The Two Towers Reviews

[Odo Proudfoot]

I think this 'audience laughter' is a bit of a mountain out of a mole hill. The second time I saw the movie there were perhaps two or three chuckles in the entire theatre over Gollum's scenes.

Maybe the public here in the UK is more sophisticated than in the US?

Furthermore, quite apart from the question whether PJ's Gollum is exactly as Tolkien's Gollum, why is it that some people here so vehemently deny PJ's right to make his own movie, according to his own interpretation, and if he wants, even his own version of the book? He never denies that he deviates from the book from time to time. What is the point of this continuous mud-slinging and hauling him over the rack?

Orc-like behaviour, if I may say so.

fG

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by faded_Glory

Furthermore, quite apart from the question whether PJ's Gollum is exactly as Tolkien's Gollum, why is it that some people here so vehemently deny PJ's right to make his own movie, according to his own interpretation, and if he wants, even his own version of the book? He never denies that he deviates from the book from time to time. What is the point of this continuous mud-slinging and hauling him over the rack?

Orc-like behaviour, if I may say so.

fG
"Over the rack?" Excuse me?? "Deny him his right??" Excuse me??? Obviously you don't read much in the way of theatrical critiques if you think that anything that has been said constitutes an "attack" on Mr. Jackson. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, he can have Sauron win in the end of his film. It certainly makes absolutely no difference to me! It's a inconsequential film, for heaven's sake, not Scripture!

I was laboring under the obviously mistaken idea that we were engaged in an adult dialogue over various aspects of an entertainment spectacle, not a childish name calling contest where the last one with something to say - however meaningless - "wins". Just as obviously, I was mistaken. Well, so much for the quality of "debate" or "dialogue" in this matter at least.

The field, ladies and gentlemen is yours. You are welcome to it as I have far better things to do than engage in mindless silliness about things of no importance. :rolleyes:

[TheDarkTyrant]

Quote from Mrs. Maggott
We are not speaking here of passing judgment on Gollum, but trying to understand why the audience did nothing but laugh at him. They laughed because Jackson made him altogether too sympathetic and "cute" (like the stupid troll). If you don't have the feeling of menace in Gollum, you don't have a character but simply another piece of "comic relief".

The people laughed at Gollum because of only one reason that I can see. And it is not because Jackson made him too cute.

Its because of the fact that not everyone has read the books and understands exactly what Gollum is, was and will be. They simply don’t understand how twisted and insane this guy truly is. They see this goofy little thing arguing with himself and take it at face value, chuckling away at him. Within the context of the book, it is made clear how far gone Gollum is. But the film only scratches the surface because there is so much more going on within the story.

But Gollum should be "threatening and scary", that's just the point! Jackson reduces him to a pathetic, weak creature

But Gollum IS weak and pathetic. Yet he can also be threatening and scary. Tolkien set up the character to be pathetic and pitiful. Gandalf says in the book and film “It was pity that stayed Bilbo’s hand” Gollum is pitiful. He’s a retched little beast who we are set up to believe could actually come back from the influence of the ring, yet in the end will fail and will truly die for his “precious.”

Any help Gollum renders is an effort to prevent them from being captured by orcs (which would mean that Sauron would get the Ring) and give him time to perfect his plans

True. No one has claimed different. Gollum wants the ring. It is the only motivation he has left in his miserable existence. But why doesn’t he simply attack and take it? Because Frodo is the ringbearer. I think sub-consciencely, Gollum understands the ring’s motives. That underlining power the ring always has. It has that grip on Gollum. In the book, Gollum was heading for Mirkwood trying to follow Bilbo back to the Shire (we assume) then suddenly made for Mordor for no apparent reason. Sauron sent out the call for the ring and Gollum heard it. Therefore Gollum somehow understands the ring. Regardless of what he has actually learned, he sub-consciencely understands. He can not physically take the ring from Frodo. He doesn’t have the capability. The ring chooses its bearer. The ring would have rejected Gollum had he taken it by force. Remember the ring wants to return home. In Gollum’s hands it wouldn’t go there. So why would it want Gollum to have it? I think that in the end, in a moment of sheer desperation, Gollum finally tries to take the ring, because he has no other choice.

Gollum is the most tragic of all of Tolkien’s characters. To simply label him as pure evil and unsympathetic is missing the point.

[markrob]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
"Obviously you don't read much in the way of theatrical critiques if you think that anything that has been said constitutes an "attack" on Mr. Jackson.


The field, ladies and gentlemen is yours. You are welcome to it as I have far better things to do than engage in mindless silliness about things of no importance. :rolleyes:


I think your complaining of the filth, (the way PJ displays it) of the people of ME constitutes an attack on his interpretation. So watch your hypocritical ways.


Oh and you will be back for sure. You cant stand it. I dont know if you do have far better things to do because you brought up half the nick picky things and the silly Gollum debate plus you have about 760+ post in only a few months. :p

[Aragorns_girl00]

this was the best movie ever!

[Odo Proudfoot]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
"Over the rack?" Excuse me?? "Deny him his right??" Excuse me??? Obviously you don't read much in the way of theatrical critiques if you think that anything that has been said constitutes an "attack" on Mr. Jackson. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, he can have Sauron win in the end of his film. It certainly makes absolutely no difference to me! It's a inconsequential film, for heaven's sake, not Scripture!

I was laboring under the obviously mistaken idea that we were engaged in an adult dialogue over various aspects of an entertainment spectacle, not a childish name calling contest where the last one with something to say - however meaningless - "wins". Just as obviously, I was mistaken. Well, so much for the quality of "debate" or "dialogue" in this matter at least.

The field, ladies and gentlemen is yours. You are welcome to it as I have far better things to do than engage in mindless silliness about things of no importance. :rolleyes:

I note that you haven't actually answered my question.

fG

[Foe-Hammer]

She rarely answers a direct question. She claims she wants to have a mature discussion, yet wont answer direct questions.

I've been trying but to no avail.

[*Lady Aragorn*]

i love the movie soo much. i think the characters all changed in their own little ways. aragorn also scored big with his whole character.

[Ravenna]

First off, I didn't like this film as much as FoTR, it felt less coherent and slightly unfinished almost. However, I realise that this is partly due to the fragmented nature of the storyline, following two or three different groups of people at once. This is not to say that I didn't think it mostly very well done.
Praise first I think.
Gollum. I thought he was done superbly, (very few audience laughs when I saw the film). Yes there were some slightly funny bits here, but that is true in the book too - re Gollum, Sam and the rabbbits, 'give Smeagol fissh and keep nassty chips!' I felt more sympathy for film Gollum than I ever did for book Gollum, and I thought the debate scenes worked well, especially the last one. Also, despite the pathetic aura he gives off, there is an underlying menace there which forbodes well for his coming treachery.
Helms Deep. Again very good, lots of action and super effects, it was slightly marred for me by the absence of Eomer, but as the overall set action piece of the film, I liked it a lot.
Frodo and Sam. IMHO, this was the best developed relationship in the film, though where they got Frodo attacking Sam with a sword in defence of Gollum is a mystery to me.
Aragorn and Arwen. Whilst not true to the book, at least these scenes remain true to the mood set in the first film, showing Aragorn's uncertainty and Elrond's hostility to the match.
Elves at Helms Deep. I liked this bit, especially because Haldir got it in the neck, I just couldn't take to him at all.
Ents. Beautifully done, its just a pity that they had to be shown as self centred, by refusing initially to help out at Isengard, though this was somewhat redeemed by the magnificent scenes showing the destruction of Isengard itself.
General humour. I'm a sad person and loved most of the funny bits. Whilst I do feel that Gimli had perhaps rather too many of the humourous lines, I fell that the odd moment of laughter accents the otherwise somewhat dark nature of the film.

Now to criticize.
Aragorn over the cliff. While this scene worked ok, I couldn't really see why it was necessary at all.
Theoden's transformation. It was a bit too instantaneous for me and where did the posession bit come from, also, Theoden's character was so much less sympathetic and more unpleasantly selfish than he should have been.
Faramir. For me this was the real biggie. I liked the initial meeting and the scenes at Henneth Annun, right up until Faramir decides to send the Ring to Minas Tirith. It damaged the contrast between Boromir, who fell to the lure of the Ring and who wanted nothing more than to use it to save his people, and Faramir, who resisted the temptation, even to the extent of breaking one of Gondors laws to let Frodo etc go with all the aid he could give them. For me this was one of the major points in introducing Faramir when he was. Besides which it therefore missed out one of my favourite lines in the book, 'Not if I found it on the highway would I take it'.
Osgiliath. Again, I found this slightly pointless, and unnecessary, but all part and parcel of my whole Faramir gripe, although at least it allowed Faramir to make the right decision in the end.

As a whole, I really liked the film, I just found more nitpicky gripes in this one that I couldn't find a valid reason for. The bits done well were superb and those not so good, weren't actually bad, just not quite right for me. I appreciate that any film adaptation will make changes from a much loved book, but changes for the sake of them just annoy me. I will see it again no doubt before the dvd comes out, and hope that PJ will redeem himself with RoTK next year.

[Foe-Hammer]

My suggestion is for you to imagine what the story would feel likr if farimir had been written in the movie the same as in the book.

Would boromir, gandalf, galadrial, et al, all look like pathetic weaklings because they struggled with their desire for the ring, meanwhile this all but banished farimir would look that much more nobel?

Just a thought since the two mediums are sooo diffucult to mesh effectively.....it may have worked the way you suggest and then again it may not. and in the end, he does it right anyway, right?

[Odo Proudfoot]

Ravenna,

Funny, your review captures almost word for word how I felt after I saw the movie the first time.

The second time it was much better, because there weren't any surprises with changes from the book, and I could just sit and enjoy the film on its own.

It may be worth going to see it again, if you can.

I will actually go and see it for the third time on Sunday!

fG

[Landroval]

First off, I want to be clear that I am not a purist, and in fact enjoyed FotR very much. The changes to that film really didn't bother me that much and I had great expectations for TTT.

Having said that, I really did not enjoy TTT and felt myself squirming in my seat throughout the last 2/3 of the film.

Positives
Gollum - technically supurb though played too sympathetically. I have the same fear as MM about his ultimate role in RofK.
Edoras - very much like I imagined it, though perhaps a little too shabby.
Winged Wraiths - very spooky.
Dead Marshes
The Black Gate - except for the hidden cloak scene - totally unbelievable to me.
Ents - rendered better than I expected.
Helm's Deep - exciting battle scenes.

Negatives
Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas kicking butt in Edoras. The kings guards deserve death for defending him so pathetically - totally unbelievable.
Theoden's possession and transformation - not only hokey, but it alerts Saruman to Gandalf "The White" before the confrontation at Orthanc - unless PJ isn't going to show that scene ( I won't hold my breath.)
Theoden's "run away!" attitude makes him look weak even after his transformation.
Ents - why did they make the ents shirk the war? What possible reason if the outcome is the same anyway? To give Merry a stirring speach? Treebeard's transformation at the wood's edge is WAY TOO HASTY for an ent.
Warg riders - A cool scene, I guess, but pointless and a waste of time.
Aragorn over the cliff - also pointless. How did this advance the story in any way? Plus, the other's reaction to his loss was a bit under-done considering who he is.
The FTD florist orc with the torch. I guess if they had killed him, none of the other 10000 orcs would have thought to pick up a torch in put it to the bomb.
Faramir - totally changed his character and lost the contrast with Boromir. This change irked me more than any other. If the encounter would have been too sedate without some conflict, then I wish they had left him out altogether. He became just another thug lusting after the ring instead of the thoughtful deciple of Gandlaf who knew better.

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
... and in the end, he does it right anyway, right?

Yes, he does get it right, but I have to ask "why?" What happened that made him change his mind? He wanted the ring for Gondor and I don't remember anything happening to change his mind. Was it the effect the ring was having on Frodo that Faramir witnessed? Hardly believable. Perhaps if they had devoted a couple of minutes showning Faramir wrestling with his decision back in Ithilian to take Frodo to Gondor, his "sudden" transformation would have been believable. So add "wishy-washy" to his list of character traits. So disappointing.

Osgiliath- Well, now Sauron knows that the ring is EAST of the river, I guess he will double the guard around Mordor and the mountain. No need for RofK at all. Frodo gets captured at the crossroads and it's all over. Pardon my sarcasm.

Oh well, I won't see it again until, perhaps, the EE DVD. Maybe.

[Foe-Hammer]

the closest I can describe the way frodo was effected by the ring and farimirs subsequent change of heart may be a bit of a stretch perhaps, but for what it's worth, here goes....

frod does not want or desire the ring, yet it makes him stand in the face of a winged monster with no thought of self preservation. Farimir, who wants the ring to be used, knows that it would ultimately be his father (denathor?) who uses it. He believes the hobbits story about his brother going crazy after seeing the effect the ring has on frodo and since denathor is of the same mind of borimir, (hence farimirs weak position with the king)knows his father would travel the same path as borimir. The ring would corrupt his father and be the bane of the stewards of gondor. This theory gets more credible if farimir is aware of what his father is doing in the tower when no ones around.

Also, it may very well be that farimir sending the ring to his father was nothing but a political ploy to get back into good graces with his father and not a weakness in his character as tolkien wrote him.

wadda ya think?

[Athelas]

>Osgiliath- Well, now Sauron knows that the ring is EAST of the river, I guess he will double the guard around Mordor and the mountain. No need for RofK at all. Frodo gets captured at the crossroads and it's all over.<

That is exactly what I thought when I saw it. Plus "psychic Sam" knowing about Boromir's death when he could not have known, to me, is a plot hole you could drive a Mumak through.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Athelas
>Osgiliath- Well, now Sauron knows that the ring is EAST of the river, I guess he will double the guard around Mordor and the mountain. No need for RofK at all. Frodo gets captured at the crossroads and it's all over.<

That is exactly what I thought when I saw it. Plus "psychic Sam" knowing about Boromir's death when he could not have known, to me, is a plot hole you could drive a Mumak through.

Agree and agree, but how do you drive a mumak?

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

I don't understand about your expectation of Sam. He was standing right there in the room when Faramir told Frodo that Boromir was dead. And Frodo would long ago have told him about Boromir trying to take the ring from him. So he put 2 and 2 together and assumed that the ring obsession would have driven him to madness and recklessness.

[Foe-Hammer]

save yer breath mindy. these ultra purists are so mad at what PJ has done to their "precious", they can't admit the simplest of facts.

Fact is that booth of them were surprised at borimirs death and frodo would have told sam about his attack on frodo. besides the many problems they had with borimir before his attack. at the council, on the mountain, etc.

And on top of that, they can't admit that people who lived like the dark ages would be less than clean. and as if that wasn't enough, theodens kingdom was in disaray and the infastructur surely would have been one of the first things to suffer.

So, spare yourself the grief. tolkien was perfect, wrote a perfect story, and there is no way you can improve on it. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Odo Proudfoot]

We do indeed seem to go round in circles. I have already demonstrated several times that Sauron will not expect anyone to attempt to destroy the Ring. This is explicitly said by Gandalf in the Coucil of Elrond and forms the basis for the entire strategy of the Fellowship, for crying out loud! I can’t be bothered to look up the quote again, anyone who is genuinely interested in understanding the impact of PJ’s changes can do that for themselves. Of course those who delight in knee-jerk reactions will not bother, I’m sure.

Sauron only expects that the Free People want to use the Ring. He knows the Ring is in Osgiliath, barely 20 miles from Minas Tirith. The simplest explanation from his point of view is that the hobbit Baggins has come down from Rivendell via Anduin, and is on the way to Denethor who will put it on and claim Power. Sauron’s reaction is to immediately start his attack to counter him before it is too late. The Dawnless Day is here – exactly at the same time as in the book.

Sauron’s blindness to the option of refusing the Power is absolutely fundamental to the deeper meaning of LotR, and I am frankly at a loss to understand why the so-called ‘purists’ refuse to admit this point.

Faramir’s scene is different from the book, sure. But it is not a gaping hole in PJ’s version of the plot, as this simple analysis demonstrates. Can we now finally put this to bed, please?

fG

[Odo Proudfoot]

Sam knows about Boromir's death because Faramir tells him!

That's not a mumak, it's not even a mouse!

fG

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by faded_Glory
We do indeed seem to go round in circles. I have already demonstrated several times that Sauron will not expect anyone to attempt to destroy the Ring. This is explicitly said by Gandalf in the Coucil of Elrond and forms the basis for the entire strategy of the Fellowship, for crying out loud! I can’t be bothered to look up the quote again, anyone who is genuinely interested in understanding the impact of PJ’s changes can do that for themselves. Of course those who delight in knee-jerk reactions will not bother, I’m sure.

Sauron only expects that the Free People want to use the Ring. He knows the Ring is in Osgiliath, barely 20 miles from Minas Tirith. The simplest explanation from his point of view is that the hobbit Baggins has come down from Rivendell via Anduin, and is on the way to Denethor who will put it on and claim Power. Sauron’s reaction is to immediately start his attack to counter him before it is too late. The Dawnless Day is here – exactly at the same time as in the book.

Sauron’s blindness to the option of refusing the Power is absolutely fundamental to the deeper meaning of LotR, and I am frankly at a loss to understand why the so-called ‘purists’ refuse to admit this point.

Faramir’s scene is different from the book, sure. But it is not a gaping hole in PJ’s version of the plot, as this simple analysis demonstrates. Can we now finally put this to bed, please? fG

I don't know what you have "demonstrated", but it is not that Frodo's presence in Ithilien begins Sauron's all out attack. Sauron launches his attack in the book when he discovers Aragorn's presence - and identity - through the latter's use of the palantir. It isn't until Sauron learns that an heir to Elendil lives (and he naturally assumes has claimed the Ring as his birthright), that he launches his darkness. Since in the book, Sauron has no idea that the hobbits are anywhere near Mordor, that would not have been a consideration.

Of course, in the film, Mr. Jackson prefer skateboarding elves and torch-bearing orcs to plot development, so we never get the capture of the palantir which would, in turn, permit the next step in the plot. Perhaps we'll get it (and everything else that had to be omitted in order to find time for warg attacks) in ROTK. Who knows? Every time something vital is left out of the film, its erstwhile defenders simply tell us to : 1] wait for the EE or 2] wait for ROTK. One wonders what they are going to do when there are no more films to "wait for" in order for Mr. Jackson to cobble together his "story".

Yes, Sauron believes that the Ring will be claimed - and used, but certainly not by hobbits! In fact, the mere discovery that a hobbit still possessed the Ring would destroy the very point you make! What individual of power - elf, man or wizard - would permit a hapless hobbit to continue to possess the Ring and blunder witlessly into Mordor UNLESS something else was going on! It would be absolutely fatal to the Quest for Sauron to learn of the Ringbearer's presence on the east side of Anduin. How then could any of the powerful of Middle-earth claim the Ring when it is so far away in the hands of a miserable hobbit? If it were your intention to use the Ring, would you turn it over to a weak creature and allow him to wander the countryside with it? Yes, word had gone out both from Mordor and Orthanc to capture "hobbits" and it was known that one of them carried the Ring, but once Aragorn reveals himself to Sauron as Gondor's rightful King, then the Dark Lord's obvious conclusion would have been that he was the new Ring Lord. Frodo dangling the thing in front of a Nazgul in Osgiliath would have given Sauron considerable pause concerning that conclusion.
Of course, the story is now in such a muddle, that trying to make sense out of anything is hit and miss at best. Aragorn does not have the palantir and so cannot have "revealed himself" to anyone. And, of course, Jackson's Aragorn might not have done so anyway, so the point may be moot anyway.

At this point we can only sit and wait to see how this mish-mash of a plot gets itself together to form a plausible ending. Who knows? It may end the way Helm's Deep did: Gandalf and the boys ride in, there's a bright light - and it's over! Nothing would surprise me.

[Foe-Hammer]

What is really obvious is that you would rather stand on your soapbox and spew your rhetorical rants instead of actually ansnering the miriad of questions that have been asked of you that would shine some light into the dark corners of ignorance that keep you in this frothing uproar about this movie.

You want reality, you want fantasy. Tolkien wrote it one way, you re-write it another. You want the movie to follow the book exactly, yet hold views of the book that never happened.

You have no credibility in this discussion.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
What is really obvious is that you would rather stand on your soapbox and spew your rhetorical rants instead of actually ansnering the miriad of questions that have been asked of you that would shine some light into the dark corners of ignorance that keep you in this frothing uproar about this movie.

You want reality, you want fantasy. Tolkien wrote it one way, you re-write it another. You want the movie to follow the book exactly, yet hold views of the book that never happened.

You have no credibility in this discussion.

Dear me! It would seem that you are doing all the "frothing"!

My arguments have been succinct, intelligent and addressed to the points that have been made - something that your silly references to "dark corners of ignorance" and "credibility" do NOT do. It appears that you have been reduced to the old tactic of, "when you can't counter the argument, ridicule or insult the one who posted it". I will continue to judge my "credibility" by the reponses of those who are themselves credible in the debate.

But if it makes you feel better (and in the spirit of the New Year, I do not wish to cause you discomfort), if you do not like my posts, feel free to avoid them.

[Ancalagon]

I will take this opportunity to warn ALL members participating in these debates to ensure no personal remarks or attacks occur. As vehement as ones convictions may be, ensure counter-arguements are relevant only to the content and not the contributors character or personality.

[Thorin]

I like how Anc swoops in with his ominous dark colored font (like the glowing fire of the dragon's lair) and spews forth his fire on all desecrators of peace and decency in TTF....Way to go, Anc! :)

Foe, Mrs. Maggot has put forth a very good point about Faramir and the ring. Unlike other places in these movies, Jackson has not improved the story in this regard. He has opened more questions by revealing the ring to Sauron so early. Jackson is only setting the stage for more ludicrous changes and like the development of Saruman, Sauron's lacky and disciple, it will only change the meaning of the story that Tolkien intended. Changes are one thing, but long term distortion is another.

And us ultra purists enjoy debating with (and are occasionally convinced by) reasonable and open minded FADs. Perhaps you should take a look at Talimon's posts. By far the most reasonable and logical FAD this board has seen to date. He and Maggot have had many good discussions.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Ancalagon
I will take this opportunity to warn ALL members participating in these debates to ensure no personal remarks or attacks occur. As vehement as ones convictions may be, ensure counter-arguements are relevant only to the content and not the contributors character or personality.
I offer my apology for offending anyone on the forum. I fear that sometimes we write before we think under such instances. Still, I may assure you that I do not "write before I think" when I am responding to serious arguments being made whether I agree with them or otherwise.

However, again I do apologize if I have offended anyone and wish only to have our debate continue in peace and accord. After all, whether one was thrilled with or disappointed by the film, we still all have much more in common as lovers of Middle-earth - and that alone should insure our mutual respect and friendship. :p

[Foe-Hammer]

Thorin,

I haven't even given her points about farimir that much thought yet because I'm still waiting for her to answer the many questions about other so-called "valid" points that support her opinions concerning the unwashed masses, 20' tall pikes, the art of war, etc.

Why should anyone move to another attempt at a rational discussion when the previous ones have yet to be answered? So, what we are left with is the reiteration of past remarks when ever she presents more opinions that contradict most of what she has already stated.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
Thorin,

I haven't even given her points about farimir that much thought yet because I'm still waiting for her to answer the many questions about other so-called "valid" points that support her opinions concerning the unwashed masses, 20' tall pikes, the art of war, etc.

Why should anyone move to another attempt at a rational discussion when the previous ones have yet to be answered? So, what we are left with is the reiteration of past remarks when ever she presents more opinions that contradict most of what she has already stated.
I think I have already pointed out that there is no need to show the people of Rohan as dirty and spiritless. That is not how they are presented in the book, so obviously it is just another of Mr. Jackson's "interpretations" and therefore no comment is necessary.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), I don't remember your points about pikes (no pun intended), but my memory of the Bakshi-ish charge is of a line of very well disciplined pike-orcs with long pikes waiting to impale the charging horsemen at the bottom of that steep slope. Now I do remember commenting upon how difficult it would be to maintain a cavalry charge under such circumstances (I seem to recall that I pointed out the fact that horses are not tanks and simply cannot "run over" downed horsemen and their mounts as they pile up in front of them). But perhaps, as you did not agree with my observation, you have simply decided to pretend it wasn't made and that your points were not validly addressed.

I wonder, does that work all the time for you? Such a strategy certainly will help you to continue pressing your points, but it also assures that you will never learn anything, either.

[lilhobo]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
She rarely answers a direct question. She claims she wants to have a mature discussion, yet wont answer direct questions.

I've been trying but to no avail.

HMM MAYBE I CAN HELP THE MISCONCEPTIONS THAT PJ HAS CAUSED

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
I think I have already pointed out that there is no need to show the people of Rohan as dirty and spiritless. That is not how they are presented in the book, so obviously it is just another of Mr. Jackson's "interpretations" and therefore no comment is necessary.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), I don't remember your points about pikes (no pun intended), but my memory of the Bakshi-ish charge is of a line of very well disciplined pike-orcs with long pikes waiting to impale the charging horsemen at the bottom of that steep slope. Now I do remember commenting upon how difficult it would be to maintain a cavalry charge under such circumstances (I seem to recall that I pointed out the fact that horses are not tanks and simply cannot "run over" downed horsemen and their mounts as they pile up in front of them). But perhaps, as you did not agree with my observation, you have simply decided to pretend it wasn't made and that your points were not validly addressed.

I wonder, does that work all the time for you? Such a strategy certainly will help you to continue pressing your points, but it also assures that you will never learn anything, either.

Like I asked previously, where does the wood come from to heat this water? Who, pray tell, hauls the water for the masses? We know the kings servants haul it for him. That and the many other daily chores he doesn't have to do for himself is why he is clean. Now, who does all this for the peasents? They have to gather, prepare, cook, and serve their own food. 3 times a day. then they have to go fetch water, gather wood, tend the livestock/crops/whatever and all this has to be done knee deep in mud or wet grass. But as described in tolkiens book, wood was very scarce, especially for the rabble. See, tolkien doesn't have the space or convience to worry about describing the hygenic conditions of ME, because we would put the book down because it was boring.

But in a movie, where are senses are freed up from imagining scenery etc, the eye notices things that are out of place. People standing in the middle of a muddy road as clean as the day is long is an insult to the eye. It wouldn't make any sense and pretty soon, you're not even watching the movie.

THAT is just for starters. Now, you want to solve alll those problems without re-writing tolkiens book?

[Mrs. Maggott]

Do you seriously think that people didn't haul water, heat it and bathe before indoor plumbing? I can assure you, that they did! The hobbits found three baths waiting for them in Crickhollow. How do you think it got there - or do you consider Frodo a King with servants?

People - ordinary people - have bathed since time began. Admittedly, in very cold weather, such niceties might have been neglected, but washing hands and faces were frequently a matter of simple daily living. Furthermore, Tolkien refers to the people of Rohan as worthy and strong; he does not present them as whining and dirty - that is Mr. Jackson's interpretation. All I did was ask what possible reason he could have had to make them appear that way as he had no problem portraying both the elves - and the hobbits (as you, yourself pointed out) apparently clean and well dressed.

[Odo Proudfoot]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
I don't know what you have "demonstrated", but it is not that Frodo's presence in Ithilien begins Sauron's all out attack. Sauron launches his attack in the book when he discovers Aragorn's presence - and identity - through the latter's use of the palantir. It isn't until Sauron learns that an heir to Elendil lives (and he naturally assumes has claimed the Ring as his birthright), that he launches his darkness. Since in the book, Sauron has no idea that the hobbits are anywhere near Mordor, that would not have been a consideration.

Once again, then. I have demonstrated that Frodo showing the Ring to the Nazgul in Osgiliath is not a gaping hole in the plot of the film.

Why not? Because it has no different effect on Sauron's actions than in the book. He will launch his premature attack, albeit for a different reason. He will not suspect that Frodo is going into Mordor to destroy the Ring (as per Gandalf's words).

The original claim was that this scene leads to a hole in the plot. It does not. That's all, really.


Of course, in the film, Mr. Jackson prefer skateboarding elves and torch-bearing orcs to plot development, so we never get the capture of the palantir which would, in turn, permit the next step in the plot. Perhaps we'll get it (and everything else that had to be omitted in order to find time for warg attacks) in ROTK. Who knows? Every time something vital is left out of the film, its erstwhile defenders simply tell us to : 1] wait for the EE or 2] wait for ROTK. One wonders what they are going to do when there are no more films to "wait for" in order for Mr. Jackson to cobble together his "story".

You know, I think some of those added touches may well work for the film, and that is all it needs to credit PJ. He is a film director, his responsibility is to produce a successful film. None of your arguments manage to show that he has failed to do that. You are criticizing him for failing to do something that he doesn’t have to do in the first place. You are attacking a target of your own making.


Yes, Sauron believes that the Ring will be claimed - and used, but certainly not by hobbits! In fact, the mere discovery that a hobbit still possessed the Ring would destroy the very point you make! What individual of power - elf, man or wizard - would permit a hapless hobbit to continue to possess the Ring and blunder witlessly into Mordor UNLESS something else was going on! It would be absolutely fatal to the Quest for Sauron to learn of the Ringbearer's presence on the east side of Anduin. How then could any of the powerful of Middle-earth claim the Ring when it is so far away in the hands of a miserable hobbit? If it were your intention to use the Ring, would you turn it over to a weak creature and allow him to wander the countryside with it? Yes, word had gone out both from Mordor and Orthanc to capture "hobbits" and it was known that one of them carried the Ring, but once Aragorn reveals himself to Sauron as Gondor's rightful King, then the Dark Lord's obvious conclusion would have been that he was the new Ring Lord. Frodo dangling the thing in front of a Nazgul in Osgiliath would have given Sauron considerable pause concerning that conclusion.

You are making a few mistakes. Film-Frodo is not blundering into Mordor, he is in Osgiliath in Gondor. He is not East of the river, he is on the river. It is not far from some of the powerful in Middle Earth, it is in fact at most one hour on horseback away from Denethor in Minas Tirith, Sauron’s most powerful human opponent at this point in time. He is no wandering the countryside, he is in Osgiliath, Gondor’s old capital (if I am not mistaken) in the company of the highest ranking Gondorian soldier after Boromir.

Our discussion would benefit from sticking to the facts. It would also help if you could acknowledge my point that Gandalf clearly stated that Sauron would never suspect anyone to go into Mordor to destroy the Ring.

Of course, the story is now in such a muddle, that trying to make sense out of anything is hit and miss at best. Aragorn does not have the palantir and so cannot have "revealed himself" to anyone. And, of course, Jackson's Aragorn might not have done so anyway, so the point may be moot anyway.

At this point we can only sit and wait to see how this mish-mash of a plot gets itself together to form a plausible ending. Who knows? It may end the way Helm's Deep did: Gandalf and the boys ride in, there's a bright light - and it's over! Nothing would surprise me.

As a movie-goer, I have no problems with PJ’s story. If you think it is a muddle you should perhaps go and see it again a few more times, it may help in your understanding of the movie plot lines. It may also make it a lot easier to enjoyt the third film if we would not a priori assume that the director is a bumbling idiot who is incapable of turning out a coherent movie. So far there is nothing in his films that would warrant such assumptions.

Having a script that religiously sticks to the text of the source material is not, and has never, been a major element in deciding if a film director has delivered a masterpiece or not. Why would we change the goalposts here?

fG

[Mrs. Maggott]

It would also help if you could acknowledge my point that Gandalf clearly stated that Sauron would never suspect anyone to go into Mordor to destroy the Ring.

quote: Faded Glory
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gandalf says that the Enemy's belief that no one would wish to destroy the Ring will help mask their efforts to do so. He does not say that Sauron is a moron who couldn't add two and two with an abacus. True, Sauron is unaware that there is an attempt to destroy the Ring, but do you seriously believe that he might not get just a tiny bit suspicious if he finds the Ring in the hands of a hobbit - not a wizard, an elf or a warrior chieftain of men - in Osgiliath? What on earth would he suspect then? That somebody believes the Ring has to be within sight of Mordor to work? That the new powerful Ring Lord (and no one believes that hobbits are "powerful" enough to be the new Ring Lord) has "loaned" the Ring to this hobbit who has subsequently decided to take a tour of the ruined city? What on earth would anyone expect that Sauron would make of Frodo's actions in Osgiliath once he learned of them?

You know, it's one thing to present a plot in which Sauron would not suspect the effort to destroy the Ring; both film and book do that. It's quite another to make Sauron so stupid he wouldn't be able to draw that conclusion no matter how much evidence was placed in his way - and that's just what the film did. The book had more respect for the Dark Lord and was quite careful that the Ring's movements were at all times hidden from him even to the point of sending the Lords of the West into a suicidal battle to keep Sauron's eye away from the Bearer on his errand.

I have no doubt that Mr. Jackson will present some "reason" for his plot devices which I also do not doubt, will satisfy his uncritical apologists. I for one, will wait and watch the last film and see how - or if he is able to make sense of what he's done so far - because as far as I'm concerned, an awful lot of what he has done so far, makes very little sense at all.

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Do you seriously think that people didn't haul water, heat it and bathe before indoor plumbing? I can assure you, that they did! The hobbits found three baths waiting for them in Crickhollow. How do you think it got there - or do you consider Frodo a King with servants?

People - ordinary people - have bathed since time began. Admittedly, in very cold weather, such niceties might have been neglected, but washing hands and faces were frequently a matter of simple daily living. Furthermore, Tolkien refers to the people of Rohan as worthy and strong; he does not present them as whining and dirty - that is Mr. Jackson's interpretation. All I did was ask what possible reason he could have had to make them appear that way as he had no problem portraying both the elves - and the hobbits (as you, yourself pointed out) apparently clean and well dressed.

Again, you failed to provide the source for all this water and wood. And agin, yes people did wash, ocasionally. but there were greater needs for water, especially when you have no source for it.
Besides the two glaring facts I mentioned eariler, (the kingdom was in disaray and at war), Tolkien never wrote a lot about these people and what he did write never mentioned their cleanliness. They were wise but not learned was the extent of his discription. And because you have demanded realistic presentations medival battle, why don't you demand realistic presentations of life in medival times?

[Foe-Hammer]

Another point. Don't you think that tolkien would have written the same stuff about theodens people if they were as clean as hobbits?

[shadowfax54]

I'm not sure if this was discussed, but the people of Ronan had been governed by a King that was not well, the people were probably not doing as well as if Theoden was a real leader. His change was just before the people had to leave their homes. Have you seen the people that have to leavebecause war has displaced them? Cleanliness is probably not the main thing in their minds.

[Foe-Hammer]

mm said "but do you seriously believe that he might not get just a tiny bit suspicious if he finds the Ring in the hands of a hobbit - not a wizard, an elf or a warrior chieftain of men - in Osgiliath?"

I don't see the complaint. Sauron already knows a hobbit has it that is why the nazgul search for it in the shire. The nazgul would have reported that frodo used the ring in front of him and since you now want to go back to logic when it suits you, why would he be thinking anyone else would have it? Tolkien wrote sauron as the bumbling fool that thinks everyone would use the ring as he would. Since he would never destroy it, tolkiens characters can get into whatever trouble he wants to put them in and sauron will ignore them, even in the face of the fact that he must know that the hobbits have the ring. This is tolkiens character, not PJ's. PJ is just putting all the facts together for you in a few scenes instead of spreading them out over 1000 pages where you tend to lose track of the FACTS in the book.

And please forgive me, but facts like "There stood a high platform above a green terrace, at the foot of which a bright spring gushed from a stone carved in the likeness of a horse's head; beneath was a wide basin from which the water spilled and fed the falling stream." (The King of The Golden Hall).

You really need to read the book again, because your arguments are based on eroneous impressions that YOU gather and not what tolkien actuallty wrote.




You know, it's one thing to present a plot in which Sau. ron would not suspect the effort to destroy the Ring; both film and book do that. It's quite another to make Sauron so stupid he wouldn't be able to draw that conclusion no matter how much evidence was placed in his way - and that's just what the film did. The book had more respect for the Dark Lord and was quite careful that the Ring's movements were at all times hidden from him even to the point of sending the Lords of the West into a suicidal battle to keep Sauron's eye away from the Bearer on his errand.

I have no doubt that Mr. Jackson will present some "reason" for his plot devices which I also do not doubt, will satisfy his uncritical apologists. I for one, will wait and watch the last film and see how - or if he is able to make sense of what he's done so far - because as far as I'm concerned, an awful lot of what he has done so far, makes very little sense at all. [/B][/QUOTE]

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by shadowfax54
I'm not sure if this was discussed, but the people of Ronan had been governed by a King that was not well, the people were probably not doing as well as if Theoden was a real leader. His change was just before the people had to leave their homes. Have you seen the people that have to leavebecause war has displaced them? Cleanliness is probably not the main thing in their minds.

Oh goodness no! that would make too much sense! Logical situations only apply when the npw's can use them to hammer on pj. JRR's illogical situations are ok' :rolleyes:

[DGoeij]

I'm very happy everybody is so concerned with the bathing habits of the Rohirrim. What really bothered me, was the fact that even with so many people living, eating and digesting upon it, the face of the Hill of Edoras looked so darn clean. I know Tolkien never wrote about anything like that, but it somehow struck me as rather illogical.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Where did they get the water? Where did they get the wood?? For heaven's sake, these aren't desert Bedouin that your talking about. Both the Shire and Rohan had plenty of both water and wood! Where do you think these people lived? On the moon??

I did not ask for "realistic" battle scenes, I asked for fewer battle scenes.

Tolkien's description of Rohan certainly doesn't sound like the place is a filthy sty. He speaks of tall guards with shining mail (that means "clean"!). He also speaks of a fine hall with a "golden" roof - hardly signs of a hovel. Indeed his whole description of Meduseld makes it appear to be quite pleasant - but then, so did his description of the Prancing Pony and look what Jackson did to that!

But this is now a silly discussion. Rohan and its people in the film are Mr. Jackson's "interpretation" thereof and you are welcome to them. I certainly will not argue the point further since no common ground obtains. I just hope he cleans Aragorn up for the wedding - that is, if they can find the water and the wood!

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
I just hope he cleans Aragorn up for the wedding - that is, if they can find the water and the wood!

Aragorn is a king. he'll have plenty of access to wood and water. Just as Theoden does.

And AGAIN I noticed that you didn't specifically state WHERE the water and wood come from. But you did continue with rhetorical rants and expect that to be the final word.
I understand that PJ has destroyed your "precious" and you feel the need to vent over it.

PJ did an admirable job, cleaning up the glaring inconsistancies that tolkien never fixed.

[Landroval]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
PJ did an admirable job, cleaning up the glaring inconsistancies that tolkien never fixed.


Wow...

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
Aragorn is a king. he'll have plenty of access to wood and water. Just as Theoden does.

And AGAIN I noticed that you didn't specifically state WHERE the water and wood come from. But you did continue with rhetorical rants and expect that to be the final word.
I understand that PJ has destroyed your "precious" and you feel the need to vent over it.

PJ did an admirable job, cleaning up the glaring inconsistancies that tolkien never fixed.
For your information, I HAVE ANSWERED THAT STUPID QUESTION!!!!!!! (Where did the water and wood come from!! for heaven's sake!!) Where do you think they came from? The ground (streams, brooks, wells, lakes, rivers), the sky (rain barrels) and the wood comes from trees, bushes and other combustible plant life. Is that enough of an answer for you or do you want me to tell you where each hovel, cottage, home or manor kept its wells and rain barrels or how close they were to streams, brooks, rivers and lakes?

I begin to see why you are so uncritical of Mr. Jackson....

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
PJ did an admirable job, cleaning up the glaring inconsistancies that tolkien never fixed.

Okay, Foe. Instead of criticizing people you feel don't answer the questions or explain themselves, I would like you to put your money where your mouth is.

How exactly did PJ "cleaning up the glaring inconsistancies that tolkien never fixed" in this movie. And how exactly did he "improve" the book as you put it in another thread? I would like to see how PJ improving a part or two warrants putting the overall movies above the overall book.

IMO, being on this forum, you have more responsibility to explain such ludicrous claims then Maggot does to explain where wood would come from to heat water.

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
For your information, I HAVE ANSWERED THAT STUPID QUESTION!!!!!!! (Where did the water and wood come from!! for heaven's sake!!) Where do you think they came from? The ground (streams, brooks, wells, lakes, rivers), the sky (rain barrels) and the wood comes from trees, bushes and other combustible plant life. Is that enough of an answer for you or do you want me to tell you where each hovel, cottage, home or manor kept its wells and rain barrels or how close they were to streams, brooks, rivers and lakes?

I begin to see why you are so uncritical of Mr. Jackson....

All you said was they didn't live on the moon. scarcity of wood and water and the inability to access them, doesn't require lunar travel.

I answered the question where the water came from. Tolkien was very discriptive of the lay of the land and I am trying to find out if you have bothered to even search it out. I know that you haven't because of the location of the fountain in edoras. a perfect support for your opinion, yet you don't use it. You claim these people were clean because tolkien wrote them that way. he did not. he specifically said they were wise but not learned. reality, R E A L I T Y teaches us that people who lived like people did in the darks ages were less than clean. Added on top of that the kingdom is at war and it's king is non-functioning. dirty faces and dis-organization are more likely than not.

[Ghan-buri-ghan]

Foe-hammer, you said

"PJ did an admirable job, cleaning up the glaring inconsistancies that tolkien never fixed."

Thorin asked you to give examples. You didn't.

For the second time, What "glaring inconsistencies" did "PJ clean up"?

[Mrs. Maggott]

My dear Foe hammer:

And I guess they were at war and the king was malfunctioning in Bree as well! So that's why they were all so dirty!! And I never knew! Fancy that!

Tell me, pray, what did these water-starved people COOK with if it was such a difficult thing to obtain? Or was everyone in Rohan starving to death as well?

Mr. Jackson likes his "people" dirty. I guess he thinks it represents "reality" when, in fact, even ordinary people have bathed - or at least washed their hands, faces, hair and clothing throughout all of recorded history.

And tell me, enlighted one, how did Jackson's pathetic portrayal of a people that Tolkien describes as "stoic" and strong make them more "real"? Or don't strong people exist any more than clean people in Mr. Jackson's world?

But enough! This is a closed subject for me. Obviously, there is no point of common ground upon which to proceed, so further "debate" - if it can be called that - is pointless.

Have a prosperous, healthy and happy New Year!

[Odo Proudfoot]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott

Gandalf says that the Enemy's belief that no one would wish to destroy the Ring will help mask their efforts to do so. He does not say that Sauron is a moron who couldn't add two and two with an abacus....

...You know, it's one thing to present a plot in which Sauron would not suspect the effort to destroy the Ring; both film and book do that. It's quite another to make Sauron so stupid he wouldn't be able to draw that conclusion no matter how much evidence was placed in his way - and that's just what the film did.


Gandalf doesn't say what Sauron may believe or not. He says that 'in his heart the thought will not enter that any will refuse it, that having the Ring we may seek to destroy it '.

The thought will not enter his heart. It is not that he weighs the possibilities and decides which one is more likely... it is that he won't even be able to recognise the option to destroy it.

You are reading your knowledge of the rest of the story into the Osgiliath scene. From your point of view, with your knowledge of Frodo's intention, it may look like a dead giveaway, but it will not be like that for Sauron. That is Tolkien's position, like it or not.

And Sauron is 'stupid' in this respect. You want some evidence:

'The Dark Lord was suddenly aware of him....and the magnitude of his own folly was revealed to him in one blinding flash...' (Return of the King, Book Six, Ch. 3).

There you have it. Tolkien himself describes Sauron as a 'fool' when it comes to perceiving the plan to destroy the Ring. He only grasps it when Frodo puts on the Ring in his own backyard. Not even when Frodo was captured did he suspect the purpose of him being in Mordor, as witnessed by the Mouth of Sauron's incorrect guessing as to the nature of Frodo's mission (a 'spy').

The evidence the film places in Sauron's way is that a hobbit has carried the ring down Anduin to Osgiliath with the likely intent of bringing it to Denethor. Not anywhere enough evidence to make Sauron suspect that he will take it into Mordor to destroy it.


I have no doubt that Mr. Jackson will present some "reason" for his plot devices which I also do not doubt, will satisfy his uncritical apologists. I for one, will wait and watch the last film and see how - or if he is able to make sense of what he's done so far - because as far as I'm concerned, an awful lot of what he has done so far, makes very little sense at all.

It makes sense to me and many others. Why blame PJ for your lack of understanding of the film's plotlines?

fG

[TheDarkTyrant]

BRAVO!!!!

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by faded_Glory
Gandalf doesn't say what Sauron may believe or not. He says that 'in his heart the thought will not enter that any will refuse it, that having the Ring we may seek to destroy it '.

The thought will not enter his heart. It is not that he weighs the possibilities and decides which one is more likely... it is that he won't even be able to recognise the option to destroy it.

You are reading your knowledge of the rest of the story into the Osgiliath scene. From your point of view, with your knowledge of Frodo's intention, it may look like a dead giveaway, but it will not be like that for Sauron. That is Tolkien's position, like it or not.

And Sauron is 'stupid' in this respect. You want some evidence:

'The Dark Lord was suddenly aware of him....and the magnitude of his own folly was revealed to him in one blinding flash...' (Return of the King, Book Six, Ch. 3).

There you have it. Tolkien himself describes Sauron as a 'fool' when it comes to perceiving the plan to destroy the Ring. He only grasps it when Frodo puts on the Ring in his own backyard. Not even when Frodo was captured did he suspect the purpose of him being in Mordor, as witnessed by the Mouth of Sauron's incorrect guessing as to the nature of Frodo's mission (a 'spy').

The evidence the film places in Sauron's way is that a hobbit has carried the ring down Anduin to Osgiliath with the likely intent of bringing it to Denethor. Not anywhere enough evidence to make Sauron suspect that he will take it into Mordor to destroy it.

It makes sense to me and many others. Why blame PJ for your lack of understanding of the film's plotlines?

fG

You are using Tolkien's quote about the story he presented in the book to justify your position about the plot as it was presented in the film - and it just won't do. If Tolkien had had Frodo openly reveal the Ring to a Nazgul while he was east of Anduin - and then continued the story as he did, you would have a point. As it is, you don't because he didn't!

I find it a matter of continuing irony that film apologists debunk Tolkien, say that Jackson's plot devices are the same as or better than his and then when the film's huge plot holes are pointed out, return to Tolkien for justification. Jackson's story can only be justified internally. You cannot use Tolkien's story as justification unless the two are the same - and even you candidly admit that they are not.

[TheDarkTyrant]

Yet, looking Tolkien’s work and using “simple logic” you can understand the justification for the changes within the concept and context of filmmaking. You are claiming Jackson took unnecessary liberties with the text of the book and in turn ruined the heart and soul of the books. You’re dead wrong. Jackson went with the heart and soul of the themes that Tolkien was expressing. So what if he changed the context of the book for the sake of the film? The core of those themes are still intact. Also a point I have to make, your argument about Frodo openly revealing the Ring to a Nazgul while he was east of Anduin is moot. Because once it’s all said and done the end will remain the same. Now it shows the Dark Lord that the ring is close and he will be keeping his eye to the west trying to anticipate what the men will do next. He will attack before he is ready. And once Frodo reaches Mt. Doom then The Dark Lord will suddenly be aware of him.... and the magnitude of his own folly will be revealed to him in one blinding flash.

To attempt to translate the book directly to film without any change at all would constitute cinematic suicide. Tolkien was very leisurely in his writing. Almost to the point of being long winded in a few spots. Don’t get me wrong, I love the books. I love them over the films any day. However as a piece of cinema the books would have been a joke. Think about it: In the book, from the first line to the point when Frodo leaves Bag End takes 17 years. Once Gandalf tells Frodo to leave the Shire he takes another 4 or 5 months to do so. In the context of film, It would have been boring. YES, BORING!!!

I also find it quite humorous that these purists condemn Jackson’s work as if he were attempting to rewrite the novels in some way or is attempting to make an “official representation” of the novels. He has repeatedly denied such things, saying it is no more than his attempt at an “adaptation.” It seems to me the purists are ignoring him, refusing to acknowledge this fact and have condemned him for it. He has made quite possibly one of the greatest film epics since the Star Wars Trilogy regardless of the purists attitude.

[Odo Proudfoot]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott


I find it a matter of continuing irony that film apologists debunk Tolkien, say that Jackson's plot devices are the same as or better than his and then when the film's huge plot holes are pointed out, return to Tolkien for justification. Jackson's story can only be justified internally. You cannot use Tolkien's story as justification unless the two are the same - and even you candidly admit that they are not.

This is delicious. Look at how you are attacking PJ's decision to portray the people of Rohan as less than spotlessly clean. All your arguments are straight from the book - Tolkien described this, Tolkien described that, etc. etc.

Either those arguments are invalid too, or we consider this line of thinking as a less fortunate shot from your bow.

By the way, why do you say I am 'candidly admitting' that the stories are not the same? Nobody in the world has ever claimed they are identical, not me, not PJ, nobody. You make it sound as if there is something shameful going on here, whereas in reality all that is happening is that a director makes some changes to the novel he uses as the basis for his film. This is perfectly normal practice and ought not to bother a mature film critic. Or is this the first time you have seen a movie adaptation of a book?

fG

[Thorin]

Originally posted by faded_Glory
Gandalf doesn't say what Sauron may believe or not. He says that 'in his heart the thought will not enter that any will refuse it, that having the Ring we may seek to destroy it '.

The thought will not enter his heart. It is not that he weighs the possibilities and decides which one is more likely... it is that he won't even be able to recognise the option to destroy it.

You are reading your knowledge of the rest of the story into the Osgiliath scene. From your point of view, with your knowledge of Frodo's intention, it may look like a dead giveaway, but it will not be like that for Sauron. That is Tolkien's position, like it or not.

Umm..No. Maggot is correct. Gandalf and Saruman's position is valid because the ring was not so foolish revealed to Sauron. It was kept hidden and only in secrecy could the mission succeed. By blatantly revealing who had the ring and where they were only would force Sauron to, at least, rethink his game plan and at best pump up the guards on the west side of the mountain exactly where Frodo intends to go. Why? If Sauron believes that they will use the ring and knows that the ring is in Osgiliath which faces Minas Morgul, then it would only make sense.

Originally posted by faded_Glory
And Sauron is 'stupid' in this respect. You want some evidence:

'The Dark Lord was suddenly aware of him....and the magnitude of his own folly was revealed to him in one blinding flash...' (Return of the King, Book Six, Ch. 3).

There you have it. Tolkien himself describes Sauron as a 'fool' when it comes to perceiving the plan to destroy the Ring. He only grasps it when Frodo puts on the Ring in his own backyard. Not even when Frodo was captured did he suspect the purpose of him being in Mordor, as witnessed by the Mouth of Sauron's incorrect guessing as to the nature of Frodo's mission (a 'spy').

Sauron was a fool only because the ring was kept secret, thus continually feeding his plan of assumption. Frodo never had the ring on him (continually feeding the assumption that the heir of Isildur would use it) and so he was considered a spy. Tolkien, despite dear Foe-Hammer's rant against his seeming incompetence :rolleyes: , knew just what he was doing. Giving the ring to Frodo, building up an army in Gondor, Aragorn revealing himself to Sauron in the palantir, all of these tie together to fool Sauron. Having the foolish hobbit reveal the ring in Osgiliath undermines and weakens the plot that Tolkien so carefully weaved together.

[lilhobo]

Originally posted by faded_Glory
As a movie-goer, I have no problems with PJ’s story. If you think it is a muddle you should perhaps go and see it again a few more times, it may help in your understanding of the movie plot lines. It may also make it a lot easier to enjoyt the third film if we would not a priori assume that the director is a bumbling idiot who is incapable of turning out a coherent movie. So far there is nothing in his films that would warrant such assumptions.

Having a script that religiously sticks to the text of the source material is not, and has never, been a major element in deciding if a film director has delivered a masterpiece or not. Why would we change the goalposts here?

fG

what a con-man ole PJ is... if a movie has toi clarify things upon further seeing, the movie is TOTAL ****!!! is this PJ'S AND NEW LINE'S ATTEMPT TO RIP the masses off??? MAKE THEM ALL CONFUSED SO THEY WILL HAVE TO SPEND MORE MONEY TO SEE THE MOVIE AGAIN

COZ THEY ARE DOING THAT W/ THE EXTENDED EDITIONS

[TheDarkTyrant]

what a con-man ole PJ is... if a movie has toi clarify things upon further seeing, the movie is TOTAL ****!!! is this PJ'S AND NEW LINE'S ATTEMPT TO RIP the masses off??? MAKE THEM ALL CONFUSED SO THEY WILL HAVE TO SPEND MORE MONEY TO SEE THE MOVIE AGAIN

COZ THEY ARE DOING THAT W/ THE EXTENDED EDITIONS

Well, that's your opinion. You're entitled to it. But if you can digest everything on screen in one setting, then why would you ever want to watch it again?

[lilhobo]

Originally posted by TheDarkTyrant
Jackson went with the heart and soul of the themes that Tolkien was expressing. So what if he changed the context of the book for the sake of the film? The core of those themes are still intact. .......Because once it’s all said and done the end will remain the same.


SURE, the endings will be the same.. u eat **** and it fills u up, you eat your fav food and that will fill u up as well. BUT which would u rather eat???

you have gandalf, who refuses the ring, and elrond and galadriel, and even aragorn..... why not faramir, a future leader of the 4th Age?

no wonder elrond has only contempt for the world of men....it makes the effort of frodo a waste, when saving ME for the likesa of faramir

[lilhobo]

Originally posted by TheDarkTyrant
However as a piece of cinema the books would have been a joke. Think about it: In the book, from the first line to the point when Frodo leaves Bag End takes 17 years. Once Gandalf tells Frodo to leave the Shire he takes another 4 or 5 months to do so. In the context of film, It would have been boring. YES, BORING!!!

I also find it quite humorous that these purists condemn Jackson’s work as if he were attempting to rewrite the novels in some way or is attempting to make an “official representation” of the novels. He has repeatedly denied such things, saying it is no more than his attempt at an “adaptation.” It seems to me the purists are ignoring him, refusing to acknowledge this fact and have condemned him for it. He has made quite possibly one of the greatest film epics since the Star Wars Trilogy regardless of the purists attitude.

this is a joke right?? u cant have a 4/5 month/ 17 yr long movie!! so it a wasted point, u realise!

PJ's task is to adapt the greatest book of the 20th century into a 3hr movie, in 3 parts....there s no assumption that PJ's can add his own writing. i mean he can add a stargate AND JUMP ARAGORN TO EARTH, pick up a few missile launchers, whips saurons @ss, and have a spin offs series for tv ffs. WHEN WILL THIS MADNESS END?

THIS IS PJ's adaptation for sure....but his interpretation of the themes is a total waste of 300 million when it stands the test of time against the great movies like Citizen kain et al

[TheDarkTyrant]

So when did we start comparing Lord of the Rings to Citizen Kain?

u cant have a 4/5 month/ 17 yr long movie!! so it a wasted point, u realise!

My point was that to attempt to fit everything from the books into 3 / 3 ½ /4 hr movies would have been horrible. You’d have a big budget Bakshi film. A waste of film. That was the problem with the animated film and it would have killed this movie.

What everyone is doing here is trying to compare the films to the books and quite simply, it can not be done. The books are one thing, the film is another. We can debate, argue, fight, whateVer until we’re blue in the face. It’s not going to change the fact that to compare these two completely different mediums is a waste of time. Its like comparing a car ride to a plane ride. Sure they both get you where you’re going, but to drive (or reading Tolkien) is to take in the sights and enjoy the experience. To fly (seeing the film) sure would get you there quicker and you’d see just as much stuff, but in a different context. Seeing the road from a foot above or 20,000 feet.

But my final point is: WHAT DOES IT MATTER WHAT JACKSON CHANGED???

[lilhobo]

Originally posted by TheDarkTyrant
So when did we start comparing Lord of the Rings to Citizen Kain?

My point was that to attempt to fit everything from the books into 3 / 3 ½ /4 hr movies would have been horrible. You’d have a big budget Bakshi film. A waste of film. That was the problem with the animated film and it would have killed this movie.


did it kill the movie that PJ plagiarised Bakshi and added greater special fx...i tihk not! PJ just improved the bakshi version. PJ failed when he deviated from Bakshi's.

and likewise in ttt, he had no bakshi so he mangled the plotlines

Originally posted by TheDarkTyrant

But my final point is: WHAT DOES IT MATTER WHAT JACKSON CHANGED???

the whole point is it does change! PJ can have xena the warrior princess (as opposed to arwen) come to the rescue of the hobbits and still have frodo fail at the end, w/ gollum coming to the rescue....

the plotline leads to the ending...the ending just doesnt have a moral right to just being !

[Foe-Hammer]

maggot, you are a real piece of work!! LOL!

We can't use tolkiens logic to justify the film, but you can use it to debunk the film?!

You NEED to get out more!

You are so obviously wrong on these several issues and you keep on saying your done, but you keep coming back for more embarassment?!

The facts remain that people will use water for food, crops and livestock before washing. Just because yoou translate the few words tolkien used to describe them into meaning they were always clean all the time is wishful thinking! The country is at war and I'm totally positive that everyone schedule nice hot baths while the enemy is looting and burning everything in its path!

"Oye! Old on there you urik-hia! We aven't ad a chance to take our baths or have morning tea! Be a sport and come back after second breakfast aye?!"

LOL!!! HAHAHA!!!!!! Lordy! You npw's sure give us plenty of material!

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by lilhobo
did it kill the movie that PJ plagiarised Bakshi and added greater special fx...i tihk not! PJ just improved the bakshi version. PJ failed when he deviated from Bakshi's.

and likewise in ttt, he had no bakshi so he mangled the plotlines



the whole point is it does change! PJ can have xena the warrior princess (as opposed to arwen) come to the rescue of the hobbits and still have frodo fail at the end, w/ gollum coming to the rescue....

the plotline leads to the ending...the ending just doesnt have a moral right to just being !

There's more than one way to skin a cat, and PJ has effectively skinned the tolkien cat. PJ has proven that the parts of tolkiens work that lends itself to cinema can be done. the rest of the story needs to be improved on to make a great movie. Not only has he done 1 but has done 2 great movies and possibly a third.

[Mrs. Maggott]

But my final point is: WHAT DOES IT MATTER WHAT JACKSON CHANGED??? <quote Dark Tyrant>

And that is the question that proves the absolute inability of Mr. Jackson's advocates to respond or even think reasonably about this matter. All that Jackson does if A-OK (as long, of course, as he continues to supply all that great cg "mortal kombat" violence).

Yes, D.T., I have seen movies from books: I say Moby **** which was quite well done given the difficult nature of a book which was far more apocryphal than straight forward narrative. I saw The Godfather which was a first rate film. I saw Jaws which was in fact better than the book. And I have seen other films some of which were less successful, but most of these films - including the vilified but certainly acceptable Harry Potter films - at least attempted to maintain a certain faithfulness to the meaning of their book even when they had to change characters and plot. Jackson, on the other hand, started well despite his inferior "retake" on many of the characters, but the second film is so far off as to be a joke - or a whole different story.

Guess what? It doesn't matter if by the time the end credits roll, Jackson has pulled a rabbit out of his shorts and [1] destroyed the Ring, [2] crowned the King and [3] married the girl. If what came before is drivel, the end is irrelevant. As they say in the computer world, "garbage in, garbage out".

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by Thorin
Umm..No. Maggot is correct. Gandalf and Saruman's position is valid because the ring was not so foolish revealed to Sauron. It was kept hidden and only in secrecy could the mission succeed. By blatantly revealing who had the ring and where they were only would force Sauron to, at least, rethink his game plan and at best pump up the guards on the west side of the mountain exactly where Frodo intends to go. Why? If Sauron believes that they will use the ring and knows that the ring is in Osgiliath which faces Minas Morgul, then it would only make sense.



Sauron was a fool only because the ring was kept secret, thus continually feeding his plan of assumption. Frodo never had the ring on him (continually feeding the assumption that the heir of Isildur would use it) and so he was considered a spy. Tolkien, despite dear Foe-Hammer's rant against his seeming incompetence :rolleyes: , knew just what he was doing. Giving the ring to Frodo, building up an army in Gondor, Aragorn revealing himself to Sauron in the palantir, all of these tie together to fool Sauron. Having the foolish hobbit reveal the ring in Osgiliath undermines and weakens the plot that Tolkien so carefully weaved together.

The ring was revealed to sauron on weathertop. And, to continue to use the logic that tolkien wrote into the story and not the imaginations of the purists, sauron would assume that the elves or men or wizards would desire the ring also. I satnd on firm ground here because that is what tolkien wanted us to believe, because thats what he has gandalf telling everyone. Sauron will not even think someone would destroy the ring, therefore whatever the heck the ring is going in osgilioth or timbucktoo, the destruction of the ring is not an option. PERIOD!!!!!! he would imagine any other senario except the desstruction of the ring. Tolkien put that little diddy in there to cover his butt while he wrote the rest of the story. this way he can make up whatever little adventures and happenings that he wants, and can explain them away because he has a STUPID paper tiger in sauron. So, don't blame us you purists! Blame the author, J.R.R. Tolkien!

[Mrs. Maggott]

Please, oh Forum guardians, the second word in Moby D-i-c-k is not a "swear word"! It's one thing to guard against profanity, but let's temper vigilance with intelligence, shall we?

[Ancalagon]

I am a little confused as to why there would be any question to the source of water near Edoras? The Snowbourn River finds its source on Starkhorn, passes through Dunharrow, past Edoras and on into The River Entwash. Considering Edoras is set on a small Hillock, The Snowbourn would easily have supplied a constant supply to Edoras at all times.

Regarding wood, it is plain that although Edoras sits at the foot of the great Ered Nimrais, with many vales, valleys and glen running from the base of the Mountains, it is not without wood. The morning was bright and clear about them, and birds were singing, when the travellers came to the stream. It ran down swiftly into the plain, and beyond the feet of the hills turned across their path in a wide bend, flowing away east to feed the Entwash far off in its reed-choked beds. The land was green: in the wet meads and along the grassy borders of the stream grew many willow-trees. Already in this southern land they were blushing red at their fingertips. Feeling the approach of spring. Over the stream there was a ford between low banks much trampled by the passage of horses. The travellers passed over and came upon a wide rutted track leading towards the uplands. It must be considered also, that not far along the Great West Road was Firien Wood, which at need, for a people who had obviously mastered the use of 'horse' and possibly even a cart, was a more than sufficient quantity of wood, which would doubtless be stockpiled over the year in and around Edoras.

[Foe-Hammer]

I am quite well aware of where they would get their wood and water, but my opponant in this discussion is/was not.

The bone of contention is that PJ presented the people as dirty rabble, while JRR presented them as the cleanest people of ME (next to hobbits).

My point is that it is entirely more likely for people who live in dark age conditions (medival) to be dirty more often than not, regardless of the availability of water. Couple that with no mention of their cleanliness, or lack of it, and the country being at war and the kings rule basically non-existant, and my position becomes more tenable and the wishful thinking of the purist less so.

So, it does not hurt the book or the movie in any way for people who live like this to have a dirty face.

[Ancalagon]

So because the Kings Rule is in the hands of Grima, but not actually waned, the proud people of Rohan would stop cleaning themselves?

[Ancalagon]

Actually, further to this point, in the film Edoras was not on 'full alert' until Gandalf removed Grima (and Saruman) from the equation.

[Odo Proudfoot]

This entire washing discussion is beyond ridiculous :D

What are you people concerned about? About the overall setting of the story, the deeper messages, the greater storylines, credible characterisation, faithful depiction of Middle Earth? About a trio of grand-scale films that blow away the audiences, get people switched on to the books, that push the envelope of epic fantasy movies?

Or about some black makeup applied to a few peasant faces?

If this is the depth of your gripe with PJ the admirers have clearly won the debate.

LOL

fG

[Ancalagon]

The question was asked FG...and answered. So what else would you like to ask?

[Odo Proudfoot]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott

Jackson, on the other hand, started well despite his inferior "retake" on many of the characters, but the second film is so far off as to be a joke - or a whole different story.

Guess what? It doesn't matter if by the time the end credits roll, Jackson has pulled a rabbit out of his shorts and [1] destroyed the Ring, [2] crowned the King and [3] married the girl. If what came before is drivel, the end is irrelevant. As they say in the computer world, "garbage in, garbage out". [/B]

How can you possibly with a straight face write that Jackson's TTT is a whole different story than the book?

Drivel? Garbage?

Strong words, MM, which need some strong arguments that go well beyond your obsession with details about dirty faces, the crookedness of the passage in the Hornburg, the exact angle of the slope down which Eomer's riders come charging and so on.

The meaning is in the motivation and decisions of the characters. The value is in recreating the story in a convincing, gripping way that captivates the audience, lets them leave the cinema impressed and wanting for more, makes them pick up and read the books. The art is in the cinematography, the acting, the sets, the effects, the sound and music, the final presentation.

All this and more is what PJ & co have achieved. Give credit where credit is due.
They have done more for Tolkien and his legacy than a thousand discussion forums together.

fG

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by faded_Glory
This entire washing discussion is beyond ridiculous :D
What are you people concerned about? About the overall setting of the story, the deeper messages, the greater storylines, credible characterisation, faithful depiction of Middle Earth? About a trio of grand-scale films that blow away the audiences, get people switched on to the books, that push the envelope of epic fantasy movies?
Or about some black makeup applied to a few peasant faces?
If this is the depth of your gripe with PJ the admirers have clearly won the debate.
LOL
fG
Indeed, no! I have much greater problems with Mr. Jackson's LOTR. The "cleanliness" debate is merely a "symptom" of his darkened imagination. From that "imagination" stems all the deviations, devolutions and deconstruction that the Director has visited upon Tolkien's Middle-earth. I simply pointed out this element because it is easily noticed by anyone watching the film whereas some of his more insidious attacks on the story might be overlooked in the wealth of truly beautiful and glorious things that Jackson has used to cloak his rot. He is truly what Frodo described when he said that a servant of the Enemy "would look fair and feel foul."

An aside to F.H.: What do you mean, I didn't know where they got their wood and water. Making a declarative statement about what another person thinks or knows smacks mightily of either overweening pride or extreme ignoarance - or just possibly, both. Frankly, I will tell you that I thought that I had given you enough information about "baths" by saying that they would bring wood and water and to explain further might appear to be condescending, that you might in fact believe that I was being contemptuous of your intelligence. I see now that you were actually asking a question that I gave you credit for having too much intelligence to ask! My mistake!

[Foe-Hammer]

FG,

HAHAHA! Right on.

[Ancalagon]

The meaning is in the motivation and decisions of the characters. The value is in recreating the story in a convincing, gripping way that captivates the audience, lets them leave the cinema impressed and wanting for more, makes them pick up and read the books. The art is in the cinematography, the acting, the sets, the effects, the sound and music, the final presentation.

All this and more is what PJ & co have achieved. Give credit where credit is due.
They have done more for Tolkien and his legacy than a thousand discussion forums together.[/B]

I am interested to know; do you think PJ & Co. have made a better job of telling Tolkiens story than Tolkien?
Would you favour reading a book of the film called; Peter Jacksons: Lords of the Rings, with its character deviations, plot changes and asinine scripting? The fact remains, when you strip away the beauty of the cinematography, the sets, locations, music et al, basically you are left with a dreadfully poor revision of Tolkiens work.

But hey, if it look great, it must be a work of art!

[Odo Proudfoot]

Originally posted by Ancalagon I am interested to know; do you think PJ & Co. have made a better job of telling Tolkiens story than Tolkien?

They have made a better film out of it than Tolkien ever did.

I find it impossible to compare book and film and say: this one is the better story. The book gives us things that a film can never do, and the film gives us things that the book can never do. To me they compliment each other, rather than compete for first place.


Would you favour reading a book of the film called; Peter Jacksons: Lords of the Rings, with its character deviations, plot changes and asinine scripting?

I don't know if Peter Jackson could write a readable book, just as I don't know if Tolkien could have written a watchable movie script.
You call the script 'asinine'. You do realise that that is just your subjective opinion, right?


The fact remains, when you strip away the beauty of the cinematography, the sets, locations, music et al, basically you are left with a dreadfully poor revision of Tolkiens work.

For me the enjoyment in watching the movies is to take them in holistically. I am not interested in stripping away this or that to see what we are left with. I can enjoy many aspects of the films, and I am irritated by some others. On balance I find it an enjoyable experience that I want to repeat as many times as I can.

I am not sure anyone was out to revise Tolkien's work. A film maker bases his script on an existing novel, and takes that as the departing point for his own creative journey. I think it unlikely that you will ever find a director with the drive of PJ to create a stunning visual spectacle as we have here, yet with the self-constraint to also stay very close to Tolkien's text. If someone proves me wrong, fine. Until that day I take the lesser with the better and give the guy credit for what he has done.

But hey, if it look great, it must be a work of art!

No need to fire off cheap personal shots.

fG

[Odo Proudfoot]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
He is truly what Frodo described when he said that a servant of the Enemy "would look fair and feel foul."


MM, just to get serious for a moment, I think this remark really crosses the line. I know how you feel about the deeper Christian elements in LotR, and in that context a comment like this is truly misplaced.

fG

[Mormegil]

OK, my review.
I think lots of other people have gone into much depth about these points, so I won't repeat. I'll just give some brief statements.

GOOD THINGS
1. Gollum: without doubt the best thing in the film. He was so realistic, and the voice was spot on. PJ portrayed the split personality thing perfectly for me.

2. Grima Wormtongue: Just as snivelling and repulsive as I'd imagined from the books. Very well done.

3. The Riders of Rohan: I thought they were very well done as well. The design of ytheiir armour was excellent.

4: Helm's Deep (The place, not the battle): The fortress looked exactly as I'd imagined it.

5: Gandalf: Both the balrog fight and his return were very good. I liked the way his new powers are shown, not too over the top.

6: Haldir getting killed at HD: I never liked him anyway, and he shouldn't have been there in the first place. I didn't feel a shred of sorrow when he died, just glee that he won't be popping up anwhere he shouldn't do in ROTK.

BAD TINGS
1: Merrys clothes: The dazzling white shirt and spotless yellow waistcoat that merry was wearing in Fangorn. They just stood out a mile, and kept drawing my attention awy from the story. Come on PJ, Merry left Lorien approximately 2 weeks ago, and since then he's rolled around in mud, been kicked around by filthy orcs, and then crawled into Fangorn forest. Couldn't we have had just a little dirt on his clothes??

2: Faramir: I think it's all been said before on this thread, so I won't repeat, but I was highly dissapointed at this needless change in character.

3: Wargs and Aragorns fall: WHY? whyt was it necessary. Does PJ want to insert a "He's dead......Oh no he isn't" bit into every LOTR film. I thought it was and unneccessary inclusion.

4: Elrond: Just when I trhought he couldn't get anymore moody and arrogant from FOTR, he does. A big dissapointment. The caring Elrond from the books has been decimated.

5: Frodo and the winged nazgul: Just annoyed me for some reason, frodo standing there offering the ring like that.

That's about all I can think of now. I will say that I did enjoy the film, despite some unnecessary and annoying changes. But I have my copy of the book if I want to read the proper story. If I want to sit down for 3 hours of breathtaking entertainment and Gollum, then I'll watch the film.


It's easier to remember the bad things in the film then it is to remember the good things.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by faded_Glory
MM, just to get serious for a moment, I think this remark really crosses the line. I know how you feel about the deeper Christian elements in LotR, and in that context a comment like this is truly misplaced.

fG
I am speaking of Jackson's films, not Jackson himself. Frankly, despite all the beauty, I find that the man's "interpretation" of the characters - with a few exceptions - is indeed, "foul". The "plot" deviations are more annoying than damaging. I could even live with them, but the denigration of the characters is unforgiveable.

However, I say this: "purists" have admitted to things about the films that are definitely positive. Indeed, most of us have said that we enjoyed at least the first rather uncritically (the second less so). Unfortunately, Jackophiles have made no such concessions to our points other than to say that everything the director has done is wonderful. Earlier in this thread, one Jackophile posted the following: WHAT DOES IT MATTER WHAT JACKSON CHANGED???

The above merely validates my belief that Jackophiles don't really care what happens to LOTR in Jackson's hands. However, before I accept that as universal, I will make the following challange: any film defender who wishes to be considered (at least by me) as seriously engaging in a debate on the issues surrounding the film, should and must repudiate the above statement. Otherwise, I cannot be bothered engaging in a fruitless exchange of words with people who wouldn't care if Jackson showed Sauron in a pink nightie.

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Indeed, no! I have much greater problems with Mr. Jackson's LOTR. The "cleanliness" debate is merely a "symptom" of his darkened imagination. From that "imagination" stems all the deviations, devolutions and deconstruction that the Director has visited upon Tolkien's Middle-earth. I simply pointed out this element because it is easily noticed by anyone watching the film whereas some of his more insidious attacks on the story might be overlooked in the wealth of truly beautiful and glorious things that Jackson has used to cloak his rot. He is truly what Frodo described when he said that a servant of the Enemy "would look fair and feel foul."

An aside to F.H.: What do you mean, I didn't know where they got their wood and water. Making a declarative statement about what another person thinks or knows smacks mightily of either overweening pride or extreme ignoarance - or just possibly, both. Frankly, I will tell you that I thought that I had given you enough information about "baths" by saying that they would bring wood and water and to explain further might appear to be condescending, that you might in fact believe that I was being contemptuous of your intelligence. I see now that you were actually asking a question that I gave you credit for having too much intelligence to ask! My mistake!

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. HAHAHA! I asked you the SOURCE of their wood and water. A DIRECT question that I complained about you refusing to answer and now you claim that you were sparing me????

Pardon me whilst I chuckle aloud! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

now THAT'S a good one!

[markrob]

Just got back from Jacksonville, watching NC State kick some Irish #@% !! in the Gator Bowl, Way to go PACK!.

Looks like I havent missed much. The FAD vs NPW war is as strong as ever. Damn Tolkien for ever writing those books in the first place and causing all this trouble. Shame on PJ for trying to bring ME to life and doing the best he can. And pooh on us for loving either with passion. I guess we'd all be better off if niether would have been created and we'd have more time to go see Leo or Vin Diesel in their excellent movies?

Oh well, I guess the debates will continue, onward fellow FAD's, for there are still plenty of ultra purists roaming about in these here message boards.

Was it just me or did anyone notice that Aragorns left ear was a little lower than his right unlike book Aragorn who had a slightly higher right ear? :p

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
Riiiiiiiiiiiight. HAHAHA! I asked you the SOURCE of their wood and water. A DIRECT question that I complained about you refusing to answer and now you claim that you were sparing me????

Pardon me whilst I chuckle aloud! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

now THAT'S a good one!

Do you repudiate the statement?

[lilhobo]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
There's more than one way to skin a cat, and PJ has effectively skinned the tolkien cat. PJ has proven that the parts of tolkiens work that lends itself to cinema can be done. the rest of the story needs to be improved on to make a great movie. Not only has he done 1 but has done 2 great movies and possibly a third.

great delusions of grandeur !!! Wow , the book of the 20th century has so many holes in its plotline that ppl read it by the millions........

I AM YET TO SEE YOU SAY WHERE TOLKIEN HAS ILLOGICALLY BUILT HIS STORY AFTER SO MANY CARFEUL YEARS OF REWRITTING THE BOOK LOL

Rohan is a civilisation with knowledge and skills in horse riding. Where the heck did you get the dark ages from???

erhmm Mr PJ???

[lilhobo]

Originally posted by faded_Glory

All this and more is what PJ & co have achieved. Give credit where credit is due.
They have done more for Tolkien and his legacy than a thousand discussion forums together.

fG

oh you think so do you??? with todays technology, a monkeys cousin would be able to film this movie !!!

obviously, however the academy doesnt think much of PJ and co's scripting abililty. Where was credit given again?? cinematography, customs lighting etc.....

but best adaptation???

[lilhobo]

Originally posted by faded_Glory

They have done more for Tolkien and his legacy than a thousand discussion forums together.

fG

NO NO NO NO. i would argue that PJ has done more harm than not.

1. Tolkien wrote that there are good men who would resist the power of the ring...PJ wrote nah the human race is a waste of good air on ME.

Q: why bother to save these wretched mobs, even if they cant clean themselves :D see what happens when u argue w/ a fool??

2. Tolkien wrote a few wise men on ME to guide the masses. PJ wrote and i quote "Dark Ages"????

3. Tolkien wrote true friendship and sacrifice, racial understanding. what did PJ write??? a bunch of clowns

[Odo Proudfoot]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
I am speaking of Jackson's films, not Jackson himself. Frankly, despite all the beauty, I find that the man's "interpretation" of the characters - with a few exceptions - is indeed, "foul". The "plot" deviations are more annoying than damaging. I could even live with them, but the denigration of the characters is unforgiveable.

However, I say this: "purists" have admitted to things about the films that are definitely positive. Indeed, most of us have said that we enjoyed at least the first rather uncritically (the second less so). Unfortunately, Jackophiles have made no such concessions to our points other than to say that everything the director has done is wonderful. Earlier in this thread, one Jackophile posted the following: WHAT DOES IT MATTER WHAT JACKSON CHANGED???

The above merely validates my belief that Jackophiles don't really care what happens to LOTR in Jackson's hands. However, before I accept that as universal, I will make the following challange: any film defender who wishes to be considered (at least by me) as seriously engaging in a debate on the issues surrounding the film, should and must repudiate the above statement. Otherwise, I cannot be bothered engaging in a fruitless exchange of words with people who wouldn't care if Jackson showed Sauron in a pink nightie.

Let me see if I can answer this.

First of al, I don’t know what a ‘Jackophile’ is.

When I go against the purists I go against two things. First is the endless derision, contempt and mockery for the man’s work that drips of the pages whenever the purists mention PJ. I find that a very immature attitude because it lacks any sense of balance. Even those who, when pressed, admit that they like the film seem to be unable to give the man at least credit for the 6 hours of viewing pleasure they have at the minimum got out of it. I don’t want to start mining for quotes, but words like ‘rot’, ‘drivel’, ‘nonsense’, the ubiquitous :rolleyes: smilies, etc. etc., are simply not fair to these films because there are very, very many excellent aspects to them apart from the contentious bits. The atmosphere of the debate is utterly poisoned by this flat refusal to come to a balanced view. As a consequence, people on both sides start digging themselves in and raise more and more silly objections and defenses, the ludicrous ‘debate’ about the peasants cleanliness spanning the crown. All semblance to a mature discussion is out of the window.

I also find a marked tendency on the purist sides to exaggerate the real nature of the changes, even after repeatedly having been corrected (for example, insisting that Sauron knows that Frodo is East of the river, when the scene takes place in Osgiliath that in fact lies on the river and would be a natural point of arrival in Gondor for anyone traveling South). Such exaggeration smacks of desperation: purists apparently have to find reasons to slam down on any change, and if they can’t find a valid reason they just make one up. Again, this is an immature and imbalanced way of presenting one’s case and doesn’t help in keeping the discussion at a reasonably elevated level.

Secondly, when judging the films by themselves it indeed should not matter what PJ changed! The films are intended to stand on their own, in the sense that the audience is not required to read, or even be aware, of the books before watching them. This is very important, because it means that changes by themselves are irrelevant to the final judgment of the films. Yet time and again we hear that the films are unacceptable because PJ has altered characters or situations from the books. Now, I can perfectly well understand that people would have been happier if the films stayed closer to the books in those respects, but if they don't, it does not automatically condemn them.

Yes, film-Aragorn is different from book-Aragorn. But PJ does have the right to change characters when he judges that to be better for his films. They are his films, he can do what he wants. There is no law that says one is not allowed to change Aragorn’s character. PJ obviously thinks it makes for a better film, the purists obviously think it does not. This difference of opinion does not in itself make the films ‘unacceptable’, or ‘nonsense’, or ‘drivel’. It simply makes them different from the books, that’s all. We can, and should, discuss if the films ‘work’ with these changes or not, but changes from the book in themselves are not a valid reason to condemn the films to the trashcan. Such changes happen whenever books are used as the basis for film scripts. It has always been like that, and it is unfair to single out this film as an exception, no matter how much we all love the book.

In these discussions it is interesting to hear different points of view on how we like the films, it is fun to investigate the what and why of the changes. But claiming that the director doesn’t have the right to make changes as he sees fit is simply and factually incorrect. Stating that certain changes are unacceptable just because the films don’t follow the book is simply incorrect, unless it is demonstrated that the films become internally incoherent, or fail to get their point across, or otherwise detract from the viewing pleasure.

In the particular example of Aragorn’s character I have not found this to be unrealistic, incredible, or detracting from the film. Therefore it is not a bad thing for the film. Sure, it is different from the book, but that in itself is no reason to condemn the films as independent woks of art. It is much the same with Elrond, Faramir, Theoden etc.

In case anyone cares, the scene I like least happens to be also a change from the book, it is the Aragorn-over-the-cliff scene. I think it is unrealistic and could have been left out without materially changing the film at all. Apparently killing off the main character is a bit too much worn as a plot device for my liking.

This is my position. If you see this as reason enough to stop discussing the films with me, too bad.

fG

[Pelvidar]

Thanks for that post, faded_Glory. I think you've summed up my own thoughts better than I could have written.

This has probably been said before, but I am reminded of it again. Like King Arthur, Robin Hood, or any other great story that is retold - no retelling is exactly the same as the one before.

The later retellings do not replace the older. In this case we actually have an original do***ent we can always go back to. But I think it's great to see another "perspective" on the tale. That is how I see Jackson's films. Not as the "OFFICIAL, NEVER TO BE REPLACED" theatrical rendtion of the story, but instead, as a temporal retelling of the tale. Does anyone really believe that these stories will not be re-told in movie form one day? Of course they will.

I can say quite honestly that there are parts of the movie that appeal to me more than the way they are written in the book (the opposite is also true, of course). Each mediums, in their own merit, share excellent qualities, and also have weaknesses.

I don't like mindless praise for the films, but I don't like wreckless criticism either.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by faded_Glory
Let me see if I can answer this.

First of al, I don’t know what a ‘Jackophile’ is.

When I go against the purists I go against two things. First is the endless derision, contempt and mockery for the man’s work that drips of the pages whenever the purists mention PJ. I find that a very immature attitude because it lacks any sense of balance. Even those who, when pressed, admit that they like the film seem to be unable to give the man at least credit for the 6 hours of viewing pleasure they have at the minimum got out of it.

I also find a marked tendency on the purist sides to exaggerate the real nature of the changes, even after repeatedly having been corrected (for example, insisting that Sauron knows that Frodo is East of the river, when the scene takes place in Osgiliath that in fact lies on the river and would be a natural point of arrival in Gondor for anyone traveling South). Such exaggeration smacks of desperation: purists apparently have to find reasons to slam down on any change, and if they can’t find a valid reason they just make one up. Again, this is an immature and imbalanced way of presenting one’s case and doesn’t help in keeping the discussion at a reasonably elevated level....and that people would have been happier if the films stayed closer to the books in those respects, but if they don't, it does not automatically condemn them.

This is my position. If you see this as reason enough to stop discussing the films with me, too bad.

fG

A "phile" is someone who approves or likes something. Hence, an "Anglophile" is a person who likes the English. It was getting tiresome calling you "film defenders" and even FADS is acronym of which I am not certain, so I decided that since Mr. Jackson is your obvious hero, then Jackophile was an apt appellation.

We don't have to "make up" reasons why Mr. Jackson's characters are much darker and, yes, fouler than Tolkien's. As I have said, his plot deviations are annoying and, if Jackophiles would be willing to admit, more than a little foolish given the original story's excellently drawn plot line.

Furthermore, I can assure you that I for one (and I suspect most other "purists") wanted very much not to "slam" these films. However, it is most disappointing to find that one's evalution of the first film has been improved by how much worse the second one is! That's no way to get approval. I had problems with FOTR, but on the whole considered it well done - and said so repeatedly. That is hardly "slamming" anything. You Jackophiles, on the other hand, will settle for nothing less than absolute and complete acceptance of everything that Jackson has done. Now thatis unrealistic!

You know, these discussions only work if you are willing to come a little bit our way (which you did, in a way, with your acknowledgement of the cliff scene) and say that changes to the film do matter. But it is not enough to say that you didn't "care" for a particular change. You have to be willing to admit that some changes (including in character) can be destructive to the integrity of the story itself changing the real meaning of LOTR.

As for discussing the films, I ask you the same question I asked the other Jackophile: Do you repudiate the statement that it doesn't matter what changes Jackson makes because if you feel that way, obviously further discussion is pointless.

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
PJ did an admirable job, cleaning up the glaring inconsistancies that tolkien never fixed.

I've never seen you back up this statement, only yelling at mrs. Maggot about wood and water. Off course a very important part of the story of TTT, that should be discussed at length.

Or maybe we could have a chat about this well-blanced character named Faramir, who somehow looked to me more like a Boromir-clone instead of a wise man with a brain of his own, as inconsistantly described by the original author of the true story.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by DGoeij
I've never seen you back up this statement, only yelling at mrs. Maggot about wood and water. Off course a very important part of the story of TTT, that should be discussed at length.

Or maybe we could have a chat about this well-blanced character named Faramir, who somehow looked to me more like a Boromir-clone instead of a wise man with a brain of his own, as inconsistantly described by the original author of the true story.
Yes, by all means let us look at Faramir! Even more than Aragorn or even Theoden, Faramir is a signal indication of Jackson's mind-set as well as a primary example of his dire failure to understand and/or present the original moral vision of LOTR and that after all, is what all this hoopla is about! Tossing dwarves, shieldboarding elves, warg attacks, impossible cavalry charges...all that is inconsequential compared to the denegration of the characters - of which Faramir is, as I have said, a primary example.

Faramir should have been: courtly, wise, far-thinking, self-confident, selfless, independent of spirit, noble and strong.

Faramir was: just another warrior guy who wanted to impress the boss by bringing him "a mighty gift" but who obviously could just as easily be talked out of his course of action by an overweight hobbit. Gee. Somewhat less than the original, don't you think?

Can Jackson make it "all come right in the end"? Maybe so. But simply having the plot conclude much the same as it did in the book, is not the same thing as presenting a story with the same meaning. All roads lead to Rome, the old saying goes, but reaching the same destination is not the criteria by which the matter should be judged. It is time that the Jackophiles stop insisting that as long as Mr. Jackson is able to accomplish the major plot conclusions at films end, then everything is the same. I'm sorry, but that simply isn't so - and Faramir is a prime example of that fact.

Furthermore, I, for one, am tired of hearing that we should willingly accept anything and everything Mr. Jackson does for the priviledge of looking at beautiful New Zealand. Frankly, I want more than scenery, sets, special effects and, yes, even the glories of Mr. Mortensen and company. I really would like, if Mr. Jackson would onl