The Two Towers Reviews [Archive] - Page 4

Foe-Hammer

01-20-2003, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
As for TTT, I have only seen it once, was very careful to try not to compare it to the book. However, I still found it disappointing for a number of reasons.

Firstly, of course, because of the character deviations.

Since you were so careful not to compare the movie to the book, where did you get these "character deviations" that bothered you so much? You must judge the character only by what it is on the screen in order for your claims of nutrality to be true.

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Thirdly because of the inane, unnecessary and inferior plot additions .

Additions? I thought we weren't comparing the film to anything? How can you have "additions"? You really are comparing the movie to the book, aren't you?

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Fourthly, because of the sad failure to fully utilize the ent plot thread..

Again, :rolleyes:, how can you utilize a non-existant plot?

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Most of these had to do not so much with film vs. book, but with film as film.

Really? Do you really expect us to believe that or was that a failed attempt at sarcasim? Regardless of your rhetorical claims to the contrary, you are comparing the movie against the book. It's plain as day.

Foe-Hammer

01-20-2003, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by lilhobo
PJ did do one thing right; how many times do i have to say that Pj aimed his movies at the brain dead audience :D

how can u be credible with no rationalisation ???my preciousss???

PS. i would like to take credit for paving the way for all the Tolkien fans to come outta the closet to show PJ as the "Emperor without clothes"

thats why the FADS have been all riled up ;)

hobo,

Why are you going through the pains of proving to us that you create whatever story you want regardless of what is going on in the movie? We know that.:rolleyes:

lilhobo

01-20-2003, 03:00 AM

i think that can be construed as apersonal attack dotnya think, have you attacked any of MY arguements ;)

Mrs. Maggott

01-20-2003, 03:05 AM

To begin with, one must have some comparison with characters simply because without the book, anyone can be anything and obviously Jackson does not proceed with that understanding. He has patterned his characters - at least in their place in the plot - in accordance with the book. If he had not done that, if he had put in entirely new characters or made Aragorn an elf or dwarf or Frodo an ent, I would say that there would be no basis for comparison. However, as Jackson has made his characters ostensibly mirror those in the book, there is no place to go to judge those characters except the book.

As for the rest: the Director had an ent thread or do you suggest that those large treeish looking cg characters were buttercups? In any event, he had the thread and used it badly. It was chopped all to bits and made very little sense in even less time.

The plot additions were inferior and inane. I would not have mentioned them if they were not. It was their quality and not the fact that they were additions that caused my criticism.

Yes, I was careful not to do a scene by scene comparison to the book. I was prepared for deviations which I expected to accept if (and this is a BIG "if") they made the film better or least as good as a film! However, since they did just the opposite, then I feel quite competent to criticize them relative to the quality of the film.

The book cannot be divorced from the film and vice versa. Although one should not attempt a scene by scene translation, certainly one expects some faithfulness to the original. FOTR was quite faithful (except, of course, for the characters). TTT wasn't even on the map. If people are happy with Jackson's films when all is said and done, fine. But those of us who disagree have every right to our opinion as well.

lilhobo

01-20-2003, 03:06 AM

btw, MM isnt comparing BOOK to Movie for the TTT, or even FOTR....TOlkien themes are so universal AND that should be plain as the day.....

Pj turned Theoden into a weak "lame-duck" king who "everyone" hates.....Whereas Tolkien wrote a wise King who took counsel and had great vision...especially, when film-Eowyn mentioned "they were unarmed" regarding her people.

Is it NOT UNIVERSAL that a King would go to the defense of HIS people :confused:

Foe-Hammer

01-20-2003, 03:10 AM

Hey you want to retract this statement....

"Most of these had to do not so much with film vs. book, but with film as film"

That's fine with me. It just totally negates that entire argument.

We can deal with whatever spin you like to put on it.

Foe-Hammer

01-20-2003, 03:12 AM

hobo,

you're about ten steps behind and I doubt maggot wants you speaking for her.

Mrs. Maggott

01-20-2003, 03:13 AM

Originally posted by lilhobo
btw, MM isnt comparing BOOK to Movie for the TTT, or even FOTR....TOlkien themes are so universal AND that should be plain as the day.....

Pj turned Theoden into a weak "lame-duck" king who "everyone" hates.....Whereas Tolkien wrote a wise King who took counsel and had great vision...especially, when film-Eowyn mentioned "they were unarmed" regarding her people.

Is it NOT UNIVERSAL that a King would go to the defense of HIS people :confused:

So I would believe. Interestingly enough, Jackson made Theoden much stronger (and younger) both physically and in leadership than Tolkien's weakened elderly King who leans upon Gandalf's counsel and even misses Wormtongue when he is deprived of both counsellors. However, it is Tolkien's "weak" King who sends his people into safety at Dunharrow with Eowyn to lead them and rides to war at the head of his men while Jackson's much "stronger" King runs off to hide at the head of his people and only winds up in a battle because the enemy discovered his hiding place! Who then, I wonder, was the "weaker" King?

lilhobo

01-20-2003, 03:28 AM

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
hobo,

you're about ten steps behind and I doubt maggot wants you speaking for her.

still ten steps ahead of you ;)

Foe-Hammer

01-20-2003, 03:36 AM

Hey if maggot choses to let you speak for her, so be it.

lilhobo

01-20-2003, 03:39 AM

i speaketh for none but meself !!! UNIVERSAL THEMES are universal, understanding is only interpretation when its correct ;D

Foe-Hammer

01-20-2003, 03:48 AM

so all kings care for their people? That would depend on the king wouldn't it?

ya ever hear of a guy named Nero?

so three more posts of yours that were basically meaningless?

lilhobo

01-20-2003, 03:53 AM

ya just grappling for something mate :D

just liking p!ssing in the wind, might hit ya in the face :D

we ar etalking about kings not psychotic killer

Foe-Hammer

01-20-2003, 04:06 AM

well, lets talk about french kings or english kings.

I think you need a towel to wipe off your face.:eek:

lilhobo

01-20-2003, 04:06 AM

i declare this discussion dead : (for the second time), unless the FADS can come up with something close to being believeable

VERDICT: Pj made a good fanatasy/action flick in the mould of other hollywood action flicks. His crime is his failure to make the gand epic, all tolkiens fans dreamt of.....

Foe-Hammer

01-20-2003, 04:16 AM

crime:an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law

:rolleyes:

lilhobo

01-20-2003, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
crime:an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law

:rolleyes:

tar and fearther ***Edited by Ancalagon***:D

markrob

01-20-2003, 04:36 AM

You go Foe! I can hear the cha-chings ringing even when I am not on-line. Hell, you even got a kudos from a moderator! That is awesome. lilhobo is a non factor and the other NPW's are grasping at straws. Isnt it amazing how defiant they are of a world that doesnt even exist? I told maggott before she should use her mind reading skills to solve the worlds problems rather than continue to bash PJ. Just think if all NPW's would join forces together with their awesome talent we would have a world of perfection.

As stated last year, its about time all ultra purists crawl back in their dark caves with their 'sacred precious' in their gnarly litttle hands and do not try to experience any other medium of communication. No doubt you will only be disappointed with reality and eventually drive yourself even insaner if that is at all possible. :p

CHA-CHING!!

Foe-Hammer

01-20-2003, 05:19 AM

thanks for the support markrob!

The admins got me to 8 warning points. I tried to get an explanation for them, but so far I got one really, really, weak rational for it. Oh, well. That's their right.

Eriol

01-20-2003, 02:14 PM

Posted by Foe-Hammer

OH MY GOSH!? What did PJ DO to Tolkien fans? (I for one am a Tolkien fan, and I percieve nothing that PJ has DONE to me)

Foe-Hammer, It seems you have a strange standard for 'fandom', as most of your posts here bash Tolkien's work as 'stupid', 'inconsistent', a 'mish-mash of characters'... If you are a Tolkien fan, you must have a personal altar for PJ!

Seriously now, I wonder what is your motivation. It is obvious you want to shock people, and hopefully to make them think about the great quality of the film by pointint out shortcomings in the book. But why do you do it? You have already said that NPW are puerile, hopeless, and the like. Would you intrude in an argument being pursued by a bunch of children using such a subtle technique as shock?

I think you have a point to make, and it is time that you get it in the open. I also hope that it is not that 'people who bash the films are stupid, ignorant, etc.'. I have an idea of what is it, and the intro was great, but please deliver it as an argument, with beginning and end, without allusions to any poster (NPW or not). Otherwise you will be dismissed as a crazy guy who goes comes to The Tolkien Forum with the sole purpose of bashing Tolkien, and end up being ignored. A strange hobby.

Rúmil

01-20-2003, 05:32 PM

Foe-Hammer,

I would like to remind you of the etymology of 'fan'. It is an abbreviation of fanatic. Fanatic comes from latin fanaticus, meaning at first 'regular attendant of a fanum'; a fanum being an aera devoted to a god, such as a sacred wood or the like. If you claim to be a 'Tolkien fan', you are actually saying Tolkien is a god to you, or at least an inerrant super-human. To call yourself a Tolkien fan and to bash him is contradictory, please choose one or the other, and preferably the former. ;)

Now, you seem to misunderstand our purpose utterly: we are grateful to PJ and New Line in general for their attempt, for bringing thousands of people to read Tolkien. I personnaly love the music, the costumes, the sets and I take sort of private delight in the 'eye candy' GCI. All these things were directly chosen, or strongly influenced by PJ. Some of the scenes, like the Bridge-scene, are perfect. We admire much of PJ's achievement.

Yet, we are people who consider that Tolkien is, as Mrs. Maggott puts it, 'the golden means': no imitation can be superior. Therefore, the more it nears the original, the more it approches perfection.

Now, PJ did not work from that approach; indeed, the script was originally further from Tolkien than it now stands. You accuse us of not proposing an alternative; yes, we do propose one. If PJ had written no script and used Tolkien's actual written word instead, and fimed it as it is, we would have been content. It was not even tried; therefore we cannot know whether it would have worked. Probably not, but it was worth a try.

We are merely idealists, trying to imagine what a 'perfect' movie would be, knowing full well that no movie is perfect. Do you notice that we are actually stating the instances in which PJ fell short of absolute perfection? Could there be a greater compliment? If anything, we're greater PJ fans than you.

If, as Eriol suggests, you do not think what you are saying about Tolkien, trying to get through to us by shocking us is not the good way: being Tolkien 'fans' (in a mild sense of course), if we cannot agree that Tolkien's written word is insurpassable, we cannot agree on anything.

As I already said, if you are trying to convince us that PJ's movie is great, you have already succeeded: it is very problably the movie of the decade. Which does not mean we cannot criticize it.

EDIT: and, of course, bearing in mind that we mean only well and improvement, not slashing, I would of course be delighted to engage in cordial conversation about anything regarding the movies.

Mrs. Maggott

01-20-2003, 05:52 PM

I have heard sentiments about our colleague Foe Hammer's denigration of Tolkien which mirror my own; that is, that he is saying these things to get attention rather than from any real belief in them. If that is indeed the case, then, dear Foe, you are defeating your own ends.

When you speak civilly and cogently, you are read and understood. That may not mean that your reader will agree, but at least you will be taken seriously. I'm afraid on any forum of more than one person, that's about the best your going to get!

However, when you resort to such "shock" tactics, all that is going to happen is that you will not be taken seriously, even when you are speaking sincerely. It is well to remember the old fairy tale about the boy who cried "wolf!" There are only so many times you can say such things before you are dismissed out of hand by most members.

As you can see by those who have responded on this matter, most of us on the forum wish to have you continue to participate and express your views, but as in any instance involving social interaction, there are rules of engagement, so to speak. You are certainly not the only person who is expected to obey such rules and therefore should not feel "singled out" for criticism. If you have been criticized, I would suggest it is because you have "crossed the line" from time to time. If anyone else does so, they are also subject to such criticism, and rightly so.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I certainly would wish that you remain among us and participate, but that is entirely up to you.

Foe-Hammer

01-20-2003, 06:32 PM

Eriol,

jeeze, this started about 30 posts back with MM complainints about too much dirt on the people of rohan. She then went off on a battle scene at Helms deep that wasn't realistic. Now, you either want reality or fantasy, but you can't complain about both.

She has yet to admit her mistake in arguing those two points, yet insists she is a reasoned logical debater.

Sorry, but we learned last year with TFoTR, which posters were worthy of our best behavior and which were not. Thorin, who was/is the biggest purist of them all, would actually admit his mistakes and correct himself in the discussion. This makes it easy to discuss topics with him and we (fads) would admit our mistakes too. This is what makes for decent discussion between two varying views. Several FADs have attempted to debate MM, et al, with reasoned responses, and the results are the same. She talks out both sides of her mouth and when she gets caught in it, she ignores it and changes the subject.

Her lastest "slight of mouth" concerned her discussion where she said she critiqued the movie as a movie seperate from the book and went on to list 4 reasons. Three of the four reasons she gave pointed out that the movie didn't follow the book. Well, this was not my discussion, but that kind of double talk that people try to hide with $5 words and fancy sentance structure just grates on me. Well I busted her flat out on it. Do you think she corrected herself on it? Nope. She tried to cover it up with more $5 words and fancy sentances. This behavior insults me more than name calling.

But I digress, my solution to this is to illustrate her outrageousness by becoming very outrageous myself. I am very capable of reasonable discussion and I do, with other reasonable people. MM et al, will not get that from me until they become reasoned themselves. Meaning itellectually honest.

I am a fan of tolkien, but I am also aware that it is a story, a dang good story, but it is fantasy. It never happened, never could hapeen, and never will happen. The characters have all the traits that we can identify with bacause through our lifetimes we have felt some of those same things. But rarely do we have all those feelings at the same point in our lives, and some of them we can only imagine about. This makes the actual characters unreal and on a movie screen very obviously contrived and unbearable to sit through. Therefore, for the movie, they have to be changed, and like a rock in a pool, the ripple effects reach into every area of the story.

I explained the differences between reading a story and having one explained to you, but again, an attempt at logical discussion was pooh-poohed.

So, don't judge me by the way I debate mm et al. I'm just mirroring them.

lilhobo

01-20-2003, 06:38 PM

man, are you on this intellect , when i am trying to get booted !!!

stop crying ***edited by Ancalagon***:D

Nóm

01-20-2003, 07:05 PM

Foe_hammer, I think you said it well in your last post regarding the tactics of your opponent, and your reasons for arguing the way that you have.
I just have to say, that I am glad to see you explain that, because you sometimes start to make some good points that (for me) seem less because they are served with insults.

Thorin

01-20-2003, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by markrob
As stated last year, its about time all ultra purists crawl back in their dark caves with their 'sacred precious' in their gnarly litttle hands and do not try to experience any other medium of communication. No doubt you will only be disappointed with reality and eventually drive yourself even insaner if that is at all possible.

Hmm...Let's compare.

Gollum:- Holding on to his precious ring when it really serves no purpose.
- Alienates himself alone from the rest of the world
- One track mind that everyone is out to steal his precious

markrob and Foe-Hammer:
- Holding on to rude and obnoxious opinions which serve no purpose
- Alienating themselves from even other FADs with their ridicule
- One track mind that all purists are fanatics who hate PJ

Who's more Gollum-ish?

Foe-Hammer

01-20-2003, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Rúmil
Foe-Hammer,

I would like to remind you of the etymology of 'fan'. It is an abbreviation of fanatic. Fanatic comes from latin fanaticus, meaning at first 'regular attendant of a fanum'; a fanum being an aera devoted to a god, such as a sacred wood or the like. If you claim to be a 'Tolkien fan', you are actually saying Tolkien is a god to you, or at least an inerrant super-human. To call yourself a Tolkien fan and to bash him is contradictory, please choose one or the other, and preferably the former. ;)

:)

Originally posted by Rúmil
Now, you seem to misunderstand our purpose utterly: we are grateful to PJ and New Line in general for their attempt, for bringing thousands of people to read Tolkien. I personnaly love the music, the costumes, the sets and I take sort of private delight in the 'eye candy' GCI. All these things were directly chosen, or strongly influenced by PJ. Some of the scenes, like the Bridge-scene, are perfect. We admire much of PJ's achievement.

I understand that. I think the issues stem around charaters for the most part. Although some people have a problem with dirt and hill slopes etc.

Originally posted by Rúmil
Yet, we are people who consider that Tolkien is, as Mrs. Maggott puts it, 'the golden means': no imitation can be superior. Therefore, the more it nears the original, the more it approches perfection.

I agree if someone tries to re-write his story in book form.

Originally posted by Rúmil
Now, PJ did not work from that approach; indeed, the script was originally further from Tolkien than it now stands. You accuse us of not proposing an alternative; yes, we do propose one. If PJ had written no script and used Tolkien's actual written word instead, and fimed it as it is, we would have been content. It was not even tried; therefore we cannot know whether it would have worked. Probably not, but it was worth a try.

This is an illogical statement and is the crux of my incredulity. If it was your $300 mil, thats fine, but it wasn't your money or employees jobs and their families livelyhood at risk. These people are professional movie makers and even then make movies that flop. Would you prefer to have a word for word version that no one ever watches just to satisfy you that they tried? Heck, even the people that would be satisfied with it would never see it again because it would never even make it to video much less DVD.

Originally posted by Rúmil
We are merely idealists, trying to imagine what a 'perfect' movie would be, knowing full well that no movie is perfect. Do you notice that we are actually stating the instances in which PJ fell short of absolute perfection? Could there be a greater compliment? If anything, we're greater PJ fans than you.

You keep saying "we", but some have said he failed miserably.

Originally posted by Rúmil
If, as Eriol suggests, you do not think what you are saying about Tolkien, trying to get through to us by shocking us is not the good way: being Tolkien 'fans' (in a mild sense of course), if we cannot agree that Tolkien's written word is insurpassable, we cannot agree on anything.

Well, logic and reason hasn't worked.

Originally posted by Rúmil
As I already said, if you are trying to convince us that PJ's movie is great, you have already succeeded: it is very problably the movie of the decade. Which does not mean we cannot criticize it.

I can accept that YOU feel that way. :cool:

Originally posted by Rúmil
EDIT: and, of course, bearing in mind that we mean only well and improvement, not slashing, I would of course be delighted to engage in cordial conversation about anything regarding the movies.

The real bone of contention comes from how much closer to the book could PJ had gotten, and still have a success. Considering the amount of money the film is making and the records it is breaking, I can't imagine any changes making it more successful, and in fact would be more likely to do more damage than good. I don't mind exploring what changes might be made as long as we can keep them in the context of it actually not detracting from the current film. There are things in the movie I have questions about, but until the final movie comes out, I can't really judge if it "worked". IE.... Faramir/Frodo to Osgilith.

Thorin

01-20-2003, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
Sorry, but we learned last year with TFoTR, which posters were worthy of our best behavior and which were not. Thorin, who was/is the biggest purist of them all, would actually admit his mistakes and correct himself in the discussion. This makes it easy to discuss topics with him and we (fads) would admit our mistakes too.

Though I appreciate the compliment, I will also have you know that I have never wavered on my stance that PJ should have made a more truer version. I have not admitted any mistakes as much as I've found good things in the movies. Mrs. Maggot has also done the same, yet she has been ignored many times over. Maggot is just like me, IMO and I support everything she has said.

I would hope that despite what you think of other posters, your behavior should remain the same. Ridicule and scorn will only get that from others. Mrs. Maggot has actually kept her composure and quality of posts up despite the brow beating she has taken. Even her most impressive, well thought out and logical posts which should have been answered with the same, were wiped out and ignored by a scornful and empty response. I would hope that your well thought out posts would get the treatment it deserves. I haven't seen stones thrown on your posts when they have been logical. Unfortunately, they have been few and far between as of late.

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
So, don't judge me by the way I debate mm et al. I'm just mirroring them.

Come now Foe. Do you honestly believe that? In dodging the comments, I will say that you are debating similarily for you have dodged mine. However, if I weighed the posts in merit and worthiness of something to say, Maggot's would be far outweighing yours, even with her "contradictions" as you say.

Foe-Hammer

01-20-2003, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Thorin
Hmm...Let's compare.

Gollum:- Holding on to his precious ring when it really serves no purpose.
- Alienates himself alone from the rest of the world
- One track mind that everyone is out to steal his precious

markrob and Foe-Hammer:
- Holding on to rude and obnoxious opinions which serve no purpose
- Alienating themselves from even other FADs with their ridicule
- One track mind that all purists are fanatics who hate PJ

Who's more Gollum-ish?

C'mon Thorin. You know that we have gotten to this point only after repeated attempts at logical discussion on this.

(But, I have to admit, all rationalizing aside, it does fit. EXCEPT we FAD's are NOT the bad guys!):D :D :D

Thorin

01-20-2003, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by Rúmil
If PJ had written no script and used Tolkien's actual written word instead, and fimed it as it is, we would have been content. It was not even tried; therefore we cannot know whether it would have worked. Probably not, but it was worth a try.

IMO, PJ succeeded in FoTR best when he stuck to the script of Tolkien. The words fit the visual world that PJ brought to life and his fabricated and cheesy lines (I've gone over them ad nauseum) stood out like a prostitute in a convent.

Had PJ even stuck closer to the dialogue alone in TTT like he did in FoTR, it would have done wonders for the plot and flow of the story.

markrob

01-20-2003, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by Thorin

Who's more Gollum-ish?

Thorin, I am crushed. You of all people would try to compare a FAD to Gollum. One who holds the sacred text of JRRT so near and dear to your heart?? Oh it is to laugh :D FADS have many a view point and are open to most of all, CHANGE! You have flipped your lid, or should I say Gandalf hat. We can be called many things but to say we are close mindedness and possess one track minds is extremely laughable. But I have come to like you Thorin and I take it in stride.

A simple way to differintiate is the following: FADS like the book and the movie and can accept both for what they are.

Extreme NPW's, you, maggott et al, consider the book holy and sacred and can tolerate no other interpretation of it even if it is for pure entertainment purposes only, hince........the GOLLUM tag you guys picked up last year and continue to keep.

Call us anything but Gollum, for you know better.

lilhobo has picked up some warning points finally? Good God what took so long? Maybe the white and yellow face hurts some of the mods eyes also and they cant see most of his posts...... :p

Foe-Hammer

01-20-2003, 08:05 PM

Thorin,

You would at least listen to reason and took up the challenge and wrote a screenplay to replace the one you criticized. We still disagree on the viability of it, but kudos to you for being resonable.

Are you really saying that the dirty people of rohan was too realistic and the battle of helms deep wasn't realistic enough?

And do you really expect me to believe that you support the claim that the movie is being judged onit's own merits and not against the book and then justify those judgements by saying they don't follow the book?

Say it ain't so!:confused:

Foe-Hammer

01-20-2003, 08:10 PM

Markrob,

ROFLMAO! Right on bro!

HAHAHA!

Thorin

01-20-2003, 08:42 PM

From Foe-Hammer
Are you really saying that the dirty people of rohan was too realistic and the battle of helms deep wasn't realistic enough?

Actually, I had a bigger problem with the dispicable lack of any sort of army that Rohan had. The way I see it Grima exiles Eomer and three quarters of the Rohan army. Theoden therefore replaces them with 300 farmers. Against 10 000 orcs? Please! So what does PJ do to compensate for such a ridiculous excuse for an army? He brings in a bunch of Elves where they don't belong, sent by an Elf that isn't supposed to even be helping man....Does anyone else see how far away this is heading?

By sending away Eomer and most of the army, PJ seriously lowered the greatness of Rohan that was in the book.

To me, that is ten times worse then whether the people of Rohan (who got way more screen time then they should have!) are clean or not.

From Foe-Hammer
And do you really expect me to believe that you support the claim that the movie is being judged onit's own merits and not against the book and then justify those judgements by saying they don't follow the book?

For the most part, yes. The problem is, is that unlike FoTR, TTT can barely stand alone on it's own merit (IMO) and needs the standard to judge it by. The editing was poor, the character development, lacking and most of the situations, unbelievable.

Rúmil

01-20-2003, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer

Although some people have a problem with dirt and hill slopes etc. I'm the first to agree that that was not the most constructive of debates; though I don't feel there's anything wrong with nit-picking if it's done without any malice, of course, this is a clear instance of a minor point being promoted to 'burning question' status in the heat of the debate...

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer

I agree if someone tries to re-write his story in book form.

I believe that it is also true for film-form; it is one of those unproven beliefs we just have to agree to disagree upon, I'm afraid....

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer

This is an illogical statement and is the crux of my incredulity. If it was your $300 mil, thats fine, but it wasn't your money or employees jobs and their families livelyhood at risk. These people are professional movie makers and even then make movies that flop. Would you prefer to have a word for word version that no one ever watches just to satisfy you that they tried? Heck, even the people that would be satisfied with it would never see it again because it would never even make it to video much less DVD.

Aha! but it did not need to be filmed in tape or anything; you know the extensive use PJ makes of 'storyboards': that way the could have a precise idea of what scenes would look like at very low cost; he made dozens of versions of each scene, but never included an absolutely faithful version. Ithink this makes sense; even if it had been discarded, he could have made the gesture, whithout really going out of his way... Does this make sense?

I hope at the end purist and film-defenders can come and live together, forget their wrongs and found a new perfect society wherein....

... sorry :D

Mrs. Maggott

01-20-2003, 08:58 PM

Let us look at a few things that you find egregious:

1. The dirty people of Rohan (to be added to the dirty people of Bree): I said that it indicated to me that Jackson saw much of at least the men of Middle-earth in a very darkened light. It was unnecessary to show everyone looking like they needed a bath all the time and that even in duress, people could wash their hands and faces. Jackson's own comments about a "urine stained" Prancing Pony merely buttressed my arguments about his general 'vision' of the film. By the way, if this thread was "useless", you could have avoided responding to it since really it was only an offhand comment that was blown all out of proportion save only for its indication of the Director's view on life in Middle-earth.

2. The "comparing it to the books" vs. "internal film" critique. I have done both. I have done the latter when talking about the choppy editing, the nonsensical battle at Helm's Deep (surfshielding elves, silly dwarf comments, senseless ending et al.) and the inferior plot additions (warg riders, over-the-cliff and nobody to even look to see if hero is or is not "dead", the "Ring display", the side trip to Osgiliath etc. etc. etc.). None of these was analyzed referable to the book.

However, since the films were supposed to be adaptations of the book and not a distinctly new story, then it is logical, acceptable and perfectly understandable - especially in the case of character exposition and plot - to look at the source material in any critique of the film. There is nothing evil or stupid or dishonest about doing this and does not negate those critcisms made about the film as film.

If this does not satisfy Foe Hammer, I am sorry. I answered his questions where they were in fact questions and not merely ad hominem attacks which would have been impossible to "answer" without indulging in similar tactics. Furthermore, I sincerely hope that this puts to rest the argument that no one has a "right" to use the books in any way as a criteria for evaluating the films because that's just plain nonsense. Now, if Jackson had called his films by a different title and used a different plot and characters, that critique would be valid; as it is, it ain't!

However, I do promise I won't use The Silmarillion or The Chamber of Secrets or The Wizard of Oz to evaluate the films, but that's the best I can do. Sorry about that Foe.

Foe-Hammer

01-20-2003, 09:03 PM

rumil,

Yes it does make sense, but do we know that he didn't attempt the word for word story board version first and discarded it because it wouldn't work? And perhapes if they didn't attempt story boards was because they are professional film makers and knew it wouldn't work from the beginning?

Foe-Hammer

01-20-2003, 09:14 PM

MM,

I don't care if you compare it to the books or not, but if you say you aren't, and then do, I'm gonna bust you on it just like I did the last time you did.

As a matter of fact, every time I catch you talking double speak on any subject, I'll point it out.

Odo Proudfoot

01-20-2003, 09:19 PM

I very much doubt if PJ would ever have tried a fully faithfull storyboard, because he did not set out as a Tolkien fanatic trying to cast the book in film. He is a film director who wanted to make a big fantasy film and came up with the brilliant idea of basing it on the greatest fantasy book out there, rather then spend a lot of time and money trying to get someone to write a suitable script.

It may seem obvious to the purists, as die-hard Tolkien fans, to try the original story and dialogue first. I doubt if that would be so obvious to a film director who merely considers the book quite good, without going all starry-eyed about it. I suspect that most film directors worth their salt consider a script as just a starting point on which to build their own movie. Would I be wrong in thinking that many scripts do change considerably in between the first and last day of shooting?

PJ is simply coming from a different direction than the purists, and therefore ends up at a different destination.

Odo

Mrs. Maggott

01-20-2003, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
MM,
I don't care if you compare it to the books or not, but if you say you aren't, and then do, I'm gonna bust you on it just like I did the last time you did.
As a matter of fact, every time I catch you talking double speak on any subject, I'll point it out.

Since you have yet to accomplish that particular goal because as I have pointed out, it is impossible to completely divorce the film from the book (although Mr. Jackson is making a yeoman's effort in that direction) I am unconcerned with any future attempts you may make in that direction.

Furthermore, simply because I disagree with your "conclusion" about what you think that I have said is not "double speak", but a rejection of your conclusion, as difficult as that may be for you to understand or bear.

Oh, and considering that you frequently use the book yourself to point to Mr. Jackson's "incredible successes", don't you think it is more than a little disingenuous to dismiss criticism of him based upon that same book?

Foe-Hammer

01-20-2003, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Thorin
For the most part, yes. The problem is, is that unlike FoTR, TTT can barely stand alone on it's own merit (IMO) and needs the standard to judge it by. The editing was poor, the character development, lacking and most of the situations, unbelievable.

Who wasn't developed properly?

Rúmil

01-20-2003, 09:35 PM

He stated in the EE bonuses that he had determined the basic way the script would work before he started the story-boards. And, yes, his experience of film-making thought him otherwise; but, correct me if I'm worng, he never adapted a movie to screen before. He could have done it, if not to use it as a definitive version, at least as a reference tool.

It is a choice he made; once again, the stance you take on whether that was right or wrong depends on your prejudice; I am prejudiced to say that was wrong, I assume you are prejudiced to say that was right. I do not believe there is any unprejudiced answer.

Can we agree on that?

Foe-Hammer

01-20-2003, 09:36 PM

MM,

You can attempt to re-write history to your hearts content and your lengthy explanations may fool some people, but I am not one of them. You set the criteria for judging the movie and then did a 180 on that.

Like I said, that's fine with me, but you aren't getting a free pass from me on it.

Odo Proudfoot

01-20-2003, 09:40 PM

You people bickering make the battle of Helms Deep look like a tea-party.

Odo

Mrs. Maggott

01-20-2003, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by Odo Proudfoot
I very much doubt if PJ would ever have tried a fully faithfull storyboard, because he did not set out as a Tolkien fanatic trying to cast the book in film. He is a film director who wanted to make a big fantasy film and came up with the brilliant idea of basing it on the greatest fantasy book out there, rather then spend a lot of time and money trying to get someone to write a suitable script.

It may seem obvious to the purists, as die-hard Tolkien fans, to try the original story and dialogue first. I doubt if that would be so obvious to a film director who merely considers the book quite good, without going all starry-eyed about it. I suspect that most film directors worth their salt consider a script as just a starting point on which to build their own movie. Would I be wrong in thinking that many scripts do change considerably in between the first and last day of shooting?

PJ is simply coming from a different direction than the purists, and therefore ends up at a different destination.

Odo

My dear Odo. Never have truer words been written!

But if we take what you say as the crux of the matter (and it seems reasonable) then for those of us who find fault with the films, the problem must lie with Jackson's original "direction" (as indicated by a "urine stained" Prancing Pony, darker, weaker and certainly less noble characters etc.). Furthermore, it will continue even unto his eventual destination. On the other hand, this skewed approach apparently does not matter as much - or at all - to those who find little or no fault with the films.

If this is the case, then debate on the matter is pointless since it involves underlying issues and not just the occasional artistic interpretation of a scene which all parties understand at least basically in the same way but might portray differently. In fact, you have a fundamental divergence of moral, ethical and structural vision which is responsible for whatever differences have occurred so far and will continue into the next film. Therefore, how can one debate what is essentially an entirely different story and not just variations on and deviations from the same story? I don't think it can be done with any degree of success - but perhaps we have already learned that on these threads.

Foe-Hammer

01-20-2003, 09:47 PM

rumil,

I thoroughly enjoyed both the books and the movies. And I don't see the one affecting the other in the least. I think I know the books as well as most and I just am not bothered by the changes.

Maybe the basis of our disagreement lies in that I don't see what he did as right or wrong. You either like it or you don't. My confusion lies in the reasons some give for dis-liking it based on erroneous information.

Mrs. Maggott

01-20-2003, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
MM,

You can attempt to re-write history to your hearts content and your lengthy explanations may fool some people, but I am not one of them. You set the criteria for judging the movie and then did a 180 on that.

Like I said, that's fine with me, but you aren't getting a free pass from me on it.

I'm sorry, F.H., but I'm going to have to say to you what I said to your comrade-in-arms, markrob:

Endless repetition of the senseless does not result in it making sense.

And that will be my answer to your drum-beat of inanity on this business of my choice of "criteria" for criticizing the film, especially since you are obviously using it as a means of avoiding addressing those criticisms (such as editing and ring-displays) which clearly did not involve the book!

Thorin

01-20-2003, 09:59 PM

Foe-Hammer

01-20-2003, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Therefore, how can one debate what is essentially an entirely different story

Entirely:to the full or entire extent

We debate it because it is not an "entirely" different story. The movie resembles the book "The Lord of The Rings" more than any other work in the history of this earth, regardless of the medium.

Heck, even the wizard of Oz can be compared.

we have a magic item (shoes)
desired by their owner who lives in a castle(the witch)
in the hands of a good person (dorthy)
who gains a fellowship (scarecrow, lion, tinman)

Your statement couldn't even be used in a discussion of the wizard of Oz vs the lord of the rings. Not "entirely".

Odo Proudfoot

01-20-2003, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
My dear Odo. Never have truer words been written!

Aw, now, Mrs. Maggott, you make me blush... :o

But if we take what you say as the crux of the matter (and it seems reasonable) then for those of us who find fault with the films, the problem must lie with Jackson's original "direction" (as indicated by a "urine stained" Prancing Pony, darker, weaker and certainly less noble characters etc.). Furthermore, it will continue even unto his eventual destination. On the other hand, this skewed approach apparently does not matter as much - or at all - to those who find little or no fault with the films.

As I said before, for me the book and the DVD's can peacefully co-exist on my Tolkien bookshelf, together with other Tolkien books, background material and even Bored of the Rings.
All are additional, different views of the same world, none is there to replace another.

If this is the case, then debate on the matter is pointless since it involves underlying issues and not just the occasional artistic interpretation of a scene which all parties understand at least basically in the same way but might portray differently. In fact, you have a fundamental divergence of moral, ethical and structural vision which is responsible for whatever differences have occurred so far and will continue into the next film. Therefore, how can one debate what is essentially an entirely different story and not just variations on and deviations from the same story? I don't think it can be done with any degree of success - but perhaps we have already learned that on these threads.

Well, I still need to be convinced that the moral, ethical and structural vision of the film is indeed that different from the book. It is a difficult thing to do, because I know both book and film fairly well, but if I try to analyse the film as if I had never read the book I think I would come pretty close to the same moral and ethical content.

Maybe not quite so with the 'structural'content, if I understand correctly what you mean, because the film necessarily lacks the massive underlying background of the book (is it ever explained where the Elves actually go to? Is Numenor ever mentioned? Morgoth is mentioned once by Legolas in the EE, but who or what is Morgoth? The film doesn't tell).

I wouldn't mind going into a bit more of a discussion on this, probably better done in a separate thread.

Odo

Odo Proudfoot

01-20-2003, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by Thorin
I would really like to know where your source is for this information. PJ wanted to do LoTR period. PJ has made no bones about being a fan and always wanting to do LoTR.

I'm pretty sure I got that from somewhere on the EE, but I don't remember if it was on the commentray track or on disk 3, where they explain how they got to the script.

I'll try and find it again.

Odo

Foe-Hammer

01-20-2003, 10:09 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
As for TTT, I have only seen it once, was very careful to try not to compare it to the book. However, I still found it disappointing for a number of reasons.

Firstly, of course, because of the character deviations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since you were so careful not to compare the movie to the book, where did you get these "character deviations" that bothered you so much? You must judge the character only by what it is on the screen in order for your claims of nutrality to be true.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Thirdly because of the inane, unnecessary and inferior plot additions .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additions? I thought we weren't comparing the film to anything? How can you have "additions"? You really are comparing the movie to the book, aren't you?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Fourthly, because of the sad failure to fully utilize the ent plot thread..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, , how can you utilize a non-existant plot?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Most of these had to do not so much with film vs. book, but with film as film.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? Do you really expect us to believe that or was that a failed attempt at sarcasim? Regardless of your rhetorical claims to the contrary, you are comparing the movie against the book. It's plain as day.

**end of original post**

MM said "Endless repetition of the senseless does not result in it making sense."

Like you claiming that what I quoted you saying above , you actually never meant?

You said it maggot, and no ampount of spin-doctoring is going to change it. It's right there in black and white.

You said it. I quoted it. That settles it.

Like I said, you get to continue to back peddle and I get to continue to call you on it.

Foe-Hammer

01-20-2003, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by Thorin
If you have to ask that, we already don't agree.
1) Faramir
2) Theoden
3) Hama (minor yes, but still - dying by a fabricated Warg??)
4) Eomer - Who was he? Where was he?
5) Haldir (Oh, wait, he never existed outside of Lorien - what was I thinking?)
6) Treebeard (the most poorly developed and hopefully the most added on for the EE)

Best developed for the amount of time similar to Tolkien - Gollum, Wormtongue

Faramir, obviously we have just been introduced.

Theoden, What! He was very developed, just not exactly as the book.

Hama, Some important characters have to die

Eomer, what else do we need to know? he's a loyal bad@ss.

Haldir, same as hama

Tree beard, Just his non-hasty nature, makes him tough to do with limited time. What do you want, a six hour film?

Grima's "development" was due to the actor, what did he have 10 lines?

Gollum a pivotal character. He allows us to identify with our darker side, because there is hope for him. We cannot identify with saron or saruman and the like.

Mrs. Maggott

01-20-2003, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer

You said it maggot, and no ampount of spin-doctoring is going to change it. It's right there in black and white.

You said it. I quoted it. That settles it.

Like I said, you get to continue to back peddle and I get to continue to call you on it.

Since it has explained to you and you choose still - as Saruman - to "gnaw at the ends" of your failed reasoning, I would suggest that you see the previous post. I have no more time to say the same thing since you choose not to regard it.

Dáin Ironfoot I

01-20-2003, 10:56 PM

Well Foe, I must say I have to apologize for my statement earlier in which I called you immature and such. I think you are handling yourself quite nicely, and in a very composed manner (I guess getting 8 points makes one clean up their attitude ;) ). In fact, I dont think you are being offensive anymore at all, Maggott is just a little hot in her seat because you pointed out her contradictions and such. I agree, we are posting about the MOVIE and not the BOOK, and the MOVIE is DIFFERENT from the BOOK. When she posts things such as character deviations and plot deviations as poor parts of the movie, I agree with her, but then I remeber talking to others who haven't read the book and thier comments of how great the story and plot is, etc.

That being said, I still am terribly disappointed in the movie as an adaptation, but, I can accept it. For Maggott to post about too much dirt on people's bodies and the inaccurate slope of a hill is pointless, and that is no reason for a movie to have been labeled 'bad'. Maybe Maggott needs some kind of counseling to relieve some of the anger at PJ and his movies, because my dear, if those points of a movie make you think its a bad one, then you have issues.

Foe-Hammer

01-20-2003, 11:09 PM

Dain,

No need to apoligize. I was being immature.

Hopefully, the resulting dialog with mend the fences a bit and allow for more logical and honest discourse.

Thanks for the kind post.

Foe-Hammer

01-20-2003, 11:15 PM

Thorin

01-20-2003, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
Dain,
No need to apoligize. I was being immature.
Hopefully, the resulting dialog with mend the fences a bit and allow for more logical and honest discourse.
Thanks for the kind post.

:confused:

Okay...Whoever you are, I don't think it's very nice for you to take over Foe-Hammer's keyboard and pretend you're him, especially when you act totally out of character.

Odo Proudfoot

01-21-2003, 12:00 AM

Thorin,

I can't find it right now on the EE, maybe it isn' t on there after all.

I did find a few quotes from interviews, such as:

Jackson is not the kind of director who is obsessive. He wants to make it clear that "I've not had a lifelong ambition to make The Lord of the Rings, which is what a lot of people are sort of assuming that I've had."

Rather... "I've had a lifelong passion to make a fantasy adventure film, because when I was younger I loved Ray Harryhausen's movies, as well as stuff like Jason and the Argonauts, and the original King Kong. I've always had a desire to make one of those fantasy adventure type films, and they don't do those movies much any more."

They don't, he says, "because fantasy is a strange genre that has always been treated with huge suspicion and contempt by Hollywood, and certainly they lack confidence with fantasy, and because they lack confidence they tend to make them a little campy or a little over the top, or they get over-designed and it all becomes about production design and not about the story, and the characters, and the characters are usually very clichéd."

With Lord of the Rings, Jackson approached the novels "by deliberately trying to avoid that by making a conscious decision at the very beginning of our project, when we were starting to get our team together, we set ourselves the job of making more of an historical than a fantasy film, because I just thought that would be interesting, to treat fantasy as history, as if it had a degree of reality to it. So everything we did in the movie we tried to make feel real and just tried to avoid an over-designed sort of film and tried to make it more earthy and organic."

(from here (http://www.iofilm.co.uk/feats/interviews/p/peter_jackson.shtml))

Not quite the quote I remember, but still quite instructive. I will keep looking.

Odo

Mrs. Maggott

01-21-2003, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
quote:
Like you claiming that what I quoted you saying above , you actually never meant?
You said it maggot, and no ampount of spin-doctoring is going to change it. It's right there in black and white.
You said it. I quoted it. That settles it.
Like I said, you get to continue to back peddle and I get to continue to call you on it.
Since you are out of time, I guess this post will be the final word concerning your so called not-judging-the-film-by-the-book issue that I have pointed out was not "entirely" true.

I never said that I made no judgment of the film which included a referenct to the book, that is your interpretation of what I said. (Now I know where Jackson got his "script writers!") I said that most of my criticism of and disappointment in TTT was centered around the film itself and then went on to list them in different posts - including this one:

1. choppy and awful editing (see whole film).
2. senseless (not "different") plot inventions as, for instance: Frodo showing the Ring to the Nazgul, Aragorn going off a cliff and no one bothering to go after him, a charge beginning in a dining room and a battle ending without any reason for doing so a la Bakshi.
3. poor development of the ent thread in and of itself and, AGAIN, NOT IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE BOOK.

Now, my problem with the characters is ongoing and - as I stated but which you did not care to notice or wish to admit - must be related to the book since there is no other criteria by which to judge the characters, especially those introduced in TTT!. Furthermore, some of those criticisms appeared on threads which related to the characters themselves and therefore had to include references to the book.

Since no Administrator on the forum has forbidden any mention of the book ont his thread, I somehow got the idea that I could, if I wished to do so, bring in some reference to it. And since, as noted, one can make no comment about the characters without referencing the book, it would seem quite understandable to do so. However, as most of my criticism of TTT involved the film itself (see 1-3 above), I had no hesitation in stating that the book was not the major reason for my disappointment with it. Hey, live with it!

However, that means that out of four specific criticisms of the film, you have seen fit to become fixated on only one while conveniently ignoring all the others. Hmmmm. Could it be that's because you have no answer for the others and therefore prefer to limit your comments to the one which you believe "proves" that I was "lying" or "mistaken" about not using the book as a criteria?

I said before that I would not address this again but I have done it this one last time because you are continuing to raise the same issue over and over and over ad nauseum. I hoped (foolishly, I know) it might be because you are actually ignorant of what I meant and so I put it as simply and clearly (speaking slowly) as possible. If my explanation is not sufficient for you or if you wish to continue to misconstrue my words and their meaning, I cannot help that. It simply proves once again that old saying that there are none so blind as those who will not see.

And if you to continue to bring this matter up as a lame and senseless "gotcha" you are perfectly free to do so. But I am also free to simply say, "see previous post".

Thorin

01-21-2003, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by Odo Proudfoot
With Lord of the Rings, Jackson approached the novels "by deliberately trying to avoid that by making a conscious decision at the very beginning of our project, when we were starting to get our team together, we set ourselves the job of making more of an historical than a fantasy film, because I just thought that would be interesting, to treat fantasy as history, as if it had a degree of reality to it. So everything we did in the movie we tried to make feel real and just tried to avoid an over-designed sort of film and tried to make it more earthy and organic."[/i]

(from here (http://www.iofilm.co.uk/feats/interviews/p/peter_jackson.shtml))

Not quite the quote I remember, but still quite instructive. I will keep looking.

Odo

I stand somewhat corrected.

However, concerning the above quote, I also noticed on the EE extras that PJ's aim was to make this very authentic by treating it as a history. I find that quite interesting considering if you are doing that, you would stick very close to the source of information to get it right. I believe this was PJ's intention (See above quotes on actors reading the chapters to get it right). And yet he really messes it up.

Talimon's main arguments in defence of PJ was that he was trying to make a GOOD movie first and that adherence to the written word was secondary. I believe that there is more evidence that PJ's intentions were to stick close to the written word. If his plan wasn't that, he wasted a lot of time and energy in my opinion and he is a frustrating contradiction to this purist.

Odo Proudfoot

01-21-2003, 12:24 AM

Try this for size:

"We are going to make a very personal movie, our interpretation, what's in our heads. This is not a definitive version that replaces the word. The Lord of the Rings is a wonderful masterpiece and will always be so. ...

Peter Jackson, quoted here (http://www.escapee.fsnet.co.uk/interviews/guardian.htm)

Odo

JMacEye

01-21-2003, 12:33 AM

Well, if there is someone taking over Foe-Hammer's keyboard, let him stay there because he is much more pleasant to hear from and the ideas are coming through much more clearly....and I even want to listen... :)

If I may say something about the characters...

It is, of course, impossible not to know who the characters are, and what they would act like, if you have read the book...so to try and not think of them is extremely difficult for those of us who have read the book so many times.

But if I try very hard, maybe I can explain why I was dissatisfied with TTT (not hate it, but dissatisified). It would be that the characters, regardless of their portrayal in the book, just did not do it for me.

Let me try to pretend I never read the book:

Fararmir seemed like a creep. I hated him. Are there not ANY noble men around this place???

Elrond was a jealous Father and seemed petty and unlike what I imagined elves (not LOTR elves, but ANY elves) to be like....he did not even seem special to me.

Treebeard said that the Hobbits should not be hasty, then wham, bam, he is off to destroy Isengard out of the blue, even though he should have already known what was going on in Isengard since he was supposed to be shepherd of trees or something (cannot remember what he called himself).

Theoden was a crummy King who ran away and hid with his people and had to be coerced into fighting....not very inspiring to me.

Gimli was silly, and I did not care for the comic relief in the middle of a serious battle. I guess Dwarves are just fat, slow, out of shape comedians.

Aragorn was beautiful and had a sexy voice and all, but he did not seem like much of a leader to me, and I got the feeling that he was supposed to be kind of important in the whole scheme of things. I was not very inspired by him either.

Legolas was just what I thought an Elf should look like, beautiful, really good with a bow, light on his feet, very cool....but when he surf boarded down the stairs .... that looked contrived to me and kind of broke the spell.

Arwen, what a faithless you know what....nice girl to leave her betrothed behind while she runs off somewhere with her Father.

Gollum....awesome...what a cool character. Devious, very dangerous, conflicted and pitiful. I wonder why he is there and what his role will be in all this?

The Nazgul....wow, they were totally menacing in FOTR; I got chills and filled with horror every time I watched them .... this time, they did not even seem the least bit frightening .... just some cloaked guy riding a big dragon thing ... big whoop.

So....

None of these observations have anything at all to do with the book....they have everything to do with how TTT made me think and feel..

Now, knowing what Tolkien's characters were like, and how much they inspired, amazed, dazzled or horrified me, this lack of inspiration and dull characterization is even more disappointing.

I hope this helps you understand a little bit why some of us just do not think TTT was all it could have been....

Maybe just a little?

FOTR had some really inspiring moments that seemed magical and wonderful to me.....

TTT kind of left me flat....some good stuff, better than ANY other fantasy film I have ever seen (except FOTR), but, well, lacking....

Thorin

01-21-2003, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by Odo Proudfoot
Try this for size:

"We are going to make a very personal movie, our interpretation, what's in our heads. This is not a definitive version that replaces the word. The Lord of the Rings is a wonderful masterpiece and will always be so. ...

Peter Jackson, quoted here (http://www.escapee.fsnet.co.uk/interviews/guardian.htm)

Odo

I ask you this...Was Arwen at the Fords saving Frodo, calling on the flood and defying the ringwraiths ever part of anyone's interpretation of LoTR? If that was PJ's intention, he quickly moved from interpretation to invention. Why? Probably because he just wanted to make it his own. And the parts where intepretation ended and invention began was when it all fell apart. The fictional route that TTT took is proof of that fact. When you make one ludicrous change, it warrants another.

Elves at Helm's Deep, Frodo being attacked by a Nazgul at Osgiliath....Intepretation? Umm..no.

Vote!! Who here had this as an interpretation when they first read the books? Anyone? Anyone?

Odo Proudfoot

01-21-2003, 12:42 AM

I suggest reading this (http://www.wga.org/WrittenBy/1201/rings.html) and thinking about it a bit, before foaming at the mouth.

Honestly, film-makers have their reasons, and raping Tolkien is not one of them.

Odo

JMacEye

01-21-2003, 12:45 AM

No... all of my "interpretaions" had to do with what Rivendell looked like, what the Nazgul looked like, what everyone and everything looked like. And PJ got this stuff dead on for the most part...

I did not interpret Tolkien to perhaps mean that Arwen showed up at the Ford and Eomer was banished and Gandalf was a coward....nope...not for a moment.

Foe-Hammer

01-21-2003, 12:46 AM

MM,

Let me ask you a question. If what you wrote originally could stand on it's own, why didn't you just copy and paste it instead of re-writing it using different words that change the entire direction of your assertions?

Let me re-re-repost what you originally said......

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
As for TTT, I have only seen it once, was very careful to try not to compare it to the book. However, I still found it disappointing for a number of reasons.

Firstly, of course, because of the character deviations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Foe: Since you were so careful not to compare the movie to the book, where did you get these "character deviations" that bothered you so much? You must judge the character only by what it is on the screen in order for your claims of nutrality to be true.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Thirdly because of the inane, unnecessary and inferior plot additions .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Foe: Additions? I thought we weren't comparing the film to anything? How can you have "additions"? You really are comparing the movie to the book, aren't you?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Fourthly, because of the sad failure to fully utilize the ent plot thread..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Foe: Again, , how can you utilize a non-existant plot?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Most of these had to do not so much with film vs. book, but with film as film.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Foe: Really? Do you really expect us to believe that or was that a failed attempt at sarcasim? Regardless of your rhetorical claims to the contrary, you are comparing the movie against the book. It's plain as day.

**end of original post**

The beat goes on. The fact that you said you wouldn't respond to this again, yet here you are responding to it again, only strenghtens my point that you did in fact speak out of both sides of your mouth on the book vs film issue. You obviously don't realize it but the more you try to spin it, the more obvious it becomes because you keep changing the wording of your original argument. And IMO, that damages your credibility even more than your original faux pas.

Foe-Hammer

01-21-2003, 01:04 AM

jmaceye,

Although I do not agree with most of those I do agree that faramir seemed creepy and Elrond jealous. Since the last movie may bring closure to their characters it may well be they turn out to be something other than they appear now.

Look what a loveable character I turned out to be....

HAHAHA!;)

Dáin Ironfoot I

01-21-2003, 01:16 AM

I ask you this...Was Arwen at the Fords saving Frodo, calling on the flood and defying the ringwraiths ever part of anyone's interpretation of LoTR? If that was PJ's intention, he quickly moved from interpretation to invention. Why? Probably because he just wanted to make it his own. And the parts where intepretation ended and invention began was when it all fell apart. The fictional route that TTT took is proof of that fact. When you make one ludicrous change, it warrants another.

That's ridiculous. PJ says ALL THE TIME, throughout his many interviews and throughout the EE that he is making LOTR a movie based on Tolkien's books. He credits Tolkien ALL THE TIME!!! He worships him for chrissakes! True he deviated from the story, which shows how much of a fan he REALLY is, but honestly this is not some conspiracy to make his own LOTR. Sure he has always dreamt of making this film, but to take the credit away from Tolkien, that is an absurd accusation. If he were trying to do so, he would not credit Tolkien so much for being such an important part of his life, and refrain from saying anything with "Tolkien" at all. You make PJ sound like an evil man, slowly plotting his way to replace Tolkien with his spectacular movies. Now, I am not defending the movie, for I was highly dissatisfied with TTT, but I find it an outright CRAZY accusation to accuse PJ of taking over Tolkien. Go listen to all the interviews on EE, and hear for yourself the praise and acclaim of Tolkien's works. I guaruntee you'll hear it a lot.

However, on the other side of that, PJ's LOTR has taken away some of Tolkien's magic, from me at least. Because I read everything AFTER seeing FOTR, I am forced to think of LOTR with PJ's actors and dazzling scenery. But that is an effect of watching his movies, NOT a conspiracy to CHANGE THE TOLKIEN INDUSTRY AND RULE THE WORLD!!!

JMacEye

01-21-2003, 01:16 AM

Oh Foe-Hammer, you old softie :-)

I hope they do turn out to be other than they appear. I loved the characters in LOTR so very much. Perhaps that is because I have read it 17 times --- probably more than most --- so that makes character changes a bit harder to take than if I had only read it once or even a couple of times -- I just cannot help it...it is as if a member of my family is being portrayed all wrong on TV for all the world to see and judge :-)

But it only makes me sad, not angry at PJ, that they were not as close as I expected them to be. He had the right to do whatever he wanted.

It is my expectation that ROTK will be wondeful. Again I plan on reading nothing whatever, either here or in the media, about it prior to seeing it (and I will not read the book right before watching it either like I did TTT)...

Mrs. Maggott

01-21-2003, 01:24 AM

Last time, Foe! The characters were disappointing in the film itself. I was used to using Tolkien as that old "Golden Mean", but as has been posted above (and which, I admit, I didn't think to mention), even if Tolkien had never written a word, the characters were disappointing. They started disappointing (except Gandalf) in FOTR and became more disappointing in TTT. And when Jackson has St. Smeagol "sacrifice himself " to destroy the Ring in ROTK - and it is my belief that he is setting us up for that gem - he will have finished what he started: the destruction of the characters even without Tolkien's input.

I hope - really I do - that this finally answers your questions to your satisfaction. I don't know what else to say. Even if you insist that my character critique utilized the book, that means that 75% of my criticism involved only the film without any reference to the book! That is hardly a "purist" line of argument which references the book in all criticism.

Foe-Hammer

01-21-2003, 01:32 AM

jmaceye,

I found that when reading the books that I wanted it to be real and when I had to tear myself away from it to work etc, I couldn't stop thinking about it. My 14 year old son who started reading it just before the movie released felt the same way. The movies didn't make me feel that way, and I'm glad. I spend too much time in front of the boob-tube now.

JMacEye

01-21-2003, 01:44 AM

Foe-Hammer, that is a really interesting way of looking at it. Since it is obvious the movies are not going to make me feel the same way as the book either, it would be better to try to separate them totally from it.

The alternative is to avoid the movies all together, which I do no want to do.

It does no good to wish PJ would have done it differently, since it is a fait accompli, and I have no influence over it anyway. (I think, though, I would have been happy to be stuck in front of the "boob-tube" if the movies were what I had thought they were going to be) :D

Foe-Hammer

01-21-2003, 01:49 AM

MM,

I have understood all along what you are saying you said. And it's obvious that you desperatly need to have the last word here...SO......

I will drop the matter and chalk the following up to a mis-speak on your part and you never really meant it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
As for TTT, I have only seen it once, was very careful to try not to compare it to the book. However, I still found it disappointing for a number of reasons.

Firstly, of course, because of the character deviations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since you were so careful not to compare the movie to the book, where did you get these "character deviations" that bothered you so much? You must judge the character only by what it is on the screen in order for your claims of nutrality to be true.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Thirdly because of the inane, unnecessary and inferior plot additions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additions? I thought we weren't comparing the film to anything? How can you have "additions"? You really are comparing the movie to the book, aren't you?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Fourthly, because of the sad failure to fully utilize the ent plot thread.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, , how can you utilize a non-existant plot?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Most of these had to do not so much with film vs. book, but with film as film.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? Do you really expect us to believe that or was that a failed attempt at sarcasim? Regardless of your rhetorical claims to the contrary, you are comparing the movie against the book. It's plain as day.

**end of original post**

markrob

01-21-2003, 02:08 AM

CHA-CHING! :D

Foe-Hammer

01-21-2003, 06:41 AM

Originally posted by JMacEye
Foe-Hammer, that is a really interesting way of looking at it. Since it is obvious the movies are not going to make me feel the same way as the book either, it would be better to try to separate them totally from it.

The alternative is to avoid the movies all together, which I do no want to do.

It does no good to wish PJ would have done it differently, since it is a fait accompli, and I have no influence over it anyway. (I think, though, I would have been happy to be stuck in front of the "boob-tube" if the movies were what I had thought they were going to be) :D

Sometimes seperating that is hard to do. Even though not all the characters are brought to life as Tolkien wrote them, the geography has been. Seeing a painting of Rivendale be brought to life with running streams and living trees and from all different angles and perspectives has been a very satisfing point for me.

I look at the character differences as just another way those characters could have dealt with those situations. For instance....

IF Theoden had been possesed to the extent that PJ showed, could/would Theoden (and all other characters that interacted with his changes) act the way he did? Is it consistant? I believe it is. Was Theoden both weak and strong? Yes. PJ showed it in different areas and ways, but the basic character is there. I know changes had to be made for the sake of time and that cannot be helped. So, like the ripple in the pool example I used, any change is going to reach every part of the story. But as long as the basic character is there, I treat it as a believable action given the situation.

Just like the 4 gospels in the new testement have the same basic story, they are written from different perspectives that have different focus'.

I realize there are holes in my rational, and I don't expect it to make sense to anyone else, but that is as far as I have thought it through and it allows me to enjoy the book and the movie. I am still partial to the book because of the pure story line, but don't really like the pages of discriptions of mountains etc. When I need a quick Tolkien fix, I'll pop in the DVD and, recharge the batteries, so to speak.

Radagast

01-21-2003, 07:36 AM

Thanks for changing your demeanor.

Without getting warm and fuzzy, I'd just say it makes it easier to read the board and disagree with you on the topic at hand. While I have agreed that their are weaknesses in the books, there are also weaknesses in the film, that are to me just pretty stupid.

The one thing I would like you to admit as being pure opinion on your half is that making the films closer to the book means they would have been worse and boring,and basically doomed to fail. You can't prove this. It's your opinion. I disagree with it completely but it's yours to have.

Also do you work in the film industry and if so did you have anything to do with PJ's production?

I realize this question may seem like a trap of some sort but I'm only asking it because of the vehement way you have defended pj's right to do what he wants with regard to the story. It would provide me with some clarity on where you are coming from.

Thanks

Rad

lilhobo

01-21-2003, 07:58 AM

the "ninconpoop" statement would make ole foe-hammer a prepubescent moron :D

shouldnt be workign feverishly on reshooting all of ROTK if he were working for PJ? looking at the mess thats TTT you woul think PJ needs all the help that he can

Foe-Hammer

01-21-2003, 11:42 AM

Radagast,

No I did not have any connection to the movie. I see myself defending common sense more than anything else. But I'm sure someone could find a way to argue that also.

Yes it is my opinion. No one can know if any changes, closer to or farther away from the book, would make any difference either way. As far as an educated guess goes, the movie is breaking records, so it hard to believe it doing any better than it is. I believe that the other two attempts at this were less than successful and they were closer to the books, but admittedly different film mediums.

Eriol

01-21-2003, 01:56 PM

I, for one, would like to thank the people active in this thread for the more pleasant demeanor. It makes the issues more clearer. For instance, I find I can agree with Foe-Hammer's stance about the book x film, and I can also agree with Mrs. Maggott's individual criticisms about the movie. This happens because when I watch the movie (and I liked it a lot) I forget about the book and get lost in the magic. I really don't mind the warg episode, Osgiliath (with the sole exception of Frodo's offering. After several viewings I am positive Frodo was offering the Ring to the Nazgûl), etc., while watching the movie. Later, when I am thinking about it, I regret PJ's decision, and wonder how it would be if he had followed Tolkien... and I find fault with a lot of thing then. But I never tell it to any non-fans, and I think it is our (the fans) loss.

Again, thanks all!

Mrs. Maggott

01-21-2003, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Eriol
I, for one, would like to thank the people active in this thread for the more pleasant demeanor. It makes the issues more clearer. For instance, I find I can agree with Foe-Hammer's stance about the book x film, and I can also agree with Mrs. Maggott's individual criticisms about the movie. This happens because when I watch the movie (and I liked it a lot) I forget about the book and get lost in the magic. I really don't mind the warg episode, Osgiliath (with the sole exception of Frodo's offering. After several viewings I am positive Frodo was offering the Ring to the Nazgûl), etc., while watching the movie. Later, when I am thinking about it, I regret PJ's decision, and wonder how it would be if he had followed Tolkien... and I find fault with a lot of thing then. But I never tell it to any non-fans, and I think it is our (the fans) loss.

Again, thanks all!

Yes, when watching the film, only a few things "stick out" to bother the viewer. One of those to my mind was the almost non-development of the ent thread; it was almost as if it had to be put in if only to explain what happened to the two hobbits rather then it having a real influence on the plot - which, of course, it did. But other than those one or two things, one is definitely swept along as the film progresses.

It is only upon retrospect that so much of the film becomes problematic led, in the main, by the awful editing which made the film choppy and actually interfered with rather than helped along the plot developments.

TTT is much like Saruman's "voice" in the book: spell binding while you are engaged, but ragged and inferior when you have time to reflect upon it.

Foe-Hammer

01-21-2003, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Yes, when watching the film, only a few things "stick out" to bother the viewer. One of those to my mind was the almost non-development of the ent thread; it was almost as if it had to be put in if only to explain what happened to the two hobbits rather then it having a real influence on the plot - which, of course, it did. But other than those one or two things, one is definitely swept along as the film progresses.

It is only upon retrospect that so much of the film becomes problematic led, in the main, by the awful editing which made the film choppy and actually interfered with rather than helped along the plot developments.

TTT is much like Saruman's "voice" in the book: spell binding while you are engaged, but ragged and inferior when you have time to reflect upon it.

I'd be interested to know what your opinion is as to the reason why this movie is making millions of dollars and people are returning to see the movie multiple times if the editing is so awful and makes the film ragged and inferior upon further reflection.

DGoeij

01-21-2003, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
I'd be interested to know what your opinion is as to the reason why this movie is making millions of dollars and people are returning to see the movie multiple times if the editing is so awful and makes the film ragged and inferior upon further reflection.

Maybe you can explain why millions of people read and frequently reread a 50 year old story, full of inconsistencies and badly written, as you called it.
And besides, do I really have to mention Titanic?

Foe-Hammer

01-22-2003, 02:27 AM

Originally posted by DGoeij
Maybe you can explain why millions of people read and frequently reread a 50 year old story, full of inconsistencies and badly written, as you called it.
And besides, do I really have to mention Titanic?

I asked first.

JMacEye

01-22-2003, 02:42 AM

Sales cannot possibly prove the worth or excellency of anything....

Cabbage Patch Dolls, Beanie Babies....heck people will buy anything if it looks good in an advertisement or they think everyone else has one or has seen it and they need to as well.

There is something about human nature that seems to drive that trait...many people bought dozens of these things and they now are worthless.

That is not to say that TTT is in the category of either of these examples; the point is just that sales really do not mean squat as a proof of value. TTT is the best thing going in fantasy right now...

So what? So were alot of fantasy B movies decades ago...thery were better than nothing.

One needs to judge TTT on some other critieria than how much money it makes if one wants to be intellectually honest.

Radagast

01-22-2003, 03:15 AM

I would like to thank everyone here on the board for making this an energetic, heated, fun, and intellectual exchange. I think we have covered everything there is to cover so I probably won't be checking in as often. Probably not until later this year after I get a chance to see RoTK. Then I'm sure we will all be back with a lot more ammo to continue.

I have one parting prediction:

More people will be critical of pj after the next film because more viewers will have read the book. Those who do, I think obviously will have Tolkien's images fresh in their heads and will see for themselves that pj's interpretations will leave them flat.

That's my guess. "We shall see, oh yes, we shall see"

Take care all

Foe-Hammer

01-22-2003, 03:32 AM

Originally posted by JMacEye
Sales cannot possibly prove the worth or excellency of anything....

I disagree. This isn't food, clothing, or electricity we are talking about. This is an activity that people do with their spare time and money. No one would go see a stupid movie or buy an inferior product if they felt is was stupid and inferior.

Originally posted by JMacEye
Cabbage Patch Dolls, Beanie Babies....heck people will buy anything if it looks good in an advertisement or they think everyone else has one or has seen it and they need to as well.

Well, that is what makes it worth what they pay. If it was junk and fell apart, they'd quit buying the product.

Originally posted by JMacEye
There is something about human nature that seems to drive that trait...many people bought dozens of these things and they now are worthless.

That is a result of everyone who desires the product has it. There is no demand and therefore the price goes down.

Originally posted by JMacEye
That is not to say that TTT is in the category of either of these examples; the point is just that sales really do not mean squat as a proof of value. TTT is the best thing going in fantasy right now...

People have been clamoring for this movie for a year. The demand was there, the product was provided. People will continue to go see it until they have had their fill or something better comes along. TTT has beat out HP for the fantasy dollar. That fact in itself establihes it's worth.

Originally posted by JMacEye
So what? So were alot of fantasy B movies decades ago...thery were better than nothing.

B movies were low budget movies and nothing to do with the amount of people who went to see it.

Originally posted by JMacEye
One needs to judge TTT on some other critieria than how much money it makes if one wants to be intellectually honest.

I don't believe I was making a statement about the SOCIAL worth of TTT. MM said the editing was lousy, especially after you went home and thought about it, and that made it a bad movie.

My question was two-fold.....

If the movie is so poor after viewing it the first time and it continues to break records

A)Why do millions go see it a second time?

B)Why hasn't the word gotten out that the movie is so poor?

She must have a rational explanation right?

ChunkyLover53

01-22-2003, 03:36 AM

i guess her only reasonable explanation is that she is a picky critic, and more-so than the rest of the viewing audience.

pohuist

01-22-2003, 03:49 AM

Originally posted by Radagast
I have one parting prediction:

More people will be critical of pj after the next film because more viewers will have read the book. Those who do, I think obviously will have Tolkien's images fresh in their heads and will see for themselves that pj's interpretations will leave them flat.

That's my guess. "We shall see, oh yes, we shall see"

Take care all

I would add that, as it seems, a lot of people see the movie more than once, many more (myself included, don't even start me about the deleting of Huorns from the Battle at Helm's Deep), will be critical of PJ because somehow FoTR seems to get better after repeat viewing, while TTT seems to get worse.

One reason, maybe, is that while both have glaring omissions/reinventions vis-a-vis the book, the FoTR story flaws better, we (the fans) are enchanted by the scenery, and glad we finally get the movie (probably the best adaptation that will ever be made). When watching TTT we were already used to the scenery and over the excitement of getting the movie. So all we are left with, are glaring omissions/reinventions and the inconscistencies of plot lines/charater development, mainly stemming from the said o/r. Not to mention some moments that are not even at the B level, more like F- (for crying out loud -- Legolas on snowboard, oh, please!!)

Gollum was fantastic, though...

markrob

01-22-2003, 04:00 AM

Originally posted by Radagast

I have one parting prediction:

More people will be critical of pj after the next film because more viewers will have read the book. Those who do, I think obviously will have Tolkien's images fresh in their heads and will see for themselves that pj's interpretations will leave them flat.

That's my guess. "We shall see, oh yes, we shall see"

Take care all

Not necessarily; although there will be quite a few who chose to not open their minds to another form of medium, and especially one for entertainment, not everyone will feel that pj's "interpretation will leave them flat". Although I agree that will happen to an extent I have to oppose such a broad based statement. For there all also MANY people out there who either can appreciate both forms of LoTR's or alot of them do not care enough to take the time defend the common sense approach that both are acceptable on a website/forum board.

Lets call them FADSWHBTTD (fads who have better things to do) or FADSOFL (fads off-line, sounds like a horses name from Rohan). :cool:

lilhobo

01-22-2003, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by markrob
Lets call them FADSWHBTTD (fads who have better things to do) or FADSOFL (fads off-line, sounds like a horses name from Rohan). :cool:

FADSWHBTTOTWPJPC: fads who have better things to do than watch Pj's piece of ****....

Theres a sequel for American Pie...enuff said lol

FADS who go on the the forums and raves about PJ superior products over Tolkien's mastery are called ****: Film adaption gits

JMacEye

01-22-2003, 04:30 AM

Foe-Hammer...you seem bent on proving everyone wrong about everything they have to say point by point....you just cannot prove people wrong by disagreeing; it does not work that way.

None of your rebuttal statements proved that because something makes money means it is a great product. That would be a very naive notion. Yes...great marketing, great promotion, great hype....

I saw the movie 3 times....

The first because I loved FOTR (despte Arwen) and expected to love TTT.

I was disappointed. I thought it might get better the second time (since FOTR did as does much music I listen to), and I love looking at Legolas and Aragron and the pretty scenery.

I was even more disappointed. I did not care whether I saw it again or not until the EE came out....there is always hope, you know.

But I saw it a third time when I went with a friend who had not seen it yet. Please understand that I did not mind going and letting PJ earn more money...so what?

But, I was bored that third time and could have lived without it.

So....the movie can make tons of money....because people will see it again for lots of reasons.

Titanic was seen over and over and over again, not because it was great (although it may have been), but because the teenage girls could not get enough LEO.....period. Whether it was a good movie or not is irrelevant. Teenage girls love Legolas, too.

Lots of sleeper movies that win awards are never seen by very many people....their greatness was in the skill of the director, cast, etc....not in its big hype, big bucks, etc. I often watch those movies on DVD when I hear about them..and they are wonderful...but they never made any money to speak of.....

Good grief, there are dozens of "blockbusters" that really suck.

markrob

01-22-2003, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by lilhobo
FADSWHBTTOTWPJPC: fads who have better things to do than watch Pj's piece of ****....

Theres a sequel for American Pie...enuff said lol

FADS who go on the the forums and raves about PJ superior products over Tolkien's mastery are called ****: Film adaption gits

Tsk, tsk, lil'boy, you dont want to get any more warning points do you? Better mind you p's and q's, plus another pointless post by yourself doesnt help your cause either. Why are you still here anyway?? :p

lilhobo

01-22-2003, 04:36 AM

the ole celene dion song....

tis becoza you luv me ;)

Foe-Hammer

01-22-2003, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by JMacEye
Foe-Hammer...you seem bent on proving everyone wrong about everything they have to say point by point....you just cannot prove people wrong by disagreeing; it does not work that way.

None of your rebuttal statements proved that because something makes money means it is a great product. That would be a very naive notion. Yes...great marketing, great promotion, great hype....

I saw the movie 3 times....

The first because I loved FOTR (despte Arwen) and expected to love TTT.

I was disappointed. I thought it might get better the second time (since FOTR did as does much music I listen to), and I love looking at Legolas and Aragron and the pretty scenery.

I was even more disappointed. I did not care whether I saw it again or not until the EE came out....there is always hope, you know.

But I saw it a third time when I went with a friend who had not seen it yet. Please understand that I did not mind going and letting PJ earn more money...so what?

But, I was bored that third time and could have lived without it.

So....the movie can make tons of money....because people will see it again for lots of reasons.

Titanic was seen over and over and over again, not because it was great (although it may have been), but because the teenage girls could not get enough LEO.....period. Whether it was a good movie or not is irrelevant. Teenage girls love Legolas, too.

Lots of sleeper movies that win awards are never seen by very many people....their greatness was in the skill of the director, cast, etc....not in its big hype, big bucks, etc. I often watch those movies on DVD when I hear about them..and they are wonderful...but they never made any money to speak of.....

Good grief, there are dozens of "blockbusters" that really suck.

Calm down. I am not trying to prove you wrong. I simple asked maggot to quantify her claims. I had two questions.....

A) Why do people see it a second time

If I understand you right, you say there are many reasons why. In your case, you didn't like the movie the first time but thought it would get better the second time. You attended a third time because of your friend. Are you suggesting that your situation is the rule? I've been going to movies for decades and I have NEVER gone to see a movie a second time because I thought it would get better. And if I am bored in a movie, I do not go. My friends, family, and aquaintences feel the same way. My opinionis that my situation is more the rule and yours is such an extreme exception to the rule that it is a non-issue in the amount of money the film makes.

Secondly, if the editing is so bad, that after reflection it is an inferior product...

B) Why hasn't the word gotten out that the movie is so poor?

I don't know if you answered this when you said teenage girls love legolas. (OB is not Leo. And I did not go see it (titanic)because of Leo. I went because EVERYONE I talked to said it was an excellent movie. So, I caved in and went. I was thoroughly entertained by the story regardless of it's deviation from reality. In fact, my sons and I still call him Leo Defaggio.)
So if you are trying to convince me that teenage girls are convincing everyone to go see the movie, I just can't accept that as viable. The broad range of people who see this movie surely includes teenage girls, but everytime I've seen it there have been more adults than kids.

The value of a movie is subjective and when more people enjoy it than don't, it's value as entertainment is established at the box office by sales.

Again, this is not a reference to it's social value. But I'd argue the point that TLoTR has more social value than "american beauty", "pulp fiction", and "natural born killers" combined. But their value as entertainment is established at the box office also. I cannot argue that many people spent their money on it and thus they had value as entertainment to them.

The three movies I mentioned are examples of movies that I felt were garbage and did not see them in the theater, but did see them when the video was released. I was not uplifted by them and I found no socially redeeming values in them. There were ideas and situations in them that were not the norm and were believable situations, and thus their appeal, I guess.

If i have gleened what you feel about my two questions correctly, I will have to still respectfully disagree.

Dejio

01-22-2003, 06:09 AM

I've seen the movie 3 times in the movie house and 6 times on bootleg. It just gets better and better.

Although some of you were dissappointed with the movie (still can't see why), it's still the best movie for me.
All of you could hate the movie for all I care, but I will still love it.

It's the next best thing since... Star Wars (original)!

I'm really thankful for the people behind LOTR (movie); for braving to do what others skimper at the mere thought of it.
(How many of you can list GREAT medieval/fantasy movies of this epic proportions?)

They're a god-send to my ever growing love for fantasy.
:D

lilhobo

01-22-2003, 06:16 AM

oh so you are telling foe-hammer that coz there are no other "good" fanatsy movies is the only reason why u liked the TTT.....

otherwise if you did see Bakshi's version you would say PJ's is all **** :D

Foe-Hammer

01-22-2003, 07:11 AM

Dejio,

The reason why they are dissapointed?

I'm sorry, but to describe that would require me speaking in the black speech of Mordor.

And no one has ever spoken that tounge on this forum and I'm not about to start.:D

HAHAHA!

lilhobo

01-22-2003, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
Again, this is not a reference to it's social value. But I'd argue the point that TLoTR has more social value than "american beauty", "pulp fiction", and "natural born killers" combined. But their value as entertainment is established at the box office also. I cannot argue that many people spent their money on it and thus they had value as entertainment to them.

great, evidence that this guy is talking outa his ***. social value from pulp fiction: powder sniffing, ******* *******, god fearing mumle jumble

While I generally am willing to go easy with the editing function, I cannot in good conscience allow this sort of garbage to remain on a public forum.

Please refrain from this type of outburst in the future, or steps will be taken to insure the termination of your membership.

Thank you
Rangerdave

Foe-Hammer

01-22-2003, 08:16 AM

rangerdave,

thanks for taking out the trash.

lilhobo

01-22-2003, 10:01 AM

great lol...i think i will do a "foe-hammer" whine too, with cheese....

@ss = donkey lol :rolleyes: and was posted by markrob without censorship!!

and you censored "redneck"??? what kinda trailer trash are ya??

Rangerdave

01-22-2003, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by lilhobo
great lol...i think i will do a "foe-hammer" whine too, with cheese....

@ss = donkey lol :rolleyes: and was posted by markrob without censorship!!

and you censored "redneck"??? what kinda trailer trash are ya??

Yes, I did censor redneck: not for the word itself, but for the context.
And if you would please be so kind as to kindly refrain from calling me trailer trash. The term is both untasteful and unwarrented.

As for Markrob's use of the word in question, I was unaware of his posting. I have neither the time nor inclination to search for mispelled profanity. As for your choice in using said word, Ancalagon, Beorn and I have asked you not to use subsitute letter profanity. One would think that messages from three different moderators would be enough.

Are you getting the message yet?
RD

JMacEye

01-22-2003, 11:59 PM

Foe-Hammer:

Just to clear up a little misunderstanding.

I would never go and see a film twice that I hated. I never said I did not like TTT, even though I was bored with some of it.

I thought I made it clear, but will try again: The LOTR is a story I deeply love and care about. When I heard about PJ making a 3 film LOTR, I was just thrilled beyond words he was trying....and much of FOTR was beautiful, especially the EE.

I wanted to love it, I wanted to have some parts of the book on screen to see and experience....way beyond any other kind of book I have ever read.

If I did not like any other movie, I would not want to go back and see it, because I could not care less about it, although I might go with a friend who twisted my arm.

Please hear this...again....I state over and over I never said I did not like FOTR or TTT. When I said TTT left me flat, I was comparing it to how the book made me FEEL and comparing it to FOTR),

Anyway, I repeat, again, with TTT, I was hoping it would be better than the first time (what is so hard to understand about that?) I never hated it, never thought it was bad, it was just disappointing to see sooooooo many (to me) drastic character changes, I thought maybe they would not be so jarring the second time. And there were some parts that were as I imagined them.

So please stop trying to justify your scorn for my seeing it twice or three times since I did not think it was PERFECT.

The third time, I did not mind seeing Legolas shoot his bow, Aragorn track the Hobbits and Gandalf ride into the fray at Helm's Gate....so I did not mind going with a friend who had not seen it.

Just because you would not go to see a movie again if there were parts you did not like, does not mean others would not.

Finally, I did not make up the comments about teen-age girls swelling the ranks of Titani