'An attrocious movie which is a despicable insult to a wonderful book'

[davem]

Those are the words of Jonathan Cainer today in the (UK) Daily Mirror. I wanted to share that with other downers. That's it. That sums up the whole ugly monstrosity that P.J. & his cronies have dumped on us. You know, in other threads earlier, I said TT was a great movie. I want to take that back. Its not. Its vile. Its an ugly, cruel, cynical, stupid thing. It is a despicable insult, to the book & the fans. PJ has used us, the fans. The films are dreadful. The only time theres any magic or wonder on the screen is when the 'writers' & director let their guard down & some of Tolkien's original genius sneaks thru. Their own stuff is moronic ('Even the smallest person can change the course of the future' - GOD ALMIGHTY!)<BR>More than that, they give more ammunition to those critics who accuse the book of being simplistic . The writers have taken a work of profound insight into the human condition & made it trivial & superficial. <BR>Let's stop making excuses for PJ et al. They didn't have to make the movie. If its too difficult to put such a book on the screen, then DON'T DO IT. Leave it alone.<BR>I just thought, maybe PJ, Fran & Phillipa will read this, & feel hurt by these comments - maybe they really do love the book & will feel upset by these negative comments, well, I don't care. LotR changed me. I read that book 25 or more years ago. I think I'm a better person for having done so. I think I'll never forgive them for this.<BR>Tell me I'm over reacting - maybe I am, but the more i think aboutwhat they've done to 'my' book (you all know what I mean by that - we all feel that LotR belongs to each of us in a special way) the angrier I feel.<BR>And I know RotK will be worse. The hardest blow is still to land.

[Liriodendron]

I disagree, I enjoy the movies, blah, blah blah. There are many people, with many opinions, I do not accept this one as being "right". Maybe you do....so what. This has been hashed and rehashed, It's obvious beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have a headache...<p>[ January 25, 2003: Message edited by: Liriodendron ]

[Dimannûnien]

That would be the well known critic who writes the astrology column then, who doesn't seem to be aware that there is more than one movie?

[littlemanpoet]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The only time theres any magic or wonder on the screen is when the 'writers' & director let their guard down & some of Tolkien's original genius sneaks thru. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><B>davem:</B> Good to 'see' you again. The above quote sums it up quite nicely for me as to HOW P.J. et. al. 'sold out'.<P>Um, knock the critic personally and you have exploded the argument? I'm afraid it's not that easy. Even if 99% of a writer's stuff is bs, it still does not remove the truth of the true 1% said.

[Lush]

In an attempt to be concise (not curt, rude, or otherwise unpleasant, just concise):<P>You = a person in need of a massage, or stiff drink, or nice cozy nap, or all of the above. Even I didn't react this way when they cast Liv Tyler (this girl just pops up everywhere there's trouble, eh?) as Tatiana in "Onegin." Please, I don't want you to have a heart attack over a <I>movie</I>.

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

Wow. Why let a movie disrupt your life in such a manner? It's just a movie. If you don't like it then just forget about its exhistance so that it doesn't bother you anymore and go back to the books only.<P>I, personally, am very pleased with how the movies turned out. I think that they are in no way a disgrace. I am looking forward to the final one because I think that they are wonderful to behold. We disagree in that manner, so I'll enjoy the books and the movie while you just enjoy the books.

[Gorwingel]

I don't agree, it was not a terrible film, I enjoyed it thoroughly. I would have to say I don't agree with that reviewer at all.

[The Necromancer]

What exactly made you reconsider TTT and decide it was so awful, Davem? I partially agree/disagree with you there. It could have been a LOT better and it did lose a lot of aspects in the book like the characters growing, maturing etc. and no, it wasn't nearly as deep as the book. I try to enjoy the movies and the books seperately, though, so I still liked TTT and can't wait till ROTK!!! You never know, it might be a great movie and they might make it closer to the book.

[kharank]

I personally loved the films, and i think its great that, after seeing the movies, so many people are now reading the books. Its opening up the genius of Tolkien to generations who probably wouldnt have bothered otherwise...

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

It was a flawed masterpiece. There were many parts which could and should have been done better, the most obvious being character development.<P>However, the scenery and settings, the action, the simple morals which it puts through which are horribly lacking in todays culture, there are many plus points to the movie.<P>And if you can separate the movies from the books, then you've got it made!

[Tar-Palantir]

What a pity. First you were able to enjoy something new, now you can't. In fact it sounds like you want to convince others that they also should shun these movies. That is not nice. There are other arguments for and against PJ & company that are far more "discussable" than yours - it seems like a rant which is a pain to argue against. So I'll just say I liked them for what they added to my LotR experience and that they certainly didn't take anything away from it.<P>Lush - Your posts seem to repeatedly hit the proverbial 'nail on the head'. cheers and thanks!<p>[ January 25, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[Diamond18]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> There are other arguments for and against PJ & company that are far more "discussable" than yours - it seems like a rant which is a pain to argue against. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That is very true, which leads me to wonder why this thread was begun in the first place. It's basically just another TTT - Overall Impressions thread, only it starts out by putting anyone who liked the movies even a little in an automatic defense mode. I don't think it's right to put forth your ideas like they are the absolute truth and anyone who disagrees is delusional or brainwashed (i.e., "Stop defending PJ"). Plus, in the end, what does this thread accomplish besides killing a skwerl?

[Pookabunny]

I'm all about respecting people's opinions, but I'm going to have to be a little more direct in my response to this thread.<BR> It's fine to disagree, but it is NOT cool to banter on about one's terse and negativity towards a subject that people feel so passionately for.<BR> I want to thank the many that posted comments in a very respectable and intelligent manner. The following are those I enjoyed the most:<P>I would like to quote <B>Tigerlilly</B> first, because I truly respect her opinions and the manner in which she expresses them:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It's just a movie. If you don't like it then just forget about its existance so that it doesn't bother you anymore and go back to the books only. <BR>I, personally, am very pleased with how the movies turned out. I think that they are in no way a disgrace. I am looking forward to the final one because I think that they are wonderful to behold. We disagree in that manner, so I'll enjoy the books and the movie while you just enjoy the books<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Amen sister!<P>Next, a great quote by <B>Liriodendron</B><BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>This has been hashed and rehashed, It's obvious beauty is in the eye of the beholder.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Right on!<P>And another wonderful one from <B>Eomer of the Rohirrim</B>:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It was a flawed masterpiece....And if you can separate the movies from the books, then you've got it made!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That whole post from Eomer was really well stated, but I really enjoyed those captions.<P>Last, and certainly NOT least is a quote from <B>Tar-Palantir</B>: <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>What a pity. First you were able to enjoy something new, now you can't. In fact it sounds like you want to convince others that they also should shun these movies. That is not nice.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR>It is this quote that I really would like to point out, because as I stated in the beginning of my schpiel here, I can respect opinions. HOWEVER, when one changes their opinion based on the powerful words and negativity of others (such as an article), that's something I wouldn't admit to others. Have pride in what you believe in, stand by your beliefs until PROVEN wrong. NO ONE can prove to you that LOTR sucks, that's an opinion we should make on our own. And to those who think LOTR sucks, I suggest more understanding and conversation with people who like LOTR. <P>Back on topic, I agree that YES - the films stray from the books. I agree that YES - there are some parts of the movie that are SO HARD to watch because they are NOT part of the original story. I KNOW that YES - LOTR is a story that exists in books and our hearts and it is IMPOSSIBLE to bring that to the screen. I DISAGREE with the statement that the movies suck and shouldn't be attempted to come to the screen. The movies are just another way to tell the epic saga told in LOTR - just like a book would be. Albeit and expensive and less true to form way of telling the story, it's still one way. And the thousands of people who have spent years, if not their LIVES bringing this to screen deserve a certain level of respect. Tolkien certainly recieved it, and telling the story in movie form is in NO WAY disrecpecting Tolkien - it is a way of HONORING him. These films have introduced more and more people to the Tolkien Universe and for that, PJ and all the people who are making the films possible have unconditional support from me. And no matter what happens in Return of the King, no matter how many articles I read and no matter how many people I talk to who HATE the books AND/OR the films, NO MATTER WHAT I will STILL feel the same way.

[Iarwain]

VERY GOOD!! I like it Davem, but it certainly took a while for you to come to this conclusion. (I was thinking these thoughts less than an hour after I first saw the movie) I will quote myself as I have before:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> With each blow to the defense of Helm's Deep, and each step Frodo took away from Mordor, I looked ahead in my mind to the RotK, and watched the white tower of Minas Tirith crumble, and the armies of Gondor shrivel and fail. I fear now that Frodo will fail in his quest, and that the Morgul army will get past the second circle. Arwen will set sail, and Faramir will be excecuted by Denethor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I love that paragraph! It expresses my feelings oh so well. Here's another one:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> For those who call this abominable film an "interpretation" by Peter Jackson, I would really like to hear what was written in your copy of LotR. When Frodo gets dragged by an ally-gone-bad about forty miles in the wrong direction to a place where he should never have been, to do things that he would never even considered doing in his greatest ring-fit, I believe that the term "interpretation" can no longer be sensibly used.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>And heres some stuff about Faramir:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> It is true that none of the characters are really the same, but that does not mean that we should cease to recognize the film as an attempt at the recreation of the Books. And as a recreation of the book, PJ and Franny did a smelly job indeed. But of course, you say, the characters are being developed to become what they should be. And this is my answer: humans may be susceptable to temptation, but temptation does not rule the human heart. They may be longing for the ring, but they can refuse it also. And if character development has to start from a base character completely devoid of will power, then the part of the character (namely Faramir's part) can pretty much be abandoned and replaced with the non-"wizard's pupil" power hungry guy we see in the film. Character development can shatter plot development.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Of course, I'm over my anger now...<P>Fiery,<BR>Iarwain<P>[ January 25, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]<p>[ January 25, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

[PsYcHo Me]

I LOVED the movies! I think they were excellent, and that PJ did a great job on them. My mum agrees as well, and no offense, I think that the first book dragged on a bit....i got so bored that I actually skipped it and went on to TTT, then ROTK, which I finished in 2 or 3 days.

[Iarwain]

Welcome to the Downs, Psycho You! As your corpse is probably still warm, I'd like to wish you a happy death, and an enjoyable posting experience! <P>The first time I read LotR, I skipped over the first book of the Return of the King, and then went back and reread it.

[Blue Elf]

I personally didn't like TTT either. For one, they MANGLED my favorite character, Gollum. A lot of people think he came out great, and, he did. He just isn't the Gollum I pictured. The movie Gollum was nothing more than a sad joke of what the result of the Ring was. They made him laughable, not piteable.<P>The Battle of Helm's Deep was much too long. I could keep ranting about the movie, and my friends think I am over critical of it. Maybe I am. Judging it as a movie alone, as though it was never based off a book, I still do not think highly of it. It was too long and drawn of, too much excessive drama, and a huge hunk of the movie was Helm's Deep. The crane shots there were beautifully done. The close up shots may as well have never been there, because you couldn't tell what was going on.<P>Knowing me, I will come to like the movie a little more, as I did the Fellowship. But I don't know...

[Coral]

The man uses big words, therefore we must all believe him

[Iarwain]

As others have said, this thread is likely doomed, and will be gone soon. It has been discussed and discussed, lines have been drawn and drawn again, and in the end there is never a solid conclusion. I'd say that we should all prepare for a mysterious dissapearance in the near future...<P>Iarwain

[Coral]

Your right Iarwain, we should all just walk away. WHO'S WITH ME!<BR>*Coral walks away*

[Darkside]

HEAR! HEAR! Davem! Those were my thoughts (or pretty close to them ) after my first, and only, viewing of TTT. I stayed that angry for a couple of weeks. Then I calmed down and became very sad. Sad that such an abomination has Tolkien's name attached to it. Now, after reading your post, I am all worked up again. Thanks! <P>I don't think anyone is out to convert the "likers of the films" into the "non-likers". But can you imagine a host of infuriated Tolkien (book) fans marching up to Jackson and his cronies and demanding a proper rendition of LotR? That would be a sight to behold!<p>[ January 26, 2003: Message edited by: Darkside ]

[Rosolas]

Well if it wasn't for the films, I would never have dreamed of reading the books!<P>I enjoyed the films, and what I have read of the books (I have completed the Fellowship, and I am nearly half way through the Two Towers) I have enjoyed the books too. <P>I think it is very difficult to stick to a book 100% when outing it on film. Something has to give somewhere, but if you feel that strongly about it don't watch the films! <P>I know a couple of English teachers who have both read the books and seen the films, and they have now problems with it either. They said the same as I say. If these films get people to read who would never normally read the books then that is a good thing.

[Iargwath]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Well if it wasn't for the films, I would never have dreamed of reading the books!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Exactly! I'm not one of those people (i read the book prior to the film), but i was going to put a point across about people who didnt even know the books existed. Not only were the movies good (every book adaption film has its flaws, it is an adaption after all) but they did give people who hadnt read the books, a tendancy to discover more of Middle earth for themselves. Which for me is a positive in many perspectives.

[maikafanawen]

I have grown up knowing Tolkien's stories all my life. And the movies are spectacular. Get over it. <P>It's like a painting. The artist paints it with blues and greens. But you don't like blues and greens ... you like reds and oranges. However, Davem, there are a lot of people who like blues and a lot who like reds, and some who like both. So you go paint with you colors, and let others paint with theirs. In the end we all have our paintings fit just to our taste. So if you love the books, pretend the movies were never made. Be content that you have the choice of shunning the movie, and enjoying the books. Do not criticize those who are openminded and can enjoy both blues and reds however, for those are the true lovers of all the paintings. And so ... who are the true lovers of all of Tolkien.

[The Saucepan Man]

Well, I've said my piece on many other threads, so I'm not going to repeat myself here. Suffice it to say that I've been a fan of the books for 25 years and have thoroughly enjoyed the films.<P>But, I feel that two points are worth reiterating.<P>First:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> You know, in other threads earlier, I said TT was a great movie. I want to take that back. Its not. Its vile. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>davem, I would be intersted to hear why you enjoyed TTT, and then changed your view based upon one article in the Daily Mirror ... and:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Well if it wasn't for the films, I would never have dreamed of reading the books! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well said, Rosolas, for the many people who have been encouraged to read the books on seeing the films (my wife included).

[The Fifth]

Basically, what most people are saying is "I like the movies, and you don't have to complain about it in a thread that has been discussed for far too long". But, there are others who say "I agree and the movies stink. I'm going to sue Peter Jackson for ruining the name of Tolkien!"<P>As a few people have said before, it is just a movie. If you are angry about it, that is fine, but try calming down a bit, and thinking. I am sure Peter Jackson tried his best, especially when he's making a movie that other people (AKA "people have haven't read the books but are still interested in the movies") would want to watch. As a result, not everyone is satified. You can never make everyone happy. There are too many varied opinions.<P>It's a movie.

[Lush]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I don't think anyone is out to convert the "likers of the films" into the "non-likers". But can you imagine a host of infuriated Tolkien (book) fans marching up to Jackson and his cronies and demanding a proper rendition of LotR? That would be a sight to behold!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I don't know about you, my friend, but I have better things to do with my time than <I>that</I>. Such as watching paint dry. <P>Seriously I mean no disrespect, but this thread has the same impact on me as an over-blown, over-dramatic, badly-scripted Spanish soap opera. In other words, it makes me laugh.<P>I can understand your passion for the works of JRR Tolkien, but to turn that passion into a reason to hate Peter Jackson is, in my opinion, an act of misplacement. And a waste of your passion in general. Cocktail, anyone?

[Darkside]

Well, Lush, my dear, the paint on my wall had just dried, so I thought I would hop onto the Downs and get a little crazy. <P>Oh! I don't "hate" Peter Jackson. I just don't care for his work. I agree - hate is so tiring and not usually worth the energy.

[Inderjit Sanghera]

I nearly dropped my breakfast when I read those words in 'The Look' supplemeny. Though, I think he is right in a way-the movies were to 'Hollywoody' and at times very corny, I never remember cringing whilst reading LoTR. And as for changes to the 'static' Faramir. Has Mrs. Boyens even read the books and understood the whole POINT of Faramir? Mrs. Boyens strikes me as being arrogant and up her own ***, I mean even if Tolkien's character was a little stataic, at least he wasn't a complete idiot like 'your' Faramir.

[Fanniemae99]

Well my own thoughts on the movie are this, PJ took too many creative liberties with it and did not stay as true to the book as he did with FOTR. He took out half of the first part of the book and half of the second part of this book and he ruined Helms Deep by added an army of Elves. Personally I think he could have done better.

[Arien]

mmmmm.. first of all let me say The comment is just a load of Buzz words...really I'm telling the truth read it!!!..The Daily Mirror... very, very educational newspaper, very.....they slam and praise almost every movie, may I suggest you read the Daily Telegraph? Unfortunately it dosen't have a reading age of 8!! <P>Ok on a serious note all of you are right, what you think is what you want to think, no-one can change that. We all had our own views of what the film would be like......but we can't all be pleased, and PJ can't consult the whole Tolkien reading world every second to see what to do next. Say if the film had been made in the way...(random name by the way) Lush would have wanted it maybe Davem you still would be unhappy, but be pleased with what you got, most people are and if you are not no- body really cares!!!! <P>And is there not even one tiny bit of the movie you enjoyed????? And what made you change your mind about iT?<p>[ January 27, 2003: Message edited by: Arien ]

[thunder_goddess]

I completly disagree. I thought the movies were great. I wasn't familiar with Tolkiens works, i only knew that he wrote Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit, but i hasn't read any of them before. After i saw the first movie on DVD, i went to see the seccond one. And i can call my self a Tolkien-a-holic. Before the movies came out, i didnt read any of his books, and now i've read the Hobbit, FoTr and TTT. I think the movies got a lot more people interested in the books, then disgusted in them. Most of my friends didnt even know Tolkien wrote anything, and now, we are completly crazy about his books. The movies got a whole generation interested. Its like they woke Tolkien up from the dead or something <P>-----------------------------<P>"Save me Master, I'm drownded" ~ Samwise

[dunadan_aragorn]

i loved the movies. I LOVED THE MOVIES. there i said it. now, i know that pj did make the movie less good by takin out all the meaning and representation. i hate that. but overall, ttt is my fave movie of all time

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Arien, I was just about to ask if anyone had actually read the Daily Mirror. Credibility anyone?

[Cazoz]

Maybe <B>davem</B> is not from the UK, and thus thinks the Daily Mirror is worth wiping one's arse with?!<P>Anyways, I agree with the majority here that the movies are excellent. I think the major problem here is people being narrow-minded. If you don't like the film, you don't like the film. Fair enough. But what people need to do is to be able to separate book from film and realise that both have different intentions, limitations and necessities.<P>Surely the purists cannot be agrieved that every single bloody song hasn't been included! I for one thought they were rather tedious, with only a few exceptions. And they wouldn't have made good cinema.<P>Tolkien had nobody to answer to, and no constraints to what he included in his work. He had artistic freedom. This is why his works are 1000s of pages, full of the rich fruits derived from academic eccentricity such as all of the languages and theology and many of the other little intricacies.<P>Peter Jackson had many constraints, however. Time. Technological limits. Money. He answered to New Line. He had to sate certain demands from Hollywood and the public, whereas Tolkien was free to write anyway he pleased, without having to appease anybody or any institution.<P>Thus, separate the two. Don't whine about the differences between the two, as there are generally valid reasons for most of these. Remember that most people <I>won't</I> have read the books (let alone repeatedly like we all have!) so yes, they did have to modernise and Americanise the language in parts, and throw a bit of slapstick humour in for younger viewers. And of course, they had to soup up the love story. Comes down to simple demand and supply.<P>And for heaven's sake, don't act so offended and take things so personally. You are but a movie stub in these people's eyes. <p>[ January 28, 2003: Message edited by: Cazoz ]

[Darkside]

Cazoz: It would be easy to keep the movies and the books separate if they didn't have the same name. Not to sound flippant, but if I pay to see a movie entitled LotR, I'd better see something that was pretty close to the books I had read. Otherwise, call it LotR: A Loose Interpretation.

[Cazoz]

Well duh!<BR>I wasn't trying to imply that the two should be completely different, I was merely saying that using hindisight (once we've seen all 3) hopefully we might be able to see that certain plot differences might be beneficial, or more practical to filming. And that keeping to Tolkien's work down to the letter will not necessarily lead to the best film. So people should be open-minded and prepared to sacrifice certain elements of the books to allow the films to be better.<BR>Could you imagine an unabridged audio recording of LoTR, let alone such a faithful film?! It would be agonising, sorry!

[Darkside]

Well, actually I can imagine an unabriged audio version of LotR. I just finished listening to one and it was wonderful!!<P>I do understand that the entire story could not be shown on film (I can still dream, can't I ) and things need to be left out. However, I do not understand MAKING UP ridiculous scenes and adding them in place of what Tolkien actually wrote. Shame on Peter Jackson for thinking he could ever improve Tolkien's story!

[Cazoz]

I wouldn't go that far!!<BR>I wouldn't say so much that he was an egotistical type, like Lucas or Spielberg with a God complex, but more that he thought he was improving it. I'd merely say that he was making it more practical in the most part for film production and also simplifying the plot by streamlining arcs/characters (cutting Bombadil, Glorfindel and so on) to make the film more watchable. If a part of a book confuses you, you can go back and re-read the passage/chapter. You cannot do that in a movie theatre thus it needs to be easy to follow. (Then again, if it was confusing, you might sell more dvds!) <P>Is the unabridged version BBC? I've never seen that and I have previously worked in the BBC/ABC audio department for some time.<P>And all of this having been said, I'm not a total PJ sycophant. He's not perfect, and obviously he has made mistakes and chnaged things that irk me. But on the other hand, many things about Tolkien's work I found irritating and inane too. Nothing <I>is</I> perfect. But the Faramir changes, whilst pragmatic in a way, really ****ed me off simply because I liked him so much as a book character. If I didn't like him so much, I wouldn't have minded. Equally with the Elrond sterness, and the whole Council really. But I digress, at least PJ cut Bombadil!

[Darkside]

I agree with the Bombadil cutting, even though I loved his character. Too confusing for those new to Tolkien.<P>I have to say all of Jackson's TTT irked me. Maybe not a God complex, but very irreverent. Sorry, but I never really had a problem with Tolkien's writings. Well, when I read LotR for the first time (many,many years ago) I did get Sauron and Saruman confused. <P> I might have misunderstood you, it was an unabridged reading of the books, not a performance.

[Cazoz]

Yeah, I was thinking about the old performances with Ian Holm as Frodo, sure as anything they were abridged. Never mind anyway.<P>Yeah I think everyone confused Sauron and Saruman the first few mentions!<P>And I won't go into my Tolkien annoyances (which aren't numerous at all, by the way, and mostly disappeared after reading the Sil) here because it's not the right place.

[Inderjit Sanghera]

A lot of my friends who have only seen the movie are annoyed that Saruman's and Saurons names are so similar.

[Razbad]

I think that the books are better then the movie's but i thought the film as still exellent.

[Frodo Baggins]

Well now,<P><BR> It is very VERY true that the movie could have been a lot better.<P>Fifthy's right, If you can enjoy both, and be able to enjoy them without the two conflicting each other, then you have the best of both worlds.<P>(By the way, Lush, your title "Fair and Cold" always makes me think of Eowyn. Specifically a certain line from TTT, but thats another story.)<P>I was terribly disappointed by Faramir, the young, bright, kind student of Gandalf (Who also was much better than his brother, I don't know what on earth Denethor saw in Boromir!) was kidnapped and exchanged for Boromir's younger evil twin. A power hungry man who keeps hobbits tied up in the basement for kicks!<BR> And now for one of my infamous tangents......<P> Our dear little David Wenham has naturally blonde hair and makes a rather good Faramir. HOWEVER in the books it distinctly describes Faramir with dark hair, Gondorians are Numenorians and thus are predominantly dark haired. Now, Karl Urban, on the other hand actually has dark hair. In my opinion, they should have switched a few things and had a naturally blonde Eomer and a dark haired Faramir! It seems to me that in the movies all humans with the possible exceptions of Aragorn and Wormtongue have blonde hair! Middle-Earth is full of dumb blondes! (well, it seems that Aragorn is the only man that isn't a little on the dippy side.)<P>You say it was better that they cut Glorfindel. EXCUSE ME! In the book, Glrofindel appears at leat two more times than Haldir, and Glorfindel gets totally cut while Haldir gets this HUGE dramatic part!<P>Cazoz, you may have confused Sauron and Saruman but be glad they didn't do like in the Animated version where half the time uts Saruman and the other half its Aruman.<P>Well, the notorious rambling is over, you can un-stop your ears now. Suffice to say, PJ and co. did stray a little too far for my tastes, but I'm still watching the movies, and I'm still here.<p>[ January 29, 2003: Message edited by: Frodo Baggins ]

[Lalaith]

Haldir, Haldir, Haldir. <BR>I keep asking for explanations as to why he has such a following. But no-one ever does. <BR> <BR>He just looks like a plump drag queen to me.

[Diamond18]

I have no idea either. Must be the Boba Fett syndrome. They want to be different?

[Cazoz]

Heh, quite possibly. I suggest we all rush out and buy Haldir memorabilia and stash it!<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You say it was better that they cut Glorfindel. EXCUSE ME! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Was this directed towards me? I didn't know. I don't think it was <I>better</I> that they cut Glorfindel, I love Glorfindel, he's one of my favourite characters. What I was saying was that I understand <I>why</I> they cut him, and how it might have been beneficial in trying not to confuse newcomers to the story, who have to deal with learning many new characters of various races. But I would have loved Glorfindel in the story, and Erestor too. Dammit, the Council was a shambles.<P>And with Arwen, I think half of her appeal in the books was the enigma behind the whole love story. We know next to nothing about it until we read the appendices. It's mysterious, as is she. Who is this elusive Elf who Aragorn's pining over, is she really almost Luthien-hot? It's a tease, it's fun and intriguing. Not having her as some bloody Amazonian warrior chick, stealing Gandalf and Elrond's Bruinen tricks.<P>But, going back a bit, in the Extended dvd, I would have liked those Elves passing through the woods to be Gildor and his posse, and that they had interacted with Frodo and Sam. But they're simply more names to digest, names which aren't crucial to the story.

[The Saucepan Man]

Well. I would just like to say that I have just played the Lord of the Rings X-Box game, and I am utterly appalled. <P>It was nothing like the book. Many of my favourite scenes were just left out, or changed completely. Aragorn never had to fight any Trolls at Weathertop, so where did that come from? And they had Frodo stealing mushrooms from Farmer Maggot!!! The character development was dreadful and they were nothing like the characters that I had grown to love and cherish. All they ever seemed to do was run around fighting things and picking items up. This game really is attrocious and fails to bring across any of the spirit of the books. It has spoiled the books for me completely, and I can never read them again ...<P>... although I will carry on playing the game ...<P>...

[Cazoz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>This game really is attrocious <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Hehe, nicely done.

[Iarwain]

Indeed, its a stupid game, but its fun all the same. It goes on forever though! Oh, what a game. My name's Iarwain. I felt so much pain. when they beat me with a cane and I was so shamed. Out of the movie last year! PJ is lame. I'm done with this game. <P><BR>My name's<BR>Iarwain

[Lush]

"Stop rhyming and I mean it!"

[Grimbold]

I'd just like to throw in here that I don't think you can call Two Towers an atrocious movie. It really was an excellent adaptation of an "unfilmable" story, with some changes made to the script, not so much the plot, for the sake of making an excellent film as well as a wicked adaptation. I haven't gone into any depth here, but the only reason you can call the changes made "atrocious" is if you are a hardcore book fan and are overly-obsessed with the exact events of the book on film. The Two Towers was awesome, and any misjudgements on the part of the makers were not horrible.

[Darkside]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I haven't gone into any depth here, but the only reason you can call the changes made "atrocious" is if you are a hardcore book fan and are overly-obsessed with the exact events of the book on film. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think "overly-obsessed" is taking things a bit far, don't you? We are all entitled to our opinions, without trying to insult the people whose opnion is not yours. A couple of my friends didn't like the movie and they haven't read the books. What are they? My brother liked the first movie until he read the book. Now he thinks the changes were stupid. What is he? Too each his own, I say.<P>I hope that didn't sound too cranky. <p>[ January 30, 2003: Message edited by: Darkside ]

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

I personally thought that the worst change was making Elrond this sorta harsh, hard guy. He was one of my favorite characters in the books and I'm not saying the actor was bad or anything, just really different than I imagined him.

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

I personally thought that the worst change was making Elrond this sorta harsh, hard guy. He was one of my favorite characters in the books and I'm not saying the actor was bad or anything, just really different than I imagined him.

[Purple Monkey]

My friend Shona pulled off the amazing trick of skipping the FotR movie and sat through TTT with me having to explain everything. "Is he good or bad?" and the like. Lol. She got it though. Granted, she called Saruman "Sour-man" and when Theoden was talking of his forebears, she took it literally, and said loudly, in the middle of my group of devout Tolkienites "Sure look at all those graves! He must have a lot more than four bears!" <BR><p><BR>It seems really weird, but I hope they keep Ioreth in RotK. She's the only new character that struck me in that book, though her role is terribly small.

[Grimbold]

Sorry, "over-obsessed" was a little over the top. I guess all I have to say is that for the purposes of most people, the movies were probably a real cause for celebration and excitement. I know many thousands if not millions of people really enjoyed these movies because those people enjoy the kind of story in this genre. The changes were mostly acceptable IMO. I guess I'm a little sentimental about the movies. The thing that makes me love the movies is that the people who made them love the book by Tolkien, and if real Tolkien fans made the changes themselves, I find more reason to justify those changes to myself.

[Lostgaeriel]

I have to confess that I like Jackson's 'The Fellowship of the Ring' less and less each time I view it. I was gushing with praise after the first time I watched it. At first, I forgave PJ's changes; I understood some were made for cinematic reasons. But now, the wholesale changes of the characters' fundamental natures - especially Frodo, Aragorn and Arwen - get me upset. <P>Frodo is not a cowardly wimp; he defies the Enemy and actively defends himself in all attacks upon his person - at the barrow, at Weathertop, at Bruinen, etc. <P>Aragorn is not afraid of his destiny; he's been fighting Sauron in every corner of Middle-earth for almost 70 years to prepare for his own kingship. Afterall, he cannot marry Arwen until he is King - that's supposed to be a big incentive.<P>Arwen is not the warrior/healer/magician; by giving her those attributes, PJ has stolen them from Aragorn, Elrond and Gandalf. He's reduced those characters. (Not to mention Glorfindel!)<P>These character 'modifications' change the essential nature of the story. There's a difference between interpreting Tolkien's work for film and re-writing it so unfaithfully. And some of these changes were made to get cheap laughs. The dwarf-tossing and 'it's still sharp' jokes really aggravate me.<P>I haven't yet gone to see 'The Two Towers'. I know I'm going to like it less than the first installment. I want to like it - really. I'm afraid to see what other unnescessary changes have been made. (I've been avoiding spoilers.)

[maikafanawen]

Ooh, Ooh, Oooh!! Lostgaeriel!! You're from Toronoto!! (Barrow Wight please don't eat me for getting off topic) Isn't there supposed to be a HUGE convention there in December for the premiere(sp?) of ROTK? Do you know anything about that? If you do PLEASE PM me. Thank you so much. Sorry guys, proceed. <P><BR>P.S. I realized I could have PM Lostgaeriel to start with, but sometimes people never check their PMs so I just thought to Post it. REEEEEEEEALY sorry. Namarie.<p>[ January 31, 2003: Message edited by: maikafanawen ]

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

I really loved the second movie and thought that all the changes, though some of them were a bit annoying. Also, I thought that the real importance of the movie was in the Middle Earth feel of it, not the bad stuff even though I enjoy finding it. Still, I can understand those who critisize it... No I can't! But it's your opinion.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The dwarf-tossing and 'it's still sharp' jokes really aggravate me.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Everyone ought to know by now what I thought and why I thought it, so I'm not going to waste all our time by repeating myself. I agree with you on most of your points, but I saw the "it's still sharp" comment as one of utter amazement that a sword should keep its edge for so many years; thus explaining to the especially dense that Narsil was something very special indeed. I don't think it was supposed to be funny.<P>For the benefit of those who still think it's worth debating what the <I>Daily Mirror</I> thinks of anything, if its front-page headline managed by some miracle to avoid sex, celebrities or immigrant bashing for long enough to say that the sky was above the ground I'd have to go outside and make sure. That newspaper has one of the worst records of inaccurate, frivolous and inflammatory reporting in the entire history of journalism, and anybody who has ever written so much as a sentence for it should be ashamed of themselves.<p>[ February 14, 2003: Message edited by: Squatter of Amon Rudh ]

[Cibbwin]

It's great that you have your own opinion, but did this one critic seriously change your mind? Honestly, your taking a CRITIC's word to heart? I personally liked the movies very much, they CAN be better, but they're still very good.

[Diamond18]

I doubt anyone is going to get an answer from davem about his post. He wrote it about 3 weeks ago and has not returned once. Let it go; he certainly has.

[Cibbwin]

I like the new Flight at the Ford personally. I mean, think about it, putting Glorfindel in wouldn't have been a very good idea for those who have never read the books.

[Duncariel]

After getting past wrong hair colors, Pathetic lines, and stupid Dwarves, I thought the movies were great! <BR>No, really. I liked them a lot, and will see them many more times before I tire of them. If we all think really hard, maybe we can come up with some good things about this movie. Or maybe not. They had to give Arwen a bigger part in FoTR or else no one would have any clue who the heck she is. PJ put elves in Helm's Deep because his pathetic Rohirrim couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with an arrow. (Even though the old guy did kill on orc, at the wrong time) Just my Two Cents. <P>Namarie<p>[ February 15, 2003: Message edited by: Duncariel ]

[Erulasto]

Let's take a deep breath. Repeat after me:<P>Tolkien... is not God.<BR>LOTR... is not the Bible.<P>Now that that's out of the way, on to the movie.<P>Why on earth is it so important that the movie slavishly follows the book? I for one was glad that the elves were written into Helm's deep, because I got to see them in action. The shot of them marching there, accompanied only by the sounds of their weapons, their footsteps silent... that alone was worth the price of admission.<P>The shot of a veiled Arwen standing by the dead King Elessar took my breath away.<P>The sight of the Rohirrim charging against the Warg Riders, along with the music, insipred awe.<P>The camera panning around Éowyn, the nordic fiddle playing the Rohan theme, as the banner of the Mark flies off in the wind... pure gold.<P>Legolas' gravity-defying mounting of the horse - epitomizing everything I thought an Elven warrior was - quick, light, nimble, superhuman strength. My mother, who hasn't read the books commented that the scene made her think elves must be really light. PJ pulled off conveying this without a single word needed.<P>Théoden reciting the 'Where is the horse and the rider' poem. Pure brilliance (pun not intended, mostly). Sure, it's not the original verbatim, but it carries the <I>spirit</I> of the Rohirrim perfectly.<P>Never in my wildest dreams could I hope for such a magnificent portrayal of Middle-Earth. I don't understand how anyone cares about the details of the narrative. That was never the magic of Tolkien, nor his main incentive in writing the story. I see the minor plot changes of PJ, FW, and PB as a GOOD thing, not because they're better than Tolkien's version, but because the WORK on the screen, and I get at least some sense of surprise from the movies.<P>Never did I dream that the people adapting the movies would work so hard in getting the things that mattered right:<P>They got the accents right. And I'm not talking about the various english accents. No, the ELVISH accents. Speakers of Sindarin sound like Welshmen who've lived in Ireland for ten years; Saruman's Quenya chant sounds like a Finn singing a verse from Kalevala. They coached Christopher Lee to sound like a Finn, for 5 seconds of dialogue.<P>The Shire looked like the Shire, to the last little detail, and they planted crops a YEAR beforehand to make it look authentic, for chrissakes.<P>The Orcs look a bit different from what I imagined (they were more Warcraft/Warhammer influenced in my mind), but they FELT right. The Rohirrim both look and feel right. The first time I saw Gimli's helm, I smiled in delight because it was just PERFECT for a dwarf.<P>The land in the movie IS Middle-Earth, more than any cartoon or drawing or rendition has ever been. I am incredibly thankful that this movie was made by someone who cared about the right things - the world, the feel, the sense of culture and history, the emotional weight of the work, not pedantic regurgitation of every plot line and character á la Columbus's Harry Potter movies. If you want the book word by word, read the damn thing! That's why Tolkien wrote it!<P>At first I got mad at people yelling stupid things like 'abomination' and 'travesty' and 'sacrilege'. Now I just feel pity for them - pity that they have such small, unimportant lives that warrant this level of fury over a movie; and more importantly, pity because I wish they could see the movies as I have seen them - with utter wonder and gratitude to truly feel like I was finally walking in Middle-Earth.<P>edit=<BR>PS. How could I forget 'Forth Eorlingas!' and Theoden, Aragorn, &co in full armour, riding out of the Hornburg, mowing through the Orcs like so much warm butter. Amazing.<p>[ February 15, 2003: Message edited by: Erulasto ]

[Erulasto]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> These character 'modifications' change the essential nature of the story. There's a difference between interpreting Tolkien's work for film and re-writing it so unfaithfully. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Okay, explain to me the 'essential nature of the story'. What is it? How the hell does it matter who floods the Ford? How is Glorfindel essential to Lord of the Rings? How is Tom Bombadil essential to Lord of the Rings?<P>Here's the definition of 'essential':<P>es·sen·tial (adj)<BR>1.Constituting or being part of the essence of something; inherent. <BR>2.Basic or indispensable; necessary: essential ingredients.<P><BR>Here's the <I>essential</I> Lord of the Rings:<P>"A young Hobbit named Frodo Baggins comes across a ring, which the wizard Gandalf discovers to be the One Ring of the Dark Lord Sauron that can cover all of Middle-Earth in darkness. Aided by his gardener, Sam Gamgee, and his relatives Merry and Pippin, the hobbits flee from the Shire to destroy the ring in Mount Doom, in which it was made. On the way they get three more companions, Aragorn the man, Legolas the elf, and Gimli the dwarf. Rejoined by Gandalf, who escaped the clutches of corrupt wizard Saruman, they head towards Mordor. After having problems crossing the Misty Mountains, they go through the mines of Moria, where Gandalf falls to his doom into a chasm with a Balrog, while the rest of the company escape. Boromir, who desires the Ring, attacks Frodo, who escapes with his friend Sam. The remaining company is attacked by Saruman's orcs, who kill Boromir and capture Merry and Pip. Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas go looking for them, while Frodo and Sam stumble on Gollum...<P>...yadda yadda yadda, Gollum bites Frodo's finger off and falls into Orodruin. Aragorn rules Gondor, marries Arwen who just popped up from somewhere, and most of the characters sail off to Valinor.<P>The End."<P>I think we can all agree this is a pretty adequate summary of the essence of the story.<P>Here's what's <I>essential</I> to convey the previous story:<P>1. Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin<BR>2. Gandalf and Saruman<BR>3. Aragorn, Boromir, Denethor, Faramir<BR>4. Legolas and Gimli<BR>5. Gollum<BR>6. Sauron<BR>7. The Ring<BR>8. Treebeard<BR>9. MIDDLE EARTH (the most important aspect)<P>It's quite possible to leave out or replace:<P>Bilbo (Frodo found the ring)<BR>Galadriel, Elrond, etc. (they don't do anything except explain, and Gandalf can handle this)<BR>Rohan and everyone in it (written out completely, Ents save Merry and Pippin)<BR>and many many more characters and events<P>You'll still have the <I>essential</I> story I summarized above.<P>Glorfindel is about as essential to LOTR as Greedo is to Star Wars.<p>[ February 16, 2003: Message edited by: Erulasto ]

[Darkside]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>At first I got mad at people yelling stupid things like 'abomination' and 'travesty' and 'sacrilege'. Now I just feel pity for them - pity that they have such small, unimportant lives that warrant this level of fury over a movie; and more importantly, pity because I wish they could see the movies as I have seen them - with utter wonder and gratitude to truly feel like I was finally walking in Middle-Earth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Erulasto, I don't want your pity. I do not have a small, unimportant life, nor does anyone else here at the Downs. It is fine that you liked the movie. I could say that I pity you for that, but I don't. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. AS IS EVERYONE ELSE! We all come here to post our thoughts without trying to hurl insults at each other. Please be aware of that and try not to do it. Thanks! (and we don't yell - we type loudly)<P>As far as finally walking in ME goes, I feel that way each time I read LotR. I didn't need a movie to make me feel that way.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I don't understand how anyone cares about the details of the narrative. That was never the magic of Tolkien, nor his main incentive in writing the story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>How could you not care about the details of the narrative? I love his works because of the details of his narrative. Without the details it would just be another story of Good vs. Evil. Tolkien spent years of his life creating the details of not only LotR, but the history of Middle Earth. What on ME would you say his "magic" was?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Why on earth is it so important that the movie slavishly follows the book? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It's not important to "slavishly" follow the books. It is important to follow them enough that the book is recognizable on screen. The TTT was hardly that. The storyline was mutated to the point of absudirty, in my humble opinion. I am not going into a diatribe about all the changes (Faramir, Treebeard, the Elves at Helms Deep....). They have been discussed elswhere.<P>I think that's all I'm going to say, for now. I have a headache. <P>Just remember, play nice and keep your posts insult-free. <BR>Thanks.<P><BR>O.K. I must have been slowly posting while you were writing your next post. I still have a headache, so this will be short.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR> These character 'modifications' change the essential nature of the story. There's a difference between interpreting Tolkien's work for film and re-writing it so unfaithfully. <BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>Okay, explain to me the 'essential nature of the story'. What is it? How the hell does it matter who floods the Ford? How is Glorfindel essential to Lord of the Rings? How is Tom Bombadil essential to Lord of the Rings?<P> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think that Lostgaeriel was referring to the script changes that were mentioned in her (his? sorry ) post. Please read it again, carefully. No one is asking for a literal interpretation. We would just like to see the characters potrayed the way Tolkien intended. Not "Hollywooded" into mere shadows of themselves.<p>[ February 16, 2003: Message edited by: Darkside ]

[Erulasto]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Erulasto, I don't want your pity. I do not have a small, unimportant life, nor does anyone else here at the Downs. It is fine that you liked the movie. I could say that I pity you for that, but I don't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You pity me for getting delight from something? It doesn't work that way, I'm afraid. I pity the people who were disappointed by the movie, who are angered by it, who feel that they have to go out and rant about how bad it was. I wish they could have seen the magic that I did. I have something more than you - I have the book, AND the movie. I wish you did too.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. AS IS EVERYONE ELSE! We all come here to post our thoughts without trying to hurl insults at each other. Please be aware of that and try not to do it. Thanks! (and we don't yell - we type loudly)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I'm sorry, but I find the tone of some of the people bashing the movie to be less than civil. If you spew vitriol, don't be afraid of getting a little back.<P>Everyone has a right to their opinions, and here's one of mine: If you don't have anything nice to say, perhaps it's best to be quiet. If you like the book, praise the book. If you like the movie, praise the movie. If you HATE the movie, perhaps it's best to not ramble about how badly it sucks nearly two months after it came out? See, when you say something NEGATIVE about something, there's a good chance you're bashing something that another person likes, if not loves. If you really have to say 'the movie is a despicable insult', then be prepared for the backlash. I think I was more than civil in my previous posts.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>As far as finally walking in ME goes, I feel that way each time I read LotR. I didn't need a movie to make me feel that way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I don't believe you. Seeing Hobbiton or Edoras or Orthanc in full technicolor glory on a giant screen is NOT the same as imagining it. If people could imagine that well, restaurants and bars would go out of business, as people would sit at home and <I>imagine</I> a filet mignon with sauteed mushrooms with capers and a nice merlot. The reason I love the books is because Middle-Earth FEELS like a real place. In a half-serious, clichéd way, yes, you're right. In reality, you feel, but I feel AND see.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>How could you not care about the details of the narrative? I love his works because of the details of his narrative. Without the details it would just be another story of Good vs. Evil. Tolkien spent years of his life creating the details of not only LotR, but the history of Middle Earth. What on ME would you say his "magic" was?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That is exactly the reason why I love the book, as well as the movie. But you seem concerned with the details themselves, and not what they amount to - a living, breathing world with a past, present, and future. Faramir behaving differently is not a major enough change to do any damage to the sum of Tolkien's details. The magic of Tolkien is conveyed in the movies, even though some things happen differently, the world IS Middle-Earth. Compare this to Bakshi's travesty, which followed the PLOT, but completely and utterly destroyed the WORLD, with the Seleborns and the men in skirts and the rainbow-emitting Nenya.<P>It is far more important that hobbits smoke pipeweed and that their doors are round and that legal documents must be signed in RED ink, than how Merry and Pippin happened to join Frodo.<P>It is far more important that Narsil exists than when exactly Aragorn gets it.<P>It is far more important that elves bake lembas than their appearance or non-appearance at Helm's Deep.<P>It is more important that <I>simbelmynë</I> grows on the tombs of the Eorlings than what Théoden behaves like.<P>Get what I mean?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It's not important to "slavishly" follow the books. It is important to follow them enough that the book is recognizable on screen. The TTT was hardly that. The storyline was mutated to the point of absudirty, in my humble opinion. I am not going into a diatribe about all the changes (Faramir, Treebeard, the Elves at Helms Deep....). They have been discussed elswhere.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>And what I'm saying is that it DOES NOT MATTER. Frodo, Sam, and Gollum are going towards Shelob, and Mordor. Isengard was attacked by the Ents. Gandalf freed the King of Rohan from the influence of Wormtongue and Saruman. Merry and Pippin are going to meet Gandalf, Théoden, Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli at Isengard. The Orcs were defeated at Helm's Deep. Why does it matter that a small force of Elves came to support Rohan (more importantly Elessar)? Why does it matter that Faramir behaved differently? They are plot details, and they are hardly important enough to spoil the story, unless you consider Tolkien's text to be scripture, and that alteration is heresy.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I think that's all I'm going to say, for now. I have a headache.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Not because of me, I hope.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Just remember, play nice and keep your posts insult-free. <BR>Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I'm aiming more for sarcasm than insults. The purpose of this is to get my points across. Try not to take anything personally, as nothing is meant as such.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I think that Lostgaeriel was referring to the script changes that were mentioned in her (his? sorry ) post. Please read it again, carefully. No one is asking for a literal interpretation. We would just like to see the characters potrayed the way Tolkien intended. Not "Hollywooded" into mere shadows of themselves.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Please read my second post again. I know full well what Lostgaeriel was referring to, the entire point of my post was to illustrate that to call PJ's changes 'destroying the essence of the book' is blowing things WAY out of proportion. Faramir was different, the ents a touch thick, elves showed up at the Hornburg, there was a brief battle with Warg riders on the way to Helm's Deep.<P>Details. Details which aren't nearly as important to the story as some claim. You cannot OBJECTIVELY state that the 'essence' of the story is destroyed, unless Peter Jackson gives you a movie in which Aragorn kills Theoden and annexes Rohan, Treebeard eats Merry and Pippin, Faramir takes the Ring and melts it into earrings, Orthanc is turned into an office complex, and Gollum opens a chipshop in Bree with Sam Gamgee. Or something even 10% as drastic as that.<P>These movies are NOT an insult to a wonderful book, they are a testament to the magic of Tolkien. Never in my wildest dreams did I expect these movies to be as wildly popular as they are, while staying as faithful to the books as they have. And by faithful I mean the meticulous details of the WORLD, not the STORY.<P>The story exists already, unspoiled, untouched, in the 1000+ pages of the book we all love. Consider the movies to be illustrations. They aren't meant to replace the story any more than the paintings on the covers are.<P>(edit=typos, grammar)<p>[ February 17, 2003: Message edited by: Erulasto ]

[Dain]

I don't want to get into the details of what parts of the film I hated or liked. The first time I saw it, I was horrified and massively disappointed. The second time, certain scenes brought tears of joy and amazement to my eyes--and I stil hated other parts of it! I am coming to understand that it's a film, and some changes needed to be made. I'm still not sure of others...<P>What ranters on both sides should realise is that it's not personal. On the film-basher-bashing side you need to realise is that those who feel strongly about LotR are using forums like this to vent, and are relieved to know others share their view. I was so happy to see that other people agreed that Gimli had been mistreated, etc. Eventually we'll get over it, maybe, but not immediately--let us blow off steam. I just don't want to hear "it's just a movie" again, because it can't, and shouldn't, be "just a movie" for us, and that's our choice.<P>On the other side, for people like me who have been waiting their whole lives to see films of these books, I hope even those who are disappointed can be happy they got made at all. They could have been a lot worse, and a lot better. They get better every time I watch them because I begin to see what PJ was doing and see them for what tey are (though, some scenes would still stink no matter what film they are in! ) Lets wait for RotK and see what happens, and I think overall, when we get over the ranting stage, we'll find that we are happy we have the films AND the books.<P>One note: Faramir was a victim of the need to inject suspense into the end of the film, since Shelob is apparently being saved until RotK...I think we should wait to pass judgement--he <I>did</I> let Frodo go...<p>[ February 17, 2003: Message edited by: Dain ]

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You pity me for getting delight from something? It doesn't work that way, I'm afraid.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Erulasto, that is not what Darkside was saying at all. Quite the reverse, in fact. Darkside does not pity you for loving the film, and I envy anyone who could see past the mutilations and appreciate what the film-makers got right (the scene at Isengard where the young Ent is set afire; the fantastic image of the Morannon and the mounds of the kings at Edoras are examples that spring to my mind). Sadly, I cannot. I thought that Tolkien's plot and characterisation were absolute genius; I think that they would have made a stunning trilogy (or better still a sextet) of films without any changes being made to characters' motivations or actions, without any changes to the order of events, and with a brilliant cliffhanger at the end of <I>The Two Towers</I>, in which everyone who hadn't read the books would think that Frodo had died, only to be flooded with relief when it was revealed not to be true, as I was when I first read the novel.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If you don't have anything nice to say, perhaps it's best to be quiet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>What does this mean? That if we thought the film of <I>The Two Towers</I> was awful that we should just shut up and lump it? This forum is for the free exchange of ideas about Tolkien and matters relating to him, which means that anybody is allowed to express their opinion, whatever it may be. Be extremely careful what you say, as you are close to advocating censorship.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I'm sorry, but I find the tone of some of the people bashing the movie to be less than civil. If you spew vitriol, don't be afraid of getting a little back.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It's funny, but I've noticed the same thing about people who loved the films talking to people who didn't. Why can we not all realise that our appreciation of books and films is not objective? Just because one person loved the film of <I>The Two Towers</I> and another hated it does not make either of them wrong, pathetic or unpleasant. For Eru's sake, we're all Tolkien fans here: don't let some films tear us apart; that's the last thing that the Professor would want.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Seeing Hobbiton or Edoras or Orthanc in full technicolor glory on a giant screen is NOT the same as imagining it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>No it isn't. I find that for me imagining it excels seeing it "as the first of May doth the last of December" (Benedick of Padua in <I>Much Ado About Nothing</I>), especially as Tolkien knew exactly how things were supposed to look and described them with enough detail to convey his vision, but with enough left out to make everyone's idea of each place unique to them. This is why I never enjoy a film made from a book as much as I enjoy the book itself. But that's what works for me: it doesn't work for everyone.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The reason I love the books is because Middle-Earth FEELS like a real place.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Me too. For Tolkien it was real: as real as ancient Rome or Anglo-Saxon England. He compared Venice to "A dream of old Gondor". He knew that his fictional places had never really existed, but he never lost the child-like magic of pretending that they were real. See? I hated the film of <I>The Two Towers</I>, you clearly loved it, but we agree on something. Isn't that better than insulting each other?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It is far more important that Narsil exists than when exactly Aragorn gets it.<P>It is far more important that elves bake lembas than their appearance or non-appearance at Helm's Deep.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I quite agree. However, the way I see it if it ain't broke don't fix it. If it makes no difference to the length of the film how Théoden or Faramir behaves or why; if those things do not affect the three-film structure and filming the scenes is possible (with today's computer animation, I fail to see how any scene could not be), then why not just leave it the way Tolkien wrote it? After all, it's easier on the script-writers that way. Changing things for other reasons just looks frivolous and unnecessary to me, but a lot of you clearly didn't mind and that's good for you.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It is more important that simbelmynë grows on the tombs of the Eorlings than what Théoden behaves like.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I can't agree there. I loved the fact that the white flowers grew on the mounds in the film, but for me the way in which Théoden behaves and his motivations are part of who and what that character is. To me if he behaves differently, or for different reasons, then he is no longer Théoden, but somebody else. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The story exists already, unspoiled, untouched, in the 1000+ pages of the book we all love. Consider the movies to be illustrations. They aren't meant to replace the story any more than the paintings on the covers are.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Hear hear. However, just because that's true doesn't mean that it's wrong to say what we dislike about them, just as we would with an illustration that we didn't like (I prefer Tolkien's to most others, because he and he alone knew for certain how everything was supposed to look).<P>I have to get back to work now. I used my lunch break to type this and haven't eaten. Please, fellow Downers, don't make me have wasted my time by shouting at each other about some films. It really isn't worth it.<p>[ February 17, 2003: Message edited by: Squatter of Amon Rudh ]

[Curucalwen]

It seems to me that there are two ways to talk about the movies - "filmwise" and "tolkienwise". Filmwise, it was somewhat above the hollywood average. Lots of credit especially for the technical achievements, if not so much for good acting jobs (with some delightful exceptions, naturally). <BR>Tolkienwise, however it didn't look too good. I mean, I did not think it was even possible to ignore the whole point of the stories to this extent. <BR>And keeping Tolkien in mind... there seems to be a problem with the image-creating team. Alan Lee as the conceptual designer?! Of course, his work looks "nice and all", but it is completely inconsistent with whatever is described in the books. (Just one quick example to illustrate this: in "The Hobbit", Rivendell is described as the Last Homely House - and although, being "the fair house of Elrond", it must have an exceptional aura to it, none of the texts imply that it should look like a crazed artist's dream of an art nouveau water park...)

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Oh, and try to moderate your language. If what you are going to say may offend, try softening the message a bit. Strong words softly spoken, that's the ticket.

[Curucalwen]

sry, didn't realise i had to be that pc. <BR>i'll try to work on that...

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>sry, didn't realise i had to be that pc<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>There's no need to apologise, and you don't have to be "politically correct" (what a hideous phrase that is) if you don't want to be. I am merely trying to suggest to people in both camps ways in which they can debate the films in a civilised fashion, so that everyone gets their say and nobody gets upset. We have a lot in common here because we all love Tolkien, and I want people to remember that when they talk to each other.<P>I should add that I have no authority on this forum. I couldn't enforce the suggestions I am making even if I wanted to; but I am getting sick and tired of people who should be celebrating their common fanship foolishly attacking one another. Your post insults nobody, and it makes a valid point, but that point could be put in such a way that it is less likely to upset somebody who does not agree with you. That way when they come to reply they will be calm, not angry, and they will be more likely to listen to what you have to say. I despise the political-correctness movement, but there's no shame in considering each others' feelings and employing a reasonable amount of tact when discussing these issues. I just want everyone to enjoy coming here, not to leave feeling angry, bitter or upset; or engage in needless and futile personal arguments based on ludicrous misunderstandings of one another's comments. We're all here for the same reason, so let's celebrate that, whatever our opinions may be.<P>As two very wise men once said: "Be excellent to each other; and party on, dudes!"<p>[ February 17, 2003: Message edited by: Squatter of Amon Rudh ]

[Darkside]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I just want everyone to enjoy coming here, not to leave feeling angry, bitter or upset; or engage in needless and futile personal arguments based on ludicrous misunderstandings of one another's comments. We're all here for the same reason, so let's celebrate that, whatever our opinions may be.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>AMEN!!!

[galadriel'smaiden]

Well now, we are opinionated people. I was about to vomit at some parts of the movie, (a.k.a- breath of life scene, WHOOLAH!) and then they go and do a great job with other parts, such as the death of Haldir, which tecnically wasnt a part of the book but it still held great symbolism. ( a elbereth, gilthoniel!)Overall, I liked the movie alot and am excited about ROTK. Thanx for reading.

[Erulasto]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Sadly, I cannot. I thought that Tolkien's plot and characterisation were absolute genius; I think that they would have made a stunning trilogy (or better still a sextet) of films without any changes being made to characters' motivations or actions, without any changes to the order of events, and with a brilliant cliffhanger at the end of The Two Towers, in which everyone who hadn't read the books would think that Frodo had died, only to be flooded with relief when it was revealed not to be true, as I was when I first read the novel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>And I don't think this would have worked. What works in a book does not always work on film. Too much happens in TTT to translate it to screen directly while preserving dramatic tension, and ROTK would suffer if the encounter with Shelob took place at the end of the second movie - not much happens to Frodo and Sam after that, until they get to Orodruin.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>What does this mean? That if we thought the film of The Two Towers was awful that we should just shut up and lump it? This forum is for the free exchange of ideas about Tolkien and matters relating to him, which means that anybody is allowed to express their opinion, whatever it may be. Be extremely careful what you say, as you are close to advocating censorship.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>No, not censorship - self-control. I was shouted down with 'everyone has their opinion'. Yes, everyone does, and everyone has a right to express their opinion. This doesn't mean that I can't disagree with those opinions, especially if they're expressed in less-than-civil terms (i.e. 'it's horrible, a travesty, an insult). My point was that if you say something negative, be prepared to face the consequences. If someone has the opinion that my mother is a whore, they can express it just fine. But they shouldn't be surprised if I deck them for that opinion. (an extreme example, but I hope you get what I mean)<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It's funny, but I've noticed the same thing about people who loved the films talking to people who didn't. Why can we not all realise that our appreciation of books and films is not objective? Just because one person loved the film of The Two Towers and another hated it does not make either of them wrong, pathetic or unpleasant. For Eru's sake, we're all Tolkien fans here: don't let some films tear us apart; that's the last thing that the Professor would want.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Agreed, and if someone simply says they did not like it, I wouldn't care one way or the other, and I certainly wouldn't start telling them they're stupid. 'An atrocious movie which is a despicable insult to a wonderful book' is not saying you didn't like it. It's pure, bigoted viciousness, which anyone with a brain can see is NOT true.<P>'The book is better' - I agree.<BR>'The film is a piece of ****' - clearly it is not/<BR>'The film isn't faithful to the book' - Again, incorrect: it takes liberties with the plot, but it is INCREDIBLY faithful to it otherwise.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No it isn't. I find that for me imagining it excels seeing it "as the first of May doth the last of December" (Benedick of Padua in Much Ado About Nothing), especially as Tolkien knew exactly how things were supposed to look and described them with enough detail to convey his vision, but with enough left out to make everyone's idea of each place unique to them. This is why I never enjoy a film made from a book as much as I enjoy the book itself. But that's what works for me: it doesn't work for everyone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>We're not talking about the same thing here. Surely 95% of people PHYSICALLY saw something in the movies which was exactly like they imagined, and the wonder of this is what I was talking about. I still imagine Bree to be different, and the movie hasn't impaired my enjoyment of my own image of it.<P>I find the movie got a very large amount of things right, in terms of atmosphere and details. Sitting in the theater, the lights going out, the New Line logo appearing... and then hearing elvish: 'I amar prestar aen...' THAT is the magic of Tolkien brought to life by Peter Jackson, and actually hearing and seeing affects people on a different level than imagination fuelled by words on paper. If this weren't the case, people would read travelogues instead of going to the places. And this movie is as close to going there as any of us are likely to get in at least 20 years (until VR technology takes off).<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Me too. For Tolkien it was real: as real as ancient Rome or Anglo-Saxon England. He compared Venice to "A dream of old Gondor". He knew that his fictional places had never really existed, but he never lost the child-like magic of pretending that they were real. See? I hated the film of The Two Towers, you clearly loved it, but we agree on something. Isn't that better than insulting each other?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Sure it is. But how far would I get if I made a thread named 'The Two Towers book is a piece of trash not worth the paper it was printed on'? (to the intellectually impaired - i don't think this, i love the book, this was an example)<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I quite agree. However, the way I see it if it ain't broke don't fix it. If it makes no difference to the length of the film how Théoden or Faramir behaves or why; if those things do not affect the three-film structure and filming the scenes is possible (with today's computer animation, I fail to see how any scene could not be), then why not just leave it the way Tolkien wrote it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>There isn't enough time. The scenes would be weak and uninteresting to anyone who hasn't read the books. A Ralph Bakshi-style 'Greatest Hits of LOTR' is not something anyone other than hardcore fans wants to see. It would be a poor film.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>After all, it's easier on the script-writers that way. Changing things for other reasons just looks frivolous and unnecessary to me, but a lot of you clearly didn't mind and that's good for you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You're wrong about the frivolous and unnecessary nature of the changes. They're quite necessary to make the story work on FILM.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I can't agree there. I loved the fact that the white flowers grew on the mounds in the film, but for me the way in which Théoden behaves and his motivations are part of who and what that character is. To me if he behaves differently, or for different reasons, then he is no longer Théoden, but somebody else.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That's where we differ - to me, the characters, while being well-written and interesting, were not what made LOTR the book that it was. The very fact that Tolkien talked of these flowers, and named them <I>simbelmynë</I>, and that the word was Anglo-Saxon for 'evermind', and that Anglo-Saxon represents the linguistic parent of Westron, which ties into 'holbytla' being the archaic form of 'hobbit', a word which reputedly just came to him from nowhere... That is pure and utter magic. And I'm incredibly glad that Peter Jackson understands this. What Théoden was like is purely secondary. <P>There are thousands of writers who can create good and interesting characters. Only Tolkien has ever managed to make a world so incredibly real.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Hear hear. However, just because that's true doesn't mean that it's wrong to say what we dislike about them, just as we would with an illustration that we didn't like (I prefer Tolkien's to most others, because he and he alone knew for certain how everything was supposed to look).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I have to disagree - Tolkien was a prolific writer, but hardly a prolific visual artist. Just because he knew what herbs and stewed rabbit tasted like doesn't say that I'd prefer his cooking over a 5 star chef's. If you get my meaning.<P>I never said it was wrong to say what you dislike about the movies - I do think it's wrong to say the movies were AWFUL. I think you're looking at them from the wrong angle, and a lot of people don't give credit where credit's due.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I have to get back to work now. I used my lunch break to type this and haven't eaten. Please, fellow Downers, don't make me have wasted my time by shouting at each other about some films. It really isn't worth it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Agreed, but I'll defend the films as much as I defend the books - because I love them both, and I'm sure you wouldn't stay quiet if someone said Tolkien was a hack and his books are terrible tripe.<P>(again, intellectually challenged people should note that in the first part of that sentence I stated that I love the books)

[Erulasto]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And keeping Tolkien in mind... there seems to be a problem with the image-creating team. Alan Lee as the conceptual designer?! Of course, his work looks "nice and all", but it is completely inconsistent with whatever is described in the books. (Just one quick example to illustrate this: in "The Hobbit", Rivendell is described as the Last Homely House - and although, being "the fair house of Elrond", it must have an exceptional aura to it, none of the texts imply that it should look like a crazed artist's dream of an art nouveau water park...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I hardly think the Hobbit is a good source for imagery pertaining to Lord of the Rings. The Elrond of the Hobbit is not the Elrond of the Lord of the Rings.<P>Bilbo getting two loutish elves drunk in Thranduil's warehouses is rahter conflicting with the nobility of the Elvish race, and Imladris should definitely be a grandiose place of great beauty.<P>I love the Hobbit, but it's a children's book, and the world portrayed in it is not the Middle-Earth of LOTR and the Silmarillion. I'm pretty sure Tolkien did not know that Gandalf was an Istari and that elves sailed to Valinor when he was writing it.

[davem]

Well, I'm surprised by all the reaction. I haven't been trying to avoid you guys, I've been sick, & then lost internet access. this is the first chance I've had to read the responses.<BR>Let me clarify. I did like Fellowship a lot. My first response to Towers was to be overwhelmed by the size & scale. I wasn't really able to take it in or make a judgement on it, but because I liked Fellowship I kind of decided that Towers must be as good. It was only after going back that I started to feel uncomfortable. Then I began to assess my feelings. at that point I read Cainer's words, & it hit me. I hated the movie. But Towers is not a seperate entity, its the middle section of a single film. So you have to judge the whole thing. This forced me to reassess my feelings.<BR>Its not good enough. It fails. The problem is simple. The writers aren't good enough, but they THINK they're better than Tolkien. They really believe they can tell Tolkien's story better than him, depict his characters better than him. You can imagine them sitting there thinking 'How can we improve on Tolkien?'. Well, if you're a genius, you can. But they're not geniuses.<BR>Look at the film. They've managed to make Boromir more sympathetic than Faramir. Faramir is a thug, Gimli is a fool & Treebeard is an idiot. This is insulting & incompetent. <BR>Maybe for those who don't know, or understand, the book its ok, but for those who do understand it, what they've done is so wrong, so twisted, its unforgivable.<BR>The emphasis on violence & brutality is too much. My overwhelming impression of the book is is of beauty, nobility & tradgedy. My overwhelming impression of the films is of violence & uglyness. <BR>Anyway, sorry for not responding earlier.

[Dain]

I think it was inevitable that the film versons would simplify things (I'd say "dumb it down", but that may be provocative ). Some of the characters in Tolkien are too subtly powerful, and that wouldn't work on screen. Hence Theoden having to be physically possessed and excorcised, and the take much, much longer to recover (though his face popped right back!). And with Faramir, they needed to make the tension of his decision more dramatic, so he takes them to osgilliath and only at the last moment changes his mind. I don't need or want these changes, nor do many of us, because we know the characters and the books so well that we know instantly when something is wrong and what is going on. But why are we viewing the glass half empty? I rather think it's half full--and more, really. I mean, as Erulasto says, we still have the books, but now we have a visual as well, and they got an amazing amount of that right, for me. And when you get the extended DVD, you can always skip the bits you didn't like and pretend they happened the right way, or fill in the missing bits. <P>Davem--funny, it went the other way for me. 1st time, hated it. 2nd time, blown away by parts of it (still couldn't understand some of the changes...)

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Maybe for those who don't know, or understand, the book its ok, but for those who do understand it, what they've done is so wrong, so twisted, its unforgivable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Ah, that old chestnut again. Look, I'm with Squatter on this. We can have differing views about the films, but let's be careful about how we express them. I have had just about enough of being told that, because I enjoy the films, I cannot truly understand the books, despite having first read them over 25 years ago and having been a firm fan of them since then. It is just this sort of a comment which irks those of us who enjoy the films and provokes the kind of uncivil exchange that we should all try to avoid. What? Are we supposed to fell guilty, or perhaps inferior, for liking the films?<P>No. To reiterate a point that I have made on a number of different threads covering broadly the same topic: <B>You can enjoy both the books and the films</B>. Enjoyment of them is not mutually exclusive. Indeed, you can enjoy the films <B>and still</B> love and appreciate (yes, and understand) the books.<P>Of course the films are different from the books. I agree that they have flaws in them. They are not all time great films. But they are, to my mind, very well done, and just about as good a representation as I can imagine without any compromise on the quality of the visualisation. And in my view, Erulasto is quite right: it is the wonderful visulaisation that is the great strength of these films.<P>And I do have to back Erulasto up on one other point. The language used to describe both these films and those involved in their production is at times rather immoderate and unnecessarily so. And the attitudes and motives ascribed to them are often to my mind pretty unfair. Davem, how do you know that the scriptwriters thought that they could write it better than Tolkien? I strongly suspect that they thought no such thing. I am sure that they believed that they could render it better <B>for film</B>than the original. But that is a different thing entirely. As I understand it, all 3 scritpwriters are long-time fans of JRRT's works. They are, in that sense, of like mind with us. So, let's show them a little respect. Personally, I remain grateful to them for bringing the vision of Tolkien's world so accurately alive for me (except those darned Hyena-Teddybear-Lemming hybrids, of course )<p>[ February 18, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[davem]

Ok, for one thing, we have them saying on the fellowship commentary that they think the way they portrayed Boromir's death was 'better than the book'. <BR>Then, where in the film, are we given any sense of the history, culture & tradgedy of the Ents, one of Tolkien's greatest creations? <BR>I also first read LotR 25 years ago, & these are just not films of the books I love. The violence is brutal, excessive & too often cruel. Where is the beauty, nobility & sadness? If it creeps in its cliched & caricatured. These films are shallow. Maybe, viewed as films in their own right, they work, but come on, these are not films of LotR. They miss the metaphysical & philosophical depth - the real point of the book for me. <BR>Has anyone read Verlyn Fleiger's books - Splintered Light & A Question of Time?. Can I suggest that anyone who thinks these films are more than a cross between Star Wars & Harry Potter does that.

[Tar-Palantir]

Davem said:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Ok, for one thing, we have them saying on the fellowship commentary that they think the way they portrayed Boromir's death was 'better than the book'. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>That does not mean that their intention was to write a script better than the book. All it says is they think the scene turned out better than the book, and for your information many 'fans' of Tolkien agree. It is a very moving scene. In fact they were hard pressed to even get this book into script form, let alone try to "improve Tolkien" as you say - that is an allegation you can't prove. I think they walked the tightrope of not alienating non-readers and pleasing Tolkien fans deftly, it must have been difficult. <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Maybe, viewed as films in their own right, they work, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You're starting to catch on there...<P>but then you lose it...<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> but come on, these are not films of LotR. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I hate to break it you, but they are. Just because you do not see perfection you shun it. In my mind how can a fan of LotR not enjoy seeing such effort endeavored on this. The visually stunning nature has been awesome, many of the creatures (black riders spring to mind) were portrayed well, the locations were generally well done and adhered to the novels (Edoras, Helm's Deep, Emyn Muil was good, Dead Marshes) Plus Fellowship was 'awesome' in that regard - Did you have a problem with Hobbiton too?<P>There is beauty, nobility and sadness. It simply cannot be on as a grand a scale as the novels - these are real people these actors, they cannot be 'elves' from the novels - there is no actor in this world who can play Aragorn in his greatness. How do they authentically make Treebeard and the Ents come to life? They can't. And without the time to do the entire novels, character development and plot development will not be on the same scale - why on Earth do you need to be so harsh on it? Why on Earth did your first post need to be so inflammatory?<P>Like I said in my first response, I feel bad that you don't enjoy it as much as I get to. And I'm not even a fervent backer of these films! I just think it's a shame to waste (I hate to shout, but here goes) <B>the best screen version of LotR you will ever see in your lifetime.</B> I'm guessing that won't mean much to you, but I relish it.<p>[ February 18, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[Darkside]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I was shouted down with 'everyone has their opinion'. Yes, everyone does, and everyone has a right to express their opinion. This doesn't mean that I can't disagree with those opinions, especially if they're expressed in less-than-civil terms (i.e. 'it's horrible, a travesty, an insult). My point was that if you say something negative, be prepared to face the consequences. If someone has the opinion that my mother is a whore, they can express it just fine. But they shouldn't be surprised if I deck them for that opinion. (an extreme example, but I hope you get what I mean)<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Erulasto, when I stated my 'everyone has their opinion' comment it was in response to you stating: <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>At first I got mad at people yelling stupid things like 'abomination' and 'travesty' and 'sacrilege'. Now I just feel pity for them - pity that they have such small, unimportant lives that warrant this level of fury over a movie; and more importantly, pity because I wish they could see the movies as I have seen them - with utter wonder and gratitude to truly feel like I was finally walking in Middle-Earth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You made a personal attack on those people that did not like the movie and have freely expressed that opinion. I was trying to point out that personal attacks are unwarranted in a civil forum. I never said that you couldn't disagree, you just don't need to insult someone when you do. It tends to invalidate any point you make. Honestly, unless you are Peter Jackson, or anyone else involved in the production, you shouldn't take anyone's opinion of the movie so personally.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>We can have differing views about the films, but let's be careful about how we express them. I have had just about enough of being told that, because I enjoy the films, I cannot truly understand the books, despite having first read them over 25 years ago and having been a firm fan of them since then. It is just this sort of a comment which irks those of us who enjoy the films and provokes the kind of uncivil exchange that we should all try to avoid. What? Are we supposed to fell guilty, or perhaps inferior, for liking the films?<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Saucepan Man,<BR> I know we don't see eye to eye on the films and I hope I have never insulted you, or anyone else. This is a touchy subject. I understand what you are saying here, because the 'non-likers' are getting the same treatment. We are idiot's for not being able to love the films for what they are. You do and I don't. I would never tell you that you are wrong or don't love the books as much as I do. I am sorry if any post ever came out that way. I am glad that you can have both. I just want to be able to not like the movies and not be treated like a pariah. Which is why I agree, we all need to be careful about the way we post an opinion.<P>I think everyone needs to take a few minutes and relax. Maybe we should have a different Movies forum for those that need to express a disliking for the films.... just a thought <p>[ February 18, 2003: Message edited by: Darkside ]

[davem]

Actually, no, I didn't like the Shire- it wasn't 'English' enough, the whole atmosphere was wrong, the light was wrong. I don't live in Oxfordshire/Berkshire, which was Tolkien's model for the area, but I've been there, & their Shire was just wrong. it wasn't 'lived in/farmed on' enough.<BR>And you've made the essential point yourself. You cannot film it - no actors can portray the beauty of the Elves, the dignity of Aragorn. As Tolkien himself says of dramatising fantasy, the results are either silly or morbid. The makers of these films have proved you can actually make it both.<BR>Why was I so harsh? Oh, God, I don't know. I just felt annoyed. I'm actually known as being very placid & easy going, & I think its because I just get all the venom out straight away, & don't hold back & bottle it up. I don't get bothered if people do the same with me.

[Tar-Palantir]

ahhhh... I feel the fertile soil of common ground under my furry hobbit feet. Just a few grains of this stuff and we can sew goodwill throughout the Barrow Downs. <P>I hereby agree to disagree, and will argue this point no further. Unless someone dangles the proverbial carrot by going on a tirade... then I might join in the fun! <P><B>Davem</B> - It's a funny point really that Shire business, rather a little microcosm of the discussion. You didn't like it for various reasons and I respect that, yet it's a funny situation, because I suspect no Producer/Director/Set designer would have even gone to those lengths (you know all about the year in advance of gardening, landscaping, letting fence lines grow in,etc.. beforehand) that PJ and Co. did. Hence it too is apparently unfilmable (obviously not more difficult than the likes of Fangorn, but still impossible to perfect). The difference for me is - I appreciated all the extraordinary effort given, and it enhances my view of the place, gives it more soul, and I find that true throughout the films.<P>Cheers,<BR>

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Ok, for one thing, we have them saying on the fellowship commentary that they think the way they portrayed Boromir's death was 'better than the book'. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Actually, I think that they have a point here. It does work very well in the visual medium, especially with Sean Bean's fine acting. Actually, looking back on it, I think that the portrayal of Boromir and Sean Bean's performance was one of the highlights of the films. Just imagine, he could have been portrayed as a brute and a bully ... Instead, he was given an incredibly sympathetic portrayal, which is as it should be.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Has anyone read Verlyn Fleiger's books - Splintered Light & A Question of Time?. Can I suggest that anyone who thinks these films are more than a cross between Star Wars & Harry Potter does that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>So then we will see the light, will we? I'm sorry, but isn't this just a wee bit patronising? I have thought long and hard about what I think about these films, particularly after seeing TTT (because the changes disturbed me at first). And, having done so, I am content to enjoy them for what they are. It doesn't mean that I am somehow unable to understand the "truth" or that I love or understand the books any less.<P>Great post, Tar-Palantir. I agree with everything that you have said.<P>Darkside, my grievance certainly does not stretch to everyone who dislikes the films. I have seen some very well-argued and persuasive critiques of the films. And no, you have not insulted me. Sorry if I implied that you did. I agree that there are those on both sides of this particular fence who need to be careful about how they phrase their posts. But there really is no need for discussions on this topic to become so heated if just a little care is exercised in this area.

[Darkside]

Thanks Saucepan Man! I heartily agree on the taking care issue.<P>Tar-Palantir, <BR> I, too, agree to disagree. And I <B>love</B> carrots!

[Faenaduial]

How sad that you can't enjoy the movies for themselves.<P>I have been reading LOTR once a year since 1975. I love the books. That doesn't mean I can't enjoy the movies even when there are significant changes. I was sorry that PJ & Company changed the character of Frodo & Faramir to the point where I feel they don't reflect what was written. But that doesn't mean the movies can't be enjoyed. I just view them as someone elses take on LOTR, same as we have seen in print.<P>Lighten up a little and try to enjoy life a little more.

[davem]

Saucepan man, well, yeah, if you read Flieger's books you will see the point I'm making, expressed far better than I myself can make it. Why is that patronising? And even if I expressed the point in a patronising way, that doesn't invalidate the point itself, does it?<BR>I hated the movie (& I stress MOVIE, because like the book, its one story split into three). The writers haven't understood the real point of the book. They've put the surface onto the screen & left out what really matters.<BR>Why all the emphasis on violence, brutality & ugliness at the expense of the beauty, nobility & overwhelming sense of loss of the original?<BR>Without the Warg attack we could have seen Frodo & Sam sharing a meal with Faramir at Henneth Annun. Without the Elves at Helms Deep episode, there would have been time to show Merry & Pippin with Treebeard at Wellinghall being told about the loss of the Entwives.<BR>Wherever the film makers found any conflict in the book they put it on screen in the most violent & brutal way they could, & if they couldn't find enough violence in the book, why, they just invented some of their own.<BR>They've taken something 'high & beautiful' & churned out something both morbid & silly.<BR>Look, its like someone looking at the peaks of the Himalayas, being overwhelmed by their beauty, & deciding they want to make that beauty accessible, so they chop the top 20 feet off the mountains & put them on the ground, so people can see them easily. But you lose the majesty & the sense of awe which made them special, and just end up with a lot of big pointy boulders. The depth, meaning & subtlety of the book is lost in these movies. They are Harry Potter meets Star Wars, & if thats your bag, that's fine. I liked Star Wars, & thought Harry Potter was ok too, but Lord of the Rings is more than an action fantasy, it is a work of genius by a great writer, a profound work of human imagination by a man who'd known tragedy , horror & death first hand, a deep meditation on humankind & our relationship to eternity & the divine ('Nobody tosses a Dwarf!' - how we laughed at that one!)<BR>Finally, if the writers didn't think they could do better than Tolkien, why would they change things, because they thought they could make them worse?

[The Saucepan Man]

Davem<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Saucepan man, well, yeah, if you read Flieger's books you will see the point I'm making, expressed far better than I myself can make it. Why is that patronising? And even if I expressed the point in a patronising way, that doesn't invalidate the point itself, does it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I am sorry. I misunderstood you. I thought you were suggesting that we only have to read these books to "see the light". I don't need to read the books. I understand the points that you are making. I simply disagree. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The writers haven't understood the real point of the book. They've put the surface onto the screen & left out what really matters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Let me make this absolutely clear. I am not saying that the films remotely approach the books as works of art. The books are literary masterpieces. The films are just very good films. But I think that it is unfair on the writers to say that they haven't understood the point of the book. Of course, they may well have different interpretations of parts of it to you and I. And they clearly (in my view) needed to change the emphasis of some of it for the big screen. But that is different to not understanding it. Yes, the films are shallower than the books. That was inevitable (unless they had made 6 commercially unviable 5 hour films). But I think that they have captured the essential spirit (and certainly to my mind the vision) behind the books.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Why all the emphasis on violence, brutality & ugliness at the expense of the beauty, nobility & overwhelming sense of loss of the original?<BR>Without the Warg attack we could have seen Frodo & Sam sharing a meal with Faramir at Henneth Annun. Without the Elves at Helms Deep episode, there would have been time to show Merry & Pippin with Treebeard at Wellinghall being told about the loss of the Entwives. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>To me, both films do include moments of great beauty and nobility as well as moments of brutality and ugliness. The Shire, Rivendell, Lothlorien, Rohan and Edoras, Henneth Annun and the Forbidden Pool are all portrayed beautifully. The locations generally are stunning. And as for nobility, well, as I have said above the portrayal of Boromir, and particularly his death, was for me the embodiment of nobility. Indeed, I see nobility by the truckload in all of the "good" characters in the films (yes, even Faramir ).<P>I too miss Frodo and Sam's discussion with Faramir and more of Merry and Pippin with the Ents. But replacing the additional battle scenes with these would have made the film a less commercially attractive proposition. I'm sorry, but in a film like this, action scenes sell.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> They've taken something 'high & beautiful' & churned out something both morbid & silly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Of course they are not perfect, but I, along with millions of other film-goers (many many fans of Tolkien's works included), do not see these films as remotely "morbid and silly".<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Look, its like someone looking at the peaks of the Himalayas, being overwhelmed by their beauty, & deciding they want to make that beauty accessible, so they chop the top 20 feet off the mountains & put them on the ground, so people can see them easily. But you lose the majesty & the sense of awe which made them special, and just end up with a lot of big pointy boulders. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Davem, that is a wonderful analogy and illustrates the point that you are putting across very well. And, in a sense, I do agree with you. As I have said, there is a huge gulf between the books and the films. But that does not make the films any less meritorious on their own terms, ie as films. The top 20 foot of Mount Everest would, I think, compare very favourably to the top 20 foot of Ben Nevis! <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Finally, if the writers didn't think they could do better than Tolkien, why would they change things, because they thought they could make them worse? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Surely you are not saying that the whole book could be filmed without changing a thing? Changes (and significant ones) were inevitable in order to turn it into a commercially successful film.

[davem]

Saucepan man, everything you say about the films is, for me, valid about Fellowship, but not about Towers. I felt so let down by Towers. I can't express how disappointed I was with it.Apart from anything else, by putting so much violence on the screen they had to cut back on the story, so we're only about half way through the actual story, with only 1/3 of the screen time left, so RotK will inevitably have to be butchered to fit the last film.<BR>Also, I can accept that the writers are fans of the book, but, to quote Proffessor Tolkien in 'On Fairy Stories' (talking about a dramatisation of The Wind in the Willows he saw with some children):<BR>'..a perceptive admirer (as distinct from a great admirer) of the book would never have attempted to dramatise it. Naturally, only the simpler ingredients, the pantomime & the satyric beast fable elements are capable of presentation in this form. The play is, on the lower level, tolerably good fun, especially for those who have not read the book'.<BR>A dramatisation of LotR could only have been a poor 'tribute' to the book, but the writers got carried away. They are not good enough writers. They changed some of Tolkien's greatest prose, or replaced it with drivel. 'Even the smallest person can change the course of the future' is, apart from being appalling english, simply not the way Galadriel would express herself - she might say something like (with apologies to the proffessor!)'It has often been seen by the wise that those deemed insignificant have brought to ruin the strongholds of the mighty'. Tom Shippey goes into this whole subject in his book, Tokien, Author of the century, the language each character uses is determined by the character's experiences & also in Galadriel's case by the fact that she is multilingual - she speaks at least 3 languages, Quenya, Sindarin & Westron ( as well as some Dwarvish. Each language (something Flieger goes in to in Splintered Light) comes out of a different perception of the world - the language you speak/think in, affects your perception of reality.<BR>Tolkien's creation is so subtle & complex, & therefore will fall apart, collapse into trivial nonsense, if it's not handled carefully enough. The writers have played fast & loose with the story. I truly believe that the 3rd movie will be a disaster. Towers has introduced too many changes to characters & storyline.

[gralin musicteeth]

I thoroughly enjoyed the first movie. Having not read the books beforehand, it told the jist of the story in an entertaining fashion. I cannot say the same for The Two Towers. It did not tell the story very well at all, and I can go into the mistakes in detail, but, as someone said before, that topic has been hashed to death. It is impossible to explore the deeper meanings and stuff you pick up the 3rd and 4th time around in a three hour movie. It can't be done. The work is extensive, to say the very least, but I think that PJ could have done better on the second movie. Nonetheless I enjoyed it for what it was: a few hour's entertainment.

[Iarwain]

After skimming through the past two pages of empassioned jabber, I've come to a point of complete exhaustion. And here and now, I'd like to make a proclaimation:<P>We all love the Lord of the Rings in one way or another. Some of us may love this new visual/audial rendition of it because of its captivating tale. Others, more traditional, enjoy it in a bound form that we can appreciate through hours of beautiful description and character development that form our epic tale. And then there are those who love them both; those who have read the masterpeice, and seen the work of art. Now think to yourself, who am I to criticize what others cherish deep within, do I not share the same? If someone came along and told you that Tolkien sucked and Dickens was better, would it really be much different?<P><BR>Beyond Lethargic,<BR>Iarwain

[Tar-Palantir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If someone came along and told you that Tolkien sucked and Dickens was better, would it really be much different?<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>So we would not be able to discuss that either? Without it being called jabbering I mean?<P>I actually found some new perspectives here Iarwain, believe it or not. No, not from your post, from the others actually discussing the merits of the movie, not whether one should or should not enjoy it. We also are not discussing Tolkien's validity here but the films, and if someone felt obliged to "cherish (these films) deep within" then they can share this or read another thread.<P>feeling invalidated,<BR>Tar

[Evenstar1069]

I was really really disappointed with TTT at first. But not so greatly done movies are a little better than no movies at all, it helped me visualize some things I couldn't before. And everyone has to make themselves a part of everything they do. I do think Tolkien did a great job though. I have to wonder what he would think of the movies.

[davem]

Iarwain, as the one who set this thread off, can I just say that I was just expressing my honest feelings about the movies - specifically Towers. The fact that this thread has continued so long surely means it has struck a chord, & still does, with a lot of people.<BR>The film makers have gone to a lot of effort to tie in their movies to the book - the DVD se is packaged to look like the book, the menus are laid out like pages from the book, Peter Jackson says on the appendix disc that this 'isn't our movie, its Tolkien's movie. In every way they've tried to imply that they're putting the book on the screen. So, they're either lying or stupid, because its not the book up there. <BR>There are any number of fantasy novels out there which they could have adapted, or they could have written an original screenplay, but they chose to do LotR, which as far as I'm concerned, obliges them to retain at least the spirit of the characters & the book, not to play fast & loose with them to the extent that the story becomes totally different to Tolkien's.<BR>Anyway, when interest in this thread dies it will come to an end naturally.

[Iarwain]

I'm sorry I ever spoke. <P><BR>Weeping in heartbroken remorse,<BR>Iarwain<P>P.S. You might have forgotten to realize that, since this thread has brought new ideas and views to your attention, my view is valid also. You completely misunderstood me if you think that I "cherish" these films (take a look back to page one, and you'll recieve quite a mouthful of my opinions of these films), but most of what is being said here (though very much worth being said) has been written over and over and over and over again and again and again. Hopefully, harsh words will not leave me shaking in a corner over this post.<P>P.P.S. "Jabbering" is only as much of an insult as you wish to make of it, I say nothing about you, I speak only of your posts.<p>[ February 21, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

[Carlas]

The books and movies are quite different and I know that many people think that the books have been 'twisted' and such, and that is a valid opinion, but, it is a movie!<P> Movies based on books never seem to be as good as the actual books(not any that I have seen anyways), and movies need to be different from the books. They cannot explain everything in as much detail as the books because of time constraints, and they cannot explain how the people feel, the directors must rely on the actors to do a good job. <P>The LOTR books are very different from the movies, and I cannot truthfully say that I was not mad when they took out some parts(or added some even). I like the books and the movies, because they feel like two different stories on the same subject, and they both have aspects that the others did not talk about as much.

[Anborn]

As a relative newbie on the site, I can only say I am blown away by the quality of the posting and overall participation of this forum. <BR> I have read the trilogy at least once a year for many years; Tolkien is truly one of my oldest friends. I grieve for the lost potential of TT, as a movie it left me frustrated and angry. But if it opens up the world of Middle-Earth for even one person just a little bit, and allows them just a glimpse of Tolkien's genius, then it has my blessing. <BR> Read the introduction to the 1973 paperback edition by Peter Beagle; if you've read it before read it again...<BR>The road goes ever on-<BR>whether it's the movie or the books that push you out your own front door makes little difference-

[The Daughter of Gollum and Shelob]

SO not true! <BR>The films are fantastic. They are mostly true to the book (although some characters, like Tom Bombadil and some things, eg. Faramir taking Frodo, Sam and MY FATHER to Osgiliath), but generally, the mystic, weary mood of the book has been brilliantly captured. The overall film quality is outstanding; possibly the best films ever made.<BR>Go, Peter Jackson and Co.!

[Wenny]

I was really excited when the movies came out, but then pretty disappointed when I saw them. If the book hadn't existed (I cringe at the thought), then the movies would've been average. My friends actually had to hold me down and cover my mouth to keep me from yelling when Arwen came to save Frodo in TFOTR. Then in TTT I got pretty mad about Shelob not being in there. At least they put in the "po-ta-toes" line. It would've been a sin not to.

[Mattius]

When I saw the first movie I thought it was absolutely fantastic and that PJ had done so well to create he world of middle earth and about 90% of the story to life. I had big expectations for The Two Towers but when I came out of the cinema I couldn't help but feel cheated. My confidence had been shattered, I had known before hand that there would have been changes but it was verging on the ridiculous. More faith was needed in Tolkien's work. I think that middle earth was still great and Rohan was brilliant but only 40-50% of the story really came through. For some reason it felt like some daft hollywood blockbuster rather than a spiritual incarnation of a great book.<p>[ February 25, 2003: Message edited by: Mattius ]

[lore_master]

holy $&*%, relax, it's only a movie. take a few shots of vodka, or gin, or something. personaly i liked the movie. and i mean SERIOSLY now, if you did not like or agree with the movie, maybe you should just take a chill pill or something. <P>remember all great works of art are critised and hated at first. but in 20 years when the three movies are hailed as one of the greatest works of modern theator, dont go and say 'i loved the movie, i was behind it all the way"<P>while it is not nearly in any realation close to the book in standards, it is the best anyone could have done.<BR>i'm not saying this to be rude, or critical of you, or your views and opinions, but just sit down take a chill pill and enjoy the books<P>thanks

[Tar-Palantir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> take a few shots of vodka, or gin, or something <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> take a chill pill <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Maybe that's the only way to enjoy the films? Shots of gin? Whatever floats your boat I guess...<P>Please do not tell others to DO anything. It is simply a discussion forum, if you do not like their opinion then please give some thoughtful insight as to why you feel that way. Educate the masses, don't try to censor them. More flies with honey and all that. If you read the previous 10 or 12 posts on this thread you'll see examples of this. It is much more educational for all involved, and less inflammatory.<P>Cheers,<BR>Tar<p>[ February 25, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[Galengaladh]

personally, i had never read the books b4 i saw the movie and i went to my friends house to watch it...and i was amazed beyond belief. the lotr fotr movie was the first one that got me really hooked on the whole atmosphere. yet i personally liked both films but i still am sad to say that i havent read the books but i am trying to go buy them somewhere close to where i live. i really enjoy the whole atmosphere of the world, but hopefully i will get to read them, i say this all the time that i havent read the books but i am really wanting to...so yes i am new at it but hope to become really knowledgeable about the whole books and all that other good stuff.

[Anborn]

Cheers to Tar-Palantir for trying to keep this post on the high road. We are together much greater than the sum of all our parts as citizens of Middle-Earth.<BR>And for those of you who absolutely love TTT, I still don't like it much, but I am <I>really</I> trying...<p>[ March 02, 2003: Message edited by: Anborn ]

[Lush]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> holy $&*%, relax, it's only a movie. take a few shots of vodka, or gin, or something. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yes, but not straight. Vodka with Orangina works extremely well on all movie-related grudges, as I have found myself. Have a few glasses of that, and <I>who cares</I> about the inane lines coming out of Faramir's mouth? Just look at the mouth itself, and the eyes, and the hair...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Please do not tell others to DO anything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Tar, my dear, of course, pitching alcoholic substances to disgruntled Barrow Downs members is a delicate task, and perhaps lore_master is yet lacking in delicacy? Mind if I take over?

[Tar-Palantir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Mind if I take over? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I suppose we all have a specialty, don't we? Don't tip the scales too far though, this teetotaler is easily offended and will relish the chance to act prudishly superior. <P>Back to the subject of course. In spite of character changes and disappearances, plot and dialogue alterations, and an incessant need for slow motion shots of Frodo having his moments of turmoil, I really enjoyed it.<P>Mostly beacause of the sets, locations, special effects, costumes, music, Liv Tyler (the wealthy Elven heiress, I'd never have to work again...hehe) and of course, the pièce de résistance - Ents hurling rocks at Isengard.<p>[ March 03, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[Lostgaeriel]

Hi davem!<P>I'm sorry to have to say that I AGREE WITH YOU. I'm sorry about it because Mr. Jackson had every resource necessary to make a film masterpiece. Everything except a well-conceived & well-written script. (I suspect that the Ring began to have a strong influence on him. He began to believe that he and his accomplices were screen writers. Not only that, but they believed they could write a better story with better characters and a better plot than Tolkien did. HUBRIS.)<P>My first impression of FOTR was that it was excellent with a few flaws - notably the 'dwarf-tossing' & the 'still Sharp(e)' jokes. The 3 hours flew by. I forgave the omissions and changes...until I had watched it 4 times. Then it began to grate on me. The wholesale changes - simplfications of the characters Aragorn, Gandalf, and Frodo and elaborations of Saruman, and especially Arwen (whose increased attributes came at the expense of A, G & F) began to drive me mad. I cannot watch the video without shouting in anger at the TV screen.<P>I saw TTT on Friday nite (Feb 28) for the first time. It was the longest 3 hours of my life. I almost walked out when Faramir decided to take the Ring to Minas Tirith. The relatively small plot & character changes up to that point were annoying (I still don't see the point), but Faramir was just too much. I stayed 'til the end, but cried most of the time because I was so dreadfully disappointed by the waste of money, time and especially talent in the making of these films.<P>There were moments of technical brilliance -especially in FOTR. If the serious, mythical, epic tone and artistry had been maintained throughout, this trilogy of films could have become a true classic to be revered for another fifty or hundred years. <P>Mr. Jackson flails between making a serious 'film' and a movie 'parody'. The 'dwarf-tossing' & 'orc-boarding' should have been kept to the 'out-take' reel shown at the wrap party only. It is possible that he (and the cast & crew) got so wrapped up in the project that they forgot that though they needed to have some fun while they were working so hard, this was not necessarily the best stuff to commit to film.<P>Further, in TTT, Jackson has the characters tell us thru conversations, no pardon me, thru speeches to each other or directly by narration, what is <I>his</I> interpretation of the story. Talk about disrespecting your audience - that they won't be able to figure it out themselves. Talk about not being confident in your film-making skills - that perhaps the images you show us won't get your point of view across! Not to mention leaving some of it open to the audience's interpretation. <P>Mr. Jackson may like to think he is independent of the Hollywood $ensiblity, but he has shown that he has a great fear of box-office failure or no real vision for his films. <P>I really regret that the great director, David Lean never considered Tolkien's work for a film. His version would have been truly wonderful. He knew how to make a movie that tells a great epic tale. And he wasn't afraid of serious material.<P>I'm most upset that I will probably not live long enough to see another film version of The Lord of the Rings made. I have no doubts that it would be better than Jackson's.<P>[ March 03, 2003: Message edited by: Lostgaeriel ]<p>[ March 03, 2003: Message edited by: Lostgaeriel ]

[Tar-Palantir]

Very thoughtful comments Lostgaeriel. I agree with much, but don't come to the same conclusions regarding the validity of either the films or the creators - very interesting.<P>What I disagree with most are the major assumptions.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> He began to believe that he and his accomplices were screen writers. Not only that, but they believed they could write a better story with better characters and a better plot than Tolkien did. HUBRIS.)<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>They are screenwriters, and have been acclaimed as such in the past. They did not believe they could write a better story, and have said as much in interviews. They constantly refer to the challenges of getting it onscreen. Making it relevant and coherent to the public at large is one of those challenges. Not just pleasing you and me. Hubris? Wow. <P>Let me pose this to you - If LotR was perfectly captured on film, would that not reveal a flaw of simplicity in it? Sure it would, because the fact is that their complex nature and allowance of individual interpretation cannot be replicated visually. Movies en masse remove individual audience interpretation and replace it with perspective of the director, the nature of the medium. Specific camera angles, lighting, sound, you name it - in the books that is under MY control. Just something to consider, and why no film has ever appeased all. Especially not adapted screenplays.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Mr. Jackson may like to think he is independent of the Hollywood $ensiblity, but he has shown that he has a great fear of box-office failure or no real vision for his films. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>How do you know what his sensibilities are? No vision for his films? I think he had a vision and you just don't agree with it. You don't have to agree with it of course, just acknowledge it. He pursued the movies because he had a vision for them. And nobody can put in that kind of effort without a passion for it, in my humble opinion of course. Hollywood sensiblities? Other directors might parade around with their new found success and popularity, hitting all the banquets and awards shows, PJ does not do this.<P>Furthermore, many critics panned his decision not to incorporate flashbacks from the first film into TTT - that is a perfect example of "giving the audience credit". Non-readers were still taxed in keeping up with the storyline, even with the heavy-handed speeches. More subtlety would require more background and detail which there was not time to give.<P>I am also of the mind that mistakes such as Faramir and Elves at Helm's Deep were inevitable to some degree. Human mistakes. A few poor choices should not completely discredit the effort of the directors and writers. Or be cause to write them off as individuals.<P>I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree with you and especially davem. <p>[ March 03, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[dunadan_aragorn]

I am very tired of people arguing about this, some people like it, some people don't, deal with it!

[Arvedui III]

The more people berate the movies, the more I have to appologize for <I>accually</I> likeing them, and that's not fun. I bow to dunadan_aragorn for his post. <BR>That being said, yes there are annoying things they did in the movies, yes there are things that should have been in or not been in them, but honestly, they can't just cater to LOTR fanacics like us. <BR>The movie aren't <I> that </I> bad. Most of my friends who saw the movies are now reading the books. That can't be bad.<BR> Ok, I've given my little speach,now people may start hitting me with large pointly implaments. <p>[ March 06, 2003: Message edited by: Arvedui III ]

[Tar-Palantir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I bow to dunadan_aragorn for his post. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I don't. That post was thoughtless. In fact, <B>dunadan_aragorn</B>, why don't you refrain from telling other people what to do. Members are allowed to voice their feelings, and have done so in thoughtful ways. <P>You should take notes rather than criticize. Did you even notice that <B>Lostgaeriel </B> just saw the movie? Is it too late for him/her to discuss it? Come on, let others do their thing, ok? Pretty please?<p>[ March 07, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]