TTT vs. TTT movie

[Lossengondiel]

hey, how do y'all think they'll do at interpreting the book to put into the movie? Do you think they'll do just as good/bad job as the did for TLOTR? I'm curious to find out.


~~~Strider 4 ever

[Celebthôl]

i think its gonna be b|@|)|)y superb, on seeing the trailer it looks soo good and is possed to be better that TFOTR!!!

Thôl

[*Lady Arwen*]

I sure hope so!
The trailer was really good!

[Mrs. Maggott]

There can be no doubt that this movie will have even greater differences between book and film than FOTR simply because of the changes made in the first film. With each change in FOTR, there have to be one or more changes made in TTT to accommodate same. And, of course, with each change in TTT, there must perforce be one or more changes made in ROTK to accomodate the changes in TTT.

In the end, although doubtless the story line will have the same general development and conclusion, I cannot imagine how there will be very much to compare as far as the details go, between the "three" books and the films.

However, even at the conclusion of the first film, the consensus is that Jackson's film is NOT a faithful rendering of the book. Whether this is good or bad depends entirely upon an individual's subjective opinion.

[Thorin]

That it will be visually stunning and brimming with CGIs and special effects will be no doubt. Helm's Deep, Gollum and Treebeard will most likely be impressive.

However, as Maggot says, it will definitely stray the furthest from the book because there just isn't enough story line to carry it through. We will see the most fabrications in this movie, I'm afraid. There will no doubt be changes in the time line, mixed up character dialogue and much fabricated scenes and dialogue (i.e. Arwen and Elrond in Rivendell, Celeborn and Galadriel in Lorien) and I am not looking forward to the Eowyn/Aragorn episodes because I believe that PJ will broaden and expand her role like he did Arwen in FotR (why does PJ use women to really mess things up?)

Hopefully, with three hours and not enough of Tolkien to fill it in, PJ will center on developing his characters more fully then he did in the first film. If he just puts fluff in that has no relevance to Tolkien's tale, and doesn't at least develop the characters more, I will be really unimpressed!

[Talimon]

However, even at the conclusion of the first film, the consensus is that Jackson's film is NOT a faithful rendering of the book. Whether this is good or bad depends entirely upon an individual's subjective opinion.

If that is a general consensus, then hand in hand we must say that it is impossible to faithfuly render the book. Not a particularly new revelation, as many have been saying this forever. Nonetheless I must point out that at least in this fans opinion, the film is a faithful rendering of the books themes tale. Perhaps not the exact, scene for scene events of the book itself, but then again I never expected that, and I'm surprised at anyone who did.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Talimon
If that is a general consensus, then hand in hand we must say that it is impossible to faithfuly render the book. Not a particularly new revelation, as many have been saying this forever. Nonetheless I must point out that at least in this fans opinion, the film is a faithful rendering of the books themes tale. Perhaps not the exact, scene for scene events of the book itself, but then again I never expected that, and I'm surprised at anyone who did.

My Dear Talimon:

How can you SAY that the film is "a faithful rendering of the book's themes' tale." Yes, you have (mostly) the characters with the same name as those in the book, but their motivations are different as are their personalities in many cases - and this is only going to get "worse" in the next two films!

You also have SOME of the places in the film that appeared in the book, but characters go there who didn't in the book (Osgiliath if rumors be true), or don't go there who did in the book because the places aren't there (the Old Forest etc.). General plot lines are sort of, kind of, almost, well, not too much as they were in the book...but... And, of course, the story will end sort of, kind of, almost etc. etc. the same as the book...but...

Yes, the Ring will be destroyed in the end and Sauron will fall. Yes, Aragorn will be King and marry Arwen (if Eowyn doesn't get her first). Yes, doubtless, the story will end much the same. But one may go from New York to Los Angeles in MANY different ways and although the destination may be the same, that is not to say that the scenery along the way will be!

[Talimon]

Yes, you have (mostly) the characters with the same name as those in the book

I figure you are just taking a cheap shot there, but the charachters do have the sames names as they do in the book, consistently and pronounced as they ought to be. More then I can say for some adaptations ("Aruman", anyone?).

You also have SOME of the places in the film that appeared in the book, but characters go there who didn't in the book (Osgiliath if rumors be true), or don't go there who did in the book because the places aren't there (the Old Forest etc.). General plot lines are sort of, kind of, almost, well, not too much as they were in the book...but... And, of course, the story will end sort of, kind of, almost etc. etc. the same as the book...but...

The question is this: what's important to you about LotR? If the specific events and details are, then I assume you will be dissapointed. General plot lines have been, up to now, exactly as they are in the book. "General" is perhaps up to interpretation, but the fact is we have the same tale. This is clearly the tale of LotR, and anyone who can't recognize it as such is in denial. I don't think we've ever argued about whether this tale is recnoizable as LotR, and I believe arguing as much would be serious degression to the well-being of this forum. The only arguement worth considering has been whether PJ captured the "meaning", "essence", "feel" of Tolkien. And I think we've reached the fairly well established conclusion that different people find different meaning in Tolkien, and as such PJ couldn't possibly meet everyones demands (nor was he foolish enough to try). I hesitate before making full-blown conclusions or statements, but it's mostly a given that PJ's movie is LotR. It's also a given that it's a different telling of the tale. The variable here is whether it managed to evoke some of the magic of LotR. As we've seen this is different for different folk, and that can't be helped. Sometimes I've felt that some people's expectations and demands are far too harsh for thier own good, and that is unfortunate. For better or worse, the real winners here are those who can put aside the differences and enjoy the movie as another story-tellers telling of LotR.

But one may go from New York to Los Angeles in MANY different ways and although the destination may be the same, that is not to say that the scenery along the way will be!

To go from NY to LA would be to tell LotR, in my opinion. To see the right scenery would be to capture the right themes. PJ doesn't take the exact same road Tolkien does, but in my opinion he still see's many of the same landmarks. Sometimes it's from a farther distance, and sometimes from much closer. And sometimes he takes another road altogether. As to whether the road he took does the job is highly subjective. In my opinion he did.

[seadragon]

it doesn't matter how good the film is the afficianados of tolkien will hate it on principle!

[Ancalagon]

I think it will have equal amounts of cheese and naff in conjunction with stunning visuals, excellent sets and depictions, 50% of Characters able to go some way to fulfiling their debt to Tolkiens own and a few liberties with the storyline that are mostly uncalled for.

Actually, it will be just about the same as the first, brilliantly cringeworthy;)

[Celebthôl]

Wot you dont like the films then Acn? why not?
or was that just a figure of speech?

Thôl

[Ancalagon]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
Wot you dont like the films then Acn? why not?
or was that just a figure of speech?

Thôl

I think the films are wonderful in their own way. I think they are magnificent works in their own right. I think the portrayal of many charaters are excellent; Boromir, Gandalf, Gimli, Bilbo and Aragorn I feel were done justice by the actors that played them. None of the other Hobbits are even worth a mention. Legolas disappoints in the way he was written into the story, though that might develop. Elrond lacked the conviction of a great and wise loremaster. His Council was pathetic as it was depicted.

The language used in many areas was dire, the liberties taken with the storyline were frankly unnecessary and yet as a standalone film, it is wonderful. So, make what you will of that.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by seadragon
it doesn't matter how good the film is the afficianados of tolkien will hate it on principle!

Very few of those who have criticized the film have said that they "hate" it. I, in fact, LOVED it - once I got past looking for and then hoping for and then wishing for the story as Tolkien told it! As a film, it's first rate and I have high hopes (but no "wishes") for the next two. My problem is those film defenders who keep telling us that Jackson DID "capture most of" Tolkien's "vision". That simply ISN'T TRUE, even if the story has the same general conclusion.

Furthermore, to suggest that going from New York to Los Angeles is the same no matter WHAT route you take is also not true. Yes, one may wind up in the same place, but not only are there countless east to west routes as different as Buffalo and Chicago as opposed to San Antonio and Las Vegas, but one might also take a WEST TO EAST route that would take one across two oceans and several continents! How could anyone possibly believe that as long as the starting and finishing points are the same, all routes used to arrive thereto are by and large the same with the exception of some "minor" differences. :confused:

As the old saying goes, 'tain't so, McGee! :rolleyes:

[Talimon]

I assume you are reffering to my post, in which case you didn't read it. Feels a little odd quoting myself, but regardless:

To go from NY to LA would be to tell LotR, in my opinion. To see the right scenery would be to capture the right themes.

And I honestly mean no offense here, MM, when I state that it is quite possible for some people to believe PJ's movie did capture Tolkiens themes. Maybe you are taking this for granted, but I don't catch the subtlety. When you say that it simply "ISN'T TRUE" that PJ capture some of Tolkien I hope you are taking it for granted that some would argue it "IS TRUE". You make the main point of your arguement to be:

My problem is those film defenders who keep telling us that Jackson DID "capture most of" Tolkien's "vision". That simply ISN'T TRUE, even if the story has the same general conclusion.

I think you'll find that claim earning more respect if you change the second sentence to, "I simply can't agree." Because that is what you are really saying. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no way to prove PJ didn't (or did) capture Tolkiens themes/vision. Believe me, if I see an arguement that can persuade me I'll change my opinion. But I don't believe such an arguement exists, unless it perhaps be in the shape of a superior adaptation. But the only other adaptation we have is Bakshi, and I think the consensus is more or less unanimous there.

[Ancalagon]

'Apocalypse Now' captures both the theme and essence of Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness' but the scenery is notably different!

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Talimon
Because that is what you are really saying. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no way to prove PJ didn't (or did) capture Tolkiens themes/vision. Believe me, if I see an arguement that can persuade me I'll change my opinion. But I don't believe such an arguement exists, unless it perhaps be in the shape of a superior adaptation. But the only other adaptation we have is Bakshi, and I think the consensus is more or less unanimous there.

Of course PJ captured the main themes of LoTR. But as Ancalagon showed in his example previously, that is not enough. I'm sure the Judas Project captured the main themes of the Passion, but if everyone knows that you are making a movie on the life of Christ and you come up with JP, expect many will be disappointed regardless of whether the main themes were captured. If you're planning to build a statue of the real thing and decide to give it blue eyes as opposed to green eyes, well, I can live with it. But when you decide to lop both arms off and call it a good rendition of the original, or try to justify the changes by saying "Well, the main themes of the person are captured here" that is not enough.

IMO, the EE of the movie came closer to what I would call a good rendition of the movie with Jackson's spin on a few things. The unfortunate thing is, is that the worst parts of the movie were Jackson's own, not Tolkien. The EE proved to me that a truer rendition of the Tolkien made a better movie. When Jackson stayed true to Tolkien (even with some of his own interpretation on things) the movie was awesome.

But I believe that horrible changes like Arwen, some of the pathetic dialogue that should have been kept truer to Tolkien, and the poor character development tainted the whole movie regardless of whether most of it kept the same themes as LoTR.

[Celebthôl]

Many charaters are excellent; Boromir, Gandalf, Gimli, Bilbo and Aragorn
posted by Ancalagon. They were portrayed well because the actors are old (experianced) as opposed to the others i.e Orlando Bloom and Dominic Monoghane (sp) who are new actors especially Orlando as its his first movie fresh out of acting school. I agree with you that the council of Elrond was a bit weak but in the EE it was made a bit better with Gandalfs part of using the language of Mordor.

Thôl

[joxy]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
....Dominic Monoghan who are new actors
DM has done a lot of UK television, playing a very intelligent young man.

[joxy]

theOriginally posted by Thorin
When Jackson stayed true to Tolkien (even with some of his own interpretation on things) the movie was awesome.
But I believe that horrible changes....some of the pathetic dialogue that should have been kept truer to Tolkien, and the poor character development tainted the whole movie regardless of whether most of it kept the same themes as LoTR.
If awesome means excellent and impressive I agree; and the obvious question, as MOST of it did stay true,
is WHY couldn't the little bit more have remained true that would have made it almost a total success?
And thanks for the neat summing-up of what went wrong; those silly unnecessary things DO mar
what could so easily have been a clear masterpiece.

[Talimon]

The unfortunate thing is, is that the worst parts of the movie were Jackson's own, not Tolkien. The EE proved to me that a truer rendition of the Tolkien made a better movie. When Jackson stayed true to Tolkien (even with some of his own interpretation on things) the movie was awesome.

Out of sheer curiousity, could you name a scene from the EE that was in the book? Very few of PJ's scenes are from the book verbatum. They are ussualy interpretations of those scenes, and quite changed up. The two charachters that are most enhanced by the EE (Bilbo and Aragorn, in my opinion), are not enhanced by scenes from the book. Bilbo's scene at the beginning uses a lot of made up dialogue, his scene at the party with Frodo is made up. Aragorn singing isn't as it is from the book, being at his mothers grave isn't in the book, his scene later on with Boromir on the shores of the Anduin isn't in the book. The added scenes in Lothlorien are largely fabricated as well, at least in thier execution. This is obviously Tolkiens tale, but you have to give PJ the credit for bringing it to life. For the n'th time, I point you to Bakshi, who's script, by the standards you propose, is closer to the book.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
Many charaters are excellent; Boromir, Gandalf, Gimli, Bilbo and Aragorn
posted by Ancalagon. They were portrayed well because the actors are old (experianced) as opposed to the others i.e Orlando Bloom and Dominic Monoghane (sp) who are new actors especially Orlando as its his first movie fresh out of acting school. I agree with you that the council of Elrond was a bit weak but in the EE it was made a bit better with Gandalfs part of using the language of Mordor.
Thôl

What I have wondered about the Council in the film is WHY Jackson turned it on its head, so to speak. Why NOT have the "cream of Middle Earth" (which we must assume had been gathered - or gathered themselves) be as Tolkien presented them: wise - and secure in their wisdom rather than filled with self-doubt, thoughtful, anxious for alliance even though there were a few comments about the elf-dwarf thing; in fact, a COUNCIL rather than a rabble? Why did Jackson feel the need to turn them into a squabbling bunch of self-seekers?

Yes, the bit with the bickering attendees reflected in the Ring with their images ending in fire was VERY clever and certainly made the Director's point (if the free folk could not or would not cooperate, all would end in flames!). But did he truly believe that there was LESS drama in Tolkien's Frodo making his valiant if pathetic offer to take the Ring ("though I do not know the way...") in silence? And remember, this was a silence reflecting the grave problem of on whom to bestow the Ring and how to achieve their collective purpose - its destruction. Therefore, the silence in the book denoted deep distress and almost despair as to HOW to accomplish what the Council had determined MUST be accomplished. To have Frodo make his offer in THAT setting would have been dramatic indeed and done much to elevate a character whom the Director had greatly diminished earlier in the film.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
....could you name a scene from the EE that was in the book? Very few of PJ's scenes are from the book verbatim....
Bilbo's scene at the beginning uses a lot of made up dialogue, his scene at the party with Frodo is made up.
The improvements brought by EE are not really about scenes being word for word from the book; they are more about being in the STYLE of the book. There are only one or two of those moments when bits of nonsense jump out and assault the audience!
The start is a vast improvement: the atmosphere of the book is in it, and Bilbo comes over much better than Frodo did in the original version; I really don't care if some, or even much, of the dialogue is invented - it's done well, and that's what matters.
The scene at the party is an unfortunate exception; it doesn't make sense, and it has the unpleasant line from Frodo.
The gift-giving is a very welcome new scene, and this time its one bad line, from Sam, doesn't mess it up too much. The curious changes in the gifts don't matter much either, though PJ may have made things difficult for himself in TTT and ROTK.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Why did Jackson feel the need to turn them into a squabbling bunch of self-seekers?
As I've said before, anyone who could see into the recesses of PJ's mind, and give us some explanation of his wild changes of mood, would do us all a service!
There has to be something perverse about suddenly transforming what began as a pretty good scene, despite Gimli's effort, into a rabble, out of which it is almost impossible to discern Frodo's plaintive offer. And why wasn't Bilbo there?!

[Ariana Undomiel]

I also don't see what the problems are if they make some differences in the Two Towers. They also don't necessarily mean changes in The Return of the King. Some may while others may not. We shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions.

- Ariana

[Mrs. Maggott]

I fear that we cannot but expect further changes in ROTK because of the changes that Jackson made in the two earlier films. For instance, here we are talking (even before TTT is released) just how much of Arwen we will see and where she will appear in the story. No one doubts that she will appear in TTT (even though she did not in the book) because of how she was portrayed in FOTR which was an obvious change from the book.

So you see, changes do make a difference and create further changes in order to accommodate the original changes. To suggest that we cannot be sure ROTK will be have changes referable to the book is not realistic given what we already know about the FOTR and TTT!

Again, this does not mean that the film will be "bad", but it will continue the Director's digression from the original story to the point where in the end there may not be very much mutual "vision" left between the two.

[Ariana Undomiel]

I suggest that we all stop speculating about the two films that we haven't even seen yet and then when they are over we can debate the issue as much as you would like.

- Ariana

[Ariana Undomiel]

It wasn't a command, it was just a suggestion. You are free to do you as you please. I simply am saying it might be wise to save our critisisms and negative speculations until after we have seen The Two Towers and The Return of the King. Who knows? Some of us just may swallow our words and change our opinions.

- Ariana

[Mrs. Maggott]

Isn't it odd that speculations about the film(s) by "purists" are considered negative while equally speculative comments by film defenders are not? Yet those same defenders might well be speculating on changes to the original plot and characters every bit as monumental as those being voiced by the "purists". Perhaps it is because the defenders do not consider such changes as being detrimental to the overall story line while the "purists" do so - or at least may do so.

Of course, after all the changes in FOTR, that view may no longer hold simply because Mr. Jackson now has to keep his newly developed plot line and characters consistent within the films. Therefore, it may actually be detrimental to the quality of the films if Mr. Jackson were to attempt to return to a plot line or character as it was developed in the book.

In any event, there can be no doubt that there have been changes - considerable changes at least in TTT. I have the books that have been released and aside from some main points of character, place and event, very little - at least in the Helm's Deep scenario - is as it was in the book. And where things are more closely related to the book, the story around them has been skewed to the point at which they become as islands of familiarity in a sea of "what's all this, then?". :rolleyes:

[Thorin]

Like FoTR, I know that I will not need to eat my words, but rather that my fears and concerns will be justified as always. Not that I have high expectations, but that from all the media coverage and from PJ's track record, I know that the changes will be many and far from Tolkien.

I will have no words to eat or swallow.

[Ariana Undomiel]

Let's just wait and see what happens.

- Ariana

[Talimon]

Of course, after all the changes in FOTR, that view may no longer hold simply because Mr. Jackson now has to keep his newly developed plot line and characters consistent within the films. Therefore, it may actually be detrimental to the quality of the films if Mr. Jackson were to attempt to return to a plot line or character as it was developed in the book.

You are fully aware that all three films have already been shot (let alone written)? Give PJ a little more credit. It's not as if he has to accomidate the changes. He wants to, and that has been his plan all along. Indeed, in the case of Arwen, I'd even say the opposite: her scenes in TTT and RotK may justify her scenes in FotR. One of the main reasons Arwen has been enhanced has been to make her wedding Aragorn a more tragic and powerful event. We only get glimpses of this from the appendices, and PJ has chosen to bring this to the forefront. Same goes for Merry and Pippin. They were silly in FotR on purpose. They will grow. Aragorn was self-doubting. He will accept his fate. If anything I'd argue the opposite of what you are claiming: the changes will make more sense after viewing the upcoming movies.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Talimon
You are fully aware that all three films have already been shot (let alone written)? Give PJ a little more credit. It's not as if he has to accomidate the changes. He wants to, and that has been his plan all along. Indeed, in the case of Arwen, I'd even say the opposite: her scenes in TTT and RotK may justify her scenes in FotR. One of the main reasons Arwen has been enhanced has been to make her wedding Aragorn a more tragic and powerful event. We only get glimpses of this from the appendices, and PJ has chosen to bring this to the forefront. Same goes for Merry and Pippin. They were silly in FotR on purpose. They will grow. Aragorn was self-doubting. He will accept his fate. If anything I'd argue the opposite of what you are claiming: the changes will make more sense after viewing the upcoming movies.

My dear Talimon, OF COURSE I am aware that the films have all been shot although I am told that work continues on I assume the remaining film not yet ready for release. What I meant by my comment was this: Mr. Jackson could not return to the themes in the book even had he wished to do so because he had already made his bed, so to speak, and now has to lie in it.

As for it being his plan "all along", I do not doubt it! And that reason alone justifies quite completely, to my mind, at least, the absence of support for his "project" by Tolkien's family.

Yes, I'm sure Arwen will be WONDERFUL, if you like that sort of thing. And I'm sure, having been kidnapped by orcs and seeing Boromir die, I cannot but suspect that even M&P will actually mature at least a bit - or until Mr. Jackson needs some further "comic relief". And how NICE that Aragorn will "accept his fate". So, instead of a King with the hands of a healer stepping forward to lead his people in a time of crisis, you will have a moral coward who "backs into" a throne that frankly, because he has seen fit to be more concerned about his OWN needs and desires rather than the welfare of his people, he really doesn't deserve!

In the end, I'm sure Mr. Jackson's film will make - sadly enough - PERFECT sense. :(

[Ariana Undomiel]

If it bothers you so much that PJ has made a movie version of the books that doesn't meet your expectations that you have to constantly bash it and point out its failings than why do you bother watching them at all?

-Ariana

[Mrs. Maggott]

Because they are fine films - as films go.

They are NOT, however, LOTR as envisioned by that work's creator, but an approximation of the general plot with the Director's "spin" on the various characters and situations. That's fine, but I would be much happier if all Mr. Jackson's many "fans" would stop trying to make a connection between what he has "created" and Tolkien's LOTR - for obviously in the opinion of just about all concerned, the connection is tenuous at best. :rolleyes:

[Ariana Undomiel]

:) Perhaps we should simply do the courteous thing since neither of us seems to be able to change the other's mind. I would suggest a truce and that we agree to disagree.

- Ariana

[Mrs. Maggott]

That's fine with me!

As I said, I enjoy the first film and will undoubtedly enjoy the second and third if they don't go too "hard over".

However, I am able to do this only by "abandoning" the book and simply watching the film as if I was unfamiliar with the story and the characters. It's the only way to go - at least for me. :D

[Mrs. Maggott]

Actually, I wasn't really aware that I was arguing with anybody! I was merely expressing my opinion in response to the other person's opinion. I like tea, you like coffee. I say tea is better with lemon, you like your coffee black and so on as we discuss the benefits vs. the shortcomings of tea and coffee. I do not expect you to become a tea drinker, nor, I suspect, do you expect to persuade me to become a coffee drinker. (And, of course, wandering in and out of our dialogue are people who prefer cocoa or drink both coffe and tea - or neither.

We might debate whether something done in the film is better/worse than the same thing in the book (where it exists) or whether (within the film itself) if something might have been better or differently done, but under no circumstance can this be considered "arguing" which rather indicates some sort of personal connection with the matter under discussion (say, for instance, Talimon has stock in Mr. Jackson's film company!).

What I find interesting is that I have said throughtout all of my, er, responses, that I ENJOYED the film and expect to enjoy the others! What I have also said is that I have a particular reaction to the characters as Mr. Jackson has portrayed them and in most cases, it is not a positive one - or at least as positive as was my reaction to the character as he or she appeared in the book! That is not to say that I did not like the character at all, but I would have preferred to have a higher opinion of a great many of the characters, Aragorn primarily, but Arwen and Frodo as well. They are well played in the film and certainly are sufficiently empathic to make them "likeable", but they don't rise to the level of humanity that they obtain in the book. If that constitutes an "argument", I was not aware of it! :eek:

[Mrs. Maggott]

As long as we all love each other (which since we all love JRRT shouldn't be too hard!), then any emotions that may be aroused by our passions will soon pass into a desire to sit down and be friends again! I am more concerned lest we fall into the pit of "political correctness", fearing to voice honest opinions lest we "offend"!

No one should be "offended" by an honestly offered opinion, always provided of course, that no ad hominem attack accompanies its delivery! It's one thing to tell someone that you disagree with his opinion and quite another to suggest that his brains are located south of his belt buckle because he holds that opinion! However, I have never noted such ill mannered behavior on this forum - and I doubt that I ever will!

So, by all means, let us continue to debate and be passionate, secure in the knowledge that we love and respect one another! :D

[Talimon]

What I find interesting is that I have said throughtout all of my, er, responses, that I ENJOYED the film and expect to enjoy the others!

That is quite fine, and I have never accused you of not enjoying the film as a film. It's when we get to other matters that problems arise. In fact, I have never accused anyone for having thier own opinions. It's when people make universal remarks about the "meaning" of Tolkien that I get ticked.

That is not to say that I did not like the character at all, but I would have preferred to have a higher opinion of a great many of the characters, Aragorn primarily, but Arwen and Frodo as well. They are well played in the film and certainly are sufficiently empathic to make them "likeable", but they don't rise to the level of humanity that they obtain in the book.

To me that arguement (or opinion, if you rather) is quite different from the opinion you stated a few posts earlier. That being:

That's fine, but I would be much happier if all Mr. Jackson's many "fans" would stop trying to make a connection between what he has "created" and Tolkien's LOTR - for obviously in the opinion of just about all concerned, the connection is tenuous at best.

It is one thing to say that the charachters and plot isn't as good as the original book. It's quite another to say there is no connection between what PJ filmed and Tolkien wrote. The first claim I think nearly everyone who's read the book would agree with: the charachters are more fleshed out, the plot deeper. It is worth mentioning, though, that that is inevitable, no matter what the director does. The second claim, on the other hand, is where I disagree. Again, if you state that as an opinion (which in this case you did) my disagreement will be on a purely opinionated level. On the other hand, if you finish your statement by saying that the opinion you are presenting is shared by "just about all concerned" (a statement with absolutely no weight), I am disagreeing on totally different level.

There are two forms of disagreement or arguement here. The first is the kind I like, that being one based on opinions. I might still make long posts, but it's an absolute given that it's everyones opinion here, and I am merely stating my own. The kind of disagreement I don't like is when opinion becomes fact. There are very few statements regarding the quality of PJ's movie that are not opinions. Saying there is no connection between it and the book is certainly not one of them, and I cannot believe you would honestly make this claim. Even our good friend joxy will claim that the movie is "95%" true. In all honesty, perhaps my trueness percentage is the same. The difference, I suspect, is that I am so caught up with the 95% that I don't even notice the 5%, or it doesn't bother me. But to claim that there is absolutely no connection, or very little connection, in charachter or in meaning, is in my opinion to be in denial.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Once upon a time, a long time ago, in a thread far, far away, I presented a film scenario about Aragorn and Arwen wherein there were only a few minor and one major plot deviation which, however, arrived at the same conclusion as the book: Aragorn and Arwen as King and Queen of Gondor.

However, the "plot deviation" was such that the characters were no longer recognizeable as those created by Tolkien. This is what I mean when I say that the connection between the book and the film is "tenuous" at best. Yes, there are mostly the same characters, and, yes, there appear to be approximately the same chain of events and, yes, the conclusion appears to be (for now at least) the same (sort of) as the book. But the changes that have been wrought in at least some of the main characters as well as the plot deviations etc., have removed much of the connection between film and book at least where it counts - in the MEANING of the story.

I hold to that opinion because I find the changes - especially in Aragorn to have a fundamentally devalued the author's presentation of men (which the Aragorn figure represents) and their worthiness to assume the burden of leadership being laid down by the Elves as they depart from Middle Earth. It might make good 21st century "man as conflicted personality" psycho-drama, but it ain't Tolkien in one of the most important moral statements he makes in the story.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
The kind of disagreement I don't like is when opinion becomes fact. There are very few statements regarding the quality of PJ's movie that are not opinions....
Even our good friend joxy will claim that the movie is "95%" true. In all honesty, perhaps my trueness percentage is the same. The difference, I suspect, is that I am so caught up with the 95% that I don't even notice the 5%.
Obviously the quality of MOST things has to be a matter of opinion, rather than fact. All anyone can try to establish is whether a particular opinion is shared by more or less people; whether it is a minority or majority opinion.
In some areas though we can come a little nearer to matters of fact, and my claim is that this applies in the area of language, the use of words. There are actually scientific methods, based on statistics, of deciding whether a newly discovered work claimed to be by a prolific author is actually his or her work. I am not suggesting applying scientific method to PJ's vocabulary, but I do claim that an ear that is accustomed to Tolkien can tell when clashes occur and say that they could never have appeared in the books, and ALSO clash with the rest of the film's inventions.
I maintain that original claim, and was pleased to find the percentage edging a little higher with the arrival of the EE. The problem now has to be which way the "graph" will move when we are presented with TTT....
As I've said before, the little percentage tends to be so obvious, that there's no way to avoid it other than the f/f button!

[Mrs. Maggott]

The good Talimon is not bothered by the "language problem"; the good Joxy is. I am less bothered by obvious descents into Jacksonspeak ("overreacting", "nobody tosses a dwarf" etc.) than I am about why the Director found it necessary to do it! The "dwarf tossing" could be excused in terms of the content of the scene. After all, those who did not know about the unfortunate proclivity for tossing dwarves "Down Under" would not at all be affected by the line as it would appear to be perfectly consistent with the scene.

However, when words that would never have appeared in Tolkien's world (like the aforementioned "overreacted") are used, one must wonder why the Director thought so little of his material that he would put in something so alien to the very atmosphere he was trying - and had been trying for a long, long time - to create. It's akin to pouring water on a fire that you have just laboriously laid and kindled and had finally caught. It makes no sense whatsoever!

The only answer can be, I'm sorry to say, is that it was done for a cheap laugh! The same thing with the "dwarf tossing". The "orc hunting" is more of a rah! rah! thing rather than a laugh getter. But, after all, how much "laughter" can one hope to generate after Boromir's death? If Jackson were all that "tone deaf" with regard to dialogue, these things would have happened more frequently than they did (sort of like the old Herculese television show the dialogue from which was purely modern in its idioms). But in LOTR, for some reason, it's as if Jackson hits a "wall" of some kind that kindles within him the need to put in one of these inane comments. I don't understand it. Especially given (as noted) how very hard the Director worked to make the film as "true" at least in appearance as possible, why he would choose to engage in sophomoric word games boggles the mind! :confused: :rolleyes: :confused:

[Lossengondiel]

hello

it seems to me that everyone is fighting here

I never meant to start a fight, just to let ya know

but keep posting anyway, i enjoy your point of view on the movie.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Heavens! No one is "fighting"! This is a good, old fashioned debate! It stimulates the little brown cells (mine are too old to be gray!) and gets the "juices" running (even if I do have to dry off afterwards!). It keeps us all young - or at least young at heart!

I dare say that there isn't a harsh word or hurt feeling in all of our back-and-forth and all of us can't wait until TTT is actually out, and like a banquet, laid out before us to be picked into little pieces, pro and con!

Just imagine how short (if sweet) these threads would be if all we could say to one another was, "I agree with you!" all the time? How soon we would run out of things to agree with! This way, we at least have the pleasure of each other's intellectual company - and that's worth more than all the films or books anyday!

Long live the Tolkiapaths, "purists" and "FADS"!! :D