Peter Jackson has improved Tolkien

[bropous]

You know, there are also blithering idiots out there who think that "The Greatest Story Ever told" is the definitive version of the life of Christ.

Mass acceptance by a horde of mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging low brow neo-neanderthals does not a "definitive" version make.

Good use of the Middle Earth Encyclopedia there, kid.

[Comic Book Guy]

gulp...gee, who is that Morgoth guy? uh, the Nicromancer's old boss?

No, the Necromancers old boss.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Comic Book Guy
No, the Necromancers old boss.

Oops. I'm so stupid. Guess that's why I'm one of those PJ movie-lovin', mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging low brow neo-neanderthals that you Tolkien scholars delight in ridiculing.

[LuthienTinuviel]

I hope my sorry performance on your Tolkien IQ test won't deem me unworthy to share thread space with such scholarly dudes as yourselves. I have appreciated the opportunity to witness firsthand the incredible wealth of knowledge and understanding of Tolkien's great work that some of you "purists" have shown here. It's been quite illuminating. [/B]

ok, i WILL post here agian. but only to say.

What the HECK is wrong with your brain.....?

ive tried to be civilsied, but i can't TAKE IT ANYMORE. you, my dear dear dearest ass, are a blithering idiot and im sorry to have ever thought you were smart in any possible way. you are like s***to me. stop talking. no one cares anymore. .


there, now that ove stepped out of your shoes, im getting back into mine.

and im walking away.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Oops. I'm so stupid. Guess that's why I'm one of those PJ movie-lovin', mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging low brow neo-neanderthals that you Tolkien scholars delight in ridiculing.

Cheer up. Ignorance is bliss.

[Black Breathalizer]

I found an online article interviewing Phillippa Boyens, Fran Walsh, and Peter Jackson on writing the screenplays for the LOTR movie that I thought was interesting. It included the following:

For Tolkien fans, such a statement might seem like hubris, but from a theatrical standpoint, Lord of the Rings has more problems than its length and lack of intimate character development. Tolkien's writing is often poetic, designed to conjure a mood or an emotion in the reader. Although he roots some of the action and the characters in specifics, others are a bit harder to pin down. On the Tolkien society website, for example, two of the FAQs are: Do Balrogs have wings and is Legolas (the elf of the fellowship) dark-haired or fair? Although the answer to the former is, according to the site, yes, the latter is open to interpretation. Tolkien, the author of the page notes, seemed to go out of his way not to physically describe Legolas.

Elves in general were a bit of a difficulty, said Jackson, because when Tolkien did describe them, the images, though lyrical, were not particularly helpful when it came to actually directing Elvish reactions. "He was always writing things like 'old and young, sad and gay,' which is all very nice on the page but . . . Sam says [being with the elves] is 'like being in a song, Mr. Frodo.' Well, how do you write a scene like that?"

The landscape, too, plagued the writers a bit. "Tolkien imbues the landscape with identity, personality, an almost emotional nature," said Jackson, "which is something you can't do in film."

But the villains, he and Walsh said, were the most difficult thing of all. "Tolkien evokes evil; he evokes Sauron. For most of the books, the only image of Sauron is a flaming eye. Let me tell you, to have your villain be a flaming eyeball for three whole movies is a difficult thing."

Even the Ring-wraiths that terrorize the hobbits at the beginning of the story are problematic. "Think about it," said Fran. "They can't see, they're afraid of fire, they're swept away by water . . . how frightening are they really on the screen?" They also disappear less than halfway through The Fellowship of the Ring. "No screenwriter would ever, ever get rid of his villain just after the first act," said Jackson.

Eventually, the fellowship is pursued and attacked by Orcs, goblinlike creatures created, through a sort of magical genetic engineering, by the Dark Lord. In the book they are, for the most part, nameless, faceless hordes, but to fill the villain gap, Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens created a cadre of specific Orcs--the Urkhai. "Tolkien created them, but we had to create characters to lead the band that ambushes the fellowship," said Jackson. "We couldn't just have anonymous Orcs in the third act."

[Black Breathalizer]

The rest of it:

Other aspects of the book became problematic when translated into scenes: the repetition of disabled kings, for instance; inconsistencies about the ring itself; logistical questions about the evil eye--how does it pierce the clouds, the flesh; how does it find Frodo across the miles?

"There were times when we were ready to weep," said Walsh. "We just couldn't solve a particular problem when the scene had gone beyond its ability to accommodate it." But in the end, said Boyens, Jackson would somehow come shining through. "He's not completely human himself I don't think," she said. "He's made partly of titanium."

There have been obvious changes to the narrative--the elf princess Arwen's role has been expanded, and other characters, including Tom Bombadil, had to be dropped. "My son didn't speak to me for a week when he found out we didn't include Tom Bombadil," said Boyens. "But as wonderful a character as he is, he is a digression. He's not essential to the story."

The fellowship's journey into the elven land of Lothlórien was hard to deal with, said Jackson, because it is essentially dead air that comes right after one of the first film's climactic moments. "Again, no screenwriter in his right mind would send the heroes into this timeless, quiet place at the end of the second act," he said. "But there was no way we could leave it out, so we just did the best we could."

A key scene, between elf-queen Galadriel and Frodo, takes place in Lothlórien, added Walsh, although it too has been modified, and then the part in which Galadriel refuses to take the ring was excised in the editing room. "I almost cried when we cut that," she said. A month later, however, that cut had been restored.

Other events, and characters, were resurrected from the book's extensive appendices and added to explain certain relationships or shore up dramatic moments. Aragorn's mother, who never makes any sort of appearance in the original narrative, has a moment in the movie, and the love story between Aragorn and Arwen is considerably embellished, again based on Tolkien's work in the appendix. And Arwen's role in general has been extended: A brief clip of her riding horseback sent Tolkien fans into a tizzy, sparking rumors that somehow Jackson was going to involve her in a battle scene. Although that charge has been resolutely denied, the writers admit that the princess has been given a bit of business that in the book belonged to another of her High Elf kin.

"Arwen shines as the one character who has utter faith," said Boyens. "She sees that there is light beyond the darkness, and she makes this enormous decision based on that. Some of the story's most dramatic moments are in the appendix, especially Aragorn's death scene when Arwen must finally face the implication of her choice."

Arwen is also one of just a few female characters, so beefing up her role provides a bit of contrast to the casts' many male protagonists. Boyens said that is not why they made the choices they did; Tolkien, she believes, wrote well and fairly about women, and if there are not a lot of female characters in the work, the ones who are there are highly significant. "He was utterly honest," she said, "and there is great writing about women. The good thing about having to choose from among moments and characters is that you can leave a lot of one character in so there's a better balance."

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Entlover

I cannot agree. It seemed clear to me that Frodo was heartbroken at having to leave, but knowing that if he were captured with the ring, that the whole of ME would fall under Sauron's sway, he had no choice. Staying to help his friends would have been selfish, when he had the fate of all ME to consider. That's why he looked so distraught when Merry and Pippin were urging him to come with them, and he couldn't.
He knew, unlike Bilbo, that it had become too dangerous to use the ring, so rescuing his friends with it was out of the question.

Oh I was just reading flight to the Ford you know...

Interesting statements in there about Frodo, about not wanting to leave his freinds, even while being pursued by the nine.

Yes it might have been selfish, but I don't doubt he would have done it, If he had known about the attack.

For that matter there would have been the added impetus of the ring itself, wanting to go back. Wanting to be used. How come Jackson's ring, if it's so corrupting and powerful, doesn't use this situation to reveal itself?

\

[Blackheart]

BB, all those are just examples of how Jackson had to strive to portray what Tolkien wrote.

He might have done a passable job in some areas, but that doesn't equal improvement.

If I shave down a statue to squeeze it through a keyhole, I don't see how I've improved it, other than perhaps for passing through keyholes.

[Black Breathalizer]

The early internet buzz from the Extended Version pre-screenings is that it is far superior to the theatrical version and brings out more things from the book. I'm hearing it is THE version for Tolkien fans. Warning: Some of you who didn't like the original release may be reconsidering your harsh opinions after seeing the extended DVD.

[Sween]

the only thing PJ has improved about tolkien is his appeal

[Draken]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The early internet buzz from the Extended Version pre-screenings is that it is far superior to the theatrical version and brings out more things from the book. I'm hearing it is THE version for Tolkien fans. Warning: Some of you who didn't like the original release may be reconsidering your harsh opinions after seeing the extended DVD.

Not really my argument cos I liked the film from Day One, but why should anyone reconsider their opinions of one version because a fuller version is better? If anything, the fact that the later release is superior would strengthen the arguments that the first release had its flaws.

[Black Breathalizer]

For the sake of people who haven't bothered to read the first few pages of this thread, let me state for the record:

1. I never said the movie was perfect.

2. I believe PJ tightened the storyline (which he HAD to do for a 3-hour theatrical release.) In doing so, he succeeded in improving the story in a few select ways which I've attempted to outline here.

3. There are posters to this thread who did NOT like the movie. They felt the movie was boring and filled with (to paraphrase them) unimaginative, run-of-the-mill fantasy devices. I have found it fascinating that some of these people profess to be a huge Tolkien fans and yet see absolutely nothing of value in PJ's first LOTR movie. My last post was addressed to these rare birds.

4. This thread is NOT a movie versus book debate. Ultimately, the two different forms of the story enhance one's appreciation of the other. The pluses of both enrich a person's overall enjoyment of the story.

5. "Purist" is not a dirty word. It just seems that way thanks to the nasty, 'I'm better than you" tone of some of the Tolkienites here who illustrate that mindset.

[Starr Polish]

I've been reading this thread for quite some time, and refrained from commenting for several reasons, but I must say this.

BB, you say that the 'purists' here have a

nasty, 'I'm better than you" tone

when you yourself have the exact tone, just on the opposite side of the spectrum.

You think that PJ improved Tolkien. Others do not. Both sides are arguing to deaf ears, in my opinion.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Starr Polish
BB, you say that the 'purists' here have a when you yourself have the exact tone, just on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Moi??!?!?

I post that IMHO Peter Jackson's version of the breaking of the fellowship was better than the book. And for THAT I've been ruthlessly attacked and savagely ridiculed on this thread. Yet I'm supposed to be the bad guy??!?!?!

Some of you need to improve your reading comprehension skills. I'm the poor, beaten up, victim here.

[Starr Polish]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer

I guess it's hard for some Tolkienites to share their ivory towers with the unwashed masses.

Maybe it's just me, but this sounds like a sarcastic, somewhat 'holier than thou' attitude from none other than you, BB. (As you can see, I have bothered to read the ENTIRE thread).

In the posts preceding your comment, no one 'attacked' you, as you seem to think, nor implied that they can't 'share their ivory towers'. They were simply stating their opinions on why they didn't agree with you. When someone doesn't agree with your points you immediately take offense.

You also didn't just state that PJ improved the breaking of the fellowship, but the works of Tolkien themselves.

If you post an opinion on the internet (especially one that could be considered 'controversial', or overall unpopular) you should expect others to disagree with you, and take it in stride.

My reading comprehension's fine, thanks. Those stupid standardized tests I'm required to take reassure me of this year after year.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Moi??!?!?

I post that IMHO Peter Jackson's version of the breaking of the fellowship was better than the book. And for THAT I've been ruthlessly attacked and savagely ridiculed on this thread. Yet I'm supposed to be the bad guy??!?!?!

Some of you need to improve your reading comprehension skills. I'm the poor, beaten up, victim here.

The only thing your a victim of is your own poor judgement with respect to the way you address others as proven yet again by the last line this most recent post. Do you really expect to be able to insult people without them attacking you in return?

[LuthienTinuviel]

i'll share my ivory tower with you BB, im not saying that i won't push you off though

Warning: Some of you who didn't like the original release may be reconsidering your harsh opinions after seeing the extended DVD.

i think thatshould be said AFTER the release comes out, for all you or i know he could have slaughtered the rest of it, have no more foresight than i do and i suggest you realise that quickly.

and since i am holier than thou, i also suggest you listen up to this, you are not the victim, you are a waste. i still had a few shreds of respect for you until you made your self out to be the porr little wonded bird, and your not making me like the movie at all by your childlike behaviour.

i don't really know what im talking about anymore. i started out saying something intelligent and then i got started on BB. i apologise.

And for THAT I've been ruthlessly attacked and savagely ridiculed on this thread.

you are not being attacked, you stupid git. it's not attacking someone when you simply tell them that thier wrong. and since im not too sure about your own reading comprehension (maybe that's why you like the movie better, but that's another story) im going to spell it out for you: i t ' s n o t a t t a c k i n g s o m e o n e w h e n y o u s i m p l y t e l l t h e m t h a t t h i e r w r o n g.

Yet I'm supposed to be the bad guy??!?!?!

yes you are the bad guy, because your disrespect ful, (don't make me sing aretha franklin, boy!)

anyways this is getting pointless, and as soon as i thnk that this thread will die there you are with your outlandish and totally retarded veiw on something.





sorry if im ticking everyone off (except BB) it's not been the best week and well, im a bit perturbed at the moment.

[Black Breathalizer]

The Scene: Isengard where Saruman is talking to a giant female orc-like creature.

Saruman: Do you know where The Purists came from? They were happy Tolkien fans once. And then their love for the book became MUTILATED and TWISTED by their strict fundamentalist views of Tolkien's story. And now PERFECTED in my fighting Uppity-Kommentators!!!

<dramatic pause>

Saruman: Who do you serve?

Luthien Tinuviel: (growling) TOLKIEN!!!!

Saruman: A cute, little hobbit freedom fighter named Blackie Breathalizer has a opinion of Peter Jackson's movie that is threatening to us. Bring that little brat to me!!! Kill the others!

We see Luthien Tinuviel, Cirdan, Blackheart and the other Purists race off on their nasty mission. Will our beloved BB survive this evil onslaught??? Stay Tuned.

[BeardofPants]

Is this the only way that you know how to defend yourself? Hiding behind absurd parodies? You poor misbegotten fool.

Lets see some actual semblance of an argument BB. You've insulted people long enough now, and if you wonder why nobody takes you seriously, then let me point out that the insults, sarcasm, and childish skits came from your camp first. It is only so long that you can piss in the wind before it comes back at you.