I don't get it. (Eowyn)

[morello13]

I read the first half of TTT and have read the cliff notes twice. I fail to see where all of Eowyn's dialouge and screentime occurs. from the trailers, her talking to Aragorn and leading refugees. Can anybody fill me in.
thanks
J>

[Anamatar IV]

that scene never happened in the book, aragorn doesnt actually speak to eowyn until later, the movie isnt following the course of the book, you should finish FotR before you read TTT, Eowyn doesnt get important until RotK :) f

[Ariana Undomiel]

Once again PJ is taking artistic liberties in order to introduce Eowyn's character into the story. This has apparently involved giving her more screen time and dialogue with different characters than what is in the book. So far I think it will turn out great!

~Ariana

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

Besides, if I remember right, I thought Eowyn went with the people to Dunharrow, not to Helms Deep. And that's where she and Aragorn talked the most, after he returned from the battle. Correct me if I am wrong.

http://lordoftherings.net/join/realchannel/tt_framebyframe/08_main.html

Well, I just hope the movie jells OK.

I wonder if they will show any pictures of the caverns behind Helms Deep. That would be neat.

[PRH]

Originally posted by Mindy_O_Lluin
Besides, if I remember right, I thought Eowyn went with the people to Dunharrow, not to Helms Deep. And that's where she and Aragorn talked the most, after he returned from the battle. Correct me if I am wrong.
You are not wrong. Having Eowyn lead the people to Helm's Deep is a change. I sort of understand the desire to cut down on the locations lest it become real confusing.

I wonder if they will show any pictures of the caverns behind Helms Deep. That would be neat.
I would love to see the glittering caves, but I'm betting they won't put it in (which would mean Gimli and Legolas's pact would be out).

[Talimon]

Originally posted by PRH
You are not wrong. Having Eowyn lead the people to Helm's Deep is a change. I sort of understand the desire to cut down on the locations lest it become real confusing.



I don't think this change is for simplicity's sake. I think (from what I hear PJ saying) that it is being used for dramatic effect. In other words, all of the refugees are in Helms Deep, the soldiers are there to defend them, the orcs are attacking them... That's just my guess, however, and from the trailers it is really hard to decide just how this is going to work out. We'll see :).

[PRH]

For what it's worth - I noticed a Decipher card named "caves of Aglarond." I don't really know how these cards work. I know a lot of characters that are only seen in glances in the film are given cards, but would they actually make a card of a location that is not seen in the movie?

http://www.decipher.com/lordoftherings/cardlists/twotowers/index.html

Perhaps the civillians hang out in the caves while the military occupies the Hornburg to do battle...

[Rangerdave]

Originally posted by morello13
I read the first half of TTT and have read the cliff notes twice. J>

All I can say to you is that Cliff is a idiot and his notes are less than useless.

Stamp out these homoginized abstracts, Read Books not notes.

RD

This was not meant to be an attack on any real person, but rather a blow to the "notes" industry that has been helping students to avoid actual thinking for far too long.

[Talimon]

They have cliff-notes for LotR? That is pathetic. I can't imagine someone preffering to read notes then LotR. For that matter, since when was LotR required reading? I've never seen it in that context. Or do they make cliff-notes for books in general, so that people can act like they've read books they haven't? ;)

[morello13]

you guys don't understand
this was only my first read of TTT and after the seeing the previews i waondered why Eowyn was in there so much
so then thumbing thorugh i didn't see anything that would make this true, then just to double chack again before asking i read the summaries of the chapter just to make sure i was'nt wrong
i love LotR and i would never use the notes of cliff for Tolkien as my only source of information

[Talimon]

i love LotR and i would never use the notes of cliff for Tolkien as my only source of information

Very good! :)

[Mrs. Maggott]

I have put this information on another thread, but since Eowyn is being discussed here, I will just bring it forth in case whomever is interested in the lady doesn't read my other posting.

According to a site involving changes in TTT between the film and the book, there will be a duel between Eowyn and Aragorn in which she draws on him, he refuses but eventually engages her not with a sword but a long knife - and loses (this is a 5 out of 5 probability, so it is true!).

If this idiocy doesn't absolutely validate my complaints about and problems with Mr. Jackson's fast-and-loose treatment of the author's story, I don't know what will! This particular "reinvention" completely trashes the character of Aragorn, a chivalrous man who would NEVER have drawn a weapon on ANY woman much less the well loved niece of his HOST, the King of Rohan! No matter how much the lady might have demanded that he do so, HE WOULD NOT HAVE DONE IT. Whomever Jackson is presenting, it AIN'T Aragorn!

Then, Jackson takes his perversion one further ludicrous step - he has Eowyn WIN! Well, fellows, I don't know about anyone else, but this removes Jackson's treatment of the story from "fanciful", past irreverent and into downright disrespectful. When you take one of THE most important characters - and whom Jackson HIMSELF has made MORE important by enlarging the role of his "lady love" - and make of him a modern wuss of an ANTI-HERO rather than Tolkien's mythic unashamedly masculine HERO, then no matter how much Jackson may have LOVED the book, he sure in h**l didn't understand it AT ALL!

But I guess all the apologists will tell us that "artistic license", time constraints and New Line Cinema are all to blame - and besides, it will still be a HECK of a film. Yeah! :mad: :(

[Talimon]

I have nothing to say here, as I've said it all elsewhere. For future reference, however, you are better off posting your opinions in only one thread. I doubt many folk want to go replying to the same post in 4 different threads ;).

[Mrs. Maggott]

Gee. I don't know, it would appear to me that Mr. Jackson's defenders (and detractors for that matter) post much the same material in various threads about the films, especially if the these threads "overlap" in their development. I don't seem to be the ONLY one who has posted a particular response reiterating something I have said in another thread.

Now if I were to post my observations in entirely UNRELATED threads, I certainly would agree with your point. However, I have seen the same points of view reiterated by both sides of these issues on so many different threads that I really doubt your "advice" is practical.

Nonetheless, I have made my point and will only reiterate it now if issues regarding the pros and cons of the Director's treatment of the story is brought up by someone else and I am able to refute or confirm that person's observation by a reiteration of my point.

But I think if you look at the site, you will notice MANY threads that can easily be considered "redundant" in that they discuss different aspects of the same issue.

[Talimon]

Yes, I know threads go off topic and overlap. I was just pointing at the fact that you had posted the same arguement in about 4 different threads at about the same time. I don't want to make it seem as if I don't have anything to say, because I do. I just don't want to repeat it. :)

[entbabe]

As a writer and artist, I thought I'd make a few responses to the latter conversation on this thread as there are many similar arguments arising on this and other forums.

# JRR Tolkien is *the author* of the monograph trilogy "The Lord of the Rings". Peter Jackson is *the author* of New Line Cinema's film trilogy "Lord of the Rings". As such, the films and the books are two totally different artworks and should be treated as such at all times. Regardless of how Peter Jackson re-authors LOTR into a film, Tolkien's LotR books will remain the unchangeable original.

# In the case of any artistic adaptation, it is widely considered more appropriate to source the original material and rework it while maintaining the intentions of the original author. Copying any element directly from the source simply demonstrates base abilities and minimal artistic merit in the crafting of a new work. Many artists consider it inappropriate to directly transfer one artistic work into another medium (unless it is in collaboration with the original author).

"Even when the plot gets hammered, a movie adaptation will be as thrilling as the original as long as the director has fallen in love with its soul and let it dance its own dance with him. When it fails, it's often because the director hasn't fallen in love with the soul, and led his partner in a strict, stiff, safe square-dance that, pardon our pun, is by the book."
(Quoted from: http://www.disenchanted.com/dis/humanity/disbelief.html)

Now I'm a huge fan of Tolkien, having read all his books a number of times, but I'm also a huge fan of Peter Jackson, having seen all his films a number of times. When it was announced that PJ would be adapting tLotR I was ecstatic because PJ is a great visionary artist himself. In my mind he has captured the soul of Tolkien's epic vision in a unique and artistically respectful manner.

Sometimes I feel that people make very harsh--and often unfair--judgments over the artistic works of others. I find it easy to relish in the visual splendour of PJ's tFotR and then to return to my own inner vision when rereading Tolkien's tFotR. The films are complementary (in both meanings) to Tolkien's vision created through his books; perhaps that combined with good old enjoyment should be more important than whether someone else's vision matches your own. After all, if we all had the same vision then surely the world would be an unimaginative and dull place to be.

Happy to engage in debate about this as it is a very grey area and a source of ongoing conversation between many artists and writers.

(Apologies for such a long post!)

:P eb

[Mrs. Maggott]

What you say is undoubtedly true. Being an artist myself and having done some work using LOTR as a foundation, certainly the artist must be true to his or her own vision in the chosen medium.

That having been said, however, if I as the artist am doing a work for SOMEONE ELSE using LOTR or any of Tolkien's works as a foundation and I promise that person who will be the recipient of my work that I will remain as true as possible to the AUTHOR's vision even acknowledging that MY vision must also come into play, then I have a responsibility to "curb" some of what might be my more "expressive" impulses in order to be true to my promise (and, incidentally, earn my fee).

What I mean is this: if I am a "modern" artist who also does representational work and the person for whom I am doing the work would prefer representational work, then in response to my PROMISE, I will express myself, certainly, but I will also work to assure that I MEET THE EXPECTATIONS of my customer. If the work is my own, being done just for me, I may lose myself in my "art" and do whatever pleases me (if, for instance, I "envision" Treebeard as a gas pump, so be it!). But as long as I have a customer who expects a more "recognizable" representation of the subject, I am obligated to keep that in mind.

Mr. Jackson PROMISED Tolkien enthusiasts - including his family - that he would do his best to bring the author's work to the screen NOT in a word-by-word, scene-by-scene, "every jot and tittle" way, but in a way that the characters and story line would be in keeping with the AUTHOR's "vision". However, Mr. Jackson decided to "re-write" much of the story in keeping with his OWN "vision". Some of it was necessitated by his medium but much of it was simply Mr. Jackson's decision to recraft the story in his OWN image. Many of his changes didn't save time - in fact, in many cases they ADDED time to the film which then had to be shortened in more quiet - but essential - scenes.

I would have had no problem if Mr. Jackson had just bluntly stated at the beginning that he was going to present what HE thought LOTR should be when it was brought to the screen. End of conversation. No promises, no attempts to "excuse" egregious deviations from the original. Here it is! Take it or leave it! This would have been honest and everyone - defender and purist alike - could have gone to the theater and enjoyed the show.

[Wolfshead]

Originally posted by Talimon
They have cliff-notes for LotR? That is pathetic. I can't imagine someone preffering to read notes then LotR. For that matter, since when was LotR required reading? I've never seen it in that context. Or do they make cliff-notes for books in general, so that people can act like they've read books they haven't? ;)
Well, for anyone who would rather read notes than read the book, I would recommend to them this page.

http://www.flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/homework.htm

A really great page for someone who has to do schoolwork on LOTR and can't be bothered to read the book. And the really good thing about it is, that it's not too unbelievable and could easily fool some unsuspecting cheater.
Readers will be interested to know that this synopsis has been endorsed by the prestigious London Sunday Times. At least, they thought it was accurate enough for them.
Anyway, I'm drifting off topic here so I'll shut up...

[Talimon]

I find it easy to relish in the visual splendour of PJ's tFotR and then to return to my own inner vision when rereading Tolkien's tFotR. The films are complementary (in both meanings) to Tolkien's vision created through his books; perhaps that combined with good old enjoyment should be more important than whether someone else's vision matches your own.

I fully agree. Ultimately PJ made a movie that I absolutely love, and once the lights go out and those epic, mystical opening words are spoken ("The world has changed"), I am lost in his world from start to finish. Having said this, I have to point out that for me PJ captured many of the elements of FotR. Not all, but many. And above all I feel that his priorities were very sound. Yes, there is action and fighting, but PJ makes sure that what is memorable about his movie are the charachters. I can't wait for Extended Edition, which expands on this charachter development by half an hour, but even as it stands I feel that PJ's philosophy on what is important about LotR is very sound.


Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott

I would have had no problem if Mr. Jackson had just bluntly stated at the beginning that he was going to present what HE thought LOTR should be when it was brought to the screen. End of conversation. No promises, no attempts to "excuse" egregious deviations from the original. Here it is! Take it or leave it! This would have been honest and everyone - defender and purist alike - could have gone to the theater and enjoyed the show.

Mrs. Maggot, I'd like to quote what is arguably the first quote PJ ever made regarding these movies. This stretches back as far as 1998, and he has said it many, many times since:


"You shouldn't think of these movies as being The Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings is, and always will be, a wonderful book - one of the greatest ever written. Any film will only ever be an interpretation of the book. In this case my interpretation."

-Peter Jackson

[Mrs. Maggott]

Mrs. Maggot, I'd like to quote what is arguably the first quote PJ ever made regarding these movies. This stretches back as far as 1998, and he has said it many, many times since:

"You shouldn't think of these movies as being The Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings is, and always will be, a wonderful book - one of the greatest ever written. Any film will only ever be an interpretation of the book. In this case my interpretation." <quote Talimon>

Well, for those of us who are not "Jackson groupies" and haven't spent years monitoring his press releases, I can only say what I heard the Director say about the film when it was nearing release seemed to be far more concerned about his being as faithful "as possible" to the original. Apparently, there were some in Tolkien's family who also "missed" these earlier releases.

[Talimon]

What are these quiet alludings to "Tolkiens family"? Do you have anything to show me regarding thier opinions on the film? I have not heard a single word from the Tolkien estate, positive or negative. Indeed, the most I've heard is Tolkiens grandson (or great-grandson, perhaps it was) enjoying the film and asking for Ian McKellens autograph at one of the premiers.

I can't help what the press chooses to release. In just about every interview I've heard PJ has always made sure to say that this is his interpretation, his movie. I don't know whether it was you or the sources you were reading, but someone was being very selective here.

[Lhunithiliel]

Mrs. Maggott Mr. Jackson PROMISED Tolkien enthusiasts - including his family - that he would do his best to bring the author's work to the screen NOT in a word-by-word, scene-by-scene, "every jot and tittle" way, but in a way that the characters and story line would be in keeping with the AUTHOR's "vision". However, Mr. Jackson decided to "re-write" much of the story in keeping with his OWN "vision". Some of it was necessitated by his medium but much of it was simply Mr. Jackson's decision to recraft the story in his OWN image. Many of his changes didn't save time - in fact, in many cases they ADDED time to the film which then had to be shortened in more quiet - but essential - scenes.

I quoted the above and highlighted a phrase out just to ask:
Please, tell me, do you expect EVERYONE to have one and the same vision? I will never accept such a presumption.
Meaning, that what the honourable J.R.R.Tolkien wrote was a true masterpiece, but he created it based on HIS visions. And a reader can only TRY to perceive and feel the same while reading as the author while writing. Actually, I believe that a piece of art can never be felt or/and understood in one and the same way by its creator and by every single individual from the audience. In fact, if this is the case, this piece of art will stop being a masterpiece. Because a masterpiece of any art is such for it provokes people's [DIFFERENT reactions.
To me the most annoying thing at analysing a piece of art is someone assuring that he knows exactly what the author wanted to express. This is just impossible! Because every individual has his/her own perception of the world around and his/her interaction with this world is unique, which makes also his/her opinions unique.
All I'm trying to say in plain words: PJ's vision is his own and I personally like it and I respect the enormous work he and his team have done in order to make the film. Tolkien's visions I respect highly, too. Otherwise I wouldn't be his so much obsessed fan.
But these two are tow separate artists - each in his field of art, each one with his visions, each one unique in his perceptions >>> which has lead to two unique pieces of art.
To say that PJ's work is rubbish and to throw rotten tommatoes is......at least a lack of understanding and lack of the simplest respect.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I have asked on another thread just what WAS Mr. Jackson's "vision" for this tale - other than selling tickets, that is. It appears to me that his ONLY "vision" was to take a myth (which is a tale with a well defined MEANING for the hearers and readers to absorb) and turn it into a commercially successful action film. If that was in fact, his "vision", that's fine. But it reduces the story to nothing more than that - another "story".

If, on the other hand, Mr. Jackson had MORE to say, I still ask from his numerous defenders, "what was it?" What have you to say in defense of what he has produced that isn't "it looks good" and "it's exciting" - both of which are fine for ordinary films, but I, at least, had expected much more than another big-budget adventure movie.

[Lhunithiliel]

Then, following your logic about creating things, J.R.R.Tolkien himself has prodced a "fake", "good-for-nothing" art too, taking into consideration that a lot of traces are to be found in his mythology to those of other peoples - Scandianvian (Kalevala, Beoulf etc), Greek and so on.. He was not original, then, ah? He wrote just for satisfying his personal ego, perhaps, ah?

No! I am positive about one thing: EVERYONE has his/her own visions provoked by the surrounding world and it is his/her PERSONAL interpreatation that he/she submits... And if this he/she does skillfully, it is accepted by the others.
Quite another thing is whether we like it or not!
One may like Tolkien and there are so many others who shrug their shoulders and say: "Hm! Tolkien! Big deal!" Would you criticise them?
I wouldn't.

[Mrs. Maggott]

You have not answered my question. WHAT IS JACKSON'S "VISION"??

As for Tolkien using other myths to create his own, no one said that he didn't. There are no NEW stories, only recrafting of plots and themes that have been around as long as mankind has TOLD stories. Shakespeare's plays are not "original", but "original" and excellent revisions of old themes told many times in many ways! However, Tolkien did have a "vision" for his story, a theme he expressed and a "moral", if you will, that he wanted his audience to recognize.

Since Tolkien's original has been revised, redone and changed, I merely ask his defenders to tell me what the Director's "vision" is. So far, no one has been able to do more than say that he HAD a "vision". Tolkien's vision has been enunciated and articulated by a number of folk on the site, but so far, no one has managed to articulate Mr. Jackson's vision, only the "result" of its application - a good film.

[Lhunithiliel]

Let's make it this way:
FIRST YOU try to say in one sentence the "morals" of Tolkein's art and then I will do the same about PJ's art.
Besides, my dear Mrs.Maggot, following again your logic it appears that modern cinema (especially speaking about latest Holliwood productions) is completely senseless.... To some productions this applies perfectly well, but I don't see PJ in this "group".

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Lhunithiliel
Let's make it this way:
FIRST YOU try to say in one sentence the "morals" of Tolkein's art and then I will do the same about PJ's art.
Besides, my dear Mrs.Maggot, following again your logic it appears that modern cinema (especially speaking about latest Holliwood productions) is completely senseless.... To some productions this applies perfectly well, but I don't see PJ in this "group".

All right! I shall say YET AGAIN that Tolkien's "moral" was that courage, friendship, loyalty and selflessness (as exhibited by "the good guys" and ESPECIALLY the hobbits) are in every way superior to cowardice, hatred, betrayal and greed (as exhibited by the "bad guys") in spite of the fact that "the bad guys" APPEAR to be - on the surface - MUCH stronger than those who oppose them. There are other adjunct moral themes involved and the above is by no means an "in-depth" presentation of Tolkien's moral vision, but the fact is that the author DID HAVE A MORAL VISION and that is why his tale is so much MORE than just one more title in the sci-fi/fantasy shelves of your local bookstore.

Furthermore, I believe we were speaking about this particular film and not any other. There have been films with definite moral themes albeit most of the really good ones date back to the Frank Capra/C. B. DeMille school. But even many modern films have had more in them than mere spectacle - although there are far too many that are negative and even wicked in the moral point they make!

Now, as I have fulfilled your demand that I address Tolkien's "vision", I again will ask you to articulate Mr. Jackson's "vision". I would also ask you to keep in mind that if the Director's "vision" is limited to producing a good film and nothing more, I do not consider that to be invalid (although I DO consider it to be unworthy of the work he chose to immortalize in film!). I am an unashamed capitalist and have nothing whatsoever against making money. However, if this is the LIMIT of Jackson's "vision" in his endeavor, then SAY SO and let us not go on about his "vision" vs. Tolkien's as the differences between the two are not limited to their differing means of expression.

[PRH]

The mantra that I keep hearing out of PJ is "true to the spirit of Tolkien," "keep everything that's important and especially memorable from the book," but "it's PJ vision of what a good LOTR movie would be - it's the one he would want to see."

Christopher Lee and Ian McKellen seem more to be the ones spouting on about staying precisely true to Tolkien.

Then whatever anyone says gets filtered through the editor's or reporter's sense of what makes for interesting writing/viewing.

[Mrs. Maggott]

True enough! There have been many people who have "opined" on Jackson's "vision" - including Jackson. I just want to know WHAT IT IS! Perhaps his vision is to make a film using what HE BELIEVES to be "the important parts" of the book, enlarging those HE THINKS are too small (Arwen, the "romance" and Saruman) and diminishing or removing completely those things HE THINKS are too large (the relationship among the hobbits, Glorfindel, Tom Bombadil, the Scouring of the Shire etc.). But these are merely SUBJECTIVE opinions limited to the framework of the story. They do not address its essential MEANING or "vision", if you will.

Does Mr. Jackson believe that he has succeeded in "staying true" to Tolkien's MORAL vision (NOT his plot line)? If so, how does he perceive the changes and revisions he has made still allow for that vision to emerge? Or, perhaps, the Director less concerned about the tale's moral vision than he is with it's plot line? Perhaps, in fact, he is totally UNCONCERNED with the author's moral vision. Whatever the case may be, I have yet to hear ANYONE make an effort to articulate exactly WHAT Mr. Jackson's "vision" for the film is or was - other than, this is how HE WANTS to present the story on the screen. And, perhaps, that answers the question in the end: Mr. Jackson's "vision" is limited to Mr. Jackson. :rolleyes:

[Lhunithiliel]

Now, as I have fulfilled your demand that I address Tolkien's "vision", I again will ask you to articulate Mr. Jackson's "vision".
There, there, my dear Mrs. M, I have never demanded anything... There are only two people in my life from whom I can demand - my daughter and MYSELF :)
Now, to the topic.
Looking for the morals in PJ's film is to look for such in any other piece of art:
courage you say - PJ showed courage even where it was not felt too much in the books (Frodo)
friendship you say - look at the kind eyes of PJ's Gandalf and you'll feel "friendship"
loyalty you say - do i have to mention S.Austine(sp?)'s Sam?
selflesness you say - didn't you feel it at the marvelous episode of Boromir's death, which BTW, I consider much better shown (as episode and as a character) that in the book
cowardice, hatred, betrayal and greed - "stamped" by the film's director and camera-man on the faces and in the eyes of so many characters that were seen on the screen PRECISELY and ONLY with this purpose
and I'll add:
horror - when you hear the cry of the Nazgul
love - when you watch the A-A love scene under the the incredibly beautiful music
tension - when the Khazad Dum bridge was falling apart...
dispair - when you see the perfectly played Sam's grief ouside Moria
....
Shall I continue?
I don't think I need to.
So, you see PJ is not some heartless scumback who was thinking only about how to make good money out of his movie, but to SHOW to as many people as possible the things that Master Tolkien had written about in his masterpiece LOTR.

And one more thing - PJ made Tolkien popular in many countries where NOBODY had ever before heard ANYTHING about Tolkien!
I'd call this perhaps the greatest merit of his production and the best "present" he could ever grant to the author of the book and to his heirs.

[Mrs. Maggott]

No, no, no, my dear. It WON'T DO! You have articulated TOLKIEN's "vision", some of which was BOUND to come through in the film as it used his characters (although in many cases greatly changed), his locations and his plot line although that too, was considerably changed.

But remember, we have been told that Jackson has made Aragorn into a self-doubting, weak-willed man who has thrown away his birthright and rejected his heritage, Arwen into a "warrior princess" and Merry and Pippin into bumbling comic relief (to name just a few "character changes") because of his "vision" of what the story SHOULD be. THAT'S the "vision" I would like explained to me, not a recapitulation of that part of Tolkien's "moral vision" that has come through in the films in some cases DESPITE and not BECAUSE of the Director!

As for not demanding, I suggest you view your first sentence in your previous post: "FIRST YOU try to say in one sentence the "morals" of Tolkein's art and then I will do the same about PJ's art." Somehow, that has a slight note of "demand" in it, if you will.

Furthermore, I have never called Mr. Jackson a name. I don't think that "selling one's labors" is the same as "selling one's soul". Only a fool - or a saint - asks nothing for his labors. I am, as I mentioned, an unashamed capitalist! If Mr. Jackson is able to turn his talents into a marketable commodity, that is FINE with me! I have NO problem with it at all! And if the extent of his "vision" is to make a good film of a better story (which he has done thus far), I APPLAUD, not condemn his efforts!

But as for the moral vision and emotions produced by the film thus far, they are Tolkien's. Mr. Jackson has only been the means by which they have been translated into film. And, I believe, the biggest problem many Tolkien lovers have is that he did not spend MORE TIME doing just that and less time "reinventing" the original as noted in his frequently unnecessary character and plot changes. However, since I have been assured that these "reinventions" were the result of his own "vision" (as opposed to Tolkien's) for the story, we are back to square one: WHAT IS HIS - NOT Tolkien's - VISION in the film?

[Lhunithiliel]

If you are saying that courage, friendship, loyalty etc. originated in our lives from Tolkien's writings, I will agree with everything you claim to be true.
The problem is that I can't believe this to be so!

This world around us has it's simple philosophies and a true artist is the one who discovers them, "cleans" them up, "wraps" them in the attractive "package" of the respective art's devices and gives them to the other people as a "present", as something ready to consume and thus perceive its beauty, its importance and its significance in its simplicity.
It only depends on the art and this particular art's devices.
Literature is one type of art, where a true master uses words.
Cinema is another type of art, which uses the ready-made vision.

But both arts, just like music, dance, painting, etc., reflect the ever-present truths in our world.

So, how can you then say that one artist ONLY is the one who can see and understands them? And the others automatically become his poor immitators, producers of fake and worthless things (in the light of the fundamental truths existing).
Because, if I'm not wrong, this is precisely what you mean: J.R.R.Tolkien was original at discovering the truths of life itself and noone after him can call himself a "visioner", nor anyone can claim he understands those SAME truths!

What I'm trying to say is that these authors BOTH have used the devices of the arts they have been working into. But using a different device of expressing one's visions does not necessarily mean that the one of the results is better/worse than the other. They are just different........
But this is the purpose of the existing of various types of rt, isn't it!

[Talimon]

WHAT IS HIS - NOT Tolkien's - VISION in the film?

courage, friendship, loyalty and selflessness

Have I not repeated this endlessly? Have I not backed this up? Those themes were the ones PJ felt were important, and were as such part of his vision. Then you go on to claim that he didn't cover those themes. Then I go on to quote from the movie to prove that he did. Then you concede he did, but in the wrong order. Mrs. Maggot, I believe that we were a few steps further in this arguement in another thread. Why go back to square one? Unless you have something new to say, you will end up hearing my opinions twice.

There is one thing you say that I have to completely disagree with:

THAT'S the "vision" I would like explained to me, not a recapitulation of that part of Tolkien's "moral vision" that has come through in the films in some cases DESPITE and not BECAUSE of the Director!

You have single-handedly demeaned PJ's whole effort in capturing Tolkien. Perhaps that is your intention, but I can't help feeling a degree of ignorance in saying that the film captures Tolkiens "moral vision" despite the intentions of the director. You aren't the first to make this claim. Indeed, I believe a few "purists" have gone so far as to say all that is good about PJ's movie is Tolkien, and what is bad is PJ. To me that is the highest level of absurdity and utter ignorance. By making such a claim you are ignoring the hours upon hours of time and effort that went into bringing Tolkiens tale to life. One need look no further then Bakshi to see that it takes more then quoting Tolkien to make a good movie. You have to quote the right qutoes, and you have to say them the right way. You have to have the right actors, cinematography, costumes, music, editing, direction... I think, Mrs. Maggot, you are more intent on criticizing PJ's movie then actually judging it.

I just can't relate in the least to the claim that PJ's sole intention was to create an action film, and by mere cooincidence (to the directors annoyance, you would have me believe) he happens to stick to a few elements of the tale. This arguement is based on a flimsy fiction, a complete misunderstanding of PJ's intent. I know you are better educated on PJ's efforts, but perhaps you have ignored this for the sake of arguement. No matter. I can handle this arguement based on another inconsistency: PJ's movie does not have the signs of a money-maker. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of Hollywood will tell you the following elements do not make for a big box-office success:

* A fantasy film (a genre whos mere mention is bound to get laughs).

* A 3 hour film (never a good sign).

* A film less then 15 minutes combined of female actors.

* A film with no sex.

* A film based on a 500 page book.


Sorry, the signs don't match. It is one of the great accomplishments of PJ that he has indeed proven that such a film can make money. Because prior to December 19th, 2001, anyone from Hollywood would have told you this movie would never make it's money back. And, quite frankly, I'd have agreed. Listen, PJ could have made many changes were money his sole intention. The first would be to cut the movie down to 2 hours. The next would be to cut down out Bree entirely. Cut straight to Moria following Rivendell. Add action on the way to the Moria. Make Aragorns romance with Arwen more modern. C'mon, to be quite frank there could have been a love scene there. It is apparent that you are not familiar with Hollywoods notorious reputation for ripping the guts out of tales and rearranging them. Do I even need to mention Disney?

The fact that we even have a two sided arguement here, on a Tolkien forum, is proof enough that PJ was interested in more then just making money. I can only hope you get the EE, and see all the documentries here. Because we are talking about a film-maker who's the last person to sell-out. A film-maker who's been making low-budget films his whole life. An independent film-maker, in every sense of the word. You hear PJ talk and it is obvious he cares about LotR, loves Tolkien, is filled from head to toe with enthusiam and ideas. You have to appreciate that these changes he's made are not out of a lack of respect for Tolkien. If anything, it's the opposite. He wants to make the absolutely best movie he can given Tolkiens tale. He's just not afraid to go with his instincts in order to make that tale more cinematic. Tolkien wrote the best book he could, PJ made the best film he could. It just seems that some people are being a tiny bit too literal here.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Okay! Since NO ONE of the FADS seems to understand my question, let's break it down into particulars:

1. Why did Jackson make Aragorn into a man who had renounced his heritage and rejected his birthright? We KNOW that Tolkien did not do that. (and if anyone says it was time constraints, PLEASE illustrate how this made the film shorter?)

2. Why did Jackson enlarge Arwen out of all proportion to her original place in the book? We KNOW that Tolkien did not do that. (and if anyone says it was time constraints, PLEASE illustrate how - with the exception of replacing Glorfindel - this made the film shorter?)

3. Why did Jackson make Merry and Pipping into bumbling, light-fingered fools who only get caught up in the Quest by accident? (and if anyone says it was time constraints, PLEASE illustrate how this made the film shorter since all that would have been necessary to present them PROPERLY would have been a few minutes of dialogue to "set the stage" - and then Jackson could have taken out the "broken carrot" scene?)

4. Why did Jackson take SO MUCH time flying in and out of Orthanc? Why did he continue to show the uprooting of trees after Saruman says, "Uproot them all!"? We KNOW that Tolkien did not do that. (and if anyone says it was for time constraints, he or she is blowing smoke since it LENGTHENED, not shortened the film!)

5. Why did Jackson make everyone in Bree (which should have been a nice village not that much different than Hobbiton) and The Prancing Pony (which should have been a nice inn not that much different than The Green Dragon) appear so disreputable as to make Strider appear positively "clean-cut"? We KNOW that Tolkien did not do that. (and if anyone says it was for tine constraints, PLEASE illustrate how this made the film shorter?)

Why don't we start with those points - all of which I am reliably informed were in the film because they demonstrated the Director's "vision". If I get sensible answers here, perhaps I will begin to understand just WHERE Mr. Jackson is coming from and MY "question" will be indeed answered!

[Talimon]

NOTE: This is going to be long. ;)

These are all points that have been answered at one point or another, but I have no problem doing so again. I don't know why PJ made these changes, but my good sense dictates that, in short, it was to make for a better movie. It certainly succeeded in accomplishing that end for me.

1. Why did Jackson make Aragorn into a man who had renounced his heritage and rejected his birthright? We KNOW that Tolkien did not do that. (and if anyone says it was time constraints, PLEASE illustrate how this made the film shorter?)


This is quite simple, really. It was to create a charachter arc, and in the process let Aragorn have more depth. In Tolkiens book Aragorn serves one set role, and that works great. As PRH pointed out in another thread, one of PJ's more common techniques when writing these films was to go with the idea of "charachter arcs". That is to say, charachters change and evolve as the plot progresses. Tolkien touched on this technique for a few charachters, but in general charachters didn't go through massive changes. That was his way of telling the tale, and it worked great. PJ has chosen to take a slightly different road. You might disagree with this technique, but in my opinion it gives the charachters more depth and makes them much more believeable. Tolkien wrote the book in such a way that we were often removed from the charachters to an extent. This was a very powerful technique, in that by keeping some distance and perspective on the whole tale, Tolkien made it seem greater then life. He made it seem like it was a myth long recounted and often told. PJ has simply changed the lense through which we view the tale. Having read LotR so many times, to me there is something fresh in seeing the tale told by somebody else.

I don't believe, however, that PJ has stuck to this charachter arc tehcnique to such an extent that any major theme from the story has been changed, and I don't think he would stick to it were a major theme at stake. I just see it as being his way of telling the tale. In Aragorns case, he will gain his confidence as the tale progresse.

2. Why did Jackson enlarge Arwen out of all proportion to her original place in the book? We KNOW that Tolkien did not do that. (and if anyone says it was time constraints, PLEASE illustrate how - with the exception of replacing Glorfindel - this made the film shorter?)

It is easier to answer this if we are to speak of Arwens role in general. Here is how I see it: PJ could have treated Arwen in two ways. One, completely cut her out, marriage and everything. If they do marry, PJ simply wouldn't show it or refer to it. And two, develop thier relationship so that thier marriage is not only credible and believeable, but carries some emotional weight. From that perspective, PJ had to make some sort of change here. Now, if you can present to me a solution on how he could have stuck to Tolkien, we can discuss that. But as far as I'm concerend he couldn't. In the book it only works because of the appendices, and even then I believe it suffers. I mean, here is the charachter whom the third book is named after, and the resolution of his tale is him marrying someone we haven't heard a word of throughout? For me it barely works in the book, and that's only due to Tolkiens tactic of viewing things from a distance. For PJ's movie (indeed for a movie in general) that simply couldn't work.

I assume, however, that you are wondering about her role in the Flight to the Ford specifically. While I agree this could have been done in multiple ways without Arwen or Glorfindel, I think the way PJ did it has some merit worth observing. For one, it carries a certain degree of symbolism. I mean this in the sense that Arwen is riding forth, to a certain degree "sacrificing" herself. This ties in with her sacrificing her immortality for Aragorn. Through the course of the trilogy she will be making what for her people is the greatest sacrifice of them all. To introduce her in such a light is a great way to hint at her greater sacrifice.

I also ought to mention that I do not feel that her scenes are without fault. There are two aspects that I felt could/should have been done otherwise. One, Frodo not defying the Nazgul. PJ's only explanation for this, I assume, is that it ties in with Frodo's greater charachter arc. Perhaps, but it was a very memorable scene from the book :). I can't wait until the EE comes in the mail and I can hear the commentary. Because I have a quote from PJ distinctly talking about that scene in the book and its strength (I think it was in the context of talking about John Howe, the artist). The other aspect is Arwen crying at Frodo's side. While throughout the film I really feel that PJ doesn't attempt to stuff too many emotions down our throats, this was one place I felt it was just going a bit overboard. It wasn't believeable for Arwen to cry over Frodo, given that she hadn't spoken a single word to him. She didn't know him. It's quite obvious that PJ expected the audience to be worrying for Frodo. This I can understand. But to have a charachter who doesn't even know him express this sadness doesn't make sense. Those are the only two problems I have with Arwen. I think her being chased to the Ford is a really epic scene, and her scenes with Aragorn gave the movie a great moment to slow down.

3. Why did Jackson make Merry and Pipping into bumbling, light-fingered fools who only get caught up in the Quest by accident? (and if anyone says it was time constraints, PLEASE illustrate how this made the film shorter since all that would have been necessary to present them PROPERLY would have been a few minutes of dialogue to "set the stage" - and then Jackson could have taken out the "broken carrot" scene?)

Again, this ties into the charachter arc idea. One thing I find amusing is how many people think PJ failed to achieve a certain end (in this case M & P's "maturity and foresight"). Instead, how about giving PJ more credit and actually assuming he wanted them to seem immature and having a lack of foresight? There is no doubt that in TTT and RotK, M & P will grow in that sense. Indeed, they begin to do so within FotR (two main points being Gandalfs death and Boromirs death). I especially feel that thier look after Boromir is defeated encapsulates thier growth. The contrast between that look and the one of the hobbits in the Shire is a very powerful one. They suddenly realize that they've been swept into this massive war, and that those nearest to them are becoming it's casualties.

4. Why did Jackson take SO MUCH time flying in and out of Orthanc? Why did he continue to show the uprooting of trees after Saruman says, "Uproot them all!"? We KNOW that Tolkien did not do that. (and if anyone says it was for time constraints, he or she is blowing smoke since it LENGTHENED, not shortened the film!)

First of all, I don't think he spent "SO MUCH" time in Orthanc. In fact, I don't think there is a shot of Orthanc for that whole 45 minutes between the gates of Moria and the Mirror and Galadriel. But what time he did spend was spent to make it clear who and what was evil. Tolkien keeps the forces of evil very mysterious, and we mostly end up loathing them due to accounts told by certain charachters. You have to remember that this is a struggle of good vs. evil. Instead of having us trust Gandalf's claims that Saruman/Sauron are "evil", PJ proves it to us himself. There is no doubt in the audiences mind of just who is evil and why, and this is largely the result of these scenes in Orthanc.

I'd answer your last point, but for one this post is already well past any standard of length, and two I don't feel it is much of a major point worth discussing.

[Lhunithiliel]

My dear M.M., reading through your questions, I don't know why, but I get the impression of you knowing the possible answers beforehand and that you're asking a question that allready contains the answer "between the lines".
OR
It is asking a question just for the sake of asking it, knowing for yourself that the question did not need to be asked at all, for the issue questioned can not be a subject of any discussion, as it has been explained and quite clear from the start.
OR
You're asking questions without taking into consideration the arguments and opinions stated by the other people, who participate in this debate, but basing the content of your questions ONLY on YOUR critical (quite sever, I'd say ;) :) ) opinion on PJ's work.
1. Why did Jackson make Aragorn into a man who had renounced his heritage and rejected his birthright? We KNOW that Tolkien did not do that.
This is NOT true! Reading the LOTR, the whole of it, together with all the Appendices etc. one starts wondering... "Why a man like Aragorn, who had fought so often for the freedom of a kingdom that he is the rightful heir of, delayed his decision to take over the full responsibility of becoming the ruler of this kingdom EARLIER? Why did he leave Gondor in the hands of the Stewards for so many years while he just wandered around in the wild, dealing with local problems, until Gandalf involved him into the important and great cause? See? Tolkien, too did not present Aragorn as a "hero from the start". And IMO, Aragorn = the hero is much more to be seen in PJ's work while Aragorn = developing character is more to be seen in Tolkien's book. It is in Tolkien's book where we find the development of this character from "a man who had renounced his heritage and rejected his birthright" to a mighty King of a mighty kingdom. I just can't undrstand how did you come up with the idea that THIS was done by PJ! PJ did not make a film on Aragorn's destiny so he could of course not spend too much time as to trace such a complicated development of one sole character.
2. Why did Jackson enlarge Arwen out of all proportion to her original place in the book? We KNOW that Tolkien did not do that.
Two things here:
> first - as for Arwen in the movie I can't possibly add anything more than Talimon has said
> second - I perhaps don't use the English language very well, but which part of my statements above was misunderstood? I am trying to SHOWT IT OUT - Literature is one type of art and Cinema - another type of art! These two types of art have different devices of introducing both characters and events. So, what is your question about? PJ's intentions were not to copy Tolkien, but to use his story and make his own interpretation using the devices of cinematography. PJ NEEDED NOT copy Tolkien. PJ COULD NOT copy Tolkien. PJ DID NOT copy Tolkien.
Is this so hard to see?
3. Why did Jackson make Merry and Pipping into bumbling, light-fingered fools who only get caught up in the Quest by accident?
The way PJ presented the hobbits was IMO the best way to express the innocence and good-will of these creatures, that actually made them stronger and more resistful to the dark powers of the ring than other characters (which is actually Tolkien's attitude too!). Making M&P jolly and mischievous is one of his devices. Seeing them like such people in the first film will make the audience understand better their development as characters throughout the two following installments.
4. Why did Jackson take SO MUCH time flying in and out of Orthanc? Why did he continue to show the uprooting of trees after Saruman says, "Uproot them all!"? We KNOW that Tolkien did not do that.
On the way of the Fellowship to Mordor, and BEFORE reaching Mordor, Orthanc is the only possible place where the audience can meet the forces of the Evil. What's the point of asking the question? :confused:
5. Why did Jackson make everyone in Bree (which should have been a nice village not that much different than Hobbiton) and The Prancing Pony (which should have been a nice inn not that much different than The Green Dragon) appear so disreputable as to make Strider appear positively "clean-cut"? We KNOW that Tolkien did not do that.
Oh, please! Will you give me a break with this sentence? C'mmon! How many times do I have to say that PJ's work is NOT a copy of Tolkien's work?!

[Lhunithiliel]

Nym, Mrs Maggot, if my above sentense was rude, I BEG you to fogive me! :o
It's that I thought this can sound friendly and colloqual. I learn the language from every line and word I read and hear much more than from textbooks!
Now, if M.M. asks WHY PJ did his film at all.... well, what can I say? Why not? He is a Tolkien - devoted person, knows the books very well and I understand it that he did what he did because he wished to provide his own interpretation of those morals he (and many others) find in Tolkien books. It is known that some of the actors knew nothing or a little about the story itself and about the author but PJ - he DID!
If the question is WHY not HOW he made the film, then we should ask this "WHY" about every single piece of art! :confused: WHY there are so many painted Madonas, WHY so many musical pieces about emotions like sadness, tenderness, fear etc., WHY so many ballet-productions on the "Swans Lake" or "Carmen"...
This is why I have understood the "WHY"-question as a critic to what PJ has made rather than just discussing separate details from the movie.
And this is why I have been so "passionate" about defending PJ's work!

I still am sure of one thing - every piece of any art reveals a universal truth...it only depends what art is involved. Then the author uses different techniques, characteristic for this particular art.
For example, too many "unseen" explanations are considered as boring and unadequate for a movie, therefore, one cannont expect from a movie-maker to rely on this. If PJ followed the demands of the "purists" to stick to the story as much as possible, including more bits of picture+ behind-the-camera-narration, this would have had rather a negative effect than any other possible, and eventually again not being as close to the story as expected... Because a film is something one can SEE, a musical piece is something one can HEAR, literature is something one can READ...
You see?

[Mrs. Maggott]

I am sorry I was so testy! The cat had just thrown up, missing my keyboard by an "eenth"! I love cats, but they seem to always know where NOT to do something - and then promptly DO it and do it THERE!

I understand your passion - passion is a good thing! I am so tired of all these apathetic persons in a constant state of ennui! One British theatre critic said of the great Ralph Richardson in a performance, "It was like trying to strike sparks off a rubber raft!" Somehow, that analogy always stuck in my mind as being akin to attempting to rouse the apathetic! Anyway, it clears the sinuses and get's the old brown cells (I'm too old for gray ones!) working! In fact, I just received my "complete with everything but the kitchen sink", 4 DVD, WITH Argonath figures FOTR - so you can see, I am hardly SUCH a "purist" that I don't enjoy the film(s)!

I must in fact, agree with Christopher Tolkien that the book is entirely too complex to bring successfully to the screen and probably Jackson did the best HE could - although I can think of any number of things he could have done that would have been MORE faithful to the author and STILL created the "cinematic effect" for which he was aiming! But that is neither here or there. What is done is done and one must accept it or leave it alone. These threads are useful enough for engaging interest in the whole theme, but after awhile, we are just "drinking the bathwater" as we rehash all the old arguments. However, I suppose that the release of TTT will start the whole thing all over again! In a way, I'm glad Jackson KEPT it to three films!

Perhaps we might start a thread as to how WE, individually, would have handled certain characters, plot lines etc. Now that WOULD be interesting, especially if it differs from Jackson's interpretation and no one could get angry because we don't have the money to follow through and we would be each speaking only for ourselves rather than trying to figure out what either Professor Tolkien OR Mr. Jackson intended! Think about it! :D

[Lhunithiliel]

M.M, I congratulate you on having the "precious" 4-DVD-collections!
Oh, I bitterly envy you! ;) Enjoy watching it twice more than usual, for the sake of those (loke me) who don't have it! :D

Perhaps we might start a thread as to how WE, individually, would have handled certain characters, plot lines etc. Now that WOULD be interesting, especially if it differs from Jackson's interpretation and no one could get angry because we don't have the money to follow through and we would be each speaking only for ourselves rather than trying to figure out what either Professor Tolkien OR Mr. Jackson intended! Think about it!
Well, at the Guild of Tolkienology we have the "What if?"-game where we are rewriting Tolkien himself! Why not "refilm" what PJ did? :D
I like the idea!

[Mrs. Maggott]

Dear Lhunithiliel (Bless you, child, for choosing a name that makes me spell so early in the morning!)

I think it would be grand - I just don't quite know where it should go forum-wise. Of course, there would be rules. For instance, if your particular "vision" took up more time than was used for that character or plot line in the film, then you have to say WHERE you would get the time! You just can't add it on, willy-nilly. This also goes if you are putting in something new (like Tom Bombadil), so it would be something that would have to be studied carefully and presented as cinematically possible - and not just "wishful thinking".

Of course, it would be open to criticism from the Faithful as was the film (and the book as well). But because it is "ours" and personal, we'd have to be careful to be as kind as possible. "That stinks!" does not constitute valid criticism! And, of course, it would have to be limited to FOTR (since that's the only film out at present and we should give TTT some time to "sink in"), but it would also have to keep in mind that change's impact on the remaining films! The author would have to at least make some allusion to how their plot line, say, would "play out" in the rest of the story.

P.S. I believe I have been accepted into the Tolkienology Guild and would like to have my "credentials" added to my signature as yours have been but I don't know how or indeed if I do that or if that is done by the Guildmaster since I don't know my rank as of now. Perhaps someone can enlighten me about this and if it is my responsiblity, how I go about finding my rank and adding the proper material to my signature. Thank you. :)

[Lhunithiliel]

Bless you, child, for choosing a name that makes me spell so early in the morning!
:D :D I liked that "child"-thing, my dear M.M!
Look at my profile!
I wonder, do I sound childish, immature or ...? :confused: :D
As for the name, everybody now writes just "Lhun". It's more convenient and shorter. :)

I believe I have been accepted into the Tolkienology Guild and would like to have my "credentials" added to my signature as yours have been but I don't know how or indeed if I do that or if that is done by the Guildmaster since I don't know my rank as of now. Perhaps someone can enlighten me about this and if it is my responsiblity, how I go about finding my rank and adding the proper material to my signature. Thank you.
Will it be out of any ethics rules if I told you that it was I who recommended you to our Guild-master? :)
I like the way you think and I always read with pleasure what you post! And I enjoy debating with you! :)
To show your Guild-affiliation, you have to go to your profile page and in the "Signature" section make the necessary changes. You'd better ask Nym about how exactly to do it, because these days Grond has some serious family problems (I wish everything turns up OK for his father!).
As for the rank - this shall have to be the decision of Grond. You just PM him and tell him....
Why don't you better read the Instructions thread at the Guild? Perhaps it will answer your questions.

Now, about our movie, at the moment I'm in a hurry. In half an hour I'm having an English class to handle. But latr tonight (my time) I'll post about it. OK?
Till then,
Lhun

[Mrs. Maggott]

My dear child,

I call EVERYONE "child" as a token of affection as we are ALL children of Eru. I fear the term "child" has come to mean "immature" and yet we know that "out of the mouths of babes and sucklings" comes much wisdom and Godly praise! However, if I have offended, please believe that so many of you in the forum talk about "school", that I must feel rather maternal towards you since it has been MANY years since I have attended ANY school, but the school of life! :rolleyes:

As for the signature, I shall follow your instructions "as a child" since you are infinitely more "mature" in such matters that I! My idea of "hi-tech" is the doorknob! And I will see if anyone has determined my rating as of yet. I do not wish to get "above" myself, so to speak! I thank you for your words of praise and commendation; I shall try to live up to them. :p

I, too, shall say a prayer for Grond's father. If I knew his name, I would add it to our parish's "prayer list" so that he may receive special prayers at the consecration of the gifts in the Liturgy. I shall also pray for Grond. I lost my mother ten years ago and my beloved sister barely a month past, so I know that those who are fated to stand and wait are also much in need of prayer.

As for our "coat of arms", what about crossed forks on a field of mushrooms? Too parochial perhaps? :D

[Lhunithiliel]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
My dear child,

I call EVERYONE "child" as a token of affection as we are ALL children of Eru. I fear the term "child" has come to mean "immature" and yet we know that "out of the mouths of babes and sucklings" comes much wisdom and Godly praise! However, if I have offended, please believe that so many of you in the forum talk about "school", that I must feel rather maternal towards you since it has been MANY years since I have attended ANY school, but the school of life!
Oh, no! I don't feel offended! And you're right about the children's wisdom! ;)
As for our "coat of arms", what about crossed forks on a field of mushrooms? Too parochial perhaps? :D
:D :D Good idea, though try to offer it to our guild-mates!

I am however afraid that we have occupied this thread with entirely out-of-topic-conversation! I hope the starter will forgive us!

If you wish, we could talk about these things in our Guild. OK?

[Mrs. Maggott]

Sounds good to me. Meanwhile, perhaps we can get some others to chime in on the possible thread for a "home grown" LOTR film. We are at least in the right forum for such things! ;)

[Talimon]

Hm... you just gave me an idea, Mrs. Maggot. We should start a thread or something where we go chapter by chapter, and each person can submit what they feel would be the ideal script for that chapter. There could be conditions regarding length... I'll message one of the moderators, we'll see :).

[Mrs. Maggott]

That would be wonderful, but we might also have a "character" thread wherein each person could show how he or she would have liked to see a particular (important) character developed. Of course, as mentioned, it would have to be within the parameters of the time allowance and if one ADDS something, then REALISTICALLY, one should show where he or she would get the time back. It can't be perfect of course, since we would not be exactly sure how long our particular "character development" would take, but we would have some idea - like my poor scriptwriting at the party between Frodo and Sam. I doubt that would have taken more than a few minutes at most but I suppose one could read it through "with feeling" and see how long it takes - then quadruple it for the necessary body language and camera angles!

You're right though, we would probably have to divide it between character and plot development. Maybe we could have "pairs" working in tandem: one works on the characters and assesses how much time would be necessary and the plot person would "arrange" the plot in that chapter to permit the addition or subtraction of the action that obtains from the new character thread. It would be VERY challenging, but not impossible to do and it might lead us all to have more insight into (and sympathy for) all those trying to "adapt" such a complex story! Of course, it would be wise, at least in the beginning, not to put too much emphasis on our version's commercial value (since we aren't filming it anyway), but just see how well we could do vis a vie the book to film thing. :cool:

[Lhunithiliel]

Count me in! :)

PLEASE!

I suppose this just has to be a separate thread. I think that it should be in the FOTR-section of TTF.
As for the development of the movie, I think the "chapter-by-chapter-scheme will be better, or should I call it "episode-by-episode".
We can thus determine a time-limit both for the episode itself (f.ex. 3 min.) and a time-limit to make it (f.ex. two weeks). In this way we would be able to re-work those bits of the movie that we think could be better our way.
However, I see a problem here. When an episode is being under re-construction, there are going to be different people participating, so we shall have to relly make our endeavours in some sort of working designing teams or so.

However, all this we surely must determine BEFORE we start working.
And therefore I suggest we open TWO threads - one - for comments and discussing operational maters and second - for the movie itself. I have this practice with the "What if?"-game and it works quite well!

AND I think it is HIGH TIME we start discussing our present idea out of this thread ;)

[Mrs. Maggott]

Still, we must credit the thread - and the posters - for going from a sometimes acrimonious debate to an attempt to "do" something that will allow us all to cooperate in a creative effort.

Of course, when this "takes off", I shall have to be an onlooker until I see exactly how the game is being played. I am new at all this "internet forum" stuff and it's one thing to respond to an opinion or an event, it's quite another to "role play" (never done it) or some of the other more creative things done on these sites.

However, I do have a question: once it is started, does everyone do his or her thing and then judge at the end, or does someone start and then others put their oar in as the process proceeds. I am reminded of two authors - Douglas Preston and Lincoln Childs - who write sci-fi adventure tales together (Relic etc.). How two people can write "one" book, is beyond me, but they do! Is that what would happen here, or would everyone develop the same chapter etc. and then put it out for critique? Somehow, if we are going to develop a "finished" product out of this, we would have to keep choosing those developments that would fit together, or perhaps, once a particular chapter is chosen as "best", then the group would build on that and so forth. I'm afraid someone would have to explain the procedure to me VERY carefully as I am among the dull witted in some things! :rolleyes:

[Thorin]

Quite a while back this sort of thing was attempted. A book reading / chapter analysis. I never participated in it but I think it went like this: A certain amount of reading was assigned by a certain date and the discussion occured on a specific date. After, a Part II thread was started for the next reading section and so on and so on.

Why it died, I don't know. Perhaps it was just too much to organize and maintain.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I'm sure that's true. But frankly, I doubt that the book ever generated as much "heat" as has the film and now that another one is being released, we can anticipate as much - if not MORE - "heat" generated by it as well. So, perhaps (if we keep it within reason) we might be able to do with an obviously shorter film script what could not be done with the book.

Also, I doubt that anyone was trying to "recreate" the book whereas there are quite a few posters who believe that there were better ideas than were used in the film. But, in the end, we can only try and see where it goes. That's why I suggested rather than chapter by chapter or scene by scene, perhaps developing the characters differently - which would certainly necessitate changes in the scenes - and then accommodating the scenes to fit the new character. I guess we're just going to have to "fool around" a bit before complete ground rules are established for any project - if we do proceed, that is.

Still, I think it is worth trying since so much energy has been obviously expended in these "film critique" threads that might be at least as well used seeing where each of us would go with a film adaptation.

[Lhunithiliel]

Thorin, AT THE MOMENT there is a reading/discussion going on in the Silmarillion Section of TTF and is doing just fine :)

M.M. I don't see our possible attempt as an RP. And another thing - let's say we start re-modeling the development of a character... How can you develop one character OUT of his/her lelations with the rest and OUT of particular situation and /or circumstances? I can't see how this could be done...:confused:
That's why I suggested a scene-by-scene development where the participating "authors" could be grouped in teams which will busy them with different aspects: this or another character, the scenery+camera, the music (why not?!) etc.

I am opening a related thread

It will in the FOTR-section and I will place our latest discussion THERE, in order to finally have the place we shall know as a workshop for our possible attempt. Even if we undertake nothing at the end, it's still usefull to have it discussed ;)

[Mrs. Maggott]

Forgive my ignorance, but what's an "RP"?

When I meant "develop the characters", I of course meant it in conjunction with the various scenes (rather than chapters since it isn't the book). For instance: one can do the Weathertop scenes - including Arwen's appearance - and make GREAT CHANGES not by changing the sequence of events as much as changing the characters. You could wind up with the whole group (including Arwen) proceeding to the fords with Frodo on the horse (as it was with Glorfindel in the book) and then have that glorious Tolkien bit with the comming of the Riders, and Arwen (after all, it IS her horse!) sending Frodo alone to cross the fords.

The timing would be relatively the same, but the whole spirit of the thing would be different and Frodo would get his moment of defiance of the Riders - and therefore help strengthen HIS character. Arwen would be brave (and there), Aragorn would NOT be a "wuss" for sending her off alone and unaided, etc. The only thing that would have to be changed in the scene of attack is Frodo's wound. Tolkien makes it a shoulder wound that rather quickly heals at least in appearance. Jackson made it to the chest and large which certainly would have prevented Frodo from being anything but a sem-conscious piece of baggage. This is what I meant by using character development to fuel the changes rather than just changes in action or position.