Peter Jackson has improved Tolkien

[Earniel]

An award doesn't make one great. All I have to think is 'Titanic' and... well you catch my drift...

[Black Breathalizer]

You discount any significance to academy award nominations yet profess to be objective?!?!?!?!? Ooooooooooookay.

You were the one using words like "corny" and "generic." All I said was that your view wasn't shared by the vast majority of movie-goers and film critics.

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

[Sween]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
You discount any significance to academy award nominations yet profess to be objective?!?!?!?!? Ooooooooooookay.

You were the one using words like "corny" and "generic." All I said was that your view wasn't shared by the vast majority of movie-goers and film critics.

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

i personally do not reconise the academy in any way. i think they are a joke and dont relfect the popular views of the film going public. in the same way i dont respect any award shows they are nothing but populist opinion which may or may not sometimes coninside with my own. Awards voted for by the public do hold up a bit better but then you are dealing with sampling. the only awards i respect are those of title handad out to people that do great serivce in war or to the public.

[Cirdan]

Objective? Why would I want to be that? By nature an opinion is subjective so it would be pointless to try to have an objective opinion. The movie did pander to a lower common denominator and no one can objectively argue against that. But that is one of the director's responsibilities; to generate revenue. This movie was not meant to be a purely artistic endevour even though it has a great deal of artistic aspects. The music was very good in some places and in others it stuck out like a sore thumb; it was uneven as most soundtracks are. Academy awards are political in nature,; usually going to the most popular movie or most neglected artist. BoP is right, they usually win one for being denied for the one they should have won.

[Earniel]

*eyes Black Breathalizer suspiciously* You're not by any chance my sister, are you? She's got ideas like that, she makes purist sound like a bad thing.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I guess it's hard for some Tolkienites to share their ivory towers with the unwashed masses.

And all I want is for them to wipe their feet.

[bropous]

"You discount any significance to academy award nominations yet profess to be objective?!?!?!?!?"

The Academy Awards in themselves are entirely subjective, and it does not hold syllogisitcally that an objective viewpoint is improved empirically by the inclusion of subjective criteriae.

"You were the one using words like 'corny' and 'generic.' All I said was that your view wasn't shared by the vast majority of movie-goers and film critics."

And if a viewpoint is not shared by a majority of any sampled population, is that uncommon viewpoint inherently invalid due to the prevailing beliefs which express the majority position?

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

You may have a valid point with this statement, but you simply have launched your assault at the wrong person. BoP has consistently made her points she feels the film fails on, and though I do not agree with her assessment, she has never struck me as some Tolkien snob who doesn't want the "unwashed masses" to enjoy the world of the Master. She has presented valid arguments supporting her detraction to Jackson's interpretation, and apparently thinks that the film could have been greatly improved upon. It's her opinion, and for her, it is valid, and she ain't doing it just to keep the hoi-polloi out of her exclusive club.

And, who in the WORLD said we are supposed to be engaging in objectivity here? It IS a forum discussing a FILM, and it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to review and analyze film in a totally and unpolluted objective manner. Love of one film or another is exclusively a SUBJECTIVE matter the moment a scintilla of story line, artwork, characterization, score, faithfullness to source material, or acting are discussed.

Did not little Smeagol get his knuckles rapped for presuming, in his hubris, to "teach his grandmother to suck eggs"?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
You discount any significance to academy award nominations yet profess to be objective?!?!?!?!? Ooooooooooookay.

I have never claimed to be objective. I think it is inherently impossible for us to do so; especially in regards to discussing the film medium. Show me how you could imperically measure peoples likes and dislikes in a scientific study and then I might consider it.

BB:
You were the one using words like "corny" and "generic." All I said was that your view wasn't shared by the vast majority of movie-goers and film critics.

I wouldn't say vast majority. Quite a few critics and people are unhappy/apathetic towards the films thus far. And even so: does it make my opinion any less important than yours?

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

I regard that as rubbish quite frankly. I have in no way mentioned anything about keeping Tolkien from the masses. And remember one thing: the film is PJ's adaption; it is in no way something of Tolkien's. It is PJ's vision. Not Tolkien's.

My advice to you? Stop taking people's differing opinions so personally. I have stated my opinions on this film, probably to the extent that people here are sick of me harping about them. But they are still my opinions, and I have as much right to them without being flamed, as you do.


One last thing: thanks Brop, Cirdan, Sween, and Earniel.

[Black Breathalizer]

I don't take any of this personally, BeardofPants. I simply refuse to let your whiney criticisms go unchallenged. If you have a right to post them, then you should be prepared to defend them. It's interesting how when someone tries to actually debate you purists on the merits of the movie, you hide behind, "gulp, uh...gee, I'm entitled to my subjective opinion."

I apologize for saying the VAST majority of movie-goers and critics loved the movie. It's true it's ONLY the fifth highest grossing film in the history of world cinema. And it's also true that for every twenty critics who hailed the movie as a modern-day classic, you could always find one critic around who shared your views.

But as Gandalf would say, "I'm not trying to hurt you...I'm trying to help you." There is a cure for Tolkienpuritanitis. I am happy to help lead you and your faithful companions to the light, BeardofPants. There is still time.

Peace. =)

[markedel]

I think the real problem with comparing the movie and the book is that unlike most translations Middle Earth is in some ways far more concrete then say Shakespere. Both are great literature in different ways, but Middle Earth is supposed to have internal rules, concrete in some sense that a movie by definition must ignore to be successful on any level. Therefore saying that purists hate the movie because it is impure is wrong. Most don't hate the movie. Some dislike how it tries to claim its vision of Middle Earth as THE vision of Middle Earth. Jackson has never claimed this, not to my knowledge, but its still irksome.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
It's interesting how when someone tries to actually debate you purists on the merits of the movie, you hide behind, "gulp, uh...gee, I'm entitled to my subjective opinion."

I would debate point by point if you were actually bringing up reasonable arguements, but thus far all you have managed to acheive is to call me a purist. How can I honestly not take umbrage at that?! Give me a decent arguement detailing the merits of the movie, and I will offer (yet again) my points against it. I'm sorry, but I've already been through these arguements before, and as you can see from other mooters, they are well familiar with them. I don't see the point in dragging it up again, when all you have to do is search some old threads to see my points. Still, if a challenge you want, a challenge you'll get. Let's bore the pants off everyone else, by going at it.

I'll say it again: FOTR is not PJ's best work, IMO. For me it is not so much "whine whine he left out Tom, he did this, he did that, blah blah, Arwen, hate, hate, etc." It's more that it didn't work for me as a movie for a variety of reasons. It left me cold. Why? Mainly, I guess, because of the plumped up action: besides which, if you took away the label of LOTR, then it could just about fit in with any other fantasy/action movie. It is this point that makes me say that I find the movie generic. There is no sense of wonder, no sense of distances travelled, no sense of being transported to another time/place. (Okay, since I actually live in New Zealand...)

Finally, I don't consider myself a purist. Not that I think that's a bad thing. Granted, I can be pedantic sometimes, but not a purist. In terms of Tolkien lore, I'm still a beginner. I understand that there is still much to learn. So, please, refrain from calling me a purist 'til I've at least finished HoME.

[Black Breathalizer]

Okay, let's try this out:

"plumped up movie action"..."if you took away the label of LOTR, then it could just about fit in with any other fantasy/action movie."

Okay, let's check out these statements by analyzing the movie's major action set pieces:

PJ gave us Weathertop = okay, Tolkien gave us Weathertop.

PJ gives us a flight to the ford chase = hmmm, Tolkien gave us a flight to the ford chase.

PJ gives us the battle at Balin's tomb = okay, Tolkien gave us the battle at Balin's tomb.

PJ gave us Gandalf vs. the Balrog = Tolkien gave us the same duel.

PJ gave us the Orc attack at the end of FOTR = Tolkien gave us the same Orc attack at the beginning of TTT

Obviously, I'm missing something here. No wait! I've got it. I'll bet that ringwraith chasing Frodo to the brandywine ferry was the big difference, right??? Or was it the crashing stairs in Moria? Or the sword swipe by the ringwraith in the Shire? I'm sure it was one of those plumped up action scenes that ruined it for you.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Okay, let's try this out:

"plumped up movie action"..."if you took away the label of LOTR, then it could just about fit in with any other fantasy/action movie."

Okay, let's check out these statements by analyzing the movie's major action set pieces:

PJ gave us Weathertop = okay, Tolkien gave us Weathertop.

A sword fight, I think we've seen that before somewhere.

PJ gives us a flight to the ford chase = hmmm, Tolkien gave us a flight to the ford chase.

Bad guys on horse chase good guys on horse, been there, done that[

PJ gives us the battle at Balin's tomb = okay, Tolkien gave us the battle at Balin's tomb.

Finding a tomb. Ditto

PJ gave us Gandalf vs. the Balrog = Tolkien gave us the same duel.

Big scary monster versus wizard.

PJ gave us the Orc attack at the end of FOTR = Tolkien gave us the same Orc attack at the beginning of TTT

Bad guys kill good guy, bad guys kidnap good guys.

Obviously, I'm missing something here. No wait! I've got it. I'll bet that ringwraith chasing Frodo to the brandywine ferry was the big difference, right??? Or was it the crashing stairs in Moria? Or the sword swipe by the ringwraith in the Shire? I'm sure it was one of those plumped up action scenes that ruined it for you.

As BoP said, if you take away the labels of LOTR you get any other fantasy/action movie. Let me say, I disagree with BoP, I love the movie. But I agree with some things she dislikes. I believe she mentions what she dislikes in the movie. I don't really care if people dislike the film, why should I, its not an attack on Tolkien, its an attack on Peter Jackson. And why, because many critics like the film, does everyone have to like the film? BoP like the books and that, to me, is much more important than the movie.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
PJ gave us Weathertop = okay, Tolkien gave us Weathertop.

Aragorn’s role is expanded during the battle. The loss of Frodo’s scene – striking at the enemies foot. He instead becomes cowardly, and cowers behind the hobbits, and Strider. Development of “fighter” Strider, while there is a reduction of “medicinal” Strider/ “Scouting” Strider – Sam goes to find Athelas instead.

BB:
PJ gives us a flight to the ford chase = hmmm, Tolkien gave us a flight to the ford chase.

Due to the contraction of time, PJ could not show the length of time passed, nor the deviation north: nor was the time that Glorfindel spent filling in Strider of the news ever enacted with Arwen. “While Glorfindel was speaking the shades of evening deepened.” As such, the contraction of time means that from the battle of Weathertop, to the chase sequence at the fords there is basically one action scene on top of another. There was an early separation of Frodo/Arwen from the party: no showing of the long marches, with the rests in between, with the rest of the party. Again due to time contraction. The chase sequence with Glorfindel becomes less an ambush, and more an extended neck and neck chase. Again: the lack of an emboldened Frodo; his lines are lost to Arwen’s “come and claim him”. The cowardisation/reduction of the hobbits

BB:
PJ gives us the battle at Balin's tomb = okay, Tolkien gave us the battle at Balin's tomb.

Extended battle scenes: again one on top of another, due to the contraction of time. The battle with the troll. The falling staircase. The immediate knowledge of the death of the dwarves from the minute they entered Moria – changing the atmosphere from dark and forbidding, and creepy, to one of charged tension. The watcher in the water confrontation: changed from Sam, to Legolas et al. Again: reduction of the role of hobbits.

BB:
PJ gave us Gandalf vs. the Balrog = Tolkien gave us the same duel.

Yes, and the cheeky bugger gave it wings. This is probably just me… but he made it a lot bigger than I imagined: man-shaped, wreathed with shadow… and he gives us a minotaur!

BB:
PJ gave us the Orc attack at the end of FOTR = Tolkien gave us the same Orc attack at the beginning of TTT

Ah. Amon hen. The “boss fight” between Lurtz and Aragorn: in the book Aragorn came too late to the battle, and as such there was no direct telling of the battle. Again, you only hear from Legolas/Gimli about their respective confrontations in the book – in the movie PJ chose to show it. Less was made about Frodo’s hard choices, and more was made about the action scenes.

BB:
Obviously, I'm missing something here. <edited for length> I'm sure it was one of those plumped up action scenes that ruined it for you.

No, it was more that scenes were left out to give more time to the action scenes. Amon Hen is a good example of this. The reduction of the many facets of Strider/Aragorn, so that he only comes across as a fighter. Yes, the ferry scene. The “darkening” of Bree – unfriendly, etc. Galadriel’s feyness isn’t ofset by her kindliness and wisdom without those missing scenes – she comes across almost evil. The horror of moria instead becomes an extended action sequence: there is no sense of doom.

What was trimmed to make way for the action scenes:

The friendship/conspiracy.
The “proof” of Aragorn at Bree.
The shortening of the Lothlorien scenes – although the extended DVD should fix this.
No sense of the monotony of the journey… from Rivendell through to Hollin, etc.
The reduction of the Rivendell scenes – no real sense of time passed waiting for the scouts.
The loss of Cerin Amroth – again to be fixed in the extended DVD.
The reduction of the hobbit POV – shifts instead to Aragorn.
The reduction of time passed; or distances travelled.
The reduction of Legolas’ and Gimli’s friendship.
The reduction/loss of Gimli’s affection for Galadriel – again, tying in with that whole CGI “evil” Galadriel thing.

Then there is of course: The Old Forest, the Barrowdowns and Tom, but I understand that these were probably necessary cuts.

It is my personal belief that many important themes were lost, or chopped out to make way for many of the action sequences, none of which were really specific to LOTR, IMO. They've been done before. (Cass has a nice succinct argument for that.) Unfortunately PJ took a tired formula "tried and true" and stuck in some bits that were pertinent to Middle Earth.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Eärniel
An award doesn't make one great. All I have to think is 'Titanic' and... well you catch my drift...

Oh yes, and lets not forget Celine Dion's (and James Horner) horrible "masterpiece" My Heart Will Go On. *shudder*

[cassiopeia]

I am really hoping the extra half an hour of footage has no action scences. I don't remember any. From what I remember there will be more Rivendell scenes (Aragorn at his mothers grave), Galadriel giving gifts, Frodo singing at Bree, Frodo and Sam seeing elves going west, Bilbo writing and Sam gardening. I think these scenes will greatly improve the movie. *crosses fingers*

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Oh yes, and lets not forget Celine Dion's (and James Horner) horrible "masterpiece" My Heart Will Go On. *shudder*

Oh, god if I ever hear that song again I will kill myself! Did that song win an academy award (I assume it did). There is your proof that the academy awards mean crap all.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
I think these scenes will greatly improve the movie. *crosses fingers*

Me too. Do you think it's easy being the only kiwi to dislike the movie?!

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
Did that song win an academy award (I assume it did). There is your proof that the academy awards mean crap all.

God, I can't remember. But the sheer fact that it got nominated... horrors! And what about that song "I will always love you" by Dolly Parton that was in the Bodyguard - didn't that get nominated as well???

Later Edit: Okay, I looked it up, and it won 2 grammys, 1 oscar, and one golden globe. I can't find anything about the Whitney Houston song though - maybe it was just overplayed (understatement!)

[cassiopeia]

I just checked and 'My Heart will go on won' in 1997. There is my proof.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
I just checked and 'My Heart will go on won' in 1997. There is my proof.

AND two grammys, and one golden globe......

There it is, ladies and gentlemen: proof that the academy awards mean buggerall.


Later Edit: Ook. Found it.....

1993: MTV Movie Award: Best Song, "I Will Always Love You"
1993: People's Choice Award: Favorite Female Musical Performer
1993: Grammy: Record of the Year, "I Will Always Love You"; award shared with David Foster
1993: Grammy: Album of the Year, The Bodyguard; award shared
1993: Grammy: Female Pop Vocal Performance, "I Will Always Love You"
1993: American Music Award: Pop/Rock Single, "I Will Always Love You"
1993: American Music Award: Pop/Rock Female Vocalist
1993: American Music Award: Soul/Rhythm and Blues Single, "I Will Always Love You"
1993: American Music Award, Soul/Rhythm and Blues Vocalist
1993: Special American Music Award
1993: Billboard Music Award: #1 World Artist
1993: Billboard Music Award: # 1 World Single, "I Will Always Love You"
1993: Billboard Music Award: #1 R&B Single, "I Will Always Love You"

Now that is just in bad taste!