Jackson got it right on the Scouring

[Gwaimir Windgem]

As to 'opening up the world of Middle-earth': the books were around, and have been around, forever. People have been able to. The truth is that a number of people today are downright illiterate, or have very poor reading skills. More can't be bothered to read books, regardless. Even more wouldn't dream of trying to tackle something like LOTR, and would just say 'I've seen the movie, so I know what happens'. While some good has come of it, it still is untrue to the story and the spirit of Tolkien. Doesn't that matter to anyone? If you paint a painting, and someone else makes a torn-up copy, what is the good of showing it to others?

[Insidious Rex]

Its not a copy of a book. Its a movie. Its a fundamentaly different medium. If someone had written a comic book based loosly on lord of the rings that would be equivilant to what you said and you would be more justified in having a fit about it. And be careful most people would read your words here and write you off as simply an elietist Tolkien geek rather then someone who truly loves the art of Tolkiens words and the magic of his written creation which I know you are.

I think what we need here is a control group of people who saw the movies FIRST and that caused them to go out and read the books and see what their opinions of both the movies and the books are. I really wonder how many would say the books were horrible. I bet most people who actually picked up the books BECAUSE of the movie found they loved the books as well.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

But how many folk would bother to pick up a book that size? Face it, we're not living in an intellectual or literary world.

[Insidious Rex]

You know in the name of full disclosure I have to admit that before the movies came out I was one of those people who just loved the fact that Tolkien was basically an underground phenomenon and not at all main stream. And that most people were intimidated by the very idea of wading into all the writings. And that somehow made me and fellow readers special and I felt smug about that. But then I kind of lost touch with it for a while and then the fury about the movies started and I rediscovered it all over again so I guess thats why I preach about the good that the movies can do. Because it brought me back to the books. And now Ive read the Silmarillion and others that I never bothered to get through before.

[Cirdan]

There are many younger people who have been drawn to the book by exposure to the film. The sales of the book have benefitted greatly by the publicity. I'm sure there are those that will not read the books even after seeing the movie, but the odds that they would have ever read it is slim anyway.

Some folks just want to see hot elves.

[Black Breathalizer]

I love your debating style, Cirdan. Whenever someone calls you on a point, you resort to personal attacks. I will be more than happy to talk about PJ's directorial creativity AFTER you tell me exactly how he was supposed to break all the rules to create better movies. I'd love to hear what Master Director Cirdan would have done differently. You made the point, now please defend it.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I find these comments particularly odd coming from a poster who has routinely criticised PJ for not providing us with a more literal adaptation of Tolkien's book. Yessiree, Cirdan. Jackson should have followed the rebellous, break the rules, nonconformist lead of director, Chris Columbus, when he filmed his Harry Potter movies straight from the books. Yes, now THAT was inspired film-making!

I would be fascinated to hear how our resident critic would have advised PJ to break the rules in order to achieve something greater than the two LOTR movies we've seen to date.

Look at your first sentence in your response to my post. You attack me personally without even addressing what I posted. Yesiree? What kind of response do you think that childish sort of language is going to elicit? I posted nothing regarding you in my post. Resident critic? Oh that's not a personal attack. You obviously talking about PJ here, right? I see nothing in this post that even addresses what I posted. I don't think that deriding HP even makes a point whatsoever.

I made the point that PJ's style is conservative and I have posted reasons. You can't come up with anything other than asking me to lay out a different plan for directing the film. Would you like me to build you a theatre as well? This is just a red herring because you apparently have nothing to say in the contrary. I made the point. You're welcome to make the counterpoint, if you can.

[Black Breathalizer]

Thank you so much for your thoughtful and detailed response, Cirdan. I now feel foolish for not simply accepting your blanket criticisms on face value. I'm going to trust your judgement that Peter Jackson is a conservative director whose directorial decisions lie in stark contrast to those of a true artist who is willing to break the rules and do something daring.

Even though I am still looking for the reasons you've evidently outlined elsewhere on this board, nevertheless, your post has helped me to understand the depth of your knowledge on this subject so much better than I did before.

Your biggest fan,
BB

[Cirdan]

I'm sorry to hear that you need to be spoon feed concepts and the meaning of what a concervative approach to film making means versus a radical approach. Maybe if your responses weren't always derisive and sarcastic, even when you don't comprehend what the other poster has written, people would be interested in sharing details view rather than just basic opinion. As it is it would be a waste of time.

[azalea]

Please be careful everyone. I know you guys enjoy arguing, and I support your posting to defend what you've said, but just don't go over the line.

In respose to IR and GW's conversation: LotR was more mainstream than a lot of us might think. Certainly not as much as it is now, but a lot of people were into it before the movies came out. Also, I met a guy the other night who was in the middle of reading TTT, after he had seen the movies. I think the movies have prompted many people to read the books who might not have otherwise. Besides the two "main" works, it WAS hard to find ME/Tolkien books in bookstores, unless you special ordered -- and now there are large displays of them everywhere. I am glad the movies were made at all -- after a long time of waiting for someone to do a live action version, I thought it would never get done! But there is nothing wrong with critiquing, and one must admit that enough things were changed, and some quite dramatically, for us to be justified in being annoyed.

[Black Breathalizer]

Yep, I crossed the line...I was a baaaad boy. It was just too tempting and easy a target. Sorry Super Moderator

People may disagree about some of his screenplay decisions, but it's hard to argue that Jackson's film direction has been anything but brilliant. It is no easy task to film a movie that can be epic AND intimate at the same time. I also love the way he uses his cameras to create a sense of energy and excitement.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

That depends on whether or not you considered it to be really an epic film. And anyway, all it takes is a few 'Evenstar' shots and kissing scenes to make it 'intimate'.

[Nurvingiel]

Oh sure BB, take a shot at him in your apology. But it's all good, jolly, LotR times.

Well, I'm sad that the Scouring won't be in RotK, but I will still go and see it, probably more than once. This is because, despite its flaws (which aren't too numerous) they're still great movies. We're just debating the fine points here.

I think the quality of RotK will suffer because of it's lack of hobbit battle action and the proper death of Saruman, but there will still be other great features that will make me love the movie over all.

[Gilraen]

You know, I read LoTR and The Hobbit a long time ago. I really didn't know anyone else who read them and I never had anyone with whom to discuss them. Then many years later, rumors of a live action movie began, and suddenly people around me began talking about Tolkien. I discovered that a lot people I knew HAD in fact read his books. Others ran out and read them after seeing the movies. And now they're reading other Tolkien works, his biography, other fantasy novels. I now have real live people with whom I can discuss all of this. We have very varied opinions on the movie adaptations (Bakshi's included), and some of the ones I've heard put BB & Cirdan's to shame. My point is, many more people are now discussing Tolkien and the books and reading his works. I am actually having dialogues with others (y'all included)! Whether you think PJ is a movie making buffoon or genius, you cannot deny that the movies have gotten some people to READ. Even if it is only 1 person, even if you think the general populace out there is illiterate, it can only be a good thing that someone actually picked up one of his books and read it.

[Nurvingiel]

I think the movies are great too, especially since they got more people to read the books and talk about them.

I also think that RotK would be improved even further if it was four hours long and included the Scouring.

It's true that's only one detail, but this thread is about one detail. In that sense, Jackson did not get it right on the Scouring. This doesn't mean RotK won't be good, it just means it should have the Scouring.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I agree completely.

[Black Breathalizer]

I honestly believe that the ROTK will be THE BEST movie I will ever see. I also believe that once we all see the third film, it will become crystal clear why Jackson left the Scouring out. For one thing, the film will likely have a running time of 3.5 hours even without the Scouring. Second, it would kill the pacing of the movie.

I personally feel the Scouring would make a GREAT special one hour featurette on the ROTK extended DVD.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

It's already crystal clear....*mumbles incoherently*

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I personally feel the Scouring would make a GREAT special one hour featurette on the ROTK extended DVD.

Well I agree with that, but what's the likelihood that they would film it and not put it in RotK? And what's wrong with a four hour movie? Fiddler on the Roof is four hours long. Wagnerian operas can run at least six hours, they have an intermission and a dinner break.

Wouldn't it be cool to go to RotK in costume, and half way through there was a 15 minute intermission? You could chat with your neighbours and it would be so fun! I mean, you already watch 30 minutes of previews before hand, who will notice 15 more minutes?

(The midnight showing would get out at 5 am! Sweet!)


But destroy the pace? I don't think so. What's wrong with two climactic battles?

[BeardofPants]

Thirty minutes?! Good gravy. We only get ten minutes!