I seen the Light !! i wont ever criticise PJ again

[lilhobo]

my gosh i saw!!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the CLones !!


my gosh, for a big budget film the acting was horrid !!! Who selected the guy for Anakin (sp) ?



the fight scene got better but the "sterile" environment makes it star trekky lol

and the SCRIPT lol :D

[Mrs. Maggott]

Whatever one may think of one film, that does not make another film better or worse except in comparison. For instance, a "B" movie may be better than a "C" movie, but it is still a "B" movie.

Mr. Lucas has discovered with his less successful prequals that it is one thing to take a story at the most exciting part and film it, and quite another to do the "set up" of the plot that leads to that part of the story that is "the most exciting part". Actually, in the two latest Star Wars films, there were some very exciting parts. What lessened the impact is that we, the audience, already know the ending - and that tends to lessen interest and cause the viewer to spend all of his or her time watching for the things that relate to the previously viewed - but sequentially later - films. Lucas would have been better off doing films that post-dated the original three as opposed to those which led into them.

Furthermore, it was hard building up the kind of loyalty to the obviously central character of Annikan Skywalker knowing as we did that he would become Darth Vader. Whether the acting of the young leads was altogether the problem, or whether it was difficult to become engaged in the characters knowing that they are at the time of the film merely "history" (and I suspect, personally, that it was a little of both!) there was no "resonance" between the characters and the audience.

Then there is another problem which I suspect Mr. Jackson will soon experience: the diminishing returns of special effects. The original Star Wars had for its day, incredible special effects. They moved the audience into the world of the characters. The second group of films have even better special effects, but they cannot make up for the weakness of the plot line (which is not so much weak and anti-climactic) and less notable actors (with exceptions, of course). Special effects may enhance a story, but it cannot make up for a weak one, for poor acting or poor character development - just as a good actor cannot altogether make up for a poorly drawn character.

Furthermore, we as an audience are getting used to special effects. The same thing happened first with the motion picture itself and then the addition of sound. In the beginning, it was enough for the audience to "see" the pictures move; they didn't need a "plot" (one of the first "films" was nothing more than a long kiss). But soon they were demanding MORE - a story. When sound came in, the first such film, "The Jazz Singer" only had sound during Jolson's songs; the rest of the film was silent. However, soon the whole film had to have sound and eventually, sound became too commonplace to be a "selling point". The same thing is true of computer generated special effects. If the story is not there or if the acting is sub-par, all the "eye candy" in the world is not going to make the film successful.

[lilhobo]

hmm, not sure i wanted a psychoanalysis of the movie going audience but thanks lol

it dont matter if its prequel or sequel. If u can identify with Annikan then fine and good........

the 2 prequels had no excitement , no sexual tension (understated of course lol), no rogue char, no good char!!!

Oh my gosh, can u belive yoda as a whirlwind midget with a lightsabre....i musta dropped my jaws 6 feet when i saw that scene..(chris lee saying "u must join us" is another giggle lol)

i mean if u see the midget on Fantasy Island then it forgiveable, but Yoda with a lightsabre and leading the war??? wtf???

now my image of yoda is forever tarnished!!!

bah

[lilhobo]

hey dont be a spoilt sport lol :D

[Talimon]

I hate to make another rant against Episode I/II, but to sum it up these movies have turned from myth to a bad action movie. Where is all the symbolism? The Greeky mythology? The Force? It's quite lacking, and I'm beginning to believe GL may have simply forgotten why people loved the first SW movies to begin with. Sure, the battles and action were part of it. But what really made it was the myth. GL has completely neglected that.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Talimon
I hate to make another rant against Episode I/II, but to sum it up these movies have turned from myth to a bad action movie. Where is all the symbolism? The Greeky mythology? The Force? It's quite lacking, and I'm beginning to believe GL may have simply forgotten why people loved the first SW movies to begin with. Sure, the battles and action were part of it. But what really made it was the myth. GL has completely neglected that.

Why does this argument sound so familiar?! Hmmmm....let's see....:rolleyes:

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Why does this argument sound so familiar?! Hmmmm....let's see....:rolleyes:

There is a not so subtle difference between comparing one film to another, in the same genre and by the same director, and comparing a film and a 500 page book in a genre that has never produced a good film. I've stated this before: I am fully willing to admit PJ could have made a truer film. But to do so I first have to see a truer film of the same size and scope made, based on a book of the same complexity, and made in the same genre.

But please, let's not get too off-topic ;).

[Mrs. Maggott]

Why would it be considered "off topic" to comment upon the fact that the very criticism you are making about Lucas: that his last two films have "failed" the "myth" you say permeated the first three films - is the same criticism that was made of Jackson's rendering of LOTR.

There were many things that Jackson could have done to enlarge the "mythic" properties of his film. There were also many things that he did do that directly lessened those properties. Since the thread makes a direct comparison between films, and not their sources, then my comment upon your observation was not only absolutely justified, but should give you pause as well. For you have now admitted that as the MYTH goes, so goes the film. ;)

[Mrs. Maggott]

I can only put it this way and it is my opinion and perhaps that of a few others: Jackson's film is about a myth; it isn't "mythic". It has mostly to do (at least in my opinion) with his rendering of characters - and (AGAIN) especially Aragorn. I ask only that those who question this look to the two interpretations of that character and see which one is "mythic" and which is not.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
I am fully willing to admit PJ could have made a truer film. But to do so I first have to see a truer film of the same size and scope made....
If he could have done, why didn't he?
He has already made it truer himself, by adding the EE, so there's the example you ask for.
To make it the same size again, all he needs to do is cut out some of the nonsense.
Easy, isn't it?!
As you're having a holiday, please don't take this too seriously; read it in a holiday spirit!

[Talimon]

There were many things that Jackson could have done to enlarge the "mythic" properties of his film. There were also many things that he did do that directly lessened those properties.

I'm afraid I can't agree here. Again we knock heads over this seemingly simple point... But from my film-going experience, PJ's movie is certainly one of the best efforts I've ever seen at telling myth. Thought I'm not quite sure how you define "mythic"... the film is certainly mythic, of itself. My use of the word in describing AotC was that Lucas had dropped much of the sense of myth (particularly regarding the Greek mythologies) that embodied his earlier films. I don't see how this remark has any relevance to PJ's movie.

If he could have done, why didn't he?
He has already made it truer himself, by adding the EE, so there's the example you ask for.
To make it the same size again, all he needs to do is cut out some of the nonsense.
Easy, isn't it?!

For one, the EE is a good half hour longer, and secondly, I do not believe the EE (or a movie of it's pace and type) would ever be shown in theatres. Perhaps, now that FotR has been such a sucess, New Line might let it slide in some future release. But to be frank there is absolutely no way I can see this cut of the film being the original one released. Blame it on the film studios.

[lilhobo]

hmmm, Star wars is more indian/hindu mythology than Greek, Lucas admitted this at one point....the maharatta (ps)....

there was till more **** in EE, but it was an improvement and u hardly noticed the extra 30 min

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
For one, the EE is a good half hour longer,
and secondly, I do not believe the EE (or a movie of it's pace and type) would ever be shown in theatres.
As I said in the post this replies to, it could have been made half an hour shorter again by judicious excisions!
Do you mean the EE is so different from the TC that it couldn't be shown?

[Talimon]

Originally posted by joxy
As I said in the post this replies to, it could have been made half an hour shorter again by judicious excisions!
Do you mean the EE is so different from the TC that it couldn't be shown?

Considering that it was originally intended to be included, but wasn't, I think I can say with fair certainty that no, it couldn't (or more accurate "wouldn't) be shown. Not because it's a bad cut, but because the studios would never accept it (nor, in my opinion, would many non-fans).

[Aldanil]

Trimming for Optimum Length and Intensity
OR I Mean, C'mon Now, Seriously...

The amount of screen-time that might be saved {and thus made available for better use} by "judiciously excising" such priceless made-for-Hallmark moments as 1 proud papa Saruman beaming with baleful glee as Lurtz the Uruk-hai emerges besmeared in amniotic slime or 2 idly curious Boromir, having first recognized the hallowed shards of Narsil and then allowed himself a desultory wave or two of the hilt, finally just drops it on the floor as he leaves the room or 3 the Amazing No-Rail Crumbling Brickwork Stairs of Khazad-Dum **Now! New & Improved! with 100% Additional Humorous Dialogue!!** or 4 naughty naughty Pippin and Merry, stealing carrots and cabbages, those mischievous scamps! or 5 nearly everyone in the Fellowship taking at least a turn or two about the Battle-ground Dance-Hall of Mazarbul with that angry ol' CGI Cave-troll insert video game interface here or 6 any of another easy handful of editorial options would not only allow for (much) more of the enhanced-scene superiority of the EE DVD, but might even be wrought into a much better movie!


And if Frodo and his faithful companion can enjoy such a stirring vista of peaks and rocky ridges from the next field past the scarecrow that Sam has never been farther than, why did Bilbo have to abandon the Shire "to see mountains again"? I'm askin'!

[aragil]

Originally posted by Aldanil
1 proud papa Saruman beaming with baleful glee as Lurtz the Uruk-hai emerges besmeared in amniotic slime
As the Fran or PB said in the director commentary, this scene is important for the character of Saruman- he truly thinks that he is improving, 'perfecting' even the designs of Sauron and Morgoth. This scene is gross, yes. But what has happened to Saruman is equally gross- he has fallen from a task laid upon him by Eru through Illuvatar, and now rather than helping the free-peoples he is perverting them in an effort to gain dominion. Why would it be judicious to excise this one?
2 idly curious Boromir, having first recognized the hallowed shards of Narsil and then allowed himself a desultory wave or two of the hilt, finally just drops it on the floor as he leaves the room. I love that scene- it sets up Boromir and Aragorn's relationship so perfectly. Deep in his heart Boromir admires and respects Aragorn, but he is too proud to show it. It is what makes their reconciliation at Boromir's death so moving. Shirley one who feels the lack of subtle touches elsewhere in the movie can appreciate it here? And further more, the scene reminds us of Narsil, which I hear will play a very important role in the other films. And, for the purists, the appendices state that the heirlooms of the northern kingdom (Sceptre of Annuminas, Ring of Barahir, and Shards of Narsil) are kept in reverance in Rivendell. This is one of those bits that was supposed to appeal to book readers.
3 the Amazing No-Rail Crumbling Brickwork Stairs of Khazad-Dum **Now! New & Improved! with 100% Additional Humorous Dialogue!!** The dwarf-tossing was just meant to be humorous in terms of the pride of the Dwarven people, I believe. Even though Gimli knows the jump is too far to attempt without help, he absolutely refuses to be humbly thrown across. I wonder if Gloin was thinking he should have had the same pride, when he emmerged from the barrels at Long Lake? In any case, the crumbling masonry in Khazad-dum was Tolkien's invention, not the movie's. In the books it is described before the chamber, where Pippin waits for some time before summoning the courage to jump across.
4 naughty naughty Pippin and Merry, stealing carrots and cabbages, those mischievous scamps! Frodo himself used to steal out of that same field in the books, lest we forget our family history. To me it seems more out of place with the book Frodo to do such a thing than it does with the book Merry and Pippin, but there you go.
5 nearly everyone in the Fellowship taking at least a turn or two about the Battle-ground Dance-Hall of Mazarbul with that angry ol' CGI Cave-troll insert video game interface here Doubtless the cave-troll will find his way into the computer-gaming world, but one might also point out that this scene was a nice way of showing the fellowship protecting Frodo. I suppose the same thing could have been done with Orcs, but the Troll is something very large and powerful, allowing the Fellowship (and audience) a chance to focus on a single tangible enemy.

6 any of another easy handful of editorial options would not only allow for (much) more of the enhanced-scene superiority of the EE DVD, but might even be wrought into a much better movie! Editorial options which might satisfy one man could very easily give a sense of uneasiness to another, even among Tolkien Purists. What should be kept in or out is completely subjective, however, I'll point out that the theatrical release of the movie has been met with enormous critical and financial success. These of course are not completely objective measures, but they're getting there. To futher my point about subjectivity, Mrs Maggot seems to agree with you about the tone the movie could have kept, and yet very few of your most objectional scenes have made her "Most Vehemently Despised" list.

And if Frodo and his faithful companion can enjoy such a stirring vista of peaks and rocky ridges from the next field past the scarecrow that Sam has never been farther than, why did Bilbo have to abandon the Shire "to see mountains again"? I'm askin'! Of course, in my neck of the woods those might be considered hills, not mountains, but they probably were a bit large-ish for the Shire. Would you prefer that PJ had digitally removed some of the natural beauty of New Zealand just to satisfy Bilbo's statement to the letter? Could that be considered nit-picking?

[Mrs. Maggott]

In any case, the crumbling masonry in Khazad-dum was Tolkien's invention, not the movie's. In the books it is described before the chamber, where Pippin waits for some time before summoning the courage to jump across. <quote>

Just a little note of correction: the chasm Pippin had to "work up the courage" to jump across was in the tunnel passage floor; it was a "geological" fault, not a failure of the dwarves' masonry (there was a river or some other running water at its base); the gap was about four feet wide. Frankly, why someone didn't pick the small hobbit up and toss him or carry him across rather than sit around waiting for him to "work up his courage" was a mystery to me at the time I read it in the book!

Also, Frodo had stolen Farmer Maggot's mushrooms when he was a boy. And although Merry and Pippin are still in their (in their case very) irresponsible "tweens", neither of them can be called "boys". :rolleyes:

[aragil]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Just a little note of correction: the chasm Pippin had to "work up the courage" to jump across was in the tunnel passage floor; it was a "geological" fault, not a failure of the dwarves' masonry (there was a river or some other running water at its base); the gap was about four feet wide. Frankly, why someone didn't pick the small hobbit up and toss him or carry him across rather than sit around waiting for him to "work up his courage" was a mystery to me at the time I read it in the book! In the pale ray of the wizard's staff, Frodo caught glimpses of stairs and arches and of other passages and tunnels, sloping up, or running steeply down, or opening blankly dark on either side. ... The Mines of Moria were vast and intricate beyond the imagination of Gimli, Glóin's son, dwarf of the mountain-race though he was. ... There were not only many roads to choose from, there were also in many places holes and pitfalls, and dark wells beside the path in which their passing feet echoed. There were fissures and chasms in the walls and floor, and every now and then a crack would open right before their feet. The widest was more than seven feet across, and it was long before Pippin could summon enough courage to leap over the dreadful gap. The noise of churning water came up from far below, as if some great mill-wheel was turning in the depths. The Fellowship was not travelling along a cave, they were in the Dwarven mine, repleat with stairs, arches, and passages. If there was a gaping chasm in the way, you can bet that the Dwarves had at one point bridged the gap and that their masonry had now given way. Likewise in the movie there was dwarven masonry that was giving way. Why is this objectionable? Certainly not from a film perspective- the excitement is steadily mounting from the moment Pippin puts the skeleton in the well until we see the Balrog. The staircase is just a step along the way.

Also, Frodo had stolen Farmer Maggot's mushrooms when he was a boy. And although Merry and Pippin are still in their (in their case very) irresponsible "tweens", neither of them can be called "boys". :rolleyes: In our world a male who has not yet reached maturity is a boy. In the books Pippin and Merry were 29 and 35, respectively, but they appear to be somewhat younger in the movie. In any case, Pippin has not yet reached maturity- he is a Hobbit Boy. But all this is extreme hair-splitting. The fact is that Tolkien introduced Maggot's field by saying that Frodo (an honorable gentlehobbit if ever there was one) used to thieve from it. PJ introduces Maggot's field by showing Merry and Pippin (not the most responsible, in book or movie) thieving from it. Personally I don't see how this scene is anything other than an homage to what was written in the books, but it ain't the first time I've been happy with a part of the film that put the puristas up in arms.

[Aldanil]

OR You Only Smite the One You Love


That mountain-man from the land Montanan is indeed da Man, and most acute in his riposting! Let me thence press my advance apace, sharpening the fencers' pleasure of sparks between us!

And do first confess, even as I draw electronic epee upon my dear heart's kinsman aragil, myself to be as much NPW-preening poseur as true-believing rhetorical swordsman: 'twas only my entirely uncoerced desire to buy the EE boxset that finally acquired us a DVD player to watch it on, and I'm sure to see TTT at least twice over Christmas, so my Being Determinedly PO'd with PJ ought be taken (in context) with a few grains of salt. Donning the mantle of an "unrepentant Purist" does allow the wearer certain fabric and flourishes, but it's not half an act, as a Cockney might say.

And further do lament, as the hour runs later than half past one, myself quite unable to compose online at even a fraction of the furious pace at which I'd like to reply to mon ami's enthusiastic parries. There's many a merry counterstroke to be offered, but tonight is the last school night of the week, or rather it was before it turned into this morning, and as late as it's become already all I've really done thus far is clear my throat in crying on to battle. Thus, having picked a mock-fight with a friend, I move to postpone the main encounter until the weekend, when I can buckle my swash with a much better zest and my typing speed improves with a little more sleep.

For all the hyperbolic build-up, therefore, I'll make do for the nonce with one briefest minor-key moan of contention. The most scrupulous attention to the passage from "A Journey in the Dark" which aragil cites in response to Mrs. Maggott will turn up no mention of "masonry" whatsoever. The Mines of Moria were hewn through long Ages from the living rock of the Misty Mountains; there being neither the need for a race of stone-carvers to employ it nor the clay and straw to bake it out of, the Dwarrowdelf was definitely not done up or detailed in brick.

How's that for your "aboriginal Nit-Picking Weenie"?



"Ah'll be bach" (like Ahnold) for more of this anon, before we reach the Morannon.

[aragil]

Originally posted by Aldanil
For all the hyperbolic build-up, therefore, I'll make do for the nonce with one briefest minor-key moan of contention. The most scrupulous attention to the passage from "A Journey in the Dark" which aragil cites in response to Mrs. Maggott will turn up no mention of "masonry" whatsoever. The Mines of Moria were hewn through long Ages from the living rock of the Misty Mountains; there being neither the need for a race of stone-carvers to employ it nor the clay and straw to bake it out of, the Dwarrowdelf was definitely not done up or detailed in brick.
How's that for your "aboriginal Nit-Picking Weenie"?
Perfectly poetic, and I would expect no less. I hereby withdraw my own mention of masonry. However, splitting hairs in riposte, I'll point out that the passage does contain references to stairs and implies that where once the Dwarves had a road, now there are occasional gaps.
With that I withdraw into my mountain fortress, anxiously awaiting an all-out Aldanilic Assault (alliterative, I hope).

afterwards adjusted to allow additional alliteration

[joxy]

Originally posted by Aldanil
such priceless made-for-Hallmark moments as....
....would not only allow for (much) more of the enhanced-scene superiority of the EE DVD, but might even be wrought into a much better movie!
I'm askin'!
Your five are high on my list, and I'm sure you have as many more as I have - total time, who knows? but surely more than enough to include more of the material that is probably already made, as demonstrated by the improvement shown in EE.
And yes, I've been askin' too, and I still am!

[joxy]

Of course all the scenes have SOME foundation in the book; there's no argument about that. The point it that the foundations aren't strong enough to justify their inclusion on the one hand, while with the other hand claiming there wasn't time for other much more relevant buildings. We could all use our "vision" to invent scenes more or less vaguely based on the books, but wouldn't want them included at the expense of T's inventions.

<orc-birthing....Why would it be judicious to excise this one?>
Because it's spectacular and grotesque rubbish. Let PJ find another film to exercise that particular nasty corner of his imagination.

<I love that scene- it sets up Boromir and Aragorn's relationship so perfectly....This is one of those bits that was supposed to appeal to book readers.>
What would appeal to readers would be something from the books, to "set up the relationship".

<The dwarf-tossing was just meant to be humorous in terms of the pride of the Dwarven people, I believe.>
Of course it was, that's obvious, but at a point of supposed extreme danger?? Is humour compulsory everywhere??
About the whole scene, I find it, apart from that remark, impressive and exciting, but it takes up time that could have been used so much more usefully.

<Frodo himself used to steal out of that same field in the books>
Yes, Frodo, so why make the effort to change it and bother with it at all?

<the cave-troll....this scene was a nice way of showing the fellowship protecting Frodo.>
That point is almost lost in the furore of action. Again, the H Potter style look of the troll itself apart, it's a thrilling scene, but...

<Mrs Maggot....very few of your most objectional scenes have made her "Most Vehemently Despised" list.>
Forgetting the hyperbole, I await Mrs M's confirmation, or rejection, of this.

<Would you prefer that PJ had digitally removed some of the natural beauty....?>
He did a lot of other digital work, and did it pretty effectively; why not a bit more to make B's remark, in the film, make more sense?

[joxy]

Originally posted by aragil
Pippin has not yet reached maturity- he is a Hobbit Boy. But all this is extreme hair-splitting....
Personally I don't see how this scene is anything other than an homage to what was written in the books....
He's not a boy, and it's not hair-splitting. Their whole character is changed, almost destroyed, only to be, one hopes, as it appears, redeemed at the very end of the film.
How can a crudely thought out, and not much better acted, completely new idea, based on nothing more than a trivial bit of information in the book, be thought of as something as high-minded as a tribute? It was just an excuse to work towards using
the famous chapter heading, A Short Cut to Mushrooms.

[joxy]

<aragil>
<....anxiously awaiting an all-out Aldanilic Assault (alliterative, I hope).
afterwards adjusted to allow additional alliteration>

But isn't yours assonance rather than alliteration?

[Mrs. Maggott]

Didn't I just SAY I wasn't going to do this anymore?? I have such willpower! I can resist anything but temptation!
**********************
<Mrs Maggot....very few of your most objectional scenes have made her "Most Vehemently Despised" list.>
Forgetting the hyperbole, I await Mrs M's confirmation, or rejection, of this. <quote Joxy of quote>
**********************
As far as I recall, I don't have a list of "Most Vehemently Despised" scenes (except, perhaps, the sword at the throat bit!). However, I do have questions regarding the logic, sense and reason for a number of scenes and plot/character developments to which I have hitherto alluded (and will no more, hopefully).

As I begin to really to tire of saying, I liked the film! Heaven's! I bought the d****d EE version, what more do I have to do?

However, whatever I might think of the film as film, I frankly think it deviated so far from its source material in extremely important ways - and not just silly plot mistakes and developments or "dwarf tossing" - that it cannot be considered a faithful rendering of Tolkien's work. It was a great opportunity which sadly became a missed opportunity. But hey! Given that many of "today's audience" are equating Sam's selfless love for his Master (a true example of agape!) with an erotic same-sex bonding, perhaps Mr. Jackson couldn't have made a commercial success of the true story no matter what he did! It may well be that our culture has become far too "orcish" to appreciate or understand it and we should be thankful that the Director was able to at least cultivate an interest in the work for those who have never heard of it. Of course, what will come out of that, no one knows...

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Aldanil
OR You Only Smite the One You Love


That mountain-man from the land Montanan is indeed da Man, and most acute in his riposting! Let me thence press my advance apace, sharpening the fencers' pleasure of sparks between us!

And do first confess, even as I draw electronic epee upon my dear heart's kinsman aragil, myself to be as much NPW-preening poseur as true-believing rhetorical swordsman: 'twas only my entirely uncoerced desire to buy the EE boxset that finally acquired us a DVD player to watch it on, and I'm sure to see TTT at least twice over Christmas, so my Being Determinedly PO'd with PJ ought be taken (in context) with a few grains of salt. Donning the mantle of an "unrepentant Purist" does allow the wearer certain fabric and flourishes, but it's not half an act, as a Cockney might say.

And further do lament, as the hour runs later than half past one, myself quite unable to compose online at even a fraction of the furious pace at which I'd like to reply to mon ami's enthusiastic parries. There's many a merry counterstroke to be offered, but tonight is the last school night of the week, or rather it was before it turned into this morning, and as late as it's become already all I've really done thus far is clear my throat in crying on to battle. Thus, having picked a mock-fight with a friend, I move to postpone the main encounter until the weekend, when I can buckle my swash with a much better zest and my typing speed improves with a little more sleep.

For all the hyperbolic build-up, therefore, I'll make do for the nonce with one briefest minor-key moan of contention. The most scrupulous attention to the passage from "A Journey in the Dark" which aragil cites in response to Mrs. Maggott will turn up no mention of "masonry" whatsoever. The Mines of Moria were hewn through long Ages from the living rock of the Misty Mountains; there being neither the need for a race of stone-carvers to employ it nor the clay and straw to bake it out of, the Dwarrowdelf was definitely not done up or detailed in brick.


Do you get paid by the hour for this?

[aragil]

Originally posted by joxy
But isn't yours assonance rather than alliteration?
Well, what good is the word alliteration if you can't alliterate with it? I'm askin' ya.

[Parrot]

LOL! The word is spelled "illiterate", Boneheads! Learn some English!

[aragil]

Originally posted by joxy
Of course all the scenes have SOME foundation in the book; there's no argument about that. The point is that the foundations aren't strong enough to justify their inclusion on the one hand, while with the other hand claiming there wasn't time for other much more relevant buildings. We could all use our "vision" to invent scenes more or less vaguely based on the books, but wouldn't want them included at the expense of T's inventions.
Forgetting the hyperbole, I await Mrs M's confirmation, or rejection, of this.
[Mrs. Maggot]However, whatever I might think of the film as film, I frankly think it deviated so far from its source material in extremely important ways - and not just silly plot mistakes and developments or "dwarf tossing" - that it cannot be considered a faithful rendering of Tolkien's work. This is what I (and especially others) have been saying- what one person views as being so fundamentally different that it cannot be considered a faithful rendering, others view as a cosmetic change. For me personally the movie conveyed the major themes and plot elements of the book- the details of each particular scene are simply details. I can accept personal statements of "this didn't work for me", I dislike statements of "PJ completely failed in his attempt to bring Tolkien to the screen". However, if I can ever convince someone that a scene which I liked in the movie is actually good, then all the better.
Originally posted by joxy
<orc-birthing....Why would it be judicious to excise this one?>
Because it's spectacular and grotesque rubbish. Let PJ find another film to exercise that particular nasty corner of his imagination. But this film is partially about Saruman, an angelic being given a directive from 'God' to help the Free Peoples resist Sauron. His response? He seeks to enslave the Free Peoples and cross them with Orcs. This is a pretty huge part of the story, and is necessary (if for nothing else) as a counterpoint to Gandalf. The deed is absolutely vile, and PJ rightfully shows it as such. What were you invisioning? Uruk-hai delivered to Isengard via a Stork?
Originally posted by joxy
<I love that scene- it sets up Boromir and Aragorn's relationship so perfectly....This is one of those bits that was supposed to appeal to book readers.>
What would appeal to readers would be something from the books, to "set up the relationship". To be honest, I never got a good feel for their relationship in the books. Sometimes Boromir seemed to respect Aragorn, other times he would question A's judgement. For his part, I thought Aragorn was overly severe with Boromir. So for me, this slight bit of invention was welcome- it's nice how Boromir's treatment of the Sword parallel's his view of Aragorn:
"The shards of Narsil. The blade that cut the ring from Sauron's hand. ... Still sharp. But no more than a broken hilt."
and
"This is Isildur's heir?. ... Gondor has no king, Gondor needs no king."
True, it was not precisely from the books, but this reader still enjoyed it.
Originally posted by joxy
He's not a boy, and it's not hair-splitting. Their whole character is changed, almost destroyed, only to be, one hopes, as it appears, redeemed at the very end of the film.
How can a crudely thought out, and not much better acted, completely new idea, based on nothing more than a trivial bit of information in the book, be thought of as something as high-minded as a tribute? It was just an excuse to work towards using the famous chapter heading, A Short Cut to Mushrooms.
...
<Frodo himself used to steal out of that same field in the books>
Yes, Frodo, so why make the effort to change it and bother with it at all? To have shown Frodo stealing from the fields would not have fit in very well with his character at all, that is one good reason to change it. from www.webster.com
boy: 2 a : a male child from birth to puberty b : SON c : an immature male Pippin is indeed a boy, in the sense of an immature male. Change/destruction of character, crude thinking and poor acting are all subjective. What isn't subjective is that the idea of Hobbits stealing from Maggot's field came from the books (hardly obscure as it colors most of the Frodo-Maggot exchange in the books), which makes it a tribute.

Originally posted by joxy
<the cave-troll....this scene was a nice way of showing the fellowship protecting Frodo.>
That point is almost lost in the furore of action. Again, the H Potter style look of the troll itself apart, it's a thrilling scene, but... You're just reminding me here of the benefits of having not seen HP.

Originally posted by joxy
<Would you prefer that PJ had digitally removed some of the natural beauty....?>
He did a lot of other digital work, and did it pretty effectively; why not a bit more to make B's remark, in the film, make more sense? My response is how important to the film was Bilbo's remark? Also, did anyone actually enjoy the breathtaking natural beauty of that scene (besides me)? Finally, was there a net detraction or addition to the film by keeping beautiful scenery and having Bilbo's remark seem odd? For all we know the old (and I mean old) chap was a bit near-sighted.

[aragil]

Originally posted by Parrot
LOL! The word is spelled "illiterate", Boneheads! Learn some English! Some may apply that word to me, but I hardly think it wise to apply it to Aldanil.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Given that many of "today's audience" are equating Sam's selfless love for his Master (a true example of agape!) with an erotic same-sex bonding, perhaps Mr. Jackson couldn't have made a commercial success of the true story no matter what he did!
Let's have less eros and more agape and we'll all be a lot more contented with life!

[joxy]

Originally posted by aragil
[1]....if I can ever convince someone that a scene which I liked in the movie is actually good, then all the better.
[2]<orc-birthing>What were you invisioning?
[3]it's nice how Boromir's treatment of the Sword parallels his view of Aragorn:
[4]To have shown Frodo stealing from the fields would not have fit in very well with his character at all, that is one good reason to change it.
Pippin is indeed a boy, in the sense of an immature male.
....the idea of Hobbits stealing from Maggot's field came from the books....which makes it a tribute.
[5]My response is how important to the film was Bilbo's remark?
[1] Some of them ARE good, but that's not a good enough reason to have them in the film. Others are awful, so much below the standard of the rest of the film.
[2] I wasn't envisioning the PROCESS at all, and I don't see any reason why it should be envisioned at all. If it HAD to be then it should have been done well, for its own sake, not as an outlet for some strange corner of PJ's mind.
[3] That's rather subtle, and it makes some sense, but how many people would be aware of it? Was it actually intended??
[4] Much better to leave it out altogether, in the same way as many far more important things were left out.
P is in his "tweens", a subtle difference, of Tolkien's invention.
A tribute needs to show respect for the book: the action and the words come near to showing contempt in this particular case.
[5] I hadn't even noticed it until someone else pointed it out. I only mention it because it clashes with the opinion of those people who insist that the film is so consistent within itself.

[aragil]

Originally posted by joxy
[1] Some of them ARE good, but that's not a good enough reason to have them in the film. Others are awful, so much below the standard of the rest of the film. Ouch. You're saying that scenes that I like are awful?
Originally posted by joxy
[2] I wasn't envisioning the PROCESS at all, and I don't see any reason why it should be envisioned at all. If it HAD to be then it should have been done well, for its own sake, not as an outlet for some strange corner of PJ's mind. Much of Tolkien's thoughts on this matter came out after he had writtenn LotR, such as the wicked/vile quote I've posted several times. Because of this Tolkien did not describe the actual act, and in the books all this happened back in 2990- when would be a good time to describe it? In any case, Man-Orcs make appearances in several important points in the book. What they are and where they come from are important to the tale IMO (in case you couldn't tell), so I think they should be included in the movie. For those who think this treatment was gross, imagine an orc rape scene. I think in comparison PJ looks rather understated.
Originally posted by joxy
[3] That's rather subtle, and it makes some sense, but how many people would be aware of it? Was it actually intended?? I dunno. Other people said they weren't aware of it right after the movie came out. PJ/PB/FW were definitely trying to emphasize the Boromir-Aragorn relationship throughout the film, as can be seen in the director commentary. I think that with the way the scene plays it was defintitely intentional- notice Boromir is completely in awe of the sword, then notices that Aragorn is watching him and puts it down (calling it a broken hilt). He then starts to walk off, but stops when he hears the sword hit the ground. For a moment pride battles reverence, but pride comes out on top and Boromir leaves the sword on the floor. This is the same way he treats Aragorn in the CoE, but by Lorien and the River journey his respect is growing. Then comes the death scene, and Boromir actually swears allegiance to Aragorn- the best part of the movie IMO, and that's saying a lot (for me anyway).
Originally posted by joxy
[4] Much better to leave it out altogether, in the same way as many far more important things were left out.
P is in his "tweens", a subtle difference, of Tolkien's invention.
A tribute needs to show respect for the book: the action and the words come near to showing contempt in this particular case. If you don't want to call an immature male (i.e. one who has not yet 'come of age') a boy, fine. The fact is, Pippin in both books and movie is immature. Frodo seems to be infinitely more mature, and yet he stole from Maggot's fields when he was younger. If you would like to start a thread about whether movie-Pippin apears to be more immature than his book counterpart then I would love to contribute, as I think there are dozens of book passages that would support my cause.
Of course, in my opinion the scene does show respect to the books, as I've said before. People who haven't read the books have no idea there's anything special in the scene, book-readers immediately (I hope) recognize the field as the one where Frodo used to steal vegetables in his mis-spent youth.
Originally posted by joxy
[5] I hadn't even noticed it until someone else pointed it out. I only mention it because it clashes with the opinion of those people who insist that the film is so consistent within itself. I've never said the movie is 100% consistent, nor would I expect it to be. Then again, here's two quotes from the books, where we know Tolkien spent years trying to make them consistent:
He knelt for a while, bent with weeping, still clasping Boromir's hand. So it was that Legolas and Gimli found him. They came from the western slopes of the hill, silently, creeping through the trees as if they were hunting. Gimli had his axe in hand, and Legolas his long knife: all his arrows were spent. ... 'Alas!' said Legolas, coming to Aragorn's side. 'We have hunted and slain many Orcs in the woods ...'I followed you to shake off sleep,' said Gimli; 'but I looked on the hillmen and they seemed over large for me, so I sat beside a stone to see your sword-play.'
'I shall not find it easy to repay you,' said Éomer.
'There may be many a chance ere the night is over,' laughed the Dwarf. 'But I am content. Till now I have hewn naught but wood since I left Moria.' Unless Gimli was slaying the orcs at Parth Galen without hewing them, then even Tolkien is capable of these sorts of oversights.

[Ancalagon]

My word Aragil, you are certainly hitting us with plenty of well-founded quotes to back up your arguements;) Have you considered joining Aldanil in the Guild of Ost-in-Edhil?

PS. Aldanil, you have work to do in the GUild, stop shirking your responsibilities:)

[Aldanil]

Rhetorically leaning on Gawain's green axe
And muttering something about Henry Thoreau {1}
Iaradanduin enters {2}
Looking forward to breaking some lances with aragil
And grumbling something about arrogant dragons
Who presume overmuch {3}



"So this breezy coiling great fire-breather keeps comin' around, ya'know, knock knock knockin' on my front door, wants to intice me into some kind of community service! Anklebone the Ebon if I remember, or some such famous stage-name {4} as he fancied himself; I mean the guy was a very Worm of Morgoth, man! Mad noisome, noumsane? And he's knockin' at the back door, and now he's lookin' in the back door window, and I'm just sittin' quiet in my study pretending not to be home, ya'know, or not even pretending, just not being home, for long stretches of time. So after a while this Calgon carries his bouquet away, and the sulfur-smoke clears, in a manner of speaking, and the Fortress of the Eldar in the land of Eregion finds me not within its walls, despite invitation. Man, that place is like a ghost town now. I mean, my heart really goes out to my man Celebrimbor, ya'know, but I got no big voli for becoming a Guildsman {5}, of Ost-in-Edhil or otherwise. So I'm more than a little honked off to discover, some several months after, that this sooty rude fellow, this Foulest Fire-bat of Angband, has not merely been chatting up business with my name as the tinsel, but has the further nerve to upbraid me for lying down on the job! {6} The presumptuous brass of these preening pet-servants of Melkor!" {7}



{1} From Resistance to Civil Government, better known by its alternate title: "Know all men by these presents, that I, Henry Thoreau, do not wish to be regarded as a member of any incorporated society which I have not joined." I'd only replace his name with my own in that appositive phrase.

{2} Th'authorial avatar-Onod and online alter-ego "enters", get it? Ent-ers? Bwa ha ha! Bwa ha ha ha! We're here all week! Enjoy the veal!

{3} The third line I originally heard as "Iaradanduin rambles into the lists", which both rolls a little bit more like a river and also helps underscore the notion of tournament-tilting that the next line's to hang on, but I couldn't decide if the sestet should end with "Who presume overmuch: Hwaet! Attend! Hist!" or rather be rendered "Who presume overmuch, and he isn't half -- Pssst!" Thus torn (as so often) between pedantic opacity and obtuse vulgarity, I settled instead on the effect contrastive of fewer feet.

{4} Affecting my best Gontish accent: "I knew Yevaud. Yevaud was a friend of mine. You, sir, are no Yevaud."

{5} For one thing, have you seen that oozing open sore on the knee of their Cook? Yuck!

{6} "The next occasion that one is informed," he sniffs with his best stiff British lip, "the Blackguard will be seeking to dun me for dues!"

{7} You might almost be persuaded, hearing the Old Boy go on and on all irate like this, to believe that he really is upset, but it's only an act....


Which act, like all others on the great stage of Ea, must come to suffer consequence and ring the curtain down sometime. As the hours small draw on toward dawn, Old Man River's eyes start to flutter, his head slowly nods forward, and his neck seems just for a moment to rest with lightest touch along the same steel blade which up until now his jaunty elbow's been leaning on. But as either razor-sharp edge of that great emerald-green axe is honed keen enough to part a passing strand of floating cat-hair, so the least "lightest touch" cleanly severs his spine, and his head tumbles down, rolls about on the grass. The headless trunk gropes for and finds the gory trophy, picks it up by the hair; the lungless lips are heard to speak: "Thence keep your bargain, brave sir knight, and come to seek me as you swore you'd do, when next the New Year rolls around! Wait a minute! That's not my line... not for nearly another three weeks from now. This suits me much better -- I'll come seeking for you! There's still battle-royal eftsoons to renew!" With that the body, head in hand, bows deeply once and then departs, its short-shorn neck seeming eerily to resemble the rings of a tree-stump.




Nodding, nearly napping at his iMac, Tree-Friend Celebfan Caradhrandir startles awake. Is that the Sun coming up? Was this all just a dream?

[joxy]

Originally posted by aragil
Ouch. You're saying that scenes that I like are awful?
For those who think this treatment was gross, imagine an orc rape scene.
Then comes the death scene....the best part of the movie IMO.
....book-readers immediately (I hope) recognize the field as the one where Frodo used to steal vegetables in his mis-spent youth.
I've never said the movie is 100% consistent, nor would I expect it to be. Then again, here's two quotes from the books, where we know Tolkien spent years trying to make them consistent:

LOL, Come on though, isn't there at least one (other) scene that you'd allow is not exactly superb?!
I'd rather not thanks, but you make my point for me about all that mud!
Yes, a pretty good scene that, WHEN it sticks to Tolkien for the dialogue.
It looked more like the field of maize in Oklahoma to me; F picked mushrooms which are not exactly a cash crop but more often something that grows wild and therefore free; and why should F stealing/picking mushrooms have anything to do with P&M stealing actual crops? I don't get it, EXCEPT as a (very fragile) link to A Short Cut To Mushrooms.
Others have come very close to making the claim - and thanks for the quote showing that T, like Homer, could occasionally "nod"!

[aragil]

Originally posted by Ancalagon
My word Aragil, you are certainly hitting us with plenty of well-founded quotes to back up your arguements;) Have you considered joining Aldanil in the Guild of Ost-in-Edhil?

PS. Aldanil, you have work to do in the GUild, stop shirking your responsibilities:) Too young- a Tween at heart, and a shirking member myself. But before anyone believes Aldanil's dream too much, here's another apt quote:
Originally posted by Aldanil here (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=114784#post114784)
moyself Oy'd loike to apploy, if Oy moight
Seeking admittance as a member
ex officio and in absentia,
Iaradanduin im Aldanil advances;
my name in Elvish affirms me worthy.

and where did all those quotes come from?

[Aldanil]

GET YA' PAPER HERE!!
READ ALL ABOUT IT!!

ROYALSTAR RUSTLES UP THUNDERCLAP CAPPER!
NOTORIOUS NIGHTMARE REVEALED AS CANARD!
CARADHRANDIR'S POETIC LICENSE REVOKED!


{the soundtrack accompanying today's screaming tabloid headlines brought to you by the lit John Lennon and his Liverpool lads in the late high spring of 1966: "I'm Only Sleeping"}



aragil the accurate
the cannoneer of acumen
aptest aimer of past quotation
master-baker of humble pie
such service gives me by his citation
as his second might have for a samurai



In feudal Japan, when a warrior in disgrace decided to commit seppuku and so uphold his honor by slicing open his abdomen in ritual fashion, he might ask a friend to uphold as well his immediately posthumous dignity. By standing behind him with long sword drawn, ready to strike off the head of the dying man with a single swift stroke at the moment just before he, having pulled the point of his own short sword straight across his stomach and then upward towards the heart, should suffer any further shame by trembling, twitching, or crying out, the suicide's second provided an important service, with razor-edged blade and steady hand. This present circumstance with my Man from Montana is much the same case, although the injuries are reversed in order.

That is to say, the samurai cuts his insides out, and then his friend decapitates him quickly; I, on the other hand, weave a weird half-historical after-midnight dream wherein I lean back lightly against a fabled green axe and cut my own head off, and then amiable astutest aragil steps up to shoot me straight through the heart.



The consistent line of advice urged by my team of attorneys was to claim theft of identity: the link-sourced quotation that aragil provides, with its use of such weaselly Latinate lawyer's phrases as "ex officio" and "in absentia", far beyond my own legal competence or limited linguistic sophistication, and its heavy, indeed laughably overdone comic accent, is clearly the work of someone else just pretending to be me, perhaps some inauspicious Aussie put up to it to the Kiwi Kaiser, who must be feeling a little bit nervous right about now, since I'm once again pressing him hard in my posts, and is just looking for a way to shut me up, yeah, that's the ticket, Peter Jackson himself is trying to silence me, or at least undercut my credibility among the cognoscenti!


Any and all such feeble defense is thrown down by Montanaman's aim and memory: there I am, caught dead to rights, eleventh on the Ost-in-Edhil Members' List, with luminaries like Thorin and Rangerdave, Greenwood and Gothmog, Nom de Plume, wryest Parrot; I'm right after Walter, who rounds out the Top Ten. It matters not that I never post there, nor ever have; who am I to disavow such noble souls of learn'ed and pleasant company?


aragil, thy arrows reign!



AND NOW WE RETURN YOU TO OUR ORIGINAL PROGRAMMING
QUICKBEAM WHITMAN'S TONE-POEM "ENTMOOT IN E MINOR"
THE CAEDMON RECORDING BY SIR NEVILLE MARRINER AND THE
ORCHESTRA OF THE ACADEMY OF ST. MARTIN-IN-THE-FIELDS

[Talimon]

gulp:eek:

[Mrs. Maggott]

Er, yes. I, for one, always found a smack on the bottom a sufficient response to unseemly behavior. Disembowling seems a bit harsh, somehow! :eek: