This is topic Purist Rage - How the Films Betrayed Tolkien's Legacy in forum New Line Cinema's Lord of the Rings at Minas Tirith Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.minastirith.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=001478

Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
If anyone posts anything about how we should just enjoy the films for what they are, the post will be deleted. This isn't about swallowing these films and smiling. It isn't about a fair, balanced, and level-headed assessment of films as a whole. It's about venting your rage, pure and simple. I know I am not alone.

I just started watching my TT:EE Appendices and I have come to a startling revelation.

I have the instinctual desire to punch Philippa Boyens in the face.

Just as Treebeard and Pippen could smell Wormtongue for the liar he was, there is an air about Philippa that sets my spider-senses tingling. She comes off as smug and completely lacking humility and when she tells me why she changed portions of the story in her condescending tone, I long to push her face in.

I am aware that this may seem undignified and perhaps un-Gandalf-like, but I disagree. I am a big fan of unashamedly having feelings when these are not acted upon but perhaps talked about instead. We all have feelings and fleeting thoughts, some good and some bad. For instance, I don’t consider thinking about infidelity to be a crime. We must all think about things even if it is only to deny them. To play mental games and not “allow” yourself to think certain thoughts is not healthy. An unexamined life is a poor one. Anyway, I’m sure Treebeard himself thought about breaking his root off in Wormtounge’s arse, if even only for a delightful moment. And Treebeard wouldn’t think twice about popping an Orc.

No time to finish this rant now, but perhaps others would like to talk about their occasional skull-splitting anger over what has been done to Tolkien's masterpiece.
 
Posted by The Laurenendôrian (Citizen # 106) on :
 
quote:
And if anyone posts anything about how we should just enjoy the films for what they are, the post will be deleted. This isn't about swallowing these films and smiling. It isn't about a fair, balanced, and level-headed assessment of films as a whole. It's about venting your rage, pure and simple. I know I am not alone.
[]

---

I don't have the EE of TT, so haven't been able to watch the appendices, but there are some scenes in the films that give me the feeling of wanting to hurt someone.

[ 12-08-2003, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: The Laurenendôrian ]
 
Posted by Curufin (Citizen # 2540) on :
 
I must admit that Nerdanel almost had to hold me down from leaving the theater in the "Window on the West" scene. I was irate. Furious. Almost maddened by anger. To take one of Tolkien's characters and mangle them in such a way to make them completely unrecognizable by a reader of the book - and how on earth are they ever going to make the third movie work in respect to Faramir? It's an outrage!
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
I have the nagging feeling that I won't feel the euphoria every critic seems to feel after RotK. I have had to really try hard to enjoy these films, and TT was hardest of all. I just know I'm going to be sitting there like Bruce Banner who has just been smacked in the face as the RotK credits roll. []

Also, I apologize for starting a new thread on this when there were obviously so many before me. I hope to keep the movie-philes out of this one so we can wallow undisturbed in our glass-chewing agony. []
 
Posted by EowynatHeart (Citizen # 3437) on :
 
Well since we can vent here []

I waited in line an hour to see TT and push may way to the front too get a good seat. I gave people death looks if they even thought about talking during this movie and God help the talking teenager that sat down in front of me. Needless to say I "accidently" kicked alot of seats in the back before the movie was over []

At the end of the movie I just sat there and was like []

Whathe?

I cussed all the way home! I guess the one thing that made me the most angry was Faramir. Why? Just why?

I had so wanted to see the Ents. That was my most anticipated moment and then I felt very let down. It just wasn't what I had expected.

To be honest. TT origianl movie version SUCKED!

I haven't watched all of the TT Appendices yet, so I don't know what you are talking about WGW.

Pray for the Return of the King!!!!!
 
Posted by Curufin (Citizen # 2540) on :
 
I agree. While I have loved the movies, I have to admit that since I have read the books it has been a good deal harder. When I got out of TTT I was not "blown away" like I was after FotR. I liked it, but there were too many things that were just wrong!

[RANT]What the hell were with those stupid wargs and Aragorn falling off the cliff? Could't they just have cut that stupid scene that served absolutely no purpose whatsoever and done the Faramir scenes right?[/RANT]

I had to see TTT two or three times before I came close to enjoying it as much as I did with Fellowship. I had to get past the point where I was comparing every moment, to where I knew what was coming, and knew where to take my bathroom breaks to lessen the pain. :-)

I think, honestly, this is why I am so much a proponent of the "you can't compare them" philosophy --(which I am NOT going into here, so please don't delete my post!) It's the only thing that can control my rage. I feel it too - I hate what they've done to parts of the movie! But it's only by not comparing that I am able to enjoy both. And I really find myself wanting to enjoy both, because on a purely technical basis, the movies are beautiful things. I just wish that Peter Jackson could have done an original work of such scale and magnitude, so it could be enjoyed without my purist self attacking it!
 
Posted by The Laurenendôrian (Citizen # 106) on :
 
quote:
those stupid wargs
Do you mean the hyenas?
 
Posted by EowynatHeart (Citizen # 3437) on :
 
Curufin, I never did contect with TTT original. I saw The Fellowhip 5 times at the thearter and only saw TTT twice. I just didn't like it. I really didn't enjoy watching it until EE came out but that is just because he added all the scenes that made all the orginial stupid scenes make some kinda of meaning!!!!

OOHhhhhh don't even get me started on them Wargs and Aragorn. I think I actually came out of my seat and said "What the heck!"

The whole journey to Helms Deep was terrible. Poor Háma getting eat by a Warg []
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
And if anyone posts anything about how we should just enjoy the films for what they are, the post will be deleted. This isn't about swallowing these films and smiling. It isn't about a fair, balanced, and level-headed assessment of films as a whole. It's about venting your rage, pure and simple. I know I am not alone.
*stands and applauds heartily*

Thank you White Gold Wielder!

[ 12-08-2003, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by The ever young (Citizen # 3579) on :
 
Like everyone that's read the books I ahte what they did to Faramir. I watch the first two films then read all 3 books. I didnt really like Faramir when I saw the films but then I read the books and fell in love with him.then re-watching the film hardly any of the faramir-ness that I loved was in the film. The DVD does improve this and I'm hopeing Return will do more.

I hate film people that get annoyed with people for not likeing changes. We get that things have to be changed but for god sake changing one mans complete charaters is just taking it a little bit too far
 
Posted by Maia Olorin (Citizen # 2354) on :
 
In some interviews I've seen with Jackson, he comes across as a little arrogant, and in defending the changes he's made, he falls back on 'well, we're fans too, but we did it for the sake of the movies.' I don't buy it, entirely. There definitely are egos at play here. He's also stated that 'these movies are for the fans' but I don't think he's taken the fans' opinions into account all that much. Oh, we may have stopped him from sending Arwen to Helm's Deep, but I think that's about it. I managed to avoid getting my knickers in a twist about all of this until I read that he'd cut Saruman out of RotK. That made me angry, and I was thinking of not going to RotK.

I really didn't like the warg scene with Aragorn. I still don't. The warg attack, otoh, is a perfectly valid scene to add, as it is mentioned in the book.

I can understand the changes to Faramir's character, although I think PJ wasted the 'Window on the West' scene. I mean, all you see, really, is Frodo and Sam being interrogated by Faramir, with the waterfall in the background.

Still, the only things I am really annoyed at are Aragorn going over the cliff and PJ's leaving the 'Voice of Saruman' on the cutting room floor..especially in view of the time he wastes on stroking his ego with his fan-fic additions.
 
Posted by CRAM it (Citizen # 3224) on :
 
quote:
I have the instinctual desire to punch Philippa Boyens in the face.

[]

Whenever she says that her Aragorn is a much more complex character than the book's version, I just want to... []

Anyways, glad to hear that I'm not the only one that would like to smack her in the head once in a while.
 
Posted by EowynatHeart (Citizen # 3437) on :
 
quote:
Whenever she says that her Aragorn is a much more complex character than the book's version,
She said that!!!!!!!!

Who do these people think they are?????
Now I take back all the nice things that I said about TTT:EE!
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
I haven't seen TTT or any of the EE features, so I can't speak to how Philippa Boyens's demeanor comes across. But I have read a score of her interviews, and each time I can't believe how casual she is in blurting things out about how this scene in the book had no direction or that character in general had no personality! Argh, I want to smack her thick head for these arrogant mindless ravings and tell her to go back and read the book again, and this time--pay attention!! She turned Aragorn into a wimpy, angst-ridden, faithless "hero," which is hard to watch, because all of the mythic, "Lost King" Arthurian quality has been taken from him, and turned into some lame, modern cliche. The thing that bothers me most about this is that Boyens insists that his very "mythicness" in the books is what makes him "featureless" and boring. She doesn't see how skillfully he was put together by Tolkien, and that it is his Arthurian quality that makes him such a sad, evocative, and grim yet noble hero, without the phony tail-between-the-legs angst to stupidly try to convey a "modern," darker side.

However I have to say my biggest injury came very early on in these films when Frodo proved to be an utterly helpless, squealing, gaping, frightened child in need of constant rescuing. Frodo's bravery and mature, solemn, and introspective nature are turned into an absurdly giggling idiot at Bilbo's party, and a shameless coward who was the first to drop his sword and run like a girl on Weathertop. (And he can't even manage it because he stumbles all over his two left feet--like he does over and over in these films. Sheesh! Hobbits were anything but this clumsy as Tolkien wrote them!) In the book, the scene at Weathertop, like the scene at the Ford of Bruinen, are extremely telling about the nature of Frodo's true character. In both places he stands his ground very defiantly--even though he is nearly frozen with fear. He fights bravely to defend himself on Weathertop when the other hobbits crumble around him, and at the Ford, gravely ill and wounded, and in immeasurable pain, he defies the Black Riders even up to his last conscious breath. These incredible acts demonstrate why Elrond and Gandalf feels Frodo is a good choice as the ring-bearer, because he held out against the powers of Morder even when strong men would have failed. That these things are completely removed in the films--not just removed but compeltely inverted to make Frodo as helpless, weak, and in need of constant resucing as possible--severely corrupts one of the most poignant element in the books: Frodo's journey from being a strong, wise, and self-sufficient hobbit, to a person at the ends of the books who is irrevocably injured by the terrible force of the ring. He becomes a true sacrificial hero, because we know he has lost so much.

Tolkien "niggled" for years to get all the details of his characters just right. Boyens/PJ et al. should have at least given the book another read in awareness of that--they might at least have been able to to get some things straight about its beautifully crafted characters and scenes before mangling some of them beyond recognition.

[ 12-08-2003, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
The thing that real fans understand is the subtlety in Tolkien's work. Readers get more out of each reading.

Subtlety is seriously lacking in the films. Everything is dumbed-down and the audience is spoon-fed the plot. I can't imagine I've ever gotten anything out of multiple viewings other than noticing details in costumes and sets.

Perhaps if they didn't feel like they had to strive for utter simplicity, they could've made better plot choices.
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
WGW - I am so glad you chimed in here and I LOVE LOVE LOVE your rule on this particular thread! I'm soooo tempted to go back to other threads and do a stick my tounge out "nah nah na nah nah..." kind of thing to those who interupted similar threads, but I will refrain from such a childish act! []

Now I know exactly how Eomer felt when Aragorn sailed in to Minas Tirith! Now I know exactly how Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli felt when they met Gandalf the White in Fanghorn!!! You rescued us!!! You saved us!!! All who are sad or frustrated with a few or all changes in these films have you to thank for a place to talk safely! [] [] []

I hear what you are saying about Boyens! She simply oozes self righteous arrogance - for those who haven't read this, hold on to your hats and read this interview. http://home.zhwin.ch/~bernaste/rings/newsarchiv/02_12_cs_boyens.html

I think it says all we need to know about her narrow minded approach to Aragorn and Faramir. I would argue that a truly talented writer could easily capture what Tolkien worked so hard to achieve (and did so) with both characters, but noooooo, Boyens just rights it all off as if she so obviously knows better than J.R.R. or anyone else.

Also, this quote is telling:

quote:
Fran likened the process of writing LOTR as this train bearing down on you and we were laying the tracks as it was going and the thing was not about being hit by the train. It was about having to stand back and watch it derail because you failed to lay the tracks properly so it was very close. We were writing up to the night before, we were writing on the set, we'd be writing for 7 different units that were filming at the same time. This allowed for more input from the actors and made the writing process very organic.

Organic? How about choatic as the plot now appears to be in the films? This is a very complex story and this off the cuff rewriting shows itself clearly in the jumble that is now LotR. The new plots don't hold up. With all the preproduction work with storyboarding every single scene, one wonders how so much of the story itself was left to this last minute by committee approach! My God, Viggo didn't even read LotR prior to his getting the part. He does a great job of looking great and reading lines, but to give him input like this? No wonder... My God, has anyone here worked with actors and their egos? Even in some podunk community theater their own glory rules everything! For those actors who have some control, they may have some profound thoughts and other ideas, but in my opinion, Tolkien took care of all that in some 1000s of pages of the books and letters! It was all there to be sorted - it didn't need anything new!!!

[ 12-08-2003, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Snaga ]
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
One more thing - honestly WGW, I was to the point where I was going to leave MT - well, the film forum. I was so tired of having on topic discussions disrupted to the point I was just going to walk away for good. Thank you so much for this thread. I really try to be a good citizen of MT and though I stray now and then, I really do try to be polite and fair. Thank you again for all your work and for bringing us this whole place!

[ 12-08-2003, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Snaga ]
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
Don't thank me. Thank Philippa for endlessly saying things like "the books are OK, but you can't do this/that in a movie". Thank her for speaking to purists as if they were children who don't know what makes a good movie.

And give a bit of props to all those who don't know any better than to love the films intensely without question and who can't stand to hear anyone talk smack about them.

The combined anger they generated led to my inspiration.
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
This allowed for more input from the actors and made the writing process very organic.

This is the stuff you really have to do one of those cartoon head-shakes over and try to guess what was going on in the writer's head. I'm not sure how Ms. Boyens feels she can justify this kind of make-shift jury-rigged writing, though I'm sure in her own little "Boyeniverse," it all makes sense. Not only had Viggo Mortensen NOT read the book, I've heard none of the major actors in the film had read it, or had much familiarity with Tolkien at all. So to ask for their input on the script and plotlines seems like the most absurd thing I've ever heard! Who filled her crackpipe, might I ask?!

How did these people get hold of this wonderful work? Something in that act was terribly amiss. []
 
Posted by Tindómerel (Citizen # 3721) on :
 
quote:
"I wouldn't take this thing if it lay by the wayside, nothing could induce me to pick this up ..." which on first glance is a great line but dramatically, you can't go there......It's gotta be a dramatic moment, it can't be this little conversation piece around a fireside.
[] [] [] [] Who is she to say it can't??!! Life isn't always dramatic. I think toning it down would be good to show Hollywood that look!! Just because it's not fast and action-packed, doesn't mean it's not a good scene. []
Thank you for the link, Snaga.
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
Since each actor spends a lot of time thinking specifically about their character, I don't see the harm in asking their opinion on things. As far as I can see, Viggo didn't ruin the movie. I think they give the actors too much credit for their minor contributions to the script. Or perhaps they are sharing the blame?
 
Posted by Firiel Haranfin (Citizen # 3793) on :
 
List of movie-related subjects that I feel *humph*, *grr* or *bleh* about.

~The evil Faramir
~Aragorn's "I don't wanna be king!" issues.
~Arwen's "warrior maid" moments
~Not enough Eomer
~Young Frodo
~Old Elrond (He is and Elf. Elves don't age. Three thousand years old and venerable doesn't change that)
~and counting
 
Posted by La-Brendel (Citizen # 1145) on :
 
Well I hadn't watched the appendixes, but now that I see how obsolutely brain dead she is I think I've changed my mind on the movie. Up until now I thought they were okay because she tried, but that doesn't count as trying! All you ever hear about her is how much of a fan she is of the movies, and how she's read the books a million times. Either she lied, or she has dyslexia []
I was absolutely horrified when I saw the Warg battle. not only because the part wasn't true, but because I had no idea those were supposed to be Wargs! When I read the books I never saw them as something that could be controlled by a mindless Orc. Philippa says she is appealing to the fans, but which fans is she talking about? The pure heart fans, or the movie fans who get bored if there arent little mosters playing with sticks?
She raped the book. Faramir was never supposed to be so weak, and saying she had to change his personlity like that is just showing her ignorance.
 
Posted by EowynatHeart (Citizen # 3437) on :
 
I have read some interviews with PJ and if it hadn't been for Ian Mc. there may have not been that many direct quotes from the book anyway.
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
[] Like Snaga, let me indulge in a bit of bottomless thanks and appreciation, WGW. I was about to permanently move to the literary discussion too. I've been carefully re-reading Tolkien's works in preparation to move to that forum anyway, but before this thread, I was becoming so frustrated with narrow-minded Jackson "purists" attacking anything Tolkien "defenders" said, I didn't think I'd come back. (I was thinking about posting my film frustrations instead on another board that has a reasonably--well sometimes--respected "purists" thread.) I'm so relieved you've put your foot down--I'm compelled to donate and buy MT products in my utter joy! [] [] Yay! MT rocks! It rocks! It rocks! []

[ 12-08-2003, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
It is script-writing cowardace to make sure that every single character "goes on a personal journey".

To say that Faramir's character was the same at the beginning and end of the books is nonsense. To say that to have him reject the ring would've taken away from the power of the ring is also nonsense.

Maybe if they hadn't taken so many liberties with The Fellowship, they wouldn't have scripted themselves into a corner for The Two Towers.
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
quote:
Since each actor spends a lot of time thinking specifically about their character, I don't see the harm in asking their opinion on things. As far as I can see, Viggo didn't ruin the movie. I think they give the actors too much credit for their minor contributions to the script. Or perhaps they are sharing the blame?
Sure - Viggo did not ruin the movie, but I have just been around too many actors to know how ME ME ME is usually at the heart of EVERY thing - story be damned! [] They are worth going to for ideas, but you have to be careful!

Along this line, has anyone listened to the commentary by Orlando Bloom in FotR? Maybe it is me, but this boy doesn't have much going on upstairs. He goes on and on and on about the smallest things, but instead of giving more insight into his character, I just have to laugh. For example, he talks about how Legolas as an immortal would react to death more profoundly, so each time someone dies or we think someone dies (as with Merry and Pippin), we see the same over the top pseudo-existential pained expression by Legolas. It was a good idea, but he doesn't have what it takes to carry it.

Back on topic, the actor commentary is also interesting in how they all pitch in to the plot changes as if this is how the books were written! It is scary. Some seem more aware than others, but you have the feeling they all didn't do their homework. I think part of that homework was to read LotR for LotR. Not thinking every second about how something is to be played, but just immersing yourself in the story first - the subtle things WGW referred to.

P.S. WGW - sorry if I was sucking up a bit too much before! [] I was just so happy to see you pop in on this!
 
Posted by EowynatHeart (Citizen # 3437) on :
 
WGW, that is exactly what I thought. I adore and love The Fellowship but like you said, why go there if you have to go even farther just to make it work.

It is just like a lie, if you tell one, you will mostly likely have to tell another just to keep the first lie a truth.....

In The Fellowship, if they had just left out the Arwen thing, then you would not have had Aragorn falling off a cliff just so she could rescue him.

E:spelling

[ 12-08-2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: EowynatHeart ]
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
if they had just left out the Arewn thing, then you would not have had Aragorn falling off a cliff just so she could rescue him.
And they might have been able to keep Frodo's character intact. Since Liv Tyler has greater celebrity-power than Elijah Wood, she had to be promoted to the general film-going public, most of whom don't give one little whit about Tolkien--in a way that would make her look totally awesome, which in turn left them nowhere to go with Frodo's character but down. Since he can't rescue himself the way he does in the books--no Glorfindel doesn't rescue him either--then I'm guessing that helpless, frightened quality is all they had left to work with. "Are you frightened? Not nearly frightened enough!" The film folks made sure we'd be getting more of frightened Frolijah.

A stitch in time, might have saved nine.

[ 12-08-2003, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by EowynatHeart (Citizen # 3437) on :
 
Archer, I don't half the problem with Frodo's character as I Aragorn's. Especially, when he said, "I never wanted that power!"
Sorry but my Aragorn, the book and true Aragorn was a willing King. A King that knew what was in store for him. A King that took his sword with him once he left Rivendel. A King that took pride in his role, as he demonstrated in front of the doors of the Golden Hall when Háma asked for his sword. A King that waited outside of the Gates of the White City for just the right time. He wasn't a love sick pup! He didn't dream of Elves in see through gowns. He was to busy trying to get the Fellowship through troubles and trials.

*breathes*
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
quote:
It is just like a lie, if you tell one, you will mostly likely have to tell another just to keep the first lie a truth.....
LOL! That is perfect! You know, I think the one character where all these "lies" show up the most is in Elrond. The movie Elrond doesn't seem to know what to do or say because so much of his relationship with Aragorn and who Aragorn is now has changed. Elrond goes back and forth so often you have to wonder what the heck he learned in 3000 years.

Regarding another character - what about Eowyn. It seems obvious to me we are being set up in TTT to see her develop the unrequited love for Aragorn and his denying her love leads to her going off to war. With so much invested in this, we NEVER get to see her develop a relationship with Faramir (if all spoilers are correct). This is absurd. Movie viewers are also now heavily invested in her story (played very well I think), but with zero resolution. Then again, why would she want to hook up with such a sorry Faramir in the first place? []

Regarding Faramir, don't you think Denethor could be just as dissapointed in him for sending off the Ring had he been more noble and like the book Faramir? Denethor (in the book) is guided by a combination of grief for Boromir and for his "addiction" to the palantir and all the poison he is being fed by Sauron. Call me crazy, but this is enough for anyone to crack - did we really need to play up the whole least favorite son issue? Hmmm - perhaps PJ or Boyens has some unresolved issues with daddy popping in here? []
 
Posted by The Mighty Müsnud (Citizen # 720) on :
 
Though I am generally a glass half full fellow and prefer to enjoy the movies for what they are (i.e. a better attempt at LotR than Bakshi's version), I must admit that having watched the Appendices on the EE I am just as flabbergasted at Boyens arrogance.

What I found truly striking was the oxy moronic nature of the first two appendices. The first one details Tolkien's writing and background. It goes into great detail about how Tolkien's writing was so effective, even though he didn't follow the common sense writing techniques of others in his craft. That even though he strayed from the formula, it actually worked better than anyone could have imagined. The second appendix (Book to Film, or some such title) features Boyens speaking in all of her false grandeur about how Tolkien's writing would not work for the film, because it didn't follow the common sense techniques necessary for a good movie! Did they even bother to compare the two appendices when they put them on the DVD? Are they truly blind to the utter contradictory nature of the two!?

quote:
Frodo's bravery and mature, solemn, and introspective nature are turned into an absurdly giggling idiot at Bilbo's party, and a shameless coward who was the first to drop his sword and run like a girl on Weathertop.
This was my first warning sign as well, and something that I feel Tolkien himself would have despised.

quote:
Letters, #210

11. ...The Black Riders do not scream, but keep a more terrifying silence... There is no fight. Sam does not 'sink his blade into the Ringwraith's thigh', nor does his thrust save Frodo's life...
Why has my account been entirely rewritten here, with disregard for the rest of the tale? I can see that there are certain difficulties in representing a dark scene; but they are not insuperable. A scene of gloom lit by a small red fire, with the Wraiths slowly approaching as darker shadows -- until the moment when Frodo puts on the Ring, and the King steps forward revealed -- would seem to me far more impressive than yet one more scene of screams and rather meaningless slashings.....

The wraiths were not driven back by flaming firebrand Aragorn. They were driven back by a small hobbit calling out, "A Elbereth, Gilthoniel!" And how hard would that have been to include in the film!? It adds no significantly extra time, and if Grand Moff Boyens wanted to keep Uber-Aragorn in the scene, she could have still done so after Frodo's heroics...

But, alas and alack...
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
Archer, I don't half the problem with Frodo's character as I Aragorn's. Especially, when he said, "I never wanted that power!"
EowynatHeart,
I hear what you say about Aragorn, and I hate what the film has done to him too! PJ's/Boyens/whoever's reluctant king is a royal pain the armor, if you take my meaning. I sigh in bitter disappointment everytime I see him. But Frodo is my first love, and he is just as central if not more so, to the story. That his character was changed--and perhaps due to the director/studio's need to promote Arwen as a PC heroine--seriously bothers me, sorry.
 
Posted by EowynatHeart (Citizen # 3437) on :
 
Snaga, well Boromir was dear old daddy's favorite, even in the book he says that Faramir loved Gandalf more than him(sorry don't have the books with me so I can't give exact quotes). I understand that part, but why did they have to change Faramir so much? I think it is because they wanted him to be weak so they could lift him up later in the movie. Soooo, how is he going to be in RotK? Dimwitted and looney?!!? Where will that brave Faramir come in? I have yet to see anything that will indicate Faramir standing out.

Well, Eowyn is my single most favorite character, of course. It really upsets me that they have truly went in a differet direction with her. Not so much in TTT but what is rumored to be going on in RotK. Her character is so complex, how could you possible play this woman. She is so powerful, yet so weak at times.

I don't know what to think about it all. In one way I love them and can't watch them enough and then the next minute it just makes me so mad.

E:Archer, when I read the books, I see two different things happening. Frodo and his quest to destroy the ring and Aragorn's quest to finally become King. No I don't like the way Frodo's character went. I would have much rather seen that middle aged man fighting to get the ring to Modor with as little problems as possible, instead we see this immature boy trying his best to fight the temptation of the Ring. This is going to sound crude but they are times when I watch Frodo up on the screen and they he reacts to the power of the ring, it looks like his on the verge of a very painful orgasim...(sorry WGW don't get mad)I laugh sometimes. I'm thinking, that is not the way I see Frodo fighting the power.

I totally agree with you about Frodo!

[ 12-08-2003, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: EowynatHeart ]
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
Mighty Mus: You make an excellent point about the two appendices. I was happy about how well they described his writing only to be disgusted by chapter 2.

And don't get me started about the Ringwraiths. That was my major gripe about the first film and the way they handled it touched and poisoned many more parts before and after.
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
quote:
Snaga, well Boromir was dear old daddy's favorite, even in the book he says that Faramir loved Gandalf more than him(sorry don't have the books with me so I can't give exact quotes).
Sure and you are right, but what bothers me is they have latched on to this one aspect of his character to the nth degree while leaving out/changing everything else in order to fit in with this whole "weakness of men" issue that has to be tied in to Aragorn's whole reluctant King thing since he also fears he inherited the weakness of Isildur... the only part they got right here was "weak" - it's the weakness of screen writing that is happening here!

Man, this thread is growing so fast, it is almost like IM'ing!
 
Posted by EowynatHeart (Citizen # 3437) on :
 
I know, it is moving along!
I don't think I have ever seen WGW post so much. Well, since I have been a citizen that is []

I just wanted to say thanks WGW for letting us vent. I can't fuss at home. CJ won't let me. He has read the books but he is a true movie fan. I on the other hand sit and pick at the movies the whole time.

I do have my favorite parts but at least I can get out the anger at the parts I hate and spit on!!!!!
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
quote:
Man, this thread is growing so fast, it is almost like IM'ing!
I'm going to tweak the subject title, sticky it, and make this thread the official thread on the subject
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
And how many times has Sam pulled Frodo's hand away from the Ring? 4? In the books he only does this once and that is only when Frodo asks him to. Oh yes, but how silly of me. How can a movieor actor show Frodo's inner turmoil and struggle with the Ring - why they just had to slam us all over the head with it to make sure we got it. It just wouldn't be dramatic...

Then again, they somehow did it with Boromir - didn't they? The added scene with the Ring falling in the snow was a deviation from the book, but it worked. I have to say I really liked that scene, but it was very much in the spirit of Tolkien's Boromir. Perhaps we owe some of that to Bean's acting, but that is the kind of creative screenplay writing that could have been used much more to reinforce Tolkien's characters and plots.

[ 12-08-2003, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Snaga ]
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
FYI, Boyens is doing the screenplay for King Kong - I expect her to tell us all about how you can't adapt a film to a film in the same tone she used on LotR, TTT, interviews... Another true and undying classic (no, not the 70s version!) left to the butchering hands of this arrogant self righteous posuer.
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
The added scene with the Ring falling in the snow was a deviation from the book, but it worked.
I like this scene too for the most part, and yeah, probably because Sean Bean is a great talent and I can almost say that between his and Ian Holm's outstanding performances, I can almost forgive the trangressions against Tolkien in this first film--almost. One thing that bothers me about this scene is that Frodo looks a little too acquiescing in it. I forget exactly what Frodo's reaction in the film is when Bilbo asks to see the ring in Rivendell (must have not been very memorable or completly marred by that lame Biblo-goes-Orcish fx scene) but in the books Frodo becomes very possessive and angry, even with his beloved Bilbo. I feel that Frodo should have reacted more possessively with the ring in the scene where Boromir is holding it, rather than looking as if he were afraid (afraid!) of him. But now that I think about it, in the film, Frodo really does behave rather passively when the ring is away from him, like during the Council of Elrond. In the books, Gandalf or Elrond would have NEVER asked Frodo to part with the ring and lay it somewhere away from him for all to gawk at (they merely ask him to hold it up at the Council meeting--and he is very reluctant to do even that), so this scene where he is asked to put it out on public display seems somehow wrong to me, though I guess it is more in keeping with the ring in the snow scene.

[ 12-08-2003, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
But if Frodo never set it on the stone table, then how could Gimli spoon-feed the audience the notion of the ring's indestructibility by lamely trying to split it with his axe?

Oh what a tangled web they weave...

Edit: And the only thing that bothered me about the ring in the snow scene was how I seriously doubted that Frodo's short tumble could have caused the whole chain to slip over his head. I mean, they didn't even make it seem like the ring was trying to escape or anything, which would have nicely followed up the Prancing Pony ring accident.
 
Posted by Braeden Fireheart (Citizen # 1953) on :
 
'Twas his father's axe, WGW. []

And to add my bit of venting in:

Boromir's gift? Why, out of the whole Fellowship (who were in Lórien at the time), did he miss out on getting something?

I hated the gift-giving scene because of that.

And I won't listen to the excuse of messing up the scene or running out of time. You can't leave a character out like that. It's ridiculous.
 
Posted by Éomer (Citizen # 2824) on :
 
quote:
It isn't about a fair, balanced, and level-headed assessment of films as a whole.
Darn, maybe I shouldn't be here, then. []

But yes, even I have major grievances with the films, primarily The Two Towers, and especially what they did to Rohan. I'm not gonna type it all up all over again, so I'll just quote my own post from the Houses of Healing thread...

quote:
Rohan's been getting shortchanged in this entire trilogy...first their highest-ranking military commander that is still alive and whose mind is actually free and running at full speed is banished and apparently leads a force of at least 2,000 cavalrymen but somehow can't take the kingdom back from its usurpers, then their king decides to hide away in Helm's Deep, with the women and children of Edoras, rather than confront them at the Fords of Isen as he originally planned, then they need a little boost from the not-so-diminished Elves because they apparently aren't worthy or strong enough to fight a war on their own, then their own king is a quitter and is more excited at the idea of dying a glorious death than leading one last defense for his people...
And now I hear that Éomer's succession to King of Rohan in ROTK has been cut (still seething about that), and all of this just really pisses me off, pardon the language. It's bad enough that the writers had already turned the world of Men into a weak, pathetic husk of its former self--sure, the world of Men in Tolkien's work was weak and diminished as well, but at least Men were still proud and strong and unafraid--then they practically butcher one of the only remaining bastions of human power left in the world just to make one man and another realm seem that much more important, which is wrong.

However, I'm not going to complain about the change they made by cutting Éomer out of 95% of the story and have him showing up with Gandalf at Helm's Deep and saving the day. While I would have loved to see more of my co-favorite character, that still is the only change in the movies that I actually love and think made more sense for what the filmmakers were trying to accomplish.
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
e
quote:
But if Frodo never set it on the stone table, then how could Gimli spoon-feed the audience the notion of the ring's indestructibility by lamely trying to split it with his axe?
I was going to add "and don't get me started on Gimli's outrageous behavior in this scene," but thought one character-rant a post was probably a good guideline. Now onto Gimli. . . []

The fact that Gimli does this (or that Gimli does most of what he does in these films) is pretty aggravating. Gimli is given every opportunity to act like an unthinking idiot in the films. In the books, Gimli is anything but like his film evil-twin! The literary Gimli is extremely respectful of Elrond, and would not behave so utterly impulsively and repulsively at the Council. He's made into a buffoon at every opportunity, like when the Fellowship arrives in Lothlorien, and all the mistakes made or crude attributes borne by any of the other members are heaped upon Gimli. Sam is actually the one whom the elves say "breathe[s] so loudly they could shoot [him] in the dark," not Gimli! But it is funnier to advance Gimli's role as a fool with this line, right? Additonally, it is actually Legolas who nearly stumbles into the Galadhrim, not Gimli, but of course, that would have taken away some of Legolas's elfgod-like status, not to mention, it might have messed up his hair. We have to remember that the literary Gimli was a very respectul and very noble dwarf chosen personally by Elrond to accompany Frodo. Since all Gimli does is blunder and complain and slow everyone down in the films, how could he have been any use to them and why was he chosen as a "helpful" member of the fellowship? In the books, Galadriel makes a point of complimenting Gimli on his grace and nobliity--and despite his slobbering growling denigrating of the elves during the FILM Council of Elrond, Gimli in the books is actually far less antagonistic towards the elves than they are towards him. Gimli has been slighted pretty badly in these films and it irritates me to no end. And I don't want to hear any more about how some comic relief was so necessary in these very tense, dark, films. If PJ had left Tolkien's original clever, witty humor intact, then there would have been no need to have dumbed down Gimli into the clown he has been inexcusabley made into for a little "comic relief."

[ 12-08-2003, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by Gimli son of Glóin (Citizen # 1863) on :
 
My turn.

I've been hovering around this City without posting for a long time now. I am excited to see ROTK, and I like TTT:EE 1000 times better than FOTR:EE. I just hope that ROTK doesn't leave me, as WGW said it, feeling like I've just been punched in the face.

There is one deviation I have not heard: the decision of the Ents. Come on, guys! The Ents seemed to have no idea that Saruman had used their forest for fuel. How would none of the Ents at Entmoot not know this? The Ents were made to look a little weak. It wouldn't have added any more screen time to change their decision. Take out the short extra scene with the field mice, and add just a few more seconds of Huorns.

Also, The cliff was idiotic. Imby and I skip that scene every time. We both just hate it. I suppose, though, that they needed someone to see the army coming. Of course, if Erkenbrand had been cast, then Eomer could have fought along side Aragorn like he was supposed to, and Gandalf would have seen the army coming. We knew the Uruks were coming. Why did we need Aragorn "spoon-feeding" us the fact that they were coming?

I know it would cost more to hire someone to play Erkenbrand, I think it might just have been a better move. Then you could see the true friendship that develops between Aragorn and Eomer during the battle of Helm's Deep. When Bernard Hill said, "Let this be the hour when we draw swords together," to Viggo in the Citadel, I was annoyed that they gave him that line. I LOVE that line in the book, coming from Eomer, that is.

Flight to the Ford is moronic, to say the least. No Glorfindel is OK, I guess, but Frodo's wussiness (where's Frodoisawuss when you need him? [] ) and Arwen's "salvation" of Frodo really grates me the wrong way. I despise that change almost the most of any change made.

One final point. PJ and Boyens (I think) say that you couldn't end TTT so anticlimatically by sending the group to Isengard. I disagree. They could confront Saruman, Gandalf could humble him, and then they could cut to Frodo, Sam, and Gollum at the Crossroads seeing the sun setting on the head of the king. The film could end with Frodo uttering these words, "They can not conquer forever!" and then have him turn and walk up the road with the other two who had already started on their way.

Hope you eyes don't bug out of your head reading this. Please excuse the length. And Thanks WGW. I appreciate this.
 
Posted by Deraj the Plaid (Citizen # 1351) on :
 
I hope it does not put my post in danger of being deleted, but as a preface to my comments to follow I must say that I appreciate PJ's movies overall and enjoy them very much.

BUT!

I'm upset at certain character portrayals, namely Galadriel, Farimir, and Treebeard. Farimir and Treebeard seem to have been dealt with here already, so I will limit my comments to what I call the de-personality-fication of the Elven Queen.

What in the name of God's green earth were Jackson and his FX team thinking when they made the "green jell-o queen" sequence where Galadriel turns into some fluorescent growling monster? I just don't get it. Cate Blanchett is one of my two favorite living actresses. And I entered the FotR film thinking she was the perfect actress to play the part. In fact, I still think she is - I don't blame her for her own portrayal of Galadriel - I must blame the director on this one, because I don't think he let her act!

Why didn't he just let her act? Instead of letting her act the part of a powerful Elven queen he reduced her to a green devil cartoon. It was horrible. It IS horrible, and I cringe everytime I see it.

[]

[ 12-08-2003, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Deraj the Plaid ]
 
Posted by Gollum the great (Citizen # 1642) on :
 
I'm sorry but I just have to speak up about this.
quote:
And they might have been able to keep Frodo's character intact. Since Liv Tyler has greater celebrity-power than Elijah Wood, she had to be promoted to the general film-going public, most of whom don't give one little whit about Tolkien--in a way that would make her look totally awesome, which in turn left them nowhere to go with Frodo's character but down.
As I've had to explain many times before, the actors are not in charge of the script. To say Liv Tyler is at fault for the direction her character took is a complete cop out. Thats like blaming David Wenham for Faramir. Arwen saved Frodo due to the complete lack of strong female characters in FotR. No further reason. Yes I'll agree it did detract from Frodo's moment in the sun, but it doesn't really bother me as much as alot of other changes. At least the scene was handled well. Even if Arwen did take Frodo they still could have found a way to incorporate his resistance to the Riders ("By Elbereth and Luthien the fair you will have neither the ring nor me" is one of the best lines in the book and it's sad to see it go I won't deny).
However if you're going to blame Liv Tyler for one second, I suggest you watch the from book to script feature on the TTT EE. It shows quite plainly that Arwen was intended to have a large action role at Helms Deep and presumabley at other places, Pellenor Fields possibly. Yet they didn't feel right about the way they took her character so late into filming they re-wrote the script to accomodate a more faithful role. As it is, the famous and mighty Liv Tyler's character clocks roughly ten minutes of screen time in each film, with no more than 4 scenes in each.
Still blame Liv?
 
Posted by Lillianna (Citizen # 1843) on :
 
Strong female roles? The book is not ABOUT strong female roles. I mean, we're not making a movie on the appendix are we? [] This is one of my biggest rants: that they turn the movies into an Aragorn movie....Aragorn is the only man who rejects the ring when it is presented to him...Aragorn spies the army coming...Aragorn this....blah blah....well he's NOT THE ONLY FREAKIN' STRONG GUY IN THE BOOK. GAAAAAAah. Faramir...hello...Faramir was strong, was intelligent and just as much of a man as Aragorn was, just without the kingly title.
Arwen does aggrivate me alot, yet I do understand the want and desire to make her have a more important role and have significance in the film. Yet, they could have handled they way they portray that so much differently. I also, don't like how they make it sound, "This is the only way..." Whatever....

My biggest gripe is Faramir....but enough has been said on that point...I just wanted to yell and scream a bit.

I was just discussing this with Talan about the lack of females present: The book is about male fellowship and the friendships that form because of it. It's not about female strong characters or any romance between them and the male characters....get over it. I'm a female...I'm not offended by the lack of strong female characters besides Eowyn because that's not what the book is centering on. If the book was an Aragorn/Arwen love story, and she was still such a small part with not much personality, then I would be pissed off.....

I just feels so much like fan fiction now....and fan fiction can be good when it is done well. Just doesn't seem like LotR much to me anymore....

[ 12-08-2003, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: Lillianna ]
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
Gollum,
We've been through this before and I'm going to totally ignore any more of your insecure and unfounded accusations. If anyone can here can explain to me how my annoyance with PJ/Boyens/NewLine/whoever's decision to add Arwen to the Ford scene is a direct assault on Liv, then I'll gladly make the adequate corrections. Until then, please go rescue the fair damsel elswhere, Gollum. Forgive my candor, but I'm starting to find you a little irritating. []
 
Posted by Turogriest (Citizen # 3220) on :
 
I was watching TTT the other day and all the crap that they added made the feel of the movie look like a time lapsed "Never Ending Story" based on an older character, Aragorn, then that series is used to. I feel like the child on Charlie Brown, "UUGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH".
My only question that remains is will PJ introduce the big, flying, white, shaggy dog-dragon and call him Huan(being the hound of Valinor introduced in Silmarillion)?

[ 12-08-2003, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: Turogriest ]
 
Posted by Oitur (Citizen # 3600) on :
 
Do the producers even think about what they are doing? I know the good parts are extremly good but the bad parts are extremly bad. Why is LOTR such a poplular book? Why is it the 20th century second most read book(after the bable)? Becuase it is not a good book? NO! The book have depths, meanings. So it's like telling George Lucas(the creater)that Luke Skywalker got killed by Darth Vader. Tolkien CREATED the universe. The producers have NO RIGHTS TO MAKE UP STUFF. Tolkien wrote the book exactly he wanted it to be. I know almost all of us thinks the meaning of the book differntly. But they have to stick with Tolkien's plan. It is Tolkien's book. And the Weathertop scene, the Nazgul wore no crowns. but when Frodo puts the Ring on, they have crowns. So are the crowns real, are they substances only can be seen with the ring, or is it Peter Jacksons mistake?

[ 12-08-2003, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Oitur ]
 
Posted by Turogriest (Citizen # 3220) on :
 
You have no clue how much I am behind you guy. Who in the hell is PJ to FIX Tolkiens work by adding stuff. Taking stuff out is bad enough but I can understand a time constraint, but to take stuff out and then add JUNK!!!!!

Just like TERMINATOR 3.. NO NEED!

[ 12-08-2003, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: Turogriest ]
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
Arwen saved Frodo due to the complete lack of strong female characters in FotR.
Complete lack of strong female characters?!! I suggest you re-read the books, especially the scenes where Galadriel is plainly shown as being large and in charge. Example: When the Fellowship arrives in the Golden Wood, she easily tells Celeborn, lord of the Galadrim--who's gone off in a little rant--to lay off Gimli at once, and he quickly backs down and apologizes! I get the impression that Galadriel has more sway and influence in Lothlorien, and that it's more likely she who wears the pants or the breeches or whatever elves wear, in the family. This was actually pretty startling stuff considering the time period Tolkien was writing in! And I don't even need to go into Eowyn!

But strong female characters or not, Tolkien wrote a story about a rising evil, a ring and its bearer, and a king of prophesy. This work, in all it's past-age beauty, doesn't need to be tweaked and twisted and turned this way and that to make the average jane/joe "think" they're getting what they need--I don't care what the PJ-oids think they know about proper story telling! I once heard a critic say that the last thing Tolkien needs is to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th (21st too) century just to feed some new wave PC need to satisfy a modern--and by all appearances--a very fickle stance in what is deemed currently acceptable.

[ 12-08-2003, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
quote:
still blame Liv?
Nobody in this topic blamed Liv. All blame has gone toward the directors/screenwriters.

I have to add my thanks for the creation of this topic thread. I have nothing to add at the moment, nor the time to add it. I'll be sure to keep checking in, though.
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
My only question that remains is will PJ introduce the big, flying, white, shaggy dog-dragon and call him Huan(being the hound of Valinor introduced in Silmarillion)?

[] [] [] []

Well, we know he's got the whole Childlike Empress thing going with Arwen dying because The Nothing, er the ring is taking over Fantasia, I mean Middle-Earth.
 
Posted by Turogriest (Citizen # 3220) on :
 
I blame Liv for one thing. In every interview she talks about how she "knows" elvish. She knows elvish the way that I know Russian; not at all. She then goes on to recite, key word recite, lines from the films as proof of her knowledge. She is a faker. Too quote one of the best TV series ever, that being family, "PHOOONY, HEY EVERYONE THIS GUYS A PHOOONEY!!!!"
Galadriel was so strong not because she was a woman though. IN the Silmarillion it explains that Galadriel was the last of her kind, the original elves to pass from Valinor to ME and to remain there. Celeborn being much younger than her was born in ME. All the rest of the Noldor have passed back over the Havens or have died in the Great Struggle and Great War with Morgoth that got him banished and made Sauron fade away ever before the first War of the Ring. I think this combined with age is the reason for power, not because Tolkien was being ground breaking in the women's power area.
 
Posted by Lillianna (Citizen # 1843) on :
 
Aiye, indeed Galadriel is a strong character, however what I was referring to was "large roles"...there are no females with "large roles" in LotR. Eowyn was a minor role if you think about it...of course, that could depend what you mean by minor or major characters and how much story account of them adds up to be either major or minor. I just feel that there is a lack of major female characters for a reason....and the ones that do have roles bring a sense of poignancy that may have been diminished had their roles been expanded....

basically,

TOLKIEN took 12 FREAKIN' YEARS to write LotR and even more than that to create the world and history of Middle Earth. He was a perfectionist. Authors, especially authors like Tolkien, don't just throw stuff in for the heck of it. There's a reason why he did stuff. If you don't like how he did it, write your own freakin' book. (However, I may be pointed at and called a hypocrite....because I don't like the inclusion of Bombadil in the books...I think it strays a bit from the focal point of the story when they go to his house, but that's just my opinion. One good thing about the movie is that they left him out, knowing it would be a weird distraction)
 
Posted by Turogriest (Citizen # 3220) on :
 
Well I just think that you are off your rocker for not likeing Bombadill but that is just matter of opinion really. It would be the same as me saying your crazy for not likeing the color blue. Take no offense to it. But Eowyn did have a big role. She took out that Witch King for Christ's sake. That is something great.

[ 12-08-2003, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: Turogriest ]
 
Posted by Lillianna (Citizen # 1843) on :
 
Yeah, I understand that...but Eomer wouldn't be considered a major role, even though he accomplished alot of important things. I think Eowyn is definitely the major female character, but still I think the fellowship are the main characters(until Boromir dies of course).

another rant:

why HECK do they make Legolas all stiff and board-like??? He's supposed to be like this backup Aragorn, or what? His looks are very well done - very elf like and fitting, but his personality(or lake thereof...) what the freak? In the book, although he is not as prominent as the hobbits, Aragorn, or Gandalf, he still has a personality. He jokes around at Rivendell, and actually says more substantial things than just "Orcs!" "Goblins!". In TTT, I laugh at nearly everyone of his lines...it's like the filmmakers feel bad for him having nearly no lines because the movie is all about Aragorn, so they make him "Captain Obvious" with these random lines. [] In the book he says some random, weird things too, like "I go to find the sun" comment, but goodness....nothing like:

running. sudden stop. turning around.
"A red sun rises, blood has been spilt this night.." []
 
Posted by Turogriest (Citizen # 3220) on :
 
Hahah. Yeah but you also have to think that he does that cool thing to get on the horse.. What the hell was that?
He was much more dynamic in the books, they all were. PJ makes it obvious that Bloom is eyecandy nothing more. He doesn't even try to take Legolas past that in the films.
 
Posted by EowynatHeart (Citizen # 3437) on :
 
quote:
I blame Liv for one thing. In every interview she talks about how she "knows" elvish. She knows elvish the way that I know Russian; not at all. She then goes on to recite, key word recite, lines from the films as proof of her knowledge. She is a faker. Too quote one of the best TV series ever, that being family, "PHOOONY, HEY EVERYONE THIS GUYS A PHOOONEY!!!!"

OMGosh, I so thought the same thing. They had a special on one night last week and she just went on and on. I can speak it...I speak it in my sleep. Noooooo! You recite a line that you memorized. You can not speak it or write or read it or understand it outside those lines. I would like to see her in Quendil's Elvish class!!!!!

No, we did not need a strong female role. No, we did not need to have a love scene. No and No and NO!!!!

I can forgive him leaving out certain things. I can forgive him for leaving out certain people. Some of those characters would have been hard to portray in a movie. To me Tom B. would have impossible to bring to life. But why did you take Legolas and turn him in to a one line idiot who only can make comments on his feelings. Why make Gimli into a clown. Why leave out Éomer when he could have added so much to the scenes...gosh and on we go!

Oh and I just had a thought. In the movies Legolas never missed once he had bow in hand. Then why at Helms Deep did he shoot twice and never bring down the Uruk-Hai that was running to blow up the bomb? To me he just looked nervous and shook up. In no other scene do you see him like that. And what was up with him going on a little surfing trip down the stairs at Helms Deep. I actually laughed at that. Out loud!!!!

Everyone talks about Haldir dying at Helms Deep but what about poor Háma. He died defending the Gate at Helms Deep. He wasn't breakfast for a Warg!!!!!! Arrrrgggggg *shakes fists at PJ*
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
why HECK do they make Legolas all stiff and board-like???
Lillianna,
I'm so glad I'm not the only one who sees this problem with Legolas. He has NO personality, but then the other elves don't have much of one either, IMHO. I think PJs in his attempt to make the elves so cool, drained them of all the personality Tolkien gave them. I LOVE Legolas in the books, but the film Legolas does absolutely nothing for me. I've heard people try to argue that he doesn't have much personality in the books either--no way! Legolas is a bit less vocal than some of the others, yeah, but that's because he's a bit more soft-spoken and quiet than some elves. In fact, Tolkien tells us, as he sings near the waters of Nimrodel, that he sings in a voice so soft as "hardly to be heard amid the the rustle of the leaves." But he's also very much an elf in that he's very playful--the line about fetching the sun is a good example, the amusing scenario he describes on piecing together Merry and Pippin's escape from the orcs near Fanghorn is another--and he's also very cheerful. He remains in good spirits and un-distressed even when the rest of the fellowship starts to dispair. That's a very ethereal and elven element that is missing from all the elves in the films. They are just SO GRIM and stuck up, or grim and freaky, like Galadriel by her pool. PJ either didn't pick up on, or just plain ignored that elves laugh all the time--even Galdriel laughs several times at the irony of Frodo testing her with the ring. As an elf, she sees the humor in this, even though she feels the gravity of it as well. Glorfindel is described as "full of joy," and other elves like Gildor tease Frodo and the other hobbits mercilessly, but can shift to becoming very serious if the situation calls for it. Even though elves can be grim, Tolkien wrote them with this sort of beyond-human-woe etheral quality, which I think would have translated beautifully on film. A less constipated, playful Legolas would have been much more interesting, and would have given the character something significant to do. Eh, my opinion anyway.

[ 12-08-2003, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by Lillianna (Citizen # 1843) on :
 
Also, why was Háma portrayed as fat? Or was he just stocky? He could have been a sexy beast....
lol j/k... []

But I agree with the Legolas/Uruk-Hai-that-can't-die......he could have hit it right in the throat...it was close enough....maybe the angle was weird, but still....yeah, he did look scared. When is an elf scared? (Especially with so many "backups" that Legolas had with Haldir and the whole elven troops there) Speaking of which.....Legolas was supposed to be the only elf at Helm's Deep, giving him a depth of urgency and regret in his own race that was not portrayed in the movie. Sure, I admit, it was cool seeing the elves there(except when that one fell of the wall screaming like a girl. [] ) but they weren't supposed to be there for a reason....

Another rant:

Why the HECK is Haldir chubby? (*will get Haldir lovers after her*) He could have played a hobbit or something.... []

*note: I have had a bad night....this has really helped me vent...thanks WGW*

edit: Thanks Archer...I'm glad we agree...I indeed love Legolas in the books...and yes, the elves in the book seem to have much more joy, even though they are very aware of the pain they have experienced. In the movie, they don't have that other side - they are like...machines almost....Legolas does betray some emotion in TTT when Aragorn is presumed to be dead [] , but again this is a sorrowful emotion....his teasing, good natured, fun side rarely comes out. It came out a bit in the extended parts.....I LOVED that part with him and Gimli at the end of Helm's Deep - Legolas actually had a personality then....he was joking around....sheesh...is it so hard?

[ 12-08-2003, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: Lillianna ]
 
Posted by Aoife (Citizen # 2368) on :
 
I am so glad WGW made this thread!

The whole "elves at Helm's Deep" thing enrages me. The whole point is that the elves would NOT come to Helm's deep and help fight. MEN have to figure their way out of this one. In the movie, the elves become a quasi-Deus ex Machina because the men are too stupid to realize their plan won't work. PLEASE. Helm's Deep was not a trap. It was a stronghold. ARGH. And why was Theoden such a complete loser? He was a tired man in the book, but he WAS NOT a senile old idiot.

And Phillippa's explanation of the change in Faramir's character is ridiculous. Even my husband, who read the Two Towers only one time, could not help yelling at the TV when I was watching that extra.
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
Let me make a first point and then I'll make a second if the first is generally accepted.

As far as writing work, what percentage was done by each of the three stooges? Would it be fair to say that PJ / Philippa / Fran had a 20/40/40 split over the screenplay? Should we give PJ 25%?

Isn't it true that Philippa / Fran did most of the actual writing / plot decisions? Of course PJ supposedly had "approval", but the creative process wasn't dominated by him.

Does everyone agree this is plausable?
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
While we are at it, Sam completely irks me. I'm sorry, but this guy is one second rate actor. Whenever he opens his mouth I feel like I am watching a high school play actor. His only good line was "I'm his gardner." On top of that add all the drippy speeches - aghhhhh! Talk about ramming it down our throats. I know it's weak, but hey, this is our space to rant!

Gimli - alas, poor Gimli. We only got a small taste of the real Gimli in the FotR extended cut where he talks about his gift from Galadriel. I can't even begin to address the complete slaughtering of this character into the most base form of comic relief. The belch with Theoden was simply too much. It was a disgusting insult to Tolkien and not funny at all - it was pathetic and cheap.

An even weaker point to complain about, but why the heck couldn't Galadriel have given Sam his box! I don't care if they never got to it later, but come on. Give us something!

I wish I would have posted it, but when I saw the very first trailer years ago I said, "Legolas is going to be it for the teenage girls." Sadly he is nothing else beyond this - a poster boy for the paying pubescent movie going females of the world. Orlando is living proof we can have ditzy boys in this world.

Another point that I am more serious about - Narsil/Andruil and the last alliance. The wonderful sword of Tolkien was reduced to "The sword that was broken and got off a lucky shot." We saw none of the glory or power of Elendil and Gil-galad - it would have been so easy to add - 15 seconds maybe.

Edit: Yes, WGW, it sounds right to me. It sounds like PJ was much more involved in the 2 movie version (God, can you imagine what horrors there were in those two films) and Fran and "what's her face" did most of the work in filling it out to 3 movies. Still, I wonder if the "weakness of Aragorn, Faramir and all men" was in the original 2 movie screen play. I wonder how we could find out about that? I'm betting it was.

[ 12-08-2003, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: Snaga ]
 
Posted by Gollum the great (Citizen # 1642) on :
 
quote:
Gollum,
We've been through this before and I'm going to totally ignore any more of your insecure and unfounded accusations. If anyone can here can explain to me how my annoyance with PJ/Boyens/NewLine/whoever's decision to add Arwen to the Ford scene is a direct assault on Liv, then I'll gladly make the adequate corrections.

Ok
quote:
Since Liv Tyler has greater celebrity-power than Elijah Wood, she had to be promoted to the general film-going public , most of whom don't give one little whit about Tolkien-- in a way that would make her look totally awesome , which in turn left them nowhere to go with Frodo's character but down.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but you seem to be implying that it was the casting of Liv that led to the change in Arwen's character.

[ 12-08-2003, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: Gollum the great ]
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
Yes, one of their major mistakes was converting the two-script into a three-script instead of starting over, especially since the creative dynamic changed.

Which leads me to my second point I mentioned above. I want to phrase this carefully since I am stepping over a landmine issue here.

Do you think the film versions were hurt because the majority of the script was written by two women? Let me just say that I know being a woman has nothing to do with their skill as writers. It's just that there are differences between men and women, as the Ents would testify to. I am just afraid that these differences affected how Tolkien's work was interpreted and perhaps had a hand in some of the changes.

And not to say that another pair of women couldn't do a better job than these two. It's just that I get a sense of the kind of person Philippa is from here interviews (as I said before) and I can see how a person like her could get on her ATV and do donuts in the delicate garden that is Tolkien's writing.

Perhaps there is too much emphasis put on the female perspective of the story so that the male (and more central) perspective suffers. I don't mean that there wasn't enough fighting or any other male stereotype like that. I feel that the women who wrote the majority of the scripts did not "get" the character of Aragorn (and many others) simply because the subtle male characteristics escaped them.

Aragorn is much more than simply the "hero". He is a king of men and there is a subtlety to his leadership portrayed in the books that men instinctively respond to when reading. Perhaps they will give us a taste of that in RotK, but it has been entirely missing so far.

Again, this isn't to say that other women couldn't have understood this and made sure it was felt in the films. I just feel that just as men can never truly understand the female perspective, women can never know what it is to be a man. It takes a man/woman of humility and grace to come close to understanding the opposite sex and Philippa doesn't have it. This changed the balance from male to female perspective and changed the dynamic of the story.

Now hopefully anyone responding to these comments will not make me look bad and make some stupid generalization about women. This is a delicate enough point to make without some immature dude screwing it up. []

Edit:
Gollum the Great:
quote:
Forgive me if I'm wrong but you seem to be implying that it was the casting of Liv that led to the change in Arwen's character.
But no one is implying that this was Liv's direct fault. Again, this was a writing issue.
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
Forgive me if I'm wrong but you seem to be implying that it was the casting of Liv that led to the change in Arwen's character
. . .and this is a direct attack on Liv how?
 
Posted by Lilisë (Citizen # 3121) on :
 
WGW has a point there, but I'd say it's not so much the specific fact that they are female, as much as that they're trying to make the films accessible to the mass market. There lies the problem. Someone had the idea that a film focusing on the idea of male camaraderie and fellowship could alienate half their potential viewers. So we get sappy Arwen scenes. (Note: I *like* Arwen. I can even put up with her replacing Glorfindel, just about. But the Aragorn dream sequencing was too much.)

I can't believe what PJ's done with the movies. Sure, they're good movies, but they're *not* Tolkien's LotR! And we have enough time for random warg/cliff scenes, and the aforementioned dream stuff, but not for things that are actually in the book?! Honestly, they could have done a better job.

And Helm's Deep. Why did they kill Haldir? It was completely unncessary! Served no plot development whatsoever. Not to mention that going by the films, the 'Last Alliance of Elves and Men' actually should have been called the Penultimate Alliance?

There's so much more I could rant about, but thanks for this thread, WGW.
 
Posted by CRAM it (Citizen # 3224) on :
 
quote:
Gimli - alas, poor Gimli. We only got a small taste of the real Gimli in the FotR extended cut where he talks about his gift from Galadriel.
Snaga - Yes, that was a lovely scene and it was one of my favourites in FoTR EE. It showed the potential of the development of Gimli in the movie. It's a pity because I think John Rhys-Davies is a fantastic actor and I feel his talents were wasted. He could of handled giving a performance of a complex Gimli.

WGW - Interesting point. I never thought of that. Because two women were involved in the screenplay, there are a number of issues that I thought were very well handled ie. Aragorn and Arwen's relationship. I think Aragorn's dream sequence was very well done and the Elrond and Arwen scene was absolutely amazing (totally took my breath away). I don't know if men would of paid too much attention to this detail to the relationship. To me the scenes have a certain gentle touch that I would associate with a woman's sensibilities.

[ 12-09-2003, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: CRAM it ]
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
quote:
WGW has a point there, but I'd say it's not so much the specific fact that they are female, as much as that they're trying to make the films accessible to the mass market. There lies the problem. Someone had the idea that a film focusing on the idea of male camaraderie and fellowship could alienate half their potential viewers. So we get sappy Arwen scenes. (Note: I *like* Arwen. I can even put up with her replacing Glorfindel, just about. But the Aragorn dream sequencing was too much.)
You are right that this was also a big factor in why things were changed so drastically. I bet some female Tolkien fans are insulted by the fact that the female roles were artificially increased. Was Philippa saying that the original female roles were puny or that modern female audience members couldn't appreciate the subtle power of the original female characters? Either idea is flawed.

Ah, but somewhere in the back of my head I hear Philippa snidely screeching, "but that wouldn't have worked on film...". Bull. It's only because her hack screenwriting team couldn't wasn't up to the challenge.
 
Posted by Lilisë (Citizen # 3121) on :
 
True, the fact that 'it can't be adapted well' seems to be their excuse for everything.

You raise an interesting point about female roles, though. I consider myself a feminist, but I've never viewed Tolkien's work as sexist in any way. On the contrary, it is full of strong female characters. Just because the story isn't directly about them, that doesn't mean they aren't there.

What the film makers don't seem to have considered enough is the society in which LotR was set. Women in such a culture weren't warriors and leaders, but wives and mothers. The whole Éowyn/Derhelm scenario shows a very progressive view from Tolkien, and is not one that needs to be altered by having Arwen, Ioreth, Rosie Cotton, or any other randomly-chosen female character upstaging the male characters in the name of feminism. Interesting storyline? Perhaps. But not Tolkien. And certainly not true to the spirit of his literature.
 
Posted by Lillianna (Citizen # 1843) on :
 
quote:
On the contrary, it is full of strong female characters. Just because the story isn't directly about them, that doesn't mean they aren't there.
Beautiful. Exactly what I was trying to get across. [] And if we think back on other Tolkien literature, what about Luthien? Indeed, she is the heroine of that story and certainly one of the strongest characters Tolkien ever created regardless of whether they were male or female. I wonder if either of the screenwriters have read the Silmarillion thoroughly.
 
Posted by Lady É (Citizen # 3448) on :
 
quote:
To me the scenes have a certain gentle touch that I would associate with a woman's sensibilities.

CRAM it, I can't help but feel but your remark, though couched in what seems to be sensitive, thoughtful language, is a rather anachronistic view of a woman's ability to write - as a person, without her "sensibilities" affecting her work.

WGW, your argument makes some sense, but is distressingly reliant on generalizations. You dance around it, but even to imply that a woman would be unable to write or understand a male character convincingly is unfair; I daresay it is also unrealistic.

Very simply, were Philippa a man, this gender issue would never have arisen. Not just because Tolkien was a man, but because no one would have thought to question a male writer.
 
Posted by Lillianna (Citizen # 1843) on :
 
I think, had mostly guys written the current scrip that we have now, the fact would still be raised that they didn't do a good job. Would it be exactly the same as it is now? I'm not entirely sure. However, women and men writing styles are usually different. *shrugs*
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
Look, I was very careful to not make unfair generalizations, so don't tell me I'm dancing around them.

I made it perfectly clear that women could have handled the task, just not these women. Similarly, it is possible for men to understand a woman's point of view, just not all men. How is that unfair or unrealistic?
 
Posted by Lady É (Citizen # 3448) on :
 
My point is that the very idea of gender playing a role would very likely not have come up were the writers male; perhaps especially if there were two males (including PJ) and one female comprising the group of writers for the films.

quote:
Do you think the film versions were hurt because the majority of the script was written by two women? Let me just say that I know being a woman has nothing to do with their skill as writers. It's just that there are differences between men and women, as the Ents would testify to. I am just afraid that these differences affected how Tolkien's work was interpreted and perhaps had a hand in some of the changes.

WGW, I'm debating, and don't mean to level a personal attack against you in any way, so I do hope you're not offended in that regard. However, your lead question quoted above makes it quite clear that you're referring to the fact that they are women as the reason for why the script is different (and sometimes, lacking). To your credit, you do say that their gender has nothing to do with their skill as writers...but with that statement you contradict the point you're actually making. I feel that a skillful writer would be able to free him- or herself from the stereotypes of gender to create realistic and thoughtful characterizations of men and women alike.

E: I think we're delving into the realm of the off-topic, so I'm going to stop posting here on this specific point.

[ 12-09-2003, 02:04 AM: Message edited by: Lady É ]
 
Posted by Gollum the great (Citizen # 1642) on :
 
quote:
. . .and this is a direct attack on Liv how?
*sigh* If you can't see how thats an attack on Liv then I'm not going to spell it out for you.
As my contribution here is largely unwelcome owing to the fact that I have very few qualms about the films and those few I do I've gotten over largely. Therefore, my perspective on the movies is half full and any purist debate will lead me into defencive moanings, so I'm going to stop posting here.
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
Lady É: I don't think we're off-topic, so here goes.

It is a fine point to be sure, but make no mistake. The point is not that they are women.

The fact that they are women is second to the fact that they suck as writers. Once we agree on their lack of skill, my point is that perhaps since they are women and Tolkien was a man, this threw the script even more off-balance. I consider it an additional force of pressure that Philippa and Co. didn't have the skill to deflect.
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
*sigh* If you can't see how thats an attack on Liv then I'm not going to spell it out for you.

Probably a good idea, since you'd have to spell it out for a few of us who seemed to be puzzled by your claim.
 
Posted by Gollum the great (Citizen # 1642) on :
 
OK, I'm just going to say one final thing in defence of Liv, and this is coming from people who claim she's ever implied she can speak elvish.
This is a direct quote from her.
quote:
"It's an amazing thing, really. It's a legitimate language. There are only a certain amount of people in the world who can speak it, like Oxford professors and what not. It's such a beautiful language too, it's really brilliant."
The fact that she says that she was able to pick the language up very easily is in meaning her pronounciation and timing, which however much you dislike her or her work, you can't deny she didn't do a good job with the elvish.
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
Do you think the film versions were hurt because the majority of the script was written by two women?
WGW,

I've been thinking about this one, and I have to agree there is something very "female" in the way some of these less effective (IMO) scenes play. For instance, those lo-o-o-o-ong sa-a-a-a-ad looks with the slow-running tears that too many characters in the film do, too many times. The sappy love scenes and soap-opera emphasis on the love triangle is another very annoying dumbed-down "chick flick" element I can entirely do without. I just don't get the impression that this is something a guy would put so much emphasis on! And I just realized that it is these kinds of sappy "tear-jerker" scenes that I find either very bothersome, or just down right boring, because they are elements found in the kind of "girl movies" that I can't abide. I will say however, that I think PJ has more than his fault in it too, in just being a "clueless" guy. I get the impression he just let Philippa and Fran run all over the script and then just nodded dumbly to everything they came up with. I certainly don't get the impression he had any real insight beyond that which his female co-writers missed, like what you said about the Aragorn character thing--though you're right about the very subtle male character traits Tolkien's Aragorn seems to display. Hmmm. . .I meed to give this one some more thought. But gender-my-own curse me, I think you are on to something there.

[ 12-09-2003, 04:04 AM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
Whether or not gender played a role in how they rewrote I'm not sure, but in why they rewrote is another issue that I think is beyond gender. To me, the EE interviews and other sources point to extreme arrogance and, in my experience, that ususally points to someone who at their core is insecure about their abilities. Boyens is simply a poseur. Sure, she has essentially made it in Hollywood, but how often is that equated with real talent? It's more related to self promotion and the ability to reach the lowest common denominator. She seems highly adept at both of those, though there are plenty of males who can claim the same.

Archer - that was a horrifying thought - LotR Trilogy a $300,000,000 chick film?

[ 12-09-2003, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: Snaga ]
 
Posted by EowynatHeart (Citizen # 3437) on :
 
Okay first of all, I don't think anyone is beating up on Liv the Actress. I personally never like her as an actor in any movie she has been in but I do think she did a good job with the character that was wrote for her. I actually liked all the actors. I can't imagine now any other actor playing those parts. I think what we need to say is, no matter how good you are, if the direction and the script suck, then the actor will suck also! You can have top actors in some of the worst movies ever made. The reason why I don't like the MOVIE Arwen is because of the liberty that PJ and the other writers had with her. Hollywood and the general movie going person has to have a love scene. You can have the best action movie out there but isn't there always a woman. I dare anyone to tell me one action movie that didn't end up with some girl in it just for the love interest, I'll give you a dollar! That is what people want to see.

What the writers did was take liberties with something they should not have messed with. Plain and simple. That is what we are so upset about. If they had made this movie from some book and said hey! this would make a good movie, then I would be fine. BuT! they took probably one of the best loved and one of the most respected and one of the best written book of all times and turned it into a Hollywood love fest!

WGW, I agree with you about the influence of a woman writer. But, like I said, that is just something that sells. SEX sells. Hollywood knows this. Regardless of what they say, they were making a movie to make money, not for the fans of the book. If they wanted to make a movie that the fans would love and didn't care whether it made a trillion dollars, then there would not have been such a misrepresentation of the book.
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
Aye, there are many factors. No one is denying that.

I'm sure that if Philippa heard the basic statement that her sex had an effect on how bad the scripts turned out, she would give a smug little laugh and talk about how purists will try any lame tactic to demonize her. Then she would finish with something like "That's just ridiculous." and shake her head and the interviewer would move onto something else. I doubt if she will ever be backed into a corner where she would have to debate and then admit the truth in this.

The plain truth is, if she were a better writer, this wouldn't have been an issue. There are other factors, but I think this one is certain.

EowynatHeart: I guess that is the heart of the betrayal of Tolkien's work. []
 
Posted by Turogriest (Citizen # 3220) on :
 
I do not know about the rest of you but I played the ROTK game that is out for the consoles, and I must say that I kicked its butt. Fun game! But my point is that within that game there is this line that Eowyn has when fighting the Witch King. WK says " No man can defeat me!" She then rips off her helmet and says "I am no man, this is a woman(very emphatically) who stands before you!" and then she attacks him. Now if this is not the biggest "YAY WOMEN" dribbel that I have ever seen. I mean it could not be clearer how much the movies want a strong woman to latch to. This is valid because the same people that made the game made the movie. I hope that does not make it into the film but it is an extremely ugly part that may. I mean COME ON!!!!

[ 12-09-2003, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Turogriest ]
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
Are you offended by the way they changed the lines? Otherwise, the general concept is in the books...
 
Posted by Turogriest (Citizen # 3220) on :
 
Incredibly so. I get the concept and I know what is implied but it shoudl remain as such. It makes it quite obvious that I am being preached to about women and that is just down right stupid. It makes it look like Tolkien was trying to empower women during the 60's. He outright confessed that there was never any allegory and he hated the claim. I hate that this makes it look like he was making the claim. It would be the same in any instance. Who really wants to here someone basically say "YAY FOR BLACKS", "YAY FOR WHITES", "YAY FOR MEN/WOMEN", or "YAY FOR THE PROLETARIOT". You would rather just come to that yourself. Makes me feel stupid as I watch that crap. Tolkien is not a Disney writer, but PJ and crew are beginning to look like one.
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
I'm hours behind so forgive me for responding to things on previous pages.

Snaga, we finally disagree on something. Sean Astin is a terrific actor. Any problems you see with Sam are poor direction, not poor acting.

As for the changed personality of the elves, what strikes me most is the singing. They sound like some sort of gothic church choir when in the book their singing is supposed to be joyful. I always imagined their songs to be very similar to the songs of Hobbits, though more subtle lyrically. I really don't like the movie portrayal of elven music. It misrepresents the entire race.
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
That is a hard criticism to back up since there is no official version of elves singing. It's interpretation on both sides, so who can say who is wrong?

Although, I do agree that the elven music was a bit too ethereal for my taste. Also, all the singing happens off-screen, so the music never had a sense of reality.
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
DPR,
I'm glad we have some more common ground with the elves in the film. And I hadn't really thought about the music/singing, but felt overall there was something really too dark and solemn--even creepy--about the general ambiance when the elves are shown, but I was focusing more on their mannerisms. You've made a really good point about something I had overlooked. The music really needs to not be so grim and gothic.

I know that when the fellowship gets to Lorien, they are supposed to find rest and peace there for their losses and griefs, but I just don't know, that place strikes me as being very dark and creepy with all its dark droning music and then all those weird little lights--it reminds me of something out of an alien spaceship. I think that place would just make me more depressed!

[ 12-09-2003, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by Turogriest (Citizen # 3220) on :
 
Very true WGW. I think that the Sam character came off very well. Of course they could always make him better. I will wait for ROTK to make my official ruling on Sean's portrayal. It all comes down to his acting at Mt. Doom and with Shelob. So far he has been a little corny but the speeches were well developed and captured the emotion that it seemed Tolkien was trying to put across. I remember feeling the same way when I read as I did when I saw his speeches. In my head the elves were just much more joyful even though they were mourning their departure. You know the kind of happy you are when a loved one is getting on a plane or going somewhere you can not. You enjoy each other but you are sad as well. But all music spoken in elvish was just like a church service. Not bad, but not what I had in mind. If anything really, I think Sean Astin's performance is the best out of all of them.

[ 12-09-2003, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Turogriest ]
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
Archer - that was a horrifying thought - LotR Trilogy a $300,000,000 chick film?

Snaga,
It's definitely not a $300,000,000 chick-flick by any measure, but WGW got me thinking about something I had completely ignored up to now. I have looked at these films for a long time as big, largely mindless, FX extravaganzas that make more out of battles in the text than they need to by glorifying all the "excitement" of war and battle and sword blows and death by promoting it so efficiently. Now I like medieval weapons as much as the next Archer, but this was not what Tolkien's story was mainly about. The way the battles have been drawn out and hyped up and anticipated by film fans almost more than any other element has lead me to believe that these films all too often tend to degenerate into mostly dumbed down, mindless "guy fair."

But WGW's post on the female influence in the script made me realize that there is just as much dumbed-down, mindless "chick fair" as there is the other! I hadn't quite formulated all my thoughts on the matter when I last posted on this idea, but it seems that what bothers me the most about these films is that they feel like they have been generated by the worst kind of mindless entertainment value--both male and female. Great films can be made to appeal to both genders, but loading up on fluffy romance, long, teary scenes, or just slashing and blowing up everything in sight (I'm exagerating a bit for effect) is going for the easy, base-reaction-from-the-genders effect. The films don't often give enough credit that we, male and female, can get past this gender-specific need to be able to offer something more substantial. Hmmm. I still have to think this one out some more. Oh, and by the way, not saying that violence/battles don't have their place in these films--just that they're made to look very cool rather than the more tragic thing that Tolkien I'm sure saw them as.

[ 12-09-2003, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by Lady É (Citizen # 3448) on :
 
quote:
The plain truth is, if she were a better writer, this wouldn't have been an issue.
WGW, this I agree with. A less-talented writer would likely allow any "gender-related" influence to slip through to affect the writing. Philippa, as we're critiquing her here, probably fits that standard. I wonder if we should first have argued if such an influence actually exists, however.

E: Turogriest, Éowyn's declaration as you describe it in the game hardly departs from the spirit of Tolkien's writing, and only very slightly from the letter:

quote:
"But no living man am I! You look upon a woman."


[ 12-09-2003, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Lady É ]
 
Posted by Turogriest (Citizen # 3220) on :
 
Perhaps it wass merely the voice acting but something about it just disturbed me. I am not aginst women or any message like that but it just seems way to allegorical for me. She said that as a matter of fact and in the book it was also the transition from her male-clad self to the woman that would bring about the end of the WK. It had a lot to do with the way it was said. You will see what I mean soon when the movie comes out. Thank you for the quote by the way, I knew she said somethign but forgot her exact words. It just seems too much for me. This is more of a personal thing, in fact the entire topic right now is very unstable due to the fact that you either think it is female influenced or not. When she said it though in the game, a little thought bubble popped out of my brain holding within itself the image of "Rosie the Riveter". In a class of mine, we actually just went over gender specification. I mean that is a very hard thing to work with. Do I think that Fran used a little too much female specification? Yes I do. I mean Tolkien used male, so that only makes sense. I think the best way to resolve this little idea is just to hang our heads down low and agree, there will never be another Tolkien, and this was bound to fail in some ways.

[ 12-09-2003, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: Turogriest ]
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
quote:
That is a hard criticism to back up since there is no official version of elves singing. It's interpretation on both sides, so who can say who is wrong?
I don't have the book with me to quote from but I distinctly recall the elven singing being described joyfully, especially in The Hobbit. In the film, recall when the group was in Lorien and the group heard the Elves singing a lament for Gandalf. It sounded no different from any other Elven singing throughout the movies. In the books, singing was often done in a party-like atmosphere. Not everything was a great lament and certainly not everything was deadly serious.

I'll post quotes as I find them.
 
Posted by Turogriest (Citizen # 3220) on :
 
I think I know where you are talking about. When they heard the elves partying in Mirkwood and Bilbo went running towards them but they kept running from him, making Bilbo get lost. Although that was not LOTR it is still should have been adhered to. And I could not tell that it was a lement. It sounded like everything else that you heard so far, think about the elves in the EE FOTR when Sam and Frodo saw them walking through the forest near the Shire.
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
"Just then there came a burst of song like laughter in the trees."

(The elves of Rivendell: "A Short Rest," The Hobbit.)


"They were eating and drinking and laughing merrily."

(The elves of Mirkwood, "Flies and Spiders," The Hobbit.)


Edit:

"But at that moment there came a sound like mingled song and laughter."

(Gildor and his company of elves, "Three is Company," FOTR.


"The light and music of Rivendell was about him again. Bilbo smiled and laughed happily."

"Many Meetings," FOTR.

I know there's more of these references to the quality of elves' singing and their general demeanor, but these were the few that I was able to find readily. Elves seem to be a merry lot overall.

[ 12-09-2003, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
Thanks, Archer. You must love having a job that not only allows you to keep Tolkien at your fingertips throughout the day, but requires it. I'm giddy with jealousy []
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
[] I can't complain! I always have my Tolkien references and texts within arms reach at both home and work! I do love my job. []
 
Posted by Turogriest (Citizen # 3220) on :
 
While we are going over actors and all, I would like to bring up Christopher Lee. I think that him not being in the theatrical release is unjust but he has gone and boycotted, so to speak, the films. He said he was not going to show for the premiers of the last films; I do not know if he did or not. But he claimed to be in this thing because he loved Tolkien's work. In the interviews he talk about how much he read the books and all but his stubborness is a little kind of odd. If he loves it, then should he not want to come? Or was he faking? Nothing superceeds my love, thats why I own all the movies.

[ 12-09-2003, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Turogriest ]
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
I can understand Christopher Lee's stance a bit. I mean his performance and exposure is his livelihood, and a matter of pride, as is the case for anyone who values his/her work and standing. And then he was just sort of arbitrarily cut out of the grand finale, supposedly the best part. But this guy's reputation has a little gravitas going for it--it's just so unthinking of PJ to excise him like that all of a sudden. Christopher Lee the actor been around a long time, he's a Tolkien fan and scholar--probably the only major one in the cast--and he's supported PJ, even in his sometimes out of left field decisions with Tolkien's work. He just plain deserved better and I can sympathize.
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
More on the merry elves:

"Elrond laughed. 'He shall be found,' he said. 'Then you two shall go into a corner and finish your task, and we will hear it and judge it before we end our merrymaking.'
. . .
In the meanwhile Frodo and Bilbo sat side by side, and Sam came quickly and placed himself near them. They talked together in soft voices, oblivious of the mirth and music in the hall about them." - Many Meetings

I see no merrymaking and hear no mirth in the music of the film-elves.

[ 12-09-2003, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: The Dread Pirate Roberts ]
 
Posted by Turogriest (Citizen # 3220) on :
 
Yeah. It was horrible that he got cut. That may be the worst thing they did. You need the Saruman closure but this topic has been done to death. I was just wondering if anyone thought that Lee's pride over took his view on the book. I would like to say no.
 
Posted by CRAM it (Citizen # 3224) on :
 
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To me the scenes have a certain gentle touch that I would associate with a woman's sensibilities.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CRAM it, I can't help but feel but your remark, though couched in what seems to be sensitive, thoughtful language, is a rather anachronistic view of a woman's ability to write - as a person, without her "sensibilities" affecting her work.

Lady É - By "anachronistic" you mean "old-fashion or traditional" then I certainly do believe that many women do have certain "sensibilities" in terms of what is important in life and will therefore come out in their writing style or reading comprehension. I wouldn't say that a woman's "sensibilities" get in the way of telling story but rather a woman may chose to emphasize certain themes compared to what a man may chose to emphasize in the same story.

I am a little disturbed that Saruman is totally cut out of the third movie. How can they leave such a major character hanging in the wind? It really doesn't make any sense how they can make such a decision to not conclude Saruman's story. I would think that the themes "power corrupts" and "nature vs. technology" that are important themes in the books would be lost when you don't see Saruman in the third movie.
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
CRAM it:
quote:
By "anachronistic" you mean "old-fashion or traditional" then I certainly do believe that many women do have certain "sensibilities" in terms of what is important in life and will therefore come out in their writing style or reading comprehension. I wouldn't say that a woman's "sensibilities" get in the way of telling story but rather a woman may chose to emphasize certain themes compared to what a man may chose to emphasize in the same story.
It should also go without saying (yet it often needs to be said) that the same is true for men.

I think I already gave the clearest explanation of this. To write from the point of view of the opposite sex or to remove one's own sexual personality from one's writing takes intelligence and wisdom. Some writers (be they women or men) do not have what it takes to do this successfully.

Actually, it doesn't only apply to sex. It takes intelligence and wisdom to write outside one's social status, cultural roots or even something as basic as one's personality.

I know some people will never be happy with admitting that one's sex has an effect on anything. Personally, I don't see what's wrong with admitting the truth that there are differences between the sexes and, although we are never bound to these roles, it takes effort to go outside them and a special person to do so effectively.
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
Excellent DPR. You found more happy elves! [] [] []

Further on the subject. . .

The "radiosactive Galadriel" scene (as it was put so well by another MT citizen [] ) is one of the scenes where a film elf departs most markedly from the mirthful elves of the books. This terrifying banshee scene really destroys the beautiful-interwoven with-the-terrible image that Galadriel conveys in the books. I always envision her like a terrifying but strikingly awesome thunderstorm. What the film turns her into is just terrifying, more Green Goblin than Goldenwood elf. And the film fails (doesn't even try really) to convey that very haunting "mirthful yet sad" quality that the elves of Lorien possess. Even though there is a deep sadness in them, they retain the ability to laugh. Galadriel often does so, even when she is tempted beyond all desire.

'You are wise and fearless and fair, Lady Galadriel,' said Frodo. 'I will give you the One Ring, if you ask for it. It is too great a matter for me.'
Galadriel laughed with a sudden clear laugh [emphasis mine]. 'Wise the lady Galadriel may be,' she said, 'yet here she has met her match her match in courtesy.

also. . .

She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she let her hand fall, and the light faded, and suddenly she laughed again[emphasis mine] . . . .


I really miss that elven mirth and "meta-human" abilty to laugh even when their hearts are sad and breaking, and even when they understand a deeper darkness hovers nearby. That's what makes them seem so immortal and beyond common human frailties. I just wish PJ's elves had known how to laugh too.
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
Dread Pirate Roberts - I'm actually glad we finally disagree about something (Sam/Sean's acting abilities)! It gives me a great opportunity to demonstrate how two people on the forum can disagree without all the petty mud slinging and/or irrational arguments!

I'll take your word for it that he can act - I really haven't seen him in any other movies. I should add that I do think he was much better in TTT than in FotR, and some of his scenes were really good - for example in FotR when Gandalf pulls him through the window, his look at Galadriel, his not being able to sleep... and a few more. I absolutely hated the scenes where he stopped Frodo from putting on the Ring (there were at least 3) and this is a total departure from the books and both their characters. So, I can't really blame him for not being able to pull off something that was written for him and that I totally disagree with as a book fan.
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
As for the Elves despite all the wonderful props and scene building PJs Elves just come off as way too obvious to me. I said it here somewhere, but to me they all look like members of a Yes tribute band. For those of you who are young and/or just don't know who "Yes" is, they were a 70s "art band" and their keyboard player seems the model of all PJs Elves to me! Here are some links to pitcures for a few laughs:

http://www.progressiverock.com/images/rickwakeman.jpg
http://www.rwcc.com/rwcc/graphics/disc/inconc.jpg
http://www.vinylrev.com/mitos2.jpg

Am I nuts here or is this guy the original poster child for PJs elves? []

Any way, on a more serious notes, I think the Elves could have been more subtle in many ways. Maybe here is not the place, but where the ears really neccessary? We know in the appendix that Aragorn did not at first recognize Arwen as being Elvish. Either her hair was covering her ears or this whole ear thing was taken too far in a order to clearly show us poor movie goers that long pointy ears makes anyone over 4 feet tall an elf!

[ 12-10-2003, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: Snaga ]
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
Sean Astin's best role, IMO, is one when he was barely more than a kid himself: Rudy. One of the best football movies ever.

I think many, perhaps most bad acting is due to bad direction. I'll gladly cut Astin some slack and add another complaint to the PJ list.

As for Yes, they're a great Elven band! I actually prefer their music from the 80s to that from the 70s.
 
Posted by Turogriest (Citizen # 3220) on :
 
So I took the time to finally watch the special extra stuff at the end of TTT EE. My God, do I have a lot to say:

Regarding Osgilliath: Phillipa says it would be "death on film" for the Hobbits, Frodo and Sam, to not really have the importance of their message shown. Going to Osgilliath was apparently necessary for the audience to enjoy it. Funny I loved the book.

Regarding Elves and Helm's Deep: "We thought that it would be a good idea to show that spirit from the beginning of the films between elves and men." PJ. "Everytime I watch that part(when elves show up) with an audience, they cheer. Even purists feel something." Phillipa. Well you are wrong, I feel something but it is disdain. And PJ what about the spirit of Tolkien, you ever think of that?!

Regarding Faramir: It is apparent to the actor who played Faramir that "his character does not change in the books." Are you insane?! Of course it changes, significantly.

Regarding Allegory: I know that Christopher Lee says he loves Tolkien but never before have I heard anyone push Tolkien's use of allegory more. Anyone who has ever read anything about Tolkien must have brushed past the statement that Tolkien always made. That being "I completely and totally disregard allegory anywhere that it can be found." He hated it, why would he use. Perhaps on a subconscious level but he would never admit it.

Regarding Arwen: "You can not have the love of Aragorn's life being 300 or 3000 miles away so we made them have that psychic connection." Phillipa. WORKED IN THE BOOK!

Regarding Gender Specification: No longer am I doubtful of its use. Phillipa referred to the editing of the films as "mothers neglect". I am glad she recognized it but then again there was a man doing it as well. She is it seems, over using her woman advantage in this position.

Regarding the TTT EE: The extra editorials they have done is so Hollywoodized that I can not stand it. They are constantly nameing connections between Saruman and Hitler, Dead Marshes and WWI battlefields. If you are going to do an homage to a man, then get what that man was about correct!

Bottom Line so far.. Everything worked terrifically in the books, so why do you feel it does not. LOTR is second most read book after the Bible, I can see why ithad flaws. (SARCASM!)


I will post more as I watch more.

[ 12-10-2003, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Turogriest ]
 
Posted by Adams (Citizen # 1809) on :
 
WGW,
Based on your comments on this thread, I have only one question:

Does this mean you'll be pulling 'Citizens of Minas Tirith' from the credits of the ROTK DVD?
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
Maybe here is not the place, but where the ears really neccessary?
I like the fact that thay have pointed ears. Even Iolkien strongly suggests elves' are pointed. But I DO think they took it over the top with some of those elf ears though! Maybe it's just that some of the actors have big ears to begin with, so that any extending them any further crosses nearly into bunny territory. Arwen has the most humoungous ears, and they might have protruded a bit less if I'd had my drothers, which make it really hard for me to see her as the most beautiful living creature to walk Middle Earth. (I'm sure I'll pick up some harrassers for that statement, but call what I see.)In general, the elves in the films aren't attractive enough to be as beautiful as the impression we get in the books, or if they are, then make-up and hairstayle has done them in. I know everyone has their own idea or perfect, graceful beauty, but the fact that certain film elves have been singled out over and over for their lack of "elven beauty" (Haldir, Elrond,Celeborn.,etc)Ieads me to believe some of the elf casting was done a little-too carelessly. I once watched an interview with someone involved in the FOTR production a few years ago, who said they were scouting about for all the tallest, blondest, Nordic looking models they could find to play the films elves. I'm not sure if they mentioned "attractive," but if that was also their aim, they have missed the boat more often than not. I'm not sure all the elves need be blonde--that sounds more Viking or Rohirrim to me, and I'm especially not so sure the elves should be consistently taller than humans either, Maybe I'd have to re-read The Silmarilion or other works to refresh my memory, but Tolkien seems to like to use the word "tall" or "fair" for anyone who feels endowed with grace and nobility, man and elf. Kingly men are dwindled in Middle Earth,so there are few to give this attribute to. But Tolkien does not really promote his elves as being especially taller than humans, I think.

But going back to the topic, the elf ears are NOT subtle, but I don't think they're supposed to be subtle, Snaga. That's PJ as his bluntest best. And then they are further enhanced by that really silly elf-do, which pulls back just enough of their elfy estensions so you get the whole elf-ear experience! Hmmm. Someome somwhere on the board asked the question that after 3000 years, was tha the best hairstyle the elves could come up with??? I have a ask the same! The elves were a varied and creative lot who loved art, music, and all "frivolites." You'd think they would have some up with some really creative do's--and not just ONE elf-do for the entire elven posterity! Can you imagince if all humans (who are probably overall less creative and artsy than elves)had the exact same hairstyle everywhere from sea-to-shining sea? [] I would have like to see some elves with free flowing hair in various lengths,perhaps with a brow-band thing going too; maybe even braids here ans there (Arwen and Galadriel are both described as wearing braids--but lose the styling gei! Those beautifully conditioned elven coifs make each elf in that film look just like he/she stepped out of a hair salon. Oh wait, he/she did.

Anyway. at one point, we even see Gandalf wearing that absurd, seven-year-old-school-girl hairstyle. For crying out loud--this is a grumpy old wizard. How in the world, I want to know, did he agree to letting Legolas frenchbraid his hair? Makes me laugh when I see this. Then it makes me mad. Then it makes me happily turn back to my stack of grading.

Wait--Gandalf didn't have pointy ears too, did he?

[ 12-11-2003, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
As far as acting in the film goes, I can't say Seanwise's acting bothered me all that much, but that might be becasue it was rather flat and forgettable. He doesn't stand out to me in anyway, good or bad when I consider him. He doesn't stand out period. I guess I'm usually annoyed enough by Folijah and his his cousins Larry and Curly to pay much attention to Sam. His speeches do get a little too gooey though. I don't really care for any of the hobbit casting. except for the wonderful, believable portrayl pf Bilbo by Ian Holm. Nor do I care for many of the actor "elves"--except Cate Blanchett. She's beautiful and talented enough to have done Galadriel some real justice, but PJ's hokey direction robs her of any chance! [] And I think hair and makeup, tryng to emulate the beautiful artwork of Alan Lee and his images of Galadriel, made her look to washed out and plain. The look works in the ethereal plain of art, but in real screen life, Cate needed a little more color. As far as the humans go, there's hits and misses, IMO, the biggest hit being Sean Bean, and the biggest miss being Viggp Mortensen. I think he played Aragorn too bland, artsy, and lifeless--and inwardly cowardly--though the last part wasn't his fault I guess. Still, he doesn't so much for me==though I might add all my coworkers are madly in love with him (Viggo/Aragron), and think I'm a heathen for not being the same [] .

[ 12-11-2003, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
I don’t think minor quibbles like ear length should take up too much time in this thread. If there weren’t such gaping holes in writing talent, we would have wonderful films and I wouldn’t care if the ears were a half-inch too long on some elves.

I suppose the same goes for the singing, architecture, and fashion of the elves. I wouldn’t care what design decisions were made so long as the story remained unsoiled.

I suppose that is one of the reasons why PJ and crew took such pains to create such detailed armor, weapons, buildings, etc, etc. If they hadn’t, the films would’ve been complete dogs when combined with the weak scripts. I think part of the plan was to throw enough money into the production so that it looks so good that there will always be those who will defend the films as amazing and ignore the script problems.
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
quote:
If there weren’t such gaping holes in writing talent, we would have wonderful films and I wouldn’t care if the ears were a half-inch too long on some elves.
Yes, if only we were left with such quibbles to argue over.
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
For those who are thinking about posting in the movie-phile thread: I can think of no better revenge than to see that thread as empty as possible. Don't post in it.
 
Posted by CRAM it (Citizen # 3224) on :
 
[]
 
Posted by Lorin Mithrilmallet (Citizen # 3568) on :
 
Back to Saruman, PJ cut his scenes because the film was getting too long. Christopher Lee did not go to the premiere, I know this because I live in New Zealand and there was a special coverage on the news. However I'm pretty sure the rest of the cast came. []
 
Posted by Turogriest (Citizen # 3220) on :
 
I am pretty sure we all know why he did not go to the premiere. I wonder though, was he cut becasue it was too long? I mean they don't need Smeagol/Dreagol scene so they could have put it in really. I am wondering if the reason he was cut was because he questioned the writers so much when he saw them heading in the wrong direction. In an interview he said he called them on it a lot and that he would not entirely rule that out as to why the ending of Saruman was edited out. Interesting if nothing else..........
 
Posted by Leire (Citizen # 1770) on :
 
This is a truly wonderful conversation, I hope you will pardon my late arrival. You seem to have hit very near the mark with the idea about the writers of the screenplay causing much of our grief, however, as this thread was originally made for venting rage, I have some to vent.

What the $%(( is it with Elrond? I simply cannot fathom this woosie, weak Elrond that stands in place of the wisest advisor in all of Middle Earth. What happened to him? He transforms from the Elrond who bore Elendil's banner (no easy job, that), and was the backbone of resistance to Sauron's return, into a woose who wants only to run like $%(( to the Gray Havens. Granted, Elrond's power was not in his armies, for he did not have any, but instead it was in his wisdom and advice, but this does not make him weak. Knowing when to attack and when to retreat is wisdom, and so is having a plan of battle, yet it seems the writer of the script equates wisdom with weakness. This foolishness really steams my broccoli. [] to the third rate script hacks ("writers", if you will). Do you suppose they actually read the books before beginning to "adapt" them? []
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
I think the Elrond problem is not giving enough detail as to why he thinks the way he does. The Elves were leaving these shores, and nothing they made Elrond say was technically wrong, except perhaps his doubt of Men. There was just no reasoning behind his words, so they might have appeared as weakness.

I don't know how else they could have corrected this aside from simply sticking to the texts. []

On the Saruman front, I heard that his scenes only totaled 7 minutes! It certainly wasn't time that was in short supply - it was writer's mojo!
 
Posted by Turogriest (Citizen # 3220) on :
 
I agree totally WGW but the writers are the one's who control that crap, sadly.
And to you Leire: Man, it just gets much worse. He becomes such a little nay-saying girl. I mean he is the most depressing character in the film, he was not like that in the book. Almost as bad as Lothloriend. I wanted to slit my wrist when all that came up. Yes the elves were leaveing but my lord, they were not that depressed. They were cheerful still. All Elrond does is run around saying "Aragron will not make it back", "the journey is doomed", and later on he says to someone that the ring is tied to Arwens fate, directly. WHAT!? In anycase they ruined Elrond for me in the films. That is why I marvelled at his splendor in the books, restore my faith.
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
Okay, nm the ears [] --here's some thing about these films that has annoyed me from day one. They are completely unoriginal, especially in their "director's license." Pj has ripped off way-y-y too much of other movies to provide filler for his own "original" ideas. The fact that they are not original and he calls them original is bad enough. But that he's taken some of these ideas from some really bad movies is ever the worse. Gimli the noble dwarf in the texts becomes really nothing more than a rehash of that idiodic dwarf from the low budget (and terrible) Dungeons and Dragons movie that was out some time befire LOTR. I'm convinved PJ or Boyens saw that films and though that moronic sloppy belching dwarf was to die for and turned Gimli into his twin. The D&D dwarf howls out loud like the biggest whiniest crybaby when he cries (just like Gimli--while none of the other fellowship members do), dribbles food all over himself and belches, and even has the same ratty red hair. I'm sure Boyens probably felt Gimli was boring and had no personality on the book, just like she felt about Aragorn, so she had to "grace" Gimli with a personality, and decided to use the one she saw in ths movie.

On the same note, the FOTR script calls for Gimli to waddle right into the elves of Lothlorien, making as ass of himself as usual, only to find himself in the middle of a group of elves all (stupidly) pointing their arrows at him and the fellowship. This is NOWHERE in the books. This scene was taken EXACTLY from Dungeons and Dragons once more--as that's how the heroes happen to run into a colony of elves--arrows nocked and drawn and pointed in their faces and everything. (Not to mention this is a pretty improper use of a bow.) Since the version in the book is MUCH different, not even remotely similar to the text, yet bears an eerie resemblance to the the D&D film, I would bet money it was taken from it. The icy elves who suffer from attitude problems are also again recreated, cold-blooded as ever, in PJ's film. What a fake.

I think it would be easy enough to find done and re-done elements from other movies too in PJ's films without looking too hard. Example: the wizard's duel scene is taken right out of Willow, wizzies spinning in the air and everything. Of course, a lot of his scenes come from Bakshi's version, but even what's left seems to be little more than dumb cliches and forumulaic plot ploys that are supposed to heighten our suspense. My friends and I were once laughing at the movie Vertical Limit because every 3 1/2 minutes, there's a cliff hanger--literally someone hanging by his fingers for his life. It just gets hysterical after a while. I feel the same about all the cliff-hangers in PJs films--and I have only seen FOTR all the way through! We have the obligatory Gandalf hanging in what looks like a too comfortable pose before he goes down with the Balrog, We have Gimli teetering by his beard, we have Gandalf hanging before going over the edge at Orthanc--and I'm sure there are more of the same in the subsequent films. This is just BAD writing. It's rehashed, refried, and regurgiated. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Tolkien never wrote a single "cliff hanger" in LOTR, or did he? Gandalf at Khazad Dum didn't even hang--he just grasped vainly at the sides and was gone.

[ 12-11-2003, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
later on he says to someone that the ring is tied to Arwens fate, directly. WHAT!?
Right--that's taken directly from The Neverending Story. Dumb.

Elrond in the films: [] Not very recongizeable from his descriptions in the books.

"He was as noble and as fair in the face as an elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wize as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind as summer."

noble? nope
fair? no way
strong? mm maybe.
wize? uh-uh
venerable? not really
kind? definitely not!

Okay it's official. He's an imposter.

Being that Elrond is a the Head elf dude, he has to in the films represent everything that is suprememly elvish, according to the script writers, and that includes being cool bordering on freezing, haughty to the point of hateful, and he has to see himself as infinitely better than the human race, because that is how the script writers view men and elves. Elrond's extreme views are to let the audience know that men are nothing compared to elves. Why this was necessary I can't guess.

[ 12-11-2003, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by Turogriest (Citizen # 3220) on :
 
There is only one cliffhanger that was in the books at that came at the end of TTT. Shelob had "killed" Frodo and Sam hears the Orcs talk about how he is just stunned. This is all that I see as a real cliffhanger except for the fact that I loved the whole story so I was biting my fingers and chopping at the bit to be done. It was all so exciting for me in the book.. AHHH I LOVE IT!
Archer, you may have a very good point about the D&D reference. I mean you have to think that PJ is not the greatest director ever. In fact, look at his previous films. All crappy slash-and-hack zombie movies and fruity alien stories. Like I said before, PJ and crew are above no low to get ratings and money, and doing it in the cheapest way possible. Legolas' character is enough to prove that.
Legolas=Captain Obvious.
 
Posted by Turogriest (Citizen # 3220) on :
 
I told you Archer. The giant, furry, white, dog-dragon is going to come out of Anduin declare himself Huan and then Aragorn will mount him and kick the All-Seeing-Eyes ass.
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
Mmm. It's possible.

[] [] []
 
Posted by Turogriest (Citizen # 3220) on :
 
THAT'S THE SAD PART!
 
Posted by Leire (Citizen # 1770) on :
 
Don't forget that PJ's background is really in horror. Horror is renowned for its cheezy effects and blatant plot points. I'm afraid that it dosn't take a literary genius to terrify people who have gone to see a movie for the express purpose of being terrified. With that background in mind, perhaps some of his absurd ideas can be understood, though not embraced or enjoyed.
 
Posted by Herendil (Citizen # 1494) on :
 
quote:
later on he says to someone that the ring is tied to Arwens fate, directly. WHAT!?
It is tied, though not directly.

The Ring is destroyed => Vilya loses its preserving power => Elrond grows tired of Middle-earth and leaves => Arwen must make the decision to go with him or not, thus making her choice of fate.

Appendix A - Here Follows a Part of the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen:
quote:
When the Great Ring was unmade and the Three were shorn of their power, then Elrond grew weary at last and forsook Middle-earth, never to return. But Arwen became as a mortal woman


[ 12-12-2003, 06:07 AM: Message edited by: Herendil ]
 
Posted by The Laurenendôrian (Citizen # 106) on :
 
quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Tolkien never wrote a single "cliff hanger" in LOTR, or did he?
Oh, I don't know. You almost get one in Frodo's descent of that cliff.
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
Leire - I hear you about Elrond. I posted somewhere on this thread and another that part of what makes Elrond so inconsistent is that his character is so closely tied to Aragorn. With Aragorn's character so completely mangled, Elrond in the films has to compliment Aragorn and as a result we get this completely inconsistent Elrond. I think it is a clear pointer to the major flaws in the screen play adaptation - Elrond's character shows the flaws and is where they swept everything under the rug.

Speaking of Aragorn, yesterday I re-read the council of Elrond and the whole scene with Boromir's dream, the issue of the sword being reforged with the finding of the Ring and Aragorn beginning to claim his fate was perfectly clear. I don't buy it - it could have been transferred to a screen play and been just as dramatic (whatever that means) and accessible to non-book readers.

All it would have taken is a screen play writer with talent and a certain respect for Tolkien. Is that really so much to ask?

Oh, regarding Arwen and her fate being tied to the ring. you are going to all barf in disgust at the rumors about this - see: http://www.minastirith.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=001425;p=2

From Gollum in the thread linked to above:
quote:
However, I've been reading through the RotK photo guide and Visual Companion and it's answerred abit about Arwen, read on if you care not for SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok, in the photo guide it has one page devoted to Arwen that says something to the affect of:
Arwen is gravely ill. She senses Sauron's growing power and the fact that the Ring will soon be once more in his grasp. Unless Frodo can defeat him, she will surely perish.
and the Visual Companion says:
Sauron by using his palantir conveys a message to Aragorn. He see's Arwen in Rivendell, lying still as death. Knowing his love is soon to die, he draws back, breaking the link he had with Arwen and shattering the Evenstar. Arwen's immortality is lost through this break and she is condemned to live in Middle Earth as a mortal, whether through her choice or not.

I can't even comment on this.
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
When the Great Ring was unmade and the Three were shorn of their power, then Elrond grew weary at last and forsook Middle-earth, never to return. But Arwen became as a mortal woman
This makes perfect sense, and is a logical "Tolkienism." But to have Arwen's health directly tied to the ring, in that its evil is slowly causing her death is just lamely mimicking Michael Ende's Neverending Story--where it at least works as the focus of that story. Thowing it into LOTR is just another arbitary notion adding to the awful mishmash of this film.
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
If that rumor is true, I may actually walk out of the film. That would be the worst travesty of writing I could ever imagine.
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
Don't forget that PJ's background is really in horror.
Leire, I agree!
That's another thing that urks me about the production. If I can be allowed to comment beyond the problems of the script writing, so many of the "tense" moments of the film have "I am the work of a cheesy horror special effects director" written all over them.

I think one of the few highlights of these films is Ian Holm as Bilbo. The scene where he gets really paranoid and possessive over the ring with Gandalf is absolutely chilly. Holm is so talented, he manages to pull this scene off with just his sheer genius. I literly begin the feel the force of the One Ring hovering about the room when I watch this scene! But then when he gets ring-happy again in Rivendell with Frodo, all of Holm's splendid technique is completely splattered over by the really dumb special effects scene where Bilbo suddenly turns into a little orc or something. That scene is just there for a gratuitous horror moment and completely misreads what occurs in the books. In the text, the hold the ring has on Frodo is what causes him to see Bilbo in that way--I don't see that Bilbo actually metamorphs into some little monster, the little thing with the "hungry face and bony groping hands"; that's just how Frodo percieves it. But the film makes it look like Bilbo has actually turned into this freaky thing. I think this scene could have been done much more effectively (and with a little more class) with just the right lighting and camera angles and with Ian Holm's own extraordinary talent. It could have been a much more frightening moment--not a jump and let your popcorn fly everywhere moment--and much more subtle, as Tolkien intended it. Honestly, when I saw this scene in the theater the first time, people actually laughed. That a hint to me that it is over the top cheeseball horror.
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
Knowing his love is soon to die, he draws back, breaking the link he had with Arwen and shattering the Evenstar. Arwen's immortality is lost through this break and she is condemned to live in Middle Earth as a mortal, whether through her choice or not
As I've commented before on this, Snaga, this sounds like a terrible accident. Maybe I haven't understood, but from what I read here, Arwen does not willingly give up her life in love for Aragorn, but loses it when Aragorn draws away from the palantir, which is what causes the Evenstar to break--accidentally? So then Arwen does not now become a mortal for love's sake but because she is "condemned" to the life of a mortal? That's horrible! Where's the beauty of sacrifice and love in that? Okay, someone tell me I'm reading this wrong, and there's a more logical explanation. Just as I said on my last post about this, I can't quite believe this is what they're trying to do.

Sorry for all the posts folks. I guess I feel I have so many niggly things to say about these films, I don't know where to stop. I'll try not to over post and be so annoying!
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
quote:
For those who are thinking about posting in the movie-phile thread: I can think of no better revenge than to see that thread as empty as possible. Don't post in it.
Sorry, I made one post, but nobody got my joke - perhaps it was a little too subtle?

quote:
The sound quality is fantastic - especially in surround and TTT!

 
Posted by Turogriest (Citizen # 3220) on :
 
To EVERYONE: Yeah, I know that the Ring is tied to Arwen, and everyone. If it is not destroyed then Sauron can take the world over. I know that. Having said that, it was the fact that she is DIRECTLY connected that bugs me to hell. I.E. her falling ill.

Also to Everyone: This is supposed to happen and I am saddened.

I bought tickets, 3, to Trilogy Tuesday.
Anybody want them, I don't, not after I found out how horrible it is.
FOTR was great, everything after that when down hill faster then that burning guy in the wheel chair in "Hannibal".

I am filled with disgust.
 
Posted by Turogriest (Citizen # 3220) on :
 
OH and by the way, for anyone who has not read "The Silmarillion", read it. It explains why Arwen has the chouice to forsake her immortality. Her father had it, her uncle did as well, as did her grandfather. It is all in that beauitful book.
Insanely short reason, grandpa goes to finds his way to Valar, rewarded with the ability to choose, loved an elf, chose Elf, sons got to choose(Elrond chose elf, his brother chose man), and their children apparently get to choose(thus Arwen chose man, she will just die really slowly is all, slower than Aragorn). If my memory serves. If I am wrong I can go back and fix it for all you guys, I wrote notes on postets and stuck them at the beginning of the chapter they occured in. I AM ANAL RETENTIVE!

OH, also: I made a post in PJ doing the hobbit thread, in which i discussed him being a cheesy horror film creator so look at his crudentials.. Should have known from the start the films were basically doomed.

[ 12-12-2003, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Turogriest ]
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
(In response to original form of the post below...)

That is too simple a way of looking at it. Say rather that these particular women had not the skill nor wit to keep from letting too much feminine point of view slip in as to unbalance the story.
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
Ok, this has bugged me since day 1.

First off let me explain i am in no way anti sexual equlity.

But i feel that some of the female production team must be strong female rights enforcers, i believe this has taken away parts of the films i really would have liked to see. I am yet to see the 3rd film, i shall be seeing it this week however but ive checked i few spoilers from this site and things i thought would be shown were shown. eg.

Aragorn gets defeated by sauron in the palantir (im not suprised, aragorn has been made to look weak the whole films), yet in the book it is aragorn who scares sauron.

Faramir is weak minded aswell

Gimli is the butt of all jokes

Gandalf is not shown using lightning strikes on the wolves, nor does he say things likem (when he returns)...'the great storm is coming, but the tide has turned'.

It would have taken an extra 5 seconds to say that, it would have made the audience think 'hold on a sec, if the tide has turned, then gandalf the white must be extremely powerful, powerful enough to defeat sauron'...instead he says 'i have returned for the turn of the tide'.

Next part of the argument, arwen...she plays glorfindel's part to a tee, glorfindel being probably the mightiest elf in middle earth at the time. She is the warrior princess.

Galadriel, totally overpowers celeborn, nade out to be a shining white sorceror, seems more powerful than gandalf the white.

Eowyn...ok, so far no coplaints, well done, but i bet in rotk she will be completely milked. I bet merry will not slay the witch king (or it will look like he accidently cuts him or something silly), then eowyn, supreme warrior, will save merry and easily defeat the witch king, made out to be a superior fighter than aragorn, particularly than faramir.

So thats it really, it just seems that the main men have all been made to look weak, particularly as im told aragorn is defeated by saurons gaze in the palantir...well, that completely wrecks his character, the whole point is that he is the king of men and can beat sauron. Whats the point of the sword? i take it that the sword is reforged in the 3rd film? or i dont know, maybe its never reforged, i dont see the purpose of it now anyway, the whole point was that sauron sees aragorn with the sword in the palantir, he reveals himself and scares sauron into attacking first. Now what?

Im all up for bolstering the female characters because otherwise there would be no females in the film hardly, but making the male characters weaker and taking out the strongest male chratcers like tom bombadil, glorfindel and imrahil, just makes me feel like some of the female production team have a chip on their shoulders about male power, so much so that it has taken away elements of aragorn, gimli and faramir, even gandalf.

[ 12-12-2003, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Turgon of Gondolin ]
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
Sorry wgw, i accidently sent the post you replied to before id finished it, ive deleted it now and there is my real post above.
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
quote:
i take it that the sword is reforged in the 3rd film? or i dont know, maybe its never reforged, i dont see the purpose of it now anyway
Absolutely! Actually it is/will be reforged, but so what? What does it mean now? They missed a perfect chance to use something of Tolkien's and blew it. I'm talking about Narsil - Andruil here. I've posted on this topic until I am blue in the face (or fingers). A wonderful and powerful plot device was turned into "the sword that was broken and got off a lucky shot." The film sword has lost 99% of it's heritage and power due to the plot twists. Someone just try and tell me a movie audience would not get the idea of a powerful sword tied to being an heirloom of Kings - just as Tolkien did?
 
Posted by Turogriest (Citizen # 3220) on :
 
I feel like an ignorant, petulent child everytime I watch the movies. The lack of trust that PJ has for his audience makes me feel stupid. He is basically telling the story to 3 year olds. I do not know why more people do not see it. It pisses me off that he feels so that he must dumb it down. Have some faith. The majority of people are not idiots and the ones that are, well they usually follow what the majority thinks anyway.
 
Posted by Aoife (Citizen # 2368) on :
 
I posted this in another thread, but I might be able to get away with it here--I think that it's a shame that PJ can say this is a film version of LOTR--too many things are screwed up.

It is NOT LOTR.

I'm not saying we should like the movies "because they are what they are". I think we should say enough is enough: this is not LOTR.

------

I tried to post in the "from book to script" thread, but was misunderstood (I was trying to put the above remarks in a nice way, but I guess I came out as pro-movie).

[ 12-13-2003, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Aoife ]
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
I think if lotr was made into a 15 certificate it could have been, deeper, darker, more intense, rather than a kind of overview or fairytale style. The style of the films have reminded me more of the style that the chronicles of narnia were written, like the lion the witch and the wardrobe, rather than lord of the rings or other tolkien work, esspecially not with the same com0plexity as the sil.

Guess this was bound to happen, pj's funders want max profits, which means everything has to be glitzy and polished for the children and families rather than uncut and rough like say 'alien' (great intensity and atmosphere) or 'blade runner' (again great atmosphere).

Both were directed by ridley scott, who also directed gladiator, this makes me feel that ridley scott could have done a better job than pj at this task. Maybe he was offered but turned it down? maybe he was already busy?

I dont feel there is much character insight and development, frodo and sam have the most potential for character development yet we only see them acting in the same way they did in the shire, frodo being cautious and sam being foolishly brave and naive. There is plenty of character development with arwen, suprise suprise, non of which tolkien wrote. If im right according to the third film arwens life is tied into the ring? wtf? Whats that all about? I can see why theyve done it, so aragorn then feels it necessary to take up the (already pointless) sword to save arwen. So basically because pj or the writers changed aragorns character by making him weaker minded and unaccepting they then have to make up more stories to figure a way for him to finally accept the sword. (Whats the use of the sword anyway? sauron isnt scared of it according to the film, elendil looked rubbish in the battle of the last alliance, no one knows who elendil is either because there has been no detail regarding aragorns heritage).

Oh, lets not forget how weak and evil isildur is made to look, hes basically made out to be this foolish greedy tyrant who deliberately wrecks his kingdom by taking the ring. Nor is elendil seen to be that mighty, albeit we only see him for a short bit. Nor is gil galad.

What do these characters have in common? they are all male. I would have thought gil galad the high king of the noldor and elves of middle earth would have looked something special, simmilar to the effects galadriel has on her...but, of course, high king or not, gil galad is male, so he cant be made to look to powerful just in case it offended the female script writers.

Bottom line is, if politics and prejudices didnt get twisted into the films they could have been more true to the story. Once pj makes up an extra scene or a change of a character it forces him to make other changes later on so that the story follows the basic overview.

We can only cross our fingers that pj does not make a film or series of films of the silmarilion. Varda would be more dominant than manwe, melkor would be controlled by ungoliant. Huan would be captured by sauron, he would be rescued by luthien then luthien would defeat sauron. Elwing would voyage to aman instead of earendil...Maybe even illuvatar would be weakened. Who knows? It better not happen.
 
Posted by Turogriest (Citizen # 3220) on :
 
BRAVO! WELL SAID. HIZZAH!

Also, let's all hope that he does not take the Hobbit.

[ 12-13-2003, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Turogriest ]
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
"I think the most important thing to remember when watching these movies is that you have to realise that the book and the film are different things. Neither is better than the other because both are works of art in different mediums." - Gollum the Great

Since one isn't supposed to rip the movies or their makers in the other thread, I pulled this quote over here to respond to.

Movies aren't art. A movie can be art but just because something is on film doesn't make it so. "Art" isn't inherent. The same thing goes for "recording artists." Well no, Britney, you're NOT an artist. That @#$% isn't art just because it was stamped onto a compact disc. I goof around with a guitar and have been told I'm a really good singer. I'm not an artist. Art is not the medium, it is the creation.

PJ and the gals took a piece of literature that is by all accounts art and changed it into something else. Whether that something is art is open to debate. Just because it is on film doesn't make it art.

Guess I'm an "art" purist, too.
 
Posted by Firien Inuyasha (Citizen # 4014) on :
 
quote:
I just started watching my TT:EE Appendices and I have come to a startling revelation.

I have the instinctual desire to punch Philippa Boyens in the face.

Whoooo!!! *dude, they need a pom-pom smiley on here*

I tottaly agree. She has no humility, and all she seems to see is how wonderful she is, and how well she wrote the script, yadda yadda yadda. Now I understand why Christopher Tolkien is soo pissed off at New Line and won't let them do the display thingy or other. The movies... it's just that when i watch them, they don't seem like the Lord of the Rings anymore... and:
WHY IS EVERYTHING CENTERED AROUND FRODO??!!! Without the other characters, FRODO IS NOTHING!!! []
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
Ok, now ive just finished watching ttt extended edition.

I think the second film (cinema version) is too long and boring. I would never sit through another showing of it again. However whilst fast forwarding all the babyish gollum bits and frodos orgasm faces i made a point of watching the extra scenes.

All i can say is that the editorial staff who edited the real film for the cinema film were fools. There is plenty in the extra bits about aragorn being the rightful king, that sauron is scared of what aragorn can become, that aragorn in 87 years old ans is numenorean. Why was this important character development left out of the cinema version? It would have taken an extra 5 mins to add all the bits of aragorns heritage into the cinema film, then they could have cut out the crap scene with arwen where she says 'sleep' in that anoying voice. Also the bit in helms deep taking the people into the caves was unesesary, they could have just shown them being led to the caves. Also the bit with the two kids that are sent to rohan on a horse so they survive the attack of the easterlings.

I am very anoyed that pj tells the audience aragorns history andsays sauron is scared of aragorn in the ee, but in the cinematic version aragorn is made out to be weak minded and naive.

The jokes at gimli's expense are unacceptable.

Again, in the extended version it shown gimli beats legolas in their orc hunt, yet in the film it makes a joke that gimli has only killed 2 orcs to legolas' 20.

Pj obviously doesnt want the cinema audience to see the real aragorn, its as if he deliberately has tried to make aragorn seem weak in the cinematic version, seeing as there are 3 bits in the extended version that show how great and important he really is, yet those 3 scenes are left out of the movie. Poor.

Very poor editorial decisions, i predict there was some hungry female rights campaigner who was depressed shes getting no sex, and it was that time of the month, decided to take out all the important bits about aragorn. Poor judgement.
 
Posted by Lady É (Citizen # 3448) on :
 
quote:
Very poor editorial decisions, i predict there was some hungry female rights campaigner who was depressed shes getting no sex, and it was that time of the month, decided to take out all the important bits about aragorn. Poor judgement.
Not only is the above unacceptably disrespectful of women in general, it seems to ascribe a decidedly female biology to the director and editor of the film - both of whom are male.

The rest of what you said in your post was completely legitimate; to say that the editing decisions were poor would have been quite sufficient.
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
TDPR, i agree with you about art, the britney spears thing etc.

These films are essentially simmilar, Britney is entertainment, not art. Art requires talent, real talent such as determination, creativeness, imagination etc. Entertainment does not require great talent.

Pj is a talented guy, he may have an art for directing, but these films are entertainment. Where does the majority of mainstream entertainment and celebrity bull get targeted toward? Answer...kids.

Why are kids targeted? because kids generally (not all kids) are not mature enough or developed enough to appreciate real art and real talent. So the kids or should i say 'sheep' buy all the britney spears records etc or go to watch the glam hollywood movies because they dont know how to appreciate the beauty of art. When they grow up they will mature and see past all the fakeness and materialism (hopefully) and learn to appreciate the things that really matter, love, passion, nature, natural beauty and art.

Would the film have been made if new line thought they could only make 10 million dollars profit from it? Of course not, thats why it is necessary to target kiddies, or the 'sheep' of society, if the films stuck to the art of the book then they would not be suitable for kids, in turn would not make max profit.

Its sad but thats life, art and nature are seldom rewarded with money, yet entertainment and current fads eg britney can generate enormous wealth. Except with art, the reward is in the art itself, in the knowledge that one has created something special. The silmarils were art, and no money or wealth in arda could have persuaded feanor to part them. Can britney feel proud and honoured by the work she created? speaks for itself.

(By the term 'kids', i dont necessarily mean children, i mean it as a term describing those people who are not grown up enough to appreciate true art, im guessing most of pj's audience)
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
Turgon of Gondolin: I have to agree with Lady É here. To use such tactics to make your point is ignorant. You also hurt anyone else here who is trying to make a serious point by risking that their words may be lumped with yours and disregarded as immature.

However, the majority of your posts, including your post above this one, are well thought-out. It's hard to not make statements that are too sweeping and broad, but it is worth it when your point doesn't have any unnecessary holes in it.
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
I apologise for the use of my wording, i assure you i meant the biological reasoning as part of a joke. I was not deliberately trying to make serious comments on female biology with respect to their actions in editorial. I was being totally sarcastic, i thought that people would have got my sarcasm but maybe it is hard to understand when simply reading text rather than listen to the way i would naturally talk when being sarcastic.

Once again, no malice intended, just when i get annoyed with things i find the best way to deal with them is to take them as a joke, with sarcasm, for instance i treat the whole scenario of arwen, eowyn and galadriel appearing far greater than aragorn, gandalf the white, gimli and faramir in a sarcastic way.

Particularly with arwen, as she replaces glorfindel, was pj suggesting to us that his version of arwen is as great as glorfindel?

Having said that i see why arwen needs to take glorfindels part, so she meets aragorn, because the two characters have to meet each other in order for there to be a love scene. Essentially pj has tried to deliver a classic hollywood cocktail, the films must have the token love scenes, they must have the token battles etc. To make the film commercially successful (the only goal of the funders) it had to include the classic blend of hollywood glam film criteria.

Where the book differs entirely is that tolkien wrote it for his own reasons, out of passion and love, not for money. The outcome (namely the films) are a good example to us all, when people try to make art commercial it will inevitably lose its art value and become entertainment to please the masses. Not to say that cinema is not a form of art, but converting a great piece of literature to cinema in order to make maximum profit is a sure way of destroying most of the original art, twisting it into entertainment.

If you want i can delete my bit of sarcasm on one of my previous posts, but i assure you it was only a laddish joke rather than a malicious written attack on women and female anatomy...i love female anatomy [] , and i like liv tyler in real life.

[ 12-14-2003, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Turgon of Gondolin ]
 
Posted by Brego (Citizen # 4083) on :
 
Turgon, you're my hero. I agree absolutely; it's the division between art and entertainment. It happens in most mediums, like music as well. Comparing the books to the movies of LotR is like comparing Radiohead to Good Charlotte. Art is born of talent and imagination, and done for love of a craft, whereas entertainment has no other purpose than to draw in money. Art may not be as easy to get into and truly appreciate at first, but in the end it is extremely rewarding when you finally "get it." Entertainment is for the quick payoff, though any serious audience will be left feeling unfulfilled.

And it all comes down to people not wanting to think. People don't want to think when they go to the movie theaters, and thats why instead of intriguing dialogue and character development, we get an increase in fight scenes and the altering of characters to make them comic relief, eye candy, or overly sensitive and self doubting. Just as people who wouldn't want to think while they listened to music would opt for the simplistic and mind numbingly repeative chords and lyrics of a band like Good Charlotte before they would listen to the beautifully crafted and intricate melodies of a Radiohead song.
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
Brego, my theory, well not really theory, more like belief is that ultimately everyone appreciatestrue art, nature, beauty.

I believe what makes someone reach a higher level of thinking is when they realie that they do not need to rely on material goods and services, that the fundamental most important thing in life is life itself.

As people mature in my opinion they start to respect life far more, emotions. I believe that the turning point in someones life is when they 'see through the eyes of a child' as Jesus said. When they realise no matter how much money they get or spend on whatever it can not make them truly happy. Take alcohol as an example, you can drink lots of nice drinks and get drunk, you might think you are happy but in reality it is just false happiness. False happiness is nice when it lasts, but like all materialstic goods and services it ends and wears off. When someone realises that what makes them truly happy is love, passion, achievement, then they reach the point where they have matured mentally.

No matter how many records you buy, it wont make you truly happy, yet if you have a passion for lets say craft and you crafted a beatiful sculpture that took 8 years to make, then you will have achieved a perfection of your passion for sculpture, this will make you truly happy, albiet with only one aspect of ones life, their work and passion.

Take feanor as an example (even though hes fictional, the principle is the same). His life effort went into creating the silmarils, perfection. He had a passion for craft. He was truly happy with his work, probably the second most important part of his life (except his father)...then of course melkor comes along and turns feanors pride and happiness into greed and anger, which in turn is symbolic, melkor turns feanors desire for nature and beauty into the desire for material goods. Melkor effectively turns the silmarils from a piece of art, incredible natural beauty into materialism. Then of course feanor is far from happy.

This means that when something is created as art is for passion, when entertainment is made it is generally for money, in the hollywood world we live in today it is solely for money.

I would argue that some people never mature until their very last breath, when they finally realise that all the materialism will not find them true love with a partner, with their children, passion for art and craft and forms of creativity.

Many people may disagree with me, thats their right, but ill stick to believing in my spirit and what my soul tells me to believe in.

What has this got to do with the film? Everything...it raises the question: Were the three films doomed from the start?

My reasoning for this is that they were trying to take a piece of art and turn it into entertainment solely for entertainment purposes.

When they have to fullfill all the blockbuster criteria eg love scenes, tragic hero etc...was it inevitable that hollywood would lose the beauty of tolkiens art.

In the end i cant blame pj, hes the director, but eventually had the film been more true to the book with no love scenes etc then it probably wouldnt have been allowed to be made. Too much money to fork out for something that wouldnt have had all the hollywood criteria needed for a successful glam image conscious blockbuster.


Do you think the films were inevitably going to take away the art of tolkien?
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
Inevitable? Not simply because they're films. Inevitable because they're films done by a Hollywood studio.

An indie group wouldn't have had the funds to make all three films at once or for the wonderful special effects. So we might have had a more faithful film and that film might have been even better than the Fellowship we got. I believe it would have been popular enough to merit the filming of the sequels, perhaps even with a larger budget, but I think I would be debated on that point by many. Some believe the films couldn't have been made by anyone but a big studio.
 
Posted by Turogriest (Citizen # 3220) on :
 
quote:
were forbidden to reveal themselves in forms of majesty, or to seek to rule the wills of Men and Elves by open display of power, but coming in shapes weak and humble were bidden to advise and persuade Men and Elves to good, and to seek to unite in love and understanding all those whom Sauron, should he come again, would endeavour to dominate and corrupt.
-Appendix

This quote shows that the film completely screwed up Gandalf's character. Gandalf, in ROTK, that is. He apparently bangs Denethor over the head and takes charge of the Men of Gondor. Eddectively he becomes active king during the most crucial time. Obvious enough for everyone that PJ and everyone else screwed up Gandalf?
 
Posted by Wandering Tuor (Citizen # 1685) on :
 
Yeah and now they've gone way too far:
quote:
'Rings' Fans Awed by Sequel's Car Chase Scene

(2003-12-16) -- Preview screening audiences for the final episode of the Lord of the Rings (LOTR) movie trilogy are said to be "breathless" over the ending of the so-called 'American cut' of Return of the King, which features a spectacular car chase scene.

Although devotees of the J.R.R. Tolkien books, which form the basis for the movie series, have barraged internet fan sites with complaints, director Peter Jackson said audiences love the "dramatic plot twist."

"We wanted to bring Tolkien's incredibly intricate, poetic prose to the screen in a way that would be accessible to modern American moviegoers," said Mr. Jackson, a native New Zealander. "One of our scriptwriters suggested that the final epic battle between good and evil might best be portrayed by having the Dark Lord Sauron pursue Frodo and Sam (the ring-bearing Hobbits) in a spectacular car chase through Middle Earth. It really breathes new life into the literary fantasy-action-adventure genre."

Asked how he's dealing with the withering criticism from Tolkien fans, Mr. Jackson bristled: "I can't live my life trying to satisfy the purists. What do these people want? We spent months shooting that car chase, and I used classic cars to make it authentic. I think it's true to the spirit of Tolkien."

Mr. Jackson suggested that LOTR devotees would ultimately be satisfied when they buy the extended version DVD.

"On the DVD, the car chase is punctuated by long soliloquies by Lady Galadriel, where she speaks in untranslated Elvish and we see nothing but her unblinking eyes," said Mr. Jackson. "That ought to keep the stroppy Ring-geeks from chundering."


 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
I guess some film-lovers didn't expect the downside that they might be portrayed (by some) as ignorant Americans whose massive audience and market led to the dumbing-down of the films.

Ah well, at least I didn't say it. Let them howl!
 
Posted by The Laurenendôrian (Citizen # 106) on :
 
Ooh! A car chase could be good. And it's not without reference in the book, either. After all:
quote:
Aragorn and Legolas went now with Éomer in the van.
And didn't Ulmo have a car?
 
Posted by Wandering Tuor (Citizen # 1685) on :
 
That was from the often funny Scrappleface website, btw.

E: [] at Laur.

Not to mention the Ford of Bruinen.

[ 12-16-2003, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: Wandering Tuor ]
 
Posted by The Laurenendôrian (Citizen # 106) on :
 
It's a pity that they didn't pick up on the references to Aragorn's hobby of pillow-fighting, though - that would have worked well in a visual medium.
 
Posted by Wandering Tuor (Citizen # 1685) on :
 
 -

OK that one went over my head . . .
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
quote:
Ooh! A car chase could be good. And it's not without reference in the book, either. After all:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aragorn and Legolas went now with Éomer in the van.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Laurenendôrian - that was hilarious! You made my day!

Why not add a dog fight between Gandalf, Elrond and Argorn each on an Eagle and the remaining 8 winged Nazgul as they give Frodo precious air cover to allow him to get to the cracks of doom!

What Hollywood dog fight would be complete without Elrond screaming "Get him off me, get him off me" followed by Aragorn saying via his Palantir equipped com system, "Hang on Old Man, I'm on him. Okay, listen to me carefully, On 3, I need you to break hard left, 1.... 2..... 3..... break!" Then we switch to Gandalf being chased by 3 Nazgul, but due to the superior flight dynamics of the Eagles he is able to aim directly for Barad-Dur then pull up at the last second - the Nazgul fall for it and collide right into Barad-Dur blasting away huge sections of the tower! []

[ 12-16-2003, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Snaga ]
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
I don't agree with everything this guys says, but it's refreshing to hear a dissenting viewpoint in the news.
quote:
Why I hate ‘The Lord of the Rings’
It’s long, boring and you could drive a Balrog through the plot holes

New Line Cinema
COMMENTARY
By Larry Terenzi
MSNBC contributor
Updated: 6:58 p.m. ET Dec. 15, 2003

It’s sad to be alone at Christmastime. My friends have abandoned me, branded me a loon and a miscreant. While they rejoice, I’ve gone underground. My crime? I think the “Lord of the Rings” series up to this point reeks like a sweaty Orc. Okay, bad poetic license -- it’s not that foul. The epic scope of the movies is impressive and several action sequences are spectacular, as are the fanatical attention to detail and technical accomplishments. Peter Jackson’s ambition in directing the trilogy in a marathon 18-month shoot is as grand as his ability to pull it off. But for all those folks scooping up those ghastly Gollum snowglobes, have you guys pilfered Gandalf’s pipe weed?

Before I proceed further with my self-immolation, understand this: I like to think of myself as an imaginative and possibly well-adjusted adult. LOTR was one of my primary adolescent obsessions. I rolled the geometric dice and played Dungeons & Dragons, though I was reckless and was too often smote to be any good. I even collected and painstakingly painted several score of lead figurines based on Ralph Bakshi’s ill-fated animated “LOTR” adaptation. So I should dig these films. But I don’t.

The main reason is that they –- let’s stick to the movies for the sake of time and space -- just don’t make any sense. I will gladly enter Jackson’s Middle Earth, a brilliantly realized world in which the disembodied Sauron is a giant evil eyeball in the sky, all men have beards and elves don’t work for Keebler. But it’s once we’re in that world that storytelling logic takes a vacation.

Lapses in logic
Consider the story’s very origin, the flashback in Fellowship, wherein Sauron is initially defeated in a massive apocalyptic battle against Men and Elves when the One Ring is lopped off his finger. Later, Elrond, a powerful elf, and Isuldir, the man who gained possession of the Ring, stand before a fissure in Mount Doom, the only place it can be destroyed. At the last moment, Isuldur refuses to toss it in -- and Elrond lets him walk. Elrond, dude, Middle Earth was nearly obliterated because of a fashion accessory. Do one last favor for your millions of dead buddies and push this idiot into the fire. Then, six thousand years later, Elrond, instead of joining the Fellowship to make amends for his passivity, incessantly whines and rags on the race of “weak” Men. The only weakness here is in satisfying character motivation.

How many watery looks, heaving bosoms and pregnant pauses between [Sam and Frodo] until we ‘get it?’

But character arcs flatline throughout because logic and motivation are treated in the same manner as the many set-pieces, contrivances to suit a Byzantine plot that takes hours to run in place. The moment when Sam begins addressing his best friend Frodo as “Mister” somewhere in “The Two Towers” counts as a major psychological beat. Speaking of those two, the subtext seems clear from the beginning, so how many watery looks, heaving bosoms and pregnant pauses between them until we “get it?” I began to think of Sauron’s flaming peeper as “Queer Eye for the Hobbit Guy.” Or maybe that’s an angry vagina that all those burly warriors flee. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

By now I’ve accepted this intricate yet sterile world where characters move according to mythic direction. But the myth itself is long and repetitive. Boromir, “Fellowship’s" most interesting character, is predictably sent packing. Indeed, the only true dramatic twist is Saruman’s big reveal, in which he flips to the dark side and kicks Gandalf’s ass. Even Gandalf’s supposed death at the hands of the Balrog, a winged yet surprisingly flightless demon, is lessened when he returns in “The Two Towers,” proclaiming, “I was sent back.” That’s a convention known as deux ex machina, or hand of god, and I wish it would’ve sent me back home.

All action, no story movement
Where Fellowship was bogged down in exposition, “The Two Towers,” for all of its action and sense of momentum, likewise accomplishes little in the way of actual movement. Frodo and Sam begin the movie looking at the distant belching of Mount Doom – and that’s how they end it. In between, they do find Gollum, a CGI-character ironically infused with more soul than the live actors. He’s essentially a junkie who says the word “precious” way too often, yet amidst the movie’s chaos and circular wandering, he’s the only character to actually come up with a plan. Legolas, Gimli and Aragorn, meanwhile, kill Orcs at an ever faster rate. In the nadir of the series, Merry and Pippin, the Cheech and Chong of Middle Earth, hug a walking, verse-spouting tree in one of the most clock-stopping sequences put to film.

As if they’re not long enough, both movies follow the recent and so very greedy trend, see “Kill Bill” and the middle “Matrix” movie, of just ending – nearly in mid-sentence. How would you like this article to have ended three paragraphs ago? Don’t answer that. Yes, they’re segments of a whole but I didn’t put my satisfaction on the two-year installment plan. Each movie should offer at least a taste of closure, rather than be content with itself as a single frustrated act of an epic designed to suck 30 bucks from my billfold.

Nonetheless, I’ll see “Return of the King” along with everybody else hankering for an ending. Whenever I’m chided for being a killjoy, for nitpicking the rising torrent of illogic (love that gaping sewer hole in the middle of Helm’s Deep, the “impenetrable” fortress), or for considering the tale’s queasy political and social conservatism, I think of how much respect I have for the whole undertaking. And how I wish I could like it.


 
Posted by Éoric of the Riddermark (Citizen # 2302) on :
 
While I have enjoyed both movies so far, I feel like ranting here.

So little was changed in FotR that I have to wonder why Jackson & co. decided to alter so much--and insert so much--in TT. Why?

How exactly was the story made better by the "Aragorn off the cliff" scene?

Why the hell did the Elves need to make an appearnace at Helm's Deep?

Why did PJ & co. decide to emasculate Théoden, who after his awakening was one of the most noble and dynamic characters in LotR? For that matter, I feel like the Riders and the Eorlings in general were sad, diluted versions of their literary counterparts. Why?

How did it make the story better to have Saruman showing subservience to Sauron, instead of arrogantly craving the power for himself?

Hrmph. That's a start. And yes, I feel a little better now. []
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
Eoric, its simple weve already come to the conclusion of a lot of your points:

Theoden doesnt seem particularly kmighty at all,

Saruman is saurons 'puppet' rather than desiring the ring for himself,

Aragorn is weak minded and un accepting,

Gimli wasnt in the film as far as im concerned, well, his name was but not his character, the warped halfling court jester that was called gimli was unacceptable, tolkiens gimli was never even in the film...pj missed one of the main characters.

Faramir wasnt in the film, well again his name was but his character that tolkien created was not.

Gandalf the grey doesnt use lightning on the wolves, conveniently skipped this out...will gandalf the white fire light beams from his palms at the winged nazgul as he did in the book? I doubt it.

Tom bombadil wasnt in the film.

Cant you see the trend? All or most of the main male characters appear to be weaker minded, less strength etc to what tolkien writes them as. Meanwhile look at arwen warrior princess, i really like liv tyler and think she is beautiful but i hate arwen, every time i see arwen on screen now i dont want to watch the film. Galadriel appears more powerful than gandalf the white esspecially when she turns about 20 ft tall and a cartoon. Lastly eowyn, so far very good but im sure shell be milked when she slays the witch king or should i say 'when merry slays the witch king'.

It seems like its a shame that some of the production team let their political views intwine into tolkiens work, they weakened most of the male characters, aragorn looks nothing special either which is a disgrace. Another thing i noticed, all the human characters seem weak, heres another weaker male character 'isildur', hes made to look stupid. Elendil hardly gets seen, gil galad looks nothing special...its a shame because they could have made gil galad really interesting being high king of the noldor.

So to sum up, the film missed out the characters of aragorn, bombadil, faramir and gimli. Between them theres a good 300 pages, pj devided to make up those 300 pages worth into the film rather than using tolkiens writing.
 
Posted by the lost king (Citizen # 4098) on :
 
[] [] [] [] OK. First of all I am a nubie but that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. And I also I havent had time to read all 7 pages so if I repeat a previous point please forgive me. I think that as far as an accurate representation of the books go the films failed miserably. The actors, PJ, and people in general added or took away too much from the books. [] [] Now, I know as soon as my girlfriend Sâlienne de Lioncourt hears this she'll rant and rave back but this must be said. There are certain parts of a peice of writing that will never be fully captured by a movie because they cant be. When writers write they provide us a window into a world that we would otherwise not think about at all or know exists. Me, being a writer myself, know this first hand. I don't know to what extent Chris Tolkien aided in the making of the movie, but like I said before the actors and PJ added too much. The film should have been based on the books alone, not butchered so Aragon is an insecure whiner, Farimir is the total opposite of his identity in the book, and everything is made so simple what was a higher level reading was lowered to a simple plot with predictable storyline. [] [] (Sorry about the run-on.) The books should have been used better in the script. BUT.....hey thats just me.
WGW this is my offical greeting to you seeing how i haven't greeted you properly yet.
Hail mighty steward of the white city! I am the lost king with no kingdom and I graciously accept you hospitality in your city. May the gods watch over you and your city. Peace my bretren.
 
Posted by Elanor Gamgee (Citizen # 3219) on :
 
My rant:
What upset me about the films was the fact that so many of the changes diminished so many of the noble characters! So Frodo becomes a coward who sees Pippin and Merry being chased by orcs and just runs off on his own. Aragorn lets Frodo do this even though he had sworn to protect him on his journey. Gimli becomes a slapstick comedy figure. Merry and Pippin likewise (do we really need all this childish behaviour to emphasise that they were young and sometimes a bit foolish?) Treebeard becomes a dithering idiot who needs to be shown the damage Saruman is doing before he will act. Elrond becomes a whinger. And don't even get me started on Faramir, who is my favourite character in the book after Sam-that was just character assassination, for which I will never forgive PJ.
Oh and by the way, I thought the soundtrack was totally forgettable!

[ 12-17-2003, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Elanor Gamgee ]
 
Posted by The Laurenendôrian (Citizen # 106) on :
 
What soundtrack?
 
Posted by Kalluin Peredhel (Citizen # 2168) on :
 
In addition to the warg scene which I hated, the dream sequence Arwen, which I hated, and the killing of Haldir, which I also hated, how about them turning Merry and Pippin into the Cheech and Chong of Middle Earth?

Maybe they're planning a spin-off?

And I, too, wanted to smack Philippa Boyens upside the head and tell her to get over herself.
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
My RotK Review:

"I liked Tolkien better," I said.

"Tolkien! " PJ sneered. "It serves as a beginning. Tolkien's words may be changed. Tolkien's pages can be re-written; and Tolkien's story structure can be broken."

"In which case it is no longer Tolkien," said I. "And he that breaks a thing to portray it on-screen has left the path of wisdom."

That's all for now. For me the grief is still too near.
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
It's been a few months since my last reading of RotK but I don't seem to recall an earthquake that swallows up everything inside of Mordor. For that matter, I don't recall Aragorn's army being completely surrounded outside the Black Gate. And was the ship Frodo took to the west really the "last" ship for the west? I was under the impression that there were still elves in Middle Earth.

Worst addition of the series: Warg battle with Aragorn falling off the cliff.
Worst omission of the series: No Ghan Buri Ghan.
Worst bizarro-world change: Faramir

If you had to pick one of each, worst addition, worst omission, and worst change, what would you pick?
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
Right, ive just seen rotk.

Glam hollywood mega block buster, massive effects, star wars esque.

My own opinion though...pj has taken one of the greatest pieces of art i have read and transformed this into a massive materialstic film...Tolkien himself was against materialsm, industrialisation so i find it ironic that tolkiens great art has just been turned into hollywood entertainment backed up by the most materialistic society in the world.

The three films remind mde of star wars...family blockbusters 'and' the type of film that grosses the most profit.

Now, i must warn those of you who dont want to read some of my comments about the film because they could spoil it for you.

1. Why does aragorn get beaten by a troll and crushed beneath his foot only luck that the troll runs off after seeing the destruction of barad dur...Araogorn could beat a troll in battle, why does the 'king of men' lose to a troll in the film? This never even happens in the book.

2. Gimli isnt in the film, well not tolkiens gimli, if im right the first thing gimli says is 'salted pork' after telling off the hobbits, his first lines, this causes the audience to laugh obviously thus setting up the films jester, i cant remember i time when gimli doesnt say something or do an action and people laugh.

3. Where is the palantir in minas tirith? denethor doesnt even look into the palantir, so according to the film, denethor simply wants to lose gondor for no reason at all, or sacrifice gondor and free men for the loss of boromir.

4. Faramir is crap, he is made out to be a rubbish fighter, he gets arrows shot into him and taken back to gondor after his first attemot at fighting in the film.

5. Why does the palantir that pip looks into start to ensnare aragorn also when he takes it off pippen? Aragorn is the rightful owner of the palantir, why does sauron beat aragorn's will in the palantir when the book shows that aragorn beats saurons will.

6. Aragorn recieves anduril and says something like 'sauron will be scared of this, he will not have forgotten such a blade', then the scene flicks to the bit where isildur flukily swiped saurons ring finger in a last ditch attempt to save himself. Why would sauron be scared of a sword (in the film) that flukily killed him? Also, seeing as it was isildur in the film who slays sauron, rather than elendil, why should sauron be scared of elendils sword? in the film sauron easily disposed of elendil and gil galad...Yet in the book it was ultimately elendil who lasted the longest againsst sauron and dealt him the stoke that caused him to die. Elendil and his sword defeated sauron in battle.

7. The light beam that comes from gandalfs palm to the nazgul looks more like a ray of sunlight, it comes from his staff rather than his palm aswell, again making gandalf the white look like he has far less power than he does. It annoys me that sauron seems to have so much power, more so than he does in the book, yet gandalf hardly seems to have any, they miss out his lightning bolts on the wolves, they miss out when he exorcises saruman from theoden and turns the room thundery black whilst growing taller and shining of bright light.

8. Sauron looks pathetic, a giant eye on barad dur that shinesa spotlight to aim where it is seeing, it looks like a lighthouse with a spotlightsearching round.

9. Legolas single handidly takes down an oliphant and kills all its riders, the way he does this is a joke, why does legolas do all this yet aragorn (a superior fighter) gets beaten by a troll in battle, even when he has anduril. Only flukily that the troll runs off before killing him.

10. The frodo and sam saga is very repetitive and boring, its always the same damn thing, frodo slips feels ill, sam reminds him of the shire, the same thing happewns over and over again.

11. From developing aragorns character nicely in the first film, then basically stepping back and undoing the development of aragorn during the second movie, this third movie takes the piss a bit, Aragorn doesnt know what the paths of the dead are, aragorn needs it explained to him that the dead are their because they were cursed by isildur. This is hardly mentioned, the black stone is not in it, mind you pj didnt want to make it look like isildur was powerful, because for some reason in all movies the men (not elvish men), men as in male humans all appear far weaker than how they do in the book.

12. No mouth of sauron, no imrahil, no dunedain with aragorn through the paths of the dead.

13. Why do the dead fight at the battle outside minas tirith? In the book they do not.

I really have so much more rage to write but to be honest cant be bothered, i walked out of the cinema just feeling jumbled up.

To be fair though im sure families will like it.

The character development is crap with aragorn gimli and legolas.

Max profits= target the kids, so it must be a film the kids enjoy.

A new star wars, entertaining, using materialism (what tolkien was against) to create tolkiens great work onto the screen.

Id call it a 'family film'...nice polished friendly atmosphere, very clean looking effects, all glitzy and glam.

To be honest i think to do this film justice you would have to make the atmosphere a lot meaner, take out the polished looks, rough it up a bit, take out a bit of the glitzy bits and cartoon effects, make it look more rough, more sinister...then again if they did this it wouldnt be a 'family film' targeted at kids.

To sum up, the film was not true to the book, it missed out lots from the book and had unesesary scenes with smeagol and deagol wasting time, poor character development.

They should have made each film 4 hours, so you watch 2 hours then there is a 15 minute interval, then you watch the remaining 2 hours, they could have fit much more in eg the extended versions plus a bit more.
 
Posted by Citizen 2612 (Citizen # 2612) on :
 
I am a pretty generous fan of both Tolkien's book and the movie. I conceded alot on behalf of Peter Jackson, and allowed much leeway. But seeing the Return of the King pushed me over the edge.


They mangled Faramir. Okay, I can take that, to a certain extent, if you repent in the third. They left out Tom Bombadil. Okay, it would have confused those who have not read the book.

But when they left out the shaming of Sauruman, and the spoiling of the Shire, I was sadly let down. The Return of the King was their chance to redeem themselves, in my eyes - though it was still imrepssive in many respects (mostly visual), it was a sad dissapointment in others.

The spoiling of the Shire was essential to both the book, and should have been to the film. One of the most significant themes was maturity, and change. When Tolkien returned from the Great War with his disillusioned comrades...they returned to a land that was alien, that did not accept them, and could not understand them.
That to a certain extent, was exemplified by the rape of the Shire (though gladly, the hobbits retake and rid it of evil).


When the Eagles arrived at the end, I imagined not a mere dribble of several birds as it was in the movie, but the entire fleet of Manwe's spirits, soaring down upon the wretched orcs. If Peter Jackson is going to leave out "non-essential" parts, at least get the battle scenes correct. I longed to see Pippin take down the troll by stabbing it on the toe...not the King of Men be helplessly crushed by it (as WGW said earlier).


My thoughts are too scattered now, as it is already half past midnight...but ill rant more later []

Edit-

I cant describe the dread that took over me when I saw the hobbits returning to an UNSPOILT shire. Sad, sad sad, dissapointment. I WANTED TO SEE ASHES, FLAME, RUIN, SWARTHY HALF-ORCS, and most importantly, the death of Saurman. If you dont show Gandlaf breaking his staff...at least show him being murdered by Grima'.

They have one last chance with the extended version...if it is left out, I dont know what to do.

[ 12-17-2003, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: Citizen 2612 ]
 
Posted by Tuor (Citizen # 374) on :
 
Last night I bothered to look at the map of Middle-earth in the extended TT's case and saw "Frodo and Sam's" journey according to that map. I'm sorry, but Frodo and Sam were not supposed to go to Osgilliath.

I've resigned myself to the fact that the movie is PJ's movie, but when they start making maps of Middle-earth based on the movie that really turns my stomach.

By the way, I'm glad to see so many people who love Tolkien's Middle-earth. For a while there I thought I was almost alone.
 
Posted by Yavanna-Kementári (Citizen # 3723) on :
 
No you are not alone, it's just that some of us have resigned ourselves to the mish mash of sometimes good and crap that is PJ's movie version.

To me I can live with some of the changes, but Haldir's death in TTT and omitting Saruman from TROTK is just sacrilege. Another thing that killed me was TTT the girly screams of the Elves as they died. They were Elves for Gods sake! Superior beings that would have died just as they lived, gracefully.
 
Posted by Tuor (Citizen # 374) on :
 
quote:
To me I can live with some of the changes, but Haldir's death in TTT and omitting Saruman from TROTK is just sacrilege.
Haldir's presence at Helm's Deep is sacrilege. The whole "World of Man" thing turns my stomach.
 
Posted by Fingolfin of the Noldor (Citizen # 156) on :
 
I post the following as a "purist" given: No purists allowed!: here.

quote:
I've resigned myself to the fact that the movie is PJ's movie, but when they start making maps of Middle-earth based on the movie that really turns my stomach.
Yeah I couldn't agree more. Same goes for Unfinished Tales. Why did CT have to "edit" the LotR map like that it really wasn't that necessary. Sure he gave an explanation in the Prologue but that came across more as a rationalization. What's more what's up with Tolkien's changes to Frodo's journey in Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age???? Frodo didn't throw the Ring in in the book?!?!?!?!?!?!? In light of this I don't think I can ever forgive PJ his changes to the final scene either.

One thing so many "purists" fail to realize is Tolkien saw his stories as traditions which when it comes to cycles especially by definition must be somewhat internally inconsistant. Think Nibelungenlied(W. Germanic) vs The Eddas(N. Germanic). As such he even purposefully created inconsistancies between different accounts of the same. As such deviations/omissions/additions in and of themselves should not be considered necessarilly negatives.

Tolkien set out to write a story which entertained. The question we as purists should ask ourselves is not: "Is this the book?" but rather "Does this work?".

[ 12-18-2003, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: Fingolfin of the Noldor ]
 
Posted by Tuor (Citizen # 374) on :
 
quote:
Same goes for Unfinished Tales. Why did CT have to "edit" the LotR map like that it really wasn't that necessary.
Find some place where Chris states that he takes liberties with his father's stories and I'll agree with you.
 
Posted by Fingolfin of the Noldor (Citizen # 156) on :
 
Regarding 'The Ruin of Doriath' in The Silmarillion:

quote:
In this work Guy Kay took a major part, and the chapter that I finally wrote owes much to my discussions with him. It is, and was, obvious that a Step was being taken of a different order from any other 'manipulation' of my father's own writing in the course of the book: even in the case of the story of The Fall of Gondolin, to which my father had never returned, something could be contrived without introducing radical changes in the narrative. It seemed at that time that there were elements inherent in the story of the Ruin of Doriath as it stood that were radically incompatible with 'The Silmarillion' as projected, and that there was here an inescapable choice: either to abandon that conception, or else to alter the story.
-HoME XI p. 356
 
Posted by Tuor (Citizen # 374) on :
 
So you are trying to say that in that quote Chris states that a clear story already exists, but he decided he just wanted to take liberties and tell his own version of the story?
 
Posted by Fingolfin of the Noldor (Citizen # 156) on :
 
Exactly! "Radically incompatible" is his excuse. Just like PJ for the medium of film though at least in PJ's case Tolkien makes same point.

Nevertheless, real traditions based on the same "raw materials" never line up very well. You can even look just as far a Beowulf or really any other germanic tale with which similar accounts of the same house many marked differences.

[ 12-18-2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Fingolfin of the Noldor ]
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
The film relies on effects and visual detail to carry it rather than solid script and storyline. The story was written for them, granted they could not use the whole book due to time constraints, but i feel that the important parts of lotr were left out for stupid parts like smeagol and deagol, like the love story that occurs in every damn film.

The film lacks depth, it lacks the development in characters that the book provides, much more emphasis should have been made on the development of the characters Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, the hobbits and gandalf. If the scouring of the shire was in the film it would have given pj a goal to develop the hobbits into. By this i mean that pj could use the films to develop the hobbits from their original persona to how they change and what they become when they win their own land.
 
Posted by Fingolfin of the Noldor (Citizen # 156) on :
 
Edit - Turgon, if the films are pure spectacle with no narrative or character depth then why is it they have consistantly been nominated for the movie industry's highest awards?

-Fingolfin of the Noldor(Enraged Ronald Tolkien Purist)
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
I don't know why they have been nominated either, Fingy. []

Yes, there is character development, but it is a twisted mirror of Tolkien's world. Big questions for purists, such as 'Are Denethor, Faramir, Saruman, Gimli, Elrond, etc. even the same character as in the books' don't matter much to those who don't know or don't care.

Also, it's not hard for critics to label something as a monumental acheivement and not specifically talk about the character development. It is an acheivement in filmmaking. Just one that is often highly insulting to the spirit of the source material.
 
Posted by Sir Dolenbalion (Citizen # 2019) on :
 
I'm certainly not a purist, but I thought this was a little funny:

 -

Arwen gets the Encyclopedia of Arda for Christmas:

"Aha! Here it is! Put those pesky critics in their place: *ahem* 'Glorfindel was a noble Elf of Rivendell, who helped Frodo Baggins...uh...and his companions to reach the House of Elrond...(uh-oh)...and evade the pursuit of the Black Riders.' Oh, amarth."
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
quote:
if the films are pure spectacle with no narrative or character depth then why is it they have consistantly been nominated for the movie industry's highest awards?

I would imagine because the people who nominate and vote for the movie industry's highest awards like films that are pure spectacle with no narrative or character depth.
 
Posted by Fingolfin of the Noldor (Citizen # 156) on :
 
That's why The Matrix Revolutions will clean house at the Oscars, right? Not to mention movies like Bad Boys 2 or Charlie's Angels...

Movies like Mystic River, Lost in Translation, 21 grams, etc. they'll just be shut out, right? []

Please, I expected a real answer to my question. []
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
You said it.

The films are getting the highest honour by the industry. What is this industry? Hollywood.

Madonna gets the highest achievements in her industry, does that make her equal to mozart? or jimi hendrix?

Take a film like 'taxi driver', de niro and keitel. Did it get the highest awards of the industry? no. Yet it is 20 years after the film was made when people start realising how atmospheric and deep the film goes.

Titanic won the highest awards of hollywood.

We must remember, art is art, entertainment is entertainment. Madonna can never be a mozart because it is far beyond her abilities. Likewise hollywood can never be a tolkien, tolkiens abilities exceeded any boundary that hollywood can reach.

I stick with my point. The films characters lack development.

I welcome anyone to debate with me on this...

Heres a summary, aragorn, no, he starts to develop in the first film then the development just stops, aragorn doesnt appear to become any nobler even when he is holding anduril (at bloody last), this is then creamed off when he is getting crushed by the troll in the last battle.

Frodo and sam...same crap the whole way through, pj skipped out any character developing scenes and continuosly showed us frodo falling, sam helping over and over again.

Legolas, no, he remains the incredible warrior throughout the film. I think pj kind of got legolas mixed up with earendil or fingolfn or feanor...the kind of moves he pulls off in battle look totally unrealistic and stupid, particularly as whilst aragorn is being crushed by a troll, legolas runs up an oliphaunt killing it and everyone else.

Gimli, no, he remains the jester through all the films, any chance of developing gimli is gone when you make him into the joker, because it takes away any change that you can give him. The audience will immeadiately familiarise gimli with 'funny'.

Merry and pippin, maybe, i thought they were developed quite well. But the bit at the last battle shows that the audience think they are just a comedy act, when aragorn charges into battle and merry and pippin follow first, the audience laughed, so he we see an example of a developed character(s) who are shown to be courageous at the end of the film but are thought of as a comedy act and fools by the audience when they charge to battle.
 
Posted by Grondar (Citizen # 1616) on :
 
Edit: "Grondar not read rules of thread. Grondar's words gone." - WGW
 
Posted by Adulithien (Citizen # 2193) on :
 
Mr. Dread Pirate, I do recall Aragorn's forces being surrounded at the Black Gate, but maybe my imagination and the movie just happen to coincide right there? I don't have the book handy. *sigh*

I don't even know what to say. I was sold on this whole thing after the first movie, now, I'm just sick. I got back from RotK half an hour ago, and I'd probably have a lot more rage if so much other stuff wasn't going on, but I distinctly don't feel right about it. The omission of Denethor's palantir, the strategic changes, NO IMRAHIL... the list goes on. And we've been done the worst of injustices this time. After the Two Towers, I was almost physically ill at the unfaithfulness (though I did enjoy the film for film's sake). But at least we could take heart that maybe the next one would do better, instead of getting progressively worse and more off-track. But no. RotK is the death blow, and it's over now, and I feel cheated by the overall story.

*sigh*

Worst addition of the series: Elves at Helm's Deep, robbing Men of a moment which should've been the first steps of a victorious coming-of-age
Worst omission of the series: No Imrahil!! And no Scouring. The Shire remains unspoiled. [] []
Worst bizarro-world change: "Go home, Sam." No, no, no!

Gah. I don't have any rage left! I just feel robbed. Robbed, cheated, manipulated, lied to, disappointed.

*goes to pick up the book*

Well, I'm back.

[ 12-19-2003, 02:49 AM: Message edited by: Adulithien ]
 
Posted by Tuor (Citizen # 374) on :
 
quote:
Exactly! "Radically incompatible" is his excuse.
Sorry Fingy, but I couldn't disagree more. Radically incompatible is one of the reasons why JRR never published those writings.

What Chris did was make a decision. He decided which story line to go with and filled in a gap. PJ did no such thing. He decided to tell a completely different story. As PJ put it, he took 'liberties' with the story line. I'm sorry if you don't see the difference, but it is there for those of us who have a more conservative view of Tolkien's stories.
 
Posted by willhap (Citizen # 300) on :
 
Ok, I watched the appendices last night for the first time and I must agree with WGW that I wanted to punch Philipa in the nose as well.

First of all, her explanation of why they changed the character of Faramir and why the ring HAD to go to Osgiliath was stupid. I can't remember her exact statement but she said that if Faramir would have let them go that it would have taken away the power of the ring and they HAD to journey to Osgiliath. It was part of the journey for Faramir's character to see what type of power this ring has and the hold it can take. The whole point of the book is to make you love Faramir, to show how compassionate and noble he is and that he understands the importance of Frodo's quest; therefore, he lets them leave. It doesn't take away from the power of the ring at all.

Someone needs to remind Philipa that 3 times already in her movie the ring was there for the taking... Gandalf at the begining, Aragorn before the fellowship was broken and of course when it was offered to Galadriel. Granted these are not normal "men" but it's the same principal. The writers should have focused on how to make Faramir's character shine instead of the ring.

Also, does anyone remember what the producer fellow said? He made a statement to the effect the writers should be congratulated for knowing when to stray? Something like that.

[ 12-19-2003, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: willhap ]
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
if the films are pure spectacle with no narrative or character depth then why is it they have consistantly been nominated for the movie industry's highest awards?

I would rather ask, if the films have consistently been nominated for the movie industry's highest awards, why have they consistently lost out on all the major categories? I have a feeling that even Hollywood knows there's something that smacks of fluff about these films and even though their popularity gets them the nominations, their lack of real substance repeatedly and justifiably leaves them empty handed in all but the technical categories.

[ 12-19-2003, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
quote:
Also, does anyone remember what the producer fellow said? He made a statement to the effect the writers should be congratulated for knowing when to stray? Something like that.
Well, that guy should have his frontal lobes served to him Hannibal style. (Hmm, perhaps a bit too harsh? [] )

Anyway, I want to know who thought it was better that they stray from Denethor's original death to him being on fire, running 200 yards (past a fountain), only to do voluntarily leap from the battlements down to the first circle of the city! I liked this change because if you are going to totally screw up a character, at least finish him off in a way that makes me laugh during what is supposed to be a horrifying scene. That way, I know without any doubt that the writers are talent-less hacks.
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
quote:
That's why The Matrix Revolutions will clean house at the Oscars, right? Not to mention movies like Bad Boys 2 or Charlie's Angels...
Movies like Mystic River, Lost in Translation, 21 grams, etc. they'll just be shut out, right?
Please, I expected a real answer to my question.

Fingolfin - you raise something that many here (in MT, not this thread) fail to comprehend. There is a definite line between movies as art and movies as blockbusters. You mention 3 films that fit the former category (my brother actually worked on one of those that you mentioned!) while LotR fits firmly in the class of the latter - made for money! I'm not sure the economics of making any version of LotR could ever put in firmly in the category as film as art, but it could have been far closer under other hands and yet just as successful and even more accessible to film-only viewers. I think only some one exposed to a wide variety of films and/or who is deeply understanding of the books can really appreicate this - the idea of what could have been vs. what we have.

If we respond to LotR when we only have The Matrix or Star Wars prequels to go by, then sure, LotR is the best thing to hit the screen in our closed little minds and world. If we have lived or learned a little bit (no matter what our age, education or background), then we know just how cheated we are.

I hope PJ gets all the EEs and compilation DVDs out ASAP, then we can leave this whole travesty behind us.

[ 12-19-2003, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: Snaga ]
 
Posted by Aiglos (Citizen # 4045) on :
 
quote:
I have a feeling that even Hollywood knows there's something that smacks of fluff about these films
I think you are giving hollywood way too much credit. []
 
Posted by Fingolfin of the Noldor (Citizen # 156) on :
 
quote:
I think only some one exposed to a wide variety of films and/or who is deeply understanding of the books can really appreicate this - the idea of what could have been vs. what we have.
Well then I apologize. This "closed little mind" presumptuous enough to call it self a "purist" has only read the books since 5th grade (now being a freshman in college) and studied the source material of the published Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings for a mere 4 years.

My views on the movies as it relates to LotR are shaped by Tolkien's own view of his mythology, and its roots and its place and origins with respect to our own world. I highly and humbly suggest you read such works as 'The Notion Club Papers' in HoME IX and Tolkien's own biography before you presume to judge me, sir.

quote:
As PJ put it, he took 'liberties' with the story line.
[] As did CT by writing a chapter losely based on a 1963 idea Tolkien mentioned. Do you deny CT took liberties? What about the removal of Olorin from the Annals text for the published silm?(see HoME X) I'm sorry the list goes on and on I'm sorry if you cannot understand this. CT published something and passed it off as JRRT PJ published something and passed it off as based on JRRT. []

Turgon, in spite of your obvious attempt to write alot I really still don't see much in the way of substance. One of your primary concerns is that "character development" is lacking. I must say I couldn't disagree with this more. What exactly is your problem? Do you feel the character arcs were not well enough defined? Do you feel the characters' backgrounds were not well-enough fleshed out?

FOR ALL How did:

Citizen Kane? (FOR ARCHER) []
Shawshank Redemption?
Singin' in the Rain?
Fantasia?
Almost Famous?
Brazil?
Raging Bull?
Schindler's List? (FOR TURGON) []
Goodfellas?
American Beauty?
Fargo?
Magnolia?
The Godfather Part II?

fare at the BO/Oscars?
 
Posted by Fingolfin of the Noldor (Citizen # 156) on :
 
I think it is important for me to make the point again that I appreciate the movies BECAUSE of the books not inspite of them. The only difference between me and many of you is I look at the entire "legandarium" as a whole with specific consideration given to internal and external origin traditions not simply LotR when considering the merit of these films in representing Ea.

I only argue now because I am sick of the idea so often perpetuated by certain elitests that if you are a "real" fan of the books you cannot like the movies. To all of you I say: Look at Nimruzir. nothing else should have to be said.
 
Posted by The Laurenendôrian (Citizen # 106) on :
 
quote:
I only argue now because I am sick of the idea so often perpetuated by certain elitests that if you are a "real" fan of the books you cannot like the movies.
I know of nobody who has claimed this, and find it an affront (I have witnessed what ammounts to the reverse - people being told not to criticise the films).
If you can enjoy the films, then I am happy for you. I wish that I could.
 
Posted by Tuor (Citizen # 374) on :
 
Fingy,

I don't think either one of us is going to convince the other on this.

Besides, I believe you are trying to use the logic that since someone else does something bad, it is OK for others to do it too. That logic just doesn't work. I'm glad you can find Tolkien's work in PJ's story.
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
quote:
I think only some one exposed to a wide variety of films and/or who is deeply understanding of the books can really appreicate this - the idea of what could have been vs. what we have.
I couldn't find who originally wrote this, but it is essentially a true statement. It simply says that those who only know the films are ignorant of how good the films could have been. I don't see that statement as being the same as telling everyone that liked the films is a fool. You overreact a bit here, Fingy.
quote:
Sorry Fingy, but I couldn't disagree more. Radically incompatible is one of the reasons why JRR never published those writings.

What Chris did was make a decision. He decided which story line to go with and filled in a gap. PJ did no such thing. He decided to tell a completely different story. As PJ put it, he took 'liberties' with the story line. I'm sorry if you don't see the difference, but it is there for those of us who have a more conservative view of Tolkien's stories.

Again, these are perfectly reasonable statements. What CT did cannot even be considered close to what PJ did. CT strove to preserve the spirit and intentions of his father and his great work, while also trying to put this work in a form that could be published for the world to appreciate. In the few cases where he had to make a choice, he did the best he could for the sake of the greater ideals of the project. He had a deep knowledge of the works and real motivation to preserve the dignity of his father's legacy.

PJ and New Line made a movie. Their motivations were completely different. I liken what PJ did to digging up the corpse of Tolkien, having him stuffed and making him wear funny hats - and then selling tickets.

I think I've been getting a bit harsh in my past few posts, but I don't care. It feels good to vent and no one is responding to my words anyway. []
 
Posted by Adulithien (Citizen # 2193) on :
 
You're so wrong, WGW! I don't know how anyone could EVER be as wrong as you! I can't believe you said that! I'm leaving MT forever, and I'm taking the [] with me!

(Better?)

[ 12-19-2003, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Adulithien ]
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
quote:
I think only some one exposed to a wide variety of films and/or who is deeply understanding of the books can really appreicate this - the idea of what could have been vs. what we have.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I couldn't find who originally wrote this, but it is essentially a true statement. It simply says that those who only know the films are ignorant of how good the films could have been. I don't see that statement as being the same as telling everyone that liked the films is a fool. You overreact a bit here, Fingy.

That was me WGW and I'm sticking by it. I'm sorry, but I cannot take seriously anyone who finds anything remotely cultural, literate or artistic in the story *as presented by these films* - and it has nothing to do with how many times anyone read LotR.

Fingolfin seems to have completely misread my comment as being directed toward him, but I have also had enough with the excessively huffy and thin skinned. Still, if I may presume anything I think Fingolfin's reading experience, intelligence and imagination are overcompensating on his positive reaction to the films - it's more in your head and/or in all Tolkiens work than it is on the celluloid.

[ 12-19-2003, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Snaga ]
 
Posted by Lugbúrz (Citizen # 867) on :
 
Very interesting to see the Steward participating in a discussion so. But come on, it's just a good movie.

Oh no, here comes the gauntlet!
quote:
Edit: "Grondar not read rules of thread. Grondar's words gone." - WGW
I really was quite worried when I read that post, but then I read the first post and found this to be a very amusing separation of threads.

Where does lie the middle path?

I have gone with just my first reaction for the previous two movies and never really analyzed in too much detail how things could have been made better or why I did not really like the movie, and as is customary I feel like making the one post to express them about this movie too.

After TTT I spoke the same words Eoric speaks in the previous page. I liked the Fellowship of the Ring, what made me dislike TTT? Not just the changes, but the fact that they did not buy the movie any cinematic superiority but actually damaged the flow of the story.

I sprang back in fear every time Liv Tyler appeared on screen in the Return of the King, but on the whole I liked the movie. Many things were changed and some done very well and others bad but it left me in some ways like the Fellowship, a movie with a flow.

I was particularly bursting with pride when I saw the White City in all its glory. Perhaps this website and perhaps the future of Men, it has always been the place in Middle-earth closest to my heart. I think the set for Minas Tirith was exoneration enough for this movie to me.

If I perhaps watch it again I might not forgive them for treating Denethor in such a manner. His was a character that I understood very well in the book. A character who so beautifully portrays majesty and wisdom blending with corruption of the mind through abandonement of hope and duty. He was no fool or coward, no madman. But this mutation was less severe than what they did to Faramir's character in TTT.

Apart from that my most serious disgust was that they depicted me as a lighthouse. I mean, that I take as a personal insult. []

I agree with Laur (except on the spelling of amount). People who like the films should not be blamed for not being true to the book, but if that's the reason (or a subset thereof) one does not like the films then I believe it is a valid reason. I know that Nimruzir doesn't feel that it is a valid reason, from his opinions a year ago, but that is just his opinion and it is how the movie affected him personally, just like it does differently each of us. More so because the books affected us so differently too.

[ 12-19-2003, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: Lugbúrz ]
 
Posted by The Laurenendôrian (Citizen # 106) on :
 
quote:
I mean, that I take as a personal insult.
Actually, it was. I'd got so utterly fed up with you teasing me for my mistakes that I wrote to PJ and asked him if he couldn't make you look a bit of a fool in the third film.
 
Posted by Fingolfin of the Noldor (Citizen # 156) on :
 
Snaga:

quote:
I cannot take seriously ANYONE who finds anything REMOTELY cultural, literate or artistic in the story *as presented by these films* - and it has nothing to do with how many times anyone read LotR.
quote:
Fingolfin seems to have completely misread my comment as being directed toward him
Is the above consistant? []


Neither can I take seriously the ignorant! I am quite serious in asking you to actually read these works before you make judgements as to the merits of my reactions. I'm sorry but pedantry requires at least some knowledge of the material considered! [] [] The Notion Club Papers esp. and selections from the letters deal in depth with the nature of Tolkien's creation as it relates to this world and specifically as a work in it self. Believe it or not room for such as these movies, in these traditions, has been both intimated and explicitely stated by Tolkien and it is thence that I garner the greater portion of my appreciation of the films AS THEY PERTAIN TO TOLKIEN.

On the other hand I also appreciate the movies as a cinematic achievements. You may disagree that they have any artistic merit in and of themselves and that is of course your perogative but such broad strokes as you make in your above cited generalizations I think cast substancial doubt on your credibility as a fair-minded critic.

[ 12-19-2003, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: Fingolfin of the Noldor ]
 
Posted by Orofacion of the Vanyar (Citizen # 1166) on :
 
Fellowship of the Ring - The film - Ok, I'll be honest, I bought into it. I swallowed Arwen replacing Glorfindel (ack...choking...ack...). I tried to block out "Mr.Anderson" coming out of Elrond's mouth, and I begrudgingly accepted no Gildor. All in all I accepted the fact it was not a reflection of the book, but a translation. Still it wasn't that bad.

Two Towers - The film - I had a bad feeling from the start. Alright now I'm starting to get annoyed, if not irrate. If I recall correctly, which I do, the ents defeating Isengard was not the fruition of the book, did PJ just not read the rest of the Two Towers? Where's Quickbeam? Despite him not being a crucial character, you could at least sacrifice that Arwen dream horse *hit and give the ent some screen time. Speaking of, Aragorn may have thought about Arwen on his journey, but we don't know that, so why show it! Perhaps Mr.Jackson skipped a few chapters in the book, but isn't Eomer a respected member of the upper Rohirrim court, and not an outlaw on the run, roaming from place to place? Hmm, maybe I should re-read the entire first half of the book. One big question I'd like to ask PJ is what drugs he was on when he thought bringing Sam and Frodo to Osgiliath would be a good idea for the film, let alone making Faramir the a-hole we all know in real life PJ is. Bah! You defile the name Tolkien Peter Jackson!

The Return of the King - The film - I hoped and prayed that this would be the salvation, that Peter Jackson would suprise us all and pull out all the stops. I wanted that bad taste in my mouth from the Two Towers to be washed away in the delicious fruitfullness of The Return of the King, the pinnacle and climax of the greatest story ever told in modern times... Ok, where's my gun? [] I don't need bullets mind you, just something large enough to rip Peter Jackson and his band of imbecilic cohorts a new one, perhaps a large rifle or rocket propelled grenade. Where's Saruman of Many Colours, does he just rot away in Isengard with Grima, playing house and doing makeovers? Oh wait, their doing their PR with Burger King and what not, nevermind. The more and more I watch these movies (it's not quite a "film" in my eyes), the more I realize how much of a putz and a moron Aragorn is being shown as. Elrond obviously didn't teach the boy enough if anything up in Rivendell, but oh that's right... Elrond hates Aragorn's guts... hgkdzhblkwhlkjfs!!!!!!!!!!!!! Alright, we've established that Arwen loves Aragorn and they have this telepathic raport. Excuse me for just a moment, I have to vomit. Grow some juevos dude.

I - WANT - GHAN BURI GHAN!!!!!! Would that be so freaking difficult, honestly?!!!!

There just too much wrong to say in one post, but I will conclude with this:

The hobbits returned to their nice warm, green homes and lived happily ever after, well, at least in the movie they did. I'm suprised no one else has mentioned this, and if they did then I apologize but...

Where's Sharku? Where's the prisons? Where's the men? Where are the hobbits that came together to show the hidden quality that all the Halflings have deep down inside? Where is the death of Saruman?

And dude, how hard would it be, really, honestly, truly, to take the extra 30 minutes and slap a long beard on Cirdan for the 2 seconds he's in the movie?

You know what, forget what I said about the bullets, give me a couple of boxes, and throwing knives, and a pistol, and some spears, a long bow, a broad sword, two nukes, and a spoon. Why a spoon? Because it's dull and it'll hurt more you twit.

[ 12-19-2003, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Orofacion of the Vanyar ]
 
Posted by Adulithien (Citizen # 2193) on :
 
In a different thread I mentioned the Scouring, and I know someone else did, too. That's a MAJOR deal. There's a reason Tolkien devotes so much space to explaining what PJ summed up in one line, given to Frodo: "Some things time cannot heal." Tolkien wasn't cheating. He didn't ask us to swallow a Shire where nothing had changed; he gave us reality-- change for the worst: NOTHING was safe from the Darkness. Nothing.

Even the movie portrayal of the return to the Shire choked me up, but that's because I can relate to reentry on a deep, personal level. I was far more pleased with the band of hobbits using all that they had learned out in the World, all their growth and potential to take back their home. But that's not conducive to film. Too anticlimactic. *sigh*

This sucks, Orofacion!

No Faramir and Eowyn... so many things left out. Gah.

[ 12-19-2003, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: Adulithien ]
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
Fingolfin, shawshank redemption got slated at the oscars and by critics.

Look at the directors cut of 'once up[on a time in america' by serge leon (sp) Greatest film that fits into the category of art that ive seen...it was edited and bits cut out to make it fit into 3 hours and ended up rubbish.

The question is, will anyone from lotr win best actor? i doubt it...will anyone be nominated? i doubt it, this means that either the acting wasnt that great or the character development was poor...id go for the latter reason.

After seeing the first film i was very pleased, annoyed there was no glorfindel, no bombadil and that aragorn doesnt get narsil, also that galadriel looks like a cartoon. But overall, impressed.

The second film was where the films started to spiral down and down. Aragorn is crap throughout the second and third films...he is the king of men, the greatest man in middle earth at the time yet he gets crushed by a troll in battle, whats that about?

Pj went overboard trying to make men look like fools, look weak, look inferior and evil. Take denethor for example, take aragorn as another example, take faramir as another example, take the fact there was no imrahil. Why did pj have to make men out to be useless?

He reminds me of those people that come onto this board and say 'men are mere mortals, far weaker than immortals'. Pj has this attitude and i dont like it. Why wasnt aragorn made out to be the best fighter in middle earth? why was faramir so crap? why did denethor not want to defend gondor? Its so stupid, the audience dont even know that denethor was influenced by sauron because there was no palantir in minas tirith, basically the reason behind 'the pyre of denethor' was left out...making him just look suicidal for no reason.

Pj left out the important bits, character development etc yet effects were great. Its such a shame because there was so much gone into the artwork and props and makeup etc so well done, but the film lacks any drama, any character progression, the film is let down by its flawed story that doesnt make sense at points, why was the films story flawed when they already had the greatest book written infront of them already made?
 
Posted by Adulithien (Citizen # 2193) on :
 
Turgon, we're all here to rant, but you've already said all this. []

Also, I really cannot respect your logic here:

quote:
The question is, will anyone from lotr win best actor? i doubt it...will anyone be nominated? i doubt it, this means that either the acting wasnt that great or the character development was poor...id go for the latter reason.
So if nobody wins an award, the character development (or acting) must have sucked! I see. So awards and recognition are all that dictate what is and is not good? Sick.
 
Posted by Lugbúrz (Citizen # 867) on :
 
quote:
One big question I'd like to ask PJ is what drugs he was on when he thought bringing Sam and Frodo to Osgiliath would be a good idea for the film, let alone making Faramir the a-hole we all know in real life PJ is
[]

Even if I were a bit sober than I was right now I could laugh with this priceless vent. Oro, nice to see you too buddy!

About Saurman, is there more in the extended version? I could understand the need to cut that part out in the main movie.
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
quote:
I'm sorry but pedantry requires at least some knowledge of the material considered
[poseur] Pedantry? Someone needs to take a long hard look in the mirror. BMOC and MT, but I'm sure that is as far as it goes. [/poseur]

I saw RotK Thursday and I was just as dissapointed with the superficial treatment as I was in the two previous films. I had been looking forward to these films for years and am now thoroughly dissapointed. In a way, I am glad it is all over.
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
quote:
The Notion Club Papers esp. and selections from the letters deal in depth with the nature of Tolkien's creation as it relates to this world and specifically as a work in it self. Believe it or not room for such as these movies, in these traditions, has been both intimated and explicitely stated by Tolkien and it is thence that I garner the greater portion of my appreciation of the films AS THEY PERTAIN TO TOLKIEN.

I haven't read these works you mention and you have yet to explicitly state what they say to support your point so indulge a few "ignorant" questions please.

Did Tolkien ever state or imply that his published work was an interpretation of events in Middle Earth that may not be accurate history?

Did he ever state that although they are accurate history, other alternative versions of that history would be equally acceptable?

Do you personally believe that a writer's statement about his work supercedes the work itself? I don't know that it does. I think a work may stand on its own once it is published. What an author says about it afterwards is interesting, sure, but I'm not sure it should be taken as gospel.
 
Posted by Gimli son of Glóin (Citizen # 1863) on :
 
I am very disappointed in ROTK. It started out OK, but slowly went downhill. I did like the emptying of Morgul, but why couldn't PJ have put the WK on a horse like he was supposed to?

Moving on the the lowest point in all 3 movies, I come to the gates of Minas Tirith. The setup is there. There is a perfect opportunity for the WK to enter. Gandalf says something like, "Whatever comes through that door, you will stand and fight." And then what do I see come throught the door? Not even the WK on a bird creature, but 6 or 7 trolls??!!??!! At that point I wanted to leave. Seriously.

The 4 best scenes in the book are Gandalf-Balrog, Destruction of Isengard, Ride of Rohirrim/Eowyn Witch-King, and Gandalf/Witch-King. Those 4 had to be perfect. They all were, but the last one. I don't know what to do, but with all the lies that PJ fabricated throughout these movies, I can at least understand and not feel betrayed when he can't fix all the falsehoods he has created.

I just have a very foul taste in my mouth. []
 
Posted by Fingolfin of the Noldor (Citizen # 156) on :
 
Snaga, if I am not mistaken it was you who presumed to proclaim the exact nature of my response toward the films without even readings the primary works of Tolkien's on which that response was based.

Please, sir, tell me how I have been or supposed myself pedantic or even presumptuous? []
 
Posted by Fingolfin of the Noldor (Citizen # 156) on :
 
Pirate, you are completely missing my point. It is NOT: "everyone must like the films for X reasons from the Author" I am actually. quite sure Tolkien would not like these films due primarily to all the changes (in spite of the fact he acknowledged substancial changes to the narrative were necessitated by a change in medium). But that is not the point!

My point is: There is room in that "stage of imagination" of Tolkien's for the movies such as they are given the authors own writings on the ultimate origins of these myths and the connection with our world and their nature as works. Therefore it is legitimate for a "purist" to appreciate these films as they relate to "Tolkien"

This has been my only point. I only argue with elitests such as Snaga who seem to feel they have a special status "true to Tolkien" above all lesser fans who appreciate both.

I only fight to be taken seriously as a real Tolkien fan.
 
Posted by Fingolfin of the Noldor (Citizen # 156) on :
 
quote:
Did Tolkien ever state or imply that his published work was an interpretation of events in Middle Earth that may not be accurate history?
Yes many times through out his works including LotR. He viewed his work as "traditions" not histories hence many "built in" inconsistancies relating toward those traditions supposed roots such as as elvish or mannish or the traditions as hobbits or a mix and this is just one of the larger examples.

quote:
Do you personally believe that a writer's statement about his work supercedes the work itself?
No, my interpretations have to do not so much with Tolkien's commentary as the whole of his work including LotR and The Hobbit.
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
quote:
I only argue with elitests such as Snaga who seem to feel they have a special status "true to Tolkien" above all lesser fans who appreciate both.

Such is my fate - the curse of having good taste in films.
 
Posted by Hurin's fan (Citizen # 3113) on :
 
I thought that the movie could have been so much better had they stayed true to the books.

I went to watch the film with m girlfriend, who has never read the book. She thought that Frodo was a weak individual, who should never had been chosen to take the ring. She was shocked when I told her that Gandalf was a maia/angel character, since she felt that he did not have the power that one would expect of such a character. In a review I saw it described Aragorn as the reluctan king.

All this to me emphasiseshow they failed to portray Aragorn as the king of men or Frodo as the hero that he is.

There were some parts of the film that I though were breath taking such as Gandalf riding Shadowfax up Minas Tirith and when Sam decides to carry Frod. However other areas were exasperating. The death of Theoden with the 'I have to save you' and then the you already did' was a cheap' Star Wars rip off. Denethor was made to look like a complete lune and not the mighty and great lord that he was. Denethor was one, who the blood of Numenor ran true and could compete with Thorongil.

Faramir was completely ruined. Him and Imrahil showed me of how noble men of Gondor were and why it was worth saving. I also don't understand wht there were women and children there. Surely they would have the sense to evacuate the civilians.

Aragorn coming up th Anduin could have been a great cinematic moment. Just imagine how great it would have been to see the banner of the king caught up in the wind and Aragorn riding to battle and shining is his hand.

This was a film that could have been so much better had they stayed true to the book.
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
Adulithien (sp), im sorry i dont understand when you write 'sick', on the end of your post what that is in refference to, please explain.

I shall explain what i mean by the acting and the character development.

For an actor to win 'best actor award' it tends to go to an actor who plays a character really bringing to life the script on which the character is based, take de niro for example, great actor, he improvises and adds his own touches.

However i can not see undeveloped characters being nominated for awards. The most prestigious awards. Aragorns character development was non existent, he is not shown to be the great king, wise and mighty that he does in the book...instead he is shown wriggling around on the ground with anduril in his hand helplessly as he is crushed by the troll like a bug. Was this the way to show the 'king'. He developed well in the first film, then it ended...he doesnt even know of the paths of the dead, he is beaten in battle by a troll, he still hardly wants to take up his kingship, only when he hears the made up rubbish about arwen being attached to the ring somehow does he decide to weild it...im asking you the question:

Do you feel the production team even gave the character of aragorn a chance to develop 'given that he never becomes the gracious, mighty noble king'?

I am annoyed because i wanted to see aragorn how i imagined him in the book, instead i saw legolas take down an army and aragorn beaten by a troll. Why did pj decide to make the king of men, ellesar, hope, weaker than he is in the book, i thought this took away so much from his character development and presence.

[ 12-20-2003, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Turgon of Gondolin ]
 
Posted by ZoSo Red Queen of Gamwich (Citizen # 2465) on :
 
...And now, for my two cents...

I have no idea why, but I absoultely hated this last movie. I couldn't even watch the end, I ran out of the theater about 25 minutes early. Ugh. In my opinion, it was too PJ and not enough Tolkien. PJ pulled a Faramir, but with Sam this time. He made Sam seem vengeful, and not at all the humble, devoted savior-hero he was in the books. He also took the emotion out of all the Sam and Frodo moments. I mean, in Cirith Ungol, he didn't even hug Frodo or anything. I suppose PJ just wanted to prevent any speculation from less-mature viewers, but he went too far. I, personally, didn't care about the battles, or elves, or men (sorry), I only cared about the hobbits, especially Sam, and in my opinion, PJ wrecked the most beautiful moments of the books.

...But that's just me.
 
Posted by bombadil (Citizen # 1329) on :
 
I'm going to break one of my cardinal MT rules and post without reading the entire thread, so please forgive me if someone's already said it.

My great disappointment is in the scouring of the Scouring. IMHO, the great message of that chapter is that no one is insulated from the effects of such great evil. I'm not trying to draw any allegory at all here, but certainly Tolkien saw that in the two great wars fought in his own lifetime. And we've all seen it in later years too.

By leaving out the Scouring of the Shire, the movie gave the impression that all had stayed the same there and the great events outside the hobbits' borders had had absolutely no effect on life at home. That's completely counter to one of the central themes of the book. For that matter, it even runs contrary to thematic elements in the movie. Saving the Shire requires more than winning battles many hundreds of leagues away. It always has, and it always will.

I liked the movies a great deal. But they'd have been better with the Scouring.
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
My point is: There is room in that "stage of imagination" of Tolkien's for the movies such as they are given the authors own writings on the ultimate origins of these myths and the connection with our world and their nature as works. Therefore it is legitimate for a "purist" to appreciate these films as they relate to "Tolkien"
Tolkien may indeed have liked to consider his works mythologies with various valid interpretions, but you will never convince me that he would have accepted this Hollywood glam-fx-pop-culture low-brow-joke-laden dumbed-down commercialized overly-processed chewed-and-digested bit of rubbish as telling a further mythic version of his own scholarly works. I think he may have thought in his own mind that other scholars might have in some far day enhanced his ideas when he referred to them as mythologies. What he got instead was a cheeky, uninformed "splatter movie" king who doesn't know mythos from mockery. These films are NOT what Tolkien would have accepted as furthering his mythologies. If this were the case, he would have been just ducky with the Zimmerman script which also gave a "variation" of his myths. In fact, he hated it, and for committing many of the same kinds of travesties that the PJ films do.

quote:
I am actually. quite sure Tolkien would not like these films due primarily to all the changes (in spite of the fact he acknowledged substancial changes to the narrative were necessitated by a change in medium).
In Tolkien's own words: "The canons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly different and the failure of poor films is often. . .in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not preceiving where the core of the original lies" (Letter 210).

BY the way, isn't this suppposed to be a purists and "elitests" (I love that word [] ) venting area? Why are the films being defended here? Just wondering.

[ 12-21-2003, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
Im actually starting to get very annoyed with one thing in all films nowdays in this pop culture 'back to the 80's' society we live in. Even on tv i see it, on music videos, in magazines, its annoying me.

Can you guess what it is? Its air brushing. Digitally enhancing someone, somethings looks. Why cant we just use natural looks? why are we now reverting to having to have fake images of people on screen on tv in magazines etc. The same goes with this film, it is too polished, too fake, i imagined tolkiens work rough and ready, exciting, dangerous, not artificial, false and pretenscious.

Ive written this before but id like to remind all of you that tolkien was against materialism, against industrialisation, he admired nature and earthly beauty. Hollywood (its not pj's fault) has made 3 films from tolkiens books in the complete opposite style to tolkien had.

The shire looked like an airbrushed artificial screen polished playground, why couldnt we see a bit of fuzz on the screen? or a grainy effect? or have some real atmosphere? it all seemed so fake. Like star wars. I dont think this is pj's fault, it is the funders, the fundamental downfall in the films occured at the offset as soon as they were to be made and given a budget of 500 million or whatever.

When hollywood took art and tried to turn it into profit, tolkiens appeal and beliefs went out the window, evidently the films lack one of tolkiens main qualities. A natural feel.
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
quote:
BY the way, isn't this suppposed to be a purists and "elitests" (I love that word ) venting area? Why are the films being defended here? Just wondering.
Fingolfin did gripe about the films, which is why I've allowed this part of the debate to go on for so long. It's been hovering on the movie-phile fence, but hasn't crossed it. I actually hoped it would have been over by now before it did cross that line. []
 
Posted by Fingolfin of the Noldor (Citizen # 156) on :
 
Archer, for the last time I am not defending the films I am only defending the right of the purist to appreciate the films as they relate to Tolkien. Now that we are quoting Tolkien I think it is important to point out that what you cited depends on whether one FEELS PJ has remained true to the "core of the original." Therefore nothing substantive has been presented as your opinion really is no better than mine or visa versa. Indeed Nimruzir, one who knows more of Tolkien than you or I ever will (as WGW can atest), once said:
quote:
PJ made changes to the plot because he wanted to remain faithful to Tolkien.
Now for some real objective "facts" from the man himself [] :

quote:
Here is a book very unsuitable for dramatic or semi-dramatic representation. If that is attempted it needs more space, a lot of space. It is sheerly impossible to pot the two books in the allotted time — whether the object be to provide something in itself entertaining in the medium; or to indicate the nature of the original (or both)... But, as I have said, I lack experience in the medium, & this is in any case no criticism of your text, but a sighing for something quite different — a MOON no doubt. Final query: can a tale not conceived dramatically but (for lack of a more precise term) epically, be dramatized – unless the dramatizer is given or takes liberties, as an independent person? I feel you have had a very hard task. -Letter 194

As I have said repeatidly I appreciate the movies not as Tolkien but as complementary/parallel traditions a la The Nibelungenlied vs The Eddas. This is not the only manner in which a "purist" may appreciate the films as has been demonstrated above but I do feel it to be nevertheless a legitimate one given in major part Tolkien's "mode of discovery" for these myths described primarily in HoME IX. The connections with our world's traditions and the openness of these myths to others such as Micheal Tolkien and Cynewulf (both referenced also in Letters) further demonstrate the viability of such and themselves are really case in points. What's more we also have actual historical occurances evidencing these (fictional) truths such as that 1980's prophecied "Great Storm." Hence PJ, himself could possibly be worked into the cannon of mythology as an extension on the Notion Club just as Tolkien sorta of was through Lowdham.

You are not of the elite you are simply ignorant which is why you are so quitck to condemn my view as lacking substance. It is arrogant presumption for you to suppose that your opinion on the movie as either an adaptation or anything else related to Tolkien can be anything other than just as subjective as mine and frankly sir I take offense that you indeed seem to feel your views more "objective" than others esp. when many of the others base their own (I would argue equally legitimate) viewa on a greater body of material than you are aware.
Do not suppose my foundation is so weak w/o having read up on it yourself. []

[ 12-21-2003, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Fingolfin of the Noldor ]
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
Fingolfin, it seems to me like youve made your point and quite well. But dont you agree that the way these films have been created using the whole hollywood train is going against some of tolkiens own beliefs and morals?

Just as nature was manipulated to make way for industry, art has been manipulated for entertainment.

Im not saying this is a bad thing, i enjoyed the films as far as they had nice effects and the monsters looked good, it was something that kept me occupied for a while aswell. But as someone who appreciates art far more than 'entertainment' (like many others on this board i presume). I feel that maybe the films could have been done a different way, but in the end everything boils down to money. Unless a tolkien fan gave up 1 billion dollars to make a series of films portraying the lord of the rings in its true colours, then i doubt such true films could be made.

Does anyone else feel that the deep atmosphere that tolkien managed to create in the books was missing from the film? I can not forgive pj for how he has ruined men. Men as in male humans. Aragorn, faramir and denethor were ruined, no imrahil, infact the only men i did like were theoden and eomer to a lesser extent.
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
Archer, for the last time I am not defending the films I am only defending the right of the purist to appreciate the films as they relate to Tolkien.
My point was to indicate that Tolkien didn't necessarily back the view that films and books needed to be treated wholly differently; hence, the old tired and true "people (or purists) should enjoy it as the movie, not the book because it is a different medium," (which sure sounds to me is what you are arguing somewhere under all that wordiness) is for the most part called into question. Simple point: Tolkien didn't feel a film needed to stray needlessly from the original book, different medium or not. This isn't rocket science, you know. (And yes, there are quotes to back that one up too--but I'm sure you know all of Tolkien's quotes verbatim, so I will spare you the redundancy.)

And I think by the reaction of so many Tolkien "purists" who feel the film has injured the original themes and changed the character of this original, carefully thought out and carefully revised work, we can guess that my feelings on the film are not arbitrarily made, as you seem to claim them to be. Like you, I can cite a whole body of people (many of them perhaps as well-read as you I might dare venture!) who feel the films have done a terrible diservice to the professor. Additonally, I never claimed to be arguing objectively. But most of my subjective opinions are based on the information available from and about Tolkien himself. Hmm guess that makes me about as subjective as you are.

And aye, like I said above, we can all go on a tangent and start pulling quotes here and there to try and prove our points about what Tolkien said and thought, but that kind of in-and-out-of context argumentation is no more subtantial to proving a point than say, pulling Biblical quotes to try and back everything from the validity of slavery to the notion that aliens colonized Disneyland sometime during the Mesozoic. I've seen it done and I'm sure you have too. It starts to get annoying. So once again, I'll spare you the petulance, and I won't go there.

quote:
You are not of the elite you are simply ignorant which is why you are so quitck to condemn my view as lacking substance. . . .frankly sir I take offense that you indeed seem to feel your views more "objective" than others esp. when many of the others base their own (I would argue equally legitimate) viewa on a greater body of material than you are aware.
Do not suppose my foundation is so weak w/o having read up on it yourself.

You can go off in a huff and insult me and call me ignorant if you like, but that that kind of ad hominem fallacy does nothing to further your position as a level-headed, reasonable critic, though you are so quick to accuse others of that same fault! Besides, you may want to consider that your presumtuousness about me and my ignorance, or about anyone else on this board may only serve to reveal your own shortcomings and lack of awareness and foresight. I'd rethink your tactics if I were you. You haven't made a convincing point yet.
 
Posted by Fingolfin of the Noldor (Citizen # 156) on :
 
quote:
Hmm guess that makes me about as subjective as you are.
Haven't I said exactly that ("...and vice versa...") several times? []

quote:
You can go off in a huff and insult me and call me ignorant if you like, but that that kind of ad hominem fallacy...
"Ad Hominem"?? How so? Do you then deny that you are ignorant in regard to eh basis of my views? My only point was that neither you nor Turgon have any right to call into question my opinions especially when you have not re4ad the material on which they are based. Not read the material = ignorance with regard to that material Do you disagree? [] []
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
Does anyone else feel that the deep atmosphere that tolkien managed to create in the books was missing from the film?
Turgon, yes, the depth and soul of the book is gone. What is left is " 'eye candy' without the chocolate center," as I heard one critic put it so well.

And though I agree that money was the main driving force, I'll say like I've said many times before, films have been made--money factoring in as usual--that did not bow quite as deeply to the sacred Hollywood cow. PJ's film was bound by certain constraints--in essence it was a made to be a blockbuster, it had to meet certain formulaic criteria that would go against Tolkien's nature and philosophy. However, it COULD have beem done with greater depth and sensitivity, less crassness, and with a little more presumtption for the audience's intelligence. There's proof that films made in this fashion exist and can be successful. But it seems PJ chose to pull all the stops for the sacred dollar. He got what he wanted. A dumbed-down Tolkien that even the pie-in-the-face set can find something entertaining in.
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
Fingolfin,
You seem to be operating under a kind of notion that you are infallible because you have access to some secret knowledge that no one else possesses because you have read certain restricted materials, it sounds like. There is a wide body of knowledge on Tolkien out there that is accessible to the general public. It doesn't take someone with a magical, underground code to read it. You are really being presumtuous to think no one else has access to Tolkien's views and philosophies or the background myths and sagas that influenced him. You can't really believe no one but you has read them, can you? Well either way, even if I had not read any background material and even if I really was totally ignorant on Tolkien's life, trying to make a case by pointing out deficiencies in my knowledge IS an ad homimen argument. You commit and ad homimen fallacy when you attack someone's character, not his or her argument, regardless of whether what you are attacking is factual or not . (I know you have a fondness for boldface, so I added that typeface just for you.) I would think someone as intelligent and well-read beyond all reason as yourself would know that. Why, I might even begin to guess you experienced a lapse of momentarily ignorance! But that would be so ad hominem-ish of me, so I'll refain, and even give you the benefit of the doubt that you really knew the fallacy for what it was.

Just a side note: What I'm getting from you is that everyone who doesn't appreciate this film as a valid version (on a par with the Poetic Eddas no less!) of Tolkien's work is mistaken, or ignorant, or both. I'm getting that general impression from you because of the stream of condescending remarks you've made to several people who claim not to see any artistic merit in these films. (I tell you, I have to squint really hard to get past the dwarf belching.) I'm just wondering how you can see yourself as being any more rational than any of these people, other that you're arguing on the opposite side. Do you think you are more knowledgable on Tolkien and his life and opinion and background work than anyone else here, not even knowing anything about anyone on this thread? Just curious.

[ 12-21-2003, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by Lugbúrz (Citizen # 867) on :
 
Archer,

I think you misunderstand our good friend. He is not trying to convince you that he appreciates the movies because he is privy to recondite knowledge. He argues that his appreciation of the films, as a purist, is affected by his own appreciation of the works of Tolkien or on him (Tolkien, that is), some of which some others in this thread may not have read.

And he feels that contending his opinion that a purist can appreciate the movie needs a command of the knowledge he has based that very same opinion upon.

----------

That much said, I do not believe one needs to read anymore than the Lord of the Rings to form a wholesome perspective on Middle-earth. It is a masterpiece, and is the key to the mythology of Middle-earth. The connection, as I have always believed, is between the reader and the book, not between the reader and the author. The Lord of the Rings is not about facts, it is not about the letters of Tolkien trying to make clearer the mysteries of his works or explaining the myth in black in white.

It is what the reader reads it to be. For me, it is a story. A story about an adventure told in the words of the adventurers of old, where the narrator could just as easily have been you or me, inconspicuous and reliable. For me it is a story which would have been told the exact same way by any narrator because that was how it happened.

I don't look at the Lord of the Rings as Tolkien's book. I look at it as a story about Frodo's adventure and the War he found himself in. That I bow to the genius of the author by not acknowledging him is my tribute to this masterpiece.

So the question I ask is if one makes a dramatic adaptation of a story that you know is true but changes it in ways that rip the truth you saw in it, how can you expect me to either respect the adaptation or the arguments that say the adaptation did a good job irrespective of this shortcoming?

For even if Tolkien himself were alive and said that the movie was a very good adaptation of the books, I would be unable to acknowledge the narrator in such a role.

---------

And Fingolfin, I don't see how it is not presumptuous to suggest that someone (even by including yourself) cannot ever gain as much knowledge as another about a topic. I know it works for dramatic effect in an argument, but I hope that it is only that.
 
Posted by Fingolfin of the Noldor (Citizen # 156) on :
 
Oh good God.

Archer, are you delibritely trying to twist what I have been saying? I have never said that those who dislike the films dislike them because they are "ignorant" or misinformed. Indeed I have said on many Many occasions that my OPINION is no better than yours but you have seen fit to ignore this fact going even so far as to omit such from your quotations of me as above in the last quote of your post before your response to Turgon.

Nevertheless, I have argued that my view is just as legitimate as yours (they're both being opinions!) and I have tried to explain my view and why I hold it accordingly. You and others, however, have treated my opinion as if it were illigetimate and it is to that that responded by declaring your ignorance. You assume my view is meritless and this you do out of ignorance.

I have said this all several times and I will say it once more: Your view is just as legitimate as mine and mine is just as legitimate as yours DO NOT TREAT MY OPINION AS IF IT WERE MERITLESS WITHOUT AT THE VERY LEAST READING THAT ON WHICH IT IS BASED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! []

[ 12-22-2003, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: Fingolfin of the Noldor ]
 
Posted by Fingolfin of the Noldor (Citizen # 156) on :
 
quote:
What I'm getting from you is that everyone who doesn't appreciate this film as a valid version (on a par with the Poetic Eddas no less!) of Tolkien's work is mistaken, or ignorant, or both.
Nothing could be further from the truth! All I have been trying to explain is what my veiws are as a "purist" and why I hold them. I only hold you ignorant because you attack my view without fairly considering it!
I have many friends who dislike the movies for the precise reason they stray so much from the books. This does not bother me at all. What does bother me is intolerance such as yours for other views.

Turgon, yes I agree with you to an extant but I think that was sadly inevitable. [] Personally, though, I think the good in the films outweighs the (admittidly sometimes substancial) bad but I definitely understand where you are coming from []

[ 12-22-2003, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Fingolfin of the Noldor ]
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
quote:
Yeah right, you comrpise a even-handed and unbiased critic of the films as stand on their own
What is that supposed to mean Fingolfin? Please correct your syntax. Then maybe I will respond - but only if you are nice. However, that seems to be a tall order, so I will continue to so easily bait your ranting (then ignore it or at the least skim through it) which smacks of more pedantry and elitism than anything I have seen in a long time.
 
Posted by The Laurenendôrian (Citizen # 106) on :
 
quote:
Archer, are you delibritely trying to twist what I have been saying? I have never said that those who dislike the films dislike them because they are "ignorant" or misinformed.
But Fingolfin, you seem (as far as I can see) to be committing the same error. Who has claimed that one may only like the films if they are ignorant or do not properly appreciate Tolkien? I don't think that anyone on either side of the debate has said that their opinions of the film are more objective than another's. What you say appears correct, but makes you look a little foolish since it is an attack on an opinion not held by anyone.
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
Maybe we ought re-cap what each person's point was and see if they are really that far apart after all. In all this posturing, I forgot what the original argument was!

P.S. And don't bother to write what you think the other person is trying to say. Let them do that.
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
quote:
I have many friends who dislike the movies for the precise reason they stray so much from the books. This does not bother me at all. What does bother me is intolerance such as yours for other views.

Then you're in the wrong thread. This thread was established for discussion of this one view: How the Films Betrayed Tolkien's Legacy. You are free to hold a different view. Just don't hold it in this thread. I thought as much was made clear in the initial post. There are plenty of threads for debate and discussion. This isn't one of them. This thread is all about intolerance, just like the PJ is God or whatever the movie-phile thread is called.
 
Posted by Fingolfin of the Noldor (Citizen # 156) on :
 
How's this TL(The following was directed at me):
quote:
I think only some one exposed to a wide variety of films and/or who is deeply understanding of the books can really appreicate this - the idea of what could have been vs. what we have.

quote:
I cannot take seriously anyone who finds anything remotely cultural, literate or artistic in the story *as presented by these films* - and it has nothing to do with how many times anyone read LotR.
quote:
Still, if I may presume anything I think Fingolfin's reading experience, intelligence and imagination are overcompensating on his positive reaction to the films - it's more in your head and/or in all Tolkiens work than it is on the celluloid.

And it was my response to this which has come under such an unslaught of attack.
My Point? As I have said repeatidly but so many have seen fit to ignore: My view as a Tolkien "purist" is just as legitimate as anyone elses and for others to say it is not w/o at the very least having read or considered the primary material on which it is based is catagorically unfair.

[ 12-22-2003, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: Fingolfin of the Noldor ]
 
Posted by Angathas (Citizen # 1319) on :
 
I was really fascinated by this last film. It matched many of my expectations. I'm still sad that the Scouring chapter couldn't have done, but then again the average film goer may not have "gotten it". I already knew this going in, theat the Scouring would be gone, that Grima and Saruman would be gone.

But the film really DID need the Houses of Healing chapter. Both Faramir and Eowyn were wounded and we never got to see them meet. But later at the wedding, they are standing side-by-side and smiling.

My greatest disappointment was the absence of the Mouth of Sauron. I was really waiting for this because in the LOTR.net site under the CAST it mentioned an actor for that part. Maybe it will be on the DVD. But I don't see how PJ had to edit that section. The Mouth of Sauron part is one the best in terms of the trying to end the War peacefully.
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
I guess you missed my underlying point in your rush to rant Fingolfin, since you chose to quote only part of what I said: Taking things out of context seems to be your forte! Here is the quote in full, with bolface embellishment:

quote:
What I'm getting from you is that everyone who doesn't appreciate this film as a valid version (on a par with the Poetic Eddas no less!) of Tolkien's work is mistaken, or ignorant, or both. I'm getting that general impression from you because of the stream of condescending remarks you've made to several people who claim not to see any artistic merit in these films.
Is that any clearer now?

The point I'm trying to make is that your argumentative tactics are way out of line, not your view that you as a purist can appreciate the films because of your background readings. Anyone can agree with that; the fact is anyone can make an argument as to why anyone (purists or not) can appreciate the films. The part I'm having a problem with is you calling certain people who challenge your view "ignorant" because you assume that either they have not read in part or whole the material you have read, or that they have not read any or all of the equivalent background information. That's where your argument completely falls apart and much of what you say loses credibility.

You are unable to accept that some people find this movie lacking. You say over and over you are arguing for the purist right to find favor with the films, but this really sounds like a thinly veiled attempt to hoist hostility at anyone who disagrees with you. If you were really arguing what you say you are arguing, then you should be able to make your point in a general sense, without calling others, who think the films are a disservice to Tolkien, "ignorant." I have no problem with the fact that your readings have given you an opinion that the films do warrant merit--anymore than I have no problem with those who love the films for all the Hollywood glam or the "hot" actors. I can respect your opinion without agreeing with it. If you read my posts carefully, you will see that I am not attacking your opinion on the films, but your argumentative tactics.

I or anyone else can say "I can't see how anyone could find merit in these films as a valid version of Tolkien's works" (and I assure you there are others who have read Sauron Defeated and can still feel this way), but that is not meant as a personal attack on you. It is merely an opinion one has the right to hold. In the same way, you can say "I don't see how anyone who has read 'The Notion Club Papers' and other readings cannot find merit in these films," or even "I, having read 'The Notion Club Papers' argue that someone may find merit in these films," and everyone will be just fine with that. I know I am. The problem comes when you regress to direct attacks on people who make the statement that the films do no justice to Tolkien, and who you assume haven't read the available material out there, and when you make the presumption that only by reading these works can someone make a valid assessment about the films (judged by your repeated use of the word "ignorant"). Though you keep denying this is what you are saying, your argumentative tactics indicate otherwise.

quote:
I cannot take seriously ANYONE who finds anything REMOTELY cultural, literate or artistic in the story *as presented by these films* - and it has nothing to do with how many times anyone read LotR.

Neither can I take seriously the ignorant!. . . .I'm sorry but pedantry requires at least some knowledge of the material considered!

another example:

quote:
These films are NOT what Tolkien would have accepted as furthering his mythologies.

You are not of the elite you are simply ignorant which is why you are so quitck to condemn my view as lacking substance. . . . frankly sir I take offense that you indeed seem to feel your views more "objective" than others esp. when many of the others base their own. . .viewa on a greater body of material than you are aware .

By the way, nowhere have I condemend your views as lacking substance. I do condemn your way of making your points as lessening your credibility however. I guess you're having a little trouble seeing the difference.

And finally, like The Laurenendôrian pointed out, the fact that you are committing the very same thing that you accuse "elitests" of doing--and commiting it with so much more gusto--destroys your argument further. You may have have some really good points somewhere in all that mess Fingolfin, but your ways of coming across reminds me far more of the tiresome hysterical film lovers who become highly offended at anyone expressing a contradictory view and quickly regress to attacks on a personal level, what Snaga referred to as "the excessively huffy and thin skinned." (Before you get your knickers in a bunch Fingolfin, this is a general statement I'm making about the above types--and not that you are one of them, but that your tactics are highly reminiscent of them.)

That being said, I feel like I am back in the moviephile threads where film critics are sitting ducks for name calling and insults--just when I thought it was safe to go back in the water! [] Maybe I'm way off here, but I really think this argument does not belong in this thread.

[ 12-22-2003, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by Fingolfin of the Noldor (Citizen # 156) on :
 
quote:
You are unable to accept that some people find this movie lacking.
I most certainly am NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ask TL, I have had several discussions with him for instance and though I don't agree with him and others on several points regarding the films I always aknowledge that their view is just as good as mine and that I for the most part understand where they are coming from. I have my own problems with the film I just feel, as I have said, that I think the good outweighs the bad.

TAKING OUT OF CONTEXT??? Oh that's good what about your quotations here:
quote:
quote:
You are not of the elite you are simply ignorant which is why you are so quitck to condemn my view as lacking substance. . . .frankly sir I take offense that you indeed seem to feel your views more "objective" than others esp. when many of the others base their own (I would argue equally legitimate) viewa on a greater body of material than you are aware.
Do not suppose my foundation is so weak w/o having read up on it yourself.


Is it just a coincidence that you "..."ed the part where I said that I thought other views just as legitimate as mine??? Is it just a conincidence that you after quoting that proceeded to accuse me of feeling exactly as I had said I did not and do not??

quote:
The problem comes when you regress to direct attacks on people who make the statement that the films do no justice to Tolkien, and who you assume haven't read the available material out there, and when you make the presumption that only by reading these works can someone make a valid assessment about the films (judged by your repeated use of the word "ignorant").
I am really starting to think that you are not accidentally misreading me but willfully misreading me for whatever malicious intent I cannot for the life of me fathom. THE FILMS DO NOT DO JUSTICE TO TOLKIEN!!! I have never said they do I have never believed they do. I have simply enjoyed them as they are and I relate them to Tolkien through a little niche I fancy I have found in Tolkien's writings for such as them. I have only ever called anyone "ignorant" if they call my views here illegitimate w/o at the very least having considered my explaination (as I have tried repeatidly to explain how my INTERPRETATION works but no one seems to have paid attention to that [] ) or reading the material on which it is based.

Read though the posts and you will see i have never ever nor would I ever call people dissapointed with the films ignorant or misinformed for that reason.

My initial response was to Snaga saying my views were meritless and that I was not infact a "purist." When you responded to my response to this I assumed you shared his view and it has been under that assumption soley that I have been opperating. If it was not your intent to prove my opinions somehow worse than yours as was Snaga's then I apologize.

[ 12-22-2003, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Fingolfin of the Noldor ]
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
I am really starting to think that you are not accidentally misreading me but willfully misreading me for whatever malicious intent I cannot for the life of me fathom. THE FILMS DO NOT DO JUSTICE TO TOLKIEN!!!
Hmm, okay, let me rephrase: The problem comes when you regress to direct attacks on people who make the statement that the films have no artistic merit or who do not see how anyone can find artistic merit in them. (I will quote you again to prove you are doing exactly this if you like.) I don't feel the films have any real artistic merit and can't see how others can think they do. So in fact, I may even agree with Snaga's views (as may a few others if you read back). But this is an opinion I can validly hold without attacking you directly, though you may not see it that way. There is a difference between saying "I feel a person has to know films and/or Tolkien deeply to appreciate the lack of artistic merit in the films," and "You are ignorant because you haven't been exposed to a large body of film, so your view is invalid." This is what I mean by argumentative tactics. I think you would agree that the second statement is a very presumptous and petulant response as opposed to the first, more general one. The first statement is an opinion or view, the other a direct attack. Ad hominem makes for bad argumentation.
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
I am pleased to see you all have had the patience to continue to sort this out. It's rare to find people who can sustain a long, heated debate instead of just giving up and holding a grudge forever.

We should also be careful to not take offense at a word like 'ignorant'. Its core meaning is 'lacking knowledge' and should not be equated with 'stupid'. Care should also be taken when using the word so its meaning might not be misinterpreted.

It should be said that each of you is riding the 'ad hominem' train. I can tell you both are trying harder and harder not to do it, but you almost always fail in the end.

Strip the discussion of these points. Ignore responses to ad hominem statements. Fingolfin in his last post has tried to get back to the original issue. Let's start there and see if we are actually arguing about anything after all!

Edit: Dang cross-post! []
 
Posted by The Laurenendôrian (Citizen # 106) on :
 
Fingolfin, of the quotes that you give:
quote:
I think only some one exposed to a wide variety of films and/or who is deeply understanding of the books can really appreicate this - the idea of what could have been vs. what we have.
This says that knowledge is required to have a certain form of deep criticism of the film, not that if you have enough knowledge then you should be critical.
quote:
I cannot take seriously anyone who finds anything remotely cultural, literate or artistic in the story *as presented by these films* - and it has nothing to do with how many times anyone read LotR.
This is the only of the three that can be taken as a presumption to more than a subjective opinion. If read that "if someone finds things artistic in these films, then I will never take the person seriously again", then it is slightly offensive, silly and (I think) an approach that Tolkien would have condemned. I think that it is more likely that the intended (if not the literal) meaning was "I can't take seriously an opinion that there are artistic things in these films", which is rather harsh upon the films but no more than a subjective opinion.
quote:
Still, if I may presume anything I think Fingolfin's reading experience, intelligence and imagination are overcompensating on his positive reaction to the films - it's more in your head and/or in all Tolkiens work than it is on the celluloid.
This is again an opinion - perhaps you take it as offensive because it involves assumptions about you, but it does not say that you would be silly to like the films. It offers someone's view as to why you might like the films (or rather, how they can imagine you liking the films) - but it does not claim to be authoritative.

---

You seem to be leaping to the defence of the films (commendable, if you enjoy them, but perhaps the wrong thread), but then inventing chimeras of opinions held by the opposition to attack.
 
Posted by Adulithien (Citizen # 2193) on :
 
Turgon, I was referring to something I thought was pretty sick: you seem to suggest that only a major award can validate art. I think that's a pretty sick viewpoint, that's all.
 
Posted by Fingolfin of the Noldor (Citizen # 156) on :
 
My only point is that judgements such as:

quote:
Still, if I may presume anything I think Fingolfin's reading experience, intelligence and imagination are overcompensating on his positive reaction to the films - it's more in your head and/or in all Tolkiens work than it is on the celluloid.
are wholly unfair when made by people who will not consider the basis of said reaction whether by reading that basis or my explanation of it. And given:

quote:
I cannot take seriously anyone who finds anything remotely cultural, literate or artistic in the story *as presented by these films* - and it has nothing to do with how many times anyone read LotR.
I argue I have a right to be taken seriously because my view is just as legitimate as anyone elses.

WGW hit the nail on the head with reagard to "ignorance." I have only ever argued that is unfair for people to summarily dismiss my views (i.e. not take them seriously) and make judgements as to their merit without considering the foundation of them (hence that judgement is made in "ignorance").

Your statements:
quote:
You are unable to accept that some people find this movie lacking.
...
The problem comes when you regress to direct attacks on people who make the statement that the films do no justice to Tolkien, and who you assume haven't read the available material out there, and when you make the presumption that only by reading these works can someone make a valid assessment about the films (judged by your repeated use of the word "ignorant").

Remain absolutely unfair and untrue. As I have said I have major problems with the movies and I most certainly do not feel they do justice to Tolkien. I have only found what I feel to be a legitimate manner in which to appreciate them. Snaga and you may be of the "opinion" that my views are meritless and indeed this ius your right and it does not constitute an "attack" but as you two feel compelled to express such an opinion I feel compelled to point out that you should not call them lacking merit without considering the foundation on which they are built.

[ 12-22-2003, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Fingolfin of the Noldor ]
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
quote:
Snaga: Still, if I may presume anything I think Fingolfin's reading experience, intelligence and imagination are overcompensating on his positive reaction to the films - it's more in your head and/or in all Tolkiens work than it is on the celluloid.
I don't know why you take such offense at this statement, Fingy. In fact, I find it perfectly reasonable and you might even agree with it if you take the time to disassemble it.

The first part of the sentence (before the "-") talks about Snaga's opinion that it is because you have so much reading experience, intelligence and imagination that you are able to perhaps appreciate the films more than others without these gifts.

A reasonable opinion and not insulting at all.

The second part is trying to say that because of your love of Tolkien's work and your deep desire to like the films, you perhaps give the films too much credit. I see it like a chemical formula. Loving Tolkien memories mixed with a terrible film adaptation = weird concoction that forces me to occasionally like it despite myself. In my own experience, I did find myself enjoying many moments of RotK, but most of these moments were when I was reflecting on the book as a scene played and I was actually enjoying the book and not really what was depicted on screen.

Again, this is a reasonable opinion for Snaga to have and not really an insult. That is unless you aren't humble enough to admit that others may see things in ourselves that we don't. I had to reflect a bit myself to understand it, but perhaps since I found it myself it doesn't sting to admit it.

[All above statements should be prefaced with "IMHO" [] ]
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
Adulithien, that was not what i was implying at all though.I have seen great films such as 'once upon a time in america' and 'the shawshank redemption' get slated and recieve no awards. Yet the acting and artistic ability was brilliant.

However if you take the shawshank redemption as an example (forgotten the main characters name) but he is a very complex evolving 3 dimensional character.

Tolkiens aragorn is also a very 3 dimensional complex character, likewise with faramir, yet the film portrayed them as 2d stereotypes with little complexity and virtually no evolution. What im saying is that with such poorly evolved and 2d characters it takes away any chance of any of the actors winning an award.

The potential was there, viggo mortenson (sp) is a good actor who could have done a good job with aragorn had pj's aragorn been more complex and 3 dimensional.

Heres what i mean, pj's aragorn= scared (you dont feel or see the pure hatred he has for sauron and you never see him openly show his anger for sauron) hes always talking it down or in the films case he looses to sauron when he looks into the palantir.

Pj's aragorn has no background, the audience dont know how special aragorn is, all they saw was a flukey last ditch swipe from a broken sword that cut off saurons finger, nothing is made of the race of numenoreans likewise nothing is told of aragorn being special.

Pj's aragorn never develops, he has the same confidence the whole way through the films, even when he is given anduril he reluctantly takes it. I was thinking 'when is he gonna do something special, when is he really going to lay down his authority and power in middle earth, but it never came.

I also remember myself thinking 'wow, i bet narsil shines of the sunlight and moonlight when aragorn weilds it (as it states in the book)', were there any effects on anduril? no...there were effects for sting, but when it comes to the king of men's legendary sword, there are no effects.

I went to the toilet just before the end and returned to my seat only to look up at the screen and see aragorn being squashed underneath a troll's foot about to die. I thought 'what the hell is happening, why is aragorn losing in combat when this never occurs in the book?

If pj stuck to the original tolkien aragorn instead of altering him to fit in with the 'men=mere mortals and weak theme' then viggo could have had a chance to play a more 3 dimensional character with much more psychological development to consider as an actor.
 
Posted by Fingolfin of the Noldor (Citizen # 156) on :
 
That does indeed sound quite reasonible WGW though I would perhaps not be especially eager to agree with it [] []
But that would be assuming that the statement did not presuppose illegitimacy of my interpretations themselves and this precisely was what I was led to believe was held on his part based on his other statements regarding not taking seriously "ANYONE" who appreciates the films.
That generalization, though indeed an opinion, I think probably jaded me against such an interpretation of his words and what's more when I said that this was how I took what he said he never denied it or tried to describe his meaning as you and so things just escaladed from there... []

[ 12-22-2003, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Fingolfin of the Noldor ]
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
Yes, I don't think we were listening to each other very well during the past few pages. Well, not me, but... []

I would be interested to hear how you disagree with Snaga's statement (and my translation). If not disagree, then at least how you don't feel it applies to you personally. I would really like to understand your point of view before we move on.
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
quote:
Tolkiens aragorn is also a very 3 dimensional complex character, likewise with faramir, yet the film portrayed them as 2d stereotypes with little complexity and virtually no evolution. What im saying is that with such poorly evolved and 2d characters it takes away any chance of any of the actors winning an award.

The potential was there, viggo mortenson (sp) is a good actor who could have done a good job with aragorn had pj's aragorn been more complex and 3 dimensional.

But Princess Phillipa said she changed the characters because they didn't change or grow in the books. She and Lord PJ had to create the characters the way they did so that they could go on a journey(TM). The Tolkien characters were supposedly boring. Were Phillipa and PJ wrong? []
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
As far as Aragorn being trod upon, I do feel it was shoddy filmmaking. Personally, I feel they made the trolls too large. I never believed a single person could ever take one (in the films). I doubt Pippen could kill anything twice as tall as Aragorn, but since they didn't let him kill one in the films, I suppose it doesn't matter. It's just that there is a delicate balance of scale in the books and it further lends to the reality of the story. PJ had to "Disney-size" everything, so it ends up being more cartoonish when it should have looked more real (as we are actually watching it on screen).

The troll gently placing his foot on Aragorn's chest was another lame moment. Do you realize the care a creature that large would have to take to place his foot so gently as only to pin and not to crush? Not exactly the sort of thing such a beastly creature would do in the heat of battle!

As for PJ's weakening of Men, I have to agree. It may have not been a direct or conscience decision, but it happened anyway.
 
Posted by EowynatHeart (Citizen # 3437) on :
 
I must agree that Aragorn's character did not grow at all in this movie. They had him moving up to the big moment in LotR and TTT but it was like, okay when is he going to do something Kingly. Like getting squashed by a troll [] This is the man that Sauron is suppose to fear and he has trouble with a troll! He looked like a hobbit out there in front of the Black Gates!

I have to go see it again before I can scream about the other things that really made me mad! I have already forgot alot.

Wasn't impressed with Frodo at all!!!!!
I really felt that could have went alot better. All his scenes just felt like he was over acting. I didn't contect with him at all.
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
I have been trying to digest my experience of seeing RotK for the past few days. I am now ready to comment.

I went to FotR expecting something wonderful. I was able to barely stomach the changes to the plot regarding Aragorn, but it remained a huge issue I simply could not accept though I was able to go on to the EE DVD and experience something close to an encounter with Tolkien and the world I had become so familiar with via years and years of enjoyable reading. I had somewhat diminished higher hopes for TTT, but found myself even more disappointed with TTT. For RotK I had nothing approaching hope. I had heard enough on this board as well as various TTT EE interviews to prepare me for the worst. I went into RotK expecting nothing would please me and yet I really tried to be receptive to the film. By receptive I mean accepting it as an interpretation of Tolkien's work translated to film.

The film RotK far exceeded my worst fears. It was utterly horrible. I found myself wondering if I was somehow being played for a film version of an elaborate April Fools joke. I seriously could not believe that what I was seeing was anything approaching an interpretation of RotK. The level of clichés, predictability, cheap laughs and cheaper Hollywood twists was beyond absurd. I won't go into specific details, because I do not want to introduce spoilers for those who have not seen this film.

Any way, yes WGW's interpretation of my comments were the best shot yet at saying what I was trying to say to Fingolfin. Though my recent experience with RotK makes me hesitant to retract my other comment on not being able to take seriously anyone who enjoyed these films, I will do so in the spirit of fairness and non-presumptuousness. I wish I could let go of whatever it is that makes me so unhappy with these films and try to approach it as a way to connect with Tolkien's stories, but I just can't. I think I have a vivid and fabulous imagination, but I'm sure Fingolfin and everyone else here does too. Perhaps my imagination is tinted with the cynical side of my nature. I don't feel I am *too* cynical (most of the time) and cynicism can be a positive force just as optimism can be as well. Let's just chalk up our differences to something along those lines.

As for the discussion of The Notion Club, no I have not read this. I'm sorry I cannot specifically address this. However, I have read a good deal on mythology and am also a big follower of various interpretations of Shakespeare (films and live plays), which I would argue have a more established connection to our culture than anything ever written. I will hasten to add many radical departures of Shakespeare are quite valid and successful while others (radical or not) are simply awful (IMO) and to me, represent nothing of value and are more often rooted in pure ego with only the most superficial understanding of the original.

Following this, perhaps these films are rooted in the Tolkien mythology, "its roots and its place and its origins with respect to our own world." They take the basic structure of the Tolkien mythology and add a highly contemporary lack thought, depth, substance and are largely driven by greed (monetary and ego driven). I'm sorry, but this is the only way I can apply what I understand of Fingolfin's point of view to these films. I did say I was slightly cynical!

In all seriousness, if I were to paint simple faces on my finger tips with a black marker and then have each act out the parts in LotR and film it with black and white super 8 film, would that be an equally valid interpretation, extension, realization... of Tolkien's mythology? Because if you ask me, that is analogous to how PJ applied his screen play writing to the original - that is the level of simplification I see in the writing of these films. If I did my own finger puppet budget version, yet offered more detail and development to the character and story, wouldn't it be just as valid as PJs films? He has all the flash, while I have the substance? Is there any line that can be drawn across this or is it wide open?

[ 12-22-2003, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: Snaga ]
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
SPOILER ALERT!!!!
.
.
.
Okay, I have to bring up just this one!
.
.
.
.
.
Did anyone catch the almost direct Luke Skywalker and Darth Vadar death scene line steal with Theoden and Eowyn when Theoden was dying? Eowyn said, "I have to save you." Theoden replied, "You already have." Either this was some kind of nod to Lucas or the screen writers were subconsciously plagiarizing. There were certainly worse things to address, but this one jumped out at me. Still, best performance in RotK - Miranda as Eowyn. Somehow she was able to pull herself far above the schlock that left the other more experienced actors looking wooden and more similar to comic book versions of their characters.

[ 12-22-2003, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Snaga ]
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
I'll say once more and then let be, because I'm quite sure I've been misread.

WGW,

Yes, you are right to say that I was using the same miserly tactics as Fingolfin, and I will be the first to admit it. But in my defense I want to clarify something that keeps being missed. Just so you know what point I was making before it goes any more astray, I'm aware of the exact meaning of "ignorant," and that's why I am calling Fingolfin on it. (For the record, nowhere have I stated that "ignorance" means "stupid." Please read my posts! That would simply be, well, ignorant!) But Fingolfin keeps making the point that certain of us are "ignorant" because we have never read certain background materials on, or pertaining to, Tolkien's take on dreams and time travel etc. as discussed in "The Notion Club Papers" (from Sauron Defeated and elsewhere I would presume), so I am stating that this kind of attack is presumptuous because Fingolfin has no idea what I or most anyone else on this thread has read or not read, so calling anyone "lacking in knowledge" without substantiation is completely without cause. I have made that point over and over--and over and over his head it goes. I think you have misunderstood me as well.

quote:
I have only ever argued that is unfair for people to summarily dismiss my views (i.e. not take them seriously) and make judgements as to their merit without considering the foundation of them (hence that judgement is made in "ignorance").
Fingolfin, my point to you is that this statement (and/or others you have made) has the same form of meaning as the remark you take so much offense from--though it is much more personally directed--so I'm a little baffled as to how you can see it as a valid form of arguing. I would also like to add that a wide body of knowledge is available on Tolkien's background, and the one source your cite, as well as certain excerpts from the Letters, etc., are not the the only means of empirically determining the validity of the films as art.

Now that some hopefully have understood my meaning (though I won't put money on it) I'll pray still more can have peace with it and take my opinion just as I take others, as opinions, no more or less than any other.

[ 12-22-2003, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by Adulithien (Citizen # 2193) on :
 
quote:
Princess Phillipa
[] [] []

Turgon-- I understand what you're getting at with the flatness of characters. I agree. [] I could've stood to see some effects on Anduril as well! Imean, if they can build a special light for Galadriel, they can put some juice on the Sword.

And my biggest problem with the films overall has been with MAJOR thematic issues, such as the dawning of the Age of Man. With the films, I never got the impression that Men were strong and solid as a race, or that they were "coming of age" throughout the story. PJ's Men are weak, and that was the worst part of TTT, IMHO. Also, the Elves are fading-- another MAJOR theme-- but in the films this is hardly addressed.

I also see the Scouring of the Shire as the most obvious part of Tolkien's moral/ethical themes in the books. Evil touches all, but hope is never lost. The Shire was completely untouched in the film, and I thought that was a most tragic oversight. []

This sort of thing first became really apparent in TTT. What's left when the major themes of the works are tarnished or ignored?
 
Posted by Fingolfin of the Noldor (Citizen # 156) on :
 
I get the impression you are quite angry Archer. Please don't be this really isn't that big of a deal. What's more Snaga and I have come to a certain understanding that this has been much more of a misunderstanding than anything else. There is really no need for this seeming bitterness between to continue. []

quote:
Fingolfin, my point to you is that this statement (and/or others you have made) has the same form of meaning as the remark you take so much offense from--though it is much more personally directed--so I'm a little baffled as to how you can see it as a valid form of arguing.

That is incorrect. Snaga said a number of times that he had not read the material (hence it is not "presumptuous" for me to assume such [] ) to which I was refering and yet he continued to hold to his statement. Hence I pointed out (based on my understanding of what he had said) that he really could not declare my views meritless without at the very least having considered the marterial on which they were based.

quote:
I would also like to add that a wide body of knowledge is available on Tolkien's background, and the one source your cite, as well as certain excerpts from the Letters, etc., are not the the only means of empirically determining the validity of the films as art.
This point is really quite clear and has been made several times by several individuals including myself I do not understand why you keep repeating this. I only point to HoME IX for instance to clarify MY view NOT to put forth some ultimate or the "correct" veiw. [] I really don't understand where you are getting all this. []

I thought you two were saying I had no right to have my views you two thought I was saying you had no right to hold your views. Neither of us, it now seems, was saying or meant to say either. Please, lets not this get out of hand again esp. when it was almost resolved []
 
Posted by Fingolfin of the Noldor (Citizen # 156) on :
 
Archer let me see if I can summarize what you now say your entire argument has been:

Fingolfin assumed Snaga did not read certain material and made a judgement based on this that Snaga's original judgement wasn't fair

therefore Fingolfin is doing exactly what Snaga seemed to have done in his original judgement that Fingolfin's views were meritless as it was based on a similar assumption.

Have I hit near the mark? []

[ 12-22-2003, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: Fingolfin of the Noldor ]
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
Here's another article that has something critical to say about PJ's Folly (LotR). The link originally appeared in Interesting Take on Frodo .
quote:
December 22, 2003, 12:01 a.m.
Give the Hobbit a Break
The Lifetime-ization of Tolkien.

By Gina R. Dalfonzo

Poor Frodo Baggins. He just can’t catch a break.

It’s not bad enough that many literary critics and readers of J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings are always elevating one supporting character or another to the position of hero, completely overlooking the gentle, unassuming hobbit at the heart of the story, the one who has to carry an evil, burdensome, corrupting ring to be destroyed. To add insult to injury, whenever a dramatic adaptation is made of The Lord of the Rings, the adapters can’t seem to resist the urge to tamper with the character.

It happened years ago with the BBC’s prestigious radio dramatization. Ian Holm — who, by the way, plays Bilbo Baggins in the current film adaptations — gave a strong performance as Frodo, at least at the beginning. But by the time they got to the halfway point, whether at the behest of the writer or the director, he was as snappish as if he’d somehow picked up a bad case of PMS along with the ring.

Now, much the same thing has happened again with Peter Jackson’s movie adaptations. Though I’ve enjoyed these three films, I have a bone to pick with the director and his team, a weakness that many other viewers have observed as well. Let me put it this way: Jackson never errs in the direction of making any character nobler. So while watching the second movie in the series, The Two Towers, I started to worry about what they were doing with Frodo, one of my favorite literary characters. I hadn’t a fault to find with Elijah Wood’s performance; he’s been consistently good throughout the films (and, it now turns out, extraordinarily good in the latest installment, The Return of the King. Wood communicates so effectively with his eyes in certain scenes that I’m inclined to think he made an extensive study of Jimmy Stewart’s famous wheelchair-bound performance in Rear Window). Again, it was the adapters who just couldn’t keep their hands off the character. Though the ring Frodo carries is notorious for driving people crazy, it seemed to me he was going crazy too early and too often.

So I wasn’t surprised when, in The Return of the King, Jackson and company added a scene that completely deviated from the book. Here Frodo’s mind is so addled by the ring that he believes the lies of Gollum, his monstrous, corrupt guide, about Sam, his faithful servant and friend, and sends Sam home. Jackson has said that his intent was to punch up the “psychological drama” of the story, a phrase ominously reminiscent of a Lifetime Channel movie. And the scene is dramatic, all right. But it not only weakens the portrayal of one of the strongest, most trusting friendships in literature; it also diminishes Frodo’s character. It’s no wonder that many viewers are thinking of Sam — who follows Frodo at a distance and (as in the book) eventually saves his life — as the real hero of the piece.

The need for psychological drama may also be the reason why Jackson repeatedly stresses the possibility that Frodo might become as possessed by the malevolent ring as Gollum is, whereas Tolkien only provided the occasional intriguing hint in that direction. The story goes that Jackson even shot a scene where Faramir, the young captain who helps Frodo (and whose own sterling character undergoes some shoddy treatment in The Two Towers), has a vision of Frodo turning into a Gollum-like creature. In the end, Jackson left the scene out for fear of confusing the audience, but it hints at another reason for the liberties he took with the story: It may be that he finds evil more fascinating than good.

If this is the case, he’s hardly alone. Our culture is sadly unused to fully realized portrayals of good characters. So was Tolkien’s, in fact; when he created his hobbit hero, literary anti-heroes were very much in vogue (which may help explain why his own books were so popular). As he put it, “Goodness is . . . bereft of its proper beauty.” Now we’ve gone so far down that road that, for the most part, we seem to have run out of the resources we need to portray a really heroic hero. We find our heroes much more palatable — or so the entertainment industry assumes, anyway — with a few major flaws thrown in, perhaps to make us more comfortable with our own.

So in the movies, though we still get a brave and good-hearted Frodo, we get less of a sense, for instance, of exactly why Sam is so devoted to his master and friend and why he looks up to him. Tolkien, on the other hand, had no trouble at all explaining it, in passages like this: “It had always been a notion of [Sam’s] that the kindness of dear Mr. Frodo was of such a high degree that it must imply a fair measure of blindness. Of course, he also firmly held the incompatible belief that Mr. Frodo was the wisest person in the world.”

Tolkien’s original Frodo, though he starts out a bit naïve, is a morally rich, exceptionally mature character. As he struggles against the ring’s control, he actually grows in wisdom and moral stature, reflecting what Tolkien called in a letter the theme of “the ennoblement (or sanctification) of the humble.” And though he is not always able to be as steadfast as Sam, the often overlooked truth is that Sam doesn’t have to fight the same battle Frodo does. Which is why I’ve always thought that honoring Sam over Frodo — honorable and faithful though Sam is — is a bit like honoring Simon of Cyrene over Christ.

The comparison isn’t such a wild exaggeration as it may appear. The truth is that Frodo has many of the characteristics of a Christ figure, chiefly a willingness to sacrifice himself, to forgive others, and to bear an awful burden for the sake of others. And that hardly means a lack of drama. When the ring takes control of Frodo one final, terrible time at the climax of the story, it is in such sharp contrast to what we’ve come to expect from him — especially without our having been subjected to the kind of foreshadowing so dear to Peter Jackson’s heart — that we fully grasp the horror of the situation. As Baylor University professor Ralph C. Wood puts it in his new book The Gospel According to Tolkien, “Tolkien demonstrates that the mightiest evil can summon forth the very highest good in a character like Frodo, even as it defeats him.” Moreover, as the scene plays out, we grasp three truths that are fully in line with Tolkien’s deeply Christian imagination: that moral strength can carry us farther than we could have imagined possible; that even the greatest human moral strength cannot stand against the strongest evil (a Christ figure is not Christ, as Tolkien would have been well aware); and that there is a Power in the world greater than we can understand, great enough to save us when we can’t save ourselves.

Tolkien emphasized qualities in his hero — an iron will, unfathomable courage, humility, selflessness, and wisdom — that help to make these points. Jackson and his writers, though they did include all these qualities in some degree, chose to deemphasize them for the sake of their modern conception of “psychological drama.” Their movies, moving and powerful as they undoubtedly are, are nevertheless the poorer for it.

— Gina R. Dalfonzo is a writer for BreakPoint and a graduate student in English at George Mason University.


 
Posted by Braeden Fireheart (Citizen # 1953) on :
 
quote:
Apart from that my most serious disgust was that they depicted me as a lighthouse. I mean, that I take as a personal insult.
But why?

You are my lighthouse, Lug. []

Anyhoo, having now seen the TTT SEE (after seeing RotK), I am very sure the extended of the third film will be greater than ever. 4½ hours of pure entertainment? Yes, indeedy.

And no Haldir to be found. []

That makes it best film of the three. []

And yes, I know this thread is for venting…

My biggest nitpick is Gollum’s end – I’d like to hit PJ upside the head with the largest copy of LotR I can find, just for that stupid scene.

Nasty hobbit.
 
Posted by The Laurenendôrian (Citizen # 106) on :
 
quote:
Let me put it this way: Jackson never errs in the direction of making any character nobler.

 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
Here are some prime examples of what I think are incredibly pedestrian rewrites in the screenplay of RotK - and I welcome anyone to say these in particular are enlightened book to film adaptations.

Rohan does not want to come to Gondor's aid - basically Thoeden is reduced to saying "They didn't help me, so I won't help them. Nah nah nah." Denethor is just as stubborn, so, it is up to Pippin to sneak up to the signal fire of MT and set them on fire thereby tricking Rohan into coming to Gondors aid. Nothing about the risk to all Middle Earth via Sauron, the battle of our times... When Theoden does see the lights he suddenly changes his mind. I guess he wanted MT to just ask for help?

Gandalf handles Denethor three times by basically using his ninja-esque staff skills to knock him down and around. No battle of wills, logic - just walks into the citadel and kick the lords butt a few times.

Arwen's very life is somehow tied to the fate of the Ring. How, why? Who knows, but it is so there. Frodo must succeed or she will die, but hey this helps Aragorn's decision to finally take the darn sword and try to be king. Perhaps this will be explained more in a EE, but so what. The film version should stand on its own.

After the Ring is destroyed we have that old Hollywood cliff hanger in every action adventure movie - Frodo is dangling on the Cracks of Doom and Sam's hand reaches for him. It is complete with a few slips, the obigatory "Give me your hand," the oh so worn out cut to two hands inching painfully toward each other followed by the eventual connection of hands and rescue. Gee, I was on the edge of my seat with that one!

This one doesn't really qualify, but I couldn't help but notice the sloppiness of this. After Frodo and Sam escape Cirith Ungol (which has a fabulous performance by a certain orc is threatening Frodo and then dies at the hand of Sam) the pace to mount doom is almost as if you have a DVD player on fast forward. Frodo and Sam look out to plain of Gorgoroth and it is full of Orc camps. Cut to Aragorn - "we must give Frodo time by drawing out the armies of Sauron." Cut to Aragron and army marching out of MT. Cut back to Sam and Frodo - all orcs in Gorgoroth move out of their way in about 30 seconds... While the preceeding few hours are drawn out, this whole sequence takes 5 minutes! Editing and pacing/cadence... they dropped the ball and their mad rush to getting this thing out shows clearly in the editing here.

Archer - if you read this, I am sorry. Not for spoiling it, but that you had to hear about it at all. It must horrify you and yet there is even more.

[ 12-23-2003, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: Snaga ]
 
Posted by Tuor (Citizen # 374) on :
 
I am off to see the movie today. Hopefully I can sit through the whole thing.

I watched the commentaries on the Extended Edition and came to this conclusion:

The writers of the movie did not trust Tolkien.
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
Its good to see many people dislike the overall features of these films that go against tolkien. I will try to summarise firstly the themes that i hated and then also try (out of memory to remember the individual things i hated about the films.

Themes, issues and features i dislike:

Men are crap, simple, we all agree that men are made to look weak, isildur looks crap, elendil looks crap and aragorn looks crap, narsil/anduril looks like a regular sword.

Elves are perfect.

Gimli, hes a joke, nuf said. Infact i havent said enough. Why oh why was gimli made to be the comedian? Legolas the graceful elf and gimli the stupid ranting and raving, belching, stumbling, generally annoying, stubborn butt of every damn joke in the shallow films.

Non of the forces of good are powerful compared to enemy. It just unrealistic and stupid seeing the rohirrim take down all those oliphaunts at the pelenor fields, wgw spoke of the trolls and how large they looked. Did it look realistic at all that anyone could take down a troll (apart from legolas of course). Gandalf the white even looked poor compared with his book counterpart.

Placing a years gap between each film, pj should have made 3 4 hour films with a 15 min interval after 2 hours, each film should be released 6 months after the other. Also each film required multiple trips to the toilet. Theres me sitting down with a friend in the cinema just having drunk 3 quarters of my large diet coke, 2 hours in comes the first toilet visit, hour later the next toilet visit. Why no bloody interval?

Polished, glamorous, air brushed appeal to the film. I know everything in hollywood is airbrushed but by airbushing and glamourising these films it takes out something, like reading the book with a calendar of kylie staring down at you from the wall. It takes away the feeling of realism even more from this film.

Im sure theres more but i cant think at the moment.

Heres what i hated about the films:

Where was the darkness in the pelenor fields? there was sunshine. Where was all saurons darkness, darkening gondor?

Aragorn gets crushed by a troll

Anduril looks crap.

Saruman is saurons puppet and the audience are never told that he wants the ring for himself, instead we are told that he wants the ring so he can give it to sauron.

Galadriels whole cartoon speech 'a terrible queen' in that fake vampire voice, i even expected one of those bah-ha-ha laughs at the end as she turned into a big fat cartoon viking.

The lightning that gandalf the grey uses on the wolves on the mountain is left out.

The fire gandalf the grey uses on the nazgul at weathertop, left out.

Gandalf the white fires a sun ray out of his staff at the nazgul when saving faramir, in the book it says he fires a light beam out of his palms at the nazgul. (Obviously pj didnt want to make gandalf look as powerful as he is).

Faramir is mauled

Denethor is mauled

Gimli is mauled

Legolas' character is just stupid, the moves he pulls off with the oliphaunt etc, then comic gimli says 'that only counts as one', followed by the whole auditorium cracking up with laughter.

No glorfindel, arwen takes glorfindel's place.

The stupid damn love scenes with arwen.

Aragorn gets thrown over the cliff with the warg, aragorn is a crap fighter in the film, beaten by a warg, beaten by a troll (this is supposed to be the mightiest man in middle earth at the time).

It looks like arwen causes the flood that drowns the nazgul when she crosses the river, yet it was really gandalf and elronds doing, again making arwen out to be very powerful, first she takes glorfindels place (the mightiest elf in middle earth at the time) then she causese the flood to drown the nazgul. I also remember when she puts her blade to aragorns throat. She is also to deadly for aragorn, a ranger of the dunadain.

No bombadil.

Frodo and sam constantly doing the same rubbish all the time, sam saving frodo then frodo continuing, meanwhile this cartoon character 'gollum' like hes out of roger rabbit is following them all the time talking in his annoying voice.

The use of slow motion every time frodo almost dies, you see a clip of sams face in slow mo but cant hear what hes saying, whilst his lips spell out 'noooo, mr. frodo'.

No scouring of the shire, not only that, but the shire looked like a childrens playground.

No palantir in minas tirith, so we presume denethor just goes insane for no reason at all, aragorn is defeated by the palantir from orthanc, he shows no mastery over it at all.

Why do the hobbits go to osgiliath? when did this occur in the book?

Elrond is bloody annoying, as with galadriel, celeborn is very camp and is totally blocked out by galadriel.

Frodos orgasm face is very annoying after the first 3 times.

Right, ive started this off, i have so much more to write but cant be bothered as it just makes me angry remembering all of these faults and changes. Im sure there are at least another 30 more complaints to add to this list, feel free anyone to add to this list of 'what was wrong, changed or simply a fault of the film'.
 
Posted by The Laurenendôrian (Citizen # 106) on :
 
A rather minor matter that irks me, but one which I notice every time we see a shot of a hobbit's hand: they've made hobbits have stubby fingers, haven't they?
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
quote:
My biggest nitpick is Gollum’s end – I’d like to hit PJ upside the head with the largest copy of LotR I can find, just for that stupid scene.
This was actually one of the things I didn't find that bad. Frodo's end, on the other hand has been discussed by Snaga, and I agree wholeheartedly. The cliff hanging scene was ridiculous and cliché. Of the millions who have seen the movie, probably less than 100 naive people thought there might be a chance Frodo would die. The rest of us were just thinking, "all right already! Pull him up and lets get on with this!"
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
The ring didnt talk either, i was looking forward to the ring talking to gollum 'begone, and trouble me no more! if you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the fireof doom'.

Well, that never happened either. I thought it would be quite cool having the ring talk at the end, showing indeed that some of saurons spirit was invested in the ring.

I hated the bit where gollum does that dance when he gets the ring, it looked like a cartoon, all the fire looked fake, gollum looked fake and the scenery looked fake, it all looked fake and artificial.

Another thing i cant stand is the camera angles. At first i thought they were very good, showing the camera through the ring, underwater, slow mo, from treebeards view etc, then it just got annoying. It was too jumpy, you watch something from one camera angle and then another then another it makes you dizzy. Likewise when i think it is gondor that is sieged, there is a rapid speeded up combat that occurs inside the walls of gondor, why did it need to be so fast? you couldnt see any fighting, it all looked like a blur, it made me dizzy so much so that i looked away until the scene finished.

The above complaints are more examples of a film lacking substance, quality story and quality characters trying to make up for it with the latest technology and effects.

I almost feel sorry for the workshop that put all the effort into making sets and the creatures and costumes etc. This is because they put so much hard work into it and did such a good job, but their work was never backed up by the writers and production team. All the effort in the visual department went to waste because of a poor storyline and poor character development.

Considering pj had the greatest storyline and character development sitting infront of him in the guise of a 1000 odd page book, why did he choose to maul the characters of aragorn, faramir, gimli, and denethor?

Id also say legolas was mauled aswell, legolas isnt the ninja lord in the book, so why was he made into this in the film? Id love to ask pj why he chose to change the most in depth 3 d characters ive read with the under developed characters of the film.

It seems the production, editorial and directing teams fall short in every way to reach the high target that tolkien sets, granted that no one expected them to reach tolkiens level, but they didnt even get a quarter of the way.

I wonder seeing as 'minas tirith' is a very popular tolkien site, infact the only one i know of regarding solely tolkiens material, would there be any chance that pj could make an appearance on these boards? Id like to ask him what his inspiration was that made him change aragorn, faramir, denethor, legolas and gimli so much.

Another thing that annoyed me - isildurs flukey last ditch sword swipe at sauron that cuts off his finger. Why couldnt they have stuck to tolkiens material instead of showing it like they did? Isildur never slayed sauron, sauron was defeated in battle with elendil and gil galad and isildur cut off his ring after he was dead.
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
I thought Gollum dancing around with glee was one of the few things that stuck to the book, until Frodo attacked him again and they both fell. That was NOT from the book. The rest of your complaints, I agree with.

If you want to see Lord PJ and Princess Phillipa's motivations, get ahold of the extended edition DVDs and look at some of the extras. They explain themselves very clearly. They didn't trust the source material to be interesting to movie audiences.

They felt a character couldn't already be fully developed and still be interesting but that the character had to develop throughout the course of the movies.

That is why Aragorn isn't kingly from the start. They felt the audience had to see him go from being a humble park ranger to becoming kingly otherwise they wouldn't appreciate him.

That is why Faramir starts out as a jerk, so when he is cool at the end he's actually made a journey(TM).

They seem to justify everything they did with Arwen by saying: "hey, at least we didn't put her at Helm's Deep like we had planned."

Why Gimli is made out to be a buffoon is not explained in anything I've seen or read. Same goes for Merry and Pippin. I'm not sure why they're made out to be like teenagers. Legolas isn't explained, either. I think the reasons for these characters are obvious. They not only didn't trust Tolkien, they didn't trust their audience, either.
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
I agree with you on most points, but i cant tell whether you are being sarcastic or not regarding aragorn and faramir.

You wrote that they didnt want aragorn to be kingly from the start, only at the end. Aragorn was never kingly at the end though, he gets anduril (which just looks like any other sword with no fx) yet he doesnt appear as powerful he should, or as kingly as he should. Why was he crushed by the troll at the end, why couldnt pj show him slaying the troll and fighting on? What a poor attempt at showing aragorn.

Faramir was perhaps the biggest flaw of this film, i think tolkien would have been hurt to see pj portray faramir as he was.

Firstly he is weak minded, secondly he is passive, thirdly he is rubbish in combat. We never once see faramir as a great fighter or a clever man, instead we see him as this person who disobeys his father and cant do anything right. What annoyed me is when faramir rides out to re capture osgiliath (i think it is). He rides out and you never once think he is a great fighter who can lead his side to victory. Instead you think 'poor faramir, hes abrave fool, he is a pathetic fighter but will make a last ditch effort in vain'. Faramir never developed, originally he orders the ring to be taken to gondor, wtf? Rubbish.

Ive seen the extra edition, havent seen the commentary though, my friend has it but i wont buy it because i dont want to give money to their cause.
 
Posted by Dianthelle Queen of Spies (Citizen # 2566) on :
 
I think that maybe they should have done a better job with Faramir and Éowyn. They just show them standing next to each other and we're supposed to assume they're a couple? WTF is that?!
 
Posted by -Laurelin- (Citizen # 3717) on :
 
I never thought Viggo Mortensen was the proper Actor/Aragorn. From the first to the third. All the events that gave me emotions in the books concerning Aragorn failed in the movie.

And his voice...

The deads as well coming to Pelennor was crap, they did all the job. (good way to accelerate the movie).And Legolas one-shot-oliphaunt-dead was ridiculous. Looking that way, you need 30 elves from his Kingdom and Minas is defended easily.

That being said, some parts of the movies were extremely good. And not only once will I see the movie.
 
Posted by Adulithien (Citizen # 2193) on :
 
Turgon-- I think they kind of started to take off with the Ring talking: the way it whispered in FotR. I loved that, too, but it appears they abandoned that somewhere during TTT.
 
Posted by Braeden Fireheart (Citizen # 1953) on :
 
I’m sure I heard the Ring say something when Faramir was looking at it in TTT.
quote:
They just show them standing next to each other and we're supposed to assume they're a couple? WTF is that
I believe non-Tolkien readers are to assume that they just happen to be standing next to each other at the coronation. Some might notice the little smile they give each other, and if they know of the extended versions, they’ll see that if they’re more interested.

Tolkien readers, however, know that they’re a couple… And we’ll see the forming of that in the EE.

=================

After watching RotK for a second time, I've found myself hating what they did with Denethor. As I read it in the book, the pyre was in a seperate room. The way it was done, Gandalf had ample chance to get ahold of Denethor and save him... somehow.

Instead, they have Denethor realise his son is actually alive, the flames reach him, Gandalf says "there goes Denethor...", and then Denethor jumps down from the pyre and runs to the end of the courtyard.

This was done... why? []
 
Posted by ZoSo 'Ice Cold' Gamgee (Citizen # 2465) on :
 
Alright, I admit, I didnt read the whole thread before I decided to post, but you literary types do write quite a bit! (and I'm glad for it), so I apologize in advance if anyone already brought this up, but did anyone else think that PJ butchered the relationship between Frodo and Sam just a little? Hmm? I mean, in Cirith Ungol, Sam is supposed to be overjoyed that he has been reunited with Frodo...he barely looked happy. In Shelob's Lair, Sam is supposed to sit in silence, with "darkness" filling his world, but he only sits there for a grand total of, what, 5 seconds? I know PJ had to cu it down for time, but really. In my opinion, he took all the beauty out of the true story, what does everyone else think?
 
Posted by Adulithien (Citizen # 2193) on :
 
I've tried to be thorough about reading this thread completely, and I don't think those specific things have really been brought up, though a lot of similar things have. I agree. My touchy point with the whole thing, as I've mentioned before, is how the production team ignored/ruined so many major themes, and I think this qualifies as one of them. Gah. []
 
Posted by ZoSo 'Ice Cold' Gamgee (Citizen # 2465) on :
 
I agree. In my opinion, the thing that set LotR apart from any other big fantasy battle novel was that, at the same time, you had this great inner emotional struggle that was just as pivotal to the survival of Middle Earth as the big battles. And throughout Frodo's struggle, Sam was there to help him. He was more of a savior-like hero, not some angry buffoon who was just angry with Gollum the whole time. Psh.
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
To review this film i would say:

Classic modern culture hollywood blockbuster based on tolkiens beautiful books 'the lord of the rings'. The effects and visual side to the film is fantastic, with possibly the best effects seen in cinema ever to date. Despite the cash injections and stunning effects tolkiens magnificent story is kind of lost. The characters dont develop enough, if at all and there are flaws with some of the storylines. It is suprising the story doesnt role properly and the characters do not develop, because the production team had the book in front of them. On a serious and mature note this film fails to deliver, yet it is very entertaining. What else can we expect from the ever changing repetoire of hollywood glamour and star wars style blockbuster.

For a fun day out and an exciting time, watch this film, but do not expect any outstanding charisma from this film, something the kids will love.
 
Posted by Adulithien (Citizen # 2193) on :
 
quote:
you had this great inner emotional struggle that was just as pivotal to the survival of Middle Earth as the big battles
I don't think I've ever heard someone say that better. And yeah, the film doesn't do much for this particular sterling literary quality.
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
My own informal survey has led me to believe that everyone who hadn't read the books had no idea where they were going in the ship at the end. Nice script. []
 
Posted by Tuor (Citizen # 374) on :
 
I'm glad I stayed to watch the entire movie. If I left after witnessing the mutilation of the seige of Gondor, I would have missed the battle at the Black Gate and the 'light house'. I got a really good laugh out of that sequence.

One other thing, I've been thinking about the title 'purist'. I don't think it is very accurate. I prefer the term 'Tolkienist'.
 
Posted by Sauron's Secret Agent (Citizen # 1891) on :
 
[mutters] Don't mention that lighthouse to me...[/mutters]
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
I'm sure PJ thought it was cool to have the Eye darting back and forth panic-stricken as the black tower toppled.

I thought it was lame. Sure, the ancient Sauron was defeated forever, but did he have to act like a scared little kid?

What's going to be in the EE? All 100,000 orcs simultaneously wet themselves before being swallowed by the earth?!?
 
Posted by Lugbúrz (Citizen # 867) on :
 
Tuor, pity you did not enjoy the movie. But then, it is perhaps a good thing. I didn't quite understand your comment about the TTT extended edition. I haven't seen it, but what was said to make you feel that way?
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
If you're going to quote someone from a page back, then supply the quote! []
quote:
Tuor:The writers of the movie did not trust Tolkien.
I think the point is quite clear. They didn't have faith that Tolkien's story was powerful enough to 'survive' the transition to screen. They paid for that lack of faith with poorer films.
 
Posted by Lugbúrz (Citizen # 867) on :
 
Aha! That makes it much more clearer. I just interpreted it to mean that the filmmakers did not trust Tolkien himself or his works (for whatever reason).

But I cannot accept that they thought their alternative story was better for the screen. I can empathize with the difficulty in dramatizing such an epic, but they did the toughest part damn it! They had to just act out a beautiful story.

And WGW, I have surely not been having any lithium. [] []
 
Posted by Tuor (Citizen # 374) on :
 
Thank you for your explanation of my words WGW. It was right on!

Lug,

Don't feel pity for me. I don't feel like I've missed anything. As far as I'm concerned, a good movie about Tolkien's Middle-earth did not exist before PJ put his hand to it and a good movie about Middle-earth does not exist after PJ put his hand to it. Things are as they were.
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
What annoys me is that this film got great reviews, everyone except tolkien fans says they loved it, hollywood is raving about it, its in the papers etc etc. One of the most hyped up films ever.

Yet the films are poor compared with the book. Where are all the people congratulating tolkiens work? Does pj ever thank tolkien? If pj wins best director award (which he could well do) will he thank tolkien? Why did hollywood never discuss tolkien? congratulate tolkien? Afterall tolkiens story was on a different level to the one that pj and his producers made up.

The production team had tolkiens work right infront of them, they mauled it. I think it is a bit disrespectful to tolkien to make faramir and aragorn completely different to how they were in the book considering how much effort the prof put into aragorn and faramir.

Obviously the whole book could not be made into film, bits had to be cut out, however i believe that the important bits were cut out to make way for unimportant bits. Things like aragorn and arwen are unimportant. The smeagol deagol story is unimportant. The hobbits going to osgiliath was unimportant. Aragorn and the battle with the wargs was unimportant. The constant frodo and sam 'ill save you mr frodo' scenes were unimportant after the first 5. All in all id say they added an extra 30 mins worth of unnecessary padding to each film. Why did they do this yet alter tolkiens work and leave out some of the best parts of the book eg aragorns character development, faramir being a true brilliant man, the scouring of the shire etc?
 
Posted by Eitheladar (Citizen # 3691) on :
 
Was this link brought up in this thread?
[] The Ultimate Movie Critic
By 'Lalaith' Moehn - a great (IMO) German Tolkienist. []

E: I ought to at least explain what it's about - it is a clever construction of what JRRT himself would have said about PJ's film.

[ 12-31-2003, 04:08 AM: Message edited by: Eitheladar ]
 
Posted by Braeden Fireheart (Citizen # 1953) on :
 
quote:
Maybe you are too obsesed with the books and you are looking too deeply into the works of the prof.
One can never be too obsessed with Tolkien’s works. One can never delve that far… unless they are Tolkien himself. And he was far from obsessive.
quote:
The film has encouraged many people to read the books, as some people (like i used to be) just found the books too long and hard to follow. The films have made the books easier to read and i am sure many people are enjoying the book after watching the films.
Indeed. I am one of these people – though I read the books before seeing the films, I do enjoy them more now that there is this adaptation hovering around.

I’ll leave the rest of your post to someone else.
 
Posted by Adulithien (Citizen # 2193) on :
 
Thanks, Eith! I particularly enjoyed this:

quote:
A scene of gloom lit by a small red fire, with the Wraiths slowls approaching as darker shadows - until the moment when Frodo puts on the Ring, and the King steps forward revealed - would seem to me far more impressive than yet one more scene of screams and rather meaningless slashings.

and this:

quote:
An abridgement by selection with some good picture-work would be pleasant, & perhaps worth a good deal in publicity; but the present script is rather a compression with resultant over-crowding and confusion, blurring of climaxes, and general degradation: a pull-back towards more conventional 'fairy-stories'.
[]

[ 12-31-2003, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Adulithien ]
 
Posted by Lugbúrz (Citizen # 867) on :
 
Brae, now whom are you addressing and which post is it? I couldn't find the word 'obsessed' in the last three pages of this thread save your post...

----------------
"Did you just take lithium?" WGW.
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
Broono posted with thoughts about the movie that are banned in this thread. I removed his words, but he later deleted his posts entirely.
 
Posted by Lugbúrz (Citizen # 867) on :
 
Ah.

And Tuor, I do not pity you, I only pity the movie. It is sad for the filmmakers that they could not make you enjoy it. I don't know if I'd be as detached from the movie experience as you put it, but I definitely did not go to any of the three movies expecting them to depict Middle-earth well. I went to watch the great CGI effects and sets in a story that I am very fond of. I feel sad that the story was not told well but I still enjoyed the movies for what I wanted to see. I guess that is a measure of detachment too.

I'm off to catch my flight, happy new year!
 
Posted by Braeden Fireheart (Citizen # 1953) on :
 
quote:
Brae, now whom are you addressing and which post is it? I couldn't find the word 'obsessed' in the last three pages of this thread save your post...
Surely, a smart tower like you could work out that there is a post missing between Eith’s and mine. []

Anyhoo… I’m keeping my words there. I like what I wrote. []
 
Posted by Aoife (Citizen # 2368) on :
 
I still cannot believe that they could make the movie RotK and say that it's a film version of the book. When I came out of the theatre, my first thought was "That WAS NOT The Return of the King!"

ARGH.

Though, my constant carping about how the books are so much better has piqued my sister's interest, and she's actually reading the books!
 
Posted by Mungo (Citizen # 4171) on :
 
Who should have directed?

It seems that most, if not all, of the posters on this thread are in agreement with me that New Line's LOTR is a travesty and PJ is a crap director who panders to the lowest common denominator. The things I despised about the movies have all been pretty well covered.


My question is (and I hope this isn't off topic), if your wildest fantasy could come true, who would have directed LOTR? I'm talking about the PERFECT version of the movie. Any length, any budget, no need to appeal to the shopping mall masses in order to make money. If you think Cecil B. DeMille should have directed it but had access to today's CGI technology, that's fine.

I think Akira Kurosawa could have done a good job-- the grit and heroism of The Seven Samurai and Yojimbo combined with the grandeur of the massive battle in Kagemusha.

Terence Malick was another name I thought of. Like Tolkien, he is a great lover of natural beauty but also has a good sense of how to do action scenes.

Jim Jarmusch would NOT be a good choice, but the ethereal, Ansel Adams-ish look of his film Dead Man would be very appropriate for Middle Earth.

I also think the complete trilogy would have to be at least 16 hours, maybe 20. I will give PJ credit for pushing the at the borders of commercially viable film length, but his version still feels rushed to me and fails to include massive amounts of book material (particulary the historical and mythological context that gives the events of LOTR their importance).
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
I think the only person who could direct this is prof. tolkien himself. Considering his imagination and creative skills are far beyond any director in todays hollywood or (as i believe) any director ever. I think tolkien had enough skill and imagination and creativity to direct the film even though he wasnt a director.

You said any director ever, so i take it you wouldnt object to me mentioning william shakespeare? william shakespeare was a genius, im sure he would have loved to read lord of the rings, im sure he could have performed some sort of miracle to turn it into a great play with great character development and story, albeit in only 3 hours.

Weird how shakespeare could make his 3 hour plays with incredible character development, he had v limitied technology aswell. Yet pj cant develop his characters despite having all the technology and script writers and material already infront of him. Makes you wonder?

If we are talking film directors, im not sure how this guy would do with fantasy but i think hes an awesome director, serge leone (sp).

I think he could have done it justice.

What about christopher tolkien?
 
Posted by The Laurenendôrian (Citizen # 106) on :
 
A very good review, Eitheladar!

I received this forwarded in an email recently, and thought that some here might appreciate it. I apologise for giving it in its entirety here, but I know not of any location online that has it.

(Edit: Link here - http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_44853.asp - WGW)
quote:
Movie Review: The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King
In Which The Captains Of The West Debate The Completion Of The Film Epic
posted December 25, 2003

The Scene: Gandalf, Aragorn, Imrahil, Eomer and the sons of Elrond are joined by Faramir, Sam and Bilbo.


Gandalf: My lords, the theater screens of the modern age are spread far and wide, and not even the greatest of novelists can compete with their reach. An author can, maybe, by his will choose what things are allowed to be filmed, or cause a small measure of fidelity to be taken. Nonetheless it cannot be doubted that when viewers see our story as presented on film, they will believe they are seeing that which truly was.
Well, the Tale is now told, from first to last. Here we all are, and here is the third film. But we have not yet come any nearer to an agreement on its quality. What shall we say of it?

Aragorn: Let none now reject the counsels of Gandalf, whose long labours forced the deeds which made these films worth making. Glad I am to hear and see again the tale of our fellowship. Speak no evil of the Three Films! They are wondrous things to behold, whatever their faults may be. For my part I choose approval. Nonetheless I do not claim to command any man. Let others choose as they will. I will only say this: never in truth have I tossed a dwarf, or grasped and shoved a hobbit.

Elladan: Powerless and frail is how I deem these films, for I do not admire the facsimiles of men. Nor do I fear the taunts of the multitudes who are loth to hear words against their epic. It is an epic, yes, but for the eye only.

Eomer: As for myself, I have little knowledge of the films of man, but I need it not. This I know, and it is enough, that as my friend Aragorn has succoured me and my people, so I will heed his counsel. I choose approval.

Elladan: But Eomer, what of Theoden? Have you forgotten the contempt in his voice when the beacons of Gondor called for the help of Rohan? How different it was from the text, where he said, "But say to Denethor that even if Rohan itself felt no peril, still we would come to his aid."

Eomer: I have considered this. It was an ill turn, but not a fatal one. I also marked the absence of the Huorns, and the Woses, and the voice of Saruman at Orthanc. And you, Elladan son of Elrond, were absent from the film entirely. Could this be the source of your rancor?

Elladan: Not all of our tale could be shown, and the exclusion of Elrohir and I is an understandable one. Nay, I feel no rancor. And there is one part of the films that I would call genius, and that is the very first part of the first film, when the origin of the ring is described. Afterwards the story falters.

Bilbo: With apologies to the Dunadan, all that glitters is not gold, that's what you're saying. Elves may thrive on speech, but I am only an old hobbit. Perhaps we should see the film again?

Gandalf: Of course, my dear Bilbo, you may see it again, but now is not the time. The films, it would seem, have no power over Elladan, but from the rest of you I detect at least a conditional approval. There is much to admire, but also much to mourn.

Aragorn: And much has been invented. Your fancy staffwork on the shins of Denethor was a sight to behold!

Gandalf: Ah! And evidently my spanking sent him over the cliff?

Elladan: Your jest will not be accepted by defenders of the film. They will say, 'What do you know? You are not a filmmaker.'

Gandalf: And I will say that after nearly a hundred years of filmmaking, the craft has improved greatly in the areas of set-making, costuming and computerization. But the ability to tell a story has not improved. This is especially so when adapting classic novels to film. Filmmakers cannot resist the temptation to tinker. I prefer Denethor where he belongs, prostate on the pyre, holding the palantir.

Faramir: Much of the tinkering was to add action, which played to the strength of the filmmakers.

Gandalf: Yes, choreographing action is easier than fleshing out dialogue. Consider my duel with Saruman in the first film. Why, it might have been a scene from Harry Potter! Two wizards dueling, though with staffs instead of wands.

Aragorn: Enough of dueling and tinkering! What are your thoughts of the characters? It is to the credit of the filmmakers that no new characters have been contrived, at least none that I noticed. All seem to be taken from the text.

Imrahil: I am intrigued by the depiction of Gothmog, the lieutenant of Morgul, who led the assault on Minas Tirith from the field out of Osgiliath.

Eomer: You speak for me also. Nay, I felt I was looking at Sloth, the creature from The Goonies, a film from the year 1985 of the modern age.

Faramir: Now we come to strange matters. For this is not the first shadow of The Goonies that has crept into this rendering.

Sam: Begging your pardon, I know where it's crept into. It's in the second film, and it's when my character gives a speech of encouragement to Frodo at Osgiliath. I've only just remembered, sir.

Faramir: Yes, the speech and the setting were contrived by the filmmakers, using words cobbled from other chapters. For myself, I could not help but remember the young actor Astin, who gave a similar speech as the child Mikey in The Goonies. "Don't you realize," said Mikey, "the next time we see sky it'll be over another town....down here it's our time. It's our time down here." Afterwards the Goonies wavered no more.

Aragorn: Now come! All filmmakers draw from a limited bag of tricks. If we were to compare all the scenes that bring to mind other films, we should still be sitting here when Winter had passed into Spring.

Gimli: Wait a minute! I've thought of another - one of your scenes, Gandalf. It's in the second film, when the camera zooms into your eye after you threw down the Balrog. That has been seen before.

Gandalf: Yes, Gimli, most recently at the beginning of the film Chicago. And other films too numerous to mention. It is a common technique.

Eomer: Common, yes, but effective.

Elladan: I can name another. The destruction of the ring of the Dark Lord, where Frodo struggled with the creature Gollum at the Cracks of Doom, has been embellished and extended.

Sam: Ninnyhammers! Noodles! Mr. Frodo didn't fall into the Crack with that slinking Stinker. He fell to his knees and I picked him up and carried him to the door.

Elladan: Not any more! Now the world believes that after losing his finger and the ring to Gollum, Frodo began a second struggle, and toppled with the creature over the edge . . .

Imrahil: . . . where he conveniently found a handhold to dangle from. It is a visual cliche that filmmakers seem to be fond of. Why, it was even added to the flying car scene in the last Harry Potter film. Filmmakers can be diligent with their cliches, whatever else one may say.

Bilbo: Very well, very well, Master Prince. Say no more! It is a good film, and none the worse for having been twisted and teased from the text. If you want to know, I have only one quibble. Tell me: what do you think of my character as shown during the ride to the Havens?

Gimli: You were scarcely recognizable, Master hobbit. Your face had undergone a change that would baffle a Ranger.

Imrahil: The change was felt to be needed, no doubt, to show that your age had caught up with the passing of the Ring. But I could not help but smile, for I was reminded of the face of Miracle Max, the Billy Crystal character in The Princess Bride.

Sam: Well, here we are! Here are the Films, and it looks to me as if they are about the best we are ever going to get. My word, but the Gaffer would have a thing or two to say, if he saw me on the big screen!

-translated from the Common Speech of Middle Earth by Michael Locke


 
Posted by Lord Mithrandir (Citizen # 978) on :
 

 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
quote:
Bilbo: Very well, very well, Master Prince. Say no more! It is a good film, and none the worse for having been twisted and teased from the text. If you want to know, I have only one quibble. Tell me: what do you think of my character as shown during the ride to the Havens?

Gimli: You were scarcely recognizable, Master hobbit. Your face had undergone a change that would baffle a Ranger.

Imrahil: The change was felt to be needed, no doubt, to show that your age had caught up with the passing of the Ring. But I could not help but smile, for I was reminded of the face of Miracle Max, the Billy Crystal character in The Princess Bride.

If only these films were as good as The Princess Bride. At least that movie knew what it wanted to be. Were the Lord of the Rings movies dramas, action flicks, comedies, epics, fantasies, what? They tried to be everything and failed in many ways.
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
That reminds me of my own RotK review in this thread on page 8. []

I wonder if we can start to compile a list or lists to help better organize our feelings on the matter. Perhaps a (long)list of things wrong with the films with a concise explaination would release some of the anger.

I could keep the full list in the first post and update it as the discussion progresses.

I know there are many things we haven't fully ranted on, simply because they are so many things to cover. []
 
Posted by Gimli son of Glóin (Citizen # 1863) on :
 
I shall start.

Not having Gil-Galad and Elendil struggle with Sauron. Cheapened the cutting of the ring from his hand.

No flash when Bilbo disappeared from the party. Gives Gandalf a litte bit of a light side. Also, it showed that Gandalf didn't know that Bilbo was going to put the ring on and disappear as his "joke".

Trolls appearing in Minas Tirith instead of Witch-King after the gate gets taken out by Grond. (The worst travesty of all 3 films in my opinion).

Someone else take it away!
 
Posted by Lord Mithrandir (Citizen # 978) on :
 
-The way they implied that Celeborn had one of the Three Rings by having him, Elrond and Galadriel in a shot while they said "The power of the Three Rings is ended."

-Círdan had no beard.

-The ship wasn't white.
 
Posted by Braeden Fireheart (Citizen # 1953) on :
 
Círdan was there? []

Looks like I’ll have to see it again…

quote:
The way they implied that Celeborn had one of the Three Rings by having him, Elrond and Galadriel in a shot while they said "The power of the Three Rings is ended."
Well…

They had a shot of Gandalf’s ring, and Elrond’s too… Can’t remember seeing Galadriel wearing Nenya, but anyone who had seen the FotR EE would know she had it.

But no… I have no idea why Celeborn needed to be in that scene at all.

quote:
Elladan: Not any more! Now the world believes that after losing his finger and the ring to Gollum, Frodo began a second struggle, and toppled with the creature over the edge . . .

Imrahil: . . . where he conveniently found a handhold to dangle from. It is a visual cliche that filmmakers seem to be fond of.

[]
[] []
 
Posted by Lord Mithrandir (Citizen # 978) on :
 
I assumed that was Círdan in the background, loading up the ship. That was the understanding when I saw it with other MTers in London.
He's hard to recognize, though, because he doesn't have a beard.

[ 01-02-2004, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Lord Mithrandir ]
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
I think they should have scrapped celeborn altogether, he appeared very weird, hovering around in the background while mistress galadriel walks about reading peoples minds and glowing white.

They ruined celeborn, galadriel was a joke aswell, i dont mind some special effects on the good guys but what was with the cartoon viking that says 'you shall have a terrible queen instead'...since when was the film supposed to be 'who framed roger rabbit' style?

What really annoys me is that galadriel has that effect done to her, meanwhile gandalf the white has no effects done to him. Where is the logic in making galadriel seem more powerful and gandalf the white seem less powerful than they really are? Particularly as galadriel is hardly in the film and gtw is in it all the time.

I was anxiously looking forward to 'i have returned for the turn of the tide, the great storm is coming, but the tide has turned' and seeing gandalf the white seem like a real force...instead i see him spinning around attacking orcs 'legolas style' and knocking out denethor. Perhaps the only bit of power you see gtw have is when he fires a ray of light from his staff, they even messed this up...he was supposed to fire a light beam from his palms. The pelenor fields were supposed to be dark and gloomy...why was it sunlit?

All in all, i think the directing team had totally different agendas to tolkiens, eitherfor their own political reasons and beliefs or just through plain crap editing and production they altered characters when it could easily have been possible to show them on screen more true to the original characters.
 
Posted by bombadil (Citizen # 1329) on :
 
For me, the big drag was the scouring of the Scouring. But I've already ranted on that elsewhere in this thread.

What we learned in the movie was that you could go off and fight big battles far away and nothing that happened there had any effect at all on your hometown. Not only does that run contrary to the book and to Tolkien's own words; it runs contrary to a central theme of the movie (i.e. why Rohan came to Gondor's aid, why the Elves came to Helm's Deep).
 
Posted by Sauron's Secret Agent (Citizen # 1891) on :
 
The omission of Saruman, and the whole palantir thread of the plot, caused me great pain.

And leaving out the Houses of Healing. And the Scouring.

I did enjoy the film - though not the first time I saw it - but it wasn't Tolkien's story.
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
quote:
Upon the black surcoats were embroidered in white a tree blossoming like snow beneath a silver crown and many-pointed stars. This was the livery of the heirs of Elendil, and none wore it now in all Gondor, save the Guards of the Citadel before the Court of the Fountain where the White Tree once had grown.
quote:
And then wonder took him, and a great joy; and he cast his sword up in the sunlight and sang as he caught it. And all eyes followed his gaze, and behold! upon the foremost ship a great standard broke, and the wind displayed it as she turned towards the Harlond. There flowered a White Tree, and that was for Gondor; but Seven Stars were about it, and a high crown above it, the signs of Elendil that no lord had borne for years beyond count. And the stars flamed in the sunlight, for they were wrought of gems by Arwen daughter of Elrond; and the crown was bright in the morning, for it was wrought of mithril and gold.
So where's the crown?!?

 -
 
Posted by Tinelwen (Citizen # 261) on :
 
On the whole, I was extremely disappointed with RotK, although I hoped very much that PJ would, for once, buck up and surpass my expectations.

There are a lot of things that bothered me about the films, but I think that my three biggest irks are:

-the dialogue. There were random snippets with which I was very pleased, but generally, it was awful. Walsh and Boyens managed to drain almost every bit of high speech and poetry from Tolkien's dialogue and dumb it down to the kind of conversation that one would hear just about anywhere.

-the ommission/debasing of almost anything spiritual or supernatural. Instead of depicting middle earth as a place where there are deep connections between the spiritual and the corporeal (as Tolkien did), PJ presented a few cheesy special effects (Pippin's encounter with the palantir and the paths of the dead) and tried to pass them off as 'magical.' Or, he simply omitted anything spiritual or supernatural such as Faramir's dream, the black breath, and the weapon Saruman had in his voice.

-the treatment of the ring!!!!!!!! EVERYONE knew about it and would talk about it freely in front of just about anyone. The ring was NOT a topic for dinner table discussion but something spoken of in hushed whispers when no one else was around, nor was it very widely known.
 
Posted by The Laurenendôrian (Citizen # 106) on :
 
They don't seem particularly eager to keep objects as they were described by Tolkien (Glamdring not glowing being an obvious one). I went to the exhibition at the Science Museum, and despite having the it correctly described as having the two serpents on the descriptive card next to it, the Ring of Barahir seemed to bear no sign of them. Also, we have pictures that Tolkien drew of the crown of Gondor as he envisioned it, and what was used in the film bore little resemblance.
 
Posted by Legolass (Citizen # 4073) on :
 
quote:
if your wildest fantasy could come true, who would have directed LOTR? I'm talking about the PERFECT version of the movie. Any length, any budget, no need to appeal to the shopping mall masses in order to make money.

I also think the complete trilogy would have to be at least 16 hours, maybe 20. I will give PJ credit for pushing the at the borders of commercially viable film length...

Perhaps, if PJ had had that leeway - any length, any budget - without having to worry about working within the 'borders of commercially viable film length' in order for New Line to finance his very bold effort - perhaps he too could have made that 'perfect version' and not made many of the changes he did.
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
quote:
Perhaps, if PJ had had that leeway - any length, any budget - without having to worry about working within the 'borders of commercially viable film length' in order for New Line to finance his very bold effort - perhaps he too could have made that 'perfect version' and not made many of the changes he did.
The problems with PJ's version are many, and few of them have any relation to the film length. As for whether he could have made the perfect version, the fact is that he did not even do as well as he could have and should have even with his limitation of three+ years and hundreds of millions of dollars (limitations?).
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
He was limited a bit. There are 3 things each film must have in order to make them a commercial hit.
1,a love story...hence each film has love scenes
2, comedy...hence gimli being the butt of all jokes, gimlis name should not be 'gimli son of gloin' but 'gimli jokes baine'
3, lots of fighting

This remind you of any other trilogy? hmmm, a bit suspicious of star wars if you ask me. Did star wars do well at the box office and with merchandise? of course it did.

Lord of the rings can not be made into a commercially viable film for 8 year olds to enjoy... simple as that.
 
Posted by Glóin the Dark (Citizen # 2102) on :
 
I decided to compile a list, with explanations, of the ten scenes from The Return of the King which I hate most (and, for some other thread, the ten which I like most). I've only just managed to narrow the list down to ten, but I'll start now and add the rest soon...

The Ten Scenes I Hate Most

1. “Let him go you filth!”
I found Shelob’s scenes rather underwhelming, mainly because I didn’t think that she was particularly scary (spiders are really only scary when they sprint). But there’s no doubting that she was splendidly animated, and I thought the part where she bites Frodo (in circumstances quite different from Tolkien’s description) was an admirable scene. Until Sam turns up. Suddenly we’re plucked out of this rather disturbing fantasy-horror scene and find ourselves in a comic book instead. Sam’s corny entrance is something which I find truly embarrassing, and I’m always anxious to communicate this to friends or acquaintances who’ve seen the film, in case they think I like that sort of thing. The music contributes greatly to the problem, with a cheery, cheesy fanfare-style exclamation of the ‘Fellowship’ theme. The rest of the scene is acceptable enough, except that Sam’s “Not asleep, dead...” makes little sense since he wasn’t at Galadriel’s Mirror, and when Sam hears the orcs’ conversation, he is given the dreadful line “Not dead?!” Surely a swift-moving tracking shot towards his shocked face could have conveyed the same information in a far less crude and patronising manner?

[ 01-06-2004, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: Glóin the Dark ]
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
I eagerly await your list.
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
quote:
My question is (and I hope this isn't off topic), if your wildest fantasy could come true, who would have directed LOTR? I'm talking about the PERFECT version of the movie. Any length, any budget, no need to appeal to the shopping mall masses in order to make money. If you think Cecil B. DeMille should have directed it but had access to today's CGI technology, that's fine.
Mungo! We actually have a thread on the other director idea - here it is if you want to take a look: http://www.minastirith.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=001361

I think almost every great director is mentioned somewhere in there, but then you added a few more I didn't think of!

Regarding Kurosawa - maybe (had he been alive) he could have done something similar to Ran - adapting Lord of the Rings as he did to King Lear to a Shogun society/culture. Now that would have been a really interesting re-write - not the simplistic utterly pedestrian comic book/action adventure-esque film adaptation we have today with PJ. I dare anyone to compare a Kurosawa battle to PJs video game CGI battles - no contest in my opinion.

[ 01-07-2004, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Snaga ]
 
Posted by ZoSo 'Ice Cold' Gamgee (Citizen # 2465) on :
 
quote:
Nay, I felt I was looking at Sloth, the creature from The Goonies, a film from the year 1985 of the modern age.
...It wasn't just me!!! Yes!!!
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
It has been a few weeks now since the nightmare of my seeing RotK and I just cannot get over the whole Gollum lembas stealing trick on Frodo to have him send Sam away. I mean, what kind of mind would come up with a "crummy" idea like that?
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
Something that bothered me about Gollum was they kept making him funny. Sure, I chuckled at, "what has poor Smeagol ever done to him?" and, "and they doesn't taste very nice, does they precious?" but even though Gollum was good for a chuckle, the character isn't supposed to be. He's a vicious killer and we're supposed to think he's funny? Who does PJ think he is, Tarantino?
 
Posted by Tuor of Hador (Citizen # 4206) on :
 
Why was Gimli lounging in the Stewards Chair? That was ridiculous.
 
Posted by Eirlys (Citizen # 2048) on :
 
What bothered me about Gollum- and I am VERY bothered at the moment because somebody asked me why I dont like Return of the king, Talk about flames everywhere!- is the way that in the Prolouge, he is seen in total misery and evilness, making evil faces and being nasty. Then They come dashing back to his present state and even when he is not talking to the hobbbits, he is suddenly acting all sweetness and light.

My explaining might not make any sense to most people, But I am in a right Tantrum at the moment due to New Line. They have really really lost themselves a potencial fan (or rather Peter Jackson and his little team)
 
Posted by The Laurenendôrian (Citizen # 106) on :
 
A wonderful quote that someone here found:
quote:
Even the Christmas vacation will be darkened by New Zealand scripts...
~ J.R.R. Tolkien, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter 34
 
Posted by Glóin the Dark (Citizen # 2102) on :
 
Brilliant. []
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
I had a free moment at work, so I couldn't pass up the chance to pass on Phillipa's latest spewings. This is part of a larger interview posted at theonering.net.
quote:
[male reporter] Do you feel a sense of relief that you've got out of this project with Tolkien fans on your side?

PB: "Dunno yet. We'll see. It's funny because in one of the last round-table interviews, one of the very first questions ­ and I could see he was quite upset ­ was, '[told in stilted, barely measured anger] How do you justify Frodo sending Sam away? And was that true to Tolkien?' That's interesting because you can really see people care. Now we know this, we know people passionately love these books ­ and why shouldn't they? We do. We can destroy for them, this world they love so much. So yes, I did have a sense of that.

"But I also know what my job is. And that's that I had to bring these books to life with Peter and Fran. We didn't do anything arbitrarily ­ we did it because we needed to make these books work onscreen.

"And the reason why Frodo sent Sam away, just so you know, is: what would happen if he didn't? He would have a very long climb up the stairs, then you would get Sam ­ which happens in the book ­ get lost in the tunnel which not dramatic. If you just think about what you would have if you didn't do something there, you understand why we did it ­ which is why we did it."

This last paragraph is particularly anger-inducing. I am now convinced the writing team on the films simply skimmed the books. Enjoy. []
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
That rationale for the Sam leaving thing is incredibly lame. A talented screen play writer could have found plenty of ways to build tension without having Sam being sent away then suddenly appearing to save the day. However, if your screen play skills are limited to invoking well worn, predictable, simplistic and tired Hollywood cliches, then hey old Fran was on track. I am convinced she has a mind built for the idiot masses.

She was right about one thing - she certainly destroyed RotK for me. I still cannot get over how utterly awful it was and how so many people think it was the best of the three films. As a species and society, we must certainly be doomed.
 
Posted by Gimli son of Glóin (Citizen # 1863) on :
 
WGW, thanks for that. Now I really, really dislike her. What a pompous idiot! She definitely has a lower level of thinking. I guess we'll all have to wait another 50+ years until someone makes a better version. [] Maybe not. What a fool she is! My goodness, I can't stand her even more now. RRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!! []

OK. That's over. Back to normal me. []
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
So her point is that filmmakers can't make a guy getting lost in a cave with a giant spider dramatic? We'll ignore for a moment that Sam doesn't get lost in the book and address her point. I'm sure she must be correct. There has never been a dramatic portrayal of a film character getting lost in a dangerous place. [] It would be absurd for anyone to even attempt such a thing. []
 
Posted by Elanor Gamgee (Citizen # 3219) on :
 
Well, I've only just seen ROTK, as it was only released in Russia last week. I was prepared for a lot of the changes,as I'd heard so much about them, but two things irritated me in particular. 1) Legolas' fight with the oliphaunt, which seemed to me to be lifted straight from Star Wars, and 2)Frodo's near fall into the Cracks of Doom. Do we really need this kind of "Hollywood" treatment?
 
Posted by Anduril_Reforged (Citizen # 4007) on :
 
If you say the Legolas fight is lifted from Star Wars (which it barely was), then you could take more than a handful of moments from ROTK and say that it was lifted from Star Wars...like when Eowyn was at Theoden's death scene, and Theoden said "You already have...you already have", after Eowyn said "I will save you", or something like that.
 
Posted by Elanor Gamgee (Citizen # 3219) on :
 
I suppose that scene was as well, but not as blatantly as the oliphaunt, in my view. In that particular case, that was the first thought that came to me!
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
Here is something related to this thread (I think). A new York Times article on movie effects with an interview of an effects director from ILM who worked on Master and Commander - a movie with lots of effects that don't LOOK like effects:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/27/movies/27EFFE.html?8hpib
(yes you need to register - it is free)
quote:
Though his livelihood depends on special-effects shots, Mr. Fangmeier worries about a trend toward cramming every movie with them, he said. (In 2003 at least nine movies boasted 450 or more such shots.) Less is more, he says.

"There's a lot of excess going on," he said. "It puts too much burden on the films, makes them too expensive, puts more demand on them to make their money back and cater to the lowest common denominator."

Sounds like Fangmeier is on to something doesn't it?
 
Posted by Adulithien (Citizen # 2193) on :
 
I think he is on to something, there. But if that's true, then that casts RotK in the much the same light as movies like Terminator, for me. I don't think it's entirely fair to suggest that of it. It wasn't completely devoid of art. (...just mostly.)
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
"But I also know what my job is. And that's that I had to bring these books to life with Peter and Fran. We didn't do anything arbitrarily ­ we did it because we needed to make these books work onscreen.

As said by filipa.

One thing i find odd is that she says 'we didnt do anything arbitrarily we did it because we needed to make these books work onscreen.'

If this is the case, why was faramirs character ruined? was it necessary to ruin faramir, denethor, gimli and aragorn so that the books would be adapted better for the screen?

Was it necessary to have the king of men being defeated and squashed like a bug by a troll whilst hes wriggling around on the floor unable to do anything with anduril (which is just like a regular sword in the film anyway). Did that bit of the film allow the conversion of book to screen to run smoother?

Ironic though, despite our hatred of the film, it looks like it will storm the oscars. Why doesnt this suprise me.

I am the slime from your video, i am the slime from the radio...it reminds me of a frank zappa song called 'i am the slime'.

[ 01-28-2004, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: Turgon of Gondolin ]
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
quote:
I think he is on to something, there. But if that's true, then that casts RotK in the much the same light as movies like Terminator, for me. I don't think it's entirely fair to suggest that of it. It wasn't completely devoid of art. (...just mostly.)
In some ways it is unfair to put RotK in the same class as Terminator - it is unfair to the Terminator movies!!! At least they were honest in being what they were - action/adventure movies with cheesy humor and unbelievable scenarios coupled with tons of effects. RotK was far less honest, IMO, by casting itself as an interpretation of the book while relying mostly on being a action/adventure movies with cheesy humor and unbelievable scenarios coupled with tons of effects.

quote:
Ironic though, despite our hatred of the film, it looks like it will storm the oscars. Why doesnt this suprise me.
Exactly - it was made for the masses.
 
Posted by Princess Keona (Citizen # 1518) on :
 
[] Even though I enjoyed most of the film, I did think that the whole "Go home, Sam" part was absurd and unnecessary. Sitting in the theater I looked at my cousin and went "WTF?!?" And now, after reading THIS I really do think Filippa is a complete idiot. First of all, that line sounded really lame, it was very corny and didn't fit at all. The entire situation didn't play out at all. How stupid would Frodo be to be so close to Mordor and then say "Oh god Sam, you're a jealous prick, go home! Yes, take the entiiiiiiiiiire journey we just made alllll the way back home and leave me here with this creature that is obviously not to be fully trusted." Right.
Forget that they're in a dark tunnel where they can't see and there is a giant spider after them, and Gollum has just obviously betrayed them... no, not dramatic enough at all! []
-Keo
 
Posted by Elanor Gamgee (Citizen # 3219) on :
 
There were quite a few things in the film which didn't make sense in my view-certainly the business with Sam and the lembas, but also the whole Arwen thing. Why was her health tied up with the power of the ring? Why was Rivendell practically deserted when they were one of the last strongholds against Dol Guldur? Why wouldn't a ship bear her west, when Elrond himself went much later? Someone didn't check the plot for holes!
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
I suppose Phillipa would tell you the plot holes were required to "make it work on film."

Speaking of Phillipa, does it ever cease to amaze anyone how incompetent people can rise to such heights? In any and all professions, the world is simply full of people who manipulate (ie BS) their way to powerful positions. My gosh, LotR on film has made me a completely cynical person!!!!

[ 01-30-2004, 06:38 AM: Message edited by: Snaga ]
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
As a service to Phillipa bashers, here is a quote fresh off of onering.net...
quote:
"The Lord of the Rings" trilogy co-writer Philippa Boyens talked briefly to the Los Angeles Daily News about Universals' upcoming King Kong adaptation, to be directed by Peter Jackson and to star Naomi Watts.

She is again working with "LOTR" filmmaker Peter Jackson (they share "Return of the King" writing credits with Fran Walsh), penning his planned new version of "King Kong." The new "Kong" has "21 Grams" Oscar nominee Naomi Watts attached to star, and it's already set for an August production start.

"We're doing some work on it right now," says New Zealander Boyens, who adds that being back in the States - in L.A., to be exact - has helped her get into the American mind-set. "This is such an American story."

Stay tuned for lots more on the highly-anticipated project.

Coming out of another person's mouth, this might not have bothered me. When I imagine Phillipa's face spouting them, with her self-important smirk, it annoys the hell out of me. Is it possible for her to give an interview without putting her foot in her mouth?
 
Posted by Aoife (Citizen # 2368) on :
 
For pity's sake...what a moron.
 
Posted by Thangail (Citizen # 1292) on :
 
"Hi, I'm Philli.."
*BANG*

About sums it up for me.
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
Anyone see the movie "Adaptation"? If not, try and see it. It will help you understand the torment a thoughtful screen writer goes through in adapting a book to film. Plus, I think it is a very good film. As you watch the film, imagine PJ et al and their simply choosing the easiest, most commercially viable, cliche ridden... approach to everything in the creation of their screen play.
 
Posted by Adulithien (Citizen # 2193) on :
 
Good movie; interesting thoughts. []

quote:
In some ways it is unfair to put RotK in the same class as Terminator - it is unfair to the Terminator movies!!! At least they were honest in being what they were - action/adventure movies with cheesy humor and unbelievable scenarios coupled with tons of effects.
My point was that I see Terminator as pretty much horrible in every way. As much as RotK frustrated me, there were several things I appreciated about it. But you're right-- at least some "bad" movies claim to be nothing other than what they really are. That's why I actually enjoyed Old School. [] At least it was honest. []
 
Posted by Glóin the Dark (Citizen # 2102) on :
 
From next month's issue of Empire:

quote:
Take a bow Philippa Boyens, co-screenwriter and Tolkien scholar, who was the iron-clad protector of the source material. She was responsible for the injection of real spoken Elvish.

 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
[] I think I'm going to be ill. []
 
Posted by The Laurenendôrian (Citizen # 106) on :
 
Nice.
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
quote:
Tolkien scholar
I don't know how much more I can take. []
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
Adulithien , I hope you saw the intended humor in my reply about the Terminator. I mean, they were simply awful movies in terms of acting, story lines.. you name it! You will get no argument here!

It just seemed to me that LotR, and especially RotK has more in common with this kind of movie than anything else! It's almost as bad as what Hollywood did in Pearl Harbor - they turned a horrible tragedy into an action-adventure film with Hans Solo-esque dog fight moves 20 feet above the streets of Honolulu.
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
I have to disagree about terminator, (well, not terminator 3), but t1 and in particular t2 werte brilliant.

T1 was made with very low budget, it relied heavily on atmosphere, great directing, good acting (yes good acting, tell me someone else who could play the role of terminator better than schwarzenegger). But it couldnt create the tension and atmosphere using state of the art technology and effects, T1 was all about the director. Very well directed film.

T2 included massive effects, great storyline, everyone must admit it was very exciting, schwarzenegger as the terminator, one of the 90's most renowned films. It isnt supposed to be deep, it isnt supposed to have character development, its an action packed high intensity film that delivers every way without taking on the name of a world renowned book written by one of the greatest authors of all time.

T1 was a cold atmospheric thriller, it was a raw film, like taxi driver. T2 is what lord of the rings was trying to do.

I wouldt have minded if pj just brought out an entertainment version of lotr, if he said that it is only loosely based on the books and is only for fun. But he makes out that he tried to stay accurate to the books, he tried to keep tolkiens art in the film. He is blatantly lying, why dont pj and his chums come out and just say 'we made a good attempt at making another t2?'

I preferred t2 to these films. I didnt like t3 though...these films reminded me a bit of t3, jumping on the bandwagon and trying to go beyond what has been done before yet failing miserably and the result is expensive glam fake looking entertainment.

Incidentaly i believe predator is a very good film, again low budget but the pace and intensity of the movie is great, very atmospheric.

So i dont get someone slagging me down for saying arnold flicks are good movies then slagging down my judgement ofd films, here are some other films i liked a lot:

Taxi driver
Apocalypse now
Deer hunter (brilliant)
Shawshank redemption
China town
Gladiator
Alien (great atmosphere)
Robocop (only joking)

[ 02-03-2004, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Turgon of Gondolin ]
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
I'm with you about the Terminator movies. I didn't bother with T3, but T1 and T2 were both excellent in their own ways. The acting was fine. The Governator was wooden, sure, but he was playing a ROBOT. Michael Beihn, Linda Hamilton, Edward Furlong, and Robert Patrick all did fine acting jobs.
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
Getting back on topic, here's a link to an interview with Viggo Mortensen where he explains why he is not surprised no actors received Oscar nominations for RotK. It's probably the most level-headed discussion of the films I've ever seen anyone associated with the films have.

Thanks to theonering.net for the link.
 
Posted by Yavanna-Kementári (Citizen # 3723) on :
 
I agree with Viggo that he along with a couple of his fellow actors in The Trilogy's didn't deserve Oscar nominations but I honestly believe that Sean Astin as Sam did .

Sean was consistently good, he really made me forget he was acting.

I honestly believed I was looking at Sam.
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
While I agree that Astin did a great job, it took me until well into the second movie to accept him as Sam. It always seemed to me that while Merry and Pippin were younger Hobbits, Sam was older - closer to Frodo's age. Then again, Frodo's age is way off in the movie, too.

Are there any hard facts about Sam's true age?
 
Posted by Miz Lobelia (Citizen # 1612) on :
 
DPR, according to Appendix C Sam was born in SR 1380, so at the time of LOTR (SR 1418-1419) he would be 38, that is, about 11-12 years younger than Frodo.

Pippin would be 28 (born 1390) and Merry 36 (born 1382). That's assuming none of them had b-days before the destruction of the Ring, of course.
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
Gees, sorry for starting the Terminator issue - can we all agree that they were three great cheesey movies? Meanwhile PJs work resulted in 3 cheesy movies that should have been great.
 
Posted by Yavanna-Kementári (Citizen # 3723) on :
 
DPR I stand corrected.

I have to agree with you that Sean Astin didn't come into his own until he "confronted" Faramir in TTT, I believe by the time we got to see him in ROTK he had evolved into the perfect Sam.

Were we not all transfixed to the screen watching his torment at being told to "go home" and his bravery against all odds?

In the case of ROTK I firmly believe Sean Astin deserved that nomination.
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
I may have mentioned this before, but I had a personal book to screen experience that I found very interesting. I recently read all the Horatio Hornblower books (all historically based fiction about the British Navy in the wars with Napolean and perhaps the best sea stories ever written). I loved the books and will almost certainly re-read them as much as LotR. Then I bought all the A&E DVDs of a series they did on the books (about 6 2 hour films = 12 hours - about the same length as all the LotR movies).

Although the movies changed plot lines and details, it didn't matter. I was aware of the changes, yet I was not upset or dissapointed in the least. The changes were made in a way that was intelligent and added some tension and many other interesting things to watch and enjoy. My point? A talented screen writer can pull of an adaptation and keep true fans as well as new viewers entertained!
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
I'm glad you posted this. I knew it was possible to do such an adaptation, but it's nice to have a concrete example to draw on.
 
Posted by Tuor (Citizen # 374) on :
 
Another adaptation you might want to look at is the 13th Warrior. It was adapted from The Eaters of the Dead. The story line was changed some, but I thought the movie did a good job of relating the book to the big screen.
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
I enjoyed that movie, but there a large group who felt the film butchered the book.

Now that I think about it, perhaps going further down this path will not help our case, since "staying true to the book" in a general sense is way too subjective.

What I mean is, Phillipa could easily turn our words against us and say that since opinion on adaptation is subjective, our opinion of her can never be more than mere opinion and easily dismissable.

We should try to turn our criticism back to more concrete examples.
 
Posted by Tuor (Citizen # 374) on :
 
I have come to that very conclusion. It is impossible to determine if the movie even stayed true to 'spirit' of the books. Really, what is the spirit of the books? If we don't have a working definition of what we are looking at, how can it be determined one way or the other?

Sorry for the ramble. I'll stop now.
 
Posted by Orome (Citizen # 108) on :
 
Admittedly i haven't read every post. Long thread after all.

But WHAT IN THE HELL WERE THOSE GREEN MARTIAN GUYS FIGHTING IN THE BATTLE OF THE PELENOR! I mean seriously, it couldn't have been the army of the dead right? Right.....

Ending of ROTK sucked majorly I mean COME ON if you are going to wrap it up wrap it up.
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
I think there are hundreds of other examples of adaptations - good and bad. I mean almost 4/5 movies are adaptations. Below are my opinions on movies where I read the book first.

A few good ones (IMO) - wide range or movies with some more serious than others.

1. Count of Monte Cristo - they changed the end in an interesting way (turned out that Mercedes's son was in fact the "Count's" son, but this was not in the book). Rent the DVD and watch it with the screen play writer's commentary - see what a much more skilled and humble screen play writer has to say!

2. Cold Mountian (though I haven't seen it, I read it and all things point to a great movie).

3. Fight Club. I can't stand Brad Pitt, but liked this movie!

4. The English Patient - arty literary crafted book that is hard to read makes a wonderful film.

5. Blade Runner - they really changed this one around, but it was a great movie and more of a movie first than a sci-fi movie.

So-so adaptations:
1. The Human Stain - a VERY complex book but they pulled it off as long as you read the book. Still, can anyone ever believe Anthony Hopkins is black!

A really bad one (IMO):
1. Dune. Silly plot changes and the addition of the "voice machine." I think of Dune often when I think of LotR - both were butchered on screen.

[ 02-12-2004, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: Snaga ]
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
P.S. Just do a web search on "Film adaptations" or "page to screen" and you will find more than you ever wanted to know about this subject.
 
Posted by Thorin (Citizen # 816) on :
 
I'm freaking furious. New Line, in public jousting with MGM over the rights to the Hobbit, is publicly threatening to make a movie covering the time period between "The Hobbit" and "Fellowship" or a sequel for the time period after "Return of the King." Houghton Mifflin is protesting.

I imagine this is all designed to pressure MGM, but it ticks me off to no end. Here is my post in The Hobbit Forum regarding the Wall Street Journal article.
 
Posted by Adulithien (Citizen # 2193) on :
 
To add to the good adaptation list: Smilla's Sense of Snow. []

[ 02-14-2004, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Adulithien ]
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
Just saw a segment on PJ on CBS Sunday Morning where they ran through PJs whole career. Basically his entire resume is based on cheap flicks, horror themes and effects. Sure, he is obviously skilled at that and seems a nice guy, but it reveals his lack of depth and culture that, I think, were required to pull off a LotR film version more intelligent and failtful to the books. It is of course the biggest block buster ever, and that is what Hollywood (for the most part) uses to measure success. Let's face it, we are in the wrong percentile to ever be happy in film land when it comes to LotR. Back to the books! At least we will be relatively alone and at peace!
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
I hope the press realizes someday that he's no Spielberg and he never will be.

Maybe after King Kong he'll crawl back into near-oblivion like Quentin Tarantino. Not that I don't like QT, but if PJ had the same level of media presence, I could handle it. []
 
Posted by Eledhsúle (Citizen # 1980) on :
 
Like Firiel mentione in the first pages post;
(she/he found this annoying)
"Old Elrond (He is and Elf. Elves don't age. Three thousand years old and venerable doesn't change that)"
It was the first minutes that really bugged in FotR, Cirdan, he looked so old and feeble that anyone with smack of a stick could have killed him. []
And the Elrond, why was he potrayed so old? Eh... Well if he's aging like Cirdan I quess that how it goes... And Arwen would have become a wall flower in few hundred years...
And I quess Galadriel was just well preserved! []
Annoyence!!!

Heh, not let me go read rest of the thread, and I'll come back add more. []

E: Did they actually force Christopher Lee to say, that he thought the book was changed into a movie greatly? I mean... he is a big reader of Tolkien, how could he say that?

[ 02-18-2004, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: Eledhsúle ]
 
Posted by lord FireStar (Citizen # 4322) on :
 
The battle for Helm's Deep! man, did the movie ever screw that up! Duh - the Elves - What was up with that!? []

Also, where were the ENTS that blocked off the orcs' retreat?

Bah - I say!!

P.S. I still am a GREAT fan of the movies [] and the books []
for me they compliment each other! []
 
Posted by Nanyé andúril i né narsil (Citizen # 4309) on :
 
lord fire starter, the Huorns, (similar to ents) that blocked off the uruks were featured in the Extend DVD edition of the two towers, this by no means justifys there omision or the excessive eleven fetish of PJ that once again reared itself during Helms deep, but its better than nothing i suppose []

[ 02-19-2004, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Nanyé andúril i né narsil ]
 
Posted by Thalion (Citizen # 4172) on :
 
RRRR, I want to burst out about so many things that were done wrong in this movie. I am only glad I saw the Fellowship before reading the real story. One of the things that really annoys me more than anthing though is the fact that so many people that have read the books, and are perfectly aware of the fact the movie is blasphemy to the books, but still love it. One thing I have just come to accept though, never underestimate stupid people in large groups.

E-very glad the Purist rage thread is longer than the "other" thread. []
2E-whoops, was so mad left out what I was saying! []

[ 02-26-2004, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Thalion ]
 
Posted by Thalion (Citizen # 4172) on :
 
Ok I just finished watching 2 towers again and have to complain.

quote:
(Eomer on Gandalf return to helms deep) But you[Gandalf] did not name the hour, or foretell the manner of your coming.
PJ: "uhhh, whoops"

Treebeard
quote:
I always like going South, somehow it feels like going downhill.
Treebeard: "HAHAHAH, I am not a wise old ent who is very connected with nature, no, no, no, I am a blundering idiot"
or
Pippen: "What, so your never hasty, and have to talk as slowly as possible, but you refuse to think before you speak!"

Legolas
quote:
But even more would I give for a hundred good archers of Mirkwood. We shall need them.
PJ: "Oooooo, OK!

Faramir
quote:
Not if I found it[The Ring] on the higway would I take it.
PJ: "Well that's another whoopsidaisy."

[ 02-29-2004, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: Thalion ]
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
Well, well - RotK won as many Oscars as another really deep and stunning movie - Titanic. Doesn't that say it all? In the latter, a horrible tragedy was turned into an action adventure movie with really cheesy and predictable romance thrown in to boot. In the the former a classic piece of literature was turned into an action adventure movie with really cheesy and predictable romance thrown in to boot.

What is the academy saying with all those awards? I think it is obvious. It isn't about art, it is all about $$$. They simply can't let go a film (or 3) that have made over a billion dollars.

Any way, it is all finally over. From this moment on, I am staying in the lit forums where real fans of LotR can always be found and the nightmare of these films is always considered an off topic discussion!

[ 03-01-2004, 06:08 AM: Message edited by: Snaga ]
 
Posted by Sentarius (Citizen # 525) on :
 
Mmmm...Ben Hur.....mmmm....
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
Best Adapted Screenplay? Best? The other nominees must have really been horrible. []
 
Posted by Aranel Charis (Citizen # 2061) on :
 
quote:
Best Adapted Screenplay? Best?
It should be 'Best Mangled Screenplay'.... []
or maybe 'Adapted' means 'changed plot, characters, and themes, perhaps for the worse'!
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
http://www.oscars.com/oscarnight/winners/win_33149.html

Peter Jackson in his acceptance speech for Best Adapted Screenplay:
quote:
And I especially just lastly want to thank our wonderful cast who just got their tongues around this rather awkward text and made it come to life with such emotion and passion and heart.
Somehow, I don't think the text he's talking about is his awkward screenplay since it just won a damn Oscar.

Thanks, PJ! Another twist of the knife?
 
Posted by Aranel Charis (Citizen # 2061) on :
 
The irony is the fact that his speech in itself is 'awkward' when you try to read it...

Is he now saying his lousy screenplay made Tolkien's beautiful language less 'awkward'? Terrible! []
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
quote:
Mmmm...Ben Hur.....mmmm....
What are you saying? That my NOT comparing RotK with the other film that one 11 awards is somehow vindication that RotK is a good film worthy of all those awards? If so, that is really weak and might I suggest a course in critical thinking and/or logic. I would consider Ben Hur a completely different era of Hollywood - greed was always a part of things, but not like it is now. Now it is coupled with mediocrity.
 
Posted by Ellanor (Citizen # 1515) on :
 
[]
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
Apocalypse now, what a film, certificate 18.

To create a great film it needs to be 15 or 18 nowdays, there needs to be realism. There needs to be real in depth character development. Character development, subtlety and complexity are only understood by the more clever cinema viewer. It is the complexity and development of characters that really tests an actor, not playing legolas or playing the witch king.

Take the character travis bickle from taxi driver, played by de niro, what a character, complex, on a mission, subtle yet versatile, passionate, but the passion is slosly woven into the show as we learn more about travis, also a hero.

Lotr were star wars in fantasy land, based on the plot of the books butdont adhere to any specific details of tolkien.

But it was obvious why this would happen, because the cost of making the films was so much, they needed to cover their costs, so either they could be made by a great director who will take 10 years to make a complete masterpiece that will deserve oscars and be comparible to ben hur. Or they could be star wars style, titanic style blockbusters, far easier to make, cheaper actors, lots f reliance on effects.

The thing is that there are very few directors that could really do lotr justice, pj did not. But i dont think its pj's fault. If you want someone to blame then blame new line and the industry. Its the backers of the industry that lead the majories and easily lead to like star wars style films, rather than artistic films. Just the same with music, you could listen to jimi hendrix and be called a loser, or you can listen to the latest pop sensation and be one of 'the gang'.

Its good to see that people on this board dont seem to be persuaded by the media barrons as much as 95% of the population. I wrekon the reason for that is because we all can read and quite evidently have experienced and hence appreciated great literature in tolkiens work. By the education of analysing literature one learns to appreciate art from entertainment.

Make the choice, would you like a nice juicy mango to eat or a sugarry artificial mars bar?

The mars tastes nice, but the fruit is naturally tasty and refreshing. After a while the man made artificial things get very boring.
 
Posted by Thalion (Citizen # 4172) on :
 
*goes off to eat a mango*

[ 03-07-2004, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Thalion ]
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
Amen Turgon, LOTR was Hollywood's version of "Supersizing" junky cheeseburgers and greasy fries and now even McDonalds knows it is bad for people's health.

[ 03-07-2004, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: Snaga ]
 
Posted by Mad Uncle Rupert (Citizen # 1148) on :
 
Is that why they stopped selling them?
 
Posted by Legolass (Citizen # 4073) on :
 
quote:
And I especially just lastly want to thank our wonderful cast who just got their tongues around this this rather awkward text and made it come to life with such emotion and passion and heart.
Isn't it just possible that he was referring to the text THEY wrote, which he realises is rather awkward because of the changes they had to make?
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
quote:
Somehow, I don't think the text he's talking about is his awkward screenplay since it just won a damn Oscar.
This is my opinion on that until I hear a quote from PJ himself.
 
Posted by Thalion (Citizen # 4172) on :
 
Ok, this is one of the biggest annoyances from the film. Weta did a good job, the best of them all, in my opinion. But I wanted to strangle who ever created the derndingle, the place for an entmoot.
From the book
quote:
The hobbits saw that they were descending into a great dingle, almost as round as a bowl, very wide and deep, crowned at the rim with the high dark evergreen hedge....and there were no trees except three very tall and beautiful silver-birches that stood at the bottem of the bowl. Two other paths led down into the dingle: from the west and from the east.
In the movie it was a little clearing of grass, with some weird stone in it. I really wanted to scream when I saw that.

[ 03-13-2004, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: Thalion ]
 
Posted by Thangail (Citizen # 1292) on :
 
i still cannot formulate my severe and bitter disapointment at these films, especially RotK.. I REFUSE to buy them AT ALL. BURN them maybe, BUY them; never.
One thing to say.
Army of the Dead? Pelennor Fields?
WHY!? [] [] [] [] []
 
Posted by Sword Maiden (Citizen # 4384) on :
 
I'm sorry if I repeat things, but this is a long thread, and I'm new.

I quite liked FOTR, loved most of TTT, and was actually seriously bored during much of ROTK.

The things that annoyed me most of all were the Osgiliath sequence in TTT, and Frodo sending Sam home in ROTK. They were so unnecessary, when so much good material was omitted. (Saruman besieged in Orthanc, the Houses of Healing, the Scouring, particularly.)

There were small additions that I loved, but this isn't the place for them I know. So I won't.

[ 03-19-2004, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Sword Maiden ]
 
Posted by Turgon of Gondolin (Citizen # 3150) on :
 
Who cares now, the films are over, theyve collectively won an oscar that has been given to them in the name of rotk.

I dont particularly care though, i think hollywood is a pile of crap nowdays to be honest. With the war on terror the way it is, with al queda and other terrorist networks tring to cause fear, terrorize and destroy the west i dont see how 'the oscars' are important at all.

I hardly go to the cinema now, id rather see a good low budget well directed film like 'city of god' than any hollywood digital glizty false looking airbrushed piece of marketing.

I cant see what all the fuss is about anyway, the standard of films today is crap, a film only needs good publicity to be a success, buy the press, manipulate the sheepish public and you got yourself '500 million dollars worth of bums on seats'.

Im much more interested in the folks working on capturing bin laden, they are the heroes, they are the real turin's, hurin's, tuor's, beren's, aragorn's, of our day, we should pay them the same as what these hollywood actors get paid.

Most actors or current hollywood figures eg micheal moore are bleeding heart liberal sheep, who live in their multiple million dollar new york appartments, enjoying the finest champagne, smoking the finest cuban cigars, buying flash sports cars and burning money in vegas, yet they preach liberal views?

Talk about hypocracy.

I call for an end to this thread because its not worth even worrying your mind over the stupid films. Spare a thought for the victims of terror and the people trying to fight it, they are important, not people that get paid millions to act out what our soldiers do in real life, but behind the safety of the screen.
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
You make some great points but those heroes are fighting and dying so that we can carry on our inane little discussions about movies here at home. Appreciate them by all means but when we let those they're fighting against disrupt our lifestyle, it's a victory for the terrorists.

Your point is taken, though, about the junk spewed out by Hollywood and the hypocrisy of their wealthy elite activists.
 
Posted by Legolass (Citizen # 4073) on :
 
A bit late, but ...

quote:
One of the things that really annoys me more than anthing though is the fact that so many people that have read the books, and are perfectly aware of the fact the movie is blasphemy to the books , but still love it.
Maybe it's just that they don't see it as blasphemy; you do.


quote:
E-very glad the Purist rage thread is longer than the "other" thread.
Really? This thread is longer than the "other" thread only because there are already many, many "other" threads devoted to appreciation of the movies. They are - collectively - the "other" thread, a very loooooong "other" thread.

quote:

One thing I have just come to accept though, never underestimate stupid people in large groups.

It's sure humbling to know that this remark can go in either direction.

[ 03-23-2004, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Legolass ]
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
Legolass, I think you might be in the wrong thread. This thread is for bashing the movies not for defending them and bashing the purists.
[]
 
Posted by Legolass (Citizen # 4073) on :
 
I was well aware of which thread I was in when I wrote that. I have been following this thread for some time because there are aspects of the movie I feel unhappy about as well. And while I may not agree with all that's said in this thread, I have kept pretty quiet about the movie bashing itself. But I felt that this remark was really uncalled for:

never underestimate stupid people in large groups.

I just don't think anyone in this thread or any other has the right to express such disrespect for people who have different opinions.

So, I am not bashing the 'purists' themselves - but I am 'bashing' that remark, and it irked me so much that I couldn't help reacting against the accompanying views in that message - views that I have kept quiet about all this while.

I can respect 'purist' views, but only insofar as they are just about the movies. Opponents and supporters of the movies are free to disagree on the MOVIES, but neither group is above the other, hence my reminder that such remarks apply both ways.

Well, I've said my piece - which I think some will consider to be demonstrative of what a 'large group of stupid people' may say.
 
Posted by Thalion (Citizen # 4172) on :
 
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One thing I have just come to accept though, never underestimate stupid people in large groups.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's sure humbling to know that this remark can go in either direction.

Ahh, but we are the smaller group [] , and I was not refering to people like you, but most of the masses just liked this film cause, "ummm, it was really cool." Most of soceity does not want a great plot, and they don't want deep messages, they are only going to LOTR because A. it got great reviews, or B. they just want to see the battles. I apologise if I upset you, but it is one of my more common phrases so didn't think twice about posting it.

E- []
quote:
Maybe it's just that they don't see it as blasphemy; you do.
I was speaking to those who will admit that they messed up the films but still say they love to see the book brought to the screen, I am not sure and doubt it happens here, but my bother is of that mind set, and it drives me crazy. []

E2-
quote:
Really? This thread is longer than the "other" thread only because there are already many, many "other" threads devoted to appreciation of the movies. They are - collectively - the "other" thread, a very loooooong "other" thread.
That may be true, but there are also many threads questioning the films, and in both threads the same people post many times. And besides all of that, 17 pages to five?

[ 05-19-2004, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: Thalion ]
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
quote:
never underestimate stupid people in large groups.
I just don't think anyone in this thread or any other has the right to express such disrespect for people who have different opinions.

RIght, it is just a movie, its not like large groups of people are driving gas guzzling SUVs while the countries with oil hate us for our greed, or it's not like large groups of people believe Sadam was involved with 9/11 or had weapons of mass destruction... No, large groups of people could never be criticized for being mindless, selfish, uninformed lemmings.
 
Posted by Ellanor (Citizen # 1515) on :
 
**I blame Phillipa Boyans**

Don't forget to blame JRR Tolkien too since he's the one who sold the film rights. []
 
Posted by Sinsemilla (Citizen # 4470) on :
 
I think the first and foremost item that sticks out is the reversed character portrayals. Frodo who in the book Sam describes as infinitely wise, is a naive totally oblivious fool to gollums deceptions. Then we have King Theoden who in the book was a lot older, somewhere around 60 I think, and he was willing even at his age to ride out and lead his men to defend his lands. In the movie we have a coward in his mid 40s who would not dare "risk open war". Then we have Faramir which is the most agrivating to me, who is now very little wiser than his brother and almost falls into the trap. When we meet Faramir in the book he is a very wise and a noble man. He learns of the ring and knows that it was a horrible thing for Boromir to come in contact with it because of his pride and desire for his own glory. In the movie we have him bring Frodo, Sam, and Gollum to Osgiliath, nearly have it taken by the Nazgul and totally twisting the storyline.

Whitegoldweilder I know exactly what you mean about that lady from the TTT EE apendicies. I can just see right through her. We all know that Peter Jackson loves Tolkiens works and something tells me if not for her the movies would be closer to the books. The character changes created too much extra drama and put emotion in the totally wrong places.

The special effects were great, everything looked real enough to beleive, but the lighting was awful. Throughout all 3 movies the lighting was terrible. During night scenes it looked simply like it was a movie. In middle earth there was no light pollution from anything there weren't any cities or technology so night time should be pitch black. Obviously you can't make it quite like that but i mean god don't make it look like you are on a movie set with a big floodlight pouring down on the scene. For instance when the ringwraiths are approaching Amon Sul everything was perfectly clear even though they were dressed in all black and it was the middle of the night. During the day time it was like there was a sun, but you barely ever see any shadows, it's like the sun penetrated everything.

9 hours was definitely not enough to make the movie appear to cover the same time period as it did in the book. From being in the shire during FOTR to when the ring went into mount doom, it seemed to be that no more than 2 months had passed. In reality it was more like 7 months and they traveled close to 2000 miles. It would have been better to leave out all the extra drama and false character traits and concentrate on keeping a narrative type perspective. I dunno, those are only some of the things, there are many more, but that's all I could think of right now.
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
I agree that the lighting could've been better. But that is the sort of realism that was not important to the filmmakers. They had other priorities. []

On the Phillipa subject, she supposedly was the champion of keeping the scripts faithful to the books. Considering how bad she was, that must mean that PJ and Fran must have known jack squat. I know PJ said he was a fan, but I think they were all the kind of fans that can't remember big chunks of the story because they've only read it twice (with Phillipa reading it three times).

I believe she did most of the lines that come right out of the book. She was also in charge of those lines that are out of the book but spoken by a different character or in a different context. So thanks Phillipa for tossing us a scrap of bread that turns out to be moldy. []
 
Posted by Thorin (Citizen # 816) on :
 
Who was that genius on the TTT DVD saying that Rivendell was attacked during the War of the Ring? Was that Phillipa?
 
Posted by Sinsemilla (Citizen # 4470) on :
 
Ah yes Whitegoldweilder I think the line that stands out the most is Wormtongue takes Gandalfs line from the house of healing, "Who knows what she spoke to the darkness in the bitter watches of the night...".
That one I think they even talked about in the appendicies, there is no justification in that. I am hoping that they put the houses of healing in the ROTK EE DVD, that's an extremely important part. And also Aragorn wouldn't enter the city right away, however in the movie they are all making their plan for storming the Black Gate in the throne room I beleive.
 
Posted by Hidalgo (Citizen # 1083) on :
 
Aragorn did enter Minas Tirith. He went to the Houses of healing, where he saved Merry, Eowyn, and Faramir from death.
 
Posted by Anorgil (Citizen # 4494) on :
 
I suppose I can do my rant here?

One thing that bothered me about the TT Extended Edition was... well, the reversal of characters, as has already been mentioned. Denethor wanted Boromir to go to Rivendell, and Boromir didn't... That was exactly the opposite of what happened in the book.

I also wished that they had portrayed Faramir as the Wizard's Pupil, like the book did... Perhaps Faramir should have been with Gandalf in the library of Minas Tirith in the first movie.

Oh, and one more thing. Perhaps it is anticlimactic to finish Saruman off at the end of the Two Towers, but it's even more anticlimactic to just LEAVE him there! I didn't buy that explanation at all... and I've been looking forward to Gandalf saying 'Saruman, your staff is broken' ever since their fight in the first movie...
 
Posted by Sinsemilla (Citizen # 4470) on :
 
I'm in the process of re-reading the book for the 3rd time now and picking out all the things that really bother me about the movies.


Frodo was not blind nor ignorant to gollum's underlieing evil. I recall Sam saying something to the effect of Master Frodo being infinitely wise.

- Why would you have Frodo tell Sam to turn around and go home when they are more than halfway to the top of Cirith Ungol? There is just no reason for that. I wonder what idiot thought of that.

- Whoever decided to change Faramirs role so much should be taken out back and shot. Throughout the whole trilogy they seemed to want to give you the idea that men are all weak minded fools.

- Aragorn should have had Anduril, the sword reforged, from the time they set out from Rivendell. I see no reason why they should have waited until the 3rd film and have Elrond bring it to him.

- Gandalf's sword Glamdring should have glowed, just like sting.

- For god sake where is the price of Dol Amoroth and his men, there is just no reason to leave that out.

I can't think of anything else at the moment, but I'm sure I will. Obviously all of you know these things and it has all been said before, but I just needed to get it all out. As I read on I just keep getting more and more agrivated at the changes they made, which I can see no good reason for.
 
Posted by Elfstone (Citizen # 4385) on :
 
I wish they would've had the Dunedain and the sons of Elrond. If I saw that I could die a happy man.
 
Posted by TulkasOfArda (Citizen # 4539) on :
 
I can hardly believe that I've found people who are as upset with this movie as I am, given how much everyone seems to rave about how "great" it was!
I just don't get it-- the notion that "you can still enjoy the movie" would be like enjoying "The Passion of Christ" if Jesus was played by Carrot-top!

"Oooh, I'm a born-again Christian, but I'm still open-minded enough to enjoy a movie where Jesus is a freaky-haired prop-comic."

(Lucky it wasn't "Schindler's List.........")

Perhaps these Xena-lovers have such limited imaginations that this Die-Hard wanna-be flick exceeds their wildest visions from the book, but I for one am not only un-impressed, but un-NERVED by the mediocrity which insults Tolkien's majesty-- and I'm not just saying that to me nice to Peter Jackson; friends, Ardans, Tolkien-lovers, lend me your eyes; I am not here to praise Peter, but to DESTROY him!


I for one could not BELIEVE how much these kiwi-freaks distorted just about EVERYTHING from the story, and it was obvious that this was made in the same country and people where they make "Xena" while the book was written in the country where they made "Excalibur" and other classic films that have quality and respect for the original story.

I mean here was a movie that preserved values of courage, innocence, chivalry, valor, bravery-- all that is good, and turned it into a lame clip-show potpourri of various prior movies, ranging from "Platoon" to "The Flintstones."
I think the worst part was how PJ stripped the story of its dignity with their lame attempts at sarcastic humor combined with stupid political correctness, as New Zealanders seem to think passes for quality.

Seriously, what do these kiwi fruits know about British folklore, culture and history-- as well as the education necessary to understand it while they can barely even speak the language?
Even J.K. Rowling, a British commoner, was able to absorb enough of the culture to write books and movies far superior to this kiwi fantasy (ala "spaghetti western)-- but then again those movies were made in Europe by BRITISH film-maker, while likewise everything in the movies LOOKED like in the books, being very careful to match characters.
Meanwhile most of the LoTR characters looked and acted nothing like in the book, being cheap action-movie rip-offs of the book-characters, while the scenery virtually screamed "NOT EUROPE!"
I had to wonder if they were reading the same books I was, since they either got everything wrong, or they just didn't care-- or thought they knew the story better than the man who invented it!

Finally, the appearance of the movie looked much smaller and more primitive than described in the book; even Excaliber, which was set in the 5th century, looked more advanced, while LoTR was set in a post-Apocalyptic mythological civilization, far greater than Greece or Rome.
Let's compare the story with the movie point-by-point:

Story: Classic English fantasy tale + Greek epic adventure + war-movie with great character interaction and poetry.
Movie: Medieval-set B-action movie with bad sarcasm and a cheap plot, but a few good special effects (emphasis on "few;") manic-depressive version of "The Wizard of Oz" set on a much smaller scale than the book.

Story Middle-Earth: Ancient Europe.
Movie Middle Earth: Modern New Zealand.

Story Frodo: Most respectable Hobbit in the Shire: stout little fellow with red cheeks, taller than some, fairer than most, perky chap with a bright eye.
Movie Frodo: Stoned, depressed anorexic.

Story Sam: Working-class country hobbit, strong and sturdy, slow but shrewd, fiercely loyal and humble, but appears slow and stupid. Chief investigator for the Hobbiton Conspiracy.
Movie Sam: See "Story Frodo," but perpetually glum; simply nosey.

Story Pippin Took: Heir to the Thain of the Shire, oldest and richest family among the hobbits; carefree adventurer and member of the Hobbiton Conspiracy.
Movie Pippin: Village idiot and bum; mostly comic-relief.

Story Merry: Heir to the Mastership of Buckland and even greater adventurer than Pippin, co-founding member of the Hobbiton Conspiracy.
Movie Merry: Village idiot's side-kick.

Story Treebeard: Most ancient and wise, leader of man-like creatures who slightly resemble trees, having great strength that can break stone, rend earth and crush armies; but also a very kind heart.
Movie Treebeard: Ignorant and selfish, tree-like creatures who slightly resemble men, but who can roll a few boulders into a flimsy dam.

Story Isengard: Great stronghold over a mile wide, surrounding the tower of Orthanc with great walls of stone near the river Isen.
Movie Isengard: Smaller-scale version of the book-Isengard in front of a handy dam that, when broken, will destroy the entire area.

Story Boromir: Capain-General of Gondor, Tall, fair of face, proud and stern of glance, more beautiful in death even than in life; great warrior with marvellous strength. Loves and protects his brother, father and country above all else, and finds the return of Aragorn to be a blessing beyond hope. Tragic hero who falls to temptation but redeems himself by sacrificing his life in fighting hundreds and slaying dozens.
Movie Boromir: Fat, dirty and ugly, falls to a single bowman; detests Aragorn, and only accepts him through insistance of actor Sean Bean. Just plain tragic.

Story Denethor: Numenor's greatest steward, tall, wise and beautiful; has the strength of mind to match wills with Sauron via the Palantir, but is driven to despair over great loss and the lies of Sauron.
Movie Denethor: Suicidal dotard and fool.

Story Mordor: land of shadow, filled with innumerable armies and choked with ash; can darken the skies for hundreds of miles at Sauron's word; crossed by Frodo in two weeks.
Movie Mordor: considerably smaller, can be crossed in a day.

Story Sauron: His skin is black and burning hot, hideous to look upon, four fingers on his left hand; his symbol is a lidless red eye. If he gets the Ring back, he will become so powerful that the world will fall under his evil sway.
Movie Sauron: A lidless red eye. If he gets the ring back? Boromir asks this question but it's never answered.

Story Meduseld: Great golden hall, home of King Theoden, but mocked by Saruman as "a thatched barn where brigands drink in the reek."
Movie Meduseld: A thatched barn where brigands drink in the reek-- and don't even have their own drinking-songs, being amazed to learn them from silly hobbits.

Wormtongue: Agent of Saruman who learned the art of bewitchment and persuasion, posing as Theoden's consellor in order him into feeling helpless and hopless while Saruman prepares to attack.
Movie Wormtongue: Grease-paint covered worthless agent, since Theoden is possessed by Saruman and thus has no need for a such a mole.

Story Helm's deep: Great, well-defended ancient fortress of stonework that pleased a dwarf, located within the Deeping Coomb atop the Glittering Caves with room for hundreds.
Movie Helm's deep: Small, mined-out gravel quarry, apparently converted into a "fort" by some bored children.

Story Legolas: Son of the wood-elf king, old and wise, often light-hearted but displays a full range of emotions. Family-friend of Frodo, sent to warn Elrond of Gollum's escape.
Movie Legolas: Peter Pan on Ritalin, flying around with a knife with no expression; somehow knows all about Gondorian heritage, but never heard of Frodo or Gollum.

Gimli: proud dwarf of the Lonely Mountain who distrusts elves but changes entirely into great love for Galadriel; likewise family-friend of Frodo. Strong and tireless.
Gimli: Court-dwarf jester who never heard of Frodo, and detests elves to the bitter end; can barely keep up on long runs.

Story Fellowship of the Ring: Band of adventurers sent to represent the Free peoples of Middle-Earth, with most simply travelling home: kept small and excluding powerful warriors in order to avoid drawing attention while trusting largely to fate.
Movie Fellowship of the Ring: Lousy excuse of an expedition which gets royally pummelled.

Story Saruman: Powerful wizard with a magically persuasive voice who falls to pride and temptation and secretly joins the enemy while seeking the Ring for himself; addicted to pipe-weed, but hates hobbits; appears throughout the story.
Movie Saruman: Count Dooku on a bad-hair day with a "No Smoking" binge ,who gives everything away in the first scene then disappears from the plot.

Story Rhadagast: nature-loving cousin of Gandalf.
Movie Rhadagast: Moth.

Narsil: Carried by Aragorn until re-forged upon undertaking the quest to destroy the Ring and re-named "Anduril;" none can withstand it, and it can break a wall of shields as with a lightning-stroke.
Movie Narsil: Collection of scrap-metal on a wall Rivendell, no special properties other than charming The Pirates of the Carribean.

Story Gondor: Last of the ancient kingdoms of Middle Earth in the great White Mountains (think Swiss Alps) and the Great River.
Movie Gondor: The mountains of New Zealand

Minas Tirith: Huge, near-impregnable city-fortress set on a mountain-side with unbreakable walls and towers of white marble into which no enemy every entered, and the gate-way in which Gandalf faced down the evil Witch-king as he rode in with a flaming sword.
Movie Minas Tirith: Seven-layer birthday-cake placed in some quaint New Zealand mountains and which crumbles from a thrown rock, and into which enemies entered freely while Gandalf cowered in a closet.

Story Shadowfax: Great, fiery horse with the speed of light and hearty hi-yo silver-grey coat.
Movie Shadofax: Mr. Ed back from the glue-factory.

Story Aragorn: Exiled King, and great leader; hardiest man alive, very tall, long, curved nose, high proud cheekbones, skin like ivory, keen eyes in pale stern face and shaggy hair flecked with grey; world's greatest tracker. Even the dead rise to follow him into battle when he calls them. Is never tempted to use the Ring, and plans to accompany Frodo all the way to Mount Doom.
Movie Aragorn: Slobby, unwashed dork with a big nose who passes for questionable comic-relief when getting a sword stuck in his face by a woman, or being french-kissed by his horse; doubts his own ability to resist the Ring (can't blame him there) so much that he abandons Frodo right before the most dangerous part of the journey. Sex-starved sailors wouldn't follow this geek into a free brothel.

Story Gandalf: Great mysterious wizard, stale curmudgeon, and dear friend-- never late except once; quick temper, kind heart, hearty laugh, long nose and bushy eyebrows!
Movie Gandalf: Senile; arrives when he pleases, impassive-- only shows he's alive when he bumps his head like an idiot.

Story Elrond: Fair of face as an elven-lord, strong as a warrior, wise as a wizard, and as kind as summer, and wielder of the greatest of the three great Rings of power.
Movie Elrond: Think "Agent Smith" if he joined the Romulan Empire.

Story Rivendell: Enchanted hidden green valley filled with the High-Elves who live laughing and singing in the trees under the stars, and who dwell in great mansions.
Movie Rivendell: Over-filtered, barely seen landscape in the distant background consisting of a few Gothic-architechtures, and a brick-patio in the foreground, with a few cloned Elves that walk down dirt-paths like stoned models walking on a runway in slow-mo.

Story Shire: Bustling country Victorian-village home of the hobbits, who are quiet folk with hidden abilities and courage who rally to arms when provoked-- AWAKE! AWAKE! FEAR, FIRE, FOES, AWAKE!
Movie Shire: Green-hilled home stolen from the Teletubbies, but inhabited by helpless, cowardly midgets-- FEAR, FIRE, FOES-- FLEE!

Story Bree: Town outside the Shire, about 150 miles from Hobbiton of where friendly Men and Hobbits live together.
Movie Bree: Village next door to Hobbiton with gates that break easily and with no noise, and cowardly inkeepers who leave their doors open and hide when intruders enter despite a full house.

Story Shelob: Evil creature in spider-form, child of Ungoliant, terror of Cirith Ungol.
Movie Shelob: Overgrown house-pest.

Story orcs: twisted elves bred by Melkor in the First Age, immortal and cruel.
Movie Orcs: Uglier version of the green goblin-guards from "The Wizard of Oz" or ape-like beings from the movie "Predator."

Story Nazgul: Think "Nazi Ghoul," Sauron's most terrible servants of great kings and wizards under his command, clearly visible to Frodo in the book.
Movie Nazgul: Jawa-like things who fear water while going up like torches near fire.

Story Arwen: Guinevere + The Virgin Mary.
Movie Arwen: Xena + rock-groupie.

Story Bombadil: Old man of the forest, and most powerful being; marginally essential to the story but important to story-context.
Movie Bombadil: Closest thing to a short stout bearded old man, would be Peter Jackson caught in a blooper-shot.

Story Glorfindel: Elven-lord of a house of princes who died and dwelt in the Blessed realm where he continues to exist, and returned to Middle-Earth in the fight against Sauron; great immortal warior of the Vanyar who can ride openly against the nine, and against the seen and unseen he has great power.
Movie Glorfindel: See "Arwen--" we did in the movie!
------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't even gotten started..........
 
Posted by White Maiden (Citizen # 4389) on :
 
[] You have gone too far!
quote:
kiwi-freaks
quote:
PJ stripped the story of its dignity with their lame attempts at sarcastic humor combined with stupid political correctness, as New Zealanders seem to think passes for quality.

quote:
Seriously, what do these kiwi fruits know about British folklore, culture and history-- as well as the education necessary to understand it while they can barely even speak the language?
You should not insult my country and my people! I am an avid Tolkin fan, and believe me I am not what one would call happy about these films, but you go too far as to insult an entire country for one botched film.

Have you ever been to New Zealand? Seen it's rustic beauty and tiny townships? I love my country. I love the fact that when I look out my window I see not a sign human inhabitance, I love the fact that when I look out my window I can imagine Middle Earth (and this is before any film-makers had even mentioned a movie here) and I love the fact that every other New Zealander loves this country as much as I.
I will tell you that most New Zealander's would never speak so obnoxiosly and ignorantly as the way you have just done, and then you call us Kiwi fruit laking the education to speak properly.

Do not assume that I am ignorant, do not assume that I cannot understand the beauty of literature, and do not assume that you have the right to speak as you have just done.

Edit: now that I re-read my post it is clear I over-reacted, sorry Tulkas- it's just that I love my nation very much [] - It has its flaws of course (milking New Line Cinema's production was one of them) but still it stands, it is small, but proud []

[ 04-26-2004, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: White Maiden ]
 
Posted by Lúviel (Citizen # 4499) on :
 
Thank you so much for that post Tulkas. I would say that when it came to the films you were right on the money 99% of the time.

I too mourn the loss of wisdom and bravery that Frodo seems to have gone thru in the film and how can they have made Aragorn such a reluctant King? Removing Glorfindel was bad, but Elves at Helm's Deep? []

The film makers seemed determined to make every one of Professor Tolkien's character a cartoon, a shadow of what The Professor meant for them to be.

[ 04-23-2004, 01:37 AM: Message edited by: Lúviel ]
 
Posted by Anorgil (Citizen # 4494) on :
 
Clearly the directors wanted to make the humans more "human" than Tolkien portrayed them (with the exception of Denethor- it was bad enough to magnify his insanity, but they omitted the principal cause of his insanity in the book! Changes to Boromir and Faramir, I can accept after about 5 viewings and some additions in the extended versions; changes to Aragorn I can accept after... oh, 10 viewings. But I'll only accept the changes to Denethor if they do something serious in the extended edition of RotK... Adding the Palantir of Minas Tirith would be a good start. Maybe postponing his "I will not bow to this Ranger from the North" speech up to his pyre, where it belongs. Maybe omitting that scene where Gandalf beat him up, and instead having him order his men to "follow whom you will, even the Grey Fool whose hope has failed" or some such. Such a thing would reflect better on Gandalf, at least. And perhaps on Denethor as well, if done well.)

End second rant.
 
Posted by TulkasOfArda (Citizen # 4539) on :
 
quote:
You will not insult my country and my people! I am an avid Tolkin fan, and believe me I am not what one would call happy about these films, but you go too far as to insult an entire country for one botched film.
Who's talking about ONE botched film? Didn't I clearly mention XENA? Suppose "Gone with the Wind" was filmed in New York City by Quentin Tarentino, and featured Scarlette O'hara doing a "Kill Bill" on Abe Lincoln instead of David Carradine: I'd react the same way!
Same if they filmed "The Alamo" in France - and showed Davy Crockett surrendering immediately, played by Jerry Lewis because he's so popular there!
"Davy Crockett? I'm Sam Houston."
"Sal Winston?"
"No, SAM HOUSTON."
"SAP USE TIN?"

See the point?
quote:

Have you ever been to New Zealand? Seen it's rustic beauty and tiny townships? I love my country. I love the fact that when I look out my window I see not a sign human inhabitance, I love the fact that when I look out my window I can imagine Middle Earth (and this is before any film-makers had even mentioned a movie here) and I love the fact that every other New Zealander loves this country as much as I.

So you see Middle-Earth in New Zealand? In miniature, there might be a slight resemblance-- and that's just how it looks on screen-- Tolkien said that Middle Earth was ancient Europe, and that's where it should have been filmed. The whole scale of the movie was off, on everything in it-- from the characters to the landscapes to the buildings-- and not just the size, but the scale of wonder and majesty-- it just looked like "Xena" with a few special effects.
This wasn't the place that inspired and keeps the mythological fairy-tale world of folklore, it was a tourist attraction. If I bought a ticket to tour Europe, and the plane landed in New Zealand, I would be just as ticked off.
Looking a little bit like Europe doesn't make it Europe, or give the people the same cultural ancestry as England, where the author lived and was both a soldier and Oxford professor of languages. The movie "The Piano" was set in New Zealand, and that's where it was filmed-- appropriately.
When I mentioned the term "spaghetti western" I wasn't insulting Italy either: it's a term used to refer to a "western" set in the American west but filmed in Italy, when anyone who's been to the American West KNOWS that its majestic landscapes, mesas, mountains, cactuses and praries etc don't look a THING like the gentle sloping hills and vinyards of Italy. It just ruins the authenticity, like filming "Sir Lawrence of Arabia" at the North Pole. And THAT'S the Good, the Bad and the Ugly.
quote:
I will tell you that most New Zealander's would never speak so obnoxiosly and ignorantly as the way you have just done, and then you call us Kiwi fruit laking the education to speak properly.

I wsn't talking about EVERYONE, just those who made this abortion-- namely Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens (the latter two who must be be the real life-inspiration for Xena and her girlfriend). I've heard them talk, and they not only have no clue about English culture-- they can't even speak the LANGUAGE. They're not English-- they're not even WELSH. They just had no mental reference to work with-- it was Greek to them.

Maybe there ARE good film-makers in New Zealand who can match Stanley Kubrick or Cecil B. DeMille-- or even Chris Columbus or George Lucas-- but these hacks aren't them.
quote:

Do not assume that I am ignorant, do not assume that I cannot understand the beauty of literature, and do not assume that you have the right to speak as you have just done.

Really? As far as I know, New Zealand has never even HAD a king-- what would they know about royalty and kingdoms? In the case of Peter Jackson, very little.
And not only was the English context wrong, but they couldn't even READ English-- everything I wrote in my story:movie comparisons was VERBATIM from the books! How is it that PJ missed EVERY WORD? Did he think he knew better than the author, or is it simply that he can't read?
And yes I know the revisionist defense: "Film is different from text."
It certainly is-- as in WRONG.

But if you know all about English context, then of course you'll understand what I mean when I say that Peter Jackson really took Tolkien's story down the apples and pears for a James Arthur on John Thomas. He (and company) were simply babies playing with fire, and their delusions of gradeur about how "great" their movie would be, reminded me of Kevin Costner as "Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves," of which the movie-makers likewise bragged about how "accurate" it was!

Mel Brooks agreed-- and said "What's with this guy-- he's not English, he's from New Jersey!" That's why he spoofed it with "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" with Carey Elwes as Robin Hood.
Maybe he'll do the same and spoof this bomb- it couldn't hurt.

Prince John: "Why should the people of England follow you?"
Robin: "Because unlike some OTHER Robin Hoods, *I* can speak with an English accent."

G'doy Mite!

[ 04-24-2004, 02:50 AM: Message edited by: TulkasOfArda ]
 
Posted by TulkasOfArda (Citizen # 4539) on :
 
quote:
Clearly the directors wanted to make the humans more "human" than Tolkien portrayed them (with the exception of Denethor- it was bad enough to magnify his insanity, but they omitted the principal cause of his insanity in the book! Changes to Boromir and Faramir, I can accept after about 5 viewings and some additions in the extended versions; changes to Aragorn I can accept after... oh, 10 viewings. But I'll only accept the changes to Denethor if they do something serious in the extended edition of RotK... Adding the Palantir of Minas Tirith would be a good start. Maybe postponing his "I will not bow to this Ranger from the North" speech up to his pyre, where it belongs. Maybe omitting that scene where Gandalf beat him up, and instead having him order his men to "follow whom you will, even the Grey Fool whose hope has failed" or some such. Such a thing would reflect better on Gandalf, at least. And perhaps on Denethor as well, if done well.)

End second rant.

I don't see how more viewings could make it any more acceptable-- I only watched it ONCE to see how bad it was, and was willing to accept the last film for what it was-- until about halfway through when they started raping Denethor and showing Legolas slaying Oliphaunts like Fred Flinstone sliding down the dinosaur's neck etc.

What RIGHT did they have to make the characters more "human" or whatever else they felt like using such an excuse? Why not as well chip away at Michelanglo's David to make him man-sized? This is ART, not the bloody History Channel!
And when did the book EVER purport to be a documentary on real-life events? Truth is stranger than fiction, but this movie was a stranger to the book.
In fact, I think these characters were made SMALLER than life, so as to present an a laughable insult in comparison; even Aragorn was a scrawny, big-nosed runt fresh out of acting-school, compared to a very tall and hardy ranger. Meanwhile, the hobbits didn't look much like children or minature humans, they just regular under-sized humans (Elijah Wood and Sean Astin are about 5'2" tall and 120 lbs each) standing in holes etc. with a few brief, photo-tricks showing them side-by-side or in blurry one-second action-shots with full-sized people-- not convincing at all.
This pretty much matches the way they scaled down EVERYTHING, from the landscapes to the characters-- it didn't look legendary, it just looked PRIMITIVE.

And to keep context, why not make SAURON into a normal man while they're at it? After all, the book featured Gandalf leaping onto the pyre,lightly lifting Faramir, and leaping back down-- the movie shows him as so feeble that he has to have PIPPIN try to move a man four times his weight. Gandalf, the most powerful maiar in Middle Earth next to Sauron, reduced to a weak old geezer!
Sheesh-- they're not even consistent-- in the book, Sauron WAS in man-form, but they made him into a giant red eyeball as the beacon of a black lighthouse! However they DID manage to scale Barad-dur down from a "mountain of iron" which withstood a siege of seven years, to a lamp-post.....)
But before that, he was some type of giant, when the book clearly states that he came out of Barad-dur and wrestled with Elendil and Gil-Galad, who KILLED him! This doesn't seem likely with this behemoth-Sauron who was the size of King Kong (-- ah, THERE'S the rub!)
I just think there's some myopism going on where they got the context and scale all wrong-- or thought they knew better (they didn't).

Same goes with Legolas-- when did he become super-elf and lose his sense of humor? Did Tinker-bell sprinkle some magic flying-duston him in exchange for full copyright to his jokes? Last I read, he wasn't any better in battle than Gimli, who likewise was nobody's fool in the book.

I just hope PJ doesn't make "Silmarillion--" he'd probably cast Manwe as Ben Affleck in a toga, and Tulkas as a clumsy oaf.
My advice to PJ: If you can't do it, get someone who CAN-- and go back to making your cheap horror-flicks-- I hear Micheal J. Fox can use the work.
 
Posted by TulkasOfArda (Citizen # 4539) on :
 
quote:
Thank you so much for that post Tulkas. I would say that when it came to the films you were right on the money 99% of the time.

I too mourn the loss of wisdom and bravery that Frodo seems to have gone thru in the film and how can they have made Aragorn such a reluctant King? Removing Glorfindel was bad, but Elves at Helm's Deep?

The film makers seemed determined to make every one of Professor Tolkien's character a cartoon, a shadow of what The Professor meant for them to be.

Like I said-- they made "Excalibur" into "Xena."
Removing Glorfindel wasn't as bad as REPLACING him-- and with ARWEN? Didn't they realize that Arwen was the future queen, in whom all hope of salvation lay by being the only one who could restore the line of Numenor, and with it the hope of the world? (Why do you think Aragorn was so overjoyed at finding the white tree, instead of just going ahead with the wedding? As Gandalf said, it was a "sign" he was waiting for, that Arwen would not be barren- it WASN'T just about the two of them, as the "me" generation might have it!)
Likewise, didn't they bother mentioning WHY their engagement was so secret, i.e. that if Sauron simply knew about her, it would endanger her-- as well as everything? Wouldn't this make it even more stupidy for her to running out for the Nazgul, of all people, to see? (Of course if they were so stupid that they'd be so easily baited to walking right into an obvious trap.... as Maxwell Smart would say, "ah, the old 'elf-princess-on-the-horse, steal the hobbit and spring the magic river' trick! I knew it!")

And since when was Arwen ANY use against Nazgul, when even few SOLDIERS in Rivendell could ride openly against them-- and ONLY those who had dwelt in Valinor, and NONE on foot? (And then again, why did Frodo see her as a shining white figure, when she never dwelt in the blessed realm? And while we're at it, when is it necessary to give commands to a horse while you're riding it? I don't tell my dog to "go home" when I'm holding his leash and LEADING him there, like she did with Asfolath-- any fool would know this would only confuse the poor beast.)

But, I guess it's no surprise that one-dimensional thinking wouldn't consider long-range context....or ANY context; they just roll the cameras and crank out whatever interpretation their perverted little minds please, no matter how blasphemous-- or discontinous.

Also, I'd like to know how my accuracy is only 99%; I didn't even GET to Eowyn or Faramir:

Movie Faramir: wise steward like Gandalf, and patient tree-lover like Treebeard, would never harm a living thing without need; less hardy than Boromir, but is one whom no man of Rohan could outmatch in battle. Would never think of touching the Ring, even if he found it at the side of the road. Bereft of his mother at a young age, he loved Boromir dearly as friend and protector-- but knew him well, and that Boromir tried to take the ring.

Movie Faramir: Knew his brother a little TOO well, being even more ambitious and hasty than even movie-Boromir EVER was in trying to take the Ring.

Story Eowyn: Found by Faramir to be the most beautiful woman he'd ever seen in all the land; like Denethor, she is driven to despair by the poisoned speech of Wormtongue, and into going secretly into battle seeking only redemption through death, disguised as one of the young men of Rohan (who look a lot like women, as with Gamling the young) so that simply wearing a helmet makes it believable until the end, when even the undead witch-king finds her so cute that he can't smacker her (until she messes with his RIDE-- which makes sense, since if she messed with MY ride I'd break her arm too-- no matter HOW good she looked).

Movie Eowyn: That woman is a MAN baby, YEAH! The movie doesn't even BOTHER trying to hide her identity until the end, since it's so obvious-- and they're making a feminist statement anyway, as she rubs her gender in the witch-king's face AFTER she kills him (since otherwise he never would have known, even WITHOUT her wearing the helmet).

In addition to lessons in the definition of "patience" and "wisdom," movie-Faramir must need glasses as well, since this movie-Eowyn isn't much to look at; or maybe he likes her for her sunny disposition-- which she likewise has in the movie (unlike the book), laughing and silly, and having been cured of her depression by her chat with Wormtongue in the thatched barn called Meduseld (where she basically had the same conversation with him, verbatim, that Gandalf had with Aragorn in the book).
Obviously cast with a plain-looking woman, in order to avoid stealing Liv Tyler's thunder as a warrior-princess.
-------------------------------------------------
My main beef with the movie, however is not the inaccuracy and dumbing-down of the characters and plot, so much as the SARCASM-- there's a REASON that it's called "the lowest form of humor--" as well as the fact that the whole film comes off as incredibly pretentious, as if these characters and their sarcasms are smarter, hipper and cooler than everyone else (which just makes the rest look like even bigger morons).

One thing I always admired about Tolkien was his respect for all creatures great and small, in the basic Christian tradition that "whatsoever you do to the least of these, so you do unto me."
Likewise, he was a man who respected complexity, and not simple one-dimensional black-and-white thinking.
Now compare this to PJ & company, who see all of Middle Earth as a "dunk the clown" exhibit, taking pot-shots at everyone, and where basically every character is made into comic relief in some way (Except the Elves, who become manic-depressives, i.e. superhuman in one moment, depressed the next) or Sauron (who is just the Evil Eye, plain and simple).
I can't begin to list how many levels and planes where this goes wrong.... it's clear they just had no clue.

[ 04-24-2004, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: TulkasOfArda ]
 
Posted by White Maiden (Citizen # 4389) on :
 
[] Tulkas did you not read the edit at the bottom of my post?
But I have to admit I am relieved when you say that you were not talking about the whole of N.Z- just, rather P.J, P.B and F.W (which is O.K by me). Please Tulkas, don't just label them as New Zealanders- it makes my pride drop a couple of notches []
 
Posted by TulkasOfArda (Citizen # 4539) on :
 
Yes I read the edit, but I wanted to address your points, since I didn't want to make it look like I was impuning a whole country; Eru Illuvatar only knows how badly that many AMERICAN films have distorted various tales in similar manner-- "Titanic" comes most recently to mind as particularly disgraceful work of necrophilia (i.e. raping the deceased-- although I do have to say that at least the ship LOOKED like the Titanic, even if I can't say the same for the people ON it).

I don't mind poetic license if it better makes the point; I didn't even mind Mel Gibson's liberties taken with his portrayal of the life and death of my ancient relative William Wallace in "Braveheart." However, there's a vast difference between embellishment on history, and raping a work of art; also, "Braveheart" stated at the outset that the film was different from history. Finally, Braveheart got Scotland liberated from Great Britain in 1997-- so I think Wallace would be happy with the outcome, and what's ok with him is ok with me.

In addition to "Xena," PJ's LOTR actually reminded me a lot of "Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves" with regard to both inaccuracy and irreverance, this time by YANKEE butchers of English history and literature; I remember Kevin Costner and Morgan Freeman likewise sitting on a catapult in order to effect the world's first storming of a castle by means of manned aerial assault, as well as "Robin of Jersey" getting treated to a sword in his face by a shieldmaiden, much like you-know-who.

In addition, "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer" comes to mind as a taste-level parallel to "Arwen the Wraith-flusher;" which is fitting since this movie was so full of that ...... so-on and so-forth, to the point where we see the flood in the Fords of Bruinen most likely resulting from equally well-cast New Zealander Kevin Sorbo (i.e. not a THING like the story-version) turning them in his "Herculean" (pun intended) task to clean out the "mythical stables" of this movie (although I doubt even 2000 years of Oympian oxen would accumulate THIS level of bull).
After all, why else do you think Treebeard failed to later turn the river Isen, as he did in the book, if not clearly to avoid repetition on a prior theme?

Finally, Christopher Tolkien even hated this SCRIPT-- let alone the movie-- so much, that he's no longer even on speaking terms with his nephew (?) who approved it for New Line-- and we all know that Christopher Tolkien is as close to the real-life Frodo as there, is in terms of being Bilbo's heir and finishing the "Red Book" (i.e. Tolkien's "The Silimarillion") etc.

So we see that "Braveheart" would have loved his respective portrayal, while Frodo hated HIS-- so what more, as a simple observer, can I say in evidence about which one stunk?

[ 04-24-2004, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: TulkasOfArda ]
 
Posted by Elfstone (Citizen # 4385) on :
 
Dude I know you are new but you should know that if you post nothing in a post you'll get flamed. Badly. Very badly.


P.S. I will say this once and only once STAY AWAY FROM ZENITH AND MITH UNTIL YOU ARE A RESPECTED AND WELL KNOWN CITIZEN!!

[ 04-24-2004, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: Elfstone ]
 
Posted by The Laurenendôrian (Citizen # 106) on :
 
quote:
Dude I know you are new but you should know that if you post nothing in a post you'll get flamed. Badly. Very badly.
Why?
 
Posted by Hidalgo (Citizen # 1083) on :
 
quote:
Dude I know you are new
Said by citizen 4385, who only joined 2 months ago. Be more respectful to your fellow newbies, and advise him instead of threaten him.
 
Posted by Ellanor (Citizen # 1515) on :
 
>>Christopher Tolkien even hated this SCRIPT-- let alone the movie-- so much, that he's no longer even on speaking terms with his nephew (?) who approved it for New Line-- and we all know that Christopher Tolkien is as close to the real-life Frodo as there<<

And, I can imagine that it was Christopher's love for Lord of the Rings that compelled his father, JRR Tolkien to sell the film rights to The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings . . and not bother to retain artistic control for himself or his estate. Now, why would JRR do that? Hmmmm . . []
 
Posted by Elfstone (Citizen # 4385) on :
 
I was not threatening him/her I was more of advising him to stay away from our two newbie snipers which is something I wish someone had told me to do. As for the part with the post with nothing on it I was advising them to not do that because that just atracts Mith and Zenith.

[ 04-24-2004, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Elfstone ]
 
Posted by TulkasOfArda (Citizen # 4539) on :
 
quote:
And, I can imagine that it was Christopher's love for Lord of the Rings that compelled his father, JRR Tolkien to sell the film rights to The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings . . and not bother to retain artistic control for himself or his estate. Now, why would JRR do that? Hmmmm . .
I heard something to the effect that it was after he died, and the rights were somehow sold to Ralph Bakshi in 1978 or so; after this they were bought by New Line, I'm not sure of the details-- but Arwen rescuing Frodo? He's been turning over in his grave on that one, and he had turned down better scripts than New Line's.
In any event, Chris made it clear that he VERY strongly disapproved of this stink-bomb.
 
Posted by TulkasOfArda (Citizen # 4539) on :
 
Written by Archer:

quote:
Tolkien may indeed have liked to consider his works mythologies with various valid interpretions, but you will never convince me that he would have accepted this Hollywood glam-fx-pop-culture low-brow-joke-laden dumbed-down commercialized overly-processed chewed-and-digested bit of rubbish as telling a further mythic version of his own scholarly works. I think he may have thought in his own mind that other scholars might have in some far day enhanced his ideas when he referred to them as mythologies.
True-- and I QUOTE:

quote:

"Halflings!" laughed the Rider that stood beside Eomer. "Halflings! But they are only a little people in old songs and children's tales out of the North. Do we walk in legends or on the green earth in the daylight?"
"A man may do both," said Aragorn. "For not we but those who come after will make the legends of our time. The green earth, say you? That is a mighty matter of legend, though you tread it under the light of day!"

--The Two Towers, "The Riders of Rohan"

quote:

What he got instead was a cheeky, uninformed "splatter movie" king who doesn't know mythos from mockery. These films are NOT what Tolkien would have accepted as furthering his mythologies. If this were the case, he would have been just ducky with the Zimmerman script which also gave a "variation" of his myths. In fact, he hated it, and for committing many of the same kinds of travesties that the PJ films do.

Actually I think PJ committed far MORE; Zimmerman never replaced Glorfindel with Arwen, or made Legolas into Uma Thurman from "Kill Bill--" remember, this was before every female movie-producer wanted to "grow one," while stepping on MALE director-producers who LOST theirs!

[ 05-01-2004, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: TulkasOfArda ]
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
Great book to film example - House of Sand and Fog. Sure, no elfs, wars..., but it can be done with talent and brains and also a little cutlure and class.
 
Posted by TulkasOfArda (Citizen # 4539) on :
 
And since this movie had all but FOUR of these qualities, they simply justified everything with the same catch-all phrase "it wouldn't work in a movie--" which REALLY means that the story just wasn't whacky, zany, simple, or "politically correct" enough for their shallow comprehensions and snide arrogance.
As Gimli said to Eomer, "you speak evil of that which is far beyond your reckoning, and only little wit can excuse you." (Which also is like someone else said, "cast not your pearls before swine."

Rather, this movie pretty much resembles just about every Disney flick since "Peter Pan" which made a famous story into a dumb cartoon that not only drops the ball, but misses the point entirely-- every symbolism, every metaphor, every plot and character-point etc- and in a snide, crass manner and animation-style which completely lost the original human-like character which originally made the Disney characters so famously likeable.

Seriously, WHEN did PJ or ANY of these screen-hacker's guild pimps ever produce or direct Shakespeare, war-drama, or great works of fiction, or anything else even CLOSE to being "classic" in nature?
Last I checked, Peter Jackson only made cheap horror-flicks and other lame movies like "The Frighteners," an incredibly lame stupid movie featuring Micheal J. Fox acting his typical one-note "mosquito" impression, buzzing around dodging some really badly-animated Grim Reapers (which looked curiously like his Nazgul).
My guess is that New Line wanted someone who would work cheap, since they were looking to cash in on the movie name and plot.

I read a report that said "Arwen's character was originally passive, but with two of the three writers being women, that the character couldn't stay unchanged."

Excuse me? Where the hell do they get the NERVE to go changing crap just because it offends their 21st century feminist sensibilities?
So far, I really don't see this movie being considered a "classic" by anyone-- and with good reason: imagine if The Wizard of Oz, Gone With the Wind, or any other classic novel contained this cheap treatment.
The problem today is that producers either try to sell out by pandering to low-grade mentality which they believe is popular today, ala "Titanic," or else they have such swollen heads that they believe they can do no wrong.
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
(Note: This was originally posted by TulkasOfArda in the Movie-phile thread, but had to be relocated here due to the thread rules. - WGW)

WGW this may be off-thread, but the challenge has been issued.
quote:
It's a petty thing to be fussing about.
Here we have a movie version of one of the greatest books ever and instead of being grateful for every scene that was done right, there are all these people that just snort at the things that were "passable", as if the producers were working for them, and as soon as something didn't play the way these people expected,

Because it IS the one of the greatest books ever! As such, the producers had an ethical responsibility to do it justice-- did it ever occur to anyone that those who have read and understand, and even-- dare one say it-- love the books well, might thus see a legitimate discrepancy that others don't-- and which renders the version completely unworkable, if not at odds to the story's context?

Or does one just assume that one is always right, and so imagine that everyone who disagrees must be wrong, no matter what the facts-- which are simply rationalized as "nit-picking?"

It's a fact that no one on this production team had any experience or talent in working with this genre-- let alone with classics-- and thus it seems that they were simply in far over their heads, and so reverted to form by making the only type of film they knew how, i.e. cheap horror-flicks.

For this reason, what you call "one of the best books ever" came off as goofy and 2-dimensional-- like any cartoon, and was so formulaic and sensationalist as to become comparable to any recent Disney movie about a famous story, i.e. dumbed down for the kiddies, silly, frivelous, and dripping with modern-day cynicism, political correctness and hostility toward traditional values.

Again, there's a difference between missing key points and "nit-picking;" this isn't a "checklist" about what they got right vs. what they got wrong, but how they respected the underlying message.
To quote C.S. Lewis,

quote:
"No imaginary world has been projected which is at once so multifarious and so true, here are beauties which pierce like swords or burn like cold iron. This book is too opulent for any final judgment on a first reading."
However the movie not only looks like a first reading, but in fact looks at many points like the makers skipped quite a bit, and simply filled it in by watching "Xena" etc.-- with which they have much more involvement than anything even resembling Tolkien's literature.

As Gimli says to Eomer (despite being out-numbered), "you speak evil of that which is fair beyond the reach of your thought, and only little wit can excuse you;" that seems written specifically for New Line in their charicatured presentation of this story.

Likewise as Aragorn states in his defense, "when you know more, you will understand why you have angered my companions."

As such, it seems some have yet to learn gentle speech-- and if not, then Gimli must go for his axe -- unless one likewise finds something which is indeed of equal, if different, beauty. As such, a tasteful transformation would be laudable, if it flattered the original rather than exploited it.
However to compare Tolkien's work to this modern-day revision without preservation of the foundational context, is nothing less than an insult-- and as such, the random preservation of any details only deepened the mockery-- and even a broken clock gets it right twice a day.

So there's no "nit-picking" here, only truth; if one wants to make "Xena," they should make Xena; likewise for "Kill Bill," "The Frighteners" or whatever else they like. However when producers begin crossing the boundaries of their ability, and begin calling their work something that it isn't, then they have committed an injustice to both the artist and the audience.
And that's about all that one who approves of courtesy to a certain author, can say about it.
 
Posted by Éomer (Citizen # 2824) on :
 
These are the worst adaptations ever! Like in the one scene during the travel to Helm's Deep when Éowyn offered Aragorn soup and she found out he was a Dúnadan Aragorn said he was 87, but by that point in the story he was actually 88! [] [] []
 
Posted by Anorgil (Citizen # 4494) on :
 
Let's see. That makes it THREE times in the extended edition of TTT where the numbers were one off...

Edit: And counting...

[ 05-10-2004, 03:18 AM: Message edited by: Anorgil ]
 
Posted by Éomer (Citizen # 2824) on :
 
Completely unforgivable!
 
Posted by Just Chris (Citizen # 1701) on :
 
quote:
These are the worst adaptations ever! Like in the one scene during the travel to Helm's Deep when Éowyn offered Aragorn soup and she found out he was a Dúnadan Aragorn said he was 87, but by that point in the story he was actually 88!
Dear God! NO!!!! Because that has such weight on the story! Oh god PJ you BASTARD YOU BAAAAASSSSTARD!
 
Posted by Éomer (Citizen # 2824) on :
 
[]
 
Posted by TulkasOfArda (Citizen # 4539) on :
 
Looks like kindergarten let out early today......

[ 05-10-2004, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: TulkasOfArda ]
 
Posted by Éomer (Citizen # 2824) on :
 
Who are you calling a Buffy-freak?

Actually I'm pretty displeased with a lot of the films, too. But I enjoy poking fun at the nitpickers who take all of this so seriously. []

E: I preferred your first post. Calling me a kindergartener is giving me far too much credit. []

[ 05-10-2004, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: Éomer ]
 
Posted by TulkasOfArda (Citizen # 4539) on :
 
quote:
Who are you calling a Buffy-freak?
No one-- there's no need, they identify themselves quite nicely:
quote:
Buffy the Vampire Slayer: 7 Seasons, 144 Episodes, 6018 minutes, 361018 Seconds. BEST. SHOW. EVER.

Also I never pick nits, but merely take issue with gross liberties; if that's wrong, I don't want to be right.

---------------------------
Coming soon to a cheap theater near you!

 -

Be afraid... be VERY afraid.

[ 05-17-2004, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: TulkasOfArda ]
 
Posted by Leire (Citizen # 1770) on :
 
Allow me to interject one comment: the Movie Phile thread seems to have 5 or 6 pages while the Purist Rage thread has nearly 20. This may only mean that the purists are much more vocal than the movie philes . . . or it could mean that an impassioned young female can't drool after Orlando Bloom for more than 5 pages. []

[]
 
Posted by Barufiniel (Citizen # 4097) on :
 
Or simply that MTers are more vocal when they are angry about something than when they are pleased with something.

I think the political/religious debates in the Pony support my view.

As for drooling after Orlando Bloom: That is done in a separate thread (with other drooling-objects included). I don't know how many pages it's got altogether, but THREAD number 6 has reached 5 pages now.
 
Posted by TulkasOfArda (Citizen # 4539) on :
 
Or there's more to be angry ABOUT; otherwise, what movie doesn't have sweeping fly-over shots, over-edited production, and custom-made soundtracks gratuitously glorified violence these days? It's just that most don't last 10 hours and involve a low-brow script with a high-brow plot []

It would be even funnier if the movie computer-animated Legolas so that he was, truly, "fair of face beyond the measure of men" as the book featured (unlike the movie, which made one wonder if the Fellowship had a "don't ask, don't tell" policy)-- and then if this resulted in the teeny-boppers going SUPER-bonkers over Andy Serkis or whoever was credited as the cyber-double, thinking that was really him! That would be revealing! []

[ 05-17-2004, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: TulkasOfArda ]
 
Posted by Katrina (Citizen # 4377) on :
 
The movie was good none of us can ignore that, but they left out sooo much like the
Old Forest, The Houses of Healing, The Scouring of the Shire(I'm especially mad at that),
and like so much more. []
 
Posted by TulkasOfArda (Citizen # 4539) on :
 
The movie was NOT good, for reasons I've pointed out earlier in this thread; however the main problem was failed context, i.e. the preservation of ancient lore in English Literature that cultures like New Zealand and the US.

For example, the change in Arwen was the ultimate blasphemy-- not only by turning such a pure character into a low-grade cynic-- but in that this symbolilically not only refused to see, but actually served to reject, the context of gender-roles: in this context, men were those who fought wars, while women worked to prevent them.
For example in Lorien, Celeborn scorns Gimli for "stirring up the orcs" in Moria, and tells him that if he had known, he would not have allowed Gimli to enter his land; however Galadriel intervenes, and shows Gimli love and understanding-- and hence an age-old rivalry which was begun by such misundertanding, was not only ended but turned into a new friendship.

This pertains to why the movie not only missed the boat, but went the wrong way-- an interesting recent British article pointed out this concept problems regarding women serving as soldiers via their not only leading to greater escalation of conflict, but also their becoming excessively brutal-- which is likewise presented in the example of Eowyn among the more barabaric people of Rohan.
However the movie, the sad tradition of film, thought it was being "edgy" by such sad crudeness which was neither impressive nor original- but in fact has become sadly chiché as the overcompensating insecure female.
While this interaction worked in "Star Wars" films, this was mainly because women like Leah and Amidala were merely showing courage in desperate circumstances, as opposed to upstaging men; rather, they ordinarily attempted to preserve diplomacy and compromise.
Here, however, Princess Arwen goes and deliberately upstages soldiers like Glorfindel and Aragorn in order to simply sell out the plot for purely commercial reasons. (Too bad they didn't bother to compare the box-office returns for movies, where men did most of the fighting, with the more Oedipally-confused bombs which mostly inhabit syndicated television).

[ 05-19-2004, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: TulkasOfArda ]
 
Posted by gamgee girl (Citizen # 2708) on :
 
the movie was a wonderful dipiction of one mans view of tolkiens world, however i am upset that they left out alot of my favorite things, but i think we can all get over it and say, "you can't compare a book to a movie because the book will always win"
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
You may say that the book will always be better than the movie, but this was the big chance to have it done well enough to give us joy without being painfully annoying. They failed and this thread is about voicing the bitterness we feel about that.
 
Posted by Thalion (Citizen # 4172) on :
 
After this post ,I stand corrected

E-I mean the second item I brought up.
E2-Hurrah for bitterness! []

[ 05-19-2004, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: Thalion ]
 
Posted by TulkasOfArda (Citizen # 4539) on :
 
quote:
the movie was a wonderful dipiction of one mans view of tolkiens world
Peter Jackon? He clearly didn't read it very well, and certainly wasn't a die-hard purist so much as a mere dilettante whose main interest adn profession was making cheap horror-flicks. They say a carpenter with a hammer sees every problem as a nail, and this looks exactly like what happened with this movie-- a horror-flick maker from the land of "Xena, Warrior Princess" got his hands on the rights to a classic work of literature-- and the rest, as they say, is history.

WGW, as for the movie being merely "annoying," I have to take issue in that this is too kind in addressing the much deeper blasphemy and failed symbolism and metaphor, not to mention the form whereby mythology became medieval and Charleston Heston-type roles became more "Bruce Willis." In this regard, I think I was on-point when I cited Gimli's scolding of Eomer regarding how he was out of his depth, and should shut up while he still had a head. However unlike Eomer, Peter Jackson not only has no remorse or desire to learn better, but in fact has his head swelled to Goodyear-blimp size over this abomination; if Gimli chopped his head off, it would float away over the Super Bowl.

Here I want to bring up the issue of Classic v. Contemporary style, i.e. age-old messages and morals v. pulp entertainment fiction, i.e. "The Ten Commandments" vs. "Die Hard."
The New Line movie was definitely of the latter category, desiring to pander to modern contemporary audiences which want lots of noise, violence, sex and obnoxious main characters offset by idiotic background characters.

The movie's attempt (emphasis on "attempt")to temper this with a few elements of Classical-style production, simply added insult to injury (not to mention making a mess of things); why would one care about Arwen dying, if she was a butch smart-ass one moment and a delicate flower the next? It was just ridiculous. The same for Aragorn-- one minute he's comic relief, the next he's the new savior of the world.

As for Frodo, he's convincing as someone who's got the weight of the world on his shoulders and becomes stressed, depressed, and destroyed by his struggles-- but when did he appear otherwise? "Perky chap with a bright eye," my hairy foot. Furthermore, he's sadder, but no wiser it seems-- when does he forgive Gollum or Saruman? Never.
Nor does he fall to temptation by using the Ring against Gollum, which leads to his later fall at the last moment-- this is conveniently forgotten; while this mistake is made by most readers as well, one would hope that those who pretend to have the depth of understanding to make a movie out of the story, would get the symbolism right; however this is no surprise, since they didn't even get the obvious points.

Add to this the contemporary world-appearance with no mythological look or feel to it at all (despite an obvious failed attempt at just this), and it just looks like another medieval Robin-hood flick with no particular context or consistency. Just one big mess.

To be fair, few modern films attempt to undertake the Classical style of a Shakespearian, historical or mythological bent; however this is precisely the problem with Hollywood today, i.e. rising stars became cash-cows, and they simply pander to the lowest common denominator-- a practice defined as "selling out" or "pimping."

While the "Star Wars" films are examples of such an attempt, they only masquerade as Classical style, while propogating a contemporary message of egocentrism and violence, i.e. analysis reveals underlying hypocrisy.
Rather, it's clear that Tolkien was writing from a Christian context applied to Classical literature, in which the enemy is not so clear, and nothing was evil in the beginning-- and just about everything is called into question.

This conflicts heavily with the black-and-white PJ action-movie universe, where the main characters are "good" as well as smart, hip and clever, while all others are evil or stupid --like Frodo originally believed of all humans, but which Gandalf quickly corrected as a quite-mistaken bigotry on Frodo's part:
quote:
Frodo: "I have become very fond of Strider. Well, 'fond' is not the right word. I mean he is dear to me; though he is strange, and grim at times. In fact, he reminds me often of you. I didn't know that any of the Big People were like that. I thought, well, that they were just big, and rather stupid; kind and stupid like Butterbur; or stupid and wicked like Bill Ferny. But then we don't know mch about Men in the Shire, except perhaps the Breelanders."
Gandalf: "You don't know much even about them, if you think old Barliman is stupid."

And so we come to the crux of the entire problem:
This type contemporary Gen-X "me" generation narcissism, really stands out in stark testimony to producer's ego, and is the #1 turn-off with regard to most modern film-fare-- whereby the medium becomes not one of art, but merely a means for the film-makers to exacerbate an already-swelled head, and so think they can do no wrong.
Basically, such sentiments literally scream "NOT CLASSICAL!"
As such, the attempt by the film to present a "classical" feel to it-- which basically ingrains timeless values and themes-- only came off as being simply pretentious and patronizing, due to these snide undertones which specifically imply a REJECTION of such themes ignorant and passé.
Likewise, the mish-mosh of classical and contemporary production, only proved that the movie was confused over the message it wanted to make, since the story gave a classical message, while the producers' message and projected attitudes, rejected anything even remotely classical.

However as Joel Hodgson himself said: the best way to make a bad movie, is to think you're making a GOOD one-- while hiring friends and relatives to help make it.
And Eru knows this movie had enough of that.

[ 05-22-2004, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: TulkasOfArda ]
 
Posted by Katrina (Citizen # 4377) on :
 
Look at it this way, PJ did better than anyone else would have done. But, he did leave out some of the best parts. []
 
Posted by Tuor (Citizen # 374) on :
 
quote:
Look at it this way, PJ did better than anyone else would have done. But, he did leave out some of the best parts.
In all seriousness, this thread is for 'bashing' the movies. Read the first post of the thread.
 
Posted by Katrina (Citizen # 4377) on :
 
I know that, but, ya your right, sorry. Is this better:
PJ left out like, most, if not all of the good parts. Curse him. []
 
Posted by Tuor (Citizen # 374) on :
 
Much better.
 
Posted by Thalion (Citizen # 4172) on :
 
[]
 
Posted by TulkasOfArda (Citizen # 4539) on :
 
quote:
Look at it this way, PJ did better than anyone else would have done.
WHAT? This is impossible; as I've made abundantly clear, the story was a classical-styled war-fantasy novel, and so would have been best done by those with experience in such genres. To plop it into in the hands of someone whose biggest claim to fame, to date, was directing a movie called "The Frighteners," is tantamount to letting a NASCAR-driver fly a rocket to the moon-- or letting someone produce a movie about history's biggest travel-disaster, whose biggest claim to fame was the "Terminator" movies (i.e. James Cameron and "Titanic"-- resulting in a movie that was all gratitous, commercial fluff and no tribute).

Peter Jackson was even such an IDIOT, that he said "the story was in three books, so we should make it into three films."
HELLO? When I read the table of contents for "Return of the King," I clearly see the words "BOOK SIX."
Still want to defend this moron? He did more damage to LotR, than Rick Berman did to Star Trek. I hope he goes to hell and is forced to listen to that lame "Enya" sound-track for all eternity while Tolkien lectures him from Heaven above.

And the worst thing of all was those "faces" Elijah Wood made with the Ring- it almost looked like he wasn't putting it on his FINGER!
Pretty Freudian in fact-- kinda like the line in "Titanic" with Cate Winslett claiming that the ship was too big out of the designers compensating for "male inadequacy!"
It's obvious that both of these over-rated Garbonzo's have sick minds.

[ 05-24-2004, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: TulkasOfArda ]
 
Posted by Anorgil (Citizen # 4494) on :
 
I wonder how long it will take for... what was the quote... "those with experience in such genres...." to even try to film the Lord of the Rings. After 40-odd years, none of them have.

Unless Bakshi or whatever his name was could be considered "experienced in such genres..."
 
Posted by Tuor (Citizen # 374) on :
 
This thread is supposed to be about trashing the movie/PJ. If you want to defend him then post in the other thread.
 
Posted by Anorgil (Citizen # 4494) on :
 
Am I defending PJ? I agree with Tulkas that he had never done an epic fantasy film before and had no "experience in such genres." Sorry if you thought I was defending him.

[ 05-25-2004, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Anorgil ]
 
Posted by Fingolfin of the Noldor (Citizen # 156) on :
 
Anorgil, I think the real issue for Tuor was a slight of Bashki of who's LotR reindition Tuor is a great deal more fond than PJ's [] - seriously []

- One thing that ticked me off about RotK was the complete abscence of "Gondor's armies" [] Though they are refered to I really think PJ went waay overboard trying to make the straights seemingly so dire that a deus ex machina became a necessity. []
 
Posted by TulkasOfArda (Citizen # 4539) on :
 
This is SO true; Rohan's armies didn't look like 6000 to me either, nor did the company of 7000 of the Last Stand.

As for Gondor, the only thing really seen was Faramir's "charge of the light brigade" suicide-mission, and a few rag-tag guards in Minas Tirith. The fact that the Army of the Dead had to fight the entire Battle of the Pelennor Fields-- and that they all fit on one ship-- pretty much shows how they whittled down the numbers.

For all the hype, there just didn't seem to be that many people shown; I think the reason is, that they were trying to avoid confusing the audience-- or else it was once again the ever-present "dwarfism" regarding the scale of everything from landscapes to buildings, thus making the entire movie look like a board-game version of the story.

[ 05-25-2004, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: TulkasOfArda ]
 
Posted by TulkasOfArda (Citizen # 4539) on :
 
quote:
I wonder how long it will take for... what was the quote... "those with experience in such genres...." to even try to film the Lord of the Rings. After 40-odd years, none of them have.
quote:
m I defending PJ? I agree with Tulkas that he had never done an epic fantasy film before and had no "experience in such genres." Sorry if you thought I was defending him.
Bull. It certainly was a defense, as well as mocking my statement with the "what was that quote" crack. To deny it is to insult one's intellect-- and to lie about it is even more insulting.

However to answer your sarcastic question, there would have been no problem finding a director with experience here, and could have made something more dignified and less ostentatious.
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on :
 
quote:
To plop it into in the hands of someone whose biggest claim to fame, to date, was directing a movie called "The Frighteners," is tantamount to letting a NASCAR-driver fly a rocket to the moon--
Are you kidding me? I'd just like to see how deep into turn 1 at Charlotte Alan Sheppard would take a Chevy Monte Carlo at about 198 mph. I'd be willing to bet 'ole Jeff Gordon would have better luck behind the wheel of one of those ultra computerized "where's the cruise control?" space shuttles. And i bet his pit crew could service the landing gear, fuel her up up, and have her ready to drop the next satellite in about 15.3 seconds!! Let's see NASA do that.
 
Posted by Anorgil (Citizen # 4494) on :
 
If there were no problem finding a decent director for a film adaptation of the Lord of the Rings, why hasn't it been done yet?

Maybe it's only the inexperienced directors who think that they can put Disneyland in the Grand Canyon...

[ 05-26-2004, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Anorgil ]
 
Posted by Tuor (Citizen # 374) on :
 
Fingy,

I took the cartoon for what it was, a cartoon. Therefore it did not make me want to throw up, which PJ's Two Towers did.

The sad fact is that Tolkien's story still has not made it to the big screen. []
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
Tuor don't cry! [] Its still on the biggest and best screen you will ever have, the one in your mind!

And old buddy Madomir - maybe NASA could handle NASCAR back in the 60s when they had some good old boy aw shucks astronauts like John Young! []

[ 05-28-2004, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: Snaga ]
 
Posted by Anorgil (Citizen # 4494) on :
 
Yeah... People nowadays tend to watch movies more than read books, or so it seems. If there were a movie based on and 100% faithful to the book, it might even diminish the book. Not that I'd know, since it hasn't happened yet.
 
Posted by Katrina (Citizen # 4377) on :
 
To be truly faithful to a book would be really hard, especially for Lord of the Rings.
But it would be easier for Harry Potter. Not that it matters. []
 
Posted by TulkasOfArda (Citizen # 4539) on :
 
Purist Rage, or "Dollars: Who Shot J.R.R.?"


Madomir:
quote:
Are you kidding me? I'd just like to see how deep into turn 1 at Charlotte Alan Sheppard would take a Chevy Monte Carlo at about 198 mph.
And this is some argument that NASCAR drivers can fly to the moon?
Fine, have it your way-- Cecil B. DeMille couldn't direct a cheap horror-flick very well either.

quote:
I'd be willing to bet 'ole Jeff Gordon would have better luck behind the wheel of one of those ultra computerized "where's the cruise control?" space shuttles. And i bet his pit crew could service the landing gear, fuel her up up, and have her ready to drop the next satellite in about 15.3 seconds!! Let's see NASA do that.
I wouldn't want to take your money; you don't get cute in outer space if you want to live- or avoid blowing billions of dollars. Same in art and film history.

Anorgil:
quote:
If there were no problem finding a decent director for a film adaptation of the Lord of the Rings, why hasn't it been done yet?
Thank you for admitting that PJ ISN'T a decent director for a film adaptation of Lord of the Rings.
To answer your question, the reason, is that they wanted an easy fast buck with low risk and cheap thrills that we've seen a hundred times before-- simple as that.
Unfortunately, that's all they'll get-- it's a flash-in-the-pan flick that won't stand the test of time like even "Star Wars" did, since it didn't remain true to classic themes, but rather it was the opposite via selling out to the contemporary.

quote:
To be truly faithful to a book would be really hard, especially for Lord of the Rings.
But it would be easier for Harry Potter. Not that it matters.

That's just it-- it WOULD be difficult-- as well as require an understanding of the story meaning and context.
Meanwhile, New Line wanted a fast, easy buck with no muss and no fuss, and didn't want to deal with the deeper issues and continuity of Tolkien's universe, that the studio-pimps and Philistines consider to be jus so much "artsy-fartsy mumbo-jumbo." So basically they just cut the head off of the goose that lays the golden eggs-- if they had opened up Tolkien's universe to the public-at-large in a manner which did it justice, it could have touched off a new social movement that easily exceeded Mel Gibson's. But now they're left with a few profits that didn't even close to the potential.
As for "Harry Potter," I think the main reason it was so true to the book, is that the author is still alive-- and values her work above profits. True, LoTR is obviously much more complex, but the effort would have paid off. This is why Tolkien turned down Zimmerman-- unfortunately, JRR died before the technology came about to do it justice.

Here are some numbers:

All-Time World-wide Boxoffice
Rank Title World-wide Box Office
1. Titanic (1997) $1,835,300,000
2. Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, The (2003) $1,129,158,965
3. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) $968,600,000
4. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999) $922,379,000
5. Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The (2002) $921,600,000
6. Jurassic Park (1993) $919,700,000
7. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002) $866,300,000
8. Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The (2001) $860,700,00

As we see, the Lord of the Rings movies, all told grossed a total of $2,050,758,965, which is only about 10% more than the single film "Titanic" which hardly anyone remembers-- and despite the fact that people had to pay 3x as much to watch LoTR, since it was in 3 films! (And, oh yeah- "Titanic" won 11 Oscars too-- and James Cameron didn't credit the original author one bit either.)

Now compare this to profits of the "Harry Potter" movies, which will reap above a projected $2.5 billion after "Prisoner of Azkaban," and you'll see the evidence-- particularly since production costs were about the same for both LoTR and Harry Potter movies.
The fact that "Harry Potter" can even compete with, let alone OUT-SELL, JRR Tolkien's greatest masterpiece, is proof-positive that PJ and New Line dropped the ball; the world of Star Wars and Harry Potter absolutely pale in comparison to tbe beauty of Arda, but this is now limited to only those with the knowledge and ability to understand and appreciate them and their meaning in the text--and even this pales in comparison to SEEING it.
 -

[ 05-31-2004, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: TulkasOfArda ]
 
Posted by Éomer (Citizen # 2824) on :
 
quote:
the world of Star Wars and Harry Potter absolutely pale in comparison to tbe beauty of Arda
Hey now, that's a matter of opinion. I agree--for the most part--but it's still a matter of opinion. []
 
Posted by TulkasOfArda (Citizen # 4539) on :
 
That's the point-- most people would probably agree that the richness, breadth, depth and complexity, and metaphorical realism, far surpass the relative simplicity and modern-day surrealism which give Harry Potter its charm and appeal. Harry Potter is obviously a children's story, and I'm quite sure that J.K Rowling doesn't have the literary skills of Tolkien, or exposure to the experiences and values which give them substance-- it's about a kid who goes to wizard-school in modern-day England, not a perilous mission during a war which developed over thousands of years, and which rivaled the World Wars in scale and complexity, and in a completely fleshed-out but different world which merely annexes our own.
As such, sales would reflect this opinion.

[ 05-31-2004, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: TulkasOfArda ]
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on :
 
Umm, Tulkas, you're kidding me right? Did you see the [] ? It signifies that i was joking..

as for this..

quote:
I wouldn't want to take your money; you don't get cute in outer space if you want to live- or avoid blowing billions of dollars. Same in art and film history.
I'll chalk your obvious ignorance up to your youth. Billions are blown in space yearly.. you have the satellite TV to prove it.

[ 05-31-2004, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: Madomir ]
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
Hey Madomir! I finally get to reply to a post of yours directly. How the heck are you? Well, I hope. As GBG would say, I have some news. Snaga soon move to own stone house in city of bell that rang once and broke. Still, Snaga never bow to those that fly on ice with sticks

Anyway, I more of a space history junky than I am into LotR and I found nothing but your typical great sense humor in your post, so I cannot imagine what the deal is. It doesn't take a rocket science to see you were just having some fun! Gees.
 
Posted by TulkasOfArda (Citizen # 4539) on :
 
Actually it wasn't a [] it was a [] , but still it's a point that needed to be addressed; I think it was just a shame that the world missed out on the true wonder of Tolkien's world, which represents a look at a culture which is now is as lost to modern culture as when when Ar-Pharazon set foot on the shores of Aman.

As for blowing billions in space, this type of fast-buck thinking is the REASON we've got 5000 channels and still nothing on-- people are so culturally-deprived that they don't know quality anymore.

[ 05-31-2004, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: TulkasOfArda ]
 
Posted by TulkasOfArda (Citizen # 4539) on :
 
quote:
Anyway, I more of a space history junky than I am into LotR and I found nothing but your typical great sense humor in your post, so I cannot imagine what the deal is.
Actually it's like Legolas said: let a plowman plow, an otter swim, an elf run over leaf or glass or over snow; or for making classic films-- a classic film-maker.
 
Posted by Sinsemilla (Citizen # 4470) on :
 
I haven't read anyone's posts on this topic yet cause I don't have a lot of time so forgive me if I repeat anything previously said. Got ROTK the other night and watched it, and was just disgusted. I remember when I saw it in the theater I didn't feel that way, but now that I've had the time to scrutinize it I'm disapointed to say the least. First of all let me say that I'm sure no one else would have done as good of a job on this movie as was done, but it still lacked so much.
I'm sure the most aggrivating parts of this movie we will all agree are,"Go home Sam!" and the dead army wiping out 200,000 orcs in front of Minas Tirith. I would really like to know whether Peter Jackson actually read the book, or bought the cliffs notes. First you have the character portrayals which are entirely reversed. Frodo the completely oblivious fool, Sam the wiser more aware of the two, Aragorn who is hesitant to accept his lineage and claim the throne, Theoden who is 20 years too young and a complete coward, etc.
Then there is the the changes in the story of which I hate these the most: "The Last Debate" taking place in the throne room, "The House of Healing" wait a minute.. Oh that's right, THEY LEFT IT OUT!! but magically at the end of the movie Eyowen and Faramir and standing happily together at the crowning, The Prince of Dol Amroth? where might he be? Elrond bringing Aragorn Anduril and had named it himself, Denethor not wanting the beekons lit?? come on at least give the guy some credit, marching on the black gate with 500 guys, ugh.
So after the reversed character portrayals, the abscense of key events, the battle sequence proportioning and happenings and all the other things that differ between the book and the movie, what are we left with?
The music.. Totally wrong, just terrible, did not set the right mood or emphasize the right things, it may have been a good composer and musicians, but it didn't fit right with the story. The lighting.. wow, the worst i've ever seen, at night everything is dark except for the blatently obvious overhead studio lighting and overkilled fog effect. Even during the day, light was always shining on ppl from all directions (artificial looking).

I can continue right now, but I think by now you see what i'm trying to say.. I hate it.
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on :
 
Ah, dear ole' Snaga , the one Minas Tirithian ? who truly gets my attempts at humor. I thought my sarcasm was pretty obvious but oh well.. can't reach everyone. Congrats on the change of scenery, work related i'm guessing? Tough town tho' i'd pick my spots carefully for wearing the white shirt with the winged wheel, maybe a Phillies game, at least they wear the same colors.

Sinsemilla i couldn't agree more with your army of the dead complaint, seemed nothing more than a cheap FX copout to me. Why use actors portraying the Gondorian forces when you've got computers handy right? Another thing that drove me nuts was Gandalf, there were several times where he seemed to despair and adopt the whole "all is hopeless and lost" attitude. Perhaps this was to give Aragorn an opportunity to show growth as he ascended to kingship but damn, there had to be a better way to accomplish that than by weakening prob'ly the second most powerful being in all of middle earth.

If i had never read the books i'd have loved the movies, but...
 
Posted by TulkasOfArda (Citizen # 4539) on :
 
quote:
I thought my sarcasm was pretty obvious but oh well.. can't reach everyone.
I get humor, but have to know the source-- after all the posts by the PJ-lovers, it's hard to tell; after all, they thought the "short jokes" about Gimli were funny: which, when you think about it, really doesn't make much sense in a movie about much smaller HOBBITS!

quote:
First of all let me say that I'm sure no one else would have done as good of a job on this movie as was done, but it still lacked so much.

Actually this movie looked like most action-movies today, and I've seen much better films by Kubrick, De Mille etc, while movies like "Excalibur" and "Apolcalypse Now" etc. were excellent war-movies and didn't try to get frivelous and "cutesy" the way this film did.

As for the Army of the Dead, they looked just like the "Pirates of the Carribean" with Johnny Depp, i.e. gruesome green skeletal things; likewise, the notion of Aragorn cluelessly saying "hey, where does that door go?" about the Paths of the Dead, fit nicely in with his cowardly abandonment of Frodo at the end of FoTR, to show him as king of nothing but in the sense of being "King of the Dorks."
Also, the notion of the Dead refusing to join him, was pretty interesting, considering that they wanted nothing more than to fulfill their oaths and have peace. What, did they LIKE staying that way forever?
And what's with more line-stealing, with their saying "The way is shut!" over and over, when it was Aragorn's line from the book?

And don't forget about single characters taking on Oliphaunts? Not likely.
As for the Last Debate, remember that in the book, it was centered around Denethor's last words that he had seen innumerable armies in the Palantir, which caused them to opt for a suicide-mission since anything else was hopeless anyway.
Otherwise,they would simply have held out to the last, and been destroyed. But no-- Denethor just goes screaming off the edge like the cowardly lion, and they decide on a suicide mission for no apparent reason-- what's up with that?

Likewise, Aragorn's last speech to the miniscule Last Stand army? RIP-OFF from "Braveheart!" And the "eagle rescue" scene? Lifted clean, straight out of "Road Warrior!" I hope Mel Gibson sues.
 
Posted by Anorgil (Citizen # 4494) on :
 
quote:
his cowardly abandonment of Frodo at the end of FoTR,
That really didn't make much sense. "I would have gone with you to the end, into the very fires of Mordor..." and then he tells Frodo to run. Of course, Aragorn may well have been trying to protect Frodo from the Uruk-hai. And Frodo wanted to go alone anyway, not trusting the strength of Men. (What else could he have meant by "Look after the others"?)
 
Posted by TulkasOfArda (Citizen # 4539) on :
 
Actually, in the movie, it was clear that he let Frodo go away because he didn't trust himself not to do precisely what Boromir did! And the Uruk-hai hadn't even arrived yet.
Remember back to the scene in Rivendell during the ad-lib scene with Arwen, and he states that he fears that he, in being a stupid, moronic human, has the "same weakness" as Isildur-- despite that Isildur didn't realize the perilous nature of the Ring at the time.
And the scene where he grabs his sword when Boromir picks up the Ring in the Misty Mountains-- what kind of a leader is this geek? In the book, he trusts Boromir to go find Frodo, despite knowing that he was the reason Frodo fled at Parth Galen.

Ok, movie-Aragorn pays lip-service, saying he "would have" gone with Frodo-- but in the end, he chickens out; this big-schnozzed little runt is a mockery of Aragorn from the book, being a miniaturized, comical charicature, like everything else in the film.

And his final line: "Let's go hunt some orc"?
The prosecution rests, case closed; it almost looks like it's no accident that they didn't catch any!

[ 06-04-2004, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: TulkasOfArda ]
 
Posted by Manwë Leader Of The Valar (Citizen # 4287) on :
 
sinsemillia peter jackson did read the books and had a copy with him on the set to review the chapter before and after the scene.
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
Perhaps Manwë Leader Of The Valar doesn't understand the point of this thread, but I will allow his remarks to stay if only to rip on them.

True, as the story goes, there were always copies of LotR floating around the set, but that didn't stop PJ, F, and P from crucifying the story.

I'll put it this way. They used the text to throw in small, conversational things that matched the books, but the big things had already been messed up since the script was first written.

And just because someone holds a book doesn't mean they have a clue to understanding it.
 
Posted by TulkasOfArda (Citizen # 4539) on :
 
quote:
sinsemillia peter jackson did read the books and had a copy with him on the set to review the chapter before and after the scene.
Great; he just read the book ON THE SET? Don't you think it would have been a good idea to start a little sooner-- like about 20 years, and read more including all his other works-- as well as being thoroughly versed in the man's culture and history, so that the had a slight clue about the story-context?
As C.S. Lewis wrote, "This book is too original and too opulent for any final judgement on a first reading."


quote:
I'll put it this way. They used the text to throw in small, conversational things that matched the books, but the big things had already been messed up since the script was first written.
But even verbatim conversations were either a) out of context, or b) assigned to different characters:

In regards to verbage being out-of-context, a main example is the gatekeeper at Bree saying "Hobbits! Four hobbits!" for no reason-- when in the book, he was saying this to half himself, since the Nazgul had told him to be on the lookout for FOUR HOBBITS!
As Strider tells Frodo, the Black Riders had a conversation earlier with the gatekeeper, and when they left he was "white as a sheet," as was anyone who worked with them.

But this is contradicted later in the movie, when the Nazgul run him over as they break down the gates of Bree... why would he have said "four hobbits" then? Is he just the type who likes to state the obvious, or is he a half-wit who prides himself as a someone who can count?

Likewise, other conversations were assigned to the wrong characters-- like Wormtongue and Eowyn having the exact conversation which Aragorn had with Gandalf and Eomer at the Houses of Healing-- and so Eowyn becomes jolly and cheerful for the rest of the movie.

This fits nicely with the fact that as for character appearances and manner, there was likewise simply no resemblence:

Case in point:

quote:
Boromir: "a tall man with a fair and noble face, dark-haired and grey-eyed, proud and stern of glance.

 -
As Popeye says, "I doesn't see the resemblinks!"

quote:
And just because someone holds a book doesn't mean they have a clue to understanding it.
As for this, I'm reminded of an incident with a puppy being caught carrying a book after pulling it off a shelf-- but unlike Peter Jackson, at least she was smart enough to know that she was doing a bad thing when caught!

Meanwhile, as for Peter Jackson's remorse, I just caught Elijah Wood on the Conan O'brien show, bragging about how "Oscar night turned out to be "Lord of the Rings" night..." and thought "THIS kid is Frodo?" He couldn't even read the Red Book, let alone write it.
I'm also wondering-- was Tolkien given ANY credit that night, by Peter Jackson or anyone else?

[ 06-04-2004, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: TulkasOfArda ]
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
quote:
doesn't make much sense in a movie about much smaller HOBBITS!

The movie I saw wasn't really about Hobbits, alas. The book I read was.
 
Posted by TulkasOfArda (Citizen # 4539) on :
 
I realize this-- even Roger Ebert made the same criticism. However it still just doesn't make sense to make "short" jokes about Gimli, when compared to the Hobbits he's Hagrid the Half-giant; in "The Hobbit," the dwarves were even forced to carry Bilbo on their backs during their escape from Goblin-town, since they could move faster this way than with him running on his own.

The blunder even went to John Rhys-Davies, who claimed that he played Gimli from the standpoint of "he doesn't know he's small until he mixes with the other characters." Where does he get this notion? The dwarves knew their size full-well, but take pride in their strength, toughness and endurance which even Aragorn implied was greater than that of Elves or Men when he said "we shall all need the endurance of dwarves" regarding their pursuit of the Uruk-hai. And he was certainly no stranger to elves!

[ 06-04-2004, 11:40 PM: Message edited by: TulkasOfArda ]
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
quote:
Ah, dear ole' Snaga , the one Minas Tirithian ? who truly gets my attempts at humor. I thought my sarcasm was pretty obvious but oh well.. can't reach everyone. Congrats on the change of scenery, work related i'm guessing? Tough town tho' i'd pick my spots carefully for wearing the white shirt with the winged wheel, maybe a Phillies game, at least they wear the same colors.
Yes old buddy, there are some people here who seem to enjoy talking more to THEMSELVES and don't get the idea of an online community, but alas, what are we to do except ignore them and let them revel in re-reading their own "brilliant" posts over and over again? Perhaps Philly is tough, but the new neighbors are as friendly as little Hobbits at a birthday party, and remember where I came from - the Morder of the Midwest! []

Okay, to make this somewhat on topic, I still cannot get over how awful RotK was. 3+ hours and the editing showed it to be the most out of control rush job in terms of the story. Particularly as things came to a head in Mordor. Frodo and Sam see and all Mordor camped out in their path, quick cut to Aragorn, "We must buy Frodo time" - cut back to Mordor, troops pack up and go in 8 seconds... Was that simply a rookie director/editor move or what?
 
Posted by TulkasOfArda (Citizen # 4539) on :
 
More like 'frisco-- the "buddy" stuff is a dead give-away.

[ 06-08-2004, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: TulkasOfArda ]
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on :
 
quote:
More like 'frisco-- the "buddy" stuff is a dead give-away.

Very clever junior.. if only more people would follow your lead and hurriedly jot down their ill-conceived thoughts the world would be a much more shallow place. Too bad however you forgot one of Darwin's lesser known theories, it goes a little something like this... I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say.. blah blah blah, i forget the rest but you get the idea.
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
Madomir old buddy old pal old chum! Sounds like someone is jealous of our manly love!

Hugs and kisses Tulkas! You know you want them. Come on buddy, release your pent up feminine side! Here you go - a little something to help you along:

http://www.ar.com.au/~jriddler/ba/seanb02.jpg

http://www.adom.de/adom/gallery/orc2.jpg
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
Tulkas, it seems, somehow grates on people. Perhaps it's the long posts that can sometimes be repetative. Perhaps it the frequency of these long posts that seem self-serving to some people. Perhaps it's because he doesn't react well to criticism and is too eager to lash out at anything that seems to contradict him. Perhaps it's because even when he agrees with you, he comes off as disagreeing with you and seems to need to have the last word. Perhaps, and more likely, it is a sweet blend of all these flavours.

Regardless, I don't want this to become a Tulkas-bashing thread just as I don't want this to become Tulkas' personal "rant about the film and/or overreact to criticism" thread. The gay remarks end now as well as any other personal attacks. If you don't have anything new to say on the subject of this thread, then please refrain from posting in it.
 
Posted by Elfstone (Citizen # 4385) on :
 
*looks at past posts* [] Well our steward has a point. This shouldn't be a Tulkas bashing thread.
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on :
 
Tulkas bashing? That implies the kid is a victem of unprovoked attacks. He gets what he gives, and he's in the best position to make it stop. His gay comment was way over the line, generally i'll settle such conflicts by knocking out a tooth or two but my dear dear Snaga is sooo much more emotionally vulnerable than I, these types of attacks hurt him deeply.. []

Back to the discussion.. i actually agree with Tulkas on some things, this for example..

quote:
But even verbatim conversations were either a) out of context, or b) assigned to different characters:
So many lines were flip-flopped between characters i can't list them all, but it was a huge pet peeve of mine. It seemed every line spoken in Rohan had been moved to a different scene or assigned to a different character. And banishing Eomer the way he did just killed that character, he might as well have deleted it all together.
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
I should have listened to my own advice and just ignored Tulkas, like I just did by deleting a PM he sent me without even reading it. Knowing he wasted all that effort and time gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

Okay, back on topic. PJ and crew remind me of a young college art student. They think they know everything and yet their "art" is utterly predictable, pedestrian and cliche ridden. They keep going to school, but are unwilling to learn anything.

Any way, I wonder how PJ et al will do with other projects? Will they receive the same kind of show biz and commercial success? I'm not so sure since making LOTR is riding coat tails to the nth degree and those 10 academy awards were more like project management and commercial success awards than they were for artisitic vision. Then again, with remaking King King, it sounds like all PJ will be relying on yet another classic story for his simplistic highly produced vision.

[ 06-13-2004, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: Snaga ]
 
Posted by TulkasOfArda (Citizen # 4539) on :
 
Given your maturity level, that "warm fuzzy feeling" is probably your diaper needing a change.
"Tulkas, it seems, somehow grates on people. Perhaps it's the long posts that can sometimes be repetative. Perhaps it the frequency of these long posts that seem self-serving to some people. Perhaps it's because he doesn't react well to criticism and is too eager to lash out at anything that seems to contradict him. Perhaps it's because even when he agrees with you, he comes off as disagreeing with you and seems to need to have the last word. Perhaps, and more likely, it is a sweet blend of all these flavours.
-------------------------------
WGW, your bad manners are exceeded only by your bad manners. You have no right to deride my name in public before others, even if you were right- which you aren't, since any "repetition" comes from my being forced to re-iterate points to people who simply ignore previous posts; trust me their illiteracy annoys me more than it does you.
However if this is your way of doing things, then kindly go do something with yourself and the high horse you rode in on; your ill-treatment and lack of diplomacy makes it clear that don't have half the wit you pretend, and even if you did then it would give you no right to behave in such a manner. I hope you see the error of your ways, but in any case you should have had the sense to be more impartial instead of being so directly insulting. If you want a board for yourself, you'll have it soon enough once you've driven others off; it seems fairly populated by supercilious surface-readers anyway.
The saddest part, is that you've learned so little from the literature which you claim to admire. Here's hoping that you look to something beyond yourself for inspiration, lest you be condemned to an eternity of chasing your own arse.
The saddest part is that you'll be left with the company you've chosen for yourself as your own punishment.
Yours in indifference..........
 
Posted by Eöl i Moriquendë (Citizen # 4026) on :
 
'This sounds familiar.'

'Then again.'

'Good-bye Tulkas.'
[] [] []
 
Posted by Éomer (Citizen # 2824) on :
 
Wait a second, you can't have two 'saddest parts.'
 
Posted by Eöl i Moriquendë (Citizen # 4026) on :
 
[]
[] [] []
 
Posted by Arnkell (Citizen # 3864) on :
 
TulkasOfArda, you know I gave you many chances to become civil and reasonable, which you turned down each time and laughed in my face.

The first thing I said to you was "don't flame people who might be your future allies", because I had gripes about the movies too but they don't come near the mostly cosmetic critique you throw at them, and your attitudes forced me into movie-defense because agreeing with you was impossible; you hated everything and a few made-up facts too.

Now you complain because not everyone automatically agreed with you and jumped on the bandwagon, because this is a big internet forum and a home to many differing views.

TulkasOfArda said:
quote:
trust me their illiteracy annoys me more than it does you.
You think all forum-surfing takes is good spelling and having read the book the forum focuses on, but it takes tolerance, diplomacy and good judgement too, and you've been spitting in faces from day one.

I wish I could feel sympathy for you, after pleading to your more intelligent side that surfaced sometimes, but you had already branded me as "the enemy", one of the quickest and most shallow judgements I've experienced in my history on the internet.

For the record, I might add that if things had been different, I would maybe have posted ten times more in this thread than I did, and almost as much as I did in the Positive-Thread, but I couldn't, partly because the critique here centered around personal attacks on the producers, actors and design team, which I found perhaps a tad umprofessional in a place that was supposed to be the home to academic debate. The other reason was you, TulkasOfArda, who only spoke nicely to people if they paid lip service to your conceited views and acknowledged that you are, in fact, THE Tolkien guru.

Sorry, Tulkas, wish I could've known ya.
 
Posted by Talan (Citizen # 2413) on :
 
Tulkas, I think your judgement of WGW is outright proof of your tendency towards uninformed prejudices. WGW has only gotten on my case one or two times. And when it happened, I knew he was right. And he was very civil. His words may seem a little rough, but they are exceedingly gentle when compared to yours. If you don't like other members, that's one thing. But if you are going to sit around and complain about the way WGW does things, (and I believe that I have NEVER met a more impartial, fair, and reasonable person in all my days), then feel free to leave and find a more anti-movie oriented website to satisfy your angst. I enjoyed your posts in the lit forums, but your conduct here is simply out of line--if you are going to continue on like this, you might as well go.
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
Ah well. A pity, but not unexpected.

Perhaps if Tulkas could meet us all half-way and EVER admit to any fault, perhaps we could cut him some slack.

Still, (masochist that I must be) he won't yet be banned. I admit I was harsh in trying to end this squabbling, but I was hoping a shred of humility would show itself in Tulkas and he would learn to stop making such a target of himself in the way he posts (in this thread). Some people don’t react well to a spanking and rebel instead of compromise. I guess he just needs to decide whether he can get over this and move on as I’d like to do.

But before I can do that, one burning question remains.

I have gotten quite a load of reporting of posts from Tulkas, most with suggestions on how he wants me to handle the situation. After a few, I responded with this:
quote:
I'm not going to ban anyone on your command, so feel free to report posts, but leave out your suggestions to handle them.

If I banned everyone whenever a 'personal attack' was made, there would be very few people here. Banning is a last resort and we aren't even close to that.

Please do your best to help me resolve conflicts and not keep them going by reporting the post and then returning the attack. If you decide to take an active part in the mudslinging, you are just as guilty as the original 'slinger'.

I do my best to speak to all the parties involved in situations like this, so in future, take the high road and let me handle things if you feel you can't do it yourself in a mature manner.

P.S. I enjoyed your observations in the Purist Rage thread.

Later that day, I got a response, but it was not what I expected.
quote:
Go f**k yourself.
Where this came from, I had no idea. After mulling it over for a couple days, I patiently sent this response:
quote:
You post with intelligence (for the most part). So what is the meaning of this?

WGW

To this day, I have yet to receive a response. Now perhaps he may accuse me of baiting him again with this, but I feel he needs to make a decision. It is easy to anyone to see Tulkas is far from without faults. He can either sprinkle a dash of humility into his posts and learn how to bend in order to get along with others in an online community, or he can decide that this place isn’t a good match for him and he can go away.

Fair enough, or am I being supercilious?
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
WGW, I am sorry I contributed to escalating this by baiting Tulkas and you were right to come down on him and me. It all started, for me, when he was rude to Madomir, someone I have come to really like and recognize as a very funny yet thoughtful and contributing member of this forum for some time. Madomir can certianly take care of himself and did (again with humor and without crossing lines), but I was angry that Madomir was targeted unfairly and this led to my not using my best judgement. Obviously you are a far more patient person than myself and I do appreciate your Valar-esque patience as well as fairness across this entire forum.

Consider this little orc spanked and his lesson learned! []

[ 06-14-2004, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Snaga ]
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
I'm trying to work up the motivation (and stomach) to review the second and third film--ha. Sorry, but the first was really rather depressing and I have not had much interest in experiencing the rest of Jackson's vision. Still, most people I know are familiar with all the films and challenge me on them now and again: what do I think of this? How do I feel about that? Didn't I love this? How un-Tolkienish was that?--and I have nothing to say for the most part. So it's probably time to bite the bullet on it heh. Maybe. [] I wonder, what has been the motivation for other unhappy "Tolkienists" (yep like that term much better than "purists") to watch these films even knowing Jackson has mishandled some--well, a lot--of the material? Oh wait--that's off-topic. Okay nvm, what wrenching blows should I prepare for? [] [] Hehe, maybe I should just ask if watching them is even worthwhile, or is it true in this case that ignorance is bliss? [] []

[ 06-14-2004, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
You can watch them in a couple different ways.

One, you could watch them and pretend they're just the mad ramblings of a horror-flick maker and a pair of feminists and note the handful of similarities between said ramblings and The Lord of the Rings.

Or two, you could watch them with The Lord of the Rings foremost in your mind and note the numerous dissimilarities between the movies and The Lord of the Rings.

One is less painful but two is more productive in preparing you to argue the issue.

I think the most striking blow to puritanism appears in the third movie when Frodo says: "Go home, Sam." Simply awful. Sean Astin actually does a good job with what he's given to work with. Alas, it isn't Tolkien, it's Jackson.
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
Well lookee here - two old buddies right in a row!!! How are you Archer and DPR? Well I hope!

Archer, DPR is right, but I fear you will be simply mortified if you see RotK, no matter what viewpoint you try to take. It is simply a butchering of the story and more full of Hollywood predictable crap than the other two put together. I honestly felt I was watching a joke when I saw RotK. I could NOT believe this was put together by anyone who was seriously trying to translate Tolkien to the screen. I'm really afraid for you Archer. If you can hold out, you might want to try!!! []
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
Roberts and Snaga, thanks for your thoughts! [] And good to see you see you both here! (I am well Snaga, thanks for asking, and hope you and Roberts are the same. [] ) What a relief to find two of the most discerning and thoughtful posters on MT still about, defending the professor's subtle art against the silliness of Jackson's misguided interpretations. Truly, there is a god. []

Roberts--you definitely have a point about how to approach the films, but try as I might I don't think I could watch them without Tolkien first and foremost in my mind. Though I have truly tried to view FOTR with an open mind time and time again, each character and plot element is inexorably tied to Tolkien. I can't fathom a "Frodo" or an "Elrond" without viewing them through their original filter of the Tolkien text; afterall, this is where I first came to know and love them. Jackson's characterizations are sometimes so far off the mark I can't help but wonder how he even managed to get from point A to point B in his interpretations. This is a curse of the "Tolkienists," and a double-edged sword, in that seeing all the subtle nuance, intelligence, and transcendence in Tolkien is a blessing, but also a curse in sharply perceiving its lack of it in Jackson. But I think it's true what you say that although it is more painful to watch the films with this acute perception, it is also more helpful in understanding the overall dynamics of the text-film dichotomy. If I manage to work up the interest to watch these films, I'll definitely keep your points in mind. []

Snaga--I'm afraid you may be right in fearing. I was dismally disappointed with FOTR, though many people have suggested that this one is the closest to Tolkien in interpretation, and the less guilty of undermining the original text. How sad if this is true. I found the film full of unbearably awkward cliches and dumb Hollywood ploys, with predictable broad, flat, paint-by-number characterizations that bore little resemblance to the rich glazes and chiaroscuro of the originals. Then if this film is truly the most faithful or less offensive of the three, I can only imagine to what depths the others might plummet. [] Ack. Well, what's the general failure with ROTK then in your opinion? Is it that it has an overabundance of the same kinds of muck-ups present in the other two films or does it commit some deeper travesty? Might as well be prepared for what's coming if I decide to watch them/ it! I can't help but be a little curious as to why ROTK is considered by many people to be the "best" of the three! Do you think that is because it is further dumbed down to the base tastes of the general movie-going public, or does it have even a little something redeeming in it? I keep hearing about this or that great, "moving" scene or stellar performance. Just curious what you think on that.

[ 06-16-2004, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
Very nice to see you both here, as well. It's summertime, which means the DPR has a little more free time than usual to cavort around Minas Tirith.

If you don't mind being spoiled, read on.

I think you've hit upon part of the reason for RotK's popularity with the masses. More panoramic helicopter shots as Pippin lights the beacons of Gondor against Denethor's wishes, devious plotting as Gollum frames Sam turning Frodo against him, touching visions of the future as Arwen travels to the Grey Havens, supernatural battle as cool green ghosts save the three dozen soldiers of Gondor from certain defeat, literal cliffhanging as Frodo of the 9 and 3/4 fingers hangs from the cracks of doom. They even had uglier enemies and a giant spider! What more could a kid want in a movie?

Maybe you could MST3K it.

Or if you want to know what happens but without actually watching the movies, check out this older thread:

Parody Scripts

[ 06-16-2004, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: The Dread Pirate Roberts ]
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
Maybe you could MST3K it.
Hehe of course! That's bloody brilliant. With that in mind, think I'll go ahead with it then. [] [] []
 
Posted by Tsutsi and Tisza (Citizen # 4190) on :
 
We give up -what does MST3K mean?

[ 06-16-2004, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Tsutsi and Tisza ]
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
MST3K is an abbreviation for Mystery Science Theater 3000 - a truly hilarious TV show where (this is hard to explain) a human and a few robots are banished on a space station and forced to watch horrible, and I mean horrible!!!, movies. They occupy their time by coming up with a huge range of funny comments on every scene in the film. The show ended a few years ago (I have the final episode on tape) and they did make a movie which you could rent. I bet you have seen them and don't even know it - their trademark was seeing their little shadows in front of the screen for the movie. Reruns are on, but I'd recommend the movie - it is pretty much a more intense version of the show.

They would have an absolute field day with PJs movies!

http://www.mst3kinfo.com/
http://www.tvtome.com/MysteryScienceTheater3000/

http://mst3k.booyaka.com/episodes/images/510%20-%20The%20Painted%20Hills/_510-89_dr_.jpg
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
quote:
Well, what's the general failure with ROTK then in your opinion? Is it that it has an overabundance of the same kinds of muck-ups present in the other two films or does it commit some deeper travesty?
Hey Archer - I would say that it the worst of the three because it has to deal with so many issues and plot changes from the previous 2 movies. Most of these changes cannot simply stand up to any scrutiny, so they are dealt with in the most absurd and illogical manner in RotK. What I am trying to say is all the flaws of FotR and TTT are compounded in RotK. Know what I mean? When you think about it, PJ dug his own hole and there was no way to get out of it in terms of the story and plot. On top of that, there is simply too much to tell and it is a horrid rush job in terms of editing and the flow of the story.

[ 06-16-2004, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Snaga ]
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on :
 
quote:
I can't help but be a little curious as to why ROTK is considered by many people to be the "best" of the three! Do you think that is because it is further dumbed down to the base tastes of the general movie-going public
I think that's part of it, i think another factor is it has an actual ending which prob'ly appeals to folks watching this as a movie and not an adaptation of their favorite trilogy. I heard a huge amount of complaints in the cinema at the conclusion of the first two movies (esp FOTR) from the non-Tolkien people, about the way they ended. I guess if someone never read the book it could be confusing. I personally thought ROTK was abysmal and by far the worst of the 3. I can only assume the academy awards were given more for the body of work for the whole trilogy than for just the 3rd installment.
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
We give up -what does MST3K mean?
Mystery Science Theater 3000. Interestingly, while searching around the web for MST3K's official website to link here, I came across a lot of stuff that seems to suggest that MST3K-ing the LOTR films is actually a favorite pasttime among critics and fans alike. I'm not so sure what that says about a film that so readily leads itself to this kind of lampooning, but whatever it is, I don't think it's good! []

Edit: Oops--sorry for the late and redundant reply. [] None of the previous posts were up when I started hehe.

[ 06-17-2004, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by LordElrond (Citizen # 4698) on :
 
I agree. Too many changes were made between the movies and books. Let's start with the Fellowship. No Tom Bombadil? What the heck? No Glorfindel?!?!? OK, that's just wrong. You don't take a guy as awesome as Glorfindel outta the movies. If they had to change anything, they should have taken that pansy Legolas out of the movies and made Glorfindel part of the Fellowship, because honestly, he just rocks. Then they skip the wolf/warg attack. On to TTT. That stupid scene with Aragorn going over the cliffs. Way to waste time. If they had cut out all the stupid scenes that they added in TTT, they could have gotten Frodo and Sam up to Shelob. ROTK. The best of the three in movie terms, but it most betrayed Tolkien. The Gondorians were pansies. There was no Imrahil or Beregond. There wasn't even a Mouth of Sauron! No Scouring of the Shire either. That's what pissed me off the most. The Scouring was one of the best parts of the books. It showed Merry, Pippin, and Sam taking up their responsibility to lead the Hobbits in this Fourth Age. I'm not even going to go into the absolute slaughtering of the Houses of Healing and Eowyn and Faramir's relationship. I'm never watching ROTK without the Mouth ever again.
 
Posted by Arnkell (Citizen # 3864) on :
 
Have patience.
 
Posted by Snowdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
ONE of my complaints is how PJ turned the fair Elven queen Galadriel into a dried up haggardly looking Cate Blanchett. And the turbo-Galadriel... []
 
Posted by Anorgil (Citizen # 4494) on :
 
I REALLY wish Galadriel had laughed when Frodo offered her the ring. If nothing else, it would be a nod to the book...
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
quote:
ONE of my complaints is how PJ turned the fair Elven queen Galadriel into a dried up haggardly looking Cate Blanchett. And the turbo-Galadriel...
I can agree with the turbo-Galadriel complaint but Cate Blanchett is the most beautiful woman in the films. She is by no means "dried up and haggardly looking." She doesn't have Hollywood looks but rather a classic and timeless sort of beauty.

Look at the DPR defending a PJ decision! What's the world coming to?
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
I'm with you DPR! Anyone can bash PJ as much as they want and I'll be there with you, but if you bring Cate into it, watch out! [] Still, her talent, beauty... was largely wasted with PJs direction, screen play writing and editing. I'm sure PJ, Fran, Ollie and whoever were all blown away by the talents of Cate, Ian.. and others, but then again, this was probably their first ever exposure to REAL actors!!!

[ 07-11-2004, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: Snaga ]
 
Posted by Anarion of the Faithful (Citizen # 4639) on :
 
Well said. DPR and Snaga. but on a sidenote back to LordElrond, As Arknell said
quote:
have patience
remember how cheesed off we all were when we first saw TTT (and FOTR for that matter)? but then the extended version came out and we were at least happy PJ didnt leave out every thing we thought he did in the first showing
(though he still greatly Bucthered the wonderful works of Tolkien). believe me youll get much of what your looking for Lord Elrond when the extended version comes out. so again, in the words of a wise MT poster "Have Patience" []
(P.S. dont let this fool you i still am extremely angry with PJ's bucthering of the story and out of any of the movies i find TTT to be the worst, but thats just me.) i think it is true PJ dug himself a hole in the first 2 movies. but you have to admit he did a better job of picking up the peices than many would have. he could have kept hackin' stuff off(which he did in many cases) but theres alot of things he could of done worse. but i apologise if my remarks are off subject. []

[ 07-11-2004, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Anarion of the Faithful ]
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
No Glorfindel?!?!? OK, that's just wrong. You don't take a guy as awesome as Glorfindel outta the movies. If they had to change anything, they should have taken that pansy Legolas out of the movies and made Glorfindel part of the Fellowship, because honestly, he just rocks.
Yes, yes, and YES! omg []
*composes herself* []

Or at the very least they might have cast an actor with enough wisdom and depth to adequately play the enigmatic Legolas. [] . . . []
quote:
I REALLY wish Galadriel had laughed when Frodo offered her the ring.
Again, yes. Tolkien's true elves laugh often, even in sadness, and have an otherwordly peace and joy about them that I don't think PJ has one clue about. The descriptions of Glorfindel at the Council of Elrond, the laughter of Galadriel at her mirror, and the smile on Legolas's lips as he contemplates the terrible snow hurled down from Caradhras--these are creatures that are far beyond the haughty, silent, unemotional, and not to mention unoriginal "Vulcan" elves of the films. Sorry but Spock did it first!
quote:
ONE of my complaints is how PJ turned the fair Elven queen Galadriel into a dried up haggardly looking Cate Blanchett. And the turbo-Galadriel...
I'm inclined to go with DPR and Snaga--Cate Blanchett possesses that other worldly beauty that is so perfect for the mysterious Galadriel, not to mention the actor seems to have some real subtance about her--refreshing! She was a brilliant choice if you ask me, but ack, either the script as it was written or PJ's directorial decisions to present her in such a spooky and psychotic banshee way was really a crushing disappointment. Grrrr, Cate is better than that! Leave it to PJ to always go for the most blatant and obvious. []

But I can also sort of see Snowdog's point about the way the make-up people really blanched out Cate's natural beauty by seemingly washing out every trace of color or shine on her face for the movie. I think they were going for that pale water color look so effective in Alan Lee's artwork, but less so as cinematic art. Cate looks a little too wan in the film, and that I disagree with. They should have let her own unique beauty come through--she would have pulled it off nicely. . . .Bugger, the one good choice the movie people make, and still they botch it up. []

[ 07-15-2004, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by Galadhir (Citizen # 4731) on :
 
Vulcan elves in frocks! I hated them. Why couldn't they get the *hair colour* right? Why were all the elves blond, when they should have been dark, with the notable exception of Celeborn, who should have been *silver* but clearly hadn't done his roots?

Elves at Helm's Deep? Much though I like elves, the Lorien elves were fighting for their lives against Dol Guldur at the time. Having them send a force to Helm's Deep, just because the Rohirrim have been stupid enough to send their whole army away, makes it look like the rest of the Lorien elves are sitting at home twiddling their thumbs, and devalues the idea that *everyone* is fighting.

That whole 'the world of Men' thing. 'Sauron's purpose is to destroy the world of Men.' Oh yes? Then why has he got armies full of Men on his side? Sauron's purpose is *not* to destroy the world of Men, but to destroy the elves and enslave the world of Men (and Hobbits). Why was this change made? Does PJ think that we won't care about the enslavement of ALL the free peoples - we only care about Men because we are human? That got up my nose.

Elrond saying 'Men are weak', when he's half-human. Galadriel saying 'Men are weak' when she's encouraging her granddaughter to marry one. Where, in the books, is the idea that Men are weaker than the other peoples?

This whole business with elves looking down on Men is a neat reversal of what really happens in the books. It's Boromir, in the books, who has the sort of unpleasant species-prejudice, with his 'these elves and half elves and wizards,' and Eomer, who fears the magic of the elves. The Men fear and distrust the elves, *not* the other way round.

The Rohirrim! They're supposed to be 'a stern people, loyal to their lord' - not a bunch of weepy frightened generic movie peasants. And someone should tell PJ and crew that Viking is not the same as Saxon. The Rohirrim have a distinctively Saxon culture - nothing like the Vikings, so why were they consistently referred to as being Viking-like?

Treebeard! What a fabulous character, and they played him as a bumbling old fool. And where were the Huorns? We could have had all nature rising up in wrath, and 'Birnham wood coming to Dunsinane' as Tolkien clearly intended. Instead we got Lorien archers on holiday.

Haldir! Get over it, he's not an important character. He's a border guard, leave him guarding the borders.

Oh, poor Faramir and poor Denethor. Lots of people have already complained about Faramir, sacrificed to the 'Men are weak' fanon, but Denethor - a powerful and subtle man, beautiful and kingly, who looked more like a powerful wizard than Gandalf did, who slept in his armour to prevent himself from going soft, strove in thought with the Dark Lord. They made him into a cartoon villain, and played his death for laughs! One of the most terrible and tragic scenes in the book... Unforgivable.

How come the Men of Gondor can't fight?

The whole 'I can hit you with my sword so I must be the king' thing with Aragorn in the Paths of the Dead. What about plain *authority*? But of course Aragorn didn't have the character to convince with mere authority or kingliness, he was a steriotypical action hero.

And speaking of the equating of violence with legitimate power (something Tolkien would have been very annoyed with) what about Gandalf going round hitting Pippin and beating up Denethor. What happened to Gandalf's moral character?

Meanwhile, Eowyn is made into a wuss who is despirate for a man. What Eowyn desires is *glory* - to die a death worthy of song. The immortality of fame, which she can only achieve in battle or by becoming a great Queen. 'In me she loved a dream of glory' says Aragorn. None of this sickening love triangle stuff.

And, oh God, but the whole meaning and power of the thing was vitiated by not having the Scouring of the Shire. We lose the message that it can happen here and there is no going back, that something irreplaceable is lost, that even in our street in our town the fight against evil must be fought.

And I know this is a movie thread but the movie tie-in books! People are going to read these things and think they're accurate. They're going to think there was no Sindar presence at the Last Alliance, because the movie tie in says so. (Convieniently forgetting Oropher and Amdir and their people.) People are going to think that an elf bow could be strung with a single hair - excuse me, but even if the hair was that strong the archers would get their fingers cut off using it. It has a kind of Harry Potter wand-heart-string feel to it which is just made up, but people are going to think is true...

What else? Oh well, the characterization of *everyone* was wrong. Just be glad Glorfindel was left out, that's what I say, at least we still have one shining character untainted.

Just awful!
 
Posted by Anorgil (Citizen # 4494) on :
 
quote:
People are going to think that an elf bow could be strung with a single hair - excuse me, but even if the hair was that strong the archers would get their fingers cut off using it.
The bow given to Legolas by Galadriel was "strung with a string of elf-hair" (The Fellowship of the Ring, p.391). It seems like, even in the book, "an elf bow could be strung with a single hair."
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
Uh, that just means that the string was made of Elf hair and not consisting only of a single hair.

P.S. The parts I simply cannot watch anymore are when Elijah is speared / stung and does his slo-mo orgasmic squeal. It's just embarrassingly bad. I don't know if his acting is to blame or if it's PJ's fault for asking him to do it. All I know is it's a weak attempt at forced dramatics and he does a poor job of it to boot! Another travesty in the portrayal of Frodo...
 
Posted by Galadhir (Citizen # 4731) on :
 
Yeah, there's an instance in one of the sagas where (is it Egil?) breaks his bowstring while enemies are attacking his house and asks his wife for some of her hair to restring it. (She refuses because several years earlier he had hit her, and this seems like a good chance for payback.) So my complaint was not that it was 'strung with elf hair' - Tolkien knows his stuff and would be well aware that you can either spin or plait hair into a bowstring.

However, New Line *does not know its stuff* and interprets this to mean 'strung with a single hair' - an understandable mistake in a private person who doesn't know about weaponry. But *not* in a book that purports to be a true and accurate reflection of Middle-earth weaponry. What it's doing is taking out the realism that Tolkien worked hard to get in there, and replacing it with fake, phony 'fantasy' magic cliches.

Pulling a bow strung with a single hair would be like dangling a heavy weight off your two fingers using a cheesewire, and any archer will know this - thus making Tolkien's work look ridiculous, when it isn't.

It's like the hair colour issue - people think it's a niggling little unimportant detail, but it isn't. Change the hair colours and you take away all the built-in genetic history and in the process make the thing look like a Nazi tract full of blond people. Make the technology more 'fantasy' and you take away the sense that it could actually have happened. Details are really important in Tolkien - he always gets them right. Unlike PJ and co, who can't tell that Viking is not the same as Celtic, and neither of them are the same as Saxon.

This may not matter to PJ, but it sure as hell would have mattered to Tolkien.
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
quote:
Peter Jackson is the only producer who filmed three movies at the same time. About that peculiar experience, he said :
quote:
"Filming three films at once has never been done before, in addition to which the project features state-of-the-art special effects, so it was essential to plan everything down to the last detail. We owe Professor Tolkien and his legion of fans worldwide our very best efforts to make these films with the integrity they deserve."

I wonder what the exact moment was when PJ threw this last thought out the window and just decided to go for the big boxoffice take.
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
I like the idea of PJs elves as Vulcans, but Madomir and me had a thread here somewhere where we likened them to members of a Yes tribute band. For those of you too young, Yes was an "art band" in the 70s and here are some links for you of some pics to show you what I mean! Especially their keyboard player, Rick Wakeman! It's all there except the ears!!! "Hey man, let's jam after the council at Rivendell."

 -

 -

 -

 -

[ 07-22-2004, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: Snaga ]
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on :
 
Hey, i think i was at that show!! Cost me more than a few mithril pennies to get my front row seats at the Hornburg Ampitheater but it was worth any price to see EY !! (that's Elven Yes to the un-initiated)

[ 07-25-2004, 01:33 AM: Message edited by: Madomir ]
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
Cool Maddy - I thought it was you! Man was that 20 minute lyre solo awesome or what?
 
Posted by Snowdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
[] Rick Wakeman! []
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
Can it be true? Will all the angst, dissapointment, anger, frustration... all end with the unlikely topic of 70s art rocker Rick Wakeman?

As Galadriel would say, "Who of the wise could have forseen it?"
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
We're all waiting for the next bit of sacrilege: The Return of the King Extended Edition. I'm sure there will be much more to complain about when that's released. For instance, what's worse than no closure at all for Saruman? Closure that involves falling from the tower of Orthanc and being impaled on the spiky wheel of death.
 
Posted by Kjartan Fløgelfrikk (Citizen # 3302) on :
 
Rick Wakeman! []
 
Posted by Arnkell (Citizen # 3864) on :
 
The second pic looks like his head and hair is smeared with olive oil.
Maybe he's the "anointed" one?
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
quote:
We're all waiting for the next bit of sacrilege: The Return of the King Extended Edition...
DPR - how are you! Good to see your rapier like wit again on the boards (get the subtle pun here - rapier, sword, dread pirate roberts...?).

quote:
The second pic looks like his head and hair is smeared with olive oil.
Maybe he's the "anointed" one?

Good to see you too Arnkell! He may be annointed, but don't forget, the 70s was a milepost decade in the history of hair conditioner technology. I'd say we are looking at about 16 oz of Flex here! http://www.revlon.com/product.asp?ProductID=5422&Mode=catalog

[ 09-17-2004, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: Snaga ]
 
Posted by olson (Citizen # 4848) on :
 
I'm just wondering when does the special edition of The Return of the King come out?
 
Posted by Arnkell (Citizen # 3864) on :
 
This thread will tell you, Olson.
http://www.minastirith.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=001636
 
Posted by Lady Sandry of Ruatha (Citizen # 2732) on :
 
I'm depressed.

I'm depresed because I'm obsessesed with Eomer/Lothiriel fanfiction, and it would have been SO EASY to have a three-second scene with htem being introduced to each other. think of the possibilities, people.

*cries*

[ 10-01-2004, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: Lady Sandry of Ruatha ]
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
Are you kidding? They didn't even show Faramir meeting Eowyn, which was a major part of the story, Eomer and Lothiriel weren't even mentioned in it.
 
Posted by Queen of the Harad (Citizen # 4939) on :
 
*brutally kicks thread back to life again*

Hello.

I feel that I must share with you my extreme disappointment over the EE's portrayal of the Mouth of Sauron. I'd be interested in hearing comments from those who have seen the bust of him, or who have watched the QuickTime preview of the ROTK EE, which can be found on the official site.

I deeply, deeply dislike the design for him of having no eyes. It contradicts the book, first off, which seems to labor the point that Aragorn looked the Mouth in the eyes, and made him afraid, and of how the Mouth looked the Army of the West up and down, and laughed at them. This guy is my current fav character from the books, because he's so mysterious, so evil, and yet so human. He feels fear, hate, and malevolent glee at the sight of his enemies' pain, yet he's a coward who screams about his ambassadorial rights after Aragorn just LOOKS at him straight for a few minutes. He feels and expresses emotions that we all feel at some point in our lives, and plus he's just plain fun (winess his acting like a three-year-old denied his favorite toy when Gandalf tells him off at the end).

But what is he going to be in the movie? A mere MOUTH. No eyes (he's blind, and sees with his mind, according to Phillipa Boyens), and not much of a face showing-- just a slimy, split-lipped, really fugly mouth.

This makes absolutely no sense when compared with the book. In the book, the Mouth had normal eyes, and a presumably quite human-looking mouth. Nothing is said as to the exact appearance of his facial features, but his emotions (fear, doubt, anger) are expressed through his eyes and his mouth-- like anyone else. Without these key indicators, how is Gandalf supposed to know that he's lying? How is Aragorn going to frighten him? A major component of the Mouth of Sauron character has been stripped away with this change, and I for one think that it was unnecessary, and it's nonsense as far as the original story is concerned. It's a change which DID NOT HAVE TO BE MADE FOR CINEMATIC PURPOSES, and I am highly disappointed with it.

Taking away his face and expressiveness dehumanizes him in a way that does not follow with the story. The Mouth is the human face (literally) of evil, and making him into some fugly, eyeless, INhuman monster that the audience cannot empathize with is taking something out of the character that Tolkien put in, and it is a something that did not need to be removed.

What do you think? Am I being too harsh? And what in the heazy is 'seeing with your mind', anyway? Sounds too overcomplicated to be practical; to me, eyes would work just as well, seeing that the Mouth had them in the book...
[]
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
That would be yet another insane story 'tweak'. I'll have to see it for myself to judge.
 
Posted by Queen of the Harad (Citizen # 4939) on :
 
Hey, WGW. [] The QuickTime preview can be found here. Just don't click off the pop-up, and click on the main page where it says New Video. It's in the extreme left-hand corner of the screen. If you don't see it (first time I loaded up the page I saw a link for an interview with Miranda Otto), hit "Reload" or "Refresh" on your browser. You get to see what they do to the whole Gandalf and the riders confront Saruman scene *SPOILERS*


(Saruman throws a fireball at them.)

And you get to see and hear the Mouth of Sauron. (His mouth is painted with black lipstick and he has utterly inexplicable vertical, unhealed wounds on his lips and chin. Why would he even WANT to speak with injuries like those, I wonder? He also sounds like a second-rate Darth Vader. His teeth look much like those of an orc; very ugly and yellowed. I actually wonder if many people who have the EEs but not the books will wonder if the Mouth is an orc, rather than a man; he doesn't look very human, nor does he sound much like one. []
 
Posted by Lady Sandry of Ruatha (Citizen # 2732) on :
 
Of course I'm not kidding! Éomer is a mor eimportant character than Farmir, IMO, and at least Faramir and Éomwyn got into the EE.

Anyway, they put Aragorn and Arwen in, and that was only in the appendices.

If Gollum can sue for more Arwen, and Dole wants more Galadriel, I don't see the problem with my asking for even one shot of Lothíriel! []
 
Posted by Silmahtar (Citizen # 4806) on :
 
quote:
(Saruman throws a fireball at them.)
I hope the SFX shot was a rough one, and that the final shot is touched up nicely. As I saw it in the preview, it looked like crappy animation. []
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
quote:
This guy is my current fav character from the books, because he's so mysterious, so evil, and yet so human. He feels fear, hate, and malevolent glee at the sight of his enemies' pain, yet he's a coward who screams about his ambassadorial rights after Aragorn just LOOKS at him straight for a few minutes.
Actually he was a powerful sorceror, even on a level with Saruman (as he hinted that HE would be the one to take over Orthanc); in reality he was a Black Numenorean (those of Numenor who worshipped Sauron from the start and ruled in Middle-Earth during the Akallabeth) who had sucked up to Sauron more than anyone to learn his secrets; and so it was a show of Aragorn's power that he was able to defeat the Mouth of Sauron in a contest of wills-- as well as a testament how Aragorn was the rightful heir of Numenor, while TMOS was a traitor. In this manner, it was personal between TMOS and Aragorn.

TMOS was a vital character, because it's the only representation we see of Sauron in the story (outside of Pippin's brief glimpse through the Palantír)-- and in human form, no less. As a result, as Sauron's represenative he should REFLECT Sauron's personality as a ruthless tyrant and mocking, sadistic coward.

This was the major flaw of the LOTR movies, in that the villains were too UN-human to relate to-- as well as being very flat: Gollum was an animated imp, Sauron was a giant red eyeball, the orcs were outlandish monsters, and now The Mouth of Sauron is some sort of blind, hooded freak.
However, TRUE impact in drama comes from identification and sympathy with even villainous characters, not revulsion and antipathy-- this rather defines a contemporary horror-flick rather than a classic war-story. However Peter Jackson is only known for horror movies, so it all fits: we never even really hear any of the villains talk-- the Nazgul might hiss a word or two, the Eye of Sauron says "I SEEEEE you!" and the orcs might greeble a few words like muppet-monsters, but never anything to give any insight into their depth. As a result, they're simply all walking charicatures like "Muppets take Mordor" complete with whacky voices and flapping heads.
Likewise, taking him out entirely just made the enemy seem completely anonymous when the entire army pours out and surrounds them (for about five seconds before there's an earthquake and it all falls into a pit).

[ 11-24-2004, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Thangail (Citizen # 1292) on :
 
quote:
Eye of Sauron says "I SEEEEE you!"
When I heard that, all i though of was 'I see you baby, Shaking that ass, shaking that ass' []
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
That's nothing-- when I saw Legolas sliding down the oliphaunt's trunk, all I could hear was "Yabba-dabba-DOO!" since it looked EXACTLY like the title-scene from the movie "The Flintstones."

Meanwhile when Frodo got rescued by the Eagle, I heard the end-music from "Platoon" as well as the pilot from "The Road Warrior" saying "REEEELLLLAAAAXXXX, PARRRRTTTNNNEEERRR!" in slow motion.
 
Posted by Silmahtar (Citizen # 4806) on :
 
quote:
When I heard that, all i though of was 'I see you baby, Shaking that ass, shaking that ass'
My association was quite different, but no less ridiculous -- I kept thinking of Sauron playing 'peek-a-boo' with a baby or something.

PEEK A BOOOOOO, I SEEEEE YOOUUUUU!

And little Frodo, thumb hanging off a drooling mouth, gurgles and bubbles a baby laugh. Aww.

[]
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
Speaking of spoon-feeding, the scene with Aragorn and the Palantír was dumbed-down something awful, with his saying "LOOK! The sword of ELENDIL!" In the book he just LOOKED into the Palantír and showed him the sword- and the result was an immediate attack by Minas Morgul, while the text said "Sauron was full of doubt: a stern and kingly face he saw, and a bright sword."

Sauron should know the sword of Elendil better than anyone, as he himself broke it as he struck down Elendil centuries earlier; therefore telling him what sword it was, it was is REALLY dumbing things down; if necessary, he could have simply explained as he did in the book "yes, I loooked into the Palantir, and I showed him the sword."
Meanwhile again this puts all the power in the sword, rather than the King it represents. As Lancelot says in the move Excalibur, "The king without a sword? Then the land is without a king!"

The sword merely represents the kingdom as being under a controlled military controlled by a single heir; thus it's the heir that should be the subject of emphasis, not the sword. As likewise Percival states upon finding the Holy Grail as the secret question to finding it, "You are the king: the king and the land are one."
Therefore, when Sauron realized that the sword was re-forged and the heir of Elendil held it once again, he would have reason to be nervous for that reason. Otherwise, ANY idiot could have simply re-forged the sword and led with it (not just THIS idiot).

However I realize this is a little deep for a cheesy flick-artist like Jackson, so expecting him to understand-- let alone PRESERVE-- these elements is a bit much. (Particularly when this "stern and kingly face" in question looks like some hippie who hasn't bathed in a decade-- even after the coronation; doesn't he EVER wash up?).
 
Posted by Queen of the Harad (Citizen # 4939) on :
 
quote:

Actually he was a powerful sorceror, even on a level with Saruman (as he hinted that HE would be the one to take over Orthanc); in reality he was a Black Numenorean (those of Numenor who worshipped Sauron from the start and ruled in Middle-Earth during the Akallabeth) who had sucked up to Sauron more than anyone to learn his secrets; and so it was a show of Aragorn's power that he was able to defeat the Mouth of Sauron in a contest of wills-- as well as a testament how Aragorn was the rightful heir of Numenor, while TMOS was a traitor. In this manner, it was personal between TMOS and Aragorn.

I know; that's what made that scene-- and the MoS-- so cool. How they're going to do it without the Mouth's eyes, I have no idea.

quote:
TMOS was a vital character, because it's the only representation we see of Sauron in the story (outside of Pippin's brief glimpse through the Palantír)-- and in human form, no less. As a result, as Sauron's represenative he should REFLECT Sauron's personality as a ruthless tyrant and mocking, sadistic coward.
Actually, I tend to think that that was his basic personality; likely he was a scion of a noble Black Numenorian house, and as such was raised as a spoiled brat with a silver spoon in his mouth. (That's how I interpret him, anyway.) In that sense, he's one of those adults who never grow up. Joining up with Sauron would be a logical choice for him, since as a Black Numenorian he would be likely trained from birth as to the history (distorted of course) of Numenor and Annatar and Ar-Pharazon, and he'd grow up hating the sons of Gondor and Rohan. I think that he had a lot of self-will left, even though he had voluntarily surrendered his memory to the Dark Lord; clearly he had personal ambition, fear, hatred, and glee.

(Again, this is how I see him, but I think that this is supported by the text.)

quote:
This was the major flaw of the LOTR movies, in that the villains were too UN-human to relate to-- as well as being very flat: Gollum was an animated imp, Sauron was a giant red eyeball, the orcs were outlandish monsters, and now The Mouth of Sauron is some sort of blind, hooded freak.
However, TRUE impact in drama comes from identification and sympathy with even villainous characters, not revulsion and antipathy-- this rather defines a contemporary horror-flick rather than a classic war-story.

Well, the orcs have always struck me as the most tragic villains; since while one can debate about how they were 'shaped' through torture and degradation from either elves or men, they almost seem to have no choice in the matter; they're doomed from birth. One almost wishes that they could be helped and healed, rather than killed off entirely.

And I think that Gollum was probably the 'deepest' villain character in the movie, though even him I think that the screenwriters distorted. 'Smeagol's' character in the movie was almost like a young child, whereas in the book, I think that he is more of a morally weak, ethically vacuous person, so the Ring easily gained control and he murdered his friend Deagol for it. Boromir never did that, and I think that that says something about Smeagol's basic character, that he would INSTANTLY do something so drastic and evil like that.

quote:
However Peter Jackson is only known for horror movies, so it all fits: we never even really hear any of the villains talk-- the Nazgul might hiss a word or two, the Eye of Sauron says "I SEEEEE you!" and the orcs might greeble a few words like muppet-monsters, but never anything to give any insight into their depth. As a result, they're simply all walking charicatures like "Muppets take Mordor" complete with whacky voices and flapping heads.
Likewise, taking him out entirely just made the enemy seem completely anonymous when the entire army pours out and surrounds them (for about five seconds before there's an earthquake and it all falls into a pit).

Have you heard that the Mouth is going to get killed-- by Aragorn? [] To me that totally contradicts Gandalf's words about not being hasty to deal out death in judgement. Not to mention that it's very out of character for Aragorn.

And I do believe that even late Third-Age Sauron had a body. Gollum does mention that "He has four fingers on the Black Hand, but they are enough." Sauron was never portrayed in the books as a flaming gigantic eyeball stuck on the top of Barad-dur. []
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
It would also be dishonorable for Aragorn to kill TMOS, since he was an ambassador not a soldier; also he survived in the book, so it would be even worse than if they had killed Shelob.
However in the clip it showed he wasn't even human, but just this huge, gruesome mouth akin to Sauron's flaming red eyeball. (I think maybe PJ must be somewhat stupid to take things so literally i.e. "The Eye of Sauron" = Sauron is an actual red eye, or "The story was in three books so we made three movies" = three literal BOOKS vs. books in the literary sense, or "The Mouth of Sauron" = a actual giant mouth. (Good thing he missed the part where Pippin calls Merry "My dear ass"! []

Sauron returned to his body some time after the war, and was pretty much powerless without it; the confusion of "the Eye of Sauron" as his actually being a giant red eyeball would be as ridiculous as Saruman being the Adams Family's "Thing" (a living severed hand) since his symbol was likewise a white hand.

[ 11-24-2004, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Queen of the Harad (Citizen # 4939) on :
 
quote:
It would also be dishonorable for Aragorn to kill TMOS, since he was an ambassador not a soldier; also he survived in the book, so it would be even worse than if they had killed Shelob.
It's so OOC that it makes my head spin. [] First off, Aragorn is too noble of a guy to whack someone like the Mouth out of sheer pique; he'd have to be threatened physically before he'd do it. And as you said the Mouth was an ambassador on an official mission. After that, he could be fair game (inferred from Gandalf's words to him), but while the parley was going on... no. It'd be a bad precedent to off him then, and furthermore, it'd be a thing that orcs or other wicked creatures would do.

Although, technically, Movie!Gandalf has already murdered poor Denethor via his equine stooge Shadowfax, so I wouldn't put anything past ol' Strider. []

quote:
However in the clip it showed he wasn't even human, but just this huge, gruesome mouth akin to Sauron's flaming red eyeball.
Well, he is human but where'd the slashs on his lips come from? Does he have a penchant for self-mutilation or is it just bad makeup and cheap gruesomeness for the sake of gruesomeness?

I vote the latter. []
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
Like I said-- so gruesome that you can't take it seriously. And the voice sounded exactly like the Witch-king's from the same clip, as well as Sauron's elsewhere in the movie-- just a deliberately raspy voice run (quite obviously) through a bass-amplifier to try to sound "evil and sinister," but ending up merely sounding like "The Cookie-monster" with a bad case of laryngitis and hemmorhoids.
 
Posted by Queen of the Harad (Citizen # 4939) on :
 
Well, I liked the Witch-King's voice-- it was sort of a deadly whisper that got the point across better than any over-dramatic theatrics-- and Sauron's (or the Ring's) voice was good. But the Mouth's voice is just too Darth Vaderish for me to buy, especially since it sounds nothing at all like Bruce Spence's real voice.

Now Christopher Lee... now THAT'S a real voice for you. He used it beautifully during the early scenes with Gandalf and Saruman in the Tower of Orthanc-- it will be a real shame if he doesn't get to use the 'seductive' aspect of Saruman's Voice in the extended edition of Return of the King. []
 
Posted by Anorgil (Citizen # 4494) on :
 
Doesn't sound like you're bashing the film, Queen of the Harad...

You might want to post your thoughts about the movies good parts on another thread...
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
The voices just didn't fit the characters as described in the book; the Nazgul voices were said to have a strange accent, but nothing especially eerie about them. As for Sauron's voice, it was never described in the book, since Pippin simply said "he didn't speak-- he only looked, and I understood." However he did seem precisely like the Mouth of Sauron, such as when Pippin said "then he laughed at me, and it was like he was piercing me with knives." Sauron was thus both terrifyingly cruel and cowardly at the same time.

As for Saruman-- who was normally cranky and mocking, but could also be smooth when he wanted, Christopher Lee used the exact same voice-characterization as he did in Star Wars-- and the cheap "abracadabra" sorcery cheapened it even more, when he SHOULD have been using the "Jedi Mind Trick--" as he was playing Saruman, the original master of it.
 
Posted by Queen of the Harad (Citizen # 4939) on :
 
quote:
Doesn't sound like you're bashing the film, Queen of the Harad...
You might want to post your thoughts about the movies good parts on another thread...

Never fear; I'm just d*mning them with a little bit of faint praise before I'm finally able to witness the atrocities that are the slimy-mouthed Mouth, the Spikey-Wheel-Of-Death-Saruman and the Excuse-For-Legolas-To-Pull-Another-CGI-Aided-Stunt death scene of Grima. []

(I am very much a fan of Christopher Lee, though. Haha. [] )

[ 11-28-2004, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: Queen of the Harad ]
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
Yes, but Saruman wasn't an ally of Sauron, he was just an over-educated suck-up with ambitions of taking over. I didn't get this impression from Christopher Lee-- although he was great as Count Dooku, who was more secretive and sinister, and never defeated or captured. But he wasn't that persuasive-- as Ewan McGregor said "I will NEVER join you!"

Also in "The Voice of Saruman" in the book, he was using his voice PERSUADE the party, not to try to intimidate them or shoot roman candles at them like he did in the trailer.

[ 11-29-2004, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
So great was the power that Saruman exerted. . .that none that stood within hearing were unmoved. . . .They heard the gentle remonstance of a kindly king with an erring but much-loved minster.
But of course, recreating this scene with its original artistry would require a subtlety that Peter Jackson et al. have no understanding or awareness of. Because they must dumb the material down to their own level of understanding, we're left with the overblown and the obvious. []

[ 11-29-2004, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by Silmahtar (Citizen # 4806) on :
 
WKA:
quote:
also he survived in the book
He did? I figured once the arrows flew and he was in the thick of it (being a high commander), that he would have been killed during the downfall, or wandered off to die of grief...
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
Actually the text stated said that he along "along with his company galloped madly back to Cirith Gorgor." That was the last mention of him: "exit, stage left."
I would have expected something corny like one of the Towers of the Teeth falling on him after the Ring is destroyed (the typical "just desserts" scene we all know and despise), but having the party kill him is just plain out of line.
 
Posted by Laithaine (Citizen # 4928) on :
 
Okay, I saw this thread and didn't have the time to read the entire 25 or so pages so I'm hoping this wasn't already discussed and if so, don't kill me. []

I was PERSONALLY furious about what wimp they made Eowyn out to be! When they first see Gondor under siege, she's almost terrified even though she wispers words of encouragement to Merry. It's this breathless frightened gasp. So unlike her, considering her brazen grit and will to fight and die.

THEN...I WAS DOUBLE RAGING P*SSED that they cut out her powerful speech as she stands over the body of her lord and kin to defent him. "Begone Foul Dwimmerlaik" and "Either living or dark undead, I will kill you if you touch him." These incredible words of such strength, passion and courage were totally undone by that chicken sh*t expression of hers as the witch king arises before her after she kills the fell beast. I think the Eowyn from the book wouldn't have that gaping open mouth or wide surpised eyes. []

Rather, I see her in my mind as totally undaunted, I see her as sneering in disgust as the witch king approaches her, binding up her corded muscles for the battle at hand.

It was just dispicable how they cut out her power and strength for the sake of the lowest common denominator of moviegoers. I think people would have been more into that scene if they portrayed her as she should have been portrayed. Powerful, angry, brave and ready to face her doom, whatever it may be. []

So, I really hope this point wasn't a repeat and real sorry if it was

Laithaine
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
I'm sorry, but Saruman just was just to overtly caricatured "evil" (like all the OTHER villains in the movie) to be convincing as the mocking con-man, suck-up traitor, and double-crossing "useful idiot" of Saruman in the book. Like you said, SW is a walking bag of clichés, and this is PRECISELY why such a "vampire" act played well in its melodrama, compared to Tolkien's complex subtlety between characters.

quote:
This dialogue between the two didn't even have to clutter the scene up or impede the action in any way; 'Derhelm/Eowyn' and the WK could have been starting to circle each other, each one looking for the best angle of attack, each one looking for a weakness while they challenge each other, with both obviously raring to fight and tensing for the onslaught. That would have been extremely, nail-bitingly creepy and tense, IMHO.

WHAT? Eowyn had NO chance against the Witch-king! There was NO "circling" or other "gunfight" nonsense; and as for his ONE weakness, it lay in the hand of a hobbit, and no one knew about it.
Eowyn rode into battle wanting to DIE; as Aragorn said in the Houses of Healing,
quote:
I have, maybe, the power to heal her body, and to recall her rom the dark valley. But to what she will awake: hope, or forgetfulness, or despair, I do not know. And if to despair, then she will die, unless other healing comes which I cannot bring.
Likewise, her encounter with the Witch-King was much more complex, in that she was terrified of him-- she'd have to be an idiot NOT to be-- and her defiance came from despair as much as courage; she even used her shield against the menace of his EYES, when he suddenly re-considered the situation when she said "you look up on woman!"
But then his steed struck first, and his rage overcame him; his first single blow from his mace broke her arm AND shield from the force of it-- and his second would have surely squashed her like a bug, if Merry had not nobly and couragelously hamstrung him from behind.
Making this into some sort of "battle" would have been not only blasphemy, but also a walking bag of clichés in itself as well-- particularly since the movie simply replaced depth with swordfights.

Finally, after Arwen's little stunt against the Witch-king (and the rest of the Nazgul) at the Ford, Eowyn's stand against him was pretty much played out anyway-- and it also made the Witch-king (and the reast of the Nazgul) look like jokes as well (esp. after the scene at Weathertop where they were seen driven off by flicking matches at them).
----------------------------
EE dialogue:
"I'm a WOMAN, pig!"
"Then get your ass in the kitchen and make me a PAH, bee-atch!

[ 12-01-2004, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Queen of the Harad (Citizen # 4939) on :
 
quote:
Likewise, her encounter with the Witch-King was much more complex, in that she was terrified of him-- she'd have to be an idiot NOT to be-- and her defiance came from despair as much as courage; she even used her shield against the menace of his EYES, when he suddenly re-considered the situation when she said "you look up on woman!"
But then his steed struck first, and his rage overcame him; his first single blow from his mace broke her arm AND shield from the force of it-- and his second would have surely squashed her like a bug, if Merry had not nobly and couragelously hamstrung him from behind.
Making this into some sort of "battle" would have been not only blasphemy, but also a walking bag of clichés in itself as well-- particularly since the movie simply replaced depth with swordfights.

Okay, okay; I was just trying to think of some way that PJ and co. could have had all that dialogue in there. It looks like I'll have to re-read that scene from the book again; and from the way you describe it, it DOES seem so short that they could have just filmed it verbatum from the page. I apologize; please don't hit the blasphemer. []

But... I'll have to continue to disagree with you about Chris Lee's performance as Saruman-- I still think that he did a stellar job in his scenes with Ian McKellan and Brad Dourif. The downfall of ROTK was that Jackson wrongly emphasized dumb action sequences (Leggy with the Mumak [] ) over those pure acting moments that I for one so enjoyed in Fellowship (Ian Holm with Ian McKellan, Ian McKellan with Christopher Lee). It's extremely sad, the more that I think about it.

[ 12-01-2004, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Queen of the Harad ]
 
Posted by Laithaine (Citizen # 4928) on :
 
[QUOTE] WHAT? Eowyn had NO chance against the Witch-king! There was NO "circling" or other "gunfight" nonsense; and as for his ONE weakness, it lay in the hand of a hobbit, and no one knew about it.
Eowyn rode into battle wanting to DIE; as Aragorn said in the Houses of Healing,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have, maybe, the power to heal her body, and to recall her rom the dark valley. But to what she will awake: hope, or forgetfulness, or despair, I do not know. And if to despair, then she will die, unless other healing comes which I cannot bring.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Likewise, her encounter with the Witch-King was much more complex, in that she was terrified of him-- she'd have to be an idiot NOT to be-- and her defiance came from despair as much as courage; she even used her shield against the menace of his EYES, when he suddenly re-considered the situation when she said "you look up on woman!"
But then his steed struck first, and his rage overcame him; his first single blow from his mace broke her arm AND shield from the force of it-- and his second would have surely squashed her like a bug, if Merry had not nobly and couragelously hamstrung him from behind.
Making this into some sort of "battle" would have been not only blasphemy, but also a walking bag of clichés in itself as well-- particularly since the movie simply replaced depth with swordfights. [QUOTE]

I have re-read that scene a thousand times and it's because Eowyn wanted to Die that she felt no fear of death. She wasn't terrified because to die was to acheive her end. Read it again. Never at all that I have found has Tolkien presented Eowyn other than a strong, brave ice queen who wants to die in an act of courage. She wouldn't have been frightened. It was the chance she had been waiting all her life for. I say, YOU blaspheme, Wk!
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
Ok let's read it again:
quote:
Her eyes grey as the sea were hard and fell, and yet tears were on her cheek. A sword was in her hand, and she raised her shield against the horror of her enemy's eyes.
As courageous as she was, she was not UNAFRAID of dying, per se; it must be stressed that her desperation through fear of LIVING was greater, and she was riding off into battle looking for release and redemption (as some primitive tribeswomen were wont to do at times).
Likewise I don't think it would be consistent to say that she would be unafraid when all the others were overcome by fear of his evil presence and Black Breath etc.
He was also threatening her with far worse than a quick death, so her courage in standing by Théoden has to be respected in that account as well.
However the movie completely ignored the fact that she rode with the Muster of Rohan over any sort of despair; in fact in the TT:EE it's shown that she's just wild, and even beats Aragorn in swordfighting just like he's Kevin Costner in "Robin Hood, Prince of Dweebs."
 
Posted by Laithaine (Citizen # 4928) on :
 
[] Prince of dweebs, good one!

1. Tears upon her face for the hurt and injury to her Lord, not because she was thinking, "Oh man, I'm gonna die!" Wouldn't you weep if the man who you thought of as your father died before your very eyes?

2. You're right, I re-read it again last night. In thinking it about it less passionately, She must have felt fear. But you know, I think that proves my point all the better. True courage, I suppose, is not rushing blindly into death like a berserker. I'm thinking true courage is feeling fear, maybe even terrible fear, and then doing what you have to just the same.

And so she did!
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
Actually I don't think the entire movie could have been done worse (given the budget it had), since the "attention to detail" seemed simply gratuitous and store-bought veneer.
Meanwhile the entire obvious metaphor with "Lord of the Flies" was lost, regarding the story as a cross-section between Lucifer and such leaders as Lenin who used similar tactics as Sauron to gain power, i.e. empowering underlings to impose their will upon others in the name of "the greater good--" in addition to mixing in Plato's "Ring of Power" morality-play as a subtle means.
Instead, Sauron became more like a stereotypical DRUG-lord, and Frodo was just a junkie sinking into addiction like Gollum, while the rest was camped-up, politically-correct gratuity and inappropriate humor-- which, as I've said before, is the contemporary (i.e. modern) film genre rather than classical. But that's just my view....

quote:
She must have felt fear. But you know, I think that proves my point all the better. True courage, I suppose, is not rushing blindly into death like a berserker. I'm thinking true courage is feeling fear, maybe even terrible fear, and then doing what you have to just the same.

I thought I SAID that:

quote:
He was also threatening her with far worse than a quick death, so her courage in standing by Théoden has to be respected in that account as well.
So she WASN'T simply unafraid because she wanted to die.
The endless references to Éowyn, made this clear:
quote:
Still she did not blench; maiden of the Rohirrim, child of kings, slender as a steel blade, fair yet terrible.

Aragorn came to Éowyn,and he said: 'Here there is a grievous hurtand a heavy blow. The arm that was broken has been tended with due skill, and it will mend in time, if she has the strength to live. It is the shield-arm that is maimed; but the chief evil comes through the sword-arm. In that there seems no life, although it is unbroken.
'Alas! For she was pitted against a foe beyond the strength of her mind or body. And those who will take weapon to such an enemy must be sterner than steel, if the very shock shall not destroy them. It was an evil doom that set her in this path. For she is a fair maiden, fairest lady of a house of queens. And yet I know not how I should speak of her. When I first looked on her and perceived her unhappiness, it seemed to me that I saw a white flower standing straight and proud, shapely as a lily, and yet knew that it was hard, as if wrought by elf-wrights out of steel. Or was it, maybe, a frost that had turned its sap to ice, and so it stood, bitter-sweet, still fair to see, but stricken soon to fall and die?

'Few other griefs amid the ill chances of this world have more bitterness and shame to a man's heart than to behold the love of a lady so fair and brave that cannot be returned. Sorrow and pity have followed me ever since I left her desperate in Dunharrow and rode to the Paths of the Dead; and no fear upon that way was so present as the fear for what might befall her.

This last point definitely underscores the importance of Éowyn to the story, if her fate was Aragorn's chief fear on the Paths of the Dead.

[ 12-02-2004, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Prince_Imrahil (Citizen # 4979) on :
 
If you guys are that unhappy with the TE, I think you'll be even less pleased with the EE. I've seen it and let me tell you, way to much Gimli humour....way to much. Stupid scenes should have been replaced with awesome scenes ex. Drinking Game for Denethors Palantir.

[ 12-08-2004, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Prince_Imrahil ]
 
Posted by Silmahtar (Citizen # 4806) on :
 
Ugh. Thanks for the tip, though. Prince Imrahil...

At least there's a small mercy: I got an Amazon gift certificate from my employer at our xmas party last night. So at least the DVD won't come out of my own pocket. []
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
So in other words it's just like the rest of the movie, but even LONGER.
 
Posted by Prince_Imrahil (Citizen # 4979) on :
 
Pretty much.....but with 3X more annoying gimli humour then the EE. The scene between Denethor and Faramir was the best addition in my opinion. (small excerpt in my signature)
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
It's annoying how Gimli humor was so expanded to make him look like a spastic idiot, and Legolas humor was downplayed to make him look stupidly "uber-cool" like Arwen-- and even more annoying.
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
. . .Legolas humor was downplayed to make him look stupidly "uber-cool" like Arwen-- and even more annoying.
Whoa, tough call! Hmm, let's see. Which is the most offensive with his/her insipid vacant gaze and ditzy, dim-witted delivery [] , and the biggest insult to the intelligence and wisdom of the original?. . . .No don't make me choose! [] []

With the advent of this colossal LOTR film mess, I have been quickly reduced to having one final nerve, and these two have both been perpetually on it. [] So much for the beauty, wisdom, and depth of Tolkien's literary elves, who deserved at least someone of some dimension to portray them. [] . . . []

And gah, every bit of that lament for the stupid characterization of the noble Gimli. [] A blight on PJ et al! I think someone besides Gimli needs to be dwarf-tossed. []

[ 12-11-2004, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
Well, casting Liv Tyler to play Arwen, would be like casting Madonna to play the REAL Madonna in "Passion of Christ;" but I guess she can't help it if she's a ditzy skank; however Orlando Bloom not only isn't that good-looking, but he also mugs a perpetually snooty, arrogant, looking-down-his-nose sneer during the entire movie, so I'd have to give my vote to him in destroying the kind, cheerful, noble, light-hearted-- but definitely NOT perfect or Spider-man-- Legolas.

[ 12-12-2004, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
Well, the "looking down their noses" arrogance seems to be a feature of many of the elves in the film, so I blame that annoyance on PJ and co. rather than on Orlando Bloom. Besides, I don't think Orlando Bloom has the depth or intelligence to bring anything of his own (or anything resembling accuracy) to Legolas's character so he just stands around with the sole purpose of looking like he's better than everyone else. How lame when one considers the humor, wisdom, and cheer of the soft-spoken Legolas as he was originally written!

As for his looks, he's not exactly what I could call "fair beyond the measure of men," but once again, that's a circumstance of most of the elves in this film. PJ et al. went out of their way to find tall, blonde, "Nordic" looking actors to play the parts of the elves when they should have been less worried about the color of their hair than their actual asthetics. Most of the elves in this film are sadly less attractive than the "men."

What is worse though, is that most of them seem to be dumber as well. There's a certain "vacancy" and lack of depth behind the gazes of these elves that is sharply apparent to me, nowhere more visible than in the faces of "Arwen" and "Legolas."

[ 12-12-2004, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
quote:
How lame when one considers the humor, wisdom, and cheer of the soft-spoken Legolas as he was originally written!

Don't forget his distrust of Dwarves, and how he threw a fit when Aragorn demanded they all be blindfolded in Lorien. Also he could show emotion; normally he was cheerful and aloof, but could also show terror, like at the Council of Elrond and with the Balrog.
I don't think Legolas was that soft-spoken, but would be more like the wood-elves of "The Hobbit." Thus he was wise, but at the same time simpler and less reserved than the High Elves

However you could tell that Orlando Bloom was sneering the whole movie; as for Hugo Weaving, I don't think Agent Sneer can do anything ELSE, probably since he's been doing that same face to a vacant-expressioned moron for so long that it stuck (no not Elijah Wood-- I mean Keaneau Reeves! :-)

quote:
As for his looks, he's not exactly what I could call "fair beyond the measure of men," but once again, that's a circumstance of most of the elves in this film. PJ et al. went out of their way to find tall, blonde, "Nordic" looking actors to play the parts of the elves when they should have been less worried about the color of their hair than their actual asthetics. Most of the elves in this film are sadly less attractive than the "men."

What is worse though, is that most of them seem to be dumber as well.

Precisely; Elrond would be what Treebeard would call "hasty," if Treebeard wasn't that way himself in the movie. As for asthetics however, I understood that the Elves were originally going to be computer-modified to make them impossibly beautiful, having bigger eyes etc; I even saw pictures, and they looked incredible-- and REAL.
However PJ probably looked at the cost and just went cheap like he did with the Hobbits, hiring little squirts to play them; as a result we got Hobbits who not only LOOK like under-developed humans rather than true Halflings, but also seemed pretty insecure onscreen (probably by by growing up in America, where stature is a status symbol, feeling conspicuously shrimpy and deformed-- or else as puckish Europeans where smaller people are more led to frivolity like that leprechaun Monahan, who thus became clowns).
As for Legolas, I couldn't believe how ugly he was-- especially for someone described as so "fair of face" in the book. You're right, Mortenson definitely upstages him in terms of looks; but then again I think that was the idea, i.e. to make Aragorn the Errol Flynn of the movie (which is appropriate for a movie made in the tradition of Robin Hood complete with green tights). And this is despite that Aragorn was described as being specifically UN-attractive and unappealing, having a long nose, a pale stern face an a keen stare; as Frodo implied, he "looked foul." But we can't have that in a movie, right?
But then again, Aragorn in the book was also very tall and commanding, a great and mysterious leader; so I guess they felt that if they had to ignore one thing, they had to ignore everything.

[ 12-12-2004, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
I think Legolas as he is written is very much an elf, cheerful, playful, with a certain inward serenity inherent in all of Tolkien's elves, but he also seems to be a bit more soft-spoken than some. He doesn't do a lot of speaking, compared to a some of the others, so I get the impression he's a bit on the quiet side. And when he begins to sing for the other members of the party near the waters of Nimrodel, the text tells us he does so "in a voice hardly to heard amid the rustle of the leaves above them. . . ." Gives me the notion he is a bit soft-spoken.

But you are right about him being far from the god-like entity that PJ makes him out to be! Yes, Legolas gets in a huff and shows as much stubborn pride as Gimli outside of Lothlorien, and in Moria he becomes so terrified that he drops his arrow and cries out in fear when he sees the Balrog for the first time. But the one scene that sticks in my mind about the nature of the real Legolas, when I'm being subjected to that annoying imposter, is the amazingly funny scene in the book when the Lothlorien elves nearly scare the pants off Legolas as he tries to hop into one of the trees to get their bearings. He startles and shrinks to the ground "in surprise and fear," and the Lothlorien elves can't help but laugh good-naturedly at his predicament as they sit hidden in the trees. This has to be one of the most charming scenes involving Legolas in the entire book--and one that shows him to be far more interesting and dimensional than the bland snooty elf that is supposed to represent him in the film. These are Tolkien's real elves, not demi-gods or paragons of ultra cool, as the insecure little Peter Jackson must fantasize them so to make himself feel more important. Somebody needs to set this dumb doof straight about the true nature of Tolkien's elves. . . .and hobbits, and men, and dwarves, and orcs, and wizards, and dark lords. . .and and and. . . .

[ 12-12-2004, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by Anorgil (Citizen # 4494) on :
 
Didn't he get the orcs right?

Not that it means much if that was the only thing he got right...

[ 12-12-2004, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Anorgil ]
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
The orcs were ridiculously hideous and charicatured green monsters with no real personalities, or that even came close to the book as detailed in encounters in the book with orcs like Grishnak, Ugluk, Shagrat and Gorbag. They didn't even seem to be capable of use as soldiers, having no sense of rank or order.

quote:
I think Legolas as he is written is very much an elf, cheerful, playful, with a certain inward serenity inherent in all of Tolkien's elves, but he also seems to be a bit more soft-spoken than some.
However there's also a more complex side; Legolas was a wood-elf of Mirkwood, who were said to be "less wise and more dangerous" than the high-elves, much like Thranduil in The Hobbit; I can't imagine Elrond or Galadriel throwing Thorin into dungeons simply because he was lost and wouldn't tell why he was passing through in the first place.
However while more simple than the High Elves, Legolas was also very good and wise like Thranduil.
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
Didn't he get the orcs right?
The orcs don't have the dimension or complexity that they have in the text. They are stupid, trite, and cartoonish entities who exist for little more than the occasional closeup "rarrrrrr!" and "hisssss!" cheesy startle effect that is the most we can hope for from a smug, dumb-brow horror movie director. These "hissing" closeups are so absurdly comical and clichéd (not to mention he can't resist inflicting this stupid ploy on poor Bilbo too [] ) and so seem to be all the orcs have going for them, that any resemblance between the film orcs and the literary orcs has to be largely imagined.

[ 12-13-2004, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by Prince_Imrahil (Citizen # 4979) on :
 
Is it just me, or did the orcs look dumber and dumber as the movies went on?? the ones in ROTK EE are laughable!
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
And the VOICES were probably even more annoying; they all sounded like the Wicked Witch of the West sneering and cackling (except the so-called Uruk-hai, who sounded like The Cookie-monster meets Dick the Bruiser, i.e. "Get the Halflings-- COOOK-EEEEEE!").
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
Imagine that! I've always thought the film balrog looked more like a giant flaming muppet than the frightning entity as described in the book, so the Uruk-hai sounding like the Cookie Monster now makes perfect sense!

[ 12-14-2004, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
I can't understand why the balrog had to be a flaming entity, when the book clearly said he looked like a shadow in the shape of a huge man. Not a minotaur on fire-- a man-shaped SHADOW-- is it so hard to know the difference?
And how hard is it, in this day of CGI, to make an artificial SHADOW on film? I've seen it done fairly well on TV shows like Babylon 5!

However the CGI in this movie was atrocious; Frodo's glowing blade looked like someone drew on the film over it with a blue crayon, while Gandalf had to plug a LIGHT-BULB into his staff because they couldn't handle the task of his staff projecting a radiant light.

Meanwhile the balrog also had real wings, and looked like a screaming, flaming minotaur puppet; not scary at all, since he was nothing a fire- extinguisher couldn't handle. (Where's R2-D2 when you need him?)

And so they just gave the balrog the power to make everything shake and collapse in order to make him scarier-- and waste valuable screen-time with a collapsing-stairway scene right out of the video-game "Dragon's Lair;" I was practically saying "Go left, Dirk!"

Likewise, he could scare orcs so bad that they were somehow able to walk up pillars, making them look like the trolls from the movie "Willow."
In the book, the orcs and trolls of Moria were afraid of the balrog; but they also obeyed his orders; he wasn't just a ghost to them, but their ruler.

It would have been much better-- as with every OTHER villain in the movie-- to have them played by a real person; this would make them more like real entities and less cartoony. But PJ is just a cheap horror-flick producer, who thinks the Grim Reaper himself is a cheap cartoon that screams around the screen at warp speed killing people with his scythe ("The Frighteners"), so it's not surprising he'd likewise have no clue about icons of lesser notoriety in literature.
 
Posted by Snowdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
I think Legolas summed it up well in the EE of Return of the King when he takes out P.J. with an arrow. []
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
Could you expand on this please? I didn't see the entire EE, just parts of it.
 
Posted by Silmahtar (Citizen # 4806) on :
 
Thought I'd trump Snow-D's response, well since I'm here... []

[] SPOILER AHEAD []

The sequence takes place after Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas pass through the Paths of the Dead. Aragorn sees the Corsair ships sailing up the Anduin delta.

He confronts one of them, forbidding them to enter Gondor, at which the captain of the vessel scoffs. Aragorn orders Legolas to shoot an arrow across the bow as a warning. Gimli deliberately knocks the end of Legolas Skywalker's bow just as the Elfling is letting loose his arrow. The arrow hits its mark in the chest of one of the ship's crewmen, who just happens to be Jackson.

[ 12-21-2004, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: Silmahtar ]
 
Posted by Éomer (Citizen # 2824) on :
 
Oh, that crazy Dwarf! [] [] []

[]
 
Posted by Silmahtar (Citizen # 4806) on :
 
Yeah, down to the mock [] look on his face after he does it...

Why Peter, WHYYYYYYYYYY??!!!!!!

[ 12-21-2004, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: Silmahtar ]
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
For the worst reason of all: Because he COULD.
 -  -
 -
 
Posted by Snowdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
To quote Tuor:
quote:
What bothered me most about the movie????

After years of reflection, I think I can finally answer this question:

PJ used Tolkien's names (places and characters) to tell his story.


 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
Hello fellow disappointees. Though there is no hope for LotR on film, there are intelligent directors and wonderful book to movie examples in this world of ours. If you ever get the chance, watch the extras in the special edition DVD of Master and Commander. There you will see and incredibly intelligent and skilled director (Peter Weir) discuss his approach to making a movie out of a beloved book by a British author that is a classic with many fanatical fans (sound familiar?). There were a thousand issues and comments that really brought out the comparison (or lack of) between this well established directorial genius and our hack PJ. For example:

1. Weir has read and continues to read the Master and Commander books over and over his *entire* life. He has a real love for the books and knows them like the back of his hand.

2. We wrote the screen play before a single frame was shot. He spent a great deal of time preparing himself - sailing, visits to all kinds of nautical museums and of course reading the books.

3. Weir talks about how easy it is to make a bad movie out of a good book. He said you can't get the whole book on a film, but it is critical to respect the original. I think this is what everyone who has posted on this thread shares - knowledge that PJ utterly fails to respect Tolkien's work. He may think he does, but he lacks the depth of character, culture and experience to know where he crossed that line.

4. The CGI effects on this movie (Master and Commander) are absolutely unbelievable - or how about absolutey believable. There are scenes that are CGI that nobody in the world would ever even think of as special effects shots. The result is a movie that is 100% believable and where the effects never become the center of attention. As comparted to PJs overblown super thriller and cost-no-object CGI/effects, the effects in this movie demonstrate CGI as art guided by intelligence vs. CGI as gee whiz fluff.

5. Far Side of the World is one of about 15 Master and Commander books and is not the first. The screen play leaves out a lot of what happened in the book, but Weir knew there was no way to cram in everything and took great pains to extract the essence of the book, plot, atmosphere - in effect to pull out a story from the book that would be a story that would work on film. The result? Nobody has to have read Far Side of the World to understand ANYTHING in the movie.

I suppose someone could attack my post here based on the idea that LotR is far more complex than Master and Commander since the former all takes place in a different world. My response? Of course it is, but you are missing the point. That is why LotR would have been better in every way with a more intelligent director and screen play writer. Weir is one example of many such people. When you learn more about the REAL professionals out there, you will have revealed more and more on the shallowness and lack of maturity in PJ and his films.
 
Posted by Silmahtar (Citizen # 4806) on :
 
Great post, Snaga. I've not seen M&C (not a huge fan of Russell Crowe), nor read the books, but I think you've inspired me to rent the film.

Is there any question that Peter Weir rocks? Just look at his filmography. For my money, one of the best book-to-film adaptations was his "Mosquito Coast". []
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
I have to agree Snaga. I think Master and Commander is one of the finest representations of a beloved text made film, and the respect and genuine love Peter Weir seems to have for these books is clearly evident. You're right--it isn't an exact word-for-word translation of the text, but Weir has an acute understanding of how to retain the true elements of the book while making it workable for the screen. All those blind claims by PJ purists that the doof stayed true to the "spirit" of Tolkien are quite laughable in comparison to Weir's ability to truly capture the spirit and essence of a book without necessarily making an exact replica. Mostly, he retains the complex characterizations and relationships between the characters--there are lots of them in this text too you'll notice--without dumbing them down for the sake of cheap stooge-style humour. The effects are also beautiful, awesome, and realistic, and anything but cheap over-done cgi. (Ya ya so there weren't fantasy creatures that had to be created, but I think the cgi creatures in LOTR are some of the dumbest things in the film and I'm quite sure they would have been better off using real actors.) And while I really enjoyed this film from the first, watching all the dvd extras gave me an incredible respect for the intelligence and class of this director--PJ is nowhere near in the same league as Weir--and made me all the more appreciate the detail and quality that was put into this film. Too bad the same good fortune could not have befallen Tolkien's text. []

[ 12-24-2004, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by Sauron's Secret Agent (Citizen # 1891) on :
 
Oh get real!

I was reading Tolkien before most of you were born, and I loved the movies.
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
Doing something wrong for a long time, is the definition of insanity.

To quote Archer:
quote:
All those blind claims by PJ purists that the doof stayed true to the "spirit" of Tolkien
Such clams are only possible, if one is one either is so ill-versed and simple, that one doesn't UNDERSTAND the spirit of the intent-- or else is able to sociopathically comparmentalize it from the text; neither is an admirable alternative.

As for the movie, it wouldn't be such a problem, if it didn't ruin the market for a GOOD movie-production from the book; after all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and even comparatively otherwise-esoteric novels such as "The Wizard of Oz" and "Star Wars" had many lame imitations and production-attempts other than their more famous MGM and 20th Century Fox productions.

But Peter Jackson DID thus spoil the market with this overpriced side-show, and therein lies the grievance-- turning the production of "Fellowship" into an episode of "Friends." (Or worse; even Jennifer Aniston would have made a better Arwen).

[ 12-24-2004, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Lady Sandry of Ruatha (Citizen # 2732) on :
 
quote:
Doing something wrong for a long time, is the definition of insanity.
No it isn't. Don't be stupid.
 
Posted by Sauron's Secret Agent (Citizen # 1891) on :
 
*hugs the eminently sane Lady S*

[ 12-25-2004, 05:03 AM: Message edited by: Sauron's Secret Agent ]
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
LOL SSA! [] What I wrote is a paragraph, though it might be a bit more complex than those you're used to. Does it fit the constraints of a paragraph according to standard grammatical rules? Well let's see.

It contains a clear topic sentence:

I think Master and Commander is one of the finest representations of a beloved text made film, and the respect and genuine love Peter Weir seems to have for these books is clearly evident.

It contains several supporting sentences that all clearly support and relate back to the main idea or topic sentence:

1. M&C captures the spirit of the text without necessarily being an exact translation.

2. M&C retains the complex characterizations originally created in the text.

3. The effects are well done and realistic (as opposed to LOTR's effects).

4. The dvd extras reveal the intelligence and class of the director behind this intelligent and classy film.

It concludes with a comment, suggestion, or hope for the future which ties up the ideas discussed in the topic:

Too bad the same good fortune could not have befallen Tolkien's text.

And since every one one of the ideas or supporting sentences relates directly back to the topic sentence, breaking my paragraph into smaller "pseudo pararaphs" that just look like paragraphs in form, but are in truth incomplete (a typical inexperienced writer's ploy), would be grammatically incorrect. Maybe you need to become a little more familiar with the concept of a paragraph yourself. Not to be disrespectful or anything, but you need to know what you are talking about before you go leaping off the pier with those kinds of assertions--and drowning. And as for whether or not you are inclined to read my posts, that's entirely of no consequence to me. []

Now let's see if we can stay on topic with our discussion, hey? [] []

[ 12-24-2004, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
quote:
I'm only an English lecturer.

Who got served. WORD!
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
I'm only an English lecturer.
Cool! Me too. [] Merry Christmas. []

quote:
Oh get real! I was reading Tolkien before most of you were born, and I loved the movies.
Splendid! So then what are you doing here in the Purist Rage forum? I think you're a bit lost, mate.

quote:
I have a suggestion. Don't watch the films again. And shut up about them.
Wrong again. This is where the Tolkienists can go to not have to shut up about about them for once. You are the one who is out of line here, begging your pardon.

[ 12-25-2004, 02:48 AM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by Queen of the Harad (Citizen # 4939) on :
 
Merry Christmas to everyone at Minas Tirith.

Now, I am wondering if adapting LOTR to the silver screen (or even to the small screen, as a miniseries) CAN be done, to the satistfaction of purists and non-Tolkien readers alike. Obviously, not everything from the book can be in a movie or series of movies. A movie based on a book should be faithful to the source material and yet be accessible to the person who has not read the book.

So-- what should stay and what should go in the ideal LOTR adaptation?

Or more precisely, what did PJ's adaptation fail to have that it should absolutely have had, and what did it have that it should not have had?

I've been thinking a bit about doing my own 'screenplay' for LOTR; has anyone else actually written their own adaptations? Just curious... []

Also, I've finally seen the Mouth of Sauron scene, and boy was it disappointing. It was just so boring; a shell of a character and a shell of a scene from Tolkien's text. And did Aragorn's 'whazzup?' smirky raised-eyebrow make anyone else want to reach through the screen and smack him? []
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
The entire MOVIE was a shell-- not even that.

What should stay? Well for one thing, characters, places and events should LOOK like they were described in the book-- as well as in the book's context, which might not be so obvious to some.

I think it can be definitely done, if it's dramatized properly, and not simply hacked up in a cheesy, manipulative, self-indulgent fashion by someone who doesn't know what they're doing and doesn't care, but who thinks they're making a good movie anyway because of their film-budget.

For one thing, Glorfindel should definitely stay-- I mention this because it's something that both films messed up, figuring that they should have to introduce a main character instead. This is where they're wrong: it will be a surprise departure since the audience will EXPECT he'll be a main character, since they've been conditioned to expect that super-heroic characters always take center-stage; then Gandalf sagely advises AGAINST him being in the Fellowship, sending Merry and Pippin instead-- and I DON'T mean as comic relief.

Mainly, the hobbit-scenes should be left in-- and I do mean center-stage, not the background. The main scene should be the "inner dialogue," such as where Sam tells Frodo, after they meet Gildor and the elves:
quote:
I dont' know how to say it, but after last night I feel different. I seem to see ahead, into darkness; but I know now I can't turn back. It isn't to see Elves now, nor dragons, nor mountains, that I want-- I dont' rightly know what I want: but I have something to do before the end, and it lies ahead, not in the Shire. I must see it through sir, if you understand me.
This element of "second sight" and other deeper messages throughout the book, are a central subtext that should definitely be communicated in the movie.

Time, scale and distance-factors are also important; I didn't see why the movie made a big deal of Frodo's "return journey home" by showing the map, when in the beginning of the movie Gandalf was shown riding to Minas Tirith in a short time. Likewise, the hobbits' journey to Bree should LOOK like it's 75 miles; I'd want to see something that LOOKED like the Shire, the home of the Hobbits, not a few barrow-mounds and cornfields (when they didn't even HAVE maize-corn in Middle-Earth). How hard can it be to show a few scenes of them tramping through different backgrounds? One full minute, tops.
Don't be in such a rush to get to the next battle-scene-- the story is mainly about a JOURNEY-- and I don't mean the cheesy Peter Jackson "obligatory PERSONAL journey" that he forces every character to take-- even of Faramir of first wanting the Ring, then comes to refuse it: this is an insult to the men of Numenor.

Another point to be established in the movie, is the historical and other-worldly context of Arda underlying the story, and how it relates to the characters; the story of Beren and Luthien that Strider tells the hobbits (as well as its relation to him), the scope and history of Arda, Numenor and Middle-Earth as related by Faramir and Bombadil, Gandalf making reference to Fëanor, and wishing he could look into the Palantír and see back when the Two Trees in bloom etc.

In Peter Jackson's version? The only mention is the notion that the Balrog is "a demon from the ancient world." WHAT ancient world? Was there an age of fire-breathing goats in his version of Middle-Earth?
And since when were there DEMONS in Arda? Or devils for that matter, as Strider calls the Nazgûl at Weathertop?
And at the end, WHERE are they going over the Sea? California? New York? Where IS Middle-Earth?

Again, since the story should revolve around the Hobbits, it's important to show their relation to the other Hobbits in the Shire as well, and how Frodo was so well-known and respected in the Shire, but also the isolated context of the Hobbits in rejecting the outside world-- and how the Tooks and Brandybucks, though much richer, were less respected due to being more adventurous.
On the contrary, however, Peter Jackson simply portrays Merry and Pippin as ne'er-do-wells and thieves, with Sam pulling them off of Frodo and pushing them away, saying "Can't trust a Brandybuck and a Took!"
WHAT THE $&*#($????
What happened to Sam calling them MISTER Merry and MISTER Pippin?

This movie was obviously too freaking politically-correct to preserve class-relationships in the book, and definitely wouldn't allow Sam to call Frodo "master" or show subservience-- he didn't even call him MISTER Frodo.
Likewise, the Hobbits should be shown becoming rich and famous in the end; PJ just shows them going back to the PUB!

This is one thing that SHOULD be left in the movie: the feudal context of the story, politically-correct or not. YES, Aragorn goes and fights while she remains in Rivendell. YES, Frodo is master and Sam is his servant. YES, Aragorn is the king. Get over it!

And about time: why the rush? Frodo seems to leave on practically the same night as Bilbo; why not SHOW that 17 years have passed before he learns about the Ring?

And is it too much to show that the Nazgûl-- as agents of Sauron, and therefore being like him-- worked WITH people, offering both rewards and intimidation, rather than monsters riding around killing everyone? Too complex and subtle I guess.
And why not SHOW them when Frodo puts the Ring on-- PLAINLY?

These simple elements are vital to relating the story properly.

[ 12-26-2004, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Queen of the Harad (Citizen # 4939) on :
 
Ah, good! Hope is already rising within me that someday, a great adaptation of LOTR will be made.

Now, as for the orcs-- I'm thinking that their make-up in the movies was too hideous and over the top? But Tolkien's descriptions of the Uruks looking like debased, mutanted forms of the "Mongloid race" would NOT fly in cinemas today-- that's too politically incorrect. I'm thinking that the orcs should not then look like any debased form of any specific race, but that they could still be true to Tolkien's vision with subtle, human-like-- yet still evil and frightening-- prosthetics and make-up.

Any suggestions?
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
quote:
Great post, Snaga. I've not seen M&C (not a huge fan of Russell Crowe), nor read the books, but I think you've inspired me to rent the film.

Is there any question that Peter Weir rocks? Just look at his filmography. For my money, one of the best book-to-film adaptations was his "Mosquito Coast".

Silmahtar! So glad to read your post. Funny, I stopped my little diatribe short, but I was thinking about Mosquito Coast too! It is yet another example of how a complex book can be pulled off in film. I had read this book prior to the film coming out and you are indeed right - he made that one work in a wonderful way. Like anything thing else worthwhile, I think a successful book to film adaptation has to hurt a bit - choices are difficult if not agonizing. Does anyone get the impression PJ or Fran whatever her name is agonized over any decisions? Quite the contrary - they smack of arrogance and self assuredness that what they did was the only way and/or the best way. Though we think Weir is a genius the man leaves the impression he is never completely satisfied. Why? Because he never stops learning and growing.

Any way, do rent Master and Commander - it is a great story and a really neat film. Has to be THE high seas sailing movie of all time. My only caveat - you won't get all the director commentaries I referred to in the normal rental version. There is a a special edition DVD set with all the extra features. Still, who cares. Just enjoy the film. You may be happy to know that Russel Crowe is somewhat upstaged by his "second fiddle" (pun intended) - just see the movie and enjoy it.
 
Posted by Silmahtar (Citizen # 4806) on :
 
Cool. I'll do that. I may even purchase it with store credit from a returned DVD -- I got "Matrix Revolutions" as a xmas present ( [] ) which I've really no desire to see, having been lukewarm to the first film, and downright hostile to the second.

And if you, or anyone else, haven't seen his masterful "Gallipoli", get your hands on it. Totally heartwrenching, and an outstanding performace by Mel Gibson.

e: Witch-king of Angmar, good points all around in your post. Friendly suggestion: try easing up on those of on MT who disagree with your assessment of the films. It cheapens your arguments, IMO. []

[ 12-25-2004, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Silmahtar ]
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
Now, as for the orcs-- I'm thinking that their make-up in the movies was too hideous and over the top? But Tolkien's descriptions of the Uruks looking like debased, mutanted forms of the "Mongloid race" would NOT fly in cinemas today-- that's too politically incorrect. I'm thinking that the orcs should not then look like any debased form of any specific race, but that they could still be true to Tolkien's vision with subtle, human-like-- yet still evil and frightening-- prosthetics and make-up.

Any suggestions?

Call me an old school gamer, but I like the idea of the "classic" orc, tough, greenish-skinned, assorted horns and tusks, piercings [] , a bit bulkier that the average human. I'd like to see them presented in a strong, militaristic-type way, with enough intelligence and organization to seem threatening in the classic war enemy way--and not as a scrambling pack of freaky ghouls as Jackson feels they should be portrayed. The film orcs look like some kind of undead--no surprises there--and the rediculous addition of "Lurtz" serves no other purpose that to provide a bit of gratuitous horror-movie slime for the splatter fans. [] In the hands of a competent director, a more classicly prostheticized orc army would have been much more interesting and effective, IMO. As it is, the orcs remind me of nothing so much as some kind of stupid hissing zombies out of a "B" horror flick.

Still, I was less bothered by the way the orcs looked than by the way they acted. They were a total joke in terms of any wit or sentient thought and seemed to be good for little more than growling at the screen and providing the occasional startle reflex for the dimmer wits who are there just for the pretty lights and "spooky" monsters.

[ 12-26-2004, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by Queen of the Harad (Citizen # 4939) on :
 
quote:
Call me an old school gamer, but I like the idea of the "classic" orc, tough, greenish-skinned, assorted horns and tusks, piercings , a bit bulkier that the average human.
Eh, well, some of the orcs in the movies had greenish skin and piercings. I'd edge their looks away from more animalistic depictions-- I've seen 'em and didn't care much for them-- the Orcs seemed too dehumanized and distant from their Elven/human forebears...

I'd go with pale, unhealthy skin, since they seem to like living in dark places, with various prosthetics on the brows, nose, cheeks, chin-- just to subtly make human features look somewhat inhuman and aggressive. Rather more like the trolls in The Tenth Kingdom... Also, the orc helm that Frodo wore near the end of the books had, IIRC, a beak-like nose guard, so there's definitely room for variety in how the orcs look-- they don't all have to look like they were pressed out of a mold.
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
quote:
Now, as for the orcs-- I'm thinking that their make-up in the movies was too hideous and over the top? But Tolkien's descriptions of the Uruks looking like debased, mutanted forms of the "Mongloid race" would NOT fly in cinemas today-- that's too politically incorrect. I'm thinking that the orcs should not then look like any debased form of any specific race, but that they could still be true to Tolkien's vision with subtle, human-like-- yet still evil and frightening-- prosthetics and make-up.

The Orcs weren't supposed to resemble any particular race: these would be the Easterlings and the Southrons/Haradrim, who were brave and noble men but who were fooled by the lies of Sauron, as often occurred in real life; they fought fiercely and asked no quarter. And after the war, it was stated that King Aragorn made peace and friendship with these nations.

Rather, Orcs were supposed to look like Elves, but stooped, twisted and deformed by abusive conditions and reckless breeding-- not hideous green monsters grown from pods in mud-pits by evil wizards: that's just plain bizarre to the point of being hideously Satanic.

As Frodo says to Sam in the tower of Cirith Ungol,
quote:
The Shadow that bred them can only mock, it cannot make; not real new things of its own. I don't think it gave life to the orcs, it only ruined and twisted them; and if they are to live at all, they have to live like other living creatures."
As I've mentioned previously, any hope of taking the enemies seriously requires the preservation of realism; the second you start making orcs, trolls, balrogs and wraiths into cheap screaming zombies and shapeless blobs, rather than solid, well-defined and complex entities, then reality goes out the window and you've got another cheap horror-flick on your hands.
Therefore, it's essential that all of these enemy-creatures be played by real actors with minimal make-up and prosthetics; even the ridiculous schlock-film "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" hired Christopher Walken to play the Headless Horseman.
Likewise, I really can't imagine the three trolls Tom, Bert and Bill Huggins appearing like these shapeless, screaming animated trolls shown in the movie (or statue-versions of the actual three trolls shown), but rather life-like versions of huge, ugly men.
However the orcs should also be shown as being rather small in comparison to men; as in Moria, a "huge orc-chieftain" was described as being "almost man-high," while Denethor asks Pippin "how is it you escaped when Boromir did not; for he was a mighty man, with only orcs to stop him?"
Even hundreds of Uruk-Hai were sent packing by the lone Boromir, who were only able to defeat him by shooting him with hundreds of arrows; as Ugluk boast to Grishnak, "We are the fighting Uruk-hai! we slew the great warrior!" meaning Boromir.

Obviously orcs weren't much of a threat overall; this contrasts sharply with the movie, where the normal-sized orcs were man-sized, while the Uruk-Hai were all huge, vicious monsters; and yet the party was still able to defeat dozens of them-- which came off as simply ridiculous as surfing Oliphaunts.


Silmahatar:
quote:
Witch-king of Angmar, good points all around in your post. Friendly suggestion: try easing up on those of on MT who disagree with your assessment of the films. It cheapens your arguments, IMO.
It looks that way, however I do try to encrypt it so that the only persons who see the diatribe, are those to whom it doesn't apply.
However we purists, do have to realize that there IS a "lowest-brow common denominator" market that's going to try to distort a great story like this by seeing it as fantasy rather than metaphor;
and I'll be the first to admit that I don't have much patience with it-- remember we're the aggrieved party here. It's not like WE took their beloved "Xena, Warrior Princess," and made her into a classically realistic portrayal of Joan of Arc, is it?

Also it's not like "Master and Commander" was all that well-known among the Gen-X crowd before being filmed. Likewise, "Horatio Hornblower" was made into a fairly good mini-series by TBS, after being a likewise well-made Gregory Peck movie.
My point is that the more popular something is among the general public, likewise the more prone it is to having a cult-following, and being exploited in this manner, ala Tolkien's complaint about "the deplorable cultus;" if these had been favorites among the comic-book crowd, I'm sure the same might happen to it, regardless of the quality of the writing.
As it was, Horatio Hornblower and Master and Commander became adapted as such characters as Captain Kirk in "Star Trek," but obviously they weren't claiming to represent the same.
Likewise, it's not so bad if Frodo becomes Luke Skywalker or Harry Potter, and Gandalf becomes Obi-wan Kenobi or Professor Dumbledore; but when the movie's claiming to represent the ACTUAL story, it becomes a serious problem.

[ 12-26-2004, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
eh. . .green skin and piecings alone do not an orc make.

Here are some "classic" orcs. Notice I said "tusks" ( not bad teeth) as part of the description. Though these orcs might be a bit over the top, I think something humunoid but beast-like as represented by these visages would have worked to my liking, and would have been acceptible to fantasy enthusiasts and standard movie-goers as "orcs."
 -

PJ's "zombie orcs from outerspace."

 -

Pale skin? Nah. "Sallow" or greenish-tinged maybe, but not pale. I think that would have possibly resulted in the morlock disaster from the 2002 version of The Time Machine. *shudder*

But as I stated in my post above, my problem was less what they looked like and more what they behaved like, the dumb horror movie ploys they were presented through, and the fact that they were undeveloped entities and seemed to have no real culture, organization, or credability.

[ 12-26-2004, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
Those "classic orcs" are also pretty bizarre-looking; likewise
Tolkien said orcs had fangs, not tusks; those look more like pigs, as in the Gary Gygax depictions.
Overall, you want them to look fairly human-like, otherwise once again they simply become outrageous monsters, and the audience has no appreciation for them-- the only reaction is revulsion.
I think this shows why Peter Jackson took such pains to make Gollum so life-like, since he wanted to portray him as a complex, sympathetic creature who never really harmed anyone, and with whom the audience would identify, rather than a hideous evil one. As such, the clear ignorant bias was set to make the orcs appear outlandish, while the more sympathetic characters were more fleshed-out and human.
This was NOT Tolkien's intention.
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
otherwise once again they simply become outrageous monsters
right. . .except that Tolkien decribes them as "monsters," and calls them "degraded and repulsive" too, among other things. Tolkien was definfitely not going for the subtle in describing their appearance. We have to remember Tolkien wasn't subtle about everything in his books. He has a great artistry in complex and subtle characterization of many of his characters but I don't ever get that he was ever going gentle in trying to describe his orcs to his audience.

quote:
the only reaction is revulsion.
I don't buy that. If a character is intelligently and intricately crafted, the character's anomalous look is more likely to add complexity and interest. That's what I think was Tolkien's intention. And remember, orcs are in actuality the "mockings" of human beings and elves, and that generally does not leave much room for subtlety. Additionally, Tolkien himself states that his orcs are based on the "goblin tradition." If we take all the various the goblins and hobgoblins of literature throughout the ages, I think we're likely to find some pretty "outrageous monsters" inhabiting.

[ 12-26-2004, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
quote:
I don't buy that. If a character is intelligently and intricately crafted, the character's anomalous look is more likely to add complexity and interest.
Right, which is why it has to look realistic in order to be taken seriously. The orcs weren't simply hideous monsters, in addition to being mockeries of the Children of Illuvatar, but were also quite cunning and intelligent, as well as complex after their own fashion, having a culture of their own which had its own particular foul logic. Not simple green caricatures like you see in Halloween decorations; rather, these were supposed to be the genesis of Halloween and other fairy-tales of medieval and Celtic origin, and so should be realistic-looking versions of such-- just like the ELVES shouldn't look like they would be working for Santa Clause and Keebler!
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
Well I think it can be done, creating both a "monstrous" and a realistic orc, though it would take a skillful hand: definitely not a horror film maker. The problem is that most of us are too used to seeing cheaply grotesque monster-types, of the kind Jackson relishes in, that it's hard to imagine something being both grotesque and believable.

But still I see it as being wholly possible. We just need to get the right man/woman with the right vision and perception to do it. Tolkien created both monstrous and complex creatures in his orcs. He tells us they are likely based on the goblins of George Macdonald, which are interestingly said to be ". . .not ordinarily ugly, but either absolutely hideous, or ludicrously grotesque both in face and form," yet he gives them subtlety and complexity of character, which I think requires a real gift to pull off. A film representation would likewise require someone with similar gifts of vision to do so successfully. Unfortunately, this type doesn't come along too often.

[ 12-26-2004, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
A burn-victim or severe-injury is horrible to look at, but still very human; this is the type of realism I'm talking about-- realistic and human enough to identify with, but complexly flawed and damaged enough to be both believable and shocking at the same time.
Again, the key should be that the characters were surreal metaphors, not some puerile escapist fantasy straight out of Dungeons & Dragons (thus my reference to Gygax above).
As with Tolkien's work, which merely drew from and embellished real-world elements (cultural as well as historical), I don't think anyone can create such images, but merely adapt them from real-life so that the audience can relate to them in a horrific sense, as they do regarding the more familiar; however as you observed, this was not simply a horror-movie, but one expressing elements of great WONDER as well-- which he misses entirely, as Gimli tells Éomer, is "fair beyond his reckoning, and only little wit can excuse you."
However UNLIKE Jackson, Éomer realizes his crude nature, apologizes, and says "I would gladly learn better."
The beauty of LotR was that it captures both the horrific and the sublime in a surrealistic fashion; it wasn't just a cheap fantasy or Stephen King novel.

[ 12-27-2004, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Queen of the Harad (Citizen # 4939) on :
 
The Witch-King of Angmar wrote:
quote:
I think this shows why Peter Jackson took such pains to make Gollum so life-like, since he wanted to portray him as a complex, sympathetic creature who never really harmed anyone, and with whom the audience would identify, rather than a hideous evil one.
Never really harmed anyone? He murdered babies in their cradles and ate them. He did all manner of depraved acts. The Smeagol in the movie was far too sweet, IMHO, with his huge lemur-like blue eyes.

Actually I think that PJ and his co-writers protrayed Gollum/Smeagol as too sympathetic, in that Smeagol was an abused, downtrodden child, and Gollum was like the abusive and domineering parent. I think that in the books, Gollum and Smeagol really weren't that different-- both personalities wanted the Ring, and wanted it badly enough to commit horrible crimes. Smeagol was simply more cowardly; it was Gollum who was aggressive enough to do the deed.
Both personalities were morally vacuous... though perhaps the Smeagol side still had a small vestigial knowlegde of right and wrong. But it didn't last very long. . .
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
quote:
A burn-victim or severe-injury is horrible to look at, but still very human; this is the type of realism I'm talking about-- realistic and human enough to identify with, but complexly flawed and damaged enough to be both believable and shocking at the same time.

I really don't think Tolkien had a burn victim (or any similar "realism") in mind when he created his orcs. As a devout Catholic, his orcs as corrupted elves were analogous to the devils and demons of Catholicism as corrupted humans. He makes it clear they are vile, hideous, and "mockeries" of the human/elf form--something I'd be very hesitant to say about a burn-victim type affliction. He describes them as owing much to the MacDonald tradition, whose goblins are about as repulsive in physical description as any have ever been in literature (and by which I'll bet my money Gygax's orcs have also been influened). I don't think Tolkien was trying to align them too closely with humans in appearance. However, MacDonald's goblins, much like Tolkien's orcs, are very clever and complex, and it is easy to see how these fairy-story creatures can be seen as the orcs' genesis.

There isn't any question in my mind: Tolkien makes it clear his orcs are pretty repulsive, just like the traditonal demons of theology and the assorted imps and goblins of germanic and european literature. To try to modernize them into something more human-like, something right out of Star Gate or Babylon 5 for instance, characters with a little face paint and maybe a bit of a nose or forehead prosthetic, is simply misreading the professor.

On the other hand, making them look like "elf zombies" as they do in the Jackson films is also missing the point. These creatures are supposed to be mishapen and horrible, and cruel mockeries of the humanoid form. I think Tolkien probably imagined them as very beast-like, which is tradtional for demonic forms in both theology and literature. More than likely, they did not even have all one kind of form. Rather, each was probably as perverse and differentiated from the next as we can imagine. Jackson's orcs in fact look like elf burn-victims, which is why I don't see any real threat in them. There simply isn't enough there to appear twisted, mocking and corrupt, nor do they seem, as I'm sure Tolkien intended, far beyond anyone's ability to physically recognize their once noble form.

[ 12-27-2004, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by Queen of the Harad (Citizen # 4939) on :
 
quote:
There isn't any question in my mind: Tolkien makes it clear his orcs are pretty repulsive, just like the traditonal demons of theology and the assorted imps and goblins of germanic and european literature. To try to modernize them into something more human-like, something right out of Star Gate or Babylon 5 for instance, characters with a little face paint and maybe a bit of a nose or forehead prosthetic, is simply misreading the professor.
In Babylon5, G'Kar has a pretty elaborate make-up job; so do a lot of the background aliens...

Sorry; B5 fan speaking...

So, should the Jackson movies have just used less make-up, or applied it only on certain areas of the actors' faces? Should no contact lenses have been used? No 'bad teeth' dentures? (Personally I should think that the orcs would have bad teeth...)

quote:
On the other hand, making them look like "elf zombies" as they do in the Jackson films is also missing the point.
I need to pin down what makes them look like 'elf zombies' to you. Clarify, please? Is it the fact that a lot of the orcs seem to have no noses? If so, that would be a logical complaint, as Tolkien, IIRC, did not describe the orcs as having no noses; on the contrary, he did describe the orc helm that Frodo wore as having a beak-like nose guard, which says to me that that orc had a long, perhaps spindly, nose, rather like the evil goblin Blix in Ridley Scott's Legend.

quote:
These creatures are supposed to be mishapen and horrible, and cruel mockeries of the humanoid form. I think Tolkien probably imagined them as very beast-like, which is tradtional for demonic forms in both theology and literature. More than likely, they did not even have all one kind of form. Rather, each was probably as perverse and differentiated from the next as we can imagine.
The orcs in Jackson's LOTR do have differences in their looks. One has a hooked nose, the next has no nose. One has red, squinting eyes; the next has bulging green eyes... Do you mean that they should look more animalistic, with different sorts of animal-looks in them? Wouldn't we be running the risk of simplifying them again, just as we claim that Jackson has done? What if they came off as simply being mere 'beast-men' and not as horrific as the twisted image of a debased relative of the Elves? Shouldn't they look more like deformed Elves?
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
Once again, my point is being missed. The orcs need to look like beasts in my opinion--but that's simply going by Tolkien's background and his direct descriptions of his orcs, if we are going to niggle over physical appearance.

But that is not the larger issue; it's how they are presented that is the real transgression. Making them look like beasts is not alone going to "simplify" them. What is going to is the stupid, and yes, very simple nature they seem to have in the films. What makes them poor portrayals of Tolkiens' orcs is the utter lack of complexity. They are just cheap horror movie fare, placed for the main purpose of providing something "scary" to kill, to run from, and frequently to "startle" over, which is why there are numerous closeups of their faces jumping out at the screen and snarling and hissing: gratuitous "scare" cuts that serve no real or intelligent purpose. Tolkien's orcs were far more complex and purposeful in their behavior. So as I've said, it's more their natures than their appearance that are the furthest from the mark.

[ 12-27-2004, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
I didn't literally MEAN that orcs should look like burn-victims! That was merely an analogy to explain the kind of complex realism vs. the simple outlandishly caricatured. Ok, the orcs were twisted elves; and Gollum was a twisted hobbit. And I didn't say that their look could be achieved by the common sci-fi method of adding a few facial bumps; I always imagined orcs as looking fairly simian in appearance, being stooped, hairy, long-armed, bow-legged--in a word, "devolved."
Rather, I think orcs deserved the same computer-animation to make them look impossibly ugly, that should have been given to the Elves to make them look impossibly beautiful-- as I said in my last message, to illustrate the horrific and the sublime.


quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this shows why Peter Jackson took such pains to make Gollum so life-like, since he wanted to portray him as a complex, sympathetic creature who never really harmed anyone, and with whom the audience would identify, rather than a hideous evil one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Never really harmed anyone? He murdered babies in their cradles and ate them. He did all manner of depraved acts. The Smeagol in the movie was far too sweet, IMHO, with his huge lemur-like blue eyes.


This was my POINT; even Gandalf said of Gollum:
quote:
Deserves death? I daresay he does.
Like most cartoons, Jackson made the most horrendous villians into cute and cuddly little misunderstood creatures- right down to showing the look of joy on Gollum's face to be re-united with his Precious, as he fell into Fires of Doom.
And I was thinking-- why not Sauron, then? He wasn't evil at the beginning either; sounds like a bit if hypocrisy to excuse one villain and not another.
Likewise, in Gollum's stupid time-wasting "conversation with his reflection," he says of killing the hobbits "we did it once before--" referring to the scene when he killed Deagol.
ONCE before?
So there we see that Gollum was portrayed as fairly harmless-- and likewise, it was made to look that Deagol and Smeagol simply FOUGHT to the death over the Ring, after falling under its power-- rather than Smeagol murdering Deagol for it outright out of merciless greed, being NOT a very nice hobbit previously.
No, the message here is that it wasn't his fault-- nothing was ANYBODY's fault in the movie except a big bad evil red eye!

However as Deagol says in the book, "I've alread given you a better present than I can afford;" but in the movie, Deagol just gets greedy, refusing to give Smeagol a birthday present at all-- and they both fall under the Ring's power and fight over it. No simply throttling his smaller cousin in cold blood-- which sets the contrast to Bilbo REFUSING to harm Gollum in order to keep the Ring, which shows how his good heart prevented him from being corrupted by the Ring. (Yes, I know this is brought up by Gandalf in Moria, but this is to make a bleeding-heart liberal speech against the death-penalty, not to show how Bilbo was better than Gollum-- in this movie, only Sauron is worse than anyone).
Thus, the moral of the movie is simply, that "the devil made them do it;" meanwhile the moral of the book was clearly that of Plato, i.e. that a moral person REJECTS the Ring of Power.

[ 12-28-2004, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Snowdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
Aw come on.. the Orcs were one of the things Pj got close to right.
The whole Arwen sneaking up on Aragorn in the wild bit set the taste, then elves at Helms Deep..... []
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
Elves at Helm's Deep is not such a big deal; it was inaccurate, but there was nothing overtly offensive about it. As for orcs, no way-- they looked completely like Halloween creatures.
Likewise, the elves were ugly albino creatures, not supremely beautiful at all. Everything looked ugly.
 
Posted by Snowdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
You're going by how things looked, not the accuracy of the story. There is nothing 'purist' on how things looked since each book reader has their own images on how things looked, including Peter Jackson. Elves at Helms Deep on the otherhand is a gross corruption of the story, hence purist rage (read the title of this thread).
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
Verbatim accuracy is not so important, as story-relation. It's a fact that Tolkien DID consider Galadriel and Celeborn sendign elves to Helm's Deep, so it's not so much liberty-taking as the other garbage--in fact if you were to point out the SMALLEST liberty taken in the entire movie, that would probably be it-- the fact that it made the Battle of Hornburg shorter, was redeeming-value enough, since it was so drawn-out and over-done. I'd rather have a million Elves at Helm's Deep, than ONE instance of Legolas surfing anything from horses, shields, trolls and oliphaunts!

 -

As for every reader having their own interpretation, this is not the objective, so much as presenting the message of the AUTHOR. The first rule in critical reading, in fact, is to always stay focused on the author and what he's trying to tell you.

Readers who can read English, and who have a good idea of the author's context, in addition to following it long enough while having good analytical reading skills, will be able to form an accurate representation of this; and then there's hacks like Peter Jackson and those among Gen-X crowd who barely cracked this book before or after the movie-- if at all, but suddenly think themselves experts, and find the movie quite convincing and accurate.
Consider the source.

[ 12-28-2004, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Snowdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
Right... you should consider the source.
Elves were not at Helms Deep in the books.
Maybe you should go back and read them again.
No purist are you WiKi.
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
YOU need to go back and read what I wrote. I didn't say it was a good thing, I said that it wasn't as bad as the other changes.

[ 12-28-2004, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Elanor Gamgee (Citizen # 3219) on :
 
I can see WK's point. The changes in the story per se didn't bother me as much as where doing so altered (and usually diminished)the characters' personalities, such as Faramir and Denethor. And Merry, Pippin and Gimli were all made into cartoon comic figures.
 
Posted by Snowdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
I guess its how you define 'Purist'.
Are the movies true to the books? No. So the rage is about the screenplay, not what the orcs looked like.

So this isn't really a 'Purist' thread anymore I see.
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
The rage is about what and how many things deviate from Tolkien's descriptions, spirit, and purpose, including--but not limited to--anything, anybody, any race or any creature as opposed to what Tolkien narrates and decribes.

[ 12-29-2004, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: Archer ]
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
But it's essential to differentiate the spirit of his intentions, from the LETTER of his intentions; Elves at Helm's Deep, for example, doesn't violate the spirit of his intentions as much as, say, Legolas doing a spider-man up the side of Oliphaunt's butt-- everyone knows he HATED spiders!
I'm not denying dramatic license by any means-- after all, not once did Tolkien mention the existence of background-music, and I've been composing my own for it since Bakshi's debacle; however it should enhance the relation of the story to the audience, not distort it.
The music in Jammy's movie sounded like stock movie-scoring, and didn't at all seem to fit the story.

[ 12-29-2004, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Queen of the Harad (Citizen # 4939) on :
 
quote:
The rage is about what and how many things deviate from Tolkien's descriptions, spirit, and purpose, including--but not limited to--anything, anybody, any race or any creature as opposed to what Tolkien narrates and decribes.
Like the Mouth of Sauron. [] The really galling, bizzare thing is that one of the guys who worked on the character said in the interviews for the EE that the books don't say whether or not the character had eyes...

Well, my hardcover omnibus edition says he did.
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
They actually said "The books don't say whether or not the character had eyes"???

Oh PLEASE-- come on!
From "The Black Gate Opens" (ROTK p.165)
quote:


He LOOKED them up and down and laughed.
...
Aragorn said naught in answer, but he took the other's EYE and held it, and for a a movement they strove together thus...
...
'These are the terms,' said the Messenger, and smiled as he EYED them one by one.
...
Looking in the Messenger's EYES they read his thought.

This admission is a dead give-away which underscores my allegations, that these hacks didn't read the book very carefully.

[ 12-30-2004, 12:52 AM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
I just watched the spoiler posted of that scene - I guess PJ really took the whole idea of "mouth" pretty far, yet I suppose you won't "get it" unless you read the book. Subtle? clever? - hardly, but what is subtle or clever about any of these films?
 
Posted by Silmahtar (Citizen # 4806) on :
 
The white tree of Gondor design on Boromir's gauntlets. That's the only subtle thing I can think of...
 
Posted by Queen of the Harad (Citizen # 4939) on :
 
The Witch-King of Angmar wrote:

quote:
They actually said "The books don't say whether or not the character had eyes"???
Oh PLEASE-- come on!
From "The Black Gate Opens" (ROTK p.165)

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

He LOOKED them up and down and laughed.
...
Aragorn said naught in answer, but he took the other's EYE and held it, and for a a movement they strove together thus...
...
'These are the terms,' said the Messenger, and smiled as he EYED them one by one.
...
Looking in the Messenger's EYES they read his thought.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
This admission is a dead give-away which underscores my allegations, that these hacks didn't read the book very carefully.

I know. It was rather suprising, since I can just open up my book and flip to that section quite easily. The dumbing-down of the Messenger's character was a big blow for me; in fact, it pretty much killed my faith in the movies. I just
knew, right when I saw the design for him, that all the complexity, horror, and humor in the Mouth would be GONE, just like that, and he'd be no more than just another anonymous Bad Guy.

It was an almost painful moment, really. And the knowledge that at one point PJ actually wasted time and money on doing tests for a vertical mouth for the Mouth was a mind-blower. I just sat back, numb with rage and disbelief, wondering why the heck they didn't earmark the money that went for the Mouth's split-lipped make-up and CGI-ed vertical mouth tests, and put it in a direction that would have made freakin' SENSE, like say, HIS HORSE?!

Sorry to harp on about it, but the utter destruction of the Mouth just stuns me more than anything, really.


Snaga wrote:

quote:
I just watched the spoiler posted of that scene - I guess PJ really took the whole idea of "mouth" pretty far, yet I suppose you won't "get it" unless you read the book. Subtle? clever? - hardly, but what is subtle or clever about any of these films?
I actually thought that it would have been far more effective if the Mouth were played by a handsome, almost androgynous man. Look at the depiction of Satan in The Passion of the Christ, and you'll see what I mean. Rosalinda Celentano's looks and glances (and glares) were so significant and menacing that you just instinctively GOT the sense of this ancient being's utter evil and hatred, but the image of her was so beautiful and alluring (I didn't realize it was a woman until I saw the end credits) that you couldn't take your eyes off her. Her voice was also very notable; very slow and languid. I actually now envision the Mouth's voice and mannerisms as somewhat similar to her's.

To me, Evil wearing a fair face would have been so much more effective than Evil with just another bad skin and teeth condition and spiky mask. Why did they preserve Frodo's in FOTR of a true servant of the Enemy "would look fairer and feel fouler" if practically almost every villain in the next two films would blatantly contradict it?? []

[ 12-30-2004, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: Queen of the Harad ]
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
For the same reason that ARAGORN was played by a handsome, almost-androgynous man! In other words, subtlety and intrigue were beyond the spoonfed reaches of Mr. Peter Blackenwhite.

Now imagine if Viggo played the Mouth of Sauron instead-- a Black Numenorean who sucked up to Sauron more than anyone else, and who was Sauron's ambassador because he could himself no longer assume a fair form.

This mirrors Saruman's attemt to persuade Gandalf to join Sauron, claiming that it would be a necessary evil for the greater good:
quote:
As the power grows, its proved friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to to direct its courses, to control it. We can bind our time, we can keep out thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe the evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends. There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only our means.

To which Gandalf replies:

quote:
Saruman, I have heard speeches of this kind before, but only in the mouths of emissaries sent from Mordor to deceive the ignorant.

As such, it's no wonder why the Mouth of Sauron boasts that he'll be the new master of Orthanc under the new order.

This character was vital because he revealed Sauron's true character as being not particularly powerful or fearless, but rather cruel and cowardly, as well as ruthless and conniving-- which was Sauron's weakness.

[ 12-30-2004, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Sauron's Secret Agent (Citizen # 1891) on :
 
quote:
ARAGORN was played by a handsome, almost-androgynous man!
Go and wash your mouth out with strong soap immediately!

[ 12-31-2004, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: Sauron's Secret Agent ]
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
I wasn't joking- he's one step away from David Spade and David Hyde-Pierce on the androgyno-meter. However the dramatic purpose of "looking fair and feeling foul" would have been much better served if he was the Mouth of Sauron-- I would have never in a million years dreamed of him being Aragorn. But that's just going by the book...
 
Posted by Athene (Citizen # 3473) on :
 
Androgynous? Viggo spent much of the film standing next to Orli and you think he was androgynous?
[]
I'd hate to think what your standards of manliness are then...
*pictures hairy knuckles dragging on the floor*
[] []
 
Posted by Éomer (Citizen # 2824) on :
 
Don't mention Him! He's always listening! [] []
 
Posted by Athene (Citizen # 3473) on :
 
[]
ÉO is KD!
*fetches the lynch mob*
[] [] []
 
Posted by Éomer (Citizen # 2824) on :
 
The Yomer does not appreciate such insults, Donkey-worshipper. []
 
Posted by Sauron's Secret Agent (Citizen # 1891) on :
 
Viggo was exactly as I always imagined Aragorn - totally inspired casting. And as I keep saying, I was reading LOTR before many people at MT were even born.

Athene, please do not even mention M. Woodentop in the same sentence as Viggo. Thank you.

Yomer can't possibly be KD - he has a sense of humor. Of course, WK and KD could be one and the same...

[ 12-31-2004, 06:07 AM: Message edited by: Sauron's Secret Agent ]
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
Orli's too ugly to be androgynous, and was likewise making ugly faces the whole movie; meanwhile Viggo's a walking pair of nostrils underneath big faggy eyes mooning up at the camera -- as well as a tight little chin that should be on the cover of "buns of mithril," and a short and scrawny chest and shoulders. If that's not andro, then Prince needs to change his name back from that symbol.

quote:
Viggo was exactly as I always imagined Aragorn - totally inspired casting.
More like illiterate clichéd cheesburgers-- he's a pair of tights away from Robin Hood. I don't know what book you were reading, but he was NOT described like this homo.

[ 12-31-2004, 06:13 AM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Sauron's Secret Agent (Citizen # 1891) on :
 
You know, I'm beginning to feel really sorry for you - such a sad, twisted, bitter, little man you seem to be. You must be really unhappy deep down inside.

Try a course of positive thinking, seriously; it can only do you good.

edit: and PLEASE check your spelling! (No, you don't need a condom, as I have pointed out elsewhere.)

[ 12-31-2004, 06:17 AM: Message edited by: Sauron's Secret Agent ]
 
Posted by Queen of the Harad (Citizen # 4939) on :
 
*Scratchs head and stares at the messages...*

See, this is what I was saying. I make one comment about the Mouth being somewhat androgynous and it turns into a discussion about Viggo Mortensen being adrogynous... which I don't think he is. Neither would I have him as the Mouth of Sauron.

I'd much rather have had either Michael Wincott (who isn't adrogynous, but who is fairly good-looking, IMHO, and who has a naturally deep and rasping voice, so no electronic alteration for him) or Richard O'Brien, who is very good at playing villains, is a good horseman, and who has a sort of fascinating, delicate quality to his face. He also looks nice bald... []

(BTW, WiKi, Prince HAS changed his name back from that funky symbol-thing. I think that he's just Prince now. Or perhaps The Artist Formerly Known By A Symbol, Who Was Formerly Known As Prince... [] )

[ 12-31-2004, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: Queen of the Harad ]
 
Posted by Sauron's Secret Agent (Citizen # 1891) on :
 
quote:
I make one comment about the Mouth being somewhat androgynous and it turns into a discussion about Viggo Mortensen being adrogynous
You really haven't been here very long, have you? []
 
Posted by Queen of the Harad (Citizen # 4939) on :
 
No, I haven't, and it feels like being swept about in a raging tide. Don't laugh. []
 
Posted by Sauron's Secret Agent (Citizen # 1891) on :
 
These things happen in threads regularly. Relax and enjoy it, and then bring them back on topic if you want.

You get like-minded, slightly crazy, people together, and spontaneous diversions will inevitably occur.

edit: My sig! My sig! I forgot my sig!

[ 12-31-2004, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: Sauron's Secret Agent ]
 
Posted by Éomer (Citizen # 2824) on :
 
Wait a second, what? Viggo's mouth is a raging androgynous condom?
 
Posted by Arien the Maia (Citizen # 4219) on :
 
So Mortensen is androgynous while Bloom isn't ... interesting []
I'd love to see that film. []
 
Posted by Silmahtar (Citizen # 4806) on :
 
Rocky [] []

Maybe Bloom has a androgynous cnidarian... []
 
Posted by Sauron's Secret Agent (Citizen # 1891) on :
 
A real one what?

Of course it is tempting to fill in the blank for myself, but let's be fair.

quote:
along with your oviously overcompensated penis-envy
[]

And: could you compose your posts in Word, or similar, and use the spell check?
 
Posted by Arien the Maia (Citizen # 4219) on :
 
Elf lord ... [] []
[]
I love the link []

SSA I suppose he means a "real man" []
I think it would be better to ignore the little pest ... it ain't worth it, my dear lady []
Not to mention that he keeps not answering Tuor's questions ... which also makes him unfit for any Tolkien discussion ... so the solution is obvious []

[ 12-31-2004, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Arien the Maia ]
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
That's fair-- I've been ignoring you! []

quote:
A real one what?
Didn't THINK you'd know that one guv'ness! []

[ 12-31-2004, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Sauron's Secret Agent (Citizen # 1891) on :
 
You are so obviously an oldie playing up that it isn't worth replying.

Happy New Year!
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
I was wondering if anyone else had checked out this thread:
It makes a pretty good analysis of PJ's travesty.
 
Posted by Éomer (Citizen # 2824) on :
 
That was a great read. Thanks, WK.
 
Posted by Archer (Citizen # 3857) on :
 
I've read that essay several times in the past; it's concise, well-written and referenced, and has some pretty uncontestable points. Thank goodness someone can make a pitch for the professer's art to show how it deserved a far better treatment that it got from Jackson et al.

Hmmm, I actually thought that link had been posted here before at MT. Well either way, glad you posted it in this topic and got the subject back on track.
 
Posted by Queen of the Harad (Citizen # 4939) on :
 
Good article, Witch-King. Thanks for the link! [] The part that depresses me in it is that we will be unlikely to see another version of LOTR in our lifetimes... []

Has anyone else found other articles and essays that are in this same spirit?

[ 01-02-2005, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: Queen of the Harad ]
 
Posted by Cernunnos (Citizen # 652) on :
 
An excellent essay, well worth reading. Thanks for the link!
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
quote:
The part that depresses me in it is that we will be unlikely to see another version of LOTR in our lifetimes...
Who knows, maybe Mel Gibson will do it... he did make a Jesus-pic after Oliver Stone's "Last Temptation of Christ." []

quote:
Has anyone else found other articles and essays that are in this same spirit?

Not really; everything I find seems to just rave about how "great" it is, and how true to the story blah blah blah []
The ironic thing is, that some of these same sites ALSO talk about how the movie and the book had bad moral points-- which simply leads me to conclude that these critics were as bass-ackwards as Peter Jackson in not having the foggiest grasp of the story.

However there is a site that I found which is quite humorous here: -- and you KNOW how tough of a critic that I am!

[ 01-02-2005, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Silmahtar (Citizen # 4806) on :
 
quote:
he did make a Jesus-pic after Oliver Stone's "Last Temptation of Christ."
You meant Scorcese. And it was an exceptional adaptation of the source novel... []

Back to the critics' comments about PJ. Many journalists are a lazy lot to begin with -- I doubt many of them fully understood (or read) the book at all. In the years of the movies, PJ was simply hot copy...

And eventually the hype will die down, so it will be interesting to see how the films will be regarded 5 or 10 years from now. I predict they'll be relegated to the position of second-grade fantasy films like "The Dark Crystal", "Willow", "Sword and the Sorcerer" -- dated artifacts. IOW, I highly doubt the trilogy will be studied in film schools.

[btw, on a side note, I just saw "The Aviator". It was the most exuberant piece of filmmaking I've seen in ages... Outstanding.]

[ 01-02-2005, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: Silmahtar ]
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
Yes that's right-- Scorcese; I've remarked previously here that Scorcese could have made a great production of LotR.

I've also stated that PJ's version will be forgotten extremely quickly-- as quickly as "the Blair Witch Project." There was simply no connection with real-life or sense to make any sort of lasting impression-- just a bunch of flashy SFX; if anything, it ASSAULTED sense and sensibility.
 
Posted by Queen of the Harad (Citizen # 4939) on :
 
quote:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has anyone else found other articles and essays that are in this same spirit?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not really; everything I find seems to just rave about how "great" it is, and how true to the story blah blah blah
The ironic thing is, that some of these same sites ALSO talk about how the movie and the book had bad moral points-- which simply leads me to conclude that these critics were as bass-ackwards as Peter Jackson in not having the foggiest grasp of the story.

Silly me; I've just answered my own question! Here's some quotes from a couple of articles from ChristianityToday.com that are rather critical of the movies for messing up the characters...

quote:
The first two Peter Jackson film-renderings of The Lord of the Rings missed the moral and religious depths of Tolkien's epic fantasy, but still managed to capture the excitement of the plot and the grandeur of the scene. Yet the second movie began a trend that Jackson has unfortunately retained in the third—an obsession with outward violence. His version of The Return of the King converts the awful subtlety and complexity of evil into something so obvious as to be unserious.

This ethical and artistic failure becomes most evident in the third movie's depiction of Gollum, the wretched hobbit who, having possessed the Ruling Ring for five hundred years, has been virtually devoured by it. In The Two Towers Jackson revealed Gollum to be a conflicted soul even in his consuming greed. And here he powerfully depicts Gollum's original Cain-like murder in seizing the Ring. But Jackson soon removes our sympathy with the conflicted Gollum—and thus our complicity in his crimes—by turning him into a pathetically comic and merely devious figure. Jackson even allows Gollum to create a bizarre alienation between the utterly loyal servant Sam Gamgee and his heroic master Frodo Baggins. But instead of being emotionally wrought with concern that these two dearest of friends should suddenly be divided, I found myself sniggering at this outrageous violation of Tolkien's great book.

So is Denethor the steward of Gondor turned into a caricature of himself, a snarling and drooling oaf rather than a noble pessimist who has good cause for lamenting the loss of past glories that will never return. Tolkien clearly intends Denethor to be a man of our own time in his forlorn despair over the decline of his culture. Yet Jackson robs Denethor even of the logic of his death—his suicidal refusal to accept half-measures and partial triumphs. Instead, Gandalf's horse knocks Denethor onto the pyre he has built for his son Faramir! Set aflame by its fires, the maddened steward hurtles off a cliff. A scene that Tolkien intended to disclose the horror of hopelessness becomes yet another unintentionally comic display of flamboyant technical effects.

Amen and amen, brother.

The one criticism of the films that rather irks is that these articles' writers claim that the films dwell too much on violence. To a certain extent, I disagree. LOTR is a story about war, and as such it must show the horrible cruelty of war. I'm glad that Peter Jackson didn't sugarify the story into a PG-kiddie romp, but the violence in the PJ Lord of the Rings should have had more of a horrific, Saving Private Ryan quality to it. The head-lopping scenes of Lurtz and the Mouth of Sauron were cartoonish in their lack of blood. And the scene from the book where the armies of Mordor catapulted the severed heads over the walls of Minas Tirith should have been one of the most tragic, wrenching, horrifying moments in the films, but I can't even remember if it was in the theatrical version. Was it in the EE?

The Lure of the Obvious is the one that I've quoted from, and here's another quote from another article that focuses on the role of Tolkien's Catholic Christian faith in his books, and how the movies miss the deeper elements of the story, such as mercy shown to those who don't deserve it:

quote:
Jackson has completely undone the scene that Tolkien describes as the most tragic in the book. The fact that the director has moved it forward from The Two Towers to The Return of the King is not the problem. In the book, Gollum comes upon Sam and Frodo asleep in the Pass of Cirith Ungol. Frodo's head is in Sam's lap, the servant protectively shielding him with his hands. "Peace was in both their faces." Something in this sight of loving companionship touches the remnant of humanity that remains in Gollum's soul. This is the moment when Gollum and Sméagol are having an "interior debate" about whether or not to deliver up the hobbits to the dreadful Thing lurking ahead in the tunnel. Gollum reaches out, hesitantly, with a trembling hand, to stroke Frodo's knee, saying, "Nice master!"

But Sam is instantly awake. Vehemently and mercilessly he rejects Gollum, calling him "villain." Sam means to be protecting Frodo, but his lack of insight and his roughness have the opposite effect. Tolkien writes, "The fleeting moment had passed, beyond recall." This is the point, more than any other, when the reader will cry silently or aloud, "No!" One could hardly miss the significance of the opportunity and Sam's utter failure to seize it, yet Jackson seems to have missed it.

The loss of this scene is incalculable. In its place Jackson's writers have invented a bit of business where Gollum steals the lembas and arranges to have Frodo blame Sam for the theft. This shifts our attention to Sam's hurt feelings, rather than the true center, which is the tragic implosion of Sméagol's nascent love for Frodo. We are robbed of an opportunity to understand that Gollum is still recognizably human and capable of love. More important still, the crucial tension between mercy shown toward Gollum—such a central theme in the book—and what Gollum actually "deserves" is altogether lost. Since the center of the Christian gospel is God's mercy toward the undeserving, those who value Tolkien's implicit Christian message will feel bereft.

Jackson has omitted many key scenes that show Aragorn's kingly qualities. There is no suggestion of the King's tireless healing of the sick and wounded; these are passages where Tolkien has inserted an unusual number of biblical hints evoking the example of Christ. We are deprived of any examples of Aragorn's Solomonic wisdom, as for instance in the honorable discharge given to the young conscripted soldiers who panic at the sight of Mordor, and in the reassignment of Beregond in a way that punishes him and yet rewards him also. We do not learn of Aragorn's perilous confrontation with Sauron in the palantír, so we do not know the full story of his self-sacrificing courage. Nor do we see Aragorn in counsel with Gandalf and the other leaders of the Free Peoples after the battle of the Pelennor, so we have little sense of him as a leader among leaders. None of these omissions would be serious alone, but taken together they add up to a significant reduction of Aragorn's majesty.

The most serious of all Jackson's alterations, however, occurs at the climax, the all-important dénouement that, for Tolkien, was the key to the entire structure (he called it the "eucatastrophe"). Jackson's decision to have Frodo become, in a sense, the master of his own fate, more than anything else, has convinced many Tolkienians that Jackson does not understand the underlying themes of the book.

Speaking theologically, the remarkable and paradoxical thing about Tolkien's achievement is that he has so much to say about God without saying anything about God. All through the book there is this pervasive sense of a greater Mind, a greater Author, directing the events and working through human agents for a larger purpose than any of them can divine. Tolkien accomplishes this largely through syntax, frequently using the passive form of verbs ("Frodo was meant to have the Ring," "time was given" to Aragorn), and through veiled references to "some other power," "some other will". This would have been very difficult to convey in a movie, but the deliberate decision of the director to demystify the dénouement at the Cracks of Doom has derailed Tolkien's entire theological project. Not least among the disappointments here is that the care lavished upon the creation of the cinematic Gollum ultimately goes for nothing (nothing theological, at any rate) because we never see the awakening of his love for Frodo, and the mercy shown to him never finds its transcendent place in Jackson's version of the plot.

Enjoy! []
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
quote:
Jackson's decision to have Frodo become, in a sense, the master of his own fate, more than anything else, has convinced many Tolkienians that Jackson does not understand the underlying themes of the book.

I don't understand this reference; if anything, Frodo (like Gollum) was portrayed as more a pure victim of circumstance, than having any choice in the matter. In the book, Frodo's penultimate battle with Gollum outside the Sammath Nuar seemed to refer to the tansfiguration of Christ, and Frodo's words here seemed to seal both of their fates-- Frodo claims the Ring, and Gollum is cast into the fires of Doom.
In the movie, however, Gollum simply bumbles off the edge in the finest tradition of Deus ex machina.

[ 01-04-2005, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
Thanks for those articles, Queenie.

Jackson messed up so much, it's hard to choose what to be critical of. It's nice to read articles that focus on certain points and clearly break down his failure.
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
Actually I simply choose the arrogance and disrespect for the author. If he had simply TRIED to honor Tolkien, then I would forgive just about anything; but it's clear that he simply used JRR's masterpiece life's work as a launching-platform for his own pathetic ego and self-indulgence, being simply too ignorant to realize he was so far out of his league that it wasn't even funny-- and would be out of his depth if he had any.
The truly sad part, however, is how badly it misrepresented the story to the mainstream public.
 
Posted by Silmahtar (Citizen # 4806) on :
 
QoH, these were excellent reviews, thanks for sharing them.

quote:
Jackson even allows Gollum to create a bizarre alienation between the utterly loyal servant Sam Gamgee and his heroic master Frodo Baggins. But instead of being emotionally wrought with concern that these two dearest of friends should suddenly be divided, I found myself sniggering at this outrageous violation of Tolkien's great book.
Clearly an astute reviewer who not only read the books, but understands them. []

A horrible thought just came to me: that whole "You can't help me, Sam. Go home" bit had all the dramatic arc of some really, really horrific afterschool special I remember watching as a kid. [] More reason why ROTK was so fall below the already sub-par previous films.

I'm curious to find out what the viewership was of each movie -- I predict that they dropped off by the time the third film came out, particulary among non-fans. I know my gf never bothered seeing ROTK and she's a non-fan.
 
Posted by Queen of the Harad (Citizen # 4939) on :
 
quote:
Thanks for those articles, Queenie.
Jackson messed up so much, it's hard to choose what to be critical of. It's nice to read articles that focus on certain points and clearly break down his failure.

"Queenie"! [] Thanks, WGW! Glad to know that you enjoyed them! There were a few others there that were more praising of the films, so I didn't link to those. [] They have a special LOTR movie section over there on the site.

I do remember stumbling across an extremely scathing review of ROTK at one point-- however I don't know where I found it.... I shall have to go back and look for it. All I remember is that it was written by a Jewish fellow and it was as scathing as anything I've ever seen Witch-King of Angmar say... []

quote:
A horrible thought just came to me: that whole "You can't help me, Sam. Go home" bit had all the dramatic arc of some really, really horrific afterschool special I remember watching as a kid.
And it was resolved just as quickly. Frankly, I don't see why in the world Jackson didn't just film it like it was in the book? What, was Tolkien's scenario too complex to storyboard, or what? It would have been so much more exciting if they had had Sam fight Gollum at the end of the Shelob battle.

And the part where a crying Sam was trudging down the Stairs and then finds the lembas at the bottom was ridiculous. Why wouldn't he be going after his master anyway, despite what Frodo said to him? Why would he just be rolling off, where he might fall and break a leg (or his neck) or be captured by an orc?

See? Makes no sense. None at all.

quote:
I'm curious to find out what the viewership was of each movie -- I predict that they dropped off by the time the third film came out, particulary among non-fans. I know my gf never bothered seeing ROTK and she's a non-fan.
I watched FOTR several times in the theater, heck, I even went to it a day or so after I'd gone to the ER for a chopped-open fingernail. I think I might have seen TTT in the theaters twice, if even that, and I only saw ROTK once in the theater. So that's my story...
 
Posted by Silmahtar (Citizen # 4806) on :
 
Tári Hyarmendoro
quote:
Frankly, I don't see why in the world Jackson didn't just film it like it was in the book?
I think that's one of life's unanswerable mysteries, like "what the hell IS spam made of?" []

By my very cursory reckoning, this is my viewership record of the three films (home viewings approximate):

FOTR
Theater: 1
Home (DVD/VHS): 12

TTT
Theater: 1
Home: 15

ROTK
Theater: 2 (1st time orc brats behind me talked THE ENTIRE TIME, second was a free ticket)
Home: 2.5

Granted, I've only taken possession of the ROTK DVD last month, but I really don't anticipate watching it more than once or twice this year. And I got that DVD for free with a gift certificate.
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
quote:
A horrible thought just came to me: that whole "You can't help me, Sam. Go home" bit had all the dramatic arc of some really, really horrific afterschool special I remember watching as a kid. More reason why ROTK was so fall below the already sub-par previous films.

Yes, it was a cheap tear-jerking move by acting to separate the inseparable-- and, like most of the premature climaxes in this movie, went off half-cocked and destroyed the final separation at the end.

quote:
I'm curious to find out what the viewership was of each movie -- I predict that they dropped off by the time the third film came out, particulary among non-fans. I know my gf never bothered seeing ROTK and she's a non-fan.
As for age of viewers, I was surprised to hear my neice talking about the movies-- and then I realized that this bomb was pulling a Disney modernization, and dumbing it down to the kiddy-market. THAT's the reason for the inane silliness, the patronizing dialogue and dumbing down of plot, the flattening of depth, the cute, cuddly hobbits and the caricatured villians and heroes alike-- either that, or they were simply incredibly stupid. I'll opt for both.
 
Posted by Queen of the Harad (Citizen # 4939) on :
 
More links for your perusal:

http://scv.bu.edu/~aarondf/hearth/archives/000152.html

Mr. Cranky's review (link below) is pretty critical of Tolkien purists, but it's kinda funny.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/chi-031216dpcranky,0,5837270.story

quote:
I spent the last 40 minutes of this thing wondering when in the hell it was going to stop. It fades to black more times than Ozzy Osbourne taking an IQ test.

Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) start slowly hoofing it up Mt. Doom while Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) and the other members of the Fellowship battle the evil Orcs. It's almost as if the hike takes place in real time. It made me think that Mt. Doom badly needs a gondola.


 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
From the above links:
quote:
Lets start with the fundamental issue of making "Lord of the Rings" as a movie. You can do this in one of two ways. The first is of course to be as faithful as you can within the bounds of the medium to the text, making changes only as forced to by bounds of time and format. The second is to make your own movie based on the existing work. This later is fine if dealing with a small work that simply isn't long enough so that you must extend it. Where this isn't the case, this second scheme for me is an abomination where you take advantage of the massive built in audience (at least in this case) for a beloved work to come see YOUR movie. Unfortunately, to me it seems thati n the end Peter Jackson has made a very wrong choice and it takes a lot of gall to think you can make a better story than a story that has in many polls been voted to be the best work of literature of the Twentieth Century.
I LOVE this man....

quote:
If Jackson didn't do everything humanly possibly to be true to the book, LOTR fans would hunt him down.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.............. [] [] [] [] []

[ 01-05-2005, 01:33 AM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Snowdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
Ya know.. it could have been worse. What if Oliver Stone directed???
[] []
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
Hey Snowdog, funny you mentioned that, but we discussed that in the what if other directors had made LotR thread (sorry no link, gotta run), but I think this particular discussion revolved along the development of many Middle Earth conspiracy theories. Perhaps a Stone version would have concentrated almost exclusively on the assasination of Isildur? [] I mean, just how did those orcs just happen to come upon him - huh? Just what were the Stewards up to at the same time? Huh huh!!! Then we could borrow from other movies with well worn cliches like "You want the truth, you can't handle the truth" "this is bigger than any of us..."

The root of it all - those darn hobbits have been plotting all along to get a piece of the action!

[ 01-13-2005, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: Snaga ]
 
Posted by Silmahtar (Citizen # 4806) on :
 
I was watching the second half of FOTR last night, and I again wondered how my reaction to the films would have been different if I'd never read the book beforehand.

As I've elucidated before here and elsewhere, the films are half-way decent in and of themselves, but they're horribly unfaithful to Tolkien. OK movies, bad adaptations.

Finally, I think these films would have been better served to have NOT used the name "The Lord of the Rings" at all. Instead, they should have been called: "The War of the Ring I, II, III"

... or something like that, with the necessary disclaimer:

"Inspired by the novel The Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien."

Or in keeping with the lower-denomination of the movies, something more along the lines of: "Ring War" or "Ring Quest".

Lame, I know, but more accurate to describe their collective quality and aesthetic. Calling them "The Lord of the Rings" is just plain wrong and not true, IMO.

All facetiousness aside, I'd be interested to know what others think these movies should have been called...

[ 01-13-2005, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: Silmahtar ]
 
Posted by Arien the Maia (Citizen # 4219) on :
 
Isn't there a "inspired from the work of JRR Tolkien" notice somewhere?
Personaly, to this day I fail to understand how the movies of Peter Jackson coulf create so strong feelings to the Tolkien fans.
We all knew in advance that books like the Lord of the Rings are not filmable and certainly we are all aware of the rule that says that books are always better than the movies based on the books.
So PJ was unfaithful to Tolkien, mainly because Jackson presented Middle Earth the way he saw it ( as we all do inside our minds) and tryed to make it into a film, aka use action, agony, introduction and epiloge.

For me, Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings remains the a very good presentation of Middle Earth. And for anyone who disagrees, the road is open and everyone will be thrilled to see a better version .. so create the better version .. anyone?
[]
 
Posted by -Laurelin- (Citizen # 3717) on :
 
quote:
We all knew in advance that books like the Lord of the Rings are not filmable and certainly we are all aware of the rule that says that books are always better than the movies based on the books.
Of course a movie or mini-serie cannot hold all the details of the books, but it can stay on the path of the book, which PJ's film failed to. I believe it is possible to cinematographically(?) make justice to the book, and everyone on this board harbor this hope (though they may expect nothing to not get their feelings hurt).
quote:
So PJ was unfaithful to Tolkien, mainly because Jackson presented Middle Earth the way he saw it ( as we all do inside our minds) and tryed to make it into a film, aka use action, agony, introduction and epiloge.
The problem is not the way he saw it (costumes, landscapes...), the problem is that he deleted important 'aspects' of the book and added superfluous unnecessary movielines (Aragorn falling down the cliff, Sam 'go Home') which stirred JRRT in his grave.

I love how he pictured Minas Tirith - Edoras - Isengard, they're all stunning works. The Landscapes are almost all perfect - I didn't have much disappointment for the costumes (armours, banners, clothes) of anyone, I didn't stop on these. Anyway PJ would have picture these, that's not what makes the movie good or bad, it is the storyline.

And that storyline, was, shredded.
 
Posted by Arien the Maia (Citizen # 4219) on :
 
Oh, you won't find me disagreeing here. He did take out essential parts and added things that all those who have read the books were waiting for.
But I think that most of us loose perspective by judging the film in comparison to the books. PJ was adressing an audience that knew nothing about Tolkien and Lotr -he had to adress such a wide audience, he couldn't make such a mammouth production just for the few thousands of Tolkien readers- and he had to make the film have a "bit" something he could sell to the spectators worldwide. Aragorn falling of a cliff is a classic agony creation mechanism, the protagonist falls from a cliff, the cinema room goes "aaaaa" .

I am not doubting that PJ has altered Tolkien's story way too mcuh, I just wonder why we can't be flexible enough to consider the filmed Lotr for what it is: The only sucessful so far attempt to visualise a world of fantasy that has touched millions of readers.
So he did it badly. Indeed. Did he do that bad?
 
Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
Arien: You are treading a fine line here by nearly rebuking the principles set forth in the first post of this topic. Beware!
quote:
Indeed. Did he do that bad?
The Nameless Film is a scar on the soul of the world. It has done much to distort Tolkien's vision in the eyes of the world. It belittles everyone who truly understands the grace in names like Aragorn, Gandalf and Frodo for those who only know those names as ridiculous characters, puppets devoid of dignity.

So, yes.
 
Posted by Snowdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
quote:
the road is open and everyone will be thrilled to see a better version .. so create the better version .. anyone?

Sure.. just give me the resources PJ had...

[] WGW []
 
Posted by Silmahtar (Citizen # 4806) on :
 
... and full creative and marketing control ... []
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
Which PJ DIDN'T have-- or even casting-control.

quote:
I think this particular discussion revolved along the development of many Middle Earth conspiracy theories.
'We know it well-- these are the marks of a conspiracy.'
quote:
I was watching the second half of FOTR last night, and I again wondered how my reaction to the films would have been different if I'd never read the book beforehand.

I would have thought it was a typical Dungeons & Dragons adventure-- pretty cool to watch, but nothing beyond that; I'd also wonder why they spent so much time messing around with the hobbits and not the swordfights. Which brings up the point: Why did Frodo go into Mordor, and not Aragorn, Isildur's heir? It was never explained that Frodo was meant to carry it-- just that men-- all men, not just Boromir-- were too weak and corrupt to be trusted with it. As such, Aragorn doesn't realize that Frodo has gone with the Ring, as it was meant to be; he simply allows him to depart because he doesn't trust himself.
This type of misanthropy is typical anti-hero modernism, and therefore anathematic to classical style.

quote:
Isn't there a "inspired from the work of JRR Tolkien" notice somewhere?
Even if there was, that wouldn't serve as an adequate disclaimer in comparison to the use of the titles "Lord of the Ring" as well as the titles of the trilogy.

quote:
Personaly, to this day I fail to understand how the movies of Peter Jackson coulf create so strong feelings to the Tolkien fans.
We all knew in advance that books like the Lord of the Rings are not filmable and certainly we are all aware of the rule that says that books are always better than the movies based on the books.

This is old hat, and has been refuted here many times; PJ far exceeded his cinematographical prerogative in the liberties he took with the movies, ignoring canon, letter, spirit and intent alike, while selling out to commercial and studio interest. He likewise lacked the ability to understand the story, let alone relate it.

quote:
So PJ was unfaithful to Tolkien, mainly because Jackson presented Middle Earth the way he saw it ( as we all do inside our minds) and tryed to make it into a film, aka use action, agony, introduction and epiloge.

Which exceeded his prerogative, since the purpose is to relate the author's vision; whether he was unable to do this, or unwilling to do it, is irrelevant.

quote:
For me, Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings remains the a very good presentation of Middle Earth.
No offense, but that's because you simply don't know what Middle-earth IS. I've proven elsewhere that New Zealand is NOT Middle-Earth-- and I've shown where it IS here.

quote:
And for anyone who disagrees, the road is open and everyone will be thrilled to see a better version .. so create the better version .. anyone?

That's a non-argument which has been many times refuted here, since PJ's mockery precluded anyone else doing it right by spoiling the market for LOTR movies.
Also, the argument that one's right to point out a flaw should be limited by one's ability to do better, is utterly fallacious.


quote:
The problem is not the way he saw it (costumes, landscapes...), the problem is that he deleted important 'aspects' of the book and added superfluous unnecessary movielines (Aragorn falling down the cliff, Sam 'go Home') which stirred JRRT in his grave.

Moreover, he perverted the book's aspects with typical Hollywood bull$?!* (i.e. "If you want him-- COME AND CLAIM HIM!" etc.) while remaining ignorant of the book's actual message.

quote:
I love how he pictured Minas Tirith - Edoras - Isengard, they're all stunning works. The Landscapes are almost all perfect - I didn't have much disappointment for the costumes (armours, banners, clothes) of anyone, I didn't stop on these. Anyway PJ would have picture these, that's not what makes the movie good or bad, it is the storyline.
I don't think he got these right at all-- and they don't match the descriptions or diagrams of them either. They LOOKED like miniatures, too; their studio SFX department clearly didn't know how to do proper scaling, lighting or perspective-work to make them look real.
The costumes, buildings and sets also looked medeival, not at all mythical or legendary; PJ only seeks to portray the horrific, and has no capacity or appreciation for the sublime.

quote:
But I think that most of us loose perspective by judging the film in comparison to the books. PJ was adressing an audience that knew nothing about Tolkien and Lotr -he had to adress such a wide audience, he couldn't make such a mammouth production just for the few thousands of Tolkien readers- and he had to make the film have a "bit" something he could sell to the spectators worldwide. Aragorn falling of a cliff is a classic agony creation mechanism, the protagonist falls from a cliff, the cinema room goes "aaaaa" .

I think this gives too little credit to the audience to appreciate the subtlety and beauty of fine literature, and I think it's infinitely arrogant of a film-maker to assume that audiences are too low-brow to appreciate not having a Jesus-looking protagonist who falls off a cliff and gets revived via mouth-to-mouth from his horse, or a stupid alien who says "meesa people gonna die?" etc.
On the contrary, I think most people over age 5 find such things greatly annoying, while it's the low-grade directors who find it funny.

quote:
I am not doubting that PJ has altered Tolkien's story way too mcuh, I just wonder why we can't be flexible enough to consider the filmed Lotr for what it is: The only sucessful so far attempt to visualise a world of fantasy that has touched millions of readers.
So he did it badly. Indeed. Did he do that bad?

He was only successful because Tolkien had no say in the matter, being deceased. By this token, a pimp or drug-dealer is also "successful."
Did he do that bad? Yes-- he got it wrong-- completely wrong.
As Tolkien would say when his story was compared to Wagner's ring-opera: "Both stories involve a Ring-- after that, the similarity ends."
 
Posted by Silmahtar (Citizen # 4806) on :
 
Good points all around, WKoA. []

I'm also rereading the book (which I try to do ever winter with mixed success... [] ), and I'm struck by the utter lack of menace in the movies. The Black Riders chill me every time I read "A Short Cut to Mushrooms", and horrify me on Weathertop (in print).

The Wingnut Trio's Nine are scarecrows, really. Flying rags and bundles who (inexplicably) flee at the sight of fire. The Witch-king himself is just a hissing balloon that benignly deflates when pricked. []

WHERE WAS MY FLAMING MANTLE AND CROWN?! Can anyone forget that electric fear we felt when the Witch-king unveiled himself to Gandalf? The evil pride, the fearsome power manifest in Fallen Man.

What I'm getting at is the real sense of horror Tolkien successfully communicates when we encounter Nazgûl, Minas Morgul, Cirith Ungol, etc. He wanted us to feel Frodo and Sam's terror upon entering the lair of Ungoliant, or upon the ash-plains of the Gorgoroth. Mordor is the ultimate horror so immense it would drive lesser men mad should they enter it.

And Tolkien is a master storyteller, too -- we feel the weight of the Ring over time as Frodo brings it closer to its master. At first, there is the shadow of the Nine, fearsome in their own right like nightmares, but mere wraiths when compared to Sauron.

Instead, PJ gives us the Wile E. Coyote Eye.

Ah, I'm rambling...
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
quote:
'We know it well-- these are the marks of a conspiracy.'
Yes!!! See, the Mouth knew it all along!!! []
 
Posted by Arien the Maia (Citizen # 4219) on :
 
WkoA AND Snowdog
Too bad I am unable to answer you, but WGW has already warrned me that my line of thinking is not compatible with this thread with this ...

quote:
Arien: You are treading a fine line here by nearly rebuking the principles set forth in the first post of this topic. Beware!
So ... as you were []
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
There's NO answering for PJ's atrocity. []

quote:
I'm also rereading the book (which I try to do ever winter with mixed success... ), and I'm struck by the utter lack of menace in the movies. The Black Riders chill me every time I read "A Short Cut to Mushrooms", and horrify me on Weathertop (in print).

The Wingnut Trio's Nine are scarecrows, really. Flying rags and bundles who (inexplicably) flee at the sight of fire. The Witch-king himself is just a hissing balloon that benignly deflates when pricked.

WHERE WAS MY FLAMING MANTLE AND CROWN?! Can anyone forget that electric fear we felt when the Witch-king unveiled himself to Gandalf? The evil pride, the fearsome power manifest in Fallen Man.


In the book, the main fear from the Nazgûl came from their mystery, much like the shark in Jaws: you didn't see them clearly at first, but only knew of their rumor; and perhaps a glimpse of one of them searching. Gradually they became more and more present, until by the time they revealed themselves in full, their horror was well built-up due to preservation of mystery and development of suspense. If you saw the shark in scene 1, there would have been nothing left for the movie's climax; however PJ is no stranger to spilling the beans in terms of suspense-- he might as well just give away the end right there in the beginning.

Also, they weren't enemy agents per se in the movie, but just "nasty critters."
When you think of the Nazgûl in the book, two words come to mind: cloak and dagger; this element of intrigue normally associated with assassination and espionage, is completely lost when they become mere undead Halloween nasties; like the political metaphors of the book are lost entirely. Were the Nazgûl spies? Assassins? The nine justices of the Supreme Court? All lost.

I think PJ was caught up over his "reapers" from The Frighteners," where Michael J. Fox would see these badly-animated characters streaking around the room with scythes, and that looked much like his Nazgûl did (or the Sentinels from "Harry Potter").

Likewise even when Frodo puts on the Ring at Weathertop, he doesn't see them clearly as in the book-- on the contrary they look even more distorted than before! As a result, the effect of his entering their world (the wraith-world) is lost, thus making it just look like the Ring simply distorts the real world rather than changes it.

However there was no "flaming mantle and crown;" when he stands before Gandalf, you just saw his crown and mantle, and nothing in-between but the terror of his eyes.
In the movie, however, he wore a spiky helmet which pretty much ruined this effect-- including covering his eyes.

PJ, a self-proclaimed "horror flick" expert, will never understand that true fear doesn't come from seeing something happen-- which creates rather simply shock, at best-- but rather from anticipation of what might happen. As such, his heavy-handed, cheesy style of "horror" leaves little to the imagination, and thus fails comedically.
This contrasts sharply with the style of someone like Hitchcock, who always left you wondering-- and then hit you when you least expected it. Meanwhile PJ shows Merry and Pippin idiotically starting a camp-fire on Weathertop, drawing the Nazgûl-- as well as the audience's expectation of them.

[ 01-14-2005, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
From a letter from Tolkien to Forrest J. Ackerman where Tolkien comments on the film 'treatment' of The Lord of the Rings, fictitiously adapted to Jackon's Joke:

I have at last finished my commentary on the Story-line. Its length and detail will, I hope, give evidence of my interest in the matter. Some at least of the things that I have said or suggested may be acceptable, even useful, or at least interesting. The commentary goes along page by page, according to the copy of Mr Jackson's work, which was left with me, and which I now return. I earnestly hope that someone will take the trouble to read it.
If Jackson and/or others do so, they may be irritated or aggrieved by the tone of many of my criticisms. If so, I am sorry (though not surprised). But I would ask them to make an effort of imagination sufficient to understand the irritation (and on occasion the resentment) of an author, who finds, increasingly as he proceeds, his work treated as it would seem carelessly in general, in places recklessly, and with no evident signs of any appreciation of what it is all about. ....
The canons of narrative an in any medium cannot be wholly different ; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies.
Jackson .... has intruded incantations, blue lights, and some irrelevant magic (such as the floating body of Gandalf). He has cut the parts of the story upon which its characteristic and peculiar tone principally depends, showing a preference for fights; and he has made no serious attempt to represent the heart of the tale adequately: the journey of the Ringbearers. The last and most important part of this trilogy has-- and it is not too strong a word, simply been murdered.

Gandalf, please, should not 'splutter'. Though he may seem testy at times, has a sense of humour, and adopts a somewhat avuncular attitude to hobbits, he is a person of high and noble authority, and great dignity. The description on I p. 239 should never be forgotten:

quote:
Frodo looked at them in wonder, for he had never before seen Elrond, of whom so many tales spoke; and as they sat upon his right hand and his left, Glorfindel, and even Gandalf, whom he thought he knew so well, were revealed as lords of dignity and power. Gandalf was shorter in stature than the other two; but his long white hair, his sweeping silver beard, and his broad shoulders, made him look like some wise king of ancient legend. In his aged face under great snowy brows his dark eyes were set like coals that could leap suddenly into fire.
Here I may say that I fail to see why the time-scheme should be deliberately contracted. It is already rather packed in the original, the main action occurring between Sept. 22 and March 25 of the following year. The many impossibilities and absurdities which further hurrying produces might, I suppose, be unobserved by an uncritical viewer; but I do not see why they should be unnecessarily introduced. Time must naturally be left vaguer in a picture than in a book ....
Seasons are carefully regarded in the original. They are pictorial, and should be, and easily could be, made the main means by which the artists indicate time-passage. The main action begins in autumn and passes through winter to a brilliant spring: this is basic to the purport and tone of the tale. The contraction of time and space by Jackson destroys that. His arrangements would, for instance, land us in a snowstorm while summer was still in. The Lord of the Rings may be a 'fairy-story', but it takes place in the Northern hemisphere of this earth: miles are miles, days are days, and weather is weather.
Contraction of this kind is not the same thing as the necessary reduction or selection of the scenes and events that are to be visually represented.

The landlord does not ask Frodo to "register!" Why should he? There are no police and no government. (Neither do I make him number his rooms.) If details are to be added to an already crowded picture, they should at least fit the world described.

Leaving the inn at night and running off wildly unprepared without even a baggage-pony is an impossible solution of the difficulties of presentation here (which I can see). It is the last thing that Aragorn would have done. It is based on a misconception of the Black Riders throughout, which I beg Jackson to reconsider. Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness. The Witch-king, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force. But even in the Battle of the Pelennor, the darkness had only just broken.

Rivendell was not 'a hazy forest'. This is an unhappy anticipation of Lórien (which it in no way resembled). It could not be reached in short time from Weathertop : it was 200 miles away and hidden in a ravine. I can see no pictorial or story-making gain in needlessly contracting the geography.
Strider does not 'Whip out a sword' in the book on Weathertop. Naturally not: his sword was broken. (Its power is another false anticipation of the reforged Anduril. Anticipation is one of Jackson's chief faults.) Why then make him do so here, in a contest that was explicitly not fought with weapons?
Aragorn likewise does not scream “Back, you devils!” There is no fight. Sam does not 'strike his blade at the Ringwraith'. Likewise, when Frodo does put on the Ring, the world does not become a fluttering haze, and likewise the ringwraiths do not do likewise:

quote:
Immediately, though everything else remained as before, dim and dark, the shapes became terribly clear. He was able to see beneath their black wrappings. There were five tall figures: two standing on the lip of the dell, three advancing. In their white faces burned keen and merciless eyes; under their mantles were long grey robes; upon their grey hairs were helms of silver; in their haggard hands were swords of steel. Their eyes fell on him and pierced him, as they rushed towards him. Desperate, he drew his own sword, and it seemed to him that it flickered red, as if it was a firebrand. Two of the figures halted. The third was taller than the others: his hair was long and gleaming and on his helm was a crown. In one hand he held a long sword, and in the other a knife; both the knife and the hand that held it glowed with a pale light.

After Frodo is stabbed, Aragorn does drive off the Ringwraiths—but “with a flaming brand of wood in either hand.” He does not use a sword.

Why has my account been entirely rewritten here, with disregard for the rest of the tale? I can see that there are certain difficulties in representing a dark scene; but they are not insuperable. A scene of gloom lit by a small red fire, with the Wraiths slowly approaching as darker shadows – until the moment when Frodo puts on the Ring, and the King steps forward revealed – would seem to me far more impressive than yet one more scene of screams and rather meaningless slashings.....
I have spent some time on this passage, as an example of what I find too frequent to give me 'pleasure or satisfaction': deliberate alteration of the story, in fact and significance, without any practical or artistic object (that I can see); and of the flattening effect that assimilation of one incident to another must have.

When setting out from Rivendell, time is again contracted and hurried, with the effect of reducing the importance of the Quest. Two months elapse. There is no need to say anything with a time-purport. The lapse of time should be indicated, if by no more than the change to winter in the scenery and trees. It is well within the powers of pictures to suggest, relatively briefly, a long and arduous journey, in secrecy, on foot, with the three ominous mountains getting nearer.
Jackson does not seem much interested in seasons or scenery, though from what I saw I should say that in the representation of these the chief virtue and attraction of the film is likely to be found. But would Jackson think that he had improved the effect of a film of, say, the ascent of Everest by introducing helicopters to take the climbers half way up (in defiance of probability)? It would be far better to cut the Snow-storm and the Wolves than to make a farce of the arduous journey.

Why does Jackson put hideous layers of scars and pale green skin on Orcs!? The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human' form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types.
20. The Balrog never speaks or makes any vocal sound at all. Above all he does not look like a great flaming minotaur with bat-like wings.... Jackson may think that he knows more about Balrogs than I do, but he cannot expect me to agree with him.

The portrayal of Lórien as a simple ordinary forest-floor, is deplorable in itself, and in places impertinent. Will Jackson please pay my text some respect, at least in descriptions that are obviously central to the general tone and style of the book! I will in no circumstances accept this treatment of Lórien, even if Jackson personally prefers the gimcrack of conventional modern fairy-tales.
The distortion and darkening of the temptation of Galadriel is significant. Practically everything having moral import has vanished from the synopsis.

In the book lembas has two functions. It is a 'machine' or device for making credible the long marches with little provision, in a world in which as I have said 'miles are miles'; therefore the large cakes portrayed by Jackson are impractical for a journey of many days. But that is relatively unimportant. It also has a much larger significance, of what one might hesitatingly call a 'religious' kind. This becomes later apparent, especially in the chapter 'Mount Doom' and subsequently.
I cannot find that Jackson has made any particular use of lembas even as a device; and the whole of 'Mount Doom' has disappeared in the distorted confusion that Jackson has made of the ending:

quote:
The lembas had a virtue without which they would long ago have lain down to die. It did not satisfy desire, and at times Sam’s mind was filled with the memories of food, and the longing for simple bread and meats. And yet this waybread of the Elves had a potency that increased as travellers relied on it alone and did not mingle it with other foods. It fed the will, and it gave strength to endure, and to master sinew and limb beyond the measure of mortal kind.
As far as I can see lembas might as well disappear altogether.

I do earnestly hope that in the assignment of actual speeches to the characters they will be represented as I have presented them: in style and sentiment. I should resent perversion of the characters (and do resent it, so far as it appears in this sketch) even more than the spoiling of the plot and scenery.

Parts II & III. I have spent much space on criticizing even details in Part I. It has been easier, because Part I in general respects the line of narrative in the book, and retains some of its original coherence. Part II exemplifies all the faults of Part I ; but it is far more unsatisfactory, & still more so Part III, in more serious respects. It almost seems as if Jackson, having spent much time and work on Part I, now found himself short not only of space but of patience to deal with the two more difficult volumes in which the action becomes more fast and complicated. He has in any case elected to treat them in a way that produces a confusion that mounts at last almost to a delirium. ....
The narrative now divides into two main branches: 1. Prime Action, the Ringbearers. 2. Subsidiary Action, the rest of the Comparty leading to the 'heroic' matter. It is essential that these two branches should each be treated in coherent sequence. Both to render them intelligible as a story, and because they are totally different in tone and scenery. Jumbling them together entirely destroys these things.
I deeply regret this handling of the 'Treebeard' chapter, whether necessary or not. I have already suspected Jackson of not being interested in trees: unfortunate, since the story is so largely concerned with them. But surely what we have here is in any case a quite unintelligible glimpse? What are Ents?

We pass now to a dwelling of Men in an 'heroic age'. Jackson does not seem to appreciate this. I hope the artists do. But he and they have really only to follow what is said, and not alter it to suit their fancy (out of place).
In such a time small 'chambers' played no part. Théoden probably had none, unless he had a sleeping 'bower' in a separate small 'outhouse' (not to be confused with a latrine). He received guests or emissaries, seated on the dais in his great royal hall. This is quite clear in the book; and the scene should be much more effective to illustrate.
Why do not Théoden and Gandalf go into the open before the doors, as I have told? Though I have somewhat enriched the culture of the 'heroic' Rohirrim, it did not run to small wooden doors that could be thrown open ! ! We might be in a barn. (The 'east windows' of the hall, II 116, 119,6 were slits under the eaves, unglazed.)

I am afraid that I do not find the glimpse of the 'defence of the Hornburg' – this would be a better title, since Helm's Deep, the ravine behind, is not shown – entirely satisfactory. It would, I guess, be a fairly meaningless scene in a picture, stuck in in this way. Actually I myself should be inclined to cut it right out, if it cannot be made more coherent and a more significant part of the story. .... If both the Ents and the Hornburg cannot be treated at sufficient length to make sense, then one should go. It should be the Hornburg, which is incidental to the main story; and there would be this additional gain that we are going to have a big battle (of which as much should be made as possible), but battles tend to be too similar: the big one would gain by having no competitor.

Orthanc comes from Jackson's fancy not my tale. I prefer the latter. The tower was 500 feet high. There was a flight of 27 steps leading to the great door; above which was a window and a balcony.
Saruman's voice was persuasive. Those who listened to him were in danger of agreeing with his arguments Saruman corrupted the reasoning powers.
Jackson has cut out the end of the book, including Saruman's proper death. In that case I can see no good reason for making him die in this manner: to cling to life to its basest dregs is the way of the sort of person he had become. If Jackson wants Saruman tidied up (I cannot see why, where so many threads are left loose) Gandalf should say something to this effect: as Saruman collapses under the excommunication: 'Since you will not come out and aid us, here in Orthanc you shall stay till you rot, Saruman. Let the Ents look to it!'
Part III.... is totally unacceptable to me, as a whole and in detail. If it is meant as notes only for a section of something like the pictorial length of I and II, then in the filling out it must be brought into relation with the book, and its gross alterations of that corrected. If it is meant to represent only a kind of short finale, then all I can say is : The Lord of the Rings cannot be garbled like that.

[ 01-26-2005, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Silmahtar (Citizen # 4806) on :
 
quote:
However there was no "flaming mantle and crown;" when he stands before Gandalf, you just saw his crown and mantle, and nothing in-between but the terror of his eyes.
Ah. My misread of:
quote:
The Black Rider flung back his hood, and behold! he had a kingly crown; and yet upon no head visible was it set. The red fires shone between it and the mantled shoulders vast and dark. From a mouth unseen there came a deadly laughter.
The "fires" were the "fires beyond", presumably of the siege, mentioned a few paragraphs before. But it's a much better visual than the Galvanized Buckethead Witch-king.
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
I think "the red fires" were his eyes; as stated on the Pelennor fields,
quote:

A crown of steel he bore, but between rim and robe naught was there to see, save only a deadly gleam of eyes: the Lord of the Nazgûl.
...
A sword was in her hand, and she raised her shield against the horror of her enemy’s eyes.


 
Posted by Silmahtar (Citizen # 4806) on :
 
This was the first "fire" instance I was thinking of -- about 3-4 paragraphs before the Witch-king uncloaks himself.
quote:
In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl. A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed up, grown to a vast menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl, under the archway that no enemy ever yet had passed, and all fled before his face.
One word sums up my feeling at reading this: dread.

One word sums up my feeling at seeing PJ's film rendering: zzzzzz
[]
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
Yes, and his kicking Gandalf's butt doesn't make him any scarier-- it just makes Gandalf look like a wimp, rather than the superhero like he was meant to be in the scene, staring down the WK and his entire army! Likewise, the book was clear that Pippin cowered from the Witch-king-- he didn't face him with his sword to protect Gandalf; this made the WK look pretty non-threatening if both he andMerry were able to face him with no real fear.
As Tolkien states in Letters #120 to Forest Ackerman, which I've adapted above:
quote:
It is based on a misconception of the Black Riders throughout, which I beg Jackson to reconsider. Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness.
Likewise, it goes on to state:
quote:
The Witch-king, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force. But even in the Battle of the Pelennor, the darkness had only just broken.

As such, the Witch-king fled with the coming of dawn as well as Rohan, since his own power of fear had diminished, along with that of his army. However his power to create fear was still very powerful, driving all the horses mad when he descended onto Theoden; likewise Merry was too afraid to even move.

[ 01-26-2005, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
Okay, I am stretching things here, but do you all want to see a great and intelligent movie with a small person in the leading role where the character goes through a transforming journey? The Station Agent. http://thestationagent.com/home.html
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
Reminds me of the movie "As Good as it Gets" about an obsessive-compulsive jerk (Jack Nicholson), a distraught waitress (Helen Hunt) and a homo (Greg Kinnear) who cross paths and go on a road-trip for no particular reason other than want of plot.

[ 02-04-2005, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
You know WKA, I have tried and tried to be nice, ignored some things, held back from saying things... but why are you so nasty? Do you have any sense of protocol, manners, community... or are you just here to pontificate to an audience of people you will never have to face in person? Yea, big man with a mouse. Talk about shallow movie characters - you are one yourself (American Psycho seems to fit, minus the income of course). You say you work in the film business, but come on, nobody with a real job in ANY industry would have as much time as you seem to have in being able to post so many long winded diatribes. Let me guess - a combination of superior typing skills (from writing so many award winning screenplays) plus a wireless connection allows you to repeatedly post to MT while waiting to lunch with various Hollywood big wigs. Go ahead, slam me back, but as usual you will be writing for yourself. I'm not coming back to a forum dominated by such an obvious poseur and loser. Enjoy your miserable little world.
 
Posted by Sauron's Secret Agent (Citizen # 1891) on :
 
Oh, ignore him.

He obviously has issues.

[]
 
Posted by Queen of the Harad (Citizen # 4939) on :
 
I have no problem with WKoA expressing his opinions about the films-- this is Purist Rage, after all-- but when his attacks get personal (I've seen him repeatedly bait and attack Gollum the Great and Eomer), I think he goes too far. Personally, it makes me want to leave Minas Tirith permanently, as I have little interest in being on a forum where a person backbites and belittles others, and where the topic of posts are repeatedly lost in the barrage of insults.

[ 02-05-2005, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Queen of the Harad ]
 
Posted by Tuor (Citizen # 374) on :
 
I hardly think that WK is the only one who fits that description. I can see at least one other person in this conversation who I believe fits your description fairly well.

In any case, leave if you don't like WK. Either that or ask WGW to ban him. In short, I guess I'm saying put or shut up. I happen to enjoy much of what WK writes.

[ 02-05-2005, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: Tuor ]
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
quote:
You know WKA, I have tried and tried to be nice, ignored some things, held back from saying things... but why are you so nasty?
It's meant to be entertaining. Are you saying people like Letterman and Leno are any better? Case in point:
quote:
Monica Lewinsky is hosting a new reality show for Fox starting next week. The show is called 'Mr. Personality,' where a woman will try to choose between 20 men who all have masks on and Monica Lewinsky offers dating advice. Well, who better to offer advice on choosing a guy without seeing his face than Monica Lewinsky?
That's worse than anything I've posted! []

[ 02-05-2005, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
I'm rereading the books again and it continues to astound me how many times the movies quoted from the books but with the WRONG character and context. It makes me angry all over again.
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
That's why I say that their half-assed over-attention to details, is worse than their half-assed UNDER-attention to details.
For example, the conversation about Éowyn between Gandalf and Aragorn in the Houses of Healing, was replayed almost verbatim between Éowyn and Wormtongue at Meduseld! This was just one example of preserving details hapharzardly out-of-context, which gives new meaning to the term "half-assed."
(Of course, this inevitably surfaces in their bragging about their being so "faithful to the book;" which only goes to show that they have not the foggiest idea what they're doing.)

[ 02-24-2005, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
I wanted to bring up a question about Elijah Wood regarding something that I really noticed-- he had these huge, bulgy blue eyes that really didn't look right on on hobbit--not to mention the rest of his face, which was anything but round, pleasant or or red-cheeked etc; every time I see him I just think "That's a perfect Legolas."
Did anyone else notice this?

[ 03-09-2005, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Silmahtar (Citizen # 4806) on :
 
To me, Elijah Wood lacks the stature necessary to play an Elf. I know you can 'fake it' to make him look taller; my issue is that he doesn't look woodland-enough. Too metrosexual and boyish to play a character several thousand years old...
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
I think that goes to acting more than appearance, however remember Legolas was a woodland elf-prince who was quite carefree and cheerful in all but the most dire circumstances (to wit, bringing the news of Gollum escaping, and the realization of the Balrog). He was also not one of the taller high-elves, and was described as being slender, and his strength was in his being light and quick and sharp-eyed, rather than strong and acrobatic.

I was just talking about his looks, however, since I agree that he wouldn't have been able to handle it acting-wise-- but that went likewise for everyone except maybe Ian Holm, who likewise played it a bit too frivelously (althouth I chalk this up to PJ, since he did the same with everyone).
But compared to the horse-faced and unemotional Orlando Bloom, who was also visibly bigger than Viggo Mortensen, Elijah definitely would have been a preferable alternative as a specifically-described bright-eyed Elf who was "fair of face beyond the measure of men," and likewise described in the book as being smaller in stature than the very-tall Aragorn and the massively powerful Boromir:
quote:
Aragorn was the tallest member of the party, but Boromir, little less in height, was broader and heavier.
I don't think this would have compensated for the scrawny Viggo Mortenson, but it would help more than a Legolas who was even bigger than he was.
True, the problem is that Elijah Wood can't act, since his face showed that he was always visibly faking it whenever he tried to smile or act anything but depressed and distressed; but this went double for Orlando, who couldn't even do that.
For this reason, I would have wanted someone like Leo DeCaprio to play the good-hearted Legolas, having both the look and the ability. But he's well out of PJ's price-budget, who only payed five figures/year for even the LEAD roles! Hmm, that's only 2-3 figures short....

My overall point, is that he looked a lot more like a Legolas than a Frodo. I've stated before that the original plan was to digitally enlarge the eyes on the Elves by about 30%, and with Elijah they wouldn't have even had to do this-- which looks fine on an Elf, but preposterous on a hobbit, whose faces were said to be round and pleasant, not hard-edged and having big blue eyes that bulge half off the screen. Since Legolas was the most feature Elf of the story, it would naturally make better sense to have someone who looked this way naturally.

[ 03-10-2005, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
I think PJ tried to model his hobbits after Bashki's, not after Tolkien's.
 
Posted by Sauron's Secret Agent (Citizen # 1891) on :
 
*creeps in*

Only Sam looked remotely like my idea of a hobbit - and that wasn't perfect.

*creeps out*
 
Posted by Snowdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
Now I don't agree with alot of what the witch king says, but he hits on the mark when it comes to Elijah/Frodo wannabe.
quote:
... the horse-faced and unemotional Orlando Bloom ...
[] [] [] []
 
Posted by Elora Starsong (Citizen # 2099) on :
 
I don't know if the script writters made mistakes when it came to attributing dialogue and actions to characters, or if they rearranged things on purpose to suit their cinematic ends.

Which is not to say that I either heartily endorse or condemn the films. Some parts, not many I should add, were on the money. Lots of parts were not, but that is my opinion only. Just I think it's over simplification to say that the variations between book and film are all mistakes or ignorance. There are some examples of errors or oversight certainly, but the large part of the alterations were deliberate (if flawed) and considered at length.

Orlando Bloom as Legolas was a bit of let down, in my opinion, as well. He just did not seem to embody Legolas' character either as an Elf, a prince of a Woodland Realm or even as a warrior in battle or companion and friend to Gimli. Not at all convincing, right down to the blonde hair and pointy ears - but those are other debates that I shall not tread on here. []

I can't tell you how grateful I was that they actually scrapped the Arwen at Helms Deep scenes and the Aragorn battling Sauron at the Gates of Mordor ideas. I am desperately relieved and so bear in mind that the rest of the mess that was not weeded out is not as bad as it could have been. []

[ 03-15-2005, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Elora Starsong ]
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
I don't think it was just ignorance or mistakes, so much as simply audacity, much as child attempting to "improve" a precious work of art via pasting together photos over it-- however high-quality-- clipped from magazines; thus PJ attempted to "improve" Tolkien's work using modern technology regarding sets and special-effects (which OTHER people researched, designed and built, BTW- and which weren't all that great compared to such AMERICAN Hollywood products as Dreamworks or ILM, or other studio-built sets and miniature buildings and landscapes etc). Tolkien's redressing of Zimmerman's screenplay (which I pasted previously in this thread) thus was quite applicable to PJ as well regarding his failure to grasp the core principles of the story.

"Frodo, being mortal, fails and is saved only by grace via Gollum," Philippa "Phil" Boyens bombasts, as if she's struck on some startling, obscure revelation that gives her license to cast Elves as snobby, arrogant gits, and all mortals as hopeless bumblers-- even Aragorn whines to Arwen that he's hopeless to resist the Ring, and doomed to fail-- because he's a stupid, weak, pathetic, mortal MAN-- and then later sends Frodo off alone, becase he can't trust himself to keep his stupid, hopeless mortal paws off the bling-bling.

As you can see, they rend the story down into a simplistic fable, get it all wrong, and and then patronizingly spoonfeed it.
They also get even THAT point arse-backwards; the Elves were NOT immune to the Ring's temptation, (even Elrond and Galadriel refused to touch it, and Gandalf and Saruman the Maiar were greatly tempted), while the Dwarves weren't heroes, and weren't cut out for such quests; this left the hobbits, who were braver than Dwarves, and tougher than men or Elves in resisting power. However PJ & Co can never accept this, if only for the reason of the hobbits' small SIZE; being off-Hollywood hacks, they see all short characters as mere comic-relief to be laughed at, or defectives to be pitied and patronized. If this went for Gimli, it went even more for the hobbits; as such, their sole redeeming virtue in the movie was their innocence (by which they helped all the corrupt big people see the errors of their ways), since they could not be attributed with any real merits such as toughness or courage.
I wish it was more complicated than this, but it's not.

quote:
Only Sam looked remotely like my idea of a hobbit - and that wasn't perfect.

Well he was fat, and that was supposed to go for most Hobbits, but probably least of all Sam; Sam was a very strong and hard-working hobbit, and was said to have resembled the shape of a Dwarf, who were exceedingly strong for their size (as Gimli stated, able to endure more than men or Elves, "be the burden twice his own weight"); Sam also claimed that he "could carry enough for two," carried a very large and heavy pack without a problem, and was able to carry Frodo most of the way up Mount Doom with hardly any effort-- meanwhile movie-Sam seemed barely able to carry himself, let alone the perpetually-anorexic Elijah as well (who, BTW, was likewise NEVER the vision of the once-portly book-Frodo, whom Pipin teased would "feel the weight of his pack less when he walks off some of his own").
As such, Sam would be very sturdy and muscular for his size.
Likewise, Gollum was stated as being taller than than Sam, and even stronger due to the power of the Ring; however in the movie Gollum is (aside from their brief first encounter) shown as a shriveled, emaciated, basically harmless and abused figure whom even the fat movie-Sam can beat up mercilessly-- leading Gollum to have to trick Frodo into sending Sam away, when the book was clear that Gollum simply grabbed Sam from behind in Cirith Ungol (while Shelob got Frodo), believing that he could kill the well-armed Sam using only his bare hands, since he thought that Sam was slow and stupid. Gollum was certainly no craven weakling as portayed in the movie-- Gandalf made a point of stating that the Ring had given him great strength for his size. (Thus once again showing that small characters are not taken seriously at any level; Gollum is no longer portrayed as evil, just weak and misunderstood-- he is shown as having only made one mistake with his cousin 500 years before, and that was shown as being the RING'S fault; the book, however, was clear that Smeagol murdered his cousin out of his own malice and greed).
This recalls the annoying habit of some adults to trivialize the actions of children who bully and terrorize other children, calling it as "normal and harmless" simply because they don't feel personally threatened by it themselves because it's commited by children; so PJ portrays Gollum as harmless, simply because he's a hobbit, and thus smaller than most children. (This contrasts sharply with Tolkien's treatment of children as hardly trivial, in the encounter between Pippin and Bergil, who, despite being the child of the faithful Beregond, is nonetheless challenging and abusive when he mistakes Pippin for a younger boy, claiming he could "stand him on his head, or lay him on his back").

Meanwhile Sam likewise was said to have brown skin (hands anyway), eyes, and probably hair, compared to the undeniably light-complected, eyed and haired Sean Astin; race-issues aside, it's hard to imagine Sam working from dawn to dusk every day out in the gardens, and still being as white as Fodo.

[ 03-16-2005, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Anorgil (Citizen # 4494) on :
 
quote:
Not at all convincing, right down to the blonde hair and pointy ears
Considering that Thranduil was described as blond and Legolas was never described otherwise, I think that the hair was the least of movie-Legolas' faults.

Legolas vs. the mumak on the Pelennor Fields, and especially the reason for including it, were far worse mistakes, in my opinion.
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
Legolas' hair was never described at ALL, while anyone without dark hair wasdescribed; Glorfindel, Galadriel, Celeborn, Éowyn, the riders of Rohan etc. As such, it's more than likely that he had dark hair; he was the main elf in the story, and it would be a little strange if he was mentioned so much more often than all the elves who were all described as "golden-haired" if they were such, but his "golden hair" wasn't mentioned a single time.

Legolas also had a MOTHER too, y'know, and she was probably dark-haired like the wood-elves; Legolas' father, Thranduil was the son of Oropher of the Sindar elves, and evidence indicates that he was not the founder of the Mirkwood elves, but travelled eastward with his father from Lindon west of the Blue Mountains.

Likewise, Arwen's mother, Celebrían-- being the daughter of Galadriel and Celeborn-- very probably had golden hair, but Arwen's hair was dark like Elrond's-- and Luthien's. So the evidence points almost definitely to the conclusion that Legolas was indeed dark-haired.

Regarding his killing mûmaks, however-- he most certainly did not! Nor did anyone else, without strongly risking being trampled:

quote:
But wherever the mûmakil came there the horses would not go, but blenched and swerved away; and the great monsters were unfought, and stood like towers of defence, and the Haradrim rallied about them.... both Duilin of Morthond and his brother were trampled to death when they assailed the mûmakil, leading their bowmen close to shoot at the eyes of the monsters.
So these were NOT beasts to be taken lightly as in the movie. There's also simply no way that a beast weighing up to 50 tons or more (as did those in the movie) would even FEEL an arrow anywhere but his eye; rather, the outlandish exaggeration of Legolas' abilities reminded me of something even worse than a certain bad fantasy-movie of the 80's called "Hawk, the Slayer," which showed an elf shooting like 10 times/second using really crappy trick photography; I was also expecting Agent Elrond to come after Legolas for abusing the Matrix.

[ 03-23-2005, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Thangail (Citizen # 1292) on :
 
"We've been watching you for some time, Mr Strider."
 
Posted by The Witch-King of Angmar (Citizen # 4899) on :
 
 -
Mr...... Elessar.... We're looking for the one they call... "Legolus."

[ 03-25-2005, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: The Witch-King of Angmar ]
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on