The Two Towers Reviews

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Although the Lord knows I have tried, I have found that one cannot sensibly respond to nonsense such as yours - and furthermore, it isn't worth the effort.

Really? Lets see, is that the 4th or 5th time you've threatened to stop responding? You'll be back because you have an insatiable compulsion to have the last word. And I have an insatiable compulsion to get you to drop the rhetoric and make sense.

So there it is mm. I proved that horses can, do, and have negotiated that slope in reality, and utterly defeating your untenable position. And you continue to, how did you put it? kick against the pricks?

You ready to try another point? I am, cause it's obvious you are hanging on to this out of shear stubborness.

[FoolOfATook]

I can see why you dislike rhetoric, Foe-hammer. As far as I can tell, you prefer condesencion, sarcasm and arrogance to attempt to prove your points, rather than anything as noble as the arts of rhetoric.

By the way, how does one acquire the right to simply announce that their contention is "proven", without once using direct quotations or citations, but rather assertions and what must be described as hearsay? This seems like it would be usefull.

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by FoolOfATook
I can see why you dislike rhetoric, Foe-hammer. As far as I can tell, you prefer condesencion, sarcasm and arrogance to attempt to prove your points, rather than anything as noble as the arts of rhetoric.

By the way, how does one acquire the right to simply announce that their contention is "proven", without once using direct quotations or citations, but rather assertions and what must be described as hearsay? This seems like it would be usefull.

Rhetoric: b : a type or mode of language or speech; also : insincere or grandiloquent language

Noble: 1 a : possessing outstanding qualities

Foe: You are kidding, right?

[FoolOfATook]

Rhetoric: A subject that Aristotle found worth writing on, and Cicero found worth mastering.

I'm not kidding. Study up on your clasics.

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by FoolOfATook
Rhetoric: A subject that Aristotle found worth writing on, and Cicero found worth mastering.

I'm not kidding. Study up on your clasics.

Neither am I. Study your dictionary.

http://www.m-w.com/home.htm

[Captain Campion]

. . . to Joxy, for a kind and thoughtful reply.

Peace.

Campion

[joxy]

Originally posted by Captain Campion
. . . to Joxy, for a kind and thoughtful reply.
Peace.
Campion
Thank you, CC, and very much appreciated.
A special big thank you for using the quotation from blessed St Francis to complete your posts.

[joxy]

Rhetoric: the ART of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques; language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience.
I prefer that kind of art to some of PJ's ideas of it.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
I proved that horses can, do, and have negotiated that slope in reality.

The people I am talking to are actual working cowboys....These people work ranches in the mountains and encounter these conditions all the time.
....horse's bred for barrel racing....
Hearsay is proof? And what slope - have you checked the film slope against your hearsay ones?

Cowboys, ranches, in the mountains? What sort of cows are they?!
Do they take the downward descents at 45 degrees, all the time, at the speed of PJ's heroes? If so, why? It must be pretty hard on the horses.
And I still don't know what barrel racing is (or pole whatever)....

[Parrot]

Originally posted by joxy
Cowboys, ranches, in the mountains? What sort of cows are they?!
Do they take the downward descents at 45 degrees, all the time, at the speed of PJ's heroes? If so, why? It must be pretty hard on the horses.
And I still don't know what barrel racing is (or pole whatever)....

Joxy, Barrel Racing and Pole Bending are rodeo events;
Barrel racing involves three barrels in a triangle shape in an arena, barrels about 30 ft apart. Rider sees how fast she can circle the barrels and return to the starting line. For pole bending think of a ski slalom on horseback.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Parrot
....For pole bending think of a ski slalom on horseback.
Hey, thanks Parrot!
I guess there won't be any slopes at a rodeo, so it won't be a downhill slalom!

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by joxy
Rhetoric: the ART of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques; language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience.
I prefer that kind of art to some of PJ's ideas of it.

The confusion seems to be about the difference between "rhetoric" and "demagoguery". Some people use these terms interchangably, but, of course, they are not.

Another thing that many people don't understand is that once upon a time, good speakers used carefully crafted rhetoric because they honored and valued their audience; they were not comtemptuous of the people to whom they spoke.

Today, that has all changed. Most "influence peddlers" believe (and, unfortunately correctly), that they need only "tell a big enough lie often enough" and they will be believed, even in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary. One has to wonder which "died" first: the "rhetoriticians" or their intellectually worthy audience? Or maybe it started with TV....

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by joxy
Rhetoric: the ART of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques; language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience.
I prefer that kind of art to some of PJ's ideas of it.

That is one definition of rhetoric, but the posts I describe as rhetoric would be akin to execrcises in pedantry. After I strip away their psudo-intellectual facade, they are revealed as convoluted double-speak that serves only to further the ego of the pedant.

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by joxy
Hearsay is proof? And what slope - have you checked the film slope against your hearsay ones?

Cowboys, ranches, in the mountains? What sort of cows are they?!
Do they take the downward descents at 45 degrees, all the time, at the speed of PJ's heroes? If so, why? It must be pretty hard on the horses.
And I still don't know what barrel racing is (or pole whatever)....

Foe: I don't understand. Why does it matter what type of cows? Why does it matter if they do it all the time?

[Grond]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
Don'take this personal, but your source obviously knows their limits and those of their horse. The people I am talking to are actual working cowboys, not those who play at cowboy. These people work ranches in the mountains and encounter these conditions all the time.

And don't blame your souce for misleading you either. You don't take horse's bred for barrel racing and ride them down mountain trails. Now we are showing disdain where none is due. First, you can take a horse which is bred for barrel racing down mountain trails. And as for my daughter being a part time cowgirl... she was a state class barrel racer and pole bender and also studied Equestrian Science in college. She did not "play" at horse riding but was involved in it "daily" beginning at age 8 and continuing throughout her high school years. She knew not only the limits of her own horse but horses in general. My daughter is at least as authoritative as your source in the Battle of Waterloo debate. It is already well illustrated that you didn't have a clue what you were talking about there.

Attack me all you like..... attack my daughter at your own risk.

[Grond]

Originally posted by joxy
Hearsay is proof? And what slope - have you checked the film slope against your hearsay ones?

Cowboys, ranches, in the mountains? What sort of cows are they?!
Do they take the downward descents at 45 degrees, all the time, at the speed of PJ's heroes? If so, why? It must be pretty hard on the horses.
And I still don't know what barrel racing is (or pole whatever).... I have never (since he's been on this forum) seen Foe-hammer admit that he is wrong. I've never even seen him admit that it is within the realm of possibility for him to be wrong. We've already proven his information is incorrect in his Waterloo analogy; yet, he continues to cite it as an illustration of his position on the charge in the movie. :rolleyes:

As for barrel racing and pole bending here (http://www.geocities.com/canchasercwgrl/competition.html) is a link to some pictures of what that involves. Notice how amateurish the participant looks. One can hardly imagine that the person in the picture knows horses at all. :rolleyes:

[Grond]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
That is one definition of rhetoric, but the posts I describe as rhetoric would be akin to execrcises in pedantry. After I strip away their psudo-intellectual facade, they are revealed as convoluted double-speak that serves only to further the ego of the pedant. ROFL!! Foe-hammer... you continue to crack me up. :D

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by Grond
Now we are showing disdain where none is due. First, you can take a horse which is bred for barrel racing down mountain trails. And as for my daughter being a part time cowgirl... she was a state class barrel racer and pole bender and also studied Equestrian Science in college. She did not "play" at horse riding but was involved in it "daily" beginning at age 8 and continuing throughout her high school years. She knew not only the limits of her own horse but horses in general. My daughter is at least as authoritative as your source in the Battle of Waterloo debate. It is already well illustrated that you didn't have a clue what you were talking about there.

Attack me all you like..... attack my daughter at your own risk.

Foe: I did not attack your daughter. You realize that when you name a source, you open that source up to critique? You brought her into this, not I.

You tried to hold her as an athority on the use of cavalry, when all she has done is barrel racing. That's like saying just because she can drive a car, she's is qualified to race at indy. Should I go ask Jeff Gordon if he needs her advice?

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by Grond
I have never (since he's been on this forum) seen Foe-hammer admit that he is wrong. I've never even seen him admit that it is within the realm of possibility for him to be wrong. We've already proven his information is incorrect in his Waterloo analogy; yet, he continues to cite it as an illustration of his position on the charge in the movie. :rolleyes:

As for barrel racing and pole bending here (http://www.geocities.com/canchasercwgrl/competition.html) is a link to some pictures of what that involves. Notice how amateurish the participant looks. One can hardly imagine that the person in the picture knows horses at all. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I know what you what you mean. I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken. :)

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by Grond
ROFL!! Foe-hammer... you continue to crack me up. :D .

I tried the as best as I could to fill a meaningless post with as many $5 words as I could to try an make it sound meaningfull, but I can't hold a candle to Ol' MM. She is the quee of rhetoric.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
{1} Why does it matter what type of cows?
{2} Why does it matter if they do it all the time?
{1} It matters because, with my limited knowledge, and still more limited experience, of cows, I did not know that any cows were kept on mountains. Any cows which I have seen, in illustrations or in reality, have been specifically on ground which was significantly level. I therefore assume that different varieties of cows exist in your part of the world, and ask you for information about them.
{2} It matters because, if they ride all the time down steep slopes, at the speed of PJ's heroes as I also said in my post, then, again as I also said, it must be pretty hard on the horses - to which I now add unneccessarily and cruelly so.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Grond
We've already proven his information is incorrect in his Waterloo analogy.
As for barrel racing and pole bending here is a link to some pictures of what that involves.
Rather, he has not proved that it is correct.
And thank you for the information on this interesting form of entertainment!

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by joxy
Rather, he has not proved that it is correct.
And thank you for the information on this interesting form of entertainment!

As one of the points brought up regarding the ability of a horse to take such a steep grade at a dead run is the film "Return to Snowy River". A group of veteran horsemen go after an escaped stallion and reach a precipitous slope, perhaps even more precipitous than the one in TTT. At this time, all of these excellent riders on equally excellent mounts (they come obviously from a horse ranch), STOP dead. They DO NOT attempt the slope even at a walk. However, the young hero rides past them all and launches his mount down this drop at a dead run. It makes a great scene because it is done in slow motion and, of course, the bravest fellow of all recovers the runaway horse.

However, there are one or two "glitches" in any attempt to use this scene as "proof" that such a thing can be done. No one suggests that under no circumstances can it everbe done. But, as noted, all the other more experienced riders did not attempt it at all, much less at full speed. The young man is a fine rider, but he could just as easily have been killed or crippled or killed or crippled his mount by indulging in such an ill-advised stunt. Then too, as he clears the lip of the slope and launches himself down, he is virtually lying flat on his back on his horse. To sit up under those circumstances would be to catapult forward over the horse's head, the results of which would have been two-fold: first you can get squished doing that and second, as the rider moves forward, the center of gravity shifts and the horse itself may become over-balanced and fall. Both of these results are unpleasant to say the least. Finally, the rider goes it alone. There is no large contingent thundering down behind him so if he falls (unless he falls under the hoofs of his own horse), he has a chance of survival.

Certainly there are things that can be done on horseback by certain persons on certain horses which both may survive, but they are hardly the norm. Furthermore, most good horsemen and horse lovers would seriously hesitate to commit their animal to something that has an overwhelming possiblity of disaster unless it is a matter of life and death (say getting out of the path of a fast-moving forest fire). Certainly no cavalry tactician worth his salt would ever base a critical maneuver on something so risky, so foolhardy or so apt to result in disaster. These things may "look" spectacular, but they do impact upon the credibility of the scene - unless, of course, one is willing to accept anything because it appears between the opening and closing credits of Mr. Jackson's films.

[Parrot]

Edit: That dang Mrs. M slipped in before me if this post seems to make even less sense than my standard drivel.
Originally posted by joxy
{1} It matters because, with my limited knowledge, and still more limited experience, of cows, I did not know that any cows were kept on mountains. Any cows which I have seen, in illustrations or in reality, have been specifically on ground which was significantly level. I therefore assume that different varieties of cows exist in your part of the world, and ask you for information about them.
{2} It matters because, if they ride all the time down steep slopes, at the speed of PJ's heroes as I also said in my post, then, again as I also said, it must be pretty hard on the horses - to which I now add unneccessarily and cruelly so.

While I tend to agree with Odo that this discussion has definitely entered the realm of the ridiculous, I will try to answer these for you Joxy. Here in the western USA cows are routinely ranged on Forest Service leased ground during the summer months, some of which is pretty steep. Come fall these cows must be rounded up and brought back home, this is generally done by cowhands on horseback. That being said, I can't really agree with FH, if in fact it is his contention, that said cowhands are routinely charging their horses up and down steep slopes; at least this has not been my experience.

The question in the beginning though, was not whether this was common practice or even advisable, but rather, whether it was possible. I feel quite sure that it is possible for the right horse and rider to take on the slope in question and though it has been a few years since I have seen it , I would invite you to check out a movie called "The Man from Snowy River"; this movie has a truly breathtaking sequence where Jim, the protaganist, pursues a wild stallion, and includes maybe the greatest horse stunt I have ever seen - a full-throttle run down a hill that, to the best of my recollection, is at least as steep as Helm's Deep appears.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Parrot
...The question in the beginning though, was not whether this was common practice or even advisable, but rather, whether it was possible. I feel quite sure that it is possible for the right horse and rider to take on the slope in question and though it has been a few years since I have seen it , I would invite you to check out a movie called "The Man from Snowy River"; this movie has a truly breathtaking sequence where Jim, the protaganist, pursues a wild stallion, and includes maybe the greatest horse stunt I have ever seen - a full-throttle run down a hill that, to the best of my recollection, is at least as steep as Helm's Deep appears. As my daughter suggested to me (which I related earlier in this thread) the Man from Snowy River scenario can certainly be done. The rider was in for the ride of his life just to hang on to the horse. The only thoughts said rider is having is staying "in tune" with your horse and staying "in the saddle." The thought of a troop of riders accomplishing the feat while in "attack" mode is preposterous (but possible.)

Again, I have no problem with the cinematic scene created by PJ. What I do have a problem with is people making broad brush statements that something like that occurs and is common and then using an out of context example to back up their opinion.

That is where good Foe-hammer reminds me of our former great debater Harad. Neither have ever been wrong about anything in their entire lives (or at least never admitted they were wrong on the forum.) :):D;)

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Grond
As my daughter suggested to me (which I related earlier in this thread) the Man from Snowy River scenario can certainly be done. The rider was in for the ride of his life just to hang on to the horse. The only thoughts said rider is having is staying "in tune" with your horse and staying "in the saddle." The thought of a troop of riders accomplishing the feat while in "attack" mode is preposterous (but possible.)

Again, I have no problem with the cinematic scene created by PJ. What I do have a problem with is people making broad brush statements that something like that occurs and is common and then using an out of context example to back up their opinion.

That is where good Foe-hammer reminds me of our former great debater Harad. Neither have ever been wrong about anything in their entire lives (or at least never admitted they were wrong on the forum.) :):D;)

And they weren't going to find a whole large group with long spears at the bottom of the hill either!

I orginally brought up the preposterous nature of the charge of the Rohirrim not to "nit pick" but simply as the "cherry on the top" of an entire sundae of equally impossible and silly stuff that went on throughout the battle. From the "trigger happy" elderly fellow who loosed his arrow before the order to do so, (something I still don't understand because the whole scene was being played as if that miscue started the battle and if only the old fool had held his hand, the orcs might have turned around and gone home!), to the enormous blast that took down huge walls and bothered almost no one around it, to the dining room horse charge going without hindrence though a narrow door and past/over/ through tons or orcs with a large battering ram and then out through a narrow winding street and past/over/ through tons or orcs without a large battering ram, to the obviously "game boy" appearance of the hordes of orcs storming the keep, Helm's Deep is one very exasperating and incredible scene!

I would have given them another 5 degrees on the slope if the King and his knights had simply gone outside into a walled enclosure still free of orcs, mounted their horses, had the door opened to the causeway and charged out! That at least would have been believable - as well as faithful to the book. But no, it had to be "Ripley's Believe it or Else" through the whole silly battle. It is one thing to asked to "suspend disbelief" and quite another to be asked to suspend intelligence.

[Parrot]

Originally posted by Grond


Again, I have no problem with the cinematic scene created by PJ. What I do have a problem with is people making broad brush statements that something like that occurs and is common and then using an out of context example to back up their opinion.


Grond I am not sure if that is aimed at me or FH, but my opinion is that the charge does not violate "the law of physics" as has been suggested, the laws of probability maybe, but not physics.

What it boils down to for me is this; if Tolkien had written a passage where the Rohirrim make a valiant cavalry charge down a slope that would be unthinkable to any other cavalry seen before or since, I think the sum-total purist response would be "well of course, they're the Rohirrim". It is the mind from which this particular stretch springs that is the real issue here (IMO).

[Thorin]

I must say that this has to be the most nit-picking weenie conversation that I've ever observed in this forum.

Weenies! All of you! Even the FADs are bigger weenies than I with this conversation!

With all the glaring changes and additions like Faramir and Aragorn and Elves at Helm's Deep and Olympic Orc runner and what not, you folks quibble about the physics and angular mathematics of horses coming down a hill!

SHEEEEEESH!!!!!

[Parrot]

Originally posted by Thorin

Weenies! All of you! Even the FADs are bigger weenies than I with this conversation!

SHEEEEEESH!!!!!

Oh come on Thorin, no one is a bigger weenie than you.

[markrob]

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

EAT MORE CHICKEN!

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Thorin
I must say that this has to be the most nit-picking weenie conversation that I've ever observed in this forum.

Weenies! All of you! Even the FADs are bigger weenies than I with this conversation!

With all the glaring changes and additions like Faramir and Aragorn and Elves at Helm's Deep and Olympic Orc runner and what not, you folks quibble about the physics and angular mathematics of horses coming down a hill!

SHEEEEEESH!!!!!
I do think - if you are being fair - that it should be mentioned that I noted the charge merely as a sort of gloriously nonsensical conclusion to an equally nonsensical battle! To me, the problem with this sort of thing is that there is so much of it that after a while you have to try to focus on at least something specific in order to begin to address the whole, otherwise you are just standing there wondering where it all went wrong. It's like cleaning the garage or the attic. If you don't find someplace to start, you're liable to spend a whole day going round and round like a dervish and accomplishing nothing because the job is simply too large for one great "sweep".

Helm's Deep has so many problems, not the least of which is its length, that one has to begin somewhere in order to bring the whole into focus. The horses dropping off a veritable cliff just seemed to me as a good "jumping off" point (forgive the pun) - plus the fact that it was the scene leading into that very unsatisfying ending!

As for Tolkien "writing" something like it: certainly he could have done so. His description of the Riders flowing like molten silver through the ruined walls of the Pelannor unnoticed by the dark hordes because they had slipped past their outposts, is certainly beautiful and the mind conjures up all manner of wonderful images including the "glowing" skin and hair of horse and rider alike in the dark, fetid air, the shields and helms reflecting the flames of the burning - oh, yes, Tolkien's verbal "brush" is every bit as beautiful as anything that mere film can produce.

But had he created such a charge, you may wager that he would have told of the terrible cost it would have been to men and beasts as they thundered down such a slope, danger forgotten with only the sure guidance of the Riders and the sure feet of their steeds saving the whole from disaster. Tolkien certainly wouldn't have just said, "off they galloped" and left it at that!

[Parrot]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott


But had he created such a charge, you may wager that he would have told of the terrible cost it would have been to men and beasts as they thundered down such a slope, danger forgotten with only the sure guidance of the Riders and the sure feet of their steeds saving the whole from disaster. Tolkien certainly wouldn't have just said, "off they galloped" and left it at that!
Maybe, maybe not......
There suddenly upon a ridge appeared a rider, clad in white, shining in the rising sun. Over the low hills the horns were sounding. Behind him, hastening down the long slopes, were a thousand men on foot; their swords were in their hands. Amid them strode a man tall and strong. His shield was red. As he came to the valley's brink, he set to his lips a great black horn and blew a ringing blast.
'Erkenbrand!' the Riders shouted. 'Erkenbrand!'
'Behold the White Rider!' cried Aragorn. 'Gandalf is come again!'
'Mithrandir, Mithrandir!' said Legolas. 'This is wizardry indeed! Come!
I would look on this forest, ere the spell changes.'
The hosts of Isengard roared, swaying this way and that, turning from fear to fear. Again the horn sounded from the tower. Down through the breach of the Dike charged the king's company. Down from the hills leaped Erkenbrand, lord of Westfold. Down leaped Shadowfax, like a deer that runs surefooted in the mountains. The White Rider was upon them, and the terror of his coming filled the enemy with madness. The wild men fell on theirfaces before him. The Orcs reeled and screamed and cast aside both sword and spear. Like a black smoke driven by a mounting wind they fled. Wailing they passed under the waiting shadow of the trees; and from that shadow none ever
came again.

Stirring prose, no doubt, and a great passage - but I don’t see the part where he waxes rhapsodic about the terrible price Erkenbrand’s men pay when their charge meets the enemy host, or if there was in fact any clash, or where he explains what happened to those enemy who “fell on their faces” before the coming fury of the White Rider; were they summarily executed - or taken prisoner? No prisoners are ever mentioned, so they must have been executed, but that doesn’t seem like our honorable heroes, so that can’t be the case, can it? Maybe they eventually got up and ran to the trees too, but did any stand and fight? I thought they were the Fighting Uruk– Hai? And hey, if Gandalf has such an effect on the enemy, why did he not ride forth on Shadowfax, Middle-Earth’s fastest and most tireless horse, and engage sooner, instead of keeping pace with footsoldiers until the Hornburg was nearly taken and all lost? Does it all make sense - what are we to make of all these glaring unanswered questions? We’ll just never know because, apparently, Tolkien just couldn’t be bothered to expand on all the incidental minutia and felt it more necessary to get back to the real storyline - almost like an “off they ran” and left it at that. Can I really continue to take this story seriously? Uhh…. yeah, I can.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Parrot
Maybe, maybe not......


Stirring prose, no doubt, and a great passage - but I don’t see the part where he waxes rhapsodic about the terrible price Erkenbrand’s men pay when their charge meets the enemy host, or if there was in fact any clash, or where he explains what happened to those enemy who “fell on their faces” before the coming fury of the White Rider; were they summarily executed - or taken prisoner? No prisoners are ever mentioned, so they must have been executed, but that doesn’t seem like our honorable heroes, so that can’t be the case, can it? Maybe they eventually got up and ran to the trees too, but did any stand and fight? I thought they were the Fighting Uruk– Hai? And hey, If Gandalf has such an effect on the enemy, why did he not ride forth on Shadowfax, Middle-Earth’s fastest and most tireless horse, and engage sooner, instead of keeping pace with footsoldiers until the Hornburg was nearly taken and all lost? Does it all make sense - what are we to make of all these glaring unanswered questions? We’ll just never know because, apparently, Tolkien just couldn’t be bothered to expand on all the incidental minutia and felt it more necessary to get back to the real storyline - almost like an “off they ran” and left it at that. Can I really continue to take this story seriously? Uhh…. yeah, I can.

"The king now returned to the Hornburg, and slept, such a sleep of quiet as he hadn ot known for many years, and the remainder of his chosen company rested also. But the others, all that were not hurt or wounded, began a great labour; for many had fallen in the battle and lay dead upon the field or in the Deep. No orcs remained alive; their bodies were uncounted. But a great many of the hillmen had given themselves up; and they were afraid and cried for mercy. The Men of the Mark took their weapons from the, and set them to work. 'Help now to repair the evil in which you have joined,' said Erkenbrand; 'and afterwards, you shall take an oath never again to pass the Fords of Isen in arms, nor to march with the enemies of Men; AND THEN YOU SHALL GO FREE BACK TO YOUR LAND. For you have been deluded by Saruman. Many of you have got death as the reward of your trust i him; but had you conquered, little better would your wages have been.' The men of Dunland were amazed, for Saruman had told them taht the men of Rohan were cruel and bured their captives alive."

Not so, dear Parrot, not so........

[joxy]

Originally posted by Parrot
Here in the western USA cows are routinely ranged on Forest Service leased ground during the summer months, some of which is pretty steep.
Thanks Parrot; a contributor in Montana has to be about as good a person to answer the question as I could have hoped to find!
I can't imagine a lot of grazing material growing on those mountainsides, so I hope they supplement the cows' diet!

[Parrot]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott


Not so, dear Parrot, not so........

DOH! Mouth, meet foot.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Parrot
Stirring prose, no doubt, and a great passage.
Yes indeed, the most relevant points for this discussion being "LOW hills" and "LONG slopes".
No mention there of something like the side of a volcano.

[Parrot]

Sorry Joxy, but I think the "relevant" ship set sail some pages ago......

I have no idea what I'm talking about at this point.... and I may be drunk....

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Parrot
DOH! Mouth, meet foot.

My mother used to tell me that I only opened my mouth to change feet!

[Foe-Hammer]

Parrot,
Depending on the EE and what PJ includes, you deserve a reprieve. At least until then. It is a well known fact that the battle for helms deep was cut in order to keep the movie PG13. I'm sure that we'll see enough men and horse's dying to satisfy MM. It's funny, cause all this time maggott has been criticizing this film for all the video game violence. :rolleyes:

[Grond]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
Parrot,
Depending on the EE and what PJ includes, you deserve a reprieve. At least until then. It is a well known fact that the battle for helms deep was cut in order to keep the movie PG13. I'm sure that we'll see enough men and horse's dying to satisfy MM. It's funny, cause all this time maggott has been criticizing this film for all the video game violence. :rolleyes: I, for one, would like to see us move beyond the horse charge issue and find some other things to applaud/criticize in the movie. This thread is bang up and I want to commend everyone for making an effort to disagree... agreeably. :)

Foe-hammer.... I'm even beginning to like you. :D

Mrs. Maggott... not to worry... I still love you! ;)

[BloomLover12]

For me it was the best movie ever I have seen it twice and am going to see it again tomorrow!

Moderator's note: Please use colors to enhance/highlight aspects of your post. Also, please make sure you use a color that can be read.

[Frodogirl57]

if you ask me TTT was nothing like the book at all. PJ didn't really stick to Tolkien. FOTR was better.

and what's with the wargs.in the book they were never attacked by wargs. and Eowyn lead the eorlingas to dunharrow ,not helm's deep. Aragorn never almost died either. But i think that PJ did a good job with Frodo and Sam's part of the story more or less. Execpt that he made Faramir a totally creepy guy. In the book faramir never took Frodo and Sam to Ogsgiliath. After Gollum was foung in the forbidden pool Faramir let frodo and Sam go. And PJ should have made the Helm's Deep battle shorter. It was way to long. The 11th time I went to see TTT i almost fell asleep during that battle. I prefer to see hobbits in the green dragon. and PJ made the Ents different than i imagined them. In my opinion he made them too tall.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Frodogirl57
if you ask me TTT was nothing like the book at all. PJ didn't really stick to Tolkien. FOTR was better.

... And PJ should have made the Helm's Deep battle shorter. It was way to long. The 11th time I went to see TTT i almost fell asleep during that battle. I prefer to see hobbits in the green dragon. and PJ made the Ents different than i imagined them. In my opinion he made them too tall. Foe-hammer, another purist who sees the movie as a failure while at the same time going to see it 11 times. :)

[lotrobsession4]

I absolutely loved TTT- i actually liked it better than FotR. true that FotR had a better flow, but I liked more of the action in TTT. one thing I didn't like was the changes in Faramir- the whole thing in the book was Boromir was the real battle guy and corrupted by the ring but Faramir resisted it. That was completely changed and made the two too similar. I loved Gollum- very believable- Thought Aragorn falling off cliff was waste of time and would've rather seen more of the end of TTT continued. I wish they didn't cut out the last 1/3 of the book but I expect to see some of it in RotK. I can't wait until Dec. for RotK!!! :)

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by Grond
Foe-hammer, another purist who sees the movie as a failure while at the same time going to see it 11 times. :)

HAHAHA! Yeah. Go figure.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
HAHAHA! Yeah. Go figure. We grasp for the visuals... when we can't get the vision. :p

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by lotrobsession4
I absolutely loved TTT- i actually liked it better than FotR. true that FotR had a better flow, but I liked more of the action in TTT. one thing I didn't like was the changes in Faramir- the whole thing in the book was Boromir was the real battle guy and corrupted by the ring but Faramir resisted it. That was completely changed and made the two too similar. I loved Gollum- very believable- Thought Aragorn falling off cliff was waste of time and would've rather seen more of the end of TTT continued. I wish they didn't cut out the last 1/3 of the book but I expect to see some of it in RotK. I can't wait until Dec. for RotK!!! :)

This is the kind of "opinion" about TTT that I simply cannot fathom! "Love, love, LOVE the film - except...." and then the person goes on to list virtually all of the objections that those who definitely did not love the film have presented to illustrate the film's inferiority. I guess the real reason for the poster's infatuation is summed up with this comment: "...but I liked more of the action in TTT" (as opposed to FOTR).

And that's really where the rubber meets the road in this film. Those who were entranced by all the cg action are willing to accept and excuse all of the real failures of TTT in the name of "action" and excitement. It's sad that this entire project is going to be "judged" not by story or characters, but by how much it "rocks" as indicated by its cg violence. Yes, the battles are an important part of LOTR, but they are infinitely less important than other factors which get far less attention especially in this film.

[Lindir]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott

Yes, the battles are an important part of LOTR, but they are infinitely less important than other factors which get far less attention especially in this film.
Or it could be a matter of opinion. Even if you don't think the battles are the most important feature of the book, others might.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Lindir
Or it could be a matter of opinion. Even if you don't think the battles are the most important feature of the book, others might.
I'm sorry. I am usually content to admit that each person's opinion is sacrosanct regarding a subjective analysis of a film or book, but in this case I must protest. How can any battle be more important than a proper development of the story line or the characters? What makes any battle interesting and exciting is caring which side wins! If one has no interest in the characters, then why should one care?

Furthermore, the battles in LOTR enhance the story, they do not obscure or substitute for it. That's why they take place where they do, when they do and between whom they do! Battles aren't just "stuck" somewhere in the story to raise the excitement level, they are an integral part of the plot process. When they cease to be that but are in fact "added to up the pace" (as I suspect was the case with the "warg rider attack"), then the director has lost sight of his story and is simply working on its various aspects to the detriment of the whole.

If in fact, the thing that makes TTT "rock" for a viewer - who has, by the way, been perceptive enough to see all the film's shortcomings and failures - then I would suggest that it would be cheaper and more satisfying for that person to buy the video game and eliminate the non-essentials.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
This is the kind of "opinion" about TTT that I simply cannot fathom! "Love, love, LOVE the film - except...." and then the person goes on to list virtually all of the objections that those who definitely did not love the film have presented to illustrate the film's inferiority. I guess the real reason for the poster's infatuation is summed up with this comment: "...but I liked more of the action in TTT" (as opposed to FOTR).

And that's really where the rubber meets the road in this film. Those who were entranced by all the cg action are willing to accept and excuse all of the real failures of TTT in the name of "action" and excitement. It's sad that this entire project is going to be "judged" not by story or characters, but by how much it "rocks" as indicated by its cg violence. Yes, the battles are an important part of LOTR, but they are infinitely less important than other factors which get far less attention especially in this film. On the other hand, there are those of us who simply view the movies as movies and don't try to equate them to the masterpiece than can never be done justice.

As a movie, the Lord of the Rings duology (that we've seen thus far) is the best action/fantasy movie ever done (IMHO) even if it is as poor an adaptation of a book as I've seen (again IMHO).

[Gandalf White]

On the other hand, there are those of us who simply view the movies as movies and don't try to equate them to the masterpiece than can never be done justice. As a movie, the Lord of the Rings duology (that we've seen thus far) is the best action/fantasy movie ever done (IMHO) even if it is as poor an adaptation of a book as I've seen (again IMHO).

YES! Finally someone who states my exact opinion in a way that I couldn't seem to figure out!!!! Thank you Grond!

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Grond
On the other hand, there are those of us who simply view the movies as movies and don't try to equate them to the masterpiece than can never be done justice.

As a movie, the Lord of the Rings duology (that we've seen thus far) is the best action/fantasy movie ever done (IMHO) even if it is as poor an adaptation of a book as I've seen (again IMHO).
That is fine, my dear Grond, but you cannot pretend that the films are being judged by non-initiates as mere action adventure films separate and apart from the book! If that were the case, I would have nothing at all to say about any of them. The simple fact is that they are being presented at large, as a fairly faithful adaption (as far as any film is able to achieve) of Tolkien's LOTR whatever Jackson says to the contrary (and I don't notice him making a great fuss about the fact that he left Tolkien long ago and far away!).

As that is the case, I must take exception to what has been done to both plot and characters, but more so to the characters. Enjoy them as we may, it remains necessary to make known that they are not what many people obviously think they are.

[lotrobsession4]

Hi it's me the person who has the "opinion that cannot be fathomed" yes I'm sorry I didn't realize I had to list all the million reasons why I loved TTT (costumes, characters, plot, etc.) instead I said "everything except..." and listed the few things that I didn't like. I thought the actors did a great job with the roles, gollum was believable, the time and effort that went into costumes and makeup definately payed off, I really liked the music- I thought it fit the mood very well, really enjoyed the scene where merry and pippin escape the uruk hai/orcs that are being attacked by Rohan people, and much more. Understand when I said I love everything except... it means exactly that!! I was trying to save myself some time but obviously some of u didn't get it- sorry. thanks to those of u who do understand!! :D

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
That is fine, my dear Grond, but you cannot pretend that the films are being judged by non-initiates as mere action adventure films separate and apart from the book! If that were the case, I would have nothing at all to say about any of them. The simple fact is that they are being presented at large, as a fairly faithful adaption (as far as any film is able to achieve) of Tolkien's LOTR whatever Jackson says to the contrary (and I don't notice him making a great fuss about the fact that he left Tolkien long ago and far away!).

As that is the case, I must take exception to what has been done to both plot and characters, but more so to the characters. Enjoy them as we may, it remains necessary to make known that they are not what many people obviously think they are.

If we were to put Aragorn into a hypothetical situation, who could unequivocally say how he would respond? I'd bet that you'd get several different responses from other "purists" and if you could ask tolkien, he'd just add whatever character trait that would make the story better.

You see, my dear maggott, these are not real characters and anyone could do almost any thing and stiil be doing exactly what tolkien himself did. Just making the story better.

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by lotrobsession4
Hi it's me the person who has the "opinion that cannot be fathomed" yes I'm sorry I didn't realize I had to list all the million reasons why I loved TTT (costumes, characters, plot, etc.) instead I said "everything except..." and listed the few things that I didn't like. I thought the actors did a great job with the roles, gollum was believable, the time and effort that went into costumes and makeup definately payed off, I really liked the music- I thought it fit the mood very well, really enjoyed the scene where merry and pippin escape the uruk hai/orcs that are being attacked by Rohan people, and much more. Understand when I said I love everything except... it means exactly that!! I was trying to save myself some time but obviously some of u didn't get it- sorry. thanks to those of u who do understand!! :D

BRAVO Obsession4!! I was going to point out that very fact, but maggott doesn't listen to reason, so I figured......why bother?

But good for you!

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by lotrobsession4
Hi it's me the person who has the "opinion that cannot be fathomed" yes I'm sorry I didn't realize I had to list all the million reasons why I loved TTT (costumes, characters, plot, etc.) instead I said "everything except..." and listed the few things that I didn't like. I thought the actors did a great job with the roles, gollum was believable, the time and effort that went into costumes and makeup definately payed off, I really liked the music- I thought it fit the mood very well, really enjoyed the scene where merry and pippin escape the uruk hai/orcs that are being attacked by Rohan people, and much more. Understand when I said I love everything except... it means exactly that!! I was trying to save myself some time but obviously some of u didn't get it- sorry. thanks to those of u who do understand!! :D
I don't know of anyone who didn't "love" the scenery, costumes, settings, acting, special effects etc. However, somehow I never thought of appreciation of the films being a matter of whether one likes more than one dislikes, but rather if what one dislikes is more important than what one likes. I happen to believe that characters and plot are more important than all of the above, however wonderful they may be, but obviously, others are of a different opinion.

If one is willing to accept the deviations and changes made by Jackson to both story and characters, then certainly they will find the films altogether wondrous to behold. But, if one doesn't, then no amount of the above will substitute for what is missing or changed.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
I don't know of anyone who didn't "love" the scenery, costumes, settings, acting, special effects etc. However, somehow I never thought of appreciation of the films being a matter of whether one likes more than one dislikes, but rather if what one dislikes is more important than what one likes. I happen to believe that characters and plot are more important than all of the above, however wonderful they may be, but obviously, others are of a different opinion.

If one is willing to accept the deviations and changes made by Jackson to both story and characters, then certainly they will find the films altogether wondrous to behold. But, if one doesn't, then no amount of the above will substitute for what is missing or changed. And my dear friend, MM... you are doomed to disappointment and despair if you cannot take the movie as an "adaptation" of the books. I gave up the battle long ago. PJ came out in the beginning (as is clearly illustrated in FotR Movie Guidebook) saying that he held the works sacrosanct and that he was using them as a guide before filming every scene.

Apparently, he mistakenly had some other books that he was using for reference because (as you say) he has changed so much plot, characterization, etc. that it is a pale image of the book. I still applaud the effort... not as an adaptation but as a separate work of art that will (hopefully) get others to read the true masterpiece and then judge for themselves.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Grond
And my dear friend, MM... you are doomed to disappointment and despair if you cannot take the movie as an "adaptation" of the books. I gave up the battle long ago. PJ came out in the beginning (as is clearly illustrated in FotR Movie Guidebook) saying that he held the works sacrosanct and that he was using them as a guide before filming every scene.

Apparently, he mistakenly had some other books that he was using for reference because (as you say) he has changed so much plot, characterization, etc. that it is a pale image of the book. I still applaud the effort... not as an adaptation but as a separate work of art that will (hopefully) get others to read the true masterpiece and then judge for themselves.
I have not been disappointed except with the second film which I thought to be very disjointed and poorly executed. If one looks at my past posts - especially before TTT - I indicated that one should "leave the book at home" when attending the film. However, TTT was in fact a great disappointment to me above and beyond the changes in plot and character which I expected. It just didn't "work" for me as a film.

Nevertheless, I find it puzzling that people can see and point out all of the problems and failures with TTT - and then go on to wax ecstatic about the film using as the reason for their apparently uncritical acclaim of all those things that are unanimously applauded but in fact are superficial "eye-candy" at best. I suppose I find it hard to understand how mere "visuals" can negate what happened to the plot and characters in TTT.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Grond
I still applaud the effort... not as an adaptation but as a separate work of art
For established readers the separation is not easy, but we do try, we really do!
We find a great deal to applaud, of both original and invented material.
The quality of PJ's art IS variable though, and it cannot be coincidence that where its quality deteriorates is so often where his powers of invention take off into their wilder flights.

[Grond]

Originally posted by joxy
For established readers the separation is not easy, but we do try, we really do!
We find a great deal to applaud, of both original and invented material.
The quality of PJ's art IS variable though, and it cannot be coincidence that where its quality deteriorates is so often where his powers of invention take off into their wilder flights. I absolutely agree with your statement. Being an "established reader" myself, it is the only possible way that I can enjoy the film renditions. I also agree with your assertion as to where the quality get thinner is where PJ, PB and FW have taken, in many cases, what I deem "extreme" interpretation. I must also give FH, Aragil, Markrob and other FADs that when I deem it "extreme"... that is my personal opinion. I'm entitled to mine and they're entitled to theirs.

Just as I've resolved that the film will never reflect my vision of an adaptation, I've also resolved that I will never convince most of the FADs that it could have been done better. ;)

[Mrs. Maggott]

Every time I think of TTT, my favorite extremely cynical question keeps coming to mind: "Besides that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by Grond
I absolutely agree with your statement. Being an "established reader" myself, it is the only possible way that I can enjoy the film renditions. I also agree with your assertion as to where the quality get thinner is where PJ, PB and FW have taken, in many cases, what I deem "extreme" interpretation. I must also give FH, Aragil, Markrob and other FADs that when I deem it "extreme"... that is my personal opinion. I'm entitled to mine and they're entitled to theirs.

Just as I've resolved that the film will never reflect my vision of an adaptation, I've also resolved that I will never convince most of the FADs that it could have been done better. ;)

I think that gets down to the crux of the two mindsets. I am not a professional film maker and would never presume to counsel those who are. Many purists here act like they could do it better, but provide no proof or credentials to back it up. Thorin has my respect because he actually spent the time to write an alternative screenplay that he felt would work better. We fads are not convinced, but he didn't do it for brownie points. He did it because he had a strong conviction in what he believed. He put his mind and creativity out there for ridicule from npw and fad alike. That takes courage and I respect that more than $5 words, convoluted posts, and exercises in pedantry.

I say to the complainers... put yer money where your money where your mouth is.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
Many purists here act like they could do it better, but provide no proof or credentials to back it up.
....put yer money where your money where your mouth is.
Not that WE could do it better, but that PJ could do it better. He does so much in the existing films that IS good, that we are convinced that HE could have done better - all he needed to do was to be consistent - even to believe in himself. We may not be talented musicians, for example, but we know a wrong note when we hear one - we don't get up, take the guy's instrument and play the right notes ourselves; we tell him, though he ought to know already, where the wrong note was.
Give us PJ's $300million, and basic training in the techniques of the job, and we'd jump at the chance.

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by joxy
Not that WE could do it better, but that PJ could do it better. He does so much in the existing films that IS good, that we are convinced that HE could have done better - all he needed to do was to be consistent - even to believe in himself. We may not be talented musicians, for example, but we know a wrong note when we hear one - we don't get up, take the guy's instrument and play the right notes ourselves; we tell him, though he ought to know already, where the wrong note was.
Give us PJ's $300million, and basic training in the techniques of the job, and we'd jump at the chance.

I have no problem with feeling he could have done better, but I'd like to know the "hows" of it. As far as wrong notes goes, I feel like that analogy is not apropos here. A wrong note would suggest that there is a right note and when we are talking about film, taste is subjective. Some people call dirt on peasents a wrong note, while others would say the lack of it is. I beleive the "wrong" notes that you are referring to come from comparing the movie against the book. So, it is more appropiate to call what pj did was playing a different note.

And that brings us back to the basics again. I say the purists should get their own instruments and play it the way they want. But, like you pointed out, they don't have the money, knowledge, or skill to match PJ and what the would end up with would sound something like 50 monkeys banging on pots and pans.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
...And that brings us back to the basics again. I say the purists should get their own instruments and play it the way they want. But, like you pointed out, they don't have the money, knowledge, or skill to match PJ and what the would end up with would sound something like 50 monkeys banging on pots and pans. And what you fail to see, from our point of view, PJ had the perfect vehicle from which to make a screenplay. Why did he need to change basic plot and character structure?

If you want to argue that PJ has a right to change what he wants and that (in your opinion) it is better, then that is certainly your right... but what the purists have been telling you all along wasn't that they could have done it better but that Tolkien did it better. In our opinions, PJ should have maintained a better rapport between the book story and the screenplay he and FW and PB wrote. Why change a story that has sold copies in the tens and tens of millions?

[joxy]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
I have no problem with feeling he could have done better, but I'd like to know the "hows" of it.
The "hows" are in my quote! To be consistent, and to believe in himself.
The wrong notes are NOT just different from the books; they are different from their surroundings in the films.
So often PJ builds up a high point, full of drama and emotion - but seems to lose faith in what he has done, and "plays" a wrong note immediately afterwards.
On a lesser scale, the dialogue reaches that same high level, then suddenly drops into some banality.
Lesser still, and specifically, how can a burp be anything other than a wrong note in the setting of the beautiful Lorien departure scene?

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by Grond
And what you fail to see, from our point of view, PJ had the perfect vehicle from which to make a screenplay. Why did he need to change basic plot and character structure?

Foe: If you were educated in the art of writing screenplays, you would quit saying that "I fail to see". The reasons he strayed from tolkiens work has been explained many times. The two mediums do not interchange very well, unless the original writings lend themselves to screenplays.

If you want to argue that PJ has a right to change what he wants and that (in your opinion) it is better, then that is certainly your right... but what the purists have been telling you all along wasn't that they could have done it better but that Tolkien did it better. In our opinions, PJ should have maintained a better rapport between the book story and the screenplay he and FW and PB wrote. Why change a story that has sold copies in the tens and tens of millions?

Foe: See above.

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by joxy
The "hows" are in my quote! To be consistent, and to believe in himself.
The wrong notes are NOT just different from the books; they are different from their surroundings in the films.
So often PJ builds up a high point, full of drama and emotion - but seems to lose faith in what he has done, and "plays" a wrong note immediately afterwards.
On a lesser scale, the dialogue reaches that same high level, then suddenly drops into some banality.
Lesser still, and specifically, how can a burp be anything other than a wrong note in the setting of the beautiful Lorien departure scene?

Foe: Again, that example is subjective. Completely consistant with the chow-hound nature of M&P. And, again, that doesn't make it wrong, just different.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
Again, that example is subjective. Completely consistent with the chow-hound nature of M&P.
Not sure what you mean by chow-hound - that they eat too much, they're gluttons? Of course, they're not "really" gluttons at all, but if PJ has chosen to make them gluttons he hasn't made such a big deal of it until then - just a few apples and a second breakfast.
I think it's a perfectly objective criticism to say that, even if they ARE supposed to be gluttons, then the Lorien departure scenario is NOT the place to show it.
As I've said before, do we really want slapstick comedy as the Titanic goes down? There's a time and a place for everything, even for PJ's weird imaginings, and Lorien isn't the time or place for burps - however briefly it happens!

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by joxy
Not sure what you mean by chow-hound - that they eat too much, they're gluttons? Of course, they're not "really" gluttons at all, but if PJ has chosen to make them gluttons he hasn't made such a big deal of it until then - just a few apples and a second breakfast.
I think it's a perfectly objective criticism to say that, even if they ARE supposed to be gluttons, then the Lorien departure scenario is NOT the place to show it.
As I've said before, do we really want slapstick comedy as the Titanic goes down? There's a time and a place for everything, even for PJ's weird imaginings, and Lorien isn't the time or place for burps - however briefly it happens!

Chow-hounds.....pre-occupied with food. They had several scenes involving food etc. Maggotts field. prancing pony. the one you mentioned. weathertop. lorien.

Why is lorien exempt from burps?

[Grond]

Foe-hammer,
How does adding to the Arwen character enhance the story? How does portraying Aragorn as a weak and failed character add to the story? How does portraying Merry and Pippin as bumbling buffoons add to the story? How does changing basic characterizations and plots add to the story?.... Answer... they don't. What they do is change the story without improvement and they change the story for the exclusive purposes of modernizing themes and making the movie more politically correct from the screenwriter's point of view (two of whom were women).

The screenplay takes a masterpiece and turns it into a great and enjoyable action/adventure escapade instead of the epic story that was written. Comments such as If you were educated in the art of writing screenplays, you would quit saying that "I fail to see". The reasons he strayed from tolkiens work has been explained many times. The two mediums do not interchange very well, unless the original writings lend themselves to screenplays. do nothing to lead us to the truth... because (as Jack Nicholson so aptly stated in A Few Good Men) you can't handle the truth. The truth is that PJ, PB and FW could have written just as entertaining a screenplay and still remained true to the essence of the story. That would mean leaving Arwen in the shadow; portraying Aragorn as the King of Men that he already was; developing a loving, respectful and trusting camaraderie between the four hobbits with no imbecilic moments. It would have meant doing things that competent screenwriters do all the time. The fact that you say it can't be done or doesn't make sense from a cinematic point of view just doesn't wash. You have yet to prove WHY the changes were necessary. And the burden of proof is on you because the starting point is Tolkien and not PJ.

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by Grond
Foe-hammer,
How does adding to the Arwen character enhance the story?

Foe: Because it would make more sense for Aragorn to marry Eowyn than Arwen in this day and age.

How does portraying Aragorn as a weak and failed character add to the story?

Foe: It makes more sense than Aragorn hiding in the hills and just waiting around for an evil presence to threaten ME before he decides to take up his rightful duties as king. Yeah, let the Stewards deal with the daily grind of keeping the kingdom together and I'll come swopping in to save the day. At least film aragorn has to overcome his fear of repeating in Isildur's footsteps and the rise of sauron makes his eventual decision all the more pressing. He can't wait any longer.

How does portraying Merry and Pippin as bumbling buffoons add to the story?

Foe: I don't know, ask tolkien. They are just tweenagers.

How does changing basic characterizations and plots add to the story?.... Answer... they don't. What they do is change the story without improvement.......

Foe: Your subjective opinion that very few people who see the movie agree with. Go figure.

......and they change the story for the exclusive purposes of modernizing themes and making the movie more politically correct from the screenwriter's point of view (two of whom were women).

Foe: The movie needs to appeal to a broader base in order to be profitable. Without the changes, tolkiens work stays in obsurity compared to other works.

The screenplay takes a masterpiece and turns it into a great and enjoyable action/adventure escapade instead of the epic story that was written. Comments such as do nothing to lead us to the truth... because (as Jack Nicholson so aptly stated in A Few Good Men) you can't handle the truth. The truth is that PJ, PB and FW could have written just as entertaining a screenplay and still remained true to the essence of the story. That would mean leaving Arwen in the shadow; portraying Aragorn as the King of Men that he already was; developing a loving, respectful and trusting camaraderie between the four hobbits with no imbecilic moments. It would have meant doing things that competent screenwriters do all the time.

Foe: Please, by all means write us a screenplay and lets put the whole issue to bed.

The fact that you say it can't be done or doesn't make sense from a cinematic point of view just doesn't wash. You have yet to prove WHY the changes were necessary. And the burden of proof is on you because the starting point is Tolkien and not PJ.

Foe: Not true. The movie is making MILLIONS of dollars! The changes made did work. The only way to prove it what wouldn't work would be to write a screenplay that failed. I could do that without even trying so it is not incumbant upon me to write a failing screenplay. No Grond, the burden is upon you npw's to write a screenplay that will work on film, present it to the rest of us to pick apart, criticize, and question the political and moral fiber of the writers. Are you game or all talk?

[Landroval]

In the software development community, it is called "open source" - a group of talented developers from around the world, collaborate online to produce a useful program (or suit of programs) and then offer it to the world free of charge (source code included.)

Does anyone know of such an approach to screen writing? Imagine a group of talented Tolkien fans (of all stripes) from around the world, collaborating online to produce a filmable screenplay of TLOTR. The results would be presented to the world (or at least this forum) for all to admire, criticize or chose to ignore.

Could it work?

[Grond]

Foe: Not true. The movie is making MILLIONS of dollars! The changes made did work. The only way to prove it what wouldn't work would be to write a screenplay that failed. I could do that without even trying so it is not incumbant upon me to write a failing screenplay. No Grond, the burden is upon you npw's to write a screenplay that will work on film, present it to the rest of us to pick apart, criticize, and question the political and moral fiber of the writers. Are you game or all talk? [/B]Wrong. You continue to address this issue by putting the cart before the horse. The horse (in this case) is the books written by JRRT and not the screenplay written by PJ, PB and FW... they would be the cart. The burden is on you to explain why the character changes were necessary to make the screenplay work. You argue the movies success is attributible to these changes. We argue that the movie would have been as big a success or bigger, leaving the main plot lines well enough alone. What is appalling is your failure to even admit that the movie "COULD" have been as good with the existing plot and characters per the book.

There are many screenplays where this has been done... the best of these is The Godfather by Mario Puzo. Subplots were ommitted from the screenplay for time but the basic plots and characters were completely untouched by the screenwriters (in this case Francis Ford Coppolla and Mario Puzo).

Lastly, quit with all the put up or shut up rhetoric. Other than Thorin (who has made a great start to a revised screenplay), none of us have the skill nor the time nor the inclination to attempt such a project. Just as you are entitled to your opinion that the NPW's (which I'm now lumped back into again by you) are idiots who know nothing about the details of writing a good screenplay, we are entitled to our opinion that the movie could have and should have remained truer to the book and still been just as successful.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Grond
Foe-hammer,
How does adding to the Arwen character enhance the story? How does portraying Aragorn as a weak and failed character add to the story? How does portraying Merry and Pippin as bumbling buffoons add to the story? How does changing basic characterizations and plots add to the story?.... Answer... they don't. What they do is change the story without improvement and they change the story for the exclusive purposes of modernizing themes and making the movie more politically correct from the screenwriter's point of view (two of whom were women).

The screenplay takes a masterpiece and turns it into a great and enjoyable action/adventure escapade instead of the epic story that was written. Comments such as do nothing to lead us to the truth... because (as Jack Nicholson so aptly stated in A Few Good Men) you can't handle the truth. The truth is that PJ, PB and FW could have written just as entertaining a screenplay and still remained true to the essence of the story. That would mean leaving Arwen in the shadow; portraying Aragorn as the King of Men that he already was; developing a loving, respectful and trusting camaraderie between the four hobbits with no imbecilic moments. It would have meant doing things that competent screenwriters do all the time. The fact that you say it can't be done or doesn't make sense from a cinematic point of view just doesn't wash. You have yet to prove WHY the changes were necessary. And the burden of proof is on you because the starting point is Tolkien and not PJ.

The fact is, many of Tolkien's characters were "conflicted", Aragorn not the least. He was "trapped" in a betrothal that demanded he put forth a claim on the throne of Gondor, something he knew would plunge Middle-earth into a war which would destroy the very things for which he was fighting (Sauron's reaction to Aragorn's identity when it did take place, certainly points to the fact that he would have aggressively pursued the last of Elendil's line had he known he still "walked the earth"). So, in fact, Aragorn is a hunted man held in contempt by those whom he protects (Strider is not an honorable appellation) and fated to end his days without an heir unless a miraculous situation presents itself (which, of course, it does!). His dialogue with the hobbits at Bree where he speaks about a "hunted man" hoping for friendship for his own sake, is hardly the sentiments of a "super-hero" who is without weakness or doubt. Furthermore, in Mortensen, Jackson had the type of actor who could have very well brought out that vulnerability without losing the overall manliness or "hidden king" persona of the character.

Tolkien's Eowyn is far more passionate and desperate that Jackson's sturdy rather self-sufficient maiden who is only momentarily saddened by the news that Aragorn is dead. And the noble Faramir places his life in Frodo's hands by releasing him and refusing the Ring, another area where the character could be shown to be vulnerable and doubting, especially as Faramir recognizes the type of "guide" in whom the hobbits are placing their lives - and the future of Middle-earth!

As for Arwen, her relationship to Aragorn could have been developed just as Jackson did in both films without the Xena, warrior princess bit. She even could have appeared with the elf horse in FOTR and then went (as Glorfindel did) with the company to the Fords where the horse carries Frodo to safety.

Both films could have been better films and more true to the original if p.c. and Jackson's ego hadn't gotten in the way. As it is, good as they are (and I still don't like TTT), they are a colossal disappointment to many, of whom I am one.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
The fact is, many of Tolkien's characters were "conflicted", Aragorn not the least. He was "trapped" in a betrothal that demanded he put forth a claim on the throne of Gondor, something he knew would plunge Middle-earth into a war which would destroy the very things for which he was fighting.

And the sad thing is, is that PJ developed Arwen more then enough to properly portray this and thus put Aragorn in a better light as Tolkien did. However, instead of leading it in this direction, he ends up with Aragorn practically dumping Arwen over it and rejecting his birthright. Thus the Aragorn and Arwen relationship on screen is mostly just for eye candy's sake. In other words: Another typical Hollywood romance sub plot. Boy has girl, boy doubts relationship, boy gives up the girl for supposedly valiant reasons, boy ends up with girl in the end. Pretty far from Aragorn and Arwen's relationship the way Tolkien intended.

And I agree with Grond, Foe. Prove that it worked instead of what Tolkien did. And how much money it made is a cop out. Every FAD's main argument when there are no more logical steps to take is: "Well, you all do better!" Not good enough. Especially when the basis of that argument is, "Were it truer to the book, it would have flopped." Yeah, right. Even first time readers are confused as to where PJ is going with this. (And I know of many)

[Tar-Palantir]

"Foe: Not true. The movie is making MILLIONS of dollars! The changes made did work. The only way to prove it what wouldn't work would be to write a screenplay that failed. I could do that without even trying so it is not incumbant upon me to write a failing screenplay. No Grond, the burden is upon you npw's to write a screenplay that will work on film, present it to the rest of us to pick apart, criticize, and question the political and moral fiber of the writers. Are you game or all talk? "

You are arguing apples & oranges. The movie is not making millions of dollars because of the changes. The changes have zero percent effect on the box office take that these films have made.

Think about the people that go to see them:

1. Viewers who have never read Tolkien - they have no idea what changes were made. I doubt very seriously if any of them would have walked out (which wouldn't effect the take anyway) or not gone to see it again if Arwen, say, or Aragorn were portrayed closer to the way JRRT wrote them.

2. Casual Tolkien fans (probably read the book once in high school or college) - for this group, PJ's adaptation is another movie that is based on a book they enjoyed once upon a time. Something similar to "The Grapes Of Wrath" or "Lord Of The Flies".
If they were able to catch any of the changes, I doubt they either increased or decreased their enjoyment of the films (although, if I had to pick one, I'd guess "decreased" - but that's just a guess based on my own experience with other film adaptations of books). Again, I doubt the changes effected box office one way or the other. After multiple theater viewings of both films, I have yet to hear someone walk out saying "whew! sure glad they modernized Aragorn!".

3. Intense Tolkien fans - a lot of the posters on this board. As is pretty self-evident, the opinions on the changes are all over the place. One questions I have for the people who most vehemently decry PJ's alterations is, have you not gone to see the films any more than you have because of your objections to those changes?

I think anyone would be hard-pressed to prove any direct correlation between PJ's changes and box office dollars (unless the answer to my above question is "yes"; and how many people are we really talking about anyway? and would that mean that they only saw the movie 7 times instead of 8? and how do they really know? and I think that's quite enough wriiten in the parentheses!). To me, it smacks of a self-serving argument (one way or the other) that can never be proven.

I have one other question (maybe the stupidest I've asked yet): what would the debates be like on this board without the changes PJ made? In other words, all other things being the same (film length, visuals, etc...), would any of us even visit this part of the forum? I have to believe that deep down, the moderators of this forum have to love this. Think about it - the only things we'd have to debate would be whether Treebeard's toes were long enough or whther Arwen's hair was parted authentically.

[Landroval]

One questions I have for the people who most vehemently decry PJ's alterations is, have you not gone to see the films any more than you have because of your objections to those changes?

Once was enough, sadly...

[joxy]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
Why is Lorien exempt from burps?
For the same reason that the moment the Titanic sinks is exempt from a touch of cheap comedy.

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by Grond
Wrong. You continue to address this issue by putting the cart before the horse. The horse (in this case) is the books written by JRRT and not the screenplay written by PJ, PB and FW... they would be the cart. The burden is on you to explain why the character changes were necessary to make the screenplay work. You argue the movies success is attributible to these changes. We argue that the movie would have been as big a success or bigger, leaving the main plot lines well enough alone. What is appalling is your failure to even admit that the movie "COULD" have been as good with the existing plot and characters per the book.

There are many screenplays where this has been done... the best of these is The Godfather by Mario Puzo. Subplots were ommitted from the screenplay for time but the basic plots and characters were completely untouched by the screenwriters (in this case Francis Ford Coppolla and Mario Puzo).

Lastly, quit with all the put up or shut up rhetoric. Other than Thorin (who has made a great start to a revised screenplay), none of us have the skill nor the time nor the inclination to attempt such a project. Just as you are entitled to your opinion that the NPW's (which I'm now lumped back into again by you) are idiots who know nothing about the details of writing a good screenplay, we are entitled to our opinion that the movie could have and should have remained truer to the book and still been just as successful.

You expect me to make your arguement? Am I that good at my own that you want me to do yours now?

These are the facts......

PJ's movie, with the changes is making millions.

It is more successful than other attempts at this movie that were closer to the story.

Your argument (the movie would be better if it were closer to the book) was made first. Therefore, you are required to defend that point first. (which you have yet to do)

My responses ( defending the changes) to you npws was an attempt to keep dialogue going since you refused to defend your points by writing a screenplay. Now, you want to be inflexable and try to force me to defend your position by writing a screenplay that stays closer to the book and is viable?

HA! I don't think so! I can be stubborn also by going back to my original point demanding you defend your remarks and have no other movement on the subject until you do.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
{1}How does portraying Merry and Pippin as bumbling buffoons add to the story?
Foe: I don't know, ask Tolkien. They are just tweenagers.
{2}....changing basic characterizations and plots....change the story without improvement.......
Foe: Your subjective opinion that very few people who see the movie agree with.
{3}Foe: The movie needs to appeal to a broader base in order to be profitable. Without the changes, Tolkiens work stays in obsurity compared to other works.
{4}Foe: Please, by all means write us a screenplay and lets put the whole issue to bed.

{1}In the books: they're not both tweenagers; neither tweenagers nor adults are bumbling buffoons; P & M are good-humoured certainly but they are not slapstick comedians and they are also very intelligent and brave.
{2}That "very few people agree with (Grond's opinion)" is not a fact; it is YOUR subjective opinion. There is no way of knowing the fact, though my guess is with Grond!
{3}That "need" is YOUR subjective opinion. Tolkien's works are about the last to be "in obscurity"! PJ already uses them as they stand for much of his material; it is my subjective opinion that they would have appealed to an even BROADER base, and been even MORE profitable, if PJ had taken even more of his material from them.
{4}There is the larger part of that screenplay there already; take PJ's screenplay, leave out the wilder stretches of his own imagination, add just a little more of the accurate adaptations they have already shown themselves capable of, and there you have it: as near to a perfect second try at LOTR as anyone could ask for.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Tar-Palantir

I have one other question (maybe the stupidest I've asked yet): what would the debates be like on this board without the changes PJ made? In other words, all other things being the same (film length, visuals, etc...), would any of us even visit this part of the forum? I have to believe that deep down, the moderators of this forum have to love this. Think about it - the only things we'd have to debate would be whether Treebeard's toes were long enough or whther Arwen's hair was parted authentically.

Well, perhaps you could tell what would have happened when you compare the debate surrounding FOTR - which though it had to my mind too many changes in the characters at least made an attempt to follow the story line - and the debate surrounding TTT which was all over the landscape.

In FOTR, we debated the representation of some of the characters; in TTT, there were so many other egregious changes made not only to the characters but to the plot, that the rather delicate debate surrounding FOTR was no where to be found. Indeed, most of the purists appreciation of the first film was enhanced when it was considered in relationship to the second.

Would that our debate had been limited to mere nuances of interpretation of an overall faithful adaptation of the book! Alas, however, it has not.

[Tar-Palantir]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Well, perhaps you could tell what would have happened when you compare the debate surrounding FOTR - which though it had to my mind too many changes in the characters at least made an attempt to follow the story line - and the debate surrounding TTT which was all over the landscape.

In FOTR, we debated the representation of some of the characters; in TTT, there were so many other egregious changes made not only to the characters but to the plot, that the rather delicate debate surrounding FOTR was no where to be found. Indeed, most of the purists appreciation of the first film was enhanced when it was considered in relationship to the second.

Would that our debate had been limited to mere nuances of interpretation of an overall faithful adaptation of the book! Alas, however, it has not.

The thread that comes to my mind in regards to FOTR is "Oh God It Was Awful".....and, truth to tell, the wrath was much greater a year ago than it is now. Let's not have convenient amnesia at this point.

Now, I'm not stupid (regardless of what some may think), I know why the vocal opposition to PJ's "TTT" is less than to his "FOTR" - he primed us to the changes in "FOTR".

I'm much more disturbed by what PJ did with the "Two Towers", but the shock was less than it was with "FOTR" - if that makes any sense. I guess if this forum had to name me anything, it'd be NPW, but maybe a better term would be TJC - "Tolkien-Jackson-Centrist". Meaning some things about the film bug me, some don't, and some I could give a dead Orc's ear about.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Tar-Palantir
The thread that comes to my mind in regards to FOTR is "Oh God It Was Awful".....and, truth to tell, the wrath was much greater a year ago than it is now. Let's not have convenient amnesia at this point.

Now, I'm not stupid (regardless of what some may think), I know why the vocal opposition to PJ's "TTT" is less than to his "FOTR" - he primed us to the changes in "FOTR".

I'm much more disturbed by what PJ did with the "Two Towers", but the shock was less than it was with "FOTR" - if that makes any sense. I guess if this forum had to name me anything, it'd be NPW, but maybe a better term would be TJC - "Tolkien-Jackson-Centrist". Meaning some things about the film bug me, some don't, and some I could give a dead Orc's ear about.

I came fairly late to the forum and thus the film debate. I certainly remember us carrying on about M&P and the broken carrot scene and, of course, Arwen the Warrior elf and her Wonderhorse along with Aragorn, the not-so-hidden wuss. But, in fact, these criticisms were seminal in that they illustrated changes that were being made in the characters by Jackson. Changes in the plot (other than Arwen) were accepted - especially early on in the film - as necessary to the flow of the story (the loss of the Old Forest, Bombadil, Barrow Downs thread). But the changes in the characters which began in FOTR continued (and worsened in some instances) in TTT.

I must confess that it was the character changes that I did (and still do) find most problematic of all the changes and deviations wrought by Jackson and his script writers. I could have put up with a good deal of plot peregrinations if only the characters (other than Gandalf and probably Frodo and Sam) "rang true" to me.

But, finally, it is true that TTT in some instances enhanced many purists' opinion of FOTR simply by comparison. In my opinion that is hardly the way to go about gaining a larger approval rating because it means that for the same thing to happen with TTT, ROTK will have to be a real stinker. There must be a better way of appealing to those of us who love the book than making each film progressively worse so that we will "feel better" about the one that came before! Sooner or later, you're going to run out of films!

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by joxy
For the same reason that the moment the Titanic sinks is exempt from a touch of cheap comedy.

WHAT?! No one belches in lorien? Orcs can foul the streams looking for the company, but a hobbit can't have gas?

This is a STORY! It never happened. It is not sacrilege to belch in a fictional place.

The rationalizing is getting pretty weak.....

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by joxy
{1}In the books: they're not both tweenagers; neither tweenagers nor adults are bumbling buffoons; P & M are good-humoured certainly but they are not slapstick comedians and they are also very intelligent and brave.

Foe: One sentance "fool of a took!" Fool: a person lacking in judgment or prudence. The problem is that they are likeable boobs, and you look past the way tolkien wrote them. But that is the way he wrote them.

{2}That "very few people agree with (Grond's opinion)" is not a fact; it is YOUR subjective opinion. There is no way of knowing the fact, though my guess is with Grond!

Foe: It surely is a fact or the movie would be a bomb. Are you back to your claim that people hate this movie but keep paying to see it? hahaha!

{3}That "need" is YOUR subjective opinion. Tolkien's works are about the last to be "in obscurity"! PJ already uses them as they stand for much of his material; it is my subjective opinion that they would have appealed to an even BROADER base, and been even MORE profitable, if PJ had taken even more of his material from them.

Foe: Sorry to burst yer bubble, but he doesn't even make the top 100! His followers were more akin to the "Rocky Horror" crowd. Sitting around in their wizard hats pining for a real ME until PJ came along and gave the story just the right touch for it top appeal to more people. You're entitled to your opinion no matter how uninformed it is, but the fact remains that they are the experts and the movie as it is (changed) is doing 1000 fold better than the movies that were done that were closer to the book. PERIOD.

{4}There is the larger part of that screenplay there already; take PJ's screenplay, leave out the wilder stretches of his own imagination, add just a little more of the accurate adaptations they have already shown themselves capable of, and there you have it: as near to a perfect second try at LOTR as anyone could ask for.

Foe: And, just like the other attempts, would fall flat on it's face.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
No one belches in lorien?
The rationalizing is getting pretty weak.....
Thousands of things happen in Lorien; very few of them need to be shown in a film, belching is not one of those that needs to be shown.
It, for a moment, ruins the atmosphere of the whole scene, just, as I said, a comic act would ruin the atmosphere of the sinking of the Titanic.
I'm not sure what "rationalising" is, but I'm not concerned about the strength of mine; I just call it common sense.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
{1}One sentence "fool of a Took!"....they are likeable boobs....that is the way T wrote them.
{2}It surely is a fact or the movie would be a bomb. Are you back to your claim that people hate this movie but keep paying to see it?
{3}(T) doesn't even make the top 100!....You're entitled to your opinion no matter how uninformed it is....the movie....is doing 1000 fold better than the movies that were done that were closer to the book.
{4}....just like the other attempts, would fall flat on it's face.
{1}That one sentence, from G, a moment when P had accidentally put the group at great risk, was a cry of desperation, not an assessment of P's character. It says precisely nothing about their degree of boob-dom;
and T emphatically did NOT write them as boobs - they are good-natured and intelligent.
{2}Are you are saying that, if (quote Grond) "changing basic characterizations and plots" had not been done, the films would have failed? That is far nearer, in my book, to a wild guess than to a fact. No-one has said anything about people "hating" the films.They like a lot about the films, and dislike parts of them; there's nothing at all surprising about them wanting to see again films they rate that way.
{3} I didn't say anything about a popularity chart; what "Top 100"? What I did say was that T's books are not "in obscurity" now, and would be unlikely, with or without the films, to enter obscurity for a long time yet. That is not a matter of opinion, informed or otherwise. What are all these filmS than which PJ's are doing so much better?!
{4} As above, what attemptS? I was talking about a film that was mostly according to PJ, but with a few changes; why would that be such a disaster at the box-offices?!

[Thorin]

quoted by Foe-Hammer
You're entitled to your opinion no matter how uninformed it is, but the fact remains that they are the experts and the movie as it is (changed) is doing 1000 fold better than the movies that were done that were closer to the book. PERIOD.


That is simply foolish logic.
Here's basically what those who believe in this foolish argument are really saying.

a) If Bakshi's and other versions seemed closer to the book than PJ's, and if b) PJ's version is making much more money and more popular. We can therefore assume two things: One, were PJ closer to the book, it would have been lousy and 2) due to the poorness and unpopularity of the other versions, PJs is much more popular because it DIDN'T stick closer to the book.

You can't even compare what PJ has done to what someone like Bakshi has done. The reason why PJ's movie is ten times better has nothing to do with how close the movie is sticking to the book. It is because the scope, depth, technology and length blows anything in its genre out of the water, never mind another adaptation of LoTR.

To take this popularity, compare it with others and come to conclusions on why it is so much better is faulty. To state that the previous ones' flop and PJ's success is due to the adherence to the written text is a gratuitous assumption.

[Mrs. Maggott]

What success Bakshi and others did have was occasioned by their relationship to the original story. If they had strayed as far from their source material as did Jackson, then they wouldn't have had what little popularity they did.

Therefore, if one is following deductive reasoning, it would appear that Jackson's films would have been even more popular if he had stayed closer to his source material. Indeed, in video interviews (one of which I particularly noted), he mentioned that his own efforts to "rewrite" the tale were proving to be very problematic, but that everything "got better" as he returned to the original. Sadly, he did not learn a lesson the first time round and continues - at least in the second film - to believe his "version" of the story to be superior.

There are many reasons for the popularity of these films, some of which involve the characters and/or plot only in that they serve to make those elements "look good". Furthermore, whatever Jackson has done to the plot and characters, he has created a fairly interesting and fast paced action adventure which, coupled with the visuals, make an afternoon spent in the movie an acceptable expenditure of time and money. Then, too, there is the fact that these films are part of a whole and as each one comes out, there is interest generated for the next part. So, naturally, TTT was going to benefit from the story as it "ends" in FOTR just as ROTK is going to benefit from the story ending in TTT. This is very much like the old fashioned 'serials' that the movie studios used to put out..."stay tuned" and find out if the heroine is run over by the train or does the hero arrive in time...etc.

The contention that any attempt by Jackson to remain truer to his source material would have been "bad" for the film cannot be sustained by reasonable argument, especially given that Jackson himself admitted that the film (at least the first one) "improved" when he abandoned his own ideas and made at least an attempt to return to his source material.

And, finally, "popularity" is hardly a criteria for excellence given what is "popular" in the entertainment industry amongst the general culture these days. How much money is spent on people seeing the films certainly is very good from Mr. Jackson's personal well being, but it does not necessarily mean that what he has produced is a classic that will stand the test of time. Many films that today are recognized as true "classics" were not, for whatever reason, all that popular at the time they were released. However, with the passage of time, their excellence has come to be recognized. Indeed, many of them are still seen today by appreciative audiences from every succeeding generation (one such classic is Frank Capra's "It's a Beautiful Life").

In due course of time when Mr. Jackson's scenery is "old hat" and his special effects become common place and even "hokey", we will see if his work passes the test of time that Professor Tolkien's has already passed with flying colors.

[Foe-Hammer]

I believe there were three attempts at tolkiens works in film, all argued as closer to the book than PJ's. yet it is a version farther away from tolkien that launched the sales of the books to unseen heights.

All your "if's and but's" are mere speculation married with wishful thinking. You cannot defend your "if's and but's" with any credible process of reasoning.

The facts are these.....

JP's movie is more successful than the others

PJ's plot is farther from tolkien than the others

please note, not one "if or but" in there. We can debate from now till eternity the reasons why those are the facts, but not the reality that there are, in fact, FACTS.

Now, real credible logic would deduce that since the other movies were closer to tolkien, then they should have generated a greater interest in the books than a version that is farther from the source. That, did not happen. Until PJ's movie came out, MOST people when asked about the books would say "lord of the what?" Since PJ's version came out, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who hasn't heard about it already. This is why when you ask people if they've seen TLoTR, they say yes, no, or spew a deragatory remark about how they hate that stuff.

Now you can see how real logic doesn't rely on "if's and but's". Sure, neither position is really provable, but my position at least is based on facts and not in spite of them.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
I believe there were three attempts at tolkiens works in film, all argued as closer to the book than PJ's. yet it is a version farther away from tolkien that launched the sales of the books to unseen heights.

All your "if's and but's" are mere speculation married with wishful thinking. You cannot defend your "if's and but's" with any credible process of reasoning.

The facts are these.....

JP's movie is more successful than the others

PJ's plot is farther from tolkien than the others

please note, not one "if or but" in there. We can debate from now till eternity the reasons why those are the facts, but not the reality that there are, in fact, FACTS.

Now, real credible logic would deduce that since the other movies were closer to tolkien, then they should have generated a greater interest in the books than a version that is farther from the source. That, did not happen. Until PJ's movie came out, MOST people when asked about the books would say "lord of the what?" Since PJ's version came out, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who hasn't heard about it already. This is why when you ask people if they've seen TLoTR, they say yes, no, or spew a deragatory remark about how they hate that stuff.

Now you can see how real logic doesn't rely on "if's and but's". Sure, neither position is really provable, but my position at least is based on facts and not in spite of them. ROFL! You attribute the success of the movie to the changes in plot and completely ignore Thorin's reponse as a very plausible alternative theory. PJ's movie is successful, largely because of its GRAND nature. It's visuals of Middle-earth are right on. Many of the castings and characters are ever so close and believeable to even the most ardent Tolkien purist. There are many reasons for PJ's great success and it is a totally unproveable assertion that the screenplay is part or solely the reason for its success.

What is an absolute is that the changes are not the only reason the movie is such a success (though you continue to seem to point in that direction.) I'm still just waiting to see if you'll ever admit error in any single topic. I always thought perfection was absent in this world but apparently it exists in Foe-hammer.... he who is never wrong. :)

[FoolOfATook]

Hold on, anyone who thinks the the animated ROTK was closer to Tolkien than PJ's two films REALLY hasn't seen it. I mean, the movie gets off to a bad start when Gandalf mispronounces Cirith Ungol in the prologue to the film, and then gets worse from there.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
I believe there were three attempts at Tolkien's works in film, all argued as closer to the book than PJ's.
....yet it is a version farther away from Tolkien that launched the sales of the books to unseen heights.
All your "if's and but's" are mere speculation married with wishful thinking.
(PJ's films).... launched the sales of the books to unseen heights.
Until PJ's movie came out, MOST people when asked about the books would say "lord of the what?"
There is only one film that I believe is at all well-known, and that is only a cartoon version, on a completely different scale from PJ's, and in no way comparable to PJ's. Some parts of that are closer to the books, others not.
You told me recently that the books are not in some "Top 100", so what "unseen heights" are they really on?
What ifs and buts, what speculation, what wishful thinking? I haven't seen any of those around here.
For the last thirty years T's books have been among the best known in the world. You don't know any more than I do, though I trust my guess better than yours, that MOST people had not heard of them before the films. No doubt the films have brought new readers, which is fine, and it would be interesting to compare sales before the films with those after.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by joxy
There is only one film that I believe is at all well-known, and that is only a cartoon version, on a completely different scale from PJ's, and in no way comparable to PJ's. Some parts of that are closer to the books, others not.
What ifs and buts, what speculation, what wishful thinking? I haven't seen any of those around here.
You told me recently that the books are not in some "Top 100", so what "unseen heights" are they really on?
For the last thirty years T's books have been among the best known in the world. You don't know any more than I do, though I trust my guess better than yours, that MOST people had not heard of them before the films. No doubt the films have brought new readers, which is fine, and it would be interesting to compare sales before the films with those after.

Oh, there will be increased sales of the book(s), especially those whose paperback covers carry photos from the films. I find this especially invideous as it "equates" the films to the book(s) in a way which is disengenuous at best and dishonest at worst. One wonders how many poor sods who have seen the films (and think they "rock") are going to buy these books in the belief that they are simply getting a written version of the films? And when they find out (very quickly, I would add) that such is not the case, one wonders how many of these "film byproducts" are going to go unread and unappreciated by those same purchasers?

[joxy]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
One wonders how many....who have seen the films....are going to buy these books in the belief that they are simply getting a written version of the films? And when they find out.... that such is not the case, one wonders....
What I've been wondering, and asking, for ages, is how these people feel when they read the books and find the differences from the other point of view. No-one has really answered that question. If they haven't noticed that the film varies a lot in style, and deduced which is T and which PJ, then they are terribly unobservant, but they are going to expect, as you say, a written version of the films, and no matter how unobservant they were, they must surely find the differences startling. Do they wonder how they could ever have thought that T had written some of the nonsense in the films?! Do they appreciate now just how wonderful T's writing is, or is their vision forever clouded by the memory of the film? As you say, MM, one wonders........

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by joxy
What I've been wondering, and asking, for ages, is how these people feel when they read the books and find the differences from the other point of view. No-one has really answered that question. If they haven't noticed that the film varies a lot in style, and deduced which is T and which PJ, then they are terribly unobservant, but they are going to expect, as you say, a written version of the films, and no matter how unobservant they were, they must surely find the differences startling. Do they wonder how they could ever have thought that T had written some of the nonsense in the films?! Do they appreciate now just how wonderful T's writing is, or is their vision forever clouded by the memory of the film? As you say, MM, one wonders........
I have no problems with the books that are released either with entirely new covers (like my "working" one volume reference copy which was hideously expensive but has just beautiful illustrations) or the "old" covers, but these new covers with the film characters on them are to me a "come on" to film fans who haven't read the book(s) and think they are getting something like the "official film" books that were put on the market before each film was released. Hopefully, most who buy these will experience what we have experienced, but I cannot help but believe that a considerable number will feel themselves "cheated" by this entirely different story (even though it has the same characters).

[Burb]

Originally posted by joxy
What I've been wondering, and asking, for ages, is how these people feel when they read the books and find the differences from the other point of view. No-one has really answered that question. If they haven't noticed that the film varies a lot in style, and deduced which is T and which PJ, then they are terribly unobservant, but they are going to expect, as you say, a written version of the films, and no matter how unobservant they were, they must surely find the differences startling. Do they wonder how they could ever have thought that T had written some of the nonsense in the films?! Do they appreciate now just how wonderful T's writing is, or is their vision forever clouded by the memory of the film? As you say, MM, one wonders........

i saw the films before reading the books.
im about 3/4 done of fellowship right now and actually im thankful that its not exactly like the movie. i would have been disappointed otherwise.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Burb
I'm thankful that its not exactly like the movie.
Could you be a little more specific?:-)
Maybe try one or two of the questions I asked to people like you, who read after they saw?
Or some alternatives:
Did you know before you saw the film that some of it was Tolkien and some PJ?
Did you notice when you were watching, any parts that seemed different from other parts, that helped you guess which was Tolkien and which PJ?
When you found all the differences in the book, as well as being thankful, were you surprised by the number and extent of them, and did you think PJ's version was better or worse than the original?
Same to anyone else in the same position.....

[Burb]

Originally posted by joxy
Could you be a little more specific?:-)
Maybe try one or two of the questions I asked to people like you, who read after they saw?
Or some alternatives:
Did you know before you saw the film that some of it was Tolkien and some PJ?
Did you notice when you were watching, any parts that seemed different from other parts, that helped you guess which was Tolkien and which PJ?
When you found all the differences in the book, as well as being thankful, were you surprised by the number and extent of them, and did you think PJ's version was better or worse than the original?
Same to anyone else in the same position.....

1. i didnt know at all which was PJ or tolkien since i didnt read the books and actually never heard of them befor