Why seeing Bakshi makes me love PJ

[Talimon]

I have just come back from seeing Bakshi's film, and I think I am about to puke. To be quite honest with you, I didn't actually finish it. I stopped before the end it was so bad. For some reason I remembered it having some nice scenes and animations. What the f**k was I thinking?

The only reason I'm even posting this is because I actually recall some people saying they liked it, dare I even say it, MORE then PJ's movie. Unless you have been burned, tortured, lynched, beheaded, and then sent to a witch doctor who puts you back together in reverse order, I cannot see how a sane human being can even compare the two. In fact, I cannot see how a sane human being can say they even liked the movie to begin with. I watch PJ's movie numerous times because I like it so much. I don't think I'm ever going to watch Bakshi's movie again, unless I happen to be in need of torturing someone. I always say this and never mean it, but you'd literally HAVE to pay me to watch this movie again.

But what is most interesting, from my point of view, is the script. I could actually write out for you the script of the FotR part of the movie, and it actually sounds much truer to the book then PJ's. In fact, just about every piece of dialogue is from the book, with a few minor alterations/additions. I think this drives the point home extremely well: Execution is everything. Seeing Bakshi's movie I am just amazed at how well-made PJ handled everything. I did notice that he stole some parts from Bakshi, but as they say the secret to originality is hiding your sources.

And I'd also like to note in particular how utterly worthless the scene at the ford is. It's almost word for word from the book, with Frodo defying the riders and everything, but it's just done so horribly that words cannot do it justice. And even though I think it's unfair to critique the visual style of the movie, there are some major inconsistencies. You thought those little bits in PJ's movie were errors? Ha. Check this out. Merry and Pippins hair color changes throughout the movie. Legolas has blond hair in one scene and black hair in another. Aragorn's clothes change within the same scene! Oh, and as if it matters at all at this point the sound and music is sickening. Thank god for PJ. Somehow all those claims about his movie being a good adaptation make so much more sense to me now. Look what has come before. Sorry, I have a headache now and need to go rest. Just thinking about it...

[Arvedui]

Thank you ever so much, Talimon, for putting the right spin on things. PJ's LOTR IS a great film, and Bakshi's is NOT! I remember when I first got hold of a copy of Bakshi's film. I was so worked up and looking forward to start my VCR. After the first few minutes, I actually couldn't believe my eyes. It's absolutely horrible.
But when I saw the Fellowship for the first time, I was absolutely stunned. I was nailed to the seat in the theater for the entire 3 hrs. I remember that afterwards my stomach-muscles hurt because of the tension that was present in the movie for the last 2 hrs 55 mins. And I know the book rather well, having read it at lest 15 times.
There was a few alterations that I of course reacted to, (what is Arwen doing there all the time, and where is Tom Bombadil) but if someone asks me if I liked the movie I have to say yes. Actually more than that. I loved it.

[Talimon]

Yeah, it's cheesy. I'll give you that. But I like my cheesy horror movies to be cheesy on purpose. Go see PJ's other movies to see what I mean. I'm thinking of 'Dead Alive' and 'Meet the Feebles' in particular. The fact that Bakshi actually attempts to make this serious and legitimate is what really makes it horrible. I admit that I was entertained by every scene that Gandalf was in, because he looked so helplessly stoned. But whenever I actually tried to get involved I was just slapped in the face.

For me it's the other way around, actually, regarding animation. The moment I see it's animated I watch the whole movie in a completely different light. I could never watch an animated LotR and see it as I see PJ's movie. I admit, some fantasy just couldn't be done in anything but animation. But LotR stays relatively close to our world, all things considered. With the exception of perhaps the Balrog and some magic you can theoretically imagine seeing all of these images. Take Rivendell, for instance. While I know that was all minatures and CGI, when I watch the movie I am completely immersed. Or most importantly the size difference. This goes uncredited so often. Do you realize that John Rhys-Davies (Gimili) was the tallest actor in the Fellowship? 6 ft tall. Yet he looks extremely convincing as a short charachter. These type of things DO trick me. Or, to put it in other words, I can watch the movie and not be distracted by them. That's what this type of movie is anyway: escapism. It's supposed to trick you.

[Darth Saruman]

I saw the Bakshi film once; long, long ago, in another age.

I have a hazy memory of it.

Actually, I saw it as a kid and I remember thinking that it wasn't all that bad, but kids don't really have good concepts of what makes up a decent film or a bad film.

And I do know, now, that it is a very bad film.

So, instead of giving myself an aneurysm, I'm going to just watch Jackson's version from now on.

[Talimon]

What is interesting is that in a recent interview, befor PJ's movie came out, Bakshi was saying how it is impossible to do any sort of justice to Tolkiens book, and his attempt was as good as anything anyone would ever do. Having seen PJ's FotR and the positive reaction surrounding it, I sent Bakshi an interview asking him what he thought. He said he hadn't even seen it!

[LadyGaladriel]

well I liked Bakshi . I thought it was entertaining. I have the video of it . I also have Pjs LOTR which I loved. I dont think you can really critisied it if you haven't tried it :)

[Talimon]

I've seen Bakshi's version at least 3 or 4 times. I was just saying that my most recent attempt at watching it resulted in me having to stop the movie before the end.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Confusticated
When we first see Frodo jump into the wagon with Gandalf he looks too big. There are other scenes where this happens as well. As Boromir carried Frodo from Moria the size looked fine though. It changes throughout the film....
But he movie looks real enough that any little mistake jumps out at me....
PJ's movie is much higher in quality so it will be held up to higher standards....
Thought I was the only one who had noticed that! Frodo looks too big against Gandalf at the start, all four look too small against the other five when the Fellowship is formed and again in the common room at the Prancing Pony against Butterbur and the other customers, and so on. It is like Alice in Wonderland changing size- curiouser and curiouser....
And that is so true, that the general high quality of the film makes the least mistake jump out, and the bigger ones hit you in the face!....
With the higher standards set for it, AND the vast amount of money spent on it, the film MUST be held up to high standards, and people shouldn't be so surprised when they see adverse criticisms of it....

[Talimon]

Regarding the money spent on it, while in the perfect world that would mean a good movie, in reality that isn't always the case.

Again, I maintain that these mistakes that "pop-out" for you are more due to your view on the book then it really is due to the movie. At some points in the movie it's very easy to think you are literally in the book. As such, it may seem a little harsh when the movie takes any liberty. Personally I get lost in the movie, which in my opinion is the only thing you should be getting lost in anyway (when watching a movie).

Regarding Conf's quote, even if that is true, it doesn't justify Bakshi's movie as being better. I really don't see the logic in saying "a horrible movie that is consistently horrible" is better then a "great movie that at times is just good". Perpaps, and I stress perhaps, one could argue that a movie that is consistently horrible is better then a movie that is half horrible half good. Personally I think this is absurd, but I can see the logic. Luckily for us, FotR is never horrible, only at the very worst "ok". To me the contrast between the great scenes and the good scenes isn't so monumental that I notice it. Sure, in retrospect everything is easier to criticize, but when you are lost in the movie nothing sticks out (at least for me :)).

[Talimon]

I think it just comes down one thing: as viewers we take PJ's movie more seriously than we take Bakshi's. That is why I can enjoy Bakshi's without getting ticked off about mistakes. PJ's movie is much higher in quality so it will be held up to higher standards.

I think that had I not read LOTR I would love PJ's movie and hardly like Bakshis...but now I will never for sure.

Well, according to your logic you can enjoy Bakshi's movie and not get ticked off by mistakes, but when you watch PJ's movie you do get ticked off. Then you say that you will never be sure about which one you like better (at least that's what I take that to mean). I take that to mean you enjoyed Bakshi's movie. More specifically, because it is consistent (nothing pops out). To me that doesn't make sense.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Confusticated
I am happy for you that you get lost in the movie and nothing jumps out as you as being wrong, but I can not say the same for myself.
That's how I see it too. The film has inconsistencies with ITSELF and therefore isn't (quite) as good as it could so easily have been; it is still one of the best films I have ever seen though!

[Talimon]

Is it not fair to say that even though you may have enjoyed your dinner meal more than your lunch, it was the dinner meal which threw you for a loop or ticked you off, while both meals warrant critism. Can you understand how the dinner meal may have dispointed in a way that lunch did not.

I understand what you are saying fully, I just want to drive home the point that the worst parts in PJ's movie are better then the best parts in Bakshi's. While that is not saying much, it must be noted nonetheless. As for expectations, keep in mind that PJ's movies essentially complement the book; they don't replace it. Bakshi's movie really tries to replace the book: it really doesn't offer anything new, visually or story-wise. Part of the reason I love PJ's movie so much is that it has literally enhanced my reading experience. Not every single aspect of the tale is enhanced, obviously, but for some charachters (Boromir in particular) it has really added color. That's jut my feeling on it, however, and I'm sure different people have different ideas as to what an adaptation should accomplish.

[lilhobo]

Originally posted by Talimon
As for expectations, keep in mind that PJ's movies essentially complement the book; they don't replace it. Bakshi's movie really tries to replace the book: it really doesn't offer anything new, visually or story-wise. Part of the reason I love PJ's movie so much is that it has literally enhanced my reading experience.

where do u come up with this ****, HarrrrrrTalimon :D

Bakshi's was a good first effort at bringing LOTR onto the screen, and it made no attempt at interpreting what the author tries to do; it just lifts text from the book.

PJ's effort is the one that tries to replace the text with new interpretation that aint there.

Copied from Bakshi:

1. the forest road morphing upon the arrival of the Nazgul
2. lone Nazgul and the tree trunk
3. Nazgul attack at bree


Bakshi perfection:

1. Characterisation of Frodo, Sam and Gollum: voice acting, expressions etc
2. Characterisation of Galadriel: her laughter in the face of adverity makes her so much more powerful, and her light English accent is perfect
3. Merry and Pippin dont make Bakshi a joke of a movie

[Talimon]

Give me a break...Sam & Frodo were well charachterized? Hell, I'll even be extremely forgiving and give you Frodo...but Sam?!?! I don't mean this in any sort of homophobic way, but what's up with him and Frodo snuggling up together when Aragorn is talking about Beren and Luthien? Or his high pitched voice? And Gollum was just very mediocre, especially his accent. He didn't sound anything like what Tolkien wanted him to sound like. The Rankin & Bass version of the Hobbit had a good version of Gollum, voice-wise. It was very similar to what Tolkien recorded himself (as is the version in PJ's movie, from what we've heard).

Galadriel, as with every woman shown in the Bakshi's version, is done horribly. I'd even argue that Bakshi was somewhat sexist in his portrayal of women. All the womens eyes are always crossed, and they look like zombies. Her scene at the mirror, couple with the horribly unfitting music, was leagues worse then PJ's, which I thought non too highly of.

As for Merry and Pippin, they are the only element that I think can really be compared with PJ's movie, quality-wise. They were done well, both from the voice-acting and script-wise. Of course, it doesn't help that thier hair color changes in every other scene (look in Moria, it's painfully obvious). And don't make me mention Treebeard, and how they clap thier hands while on his back... pukes


Copied from Bakshi:

1. the forest road morphing upon the arrival of the Nazgul
2. lone Nazgul and the tree trunk
3. Nazgul attack at bree

That's BS, since all of those scenes were first drawn by John Howe, especially the Nazgul and the tree trunk. The forest road didn't morph in the Bakshi verion at the arrival of the Nazgul. And even if there is some similarity, the fact that Bakshi's Nazgul sounds like a drunk hobo and moves like a limping goat erases any liability on PJ's part.

Save yourself from going too deep in to defending Bakshi's movie, especially when compared with PJ's. It's a lost cause.

[lilhobo]

cant be a lost cause when the Academy has already voted on the **** that PJ put out :)

Best director? nah... best script nah OUCH! Man, if you cant adapt a masterpiece, what good are ya!!!

Btw, Sam's voice acting is the best for a cartoon, and this is 1978, none of your homophobic paranoia can erase that!

PS. the elves were given a bit of slanty eyes, to go with their ears... so go have a cry lol

[Talimon]

Originally posted by lilhobo
cant be a lost cause when the Academy has already voted on the **** that PJ put out :)

Best director? nah... best script nah OUCH! Man, if you cant adapt a masterpiece, what good are ya!!!


I'm not sure what is worthier of pointing out: The fact that the Academy Awards are notorious for awarding movies and people that do not deserve thier awards (Gladiator, most recently), or the fact that what you are saying has nothing to do with the quality of Bakshi's movie.

Btw, Sam's voice acting is the best for a cartoon, and this is 1978, none of your homophobic paranoia can erase that!


What does the fact that it was 1978 have anything to do with this? Sam and Frodo snuggling up on each other smiling (while Aragorn is talking about a love story) doesn't fit the books or the movie. The bad part is that it's not even subtle. It's quite obvious that Bakshi is straight out saying Frodo and Sam are gay. I think it went a lot deeper then that in the book. I don't know, it has nothing to do with homophobia, it's just a shot that I feel is very out of place.

[lilhobo]

Originally posted by Talimon
What does the fact that it was 1978 have anything to do with this? Sam and Frodo snuggling up on each other smiling (while Aragorn is talking about a love story) doesn't fit the books or the movie. The bad part is that it's not even subtle. It's quite obvious that Bakshi is straight out saying Frodo and Sam are gay. I think it went a lot deeper then that in the book. I don't know, it has nothing to do with homophobia, it's just a shot that I feel is very out of place.

that kinda reminds me of the ole HARAD logic: "i aint homophobic, i just hate all gays" :D

[Talimon]

Originally posted by lilhobo
that kinda reminds me of the ole HARAD logic: "i aint homophobic, i just hate all gays" :D

My best friend is bisexusal, my close cousin whom I am very close to is gay, and I have numerous family friends who are gay as well. I don't even know why I have to prove this to you, since it seems you are just intent on comparing me to harad. I guess you didn't understand what my problem with that scene was, or maybe you just don't care. It has nothing to do with Frodo and Sam being gay per se, it's just that the way it is done is very forced. If Frodo and Sam are gay it is in the same way homosexuality was expressed in ancient Greece. It isn't so much a conscious thing like it is today, where you are either gay or not. I feel that they got as close to each other as anyone would were the social opression against being gay not present in our society. Tolkien shows them as being close and having a lot of love for each-other. Bakshi, without any level of subtelty, cuts to the conclusion that they are gay. That highly demeans thier relationship (not that it really matters, since the movie is so bad to begin with).

[lilhobo]

hey Talimon, it was a mutual realisation on the part of sam and frodo of the kind love sam had with rosie.

the simple things in life are often the best, talimon.

bakshi's sam was a respectful servant who was strong-willed and streetwise, PJ's sam is a blabbing idiot

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
What does the fact that it was 1978 have anything to do with this?
It's quite obvious that Bakshi is straight out saying Frodo and Sam are gay.
What it has to do with it is that attitudes in 1978 were very different.
A scene like that was NOT necessarily saying they were gay - people's minds didn't work that way then.

[Mrs. Maggott]

It is pointless to argue about the virtues of Bakshi vs. Jackson. However, what I found disappointing in the latter was that a great many of the changes Jackson made were unnecessary and many of the things he added did not, at least in my humble opinion, enhance the film.

Editing was certainly necessary; even Tolkien commented upon that. But to change the nature of the characters (Arwen, Aragorn, Merry, Pippin etc. etc.) and their actions without need indicates that the Director was more interested in bringing HIS vision of the work rather than Tolkien's to the screen.

I have commented upon many of these things in other posts and will not do so again, but although the film was quite enjoyable and I am looking forward to the next two, I do so with the realization that I am NOT seeing the story I have known and loved for so many years, but a "take-off", if you will, using the overall plot and many of the same characters. It's fun, but it's not what could have been - and that's too bad. :(

[Ariana Undomiel]

I have only seen their version of the Hobbit and I almost gagged. The animation made me think of the animated film The Last Unicorn. Uh-boy!

~Ariana

[Talimon]

Actually the Hobbit was done by someone else, the Rankin & Bass film company. Compared to Bakshi's movie it is actually very good, though. There were some parts in the hobbit movie I liked, which is more then I can say for Bakshi.

...the Director was more interested in bringing HIS vision of the work rather than Tolkien's to the screen.

That is quite true and I fully agree with it, other then the fact that there is a hint of disapointment there that I'm not so sure about. Any director who adapts a book is going to put thier touch on it, whether they want to or not. PJ has a very strong vision as to what these films should accomplish. They are more then just mere adaptations. He has greater things in mind, and if the first film is any sign he is going to accomplish them. He wants to make movies that will last as long as Tolkiens tale has lasted. It would be a mistake to assume that translating Tolkiens tale word for word would accomplish this. Indeed, chances are it would be the exact opposite, and his movies would be quickly forgotten.

I have commented upon many of these things in other posts and will not do so again, but although the film was quite enjoyable and I am looking forward to the next two, I do so with the realization that I am NOT seeing the story I have known and loved for so many years, but a "take-off", if you will, using the overall plot and many of the same characters. It's fun, but it's not what could have been - and that's too bad.

Before addressing this, let me ask you this question: When you say "it's not what it could have been", what are you comparing it to? Since it's obviously not any other fantasy movie I've ever heard of, I assume it's the book. Am I not right in assuming that you are comparing PJ's movie with your "movie", the one that goes on in your head when you are reading the book? Because if this is so then you might want to rethink your logic. I have nothing wrong with people not liking this movie. In fact, personally it makes me like the movie even more. But I think you need to have your arguements straight before critiquing it. Dig down and find out what you really don't like about the movie. You might discover that it is something quite different, or, god-forbid, maybe you might actually find you like the movie after all :).

What it has to do with it is that attitudes in 1978 were very different.
A scene like that was NOT necessarily saying they were gay - people's minds didn't work that way then.

First of all, I think that it is generally offending to generalize about "people's minds". I'm sure some people made the connection and others didn't. If you see the movie it is quite obvious, whether your mind "works" a certain way or not. Secondly, I don't see how that scene could be interpreted in too many different ways. You have two hobbits holding onto eachothers hands and looking eachother in the eyes smiling while Aragorn is talking about Beren and Luthien. As I said there is nothing very subtle about it (unlike the torture scene in Lawrence of Arabia, for example, where it's up for debate).

[Mrs. Maggott]

"...what are you comparing it to?"

No, not the "movie" in my head, but what Jackson COULD have done with just a few (or a few less?) adjustments. For instance: he COULD have taken a few minutes to address the friendship among the hobbits and had Merry and Pippin offer to accompany Frodo and Sam instead of making it into a mischance which occurs while the first two are raiding a farmer's field. It wouldn't have taken that much time and the characters would have been the better for it.

Then, the Council of Elrond COULD have been presented as it was in the book without the shouting and squabbling, the interracial rivalries and fingerpointing. When Frodo makes his offer in the book, he does it when all present are sitting in silence, pondering what will probably be a lost cause. In the film, his offer is made as an effort to stop the bickering (Okay, I'll take the d****d thing, so just shut up!).

Aragorn did NOT have to be presented as a man afraid of his own birthright who had abandoned his heritage. How did that "help" the story - or the character for that matter?

Then, the business with Arwen sneaking up on Aragorn was stupid, a cheap joke. She could not have done it for more reasons than I would care to go into here. Furthermore, unless she was too stupid to live, she would NOT have done it.

Then, although Arwen was the lighter rider, I cannot believe that she was the better rider. However, even if she were, no man worth his salt would have allowed the woman he loved (or ANY woman, for that matter) to place her body between the Nazgul and the Bearer. To do so would have been a cowardly act of the first water. If I had been Elrond and learned of that little episode, my prospective son-in-law would have found himself on the outskirts of Bree wearing only tar and feathers!

And there are other places in the film where Jackson chose, for whatever reason, to change the MEANING of things that he could easily have presented within the limitations of his medium in their original context.

I understand that film cannot mirror literature. At best, it can only capture the vision of the story. Things must be left out, certain characters combined in order to make the medium work. But Jackson chose to "change" things that affected the very heart of the work - his presentation of Aragorn being one of them. I cannot imagine that he HAD to do all of these things simply because of the medium in which he was working. Frankly, it's not enough to make it LOOK like the story. If the people aren't the same, then it isn't the story.

[Talimon]

Well, I see one of us is up in the clouds. Maybe it's me, but if that's the case I'm proud to inform you that I'm not the only one.

I think I've reached the limit of the number of ways I can say this... this movie is not the book. It doesn't try to be, and thus can't fail to be. You are judging it by the wrong scale. Look, if you can't see it as LotR, then just judge it completely removed from the book. But I think it should be within peoples capabilities to watch an adaptation of thier book and accept changes. Yes, there are changes, every adaptations has them, and if you were expecting anything else I am afraid you were naive.

What makes PJ's movie so good is that the changes make sense, and in some cases are highly symbolic. Having Arwen sacrifice the road in Aragorn's place is foreshadowing the greater sacrifice (her immortality) that she will ultimately make. Also, remember that Arwen was from greater lineage then Aragorn. The book states this. It is quite possible she could sneak up on Aragorn. But even if it wasn't, it showed they already knew eachother.

What Jackson could have done is completely speculative. Indeed, I'd argue that were he to make some of those changes (such as extending the council) he would start excluding people on other end of the scale. Note that many reviewers of the movie who weren't aquainted with Tolkien called the movie "slavish" to the book, even as it was. PJ walked the fine line between pleasing those who already knew the tale, and telling the tale to those who had no clue about it. I think his accomplishments in doing this are highly impressive.

In the film, his offer is made as an effort to stop the bickering

Actually, the reason he takes it in the film is the exact same reason he takes it in the book. If you read the book you find that he was driven by some greater power. In the movie, it is quite obvious he is struggling with the ring, his fate already attached to it. Indeed, the look on all of the councils faces when they hear him accept it is the exact same look they had in the book: surprise that this little hobbit would accept it, and admiration at his courage to do what they could not.

Aragorn did NOT have to be presented as a man afraid of his own birthright who had abandoned his heritage. How did that "help" the story - or the character for that matter?

In the book Aragorn is insecure about his fate in many places. Indeed, even when he enters Minas Tirith he still tries to hide his identity for a while. He knew what he was and what he had to do, but he wasn't fully secure about it. Having him confess his fears to Arwen was the only way we (the audience) could see his doubts. It made him more human, which was necessary for the development of his charachter. Aragorn wasn't some brick action hero. He had depth, and PJ captured that, both here and elsewhere. PJ's choice in Moria, of having him be the last one to leave, and Viggo's look as he hears Boromir calling him, is priceless. He becomes the natural leader, but you can see that he is doing what he is doing only because he must.

All the main themes from the book were kept. The ring, it's power to decieve, Frodo and Sam's friendship, Good vs. Evil, Sarumans treachery, the Elves deminishing... I could go on, but the point is so much is there. The charachters, if not carbon replicas, are certainly similar enough, and most importantly human. The actors are the charachters. They change them occasionaly, perhaps, but that's a small price for having such stellar performances. All too often we see adaptations where the actors are copying the written charachter. Indeed, that is what separates good actors from great ones: the former act the charachter, the latter become the charachter.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Talimon
What makes PJ's movie so good is that the changes make sense, and in some cases are highly symbolic. Having Arwen sacrifice the road in Aragorn's place is foreshadowing the greater sacrifice (her immortality) that she will ultimately make.

I think PJ could have done this in other fabricated ways that wouldn't have destroyed the story and the actions of other characters. At what point do you say, "That was over the top".

Having the Elves fight at Helm's Deep also makes sense. It shows the turmoil of the elves to depart and leave ME, and yet defend their home that they have walked for millenia from an ancient enemy they've been fighting longer than any human alive on ME. Yet you protest the fighting of elves at Helm's Deep....Elves being at Helm's Deep does nothing to distort the story except to contradict Legolas' words. Arwen contradicts much....Where's the sense of your logic?

Originally posted by Talimon
In the book Aragorn is insecure about his fate in many places. Indeed, even when he enters Minas Tirith he still tries to hide his identity for a while. He knew what he was and what he had to do, but he wasn't fully secure about it.

I didn't see it that way. Aragorn didn't want to make his presence known in Minas Tirith because of respect for tradition. He would have been slapping Denethor in the face by waltzing in there and taking over. He was not yet king and the timing wasn't right. Aragorn had his mind made up in Rivendell of what he was going to do and Tolkien showed his confidence in that many times, much more than his doubts. Are you telling me that he would come all the way to Minas Tirith and then have insecure doubts? That's not the Aragorn of Tolkien.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I have nothing at all against Jackson making the characters more "human" if you will, than they appeared in the book. In fact, I for one enjoyed seeing the character of Aragorn (my favorite in the book) getting thrown about by trolls and generally mussed up. It wasn't possible that he could do all that he did without getting at least a little banged up!

However, having said that, let me tell you of one scene in the book that sticks in my mind and sums up my problem with Mr. Jackson's interpretation of Aragorn at least. That is when Gandalf and Elrond are speaking about (I assume) the return of the line of Elendil. Elrond looks down at Aragorn (who, if I remember correctly is seated) with a look of bearly disguised contempt on his face and says something to the effect that "he" (he doesn't even call Aragorn by name!) has "chosen another way", meaning that Aragorn has rejected his birthright. Well, come on! Aragorn NEVER rejects his birthright. To begin with, since he cannot marry Arwen unless he is King of both kingdoms, such a rejection would be unthinkable!

Jackson then goes on to say - through the character of Boromir - that Gondor doesn't NEED a King; that Gondor doesn't WANT a King! Really? And where, pray tell, does Mr. Jackson get that particular "insight" into the story? True, Boromir is not too thrilled with what he sees in Aragorn, but at no time does he EVER reject the line of Elendil.

As far as Arwen being able to sneak up on him, I don't care HOW great her lineage is. Your ancestors do not make you great and they don't give you the ability to be superhuman. Aragorn is a doughty guerilla warrior over 70 years old! If he were that oblivious, he wouldn't have reached half that age! There's no way in, well, blue blazes, she is going to be able to do that, especially given that the Nazgul are still lurking about somewhere and he would be on an even greater level of watchfullness.

Furthermore, she would have to be an irresponsible air-head to even think of trying something like that. For heaven's sake, this is a critical moment when all could be lost in your world! What sort of a ding-a-ling would go sneaking about trying to "put one over" on the boyfriend? Is this an example of her vaunted "lineage"? Frankly, the whole incident smacked of a cheap gag.

And as far as him allowing her to take Frodo and face the Nine, well, if he had done that, I certainly would have lost all respect for him. It would have shown the deepest-dyed cowardice since one must remember that we are dealing here with what supposedly is an age of chivalry where no man of honor would allow any lady (never mind the love of his life) to become endangered if he could in any way help it. But, no, in Mr. Jackson's world, he meekly hands her the horse, the Bearer and the Ring and bids her "good luck". Oh, no, no, no....

Furthermore, I disagree with your take on Aragorn's acceptance of his birthright. He NEVER denied it, but he kept it hidden because he knew if Sauron had ever discovered that the line of Elendil still existed, he would have launched all out war in Middle Earth to discover and destroy it. This was also known by Elrond and Gandalf since they kept the line hidden in the North until it was finally revealed to Sauron when Aragorn used the palantir. As it was, the Dark Lord's reaction to the knowledge of Aragorn's existence was so quick and so vicious, that he only barely had time to counter it. However, he declared himself whenever he felt that it was necessary - in Rohan, on the Paths of the Dead, etc.

I did not expect the book. I did not mind Arwen's increased role. As I mentioned, I got a kick out of seeing Aragorn being more of a human being than a stained glass figure. But I did hope that Jackson would have a little more respect for the character than the above demonstrates. Hopefully, in the next film, he and I will get closer in our respective viewpoints. If not, I will still watch - and enjoy. :p

[Talimon]

Having the Elves fight at Helm's Deep also makes sense. It shows the turmoil of the elves to depart and leave ME, and yet defend their home that they have walked for millenia from an ancient enemy they've been fighting longer than any human alive on ME. Yet you protest the fighting of elves at Helm's Deep....Elves being at Helm's Deep does nothing to distort the story except to contradict Legolas' words. Arwen contradicts much....Where's the sense of your logic?

The Elves at Helm's Deep directly contradict the fact that this is the war of Men. It contradicts the fact that the Elves had deminished and are leaving Middle Earth. It's not in charachter for the Elves to send forth troops to fight, within the context of the movie. We learned of the elves weakening state in the first movie. It would be unfitting to have them march to war. Arwen, on the other hand, was never fleshed out in the book, and as such PJ has much more leeway before he directly "contradicts" anything. Within the context of the movie, nothing PJ has done has contradicted itself.

Are you telling me that he would come all the way to Minas Tirith and then have insecure doubts? That's not the Aragorn of Tolkien.

Insecure about his destiny, if you rather. He knew who he was and what he had to do, but the road wasn't always laid bare. You can see instances of this in the book. After the Fellowship is broken. After Gandalf falls. Before the Paths of the Dead.

Also, as I've stated elsewhere, since we don't have as much time to develop each charachters history in the movie, PJ must change things to make them more believeable. It is hard to relate to a charachter who has no doubts and is fearless. Yet for some reason I could relate to Aragorn, and I think this is why: his more human aspects.

That is when Gandalf and Elrond are speaking about (I assume) the return of the line of Elendil. Elrond looks down at Aragorn (who, if I remember correctly is seated) with a look of bearly disguised contempt on his face and says something to the effect that "he" (he doesn't even call Aragorn by name!) has "chosen another way", meaning that Aragorn has rejected his birthright.

Elrond never says a single word in the entire movie to Aragorns face, so I assume you just fabricated that in you mind. Not to take cheap shots at your credibility, but I hope your memory of the movie is pretty clear with such fierce arguements. That scene was very well done, though, so go rent the DVD if you want to see it again. He doesn't name Aragorn to keep things mysterious for the audience. In the next scene we find out it is indeed Aragorn they are talking about.

To begin with, since he cannot marry Arwen unless he is King of both kingdoms, such a rejection would be unthinkable!

I might have missed this, but why can't he merry Arwen if he is not King of both Kingdoms? The way I understood it, by marrying Arwen he ended up restoring the tie between Men and Elves. I'm not well versed in the background, though, so if you have a quote or some sources to back that up I'd be very grateful. But in either case that is not mentioned in the movie, which makes it obsolete. Remember, if the movie chooses to ignore something, then it doesn't exist. The movie is it's own world. There is no tie between what happened in the book and what happens in the movie, other then by comparison.

Jackson then goes on to say - through the character of Boromir - that Gondor doesn't NEED a King; that Gondor doesn't WANT a King! Really? And where, pray tell, does Mr. Jackson get that particular "insight" into the story? True, Boromir is not too thrilled with what he sees in Aragorn, but at no time does he EVER reject the line of Elendil.


Actually, this isn't quite true. Boromir, as mentioned by Faramir and even Gandalf, was a man of war, and one who had a deep love and respect for his father. His father, before his death, directly rejects the line of Elendi:

'But I say to thee, Gandalf Mithrandir, I will not be thy tool! I am Steward of the house of Anarion. I will not step down to be the dotard chamberlain of an upstart. Even were his claim proved to me, still he comes but of the line of Isildur. I will not bow to such a one, last of a ragged house long bereft of lordship and dignity.'

Taking this into account, and the fact that Boromir never expressed too great a friendship with Aragorn (indeed they argue at the very end as to which way to go), that line makes perfect sense with the book. But that is, again, irrelevant, since the movie sets it's own terms. The only rules it must abide by are the ones it sets. You can argue that it contradicts itself, but not that it contradicts the book.

Hopefully, in the next film, he and I will get closer in our respective viewpoints. If not, I will still watch - and enjoy.

The irony of the purists... They will write passionate critiques of PJ's movie, scrutinizing every last detail, and end thier arguement by saying they enjoyed the movie. Brilliance! ;)

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Talimon
The Elves at Helm's Deep directly contradict the fact that this is the war of Men. It contradicts the fact that the Elves had deminished and are leaving Middle Earth. It's not in charachter for the Elves to send forth troops to fight, within the context of the movie. We learned of the elves weakening state in the first movie. It would be unfitting to have them march to war. Arwen, on the other hand, was never fleshed out in the book, and as such PJ has much more leeway before he directly "contradicts" anything. Within the context of the movie, nothing PJ has done has contradicted itself.

Where exactly in the movie is the fact that this is a "war of men" emphasised? I think your take on this area is influenced more by the book then anything else...Hence, according to you, you are contradicting yourself when you say that you must compare the movie to itself, not the book (which I don't agree with, firstly). I believe that PJ took a little TOO much leeway in "fleshing" out Arwen's character. Once again, the film defenders must stretch the limits of logic and reasonability to justify such a drastic alteration...And as far as the elves being at Helm's Deep is concerned, I don't think it is a fleet of thousands from Mirkwood. PJ decided to axe the Rangers to have the Elves bring Aragorn his sword, so I'm sure they are the ones that are fighting....

Sounds like the "director's interpretation" and "spirit of Tolkien" that you so espouse and support....What's the big deal? Elves fighting orcs is much more in the "spirit of Tolkien" than an elven princess who normally stays at home, wielding a sword against nine Nazgul....All these justifiable arguments that the FAD's are spouting to support PJ seem to be coming back to bite them in the butt, because the logic is breaking down.

Originally posted by Talimon
The irony of the purists... They will write passionate critiques of PJ's movie, scrutinizing every last detail, and end thier arguement by saying they enjoyed the movie. Brilliance! ;)

Don't classify me in that category. I still think PJ did a GOOD movie, but a mediocre adaptation....Hopefully TTT will be better.

[Talimon]

Don't classify me in that category.

I never mentioned names. :)

Even if we exclude all the info in the trailers that talk about Saruman's armies marching forth to "destroy the world of men", we can still see in FotR sings of this. Elrond tells Gandalf:

The time of the Elves is over,
My people are leaving these shores...

This evil cannot be concealed by the power of the Elves. We do not have the strength fight both Isengard and Mordor...

This, added with Galadriel talking about the Elves deminishing, and the scene in the Extended Edition that will show elves marching through the shire to the havens, gives the general impression that the elves are a fading race. It doesn't make any sense to have them come marching to Helm's Deep. It also doesn't match PJ's vision. Of course I'm assuming it does, but we just don't know the details yet. Once it is released we'll get a better picture, no doubt.

Arwen made sense. She doesn't contradict anything, she adds to the scene.

[Mrs. Maggott]

"I might have missed this, but why can't he marry Arwen if he is not King of both Kingdoms?"

Good heavens! Why do you think that after so many years, he has never married and bedded the girl? Elrond's caveat in allowing the betrothal at all is that Aragorn must be king of BOTH kingdoms before any marriage takes place. Thus, Aragorn could NEVER have rejected his heritage; it would be, as noted, "unthinkable". (There is a further consequence of this, but as it does not obtain in this thread, I will not pursue it now. However, if you are interested, let me know and I will develop it either here or on another more appropriate thread.)

As for Boromir's "rejection" of a king on the part of Gondor, this is Mr. Jackson's invention. By the time Denethor rejects the line of Elendil, his mind has already been overthrown by the Dark Lord through the palantir. He NEVER voiced such sentiments to his sons in better times. In fact, when Boromir asks his father how long must their line remain Stewards before they can be considered Kings, Denethor tells him that in lesser lands, that might be possible but in Gondor, only an heir of Elendil can assume the throne.

Denethor (when he was normal) had NOT rejected the line - at least in the abstract. Now, perhaps he might have had a problem when the "crunch" came as he would not have easily relinquished power not only because he enjoyed wielding it, but because he believed himself the only person able to rule. The fact that he was not desirous of even Gandalf's advice indicates that Denethor had total confidence in his own abilities and was loath to accept any other's.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
You can argue that it contradicts itself, but not that it contradicts the book.
The irony of the purists... They will write passionate critiques of PJ's movie, scrutinizing every last detail, and end their arguement by saying they enjoyed the movie. Brilliance!
It DOES contradict itself - for example the Aragorn it sets up could no more have been taken by surprise by Arwen than the Tolkien Aragorn could.
We do ALSO argue that it "contradicts" the book - occasionally. It didn't need to, and most of the time it doesn't.
I don't accept "purist", but whatever we are, there's absolutely nothing wrong, or ironic, about enjoying a film that we know could have been even better. I can't imagine any film being perfect; it's just that we had higher hopes, based on advance publicity, that this would be that bit better.

[Mrs. Maggott]

My problem with those who defend the movie against the "purists" is that they attempt to show that Jackson's changes are, firstly, NOT inconsistent with the book and, secondly, even if they ARE inconsistent, it doesn't matter because he HAD to make them. These arguments themselves are inconsistent.

Firstly, the changes Jackson made were by their nature inconsistent with the book - or they wouldn't be "changes". Of course, EVERYONE, purists included, understand that changes had to be made. As we have been told often enough, films are not books and vice versa.

But what "purists" have said in effect is that many of the changes Jackson made [1] didn't have to be made and/or [2] they seriously changed the MEANING of the story. I must agree with both of these contentions. The changes Jackson made out of necessity are understandable but there was no reason for him to make Merry and Pippin into comic relief (at least in the first film) or to make Aragorn a man of much diminished character - insecure, almost timid and capable of sending his beloved - AND the Ring - into incalculable danger. Those are MY most "problematic" changes; I'm sure others have their own bette noirs, so to speak.

However (again!), having said that, I admit to liking the film and looking forward with anticipation to the next two. I find this easy to do because I have determined that I intend to enjoy a corking good story with all kinds of cinematic fireworks (minus the zooming about unless it's at eye level!) without concern since Tolkien's work has stood on its own for decades and will do so for many more into the future. Mr. Jackson could no more "ruin" it than it could have "made" it. However (yet, again!), it is too bad (in my opinion) that the Director didn't exercise just a little bit more "purism" himself. :)

[Talimon]

for example the Aragorn it sets up could no more have been taken by surprise by Arwen than the Tolkien Aragorn could.

How would you know that? Indeed, how would you know the Arwen it sets up couldn't sneak up on him? Like I've said, the movie is it's own separate world with it's own separate history. While of course it mirrors Tolkiens very closely, very often, it doesn't assume any sort of knowledge on the viewers part. All you really know is what it tells you.

I don't accept "purist", but whatever we are, there's absolutely nothing wrong, or ironic, about enjoying a film that we know could have been even better. I can't imagine any film being perfect; it's just that we had higher hopes, based on advance publicity, that this would be that bit better.

First and foremost, I don't consider you to be quite a "purist", at least not in the traditional sense. Secondly, any hopes/expectations are really your own problem, not the movies. It can't be expected to take your expectations into account, let alone those of a million other Tolkien fans.

Mrs. Maggott

While again I'd like to see sources (or at least a reference with a page number), I need to mention that this is slightly trivial, from the movies point of view. To reiterate what I just wrote above, when it comes to details the movie sets it's own rules. Indeed, as you have said quite well yourself, this is PJ's movie, not Tolkiens. I can easily cite quotes from PJ making this very claim. Now, given that this is his movie, and given that he is in full creative control, one has to appreciate that not only has he made a good movie, but also on many, many fronts an accurate one. To simply judge it by it's accuracy alone is ignoring at least half the picture. I'd argue that when it came to priorities accuracy to the book was maybe 30%, and making a good movie was 70%. Whether you agree with PJ as to what a "good movie" is, is quite another matter. But I think any sane individual will agree with me that FotR is the best fantasy movie ever made.

[Mrs. Maggott]

"While again I'd like to see sources (or at least a reference with a page number)"

I'm sorry, are we talking about Elrond's insistence that Aragorn be king of both Arnor and Gondor - or something else?

I don't have my books (they are buried somewhere in boxes until I am well enough to get them all out), but if it is the betrothal thing, you can find it in the appendix in the story of Arwen and Aragorn.

The problem with this demand by Elrond is that both he and Aragorn knew that as long as Sauron remained a power in the land, the line of Elendil COULD NOT be revealed without plunging all of Middle Earth into all out bloody war. Otherwise, Aragorn could have put forth his claim to the throne at the time of the defeat of the Corsairs when, as his alter-ego Thorongil, he led the forces of Gondor and the southern kingdoms to victory against Umbar. At that time, Denethor's father, Ecthelion, was Steward and we are told that he loved his mysterious counselor. With the defeat of the Corsairs, Aragorn could have made his lineage known and I don't doubt his revelation would, under the circumstances, been well received. Why then didn't he? The only understandable answer is Sauron. And this was also known by Elrond who kept the line hidden in the North for just that reason.

I hope this has answered your question regarding references. :)

[lilhobo]

"Your love of the halflings' leaves has clearly clouded ya mind, Talimon " hehehehe :D hope chritopher lee gets an oscar for the mext movie

thats a change everyone can live with, dontya agree?? :D

Changing Frodo into a bumbling fumbling idiot ISN'T consistent with either the movie or the book. How is this wuz of a hobbit to carry out such a great task, if his first instinct is to cower like a lost child?

is this PJ's attempt at foreshadowing whats to come??

I didnt mind the Arwen change (sorry Ms Maggott, but me a product of the feminist movement :D ), i mean no male would wanna miss a catfight between Arwen and Eowyn in the next film for chirst sakes lol :D

Noone said it was a bad movie, visually it was stunning, and money can do it these days with CGI. But when it comes to story-telling it sucked! Just to compare to Lawrence of Arabia, (your fav movie i take it other than PJ's attempt), was there a feeling of being rushed from scene to scene??
and it covered more locations than did LOTR

The Movie is good talimon, no one said otherwise, but it could have been Great because the material from which it came is GREAT. Thats the problem, it wasnt accountable enough to the book. and its just not accountable to itself for much of the time.

[Mrs. Maggott]

"I didnt mind the Arwen change (sorry Ms Maggott, but me a product of the feminist movement" (quote)

Contrary to popular opinion, I didn't mind Arwen's "role" being increased as a means of garnering audience interest in the couple, but it's a poor man - OR woman - who attempts to increase him or herself by diminishing another, especially someone with whom that person is ostensibly "in love".

Arwen's foolish sneaking about after Weathertop certainly doesn't "increase" her stature, rather, it makes her into an "air-headed" "Rivendell-valley girl" trying to put one over on the boyfriend. The problem, of course, is that unless she was in fact that brainless she WOULDN'T have done it and unless he was equally brain-dead, she COULDN'T have done it. The entire scene is a straight out cheap sight gag and no one can tell me differently!

And as for Aragorn just "giving in" when she demands to take the Bearer and go head-to-head with the Wraiths, well, Tolkien AND his story were pre-"women's lib" (thank God!:rolleyes:) and TOLKIEN's hero would simply NOT have permitted it (even if he had to deck her - which I was rather sorry to see that he did not!). Aragorn's lack of masculinity at least in the scenes to date with Arwen make me absolute PRAY that he gets his, er, ah.....(oh, you know) back in TTT. Otherwise, Mr. Jackson may accomplish what I NEVER though would happen - ruin a film for me that not only had LOTR as a plot, but had Viggo Mortensen as my favorite character therein! :( :mad: :confused: :rolleyes: AHHHHHHH!!!!!

[lilhobo]

Aragorn, son of Arathorn losing his mojo too??:( :( :(

[Talimon]

My problem with those who defend the movie against the "purists" is that they attempt to show that Jackson's changes are, firstly, NOT inconsistent with the book and, secondly, even if they ARE inconsistent, it doesn't matter because he HAD to make them. These arguments themselves are inconsistent.

Sorry, my reply right below that was written before your post was posted (but posted after), so I wasn't reffering to it.

I never claim that PJ's changes are not inconsistent with the book. They are, both the good and the bad. What I claim is that the general "feel" and "spirit" of PJ's work is very consistent with Tolkiens "feel" and "spirit". That doesn't mean each charachter functions the same way, or has the same priorities, but it can deffinitely be the same world. For me, I can be quite happy seeing PJ's movie as Middle-earth. To me his movie and the book, while quite different, share something that words will ussually fail at describing. For those who can't accept his movie as LotR, however, I merely suggest completely disconnecting it with the book, and judging it on it's own terms. Because I still feel it is a great movie, and will be remembered as long as Star Wars (at least). And to Tolkiens credit, I'd argue that the reason it will be remembered as long as Star Wars (if not longer) is because of Tolkiens tale and themes. And I believe it's to PJ's credit that he captured those themes. I suppose we may disagree to a certain extent as to what those themes are, but you have to admit that at the very least he capture the important ones.

[1] didn't have to be made and/or [2] they seriously changed the MEANING of the story.

"didn't have to be made" is quite interesting. I hope for your own sake you aren't under the impression that every change PJ made was merely out of necessity. He didn't make the movie like that. Had he done so you'd have something more like the Harry Potter movie (which is ultimately quite boring), or worse, Bakshi. PJ channeled his own creative energy into this, which gives the movie an urgency. I believe this urgency, these grace-notes that can be felt but can't be analyzed, these are make FotR such an incredible movie.

As for the meaning, I fully disagree. When you take any classic piece of literature, and are asked to sum up the "meaning" of it, there are many levels of analysis. But generally only the most universal themes are the ones that are remembered. While it is certainly possible to argue that PJ changed scenes, and much more rarely charachters, I still maintain that the universal themes of Tolkiens book are there, front and center.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I suppose that "didn't have to" and "changed the meaning" might be considered one and the same at least in my opinion. You cannot say that Jackson did not change the MEANING of the work when he made Merry and Pippin involuntary members of Frodo's flight from the Shire. After all, Tolkien spends quite a bit of time "setting up" the relationship among the hobbits including a friend - Fredegar Bolger - who while unwilling to leave the Shire, still stays on at Crickhollow masquerading as Frodo to delay pursuit. Fatty knew of the Ring, else why would he have said when he fled to a nearby farm to escape the Nazgul, "I haven't got it!"

Now, I don't suggest that Jackson could or should have included everything in this part of the story (the sale of Bag End, Gandalf's promise to return and accompany Frodo etc.), but he COULD at least have made Pippin and Merry FRIENDS of Frodo who having heard of his flight (told by Sam as in the book?) OFFER to accompany him. It would have been much more in the spirit of the story and not taken that much time to do. As it was, much of the beginning of the story after the party had a "rushed" quality about it as if the Director "couldn't wait" to get to the more "exciting parts".

That is what I meant (encapuslated in this one example) of Mr. Jackson making changes that not only deviated from the book, but seriously impacted the meaning of a story which had as much to do with the courage exhibited by friendship and loyalty as with sword fights and break-neck chases. :)

P.S. I STILL enjoyed the film, as previously noted, but it could have been SO MUCH BETTER if these seeming small points in the plot (which weren't really "small" at all) had been as important to Mr. Jackson as they were to Mr. Tolkien! :rolleyes:

[Thorin]

Mrs. Maggot is right on the nose, Talimon....The whole Merry and Pippin thing "accidentally" running into Frodo and Sam like buffoons and then just "joining" them on a three day trek to Bree with no explanation demanded or understanding of Frodo's journey changed the story dramatically...As I've said before, the whole trip to Bree thing was very distorted and equally rushed......

And in my opinion, the elves at Helm's Deep is equally in the "spirit of Tolkien"....God knows if you can justify Arwen from such a vast and general argument, you can justify anything... because it's in the "spirit" of Tolkien...Even a few elves fighting.

[Talimon]

Concerning Merry and Pippin, that is one example where I can agree that PJ skimmed it over. But take two things into account. One, they will be fleshed out in the Special Edition, and two, that still doesn't change the meaning of the tale. The movie is still about loyalty and friendship. The point of PJ having them join so quickly was to show their naive nature, I assume. By the end of the movie they just begin to realize what they have gotten into, and I'm sure that by TTT and RotK they will be completely different charachters.

When I say "meaning" I am talking about things in a much more general way.

[Mrs. Maggott]

"...meaning in a much more general way..."

My dear fellow! You certainly are talking about "meaning" in a much more "general way" if you can maintain that the meaning of the story is not changed when the two hobbits become involved in the Fellowship by accident rather than premeditation.

If you mean that since Merry and Pippin exhibit friendship and loyalty to Frodo and Sam (and the rest of the Fellowship) in the films despite their accidental involvement - and that this loyalty is perforce "the same" as if they had been conscious participants from the beginning - I must take exception to your conclusion.

In the former case, people in a group surrounded by enemies and under constant threat and almost constant attack would naturally develop loyalty for others in the group - as a matter of survival, it would be extremely unnatural if they did not. However, "battlefield" loyalty does not possess the same meaning as would have been present in the latter situation. If KNOWING THE DANGER, the two hobbits, for friendship's sake, make a premeditated decision to accompany their friends, then their loyalty existed BEFORE any bonds arising from a shared danger. This is the difference between "hot" and "cold" courage.

"Hot" courage arises on the battlefield, fueled by adrenalin and the emotions of the moment and people can do amazing things under such circumstances. "Cold" courage, however, is the courage that must be aroused when one has no resources to call upon save only principle and inner strength. Eowyn against the Nazgul is "hot courage"; she knows she will die, but her blood is aroused and she is heedless of peril. Aragorn outside the Black Gates is an example of "cold courage"; he KNOWS he will die - and all with him - but he still stands knowing that their sacrifice is the Bearer's only remaining hope.

In the same way, itb, Merry and Pippin's decision to go with Frodo is "cold loyalty"; loyalty arising from conviction, principle and friendship. Itf (in the film), their loyalty arises out of shared danger and trial. It is loyalty, no doubt, but the circumstances in the film diminish the characters, especially as there was no real (cinematic) reason for Jackson to deviate from the author's greater vision.

I simply cannot get over the feeling that Jackson made this and many other "changes" because he simply "couldn't see the difference" - and, all things being equal, he therefore preferred to spend his time elsewhere. If this is in fact the case, then the man did not know the work as well as he supposed he did.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
I have just come back from seeing Bakshi's film....I stopped before the end it was so bad....
I did notice that he stole some parts from Bakshi, but as they say the secret to originality is hiding your sources.
And I'd also like to note in particular how utterly worthless the scene at the ford is. It's almost word for word from the book, with Frodo defying the riders and everything, but it's just done so horribly that words cannot do it justice....
the sound and music is sickening.
I hadn't seen the animation for ages and then only on TV. Now I have it on DVD - and with the start of this thread in mind - I am pleasantly surprised how GOOD it is!
It was interesting to see the "steals", big and small- Legolas is almost as bad a substitute as Arwen, and both versions have the sword practice.
The Flight to the Ford is far BETTER than PJ's; of course I am pleased it is so near the book, but it is also in itself so much more exciting, visual, dramatic, emotional.... I could go on.
The music would probably have suited better a cheap film of Robin Hood, but on the animation level it's not all that bad!

[Talimon]

Joxy, I am just going to assume that it is better then you expected, and assume that you expected it to be really, really, really bad. I hope I don't even need to ask you whether it was better then PJ's... but in a way, if you say it was I can from here-on stop arguing with you. Nothing personal, but I see no point in arguing with someone who thinks Bakshi did a better job then PJ.

I simply cannot get over the feeling that Jackson made this and many other "changes" because he simply "couldn't see the difference" - and, all things being equal, he therefore preferred to spend his time elsewhere. If this is in fact the case, then the man did not know the work as well as he supposed he did.

PJ fully admits he saw the difference. Every other place you look he states that the book is very different from the movie. But I agree with him the meaning of the book as a whole was perfectly captured. I'm not talking about any specific scene, just the general tale. By the end of the movie I can say that the main themes of FotR were captured. Not every last little detail, but the main aspects. Maybe it's just that my taste in film is different from yours, but personally I tend to commend artistic freedom rather then restrict it. If PJ chooses to do a certain scene a certain way, and it is different from Tolkiens, I critque him only on an artisitc level. You seem to be critiquing every change against Tolkien, and immediately despising those changes, regardless of thier quality or thier meaning. PJ wants Merry and Pippin to mature as the movies go along. This will make them more interesting charachters. I'm not saying the way Tolkien did it wasn't good, just pointing out that from a cinematic perspective what PJ is doing is very effective.

[lilhobo]

but merry and pippin aint the main characters, they along with Sam are supposed to enhance Frodo, NOT make him look like a dill, for pity's sake.

the Main Characters are Frodo, Aragorn and Gandalf. PJ has already failed Frodo and Aragorn, and barely got gandalf by!

PS. if you cant argue with a person who thinks Bakshi's version is better, who can u argue with!

Personally, i think you are using the ole Harad logic of running around chasing your tale everytime your arguements get dissected and minched. Dont take it personally. It aint your cross to bear but PJ's.

UNless you are PJ in cognito ;)

[lilhobo]

hmm, did Talimon say he "emailed" Bakshi regarding the reviews of PJ's LOTR???


hmmm, how many of u have Bakshi's emial lol :D

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
Joxy, I am just going to assume that it is better then you expected, and assume that you expected it to be really, really, really bad.
I hope I don't even need to ask you whether it was better then PJ's....
But I agree with him the meaning of the book as a whole was perfectly captured....
PJ wants Merry and Pippin to mature as the movies go along. This will make them more interesting characters.
Well, you told me/us it was really, really, really bad!
I knew it didn't (really!) get ALL those really's,
but it was with them in mind that I actually found it, let's say, fairly good.
Of course it's not better; as an animation it's different to begin with, so not "really" comparable, but no, it's not better.
It does a "fair" job of compressing most of what PJ gives us, and then some, into half the time, giving good action, story, characterisation, emotion, and much eloquent dialogue, along the way, and - it is consistent with itself.
"Perfectly" captured is much too strong, but as we keep saying, PJ's film IS very good, certainly the best of its genre that I'm aware of.
"More interesting" than what?
PJ starts M&P from much too low a base in character; developing them from the intelligent base that Bakshi gives them would have been very interesting, and PJ could have done that perfectly well.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Okay, let's get down to basics! And the basics in this case is MEANING. LOTR is a myth; it is based in its creation upon other similar myths and that's why the author doesn't involve us in things like the characters' need to empty their bowels and bladders or wash their clothing or, when marriage is involved, the author doesn't take us into the bedroom and give us a blow-by-blow (no sniggering there!) description of what is going on. The genre of myth DOES DO THAT SORT OF THING. I think we can ALL agree on that. (I might add as a kudo to Jackson that he avoided - at least so far - such mundane concerns and correctly so. After all, we don't see a chamber pot on the roof of Orthanc where Gandalf is held captive for what must be at least a number of days!)

Now, having set up that particular truism, I would like to advance the next: myths are created to MAKE A POINT! They are created to TEACH us something. They bring to their audience a truth or truths that the author wants us to recognize. Otherwise, it's nothing more than a routine story. Myths are much deeper than mere liturature. They are moral truths presented as parable (NOT allegory).

If one agrees with the above, then there is simply no sense in saying that it DOESN'T MATTER if Jackson decides that Merry and Pippin will behave in a way diametric to the way in which the Creator of the myth (Tolkien) WANTED them to act in order to MAKE A POINT! Tolkien's point - or at least one of his most important points in LOTR - was the TRIUMPH OF FRIENDSHIP, SELF SACRIFICE AND LOYALTY OVER AMBITION, POWER AND GREED. Take away the two young hobbits self sacrificial gesture in accompanying their friends into danger and possible death and make it into a mere consequence of a minor theft and you have cut the soul out of these characters however "cinematically" well it works! Make Aragorn into a milksop, frightened of his birthright and cowed by his "superior" lover and you have not only emasculated the man, but you have negated the real, true and honest MEANING that he has in the myth.

It is not enough to have a film with the same plot structure as the book and peopled by characters and places bearing the same names as those in the book. If you have changed the moral foundation of the story, you have a different story and when that happens, you are no longer dealing with "artistic license" or cinematic restrictions. As I have said before, I will go and see the films and enjoy Peter Jackson's LOTR. But no matter what anyone says or however many polls are taken or awards presented, these movies are NOT J. R. R. Tolkien's masterpiece. Because they no longer make the point that the myth of LOTR was created to make, they are mere counterfeits; beautiful counterfeits, but counterfeits nonetheless. :(

[Mrs. Maggott]

Damn! Should read: genre of myth DOES NOT DO THAT SORT OF THING..

Tried to edit and fix, but don't know how and nothing I did helped. sorry.

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
LOTR is a myth;


Haha! You shouldn't have gone there. One of my standing arguements in favor of PJ's movies is exactly that: LotR is myth. Indeed, it is percisely because it is myth that PJ can take liberties in making changes. Myth, the way Tolkien percieved it, was essentially an oral story-telling tradition. Many of the myths Tolkien grew up on were meant to be told around the camp-fire. And one of, if not the, standing traditions of oral story-telling is that the story-teller changes the tale. At the risk of offending some I'd offer that the Bible itself, arguably the most famous myth of them all, went through massive changes in it's oral days. The point, however, is that even though the oral story-teller may change details, what keeps the tale the same is the underlying themes, the "messages", the "morals". Those are ultimately what separate the good tales from the bad tales.

Now, let's fast-forward to PJ. In today's world, story-telling is done through much more sophisticated technology. The oral tradition had all but died. Today, arguably the most prominent way tales are told is through film. Having said that, think of PJ as the story-teller. He has taken the myth of LotR, and sat around the campfire. Those sitting around the campfire with him are the movie-going audience of 2001-03. As such, in order to make that tale better for that audience, he makes changes. He changes emphasis. He changes dialogue. But, and I stress this, he maintains the themes of the book. The whole point of the tale is that it changes depending on 1) who's telling it, and 2) who it's being told to. Take these two elements into account when you watch PJ's movies.



Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott

Tolkien's point - or at least one of his most important points in LOTR - was the TRIUMPH OF FRIENDSHIP, SELF SACRIFICE AND LOYALTY OVER AMBITION, POWER AND GREED.

I see that you have either not seen the film (as you claim), have forgotten it (which make your arguements against it flaky), or simply choose to forget the films very last scene. Indeed, that scene is the films strongest moment, the place where it gets to sum up it's "point", as you call it. The last moments between Aragorn and Boromir, and more importantly Frodo and Sam, are the movies most emotional peaks. Especially when you take into account the Frodo and Sam scene, I can't see just how you can argue the movie neglects "TRIUMPH OF FRIENDSHIP". Indeed, I am begginning to believe you have neglected everything the film has had to say entirely, as those very points you mention are covered in incredibly powerful scenes in the movie.

If you are out to burn the film regardless, be my guest; you deffinitely won't be the first, and undoutedly not the last. I can accept that some folks expectations are too high for thier own good, and they can't appreciate a good thing when they see it. The different between the purists and the fans is that one group chooses to look at the empty half of the cup and the other chooses to look at the full.

P.S. There is an edit button if you want to make changes to a post.


hmm, did Talimon say he "emailed" Bakshi regarding the reviews of PJ's LOTR???


hmmm, how many of u have Bakshi's emial lol

If you really want it I can give it to you. He actually replied pretty quickly to my first email :). I like his other movies to an extent, but I feel very strongly about his attempt at LotR, and particularly his attitude about it. He seems to have just completely shut up after PJ's movie came out, but before-hand he was making these claims that his movie had come as close to Tolkien as possibble. He seems to be in denial about his film or something. He really feels as though he needs to defend it. I suppose he does, but were I in his shoes I'd leave it behind and get on with my career. At least feel good about the fact that you had some minor influence on PJ's movie.

PS. if you cant argue with a person who thinks Bakshi's version is better, who can u argue with!

Um... perhaps a person who doesn't think Bakshi's movie is better...? :rolleyes:


Personally, i think you are using the ole Harad logic of running around chasing your tale everytime your arguements get dissected and minched. Dont take it personally. It aint your cross to bear but PJ's.

I have my opinion about PJ's movie, it's been there for a long time, and if anything people "dissecting" and "minching" my arguements has only led me to feel more strongly about those opinions. That's not to say I'm not open to new ideas, but quite frankly I haven't seen many lately that have really convinced me. Most of what I'm seeing is people having thier own, personal problems with the movie. There is little I can do to help that.

Look, it's all just art anyway, and like John Mclaughlin says "it beats going to war and killing each-other." I believe there is room for more then one opinion, strange as that may sound ;). I am not "in league" with PJ, nor do I defend his movie regardless of it's quality (as is the case with Star Wars defenders these days). Indeed, I went into the theatre with as low/high expectations as anybody. It is indeed the very quality of the movie that has made me such a fan.

[lilhobo]

Originally posted by Talimon

I see that you have either not seen the film (as you claim), have forgotten it (which make your arguements against it flaky), or simply choose to forget the films very last scene. Indeed, that scene is the films strongest moment, the place where it gets to sum up it's "point", as you call it. The last moments between Aragorn and Boromir, and more importantly Frodo and Sam, are the movies most emotional peaks. Especially when you take into account the Frodo and Sam scene, I can't see just how you can argue the movie neglects "TRIUMPH OF FRIENDSHIP". Indeed, I am begginning to believe you have neglected everything the film has had to say entirely, as those very points you mention are covered in incredibly powerful scenes in the movie.



those two moments cover like 10 min Talimon??? the other 2h50 min are a total waste :D

[Mrs. Maggott]

"The point, however, is that even though the oral story-teller may change details, what keeps the tale the same is the underlying themes, the "messages", the "morals". Those are ultimately what separate the good tales from the bad tales." (quote)

But that's my whole point! Jackson does NOT keep the underlying themes except in the most general way. Yes, the hobbits do form friendships, loyalty, etc. but they are formed through their relationship in the Fellowship under circumstances in which such things would form naturally.

Inb, courage friendship and loyalty PRECEED the trial of the Quest. In fact, the are the FOUNDATION of the Quest itself (among the hobbits), not ancillary to or the result of it. Jackson has stood the whole thing on its head and begun with the trial (the Quest) and ended with the moral good (friendship, courage and loyalty) instead of the other way round and in so doing, he has CHANGED THE MEANING.

Yes, in the end of FOTR, we at least get a feeling of loyalty and courage (Frodo and Sam), but we NEVER get the idea that courage, friendship and loyalty were the causitive agents of the Fellowship at least among the hobbits - and that is the basic moral tenet of the entire myth. Jackson winds up at the end of the first film, at least, with that particular relationship existing between Frodo and Sam, but I do not think he developed it among all four hobbits. Yeah, they were friends... but he never produced on film the type of friendship among the hobbits that would account for Merry and Pippin being willing to go into the jaws of death to assist and defend Frodo. With Jackson (at least in the first film), the two younger hobbits run the gamut from comic relief to a means of moving the plot to Rohan and Fangorn in the second film. Tolkien did not see - or present - them in that light; they were far more important to the myth than that.

An aside: as for the Bakshi film's usage of dialogue from the book and its failure - or success - thereby - the animated version suffered from all the problems inherent in attempts to produce such a work as LOTR. Both Bakshi and Jackson took their own paths in an attempt to do justice to the book. Both failed although in different ways.

Bakshi proved that simply placing the proper dialogue in the mouths of the characters in appropriate places does not result in a film that works; films are not books. Furthermore, he, too, was daunted by the length and complexities of the story line and tried to find some way of "pulling out" those scenarios that would interest his audience. In that way, frankly, he was very little different than Jackson except in result.

Jackson, too, looked for scenarios, characters and situations that would elicit audience response. He had more time, money and resources at his disposal, but he also attempted a much larger project - the entire LOTR on film. However, he was less concerned with presenting Tolkien's vision of the characters and took far more liberty with them than did Bakshi. He did try to faithfully present the meaning of the story in the films little realizing that his overt changes in both plot and characterization would seriously affect his ability to do just that (see above).

Can LOTR be brought to a visual medium? I don't know. Perhaps if it could be done over a long series of programs, but even then, the scope of Tolkien's work is daunting. It goes from the most intimate scenes in Bag End, Crickhollow and Bombadil's home to huge battle scenes with thousands of participants - and everything in between. Perhaps it is just one of those works that can never satisfactorily be adapted to a visual medium. We will just have to keep on reading. :rolleyes:

[lilhobo]

Originally posted by Confusticated
They trusted Strider! Why not leave Frodo and Sam to his care? Then in Rivendell we see how happy they are when Frodo is healed, and finally we see them demand to go with Frodo on this quest. Never once did we see any of these hobbit's regret that they came along with Frodo.
Though I dont aim to compare the movie with the book in this case it would make a point:That look on Merry's face when he learned that the Black Riders were after Frodo (for me) was sufficient replacement of the 'conspiracy unmasked' as far as showing friendship goes.

what what what! they trusted Strider??, this must be Harad logic again right?? with what piece of evidence did they entertain the thought of trusting strider? my gosh

And the "where are we going" mentallity of the 2 hobbits means they have no clue as to the complexity of the task at hand.

What Mrs Maggott is saying was that ther is no indication from the 2 younger hobbit that there was premeditated or conscious choice of following and assisting Frodo knowing full well the dangers to life and limbs. ie. they ran into frodo in the fields by accident, they got stuck with frodo and sam in the dark, so either they stick together or get weakened by numbers

correct me if am wrong :)

[Mrs. Maggott]

The relationship between Frodo and Sam is never in doubt. IT IS DEVELOPED by Jackson in the scenes with Gandalf. As for the other, yes they are all friends. No one doubts that. But there is no statement of support (as takes place in Crickhollow itb) where Merry and Pippin declare that [1] they KNOW of the existence of the Ring, [2] that they are terribly afraid of accompanying Frodo into the unknown with the Nine in pursuit, but [3] they are STILL determined to go with him because they are his friends (and Sam would probably fall over his own feet!).

What you have pointed out are mere nuances that can be - and probably are - "missed" by nine-tenths of the audience, especially those unfamiliar with the book. Certainly, after the journey to Rivendell, all the hobbits are determined to continue. But that does not make up for the fact that the moral premise of friendship + loyalty (Merry and Pippin for Frodo and Sam) = courage enough to set out on such a dark and dangerous undertaking are ignored in the film? Those watching the movie do not know (because the Director has changed the plot line) that the two "other" hobbits have taken on this great danger WILLINGLY and with PREMEDITATION. They merely see the fact that they are "swept up" in the matter accidentally but remain true and loyal - virtues no doubt, but not the original virtue envisioned by the author.

Since I obviously seem to have such difficulty having people understand my premise about the above, I would like to try a much more egregious example to illustrate what I am trying to say about the fact that simply because it "all works out in the end" does NOT mean that the message is, in fact, the same. For this, I will have to use the book since the Director "edited" the premise I will use.

As you know, in the betrothal of Arwen and Aragorn, Elrond has dictated that no marriage will take place until Aragorn is King of Gondor as well as Arnor; his daughter will be a Queen or she will not marry (true to the book). Now let's suppose that Aragorn can see no possibility of this happening. He cannot claim the throne NOT because he is not entitled to it (he is), but because he knows that if Sauron learns of his existence, he will plunge all of Middle Earth into war to capture or kill the remaining descendent of his hated enemy (true to the book; Elrond has kept the line "hidden" in the North for just this reason).

But where does this leave Aragorn? He is betrothed which means that he cannot father a child by one of his people's women since he cannot marry her and therefore the child would be illegitimate. Furthermore, any sexual dalliance now that he is betrothed would be adulterous as betrothal is considered legally the same as marriage but without the consummation that comes with the latter. However, Aragorn is the last of his line; there are no brothers to produce heirs if he should die childless. He is in love, and the one he loves also loves him, but he CANNOT marry her as long as Sauron holds sway as the major power in Middle Earth (true to the book; Sauron is indeed the most powerful entity in Middle Earth. Only the all out efforts of his combined enemies - wizards, men, elves et al. - are able to barely hold their own against him and all know - and have said - that when he decides to truly wage war, HE WILL WIN! - even WITHOUT the Ring!)

Aragorn is in a quandry. He cannot end the betrothal without breaking his troth to Arwen which for a chivalric knight is unthinkable; he cannot marry another for the same reason; he cannot marry her because he cannot fulfill her father's caveat to their betrothal and as a result, he cannot produce an heir to his line which means that at his death (which could be at any time given the circumstances of his life) the line of Elendil ends. Not only is he condemned to live a life of personal lonliness and despair, but he carries with him continually the guilt of being responsible for making extinct the line of Kings descending from Elendil. (true to the book).

Now, we all know what happened in the book; it is not necessary to repeat it here. And we all know the moral message and meaning which the author presented through the story. But let's suppose that someone else decided to change the plot because what transpired in the original was not "suitable" for, say, a film.

Aragorn, being a shrewd and desperate man, decides that he CANNOT wait to make Arwen his wife. There's just too much chance that he could be killed before producing an heir and besides, by the time he fulfills his prospective father in law's demand - IF he ever fulfills it - he might be too old to care. Furthermore, he decides that his duty to his people (to produce an heir) supercedes whatever promise he made to Elrond concerning his impossible demand and so he decides to seduce his beloved and lie with her. In medieval times, it was not unknown for a man to kidnap and rape or seduce a women who either would not marry him or was prevented by her father from doing so. Once she was "spoiled", the woman and/or her family reluctantly accepted what was by now an accomplished fact and permitted the marriage. In Aragorn's case this approach would not have required such extreme measures since Arwen loves and is physically attracted to him. Furthermore, she, too, has been unnaturally constrained by her father's demands and is well aware of their impossibility. So it doesn't take much suspension of belief to suppose that she would willingly come to his bed - or allow him into hers - because of her love, pity (and not a little passion).

After this goes on for a little time, there is the possiblity that she is with child which, of course, is something not unconsidered - or undesired. The couple goes to Elrond and presents him with the fact: his daughter has lain with her betrothed and may even be pregnant by him. What to do! Well, Elrond could become enraged and banish Aragorn, but to what end? His daughter will be not only unhappy, but she might give birth to an out of wedlock child and even if she does not, she is no longer a virgin and therefore unfit for an elven husband. If Elrond is so concerned with Arwen's honor so as to demand that she cannot marry unless she is a Queen, will he allow her to produce a bastard or remain forever unwed because she is "spoiled"? And so, perforce, however unhappy he may be, Elrond would acquiesce to a marriage. (obvious change in story)

Now, let's go back to the thread of the story: the whole "Ring thing" arises, Strider/Aragorn participates in it as he does in the original, the Ring is destroyed, Sauron defeated and banished and Aragorn is now King of Gondor. (true to the book) The along comes Arwen (possibly having borne their child) to join him as his wife and Queen (slight change of story, but same effect).

Now, if we look at the above, one must admit that you have in the end, approximately the same "meaning" as you had in the original story; that is, Aragorn through brave and worthy deeds has become King of Gondor and Arnor (same as the book); Arwen has joined him as his wife (change of story) and become his Queen (same as the book). The only "difference" is the "slight gap" in time (among other things), between her becoming his wife and becoming his Queen. But, after all, they love each other and he did all those great things in the War of the Ring. There was just that little bit about the betrothal, but other than that (!), it's all the same really - or is it?

There is no one who would suggest that Aragorn's actions in the "plot reinterpretation" haven't changed the meaning of the story. They make sense certainly - even cinematically they would be "great stuff" - but they make the characters unrecognizeable. They diminish both, making of them persons of lesser moral and ethical probity. But, even so, at the end of the book or film you have more or less the same result. And that is the argument that has been used to defend Jackson's plot and character changes: it comes out alright in the end. But does it? :rolleyes:

[lilhobo]

my gosh!!! :D

Aragorn is a virgin for 70 odd years, and arwen 300 years??? blue somefing or other lol

you are gonna lose Talimon in all that wordy post lol :D Notice all my posts are short and to the point ;)

Talimon is gonna come out with a defence that goes something like: times have changed, PJ is interpreting JRR and put the classic text into the modern era. Enhance Arwen for the feminist movement, bah humbug chilvary (sexual equality means, she can ride the darn horse and battle the freakin Nazgul herself). LMAO @ father-knows-best mumble jumble, we are gonna cast the "marriage" ring into the crack of doom from whence it came. So what difference does it make if Aragorn humps a maiden or 2 uruk-hai-ettes (oh uruk-hais came outa pods :D )

i mean come on, if George Lucas can come up with 2 **** pre-quels, PJ can make a sequel to the 3 movies too. Image a uruk-hai and the son of Arwen contesting the throne of Gondor :D

Will this madness never ends :D :D :D

[Mrs. Maggott]

I apologize for the length of the previous post. However, it seemed to me that I was unable to make my point using the film's treatment of the Merry and Pippin characters and therefore tried to make it using a much more egregious plot change that still allowed the ending of the story to be (relatively) unchanged.

I could think of no other way to approach the matter. If it was too lengthy, again, I apologize. But I don't think anyone can doubt the point I am making any longer. Whether or not they agree with it is up to them, but at least they can no longer say that they are in doubt of my meaning. :)

[lilhobo]

Originally posted by Confusticated
....
When I said "they trusted Strider" I was speaking of Merry ad Pippin. In the movie I saw nothing which causes me to think that they distrusted strider. DID YOU!!

It means that they wanted to go. It is true that they did not comprehend the danger they were going into but this was also so in the book.

Of course there was no indication of premeditation... How could they premeditate going away with Frodo when in the film they didnt even know he was going away? :rolleyes:
I read Maggott's MAIN point as being that the Hobbits did not go along with Frodo because of friendship. premeditation was secondary, was merely an example of how friendship already existed between the hobbits in the book. In the movie this is accomplished by other means..many of which I named in my last post.

I wish dearly that i could....but you are absolutely right ;)
hehehe...

yeah i noticed lol......would you jump in a car with a guy "who looks foul but feels fair" (giving PJ too much credit here, if only he added this ) who wanted to take you to your parents.

You had better Ask Mrs Maggott to write a 5 page reply next time, coz i dont think u understood her reasoning lol :D

i may not always be right but i aint never wrong :D

[lilhobo]

oh my gosh, i think u would jump in the car.....


Mrs Maggott's reasoning is this: Frodo and sam drives a long in a cadillac, you and talimon jump out in front of the car and Frodo was able to stop in time, so u both jump in the car coz you are all friends and u want a joy ride.

Half hr later, the police siren is heard behind u and lo and behold, u realize the car is stolen, and u cant get out of the car!

Thats the crux of PJ's characterisation and Mrs Maggott is saying its NOT JRR 's

[Thorin]

Mrs. Maggot, Your reasoning is totally understood and agreed with by this purist and it is a breath of fresh air to clear out the cobwebs of illogical justification that the evil FAD spiders of Mirkwood have spun...

As I've said before (and have been continually ignored) that this whole "spirit of Tolkien" thing can be construed and twisted to fit ANY change that could be done....And yet, I'm sure many of the FADs (even markrob and Talimon) would be sputtering and protesting by many gratuituous changes (a little change like a few elves fighting at Helm's Deep has them up in arms)...Why? Who knows. Their reasoning has trapped them in a corner. As I understand it, Talimon is basically saying this:

1) As long as the changes are within the spirit of Tolkien they are acceptable.
2) PJ was not trying to be accurate, but to tell a fireside tale and make a good movie.

According to this criteria, the "spirit of Tolkien" argument, Gandalf could levitate, Saruman could make an attempt at Mordor himself, Aragorn could go with Frodo to Mordor, the Orcs of Mordor could have ovethrown the orcs of Orthanc. All of these are in the spirit of Tolkien, and if it is not LotR, but PJ's fireside tale of it, and if PJ is not working to be accurate, then these changes are all acceptable....

But what do you have? Another fantasy movie...Is that acceptable for someone who is trying to bring LoTR to the screen? Of course not. So to say that PJ is not making JRR's LotR on the screen or not working to be accurate is total nonsense...And if he is, he should be doing his best to make it as true and good as possible. (He almost suceeded)

[joxy]

Originally posted by Thorin
....this whole "spirit of Tolkien" thing can be construed and twisted to fit ANY change that could be done
....to say that PJ is not making JRR's LotR on the screen or not working to be accurate is total nonsense...And if he is, he should be doing his best to make it as true and good as possible. (He almost suceeded)
Yes, it's just too convenient a way of explaining and excusing anything.
And here's the vital word: PJ "almost" succeeded.
"We" say that's what he did, and we credit him with the ability to have come even closer.
What "they" claim is that the "almost" was so near to perfection that any suggestion to the contrary is not worth considering.

[Talimon]

The irony here is that I don't feel as if I have anything to defend, and you do. As such I don't see what's the point in trying to argue with you. I honestly believe that you have the ability to separate book and movie, yet you seem insistent on limiting yourselves by doing just the oposite. Everything Mrs. Maggot has said is built on a completely different movie from what I (and apparently millions of others) have seen. If she can't see the movie for what it is, too bad for her.

What's the point in me making new mega-posts? I'll just be repeating myself. The point is, PJ's movie is not THE version of LotR. WOW!!! It's almost like we've discovered America, isn't it? ;) That is your main arguement, really. You are just repeating it in different disguises. What you fail to realize is that PJ has claimed this from the very begginning. One of his first claims about the movie is that this is not the Lord of the Rings, only his version. Having said this, I'd like to hope that Tolkien purists, whom for the longest time I've seen as people who endorse creative freedom, would approach this with an open mind. I hate to say this, and I hope this doesn't get me banned from here or anything, but the general impression I get from most of the purists (I stress most, not all) is that they had too high of expectations for the movie. Look, some of us can approach this movie as LotR and enjoy it. If you can't, less power to you. No one here is being fooled into thinking this is the Lord of the Rings. It's an adaptation, it makes changes, and ends up being different. It almost seems as if by the end of each post I am repeating your arguements. What is the problem, then? :confused:

[Talimon]

"Purist" is actually a really dumb label for those who accuse PJ's movie. It assumes thier knowledge or dedication to Tolkien is supposedly "pure", which is far, far, far from the truth. I'm not saying that as a rule they are or aren't, but thier opinion on the movie has little to nothing to do with thier knowledge of Tolkiens works. One of the biggest, oldest, and most highly respected fantasy groups in the US is the Mythopoeic Society. They hold many conferences on Tolkien and other fantasy/myth. One of it's founders owns a fantasy book-store down here in Berkeley, and his knowledge of Tolkien is practically encyclopedic. You can imagine how suprised I was, innitially, to find that he not only enjoyed the film, he actually loved it. I think that just goes to prove that those who criticize the movie are not by deffinition "pure".

[Mrs. Maggott]

Excuse me, but it is YOU who have claimed that Jackson's film did not change the MEANING of the book and THAT is what I have disputed. In fact, it is the ONLY contention that I am disputing here.

Furthermore, I never said that I expected a slavish reproduction of the book or that I hated the film. From time to time when certain aspects of the film were being discussed, I offered my opinion on those things that I found problematic - and why. I also, even if it has not been noticed, DEFENDED the Director when I thought that a particular criticism was unwarranted.

I supposed (wrongly, I guess), that these little differences of opinion were the reason for the threads in the first place. But you will discover if you look back at my postings, that I made it abundantly clear that I enjoyed the movie for exactly what it was - JACKSON's version of LOTR. If that isn't good enough for the films' advocates, that's too bad. :rolleyes:

[Talimon]

Because they no longer make the point that the myth of LOTR was created to make

If the people aren't the same, then it isn't the story.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression here that you are arguing that PJ's movie is so different that it isn't LotR. You seem to be arguing that the reason it doesn't work, even as an adaptation, is because it doesn't capture the main elements of LotR.

Excuse me, but it is YOU who have claimed that Jackson's film did not change the MEANING of the book and THAT is what I have disputed. In fact, it is the ONLY contention that I am disputing here.

I wouldn't emphazise that "only". To say it didn't capture the meaning is, in my eyes, the equivalent of saying it didn't capture the tale. What is the tale without it's meaning?

If I understand correctly, what is really being argued here is what is the meaning of LotR. That's what we disagree on. Actually, to narrow that down, it's more in the nature of what change is big enough to constitute this not capturing the meaning of LotR. I still maintain that the changes you mention, while noticeable, aren't so massive that this still isn't the same tale. It's not the same reendition of that tale, but the core is there.

Rereading your previous posts, I feel that I can still make the same claim I have made elsewhere. You are looking at the empty half of the cup. To say "It could have been..." is akin to me saying that a rock and roll album could have been so much better were it a classical album. You can't judge something for something it isn't.

I enjoyed the movie for exactly what it was - JACKSON's version of LOTR.

That is more then I can say for many "purists". I'm happy for you. :)

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Talimon
but the general impression I get from most of the purists (I stress most, not all) is that they had too high of expectations for the movie. Look, some of us can approach this movie as LotR and enjoy it. If you can't, less power to you. No one here is being fooled into thinking this is the Lord of the Rings. "It's an adaptation, it makes changes, and ends up being different." It almost seems as if by the end of each post I am repeating your arguements. What is the problem, then? :confused:

The problem, Talimon, is that the film defenders aren't saying exactly that and leaving it at that: "It's an adaptation, it makes changes, and ends up being different." Jackson has made changes, some gratuitous just because he wanted to....Simple and true...

However, most of the film defenders go to great lengths to try and justify these changes as necessary, akin to Tolkien and even better than Tolkien. Some even try and manipulate the book to explain these gratuituous not-in-the-book movie changes (something which makes no sense considering the defence that PJ is not trying to be accurate to the book :rolleyes: )

I have a problem with those who can't call a spade a spade: PJ made changes, it's his movie and it's not LoTR....Leave it at that and I can accept these arguments....

[Mrs. Maggott]

My point was this (and I used the four hobbits - especially Merry and Pippin) to make it. Tolkien's moral, if you will, was that friendship, courage and loyalty are greater forces in the world than ambition, power and greed. He made that point with the hobbits by having the two "unrelated" hobbits, Merry and Pippin (Frodo and Sam were bound by the bond of Master and Servant, something that would be better understood from an English point of view where service is considered a noble profession) premeditatedly and with fore knowledge offer to accompany their friends in an undertaking that was fraught with danger even to the point of being deadly. Tolkien made that commitment through these two characters BEFORE THE QUEST BEGINS.

Jackson, on the other hand, for whatever reason (probably time constraints), simply has the two hobbits caught up in something about which the obviously know nothing and carried along by circumstance, NOT choice. Eventually, they make the same commitment to their friends, but it comes AFTER THE QUEST BEGINS.

This, in my opinion, significantly changes the MEANING of the story even though the story's outcome may appear to be the same or almost the same. That is the only point I have made. I do not fault Mr. Jackson if he believed that he had to do what he did, but that does not change the fact that it affected (in my opinion, adversely) the meaning of the tale. (Of course, the bit with Arwen in the Weathertop scenes annoys me to no end, but I accept it simply as another of Mr. Jackson's "revisions".)

I hope this finally makes it clear. Thanks for caring. :)

[Talimon]

I have a problem with those who can't call a spade a spade: PJ made changes, it's his movie and it's not LoTR....Leave it at that and I can accept these arguments....

If you mean it's not the LotR, as in the one Tolkien wrote, then yes, I can fully agree. If you mean it has nothing to do with LotR at all, and is completely apart from Tolkiens tale in charachters, plot, and themes, then I have to disagree. I still think PJ's movie is disntinctly FotR, it's just not the exact tale that Tolkien wrote. But to be quite frank I'm willing to even let go of this fine line. I'm willing to leave it at that: PJ's movie is different from Tolkiens book. That statement, without any negative (or positive) conotations around it, is perfectly fine with me. I just want to point out that PJ has been making this statement from the very first interviews. It's not as if he is in denial about it, which some have tried to argue.

[lilhobo]

Nope, what any sane people wants , talimon, is a great movie based on a great book. And PJ hasnt delivered.....

he made changes he thought was necessary and it didnt work coz he modified the underlying premise to the themes of the book. the board themes of good vs evil, friendship, sacrifice ect are evident but its just been wrongly placed so the pacing is all off.......

ideas were good but execution is bad

[Azog]

I saw the Bakshi version when I was about 7, and I remembered it to be extremely gory, although it wasn't by any means. When I watched it abgain, I was laughing the entire movie. Did anyone notice how gay the hobbits looked. Strider was telling the story about the Ring, and Sam was literally stroking Frodo, and Frodo was smiling at Sam.

I was on the floor laughing.

[Talimon]

Check out this site, azog. You'll like it :):


http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm

[Mrs. Maggott]

You are looking at the empty half of the cup. To say "It could have been..." is akin to me saying that a rock and roll album could have been so much better were it a classical album. You can't judge something for something it isn't. <quote Talimon>

But it is you and other defenders of Jackson who are saying that he DID deliver Tolkien's LOTR with a few modest revisions made for the sake of time and money! Frankly, we have to get our definitions straight here. Do YOU believe that Jackson's film is an "accurate" (not slavishly copied) rendering of the STORY Tolkien told? If you do, we are back to arguing the point that he has changed the basic persona of many of the MAIN characters in the plot and by so doing, changed the story. If he has changed the story, then - however good the film is - it is no longer Tolkien's story.

The point I made about what could have been, is that Jackson could have made this film so much more true to Tolkien's vision without necessarily making a slavish attempt to put in every little "jot and tittle" contained within the book. I contended (and continue to do so) that many of the "revisions" he made were not done because of time or budget constraints but because Jackson basically thought that they made the story "better" (the Arwen "increase", to name one). Furthermore, although I have yet to see the two remaining films, I contend that these changes once wrought, necessitated further and greater changes as the story progressed and that eventually, we are going to get a whole NEW story which is "pinned" upon the old one in important but widely disparate plot points. What we will wind up with in the end, will be a tale that resembles the original in overall plot sequence but that varies widely and in some cases preposterously, from it.

If this is indeed the case, then the argument can no longer be made that Jackson's efforts were a valid attempt to bring Tolkien's story to the screen. Instead, the Director used the that story as a "jumping off place" for his OWN story. Now, that's fine and some may even like Jackson's tale better since it is so more "now" with its complex and fallible heroes as opposed to Tolkien's fairly uncomplicated mythic ones. But if this is the case, then the appellation "purist" can no longer be used against those who demur that Jackson's work was (with a few minor changes) the best TOLKIEN that could be filmed. It might be the best JACKSON, but Tolkien had very little to do with it.

[Talimon]

First of all, I never claimed that budget contstraints had any effect on the "trueness" of the film. Quite frankly, this movie had all the money it needed, and it shows. As for time, all I've claimed is that New Line Cinema (not Peter Jackson) put pressure to turn in a 2 1/2 hour movie, at the very most. This was extended to 3 out of pure necessity, but still resulted in many charachter-development scenes being cut.

I never have and never will claim that the theatrical version is Tolkiens tale line for line. I think we have quite different deffinitions when it comes to adaptation, so that might be a cause for disagreement. To me, what PJ did was well with-in the realms of adaptation. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, it ranks up there with the best. Why? Not because it is the truest adaptation, but because its the best movie it can be. I can easily cite a dozen film-adaptations that have tackled sources much less complext then LotR, and still haven't made good movies. PJ's movie is, first and foremost, a movie. If PJ has to completely rearrange the story and turn it on it's head to make a good movie, he will do so. Luckily, he doesn't.

I have no problem admitting this isn't Tolkiens exact book. That's easy for anyone to see. But anyone truly arguing that it's a completely different tale is in denial. It has the same charachters, with the same general personas, the same locations, the same plot points, and most importantly the same major themes. And ultimately it evokes the same feelings. Granted, some may have different artistic tastes then PJ, but in an attempt to make an objective statement here, it's distinctly the same tale as Tolkiens. This is the tale of LotR.

Considering all the loose adaptations around, adaptations that completely rearrange thier source material, it comes as no surprise that some reviewers have gone so far as to call PJ's movie "slavish". I don't agree, but I certainly think it's very close to Tolkiens tale, at least as close as a movie need be to 450+ page book, a fantasy book at that. And, most importantly, it's main priority is to be a good movie. Which, in my opinion, it is.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I SAID it was a great movie but I must disagree that simply because you use the same characters (but change them in some cases so that they are unrecognizeable) and the same general locations and the same overall basic plot (and, frankly, how many basic plots ARE there? Even Tolkien's story is "based" on other writings!) that does not mean that you have the same story (go back to my VERY lengthy exegesis about Aragorn and Arwen and see what I mean about how things can become completely different when you "change" a few things!).

Let us agree to disagree. I agree with you about it being a fine film. However, I am more than a trife anxious about what Jackson is going to do to the story in the remaining films given what he has done in the first. If in TTT there really IS a "sword fight" between Aragorn and Eowyn which he LOSES, then I don't know if I will even be able to enjoy the film as Jackson LOTR! :mad:

[Ariana Undomiel]

Ok, I just wanted to know if I am on the same page as everyone else. What is Bakshi exactly? Is that edition animated or live action? And about when was it made? I remember seeing parts of an animated edition of the Hobbit and LOTR and I thought they were very poorly done.

- Ariana

[Arvedui]

Agree with you Ariana. I haven't had the opportunity to check out this thread for a while, and when I got back here, I discover that it has turned out to be another debate wether or not PJ did a good job????

As for myself I have done some rethinking ON TOPIC, and I have come to the conclusion that Bakshi did a good job. Unlike PJ, he at least portrayed the Balrog with wings.:D

[Talimon]

Ok, I just wanted to know if I am on the same page as everyone else. What is Bakshi exactly? Is that edition animated or live action? And about when was it made? I remember seeing parts of an animated edition of the Hobbit and LOTR and I thought they were very poorly done.

Ralph Bakshi directed an animated film titled Lord of the Rings. I believe it was made in 1978. It used some "rotoscoping", I believe it's called, which is a mixture of live-action and animation. The title was "Lord of the