Changed My Mind: Jackson's LotR As Bad As DeLaurentis' DUNE

[bropous]

Boy, do I ever have egg on my face.

And Man, was I ever wrong. By a LONG shot. False hopes.

When I saw the first film, I swallowed my dissention, overwhelmed by the phenomenon of seeing my favorite work of literature brought to the screen. I saw it sixteen times in the theater, and of course, thought the rest of the films would redeem the differences I had with how the story was distorted.

I bought the party line, that there were a few changes, but hey, Jackson raised the money, he made the movie, it was his right to do the film as he wanted. Fine. I even went so far as to champion Jackson's cause on the Moot, being one of the prime apologists and railing against the "purists" who assailed Jackson's efforts. But it was slowly sinking in that I was on the wrong track, as far off track as Jackson. But I hadn't yet become able to admit the error. I held on for one more film.

Then Two Towers came out. Even MORE variance from the storyline, totally unbalanced retelling of this masterwork of English literature, but hey, I liked what I saw, for the most part, and glossed over the howling insult the film ended up being towards the story's creator. I saw it TWICE in the theater. That's it. Couldn't drag myself into the theater again to relive that sad caricature of the second book of the trilogy. So I set my sights on the third film, but daily was realizing I had been standing, all along, on the wrong side of the issue.

And so, here we go. We go back to the theater, only to witness what will be the most egregious facet of Jackson's b*stardization of this masterwork, a third film bearing little or no resemblance to the multilayered, heavily entertwined story that Tolkien worked so hard for so many years on.

Frankly, I take back all the good things said about the three films here and now. Now that the full scope of Jackson's rape of this masterpiece can be reviewed, I relegate this three-film set to the dusty bookshelf with the Rankin-Bass version of the Hobbit and Return of the King, and that Bakshi stab at the first half of Lord of the Rings. ALL fell far short of bringing Tolkien's world to view. Jackson's was the biggest disappointment of all: He actually had the money and the backing to do it RIGHT, and he FAILED MISERABLY, FOR NO FARKING REASON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Once again, I'll be waiting for the REAL version of these books to come to the visual media. Will it be another 26-year wait?

Wrapping up, here is the essential question on the final product:

Is Jackson's Lord of the Rings as bad an attempt to bring a great work of sci-fi/fantasy genre to the screen as was Dino deLaurentis' abomination of Dune?

My echoing, resounding answer: YES!!!!!!!!!!!

[jerseydevil]

I'm just glad after all these years Bropous - you have come onto my side. You have been saved by the dark power that is Jackson - his lies and deceit and his propaganda of "I am making this movie as a fan for the fans of Lord of the Rings" :rolleyes: We all know what lies these were now. I hoped before the movies came out - but from the first opening credits of FotR - I saw that he failed. And I saw it was only going to get worse. I was one of the few who spoke out against them, BoP was another.

[Cirdan]

Wow, is it BB's birthday already?:D

All I remember about Dune was that it was very long and dull. Tell you what, I'll rent it and let you know.

I must admit that while FotR was pretty good as long as it was, I thought TTT was ponderous at times. I got battle fatigue and this is from someone who enjoyed Black Hawk Down. I liked all of the adapted material, but the added stuff was, well just not good. THe humor was sophmoric (yes, Gimli IS short, and Eowyn can't cook, etc). Still I find it a stretch to reject the work out of hand. I think it reflects the chaotic approach to the project, with completeing goals (action vs true adaptation, true to character vs popularized characters *hemarwenhem*)

The fact that they wanted to put Arwen at Helm's Deep but then yanked the idea presumably due to tolkienite sentiments shows a divided conscience (or concensus).

BoP would be a good judge of this one as she is another Dune fan as well.

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by bropous
Wrapping up, here is the essential question on the final product:

Is Jackson's Lord of the Rings as bad an attempt to bring a great work of sci-fi/fantasy genre to the screen as was Dino deLaurentis' abomination of Dune?

My echoing, resounding answer: YES!!!!!!!!!!!

Sometimes one can be blinded by rose colored glasses. ;)

I think PJ's version of LOTR can be summed as follows: It is similar to a food that starts off sweet in the mouth, but leaves you with a bitter after taste.

As good as the Scenery, Wardrobe, Music, and actors (for the most part) were, there is enough not right (for me anyway) to leave a bitter taste in my mouth.
(Flight to the Ford, Council of Elrond, the Ents, Merry& Pippin, Bree, Osgiliath side trip, Frodo & Sam falling @ the Black Gate, Dwarf Jokes, Possession/exorcism of Theoden, etc.)

The movie had the potential to be much better than it was.
Could it have been worse? Yes. But as bropous stated

He actually had the money and the backing to do it RIGHT, and he FAILED MISERABLY, FOR NO FARKING REASON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


"Dino deLaurentis' abomination of Dune?" is that the version with Patrick Stewart (c. 1984) or the recent miniseries from Sci-Fi channel?

I have read the Book, but I never cared much for Dune. The book had more detail (in some cases more than I cared for: the dessert suits that they wore). Interesting yes, but not enough to read again and again like LOTR or some other novels.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by mithrand1r

"Dino deLaurentis' abomination of Dune?" is that the version with Patrick Stewart (c. 1984) or the recent miniseries from Sci-Fi channel?

I have read the Book, but I never cared much for Dune. The book had more detail (in some cases more than I cared for: the dessert suits that they wore). Interesting yes, but not enough to read again and again like LOTR or some other novels.
I felt the same way about Dune. As for the movie - it's the 1984 Bropous is talking about. That one I also hated and dispised. The Sci-Fi miniseries one - I have on DVD and is really good.

[bropous]

mithrand1r, I really like your line:

"I think PJ's version of LOTR can be summed as follows: It is similar to a food that starts of sweet in the mouth, but leaves you with a bitter after taste."

Succint, exacting, and dead-on accurate.

I mean, there were some god things about the films, I don't dismiss them entirely, but just like the 1984 Dune, the deviations from the books were unnecessary, took away from the original strength of the carefully-crafted source material, and distorted and re-made characters to make them nearly unrecognizable to the people who read the original works. All was done in a needless attempt to cast a wider net for the largest number of moviegoers.

I do think it is a good thing that the films will be spurring a few folks out there to explore the REAL Lord of the Rings.

In restrospect, I probably would go back and erase probably 75% of my prior posts knowing what I know now, but hey, that's just like life. We all misjudge things along the way, sometimes we get a few things right. It's just important to admit it when you realize you were wrong.

Again, I voice the hope that someone, someday, will get it "right".

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by bropous
In restrospect, I probably would go back and erase probably 75% of my prior posts knowing what I know now, but hey, that's just like life. We all misjudge things along the way, sometimes we get a few things right. It's just important to admit it when you realize you were wrong.

Again, I voice the hope that someone, someday, will get it "right".
I hope you really don't mean to go in an delete your old posts. It's like attempting to erase history because you don't like it (this might explain why my mother always called me a pack rat), Anyway - you shouldn't change any of your posts - even if you have changed your feelings toward Jackson.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

On the bright side, PJs LOTR did well on the clothes and equipment, scenery, music/singing, majority of the actors, etc. (call it the technical side). Sort of like a general manager getting the talent for a good team together. Now what's needed is a "coach" to make it all work properly.

On balance, and with its obvious faults, I thought FOTR was okay. Where PJ lost me was the Two Towers in general and numerous pointless bits (repeated dwarf tossing yuks [I have this picture of Legolas and Gimli arriving at Tol Eressea and Legolas throwing him onto the beach, with elves and maiar falling down laughing], exorcism, ents not voting to attack Isengard, &&&&&). Within the movie confines, TT could have been on a relative quality par with FOTR. What's needed is a director who will have sufficient resources and some of Bakshi's sympathy for LOTR structure, with, of course, necessary cinematic adaptations.

[bropous]

Nopers, jd, I won't go back and erase the posts, because I share your opinion of "erasing history because [you] don't like it". All the posts are still there, unedited. Full evolution of opinion survives, nothing has been sanitized.

Going back and erasing my mistakes of judgement would be as revisionist as Jackson. I may be a fool (quite often), but I'm not (too) much a hypocrite.

No, I let the mistaken rantings of the past stand, most of all as an example of how opinions can change over time with the addition of new data.

We're all human. We all make mistakes. Some of us (finger pointing at self) make 'em more often, and in a more publicized form, than do some.

Maybe I should change my signature line to:

"I keep scrubbing and scrubbing, but the egg ain't coming off!"

[Black Breathalizer]

bropous, you made the mistake of allowing rumors and spoilers to color your view of ROTK before you even had a chance to see it for yourself. But frankly, you never struck me as much of a fan of the films so your so-called change of heart isn't all that earth shattering.

I suspect we'll have a lot of people here eating crow when ROTK comes out and they discover the new film captures their imagination in a very emotional way.

But no one, be they LOTR film fan or foe, knows for sure how they'll feel until they see it. I admit to having some queasy feelings myself about a couple of the spoilers I've heard about. But I am not going to rail against a film I haven't even seen yet. The same reports that talk about the book deviations also say it is a brilliant, best picture Oscar-worthy film.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I suspect we'll have a lot of people here eating crow when ROTK comes out and they discover the new film captures their imagination in a very emotional way.
You said the same about TTT, but suspect away if you like.

Bropous- welcome to the abode of Those Who See The Light!

(Before BB gets annoyed about that line, I suppose I should mention that I am parodying his ridiculous titles of PJ-worshippers.)

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
You said the same about TTT, but suspect away if you like.
Bropous- welcome to the abode of Those Who See The Light!
(Before BB gets annoyed about that line, I suppose I should mention that I am parodying his ridiculous titles of PJ-worshippers.) Actually, I'm not annoyed. I realize my presence here is like being a shrink in some rehab center. I understand when I enter these walls I'm not dealing with normal fans. If the attitudes expressed here by you misguided types were the norm, then these films wouldn't be among the highest grossing and most critically acclaimed movies of all time.

But you are entitled to your opinions, right along with the "Elvis Lives" crowd and the Flat Earthers. :)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Actually, I'm not annoyed. I realize my presence here is like being a shrink in some rehab center. I understand when I enter these walls I'm not dealing with normal fans. If the attitudes expressed here by you misguided types were the norm, then these films wouldn't be among the highest grossing and most critically acclaimed movies of all time.

But you are entitled to your opinions, right along with the "Elvis Lives" crowd and the Flat Earthers. :)
Actually it is you who needs therapy. YOu should have understoof by now that a high grossing film is NOT necessarily a GOOD film. As for been critically acclaimed - they are critically acclaimed as ACTION movies and definitely NOT critically acclaimed movies of ALL TIME. :rolleyes:

Why don't you go and read the book already instead of spouting off constantly about how much better the films are.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Actually, I'm not annoyed. I realize my presence here is like being a shrink in some rehab center. I understand when I enter these walls I'm not dealing with normal fans. If the attitudes expressed here by you misguided types were the norm, then these films wouldn't be among the highest grossing and most critically acclaimed movies of all time.

But you are entitled to your opinions, right along with the "Elvis Lives" crowd and the Flat Earthers. :) I almost consider your post to be a very broad flame. You are correct when you say you are not dealing with normal fans, meaning people who are not fans of the movies. You are dealing with a large amount of Tolkien fans, not PJ fans. So, you think Tolkien fans are in need of rehab, and are misguided? The movies are not where the facts of LotRs are, but in the books.

I don't think that Elvis lives, but I do know that through LotRs and many other wonderful books, Tolkien sure does.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
I almost consider your post to be a very broad flame. You are correct when you say you are not dealing with normal fans, meaning people who are not fans of the movies. You are dealing with a large amount of Tolkien fans, not PJ fans. So, you think Tolkien fans are in need of rehab, and are misguided? The movies are not where the facts of LotRs are, but in the books.

I don't think that Elvis lives, but I do know that through LotRs and many other wonderful books, Tolkien sure does. Isn't this---> :) the symbol for "this...is...a...joke."???? Sheeeesh. Lighten up, people.

In the immortal words of Gimli, "I've seen more cheer in a graveyard."

[Sister Golden Hair]

In the immortal words of Gimli, "I've seen more cheer in a graveyard."I don't remember Gimli saying that. What chapter was that in?:p :)

[Balrog_of_Morgoth]

I would politely disagree with the movie bashers.

I have my issues...especially with TTT, but on the other hand, I view these movies as the greatest gift that I, as a Tolkien fan could have hoped for. The movies are better than I ever dreamed they could be.

These last few years have been awesome for me, as a fan of the books. I still love the books the most, especially the Sil, but the movies have a special place in my heart as well.

You have to view them for what they are - just an interpretation. For me, seeing Gandalf so beautifully played, the Balrog, and just feeling the real essence of Middle-Earth has been an incredible rush.

I am extremely grateful.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Balrog_of_Morgoth
You have to view them for what they are - just an interpretation. For me, seeing Gandalf so beautifully played, the Balrog, and just feeling the real essence of Middle-Earth has been an incredible rush.
The problem is - I do see them for what they are - typical dumbed down hollywood action flicks. The scenary was cool and I think that captured Middle Earth - but not much else was captured for me.

[justaregularguy]

Originally posted by Balrog_of_Morgoth
I would politely disagree with the movie bashers.

I have my issues...especially with TTT, but on the other hand, I view these movies as the greatest gift that I, as a Tolkien fan could have hoped for. The movies are better than I ever dreamed they could be.

These last few years have been awesome for me, as a fan of the books. I still love the books the most, especially the Sil, but the movies have a special place in my heart as well.

You have to view them for what they are - just an interpretation. For me, seeing Gandalf so beautifully played, the Balrog, and just feeling the real essence of Middle-Earth has been an incredible rush.

I am extremely grateful.

"

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by justaregularguy
" Huh?:confused:

[Black Breathalizer]

" = Ditto.

I am always happy to help our beloved admin. staff decipher the meaning behind smiley faces and abbreviations. :) ;)

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
" = Ditto.

I am always happy to help our beloved admin. staff decipher the meaning behind smiley faces and abbreviations. :) ;) Oh thank you so much BB. Your're always a big help.:rolleyes: Don't know how I ever made it through the books without you.:p

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Oh thank you so much BB. Your're always a big help.:rolleyes: Don't know how I ever made it through the books without you.:p
Well should hope that he didn't help you with the books anyway. He'd actually have to read them first to do that - wouldn't he? :rolleyes:

[Telcontar]

Originally posted by Balrog_of_Morgoth

I would politely disagree with the movie bashers.

I have my issues...especially with TTT, but on the other hand, I view these movies as the greatest gift that I, as a Tolkien fan could have hoped for. The movies are better than I ever dreamed they could be.

These last few years have been awesome for me, as a fan of the books. I still love the books the most, especially the Sil, but the movies have a special place in my heart as well.

You have to view them for what they are - just an interpretation. For me, seeing Gandalf so beautifully played, the Balrog, and just feeling the real essence of Middle-Earth has been an incredible rush.

I am extremely grateful.

Thanks Balrog_of_Morgoth,

You have captured my exact feelings. I could not have said it any better.
Kudos to BB for being so *brave* to strike against the purists ;).

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Telcontar
Thanks Balrog_of_Morgoth,

You have captured my exact feelings. I could not have said it any better.
Kudos to BB for being so *brave* to strike against the purists ;).
You know I'm really sick and tired of the purist comments. There is NO ONE - you get it NO ONE - that expected a damn regurgitation of the book on the screen. We just expected it tot have some resemblance to the books - other than just the damn ring going off to mordor, character names and some battles. There is very little actually in the movies that happened in the books. Either the scenes have been overblown by action, or they have been completely changed.

Since you call us the purists with a deragatory tone and get away with it - I think we should call the obsessive movies fans - "movie morons" or mm for short. So from now on - BB - is the leader of the MM gang.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Kudos to BB for being so *brave* to strike against the purists Just for the record, and BB knows this, I am not one of the big time movie haters, although I am more of a Tolkien fan. I have never said the movies were terrible or that they didn't capture Middle-earth to a point. I was however very disappointed at times, but I did enjoy the movies. The problem that I have with the attitude of some of the movie goers, is that they have not read the books and preach as though the movies are the gospel as it were. The so called purists would probably get along with these movie goers if they would just read the dang books and see the difference between the two.

The movie fans only, need to stop actiing as though PJ created LotRs when it was JRR Tolkien.

[Imric]

For my own part, I am not a purist. I love these books dearly but find myself capable of equally enjoying a cinematic adaptation that perhaps could be most honestly described as '''loosely based" on the trilogy. Yes, I would have preferred a more faithful adaptation of the Professor's work, but this does not prevent me from enjoying LOTR in either medium. I simply regard each incarnation as a distinct entity, certainly giving primacy of place to the epic Tolkien penned, but making no apology for my childish glee as I sit down to yet another viewing of an installment ( I've seen each film about ten times so far). And there I leave it.

[jerseydevil]

Lord of the Rings the movies - even if they were NOT Lord of the Rings - would not be my favorite or even close to my favorite movies. I don't think they are very good. As for saruman just disappearing and not being resolved - that is just sloppy. if it wasn't for the name - I would probably not even being going to see them in the theater - or if i was planning on it - and I missed them - it would be no big deal.

[Black Breathalizer]

Perhaps some of us movie-lovers have a few teensy-weensy little habits that might annoy some of the rest of you, but you Tolkien book purists out there need to take a long hard look in the mirror at yourselves.

I see...

1. posters who are quick to point out that they weren't looking for a strict interpretation of the books and then in the next breath go on and on and on and ON about the things they hated that were changed.

2. posters who tell us at least ten bajillion times a day that Jackson is "a hack who only gave us a mindless action flick." I don't mind opposing views but PLEEEEEEEEEASE give us some variety!

3. posters who talk about how the films should have been more like the books but make it clear with their posts that they really never clearly understood the books they profess to love so much.

4. posters who appear unable or unwilling to even acknowledge the massive popularity and critical acclaim of the Jackson films. There are many debates here that are strictly subjective but this one is not one of them.

5. posters who don't pay enough attention to the sheer brilliance and complete logic of my arguements in defense of these classic films. You'd think you guys would realize by now that I'm always right. :)

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
posters who tell us at least ten bajillion times a day that posters who talk about how the films should have been more like the books but make it clear with their posts that they really never clearly understood the books they profess to love so much.
Excuse me? On a Tolkien board, that's cutting very close to a flame, but we'll see what the admins think. You think your understanding is somehow deeper than the anti-movie crowd's, simply because you disagree with them? Could you provide quotes to spport your case?
posters who appear unable or unwilling to even acknowledge the massive popularity and critical acclaim of the Jackson films. There are many debates here that are strictly subjective but this one is not one of them.
What does the movies' critical acclaim have to do with our debates? No one is denying that they are well recieved by critics, and the majority of the population. Just because they think it's good doesn't mean we're wrong if we think it's bad. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
posters who don't pay enough attention to the sheer brilliance and complete logic of my arguements in defense of these classic films. You'd think you guys would realize by now that I'm always right. :)
This may be true. Feel free to PM or point out here (because I don't frequent the other debate threads, sorry) to me an argument or arguments that you feel has not been payed attention too. I will then be glad to pay attention to it. *small voice* Wow, big enough ego? 'sheer brilliance'? A little modesty, perhaps? No, please don't bring the smiley to your defense. I was just trying to bring to your attention that it looks like you have an over-inflated ego, since people (well, I can only speak for me) generally only see the smiley applying to the last sentence.


Huh? While I was previewing my post, I noted that my attempt to make the text smaller resulted in a funny font. When did that happen?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Perhaps some of us movie-lovers have a few teensy-weensy little habits that might annoy some of the rest of you, but you Tolkien book purists out there need to take a long hard look in the mirror at yourselves.

I see...

Yes - let's see. Maybe you can get these points through your thick skull.

1. posters who are quick to point out that they weren't looking for a strict interpretation of the books and then in the next breath go on and on and on and ON about the things they hated that were changed.

We can hate the changes Jackson made - without expecting a complete regurgatation of the books.

2. posters who tell us at least ten bajillion times a day that Jackson is "a hack who only gave us a mindless action flick." I don't mind opposing views but PLEEEEEEEEEASE give us some variety!

He is not the type of director he claimed to be when he first started working on the project. He did develop an action film - pure and simple.

3. posters who talk about how the films should have been more like the books but make it clear with their posts that they really never clearly understood the books they profess to love so much.

That is hilarious since you haven't said one single thing that is right about the books. I understand the books far better than you ever could.

4. posters who appear unable or unwilling to even acknowledge the massive popularity and critical acclaim of the Jackson films. There are many debates here that are strictly subjective but this one is not one of them.

ASs I have repeatedly said - popular movie does not equate to GOOD movie. Star War Attack of the Clones was a massively popular movie - however - it was not a really good movie.

5. posters who don't pay enough attention to the sheer brilliance and complete logic of my arguements in defense of these classic films. You'd think you guys would realize by now that I'm always right. :)
When you finally read the books and can back your statements up with things that are ACTUALLY in the books - instead of your blind support of Jackson.

READ THE BOOKS!!!!!

[bropous]

jd, honestly, do you, I, or any other "Purist" give a tinker's cuss about what some puffed up, megalomaniacal, self-important popinjay who never cracked the spine on a Tolkien book thinks, anyway?

So what we get called "Purists"?

So what someone gets called a "movie moron"?

Just let it slide, bro. Some things just ain't worth the headache.

We see clearly someone has piped up who can't build his/her/its own argument without tearing someone else's down first. No logic, no reason is offered, just a snooty, look-down-the-nose "pooh-pooh" to those of us who actually know what we're talking about.

Someone who wastes ten thousand words saying "I hate you! Nyah, nyah, nyah!" ain't worth the time of day.

Sister GH, glad to see you.

BB, instead of getting on your high horse, how about you start trying to build some syllogisms to reinforce your argument? The issue on the table is "Jackson's LotR is as bad as Dino deLaurentis' Dune". If you don't want to discuss the topic, go back to your narcissitic exercises of sophistry in your own mentally autoerotic threads. If you have something to add to the discussion at hand, cough it up. Refute the assertion.

[bropous]

Oh, and yes, BB, by all means, let me reiterate and amplify jd's spot-on assertion:

READ THE BOOKS BEFORE YOU EMBARASS YOURSELF FURTHER!!!

[So if I put a smiley face does that mean all is forgiven and we are busom buddies???]

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by bropous
jd, honestly, do you, I, or any other "Purist" give a tinker's cuss about what some puffed up, megalomaniacal, self-important popinjay who never cracked the spine on a Tolkien book thinks, anyway?

So what we get called "Purists"?

So what someone gets called a "movie moron"?

Just let it slide, bro. Some things just ain't worth the headache.
I needed something to easily refer to the ignorant people who haven't read the books - but criticize our complaining of them. They have no idea what the books are like and they are missing out on the real beauty of Middle Earth and the characters.

[Wayfarer]

honestly, do you, I, or any other "Purist" give a tinker's cuss about what some puffed up, megalomaniacal, self-important popinjay who never cracked the spine on a Tolkien book thinks, anyway?

So what we get called "Purists"?

In point of fact, I was first labeled a 'purist' in This Post (http://www.entmoot.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=37832#post37832), by my old, dear friend, Nolendil, who is one of the people whom I have the most respect for when it comes to all things regarding tolkien. Those who follow that link will read a succinct and still accurate definition of how I, as a 'purist', feel. The very fact that BB finds such a purist view as something scornful only serves to show how woefully inadaquate his cognicative faculties are.

However, in response to posters who tell us at least ten bajillion times a day that Jackson is "a hack who only gave us a mindless action flick." I don't mind opposing views but PLEEEEEEEEEASE give us some variety! I think I shall start a thread dedicated to imaginative ways of expressing our displeasure with variety suitable to his most austere and erudite tastes.

[bropous]

I share in your assessment of Nolendil, Wayfarer.

[Ruinel]

bropous, I have to say... the first film didn't suck nearly as much as the second film. Not to say that the first film didn't suck, cuz oh buddy, did it ever. :D [EDITED] ;)



.... waits for the usual admin edit. ;)


Last edited by Sister Golden Hair

[Sister Golden Hair]

Okay, let's chill people.

[Telcontar]

And people wonder why there's so much hate in the world!!!

This is almost like a religious strife. One interpretation of the "Bible" over the other. Let's all kiss and make up and get this behind us. As soon as ROTK is released, the fires should cool, hopefully.

Sorry for venting on the book fans earlier. I guess I was just tired of hearing that the movies were junk when I thought they were entertaining even though they strayed from the book (sometimes severely). However, I can understand the reasoning for some of the changes, mainly to capture the non-reader's interests and for time constraints. I think you can separate the two, where you can enjoy each on a different level.

A movie can never compete with your imagination.

[cassiopeia]

I've been changing my mind over the films during the last few months as well. I still think the FOTR is a great film. I'd probably give it 9/10 as a film, not adaptation. I'd give TTT a 7/10 as a film. The spoilers I have read about the ROTK have left me very disapointed. I find it very sad the team who made the movies went to so much trouble to make little bits of armour but somehow messed up a lot of the script. I recognize the movies' faults, but I can also see their good points as well.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Ruinel
bropous, I have to say... the first film didn't suck nearly as much as the second film. Not to say that the first film didn't suck, :D cuz oh buddy, did it ever. [EDITED]. ;)



.... waits for the usual admin edit.;)
:confused: eh? I didn't get edited? [EDITED]:confused: What is this board coming to? tisk tisk :p
Originally posted by Telcontar
...Let's all kiss and make up and get this behind us.
uh... [EDITED] :mad: The thought just nauseates me. *shudders*
As soon as ROTK is released, the fires should cool, hopefully. Not likely. I'm still smoldering over the FotR and TTT. How could the "fires" be cooled after RotK? :p
Sorry for venting on the book fans earlier. I guess I was just tired of hearing that the movies were junk when I thought they were entertaining even though they strayed from the book (sometimes severely). However, I can understand the reasoning for some of the changes, mainly to capture the non-reader's interests and for time constraints. I think you can separate the two, where you can enjoy each on a different level.

A movie can never compete with your imagination. [/B]
Apology accepted. However, I'm still not putting my lips to any part of BB. You can put that thought right out of your head. :p

As for the movies, if I had never read LotR, ever... and if I was not a big JRRT fan... I can see how I'd be stupified into believing that the movies were remarkable. As I've said before, PJ surrounded himself with the best of the best in film making to make up for his serious lack of talent. What I saw on the screen was definitely NOT a resemblance to the story I read in the book, other than the use of character names, place names and a few minor details. The movies were a HUGE disappointment. Movies are not just pretty pictures you see on a big screen... it's more than that. And this movie was definitely NOT the LotR story by JRRT.

Last edited by Sister Golden Hair:rolleyes:

[BeardofPants]

If by Delaurentis' Dune you mean the mini-series, hmmm.... that's a difficult one. At least PJ didn't have actors obviously running on the spot. :rolleyes:

[Ruinel]

Damn. :mad: Why does my stuff always get edited? Seriously, it's not that bad. Is it? :confused:
Originally posted by BeardofPants
If by Delaurentis' Dune you mean the mini-series, hmmm.... that's a difficult one. At least PJ didn't have actors obviously running on the spot.
That's freakin' hilarious. :D That reminds me of the Saturday Night Live (a US tv show) skits where they spoof something and the comedian runs in place and they move the background. Always obvious... but it's for comedy anyway. So, it works out. :)

... wait... can' I say "freakin'"?

[Sister Golden Hair]

Yes.:p

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Yes.:p
freakin' freakin' freakin' :D

[Wayfarer]

Yer' a freak, Ru.

[Telcontar]

Originally posted by Ruinel:

As for the movies, if I had never read LotR, ever... and if I was not a big JRRT fan... I can see how I'd be stupified into believing that the movies were remarkable.
You've answered my next question: If you had never read the books, were they good movies? Apparently you said yes. Well, I've read the books a few times also. However, I still believe that the movie couldn't be exactly like the book. I know some of you have recognized that fact. Where I differ is that I believe non-fans would've fallen asleep. I didn't think the movie was at all boring, yet people like my parents who've never read the books said they were falling asleep in the theater (seriously). My Mom didn't even want to watch TTT b/c she thought it would be the same way. For my part, I thought there was quite of bit of build-up and action. Other people didn't even know there were 3 movies out, and expected some kind of conclusion at FOTR. I had to explain to them why not. Do you see where I'm going? For those reasons alone I can say with truth that I did not expect a true book movie, and therefore I am much less critical.

Besides, to even have characters/moments like Tom Bombadil in FOTR would've been ridiculous. TO ME, he does not have any significance to the ULTIMATE struggle. He is a side character that enhances the story. If I am wrong, please correct me.

In closing, I agree that the movies will never be as good as the books, but it was great to see such a visual spectacle. The visuals couldn't have been better, because for me it matched almost exactly as I had imagined it in my head. I don't think that aspect could've been better or needed to change. And I certainly think that any *remake* wouldn't be better...until maybe a virtual reality type of movie! :)

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Telcontar
You've answered my next question: If you had never read the books, were they good movies? Apparently you said yes.

I said "might". I'd also have to be a bit on the not too bright side too.
Originally posted by Wayfarer
Yer' a freak, Ru.
You should be talkin'. :p :)

[Wayfarer]

[Edited] No flaming or gratuitious textual violence!!!


];-)

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
[Edited] No flaming or gratuitious textual violence!!!


];-) :D There's the old Wayfarer we know. ;)

[Wayfarer]

Now where's my scourge... Uppity elf-girls.

[Elf Girl]

Spammers.

[Ringil]

The extremely lame political correctness of the Administrative Warnings means that this is one mesage board I won't have to spend any more time browsing.

Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion this last time.

[Elf Girl]

You prefer boards where members are allowed to abuse each other?

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Ringil
The extremely lame political correctness of the Administrative Warnings means that this is one mesage board I won't have to spend any more time browsing.

Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion this last time. That is your right to do so. I can tell you this though, although you registered almost a year ago, I have been moderating on this board successfully for a lot longer than 11 posts. If you prefer a board with no moderation or rules, they are out there, but Entmoot isn't one of them, and is not likely to be one of them in the future. Sorry you don't approve, but the administration has to think of the whole community. If a few don't like the decisions made and therefore choose to leave, than that is the way it is. Entmoot does not cater to people that flame, nor do we support flame wars. If flaming and being flamed is more to your liking then perhaps you would be more suited to a chatroom. This forum has spun out of control. What would you do if you were us? It is important to make this forum user friendly before the release of the movie. Sorry you don't see it that way, but the rules stand. Enjoy your new MB.

[Ruinel]

That was a fine "how do you do", SGH. :( Not in your character at all. :o Why did you feel it necessary to judge this member? So, this person doesn't post much, so what? And I post quite a lot, so what? Quite a lot of my posts aren't exactly what you'd call attributing to the threads I post in, but hey... they're fairly harmless. :o

I belong to other message boards that I don't post hardly at all on. I go, browse, see if there's anything interesting... and leave if there's nothing to add. *shrugs* I wonder if the mods and admins there think I should be sent off like you did.

It's always sad to see a member go, and it's even sadder to see an admin give a fairwell so roughly. :rolleyes: I thought you were trying to make this forum a "gentler and kinder" forum after all. :rolleyes:

[Elfhelm]

THANK YOU!!! :D

Entmoot is not the personal pulpit of one or three mean people. It's about time the admins put a stop to all that.

I do not believe any movie is as bad as Dune. And almost everyone else thinks LotR is the best fantasy genre movie ever. Is there a better movie in this genre? Please tell me because I have been going to them for most of my life and if there's even one that can compare, I'd like to know.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Ruinel
That was a fine "how do you do", SGH. :( Not in your character at all. :o Why did you feel it necessary to judge this member? So, this person doesn't post much, so what? And I post quite a lot, so what? Quite a lot of my posts aren't exactly what you'd call attributing to the threads I post in, but hey... they're fairly harmless. :o

I belong to other message boards that I don't post hardly at all on. I go, browse, see if there's anything interesting... and leave if there's nothing to add. *shrugs* I wonder if the mods and admins there think I should be sent off like you did.

It's always sad to see a member go, and it's even sadder to see an admin give a fairwell so roughly. :rolleyes: I thought you were trying to make this forum a "gentler and kinder" forum after all. :rolleyes: /Excuse me? This member chose to comment in open forum on moderator decisions, the same as you're doing, which is against Entmoot rules. The poster obviously does not agree with the rules, and has chosen to leave this board. That's fine, but I have stated my feelings to them about their choice, and if you have a problem with my moderating, you may contact me via PM.

This thread is closed.