A HUGE problem with Bombadil's removal. - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

the Lorien wanderer · 06-07-2001, 04:54 AM

I didn't come up with this one. Just discovered it over at Entmoot. Here it is- <blockquote>Quote:<hr> "Now, Bombadil was the one who first armed the hobbits at the Barrow-downs... cut Bombadil, and you've effectively cut the Barrow-downs, unless you find some extraordinarily clever way around this technicality that would probably **** off us devoted fans anyway who want to see as little change from the original as possible. But then what of this passage from V.6 "The Battle of the Pelennor Fields" (p.141 in the Unwin paperback of RotK)? Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dunedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So logically, if you cut Bombadil, then doesn't that nullify Merry's role in assisting Eowyn with the slaying of the Witch-King? Of course, in the current 3-min teaser, in the shot at Weathertop, you see all the hobbits armed... but where do you get the blades from? How will they be armed, if Bombadil isn't around? " <hr></blockquote> Humour is emotional chaos remembered in moments of tranquility.

***The Barrow-Wight*** · 06-07-2001, 05:29 AM

The Barrow-blades were blades of Westernesse, which Aragorn most likely has a horde of in Rivendell (or elsewhere). It will be easy for Merry to get his sword from somewhere other than the Downs. The Barrow-Wight (RKittle) I usually haunt <a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com">The Barrow-Downs</a> and The Barrow-Downs <a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi">Middle-Earth Discussion Board</a>.

Odysseus819 · 06-07-2001, 08:16 AM

Amen to that. I've read several posts claiming that there's no plausible way for the hobbits to get swords if the movie cuts Tom. As the Wight says, they cd get them from Rivendell, or a troll hole, or the barrow (just without Tom's rescue) -- who cares? Once you decide that the TB passage is too long and otherwise unimportant (and in my view, just irritating), you are not going to be dissuaded by the minor problem of inventing another way to arm the hobbits. I think it's a good cut, particularly if (as the 2d trailer suggests) the director wants the movie to be somewhat "dark". By practice taught, I have learned patience, having much endured/ By tempest and in battle both. Come then This evil also! I am well prepared.

red · 06-07-2001, 02:34 PM

Having read Lorien wanderer's entire post, I still don't see any problem. *shrug* -réd <blockquote>"He was as noble and as fair in face as an elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wise as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind as summer." -A Short Rest, The Hobbit</blockquote>

**lindil** · 06-08-2001, 06:35 AM

It is only... It is only the same problem that afflicts every other part of the story that has been changed. You are now telling a similar story not the LotR, but an apocryphal wanna-be. Personally I would have opted for cutting the Bombadil/Barrowdown's scenes except as flashbacks during Frodo's recovery at R'dell while Gandalf is reading his mind, and as references later. We could have gotten a nice 45 second synopsis of the whole events and given 1st time viewrs a real tease, and purists alot less cause to gripe and a better film. hey this is the movie forum what am I doing here! Lindil is oft found on posting on the Silmarillion Project at the Barrowdowns and working on yet a 2nd new Elven/Christian discussion board<a href="http://pub72.ezboard.com/bosanwe" >Osanwe</a> 'The dwindling Men of the West would often sit up late into the night, and awaken early before dawn- exchanging lore and wisdom such as they possessed , so that they should not fall back into the mean and low estate of those , who never knew or more sadly still, had indeed rebelled against the Light.'

the Lorien wanderer · 06-08-2001, 08:12 AM

That's more or less what I thought lindil. Flashbacks would've been ideal. I no longer recognize LoTR the movie. At all. Do stop by the movie forum more often. We Sil-canon non-frequenters never get to see you here. Humour is emotional chaos remembered in moments of tranquility.

***Mister Underhill*** · 06-08-2001, 11:04 AM

I must confess that I am still mystified by the 'ultra-purist' stance. To Tolkien himself, the tales of M-E were a constant work-in-progress. He wrote different versions of the tales, some more detailed, some more compressed, some with this detail in, another version with that detail left out or altered. Do you mean you don't recognize it as in you refuse to acknowledge its existence or validity? It's just a movie.

GandaIf The White · 06-08-2001, 04:43 PM

Whether you are mad or just dont care about Bombadil.. I think that everyone.. EVERYONE!.. would rather have him in the movie than not. Who wouldnt want to see Tom? Hes the coolest. He is not essential to the story, but he will be missed. Even by Red. "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

red · 06-08-2001, 04:58 PM

NO problem with Bombadil's removal! Good riddance. Umm, no, Gandalf. How dare you presume to speak for me. I already told you I couldn't care less. I will not miss Bombadil. Never cared much about him at all. -rêd <blockquote>"He was as noble and as fair in face as an elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wise as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind as summer." -A Short Rest, The Hobbit</blockquote>

GandaIf The White · 06-08-2001, 07:57 PM

You are funny Red. Is Tom metioned in any of the other books or only in LOTR? "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

the Lorien wanderer · 06-08-2001, 09:19 PM

I don't recognize it as in it looks like a different story. I wasn't even thinking about not acknowledging it's existence-that's pretty impossible. As to not acknowldeging it's validity, I've been doing that since the start Underhill. Let me try and explain the purist point of view even though all you need to do is go to some of the old thread and see pages 2 and 3. Yeah, yeah we know that the movie is just an interpretation of Tolkien's work and all that. It's just that many of us feel PJ's interpretation sucks. No Bombadil, a warring Arwen, no barrowdowns-we can't see the LoTR we all love. Where is it? A lot of purists are bugged by the commercialization aspect of it too. The tie-up with Burger King has confirmed their fears. "Miniature Gandalfs holding swords and Aragorns armed with staffs with every meal of X $ and above." THAT is what the purist is worried about Underhill. The ultra-purist feels the movie shouldn't be made at all-by PJ or anyone else. Some things should be left alone. How can the best graphics designer in the world create a Lothlorien that will live up to our expectations (which are way too high perhaps but there it is). Every person's perception of LoTR is different. There is no way one interpretation will suit everyone. Elves, Ents, Hobbits-they're perfect in our minds. LoTr the movie will bring those images crashing down-at least for those who don't have a permanent middle-earth in their heads. The last point-people who haven't read LoTR before will now have a pre-conceived notion of the entire thing. "Arwen stayed home??!!!" "Who the hell is Tom Bombadil anyway?" "What is this site named after anyway?" And they won't have the joy of imagining their own Lothlorien and their own Rivendell, their own Aragorns. They won't feel the same chill of fear in Moria, and they won't see their very own Barad-dur. They won't even get to think up their own Gandalf-they'll see Peter Jackson's. Maybe the movie-supporters don't think it's that big a deal. Yes, more people will read LoTR, the graphics will be really great, and the movie (if you forget about the book for a while) will probably be fantastic. It just depends. Can you forget the book while watching the movie? And if you can't, will you still enjoy Pj's INTERPRETATION (yes, Red you've managed to beat it inot our heads at last)? Humour is emotional chaos remembered in moments of tranquility.

red · 06-09-2001, 06:48 AM

No problem with any removals <blockquote>Quote:<hr> The last point-people who haven't read LoTR before will now have a pre-conceived notion of the entire thing. "Arwen stayed home??!!!" "Who the hell is Tom Bombadil anyway?" "What is this site named after anyway?" And they won't have the joy of imagining their own Lothlorien and their own Rivendell, their own Aragorns. They won't feel the same chill of fear in Moria, and they won't see their very own Barad-dur. They won't even get to think up their own Gandalf-they'll see Peter Jackson's. Maybe the movie-supporters don't think it's that big a deal.<hr></blockquote> You're wrong. It isn't that I don't think it is a big deal. It is that I don't think it is true at all. I saw Jurassic Park before reading that book. I loved the book (and the movie!) but I decided that many of the characters didn't fit the movie's representations. And I had no problem at all imagining my own characters. Let me tell you, I am a scientist with very little creative abilities and if little ole me has that much of an imagination, then most anyone else who sees the LotR movies before reading the books can do just as well. If they can't, that isn't anyone's fault but their own. It certainly isn't Peter Jackson's. And maybe they LIKE Peter Jackson's Aragorn (I certainly do!!! *sigh*) or Gandalf, etc. and WANT to adopt them for their own. Nothing wrong with that! <blockquote>Quote:<hr> There is no way one interpretation will suit everyone.<hr></blockquote> No kidding. That is not the goal. When an artists creates a work, he isn't trying to please everyone. He's just creating! And who are you to say what themes are off limits to an artist?? ie. "Some things should be left alone." Are you the 'art-police'? Geez! Less whining takes place when they make a movie based on the Bible! LotR is fiction! Though some would argue that the Bible is too. hee hee. -rêd <blockquote>"He was as noble and as fair in face as an elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wise as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind as summer." -A Short Rest, The Hobbit</blockquote>

**lindil** · 06-09-2001, 11:40 AM

tLW, I must say I agree w/ you completely - I am v. willing to admit I belong in the purist camp w/ some ultra-purist concerns. I know that when i read Star wars expanded universe books , I have apicture of Luke Leiah and Han - straight out of the Movie [w/ a few gray hairs starting to show in the new series ] this is because of the multi-sensory bombardment that movies create, especially one;s which take place prior to having read the book. I am not carte-blanche against any M-E movies , I just think faithfulness to the dialoge and storyline is a minimum. -if you must delete do it, but don't start telling a different story - believe me the last thing I want to see is a forum dedicated to creating a new LotR canon to reconcile the Movie w/ the Book! Red typethed:"Geez! Less whining takes place when they make a movie based on the Bible! LotR is fiction! Though some would argue that the Bible is too. hee hee." Actually whenever there is a distorted and twisted attempt to make a movie/play out of various parts of the Bible - there is quite an uproar - I am remebering the last Temptation of Christ specificaly , and a far more shamelessly a recent play about Christ and the Apostles being portrayed as gay . These both rightfully created a much larger uproar than the LotR spats - because you are right red it is only a movie, but it is a movie portraying what several polls have seen as the most important book of the last Century and some would say millenium. Veracity of the Bible aside, hee hee. Lindil is oft found on posting on the Silmarillion Project at the Barrowdowns and working on yet a 2nd new Elven/Christian discussion board<a href="http://pub72.ezboard.com/bosanwe" >Osanwe</a> , and <A href="http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhir">Tar Ost-in-Eruhir</A>. and Finrod saith " Therefore Eru,if He will not relinquish His work to Melkor...then Eru must come in to conquer him.

***Mister Underhill*** · 06-09-2001, 06:00 PM

Well, I have to agree with réd pretty much straight down the line here. If your imaginative vision of Middle-earth is so fragile that the LotR movies will shatter it like a sledge hammer smashing into a China plate, then just don’t go to see them. But if PJ (or anybody else) wants to make a movie out of LotR, or people want to set its poems to song, or carve miniature figures representing its characters, or paint pictures inspired by its scenes, or make any other sort of creative response to it, then who are you or I to say that it shouldn’t be allowed? If you’re not interested, don’t go see it. What a sad world it would be if artists were restricted from approaching material that someone else considered “sacred”. In such a world, LotR, which borrows liberally from other, older cultural traditions and myths, wouldn’t exist – because its creation would have been outlawed! (“Gandalf a wizard? Everyone knows ‘Gandalf’ is a dwarf! How dare this upstart JRRT meddle with our sacred traditions!”) I understand your arguments. Maybe I would have better wondered why you insist on raining on the parade of everyone who does want to see the movies. So the interpretations of PJ, the actors, and all the other artists making the films may not match yours. But your glass-half-empty pessimism neglects to consider the possibility that this may not be a bad thing in every case. I read The Hobbit before I saw the Bakshi film – but I instantly dropped whatever feeble notion I had of how Gandalf spoke as soon as John Huston said, “I am Gandalf, and Gandalf means me!” I’m eternally grateful that Mr. Huston gave me that gift. The Gandalf I know is richer because of his performance. I’m confident that McKellan’s portrayal of Gandalf will be creative, insightful, and compelling – but in my head, when I read the books, I will always hear John Huston’s voice when Gandalf speaks. Conversely, I remember that the Bakshi Sam didn’t match my idea of Sam at all. So I just discarded it. I still have my Sam. PJ and his team may interpret scenes and characters in ways you hadn’t thought of before, or show you images that you’d never dreamed of (but that are just right!), or find interesting ways to fill in gaps that Tolkien left open to the imagination (just how did things go down in the frantic minutes prior to Boromir’s death?), or bring home the reality of some scenes in a way that a book just can’t do (nothing I’d read about D-Day – and I’d read plenty – could have prepared me for Spielberg’s interpretation in Saving Private Ryan). Take what you like and leave the rest. I’ve seen several trailers already, and I can tell you that none of the actors that I’ve seen so far matches my vision of the characters. Has my vision already been wiped out? Let me be clear: NO! Does the fact that the actors don’t match my vision dampen my enthusiasm for the movies by one iota? Again, NO! Lastly, I still don’t understand why action figures are so evil. I would have loved them when I was a kid – did in fact buy LotR-inspired metal figurines and role-playing games. Every year for Christmas for many years I got a Tolkien calender. I have fond memories of Star Wars figures, toys, lunchboxes, and sheets, and I imagine that twenty years from now all the unsuspecting (but lucky!) children who are about to be blown away by the movies will look back with the same deep love and wistful affection on hours and hours of play and enjoyment, and remember their LotR action figures as tokens of a childhood that was better because LotR was in it. When you think about it, the movies can’t subtract from your LotR experience – they can only add to it. Take what you like and leave the rest. Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000005>Mister Underhill</A> at: 6/9/01 8:35:52 pm

red · 06-09-2001, 06:18 PM

No problem with any removals. **wishes she were as eloquent as Underhill** -réd <blockquote>"He was as noble and as fair in face as an elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wise as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind as summer." -A Short Rest, The Hobbit</blockquote>

***Mister Underhill*** · 06-09-2001, 06:31 PM

Rest assured, réd, you have your own brand of salty eloquence!

red · 06-09-2001, 07:56 PM

? That last comment was a little TOO eloquent for me!! -réd <blockquote>"He was as noble and as fair in face as an elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wise as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind as summer." -A Short Rest, The Hobbit</blockquote>

the Lorien wanderer · 06-10-2001, 02:02 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> "It is that I don't think it is true at all. I saw Jurassic Park before reading that book. I loved the book (and the movie!) but I decided that many of the characters didn't fit the movie's representations. And I had no problem at all imagining my own characters. Let me tell you, I am a scientist with very little creative abilities and if little ole me has that much of an imagination, then most anyone else who sees the LotR movies before reading the books can do just as well. If they can't, that isn't anyone's fault but their own. It certainly isn't Peter Jackson's." <hr></blockquote> You're exceptional Red. That's not the way it works with most people. Perhaps you underestimate your imagination just because you're working in a scientific field. Whatever. I don't know. What I do know is that once a person sees a character or a place represented in a movie and then reads the book it is based on, imagining it themselves is very, very hard. Many times it is impossible. The movie image just keeps popping into your head, like it or not. Yes, there is no way one interpretation will suit everyone. The artist cannot create to please everyone, accepted. But let's for a moment think of everyone who hasn't read LoTR yet. It is a fact that Peter Jackson's creation is going to be the one they see when they finally read LoTR. You could say that that is their problem. If they're not imaginative enough to forget the movie and think up their own images of middle- earth then they deserve to not see it like we did. Sorry, I just don't feel about it that way. You could argue that perhaps they don't even WANT to imagine it on their own. I wouldn't want to rob even one person of the joy of that. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> "What a sad world it would be if artists were restricted from approaching material that someone else considered “sacred”." <hr></blockquote> At least stick to the original version! To see something you considor sacred being made into a not-so-great movie is bad enough. To see it murdered and torn apart and stuck together in such a way that it is no longer recognizable-that's sacrilege for the ultra-purist. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> "In such a world, LoTR, which borrows liberally from other, older cultural traditions and myths, wouldn’t exist – because its creation would have been outlawed!" <hr></blockquote> Borrows liberally. Does not prance about masquerading as an interpretation of something else. I'm glad you understand my arguements Underhill. I would be far gladder(that IS a word right?) if you would comprehend that I have no interest whatsoever in raining on anyone's parade. At all. It's great to know that there are so many LoTR readers who will see the movie and stay true to their own vision of LoTR, incorporating what they like from PJ's version. It's just that I'm against the movie for various aforementioned reasons. So you look forward to it and I will await it's arrival hoping but not expecting the best. Glass-half-empty pessimism? I think of it more as glass-half realism. Not empty not full. Just based on all that I have heard about the movie so far. I won't repeat all the changes that have been made, but that is what my outlook is based on. Frodo's perpetual 'I'm going to cry/scream/groan/collapse' look is also getting to me. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> "Has my vision already been wiped out? Let me be clear: NO! Does the fact that the actors don’t match my vision dampen my enthusiasm for the movies by one iota? Again, NO!" <hr></blockquote> I'm very happy for you. I'm just worried about everyone whose middle earth isn't on ground that firmly. More on action figures later. I have to go for lunch now. Humour is emotional chaos remembered in moments of tranquility.

GandaIf The White · 06-10-2001, 04:23 PM

All I'm saying is that I wish Tom were in the movie. I know I cant change what PJ has done, but I think its wrong. Just dont see how you cant miss him. But I cant change anyones mind so I wont try. Just seems like something will be missed. I was playing a game and chatting with some people who were excited about seeing the Movie. But when I mention Tom, all I get is "Who is Tom? A guard at Gondor?" :P "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

***Gilthalion*** · 06-10-2001, 05:34 PM

I seem to recall from Tolkien's Letters that he was willing to endure quite a lot of revision and compression for the sake of cinematic interpretation. I think when this has been brought up before, the term "sacrilige" or something like it has been used. This AIN'T Holy Scripture! And I don't think it will be "unrecognizable." From what I've seen so far, it will be simply wonderful, though necessarily different from my own private interpretation. I don't believe that most people who read (too few) will find their private interpretation shattered by the movie. And those who are inspired to read the book (who might otherwise have never picked it up, much less the rest of the Legendarium), will gain their own private interpretations as well. If they are mature, they will see the differences and many will appreciate the superior literary work. If not, then odds are they never would have picked it up in the first place. I think the movie is being done in the right spirit (so far) and that means a lot to me. Of course it will be done differently than my own solitary interpretation would have imposed. So what? Even those who never read the tales (who would never have read them anyway, most likely), will at least gain from the great Truths of the story and will learn from this Fairy Tale the lessons Tolkien taught. The caliber of the actors involved (Sir Ian Holm, Sir Ian McKlellan) and their own statements regarding what they have seen of the effort, make me as certain as can be prior to viewing, that this cinematic interpretation will indeed be a Good Thing. Most likely, it will prove to be one of the greatest movies (taken as a whole) of the 21st Century. It looks as if it will be the one to beat. And if you miss it, because you can't stand the thought of Burger King making a buck, then you are only depriving yourself. The consolation that one is a "purist" and has a "better" enjoyment of the original work somehow, is cold consolation indeed. Especially since the author himself was so willing to see the work filmed, and the story changed for the filming. All the same, I will miss Bombadil! <center> <a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com">Barrow-Downs</a>~<a href="http://www.geocities.com/robertwgardner2000">Bare Bones</a>~<a href="http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhir">Tar Ost-in-Eruhir</a>~<a href="http://www.geocities.com/robertwgardner2000/gilthalion.html">Grand Adventures</a>~<a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com/fanfichobbits.asp">The Hobbits</a>~<a href="http://www.tolkientrail.com">Tolkien Trail</a> </center>

Inziladun · 06-10-2001, 06:36 PM

Nice,TLW. It's hard thinking of anything new to add to all that. I find it increasingly difficult,in fact,to contribute to the entire Pro-movie/Anti-movie debate because the salient points seem to already have been made. I don't think it likely that anyone in either camp will "win over" someone of the opposite view. And that shouldn't be the aim anyway. I'm simply going to take the choice suggested (which I'd already decided anyway) and not see the movies. And it really isn't because my vision of it will be distorted or altered by Peter Jackson. It would be somewhat affected probably,and maybe even in a positive way as stated above. But I just don't believe what I get out of the books could be duplicated onscreen. For me,the books are always better than the movies. Expecting the movies to remain totally true to the books is a senseless concern,because they can't. That's why I think making the movies is pointless. If something can't be improved on,why try? As for action figures,I too had the Star Wars toys and played with them till they were all lost of destroyed (wish I'd had some foresight there!). But there's a difference. The Star Wars novel was written from the movie screenplay only a little while before the movie's release. Star Wars was always intended to be a movie. And movies,being commercial products in themselves,are licensing and toy friendly. But books are different. LoTR is a deep story with many seperate levels. There is so much there that is high and dark, layered with subtext and elegant dialogue. This does not translate well to action figures. A Gandalf figure,with "light up" staff,complete with Glamdring and removable hat,is difficult to reconcile with the serious yet intensely human Messenger sent to contest the power of Sauron in Middle Earth. By the same token,Gollum, with posable arms,fish,and glow in the dark eyes, is hard to see as the tortured hobbit who nearly turns his back on evil and regains his own identity in spite of his lust for the Ring. The subtleties of the multi-dimensional story are sacrificed for the one-dimensional needs of the product. When everything fun and magical is turned into something for sale,the book's world is diminished. Judging from comments I've seen,I suspect this is an extreme view. For those who disagree,you are welcome to see the movies,buy the action figures,the lunch boxes,and anything else,with no disparaging comment from me. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Those who will defend authority against rebellion must not themselves rebel. Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000125>Inziladu n</A> at: 6/11/01 12:54:13 am

06-10-2001, 06:56 PM

As someone who has grappled with creating a script based on LotR I agree with those here who feel it is not a huge problem plot-wise. I also cut Bombadil and the Barrow-downs...and much more. My original script was 250 pages and had to be cut down to 125. I made the decision that the show really had to hang on the relationship between Frodo and Sam and their attempt to destroy the Ring and the relationship between Gandalf and Aragorn and their challenges in directing the forces of the West. If an element of the novel did not directly affect either of those, I was hard pressed to include it. While I have no warring Arwen, I do have Eowyn at the Council of Elrond in order to introduce her character earlier in the show. If anyone is interested, there is a synopsis of the script and an author's notes section at my site <a href="http://members.theglobe.com/theonering/themusical">THE ONE RING, the musical</a>

***Gilthalion*** · 06-11-2001, 05:36 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> That's why I think making the movies is pointless. If something can't be improved on,why try? <hr></blockquote> I don't think you understand the point of making a movie. If one wanted to "improve" on the original work, one would rew[/b] the book. Filming a movie, interpreting the story for cinema, is an entirely different matter. And I notice that none of the "purists" can defend the fact that their standard of purity, a regard of the work as something holy and untouchable, was not shared by the author. Why deny yourselves the pleasure of what will no doubt be a truly great motion picture experience, shared by millions upon millions who will be introduced to Middle-earth? Tolkien himself looked forward to a time when such things would be done. He hoped that others would use pen and brush and drama to bring their own interpretations to the grand mythology he created. He well understood the differences between the art forms. His aim was that the stories be told! We are on the verge of one of the defining cultural experiences of the 21st century, and we are on the cutting edge of it. Rather take Our Precious and go hide in a hole under the root of a mountain, we should be glad that others will be introduced to the great stories and the marvelous Truths they convey. The literati of the world have an extremely dark opinion of Tolkien's work, hating it and all it stands for. With this cinematic interpretation, their post-modern Mordorian darkness is cast aside, and the masses will learn what we already know. All the same, I will miss Bombadil. <center> <a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com">Barrow-Downs</a>~<a href="http://www.geocities.com/robertwgardner2000">Bare Bones</a>~<a href="http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhir">Tar Ost-in-Eruhir</a>~<a href="http://www.geocities.com/robertwgardner2000/gilthalion.html">Grand Adventures</a>~<a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com/fanfichobbits.asp">The Hobbits</a>~<a href="http://www.tolkientrail.com">Tolkien Trail</a> </center>

Odysseus819 · 06-11-2001, 08:57 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> It is a movie portraying what several polls have seen as the most important book of the last Century and some would say millenium. <hr></blockquote> What polls were those? We all love Tolkien on this site, but let's not get carried away. By practice taught, I have learned patience, having much endured/ By tempest and in battle both. Come then This evil also! I am well prepared.

***The Barrow-Wight*** · 06-11-2001, 09:14 AM

He's not making this stuff up: <a href="http://www.salonmag.com/books/feature/2001/06/04/tolkien/index.html">Look Here</a> The Barrow-Wight (RKittle) I usually haunt <a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com">The Barrow-Downs</a> and The Barrow-Downs <a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi">Middle-Earth Discussion Board</a>.

the Lorien wanderer · 06-11-2001, 09:15 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> "It is a movie portraying what several polls have seen as the most important book of the last Century and some would say millenium." <hr></blockquote> Perhaps a bit of an exaggeration but it's quite true that many, besides Tolkien fanatics, agree with that. As to the rest of it, let's just leave it at 'to each his own' till a new point is brought up.. Humour is emotional chaos remembered in moments of tranquility.Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000038>the Lorien wanderer</A> at: 6/12/01 2:16:17 am

***The Barrow-Wight*** · 06-11-2001, 09:47 AM

Wonderful snippet of Gilthalion's post, but what does it signify? The Barrow-Wight (RKittle) I usually haunt <a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com">The Barrow-Downs</a> and The Barrow-Downs <a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi">Middle-Earth Discussion Board</a>.

Odysseus819 · 06-11-2001, 10:41 AM

I didn't think Lindil was making it up, and I'm not questioning the bona fides of the polls (I guess), but MOST IMPT. BOOK OF THE MILLENIUM? I seriously doubt that JRRT himself wd make that claim. By practice taught, I have learned patience, having much endured/ By tempest and in battle both. Come then This evil also! I am well prepared.

***Mister Underhill*** · 06-11-2001, 11:20 AM

Heh. When someone tells me they're a "realist", I grab my wallet. I couldn't agree more heartily with Gilthalion's posts. To assert that the movies are "unrecognizable" as LotR is a fine example of hyperbole, but as an argument it doesn't hold much water. The principal characters, the main movements of the story, and most importantly the grand themes and truths that are wound through it and which have made it so enduring will all be there. With regards to action figures: Inziladun, all the things you say about the depth and dimension of LotR and its characters are true, but LotR is also this, in JRRT's words: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> I was primarily writing an exciting story in an atmosphere and background such as I find personally attractive. <hr></blockquote>If the movie is successful, children will respond to the subtleties of the characters, at least on a subconscious level, in much the same way that children in my day responded to the implications of Darth Vader as Luke's father and other subtextual layers of Star Wars. In the meantime, they'll have toys they can use to take Frodo & Co. on adventures of their own creation. What's wrong with that?

GandaIf The White · 06-11-2001, 02:16 PM

I dont want to stop the excellent conversation here, but everyone is talking so much about a simple thing. We all wish Tom was in the movie, but he's not. Learn to live with it and hope more changes aren't made. Because, while this is only an interperitation of Tolkiens books, it will effect how people think of them. Here is a good Quote from Ian Mckellen (Who seems to be as wise as Gandalf himself) about the changes in the Movie. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Q: The LOTR website fans are overwhelmingly anxious about the present (presumed) mistreatment of the novel, obviously a much-beloved classic, and I have to wonder if, in your memory, a book of these dimensions has ever made the transition to film relatively intact? Why film a great story with great characters...by changing the story and removing the characters?<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> A: Lord of the Rings is perhaps the most faithful screenplay ever adapted from a long novel. This is not just because our writing quartet is devoted to the original and would share other fans' resentment if it were "mistreated". Tolkien has an advantage over Dickens, Tolstoy and other epic writers. His storylines have a clear sweep and are less concerned with the byways and subplots which characterise 19th century novels. Consequently the major milestones of the Fellowship's journey are intact. Inevitably, even in a three-film version, there will be some omissions of characters and elisions of events but as the story unfolds onscreen and as the landscapes are seen for the first time, little will be missed. The enthusiasts who have read the novels over and over may notice every change but in doing so they will miss the point. Peter Jackson's movie does not challenge the novel's supremacy any more than the distinguished book illustrations by Howe, Lee at all were meant to replace Tolkien's descriptive words. Paintings, drawings, animations and at last the feature films all augment our appreciation of Lord of the Rings. And just watch the book sales rise as New Line's publicity for the film gears up. Another point on this, the question that dominates my email: the adaptation of masterpieces from one medium to another is as old as literature. Most of Shakespeare's plays are re-workings of stories, poems or written history. When I moved Richard III from stage to screen, I was determined to make a good film in honour of a great play. Had I left every scene and line of the text intact in the movie, it would not have been a good one. Kurosawa's Throne of Blood, my favourite version of the Macbeth saga, distorts Shakespeare to spectacular effect. The play which inspired it remains intact.<hr></blockquote> I am PO'd about Tom being taken, but I cant wait to see the movie. "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000064>GandaIf The White</A> at: 6/11/01 4:18:16 pm

red · 06-11-2001, 02:54 PM

Eh??? <blockquote>Quote:<hr> That's why I think making the movies is pointless. If something can't be improved on,why try?<hr></blockquote> I just had to comment on this one too. Where in the world did you get the idea that Peter Jackson and Co. were attempting or had any ideas at all in their minds of improving upon the Lord of the Rings?????? They are simply making a way cool movie based on a way cool book. There are no thoughts of 'improving upon' or 'trying to top' or even 'I think my way is best'. He's making the movie because he's a huge fan (just like us) who has the talent, ambition, know-who and money to do it! Go PJ!! -réd <blockquote>"He was as noble and as fair in face as an elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wise as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind as summer." -A Short Rest, The Hobbit</blockquote>

**lindil** · 06-11-2001, 10:56 PM

A snake w/ legs. My last bit on the movies [probably] till I see the Fellowship.Because as has been pointed out we all stand on this where we do -because we want to. Each of us loves the Legendarium for our own reasons and we all seem grown up enough to have figured out how to safeguard that relationship. Maybe I am not the purist I hoped I was becauseI am not at all against the movies being attempted, I am however puzzled by the desire to spend however many millions it is on the things and then start monkeying w/ the storyline. I can live w/ Gandalf hitting his head on a low Bag-End [although it sounds dumb], and a troll spearing frodo in moria instead of the uruk-hai and minor verbal emmendations to make the story flow better, but the Arwen/Saruman changes I have heard tell of and elves arriving in battles they were never at is plain stupid and unnecessary, reminds me of JRRT's criticism of zimmerman's [?] screenplay he looked at ,where eagles were inserted to resolve all travelling difficulties.Sure JRRT was willing to sell the rights to the film and he knew it could not be perfect or even likly to be excellent. But he still came down like a ton of bricks on anything that was plain dumb, if I recall the letters correctly. Cuts - sad but OK, serious alterations - these will only take away from the film over the length of time. While I agree w/ much of tLW on th eeffects of full-scale cinematic assault on private visualization of the books [and this is of course an individuallly experienced phenom.] , I however don't think the movies will be unrecognizable - the problem will be the opposite, Arwen doing un-Arwenesque things that were never even remotely suggested in the books will be nails on chalkboard for me - Ican't speak for anyone else but the fact that the majority of the movie by all accounts will be following the story and very well done then szkchreeeeeeechghh, out comes some bizarre 'interpretation'. This will be downright annoying, not sacreligious. Gilthalion is of course correct ,it is not the Bible, but it is something that has developed an integrity of it's own that deserves to be reproduced as faithfully as possible, I think .I will see the movie at least once, out of curiosity, just as i have seen all the others and I am sure in most resepects this will be head and shoulders over the others, but a stain on patterned fabric is just that. there is a chinese story about a painting contest, and one of the better painter's completed his excellent and sure to win work so much faster than all the other contestants that he decided to go a step further and paint legs on his snake. When the judges gave out the awards the painter was shocked that his excellent snake had not won anything. Why? he asked the judges- "because snakes don't have legs"they said. Lindil is oft found on posting on the Silmarillion Project at the Barrowdowns and working on yet a 2nd new Elven/Christian discussion board<a href="http://pub72.ezboard.com/bosanwe" >Osanwe</a> , and <A href="http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhir">Tar Ost-in-Eruhir</A>. and Finrod saith " Therefore Eru,if He will not relinquish His work to Melkor...then Eru must come in to conquer him.

the Lorien wanderer · 06-12-2001, 12:35 AM

The point has been made. Clearly enough. Gandalf-we're not just about Tom's removal. There are many other unnecessary changes in the movie. If PJ is presenting his own interpretation of a tale he loves and admires, I feel he should be as true to it as possible. Why make uncalled-for changes? The removal of Tom Bombadil I can still understand. It would make the movie too long and non Tolkien readers would never get it. But the expansion of Arwen's role-what for? And why must the elves fight a battle at all? Perhaps it's passed of as artistic liscense but I just don't see the point. Rest easy about the wallet Underhill. I said realistic, not cynical. Humour is emotional chaos remembered in moments of tranquility.

KayQy · 06-13-2001, 01:13 AM

Quote from way back there: Frodo's perpetual 'I'm going to cry/scream/groan/collapse' look is also getting to me. Gotta agree with you there. Why do they keep choosing the same expressions for the promo pics? I think we should all just chill until December. Might it be possible that we're... overreacting? Previews and summaries are notorious for failing to accurately describe a movie, after all. Frodo can't be having a nervous breakdown through the entire movie. (I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope...you know if you clap your hands and say, "I believe in fairies," Tinkerbell will come back to life...) Dang it, optimism and cynicism are just too closely intertwined in me. Guess that's what I get for being a romantic modern American. But I'm still gonna see the movie. With or without Tom. I do not know that we can have a heaven here on earth, but I am sure we need not have a hell here either. --Rich Mullins

GandaIf The White · 06-13-2001, 02:21 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> "That's why I think making the movies is pointless. If something can't be improved on,why try?"<hr></blockquote> Well, if the book cant be improved upon, and PJ thinks that too, why is he adding characters and scenes into the Movie. Not just for a change of pace, but because he thinks it will make it better. There is his folly.. "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

Inziladun · 06-13-2001, 02:37 PM

I've gotta stop stirring up this hornet's nest. Insinuating Jackson wanted to improve on the books was not my intention. I should have said "The books cannot be done justice in a movie forum." I just don't see how it's possible to condense each book into a format so limited by time constraints,and succeed in capturing the magic of it all. But if more people are introduced to Tolkien and his works,and moved to read and enjoy them,none will be more pleased than I. I just don't want people to miss the point,to see this as just another movie with a lot of hype and toys the kids clamor for. Star Wars was able to capture both a hugely successful toy market,and a devoted fan base,but it is certainly in the minority. I don't want LoTR trivialised by any of this,that's all. I guess a wait-and-see additude is the only way to go. Those who will defend authority against rebellion must not themselves rebel.

***The Barrow-Wight*** · 06-13-2001, 02:47 PM

PJ isn't seeking to improve anything. He's simply accomodating actors, the public masses and financiers. And to do that he has to make changes here and there - some of them big ones. The Barrow-Wight (RKittle) I usually haunt <a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com">The Barrow-Downs</a> and The Barrow-Downs <a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi">Middle-Earth Discussion Board</a>.

GandaIf The White · 06-13-2001, 10:04 PM

That is the thing. Why dont they just make the movies a half hour longer and include everything. They could cover Tom fully in that timeframe. Long movies are great.. the people who havent read LOTR would like it, and the people who have would be more than pleased to see Tom and the hobbits inside his house. I personally looked forward to that part because I wanted to see the hobbits listening to Tom by the fire. And I have always wanted to see the hobbits dreams of that night. Writing down what is missing makes me miss it more. I dont know about you, but the lengthy talking scenes in LOTR always had me fixed, especially when someone like Tom was talking. "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

***Mister Underhill*** · 06-14-2001, 07:46 AM

An extra half an hour on three movies is roughly the equivalent of making a fourth movie. Meaning an extra $75-100 million in production costs. If you want an answer to your question, that's the simplest one right there.

GandaIf The White · 06-14-2001, 03:57 PM

He only has 90 Million to spend on each movie, so that doesnt make sense. And, Im sure, that everything included with Toms house etc.. wouldnt cost as much as seeing 15 seconds of Gollum walking around because of how much computer animation costs. "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

06-07-2001, 04:54 AM	#1
the Lorien wanderer Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 276	A HUGE problem with Bombadil's removal. <BR>I didn't come up with this one. Just discovered it over at Entmoot. Here it is-<br> <br> <blockquote><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> "Now, Bombadil was the one who first armed the hobbits at the Barrow-downs... cut Bombadil, and you've effectively cut the Barrow-downs, unless you find some extraordinarily clever way around this technicality that would probably **** off us devoted fans anyway who want to see as little change from the original as possible.<br> <br> But then what of this passage from V.6 "The Battle of the Pelennor Fields" (p.141 in the Unwin paperback of RotK)?<br> <br> <br> Quote:<br> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br> "So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dunedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will."<br> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br> <br> <br> So logically, if you cut Bombadil, then doesn't that nullify Merry's role in assisting Eowyn with the slaying of the Witch-King?<br> <br> Of course, in the current 3-min teaser, in the shot at Weathertop, you see all the hobbits armed... but where do you get the blades from? How will they be armed, if Bombadil isn't around? " <hr></blockquote><br> <br> <p>Humour is emotional chaos remembered in moments of tranquility.</p>

06-07-2001, 05:29 AM	#2
*The Barrow-Wight* Night In Wight Satin Join Date: May 2000 Posts: 4,058	<BR><br><br> The Barrow-blades were blades of Westernesse, which Aragorn most likely has a horde of in Rivendell (or elsewhere). It will be easy for Merry to get his sword from somewhere other than the Downs. <p>The Barrow-Wight (RKittle)<br> I usually haunt <a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com">The Barrow-Downs</a> and The Barrow-Downs <a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi">Middle-Earth Discussion Board</a>.</p> __________________ The Barrow-Wight

06-07-2001, 08:16 AM	#3
Odysseus819 Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 699	<BR><br><br> Amen to that. I've read several posts claiming that there's no plausible way for the hobbits to get swords if the movie cuts Tom. As the Wight says, they cd get them from Rivendell, or a troll hole, or the barrow (just without Tom's rescue) -- who cares? Once you decide that the TB passage is too long and otherwise unimportant (and in my view, just irritating), you are not going to be dissuaded by the minor problem of inventing another way to arm the hobbits. I think it's a good cut, particularly if (as the 2d trailer suggests) the director wants the movie to be somewhat "dark". <p>By practice taught, I have learned patience, having much endured/ By tempest and in battle both. Come then This evil also! I am well prepared.</p>

06-07-2001, 02:34 PM	#4
red Spirit of Mischief Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Land of the free and home of the brave Posts: 368	<BR><br><br> Having read Lorien wanderer's entire post, I still don't see any problem. shrug<br> <br> -réd <p><blockquote><p>"He was as noble and as fair in face as an elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wise as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind as summer."</p> <p>-A Short Rest, <i>The Hobbit</i></p></blockquote></p> __________________ "Cats are like greatness: Some people are born into cat-loving families, some achieve cats, and some have cats thrust upon them." -William H. A. Carr

06-08-2001, 06:35 AM	#5
lindil Seeker of the Straight Path Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: a hidden fastness in Big Valley nor cal Posts: 1,681	<BR>It is only...</b><br><br> It is only the same problem that afflicts every other part of the story that has been changed. You are now telling a similar story not the LotR, but an apocryphal wanna-be.<br> Personally I would have opted for cutting the Bombadil/Barrowdown's scenes except as flashbacks during Frodo's recovery at R'dell while Gandalf is reading his mind, and as references later.<br> We could have gotten a nice 45 second synopsis of the whole events and given 1st time viewrs a real tease, and purists alot less cause to gripe and a better film. <br> <br> hey this is the movie forum what am I doing here!<br> <br> <br> <p>Lindil</b> is oft found on posting on<i> the Silmarillion Project </i> at the Barrowdowns and working on yet a 2nd new Elven/Christian discussion board<a href="http://pub72.ezboard.com/bosanwe" >Osanwe</a><i> 'The dwindling Men of the West would often sit up late into the night, and awaken early before dawn- exchanging lore and wisdom such as they possessed , so that they should not fall back into the mean and low estate of those , who never knew or more sadly still, had indeed rebelled against the Light.'</i> </p> __________________ The dwindling Men of the West would often sit up late into the night exchanging lore & wisdom such as they still possessed that they should not fall back into the mean estate of those who never knew or indeed rebelled against the Light.

06-08-2001, 08:12 AM	#6
the Lorien wanderer Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 276	<BR><br><br> That's more or less what I thought lindil. Flashbacks would've been ideal. I no longer recognize LoTR the movie. At all.<br> Do stop by the movie forum more often. We Sil-canon non-frequenters never get to see you here. <p>Humour is emotional chaos remembered in moments of tranquility.</p>

06-08-2001, 11:04 AM	#7
*Mister Underhill* Dread Horseman Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Behind you! Posts: 2,752	<BR><br><br> I must confess that I am still mystified by the 'ultra-purist' stance. To Tolkien himself, the tales of M-E were a constant work-in-progress. He wrote different versions of the tales, some more detailed, some more compressed, some with this detail in, another version with that detail left out or altered. <br> <br> Do you mean you don't recognize it as in you refuse to acknowledge its existence or validity? <br> <br> It's just a movie. <br> <p></p>

06-08-2001, 04:43 PM	#8
GandaIf The White Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 267	<BR><br><br> Whether you are mad or just dont care about Bombadil.. I think that everyone.. EVERYONE!.. would rather have him in the movie than not. Who wouldnt want to see Tom? Hes the coolest.<br> <br> He is not essential to the story, but he will be missed. Even by Red. <p>"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."</p>

06-08-2001, 04:58 PM	#9
red Spirit of Mischief Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Land of the free and home of the brave Posts: 368	<BR>NO problem with Bombadil's removal! Good riddance.</b><br><br> Umm, no, Gandalf. How dare you presume to speak for me. I already told you I couldn't care less. I will not miss Bombadil. Never cared much about him at all.<br> <br> -rêd <p><blockquote><p>"He was as noble and as fair in face as an elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wise as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind as summer."</p> <p>-A Short Rest, <i>The Hobbit</i></p></blockquote></p> __________________ "Cats are like greatness: Some people are born into cat-loving families, some achieve cats, and some have cats thrust upon them." -William H. A. Carr

06-08-2001, 07:57 PM	#10
GandaIf The White Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 267	<BR><br><br> You are funny Red. Is Tom metioned in any of the other books or only in LOTR? <p>"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."</p>

06-08-2001, 09:19 PM	#11
the Lorien wanderer Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 276	<BR><br><br> I don't recognize it as in it looks like a different story. I wasn't even thinking about not acknowledging it's existence-that's pretty impossible. As to not acknowldeging it's validity, I've been doing that since the start Underhill.<br> Let me try and explain the purist point of view even though all you need to do is go to some of the old thread and see pages 2 and 3. Yeah, yeah we know that the movie is just an interpretation of Tolkien's work and all that. It's just that many of us feel PJ's interpretation sucks. No Bombadil, a warring Arwen, no barrowdowns-we can't see the LoTR we all love. Where is it? A lot of purists are bugged by the commercialization aspect of it too. The tie-up with Burger King has confirmed their fears. "Miniature Gandalfs holding swords and Aragorns armed with staffs with every meal of X $ and above." THAT is what the purist is worried about Underhill. <br> The ultra-purist feels the movie shouldn't be made at all-by PJ or anyone else. Some things should be left alone. How can the best graphics designer in the world create a Lothlorien that will live up to our expectations (which are way too high perhaps but there it is). Every person's perception of LoTR is different. There is no way one interpretation will suit everyone. Elves, Ents, Hobbits-they're perfect in our minds. LoTr the movie will bring those images crashing down-at least for those who don't have a permanent middle-earth in their heads.<br> The last point-people who haven't read LoTR before will now have a pre-conceived notion of the entire thing. "Arwen stayed home??!!!" "Who the hell is Tom Bombadil anyway?" "What is this site named after anyway?" And they won't have the joy of imagining their own Lothlorien and their own Rivendell, their own Aragorns. They won't feel the same chill of fear in Moria, and they won't see their very own Barad-dur. They won't even get to think up their own Gandalf-they'll see Peter Jackson's.<br> Maybe the movie-supporters don't think it's that big a deal. Yes, more people will read LoTR, the graphics will be really great, and the movie (if you forget about the book for a while) will probably be fantastic. It just depends. Can you forget the book while watching the movie? And if you can't, will you still enjoy Pj's INTERPRETATION (yes, Red you've managed to beat it inot our heads at last)? <p>Humour is emotional chaos remembered in moments of tranquility.</p>

06-09-2001, 06:48 AM	#12
red Spirit of Mischief Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Land of the free and home of the brave Posts: 368	<BR>No problem with any removals</b><br><br> <blockquote><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> The last point-people who haven't read LoTR before will now have a pre-conceived notion of the entire thing. "Arwen stayed home??!!!" "Who the hell is Tom Bombadil anyway?" "What is this site named after anyway?" And they won't have the joy of imagining their own Lothlorien and their own Rivendell, their own Aragorns. They won't feel the same chill of fear in Moria, and they won't see their very own Barad-dur. They won't even get to think up their own Gandalf-they'll see Peter Jackson's. Maybe the movie-supporters don't think it's that big a deal.<hr></blockquote><br> You're wrong. It isn't that I don't think it is a big deal. It is that I don't think it is true at all. I saw Jurassic Park before reading that book. I loved the book (and the movie!) but I decided that many of the characters didn't fit the movie's representations. And I had no problem at all</b> imagining my own characters. Let me tell you, I am a scientist with very little creative abilities and if little ole me has that much of an imagination, then most anyone else who sees the LotR movies before reading the books can do just as well. If they can't, that isn't anyone's fault but their own. It certainly isn't Peter Jackson's. And maybe they LIKE Peter Jackson's Aragorn (I certainly do!!! sigh) or Gandalf, etc. and WANT to adopt them for their own. Nothing wrong with that!<br> <br> <blockquote><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> There is no way one interpretation will suit everyone.<hr></blockquote><br> No kidding. That is not the goal. When an artists creates a work, he isn't trying to please everyone. He's just creating! And who are you to say what themes are off limits to an artist?? ie. "Some things should be left alone." Are you the 'art-police'?<br> <br> Geez! Less whining takes place when they make a movie based on the Bible! LotR is fiction! Though some would argue that the Bible is too. hee hee.<br> <br> -rêd <p><blockquote><p>"He was as noble and as fair in face as an elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wise as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind as summer."</p> <p>-A Short Rest, <i>The Hobbit</i></p></blockquote></p> __________________ "Cats are like greatness: Some people are born into cat-loving families, some achieve cats, and some have cats thrust upon them." -William H. A. Carr

06-09-2001, 11:40 AM	#13
lindil Seeker of the Straight Path Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: a hidden fastness in Big Valley nor cal Posts: 1,681	<BR><br><br> tLW, I must say I agree w/ you completely - I am v. willing to admit I belong in the purist camp w/ some ultra-purist concerns. I know that when i read Star wars expanded universe books , I have apicture of Luke Leiah and Han - straight out of the Movie [w/ a few gray hairs starting to show in the new series ] this is because of the multi-sensory bombardment that movies create, especially one;s which take place prior to having read the book.<br> I am not carte-blanche against any M-E movies , I just think faithfulness to the dialoge and storyline is a minimum. -if you must delete do it, but don't start telling a <i> different story </i>- believe me the last thing I want to see is a forum dedicated to creating a new LotR canon to reconcile the Movie w/ the Book! <br> <br> <br> Red typethed:"Geez! Less whining takes place when they make a movie based on<br> the Bible! LotR is fiction! Though some would argue that the Bible is<br> too. hee hee."<br> <br> Actually whenever there is a distorted and twisted attempt to make a movie/play out of various parts of the Bible - there is quite an uproar<br> - I am remebering the last Temptation of Christ specificaly , and a far more shamelessly a recent play about Christ and the Apostles being portrayed as gay . These both rightfully created a much larger uproar than the LotR spats - because you are right red it is only a movie, but it is a movie portraying what several polls have seen as the most important book of the last Century and some would say millenium.<br> <br> Veracity of the Bible aside, hee hee.<br> <br> <br> <p>Lindil</b> is oft found on posting on<i> the Silmarillion Project </i> at the Barrowdowns and working on yet a 2nd new Elven/Christian discussion board<a href="http://pub72.ezboard.com/bosanwe" >Osanwe</a><i> , and <A href="http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhir">Tar Ost-in-Eruhir</A>. and Finrod saith " Therefore Eru,if He will not relinquish His work to Melkor...then Eru must come in to conquer him.</i> </p> __________________ The dwindling Men of the West would often sit up late into the night exchanging lore & wisdom such as they still possessed that they should not fall back into the mean estate of those who never knew or indeed rebelled against the Light.

06-09-2001, 06:00 PM	#14
*Mister Underhill* Dread Horseman Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Behind you! Posts: 2,752	<BR><br><br> Well, I have to agree with réd pretty much straight down the line here. If your imaginative vision of Middle-earth is so fragile that the LotR movies will shatter it like a sledge hammer smashing into a China plate, then just don’t go to see them. But if PJ (or anybody else) wants to make a movie out of LotR, or people want to set its poems to song, or carve miniature figures representing its characters, or paint pictures inspired by its scenes, or make any other sort of creative response to it, then who are you or I to say that it shouldn’t be allowed? If you’re not interested, don’t go see it. What a sad world it would be if artists were restricted from approaching material that someone else considered “sacred”. In such a world, LotR, which borrows liberally from other, older cultural traditions and myths, wouldn’t exist – because its creation would have been outlawed! (“Gandalf a wizard? Everyone knows ‘Gandalf’ is a dwarf! How dare this upstart JRRT meddle with our sacred traditions!”)<br> <br> I understand your arguments. Maybe I would have better wondered why you insist on raining on the parade of everyone who <i> does</i> want to see the movies. So the interpretations of PJ, the actors, and all the other artists making the films may not match yours. But your glass-half-empty pessimism neglects to consider the possibility that this may not be a bad thing in every case. I read <i> The Hobbit</i> before I saw the Bakshi film – but I instantly dropped whatever feeble notion I had of how Gandalf spoke as soon as John Huston said, “I am Gandalf, and Gandalf means me!” I’m eternally grateful that Mr. Huston gave me that gift. The Gandalf I know is richer because of his performance. I’m confident that McKellan’s portrayal of Gandalf will be creative, insightful, and compelling – but in my head, when I read the books, I will always hear John Huston’s voice when Gandalf speaks. Conversely, I remember that the Bakshi Sam didn’t match my idea of Sam at all. So I just discarded it. I still have my Sam.<br> <br> PJ and his team may interpret scenes and characters in ways you hadn’t thought of before, or show you images that you’d never dreamed of (but that are just right!), or find interesting ways to fill in gaps that Tolkien left open to the imagination (just how did things go down in the frantic minutes prior to Boromir’s death?), or bring home the reality of some scenes in a way that a book just can’t do (nothing I’d read about D-Day – and I’d read plenty – could have prepared me for Spielberg’s interpretation in <i> Saving Private Ryan</i>). Take what you like and leave the rest. I’ve seen several trailers already, and I can tell you that <u>none</u> of the actors that I’ve seen so far matches my vision of the characters. Has my vision already been wiped out? Let me be clear: <u>NO!</u></b> Does the fact that the actors don’t match my vision dampen my enthusiasm for the movies by one iota? Again, <u>NO! </u></b><br> <br> Lastly, I still don’t understand why action figures are so evil. I would have loved them when I was a kid – did in fact buy LotR-inspired metal figurines and role-playing games. Every year for Christmas for many years I got a Tolkien calender. I have fond memories of <i> Star Wars</i> figures, toys, lunchboxes, and sheets, and I imagine that twenty years from now all the unsuspecting (but lucky!) children who are about to be blown away by the movies will look back with the same deep love and wistful affection on hours and hours of play and enjoyment, and remember their LotR action figures as tokens of a childhood that was better because LotR was in it. <br> <br> When you think about it, the movies can’t subtract from your LotR experience – they can only add to it. Take what you like and leave the rest. <br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000005>Mister Underhill</A> at: 6/9/01 8:35:52 pm<br></i>

06-09-2001, 06:18 PM	#15
red Spirit of Mischief Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Land of the free and home of the brave Posts: 368	<BR>No problem with any removals.</b><br><br> wishes she were as eloquent as Underhill<br> <br> -réd <p><blockquote><p>"He was as noble and as fair in face as an elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wise as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind as summer."</p> <p>-A Short Rest, <i>The Hobbit</i></p></blockquote></p> __________________ "Cats are like greatness: Some people are born into cat-loving families, some achieve cats, and some have cats thrust upon them." -William H. A. Carr

06-09-2001, 06:31 PM	#16
*Mister Underhill* Dread Horseman Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Behind you! Posts: 2,752	<BR><br><br> Rest assured, réd, you have your own brand of salty eloquence! <p></p>

06-09-2001, 07:56 PM	#17
red Spirit of Mischief Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Land of the free and home of the brave Posts: 368	<BR>?</b><br><br> That last comment was a little TOO eloquent for me!! <br> <br> -réd <p><blockquote><p>"He was as noble and as fair in face as an elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wise as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind as summer."</p> <p>-A Short Rest, <i>The Hobbit</i></p></blockquote></p> __________________ "Cats are like greatness: Some people are born into cat-loving families, some achieve cats, and some have cats thrust upon them." -William H. A. Carr

06-10-2001, 02:02 AM	#18
the Lorien wanderer Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 276	<BR><br><br> <blockquote><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> "It is that I don't think it is true at all. I saw Jurassic Park before reading that book. I loved the book (and the movie!) but I decided that many of the characters didn't fit the movie's representations. And I had no problem at all imagining my own characters. Let me tell you, I am a scientist with very little creative abilities and if little ole me has that much of an imagination, then most anyone else who sees the LotR movies before reading the books can do just as well. If they can't, that isn't anyone's fault but their own. It certainly isn't Peter Jackson's." <hr></blockquote><br> <br> You're exceptional Red. That's not the way it works with most people. Perhaps you underestimate your imagination just because you're working in a scientific field. Whatever. I don't know. What I do know<br> is that once a person sees a character or a place represented in a movie and then reads the book it is based on, imagining it themselves is very, very hard. Many times it is impossible. The movie image<br> just keeps popping into your head, like it or not.<br> <br> Yes, there is no way one interpretation will suit everyone. The artist cannot create to please everyone, accepted. But let's for a moment think of everyone who hasn't read LoTR yet. It is a fact that Peter Jackson's creation is going to be the one they see when they finally read LoTR. You could say that that is their problem. If they're not imaginative enough to forget the movie and think up their own images of middle-<br> earth then they deserve to not see it like we did. Sorry, I just don't feel about it that way. You could argue that perhaps they don't even WANT to imagine it on their own. I wouldn't want to rob even one person of the joy of that.<br> <blockquote><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> "What a sad world it would be if artists were restricted from approaching material that someone else considered “sacred”." <hr></blockquote><br> At least stick to the original version! To see something you considor sacred being made into a not-so-great movie is bad enough. To see it murdered and torn apart and stuck together in such a way that it is no longer recognizable-that's sacrilege for the ultra-purist.<br> <br> <blockquote><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> "In such a world, LoTR, which borrows liberally from other, older cultural traditions and myths, wouldn’t exist – because its creation would have been outlawed!" <hr></blockquote><br> Borrows liberally. Does not prance about masquerading as an interpretation of something else.<br> <br> I'm glad you understand my arguements Underhill. I would be far gladder(that IS a word right?) if you would comprehend that I have no interest whatsoever in raining on<br> anyone's parade. At all. It's great to know that there are so many LoTR readers who will see the movie and stay true to their own vision of LoTR, incorporating what they like from PJ's version. It's just that I'm against the movie for <br> various aforementioned reasons. So you look forward to it and I will await it's arrival hoping but not expecting the best.<br> <br> Glass-half-empty pessimism? I think of it more as glass-half realism. Not empty not full. Just based on all that I have heard about the movie so far.<br> I won't repeat all the changes that have been made, but that is what my outlook is based on. Frodo's perpetual 'I'm going to cry/scream/groan/collapse' look is also getting to me. <br> <blockquote><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> "Has my vision already been wiped out? Let me be clear: NO! Does the fact that the actors don’t match my vision dampen my enthusiasm for the movies by one iota? Again, NO!" <hr></blockquote><br> I'm very happy for you. I'm just worried about everyone whose middle earth isn't on ground that firmly.<br> More on action figures later. I have to go for lunch now. <p>Humour is emotional chaos remembered in moments of tranquility.</p>

06-10-2001, 04:23 PM	#19
GandaIf The White Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 267	<BR><br><br> All I'm saying is that I wish Tom were in the movie. I know I cant change what PJ has done, but I think its wrong. Just dont see how you cant miss him. But I cant change anyones mind so I wont try.<br> <br> Just seems like something will be missed. I was playing a game and chatting with some people who were excited about seeing the Movie. But when I mention Tom, all I get is "Who is Tom? A guard at Gondor?" :P <p>"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."</p>

06-10-2001, 05:34 PM	#20
*Gilthalion* Hobbitus Emeritus Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: South Farthing Posts: 635	<BR><br><br> I seem to recall from Tolkien's Letters that he was willing to endure quite a lot of revision and compression for the sake of cinematic interpretation.<br> <br> I think when this has been brought up before, the term "sacrilige" or something like it has been used. This AIN'T Holy Scripture!<br> <br> And I don't think it will be "unrecognizable."<br> <br> From what I've seen so far, it will be simply wonderful, though necessarily different from my own private interpretation.<br> <br> I don't believe that most people who read (too few) will find their private interpretation shattered by the movie. And those who are inspired to read the book (who might otherwise have never picked it up, much less the rest of the Legendarium), will gain their own private interpretations as well. If they are mature, they will see the differences and many will appreciate the superior literary work. If not, then odds are they never would have picked it up in the first place.<br> <br> I think the movie is being done in the right spirit (so far) and that means a lot to me. Of course it will be done differently than my own solitary interpretation would have imposed. So what?<br> <br> Even those who never read the tales (who would never have read them anyway, most likely), will at least gain from the great Truths of the story and will learn from this Fairy Tale the lessons Tolkien taught.<br> <br> The caliber of the actors involved (Sir Ian Holm, Sir Ian McKlellan) and their own statements regarding what they have seen of the effort, make me as certain as can be prior to viewing, that this cinematic interpretation will indeed be a Good Thing. Most likely, it will prove to be one of the greatest movies (taken as a whole) of the 21st Century.<br> <br> It looks as if it will be the one to beat.<br> <br> And if you miss it, because you can't stand the thought of Burger King making a buck, then you are only depriving yourself. The consolation that one is a "purist" and has a "better" enjoyment of the original work somehow, is cold consolation indeed. Especially since the author himself was so willing to see the work filmed, and the story changed for the filming.<br> <br> All the same, I will miss Bombadil! <p><center> <a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com">Barrow-Downs</a>~<a href="http://www.geocities.com/robertwgardner2000">Bare Bones</a>~<a href="http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhir">Tar Ost-in-Eruhir</a>~<a href="http://www.geocities.com/robertwgardner2000/gilthalion.html">Grand Adventures</a>~<a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com/fanfichobbits.asp">The Hobbits</a>~<a href="http://www.tolkientrail.com">Tolkien Trail</a> </center></p> __________________ Please read my fan fiction novel THE HOBBITS. Wanna hear me read Tolkien? Gilthalion's Grand Adventures!

06-10-2001, 06:36 PM	#21
Inziladun Gruesome Spectre Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Heaven's doorstep Posts: 8,058	<BR><br><br> Nice,TLW. It's hard thinking of anything new to add to all that.<br> I find it increasingly difficult,in fact,to contribute to the entire Pro-movie/Anti-movie debate because the salient points seem to already have been made. I don't think it likely that anyone in either camp will "win over" someone of the opposite view. And that shouldn't be the aim anyway. I'm simply going to take the choice suggested (which I'd already decided anyway) and not see the movies. And it really isn't because <br> my vision of it will be distorted or altered by Peter Jackson.<br> It would be somewhat affected probably,and maybe even in a positive way as stated above. But I just don't believe what I get out of the books could be duplicated onscreen. For me,the books are <i> always</i> better than the movies.<br> Expecting the movies to remain totally true to the books is a senseless concern,because they <i> can't</i>. <br> That's why I think making the movies is pointless. If something can't be improved on,why try? <br> As for action figures,I too had the Star Wars toys and played with them till they were all lost of destroyed (wish I'd had some foresight there!). But there's a difference. The Star Wars novel was written from the movie screenplay only a little while before the movie's release. <i> Star Wars</i> was always intended to be a movie. And movies,being commercial products in themselves,are licensing and toy friendly. But books are <i> different</i>. LoTR is a deep story with many seperate levels. There is so much there that is high and dark, layered with subtext and elegant dialogue. This does not translate well to action figures. A Gandalf figure,with "light up" staff,complete with Glamdring and removable hat,is difficult to reconcile with the serious yet intensely <i> human</i> <br> Messenger sent to contest the power of Sauron in Middle Earth. By the same token,Gollum, with posable arms,fish,and glow in the dark eyes, is hard to see as the tortured hobbit who nearly turns his back on evil and regains his own identity in spite of his lust for the Ring. The subtleties of the multi-dimensional story are sacrificed for the one-dimensional needs of the product. When everything fun and magical is turned into something for sale,the book's world is diminished. <br> Judging from comments I've seen,I suspect this is an extreme view. For those who disagree,you are welcome to see the movies,buy the action figures,the lunch boxes,and anything else,with no disparaging comment from me. We'll just have to agree to disagree.<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <p>Those who will defend authority against rebellion must not themselves rebel. </p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000125>Inziladu n</A> at: 6/11/01 12:54:13 am<br></i> __________________ Music alone proves the existence of God.

06-10-2001, 06:56 PM	#22
hamatime Guest Posts: n/a	<BR><br><br> As someone who has grappled with creating a script based on LotR I agree with those here who feel it is not a huge problem plot-wise. I also cut Bombadil and the Barrow-downs...and much more. My original script was 250 pages and had to be cut down to 125. I made the decision that the show really had to hang on the relationship between Frodo and Sam and their attempt to destroy the Ring and the relationship between Gandalf and Aragorn and their challenges in directing the forces of the West. If an element of the novel did not directly affect either of those, I was hard pressed to include it. While I have no warring Arwen, I do have Eowyn at the Council of Elrond in order to introduce her character earlier in the show.<br> <br> If anyone is interested, there is a synopsis of the script and an author's notes section at my site <a href="http://members.theglobe.com/theonering/themusical">THE ONE RING, the musical</a><br> <p></p>

06-11-2001, 05:36 AM	#23
*Gilthalion* Hobbitus Emeritus Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: South Farthing Posts: 635	<BR><br><br> <blockquote><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> That's why I think making the movies is pointless. If something can't be improved on,why try? <hr></blockquote><br> <br> I don't think you understand the point of making a movie.<br> <br> If one wanted to <i> "improve"</i> on the original work, one would <i> rew</b></i>[/b] the <u>book</u>.<br> <br> Filming a movie, interpreting the story for cinema, is an entirely different matter.<br> <br> And I notice that none of the "purists" can defend the fact that their standard of purity, a regard of the work as something holy and untouchable, was not shared by the author.<br> <br> Why deny yourselves the pleasure of what will no doubt be a truly great motion picture experience, shared by millions upon millions who will be introduced to Middle-earth? Tolkien himself looked forward to a time when such things would be done. He hoped</b> that others would use pen and brush and drama to bring their own interpretations to the grand mythology he created. He well understood the differences between the art forms. His aim was that the stories be told!<br> <br> We are on the verge of one of the defining cultural experiences of the 21st century, and we are on the cutting edge of it.<br> <br> Rather take Our Precious and go hide in a hole under the root of a mountain, we should be glad that others will be introduced to the great stories and the marvelous Truths they convey. The literati of the world have an extremely dark opinion of Tolkien's work, hating it and all it stands for.<br> <br> With this cinematic interpretation, their post-modern Mordorian darkness is cast aside, and the masses will learn what we already know.<br> <br> All the same, I will miss Bombadil. <p><center> <a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com">Barrow-Downs</a>~<a href="http://www.geocities.com/robertwgardner2000">Bare Bones</a>~<a href="http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhir">Tar Ost-in-Eruhir</a>~<a href="http://www.geocities.com/robertwgardner2000/gilthalion.html">Grand Adventures</a>~<a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com/fanfichobbits.asp">The Hobbits</a>~<a href="http://www.tolkientrail.com">Tolkien Trail</a> </center></p> __________________ Please read my fan fiction novel THE HOBBITS. Wanna hear me read Tolkien? Gilthalion's Grand Adventures!

06-11-2001, 08:57 AM	#24
Odysseus819 Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 699	<BR><br><br> <blockquote><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> It is a movie portraying what several polls have seen as the most important book of the last Century and some would say millenium. <hr></blockquote><br> <br> What polls were those? We all love Tolkien on this site, but let's not get carried away.<br> <br> <p>By practice taught, I have learned patience, having much endured/ By tempest and in battle both. Come then This evil also! I am well prepared.</p>

06-11-2001, 09:14 AM	#25
*The Barrow-Wight* Night In Wight Satin Join Date: May 2000 Posts: 4,058	<BR><br><br> He's not making this stuff up: <br> <br> <a href="http://www.salonmag.com/books/feature/2001/06/04/tolkien/index.html">Look Here</a> <p>The Barrow-Wight (RKittle)<br> I usually haunt <a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com">The Barrow-Downs</a> and The Barrow-Downs <a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi">Middle-Earth Discussion Board</a>.</p> __________________ The Barrow-Wight

06-11-2001, 09:15 AM	#26
the Lorien wanderer Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 276	<BR><br><br> <blockquote><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> "It is a movie portraying what several polls have seen as the most important book of the last Century and some would say millenium." <hr></blockquote> <br> Perhaps a bit of an exaggeration but it's quite true that many, besides Tolkien fanatics, agree with that.<br> <br> As to the rest of it, let's just leave it at 'to each his own' till a new point is brought up.. <p>Humour is emotional chaos remembered in moments of tranquility.</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000038>the Lorien wanderer</A> at: 6/12/01 2:16:17 am<br></i>

06-11-2001, 09:47 AM	#27
*The Barrow-Wight* Night In Wight Satin Join Date: May 2000 Posts: 4,058	<BR><br><br> Wonderful snippet of Gilthalion's post, but what does it signify? <p>The Barrow-Wight (RKittle)<br> I usually haunt <a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com">The Barrow-Downs</a> and The Barrow-Downs <a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi">Middle-Earth Discussion Board</a>.</p> __________________ The Barrow-Wight

06-11-2001, 10:41 AM	#28
Odysseus819 Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 699	<BR><br><br> I didn't think Lindil was making it up, and I'm not questioning the bona fides of the polls (I guess), but MOST IMPT. BOOK OF THE MILLENIUM? I seriously doubt that JRRT himself wd make that claim. <p>By practice taught, I have learned patience, having much endured/ By tempest and in battle both. Come then This evil also! I am well prepared.</p>

06-11-2001, 11:20 AM	#29
*Mister Underhill* Dread Horseman Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Behind you! Posts: 2,752	<BR><br><br> Heh. When someone tells me they're a "realist", I grab my wallet. <br> <br> I couldn't agree more heartily with Gilthalion's posts. To assert that the movies are "unrecognizable" as LotR is a fine example of hyperbole, but as an argument it doesn't hold much water. The principal characters, the main movements of the story, and most importantly the grand themes and truths that are wound through it and which have made it so enduring will all be there. <br> <br> With regards to action figures: Inziladun, all the things you say about the depth and dimension of LotR and its characters are true, but LotR is also this, in JRRT's words: <blockquote><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> I was primarily writing an exciting story in an atmosphere and background such as I find personally attractive. <hr></blockquote>If the movie is successful, children will respond to the subtleties of the characters, at least on a subconscious level, in much the same way that children in my day responded to the implications of Darth Vader as Luke's father and other subtextual layers of <i> Star Wars</i>. In the meantime, they'll have toys they can use to take Frodo & Co. on adventures of their own creation. What's wrong with that? <br> <br> <p></p>

06-11-2001, 02:16 PM	#30
GandaIf The White Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 267	<BR><br><br> I dont want to stop the excellent conversation here, but everyone is talking so much about a simple thing. We all wish Tom was in the movie, but he's not. Learn to live with it and hope more changes aren't made. Because, while this is only an interperitation of Tolkiens books, it will effect how people think of them.<br> <br> Here is a good Quote from Ian Mckellen (Who seems to be as wise as Gandalf himself) about the changes in the Movie.<br> <br> <blockquote><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> Q: The LOTR website fans are overwhelmingly anxious about the present (presumed) mistreatment of the novel, obviously a much-beloved classic, and I have to wonder if, in your memory, a book of these dimensions has ever made the transition to film relatively intact? Why film a great story with great characters...by changing the story and removing the characters?<hr></blockquote><br> <br> <blockquote><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> A: Lord of the Rings is perhaps the most faithful screenplay ever adapted from a long novel. This is not just because our writing quartet is devoted to the original and would share other fans' resentment if it were "mistreated". Tolkien has an advantage over Dickens, Tolstoy and other epic writers. His storylines have a clear sweep and are less concerned with the byways and subplots which characterise 19th century novels. Consequently the major milestones of the Fellowship's journey are intact. Inevitably, even in a three-film version, there will be some omissions of characters and elisions of events but as the story unfolds onscreen and as the landscapes are seen for the first time, little will be missed.<br> <br> The enthusiasts who have read the novels over and over may notice every change but in doing so they will miss the point. Peter Jackson's movie does not challenge the novel's supremacy any more than the distinguished book illustrations by Howe, Lee at all were meant to replace Tolkien's descriptive words. Paintings, drawings, animations and at last the feature films all augment our appreciation of Lord of the Rings. And just watch the book sales rise as New Line's publicity for the film gears up.<br> <br> Another point on this, the question that dominates my email: the adaptation of masterpieces from one medium to another is as old as literature. Most of Shakespeare's plays are re-workings of stories, poems or written history. When I moved Richard III from stage to screen, I was determined to make a good film in honour of a great play. Had I left every scene and line of the text intact in the movie, it would not have been a good one. Kurosawa's Throne of Blood, my favourite version of the Macbeth saga, distorts Shakespeare to spectacular effect. The play which inspired it remains intact.<hr></blockquote><br> <br> I am PO'd about Tom being taken, but I cant wait to see the movie.<br> <p>"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000064>GandaIf The White</A> at: 6/11/01 4:18:16 pm<br></i>

06-11-2001, 02:54 PM	#31
red Spirit of Mischief Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Land of the free and home of the brave Posts: 368	<BR>Eh???</b><br><br> <blockquote><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> That's why I think making the movies is pointless. If something can't be improved on,why try?<hr></blockquote><br> <br> I just had to comment on this one too. Where in the world did you get the idea that Peter Jackson and Co. were attempting or had any ideas at all in their minds of <i> improving</i> upon the Lord of the Rings?????? They are simply making a way cool movie based on a way cool book. There are no thoughts of 'improving upon' or 'trying to top' or even 'I think my way is best'. He's making the movie because he's a huge fan (just like us) who has the talent, ambition, know-who and money to do it! Go PJ!!<br> <br> -réd <p><blockquote><p>"He was as noble and as fair in face as an elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wise as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind as summer."</p> <p>-A Short Rest, <i>The Hobbit</i></p></blockquote></p> __________________ "Cats are like greatness: Some people are born into cat-loving families, some achieve cats, and some have cats thrust upon them." -William H. A. Carr

06-11-2001, 10:56 PM	#32
lindil Seeker of the Straight Path Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: a hidden fastness in Big Valley nor cal Posts: 1,681	<BR>A snake w/ legs.</b><br><br> My last bit on the movies [probably] till I see the Fellowship.Because as has been pointed out we all stand on this where we do -because we want to. Each of us loves the Legendarium for our own reasons and we all seem grown up enough to have figured out how to safeguard that relationship.<br> <br> Maybe I am not the purist I hoped I was becauseI am not at all against the movies being attempted, I am however puzzled by the desire to spend however many millions it is on the things and then start monkeying w/ the storyline. I can live w/ Gandalf hitting his head on a low Bag-End [although it sounds dumb], and a troll spearing frodo in moria instead of the uruk-hai and minor verbal emmendations to make the story flow better, but the Arwen/Saruman changes I have heard tell of and elves arriving in battles they were never at is plain stupid and unnecessary, reminds me of JRRT's criticism of zimmerman's [?] screenplay he looked at ,where eagles were inserted to resolve all travelling difficulties.Sure JRRT was willing to sell the rights to the film and he knew it could not be perfect or even likly to be excellent. But he still came down like a ton of bricks on anything that was plain dumb, if I recall the letters correctly.<br> Cuts - sad but OK,<br> serious alterations - these will only take away from the film over the length of time.<br> <br> While I agree w/ much of tLW on th eeffects of full-scale cinematic assault on private visualization of the books [and this is of course an individuallly experienced phenom.] , I however don't think the movies will be unrecognizable - the problem will be the opposite, Arwen doing un-Arwenesque things that were never even remotely suggested in the books will be nails on chalkboard for me - Ican't speak for anyone else but the fact that the majority of the movie by all accounts will be following the story and very well done then szkchreeeeeeechghh, out comes some bizarre 'interpretation'. This will be downright annoying, not sacreligious. Gilthalion is of course correct ,it is not the Bible, but it is something that has developed an integrity of it's own that deserves to be reproduced as faithfully as possible, I think .I will see the movie at least once, out of curiosity, just as i have seen all the others and I am sure in most resepects this will be head and shoulders over the others, but a stain on patterned fabric is just that. <br> <br> there is a chinese story about a painting contest, and one of the better painter's completed his excellent and sure to win work so much faster than all the other contestants that he decided to go a step further and paint legs on his snake. When the judges gave out the awards the painter was shocked that his excellent snake had not won anything. Why? he asked the judges- "because snakes don't have legs"they said.<br> <br> <p>Lindil</b> is oft found on posting on<i> the Silmarillion Project </i> at the Barrowdowns and working on yet a 2nd new Elven/Christian discussion board<a href="http://pub72.ezboard.com/bosanwe" >Osanwe</a><i> , and <A href="http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhir">Tar Ost-in-Eruhir</A>. and Finrod saith " Therefore Eru,if He will not relinquish His work to Melkor...then Eru must come in to conquer him.</i> </p> __________________ The dwindling Men of the West would often sit up late into the night exchanging lore & wisdom such as they still possessed that they should not fall back into the mean estate of those who never knew or indeed rebelled against the Light.

06-12-2001, 12:35 AM	#33
the Lorien wanderer Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 276	<BR><br><br> The point has been made. Clearly enough. <br> Gandalf-we're not just about Tom's removal. There are many other unnecessary changes in the movie. If PJ is presenting his own interpretation of a tale he loves and admires, I feel he should be as true to it as possible. Why make uncalled-for changes? The removal of Tom Bombadil I can still understand. It would make the movie too long and non Tolkien readers would never get it.<br> But the expansion of Arwen's role-what for? And why must the elves fight a battle at all? Perhaps it's passed of as artistic liscense but I just don't see the point.<br> <br> Rest easy about the wallet Underhill. I said realistic, not cynical. <p>Humour is emotional chaos remembered in moments of tranquility.</p>

06-13-2001, 01:13 AM	#34
KayQy Wight Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Currently Spain Posts: 250	<BR><br><br> Quote from way back there:<br> <br> <i> Frodo's perpetual 'I'm going to cry/scream/groan/collapse' look is also getting to me. </i><br> <br> Gotta agree with you there. Why do they keep choosing the same expressions for the promo pics? <br> <br> I think we should all just chill until December. Might it be possible that we're... <i> overreacting?</i> Previews and summaries are notorious for failing to accurately describe a movie, after all. Frodo can't be having a nervous breakdown through the <i> entire</i> movie. (I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope...you know if you clap your hands and say, "I believe in fairies," Tinkerbell will come back to life...)<br> <br> Dang it, optimism and cynicism are just too closely intertwined in me. Guess that's what I get for being a romantic modern American. But I'm still gonna see the movie. With or without Tom. <p><i>I do not know that we can have a heaven here on earth, but I am sure we need not have a hell here either. --Rich Mullins</i></p> __________________ Do you really want to know / Or are you a little scared, Afraid that God is not exactly what you'd have Him be? --OC Supertones, "Wilderness" "Good sense about trivialities is better than nonsense about things that matter." -- Max Beerbohm

06-13-2001, 02:21 PM	#35
GandaIf The White Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 267	<BR><br><br> <blockquote><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> "That's why I think making the movies is pointless. If something can't be improved on,why try?"<hr></blockquote><br> <br> Well, if the book cant be improved upon, and PJ thinks that too, why is he adding characters and scenes into the Movie. Not just for a change of pace, but because he thinks it will make it better. There is his folly.. <p>"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."</p>