LOTR Movie=ignorant fans?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Jerseydevil & Wayfarer:

You may want to get started crafting your "Jackson is STILL a no talent hack, a Best Director Academy Award doesn't meant squat," comments to post here on March 1 of next year. It's always important to never let facts get in the way of a good Purist rant.

You obviously don't know anything about hollywood and how political the academy awards are. If you think that Jackson's movie getting nominated for best picture means anything in the long run (other than for advertising) you have a lot to learn. How many of the movies that have been named Best Picture - end up going into the classic category.

Maybe you should just remove your lips from Jackson's a$$.

By the way - you might want to check out the Academy Awards thread that was started for FotR - you will see how I didn't think it should win or that it should even have been nominated back then for best picture.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You obviously don't know anything about hollywood and how political the academy awards are.

You are right, jerseydevil. I don't know hollywood. Thank you for opening my Elf eyes and setting me straight.

I must sheepishly admit I didn't realize the best director Oscar nominations were only about politics. But I guess that certainly would explain why politically connected - but no-talent - hacks like Steven Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola, Peter Weir, Oliver Stone, Robert Altman, Ridley Scott, and Peter Jackson get all the glory instead of more deserving filmmakers like Roger Christian, who directed Battlefield Earth a couple of years ago.

I can't begin to tell you all how much I'm learning from this board.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
You are right, jerseydevil. I don't know hollywood. Thank you for opening my Elf eyes and setting me straight.

I must sheepishly admit I didn't realize the best director Oscar nominations were only about politics. But I guess that certainly would explain why politically connected - but no-talent - hacks like Steven Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola, Peter Weir, Oliver Stone, Robert Altman, Ridley Scott, and Peter Jackson get all the glory instead of more deserving filmmakers like Roger Christian, who directed Battlefield Earth a couple of years ago.

I can't begin to tell you all how much I'm learning from this board.

That's good. Personally I can't believe you put Jackson in the same league as Oliever Stone, Ridly Scott, Francis Ford Coppola or Steve Spielberg. If you think that Jackson is in the same league - then no waonder you actually think that Lord of the Rings is a good movie. And I seriously hope that you don't think Battlefield Earth was a good movie.

[Anadriewen]

Too much?!?!? I'm glad she at least was included! After all the people that Jackson took out, i'm surpirsed that he actually included her!

[Nurvingiel]

I went out for sushi the other day with a few friends, and we started talking about the movies. Two of my friends were really excited about RotK, and big fans of the movies. Neither had read the books, though one had already read The Hobbit.

I don't really mind if there's LotR fans out there who haven't read the books, as long as they don't pretend to know anything about them.

My two friends both plan to read Lord of the Rings after they've seen the movies. This is exciting, I'm always happy when new people read great classic books.

If the movies get more people reading the books, that makes it worth dealing with a few people who 'think Leggsie is the hottest'.

[Churl]

From USA Today:

Sales of Ballantine’s mass-market paperbacks of the Rings series (Houghton Mifflin publishes the hardcover and trade paperback editions) are suddenly “staggering,” says Colleen B. Lindsay, who is in charge of promotions for the series.

“Ballantine has sold more than 68 million copies of The Lord of the Rings (books) and The Hobbit,” she says. […] “The effect the film has had on the sales has been tremendous.”

Consider: Ballantine sold 32 million copies of the Rings books from 1965 to 2001. But since the release of the first film two years ago, Ballantine has sold an additional 14 million — almost half as much as the entire preceding 36 years.

Think about it: if even a tenth of those recent book purchases are read in full, it would mean that nearly a million and a half more people will have read The Lord of the Rings — many for the first time. Note also that these numbers don’t reflect the millions more who will borrow the book from friends or libraries.

Regardless of one’s opinion on the films’ merits or crimes, their positive impact on Rings readership is undeniable.

EDIT: I realize that those sales figures encompass all three [physical] books that make up the book, but I stand by my point: even if you factor out the inevitable reader attrition, it’s obvious that the films have led millions to experience Tolkien’s writing for the first time.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by sracer
On a side note, I've read the trilogy a few times, and taken a few college courses on it. I have yet to see where the character of Tom Bombadil has any great significance to the story, or Middle Earth. Certainly not enough to justify the furor there's been at his omission from the films.

He saves the lives of the Hobbits twice, that's important. For me, it's not the omission of the character, but taking out that plot line that I disagree with. The plot did not knit together smoothly, and left me feeling that they escaped the Shire much too easily.

[Aden]

Originally posted by Anadriewen
Too much?!?!? I'm glad she at least was included! After all the people that Jackson took out, i'm surpirsed that he actually included her!

You can't be talking about Arwen! Are you. And yes I would be happy if she was just included but she's the protagonist.

[Laurelyn]

Originally posted by Churl Regardless of one’s opinion on the films’ merits or crimes, their positive impact on Rings readership is undeniable.

I remember that I had read the books through in the fourth grade. But Tolkien, being Tolkien, was a little too complex for me to understand at that point in my literary education. So I saw the Fellowship of the Ring, and then, figuring that two years later my comprehension capabilites had grown dramatically, got them out again.
So I owe Peter Jackson. I would have re-read them eventually, but his movie jump-started that for me. For a little while, my fandom was pretty much movieverse. It's shameful to me, really.
Now, two years later, I speak some Quenya and quote the Silmarillion at people who say that Gandalf is wimpy, and I'm working on the History of Middle-Earth. Yes, we've gotten some fangirls. And some more fangirls. And people who only watch the movies because "So-and-so-is-hot-and-now-I-think-know-everything-about-the-Lord-of-the-Rings," but hey, on the other hand, you get people like me who convert and wind up fairly book-puristic.
Will the people who read the books and understood their greatness be eternally greater than myself? If they want to be, fine. I tried four and a half years ago, and I liked what I understood of them, answered, "Yes, I loved those," if anyone asked, but most of it truly went over my head. EVen in the sixth grade I was a useless fool for a few months. I cannot help but owe Jackson a piece of my allegiance for leading me back to Tolkien. Who is, after all, the Master.
However, I do feel perfectly justified, if he butchers a good line *coughEowyncough*, in ranting a little.


As for the debate about his filmmaking skill - I'm no movie critic. I'll leave it at that, and leave that to the more informed.

[Churl]

Thank you for lending credence to my point, Laurelyn.

Personally, I’m about to swear off the movie discussion boards due to all the rampant negativity.  Measured criticism I respect — hell, I’ve done enough of it myself — but it’s the abundance of frothing “Jackson is a hack” nonsense that I can’t stand.

We might disagree with isolated decisions that the filmmakers made, but the fact remains that the films surpassed all but the most unrealistic expectations.

EDIT: I’m mainly referring to negativity on other, non-Entmoot message boards … with only a few exceptions, here the discussion has stayed remarkably civil.  I’m merely referring to message boards such as IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Churl
Personally, I’m about to swear off the movie discussion boards due to all the rampant negativity.  Measured criticism I respect — hell, I’ve done enough of it myself — but it’s the abundance of frothing “Jackson is a hack” nonsense that I can’t stand.

I have repeatedly given my reasons for why I think jackson is a hack. If you wish to just claim that I don't give measured criticism that is your problem. I have gone over and over my complaints with the movies. I think jackson used every hollywood film cliche imaginable in the movies and spoon fed the audience. In one thread it was mentioned - why did he reveal Eowyn going off to Gondor - because he spoon feeds the audience.

Since I am the one who mostly calls Jackson a hack - I must assume you are referring to me. You should go through my 2 years and 5,000 posts and see what I think of Jackson and the movies. In there you WILL get all my detailed reasons. You will also see why I think that the movies could have been far far better.

We might disagree with isolated decisions that the filmmakers made, but the fact remains that the films surpassed all but the most unrealistic expectations.

In my opinion they weren't anything but action movies. So no - what I was expecting wasn't unrealistic. maybe you are satisfied - I'm not. I was expecting more of the feeling of the books - particularly in FotR. I do NOT think this is unrealistic.

I don't like beiung spoonfed and I don't like the fact that he turned the movies into simple dumbed down hollywood action flicks that rode on the shoulders of great special effects and scenary.

[Churl]

JD:

First off, I admire your geniune devotion to upholding the purity of Tolkien’s work.  It shines through in evey post you make.  (And I’m not being sarcastic — although I do now regret ceding first-post honors to you last year following The Two Towers. )

And while I respect your right to dislike the movies, I myself can’t ignore the good to focus on the bad.  Do I think they’re perfect?  Of course not.  Would I change things given the magic (and continuity-preserving) wand to do so?  Sure.

Exceptions aside (e.g., rogue Faramir and extraneous Arwen inclusions), I still attest that the plot, tone, and feel of the books fared better under Jackson than we all had any reason to expect.

Feel free to disagree; in the end, I respect all who respect Tolkien’s writing.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Churl
JD:

First off, I admire your geniune devotion to upholding purity Tolkien’s work.  It shines through in evey post you make.  (And I’m not being sarcastic — although I do now regret ceding first-post honors to you last year following The Two Towers. )

And while I respect your right to dislike the movies, I myself can’t ignore the good to focus on the bad.  Do I think they’re perfect?  Of course not.  Would I change things given the magic (and continuity-preserving) wand to do so?  Sure.

Exceptions aside (e.g., rogue Faramir and extraneous Arwen inclusions), I still attest that the plot, tone, and feel of the books fared better under Jackson than we all had any reason to expect.

Feel free to disagree; in the end, I respect all who respect Tolkien’s writing.

I do disagree. I feel I could reasonably expect the movies to have been better. Were they better than a lot of previous attemps? - in many ways. Were they worse in others? - yes they were. Could they have been better? - yes they could have. The things that were better with Jackson's were the technology used and the scenary. The dialog much of the time was cheesy, the plot was disjointed and choppy, and it had lame jokes not to mention that there was the typical bathroom humor such as Pippin or Merry farting/burping. He also turned pipeweed into pot - which Tolkien clearly states is tobacco and has all about it in the prologue.

FotR is my most hated out of the movies. RotK is probably the one I like the most because many of the characters went back to being closer to the book - but still in the end - it's just an action movie. Taking all three together it falls far short of the mark of Lord of the Rings.

I also have a feeling that Jackson did hear the complaints in the previous movies and knew he had to make changes in TT and RotK - such as not having Arwen at Helms Deep. So - if it wasn't for people complaining - I think the final films would have been disasters. Don't forget - right up to the end he was having the actors come back to redu things.

[Churl]

Originally posted by jerseydevil:
I also have a feeling that Jackson did hear the complaints in the previous movies and knew he had to make changes in TT and RotK - such as not having Arwen at Helms Deep. So - if it wasn't for people complaining - I think the final films would have been disasters. Don't forget - right up to the end he was having the actors come back to redu things. [/B]

Agreed — and if this was indeed the case, I’m glad that some of the fan outrage filtered through to him in time.  (I just wish that he’d gotten the pro-Saruman message before Return).

Although not a perfect translation (what could be?), I still prefer to look fondly on the movies while retaining my minor complaints.

We can agree to disagree, but if so, let’s make it a cordial disagreement.  As I said, I respect your purist convictions a lot.  (And admins: I use the term “purist” only in the most complimentary sense. )

[jerseydevil]

You added this afterward in your post above that I initially responded to after I had posted.

EDIT: I’m mainly referring to negativity on other, non-Entmoot message boards … with only a few exceptions, here the discussion has stayed remarkably civil. I’m merely referring to message boards such as IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes.

Originally posted by Churl
We can agree to disagree, but if so, let’s make it a cordial disagreement.  As I said, I respect your purist convictions a lot.  (And admins: I use the term “purist” only in the most complimentary sense. )

I'll agree to cordially disagree. It just seemed you were trying to marginalize the opinions of those who don't particularly like the movies and feel they could have been much better.

[Churl]

Fair enough … and I only appended that to avoid making another too-short post.  If that’s what it sounded like I was saying (and rereading my own words, I guess that it does), then I apologize.

My attitude was, as the Stones sang, “Hey! You! Get off of my cloud!”  (I.e., I was thrilled by the film and began to get frustrated by the negativity I was reading — mostly elsewhere.)

Now that I’m thinking more rationally, I welcome any discussions that remain intelligent and civil.  (…And I’m certain that they will here; otherwise we’ll “learn the praise of a fair debate under the loving strokes of an admin’s axe,” to paraphrase Gimli. )