What change in the movies ticks you off the most? [Archive] - Page 5

Grond

11-03-2002, 07:18 PM

I posted this on another thread trying to get Talimon to address it and he failed to do so.... so I'll post it again here as these are the words directly from the director's mouth.from The Lord of the Rings - The Official Movie Guide by Brian Sibley, excerpts from chapter From Book to Script
...As the process of turning Tolkien's book into screenplays developed, the filmmakers increasingly drew on the original text. "When we first started writing these scripts," says Peter Jackson, 'we assumed that we would have to simplify and modernize the languages, because that was what a modern film would require. On the contrary, however, with each subsequent draft of the screenplays, we have gone further and further into Tolkien's language, because it is beautiful and evocative and , when spoken by good actors, comes alive in a way that is really fresh and exciting."

Nevertheless, cuts had to be made and scenes amalgamated or moved to create necessary dramatic tensions. Dialogue was sometimes borrowed from one part of the book to provide lines for a character in a scene somewhere else, and occasionally new dialogue had to be written, "in the style of Tolkien." One or two new characters in the original book have not, finally, found their way onto the screen, while others, notably the few female characters, have been given stronger roles in the film than they have in the original text.

Throughout the entire process of bringing this world famous book to the cinema, Peter Jackson has kept one overriding principle in mind: "My primary job has been to make three good movies, as opposed to making three movies that are totally faithful to the books. Nevertheless, I fully accept that I have a responsiblity not to disappoint those many people who love the books. Which is why we have really tried not to lose anything that we feel is key or important to the books and why, almost without exception, all those things that are memorable and vivid from reading the books are there in the movies.Is it a lie, a failure to live up to a promise or simply blowing smoke??? You decide. :)

joxy

11-03-2002, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by Grond
<Nevertheless, cuts had to be made and scenes amalgamated or moved to create necessary dramatic tensions. Dialogue was sometimes borrowed from one part of the book to provide lines for a character in a scene somewhere else, and occasionally new dialogue had to be written, "in the style of Tolkien.">

That's the punch-line, "in T's style".
The cuts, the amalgamations, the movings, all fine.
For example B's death is parts of two original scenes plus a few added lines, completely OUT of T's style.
Either PJ didn't mean what he said, or he is so tone deaf that he should never have made the claim, and the attempt at T's style.

Talimon

11-04-2002, 04:33 AM

I hate to offend folks here, but what if (DEAR GOD!!!) I told you that infact it is you that don't understand Tolkiens style and PJ does? Has that ever crossed your mind? People seem to feel that they are the greatest judges of Tolkien. PJ is interpreting it, PJ can make his own decisions as to what's Tolkien, for him. It is foolish and in fact snobbish to assume that you have the greatest understanding of what's important in Tolkiens tale. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you can't respect. I, for one, feel that PJ captured what to me is important about FotR. I know many folks who are regarded in much higher standing when it comes to "interpreting Tolkien" that have said the same. I just think you need to make clear that you are making a very subjective statement, that applys to your opinions. Considering how many folk who have gained a high reputation and devoted thier life to Tolkien have praised PJ's movie, I find it hard to accept that one fan can make such a wide statement, and have the wit to say that PJ is "tone deaf".

Longshanks

11-04-2002, 04:57 AM

Grond & Talimon, thanks for the welcome to the Forum! Although I'm a longtime Tolkien fan, I only recently found this forum. This exchange of opinions and ideas is fantastic. I was suprised to find such an intense dislike of Jackson & his movie. The group of posters that are known as "The Purists" seem to desire a scene for scene recreation of the books,or at most a slighty edited version, trimmed for length only. A gargantuan undertaking of this nature would require a director with vision to bring it to the screen. Such a slavish recreation of the book would most likely not interest an director worth his salt to make the movie. One must remember that a director is an artist and would feel the need to put his own touch to the production.No true artist is satisfied doing a 'Paint by numbers" picture. That being said, the changes made in the adaption seem relatively minor to me. Consolidating Glorfindel and Arwen into one character seems to me to strenghten the character in the film. This Arwen is more fleshed out than the beautiful but bland Elven princess that is seen at Rivendel and then appears at the end of the tale as Aragorn's bride. I'm curious as how women as opposed to men feel about the expanded Arwen. Do they seem to approve or disapprove?
Another point that seems to bother people in the purist camp is the inclusion of comic relief in the film. I'll admit that there is very little "humor" in the original book, but its use in the film is a nessasary one. As its name implies, there needs to be a relief to the drama of the situations our heroes find themselves in. Without the occasinal bit of levity, this would become a very heavy movie. At the risk of offending Prof Tolkien's more devoted fans, it is a book of fantasy, not a sacred text. A chuckle now and again is surely allowed. :)

Grond

11-04-2002, 04:57 AM

I, for one, haven't claimed that PJ doesn't understand Tolkien. What I claim is that he isn't putting Tolkien on the screen in the manner that I, a long term Tolkien fan (who understands the author very fine, thank you Talimon) want to see.

You still haven't commented on the quote I have now twice provided. In it, P. J. acknowledged a duty owed to Tolkien fans not to stray too far from the path. I think there is a concensus among Tolkien students that he strayed too far... (he has made a fine movie, mind you) but he has strayed too far.

And finally, you can say what you want about making the book work in cinema... but the added female roles and characterizations are all about modernizing the movie to appeal to the female movie goer... nothing more. Don't call that creative license and don't say that is PJ's interpretation of the works. That is PJ modernizing Tolkien's work which isn't addressed in any of his comments.

Talimon

11-04-2002, 06:32 AM

What I claim is that he isn't putting Tolkien on the screen in the manner that I, a long term Tolkien fan (who understands the author very fine, thank you Talimon) want to see.

I have no problem with that statement. The important thing is that you are stressing "I". It's when people start making these open, supposedly objective statements that I get edgy. I just don't think this is a discussion where one side can end being "right" and the other "wrong". That can never truly happen with artistic opinion.

You still haven't commented on the quote I have now twice provided. In it, P. J. acknowledged a duty owed to Tolkien fans not to stray too far from the path. I think there is a concensus among Tolkien students that he strayed too far... (he has made a fine movie, mind you) but he has strayed too far.

"Too far" is where I need clarification. "Too far" for what? For the tale to still be called LotR? For the tale to be Tolkiens tale word for word? That is an ambiguous statement that I see different people defining differently. For all the opinions of the Tolkien "students" out there, I haven't see one clear consensus on this "too far" business. That's probably because there isn't one. Which, when you think about it, makes perfect sense. The trueness of PJ's movie to Tolkiens book simply depends on which scale you are judging it on. And, as is the case with movies, each viewer is bound to judge the movie differently. That's one of my main points against arguing that PJ's movie "isn't" LotR. Because I have talked to many folks who are highly considered in the "scholarly" circles (most prominently head members from the Mythopoeic Society, made up of some of the oldest Tolkien scholars around) who have loved PJ's movie. I attribute this to the fact that these folks aren't judging it on the same scale many "purists" are. Innitially I thought it was a lower scale. After talking to the the owner of The Other Change of Hobbit, one of the most well-respected fantasy book-stores in the USA, I was surprised to find otherwise.

This doesn't prove anything per se, except the fact that a "good adaptation" has multiple meanings in different crowds. Even I, one who with time is only loving PJ's movie more and more, could shun it, were I to judge it on a different scale (literal trueness to the book, say). I don't choose to do so, however, simply because that is not what the movie is attempting to do, and not what I'd want it to do (thank god, I say :)). In the underground, backalley world of fantasy culture, there is one word that is unspoken as Mordor: "literal". In fact, when expressing distaste with certain fantasy book reviews, I always hear folks saying "God-damn literalists!". I guess I am coming from a slightly different background when it comes to fantasy, who knows :). But my view on Tolkiens book has never been a literal one. That was partially why I was slightly dissapointed with Harry Potter: it felt so accurate, so percise, so dry, so "literal"... The film-makers didn't seem to see any of the "magic", the "fantasy". To me what is important about Tolkiens book is the feelings it evokes. And I believe PJ's movie, when you take off all the creative decorations and masks (by the way, the very masks that make escapist fantasy so good), is made up of the same ingredients that Tolkiens tale is.

And finally, you can say what you want about making the book work in cinema... but the added female roles and characterizations are all about modernizing the movie to appeal to the female movie goer... nothing more. Don't call that creative license and don't say that is PJ's interpretation of the works. That is PJ modernizing Tolkien's work which isn't addressed in any of his comments.

From the newest fan magazine:

...When it came to doing the film, we felt that one of the things we wanted to do was establish a relationship between Aragorn and Arwen, and that becomes quite important for Aragorn's charachter because a lot of things he does in the three movies are based around a sense that he is in love with Arwen. His dream is that they will be able to be together one day. At the same time, you have dynamics working on Arwen...the elves are leaving Middle-earth, and her father wants her to leave as well. She wants to stay with Aragorn, and, if she stays, she is aware that Aragorn will grow old and she won't...but she is prepared to go through with that because she loves him. We really liked that dynamic...the elf and the human love story and the possibilities of that...It wasn't really a case of thinking J.R.R. Tolkien was wrong here, or "We need to make Arwen more of a 21'st century charachter." It wasn't really that motivation. We were simply thinking, "This could be a great love story. This could really be tragic and sad and bitter and sweet."

-Peter Jackson

Now I reckon, Grond, that some people will say this is just BS and that PJ is "talking out of both sides of his mouth." That is thier right, but I beg you to read the above quote and explain to me how that has no creative merit. In fact, I'd argue that it helps stress one of Tolkiens stronger themes, which is the elves leaving Middle-earth, and how truly tragic and bitter that is (perfectly exeplified in Arwens case).

Radagast

11-04-2002, 07:53 AM

Longshanks makes a fair point about his views of color by numbers, but if that was the actual case it would have suited pj better to come right out and say so instead of being such a politician about the whole process and lying about what he was attempting to do.

As for Talimon, I can't help but read his criticisms of our criticisms and somehow see Grima stricken by Saruman's voice groveling at his (PJ's) feet and stroking his beard. But their is still hope, there are two more films to be released, and Grima does kill Saruman in the end so.....Talimon we will be waiting.

Cheers!

Mrs. Maggott

11-04-2002, 12:54 PM

Talimon quotes from the "newest" magazine while those of us who are concerned about the Director's changes in character, plot and meaning, quote from earlier print and video sources. Of course the NEWEST source would no longer have Mr. Jackson saying how he will strive mightily to be TRUE to his source. It would be just a tad late for him to make that particular promise!

It is useless to go on and on about Jackson's "adaptation" which indeed "modernizes" the characters to the point of being unrecognizeable except in name and general plot position. But Mr. Jackson's defenders have yet to answer the question I posited some time ago: what would the Director have to DO for them to admit that he had "gone too far"? If there is a threshold past which they believe he should not go (or HAVE gone), then I would like to know what it is. If anything that is done in these films is perfectly fine in the name of "adaptation" or "artistic license", I would like to know that as well. In this way, I certainly would know if there were any egregious commission/omission that was worth bringing up for general comment because if EVERYTHING and/or ANYTHING goes, then there can be neither dialogue nor debate on the issue of book vs. film. :rolleyes:

Aragorn21

11-04-2002, 02:11 PM

Whats wrong with u people? I loved the movies and I dont think I can live untill the next one comes out! What does that one sceen with the orcs birthing from pods ruin the whole movie 4 u? And whats that about lurtz being purple like ur friend barnie? Did u ever look at the lighting in orthanc (its blueish-purple)! (But i sorta agree with u and the Arwen part, but thats about it).

Mrs. Maggott

11-04-2002, 03:24 PM

My dear, LIKING or DISLIKING the film(s) is NOT THE POINT! I think you will find many who have posted criticisms - and even complaints - about Mr. Jackson's version of LOTR, have not said that they HATE the film(s) or don't wish to see them, but merely that they have problems with Mr. Jackson's "adaptation". They may have BIG problems or the problems may be relatively minor, but threads have been started and posts made addressing these things; that is the nature of the site!

Indeed, despite what many of the Director's champions are willing to admit, most of his detractors have defended and/or praised the Director from time to time on various issues. I know that I have and I know of others as well. The sad thing is that some of his champions will accept NO criticism. They defend Mr. Jackson using one argument and when that is refuted, the bring forth several more. In the end, the REAL defense of the films is that they were "good" - and therefore, nothing else matters. As for those who think that other things DO matter, we are dismissed as "purists" incapable of satisfaction if it isn't the book "line for line". Of course, this is not true either, but it seems to be where the debate has resolved itself. :rolleyes:

joxy

11-04-2002, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Talimon
....what if I told you that in fact it is you that don't understand Tolkiens style and PJ does? Has that ever crossed your mind?
I find it hard to accept that one fan can make such a wide statement, and have the wit to say that PJ is "tone deaf".
It hasn't crossed my mind that I don't understand T's style. It's no big deal, it's easy to do after reading the books a couple of times, and even easier after twenty or so times like me. T was essentially a linguist, a lover of language, words, their meaning, the way they are strung together to form phrases and sentences, and that makes his style very distinct, unmistakable, and one of the most important characteristics of all his works.
What I am saying about PJ is that when he writes (or approves) the broken carrot and orc-hunting lines, and just a few others, he is showing that he has, at those points, gone, temporarily one hopes, tone-deaf. They produce exactly the same effect as a wrong note in a piece of music; with only a little experience of music anyone can tell at once that there is a wrong note, though they might not be able to specify what makes it wrong. It's not wit, it's a fact.
And to take up Mrs M's recent point, it IS becoming absurd that PJ's defenders will accept not a shred of criticism. Even the best musicians occasionally hit a wrong note, and their biggest fans allow for it. The problem here is that such a vast amount of money was spent on this film, and PJ has made such a big thing about wanting to be accurate and in style, that the occasional wrong notes become all the more noticeable, more objectionable, harder to forgive.

Talimon

11-04-2002, 08:15 PM

As for Talimon, I can't help but read his criticisms of our criticisms and somehow see Grima stricken by Saruman's voice groveling at his (PJ's) feet and stroking his beard. But their is still hope, there are two more films to be released, and Grima does kill Saruman in the end so.....Talimon we will be waiting.

What dynamic and worthy response! I don't think I can find any fault here! If you want to actually discuss PJ's movie, let's do so. If you want to hold onto your points without backing them up, then that just shows me how much you really believe in your own opinions. I may not agree with everyones opinion but I at least respect the ones that are well thought out. By not even presenting a retort in the first place (let alone backing one up), I can't take you seriously. As for the analogy to Grima, I might say this: You are Theoden, blinded by webs of deiciet, so much that you can't even see PJ's movie for what it is and isn't. Moreover, you have forgotten what it is that is so good about Tolkiens tale in the first place. I am Gandalf, attempting to wake you up and remind you why it is that Tolkiens book is so good, and how PJ has captured that. But, as in the book, Theoden is ultimately cured...I will be waiting.

ROFL... :). Sorry, I would never say this. In my opinion that is just too low. As far as I'm concerned, I respect people depending on HOW they present thier arguements, not WHAT thier arguements actually are. You didn't present an arguement, and so normally I wouldn't even respond. :)

Talimon quotes from the "newest" magazine while those of us who are concerned about the Director's changes in character, plot and meaning, quote from earlier print and video sources. Of course the NEWEST source would no longer have Mr. Jackson saying how he will strive mightily to be TRUE to his source. It would be just a tad late for him to make that particular promise!

Did you even read what I quoted? It has nothing to do with PJ being true to the book. I was responding to Grond's claim that there is no artistic merit behind Arwens expansion.

But Mr. Jackson's defenders have yet to answer the question I posited some time ago: what would the Director have to DO for them to admit that he had "gone too far"?

Of course, what do you really think? Do you want examples? Arwen fighting and defeating the Nazgul. Arwen leading a battle at Helm's Deep. Arwen being part of the Fellowship. Any of the main charachters being killed when they weren't in the book.... There are infinite changes that PJ could have made, indeed many adaptors have made. Have you ever watched a Disney movie? Enough said. When a film follows the book as closely as PJ has, and actually evokes the same emotions the book does, I can't complain about authenticity. It has nothing to do with my love of the book. It's just the nature of adaptations, in this particular case one of the most difficult ever.

In the end, the REAL defense of the films is that they were "good" - and therefore, nothing else matters.

First of all, please don't say the "films". We have only seen one, and there is absolutely nothing garaunteeing that I (or anyone else) will enjoy the next two. Yes, sequels can actually suck. In fact, they ussually do. I will have no problem critiquing TTT and RotK, indeed even despising them, if need be. Remember, I walked into the theatre on December 19 just like everyone else. After my first viewing I thought the movie was "ok", so high were my expectations. It was only in the following viewings that I really fell in love with it. I never fell in love with Star Wars Episode I/II, and I have given them both second chaces.

I have always claimed that, if nothing more, PJ's movie is just that: a good, dare I say incredible, movie. However, at the same time I believe that many, many elements from the book were captured. I can and will agree with the statement that "this is not exactly Tolkiens tale". I hate to use the term, but I'll even allow that it is a "liberal" telling of it. But I can't buy the claim that PJ "doesn't understand the meaning of Tolkiens tale." Maybe we ought to be discussing the meaning to begin with, but for me the movie captures the main important themes from the book. Yes, there are sub-themes that aren't there. But what is important, what sticks out, what is memorable, as far I am concerned PJ has captured that.

Mrs. Maggott

11-04-2002, 08:52 PM

To say that you would bridle at Arwen defeating the Nazgul is to use such hyperbole that the answer to my question becomes both rhetorical and foolish in the bargai. Believe me when I tell you Aragorn engaging in a sword/knife encounter with Eowyn is to me just as ridiculous and as unacceptable as Arwen's horse sprouting wings and FLYING Frodo to Rivendell.

When I asked my question, I was speaking, hopefully, to someone who would give serious consideration to something that the Director MIGHT do before it's all over that he or she would find unacceptable. The fact that the answer is limited to such ridiculous scenarios which would NEVER come to pass simply because their inclusion would ruin the film(s), leads one to seriously wonder if even THESE would daunt Mr. Jackson's defenders. :confused:

Talimon

11-04-2002, 09:32 PM

Do you seriously want me to go dig up all the old threads that had folks absolutely convinced that Arwen would fight the Nazgul? Fight at Minas Tirith? Fight at Helm's Deep? These weren't posted sarcastically. People had absolutely bought the story that Arwen was fighting the Nazgul and defeating them. For a while people were saying Sam would be a girl. Arwen would join the Fellowship. Pippin would be killed. I admit I never took these seriously, but up to very close to release people were still spouting these rumours.

Now, regarding Arwen/Eowyn. I have no idea how this plays out, but since you have already assumed the worst, lets assume the following: Aragorn is absolutely reluctant to fight Eowyn. He doesn't even consider it. However, in her bitterness she draws a sword on him and thrusts. Out of pure instinct he pulls out his own sword to parry her. End of fight. End of story. He hasn't attacked her. He has parried her attack (a defensive move). Would Aragorn drawing a sword and actually attacking Eowyn change the meaning? The meaning of Aragorns charachter, certainly. But there is absolutely nothing to prove that he does this, and indeed common sense and conformity with his charachter as shown in FotR would dictate that he doesn't do it. Indeed, the body language of the scene described above would suggest that Aragorn doesn't care much for the young shields-maiden, at least on the surface. Indeed, what if following that scene Aragorn turns strict and gets mad at Eowyn for drawing her sword on him? I think you are using your imagination to fill in too many holes. I can't see how this shows PJ doesn't understand the whole meaning of LotR. At the absolute worst (and I believe this is pushing it), you could say he doesn't understand that one scene and the motivations of it's two charachters.

But, not having actually seen that scene, and knowing that a "sponsored web-site" has no obligation to reporting accurate information, personally I'll hold my judgement.

Mrs. Maggott

11-04-2002, 09:53 PM

As for people posting foolishly, since I did not - all of my critiques, pro AND con have been carefully considered - I feel no obligation to comment upon the matter.

But let us return to the Eowyn/Aragorn "duel" which I have been assured by others in my family who look into these things, DOES take place: please look upon the scene from HER side, rather than his. Do you suppose that a well-bred and raised "lady" - for so she was shieldmaiden or no - would be so entirely lacking in the most common courtesy (or common sense, for that matter) as to DRAW A WEAPON upon a GUEST??? What civilization are the Director and you commenting upon? I can assure you, it MUST be "modern"! No decent ancient civilization would DO such a thing. Hospitality was SACROSANCT! No one would draw a weapon upon a guest - ESPECIALLY if the guest had not drawn his first.

Therefore, even if you are not willing to concede the point of the absurdity of the Director's scenario from Aragorn's side, then you MUST do so from Eowyn's. If she in fact draws on a guest for WHATEVER reason, she is either utterly ill bred or so immature as to be in more need of a switch to her backside than a sword in her hand!

TheFool

11-04-2002, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Do you suppose that a well-bred and raised "lady" - for so she was shieldmaiden or no - would be so entirely lacking in the most common courtesy (or common sense, for that matter) as to DRAW A WEAPON upon a GUEST??? What civilization are the Director and you commenting upon? I can assure you, it MUST be "modern"! No decent ancient civilization would DO such a thing. Hospitality was SACROSANCT! No one would draw a weapon upon a guest - ESPECIALLY if the guest had not drawn his first.

What about Faramir, who would qualify as a well bred and well raised prince (more so than Eowyn) letting Frodo, Sam and GOLLUM walk through Ithilien, disregarding the express orders of Denethor? What if Peter Jackson had 'rewritten' this scene so that Faramir was indeed totally loyal to his king/steward?

Eowyn is desperate to prove herself as a warrior. Maybe she is left no alternative (because of 'cold shoulder' treatment by Aragorn perhaps?) than to prove it physically. I can't believe that she would try to kill him because of unrequited love or something.

Talimon

11-04-2002, 11:14 PM

Therefore, even if you are not willing to concede the point of the absurdity of the Director's scenario from Aragorn's side, then you MUST do so from Eowyn's. If she in fact draws on a guest for WHATEVER reason, she is either utterly ill bred or so immature as to be in more need of a switch to her backside than a sword in her hand!

Remember that last scene before Aragorn departs. Eowyn is on her knees pleading with Aragorn to let her ride with him to battle. Thier whole dialogue revolves around Eowyn wanting to go with Aragorn to battle, and Aragorn not allowing her to follow. If "anger" is too strong a word to express Eowyns feelings, certainly "bitterness" is not. She never draws her sword, but she is a shields-maiden, and as she later informs Faramir, she is not "gentle". If you study her lines with Aragorn, you can sense a tone of desperation, of being held back. As TheFool points out, this could evolve in any number of ways.

Parrot

11-04-2002, 11:38 PM

Alrightythen, let me see if I follow all this; you, Mrs. Maggott, introduce the idea of Aragorn’s (possibly) defending himself from Eowyn as analogous to his being a drag queen, and then accuse others of ridiculous rhetoric and hyperbole? Okay. :rolleyes: Further, you ask for things that the director might put in that would be unacceptable; asking people to judge that which they have not seen and have no idea in what context it might take place, but then reject the given answers as too obvious, foolishness; even though they had been posed as realistic possibilities in the past. It must be nice to have every game be a home-game and get to make up the rules as you go. :cool:

posted by Mrs. Maggott
What civilization are the Director and you commenting upon? I can assure you, it MUST be "modern"! No decent ancient civilization would DO such a thing. Hospitality was SACROSANCT! No one would draw a weapon upon a guest - ESPECIALLY if the guest had not drawn his first.

Riders of Rohan (Eomer) encountering A, L, and G.;

'Who are you, and what are you doing in this land?' said the Rider,
using the Common Speech of the West, in manner and tone like to the speech
of Boromir, Man of Gondor.
'I am called Strider,' answered Aragorn. 'I came out of the North. I am
hunting Orcs.'
The Rider leaped from his horse. Giving his spear to another who rode
up and dismounted at his side, he drew his sword and stood face to face with
Aragorn, surveying him keenly, and not without wonder.

Later;

'Then Eomer son of Eomund, Third Marshal of Riddermark, let Gimli the
Dwarf Gloin's son warn you against foolish words. You speak evil of that
which is fair beyond the reach of your thought, and only little wit can
excuse you.'
Eomer's eyes blazed, and the Men of Rohan murmured angrily, and closed
in, advancing their spears. 'I would cut off your head, beard and all,
Master Dwarf, if it stood but a little higher from the ground ' said Eomer.
'He stands not alone,' said Legolas, bending his bow and fitting an
arrow with hands that moved quicker than sight. 'You would die before your
stroke fell.'
Eomer raised his sword, and things might have gone ill, but Aragorn
sprang between them, and raised his hand. 'Your pardon, Eomer!' he cried.

Hama – Doorwarden of Theoden;

'This is the house of Theoden, not of Aragorn, even were he King of
Gondor in the seat of Denethor,' said Hama, stepping swiftly before the
doors and barring the way. His sword was now in his hand the point
towards the strangers.

Later Gandalf;

The courtesy of your hall is somewhat lessened of late, Theoden son of
Thengel,' said Gandalf.

**off to look up “SACROSANCT”**

(BTW, anybody notice Aragorn says he is “hunting orcs”? Whoa! Vuja De!)

Mrs. Maggott

11-04-2002, 11:41 PM

You are comparing apples and oranges. Faramir's treatment of the hobbits is in fact the "nosegay" if you will, of hospitality. When both Frodo and Sam actually draw on him at their meal, he does NOT return their gesture or even make an effort to defend himself even though, in such close confines, one of the hobbits might have inflicted serious, even deadly injury.

Furthermore, Faramir's "orders" from Denethor were not to "kill" anyone he found abroad (except orcs and southrens), but to bring them to his Father. He chose to disregard that order after hearing the hobbits' tale. But that is not a failure of hospitality or cultural courtesy, that is the intentional disregard of an ORDER because, as the military commander on site, Faramir decided that it was better to do so. That might get him in trouble with Denethor (and it did), but it could not in anyone's wildest imagination, be considered a failure to conform to the cultural norms.

That brings us back to Eowyn: you speak of her desire to "prove herself" and her desperation and then appear to excuse all by contending that she probably doesn't intend to kill the target of her angst! Hoorah for her! If she really is involved seriously in drawing a weapon, she indeed has violated "the cultural norms" and if she is so "desperate to prove herself", she certainly has shown absolutely no maturity. If that is the case (and this duel takes place as I have been informed it will), Eowyn's character has been diminished to the point of utter silliness.

Mrs. Maggott

11-04-2002, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by Parrot
Alrightythen, let me see if I follow all this; you, Mrs. Maggott, introduce the idea of Aragorn’s (possibly) defending himself from Eowyn as analogous to his being a drag queen, and then accuse others of ridiculous rhetoric and hyperbole? Okay. :rolleyes: Further, you ask for things that the director might put in that would be unacceptable; asking people to judge that which they have not seen and have no idea in what context it might take place, but then reject the given answers as too obvious, foolishness; even though they had been posed as realistic possibilities in the past. It must be nice to have every game be a home-game and get to make up the rules as you go. :cool:

To begin with, I said that Aragorn would no more draw a sword/knife on Eowyn than he would dress as a drag queen. That particular analogy means, if you don't understand it, that BOTH of these actions would be entirely outside of anything that Aragorn would do. This is not to equate one action to the other EXCEPT TO POINT OUT that he would do neither.

Secondly, when I asked for a considered opinion about something that the Director would POSSIBLY do and am given something that NO ONE would either present or accept, then I must assume that the answer was not seriously given. Yes, none of us would accept Saruman and Gandalf embracing in loving friendship at the end of TTT or a forest fire in Fangorn or any number of extremely silly possibilities that would probably make a grand thread if we all wanted a good laugh! (And, by the way, if anyone seriously suggested that such things were possible, then THEY shouldn't have been taken seriously. I expected better, however, from those whom I DID take "seriously"!)

TheFool

11-05-2002, 12:18 AM

I refuse to believe that Peter Jackson et al have written a scene where Eowyn intends to KILL Aragorn. *Eowyn pulls sword from Aragorn's corpse* "Ha! I am worthy! Now let me ride with you! Aragorn?!"
Does it matter if Eowyn even wins this (supposed) battle? The whole point of Eowyn is that she is not a 'lady', she has spirit and she is ROUGH! Maybe she knows she can't possibly win against Aragorn, but is willing to try anyway - something that would stand her in good stead for the battle with Morgul ;)

If you want 'silly Eowyn', she pretends to be a man!! This has always drawn a wry smile to my face.

So have no 'cultural norms' been broken in Tolkiens works? eg Wormtongue is wavering between loyalty to Theoden and loyalty to Saruman; as a highly respected and noble member of the King's household, could he possibly commit treason?

Parrot

11-05-2002, 12:32 AM

My point is, If you want a "seriously" "considered opinion" of something that might possibly happen then one would have to know and consider the context in which said events happen, or judge prematurely and quite possibly inaccurately. Either you're dealing in unquestionable absolutes or you're dealing with imperfect information; it's a loaded question.

Parrot

11-05-2002, 12:47 AM

I will give you this; If Jackson has Aragrorn and Eowyn engage in a sword fight where Eowyn defeats an Aragorn who is trying to defeat her and has no ulterior motive for possibly allowing her to win, I will concede that he has gone "too far"! Do I need to add that I am not overly concerned about this eventuality?

Radagast

11-05-2002, 06:43 AM

The Parrot and the Fool and bring up respectable points to argue but I still personally have a more favorable view of where Mrs. Maggot is coming from.

As for Talimon, he is hopeless at this point. Such the politician, You ask him for a staight answer then he answers another question. He then tells you you are absurd for asking the questions you want him to answer. Thin skinned too I might add.

My point of this post being that most of the points brought up here can only be answered subjectively. But it is always amazing that the people who liked the film are never attacked for liking it (as they should not be) but the people who have real problems with what they see wrong with the film and the way PJ chose to pose his "inaccuracies" are really viciously slammed.

Mrs. Maggot nailed it when she said that those who criticize specifics are labeled purists (when regarding these works, is that really a bad thing?), and then are stereotyped with lines like "we won't be satisfied if one line is out of place."

It is such an interesting debate in that you can see some people's true personalities come out. Some humourless and quite scary in their dealing with fellow posters.

Cheers to all!!

Mrs. Maggott

11-05-2002, 11:45 AM

The whole point of Eowyn is that she is not a 'lady', she has spirit and she is ROUGH! <quote>

Eowyn is not a LADY? Do you know what a lady IS? A lady doesn't just sit around knitting mittens or sipping tea with her little finger extended. The term LADY means someone who is well bred, who knows and understands the social usages of her culture and who is at all times courteous and honorable. Eowyn is ALL of these things! For heaven's sakes! She is the King's niece and his care giver. She would have been brought up with all the social graces in the assumption that she would marry well and continue the King's line. Remember, it is not just the King and his offspring who do that, but also the King's siblings who are also reponsible to keep the line going in case the direct line is ended. This would be especially important in a society like the Rohirrim where battle threatens constantly. Indeed, Theoden's line DOES end with the death of his son and it is his nephew, Eomer, who then becomes king. It wouldn't matter if Eowyn were a shieldmaiden or even a "tomboy", she was raised as a LADY with the understanding of her high position in her society. To have her act as if she were a punk kid is ludicrous.

Furthermore, there were other examples given of weapon's drawn against Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas but these happened BEFORE they were accepted as guests, not after. Once they had been welcomed by the King (he asks the food be brought for his "guests"), they passed from possible enemies to persons under the protection of the King's hospitality. That being the case, they would NOT have been attacked - and certainly NOT by anyone in the King's household. To do so would have brought disgrace not only upon that person, but upon the King and the Rohirrim as well.

It is this total disregard of what must obviously be the cultural norms of the society Jackson is creating within the film in order to produce a desired "cinematic event" that robs the film of its accuracy and any claim to seriousness. It's as if the Director had said, "I know this wouldn't happen, but it's just too good to pass up!" :rolleyes:

Mrs. Maggott

11-05-2002, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by Radagast
The Parrot and the Fool and bring up respectable points to argue but I still personally have a more favorable view of where Mrs. Maggot is coming from.
As for Talimon, he is hopeless at this point. Such the politician, You ask him for a staight answer then he answers another question. He then tells you you are absurd for asking the questions you want him to answer. Thin skinned too I might add.
My point of this post being that most of the points brought up here can only be answered subjectively. But it is always amazing that the people who liked the film are never attacked for liking it (as they should not be) but the people who have real problems with what they see wrong with the film and the way PJ chose to pose his "inaccuracies" are really viciously slammed.
Mrs. Maggot nailed it when she said that those who criticize specifics are labeled purists (when regarding these works, is that really a bad thing?), and then are stereotyped with lines like "we won't be satisfied if one line is out of place."
It is such an interesting debate in that you can see some people's true personalities come out. Some humourless and quite scary in their dealing with fellow posters.Cheers to all!!

I decided to address the above in a separate posting. For the longest time I had difficulties understanding why so many of Jackson's defenders got so obviously upset and even angry with any criticism of the film. At first, these persons argue reasonably, but when their arguments are successfully countered, words like "snobbish" and "low" have been used to describe the critics and their comments. There were even warnings about "redundant posts" - as if all of this isn't redundant! - when the same point was made on different BUT RELATED threads. I even wondered if some of Mr. Jackson's most vociferous advocates had stock in his company or were relatives! And then the light dawned! Those who have real problems with criticism despite the "reasonable arguments" they use to defend the films, are in fact responding EMOTIONALLY, not intellectually to the critics.

If a debate takes place on an intellectual level, you have comment followed by refutation followed by defense followed by refutation of the defense - and so on. No one gets angry. When points are made that CANNOT be refuted, both sides agree that the point is made and hooray to the side that made the point. No one's mind may be changed at the end, but no one gets insulted or "bent out of shape" either.

In an EMOTIONAL exchange, the critic is perceived as criticizing NOT the FILM, but the DEFENDER of the film. That means that if you disagree with me, you are not "making a point", but hurling an insult! Obviously, the result of THAT kind of exchange is infinitely different from the other, especially when the criticism is justified. You get criticism, argument in reply (rational at first) but if you then get (and continue to get) a rational and well thought out refutation of the defending arguments (as has happened in this case), the defender may eventually be drawn into an ad hominem attack since the perception is that the critic is attacking or criticizing that person rather than the film.

I don't know about anyone else, but my criticisms of the film (made, I might add on threads that I did not start), have been of the most intellectual kind (which, by the way, does NOT mean that they are without a certain passion at times!). I have never imputed to anyone that he or she was somehow stupid or foolish or anything else for liking the film. Indeed, I have said MANY TIMES that I enjoyed FOTR, but that did not mean that I could not make critical comments about it. For those who believe that such comments were directed personally at them, I can assure you, such was NOT the case. You are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine and while there might be issues to dispute that are worthy of personal involvement, movies ain't one of them! :rolleyes:

Parrot

11-05-2002, 05:50 PM

posted by Mrs Maggott
Furthermore, there were other examples given of weapon's drawn against Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas but these happened BEFORE they were accepted as guests, not after. Once they had been welcomed by the King (he asks the food be brought for his "guests"), they passed from possible enemies to persons under the protection of the King's hospitality. That being the case, they would NOT have been attacked - and certainly NOT by anyone in the King's household. To do so would have brought disgrace not only upon that person, but upon the King and the Rohirrim as well.

So, basically you’re saying that I failed to consider the context in which these events take place? I feel like I can quit now because you are making my points for me. I don’t know what transpires between Aragorn and Eowyn in the film and choose to reserve judgment until I do. ‘Nuff said?

It's as if the Director had said, "I know this wouldn't happen, but it's just too good to pass up!"
I can’t help but wonder if Tolkien didn’t say this same thing when he sent her a-ridin’ with the Rohirrim?

As for this ‘Holier than thou’ line, please give me a break. For myself, I think I try to inject some humor in my posting and think I am pretty agreeable most of the time. However, if I think someone is taking a caustic or derogatory tone towards me or others, I have no problem responding in kind; and I think this is often the case when some purists are pontificating about the movies. Forum rules forbid telling someone they are simply too stupid to understand something, but there are no rules against pointedly implying this kind of thing. I have no problem with you purists expressing your criticisms (and actually agree with some of them) as opinions. It is the extrapolation of these specific criticisms into far-reaching generalizations about the film as a whole, and the director, expressed as fact rather than opinion, that I take issue with.

Example - In Mrs. Maggott’s first few posts she remarked that she personally didn’t care for the portrayal of Aragorn, with all the doubts and such. Okay. No problem there, I can see that. But then it continues to what these doubts do to the character of Aragorn and the overall story in the eyes of the audience. Whoa, hold up there! I am part of this audience and I don’t necessarily see it that way; so what are you really saying?

Now we have left the realm of opinion and entered the realm of …. what?… absolute truth, I guess, and this is where the wheels start to come off. Not “this is how I see it” but rather “this is how it is - PERIOD". I don’t like being told I “MUST” see something a certain way as this seems to carry the implication that if I don’t, I probably just don’t understand it. The incessant use of the :rolleyes: really helps convey this. So, if you are going to tell me that my opinion is wrong you damn well better be able to prove it! End of rant; as you were.

Talimon

11-05-2002, 07:18 PM

As for Talimon, he is hopeless at this point. Such the politician, You ask him for a staight answer then he answers another question. He then tells you you are absurd for asking the questions you want him to answer. Thin skinned too I might add.

Radagast, nothing is personal here. We were in the middle of a debate, and what you offered was this:

As for Talimon, I can't help but read his criticisms of our criticisms and somehow see Grima stricken by Saruman's voice groveling at his (PJ's) feet and stroking his beard. But their is still hope, there are two more films to be released, and Grima does kill Saruman in the end so.....Talimon we will be waiting.

That isn't a contribution to the arguement, and were I not used to harsher forum posters from other boards I might even report that. Had you tacked that on to an actual arguement, maybe I could reply. You didn't, and as such all I can take from that is that you disagree with me. Since you haven't explained why and with what, there isn't much of a discussion.

Once they had been welcomed by the King (he asks the food be brought for his "guests"), they passed from possible enemies to persons under the protection of the King's hospitality. That being the case, they would NOT have been attacked - and certainly NOT by anyone in the King's household. To do so would have brought disgrace not only upon that person, but upon the King and the Rohirrim as well.

At the risk of being a hypocrite and doing what I was criticizing (drawing conclusions from a trailer), I'd say that the scene is meant to be out of the ordinary. Indeed, were it so casual to raise a sword against your guests then it wouldn't be much of a scene in the first place. Then again were the tale of LotR so ordinary it wouldn't be worth telling either, would it? I assume that the point PJ is trying to make is that Eowyn is so bitter about not being able to ride into battle that in her anguish she might even raise a sword against Aragorn. I can easily imagine her, in that scene, quickly realizing that she has lost her temper, and after having done what she's done, run away in shame and tears. I don't think PJ wants it to be such a casual, everyday, "cultural" exercise. Rohan is at war, perhaps the last war in it's existence. Events that take place during this time aren't accurate reflections of Rohirrim "culture".

I think the more logical arguement here is whether that scene alters the charachters, and thier motivations. To be the judge of that I'd have to first see the scene, it's in entirety, and in it's context during the film. I certainly cannot agree that just by it's nature it automatically changes the "meaning" of Tolkiens tale.

Those who have real problems with criticism despite the "reasonable arguments" they use to defend the films, are in fact responding EMOTIONALLY, not intellectually to the critics.

Mrs. Maggot, with all due respect the critics are at least as guilty of this as the fans. In fact, I'd argue much moreso. If you go back and read threads from December, you'll find that many critics (not all) were basing thier arguements on abstract ideas, along the lines of "it's not Tolkien". Of course, just exactly what Tolkien is was never an issue, just the fact that the movie certainly wasn't. If an "intellectual arguement" was the ideal here, someone forgot to tell folks.

However, you are missing an important point . The main object of discussion here is a film, a work of art. And the only true way to judge art is emotionally. The main arguement seems to revolve around whether the film captured the "meaning" of Tolkien. What this arguement ignores is that there isn't one, all encompassing meaning to Tolkiens book. I think the Proffesor himself would certainly agree that it has different meanings for different people. In fact, Tolkien himself never assigned the work with any concrete meaning. He states so in the Foreward:

As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical.

Earlier on, he also states how different aspects of the tale are more/less important to different people:

...for I find from the letters that I have reiceived that the passages or chapters that are to some a blemish are all by others specially approved.

As always, it seems that we return to square one: this is PJ's interpretation of LotR. I stated this before and I'll state it again: I have no problem with people saying PJ's movie didn't match thier own mental image/view on Tolkien. In fact, I find that the threads where people actually express thier own opinions on what Tolkien means to them and how PJ did/didn't capture that are the most interesting. What I won't accept is the statement that PJ has not captured LotR, period. Critics of PJ's movie have been stating this over and over, and that's the only thing really gets me, emotionally and intellectually. You simply cannot make one large, all encompassing, let alone objective statement as to whether PJ captured LotR, for all or for none.

Mrs. Maggott

11-05-2002, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by Parrot
So, basically you’re saying that I failed to consider the context in which these events take place? I feel like I can quit now because you are making my points for me. I don’t know what transpires between Aragorn and Eowyn in the film and choose to reserve judgment until I do. ‘Nuff said?
I can’t help but wonder if Tolkien didn’t say this same thing when he sent her a-ridin’ with the Rohirrim?
As for this ‘Holier than thou’ line, please give me a break. For myself, I think I try to inject some humor in my posting and think I am pretty agreeable most of the time. However, if I think someone is taking a caustic or derogatory tone towards me or others, I have no problem responding in kind; and I think this is often the case when some purists are pontificating about the movies. Forum rules forbid telling someone they are simply too stupid to understand something, but there are no rules against pointedly implying this kind of thing. I have no problem with you purists expressing your criticisms (and actually agree with some of them) as opinions. It is the extrapolation of these specific criticisms into far-reaching generalizations about the film as a whole, and the director, expressed as fact rather than opinion, that I take issue with.

Example - In Mrs. Maggott’s first few posts she remarked that she personally didn’t care for the portrayal of Aragorn, with all the doubts and such. Okay. No problem there, I can see that. But then it continues to what these doubts do to the character of Aragorn and the overall story in the eyes of the audience. Whoa, hold up there! I am part of this audience and I don’t necessarily see it that way; so what are you really saying?

Now we have left the realm of opinion and entered the realm of …. what?… absolute truth, I guess, and this is where the wheels start to come off. Not “this is how I see it” but rather “this is how it is - PERIOD". I don’t like being told I “MUST” see something a certain way as this seems to carry the implication that if I don’t, I probably just don’t understand it. The incessant use of the :rolleyes: really helps convey this. So, if you are going to tell me that my opinion is wrong you damn well better be able to prove it! End of rant; as you were.

1. You did NOT take into consideration the context of the scenarios you presented. As for "making your points for you", it would seem I was doing exactly the opposite; I was making MY points for ME.

2. As far as I know, I have only expressed my OWN opinion regarding the Eowyn/Arwen matter. I have not attempted to express anyone else's opinions on the matter nor have I any desire to do so. What you feel about it is entirely your own business.

3. Tolkien sent Eowyn into battle because in the story, she is in DESPAIR; she does not want to fight, SHE WANTS TO DIE and considers battle as the best way to accomplish a glorious death. Despair is a DEADLY SIN; Tolkien knew that and his treatment of Eowyn is very subtle and deep. It isn't "adventure" or "feminist foolery" but an attempt to reveal great and, frankly, HOLY truths through Eowyn's mental, emotional and moral struggle. Will that be so in the film, do you think?

4. I did not say anything at all about you except to mention the points you made in passing (see above). If you find yourself "insulted" because someone has expressed disagreement with your position or if you take personally comments made about something in which you had no part (the film), that is not my fault. My "attitude" (which you are subjectively construing) was hardly "holier than thou". I merely pointed out that an intellectual debate does not engender animosity whereas an emotional debate may do just that. To believe someone is "stupid" because he or she disagrees with you - especially when your argument is both subjective and does not address the criticism that has been made - well, that speaks for itself.

And why, pray tell, should you "take issue" with statements made that are no less "unsubstantiated" than your own general assertions? I believe that the audience is influenced by Jackson's treatment of the characters. That, frankly, is hardly "unsubstantiated" since ALL audiences are influenced by how characters are portrayed in films AND books. I believe that influence will be negative IN COMPARISON to the character in the BOOK - NOT negative within the context of the FILM. You think otherwise. I would hardly call you names or impute your intelligence simply because you hold a diametric opinion.

5. I have made no assertions as to how ANYONE on this forum thinks or FEELS about these matters. I have only said what I think about them in consideration of a number of things, most importantly, the original work. And guess what? I have as much a right to voice my opinions as you do. And, like everyone else, I have as much right to use graphics as well. When I use :rolleyes: it means that I don't understand the reasoning behind whatever was said or done and I usually use them in conjunction with what was done IN THE FILM. I don't ever remember using them in response to what someone else has posted in SERIOUS response to the issue under debate or if I have, then I would probably have been unable to follow the rationale of the person making the argument. I would suggest that you look through some of the OTHER threads criticizing the film. You will find a lot of graphics that make my little editorial comment appear quite benign!

I admit to having made considered judgments about how uninformed viewers will perceive the characters in the film vis a vie the book (as mentioned above). But if you look at posts made by film supporters, you will see that they too admit that the audience will have a different perspective on the characters given the Director's changes. There is nothing WRONG with this contention and, in fact, the only place in which we would disagree is whether or not these changes are positive (film supporters) or negative (myself and some other film critics). I do not think I have EVER heard a supporter say that the film characters are EXACTLY as they are in the book. Since that is the case, surely it is not unreasonable to contend that they will be perceived differently by the audience?

6. Finally, I NEVER started one of these threads. I have only responded to things said within them. But the point I made regarding the obvious hostility and personal animosity that exists for ANYONE who criticizes the film(s) was certainly proven by your post and to my mind, needs no further justification.

joxy

11-05-2002, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by Longshanks
I'll admit that there is very little "humour" in the original book, but its use in the film is a nessasary one.
A chuckle now and again is surely allowed. :)
Why do you say "admit"?
You're completely wrong, of course: there's plenty of humour in the books, exactly the amount that the writer thought appropriate, and the amount that has satisfied millions of readers over forty years.
It's the INVENTED form of humour that's so wrong: it DOES evoke "chuckles", or guffaws, or titters, none of them at all appropriate to either the book OR the film. Humour is something completely different, and could have been provided to as great an extent as anyone could possibly have wanted, from "original" material. It would have been high quality; PJ's substitute is mediocre, and that's being generous.

joxy

11-05-2002, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by Talimon
Eowyn....in her bitterness she draws a sword on him [Aragorn] and thrusts.
Well we have already had Arwen treating a sword like a toy and putting it at Aragorn's neck; so I don't see a little point like etiquette getting in the way of even THIS possibility!

joxy

11-05-2002, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by Talimon
What I won't accept is the statement that PJ has not captured LotR, period. Critics of PJ's movie have been stating this over and over, and that's the only thing really gets me....
You've seen that stated "over and over".
I've NEVER seen it.

Parrot

11-05-2002, 11:39 PM

My good Mrs. Maggott, I have no "personal animosity" towards you or anyone else here, much less "ANYONE who criticizes the film". Grond is a fairly frequent critic of the film and he is one of my favorite members here. I don't like the turn this thread has taken and apologize to all for my part in taking it there. I especially apologize for the :rolleyes: thing, that was out of line Maybe we should just start over...

Hello Mrs. Maggott, I'm Parrot, nice to meet you. So what did you think of that whole Arwen thing?

(or maybe I should just stay out of this place altogether, I seem to be digging a lot of holes lately)

Mrs. Maggott

11-06-2002, 12:26 AM

My dear Parrott:

YES and YES! Let us begin again. I say this as one who LOVES the film(s), looks forward to seeing them, has bought COUNTLESS goodies (like the busts and full length figures - not to mention poster of Aragorn grrrrr.....ah hem! and wants to buy the leaf brooch!). Also loved Lurtz who was a Maori warrior chosen for the part for his physical presence. What a MAGNIFICENT face!! I am an artist and I would LOVE to see what this man looks like sans makeup! He looks like he is already made of some wonderful tropical wood. It's too bad they didn't make him an Ent instead!

Behold! We have passion - a VERY good thing especially as everyone today has so much ennui that one wonders how they get up in the morning! (There is an old saying: "Which is worse - ignorance or apathy?" to which the reply is, "I don't know and I don't care!") But WE care. The souls who come to sites like this are motivated by something beautiful - the greates piece of literature of I believe, the 20th Century at least. I am glad that Mr. Jackson has attempted to bring it to those who might never even have even TRIED to read the work! That I disagree with some of what he has done, is not the same as saying that I HATE it or that I wouldn't want anyone to see it. Believe me, if people can come to heated words over much less meaningful things, then we can be excused or little moment of dispute!

P.S. Love your name and graphic (it's a mc caw isn't it? They are ssooo beautiful!) I would like to put up a mushroom, but I wouldn't have the vaguest idea as to how to do so! (maybe a mushroom with a crown?)

God bless! :)

Grond

11-06-2002, 03:14 AM

I think I'll interject a little note here. This thread actually has been doing fine up until a page or so ago. Everyone has gotten a little 'emotional' and we all need to take a deep breath and remember that it is PJ's film; however, this must be balanced by the fact that it is "our" revered book that he is interpreting.

I will once more quote him where I think he has made his greatest error. from Lord of the Rings - Official Movie Guide
My primary job has been to make three good movies, as opposed to making three movies that are totally faithful to the books. Nevertheless, I fully accept that I have a responsiblity not to disappoint those many people who love the books. Which is why we have really tried not to lose anything that we feel is key or important to the books and why, almost without exception, all those things that are memorable and vivid from reading the books are there in the movies."I simply feel the PJ has failed me. It is apparent that he didn't fail Talimon or Parrot. :)

Mrs. Maggot, as good Parrot said, I am one of the film's greatest critics... but at the same time I am thrilled that visually (in my own mind's eye) PJ has captured the essence of "my" Middle-earth. He didn't quite make the grade as far as plot consistency and characterization (again in my humble opinion). Let's all try to be a little more "forum friendly" as we carry on this debate. :)

Talimon

11-06-2002, 03:51 AM

I never felt this thread lost it's a friendliness. So long as both sides accept that this is just an arguement and that nobody means harm, I don't see what's wrong with getting a little passionate. ;) There is a fine line between criticizing a persons opinions and criticizing the person. I don't think that line was ever crossed in this thread.

I will once more quote him where I think he has made his greatest error.

I think the key point in that quote is this:

"...Which is why we have really tried not to lose anything that we feel is key or important to the books and why, almost without exception, all those things that are memorable and vivid from reading the books are there in the movies."

As you can see, this statement by it's very nature is subjective. It immediately claims that it is only staying true to what the film-makers feel is memorable, but on top of that claims that there might actually be some exception even to that. I can understand, however, how some folk might have been caught up in the hyperbole that these statements appear to be presenting. I think PJ is just taking it for granted that folks recognize this is his movie, with the story being told his way. For me, that story resonates, "almost without exception".

Grond

11-06-2002, 04:04 AM

Originally posted by Talimon
...I think the key point in that quote is this:

"...Which is why we have really tried not to lose anything that we feel is key or important to the books and why, almost without exception, all those things that are memorable and vivid from reading the books are there in the movies."

As you can see, this statement by it's very nature is subjective. It immediately claims that it is only staying true to what the film-makers feel is memorable, but on top of that claims that there might actually be some exception even to that. I can understand, however, how some folk might have been caught up in the hyperbole that these statements appear to be presenting. I think PJ is just taking it for granted that folks recognize this is his movie, with the story being told his way. For me, that story resonates, "almost without exception". Talimon, if that is the case, he should have completely left off the part where he states, "Nevertheless, I fully accept that I have a responsiblity not to disappoint those many people who love the books."

He then proceeded to take actions that were sure to disappoint many of "those many people" who have read the book by completely changing the way the relationship of Arwen and Aragorn is presented. And by trying to create new scenes and characterizations "in the style of Tolkien," rather than presenting them in the manner Tolkien "wrote them himself."

In reviewing the movie again tonight, I tried to envision how the movie would have suffered had he allowed Glorfindel to rescue the Hobbits at the Ford and then introduced Arwen at Rivendell. He could have elucidated the relationship there as was done anyway. The Cave Troll was bogus to me and I felt that a more serious battle with orcs and a great orc chieften would have not injured that scene at all either.

In summary, I again stand by my assertion that Jackson gained nothing from the changes. The audience would have been just as entertained with characterizations remaining truer to the way they were written by Tolkien. And, I think that is the purist's position. We just don't understand why he changed it.

Mrs. Maggott

11-06-2002, 04:07 AM

I have never said that FOTR (and probably the other films) were not visually stunning, especially the Shire which matched almost every image I had in my mind.

I have never said that it would be possible to put in every jot and tittle that's found in the book in the film(s). Indeed the attempt to do so would destroy the films by making them so complicated and unwieldy as to become nonsense for most viewers.

I HAVE said that I enjoyed the first film and expected to enjoy the other two, BUT as Mr. Jackson's version of the story. I no longer expected an attempt to bring Tolkien's story to the screen for there have already been too many changes for that to be possible. However, that does not make the film(s) BAD, only "different".

I HAVE defended vigorously the points I have made wherein I believed that the Director erred in either framing the characters (Merry and Pippin) or having the characters do things that were not in their nature at least in the original story (Aragorn and Arwen). This, by the way, does NOT mean that the altered characters as they appear in the film will be awful, but it does mean that perhaps - only perhaps - my joy in the story will be somewhat mitigated by what I perceive to be egregioius errors and/or changes - but that is a personal thing.

I have also countered arguments defending the Director's revisions when I have considered the revisions as unnecessary or not in the best interest of the story and the arguments as lacking in validity. But in countering the various arguments, I have never cast aspersions on the person offering the argument. If anyone has read that into any of my comments, you may rest assured it was NOT intended.

The name of this thread is "What changes in the movie tick you off the most" - not high prose, but certainly understandable enough for all to realize that this is NOT going to be a thread in which one will find a lot of praise for the film in specifics - although you may find it in general. I didn't start the thread but, like everyone else, I have participated in it to the best of my ability and with the intention of taking seriously the thoughts and comments offered by my fellow forumites(!). Again, I will apologize for any comment that may have been taken amiss for certainly it was never intended to be anything more than a vigorous intellectual debate on the topics raised and debated. ;)

Talimon

11-06-2002, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by Grond
Talimon, if that is the case, he should have completely left off the part where he states, "Nevertheless, I fully accept that I have a responsiblity not to disappoint those many people who love the books."

By the very virtue of creating these films, yes, he has that responsibility. But I'd argue two things. One, he has not dissapointed many people who have read the book (as I, and many hundreds of thousands of others are testament to). Some have disagreed with this claim of mine, but my general feeling (both from online reviews, forum-browsing, and talking to Tolkien readers) is that the majority of those who have read LotR (at one point or another in thier life) thought it was a good adaptation. I mean, other then on forums and what-not, you have to confess that the movie has gotten favorable press, from both book-readers and otherwise. Certainly the "general" consensus isn't "FotR was a bad movie/adaptation". As such, I think PJ has stuck to his claim. And two, that claim does not say nor directly suggest that he will be staying true to Tolkiens written word. All PJ is saying is that he has the responsibility to not dissapoint. As to exactly what would dissapoint, and what wouldn't, he doesn't elaborate.

Originally posted by Grond

In summary, I again stand by my assertion that Jackson gained nothing from the changes. The audience would have been just as entertained with characterizations remaining truer to the way they were written by Tolkien. And, I think that is the purist's position. We just don't understand why he changed it.

There it goes again: that all-encompassing "audience". I'm not trying to kill this arguement, but I just don't think you can make claims that apply to the Tolkien-reading audience at large, let alone the non-Tolkien reading. I think, on both sides here, we are assuming that too many of the changes were carried out because they "had to be". In making this assumption, we are clearly robbing PJ of any artistic vision he may have had on his own. It's not a matter of saying Tolkien was wrong, I don't think. I think it's just more PJ seeing an opportunity to create something that would work cinematically. I think one comparison that really ought to be made is between PJ's adaptation technique and the one being used on the Harry Potter film/s. To me, one is an artist with a clear vision, and the other is a committee working by the numbers. To me the former is leagues more exciting and inspiring. The Harry Potter movie was all nice and clean, yes...but I couldn't help feeling, when it was over, "That's it?". It just felt as if the film-makers were hopelessly opressed by Rowlings book, and made every decision along the way in a very systematic fashion. To a certain degree I don't care much to see Chamber of Secrets... which, considering how much I enjoyed the book, is kind of sad. I guess for me what's so exciting about PJ's movie isn't so much the fact that I'm seeing LotR visually... I mean, that is nice, yes, but my imagination is quite good when I want it to be. For me what is really exciting here is seeing somebody else tell the tale, interpret it in thier own way, explore it's different aspects.

When discussing the movie with a lot of "purists", I often feel as if for them the movie is doing something completely different... It's not so much the excitement of seeing Tolkiens tale unfold, but more just making sure everything is "done proper". For me there just isn't that pressure, that worry of "Jackson butchering LotR". For me the book is powerful enough on it's own. I don't need a "by the numbers" interpretation. I want to see how the director feels about different scenes. To summarize, for me it's how the tale is told that makes it so fresh, not just what is being told. I've read LotR, I know what it's about. If you are going to tell me this tale again in a cinema, make it cinematic.

Grond

11-06-2002, 05:45 AM

Please remove "the audience" from my comments and simply insert an "I" there. I have reviewed the movie again and I can't see where PJ gained anything by "changing the story". He could have remained true to the plot as the author wrote it and still developed Arwen into a more "fleshed out" character. That was what I was getting at. The fact that he chose to insert his "own vision" is something this Tolkien fan wished he had not done. I appreciate what PJ has done, I just wish that he had been forthcoming that this was "his" adaptation of the work, in which he tried to bring "his" vision of Middle-earth to the screen. I wish he would have left me, the Tolkien fan, out of his statements. By including me, the Tolkien fan, in his statements he has given me the right to critique not only what he has presented but also the right to critique what he said about making the film, prior to his making it.

What I think PJ did was try to have his cake and eat it to. He wanted to add his own vision to the LotR, yet he didn't want to alienate his 70 million member audience of pre-existing Tolkien fans. If Mrs. Maggot and I want to feel betrayed, that is our right. You, Talimon, read a different meaning into PJ's words. That is your right. You want to defend his actions and his vision. That is your right. I just don't agree with your opinion. ;)

Radagast

11-06-2002, 08:21 AM

It wasn't so much that I was in a direct debate with you on any particular topic, other than the "PJ Lying" discussion, but more the observations I made in the way in which you were debating/arguing with others (where I was lurking) that promted my comments.

As for the tone in which things are being discussed now. I think it is much more respectable for everyone who feels a passion for Tolkien's story.

But I would REALLY like to know; What, if anything, really irked you about the film? After all, that is what this thread is all about.

Cheers

Mrs. Maggott

11-06-2002, 12:59 PM

Certainly the "general" consensus isn't "FotR was a bad movie/adaptation". As such, I think PJ has stuck to his claim. And two, that claim does not say nor directly suggest that he will be staying true to Tolkiens written word. All PJ is saying is that he has the responsibility to not dissapoint. As to exactly what would dissapoint, and what wouldn't, he doesn't elaborate. <quote Talimon>

Mr. Jackson missed his calling. If indeed, he was INTENTIONALLY careful not to elucidate what he KNEW would disappoint Tolkien enthusiasts, then he was being flagrantly disingenuous and should have taken up politics rather than film making. If, on the other hand, he believed that presenting the familiar names, places and general plot line that would be ENOUGH for Tolkien enthusiasts, then he was probably being as truthful as he knew how to be.

No one will know - but Mr. Jackson himself - how many of the revisions/changes/additions/ deletions etc. that he made to the script were the result of cinematic necessity and how much were occasioned by his own attempt to "improve" the original story. I would bet that the whole Arwen/Aragorn and eventually Eowyn thing was his own invention and not in any way necessitated by cinematic considerations. Tolkien's story was about a mythic quest and its consequences on those who became involved within it willingly or otherwise. Mr. Jackson has kept the quest aspect, but he has decided to focus strongly on OTHER incidental plot lines (the "romance" of Arwen and Aragorn for instance) for their cinematic "punch". In doing so, he has deleted a number of characters (Glorfindel for one) and certainly changed the author's original characterizations of others (principally Arwen and Aragorn). Does it make good cinema? Yes, it does. Does it "remain true to the original story?" No, it does not.

Parrot

11-06-2002, 05:31 PM

Hey, Gronderator, Mrs Maggott said "tittle" *juvenile snicker*
(aaah, Carlin said it never really belonged on the list anyway)

Grond is correct when he says that Jackson didn't fail me. I never expected to see any film of the story as, for some strange reason, most seemed to regard the story as unfilmable(?); so the fact that he was able to put the whole thing together in the first place and deliver a film of the caliber that he did is a victory in itself, IMO. On the whole, I think he stayed fairly to quite true to the story. Did he make some changes? Yes. Were there some "unnecessary" changes? Matter of definition of course, but sure. Were there some changes I could have lived without? Definitely.

Though I have been a frequent defender of the Ford scenes, I actually have serious problems with it; specifically the "she-elf" line sucked Bruinen water, and especially the depriving Frodo of one of his rare defining moments. I also am not a big fan of the "broken carrot". I think something along the line of
Pippin
"OOOF! I think I squashed my 'Shrooms!"
would have been far more "in the spirit of Tolkien".

That being said, I am going to commit borderline blasphemy here and admit, flat-out, that I prefer Mattel's Action Arwen to Tolkien's Eye-Candy/Needlepoint Arwen, as I never felt I knew her (at least 'til I read the app's); but that's me, a rebel without a clue. Do I think it could have been done just as well with Glorfy in the action roles and Arwen being better developed in Rivendell? Probably, but the audience would have....... hah, psych! didn't think I was really going to go there at this point did you?

For me, I think it just comes down to preferring to applaud the film for what it is rather than fretting over what it is not. With that mindset being my foundation, I tend to defend the film most of the time even though I know I am nowhere near as passionate about it as Talimon or some others. I like these debates for the mental exercise as much as anything and that is the side I have chosen. No apologies.

As for the question of whether PJ lied about his intentions, or strayed from the path somewhere along the way; I would present another possibility; that maybe he merely "not realized". Not realized how much the hard-core fans have completely internalized this story; not realized to what intense scrutiny changes to seemingly minor characters would be held; basically just not realized the heavy implication of saying that he would remain true to a story this subtle, complex, and beloved. I know Jackson claims to be this huge fan, I thought I was a big LoTR fan until I came to this site and found out I was just a whelp, maybe he just made the same miscalculation. Either that or he just decided to make as much money as he could, LYING FAT B*****D! (jeez, I miss RW:( ) (that is an inside joke and not intended to offend anyone)

P.S. Yes Ma'am, I believe it is a McCaw. I actually looked into buying one one time, but have you seen the price tag on one of those dudes?:eek:

joxy

11-06-2002, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by Talimon
he has not dissapointed many people who have read the book (as I, and many hundreds of thousands of others are testament to).
....
There it goes again: that all-encompassing "audience". I'm not trying to kill this argument, but I just don't think you can make claims that apply to the ....audience at large.....
First you claim to know what hundreds of thousands think,
then you say one cannot make claims for audiences at large.
You really can't have it both ways.
The fact is no-one can KNOW what more than a few people of their acquaintance think. Attendances and DVD sales say nothing FACTUAL about that.

joxy

11-06-2002, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Parrot
Hey, Gronderator, Mrs Maggott said "title" *juvenile snicker*
As for the question of whether PJ lied about his intentions, or strayed from the path somewhere along the way; I would present another possibility; that maybe he merely "not realized".
I say it too, so what "ticks me off" most about these posts is that they are about things that "tick people off"! How on earth did the expression come to have this strange meaning?!
And I think you're close to the point there, about PJ straying, and not realising. When I see him making the claims on the DVD extra the impression he gives is of naivety, immaturity. It makes me guess he has soft spots for slushy romance, and for blood-and-mud scenes, and takes it for granted that audiences share his fancies. I can't see him as a great "artist" offering us his thought-out impression of a work that he acknowledges to be great.

Thorin

11-06-2002, 06:47 PM

I have been watching this thread and must throw my two cents in....

I believe that those who constantly defend PJ based on his "interpretation" of LoTR are really making him worse then he is. Anyone director who reads the flight to the ford and the roles of all involved and then ends up putting another minor character there who replaces the actions of many other major character and weeps and cries over Frodo saying ridiculous Hollywood melodramatic lines like "Let my grace pass onto him", cannot have a very good sense of how to properly interpret LoTR.

As for the Eowyn/Aragorn thing. IMO, I don't care why it's being put in. It SHOULDN'T be in there. What purpose does it serve? To show Eowyn's desire to be in battle? Tolkien did that quite well, thank you. I agree with Mrs. Maggot on this one. PJ decides to go the typical Hollywood way on this one and goes over the top (like most other scenes) to make it his own. The whole director's interpretation is only a good argument until something happens like elves at Helm's Deep that upsets the defenders. Then the "spirit of Tolkien" argument and "director's interpretation" becomes forgotten.

Let's talk about the elves at Helm's Deep that seems to have some of the film defenders upset. When you throw in the film defenders' arguments that PJ is first and foremost trying to make a GOOD movie, and not a faithful adaptation, then the elves being at Helm's Deep, and any other over the top change is a great move...Something that some film defenders seem miffed by or would be miffed should Arwen replace Eowyn or something else.

Who in the movie going public who want to see a "good movie" will really pick up (or care) that the elves don't belong at Helm's Deep because this is the battle that men need to do on their own? Cinematically, it is a great move to create a good exciting movie (again, what FADs seem to use to justify every foolish change PJ makes). Cool elves scrapping with orcs and kicking butt along with other races of ME...Why not?

Or that Arwen fights at Helm's Deep or takes some of the roles of Eowyn.
However, from a faithful adaptation perspective, they (and other foolish changes) do not belong their and it would be better for the purists were they not there, but that sort of complaining draws all kinds of arguments that PJ is not out to do a faithful adaptation but make a great movie....

He has done that with this move with the elves at Helm's Deep and there seems to be issues over that...And yet Arwen is perfectly acceptable. :confused:

Parrot

11-06-2002, 07:32 PM

Joxy, how it came to pass, I have no idea; but "something that annoys or angers" is pretty much the accepted meaning of "ticks off" here in the states.

Thorin, while I am, to say the least, reluctant, to attempt to speak for Talimon, whom your statements seem aimed at, I will say something.

I think Tal has been quite consistent in his position that PJ be allowed some artistic license in the telling of the story provided that his telling captures the main themes. As I understand it, it is his position that the involvement of the elves (as well as cutting the "Scouring") changes a major theme, ergo the problem. It violates one of the conditions he has maintained from the outset, I don't see this as contadictory or inconsistent at all, unless one twists his words or trusts the others here don't know what it is he has actually written on the subject.

I think maybe what really bothers you is that the great length you have gone to in portraying the defenders as mindless schills, who would defend any and all changes, has been defused by Talimon with a single post. Don't you hate it when somebody breaks up a perfectly convenient stereotype?

Thorin

11-06-2002, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by Parrot
I think Tal has been quite consistent in his position that PJ be allowed some artistic license in the telling of the story provided that his telling captures the main themes. As I understand it, it is his position that the involvement of the elves (as well as cutting the "Scouring") changes a major theme, ergo the problem.

And I am saying that Tal and other's position is contradictory. How do you reconcile "as long as he keeps the main themes" and yet justify changes by saying that PJ's priority is "making three good movies"? Making three good movies can justify the main themes changing and still be a good movie. Which argument do you cling too? Either it doesn't matter what PJ makes, as long as he makes three good movies, or certain changes are not acceptable.

The question Mrs. Maggot asked (which I consistently asked when the first movie came out) still stands: At what point does "artisitic interpretation" and the "spirit of Tolkien" and "making three good movies" stop being a justification and the changes become a serious problem with the film defenders? To be honest, I think the film defenders have painted themselves into a corner with all the justification's they've done, because any answer they give can be pooh-poohed away by their former arguments.

Ex: "Provided that PJ doesn't change the major themes, it's okay" Oh really? But they are still good movies and they are still the director's interpretation...etc etc..And as far as Im concerned, Arwen's role was definitely a major theme change, not an interpretation.

Maybe the FADs need to revise their arguments.

joxy

11-06-2002, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by Thorin
....ridiculous Hollywood melodramatic lines like "Let my grace pass onto him"

This is one of the main messages I have been trying to put over. Whether you call them cheesy, cliched, OTT, or now melodramatic, the point is that SOME of PJ's new lines, are so inappropriate, so against Tolkien's style, indeed so against the style of MOST of the film, that the only conclusion has to be that, AT TIMES, PJ simply becomes tone-deaf to language just as some are tone deaf to music.

joxy

11-06-2002, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Talimon
I think one comparison that really ought to be made is between PJ's adaptation technique and the one being used on the Harry Potter film/s. To me the former is leagues more exciting and inspiring.
I've held back long enough from extending these FOTR discussions into HP, but you DO keep mentioning the point. I've watched HP almost as often as I have FOTR and I have to say that HP has never hit me in the face with false action or dialogue as FOTR does.
I obviously haven't read the books as often as T's, so I'm not sure how accurate the film is, but it seems to me to have a unity that FOTR sadly lacks, and if that is due to accuracy, good for the makers, not bad.
HP is hardly meant to be as exciting or inspiring as FOTR, but I defy anyone to match the Quidditch match for excitement!

Mrs. Maggott

11-06-2002, 08:02 PM

To Thorin:

I have no problem with elves at Helm's Deep as especially Legolas was there, so if PJ wanted to throw a few in, I would not consider that counter to Tolkien's vision. The business with Eowyn and Aragorn, however, CERTAINLY is, as is the "love triangle" among the above two and Arwen.

As I have said countless times, many things had to be done to make the film flow and less cumbersome. On the other hand, Jackson ADDED many things to a film that we were told had to be severely CUT! Then there were changes to and among the characters that frequently made no sense from the point of view of the original plot line and only later played out as a NEW plot line or the overdevelopment of a minor theme in the original work. AGAIN, when we have been told that EVERY MOMENT COUNTS, I, at least, have to wonder WHY we are developing extraneous plot lines, enlarging characters and generally ADDING to a story that is already THREE FILMS LONG!

It is obvious that Mr. Jackson had a vision long before he began to bring LOTR to the screen. There's nothing wrong with that as he acknowledged that the films are only "based" upon the book, but it would have been better for all concerned if he had been more forthcoming about his intentions and less public in his assurances that he was going to attempt to adhere to the original as much as was feasible given his medium.

Parrot

11-06-2002, 08:03 PM

If there is any "corner painting" being done here, you're the guy with the brush, and I for one, ain't goin' there. I will let Talimon state his own case in his own time. I would say, and I think pretty much everyone would agree, certain changes are in fact not acceptable, as you say. The problem is that it is a sliding scale dependent on the individual, except in the most extreme cases. Kind of like the old pornography saw - 'I can't define it, but I know it when I see it'. Some have seen it already, some have not!

Seriously though, what "theme" does Arwen's portrayal change? The "Women should be seen and not heard or better yet neither seen NOR heard!" or maybe the "Women should sew, not ride!" theme? Please discuss.

Mrs. Maggott

11-06-2002, 08:05 PM

To Parrot

At a local fair this fall, we had a parrot rescue society giving rescued birds out for adoption. If you want a bird - and I know they are expensive - perhaps you should check on line or locally for other animal/bird rescue groups who rehabilitate the birds and then find good homes for them. It would be worth looking into as one lady went home with a beautiful sulphur crested cockatoo. :D

Eöl

11-06-2002, 08:11 PM

I was mad that they took out Tom Bombadil and I really hope they don't overlplay Arwen and Aragorn.

Thorin

11-06-2002, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by Parrot
If there is any "corner painting" being done here, you're the guy with the brush, and I for one, ain't goin' there. I will let Talimon state his own case in his own time. I would say, and I think pretty much everyone would agree, certain changes are in fact not acceptable, as you say. The problem is that it is a sliding scale dependent on the individual, except in the most extreme cases.

What corner? I sure would like you to point out how that applies to me.
I have not been justifying every change to the nth degree and coming up with so many explanations that contradict myself at every turn and come back to bite me on the butt.

I do not approve of the major changes that are being made. I think that PJ is taking things to the extreme and making many unnecessary changes. I don't accept them, and in most cases I don't see the logic in those changes. I have no problem with artistic license provided that they remain in the proper context (much of the Shire scenes at the beginning would fall in that category). I have no problems with changes that need to be made for the sake of time and cinematic purposes (the cutting out of Bombadil and the songs fall into this category). Had PJ stayed within the proper boundaries, this purist would have had no problems....However, the majority of changes affected the characters and story to the point that it seems ludicrous.

Had you just said "Hey, there's no reason for the changes, PJ just decided to make them for cinematic purposes, but I like them" You would have had room to say later "Hmm, I don't like that change". But within the parameters that you and Tal and others have set to justify all these foolish changes, you have no real room to complain about ANY changes. They can all be explained away and justified by your own arguments. Hence the painted corner...

Parrot

11-06-2002, 09:44 PM

I was not saying that you were painting yourself into a corner but trying to paint us by putting your own spin on what has transpired before.

Again, I am loath to speak for Tal, because I know if I say something he will does not agree with, it will be applied to all "defenders" en masse, hence much of the so-called being "bitt in the butt".

However, my own opinion as follows as to why there is no contradiction in his position (I feel like his lawyer):

Defense Exhibit A -

the movie should be entertaining and some liberties can be taken towards this end;
the movie should capture all the major themes of the book to be a passable adaptation.

Now, I would point out to the jury that I used two separate bullets above, to delineate that these are two separate, independent, and equally weighted criteria to be met. Two distinct and unique points which the movie must meet to pass Talimon's muster. Nowhere does it say or imply that as long as the movie is entertaining enough then the themes be damned; anymore than it says as long as the themes are sufficiently stressed the movie can be as unentertaining as a three-hour root canal. They BOTH must be met, separately and independently.

If I say would like to marry a tall blonde; I am not saying I want someone short provided she is blonde enough, and I don't want a brunette provided she is tall enough! Dammit, I want a TALL BLONDE!

(added in edit)Mrs. M., Thanks for the pointer, but any idea I had of owning a bird went out the window when I got the lab I have now. He is bird killing MACHINE. I am actually glad winter is here so I won't have the trauma of finding little piles of feathers and carcasses every time I rake the yard.

Mrs. Maggott

11-06-2002, 09:47 PM

Male or female? :eek:

Parrot

11-06-2002, 10:14 PM

Male or female?
Now that I edited in the whole bird/dog thing before I saw this post, others may be really confused. :confused: But I am partial to the soft, curvaceous persuasion.

Thorin

11-06-2002, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by Parrot
However, my own opinion as follows as to why there is no contradiction in his position (I feel like his lawyer):

Defense Exhibit A -

the movie should be entertaining and some liberties can be taken towards this end;
the movie should capture all the major themes of the book to be a passable adaptation.

Now, I would point out to the jury that I used two separate bullets above, to delineate that these are two separate, independent, and equally weighted criteria to be met. Two distinct and unique points which the movie must meet to pass Talimon's muster. Nowhere does it say or imply that as long as the movie is entertaining enough then the themes be damned; anymore than it says as long as the themes are sufficiently stressed the movie can be as unentertaining as a three-hour root canal. They BOTH must be met, separately and independently.

I would rather that Talimon speak his piece on his position because to me, this is a change from what was previously defended, nor does it sound like Talimon's position.

Any changes according to your first bullet are according to the personal limitations of the viewer. Talimon, however, has not taken that position. Rather he is justifing that, should there be ANY changes, they should be attributed to it being acceptable as long as it falls within the SPIRIT OF TOLKIEN, that it is DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION, and that it is more like A MYTH being told as a FIRESIDE TALE, i.e. Getting the facts aren't as important as capturing the "spirit". Talimon has also said that one must judge the movie within itself.

Within these parameters, bullet number two is nullifed, nor have I heard Talimon take that position until the Elves at Helm's Deep became an issue. And IMO, the elves at Helm's Deep is not a major theme, nor is it an issue according to the movie. As I've previously stated, it is a great cinematic move. It sounds like bullet number two was created as a loop hole for film defenders to be able to complain about the movie should the need arise. However, this is not the stance that was previously taken.

Define "capturing all the major themes"? These are the major themes that everything pretty much boils down to:
1) Frodo knowing and fulfilling his task
2) Aragorn fulfilling his destiny
3) Rift between elves and dwarves being healed
3) The downfall of Saruman
4) The liberation of the races of ME from Sauron
5) The downfall of Sauron

Are you telling me that everything else in the middle is filler to be played with as long as these themes are being met?

Please.... :rolleyes:

Parrot

11-06-2002, 10:59 PM

Hey, maybe I'm dead-wrong about Talimon's POV, I am sure he will make it clear in time. As for myself, I have defended specific changes on specific grounds and I don't believe I have ever made the all encompassing statements that you would attribute to me. If this is not the case, please provide quotes, so I can retract.

BTW, you forgot the major "Arwen" theme. :rolleyes:

Talimon

11-06-2002, 11:20 PM

However, my own opinion as follows as to why there is no contradiction in his position (I feel like his lawyer):

ROFL.... :)

I think maybe what really bothers you is that the great length you have gone to in portraying the defenders as mindless schills, who would defend any and all changes.

Thanks for pointing out Parrot a rediculous point in Thorins arguement. You can't simplify the opinions here down the middle, into "Purists Vs. FADS". I have never spoken for another fan of the movie, and never will. I am not part of some great "movie-defenders-union", who holds a carefully penned constitution. In fact (SHOCK) I am fully susceptible to having my opinion changed. There are some things that I said half a year ago that I would never say now. In fact, and this might shock you, after my first viewing I thought the movie was merely "ok", if not "bad". Nobody speaks for me, and I don't speak for anyone else. My opinions are my own, and if others agree with them that is thier own case. Surely you can't argue that everyone who loves the film loves it for the same reasons? Or all those who criticize it criticize it based on the same arguements? And what about those who just "like it", and are down the middle?

the movie should be entertaining and some liberties can be taken towards this end;

the movie should capture all the major themes of the book to be a passable adaptation.

I would rather that Talimon speak his piece on his position because to me, this is a change from what was previously defended, nor does it sound like Talimon's position.

I am slightly puzzled here, Thorin, as this is exactly what I have said. Indeed, I credit Parrot for being able to sum up my arguements much more efficiently that I have. ;)

Perhaps we have different for deffinitions the "spirit" of the tale. You may have not understood me correctly, but I associate the "spirit" of the tale as being the main themes of the tale. Indeed, my main point behind calling this movie a "myth" has been along the same vein as the first point Parrot mentions (making a good movie). To me, movie-making is the same as story-telling, and I have made this point very clear. All I have claimed is that PJ, being the story-teller, has the right (and in my opinion the obligation) to tell his story in the most entertaining and moving way possible, while retaining the meaning (spirit) of the tale. As Parrot notes, this does not mean he should change the tale top to bottom. I have said over and over that PJ has had to walk a fine line between the adaptation and the movie. Yes, they often overlap. But when they don't he has, nearly 99% of the time, gone with what he believes is a good movie. But this has never, in my opinion, been at the expense of any major themes.

And IMO, the elves at Helm's Deep is not a major theme, nor is it an issue according to the movie.

That is a completely different arguement that you are presenting, and in my opinion irrellevant to the current discussion. I still stand by my opinion that they shouldn't be there, however, but I don't feel that this is the right thread to discuss this. In fact, I'd rather give PJ the advantage here and see the movie first before judging. As it was presented to me, at the time I stated my opinion about the Elves at HD, the change did not make sense to me. Neither did Arwen, before seeing FotR. I'm giving PJ the benefit here and not judging. Yet. ;)

First you claim to know what hundreds of thousands think,
then you say one cannot make claims for audiences at large.

Those are two different instances. It is possible to know that people liked the movie without knowing why they liked the movie. Grond was stating that those scenes would have lost nothing in the audiences eyes had they stayed closer to Tolkien. I was just claiming that you can't judge what the audience will like and what they won't. In fact, it is quite likely that some will like some scenes and other won't like some scenes :). But the fact that FotR has gotten good press and reviews is not my opinion. It is a well established fact, one that I can back up. This doesn't refer to the quality of the movie, only how it has been percieved by "popular opinion" (make of that what you will). As for the 100's of thousands, that was me being extremely conservative. considering that tens of millions have read Tolkien, and considering that at the very least half them though it was a "good" movie, I think that is proof that PJ has not "lied" (as some were claiming).

Define "capturing all the major themes"? These are the major themes that everything pretty much boils down to:
1) Frodo knowing and fulfilling his task
2) Aragorn fulfilling his destiny
3) Rift between elves and dwarves being healed
3) The downfall of Saruman
4) The liberation of the races of ME from Sauron
5) The downfall of Sauron

One of the main points I made earlier in this thread was that there aren't any all-encompassing, all-applying themes, meanings, or messages. I thought I made this clear by quoting from the introduction. Maybe I'll do this again:

As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical.
...for I find from the letters that I have reiceived that the passages or chapters that are to some a blemish are all by others specially approved.

I think the fact that Tolkien himself pointed this is enough. Ultimately the point was this: LotR means different things to different people. PJ has made the movie with what he feels is important. It just so happens that I agree with what he has chosen to put emphasis on. If for you LotR means something else, all the better I say. All I really take issue with are these statements that seem to be applying to all: "PJ did not capture LotR", "PJ has butchered Tolkien", "PJ has changed the meaning of LotR". By the very nature of art it is impossible for you to "prove" PJ didn't capture LotR. At the very most you can present your own opinions in a persuasive manner. I have not attempted to do anything more.

Parrot

11-07-2002, 12:08 AM

I am not part of some great "movie-defenders-union", who holds a carefully penned constitution.
WHAT?????????
Then please return your copy (we actually prefer the term “Bylaws attested with Blood and to be Defended to the Death or until We Intractably Paint ourselves into a Corner!”) and official FAD crest emblazoned sweater vest! It simply WILL NOT DO to have these floating around! BTW, you ARE still obligated to provide that yummy potato-salad to the Central Cabal’s monthly meeting. That "secret Berkeley herb" of yours just makes it! We are planning to have it with sacred-cow burgers, slow roasted over the “Burning Professor Tolkien in Effigy just for the Pure Dang Fun of it!” presentation! Good Times!

(Again, this is a (lame attempt at a) joke, no actual professors or sacred-cows, living, dead, or otherwise, were burned or butchered in the composition of this post.)

joxy

11-07-2002, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by Talimon
But the fact that FotR has got good press and reviews is not my opinion. It is a well established fact, one that I can back up. This doesn't refer to the quality of the movie, only how it has been perceived by "popular opinion" (make of that what you will).
As for the 100's of thousands, that was me being extremely conservative. considering that tens of millions have read Tolkien, and considering that at the very least half them though it was a "good" movie.

Once again, reviews say nothing about popular opinion; they say what the reviewers thought.
And twice again, neither you nor anyone else KNOWS how many people think it is a good movie.
That may sound pedantic, but it's a fact; the sort of fact that I seem to remember you using when you said that no-one has changed the books, which indeed was true.
You seem determined to stay in that corner and close the line of paint around yourself.

Mrs. Maggott

11-07-2002, 12:58 AM

Ultimately the point was this: LotR means different things to different people. PJ has made the movie with what he feels is important. It just so happens that I agree with what he has chosen to put emphasis on. <quote Talimon>

In order to put "emphasis on" something, it has to exist in the first place. One cannot put "emphasis on" something that is does NOT exist. And this is what Jackson has done and we must assume, continues to do.

He "emphasizes" a "warrior princess" Arwen (who doesn't exist); he "emphasizes" an Aragorn who has "chosen exile" and rejected his birthright (who also doesn't exist); he "emphasizes" a relationship between Aragorn and Eowyn (which doesn't exist) - and lest you think I am back to my "rant", I am leaving out the (possible) duel bit. However, the movie poster with the two fierce looking women on both sides of Aragorn who stands with his sword raised (and if THAT isn't symbolic of something other than war, I don't know what is!) is enough to let the audience know EXACTLY where the director is going!

On the other hand, I have no problem with Jackson's emphasis on Saruman rather than Sauron because Sauron is an "absentee" villain and a film NEEDS a visible contending force and not something seen only in flashes of special effects. I have no problem with Jackson's emphasis on battle scenes because the film NEEDS that excitement to keep the audience's attention. I can even excuse Jackson's emphasis on the comic aspect of Merry and Pippin though it clearly diminishes the characters.

But all of the second group mentioned EXISTED IN THE STORY! Mr. Jackson merely enlarged or changed their importance. HE DID NOT INVENT THEM as he did the first group. And because he saw fit to "improve" in such unnecessary and, frankly, inferior ways on the author's work, I believe that he did NOT remain faithful to either the meaning of LOTR or his word that he would try to do so.

Thorin

11-07-2002, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by Talimon
Surely you can't argue that everyone who loves the film loves it for the same reasons? Or all those who criticize it criticize it based on the same arguements? And what about those who just "like it", and are down the middle?

No, I cannot argue with someone who loves the movie. As a matter of fact, I respect that opinion. What I do argue is the reasoning of those who seem to think that every change PJ made was for a really good reason that actually added to Tolkien's LoTR, and try to make so many parallels to the actual story to justify these needless changes. I will admit, Talimon, that you haven't taken that stance like others before you, though I still believe you contradict yourself by your own arguments.

Originally posted by Talimon
Perhaps we have different for deffinitions the "spirit" of the tale. You may have not understood me correctly, but I associate the "spirit" of the tale as being the main themes of the tale.

Hmm..Maybe you should have said that to begin with. We could have taken all these arguments in another direction. I went over the top with my examples to show how the whole "spirit of Tolkien" was a fallible argument. You never corrected me in the least or clarified your position with this whole "main theme" argument. I would almost say you invented it just recently to make your past arguments make sense.

Originally posted by Talimon
All I have claimed is that PJ, being the story-teller, has the right (and in my opinion the obligation) to tell his story in the most entertaining and moving way possible, while retaining the meaning (spirit) of the tale. As Parrot notes, this does not mean he should change the tale top to bottom.

And IMO, this is the reason why you shouldn't be complaining about any changes, short of Arwen and Aragorn storming the gates of Mordor hand in hand. To me, it is more of a stretch of the imagination to tell the story of the flight at the ford and make so many substitutions and changes from the original, then to tell the tale of another race fighting orcs, though they don't belong there in the original...Where's the logic of the "fireside tale" now?

And I say again, define "main themes". Whether you want to call it "spirit of Tolkien" or "main themes", I still say that you can have a lot of changes and inventions that can occur. Once again, when do you say, enough? IMO, Mrs. Maggot has pointed out many instances where a main "theme" is altered. Her logical and sound reasoning has been met with scorn. What do you classify as a defilement of a main theme? To have Gandalf take the ring? To have Aragorn killed? Does it need to be extreme to not meet your standards of "too much"?

Originally posted by Talimon
That is a completely different arguement that you are presenting, and in my