Itaril

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Elfchick7

I would like to clarify my position on this matter. I have no anger/hatred/venom towards PJ, Evangeline Lilly, or anyone else, for that matter. I have no personal problem with the books having been adapted into films, or with most of the little changes that PJ made. (I realize that on that point I am a majority.) I have a great deal of respect for film as an artform, when it is well used.

In some of the plays I was in there was always problems with other cast members not showing up. Sometimes it angered the director to the point where he'd boil over and rip the heads off the the ones who were coming and understood what to do. I'd sit there knowing the ones he's really upset with are the ones who wouldn't come. They were the ones who needed to hear how upset the director was, but of course never would.

This happens frequently, the ones who need to hear it often don't, or ignore. The ones who don't take it to heart because they already understood but don't want to go misunderstood. Where was I going? Oh, yeah, for my part...the clarification of your stance wasn't necessary.

I was trying to raise a more general point and not one specifically on Tauriel or any specific members criticism of the character. Although, she was part of it, because I honestly didn't understand where some of the harshness was coming from. I mean, I think a lot of book fans feared what Jackson would do to Tolkien's story before they even knew who Jackson was and before the first movie came out. After seeing what he did to the LOTR movies, there may be more fear on what he will do with The Hobbit. However, I will ask to go back to the first experience of the LOTR movies.

I left enjoyed and relieved. I was captivated by the films and relieved because I left feeling it could have been a lot worse. I think Jackson got carried away in his attempt to put his ideas in the story, when there was absolutely no reason to. There's no doubt he could have done more, but in his line of work you need an ego. It was that ego which got in the way of staying closer to the books, but it was also that ego which held off and resisted the hand that Newline wanted to stick in.

I'm not saying everyone had to leave feeling the same way I did. Whether some loved 'em or hated 'em doesn't effect me at all. Jackson's a big boy who doesn't need my defending. But, where I was getting at is, the movies drew me to the much larger Tolkien community. It's why I came here. Why have I stayed here over the years, when my interest in the films has continually dropped since my original enjoyment? Tolkien's a far more interesting chap than Jackson, and the lovely Wights waiting to welcome. So, I attempted to recall my first watching of the films after I read and was taken aback by the harshness. Realized that despite my waning interest, I did greatly enjoy them and they were what brought me to the larger Tolkien community. The Hobbit films are coming a decade later. There's going to be a whole new age group who will probably expereince the story for the first time. They will be interested and curious, and whatever one feels about the films, we shouldn't forget how excited we were when experiencing Tolkien's stories for the first time (and whether it was through Jackson's movies or not).

Yes, there are dwarves in the book, but those dwarves are not the Peter Jackson dwarves. Jackson has sexed up the dwarves--they are all pretty much hunks now--something not quite in keeping with a children's story, so it's quite possible that the double-vision of Tolkien's TH is being done away with. (And by double vision I mean its nature both as children's tale and as adult story.)~Bethberry

Thanks for the compliment on being able to read your mind, I'll try to do so again, because it's what I meant when I said I was "surprised" by some of the comments. I know this isn't want you mean about the dwarves, but what shocked me the most was some of the "oh great....more large bussomed women running around in skimpy clothes, wielding swords."

Ok. We have Xenarwen, but just step back and think of the costumes in the films, and you realize how overboard the criticism is (and this goes with as much as Jackson exaggerated stuff, I think people can get as equally as exaggerated in their criticisms). Arwen was made into an active role, but come on, she was hardly wearing anything inappropriate with wardrobe malfunctions waiting to happen as she was bouncing around on a stolen horse. Same for Eowyn, who I thought Miranda Otto was made to actually look older than the book Eowyn.

So my mind reading attempt again, yes I know this isn't what you meant about the Dwarves (it just reminded me of the criticisms that shocked me about Tauriel). Because you do raise a good point about the Dwarves getting hunked up and played by some current studly actors. However, I think of the book I'm currently reading (Game of Thrones) and how much I adore the direwolves that follow the Stark kids around. I mean, George Martin has managed to create something as sinister sounding as a direwolf, yet make them completely adorable wolfpups who cutely plod along with the Stark kids everywhere. So, in this ridiculously biased and influenced person's opinion - if Jackson can make the dwarves a motley crew of sexy eye candy, more power to him. (I Just hope we don't get a travelling carnival troupe of Gimli's, that's my fear).

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I left feeling it could have been a lot worse.

If we were all as optimistic!...

Ok. We have Xenarwen, but just step back and think of the costumes in the films, and you realize how overboard the criticism is (and this goes with as much as Jackson exaggerated stuff, I think people can get as equally as exaggerated in their criticisms). Arwen was made into an active role, but come on, she was hardly wearing anything inappropriate with wardrobe malfunctions waiting to happen as she was bouncing around on a stolen horse. Same for Eowyn, who I thought Miranda Otto was made to actually look older than the book Eowyn.

The costumes in LOTR were very well done, IMO. I think that the wet-shirt-big-bussomed-young-woman-waving-swords-around expression in this discussion talks more about the role of the character, not the appearance. Personally, when I encounter such a descritpion now, I don't visualise the skimpy-dressed girl but I think of the horror of what the character's done to the story.

So my mind reading attempt again, yes I know this isn't what you meant about the Dwarves (it just reminded me of the criticisms that shocked me about Tauriel). Because you do raise a good point about the Dwarves getting hunked up and played by some current studly actors. However, I think of the book I'm currently reading (Game of Thrones) and how much I adore the direwolves that follow the Stark kids around. I mean, George Martin has managed to create something as sinister sounding as a direwolf, yet make them completely adorable wolfpups who cutely plod along with the Stark kids everywhere. So, in this ridiculously biased and influenced person's opinion - if Jackson can make the dwarves a motley crew of sexy eye candy, more power to him. (I Just hope we don't get a travelling carnival troupe of Gimli's, that's my fear).

Ummm.... have you seen this picture? I think "sexed up" is a good description.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

The costumes in LOTR were very well done, IMO. I think that the wet-shirt-big-bussomed-young-woman-waving-swords-around expression in this discussion talks more about the role of the character, not the appearance. Personally, when I encounter such a descritpion now, I don't visualise the skimpy-dressed girl but I think of the horror of what the character's done to the story.

But making that "wet tshirt warrior" criticism is at best an innocent exaggeration for effect and at worst is deliberately misleading.

Ummm.... have you seen this picture? I think "sexed up" is a good description.

I don't believe I disagreed with this, I said if direwolves can be made into adorable bundles of furry cuddliness, than Jackson's attempt to sex up the dwarves....go for it, not a big deal. A bigger issue I'd have is getting 13 movie Gimli's instead of 13 differing dwarves of different backgrounds, experiences and personalities.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Boro

But making that "wet tshirt warrior" criticism is at best an innocent exaggeration for effect and at worst is deliberately misleading.

I just don't think it's a fair criticism– and since there's really nothing in either the existing movies or the current "Hobbit" publicity to base it on, it just seems to me to say more about the person making it than anything else, quite honestly.

Originally Posted by Boro

I don't believe I disagreed with this, I said if direwolves can be made into adorable bundles of furry cuddliness, than Jackson's attempt to sex up the dwarves....go for it, not a big deal.

Yes, but what does what a writer does with his own characters– and critters– have to do with the issue of faithfulness in an adaption? I don't see that it does, Boro. (A palaentologist might object, I suppose.)

[Galadriel55]

Do we know what will be in the movies?

The optimists among us say, no, we don't, so let's not ruin our day by wild exaggerative speculation.

The pesimists say, yes, we do, we've seen what happened to LOTR and we can predict what will be in TH, and it's not gonna impress us.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Do we know what will be in the movies?

The optimists among us say, no, we don't, so let's not ruin our day by wild exaggerative speculation.

The pesimists say, yes, we do, we've seen what happened to LOTR and we can predict what will be in TH, and it's not gonna impress us.

That's an over-simplification. I, for example, do not at the moment have very high hopes for the "Hobbit" films(s)– but that doesn't make wild speculation any more valid.

And if sound like I'm jumping on the bandwaggon– well, maybe, but the fact is, I've been concerned about some of the comments in this thread for a while.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

...but that doesn't make wild speculation any more valid.

By saying this you are saying that we don't know what there will be and there's no point in provoking our strong antagonism to the movies further for no reason, which puts you in the optimist group.... Even if you don't have high hopes for the movie, it till makes you more optimistic than me (I place myself in the pessimists, with all the rants I've said about what will be in the movie)....

Let's put it this way (in yet another oversimplification): you are willing to let it rest for the time being, until we know for sure. I'm saying that we already know for sure, so there is no point in letting it rest.



I think my brain is calling for a dose of WW to get all this proving-the-point thing and the classifying-people thing out of me.