🧙 The Tolkien Forum 🧝

Welcome to our forum! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! Plus you won't see ads ;)

You look like a hobbit but you are no expert.

Jamesy

Registered User
Joined
Jan 1, 2002
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
I subscribe to the theory postulated by some members of this board that the major crime committed by the unholy Peter Jackson was not the butcher-like excision of an unwitting and innocent Bombadil; nor was it the sacrilegious truncation of the excellent Council of Elrond - though I will gripe at these monstrosities at great length, and not without some pleasure, if it is required of me. No, even these great maculations of my pure Tolkien soul are overshadowed by the swarm of minor alterations which destroys utterly the noble spirit of The Lord of the Rings.

Where is the intrigue? Where is the sense of mystery that draws us back to the books again and again? Where is the wisdom of Gandalf? Where is the veiled nobility of Aragorn? Where the hell is the developed friendship between Legolas and Gimli?

Even to mention such specific flaws is to defeat the intention of this Rant. The Purpose is to describe the general effect that these films will have on the world. Has Peter Jackson destroyed the magic of the Lord of the Rings for the uneducated masses? He has taken the beautiful nuances of the books and kicked them to the Hollywood kerb.

When I first read the books I was enthralled by the beautifully descriptive classical language; I was almost lost in the interplay between the vivid and much varied characters. I was mesmerised by the world that was begun to be revealed to me. I reread the books. Still unsatisfied I gobbled up The Hobbit which had remained unvisited since early childhood. Hungry for more I delved The Silmarilion and found great riches. Thanks to the efforts of Christopher Tolkien (and my own obsession) the list goes on.

Peter Jackson (who shall henceforward be referred to as The Chump) does not understand The Lord of the Rings. He has read the books. He knows the basic story line. Yet he doesn’t ‘get’ that the small details and subtleties are what produce the magical effect on all readers of the books. He has casually tossed one of the great works of the English language into that great dustbin called Americana.

I shall play advocatus diaboli for a while. The Chump is actually a Tolkien purist. He is disgusted by the limitations of time, money and the attention span of the average American that have forced him to oversee such a shoddy adaptation of the books.
Unfortunately we know this is rubbish. Although it can conceivably be argued that the axing of Bombadil and the episode from the Old Forest to the Barrow Downs is excusable insomuch as they are digressions from the main plot. However the malicious Americanism is indefensible. I was disgusted by the dude ranch-like "Lets hunt some orc" and I share Mr MickyPlum’s horror. The melodramatic drowning scene was simply inexplicable. Inexplicable as it is both contrary to the mood of the episode in the book and entirely superfluous to the drama of the motion picture.

What kind of a person is The Chump? Does he get sadistic pleasures from befouling the great man? JRR Tolkien must be turning in his grave while The Chump relieves himself, giggling, on his headstone. I believe the master must be looking down on us from his lofty position in the afterlife in horror - "Oh, why is Gandalf a bumbling idiot? Why is Aragorn whinging that his daddy didn’t give him enough attention as a child? Why are Merry and Pippin a pair of precocious picaroons? What have I done to deserve this?"

The only solution I can see to this crisis we are facing is an International War on The Chump. In the words of that great contemporary luminary of ours George W. Bush, "There’s a poster out west that says wanted: dead or alive."
 

lilhobo

Retired
Joined
Jan 2, 2002
Messages
536
Reaction score
1
hehehehe, i think i will have to defend the Chump on this ocassion


1) the Chump made a great effort to appease the purists: hence the prologue, straight out of Tolkien's mouth, plus all the splendour, history, maps to make purists smile with glee. Even made a point to highlight the other "rings" as if to say "Hey i am as Tolkienistic as the rest of ya, even if i have to confuse the rest of the population with mysterious rings(what do they do again)"

2) Shire and bag end, yeah why not spend an hour there with frivoulous niceties such sam and his missus. Heck if George Lucas can have his Ewok celebration so can JP. Lets all have a victory celebration since we aint gonna have one in the shire in ROTK

3) PJ is saying heck the purists will love sam and his missus, so surely they will cut me some slack on Arwen for christ sakes. we need a love story here this is almost 2002

4) In the "other" words of that great contemporary luminary of ours George W. Bush, "WE got them on the run, we ll keep them running and running, they aint got no souls, just run them and run them"
 

Greenwood

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil
Joined
Dec 26, 2001
Messages
1,596
Reaction score
3
Location
New York
Well, Jamesy, I compliment you on honestly calling your post a rant. (From my Random House Webster's: rant -- to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way; rave.)

One of my great objections to your viewpoint is that you seem to be unable to see the forest for the trees: "My God! Every one of the trees in this forest has a defect (broken branch, tree gall, mis-shapen look, etc.). This is not a real forest. Let us destroy it and hope that a perfect forest will someday grow here instead!"

OK, Jackson did not do every detail from the book. That does not mean that the movie (read forest) is not faithful to the spirit of LOTR. Many of us disagree with you and feel it is.

You are, of course, entitled to you opinion, I am entitled to disagree. On one point, however, I wish you would get your facts straight. That is your use of the word "Americana" in your little diatribe. Peter Jackson is a New Zealander. The movie was filmed and produced in New Zealand.
 
Last edited:

lilhobo

Retired
Joined
Jan 2, 2002
Messages
536
Reaction score
1
yeah but what he is saying is The Arwen love story is the Americanisation of an English fairy tale :D
 

markrob

An original FAD member
Joined
Dec 19, 2001
Messages
202
Reaction score
0
Location
NC
Oh Dear

I was so hoping no one would post a reply to this blind keeper of The Precioussssssssss. Nonetheless, well put both lilhobo and Greenwood.
 

lilhobo

Retired
Joined
Jan 2, 2002
Messages
536
Reaction score
1
if you must , yes by a new zealander :D

after all, PJ loves more than the greenness of the shire and those luuuuuuuuuuuuuvly naked gold statues..........

come on, commercial success is still king
 

Greenwood

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil
Joined
Dec 26, 2001
Messages
1,596
Reaction score
3
Location
New York
yeah but what he is saying is The Arwen love story is the Americanisation of an English fairy tale
No. That should be New Zealandization. Still the Commonwealth, I believe. :) :)
 

Jamesy

Registered User
Joined
Jan 1, 2002
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
American at heart.

I know the Chump is a NZer, but just as there is a McDonald's in France, so there is a disgusting Americanising, Hollywoodising film director in New Zealand.
Americana is not just limited to America as i'm sure you know my friends.

What great effort has he made to please the purists? I am a realist i understand that the movie couldnt possibly cover all the sumptuous material of the books. Would it have cost so much more above $270M to employ someone who had read the books to tell him where he is out of line?

Why not make Glamdring glow blue? Why not make the scene where Sam flounders in the River the comic relief it is in the book? Why not let Galadriel gently mock Frodo in a sad mood as she contemplates her own demise? Why not just leave out this Lurtz joker? OK. leave out Glorfindel, but dont cast Liv Tyler as the return of Luthien the Fair and dont make Arwen Evenstar John Wayne. You have cut Tom Bombadil. I cry, but I understand.

The scenery? beautiful, outstanding.
The costumes? Can't say a bad word.
Soundrack? Perfectly acceptable.

The much abused animated adaptation of the books is indeed awful and we could all nit-pick about it with our heads up our respective Tolkien asses; but the fact remains that with respect to the dialogue and the film's portrayal of the characters it remains more true than the modern equivalent, be it from NZ or the USA.

Im afraid i can only stick to my original conclusion that the Chump is a malignant anti-Tolkien threat and i will stick by this creed until someone can prove the error of my ways. And I will happily argue with anyone who dares to challenge me.

Join with me my brothers!! We shall overcome this Menace!!
 

markrob

An original FAD member
Joined
Dec 19, 2001
Messages
202
Reaction score
0
Location
NC
Hey Thorin, Grey,

Compared to this cat, Jamesy, you guys are somewhat tolorable. Dont give him a membership badge without some more investigating. IMHO :p
 

Haven

Registered User
Joined
Jan 2, 2002
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
All I have to say is that it's gotta be really hard to make a 527 page book into a movie. (It lasts for 3 hours) I saw the movie, personally I loved it. There are only a few things that kind of angered me- the main thing being that Aragorn doesn't seem to be half-elfin. Like, no where do they mention it...and on the official movie site they say Aragorn was a human RAISED by elves...I was like Hell no. But what can you do? There are some things a movie will never be able to provide us with, like insight into characters. I feel that the casting was wonderful ... I mean, who else would play Gandalf?
 

Greenwood

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil
Joined
Dec 26, 2001
Messages
1,596
Reaction score
3
Location
New York
but dont cast Liv Tyler [Arwen] as the return of Luthien the Fair
Sorry Jamesy, but it was Tolkien who said that Arwen was Luthien Tinuviel come again. Try borrowing a copy of The Fellowship of the Ring and reading it. Pay particular attention to the chapter "Many Meetings." However, I do appreciate that you recognized the similarities between the two without someone pointing it out.

As for "Lurtz", as I have said many times over on that thread I am still waiting for someone (anyone?) to tell me in which scene in the movie anybody (thing?) is called "Lurtz".

Sorry you didn't like the film. Please avoid any further assaults on your blood pressure by passing up seeing the next two.
 
Last edited:
R

ReadWryt

Guest
It's in that "scene" at the end...the one with the scrolling words...I think they call it The Credits.
 

Greenwood

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil
Joined
Dec 26, 2001
Messages
1,596
Reaction score
3
Location
New York
It's in that "scene" at the end...the one with the scrolling words...I think they call it The Credits.
ReadWryt

Gee, I never heard anyone call the credits a scene before. Must be a tough one to direct and shoot.

I was wondering since you purists are so furious about made up characters in the movie why you haven't complained about the character "Cute Hobbit Children". He/she is in that same credits scene you mention. Unlike the unnamed Uruk-hai you love to hate, the character Cute Hobbit Children may have had some actual spoken lines.

BTW How is your rereading of LOTR going? Found any quotations from the book yet to back up your claims on the Orcs out of Pods thread as I requested. I guess I will duck over to that thread and see if you have responded there yet.
 
Last edited:

Greymantle

Registered User
Joined
Sep 19, 2001
Messages
348
Reaction score
2
Location
San Francisco
I just want to say, Jamesy, that I very much agree with your every word. You have expressed eloquently precisely what I have been trying unsuccessfully to say since I saw the movie.
And welcome to the Forum!
 

Greenwood

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil
Joined
Dec 26, 2001
Messages
1,596
Reaction score
3
Location
New York
You have expressed eloquently
Since when can a self-described rant be called eloquent? That sound you hear in the background is poor Prof. Tolkien twirling in his grave over the misuse and butchery of the English language by a self-proclaimed purist.
 

Haven

Registered User
Joined
Jan 2, 2002
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Thanks for the correction on my typo. ;) I didn't mean it to sound like that haha. ::slaps self::
 

Greymantle

Registered User
Joined
Sep 19, 2001
Messages
348
Reaction score
2
Location
San Francisco
I was using "eloquent" in the sense of well-put and clearly stated. But since I already know that you're someone who will only accept words in their most narrow possible definition, I don't expect you to buy that.
 

Thorin

LOTR Purist to the end
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,402
Reaction score
15
Originally posted by Harad
Aragorn was 100% man...But from the pure line back thru the Kings of Numenor.


Actually Harad, even though the race of Elven was very weak in Aragorn he did have elven in him. Elros, Elrond's brother who was the first Numenorean king was half-elven just like Elrond. Just because he chose mortality doesn't mean that he was transformed into a human.


Jamesy,

You are dead right and are stating well what we purists have been ranting about for awhile. I am pleased that you are stating good things about the movie. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to mean anything to the movie defenders who will brand you a fundamentalist, nit-picking weenie, and fanatic anyways, despite your efforts to be fair. To most of them, you must accept the movie for what it is and be thankful someone brought it to the screen, or for heaven's sake, at least don't complain about it!
 
G

geekpolice

Guest
jamesy

you are a sad *person* (for this is a more suitable term to use on the forum).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thread suggestions

Top