Acid Test

[Thrakerzog]

It seems to me the acid test regarding the people that find the FotR movie so disappointing and even insulting will be them staying home from TT.

If they truly dislike the first movie, we can pretty much assume they will like TT as much or less then LotR. So why would they go see it?

They are masicists - the see it to torture themselves.

They are trolls - they see it to come here to torture everyone about ever stupid detail they hated.

Bordom - they are bored out of their mind and have nothing better to do with 3, 6 or 9 hours watching it multiple times.

Any other reasons they would see it, despite the fact they were so "disappointed" with FotR?

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Thrakerzog
It seems to me the acid test regarding the people that find the FotR movie so disappointing and even insulting will be them staying home from TT.

If they truly dislike the first movie, we can pretty much assume they will like TT as much or less then LotR. So why would they go see it?

They are masicists - the see it to torture themselves.

They are trolls - they see it to come here to torture everyone about ever stupid detail they hated.

Bordom - they are bored out of their mind and have nothing better to do with 3, 6 or 9 hours watching it multiple times.

Any other reasons they would see it, despite the fact they were so "disappointed" with FotR?

No we are not masochists, we expect to be thrilled by JRR Tolkien's amazing work to be shown on screen. We hope to find a true rendition (not an exact one) to bring Tolkien to life....The same reasons why we went to see the first one.

What's even more annoying then the "trolls" are those who have no objectivity and praise and promote Jackson's rendition over Tolkien's no matter what the cost or sacrifice of principle.

Though I was disappointed with FoTR, I understand that there was a lot of information to make a movie out of....That would mean that there seems to be less that could be screwed up in TTT....However, PJ is now going to the other extreme saying that there is not enough material to make a movie out of TTT and will be adding his own stuff for a "fresh take" on it....I am going wanting to be thrilled but expecting to be disappointed again....But I still will go.

[Elanor2]

Dear Thrakerzog,

There are other acid tests, as you call them.

Some people like something and do not accept any critics on it, whatever justified.

Others critic enlessly without other purpose that to hear the sound of their own voices.

A middle point mindless worship and mindless whining is desired. That means that, when there is point, you múst see, learn, understand, evaluate (thesis, antithesis, synthesis), criticise. Each were it belongs. These are the steps of a healthy thinking process. Nothing to do with masochism.

I hope this helps. Regards.
Elanor2.

[Ged]

Elanor,
I agree that healthy criticism is always justified. Where I fall foul of Thorin (always it seems) is his/her inabilty to give any credit whatsoever to the film of Fellowship of the Rings.

Thorin:
There are many thousands of people (maybe millions) who read and loved Tolkien's works before you, so please don't be so sanctimonious.
You are NOT a keeper of any sacred flame. You have no idea what Tolkien himself might have felt about the film.

He may have hated it. He might have liked it. You DO NOT KNOW. A little more humility would be in order IMHO.

[Thorin]

What for? I haven't said anything against Jackson....All I've said is that many of the people who've never picked up Tolkien until after seeing the movie will most undoubtedly have those movie images in their mind's eye and that is unfortunate.

I don't care if it was the best movie in the whole wide world and captured Tolkien's world perfectly....When one doesn't have the chance to imagine Tolkien's world as they themselves would visualize it, they have been robbed.

That's my point....Don't automatically assume I'm bashing the movie in every thread....And some of you are just a little too quick to come running to PJ's defense instead of letting him take some lumps that he deserves...

[ReadWryt]

Thrakerzog,

You forgot that they went believing that when Jackson said in interview after interview he was not making major changes in the characters that he wouldn't be turning Arwen into a sword wielding Elven witch capable of calling forth the waters into a flood. Maybe they never expected that in claiming no major changes to the characters they didn't forsee being treated to a knock down drag out fight between Saruman and Gandalf, or they never thought that they would be seeing Frodo denied the oportunity to muster the incredible courage to defy the Nazgul at the ford. Perhaps their dissapointment isn't so much that they are bored or Trolls or even Masochists, but just maybe they are insulted by someone claiming that he would make the movies "in the spirit of Tolkien" has, in fact, represented HIS version, cuts and inventions and all, as being true to the story to people who have not read the books and that his falsehoods are an insult to Tolkien, his characters and the story he created.

[Elanor2]

Hi all,

I think that one of the points of criticism to the movie, from my point of view is that the director was not fully loyal to Tolkien's spirit. And I am not thinking of the logical adaptations that one has to make when trying to compress a large and complicated piece of literature into a 2h movie.

The movie simplifies caracters, makes up new things to follow the director's ideas (not Tolkien's), twists deep situations to make them easy to understand for the 'simple minded'. Most of the people are not as simple as PJ seems to think, but he did not bother to try that out. A faillure, from my point of view.

So. The movie won few Oscars. Not surprising. The director risked little with it. Only the special effects and technical stuff was staggering. And that's what he won at the end.

Just to balance, there were fantastic things in the movie. The initial battle scenes where wonderful. The Shire, just delightful. The environment, just plain Great. Pace was keeping, actors did a good job (limited by the script, no doubt).

Still, the movie could be better if the director had risked more and kept to the original spirit better. It was his decision.

[PRH]

Originally posted by Thorin
All I've said is that many of the people who've never picked up Tolkien until after seeing the movie will most undoubtedly have those movie images in their mind's eye and that is unfortunate.

When one doesn't have the chance to imagine Tolkien's world as they themselves would visualize it, they have been robbed.
Chance? Exactly how long do you think people should've been given to read the books before being 'robbed?' Another 50 years? No, these people just never took the opportunity.

[aragil]

Thorin- A lot of people who saw the movie first have never read the books at all without the movie. Can the movie give gifts and rob at the same time?

[Elanor2]

Originally posted by aragil
horin- A lot of people who saw the movie first have never read the books at all without the movie. Can the movie give gifts and rob at the same time?

Sorry if I answer a posting for Thorin.

Yes, the movie can give and rob at the same time.

Gives, because with fantastic scenaries, beautiful special effects and good pace, has make Tolkien's books alive once more and make people enjoy the beautiful world he made up.

Robbes because it simplifyes Tolkien's deepness, makes it 'politically correct' when there is no need, makes the caracters appealing when they need to be themselves.

'Looks foul and feels fair'. It looks too fair for me, sometimes. It gives no room for the 'feeling fair'. It sledgehammers it right ahead. It lacks subtility, perhaps. This is just a personal feeling.

[Strider97]

As I have mentioned in other post PJ as director was presenting his version of LOTR and I believe overall he did a credible job. I have seen many movies where I went back later and read the book version and conversely seen many movies made out of books I have read. Inevitably with rare exceptions seeing the movie after the book has been disappointing. I maintain that if this movie brings a new generation of readers to Tolkien it will be worth the small transgressions. Many movies condense characters for plot development and to avoid confusing viewers with to many characters. If the viewers come to the books with a preconcieved notion of Tolkien then they still have the richness of Tolkien to enhance their perception.
With sales of the books spiking, thanks to the movies, we will be able to welcome many new readers rather then bemoan their initial perceptions.

Thorin- The real robbery is if they had never been introduced to Tolkien in the first place.

All others if you don't appreciate PJ version of the movies instead of labelling him a bag of **** or fat and unbarbered, simply refrain from seeing the movies. Self-censorship is much better then an imposition of censorship by bad-mouthing the messenger.

If you did not like the first one- Don't go see the second one
If you don't like a post or a thread or a poster- Don't read the next post or thread that they enter or hit the ignore button.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by PRH

Chance? Exactly how long do you think people should've been given to read the books before being 'robbed?' Another 50 years? No, these people just never took the opportunity.

So what? That is not the point...The point is, is that even though the movie inspired them to pick up the books (and PRH, believe it or not, some people haven't even heard of Tolkien, or given it a second glance: How many people really know about, or have given a second glance to works such as Roots or The North and the South, or War and Peace?).

The FACT (no matter whose to blame for it and I am not passing any blame, just stating the facts) is that many people who've been inspired to read Tolkien (and heard about him for the first time) will forever use the movie as a judging factor and not have had the opportunity to visualize it for themselves....

Why are you arguing with me about this??
Originally posted by aragil
Thorin- A lot of people who saw the movie first have never read the books at all without the movie. Can the movie give gifts and rob at the same time?

Yes, they can....PJ can be commended for inspiring people to go to where the real story lies....Consider him a lesser light leading people to the greater light....But as far as I'm concerned, Tolkien is still the central focus and it is unfortunate that it took a much inferior work (the movie) to introduce a fantastic epic piece of literature that is now forever altered in the newbie's mind due to the visual medium. What a shame, and part of the reason why I have not gone back numerous times to see it again...Though as said before, PJ should be congratulated on that. Book sales are probably higher now then when it first came out.

[Greenwood]

Quote by Thorin
The FACT (no matter whose to blame for it and I am not passing any blame, just stating the facts) is that many people who've been inspired to read Tolkien (and heard about him for the first time) will forever use the movie as a judging factor and not have had the opportunity to visualize it for themselves....

The reason your argument is so absurd is the only way to avoid what you decry is to never make any movie of LOTR. The person who could have stopped it from happening was old JRRT himself if he had not sold the movie rights and instructed his heirs to never sell the movie rights. His son Christopher, at least, probably would have abided by JRRT's wishes. Since JRRT himself sold the movie rights you should take up your complaints with him!

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Greenwood


The reason your argument is so absurd is the only way to avoid what you decry is to never make any movie of LOTR. The person who could have stopped it from happening was old JRRT himself if he had not sold the movie rights and instructed his heirs to never sell the movie rights. His son Christopher, at least, probably would have abided by JRRT's wishes. Since JRRT himself sold the movie rights you should take up your complaints with him!


It is only absurd if that was the ONLY way ANYONE could be exposed to Tolkien. As was pointed out before, millions have read Tolkien long before the movie came out....I have never watched Bakshi, never heard BBC or seen Rankin/Bass....I picked it up from curiousity and word of mouth at around 12 years old.....I didn't need any outside visual medium influence to spur me to read it and I am much better off because of it....All I'm saying, is that those who might have read it before and were not aware of it until the movie came out missed the opportunity to experience it for themselves....That's just the unfortunate truth.....

Man, will you guys argue about everything??

[ReadWryt]

As I have mentioned in other post PJ as director was presenting his version of LOTR and I believe overall he did a credible job.

The he should have stated that this was what he was up to and left it at that, instead of telling a bunch of lies to appease the fans of the books by making statement after statement that he was not doing what he proved to have been doing all along...

[Greenwood]

Perhaps all bookstores and libraries should now have a new policy: "No Tolkien books will be sold or lent to anyone without a signed affidavit swearing that they have never seen or heard any production of LOTR or The Hobbit." To be fair we should extend this prohibition to all literary works. Also, no movie or television productions will be allowed unless they are totally original and not based on any previously written material. This all sounds rather difficult to accomplish. Perhaps the simplest thing would be if we just pulled all of Tolkien's books off bookstore and library shelves and burned them so that only those with a "pure" vision of Middle-earth, unsullied by any commercial productions, will have the copies they acquired before the movie came out. They must also swear to never lend their copies to the "impure" who have seen the film. Of course we will have to organize the Tolkien Thought Police to enforce these rules and to inflict punishment on any who transgress or have "impure" Tolkien visualizations. The job of commander of this police force seems to already be taken, so anyone thinking of joining should be prepared for only a rank and file position. After of course proving you are sufficiently "pure" in your Tolkien thoughts to qualify. :(

[DGoeij]

Now you're being sarcastic.;)
Anyway, RW is right. If PJ had said: Hey, LOTR is very difficult to turn it into a movie and some of it will be adapted in the way I find the most true to the book.
Or something close. It would have been fair, he would have been honest and completely right. I truly love this story, and I think PJ did a more than fine job on the visualizing part, but he messed around with the story. He added things that I found needless or a bad choice. One can debate over it, and my opinion is he made some wrong adaptations. He also added some footage which I liked.
I will go and see TTT, because I like to watch his version. I will have critique over some changes, and others I'll maybe like. I'll have conversations with friends over those changes and probebly we'll never agree.
It seems that some people think you either are to take the whole thing as fantastic or aren't allowed to go and see it at all. There's a Dutch saying on this: The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

[Greenwood]

It seems that some people think you either are to take the whole thing as fantastic or aren't allowed to go and see it at all. There's a Dutch saying on this: The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

DGoeij

I agree with you that the truth is somewhere in the middle. I have never said the movie was perfect. I have never said I agreed with all of Jackson's decisions. I have criticized some aspects of the film and I have said that I would have made different choices. My problem is with some people who seem to feel that they are the "Guardians of Middle-earth" and Tolkien's vision and who question whether you can be a fan of Tolkien and still like the movie. I tend to agree with those who say that if someone hates the movie as much as some of these people seem to, I fail to understand how they could consider going to see the next one.

[aragil]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
The he should have stated that this was what he was up to and left it at that, instead of telling a bunch of lies to appease the fans of the books by making statement after statement that he was not doing what he proved to have been doing all along...

ReadWryt- without going back to read any quotes by PJ, I believe what he said was that he was making a faithful representation of the book, and that he hoped it would please both fans of the book and Tolkien virgins. Believe it or not, he did that. Greenwood, Ged, Strider97 and I (to name but a few on these boards) are Tolkien fans who felt that the movie was a faithful (or at least a 'faithful enough') representation of the book. That you didn't feel PJ lived up to his word is your opinion. I don't mind that you have an opinion on the matter (indeed if everyone here had the same opinion as me it wouldn't be worth my time to log on). I just wish you'd stop trying to crucify the guy because of your opinion.

[baraka]

The he should have stated that this was what he was up to and left it at that, instead of telling a bunch of lies to appease the fans of the books by making statement after statement that he was not doing what he proved to have been doing all along...
RW, you are absoulety right.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Greenwood
Perhaps the simplest thing would be if we just pulled all of Tolkien's books off bookstore and library shelves and burned them so that only those with a "pure" vision of Middle-earth, unsullied by any commercial productions, will have the copies they acquired before the movie came out. They must also swear to never lend their copies to the "impure" who have seen the film. Of course we will have to organize the Tolkien Thought Police to enforce these rules and to inflict punishment on any who transgress or have "impure" Tolkien visualizations. The job of commander of this police force seems to already be taken, so anyone thinking of joining should be prepared for only a rank and file position. After of course proving you are sufficiently "pure" in your Tolkien thoughts to qualify. :(


Finally you understand the way it should be!!!!

Really, Greenwood, you're taking things to the extreme and you're missing my point.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Greenwood
Of course we will have to organize the Tolkien Thought Police to enforce these rules and to inflict punishment on any who transgress or have "impure" Tolkien visualizations."

On the contrary, my wish is that everyone can formulate their own idea of what ME means to them and picture it in their mind's eye rather than have someone (like Jackson) come and do it for them in a deceptive and distorted way.....If I was going to have Tolkien introduced to a newbie, I would do it by giving them Tolkien, not any rendition and especially not Jackson's.

quote originally from Greenwood:
My problem is with some people who seem to feel that they are the "Guardians of Middle-earth" and Tolkien's vision and who question whether you can be a fan of Tolkien and still like the movie. I tend to agree with those who say that if someone hates the movie as much as some of these people seem to, I fail to understand how they could consider going to see the next one.

I have absolutely no problem with people liking the movie...I have never said that you could not be a fan and like the movie....The problem I have, and always had, are those fans (like Harad) who come on and cannot objectively criticise the parts that alter and distort what Tolkien intended and try to justify those distortions by invoking the writings and "spirit" of the very source that those misleading and distorted parts trample upon. I question the loyalty of professed fans when they exalt PJ and his movie over the very source that gave it life.

[Tar-Palantir]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
Thrakerzog,

You forgot that they went believing that when Jackson said in interview after interview he was not making major changes in the characters that he wouldn't be turning Arwen into a sword wielding Elven witch capable of calling forth the waters into a flood. Maybe they never expected that in claiming no major changes to the characters they didn't forsee being treated to a knock down drag out fight between Saruman and Gandalf, or they never thought that they would be seeing Frodo denied the oportunity to muster the incredible courage to defy the Nazgul at the ford. Perhaps their dissapointment isn't so much that they are bored or Trolls or even Masochists, but just maybe they are insulted by someone claiming that he would make the movies "in the spirit of Tolkien" has, in fact, represented HIS version, cuts and inventions and all, as being true to the story to people who have not read the books and that his falsehoods are an insult to Tolkien, his characters and the story he created.

RW, I agree that not having Frodo alone at the Ford was a mistake (IMHO), but did PJ really say in an interview that he wouldn't change Arwen into "a sword wielding Elven witch capable of calling forth the waters into a flood"? In interview after interview? You may prove me wrong, and I'm not taking any particular "side" in this debate, but at least state the facts clearly and don't quote PJ (or anyone else) as having said something that they didn't.

[markrob]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Thorin
[B]

On the contrary, my wish is that everyone can formulate their own idea of what ME means to them and picture it in their mind's eye rather than have someone (like Jackson) come and do it for them in a deceptive and distorted way.....If I was going to have Tolkien introduced to a newbie, I would do it by giving them Tolkien, not any rendition and especially not Jackson's.[B]

In a perfect world that would be sound reasoning but unfortunately that can not be the case. Due to certain peoples age, location, finacial situation, ability to read, etc. not everyone can read the text first. I would rather have a "newbie" also read the books first but it aint my way or the highway which sounds like they way you want it. I agree with Greenwood that the only scenerio you would be happy with is if the movie were never made. Talk about taking artistry and creativity out of the world, we need more of that kind of stuff not less. It also could be worse, if someone else would have undertaken the project and f'd it up more than PJ did. Just my opinion with a dose of reality thrown into it. ;)

[Crumpled Stars]

Thorin-

Your heart's certainly in the right place, but please don't insult new Tolkien readers' intelligence. No one's going to have a problem recognizing immediately that the movie is Jackson's ME and the book is Tolkien's (I didn't), and thus adjusting their imaginations accordingly.

That's right, I'm one of those poor souls who saw the movie first and whose vision of ME has been hideously stunted because of it.

Come on.

I would actually rather advise a Tolkien virgin to go ahead and see the movie first; that way he/she could thoroughly enjoy the movie without having to trouble him/herself about the liberties taken by Jackson, then get the real version and be pleasantly surprised by the complexity, depth and beauty of the story that could not be (or simply was not) captured on film.

[Greenwood]

Quote by Thorin
On the contrary, my wish is that everyone can formulate their own idea of what ME means to them and picture it in their mind's eye rather than have someone (like Jackson) come and do it for them in a deceptive and distorted way.....If I was going to have Tolkien introduced to a newbie, I would do it by giving them Tolkien, not any rendition and especially not Jackson's.

Strange. In the months I have been on the Forum I have never once heard you rail against all the artists who have illustrated Tolkien books, the Tolkien calendars, the pictures on dust jackets, etc. I have only heard you rather endlessly go on about Peter Jackson.

I have absolutely no problem with people liking the movie...I have never said that you could not be a fan and like the movie....The problem I have, and always had, are those fans (like Harad) who come on and cannot objectively criticise the parts that alter and distort what Tolkien intended and try to justify those distortions by invoking the writings and "spirit" of the very source that those misleading and distorted parts trample upon. I question the loyalty of professed fans when they exalt PJ and his movie over the very source that gave it life.

Oh really? What you really mean is that you question the loyalty of Tolkien fans who do not condemn the things you do not like in the movie.

[DGoeij]

My opinion on this is that Thorin is overreacting to people who overreact. Saying PJ's LOTR is the best and only possible way to turn the magic into a movie is overreacting and personally I think Thorins response to it, questioning the loyalty of those fans, is too.

But then again, that is another personal opinion. Mine this time.;)

[Thrakerzog]

Thorin,
In response to your very first post.
I had multiple options as to why you would see TTT.

Since you are not a masochist, and I don't think you would see TTT only out of bordom, that only leaves troller.

Basically, this is my point.
we expect to be thrilled by JRR Tolkien's amazing work to be shown on screen. We hope to find a true rendition (not an exact one) to bring Tolkien to life....The same reasons why we went to see the first one.

You know, based on the first movie, and based on what PJ has said, that in your eye's, this will not happen.

You will not get "thrilled by JRR Tolkien's amazing work...shown on screen".

All you will get is more disappointed.

This being the obvious case, why are you going to see it? Again, I can not think of a reason, other then so that you have "ammunition" to come here and troll and insult PJ.

Given the way you write about FotR, it is readily apparent that you hate the movie.
You hate what it leaves out.
You hate what it changes.
You hate what it does to the minds of those that havn't read the book.
You hate what it does ot the minds of those that have read the book.

So why are you going to see TTT? It will only make you more upset.
PJ is not going to add in all the missing stuff.
PJ is not going to undo the changes, they might get worse.
PJ is going to further the pictures he has put in your and everyone's head.

So again, why are you going to see this movie?
Simply so that you can come to this forum and troll about it?

Readwryt,
"You forgot that they went believing that when Jackson said in interview after interview he was not making major changes in the characters that he wouldn't be turning Arwen into a sword wielding Elven witch capable of calling forth the waters into a flood. Maybe they never expected that in claiming no major changes to the characters they didn't forsee being treated to a knock down drag out fight between Saruman and Gandalf," blah blah blah.

No, I didn't forget.
You are missing the point. The movie FotR is what it is. None of these things will be changed or fixed in TTT.
You know you don't like the FotR, so why are you going to see TTT?

-----

Please note, in this thread I have not at all expressed my opinion of FotR beyond the implication that I will go see it. I do not care what you like or dislike about the movie.
This thread is to simply ask, if you hated FotR so much, as many of you obviously did, why are you going to see TTT?

[Thrakerzog]

DGoeij,
My opinion on this is that Thorin is overreacting to people who overreact. Saying PJ's LOTR is the best and only possible way to turn the magic into a movie is overreacting and personally I think Thorins response to it, questioning the loyalty of those fans, is too.

Yeah, the problem here?
Nobody says "PJ's LOTR is the best and only possible way to turn the magic into a movie".

Nobody believes this. I can't find a single person. If you can, speak their name so that they can defend themselves against this greatly exagerated claim. :rolleyes:

The closest I have seen yet, is people saying that PJ's LOTR's is the best SO FAR. Hardly what you claim, now is it.

[Strider97]

You either loved it or hated it-
PJ is either a genius, misguided or a fat unbarbered bag of ****

If you read the book before hand- Relax and enjoy the movie and think of the parts that were left out to fill in the context of the story- The good outweighs the bad- I still got a chill when Frodo said he would take the ring- I still felt lost after Gandalf fell and I still felt the majesty has they left Lorien heading down the river to the rest of the journey. Enjoy it for what it is and chill. To paraphrase another poll. Are we better off with it or without it.

If you watched the movie before starting the books- Welcome to the richest literary experience of a lifetime. Enjoy the road and may you travel it often. Behing each curve a new experience awaits you and with each trip a new scene to surprise you. Enjoy- I have for 35 years.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Thrakerzog

You will not get "thrilled by JRR Tolkien's amazing work...shown on screen". All you will get is more disappointed.

Actually, I do expect to be thrilled. Seeing some of these things that remain true to the book come to life is very thrilling. I enjoyed Moria and Amon Hen in the movie quite well.

Originally posted by Thrakerzog
This being the obvious case, why are you going to see it? Again, I can not think of a reason, other then so that you have "ammunition" to come here and troll and insult PJ.

I must admit, that criticizing PJ is an added bonus, but what is even more fun is counteracting those avid movie fans who can't seem to understand why Tolkien didn't do it the way the great Peter Jackson did it...

Originally posted by Thrakerzog
Given the way you write about FotR, it is readily apparent that you hate the movie.
You hate what it leaves out.
You hate what it changes.
You hate what it does to the minds of those that havn't read the book.
You hate what it does ot the minds of those that have read the book. So why are you going to see TTT? It will only make you more upset.

No, I do not hate the movie, I am disgusted by some of the liberties taken from it and the misleading of the Tolkien fans and in claiming that he wants to make JRR Tolkien's epic a true rendition. Yet he takes huge gratuitous liberties for no reason but to feed his own ego.

No, I do not hate what it leaves out....I have never complained about what it leaves out. Some things I can understand the time factor involved.

No, I do not like some of the changes that PJ did. I do not hate all of them. I would hope, Thraker, that as a fan, there were some things that bothered you...If they didn't, you never went to the movie with anything Tolkien wrote in your mind.

No, I feel that many people who ignored Tolkien until after Jackson cheated themselves out of a much deeper experience of Tolkien's work.

quoted by Greenwood
Strange. In the months I have been on the Forum I have never once heard you rail against all the artists who have illustrated Tolkien books, the Tolkien calendars, the pictures on dust jackets, etc. I have only heard you rather endlessly go on about Peter Jackson.

Oh please. Comparing a 3 hour moving picture show complete with special effects and characters speaking is a far cry from seeing a few pictures (And to be honest, by the time I figured out what scene some of Howe's pictures depicted, I was moving on). There is a big difference on how movies make us see the world.. If that weren't the case, the film industry is wasting their time instead of letting us just see pictures and read books. We all know what sells don't we?

[Thrakerzog]

I'm sorry, I wasn't technical enough.

So you are "disappointed" and "disgusted" by it, but you don't "hate" it. Whatever.
Glad to see we arn't splitting hairs...

quote from Thorin:
"I do expect to be thrilled."

No you do not, below is the proof.

Other quotes from Thorin:
"I was disappointed"
"I am disgusted"
"there seems to be less that could be screwed up in TTT....However, PJ is now going to the other extreme saying that there is not enough material to make a movie out of TTT and will be adding his own stuff for a "fresh take" on it"

And here is the real kicker:
"I am going wanting to be thrilled but expecting to be disappointed again"

So Thorin, do you "expect to be thrilled", as you claim, or are you "expecting to be disappointed again" as you, um, also claim...?

Judging from all the other quotes I provided, it is pretty clear the latter is your true belief.
And yes, I did edit them. The full text is just above for everyone to read.

-----

No matter how much you tell yourself that you "expect to be thrilled" it is clear that you do not expect such.

So why are you going to see TTT?
It is very clear, it's not because you "expect to be thrilled".
You have said your not a "masochist".
I don't think you would just go to see it out of bordom, as you would just read your precious.

So what does that leave us?

You want to see it so you can come here and troll.

Do you have another reason you havn't already shot down?

[Thorin]

I don't fully understand what this obsession is to try and figure out why I'm planning to see the movie. You can't seem to accept any of the reason's I give....Maybe it's just expectation. I'm sure you have more of a life then to try and use my own quotes against me for something that comes down to nothing more then curiosity, not logical reasoning. :rolleyes:

You seem to take the idea that you either love it and go see it and praise Peter Jackson, or you hate it and don't go see it. To me that is shallow. I can go and enjoy the parts that I feel were true and I can come back and criticize those parts and express my own opinion whenever I want, and about whatever I want. I have the right to enjoy what I want and criticize what I want. I sorry that seems to offend you if I don't either hate it all or love it all. ARe you telling me that I don't have the right to go and see the movie and then come back and "troll"? Who made you the thought police?

Some people hate the movie and have vowed to not go see the other movies (few and far between I admit). To me, that is totally stubborn, incorrigable and very ultra purist. Despite the shortfallings, that is all we have and some is better then none, and there are many good things that can be gotten out of the movies...But too bad, so sad that I will express my right to "troll" to my heart's content despite whether it bothers you or not.

[Thrakerzog]

Thorin,
You either have an other worldly ability at deduction or you assume way to much.

"I don't fully understand what this obsession is to try and figure out why I'm planning to see the movie."

I want to know.
Why do you call it an obsession? Thats assuming a lot. Did I say, THORIN in my first post? No. So why do you assume I have an obsession about your opinion?

You answered my thread, so I responded back.

You can't seem to accept any of the reason's I give.... Maybe it's just expectation.

Maybe I can't accept your reasons because they contridict themselves? It's not like I went to another thread and pulled two month old quotes. These are from the same thread. In my response to you the very first words I said were "Thorin, In response to your very first post."

I'm sure you have more of a life then to try and use my own quotes against me for something that comes down to nothing more then curiosity, not logical reasoning.

And I am sure you have more of a life then to come to my thread to spread your same old 'everyone totally loves PJ' carp:
What's even more annoying then the "trolls" are those who have no objectivity and praise and promote Jackson's rendition over Tolkien's no matter what the cost or sacrifice of principle.

This thread was created to ask WHY you are going to see the TT if you didn't like FotR.
It was not created for you to repeat the same stupid things you have repeated in almost every thread on this message board.

You seem to take the idea that you either love it and go see it and praise Peter Jackson, or you hate it and don't go see it.

And this is EXACTLY the 'assumption' carp I am talking about.

Where did I ever, in any post I have every made, express the idea that "you either love it and go see it and praise Peter Jackson, or you hate it and don't go see it"?

This, again is that other worldly ability of deduction you think you have.
You are wrong. Again.
You assume this exact same belief applies to every person that says they enjoyed the movie.

Where is the middle ground in your eye's?

So far, all I have seen from you is the belief that anyone that disagree's with you on most anything is a "troll" who has "no objectivity and praise and promote Jackson's rendition over Tolkien's no matter what the cost or sacrifice of principle."

To me that is shallow.

To me you are shallow and totally consumed by your own 'Their all PJ lovers' propganda.

I can go and enjoy the parts that I feel were true and I can come back and criticize those parts and express my own opinion whenever I want, and about whatever I want. I have the right to enjoy what I want and criticize what I want.

Don't start getting indignant. NOBODY told you that you CAN'T go see the movie. Stop assuming someone has.

I sorry that seems to offend you if I don't either hate it all or love it all.

Yet another assumption based on your zealot belief.

ARe you telling me that I don't have the right to go and see the movie and then come back and "troll"? Who made you the thought police?

Are you telling me you are assuming YET AGAIN about what I am saying?

Some people hate the movie and have vowed to not go see the other movies (few and far between I admit). To me, that is totally stubborn, incorrigable and very ultra purist. Despite the shortfallings, that is all we have and some is better then none, and there are many good things that can be gotten out of the movies...

Now if you had just said this in your FIRST post, instead of your usual BS, there wouldn't have been an issue.

Thorin,
Did you notice that you started this past reply of yours with assumptions.
You built assumptions on top of those assumptions.
Then you came to a conclusion, "Who made you the thought police?" based on yet more assumptions built on the other assumptions?

Maybe you should try assuming a little less and start asking, k?

[Greenwood]

Quote by Thorin
I have absolutely no problem with people liking the movie...I have never said that you could not be a fan and like the movie

Quote by Thorin
I would hope, Thraker, that as a fan, there were some things that bothered you...If they didn't, you never went to the movie with anything Tolkien wrote in your mind.

Am I the only one to see an inconsistency here? :(

[Strider97]

No- We agree on this thread.


Everyone should enjoy both mediums for what they are and welcome virgins wherever they come from.

I saw that cartoon years ago and survived. I believe that any exposure that brings a new reader to Tolkien is a good thing. peoples perceptions can change. Good heavens my thoughts and perceptions on the charaters changed over the years when all I had were the books.

Greenwood- I really think we agree on that other thread, too. Strider97

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Greenwood
quote from Thorin

I have absolutely no problem with people liking the movie...I have never said that you could not be a fan and like the movie
------------------------------------------------------------------------



quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote by Thorin
I would hope, Thraker, that as a fan, there were some things that bothered you...If they didn't, you never went to the movie with anything Tolkien wrote in your mind.

Am I the only one to see an inconsistency here? :(

Probably not.....But that doesn't bother me. I spend half my time explaining things over and over to those who continually miss the point. Like I said before, you can dislike some of the things that PJ has done and still like the movie...I have no problems with that. Where's the inconsistency?
Saying that you liked Arwen the way she was or that it bothered you but you liked the movie anyway is a personal opinion that I respect. I have no problems with it.

Saying that Tolkien should have done it that way to have more female representation in FoTR or that Arwen could have done those things so it was entirely acceptable and people who criticize it are vehemently criticized makes me wonder where your allegiance lies.

[Dhôn-Buri-Dhôn]

Allegiance? Wow, I must have missed something. Was I supposed to sign a loyalty oath?

;)

[Greenwood]

Quote by Thorin
Saying that you liked Arwen the way she was or that it bothered you but you liked the movie anyway is a personal opinion that I respect. I have no problems with it.

Really!? You leap all over anyone who says that they had no problem with Arwen in the movie and you have been doing it for months!

Quote by Thorin
Saying that Tolkien should have done it that way to have more female representation in FoTR or that Arwen could have done those things so it was entirely acceptable and people who criticize it are vehemently criticized makes me wonder where your allegiance lies.

If anyone has said that they tought Tolkien should have written Arwen as in the movie I haven't seen it. I certainly have never said any such thing. Saying that it did not violate the spirit of LOTR or that there is nothing in LOTR that makes it impossible that Arwen could have done these things is another thing entirely and I have said that.

As for the last part of your comment:

ALL HAIL THORIN, SELF-APPOINTED COMMANDER OF THE TOLKIEN PURITY LEAGUE AND POLICE!!! :eek:

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Greenwood

ALL HAIL THORIN, SELF-APPOINTED COMMANDER OF THE TOLKIEN PURITY LEAGUE AND POLICE!!! :eek:

Amen, brother...:) My sworn and solemn duty to stamp out heresy against Tolkien in the form of the false doctrine of a fat, bearded heretic claiming to support the true while promoting the false.....To try and help others discern and appreciate the factual fiction from the fictional fiction and promote literacy and support for Tolkien the Great....Our triumphant cry shall always be DOWN WITH PJ!!!!

Oh boy... I need some sleep.....

[lilhobo]

Originally posted by Greenwood



ALL HAIL THORIN, SELF-APPOINTED COMMANDER OF THE TOLKIEN PURITY LEAGUE AND POLICE!!! :eek:

well if PJ had kept to the original story a littl emore like Bakshi did he would have gotten himself an oscar :D

[Elanor2]

Originally posted by lilhobo
well if PJ had kept to the original story a littl emore like Bakshi did he would have gotten himself an oscar :D

Yes, then he would have gotten my vote for sure ;). Not that it matters, since I am not in the jury anyway.

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by Thrakerzog
DGoeij,
My opinion on this is that Thorin is overreacting to people who overreact. Saying PJ's LOTR is the best and only possible way to turn the magic into a movie is overreacting and personally I think Thorins response to it, questioning the loyalty of those fans, is too.

Yeah, the problem here?
Nobody says "PJ's LOTR is the best and only possible way to turn the magic into a movie".

Nobody believes this. I can't find a single person. If you can, speak their name so that they can defend themselves against this greatly exagerated claim. :rolleyes:

The closest I have seen yet, is people saying that PJ's LOTR's is the best SO FAR. Hardly what you claim, now is it.

The problem here is overreacting, as I said. Either attacking Thorin (and other more radical purist, by lack of any better term) for clearly not liking several things done in the movie, or Thorin attacking people clearly liking this movie.

I thought I was making clear enough that I was expressing my personal opinion on the mattter. I emphasized that in the last sentence, left out of the quote. I wasn't stating what people had openly said, I was stating what I felt I read between the lines. If that wasn't clear enough, I hope it is now.

I don't know what you mean by my 'claim'. As most fans and book-lovers, I have an opinion about the movie. Aside from the cartoon version, how many movies on LOTR have there been? The best SO FAR is a funny claim, isn't it?
Now, if there had been more attempts, I do feel that PJ's would have been among the very best. ME in his movie looked awesome, the actors did a great job on their part of the script. Some things I didn't like. It happens, people are people. People view things differently.

[Greenwood]

factual fiction


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????????? :rolleyes:

[Thorin]

Greenwood,

Tolkien and PJ are based on fiction so I cannot say fact or fiction, but as Tolkien is the basis of the facts of ME I have to say factual fiction as opposed to the distortion and fabrication which would be the fiction of the fiction....play on words...get it? get it?

Man, lighten up a little bit...

or do you feel the need, like Harad, to slam down even my joking threads I use to occasionally lighten the situation?

[aragil]

Careful Thorin, with Harad now banned the invocation of his name might be considered pejoritive!

[Greenwood]

That's ok Aragil. I think the thing that really got Harad mad at me was when I compared him to Thorin. He thought this was a really low blow. :D I don't mind being compared to Harad, especially by Thorin. :)

[Minas]

I came late to this forum and to PJ's comments on it. I have only ever seen PJ talk about creating his 'vision/version' of Tolkien's work. I subsequently have seen lots of earlier quotes from PJ as Readwryt has pointed out. I think he began this massive project intending to produce the movie without change. As the movie took shape, for many reasons, he felt it best to alter characters etc and so changed his stance (and comments) as the final version of FOTR came close to release.

Could the Exec's at New Line have had something to do with some of the changes to the story?

[DGoeij]

Now that would have been a shame. Changes for the sake of keeping the story good on the big screen is a hard job I can imagine. So with New Line people breathing down his neck, I feel sorry for the guy.
But I really don't know if that happened.

[Minas]

I have no evidence that New Line pressured him for the changes. Just the fact that was saying early in the project that he would make a perfect rendition and later said it would be his version. He now consistently says there will be changes

[ReadWryt]

I think that a component of his getting funding in the first place was the fervent and meticulous fan base that the story already had. He pitched New Line on the idea that here was this story that millions of readers had embraced, and that if someone were to make an accurate version of the story in a film it was a guaranteed winner, and so he went out and told everybody that he was not making "major changes" to the characters and such to convince both New Line and the Fan Base that he was staying true to the characters and story. Then once in the thick of it, with his funding in hand, he ran off to New Zealand...far from the prying eyes of Hollywood...and made the movie HE wanted to make.

[Minas]

Actually there have been several articles lately talking about the special laws passed in NZ to allow FOTR to have special tax free status.
I think you'll find the funding came from NZ banks keen to gain tax free returns, the ultimate risk was definitely carried by the American company New Line.

RW I'm not sure if you meant your last post to read this way but I get the impression you feel PJ was lying to everyone. To the fans, to New Line and definitely to the 'spirit' of JRRT.
I haven't read all his early quotes or watched TV footage of all his comments but I get the impression he set out to deliver a 'clean' movie of FOTR. (Clean meaning no changes from book)

"Then once in the thick of it, with his funding in hand, he ran off to New Zealand...far from the prying eyes of Hollywood...and made the movie HE wanted to make."

Whether it was HIS input only into the final version I, and probably you RW, can never be sure what involvement New Line Exec's had over the final cutting for FOTR. There was certainly plenty of pressure coming for the US to make a commercially successful version. Their representative/s down in NZ from Hollywood for the whole project will have been relaying what was happening to the films backer New Line.

[DGoeij]

Boring!
Can you two leave it to PM's? Take a dive in a bathtub full of vanilla ice and cool down.

[Thorin]

DGoeij,

I was trying to do that before in my first one when Thraker went and blew a gasket and spread it all over the forum....But, yeah, you're right...As far as I'm concerned, I'm done arguing......I guess the spirit of Foe-Hammer and Harad isn't dead after all....;)

PS: Where is Foe-Hammer? I haven't heard from him for ever....and Greymantle too....

[Maedhros]

Ancalagon the Black, the mightiest of the dragon-host, and cast him from the sky; and he fell upon the towers of Thangorodrim, and they were broken in his ruin.
Right on time mod.

[ReadWryt]

Whether it was HIS input only into the final version I, and probably you RW, can never be sure what involvement New Line Exec's had over the final cutting for FOTR.

Oh but we DO know that P.J. didn't have the final say in the cutting of the movie in the end! He admitted that in the second "Aint it cool news" interview, and from what is getting released on the DVD we can presume that a good deal of what Jackson intended to be seen by the audience got left on the floor in the theatrical release, but all the cutting in the world and the greatest editor in history could not "Cut in" Arwen warrior princes elven witch...that had to be invented by Jackson.

[7doubles]

on a scale of 1 to 10, i give the fellowship
2 yellow sunshines and a purple micro dot. lol

[Thrakerzog]

I was trying to do that before in my first one when Thraker went and blew a gasket and spread it all over the forum....But, yeah, you're right...As far as I'm concerned, I'm done arguing......I guess the spirit of Foe-Hammer and Harad isn't dead after all....

Blew a gasket?
No Thorin. Just telling you to keep your shallow totally self consuming 'Their all PJ lovers' propganda out of my threads because it is TOTALLY off topic.

Indeed, you have successfully turned EVERY thread I have ever seen you post to into yet another flame war about "PJ lovers".

Tell me how this quote has ANYTHING to do with you going or not going to see the movie:
What's even more annoying then the "trolls" are those who have no objectivity and praise and promote Jackson's rendition over Tolkien's no matter what the cost or sacrifice of principle.

It doesn't Thorin. It is you repeating yourself yet again. It is you being totally off topic yet again.

Spirit of Foe-Hammer and Harad?

Maybe that is because you refuse to post to a thread without beating the same stupid drums every time (note, I called the drums stupid, not you Thorin)... Maybe they saw the same propoganda from you and responded.

So Thorin, you stay on topic and I won't "blow a gasket", k?

[Elanor2]

Originally posted by Thrakerzog
No Thorin. Just telling you to keep your shallow totally self consuming 'Their all PJ lovers' propganda out of my threads because it is TOTALLY off topic.

Dear Thrakerzog,

I normally do not interfere in flame wars, but I have to point out a couple of things:

Thorin has always been clear that what he says is his opinion, and he is entitled to it. You might love to movie. Others might not.

Propaganda is a double edged sword. You seem to be making it as much as you accuse others of doing it.

Personal attacks, as you make constantly, are to real off topic thing here, from my point of view.

The fact that you start a topic, does not give you exclusive rights of its contents, or the opinions that other state. They are not YOUR threats, just threats that you have initiated, or in which you participate. If you do not like, or agree, just point it out and let it be.

Now, I suggest that we bring this whole sorry episode to a painless end.

[DGoeij]

I hope Thorin can refrain from answering that.
Thraker, you started this thread in a provocative way. Now that can ensure a lively argument, and I don't mind that. But if you do not wish to be confronted with answers that have sharp edges, maybe think of another way to make your point.

I'm going to see TTT, I'm going to tell you if there where any changes to the original story. I'm going to give my opinion on them too. And I'm going to discuss them with anybody not sharing that opinion. And I'm going to like it. And if people go mad at me, and start yelling (or the internet forum equivalent of it), maybe I'll shrug, maybe I'll even snigger, or maybe I won't even bother.

[Thrakerzog]

Elanor2,
"What's even more annoying then the "trolls" are those who have no objectivity and praise and promote Jackson's rendition over Tolkien's no matter what the cost or sacrifice of principle."

This is not an opinion at all related to the topic. It is the same argument insighting post Thorin puts in ever thread I have ever seen him post to.

This sentance is meant to do what Thorin does to every thread - turn it into a "PJ lover" bash-a-thon, even when the bash-e isn't a "PJ lover".

Even the very next poster, you Elanor2, pick up what he started and begin to talk about how to criticise something...

Elanor2, What did you base your comments on in that first post?
I did not praise or criticise the movie.
I did not praise or criticise PJ.
I did not express any opinions about either subject at all.

So why are you telling me about "mindless worship and mindless whining"?
Where did you get your belief that I was in either of these camps? Certainly you wouldn't have given this lecture if you didn't think I was one of these camps.

I'll tell you where you got it: from THORIN

I have NEVER said or implied PJ's LotR's is PERFECT.
I have NEVER praise and promote Jackson's rendition over Tolkien's no matter what the cost or sacrifice of principle.

Hell, I've never said or implied PJ's movie is better then Tolkiens book on ANY level. And I don't think it is!

No, Thorin made that statement blindly accusing me of being a "PJ lover" and you followed just as blindly.

Thorin does this to EVERYONE that says ANYTHING positive about the movie in EVERY thread I have ever seen him post to.


While you are correct I don't own the thread, I did start it for a very particular discussion. NOT to rehash the same discussion that has been in every thread on this forum.
This discussion is in enough threads that I think we can reasonably ask to have a thread without such comments / debate.
Or else, why do they even allow multiple threadS? Why not just condense all threads into just one? As it is, most all have already turned into this one topic...

-----

DGoeij,
Re-read Thorins first post. It is the very first reply to this thread.
The first and third paragraph are excelent answers to my question.

So tell me, what is this:
"What's even more annoying then the "trolls" are those who have no objectivity and praise and promote Jackson's rendition over Tolkien's no matter what the cost or sacrifice of principle."

This has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
This has nothing to do with me, I certainly have critsized parts of the movie.
This has nothing to do with anything except his own agenda to turn every thread into a debate about trolls. HE is the troll.

Why must every thread that Thorin posts to come to this:
"And some of you are just a little too quick to come running to PJ's defense instead of letting him take some lumps that he deserves..."

Show me an example of ANYONE comming to PJ's defense in this thread.
Thrakerzog: Nope. Just asked why they were going to see it.
Elanor2: Nope. Just said things should be viewed level headedly.
Ged: Nope. Just saying that Thorin should lighten up on this EXACT thing.

So why does Thorin bring it up? Why is it here?

[Thorin]

It's interesting to see everyone fight over l'il ole me! :D Okay, last I will say on this topic.....Sorry everyone for furthering such a ridiculous and futile argument.....

Originally posted by Thrakerzog
They are masicists - the see it to torture themselves.

They are trolls - they see it to come here to torture everyone about ever stupid detail they hated.

Bordom - they are bored out of their mind and have nothing better to do with 3, 6 or 9 hours watching it multiple times.


Thraker, all I was doing was a simple defense of your abuse of those who go see the movies though they dislike it....You seem to vehemently rant against that fact, calling us trolls and "torturing everyone about every stupid detail"....Seems all negative to me....What kind of a response are you begging for if not a defensive one? I don't appreciate the rhetorical question you've asked when all you are doing is just cutting down reasoning you don't understand....

Yes, my post might have been a bit off topic from your original "rhetorical question", but I was merely defending a purists point of view by pointing out the movie defenders illogic as well and that there are many annoying and illogical "troll" things on the other side of the coin so in a way, I am on topic.....

Even if the post goes off topic, you are blowing this way out of proportion and never have I said that all of what I was saying fits YOU. You've blown it up and taken it so personally that you are embarassing yourself (especially implying that I seem to sway Elanor with my thinking)....Just let it go for crying out loud....

I will try not to "make every thread a PJ bashing thread" if it offends you so much.....Sheesh.

[Elanor2]

Originally posted by Thrakerzog
So why are you telling me about "mindless worship and mindless whining"?
Where did you get your belief that I was in either of these camps? Certainly you wouldn't have given this lecture if you didn't think I was one of these camps.

I'll tell you where you got it: from THORIN

Do you really think that I am unable to form my own opinion about your post without looking at others?

OK, I'll give you my reasoning then. Just to point out that I do have a mind of my own.

In your original post, you make a question and give three alternative scenarios:

- Masochism
- Trolldom
- Boredom

It looks like three scenarios, but they aren't. They all have negative connotations. A true scenario case would have included positive and negative (and even neutral) altenatives to indicate that you are looking for a wide range of possibilities. The fact that you limited your scenarios to the negative, indicates either:

a) Your prejudices show. You can only think of negative alternatives. You have chosen a camp, whether you realise it or not.

b) You are acting as a provocateur. You want those who would theoretically fit in these categories to defend themselves. You want the flame to rage, but you did not give the signs (smilies, disclaimers, whatever). You made it more deadly.

Either case, your question is, in fact, a critic to the critics, and not a kind one. Conscious or unconscious, you are better judge on that. That makes my comment on criticism justified.

You should be happy that Thorin (just to give an example, completely random :) ) rose to the bait. You could have had a nice back and forth there, but you consistenly ignored the signs and went down to nitpicking.

I stand by my opinion. There are better ways to do what you did.

Regards. Elanor2

[Thrakerzog]

There are better ways to do what you did.

No, Elanor2, there's not.

I do NOT understand why someone who HATES LotR's is going to go see TTT.
I do NOT know of a reason they would want to see it except those reasons I outlined.

I asked a simple question, stating the ONLY reasons I could forsee them seeing the movie. Then I ASKED for a simple explanation as to why someone that hates the movie SO much is going to see the movie.

I ADMITTED I do NOT understand the mindset of someone who hates the LotR, yet they have this willingness and even desire to see the TTT, so I ASKED A QUESTION.

It is not my job to outline the "positive" when THAT is EXACTLY what I am asking for. I would not have asked the question if I knew the answer.

Thorin posted the same stupid "PJ lovers" carp he posts to EVERY THREAD I HAVE EVER SEEN HIM POST TO.

In context? Nope.
On Thread? Almost NEVER.

[Elanor2]

Originally posted by Thrakerzog
I do NOT understand why someone who HATES LotR's is going to go see TTT.
I do NOT know of a reason they would want to see it except those reasons I outlined.


- Because they LOVE Tolkien and go to see anything related to it.

- Because they have FRIENDS that go to see it.

- Because they are HONEST and want to give their opinion knowing all facts.

- Because the have, in their hearts, HOPE that no matter how botched it might look at first glance, something good might come out of this.

- Because they are just CURIOUS.

Now, do you see positive things here?

Anything can be converted from positive to negative and viceversa, if you chose the right words.
You say they are TROLLS, I say they are HONEST.
You say they are BORED, I say they are CURIOUS and they have FRIENDS to go with.
You say they are MASOCHISTS, I say they LOVE Tolkien and that they have HOPE.

I hope this helps. Regards, Elanor2

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Thrakerzog
Thorin posted the same stupid "PJ lovers" carp he posts to EVERY THREAD I HAVE EVER SEEN HIM POST TO.

In context? Nope.
On Thread? Almost NEVER.

Thraker, with risk of getting my hands slapped by the Moderators, you're way out of line with your judgements of me and are letting your vehemence cloud your judgement and reason.....Can you say "over-exaggeration"?

Elanor has adequately answered your question which was so faulty that it was taken by many as a vehement rhetorical spouting of your annoyance of anyone who should say anything bad against the movie....Ask the question reasonably next time, and you might get a reasonable answer....

And I fully endorse Elanor's reasons as to why a purist such as myself would still go see the movie....They have nothing to do with what you've put forth....Listen to Elanor, she knows what she is talking about....

PS: And lighten up a bit....;)

[LadyGaladriel]

The books are very very long (Not that I complaining) but the fact is that the movie wasn't just made for me or any tolkien fan in particular. It was made for the general public and the public can not sit for that long in a movie theater HENCE SO THERE WAS CHANGES.
Pj did a good job on getting it all togather and letting the public into a magical world. It inspires people to re read the books and lets other people relise what they are missing.
On a personal note thorin , I ( as you proberly are ) am jealous of the opputunity that Pj got to show the world what his middleearth idea is.
If you can do better than fine , Make a movie yourself of it and you will relise how hard it is and how disappointing it can be for people to have argue about the smallest change.

[Elanor2]

Originally posted by LadyGaladriel
If you can do better than fine , Make a movie yourself of it and you will relise how hard it is and how disappointing it can be for people to have argue about the smallest change.

I think that our Dear LadyGaladriel might have hit the point. Us, who are here discussing the movie and criticising the director (as the representative of the project, not personally), all probably think that we could have done it better... If we knew how to direct movies, that is :)

There are many aspects of movie-making of which I have no idea. However, I have experience in project management. I know, personally, how difficult it can be sometimes to do a great job. There is no project in the world that has no constraints, limits, and opposition. That's part of it.

I can throw my hands in the air and say that I did my best with the ressources and limits given, but, something that I learned the hard way, I have also made mistakes. Part of my job is also to sit and listen to others pointing them out :(

So, I like to hear what Thorin says. I do not always agree, but I perceive an honest desire to share his own personal opinion. And that's educational. I do not feel right to just answer back "Stop giving your opinion, I do not like it". Specially when you do not have to. Using the ignore button is enough.

As for Thrakerzog, I try to critic his style, not his opinions. And to find out what direction is he trying to go. I have the feeling that he works on a hidden agenda, perhaps even hidden to him/herself. But this is more subjective than fact, I have to say.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by LadyGaladriel
The books are very very long (Not that I complaining) but the fact is that the movie wasn't just made for me or any tolkien fan in particular. It was made for the general public and the public can not sit for that long in a movie theater HENCE SO THERE WAS CHANGES.

Pj did a good job on getting it all togather and letting the public into a magical world. It inspires people to re read the books and lets other people relise what they are missing.

I have never been against CHANGES.....I expected changes to the story....MINOR changes! With the exception of Bilbo's party, most of the Shire scenes in the beginning were totally fabricated. I had no problems with that. I thought it gave a nice touch to open the movie and get the audience warmed up....I loved the parts that were true to Tolkien and give PJ a thumbs up for capturing the magic...I got choked up by Boromir on Amon Hen. I began to sweat in anticipation in Moria. The scenery at Rivendell and all through the movie was how I pictured it.....I am not totally against the movie and I know how hard it is to make a movie, especially one of this magnitude.....

However, PJ claimed to be making a true rendition from the start and made all these claims that they read the chapters before shooting to get it right....That tells me that the director has a desire to make it as true as can be and that is what I expect....Then I see Arwen coming to save the day (where did they read that?) I see Saruman distorted and fabricated scenes that take away from what Tolkien intended (Boromir fingering the ring on the mountain). To me, those are HUGE changes that distort Tolkien and with changes like that, I couldn't care less if Pippin and Merry set off fireworks like Abbot and Costello....

Little changes are okay.....Major changes to character and plot are unacceptable when trying to stay true to the story (or claiming to be).

[Lindir]

Originally posted by Thorin

(Boromir fingering the ring on the mountain
I have never understood why this particular scene annoys you so. I didn't see Boromir fingering the Ring, I saw him holding the chain the Ring was hanging on. I hardly gave it a second thought. I sort of agree with you on the Arwen-thing, but since I knew this in advance it didn't bug me all that much at the time. The changes to Saruman's character did annoy me slightly though.

[Thorin]

When I mean fingering the ring, I mean handling the ring as a whole (chain and all). Sorry for not being clearer on that.

It bothers me for a number of reasons:

1) It was a complete, unnecessary fabrication, not even a distortion of the truth. The movie's council of Elrond made it even more obvious then the book that Boromir was lusting for the ring.

2) He goes and says some of the lines that were meant for the end of the movie at Amon Hen

3) Boromir casually handling the ring and easily giving it back to Aragorn nonetheless and not Frodo, diminishes the power of the ring over the holder (Frodo never said boo over it). The casual display at the Council of Elrond and the lack of respect that seems to be shown it by it's characters thoughout the movie doesn't help either. The only place where it seemed to show what Tolkien intended for the ring was with Bilbo and Frodo's conversation, and Bilbo arguing with Gandalf in the Shire.

All of this just makes me wonder why PJ would need to deviate from the story for this...Ego gratification? Dumbing it down for the audience? It just all adds up with the other changes to make me annoyed with the unnecessary liberties Jackson felt he needed to take with the characters and plot....

[Minas]

Surely this is the ring taking action on its own part to be found by the 'weakest' willed member of the fellowship. Many people wondered how it could come off Frodo's neck, just like the odds of it falling directly on Frodo's finger in the Bree tavern. Impossible for anything other than a magic ring. In the movie did you not see Boromir look down at Aragorn's hands as Aragorn asks him to give the ring back to Frodo. Aragorn has his hand on his sword. Not the only reason to give it back but still Aragorn is giving a good incentive.

Yes it is to make it clearer for the non book readers. You forget Thorin not everyone knows the story before they went to the theatre New Line wants the majority of watchers to understand the movie.

[DGoeij]

Wauw, we seem to be having a serious debate over here.:)

I'm somewhat in the middle on this particular issue. Boromir handling the Ring.....

Against it, is the plain and simple fact that he would not give it back. At least that's how I always understood the power of the Ring. It's not in the book in this way and it does feel somewhat wrong. Opposite to the scene in which Boromir is giving sword-lessons to Pip and Merry, not in the book, but it felt right. Problem is, this is all a very personal feeling.

But on the big screen the tension about the whole thing was unmistakable. Boromir said these lines in the original story. Not there, but he said them and it does speak out the thoughts of some of the Tolkien-newbies in the audience. That's what I think is good about it.

I am making some sense I hope?:rolleyes:

[Goldberry]

Originally posted by DGoeij
Wauw, we seem to be having a serious debate over here.:)

I'm somewhat in the middle on this particular issue. Boromir handling the Ring.....

Against it, is the plain and simple fact that he would not give it back. At least that's how I always understood the power of the Ring. It's not in the book in this way and it does feel somewhat wrong.

But on the big screen the tension about the whole thing was unmistakable. Boromir said these lines in the original story. Not there, but he said them and it does speak out the thoughts of some of the Tolkien-newbies in the audience. That's what I think is good about it.

I am making some sense I hope?:rolleyes:

You do make sense.

I knew it didn't happen this way in the book, but I could see why it was done in the movie. PJ was trying to get newbies to understand the story. It was a good way to show the power of the ring, especially over Boromir. It shows him somewhat entranced by it, snapping out of it at Aragorn's voice.

Would Boromir have given it back? The power of the ring is stronger as it gets closer to Mordor. It is conceivable that Boromir would give it back on the mountain, and still have been overcome with desire for it at Amon Hen.

[Minas]

Sam actully wore the ring then gave it back, B didn't even put it on

[L.O.T.R. Gal]

No offense but I think that some of you need to give the people going to see this movie a little more credit. You keep saying when they read the books they will visualize this, and think of that, and compare it to this. But do you really know for sure? Maybe, just maybe they are smart enough to visualize what they imagine. And think what they think about it. I mean they saw a movie they weren't brain washed!

[Elanor2]

Originally posted by L.O.T.R. Gal
I mean they saw a movie they weren't brain washed!

I think that the discussion goes on trying to explain why the director of the movie created a scene (Boromir handling the Ring and being confronted by Aragorn) that does not exist in the book. Not even something similar to that.

In the book, apart from Boromir's speech during the Council suggesting the possibility of using the Ring instead of destroying it, there are no further hints that he wants it. Until his reaction to Galadriel's "temptation", there is no clue that something is in his mind, and that is further developped by the way he spies on Frodo during the trip on the river.

However, in the movie there are more clues: the Ring handling scene, Galadriel's extra warning... Many had discussed that this was overdone... others that PJ wanted to give emphasis to Boromir's fall for the non-readers... But nothing against these non-readers.

I wonder if a non-reader would get the Fall of Boromir without the Ring Handling scene and Galadriel's extra warning. Any ideas?

[Thorin]

It's bunk when people say that without the Caradhras scene, people wouldn't have gotten the impression that Boromir would be tempted. Galadriel's fabricated warning in Lorien was so blatant, that you wouldn't even have had to put in the Caradhras scene in, esecially with the Council of Elrond as well.....

It was unecessary and is dumbing it down for the audience...Without the LORIEN scene, it might be justified, but even then.....

[Elanor2]

I am not sure Thorin. I could be an experiment to try to see if there are enough clues in the movie about Boromir's potential threat to Frodo without these scenes. I do not have the video or DVD to try, but if someone had, it could be interesting, if we managed to get our mind blank and out of our previous expectations, that is.

You know, you should have let your wife to see the movie first, then get her impression, then read the book. It could have been interesting to have a fresh mind go through the movie and compare afterwards with the book.

Regards. E2

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Elanor2
You know, you should have let your wife to see the movie first, then get her impression, then read the book. It could have been interesting to have a fresh mind go through the movie and compare afterwards with the book.

Regards. E2

Are you kidding me? I wouldn't have wished that on my enemies....Miss the chance of visualising and getting lost in your own idea of ME? Allow the movie to set the standard in your imagination? No no no no no no......Two of my students took my advice even when all their friends were going to see the movie. The finished the first book instead and then went and saw it....How inspiring to be an influential teacher! Hyuck, Hyuck! :D

I made sure my wife read the books before I even consented to her coming to see the movie with me.....She will be the first to admit that that was the wisest thing she did....

She liked the books (She hasn't read RoTK yet) but hated the movie.....

[Talimon]

Sounds like Thorin is pretty proud of his wife. ;)

I can list all of Boromir's scenes off the top of my head, in terms of his lust for the ring:

* At the council, once where he gives his speech, and then later he sighs over it.

* The next point is Cardrahas, where he picks it up.

* The next mention of it is in Lothlorien, once when the whole fellowship is standing in front of Galdriel and Celebron, and the next time at the Mirror.

* The next point is when they get off the boats. Boromir looks restlessly around, and Frodo is aware of his presence.

The next point is Boromir taking the ring from Frodo. The truth is, all of Galadriel's word's concerning the company staying true are straight from the book. Sure, there is the cinematic effect of putting the camera on Boromir while this is happening, but that's just art. Galadriels words, concerning who will try and take the ring, isn't as obvious as you might think. You just assume that because you've read the book, but it isn't as clear if you haven't.

[Elanor2]

Originally posted by Thorin
Are you kidding me? I wouldn't have wished that on my enemies....Miss the chance of visualising and getting lost in your own idea of ME? Allow the movie to set the standard in your imagination?

Well, your wife seems to be an intelligent person, not easily carried away by the visuals, I would say. That's why I made the suggestion.

I know that images as supposed to be stronger than 100 words, and all that. But is it really true? Should we fear images, when we have such a magnificent piece of litterature behind them?

I have seem movies adapted from litterature (Pride and Prejudice, Jean Eire, all these old hollywood movies come to my mind) and later red the books. My experience is that, if the book is good, the movie-images slowly fade away, and are replaced by my vision, helped by the author's real words.

Of course, if the book is good. But I think that we all here think that of Tolkien's work (or we wouldn't be here ;) )

[Elanor2]

Originally posted by Talimon
Galadriels words, concerning who will try and take the ring, isn't as obvious as you might think. You just assume that because you've read the book, but it isn't as clear if you haven't.

That's interesting. I should review this scene when the DVD comes. Thanks.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Elanor2
Well, your wife seems to be an intelligent person

That she is.... :)

Originally posted by Elanor2
I know that images as supposed to be stronger than 100 words, and all that. But is it really true? Should we fear images, when we have such a magnificent piece of litterature behind them?

Images are not to be feared....However, when the written word is superior and grand like LoTR, it is much better to read and get your own imagination first...No pictures or movies can replace one's imagination....That's why I always recommend reading the book first....

Originally posted by Elanor2
I have seem movies adapted from litterature (Pride and Prejudice, Jean Eire, all these old hollywood movies come to my mind) and later red the books. My experience is that, if the book is good, the movie-images slowly fade away, and are replaced by my vision, helped by the author's real words.

That is true, but it is very hard...especially if the movie is good or impacts the senses....The A&E "Pride and Prejudice" is a fantastic movie that I hear follows the book extremely well...If I read the book, I can almost guarantee that I will see Colin Firth as Darcy as well as the other characters.....

It's kind of a paradox. The closer the movie is to the book, the harder it is to let go of the visual images. And yet there is less "damage" to enjoying the book because they both closely coincide....Reading about Arwen in Rivendell and the Appendix and visualising Arwen on her horse waving her sword in front of the Nazgul while quoting cheesy lines is just a horrible image to have when reading about Tolkien's beloved Elf princess....

[Talimon]

It's kind of a paradox. The closer the movie is to the book, the harder it is to let go of the visual images. And yet there is less "damage" to enjoying the book because they both closely coincide....

So according to that, it's actually a good thing that the movies aren't slavish to the books. The movies and the books will obviously be different. If I knew that the movies would follow the books to the word, I actually wouldn't be anticipating TTT as much. I am both curious and excited as to what changes PJ will made (for the better and for the worse).

[Elanor2]

Originally posted by Talimon
So according to that, it's actually a good thing that the movies aren't slavish to the books.

Yes, both have advantages and disadvantages. If the movies follows the book (and the book is good), you enjoy the movie very much because it brings you back undisturbed the whole pleasure that you felt with the book. That's what happens to me with A&E's "Pride and Prejudice". However, it brings very few new things.

On the other hand, if the movie is different from the book, but the movie is very good, it gives you new ideas, new points of view that you might not have perceived... However, every change has a risk of distorting the essence of the original that can be very disturbing and disagreable.

My main critic to some (not all) changes in LOTR comes from what I perceive to be unnecessary distortions, that in fact do not add new perspectives but just demean the original. But I want to keep my mind open and see if the second and third parts grab these changes and make sense of them as a whole. I would be very disappointed if the changes did not have a meaning but were made just for the sake of visual enhancement or cheap attempts to please the masses (as if the masses were stupid!!!).

[DGoeij]

I agree, I wish to see where the changes are leading. But some of them I already find too much of a distortion.

I'm still not sure on the Boromir thing. His speech at the council of Elrond (in the movie) was very clear for even a newbie. Besides, he was tempted to use it in Gondor's defence, unlike Sam, who took it wishing to fulfill the quest. I still do not think Boromir would be able to give the Ring back.
It's all very personal. I can't wait to see how it goes in TTT and ROTK. I look forward too be talking about that too.:)

[Talimon]

My main critic to some (not all) changes in LOTR comes from what I perceive to be unnecessary distortions, that in fact do not add new perspectives but just demean the original. But I want to keep my mind open and see if the second and third parts grab these changes and make sense of them as a whole. I would be very disappointed if the changes did not have a meaning but were made just for the sake of visual enhancement or cheap attempts to please the masses (as if the masses were stupid!!!).

I'm slightly confused by what people mean when they say that if the movie doesn't follow the book it's been "dumbed down". No matter how attentive you are, if you haven't read the book there is absolutely no way you would get the tale with all the extra details. It's impossible, in 3 hours or even 4. And with all that time spent on exposition, you will very quickly get bored of the story. In order to keep things both entertaining for those not aquainted with Tolkien, and in the spirit for those who are, some changes had to be made, changes that for those of us who have read the book might not make sense. Boromir's want of the ring, for example, couldn't just be brushed over as it is in the book. It had to be made perfectly clear. Arwen makes things easier to follow. It's just a matter of being able to entertain those who have read the book and those who haven't.

A lot of purists seem to see PJ as someone who's just "doing his job" in translating Tolkien. If he follows the book perfectly, then people will be "satisfied". This isn't true. This has never been his intention, and won't be. You can judge him by the changes all you like, but that's hardly being a critic. Your just stating the obvious. He never set out to slavishly follow Tolkien, and so that's not a valid criticism to make of him. His objectives all along have been to create a good fantasy movie, and a movie in the spirit of Tolkien. Sure, some of the changes may not seem necessary, but the real question is whether they follow those two criteria. Sometimes one of those must be at the expense of the other, but I think PJ has struck an excellent balance.

[Elanor2]

Originally posted by Talimon
His objectives all along have been to create a good fantasy movie, and a movie in the spirit of Tolkien. Sure, some of the changes may not seem necessary, but the real question is whether they follow those two criteria.

This is the key to, at least, my main critic. I do not think that some of the changes on the movie follow Tolkien's spirit. That's the basis of my critics.

It is not a question of how true to the text PJ remains, but to the spirit of it. I still need to see where the changes are going and if he manages to keep in line (or what I consider "in line", of course), I will cheer all the way. But I am not sure. Some of the things that I have seen do not please me so far.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Talimon
Boromir's want of the ring, for example, couldn't just be brushed over as it is in the book. It had to be made perfectly clear.

He (Jackson) never set out to slavishly follow Tolkien, and so that's not a valid criticism to make of him. His objectives all along have been to create a good fantasy movie, and a movie in the spirit of Tolkien. Sure, some of the changes may not seem necessary, but the real question is whether they follow those two criteria.

Actually, I found Tolkien's Boromir to be quite obvious in showing what he wanted....The way Tolkien portrayed Boromir at the Council of Elrond and at Lorien when he faced Galadriel made it quite plain that he wanted the ring....And Jackson did as well. He did not need to create the Caradhras scene to get that message across at all..It was unnecessary.

Jackson gave the message out that he was going to do just that..."slavishly follow Tolkien". When you tell the media that you and the characters read the chapters before you film them to be as accurate and true to Tolkien as possible, that seems like trying to follow Tolkien pretty slavishly don't you think? I don't think Jackson can be justified as long as he "makes a good fantasy movie". If that is the case, make your own and don't call it LoTR....And as I've said before, you can make ALOT of changes and have it still be "in the spirit of Tolkien". When do all the changes become unacceptable to a fan of Tolkien? When does it become recognizable as Tolkien?

[Talimon]

Jackson gave the message out that he was going to do just that..."slavishly follow Tolkien".

That is absolutely incorrect. There are numerous quotes from Jackson saying specifically that this was not a slavish adaptation, but rather an interpretation. I'm sorry to hear that you were misled, but I still don't think that should hurt your view of the movie.

He did not need to create the Caradhras scene to get that message across at all..It was unnecessary.

I thought it was a great scene, and helped establish the tension in the Fellowship. Unlike the Arwen scenes, it had great acting, and Boromir's lines were all out of the book.

I don't think Jackson can be justified as long as he "makes a good fantasy movie". If that is the case, make your own and don't call it LoTR....And as I've said before, you can make ALOT of changes and have it still be "in the spirit of Tolkien". When do all the changes become unacceptable to a fan of Tolkien? When does it become recognizable as Tolkien?

Obviously, were Jackson to completely abandon LotR it might not be justified, if only due to the fact that it would mislead people about the book. But when you consider that the movie is steeped heavily in Tolkien's world, uses Tolkien's languages, follows Tolkien's plot with minor changes, and most importantly captures Tolkien's themes, I don't see how you can claim Jackson has "butchered" Tolkien. I know a good 5-6 people who never read the book previously, and now are reading it due to the movie. They all love the book for many of the same reasons they loved the movie, and then they have found new reasons. In terms of objectivity, I have an inclination to trust new-comers as opposed to long-time fans. Had Jackson butchered the books, then people who liked the movies wouldn't like the books. The fact that people who have never read Tolkien are now reading due to the movie shows that something was done right.

Plus, I'd like to point to all of those movies that have stayed slavish to the book they were made after. They are for the most part collecting dust and long forgotten. Why? Because they aren't great movies. Sure, if you have read the book they are enjoyable, and suitable companion, but that's it. I commend Jackson for not only having stayed in the general spirit of Tolkien, but also for having created a mindblowing fantasy movie.

Different Tolkien fans have different standards as to what's Tolkien, but I think the vast majority will agree that the movies haven't deviated far enough from the source material to not still be considered Tolkien. If you refuse to accept this, then look at the movies as a "tribute" to Tolkien, if you will. They aren't the Lord of the Rings, but rather someone's tribute to that saga. A tribute doesn't owe anything.