Why all the anger?

[The Saucepan Man]

I've read a lot on various discussion threads about people being really angry with the way in which the story was changed from the book to the films. I am curious to know why this is.<P>After initially being disappointed at TTT myself by the changes, I soon realised that, since this is a film made for the film-going public generally, and not just Tolkien fans, it was bound to be tailored to suit the wider (and probably more numerous) audience. The fact that these films have been made (and the story/characters altered) does not mean the books have been re-written. They are still there to be enjoyed. <P>So why the angry reaction?<p>[ January 14, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Rimbaud]

Disappointment is a better word than anger here. Extant due to the fact, or at least the belief in the fact, that this could have been a great film, coming from such good source material, and unfortunately it wasn't. Not even close to being watchable for anyone with need for emotional connection or indeed, acting.

[doug*platypus]

For me it was more dismay. As in "Peter, Peter, Peter, why?" I wholeheartedly agree with changes to the book, when they are changes for the better. I've quoted a number of improvements that I think have been made, on other threads, as well as all of my gripes about things I didn't like.<P>But I think that in general the changes have confused and complicated the plot (e.g. where is Éomer going?), and simplified or misinterpreted the characters (see the Butchering of Faramir, also Samwise). A lot of continuity errors were brought in as well, and as we all know JRRT was an immaculate perfectionist with regard to continuity. It should be noted though, that I have an incredible amount of respect for everyone involved in the production (especially myself as an Orc extra!) and that I am very glad that the movies are still undeniably watchable, even for such a fan of the book as me.<P>Given the high quality of the source material, and the average quality of the movies, I can't help but think that Peter Jackson is some kind of weird alchemist, who has come up with a way to make cr*p out of gold.

[Gandalf_theGrey]

Hallo and Welcome, <B>Saucepan Man:</B><P>* enters, with the pipesmoke circling upwards matching the grey hue of his cloak trailing behind, bows a friendly greeting *<P>The January 2003 issue of the <I>Catholic World Report</I> contains an article touching on this very topic, called "Genius and Betrayal."<P>Actually, what I find to be the most revealing part of the article is where it quotes from Time magazine. Below, for your review, please find a quote-within-a-quote:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> In the <I>Time</I> magazine review of the film, director Jackson openly admits that he strayed far from Tolkien's original intent, and gives at least this reviewer the satisfaction of recognizing that his trespasses against Tolkien qualify as "crimes."<P>Here is what the <I>Time</I> reviewer wrote:<P>BEGIN QUOTE The director readily admits that of the three films, Two Towers departs most from Tolkien's work. "We were aware that we were making films for the hard-core Tolkien fan base as well as everyone else," says Jackson, who co-wrote the script with Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh. "In the beginning, it was a difficult tightrope to walk, but then we sort of abandoned thinking about it. If we make a good film, we'll be forgiven, whatever the crimes we commit to the book." END QUOTE<P>So there we have it, from Jackson himself. <P>The Two Towers is a great film by Hollywood standards. Yet Tolkien surely could consider Peter Jackson guilty of criminal negligence. One hopes in the expected "director's cut" DVD version of the film, Jackson will make amends.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>-- The Catholic World Report, January 2003<P>At your Service,<P>Gandalf the Grey

[Gandalf_theGrey]

Hail and Well Met, <B>doug*platypus!</B> <P>* bows, offers you a pouch of the finest Longbottom Leaf *<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Given the high quality of the source material, and the average quality of the movies, I can't help but think that Peter Jackson is some kind of weird alchemist, who has come up with a way to make cr*p out of gold. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>How wonderfully witty! Welcome to the Downs.<P>At your Service,<P>Gandalf the Grey

[-Imrahil-]

Haha wonderfully put my friend.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Given the high quality of the source material, and the average quality of the movies, I can't help but think that Peter Jackson is some kind of weird alchemist, who has come up with a way to make cr*p out of gold. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>FotR looked to be on the right track, they changed almost nothing from the books (okay Glorfindel so what?)<P>But TTT was such a departure. Nonetheless I enjoyed it so all I can say is "oh well"

[Gorwingel]

I enjoyed TTT completely, but I too found that many of the changes to me, were changes that did not need to be made. Everyone knows those ones (Faramir, Aragorn falling of the cliff, etc.), especially Faramir, that was one that if they would have gone the book route, would have still been equally entertaining to the Tolkien Purist, and the average moviegoer. I think some of the anger is understandable, because the movie did stray far from the book, much more than FOTR. I too expected it to be closer to the book. It was a good film, but it was not what I thought it would be.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Well, I could take the time to tell you, but that would only infuriate me and remind me of why I hate certain aspects/parts of the movies. You see, if you read carefully in some of the threads you will find out, but as for myself, I gave up on it. I just stopped seing the movie and stopped arguing about it. It just got me in bad moods to think about it. So I really don't visit this part of the forum that much anymore.<P>So if you really wan't to know, then just look over the 'overall impressions' thread and read carefully. You could probably find out the most about that thread.

[Liriodendron]

Eeeeeeew! Don't ask! They might vomit on you!

[GARY-the-White]

Doug how did yopu become a orc extra? and how much did it pay? did u get to see aragorn and legolas that kiks ***

[Kalessin]

Hmm ...<P>I understand fully that for each of us our experience of the books has created a personal and sacred bond with the works, and as such the movie can easily be seen as a flawed and incomplete reflection of what the narrative means to us. This could be argued for many literary adaptations, most of which have been decried by fans of the original literature. <P>But I think that, while we can all like or dislike any film, some of the criticism is disproportionate and is based on the premise that the film should somehow 'be' the book, or in any other way do justice to it. Even if this is what the film-makers intended, this is not how film works.<P>By way of illustration of my argument, here are Frank Herbert's reflections on the adaptation of Dune (by David Lynch) ...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>... I understand film to be a language different from English ...<P>To make a film, you <I>translate</I>, as though from English to German. You can say things in one language you cannot say in another.<P>The film of Dune <I>(and, you could argue LotR - K)</I> is the result of a paradox - product of an industry that pretends to creativity and shies away from risks. So many films are aimed primarily at early-to-late teens because this age group is more easily seduced by hype. These also are viewers with time and money ... <P>Don't condemn this out of hand. Never forget it's an industry.<P>Don't ask yourself if I (the author) succeeded or if the film succeeded. The only valid critic is time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Given the above, I would say the more valid comparison is NOT betweetn the film and the book - certainly not by those who invest such emotional attachment to the book - but between this film and other films, similar or different.<P>On that basis, I think the LotR movies so far are far superior as cinema to, say, <I>Star Wars</I>, or <I>Dragonheart</I>, and so on. Better comparisons might be made with epics such as <I>Ben Hur</I> or <I>Spartacus</I>. <P><B>The problem with any sort of re-make is that is a betrayal of sorts.</B> A rare exception would be Sturges' <I>Magnificent Seven</I>, but for a Kurosawa purist even that is no more than a pale pastiche. Perhaps <I>The Shawshank Redemption</I> qualifies also. And recently, the remakes of Nakata's <I>Ringu</I>, Mann's <I>Manhunter</I> and Philip K D1ck's <I>Minority Report</I>, among others, have all been pretty feeble in my view. I am told there is an upcoming remake of Tarkovsky's classic <I>Solaris</I>, itself a sometimes criticised adaptation of Lem's novel. <P>Of course, Legolas skateboarding down the steps at Helm's Deep would have been anathema to Tolkien, and was for me the most cringeworthy moment of TTT .<P>But as cinema, the two parts to date have merit, and anecdotally, is it perhaps true that the reactions of those who have not read the books but seen the films seem to bear this out?<P>Peace <P>Kalessin<p>[ January 12, 2003: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[The Saucepan Man]

Wow! Some very interesting and well considered responses. Thank you everyone. <P>I can understand disappointment/dismay. I too felt disappointed when I saw TTT that some of my favourite scenes had been omitted and that my interpretation of the characters was not necessarily reflected in the film interpretation (it annoyed me, for example, that Treebeard and co had to be tricked into attacking Isengard). <P>But, this was a film made for mass audiences - it had to be to pull in the money required for it to be made in the first place. Given that, it was never going to remain completely true to the book and there were always going to be aspects of it that rankled with the fans (I agree with you Kalessin about the Legolas shield surfing )<P>But is that enough to justify the anger?<P><B>Doug</B>: I agree that the continuity errors are unforgiveable on such a major production. I did not notice them myself, but I have seen many a discussion thread listing them. Again, however, is that sufficient to incur the wrath that this film has been subject to amongst the fans?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If we make a good film, we'll be forgiven, whatever the crimes we commit to the book <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><B>Gandalf</B>: I think this sums up the problem faced by anyone making a large production film based upon such well-loved books. Jackson is correct in my view - he made a good film and can be forgiven his "crimes".<P><B>Kalessin</B>: I like the Frank Herbert quote regarding the Dune film. I have read Dune and seen the film and feel about them much the same as I do about LotR: Great book, good film - but one cannot be compared with the other. Comparing FotR and TTT with other films of the same genre (and, indeed, other similar genres), I think that they stand up extremely well indeed.<P>So, I am still puzzled as to why TTT has generated quite so much anger. I can see <B>how</B> people have reacted, but do not really understand <B>why</B>, given that this is a film adaptation of the book for mass audiences. It is not the book itself, and takes nothing away from the book. Indeed, my impression is that the films have introduced many to JRRT's works that might not otherwise have read them. Is that not a worthy outcome in itself?

[Lily Bracegirdle]

Saucepan Man, thanks for starting this thread. I'm also finding it very interesting. Kalessin made some extremely good points that I hadn't considered before. Now that I think about it, PJ's movies *have* captivated me more than anything else I've seen in recent memory (except perhaps for Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind). Considering them just as movies, they are exceptional. Considering them as adaptations, I think they are ... good.<P>Maybe I'm not the right person to talk as I'm not particularly *angry* about the movies. I did feel hurt about some of the changes -- something along the lines of "You were doing such a good job until now, how could you do *that* and betray/disappoint me so?!"<P>I can think of a few reasons why people might be angry. Please keep in mind I'm not judging anyone. These are only theories and I hope I don't offend anyone.<P>1) People who liked the books before the movies came out may feel that their private haven is being perverted to appeal to what *they* believe is the lowest common denominator (e.g., people who think such-and-such character is "2kewl" or "*sooo* hott!!!!") These fans don't want the books to be popular at the expense of their intellectual content and resent being grouped with "Ringies". In fanfiction terms, they are angry at PJ for setting Mary Sues loose in Rivendell to molest the elves. Especially as they see them as *their elves*.<P>2) Some fans may resent PJ for the fame and glory he is receiving that they think he doesn't deserve. After all, he just "adapted" someone else's work (never mind what a difficult task it was). To make matters worse, PJ and co. have *changed* some of the work and (ill-advisedly) opined that parts are better than the original on the commentary track of the DVD. This stirs indignation in fans who believe Tolkien's genius is not being respected.<P>3) Some fans who have a deep emotional attachment to certain characters (*cough* Faramir *cough*) may resent what they feel is slander against their beloved. Especially because they *know* better but most moviegoers won't believe them. (Count me in this category. *sigh*)<P>I think deep down all of us realize/fear that the movies will be seen as *truth* by the people who don't bother to read the book, who are (let's face it) probably most of the people who see the movies. For most people it then becomes a replacement for the book and drowns out the voice of the original. <P>Now I'm depressed. <P>-Lily

[The Saucepan Man]

Lily, please don't be depressed. <P>I have been a firm Tolkien fan for some 25 years, since I first read the Hobbit, but I cannot resent people enjoying the films for what they are - great films. Some of these filmgoers won't bother reading the books - that's their choice - they're missing out. Some will, but will find them not to their taste (strange people ). And some will be introduced to the books by the films and fall in love with them. That is clear from the many postings at this site which are not of the "I luv orli hes sooooo cooool" type.<P>And so, if a new generation of readers is introduced by the films to the books, that is surely a very comforting thought indeed.

[Nieninque]

Thanks Sauce Man People need to realize that they can't change what's already been done. Me, I sort of 'blend' the two versions together into an LotR that I like. For instance, I love Aragorn's fall (not in the books), and I hate Haldir dying (not in the movie).<BR>If you're not odd like me and don't 'blend', I guess my only advice would be to not see TTT again if you hate it so much.

[The Saucepan Man]

I know what you mean, Nieninque. The films and the books "blend" in my mind in the sense that the visualisations of the characters and the locations (Helm's Deep, wow ) are, in most cases, almost exactly how I imagined them to be when I first read the books. <P>But, I have to say that, as far as the story is concerned, I keep them separate. The books are outstanding books. The films are great films. But the "true" story for me will always be that told in the books.

[Darkside]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I think deep down all of us realize/fear that the movies will be seen as *truth* by the people who don't bother to read the book, who are (let's face it) probably most of the people who see the movies. For most people it then becomes a replacement for the book and drowns out the voice of the original. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Thanks Lily! I think that is one of the main things that "angers" me the most about these films. I don't want the masses to assume that what they are seeing is what Tolkien wrote. The movies fall far short of the grandness of his story.

[The Saucepan Man]

Darkside, you are right. The films cannot compare with the greatness of the books. But they are still good films.<P>And yes, many may go away (most probably having enjoyed the film) and think that's all there is to Tolkien. But so what? That's their loss.<p>[ January 13, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Darkside]

I agree, Saucepan Man, it is their loss. I guess I just want Tolkien to receive more respect than that.

[Alphaelin]

This is a good subject, Saucepan Man. I have to say that my disgust at the TTT movie is two-fold. <P>In the first place, giving the 'masses' what they want is not always a good thing. PJ's adaptation of TTT just seems such a dumbing down of a brilliant source. It shows a lack of respect for both the audience that will see it and Tolkien himself. If PJ did not trust/respect the vision of Tolkien, why did he go to the trouble of making the films?<P>Much more personally, I loathed the change he made in the character of Faramir. I believe the arguement was that F. was a 'static character', which makes no sense to me. He had a different emotional battle to fight than his brother, as a good man who chooses the greater good of humanity over his family/people.

Seeing the above posts I was really suprised that anyone was actually 'angry' at all. Anger and the works of Tolkein do not sit well together by any rationale I can imagine.<P>Darkside:You seemed angry due to a lack of respect thing going on? But Tolkein has never been more respected than he is now - in the UK at any rate. His works are being used as source material in English classes all over the world, and sales of all Tolkein books are soaring as legions of new readers materialise and find out for themselves just how magnificent the texts are. And this is a lack of respect?<BR>As Saucepan himself points out:<BR>"if a new generation of readers is introduced by the films to the books, that is surely a very comforting thought indeed" Right on.<BR>Alphaelin:Your 'disgust' is in part aimed at the 'masses' getting what they want at the expense of some of Tolkeins vision(?) With an open-mind you have to take these films for what they are, a loose non-elitist interpretation. <BR>I was initially gutted when they left out Erkenbrands charge and battles at the Fords of Isen, my friends though, (nonreaders that they are)said words to the effect of:<BR>"Chill out and be happy that anyone has even attempted to tell this massive story on film" so I chilled on it, smiled again and was satisfied enough to re-read that section of the book later - if anything I enjoyed the read all the more because it was so much richer in detail and plot.<BR>We all have favourite bits/characters that didn't make the cinema edit, but to use words like 'anger' and 'loathed' seems a bit harsh and self-defeating when you look at the bigger picture.<p>[ January 14, 2003: Message edited by: Numenorean ]

well, i am not so angry at the movies, because i've read the books, and i think that if you are dissiponted or angry at the movies you should read the books... They are really good. So, do not complain on the movies, read instead.

If you haven't read the books you missed very very much of what tolkien have to offer from his world.....<P>Or am I very wrong...???

[HCIsland]

I've read the books long before I saw the movies and there are certainly things that I would have changed, but I'm still confused by some people's dismay over the movie adaptations.<P>I think the makers of this film have shown respect to Tolkien. Name a large, complex novel that has been faithfully adapted to screen to the standards that many people here are expecting from Jackson. I don't think it exists. Plot and character had to be played with to make the films workable, not just for length, but more importantly for pacing. The respect part came in with the extraordinary detail they put into each and every scene. It's absolutely spell binding what these folks have accomplished and to belittle it because Faramir more rash then he should be ... it's wierd. <P>Name a major film maker that would have done a better job with this material. Try to put Lucus or Spielberg into Jackson's shoes if you want to complain about what PJ has done. When I first heard they were making LoTR into a major feature film, I was worried. What they accomplished is well beyond what anyone could have reasonably expected.<P>You like the books more. Great, so do I. The books are cannon as far as I'm concerned. I don't blend them together to for 'my' version of LoTR. There's Tolkien and nothing else. That doesn't stop these from being great movies.<P>Take the movies for what they are. Take the books for what they are and stop comparing them. They're two different animals. Appreciate them both.<P>H.C.

[eleanor_niphredil]

the first thing that I have to say is that nobody claimed that the new movie was going to be exactly like the book. It says that it is BASED on the works of JRR Tolkien, which is exactly what it was.<P>If you can do better than PJ, then go ahead, be my guest. But I have to say that I loved the films, still love the films and always will love the films just as much as I love the book.<P>One thing that people forget, though, is that PJ is as much of a fan of Tolkien as we are. Otherwise he would never have attemted to make a film. To say that he did it incorrectly just to put his own twist on the story is, sorry to whoever said it, utterly rediculas. <P>Last I would like to remind you that PJ is a person, not just a character in some book. Nobody is perfect. So just, chill out, okay?

[Liriodendron]

If you "hate" FoTR and/or TTT, do yourself of favor and don't go see RoTK. You can be happy without seeing the films. This constant ranting of "the books being ruined" is numbing. As someone already said, "It's already done!" (the movie being made) Either get over it, or ignore it! (or something) If you love ONLY the books, don't let the existance of the movies bring you down! Forget about it! <P>My husband has never read the books and until I made him accompany me to the films, he didn't give a hoot about Tolkien fiction. Now, he's interested, and I wouldn't be surprised if someday he picks up The Hobbit instead of the usual Abraham Lincoln books. What a great day that would be for him! As far as the character of Faramir, the film story is not finished yet, I'm keeping an open mind and looking for "the good stuff". <p>[ January 14, 2003: Message edited by: Liriodendron ]

[Lalaith]

I'm not angry, I'm frustrated. <BR>They got so much right in the films - and the bits they got right were the hard bits. With just a little bit of courage in the face of accepted commercial movie wisdom, and a little more faith in Tolkien's writing, those films would have been superlative. TTT is particularly frustrating. Like the little girl with the curl, when it was good, it was very, very, good, but when it was bad, it was horrid.

[Darkside]

Lalaith: Hear! Hear! I think that sums it up quite nicely!<P>Numenorean: I did have the word "angry" in quotes in my first post. (I was using the name of the thread.) I am not as angry as I was when I first saw TTT, I am now merely sad. I am glad that book sales have risen. I used to work in a bookstore and was always telling people to read LOTR. I do hope more people read the books. I would, however, have liked to have seen the real story on film. At the very least, something closer than what we have now.

[The Saucepan Man]

Hear hear, HC, eleanor and Liriodendron. <P>HC - Spielburg making LotR! Now, I'm sure that <B>would</B> have made me angry.<P>And Cazzie<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If you haven't read the books you missed very very much of what tolkien have to offer from his world.....<BR>Or am I very wrong...???<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You most certainly are not.

[Liriodendron]

Wow! A lava lamp! That's way cooler than my "x"!

[Magician of Nathar]

Well, personally I loved the changes. They are quite fun, like a super huge fan fiction that's very exciting. I think if you wish stay perfectly ture to the books, you should simply avoid the movie. I think Jackson's changes in the film was perfectly reasonable. To make a movie sell you need all that stuff(romance, suspence, fast pace, main-character-almost-dead-again, you know what I am talking about) And his changes are not horrid, and it's fun to see how he interpret the story. I just love the new twist in the story. I don't understand about the people who are complaining. If the movie follows the book exactly, and you know every line the characters will speak, what fun would it be??!!!! Generally speaking. TTT is a good film. The only proble I see is the editing.

[Thor]

I was disappointed, but not angry, that the demands of making an action movie detracted from the nobility of several of the characters. The most obvious being Faramir but also Frodo, Treebeard and Gimli. I, however, greatly enjoyed the settings and costumes and the epic grandeur of a place I've always had a great reverence for. Also FotR was an absolutely wonderful movie and TTT lost a little of the magic in my opinion. Possibly it suffered from being the middle of an absolutely awesome story - it therefore had no beginning and no ending - always a handicap to any movie standing alone I would guess.

[The Saucepan Man]

OK. I went to see the film for a second time this week and I've changed my mind. Not radically. I still think that its an excellent film and the visualisation remains its great strength.<P>And I can still understand why some of the storyline was changed and or simply left out.<P>What annoys me is that some of the scenes just don't make sense.<P>Why on earth, for example, does Faramir think its a good idea to let Frodo and Sam go to Mordor after all, when he's just witnessed Frodo almost giving it to a Nazgul? <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I think we finally understand each other, Frodo Baggins <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Surely he should have been saying "What the **** do you think you were you doing? Are you mad? Look. Give it here and I'll take it to Mordor". OK, a radical storyline change, but it would have made more sense in the circumstances.<P>And the Theoden Exorcism scene (cue Theoden head spinning and projectile pea soup). What the **** was Wormtongue there for, if Saruman could just possess Theoden himself?<P>And Aragorn going over the cliff wasn't necessary (did that Warg have lemming genes?). They could have put the Aragorn/Arwen scenes in elsewhere and a scout could have spotted the hordes of orcs approaching.<P>Oh, and I didn't like the Wargs - silly stuffed hyenas with lazy eyes.<P>Other than that, I loved it! <P>No, seriously, I do still think that it was a fantastic film. But now I do understand a bit more some of the irritation felt by others.

[Darkside]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> But now I do understand a bit more some of the irritation felt by others.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P> Yeah!!! Thanks, Saucepan Man! That's all I ever wanted to hear from someone who liked the film. A wee bit of understanding towards the angst of the not quite purist. (I can't call myself a purist because I understand they won't make the movies word-for-word, but I can still dream! )<BR>I have always thought that the movies looked beautiful, but the story was lacking. A few minor changes are o.k. , but don't make silly, implausible stuff up and add it in.

[Aratlithiel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> But, this was a film made for mass audiences - it had to be to pull in the money required for it to be made in the first place <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That's all well and good and completely understandable. HOWEVER, Jackson made a point of saying at every opportunity that he was making these films "for the fans" of which he purported to be one. We all looked forward to them and after FotR we walked away saying, "OK, well some things were changed but overall it stuck to the story," and we held great optimism for TTT. Now, however, our optimism seems to have been proven misplaced and I, for one, feel not only disappointed but betrayed.<P>If I had not been lured into a false sense of security, I would have EXPECTED major changes - as happens with most book-to-movie situations. As it was, the changes shocked and disappointed me to a very great degree.<P>Yes, they are epic films and deserve kudos for the most part. I think if one could separate themselves from the books for 3 hours, they would be quite enthralled. I think the problem is that most Tolkien fans (and I mean REAL Tolkien FANS) can't do that. Not won't - CAN'T. These books are way too personal of an experience for us and the sort of tampering that has occurred feels very close to violation.

[Gorwingel]

Oh yeah, the Wargs really dissapointed me, they were defently unecessary action.

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I think if one could separate themselves from the books for 3 hours, they would be quite enthralled. I think the problem is that most Tolkien fans (and I mean REAL Tolkien FANS) can't do that. Not won't - CAN'T. These books are way too personal of an experience for us and the sort of tampering that has occurred feels very close to violation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>So, are you saying that those of us who read and fell in love with the books many many years before the films were even twinklings in Jackson's eyes, but still enjoyed the films for what they are (films, that is) are not REAL Tolkien FANS? <p>[ January 19, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Aratlithiel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>So, are you saying that those of us who read and fell in love with the books many many years before the films were even twinklings in Jackson's eyes, but still enjoyed the films for what they are (films, that is) are not REAL Tolkien FANS? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>No, no, no! Absolutely not! Take your meany-face back, Saucepan, I simply let my fingers move faster than my brain again! Poor choice of words - my apologies. There was absolutely no slur intended to anyone who can accomplish that separation, in fact I envy those who can. I know these are good films and I'm thrilled to see that they're driving people to the book stores to discover the joys of the true Tolkien. I simply don't have the intellectual capacity to disassociate myself from the books long enough to completely enjoy the films. My own failing, I know, but one I seem to share with many, many others.<P>Come on, now, Saucepan Man, forgive me? Send me a smiley.

[Bill Ferny]

WHAT? <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>On that basis, I think the LotR movies so far are far superior as cinema to, say, <I>Star Wars</I>, or <I>Dragonheart</I>, and so on. Better comparisons might be made with epics such as <I>Ben Hur</I> or <I>Spartacus</I>.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Alright Kalessin, now you really have me <I><B>ANGRY</B></I>!!! Far superior to <I>Dragonheart</I>? Maybe “a bit superior”, or just plain “superior”, but “far superior” sounds like an insult, especially since you placed it right next to <I>Star Wars</I>. Sean Connery, Pete Postlewait and Denis Quaid in the same movie, along with a dragon, swords, a red-headed Saxon babe, and guys with horns jutting out of their hats - not every trip to the theatre is that enjoyable! So far LotR edges out <I>Ben Hur</I> and <I>Braveheart</I>, but barely, and <I>Spartacus</I> doesn’t even come close as epic/adventure/action flicks go.<P>I’m not angry. LotR rules! (Who is this Tolkien guy you guys keep talking about?)<P>Naw, seriously, I like what Saucepan Man says about separating the movie experience from the reading experience. There will always be things in the movies that I’ll scoff at, especially this Hollywood thing for Errol Flynn sword fights; despite the thousands of re-enactors out there who could show them in a few hours a much more exciting, historically accurate, fight style, Hollywood just can’t get it right. Directors, producers, etc., etc. are, like Frank Herbert says, people “that pretend to creativity and shy away from risks.” (Thanks for posting that Kel; in light of that I forgive you for what you said about <I>Dragonheart</I>.)<P>I already have a low opinion of Hollywood, and its so-called intelligencia, so I take everything at the theatre with a grain of salt. That’s how I can sit there and watch fencing with Norman swords, and William Wallace have an affair with Isabella, even if the real William Wallace had ever had sex with the real Isabella he would be a pedophile (she was like, what? 6 years old when the guy died). Producers and directors will always make movies for the mob, just like the Caesars always made the circus for the mob. I’m sure the real Roman generals sat around scoffing at the gladiators, but the mob expected antics and drama, not the mundane mud and dysentery of the legions. So, like the Caesars, Hollywood lives by the rule: keep the mob happy, and the mob will keep you happy.

[Melephelwen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Why on earth, for example, does Faramir think its a good idea to let Frodo and Sam go to Mordor after all, when he's just witnessed Frodo almost giving it to a Nazgul? <P><BR>quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR> I think we finally understand each other, Frodo Baggins <BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>Surely he should have been saying "What the **** do you think you were you doing? Are you mad? Look. Give it here and I'll take it to Mordor". OK, a radical storyline change, but it would have made more sense in the circumstances. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think the "I think we finally understand etc." line was intended on the things Sam told Faramir about Boromir. And perhaps he saw that the Ring wasn't just going for "Me! Me! I'm son of of Steward of Gondor! I'm the best!" but anyone who could get it back to Sauron. You know, realizing that he wasn't <I>that</I> special to the Ring. And understanding that Frodo & Sam were the only ones who could get the Ring to Mordor without getting caught.<BR>But it doesn't belong in this thread, I'll go find a Faramir thread