LOTR Movie=ignorant fans?

[olsonm]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Regarding the Arwen wandering, well, whether Elrond put his foot down, or whether Arwen chose not to is immaterial, as either way lands with her NOT wandering around the countryside. The situation with Celebrian should have been enough of a deterrant....

My point was that Elrond wasn't preventing her from going out. It's obvious why they chose to introduce Arwen in the way they did: convenience. Putting Arwen out in the field isn't outside her character and is a very small change to what she did in the book given the benefit of introducing her in a 'memorable' scene adapted straight from the book. They simultaneously deleted an interesting but unnecessary character (Glorfindel) and showed [rather than told] the audience that Arwen was important; killing two birds with one stone, so to speak. It certainly wasn't the correct choice but it was a legitimate one.

[jerseydevil]

Jackson made an action movie - pure and simple. Gandalf is constantly acting the fool, he walks with Saruman with his tail between his legs, Elrond constantly berates him. Where is the wise wizard in Jackson's movie? Gandlaf pushes in on the doors of Moria when he knows they only open outward, he constantly pumps his head in Bilbo's house - even though he's been there thousands of times.
Pippin and Merry are just clowns. The Ringwraiths cut off a hobbit's head and are more action oriented than being fearful. The Moria scene - although one of my favorite - is a long draw out action scene. You even know as soon as they enter that the dwarves have all been killed. Aragorn's character in the movie is completely different. He's now running and hiding from his heritage, instead of biding his time. I don't even have to say how Jackson completely destroyed the Flight to the Ford scene and gave us that crap that I now cringe at everytime I watch it.

I've said a lot of this before and I'll continue to say them. For Jackson constantly saying he was staying faithful to the books - there is very little left other than the main plot (destruction of the Ring), character's names and the scenery.

The movie characters are all two dimensional - we'll have to see if Jackson redeems himself in the next two movies.

Too much of the book was changed that didn't need to be. And yes, I can accept changes to some books. But this was a movie that was constantly being advertised by a so called "true fan" that it was staying faithful to Tolkien. Based on seeing the movie - I think he did a great job making an action movie, overall the movie is only average and a poor job of bringing Tolkien's story to the screne.

[markedel]

I agree about aragorn and the action. The action may have been necessary for the film-it has to make $. Why ruin aragorn though is beyond me.

[olsonm]

Originally posted by markedel
Why ruin aragorn though is beyond me.

Aragorn wasn't ruined: his history was change to make the story of the Ring simpler. The character was very similar, the only real difference being his perfectly understandable reaction to a very different past than the one he had in the book.

Again, this is not to say that PJ had to make this choice but it was a legitimate decision to limit and simplify the backstory.

[Black Breathalizer]

Some of the Tolkien "purist" film critics posting here are highly critical of Peter Jackson's interpretation. They have every right to voice their displeasure with the changes and omissions he made in order to translate Tolkien's work to film. And others have every right to disagree.

But when it comes to the characters and the way they are portrayed, it's becoming increasingly clear here that Jackson understands Tolkien FAR BETTER than this Boards so-called purists do.

[crickhollow]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
when it comes to the characters and the way they are portrayed, it's becoming increasingly clear here that Jackson understands Tolkien FAR BETTER than this Boards so-called purists do.

For example?

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
But when it comes to the characters and the way they are portrayed, it's becoming increasingly clear here that Jackson understands Tolkien FAR BETTER than this Boards so-called purists do.

Really? Well I'm sure that it is entirely in Arwen's character to go running around waving swords about. Silly me, how could I have missed that? Excuse me while I'll return to my ivory tower and continue to be an intolerant purist. (note the sarcasm)

[markedel]

I just disagree with Aragorn being prsented as a character who is afraid of facing his destiny, afraid of the 'weakness of isildur,' afraid of kingship and all that entails, when he does none of those things in the books. The problem is that such a character is a hard sell to general audiences, someone so self-confident is much harder to attach to. That doesn't mean that Aragorn never doubts about anything, but he does not doubt about facing his destiny.

[Foul_Dwimmerlaik]

First of all, Arwen doesn't fight anybody. She rides a horse, outsmarts her enemy, and uses magic (or telepathically calls for her father's help), certainly things within her character's strengths, considering that her relatives have done things like sing Morgoth to sleep, throw open Sauron's dungeons in Dol Guldor and sail to Valinor in a boat to pray the Valar for pity.

Second, is this really worth getting upset about? Just ignore the movie, or make your own movie, or recognize that a movie is different from a book and posting topics with terms like "ignorant fans" smacks of snobbish elitism. Fans of the movie are not ignorant, they are just fans of a different work of art.

My favorite book is "All The King's Men" by Robert Penn Warren. The movie is different from the book, in some very important ways, but it was still a good movie. It just lacked the depth of characterization that the book has, which isn't surprising because it's a movie and has time constraints. No big deal for that movie or virtually every other movie based on a book. You have to take shortcuts in movies...introducing Arwen at the expense of Glorfindel is an example.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Really? Well I'm sure that it is entirely in Arwen's character to go running around waving swords about. Silly me, how could I have missed that? Excuse me while I'll return to my ivory tower and continue to be an intolerant purist. (note the sarcasm)

Lol!


My main bone of contention regarding the expansion of Arwen's role is that it is simply doesn't make sense. I would have thought that on some level, that either Elrond, or Arwen herself, would be paranoid that the same thing would happen to her, that happened to her mother. Well, maybe not paranoia: but out of respect for her mothers memory, that she wouldn't go riding around the countryside.


BB: It's not such a good idea to go around flaming the forum members like that. Having said that, I'll just jump back into my ivory tower.

[olsonm]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
My main bone of contention regarding the expansion of Arwen's role is that it is simply doesn't make sense. I would have thought that on some level, that either Elrond, or Arwen herself, would be paranoid that the same thing would happen to her, that happened to her mother. Well, maybe not paranoia: but out of respect for her mothers memory, that she wouldn't go riding around the countryside.

Weren't no mother in the movie. 0;-)

[BeardofPants]

Well that just shot my argument out of the water.

[olsonm]

Actually, Celebrian was seemingly created by Tolkien so he could explain away Arwen's small role in the story. If you remove Celebrian then Arwen's role in the movie was a very believable composite of her and Glorfi (dialouge notwithstanding ).

[BeardofPants]

[dry voice]Well that's not surprising. Many characters get created in a fictional treatise.[/dry voice]


Ook. One more post to 500. You can do it. Rah rah, and all that.

[markedel]

Back to the original topic of this forum:

What do you think about fans of lord of the rings who profess they're fans of lord of the rings and don't read the book. How about fans who like the movies, start reading the book and pull off "sacrilege" like skipping the scouring of the shire?

This being the topic and all

[Black Breathalizer]

There are two issues here: One is about the changes that a writer needs to make to make a great book into a great screenplay.

The other issue is characterization. I would argue that there is nothing about the movie characterizations that is out of line with the way Tolkien imagined them. If anything, Jackson has simply expanded on aspects of the characters that were mentioned in the books but never really directly addressed.

[BeardofPants]

Well, movie characterisations are always harder to pull off than those of the written word, IMO. The fact that PJ managed to pull off a more developed Boromir is a credit to him. However, I still feel that most of the characterisation is underdeveloped, due to the fact that the emphasis seems to be on action, with the story centering on the Ring (a necessity, I guess.)

Still, this could all change with the event of TT and ROTK.... I'm not holding my breath though.

[Foul_Dwimmerlaik]

Just leave those fans alone. No reason to get either uppity or upset about it...it begins to sound rather like the person who says "oh yeah, well I'VE been a fan of [insert popular band here] since before they hit it big." All it does is make people roll their eyes.

There is no problem with somebody being a fan of the movie and not the book. You may feel that they are not getting the full Tolkien experience, but that's their problem, not yours.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
But when it comes to the characters and the way they are portrayed, it's becoming increasingly clear here that Jackson understands Tolkien FAR BETTER than this Boards so-called purists do.

Has Jackon read the Letters of JRR Tolkien, Unfinished tales, A Tolkien biography, The Silmarillion and all 12 History of Middle Earth books? Has he read the LOTR and the Hobbit many, many times? Perhaps, but I doubt it. I think from reading all them (and some people here have), you would have a good understanding of Tolkien.

[Agburanar]

Crickhollow, I think you summed that up perfectly (although 'snobbish' was a bit strong, I'd have preferred 'disappointed' or 'upset' but maybe you're right...)

For the other subject, Peter Jackson read LoTR once before he decided to make the film, and a long time ago. He then read it once more before writing the script. Hardly an expert I think...