View Single Post
Old 09-30-2013, 08:53 PM   #27
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 479
jallanite is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
[quote=Calacirya;686816]The movie couldn't have been the same as the book for a myriad of reasons. Most of which would be absolutely undeniably boring on screen.[/quọte]

You are making up the “undeniably boring”. Numerous posts have complained about many features of the film. Now if the original poster has changed his or her mind, then you may have a case that this particular change would be “undeniably boring”. Otherwise, it is provable that many people deny what you falsely claim is undeniable.

You might better try to prove that they are wrong rather than that they cannot deny what they so obviously are denying. Be precise.

I am unaware of anyone who claims that any film must follow a book exactly. But comparisons between the book and the film are common among people who have read a book and then seen a film adaptation. Claims that a film cannot be the same as a book are true in general, but do you wish to prevent persons from posting cases where they honestly feel that the film was far worse than the book and did not need to be?

Another thing, those movies got millions interested in the works of Tolkien. These two facts combined, I can't believe a person actually took on the task of bringing something so incredible onscreen.
So you do not believe that Peter Jackson or Ralph Bakshi “actually took on the task of bringing something so incredible onscreen”? Well both did. If you claim that what you posted wasn’t what you meant, then perhaps you should post more carefully.

Ẉhat a daunting task. He did the best he could and if any one of you tried to make a film adaptation the same number or even more would be upset with your version for various reasons. He's a director, not a literary master. He did what he could with what he felt and what he knew and, you know, I couldn't imagine the courage.
I get your point. Jackson is perfect and is not to be criticized. But many people have criticized him and still do. Many think that if that was “the best he could do”, then he was not the director to produce the films. Understand that tastes differ, and that those who think differently than you have just a much right to post here, if their opinions make sense. The dislike of Sauron as a mobile eyeball is something that makes sense to me.

As far as the eyeball thing goes, he's right. In the books it was very situational evil that had the fellowship and other allies on their toes, rarely was it ever specifically Sauron. It's even been said by fans that the books didn't do much of a job at conveying the pain (mental or, later, physical) Frodo is in from the ring during the books aside from Frodo siding with Gollum increasingly as their relationship develops.
You start by mentioning the eyeball, claim that Jackson was right, then ignore it altogether. If you have something to say about the eyeball, then try to say it clearly. You have not even presented your argument.

Jackson thought that Aragorn, as the pointedly heroic protagonist of the story, should fight Sauron as a way of retribution not only for the evil he's caused, but because Aragorn may have felt the need to conquer the history of his bloodline that haunted his thoughts about being able to rule Gondor.
Obviously, in the end he decided to leave it out because, and according to Jackson's logic which I thought was very considerate, it doesn't take a battle to prove you're a hero, as we see with Frodo. He acknowledged that Aragorn was not our true hero, as the Hollywood stereotype would argue, but Frodo, the character that drew his sword as little as possible during his battle, because it was inward.
Possibly true. But then why did Jackson even intend to have a one-on-one with Sauron? And why did he make Faramir so tempted by the ring? And why was Denethor portrayed as a selfish glutton? Why was Gimli used so much for comic relief, the jokes almost all having to do with the fact that Gimli is short? Why did Jackson create the idea that Sauron was physically a giant eyeball, and then not use that idea? What was Aragorn’s backstory in the film, in a Middle-earth in which Arnor seems not to have existed. What was the point of Brego the wonder-horse? What was Arwen’s illness near the end?

The books are the books, and the movies are the movies. I just think they should be judged on their own merit instead of comparing the two. That's the only reason I defend Jackson. Of COURSE I wish it was more like the books I've loved and adored for years, but that's not what I got. I don't know, I just think it's cool in it's own way, and the works of Tolkien can never be devalued by any work by another whether by film, literature, or any other kind of media. Tolkien is ultimately untouchable.
In short don’t anyone dare to criticize the films because the original writer is untouchable. Yet you admit that you wish the films were more like the books. Doing so admits the validity of many of the criticisms of the films. Seemingly you just don’t like people posting it openly. Is it that any film, no matter how bad it might be, is acceptable to you, because the books are the books, and the movies are the movies?

Some viewers recognize that it is legitimate to compare a film to the book it is based on and legitimate to say where they feel the film falls down or perhaps surpasses the book.

Last edited by jallanite; 10-01-2013 at 09:51 PM.
jallanite is offline   Reply With Quote