To critics of PJ's "pick-ups" [Archive]

Talimon

07-24-2002, 11:39 AM

A few things worth noting:

-The fact that George Lucas employs the same filmmaking approach of going back to shoot new scenes after viewing the movie in the editing room. Not that everyone holds George Lucas in the highest standing, but I think that at least proves the fact that PJ isn't the only one who employs such devices. Also, contrary to what many have said, PJ's reasons for doing such aren't technical or out of necessity, but rather creative. I think many critics try to make him out to be this very shallow, Hollywood director. I haven't heard one quote from him (or about him) that leads me to believe he has any lack of creativity. Go view his previous films and tell me that is Hollywood material. Hardly.

-Helms deep is a four-day battle? I wonder whether this is Cinescape messing up or if the actual events were altered. I think it would be much less dramatic having the battle streched out to four days instead of it being overnight, and climaxing with the coming of dawn. I have a feeling that Cinescape got the 4-day number from some other place, like the amount of time it took to shoot the scene or something. Or maybe they got it mixed up with Pellenor Fields. I don't remember, but I think it might have been 4 days from the moment Faramir lef to Osgiliath to the moment Imrahil, Aragorn, and Eomer reach the gates of Mias Tirith.

ReadWryt

07-24-2002, 05:11 PM

I don't think that anybody was speaking badly about Lucas or Jackson for shooting extra footage. I also don't think that I've ever heard Lucas claim that he "had shot" multiple films at the same time and then told people that he was going back to shoot scenes that "...had yet to be written". The fact that they are NOT "...technical or out of necessity.." only shows that my previous complaints were justified because those are intrinsic to the definiation of "Pick-up" shooting and "creativity" has nothing to do with it. In fact you have just proven that my claims that he had NOT shot three movies at the same time in those 18 months is true, that he is NOT shooting "Pick-ups" but instead has invented yet more footage that was never part of the screenplay at the time principal shooting wrapped and that he has yet to admit to anyone that his claims were hollow. Lucas has never acted so foolishly, in fact he generally tends to keep his mouth shut about productions until they are done, or are darn close to it...

Darth Saruman

07-24-2002, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by ReadWryt
I don't think that anybody was speaking badly about Lucas or Jackson for shooting extra footage. I also don't think that I've ever heard Lucas claim that he "had shot" multiple films at the same time and then told people that he was going back to shoot scenes that "...had yet to be written". The fact that they are NOT "...technical or out of necessity.." only shows that my previous complaints were justified because those are intrinsic to the definiation of "Pick-up" shooting and "creativity" has nothing to do with it. In fact you have just proven that my claims that he had NOT shot three movies at the same time in those 18 months is true, that he is NOT shooting "Pick-ups" but instead has invented yet more footage that was never part of the screenplay at the time principal shooting wrapped and that he has yet to admit to anyone that his claims were hollow. Lucas has never acted so foolishly, in fact he generally tends to keep his mouth shut about productions until they are done, or are darn close to it... So Readwryt, do you have a personal vendetta against PJ, or what? There exist many people in the movie business, and everywhere else, who often embellish, or exaggerate, or even downright lie in order to get the job done. Hell, I know that I've done it. You probably have as well (and if you haven't, then you're free to correct me). It may not be completely honorable, but it is definitely human nature. Even if PJ did do something wrong, and I'm not saying he did, it's not like he went out and killed somebody. Except for a maybe few stuntmen ;), nobody has been seriously injured and what PJ has left us with is, at the very least, an entertaining movie. So my advice is to just let it go.

ReadWryt

07-24-2002, 08:57 PM

...well let me put it to you this way, I would be perfectly willing to bet my next year's income that whatever lies you and I have told to "get the job done" combined never landed on as many ears and eyes as this PR stroke Jackson and New Line distributed to every major media outlet on the planet. It's yet another in the long trail of "damage controll" statements that the guy has made to cover his formidable butt because of lies he's told to appease Tolkien Fans or New Line execs or whoever he may have felt were getting nervous about what he was doing, and the fact that the poster of that interview felt that Jackson's statement about Lucas somehow erased or justified the fact that the man lied in the first place, and that Jackson compared himself to Lucas in doing it, is nearly as repugnant to me as the fact that I can use the names Arwen and The Two Towers in the same sentence...

Parrot

07-25-2002, 01:08 AM

The fact that they are NOT "...technical or out of necessity.." only shows that my previous complaints were justified because those are intrinsic to the definiation of "Pick-up" shooting and "creativity" has nothing to do with it. In fact you have just proven that my claims that he had NOT shot three movies at the same time in those 18 months is true, that he is NOT shooting "Pick-ups" but instead has invented yet more footage that was never part of the screenplay at the time principal shooting wrapped and that he has yet to admit to anyone that his claims were hollow.

The idea of whether or not he shot three movies at once has devolved into petty semantics. I don’t think he has ever claimed to have all three “in the can” if I dare attempt some industry jargon. I feel confident that had he not had the majority of the footage complete at the release of FoTR, he would not have been throwing around release dates for the sequels at that time. If that is the case, he must have balls that make his “formidable butt” look petite.

Also, I’m sure that “in the industry” they don’t ever use “pick-up” as a generic catch-all phrase meaning any “further shooting” and any more liberalized application of the word should be interpreted as lying. Quick, somebody call the jargon police. Hopefully, next time Jackson will consult some buzzword wonks for the proper term, avoiding such a blatant and repugnant faux-pas. Yes, he’s obviously trying to mislead people about what he is really doing, that’s why he came right out and admitted “HEY, INTERNATIONAL MEDIA, OVER HERE! WE’RE SHOOTING NEW SCENES AND FILLING IN GAPS!” all the while trusting to the absolute literal interpretation of an obscure movie idiom to throw them off the real trail. Pretty SSSSSSSSSneaky!

Heck, around here when we do “pick-up shooting”…well… let’s just say somebody’s going home with a hole in his Ford.

ReadWryt

07-25-2002, 02:57 AM

Shion

07-25-2002, 04:01 AM

It's just another example of the double speak that this production has been wrought with, that's all. "This is the first time that anyone has shot three movies at once...", "...we will be shooting scenes that have yet to be written..". What is so hard to grasp in this, am I the only one who sees that these two phrases go together like Arwen and Galadriel in the same scene?

Fine. You're right. If any scenes in TTT or ROTK are scenes that were *not* filmed simultaneously with FOTR, then the "three movies shot at once" thing is technically wrong (or at least, 'not 100% right'). I acknowledge that you are correct in this regard.

But does that instantly make it "double speak" (and PJ a total liar)?

Do you think that *no* TTT/ROTK footage whatsoever was filmed during the big initial shoot, and that *all* TTT scenes are being filmed now? If you say so, then I will believe you, since you clearly have done your homework and been following these productions quite intensely. But based on the evidence that has been presented before me (notably a TTT trailer released *before* any of the cast supposedly returned to NZ), I believe that there was *at least* a very significant proportion of the film shot before FOTR's release.

In fact, I have no trouble believing that (a) PJ might not have even anticipated the 'need' to do some extra shooting, and/or (b) already had 'enough' footage to cut together a complete film, but decided *after FOTR* that he would like to improve the film by adding some more.

Now, either of the above possibilities might indicate that PJ perhaps 'didn't have things perfectly thought-out' when he was originally shooting, but that doesn't mean he was telling lies at the time he made the quotes. Simply because he has proven himself wrong by doing additional shooting doesn't mean he was hiding some evil plan to "claim to film all three at once, when really I'm going to film the other two later! Mwahaha."

Look, I respect your dedication to Tolkien, and respect the amount of time you have clearly invested in researching/analysing the production of these films. But I really just can't see where you're coming from with this on-going quest to belittle PJ simply because he didn't 'film all three at once.' I can understand why you'd be upset by being lied to (although fail to see what hardship these 'lies,' if that truly is what they are, could possibly result in for anyone), but really, what is there to prove that that is absolutely, unquestionably, deliberately and maliciously what PJ has been doing?

-Bon

Talimon

07-25-2002, 12:33 PM

It's yet another in the long trail of "damage controll" statements that the guy has made to cover his formidable butt because of lies he's told to appease Tolkien Fans or New Line execs or whoever he may have felt were getting nervous about what he was doing, and the fact that the poster of that interview felt that Jackson's statement about Lucas somehow erased or justified the fact that the man lied in the first place, and that Jackson compared himself to Lucas in doing it, is nearly as repugnant to me as the fact that I can use the names Arwen and The Two Towers in the same sentence...

You'd think we were talking about politicians in the Middle East or something. But that actually doesn't really matter, since you are missing the bigger picture. Why is it such a big deal in the first place that all 3 were shot at once? Because, should the first film have flopped, it would have undoubtedly been the downfall of New Line Cinema. The point here isn't so much that Jackson should be praised for having actually shot 3 movies at once, but the fact that New Line was willing to take the risk of doing so. Now that the first film has become extremely successful, the whole point of 3 movies at once is slightly trivial. Had the first film flopped, who knows if Jackson would even be allowed to do this "pick-up" shooting. Now that the success of the trilogy is secured, it is in everyones best interests that Jackson fine tune his film as well as well as he can. In fact, if it makes you feel any better from a purists stand-point, it might even mean Jackson is being given more liberties in regards to staying truer to books. Who knows.

Also, Jackson didn't say Lucas used the same tactic, the writer of the article did. I don't see it as justifying it, because I don't think it needs justifying. I was rather hoping that perhaps it would satisfy critics of his film-making process. Aparrently it hasn't, and for that I'm sorry.

ReadWryt

07-25-2002, 06:30 PM

I've never criticized HOW these films were shot. For all I care he could have shot them in reverse order over 6 years. My complaint has never been about how this movie is made...however it needs to be made should be the way it is made. I have mentioned from time to time that there are critics of the fact that Jackson shot the whole thing in New Zealand with money given him by New Line in the U.S., but that was not my opinion I was stating just the political fact. In fact, I have PRAISED Jackson for the amount of work he was getting done simultaneously while he WAS shooting for 18 months straight with units filming in multiple locations...*Shrug* My problem has never been the mechanics through which these films were being made.

Shion

07-27-2002, 03:28 AM

Then what HAS your problem with this additional shooting been? :confused:

-Bon

ReadWryt

07-27-2002, 05:05 PM

Then what HAS your problem with this additional shooting been?

I think I just said that I had NO problems with additional shooting...

Darth Saruman

07-28-2002, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by ReadWryt

I think I just said that I had NO problems with additional shooting... So then you have no problems with pickups?

ReadWryt

07-28-2002, 05:49 PM

How many different ways can I say this? I have NO problems with Jackson shooting "Pickups" or additional footage. I have nothing against him generating 25 more minutes of film to use to improve the movies...

Shion

07-29-2002, 03:34 AM

I think I just said that I had NO problems with additional shooting...

Okay, I'll re-phrase: one or two of your posts in this thread (and several others) suggest that you have SOME kind of problem with SOMETHING that PJ is doing... can you please try to explain exactly WHAT? Don't try saying that you've explained it clearly already, because you haven't... I, for one, am still baffled.

-Bon

Grond

08-02-2002, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by Shion

Okay, I'll re-phrase: one or two of your posts in this thread (and several others) suggest that you have SOME kind of problem with SOMETHING that PJ is doing... can you please try to explain exactly WHAT? Don't try saying that you've explained it clearly already, because you haven't... I, for one, am still baffled.

-Bon Let me save RW the trouble of responding. First, let me say that I loved the movie. I did so because I completely forced all of my "Tolkien thoughts" out of my brain and looked at the movie knowing that it would be PJ's very liberal interpretation of JRRT's The Lord of the Rings. Handling my own psyche this way enabled me to remain a loyal Tolkien fan and still enjoy the film.

Now to the problem. During the entire creative and filming process, PJ and all of his associates from crew to cast, have insisted that the movie remains "true to the book." They cite chapters in the books being read and reread before filming a scene. The tell how the felt the presence of JRRT on the set. To all this I say "Bunk!!!!" The movie I watched looked and smelled like The Fellowship of the Ring but..... it just didn't feel like The Fellowship of the Ring. PJ made some subtle changes and some drastic ones. Most of us loyal Tolkienites understood the necessity of abbreviating time as well as cutting out old Tom. Those were both forgiveable and expected; however, changing basic characterizations and plot is unacceptable. The added presence of Arwen, the Man-hating rantings of Elrond (who's is a Man's foster-father), the complete ommission of any real feel of Lorien, the way the attack on Weathertop was handled... well I could go on and on.

It is the insincerity of the Director of the films that makes me angry. Had PJ stated from the outset that he was making a VERY loose adaptation of the books and been up front with it, I would not be on his case. His constant inference that he has created the be all and end all of JRRT's greatest work is horse manure. It just ain't so.

Of course, I loved the first film... I'll buy the DVD next week and the Extended Cut in November. I'll love The Two Towers in December and buy both of those DVDs when they come out. I'll love The Return of the King in December 2003 and buy both of it's DVDs. And I'll respect and appreciate PJ as a good to great director in his efforts to get these films to the theatre but... what I won't do is like or respect the Director in his honesty of what this movie is really all about. It isn't about bringing Lord of the Rings to the box office. It is all about Peter Jackson bringing a shell of the Lord of the Rings to the box office.

Talimon

08-02-2002, 12:33 PM

It is the insincerity of the Director of the films that makes me angry. Had PJ stated from the outset that he was making a VERY loose adaptation of the books and been up front with it, I would not be on his case. His constant inference that he has created the be all and end all of JRRT's greatest work is horse manure. It just ain't so.

I am still waiting for the day that someone puts together all these quotes from PJ. They are reffered to infinitely and yet I have yet to see any of them. The most I've heard PJ say is that the farther along they go the closer to Tolkien they get. That doesn't say anything, since there is no way to tell how close to Tolkien they were to begin with. Also, it's all relative. What one person considers true to the book another person calls liberal. Indeed, have we not heard "legions of fans" saying how true the movie was to the book? I though Harry Potter was practically as true to the book as it could be, and you still find people saying it wasn't true. So you have to keep perspective.

I suppose you have to make your own decision as to what's important in a good adaptation. To me, what PJ is doing is incredibly fresh and exciting. He's playing it on the edge, surprising even the fans. I wouldn't be anticipating TTT nearly as much if I knew it would stay completely true to the books. Now some fans might dispise this adaptation process, but that doesn't make them more of Tolkien fans. Indeed, I would argue that those who truly respected Tolkiens work would realize that no adaptation can ever compete with it, and from the get-go keep an open mind. While I don't claim to be a "purist", I am keeping Tolkiens book out of the equation and seeing what PJ can do.

ReadWryt

08-02-2002, 05:47 PM

...my problem from the outset has been that P.J. and New Line Cinema had gone out of their way to get all the media milage they could out of this rediculous concept that Jackson was the "first person to shoot all three movies at once.." and that "...that has never been done before...", gathering all the kudos and accolades that went along with this media hype and completely ignoring the work of directors of such projects as "From the Earth to the Moon", "Roots" and the USA network production of "Dune", all of which REALLY were shot at once...but because they were shot for Television they get ignored even though they were FILMED with ACTORS on SETS with Special Effects and Musical Scores and in fact EVERY basic aspect of Movie Production having been used, just like LotR...

But then as if THIS isn't insulting enough he then felt the need to pat himself on the back for having been the first person to shoot all three movies at once, he goes on to admit that he is filming footage that had never been included in the original screenplay in the first place. It's not about improving the movies, I'm all for anything that an artist is doing to promote the completeness of their art and the ability for them to create something closer to what they envisioned it to be in the first place...it's about artists doing anything in their power to promote, not their art, but THEMSELVES for doing something that others have done as if they were exclusive in it and then having it turn out that not only were they mistaken about their exclusivity but they really hadn't shot all three movies at once to begin with...

Let the guy shoot all the pickups and new footage and filler and continuity repairs he wants, great...good stuff!

Parrot

08-02-2002, 07:16 PM

But then as if THIS isn't insulting enough, after reaching his flabby arm that vast distance around the formidable bulk of his body

And hey, speaking of “insulting”, what’s with the seemingly incessant references to the guy’s physical bearing? By what possible stretch does this have anything even remotely to do with anything? Heck, I’m going to go way out on limb here and say there might even be few overweight persons among the “respectful forum membership” who might take offense to these kinds of repeated statements. Seems to me old Orson was a little on the heavy side too but he still made some passable movies.

ReadWryt

08-02-2002, 07:43 PM

Ya know Parrot, when yer right yer right. It was uncalled for and totally out of line, and I'm sorry. I've altered the post above and will seek out the others and change them as well...

Parrot

08-02-2002, 08:00 PM

Wow! Thanks. I might even quit bugging you for a while.

Grond

08-02-2002, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by Talimon
I am still waiting for the day that someone puts together all these quotes from PJ. They are reffered to infinitely and yet I have yet to see any of them. The most I've heard PJ say is that the farther along they go the closer to Tolkien they get. That doesn't say anything, since there is no way to tell how close to Tolkien they were to begin with. Also, it's all relative. What one person considers true to the book another person calls liberal. Indeed, have we not heard "legions of fans" saying how true the movie was to the book? I though Harry Potter was practically as true to the book as it could be, and you still find people saying it wasn't true. So you have to keep perspective...You asked for it and you will get it. I will work up a list of quotes from PJ and other people close to the project over the weekend and post it here when I get it all together. For starters, you can look at the Movie Guide and look at some of the sections where it speaks of them reviewing the works to make sure they were in line with the "spirit of the author". (Quote may not be exact.) I will more than likely simply provide you with the links to the sites as I don't want you to think I'm simply making the things up.

Again, Talimon, I appreciate what PJ has given us; however, I fail to understand why he felt the need to change so many of the characterizations. That's just my opinion, yet we are all entitled to one. :)

Talimon

08-02-2002, 09:47 PM

I respect your opinion, and would be infinitely thankful if you could get one or two quotes from PJ. If you have the movie guide go ahead and quote from it, I'll trust your word. Just make sure you quote the whole statement and not selectively single out those sentences that prove your point.

And while you are at it, could you please list the quote from ver end of the book? The one where he talks about these being three movies rather then three adaptations? I've been looking for that one for a while.

Grond

08-02-2002, 10:02 PM

I will do as you ask. I will find my copy of the movie guide and read it again and post anything that relates to our discussion. There may be things in the movie guide that will support your position too and if they are there, I will post them too. :)

PRH

08-03-2002, 01:15 AM

I'd like to point out that it was McKellen who made a lot of statements about "staying true to Tolkien" and "reading the relevant passage right before filming a scene" and "ending arguments by pointing out something in the books and saying 'it's in Tolkien!'." I don't think it's fair to rail on PJ for stuff McKellen says, so bear that in mind.

That being said, PJ himself did make a good number of those types of "staying true to Tolkien" quotes himself, so you can certainly rail on him for those.

Shion

08-05-2002, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by Grond
It is the insincerity of the Director of the films that makes me angry. Had PJ stated from the outset that he was making a VERY loose adaptation of the books and been up front with it, I would not be on his case. His constant inference that he has created the be all and end all of JRRT's greatest work is horse manure. It just ain't so.

Originally posted by ReadWryt
It's not about improving the movies, I'm all for anything that an artist is doing to promote the completeness of their art and the ability for them to create something closer to what they envisioned it to be in the first place...it's about artists doing anything in their power to promote, not their art, but THEMSELVES for doing something that others have done as if they were exclusive in it and then having it turn out that not only were they mistaken about their exclusivity but they really hadn't shot all three movies at once to begin with...

Thanks for the clarification, guys. Even though I still don't relate/agree with you 100%, I now understand where you're coming from.

With that said, I will make a couple of responses to one or two statements in this thread.

As Talimon said, one person's idea of "faithful" might be quite different to the next person's- i.e, one person might look for faithfulness in the visual interpretation, whereas another might look for it in characterisations. The same would apply to Jackson- he may have honestly thought that he was being faithful to the parts of the story that he felt mattered. However, I completely agree that certain changes (e.g, Flight to the Ford) were just too different for Jackson to honestly call the film completely true to the books (if that is indeed what he said).

And sorry if I sound like I'm beating a dead horse here, but I still take issue with "they really hadn't shot all three movies at once to begin with." I can relate to ReadWryt's problem with the exclusivity claims, but to imply that shooting "pickups and new footage and filler and continuity repairs" renders the initial big shoot as "not [shooting] all three movies at once" is, in my opinion, a bit of a stretch when the shooting *did* include a substantial amount of TTT/ROTK footage. Sure, the three *complete* films were not shot at once- but the only way that I would deem PJ's statements as utter lies would be if he *knew*, when making those statements, that he would be doing additional shooting at a later date. (Disclaimer: Yes, you have made it perfectly clear that you have no problem with the additional shooting... what I'm talking about is your definition of what constitutes "filming three movies at once.")

Anyway, thanks again for the clarification.

-Bon

Elrohir

08-11-2002, 08:08 AM

On the DVD, the Sci-Fi special where Peter Jackson does many interviews about shooting. He talks about Tolkien and trying to keep the movie as close as he can to the book. He says something about the movie is gonna be three hours but if Tolkien did it, it would be 30 hours long.

ReadWryt

08-12-2002, 07:31 PM

And sorry if I sound like I'm beating a dead horse here, but I still take issue with "they really hadn't shot all three movies at once to begin with." I can relate to ReadWryt's problem with the exclusivity claims, but to imply that shooting "pickups and new footage and filler and continuity repairs" renders the initial big shoot as "not [shooting] all three movies at once" is, in my opinion, a bit of a stretch when the shooting *did* include a substantial amount of TTT/ROTK footage. Sure, the three *complete* films were not shot at once- but the only way that I would deem PJ's statements as utter lies would be if he *knew*, when making those statements, that he would be doing additional shooting at a later date. (Disclaimer: Yes, you have made it perfectly clear that you have no problem with the additional shooting... what I'm talking about is your definition of what constitutes "filming three movies at once.")

It's because when you shoot three movies at once you shoot from the finished screenplay...when you make it up as you go along according to the whims of the director and his reactions to audience response and so write new screenplay to shoot it's not "shooting all three at once" anymore...

Pelvidar

08-13-2002, 06:14 PM

ReadWryt: "It's because when you shoot three movies at once you shoot from the finished screenplay...when you make it up as you go along according to the whims of the director and his reactions to audience response and so write new screenplay to shoot it's not "shooting all three at once" anymore..."

Make it up as you go along? Isn't that a bit extreme?

No script is ever final. Not sure if you've ever shot films (I've only done a couple shorts myself), but my finished script was not what appeared in the film. I had the "finished screnplay" done, but then as I shot my scenes, certain things became evident that needed to be changed, and/or added.

There definately seems to be some word games going on here.

I'm sure he did shoot from a finished screenplay - that is, a screenplay from which he had everything accounted for that he wanted to 'at that time'. I'm sure as he shot all his material certain changes were made. I'm sure after FOTR aired he got new ideas on how to improve (or add to) the "already" shot pieces.

When you're filming a story you are constantly having new ideas. Peter's in the unique position that two of his three filmed pieces haven't aired yet, so the possibilty still remains to go back and add to, or modify certain things.

They shot three films at once. We know that to be true. They didn't "COMPLETE" three films at once (or have them 'in the cani as another postyer said). But having three movies in the can is entirely different then claiming to be making three movies at once, which is what they were doing.

I do think this is mostly semantics.

Grond

08-13-2002, 06:36 PM

Pelvidar, I am a Tolkien loyalist (I have decided against the term purist) and loved the film; however I was disappointed that PJ didn't remain true to the characterizations as written by the author. I understand the need to compress time for the sake of a clearer and more fluid plot line. I understand the necessity to omit certain sub-plots for time constaints (a la Tom Bombadil). I don't quite understand completely changing a character's role when it seems to serve no real, useful function. LotR, after all, was not a classic love story. It was supposed to be about the ascendancy of a race of heretofor non-entities of the world who took on a mission for the sake of the world, saving the world and elevating themselves in the process.

Do these changes reflect an attempt to change the basic premise of the story to make it fit into a more modern time or is it just a different vision that PJ has? I would appreciate him being honest about that, rather than portraying how the "Spirit of JRRT" lived on the set. I personally think the "Spirit of JRRT" is rolling in the grave from the changes made.

ReadWryt

08-13-2002, 06:55 PM

No script is ever final. Not sure if you've ever shot films (I've only done a couple shorts myself), but my finished script was not what appeared in the film. I had the "finished screnplay" done, but then as I shot my scenes, certain things became evident that needed to be changed, and/or added.

...this is reasonable, and was done extensively on the short film I was just in. It's part of the film making process. The only word games being played are those by the person claiming to "have shot" and who is actually "still shooting"...

Pelvidar

08-13-2002, 07:08 PM

Grond: "Pelvidar, I am a Tolkien loyalist (I have decided against the term purist) and loved the film; however I was disappointed that PJ didn't remain true to the characterizations as written by the author."

I can appreciate that. I read the books several years ago (and only recently read The Sil - great book). So when I watched the movie, it was more that I was reliving the spirit of the books, as I would not have had the clarity to remember the specific adjustemtns (and fully expected ommissions).

I sympathize with those who have a more intimate knowledge of the specifics in each book.

Grond: "I don't quite understand completely changing a character's role when it seems to serve no real, useful function."

I agree.

Grond: "Do these changes reflect an attempt to change the basic premise of the story to make it fit into a more modern time or is it just a different vision that PJ has? I would appreciate him being honest about that, rather than portraying how the "Spirit of JRRT" lived on the set. I personally think the "Spirit of JRRT" is rolling in the grave from the changes made."

Yeah, I don't want to enter the fray on that regard. I guess I'm more boggled over the concern that PJ defrauded us by saying that he was shooting 3 films at once (which he was).

As far as "being true"... well, I'm not sure we can call that a fraud either. He could sincerely have a very different feeling about what it means to "be true" to a large volume of work when compressing it to 3 hours.

I might not agree with his assessment that "the spirit of JRRT" was on the set... but I don't necessarily believe that he "didn't" believe that. He could have had a false sense of his own authenticity to the novel.

ReadWryt: "...this is reasonable, and was done extensively on the short film I was just in. It's part of the film making process. The only word games being played are those by the person claiming to "have shot" and who is actually "still shooting"..."

He did "shoot" the three movies at once. And now, having the benefit of more time to work on the latter two is going to "shoot" some more. I don't see how this contradicts the idea that 3 feature length films were shot simultaneously. Now, if he claimed he would "finish" shooting them all on the same date... that would be something different.

Grond

08-13-2002, 08:39 PM

Pelvidar, I appreciate your kind and honest response to my questions. It is further proof that people with differing opinions and viewpoints can both get along and respect one another. :);)

Pelvidar

08-13-2002, 10:44 PM

Here's to civil debate! :D

Cheers!

Talimon

08-13-2002, 11:22 PM

"Do these changes reflect an attempt to change the basic premise of the story to make it fit into a more modern time or is it just a different vision that PJ has? I would appreciate him being honest about that, rather than portraying how the "Spirit of JRRT" lived on the set. I personally think the "Spirit of JRRT" is rolling in the grave from the changes made."

Here's where I have to make some noise, although this is probably the wrong thread to do it in. But who's keeping score anyway.

Of the many things that get to me, this has to be the worst. I simply cannot see the justification behind saying that the changes made in the movie alter the core premise of the books. Are there changes to the plot? Yes. Are there changes to the charachters? Yes. Are the main themes from the book maintained? Yes. I have long ago stopped arguing that PJ stuck to the books %100. I have been convinced otherwise, indeed from my first viewing of the movie. However I cannot see how you can argue that the tale was altered so much that it isn't LotR, or that the main themes and general spirit aren't there. It's deffinitely not a 1:1 replica of the book, and there are even some rather large changes. But it is still undeniably LotR (at least so far).

Grond

08-14-2002, 12:39 AM

Talimon, you made some noise but didn't address a single issue in my post that you quoted. I did not say that the movie was unrecognizeable. I said that it is apparent that PJ has a different vision. By that, I meant that he felt there were flaws in the way the characters were written, else why change them? He apparently felt love would sell better to the consuming public than Tolkien's portrayal of a mere mortal Hobbit growing into something more.

Frodo has had absolutely no character development in the first film. He hasn't shown his inner strength that grew throughout the book The Fellowship of the Ring. It failed to show Frodo's inner strength that grew at the Ford of Bruinen... it failed to show how Frodo was torn over his decision to carry on alone at Amon Hen. It failed to show soooooo very much of what the book was about... a mere Hobbit undertaking a super-human quest on the behalf of his and all other races on Middle-earth. I absolutely stand by my statement that JRRT is rolling in his grave... not because PJ didn't capture the Essence of Middle-earth but because he failed to capture the Essence and Heart of the Story itself.

Talimon

08-14-2002, 01:07 AM

That's where we disagree, apparently. I feel he captured it, both in the theatrical cut and moreso in the Extended Cut (based on the scenes we've heard will be included there). Also, I need to disagree regarding Frodo on a rather large note, and this has been bugging me for some time. People make the claim that Frodo is this deep, complex charachter in FotR, and that PJ simplified him. Well, I've read over FotR dozens of times before and after seeing the movie, and I am still not convinced. Indeed, the only part of Frodo's nature that was simplified in my opinion was his knowledge of the elves of the greater world. Frodo was something of an academic, being schooled by Bilbo, and also "queer" by hobbit standards. That is to say he delved into matters that were very uncommon for Hobbits to delved into. That aspect wasn't touched at all in the movie. But if you really go in there and see what's left, Frodo is mostly withdrawn in FotR.

If you follow Frodo's charachter arc over the three books, you notice that he doesn't become stronger and stronger. Indeed, it's the exact opposite: he becomes weaker and weaker, more and more at the mercy of the ring. If anyone becomes stronger it's Sam.

I absolutely stand by my statement that JRRT is rolling in his grave... not because PJ didn't capture the Essence of Middle-earth but because he failed to capture the Essence and Heart of the Story itself.

I am still cursing my tongue off for not having kept that review of the movie by one of Tolkiens close friends. I can't tell you how many times it would prove useful. The one point the review made was this: Tolkien would completely disaprove of the movie because of the distortion of details and dialogue, but would appreciate the fact that it tells the essence of the tale to a new generation. You use the words "Essence and Heart", and if you could elaborate on those terms we can perhaps discuss more detailed events. As it stands I take it you are reffering to Frodo standing up to the Nazgul, and if by that single scene you claim the movie didn't have any "Essence and Heart", then I don't know what does.

Grond

08-14-2002, 01:18 AM

Talimon, you say you have read the books dozens of times... and I do not doubt your word... but our interpretations of the work must be totally different. I saw a young Hobbit burdened by the weight of the world (the Ring and all it represents) struggling physically, mentally, spiritually, intellectually.... to carry on a mission that he knew he must complete for the good of the Whole World. It is the story of this one Hobbit's rise to greatness. A position never dreamed before (or desired for that matter) by anyone of his race. He weakens physically as he gets closer to the land of Mordor.

Both the mental and physical burden overwhelm him as he enters the border of the Dark Land... but through it all Frodo's spirit grows... his determination grows. Even when he thinks he can no longer go on... he does... because the world is depending on him. Yes, he has a valiant and loyal servant who helps him. He has a friend who reminds him why he is doing what he is doing... but make no mistake about it... it is Frodo that is doing the deed... not Sam.

His failure at the end is the ultimate example of how "Total Power corrupts totally." But for the anti-hero Gollum, Frodo would have attempted to become the new Dark Lord and failed in doing so because of his inherent goodness. Sauron would have reclaimed the Ring and Middle-earth would have been lost.

If PJ is able to capture that in his movie... I will retract all my criticisms. I'm not holding my breath. :)

Talimon

08-14-2002, 04:39 PM

I'm not denying Frodo's greatness. I'm just pointing out that Frodo's charachter isn't as "deep" in FotR as people make it out to be.

Also, I'm afraid we have different interpretations of Frodo and Sam's relationship. In numerous spots in RotK Frodo mentions that it is all useless, that it doesn't matter. Indeed at the end he even stops walking and Sam is forced to carry him. I think it is no mistake that the book ends with Sam, not Frodo (both in the released ending and in the alternate ending where Sam talks to his children). As PJ noted recently, by the time RotK comes around we sympathize more with Sam then with Frodo. Frodo has already gone so mad we can't understand him any longer.

Maybe Frodo payed the price for carrying the ring so long, but I wouldn't call him your typical hero. I don't think PJ detracted that much from his charachter, at least so far. And wait for the Extended Version for some extra charachter scenes with Frodo and Sam. When all is said an done I don't think you'll be any more dissapointed then you are now. Things are only likely to get better.

Grond

08-14-2002, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Talimon
...Maybe Frodo payed the price for carrying the ring so long, but I wouldn't call him your typical hero. I don't think PJ detracted that much from his charachter, at least so far. And wait for the Extended Version for some extra charachter scenes with Frodo and Sam. When all is said an done I don't think you'll be any more dissapointed then you are now. Things are only likely to get better. And I agree with you on this point Tailmon. I think that in the extended version we will get more of what is missing in the theatrical version.