LOTR = Typical Action Films?

[thranduil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
[B]I'm saying the gift giving scene doesn't matter as an overall plot element for the average movie goer since it was not included in the theatrical release. You can not say - well it was included in the extended edition - or jackson will fix it in the extended edition. The scene should have been in the theatrical release - that is my complaint. Most people do not know where Sam got the rope or anything without having seen the extended edition.

B]

Let me ask you one question Jersey Devil. What average movie goer who hasn't read the books gives a whoot where Sam got the rope. The only scene I even have seen a rope is around gollum. A very short scene, in which the audience assumes Sam packed some rope.

But speaking of ropes. I'm excited to see the repelling scene in E.E.
Even if it wasn't in the theaters.

[Cassius]

What do the elven blades have to do with anything about the Witch King's death?! It was the numenorean daggers that broke the spell, i don't think that Jackson wanted to use the elven weapons instead.

If Jackson does soo much propoganda then why hasn't he won best director? We all know that if he was such a propaganda-meister then he obviously would've sucked up to the academy people to get an award. I don't know what you are talking about with the "cheap wizard magic" lying stuff.

There is no way that he can be such an all out liar like you say without making the movies into one and totally changing the plot and everything. He obviously has respect for Tolkien's work or he wouldn't have used the real Tokien language he would have concocted his own and taken credit for the whole thing.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cassius
What do the elven blades have to do with anything about the Witch King's death?! It was the numenorean daggers that broke the spell, i don't think that Jackson wanted to use the elven weapons instead.

So then a normal blade is going to kill the witch king? or is it just going to be some blade lying on the ground?

If Jackson does soo much propoganda then why hasn't he won best director? We all know that if he was such a propaganda-meister then he obviously would've sucked up to the academy people to get an award. I don't know what you are talking about with the "cheap wizard magic" lying stuff.

He did suck up to them during FotR - it's just that a BETTER director and BETTER movie won. LotR nor him should have even been nominated - as I said in the FotR. He claimed he wasn't going to play the hollywood politics for TT. Academy Awards Thread

There is no way that he can be such an all out liar like you say without making the movies into one and totally changing the plot and everything. He obviously has respect for Tolkien's work or he wouldn't have used the real Tokien language he would have concocted his own and taken credit for the whole thing.

Using language from the books does not make him true to Tolkien. What would have made it true to tolkien would not have been not to make Aragorn running from his heritage, not having cheap dwarf jokes, not having farting (even if it was in the extended edition) not having merry and pippin town idiots, not changing everything meaningful scene into an action scene.

[Bacchus]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm saying the gift giving scene doesn't matter as an overall plot element for the average movie goer since it was not included in the theatrical release. You can not say - well it was included in the extended edition - or jackson will fix it in the extended edition. The scene should have been in the theatrical release - that is my complaint. Most people do not know where Sam got the rope or anything without having seen the extended edition.

Of course, Sam's rope was not included in the theatrical version of TTT, so that doesn't matter, by your logic.

I'm not saying anything disparaging toward your opinion. I just don't happen to agree with you on some things.

Not directly, no. But you have implied (or at least I have inferred) that no 'true' fan of the books could possibly have liked the movie.

See - the goal of the movie - was to bring Lord of the Rings to the screen. I've read the books 12 times. I wanted to see it brought to life. I really don't care about whether it brings more tolkien fans or makes more people read the books - I get no money out of it. I wanted to see - a more closer, more intelligent movie than the lame jokes (dwarf tossing, merry and pippin being town idiots in FotR), lame stunts (snowboarding down the stairs), action movie that jackson created.

I've lost count of my readings, but it is certainly in excess of 30. I've taken a college class on Tolkien, and I've been active in the online Tolkien communities for several years. I can more or less quote any scene from the books you ask. I can argue minutiae with the best of them. I consider myself a purist in the interpretation of Tolkien's writings.
As news filtered out from the project over the past few years, however, I found myself facing a decision. I could lament the inevitable changes (Elijah Wood as Frodo absolutely drove me nuts-Frodo is 50, not 20!), or I could set aside my biases and attempt to enjoy the film without interpreting it as an attack on the beloved books. Even so, the first time I watched FOTR, it required an effort to disconnect myself from the books. After all, lines were being spoken by different characters, and at different times. Some of the effects were distracting (Gandalf at Bag End, Arwen in the Trollshaws, and Galadriel at the Mirror, for example). On balance, however, I believe that the movies have thus far done quite a good job of portraying the essence of Middle earth-the sorrow of the Elves, the desparate Quest against overwhelming evil, and the struggles of Frodo, even if some of the particulars are disappointing.

[Cirdan]

The best psrt about choosing this particular book is it came with a ready-nmade cult followingf that guranteed to fill the seats. People alway say the changes were to popularize the material. It was really only to expand the already existing fan base. Notice that the extended versions are designed to appease hard core tolkienites.

The gift giving scene is not critical because, for instance, Frodo can say, "Oh, here's that phial galadriel gave me before we left Lorien" and it fits in either edition.

PJ doesn't lie as much as he pitches to different audiences. This is part of the promotional aspect expected to sell the film. I saw one interview, in "From page to Screen" where he really played up "sticking to the text" while on the DVD he plays up not being confined to the text; making changes for the sake of change. It's not so much lying as it is... sales.

[Cassius]

Amen

[thranduil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil


Using language from the books does not make him true to Tolkien. What would have made it true to tolkien would not have been not to make Aragorn running from his heritage, not having cheap dwarf jokes, not having farting (even if it was in the extended edition) not having merry and pippin town idiots, not changing everything meaningful scene into an action scene.

Yes we all agree with you that these parts may not have been necessary. But heaven forbid they showed up in the movie anyways. Its a choice of looking past these changes and seeing the big picture, or else to despise these films.

"It is strange that we should suffer so much fear and doubt over such a small a thing."

[Cassius]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So then a normal blade is going to kill the witch king? or is it just going to be some blade lying on the ground?

I wonder about you sometimes. I just JUST barely reread ROTK and it mentions (not to mention Tom Bombadil) that the numenoreans enchanted their weapons for the fall of sauron and to repel evil. Lying on the ground indeed. You can reread the Eowyn-Witch King battle and afterwards you would notice that Merry's Numenorean sword with the red gem is writhing on the ground after striking the witch king with it.

[Bacchus]

Originally posted by Cirdan
The best psrt about choosing this particular book is it came with a ready-nmade cult followingf that guranteed to fill the seats. People alway say the changes were to popularize the material. It was really only to expand the already existing fan base. Notice that the extended versions are designed to appease hard core tolkienites.

I think that this is rather understated. The fact is that the preexisting LOTR fan base is rather irrelevant to the success of the films. At a guess, perhaps 10% of the moviegoers have actually read the books. If New Line had assumed that only readers of the books would see the movie, it never would have been made.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
The best psrt about choosing this particular book is it came with a ready-nmade cult followingf that guranteed to fill the seats. People alway say the changes were to popularize the material. It was really only to expand the already existing fan base. Notice that the extended versions are designed to appease hard core tolkienites.

yes - they were to appease the tolkien fans. jackson knows he didn't make most of the fans happy with the movies. he knows people have serious problems with the Flight to the Ford scene. of course he still acts like "oh I can't do that change - the fans will have my head".. Well I think forwhat he did at the Flight to the Ford scene - the least we can get is his head.

The gift giving scene is not critical because, for instance, Frodo can say, "Oh, here's that phial galadriel gave me before we left Lorien" and it fits in either edition.

The phial is the only thing they show in the theatrical release. The gift giving scene should have been included - especially after having that aweful negative "queen" scene at the Mirror. He turned galadriel into this very cold, witch character.

PJ doesn't lie as much as he pitches to different audiences. This is part of the promotional aspect expected to sell the film. I saw one interview, in "From page to Screen" where he really played up "sticking to the text" while on the DVD he plays up not being confined to the text; making changes for the sake of change. It's not so much lying as it is... sales.

Hence I use the word propaganda. Call it what you will. I know what it takes to sell movies too. Like I said - my sister worked in a PR firm in hollywood and handled the promotion for The Mummy II.

[azalea]

I just have to say this: Pippin *burps*. That doesn't make it much better, but still...let's be accurate.
Pj obviously has a "thing" for burping (would that count as "action?" ), as he has included one in every version of each film -- he did it in FotR theatrical, Pippin in the Fotr EE, Gimli in TTT, and I bet he'll have one in the TT EE. My guess would be Merry or Pippin in the Flotsam and Jetsam scene. I thought it was stupid to have this in the movies; I just when it happens.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cassius
I wonder about you sometimes. I just JUST barely reread ROTK and it mentions (not to mention Tom Bombadil) that the numenoreans enchanted their weapons for the fall of sauron and to repel evil. Lying on the ground indeed. You can reread the Eowyn-Witch King battle and afterwards you would notice that Merry's Numenorean sword with the red gem is writhing on the ground after striking the witch king with it.

What does that have to do with what I said? I'm asking where is merry going to get this blade. Or is it just going to appear out of thin air for him. I was being facetious as to what Jackson would do. You know - Numernorean blades weren't just lying around all over the place.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Something I have known from the beginning is that the movies were not made in particular for the book fans, but I think there was always the element in them that the book fans would embrace them, which some have and some haven't. I think it is safe to say though that no true book fan has embraced them completely. It's a lot easier to accept the movies as is, if you haven't read the books, than it is to expect a book fan of many years and readings to do the same. Not all of the movie is bad. Not all of the movie is good. It is what it is. If you are a movie fan only, (superb.) A book fan? Well, (mediocre.)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Bacchus
I think that this is rather understated. The fact is that the preexisting LOTR fan base is rather irrelevant to the success of the films. At a guess, perhaps 10% of the moviegoers have actually read the books. If New Line had assumed that only readers of the books would see the movie, it never would have been made.

It's no irrelevant - because it was the BOOK fans who went over and over and over again. If you look at my past post - I saw FotR 7 times in the theater trying to like it. i really wanted to like ti - but it's just a dumbed down action movie - when it should have been so much more. It wasn't from the one time non-book fans that they go their money from - it was from the book fans repeatedly going to see the movie.

As I said when FotR came out - I had one friend tell me it reminded him of Fast and Furiious.

[Cassius]

Originally posted by Bacchus
I think that this is rather understated. The fact is that the preexisting LOTR fan base is rather irrelevant to the success of the films. At a guess, perhaps 10% of the moviegoers have actually read the books. If New Line had assumed that only readers of the books would see the movie, it never would have been made.

That is one of the points that I am trying to get across. The cost of making the movie as it was almost put New Line into Bankruptcy You have to appease the masses and all of their extentions (activists etc...) to make it work. There simply aren't enough of us fans to make up all of the cost if we all went five times. What else is important is that after watching the movies more people read the books and learned what it was all about. Sales of the books have gone up almost exponentially since the movies came out since people want to read them now that they know the basics of the plot and have some images to put to mind when they think of the master's ideas.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
If you are a movie fan only, (superb.) A book fan? Well, (mediocre.)

Which is what I have always considered them. I have ALWAYS stated that I give them a C. They're just average movies. Nothing spectacular - except for some of the special effects.

[thranduil]

Originally posted by azalea
I just have to say this: Pippin *burps*. That doesn't make it much better, but still...let's be accurate.
Pj obviously has a "thing" for burping (would that count as "action?" ), as he has included one in every version of each film -- he did it in FotR theatrical, Pippin in the Fotr EE, Gimli in TTT, and I bet he'll have one in the TT EE. My guess would be Merry or Pippin in the Flotsam and Jetsam scene. I thought it was stupid to have this in the movies; I just when it happens.

And don't forget Jackson himself burping in Bree. As some may know in many countries it is polite to burp, it shows you enjoyed the food. Okay fine it has nothing to do with pippin burping. But since it wasn't in theaters it doesn't matter,right,....right......AM I RIGHT JERSEY DEVIL!

[Cassius]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It's no irrelevant - because it was the BOOK fans who went over and over and over again. If you look at my past post - I saw FotR 7 times in the theater trying to like it.

Your seven times doesn't really matter and it isn't irrellevent. Those stats alone are the basis for how and why the movie was made the way it was. Maybe if Bill Gates funded it with his whole fortune and decided to become Ghandi could it have been done for the book fans alone.

Of course Bill funding it would pose an even bigger problem, won't say why.

[Cassius]

Originally posted by thranduil
And don't forget Jackson himself burping in Bree. As some may know in many countries it is polite to burp, it shows you enjoyed the food. Okay fine it has nothing to do with pippin burping. But since it wasn't in theaters it doesn't matter,right,....right......AM I RIGHT JERSEY DEVIL!

Ha! insert foot in mouth now Jerseyman.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by thranduil
And don't forget Jackson himself burping in Bree. As some may know in many countries it is polite to burp, it shows you enjoyed the food. Okay fine it has nothing to do with pippin burping. But since it wasn't in theaters it doesn't matter,right,....right......AM I RIGHT JERSEY DEVIL!

It doesn't matter - although the scene should not have even have been in the extended edition either. It was completely out of place for Lord of the Rings.

As for bree and Jackson burping - well he's just a pig. I do have a problem with bree overall - because Jackson again stretched Tolkiens story. he made it into the cliched dark dreary town. It wasn't described like that in the books.