The Irony of Jackson Bashing

[Black Breathalizer]

I find it ironic that some fans of the books cannot come to terms with the changes that Peter Jackson has made to their beloved story. One would think that true "Book Purists" would be more accepting of the changes since the inevitability of change was the overriding theme of JRR Tolkien's story. In Tolkien's Middle-Earth -- like our own world -- nothing ever stays the same, even for immortals.

Ironically, by getting so worked up by what they see as Jackson's failure to rigidly adhere to a page-by-page, scene-by-scene replay of the books, they have lost sight (or never really truly comprehended) what Tolkien was telling us in the first place.

[Falagar]

I've never said anything about this, this'll be my first post on the subject.

Not all changes are for the good. Lots of people think that those changes that were done were bad changes. Why else would they complain? If it was a good change they would still like the movie, perhaps some small muttering about "that's not how it was done in the book" and then gone back to see (and enjoy) the movie again.

I've read a couple of threads on this topic, and as far as I have understood it has been discussed many times before without a good result. This thread looks suspiciously like a flame-bait.

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I find it ironic that some fans of the books cannot come to terms with the changes that Peter Jackson has made to their beloved story.

1) Not my story, its JRRT's story :D. I wondered at the reasons chosen by PJ&Co to film LOTR the way they did. In some cases the choices made in the film do not make sense (if one was attempting to do a book adaptation to film)

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer One would think that true "Book Purists" would be more accepting of the changes since the inevitability of change was the overriding theme of JRR Tolkien's story. In Tolkien's Middle-Earth -- like our own world -- nothing ever stays the same, even for immortals.

2) True: . . .nothing remains the same.
Some changes that PJ&CO. made are fine, by me anyway ;):
Removing the old forest, Tom B., and the Barrow wright.
Replacing Glorfindel with Arwen.
as two examples
Some changes that PJ&CO. made do not make sense:
Flight to Ford
Weathertop
as two examples

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer Ironically, by getting so worked up by what they see as Jackson's failure to rigidly adhere to a page-by-page, scene-by-scene replay of the books, they have lost sight (or never really truly comprehended) what Tolkien was telling us in the first place.

3)I disagree with your assessment. (though you may be correct with some people ;))

I think some people are upset since they were "sold" goods under false advertising.

It was reported that PJ was a fan of LOTR and would film LOTR based on a fans perspective. I think this raised many fans expectations of how the films would adapt LOTR to film.

Since these films were expected to be a good adaptation of LOTR, when people go and see what has become of certain characters, places and events in the book they are naturally upset.

Some changes that were done for time constraints can be understandable. Tom B. & Old Forest being cut out is one example.

Some changes that contradicts what occured in the book is not forgivable, especially when doing the scene correctly would have taken as much time as doing the scene incorrectly. "Flight to the Ford" is one example.

Some additions were aggravating especially when they came at the expense of bringing material from LOTR to film.
Trip to Osilgoth(sp?) compared to the scant amount time given to Fangorn forest and the Ents is one example.

Bakshi's version of the first half of LOTR (even with all its problems) at least added very little if any additions of his own to LOTR. You may complain that too much was dropped from LOTR in his version ( and I would agree), but I think IMHO that an effort was made to stay true to the spirit if not the actual text of LOTR.

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by Falagar
This thread looks suspiciously like a flame-bait.

You are probably right. ;)

[Black Breathalizer]

Obviously, my point has escaped at least one poster. Let me try again:

Tolkien was notorious for writing different versions of the same events in Middle-Earth. In fact, his son Chrisopher has made a career editing his father's writings on the subject of Middle-Earth. Tolkien admitted he did this for his own amusement. I'm sure it also came from his understanding that the oral and written histories of any culture are very different depending on who you ask and their point of view. To illustrate this, we see a world that has different version of events, different names for people, and different perspectives. In every way, shape, and form, Tolkien was a champion of diversity and understood that change is not good or bad, it is simply the nature of things -- in our world as in Middle-Earth.

[Falagar]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Obviously, my point has escaped at least one poster. Let me try again:

Tolkien was notorious for writing different versions of the same events in Middle-Earth. In fact, his son Chrisopher has made a career editing his father's writings on the subject of Middle-Earth. Tolkien admitted he did this for his own amusement. I'm sure it also came from his understanding that the oral and written histories of any culture are very different depending on who you ask and their point of view. To illustrate this, we see a world that has different version of events, different names for people, and different perspectives. In every way, shape, and form, Tolkien was a champion of diversity and understood that change is not good or bad, it is simply the nature of things -- in our world as in Middle-Earth.
Indeed, and I personally think that Jackson did a good job with FotR (and I enjoyed TTT, when I managed to separate it from Tolkien's books). Actually waiting eagerly for RotK, having slept in queue for tickets.

But, as I mentioned, haven't this been discussed before? And always with it resulting in flaming...

[LuthienTinuviel]

flame bait? BB, no! never!:D

[hectorberlioz]

Tolkien was notorious for writing different versions of the same events in Middle-Earth. In fact, his son Chrisopher has made a career editing his father's writings on the subject of Middle-Earth. Tolkien admitted he did this for his own amusement. I'm sure it also came from his understanding that the oral and written histories of any culture are very different depending on who you ask and their point of view. To illustrate this, we see a world that has different version of events, different names for people, and different perspectives. In every way, shape, and form, Tolkien was a champion of diversity and understood that change is not good or bad, it is simply the nature of things -- in our world as in Middle-Earth.
I dont see what this has to do with Jackson having a right to change the story.
It was tolkiens world, he can change it if he wants.
Jackson, on the other hand was supposed to be putting the story on film. He was trusted with it. Midlle Earth is not his to change.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by mithrand1r
Some changes that PJ&CO. made do not make sense:
Flight to Ford
Weathertop
as two examples


How do those not make sense? I'm trying to figure out how they don't. I thought they both did, especially Weathertop, I really liked the way Weathertop was done...Please explain...

[Melko Belcha]

mithrand1r I agree with what you said. One of my biggest complaints of the films is the character changes, but to me the capturing of the characters is the most important thing when bringing a book to film. But it is not as much the changes and the stuff that was cut out that upsets me, it is all the additions. I know everybody here agrees that filming the whole book word for word was not going to happen, there are even some scenes from the book I don't think would have translated well to the screen, like Bombadil, even though I love his part in the book. I can agree with the Old Forest, Bombadil, and the Barrow-downs being cut, it sucks, but I can live with it. It is when these long, time consuming additions come up that do nothing to drive the story further along and fall short of the original story that it makes me mad. Every addition takes time away from something from the book that could have been filmed, and then we hear the excuse that "well the whole book couldn't have been filmed". No it couldn't, but we could have had more of the book then all this other stuff that has nothing to do with the original. The first interviews I read of PJ's when I first heard about the films he said that his intention was to bring Tolkien's book to life, but after the movie comes out I hear him say that this is his adaptation, his version of the story. What happened to bringing Tolkien's story to life? I guess the reason I am upset the most is because I feel that Tolkien's LotR could make a great film, and there is enuff in the films out now to prove it could be done, but what we have right now is not Tolkien's LotR', it is a re-written LotR. Maybe by the time I'm 60 someone might do a film more true to the book, but I don't see it happening, unless maybe a CG movie like the Final Fantasy one, I can only hope.

[Dúnedain]

My biggest problem with the Movie bashing is that there is so much negativity about things that were changed and not any positives given to the great things that have been accomplished.

First and foremost, this masterpiece of a work by Tolkien was brought to life. Second the beauty of the story is something we can all see. For instance, think about Edoras, that was unbelievable how detailed and beautiful that was. I always pictured Edoras as being gorgeous, but the movie totally outdid what my imagination was of it. They built that thing for 8 months, filmed on it for a matter of days and yet they still had the sense to put in the most minute detail that will probably never be seen on film and then they tore it all down. Why are things like that never given great credit? Instead people like to sit back and bitch about a change here or there.

Yes, some changes I didn't like either, but at the same time there are so many more positives for me than a couple things here or there that are negative or changed. Also, like someone said above, not all the changes were negative.

At first I hated that Glorfindel wasn't included and was replaced by Arwen. However after seeing the movie more and reading the books again and again, I like the fact that Arwen was given to us more in the movie, because she was such an integral role to the life of Aragorn, which you can closely read in the Appendices about Arwen and Aragorn's tale.

My favorite part of LotR's, which is "The Passing of the Grey Company" and the tale of the Paths of the Dead, is going to be changed in Return of the King, but I am sure I will still like the outcome, because the story still isn't changed, only scenes are.

In addition to that, I remember when the movie first came out, people were bitching about Dialogue, well hello, Tolkien didn't always write in dialogue for certain scenes.

I don't know, maybe I can just see past things better than others. For me the movies are more of a celebration and not a critique. They bring to life one of my favorite books of all time and I commend the effort, time and research put into them. Ultimately, the world of Tolkien has only been helped by this and more people can understand his true greatness in the art of writing...

[Melko Belcha]

Dúnedain I understand and respect everything you said. I do give credit to the special effects, the sets, and all the small details of costume. Whether or not I liked the way the character was portraid in the film , I though the cast was fantastic. But as I said above the number one thing to me is capturing the characters. All the rest, the sets, costumses, weapons, are all secondary to the characters. And it is all the stuff that you pointed out that makes me even more upset with the changes. They took the time to make this stuff for this film, and this story deserved that attention to detail, but then not to have the story I had been praying for and heard I was suppost to get made every change and addition that much worse. If this was a low budget film and did not have the level of detail, I probably would not have cared as much. But it goes the other way to, if it had been a low budget film with good acting, bad special effects, but stayed true to the book I would probably be praising the movie right now. Every good thing done in the films have made the changes and additions that much worse.

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
How do those not make sense? I'm trying to figure out how they don't. I thought they both did, especially Weathertop, I really liked the way Weathertop was done...Please explain...

To be clearer:

The Flight to Ford scene, I would have prefered it if it left Frodo with the lines he had and showed his defiance to the Blk Riders. The line by Arwen seemed a little out of place, IMHO.

Weathertop:

I should not have used the word contradict for this instance. :o My apologies.

I would have prefered it to how it was described in the book.
I think I am nitppicky with this scene, so take it for what you will.

[brownjenkins]

i don't think being "true to the book" has anything to do with making a good movie (kubrick's "The Shining" is a great example of this... especially when you compare it to the much-worse yet much more literal version that stephen king put out a few years back)

i loved the first two movies... sure, i would change some things and truely disliked a few (probably the casting of galadriel the most, maybe sam second)... that said, they still rank among my favorites... i loved the opening sequence... i thought merry and pip added a good bit of humor that is really needed in a movie of this kind... the flight to the ford thing was not like the book, but still exciting in its own way

i really try to approach it with the "would i like this if i knew nothing about the book"

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i really try to approach it with the "would i like this if i knew nothing about the book"

By that std. the movies are enjoyable.

Scenery very good
Music very good
Some corny jokes (ie drawf tossing)
Acting is generally good.

[jerseydevil]

YOu know- I have really been giving this a lot of thought lately and I must say - I am starting to see BB as being right. I'll have more about this later. I need to run off and watch FotR and TT back to back right now.

[Telcontar]

I still don't get all the complaining. The main part of the story is unchanged, and more than 75% of the events occurred just as in the book. You gotta remember that this movie was made to not only entertain LOTR fans, but to entertain a wide range of audience. It could not be made solely for book enthusiasts, otherwise the movie would've been 8 hours long. Frodo still got to Rivendell despite being hurt at Amon Sul, Gandalf fell, Boromir fell in pretty much the same manner, etc. Plus, a lot of the lines from the books were used in the movie. PJ did not sell out, I'm sure there was pressure from the studio to make it more appealing to a wide audience. Think of how gay Tom Bambadil would've looked on screen prancing around and singing.

[Falagar]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
YOu know- I have really been giving this a lot of thought lately and I must say - I am starting to see BB as being right. I'll have more about this later. I need to run off and watch FotR and TT back to back right now.
:eek:
Anyone else saw that? Or am I going mad?

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
My biggest problem with the Movie bashing is that there is so much negativity about things that were changed and not any positives given to the great things that have been accomplished... Excellent post, Dunedain. You nailed it. I particularly liked your comments about Arwen. Rather than bash the flight to the ford, book purists can return to their book whenever they need a new 'flight to the ford' fix. Yet they can also revel in the magic of a relationship that defines Aragorn that has been brought to the big screen. This is a time to celebrate the individual joys of the books and the films and the wonderful way the two compliment each other.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Telcontar
Think of how gay Tom Bambadil would've looked on screen prancing around and singing.

LOL! That is so damn true :p

[b.banner]

i like the movies alot but i am a little dissapointed about him taking out the part when they defeat saruman:( :D .

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Obviously, my point has escaped at least one poster.

What point? I thought it was just you starting another fight.:rolleyes:

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
What point? I thought it was just you starting another fight.:rolleyes:

And you're incitement isn't? :rolleyes:

[Gwaimir Windgem]

BB: You are, point blank, wrong. Tolkien wasn't "trying to tell us" anything, except a story. He wasn't using literature to preach at us; he was simply creating a story. Don't try to change that, and don't try to mold Tolkien into what you want him to be. To say he thought change is not good or bad is ridiculous. The idea you come away with is that change happens, whether it is bad or whether it is good, not that it's neither.

Telcontar: No. One could perhaps say that 75% happened in a way similar (in comparison) to the book, but very, VERY little happened "just as the book."

BB again: With all due respect, why do you stay here? You have no interest whatsoever in the community, you barely have half a dozen posts outside of this forum and the topic in GM about how we should make this a PJ-fansite; you do nothing except to tell us that we are all morons because we cannot see that PJ is superior to Tolkien. Why stay here at all? All you ever do is antagonise people.

[thranduil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem

BB again: With all due respect, why do you stay here? You have no interest whatsoever in the community, you barely have half a dozen posts outside of this forum and the topic in GM about how we should make this a PJ-fansite; you do nothing except to tell us that we are all morons because we cannot see that PJ is superior to Tolkien. Why stay here at all? All you ever do is antagonise people.

No one needs to pay there respects to any other forum.

If some of you just can't believe that the movies were changed than just read the books, or imagine the scene different, or something. There are plenty of ways to look past mistakes, deal with it and just enjoy it. Or hate the entire movies because "well Tolkein portrayed Bree like this, but jacksons is different." oh thats too bad. Is it really being true to Tolkein or just arguing over Petty subjects?

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by thranduil
No one needs to pay there respects to any other forum.

If some of you just can't believe that the movies were changed than just read the books, or imagine the scene different, or something. There are plenty of ways to look past mistakes, deal with it and just enjoy it. Or hate the entire movies because "well Tolkein portrayed Bree like this, but jacksons is different." oh thats too bad. Is it really being true to Tolkein or just arguing over Petty subjects?

Agreed! Too bad people here are too nitpicky and wrestle with petty things and it gets very annoying, especially when they say BB is antagonizing people, when in fact they are the one's that are always attacking him. Grow up people...

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Too bad people here are too nitpicky and wrestle with petty things and it gets very annoying, especially when they say BB is antagonizing people, when in fact they are the one's that are always attacking him. Grow up people...
I don't think anyone can make the case that BB isn't antagonistic. I quote:
Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I don't suffer fools well and that explains why I have vigorously defended Jackson here against the whinings of the clueless.
So calling us 'clueless' and 'fools' because we disagree with him isn't antagonistic?

[hectorberlioz]

what we've argued with BB about; he's asked for.
I would l would love to discuss it with him using pm's. but since he's closed off his pm mesages thingy and starts so many threads about PJ, no reason not to discuss it in them...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
what we've argued with BB about; he's asked for.
I would l would love to discuss it with him using pm's. but since he's closed off his pm mesages thingy and starts so many threads about PJ, no reason not to discuss it in them...
I agree and I also feel we have VALID complaints on the movies and jackson's propaganda. None of us were expecting a page by page screen version - but we were expecting him to give us the heart and soul of the story. Instead he gave us an action movie. Too many key scenes are either left out - or changed beyond recognition. And don't give me the crap that that is what it takes to bring it to the screen - because it's not.


Dúnedain, Thranduil, BB - if you don't like hearing our complaints about the movie - then don't state your opinions either. YOU guys like the movie and see nothing wrong with it - we however and many others do NOT like them. We give valid reasons for not liking them.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I agree and I also feel we have VALID complaints on the movies and jackson's propaganda. None of us were expecting a page by page screen version - but we were expecting him to give us the heart and soul of the story. Instead he gave us an action movie. Too many key scenes are either left out - or changed beyond recognition. And don't give me the crap that that is what it takes to bring it to the screen - because it's not.


Dúnedain, Thranduil, BB - if you don't like hearing our complaints about the movie - then don't state your opinions either. YOU guys like the movie and see nothing wrong with it - we however and many others do NOT like them. We give valid reasons for not liking them.

Well don't be ignorant yourself, calling the movies "propaganda", give me a freakin' break...:rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Well don't be ignorant yourself, calling the movies "propaganda", give me a freakin' break...:rolleyes:
I didn't call the movies propanganda. Jackson getting up and saying how he was making the movies for the fans WAS propaganda. His constant - "Oh we can't change that - the loyal fans of Lord of the Rings would never let me live that down" as he goes and rapes the Flight to the Ford scene or ends up filming that ridiculous Theoden scene, or Aragagorn falling off the cliff and Arwen"'waking" him. The fans were sold a bunch of goods before the film came out and after we opened it - we discovered it wasn't what it was adverised as. So give me a freakin' break. :rolleyes:

By the way - before the movies came out - Jackson had said he was a diehard fan of Lord of the Rings and was making the movies for the fans. Then in the FotR commentary he states that he only wanted to make a cool fantasy movie and after thinking about it decided on Lord of the Rings. (Suppsedly he has only read the books once) He's not a fan. The actors didn't have to read the book as he claimed - Elijah Wood has come out publicly and said he STILL hasn't read the book. This was ALL propaganda - to keep the fans of the books appeased. Some obviously have accepted his lies or else they were never true fans to begin with.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Some obviously have accepted his lies or else they were never true fans to begin with.

lol whatever...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
lol whatever...
Well then tell me how Jackson didn't just make a dumbed down action movie out of Lord of the Rings. He had great special effects, great scenery. He had Dwarf tossing jokes christ sakes, Merry farting or burping while eating Lembas.. :rolleyes: You say that we don't have valid complaints - I think we do.

[Cirdan]

It's like a drive on a beautiful road... with speed bumps. THe drive is nice but the speed bumps (the inserted material) are still annoying. It is still possible to enjoy the ride, if you don't spend the whole trip obsessing about the speed bumps.

I'm enjoying my last re-read before RotK. I'll go. I'll probably have fun, and I'll probably enjoy pointing out PJs triumphs and failings.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
It's like a drive on a beautiful road... with speed bumps. THe drive is nice but the speed bumps (the inserted material) are still annoying. It is still possible to enjoy the ride, if you don't spend the whole trip obsessing about the speed bumps.

Taking the detour through the slums isn't though (Flight to the Ford, Theoden, Osgiliath). It's also like coming upon a quaint colonial village and wanting to check it out - but you can't because the person driving only wants to get to the city as quickly as possible.,

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Taking the detour through the slums isn't though (Flight to the Ford, Theoden, Osgiliath). It's also like coming upon a quaint colonial village and wanting to check it out - but you can't because the person driving only wants to get to the city as quickly as possible.,

But yet you point out little things that do no damage to the overall story. The point of the matter is, anything that has been changed thus far as not affected the overall story nor has it affected the themes...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
But yet you point out little things that do no damage to the overall story. The point of the matter is, anything that has been changed thus far as not affected the overall story nor has it affected the themes...
It's NOT little things. The Flight to the Ford was a KEY character development part for Frodo. It was hardly small. It showed his strength againt the Black Riders and the Ring. I would hardly call that small. Also - Aragorn being a wimp has an affect on the story as does Faramir being an a*****e. I don"t see it that as loing as Frodo destroys the Ring all is good with the movie. There was far more to the books than that. Jackson left out the heart and soul of the books, the characterization and replaced it with action sequences. Instead of getting Galadriel from the books - we are given the Ice Queen from hell.

It's amazing too- the main character and object got all of about a half hour in TT. It hardly showed the true struggle of Frodo getting into Mordor. :rolleyes: So what - the Balck Gate was closed - all anyone who hasn't read the books think is that he just went around it now.

[Nurvingiel]

Still at it eh BB? It's been a long time since I posted in one of your threads. I love comparing the book and the movie, they're both so wonderful and at times, diametrically opposite.

There is no modern technology in Middle-earth, but the movie is so wonderful because of state-of-the-art special effects.

The book and the movie are works of art, and therefore subject to criticism. Tolkien hardly ever gets critisized (sp?) for a few reasons. First of all most people (here, anyway) regard him as someone elevated to godhood in authordom, myself included. He's seen by many as being above critisism. I have read 100s of books, and very few sucked. Even the worst book I ever read had artistic value (it was only the worst because the plot was hopeless and depressing.)
There are many movies that really stink (Jackson's is definately not one of them.) Books that stink never get published, but Hollywood produces crap movies that are mindlessly entertaining.
This is relevant because books and movies are in two artistic categories.
Also, the medium's are very different. Scenes that are brilliant in a book fail completely if adapted to a movie. I finally understand why Arwen is in "Flight to the Ford" while Glorfindel is tied up in the forest. This (and other scenes which I found cheesy) was the only way to convey how much Arwen and Aragorn loved each other. In the book, we knew she sacrificed her immortality for him, and Aragorn talked about how much he loved her all the time. Neither of those techniques would have worked in the movie. Movies are necessarily less subtle than books.
That being said, I still think that scene was a bit skewed. Frodo is supposed to be the main character of the movie, and I feel that theme was lost in both FotR and TTT. In flight to the ford, (in the book) Frodo rode alone, and defied the Nazgul's himself. That was a huge character development scene for him. In the movie, they could have kept that part of the scene, and simply inserted that it was Arwen's horse instead of Glorfindel's and then they could have still had Arwen and Aragorn's elvish-speaking scene.
Though movies are less subtle then books, I feel a few scenes are unneccisarily (sp?) unsubtle.
This is why I critisized Faramir's character so harshly. As someone already said, Faramir was needlessly and incorrectly a total jerk-ass. I assume that Jackson was trying to portray how tempting the Ring was, and how Faramir was really a decent guy deep down, and trying to do the right thing. He also showed, in Faramir's scenes, how Faramir felt torn between his father's orders and what he knew was right.

***SPOILER: This is foreshadowing for when we find out that Denethor's nuts. END SPOILER**

I didn't think it was nessecary to pound that into my head though. I love Jackson's movies, I don't think they suck, or that he sucks or anything.

I also repect, BB, that you've elevated Peter Jackson to the same level of godhood in the movie world that I've elevated JRR Tolkien to in the book world. To paraphrase Morpheus in Matrix: Reloaded, my beliefs don't require others to believe the same.

Still, at least a year after you joined the 'Moot, you're still stirring everyone up on the same topic. And I'm inexplicably drawn to your threads.

Cheers /N\

[hectorberlioz]

nirvingiel's post
Also, the medium's are very different. Scenes that are brilliant in a book fail completely if adapted to a movie. I finally understand why Arwen is in "Flight to the Ford" while Glorfindel is tied up in the forest. This (and other scenes which I found cheesy) was the only way to convey how much Arwen and Aragorn loved each other. In the book, we knew she sacrificed her immortality for him, and Aragorn talked about how much he loved her all the time. Neither of those techniques would have worked in the movie. Movies are necessarily less subtle than books.
well, jackson should've known-if he was truly careful and cautious-that je should not have messed with something like arwen.
So what if crazy extremist women feminists(just th crazy ones ;)) persecute him for the rest of his life for not having a central woman character?:p maybe he would have kept truer by omitting arwen on the whole.

[thranduil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Dúnedain, Thranduil, BB - if you don't like hearing our complaints about the movie - then don't state your opinions either. YOU guys like the movie and see nothing wrong with it - we however and many others do NOT like them. We give valid reasons for not liking them.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jerseydevil
[/B]

Never did I say I didn't like hearing your complaints, I "love" to argue over them because of how ridiculous some can be. As for "seeing nothing wrong with the movies" where did you get this information? In plenty of my quotes I have admitted to things that I didn't like and agree with. And as for Faramir being an a*****e, it just took him a little longer to make up his mind. I doubt that makes anyone an a*****e.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
nirvingiel's post

well, jackson should've known-if he was truly careful and cautious-that je should not have messed with something like arwen.
So what if crazy extremist women feminists(just th crazy ones ;)) persecute him for the rest of his life for not having a central woman character?:p maybe he would have kept truer by omitting arwen on the whole.
The thing is - both Galadriel and Eowyn are STRONG woman characters. He reduced Galadriel down - as I said - into the Ice Queen of hell.

Tolkien's books had a lot of historical accuracy to them and I'm sorry if the "womens lib group" wasn't active during the middle ages - but it wasn't. Yes - there were women like Galadriel and Eowyn - but the majority were like Arwen in the books. I agree that the love between Aragorn and Arwen needed to be shown - it didn't need to be made a whole new plot line like it is in the movies. I has taken over too much of the movie in my opinion.

[hectorberlioz]

Oh yeah, I saw a can of pringles with Aragorn,Eowyn and Arwen.
Like-its a hard decision for aragor nto choose between them:rolleyes:
Jackson has 'interpreted' eowyns secret love for aragorn into a 'i lovearwen,but eowynissopretty' type romance now.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by thranduil

Never did I say I didn't like hearing your complaints, I "love" to argue over them because of how ridiculous some can be. As for "seeing nothing wrong with the movies" where did you get this information? In plenty of my quotes I have admitted to things that I didn't like and agree with. And as for Faramir being an a*****e, it just took him a little longer to make up his mind. I doubt that makes anyone an a*****e.
I threw you in there for various reasons - you aren't as hard-headed as bb is at least. :) As for faramir - there was NO reason for him to kidnap Frodo back to Osgiliath - that makes him an a*****e in my book. Now Frodo has to make up all that time - backtracking while Sauron's armies march toward him. It makes no sense. Of course Jackson will just completely ignore this contradiction he created in the movies.

[thranduil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I threw you in there for various reasons - you aren't as hard-headed as bb is at least. :) As for faramir - there was NO reason for him to kidnap Frodo back to Osgiliath - that makes him an a*****e in my book. Now Frodo has to make up all that time - backtracking while Sauron's armies march toward him. It makes no sense. Of course Jackson will just completely ignore this contradiction he created in the movies.

I would say he was taking reason before chance. If it was me I would have taken him to MT for sure. Not let Gollum lead them to Cirith Ungol. It seems like madness. Kidnapping Frodo and taking him to Osgiliath is the wiser choice. He just let his wisdom come before his faith. No big deal. Well okay to some it is.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by thranduil
I would say he was taking reason before chance. If it was me I would have taken him to MT for sure. Not let Gollum lead them to Cirith Ungol. It seems like madness. Kidnapping Frodo and taking him to Osgiliath is the wiser choice. He just let his wisdom come before his faith. No big deal. Well okay to some it is.
It is a big deal - it completely changes his character and it also takes Frodo away from the quest. Talk about destroying the timeline. :rolleyes: jackson should have shown more of how treacherous the journey was through Mordor - instead he just throws in an action scene. You know - dumb ignorant movie people wouldn't be able to sit through it if it didn't have an action scene in Mordor. :rolleyes:

[Ruinel]

BB and all forms of BB <edited> :rolleyes:

[hectorberlioz]

this is now the official jackson/whatever else arguement thread.
no more arguement thread starters please:)

[thranduil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
jackson should have shown more of how treacherous the journey was through Mordor

Hmmm:rolleyes: I'm quite sure that will be in ROTK.. They aren't even going through Mordor in TT. I don't know what your talking about but I can only guess you didn't think that post through very well:D

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by thranduil
Hmmm:rolleyes: I'm quite sure that will be in ROTK.. They aren't even going through Mordor in TT. I don't know what your talking about but I can only guess you didn't think that post through very well:D
They're making their way toward Mordor. basically it is treacherous country - are they technically in Mordor - no. But why should jackson show the toil of Frodo now - all they're doing is going right ot shelob - which ends up bringing him into Mordor. Jackson has too many other things to worry about about for the 3 hours - than to worry about the Main Characters toil and hardship on the road to Mordor. There wasn't even a build up to the Ring getting heavy. All of a sudden - Frodo just says - "it's getting heavy". :rolleyes:

[hectorberlioz]

and aragorn's becoming the screen idol throughout the whole film.
they can show legolas riding on the shield, to make him look cool.
but they cant spend enought time with frodo.:mad:

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
YOu know- I have really been giving this a lot of thought lately and I must say - I am starting to see BB as being right. I'll have more about this later. I need to run off and watch FotR and TT back to back right now.
*spits water that she was drinking all over her monitor in shock*
:eek:
:mad: You may have captured, tortured and brain washed JD, black servant of Morgoth, but you will never take me alive. :mad:

[thranduil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
They're making their way toward Mordor. basically it is treacherous country - are they technically in Mordor - no. But why should jackson show the toil of Frodo now - all they're doing is going right ot shelob - which ends up bringing him into Mordor. Jackson has too many other things to worry about about for the 3 hours - than to worry about the Main Characters oill and hardship on the road to Mordor. There wasn't even a build up to the Ring getting heavy. All of a sudden - Frodo just says - "it's getting heavy". :rolleyes:

Whoa! there will be plenty of time for showing Frodos toil I hope. And so should you! It should fit if the battle doesn't take up half the movie. And I know you especially would be very upset if the battle raged on for the entire half of the show. And anyways that is when the ring becomes the heaviest is in Mordor, that is when there will be the struggle and emphases that the ring has grown over him. Perfect time to show how the ring is taking control over Frodo. And when Frodo says "its getting heavy" that isn't the climax, its the starting of build up. In case that had you confused.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by thranduil
Whoa! there will be plenty of time for showing Frodos toil I hope. And so should you! It should fit if the battle doesn't take up half the movie. And I know you especially would be very upset if the battle raged on for the entire half of the show. And anyways that is when the ring becomes the heaviest is in Mordor, that is when there will be the struggle and emphases that the ring has grown over him. Perfect time to show how the ring is taking control over Frodo. And when Frodo says "its getting heavy" that isn't the climax, its the starting of build up. In case that had you confused.
Actually - a lot of the toil and heaviness of the ring was occuring before Shelob. As for the heaviness line - it should have been building up - it didn't. He should have said it earlier than that - and shoudl have shown more of the toil of trying to make their way to Mordor. Instead - they go to the Black Gate (oops can't go through there - roll down hill - enemy 2 inches in front of them :rolleyes:, turn around). They're at the Black Gate - then they're with Faramir, then Osgiliath and then all of a sudden - they're on their way to Shelob. It's way too jumpy - because jackson spent so much wasted time on other things instead of the main character.

[hectorberlioz]

like helm's deep:)

[thranduil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Instead - they go to the Black Gate (oops can't go through there - roll down hill - enemy 2 inches in front of them :rolleyes:, turn around).

Did you read in TT when the riders go right past Aragorn, Gimli, and legolas, whithout notice. Yes! thats right there cloaks blend in very well to the environment.

And about the timeline, I say screw the timeline, so what if it doesn't match. Oh well another "petty" complaint that has no real weight to it.

[hectorberlioz]

well then. aragorn can run around from gondor and back, no prob.
:)

[thranduil]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
well then. aragorn can run around from gondor and back, no prob.
:)
Yes. Rangers are swift.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by thranduil
Did you read in TT when the riders go right past Aragorn, Gimli, and legolas, whithout notice. Yes! thats right there cloaks blend in very well to the environment.

If you read TT - the riders were on horseback riding fast past them. They were not standing 2 inches in front of them actually LOOKING for them.

And about the timeline, I say screw the timeline, so what if it doesn't match. Oh well another "petty" complaint that has no real weight to it.
It's not petty because Sauron has his army marching WEST now Frodo has to backtrack right INTO this army. :rolleyes: There is absolutely no explanation for this - Frodo just mirculously gets from Osgiliath to Shelob no problem. :rolleyes:

[hectorberlioz]

Yes. Rangers are swift.
:rolleyes: rubbish.

[thranduil]

I don't even know why i'm trying to defend TT. I was just trying to defend Faramir because I disagree about the names you have placed on him. TT is my least favorite and I find many of these things annoying myself but I look past it. How frodo journeys from Osgiliath without problem eludes me. He does have a very good guide, they do have there cloaks, and the enemy isn't looking directly for them, are my guesses.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by thranduil
I don't even know why i'm trying to defend TT. I was just trying to defend Faramir because I disagree about the names you have placed on him. TT is my least favorite and I find many of these things annoying myself but I look past it. How frodo journeys from Osgiliath without problem eludes me. He does have a very good guide, they do have there cloaks, and the enemy isn't looking directly for them, are my guesses.
But none of that is shown. All Frodo's trip is a series of disjointed scenes.

[hectorberlioz]

hmmm.....
nah, my other looked more official...(avatar ya know;))
k, well. TTT has major probs.
personnally, i think that getting somewhere in these discussions is impossible. you either like the films or not, or both. thats how it is; and some people just cant help it if they hate a movie which skewered a classic they are in love with.
like me.
I seem to be repeating myself...

[thranduil]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
hmmm.....
nah, my other looked more official...(avatar ya know;))



Yes I did like your old one better. But alls good.:D

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by thranduil
YOu might find this insulting but it looks like pippins face when he is burping after eating lembas.
My argument with the Lembas scene was that it was even in the script at all - let alone actually filmed. Then he had the nerve to actually put it into the extended edition. Jackson got it right the first time - it DESERVED to be on the cutting room floor.

As it turned out it is just one example of many things that shows what kind of hack jackson is though.

[edit]Thranduil - you edited out your post as I was quoting. You obvioulsy already saved your change by the time the post window came up since the quote does not contain the line where you say I shouldn't be concerned by the Lembas scene because it's in the extended edition,

[hectorberlioz]

thranduil and i have straightned things out.
flame was removed.

[thranduil]

I said nothing about that. Look at it, you have to agree that it looks like what I mentioned. Can you not see it? Look!

Sorry off subject, Will post when I have new meaningful insights.

[hectorberlioz]

edited by Hector

[thranduil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil

[edit]Thranduil - you edited out your quote as I was quoting. You obvioulsy already saved your change by the time the post window came up - since the quote does not contain the line where you say I shouldn't be concerned by the Lembas scene because it's in the extended edition,

Sorry about that. Your right, I realized the argument too late. So I took that part out to avoid the pippin burping scene discussion. I'm sorry I wasn't quick enough.:D

[thranduil]

Sincerest apologies, I thought It might be hitting below the belt.

[hectorberlioz]

hey thranduil, you might want to turn your pm inbox on:D
eh?
really though, if you dont remove your insult. I'll have to use my secret mod undercover(j/k) powers.
^old news

[hectorberlioz]

Ok, but do turn your pm inbox on please.Sincerest apologies, I thought It might be hitting below the belt.

[thranduil]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
hey thranduil, you might want to turn your pm inbox on:D
eh?
really though, if you dont remove your insult. I'll have to use my secret mod undercover(j/k) powers.
I haven't the slightest clue what this means.

[hectorberlioz]

it means: I am a Moderator(someone who takes care of stuff at entmoot, and punishes those who need discipline) and I was jokingof course...
and by the way.
I have not changed my avatar because of your insult. it is because i preferred it anyway.

[thranduil]

FOTR really doesn't deserve to be hated and bashed. And I highly doubt it is a "hack" job. A hollywood flick done so Jackson could make a quick buck. NO. Amazingly the movie is so well done that many people who have read the books prefer the movie. The casting was terrific along with the scenery and sets. But it doesn't stop there. PJ made this even better (movie)by making it a little more exciting. Even with the action I hardly stayed focused on the movie in the theaters, but imagine without the excitement Jackson put in, it kept me entertained. This movie is no hack job. So the conspiracy was left out, thats minor, we didn't need too much of the shire. Tom Bombadil would have been a scene you bashers would have ripped a part if he had been in the movie. Think how silly it would be, it would never work from text to screen. So xena I mean arwen replaces Glorfindel, come on you can't say you really liked Glorfindel that much anyways. Yes she stoll Frodos line, that sucks. overall the movies deserve less bashing and more constructive criticism. After all most of your complaints have been discussed numerous times.

[hectorberlioz]

NO. Amazingly the movie is so well done that many people who have read the books prefer the movie. The casting was terrific along with the scenery and sets.

well. those people who preferred the movies to the books obviously were false LotR fans, and who foound lotr too hard a read for them.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by thranduil
FOTR really doesn't deserve to be hated and bashed. And I highly doubt it is a "hack" job. A hollywood flick done so Jackson could make a quick buck. NO. Amazingly the movie is so well done that many people who have read the books prefer the movie. The casting was terrific along with the scenery and sets. But it doesn't stop there. PJ made this even better (movie)by making it a little more exciting. Even with the action I hardly stayed focused on the movie in the theaters, but imagine without the excitement Jackson put in, it kept me entertained. This movie is no hack job. So the conspiracy was left out, thats minor, we didn't need too much of the shire. Tom Bombadil would have been a scene you bashers would have ripped a part if he had been in the movie. Think how silly it would be, it would never work from text to screen. So xena I mean arwen replaces Glorfindel, come on you can't say you really liked Glorfindel that much anyways. Yes she stoll Frodos line, that sucks. overall the movies deserve less bashing and more constructive criticism. After all most of your complaints have been discussed numerous times.
No - it DOES deserve the criticism. Too much of the heart of Lord of the Rings was left out. As for Bombadil and Glorfindel - I have always said the should be left out from a theatrical version. Both are minor that have no true bearing on the movie.

The Shire however is a BIG part - as is the friendship with the hobbits. Bakshi got it right in his movie - when Merry tells Frodo how he may not be able to trust them to let him sneak off on his own into danger - but he can trust them to stick by him through the darkest hours. THAT WAS what was important in FotR - not the Wizards duel, nor the stair falling apart, not the stupid Troll. FotR in my opinion is far worse than TT - mainly because FotR was supposed to show the innocense of the hobbits - not the stupidity of Merry and Pippin the way it does. FotR was not supposed to be an action flick. :rolleyes:

[hectorberlioz]

FotR in my opinion is far worse than TT - mainly because FotR was supposed to show the innocense of the hobbits - not the stupidity of Merry and Pippin the way it does.
which just shows that Jackson is a false lotr fan. as those people who prefer the movies are...

[thranduil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil

The Shire however is a BIG part - as is the friendship with the hobbits.

I guess you were not satisfied with the screen time given to the Shire. It got the most screen time of any other scenes. I was pleased with how the shire looked and the feeling of all the hobbits and talking in the green dragon. It did make them feel innocent in a way. And Bilbo talking to Frodo at his Party was another example of showing frodo's innocence. Merry does nothing moronic except the "Tent". The rest of the movie he is great.

But TT isn't better than FOTR. You complain about the 4 minute troll scene in Moria look at your TT with Helms Deep, gimme a break. They could have named the movie Helms Deep. Like you said in your other posts Frodo journeys isn't followed well and its jumpy. I really wasn't satisfied with the ents like I thought I would. But don't get me wrong my point isn't TT is bad, but FOTR exceeds TT greatly.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by thranduil
I guess you were not satisfied with the screen time given to the Shire. It got the most screen time of any other scenes. I was pleased with how the shire looked and the feeling of all the hobbits and talking in the green dragon. It did make them feel innocent in a way. And Bilbo talking to Frodo at his Party was another example of showing frodo's innocence. Merry does nothing moronic except the "Tent". The rest of the movie he is great.

The travel from the shire was mostly a series of action scenes - as I said. Veyr little character development. The shire is not just the party. :rolleyes: I was also referring to Buckland - which is also part of the Shire. I say pippin and merry are stupid the rest of the movie - look at the stupdi council of Elrond "duh, where we going again?" :rolleyes:

But TT isn't better than FOTR. You complain about the 4 minute troll scene in Moria look at your TT with Helms Deep, gimme a break. They could have named the movie Helms Deep. Like you said in your other posts Frodo journeys isn't followed well and its jumpy. I really wasn't satisfied with the ents like I thought I would. But don't get me wrong my point isn't TT is bad, but FOTR exceeds TT greatly.
The only reason I think TT isn't as bad as FotR is because I expected the crap job after seeing the lame excuse for a movie Jackson gave us with FotR. YOu may like FotR - maybe you should read the book and then watch the movie - does it give you the same feeling? No - in FotR it's all action too. Frodo is RUNNING from Hobbiton - contrary to what Gandalf tells him - which is DO NOT just disappear. You may think these are small things - but this is what give FotR it's feel and it's soul.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Ruinel
BB, and all forms of BB... :rolleyes:

[Edited by Azalea -- please don't flame] making such a comment...

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It's not petty because Sauron has his army marching WEST now Frodo has to backtrack right INTO this army. :rolleyes: There is absolutely no explanation for this - Frodo just mirculously gets from Osgiliath to Shelob no problem. :rolleyes:

How can you say that when we haven't even seen what happens before they actually get to Shelob yet? :confused:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
How can you say that when we haven't even seen what happens before they actually get to Shelob yet? :confused:
Because they're pretty much there at the end of TT. You don't think jackson is going to waste time on set up material - when he hasn't in the past. History speaks for itself.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
FotR was not supposed to be an action flick. :rolleyes:

I guess I watched a different movie. I don't see how you can classify FotR an action flick when it had a MAX of 20-30 minutes of fighting and "action" in it...Heck action flicks are movies that have at least half of the movie, which in this case would be 90 minutes, full of action and fighting. FotR was not even close. The only action came with Moria, Weathertop (which wasn't really action, but I'll throw that in for you) and the fall of Boromir at Amon Sul...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
I guess I watched a different movie. I don't see how you can classify FotR an action flick when it had a MAX of 20-30 minutes of fighting and "action" in it...Heck action flicks are movies that have at least half of the movie, which in this case would be 90 minutes, full of action and fighting. FotR was not even close. The only action came with Moria, Weathertop (which wasn't really action, but I'll throw that in for you) and the fall of Boromir at Amon Sul...
Saruman. The council of Elrond turned into a screaming match, the chasing of Farmer maggot. I consider that to be action scenes that weren't action oriented before.

There was never a build up opf suspense like in the book. I never felt afraid that the black riders were around. IN the movie - they aren't even frightening anyway.

[thranduil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
There was never a build up opf suspense like in the book. I never felt afraid that the black riders were around. IN the movie - they aren't even frightening anyway.

I watched FOTR again and took a special interest into the wraiths. Now from what I saw, the dog and farmer maggot were terrified by the wraiths. Butterbeer seems to be horrified by them. Frodo it seems has become sick when the wraith is behind him when there hiding. (note, ROTK merry is crawling around blinded and sick from the wraith in pelennor fields.) also spiders, bugs, etc, feels his evilness and are moving away from the wraith. Also Frodo seems sick when the wraiths come in the dead marshes, and osgiliath. Yea maybe they don't frighten you, cuz your sittin in your house thinkin' they shouldn't be so action oriented. Note, as cassius has said they only clash swords with aragorn and sam in the entire movie!

[thranduil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
BB, and all forms of BB... :rolleyes:

I agree with you dunedain. [Edited by Azalea -- please don't flame]

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Saruman. The council of Elrond turned into a screaming match, the chasing of Farmer maggot. I consider that to be action scenes that weren't action oriented before.


lol come on man you are reaching here. Council of Elrong is action because there was screaming? lol

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
lol come on man you are reaching here. Council of Elrong is action because there was screaming? lol
I'm not reaching. read the Council of Elrond in the book. It was not a screaming match over what to do with the Ring. it was an INTELLECTUAL discussion. of course jackson didn't have that. He had Elrond being a snobbish a*****e and he had everyone else practically breaking out into a fight.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by thranduil
I watched FOTR again and took a special interest into the wraiths. Now from what I saw, the dog and farmer maggot were terrified by the wraiths. Butterbeer seems to be horrified by them. Frodo it seems has become sick when the wraith is behind him when there hiding. (note, ROTK merry is crawling around blinded and sick from the wraith in pelennor fields.) also spiders, bugs, etc, feels his evilness and are moving away from the wraith. Also Frodo seems sick when the wraiths come in the dead marshes, and osgiliath. Yea maybe they don't frighten you, cuz your sittin in your house thinkin' they shouldn't be so action oriented. Note, as cassius has said they only clash swords with aragorn and sam in the entire movie!
There is NO PSYCHOLOGICAL fear to seeing the Ring Wraiths on screen. Yes - jackson does show those things - but there is more to just showing it. If I saw them - I would be scared too - but not necessarily psychologically frightened. That is the part that did NOT come out on scream - and it could have been - with a GOOD director. When you see lord of the rings on screen - there is no feelign that they could be anywhere waiting to ambush Frodo. There is no pyschological horror to them.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
There is NO PSYCHOLOGICAL fear to seeing the Ring Wraiths on screen.Give it up, jerseydevil. Even people who agree with you are rolling their eyes at [Edited by Azalea-- please don't flame].

[Elf Girl]

After a few months off, I had decided to dive headlong into the debates again.

But something is wrong with the debates. No longer is it the friendly BB-and-purists-cheerfully-dislike-each-other cameraderie. Now BB is bringing in alter-egos, Ruinel is flaming, one of the alter-egos is insulting hectorberlioz's avatar for no apparant reason...?

What is the Moot coming to? I'm not sure I want to debate again anymore. :(

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Give it up, jerseydevil. Even people who agree with you are rolling their eyes at [Flame Deleted]
Who do you claim that is? :rolleyes: You must be living in your own little dream world again.

BTW - anyone can disagree with me - it doesn't change my opinions. I'm not leading an army here with "followers" You seem to think of it as an us versus them. I just state my opinions - they can side with me or side against me, it does not change how I feel.

I would like to know who you think supports me and is now rolling their eyes at me.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm not reaching. read the Council of Elrond in the book. It was not a screaming match over what to do with the Ring. it was an INTELLECTUAL discussion. of course jackson didn't have that. He had Elrond being a snobbish a*****e and he had everyone else practically breaking out into a fight.

Whether it was intellectual or not you are still completely wrong for saying screaming matches make it an action flick...

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
After a few months off, I had decided to dive headlong into the debates again.

But something is wrong with the debates. No longer is it the friendly BB-and-purists-cheerfully-dislike-each-other cameraderie. Now BB is bringing in alter-egos, Ruinel is flaming, one of the alter-egos is insulting hectorberlioz's avatar for no apparant reason...?

What is the Moot coming to? I'm not sure I want to debate again anymore. :(

Excuse me but I am no one's alter-ego, I speak for myself and my own opinions...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Whether it was intellectual or not you are still completely wrong for saying screaming matches make it an action flick...
It wasn't just that that made it an action flick. It's that the whole movie is action oriented which makes it an action flick. It's no different than the Matrix or Terminator 3.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Excuse me but I am no one's alter-ego, I speak for myself and my own opinions...
She was referring to Thranduil, Cassius and Gen-X.

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
She was referring to Thranduil, Cassius and Gen-X.

AKA: The Three Amigos. ;)

Apologies to anyone offended. The comment seemed to fit my mood at the momment.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Excuse me but I am no one's alter-ego, I speak for myself and my own opinions...
Of course I wasn't talking about you! You've been in these threads for ages. :)

[thranduil]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
After a few months off, I had decided to dive headlong into the debates again.

But something is wrong with the debates. No longer is it the friendly BB-and-purists-cheerfully-dislike-each-other cameraderie. Now BB is bringing in alter-egos, Ruinel is flaming, one of the alter-egos is insulting hectorberlioz's avatar for no apparant reason...?

What is the Moot coming to? I'm not sure I want to debate again anymore. :(

what do you mean bb bringing in alter egos, i have my own opinions about every subject. And I don't always agree with BB. As for insulting HB avatar I though I made it clear I was sorry and that there were no hard feelings. But I suppose you are holding a grudge about it for some reason.

[Dúnedain]

Anyone want to talk about Iraq? :p

[Nurvingiel]

** hopes Dunedan was kidding **

No Elf Girl! Don't stop debating! This thread has had tons of new posts since yesterday. Unfortunately, after reading them I'm not sure we're really getting anywhere. Everyone in this thread can be (somewhat crudely) divided into three categories:
Movie haters
Book purists (aka Movie critisizers)
Movie lovers

The first and last groups are diametrically opposite and will never agree ever. The middle group can easily make arguments for the other two. Most people belong to more than one group, making our debate complicated and never-ending.

I won't leave the thread Elf Girl, because you just got here!

I wouldn't want to miss a great endless debate anyway.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
** hopes Dunedan was kidding **

No Elf Girl! Don't stop debating! This thread has had tons of new posts since yesterday. Unfortunately, after reading them I'm not sure we're really getting anywhere. Everyone in this thread can be (somewhat crudely) divided into three categories:
Movie haters
Book purists (aka Movie critisizers)
Movie lovers

The first and last groups are diametrically opposite and will never agree ever. The middle group can easily make arguments for the other two. Most people belong to more than one group, making our debate complicated and never-ending.

I won't leave the thread Elf Girl, because you just got here!

I wouldn't want to miss a great endless debate anyway.

You forgot the 4th category:

Book & Movie Lovers :D

[hectorberlioz]

actually, I think there are only three after all..

Book Purists(who criticise and hate the movies as well)
Book/Movie lovers
Movie Lovers.

and of course they come in different colors.
meaning: some people like the movie to a certain degree or some people like the movies well enough that they dont really have a complaint.
these two would fit in the middle section.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by thranduil
As for insulting HB avatar I though I made it clear I was sorry and that there were no hard feelings. But I suppose you are holding a grudge about it for some reason.
I understand that you have apologized, but my point was that in the earlier debates it wouldn't have happened at all.

[Black Breathalizer]

I come here to discuss my favorite film adaptations of my favorite books. Instead I come here and read this stupidity.

I've got news for some of you: There are a hellovalota movie fans out there. The idea I use clones to enhance my POV is sophomoric and ridiculous. Grow up, people.

I think any more of this stupid discussion should be dealt with by our moderators. Not only is it insulting to newer posters, it is a juvenile way of trying to detract from a person's thoughts and ideas. For the last time, I have only one (and need only one) persona here: Black Breathalizer.

[brownjenkins]

i have to go back to what i said the other day... try to be objective when you watch a movie adaptation of a book, especially one you really like... and if you can't be, don't go

i can't believe the people i see here who actually compare it to bakshi's... which while it had a few redeeming qualities, had a lot more shortcomings (and I saw it in the theater when it came out)

i have a five and nine year-old who both love the first two movies and neither have picked up the book yet (though they both want to)... there aren't a lot of non-animated three-hour, or even two-hour movies that a five-year-old will sit though even once, so jackson must have done something right... and they seem to be understanding many of the essential plot twists and characterizations that some people here are claiming that the movie does not have... they found the black rider scene at the tree and in bree both scary and suspenseful... they see frodo as a hero generally scared, but brave at times... the action and comic relief keep them interested, and in general they return to it much more than a movie like harry potter, because it is more than just jokes and action

bottom line - you can hate it and criticise specifics (and I do agree with some criticisms, galadriel is an ice-queen at best)... but you lose credibility with statements implying that no true fan of the book could like the movie, or with the inability to understand while another might enjoy it

lighten up ;)

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i have to go back to what i said the other day... try to be objective when you watch a movie adaptation of a book, especially one you really like... and if you can't be, don't go

i can't believe the people i see here who actually compare it to bakshi's... which while it had a few redeeming qualities, had a lot more shortcomings (and I saw it in the theater when it came out)

i have a five and nine year-old who both love the first two movies and neither have picked up the book yet (though they both want to)... there aren't a lot of non-animated three-hour, or even two-hour movies that a five-year-old will sit though even once, so jackson must have done something right... and they seem to be understanding many of the essential plot twists and characterizations that some people here are claiming that the movie does not have... they found the black rider scene at the tree and in bree both scary and suspenseful... they see frodo as a hero generally scared, but brave at times... the action and comic relief keep them interested, and in general they return to it much more than a movie like harry potter, because it is more than just jokes and action

bottom line - you can hate it and criticise specifics (and I do agree with some criticisms, galadriel is an ice-queen at best)... but you lose credibility with statements implying that no true fan of the book could like the movie, or with the inability to understand while another might enjoy it

lighten up ;)

Good post! :D

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i have to go back to what i said the other day... try to be objective when you watch a movie adaptation of a book, especially one you really like... and if you can't be, don't go

I am objective. As I said - I think that the movies are average. They aren't great masterpieces. They could have trulky been great movies - and that's what bugs me. They could have stayed closer to the books. Great scenary, great special effects - not much else.

i can't believe the people i see here who actually compare it to bakshi's... which while it had a few redeeming qualities, had a lot more shortcomings (and I saw it in the theater when it came out)

That is true - but bashki's had more of the feel of the book. If Bashki or a similar director had the money that Jackson had - a great movie could have been made that stayed closer to the books. It is only the first part of Bashki's movie that I like anyway.

i have a five and nine year-old who both love the first two movies and neither have picked up the book yet (though they both want to)... there aren't a lot of non-animated three-hour, or even two-hour movies that a five-year-old will sit though even once, so jackson must have done something right... and they seem to be understanding many of the essential plot twists and characterizations that some people here are claiming that the movie does not have... they found the black rider scene at the tree and in bree both scary and suspenseful... they see frodo as a hero generally scared, but brave at times... the action and comic relief keep them interested, and in general they return to it much more than a movie like harry potter, because it is more than just jokes and action

I should hope a FIVE year old would find the black riders scary. The movies weren't meant for a 5 year old - or even a nine year old. For one thing - they are even rated PG-13. I'm not going to say - oh yeah - a 5 and 9 year old like them and understand them - they must be great. :rolleyes: My argument is that they aren't very intelligent movies. This sort of proves my point - 5 and 9 year olds enjoy a lot of action.

As for understanding the plot twists and stuff - that is great - too bad half the underlying plots have been so changed that they have no bearing in the book.

bottom line - you can hate it and criticise specifics (and I do agree with some criticisms, galadriel is an ice-queen at best)... but you lose credibility with statements implying that no true fan of the book could like the movie, or with the inability to understand while another might enjoy it

I have never made that statement nor have anyone else. BB has misquoted various people though.

I personally don't really think the movies are that great. They are just action movies. I do not consider them any better than the latest crap Star Wars movies. I go to the theater to see them too - but I am not at all happy with them. They could have been better. They have the lame jokes and are nothing more than action movies too. I however wasn't expecting Star Wars to be deep meaningful movies - like I was expecting LotR to be.

[hectorberlioz]

I personally don't really think the movies are that great. They are just action movies. I do not consider them any better than the latest crap Star Wars movies. I go to the theater to see them too - but I am not at all happy with them. They could have been better. They have the lame jokes and are nothing more than action movies too. I however wasn't expecting Star Wars to be deep meaningful movies - like I was expecting LotR to be.
which is exactly why the lotr movies deserve criticism. they could have been very good.
but they werent.

[brownjenkins]

My argument is that they aren't very intelligent movies. This sort of proves my point - 5 and 9 year olds enjoy a lot of action.

you'd be surprised how insightful and discerning they can be (thus my comparison with harry potter... which has little outside of action and comedy)

I personally don't really think the movies are that great. They are just action movies.

fair enough... i'd put them somewhere in my top twenty... not To Kill a Mockingbird, Monty Python's Holy Grail or The Shining... but on par with the original Star Wars or Alien, action movies with more than average drama and characterization... i can't think of a single "fantasy" genre movie that has been better as a whole

[Nurvingiel]

I love debating with you BB, I wish you posted more often. Actually, you and I are probably among the few who only post once a day. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but I suspect a few people post tons in one day, because I'll come back in 24 hours to find about 800 new posts up here. I exaggerate. But I felt left out of the debated topics since I wasn't here for a lot of it. Somehow, people got suddenly got mad at each other. (And again, in case that statement ticks someone off, I'm not thinking of anyone in particular.)

I don't compare this movie to Bakshi's since I haven't seen it. However, I have seen pictures of the scenes, so I can comment that the animation sucks. Whatever comments you can make about Peter Jackson, his Middle-earth does look pretty realistic. For the most part, it was right in line with my mental images from the book - with the exception of Frodo, Pippin, Celeborn, Gimli, Treebeard, Theoden, Eowyn, Faramir, Arwen, Helm's Deep, and Orthanc. The Nazgul were very close (but no cigar.) That seems like a long list, but think of the stuff that, in my mind, he got bang on. Gandalf, Legolas, Merry, Sam, Galadriel, Mordor, The Shire, Aragorn, Boromir, Elrond (close enough), Gondor, Fangorn and many other little things that were perfect and therefore I didn't notice them.

You can say what you want about the Galadriel ice queen thing, but Cate Blanchett is a genius, and I think she completely salvaged any awkward scenes, including the negative exposure thing.

The thing I said about categories was just to illustrate 1) that some people will never agree on some points and 2) some people will agree with many different points of view.

Black Breathalizer, you have to admit that the movies aren't perfect. For example, why is it that in the Osgiliath battle, when Frodo and the Nazgul faced off, the Nazgul didn't attack Frodo. What would have stopped it? This scene reminds me of the scene in the book (which it was probably emulating) where Frodo, Sam, and Gollum are hiding near the road as part of Sauron's army, headed by the Nazgul captain, ride by. The Nazgul captain stops and senses the Ring, and Frodo is drawn to him. I felt they had a weird connection in that scene, as they also did in the movie. The difference is, Frodo was right in front of the Nazgul, who had plenty of time to pummel Frodo and take the Ring.

Gotta go to class!
Cheers, Nurvingiel

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
fair enough... i'd put them somewhere in my top twenty... not To Kill a Mockingbird, Monty Python's Holy Grail or The Shining... but on par with the original Star Wars or Alien, action movies with more than average drama and characterization... i can't think of a single "fantasy" genre movie that has been better as a whole
There hasn't been because they usually resort to the same crap jackson did. Excalibur - although not a "fantasy" movie - is a ton better than Lord of the Rings and it isn't non-stop action.

[azalea]

I had to edit several posts. Please be careful with the language you use (if you HAVE to use the word a**h*le, please use ***). Also, DON"T FLAME! THINK about how what you're saying will sound to the person to whom it is directed! Calling people stupid, idiot, ridiculous, and other similar things are considered flames! If the argument gets you so worked up that you find yourself saying this kind of thing, just refrain from posting for a while, go to a different forum, and cool off.
Aside from all of this, the thread keeps going off topic. Personal comments need to go to PMs. Also, I know it's hard not to continue the same debates about the movie to other threads, but you guys have to keep your posts relevant to the original topic of discussion. There are a few different threads that are intended specifically to debate the merits different aspects of the movies. THIS thread topic as I understand it was to discuss HOW THE MOVIES REFLECT TOLKIEN'S UNDERLYING THEME OF THE INEVITABILITY OF CHANGE. I'll find a thread for you guys to continue your debate about Peter Jckson's treatment of TLotR as an adaptation. I'll bring it up in a minute.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by azalea
I had to edit several posts. Please be careful with the language you use (if you HAVE to use the word a**h*le, please use ***). Also, DON"T FLAME! THINK about how what you're saying will sound to the person to whom it is directed! Calling people stupid, idiot, ridiculous, and other similar things are considered flames! If the argument gets you so worked up that you find yourself saying this kind of thing, just refrain from posting for a while, go to a different forum, and cool off.
Aside from all of this, the thread keeps going off topic. Personal comments need to go to PMs. Also, I know it's hard not to continue the same debates about the movie to other threads, but you guys have to keep your posts relevant to the original topic of discussion. There are a few different threads that are intended specifically to debate the merits different aspects of the movies. THIS thread topic as I understand it was to discuss HOW THE MOVIES REFLECT TOLKIEN'S UNDERLYING THEME OF THE INEVITABILITY OF CHANGE. I'll find a thread for you guys to continue your debate about Peter Jckson's treatment of TLotR as an adaptation. I'll bring it up in a minute.

Ya know, I find it really funny how you edit my post for calling Ruinel an idiot, and you tell me not to flame, but Ruinel posted that we are "dumb f**ks" and you don't even edit her post and say "don't flame". What's up with that? :confused:

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks Azalea, I'm sure we'll all start asking ourselves if our mothers would approve before posting. Speaking of PM's... Since your PM's are turned of Black Breathalizer, I was hoping you would email me instead! ---> trillion13@hotmail.com <--- Then we wouldn't get left behind in debates, we could have our very own one. :)

I agree with you Jerseydevil, I think Excalibur (the one with the Carmina Burana soundtrack right?) was a better movie. That's not to say that LotR is a bad movie because of it, Excalibur is one of the best movies ever made. A Few Good Men is also an excellent movie, but it's incomparable to LotR since they're in completely different genres.

For LotR, it's the little things like turning the dignified, noble Gimli into the comic relief character and having comments like "You're gonna have to toss me." and "Don't tell the elf."

I think that detracts from the overall seriousness of the movie, and the dignity of the characters.

(I broke my own quasi-rule about posting more than once a day. Just trying to keep up to date!)

[azalea]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Ya know, I find it really funny how you edit my post for calling Ruinel an idiot, and you tell me not to flame, but Ruinel posted that we are "dumb f**ks" and you don't even edit her post and say "don't flame". What's up with that? :rolleyes:

What page is that on? I read the whole thread, and didn't see that post. I did see one that was edited, though. I wasn't on yesterday, so if it was posted and edited before I could see it, that explains it. If not, please let me know where it is and I'll edit it, or you can report it so that if I'm not on, another mod can do it.

[brownjenkins]

i agree about Excalibur being a great film, though i would probably put it on a similar level as LoTR... an excellent movie, but with a few faults, a touch on the dry side, and merlin, while good, needed a little work... still probably in my top-twenty (which is probably more like 50 :) ) but not an A+ list film like the first three i mentioned...

LoTR is actually much better than i expected, but unlike some, i did not expect very much... my main changes would have been in casting (galadriel and sam)... and i do agree that the Osgiliath battle with the Nazgul just didn't make much sense... at worst they should have had to fight him off a little more convincingly

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
There hasn't been because they usually resort to the same crap jackson did. Excalibur - although not a "fantasy" movie - is a ton better than Lord of the Rings and it isn't non-stop action.

Now you see? This is exactly what I mean when I say there is a double-standard here that says it's OK to do things to other writers work but not to Tolkien. I'm sure Thomas Mallory would have more objections to Excalibur than Tolkien would have to this set of movies. But of course, Mallory is somehow less important than Tolkien. I keep pointing to the fact that there has been NO proper Phillip K. Dick movie. Bladerunner, for instance, and Minority Report are just the most distorted screenplays you'll ever see. By comparison, Jackson is an angel.

[hectorberlioz]

well of course Phillip K. Dick hasnt built up millions of fans over decades.
Bladerunner came out, people figured they shouldnt hope for the best P.K. Dick adaptation.
so, yes Tolkien is more important.:D

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by azalea
What page is that on? I read the whole thread, and didn't see that post. I did see one that was edited, though. I wasn't on yesterday, so if it was posted and edited before I could see it, that explains it. If not, please let me know where it is and I'll edit it, or you can report it so that if I'm not on, another mod can do it.

Hmmm, it appears it was edited. Sorry then azalea. But my post was in direct relation to what she said. I'd never come out and flame someone unless incited, which I and the other people clearly were with what Ruinel said...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Now you see? This is exactly what I mean when I say there is a double-standard here that says it's OK to do things to other writers work but not to Tolkien. I'm sure Thomas Mallory would have more objections to Excalibur than Tolkien would have to this set of movies. But of course, Mallory is somehow less important than Tolkien. I keep pointing to the fact that there has been NO proper Phillip K. Dick movie. Bladerunner, for instance, and Minority Report are just the most distorted screenplays you'll ever see. By comparison, Jackson is an angel.
No it's not the same - because the movie wasn't dumbed down. I have read the book Mort d'Arthur - and it keeps pretty close to the book. As for the the books - I haven't read those - so I'm just looking at them as movies. if I cared about those books - then I would be complaining - but as has been pointed out - Bladerunner did NOT even use the title of the book - neither did Excalibuir for that matter. Jackson USED the title of the books and CAME OUT and PUBLICLY declared that he was a huge fan of the books and was doing the movie for the fans. That is what pisses me off about Lord of the Rings.

By the way - if what is true about what I have seen on the Prisoner of Azkaban thread and Hemione is wearing lowriders - I WILL have a problem with the movie. Just like I had a problem with the ridiculous Disney The Black Cauldron. Chronicles of Prydain is what got me into reading and I was highly upset by the movie.

If you want me to go over all the movies I think were dumbed down from the books- I will. We're discussing Tolkien - I wasn't aware that I had to list all the movies I have NOT liked where I had read the books.

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
I don't compare this movie to Bakshi's since I haven't seen it. However, I have seen pictures of the scenes, so I can comment that the animation sucks. Whatever comments you can make about Peter Jackson, his Middle-earth does look pretty realistic. For the most part, it was right in line with my mental images from the book - with the exception of Frodo, Pippin, Celeborn, Gimli, Treebeard, Theoden, Eowyn, Faramir, Arwen, Helm's Deep, and Orthanc. The Nazgul were very close (but no cigar.) That seems like a long list, but think of the stuff that, in my mind, he got bang on. Gandalf, Legolas, Merry, Sam, Galadriel, Mordor, The Shire, Aragorn, Boromir, Elrond (close enough), Gondor, Fangorn and many other little things that were perfect and therefore I didn't notice them.


I agree with you that some of the animation in Bakshi's version of LOTR is bad. (Primarily the "drawn over" live shots -- gives you an effect similar to "Tony the Tiger" in a cereal commercial).
The scenes that were strictly animated (without "drawn over" live shots) was not too bad, Although somethings were still not animated well. [elves in particular, they seem too bright (for lack of a better term) compared to their surroundings]

I agree with you that PJ&co. got much of the scenery, clothing, music, and setting details very well.

I will disagree to the degree that PJ&co. succeeded in adapting LOTR to film.

got to go for now.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by mithrand1r
I agree with you that some of the animation in Bakshi's version of LOTR is bad. (Primarily the "drawn over" live shots -- gives you an effect similar to "Tony the Tiger" in a cereal commercial).
The scenes that were strictly animated (without "drawn over" live shots) was not too bad, Although somethings were still not animated well. [elves in particular, they seem too bright (for lack of a better term) compared to their surroundings]

I agree with you that PJ&co. got much of the scenery, clothing, music, and setting details very well.

I will disagree to the degree that PJ&co. succeeded in adapting LOTR to film.

Those are my exact feelings also. I will add that I really liked Frodo, Merry and Pippin in Bakshi's version.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Now you see? This is exactly what I mean when I say there is a double-standard here that says it's OK to do things to other writers work but not to Tolkien. I'm sure Thomas Mallory would have more objections to Excalibur than Tolkien would have to this set of movies. But of course, Mallory is somehow less important than Tolkien. I keep pointing to the fact that there has been NO proper Phillip K. Dick movie. Bladerunner, for instance, and Minority Report are just the most distorted screenplays you'll ever see. By comparison, Jackson is an angel.

This example isn't quite comparable. JRR Tolkien completely created Middle-earth, but Sir Thomas Mallory wasn't the first, or the only, or the best Arthurian author. Mallory actually might have appreciated the adaptation of Excalibur quite a bit since it captures Sir Kay and Sir Gawaine how Mallory portrayed them. Mallory's book isn't the definitive Arthurian legend, but JRR Tolkien is the definitive Middle-earth.

However, you do have a point because Jackson's adaptation of Tolkien gets criticized a lot more than other book to movie adaptations.

I criticize the Harry Potter movies for not being true to the book a lot more than I do LotR. LotR has some themes and scenes that I would have changed, but overall it's a good adaptation. Harry Potter movies are the opposite - it has scenes I would keep but is largely inaccurate.

Cheers! N. :)

edit: post #777! Sweet!

[Elfhelm]

And I bet the character of Kate in Timeline will be totally botched.

All I'm saying is, all movies botch all books. Get over it.

Just because some people here don't care about Phillip K. Dick doesn't mean it isn't relevant. The fact that they didn't even use the title shows how little respect they have for him. But just because Tolkien is more popular doesn't mean he's more important or more sacred than PKD.

And one other thing. Tolkien twisted a lot of other works to create his mythology. I don't hear anyone running in here defending the Eddas and Beowulf from JRRT's alterations.

The only reason it's different is because this is a Tolkien fan site, not a Lord of the Rings Movie fan site. I don't know why BB would expect anything different from this group. Every geek has an overarching principle by which he is defined. Here we are defined by our love of Tolkien, not our love of adaptations of Tolkien.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I agree with you, Elfhelm; if I know how a book goes and I see a movie that butchers it, it ticks me off, period. It does so more in the case of Tolkien, because he is my favourite author, and there is often more to be butchered than in many other movies, due to the depth of the universe.

I disagree about the title; toting the name is separated from merely basing your work on it, in that it implies an intent to remain pretty close to the original work, in my opinion.

And I disagree about the Eddas; Tolkien didn't "alter" them, he "borrowed" from them, in my opinion. I don't mind if other fantasy authors "borrow" from Tolkien; to me, it's a totally different matter.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I disagree about the title; toting the name is separated from merely basing your work on it, in that it implies an intent to remain pretty close to the original work, in my opinion.

And I disagree about the Eddas; Tolkien didn't "alter" them, he "borrowed" from them, in my opinion. I don't mind if other fantasy authors "borrow" from Tolkien; to me, it's a totally different matter.
I agree with this GW. He didn't alter beowulf or anyt other mythology - he borrowed them - as does ALL fantasy books in some form or another.

Also Elfhelm - we don't have to get over it. At least I don't. It's my opinion and I have legitimate complaints about why I don't like the movies. You may disagree with my opinions - and that is your right. I think they are unintelligent action films. Thye are NOT what I wanted them to be and I will state my opinions about them.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Also Elfhelm - we don't have to get over it. At least I don't. It's my opinion and I have legitimate complaints about why I don't like the movies. You may disagree with my opinions - and that is your right. I think they are unintelligent action films. Thye are NOT what I wanted them to be and I will state my opinions about them.


Then you should show some respect to those of differing opinions instead of categorizing them and making generalizations about them...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Then you should show some respect to those of differing opinions instead of categorizing them and making generalizations about them...
If you read my MANY MANY posts all the way from when FotR came out - you will see that have go into a lot of detail as to what I don't like about the movies. I have not gone into generalizations - I just choose not to go into as much detail anymore. If you want to see the details - then read all my posts. :rolleyes:

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
If you read my MANY MANY posts all the way from when FotR came out - you will see that have go into a lot of detail as to what I don't like about the movies. I have not gone into generalizations - I just choose not to go into as much detail anymore. If you want to see the details - then read all my posts. :rolleyes:


No, you misunderstood me. I said to not make generalizations about the people who like them and their opinions about the movie, not about your dislikes of the movies. You were speaking about how you have your opinions and stuff, well so do others...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
No, you misunderstood me. I said to not make generalizations about the people who like them and their opinions about the movie, not about your dislikes of the movies. You were speaking about how you have your opinions and stuff, well so do others...
I haven't been making generalizations. I don't care if you like them or not, I don't care if BB doesn't like them. I however do not like BB's attitude toward the people who issue complaints against the movies. I accept your opinions - BB however has NEVER said anything other than how much he loves the movies. You weren't here in the beginning to see all the stuff he has said or his attitude toward the people who don't care for the movie.

[Ruinel]

Unfortunately, I didn't get to this thread in time to see the lovely posts by thranduil and Dunedain in response to my post to "BB and all forms of BB". :) Too frikin' bad. :D

[Nurvingiel]

Oh Ruinel... the debate was just getting good again :rolleyes:

:)

Anyway, I think there are only two things that could stop me from having criticisms about the movie.
1) That I didn't love the book
2) That I didn't enjoy the movie.

Except I did love the book. Tolkien created a wonderful image of Middle-earth in my imagination when I was 11. Tolkien is part of my childhood; I was, and am, a big reader, and I have fond memories of reading Lord of the Rings.

I also enjoyed the movie immensely. If I hadn't, I wouldn't bother criticising it because I wouldn't care. Jackson had a lot to go up against, Middle-earth already existed in my mind and he had to show it on screen. It would have been easier to start from scratch.

I liked the movie a lot, but I felt it could have been better. There were a few comprimises I could have done without. It's really just impossible for the movie to compete with Tolkien's Middle-earth that exists in my mind.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I find it ironic that some fans of the books cannot come to terms with the changes that Peter Jackson has made to their beloved story. One would think that true "Book Purists" would be more accepting of the changes since the inevitability of change was the overriding theme of JRR Tolkien's story. In Tolkien's Middle-Earth -- like our own world -- nothing ever stays the same, even for immortals.

Sorry for posting two in a row, but I just thought of something.

Tolkien also points out very strongly that change isn't always for the good. I think the Ents are the prime example of that.

[Telcontar]

Simple plan for all the movie haters:

Why don't you just stay home and not waste your money and time by watching ROTK? Your obviously already made up your mind based upon the previous two movies that ROTK will suck.

[Telcontar]

Simple plan for all the movie haters:

Why don't you just stay home and not waste your money and time by watching ROTK? Your obviously already made up your mind based upon the previous two movies that ROTK will suck.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
:)

Anyway, I think there are only two things that could stop me from having criticisms about the movie.
1) That I didn't love the book
2) That I didn't enjoy the movie.

Except I did love the book. Tolkien created a wonderful image of Middle-earth in my imagination when I was 11. Tolkien is part of my childhood; I was, and am, a big reader, and I have fond memories of reading Lord of the Rings.

I also enjoyed the movie immensely. If I hadn't, I wouldn't bother criticising it because I wouldn't care. Jackson had a lot to go up against, Middle-earth already existed in my mind and he had to show it on screen. It would have been easier to start from scratch.

I liked the movie a lot, but I felt it could have been better. There were a few comprimises I could have done without. It's really just impossible for the movie to compete with Tolkien's Middle-earth that exists in my mind. Well put, with lots of diplomacy. Something I'm not good at when it comes to something I love deeply, like JRRT's beautiful works. :)

[Chipalote]

I'm not going to say exactly what I think for fear of getting my head bit off, but can't we all just state our opinions w/o getting into stupid fights? my gosh, y'all are acting like little kids. Just coz someone thinks different then you doesn't mean you have to be biased against them.



Chipalote

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Ruinel:

I am an Elf with no self control. Beware.

:D


Chip:

In all sincerity, there isn't much "bias" going on. Almost all of it comes from BB; a little from JD, and probably a little from me, as well. But I have complete respect for many, many people who feel the movies perfectly captured Tolkien's vision: Dunedain, for example, and a few others who haven't posted for a while. It is when one stoops to constant mudslinging, insulting of intelligence, etc. as BB has that I lose my respect.

[Chipalote]

Sorry guys, I was on the first page when I typed my post- that was when I saw the most arguing going on. :o My mistake-

Chipalote;)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Telcontar: That really is not an option for me. I really couldn't not go to see something which has the name The Lord of the Rings on it. Even if I am, in my mind, all but convinced that it will be a poor portrayal of Tolkien's magnificent work, I still have (in my subconscious, I suppose) a deep-down hope that it will be good.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
But I have complete respect for many, many people who feel the movies perfectly captured Tolkien's vision: Dunedain, for example, and a few others who haven't posted for a while.

Thanks Gwai :D

However, I don't think the movies perfectly captured Tolkien's vision, I just appreciate the visions that it has given me by bringing it to life and telling one of my favorite stories, where I can look past changes, because for the me the positives far outweigh the negatives :D

[Telcontar]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
That really is not an option for me. I really couldn't not go to see something which has the name The Lord of the Rings on it. Even if I am, in my mind, all but convinced that it will be a poor portrayal of Tolkien's magnificent work, I still have (in my subconscious, I suppose) a deep-down hope that it will be good.

As so do we all. But if you think something will not be good, think of how hard it will be to be convinced that it was really ever good? Plus to you all, your imagination will never be what someone else's portrayal of M.E. is, so it will never be perfect, even if JRRT himself was alive and made a movie out of it. You are competing against your imagination. How can anything ever beat that? Nothing is ever perfect, but you can still enjoy it and recognize when things have to changed, especially for the good (maybe). I still haven't seen anything that was a detrimental change to the story, but that is just me.:D

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks Ruinel! :)

I'm certainly not a movie-hater, and I will be seeing RotK over Christmas break, probably more than once. I will go with great friends, and myself and at least one other friend will probably wear cloaks, just for the halibut.

Anyway, I have strong opinions about the movie, for reasons already stated, but just because I strongly criticise bits of the movie doesn't mean I hate them.

I criticised the "Flight to the Ford" scene harshly when FotR first came out because I knew Jackson could have done it better. FotR and TTT are both very good movies, and there are several scenes which show incredible brilliance and poignancy. This leads me to believe that Jackson didn't have to delete Frodo's defiance of the Nazgul, because he is obviously a skillful director, why would he needlessly make a character have less depth? (In the book, I felt that scene showed Frodo's incredible strength of character.)

Referring to the title of this thread, I don't think there are many (or any) actual Jackson bashers in this thread. I don't read criticising (I hate that word, I can never spell it!) the movie as bashing Peter Jackson.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Referring to the title of this thread, I don't think there are many (or any) actual Jackson bashers in this thread. I don't read criticising (I hate that word, I can never spell it!) the movie as bashing Peter Jackson. Actually, there are a number of Jackson bashers in this forum. On the other hand, Nurvingiel, you represent most Tolkien fans who love the books and love the movies too. You don't have to like everything Jackson did to enjoy the films and appreciate how wonderful many parts were.

It has been analyzed to death in other threads here, but I would briefly like to counterpoint your concerns with the Flight to the Ford scene from the film. From the film maker's perspective, it served many purposes:

1. Introduced Arwen to the audience and explained her relationship to Aragorn.

2. Provided a visual explanation for the flood.

3. Perhaps provided a more convincing scenario to a non-Tolkien audience than having a near-death halfing ride a large horse to the ford by himself.

4. Gave the audience an understanding of Arwen's strong sense of faith (hope) early in the series.

5. Provided the movie a strong visual (Arwen & Frodo chased by the Nine).

6. Provided a nice bookend to Eowyn's heroism in ROTK.

7. A display of courage at the ford by Frodo may have lessened the emotional impact of Frodo's decision at the end of the film to go on to Mordor alone for the non-Tolkien audience.

Frankly, if the Flight to the Ford scene is the worst Jackson "trangression" in this film series, then I will be a very happy camper.

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks BB :) As the honoured representative of the Book and Movie Lovers with Book Purist Leanings (BMLBPL) I think I epitomize this by agreeing with half your points, and having some type of rebuttle for the other half ;). (By the way fellow BMLBPL, you can always vote me out! :D)

1. They could have done that at the dinner, a scene she was actually in.

2. I agree, and I thought the flood was also really well done. But it appeared as though Arwen caused the flood, when actually it was Gandalf (maybe Elrond collaborated on that too, I forget.)

3. Too bad non-Tolkieners, you're not seeing an ordinary movie! Frodo could out-ride the Nazgul because a) he is a hero, and super tough to the end. I felt this wasn't emphasised enough in FotR and TTT. b) he's riding a pro-star elven horse, which the audience knows because it understands Arwen, who spoke to it in elven. The audience has the benefit of subtitles, no reason to complain. c) Frodo should have at least defied the Nazgul, even if he didn't get there by himself. See a.

4. It succeeded in this, but the scene where Arwen gives Aragorn did that too, and was sufficient to outline her incredible hope and love for Aragorn as well. This may come as a surprise to people, but Arwen is (supposed to be) so far from being a main character she needs opera glasses. :)

5. That part was super cool. Again, I agree. (It would also have worked with Frodo alone, but this ties in with your near-death argument.)

6. You may have a point but I don't quite get it. Do you mean the Arwen and Eowyn are character foils? Ooh, we could make a thread out of that.

7. Rather than detract from the emotional impact at the end of the movie of his decision to go it alone, I think defiance in this scene would have augmented it. (As mentioned previously, I don't think it matters if the non-Tolkien audience misses some of the subtleties. Even if they do, they will still enjoy a good movie.) I think it would have been an improvement to emphasise Frodo's heroism, rather than have him end up as someone who is either almost dead or almost putting on the Ring.


I have certainly contributed to the analyzing to death of this scene. But points 1 through 6 are just nit-picks. I don't really have any issue with those changes, but point 7 is very important. Frodo is the hero of this story, and he is a hero. I feel this gets lost along the way.

Woah. I'm gonna let someone else post now.
;) Cheers, /\N/\

[The Gaffer]

There are many ways I could (and have) criticise them, especially the Fords scene (saved, IMHO, by Liv's performance and the Flood scene) (BTW, in the book, it's all Elrond's work, with Gandalf adding a few touches, like the horses), the spontaneous collapse of Moria and the Osgiliath thing.

However, the main reason I like the films is that, in very broad terms, they succeed in that same immersive way that the books do. Because of the depth of detail you can be drawn into the fantasy world. That's what this sort of film should be about.

It feels like we now have two quite different ways of accessing the same world (book and film).