Learning from Peter Jackson

[Black Breathalizer]

The kind, old wizard, Black Breathalizer, sits on a rock with all the little mooters gathered around him eagerly awaiting the pearls of wisdom he is about to bestow upon them:

"I have no problem with differing opinions from my own. But one of the things I've noticed here in the Moot is that some of you people want to cling your own personal views of LOTR by wrapping yourselves in a "Only MY view is true to Tolkien" blanket. Rather than open your minds to differing perspectives and viewpoints, you rigidly hold on to your personalized LOTR-view by staunchly refusing to believe there could possibly be another valid way to look at the story other than your own."

"It's kind of sad really. You see life, my young Mooters, is about realizing the world is full of different perspectives. The realization that none of us hold exclusive rights to The Truth is the first step towards growing up and becoming mature adults. So what you have to decide is what to do with the opportunity that has been given to you by Peter Jackson. Jackson was meant to make the Lord of the Rings films and YOU were meant to learn something from them...and that is an encouraging thought."

[Ruinel]

For those who innocently get sucked into BB's moronic threads, I say: boycot this thread!!!Seriously, does BB need anymore attention? Maybe he is just some sad, lonely guy sitting int the dark someplace and really needs this attention. If you want to give it to him, go ahead and argue with him here. If you want to really make a statement, then BOYCOT THIS THREAD!!! Let it fall to the bottomless pit of unpopular threads and finally go to rest, unanswered, in the archives.

[Lizra]

So what is this thread supposed to be about BB? That there is more than one way to interpret a story? :rolleyes: Everybody knows that! Save your "pearls of wisdom" for the kindergarten set! ;) :D I think we LIKE to discuss our personal interpretations. Can YOU handle it? Get over it dude! :) You are quite the gadfly! ;)

[Black Breathalizer]

Doe the truth hurt that much, Ruinel? :D

I don't care if you and others don't post here. This place isn't about a particular poster or a particular thread. Did you notice what happened when the 'What Else?' thread was closed? A new thread was simply opened up and the discussion continued on. Big deal.

I'm here to talk about LOTR and have some fun. Sometimes my posts are controversial, sometimes they are meant to be funny, and sometimes they're INCREDIBLY profound. :) But they are always done in a spirit of debate (which -- news flash -- is what a discussion board is supposed to be about!!!) If you don't want to play, cool. But whether you agree with me or hate my guts, the fact of the matter is that I've contributed to the discussion on this board. So get over yourself.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Did you notice what happened when the 'What Else?' thread was closed? A new thread was simply opened up and the discussion continued on. Big deal. Yep, and that thread is lucky to be open. When a thread gets closed it isn't normal policy to allow a dupicate thread to open. Sort of defeats the purpose of closing the other thread. However, I discussed it with the thread starter and decided to leave it open as long as it didn't spin out of control. I will leave this thread open too, at least for now. It looks pretty flame baity, but we'll see.

[Sween]

I think BB needs a girlfiend! Tell me lad when was the last time you got some was it a long time ago? Did all the talk of a plump bearded new zeland man put the ladies off?

Join the fight to get BB some action! If you know a lady that would likwe to listen to his inlightiening statement call on

01900 iamasaddespratePJlovinnymp

:p

awww bless hes kinda cute really isnt he

(yes thats right ive been down the pub all afternoon and soon im going for a curry then some lovin :D )

[azalea]

Adding to what SGH said, this thread also needs to stay on topic. Since it wasn't made clear in the first post, I'll spell it out here: the topic for discussion in this thread is: Are differing viewpoints acceptable when interpreting scenes from LotR/ the storyline (for instance, filling in action where it isn't explicitly written in the book, stuff like that), or is it unacceptable to fill in or have an alternate interpretation of characters, scenes, actions, etc.?
Is the book as written the final word, or has the story become bigger than the book, a legend that is open to the reader's imagination to go beyond the printed page?
To reiterate: calm, polite debate/ discussion is acceptable. Sarcastic comments or personal put-downs are considered flaming. Do not give in to temptation to cross that line. If you can't contain yourself, don't post in the thread. This goes for all the threads, but this one looks like it is already heading that way.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by azalea
Since it wasn't made clear in the first post, I'll spell it out here: the topic for discussion in this thread is: Are differing viewpoints acceptable when interpreting scenes from LotR/ the storyline.Thanks azalea for spelling out what I thought was rather obvious.

A perfect example of where a few misguided souls have gotten on their high horses and erroneously bashed Jackson is the wizards' duel. Some people have moaned and groaned that Jackson hollywoodized Gandalf's capture instead of following the book. Oh really? Read the book again. Tolkien didn't describe Gandalf's actual capture. Given the circumstances, Peter Jackson's film version of events is actually the most logical way he could have depicted it.

To think that Gandalf would have surrendered to Saruman without a fight when he had just learned the Nine were abroad and Frodo was in extreme danger is highly dubious. Yet this scene from FOTR has been a favorite target for Jackson bashing. It illustrates how some so-called "purists" make assumptions from vague text descriptions and then make further assumptions that their assumptions are the only way a scene should have been done in order to be "true to Tolkien."

In presenting us with the wizards' duel, thankfully, PJ gave us a scene more true to Tolkien and his characters than the so-called "purists" here would have been able to offer.

[The Gaffer]

Maybe it would be helpful to start by categorising all of the ways in which the films had to deviate from the books. For example:

1) Things which weren't described in the books but had to appear on film for it to make sense; e.g.
- wizards' duel
- spawning uruk-hai
- Aragorn/Arwen love scenes

2) Things which were described in the books but had to be portrayed differently for filmic reasons; e.g.
- Theoden exorcism
- spontaneous collapse of Moria
- excision of Bombadil
- irascible Elrond

3) Things which were just different in the films; e.g.
- no Glorfindel
- Osgiliath detour
- dwarf-throwing

Make sense?

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Sween
I think BB needs a girlfiend! Tell me lad when was the last time you got some, was it a long time ago? Did all the talk of a plump bearded new zealand man put the ladies off?

Join the fight to get BB some action! If you know a lady that would like to listen to his enlightening statement call on

01900 iamasaddespratePJlovinnymp

:p Please read what azalea wrote. [POST DELETED]


Last edited by Sister Golden Hair

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
A perfect example of where a few misguided souls have gotten on their high horses and erroneously bashed Jackson is the wizards' duel. Some people have moaned and groaned that Jackson hollywoodized Gandalf's capture instead of following the book. Oh really? Read the book again. Tolkien didn't describe Gandalf's actual capture. Given the circumstances, Peter Jackson's film version of events is actually the most logical way he could have depicted it.

To think that Gandalf would have surrendered to Saruman without a fight when he had just learned the Nine were abroad and Frodo was in extreme danger is highly dubious. Yet this scene from FOTR has been a favorite target for Jackson bashing. It illustrates how some so-called "purists" make assumptions from vague text descriptions and then make further assumptions that their assumptions are the only way a scene should have been done in order to be "true to Tolkien."

In presenting us with the wizards' duel, thankfully, PJ gave us a scene more true to Tolkien and his characters than the so-called "purists" here would have been able to offer.

Why is the most logical when he says - "They took me and they set me alone on the pinnacle of Orthanc, in the place where Saruman was accustomed to watch the stars."

I'll agree that I put my own spin on it that Saruman ENTRAPPED Gandalf. I do believe it is much more believable than the damn wizards duel. I think that the wizards duel is hollywoodized crap and just another wasted over the top action scenes that take away from the characterization and emotional scenes that make Lord of the Rings books so enjoyable.

Jackson could have done a lot in NOT presenting Gandalf in "real time" seeing Saruman and doing it as a flashback as it is done in the book. I think the wizards duel was ridiculous - whatever you may think BB.

BTW Gaffer - you left out the ridiculuos portrayal of the Flight to the Ford. And Frodo's greatest lines and a scene that does a lot to develop Frodo as a STRONG character.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
BTW Gaffer - you left out the ridiculuos portrayal of the Flight to the Ford. And Frodo's greatest lines and a scene that does a lot to develop Frodo as a STRONG character.
Agreed: for me that's the most annoying difference. I'd be tempted to put it in the third category, or maybe we need a fourth:

4) Things which were different from the books and detracted from the experience

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

"I have no problem with differing opinions from my own. But one of the things I've noticed here in the Moot is that some of you people want to cling your own personal views of LOTR by wrapping yourselves in a "Only MY view is true to Tolkien" blanket. Rather than open your minds to differing perspectives and viewpoints, you rigidly hold on to your personalized LOTR-view by staunchly refusing to believe there could possibly be another valid way to look at the story other than your own."

Perspective is not the issue BB. In the who else thread (closed because of your posts) you argued that the posession presented in the film was an expansion of what was presented in the book. Tolkien however, without any doubt, has stated that Saruman's power was his gift of persuasion and that no hypnosis, trances or any other "variant" exist in his story. In short, you were wrong, not in my opinion, not by my perspective, but based on the statements of Tolkien himself, whom I might add always takes second place to Jackson in your posts when there is conflict between film and movie. It is so hard to believe (in fact I don't) that you are even a fan of the book.


Perhaps next you can join a Beethoven fan site to argue Walter Murphy and the Big Apple Band's disco version "a Fifth of Beethoven" was an improvement on the original, after all, it did sell more copies that year.

[hectorberlioz]

Perhaps next you can join a Beethoven fan site to argue Walter Murphy and the Big Apple Band's disco version "a Fifth of Beethoven" was an improvement on the original, after all, it did sell more copies that year.

Ok, whats the address for that site?:) I'm going to go argue there:)
STUPID DISCO! hmmph:mad:

A perfect example of where a few misguided souls have gotten on their high horses and erroneously bashed Jackson is the wizards' duel. Some people have moaned and groaned that Jackson hollywoodized Gandalf's capture instead of following the book. Oh really? Read the book again. Tolkien didn't describe Gandalf's actual capture. Given the circumstances, Peter Jackson's film version of events is actually the most logical way he could have depicted it.

The only thing I have to say to this is: If he ('he' as in PJ) had REALLY followed the book, then the wizards duel would not have had to be puit in. Why? because Gandalf would not be in Isengard as the movie moves along, because he would have told his tale at the counsel.
The flashbacks would not have had to portray gandalf and saruman's duel. I understands PJ's motives behind it though, having basically three hours, there was still not enough time for everything and the audience who had not read the books would not have understood anything.
But, of course, he was still not bieng true to tolkien.
He could have toned down the 'wowness' of it, at least.

[Millane]

Well this topic seems to be a little one sided, but i think that PJ made the best possible movie out of Lord of the Rings... i think most of the so called 'purists' [phrase edited] like to show off the fact that they have read LotR, a friend of mine said after seeing TTT 'im so pissed off that they didnt show gandalf grabbing onto the balrogs leg' i think he expected me to praise him because he had read the book. do any of you really wish Tom Bombadil was kept in because i can tell you it wouldnt have improved the movies he is a great character in words but the movie could not have done justice to him.
Why cant you accept the movie's and book as separate things, you want an exact replica of the book try and do it yourself.

yeah and if you keep up [phrase edited] i tell you all to BOYCOTT THE MOVIES if your all feeling so anti-PJ, see how many of you could manage that:rolleyes: if that doesnt happen then i expect that you are really closest PJ lovers and your ashamed of it for some reason...

edited by azalea: I appreciate your position, but please remember what I said above, and don't post anything that could possibly be taken as a flame; that will only cause others to respond likewise and cause the thread to go downhill. Thanks for your cooperation.

[jerseydevil]

Millane - you have one thing wrong. Jackson made the best possible movie HE could make. I feel there are plenty of directors who could have made a far more INTELLIGENT movie - instead of making a dumbed down action flick. Had you even known any of Jackson's movies before Lord of the Rings?

And yes - I'll see Jackson's movie. How else can I know how terrible Jackson is as a director without having watched the movies?

As for Tom Bombadill - very few people have said that they think any movie version should have kept him in. And NO ONE has asked for an "exact replica of the book".

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
(Jackson made) a dumbed down action flick.Let's examine this criticrism that jerseydevil has leveled at PJ a million times:

Here are the major action sequences from the first two films that are directly from the books:
The ringwraith attack on Weathertop
The flight to the Ford
The watcher on the water
The fight in Balin's Tomb
Gandalf versus the Balrog
The orc attack at Amon Hen
The chase of the uruks by the Three Hunters
The ambush of the uruks at Fangorn
The battle for Helm's Deep
The Ents attack on Isengard
The ambush of the Haradrim

Tolkien action scenes NOT shown in the film:
The warg attack in Hollin.
Old Man Willow
The orc chase from Moria and the battle on the outskirts of Lorien.

New action scenes from Jackson:
Warg battle

hmmm...I guess upon further analysis Peter Jackson actually toned down Tolkien's "hollywoodized" version. :rolleyes:

The Purist response will likely be: "yeah, well, Tolkien didn't put the emphasis on the fighting like Jackson does." As I've been pointing out here , "Tolkien Truth" is in the eyes of the beholder. The simple fact that the films have such a 'real feeling' about them is going to result in an emphasize on the ugliness, harshness, and conflict of Tolkien's world as well as its harmony and beauty.

Millane, you are dead on

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Millane
Why cant you accept the movie's and book as separate things, you want an exact replica of the book try and do it yourself.

I agree with the first part of this sentence but not with the second part.

One can argue that, since book and movie are two different media, one should look at them as seperate things. However, it's the same story we're dealing with here. That makes it not so easy to keep both things seperate in your mind. The movie is based on the book, which makes me immediatly rate the movie by its closeness to the book. It's a natural thing to do. When somebody paints a portrait of you, don't you judge it on first hand on how much the portrait resembles you?

Although I suppose one should also give the movie some credit of its own. (Even a portrait can be pretty on its own without resembling the person depicted) Granted, Jackson took some 'artisic license' in some scenes, well many scenes actually, but he did put a story on film that was said to be unfilmable. Whatever his reasons were for doing so, I for one am glad he made the movies. True, the movies could have been better - with or without Jackson at the helm- but they also could as easily have been far, far worse. (I speak only for the two already released films here.)

I think another issue is that those who don't like the movies in their entirety, don't necesarily want an exact copy of the book, which seems to be the usual accusation when somebody voices displeasure with a certain scene or part. It's not always that black-white.

Personally, I thoroughly detest Arwen's scene at the fords -however- I do not immediately demand that scene to be 100% accurate to the book. I'm sure there were other ways to have a good scene with Arwen there and without that camp 'Come and claim him' line.

The wizard duel is different example. While I found wizards tripping eachother over their staff rather untolkienish, the scene was enjoyable enough on its own. I do wish some scenes had been different (or beter in my eyes) but not always for the reason that they don't follow the book close enough.

Of course, once again it's all down to personal preferences and opinions, I know that. And I am fully aware that not everyone, if any one at all, agrees 100% with what I typed here. But that's besides the point. Opinions and preferences are still what makes us individuals. So I for one hope we can stop belittling eachother's opinions for 'not being the thruth' and accept also that -opinions though they may be- everybody is entitled to them and that yours are as good mine.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Of course, once again it's all down to personal preferences and opinions, I know that. And I am fully aware that not everyone, if any one at all, agrees 100% with what I typed here. But that's besides the point. Opinions and preferences are still what makes us individuals. So I for one hope we can stop belittling each other's opinions for 'not being the truth' and accept also that -opinions though they may be- everybody is entitled to them and that yours are as good mine. Well said, Eärniel. As you've pointed out, the issue is not differing opinions. The danger is when some posters try to bolster their arguements by saying Tolkien agrees exclusively with their personal views.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

The danger is when some posters try to bolster their arguements by saying Tolkien agrees exclusively with their personal views

Actually no, some people here are REAL fans of the book, and Tolkien, and have opinions about the story based on what the author himself said about the work. You just don't care what Tolkien wrote regarding his OWN story.

Don't hide behind the word subjective - the exorsism isn't another viewpoint, it's a change in the story to get a horror effect that the author specificaly said wasn't present in the story.

Weathertop was not a swordfight. Tolkien wrote a letter explaining why it is important that there be no swordfight on weathertop - again that is not a differing point of view it is a change to create action.

The actual fighting at Helm's Deep is 11 pages in the book - it's 1/3 of the film, that is what people are trying to point out to you. The action has been expanded greatly.


4. Why didn't a mortally wounded little Frodo ride to the fords on that big white horse all by himself like in the books

As I have said before, your contempt for the original story it's characters, it's themes and it's symbolism is clear.

[Lizra]

My personal opinion on the fighting at Helms Deep is that it was way overdone. The dragged out preparation and battle made TTT almost boring to me. I have not watched it nearly as much as I have watched FoTR. When I get the XEd, I will be happy to skip a lot of the Helms Deep stuff. Too bad that it seems to be at least half of the movie!

[hectorberlioz]

Well, lets look at some tolkien history, shall we?
Tolkien once said he did NOT want LotR made into films.
Probably so because it was impossible at that time, and because he was afraid of its bieng mis interpreted.

Lizra
Yeah, Helms Deep took up way to much space. PJ had room for more stuff, but instead he extends a small battle.

[Sween]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz

Yeah, Helms Deep took up way to much space. PJ had room for more stuff, but instead he extends a small battle.

i would beg to differ on that! Too much time was spent on the build up to the battle the silly Warg attack and all the ohhing and ahhing about sending for help etc etc. It should of stayed as it is in the book as the heoric last riding of the house of Eorl then been chased back up to Helms deep then fighting but the acctual battle i felt was very well paced

[hectorberlioz]

Well thats what I really meant by 'taking up to much space'. the whole preperation and so on. the actual battle did not take to much space. But I count the preperation as part of the whole.

[Sween]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
Well thats what I really meant by 'taking up to much space'. the whole preperation and so on. the actual battle did not take to much space. But I count the preperation as part of the whole.

I mearly think the preperation was a waste of film :p

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
Don't hide behind the word subjective - the exorsism isn't another viewpoint, it's a change in the story to get a horror effect that the author specificaly said wasn't present in the story. This is another GREAT example of what this thread is all about. Tolkien spoke about the hypnotic quality of Saruman's VOICE. But squinteyedsoutherner has just shown us how easy it was for him to leap to a huge assumption based on his own personal view of Tolkien's work.

Saruman was much more than a skilled orator who influenced people by the power of his persuasive arguements. As the greatest of the Maiar, he was clearly capable of many things -- including breeding the uruks and developing his own ringcraft. Based on the actual text, Jackson's interpretation of Theoden's possession is every bit as valid as squinteyedsoutherner's opinion.

[Sween]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
This is another GREAT example of what this thread is all about. Tolkien spoke about the hypnotic quality of Saruman's VOICE. But squinteyedsoutherner has just shown us how easy it was for him to leap to a huge assumption based on his own personal view of Tolkien's work.

Saruman was much more than a skilled orator who influenced people by the power of his persuasive arguements. As the greatest of the Maiar, he was clearly capable of many things -- including breeding the uruks and developing his own ringcraft. Based on the actual text, Jackson's interpretation of Theoden's possession is every bit as valid as squinteyedsoutherner's opinion.

ill have to admit im with BB on this one! Saurman certinally did have (if not explecitally implied) hold over Theoden! Now there are very few examples in Tolkiens works of true magic (like you see in Harry Potter casting of spells and such like) plus anyone that thinks by mearly taking the king out for a bit of fresh air Gandalf was able to cure Theoden are not reading between the lines he defintally used his will somewhat. Now PJ it could be argueed did go for a bit an easy option here 'i know what lets just have him been possed' :p !

I think this is really a point hats really rather to silly to critize PJ on mainlybecause its just one of those moments in the book which is open to interpritation

[Sister Golden Hair]

Saruman was much more than a skilled orator who influenced people by the power of his persuasive arguements. As the greatest of the Maiar, he was clearly capable of many things -- including breeding the uruks and developing his own ringcraft. Based on the actual text, Jackson's interpretation of Theoden's possession is every bit as valid as squinteyedsoutherner's opinionBased on the text, what isn't valid is that Saruman is the greatest of the Maiar, or that Saruman bred the Uruk-Hai. In the books, Sauron was the greatest, or at least the most powerful of the Maiar, and it was Sauron that bred the Uruk-Hai. These are not interpretations, but facts.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

This is another GREAT example of what this thread is all about. Tolkien spoke about the hypnotic quality of Saruman's VOICE. But squinteyedsoutherner has just shown us how easy it was for him to leap to a huge assumption based on his own personal view of Tolkien's work.

NO Tolkien spoke about the PERSUASIVE! quality of Saruman's voice. There is no hypnosis or anything along those lines in the story, anywhere, that is what he is saying. Theoden has been persuaded via Grima not posessed.

"Neither genuine hypnosis, trances, nor variants, occur in my tale

What do you not get? Do you think he wrote this knowing he had written a Saruman posession of Theoden in the text. Do you think Theoden walking around under the control of Saruman is not a "variant" of being in a trance. Do we need to post the letter again where Tolkien accuses a screenwriter of not understanding the story on the most basic level when he proposes the very same changes that were made in this film?

You may like the changes BB, in fact I know you do, but they are not changes in perspective, they are changes. Period.
You lost this one BB,not to mention both of Sister Golden Hair's corrections to your post, both of which are dead on and again show your lack of knowledge of Tolkien outside of jackson's film.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Well said, Eärniel. As you've pointed out, the issue is not differing opinions. The danger is when some posters try to bolster their arguements by saying Tolkien agrees exclusively with their personal views.

Thank you, but I have to disagree with your last sentence. I have yet to see a post on the Entmoot where a poster says that Tolkien exclusively agrees with his or her own personal view.

For one, Tolkien isn't around anymore to agree with anyone of us on these things. :( And secondly I think that in most cases the posters have made Tolkien's personal view of things their own. It may look the same, but there is a difference. I myself have changed my opinion and interpretation of themes and scenes in LoTR somewhat after reading Letters and some of the HoME-series.

And I think that I do not speak only for myself here when I say that on matters of Middle-earth, the word of Tolkien is rather final.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Let's examine this criticrism that jerseydevil has leveled at PJ a million times:

Here are the major action sequences from the first two films that are directly from the books:
The ringwraith attack on Weathertop
The flight to the Ford
The watcher on the water
The fight in Balin's Tomb
Gandalf versus the Balrog
The orc attack at Amon Hen
The chase of the uruks by the Three Hunters
The ambush of the uruks at Fangorn
The battle for Helm's Deep
The Ents attack on Isengard
The ambush of the Haradrim

The thing is - these aren't DIRECTLY from the books. They ALL had EXTENDED action sequences which did not take place in the book. And for you to say that Flight to the Ford was DIRECTLY from the book is the most ignorant statement you have ever made.

Tolkien action scenes NOT shown in the film:
The warg attack in Hollin.
Old Man Willow
The orc chase from Moria and the battle on the outskirts of Lorien.

No - instead he moved the Warg attack to the Two Towers and then spent a half hour in the orc attacks INSIDE Moria with a Troll that never attacked the Fellowship.

New action scenes from Jackson:
Warg battle

hmmm...I guess upon further analysis Peter Jackson actually toned down Tolkien's "hollywoodized" version. :rolleyes:

I am really questioning BB - if you have EVER read the books. How many times?

The Purist response will likely be: "yeah, well, Tolkien didn't put the emphasis on the fighting like Jackson does." As I've been pointing out here , "Tolkien Truth" is in the eyes of the beholder. The simple fact that the films have such a 'real feeling' about them is going to result in an emphasize on the ugliness, harshness, and conflict of Tolkien's world as well as its harmony and beauty.

Jackson DID emphasis the action sequences. He took out all the meaning behind the movie. He changed Aragorn's character, he over emphsizes the love between Aragorn and Arwen - while neglecting the Ring and Frodo in TT. How much is the LEAD character and the Ring in TT - a half hour????

BTW - I also said that Jackson did a great job on scenary - but scenary isn't what makes a great movie.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Here's the thing. It is one thing to read between the lines, and add what you think could have happened and is a possibility of happening. It is one thing to read the written word of the author and take it in a certain way. Not all that read the books agree on what Tolkien meant, and only Tolkien could clear that up. It is another thing however, to take the words of the author, which IMO is written in stone, and completely change what he stated and portray it, taking it in the opposite direction as an interpretation. What Tolkien says is the way it is, not what Jackson says. Jackson's ideas of what he thinks happened, isn't Tolkien's, nor is it written in stone. I get the feeling BB, that you hate the books as much as the so called "purists" hate the movie. Difference is, is that without the books, the movie wouldn't exist at all, so, the word of the books is final.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Millane
Well this topic seems to be a little one sided, but i think that PJ made the best possible movie out of Lord of the Rings... i think most of the so called 'purists' are really a bunch of queers who like to show off the fact that they have read LotR, a friend of mine said after seeing TTT 'im so pissed off that they didnt show gandalf grabbing onto the balrogs leg' i think he expected me to praise him because he had read the book. do any of you really wish Tom Bombadil was kept in because i can tell you it wouldnt have improved the movies he is a great character in words but the movie could not have done justice to him.
Why cant you accept the movie's and book as separate things, you want an exact replica of the book try and do it yourself.

yeah and if you keep up with your bitching i tell you all to BOYCOTT THE MOVIES if your all feeling so anti-PJ, see how many of you could manage that:rolleyes: if that doesnt happen then i expect that you are really closest PJ lovers and your ashamed of it for some reason... Well, the book existed long before the movie, and of course book fans are going to go see it. Unlike movie fans though, the book fans have the real story. Also, the people that always came to this forum were book fans until the movies came out, and now that that has happened, many are all knowing, but look so foolish.

[jerseydevil]

Post deleted-- JD, I edited Millane's post, so this one was obselete. Sorry I couldn't get to it sooner.:) -- Azalea

[Lizra]

Yeah...I wondered about that. [EDITED POST -- Lizra -- see JD's post above :) -- Azalea]

[Sween]

[OBSELETE QUOTE DELETED BY AZALEA]

[OBSELETE PORTION OF POST DELETED BY AZALEA -- Sween -- please see my note in JD's post above]



But what is a purist? Is Tolkiens work so beyond reproach that no change can be view by some as been better? As allways its a matter of opinion and sometime i prefer the way PJ did it but most of the time the award goes to the prof and sometimes PJ did a very good job of capturing tolkien pretty much exctally (IMHO) something i think that is overlooked sometimes on this board.

I like to view the films not so much as what is diffrent and whats worse and better but more what did he get extally right?

Am i purist? Hell no im far more open minded than that :D

[Lizra]

On Saruman's voice....I (IMO) can see this as a "Tolkien having it both ways" type of thing. Doesn't Gandalf warn someone(s) to beware of Saruman's voice when he speaks. (more than once even?) If people of the fellowship side still need to be warned of being swayed by a sentence or three, well...I think there might be a little more going on with his voice than just a "Dale Carnegie" course or something! ;) A voice so seductive as this (coming from the highest wizard of the land) hints of magic. I'm sorry, no matter what is said in that letter.....the inference to "magic" can (easily) be made. I think the scene worked.

[The Gaffer]

Spot on, Lizra. Remember the description Gandalf gives of how those whom the Voice conquers completely will still hear it urging them on long afterwards? And the subjective experiences of the Rohirrim when they're under its influence are clearly described. Even Theoden believes that Gandalf will leave them and join with Saruman at Orthanc.

The way Tolkien portrays "magic" is pretty ambiguous throughout (and is all the more powerful for that). He (JRRT) does specifically state that much of the broader background, genealogy and mechanics of Middle-Earth were intended to remain mysterious.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

I don't see how any of this relates to the idea Theoden was posessed. Nor do I see how one gets any closer to understanding the story by claiming the author's own analysis of what he wrote is suspect, no matter how delicately phrased the critism.

And Lizra, I'm not arguing that it did or did not work in the film, that is subjective. I'm responding to the point that the text implies posession. I don't think it does, and I think Letters supports that view 100%.

Also in letter 156, Tolkien states that Gandalf the white is under the same obligation as Gandalf the grey:

"He is still under the obligation of concealing his power and of teaching rather than forcing or the dominating of wills"

And

"when the PHYSICAL powers of the enemy are too great he can act in an emergency as an angel....In ONE or TWO cases he does reveal a sudden power he twice rescues FARAMIR and he alone is left to forbid the entrance of the Lord of the Nazgul to Minas Tirith - and yet so powerful is the whole train of resistance that he himself has organized that no battle occurs: it passes to other mortal hands"

No mention of a confrontation with Saruman through Theoden.

I'm not BB, I'm not married to the idea that it did not happen, but unless someone digs something out of the text itself, letters or Home then I think Tolkien is on the record that Theoden was not posessed by Saruman, regardless of how well it worked or did not work in the film.

[hectorberlioz]

I totally agree.

[Lizra]

The text leads me to the brink of believing Saruman's persuasive powers are "magical". Much stronger than anything normal. I find their descriptions to be "bewitching". Now "posession" is certainly a Peter Jackson twist, and I must agree with your point of the book not supporting an actual exorcism, as done in the movie! BUT....I still get a "have your cake and eat it too" feeling with the descriptions of Saruman's vocal powers, and the denial of magic or hypnosis. :eek: ;)

[squinteyedsoutherner]

I think I understand what you are saying. There does seem to be a more "wizard" like aura around Saruman in the book than in Letters. Given that the letter is very early (1955, shortly after publication) I think Tolkien could probably reconcile this if he were asked directly, but I agree that the sparce nature of his commentary does seem to leave some of these issues hanging.

Lembas is another that comes to mind, I always had the impression it had some sort of "special quality" to it beyond just a good recipe, so I was surprised by Tolkien's account of it in Letters. There were other things that surprised me too.

[Elfhelm]

I have gone around to various Tolkien fans I know, many of whom have read the books more than once, but most only read them once, and asked them if they like the movies. Every single one of them said yes.

I then asked if they thought certain scenes were a little hokey. I would mention things like the Thriller style transformation of Theoden or the challenge by Arwen to the ringwraiths at the Ford. Again, every one of them grinned and said yes. Almost all of them knew, for instance, that it was a male elf who rode with Frodo, though only one knew Glorfindel's name. I also asked things like "Did you envision Aragorn being a little older?" and "Does Frodo seem kind of wimpy?" and "What do you think of the characterization of Faramir?" They generally agreed with me. And all of them agreed that Faramir was far more noble and honorable in the book.

However, every one of them said it did not change their opinion of the movies. They all felt the movies were far better than they ever thought anyone would do with the story. They all loved the way the Shire was depicted and most of the casting.

So I derived several things from my straw poll:

1. The vast majority of fans who read and re-read the books don't mind the alterations the screenwriters did.

2. The people here who get upset and argue viciously that Peter Jackson is a bad man for doing what he did are a tiny minority of the fans.

3. The person here who thinks every alteration Jackson and his writers did were strokes of genius is the only person I've ever heard of who thinks that way.

So I conclude that we here are arguing for the pleasure of arguing and we are just enjoying the sight of our own cranky opinions.

p.s. I love Shakespeare and have never agreed with any director of any Shakespeare production completely. That's part of my love and if I were told that I was wrong for disagreeing like that, it would say nothing about me and everything about the person who said that!

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
So I conclude that we here are arguing for the pleasure of arguing and we are just enjoying the sight of our own cranky opinions.

Oh, how I laughed when reading this. :D Thank you, I needed that. But I must say you have some very good points.

[Lizra]

You mean Lembas are just tasty, nutritious wafers! :eek: So the elves were just really smart....."highly evolved" or something? no mystical powers? that's all? ....:mad: I want magic, dang it! ;) I will not read any of these "letters"! Ignorance IS bliss! :rolleyes: ;)

[jerseydevil]

Well I still think jackson is a hack who couldn't produce an intelligent, emotional movie no matter what. :D Come on - does even the burping/fart thing after eating Lembas belong in Lord of the Rings? It's in the extended edition. So yes - even with the extended edition - I have problems with some of the additional scenes.

I have always said the movies were average. Not the great master piece so many others think. They're action movies, with a lot of comedy and an underlying love story and adventure.

[Sheeana]

Who's bein' cranky? :mad:


;)



JD - Inasmuch as I hate the LOTR movies, Heavenly Creatures *is* a very good film. You should check it out sometime if you already haven't.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sheeana
JD - Inasmuch as I hate the LOTR movies, Heavenly Creatures *is* a very good film. You should check it out sometime if you already haven't.
I didn't say he couldn't make a good movie - I said he couldn't make an intelligent movie.

BTW - I will look into the movie and see for myself though. :D

[Sister Golden Hair]

Almost all of them knew, for instance, that it was a male elf who rode with Frodo, though only one knew Glorfindel's name.Just to nitpick a little. No one rode with Frodo in "Flight to the Ford" Glorfindel put Frodo on his horse Asfaloth, and when the Black Riders approached, Glorfindel called to the horse in the Elven tongue, telling him to fly, and the horse bore Frodo, alone, across the ford.

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Based on the text, what isn't valid is that Saruman is the greatest of the Maiar, or that Saruman bred the Uruk-Hai. In the books, Sauron was the greatest, or at least the most powerful of the Maiar, and it was Sauron that bred the Uruk-Hai. These are not interpretations, but facts.

Great point SGH. For anyone who has payed attention to the detail in the books it is very easy to see that the Uruks came from Mordor and the Half-orcs bred by Saruman was the squint-eyed southerner at Bree and the ruffians in the Shire. Out of all the changes in the film, having the Uruks become pod-people has to be my most hated.

[Sween]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
Great point SGH. For anyone who has payed attention to the detail in the books it is very easy to see that the Uruks came from Mordor and the Half-orcs bred by Saruman was the squint-eyed southerner at Bree and the ruffians in the Shire. Out of all the changes in the film, having the Uruks become pod-people has to be my most hated.

i think that having them as pod people makes perfect sence this is an area that Tolkien does not go into and therefore is up for debate. Plus The enemy did allways manage to riase huge forces very fast so i think that it works

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by Sween
i think that having them as pod people makes perfect sence this is an area that Tolkien does not go into and therefore is up for debate. Plus The enemy did allways manage to riase huge forces very fast so i think that it works

Well Tolkien says that Orcs multiply in the same manner as the Children of Iluvatar and Bolg is the son of Azog. Uruks are nothing more then large soilder-orcs, so I don't see the debate.

Uruks = large solider-orcs of the late Third Age
Orcs multiply in the same manner as the Children of Iluvatar.

Even though Tolkien never talks about Orc children they must have existed with the hints he has given, Men and Elves have children, and the Orcs multiply the same as Men and Elves. And we atleast know of one Orc who had a son.

[azalea]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha


Even though Tolkien never talks about Orc children they must have existed with the hints he has given, Men and Elves have children, and the Orcs multiply the same as Men and Elves. And we atleast know of one Orc who had a son.

I always thought when in The Hobbit it says Gollum had a few hours earlier caught a "small goblin-imp," it meant it was a goblin child, especially because Gollum later refers to it as a "nassty young squeaker." (Not that it has any relevance to the thread topic, but I thought I'd add to what you'd said about it.)

[Valandil]

Don't quite understand what all this talk about children or pod people has to do with which multiplication tables orcs use.:confused:

And does Tolkien really say the orcs use the same multiplication tables as the other children of Illuvatar???

[Melko Belcha]

Orcs reproduce (multiply) in the same manner as the Children of Iluvatar. In other words it takes a male Orc and a female Orc to make more of the species, the same as Men, Elves, Dwarves, and Hobbits.

[Valandil]

Huh????? What do you mean?

[Sheeana]

Well, when a daddy orc really loves a mummy orc, they will have a very special cuddle. When they have this very special cuddle, if the conditions are right, a baby orc will grow in mummy orc's tummy. Nine months or so later, there will be a baby orc born to mummy and daddy orc because of this very special cuddle. And that's how you make baby orcs!

[Valandil]

...OH!!!

But could PJ show that and keep his rating?:eek:

I guess you can skirt around some things in a book that you have to either show, ignore or modify in a movie... huh?

Can't show it... especially not with Orcs!

If you ignore it... you don't realize Saruman is doing something un-natural!

You make this change... you get a similar point across.:D


PS: Sheeana - LOVED your explanation. You're not a mom yet though, are you? I'm a dad of young boys (surprising I know with my apparent bewilderment) and I'm takin' notes!

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Valandil
Huh????? What do you mean? Valandil, according to Tolkien, it was the greatest mockery to Iluvatar by Morgoth, that when he bred the hidious race of Orcs, that they were to reproduce in the same fashion as the Children of Iluvatar.

[Valandil]

Huh...? Reproduce? Like with a XEROX machine (here we go again:D )???

Uh - Sheeana ... what if a baby orc had two mummy orcs or two daddy orcs??? Ah... better not go there! THAT belongs on another thread... which I think I'll stay away from for just a bit...:)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Valandil, according to Tolkien, it was the greatest mockery to Iluvatar by Morgoth, that when he bred the hidious race of Orcs, that they were to reproduce in the same fashion as the Children of Iluvatar.
Hence my feelings that Morgoth created orcs from elves and NOT men. What better way to slap the face of Ilúvatar than to take his most prized creation and twist it into a hideous beast?

I think Tolkien's brain wasn't all there when he wrote that obsure letter only 2 years before his death where he says that it makes more sense that they came from men. I especially feel this way - because it states in Lord of the Rings that they were from elves. I think he simply forgot what he had written - which he often did. His notes were a disaster - asi s well documented and he often forgot what he had written.

[Elf Girl]

I doubt he had forgotten- he was intentionally remaking Middle-Earth throughout his whole life.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Hence my feelings that Morgoth created orcs from elves and NOT men. What better way to slap the face of Ilúvatar than to take his most prized creation and twist it into a hideous beast?

The question is: Were the Elves Ilúvatar's most prized creation?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
I doubt he had forgotten- he was intentionally remaking Middle-Earth throughout his whole life.
Well this isn't the forum or the thread for it - and I have talked about it in the Book forum - I disagree. He was refining the the history - howevwer he was only making CORRECTIONS to Lord of the Rings that had been missed or the publisher had messed up on. He was not changing things like how the the orcs were born.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eärniel
The question is: Were the Elves Ilúvatar's most prized creation?
They were his most prized living creation.

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by azalea
the topic for discussion in this thread is: Are differing viewpoints acceptable when interpreting scenes from LotR/ the storyline (for instance, filling in action where it isn't explicitly written in the book, stuff like that), or is it unacceptable to fill in or have an alternate interpretation of characters, scenes, actions, etc.?
Is the book as written the final word, or has the story become bigger than the book, a legend that is open to the reader's imagination to go beyond the printed page?

I don't see much discussion of this topic. Why not lock the thread and start another every-deviation-from-the-book-you-can-think-of thread, because that's all this is.

My point given above is that most people who have read the books like the movies.

I'm curious why there is such a high concentration of people here who answer azalea's statement of the topic with a definite "no" to the first statement and "yes" to the second. I'm just going to take a wild guess and say that this site was made of, by, and for the book fanatics.

If so, why not just close the movie forum and declare all discussion of the movies off-topic? Because every time anyone likes anything about the movies, a half dozen rabid fans attack him, and they aren't very civil about it either.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
I don't see much discussion of this topic. Why not lock the thread and start another every-deviation-from-the-book-you-can-think-of thread, because that's all this is.

My point given above is that most people who have read the books like the movies.

I'm curious why there is such a high concentration of people here who answer azalea's statement of the topic with a definite "no" to the first statement and "yes" to the second. I'm just going to take a wild guess and say that this site was made of, by, and for the book fanatics.

If so, why not just close the movie forum and declare all discussion of the movies off-topic? Because every time anyone likes anything about the movies, a half dozen rabid fans attack him, and they aren't very civil about it either.
Actually Elfhelm - if you read the threads you would see that the MAJORITY of so called "book fanatics" only pick apart certain aspects of the movie. BB is the one who thinks that nothing jackson did was wrong and he is the one who constantly is deragatory to the people who prefer the books.

I have said REPEATEDLY and I will say it again - the movies were AVERAGE. They were action movies.

[Elfhelm]

You can state your opinion all you want. All caps does not turn an opinion into a fact. I believe BB is right when he says some people here need to mature (or something like that). One essential step in the maturation process is to recognize that other people have different opinions and to allow them to think differently from you. That's what I think the real topic is.

[Sister Golden Hair]

I'm just going to take a wild guess and say that this site was made of, by, and for the book fanatics.

If so, why not just close the movie forum and declare all discussion of the movies off-topic? Because every time anyone likes anything about the movies, a half dozen rabid fans attack him, and they aren't very civil about it either. Of course this site was made for book fans, seeing as how it existed long before the release of the movies. I think most people have tried to discuss their differences between book and movie at least fairly in this thread, with the exception of one movie fan that referred to the so called "purists" as "queers."

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
You can state your opinion all you want. All caps does not turn an opinion into a fact. I believe BB is right when he says some people here need to mature (or something like that). One essential step in the maturation process is to recognize that other people have different opinions and to allow them to think differently from you. That's what I think the real topic is.
Yeah - his maturity showed by what he said in the first post. :rolleyes:

We accept other people's opinions - he just doesn't accept ours. As has been demonstrated repeatedly in his posts.

[Elfhelm]

Wrestling with Gollum (http://rocbo.chez.tiscali.fr/cine/lordofthering/alanlee/img/27.jpg)
This illustration by Alan Lee is an interpretation. It is not the actual book. He had to guess at some things in order to draw it. He had to pick from many scenes to illustrate but he chose this one because it had action. If I wanted to, I could search this and other paintings of his for details to quibble over. What would be the point?

You could say, Alan Lee has only illustrated parts of the books. You could say that he only chose the highlights. You could argue that it gives a false representation of Tolkien.

But nobody ever says any of this. Nobody shoots down the Hildebrandts or the animated RotK or the earlier movie. But there are a certain half dozen people here who circle in and rip apart anyone who dares to enjoy the current movies. I don't see why they don't just stick to the books forums.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
But nobody ever says any of this. Nobody shoots down the Hildebrandts or the animated RotK or the earlier movie. But there are a certain half dozen people here who circle in and rip apart anyone who dares to enjoy the current movies. I don't see why they don't just stick to the books forums.
They never drew scenes of Lord of the Rings that were NOT described in the books. If the Hidebrants or ANY artist did a painting of Flight to the Ford the way Jackson did it - they would not be a "Tolkien artist" and people would be complaining about them. Your comparison is completely flawed.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Wrestling with Gollum (http://rocbo.chez.tiscali.fr/cine/lordofthering/alanlee/img/27.jpg)
This illustration by Alan Lee is an interpretation. It is not the actual book. He had to guess at some things in order to draw it. He had to pick from many scenes to illustrate but he chose this one because it had action. If I wanted to, I could search this and other paintings of his for details to quibble over. What would be the point?

You could say, Alan Lee has only illustrated parts of the books. You could say that he only chose the highlights. You could argue that it gives a false representation of Tolkien.

But nobody ever says any of this. Nobody shoots down the Hildebrandts or the animated RotK or the earlier movie. But there are a certain half dozen people here who circle in and rip apart anyone who dares to enjoy the current movies. I don't see why they don't just stick to the books forums. First of all, I don't hate the movies. I don't even dislike the movies, but I know when I see something that is different from Tolkien's word. As for artwork, I have always liked the elves of the Hildebrandt brothers, but, their orcs leave a lot to be desired IMO. Ted Nasmeth is another Tolkien artist whose work I favor, but his depiction of Finrod is to me, awful. And to address the last part of your post, I have seen many movie fans in the book forums, that know nothing about the books, but because they have seen the movie, think they do. And as I said earlier, they look foolish when they do this. Why should book fans not be able to discuss the movie when they have seen it, as opposed to movie fans that attempt to discuss the books, when they haven't read them?

[Elfhelm]

You choose not to see what is different because you like the painting.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Valandil
PS: Sheeana - LOVED your explanation. You're not a mom yet though, are you? I'm a dad of young boys (surprising I know with my apparent bewilderment) and I'm takin' notes!

Nope - but I gave my brother the sex talk (with parents permission would ya believe) when I was 11 or so! ;)

Originally posted by Eärniel
The question is: Were the Elves Ilúvatar's most prized creation?

If they were - then why did he give Men the gift of Death?

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
You choose not to see what is different because you like the painting. Explain please. Not everyone has the same taste in art, music, literature. Everyone knows what they like, and when they see a painting and don't like it, it doesn't make the artist a bad artist. It just means it is not thier kind of art. FYI, IMO, J.R.R. Tolkien was not a good artist.

[Elfhelm]

Just a quick glance at the painting and I see there is no hair on Sam's foot. If I were like the viscious attacker type people here I would make up stupid tortures for no other reason than that. Who ever heard of a hobbit with no hair on his foot. Maybe he shaved it. Maybe we should start a two year running joke about Sam shaving his foot. What's to explain? You like the painting so you don't see the hairless foot. And people who like the movies like Arwen. I never heard Arwen hatred until I came here.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Just a quick glance at the painting and I see there is no hair on Sam's foot. If I were like the viscious attacker type people here I would make up stupid tortures for no other reason than that. Who ever heard of a hobbit with no hair on his foot. Maybe he shaved it. Maybe we should start a two year running joke about Sam shaving his foot. What's to explain? You like the painting so you don't see the hairless foot. And people who like the movies like Arwen. I never heard Arwen hatred until I came here. Well, I think you're over reacting. And each is entitled to their opinion, movie fans as well as book fans. I don't think that's the problem here. The problem here seems to be that the movie fans want to claim that the movie was a work of precision and they want to argue the events that book fans find are not in spirit (good word) with the books.

[Elfhelm]

The same subjectivity that blinds us to the hairless foot also colors our perception of these arguments. It is only natural to believe our eyes, even when they are fooled.

On other threads I have pointed out that one particular poster here has set himself up as the spokesman for the people who wrote the screenplay. I have pointed out that he finds various ways to belittle and dehumanize those who disagree and invites attacks. I have also pointed out that in responding to him people have exagerated their statements about the movies. This can be seen as entertainment by the participants. When it ceases to be all in good fun and turns into vitriol, it drives other people away from here. He has never accepted my points that he belittles those he disagrees with, but a careful reading of the first post of this thread will show me to be correct.

[Sister Golden Hair]

On other threads I have pointed out that one particular poster here has set himself up as the spokesman for the people who wrote the screenplay. I have pointed out that he finds various ways to belittle and dehumanize those who disagree and invites attacks. I have also pointed out that in responding to him people have exagerated their statements about the movies. This can be seen as entertainment by the participants. When it ceases to be all in good fun and turns into vitriol, it drives other people away from here. He has never accepted my points that he belittles those he disagrees with, but a careful reading of the first post of this thread will show me to be correct.Elfhelm, here I agree.

[Bacchus]

Lordy, people! I am not feeling the love at all.

I'm going to provide a couple of (unsolicited) observations/opinions.

1. PJ has, on balance, done an excellent job to date on the movies. No, he hasn't done everything quite the way I would have, but then again I don't know diddly about making a movie. I wonder how many of the second-guessers are professional moviemakers, or could have convinced a studio to invest 9 figures into a concept?

2. While PJ has altered some plot points and some characterizations, it isn't really fair to draw conclusions about them until we see the final installment. I didn't particularly care for the treatment given Faramir either, but I'm willing to see where he goes with it before throwing a fit.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Well, look who's here. Hiya Bacchus.

Well, to appreciate these arguments in this thread, you might have to wade through a lot of other heated threads. In particular, the "Who else" thread, which is now closed.

[Bacchus]

Hiya, Sis! It's been a while since I've popped into the Forest, hasn't it?

Haven't looked over the "Who else" thread, but I suspect I know what I'd see over there. Oh, well.

On a side note, it might be fun to have someone challenge me on my knowledge of the books, seeing how I also like the movie and all.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Bacchus
Hiya, Sis! It's been a while since I've popped into the Forest, hasn't it?

Haven't looked over the "Who else" thread, but I suspect I know what I'd see over there. Oh, well.

On a side note, it might be fun to have someone challenge me on my knowledge of the books, seeing how I also like the movie and all. Well, as you can see, here the setup makes the members and forums much more accessable to each other than on our other beloved board, closer contact so to speak. I'm not sure though, that that makes for better discussion, but very interesting and sometimes heated in such close quarters.

Granted your knowledge of the books is far superior to my own, and I also like the movies. I think you will find the problem isn't as much like or dislike for the books or movies, but what is Tolkien and what isn't.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
The same subjectivity that blinds us to the hairless foot also colors our perception of these arguments. It is only natural to believe our eyes, even when they are fooled.
Well - I for one have never seen this painting - if I had seen the painting - I would have a problem if it did not depict Sam as have hair on his feet.

The only thing I have EVER declared in terms of Jackson and his movie are my opinions. I don't really care if you or anyone else agrees or not.

I have my opinions - and I will state them - I think Jackson created an dumbed down hollywoodized action movie. And I think Jackson is a hack.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
They were his most prized living creation.
Well, I beg to differ but this isn't the right place for going further into that.

Originally posted by Elfhelm
But nobody ever says any of this. Nobody shoots down the Hildebrandts or the animated RotK or the earlier movie. But there are a certain half dozen people here who circle in and rip apart anyone who dares to enjoy the current movies. I don't see why they don't just stick to the books forums.
I think the fact that the movies are more attacked than the art is because the movies are far more accessible. It's rather hard to miss the movies nowadays. And many who haven't read the books, have seen the films. But the art is more difficult to find IMO, I only know it from the internet and then only when I actively search for it. So in that way the movies influence more people about Tolkien than the art ever could. And so I can understand that the movies get the brunt of the critic since the people who love the book want to see it presented as true as possible to Tolkien before all those people.

As for your last post: I agree. The more people get belittled and their views and points made rediculous, the more defensive people become and the more the 'niceties' from conversation get dropped. The more we debate in this way, the more fixed our views on the movie become and the harder we'll defend them. And the less willing we become to reconsider those views.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eärniel
The more we debate in this way, the more fixed our views on the movie become and the harder we'll defend them. And the less willing we become to reconsider those views.
I have felt the same way since FotR came out if you go back and look at those threads. I actually "enjoyed" TT more because I expected the Jackson hack job - so it didn't surprise me and also TT has more action anyway. I was surprised at how many people were shocked by the Osgiliath scene and the Theoden scene. We had similar scenes in FotR - Flight to the Ford and the Wizards Duel.

As for disagreeing with me on the Elves being Iluvatar's prized living creation - what would you say they were?

[Millane]

Originally posted by Sheeana
JD - Inasmuch as I hate the LOTR movies, Heavenly Creatures *is* a very good film. You should check it out sometime if you already haven't. hmmm heavenly creatures was a damn good film but Braindead and Bad taste (now that ive seen it YAY!:D ) are way better, it always amazes me that PJ the creater of braindead and the like could make a 'big' fantasy classic adaptation:rolleyes:
with the orcs coming from elves, does it actually say that they do, because i remember reading in the sil that the elves went missing etc but that was merely hinting not actually saying.
with the exception of one movie fan that referred to the so called "purists" as "queers :o yeah who was that wierdo:o actually i like the books infinately times better than the movies, but yes im a movie fan, i like both:p shock horror...
Im re-reading the sil again and it just cements what i have always stuck to, no movie could outstrip tolkiens work, but im glad PJ had a crack (using his and others interprations) and IMO a bloody good job... ohhh yeah up with FEANOR:D
JD you mentioned earlier something along the lines of it was the best movie PJ could make, did you have someone in mind that could have made a better LotR movie? and im not being rude, but would you have preferred no movie or PJ's movie?
p.s Sorry for my language Azalea:o

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Millane
JD you mentioned earlier something along the lines of it was the best movie PJ could make, did you have someone in mind that could have made a better LotR movie? and im not being rude, but would you have preferred no movie or PJ's movie?

I didn't nor do I care who made it - just as long as it was a better movie than what Jackson delivered. Lord of the Rings should have been a much more intelligent film and less action based. Jackson's more into action and horror - therefore that is what he delivered with Lord of the Rings.

And to answer your question - I would have preferred no movie. I was looking forward to the movies from the moment they were announced and I was greatly disappointed by them. They could have been so much more and should have been so much more. Now - since Jackson did them - it will be another 20 years before someone tackles them. So yes - I wish they were never made so a more accomplished director and a TRUE fan of the books could have brought them to the screen.

[Millane]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I didn't nor do I care who made it - just as long as it was a better movie than what Jackson delivered. Lord of the Rings should have been a much more intelligent film and less action based. Jackson's more into action and horror - therefore that is what he delivered with Lord of the Rings.

And to answer your question - I would have preferred no movie. I was looking forward to the movies from the moment they were announced and I was greatly disappointed by them. They could have been so much more and should have been so much more. Now - since Jackson did them - it will be another 20 years before someone tackles them. So yes - I wish they were never made so a more accomplished director and a TRUE fan of the books could have brought them to the screen. have you seen any of PJ's other films? because from my view his older movies were nothing like how LotR was done. so you cant think of anyone who could make LotR to your tastes? i agree with you that a genuine interest in the books is overall better than being incredibly skilled. the person who did the animated watership down said he would be happy to see a live action version but he is waiting to see a good script because all he is seeing is special effects people who dont really feel anything for the story... mind you he made the choice to have Bigwig back down to Woundwort:eek:

[Earniel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I have felt the same way since FotR came out if you go back and look at those threads.
I know, I wasn't speaking specifically of you when I posted that. Just something I perceived during the time I have spent on this movie-forum.

As for disagreeing with me on the Elves being Iluvatar's prized living creation - what would you say they were?
Just not his most prized creation.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
I don't see how any of this relates to the idea Theoden was posessed. ... I am responding to the point that the text implies posession. I don't think it does, and I think Letters supports that view 100%.You may not believe the text implies possession, but many Tolkien fans feel it does. Since the text is ambiguous on the subject, they are just as "right" as you feel you are. Pointing to a Tolkien letter proves absolutely nothing. What does Tolkien's comments regarding the hypnotic versus persuasive power of Saruman's voice have to do with the King of the Golden Hall?

[azalea]

There's a LOT of off topic posting going on. While it IS interesting, I think it detracts from the discussion at hand, and also causes the thread to get watered down (for lack of a more precise term). Don't forget there are many threads that already exist where we can talk about some of the things mentioned that don't have direct bearing on this particular topic. I'll lead by example -- I want to make two quick comments about a couple of things that have been brought up here, but since they aren't about this topic, I'm going to post them in the appropriate thread, as much as I'd like to just put them here owing to my laziness.:) See you there!

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Pointing to a Tolkien letter proves absolutely nothing


"Neither genuine hypnosis, trances, nor variants, occur in my tale."

That means anywhere.


"Gandalf the white is still under the obligation of concealing his power and of teaching rather than forcing or the dominating of wills"

And

"when the PHYSICAL powers of the enemy are too great he can act in an emergency as an angel....In ONE or TWO cases he does reveal a sudden power he twice rescues FARAMIR and he alone is left to forbid the entrance of the Lord of the Nazgul to Minas Tirith - and yet so powerful is the whole train of resistance that he himself has organized that no battle occurs: it passes to other mortal hands"

That means no confrontation with Saruman through Theoden.

I rest my case with this poster.

[Black Breathalizer]

You should be a lawyer, squinteyedsoutherner. :) My point (which you are trying to hide from rather than address) was that the letter you are fond of pointing to doesn't apply to the situation we were discussing. If you are going to continue using Tolkien letters to bolster your personal opinions of LOTR, then they ought to at least be applicable.

But on the other hand, this is a shining example of what this thread is about. Rather than simply agree that there are equally valid ways of looking at the issue, you feel compelled to find things in Tolkien letters that help 'legitimize' your POV. Fundamentalists of every religious persuasion have been using this same misguided strategy to support their views for centuries.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Do you even read other people's posts?

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
Do you even read other people's posts? Not when you edit your previous remarks a day later AFTER my post.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
You should be a lawyer, squinteyedsoutherner. :) My point (which you are trying to hide from rather than address) was that the letter you are fond of pointing to doesn't apply to the situation we were discussing. If you are going to continue using Tolkien letters to bolster your personal opinions of LOTR, then they ought to at least be applicable.

But on the other hand, this is a shining example of what this thread is about. Rather than simply agree that there are equally valid ways of looking at the issue, you feel compelled to find things in Tolkien letters that help 'legitimize' your POV. Fundamentalists of every religious persuasion have been using this same misguided strategy to support their views for centuries.
Sorry to tell you this, but in case you don't know- a person should use things that SUPPORT their opinion. I have no idea what you are trying to say? Your comment here is so completely laughable - it's ridiculous.


you feel compelled to find things in Tolkien letters that help 'legitimize' your POV.

:D Please - just bury your head in the movies - jackson didn't create Lord of the Rings TOLKIEN did. What TOLKIEN said is more correct than anything jackson put on the screen. You show your blindness toward the films more clearly with every post you make.

Please - go and read the books. :rolleyes:

Can we add this to the "Stupid Things said by BB" thread? :p

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Please - just bury your head in the movies - jackson didn't create Lord of the Rings TOLKIEN did. What TOLKIEN said is more correct than anything jackson put on the screen. You show your blindness toward the films more clearly with every post you make.

I second that!!!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Not when you edit your previous remarks a day later AFTER my post.
Well you don't know what they edited. They could have simply edited a grammatical error or spelling mistake. :rolleyes:

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Sorry to tell you this, but in case you don't know- a person should use things that SUPPORT their opinion. I have no idea what you are trying to say?I'm saying that a literal interpretation of anything is misguided at best and - as history has shown us - often dangerous.

Jackson made changes to the story. But some of the "changes" you've shown outrage over are every bit as legitimate as your perspective is. As Jack Nicholson would say: "You can't handle the truth."

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
You should be a lawyer, squinteyedsoutherner. :) My point (which you are trying to hide from rather than address) was that the letter you are fond of pointing to doesn't apply to the situation we were discussing. If you are going to continue using Tolkien letters to bolster your personal opinions of LOTR, then they ought to at least be applicable.

But on the other hand, this is a shining example of what this thread is about. Rather than simply agree that there are equally valid ways of looking at the issue, you feel compelled to find things in Tolkien letters that help 'legitimize' your POV. Fundamentalists of every religious persuasion have been using this same misguided strategy to support their views for centuries. Why shouldn't Squintyeyedsoutherner use Tolkien to support his/her view? Who would you rather people use, Santa Cluase and the Easter bunny?

[squinteyedsoutherner]

I pasted Tolkien quotes from my previous post into my current post, nothing new. Nice try though

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I'm saying that a literal interpretation of anything is misguided at best and - as history has shown us - often dangerous.

Get over it - we're not talking about life and death situations. Your comments about religious fananatism and presenting supporting evidene on a person's point of view of Lord of the Rings is completely out there.

Jackson made changes to the story. But some of the "changes" you've shown outrage over are every bit as legitimate as your perspective is. As Jack Nicholson would say: "You can't handle the truth."
I can handle the truth - the thing is tehy ARE NOT legitimate. Go ahead - defend Flight to the Ford. How was that a POV? What about dragging Frodo to Osgiliath? How about Treebeard not even knowing what was happening Fangorn until Merry and Pippin tricked him into seeing it? You tell me how this is "POV" changes. :rolleyes: Sorry friend - you are the one who is blind and it comes out with every post you make.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well you don't know what they edited. They could have simply edited a grammatical error or spelling mistake. :rolleyes: Really? Unfortunately for you, I copied your original post:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pointing to a Tolkien letter proves absolutely nothing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I rest my case with this poster.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Really? Unfortunately for you, I copied your original post:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pointing to a Tolkien letter proves absolutely nothing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I rest my case with this poster.
I never said that. What are you talking about by saying "YOUR original post"?

[squinteyedsoutherner]

didn't I just post that I added my old quotes back in?

[Bacchus]

squintyeyedsoutherner-would you please provide the Letter number for your quotes re: hypnosis? I'm interested in seeing the full context and comparing with comments made in TTT regarding Saruman's voice. BB claims that the quotes are not applicable to Theoden, and you claim they are. I'd like to make up my own mind. Thanks

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by Bacchus
squintyeyedsoutherner-would you please provide the Letter number for your quotes re: hypnosis? I'm interested in seeing the full context and comparing with comments made in TTT regarding Saruman's voice. BB claims that the quotes are not applicable to Theoden, and you claim they are. I'd like to make up my own mind. Thanks

The Letter is #210, section 34, third paragraph

[squinteyedsoutherner]

The trance/hypnosis quotes are from letter #210, it is Tolkien's response to a screenplay that is very similar to the films Jackson made. Tolkien is rather furious.

The Gandalf the white not using his "power" quotes are from letter #156. A very long but interesting explanation of many of the book's themes etc.

Why shouldn't Squintyeyedsoutherner use Tolkien to support his/her view? Who would you rather people use, Santa Cluase and the Easter bunny?

The Easter bunny has been possessed by Santa Claus for many years now.

[Bacchus]

Thanks, it's been a while since i read those Letters, and I didn't want to waste a bunch of time searching.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

For those who don't have the "Letters"
Z [Morton Grady Zimmerman, writer of movie synopsis] is altogether too fond of the words hypnosis and hypnotic. Neither genuine hypnosis, nor scientifictitious variants, occur in my tale. Saruman's voice was not hypnotic but persuasive. Those who listened to him were not in danger of falling into a trance, but of agreeing with his arguments, while fully awake. It was always open to one to reject, by free will and reason, both his voice while speaking and its afterimpressions. Saruman corrupted the reasoning powers.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Maybe this thread should be titled "Learning from Tolkien."

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Maybe this thread should be titled "Learning from Tolkien."
Well it should be I think - because Jackson isn't the final word on Lord of the Rings. Tolkien is the only one who can clear up any misperceptions. And even though I disagree with his letter concerning Orcs originating frmo Men - it is only becuase in his PUBLISHED works - it says they came from elves. Tolkien is the FINAL word on whether Jackson screwed something up in the movie. Jackson did not create Lord of the Rings - no matter how much the movie fanatics want to try making it out as if he did.

Too many of Jackson's changes go COMPLETELY against Tolkien and the style and heart of Lord of the Rings. Mithrandir pointed out some things in the "If Jackson Made the Silmarillion Movie" thread.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

If a theme of this thread is "were PJ interpretations positive or negative?' then why not acknowlege that there are instances of both.
One I now view as generally necessary and positive is the expanded Arwen role. The first time i read LOTR I was totally surprised when she showed up at the end. There are hints in the book, but you have to look hard for them. Oh, one change PJ should not have made, when they get to the ford instead of the made-up line "if you want him, come and claim him" just have Frodo come to for a bit , wave the sword, and say "By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall have neither the Ring nor me!" Gives Frodo more character, and Arwen can still replace Elrond's action in summoning the river.

A poor change was the motivation of the Ents to attack Isengard in the movie. Just to give a hobbit a line they make Treebeard out to be virtually senile, having no idea of Saruman's actions (even after meeting Gandalf). I would think the essence of the book version, a deliberate action of the Entmoot to attack, would have been better, just as much for movie viewers who are non-book readers as others.

'Though Isengard be strong and hard,
as cold as stone and bare as bone,
We go, we go, we go to war,
to hew the stone and break the door!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Tuor of Gondolin
One I now view as necessary and generally positive is the expanded Arwen role. The first time i read LOTR I was totally surprised when she showed up at the end. There are hints in the book, but you have to look hard for them. Oh, one change PJ should not have made, when they get to the ford instead of the made-up line "if you want him, come and claim him" just have Frodo come to for a bit , wave the sword, and say "By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall have neither the Ring nor me!" Gives Frodo more character, and Arwen can still replace Elrond's action in summoning the river.

I agree with possibly giving Arwen more screen time - not making her a central character though. I also completely abhor the Flight to the Ford scene - her sneaking up on Aragorn, her riding with Frodo, her defying the Nazgul and her calling up the River - NONE of that should have happened. I had no problem if she just took Glorfindel's place. I think keeping with the spirit of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings - the nipple shot in TT was unnecessary.

[Celebréiel]

Originally posted by Tuor of Gondolin
A poor change was the motivation of the Ents to attack Isengard in the movie. Just to give a hobbit a line they make Treebeard out to be virtually senile, having no idea of Saruman's actions (even after meeting Gandalf. I would think the essence of the book version, a deliberate action of the Entmoot to attack, would have been better, just as much for movie viewers who are non-book readers as others.

Completely. That, for me (imho) , was the most annoying-teethclenching-scream at the people around me- part of the movie. It made absolutely no sense and dragged down the 'wise' ents. This was a good example of a totally pointless and confusing Jackson change. Would it have been so bad just to have Merry and Pippin's growth shown in their willingness to go to battle and keep the ents integrity by not having them be 'tricked'?
*sigh*

[hectorberlioz]

I agree with possibly giving Arwen more screen time - not making her a central character though. I also completely abhor the Flight to the Ford scene - her sneaking up on Aragorn, her riding with Frodo, her defying the Nazgul and her calling up the River - NONE of that should have happened. I had no problem if she just took Glorfindel's place. I think keeping with the spirit of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings
No kidding. Gandalf is a poweful wizard, why did he make the river rise? like in the books(oh wait! that was elrond, gandalf did the horses). It could not have been THAT hard for jackson to make it that elrond made the river rise.the nipple shot in TT was unnecessary
Not to mention inapropriate for the movie.

[Black Breathalizer]

Z [Morton Grady Zimmerman, writer of movie synopsis] is altogether too fond of the words hypnosis and hypnotic. Neither genuine hypnosis, nor scientifictitious variants, occur in my tale. Saruman's voice was not hypnotic but persuasive. Those who listened to him were not in danger of falling into a trance, but of agreeing with his arguments, while fully awake. It was always open to one to reject, by free will and reason, both his voice while speaking and its afterimpressions. Saruman corrupted the reasoning powers.Tolkien is directing his comments to the power of Saruman's VOICE. There is a HUGE difference between "hypnosis and its scientifictitious variants" and possession. If jerseydevil wants to imagine that Tolkien was addressing Saruman's hold over Theoden with the above quote, that's his right. But it "proves" zippo because reasonable people can come to equally reasonable alternative conclusions after reading this quote.

In my opinion, Tolkien is clearly speaking to Saruman's ability to sway an audience (as described in the books). However, in the case of Theoden, Tolkien never described Saruman coming directly into contact with the King causing his decline. The king's advisor is Wormtongue, not Saruman. When you take these facts into consideration and combine them with Tolkien's actual description of Theoden's "awakening" in TTT, it is every bit as reasonable to assume possession as it is to assume otherwise.

[smaug_the_magnificent]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
In my opinion, Tolkien is clearly speaking to Saruman's ability to sway an audience (as described in the books). However, in the case of Theoden, Tolkien never described Saruman coming directly into contact with the King causing his decline. The king's advisor is Wormtongue, not Saruman. When you take these facts into consideration and combine them with Tolkien's actual description of Theoden's "awakening" in TTT, it is every bit as reasonable to assume possession as it is to assume otherwise.

This does not make any sense... :(

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by smaug_the_magnificent
This does not make any sense... :(
Does he ever make sense? :rolleyes:

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
However, in the case of Theoden, Tolkien never described Saruman coming directly into contact with the King causing his decline.

True, if Tolkien didn't mention Saruman coming directly in contact with Théoden at that time, this could advocate that Théoden's affliction wasn't directly caused by Saruman persuasive voice and that discussions about the quality of Saruman's voice may be therefore slightly out of place here.

However, Théoden's little possession scene in the movie with Saruman speaking through Théoden rather clearly showed direct contact if any. :p :rolleyes:

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Eärniel
However, Théoden's little possession scene in the movie with Saruman speaking through Théoden rather clearly showed direct contact if any. :p :rolleyes: Since the passage from Tolkien was referring to the persuasive power of Saruman's voice, only direct physical contact would pertain to the scene we are discussing.

Once again, you are entitled to your opinions. Simply repect the fact that Peter Jackson's own in this matter are just as valid as you and your eye-rolling friends.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Since the passage from Tolkien was referring to the persuasive power of Saruman's voice, only direct physical contact would pertain to the scene we are discussing.

Once again, you are entitled to your opinions. Simply repect the fact that Peter Jackson's own in this matter are just as valid as you and your eye-rolling friends.
Sorry - but it is NOT valid. IN NO way does Tolkien describe a fight between Saruman and Gandalf. Please read the books if you want to talk about what is valid. You are talking out your a$$.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Sorry - but it is NOT valid. IN NO way does Tolkien describe a fight between Saruman and Gandalf. Please read the books if you want to talk about what is valid. You are talking out your a$$. You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, jerseydevil. Tolkien DID NOT describe a fight between Saruman and Gandalf. Guess what? Storytelling works in books but doesn't work very well in movies. Audience want to SEE what happened. So it was more important for Jackson to visually show the audience Gandalf's capture by Saruman than to allow your personal little fantasy of what actually happened go unchallenged.

Frankly, PJ's assumptions of how Gandalf dealt with the situation appear much more likely than your meek "I accept my fate" assumptions of how Gandalf responded. I find it interesting that the mere fact your version of the story has been questioned has clearly gotten you spooked. Guess its a different story when the tables are turned.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, jerseydevil. Tolkien DID NOT describe a fight between Saruman and Gandalf. Guess what? Storytelling works in books but doesn't work very well in movies. Audience want to SEE what happened. So it was more important for Jackson to visually show the audience Gandalf's capture by Saruman than to allow your personal little fantasy of what actually happened go unchallenged.

It wasn't important to Jackson at all. He just a director of action/horror movies and that's what he went with because that's what he knows. It coudl have been done in an intelligent way. You are the one who can't accept that facxt that MOST people have a problem with MANY of the things that Jackson did.

Frankly, PJ's assumptions of how Gandalf dealt with the situation appear much more likely than your meek "I accept my fate" assumptions of how Gandalf responded. I find it interesting that the mere fact your version of the story has been questioned has clearly gotten you spooked. Guess its a different story when the tables are turned.
It doesn't spook me. :D That is again another ridiculous statement by you. As I said the only thing that jackson could produce was an action film - hence - he went with the exorcism scene. I'll say it again - please read the books, because it is quite obvious you have never read them. Jackson did NOT have to produce that scene like that.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Once again, you are entitled to your opinions.

Why thank you. :)

Simply repect the fact that Peter Jackson's own in this matter are just as valid as you and your eye-rolling friends.

Oh, I quite respect that Peter Jackson has as much right on his opinions as me and that they are as valid as my own. I never stated otherwise. However, there's IMO a difference between an opinion, an interpretation and a downright change of material.


EDIT: Also... I have eye-rolling friends? :p

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, jerseydevil. Tolkien DID NOT describe a fight between Saruman and Gandalf. Guess what? Storytelling works in books but doesn't work very well in movies. Audience want to SEE what happened. So it was more important for Jackson to visually show the audience Gandalf's capture by Saruman than to allow your personal little fantasy of what actually happened go unchallenged.

. . .

BB,

I will disagree with you on the point: Audience want to SEE what happened.

In some cases it is more effective not to show something or leave something implied.

Two examples:

StarWars:ANH did this very well. (ie the princess time in the Death Star.)

Alfred Hitchcock (sp?) was very effective in his movies with not showing everything to the viewer or just using an implication and leaving the viewer to guess/imagine what has/is happening.

The wizard duel was not bad per se. It just was not necessary.
Time spent on duel could have been spent in other areas of Bringing the book to film. (gift giving scene comes to mind.)

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Originally posted by Mithrand1R
"The wizard duel was not bad per se. It just was not necessary.
Time spent on duel could have been spent in other areas of Bringing the book to film. (gift giving scene comes to mind.)"

________________________________________________
EXACTLY! That's what is aggravating at times. Considerable time is taken with fight scenes (Helm's Deep, Parth Galen, etc.) that then called for cutting out or editing of other areas.

I still think PJ made a good movie adaptation (much better then I thought it would be) but it could have been very good. And perhaps ROTK will atone for much of the second half of TT. Certainly the care taken to recreate Middle-earth is a great achievement. it's just clear that at times he gets carried away with action for its own sake. And no need to feel too sorry for PJ getting some negative criticism, the hard work put into the films have made him a multi-millionaire and a hot directing commodity.

[Lizra]

Ha! Laughing all the way to the bank, that's for sure! :D I skip lots of battle when I read, so having to sit through ugly uruks stomping and chomping at the movie was a pain! Gotta take the good with the bad, but I'd say my cup was much more full than empty. ;)

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by mithrand1r
BB, I will disagree with you on the point: Audience want to SEE what happened.

In some cases it is more effective not to show something or leave something implied. StarWars:ANH did this very well. (ie the princess time in the Death Star.)In Star Wars, Princess Leia's capture was very different from Gandalf's. In SW, all George Lucas needed to do to establish the situation for the audience was show a Princess being captured by bad guy, Darth Vader. All we needed to learn after that was that she was imprisoned in the Deathstar.

In contrast, Peter Jackson needed to use the scene in question in FOTR to do much more than have bad guy capture good guy. He needed to establish that the head of Gandalf's order, the wizard Saruman, is a traitorous enemy, not a friend. The movie audience needs to know that: a) Gandalf was caught off guard by Saruman's treason; b) he was in fear for Frodo upon learning the Nine were headed for the Shire; and c) that Gandalf the Grey was no match for Saruman.

Simply shifting from Gandalf's discussion with Saruman to the wizard atop Orthanc would have left too many plot holes. It is this kind of attention to the story that separates okay directors from great ones like Peter Jackson.

[Black Breathalizer]

We see a makeshift film studio in a kid's basement bedroom somewhere in New Jersey where famed Mooter film director, jerseydevil, is filming HIS non-action adventure film version of the Lord of the Rings. The director is in the process of filming Gandalf’s capture by Saruman…

Christopher Lee: …they will find the ring and KILL the one who carries it.

(A look of concern crosses Ian McKellan’s face…)

Ian McKellan: Frodo!!!

Christopher Lee: You must join with me, Gandalf. With the one ring, we can stop Sauron and rule Middle-Earth together.

Ian McKellan: Only one finger can wear the one ring so don’t bother saying “we.”

Christopher Lee: So be it. I gave you a chance to aid me willingly. You shall remain here in Orthanc until you have a change of heart. Hand over your staff.

(The camera gives us another close-up of Ian McKellan’s face. The old wizard expression reflects a mixture of agony and resignation. He reluctantly hands over his staff. Saruman takes the staff with an evil smile as a group of uruks appear behind Gandalf.)

Christopher Lee: Take him to the pinnacle of Orthanc!!!

Orc Captain: Yes, Master.

Ian McKellan: This is madness, Saruman! Let me go!

Christopher Lee: (with a sneer) Good-bye, my old friend.

(Saruman watches Gandalf being taken away.)

Christopher Lee: (with utter contempt) Hell, the old fool didn't even put up a fight! The ringbearer is in mortal danger for crying out loud and Gandalf the Wimp hands me his frickin' staff!!! What a total wuss!!!!!!

jerseydevil: CUT! That was perfect…uh, except for that last line, Drac. I don’t need any impromptu editorial comments about my screenplay. Everyone knows my version of events is true-blue Tolkien, not like that hack Jackson.

Christopher Lee: (rolling his eyes) yeah, riiiiiiiight, kiddo.

[mithrand1r]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mithrand1r
BB, I will disagree with you on the point: Audience want to SEE what happened.

In some cases it is more effective not to show something or leave something implied. StarWars:ANH did this very well. (ie the
princess time in the Death Star.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
In Star Wars, Princess Leia's capture was very different from Gandalf's. In SW, all George Lucas needed to do to

establish the situation for the audience was show a Princess being captured by bad guy, Darth Vader. All we needed to learn
after that was that she was imprisoned in the Deathstar.

In contrast, Peter Jackson needed to use the scene in question in FOTR to do much more than have bad guy capture good guy.

He needed to establish that the head of Gandalf's order, the wizard Saruman, is a traitorous enemy, not a friend. The movie
audience needs to know that: a) Gandalf was caught off guard by Saruman's treason; b) he was in fear for Frodo upon learning
the Nine were headed for the Shire; and c) that Gandalf the Grey was no match for Saruman.

Simply shifting from Gandalf's discussion with Saruman to the wizard atop Orthanc would have left too many plot holes. It is
this kind of attention to the story that separates okay directors from great ones like Peter Jackson.

Actually the part in SW:ANH I was alluding to was the scene where you see Vader leaving the princess' prison cell and the
Interrogation droid (with a visible needle) approaches Leia (sp?)
I think it was more effective for us to imagine what the interrogation droid did to Leia than for the film to show us what
the droid did to Leia.

The ironic thing with your reply is that the movie could have had Gandalf tell the council (using your text almost exactly)
what caused him to be unavailable in assisting Frodo&Co. on their trip to Rivendell in the 30-60 seconds it took me to read
your text.

I was actually thinking of not even showing Gandalf meet Saruman.

Is having Gandalf recount his tale later in film as visually "Wowing" as a duel between two wizards? IMO no. But if one followed the text in the manner that JRRT wrote it you could achieve the following.

Fordo&Co. (& the non-book reader movie viewer) does not know what happened to Gandalf. This uncertainty adds to the tension.
IMO.

Time from the Wizard Duel can be used to bring out other parts of LOTR to enrich the experience of the viewer (the gift giving scene is one example that come to mind) with the story/environment of LOTR.

It does not necessarily need to be spelled out that . . . the Nine were headed for the Shire. I think part of that was covered by the discussion that Gandalf had with Frodo @ bagend.
Being told that Frodo had to leave the Shire because he "enemy" was coming should be enough motivation for Frodo to leave.

This may require more effort on the viewer, but I think it would have been worth the effort.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
We see a makeshift film studio in a kid's basement bedroom somewhere in New Jersey where famed Mooter film director, jerseydevil, is filming HIS non-action adventure film version of the Lord of the Rings. The director is in the process of filming Gandalf’s capture by Saruman…
YOur posts aren't even worth discussing anymore because you have obviously never read the books but have no problem telling why Jackson could only do it the way he did it. There are MANY ways of producing a movie - Jackson chose to produce the action movie side of it. I will be waiting for the more intelligent movie to come out.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by mithrand1r
Actually the part in SW:ANH I was alluding to was the scene where you see Vader leaving the princess' prison cell and the
Interrogation droid (with a visible needle) approaches Leia (sp?)
I think it was more effective for us to imagine what the interrogation droid did to Leia than for the film to show us what
the droid did to Leia.

The ironic thing with your reply is that the movie could have had Gandalf tell the council (using your text almost exactly)
what caused him to be unavailable in assisting Frodo&Co. on their trip to Rivendell in the 30-60 seconds it took me to read
your text.

I was actually thinking of not even showing Gandalf meet Saruman.

Is having Gandalf recount his tale later in film as visually "Wowing" as a duel between two wizards? IMO no.

Fordo&Co. (& the non-book reader movie viewer) does not know what happened to Gandalf. This uncertainty adds to the tension.
IMO.Interesting post, mithrand1r

A couple thoughts:

I am not saying that the way Peter Jackson chose to handle Gandalf's capture by Saruman was necessarily the best way the scenes could have been filmed. My point is simply that PJ believed a wizard duel took place and the facts, as laid out by Tolkien himself, point to the same conclusion.

I agree with your notion that growing tension about 'where is Gandalf?' (for Frodo AND the audience) could have strengthened the drama of Frodo's journey to Rivendell. But I disagree that the audience doesn't need to see Gandalf and Saruman together. Perhaps it could have been told in flashback at the Council of Elrond but I don't think you can capture the essence of the story without showing Gandalf's and Saruman's meeting at Orthanc.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I agree with your notion that growing tension about 'where is Gandalf?' (for Frodo AND the audience) could have strengthened the drama of Frodo's journey to Rivendell. But I disagree that the audience doesn't need to see Gandalf and Saruman together. Perhaps it could have been told in flashback at the Council of Elrond but I don't think you can capture the essence of the story without showing Gandalf's and Saruman's meeting at Orthanc.
What do you think I have ALWAYS said? :rolleyes:

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
My point is simply that PJ believed a wizard duel took place and the facts, as laid out by Tolkien himself, point to the same conclusion.

I find this a strange conclusion. Why would he have to actually believe a wizard duel took place? Couldn't this just be that -though Jackson probably studied the book in relative detail before making the film- he just decided to change that scene to make it according to his own opinion more attractive to the movie-public?

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Eärniel
I find this a strange conclusion. Why would he have to actually believe a wizard duel took place? Couldn't this just be that -though Jackson probably studied the book in relative detail before making the film- he just decided to change that scene to make it according to his own opinion more attractive to the movie-public? A strange conclusion would have been to assume any scenario that had Gandalf surrendering to Saruman WITHOUT a struggle or fight. How people here can claim to know Tolkien and yet believe that Tolkien's Gandalf the Grey wouldn't have done everything in his power to get away from Saruman's sanctuary in order to help Frodo is beyond me.