Crimes Against Tolkienity - Page 2 - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Bêthberry · 12-15-2003, 08:43 AM

Reaching back a ways into this thread ... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Not so. Witness The Matrix, We got a cell phone, a video game [with an hour more of the story only there] and a few adds. No action figures, books [?!] or mountains of cheap plastic crappola. They easily could have cashed in on any or all of the above to make millions more, but had the decency and taste to refrain. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Saucepan Man is correct, Lindil. Matrix action figures were made and have been marketed mainly through comic book and fantasy stores. I've seen many at The Silver Snail in Toronto, Canada, and some at Toys R Us. I've also seen many Keenu Reeves lookalikes walking the streets: merchandising extended into clothing. The demographic for Matrix is different from that for Lord of The Rings and so it is marketed differently. Movie tickets alone (however exhorbitant their price) cannot recover the tremendous costs involved in making movies these days. And why blame the merchanisers if there are fans who wish so much to recreate the world of LOTR, Matrix, Star Wars, PotC, HP, to the extent of wanting actually to live in it? KFC, Burger King and other companies would not buy the rights LOTR logos if Tolkien fans did not reward them for doing so.Personally, I think the car merchandising is hilarious. It reminds me of Tolkien's view of the automobile. (He would use them; he just wouldn't own or drive one.) Pure deconstruction, that.[ 9:52 AM December 15, 2003: Message edited by: Bêthberry ]

Eurytus · 12-15-2003, 10:01 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> So has "Titanic" but it's still crap. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually whilst Titanic may have received the Oscars it never had the same sort of sustained high reviews and “fan-buzz” that LOTR has. Titanic’s reviews were largely mediocre and you only have to look at its IMDB ranking to see that it is not that highly rated.As a side note though, whilst I do not particularly like Titanic I find it a little bemusing how many people claim that it is “really bad” or “it sucks” or that it’s the “worst film ever made”. You can find these types of viewpoints expressed on pretty much any internet board and it bears little relation to reality. Does Titanic deserve to be the biggest grossing film of all time? Probably not but let’s not pretend that it is a really bad film. It may not be even in my top 100 but I do not believe that it is a badly made film. And whilst the love story may be a little long winded and clichéd it is no where near as tragically bad as the love story in Attack of the Clones. A film which some people claim to be as good as the original trilogy.

pandora · 12-15-2003, 12:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I find it a little bemusing how many people claim that it is ?really bad? or ?it sucks? or that it?s the ?worst film ever made?. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Worst film ever made is surely a title that Highlander II will hold until the End but any film about The Titanic which has a story about a rich girl engaged to a cad who then falls for a poor but honest boy and includes a gunfight is certainly not high on my list, particularly since my great-grandfather helped build the ship.The scene of the flares going up redeemed the movie from total forgetableness, though. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> a little long winded and clichéd <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Antarctica: it's a bit nippy out. Talk about understatement!Well, we're well off topic now.

Theron Bugtussle · 12-15-2003, 02:37 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Pandora: ...Jackson simply didn't care enough about the [book] characters.... The added material likewise shows that Jackson was not very interested in the book: the terrible side-trip to Osgiliath was probably the low point of the second film, unless it was Aragorn's "death" which was also added.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The massacre of the character of Tolkien's Faramir and the trip to Osgiliath are cases of PJ thinking the addition of more drama would enhance the story. So it is clearly his decision that the book was inferior in those points. With which decision we mostly all disagree. The proof is not in the box office. Porn sells, but that does not make it 'right.'What justification for another "resurrection," though? Not only is it untrue to the text and spirit of the book, but what movie purpose could it serve? Does he think audiences need a second resurrection to make the first (Gandalf's) more believable? Man on the street interview: "Well, personally, I was undecided about going to see LotR-TTT, until friends told me two of the main characters died and came back. Now I can't wait!"(I am hoping some of you teen--or teen-at-heart--girls can enlighten me on this. Does Viggo become more of a heartthrob to women due to the PJ-induced sympathy factor? If so, do you realize you are being manipulated? ) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Do you think Jackson added this crap material because he prefered the original? Of course not! He added it in because he thought it was better, and if that's what he thinks is better he must have a very low opinion of the original.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree, except that he may not have a low opinion of the original, just a higher opinion of his own 'adjustments.' Anyway, regardless of what he might have said in his justifications, PJ has added so much extra-book material, he certainly didn't do it to cut down the size of the material, or to make storytelling 'compromises.'I think the movies are good--or great. But I don't think they are enhanced one bit by these major character and storyline departures from Tolkien. On the other hand, it could have been worse: the movies might have flopped, and there likely would have been two results. No one would touch the LotR as movie material for years or decades down the road, possibly never. And people would have blamed Tolkien. Both unforgivable.

Lord of Angmar · 12-15-2003, 03:02 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Pandora:Do you think Jackson added this crap material because he prefered the original? Of course not! He added it in because he thought it was better, and if that's what he thinks is better he must have a very low opinion of the original.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Correcton: He added it in because he thought it was better from a cinematic standpoint, as indeed much of it was from the perspective of mass audiences.

pandora · 12-15-2003, 05:46 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> He added it in because he thought it was better from a cinematic standpoint, as indeed much of it was from the perspective of mass audiences.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I totally deny this on most of the new material and many of the omissions. The scene at the ford was more exciting when Frodo was alone. The final confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman is tense and exciting and satisfies the wish of the viewer to know how Saruman was deal with. The whole breaking of the staff could have been moved from Orthanc to the Shire if time was a problem. I could have lived with that. But to just discard a major character because he has no more fight scenes is simply lousy story-telling.The prologue disrupts the flow of the mood of the film; it was a mistake when Bakshi did it and it was a mistake when Jackson copied it. Jumping in at the Last Alliance is reminiscent of the sex-education sketch in Meaning of Life "What's wrong with a bit of the Nazgul on the Road, boy? There's no need to go charging like a bull at the Last Alliance! Then maybe the Black-Breath, that's good. Build up to it! Foreplay!" Slowly building tension is not Jackson's best suit; he assumes the audience has the same attention span he does and is simply tapping its collective feet waiting for the next bit of hack and slash.The changes to the balrog scene made it too long and drawn out, actually losing tension compared to the book, particularly with the weak dwarf-tossing joke and the ridiculous "lean, lean" on top of that block of stone. The charge of Rohan at the end of the battle of Helm's Deep produced a few sniggers in the cinema when I saw it; the book's ending was much better and could have looked GREAT. Elrond is simply a pain in the bum, as is Arwen. Frankly, no one that I know that has seen the movie (and, yes, they do all like it) give a damn about either of them because their characters are unsympathetic (Elrond) and boring (Arwin). They literally could be taken out of the movie without doing any (further) harm.The Mirror of Galadriel in the book was a gift to a director working on a trilogy as it gave a chance to tease the audience with events from the third film (ie the scouring of the Shire) while at the same time building up Sam's character a bit more. But Mr Jackson missed that trick along with most other chances to be subtle and engaging.The fight at Weathertop, if filmed straight from the book would have been fantastic: the Nazgul as black holes in the night sky approaching silently over the crest of the hill, their positions only marked by the background stars blinking out of existance. What a scene! Surely anyone could make that a thrill to remember!? Apparently not quite anyone.Instead we got to see the inflammable clowns that run into each other. That was another scene that got a lot of laughter in our local cimema and also marked the point where my optimism about the films really started to drain away.Oh, god, the list just goes on and on! Some changes had to be made, some characters never stood a real chance of making it in and although I would have liked to have seen old Tom I miss the Barrow-Downs more from the point of view of the story; Tom's role could have been reduced to the rescuing Frodo from the barrow-wight and been left more or less at that and at least the later reference to the Old Forest would have made some sense.That's film-making and some things and people won't make it in. I have no problem with the principle. It was the practice that let me down.These films have been badly directed, end of story.

Lord of Angmar · 12-15-2003, 06:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The final confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman is tense and exciting and satisfies the wish of the viewer to know how Saruman was deal with. The whole breaking of the staff could have been moved from Orthanc to the Shire if time was a problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I absolutely agree. I do not agree, however, with many of the other points you made. And I do not agree that Peter Jackson is an entirely unsubtle, action-obsessed buffoon as you are unambiguously implying. Tolkien's works are not exactly studies in subtlety, nor do all of the devices in his plot translate well onto the big screen. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>These films have been badly directed, end of story.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, that is not the end of the story. Though I may have started this thread to point out the faults of the Lord of the Rings moviemakers (mostly directed towards New Line Cinemas as opposed to Peter Jackson), I now grow weary of the bashing that Peter Jackson has been taking on these fora and, for that matter, all over the web. To say that he has been utterly incompetent in the creation of these movies is a statement of ignorance. Peter Jackson faced the difficult challenges of dealing with skeptical, profit-mongering executives and trying to keep an enormous, unprecented group of actors and professionals focused for an extremely extended period of time, all while trying to please mass audiences as well as Tolkien purists with source material whose complexities and pacing make for an immeasurably difficult translation onto celluloid. The films contain a high level of technical and personal achievement from special effects/costume and set designers and cast members, respectively. Although Peter Jackson did take many (often, granted, seemingly unwarranted) liberties with the storyline, the themes, character motivations and overall feeling of the books, in my own humble opinion, still shine through. To say that these films by Peter Jackson were badly directed, especially without having even seen the final and most important installment, is absolutely ridiculous.End of story.

doug*platypus · 12-15-2003, 06:23 PM

The Thread So FarEurytus, congratulations on inserting a post that had everything to do with other movies and almost nothing to do with LOTR! I wish I had the heart to do that, I could go on about Star Wars ad infinitum.Pandora... best post ever. I heartily agree and I've almost had enough of people who endorse the wholesale slaughter of a great book without admitting that yes the movies did have faults. They may be your favourite films, but don't let that block your mind off completely to criticisms. I'm willing to admit that in some instances the movies are superior to the books, but nevertheless they are not nearly as good as the Hollywood hype machine tells you they are.It looks as though the Pandora/Lord of Angmar argument may now consume this thread. Oh well, it was nice while it lasted! What was the topic again? Apologies to whoever started the thread. Perhaps it would have been better broken down into two or three, one for each question. Hijacking is rife in the Movies forum.

Lord of Angmar · 12-15-2003, 06:35 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Apologies to whoever started the thread. Perhaps it would have been better broken down into two or three, one for each question. Hijacking is rife in the Movies forum.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sadly, it was I who started the thread, and now I am defending one of the parties that I was initially accusing. I can defend this action somewhat, though, as my initial intent was to provide the arguments of many Tolkien purists in an easily accessible manner, and then leave it open to debate. Since Pandora has attacked Peter Jackson far more than I would have cared to, I felt the need to defend the director, as I am still a fan of the movies despite their admitted flaws and despite New Line's shameless over-advertisment and -merchandising.[ 7:39 PM December 15, 2003: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

doug*platypus · 12-15-2003, 06:50 PM

Fair enough, and very well said.

**The Saucepan Man** · 12-15-2003, 08:45 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> He added it in because he thought it was better from a cinematic standpoint, as indeed much of it was from the perspective of mass audiences. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well said, Lord of Angmar. I agree entirely. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I totally deny this on most of the new material and many of the omissions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, pandora, you may deny it. But that does not stop it being true. Jackson did not make the changes just to p**s off the Tolkien purists. He made them because he felt that they would make for better films. You (and others) may disagree with the changes that he made and feel that the films are worse off for them. I disagree with some of them too. But that does not get away from the fact that Jackson's reason for making them was because he thought that they worked better cinematically. And he has, in large measure, been vindicated, given the incredible success of these films. Many millions of people, including long-time Tolkien fans like myself, believe them to be great films.And I have been left in no doubt, from interviews that I have read and from the TTT EE documentaries, that he, Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens, as well as many (if not most) of the remainder of the production team have great admiration and respect for Tolkien's works. Many of them, Jackson included, have been fans of the books for a long time, just like many of us here. They were not trying to improve on what Tolkien wrote. They were simply trying to render his story in a format suitable for the silver screen. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The scene at the ford was more exciting when Frodo was alone. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You cannot look at these scenes in isolation. Jackson and the rest of the script-writing team made a decision to enhance the role of Arwen, so as to bring an additional strong female character into a story rather bereft of such characters. They also chose to play up the romance of Aragorn and Arwen (largely with material based on the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen in the Appendices to the book). Having her ride with Frodo to Rivendell gave them a chance to introduce her as a central character and to increase her involvement in the story. You may disagree with the decision to increase Arwen's role, but there was a cinematic reason for it (and, in my view, it was a good one). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The final confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman is tense and exciting and satisfies the wish of the viewer to know how Saruman was deal with. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with you on this one, although I can understand why the scene was not included in RotK, given that Saruman plays no part in the events portrayed in it, and also given the need to bring Sauron to the fore as the major villain. It should have been included at the end of TTT though.And, much as it is one of my favourite chapters from the book, I can wholly understand the decision to omit the Scouring of the Shire. A new sub-plot and second mini-climax would (on screen) totally destroy the major climax of Sauron's defeat. Given the criticism made by some reviewers that RotK takes too long to end, including the Scouring would have been a major mistake. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The prologue disrupts the flow of the mood of the film <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am not at all sure how it can disrupt the flow of the film when it is at the beginning. But surely it was absolutely necessary to bring audiences (the majority of whom will not have read the books) up to speed with the basic premise of the film right at the outset. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The changes to the balrog scene made it too long and drawn out, actually losing tension compared to the book <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have seen very little criticism of this scene. Personally I thought that it was very well-paced, although I agree that the "Dwarf tossing" jokes are unnecessary and detract from Gimli's character. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Elrond is simply a pain in the bum, as is Arwen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Elrond's character is admittedly very different. I thought that he worked well in FotR, but tired of his "overbearing and selfish father" act in TTT. But I can see the cinematic benefits of giving the character an "edge" and building up the tension and uncertainty in Arwen's decision. I did, however, think that they went too far in having her set off for the Grey Havens in TTT. Notwithstanding the tension build-up, it should ultimately have become apparent that she would never have made the decision to leave. As for Arwen's enhanced role, I have covered that above. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> These films have been badly directed, end of story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If that were the case, then the films would not have been anything like as successful as they have been, and they would certainly not have received such critical acclaim, among both film-critics and Jackson's peers in the film industry. The direction may not have been to your taste, but I can see no grounds whatsoever for claiming that they were badly directed. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Pandora... best post ever. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hardly. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I heartily agree and I've almost had enough of people who endorse the wholesale slaughter of a great book without admitting that yes the movies did have faults. They may be your favourite films, but don't let that block your mind off completely to criticisms. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I happen to think that these are great films. But by no means am I saying that they are flawless (but, then again, neither are the books). There are changes that were made that in the films I find irritating and unnecessary. But that is not because they alter the story told in the book, but because I feel that they do not work in the context of the (somewhat different) story told in the films. So I do not view these films with an entirely uncritical eye. Nevertheless, I can see good reasons, from a cinematographic perspective, for most of the changes that were made. And I see no reason to let the fact that the story told in the films is different from that told in the books to ruin what, for me, are thoroughly enjoyable films.

Evisse the Blue · 12-16-2003, 03:07 AM

The Jackson DilemmaIt's useless, there are two opposite viewpoints here that will never ever reach an understanding or even a common ground of criticising/defending. Even though I'm in the criticising camp, I won't go back to bashing, I'd rather raise an issue that caught my attention while reading this last page: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> the movies might have flopped, and there likely would have been two results. No one would touch the LotR as movie material for years or decades down the road, possibly never. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So, do you think that if the movies had flopped - and as we can plainly see, for some they did; the directors would refrain from taking on the dropped challenge? I think not. They would take it as an incentive to prove that their vision on LOTR would fare better. Now - as the majority acclaim Jackson's version as the best movie ever made, the directors are likely to back off from making another adaptation of LOTR, as they feel it wouldn't measure up to this one. So, if anything, it will inhibit creativity and prohibit a new vision of Tolkien's work. That's how I see it. And of course, the new Tolkienites converted to the books after watching the movies will forever confuse and mix lines /scenes added by Jackson with the original ones, thus frustrating themselves and everyone else in the process. I've seen it happen, even on the Downs. So there.

Eurytus · 12-16-2003, 03:38 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Pandora... best post ever. I heartily agree and I've almost had enough of people who endorse the wholesale slaughter of a great book without admitting that yes the movies did have faults. They may be your favourite films, but don't let that block your mind off completely to criticisms. I'm willing to admit that in some instances the movies are superior to the books, but nevertheless they are not nearly as good as the Hollywood hype machine tells you they are. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You do realise that this sentence <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> They may be your favourite films, but don't let that block your mind off completely to criticisms. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>works equally well if you change the word films to books don’t you. Not that many people here seem to see it that way of course.And best post ever?!? A post that contains this; <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> These films have been badly directed, end of story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Apparently the fact that Pandora feels that the films have been badly directed has rendered the whole discussion moot.

Eurytus · 12-16-2003, 03:52 AM

“The final confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman is tense and exciting and satisfies the wish of the viewer to know how Saruman was deal with.”So if we stick rigidly to the book you think audiences would be happy to see a confrontation with a character they have never even seen? Don’t think so? In the book Saruman only gets a couple of mentions and is never seen before this confrontation so how exactly are they going to make him seem like a big villain. Answer, they can’t and wouldn’t.“The prologue disrupts the flow of the mood of the film”As someone else has already mentioned it is actually impossible to disrupt the flow of a film when it has not even had a flow established yet. From a story point of view it was imperative to establish background to the story and having a half hour story telling session from Gandalf in front of the fire at Bagend was not likely to cut it.“The fight at Weathertop”Um, in the book there basically isn’t one. Frodo takes one stab and blacks out soon after seeing Aragorn wave a brand around a couple of times. Yep, I can see how that would get the audience on their feet!“Tom's role could have been reduced to the rescuing Frodo from the barrow-wight and been left more or less at that.”And so you are somehow qualified to approve deviations from the text now? And what a change! A technicolour dwarf popping up, saving the Hobbits from barrow wights and disappearing again. “These films have been badly directed, end of story.” And yet the majority of the public and critics do not seem to agree with you.

Eurytus · 12-16-2003, 03:55 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The proof is not in the box office. Porn sells, but that does not make it 'right.' <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So now you are trying to attach “morals” to making changes in the story of LOTR? And equating PJ’s version with Porn?Superb!You are wrong of course. And not just about that. The proof is in the box office and it is the only proof that the film industry gives any credence to.

Lalaith · 12-16-2003, 05:09 AM

I have sympathy with a lot of the viewpoints expressed here, from both sides of the discussion. Like all art, the film has varying levels of appeal, and this is my view of how successful it is on these levels. Visual/aural: near-perfect, I don't think anyone could have done better. Emotional: varying. The comradeship of the Fellowship was conveyed extremely well, as was the excitement and fear of being in the midst of battle. Other more subtle emotional issues were badly handled, with Tolkien's interesting and unusual perspectives turned into Hollywood cliches that audiences would "understand." For example, Boromir and Aragorn's relationship was turned into something straight out of a 'Nam movie, and Aragorn's chivalrous treatment of the lovestruck Eowyn into a Love Triangle. Intellectual: this is where the films are most unsatisfying. In FotR, the rich, layered narrative of the book was simplified to a computer game: walk, fight, walk, run,turn, walk, fight. In TTT, the narrative was still like a computer game, but one where you are stuck at a level, blundering about trying to find how to move to the next one. Anything that might have been in the slightest bit intellectually demanding - the council of Elrond, for example - was simplified with a result of pure cheese: "You Shall Be the Fellowship of the Ring!" Ugh. As for the changes, some worked and some didn't. Say what you like, but the bizarre Aragorn horse-snogging scene, the to-ing and fro-ing in Fangorn and Osgiliath did NOT add anything to the cinematic experience. I went to see the film three times, each time with people who had never read the books, that is, representatives of those 'mass audiences' that PJ was trying to appeal to. They felt confused and bored by those scenes.

pandora · 12-16-2003, 06:33 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Having her ride with Frodo to Rivendell gave them a chance to introduce her as a central character and to increase her involvement in the story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have no problem with introducing her before the Ford and her being part of the general flight but the key moment of Frodo on his own has no bearing on Arwen having joined them any more than in the book it was dependant on Glorfindel. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> You may disagree with the decision to increase Arwen's role, but there was a cinematic reason for it (and, in my view, it was a good one).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I could have lived with it if it had been done well but Arwen is a total flop; no one I have talked to - man or women - cares a jot whether he character lives or dies. I am aware of the reality that the producers may not have thought that way and Jackson probably was forced into trying to amplify the character. It could have been far worse: she could have been dropped in to replace Legolas! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> A new sub-plot and second mini-climax would (on screen) totally destroy the major climax of Sauron's defeat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, I agree. To get the Scouring in would have been very difficult indeed but I think it could have been done if less time was spent on the big battle (I admit that I'm going by what I've been told of the time spent on the Seige of Minas Tirith). I'll return to this below in reference to Eurytus' remarks. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I am not at all sure how it can disrupt the flow of the film when it is at the beginning. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We start off with a major battle and then move to the tranquility of the Shire and then try to build back up. Why not go straight into the Shire and start the long, slow but with moments of action like the balrog, build up to the high drama of the third film? The Last Alliance could be put in almost anywhere that Aragorn or Gandalf has a chance to talk about the "olden days". Putting it at the start is pretty weak, like showing the Germans marching into Paris at the start of Casablanca; it fits better after we have established some rapport with the characters and setting. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But surely it was absolutely necessary to bring audiences <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just the opposite is true: for those that do not know the book the building up and unveiling of the dreadful danger of the "funny magic ring" is better than simply handing out a potted history at the start. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Personally I thought that it was very well-paced, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just what took the balrog so long?! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The direction may not have been to your taste, but I can see no grounds whatsoever for claiming that they were badly directed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't think theres a single scene in the first film that wasn't badly handled and some ranked alongside the worst in any film I've ever seen.Surely no one can watch the Gandalf/Saruman scene and not feel deeply embarassed for JRRT?The second film is better but not much. The plot is further disrupted by Arwen's increased role, Osgiliath is a blunder, Legolas' surfing, more "He's dead. No, wait: there he is" scenes (like LotR needs more of those!). It's generally just bland but pretty. On to Eurytus: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> So if we stick rigidly to the book you think audiences would be happy to see a confrontation with a character they have never even seen? Don't think so? In the book Saruman only gets a couple of mentions and is never seen before this confrontation so how exactly are they going to make him seem like a big villain. Answer, they can't and wouldn't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Please, please, please try reading what I've said before posting pointless comments like this. I never said, and will never say that the film should have stuck rigidly to the book.In fact I think that bumpping Saruman's role up was not only a good idea but an absolute necessity. His unseen presence in the book would not have worked in a film.The problem is that he has been promoted only to be dropped completely at the end. That's BAD.PJ: "Here's Saruman, he's our major on-screen bad guy. We've got Christopher Lee to play him."Exec: "Oh, good stuff. I expect he get's bumped off at the end after a titanic struggle with the forces of good?"PJ: "Whatever." <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> As someone else has already mentioned it is actually impossible to disrupt the flow of a film when it has not even had a flow established yet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I should have said the flow of the story, I suppose. The act of jumping from the prologue to the Shire makes for a pointless change in setting and mood and undermines the later build up of tension since a lot of the possible mystery is destroyed by what is just a load of exposition. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> From a story point of view it was imperative to establish background to the story and having a half hour story telling session from Gandalf in front of the fire at Bagend was not likely to cut it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>First of all it was not imperative any more than knowing the Roman History of Britain is imperative to understanding Excalibur. The story is about people under threat. The audience knows about people already and understands the concept of threat. You can go from there and gradually reveal the nature and magnitude of the threat. The exact same footage could have been faded in once the logical place for the flashback was reached; no long vocal story-telling is needed. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Um, in the book there basically isn't one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There isn't much of a fight but there is a hell of a good bit of scene-setting and the establishment of the Nazgul as something much more sinister than a bunch of hunckbacks on horses. Big visual oppertunities await the right director. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And so you are somehow qualified to approve deviations from the text now? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>First of all, it's not a deviation. Secondly, I'm at least as qualified as Jackson. Thirdly, deviations are unavoidable. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And yet the majority of the public and critics do not seem to agree with you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yet no one ever offers any evidence of why they are well directed. All I ever hear is apologies: "You have to do that in a film", or "Jackson had to appeal to women", or "There's not enough time to show that".So: what great strokes of directorial genius have I missed. Where did Jackson show the skills of a new Hitchcock, Scott, Ford, Capra, Hawkins, Huston, or Kurosawa? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> So now you are trying to attach "morals" to making changes in the story of LOTR? And equating PJ's version with Porn? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Unless you are a complete idiot you know that the point he was making was that there is no connection between quality and success. The "equating" was that you would claim that if a porn film is successful must therefore be a great movie. After all: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The proof is in the box office<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eurytus · 12-16-2003, 06:50 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Yet no one ever offers any evidence of why they are well directed. All I ever hear is apologies: "You have to do that in a film", or "Jackson had to appeal to women", or "There's not enough time to show that". So: what great strokes of directorial genius have I missed. Where did Jackson show the skills of a new Hitchcock, Scott, Ford, Capra, Hawkins, Huston, or Kurosawa? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And you have offered absolutely zero examples of poor direction. In fact I am beginning to suspect that you do not know what a director does. All your criticisms to date have been based on differences between book and film. These are related to the script and have absolutely nothing to do with the quality of direction.Of course the point of the matter is that I do not need to argue with you about it. The critical and commercial success of the films proves it for me. Film companies are not in the habit of giving $20 million plus 20% of the gross to bad directors.Perhaps if you omitted the hyperbole from your arguments you might find that people might accept them or at least part of them. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> There isn't much of a fight but there is a hell of a good bit of scene-setting and the establishment of the Nazgul as something much more sinister than a bunch of hunckbacks on horses. Big visual oppertunities await the right director. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Right, the Nazgul in the book are really sinister. So sinister in fact that they still get beaten off by one guy with a flaming stick. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Secondly, I'm at least as qualified as Jackson. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, you are not as qualified as Jackson. Know why? Because he has earned the chance to do it. He took the gambles, he persuaded the movie chiefs, he built up the special effects shop, he wrote the script. Go away and get your own budget then I’m sure you can make the film you want but *****ing about the talents of a director who is set to make the highest grossing movie trilogy in history is frankly going to be a lonely (and pointless) task.

Eurytus · 12-16-2003, 06:55 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> After all: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The proof is in the box office -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Read my original post; <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Somehow I think that PJ’s changes have been vindicated through the only medium that means anything. He has the box office results. He has the critical acclaim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Read, apply understanding and then realise, gee whizz, box office plus critical acclaim.Yep, pretty much the only indicator of success that means anything. Or are you one of the idiots who thinks that what one high-brow critic thinks is somehow more valid than the public at large?Though of course you can't be since many "high-brow" critics think that the book LOTR is turgid crap.

pandora · 12-16-2003, 08:14 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> All your criticisms to date have been based on differences between book and film. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, actually they were not. I did suggest that if Jackson had stuck to a fairly literal interpretation of the material in the book he would have done a better job but that's not the same as saying the problem was the difference itself. A difference can be for the better or worse.For example: the scene with Gandalf jumping out from behind the door was stupid and the result of a poor director trying for cheap shocks because he can't actually pull off any more subtle fear or tension. It is different from the book but that's not what makes it bad; it's just plain old bad direction in and of itself.Anyway, there's no point talking to you about this as you seem to have an inability to read what is on the screen in front of you as well as a slavish devotion to being told what to like by accountants and critics.

Bêthberry · 12-16-2003, 08:37 AM

This is not the forum I moderate, but as a fellow Downs member I would like to point out that personal attacks ruin the quality of good discussions. Please, everyone here, respect differences of opinion and refrain from baiting and character assassination. This is not the WWF. Thanks!

**The Saucepan Man** · 12-16-2003, 08:38 AM

* Pandora and Eurytus. On the Barrow-Downs, we try to be respectful of the views of others, even though we might not agree with them. Discussions soon break down into slanging matches where people fail to adhere to this simple rule. So please moderate your posts and refrain from indulging in personal abuse. *Lalaith what you say about the films working on a visual and (to varying degrees) emotional level, but failing on an intellectual level, is interesting. I agree that the films downplay much of the intellectual content of the books, although I would not describe them as devoid of intelligence. And I actually think that they work very well on an emotional level. The Aragorn/Eowyn relationship seems little different to me in the film than in the book. They have just played up the tension with Arwen on the "will she stay or will she go" issue.In any event, the focus on the visual/emotional at the expense of the intellectual represents, to my mind, a good decision on the part of Jackson and the script-writing team. These kinds of films (action/adventure) work best on the visual and emotional level. That is not to say that those, like me, who enjoy these films are ignorant. It is just that we want to enjoy experiencing what we are seeing and feeling without having our attention diverted by complex issues requiring us to stop and think them through. Films like this work on an instinctive level. It is all about making them accessible.Clearly, both you and pandora would have preferred to have seen a different kind of film. One which did not focus so much on the action/adventure but encompassed more of the intellectual breadth of Tolkien's work. I have no doubt that such a film could be made, although I agree that Jackson would not be the man to make it. But I suspect that it would have failed to raise the financial backing required to bring Middle-earth to life in the visually stunning way that Jackson has been able to acheive. And I strongly suspect that it would have been a far less successful film, in terms of box office receipts and critical acclaim. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> the bizarre Aragorn horse-snogging scene, the to-ing and fro-ing in Fangorn and Osgiliath did NOT add anything to the cinematic experience. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree that Aragorn's white water adventure was gratuitous and unnecessary. Although I felt that the Arwen scenes were necessary, they could have been worked in elsewhere. Much of Fangorn I like, although I would have preferred to see the Ents make up their own minds to go to war. On the other hand, these scenes did give Merry and Pippin a chance to develop in stature (in more ways than one ), a process which is very much central in the third film, by the sound of it. Osgiliath (or something like it) I thought was necessary. A climax was required for the journey of Frodo and Sam to mirror the grand climaxes of Helm's Deep and the Ents' attack on Isengard, but it had to be one which would not overshadow them. Osgiliath provided this, although I think that it could have been handled better. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I went to see the film three times, each time with people who had never read the books, that is, representatives of those 'mass audiences' that PJ was trying to appeal to. They felt confused and bored by those scenes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Arwen is a total flop; no one I have talked to - man or women - cares a jot whether he character lives or dies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>On the other hand, everyone that I have spoken to about these films, both fans of the book and those who have never read it, enjoyed them tremendously. It's funny how we can all cite examples of people who hold the same views as us, isn't it? Suffice it to say that I disagree with much of what you say, pandora, on the merits of the scenes and characters that you refer to. There is little point in debating it further, however, since it will clearly make no difference whatsoever to your view. You are entitled to your opinion. I simply object to you stating points in a manner which suggests that they are absolute truths. They are not. They are matters on which opinions vary. Some acknowledgement that you are setting forth your opinions on these matters would not go astray, and would perhaps lead to a more constructive discussion. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I never said, and will never say that the film should have stuck rigidly to the book. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Eurytus, pandora is right on this (although, pandora, the preceding sentence is a prime example of where a little toning down would have been in order). Pandora, I accept that you are not simply claiming that the films should have followed the books in every respect (as some do). The difference between us is that I understand and, for the most part, accept the editorial and directorial decisions that Jackson and co made, whereas you clearly do not. I have little problem with them because they mostly work for me and because I accept that it was necessary for the film to achieve popular and critical success to recoup the financial outlay involved. As I said above, you would clearly have liked to have seen a different kind of film, one which, I suspect, would not have beeen anything like as successful as these films have been. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Yet no one ever offers any evidence of why they are well directed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is not true. Just take a browse through some of the older threads in this forum (this is, you will not be surprised to hear, a debate that has been raging for a long time) and you will see numerous explanations as to why certain scenes work on a cinematographic level. If you are really interested, take a look at some of HC Island's posts. He has not posted here for a few weeks (I suspect that he's avoiding RotK spoilers), but he is someone who has a good feel for film-making and a knack of explaining how and why scenes in these films work. Personally, I find it difficult to explain why a scene works for me: it just does. I have tried to set out my thoughts in a number of older threads, but I do not propose reiterating my arguments here because it would be going back over old ground and, in any event, there is, it seems, very little prospect of changing your mind. As I said, if you are interested, try browsing through a few old topics.As for Jackson's skill as a director, Eurytus is right, in terms of what Jackson set out to acheive. Jackson set out to bring Tolkien's story to the screen in a format which has mass appeal. He has succeeded overwhelmingly in doing so. He is therefore very good at his job, ie directing. He may not appeal to you as a director, but that makes him no less skillful at what he does. Some of the directors that you have listed do not appeal to me. I do not enjoy their films. And yet I recognise that they are highly skilled directors.And finally, once more, please can everyone show a little more respect for each other from now on. [ 9:40 AM December 16, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

pandora · 12-16-2003, 08:40 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> This is not the WWF. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why have the World Wildlife Fund got involved? Is it because hobbits are endangered?

Child of the 7th Age · 12-16-2003, 08:42 AM

I would hate to see this thread shut down. Can everyone please focus on the film, what you think is right and wrong, and less on personal barbs aimed at each other?There are no right or wrong answers here, and it's pretty clear there's a range of opinion, especially among folks who've read the books. Being on one side or the other of the issue, doesn't automatically make somebody a doofus.So please take a deep breath and think before you post.Cami, Shire Mod Edit: I cross posted with Bethberry and Saucepan Man in the space of the last five minutes, but we are all obviously trying to get the same point across.....[ 9:46 AM December 16, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

pandora · 12-16-2003, 09:24 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> It's funny how we can all cite examples of people who hold the same views as us, isn't it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, I fnd it quite hard to find people that hold the same view as me about these films except in the particular case of Arwen ("which one is she?" is a common comment I hear). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I simply object to you stating points in a manner which suggests that they are absolute truths.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, this is really the polarizing result of being told over and over again that this is THE greatest set of films ever made. Absolute assertions provoke absolute rebuttals.But, yes, obviously I am really stating opinions, just as much as Eurytus or yourself or Jackson and the cast for that matter. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> As for Jackson's skill as a director, Eurytus is right, in terms of what Jackson set out to acheive. Jackson set out to bring Tolkien's story to the screen in a format which has mass appeal. He has succeeded overwhelmingly in doing so. He is therefore very good at his job,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I actually almost agree with all that. I think the crew has brought Tolkien's world to a mass audience in spite of the loss of the heart of the story. But you are right within that definition of the director's job that Jackson has done well. I just don't accept that a director of an adaptation only owes a duty to the studio and the audience, there is something due to the integrity of the source material too.I'd like to stress, once more, that I think the films are a breathtaking and beautiful visual evocation of Middle-earth. Also, Jackson almost certainly had to jump through some hoops that he would not have to if he had arrived at the project with a reputation like the one he now has.Arwen was probably one such hoop and as I said before it would not have surprised me if the studio had forced him to replace Legolas with her in the Fellowship itself. Worse fates have befallen adaptations in the past.Once out of the Shire Gandalf has been pretty good, as has Gollum (perhaps too overtly sympathetic but still pretty good so far) and I thought the Ents actually worked once you got used to them. Ents are always difficult to imagine anyway.The destruction by Saruman of the Circle of Orthanc was better than the book and got across the whole "industry gone mad" feel well.In the end, I wanted the BBC radio version with pictures. I got the pictures but I didn't get the script.

Eurytus · 12-16-2003, 09:51 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I just don't accept that a director of an adaptation only owes a duty to the studio and the audience, there is something due to the integrity of the source material too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is doubtless a point of view that many hold but it does not necessarily ring true all of the time. Sometimes an adaptation needs to show less integrity to the source material. As an example we can view the Godfather film. Now that is pretty much universally hailed as a classic and yet would never have been the film it was had it followed the book. Indeed whole storylines have been ruthlessly cut out from the book. That does not mean that the book was bad, in fact I like it very much perhaps as much as the film, but the book would not have worked as a movie. The cuts were needed.Often adaptation can become more interesting once they deviate from the source material. Two examples of this (in my case) are the films Richard III (with Ian McKellen set in a fascist 1930’s Britain) and Love’s Labours Lost (set as a 1930’s musical). In my view both of these films benefit from making changes. The same could be said of Moby **** . The novel is massive and contains a great deal of basically documentary descriptions of the business of whaling. It would have been overlong if incorporated into the film.The Shining (Kubrick version) plays very loose with King’s book but just compare it’s quality to the TV version King endorsed. At their heart they are very different stories, they have different focus’s, but Kubrick’s adaptation is superior for the changes in my opinion.Changes were made to the Exorcist, changes which the author did not like but again the end product justified these amendments.The Shawshank Redemption takes a barebones story by King and transforms it into an absolutely classic film.Jaws made many changes and again was all the better for it.2001 A Space Odyssey left more unanswered than did the book and this made it different, and yet not the lesser for it.To my mind once a director acquires the rights to a work he is within his rights to make whatsoever changes he feels are needed. The “rightness” of his actions will only become apparent or not once the critics and the public judge him. It is not his job to make a film “for the author” or “for the hardcore fans”. An example of what happens when the film is made “for the author” is to be found in the Harry Potter films. To my mind they are too weighty and flabby.

Eurytus · 12-16-2003, 09:54 AM

I am sorry if I found myself getting overheated during this discussion but I do find blanket statements of “he has no respect for the source material or Tolkien”, “he’s a bad director, end of story” and the like to be not only un-provable (or disprovable) but wildly exaggerated too. Paul Anderson is a bad director. Peter Jackson is not. Go back in time 5 years and swap one for the other and you’d see what I mean. The LOTR films would be a whole lot worse for it. Or you could just wait and see the Aliens v’s Predator film.

doug*platypus · 12-16-2003, 04:39 PM

Defusing a Hijacking SituationIn order to prevent the wholesale war that is now being waged on this thread, about almost every aspect of the book to film transition, here are some links. I hope that we can attempt to limit our discussion to the thread topic at hand, and use one of the countless other threads for anything even slightly off-topic.<A HREF="http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=001756" TARGET=_blank>Thread for discussing the pitfalls of the Balrog and Moria in general.</A><A HREF="http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=000259" TARGET=_blank>Thread for those unhappy about Weathertop, and for those unhappy with the unhappy.</A><A HREF="http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=002423" TARGET=_blank>White-hot thread about Saruman and his early departure from the trilogy.</A>I couldn't find a good thread about the Prologue to FOTR, so I suggest that if anyone has thoughts on how it could have been improved, or if they believe that its inclusion was questionable, perhaps they could start a new topic. I for one am greatly interested to hear the good and bad points of the movie (i.e. not personal comments on Peter Jackson, positive or negative) since together we see a lot more than one person on their own. For instance, the Weathertop scene in FOTR never really bothered me until others pointed out how much better it could have been. Synopsis of Lord of Angmar's Original Post "Crimes Against Tolkienity"Has Tolkien been done grave injustices in terms of: <UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>The Scourging of the Shire The destruction that Peter Jackson and New Line inflicted upon the natural world?<LI>Marketing, Marketing, Marketing Would Tolkien have wanted the name of his books paraded around solely as a means of profit for the company producing his movies and the highest bidding organizations? <LI>The Changes J.R.R. Tolkien himself disapproved of almost all of the major changes made in the few other film adaptations (and there were many changes), and I doubt he would have wished for too much gutting and plot-changing, especially since a 9+ hour film trilogy should be able to adequately address the plot without making too many additions to the storyline and to the dialogue.</UL>I think we probably have about zero warnings left to get back on topic and stop machine gunning other posters before a mod wanders in and issues some smackdowns.

QuickSlash · 12-16-2003, 05:49 PM

To the point about marketing: I generally don't have much of a beef about that except for the very expensive things. Did they really need to make over-priced busts of the characters? I doubt it. Action figures, replicas, those are very nice. I'd like some replica jewlery and weapons myself, but I lack sufficient funds. One problem, I *do* have, though, is something I saw on tv about an hour ago on TNT. I'm one of the people who stops everything s/he's doing when a commercial for the movie comes on, no matter how many times it's been seen. This time, however, they sliced in scenes of basketball for no apparent reason. It seemed to be made to glorify the sport (Using lines such as, 'Become who you are meant to be'), however, at the end, they only told when the movie will premiere. Seems rather pointless and degrading to the film to me.As an afterthought, there's still what JRRT would've wanted. Personally, I don't think he would've wanted the movie made at all, so I suppose I'd say he wouldn't be happy with any of this wonderful nonsense. [ 6:53 PM December 16, 2003: Message edited by: QuickSlash ]

Finwe · 12-16-2003, 07:43 PM

All I'm saying is be grateful that Peter Jackson didn't make the Balrog wear bunny slipper-like footwear. In Ralph Bakshi's version, the Balrog's feet looked like they were encased in bunny slippers. We should be grateful that we have a director of Peter's calibre, and not someone like Ralph Bakshi. I think we should take a couple of minute to calm down and be grateful to Peter for taking years out of his life to give us this epic. I don't think any one of us could have done it, ergo, we don't have the right to bash Peter for the choices that he made.

Dininziliel · 12-16-2003, 11:52 PM

Finwe writes: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> All I'm saying is be grateful that Peter Jackson didn't make the Balrog wear bunny slipper-like footwear. In Ralph Bakshi's version, the Balrog's feet looked like they were encased in bunny slippers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well . . . here is the intro I've sort of been hoping would not arrive.When Saruman is turning the pages of his tome on Moria and narrating the Balrog threat to Gandalf, there is a picture of said Balrog. Each and every one of the innumerable times I have seen this picture, a Bugs Bunny cartoon does a popup number in my head. It is one where Bugs ends up in a haunted castle inhabited by a mad scientist who creates a monster in his lab. This monster is red, furry, has a part down the middle of its furry head, and its head looks like broad shoulders tapering to the bottom. Whoever rendered that picture in FotR had to have seen that cartoon. I was much relieved upon seeing the "real" balrog. In fact, in my opinion, I think the balrog is the most underrated character in the whole extravaganza. I marvel each time I see it. To me, it is a masterpiece of cinematic artistry. I truly do admire what Jackson and crew did there.It's just too bad we got so much wonderful perception-boggling spectacle and so little soul-enlarging story. LotR is not in same league with The Shining. It is up there with the greatest books and plays of all time: Bible, Koran, Shakespeare, Bagghavad-gita (sp?). We are all having much the same reactions to the changes in LotR's story as we would if someone had scripted and directed the Christmas or crucifixion stories in the Bible but decided a few things needed to be changed for the sake of entertainment value.The story touches something deep within us. Those of us who read the book first--especially those of us with 25+ years of repeated readings--have developed within our hearts and minds a cherished relationship with the story, its characters, and its author. Along with being a ripping good story, it instructs, inspires, illuminates and elevates the darker, heavier corners of human existence. Again, if people come away from seeing one of the movies pondering and commenting on even one or two of the themes--faith, Love, commitment, hope, friendship, forgiveness, salvation, the wages of fear, the consequences of lusting for power and/or immortality--instead of the grandeur of special effects, stunts, and how cute an actor/actress was, then much can be forgiven. But I just don't see how that can happen. A simple perusal of the headings for the movie reviews tell what the public mind has been well trained to see and find significant--" . . . Orcs! Battles . . .!" This is the movies' disservice and main crime to Tokienity. I agree with Pandora--the world is there but not the story. Without the story the world is simply a beautiful picture to look at. Masterpieces are decided by time. As much as we would all like to have the definitive voice at this time, it is only possible to have opinions. Mine is that masterpieces don't cut from key moments too soon and don't have glaring continuity gaffes interspersed throughout the entire 9-12 hours. This is entirely independent from whether or not Jackson screwed the storyline.The last thing to mention, is that Tolkien has been dinged by critics since day one who said LotR was lightweight airy fairy fare. The outrage and genuinely deep (and sometimes bitter) disappointment of so many of us attests to the power of fairy stories exactly as Tolkien delineated in his lectures and writings ("On Fairy Stories"). This is the other "crime" against Tolkienity, and maybe the highest crime--by playing up the stunts, tension, cliched "startle-izations" (Gandalf's sudden clutching at Frodo from dark corner, floaty ghouly faces in Dead Marshes, etc.), l-u-v, and contemporary gag angles (tossing, boarding, etc.), the movies would seem to validate Tolkien's critics--It's just a movie/story for kids or immature adults who can't handle reality.When really, it is a story about the only way to handle reality--with faith, Love, and selfless commitment to something higher than one's personal life. And this does not include box office profit or public acclaim.

Eurytus · 12-17-2003, 02:52 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The Changes J.R.R. Tolkien himself disapproved of almost all of the major changes made in the few other film adaptations (and there were many changes), and I doubt he would have wished for too much gutting and plot-changing, especially since a 9+ hour film trilogy should be able to adequately address the plot without making too many additions to the storyline and to the dialogue. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually the vast majority of the supposedly off-topic posts have been about this 3rd aspect of the original post. So linking to other threads about changes is not really the point.

Eurytus · 12-17-2003, 03:00 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> LotR is not in same league with The Shining. It is up there with the greatest books and plays of all time: Bible, Koran, Shakespeare, Bagghavad-gita (sp?). We are all having much the same reactions to the changes in LotR's story as we would if someone had scripted and directed the Christmas or crucifixion stories in the Bible but decided a few things needed to be changed for the sake of entertainment value. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am not religious but to anyone who is, this post is basically blasphemous. Even without looking at it from a religious background it is ludicrous to compare LOTR to the Bible, Qu’ran, or Shakespear. It’s impact is not even close. And before people start throwing “The Big Read” and “Book of the Century” style posts at me you might want to consider this. All the examples noted have so pervaded society that the stories are known, even by people who have not read these works. Phrases and terms from them have entered the lexicon. Many of our terms have Biblical origins. Compare LOTR’s impact and the comparison becomes even more ludicrous. Before the films I could conduct a straw poll of all the people known to me and I guarantee that no more than half of them had read LOTR and most of those would have no idea whatsoever of the content of the story. Beyond the fact that it was about dwarves and elves maybe. And the people I know are probably more of a literary bent than the general UK population. In my English class at school, out of a class of 30, perhaps a handful had read and were aware of the story of LOTR. I guarantee that all 30 knew the basic stories of Genesis, Noah, Jesus, Romeo & Juliet, Macbeth et all.And despite the best efforts of some of the posters here no-one yet has sentenced someone to death for crimes against the LOTR. Ownership of countries have not been determined by passages from it. Crusades and holy wars have not been launched to reclaim territories described in it. And much as it may dissatisfy some, no-one but the criminally insane lives according to its statutes.LOTR as big as the Bible. Dream on.

pandora · 12-17-2003, 05:16 AM

Well I'm glad the thread's been defused!The role of religion in LotR and in relation to LotR is surely a new topic and a dangerous one given how many christians seem to use this board. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> the movies would seem to validate Tolkien's critics--It's just a movie/story for kids or immature adults who can't handle reality. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's pretty well how I feel and why it winds me up so much; the idea that this is the image of JRRT's work that will be regarded as canonical by millions of people.I have to say that the marketing hasn't bothered me one way or the other. It may be that the marketing annoys those that like the films because they see it as unworthy of the project. I, on the other hand, feel that it exactly suited to the films: flashy and fun to look at but with no substance.And lay off Bakshi. Leaving the technical issues aside which are a product of the budget not the director, if one compares the direction of the scenes shared between the animated version and FotR Bakshi is superior in just about every one. For a particular instance which is a "Crime against Tolkienity": the Frodo/Bilbo ring sequence in Rivendell. The fact that this is often referred to as the "Bug-eye scene" tells you everything you need to know about Jacksons version's cheap shock tactics. Bakshi, on the other hand, gives us a scene of pathos where Bilbo is transformed in a different way. He shakes and his face contorts with supressed greed and we actually see him become pathetic and contemptible from Frodo's point of view. The long shot then shows that, without even realising it, Frodo has made a fist which is raising behind him. Then Bilbo masters himself and turns away becoming the simple old man that everyone loves from The Hobbit again, weary and tired from his unnaturally long life.In this sequence Bakshi has shown us the devastating effect of the bearing of the Ring on poor old Bilbo and the fact that it already has its hooks into Frodo in a way that was moving and quite powerful, even offering some insight into the question of why death can be a gift rather than a curse. Jackson's version was a criminal waste of the situation.Bakshi's version failed dispite its director's abilities because the technology and budget weren't there; Jackson's failed (for me) despite the big budget and technology because the director wasn't ready for a project where characters are so important.

Lalaith · 12-17-2003, 05:36 AM

With regard to Saucepan Man's comments, I should clarify that despite my criticisms I did enjoy the films enormously. And I certainly wasn't expecting to see some kind of Ingmar Bergman art-house flick, I'm all for good battle scenes....But because I care about the book, there were certain aspects that I found very frustrating and/or disappointing, times (dwarf-tossing springs to mind) when I was jolted out of my enjoyment and involvement with the action, with a wince. Rather like the little girl with the curl - when the films are good, they are very, very good, but when they are bad they are horrid.[ 6:37 AM December 17, 2003: Message edited by: Lalaith ]

Eurytus · 12-17-2003, 07:15 AM

Ah yes, the Bakshi version. Obviously superior. Let’s see how….The intro, superb especially the depiction of Sauron as one of the Knights who say “Ni”.Gandalf seems to like throwing rings into fires and quoting poetry. He never actually reads the fiery letters.Sam has apparently been eavesdropping (in the middle of a field!) because they have been talking about Elves and he loves Elves. Only one problem, they haven’t been talking about Elves at all.Saruman seemingly having his name changed to Aruman for the majority of the movie.The depiction of Elves. ***? How big are their eyes. And what’s with the 70’s porn star hair? I guess with female elves looking like female 70's porn stars you could call this consistency.Aragorn, the mini-skirt wearing Native American, explains at the Council of Elrond that he is the descendant of Elendil. Although since Elendil has never previously been mentioned we are none the wiser about what this actually means.The Balrog?!?!Pronouncing Celeborn as Keleborn.The inexplicable battle between the Rohirrim and the Orcs. Both sides line up and stand there for a while. Then 1 rider rides down between the sides and shoots one orc. The rest of the orcs cheer the rider? A lot of time passes. Eventually the orcs manage to pull one rider of his horse and this sends the rest of the riders into berserker mode.Why does Eowyn look like the Wicked Witch from Snow White?Magic ball lightening at Helm’s Deep. Nuff said.Frodo’s big “the burden is heavy scene”. What does Sam do? Get up and start whistling of course!Helm’s Deep. Love the way the orcs all retreat solely on the basis of a horn being blown. Before they even see the riders emerge. Gandalf’s ludicrously bloody slaying of the orcs. Right in your face and in slow motion too!Of course perhaps the biggest difference between Bakshi’s LOTR and Jackson’s is that PJ actually made a movie that people actually WANT to watch. Not something that was basically ignored after release.

**The Saucepan Man** · 12-17-2003, 08:43 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Rather like the little girl with the curl - when the films are good, they are very, very good, but when they are bad they are horrid. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For me, it's more like - when the films are good, they are very very good, but when they are bad, they are mildly irritating. When I first read LotR, aged 11, it seemed to me to be an action/adventure story and I enjoyed it on that level, and, perhaps more subconsciously, on an emotional level. My favourite chapter at that age was Helm's Deep. Re-reading it as an adult, I have gained much more from it intellectually. When I see the films, I think that they appeal to me in much the same way as the book did when I first read it. So the fact that it does not explore the book's themes as deeply as does the book does not disappoint me.But the themes are still there. Dininziliel said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Again, if people come away from seeing one of the movies pondering and commenting on even one or two of the themes--faith, Love, commitment, hope, friendship, forgiveness, salvation, the wages of fear, the consequences of lusting for power and/or immortality--instead of the grandeur of special effects, stunts, and how cute an actor/actress was, then much can be forgiven. But I just don't see how that can happen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How can anyone (adolescent blood fest fans and Nazgirls apart ) watch these films and not be moved by Frodo and Sam's friendship (and Merry and Pippin's, for that matter), Sam's loyalty, Gandalf's hope and faith, Aragorn's love for Arwen, the Fellowship's committment to the cause, the consequences of Saruman's lust for power etc? These themes may not be as developed as they are in the book, but they are present. And this, to my mind, is one of the reasons why the films have been so much more successful than any other film in the same genre to date. That is why people who would not ordinarily have any truck with Hobbits and Elves have reacted so favourably to these films.I believe that it was suggested further up this thread that Jackson's films glorify war. Nothing could be further from the truth. In depicting the war against Sauron, Jackson, like Tolkien, is depicting a war that (like WW2 but unlike WW1) had to be fought. But, unlike Tolkien, he goes out of his way to depict the horrors of war. I found the scene before the Battle at Helm's Deep, where the children and old men are being armed for the forthcoming battle, with looks of utter dread and horror on their faces, to be exceptionally moving. That, to me, is a prime example of material that was not in the books which adds greatly to the film by conveying the very real horror of the situation they are facing.If people think that the films glorify war, they are getting the wrong message. Just like (to use an extreme example) White Supremacists who hold the book up as encapsulating their beliefs are getting the wrong message. (Really. There is a website devoted to such bunk. There is a link somewhere around here if you don't mind being revolted by the dangerous rubbish that they spout, but I will not give it here.)And just because some spotty, testosterone-driven youths see only the battle scenes and the Legolas stunts, it does not follow that this is all there is to the films. To my mind, these films are still conveying essentially the same messages as Tolkien was in the book, just in a more user-friendly package.And, much as I love the Bakshi film (it is part of my childhood), I really cannot see that it can hold a candle to Jackson's films, whether we are talking faithfulness to the source material, visualisation or direction. (By the way, Eurytus, Celeborn is pronounced Keleborn ).

pandora · 12-17-2003, 08:54 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The intro, superb especially the depiction of Sauron as one of the Knights who say 'Ni'. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The intro was a mistake but you are picking on technical problems here which are a result not of the director but of the budget. Indeed, I had always assumed that the only reason Bakshi put the intro material in, especially in the the form that he did was because he had no budget to do it right. I was very surprised therefore when Jackson repeated the mistake with a big budget. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Gandalf seems to like throwing rings into fires and quoting poetry. He never actually reads the fiery letters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In the book he throws the ring into the fire but he does speak the words once in Rivendell. A simple piece of cimematic compression. Much more reasonable than having Gandalf go half-insane and start creeping about the Shire in thunderstorms. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Sam has apparently been eavesdropping (in the middle of a field!) because they have been talking about Elves and he loves Elves. Only one problem, they haven?t been talking about Elves at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A minor continuity error, much less sever than having Frodo etc camp under the stone trolls and nobody mentioning it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Saruman seemingly having his name changed to Aruman for the majority of the movie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>God knows what that was about. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The depiction of Elves. ***? How big are their eyes. And what's with the 70?s porn star hair? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I bow to your superior knowledge of 70's porn-stars' hairstyles but generally the elves looked no better or worse than any other versions. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Aragorn, the mini-skirt wearing Native American,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh, you mean the Aragorn that looks like he's lived in the wilderness for years (a bit like a Native American, for example) and has a voice that you could believe would lead men into the jaws of death? I assume that you prefer the Mr No-Charisma that Jackson used. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Although since Elendil has never previously been mentioned we are none the wiser about what this actually means. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>More continuity problems; both versions are rife with them, eg The Old Forest reference in TTT. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The Balrog?!?! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It did alright for its time; the still graphics used in the depiction of Gandalf's battle with it made up for the slippers. Jackson's balrog was terrific (literally). But again we're talking technical issues, not directorial. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Pronouncing Celeborn as Keleborn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which is the correct pronounciation, see appendix E. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The inexplicable battle between the Rohirrim and the Orcs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think Bakshi was going for a "Our champion fights your champion before the main battle" sort of thing that appears in some Celtic and Anglo-Saxon stories but it all went wrong. It still makes me laugh out loud at the idea that all the other orcs must have really hated that one that gets killed. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Why does Eowyn look like the Wicked Witch from Snow White? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Does it matter? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Magic ball lightening at Helm?s Deep. Nuff said. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Better than the sudden appearance of the Olympic-Torch Orc running in a conspicuous manner in front of a line of Elves with bows. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Frodo?s big ?the burden is heavy scene?. What does Sam do? Get up and start whistling of course! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I assumed Sam needed the toilet and was waiting for Frodo to shup up. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Love the way the orcs all retreat solely on the basis of a horn being blown. Before they even see the riders emerge. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They fall back but the charge fails, which it should have. Given that Jackson's version had horses charging down a cliff face onto the waiting pikes of the orcs I don't think you can really claim it as an improvement. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Of course perhaps the biggest difference between Bakshi's LOTR and Jackson's is that PJ actually made a movie that people actually WANT to watch. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I did say that Bakshi's version was a failure and it does contain some awful moments. Jackson succeeded in making a flashy piece of fluff that sold well but as an adaptation it is a failure and as a film I think it's very weak even without comparison with the source material. There's no depth.The first hour of Bakshi covers FotR and does it better than Jackson by far (except where Jackson copies Bakshi). The rest is a total write-off apart from Gollum. I would have prefered Bakshi to have given up and simply binned the project once it was clear he did not have the resources to do it right. But I would also have prefered Jackson to dump it once he realised that he couldn't handle characterisation, pace or subtlety.Finally: why did you even come to this thread? Was there some reason you thought that a topic entitled "Topic: Crimes Against Tolkienity" under "Movies" was going to be a hymn of praise to Peter Jackson?

Eurytus · 12-17-2003, 09:49 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The intro was a mistake but you are picking on technical problems here which are a result not of the director but of the budget <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wrong, the representation of Sauron as one of the Knights who say “Ni” has nothing to do with budget. It was simply their choice to do so. It would not be hard to rent a better looking set of armour from a fancy dress shop, especially when it is only shown in silhouette. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Much more reasonable than having Gandalf go half-insane and start creeping about the Shire in thunderstorms <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yep, that’s right he went half-insane. More hyperbole. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> A minor continuity error, much less sever than having Frodo etc camp under the stone trolls and nobody mentioning it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Watch the extended edition. It is mentioned. Even in the normal version, given that Bilbo’s stone trolls have already been mentioned I should think that the maths are quite easy to work out. Stone trolls described by Bilbo. They are now camped under stone trolls. The same ones?? Hmm, not too difficult. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> God knows what that was about <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Saruman is referred to as Aruman many times during Bakshi’s version. Watch it and see. Perhaps Bakshi thought that two villains starting with S was too many. Who knows. It’s crap though. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Oh, you mean the Aragorn that looks like he's lived in the wilderness for years (a bit like a Native American, for example) and has a voice that you could believe would lead men into the jaws of death? I assume that you prefer the Mr No-Charisma that Jackson used <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A voice that you could believe would lead men into death? The voice of John Merrick? Hmm, personal opinion here I guess. And Native American or not, wearing a mini-skirt whilst trudging around wild heathlands and forests is more than a little stupid. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Although since Elendil has never previously been mentioned we are none the wiser about what this actually means. ______________________________________________ _____ More continuity problems; both versions are rife with them, eg The Old Forest reference in TTT. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Right, a reference to the Old Forest in the Two Towers is equal to forgetting to mention exactly who Aragorn is descended from and who owned his sword previously. In fact, who he is heir to? OK? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> It did alright for its time; the still graphics used in the depiction of Gandalf's battle with it made up for the slippers. Jackson's balrog was terrific (literally). But again we're talking technical issues, not directorial. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again the look of the Balrog is nothing to do with technical issues. The format used is animation, ie pictures. Artists have been doing pictures of Tolkien for years, notably for the Tolkien Calendars. Awesome that Bakshi’s disco-boot wearing Cowardly Lion became far and away the worst ever depicted on the first try. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I think Bakshi was going for a "Our champion fights your champion before the main battle" sort of thing that appears in some Celtic and Anglo-Saxon stories but it all went wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Apart from the fact that they do not actually fight each other though. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Better than the sudden appearance of the Olympic-Torch Orc running in a conspicuous manner in front of a line of Elves with bows. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They use explosives to blow up the wall. It is a requirement for the fuse to be lit. Given that someone has to go up and light it and the presence of Elven archers I would say running probably was the best tactic in the circumstances don’t you? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> They fall back but the charge fails, which it should have. Given that Jackson's version had horses charging down a cliff face onto the waiting pikes of the orcs I don't think you can really claim it as an improvement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Point one is that Bakshi’s Orcs retreat solely on the basis of a horn call. They not only retreat they drop all their weapons. You find that valid? OK then…..And the whole point of the charge/pike scene was that they knew the sun would blind the Uruk’s and cause them to lose their focus. I felt that was clear enough. As did pretty much the rest of the cinema going population I think. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> But I would also have prefered Jackson to dump it once he realised that he couldn't handle characterisation, pace or subtlety. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Right he should have dumped it and missed out on the critic’s acclaim, over $1 billion of movie receipts, Oscar nominations and wins as well as obtaining the credibility to make his dream project of King Kong. Instead he should have stuck to low budget Zombie films.With recommendations like that I bet PJ is glad that he doesn’t have you as an advisor. In fact I bet every director is. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Finally: why did you even come to this thread? Was there some reason you thought that a topic entitled "Topic: Crimes Against Tolkienity" under "Movies" was going to be a hymn of praise to Peter Jackson? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So your idea of the thread is that it was to be a forum for people to criticise what Jackson has done without rebuttal? Yep, I can really see how your way is better. Though I thought this was a discussion forum rather than a “hey everyone lets express one viewpoint only forum”.

The Only Real Estel · 12-17-2003, 10:11 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But I would also have prefered Jackson to dump it once he realised that he couldn't handle characterisation, pace or subtlety.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What!!?? And leave us with nothing to argue over? What are you thinking!? Seriously, wouldn't you rather have movies & argue over them than not have any movies at all? If hate parts of them, you can at least watch parts that you don't hate. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>LotR is not in same league with The Shining. It is up there with the greatest books and plays of all time: Bible, Koran, Shakespeare, Bagghavad-gita (sp?). We are all having much the same reactions to the changes in LotR's story as we would if someone had scripted and directed the Christmas or crucifixion stories in the Bible but decided a few things needed to be changed for the sake of entertainment value.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Um, that's a ridiculous statement. LotR is no where near the Bible. Or ever will be. Depends on whether you're religious or not I suppose, but that's just a bad, bad comparision. And to say that our reactions to the changes in LotR are even close to our reactions about a change in a crucifixion story is also way blown-out. Seriously, that's just a stupid statement. [ 11:15 AM December 17, 2003: Message edited by: The Only Real Estel ]

12-15-2003, 08:43 AM	#41
Bêthberry Cryptic Aura Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 6,170	Reaching back a ways into this thread ...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Not so. Witness The Matrix, We got a cell phone, a video game [with an hour more of the story only there] and a few adds. No action figures, books [?!] or mountains of cheap plastic crappola. They easily could have cashed in on any or all of the above to make millions more, but had the decency and taste to refrain.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Saucepan Man is correct, Lindil. Matrix action figures were made and have been marketed mainly through comic book and fantasy stores. I've seen many at The Silver Snail in Toronto, Canada, and some at Toys R Us. I've also seen many Keenu Reeves lookalikes walking the streets: merchandising extended into clothing. The demographic for Matrix is different from that for Lord of The Rings and so it is marketed differently. <P>Movie tickets alone (however exhorbitant their price) cannot recover the tremendous costs involved in making movies these days. And why blame the merchanisers if there are fans who wish so much to recreate the world of LOTR, Matrix, Star Wars, PotC, HP, to the extent of wanting actually to live in it? KFC, Burger King and other companies would not buy the rights LOTR logos if Tolkien fans did not reward them for doing so.<P>Personally, I think the car merchandising is hilarious. It reminds me of Tolkien's view of the automobile. (He would use them; he just wouldn't own or drive one.) Pure deconstruction, that.<p>[ 9:52 AM December 15, 2003: Message edited by: Bêthberry ] __________________ I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away.

12-15-2003, 10:01 AM	#42
Eurytus Wight Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: England Posts: 179	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> So has "Titanic" but it's still crap. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Actually whilst Titanic may have received the Oscars it never had the same sort of sustained high reviews and “fan-buzz” that LOTR has. Titanic’s reviews were largely mediocre and you only have to look at its IMDB ranking to see that it is not that highly rated.<P>As a side note though, whilst I do not particularly like Titanic I find it a little bemusing how many people claim that it is “really bad” or “it sucks” or that it’s the “worst film ever made”.<BR>You can find these types of viewpoints expressed on pretty much any internet board and it bears little relation to reality.<BR>Does Titanic deserve to be the biggest grossing film of all time? Probably not but let’s not pretend that it is a really bad film. It may not be even in my top 100 but I do not believe that it is a badly made film. And whilst the love story may be a little long winded and clichéd it is no where near as tragically bad as the love story in Attack of the Clones. A film which some people claim to be as good as the original trilogy. __________________ "This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story!" Lionel Hutz

12-15-2003, 12:47 PM	#43
pandora Haunting Spirit Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 60	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I find it a little bemusing how many people claim that it is ?really bad? or ?it sucks? or that it?s the ?worst film ever made?. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Worst film ever made is surely a title that Highlander II will hold until the End but any film about The Titanic which has a story about a rich girl engaged to a cad who then falls for a poor but honest boy and includes a gunfight is certainly not high on my list, particularly since my great-grandfather helped build the ship.<P>The scene of the flares going up redeemed the movie from total forgetableness, though.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> a little long winded and clichéd <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Antarctica: it's a bit nippy out. Talk about understatement!<P>Well, we're well off topic now.

12-15-2003, 02:37 PM	#44
Theron Bugtussle Wight Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Blowing the froth off a couple in this quaint little pub in Michel Delving. Posts: 147	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR><I>Pandora:</I> ...Jackson simply didn't care enough about the [book] characters.... The added material likewise shows that Jackson was not very interested in the book: the terrible side-trip to Osgiliath was probably the low point of the second film, unless it was Aragorn's "death" which was also added.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The massacre of the character of Tolkien's Faramir and the trip to Osgiliath are cases of PJ thinking the addition of more drama would enhance the story. So it is clearly his decision that the book was inferior in those points. With which decision we mostly all disagree. <P>The proof is not in the box office. Porn sells, but that does not make it 'right.'<P>What justification for another "resurrection," though? Not only is it untrue to the text and spirit of the book, but what movie purpose could it serve? Does he think audiences need a second resurrection to make the first (Gandalf's) more believable? <I>Man on the street interview:</I> "Well, personally, I was undecided about going to see LotR-TTT, until friends told me two of the main characters died and came back. Now I can't wait!"<P>(I am hoping some of you teen--or teen-at-heart--girls can enlighten me on this. Does Viggo become more of a heartthrob to women due to the PJ-induced sympathy factor? If so, do you realize you are being manipulated? )<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Do you think Jackson added this crap material because he prefered the original? Of course not! He added it in because he thought it was better, and if that's what he thinks is better he must have a very low opinion of the original.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree, except that he may not have a low opinion of the original, just a higher opinion of his own 'adjustments.' Anyway, regardless of what he might have said in his justifications, PJ has added so much extra-book material, he certainly didn't do it to cut down the size of the material, or to make storytelling 'compromises.'<P>I think the movies are good--or great. But I don't think they are enhanced one bit by these major character and storyline departures from Tolkien. <P>On the other hand, it could have been worse: the movies might have flopped, and there likely would have been two results. No one would touch the LotR as movie material for years or decades down the road, possibly never. And people would have blamed Tolkien. Both unforgivable. __________________ For I was talking aloud to myself. A habit of the old: they choose the wisest person present to speak to; the long explanations needed by the young are wearying. -Gandalf, The Two Towers

12-15-2003, 03:02 PM	#45
Lord of Angmar Tyrannus Incorporalis Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: the North Posts: 833	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR><I>Pandora:</I>Do you think Jackson added this crap material because he prefered the original? Of course not! He added it in because he thought it was better, and if that's what he thinks is better he must have a very low opinion of the original.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Correcton: He added it in because he thought it was better <I>from a cinematic standpoint</I>, as indeed much of it was from the perspective of mass audiences. __________________ ...where the instrument of intelligence is added to brute power and evil will, mankind is powerless in its own defence.

12-15-2003, 05:46 PM	#46
pandora Haunting Spirit Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 60	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> He added it in because he thought it was better from a cinematic standpoint, as indeed much of it was from the perspective of mass audiences.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I totally deny this on most of the new material and many of the omissions. The scene at the ford was more exciting when Frodo was alone. The final confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman is tense and exciting and satisfies the wish of the viewer to know how Saruman was deal with. The whole breaking of the staff could have been moved from Orthanc to the Shire if time was a problem. I could have lived with that. But to just discard a major character because he has no more fight scenes is simply lousy story-telling.<P>The prologue disrupts the flow of the mood of the film; it was a mistake when Bakshi did it and it was a mistake when Jackson copied it. Jumping in at the Last Alliance is reminiscent of the sex-education sketch in Meaning of Life "What's wrong with a bit of the Nazgul on the Road, boy? There's no need to go charging like a bull at the Last Alliance! Then maybe the Black-Breath, that's good. Build up to it! Foreplay!" Slowly building tension is not Jackson's best suit; he assumes the audience has the same attention span he does and is simply tapping its collective feet waiting for the next bit of hack and slash.<P>The changes to the balrog scene made it too long and drawn out, actually losing tension compared to the book, particularly with the weak dwarf-tossing joke and the ridiculous "lean, lean" on top of that block of stone. The charge of Rohan at the end of the battle of Helm's Deep produced a few sniggers in the cinema when I saw it; the book's ending was much better and could have looked GREAT. <P>Elrond is simply a pain in the bum, as is Arwen. Frankly, no one that I know that has seen the movie (and, yes, they do all like it) give a damn about either of them because their characters are unsympathetic (Elrond) and boring (Arwin). They literally could be taken out of the movie without doing any (further) harm.<P>The Mirror of Galadriel in the book was a gift to a director working on a trilogy as it gave a chance to tease the audience with events from the third film (ie the scouring of the Shire) while at the same time building up Sam's character a bit more. But Mr Jackson missed that trick along with most other chances to be subtle and engaging.<P>The fight at Weathertop, if filmed straight from the book would have been fantastic: the Nazgul as black holes in the night sky approaching silently over the crest of the hill, their positions only marked by the background stars blinking out of existance. What a scene! Surely <B>anyone</B> could make that a thrill to remember!? <P>Apparently not quite anyone.<P>Instead we got to see the inflammable clowns that run into each other. That was another scene that got a lot of laughter in our local cimema and also marked the point where my optimism about the films really started to drain away.<P>Oh, god, the list just goes on and on! <P>Some changes had to be made, some characters never stood a real chance of making it in and although I would have liked to have seen old Tom I miss the Barrow-Downs more from the point of view of the story; Tom's role could have been reduced to the rescuing Frodo from the barrow-wight and been left more or less at that and at least the later reference to the Old Forest would have made some sense.<P>That's film-making and some things and people won't make it in. I have no problem with the principle. It was the practice that let me down.<P>These films have been badly directed, end of story.

12-15-2003, 06:12 PM	#47
Lord of Angmar Tyrannus Incorporalis Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: the North Posts: 833	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The final confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman is tense and exciting and satisfies the wish of the viewer to know how Saruman was deal with. The whole breaking of the staff could have been moved from Orthanc to the Shire if time was a problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I absolutely agree. I do not agree, however, with many of the other points you made. And I do not agree that Peter Jackson is an entirely unsubtle, action-obsessed buffoon as you are unambiguously implying. Tolkien's works are not exactly studies in subtlety, nor do all of the devices in his plot translate well onto the big screen.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>These films have been badly directed, end of story.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>No, that is not the end of the story. Though I may have started this thread to point out the faults of the <I>Lord of the Rings</I> moviemakers (mostly directed towards New Line Cinemas as opposed to Peter Jackson), I now grow weary of the bashing that Peter Jackson has been taking on these fora and, for that matter, all over the web. To say that he has been utterly incompetent in the creation of these movies is a statement of ignorance. Peter Jackson faced the difficult challenges of dealing with skeptical, profit-mongering executives and trying to keep an enormous, unprecented group of actors and professionals focused for an extremely extended period of time, all while trying to please mass audiences as well as Tolkien purists with source material whose complexities and pacing make for an immeasurably difficult translation onto celluloid. The films contain a high level of technical and personal achievement from special effects/costume and set designers and cast members, respectively. Although Peter Jackson did take many (often, granted, seemingly unwarranted) liberties with the storyline, the themes, character motivations and overall feeling of the books, in my own humble opinion, still shine through. To say that these films by Peter Jackson were badly directed, especially without having even seen the final and most important installment, is absolutely ridiculous.<P>End of story. __________________ ...where the instrument of intelligence is added to brute power and evil will, mankind is powerless in its own defence.

12-15-2003, 06:23 PM	#48
doug*platypus Delver in the Deep Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 963	<B>The Thread So Far</B><P>Eurytus, congratulations on inserting a post that had everything to do with other movies and almost nothing to do with LOTR! I wish I had the heart to do that, I could go on about Star Wars <I>ad infinitum</I>.<P>Pandora... <B>best post ever</B>. I heartily agree and I've almost had enough of people who endorse the wholesale slaughter of a great book without admitting that yes the movies did have faults. They may be your favourite films, but don't let that block your mind off completely to criticisms. I'm willing to admit that in some instances the movies are superior to the books, but nevertheless they are not nearly as good as the Hollywood hype machine tells you they are.<P>It looks as though the Pandora/Lord of Angmar argument may now consume this thread. Oh well, it was nice while it lasted! What was the topic again? Apologies to whoever started the thread. Perhaps it would have been better broken down into two or three, one for each question. Hijacking is rife in the Movies forum. __________________ But Gwindor answered: 'The doom lies in yourself, not in your name'.

12-15-2003, 06:35 PM	#49
Lord of Angmar Tyrannus Incorporalis Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: the North Posts: 833	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Apologies to whoever started the thread. Perhaps it would have been better broken down into two or three, one for each question. Hijacking is rife in the Movies forum.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Sadly, it was I who started the thread, and now I am defending one of the parties that I was initially accusing. I can defend this action somewhat, though, as my initial intent was to provide the arguments of many Tolkien purists in an easily accessible manner, and then leave it open to debate. Since Pandora has attacked Peter Jackson far more than I would have cared to, I felt the need to defend the director, as I am still a fan of the movies despite their admitted flaws and despite New Line's shameless over-advertisment and -merchandising.<p>[ 7:39 PM December 15, 2003: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ] __________________ ...where the instrument of intelligence is added to brute power and evil will, mankind is powerless in its own defence.

12-15-2003, 06:50 PM	#50
doug*platypus Delver in the Deep Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 963	Fair enough, and very well said. __________________ But Gwindor answered: 'The doom lies in yourself, not in your name'.

12-15-2003, 08:45 PM	#51
The Saucepan Man Corpus Cacophonous Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: A green and pleasant land Posts: 8,468	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> He added it in because he thought it was better from a cinematic standpoint, as indeed much of it was from the perspective of mass audiences. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well said, Lord of Angmar. I agree entirely.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I totally deny this on most of the new material and many of the omissions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, pandora, you may deny it. But that does not stop it being true. Jackson did not make the changes just to p*s off the Tolkien purists. He made them because he felt that they would make for better films. You (and others) may disagree with the changes that he made and feel that the films are worse off for them. I disagree with some of them too. But that does not get away from the fact that Jackson's reason for making them was because <I>he thought</I> that they worked better cinematically. And he has, in large measure, been vindicated, given the incredible success of these films. Many millions of people, including long-time Tolkien fans like myself, believe them to be great films.<P>And I have been left in no doubt, from interviews that I have read and from the TTT EE documentaries, that he, Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens, as well as many (if not most) of the remainder of the production team have great admiration and respect for Tolkien's works. Many of them, Jackson included, have been fans of the books for a long time, just like many of us here. They were not trying to improve on what Tolkien wrote. They were simply trying to render his story in a format suitable for the silver screen.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The scene at the ford was more exciting when Frodo was alone. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You cannot look at these scenes in isolation. Jackson and the rest of the script-writing team made a decision to enhance the role of Arwen, so as to bring an additional strong female character into a story rather bereft of such characters. They also chose to play up the romance of Aragorn and Arwen (largely with material based on the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen in the Appendices to the book). Having her ride with Frodo to Rivendell gave them a chance to introduce her as a central character and to increase her involvement in the story. You may disagree with the decision to increase Arwen's role, but there was a cinematic reason for it (and, in my view, it was a good one).<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The final confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman is tense and exciting and satisfies the wish of the viewer to know how Saruman was deal with. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I agree with you on this one, although I can understand why the scene was not included in RotK, given that Saruman plays no part in the events portrayed in it, and also given the need to bring Sauron to the fore as the major villain. It should have been included at the end of TTT though.<P>And, much as it is one of my favourite chapters from the book, I can wholly understand the decision to omit the Scouring of the Shire. A new sub-plot and second mini-climax would (on screen) totally destroy the major climax of Sauron's defeat. Given the criticism made by some reviewers that RotK takes too long to end, including the Scouring would have been a major mistake.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The prologue disrupts the flow of the mood of the film <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I am not at all sure how it can disrupt the flow of the film when it is at the beginning. But surely it was absolutely necessary to bring audiences (the majority of whom will not have read the books) up to speed with the basic premise of the film right at the outset.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The changes to the balrog scene made it too long and drawn out, actually losing tension compared to the book <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I have seen very little criticism of this scene. Personally I thought that it was very well-paced, although I agree that the "Dwarf tossing" jokes are unnecessary and detract from Gimli's character.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Elrond is simply a pain in the bum, as is Arwen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Elrond's character is admittedly very different. I thought that he worked well in FotR, but tired of his "overbearing and selfish father" act in TTT. But I can see the cinematic benefits of giving the character an "edge" and building up the tension and uncertainty in Arwen's decision. I did, however, think that they went too far in having her set off for the Grey Havens in TTT. Notwithstanding the tension build-up, it should ultimately have become apparent that she would never have made the decision to leave. As for Arwen's enhanced role, I have covered that above.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> These films have been badly directed, end of story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>If that were the case, then the films would not have been anything like as successful as they have been, and they would certainly not have received such critical acclaim, among both film-critics and Jackson's peers in the film industry. The direction may not have been to your taste, but I can see no grounds whatsoever for claiming that they were badly directed.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Pandora... best post ever. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Hardly. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I heartily agree and I've almost had enough of people who endorse the wholesale slaughter of a great book without admitting that yes the movies did have faults. They may be your favourite films, but don't let that block your mind off completely to criticisms. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I happen to think that these are great films. But by no means am I saying that they are flawless (but, then again, neither are the books). There are changes that were made that in the films I find irritating and unnecessary. But that is not because they alter the story told in the book, but because I feel that they do not work in the context of the (somewhat different) story told in the films. <P>So I do not view these films with an entirely uncritical eye. Nevertheless, I can see good reasons, from a cinematographic perspective, for most of the changes that were made. And I see no reason to let the fact that the story told in the films is different from that told in the books to ruin what, for me, are thoroughly enjoyable films. __________________ Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind!*

12-16-2003, 03:07 AM	#52
Evisse the Blue Brightness of a Blade Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: wherever I may roam Posts: 2,740	<B>The Jackson Dilemma</B><P>It's useless, there are two opposite viewpoints here that will never ever reach an understanding or even a common ground of criticising/defending. <P>Even though I'm in the criticising camp, I won't go back to bashing, I'd rather raise an issue that caught my attention while reading this last page:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> the movies might have flopped, and there likely would have been two results. No one would touch the LotR as movie material for years or decades down the road, possibly never. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>So, do you think that if the movies had flopped - and as we can plainly see, for some they did; the directors would refrain from taking on the dropped challenge? I think not. They would take it as an incentive to prove that their vision on LOTR would fare better. <P>Now - as the majority acclaim Jackson's version as the best movie ever made, the directors are likely to back off from making another adaptation of LOTR, as they feel it wouldn't measure up to this one. So, if anything, it will inhibit creativity and prohibit a new vision of Tolkien's work. That's how I see it. And of course, the new Tolkienites converted to the books after watching the movies will forever confuse and mix lines /scenes added by Jackson with the original ones, thus frustrating themselves and everyone else in the process. I've seen it happen, even on the Downs. <P>So there. __________________ And no one was ill, and everyone was pleased, except those who had to mow the grass.

12-16-2003, 03:38 AM	#53
Eurytus Wight Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: England Posts: 179	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Pandora... best post ever. I heartily agree and I've almost had enough of people who endorse the wholesale slaughter of a great book without admitting that yes the movies did have faults. They may be your favourite films, but don't let that block your mind off completely to criticisms. I'm willing to admit that in some instances the movies are superior to the books, but nevertheless they are not nearly as good as the Hollywood hype machine tells you they are. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You do realise that this sentence <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> They may be your favourite films, but don't let that block your mind off completely to criticisms. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>works equally well if you change the word films to books don’t you. Not that many people here seem to see it that way of course.<P>And best post ever?!? A post that contains this;<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> These films have been badly directed, end of story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Apparently the fact that Pandora feels that the films have been badly directed has rendered the whole discussion moot. __________________ "This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story!" Lionel Hutz

12-16-2003, 03:52 AM	#54
Eurytus Wight Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: England Posts: 179	“The final confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman is tense and exciting and satisfies the wish of the viewer to know how Saruman was deal with.”<P>So if we stick rigidly to the book you think audiences would be happy to see a confrontation with a character they have never even seen? Don’t think so? In the book Saruman only gets a couple of mentions and is never seen before this confrontation so how exactly are they going to make him seem like a big villain.<BR>Answer, they can’t and wouldn’t.<P>“The prologue disrupts the flow of the mood of the film”<P>As someone else has already mentioned it is actually impossible to disrupt the flow of a film when it has not even had a flow established yet. From a story point of view it was imperative to establish background to the story and having a half hour story telling session from Gandalf in front of the fire at Bagend was not likely to cut it.<P>“The fight at Weathertop”<P>Um, in the book there basically isn’t one. Frodo takes one stab and blacks out soon after seeing Aragorn wave a brand around a couple of times. Yep, I can see how that would get the audience on their feet!<P>“Tom's role could have been reduced to the rescuing Frodo from the barrow-wight and been left more or less at that.”<P>And so you are somehow qualified to approve deviations from the text now? And what a change! A technicolour dwarf popping up, saving the Hobbits from barrow wights and disappearing again. <P>“These films have been badly directed, end of story.”<BR>And yet the majority of the public and critics do not seem to agree with you. __________________ "This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story!" Lionel Hutz

12-16-2003, 03:55 AM	#55
Eurytus Wight Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: England Posts: 179	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The proof is not in the box office. Porn sells, but that does not make it 'right.' <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>So now you are trying to attach “morals” to making changes in the story of LOTR? And equating PJ’s version with Porn?<P>Superb!<P>You are wrong of course. And not just about that. The proof is in the box office and it is the only proof that the film industry gives any credence to. __________________ "This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story!" Lionel Hutz

12-16-2003, 05:09 AM	#56
Lalaith Blithe Spirit Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,876	I have sympathy with a lot of the viewpoints expressed here, from both sides of the discussion. <BR>Like all art, the film has varying levels of appeal, and this is my view of how successful it is on these levels.<BR>Visual/aural: near-perfect, I don't think anyone could have done better. <BR>Emotional: varying. The comradeship of the Fellowship was conveyed extremely well, as was the excitement and fear of being in the midst of battle. Other more subtle emotional issues were badly handled, with Tolkien's interesting and unusual perspectives turned into Hollywood cliches that audiences would "understand." For example, Boromir and Aragorn's relationship was turned into something straight out of a 'Nam movie, and Aragorn's chivalrous treatment of the lovestruck Eowyn into a Love Triangle. <BR>Intellectual: this is where the films are most unsatisfying. In FotR, the rich, layered narrative of the book was simplified to a computer game: walk, fight, walk, run,turn, walk, fight. In TTT, the narrative was still like a computer game, but one where you are stuck at a level, blundering about trying to find how to move to the next one. <BR>Anything that might have been in the slightest bit intellectually demanding - the council of Elrond, for example - was simplified with a result of pure cheese: "You Shall Be the Fellowship of the Ring!" Ugh. <BR>As for the changes, some worked and some didn't. Say what you like, but the bizarre Aragorn horse-snogging scene, the to-ing and fro-ing in Fangorn and Osgiliath did NOT add anything to the cinematic experience. <BR>I went to see the film three times, each time with people who had never read the books, that is, representatives of those 'mass audiences' that PJ was trying to appeal to. They felt confused and bored by those scenes. __________________ Out went the candle, and we were left darkling

12-16-2003, 06:33 AM	#57
pandora Haunting Spirit Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 60	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Having her ride with Frodo to Rivendell gave them a chance to introduce her as a central character and to increase her involvement in the story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I have no problem with introducing her before the Ford and her being part of the general flight but the key moment of Frodo on his own has no bearing on Arwen having joined them any more than in the book it was dependant on Glorfindel.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> You may disagree with the decision to increase Arwen's role, but there was a cinematic reason for it (and, in my view, it was a good one).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I could have lived with it if it had been done well but Arwen is a total flop; no one I have talked to - man or women - cares a jot whether he character lives or dies. I am aware of the reality that the producers may not have thought that way and Jackson probably was forced into trying to amplify the character. It could have been far worse: she could have been dropped in to replace Legolas!<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> A new sub-plot and second mini-climax would (on screen) totally destroy the major climax of Sauron's defeat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yes, I agree. To get the Scouring in would have been very difficult indeed but I think it could have been done if less time was spent on the big battle (I admit that I'm going by what I've been told of the time spent on the Seige of Minas Tirith). I'll return to this below in reference to Eurytus' remarks.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I am not at all sure how it can disrupt the flow of the film when it is at the beginning. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>We start off with a major battle and then move to the tranquility of the Shire and then try to build back up. Why not go straight into the Shire and start the long, slow but with moments of action like the balrog, build up to the high drama of the third film? The Last Alliance could be put in almost anywhere that Aragorn or Gandalf has a chance to talk about the "olden days". Putting it at the start is pretty weak, like showing the Germans marching into Paris at the start of Casablanca; it fits better after we have established some rapport with the characters and setting.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But surely it was absolutely necessary to bring audiences <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Just the opposite is true: for those that do not know the book the building up and unveiling of the dreadful danger of the "funny magic ring" is better than simply handing out a potted history at the start.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Personally I thought that it was very well-paced, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Just what took the balrog so long?!<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The direction may not have been to your taste, but I can see no grounds whatsoever for claiming that they were badly directed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I don't think theres a single scene in the first film that wasn't badly handled and some ranked alongside the worst in any film I've ever seen.<P>Surely no one can watch the Gandalf/Saruman scene and not feel deeply embarassed for JRRT?<P>The second film is better but not much. The plot is further disrupted by Arwen's increased role, Osgiliath is a blunder, Legolas' surfing, <I>more</I> "He's dead. No, wait: there he is" scenes (like LotR needs more of those!). It's generally just bland but pretty. <P>On to Eurytus:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> So if we stick rigidly to the book you think audiences would be happy to see a confrontation with a character they have never even seen? Don't think so? In the book Saruman only gets a couple of mentions and is never seen before this confrontation so how exactly are they going to make him seem like a big villain.<BR>Answer, they can't and wouldn't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Please, please, please try reading what I've said before posting pointless comments like this. I never said, and will never say that the film should have stuck rigidly to the book.<P>In fact I think that bumpping Saruman's role up was not only a good idea but an absolute necessity. His unseen presence in the book would not have worked in a film.<P>The problem is that he <B>has</B> been promoted only to be dropped completely at the end. That's BAD.<P>PJ: "Here's Saruman, he's our major on-screen bad guy. We've got Christopher Lee to play him."<P>Exec: "Oh, good stuff. I expect he get's bumped off at the end after a titanic struggle with the forces of good?"<P>PJ: "Whatever."<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> As someone else has already mentioned it is actually impossible to disrupt the flow of a film when it has not even had a flow established yet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I should have said the flow of the story, I suppose. The act of jumping from the prologue to the Shire makes for a pointless change in setting and mood and undermines the later build up of tension since a lot of the possible mystery is destroyed by what is just a load of exposition.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> From a story point of view it was imperative to establish background to the story and having a half hour story telling session from Gandalf in front of the fire at Bagend was not likely to cut it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>First of all it was not imperative any more than knowing the Roman History of Britain is imperative to understanding Excalibur. The story is about people under threat. The audience knows about people already and understands the concept of threat. You can go from there and gradually reveal the nature and magnitude of the threat. The exact same footage could have been faded in once the logical place for the flashback was reached; no long vocal story-telling is needed.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Um, in the book there basically isn't one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>There isn't much of a fight but there is a hell of a good bit of scene-setting and the establishment of the Nazgul as something much more sinister than a bunch of hunckbacks on horses. Big visual oppertunities await the right director.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And so you are somehow qualified to approve deviations from the text now? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>First of all, it's not a deviation. Secondly, I'm at least as qualified as Jackson. Thirdly, deviations are unavoidable.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And yet the majority of the public and critics do not seem to agree with you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yet no one ever offers any evidence of why they are well directed. All I ever hear is apologies: "You have to do that in a film", or "Jackson had to appeal to women", or "There's not enough time to show that".<P>So: what great strokes of directorial genius have I missed. Where did Jackson show the skills of a new Hitchcock, Scott, Ford, Capra, Hawkins, Huston, or Kurosawa?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> So now you are trying to attach "morals" to making changes in the story of LOTR? And equating PJ's version with Porn? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Unless you are a complete idiot you know that the point he was making was that there is no connection between quality and success. The "equating" was that you would claim that if a porn film is successful must therefore be a great movie. <P>After all:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The proof is in the box office<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

12-16-2003, 06:50 AM	#58
Eurytus Wight Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: England Posts: 179	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Yet no one ever offers any evidence of why they are well directed. All I ever hear is apologies: "You have to do that in a film", or "Jackson had to appeal to women", or "There's not enough time to show that". <BR>So: what great strokes of directorial genius have I missed. Where did Jackson show the skills of a new Hitchcock, Scott, Ford, Capra, Hawkins, Huston, or Kurosawa?<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>And you have offered absolutely zero examples of poor direction. In fact I am beginning to suspect that you do not know what a director does. All your criticisms to date have been based on differences between book and film. These are related to the script and have absolutely nothing to do with the quality of direction.<P>Of course the point of the matter is that I do not need to argue with you about it. The critical and commercial success of the films proves it for me. Film companies are not in the habit of giving $20 million plus 20% of the gross to bad directors.<P>Perhaps if you omitted the hyperbole from your arguments you might find that people might accept them or at least part of them.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> There isn't much of a fight but there is a hell of a good bit of scene-setting and the establishment of the Nazgul as something much more sinister than a bunch of hunckbacks on horses. Big visual oppertunities await the right director. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Right, the Nazgul in the book are really sinister. So sinister in fact that they still get beaten off by one guy with a flaming stick.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Secondly, I'm at least as qualified as Jackson. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>No, you are not as qualified as Jackson. Know why? Because he has earned the chance to do it. He took the gambles, he persuaded the movie chiefs, he built up the special effects shop, he wrote the script.<BR>Go away and get your own budget then I’m sure you can make the film you want but *****ing about the talents of a director who is set to make the highest grossing movie trilogy in history is frankly going to be a lonely (and pointless) task. __________________ "This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story!" Lionel Hutz

12-16-2003, 06:55 AM	#59
Eurytus Wight Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: England Posts: 179	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> After all:<P><BR>quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR> The proof is in the box office<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Read my original post;<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Somehow I think that PJ’s changes have been vindicated through the only medium that means anything. He has the box office results. He has the critical acclaim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Read, apply understanding and then realise, gee whizz, box office plus critical acclaim.<P>Yep, pretty much the only indicator of success that means anything. Or are you one of the idiots who thinks that what one high-brow critic thinks is somehow more valid than the public at large?<P>Though of course you can't be since many "high-brow" critics think that the book LOTR is turgid crap. __________________ "This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story!" Lionel Hutz

12-16-2003, 08:14 AM	#60
pandora Haunting Spirit Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 60	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> All your criticisms to date have been based on differences between book and film. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>No, actually they were not. I did suggest that if Jackson had stuck to a fairly literal interpretation of the material in the book he would have done a better job but that's not the same as saying the problem was the difference itself. A difference can be for the better or worse.<P>For example: the scene with Gandalf jumping out from behind the door was stupid and the result of a poor director trying for cheap shocks because he can't actually pull off any more subtle fear or tension. <P>It <I>is</I> different from the book but that's not what makes it bad; it's just plain old bad direction in and of itself.<P>Anyway, there's no point talking to you about this as you seem to have an inability to read what is on the screen in front of you as well as a slavish devotion to being told what to like by accountants and critics.

12-16-2003, 08:37 AM	#61
Bêthberry Cryptic Aura Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 6,170	This is not the forum I moderate, but as a fellow Downs member I would like to point out that personal attacks ruin the quality of good discussions. Please, everyone here, respect differences of opinion and refrain from baiting and character assassination. This is not the WWF. Thanks! __________________ I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away.

12-16-2003, 08:38 AM	#62
The Saucepan Man Corpus Cacophonous Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: A green and pleasant land Posts: 8,468	* Pandora and Eurytus. On the Barrow-Downs, we try to be respectful of the views of others, even though we might not agree with them. Discussions soon break down into slanging matches where people fail to adhere to this simple rule. So please moderate your posts and refrain from indulging in personal abuse. <P>Lalaith what you say about the films working on a visual and (to varying degrees) emotional level, but failing on an intellectual level, is interesting. I agree that the films downplay much of the intellectual content of the books, although I would not describe them as devoid of intelligence. And I actually think that they work very well on an emotional level. The Aragorn/Eowyn relationship seems little different to me in the film than in the book. They have just played up the tension with Arwen on the "will she stay or will she go" issue.<P>In any event, the focus on the visual/emotional at the expense of the intellectual represents, to my mind, a good decision on the part of Jackson and the script-writing team. These kinds of films (action/adventure) work best on the visual and emotional level. That is not to say that those, like me, who enjoy these films are ignorant. It is just that we want to enjoy experiencing what we are seeing and feeling without having our attention diverted by complex issues requiring us to stop and think them through. Films like this work on an instinctive level. It is all about making them accessible.<P>Clearly, both you and pandora would have preferred to have seen a different kind of film. One which did not focus so much on the action/adventure but encompassed more of the intellectual breadth of Tolkien's work. I have no doubt that such a film could be made, although I agree that Jackson would not be the man to make it. But I suspect that it would have failed to raise the financial backing required to bring Middle-earth to life in the visually stunning way that Jackson has been able to acheive. And I strongly suspect that it would have been a far less successful film, in terms of box office receipts and critical acclaim. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> the bizarre Aragorn horse-snogging scene, the to-ing and fro-ing in Fangorn and Osgiliath did NOT add anything to the cinematic experience. <BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I agree that Aragorn's white water adventure was gratuitous and unnecessary. Although I felt that the Arwen scenes were necessary, they could have been worked in elsewhere. Much of Fangorn I like, although I would have preferred to see the Ents make up their own minds to go to war. On the other hand, these scenes did give Merry and Pippin a chance to develop in stature (in more ways than one ), a process which is very much central in the third film, by the sound of it. Osgiliath (or something like it) I thought was necessary. A climax was required for the journey of Frodo and Sam to mirror the grand climaxes of Helm's Deep and the Ents' attack on Isengard, but it had to be one which would not overshadow them. Osgiliath provided this, although I think that it could have been handled better.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I went to see the film three times, each time with people who had never read the books, that is, representatives of those 'mass audiences' that PJ was trying to appeal to. They felt confused and bored by those scenes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Arwen is a total flop; no one I have talked to - man or women - cares a jot whether he character lives or dies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>On the other hand, everyone that I have spoken to about these films, both fans of the book and those who have never read it, enjoyed them tremendously. It's funny how we can all cite examples of people who hold the same views as us, isn't it? <P>Suffice it to say that I disagree with much of what you say, pandora, on the merits of the scenes and characters that you refer to. There is little point in debating it further, however, since it will clearly make no difference whatsoever to your view. You are entitled to your opinion. I simply object to you stating points in a manner which suggests that they are absolute truths. They are not. They are matters on which opinions vary. Some acknowledgement that you are setting forth your opinions on these matters would not go astray, and would perhaps lead to a more constructive discussion.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I never said, and will never say that the film should have stuck rigidly to the book. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Eurytus, pandora is right on this (although, pandora, the preceding sentence is a prime example of where a little toning down would have been in order). Pandora, I accept that you are not simply claiming that the films should have followed the books in every respect (as some do). The difference between us is that I understand and, for the most part, accept the editorial and directorial decisions that Jackson and co made, whereas you clearly do not. I have little problem with them because they mostly work for me and because I accept that it was necessary for the film to achieve popular and critical success to recoup the financial outlay involved. As I said above, you would clearly have liked to have seen a different kind of film, one which, I suspect, would not have beeen anything like as successful as these films have been.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Yet no one ever offers any evidence of why they are well directed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That is not true. Just take a browse through some of the older threads in this forum (this is, you will not be surprised to hear, a debate that has been raging for a long time) and you will see numerous explanations as to why certain scenes work on a cinematographic level. If you are really interested, take a look at some of HC Island's posts. He has not posted here for a few weeks (I suspect that he's avoiding RotK spoilers), but he is someone who has a good feel for film-making and a knack of explaining how and why scenes in these films work. Personally, I find it difficult to explain why a scene works for me: it just does. I have tried to set out my thoughts in a number of older threads, but I do not propose reiterating my arguments here because it would be going back over old ground and, in any event, there is, it seems, very little prospect of changing your mind. As I said, if you are interested, try browsing through a few old topics.<P>As for Jackson's skill as a director, Eurytus is right, in terms of what Jackson set out to acheive. Jackson set out to bring Tolkien's story to the screen in a format which has mass appeal. He has succeeded overwhelmingly in doing so. He is therefore very good at his job, ie directing. He may not appeal to you as a director, but that makes him no less skillful at what he does. Some of the directors that you have listed do not appeal to me. I do not enjoy their films. And yet I recognise that they are highly skilled directors.<P>And finally, once more, please can everyone show a little more respect for each other from now on. <p>[ 9:40 AM December 16, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ] __________________ Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind!*

12-16-2003, 08:40 AM	#63
pandora Haunting Spirit Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 60	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> This is not the WWF. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Why have the World Wildlife Fund got involved? Is it because hobbits are endangered?

12-16-2003, 08:42 AM	#64
Child of the 7th Age Spirit of the Lonely Star Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 5,135	I would hate to see this thread shut down. Can everyone please focus on the film, what you think is right and wrong, and less on personal barbs aimed at each other?<P>There are no right or wrong answers here, and it's pretty clear there's a range of opinion, especially among folks who've read the books. Being on one side or the other of the issue, doesn't automatically make somebody a doofus.<P>So please take a deep breath and think before you post.<P>Cami, Shire Mod<P><B> Edit: </B> I cross posted with Bethberry and Saucepan Man in the space of the last five minutes, but we are all obviously trying to get the same point across.....<p>[ 9:46 AM December 16, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ] __________________ Multitasking women are never too busy to vote.

12-16-2003, 09:24 AM	#65
pandora Haunting Spirit Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 60	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> It's funny how we can all cite examples of people who hold the same views as us, isn't it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Actually, I fnd it quite hard to find people that hold the same view as me about these films except in the particular case of Arwen ("which one is she?" is a common comment I hear).<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I simply object to you stating points in a manner which suggests that they are absolute truths.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, this is really the polarizing result of being told over and over again that this is THE greatest set of films ever made. Absolute assertions provoke absolute rebuttals.<P>But, yes, obviously I am really stating opinions, just as much as Eurytus or yourself or Jackson and the cast for that matter.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> As for Jackson's skill as a director, Eurytus is right, in terms of what Jackson set out to acheive. Jackson set out to bring Tolkien's story to the screen in a format which has mass appeal. He has succeeded overwhelmingly in doing so. He is therefore very good at his job,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I actually almost agree with all that. I think the crew has brought Tolkien's <B>world</B> to a mass audience in spite of the loss of the heart of the story. But you are right within that definition of the director's job that Jackson has done well. I just don't accept that a director of an adaptation only owes a duty to the studio and the audience, there is something due to the integrity of the source material too.<P>I'd like to stress, once more, that I think the films are a breathtaking and beautiful visual evocation of Middle-earth. <P>Also, Jackson almost certainly had to jump through some hoops that he would not have to if he had arrived at the project with a reputation like the one he now has.<P>Arwen was probably one such hoop and as I said before it would not have surprised me if the studio had forced him to replace Legolas with her in the Fellowship itself. Worse fates have befallen adaptations in the past.<P>Once out of the Shire Gandalf has been pretty good, as has Gollum (perhaps too overtly sympathetic but still pretty good so far) and I thought the Ents actually worked once you got used to them. Ents are always difficult to imagine anyway.<P>The destruction by Saruman of the Circle of Orthanc was better than the book and got across the whole "industry gone mad" feel well.<P>In the end, I wanted the BBC radio version with pictures. I got the pictures but I didn't get the script.

12-16-2003, 09:51 AM	#66
Eurytus Wight Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: England Posts: 179	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I just don't accept that a director of an adaptation only owes a duty to the studio and the audience, there is something due to the integrity of the source material too.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>That is doubtless a point of view that many hold but it does not necessarily ring true all of the time. Sometimes an adaptation needs to show less integrity to the source material. As an example we can view the Godfather film. Now that is pretty much universally hailed as a classic and yet would never have been the film it was had it followed the book. Indeed whole storylines have been ruthlessly cut out from the book. That does not mean that the book was bad, in fact I like it very much perhaps as much as the film, but the book would not have worked as a movie. The cuts were needed.<P>Often adaptation can become more interesting once they deviate from the source material. Two examples of this (in my case) are the films Richard III (with Ian McKellen set in a fascist 1930’s Britain) and Love’s Labours Lost (set as a 1930’s musical). In my view both of these films benefit from making changes.<BR>The same could be said of Moby **** . The novel is massive and contains a great deal of basically documentary descriptions of the business of whaling. It would have been overlong if incorporated into the film.<P>The Shining (Kubrick version) plays very loose with King’s book but just compare it’s quality to the TV version King endorsed. At their heart they are very different stories, they have different focus’s, but Kubrick’s adaptation is superior for the changes in my opinion.<P>Changes were made to the Exorcist, changes which the author did not like but again the end product justified these amendments.<P>The Shawshank Redemption takes a barebones story by King and transforms it into an absolutely classic film.<P>Jaws made many changes and again was all the better for it.<P>2001 A Space Odyssey left more unanswered than did the book and this made it different, and yet not the lesser for it.<P>To my mind once a director acquires the rights to a work he is within his rights to make whatsoever changes he feels are needed. The “rightness” of his actions will only become apparent or not once the critics and the public judge him. It is not his job to make a film “for the author” or “for the hardcore fans”. An example of what happens when the film is made “for the author” is to be found in the Harry Potter films. To my mind they are too weighty and flabby. __________________ "This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story!" Lionel Hutz

12-16-2003, 09:54 AM	#67
Eurytus Wight Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: England Posts: 179	I am sorry if I found myself getting overheated during this discussion but I do find blanket statements of “he has no respect for the source material or Tolkien”, “he’s a bad director, end of story” and the like to be not only un-provable (or disprovable) but wildly exaggerated too.<BR>Paul Anderson is a bad director.<BR>Peter Jackson is not.<BR>Go back in time 5 years and swap one for the other and you’d see what I mean. The LOTR films would be a whole lot worse for it.<BR>Or you could just wait and see the Aliens v’s Predator film. __________________ "This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story!" Lionel Hutz

12-16-2003, 04:39 PM	#68
doug*platypus Delver in the Deep Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 963	<B>Defusing a Hijacking Situation</B><P>In order to prevent the wholesale war that is now being waged on this thread, about almost every aspect of the book to film transition, here are some links. I hope that we can attempt to limit our discussion to the thread topic at hand, and use one of the countless other threads for anything even slightly off-topic.<P><A HREF="http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=001756" TARGET=_blank>Thread for discussing the pitfalls of the Balrog and Moria in general.</A><P><A HREF="http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=000259" TARGET=_blank>Thread for those unhappy about Weathertop, and for those unhappy with the unhappy.</A><P><A HREF="http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=002423" TARGET=_blank>White-hot thread about Saruman and his early departure from the trilogy.</A><P>I couldn't find a good thread about the Prologue to FOTR, so I suggest that if anyone has thoughts on how it could have been improved, or if they believe that its inclusion was questionable, perhaps they could start a new topic. I for one am greatly interested to hear the good and bad points of the <B>movie</B> (i.e. not personal comments on Peter Jackson, positive <B>or</B> negative) since together we see a lot more than one person on their own. For instance, the Weathertop scene in FOTR never really bothered me until others pointed out how much better it could have been.<P><BR><B>Synopsis of Lord of Angmar's Original Post "Crimes Against Tolkienity"</B><P>Has Tolkien been done grave injustices in terms of:<BR><UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>The Scourging of the Shire<BR>The destruction that Peter Jackson and New Line inflicted upon the natural world?<P><LI>Marketing, Marketing, Marketing <BR>Would Tolkien have wanted the name of his books paraded around solely as a means of profit for the company producing his movies and the highest bidding organizations? <P><LI>The Changes<BR>J.R.R. Tolkien himself disapproved of almost all of the major changes made in the few other film adaptations (and there were many changes), and I doubt he would have wished for too much gutting and plot-changing, especially since a 9+ hour film trilogy should be able to adequately address the plot without making too many additions to the storyline and to the dialogue.</UL><P>I think we probably have about <B>zero</B> warnings left to get back on topic and stop machine gunning other posters before a mod wanders in and issues some smackdowns. __________________ But Gwindor answered: 'The doom lies in yourself, not in your name'.

12-16-2003, 05:49 PM	#69
QuickSlash Wight Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Not here. Posts: 121	To the point about marketing: I generally don't have much of a beef about that except for the very expensive things. Did they really need to make over-priced busts of the characters? I doubt it. Action figures, replicas, those are very nice. I'd like some replica jewlery and weapons myself, but I lack sufficient funds. <P>One problem, I do have, though, is something I saw on tv about an hour ago on TNT. I'm one of the people who stops everything s/he's doing when a commercial for the movie comes on, no matter how many times it's been seen. This time, however, they sliced in scenes of basketball for no apparent reason. It seemed to be made to glorify the sport (Using lines such as, 'Become who you are meant to be'), however, at the end, they only told when the movie will premiere. Seems rather pointless and degrading to the film to me.<P>As an afterthought, there's still what JRRT would've wanted. Personally, I don't think he would've wanted the movie made at all, so I suppose I'd say he wouldn't be happy with any of this wonderful nonsense. <p>[ 6:53 PM December 16, 2003: Message edited by: QuickSlash ] __________________ We're here and now, but will we ever be again? / 'Cause I have found / All that shimmers in this world is sure to fade, away, again. -Shimmer, Fuel

12-16-2003, 07:43 PM	#70
Finwe Deathless Sun Join Date: May 2003 Location: The Royal Suite in the Halls of Mandos Posts: 2,609	All I'm saying is be grateful that Peter Jackson didn't make the Balrog wear bunny slipper-like footwear. In Ralph Bakshi's version, the Balrog's feet looked like they were encased in bunny slippers. We should be grateful that we have a director of Peter's calibre, and not someone like Ralph Bakshi. I think we should take a couple of minute to calm down and be grateful to Peter for taking years out of his life to give us this epic. I don't think any one of us could have done it, ergo, we don't have the right to bash Peter for the choices that he made. __________________ But Melkor also was there, and he came to the house of Fëanor, and there he slew Finwë King of the Noldor before his doors, and spilled the first blood in the Blessed Realm; for Finwë alone had not fled from the horror of the Dark.

12-16-2003, 11:52 PM	#71
Dininziliel Wight Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: 3rd star from the right over Kansas Posts: 108	Finwe writes: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> All I'm saying is be grateful that Peter Jackson didn't make the Balrog wear bunny slipper-like footwear. In Ralph Bakshi's version, the Balrog's feet looked like they were encased in bunny slippers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well . . . here is the intro I've sort of been hoping would not arrive.<P>When Saruman is turning the pages of his tome on Moria and narrating the Balrog threat to Gandalf, there is a picture of said Balrog. Each and every one of the innumerable times I have seen this picture, a Bugs Bunny cartoon does a popup number in my head. It is one where Bugs ends up in a haunted castle inhabited by a mad scientist who creates a monster in his lab. This monster is red, furry, has a part down the middle of its furry head, and its head looks like broad shoulders tapering to the bottom. Whoever rendered that picture in FotR <I>had</I> to have seen that cartoon. I was much relieved upon seeing the "real" balrog. In fact, in my opinion, I think the balrog is <I>the</I> most underrated character in the whole extravaganza. I marvel each time I see it. To me, it is a masterpiece of cinematic artistry. I truly do admire what Jackson and crew did there.<P>It's just too bad we got so much wonderful perception-boggling spectacle and so little soul-enlarging story. <P>LotR is not in same league with <I>The Shining</I>. It is up there with the greatest books and plays of all time: Bible, Koran, Shakespeare, Bagghavad-gita (sp?). We are all having much the same reactions to the changes in LotR's story as we would if someone had scripted and directed the Christmas or crucifixion stories in the Bible but decided a few things needed to be changed for the sake of entertainment value.<P>The story touches something deep within us. Those of us who read the book first--especially those of us with 25+ years of repeated readings--have developed within our hearts and minds a cherished relationship with the story, its characters, and its author. Along with being a ripping good story, it instructs, inspires, illuminates and elevates the darker, heavier corners of human existence. <P>Again, if people come away from seeing one of the movies pondering and commenting on even one or two of the themes--faith, Love, commitment, hope, friendship, forgiveness, salvation, the wages of fear, the consequences of lusting for power and/or immortality--instead of the grandeur of special effects, stunts, and how cute an actor/actress was, then much can be forgiven. But I just don't see how that can happen. <P>A simple perusal of the headings for the movie reviews tell what the public mind has been well trained to see and find significant--" . . . Orcs! Battles . . .!" This is the movies' disservice and main crime to Tokienity. I agree with Pandora--the world is there but not the story. Without the story the world is simply a beautiful picture to look at. <P>Masterpieces are decided by time. As much as we would all like to have the definitive voice at this time, it is only possible to have opinions. Mine is that masterpieces don't cut from key moments too soon and don't have glaring continuity gaffes interspersed throughout the entire 9-12 hours. This is entirely independent from whether or not Jackson screwed the storyline.<P>The last thing to mention, is that Tolkien has been dinged by critics since day one who said LotR was lightweight airy fairy fare. The outrage and genuinely deep (and sometimes bitter) disappointment of so many of us attests to the power of fairy stories exactly as Tolkien delineated in his lectures and writings ("On Fairy Stories"). This is the other "crime" against Tolkienity, and maybe the highest crime--by playing up the stunts, tension, cliched "startle-izations" (Gandalf's sudden clutching at Frodo from dark corner, floaty ghouly faces in Dead Marshes, etc.), l-u-v, and contemporary gag angles (tossing, boarding, etc.), the movies would seem to validate Tolkien's critics--It's just a movie/story for kids or immature adults who can't handle reality.<P>When really, it is a story about the only way to handle reality--with faith, Love, and selfless commitment to something higher than one's personal life. And this does not include box office profit or public acclaim. __________________ "It is a journey without distance to a goal that has never changed."

12-17-2003, 02:52 AM	#72
Eurytus Wight Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: England Posts: 179	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The Changes<BR>J.R.R. Tolkien himself disapproved of almost all of the major changes made in the few other film adaptations (and there were many changes), and I doubt he would have wished for too much gutting and plot-changing, especially since a 9+ hour film trilogy should be able to adequately address the plot without making too many additions to the storyline and to the dialogue.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Actually the vast majority of the supposedly off-topic posts have been about this 3rd aspect of the original post. So linking to other threads about changes is not really the point. __________________ "This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story!" Lionel Hutz

12-17-2003, 03:00 AM	#73
Eurytus Wight Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: England Posts: 179	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> LotR is not in same league with The Shining. It is up there with the greatest books and plays of all time: Bible, Koran, Shakespeare, Bagghavad-gita (sp?). We are all having much the same reactions to the changes in LotR's story as we would if someone had scripted and directed the Christmas or crucifixion stories in the Bible but decided a few things needed to be changed for the sake of entertainment value.<P> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I am not religious but to anyone who is, this post is basically blasphemous. Even without looking at it from a religious background it is ludicrous to compare LOTR to the Bible, Qu’ran, or Shakespear. It’s impact is not even close. And before people start throwing “The Big Read” and “Book of the Century” style posts at me you might want to consider this. All the examples noted have so pervaded society that the stories are known, even by people who have not read these works. Phrases and terms from them have entered the lexicon. Many of our terms have Biblical origins.<BR>Compare LOTR’s impact and the comparison becomes even more ludicrous. Before the films I could conduct a straw poll of all the people known to me and I guarantee that no more than half of them had read LOTR and most of those would have no idea whatsoever of the content of the story. Beyond the fact that it was about dwarves and elves maybe. And the people I know are probably more of a literary bent than the general UK population.<BR>In my English class at school, out of a class of 30, perhaps a handful had read and were aware of the story of LOTR. I guarantee that all 30 knew the basic stories of Genesis, Noah, Jesus, Romeo & Juliet, Macbeth et all.<P>And despite the best efforts of some of the posters here no-one yet has sentenced someone to death for crimes against the LOTR. Ownership of countries have not been determined by passages from it. Crusades and holy wars have not been launched to reclaim territories described in it. And much as it may dissatisfy some, no-one but the criminally insane lives according to its statutes.<P>LOTR as big as the Bible. Dream on. __________________ "This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story!" Lionel Hutz

12-17-2003, 05:16 AM	#74
pandora Haunting Spirit Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 60	Well I'm glad the thread's been defused!<P>The role of religion in LotR and in relation to LotR is surely a new topic and a dangerous one given how many christians seem to use this board.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> the movies would seem to validate Tolkien's critics--It's just a movie/story for kids or immature adults who can't handle reality. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That's pretty well how I feel and why it winds me up so much; the idea that this is the image of JRRT's work that will be regarded as canonical by millions of people.<P>I have to say that the marketing hasn't bothered me one way or the other. <P>It may be that the marketing annoys those that like the films because they see it as unworthy of the project. I, on the other hand, feel that it exactly suited to the films: flashy and fun to look at but with no substance.<P>And lay off Bakshi. Leaving the technical issues aside which are a product of the budget not the director, if one compares the direction of the scenes shared between the animated version and FotR Bakshi is superior in just about every one. <P>For a particular instance which is a "Crime against Tolkienity": the Frodo/Bilbo ring sequence in Rivendell. The fact that this is often referred to as the "Bug-eye scene" tells you everything you need to know about Jacksons version's cheap shock tactics. Bakshi, on the other hand, gives us a scene of pathos where Bilbo is transformed in a different way. He shakes and his face contorts with supressed greed and we actually see him become pathetic and contemptible from Frodo's point of view. The long shot then shows that, without even realising it, Frodo has made a fist which is raising behind him. Then Bilbo masters himself and turns away becoming the simple old man that everyone loves from The Hobbit again, weary and tired from his unnaturally long life.<P>In this sequence Bakshi has shown us the devastating effect of the bearing of the Ring on poor old Bilbo and the fact that it already has its hooks into Frodo in a way that was moving and quite powerful, even offering some insight into the question of why death can be a gift rather than a curse. Jackson's version was a criminal waste of the situation.<P>Bakshi's version failed dispite its director's abilities because the technology and budget weren't there; Jackson's failed (for me) despite the big budget and technology because the director wasn't ready for a project where characters are so important.

12-17-2003, 05:36 AM	#75
Lalaith Blithe Spirit Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,876	With regard to Saucepan Man's comments, I should clarify that despite my criticisms I did enjoy the films enormously. And I certainly wasn't expecting to see some kind of Ingmar Bergman art-house flick, I'm all for good battle scenes....But because I care about the book, there were certain aspects that I found very frustrating and/or disappointing, times (dwarf-tossing springs to mind) when I was jolted out of my enjoyment and involvement with the action, with a wince.<BR>Rather like the little girl with the curl - when the films are good, they are very, very good, but when they are bad they are horrid.<p>[ 6:37 AM December 17, 2003: Message edited by: Lalaith ] __________________ Out went the candle, and we were left darkling