Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
That's the problem with you purists, you take EVERYTHING so darn literally. Please notice the smiley face after my "whining" comment.

O yes, I understand. I was referring to your tone in general, not merely that post.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
That's the problem with you purists, you take EVERYTHING so darn literally.

Don't worry, it's been quite entertaining reading your hero worship for PJ. I never knew anyone could be so deeply in love with the fat bastard, till I met you.

...I want to be here when you Purists sheepishly admit that you were dead wrong about these films.

That will never happen. At least you will not hear if from me. Maybe someone like... Wayfarer, maybe, but not me.

If I might provide a suggestion though, hold your breath until the Extended Edition DVDs come out... then maybe I'll consider it. Ready, set.... go!

[jerseydevil]

BB - the extended editions are NOT the movie. The movie is what what was in the theater. Jackson CHOSE to cut those scenes out of the movie. Also - no matter what they do to Faramir - there is no excuse for him dragging Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath or having the Nazgul 2 feet from Frodo and the Ring and then flying off.

I'm not really offended by your purists comments - because your just a movie hack. Jackson butchered the books when he made the movies. You may like getting spooon fed the story - or maybe it's the fact that you just don't have the mental capacity to handle a movie that isn't spoon fed - but I don't. The books were dumbed down. They're the Reader's Digest "Reader's Digest" version of them. Sometimes I think that what Jackson used as a reference was a The Lord of the Rings Cliff Notes - surely with the weathertop scene he couldn't haev read the books. That scene is an example of a change which had no meaning. There was no reason for that change other than to add additional action.

As I rerpeatedly said - Lord of the Rings could have truly been a great movie - if it wasn't reduced down to a series of Hollywood cliches and a series of action sequences.

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I'm sticking around this board because after the TTT Extended DVD and the ROTK threatrical release and Extended DVD, I want to be here when you Purists sheepishly admit that you were dead wrong about these films.

It won't happen because unless he completely refilms TTT it will never be LotR. TTT got way to far away from the story and is impossible to fix no matter how much addition stuff he puts into the EE.

And the EE edition of TTT will probably piss me off just like the Fellowship EE did, when I saw that great scenes from the book were cut out of the theater release for pointless additional action scenes.

Even if RotK is 100% faithfull to the book as it can be it will not save the films because of the horrible job on TTT. And because of TTT I will be even more picky about RotK, I will be sure to complain about every change, from dialoge to scenery. TTT made me loose all hope of this story ever being told respectfully on the big screen.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I'm sticking around this board because after the TTT Extended DVD and the ROTK threatrical release and Extended DVD, I want to be here when you Purists sheepishly admit that you were dead wrong about these films.

Your confidence in Jackson is admirable though it leans towards blind faith, even if you posted that comment just to get the purists worked up again.

But I'd wait until the movie actually gets out before I start gloating if I were you. The TTT extended edition and RoTK will have to make a couple of serious tricks and plotjumps before it can make Faramir's out-of-character-ness (among other things) plausible. Jackson won't find that task easy.

Oh, I'm sure that the battle before the gates of Minas Tirith will no doubt be visually stunning. But somehow I fear that since TTT already swerved away from the path of the book, RoTK will go completely off track and I believe the movie will lose much because of that.

But we'll see. At least I'm willing to adjust my views if RoTK does exceed my expectations. And I seriously hope it does. I want to like RoTK especially since TTT was rather a disappointment.

[Sheeana]

The only thing that's going to be sheepish are my sheeply sheep minions.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Eärniel
I want to like RoTK especially since TTT was rather a disappointment.

So do I. I would love it if he made an about face with RotK. But rumours don't sound too good.

By the way, BoP, those minions never did make it to knock off my co-worker.

Baa.

[Sheeana]

Ah stupid things.

[Agalayth]

I think the movies were great movies, just not great Lord of the Rings movies. They're inaccurate and completely unlike the books, but that doesn't mean they're bad movies.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

As movies, I thought that they were quite Hollywood. Rather above-average Hollywood, possibly acheiving the rank of "good" but not "great" to me, particularly in the literal meaning. The visuals were astounding, the CGI was great, the props were amazing. There were some "plot holes", though. Most of which involved Merry and Pippin.

[Black Breathalizer]

The mere fact that we are debating whether the movies are classics BEFORE ROTK comes out is a real testament to Peter Jackson. You Tolkien literalists are fighting a losing battle--and the best part is that in your heart you know it!!!

By the way, those of you who delight in making snide, "dumbed down Tolkien" remarks about the film's screenplays need to realize what your comments are really telling us. You may think you're showing how much more intelligent you are than the rest of us simple-minded movie-goers. But instead all you do is show off your own ignorance about cinema and the art of screenplay writing.

[Cirdan]

He's tan, he's rested, he's still insane.

So let me get this straight. You say that the movies are classics (or will be), someone else says no, and this, in the great scheme of things, is a "real testament" to PJ? My, you do think highly of yourself!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The mere fact that we are debating whether the movies are classics BEFORE ROTK comes out is a real testament to Peter Jackson. You Tolkien literalists are fighting a losing battle--and the best part is that in your heart you know it!!!

How are we fighting a losing battle? Personally I don't care if you keep kissing jackson's a$$. I'm not fighting any battle. I just don't like the movies.

By the way, those of you who delight in making snide, "dumbed down Tolkien" remarks about the film's screenplays need to realize what your comments are really telling us. You may think you're showing how much more intelligent you are than the rest of us simple-minded movie-goers. But instead all you do is show off your own ignorance about cinema and the art of screenplay writing.

Actually if YOU knew anything about movies - you would see how they are dumbed down. My sister worked in Hollywood for a PR firm. The number of hollywood cliches used in the movies are amazing. Just like in FotR - where Jackson used Merry and Pippin for comic relief, then he needed another character to replace them for the comic relief - so he chose Gimli. It's so transparent much of it - it's rididulous.

Obviously you have just been taken in by the hype. Much of the camera work - such as the overworking of the slow-motion was also very cliched. Shadowfax running over the hill when Gandalf called him reminded me of a beer commercial - particularly the Budweiser commercials when they use the Clydesdales.

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
. . .
Obviously you have just been taken in by the hype. Much of the camera work - such as the overworking of the slow-motion was also very cliched. Shadowfax running over the hill when Gandalf called him reminded me of a beer commercial - particularly the Budweiser commercials when they use the Clydesdales.

Actually, that is a sure sign of the greatness of PJ&CO.
Shadowfax is the "King of horses" and Budweisser is the "King of Beers". If this is not an improvement over that hack of a writer Tolkein, then I do not know greatness when I see it.

You cannot miss the symbolism that PJ&CO is bringing to people around the world. The next time you sit down to watch PJ&CO version of LOTR, just pop open a beer and think about the symbolism that Tolkein could written if he as good a writer as PJ is a producer.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
1) The mere fact that we are debating whether the movies are classics BEFORE ROTK comes out is a real testament to Peter Jackson. 2) You Tolkien literalists are fighting a losing battle--and the best part is that in your heart you know it!!!

1) Debating? There's no debate. Certain lunatics-who-shall-remain-unnamed () made ridiculous claims that PJ's movies are classics, i.e. works that HAVE STOOD the test of time before the last one is even out. Certain intellectual-apprentice-loremasters-who-shall-remain-unnamed () pointed out how the statement was erroneous. This does not equal a debate.

2) -throws a piece of bread to the local madman-

[Elf Girl]

*waves piece of paper* Petition to boycott this thread, anyone? BB is clearly a loony if he claims to know what we feel 'in our heart'.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally posted by Lizra
If that's it, then I think you are exaggerating a bit.

boob flashing? you mean arwen wearing a see through dress when she's kissing aragorn( you dont see anything)( much)
-hectorberlioz

[Lizra]

A see through dress that really doesn't show anything!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
boob flashing? you mean arwen wearing a see through dress when she's kissing aragorn( you dont see anything)( much)

Sorry - but Lizra is right. That was purposely done the way it was so you would see some flesh - even though she's clothed (barely). It is PURELY a

nipple

scene. One of the many hollywood cliches. The cameras just happens to pan down and do a close up of her pendant - which just happens to include her breast in the shot. Very unTolkien in my opinion - but very Hollywood.

By the way - I couldn't tell if that was a dress or a nightgown. Pure Hollywood titillation though - in the true sense of the word.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
As movies, I thought that they were quite Hollywood. Rather above-average Hollywood, possibly acheiving the rank of "good" but not "great" to me, particularly in the literal meaning. The visuals were astounding, the CGI was great, the props were amazing. There were some "plot holes", though. Most of which involved Merry and Pippin.

I agree. Whether you compare the movies to the REAL Lord of the Rings or just as stand alone movies - I feel Jackson concentrated on the eye-candy aspects. They were good action fantasy films - not much else.