Learning from Peter Jackson

[Lizra]

My personal opinion on the fighting at Helms Deep is that it was way overdone. The dragged out preparation and battle made TTT almost boring to me. I have not watched it nearly as much as I have watched FoTR. When I get the XEd, I will be happy to skip a lot of the Helms Deep stuff. Too bad that it seems to be at least half of the movie!

[hectorberlioz]

Well, lets look at some tolkien history, shall we?
Tolkien once said he did NOT want LotR made into films.
Probably so because it was impossible at that time, and because he was afraid of its bieng mis interpreted.

Lizra
Yeah, Helms Deep took up way to much space. PJ had room for more stuff, but instead he extends a small battle.

[Sween]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz

Yeah, Helms Deep took up way to much space. PJ had room for more stuff, but instead he extends a small battle.

i would beg to differ on that! Too much time was spent on the build up to the battle the silly Warg attack and all the ohhing and ahhing about sending for help etc etc. It should of stayed as it is in the book as the heoric last riding of the house of Eorl then been chased back up to Helms deep then fighting but the acctual battle i felt was very well paced

[hectorberlioz]

Well thats what I really meant by 'taking up to much space'. the whole preperation and so on. the actual battle did not take to much space. But I count the preperation as part of the whole.

[Sween]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
Well thats what I really meant by 'taking up to much space'. the whole preperation and so on. the actual battle did not take to much space. But I count the preperation as part of the whole.

I mearly think the preperation was a waste of film

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
Don't hide behind the word subjective - the exorsism isn't another viewpoint, it's a change in the story to get a horror effect that the author specificaly said wasn't present in the story.

This is another GREAT example of what this thread is all about. Tolkien spoke about the hypnotic quality of Saruman's VOICE. But squinteyedsoutherner has just shown us how easy it was for him to leap to a huge assumption based on his own personal view of Tolkien's work.

Saruman was much more than a skilled orator who influenced people by the power of his persuasive arguements. As the greatest of the Maiar, he was clearly capable of many things -- including breeding the uruks and developing his own ringcraft. Based on the actual text, Jackson's interpretation of Theoden's possession is every bit as valid as squinteyedsoutherner's opinion.

[Sween]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
This is another GREAT example of what this thread is all about. Tolkien spoke about the hypnotic quality of Saruman's VOICE. But squinteyedsoutherner has just shown us how easy it was for him to leap to a huge assumption based on his own personal view of Tolkien's work.

Saruman was much more than a skilled orator who influenced people by the power of his persuasive arguements. As the greatest of the Maiar, he was clearly capable of many things -- including breeding the uruks and developing his own ringcraft. Based on the actual text, Jackson's interpretation of Theoden's possession is every bit as valid as squinteyedsoutherner's opinion.

ill have to admit im with BB on this one! Saurman certinally did have (if not explecitally implied) hold over Theoden! Now there are very few examples in Tolkiens works of true magic (like you see in Harry Potter casting of spells and such like) plus anyone that thinks by mearly taking the king out for a bit of fresh air Gandalf was able to cure Theoden are not reading between the lines he defintally used his will somewhat. Now PJ it could be argueed did go for a bit an easy option here 'i know what lets just have him been possed' !

I think this is really a point hats really rather to silly to critize PJ on mainlybecause its just one of those moments in the book which is open to interpritation

[Sister Golden Hair]

Saruman was much more than a skilled orator who influenced people by the power of his persuasive arguements. As the greatest of the Maiar, he was clearly capable of many things -- including breeding the uruks and developing his own ringcraft. Based on the actual text, Jackson's interpretation of Theoden's possession is every bit as valid as squinteyedsoutherner's opinion

Based on the text, what isn't valid is that Saruman is the greatest of the Maiar, or that Saruman bred the Uruk-Hai. In the books, Sauron was the greatest, or at least the most powerful of the Maiar, and it was Sauron that bred the Uruk-Hai. These are not interpretations, but facts.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

This is another GREAT example of what this thread is all about. Tolkien spoke about the hypnotic quality of Saruman's VOICE. But squinteyedsoutherner has just shown us how easy it was for him to leap to a huge assumption based on his own personal view of Tolkien's work.

NO Tolkien spoke about the PERSUASIVE! quality of Saruman's voice. There is no hypnosis or anything along those lines in the story, anywhere, that is what he is saying. Theoden has been persuaded via Grima not posessed.

"Neither genuine hypnosis, trances, nor variants, occur in my tale

What do you not get? Do you think he wrote this knowing he had written a Saruman posession of Theoden in the text. Do you think Theoden walking around under the control of Saruman is not a "variant" of being in a trance. Do we need to post the letter again where Tolkien accuses a screenwriter of not understanding the story on the most basic level when he proposes the very same changes that were made in this film?

You may like the changes BB, in fact I know you do, but they are not changes in perspective, they are changes. Period.
You lost this one BB,not to mention both of Sister Golden Hair's corrections to your post, both of which are dead on and again show your lack of knowledge of Tolkien outside of jackson's film.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Well said, Eärniel. As you've pointed out, the issue is not differing opinions. The danger is when some posters try to bolster their arguements by saying Tolkien agrees exclusively with their personal views.

Thank you, but I have to disagree with your last sentence. I have yet to see a post on the Entmoot where a poster says that Tolkien exclusively agrees with his or her own personal view.

For one, Tolkien isn't around anymore to agree with anyone of us on these things. And secondly I think that in most cases the posters have made Tolkien's personal view of things their own. It may look the same, but there is a difference. I myself have changed my opinion and interpretation of themes and scenes in LoTR somewhat after reading Letters and some of the HoME-series.

And I think that I do not speak only for myself here when I say that on matters of Middle-earth, the word of Tolkien is rather final.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Let's examine this criticrism that jerseydevil has leveled at PJ a million times:

Here are the major action sequences from the first two films that are directly from the books:
The ringwraith attack on Weathertop
The flight to the Ford
The watcher on the water
The fight in Balin's Tomb
Gandalf versus the Balrog
The orc attack at Amon Hen
The chase of the uruks by the Three Hunters
The ambush of the uruks at Fangorn
The battle for Helm's Deep
The Ents attack on Isengard
The ambush of the Haradrim

The thing is - these aren't DIRECTLY from the books. They ALL had EXTENDED action sequences which did not take place in the book. And for you to say that Flight to the Ford was DIRECTLY from the book is the most ignorant statement you have ever made.

Tolkien action scenes NOT shown in the film:
The warg attack in Hollin.
Old Man Willow
The orc chase from Moria and the battle on the outskirts of Lorien.

No - instead he moved the Warg attack to the Two Towers and then spent a half hour in the orc attacks INSIDE Moria with a Troll that never attacked the Fellowship.

New action scenes from Jackson:
Warg battle

hmmm...I guess upon further analysis Peter Jackson actually toned down Tolkien's "hollywoodized" version.

I am really questioning BB - if you have EVER read the books. How many times?

The Purist response will likely be: "yeah, well, Tolkien didn't put the emphasis on the fighting like Jackson does." As I've been pointing out here , "Tolkien Truth" is in the eyes of the beholder. The simple fact that the films have such a 'real feeling' about them is going to result in an emphasize on the ugliness, harshness, and conflict of Tolkien's world as well as its harmony and beauty.

Jackson DID emphasis the action sequences. He took out all the meaning behind the movie. He changed Aragorn's character, he over emphsizes the love between Aragorn and Arwen - while neglecting the Ring and Frodo in TT. How much is the LEAD character and the Ring in TT - a half hour????

BTW - I also said that Jackson did a great job on scenary - but scenary isn't what makes a great movie.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Here's the thing. It is one thing to read between the lines, and add what you think could have happened and is a possibility of happening. It is one thing to read the written word of the author and take it in a certain way. Not all that read the books agree on what Tolkien meant, and only Tolkien could clear that up. It is another thing however, to take the words of the author, which IMO is written in stone, and completely change what he stated and portray it, taking it in the opposite direction as an interpretation. What Tolkien says is the way it is, not what Jackson says. Jackson's ideas of what he thinks happened, isn't Tolkien's, nor is it written in stone. I get the feeling BB, that you hate the books as much as the so called "purists" hate the movie. Difference is, is that without the books, the movie wouldn't exist at all, so, the word of the books is final.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Millane
Well this topic seems to be a little one sided, but i think that PJ made the best possible movie out of Lord of the Rings... i think most of the so called 'purists' are really a bunch of queers who like to show off the fact that they have read LotR, a friend of mine said after seeing TTT 'im so pissed off that they didnt show gandalf grabbing onto the balrogs leg' i think he expected me to praise him because he had read the book. do any of you really wish Tom Bombadil was kept in because i can tell you it wouldnt have improved the movies he is a great character in words but the movie could not have done justice to him.
Why cant you accept the movie's and book as separate things, you want an exact replica of the book try and do it yourself.

yeah and if you keep up with your bitching i tell you all to BOYCOTT THE MOVIES if your all feeling so anti-PJ, see how many of you could manage that if that doesnt happen then i expect that you are really closest PJ lovers and your ashamed of it for some reason...

Well, the book existed long before the movie, and of course book fans are going to go see it. Unlike movie fans though, the book fans have the real story. Also, the people that always came to this forum were book fans until the movies came out, and now that that has happened, many are all knowing, but look so foolish.

[jerseydevil]

Post deleted-- JD, I edited Millane's post, so this one was obselete. Sorry I couldn't get to it sooner. -- Azalea

[Lizra]

Yeah...I wondered about that. [EDITED POST -- Lizra -- see JD's post above -- Azalea]

[Sween]

[OBSELETE QUOTE DELETED BY AZALEA]

[OBSELETE PORTION OF POST DELETED BY AZALEA -- Sween -- please see my note in JD's post above]



But what is a purist? Is Tolkiens work so beyond reproach that no change can be view by some as been better? As allways its a matter of opinion and sometime i prefer the way PJ did it but most of the time the award goes to the prof and sometimes PJ did a very good job of capturing tolkien pretty much exctally (IMHO) something i think that is overlooked sometimes on this board.

I like to view the films not so much as what is diffrent and whats worse and better but more what did he get extally right?

Am i purist? Hell no im far more open minded than that

[Lizra]

On Saruman's voice....I (IMO) can see this as a "Tolkien having it both ways" type of thing. Doesn't Gandalf warn someone(s) to beware of Saruman's voice when he speaks. (more than once even?) If people of the fellowship side still need to be warned of being swayed by a sentence or three, well...I think there might be a little more going on with his voice than just a "Dale Carnegie" course or something! A voice so seductive as this (coming from the highest wizard of the land) hints of magic. I'm sorry, no matter what is said in that letter.....the inference to "magic" can (easily) be made. I think the scene worked.

[The Gaffer]

Spot on, Lizra. Remember the description Gandalf gives of how those whom the Voice conquers completely will still hear it urging them on long afterwards? And the subjective experiences of the Rohirrim when they're under its influence are clearly described. Even Theoden believes that Gandalf will leave them and join with Saruman at Orthanc.

The way Tolkien portrays "magic" is pretty ambiguous throughout (and is all the more powerful for that). He (JRRT) does specifically state that much of the broader background, genealogy and mechanics of Middle-Earth were intended to remain mysterious.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

I don't see how any of this relates to the idea Theoden was posessed. Nor do I see how one gets any closer to understanding the story by claiming the author's own analysis of what he wrote is suspect, no matter how delicately phrased the critism.

And Lizra, I'm not arguing that it did or did not work in the film, that is subjective. I'm responding to the point that the text implies posession. I don't think it does, and I think Letters supports that view 100%.

Also in letter 156, Tolkien states that Gandalf the white is under the same obligation as Gandalf the grey:

"He is still under the obligation of concealing his power and of teaching rather than forcing or the dominating of wills"

And

"when the PHYSICAL powers of the enemy are too great he can act in an emergency as an angel....In ONE or TWO cases he does reveal a sudden power he twice rescues FARAMIR and he alone is left to forbid the entrance of the Lord of the Nazgul to Minas Tirith - and yet so powerful is the whole train of resistance that he himself has organized that no battle occurs: it passes to other mortal hands"

No mention of a confrontation with Saruman through Theoden.

I'm not BB, I'm not married to the idea that it did not happen, but unless someone digs something out of the text itself, letters or Home then I think Tolkien is on the record that Theoden was not posessed by Saruman, regardless of how well it worked or did not work in the film.

[hectorberlioz]

I totally agree.