their hearts, of which evil enough after came to the profit of Sauron.
and...
but to Men he gave nine, for Men proved in this matter as in others the readiest to his will.... Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty in their day, kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old. They obtained glory and great wealth, yet it turned to their undoing.... Then it talks about them becoming the Nazgul. :D

Don't ya just love The Sil?

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

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Lizra, about Ignoring: I only hope it works for you. :( I had someone on my ignore list (well, still have, but they don't post anymore), as they were a terribly notorious spammer. But it seemed as though every time that I saw that this person (who-shall-not-be-named) made a post, I just went and viewed it anyway, to see if this person had made any comment which was in the slightest bit constructive, interesting, and/or not altogether less than intelligent and so forth. So, I just hope that you have better luck than me. :) (not to say anything about you, Ru, love you, Miz Rancher! ;)).

BTW: Wayfarer... you better pm me back!

Check out GM, Ruey, there's a thread for this there. :)

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
[B....Don't ya just love The Sil? [/B]

Yes!!

[Elfhelm]

Alright! We're going back to the topic! Whee!

This really is one of the liveliest threads going, so let's agree to disagree in great detail!

[Lizra]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Lizra, about Ignoring: I only hope it works for you. :( I had someone on my ignore list (well, still have, but they don't post anymore), as they were a terribly notorious spammer. But it seemed as though every time that I saw that this person (who-shall-not-be-named) made a post, I just went and viewed it anyway, to see if this person had made any comment which was in the slightest bit constructive, interesting, and/or not altogether less than intelligent and so forth. So, I just hope that you have better luck than me. :)



Lizra replies...........I don't do that! What would be the point? :confused: *Ignore* works great! :)

[Ruinel]

*rolls eyes at the spammers* :p :D ;)

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Yes!!

I can't really speak for the man, but I wonder if PJ thought that either it made the Three Rings more sinister if they were given to them by Sauron. If so, he is mistaken. There is more peril in keeping them hidden from him.

Or perhaps these changes tie into some more serious changes that he has planned for RotK. *cringes* Say it isn't so.

[Black Breathalizer]

[My Jack Nicholson voice]You can't handle the truth!!![/My Jack Nicholson voice] :)

Regarding the opening of FOTR, I can't imagine a more challenging bit of screenplay writing than the beginning of this film. There was SO MUCH to say and so little time to do it. In fact, New Line dictated to PJ that he could only do a TWO MINUTE prologue!!! Fortunately, he convinced them that he couldn't do the backstory justice in less than seven minutes.

I agree that Galadriel's comments about the "giving" of the Elven rings was dead-wrong. But think about how you smoothly handle an introduction about ALL of the rings that clarifies the real story behind the Elven rings without going into a lot of exposition that has filmgoers unfamiliar with the books going, "what the heck is she talking about?!?!?" The origin of the Elven rings is not as essential to the story as the mere fact that a long time ago there were many rings for the different races of Middle Earth.

The part about "ruling each race" is perhaps stronger language than most Tolkienites would like to hear but I don't see that as factually wrong.

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I agree that Galadriel's comments about the "giving" of the Elven rings was dead-wrong.

I think I'm going to faint! Mark this date on a calendar!

[Melko Belcha]

why shouldn't a screenwriter create one "might-have-been" scene to accomplish the result of several scenes that wouldn't fit? It is ok to change a scene to make up for the stuff that would not fit in the movie, but it is a fine line between staying true to the source material and a complete rewrite

And is there a maximum number of these might-have-been scenes allowed before the readers of the book think it is too drastic a change?The more changes made, the further away from the source material it gets, the further away from the source matetrial it gets the less of the original story is told.

And is the number of such scenes less for fanatical fans?I will say yes on this.

And should screenwriters be guided in the opinions of casual readers, or be totally governed by the fanatical fans? When you take a book that not only has been read by a ton of people, but has had every detail studied about it and, thanks to Christopher Tolkien, has had the chance to study the full writing process and all the hard work the author went through to bring all the details together in the story, and knowing that all those people will go and see the films, the screenwriters should focus more on the fanatical fans and not the casual readers.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The part about "ruling each race" is perhaps stronger language than most Tolkienites would like to hear but I don't see that as factually wrong.

But it is. :) The Elven-rings slowed or stopped the "fading" of the Elven-realms, they did not rule the Elves. The Dwarven-rings filled the heart of the bearer with lust for gold; they did not rule the Dwarven peoples.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I agree that Galadriel's comments about the "giving" of the Elven rings was dead-wrong.
... O.O That is the most enlightened thing I have seen you post... ever. I am impressed. :)
But think about how you smoothly handle an introduction about ALL of the rings that clarifies the real story behind the Elven rings without going into a lot of exposition that has filmgoers unfamiliar with the books going, "what the heck is she talking about?!?!?" The origin of the Elven rings is not as essential to the story as the mere fact that a long time ago there were many rings for the different races of Middle Earth.
Nevermind...scratch what I just said. :(
Don't sell the movie goer short. It would have taken maybe about 1.5 to 2.5 minutes to say a brief explanation about the Elven Rings.
"... Three Rings were made in secret by Celebrimbor (pan a picture of Celebrimbor forging rings) to ward off the degradation of time and weariness of long life (pan past Lothlorien and the blooming of the trees). These were given to the Elves (pan a picture of Galadriel getting her ring from Celebrimbor, etc.) and remained secret. But Sauron coveted those most and longed to control them....."
Something like this, could tell it all in a nut shell.

Some movies require thought. Some movies do not. Why not make one that not only looks pretty, but also stimulates your mind? I value those movies more than simple entertainment.
The part about "ruling each race" is perhaps stronger language than most Tolkienites would like to hear but I don't see that as factually wrong.
Stronger?... nah... False?... yes.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Don't sell the movie goer short. It would have taken maybe about 1.5 to 2.5 minutes to say a brief explanation about the Elven Rings.Why take two and a half minutes to explain it?!?!?! It isn't worth spending that much time to address an issue that does nothing to further the plot of the movie.

[Wayfarer]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The part about "ruling each race" is perhaps stronger language than most Tolkienites would like to hear but I don't see that as factually wrong.
Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
But it is. The Elven-rings slowed or stopped the "fading" of the Elven-realms, they did not rule the Elves. The Dwarven-rings filled the heart of the bearer with lust for gold; they did not rule the Dwarven peoples.

More can be said on this subject.

The elven rings did, indeed, have the power of preservation. The three enabled their bearers to create havens that were seemingly removed or disconnected from the rest of the world. A sort of quasi-valinor on a smaller scale. The disjointed passing of time that Frodo notes as they leave Lothlorien can be attributed to Galadriel's ring, while the raising of the Bruinen by Elrond, which serves the purpose of keeping evil things out of the valley, is likely rooted in /his/ ring. When Cirdan bequests the third ring to Gandalf, it is with the indication that 'this ring will uphold you, and stave off weariness, and uplift the hearts of others'.

Of the dwarven rings, the text seems to indicate that, more than simply creating the /lust/ for gold, they were actually able to /create wealth/. It is mentioned that the seven great dwarf-hoards of old were each founded on a ring of power. How, you ask? The appendices mention Thrain as saying, in exile, that his ring 'needs gold to breed gold'. Take that as you will.

And lastly, the Nine, the rings of men. Jackson simply been speaking of these, he would have been mostly correct.
It is stated flat out that the men who received the nine were, or became 'great kings and sorcerers'. I have no doubt that the rings, given to these men, were used to rule, to dominate and control. Almost assuredly they were the source of the great power which the Which-King shows on several occassions, which begs the question: did he already have that power when he was still a mortal ringbearer?

And, of course, the aptly named ruling ring was, in conception, designed to give sauron power over the free peoples, by way of controlling the other rings.

Why take two and a half minutes to explain it?!?!?! It isn't worth spending that much time to address an issue that does nothing to further the plot of the movie. You arrogant fool.

Why indeed, take two minutes to explain the matter that is fundamentally at the heart of the plot, when those scant minutes can be used to show more gratuitous violence, expand the battles, and cram in scenes that were completely removed from the story.

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Why take two and a half minutes to explain it?!?!?! It isn't worth spending that much time to address an issue that does nothing to further the plot of the movie.

But it is ok for him to take a large amount of time to change the plot and alter things about the story and characters. I guess you just can't go without that extra two and a half minutes of action.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Why take two and a half minutes to explain it?!?!?! It isn't worth spending that much time to address an issue that does nothing to further the plot of the movie.

I'd gladly give up many unnecessary scenes not associated with the actual book story from the movie in exchange for this bit of relevant information. How about when Frodo and Samwise meet Pippin and Merry in Farmer Maggot's field then the flight through field running from Farmer Maggot ... oh, wait, that's right... Farmer Maggot didn't actually chase them out of his field and Merry and Pippin started out on the trip with them .... ok... lets see, what else can we get rid of ... hmmm... I'd rather give up the scene were Frodo offers The One Ring to the Nazgul... oh, darn it... that's not in the book either.... Oh, I know!!! How about the scene when Arwen puts her sword under Aragorn throat and then they go into this long talk about her not being afraid of the Nazgul... ooops...
[snotty sarcastic voice]not in the book either.[/snotty sarcastic voice]

[azalea]

I have to agree that it doesn't make sense to take up two minutes to explain something that has nothing to do with the main plot of the movie (yes, it's important, but it doesn't help the audience to understand what's going to happen). It would have been better just to leave out the "power to rule their race" and just say "rings of Power" or something. That wouldn't take up any more time, but it would be more factually correct. But it really is a minor point within the context of the rest of the movie. It's one of those things that even the casual reader might make the mistake of assuming.

And now I have time to answer the questions Elfhelm put forth:

1) Yes, although lamentable to a fan of a book, it is forgivable IMO for a screenwriter to alter items from the story to create a "might have been" situation in the interest of making a "tight" film, as long as, of course, it is believable within the context of the rest of the story.

2)I would say it would depend on the length and depth of the source material, but for an average book to movie, I'd say more than (I'll just say) two would start to interfere with the level of satisfaction of the average fan of the book AND the level of understanding of the story of the average viewer that hadn't read the book. If a movie needs more than two instances of that kind of thing (IOW, stuff that can't completely be included but needs to be addressed rather than cut out altogether), it's time to make it into two movies, so that the moviemaker can go ahead and include the original material.

3)Absolutely. But it also has to do with a person's personality.
Someone who's read it once might be completely bothered, and another person who's read it several times might be less bothered by it, each being that way because of his or her general life outlook. This is something that cannot be changed without hard work, and is not even necessary to change, but it would be helpful to be the latter kind in these situations.

4) My respose to this would have to be: neither. In the realm of TRUE filmmaking, he should only be governed by the source material and the medium of film. In Jackson's case, he was governed by neither the hardcore fans nor the casual readers. I think in his case, the following were the main factors in producing what he did: the studio/ producer/ whatever the entity is that controlled the money, distribution and marketing (and their idea about what the movie should be and what the length should be); the book and Phillipa Boyens interpretations of it; his own impressions/ what he felt was important; Ralph Bakshi's LotR (this was after all his intro to LotR); his own ideas about moviemaking, as well as the "tried and true" methods/ tricks of the trade; and his love of action, conflict and the macabre. IOW, his flaw is that he allowed too many factors to come into play, especially those that ended up as him speaking through the films, and more especially (IMO), Ralph Bakshi's influence. If he had read the book first, or seen the R-B RotK first, we may very well have seen a different movie as the end result, who knows.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
.... Almost assuredly they were the source of the great power which the Which-King shows on several occassions, which begs the question: did he already have that power when he was still a mortal ringbearer?....

um, which king? ;)

[Wayfarer]

Yes. He controls the whether.

[Rían]

:D

[Rían]

(sounds like the "Who's on first" routine...)

Which king?
Witch king.

Which king?
WITCH KING!

WHICH KING???
GRRRR!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

:D :D :D

Originally posted by azalea
It's one of those things that even the casual reader might make the mistake of assuming.

And a casual reader should not be making the movie.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by azalea
I have to agree that it doesn't make sense to take up two minutes to explain something that has nothing to do with the main plot of the movie (yes, it's important, but it doesn't help the audience to understand what's going to happen). It would have been better just to leave out the "power to rule their race" and just say "rings of Power" or something.While it was not factually correct, I believe it is true that the rings of power were held by some of the most powerful rulers of each race. So rather than say "rings of power" which has no meaning to a non-Tolkienite, the "power to rule" line was used.
Originally posted by azalea
In the realm of TRUE filmmaking, he should only be governed by the source material and the medium of film. In Jackson's case, he was governed by neither the hardcore fans nor the casual readers.He certainly didn't need to cater to the hardcore fans but in many ways he did. Thankfully most Tolkien fans are more appreciative and grateful of that fact than some of the people posting here.

I have read quite a bit about the making of the Lord of the Rings films. Throughout the filming, PJ fought and won more than a few battles with New Line--and don't for a second believe that it was the "Nightmare on Elm Street" Crew arguing for a more faithful adaptation.

To me, the most mindboggling example of this was when New Line Cinema worried that the ending of FOTR was too 'art house' for a commerical film. The New Line brass ordered Peter Jackson to create one of those Hollywood 'last second scare' moments for the movie's ending following the breaking of the Fellowship. As Frodo was heading off in the boat alone, they wanted Lurtz to pop out of the water and try to grab the ring. I swear to you, I...am...not...making...this...up. Fortunately, Jackson won out on this one.

You can always approach things with a "glass half empty" or "glass half full" attitude. I, for one, am incredibly grateful Jackson was resolute about bringing Tolkien's vision to life on film.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
And a casual reader should not be making the movie.
Agreed! A casual reader would not understand that the Rings of the different Races affected the wearer in a different way. A casual reader would not think it important that the Elven Rings were made in secrecy and for purposes other than greed and lust and power over others. A casual reader would certainly not think it necessary to keep certain characters noble, not making them the butt of jokes and a comic relief for the film.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Ruinel
A casual reader would not understand that the Rings of the different Races affected the wearer in a different way. A casual reader would not think it important that the Elven Rings were made in secrecy and for purposes other than greed and lust and power over others. A casual reader would certainly not think it necessary to keep certain characters noble, not making them the butt of jokes and a comic relief for the film. Agreed! A casual moviegoer who demands a 'connect the dots,' literal presentation of the Tolkien books thinks exactly that way. :rolleyes:

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Thankfully most Tolkien fans are more appreciative and grateful of that fact than some of the people posting here.

Can you please tell me when you became the offical spokesmen for Tolkien fans? Did I miss some announcement from the Tolkien Society? I have many friends who are Tolkien fans and I am sure they appreciate you speaking for them. And as I have stated before, I go visit many Tolkien forums and this is one of the nicer ones when it comes to people talking about their dislikes of the movie. Stop speaking for all the Tolkien fans out there because you have no idea what you are talking about. I have never even seen you post anything in the book threads, it really makes me wonder if you are a Tolkien fan?

[Black Breathalizer]

Here is the EXACT quote from the opening to Fellowship of the Ring: It began with the forging of the great rings. Three were given to the Elves, immortal, wisest and fairest of all beings. Seven to the Dwarf lords, great miners and craftsmen of the mountain halls. And nine, nine rings were gifted to the race of Men, who above all else, desire power. For within these rings was bound the strength and will to govern each race. But they were all of them deceived, for another ring was made.
You can say what what you want about the appropriateness of the "governing" of each race comment, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the comment about the giving of the rings to the different peoples of Middle Earth. I'm sure Tolkien, himself, would have approved of it.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
Can you please tell me when you became the offical spokesmen for Tolkien fans? Did I miss some announcement from the Tolkien Society? ....Stop speaking for all the Tolkien fans out there ....

Here, here. :D I agree!

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Ruinel
I can't really speak for the man, but I wonder if PJ thought that either it made the Three Rings more sinister if they were given to them by Sauron. If so, he is mistaken. There is more peril in keeping them hidden from him.

Or perhaps these changes tie into some more serious changes that he has planned for RotK. *cringes* Say it isn't so.When it comes to describing the rings, Peter Jackson's only crime is that he followed JRR Tolkien's lead. First let's look at Galadriel's movie quote again:It began with the forging of the great rings. Three were given to the Elves, immortal, wisest and fairest of all beings. Seven to the Dwarf lords, great miners and craftsmen of the mountain halls. And nine, nine rings were gifted to the race of Men, who above all else, desire power. For within these rings was bound the strength and will to govern each race. But they were all of them deceived, for another ring was made.First, there is nothing in that quote that says Sauron gave the three rings to the elves.

Second, if your response is, "b-b-but it's IMPLIED that he did" then you need to accuse Tolkien of the same thing because I realized reading FOTR this week that the movie's opening was simply paraphrasing Tolkien's classic poem, "Three rings for the elven kings under the sky..."

If you want to argue PJ got it wrong there, then you also must level the same criticism at Tolkien himself because the more appropriate language (based on your criticisms of PJ anyway) would be, "Three Rings BY the elven rings under the sky, seven for the dwarf lords in their halls of stone..."

I would like to publicly apologize to Peter Jackson for my lack of faith. :)

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
When it comes to describing the rings, Peter Jackson's only crime is that he followed JRR Tolkien's lead. First let's look at Galadriel's movie quote again:First, there is nothing in that quote that says Sauron gave the three rings to the elves.
Sorry to burst your PJ-worshipping bubble but that was NOT Tolkien's intentions and if you or PJ had read any books further than FotR you'd see that he developed these races with certain qualities. The Elves needed NO Ring to govern their people. Neither you nor PJ are qualified to speak on behalf of JRRT's unwritten intentions, either. I'll assume that you've not read the books and spare you this time from my wrath, because, lucky you, I'm trying to be nice right now. Although, you make it very, very difficult. If you knew how much I was holding back right now, you'd piss yourself.
...."b-b-but it's IMPLIED that he did" ....because I realized reading FOTR this week that the movie's opening was simply paraphrasing Tolkien's classic poem, "Three rings for the elven kings under the sky..."
(Ah, so it is true, you've only just recently read FotR, and probably nothing else. It all makes sense now.)
I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but do you stutter in the real world? You do a lot of it in your posts, which I find a bit strange.
It was not implied by Tolkien, it was written by Tolkien!

Then if this is simply paraphrasing the poem in the beginning of the book, then it is true that PJ never read the story of the Rings. How sad to make a movie without doing your research first. All that money he spent, all that time he spent and to only have a substandard, incomplete story to show for it. *shakes head* So, sad.

I would never be so presumptuous as to criticize Tolkien for his work in perfection, nor to presume to be able write his story better than the master himself.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Ruinel
[B]I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but do you stutter in the real world? You do a lot of it in your posts, which I find a bit strange.

I think he just likes to make fun of people with handicaps...:confused:

How sad to make a movie without doing your research first. All that money he spent, all that time he spent and to only have a substandard, incomplete story to show for it. *shakes head* So, sad.

[Jack-Pallace]Life is...sad.[/Jack-Pallance]

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Sorry to burst your PJ-worshipping bubble but that was NOT Tolkien's intentions and if you or PJ had read any books further than FotR you'd see that he developed these races with certain qualities ... It was not implied by Tolkien, it was written by Tolkien!

Then if this is simply paraphrasing the poem in the beginning of the book, then it is true that PJ never read the story of the Rings. The logic of your arguement escapes me. It's probably because I'm a simple-minded stutterer. How can you jump to the bizarre conclusion that PJ's use of the poem at the beginning of FOTR means he didn't read the story? You are an intelligent person who has presented strong arguements for your positions in the past; you don't need to resort to silly statements like the one above.

Jackson introduced the concept of the rings by using the same short-hand intro that Tolkien used himself. A movie doesn't have all day to detail everything out like a book can. Jackson wasn't interested in outlining the whole history of the making of the rings because it had no real relevance to the story he was telling. This has nothing to do with Jackson's research and everything to do with understanding what the focus of the story is when making a film.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The logic of your arguement escapes me. It's probably because I'm a simple-minded stutterer.
;)

How can you jump to the bizarre conclusion that PJ's use of the poem at the beginning of FOTR means he didn't read the story? .... Jackson introduced the concept of the rings by using the same short-hand intro that Tolkien used himself.... bla, bla, bla... no relevance to the story.
Because the poem is not the full history of the Rings.

You will not understand this nor it's relevance until you read LotR in its entirety. And if by some miracle, you are struck hard by the beautiful words of Tolkien and are encouraged and hunger for more, you will read other stories which will enlighten your mind to the fullness of his mastery of the pen and you will bow low and humble in your error to judge and criticize him and place PJ, a Hollywood lackey, over him.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Ruinel
...the poem is not the full history of the Rings. The movie's prologue isn't either. It's just enough for the casual viewer to understand what's going on. If it enthralls you and you want to learn more, then Tolkien's books are there for you to immerse yourself in all the wonderous background lore.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Not to mention the actual story. :p

Something that I've been puzzling over for some time, is why Jackson didn't use the Ring-rhyme? :confused:

[Melko Belcha]

Off-topic

BB, How are we supposed to believe you are a Tolkien fan and have knowledge of the books when you never post anything in the book threads, but only the movie threads? Call me crazy but if you were a Tolkien fan I am sure you would have some imput on the discussions of the books. Please tell us unenlightened ones why this is? I am very curious.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
BB, How are we supposed to believe you are a Tolkien fan and have knowledge of the books when you never post anything in the book threads, but only the movie threads? Call me crazy but if you were a Tolkien fan I am sure you would have some imput on the discussions of the books. Please tell us unenlightened ones why this is? I am very curious. I've been a book fan for many, many years. I've talked about the books ever since I first read them. The movies are brand new and exciting. Based on the number of posts to both forums, it would appear that I'm not alone in wanting to post here rather than there.

The strange thing about your question -- and the way some of you respond to my posts here -- is that you make it sound like there is an intense competition going on between the movies and the films. It's like if you dare to show a love for the movies then you are being disloyal to Tolkien and not a TRUE fan. Seems to me that if there should be a questioning of motives or a need for some psychoanalysis, perhaps you book Purists should look in the mirror.

Question asked, question answered - now back on-topic.

[Lizra]

I very much missed having Frodo say "O Elbereth! Gilthoniel! at Weathertop. Just those words would have been better than the grimaces and groans he made. I missed it.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The movie's prologue isn't either. It's just enough for the casual viewer to understand what's going on. If it enthralls you and you want to learn more, then Tolkien's books are there for you to immerse yourself in all the wonderous background lore.
But that's the point, it isn't enough. I've spoken to people who have never read the books and only seen the movie. They believe from that short description of the history of the Rings that Sauron gave the Rings to the Elves. Also, they don't understand why Galadriel keeps her ring unless she's just using it for some magical power. They have no idea that these rings are secret and that sharing that information with Frodo was special. They assume that everyone in ME knows that she has this Ring.

The movie goers who do not read the books assume that PJ has told the story as it was written by Tolkien, when in fact he has altered this story so much that much of it is some other story and not Tolkien's original story.

BB, you call us 'Book Purists'. I don't know whether or not you mean it as an insult. If the love of Tolkien's works makes me a 'Book Purist', then so be it. My beef with PJ is that if he had intended to bring this great work to the screen, he fell short of it by caving under Hollywood's pressure (or perhaps this was his own design, I don't know) to incorporate the tried and true formula of movie making into LotR, altering the story to fit their design.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
1) The strange thing about your question -- and the way some of you respond to my posts here -- is that you make it sound like there is an intense competition going on between the movies and the films. 2) It's like if you dare to show a love for the movies then you are being disloyal to Tolkien and not a TRUE fan. 3)Seems to me that if there should be a questioning of motives or a need for some psychoanalysis, perhaps you book Purists should look in the mirror.

1) That depends on the definition your using for "competition".
2) -sigh- Geez, you just flat out don't read my posts, do you? :rolleyes:
3) Um...what's that about? :confused: Other than your trademark random personal attack, of course.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
3) Um...what's that about? :confused: Other than your trademark random personal attack, of course.
{Scene: Gwai and Ruinel are building bookshelves in Gwai's garage. Gwai is hammering nails into the wood.}
Ruinel: "Wow, Gwai, you hit the nail right on the head."

;)

[Sheeana]

Whoah, deja vu...

[Baby-K]

Every time I think of posting anything in this thread I get disgusted at the flaming going on........pity 'cos it's an interesting read otherwise. Maybe I will give my views one day when I feel like being insulted for having them :rolleyes:

[Ruinel]

Some of it is light hearted ribbing, and some of it is not. But yes, some of it is personal attacks. Sorry you are put off. :(

[Baby-K]

It's not just this thread - most of the movie threads & even some of the book threads seem affected, which is what is making me keep my mouth shut. I'm by no means a great Tolkien scholar, but I do enjoy his work, however I refuse to be made to feel like an imbicile for not sharing someone's views. And a few of the threads, 'specially in the books forum seem a bit elitist, so I don't feel quite comfortable posting my opinions because I have seen a few people being 'shot down' & I'm not into self-inflicted derision. I do still enjoy reading them though, there are some really interesting views & opinions being shared. Not to worry though, there are still a few threads that have not become war zones, if I see any that catch my eye I'll post something there. :)

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Baby-K
Not to worry though, there are still a few threads that have not become war zones, if I see any that catch my eye I'll post something there. :)
*reads some of the heated posts here* yeah, it's been quite a heated discussion. :( And your description as 'war zone' isn't far from the truth.
Too bad, though, I would have liked to have read your views on the subject.

[bropous]

How many angels CAN dance on the head of a Balrog?

The correct answer is SEVEN.

If you gave any other answer, you are either an idiot, a moron, have never read the books, worship the movie, deserve derision and scorn, should be shunned, are worth nothing, have no value, and nowhere in life nor in death will you demonstrate any positive quality, even accidentally. You are WRONG, and therefore, DUMB.

Sound familiar?

Mein Gott, is there NOTHING more deserving of discussion than this tired old beaten dead horse? Has ANYTHING been said in the last TEN pages that had not been said, said again, chewed over, spat out and redigested in pages 1-15??????

Oh, that's right. New and inventive permutations on the ad hominem. I KNEW there was a purpose to this.

It just gets boring. Nothing new, no REAL new wrinkle, just re-examinations of one's own navel and self-praise for the superiority of "innies" versus "outies". Sophistry, pure and simple.

And does ANY of this advance understanding of either Tolkien's books or Jackson's films? I challenge all and sundry to provide evidence that it has.

Look around, folks, this thread has all the ambiance of an infinite number of monkeys banging away at an infinite number of typewriters and standing around waiting for the first copy of "Hamlet" to spill out, typo-free, from the simian copy production staff.

Solution? Shake hands, go off into the ether, and realize that no one is very likely to convince anyone else of anything.

Frankly, some folks might want to stop what they are doing before they go blind.....(hint hint)

BoP, glad to see you're still around, ya little contrarian you! Great disguise...

[Where's that red lipstick......Lizra?]

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by bropous
How many angels CAN dance on the head of a Balrog?
The correct answer is SEVEN.
GAH!! YOU can NOT be serious!! It's 6, SIX!!!!!! And they are named, for Pete's sake!!! Up, down, top, bottom, charmed and strange!!! And possibly 18 depending upon how you look at it! :rolleyes:
... tired old beaten dead horse....
Ah, but tired old beaten dead horse is good eatin'. ;) *stokes fire for the bar-b-q*
New and inventive permutations on the ad hominem. I KNEW there was a purpose to this.
Who's attacking who now?
... just re-examinations of one's own navel and self-praise for the superiority of "innies" versus "outies".
Innies!!! Innies are far, far superior!!! They would never rub against your jeans when you bend over! How can you even THINK that an outie would be even equal to an innie! GAH! What are you thinking? :p
And does ANY of this advance understanding of either Tolkien's books or Jackson's films? I challenge all and sundry to provide evidence that it has.
Tis not the end product, but the making of said product that fulfills. :p
I think you need to get your panties untwisted, or something. It's making you very testy. ;) You should relax more. :) Have a beer. *pulls beer from cooler, hands to bropous*
Solution? Shake hands, go off into the ether, and realize that no one is very likely to convince anyone else of anything.
Are you seriously suggesting that I 'shake hands' with someone who claims that PJ improved on Tolkien? lol! :D You jest!


........ By the way, you might want to kick back more. You seem... stressed out. ;) And if you took any of my post as anything but a joke, I apologize. Don't take life so seriously. :D And definitely don't take this thread so seriously.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Baby-K
It's not just this thread - most of the movie threads & even some of the book threads seem affected, which is what is making me keep my mouth shut. I'm by no means a great Tolkien scholar, but I do enjoy his work, however I refuse to be made to feel like an imbicile for not sharing someone's views. And a few of the threads, 'specially in the books forum seem a bit elitist, so I don't feel quite comfortable posting my opinions because I have seen a few people being 'shot down' & I'm not into self-inflicted derision. I do still enjoy reading them though, there are some really interesting views & opinions being shared. Not to worry though, there are still a few threads that have not become war zones, if I see any that catch my eye I'll post something there. :) Okay, I realize that a newbie here might rightly wonder what's going on. Most of the jabs here are made tongue-in-cheek. We've been doing this for so long now that most posters here know its all meant in fun. Actually, if the truth be known, the Purists who post here think I'm a heck of a nice guy. Those guys all just pretend to hate me. In fact, my buddy, Wayfarer, regularly emails me for advice, Ruinel sends me sweet electronic greeting cards, and Sheeana has invited me to lunch the next time I stop through New Zealand. You see the purists here are...sob...just like family to me!!! :: A big, Frodo-sized tear streams down BB's chubby little cheek::

But Baby-K, I will admit that when I first came here, I was like you. I was rather shocked and really put off my the elitist attitude of the Entmoot book people and their condescending attitude about the movie. So my initial approach was to give them a dose of their own medicine. But I swear, I would rather read an annoying - but interesting - anti-Jackson post than to read the type of drivel coming from blowhards like bropous who spends half a page telling us how boring this thread is. :rolleyes:

Oops...I promised myself I was gonna start toning it down a bit. :o Well, it would be helpful if somebody would please post something on-topic to get us back on a real discussion track. I'm too braindead tonight to do it myself. So who's game? Weak Frodo? Xenarwen? jokester Gimili anyone? Please anything but another bropous post!!!! :eek:

[Coney]

Originally posted by bropous
How many angels CAN dance on the head of a Balrog?

The correct answer is SEVEN.

If you gave any other answer, you are either an idiot, a moron, have never read the books, worship the movie, deserve derision and scorn, should be shunned, are worth nothing, have no value, and nowhere in life nor in death will you demonstrate any positive quality, even accidentally. You are WRONG, and therefore, DUMB.

Sound familiar?

Mein Gott, is there NOTHING more deserving of discussion than this tired old beaten dead horse? Has ANYTHING been said in the last TEN pages that had not been said, said again, chewed over, spat out and redigested in pages 1-15??????

Oh, that's right. New and inventive permutations on the ad hominem. I KNEW there was a purpose to this.

It just gets boring. Nothing new, no REAL new wrinkle, just re-examinations of one's own navel and self-praise for the superiority of "innies" versus "outies". Sophistry, pure and simple.

And does ANY of this advance understanding of either Tolkien's books or Jackson's films? I challenge all and sundry to provide evidence that it has.

Look around, folks, this thread has all the ambiance of an infinite number of monkeys banging away at an infinite number of typewriters and standing around waiting for the first copy of "Hamlet" to spill out, typo-free, from the simian copy production staff.

Solution? Shake hands, go off into the ether, and realize that no one is very likely to convince anyone else of anything.

Frankly, some folks might want to stop what they are doing before they go blind.....(hint hint)

BoP, glad to see you're still around, ya little contrarian you! Great disguise...

[Where's that red lipstick......Lizra?]

You actually spent five minutes of your life typing all that out? :D

*shakes head*

*wonders if all that time being stuck up a mountain has given bropus altitude sickness*

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Ruinel sends me sweet electronic greeting cards.
Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeah. It's cuz you are so hot. :rolleyes:
You see the purists here are...sob...just like family to me!!! :: A big, Frodo-sized tear streams down BB's chubby little cheek::
Quit crying or I'll beat the crap out of you like you were a little whiny brother or something. (Is that family enough for you?) lol!
But I swear, I would rather read an annoying - but interesting - anti-Jackson post than to read the type of drivel coming from blowhards like bropous who spends half a page telling us how boring this thread is. :rolleyes:
*snif* that... was ... so... *snif* ... sweet.... *snif*
..................... I think I need a hug.
So who's game? Weak Frodo? Xenarwen? jokester Gimili anyone?
What about the old tired dead horse bar-b-q? Who's gonna eat all this meat? And what about all the beer in the cooler? You can't possibly expect me to drink that by myself... please!

................ fine...*pops open new beer* .......... uh........... hmmmm.... Weak Frodo..... ;)

[azalea]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I would rather read an annoying - but interesting - anti-Jackson post than to read the type of drivel coming from blowhards like bropous who spends half a page telling us how boring this thread is. :rolleyes:

Oops...I promised myself I was gonna start toning it down a bit. :o Well, it would be helpful if somebody would please post something on-topic to get us back on a real discussion track. I'm too braindead tonight to do it myself. So who's game? Weak Frodo? Xenarwen? jokester Gimili anyone? Please anything but another bropous post!!!! :eek:

Yes, careful there, BB. Not everyone has a sense of humor, and I don't want another flare up, thank you.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
In fact, my buddy, Wayfarer, regularly emails me for advice,

Really??? What about?

[Sheeana]

How to improve upon his insufferability.

[Black Breathalizer]

I read in TORN today that Ghan-Buri-Ghan will not be making an appearance in ROTK. I'm curious what the rest of you think of this decision.

It may just be me, but I never felt comfortable with Ghan and his crew in the book. They didn't seem to "fit" into the Middle-Earth universe. I thought even Tom Bombadil was a much better representative of Middle-Earth than Ghan-Buri-Ghan. Considering the massive amount of the story that needs to be covered in ROTK, I view Jackson's decision to exclude him as a wise one.

Agree? Disagree?

[Ruinel]

disagree.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Disagree. Majorly, majorly, MAJORLY disagree. :( That -insert rude adjective- BASTARD. (Note: I don't think he is literally a bastard, but the usual nouns just don't suffice in this incident). Woses just flat out RULE. They are awesome. And I have no idea why you say they don't fit into Tolkien's world.

My gosh, PJ must be writing this movie specifically for me. He's managed to kill off my three FAVOURITE characters. :( (excluding Gandalf, and possibly Galadriel).

Ruinel, I just may take you up on the offer of Orc-killing. :mad: I know one with a beard and glasses who'm I just feel like ripping apart with my bare hands right now.


-not a happy moth- :(

[Sheeana]

It figures. Take out the one thing I was looking forwards to in RoTK - I already know everything else (Shelob, Mt. Doom, etc) will be crap. :( PJ seems to be a big fan of misrepresenting Middle Earth - how are the woses not part of ME??

[Earniel]

What? No woses? Fne!

Well I guess it was to be expected. :( With throwing Shelob into the third movie something else had to be thrown out if you still want a decent lenght of film. Wish he had skipped the whole thing in Osgiliath in the second movie instead. Fne, I'm really starting to fear that ROTK will be mayorly simplified. :mad:

[Coney]

No Woses........doesn't PJ weally luv us anymore? :(

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Ruinel, I just may take you up on the offer of Orc-killing. :mad: I know one with a beard and glasses who'm I just feel like ripping apart with my bare hands right now.
*hands Gwai a beer and a plate of Dead Horse BBQ* There's potato salad over there *points toward potato salad* and cole slaw right next to it. But first, let me show you this. *brings Gwai over to weapons hoard* Take your pick, have some BBQ and we'll talk strategy over the ice cream later. ;)

I also, would like to know why Ghan-Buri-Ghan and his people don't fit into ME.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Eärniel
What? No woses? Fne!

Well I guess it was to be expected. :( With throwing Shelob into the third movie something else had to be thrown out if you still want a decent lenght of film. Wish he had skipped the whole thing in Osgiliath in the second movie instead. Fne, I'm really starting to fear that ROTK will be mayorly simplified. :mad:

Yeah. He threw out the Scouring for Shelob. There's no excuse for the Woses. :(

Thanks Ruinel. I'll pass on the potato salad, though. Hmm...I'll take Glamdring. Should glow blinkin' pink for PJ.

[Lizra]

I won't miss the wild men. Tom Bombadil...Yes, missed! Ghan...no. That's just one of the parts I always speed through. :)

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Yeah. He threw out the Scouring for Shelob. There's no excuse for the Woses. :(

Thanks Ruinel. I'll pass on the potato salad, though. Hmm...I'll take Glamdring. Should glow blinkin' pink for PJ.
Take this shiny shield also. You can use it like a mirror when you attack PJ. You don't want to look directly at him. *shudders*

The scene with Shelob is far better than the Scouring. That is when Sam gets his balls. And it is also when he first has physical contact with The Ring. He has an inner struggle against temptation and makes the decision to take the Ring to it's end. Sam's love for and loyalty towards Frodo is really apparent. (Get your minds out of the gutter!)

It is, however, very sad that the Scouring is not present. How do you know this?

Tom B. grated on my friggin' nerves! It is the only thing Tolkien wrote that I just didn't click with.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

It has been known for some time that Jackson will not be filming the Scouring of the Shire.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
It has been known for some time that Jackson will not be filming the Scouring of the Shire.
*puts face in hands and weeps* I hate him... I hate him so much.

[Melko Belcha]

Disagree. Mainly because he will use the time that could have been spent on the Woses on another one of his ideas to improve to story.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Ruinel
*puts face in hands and weeps* I hate him... I hate him so much.

Don't we all? :(

[Lizra]

Originally posted by bropous
How many angels CAN dance on the head of a Balrog?

The correct answer is SEVEN.

If you gave any other answer, you are either an idiot, a moron, have never read the books, worship the movie, deserve derision and scorn, should be shunned, are worth nothing, have no value, and nowhere in life nor in death will you demonstrate any positive quality, even accidentally. You are WRONG, and therefore, DUMB.

Sound familiar?

Mein Gott, is there NOTHING more deserving of discussion than this tired old beaten dead horse? Has ANYTHING been said in the last TEN pages that had not been said, said again, chewed over, spat out and redigested in pages 1-15??????

Oh, that's right. New and inventive permutations on the ad hominem. I KNEW there was a purpose to this.

It just gets boring. Nothing new, no REAL new wrinkle, just re-examinations of one's own navel and self-praise for the superiority of "innies" versus "outies". Sophistry, pure and simple.

And does ANY of this advance understanding of either Tolkien's books or Jackson's films? I challenge all and sundry to provide evidence that it has.

Look around, folks, this thread has all the ambiance of an infinite number of monkeys banging away at an infinite number of typewriters and standing around waiting for the first copy of "Hamlet" to spill out, typo-free, from the simian copy production staff.

Solution? Shake hands, go off into the ether, and realize that no one is very likely to convince anyone else of anything.

Frankly, some folks might want to stop what they are doing before they go blind.....(hint hint)

BoP, glad to see you're still around, ya little contrarian you! Great disguise...

[Where's that red lipstick......Lizra?]

So true, so true.... :) A blast of that cool, fresh mountain air! ;)

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Ruinel
I also, would like to know why Ghan-Buri-Ghan and the woses don't fit into ME.First off, the woses really don't advance the plot at all so it's a no-brainer why PJ is cutting them out -- particularly when he's gonna have difficulty fitting everything else in as it is.

Regarding the woses, I personally never liked them in the story. I love Tolkien's books but the two parts that never "rang true" for me (and I emphasize me) is Tom Bombadil and Ghan-Buri-Ghan. Tom felt way too cartoonish for the more adult-slant that Tolkien gave the LOTR versus The Hobbit. And the G-B-G crew always felt to me like a poor version of the American Indians as portrayed in all the "old west" films of the 50s. They just didn't seem to fit in with the people of Rohan and Gondor.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Regarding the woses, I personally never liked them in the story. I love Tolkien's books but the two parts that never "rang true" for me (and I emphasize me) is Tom Bombadil and Ghan-Buri-Ghan. Tom felt way too cartoonish for the more adult-slant that Tolkien gave the LOTR versus The Hobbit. And the G-B-G crew always felt to me like a poor version of the American Indians as portrayed in all the "old west" films of the 50s. They just didn't seem to fit in with the people of Rohan and Gondor.
*hands BB a beer from the cooler* Dead Horse BBQ is on the table, help yourself.

Ok... I actually agree with you on Tom B. But you are way off on the Woses. They are not a poor version of the American Indians as portrayed in the 50's westerns. Reread it. Tolkien was trying to infuse the story with a variety of people, and also show that some of them were still primitive. As well, it shows an influence of the First Born on those that came after.

Wait, I thought we were going to discuss Weak Frodo?

[azalea]

That's REALLY disappointing, but not surprising at this point, and I suppose I can see why it's being cut. *reaches hand out hopefully to straws* Maybe he'll at least include them in a cameo on the EE?:(

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by azalea
That's REALLY disappointing, but not surprising at this point, and I suppose I can see why it's being cut. I am sorry azalea, but I really have a hard time seeing why you would be disappointed with this decision. What made Ghan-Buri-Ghan so special to you?

[Artanis]

G-B-G and his people are certainly needed in the book. They led the Rohirrim towards Gondor by a hidden and safe road. The orcs held the main road. In the movie I guess the Rohirrim will just ride over the plains. They come from Helms Deep now, and not Dunharrow. No need for Woses and hidden roads. *shrugs*
Movie is movie. Book is book. I enjoy both. :)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
First off, the woses really don't advance the plot at all so it's a no-brainer why PJ is cutting them out -- particularly when he's gonna have difficulty fitting everything else in as it is.

Regarding the woses, I personally never liked them in the story. I love Tolkien's books but the two parts that never "rang true" for me (and I emphasize me) is Tom Bombadil and Ghan-Buri-Ghan. Tom felt way too cartoonish for the more adult-slant that Tolkien gave the LOTR versus The Hobbit. And the G-B-G crew always felt to me like a poor version of the American Indians as portrayed in all the "old west" films of the 50s. They just didn't seem to fit in with the people of Rohan and Gondor.

Good lord. American Indians? :rolleyes:

And about Bombadil, I think it's sad that some people can't see the beauty of innocence in dark times. (no offense, Ruinel :))

And you forgot Faramir, Glorfindel...:p

[azalea]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I am sorry azalea, but I really have a hard time seeing why you would be disappointed with this decision. What made Ghan-Buri-Ghan so special to you?

It isn't that he is so special to me, but I am one of those people who liked everything in the books -- there's no part that I dislike, so of course it wouldn't matter what had to be cut, I'd be disappointed in any case. The Wild Men IMO add yet another element of reality to ME, that there were other people/ beings not directly involved with the main plot, but found their way into the story. It makes it so realistic because in the "real world" there are so many people and places, and not all are affected the same way by major events, or are involved in them in the same way. By adding elements such as these, Tolkien added depth to the world he created.

I believe one of the criticisms of Tolkien offered by literary scholars (at least in his day) was that he didn't follow conventions such as streamlining the story; he added these kinds of elements that deviate from the main storyline (such as Bombadil and Ghan-buri-Ghan) and mentioned people and places that are seemingly out of place or irrelevant. But to me that is what gives the story depth and a certain richness not found in similar pieces of literature. I am currently reading Roverandom, and I can really tell that Tolkien loved making things up as he went along, making mention of other elements of the world "around" the story; I don't think he was comfortable NOT doing that in his writing. He obviously felt Woses were important enough to leave in the final draft.

Another reason: the more the merrier. I'll take anything and everything I can get in terms of the stuff of ME, I'd have loved for him to add MORE characters and chapters to the book. :)

That being said, I am not personally faulting Jackson for the omission -- as I said in my post, it is understandable to me, especially considering all of the other things that had to be left out, and I see it as a similar situation to Bombadil: the Wild Men aren't necessary for furthering the plot, and they are "drop ins;" they appear in a short episode and are never "seen" again in the course of the book/story. So it certainly makes sense in the interest of time to have the Rohirrim go straight to Gondor. It would also be confusing for the non-reader, because they aren't familiar with the geographical issues involved, which is why we see the Wild Men in the first place. It wouldn't make sense in the "movie world" as it has been presented thus far to include it (although I would argue that it COULD have worked if the movie had been paced differently and had a different feel to the presentation.)

BUT despite all of this, it is disappointing all the same. :( I can SEE the episode in my mind. I can SEE how it would look in a movie. And it looks great.:) If the time were unlimited, and the movies had been "literal," as we seem to be calling it here, it would have been a wonderful scene. This is why I hope someday a BBC series could be done, to include the things that are impractical/ unworkable on the big screen.
So don't worry, BB, I am not "bashing" Jackson; I love the movies.:) I'm just disappointed that it wasn't possible to include EVERYTHING, Ghan-Buri-Ghan included.:)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I agree with you, azalea; it really is rather similar to Tom Bombadil, and if he killed Bombadil, I don't see why he wouldn't kill the Woses. But it is a HUGE disappointment to me, as I have grown to be fascinated with the Drughu, and I was REALLY looking forward to seeing how PJ treated them. But now I REALLY don't like how he did. :(

[Black Breathalizer]

I appreciate your thoughtful (as always) response, azalea.

Gwaimir Windgem: Jackson didn't "kill off" Bombadil. In fact, in one of the "making of" shows about the LOTR movies, Phillippa Boyens said that the movie was made in such a way that it isn't saying the hobbits didn't enter the old forest and meet Tom Bombadil, it just isn't showing it. I would suspect that the same thing will be true of Ghan-Buri-Ghan.

Which leads me to an interesting thought: New Line has found that the "extended DVD" idea has been a huge commerical success. So after the three movies and three extended DVDs, what's to say that somewhere down the road, New Line and Jackson get the gang together to film EVEN MORE scenes from the books and update the graphics with the latest state-of-the-art CGI to add to a "Special 5th, 10th, or 20th Anniversary LOTR DVD"???

Prime candidates for new scenes would be Tom Bombadil, Ghan-Buri-Ghan, the burrow downs, and the scouring of the shire (although they would have to change the ending because Saruman will already be dead.) Just a thought -- don't be too surprised if it happens though. George and Steven did it with Star Wars and ET, why not Peter for LOTR?

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
...what's to say that somewhere down the road, New Line and Jackson get the gang together to film EVEN MORE scenes from the books and update the graphics with the latest state-of-the-art CGI to add to a "Special 5th, 10th, or 20th Anniversary LOTR DVD"???
Ah, but how will he go back and make Frodo the brave and strong hero that he is in the book? Will PJ cut the scene at Weathertop? Will he change Arwen's ride to the ford to Frodo's ride to the ford? So, that will remain, no matter how many 'special editions' PJ makes.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Which leads me to an interesting thought: New Line has found that the "extended DVD" idea has been a huge commerical success. So after the three movies and three extended DVDs, what's to say that somewhere down the road, New Line and Jackson get the gang together to film EVEN MORE scenes from the books and update the graphics with the latest state-of-the-art CGI to add to a "Special 5th, 10th, or 20th Anniversary LOTR DVD"???

*moans*

Nooo-oooh! How many more DVD's am I supposed to buy? :( :rolleyes:

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Eärniel
*moans*

Nooo-oooh! How many more DVD's am I supposed to buy? :( :rolleyes:
I have the special extended DVD edition, because I wanted to see how the movie was made and I wanted the extra scenes. The movie itself is well done to the extent of costume design and prop making and special effects. The scenery was well done as well. I truely enjoyed the computer generated images, nicely done.

However, it is NOT LotR. It is PJ of the Rings. A totally different story. :D

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Ruinel
However, it is NOT LotR. It is PJ of the Rings. A totally different story. :D Every telling of a story (fictional or real) is based on the storyteller's point of view, experiences, interests, and biases. Are the films Peter Jackson's version of Tolkien's tale? Yes. But is it the Lord of the Rings in heart, spirit, and soul? Absolutely. It would be very hard to argue it isn't.

People like to point out that PJ overdid the action-adventure aspects of the story. But at its heart, Tolkien's books are an action-adventure story. What makes it truly special is that the story was so much more than that. It transcended the traditional 'fairy tale' or adventure story of the time to create something so unique it fathered a whole new genre.

The same can be said for PJ's movies. To me, the aspects of Jackson's work that elevates it far above the typical action-adventure flicks we get is that PJ was true to Tolkien's themes of loyalty, friendship, self-sacrifice, honor, dignity, hope in the face of hopelessness, and true bravery. Critics can talk all they want about Arwen's ride, the loss of Tom Bombadil, or Frodo on Weathertop, it's those timeless themes of Tolkien's that stay in our heads and move us long after the credits roll. Most of us recall feeling those same emotions the first time we read the books. There can be no greater tribute to an author's vision.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Every telling of a story (fictional or real) is based on the storyteller's point of view, experiences, interests, and biases. Are the films Peter Jackson's version of Tolkien's tale? Yes. But is it the Lord of the Rings in heart, spirit, and soul? Absolutely. 1) It would be very hard to argue it isn't.

2) People like to point out that PJ overdid the action-adventure aspects of the story. 3) But at its heart, Tolkien's books are an action-adventure story. 4) What makes it truly special is that the story was so much more than that. It transcended the traditional 'fairy tale' or adventure story of the time to create something so unique it fathered a whole new genre.

5) The same can be said for PJ's movies. To me, the aspects of 6) Jackson's work that elevates it far above the typical action-adventure flicks we get is that PJ was true to Tolkien's themes of loyalty, friendship, self-sacrifice, honor, dignity, hope in the face of hopelessness, and true bravery. 7) Critics can talk all they want about Arwen's ride, the loss of Tom Bombadil, or Frodo on Weathertop, it's those timeless themes of Tolkien's that stay in our heads and move us long after the credits roll. 8) Most of us recall feeling those same emotions the first time we read the books. There can be no greater tribute to an author's vision.

1) Thanks for commending our effort. ;)
2) Just action.
3) Okaaaaaaaay...whatever. :rolleyes:
4) Hmm...seems to me you mean at it's face value, it was. If it transcends it, and in fact is much more than an adventure story, then it is not one at it's heart
5) Um...excuse me? Fantasy movies were "fathered" by Tolkien's books. and how in the nine Hells of Faerun can you say that it fathered a new genre, if they aren't even all out yet?
6) Yah. Whatever.
7) Correction. The hollow shadow of those timeless themes. And that's because there isn't anything else. :p
8) Again: Who made you the Official REAL Tolkien Fan, whom we should all try to be just like?

[Entlover]

Apropos of nothing, I have a soft spot in my heart for Ghan-buri-Ghan and his people, after reading the short story about them in one of the other (forget which one) histories of ME. Maybe it's already been mentioned -- its a great story about one of their carved stones set up to protect a house, and how it actually takes care of an attacker.
Too bad we can't have all the movie blow by blow -- but we have that in HP and it's none too thrilling.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

That was Unfinished Tales, I believe. :)

[Black Breathalizer]

At its heart, Tolkien's books are an action-adventure story. What makes it truly special is that the story was so much more than that. It transcended the traditional 'fairy tale' or adventure story of the time to create something so unique it fathered a whole new genre. Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Hmm...seems to me you mean at it's face value, it was. If it transcends it, and in fact is much more than an adventure story, then it is not one at it's heart. If it is not an action-adventure story at heart, what is it? Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem Um...excuse me? Fantasy movies were "fathered" by Tolkien's books. and how in the nine Hells of Faerun can you say that it fathered a new genre, if they aren't even all out yet?I was referring to Tolkien's books.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
1) At its heart, Tolkien's books are an action-adventure story. What makes it truly special is that the story was so much more than that. It transcended the traditional 'fairy tale' or adventure story of the time to create something so unique it fathered a whole new genre. If it is not an action-adventure story at heart, what is it?

2)I was referring to Tolkien's books.

It is a Quest. The Lord of the Rings revolves around the story of Frodo and Samwise, who haver VERY little action (as in actual fighting) after they leave the others. It is a tale of good and evil, of a suffering journey. It is Not an action story. Adventure, maybe, but not action by any means. Seeing it as just an "action-adventure story at heart" is the very reason the literary critics rarely like it.

2) I was referring to
It transcended the traditional 'fairy tale' or adventure story of the time to create something so unique it fathered a whole new genre.

The same can be said for PJ's movies.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
*puts face in hands and weeps* I hate him... I hate him so much.
Many many people hate Jackson. I hated him from the moments of the first scene of Fellowship - and it went downhill quickly as scene after scene was changed into action. Merry and Pippin turned into clows, Aragorn a wimp, Gandalf a dottering old fool. Sorry I hated the movies - and I hate Jackson for butchering a book that I feel can actually be made into a GREAT movie without resorting to cheap hollywood tricks and dumbing it down.

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
and I hate Jackson for butchering a book that I feel can actually be made into a GREAT movie without resorting to cheap hollywood tricks and dumbing it down.

Amen

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Many many people hate Jackson. I hated him from the moments of the first scene of Fellowship - and it went downhill quickly as scene after scene was changed into action. Merry and Pippin turned into clows, Aragorn a wimp, Gandalf a dottering old fool. Sorry I hated the movies - and I hate Jackson for butchering a book that I feel can actually be made into a GREAT movie without resorting to cheap hollywood tricks and dumbing it down.

jerseydevil,

Although I do not hate Jackson, I agree with you that JRRT LOTR could have been made into a GREAT movie by staying closer to the book. Others may disagree. So be it. Over all, so far, I still like the movies, but similar to Bakshi's version of LOTR, PJ's version of LOTR could have been so much better.

jerseydevil,

Good to hear from you again.

Sincerely,
Anthony
:cool:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by mithrand1r
jerseydevil,

Although I do not hate Jackson, I agree with you that JRRT LOTR could have been made into a GREAT movie by staying closer to the book. Others may disagree. So be it. Over all, so far, I still like the movies, but similar to Bakshi's version of LOTR, PJ's version of LOTR could have been so much better.

jerseydevil,

Good to hear from you again.

Sincerely,
Anthony
:cool:
Thanks - I've been on entmoot - just more in General Messages. I feel like I've said everything I can about the movies - but I come back every once in a while to restate things and see what people are saying. :)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

We need you restating occasionally. ;)

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
At its heart, Tolkien's books are an action-adventure story. What makes it truly special is that the story was so much more than that. It transcended the traditional 'fairy tale' or adventure story of the time to create something so unique it fathered a whole new genre. If it is not an action-adventure story at heart, what is it? I was referring to Tolkien's books.
It is an adventure story all on its own. But not necessarily an action story. The real heros in the book, are on a quest. There is too much sacrifice of the story for added action in the book. So much so that it changes the story in the movie and ruins it. PJ did not need to cut or change important parts out in order to add more action into the movie that wasn't there before. And he didn't need to change characters to appeal to Hollywood's tried and true movie recipe, either. He has changed so much of the story that I fear the next move, RotK, will be a major disappointment for both the movie fans as well as the many already disappointed book fans. If he ever intended to be true to Tolkien's story, he fell far short of that goal.

What ever happened to our discussion of Weak Frodo. I was all excited about that one. :D

JD!!! Well... look what the cat dragged in! lol! Glad to see ya here. :D

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Well, BB, maybe you'll be disappointed, and he won't go THAT far from the books. :p imdb.com (http://us.imdb.com/Credits?0167260) has Wi Kuki Kaa listed as playing Ghan-Buri-Ghan.


WHEEEEEE!!! Maybe PJ ISN'T totally bad. :D

[Black Breathalizer]

Actually, I think this is great news. I would be willing to bet you thought that he will be part of the Extended DVD version, not the theatrical release.

I will be curious to see how PJ handles them.

[IronParrot]

Somebody please PM me as soon as somebody, anybody in this thread comes up with something new... I've already stopped following this thread out of boredom alone.

I think it would be far more organized if we compared the film and the book on a more organized basis. I should set up a website with transcripts of definitive debates regarding every character, theme and chapter, categorized accordingly for easy reference.

[Ruinel]

Always trying to shove out Tolkien's characters, huh? :D








Where's the beer? You were supposed to stop on the way over and buy more beer. *sigh* DAMMIT!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Actually, I think this is great news. I would be willing to bet you thought that he will be part of the Extended DVD version, not the theatrical release.

I will be curious to see how PJ handles them.

And why is that? You yourself said that you didn't think that Woses fit into Tolkien's world. If I remember correctly, you said something along the lines that they were an attempt to put the 1950's movies version of Native Americans in. :p

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Well, BB, maybe you'll be disappointed, and he won't go THAT far from the books. :p imdb.com (http://us.imdb.com/Credits?0167260) has Wi Kuki Kaa listed as playing Ghan-Buri-Ghan.


Oh god, I feel so blonde. :o I actually remember reading this on imdb. :D :p

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I did a search on google, but couldn't find a single picture of him. :(

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
And why is that? You yourself said that you didn't think that Woses fit into Tolkien's world. If I remember correctly, you said something along the lines that they were an attempt to put the 1950's movies version of Native Americans in. :pI will be very curious to see how Jackson handles it. I want to keep an open mind (I know that's a foreign concept around here. ;) ) This may be yet another example of how Jackson improves a part of Tolkien's tale. :D

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
This may be yet another example of how Jackson improves a part of Tolkien's tale. :D

That is funny, because so far I have not seen even one thing that I would say that PJ improved Tolkien, even the parts he got 100% correct did not improve Tolkien.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I will be very curious to see how Jackson handles it. I want to keep an open mind (I know that's a foreign concept around here. ;) ) This may be yet another example of how Jackson improves a part of Tolkien's tale. :D

Improves? IMPROVES????????!!!!!!!! You have to be joking. I can't believe you could say that. Can you please give examples of where you think jackson IMPROVED on Tolkien???? I have got to hear this. :rolleyes:

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
This may be yet another example of how Jackson improves a part of Tolkien's tale. :D
:eek: :mad:
*draws sword*
AAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIYYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
*runs at BB with sword with intentions to slay him*
[edited angry curse symbol rant -- azalea -- let's stay calm please.]

[Earniel]

Sheesh people! He's only saying that because he wants to get you on your horses. :rolleyes: And he's doing a fine job at it too. But we all know deep down that BB was sobbing like a baby when he heard Tom Bombadil was cut from the movie. ;)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Sheesh people! He's only saying that because he wants to get you on your horses. :rolleyes: And he's doing a fine job at it too. But we all know deep down that BB was sobbing like a baby when he heard Tom Bombadil was cut from the movie. ;)
That may be - but I'll jump on him all the same. :) I hope that if anything gets screwed up in RotK - which well all know Jackson will do- that it's BB's favorite part of the book.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Surely you're not implying that he -read- the book? :p

[Ruinel]

He actually admitted that he only recently read the book, for the first time if I recall. :p :D

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
He actually admitted that he only recently read the book, for the first time if I recall. :p :D
Can we institute a LotR proficiency test then so we don't get bombarded by such garbage? :D

[Ararax]

10 times lotr 6 hobbit 3 sim

[azalea]

JD, didn't you see the "Jackson Improved on Tolkien" thread? It was opened by BB and closed after much angry debate. I think if you want to read BB's view on that matter, you should look in that thread. I think going into that here aside from comments made to support argument on the topic at hand would result in too much of a departure from the topic, and it would end up in a flame war that would result in the thread being closed. I happen to think this topic is interesting to people and is worth keeping open if possible. I'm just afraid if we "go there" again, we won't be able to keep it open.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by azalea
JD, didn't you see the "Jackson Improved on Tolkien" thread?
No i didn't. I've stayed out of the movie forum - except for a post here or there - because pretty much everyone knows my views on the movie. Every once in a while I come to this thread and see what someone is saying - and for him to make that statement - whether he has said it in other threads or not - is going to get a response from me.

[azalea]

Okay, point taken. :)

But I'm sure if you have time you'd find that thread...let's just say very interesting. ;)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by azalea
Okay, point taken. :)

But I'm sure if you have time you'd find that thread...let's just say very interesting. ;)
I'll check it out - but it'll make my blood boil I know - and then have no where to express my anger and outrage. :D

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Let's just skip the reading, shall we? ;)

-casts Blood Boil on JD-

:D

[azalea]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'll check it out - but it'll make my blood boil I know - and then have no where to express my anger and outrage. :D

Well, we can all use our imaginations to formulate what response we think you'd make;). I'm sure we can guess which side you'd take.;) (Now I sound like Fezzig!)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Hmm....

-using imagination to formulate JD's responses-

My GOODNESS, jerseydevil, I never knew you used such language! :eek: And so creatively, too! ;)