The Anti - Peter Jackson Association

[tom_bombadil]

Well I have finally decided to come out and do it. I am starrting this association as I have a massive hatred of Peter Jackson and his version of LOTR I belive it tobe un true to The book and it is just an excuse for some one to alter it to how they want I dont know if this is true but I heard Peter Jackson has not even read the books. But anyway if you hate Pj and want to be part of a pettion against TTT film (not the book) then post your name hear if you want to discuss it then post hear

[Arvedui]

Why? Because he made a great movie? Because that is what I think he did. Some wise people in this forum have adviced us to try to separate the book and the film. IMO that is an exellent idea. Give the man some credit: He has drawn new readers to Tolkien, although he didn't manage to stay true to the book itself.

If you don't like the movie, fine. That is your opinion. The book can still be read. It is there, unchanged.;)

[Celebthôl]

i'd like to see your a$$ do a better job, he did an amazing piece of work that will not be topped, he made 3 movies (which are completely seperate but are continuations of each other) back to back a feet that took a little over two years (no films/film series has ever taken that long to make), a feet that i believe will never be matched or even attepted to be rivaled again!!!

Thôl

[Ariana Undomiel]

Well I have finally decided to come out and do it. I am starrting this association as I have a massive hatred of Peter Jackson and his version of LOTR I belive it tobe un true to The book and it is just an excuse for some one to alter it to how they want I dont know if this is true but I heard Peter Jackson has not even read the books. But anyway if you hate Pj and want to be part of a pettion against TTT film (not the book) then post your name hear if you want to discuss it then post hear

This really pathetic. Hating Peter Jackson because he made a book that you love into a film you hate is just sad. It really doesn't make a difference in the long run. It's JUST A BOOK! Don't have such a major tantrum about it.

- Ariana

[Celebthôl]

A-men sister!

[*Lady Arwen*]

*looks at Hung Drawn And Quaterd and Burnt at the steak* What do you have against him! His movie is better than the one from the 70's

[Mrs. Maggott]

I think perhaps your poll is a trife premature. There is no one who does not know my feelings - pro and con - on the film (singular). I have great issues with Mr. Jackson, not the least because much of what he did was unnecessary and did not enhance his own efforts, never mind the book.

However, having said that, it is only fair, right and prudent to await the release of all the films. I don't think they are going to get "better" (meaning their faithfulness to the original), but it is frankly impossible to judge the value of the whole when one has only seen one-third of it. Certainly, Jackson's first film has considerable merit if one watches it as a film and doesn't try to "keep score" against the book.

Therefore, I would suggest, respectfully, that the author of the thread either limit his question to the first film alone - which would be rather useless under the circumstances - or withhold it until all the films have been released and debated. At that time, no doubt, a more credible judgment will be forthcoming from forum members! :)

[Greymantle]

I prefer my steak when it's not burnt, thanks.

Well, I basically disagree with all of you. "It could have been worse" and "no one could have done better" seem to be common arguments. Pathetic! These movies should never have been made. Many seem to want to make this into a "lesser of two evils" deal. It's not; no one made the guy do these movies.

But as little respect or admiration as I have for Mr. Jackson, neither do I agree with the choices on this poll. As much as I hate and oppose the movies, I have never denied Mr. Jackson's right to make them. They should certainly not be banned; that would be a severe violation of freedom of expression. Remember that LotR itself has been banned in places it was considered offensive.
Neither to I see the point in making pointless comments about what violence you'd like to do to the guy. I know you're kidding, but it's just a waste of time.

[Talimon]

Well, I basically disagree with all of you. "It could have been worse" and "no one could have done better" seem to be common arguments. Pathetic! These movies should never have been made. Many seem to want to make this into a "lesser of two evils" deal. It's not; no one made the guy do these movies.

While I've never used any of those comments as my main arguement, I think it might be worth pointing out that there is some merit in them. It comes down to what I think separates a lot of people on the movie: one group is looking at the full half of the cup and the other is looking at the empty. In many peoples case it's quite unfortunate that it is the latter, because were they to look at what is there they'd find that they truly love the movie. For some, like you I suspect, there is little to nothing they enjoy about PJ's movie, in any and all respects. While I'd enjoy to actually discuss the specifics of your apparently extreme opinions, for here I simply maintain that to look at how much Tolkien goodness is presented to us, rather then what isn't, may be one way for some folks to enjoy this movie. Remember, this is only one telling of Tolkiens tale. It is NOT the telling. Seen from that perspective, I've suggested before that some might be better off seeing these movies as interpretive "tributes" to Tolkien, rather then the percise, detail for detail, line for line telling of LotR.

[Maedhros]

It's JUST A BOOK! Don't have such a major tantrum about it.
I think that that is the problem. LOTR to me is not just a book. It's the introduction into the magic of Tolkien. A world were elves, men and dwarves meet. It's storytelling in a whole new level. For the people who truly care about Tolkien, doing a movie about his works is something to be taken seriously, especially when the "director" states that he will try and stay "true" to the books.
The change in the movie that truly annoys me is the There and Back Again: A Hobbit's Tale, when in reality the name is: There and Back Again: A Hobbit's Holiday. There is no way that that change is justified.
I was very upset with the way the movie turned out, but then I realized that it was not Tolkien, but a "Tolkenization" of a movie director.
PJ has his merits, of course, in that he has brought new entusiam to Tolkien and has his books in demand, but the magic that is Tolkien is not in the movie.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Nóm
:eek:

Maedhros was here :eek: :eek:

"He was indeed so powerful that only his great grace could temper the strength of his step" :)


I think that is the right word for what was missing, the "magic" that is Tolkien.
I wonder if any will disagree?

I agree!

[Ithrynluin]

A very good film.

Nothing wrong with PJ.

The magic IS in the books.

:cool:

[Arvedui]

No way I'll disagree on that. It's a very good film, but one must leave the memory of the real work outside the theater when watching it.

[Bailey Baggins]

damn the man! He had the means, the acting talent, the time, and the know how to create a completely detailed representation of Tolkiens vision. what does he do instead? He cuts, chops, switches and purees what could have been a masterpiece into armadillo meatloaf with cornflake armor! PJ's actions are utterly unforgiveable and I say to the Cracks of Doom with him!

[Arvedui]

I suggest you get a hold of the EE version on DVD, and listen to what he has to say about making the film. I think it might be just a little harder than we imagine, to make a movie of the magnitude he has done. It may seem easy, but how long has it taken, really? 7 years? 8? How on earth are you gonna keep the actors and staff occupied for so long. They all have other things to do as well I suppose.
And of course there is a lot of people who long to see all the books of Tolkien filmed 100% true. I for one would love that. But I really believe PJ did an honest attempt at staying as close to the book as possible. He had to think about the costs as well, and they had no idea if the first film would turn out to be a success. What would've happened to PJ and New Line if they had made a movie that was true to the book, but failed in making money.
I suggest you try to get a hold of a copy of the previous attempt by Ralph Bakshi, and see what you get out of that.

[Mrs. Maggott]

But I really believe PJ did an honest attempt at staying as close to the book as possible. <quote Arvedui>

I will await your comment after you view TTT.

If at that time you still hold to your opinion, you are a more forgiving person than many others, myself included. That is to say that though the film may be good, I cannot in good conscience hold to the belief that Mr. Jackson made an "honest attempt at staying as close to the book as possible".

[Arvedui]

Considering what PJ himself have said about TTT, I'd better not see that one to spare myself of embarrasment, right?

I was mainly speaking about FOTR. I will however keep to what I said a few posts back:
It's a very good film, but one must leave the memory of the real work outside the theater when watching it.

As honest attempt as possible, conserning all the things he had to keep in mind, which I listed in the post you refer to.

For the umpteenth time: I would love to see a 100% true filmatic version of TLOTR. I honestly do.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I would say disappointment far more than embarassment. You have nothing to be embarassed about in defending your point of view. However, sometimes we are all disappointed by someone we trusted to fulfill their original promise.

[Aldanil]

"Of all the words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these: it might have been."

[Arvedui]

It may seem as if someone is tired of our arguments on this matter around the forum, Mrs. Maggott;)
I still stand by my view that it is a VERY good film, just leave the memory of the book on the outside of the theather-doors.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Amen.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Arvedui
....how long has it taken, really? 7 years? 8? How on earth are you gonna keep the actors and staff occupied for so long. They all have other things to do as well I suppose.
What would've happened to PJ and New Line if they had made a movie that was true to the book, but failed in making money.
Two or three. It's their job; they keep occupied for as long as they're doing it, like anyone else doing any job, and at the end they collect a big fat cheque. Other things to do?? At the same time??
What would have happened if he'd made a film that was truer and it had made even MORE money? Why shouldn't it do so?
The company would have an even bigger profit, and many viewers would have felt they had been cheated less than they are now.
Who can say which way would have produced the biggest income?!

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Aldanil
"Of all the words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these: it might have been."

Those who judge works of art by what they "might have been" are indeed very sad, and I do have pity on them.

The just critic (if such a thing exists) judges what he sees by what he sees. I still believe those who are dissapointed by PJ's movie/s are looking at the empty half of the cup, and those pleased are looking at the full. The only difference is that PJ's cup is much, much more then half full, which in my opinion makes many of these complaints all the more pitiful.

Two or three. It's their job; they keep occupied for as long as they're doing it, like anyone else doing any job, and at the end they collect a big fat cheque.


Joxy, pre-production started in 1998, and work on the films will not end until 2004. That is 6 years of work for PJ. There is a very good reason why LotR has never been made before. The task is by far the largest and most ambitious in film history. This isn't just "another job", and if there is anything one gathers from the extras on the EE it's that everyone treated it like a once in a lifetime opportunity.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
Pre-production started in 1998, and work on the films will not end until 2004. That is 6 years of work for PJ....
if there is anything one gathers from the extras on the EE it's that everyone treated it like a once in a lifetime opportunity.
I was really talking about the actual filming, and then the reduction of all those miles of film to 9 hours. I thought all three films had been completed last year, with the second and third tucked away somewhere. What goes on until 2004?
They certainly leave no-one in any doubt of their attitude to their work; the EE extras are a paean of self-praise, though understandably so and none the worse for it!
What their high-minded efforts actually resulted in is a different matter, one for opinion, and criticism - in that neutral sense of the word that Mrs M emphasises.

[alf48]

Joxy.. right and wrong..
The movie took about 1 1/2 years to film.. before that.. 4 years to prepare.
After that.. editing still needs to be done!
For your info.. Special Edition for Fellowship was being done after the 3 hour movie version was aired in Cinemas..

PJ and certain crew spend upwards of 6 years to do this movie. Are there risks? Certainly.. they made all 3 movies without garantee that the 1st will be good (unlike other movies including the Original Star Wars).

Honestly.. they took more risk in this movie than any other in movie making history.
To name juz ONE.. - rapid purist that demands nothing but 100% word for word lifting from the book.. :p

[joxy]

Originally posted by alf48
To name juz ONE.. - rapid purist that demands nothing but 100% word for word lifting from the book.
Translation please?!
If I understand correctly already though: Not demand, it just seems like a good idea, and PJ does word-lifting for not all that much less than 100% anyway, so it can't be such a bad idea.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by joxy
Translation please?!
If I understand correctly already though: Not demand, it just seems like a good idea, and PJ does word-lifting for not all that much less than 100% anyway, so it can't be such a bad idea.

Perhaps, although I don't really see that much faithfulness in the dialogue. Nonetheless, Jackson has the unnerving tendency to put one character's words from the book into another character's mouth in the film. For instance, Elrond's rant to Gandalf at the Council is gleaned pretty much from Saruman's attempt to sway Gandalf before he becomes a prisoner in Orthanc. Now, I have no problem when a character gets lines from another "like minded" character, or when a character gets lines from one that he or she has replaced, but I begin to get a trifle concerned when the lines from a hostile character are placed into the mouth of a supposedly friendly one. For Elrond to get Saruman's lines denotes something is amiss in the "adaptation" of the story to film.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Perhaps, although I don't really see that much faithfulness in the dialogue. Nonetheless, Jackson has the unnerving tendency to put one character's words from the book into another character's mouth
Yes, thank you, and point taken.
He uses genuine dialogue in a variety of ways, some of them quite confusing!
This is one of the confusing ways, because one recognises that the language is Tolkien's, compared with the inventions which so often are so blatantly not in his style, but, in satisfaction with hearing them, one does not realise they have been transferred to quite the wrong character. PJ really does seem to like causing mischief, and confusion!

[Ciryaher]

I'm the only person who voted for option 4? Well bleh to the rest of ye infidels!

;)

[Ariana Undomiel]

You people need help. Psycological help. ;)

- Ariana

[Ciryaher]

Where's your sense of adventure?! :D

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
I'm the only person who voted for option 4? Well bleh to the rest of ye infidels!

;)

If I remember aright, that's the hanged, drawn and quartered with whatever's left over burned at the stake (steak???)? It does seem a bit of an overkill, especially during such a happy and festive time of the year, don't you think?

And besides, drawing and quartering is a messy business! Once you open people up, you realize why God gave us skins in the first place!

[Aldanil]

which is sort of what I was getting at, methinks, in that word-drunk samurai "Seen the Light" nightmare, which (in effect) seems to have backed up the whole thread to a halt. The juices flow much warmer and neater on the inside; Macbeth whispers sotto voce "Better thee without than he within!" but he hasn't half got it backwards, I believe.

[Dáin Ironfoot I]

All I have to say is basically what others have said from the beginning.

PJ made a great movie. Ticket sales, Academy Awards, nominations, DVD and movie sales, etc. is proof of that. The people of this country wouldnt waste money on a bad movie.

Second of all, I know he did not stay true to LotR. But, he's the director and NOT YOU! Sure, he may have skipped some parts, added some others, and "not stayed true to JRRT's vision" or what not, but hey. Unfortunately, JRR is dead and we wont ever know how much he thought of the movie and I dont think anyone should speak for him.

Third, as others have said, the movies have brought many new Tolkien fans to the books, myself included. I eagerly read nearly all of Tolkiens ME books and LOVED them, even more then I enjoyed the movie. So before you go slamming these movies, remember, they brought a lot of the people in this VERY forum to love and enjoy Tolkien's works.

In conclusion, PJ made three movies based on Tolkiens works. BASED. However, these movies alone have brought more fame and stardom to Tolkien in a looooooooong while, and this attention is what he deserved.

And no, this attention is not based on PJ's "horrbile interp." of LotR, in fact it is attention based on love and amazement at the amazing world Tolkien created out of his impressive imagination.

[Arvedui]

Well said.
I hope that some of the worst critics can see the truth in Dáin Ironfoot I's post.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I know of very few people who have dismissed the film (we have only seen one, after all) in and of itself! The criticisms of the film have been based upon its "interpretation" of the book upon which it ostensibly was based. Therefore to defend it by saying that it was a "good movie" (it was) or that it brought people into the forum or made them interested in Tolkien's writings (it did), is beside the point! Neither addresses the criticisms leveled at the film. Furthermore, I would be willing to wager that the second film will garner far more such criticism because it deviates considerably further from the story than did the first.

I have no problem with film defenders who admit the accuracy and validity of some of the criticisms made by so-called "purists", but I do have a problem with those who believe that somehow the film is "above reproach" simply because it was well done regardless of its treatment of the story (this is especially true where the particular criticism is based upon the film's deviation from the book). Nothing - not even the book - is beyond well considered and carefully based criticism. There is nothing inherently negative about criticism as I have already maintained in another post.

Frankly, I will await the response of film advocates to the second film and see if they are as unconditionally uncritical of it as they were the first. If they are, then truly it may be said that any resemblance - or lack thereof - to the original story is not considered by them to be a criteria for criticism. Certainly that will make the discourse easier to understand.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Dáin Ironfoot I
....the movies have brought many new Tolkien fans to the books, myself included. I eagerly read nearly all of Tolkiens ME books and LOVED them, even more than I enjoyed the movie.
Of course you did!
But what did you think as you came across the steady stream of differences, some tiny, some small, one or two huge, from the film you had seen?
Didn't you (just possibly) think that the film could so easily have been (just that bit) better, without (just a few of) those differences?! That's all we're saying; we're not condemning PJ to outer darkness.

[Dáin Ironfoot I]

Well yes joxy, PJ is not being "condemned to darkness" but condemned to being hung and burned and stuff. :D Look Mrs. Maggot, I agree with what you are saying, but to say your interpretation of the LotR as the only way you would have liked movie is unfair (I know you did not say that exactly but you are complaining it wasnt like you wanted it).

No way in hell could PJ have possibly satisfied every Tolkien fan out there. Its impossible as there is so many different interps of the book, thats what makes Tolkiens works so great; everyone thinks differently about it!

So what if the movie wasnt on your interpretation, THATS besides the point! You have to consider there is people who havent read the books :eek: and PJ had to make the movie a little more understandable, while trying to please the bulk of the Tolkien fans out there.

All Im saying is that the movies are fine the way they are, one just has to go in the theatre with a clear mind instead of going in expecting a certain thing.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Dáin Ironfoot I
PJ had to make the movie a little more understandable....
All Im saying is that the movies are fine the way they are
There is plenty of perfectly understandable material in the books, far too much of it in fact; he didn't have to add his own ideas, to make them, or the film, more understandable. When he added them he added them for his own pleasure- imho! And the big problem is that most of his ideas did NOT make it more understandable; often, by being inconsistent with the books and within themselves, they added confusion!
Which means that the films are not, totally, fine the way they are; they are very good, but they are faulted in ways that they needn't have been.
That's why we criticise, in the adverse sense, but we still don't condemn PJ to any fearful fate. We might, perhaps, advise him to try a little consultation to try to discover what motivates the more curious corners of his mind, such as those that generate a desire for mud and animal waste, though I understand those corners were much more active in his previous cinematic indulgencies.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Look Mrs. Maggot, I agree with what you are saying, but to say your interpretation of the LotR as the only way you would have liked movie is unfair (I know you did not say that exactly but you are complaining it wasnt like you wanted it). <quote Dain Ironfoot>

If you know that that isn't what I am saying, then why do you imply that I am saying it? I have stated (far too many times to recall) that I enjoyed the first film and probably will enjoy the next two.

However, having said that, I think we will all see in TTT, that Mr. Jackson has deviated further and farther from the original work and, perforce, having done that, will have to deviate yet further and farther from it in ROTK. My major problem with this is that it didn't have to happen as is manifested by how much of the first film is true to the story.

However, if - as I have been told - Mr. Jackson was of the opinion that the book would have been a "flop" as a film, then again I am constrained to ask why bother to make a film of it in the first place? Doubtless, most if not all of the changes wrought by the Director were made to prevent the film from being a "flop", but that doesn't answer the question as to why one would go to the time, effort and expense to bring to the screen a story which one believes is ultimately doomed to failure in its original telling? :rolleyes: :confused: :rolleyes:

[Dáin Ironfoot I]

Why dont you finish reading my quote and youll see:


one just has to go in the theatre with a clear mind instead of going in expecting a certain thing

Thats what I was saying, you cant say it should have been different based on your opinion because thats crazy. I think it should have differed in some parts too, but hey we have no control over it so deal with it. If your not happy with PJs movies then dont go see them and save us the trouble of listening to your whining.

[Ciryaher]

Dain is a blasphemer of The Prophet! Capture him! Burn him! Put him on the Rack!

Just a bit of extremism ;)

I think the movie, as a movie, was good. Exciting and interesting. However, it was a poor adaptation (as most adaptations are). Some of the changes, yes, they were needed. Other changes are just ridiculous, though, and I think that parts in the book that were VERY exciting and thrilling (or terrifying and scary) were downplayed a great deal (or omitted). I wouldn't go out of my way to do anything mean to PJ, but if I met him, I'd stomp on his bare feet.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Dáin Ironfoot I
Why dont you finish reading my quote and youll see:
Thats what I was saying, you cant say it should have been different based on your opinion because thats crazy. I think it should have differed in some parts too, but hey we have no control over it so deal with it. If your not happy with PJs movies then dont go see them and save us the trouble of listening to your whining.
Excuse me, but I am even LESS thrilled with those of Mr. Jackson's supporters who act as if any criticism of him were tant amount to blasphemy.

I am not, I repeat NOT "whining" and I take issue with anyone who says that I am. Sincere, cogent and well thought out criticism becomes "whining" only when those who disagree with it have no legitimate response other than to call names those who voice it.

If Mr. Jackson and his film mean that much to you, I suggest that for your own peace of mind you do not participate in any thread in which it might be criticized since obviously you are unable to respond in a manner appropriate to honest intellectual debate.

[Dáin Ironfoot I]

So as to not turn this into a flamewar or what not I will only say the following:

Mrs. Maggot: If you had read carefully, you would know I was replying to joxy, who had used portions of my quotes to say something I wanted to finish. ALSO if you LOOK, which surely you didn't, you would notice we posted at the SAME TIME! O dear! :eek: I did not see your reply to my previous one when I posted that reply, therefore I was not critcizing you at all. In fact, I think you are probably the most intellectually advanced poster in this entire forumsite so I wouldn't try to challenge you or what not, and believe it or not I have respect for you. :eek:

So, maybe before you post you should look at the facts and infer some other ones, since obviously you did not. Then you could respond in a manner appropriate to honest intellectual debate

Look, I am only trying to give my opinions on why the movie shouldnt be criticized so bad and Im trying not to be rude. Obviously I cant say the same for others :rolleyes: . plus, this forum is supposed to be a happy one so lets put this behind us, as Im sure you will come back with an exceptionaly post and make me look incredibly retarded.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
My major problem with this is that it didn't have to happen as is manifested by how much of the first film is true to the story.
Both the story, and the dialogue, indeed. When he was quite happy to use so much that IS true, why did he feel the need to invent some that is NOT true in terms of either action or dialogue? It is not as if there wasn't enough original material to work on - there is far too much!

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Dáin Ironfoot I
So as to not turn this into a flamewar or what not I will only say the following:

Mrs. Maggot: If you had read carefully, you would know I was replying to joxy, who had used portions of my quotes to say something I wanted to finish. ALSO if you LOOK, which surely you didn't, you would notice we posted at the SAME TIME! O dear! :eek: I did not see your reply to my previous one when I posted that reply, therefore I was not critcizing you at all. In fact, I think you are probably the most intellectually advanced poster in this entire forumsite so I wouldn't try to challenge you or what not, and believe it or not I have respect for you. :eek:

So, maybe before you post you should look at the facts and infer some other ones, since obviously you did not. Then you could

Look, I am only trying to give my opinions on why the movie shouldnt be criticized so bad and Im trying not to be rude. Obviously I cant say the same for others :rolleyes: . plus, this forum is supposed to be a happy one so lets put this behind us, as Im sure you will come back with an exceptionaly post and make me look incredibly retarded.
Please accept my apologies for being "snappish"! I am usually the most benign of souls but after a day of typing workers compensation cases, one could become annoyed at winning the lottery!

And you are, of course, right. We should be enjoying our debate since it is all in good fun (unless, of course, one has stock in the company!). But as I am already in a group fated to see TTT next Friday night, I wouldn't worry about getting your investment back - plus interest!

I hope you enjoy your viewing when you get to see the film!

[Dáin Ironfoot I]

Thank you, Mrs. Maggott.

I will be seeing TTT on Friday night as well, and Im sure I will enjoy it :D

And of course, I am rereading TTT so I know what PJ changed, because I prefer to think of the movies as entirely different than the books.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Dáin Ironfoot I
If you had read carefully, you would know I was replying to joxy, who had used portions of my quotes to say something I wanted to finish.
You mean that I should have added to the quote I gave from you ("All I'm saying is that the movies are fine the way they are") your addition "one just has to go in the theatre with a clear mind instead of going in expecting a certain thing."?
What I hope, not expect, to see is a good film, a fine one to use your word. What I see is NOT totally fine; the films are, as I said in reply to you "not, totally, fine the way they are; they are very good, but they are faulted in ways that they needn't have been." This forum is all about discussing the ways the films differ from the books; so, although you are quite right about keeping it a happy place, there really isn't much point in offering as a contribution "I am only trying to give my opinions on why the movie shouldn't be criticized so bad" - except for the word "bad" that's what we're all here for.

[Dáin Ironfoot I]

True joxy,

- except for the word "bad" that's what we're all here for.

Everyone is here to say that, just not me. It wouldnt be very interesting if everyone agreed the whole time. BORING. You need someone to spice up the convo a little bit. Except like the true hero of lotr thread, that was just plain ridiculous. Gollum as the hero! Sheesh!

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Dáin Ironfoot I
Thank you, Mrs. Maggott.

I will be seeing TTT on Friday night as well, and Im sure I will enjoy it :D

And of course, I am rereading TTT so I know what PJ changed, because I prefer to think of the movies as entirely different than the books.

As I myself have prescribed on numerous threads. If one attends the film with a "check list" against the book, I can pretty much guarantee a less than rollicking good time! One must "enjoy" the film as the film and the book as the book!

[Dáin Ironfoot I]

Couldnt have said it better myself Mrs. Maggott.

[Beruthiel]

It's funny, if I had taken this poll 24 hours earlier, I would have nominated him for sainthood. Now I want him drawn and quartered, after seeing the mess he made of TTT. :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Beruthiel
It's funny, if I had taken this poll 24 hours earlier, I would have nominated him for sainthood. Now I want him drawn and quartered, after seeing the mess he made of TTT. :mad: :mad: :mad:
Oh dear! Are we to suspect from your post that Mr. Jackson's "deviations" have reached rather epic proportions? I would suspect from what I have read and seen of the "official" pronouncements, that this is indeed the case. However, so as not to be seen as an "I told you so", I would ask you the following questions:

1. Are you upset at the changes because of the degree of deviation from the book? If the answer is yes, certainly you must have known that the deviations in the second (and the third) film must be more than occurred in FOTR by virtue of the deviations that occurred in that film.

2. Are you more upset because you did not likethe deviations in TTT? If the answer is yes, what about it/them didn't you like and what do you believe that these deviations portend for ROTK?

I would be most interested to hear your very pertinent comments upon the above since as you have mentioned, you did like the first film.

Thank you.

[aragil]

Just for the sake of virgin ears that have not yet seen the movie (happily mine are un-virgined in this regards) perhaps Beruthiel's forthcoming review of TT should be placed in the TT section of the forum? I know I hated trying to avoid these kinds of postings prior to my own viewing.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by aragil
Just for the sake of virgin ears that have not yet seen the movie (happily mine are un-virgined in this regards) perhaps Beruthiel's forthcoming review of TT should be placed in the TT section of the forum? I know I hated trying to avoid these kinds of postings prior to my own viewing.
I have no problem as to where it is posted so long as Beruthiel is kind enough (considering all the trouble to which I am putting him?) to let me know where it is so that I can read it.

Again, many thanks.

[Beruthiel]

I posted my review yesterday in the TTT movie review thread. I believe it is the last one on Page One.

And by the way, Mrs. M., I'm a "she", not a "he"

:p

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Beruthiel
I posted my review yesterday in the TTT movie review thread. I believe it is the last one on Page One.

And by the way, Mrs. M., I'm a "she", not a "he"

:p

You noticed my question mark? I though that you were a "she" but I posted just after getting up with a sinus headache - still have the d****d thing! and wasn't quick enough to really look at the name (if I had, I wudda knowd)!

Anyway, the ladies are always less apt to become affronted when someone mistakes them for gentlemen than vice versa. My apologies nonetheless. I really must find what I did with my brain! :rolleyes:

[Beruthiel]

Not a problem, no offense taken at all. Thus the smiley under my comment. I am only on the second coffee of the day, thus my mind is not at its sharpest either. I always say I need two cups to start the day, one to open each eye. :)

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Beruthiel
Not a problem, no offense taken at all. Thus the smiley under my comment. I am only on the second coffee of the day, thus my mind is not at its sharpest either. I always say I need two cups to start the day, one to open each eye. :)
Just went and read your comment. Very sensitively and objectively written. As I feared, the business of Faramir is going to loom very large in this, especially if Jackson intends to have the "love story" between Faramir and Eowyn actually take place. In the book, the reader feels that Eowyn is somehow a "reward" for Faramir's patient forebearing and gentle, heroic spirit. But this is apparently a very different Faramir from the book and how will the viewers feel about the "match" in ROTK is difficult to say. Actually, from what I have heard (I will see the film tomorrow night), Boromir was a more sympathetic character than his brother - and that's a real "anti-Tolkien" development. :mad:

[Naurnedist]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Actually, from what I have heard (I will see the film tomorrow night), Boromir was a more sympathetic character than his brother - and that's a real "anti-Tolkien" development. :mad:

when you look at it objectively, boromir was quite sympathetic, he just had problems with willpower. whereas faramir did not even want the ring. and yet he still considered bringing frodo to his father in the books, albiet after hearing frodos testimony of what the ring did to Boromir and having seen the proof of it, he decided against bringing Frodo to minas Tirith, because it would endanger not ony himself but others. is that really an anti tolkien development.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Naurnedist
when you look at it objectively, boromir was quite sympathetic, he just had problems with willpower. whereas faramir did not even want the ring. and yet he still considered bringing frodo to his father in the books, albiet after hearing frodos testimony of what the ring did to Boromir and having seen the proof of it, he decided against bringing Frodo to minas Tirith, because it would endanger not ony himself but others. is that really an anti tolkien development.
It is if it contains the quote that has been noted by one viewer on this or another forum, "I will bring a mighty gift to my father." The original of that quote is said by Denethor "He would have brought me a mighty gift" to Gandalf in Minas Tirith. Again, Jackson is putting the words of one character into another character's mouth. He has done this before and achieved the same twisted result.

Furthermore, in the book, Faramir was under order to bring all persons not obviously servants of the enemy found in Ithilien to Minas Tirith. This had nothing to do with the Ring and everything to do with the state of war that existed. His consideration of bringing Frodo and Sam to the City was put aside when he learned of their mission. He never considered bringing the RING to Minas Tirith. Furthermore, he had already given his oath not to touch the "heirloom" that Frodo possessed even if he found it lying by the side of the road. I do not doubt that this "oath" is not in the film, but once made, Faramir was bound by it so he never considered taking the Ring for himself, his Father or anyone else.

From the reports of all of those who love the character of Faramir, it is obvious that that character has been decisively altered and not for the better. Considering that Jackson's deviation this time has led to the hobbits being captured, taken to their original book destination - and then taken westward (away from Mordor) only to be attacked and then have to retrace their steps, perhaps someone can tell me how this helps cut the film time? :rolleyes:

[joxy]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Considering that Jackson's deviation this time has led to the hobbits being captured, taken to their original book destination - and then taken westward (away from Mordor) only to be attacked and then have to retrace their steps....
This is S and F?!
It is such a great feature of the books that they escape capture by anyone, almost to the very end of the journey.
What IS in PJ's brain?,
and how indeed does he continue to use lack of time as an excuse for the omissions?

[aragil]

Just a little note joxy- they were captured by Faramir in the books.


********Spoiler*********



Faramir just spent more time chatting with them prior to the ambush of the southrons, so he had a better idea what was going on. In the movie the hobbits are captured during the attack on the southrons, so there is no time to feel things out. Faramir is forced into making a snap decision, and as soon as he gets a clearer picture of what the ring is, he immediately lets it go, even though he knows his life will be forfeit by the laws of his father. This is the same Faramir from the book, just in a slightly different situation (IMO). I hate to post spoilers in this forum, but I also wish you all would see the movie before you start complaining about these scenes.

[Thorin]

****SPOILERS*****


Originally posted by aragil
Faramir just spent more time chatting with them prior to the ambush of the southrons, so he had a better idea what was going on. In the movie the hobbits are captured during the attack on the southrons, so there is no time to feel things out. Faramir is forced into making a snap decision, and as soon as he gets a clearer picture of what the ring is, he immediately lets it go, even though he knows his life will be forfeit by the laws of his father. This is the same Faramir from the book, just in a slightly different situation (IMO)

Faramir of the book discovered by chance that the hobbits had the ring and though he put on a show, he flatly rejected the ring and pitied Boromir for falling under its spell. This is totally against what PJ's Faramir did. Ignoring the hobbits wishes, he states "The Ring will go to Minas Tirith" then takes them to Osgiliath where without the Nazgul's interference, he would have sent them to Denethor ring and all. "We have something that will rally Gondor together" or something to that effect. The only reason (which is foolish in itself) why he lets them go is because of Sam's little rant about Boromir. This was NOT the Faramir of Tolkien. Anyone can realize that.

Please, aragil. Don't let your blind devotion to PJ stop you from criticizing where it is due.

[joxy]

Originally posted by aragil
Just a little note joxy- they were captured by Faramir in the books.
Ah well, you didn't say you were talking about Faramir capturing them in the film- I thought you were saying there was a new capturing; there's a difference between goodies doing the capturing and baddies doing it!
It still sounds a weird idea though, the way you describe it from the film.

[Aldanil]

it's even feebler what was done to Theoden
whom Gandalf rouses from the grip of Grima
but remains thereafter a dithering onlooker
both foolishly boastful and inert

them heroic and invulnerability-providing horses
upon which he and Aragorn
ride down from the Hornburg
are pure Movie Magic

would that only somehow the mere Council of Elrond
had allowed to the Wise the quiet time for reflection
in which Theoden King repeatedly retreats to consider
the defense of Rohan


hell, such ham-handed hash
makes no sense on the map!