The Two Towers Reviews [Archive] - Page 3

Mrs. Maggott

01-08-2003, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by Thorin
And about 80 % of the FADs are actually applying your rule. Yet the purists like Mrs.Maggot who has posted numerous thoughtful posts more than any other purist is being lambasted. How is that fair? As a matter of fact, I have noticed the composure of Mrs.Maggot's posts going down a little bit on threads like this one. That is for the specific reason that normal discussion does not work with certain FADs and she has had to go down to their level of discussion...Which pretty much can be summed up as personal attacks and ridicule.

Heavens! My dear Thorin! I had intended not to post again on this thread having said all that I thought I needed to say, but I am dismayed to think that you are of the opinion that I stooped - or even began to stoop - to the level of name calling and ridicule! Oh dear! I shall have to be much more careful in future when someone of Thorin's reputation says that I was allowing my lesser nature to get the better of me!

However, now that I am here, I shall make one further criticism of the film, but not as a "purist", but simply a film goer. Directors are supposed to be "in charge" of their films. In the end, the onus is on the director for both a film's strenghts and weaknesses and, frankly, Mr. Jackson missed the boat on TTT. The film is edited almost to idiocy in some parts: the Aragorn "horse-kissing" scene, the abrupt "end" of the Helm's Deep battle and the herky-jerky nature of the ent-thread which indicates massive editing.

Now before our Jackophile friends begin to bludgeon us once again with the cry of "time constraints", I might remind all that Mr. Jackson added plot machinations to an already crowded film: the warg attack, the Aragorn-over-the-cliff routine, the day-trip to Osgiliath and the "elvish dream sequence" to name four. In short, Mr. Jackson could not forebear any of his inferior and unnecessary plot inventions and as a result, we wound up with a film that was frequently choppy and at times even senseless.

Now, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the story or the characters, but everything to do with Mr. Jackson's performance as the director of the film. I think he did well in FOTR, but considerably less well in TTT - quite aside from any consideration of his "version" of the story.

Odo Proudfoot

01-08-2003, 09:31 PM

Thorin, I disagree, but I don't want to start a flame war so I'll leave it at that. You can PM me if you want to go into this off-line.

fG

Odo Proudfoot

01-08-2003, 09:51 PM

Mrs. M, I agree with you on the choppiness, all I can say is that I think this is a consequence of the concept of a TC and an EE.

Although PJ denies this, I suspect he actually does consider the EE versions the real movies. He obviously can't say this out loud without displeasing his bosses at New Line – it might impact the cinema revenues.

Now, consider that you make a 3 ½ hour movie to your own perfection, and then have to cut it down to 3 hours. The difficulty is that you can’t leave out scenes that are essential for the plot line without disrupting the result and making it incoherent. What you can do is shorten essential and delete non-essential scenes. The result is the choppiness. I very much saw the same thing in FotR TC, which I doubt if I will ever watch again.

PJ cannot just cut the ‘inferior and unnecessary plot inventions’, because the movie would be left with gaping holes. I am pretty sure that the Arwen dream sequence is required for a proper understanding of the story line. Same with Osgiliath, but we will have to wait for RotK to appreciate this fully. I do agree he could (should) have left out the Aragorn-Cliff scene. He would have gained a little time but not that much, since we would have had to see scouts being sent out and reporting back. The Warg attack could have been left out, but I think it is actually quite effective as a prelude to the massive Helms Deep attack, it shows that Saruman is on the move and that his forces are roaming around freely in Rohan. It actually corresponds to the scene in the book where the battle of the Ford is re-told when Theoden & Co. arrive there, so I see it more as a variation than a complete invention.

So, I hope, and in fact trust, that these hard cuts will be a lot softer in the EE. If I am wrong, you have my permission to say ‘I told you so, na na na :p’

fG

Mrs. Maggott

01-08-2003, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by faded_Glory
Mrs. M, I agree with you on the choppiness, all I can say is that I think this is a consequence of the concept of a TC and an EE.
PJ cannot just cut the ‘inferior and unnecessary plot inventions’, because the movie would be left with gaping holes.
So, I hope, and in fact trust, that these hard cuts will be a lot softer in the EE. If I am wrong, you have my permission to say ‘I told you so, na na na :p’
fG
I don't understand the "gaping holes". He needed the Arwen kissing sequence to awaken Aragorn busily floating (face up, mind) down the river. But he wouldn't have needed it (and I'm not speaking of the "decision" thread, although I was rather sickened by Elrond's emotional blackmail - but that's beside the point) if Aragorn hadn't gone over the cliff in the first place. And Aragorn wouldn't have gone over the cliff in the first place if the warg attack had never occurred!

As for Osgiliath, I cannot understand why whatever tension Jackson wanted couldn't have been developed in Henneth Annun. Why waste valuable time going to Osgiliath. Furthermore, if, as you say, we will "understand all" with the EE version, doesn't that tell you that Jackson had to edit the sense out of his own plot inventions? And that, F.G., is BAD direction! Either you put it in so it makes sense or you don't put it in! Jackson could have foregone the warg business, shortened the battle of Helm's Deep (which went on to the point of tedium and even then didn't have a definite conclusion!), cut out the "kissing" - horse and Arwen (neither of which would have been necessary with the warg bit out) and had plenty of time to "develop" Osgiliath if he had wanted to.

But like a kid in a candy shop, Jackson wanted it all and as a result, created a film that was considerably inferior to what it might - indeed should have been! Apparently, the Director has yet to appreciate that old saying: "less is more".

Thorin

01-08-2003, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
[B]Heavens! My dear Thorin! I had intended not to post again on this thread having said all that I thought I needed to say, but I am dismayed to think that you are of the opinion that I stooped - or even began to stoop - to the level of name calling and ridicule! Oh dear! I shall have to be much more careful in future when someone of Thorin's reputation says that I was allowing my lesser nature to get the better of me![B]

Whaddya mean, "someone of Thorin's reputation"??? I don't have a bad rep around here do I??

Maggot, I meant no disrespect to you at all. I apologize if you took it that way. Like you, I've been frustrated by FADs like Foe-Hammer (You should have been here last year around this time!) and have let my sarcasm shown through on occasion. (Notice the difference between yours and Faded_Glory's dialogue and when Foe-Hammer jumps in. There is a big difference. I'll let you decide why :D )

I didn't mean that you name called. I should have explained myself better. I believe I said how I really felt about your posts in the first section of my last post. Peace.

Mrs. Maggott

01-08-2003, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by Thorin
Whaddya mean, "someone of Thorin's reputation"??? I don't have a bad rep around here do I??

Maggot, I meant no disrespect to you at all. I apologize if you took it that way. Like you, I've been frustrated by FADs like Foe-Hammer (You should have been here last year around this time!) and have let my sarcasm shown through on occasion. (Notice the difference between yours and Faded_Glory's dialogue and when Foe-Hammer jumps in. There is a big difference. I'll let you decide why :D )

I didn't mean that you name called. I should have explained myself better. I believe I said how I really felt about your posts in the first section of my last post. Peace.

Oh dear again! I put it very badly indeed! I meant your excellent reputation! And I took no offense. Indeed, it is good to have someone point out to you when you are "tempted" to reply in kind - because every once in a while, I was....tempted that is!

Please put your mind at ease as I was not offended and I certainly didn't mean to offend you! Your posts are always "spot on" and couched in the most prudent and thoughtful language as is Faded Glory albeit on the other side of the issue most of the time. Proof positive, don't you think, that intelligent and thoughtful debate can take place even when passions are aroused.

Again, thanks!

markrob

01-08-2003, 11:23 PM

Alright, you two can stop kissing now. Its getting a little too mushy. ;)

Good post however from both sides. I think what brings out the "ultra FADs, which I consider myself most of the time, is when purist so matter of factly state not really their opinion but the way is has to be. I hardly ever see a purist post start off by saying I think, or in my opinion. Its always is "that is the way it should be" or like their in someones mind and know what exactly their thinking?? Everyone has a different interpretation so no one is 100% right, but that is the feeling at least this FAD gets from most ultra purists. Maggott uses good words and truely puts efforts into her post but their is always a derrogatory or demeaning tone like she is God of Tolkien and talking down to everyone IMHO. :cool:

lilhobo

01-08-2003, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by faded_Glory
lilhobo, don't bother replying to me, you are on my ignore list.

fG

hahahahaha....s/he thinks i am replying to her??? ahahahah

bohhha on ignore list :D

lilhobo

01-08-2003, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by markrob
Alright, you two can stop kissing now. Its getting a little too mushy. ;)

Good post however from both sides. I think what brings out the "ultra FADs, which I consider myself most of the time, is when purist so matter of factly state not really their opinion but the way is has to be. I hardly ever see a purist post start off by saying I think, or in my opinion. Its always is "that is the way it should be" or like their in someones mind and know what exactly their thinking?? Everyone has a different interpretation so no one is 100% right, but that is the feeling at least this FAD gets from most ultra purists. Maggott uses good words and truely puts efforts into her post but their is always a derrogatory or demeaning tone like she is God of Tolkien and talking down to everyone IMHO. :cool:

stop crying like a baby :D

lilhobo

01-08-2003, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by faded_Glory
Now, consider that you make a 3 ½ hour movie to your own perfection, and then have to cut it down to 3 hours. The difficulty is that you can’t leave out scenes that are essential for the plot line without disrupting the result and making it incoherent. What you can do is shorten essential and delete non-essential scenes. The result is the choppiness. I very much saw the same thing in FotR TC, which I doubt if I will ever watch again.

fG

for a person who goes to bangkok for pirated copies of the films, i wouldnt post so much "vitriolic diatribe" on here just in case the New Line plants get nasty :D

PS. why 3 1/2 hrs??? why not have 4 hrs of the Director's personal favorites??

Mrs. Maggott

01-09-2003, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by markrob
Maggott uses good words and truely puts efforts into her post but their is always a derrogatory or demeaning tone like she is God of Tolkien and talking down to everyone IMHO. :cool:

I have never presented anything I have said as if I am speaking for anyone other than myself - and certainly not as an amenuensis of Professor Tolkien! I first posted on page 5 of this thread only - and directly after - I had seen the film. I offered my critique which included many positives as well as some negatives regarding what I considered to be some confusing and inferior plot and character devices.

In the rest of my posts - and I looked over several, but not all - I have either [1] asked questions about the scene, [2] pointed out areas that were either unclear or contradictory (at least to me and I said that as well) or [3] were, to my mind, inferior to the book or that did not help the plot development within the film.

I almost always begin my posts - unless they are in direct response to a former post - with an acknowledgement that I am speaking for myself and that I might well be in error if I am mentioning something factual as opposed to engaging in a matter of opinion. As Thorin pointed out, I may have gotten a bit "short" from time to time but I do not talk "down" to anyone nor address anyone as if he or she is my intellectual inferior by changing my language pattern to more "modern" usages; to do so would indicate that I thought the person being addressed was not "bright enough" to get my point unless I used colloquial English.

Furthermore, I have never intimated that anyone on this forum had no right to his or her own opinion or that they were somehow stupid or inferior if their opinion differed from mine. If anyone has taken any comment of mine in that way, then I will say that it was never intended to be taken that way. However, in the spirit of good fellowship, I gladly apologize for any offense anyone may have erroneously taken thereof.

Thorin

01-09-2003, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by markrob
I think what brings out the "ultra FADs, which I consider myself most of the time, is when purist so matter of factly state not really their opinion but the way is has to be. I hardly ever see a purist post start off by saying I think, or in my opinion. Its always is "that is the way it should be" or like their in someones mind and know what exactly their thinking?? Everyone has a different interpretation so no one is 100% right, but that is the feeling at least this FAD gets from most ultra purists.

That I doubt, markrob. I'm sorry, but the littlest complaint or comment about differences from the book by purists, no matter how well versed or thought out are met with scorn and ridicule by yourself and Foe-Hammer (mostly when the two of you get together). "Oh look at these whiny purists! They can't stand it when their 'precious' is tampered with!" And other senseless digs like it only show constant contempt for other's opinions, not how well they come across.

I like you guys, but I'm also going to tell it the way it is. The only FAD more frustrating then the two of you was Harad....bless his soul....stuck in the void. ;)

Foe-Hammer

01-09-2003, 03:48 AM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
I don't understand the "gaping holes". He needed the Arwen kissing sequence to awaken Aragorn busily floating (face up, mind) down the river. But he wouldn't have needed it (and I'm not speaking of the "decision" thread, although I was rather sickened by Elrond's emotional blackmail - but that's beside the point) if Aragorn hadn't gone over the cliff in the first place. And Aragorn wouldn't have gone over the cliff in the first place if the warg attack had never occurred!

Me :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
As for Osgiliath, I cannot understand why whatever tension Jackson wanted couldn't have been developed in Henneth Annun. Why waste valuable time going to Osgiliath. Furthermore, if, as you say, we will "understand all" with the EE version, doesn't that tell you that Jackson had to edit the sense out of his own plot inventions? And that, F.G., is BAD direction! Either you put it in so it makes sense or you don't put it in! Jackson could have foregone the warg business, shortened the battle of Helm's Deep (which went on to the point of tedium and even then didn't have a definite conclusion!), cut out the "kissing" - horse and Arwen (neither of which would have been necessary with the warg bit out) and had plenty of time to "develop" Osgiliath if he had wanted to.

We know you don't understand.

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
But like a kid in a candy shop, Jackson wanted it all and as a result, created a film that was considerably inferior to what it might - indeed should have been! Apparently, the Director has yet to appreciate that old saying: "less is more".!

For someone that admittedly knows nothing about the movie business you sure make a lot of declaritive statements.

Elendur

01-09-2003, 05:53 AM

The diatribe continues......

Mrs. Maggott

01-09-2003, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer

We know you don't understand.
For someone that admittedly knows nothing about the movie business you sure make a lot of declaritive statements.

I know all that a viewer needs to know about the business and that is, what makes a good film to watch (unless, of course, mindless action is all that is needed to satisfy one). Choppy exposition and drastic editing are indicative of poor direction. One doesn't have to be Alfred Hitch**** to know that.

Furthermore constantly being told that if only we saw "the whole" film, it would be better, makes one wonder why the "whole" film wasn't released. If you go back to the "time constraints" argument, then you have to admit that the Director added a whole lot of unnecessary (for the flow of the story) plot inventions when he was already having time constraint problems. That is not indicative of good direction either.

Finally, Jackson was still shooting scenes almost to the time the film was released. For all I know he could still be shooting them. Some actors have indicated problems of continuity because things used in the original shooting (like the horses) are frequently unavailable for these follow up sessions and substitutions have to be made. This, too, produces a "choppy" end product ("He was riding a gray horse at the beginning of the scene and a brown one at the end! How come??" says the audience) and, again, indicates faulty direction, especially if Jackson is still making changes even at this late date. It sounds to me almost as if Mr. Jackson continues to make up his "story" as he goes along - another thing which doesn't exactly make him a competent director.

Foe-Hammer

01-09-2003, 07:48 AM

Maggot said....

"bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla......."

Me: Reminding maggot that her soapbox rantings are in fact, just her OPINION and are not based in truth (as she tries to convince us), but are, in fact, based in her inability to accept reality.

It is really quite sad to watch. It's too bad you don't turn that draconian judgemental eye of yours toward the works of JRR himself. The guy was no writer. In the scope of great writers, he isn't even a blip on the screen. He wrote a great story, but his characters are for the most part, a mish-mash of personalities that rarely create a sense of stabilty, but mostly leave us confused as to why they act the way they do.

Mrs. Maggott

01-09-2003, 07:55 AM

The guy was no writer. In the scope of great writers, he isn't even a blip on the screen. He wrote a great story, but his characters are for the most part, a mish-mash of personalities that rarely create a sense of stabilty, but mostly leave us confused as to why they act the way they do. <quote F.H.>

You were saying about people presenting their opinion as if it were "fact"?

I don't notice that you began the above "opinion" with the words, "I think..." or "It is my belief...." or "I am of the opinion..."

In fact, it is a rather judgmental opinion itself, don't you think?

Or do you...think, that is. (...sorry Thorin!)

Elendur

01-09-2003, 08:10 AM

Foe-Hammer
Please place "In my opinion" in front of those BOLD statements or you will be guilty of what some "purists" have been accused of!

Foe-Hammer

01-09-2003, 08:10 AM

No. It is a fact. Tolkiens characters, for the most part, cannot stand on what he has written about them. They are incomplete and illogical.

You don't really expect a credible director like PJ to make a $300 million dollar flop by following tolkiens characters to a "T" do you?

You do, don't you!? HAHAHA! I can tell it wasn't your hard earned 300 mil put to risk.

Elendur

01-09-2003, 08:15 AM

I think that when the movies have long gone the book by JRR Tolkien will still be read and loved by a lot of people.

In fact judging on Hollywood now redoing some of the old 1950's classics you might find in 30 to 40 years time another director making another go of JRR Tolkiens The Lord of the Rings.

Mrs. Maggott

01-09-2003, 08:16 AM

See above. 'Nuff said.

Well, it's nice to see still another old saying verified:

"Give a man enough rope and he will hang himself." ;)

Foe-Hammer

01-09-2003, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by Elendur
I think that when the movies have long gone the book by JRR Tolkien will still be read and loved by a lot of people.

In fact judging on Hollywood now redoing some of the old 1950's classics you might find in 30 to 40 years time another director making another go of JRR Tolkiens The Lord of the Rings.

And thanks to PJ, an entirely new generation is enjoying the books. Thankfully, they will probably not become the neadethal purist types.

Foe-Hammer

01-09-2003, 08:29 AM

Maggot said (again!):

"bla, bla, blab, blab,........."

Let us know when yer done with the soapbox. It's someone else's turn.

Odo Proudfoot

01-09-2003, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Elendur
I think that when the movies have long gone the book by JRR Tolkien will still be read and loved by a lot of people.

In fact judging on Hollywood now redoing some of the old 1950's classics you might find in 30 to 40 years time another director making another go of JRR Tolkiens The Lord of the Rings.

That would not surprise me. The current films have proven that there is a lot of money to be made with filming this story.

As regards to remakes, sometimes the newer versions are not as good as the originals. Time will tell.

fG

lilhobo

01-09-2003, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
For someone that admittedly knows nothing about the movie business you sure make a lot of declaritive statements.

lol she is the one whose opinions PJ would be better off to take notice of.....coz she has kids who she either allow to see the film or buy them those fluffy toys.......

on the other hand, shshshshshsh we might have The Return of the King- the phantom menace lol

lilhobo

01-09-2003, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
And thanks to PJ, an entirely new generation is enjoying the books. Thankfully, they will probably not become the neadethal purist types.

oh, the book of the century needs Pj to extol its virtues.... GREAT !!! i wonder if these brain-dead FADS would bother to read the book at all since PJ's versions makes COMPLETE sense and is perfection in itself....for the TV-genration, i doubt it..

besides it would satisfy these 2 fad clowns to say thanks to PJ for good effort :D

markrob

01-09-2003, 03:40 PM

You still talking? I thought you were asked politely to go away. I would start a poll to see how many would like you to exit but the mods would delete it and punish me for sure. Oh well, come back with you little fragments and we will tolerate you since we have no choice.

lilhobo

01-09-2003, 03:50 PM

Title: Lord! Does 'Rings' ever end?

Article: Somewhere deep into the third hour of "Lord of the Rings:The Two Towers," as my eyes gazed longinly at the exit sign on the door 20 feet away, I had a stark realization: I've given birth in less time than it took to watch this movie. What do people see in this? A year ago, I suffered through "The Lord of the Rings:The Fellowship of the Ring" trying to identify a metaphor that would explain the fascination with this insipid fairy tale. "OK, what am I missing?"I said to my companions on the way out the theatre. "Is Frodo suppose to be Winston Churchilland the ring is the atomic bomb, or is this just 'Star Wars' with no sense of humor?" But this time I vowed that I would accept "Rings" as the vacuous entertainment it was intended to be, and, failing that, I would enjoy the scenery of New Zealand. I would strenuously aviod searching for meaning amid the insane dailogue and the tedious battle scenes. Simple-minded fantasy, I reminded myself on the way into the theatre. No subtlety. No ambiguity. Even old grey Gandalf was bleached white in this incarnation to avoid any confusion. So after six hours of cinematicindoctrination into the "Rings" cult, I think I understand. Hers's a synopsisof the plot as I saw it: Frodo is a guiless hero with no leadership experience, no facial hair and a sacred mission. He is pure and holy- boyish, even- and he is surrounded by evil. The evil creatrures are easily identifyable by their dental hygiene. You won't be confused. The ring is a weapon of mass destruction that must be destroyed before that evil ones get it. Only the good may be trusted with the ring. Why? Simple. They're good. Don't ask questions. The Goal os to take the ring to the two towers, which are visible in the distance and on fire at the top. The towers are the symbol of something- evil, I think. Or maybe Qwest, I don't know. The good guys have a big, modern army, but the evil guys have more soldiers, and those guys are fanatics, willing to die for their cause in phenominal numbers. They're clearly not human, so the good guys don't ask them what they're upset about or suffer any pangs of conscience about massacring them. Being good means never having to say your sorry. Still, no matter how many fall off a bridge or get an arrow in the neck, thousands more keep coming. It's exhausting, all this killing. Now, in order for the good guys to prevail, they need more than just a healthy defense budget. They need weak peasants with bawling children to weep and faint and be completely dependent upon them, and they need beautiful women to dream about while they're out killing evildoers. Aragon, a Middle Earth special forces dude and a hottie, has a cave full of peasants and two babes waiting for him at home. That makes him a potent killer. Still, the world is dangerous, even if you've got the ringand the girls. Frodo and his sidekick, Sam have to cross a swamp full of dead people who, from the looks of them, must have been from a past administration that didn't survive. Fortunately, this time the hobbits employ a wily consultant (E.T. in a loincloth). Gollum knows how to exploit evil to get ahead. He gets them through the swamp, alive, powerful and poised for war. The rest of the movie is darkness, battle scenes and a lot of dead evildoers. To be continued... Then they finally turned up the theatre lights and released us. All I can say is, I'm glad nobody thinks this is a parable for modern life or that there's some great relevant moral to the story. Now that would be scary. ----- by Diane Carman, E-mail: dcarman@denverpost.com

2003
--------------
you still a pee wee??? :D

markrob

01-09-2003, 03:54 PM

Just for the record, I did not spend 2 seconds to even glance at whatever **** you just typed. Not worth anyones time Im sure. Feels great to brush your BS aside :rolleyes:

Mrs. Maggott

01-09-2003, 04:05 PM

Forgive me, Lilhobo, but I don't quite "get" your post. It was amusing and certainly cynically astute, but I cannot quite place the context under which you submitted it. It criticizes the film, no doubt, but it also it appears to me is as condemnatory of the book since, whatever the changes, on the whole Jackson is presenting LOTR at least in general outlines. Certainly, there are differences, but it would appear from the person who wrote what you posted, that she(?) would not "get" anything more from the book than from the film! The entire epic battle of good vs. evil seems to be more amusing than thought provoking to the author.

Perhaps you might enlighten us as to why you posted it - other than to give us all a chuckle.

Thanks.

lilhobo

01-09-2003, 04:06 PM

for the record i got you and foe-hammer on a short leash....you cant spout your diatribe without my jumping down ya throat for any BS

lilhobo

01-09-2003, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Perhaps you might enlighten us as to why you posted it - other than to give us all a chuckle.

Thanks.

Then they finally turned up the theatre lights and released us. All I can say is, I'm glad nobody thinks this is a parable for modern life or that there's some great relevant moral to the story. Now that would be scary. ----- by Diane Carman, E-mail: dcarman@denverpost.com

Its all in her last paragraph, she trying to connect current affairs (suicidal olympic orc?) w/ whats in the movie. My Guess is she is asking if the film has any relevance beyond being an action flick.

Or maybe she hasnt read the Book of the century and isnt aware of the themes. In any case, i left the email there for Talimon to annoy her with his FADish questions, like he did w/ Bakshi :D

Mrs. Maggott

01-09-2003, 04:32 PM

Okay, thanks.

lilhobo

01-09-2003, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
The entire epic battle of good vs. evil seems to be more amusing than thought provoking to the author.

LIke me, she just doesnt have any feeling for the good side, when she should if PJ doesnt mess up the Theoden character. what makes one side good and not evil: being human?

"They're clearly not human, so the good guys don't ask them what they're upset about or suffer any pangs of conscience about massacring them."

You get the feelign she wont support GW Bush on any military strikes anywhere

Foe-Hammer

01-09-2003, 05:24 PM

markrob,

I did read it and unlike what lilhobo writes for himself, I understood the jist of it. He is now reduced to leaving other peoples thoughts on the movie since he is unable to form comprehendable sentances.

she is a typical liberal boob who hasn't read the books and condemns war out of hand. she is a sheep. a victim waiting to be victimized. she wouldn't fight for freedom because she doesn't care about it. she'd accept the yoke of communism or any other repressive society as well as she accepts democracy and freedom.

it's no wonder hobo identifies with her.

Captain Campion

01-09-2003, 05:28 PM

I've read through about 50 percent of the comments, but then it became overwhelming, so here's my pittance to throw into the hat.

I've seen the flick 7 times now -- 4 times in German and 3 times in English. Incredibly enough, I prefer it in German. I found the voice actors in the German version to actually be . . . er, better than the original actors in English. This, of course, does not apply to all characters. In particular, I was thinking of the voice of Gollum and the voice of Sam (Sean Astin's accent is quite undecided).

I had a wonderful time at this movie -- or else I would never have gone back to see it so many times.

Specific likes and dislikes:

1. The opening sequence of Gandalf and the Balrog was well done, if a bit long. The scene of the flaming Balrog going down in slow motion into the water-filled cavern was breathtaking, and Howard Shore's music did it great justice.

2. Sam/Frodo. For whatever personal reasons, I find their storyline to be boring -- in the book and the movie. Once Sam and Frodo are separated from the rest of the group, I find that their appeal has lessened significantly. That is a personal statement about me and the sorts of characters I like. Elijah Wood's Frodo in TTT was rather womanish. He has "doe" eyes, and we see a lot of them. It was a little too much for my tastes. His acting is fine, but I don't like his portrayal of Frodo as much in TTT as I did in FotR. Sean Astin, on the other hand, at least acts his part in a masculine fashion . . . but his accent!! Good grief, I felt like I was marching across the Lakes, the Peaks, jumping over to Ireland, and then heading down to the cliffs of Cornwall. His speech at the end irritated me, because it sounded like he was reading. In the German version, I enjoyed the speech much more, because it sounded more natural and less melodramatic.

3. Gollum. Here's a tough one. Gollum actually received a lot of laughs in the theater -- both in English and German. I thought his split personality was a bit over the top. It was hard to feel that he was a tragic character, when there was a lot of humor at his expense. Yet, the humor was much welcome in a film that was incredibly dark and sinister. I thought his scenes were way too long -- a sort of tribute to the genius of the CGI guys. He was tolerable, but he got a little nervy.

4. Merry, Pippin, and the Ents. Even though this was scaled way back for the movie, I still enjoyed these scenes. Treebeard, in writing and on screen, is such a likeable character. He's something of a brilliant scatterbrain, if that makes any sense. Now, I felt Merry and Pippin didn't have a whole lot to do in the movie, except ride around on Treebeard's shoulders, but then again, they didn't do much more than that in the book.

5. Of Uruk-Hai and Orcs. The Uruk-hai in the book are intelligent creatures with full power of speech. There is quite a bit of talk between the Uruk-hai and the Mordor Orcs during the Merry/Pippin captivity scene. A fair amount of this comes through in the movie. But at Helms Deep, they suddenly deteriorate into fighting machines whose communication skills have dwindled to grunts and screams. I'm not sure which version I like better. They are more threatening as mindless killers, but more believable as intelligent creatures.

6. Arwen/Aragorn/Elrond/Galadriel. A little slow. Yes, inconsistent with the book, but not damaging to the movie. Liv Tyler is nice to look at, and maybe one day she'll take an acting lesson. On the other hand, Cate Blanchette (sp) can take even a few forced lines and make them poetic. Elrond is consistent with his portrayal from the first movie. Honestly, I don't recall that much of him from the book, so I can't remark on that.

7. Faramir and Co. I liked Faramir in the book. Boromir outshined him by a million stars, in my opinion; still, Faramir was a sympathetic character. His part in the movie fell flat. Putting aside the fact that he is not the Faramir of the book, even as the "Faramir of the movie", he is a totally dull character. That had nothing to do with his acting, which I thought was quite good. But it had more to do with scripting and weak development. Of course, giving Peter Jackson credit . . . he had to introduce a lot of new characters and new plot lines, and he didn't have a whole heckuva lot of time to do it in.

8. Warg battle. That was fine, but I hate to see dumb animals (even fake ones) being abused like that. I did not like that Hama died in this way. Yes, Hama is a minor character, but he's one of those "faithful and loyal" servants that Tolkien inserts here and there to lend a measure of quiet and subtle dignity to the mainstoryline. Now, Legolas has a great scene when he's standing on the precipice, firing off arrows at the approaching enemy. Slow motion, wide shot, horses coming up from behind. It's very good. Swinging up onto the horse. I don't know if that move can really be done, but it looked fantastic to me. Aragorn over the cliff. That's fine, too. Gave us all a chance to see that apparently Arwen kisses like a horse.

9. Funny Gimli. I liked the humor. I don't think it lessened his dignity at all. PJ gives him more than enough opportunity to show his mettle. He warns Theoden about the Uruk-hai and takes the reprimand with grace. He throws himself down from the battlement to save Aragorn. In fact, I felt that he played the humorous parts so well that he helped lighten the mood whenever it started to get too oppressive. The only thing I didn't like was the burp. That is such cheap humor, it is never funny to me.

10. The Nazgul. This was one of my greater disappointments. In FotR, these guys were the stuff of nightmares. The way in which they were filmed (in fog, cloaks billowing, screaming that horrible sound, riding horses that dripped and oozed, their theme music) impressed me very much. In TTT . . . well, their flying scenes looked like blue screen. They weren't frightening or mysterious. If I may use a word . . . they were "cheesey".

11. Locations were gorgeous. I think I must go to New Zealand. However, some of the studio filming was odd. The first Arwen/Aragorn scene when he's lying on the couch . . . the lighting on him makes it look like he's not even in the same room with her. That also happens in Theoden's hall. They had some lighting troubles, it would appear.

12. Eowyn. She's very pretty but rather dull. She and Faramir will be a perfect movie match. I thought PJ erred by making it seem that Aragorn might have some sort of interest in her. It is more noble to maintain his fidelity to Arwen in its entirety.

13. Eomer. Who? He didn't get enough screen time. He was hardly recognizable at the end when he appeared to help relieve Helms Deep.

14. Legolas. I don't recall Legolas being such a firebrand in the books. I like him the movies. I like him in the books. But they are two different characters. At least now I understand why Orlando Bloom, in one interview, referred to Legolas as an assassin (a remark which disgusted me): it's because Legolas is a one-elf army in the movie. If they had just left him out on the battlements at Helms Deep, I'm sure he would have eventually slaughtered every orc on the battlefield. I burst out laughing at the shield ride -- a little over the top, but lots of the young gals liked it, so what's the harm?

15. Lastly, Helm's Deep. The first time I saw the movie, this segment seemed to stretch on into forever. Each subsequent time, it seemed to get shorter. It was suspenseful and highly entertaining. Again, being the fan of minor characters that I am, I was glad to see Haldir show up leading the Elfs. He is, after all, my favorite character (the undeveloped characters leave more to the imagination, and mine is an active one) Rivendell? Lothlorien? Honestly folks, I'm not married to a study of the details, so I was just glad to see him. I can use my imagination to fill in the hows and whys of how he ended up being the one to lead the force. His death is an interesting scene, but like many things in a movie that is moving very fast, it gets lost in the action within a matter of seconds. Moving on . . . dwarf tossing. I found that very funny. And I still respected the character of Gimli afterwards. And lastly, I liked the scene just before they ride out, when Theoden is thinking of "glory and death", and Aragorn is thinking of "Rohan, your people."

To close up this extraordinarily long post, I think this movie was stunning in many ways. Yet, as I've said before, it's almost as if you're watching a different story from the one Tolkien wrote. But I like that. I like them both.

I don't go for the categories of purist and non-purist. I rather say that there are people who would prefer to see a direct and unaltered adaptation of the books (which I, too, would like to see, though it would need to be more like a mini-series of many, many hours); and there are those who enjoy the changes without it dampening their love for the books. There's room enough for all.

Peace.

Captain Campion

lilhobo

01-09-2003, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Captain Campion

Gave us all a chance to see that apparently Arwen kisses like a horse.

It takes an non-english speaker to express like this lol...wonder what it sounds like in german!

Dont ever let Pj touch watership Down!

Mrs. Maggott

01-09-2003, 05:58 PM

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Captain Campion

Gave us all a chance to see that apparently Arwen kisses like a horse.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

One wonders where Aragorn would have learned how horses kiss? Too much time in the wild, perhaps? :p

Captain Campion

01-09-2003, 05:59 PM

Lihobo and Mrs M -- (my second edit, I can't type fast enough)

Actually, I'm an American working for the U.S. Army in Germany; but I speak fluent German (even if my spelling of it is rotten).

I don't think there's much chance of PJ or anyone else touching Watership Down. The original animated version is quite good, although not totally true to the book either.

Nice to see someone recognizes my name, mark captain that I am. So, you can probably understand my empathy for other "captain" figures (such as they are) like Hama and Haldir.

Peace.

Campion

Leto

01-10-2003, 11:49 PM

After four viewings, I think I have a good handle on my feelings about the movie.

What I liked: Opening sequence, Gandalf falling with the balrog. The music was perfect...I found myself reciting Gandalf's words from the book as I watched it. That is what a movie like this should be...I can read Tolkien's description, and see it happening as if the words had sprung from the page into life. Too bad there aren't more scenes like that.
The march of the ents. Again, the music is perfect. It looked great, and Treebeard used some of his speech from the book. I really like the ents silently emerging from the forest, and the feeling of sad, desperate determination. It's not the way it is in the book, but it is evocative.
I would see the movie again just for those two scenes...
Despite the purist in me, I liked the warg battle (the beginning anyway). Theoden and the Rohirrim charging furiously into battle...like a sort of precursor to the next movie, with the Ride of the Rohirrim. I didn't like the way it ended though.
Helm's Deep had its good and bad points. The music helped a lot, especially with the Elves' arrival, and their charge against the breach in the wall. The final charge, at dawn, wasn't disappointing...We got to hear "forth Eorlingas!", and Gandalf's arrival was good.
Hearing Frodo and Sam talk about being in songs was nice...I'm glad they got that part in.
I also liked hearing tidbits of Tolkien from other sources, such as the appendices...Gimli talking about dwarf women was pretty much a direct quote from the chapter on Durin's Folk. And Arwen's flash forward with Elrond narrating was a good glimpse from the tale of years.

What I didn't like: Gimli was used too much for humor. Almost everything he said or did brought chuckles. I didn't mind some of it...but some things were uncalled for. Eating like a slob in Edoras was bad enough, and perhaps characteristic of a Dwarf, but the burp was too much, just for a cheap laugh at a serious point. Talking about dwarf women was great, but falling off the horse was just unneccessary. Complaining during the whole hunting sequence was just a little demeaning...one comment would have been sufficient, along with his facial expressions.
Frodo is not the character from the book (though I knew this from the first movie)...and it disappoints me. He would never, ever, treat Sam like that...not even at the very end, at the cracks of doom, did he talk to Sam that way.
Gollum is a great accomplishment in CG, and interacted well...but I think they went over the top with his split personality. Add to that the voice, and he drew more laughs from the audience than loathing, fear, or pity. He was not a character that you would be worried about sleeping next to, after he was 'tamed', in the movie. In the book, it was plain that he gave both Hobbits the creeps, even when he was acting 'good'...and they always slept in shifts to keep an eye on him. I did feel great pity for him at Henneth Annun, as he's crying, and the evil side comes back. It's sad that that scene draws laughs from the audience, rather than tears.
Faramir isn't really given time to develop as a character. He's basically a plot device in the movie...take Frodo and Sam someplace, and is a catalyst for the change in their relationship with gollum. Hopefully in the next movie we'll get to know him.
Disliked Frodo getting all 'creepy' at the end, when the Nazgul appears in Osgiliath...as I think everyone did. That bit didn't make a whole lot of sense.
I didn't like some of the things Aragorn had to say...just like Frodo, he's not the same character. Hopefully he will become the character he is in the book...but he's not there yet.
I thought it was stupid and out of place, when he walks up and down the ranks of elves at Helm's Deep, and tells them 'show no mercy, for you will be given none'. It was a weak and obvious attempt, I thought, at trying to make him seem more 'in charge'. As if he needs to remind Elves about this...they hate orcs as much, if not more, than dwarves do. As if anyone needs to be told to show orcs no mercy! Honestly, who could possibly be expecting mercy from an army of orcs?
Anyway. There are probably more things I could comment on...but this is long enough already, and I doubt anyone will read it.
Overall...I enjoy the movie. Those few scenes which I like tremendously make it worth watching, despite the bad parts.

JMacEye

01-11-2003, 12:46 AM

Well, Leto, I read every word and thought it was quite nice; a good balance of those things you liked and did not like and your reasons. It reflected many of my own thoughts, good and bad, and was well spoken.

JMacEye

01-11-2003, 04:25 AM

I have participated in several discussions concerning the merit of PJ changes, but for me none of the changes matter as much as this;

I just finished watching K-19.....

By the end of this movie, my heart was breaking, and I was sobbing at the power of honor among men....and just what sacrifices, such as these men made, really mean....not to a cause, not to a government, but to the lives of all of those beings who are are risk if you fail....

I only really wanted one thing from the movie LOTR, and that was to feel the depth of those emotions and the aching in my soul as I watched the tale of Ring unfold, and those characters of whom I had grown to love and honor risk everything for the good of Middle Earth.

PJ could have made all the changes he wanted and yet still capture that feeling....but he did not.

There was indeed a tale told .... but it did not have the power to move me as it should. And I do not believe that it moved anyone else in the way that it could have. That is the terrrible shame of it.

__________________

Foe-Hammer

01-11-2003, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by JMacEye
I have participated in several discussions concerning the merit of PJ changes, but for me none of the changes matter as much as this;

I just finished watching K-19.....

By the end of this movie, my heart was breaking, and I was sobbing at the power of honor among men....and just what sacrifices, such as these men made, really mean....not to a cause, not to a government, but to the lives of all of those beings who are are risk if you fail....

I only really wanted one thing from the movie LOTR, and that was to feel the depth of those emotions and the aching in my soul as I watched the tale of Ring unfold, and those characters of whom I had grown to love and honor risk everything for the good of Middle Earth.

PJ could have made all the changes he wanted and yet still capture that feeling....but he did not.

There was indeed a tale told .... but it did not have the power to move me as it should. And I do not believe that it moved anyone else in the way that it could have. That is the terrrible shame of it.

__________________

Really? Not one time were you moved? Not once? Not even a little?

I always felt that a persons focus determined their reality.

JMacEye

01-11-2003, 05:29 AM

It is quite pathetic that you never listen to anyone but yourself. How sad...I never said I was never moved at all, not once, not even a little... Just what is it that you are reading anyway?

Perhaps it is as Tolkien wrote: that each would see only to the measure of their minds. Some here simply cannot imagine that there could be something more powerful than what PJ offfered...they are to be pitied rather than scorned....it is a waste of my time to try to convey that to minds incapable of seeing beyond what was offered versus what could have been.

So be it.

xXlegolasXx

01-11-2003, 05:33 AM

i believe that the two towers was an excellent adaptation of the book. despair is much more prevalent in this movie than in the fotr. It is here that non-Tolkien fans truly realize the scope of Frodo and Sam's quest and the corruption 'incarnate that is the One Ring. It was a truly magnificant, epic film. one can relate the overall feeling to "the empire strikes back" in which all does not end happily. i even sensed some foreshadowing of the fate of frodo in the crack of doom in which the ring completes his corruption.

Foe-Hammer

01-11-2003, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by JMacEye
It is quite pathetic that you never listen to anyone but yourself. How sad...I never said I was never moved at all, not once, not even a little... Just what is it that you are reading anyway?

Perhaps it is as Tolkien wrote: that each would see only to the measure of their minds. Some here simply cannot imagine that there could be something more powerful than what PJ offfered...they are to be pitied rather than scorned....it is a waste of my time to try to convey that to minds incapable of seeing beyond what was offered versus what could have been.

So be it.

Well, lets get a definition "moved". I love it when the npw's claim they know the depth of others people feelings.

And I'll repeat to you what I tell all npw's.....clunk down the 300 mil and make yer own version and then the rest of will decide what you should have done and how badly you missed the mark.

The real waste of time happens when npw's like yerself refuse to admit they know nothing of screenplay writing and all your "woulda, coulda, shoulda's" are just the uninformed rantings of the ignorant. You never have a solution. Write us all a screen play and we'll see how easy it is to hit the mark you so brazenly set for others. Others I might add that make their living doing what you claim you know better.

I know tens of people who were quite moved by the film. But then, they aren't npw's.

Lhunithiliel

01-11-2003, 08:30 AM

I've just seen it! Finally :o
I liked it very much! .... For a film :p

What I liked most:

Gollum - fantastic!
the Nazgul - WOW!!
the wargs - brrr (shivering with fear!)
The Balrog!!!!!!! - fantastic!
in fact - all the CG - characters were IMO perfect! So real!

people

the way the Rohirrims fought .... and looked - ... (no words! so impressed! You, guys don't believe me, but both - in the books and now - in the film, when I look at the Rohirrims I see my predecessors - the proud and free people of the proto-Bulgarians, who formed my country in 361 A.D., coming from the vast Northern steppes... the only difference is that Tolkien, just like P.J. placed them to live in wooden houses and made them blond...)

Eowyn - I think M.O. did a very good job! I felt compassionate with her feelings every time she was on the screen.

the Uruk-hai - they impressed me with the beasty strength and I liked the sound of their war-cry.... Well, I found them just very, very impressive!
In fact, I liked how P.J. presented the "bad guys". I have read somewhere that he felt much surerer when it came to presenting the "evil" than the "good"! And I tend to believe it, because IMO the "bad" were marvellous, while the "good".... not too impressive.

Eomer and Faramir - I wish they were given a larger role and hope they'll have it in RotK

places, scenes
Helms deep - impressive scenery

The battle at HD - especially a few parts

The ride of Eomer's eored and Gandalf at the head

Oh! Of course! The battle of Gandalf with the Balrog and his rebirth!

When Frodo meets the flying Nazgul - Auuuuu! I wished I were standing right there on that bridge!

I also find touching the A - A scenes - they somehow soften the battle atmosphere of the film

the caves at HD

other things
the work of the camera!!!!!

the music

there was a scene when Treebeard talks to Pip and Mery - the hobbits are on the ground and look up at Treebeard - He is shown on the background of an astonishingly, amazingly, breath-takingly night sky! Have you noticed?

The Misty Mountains..... and in fact the countryside shown is breath-taking!

What disappointed me:

Edoras - COMPLETE disappointment!

the Elves at Helms Deep - they acted like some robots

Legolas - I can't say what exactly, but I was disappointed with what O.B. showed.... except for the fighting scenes, of course!

The "jumps" between the different plot-lines. Sometimes - well done, but sometimes the "jump" was abrupt, it almost annoyed.

This is for the moment, but if I recall something else that I'd like to share with you, I will.

wee kev

01-11-2003, 11:29 PM

FAO Leto

I, too, read your post and agree with a lot of what your wrote especially regarding Gimli being a focus of humour. While movie goers require a bit of light relief in their entertainment I thought it was taken a bit too far.

The CG for Gollum are indeed impressive. While not everybody will agree, I feel that Gollum/Smeagal's split personality came over very well in the scene in which he argued with himself.

FAO Foe-Hammer

What is a 'npw'? I'm new here!

Foe-Hammer

01-12-2003, 03:01 AM

Originally posted by wee kev
FAO Leto

I, too, read your post and agree with a lot of what your wrote especially regarding Gimli being a focus of humour. While movie goers require a bit of light relief in their entertainment I thought it was taken a bit too far.

The CG for Gollum are indeed impressive. While not everybody will agree, I feel that Gollum/Smeagal's split personality came over very well in the scene in which he argued with himself.

FAO Foe-Hammer

What is a 'npw'? I'm new here!

NPW=Nit Picking Weenie....someone who complains about every little change the movie takes from the book. They treat tolkiens work like a sacred text that has been bastardized and vilifiled by Peter Jackson.

The opposite are called FAD's.

Film Adaptation Defenders.....Are level headed lovers of tolkiens work who realize that NO FILM could be presented without changes from the book. They generally like the movie and accept it as an ADAPTATION of tolkiens work that follows the story and characters for the most part.

Mrs. Maggott

01-12-2003, 04:10 AM

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
NPW=Nit Picking Weenie....someone who complains about every little change the movie takes from the book. They treat tolkiens work like a sacred text that has been bastardized and vilifiled by Peter Jackson.

The opposite are called FAD's. Film Adaptation Defenders.....Are level headed lovers of tolkiens work who realize that NO FILM could be presented without changes from the book. They generally like the movie and accept it as an ADAPTATION of tolkiens work that follows the story and characters for the most part.

And so, Wee Kev, you can see by the above post that Foe Hammer is an objective observer able to give a very careful, well thought out and balanced comment upon these issues. Oh, and just to let you know how he really feels (he's so shy about letting us know his mind on such things) here is another quote from him in an earlier post on this thread which you might find enlightening:

"The guy (Tolkien) was no writer. In the scope of great writers, he isn't even a blip on the screen. He wrote a great story, but his characters are for the most part, a mish-mash of personalities that rarely create a sense of stabilty, but mostly leave us confused as to why they act the way they do."
<quote Foe Hammer>

Since you are "new" I thought you might like to read the above quote so that having been informed, you will be able to read all further posts in the appropriate spirit. Hope this helps! :rolleyes:

Foe-Hammer

01-12-2003, 04:38 AM

Why attack me maggot?

no one asked you. no one addressed you.

please stay out of it and quit attacking me or I'll report you to the admins.

Mrs. Maggott

01-12-2003, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
Why attack me maggot?
no one asked you. no one addressed you.
please stay out of it and quit attacking me or I'll report you to the admins.

Report away, laddie. I did nothing but quote you to someone who has admitted to being "new" to the forum. I thought it only fair that he understand the person giving him information, especially as that person was himself being quite insulting by calling those on the forum who disagree with his position names. And since that includes me, I consider it quite appropriate to offer my own point of view so to speak. If you don't like it, well.....too bad.

However, nothing I said about you could be considered "insulting" - unless, of course, you don't really think you are "objective" in your postings. But as I remember, you seem to think that you are - or at least you have said that you are. But perhaps I have misunderstood you..... it's so easy, don't you know.

Foe-Hammer

01-12-2003, 05:33 AM

point is maggot, stick to the movie and keep your opinions about me to yerself.

Ciryaher

01-12-2003, 05:34 AM

Sorry, Foe-Hammer, but Mrs. Maggot hasn't done anything worse than I've seen you do. And as far as I see, her main point was a quote by you. I think it's humourous, by the way, that you seem to love the movie and that you'd also say what you did in that quote.

Beorn

01-12-2003, 05:47 AM

The difference between what Foe-Hammer is done and what Mrs. Maggot did was this:

Foe-Hammer outright insulted Mrs. Maggot.

Mrs. Maggot just made a sarcastic comment about your negative attitude to ideas other than your own.

As to the NPWs. Someone called me a nit-picking weenie. I am the original Nit-Picking Weenie. I founded The Nit-Picking Weenie Guild (short lived, but the name wasn't). I'm pretty sure that either your or markrob made the FADs...

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
NPW=Nit Picking Weenie....someone who complains about every little change the movie takes from the book. They treat tolkiens work like a sacred text that has been bastardized and vilifiled by Peter Jackson.

Now, can you say this is true about me? I accept and even support some changes. Tom B had to go. I know some things had to be chopped--what I don't agree with is chopping out stuff to insert Osgiliath, or other junk...

Foe-Hammer

01-12-2003, 06:00 AM

I have no problem defending myself against the ignorami on this bb. I don't whine and cry to the admins.

well some admin has threatened me with some BS private email because people here can't defend their stupidity so they whine to the admins for help. So, they threaten me. so since I am not allowed to defend myself, I get to whine to the admins too.

it's works both ways. right?

besides beorn, where did I insult maggot? she just popped in here with her opinion that no one asked for. her post was not innocent, it was dripping with sarcasim. thats fine. I have no problem with it UNTIL you admins take away my ability to answer it in kind.

now, what's it gonna be? a double standard or the same rules for all?

Valdarmyr

01-12-2003, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by JMacEye
I only really wanted one thing from the movie LOTR, and that was to feel the depth of those emotions and the aching in my soul as I watched the tale of Ring unfold, and those characters of whom I had grown to love and honor risk everything for the good of Middle Earth.

PJ could have made all the changes he wanted and yet still capture that feeling....but he did not.

There was indeed a tale told .... but it did not have the power to move me as it should. And I do not believe that it moved anyone else in the way that it could have. That is the terrrible shame of it.

I know what you're saying, JMacEye. I do think TTT is a top-notch film (seen it twice so far, plan for a third time in theaters), though FotR moved me more. I think that in TTT, because there are multiple threads of action, and there's a lot to fit in, it seems there may not have been enough time in the script or in the scenes to plumb the emotional depths that could've been plumbed. But this one is very "action" oriented, and seeing it in that light, I loved it! And while RotK will surely have action scenes, all reports point to it tugging at the heartstrings much more.

Rúmil

01-12-2003, 12:16 PM

You know, Foe-Hammer, this is an open thread and everyone is allowed to butt in a tthe point that he wants. :D

DGoeij

01-12-2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Rúmil
You know, Foe-Hammer, this is an open thread and everyone is allowed to butt in a tthe point that he wants. :D

And since disagreement is a strong motivator for people to join a debate, I can see the reason for Mrs. M. to 'butt in'. She disagrees strongly with Foe's opinions. And sarcams is used quite frequently by both sides, so I don't see any 'double standard'. Apart from the fact that the syle of Mrs. M.'s sarcasm is more to my liking, but that's an opinion too.:D

Mrs. Maggott

01-12-2003, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
I have no problem defending myself against the ignorami on this bb. I don't whine and cry to the admins.

well some admin has threatened me with some BS private email because people here can't defend their stupidity so they whine to the admins for help. So, they threaten me. so since I am not allowed to defend myself, I get to whine to the admins too.

it's works both ways. right?

besides beorn, where did I insult maggot? she just popped in here with her opinion that no one asked for. her post was not innocent, it was dripping with sarcasim. thats fine. I have no problem with it UNTIL you admins take away my ability to answer it in kind.

now, what's it gonna be? a double standard or the same rules for all?

I, too, was approached by an Administrator and asked if you had offended me but I declined to find fault with your behavior believing then - as I do now - that your own words would betray you to your detriment. The opinion you stated shortly after (the quote I relayed to Wee Kev) proved my point and enlightened all on the forum of your true opinion of Tolkien.

Since we all participate on this particular forum with the sort of unspoken understanding that Tolkien is the "Golden Mean" and both criticism and defense of these films has flowed from that "understanding", your comment made all aware of where, as the colloquial expression goes, you are "coming from". Your defense of the films is not in spite of their deviation from the original, but because of it. And that's something that those reading your comments should know before they begin to consider them at all seriously.

So I never "complained" to an Administrator - as you threatened to do. Double standard? You are an prime example of someone who can "dish it out" but can't "take it"; someone who goes whining to an Administrator and when told that nothing happened, believes that you are being "victimized". Once again, you have exposed yourself without any help at all.

Thorin

01-12-2003, 05:13 PM

*Maggot delivers punch after reeling punch! Foe goes down for the count!..1-2-3...*

Foe, you amaze. Me. Maggot simply caught you in a blatant contradiction to (once again) promote your views and attitude as squeaky clean when we all know they are not, and you all of a sudden scream "Stick to the book and keep your opinions of me out of it"?? When have you EVER followed your own advice? Only when it suits you? You have made it pretty plain how you feel about Tolkien. Anybody who has read your posts can see what Maggot wrote was exactly true.

As far as I'm concerned, Maggot should have REPORTED you a long time ago (which she never did), never mind catch you with your own words and cause a bit of well deserved embarassement. If you dish it out (and you HAVE dished it out with no stops, my friend), then be ready to take it. Pretty simple.

If you don't like it, start treating other's opinions with the same respect you expect, and maybe we can all get along here. The fault lies with you, not Maggot. Look inward my dear Foe and give your attitude a little tweak. You might just become a npw in time..

;)

Foe-Hammer

01-12-2003, 05:22 PM

see, here we are back to you believing what you want to believe in spite of what I wrote. you claim I am contradicting myself when I did not.

fad are lovers of tolkiens work. but that doesn't mean he was a great writer or take away from the story. nor does me saying that mean i am contradicting myself.
I am able to temper my enjoyment of the book with reality, where as some here are mortified when someone doesn't worship tolkien. Tolkien was not that great of a writer. that is a fact.

I don't have to sit around with a gandalf hat on and whine about why the movie doesn't follow the book in order to really enjoy tolkiens story, weather it be in book or movie form.

so, you can still believe this

"believing then - as I do now - that your own words would betray you to your detriment."

But anyone with a reasoned mind and willing to accept reality can see that you just hate PJ for what he did to your "precious" and that clouds your willingness to be reasonable.

Rúmil

01-12-2003, 05:47 PM

See, you're being agressive again.

You have to accept as a valid opinion that some people consider Tolkien to be one of the greatest writers ever to be born, among whom many trained teachers of English and world litterature, critics, writers, etc.

Please do not present your opinions as facts. I'm sure you know that there are no facts about subjective matters such as these.

You're entitled to your opinions, just don't think it's they're the only valid ones. If there were only one valid opinion, there would be no debate.

I'm sure all 'purists' understand how people can love the films; that they don't agree doesn't mean they don't understand and respect it.

Foe-Hammer

01-12-2003, 06:24 PM

first, I get to defend myself against maggots, et al's lies.

secondly, my opinion about npw's is a result of their actions here. They froth and rant about why the movie doesn't follow the book and when it's explained to them, the don't listen/understand and continue with the rantings.

All they do is complain about how bad the movie was and it keeps getting worse the more they see it. HELLO!? I saw a bad movie once called "The Thin Red Line". I wouldn't walk back into that movie on a bet. Why do the whiners keep going back?

It makes no sense.

Third, I proved I wasn't contradicting myself, and true to npw form maggot will ignore that and keep hammering her erroneous points. You do the same thing. That is not the basis of discussion. That's why I accuse npw's of being on a soapbox spewing rhetoric.

wee kev

01-12-2003, 10:03 PM

Now, now boys and girls!

I only asked what NPW meant! :D :D

markrob

01-13-2003, 12:29 AM

Oh my, go away for a few days and look what happens. Foe, my friend you, these NPW's got you in some hot water dont they? And you have picked up 2 more warning points. Oh the shame. Yes Boern, I am the founder of the FADS. Someone wanted to call it film defenders guild but I thought film adaptation defender was better suited. Speaking of FADS, I am quite disappointed that our fellow members are either hiding or reluctent to come to Foe's aid.

Nonetheless, the truth of the matter is most hard core FADS will eventually fade away until RoTK comes out and then we will be gone forever. This whole Tolkien thing doesnt rule our life and is very low on the totem pole of life. We love the book, we like the movie, none of it really matters in the grand scheme of things. We find it more entertaining to engage in debate with fanatical rantings and ravings from ultra purists (aka NPW's). At least I, am amazed how serious some people take a genuine attempt at adapting a literary classic. Did PJ do a good job? Yeah it was ok, great at times, hard to understand at others. But for the most part, in realistic terms, it was acceptable. But I will not sit back and let someone get away with making idiotic, blatent, unintelligent, and worthless statements of facts regarding a Tolkien at heart directors attempt to illustrate LoTR's on the big screen.

Granted things arent as bad as they were last year (complaing the Nazgul's horses werent black enough) but as long as there is extreme NPW's about, than FAD's will continue to be present. That is at least until we decide to move on and get on with our real lives.

Foe, I am not sure how to handle Maggott. She is quite the 'foe', no pun intended. As for the mods ganging up on you that is truely sad. I am not totally sure, but I think all the admins. are more purists than realist, except maybe Talimon (sp?). Oh well, know I am here for you and reality.

Long live common sense, long live the FADS! :p

Foe-Hammer

01-13-2003, 01:37 AM

Thanks bro!

Yeah, whoever it was that gave the warning point gave no explanation. just whamo. 2 more points. yet the npw maggots can break the same rule and they do nothing.

Nóm

01-13-2003, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
Thanks bro!

Yeah, whoever it was that gave the warning point gave no explanation. just whamo. 2 more points. yet the npw maggots can break the same rule and they do nothing.
Maybe Foe will hammer me for cutting in with my opinion but here it is all the same.
I read this thread and I have seen insults from both sides though Foe-Hammer, your insults are more blatant.
It has been my observation elsewhere at TTF that subtle insults... such as those made with sarcasm or implications go without being corrected whereas blatant name-calling and direct insults get more negative attention.
I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but Foe, maybe if you are going to insult you should do it with sarcasm and subtle implications like some others do... folks who don't get warning points.

Some may think that it shouldn't matter if the insult or attack is blatant or not, but it apears that people are punished on that criteria... so maybe Foe, you could use that to your advantage, or all together cease insulting... just a crazy idea... :D

Ancalagon

01-13-2003, 02:57 AM

Originally posted by markrob
As for the mods ganging up on you that is truely sad. I am not totally sure, but I think all the admins. are more purists than realist, except maybe Talimon (sp?). Oh well, know I am here for you and reality.

I do not think that the Mods are ganging up on anyone!? Whether they favour the book over the film is irrelevant in this as they should all at the very least be impartial when it comes to addressing Mod issues. That said, I think that this thread has had more than its fair share of warnings (if you care to check you should note 3 in all), not because debates can become heated especially given the subject matter, but simply due to the bitterness, spitefulness and malice used in responses.

I can deal with sarcasm, most of us can, what I detest is ones inability to construct an arguement with some level of eloquence and without maliciousness. Any points allocated up to this point have in my opinion been deliberately lenient, in order to allow those in receipt to cool their jets a little. This is far from a 'purist conspiracy' as the forum exists so opposing sides can argue their case. However some control should be exercised, especially by those who seem to be intolerant of anothers viewpoint. This applies to both sets of participants!

Enjoy the debates.

Elendur

01-13-2003, 03:21 AM

fh down for the count!

Way to go Mrs Maggot etal!

Foe-Hammer

01-13-2003, 05:51 AM

Well anyone who can't handle it ought to go back to wearing their gandalf hat in the shadows.

Besides, I'm still waiting for a rational explanation (and examples would be nice) as to what I said was sooooo much worse.

I have re-read it and I suspect that it hit pretty much close to the mark and set a npw (who happens to be an admin too) into a mindless frenzy resulting in private threats without explanation.

I am more than able to defend myself on an equal field. (heck, I handled an over-whelming amount of npw's all by myself until they got a unfair advantage from the admins)

The problem with npw's is that they just wont be educated. They construct walls of ignorance to protect themselves from seeing the truth and ruining their fantasy world.

aragil

01-13-2003, 07:16 AM

Just saw Two Towers for the third time, and I enjoyed it more than the other two. Some of my thoughts:

1) It's still awful popular here- I went to a 4 pm matinee and had to wait in line to buy tickets. The main floor of the theater was sold out, and I had to sit in the balcony. When I left the theater, the line for the 7 pm showing was already halfway to the end of the block. Not too shabby for the 4th weekend in release!

2) The various changes are getting much easier to follow with time. This wasn't the case for me with FotR- there I didn't mind any of the changes from the get-go. With TT I was definitely thrown for a loop a couple of times, most notably with Faramir and the trip to Osgiliath, Merry, Pippin, and Treebeard and the outcome of the Entmoot, and Aragorn going over the cliff. With repeat viewings I was actually looking for things to explain these episodes, and for me I thought I saw enough to explain these bits.

3) Maggot and Jeff F were right- Eomer's charge down the hill was on a pretty steep slope, and Theoden's charge out of the Hornburg did have two turns in it. In the case of Theoden's charge they showed the full extent of it, and to my eyes it didn't look unrealistic, even with the turns. Eggcellent cinema, as the saying goes.

4) Osgiliath looked really cool. I dunno, maybe it has something to do with having just come back from visiting Roman ruins, but I really liked the overhead shots of Osgiliath, it really had that ruined Roman city feel. I also noticed that Gondorian military fashions haven't changed much over the past 3000+ years- the soldiers there looked exactly like Elendil's troops at the Last Alliance in the prologue. Rightfully so, IMO- nicely matched Haldir's men at Helm's Deep, who were wearing the same gear as Gil-galad's troops at the Last Alliance (also the same gear as the Elf who opens his eyes in the Dead Marshes).

5) Specifics about Faramir. It clicked for me this time, here's why I think so:
a) He catches Frodo in the lie about Gollum. At this point Frodo has done nothing to allay Faramir's fears that he is actually an Orc spy. Still, Faramir has given him the benefit of the doubt, allowed him to live, and even allowed Gollum to live, in spite of the law against anyone entering the Forbidden Pool. This stuff is very reminiscent of the character of Faramir in the books.
b) The situation is much more immediate in the books than in the movie. That little map scene really helps out here. We now know that the Gondorians know about Rohan and Saruman- so they shouldn't be expecting any help from their allies there. Then the position at Osgiliath is weakened to help fortify the North along the river- this means that Osgiliath will not be able to resist an attack which Faramir knows is coming. Faramir suspects that as soon as Sauron sees the weakness of Gondor's defense he will push to an all out invasion, which Gondor can not survive. He is on the brink of witnessing the end of Gondor barring outside help- a circumstance which makes the Ring look very inticing indeed.
c) Faramir never touches the Ring, nor does he seem to desire the Ring for himself. Again this is essentially the same as the book version, and essentially different from Boromir. Calling movie Faramir "mini-Boromir" is VERY unfair, in my opinion.

6) Someone earlier mentioned what they thought happens with Treebeard. The first time he and the Hobbits pass by Isengard, the two Hobbits are up on top of his shoulders and have a much better view of things. Presumably they might be able to see the destruction of the trees while Treebeard himself does not. This isn't explicit in the movies, but certainly by the way it was shot this could be the case.

7) Aragorn over the Cliff. I disagree with people here- I think it did accomplish something. First of all, it provided a nice segue into the Rivendell sequences, Arwen/Aragorn, Arwen/Elrond, and Elrond/Galadriel. Without a way to relate them to one of the major threads (F/S, M/P, or A/G/L/G), these would have seemed to have come from out of the blue. Also, I think that after this adventure Aragorn behaves different, more kingly if you will. Presumably from his reflection during this time on Arwen, he has come to some sort of consensus, and arrives at Helm's Deep much nearer to being a King. And no, I don't think that Aragorn kisses his horse while mistaking it for Arwen- he says "Brego" before he even opens his eyes.

8) Gollum's argument with himself was stunning. I paid a bit more attention to the audience reaction this time, and here's what I saw: The audience did indeed laugh, right until Gollum starts calling Smeagol names. Then it went something like this:
Gollum- "You're a liar"
Smeagol- "I'm not listening to you"
Audience- "Har-har-har"
Gollum- "And a thief"
Smeagol- "Hmm-mm"
Audience- "Har-har-har"
Gollum- "And a murderer"
Smeagol- (Covers his head in shame)
Audience- (absolute silence)
I think Talimon remarked about this earlier. It really was stunning to see the audience switch like that, and to think they were reacting to the performance of a CGI character!

9) That was Hama's son that Aragorn gave the little sword lesson to. Nice touch, IMO- he even had the red hair. Also, the soldier at Edoras who nearly interferes with Gandalf's exorcism, the one Hama restrains- I believe that is Gamling, who is also the one accompanying Hama when the Warg gets him. Nice to see this little continuity in the characters.

10) Another Helm's Deep note- I couldn't find any Elves in the last few sequences, but there were definitely some left when Aragorn and Gimli went out on the bridge, and I think there were some left during the chaotic retreat into the Hornburg. At this point I won't be surprised in RotK either way- if a few survived or they turn out to have been all wiped out. Having said that, I've really fallen in love with the scene where the Elves arrive unbidden. For me it is a very moving scene.

11) Can't wait to own this one on DVD, and I really can't wait to see the Return of the King preview. Has anybody heard for sure if they're going to try the same trick as with the first TT trailer- tacking it on the end of FotR late in that movies theatrical run?

Whoops, forgot to add: My new rating for the movie is 9-9.5 out of 10, very close to the perfect 10 I gave FotR!

markrob

01-13-2003, 03:26 PM

Bless you Aragil, for you have seen the light!

Thorin

01-14-2003, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by markrob
Bless you Aragil, for you have seen the light!

What are you talking about? Aragil's been a FAD from the beginning!

From Foe-Hammer
The problem with npw's is that they just wont be educated. They construct walls of ignorance to protect themselves from seeing the truth and ruining their fantasy world.

Foe, I really would like to know where the heck this argument is coming from. How in the world are we protecting ourselves from "seeing the truth and ruining our fantasy world??" What is this truth? That the movie is different from the book and doesn't have to be a literal for word translation?? What purist has argued against that? If that's the case you've been flogging a horse that hasn't even died yet.

For claiming to be such a big fan and for someone who took soooo much time in pain-staking detail to create and capture Tolkien's world (to the point that he and the crew looked over the chapters to make sure they got the scene right), PJ fell very flat in many places in capturing what he intended to do: make a great adaptation of a book that he wanted to give justice. To create over 12 million links of armor and getting the elven language down just right to create such authenticity is amazing! Wow! Great job PJ! Then PJ puts in stupid Arwen, idiotic Pippin (are you telling me that Pippin's behavior and comments at the council of Elrond didn't make you wince a little), to wizard break dancing to a moth saving the day....To us purists, this just doesn't make any sense and we have just been criticizing the movie in these and other places where we feel that the movie could have been adapted MUCH better.

That's it. That's our stance. What exactly you're making it all out to be, I have no clue.

Mrs. Maggott

01-14-2003, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by Thorin

Foe, I really would like to know where the heck this argument is coming from. How in the world are we protecting ourselves from "seeing the truth and ruining our fantasy world??" What is this truth? That the movie is different from the book and doesn't have to be a literal for word translation?? What purist has argued against that? If that's the case you've been flogging a horse that hasn't even died yet.
To us purists...we feel that the movie could have been adapted MUCH better.

That's it. That's our stance. What exactly you're making it all out to be, I have no clue.

After having read so much vitriol directed against those who dare to criticize Jackson and his films, I have discovered that those who applaud his efforts to the skies usually wind up by saying what Aragil the Fad said: I liked it! End of argument. That's all that is necessary to say! Film defenders merely have to point out that they liked it and "x" number of other people also liked it - and then (as far as they are concerned) the argument is over.

Well, if that's all it takes for them to "make their point", why do those of us who don't like all or part of these films have to justify our opinion with all manner of explanations which are summarily dismissed anyway?

Frankly, if the criteria for saying that these films are masterpieces is simply that some who post on this forum "like" them, then it is enough for those of us who hold a different opinion to simply say of all or part of these films that we and "x" number of other people don't like them - and then (as far as we are concerned) the argument is over. After all, what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander! ;)

markrob

01-14-2003, 03:36 AM

Originally posted by Thorin
What are you talking about? Aragil's been a FAD from the beginning!

That the movie is different from the book and doesn't have to be a literal for word translation?? What purist has argued against that? If that's the case you've been flogging a horse that hasn't even died yet.

That's it. That's our stance. What exactly you're making it all out to be, I have no clue.

Nothing wrong with a little repeated praise to a FAD member is it? It is good to see our members continue to learn to accept reality and common sense. Get beyond literally comparing it to the book and look for avenues where the message of the LoTR's is conveyed albiet a different medium. By FADS continueing education we are able to do just what Arigil did, point out how simular things actually are and how they will all come together in the end. I am very proud of Arigil.

Now for your second point. Maybe not as much lately, but you know good and well Thorin that there was plenty of purists out there whos largest gripe was the fact that "the movie should indeed be a literal for word translation". I do believe if that was not the case than there never would have been a FAD uprising. I can remember all hell breaking loose when Greymantle went on and on about Pippin knocking the skeleton down the well in Moria instead of throwing a pebble!!! You know its true! The only horse that has been flogged is poor Bill the pony by the purist. Remember all the *****ing about how ole Bill was not consistantly shown in every scene he should have? Come on Thorin, reach back in the memory banks. That is the kinda **** we FADs have fought against and will continue to do so.

markrob

01-14-2003, 03:40 AM

Foe-Hammer

01-14-2003, 04:55 AM

Originally posted by Thorin
What are you talking about? Aragil's been a FAD from the beginning!

Foe, I really would like to know where the heck this argument is coming from. How in the world are we protecting ourselves from "seeing the truth and ruining our fantasy world??" What is this truth? That the movie is different from the book and doesn't have to be a literal for word translation?? What purist has argued against that? If that's the case you've been flogging a horse that hasn't even died yet.

For claiming to be such a big fan and for someone who took soooo much time in pain-staking detail to create and capture Tolkien's world (to the point that he and the crew looked over the chapters to make sure they got the scene right), PJ fell very flat in many places in capturing what he intended to do: make a great adaptation of a book that he wanted to give justice. To create over 12 million links of armor and getting the elven language down just right to create such authenticity is amazing! Wow! Great job PJ! Then PJ puts in stupid Arwen, idiotic Pippin (are you telling me that Pippin's behavior and comments at the council of Elrond didn't make you wince a little), to wizard break dancing to a moth saving the day....To us purists, this just doesn't make any sense and we have just been criticizing the movie in these and other places where we feel that the movie could have been adapted MUCH better.

That's it. That's our stance. What exactly you're making it all out to be, I have no clue.

Those comments were really directed at the latest group of npw's that have risen to defend the work of tolkien from the evil PJ.

The part they refused to understand, as you well know cause you did it too, is the complications that arise from switching from the book to film. They have said they know nothing about screenplay writing in one breath and in the next whine about a change that PJ made. Instead of looking at the movie as an adaptation that tried to be very faithful to the SPIRIT of tolkien, they veiw every change as an example of PJ's immorality.

Immorality? C'mon Thorin! Even you don't buy that do you?

You yourself have admitted that changes had to be made, you just don't agree with all of them. It is a fact that even if the biggest tolkien fan of all time made a movie, people would complain because it is a fact that major changes have to occur to make a book a movie. Do we call him immoral too?

aragil

01-14-2003, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
After having read so much vitriol directed against those who dare to criticize Jackson and his films, I have discovered that those who applaud his efforts to the skies usually wind up by saying what Aragil the Fad said: I liked it! End of argument. That's all that is necessary to say! Film defenders merely have to point out that they liked it and "x" number of other people also liked it - and then (as far as they are concerned) the argument is over.

Well, if that's all it takes for them to "make their point", why do those of us who don't like all or part of these films have to justify our opinion with all manner of explanations which are summarily dismissed anyway? Uhh, don't know if you're specifically referring to my post by remarking that we just say 'I like it', but I thought my post went a leetle deeper than that. Last time I checked the title, this thread was for TTT reviews, and I was posting my review after a third viewing. I had some rather less positive things to say after the first viewing, but those are buried under a lot of other peoples opinions.
Yes, my post was about things I liked, but it also explained why I liked those things (I hope). I don't think that those who like the film are content with "I like it" from their side, while holding the other side to more stringent standards. To simply say "I liked it" or "I didn't like it" is quite boring, IMO. To explain what you like/dislike and why is to invite discussion, which is what these boards are here for.
And please, MM, don't say that all criticisms of the movie are summarily dismissed by FADs. There are entire threads in this forum discussing whether or not Faramir's character was assasinated, etc. By the same Tolkien, I've had to repeat some arguments many (many many) times to people who didn't like a scene, often times without being acknowledged at all. Just the fun of being part of an online (or any other) community.

greypilgrim

01-14-2003, 07:57 AM

I liked it. You have to like it, it's the only movie made. What can you do, make it again? HaHa! If you took every scene from Ralph Bashki's and PJ's movies and put them together in a pod, and they came out as one movie, I would like the movie even better. As a matter of fact, I could have made a better movie than both of them fools!!!

lilhobo

01-14-2003, 08:30 AM

oh my freakin gosh !! thats it thats whats wrong w/ PJ's movies....

the freakin Nazguls aint black enough !!! :D :D :D

ANd that dead dwarf sitting on the well and somehow died there and had the muscles to keep it upright for years and years. Great logic !

Elendur

01-14-2003, 01:17 PM

The film TT didn't do much for me. Frankly I am surprised at how much praise it has recieved. Having said that I took a person who has never read the books nor seen the Fellowship of the Rings to the TT and he loved it and he is now keen to get the Fellowship of the Ring from the video library and watch it.

When I reflect of this I think the world is a better place for all it's diversity. True the TT didn't do it for me and I think it could have been edited better to make the end product superior but hey some/many people loved it. Guess that's why some people like wearing flare jeans and others like straight leg jeans or others trousers. The challenge for us all is to accept that we all have different perceptions and that no one is more right that the next.

Anyway I'll still be reading those books again where as I don't think I will be seeing the films too many more times. (Then again I am a bit like a moth attracted to a light at night! I just can't help myself.)

Perhaps the best judge would be Tolkien himself but that is and will remain in the domain of conjecture.

DGoeij

01-14-2003, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Elendur
When I reflect of this I think the world is a better place for all it's diversity. (...) Guess that's why some people like wearing flare jeans and others like straight leg jeans or others trousers. The challenge for us all is to accept that we all have different perceptions and that no one is more right that the next.

You're absolutely rigth of course.
But it sure made me giggle to see a metaphore based on pants. It made me remember various threads of TTF, which had nothing to do with the more serious reflections on Tolkien's works.:p

Mrs. Maggott

01-14-2003, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Elendur

When I reflect of this I think the world is a better place for all it's diversity. True the TT didn't do it for me and I think it could have been edited better to make the end product superior but hey some/many people loved it. Guess that's why some people like wearing flare jeans and others like straight leg jeans or others trousers. The challenge for us all is to accept that we all have different perceptions and that no one is more right that the next.

Perhaps the best judge would be Tolkien himself but that is and will remain in the domain of conjecture.

Indeed, all such things are absolutely subjective in nature. Hence the old sayings, "one man's meat is another man's poison" and "one man's trash is another's treasure".

However, in many instances, those who find fault with the films have been subjected to unwarranted criticism and even outright condemnation for daring to do so. But if, in fact, the matter is subjective and we all have "different perceptions" - and, I might add, the right to have those perceptions - then not liking some or all of the films is just as "acceptable" as uncritical adoration. It would appear, therefore, that Jackson's critics have every right to their opinion and should be able to state and give reasons for their conclusions without being vilified by those who disagree.

It would also make the thread much more pleasant for all concerned.

Elendur

01-14-2003, 02:24 PM

Yes, what you say is true Mrs M. I think it is important that our conduct in debates, using cricketing analogies, should be "Play with a straight bat" and "Lets that one pass through to the keeper". I'm impressed, Mrs M, how you can do both. ie play with a straight bat and lets the balls bowled wide of the mark pass through the keeper. As I have read a few posts aimed at you where, using another analogy, "they played the man not the ball".

It must be said however that teams that play the man instead of the ball usually end up loosing the game as most games the object is to get the ball into the goal not the man. (Unless of course the game is boxing or wrestling and then the analogy loses it's applicabilty.)

So keep up your "straight bat" posts Mrs M. I find them thoughtful, and well considered and too often expressed better than I could express them. :)

markrob

01-14-2003, 02:49 PM

Oh give me a break, :rolleyes:

Odo Proudfoot

01-14-2003, 03:03 PM

I still think many of the 'purists' are missing the point of why we defend the movies and their maker.

I would never attack anyone for not liking the movie. Obviously liking or disliking it is a subjective judgement, and who am I to tell somebody else that they cannot think about it however they like?

What I do do, however, is defend PJ against attacks that paint him as some kind of an idiot for having made the decisions he has; for he can be many things, an idiot he plainly is not. Or, I defend him against attacks that try to put him in the dock for having dared to make changes to the story line, characters and moral meaning of LotR; for even where he has done so, and often this is highly debatable, he has exactly the same right to do this as you have in writing your posts the way you like them.

That is where I am coming from. I don't argue with your like or dislike of the movies, but with your attitude that PJ is a charlatan worth only of a continuous barrage of sneers and jeers and :rolleyes: :rolleyes: .

Moreover, whilst I do agree that some of the FAD's have a way of painting the 'purists' as close-minded fanatics devoid of any humour or sense of proportion, indeed I myself have sometimes done this, there have been clear instances where the 'purists' have transgressed the borders of decency as well. For instance, a little while ago, FAD's were sweepingly characterised as not being interested in character development or anything like that, but only in Nintendo visual effects. After all the painstaking arguments brought forward by the FAD's on why and how certain changes actually 'work' at many levels, such a cheap volley is not only unjustified but, frankly, pretty insulting.

Or how about the phrase 'uncritical adoration'? Is that not 'playing the man'? Please, stop these strawmen characterisations and have a look at the '5 things you don't like' thread to see how at least two 'FAD's don't shy away from criticism.

So don't claim that the 'purists' are innocent lambs that only defend their personal opinion - I often do perceive a barely hidden aggression towards PJ as an artist, and his defenders, behind the mask of 'reasonable discourse'.

Pot, kettle, black. For what it's worth.

Odo

Mrs. Maggott

01-14-2003, 03:23 PM

Film directors are criticized all the time. There is nothing in their job description or their persons that elevates them above criticism. If one thinks that doing something in a film is "stupid", then one has every right to say so. If another person likes that particular thing, it does not mean that the person who has called that element "stupid" means that description to apply to the person who liked it since the matter is, as noted, a subjective one. I think a great deal of what Mr. Jackson did, especially in the second film, was foolish to the extreme and clearly detrimental to the finished product. I have a right to that opinion and should not be subjected to ad hominem attacks because someone else is of a different opinion. It is one thing to defend Mr. Jackson's professional decisions - and quite another to demand that no one find fault with them - or him.

Furthermore, if someone says something about Jackson that another person finds offensive, I would suggest that the only person who has a right to respond is Mr. Jackson himself since the comment was directed at him and no one else. The problem with his defenders is that they take umbrage at any criticism made of the man and his work. Not only is that unrealistic, but it is the right of the person making the criticism to do so whether it meets with the "approval" of Mr. Jackson's supporters or not.

If one wishes to debate a point on its merits - this is good/not good because - I have no problem with that type of exchange. But far too much on this thread and others involves an attempt to shut down debate by saying that the person making the criticism is stupid or an "npw" or some other ad hominem attack that has nothing to do with the point that has been raised - and that is unacceptable.

There are many film advocates (Talimon to name one) who argue the point being made without sinking to the level of name calling and silly responses which supposedly indicate that "anyone with brains" would think the way that person posting does. These are unacceptable responses to the issues being raised and lead to unpleasant and unprofitable exchanges on the thread.

Foe-Hammer

01-14-2003, 03:29 PM

So true Odo! Well said!

Odo Proudfoot

01-14-2003, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
The problem with his defenders is that they take umbrage at any criticism made of the man and his work.

You are doing it again. You are making sweeping and incorrect generalisations. This is your way of 'playing the man'. The number of defenders here that do not fit this description is a lot larger than the minority that does.

Not only is that unrealistic, but it is the right of the person making the criticism to do so whether it meets with the "approval" of Mr. Jackson's supporters or not.

And I have the right to criticise those who criticise PJ. Right?

If one wishes to debate a point on its merits - this is good/not good because - I have no problem with that type of exchange. But far too much on this thread and others involves an attempt to shut down debate by saying that the person making the criticism is stupid or an "npw" or some other ad hominem attack that has nothing to do with the point that has been raised - and that is unacceptable.

You yourself called Aragil a 'FAD' just a few posts ago. Pot. Kettle Black. You called film defenders 'only interested in Nintendo effects'. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Look, I would be all too happy focusing on the arguments that directly relate to the films and the book, if we agree to do exactly that and stop generalising others, stop putting views in their heads, and start giving the director the respect he deserves regardless of whether we like some of his views or not.

There are many film advocates (Talimon to name one) who argue the point being made without sinking to the level of name calling and silly responses which supposedly indicate that "anyone with brains" would think the way that person posting does. These are unacceptable responses to the issues being raised and lead to unpleasant and unprofitable exchanges on the thread.

True. And there are also many film critics who discuss the films and not the director or his defendants, but unfortunately you are not one of them.