Really ask yourself now...

[Nóm]

Poll

Part 1
To what degree to you keep the book separate from the movie?
3 - totally separate
2 - medium
1 - not separate at all
Part 2
2) Should they be separated in one's mind?

Additional question not relating to poll:
And what do you look to the movie for vs. what you look to the book for?

[Mrs. Maggott]

I have voted at #2 for the separation and that the two SHOULD be "separated".

In the first instance, one could hardly vote that they are the same because NO ONE, not the Director nor his most ardent admirers have said that the are; in fact, they have stated exactly the opposite. Nor, of course, could one vote that they are ENTIRELY different since they are not that either, again for obvious reasons. Therefore, the middle option is perhaps the ONLY option open: for while they do share many things in common, they are certainly NOT the same.

As to the second question of whether or not they SHOULD be separate, I assume that the poll taker is asking whether they should be CONSIDERED together as a unit, or separately as book and film. With that understanding of the question, I voted that they should be considered separately. Although, as noted, they share many things in common, it is obvious that Mr. Jackson presented his own version of the tale and it would be unfair and unwise to "lump" the two together in any assessment of either or both. This attempt to reduce the two into one is what is causing all the "ruckus" on the threads. It simply cannot (successfully) be done and is very much like the old Gospel admonition that one cannot serve two masters. On the other hand, if both are considered separately, one may enjoy BOTH without all the angst and hand wringing. At least that is what I intend to do!

As for the third question: I look to the book for the MEANING and the myth and the beauty of language and vision. I look to the movie for the visual wonders it creates, the translation of what is written into what can be seen (sometimes!) and for a human face on the characters I have learned to love.

On the other hand, I do NOT look to the book for a "modern" interpretation of characters and events, nor for the type of "reality fiction" that the author never intended it to be. And I do NOT look to the film for an attempt to faithfully reproduce the book as I have already been informed by no less than the Director himself, that it will not be forthcoming.

That having been said, I WILL enjoy all that the Director offers by divorcing what is on the screen from what is on the printed page and in so doing, enjoy the best of both worlds! :D

[Nóm]

Part 1
Do you view PJ's movie as something wholly different than J.R.R. Tolkien's book?

Rate the level at which you separate the two.

Perhaps I should have better emphasized that second question, as it is the question asked in the poll.
That first question was just to explain the second question.
I didnt mean to ask if the movie and book are separete but rather, do people separate the two while watching the movie.
Well it looks as though I created a useless thread. This happend once before, I'll get over it! :D

Actually, I'll fix it. I can't have a stupid thread sitting here can I?

[Mrs. Maggott]

I'm sorry, I thought I DID answer the question as you posited it. Of course, they are not the same - although they have elements in common, but I responded to your more important second question as, yes, at least I keep them "separate" in order to enjoy the film to the fullest. If you don't do that - and you are a "purist" - you could annoy yourself to death!

I cannot imagine that anyone would understand the question differently than you have explained it, but perhaps MY "explanation" was what caused you to misunderstand. I hope not! :(

[Nóm]

This is what caused me to think that I misworded my question...
In the first instance, one could hardly vote that they are the same because NO ONE, not the Director nor his most ardent admirers have said that the are; in fact, they have stated exactly the opposite. Nor, of course, could one vote that they are ENTIRELY different since they are not that either, again for obvious reasons. Therefore, the middle option is perhaps the ONLY option open:
I didn't mean for the rating levels to mean the degree that someone thought the book and movie were the same thing, but rather if they keep them separate in their mind.
Yes, the book and the movie are obviously two different things, and I got the impression that you thought that I was asking that.
But looking back, I did misword my initial question.
I do that often.

[Ascamaciliel]

i voted 2, for the original question

[Mrs. Maggott]

<I didn't mean for the rating levels to mean the degree that someone thought the book and movie were the same thing, but rather if they keep them separate in their mind. Yes, the book and the movie are obviously two different things, and I got the impression that you thought that I was asking that. - quote>

I don't know, I've been so involved in this "debate" about film vs. book that I have come to think that despite their obvious and admitted differences, some people BELIEVE that there really ISN'T any difference between the two - or, at the very least, that those who opine that the film has failed to depict the essence of the book just aren't watching the "same film" as the rest of humanity.

Therefore, I am sure you will receive responses from some people that ultimately, the film and the book are close enough in content and meaning to be essentially "the same".

[Eowyn14]

3 - totally separate
2 - medium
1 - not separate at all

2 7/8. :D I try to keep them seperate when discussing things, but IMO they can never be totally separate.

Part 2
2) Should they be separated in one's mind?

No real compelling reason to keep them seperate unless you are debating on the movie "in and of itself" or the books "in and of themselves". The situation would dictate.

Additional question not relating to poll:
And what do you look to the movie for vs. what you look to the book for?

........... huh? Explain please.

[Nóm]

Originally posted by Eowyn14
3 - totally separate
2 - medium
1 - not separate at all

2 7/8. :D I try to keep them seperate when discussing things, but IMO they can never be totally separate.

Part 2
2) Should they be separated in one's mind?

No real compelling reason to keep them seperate unless you are debating on the movie "in and of itself" or the books "in and of themselves". The situation would dictate.
II think there is, perhaps it doesn't apply to everyone though, and I will quote Mrs. Maggott on this..:D
she said:
On the other hand, if both are considered separately, one may enjoy BOTH without all the angst and hand wringing. At least that is what I intend to do!
As for myself, I once said that I would end up pulling my hair out if I did not separate them.
:D



By Eowyn14
Additional question not relating to poll:
And what do you look to the movie for vs. what you look to the book for?

........... huh? Explain please.
What do you look to the movie for? What do you get from it?
Now: What do you look to the book for?


Thanks for the replies Mrs Maggott, and Eowyn!

[Eowyn14]

Originally posted by Nóm
What do you look to the movie for? What do you get from it?
Now: What do you look to the book for?

;) :D
Not sure that just because you REPEAT yourself, that also means that you clarify yourself. ;) I'm still a little confused, but I'll make an attempt at an answer (the only clarification I see is "what do you get from it?").

hmmmmm..... maybe I'm just not thinking about your question in the right way, but I guess my answer would be "entertainment".... from both the book and the movie.

(??) ::looking around:: What? is that the wrong answer?? I'm not sure I even understood the question!

[Nóm]

Originally posted by Eowyn14
;) :D
Not sure that just because you REPEAT yourself, that also means that you clarify yourself. ;) I'm still a little confused, but I'll make an attempt at an answer (the only clarification I see is "what do you get from it?").

hmmmmm..... maybe I'm just not thinking about your question in the right way, but I guess my answer would be "entertainment".... from both the book and the movie.

(??) ::looking around:: What? is that the wrong answer?? I'm not sure I even understood the question!
There is nothing more that I will do to clarify the question. I stated clearly. Mrs. Maggott answered the question. If from thoose two things you can not figure out what I ask, then I guess your answers of entertainment will suffice.

[Eowyn14]

Originally posted by Nóm
There is nothing more that I will do to clarify the question. I stated clearly. Mrs. Maggott answered the question. If from thoose two things you can not figure out what I ask, then I guess your answers of entertainment will suffice.

Ouch... geez! Okay. If that's how you feel. However, let me respond by saying this, because I must disagree with you on something:

It seems to me that Mrs. Maggot had gotten a little confused with your wording too (even if she did eventually answer your question).

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
I'm sorry, I thought I DID answer the question as you posited it.

Maybe the problem here isn't the people's replys since more than one person has been confused by your wording?? Obviously you DIDN'T state clearly or myself and Mrs. Maggott wouldn't have found ourselves being so confused. Or,.... maybe you didn't put too much thought into it and just started a thread for the fun of it??

But... I will desist this because I don't want to insinuate or be accused of trying to flame, but at the same time I must say that I didn't like your attitude to my reply. I was just trying to participate and answer the questions that you asked. Your unwillingness to be helpful in keeping up your own thread is disappointing.

In any case, I think it is clear, your question obviously needs some rewording in order that you be better understood and to avoid such similar instances in the future.

[Nóm]

By Eowyn14
It seems to me that Mrs. Maggot had gotten a little confused with your wording too (even if she did eventually answer your question).

You then Quote Mrs. Maggott on this:

I'm sorry, I thought I DID answer the question as you posited it.
The confusion between Mrs Maggott and I had entirely Nothing to do with the question that caused the confusion between you and I.

What you failed to realize is that this quote you provide from Mrs Maggott was a response to my response to her answer to the poll question, the one you answered just fine. Not, a response to the non-poll question, which she herself (did you not see?) answered in her First post.
By Eowyn
Maybe the problem here isn't the people's replys since more than one person has been confused by your wording?? Obviously you DIDN'T state clearly or myself and Mrs. Maggott wouldn't have found ourselves being so confused.
I never said that your reply was a problem.
In fact I did not say that Mrs Maggot's was either. I merely explained to her that I concluded that I misworded my question as I didn't think her answer reflected the Poll question that I asked.
First of all, I thought Mrs Maggot misunderstood my poll question..which is why I explained it better to her, and went back and reworded the question. I did what I could to clear things up.
Second, as I said above, the question which confused you, she answered just fine.
So your reasoning that because two people were confused by my non-poll question means that the question was therefore not stated clearly, is false, as Mrs Maggot was not confused by it.
If you think two people were confused about my poll question, keep in mind that you did not seem to be. Here is why I judge that to be so:
By Eowyn14
3 - totally separate
2 - medium
1 - not separate at all

2 7/8. I try to keep them seperate when discussing things, but IMO they can never be totally separate.

Part 2
2) Should they be separated in one's mind?

No real compelling reason to keep them seperate unless you are debating on the movie "in and of itself" or the books "in and of themselves". The situation would dictate.
That indicated to me that you had no expressed confusion over the question which Mrs Maggot and I had confusion over.

After you expressed unclarity about my non-poll question, I did make an attempt to clear it up but that attempt failed. Afterwhich I did say that I would do nothing more to clear it up. I also said that your answers where sufficient, but directed you to Mrs Maggot's answers to that non-poll question.
By Eowyn14
Or,.... maybe you didn't put too much thought into it and just started a thread for the fun of it??
Fun of it? Ah well, if the word fun encompasses 'enjoyment' then yes, I guess one could say that i did start this thread for fun. Most threads (save some of those in Entmoot, or announcements) are created for fun.
As for me not giving any thought to it you are wrong. I did give thought to it.
In fact speaking of not giving thought to things one might say the same about your reply to my question. Oh but no, It can not be as you did not understand it, even though, you did answer it, though gave no specifics. Which by the way was fine with me...as I said that "your answers would suffice".
Posted by Eowyn14
But... I will desist this because I don't want to insinuate or be accused of trying to flame, but at the same time I must say that I didn't like your attitude to my reply. I was just trying to participate and answer the questions that you asked. Your unwillingness to be helpful in keeping up your own thread is disappointing.
Yes, do dissesnt after you've given me a piece of your mind, therein implying that I did not give thought to my thread.
I know you were participating and I appreciate that, which is why I thanked both you and Mrs Maggot for doing so.
As for my unwillingness to be helpful: I do seem to recall trying to state that non-poll question (the one in question by you) more clearly, I even pointed out that Mrs. Maggott answered it, which could have been a way for you to see what sort of answers one might give to such a question. I saw no better way to explain my question other than by giving an example of an answer to it.

[Eowyn14]

[i]Originally posted by Nóm:
The confusion between Mrs Maggott and I had entirely Nothing to do with the question that caused the confusion between you and I.
That wasn't my point.

What you failed to realize is that this quote you provide from Mrs Maggott was a response to my response to her answer to the poll question, the one you answered just fine. Not, a response to the non-poll question, which she herself (did you not see?) answered in her First post.
Noooo, .. I realized it. I said that people seemed to be having some confusion with "your wording". "Your wording" in ANY instance! Not 'in reference to responses of responses of a question of poll answers'. Just "your wording". I am sorry if I hadn't made that clear. But unlike me, waiting to see if you understand before going off on something completely off topic and seeming the fool,... you went off for lines upon lines about something that this had NOTHING to do with.

First of all, I thought Mrs Maggot misunderstood my poll question..which is why I explained it better to her, and went back and reworded the question. I did what I could to clear things up.
I therefore stand corrected on this point,... you DO care enough to clarify. As is also evident by your last post. I'll give that one to you.

Second, as I said above, the question which confused you, she answered just fine.
Uuuummmm sorry, not a compelling enough argument. I can't give that one to you. Just because one person is "fine" with it doesn't mean someone else will be.

So your reasoning that because two people were confused by my non-poll question means that the question was therefore not stated clearly, is false, as Mrs Maggot was not confused by it.
(I didn't include some of the rest of your quote.)

Like I said above, we were confused by "your wording". 'In what exact instance of which exact question in relation to what exact response' is not the issue and therefore all the time you spent trying to support your idea was wasted. I'm NOT saying that to be mean,... what I mean by it is that it's just not a valid detail on which you can base a supportive argument because you've based your argument on a mistaken idea.

After you expressed unclarity..., I did make an attempt to clear it up but that attempt failed. Afterwhich I did say that I would do nothing more to clear it up.
And that was what I was jokingly teasing you about before. :)
I asked for clarification of your question and you only repeated the question verbatim but added a short line after it that was of very little help at all. (see below)

--------------------------------------
Additional question not relating to poll:
And what do you look to the movie for vs. what you look to the book for?
Eowyn 14:
........... huh? Explain please.
--------------------------------------
Your reply:
What do you look to the movie for? What do you get from it?
Now: What do you look to the book for?
----------

I also said that your answers where sufficient, but directed you to Mrs Maggot's answers to that non-poll question. ... I even pointed out that Mrs. Maggott answered it, which could have been a way for you to see what sort of answers one might give to such a question.
::smiling and shaking head from side to side:: All you said was "Mrs. Maggott answered the question." To which my initial response is, "'Okay. Great, I'm happy for her.' (why is he telling me that?)".
If you wanted to "direct me" to her response in order that I might "read her answer and thereby get an idea as to what your questions MIGHT have meant" then you should have said exactly that! All I got from it was, "someone ELSE was able to figure it out and give an answer" which in turn only made me feel like you were saying that I was too stupid to have not been able to figure out what you meant. Reading it that way (misunderstood as it was) made it seem like you had an attitude towards me. I realize now that is NOT the case and this was one big huge giant misunderstanding.

In fact speaking of not giving thought to things one might say the same about your reply to my question. Oh but no, It can not be as you did not understand it, even though, you did answer it, though gave no specifics. Which by the way was fine with me...as I said that "your answers would suffice".
((Okay... you're getting back into that "attitude" thing that I was picking up on before. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and chalked it off to misunderstanding in my last reply above, but,... be careful, you're pushing it now.))
::::::Remaining calm though and trying to take it at face value and keep this a flame free discussion to sort things out:::::
Well, yes, one MIGHT say the same thing about my reply, but if one did, then one would be wrong. Here are the facts. I DIDN'T understand what information you were hoping to receive in response to your question.
Your original question (and clarifying statement were):
What do you look to the movie for? What do you get from it?
Now: What do you look to the book for?
What does "look to it" imply??
Do you mean 'what made you first notice it'? Do you mean 'what is it about the story that draws you to it'? Do you mean 'what is the strongest feeling, conclusion that you take away from having seen/read it'? Did you mean what did you get out of the movie/books spiritually? emotionally? other?? Did you mean 'why is it that you've desired to watch/read the movie/book??
What? What is it? What are you looking for? These are all related questions that could possibly fit, but there is no clear indication as to where you want this topic to go!!
Since you only "clarified" as best as you could, I was left only trying to give SOME KIND of answer to an unclear question. That's why I didn't offer any reasonings: I wasn't even sure I was answering your question appropriately. I wasn't going to expound upon my reply and open myself up for embarrassment upon talking about something completely off the wall.
Just because an answer is offered up, it doesn't mean that answer sufficiantly appeases the question it relates to. People give answers to things all the time in this world without understanding what the question or situation is. Just because they answer doesn't make them compliant!!
So your saying that you thought "my answer sufficed" was neither a correct nor an honest statement. I indicated through joking that I KNEW it probably wasn't a response that gave you a valuable answer and therefore was aware that it was insufficient. Your saying it "sufficed" wasn't how you truly felt. This is easily deduced by when you said that I answered "though gave no specifics". Clearly you thought the reply lacked reasoning. When something is lacking, it is insufficient (ie. not "suffice"). Your saying the opposite was not how you really felt.
All these mentioned moments support the fact that I DO think before I speak (despite that which you innuendoed) and one could not correctly assume me to do otherwise without one being gravely mistaken.

Yes, do dissesnt after you've given me a piece of your mind, therein implying that I did not give thought to my thread.
Oh,... your "allowing" me to dissent? Well, I guess it's okay that I do that now that you've "okay'd" it. The only reason I've wasted any energy in replying to your attempts to defend yourself, in which, by the way, you've failed miserably, was because of that sentence right there.

Enough. I've wasted too much time on this already. I'm done with this. Done with you. Check mate. End game. Talk to you later when you can keep up. Until then, have fun and no hard feelings.

[Nóm]

Well I was mistaken to assume that you thought that both Mrs Maggott and yourself were unclear about the meaning of the same question.

"yes, do desist" was not me giving you permission, nor me telling you to do so. It was sarcasm.
I said....
Yes, do dissesnt after you've given me a piece of your mind, therein implying that I did not give thought to my thread.
I thought it amusing that you said you would desist to avoid insults or flame, yet you say this right after impling (as i took it) that I gave no thought to my thread.
But unlike me, waiting to see if you understand before going off on something completely off topic and seeming the fool,... you went off for lines upon lines about something that this had NOTHING to do with.

Yes, a great portion of my last post was wasted due to a mistunderstanding.
Uuuummmm sorry, not a compelling enough argument. I can't give that one to you. Just because one person is "fine" with it doesn't mean someone else will be.
That is true, it does not. And that was not the point I was making, remember I thought that you thought Mrs Maggott misunderstood the question that you were unclear about,so my point was that she did not. Not this: one person understanding = every person understanding.

When I slightly reworded the question to clarify for you, I thought that it was probably the "vs." which confused. Why? because I couldn't figure what else made the question unclear.
If you wanted to "direct me" to her response in order that I might "read her answer and thereby get an idea as to what your questions MIGHT have meant" then you should have said exactly that!
I didn't outright say it but I did say this...
. I stated clearly. Mrs. Maggott answered the question. If from thoose two things you can not figure out what I ask, then I guess your answers of entertainment will suffice.

I could have stated "go look at her answer to get ideas about how you could answer the question", but to me it seemed obvious because I know my own mind, but to others it may not have been so.
To me it is like someone asking how to make a paper-airplane and me responding "your cousin is making one in the other room, if from that you can not figure out how to make one, then the one you have attempted is fine!" some people might take this to mean "you're cousin understands how to and you don't therefore you are stupid" as you say here...
All I got from it was, "someone ELSE was able to figure it out and give an answer" which in turn only made me feel like you were saying that I was too stupid to have not been able to figure out what you meant.
...though others may just walk into the other room to have a look. I sometimes take for granted that people will know the reason behind the things I say, and I am at fault in this.
As for attitude, I did have one in my previous post (which I explain below) because of your implication that I gave no thought to my thread.
I did not aim to project an attitude in the first two replies I made to you though, I was misheard there.
Well, yes, one MIGHT say the same thing about my reply, but if one did, then one would be wrong.
That is how I felt when you impled (as i took it) that I did not give any thought to the thread. So, I did respond with attitude in that previous post, but not in the others.
What does "look to it" imply??
Do you mean 'what made you first notice it'? Do you mean 'what is it about the story that draws you to it'? Do you mean 'what is the strongest feeling, conclusion that you take away from having seen/read it'? Did you mean what did you get out of the movie/books spiritually? emotionally? other?? Did you mean 'why is it that you've desired to watch/read the movie/book??
What? What is it? What are you looking for? These are all related questions that could possibly fit, but there is no clear indication as to where you want this topic to go!!

Yes, every one of those questions could fit, except perhaps "What draws you do it?" because it depends upon what is ment by That. The question was wide open. With this thread my intention is (or should I say was since it's turned into a mess) to discuss the differences between what fans look to the movie for (which as I see it would be the same as the things that they get from watching it) vs. what d they look to the book for/what do they get from it/what does it do for them/in what way does it entertain...however they see fit to answe it, so long as the answer the movie question in the same way.
I did not know that you gave the a vague answer of "entertainment" because you did not want to answer incorrectly with specifics.
Therefore when i said the answer was sufficient I ment it, because I thought that answer was the best you were willing to give. If that had been so, you answer would be sufficient as I see it.
Had you answered something such as (and I realise now that you would not have) "I look to the books because they have been my favorite for years and to the movie because it is based on them". I would have known that you didn't get the question...but the answer "entertainment" while vague..is appropriate, as I see it.
Enough. I've wasted too much time on this already. I'm done with this. Done with you. Check mate. End game. Talk to you later when you can keep up. Until then, have fun and no hard feelings.
Someone would say checkmate and then walk away? :D
When I can keep up? Both of us have been guilty of mistunderstandings, how does this mean that I can not keep up. Or, if it is not the misunderstandings which cause you to say this, what then is it?
Surely I have shown no more attitude than you.

[Grond]

Enough!! The question and the poll are clear enough for me, even if they don't appear to be working properly.

I have to completely separate the two in my mind and the reason for that is I looked for a "faithful" adaptation in PJ's making of the movie. Alas, it was not forthcoming. I had to completely separate the two in my brain to be able to get any enjoyment from the theatrical version/vision because it so distorted my "mental visualizations" from having read the book more times than I care to admit here. (the word Tolkien-nerd comes to mind).

And... I did enjoy the movie very much for what it was (IMO), a very beautiful visualization of the Middle-earth of my mind's eye with significant and (IMO) unwarranted and needless changes to the basic characterizations of the source story.

Nom, I knew exactly what you were looking for and asking in this thread... but then again, I've known you a while longer than others.

Everyone, thread starters and participants alike, need to try and make a thread productive and get to the desired result.. in this case... opinions on the degree of separation people have in their minds between the book and the movie. Both of you (Nom and Eowyn14) should have handled this situation better.

Now get on with the subject.

[Talimon]

I am further enlightend, and my views have changed.

WOW!!! I think, Nom, you have approached the movie in the best way possible: letting it enrich your LotR experience rather then clash with it.

I put 2, simply because this is kind of a complex question that goes both ways. The moment the movie starts, to be honest with you I forget everything. My mind just empties and I get lost in this incredibly immersive epic tale. So one could argue that from that perspective it is a 3. But when the lights come up, what I feel is something that is highly akin to what I feel when reading LotR. For me PJ's movie is Middle-earth. Dinstinctly so, in-fact. And by the same token I feel his tale is LotR.

I guess for me it's just getting immersed in each. When I read I get lost in the book, when I watch the movie I get lost in the movie. The fine point here, however, is that I get lost for the same reasons, and walk away feeling the same feelings. While I don't want to do so here, further analysis on my part has shown that this is the result of the two sharing common elements. Enough common elements that I feel they can distinctly be called the same tale, only told by two different story-tellers in two different mediums.

[Eowyn14]

NoM: Agreed on all counts. My apologies! For offending in anyway and for any traces of personal "attitudes" that I embedded in my postings of which, I concede, I was probably guilty of adding just a little (I need to work on that). :o ;)
I am truly gladdened that there are those, like you, who would be able to see both sides, offer up when you are mistaken, and try to keep it civil (although the misunderstanding could have led us both to flaming against each other big time). Moderators aren't needed to step in when there is such an instance as this one when we both are open to the idea that "we could be mistaken".

Now (having shook hands and made up), back to the thread...

What was the question again?? ;) ;) ;) ((KIDDING!!))

Yes,.. I think they should be separated but it's very enlightening to compare and contrast them and in so doing learn a little bit more about your own thoughts and feelings of ME.

I've tried to think a little bit more about "what do you look to the movie for? what do you look to the movie for?" and, at first, all I could get was "Well,... they make me happy?" Okay, Eowyn, .. let's go a little further - "why do they make you happy?"
I then turned to liking the idea that there was a world out there in which man was not the only living creature of higher intelligence. The idea that "we aren't alone"; there are dwarves, and hobbits, and elves, and orcs, and eagles, and wizards! All with their own cultures, traditions, desires. I liked how the relations amoung them worked both when viewing things like the side of nature vs. industry (as is a major theme throughout both book and movie) and in things as simple as geographical habitation and proximity to other peoples/creatures.

Overall though, I would have to say that "I enjoyed the 'struggle'". To explain that a little better, I enjoyed seeing how each character in his or her own way had to move forward often by battling themselves, battling others (literally and figuratively), battling nature, battling the unknown and supernatural forces. Life is a struggle on many levels. Seeing these characters that have so much depth and history (well done Tolkien!) and compassion and drive struggle to achieve an overall good for themselves and the future of their people is inspiring!! It doesn't make your day seem quite so bad when you think, "Gee, my day really sucked, but, hey!, I could have been being chased by nine Ringwraiths!!" :)

And on a last (but not least important) note,...
I liked/looked to/desired of/got from (Nom: I'm trying to cover all bases here) ;) the overall concept that fighting for something bigger and more important than yourself for the GOOD of all the races/species of your world..... was the RIGHT thing to do. I don't want to get all MORAL AND OBSTINANT, but, I would personally enjoy more works out there that focused on what I believe are other major themes of this story (again, both book and movie): (and what IMO - should be ingrained attributes in every persons characters) the virtues of chivalry, honor, honesty, loyalty, dedication, responsibility, strength, courage, and devotion.

;) I hope those opinions will better "suffice" as more suitable and acceptable answers to the original questions. ;) (Nom: Oh come on! You know I had to say that after how silly we both were!)

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
....you have approached the movie in the best way possible: letting it enrich your LotR experience rather than clash with it.
So much of it does enrich, and it's great to be taking part in that experience, but can you really close off your mind to the clashes, which I believe everyone agrees do happen to a greater or lesser extent, and if you can, is that a good thing for you, and for PJ?
Along with the enrichment, I see from time to time, and to that lesser extent, debasement instead.

[Talimon]

Granted, joxy, it is bound to clash from time to time. Indeed, depending on how closely you scrutinize it, it may clash constantly. It's not that it can't or doesn't clash; it's just not choosing to let it do so. This isn't to say that as a whole a movie can't be criticized. I'm just pointing out that many who criticize PJ's movie would do well to look at the full half of the cup rather then the empty.

[Grond]

Originally posted by joxy
So much of it does enrich, and it's great to be taking part in that experience, but can you really close off your mind to the clashes, which I believe everyone agrees do happen to a greater or lesser extent, and if you can, is that a good thing for you, and for PJ?
Along with the enrichment, I see from time to time, and to that lesser extent, debasement instead. If you can't resign yourself to the clashes of which you speak, you will never be able to enjoy the spectacle of the movie. I am awaiting The Two Towers with restless anticipation. Call me a purist at heart but I can't wait to see the movie. I know that it won't follow the book in the way I would hope... but it is a marvelous effort at putting the masterpieces of my heart on the big screen. And for that, I thank PJ and New Line and everyone who made this movie happen.

I just wish I could've helped write the screenplay. :(

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
it is bound to clash from time to time....
it's just not choosing to let it do so....
I'm just pointing out that many who criticize PJ's movie would do well to look at the full half of the cup rather than the empty.
Why "bound"? Some of us have pointed out how easy it would have been to avoid the clashes; we know the talent was there from the major part of the film, the mystery is how such obvious clashes got through.
When the clashes jump out of the screen and hit you in the face it's not easy to make that choice!
And yes, I've said many times that I see a cup far more than half-full of good things, and enjoy them. These forums are ABOUT the criticisms though; that's why we make them here.

[Eriol]

I voted 3, even though I get similar things from both the movie and the book: laughter, fun, beauty (maybe I should type BEAUTY).

The book is a very old friend, though... it helped me in a lot of ways, it taught me a lot of lessons. It is what I call an 'essential' book (not a lot of those hanging around). I never compared it to the movie. I compare other great movies to it, and it has a pretty good showing in that company (although it is not an 'essential' movie, to me at least :) )

[joxy]

Originally posted by Nóm
....are you speaking of book to movie, or just errors within the movie?
....How could one not expect clashes to happen with any/every movie adaption of a book.
We all know there are book-film clashes, but there certainly are clashes within the film; the style sometimes changes so drastically that it's like watching two different films side by side.
On book-film, obviously CHANGES have to, "are bound to", happen, but why CLASHES? Most of the changes ARE done well; it's when claims are made that they are all done perfectly that disagreement arises.

[Eledhwen]

Ahem!

I saw the first film before I read the books (except The Hobbit). I had read all of LotR more than once by the time I saw the second film. This had the curious effect of Frodo looking like Elijah Wood, etc during my reading.

However, by the time The Two Towers had come out, I had read much of the historical background as well as becoming very familiar with the LotR books. This had the effect of throwing me out of the film at every deviation from the books, especially those that, in my opinion, where the film characters behaved in ways or said things that were out of character or keeping (eg: Gimli's reference to a nervous system, and Gandalf's thuggery).

After I watched the final film, I went straight back and read the books again, because, curiously, I had a hunger for the 'true story'. It is far too easy to allow the screenplay to replace the book if one spends more time in the DVD than the original story.

I enjoy the films, but they are a Disneyfication of the original. Therefore, to prevent my understanding of Tolkien, with the deep subtleties of language and meaning, requires that I view the film and the book as separate entities. If I don't do this, then I run the risk of remembering who said what and who did what according to Peter Jackson instead of according to JRR Tolkien, and that would be a shame.

[joxy]

For the last 16 months my posting has been the last in this thread, and I didn't realise it; what happened to revive it now?!
Gandalf's "thuggery" - in TTT?

[33Peregrin]

I have to keep the movies separate from the books for one reason: I want to enjoy the movies. They are wonderful, and they are the best movies in the world for me.
I didn't read LOTR (but I did read The Hobbit) before seeing FOTR. I had the best feeling in the world after I saw FOTR, I would almost say that that was the best day of my life. And it is- as far as I can remember! But then I read the books, and I saw TTT, and I had the most horrible sick and sinking feeling afterwards. When I saw TTT, I actually laughed when Aragorn went over the cliff, it just took me away from the story. It took me a little while to get over the changes, and eventually I did. I enjoy the books and the movies in completely different ways. I worked hard, and can keep the book and movie separate. Elijah Wood will always be my Frodo, but Frodo would never tell Sam to go home. If that helps....
I definetely go to the movie and the book for different reasons. The book is mine, and no one I have ever spoken to has read it. I love the book, the depth, the imagery. The story, especially of Frodo and Sam, that never fails to make me cry.
The movie is definetely different. I go there mostly for the imagery, the music that plays during everything, and Elijah Wood of course :D . I really prefer to watch the movie alone as well, because if I watch it with people, I feel I have to explain and tell them everything.

[Eledhwen]

For the last 16 months my posting has been the last in this thread, and I didn't realise it; what happened to revive it now?!
Gandalf's "thuggery" - in TTT?I revived it, when I reviewed my subscribed threads, because it is interesting. Gandalf's thuggery? Mainly in RotK. eg: Pippin bows before Denethor and offers his service. Instead of telling him it was well done, Gandalf whacks him aside with his staff. Later, he rides Shadowfax into the Rath Dinen and Shadowfax kicks Denethor into the blazing pire and makes his 'thus passes Denethor' speech while the poor man is still dashing along in flames. I'm sure there's more, but it's a while since I've seen the film. It was Faramir's thuggery towards Gollum that apalled me in TTT.

I agree with 33peregrin's sentiments wholeheartedly. I raised my eyebrows when Aragorn went over the cliff, and "leave the dead" was not an option for Tolkien's good guys, even if the matter had to be hurried. I remember on the first viewing of TTT, my non-LotR-fan husband saying "What's happening?" and me answering "I haven't a clue!", which in a way, made it more interesting, because I was wondering how they would 'get out of that one'.