COMPASS & LOTR comparison

[davem]

Perhaps we could move away from this 'lots of people liked it' argument & you could offer a proper defence/refutation?

I don't know of any serious Tolkien student who even takes the movies seriously, let alone considers them to have improved on Tolkien's work. Shippey has said some positive things about them, but has also offered much thoughtful criticism & has never claimed them to be superior.

No-one in their right mind would say that it is impossible to improve on Tolkien's work - he himself acknowledged its imperfections. You're introducing a complete red herring here. The point being made is that the scriptwriters did not improve on Tolkien, & have demonstrated no evidence that they have that capability. Your position seems in fact to be that while neither JRRT or Peter Jackson is God, Jackson is far closer to divine status, & less deserving of any criticism. The Lord of the Rings movies are adaptations of Tolkien's work & as such they stand or fall by how well they present Tolkien's work, not by how much money they made, how many awards they won, or how many people like them. Are they a worthy tribute to Tolkien?

[Sauron the White]

Perhaps we could move away from this 'lots of people liked it' argument & you could offer a proper defence/refutation?

The success of all three films is a fact that is very relevant to this discussion. The purpose of a big budget film is to bring even more money for the studio that makes it. Beyond that, other considerations are secondary. The fact that the public loved it and made all 3 films very successful is important. The fact that ROTK is still the second highest grossing film of all time is important. The fact that the film succeeded by other standard measurements of success such as professional critics reviews and film industry awards is important. Those are the standards the world uses to judge if a film was successful or not.

And what is it that I am suppose to refute? Your contention about the Galadriel line? I have told you repeatedly that it is only a very small number of people who seem to share your ire about this concern. And that is some six years after the film was released with that line in it.

I don't know of any serious Tolkien student who even takes the movies seriously, let alone considers them to have improved on Tolkien's work. Shippey has said some positive things about them, but has also offered much thoughtful criticism & has never claimed them to be superior.

So what? While these films were made with the help of several serious Tolkien students, they were not made for that audience exclusively. The greater audience was the general public. And we already know the success the three films enjoyed with the public.

And I am not claiming the films to be superior to the book. I have said many times in many posts that the books and the films are very different things. One cannot fairly compare the qualities of a cinder block and an orange. Yes, I have said that the movies did improve in some ways upon the way things were presented in the book. Many other people have said the same thing here and in other places. That does not make them superior to the books. It simply means that the filmmakers did their job and came up with some innovations which improved the story as told in the medium of film.

No-one in their right mind would say that it is impossible to improve on Tolkien's work - he himself acknowledged its imperfections. You're introducing a complete red herring here.

Oh really? And you or any others here never said anything about the real crime of Jackson was in the mistaken belief that he could actually improve on the books? You never said anything like that? Mr. Hicklin never said anything like that? Others here never said anything like that?

I could do a few hours of research and come up with it but lets save the trouble and just go the the post from minutes ago directly before yours. From Lalwende, whom I believe you know.

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

I believe that Lalwende is indeed in her right mind. She comes across as a very intelligent person. But there you have it in the post right before yours --- someone saying that Its absurd to think Jackson or anyone else could improve upon Tolkien.

Your position seems in fact to be that while neither JRRT or Peter Jackson is God, Jackson is far closer to divine status, & less deserving of any criticism.

Where and how did I state that Jackson was close to divine status or a god? Your position seems to be continually restating what you think my position is, or what you think it should be to better argue against.

The Lord of the Rings movies are adaptations of Tolkien's work & as such they stand or fall by how well they present Tolkien's work, not by how much money they made, how many awards they won, or how many people like them. Are they a worthy tribute to Tolkien?

And you get this objective standard to judge a films success from where exactly? I have been attending films for four and a half decades. I have read countless books on the subject. I have even taught high school classes in film appreciation for what thats worth. I have never heard anyone use the standard of faithfulness to the book as the key element of a films success. Perhaps to you- but not to the world.

You have asked for refutation. I humbly attempted to oblige you sir.

[Lalaith]

I'm not a Tolkien fundamentalist, and as far as I'm concerned, there are certain things that work brilliantly in the films.
For example, Eowyn and Aragorn exchanging looks, with a fluttering banner of the white horse on the green field falling to the ground, combined with Shore's haunting Rohan theme.
That moment tells you a very great deal about Eowyn's concerns about the fate of the house of Eorl, about why she developed her "soldier's crush" on Aragorn, etc.
All *without* corny dialogue.

Then, there's scenes using Tolkien's language - Gandalf on the bridge, "Flame of Udun", for example, so memorably.

And moments that were not in the book at all but also worked, for me - Eowyn's lament over Theodred, for example. And, hell, yes, Arwen at the ford. It looked fabulous.


But I don't like film-makers assuming I'm stupid. I got that feeling a lot in the LotR trilogy....LOOK THIS IS HOW X IS FEELING RIGHT NOW all-spelt-out-in-your-face-dialogue. And, to get this thread back on topic, ahem. I also got it a lot in Compass. There, I felt the film-makers weren't even trying to talk to me, just show me a whole bunch of stuff, really fast so I wouldn't get bored. What with me being so stupid and having such a short attention span and all.

I didn't get that feeling in Stardust, in that movie it felt like the film-makers were treating you like an adult, and taking you into a private joke. But maybe I would have felt differently if I'd read the original Gaiman novel. I don't know.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Yaaa-wwww-nnnnn.

Yes, we've heard the rant before.

Is Tolkien a deity? No. Is his work perfect? No Could it, hypothetically, be improved upon? Possibly.

But could this brilliant writer's work be improved upon by writers as mundane, insensitive, cliche-ridden and tone-deaf as Jackson, Walsh and Boyens? Not by a hundred leagues.



But the capper is this:

I have no doubt that - in your mind at least- this very minor thing [the Galadriel line Davem cited] means something to you.

How dare you presume to comment on Tolkien if you actually think that Language is a 'very minor thing'? For Tolkien Language was the beginning and core of *everything.* But to you it's 'trivial.' Tell me, why the hell do you read Tolkien? Pearls before swine. Stick to David Eddings

And you know what? I don't give sweet buggerall if a bunch of Hollywood writers took PBW's script for Shinola rather than what it was. Hollywood writers- yeah, there's some real arbiters of artistry. I'm not in the least surprised that denizens of the Hollywood tripe-factory are utterly oblivious to Language. Their little gold statue is to my mind about as meaningful as a painting award from the Black Velvet Artists' Guild.

[Gwathagor]

pwnd!

[Sauron the White]

from WCH

How dare you presume to comment on Tolkien if you actually think that Language is a 'very minor thing'?

You really get yourself worked up in quite a lather over nothing. But your righteous indignation only proves one thing. You have no idea what you are talking about. You seem to be under the delusion that we are arguing about the writings of Tolkien. The books. No way Jose. The discussion was about a line in a movie written by a screenwriter.

In case you have forgotten or never knew in the first place... a book is one thing and a film is quite another. Or maybe on some elemental level you knew it but just cannot accept the truth of it because it causes so many inner and intellectual conflicts.

And get ready to call the thought police. Because I dare. I dare over and over and over again. And when you tire of it. I will dare some more.

Sorry for the hyperbole but I am just trying to get into the spirit you showed here of going way over the top and being ridiculous.

For Tolkien Language was the beginning and core of *everything.

Actually, language is one way to communicate meaning. And thats about it. Just because the author who wrote my favorite book believes something does not mean I suddenly convert to his value system. I will leave that to the True Believers, toadies and sycophants.

Tell me, why the hell do you read Tolkien? Pearls before swine. Stick to David Eddings

And you went to college for how many years to be able to express yourself like that? Now I completely understand all those sardonic lawyer jokes. Swine indeed!

Their little gold statue is to my mind about as meaningful as a painting award from the Black Velvet Artists' Guild.

Again, your own statements show your lack of knowledge. It matters not if you do not have any respect for the Oscars. The film making world certainly does. And that is what this thread is all about movies.

You wanna play nice - we can play nice. You wanna be a jerk - we can do it that way too. I prefer nice. How about you?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Actually, language is one way to communicate meaning. And thats about it.

Hopeless. Simply hopeless. I suppose therefore we should render Shakespeare into modern idiom, because nobody talks like that any more, and the only function of language is purely utilitarian?

Language was an essential part of Tolkien's artistic technique. *You* don't have to subscribe, but anybody who presumes to undertake an adaptation of Tolkien had bloody well better understand what he's doing.


Yes, I know, I know, I know, movies are not books. I get it. But you act as if that that truism provides a convenient excuse for any act of vandalism in the name of 'adaptation.' Well, I ain't buying. An adaptation can legitimately be judged on how competently it translates its subject into a new medium. PJ's is a poor translation- which is unsurprising, given an interpreter without fluency in the original.

p.s. Lack of knowledge? Oh, no- this particular True Believer, toady and sycophant knows all too well how Oscar voting works, including the screenplay awards. You are aware, aren't you, that *every* person with a single writer credit gets a vote? Including those responsible for Porky's 3 and Ernest Goes to Camp. Survey your local Blockbuster for a grasp of the standards applied.