Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation [Archive] - Page 4

Black Breathalizer

06-01-2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Elf Girl
BB, I'd be obliged if you posted one of your patented infuriating garbage posts, to start the debate again. It's so nice to know I'm missed. :)

Peter Jackson has been able to capture the magic and all of the important themes of Lord of the Rings while giving the story a stronger sense of tension, tighter pacing, increased drama, while also expanding upon the themes of self-sacrificing friendship. This has been a truly remarkable achievement by any measure...and the most exciting thing is: the best film of the trilogy is yet to come!

Thanks to PJ, my Lord of the Rings has become even MORE rich and MORE wonderful than it has been before the new films came out (I never thought it possible.) Beyond the books themselves, my new Lord of the Rings includes:
---The hauntingly beautiful music of Middle-Earth (ala Howard Shore).
---The wonderful scene between the dying Boromir and Aragorn,
---The incredible debate between Gollum and Smeagol,
---One of those special movie moments in Rivendell when Elrond tells Gandalf, "the ring cannot stay here."
---Gandalf's advice to Frodo in Moria.
---The broken stone staircase.
---The breathtaking view of Eowyn in Edora framed against the White Mountains.
---A deeper appreciation of the love between Aragorn and Arwen.
---A feeling that there actually existed a tower of Orthanc and that it looked EXACTLY like Alan Lee's film version.
---Merry and Pippen luring the orcs away from Frodo.
---That Gandalf and company came to the aid of Helm's Deep from the east rather than the west as previously reported by Tolkien.

I could go on and on... These movies are so good that they are evolving the modern mythology that is Lord of the Rings. If Tolkien purists were honest, THAT is the real reason why they are not embracing these movies like everyone else. They fear that, just like the many tellings of the Camelot story, this particular telling of the tale is so good and so compelling that it will leave its own permanent stamp on the mythology (the way people think about the story).

LOTR is not just Tolkien's tale anymore....and THAT, my friends, is the real motivation behind the vicious attacks on these brilliant movies.

jerseydevil

06-01-2003, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer

Peter Jackson has been able to capture the magic and all of the important themes of Lord of the Rings while giving the story a stronger sense of tension, tighter pacing, increased drama, while also expanding upon the themes of self-sacrificing friendship. This has been a truly remarkable achievement by any measure...and the most exciting thing is: the best film of the trilogy is yet to come!

How did he capturte the magic? Gandalf is made into a dottering all fool who is talked down to by both Saruman and Elrond. He runs behind Saruman liked a whipped dog with his tail between his legs at Isengard. Merry and Pippin are practically brain dead through half the movie. The Blackriders are suddenly action oriented and cut off people's heads - whereas in the book it was their sheer presence that put fear into people. Galadriel and the Mirror were a joke, not to mention that what Frodo saw in the movie was all action. The book was a thousand times better and Jackson simply lifted some dialog, the characters and plot and turned it into a typical hollywood action movie.

I could go on and on... These movies are so good that they are evolving the modern mythology that is Lord of the Rings. If Tolkien purists were honest, THAT is the real reason why they are not embracing these movies like everyone else. They fear that, just like the many tellings of the Camelot story, this particular telling of the tale is so good and so compelling that it will leave its own permanent stamp on the mythology (the way people think about the story).

No - actually the reason I don't like is because they're typical hollywood action movie - with the cliched comic relief, the cliched tension and action. They're crap basically.

LOTR is not just Tolkien's tale anymore....and THAT, my friends, is the real motivation behind the vicious attacks on these brilliant movies.
It IS Tolkien's tale. That's the problem. It will ALWAYS be Tolkient's tale. Jackson wanted to make a fantasy action movie - which he succeeded - he didn't succeed in bring Lord of the Rings to the screen. The only thing he did get right was the scenary of Middle Earth - and that seems to be only because he wanted to do a 9 hour commercial for New Zealand :p

Black Breathalizer

06-01-2003, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It will ALWAYS be Tolkien's tale.Be prepared to tell that to your 13 year old daughter someday when she asks you why the Lord of the Rings books leave out some of her favorite parts from the films.

jerseydevil

06-01-2003, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Be prepared to tell that to your 13 year old daughter someday when she asks you why the Lord of the Rings books leave out some of her favorite parts from the films.
Any child of mine would be smart enough to know that the books came BEFORE the movie and were written by Tolkien - not by Jackson.

Ruinel

06-01-2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Be prepared to tell that to your 13 year old daughter someday when she asks you why the Lord of the Rings books leave out some of her favorite parts from the films.
ACK!!! ... OH... mustn't ... flame... oh... restrain.. self... no.... ACK!!! ... mustn't .....
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! !

First of all... if I had a 13 year old daughter, she would have the intelligence to know that the movie was a failure in it's attempt to represent a great masterpiece. She would know that the BOOK represents the true tale, as it was told by the master himself. She would know that the characters in the film are NOTHING like the master had envisioned!!! That the movie is an ABOMINATION!!!

........*struggles with self to keep from flaming* .........

UNLESS SHE WAS A [edited] MORON!!!!

Black Breathalizer

06-01-2003, 01:39 PM

Thanks to jerseydevil and Ruinel for illustrating my point. The mere thought that future generations may actually come to the books after viewing the films drives you Purists mad. Instead of appreciating both, you guys have to make it a damn competition.

Real fans of the story will take heart in the fact that Jackson's films will keep Tolkien's treasure from falling into obscurity in our increasingly video-oriented society. I want both to be around for a looooong time.

jerseydevil

06-01-2003, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Thanks to jerseydevil and Ruinel for illustrating my point. The mere thought that future generations may actually come to the books after viewing the films drives you Purists mad. Instead of appreciating both, you guys have to make it a damn competition.

I dont care if people come to the books after the movies. My complaint is that I expected Jackson to stick closer to the books (not 100%) but I was extremely disappointed with the movies - and I downright hate them. As I have said repeatedly - he has created an action movie - nothing more.

Jackson's movies are Hollywood crap. He used every Hollywood cliche in the movies. He turned them into action movies. They are not Lord of the Rings and will not withstand the test of time - like the books have.

Real fans of the story will take heart in the fact that Jackson's films will keep Tolkien's treasure from falling into obscurity in our increasingly video-oriented society. I want both to be around for a looooong time.
Jackson's films would not prevent Tolkien from going into obscurity. Actually a lot of people may go - "why should I read the books - I can watch it on video."

Tolkien was doing VERY well without the movies - so I don't see where you think they would have gone into obscurity. Hopefully some day a director worthy of putting Lord of the Rings on the screen will come a long - Jackson was NOT that director - as I had hoped.

Ruinel

06-01-2003, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Real fans of the story will take heart in the fact that Jackson's films will keep Tolkien's treasure from falling into obscurity in our increasingly video-oriented society. I want both to be around for a looooong time.
YOU are not a real fan of the story!!! Any true fan would have been outraged over the horrible changes that PJ made to Tolkien's great work!!! And you praise him for the changes he made!! You praise him for ruining a GREAT STORY!!!!

Tolkien's masterpieces were NEVER falling into obscurity. That notion is only based upon your own experience, because you never read the tale until you saw the movies!! That is NOT TRUE of the rest of the world, video-boy!!!! It will be PJ's movies that fall into obscurity. Movies come and movies go. But great books shall ALWAYS be here. They are timeless and never dying!!!

Earniel

06-01-2003, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Thanks to PJ, my Lord of the Rings has become even MORE rich and MORE wonderful than it has been before the new films came out (I never thought it possible.)

I have disagree strongly here. The movie can never be more rich than the book since so much was cut out. It's only natural since they had to make the movie with a reasonable length but it will result in making a less rich movie. What made the book so rich (this is my personal opinion, I do not have the audacity to assume I speak of everyone) was Tolkien taking all these strands of little-side stories and entwine into one amazing tale: Tom Bombadil, Fatty Burger, the scourging, the woses, the tragedy of the ents, ect. Lose them and you lose richness. I have to partially agree with JD: the only thing the movies really added to (my appreciation of) LoTR are the visual presentations of the scenery.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
If Tolkien purists were honest, THAT is the real reason why they are not embracing these movies like everyone else. They fear that, just like the many tellings of the Camelot story, this particular telling of the tale is so good and so compelling that it will leave its own permanent stamp on the mythology (the way people think about the story).

Please do not assume to know why I and others like me dislike the movie or parts therein. I know people who read the LoTR, though it was an 'okay' book but did not really like the movie. Otherwise, I know purists who really liked the movie but just didn't considered it LoTR. I also grow very tired of your continuing negative generalisations about purists.

No offence BB, but you're so bent on defending the movies no matter what, that I don't think you can fully understand other people's view on it. The movies will definately leave its own permanent stamp on the way people see the Middle-earth mythology, I don't think many people will deny that. You only have to look at certains fans to know that Orland Bloom will forever determine Legolas's looks for some people. Some may regret it, others may appreciate that. However the point is that not everybody thinks this particular telling of the tale is so good and compelling.

Black Breathalizer

06-01-2003, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Eärniel
The movies will definately leave its own permanent stamp on the way people see the Middle-earth mythology, I don't think many people will deny that. You only have to look at certains fans to know that Orland Bloom will forever determine Legolas's looks for some people. That is my point. See? We're really not that far apart. The books and the films are now working together to shape the modern view of the story.

jerseydevil

06-01-2003, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
That is my point. See? We're really not that far apart. The books and the films are now working together to shape the modern view of the story.
They're NOT working together. Tolkien is the ONLY true Lord of the Rings - and whether I made a movie or someone else made one - Tolkien's would still always be the TRUE Lord of the Rings.

Your comparison to Camelot before is erroneous also - because if there were any ancient texts of Camelot - most have been lost. I know archeologists get scraps every now and then. But the only reason people can take liberties with King Arthur and Camelot - is because it's based on legend (and parts may or may not be true). Lord of the Rings is a book and has ONE author and will always be the only true story.

Ruinel

06-01-2003, 02:34 PM

Earniel

06-01-2003, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
That is my point. See? We're really not that far apart. The books and the films are now working together to shape the modern view of the story.

I wouldn't exactly use the words working together. But it is true that the new movie will have a significant impact on the way new readers will view the already existing book. My point is that that impact is NOT necesarily a good thing.

Melko Belcha

06-01-2003, 04:51 PM

---The hauntingly beautiful music of Middle-Earth (ala Howard Shore).
Only positive thing to come from the movies

---The incredible debate between Gollum and Smeagol,
Cannot even describe how much I hated that scene

---The broken stone staircase.
Number one complaint about Fellowship, waste of time

---A deeper appreciation of the love between Aragorn and Arwen.
Didn't do anything the Appendix hadn't already done

---That Gandalf and company came to the aid of Helm's Deep from the east rather than the west as previously reported by Tolkien.
It makes perfect since for Gandalf to come from the west, he is a messanger from the West. Please describe how the way the movie did it is better then the way Tolkien did, I need a good laugh.

LOTR is not just Tolkien's tale anymore
It will always be Tolkien's tale, even if a movie comes out someday that is 100% true, it will still be Tolkien's.

....and THAT, my friends, is the real motivation behind the vicious attacks on these brilliant (lame) movies.
You really have no clue do you?

jerseydevil

06-01-2003, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
---The incredible debate between Gollum and Smeagol,
Cannot even describe how much I hated that scene

I didn't think this was that terrible. I thought Faramir was far worse.

---The broken stone staircase.
Number one complaint about Fellowship, waste of time

I wouldn't think that was the number one complaint - I would think the butchering of Flight to the Ford would be the most hated part of Fellowship. The Fellowship thread had a huge discussion on that.

Everythng else I agree with completely. And I think the Arwen Aragorn scenes - especially in TT were over blown hollywood crap. Having them in Rivendell on the bridge was fine.

Ruinel

06-01-2003, 05:37 PM

Was Smeagol/ Gollum debate as bad as what PJ did to Faramir? oh... I do not think so. DAMMIT! I just saw that JD posted that! DAMMITDAMMITDAMMIT!

As far as changing how Gandalf came in, only someone who didn't know Tolkien's stories would have made that change.

Melko Belcha

06-01-2003, 07:10 PM

I didn't think this was that terrible. I thought Faramir was far worse.
Faramir was worse, but I really hated that Gollum debate, I was hanging my head in shame at that part.

I wouldn't think that was the number one complaint - I would think the butchering of Flight to the Ford would be the most hated part of Fellowship. The Fellowship thread had a huge discussion on that.
The reason it is my biggest complaint because PJ decided that for the theater release it was more important then some of the scenes straight from the book that only appeared in the EE. It was the proof that he cared more about the action then character development and many other things, something he went overboard with in TT.

Everythng else I agree with completely. And I think the Arwen Aragorn scenes - especially in TT were over blown hollywood crap. Having them in Rivendell on the bridge was fine.
I agree, putting in that small part in Fellowship I enjoyed because it gave some more depth to Aragorn as a character, but TT was overkill and another thing that wasted time that could and should have been used to bringing the book to life.

jerseydevil

06-01-2003, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by Melko Belcha

I wouldn't think that was the number one complaint - I would think the butchering of Flight to the Ford would be the most hated part of Fellowship. The Fellowship thread had a huge discussion on that.
The reason it is my biggest complaint because PJ decided that for the theater release it was more important then some of the scenes straight from the book that only appeared in the EE. It was the proof that he cared more about the action then character development and many other things, something he went overboard with in TT.
Well through out the Extended Edition commentary all he did was say "needed to speed up the action here" needed to get them out of here as quickly as possible" "needed to give more action"

I agree, putting in that small part in Fellowship I enjoyed because it gave some more depth to Aragorn as a character, but TT was overkill and another thing that wasted time that could and should have been used to bringing the book to life.
I agree too - the scenes with Arwen in TT were complete hollywood junk. I can't wait - well actually I can - to see what he has to say for why he did all these changes. Remember though - he was staying true to the book for the fans. :rolleyes:

Gwaimir Windgem

06-02-2003, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Ruinel
ACK!!! ... OH... mustn't ... flame... oh... restrain.. self... no.... ACK!!! ... mustn't .....
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! !

First of all... if I had a 13 year old daughter, she would have the intelligence to know that the movie was a failure in it's attempt to represent a great masterpiece. She would know that the BOOK represents the true tale, as it was told by the master himself. She would know that the characters in the film are NOTHING like the master had envisioned!!! That the movie is an ABOMINATION!!!

........*struggles with self to keep from flaming* .........

UNLESS SHE WAS A [edited] MORON!!!!

Just reading through the last few pages, and have to say: This is a hilarious post. :D

azalea

06-02-2003, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Melko Belcha

The reason it is my biggest complaint because PJ decided that for the theater release it was more important then some of the scenes straight from the book that only appeared in the EE. It was the proof that he cared more about the action then character development and many other things, something he went overboard with in TT.

When I read this, the thought came to me that he did it backwards, didn't he? The breaking staircase should have been in the EE, and he should have kept the gift-giving scene in the theatrical release.

Melko Belcha

06-02-2003, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by azalea
When I read this, the thought came to me that he did it backwards, didn't he? The breaking staircase should have been in the EE, and he should have kept the gift-giving scene in the theatrical release.

Yes, God forbid he give up one of his pointless additions to actually put in material from the book that he had already filmed. The movie is stressed for time, lets cut out material from the book for a action scene that happens inbetween two action scenes.

Actually it probably wasn't the action he cared for, he couldn't go without his brilliant Dwarf tossing line, because it is more true to Tolkien then a part that is actually in the book, and it improved the story so much.

jerseydevil

06-02-2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
Yes, God forbid he give up one of his pointless additions to actually put in material from the book that he had already filmed. The movie is stressed for time, lets cut out material from the book for a action scene that happens inbetween two action scenes.

Actually it probably wasn't the action he cared for, he couldn't go without his brilliant Dwarf tossing line, because it is more true to Tolkien then a part that is actually in the book, and it improved the story so much.
After your last sentence you forgot to add rolly eyes. Here I'll add them :)

Actually it probably wasn't the action he cared for, he couldn't go without his brilliant Dwarf tossing line, because it is more true to Tolkien then a part that is actually in the book, and it improved the story so much. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I needed to add an extra one for me. :D

Ruinel

06-02-2003, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by azalea
...The breaking staircase should have been in the EE, and he should have kept the gift-giving scene in the theatrical release.
I agree with this. Galadriel's gifts would have helped the story more than the action and suspense of the stairs of Moria. :rolleyes:

"Nobody tosses a Dwarf" ... oh, gah! Poor Gimli. The comic relief of the Fellowship. :( And anyone who knows Tolkien knows that the Dwarves are so much more than this. *sigh* What a tragedy.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-02-2003, 05:16 PM

Yes, it's ridiculous. I mean, in The Producers MEL BROOK'S comic relief character had more character. :p

Black Breathalizer

06-02-2003, 07:31 PM

Deal with it, gang. Peter Jackson's movies are now as much a part of Lord of the Rings as Tolkien's books. Future generations won't be wondering why the "gift-giving scene" was kept out of the theatrical release, they'll wonder why the book didn't have the collapsing staircase and why Arwen isn't written about much.

This is not an ownership issues, so please don't give me a bunch of "it will always be Tolkien's story, he owns it" garbage. I'm talking about Lord of the Rings in terms of the perception of modern society. Like myths through the ages, Jackson has now placed his permanent stamp on the story. Tolkien could have prevented this if he wanted exclusive control over how it was presented...but he didn't. He sold the film rights.

As a result, the Lord of the Rings mythology now belongs to J.R.R. Tolkien and Peter Jackson. If you don't believe me, you might want think about L. Frank Baum's novel, The Wizard of Oz. Please tell me where your impressions of that tale came from? :)

jerseydevil

06-02-2003, 07:47 PM

Ruinel

06-02-2003, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
...Peter Jackson's movies are now as much a part of Lord of the Rings as Tolkien's books. Future generations won't be wondering why the "gift-giving scene" was kept out of the theatrical release, they'll wonder why the book didn't have the collapsing staircase and why Arwen isn't written about much.
The only people that will be wondering such a stupid question would be those idiots who have no idea that the book came before the movie. And I am not really conserned with a mentally deficient group of people who don't have the sense given to a snail. And if they are not asking themselves, "what's with the rope around Gollum in TTT?" Then they are brainless twats and not worthy of my concern.
This is not an ownership issues, so please don't give me a bunch of "it will always be Tolkien's story, he owns it" garbage.
It will always be Tolkien's story, he owns it. BWAHAHAHA!!! When a learned person hears "Lord of the Rings" that person's thoughts go to TOLKIEN not some looser film director that will be forgotten in a few years. Tolkien is a master of literature, not some Hollywood lackey.

Black Breathalizer

06-02-2003, 09:55 PM

Looks like I hit a nerve. :)

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Already people aren't going to see them as much as Fellowship of the Ring. People are complaining about them. it was bound to happen and it will continue to lose steam. 800 million for each of the first two at the boxoffice and they're....losing steam? Will TTT lose steam when the DVD comes out? What about the Extended version of the film? Since "people are complaining about them", will ROTK be a dud at the boxoffice next Christmas? I swear, some of you people live in a self-delusional fantasyland. You have to share a retelling of LOTR with the rest of the world now. So what? Get over it.

jerseydevil

06-02-2003, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
800 million for each of the first two at the boxoffice and they're....losing steam? Will TTT lose steam when the DVD comes out? What about the Extended version of the film? Since "people are complaining about them", will ROTK be a dud at the boxoffice next Christmas? I swear, some of you people live in a self-delusional fantasyland. You have to share a retelling of LOTR with the rest of the world now. So what? Get over it.
Sorry - but the are losing steam. Not many people have countdown to the release of TT like they did for FotR in their sigs (actually I don't see any). People did NOT go to see TT as many times as they went back to see FotR and if Jackson screws with RotK - even more people will be pissed.

The movies are action movies and with each movie - more and more fans come around to criticising jackson. I also said that wait 10 years, 50 years and see if they're on the best movies ever made list - like Tolkien has been named for books.

What IS VERY FUNNY is that you're really the only one defending the movies. Last year I was the only one complaining about them and eveyrone was against me. I say that's a sign that they are losing steam and won't surpass Tolkien.

Ruinel

06-02-2003, 10:20 PM

I wasn't here a year ago. :)

Many movies gross millions, BB. That doesn't mean anything. People are fickled, they lose interest. I know people that saw the first movie (FotR) and never went back to see the second (TTT). They do not have intentions to see the third.

I will go to RotK, if for nothing else, to find more rotten tomatoes to sling at PJ.

And I have said this before, FotR has many fine points. The costume design and props and weapons had some of the finest people working on them. The CG people did a wonderful job. But don't get me wrong, what I saw on that screen was NOT Tolkien's great story... it was some bastardization of his great work.

I equate it to the story of Moses in the Bible, but hey lets make Moses an ass kickin' dude that wields a sword and Ninja stars and kills all the first born himself... instead of frogs and flies... bah.. lets make them giant flesh eating frogmen from another planet! With FANGS! And make a lot of bloody battles with the flesh eating frogmen and have them [edited] while they scream for mercy... yeah... great improvement.

Curufinwe

06-03-2003, 12:57 AM

I respect all of the opinions of purists or devotees of the epic literature who wanted a recreation of Tolkien's work onto film. That was, however, an impossibility outside of a BBC or PBS miniseries we're dealing with 9 hours of film for 1300 pages of text. The question before us concerns themes or vision as seems to be the prefered term. Tolkiens themes of the influence of power strength in simple values like friendship and loyalty as well as peripheral colorations such as the professors dislike for industry its byproducts and effects and his love of nature REMAIN UNTOUCHED AND WHOLE throughout the films thus far. The removal of Bombadil and the scouring are both important thematic elements. Particularly Bombadil, in a story in which all sides are striving for Masterery and power he represents another choice mastery over noone except himself that is why he is there at all. But again not a central theme or certainly not THE theme. Central to the work is a basic faith in making the right moral choice in resistance - to the death if necessary to - domination of a hostile will who is outside of God's will, as the prof would put it. This remains true to form absolutely. This is an inherently christian work whatever you think of it, and so remains, Gandalf is still a prophet or saint or part Christ as is Aragorn. Without putting too fine a point on it they remain so and Aragorn even undergoes a resurection of sorts that is not in the book but true to one of his mythological or actual (if you believe) forebears the Christ. Sauron is the devil for the purposes of this epic (please don't tell me about Melkor-Morgoth Im aware and its not relevant to this discussion) And so he remains corrupting tempting he takes Saruman - a herod like figure - and shows him inevitability of EARTHLY power in his own ranks. The movie shows this quite clearly - our heros are blessed with luck throughout in both cases but its NOT luck. Its devine grace sent to aid the righteous (sp.) The essential elements are there and really so is the PLOT! I just wonder what people were expecting because page for page is totally unrealistic. The "vision" or themes are there and the actual settings are so spot on to be marvelled at. The sucess of these films, and for those of you who think they're not oscar nominations and huge box office receipts constitute that, is due to the adherence to the universal western moral values represented in the film coming straight from the book.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-03-2003, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by Ruinel
I wasn't here a year ago. :)

Ah, but remember, at first you weren't fighting the Good Fight. ;) It wasn't until you heard of BB's statement that Jackson improved on Jackson, if I remember correctly. :D

Now, now, he didn't go THAT overboard...:p

By the way, did anyone think it was interesting that New Zealander Jackson just so HAPPENED to decide that New Zealand (by sheer coincidence, and no prejudice whatsoever, of course) was the best country to film it in? Despite the fact that it actually takes place in Northwestern Europe? And the fact that the Valley where Rivendell stood is STILL THERE?

Earniel

06-03-2003, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Deal with it, gang. Peter Jackson's movies are now as much a part of Lord of the Rings as Tolkien's books. Future generations won't be wondering why the "gift-giving scene" was kept out of the theatrical release, they'll wonder why the book didn't have the collapsing staircase and why Arwen isn't written about much.
I think you're dumbing down future generations a lot. Most people can make the distinction between book and film. I think they will PERFECTLY know why the collapsing staircase was NOT in the book. They may be surprised at first but soon see the reason why. Whether they like the difference or not is an ENTIRELY different matter, I hope you can see that. There can always be more films made but there will always be one original book. BB; deal with this: Jackson is replacable, Tolkien can never be truly replaced.

This is not an ownership issues, so please don't give me a bunch of "it will always be Tolkien's story, he owns it" garbage. I'm talking about Lord of the Rings in terms of the perception of modern society. Like myths through the ages, Jackson has now placed his permanent stamp on the story. Tolkien could have prevented this if he wanted exclusive control over how it was presented...but he didn't. He sold the film rights.
This has nothing to do with legal rights. Tolkien WROTE the book, Jackson FILMED it. It has nothing to do with ownership it has to do with what they did with the story. Though Jackson added a lot of things of his own, he would not have been able to write the book himself. Which makes it definately Tolkien's story. Jackson also put an emphasis (IMO) that he was filming an already existing book. He doesn't lay claim on it like you seemingly attributes to him.

The discussing about preventing and selling the rights is rather pointless. Tolkien is very dead, how can we know exactly what he would have wanted? We can make guesses, yeah sure. But we can never be sure for real. And even so, what do you think he could have done to prevent it? Rise from his grave? He sold the rights, yes he did, you can't blame the man for wanting to make some money too, can you? Because Jackson wanted to do just the same thing. And besides Tolkien thought his book was infilmable, at that time it was. We don't know how he would have felt the same with today's technology. You can't blame the man for not knowing how much the film industry can evolve.

As a result, the Lord of the Rings mythology now belongs to J.R.R. Tolkien and Peter Jackson. [/i] :)
Again I disagree. Who do the people see as the owner of the Harry Potter universe? Rowling or her director? Why would it be any differently with Tolkien?

Originally posted by Jerseydevil
What IS VERY FUNNY is that you're really the only one defending the movies. Last year I was the only one complaining about them and eveyrone was against me. I say that's a sign that they are losing steam and won't surpass Tolkien.

I liked the movies (well at least the first one, the second one was a bit of a dissapointment) and I will defend them where due. And I do think the movies will be popular for a very looong time still to come (if PJ doesn't mayorly screw up ROTK, that is).

However I just think that without Tolkien, Jackson would have stayed a relative nobody. (IMO at least, I never heard about the guy before the movies)

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
By the way, did anyone think it was interesting that New Zealander Jackson just so HAPPENED to decide that New Zealand (by sheer coincidence, and no prejudice whatsoever, of course) was the best country to film it in? Despite the fact that it actually takes place in Northwestern Europe? And the fact that the Valley where Rivendell stood is STILL THERE?

The guy comes from there, obviously he'll know better just what New Zealand has to offer than Europe. It has probably saved him millions on locationscouting- and relocationcosts. And frankly I don't think it was such a bad choice. I know but very few places in Europe that can compete with the vastness of seemingly unspoiled sceneries that the movie offered. Though honesty dictates me to say that I have not seen the majority of Europe yet.

Sheeana

06-03-2003, 05:24 AM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Last year I was the only one complaining about them and eveyrone was against me.

Hey man, don't forget me! There were two of us complaining!

Cirdan

06-03-2003, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by Sheeana
Hey man, don't forget me! There were two of us complaining!

.and don't forget BB's "jumping in"...

"We started out thinking we would have to change a lot of Tolkien's story, but we found as we went along that the more Tolkien we put in the better it got." ~ Peter Jackson "Page to Screen" Bravo television

hmmm.

Black Breathalizer

06-03-2003, 08:40 AM

If the new LOTR movies were "average" like the Harry Potter flicks, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The reason we are is because Jackson's movies are fast approaching "classic" status and will be repackaged, resold, and thus, remembered for many generations to come. Thanks to Peter Jackson, the books will see a longer life too. So I must say I find it odd that being such big Tolkien fans, you guys aren't applauding him instead of hating his guts.

But I've come to understand your motivation: fear. In your hearts, you Purists know the films are damn good. You don't like them because PJ didn't give you a literal, page by page, retelling of Tolkien's tale. But nevertheless, you know this film production is high quality stuff. You're not fooling anybody.

Your interest in attacking PJ (as amusingly evidenced here) simply shows your fear of the ever-growing popularity of the Jackson movies. Your worst nightmare is that the popularity of the movies will eventually surpass those of the books and become the definitive telling of the story in the minds of most people.

As irrational as these thoughts are, they strike a responsive cord with all of you, don't they? Coooooome on now, 'fess up. Let's try being honest for a change. :)

Cirdan

06-03-2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
But I've come to understand your motivation: fear

oooo noooo it'sd going to destroy... oh, wait a minute, it has no effect on my life whatsoever.:rolleyes:

Coooooome on now, 'fess up. Let's try being honest for a change

How many times have you read the book?:p

Melko Belcha

06-03-2003, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
As a result, the Lord of the Rings mythology now belongs to J.R.R. Tolkien and Peter Jackson.

No it is Tolkien's mythology and always will be. PJ just cannot write his own blockbuster story so he uses other peoples. Have you seen any of his movies prier to LotR, they are all horrible. Why do you think he is doing a remake of King Kong? Because it is not possible for him to come up with his own story, he has to use other peoples work.

And the reason I attack PJ is not out of fear that his movies will surpass the books (it will never happen), but because this was the one time the money had actually been put up to beable to bring this story to life with respect to the original material. But what do we get, a typical cheesy Hollywood fantasy movie with the title of LotR on it. PJ had a chance to bring (IMO and many others) the best story ever written to the screen, and he failed worse then I had feared.

And the numbers in the box-office don't mean nothing when you know that many of the sells are teenage girls who only want to see Legolas or Aragorn and go see the movies 20 times in the theaters. (No offense to Legolas and Aragorn fans)

Ruinel

06-03-2003, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Ah, but remember, at first you weren't fighting the Good Fight. ;) It wasn't until you heard of BB's statement that Jackson improved on Jackson, if I remember correctly. :D
Yes, I recall. I was trying to be diplomatic about it, until that dreaded moment when I read that statement. *shudders*

By the way, did anyone think it was interesting that New Zealander Jackson just so HAPPENED to decide that New Zealand (by sheer coincidence, and no prejudice whatsoever, of course) was the best country to film it in? Despite the fact that it actually takes place in Northwestern Europe? And the fact that the Valley where Rivendell stood is STILL THERE?
Actually, I think NZ is a beautiful place. I've never been, but I saw it in some other movies and I've seen pictures.

I don't know where you'd be able to tear up an area and make a Hobbit town anyplace in NW Europe. And I already know the argument for PJ defenders: Hollywood has been doing that for years in their studios. Don't forget that this is PJ's vision and story, not Tolkien's.

The Alamo with John Wayne wasn't filmed in San Antonio but was filmed in a desert. Thus, many people think desert when they think of Texas. Really rather annoying. :mad: :p

Black Breathalizer

06-03-2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
No it is Tolkien's mythology and always will be.This is not an ownership issue, there is no question who owns the story rights. This is about public opinion.

Tolkien originated the story, but Peter Jackson's telling of the tale is now as much a part of the modern mythology that is the Lord of the Rings as Tolkien's own telling. You can seriously dislike this fact but to say I'm wrong and that PJ has no influence on the way LOTR is now and will forever be perceived is to ignore the increasing power of movies and other visual media in our society and the shrinking power of the written page.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-03-2003, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
1) If the new LOTR movies were "average" like the Harry Potter flicks, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The reason we are is because Jackson's movies are 2) fast approaching "classic" status and will be repackaged, resold, and thus, remembered for many generations to come. 3) Thanks to Peter Jackson, the books will see a longer life too. So I must say I find it odd that being such big Tolkien fans, you guys aren't applauding him instead of hating his guts.

4) But I've come to understand your motivation: fear. In your hearts, you Purists know the films are damn good. You don't like them because PJ didn't give you a literal, page by page, retelling of Tolkien's tale. But nevertheless, you know this film production is high quality stuff. 5) You're not fooling anybody.

6) Your interest in attacking PJ (as amusingly evidenced here) simply shows your fear of the ever-growing popularity of the Jackson movies. Your worst nightmare is that the popularity of the movies will eventually surpass those of the books and become the definitive telling of the story in the minds of most people.

As irrational as these thoughts are, they strike a responsive cord with all of you, don't they? 7) Coooooome on now, 'fess up. Let's try being honest for a change. :)

1) But that's just it. They ARE "average". Cliched, average, Hollywood.
2) Ye gods! How stupid can you get? :rolleyes: A classic is a work which has stood the test of time. They aren't all out yet!
3) Um...pishtosh.
4) Oh PLEASE, don't play amateur psychologist. :rolleyes: And also, we have said MANY TIMES that we did not EXPECT a "literal, page by page" adaptation. Here, you are flat out LYING, and you know it.
5) Well, you gave a ridiculously false statement of me, so evidently I am. :p
6) No. It is because it does not do justice to Tolkien. The popularity of it is only a minor issue, and one that shoots off from the fact that it is a cliched, Hollywood, piece of average cinema. PJ actually DID give a literal, page-by-page adaptation, from the Big Book of Over-used Hollywood. Too bad he considered this more important than the book he was adapting from.

jerseydevil

06-03-2003, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
This is not an ownership issue, there is no question who owns the story rights. This is about public opinion.

Tolkien originated the story, but Peter Jackson's telling of the tale is now as much a part of the modern mythology that is the Lord of the Rings as Tolkien's own telling. You can seriously dislike this fact but to say I'm wrong and that PJ has no influence on the way LOTR is now and will forever be perceived is to ignore the increasing power of movies and other visual media in our society and the shrinking power of the written page.
Your statements get more and more ridiculous with each post. First of all - you can't say what lasting affect the movies will have on ANYONE'S perceptin of the books since they haven't been out that long. Sure - you'll have the legolas lovers and Frodo lovers - but they'll past by the wayside and fall in love with actors in another movie and not give a second thought to Lord of the Rings.

Also - movies have always had an influence on society ever since Edison showed the first movie - the Great Train Robbery in West Orange NJ - but that doesn't mean that it will influence people's views of Lord of the Rings - or that the movies will become classics.

As has been repeatedly stated by me and others - our argument isn't that jackson made the films - but that he made hollywood cliched crap. I've listed my complaints with the film - and I have listed my praise. I also donated a ton of money to what was made with FotR - I saw the movie 8 times just trying to like it. TT - I ended up seeing it twice.

Jackson made an action movie with hardly any characteristion. It's a great action movie - it's not Gone with the Wind or Dr Zhivago though. We will ALL Have to wait at least 20 years to see what impact the movies have 0 if any. So far - they are starting to lose steam. Of course I'll be donating money to a film I can't stand when RotK comes out - but that is only because it has Lord of the Rings as it's title. I donated far too much to FotR though

Someone asked me if I like the Matrix better than the Lord of the Rings and the aswerr is "YES". Lord of the Rings has cheesey hollywood comic relief, cheesy slo-mo. Both are action movies (one wasn't supposed to be) but at least Matrix doesn't dumb itself down to the audience like Jackson did with LotR.

Earniel

06-03-2003, 12:48 PM

woah long sentence!

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
[...] is to ignore the increasing power of movies and other visual media in our society and the shrinking power of the written page.

I don't know about your place but around where I live (and that is about 10 km from one of the biggest cinema complexes in Europe) books are still mightily popular. I have yet to see a decrease in them. Movie-power may be increasing but that DOES NOT mean the influence of books is necesarily deminishing. Books and movies can not be compared like say CD's and records. People also like reading on paper a lot more than on screen.

Curufinwe

06-03-2003, 01:18 PM

I think perhaps this threat could use some more civility, black breathalizer Peter Jackson's lord of the Rings is an interpretation and a version of LOTR they are not "as much a part of LOTR" as Tolkien's books. That statement makes no sense there is one LOTR written by Tolkien just as there is one King Kong wether people realize it or not. Anyone can interpret or present the source material but that does NOT make it theirs. LOTR does not belong to Peter Jackson in any sense and he would tell you as much as an artist. The movies are extremely popular though people, I can't imagine that you have missed this. Don't let your feelings about them color your objectivity.

Ruinel

06-03-2003, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
1)This is not an ownership issue, there is no question who owns the story rights. This is about public opinion.

2) Tolkien originated the story, but Peter Jackson's telling of the tale is now as much a part of the modern mythology that is the Lord of the Rings as Tolkien's own telling. You can seriously dislike this fact but to say I'm wrong and that PJ has no influence on the way LOTR is now and will forever be perceived is to (3) ignore the increasing power of movies and other visual media in our society and the shrinking power of the written page.
1) The story will always be Tolkien's LotR! When PJ has passed into obscurity and no one knows his name, Tolkien will always be there. He is immortalized in his work. THAT is public opinion.
2) No... *sigh* we've been over this before. Just because some Hollywood hack makes a movie based on a book does not mean it is now 'a part of the modern mythology' of that book, whatever it might be. There are other movies which attempted to bring the beauty of Tolkien's words to the screen and failed miserably, just as PJ has done. The only difference is that PJ had better people working as his crew.
3) Yes, it is unfortunate that society is getting more stupid every day. Probably a result of this "shrinking power of the written page". However, the crowd I hang out with is pretty well read and intelligent. I suppose the antithesis to your own crowd. :rolleyes:

Fëanor/Curufinwë: popular? So was: "I Know What You Did Last Summer", but I wouldn't call that a classic either.

Black Breathalizer

06-03-2003, 03:15 PM

Do classic movies need to stand the test of time? Yes. I acknowledge my comments are premature. But I would bet any of you that I am right on the money in proclaiming they will be.

I was in the opening night line to see Star Wars in 1977. I knew the first time I saw it that I was watching something special and unique. I recall thinking after my first viewing of the film that I had just seen a modern-day movie classic. Twenty-five plus years later, it turns out I was right. Sadly I haven't had that type of feeling much since then...until Peter Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring came out a year ago.

The movies and the books compliment each other. The fact that Jackson has a developed a movie trilogy with the same kind of quality and attention to detail as Tolkien's books is a good thing. So all these negative responses here make absolutely no sense whatsoever....

...unless you buy into my fear theory. :) :) :)

Earniel

06-03-2003, 03:33 PM

Surely you can't compare Star Wars to Lord of the Rings! Lord of the Rings was already a very wellknown book before Jackson even considered making a movie out of it. Star Wars is a completely different situation.

Ruinel

06-03-2003, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
But I've come to understand your motivation: fear. In your hearts, you Purists know the films are damn good. You don't like them because PJ didn't give you a literal, page by page, retelling of Tolkien's tale. But nevertheless, you know this film production is high quality stuff. You're not fooling anybody.
I did not ask for literal page by page, really. I would however have wanted the characters to stay as they are in the book. There were reasons why Tolkien wrote these characters they way he did. There were reasons why each scene was developed the way it was and each event happened the way it did. Unfortunately, PJ was conserned more with cowering at the feet of the Hollywood big boys rather than being true to the story. He knew that if he did not develop his movie with the tried and true Hollywood action/adventure recipe, he would be out on his keester.

I'm happy for you, really, that you got your rocks off watching PJ's LotR. However, they do not compliment each other if they are so very different from each other.

Compare book Gimli to movie Gimli. Tolkien wrote Dwarves as ......they are stone hard, stubborn, fast in friendship and in enmity, and they suffer toil and hunger and hurt of body more hardily than all other speaking peoples....(I hope I got that right, I do not have my book with me) They are proud and noble, and NOT clowns!

Look at Merry and Pippin. Book Merry and Pippin are intelligent enough to know that Frodo is leaving the Shire and Crickhollow, even though Frodo has made all efforts to keep it secret. Because of their fast friendship with Frodo, they choose to go with him. Rather, they demand it. Movie Merry and Pippin are theiving baboons stealing the crops from Farmer Maggot (when it was in fact Frodo who had stolen mushrooms from the farmer when he was younger), and also another comic relief for PJ-otR (more Hollywood recipe... yummmmy).

As for fear, I have no fear. PJ-otR will be forgotten in 5 years and will end up in some trivia based game somewhere. But Tolkien will always be read.

Black Breathalizer

06-03-2003, 03:51 PM

Ruinel: I did not ask for literal page by page, really.

BB: What did you want?

Ruinel: I would have wanted the characters to stay as they are in the book. There were reasons why Tolkien wrote these characters they way he did.

BB: oh.

Ruinel: There were reasons why each scene was developed the way it was and each event happened the way it did.

BB: oh.

Ruinel: So, BB, don't you dare say I wanted a literal interpretation!!!

Ruinel

06-03-2003, 04:07 PM

BB: Down with the books, burn them all! *tosses a handfull of Tolkien books, including The Sil onto a bonfire*

Ruinel: NO!! What are you doing!!! *reaches into fire to try to save the books (The Sil first, of course)*

BB: We don't need them any longer, Ruinel. We have the beauty of cinema. Don't you see? *becomes glossy eyed* If we get rid of these boring old tales, we'll have more shelf space for the Extended Edition DVD's and a small altar where we can worship Peter Jackson... I'm planning to sacrifice a goat to him. How about you? *shows Ruinel his shiny new sacrificial knife from LotR.net*

Ruinel: ACK!! :eek: WHAT!!?? YOU'VE GONE MAD!!! *runs in the opposite direction*

BB: :confused: Now what was that all about? *continues to feed the fire with more Tolkien books*

............ hehehe... fair is fair. ;)

Gwaimir Windgem

06-03-2003, 04:55 PM

BB: Tolkien was a drooling old senile idiot who didn't know how to write a story. He didn't even know what he wanted to right, for Pete's sake! Good thing the divinely inspired JACKSON descended from the heavens to set that doddering fool straight. He completely ruined a story, which would still be ruined, if not for Jackson Almighty!

Ruinel

06-03-2003, 05:16 PM

BB: *chanting some devilish spell, he [edited gore] across a barely legible, autographed picture of PJ "To my biggest fan, Black Breathalizer! Love, Peter Jackson". [edited gore]
Shouting and holding the chalice skyward: "For your glory, OH DARK ONE, to show OUR LOVE for you and the works of thy hands: Fellowship of the Ring and the Two Towers. We offer this gift to you, Peter Jackson, holy of holies....may your new work be as brilliantly evil as your last two!" [edited gore]

[edited by azalea -- too much graphic violence.]

Gwaimir Windgem

06-03-2003, 05:19 PM

I think THAT may be going a bit far... :eek:

Ruinel

06-03-2003, 05:20 PM

hmmmm, ya think? ;)

Gwaimir Windgem

06-03-2003, 05:24 PM

Ten bucks says azalea agrees. :p

Ruinel

06-03-2003, 05:26 PM

LOL! Well, I don't consider it flaming and I didn't cus (this time). Ah, well, too bad BB won't get the chance to see it then. I'll just save it an post it again when he's on. :D

Gwaimir Windgem

06-03-2003, 05:34 PM

He's never on. He's on stealth mode; he strikes from the shadows. ;)

And here, I found another quote, which sounds just like him:

It took me ten years to finally get up the determination to plow through Tolkien's massive opus - and while it's been adapted brilliantly on-screen, as a book the story is much less impressive and tends to be addle-brained.

:D

Ruinel

06-03-2003, 05:44 PM

I'm so glad that wasn't really something he actually said. *phew* I would surely be banned for what immediately comes to mind to post for that. :D

Black Breathalizer

06-03-2003, 06:27 PM

You guys may be awfully misguided...but you're damn funny today. :D

Ruinel

06-03-2003, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
You guys may be awfully misguided...but you're damn funny today. :D
;) hehehe... you have no idea of the wild things that run through my mind. :D

Black Breathalizer

06-03-2003, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Jackson made an action movie with hardly any characterization. It's a great action movie - it's not Gone with the Wind or Dr Zhivago though. ... Someone asked me if I like the Matrix better than the Lord of the Rings and the aswerr is "YES". Lord of the Rings has cheesey hollywood comic relief, cheesy slo-mo. Both are action movies (one wasn't supposed to be) but at least Matrix doesn't dumb itself down to the audience like Jackson did with LotR. Obviously characterization is in the eyes of the beholder. Is there LESS characterization in the movies than the books? YES. Score a point for jerseydevil. But if you are comparing Jackson's movies to other fantasy or action/adventure films, there is definitely MORE characterization than one would normally see.

Which leads me to jerseydevil's comment about "dumbing down" movies for the audience. Novels can do so much more to communicate emotions and motivations to its readers than films can for its audiences. A screenwriter has to look for creative ways to communicate complex themes. An example is Frodo's resolve to go alone to Mordor despite his fear. Jackson's close-up on Elijah Wood's eyes and the way Elijah was able to communicate he new-found resolve after thinking about the words of his friend and mentor, Gandalf, was impressive. Was it the way Tolkien wrote it? No. Did it effectively communicate the same message for film? IMHO, yes.

Before you pass off changes from the book as "dumbing down" the source material, think hard about what Jackson did and why he did it. What you call "hollywood cliched crap" is "Basic Screenwriting 101" for most informed cinemaphiles.

Earniel

06-04-2003, 03:25 AM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Is there LESS characterization in the movies than the books? YES.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Novels can do so much more to communicate emotions and motivations to its readers than films can for its audiences.

By writing that you do realise that you just admitted that the movies cannot be richer than the books?

Black Breathalizer

06-04-2003, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by Eärniel
By writing that you do realise that you just admitted that the movies cannot be richer than the books?Of course.

I've said the movies are wonderful adaptations. I've said the films enhance the books. I've said Jackson improved upon some of the plotlines. But I would never say the movies are richer than the books.

Baby-K

06-04-2003, 10:28 AM

But if you are comparing Jackson's movies to other fantasy or action/adventure films, there is definitely MORE characterization than one would normally see.

Do you have any specific examples in mind? And how / where does Jackson incorporate more character development?

Before you pass off changes from the book as "dumbing down" the source material, think hard about what Jackson did and why he did it. What you call "hollywood cliched crap" is "Basic Screenwriting 101" for most informed cinemaphiles.

I don't necessarily agree with you there - it remains profitable because it is tried & tested - true it has worked in the past & would most likely continue to do so, but truth be told, for the more discerning flick bof it is tiresome to have to continuously be bombarded with the same old style of film making and expected to enjoy it just because the masses do.

And I doubt that you'd get a favourable response from JD if you implore him to 'think hard about what Jackson did & why' - JD has already made it clear that he despised what Jakson did, so IMO the two of you will reach completely different conclusions on that one.

Oh, btw all - my humble opinion: will have to wait 'til tomorrow (gotta go)

Curufinwe

06-04-2003, 12:53 PM

It is impossible to have deep characterization of over a dozen characters in a movie. To put it simply how can there be as much characterization in a 3 hour movie as a 500 page book. I would someone to write a script for me that brings us from the last alliance through the hill of Amon Hen in three hours with all the plot that involves while bringing as much characterization as PJ did and make an entertaining film. Any takers? I suspect I'll hear more baseless gut reaction criticism.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-04-2003, 12:58 PM

"Watchable" and "purely action" are NOT the same thing, you know. :p

jerseydevil

06-04-2003, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Curufinwe
It is impossible to have deep characterization of over a dozen characters in a movie. To put it simply how can there be as much characterization in a 3 hour movie as a 500 page book. I would someone to write a script for me that brings us from the last alliance through the hill of Amon Hen in three hours with all the plot that involves while bringing as much characterization as PJ did and make an entertaining film. Any takers? I suspect I'll hear more baseless gut reaction criticism.
There was no characterization in the film - except for the ridiculous character changes Jackson made.

Hint - if you read the books you'd know that Aragorn is not a wimp running from his heritage. Elrond isn't a complete asshole, Galadriel isn't some ice queen, merry and Pippin aren't imbeciles, Gandalf isn't a whimpering dottering old fool running after Saruman - begging for foregiveness. If jackson had kept the characterization that Tolkien had - then there wouldn't be as many problems or complaints with the movie. Instead he turned them into hollywood cliches. That I have a PROBLEM WITH. He turned Lord of the Rings into a 2 bit action flick. The only thing really good about it - which I have said repeatedly is the Scenary, special affects, and costumes.

Curufinwe

06-04-2003, 01:24 PM

If PJs Lord of the Rings is an action flick then what is Rambo III? There is characterization especially in the EE and he obviously wanted to include this material but could not due to what his constrained him to in terms of time alloted to the release. Bilbo's characterization is perfect, Frodo and Sam quite good. Merry and Pippen were basically reduced to a single character this will hurt later on. Gimli is funny in the books but not a purely comic character. Legolas is fairly well done I believe. Aragorn's character is very close. Let's not be silly he is as courageous and empathetic as he is in the literature - but he is unsure why? Because PJ had to think of some reason that Aragorn the rightful king was not king so he abdicates or something there is NO TIME in that movie to explain the sons of Elendil how they split the high kingship and how to southern line eventually failed and the North Kingdom is destroyed there is no way to put this smoothly and effetively into film. Gandalf is also a strong character the scene with Saruman is ineffective and out of the character of our beloved Gandalf, why? To demonstrate, and that is a crital word in making movies, his postion as Gandalf's superior in the order of the Istari and on the Council. Elrond is just wrong I agree - really miscast there, his dialogue isnt too too bad but the presentation is all wrong. Just think people how many movies have over 10 developed characters? Think of why that is these are different forms of art. PJ's movie is not an action movie, how much action is there that is added to the plot? We have the last alliance a short scene, he cuts the orc attack on Isildur at the Gladden fields, he embelishes Aragorn and the wraiths, He then skips over the wolf attack at the foot of Caradharas, embelishes the battle in moria. And takes us into the first chapter of book III with the defense of the hobbits by Boromir - which needed to be SHOWN not explained as far as film or theater are concerned. Then we have a very short battle between the Eomer's company and the Orcs, a very short battle between the Rangers of Ithilien and the Haradrim. A worg-cavalry battle, Helm's Deep and The Ents. He's added one battle subtracted another, enlonged a few and truncated others. Helm's Deep you had to know was going to be long its easily the point ot highest action and tension in book III. I mean what did you think the climax would be? The Lord of the Rings is epic adventure, it is not a novel it does not address the human condition, Tolkien understood that he wrote high adventure in the old english-scandanavian tradition - so is the film.

jerseydevil

06-04-2003, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Curufinwe
If PJs Lord of the Rings is an action flick then what is Rambo III?

Rambo III is an action flick - just like Lord of the Rings is.

There is characterization especially in the EE and he obviously wanted to include this material but could not due to what his constrained him to in terms of time alloted to the release.

The reason why it's not in there - is bgecause as he says repeatedly in the commentary - "we just need to get them out of there as quickly as possibly", "We just needed to increase the action and tension here." He cut out all the characterization in place of action and dumbed down the characters and made them 2 dimensional.

Bilbo's characterization is perfect, Frodo and Sam quite good.

Why do you think I didn't mention Frodo, Sam or Bilbo.

Merry and Pippen were basically reduced to a single character this will hurt later on.

I still can't tell the two apart - and I saw it 8 times in the movies. I think I've only watched it twice or three times on DVD.

Gimli is funny in the books but not a purely comic character.

Gimli takes the cliched comic relief character in TT - because Pippin and Merry don't have that much screen time. It's so tranparent the Hollywood cliches - it's ridiculous.

Legolas is fairly well done I believe.

I agree Legolas is - again I did not list him.

Aragorn's character is very close. Let's not be silly he is as courageous and empathetic as he is in the literature - but he is unsure why? Because PJ had to think of some reason that Aragorn the rightful king was not king so he abdicates or something there is NO TIME in that movie to explain the sons of Elendil how they split the high kingship and how to southern line eventually failed and the North Kingdom is destroyed there is no way to put this smoothly and effetively into film.

Why - he didn't have to explain all that. So you think it's better that he completely reverses Aragorns charcter and makes him AFRAID of being King 0 then just biding his time. That all that had to be said - not the whole history - just that Aragorn was BIDING his time to reclaim his kingship.

Gandalf is also a strong character the scene with Saruman is ineffective and out of the character of our beloved Gandalf, why? To demonstrate, and that is a crital word in making movies, his postion as Gandalf's superior in the order of the Istari and on the Council.

Gandalf in the books never whimpered like he did in the presence of Saruman - not to mention with Elrond. He also acts like a lap dog to Elrond.

Just think people how many movies have over 10 developed characters? Think of why that is these are different forms of art.

A good movies can have multidimentional characters. My problem isn't with that weren't as fleshed out as they are in the book - but that he CHANGED their characterization.

PJ's movie is not an action movie, how much action is there that is added to the plot?

A lot of action - when in the books are the Blackriders cutting off hobbit heads? Where do they storm the gates at Bree? Where on Weathertop is fire thrown at them and set their clocks on fire (which miraculously are fine during the Flight to the Ford). Why does Farmer Maggot chase the hobbits instead of inviting them in for dinner? When does Saruman call up the snow and winds when the Fellowship is trying to cross Caradras? When does a troll ever fight in the Mines of Moria? Why does he have the Fellowship find out that the dwarves have been killed as soon as they enter Moria. I can go on and on and on. It's non stop action without anytime to rest. Where does faramir kidnap Frodo and Sam and take them to Osgiliath?

(edited do to character limits)
The Lord of the Rings is epic adventure, it is not a novel it does not address the human condition, Tolkien understood that he wrote high adventure in the old english-scandanavian tradition - so is the film.
You left out all the scenes that I mentioned where Jackson took no-action scenes and turned them into action. I'm sorry - but the ringwraiths weren't a physical marauding evil that hacked at things like they do in the FotR movie - they instilled fear in people. Jackson made them solely physical. He made the Council of Elrond into a shouting match. Funny - I don't recall any shouting or threats of violence to anyone at the council in the book (I remember long pauses of silence as people contemplated the enormity of the situation).

Jackson did a crappy job with bringing the books to the screen.

Curufinwe

06-04-2003, 02:14 PM

PJ has made a monumental movie that has been applauded by critics, fans, audiences, and the academy (i.e. the people who make the movies his peers) He did not duplicate an 8 hour movie FOTR which is the only thing that would have satisfied you. His film is excellent it is interpretation of LOTR on screen he did a fine job for all the well thought and and non knee jerk reactions that I have previously posted. Please tell me how internally felt terror can be protrayed as well on film as in text then I can listen to your criticisms of the Ring Wraiths. You clearly think that just putting the books into screenplay form would have done. Oh yeah Aragorn was biding his time to reclaim the kingship, how did he lose it? What happened biding his time doesnt cut it - its terrible.wi So if you're so convinced of the terrible job he did prepare a screenplay show us what you would have done or just rewrite some scenes. I think everyone would admit that visually he did an amazing job of filming what Kubrick called the unfilmable. The scope score and depth are also excellent adaptions. Some characters are truncated for obvious reasons you can't have over 10 main characters - welcome to movies you don't answer that you suggest he has directly changed the characters by which apparently you mean Gimli which is true and is not really that drawn out by Tolkien, Elrond who just makes a cameo in the literature, and Gandalf's interaction with Elrond - who he certainly was deferential too for obvious reasons and that is present at the council, and Saruman for reasons I've already discussed but you dont even address. Out of a production with a million parts you criticize about 6 or 7. I know what you wanted - a pure duplication - and thats okay but it would have made a very slow movie that I would have loved and anyone who read the book would have. But would have been drawn out and extremely confusing for a novice audience and not as well received without a true dramatic forumula for rising and falling action etc. So If you didn't want to see what you saw rewrite it, show me the way. How should it be done. Don't say Gandalf should be more this and that tell me what lines you would change write then out I would be curious to see what you have to say. Its certainly more constructive than anything I've yet seen or heard lately.

jerseydevil

06-04-2003, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Curufinwe
PJ has made a monumental movie that has been applauded by critics, fans, audiences, and the academy (i.e. the people who make the movies his peers)

The movie didn't even belong in the Best Picture category. The only reason it was nominated was because he played the politics. And just because critics liked it - it doesn't matter. It was an okay movie - as it stands (if you like hollywood cliches) - as Lord of the Rings it sucks sh*t.

He did not duplicate an 8 hour movie FOTR which is the only thing that would have satisfied you.

no it's not and your ignorant if you think it is. Every person who likes the movie and can't take the people who criticise it comes back with "the only thing you'd be a happy with is an 8 hour regergation of the book". As everyone at doesn't like the movie says - that's not the case.

His film is excellent it is interpretation of LOTR on screen he did a fine job for all the well thought and and non knee jerk reactions that I have previously posted.

To you it's excellent - it seems as if the majority of people who know Lord of the Rings - think it's a pretty weak interpretation.

Please tell me how internally felt terror can be protrayed as well on film as in text then I can listen to your criticisms of the Ring Wraiths.

There have been MANY MANY movies who have had pyscological horror. A good director can bring it very successfully to the screen. The ones who can't resort to action.

You clearly think that just putting the books into screenplay form would have done.

Please state where I said that.

Oh yeah Aragorn was biding his time to reclaim the kingship, how did he lose it? What happened biding his time doesnt cut it - its terrible.

Why doesn't it cut it? If he was found by Sauron - he would have been killed. You seem to only want to accept jackson's half a$$ answers - but are unwilling to look at how the movies could have been made and been kept closer to the books. Why did Faramir drag frodo all the way west and now have to Back track? Why didn't Sauron - after the Nazgul was within inches of the ring - send the other eight there? In the books - the Nuzgul NEVER got that close to the ring after Bree.

jerseydevil

06-04-2003, 02:38 PM

So if you're so convinced of the terrible job he did prepare a screenplay show us what you would have done or just rewrite some scenes.

I've done it ad nauseum in the Fellowship of the Rings threads. I'm not going to repeat it all. I would have had a much deeper story and kept the characterization much more close to the books. I would have still have cut out Tom Bombadil.

I think everyone would admit that visually he did an amazing job of filming what Kubrick called the unfilmable. The scope score and depth are also excellent adaptions.

Of course it's filmable - it just takes a better director than a 2-bit hack like Jackson. He accomplished an amazing feat in producing an action movies - he just sucked at bringing any feeling to it.

Some characters are truncated for obvious reasons you can't have over 10 main characters - welcome to movies you don't answer that you suggest he has directly changed the characters by which apparently you mean Gimli which is true and is not really that drawn out by Tolkien,

I don't only mean Gimli - I listed all the charcters he screwed up. Pippin was my favorite in the book - he's my most hated in the movie - the same with Merry. They're portrayed as morons.

Elrond who just makes a cameo in the literature, and Gandalf's interaction with Elrond - who he certainly was deferential too for obvious reasons and that is present at the council, and Saruman for reasons I've already discussed but you dont even address.

I do adress - you just don't like my answers. Gandalf was never supservient to either one. In the books Gandalf always talks to them as equals. He doesn't go to Saruman whimpering about how he didn't know about the ring and begging for forgiveness. He doesn't get talked down to by Elrond.

Out of a production with a million parts you criticize about 6 or 7. I know what you wanted - a pure duplication

Again with the lame accusation with the duplication crap. No - it's not just 6 or 7 things I have a problem with. Did you read my posts even? [ edited by azalea -- rude question ]
- and thats okay but it would have made a very slow movie that I would have loved and anyone who read the book would have. But would have been drawn out and extremely confusing for a novice audience and not as well received without a true dramatic forumula for rising and falling action etc.

The problem is - there is no falling action in Jackson's movie -it's action scene after action scene.

So If you didn't want to see what you saw rewrite it, show me the way. How should it be done. Don't say Gandalf should be more this and that tell me what lines you would change write then out I would be curious to see what you have to say. Its certainly more constructive than anything I've yet seen or heard lately.
I'm not going to write a screen play for you. I told you already what I would have changed (at least parts). Accept that people hate the move and yet didn't expect a unaltered version from the book. I expected changes - I didn't expect Flight to the Ford to be butchered and reduced Arwen stealing all of Frodo's power and glory. That was a KEY scene of the entire book - it showed the strenght of Frodo and hobbits - instead he butchered it And added that lame line "If you want him, come and claim him"

Curufinwe

06-04-2003, 03:04 PM

Well if it is an action movie its the first series of its kind to be nominated for the best picture of the year by the academy in consecutive years. By the way all I ever have seen are rebuttals I've read through them you dont read my posts, or maybe just dont comprehend I hope your a teenager for your sake. You have criticized the characterizations not settings not score not acting three major components of every film. You criticize the plot saying he turned something that appartently was rather devoid of action (which it is not) into something repleat with action. Then why does he cut off the orc attack against Isildur as he follow the path of the Ring in the prologue? Why cut out Old Man Willow and the barrowights? Why cut out the wolf attack at Caradharas? Why doesnt Legolas shoot down the Nazgul? PJ presented with a long long long story had to pick and chose some and pick up the action at points he felt as a director needed picking up. Most people who watch films and write reviews for a living believe he did a good job - the criticism is clear he did not reproduce the books verbatim don't expect it - LOTR never will be on the big screen exactly as written. The BBC miniseries was good, but it was about 24 hours long. He certainly fit in every major event so far that moved the plot along leaving aside crickhollow to bree seems pretty good to me.

jerseydevil

06-04-2003, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Curufinwe
Well if it is an action movie its the first series of its kind to be nominated for the best picture of the year by the academy in consecutive years. By the way all I ever have seen are rebuttals I've read through them you dont read my posts, or maybe just dont comprehend

I understand all your posts. You think the movies are great. You think that anyone who doesn't like the movies would only be satisified with the word for word copy of the books, which isn't true. My complaints with the movie are valid. And I've watched the movie a ton of times trying to like it.

I also don't care if the academy nominated it at all. My sister worked in PR in Hollywood - I know how it all works.

I hope your a teenager for your sake.

Why do you say that? Because I disagree with you and you can't see how someone can not like the movies? :rolleyes:

You have criticized the characterizations not settings not score not acting three major components of every film.

Yes - I have a problem with the way he changed plot elememts (some of which didn't have to be changed) and characterization. Acting - it's hard to tell - some of the dialogue and delivery was so crappy - it's hard to tell whether it's the acting, the direction or the script. It seems like a lot of the overblown acting I have a problem with is because of Jackson's direction. If I see one more close up of Frodo's face in slow motion as his eyes roll back into his head - I'll scream.

You criticize the plot saying he turned something that appartently was rather devoid of action (which it is not)

I never said that Lord of the Rings was devoid of action - but Jackson pumped up the action in almost every scene. It is NON STOP action. Look at the Worm Tongue scenes. Saruman possessing Theoden? An excercism? Give me a break.

into something repleat with action. Then why does he cut off the orc attack against Isildur as he follow the path of the Ring in the prologue?

Wow - he cut out one action scene to have it replaced by the falling staircase. I felt the same way with that scene as I did with the scene IN Jurassic Park II when the trailer is hanging over the edge. Just let the damn thing fall already and get it over with.

Why cut out Old Man Willow and the barrowights?

The barrow wights and Old Man Willow wasn't really an action scene. If it waqs - Jackson would have had Old Man Willow reaching down and grabbing the Hobbits and shoving them into the crack. :rolleyes:

Why cut out the wolf attack at Caradharas?

Because he needed to add the terrible Wargs to the scene on the way to Helms Deep. Which really crappy computer animation too.

Why doesnt Legolas shoot down the Nazgul?

That's what you consider removing an action scene? :rolleyes:

PJ presented with a long long long story had to pick and chose some and pick up the action at points he felt as a director needed picking up. Most people who watch films and write reviews for a living believe he did a good job - the criticism is clear he did not reproduce the books verbatim don't expect it - LOTR never will be on the big screen exactly as written.

There you go again with the Verbatim crap. NO WHERE did I say I expected verbatim. He cut out and redid Lord of the Rings into an action movie - pure and simple. Listen to his commentary. What is amazing about that - is that he even states - all he wanted to do was make a fanatsy movie - he actually didn't care about making Lord of the Rings - he just thought it would be cool to do.

The BBC miniseries was good, but it was about 24 hours long. He certainly fit in every major event so far that moved the plot along leaving aside crickhollow to bree seems pretty good to me.
Every major event - yeah - with a bunch of action. Why on weathertop does he have the frodo saying that the fire will attract the Balck Riders - when Aragorn point black states in the book that fire will help to keep them away?

Give me a break. If you think he made a good interpretation that's you - it's not the majority of people on this board anymore. With each passing movie - Jackson loses more and more fans. I can't wait to see how he screws up RotK.

Curufinwe

06-04-2003, 03:43 PM

I have tried to explain myself and have done so. I think the movies are good, i have criticisms and I know he duplicated the intricately detailed settings as described in LOTR. I believe the soundtrack is also excellent, I think the acting is quite good - and I know the major thematic elements of LOTR are there. I have yet to here from anyone suggesting that Tolkien's themes of resistance sacrafice loyalty are absent. Aragorn and Gandalf are christlike figures Gandalf has been resuressected Aragorn's is added - but it is entirely in keeping with the themes present in the literature, noone seems to have commented on that possibly becuase they see some truth in it. A hobbit farmer chasing hobbits for 20 seconds is an action scene but our heros trapped in a hostile animated tree while our other protagonists panic is not, and Frodos life being at risk "That was touch and go" attacking a barrow wight is not I see the reasoning there - very well thought out. Your wrong about PJ in almost every way, he had thought about filming LOTR in his native New Zealand since he was a boy. Oh and PJ is certainly not losing more fans than he's gaining looking at the worldwide box office recepts for TTT which is now second all time to Titanic.

jerseydevil

06-04-2003, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Curufinwe
I have tried to explain myself and have done so. I think the movies are good, i have criticisms and I know he duplicated the intricately detailed settings as described in LOTR. I believe the soundtrack is also excellent, I think the acting is quite good - and I know the major thematic elements of LOTR are there. I have yet to here from anyone suggesting that Tolkien's themes of resistance sacrafice loyalty are absent.

Just taking generally themese isn't good enough. Sorry - but that's my opinion. And Merry and Pippins loyalty - was really watered down compared to how it is portrayed in the books. They don't really show their loyalty until they get captured by the orcs to let Frodo escape.

Aragorn and Gandalf are christlike figures Gandalf has been resuressected Aragorn's is added - but it is entirely in keeping with the themes present in the literature, noone seems to have commented on that possibly becuase they see some truth in it.

No - because I think it's only you who have come up with the christlike attributes to Gandalf and Aargorn. A lot of characters have been "revbon" in movies and books - it doesn't mean that it's because there is some hidden meaning to them being christlike. It's only a way for Gandalf to take the place of Saruman as Gandalf the White. I gather you're religious and trying to find some spirtuality in the books - more so than what is in the Silmarillian.

A hobbit farmer chasing hobbits for 20 seconds is an action scene but our heros trapped in a hostile animated tree while our other protagonists panic is not,

Yeah - because Farmer Maggot chasing the Hobbits didn't happen. Also - the Old Man Willow lolled them to sleep - do you really think that Jackson would have kept that like that? NO of course not.

and Frodos life being at risk "That was touch and go" attacking a barrow wight is not I see the reasoning there - very well thought out.

He attacked his hand. Just like the only thing that happened in Moria with the troll was that they stabbed his foot. :rolleyes:

Your wrong about PJ in almost every way, he had thought about filming LOTR in his native New Zealand since he was a boy.

Oh - you buy into his old propaganda I see. He states right out in the EE version that he just wanted to make a cool fantasy movie. Maybe you should listen to it.

Oh and PJ is certainly not losing more fans than he's gaining looking at the worldwide box office recepts for TTT which is now second all time to Titanic.
Is that so? Is that why so many LotR fans saw TT far fewer times than FotR? Is that why so many non-fans didn't even bother going to TT at all after seeing FotR? There are a lot of reasons why theater recipes go up. It's an erroneous way of describing how popular a movie is. It's based on ticket sale prices and they go up. My theater raised the ticket price from 8.00 - 8.50 between FotR and TT. It's also a 24 screen theater and was playing on four screens - that adds up to A LOT of money.

Curufinwe

06-04-2003, 04:37 PM

This is truly sad at this point. I suggest you read the Lord the Rings critically. It was not my original suggestion about Gandalf and Aragorn it was the professor himself. If you can't recognize his universalist Catholic themes thats fine but please don't act like they aren't there. I suggest you learn more about him, or read Tom Shippey's analysis of his work he's excellent, I actually had the pleasure of meeting him once at Oxford and he's the premier Tolkien scholar in the world, naturally he enjoyed the film. You've have made many ridiculous assertions, but you've topped yourself, by explaining that 900 million dollars and counting in worldwide movie recepts suggests that a movie is less popular than a movie that grosses 800 million dolllars, unless inflation is over 10% between the past two years worldwide, which even a simple analysis tells us is untrue. It seems you've taken a vacation from reality on this point. Additionally I am entirely irrelegious and totally agnostic, it was Professor Tolkien who was a commited Catholic.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-04-2003, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Curufinwe
Aragorn and Gandalf are christlike figures Gandalf has been resuressected

If Gandalf is a Christ-figure, then we must conclude that Tolkien was not Catholic, but a Jehovah's Witness. Gandalf is not God. He is a created being. He doesn't even directly communicate with God, until he dies. Tolkien once specifically stated that the Incarnation of God was INFINITELY greater than he would ever dare to write. I certainly do not deny that there are parallels, instilled by Tolkien's intensely deep faith, but preserving some parallels does not make it mean it stays true to the book. He destroyed the Eucharist spirituality of the lembas, turning it into a food concentrate, something which Tolkien SPECIFICALLY WARNED AGAINST. Galadriel was not portrayed as nearly as Marian as she was in the book. He didn't preserve the Catholic themes in the Lord of the Rings. Citing he keeping of Gandalf's fall as proof thereof is ridiculous, as this is a CENTRAL part of the plot.

As for Aragorn, he already has a "death and resurrection", if some people want to call it that, in the Paths of the Dead. To give him another, and attribute it Christ-like attributes, cheapens the death of Christ as something which is not sufficient, and must be repeated, in my opinion.

Curufinwe

06-04-2003, 05:51 PM

Look your arguing with the wrong guy. I was quoting from Tom Shippey's interview of Tolkien, its easy enough to find. Look no one is cheapening the Death of Christ almighty. Gandalf is messianic ressurected with a task they're not THE SAME he's Christlike there are similaries colored by Tolkien's deep faith. The larger more important point I was making was that the christian themes that run through the epic were carried over into the movie.

jerseydevil

06-04-2003, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by Curufinwe
This is truly sad at this point. I suggest you read the Lord the Rings critically.

I've read the Lord of the Rings critically and I studied it too. There are a lot of parallels with Tolkiens belief - but your assertions are what is ridiculous and you saying that Jackson kept the central theme of christlike charcters is even more so.

It was not my original suggestion about Gandalf and Aragorn it was the professor himself.

Where did he states this? There have been enough arguments on how Tolkien hated allegory - I don't think he would come out then and state that Aragorn and Gandalf were Christlike and represented the resurrection of christ.

If you can't recognize his universalist Catholic themes thats fine but please don't act like they aren't there.

if you read my past psot s in a lot of threads - you would understand that I am very much aware of the catholic themes in the Lord of the Rings mythology - especially in the Silmarillian. I should know - I was raised Catholic. :rolleyes:

I suggest you learn more about him,

Personally - in the short amount of time you have been a member of entmoot - unless you're one of the olmembers and decided to create a new name - I don't think you should be judging me on my knowledge of Tolkien. And even then you can't judge me.

or read Tom Shippey's analysis of his work he's excellent, I actually had the pleasure of meeting him once at Oxford and he's the premier Tolkien scholar in the world, naturally he enjoyed the film.

I don't need a Tolkien scholar or anyone to tell me whether I should like a film or not.

You've have made many ridiculous assertions,

NO I haven't - you just want to disagree with me and think that only your opinions are the right ones.

but you've topped yourself, by explaining that 900 million dollars and counting in worldwide movie recepts suggests that a movie is less popular than a movie that grosses 800 million dolllars, unless inflation is over 10% between the past two years worldwide, which even a simple analysis tells us is untrue.

Show me the website you are getting your numbers from - does it give the number os screens it was shown on too? was it shown in countries that FotR originally wasn't shown in? There are a lot of variables to gross ticket sales - that's why I never pay attention when they say such and susch grossed so much more than that movie.

It seems you've taken a vacation from reality on this point.

No - you just don't want to aceept that other people have different opinions. I didn't like FotR when people here were kissing jackson's [edited -- inappropriate]. Even though at that time I was getting shot down all the time - I stuck to my opinions - because they ARE MY feelings. Now more people side with my opinions - than don't, if you read this thread.

Additionally I am entirely irrelegious and totally agnostic, it was Professor Tolkien who was a commited Catholic.
I am perfectly aware Tolkien was a devout Catholic.

Curufinwe

06-04-2003, 06:31 PM

The Two Towers has grossed more than Fellowship of the Ring people like the movie - a lot. ROTK will gross even more and then you'll say something about fuzzy math. Its a big conspiracy to inflate New Line's numbers so they dwarf every other movie released this year. Its a big conspiracy and thankfully the Jersey Devil has revealed the truth - you really should ask the New York Times if they need your service. This is what I have from you to sum up : Capturing the central themes is not good enough, representing every major character in the books was not good enough because a few of them weren't true enough to what you think they should be. You have no problem with either Frodo, Sam, Bilbo, Legolas or Boromir. You dislike Gandalf because of his scenes with two people last for about 20 mins of a 3 hour movie. Never a word about visual effects nor settings, nor the soundtrack no real criticisms of the acting excpet that it was "cheezy". And of course PJ was soo way off that everyone hates his movie so much they've gone to see it more than any other this year.
P.S. here are the numbers http://www.worldwideboxoffice.com/

jerseydevil

06-04-2003, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by Curufinwe
The Two Towers has grossed more than every other movie released in four years please do yourself a favor get some counciling it will be okay people like the movie - a lot. ROTK with gross even more and then you'll say something about fuzzy math. Its a big conspiracy to inflate New Line's numbers so they dwarf every other movie released this year.

Sorry - if you don't understand how gross reciepts are figured and how they are inaccurate. What would be more accurate is the percentage of people who go to the movies based on the number of seats available.

Jersey Devil has revealed the truth - you really should ask the New York Times if they need your service.

I'll be happy to help. :p

This is what I have from you to sum up : Capturing the central themes is not good enough, representing every major character in the books was not good enough because a few of them weren't true enough to what you think they should be.

A few of them weren't true enough? Some of them were entirely hacked. Sorry - but the prortrlyal of most of the characters was crap.

You have no problem with either Frodo, Sam, Bilbo, Legolas or Boromir.

Actually - you're wrong with Boromir - I do have a problem with him. In the movie he was too nice. Also as for Sam - I didn't like that he didn't call Frodo master Frodo except maybe once.

You dislike Gandalf because of his scenes with two people last for about 20 mins of a 3 hour movie.

No - I dislike other scenes Gandalf is in. I just don't have to tell you all the problems I find with the movie. You can go through the threads and find out everything I have said. i don't have to repeat everything to satisfy you.

Never a word about visual effects nor settings, nor the soundtrack no real criticisms of the acting excpet that it was "cheezy".

Nope - did have some complaints about the visual effects - again I suggest you look at one of my many posts.

And of course PJ was soo way off that everyone hates his movie so much they've gone to see it more than any other this year.
i didn't say everyone hated his movie - they're just not as accepting of it. If you can't see that then you really do have your head stuck in the sand.

Curufinwe

06-04-2003, 06:56 PM

The movie's gross is greater than FOTR by $50 million obviously the audience is growing. Please don't tell me about percentage of seats per theater. I can tell you that I went to see it a third times last Sunday and the theater was very full for a movie relased nearly 6 months ago. If a movie makes $50 million more as of right now - and that will grow - than a movie released last year its obviously more popular. Methods of gross accounting don't change that much year to year. We're talking about 9/10ths of 1 trillion dollars in 6 months, its a very popular film. Its okay take a breath it doesnt invalidate your opinions about the film It just shows that a whole lotta people feel very differently. Entmoot represents Tolkien devotees, purists, if you will, not the general public. I'm just surprised you hate it so much. It has been a boon for sales of the literature, and students in my English Lit class I've spoken to have taken it up and generally prefer it to the films. I was not happy with my first viewing of FOTR. Try looking at it as an interpretive work, one mans take on Middle Earth as a film. P.S. You didnt like Sam because he didnt say Master enough? Is that central to who he is? Wow your tough to please

Gwaimir Windgem

06-04-2003, 06:58 PM

Okay, I don't think that flaming is really necessary. Could we please tone it down a bit? :)

-Mini-mod Gwai :p

jerseydevil

06-04-2003, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Curufinwe
The movie's gross is greater than FOTR by $50 million obviously the audience is growing. Please don't tell me about percentage of seats per theater. I can tell you that I went to see it a third times last Sunday and the theater was very full for a movie relased nearly 6 months ago.

It must be playing at a "cheap" theater then - it moved out of NJ - along time ago. Musch faster than FotR did too.

If a movie makes $50 million more as of right now - and that will grow - than a movie released last year its obviously more popular. Methods of gross accounting don't change that much year to year. We're talking about 9/10ths of 1 trillion dollars in 6 months, its a very popular film.

Fine - don't understand how the number of theaters a movie is realeased on affects gross sales or how ticket prices affect it - I don't care. I'm not even talking abotu how popular it is. If you look at the thread title - this is about how well jackson brought it to the screen.

Its okay take a breath it doesnt invalidate your opinions about the film It just shows that a whole lotta people feel very differently. Entmoot represents Tolkien devotees, purists, if you will, not the general public. I'm just surprised you hate it so much. It has been a boon for sales of the literature, and students in my English Lit class I've spoken to have taken it up and generally prefer it to the films.

I don't care if more people read the books. Why should I? I don't get any of the money. I care about the books and the way the characters are represented - that's all.

I was not happy with my first viewing of FOTR.

I wasn't happy with it my first and I wasn't happy with it my 8th, 9th or 10th - no matter how much I tried. The hollywood cliches and the dumbing down of the characters annoy me.

Try looking at it as an interpretive work, one mans take on Middle Earth as a film.

I have tried looking at it - and his interpretation sucks. He butchered it. After all his propaganda about keeping close to the books.

P.S. You didnt like Sam because he didnt say Master enough? Is that central to who he is? Wow your tough to please
No - it wasn't that big of thing. But it is part of his character. He worked for Frodo and Bilbo. He was Frodo's friend - but he was also Frodo's servant.

Black Breathalizer

06-04-2003, 07:40 PM

I would like to welcome Curufinwe and applaud his contributions to this thread. You've made quite a number of dead-on points. I'm impressed. You're my new hero!

But I would advise you not to get frustrated when these wild-eyed Purists don't understand you. The problem is that you are trying to engage in a LOGICAL debate. It's clear you haven't had much experience with Tolkien Purists.

Case in point: jerseydevil. The guy tells you in one breath that he wasn't asking for a literal, page by page, interpretation of the story. Then in the next breath, he's telling you how the movie was ruined because of... why? ....(drumroll)... Jackson's way of using the campfire on Weathertop!

Thanks, jerseydevil. Your arguements always crack me up! :D :D :D

Gwaimir Windgem

06-04-2003, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
1) But I would advise you not to get frustrated when these wild-eyed Purists don't understand you. The problem is that you are trying to engage in a LOGICAL debate. It's clear you haven't had much experience with Tolkien Purists.

Again Black Breathelizer, please do not flame.

Curufinwe

06-04-2003, 07:48 PM

I know what the thread title was, it was you who insisted that his movies were so bad it was driving people away unfortunately the facts say otherwise, then you abandon your point and say look at the thread title. If you appreciate Tolkien you should want more people to read his stuff rather than just disagree with me for the sake of it.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-04-2003, 07:50 PM

I rather agree about wanting others to read it. (though I must say BB doesn't, all he cares about is that they watch the movies. They're better than the dumb ole books anyhow! :p)

But we do not disagree with you for the sake of it. We disagree with you because we have different views. Please try to understand, not everything revolves around you. :)

jerseydevil

06-04-2003, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I would like to welcome Curufinwe and applaud his contributions to this thread. You've made quite a number of dead-on points. I'm impressed. You're my new hero!

Well at least you have ONE hero on this board now. :p

But I would advise you not to get frustrated when these wild-eyed Purists don't understand you. The problem is that you are trying to engage in a LOGICAL debate. It's clear you haven't had much experience with Tolkien Purists.

Actually it's you who doesnt' understand how someone can hate the films yet be satisfied if they weren't a verbatim copy from the book. But that's because it seems as if you're too narrow minded to understand what I"m saying.

Case in point: jerseydevil. The guy tells you in one breath that he wasn't asking for a literal, page by page, interpretation of the story. Then in the next breath, he's telling you how the movie was ruined because of... why? ....(drumroll)... Jackson's way of using the campfire on Weathertop!

Sorry if you don't understand the difference between need to change a story for length - versus making meaningless changes.

azalea

06-04-2003, 10:03 PM

Everyone, a friendly reminder: please be considerate in your posts. Don't use words or phrases that are rude towards another person. I had to edit a couple of posts, and I hate to do that. Argue away if you want to keep it up, but watch yourselves -- I'd appreciate that. :)

jerseydevil

06-04-2003, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by azalea
Everyone, a friendly reminder: please be considerate in your posts. Don't use words or phrases that are rude towards another person. I had to edit a couple of posts, and I hate to do that. Argue away if you want to keep it up, but watch yourselves -- I'd appreciate that. :)
That's okay Azalea - they got to read how I felt in the end. :D

Earniel

06-05-2003, 03:00 AM

But I would advise you not to get frustrated when these wild-eyed Purists don't understand you. The problem is that you are trying to engage in a LOGICAL debate. It's clear you haven't had much experience with Tolkien Purists.
I'd say it takes one to know one. If those who posted here and hate the movie can't debate logically, than the same goes for you. Understanding does not equal immediate agreement. Sorry if it offends you. But you can't expect a decent debate if you're constantly belittling Tolkien purists. Never heard about rule one in a intelligent debate? Attack the arguments not the people. Otherwise we'll end up giving poor Az a big headache here....

Black Breathalizer

06-05-2003, 07:53 AM

When the so-called Purists here bury their heads in the sand and ignore the massive, worldwide critical and commerical success of PJ's films and say things like "the movies are losing steam...many people I know don't plan to see ROTK because the first two were so bad", do you expect me and others to say that's logical?

Let's get real here.

Granted, many of the issues raised here are subjective and open to various interpretations. But Purists who want to be taken seriously here need to get serious themselves. Questioning the "true" popularity of movies that have made 1.7 billion dollars from the theatrical releases alone, truly strains their creditability.

We also have amble evidence of the classic Purist Catch-22.
1. Purist says: I'm not asking for a literal translation. Honest.
2. Purist offers character dialogue, moments, and book-to-film plot deviations that RUIN the movies.
3. It is pointed out to Purist that if his concerns were addressed to his satisfaction....low and behold...we would have a literal translation of Tolkien's books.
4. (Recycle back to No. 1)

Lizra

06-05-2003, 08:19 AM

Let's combine this thread, and the Evolution one and put them in a virtual hamster wheel. Label the new thread "Circular Hell for those who have nothing better to do." :rolleyes:

Cirdan

06-05-2003, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Lizra
Let's combine this thread, and the Evolution one and put them in a virtual hamster wheel. Label the new thread "Circular Hell for those who have nothing better to do." :rolleyes:

lol!. I had the exact same analogy running through my head about the evo. thread the other day. Same applies here. What the hell is "vision" anyway? Seems to equate to themes, apparently.

*listens to annoying squeak-squeak sound*

Baby-K

06-05-2003, 09:04 AM

Gwaimir Windgem

06-05-2003, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Cirdan
lol!. I had the exact same analogy running through my head about the evo. thread the other day. Same applies here. What the hell is "vision" anyway? Seems to equate to themes, apparently.

Quite so. Tolkien didn't write a collection of themes. He didn't make a message. He created a STORY. The themes are not what Lord of the Rings is about, but the story is.

azalea

06-05-2003, 03:53 PM

If I were to summarize LotR, this is how it would go:
Frodo Baggins, a hobbit of the Shire, inherits Bag End from Bilbo, along with the One Ring. Gandalf the wizard sends Frodo to Bree with the Ring, because it is clear to them that it cannot be hidden there, and something must be done about it. While Frodo and his servant Sam journey to Bree, joined by hobbits Merry and Pippin, Gandalf rides to Isengard, home of Saruman the White Wizard, to consult with him about what must be done, since he is the head of the order of wizards. While in Isengard, Gandalf discovers that Saruman has turned from the side of Good, and is imprisoned by him in the tower when he refuses to join with him.
Meanwhile, the hobbits, after having several adventures, arrive in Bree to discover that Gandalf is not there to meet them as promised. They meet Strider, a Ranger, who tells them he is a friend of Gandalf, assists the hobbits by guiding them to Rivendell, where he knows the Ring will be safe from the Dark forces for a time. On the way, Frodo receives a wound from one of the Nazgul, agents of the Dark Lord Sauron, who is seeking to regain the One Ring.
In Rivendell, Frodo recovers from his wound, but we find that he will never fully heal from it. Gandalf has escaped from Orthanc with the help of his friend the eagle Gwaihir. In Rivendell, a council is held, at which members of each of three races of Middle Earth -- the elves, dwarves, and men -- tell their stories and try to decide what should be done about the Ring. It must be destroyed, but it will be a next to impossible task, and the mighty may not attempt it due to the risk of corruption by the Ring. The wearer risks being enticed to use the Ring, and would inevitably turn toward evil ends, and then be faced with contesting Sauron, who will risk all to regain the Ring to turn ME into his dominion. Finally, Frodo volunteers to take it, and along with eight companions (Gandalf; Strider, who we know come to know as Aragorn, heir to the throne of the land of Gondor; Legolas the elf; Gimli the dwarf; Boromir, son of the Steward of Gondor; and the three other hobbits), he sets out from Rivendell on the long and perilous journey to Mordor, the only place where the Ring may be destroyed.
After attempting to cross the mountains to the east and almost perishing, the company enters Moria, the ancient realm of dwarves. On the journey they discover that Moria has been overrun by orcs, and all the dwarves have been killed. After battling the orcs themselves, the company barely escapes Moria due to a Balrog, an ancient demon, who has awakened. Gandalf battles the Balrog and in the process they both fall from the bridge into the abyss. The company must exit Moria without Gandalf and continue on to Lothlorien, realm of the elves Galadriel and Celeborn. Galadriel is a very powerful elf, and there the members of the company are able to rest and rejuvinate. Galadriel reveals herself to Frodo as the keeper of one of the three Elf Rings of Power.
We continue to see that Frodo is increasingly feeling the evil effects of the One Ring.
The Fellowship leaves Lorien and travels down the Great River. Aragorn has assumed the leadership role in Gandalf's stead, and tries to lead the company as he believes Gandalf would have. They are constantly trying to avoid all forces of evil, who are working to take the Ring back to Sauron, and also they are pursued by Gollum, the creature who possessed the Ring before Bilbo found it many years ago and wants to possess it again. Boromir desires that the Ring be brought to Gondor to aid in its battle against Mordor, the forces of which are moving against it, as well as the other free realms of ME. But Aragorn knows the Ring must be destroyed in Mordor, as per Gandalf's council. While the Fellowship stops to rest, Frodo asks to have time to himself to ponder the decision of which path to take -- the one to Gondor or to Mordor. While he is thinking, Boromir confronts him and tries to take the Ring. Frodo escapes, and realizes that he must go on alone to Mordor to destroy the Ring, lest the Ring fall into the wrong hands. As he sets off alone, Sam discovers him and insists on accompanying him.
Meanwhile, orcs have beset the rest of the Fellowship. After a terrible battle, Boromir is killed defending Merry and Pippin, who despite that are taken away by the orcs. After the other three discover that Frodo and Sam have set off on their own, Aragorn leads Legolas and Gimli in pusuit of the orcs to try to save Merry and Pippin.
(end of Fellowship portion -- continued on next post)
(edit I took something out and changed a couple of words)

azalea

06-05-2003, 04:28 PM

After sending Boromir down the river on a funeral raft, the three pursuers are led to the land of Rohan, having concluded that the orcs are taking Merry and Pippin to Isengard, which lies beyond. By this time it has been guessed that Saruman desires the Ring for himself.
Merry and Pippin in the meantime are alive, and manage to escape from the orcs into Fangorn Forest. There they meet Treebeard, an ent, who takes care of them. As they converse with Treebeard, it becomes clear that Saruman must be stopped, the ents being especially concerned because Saruman has been destroying the forest.
We discover that Gandalf is alive and more powerful than before his battle with the Balrog. He takes Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli to the King of Rohan, in hopes of getting him to battle Saruman lest Rohan be defeated by him. The king, Theoden, leads his army to Helm's Deep, where they are attacked by the forces of Isengard. With the help of the ents, Rohan is victorious. The ents march on Isengard and destroy all that Saruman has built with the waters of the River Isen. Gandalf leads a company from Helm's Deep to Isengard, which includes Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, and Theoden. They meet up with the two hobbits, and then Gandalf confronts Saruman, who has been stripped of his power. During the confrontation, Wormtongue, a traitor from Rohan, formerly the King's advisor, throws out of a window of Orthanc, a palantir, an object with the power to see things far away. Pippin retrieves it and gives it to Gandalf. But he desires to use the palantir, so he secretly takes it and looks into it. Sauron himself looks back at him through it. Gandalf finds him and hurries with him to Gondor, because he knows Sauron will send the Nazgul to get Pippin, who he thinks is the hobbit who has the Ring.
Meanwhile, Frodo and Sam are trying to make their way to the land of Mordor. Gollum, who has continued his pursuit, tries to attack them to get the Ring, but they are prepared and overcome him. Frodo decides not to kill him, but to use him as a guide. They discover that it would be impossible to enter Mordor throught the front gate, but Gollum tells them he will lead them in through a back way. On the way there, they encounter Faramir and his men, who are helping to hold Gondor against the evil forces that beset it. Faramir is the younger brother of Boromir, and the hobbits learn from him of Boromir's death. Faramir, upon hearing of Boromir's fall to the temptation of the Ring, decides to allow the hobbits to resume their journey to destroy the Ring. After capturing Gollum, Faramir and his men allow him to go with the hobbits as their guide once more. However, Gollum feels betrayed by Frodo's part in the capture after his faithful service to him. He leads them through a passage at the border of Mordor, but in the passage lies a giant spider, very powerful, who tries to capture and devour the hobbits. Samwise defeats the spider, but thinks that Frodo has been killed. He then takes the Ring in hopes of destroying it himself, but then decides that he must go back to Frodo. When he does, he discovers by overhearing some orcs that Frodo is actually "alive, but taken by the enemy."

(Good stuff, eh?;) )
Continued on next post...
(edit I changed a couple of words)

azalea

06-05-2003, 04:56 PM

So if I look back at my summary, I can see that all of the main points of the story have been included in Jackson's movie, with some differences that I'll address:
My summary goes in a slightly different order at times (as in when background info is revealed, and the like).
I too found that I skipped over The Old Forest and Bombadil. I LOVED those parts in the book, and if I had done the movie I would have found a way to include them if I could, but in my summary, I found those parts skippable.
I ended up not even mentioning Arwen at all. I would have included her in a movie, but not to the same extent as PJ did.
A noteable difference -- Frodo is given the choice to decide whether or not they will go to Mordor or Gondor, whereas in the movie Aragorn makes the decision himself. Also, of course, everyone in the movie knows Frodo is leaving, whereas in the book they only find out later. But the main point here is that THEY LEAVE. The changes J makes are unecessary, but minor enough that they do not affect the plot.
The Treebeard stuff is noteably different in my summary. I am hoping that we'll get some satisfaction in the EE, but I certainly would have included more of the it in the main movie. This episode stretches the limits of change in the movie, but in the end we have the ents destroying Isengard, and Rohan victorious. Notice how my summary says nothing of Eowyn at this point? Hmm, interesting. But think about it, the whole releasing Theoden from Saruman's influence scene has but one goal (main plot-wise) -- to get him off his keister and into battle with Saruman's forces. Again, I personally would have done it all MUCH differently, but we get the same end result.
Likewise, the Faramir incident (one of my main disappointments with TTT) plays out differently in my summary, but in the end we still get Faramir letting Frodo, Sam and Gollum go on their way.
Since the last 3 or four chapters of each book in TTT has been moved to the next film, we can't make a comparison of them yet, but I really hope he includes a lot of what I had in my summary (Pippin and the palantir, etc.). I think what I wrote about were the important main points of the story, but even deviations from that are passable if we still come to the same conclusion in each episode that has been included.
I think based on my summary, PJ did in fact tell the story of The Lord of the Rings in his movies thus far, despite omissions, changes, and unnecessary additions. I loved the movies, and I'm sure I'll also love RotK, after being irked by whatever changes he makes. ;)
(edit -- clarification)

Black Breathalizer

06-05-2003, 08:58 PM

Thanks, azalea. Great summary and thoughts.

By the way, when will the EE versions of your last three posts come out? ;)

Ruinel

06-05-2003, 10:14 PM

Some of us are enjoying chasing our tails. If you do not like running around in circles, get off the Merry-Go-Round. Posting at this thread is optional. ;) :D

Ruinel

06-05-2003, 10:17 PM

Case in point: jerseydevil. The guy tells you in one breath that he wasn't asking for a literal, page by page, interpretation of the story. Then in the next breath, he's telling you how the movie was [i]ruined because of... why? ....(drumroll)... Jackson's way of using the campfire on Weathertop!

Thanks, jerseydevil. Your arguements always crack me up! :D :D :D [/B]
Did you NOT read the book? Hello!?

Black Breathalizer

06-12-2003, 02:07 PM

I'm checking in while spending a couple of relaxing, Purist whining-free, weeks on the warm, sunny beaches of North Carolina... :)

This morning's USA Today had an article about a sneak peek at the TTT Extended DVD. It reported the extended version has a great deal more of Faramir, Boromir and introduces Denethor. The writer of the article mentions the extended version puts Faramir's behavior in the TTT theatrical release in a different light. As I predicted last January, I suspect that the extend DVD of TTT and the ROTK film will give all of you Faramir naysayers out there a different tune to sing.

See you later...

(You see a dark hooded Ringwraith wearing swimming trunks and carrying a beachball leave the internet cafe and head off towards the beach.)

Elf Girl

06-12-2003, 09:04 PM

You know BB, if you don't like 'Purist whining', you could leave the board, or at least the thread. This is where the purists whine. Live with it. I don't like Britney Spears, but I don't run around their forums trashing her.

Black Breathalizer

06-14-2003, 10:35 AM

That's the problem with you purists, you take EVERYTHING so darn literally. Please notice the smiley face after my "whining" comment.

I'm sticking around this board because after the TTT Extended DVD and the ROTK threatrical release and Extended DVD, I want to be here when you Purists sheepishly admit that you were dead wrong about these films. :D

Lizra

06-14-2003, 10:52 AM

I've been watching TTT more, and it's beginning to grow on me. If I could just stay awake through the whole thing though! Watching movies after the kids FINALLY go to bed is rough! They really need that "Smeagol/Deagol in the boat" flashback in there when Frodo calls him Smeagol for the first time. I wish they would just cut some battle scenes and eliminate the action oriented theatrical release. I prefer the extended editions with more Middle Earth "lore".

Elf Girl

06-14-2003, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
That's the problem with you purists, you take EVERYTHING so darn literally. Please notice the smiley face after my "whining" comment.
O yes, I understand. I was referring to your tone in general, not merely that post.

Ruinel

06-15-2003, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
That's the problem with you purists, you take EVERYTHING so darn literally.
Don't worry, it's been quite entertaining reading your hero worship for PJ. I never knew anyone could be so deeply in love with the fat bastard, till I met you. :)
...I want to be here when you Purists sheepishly admit that you were dead wrong about these films. :D
That will never happen. :) :D At least you will not hear if from me. Maybe someone like... Wayfarer, maybe, ;) but not me. :D

If I might provide a suggestion though, hold your breath until the Extended Edition DVDs come out... then maybe I'll consider it. :) Ready, set.... go! :D

jerseydevil

06-15-2003, 03:36 PM

BB - the extended editions are NOT the movie. The movie is what what was in the theater. Jackson CHOSE to cut those scenes out of the movie. Also - no matter what they do to Faramir - there is no excuse for him dragging Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath or having the Nazgul 2 feet from Frodo and the Ring and then flying off.

I'm not really offended by your purists comments - because your just a movie hack. Jackson butchered the books when he made the movies. You may like getting spooon fed the story - or maybe it's the fact that you just don't have the mental capacity to handle a movie that isn't spoon fed - but I don't. The books were dumbed down. They're the Reader's Digest "Reader's Digest" version of them. Sometimes I think that what Jackson used as a reference was a The Lord of the Rings Cliff Notes - surely with the weathertop scene he couldn't haev read the books. That scene is an example of a change which had no meaning. There was no reason for that change other than to add additional action.

As I rerpeatedly said - Lord of the Rings could have truly been a great movie - if it wasn't reduced down to a series of Hollywood cliches and a series of action sequences.

Melko Belcha

06-15-2003, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I'm sticking around this board because after the TTT Extended DVD and the ROTK threatrical release and Extended DVD, I want to be here when you Purists sheepishly admit that you were dead wrong about these films. :D

It won't happen because unless he completely refilms TTT it will never be LotR. TTT got way to far away from the story and is impossible to fix no matter how much addition stuff he puts into the EE.

And the EE edition of TTT will probably piss me off just like the Fellowship EE did, when I saw that great scenes from the book were cut out of the theater release for pointless additional action scenes.

Even if RotK is 100% faithfull to the book as it can be it will not save the films because of the horrible job on TTT. And because of TTT I will be even more picky about RotK, I will be sure to complain about every change, from dialoge to scenery. TTT made me loose all hope of this story ever being told respectfully on the big screen.

Earniel

06-15-2003, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I'm sticking around this board because after the TTT Extended DVD and the ROTK threatrical release and Extended DVD, I want to be here when you Purists sheepishly admit that you were dead wrong about these films. :D

Your confidence in Jackson is admirable though it leans towards blind faith, even if you posted that comment just to get the purists worked up again.

But I'd wait until the movie actually gets out before I start gloating if I were you. The TTT extended edition and RoTK will have to make a couple of serious tricks and plotjumps before it can make Faramir's out-of-character-ness (among other things) plausible. Jackson won't find that task easy.

Oh, I'm sure that the battle before the gates of Minas Tirith will no doubt be visually stunning. But somehow I fear that since TTT already swerved away from the path of the book, RoTK will go completely off track and I believe the movie will lose much because of that.

But we'll see. At least I'm willing to adjust my views if RoTK does exceed my expectations. And I seriously hope it does. I want to like RoTK especially since TTT was rather a disappointment.

Sheeana

06-15-2003, 05:47 PM

The only thing that's going to be sheepish are my sheeply sheep minions. :p

Gwaimir Windgem

06-15-2003, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by Eärniel
I want to like RoTK especially since TTT was rather a disappointment.

So do I. I would love it if he made an about face with RotK. But rumours don't sound too good. :(

By the way, BoP, those minions never did make it to knock off my co-worker. :mad:

Baa.

Sheeana

06-16-2003, 02:18 AM

Ah stupid things. :mad:

Agalayth

06-16-2003, 07:16 AM

I think the movies were great movies, just not great Lord of the Rings movies. They're inaccurate and completely unlike the books, but that doesn't mean they're bad movies.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-16-2003, 12:54 PM

As movies, I thought that they were quite Hollywood. Rather above-average Hollywood, possibly acheiving the rank of "good" but not "great" to me, particularly in the literal meaning. The visuals were astounding, the CGI was great, the props were amazing. There were some "plot holes", though. Most of which involved Merry and Pippin. ;)

Black Breathalizer

06-17-2003, 11:17 AM

The mere fact that we are debating whether the movies are classics BEFORE ROTK comes out is a real testament to Peter Jackson. You Tolkien literalists are fighting a losing battle--and the best part is that in your heart you know it!!! :D

By the way, those of you who delight in making snide, "dumbed down Tolkien" remarks about the film's screenplays need to realize what your comments are really telling us. You may think you're showing how much more intelligent you are than the rest of us simple-minded movie-goers. But instead all you do is show off your own ignorance about cinema and the art of screenplay writing.

Cirdan

06-17-2003, 11:49 AM

He's tan, he's rested, he's still insane.

So let me get this straight. You say that the movies are classics (or will be), someone else says no, and this, in the great scheme of things, is a "real testament" to PJ? My, you do think highly of yourself!

jerseydevil

06-17-2003, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The mere fact that we are debating whether the movies are classics BEFORE ROTK comes out is a real testament to Peter Jackson. You Tolkien literalists are fighting a losing battle--and the best part is that in your heart you know it!!! :D

How are we fighting a losing battle? Personally I don't care if you keep kissing jackson's a$$. I'm not fighting any battle. I just don't like the movies.

By the way, those of you who delight in making snide, "dumbed down Tolkien" remarks about the film's screenplays need to realize what your comments are really telling us. You may think you're showing how much more intelligent you are than the rest of us simple-minded movie-goers. But instead all you do is show off your own ignorance about cinema and the art of screenplay writing.
Actually if YOU knew anything about movies - you would see how they are dumbed down. My sister worked in Hollywood for a PR firm. The number of hollywood cliches used in the movies are amazing. Just like in FotR - where Jackson used Merry and Pippin for comic relief, then he needed another character to replace them for the comic relief - so he chose Gimli. It's so transparent much of it - it's rididulous.

Obviously you have just been taken in by the hype. Much of the camera work - such as the overworking of the slow-motion was also very cliched. Shadowfax running over the hill when Gandalf called him reminded me of a beer commercial - particularly the Budweiser commercials when they use the Clydesdales.

mithrand1r

06-17-2003, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
. . .
Obviously you have just been taken in by the hype. Much of the camera work - such as the overworking of the slow-motion was also very cliched. Shadowfax running over the hill when Gandalf called him reminded me of a beer commercial - particularly the Budweiser commercials when they use the Clydesdales.

Actually, that is a sure sign of the greatness of PJ&CO.
Shadowfax is the "King of horses" and Budweisser is the "King of Beers". If this is not an improvement over that hack of a writer Tolkein, ;) then I do not know greatness when I see it. :):D

You cannot miss the symbolism that PJ&CO is bringing to people around the world. The next time you sit down to watch PJ&CO version of LOTR, just pop open a beer and think about the symbolism that Tolkein could written if he as good a writer as PJ is a producer. ;)

Gwaimir Windgem

06-17-2003, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
1) The mere fact that we are debating whether the movies are classics BEFORE ROTK comes out is a real testament to Peter Jackson. 2) You Tolkien literalists are fighting a losing battle--and the best part is that in your heart you know it!!! :D

1) Debating? There's no debate. Certain lunatics-who-shall-remain-unnamed (;)) made ridiculous claims that PJ's movies are classics, i.e. works that HAVE STOOD the test of time before the last one is even out. Certain intellectual-apprentice-loremasters-who-shall-remain-unnamed (;)) pointed out how the statement was erroneous. This does not equal a debate. :p

2) -throws a piece of bread to the local madman- ;)

Elf Girl

06-17-2003, 06:56 PM

*waves piece of paper* Petition to boycott this thread, anyone? BB is clearly a loony if he claims to know what we feel 'in our heart'.

hectorberlioz

06-23-2003, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by Lizra
If that's it, then I think you are exaggerating a bit. :rolleyes:

boob flashing? you mean arwen wearing a see through dress when she's kissing aragorn( you dont see anything)( much)
-hectorberlioz

Lizra

06-23-2003, 08:08 PM

A see through dress that really doesn't show anything! :)

jerseydevil

06-23-2003, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
boob flashing? you mean arwen wearing a see through dress when she's kissing aragorn( you dont see anything)( much)

Sorry - but Lizra is right. That was purposely done the way it was so you would see some flesh - even though she's clothed (barely). It is PURELY a nipple scene. One of the many hollywood cliches. The cameras just happens to pan down and do a close up of her pendant - which just happens to include her breast in the shot. Very unTolkien in my opinion - but very Hollywood. :rolleyes:

By the way - I couldn't tell if that was a dress or a nightgown. Pure Hollywood titillation though - in the true sense of the word. :)

jerseydevil

06-23-2003, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
As movies, I thought that they were quite Hollywood. Rather above-average Hollywood, possibly acheiving the rank of "good" but not "great" to me, particularly in the literal meaning. The visuals were astounding, the CGI was great, the props were amazing. There were some "plot holes", though. Most of which involved Merry and Pippin. ;)
I agree. Whether you compare the movies to the REAL Lord of the Rings or just as stand alone movies - I feel Jackson concentrated on the eye-candy aspects. They were good action fantasy films - not much else.

hectorberlioz

06-23-2003, 11:12 PM

What would be better? a good adaptation? or a good film?. It would be nice to have both, especially something tolkien wrote. As the perfect was not produced im still for both.not all thoe who wander are lost-from bilbos poem ;)

Melko Belcha

06-24-2003, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
What would be better? a good adaptation? or a good film?. It would be nice to have both, especially something tolkien wrote. As the perfect was not produced im still for both. ;)

And what makes you think a good adaptation would not make a good movie? Why does a story that has been loved by millions around the world and held in high regards need to be changed just because it is told visualy instead of on paper?

Tolkien's work is a masterpiece, and not just for books, but for stories in general.

But some people feel that the movie audience is to brain dead to enjoy a good story without a ton of action and characters who are no more the comic relief.

I would rather have no movie then the disgrace PJ has done to a brilliant story. He either did not care about the story or had no respect for the author and his fans.

LutraMage

06-29-2003, 07:17 AM

Well, I've read hours of the stuff on this thread (in the end I had to give up - 881 Posts is just too much to read in one lifetime)!:)

By the end of it I can come to a firm decision - A plague on both your houses!:p

Lizra

06-29-2003, 09:12 AM

Well...you get an "A" for effort LutraMage! (plus you have the coolest avatar on the moot! )

LutraMage

06-29-2003, 10:08 AM

Lizra, why thank you very much :o wasn't expecting any compliments, but all the more grateful for that. May the Light of Earendil's Star forever illuminate your path.:D Raises Wizard's hat to Lady and bows.

Black Breathalizer

07-07-2003, 08:50 AM

Last night I reread Shadow of the Past and found myself becoming very uncomfortable when Gandalf picked up the Ring. I was like, "no, no, no, Gandalf...you can't do that!"

It's interesting how Peter Jackson's wonderful LOTR movies are changing the way we view the source material now. What I once viewed as simply odd, I now view as a big mistake on Tolkien's part. The ring is altogether evil and made with Sauron's own blood and fused with much of his power. Gandalf would never have touched it, let alone hold it in his hand.

Lizra

07-07-2003, 09:05 AM

Your vacation turned you into a real "comedian" eh! That's pretty rich BB. ;) It seems you have become BBB....Brainwashed Black Breathalizer! My Goodness! :eek:

MasterMothra

07-07-2003, 11:51 AM

i am going to go on the record and say that Black Breathalizer is dumb.

To illustrate my point, I would encourage any Mooter who would argue that Black Breathalizer is not dumb to please provide specific examples of plot deviations that CHANGED THE UNDERLYING THEMES of my main post.
:)

Black Breathalizer

07-07-2003, 12:08 PM

So you are going to tell me with a straight face that it's okay for Gandalf to be playing with the ring?!?!??!!?

Peter Jackson isn't perfect, but neither was The Master.

jerseydevil

07-07-2003, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
So you are going to tell me with a straight face that it's okay for Gandalf to be playing with the ring?!?!??!!?

Peter Jackson isn't perfect, but neither was The Master.
It was a fictional book. Tolkien could do anything since he WROTE the book. You may think that Gandalf couldn't touch the ring - but your opinion really doesn't matter. It's Tolkien that matters.

And yes - I think that for a short time - Gandalf could touch the ring. The only reason why Jackson had Tolkien not touch the Ring was becuase as with EVERYTHING he needed to make it over the top.

BB - I have come to the conclusion that Jackson's movies have brainwashed you. Obviiously that must be the case if you think that Jackson's opinion of what can and can't happen in TOLKIEN'S Middle Earth - supersedes Tolkien's writing.

Black Breathalizer

07-07-2003, 01:59 PM

The litmus test for any discussion about "right" or "wrong" in Middle Earth is the whole notion of "keeping it realistic" given the fantasy parameters that JRR Tolkien established.

Given these standards, it makes much more sense that that a wizard as powerful as Gandalf wouldn't have wanted to even touch the ring. In this situation, Jackson presented a stronger and more compelling case for the way the ring should have been handled.

Saying that whatever Tolkien originally wrote has become Law and is undebatable is nothing more than intellectual laziness.

jerseydevil

07-07-2003, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The litmus test for any discussion about "right" or "wrong" in Middle Earth is the whole notion of "keeping it realistic" given the fantasy parameters that JRR Tolkien established.

Given these standards, it makes much more sense that that a wizard as powerful as Gandalf wouldn't have wanted to even touch the ring. In this situation, Jackson presented a stronger and more compelling case for the way the ring should have been handled.

Saying that whatever Tolkien originally wrote has become Law and is undebatable is nothing more than intellectual laziness.
Why do you think that Gandalf couldn't even TOUCH the Ring? It was powerful - but it did NOT corrupt immediately - so what is the problem with him touching it for just a second? Gandalf was also not human - so he didn't have the same frailities of man.

azalea

07-07-2003, 02:10 PM

I understand why PJ made the Ring a very "all or nothing" type power, because he had to demonstrate in a short amount of time its properties/ qualities in a very dramatic way. But Tolkien created the Ring to be subtle -- and that is why I maintain that corruption by the Ring is not an instantaneous occurance. It draws "weaker" beings in immediately (ie, desiring to possess it), but doesn't immediately make them "evil" or what have you. Gandalf, being very powerful and also knowing a lot about "magic" rings, would be able to touch it and not be compromised (I think that's the word I'm looking for). It is only if he were to become the "owner" that he would feel its draw more and more, and then over time be corrupted by it so that he would be tempted to use it, thereby causing the spiral into "evil" use.

Again, the Ring itself is subtle and works its change over time, but in the movie, it had to be more dramatic to allow the unknowing viewer to understand both the extent of its power AND why Gandalf or another being of power couldn't just do the deed himself. However, I of course much prefer the "book way," and of course I think there are other avenues that could have been taken in a film version to demonstrate the same things I mentioned above. I love the movies, but will never be joining the "J improved T" club.:)

jerseydevil

07-07-2003, 02:22 PM

i agree Azalea - hence the dumbing down of the books and spoonfeeding the audience. It could have been much more suspenseful about the dangers of the Ring if it was done like the books - but Jackson basically just lays it all out there and makes it all very black and white.

Cirdan

07-07-2003, 02:30 PM

Wasn't there an aspect of the ring that made it a problem to take it from the owner, but the aspect of it being given by the owner was ominous? That subtly was left out of the b&w version of the ring in the movie. I didn't think the change was very significant, good or bad. Just a minor detail.

MasterMothra

07-07-2003, 02:50 PM

"So you are going to tell me with a straight face that it's okay for Gandalf to be playing with the ring?!?!??!!?

Peter Jackson isn't perfect, but neither was The Master."

are you for real, or just trying to cause a scene? of course its ok for gandalf to play with the ring. you know why? cause TOLKIEN WROTE IT THAT WAY. and last time i looked, tolkien, not PJ, wrote LotR and everything else that has to do with middle earth.

here, let me simplify it for you:

who created the character of gandalf? Tolkien

who created the concept of "the one ring"? Tolkien

who created the situation where gandalf touches the ring? Tolkien

who created the whole concept of the LotR in vivid detail? Tolkien

what did PJ create? a movie about LotR

who's opinion would you trust more; pj or Tolkien?

Lizra

07-07-2003, 03:04 PM

Having Gandalf touch the ring and not freak only shows what a awesome wizard he is! (IMO) Gandalf the Great! :D

Black Breathalizer

07-07-2003, 08:01 PM

Whether or not the ring would have had an impact by Gandalf merely touching or holding it is certainly open to debate. But would the Gandalf we've grown to know from reading the books over and over have handled the ring the way Tolkien wrote in Chapter Two? I'm not so sure. Loooooooooooong before the movies came out, I thought Gandalf handling the ring was odd and seemed to contradict the way he dealt with the ring at Bilbo's departure and the way he talked about it in Bag End and at the Council of Elrond.

I would also like to address MasterMathra's rant. First, we all know who wrote LOTR. But once the story was retold on radio, then in Bakshi's movie, and now PJ's movies, the story became our modern-day version of mythic storytelling. Just like there are numerous "versions" of King Arthur's tale or the Greek and Roman myths, there are now variations on "what really happened" long ago in the lands of Middle Earth.

Mythology isn't about copyright ownership, it's about the mindset of the story's fans. Yes, the Tolkien estate OWNS the novels, but they don't own the imaginations of LOTR fans around the world.

It's funny, when SW: The Phantom Menace came out, legions of fans expressed outrage at George Lucas for "selling out" his series and not staying true to what made the original trilogy great. There were others that said, "What are you talking about?!?!? GL owns Star Wars, he can do with it what he damn well pleases." But as is the case of all beloved stories, the fans have their own voice and their own power. If anyone disagrees with me on this, remember what happened to the Highlander series after the disaster that was Highlander 2. Basically, Highlander fans told the writers with their voices -- and their wallets -- that they blew it. The producers of the series listened and then proceeded on with developing a Highlander 3 movie as if Highlander 2 had never even existed.

I think there are some very interesting points to discuss between Tolkien's original version and Jackson's. But if the Purist response is: "Tolkien wrote it...that's all there is to it...end of story, " why bother even posting here??? All it does is cut off any interesting discussion about which approach is more realistic and works best for a movie adaptation. This is a movie discussion board, not a Book Purist Endoctrination Camp for crying out loud.

jerseydevil

07-07-2003, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I would also like to address MasterMathra's rant. First, we all know who wrote LOTR. But once the story was retold on radio, then in Bakshi's movie, and now PJ's movies, the story became our modern-day version of mythic storytelling. Just like there are numerous "versions" of King Arthur's tale or the Greek and Roman myths, there are now variations on "what really happened" long ago in the lands of Middle Earth.

It's not the same. King Arthur was an ORAL legend - not a written book. Same with many of the Greek and Roman myths. You can not compare them and it is ridiculous that you try.

Mythology isn't about copyright ownership, it's about the mindset of the story's fans. Yes, the Tolkien estate OWNS the novels, but they don't own the imaginations of LOTR fans around the world.

So does that mean that whatever anyone choices to say about Middle Earth would be acceptable? Does that mean we can just start adding new creatures? Maybe someone can do movie of Middle Earth where the elves are actually aliens from another planet.

It's funny, when SW: The Phantom Menace came out, legions of fans expressed outrage at George Lucas for "selling out" his series and not staying true to what made the original trilogy great. There were others that said, "What are you talking about?!?!? GL owns Star Wars, he can do with it what he damn well pleases." But as is the case of all beloved stories, the fans have their own voice and their own power. If anyone disagrees with me on this, remember what happened to the Highlander series after the disaster that was Highlander 2. Basically, Highlander fans told the writers with their voices -- and their wallets -- that they blew it. The producers of the series listened and then proceeded on with developing a Highlander 3 movie as if Highlander 2 had never even existed.

Under both of these you are talking about a work in progress. Lord of the Rings is finished. What Tolkien wrote is what he wrote.

As for George Lucas and the Star Wars Series - Star War (episode IV) - was good. After that - they progressively became more and more cartoon like and hollywoodized.

I think there are some very interesting points to discuss between Tolkien's original version and Jackson's. But if the Purist response is: "Tolkien wrote it...that's all there is to it...end of story, " why bother even posting here??? All it does is cut off any interesting discussion about which approach is more realistic and works best for a movie adaptation. This is a movie discussion board, not a Book Purist Endoctrination Camp for crying out loud.
Well it's not kiss jackson's a$$ forum. either. :rolleyes: I think the movies aree pretty much crap. Even if they weren't associated with tolkien - I would think they were only average except for the scenary. The movie is cliched and I do not think it is a good interpretation of Tolkien's books. You may disagree - and that your opinion. My opinion is that you basically would like to see a simplistic movie and accept hollywood's arrogant attitude that the audience is too dumb to understand it without having everything spelled out.

cassiopeia

07-07-2003, 11:45 PM

Regarding Gandalf handling the Ring in the book, he holds it for perhaps twenty seconds at most, not long enough to be corrupted, especially considering he's a maia. And Gandalf handling the Ring has an important function: he throws it into the fire to confirm that it is actually the One Ring. Frodo had it in his breeches-pocket; it was not in an envelope like in the movie. I have no problem with that scene from the book.

Cirdan

07-08-2003, 01:28 AM

Well, considering it was 17 years before the growning evil of the ring was realized, oh, and that the ring was on a chain when Gandalf handled it, it's not at all inappropriate.

azalea

07-08-2003, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Cirdan
it was 17 years before the growning evil of the ring was realized

That's a really good point, and also is a reason why Jackson did it the way he did, because it was happening right then in the movie.

Black Breathalizer

07-08-2003, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by Cirdan
Well, considering it was 17 years before the growning evil of the ring was realized, oh, and that the ring was on a chain when Gandalf handled it, it's not at all inappropriate. This is a good point and I guess I would agree with the comments that simply touching or holding it wouldn't corrupt a maia.

But I still question that Gandalf would have intentionally handled a ring that he thought might be The One Ring that included Sauron's own blood and part of his life force.

Gwaimir Windgem

07-13-2003, 01:13 AM

Maybe it's just me, but this seems like something that should have it's own topic, probably in the Book forum, as it debates the actions of Gandalf in the book. I think it is an interesting thought, and one that could be delved into more in what could be an interesting debate. Although, of course, Cirdan might have just finalized it by mentioning the chain, but if not, I think this could be an interesting topic.

Entlover

07-13-2003, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer

But once the story was retold on radio, then in Bakshi's movie, and now PJ's movies, the story became our modern-day version of mythic storytelling. Just like there are numerous "versions" of King Arthur's tale or the Greek and Roman myths, there are now variations on "what really happened" long ago in the lands of Middle Earth.

Mythology isn't about copyright ownership, it's about the mindset of the story's fans. Yes, the Tolkien estate OWNS the novels, but they don't own the imaginations of LOTR fans around the world.

Related to this, there's an article here (http://slate.msn.com/id/80225/) that discusses how, in the absence of an oral literature, sometimes modern literature, TV and other art are "taken over" by the masses (that's us) in an attempt to make them their own. The relevant comments are in the middle of the article.
(warning: links to some garbage that's not PG rated.)

mithrand1r

07-13-2003, 08:09 PM

Here are the excerpts if you do not wish to read the entire article.

. . .

But this condescension misses the point. In his superb Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture, MIT's Jenkins argues that fanfic represents a flowering of modern folk culture. For thousands of years, we have shared stories about mythical popular heroes, from Prometheus to Paul Bunyan to Brer Rabbit. Each storyteller embellished the tale, inventing characters, adding details, rewriting the ending. In the 20th century, however, folk culture has been privatized. The characters we share today are TV icons and movie heroes. Paul Bunyan has been supplanted by Xena. These characters don't belong to the public. They are literally owned by studios and producers, who run the character's "life" and expect us to accept their decisions gratefully.

Fan fiction rebels against the private folk culture, Jenkins argues. Writers reclaim folk heroes by creating new stories about them. They embellish the myth. Viewed through Jenkins' lens, a fanfic writer keen on Capt. Jean Luc Picard is no different from a 19th-century folksinger who paid tribute to John Henry. Fanfic writers assert control over a pop culture designed to be passively consumed. "I wanted to make the show mine," explains Kat of her Friends fanfics, echoing the battle cry of fan writers. By writing fics about Monica and Chandler, Kat is insisting that they belong to her as much as to NBC. Fan fiction puts the pop back in popular culture.

Writing fanfic, Jenkins argues, is an act of "fascination and frustration." Writers are fascinated by the characters but frustrated at the cavalier way producers treat them. Fanfic is a "way of repairing the damage done to the core mythology by producers who mess up. The fanfic folk culture pulls it back into realignment." When producers make a beloved character disappear or end a love affair that should continue, fanfic restores the mythology. "Even though I love Buffy the Vampire Slayer, there are times when the show doesn't go my way. So I use fanfic to create the outcome I want," says Buffy fanfic writer Carrie Cook. The actor George Clooney has left ER for a movie career, but fanfic writers adore his character, Doug Ross. They also know that Doug and Nurse Carol Hathaway belong together. So they write story after story about the characters' continuing romance. (The Clooney/Ross split highlights the first commandment of fanfic: Thou shalt not write about real people. Click here for why.)

. . .

But fear is mounting among fans that the studios are getting too pushy. Lucasfilm lit a brushfire last month when it offered fans free pages on its cherished www.starwars.com site. Fans would be allowed to post all their Star Wars hagiography there, including stories, songs, messages to other fans, and essays. But the small print says that Lucasfilm retains all copyright to anything placed on the site. If I were to write a great story about how Anakin Skywalker becomes Darth Vader and post it on my starwars.com fan page, George Lucas would own my idea.

Lucasfilm is flexing this muscle for obvious reasons. It fears a lawsuit by some fan claiming that Lucas stole her plot for his next movie. But fans believe Lucas has gone too far and have launched an online rebellion. Their complaints resonate. They adore Lucas and his movies. But Star Wars is theirs, too. After all, they think about it, write about it, talk about it, and care about it as much as Lucas does. "Legally, it's theirs. But emotionally we feel we have a right to participate in the story," says Elizabeth Durack, a fanfic writer who is leading the starwars.com protest. Lucas jury-rigged Star Wars from a hundred myths that he heisted from Joseph Campbell. Fanfic writers are borrowing it back. They don't want a dime in return. They just want to be left alone to write their own, very modern myths.

It is interesting to say the least.

Black Breathalizer

08-04-2003, 05:52 PM

I've recently been reading about November's Expanded TTT DVD. From what I'm hearing, the extended version will put to rest the complaints that some people expressed here about the theatrical version:

Examples:

"Faramir was too mean" = Faramir gets more screen time and comes off much more like the Faramir from the books.

"Where the heck did Aragorn's rescue horse come from?" = The backstory regarding the horse Brego that rescues Aragorn is told in the extended version.

"The end story felt rushed." = The ending will be greatly expanded.

"How did Frodo, Sam, & Faramir's company get on the WEST side of the city?" = we'll actually see the hobbits leave the city through ancient storm sewers.

"What happened to Gimli and Legolas's competition?" = The conclusion will be shown in the extended DVD.

justaregularguy

08-04-2003, 09:47 PM

My first post.

After tracking this thread stealthily for longer than I care to admit, I finally registered specifically to say to you, BB - you go, Bro!

Somehow you've managed to stay focused and level in the face of considerable criticism, some of it inarguably over the top. That's one definition of class; I respect that.

At the risk of sounding like some sort of Buddha, so much of our suffering in life is nothing more than us wishing that what we've been given could have been something else, and therefore taking no joy in what is.

FWIW, had I directed LOTR, like so many others here, I'd also have choosen to adhere more closely to the books. But I didn't.

The movies are what they are. They please my family and me greatly. I move effortlessly between the books and the movies, digging each yet more for the other. :)

Black Breathalizer

08-04-2003, 10:43 PM

You rock, justaregularguy! Any guy who notices how classy I am is obviously a very intelligent and incredibly observant guy! :)

Part of my love of the LOTR films comes from being disappointed with so many movies in the past. Say what you will, these films have actually lived up to their hype. When the ROTK comes out and blows people away, this trilogy is going to go down as one of the best film series in the history of cinema.

IronParrot

08-04-2003, 11:06 PM

Part of my love of the LOTR films comes from being disappointed with so many movies in the past. Say what you will, these films have actually lived up to their hype. When the ROTK comes out and blows people away, this trilogy is going to go down as one of the best film series in the history of cinema.
If you look at cinematic qualities alone, without any regard for the source novel, this trilogy is already going down as one of the best film series in the history of cinema.

You'll notice that all the debate circulates around whether or not the films are faithful to the source. As far as filmmaking values go, the praise for LOTR has insofar been near unanimous - I cite scores little shy of 100% on Rotten Tomatoes as my evidence.

On the other hand, I don't think people are going to be unanimously blown away by ROTK, because the stumbling block of adaptation remains. The people who aren't happy now with what's changed are still going to be unhappy when they see the absence of what happens to the Shire.

I do not think this debate here - on the faithfulness of the films to the book - is directly connected to the LOTR films' inherent cinematic virtues.

Black Breathalizer

08-05-2003, 01:56 PM

We already know that the Scouring of the Shire is not part of ROTK. Tolkien fans who understand screenwriting and movie-making will give PJ a pass on it. Of course, we'll have some purists who will not.

But the scouring aside, Jackson has said that ROTK is the most faithful adaptation of all three films. If this is true, then it is hard to imagine even the most die-hard purist not at least acknowledging that this film series captured the spirit of Tolkien's great work.

Some people are going to always whine that Tom Bombadil and Glorfindel should have been included, but no adaptation could have pleased everybody. Frankly, it is hard for me to imagine any group of artists who could have produced a movie series adaptation of the LOTR better than Peter Jackson and company have.

Just think about it....PJ got Alan Lee and John Howe....he had a team that made models more lifelike than anything we've ever seen before....he had WETA put their hearts and souls into designing lifelike weapons, sets, and monsters.....he captured the magic of Middle-Earth through Howard Shore's amazing score....he brought together a near-perfect cast.....he filmed it in the perfect Middle-Earth, New Zealand. Now can anyone with a straight face really sit here and tell us that this film series wasn't true to Tolkien!?!?!? If you honestly believe these film-makers weren't passionate about being true to Tolkien's vision, then I'd love to see what your version of truth would be.

Entlover

08-05-2003, 04:44 PM

Re the Scouring of the Shire, there's an interesting discussion of that in Orson Scott Card's excellent book "Characters and Viewpoint", where he writes that there are 4 kinds of books, Milieu, Idea, Character and Event. LOTR is a milieu story. "It is the world itself that Tolkien cared most about, and so the audience for the story is going to be those readers who also come to love the world of Middle Earth."
"All the MICE factors are present in the LOTR, but it is the milieu structure that predominates, as it should. It would be absurd to criticize LOTR for not having plot unity and integrity, because it is not an event story. Likewise . . it is not a character story. . . .We should probably praise Tolkien for having done such a good job of working creditable story lines and the occasional identifiable character into a story that was, after all, about Something Else."
But PJ has turned it into an event story, which he had to do to meet his obligations I guess, so leaving out the Scouring makes sense -- it takes place after the main events have concluded.

azalea

08-05-2003, 10:08 PM

I really like that take on the matter.
The discussion of what kind of story LotR is reminds me of the talk about Boromir in the thread in the books forum. The argument is that Boromir could have been fleshed out better. But of course the defense is that with so many characters, fleshing them all out would cloud the storyline, what the tale is about. IMO, if a character needed to be fleshed out more, I would have chosen Aragorn over Boromir, but again, as you say, it's about something greater than any particular character (not to mention that the hobbits are the most important characters, so his focus is rightly on their development).

Black Breathalizer

10-19-2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Entlover
LOTR is a milieu story. "It is the world itself that Tolkien cared most about, and so the audience for the story is going to be those readers who also come to love the world of Middle Earth."
... it is not a character story. . . .We should probably praise Tolkien for having done such a good job of working creditable story lines and the occasional identifiable character into a story that was, after all, about Something Else."
Expanding on these thoughts a little further --- while I agree that Tolkien cared most about the world itself, especially its history and language, he also cared deeply about its people. But I suspect Tolkien viewed his characters more from a sociological perspective than a psychological one. He was more interested in group dynamics.

One of Tolkien's central themes was that peoples of different races, languages, and cultures who have historically been distrustful of one another can find fellowship if they will only open up their hearts. It's gratifying to see that Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens understood and completely embraced this in their screenplays. The absence of this essential theme would have been much more troublesome than the expected omission of the Scouring of the Shire events.

It's already apparent from the trailer that it will be one of the central, underlying themes of the final act. IMHO, it is why Return of the King will go down in film history as the crown jewel in the greatest film trilogy of all time.

Entlover

10-19-2003, 09:41 PM

"One of Tolkien's central themes was that peoples of different races, languages, and cultures who have historically been distrustful of one another can find fellowship if they will only open up their hearts."

True.
But it would be impossible to make these movies without recognizing that theme. You couldn't get away from all these dwarves, elves, etc being flung together in adversity.

Black Breathalizer

10-20-2003, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Entlover
But it would be impossible to make these movies without recognizing that theme. You couldn't get away from all these dwarves, elves, etc being flung together in adversity. Entlover, you underestimate the ability of Hollywood to screw up anything. The fantasy film genre is littered with incompetent productions. It is one of the reasons why LOTR stands out from the crowd.

Black Breathalizer

10-23-2003, 07:10 AM

The screenwriters and Viggo have done an incredible job of bringing Tolkien's character of Aragorn to life.

As is ususual around here, some of the literal interpretationists confuse plot deviations for the sake of filmmaking with changes to Aragorn's personality. It is true that changes were made to Aragorn's backstory for the film. But these alterations did not change the type of man that Aragorn was.

Aragorn was a very unassuming man who lived in the shadows. He led his fellow rangers and inspired loyalty among his friends by his example, not by openly "acting" as a leader. One of the things that I've hated about earlier movie and radio adaptations of the LOTR is that Aragorn was portrayed as the typical, upfront, "I'm the hero"-kind of guy. It seemed to me that Tolkien made it clear from Aragorn's backstory that it was drilled into him since he was a young man living in Rivendell that he should stay in the background because his life was in danger if the Dark Lord were do learn he lived.

Tolkien was not big on 'fleshing out' his characters in the traditional sense. This is not meant as a criticism, just an observation. It could be argued that Eowyn is the most fully realized character he wrote in LOTR. Having said this, I do believe that the self-doubt that film Aragorn exhibited in FOTR and TTT was true to Tolkien. I find it amusing that in one breath some people here criticize Peter Jackson for making "typical action fantasy flicks" and in the next breath say that a less one dimensional and more fully realized and human Aragorn "isn't true to Tolkien." Once again, the literalists want to have it both ways.

Draken

11-01-2003, 09:03 PM

BB mate, they're nice films. They're good films. They're very watchable films. And maybe, as far as the MTV generation goes, they're classic films. But at the end of the day, they're just films.

You're sounding like someone who goes around the Tate and then enthuses about the postcards in the gift shop.

Nazgul King Squirrel

11-02-2003, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer

Now can anyone with a straight face really sit here and tell us that this film series wasn't true to Tolkien!?!?!? If you honestly believe these film-makers weren't passionate about being true to Tolkien's vision, then I'd love to see what your version of truth would be.

Sure, the opposite would be what I would find difficult.

The first two movies weren’t true to Tolkien. Further, they weren’t supposed to be. That was never the intention of PJ, so why don’t you give PJ his credits?

He wanted to make an action movie based on the LotR, not make THE LotR into a movie, that is clear, why do you have such a problem with that? Do you think that, by itself, PJ’s tale becomes shallow, or loses quality?

Personally I liked the movies. They weren’t classics, but they were for the most part enjoyable. Stop being such a purist, BB, see the movies, enjoy them, and give PJ his dues and Tolkien his.

Earniel

11-02-2003, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Nazgul King Squirrel
Stop being such a purist, BB
I'm sorry but for some reason I find this rather hilarious. :p

Originally posted by Draken
You're sounding like someone who goes around the Tate and then enthuses about the postcards in the gift shop.
What's the 'Tate'?

Nazgul King Squirrel

11-02-2003, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Eärniel
I'm sorry but for some reason I find this rather hilarious. :p

Why are you sorry?:D

"Purist"

"PJ Purist", that is...;)

azalea

11-02-2003, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Eärniel

What's the 'Tate'?

It's a famous art museum.

Cassius

11-03-2003, 08:25 PM

The questions you have to ask are simple:

1. How many people would go

2. How many people who did go could sit through the whole thing

3. How many of those people that sat through would have burst kidneys.

It is humanly impossible to capture all of that genius that Tolkein put into these books and keep and audience captivated. Not to mention it would cost enough money to fill the country's deficet.

Black Breathalizer

11-03-2003, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by Cassius
It is humanly impossible to capture all of that genius that Tolkein put into these books and keep and audience captivated. Not to mention it would cost enough money to fill the country's deficet. What a wonderfully refreshing dose of common sense! Great post, Cassius and welcome to the Moot.

Cirdan

11-03-2003, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by Cassius
The questions you have to ask are simple:

[b][quote]
1. How many people would go

millions

2. How many people who did go could sit through the whole thing

If you can go 3 hours...

3. How many of those people that sat through would have burst kidneys.

I didn't make it through as they are now.:)

It is humanly impossible to capture all of that genius that Tolkein put into these books and keep and audience captivated. Not to mention it would cost enough money to fill the country's deficet.
Yes. Many parts were very true to the book. Different formats (how about six films like SW), a mini-series, a fully CG animated serial. If people can sit through the nth James Bond film with interest, then anything is possible.

So much for the monday evening quarterbacking.

I'm just glad it was finally done reasonably well after the previous half-... hearted attempts. When I want the whole story I would rather get it from the book anyway.

Welcome Cassius.:)