COMPASS & LOTR comparison

[Sauron the White]

davem ... obviously this issue means something to you. I do not see it as any problem in any way which would hurt the average film viewer or prevent them from enjoying the films. Its much ado about nothing.. or next to nothing. In your original post you stated

Either Galadriel (in the movie) has been 'putting on' the archaic speech up to that point & suddenly begins to speak 'colloquially' - which calls into question her character (what game has she been playing up to then?), or her natural speech is archaic & she is patronising Frodo by attempting to speak on his level.

You use the word "patronising" which in and of itself is used by you because it has a definite negative meaning. It could just as easily be said that Galadriel is attempting to more clearly communicate to Frodo through use of a simple and direct statement. Is that not what every speaker attempts to do with those to whom they are speaking?

[Bêthberry]

I think it's wise to remember that some posters here hail from the land that still gives more than lip service to "The Queen's English," a land that is still riddled with class distinctions and rigid hierarchy, and a land that has a complex history of dialect and verbal eloquence layered upon those cultural and social assumptions.

Think in terms of Her Current Majesty, who not many years ago actually used a Latin term in her Christmas address to her subjects and that term was (apparently) well received. I can't recall that she has ever used Cockney slang in a public speech, though, or Mersyside lingo, or broad Yorkshire--at least in her speeches that are carried pondside, where I suppose Cockney, Mersy and Yorkshire wouldn't be understood.

What the state of The Queen's English is in Kiwiland I don't know but it's probably true that PJ and his writers share an assumption about art prevalent amongst post modernists and advertisers: that to make a mark one must transgress (slightly in the case of adverts), that is, slightly confound and distress taste in order to offend. Only when the audience is offended are they provoked enough, apparently, to have a satisfactory aesthetic experience.

It's an aesthetic theory roughly akin to--and this will undoubtedly offend PC standards--seriously developmentally delayed people who engage in repeated head banging in order to feel something. It is an art of violence and as such far and away different from Tolkien's aesthetic.

Under such conditions, nuances of language style, tone, subtlty are lost.

Lyra speaks with a definite kind of class language at times in Pullman-a form of language which Asriel and Coulter never utter. It's a Brit thing.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

You use the word "patronising" which in and of itself is used by you because it has a definite negative meaning. It could just as easily be said that Galadriel is attempting to more clearly communicate to Frodo through use of a simple and direct statement. Is that not what every speaker attempts to do with those to whom they are speaking?

Nope - it would be patronising because Frodo is not only highly educated, but is also an Elf-friend. The question is would someone whose natural mode of speech is:

'And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!'

suddenly slip into 'Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.'?

[Sauron the White]

Baloney. You chose the word purposely and deliberately as you do everything that you write. You are an intelligent, well read person and you know that words have power. To use a term such as "patronising" is a pejorative term that has immediate negative connotations. And I strongly suspect that you know that. The number of people who saw the film and care about your nitpicking is probably the same number you could have dance on the head of a pin. And just about as meaningful. I would bet that the vast, vast majority of film viewers see nothing wrong with the usage in the least. And until you brought it up here I had never heard of this point. And I have been haunting Middle-earth board for many years now. I really do not see anything here to make a big deal about. But then again, making mountains out of molehills is a big part of this place.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Oh, dear, Sauron, are you really so tone-deaf towards the nuances of language? I'm afraid you might be one of those whom the good Professor trmed 'misologists.'

Do you not appreciate that "No living man am I" and "I am no man" are *not* the same thing?

[Sauron the White]

You nitpickers must be correct because now that I recall, I distinctly remember scores, nay hundreds, collectively tens of thousands of people rushing from the theater holding their bloody ears crying "oh foul use of the Kings English". Or was it "the Kings English has been fouly used"? Something like that more or less.

I also distinctly remember nearly every other professional film critic who ignored almost every scene in the 3 hour film to harp paragraph after paragraph about this mortal sin of language usage.

And who can forget the night of the Academy Awards when the Writers Guild themselves picketed the proceedings complaining loudly to anyone that would hear about the butchering of proper English.

Yeah, I remember all that.

I guess it took you two chaps six years to remember it also.

[Sauron the White]

One thing I find most interesting is that the line which so offended a small number of you is from the film FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. That year, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences - Academy Writers Branch though so highly of the film that they nominated for a writing award. These were not actors, musicians, make-up technicians, best boys, gaffers or anyone else doing the nominating. This was done by the Writers Branch of the Academy. These are professional writers who make their living from use of language. They thought highly enough of FOTR - complete with Galadriel and her scandalous line - to nominate it for their highest professional honor.

It did not win that year but two years later the same writing crew was so honored with the award. But here in this thread we have some self important amateurs puffing out their chests and waving their dictionaries around with righteous indignation at the tragedy of it all.

Were it not for the absurdity of it all, this would be rather pathetic.

I have no doubt that - in your mind at least- this very minor thing means something to you. I have no doubt you are sincere in your criticisms. But as the great writer Oscar Wilde said “The worst vice of the fanatic is sincerity.” And your loathing of the films has approached fanatical proportions at times.

[Lalwendë]

Sorry but I entirely fail to comprehend how anyone could improve on anything a writer has written in an original work. Maybe if the writer was horsedung of the highest order, someone like Kathy Lette maybe, but certainly not if the writer was someone with a great mind, including anyone discussed in this thread, Tolkien, Lewis or Pullman. There may be flaws to this or that reader but nevertheless, what is the purpose of seeking to improve their flaws? How presumptious!

Suggesting that Tolkien could be improved on by Jackson or anyone else is rather like saying The Mona Lisa could be improved if only Banksy could maybe paint some eyeliner and lippie on her. It might be funny, it might make a point, it might be ironic or postmodern but fact remains, it's never ever going to be anything more than a version, a fan-fic at best.

Take Jane Austen. Her work has been adapted, modernised, rewritten, sequelled, fan-ficced and so forth to death. Some of it is very good, Clueless for example. But nobody ever suggests that her original work could be improved on if only someone else (probably the execrable Kathy Lette ) would go through it correcting her class bias or making Mr Darcy more sexay etc.

Dare I venture that this is because such things are viewed as Art and hence untouchable, while to many, Tolkien is still just Pop Culture Trash?

[Sauron the White]

Lalwende ... this is really quite simple. Either JRRTolkien was a human being like the rest of us or he was a God. If he was a human being, then he was not perfect and his work was not perfect. It would be the worst sort of pride and hubris to think that one cannot be improved upon.

I do not believe Tolkien was a god, God or GOD. And thus, I do not believe his work was perfect allowing not an iota of room for improvement.

In point of fact, there are plenty of people who have written posts over the past six years who make thier case that - for them - Jackson did improve some things in the film over the way it was presented in the book. That has been stated here in a variety of threads. It has been stated repeatedly and often on at least five other Tolkien related message boards as well over the last six years.

You may feel that this is impossible for you. But clearly others do not feel that way.

And it worth noting that the area of improvement is not in the books of JRR Tolkien. Peter Jackson and his writing team did not attempt to rewrite the books of JRRT. The process of adapting a book to film was well known to Professor Tolkien. He sold the rights with the knowledge that changes would be made. Nobody makes a change because they believe that the change will make the product worse. They make changes believing they are improving the product. JRRT was a very smart man and he fully was aware of how the process worked. And he sold those rights of his own free will knowing that he had no further part in the adaption process. The areas of improvement were in the medium of film, not in the books.