Peter Jackson has improved Tolkien

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
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!)

Those were the"It sold more copies" award. The "Titanic" soundtrack is the highest seeling of all time... ACK! The "Clueless" soundtrack was ten times better. Can anyone name another track on "Titanic"?

But back to topic... did you notice in the film that Elrond's version of the Isildur's refusal to destroy the ring left out Cirdan? Well, I'm just saying

Interesting footnote. My 8 year old asked me if her could be Isildur for Halloween. The main thing I like about the movie is that it has raised his interest in the story.

[Black Breathalizer]

I just *hate* to be proven right but you folks made it easy on me. =)

BeardofPants, you originally said the movie left you cold because of the plumped up action scenes. But when I pushed you for a response, what I got was a comparison of the movie's action versus what was found in the book rather than an analysis of the film based on its own merits. As I suspected all along, when we get down to the nitty gritty, what you really didn't like about the movie is that Jackson wasn't able to offer you YOUR mental version of the book. You have every right to feel this way if you wish, I guess. But the elitist snobbery of this position galls me. How anyone can profess to love the book and yet be unwilling to recognize Jackson's stunning accomplishment is beyond belief.

I have to smile when I read that Jackson resorted to "tired" and "tried and true" fantasy formula because Tolkien WROTE the damn formula. He's in a no-win situation--he's blasted when he follows the book and blasted when he doesn't.

Lastly, personal tastes are...well, personal. But the ongoing commentary here about the academy awards, Titanic, and My Heart Will Go On, only reinforces the observation that there are some posters here that are absolutely horrified at the thought that THEIR beloved Tolkien world has become...gasp...popular with the masses and their stupid award shows!!!

[Earniel]

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 very much like you to stop belittling purists. Purists wants LOTR to remain as LOTR was intended by Tolkien. If you debate the merits of the movie with a purist, the purist will most likely compare the movie to the book. And yes, it will be his subjective opinion because to be able to appreciate a story you will have to be subjective. You can be objective about facts and scientific theories but I cannot see how you can be objective about a story. But he will have arguments why he formed that opinion not merely "hide" behind the right to have an opinion.

You have every right to feel this way if you wish, I guess. But the elitist snobbery of this position galls me. How anyone can profess to love the book and yet be unwilling to recognize Jackson's stunning accomplishment is beyond belief.

Easy. The movie doesn't equal the book.

[BeardofPants]

Black Breathaliser:
BeardofPants, you originally said the movie left you cold because of the plumped up action scenes. But when I pushed you for a response, what I got was a comparison of the movie's action versus what was found in the book rather than an analysis of the film based on its own merits.

Well I'm sorry but that's the platform you gave me; I am unsure how else to discuss my point that the movie was "plumped up action scenes" when the very platform you gave me to start off with was a comparison between Tolkien and PJ. If you did not want such a comparison, then why start off with one in the first place? Over to you again.

Regarding bringing tolkien to the masses, I couldn't be more pleased. It means that there are more people out there that I can discuss Tolkien with! And it is to the movie itself that I am reading the Histories of Middle Earth.

Finally: I will pull this quote to your attention again, since it best sums up my thoughts regarding the movie.

BoP:
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.

[Sween]

the fool the fool picking a fight with BoP dont you know shes pure evil

[bropous]

Great. Another newbie know-it-all. Been there, done that, and it ain't pretty watching from this end.

O Ebony Device For Detection of Serum Levels of Ethanol, you have proved nothing more than that you are rather obsessed with setting up straw men so you can crow in victory when you knock them down.

You have YET to prove your own premise that BoP, or any OTHER poster here, is a purist. You have yet to prove your own premise that BoP's objections to the film are based in that desire to keep out the "unwashed masses" from the ranks of Tolkiendom. You also have yet to prove that a derision of the obviously political and highly incestuous nature of the Academy Awards and their underserving recipients somehow translates into an inability to contemplate the pros or cons of a particular film.

One COULD point to your own sheep-like parroting of Academy Awards and popular approval as marks of quality in a film. You could not be more incorrect if you tried. The vast majority of fine film does NOT get awards nor massive public acclaim; Lord of the Rings is one exception to that rule, however.

I loved the film, I loved the "action scenes", and the soundtrack grew on me after a time after an initial humdrum acceptance. I thought the additions of real-time action replacing flashbacks was effective and assisted in the storytelling in film style. I do, however, also feel that the film could have been made a lot more true to the original source without having to resort to rewriting the story line, dialogue, or characters.

To me, the Lord of the Rings is a perfect story in book form. I think Peter Jackson did a fine job in his film interpretation but failed to bring the full scope and beauty of the original masterwork to the screen by diverting off on tangents not included nor contemplated in the original story.

So, purist I am, so freaking sue me. But that "purism" does not also correspond to a desire to keep outsiders out of my private world. I love the entire universe of Middle-Earth, and have loved it, imagined it in endless reverie, and have re-travelled that long, long road to Orodruin with Frodo many, many times. And each time I read the book, I saw that here was a rare treasure of insight and creativity, and that what was contained therein was of TREMENDOUS benefit to all people, not just the few who picked up the books and persevered all the way to "Well, I'm back."

You have continually shown that you only read the parts of what others write which you can use to back up your assertions, you have shown you level an accusation against someone and refuse to back off that assertion even when proved consistently wrong, and have also shown you are more interested in starting conflict between posters because they disagree with you rather than argue with them in reasoned discourse.

You may think you have been "proven right", cowboy, but you're telling us the sky is green when we know dadgum well it is a nice shade of azure.

[Sween]

You all make good points. But been a nice nutral that i am this is how i look at it. The film is the tale of the war of the ring. the book is the tale of the hobbits journey and self discovery. In the book its from the point of view of the hobbits allways. In the film its from the point of view of men (aragorn) this is probably to help the uninlighed of us feel more at ease i mean who cares about short guys with hairy feet?

Ill take BoP up on one thing i thought the ending of the movie was very well done and i had a tear in my eye. Frodos choices were not demished at all. i love his chat with aragorn even though he did offer that damn ring to allmost everyone in the film. His and sams convo was beautiful and the flashback then his eyes as he goes to the boat very nicely done.

I dont like it when people reduce a film to base elements eg car chace sex scean trip to casino cos well uve a bond movie right there but its not what films are about its about the way they are played out on screan.

Black breatliser BoP is not a purist sure she likes tolkien but im sure she is of intelgent enough mind not to just say oh that was crap cos she likes the books. She obvosly didnt like a lot of the film. seeing from other thread shes not really into big set peice films she seems to like lots of convo and character development and stuff like that (her poor bf

)

I love the film its my number 1 of all time but even i can tell its a very diffrent tale from the book and just cos you like the book does not mean you will like the film.

[bropous]

Good points there, Sween. You need to change your "byline", though, 'cause you're anything BUT stupid. It's pretty obvious that dyslexia doesn't hinder a person's reasoning skills. Good on ya.

Time to watch my faves, Manchester United, against the Tottenham Hot Spurs.......and I ain't lookin' at the Moot til the game's over 'cause I don' wan' no one telling me the outcome!

[Sween]

Originally posted by bropous
Good points there, Sween. You need to change your "byline", though, 'cause you're anything BUT stupid. It's pretty obvious that dyslexia doesn't hinder a person's reasoning skills. Good on ya.

Time to watch my faves, Manchester United, against the Tottenham Hot Spurs.......and I ain't lookin' at the Moot til the game's over 'cause I don' wan' no one telling me the outcome!

what the hell? that was on at the weekend the final score was .................................

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Sween
The film is the tale of the war of the ring. the book is the tale of the hobbits journey and self discovery. In the book its from the point of view of the hobbits allways. In the film its from the point of view of men (aragorn)

Yes. And it saddens me that PJ felt the need to change the POV from that of the hobbits (red book of westmarch) to one of Aragorn, and his "insecurities." Sure, it makes for a more complicated character, but still, I feel that something unique was lost there. We've seen many a movie with an angst ridden hero, reluctant to take up his cause. Terry Pratchett has a good take off on this regarding Carrot, birthmarks, and swords.

Sween:
Ill take BoP up on one thing i thought the ending of the movie was very well done and i had a tear in my eye. Frodos choices were not demished at all. i love his chat with aragorn even though he did offer that damn ring to allmost everyone in the film. His and sams convo was beautiful and the flashback then his eyes as he goes to the boat very nicely done.

Yes, I liked it with the boat send off, and I almost liked the Sam/Frodo interaction on the water... and them looking out over Emyn Muil was just chilling. Also, I would have been a lot sadder with Boromir's death if he hadn't uttered that dorky line "My brother, etc." But, I had more sympathy for movie Boromir, than I did book Boromir.

However, the whole ending with the "Boss Fight"... ergh. And Frodo having to consort with Aragorn regarding his decision; again... ergh. Another instance of the "weakening"/cowardisation of hobbits, IMO.

Sween:
Black breatliser BoP is not a purist sure she likes tolkien but im sure she is of intelgent enough mind not to just say oh that was crap cos she likes the books. She obvosly didnt like a lot of the film. seeing from other thread shes not really into big set peice films she seems to like lots of convo and character development and stuff like that

Thank you Sween. How ... er... gallant of you.

And thanks also to Bropous, again.

[olsonm]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
And Frodo having to consort with Aragorn regarding his decision; again... ergh. Another instance of the "weakening"/cowardisation of hobbits, IMO.

Actually, Frodo made up his own mind. He was simply telling Aragorn that he was going on his own. This way PJ wouldn't have to spend time showing Aragorn discovering what happened. A simple, time-saving device.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by olsonm
Actually, Frodo made up his own mind. He was simply telling Aragorn that he was going on his own. This way PJ wouldn't have to spend time showing Aragorn discovering what happened. A simple, time-saving device.

Well, really, it's a matter of interpretation. That is simply the way I interpreted it; I never said it was factual, and in fact added, IMO.

[olsonm]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Well, really, it's a matter of interpretation. That is simply the way I interpreted it; I never said it was factual, and in fact added, IMO.

Well, I was saying it was factual. The Hobbit's were not weakened by the ending. In fact, Frodo basically told Aragorn what to do, so you could make an argument that Aragorn was weakened by the ending (in the sense that he had an easier decision to make in the movie because he had more definative information).

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by olsonm
Well, I was saying it was factual. The Hobbit's were not weakened by the ending. In fact, Frodo basically told Aragorn what to do, so you could make an argument that Aragorn was weakened by the ending (in the sense that he had an easier decision to make in the movie because he had more definative information).

I'm not going to argue this with you. I've already told you that this was subject to MY interpretation. You wanna take it as factual, then okay. But I happen to think that everything in the movie medium is subject to interpretation, and I don't think that this particular scene stands outside the realm of interpretation. You've obviously chosen to take it one way, and I've taken it another way. *shrug*

[sun-star]

Newbie though I am, I like being a purist. By all accounts Tolkien himself was the ultimate purist, so it's nothing to be ashamed of

[Sween]

i personally feel that Pj is saving a lot of the development of a characters esspecially the hobbits for the next 2. the hobbits in the book are pretty much in there hero phase as they leave the shire they are organised and prepared. They also had a much better idea of what they were facing.

key characters like gollum get but a passing mention in the film.

by the end of all the movies the movie aragorn will be the book aragorn i bet.

[Black Breathalizer]

The trouble when book fans see a movie adaption is that there is a tendency to want to play back-seat movie director. There is nothing wrong with someone saying "hey, the movie was not my cup of tea." But when Tolkien book fans say they don't like the movie for one reason or another, I suspect that its because they have been subbornly unwilling - or perhaps unable - to judge the film on its own merits.

In the case of BoP, she said she didn't like all the action. I asked her why. She responded by telling me how different the movie was from the book and how the action cut into the character development she was hoping for. That's cool. She's entitled to her opinion. My point is simply that whenever vocal critics of the movie use the book to defend their negative views, its hard not to believe that the real issue is unmet expectations. Going into a movie with expectations of watching your own book vision broadcast to you in living color on the big screen is guaranteed to leave anyone disappointed.

If I've given some of you a hard time, it's only because I've "been there, done that." I saw the movie on Midnight on opening night and came away from the experience with mixed feelings and at a loss to say how I felt about it. On one level, I knew I had watched a very high quality production with great acting, an inspired soundtrack, and wonderful sets, yet I felt disturbed and a little disappointed. When I had a chance to reflect back on what had happened to me, I realized that I hadn't had a normal movie experience where I was able to lose myself into the screen. Why? Because I spent the entire movie analyzing every detail and tearing each scene apart in my head ('yeah, okay, okay, this is right,' or 'no-no-no, this isn't the way I pictured it.').

After I got over my initial shock of seeing the world and the people I loved since I was 14 come to life on the screen slightly different from what I had imagined it all, I was able to relax and let all that stuff go and free myself to watch the film again (uh, and again and again...) and enjoy it for the unique story it was telling me without feeling compelled to compare it unfavorably against the book I knew so well.

There is no reason to get into a book versus film comparison (or arguement.) Tolkien didn't write a fantasy novel, he devoted much of his adult life to writing a modern mythology for England. Like the Greek, Roman, and Norse mythologies of old, Tolkiens stories are now being retold and refashioned. While some of his followers may feel that any change - "for good or ill" - to Tolkien's words is sacrelegious, I believe Tolkien would have understood what was happening to his work and may have actually felt validated by it.

Sincerely,
"Another Newbie Know-it-all" =)

[Cirdan]

Well BB, that was a better articulation of your point and you did'nt even have to pat yourself on the back. Of course movies are always disappointing when compared to a book. I was just reading the Prancing Pony chapter. The development was so much better because there is narration to every detail and feeling on the part of every character. This would be extremely difficult to convey in film without extensively expanding dialog or adding narrative, neither of which would improve the story. This is, however, exactly why some people don't like the movie as much as the book. Since the topic of the thread is "Peter Jackson improved Tolkien" it would make sense that these individuals would disagree with this pronouncement. Since you have said you felt the same way but then put your fellings aside, I find it hard to understand your intolerance for this point of view. It's not that anyone hates the movie. Everyone here has seen it many times. The simple point is that they don't think PJ improved Tolkien.

[Black Breathalizer]

I disagree, Cirdan. Once purists put aside their built-in book prejudices and view the film more objectively, they might actually acknowledge that there are indeed small areas where the movie's storyline or characterizations enhanced book fans' appreciation of the Lord of the Rings characters and story.

I respect that there can be different opinions on this subject. But when a confessed Tolkienite says he doesn't like a movie that millions have embraced and that clearly captures the essence of Tolkien's great work, I question their objectivity and/or their motivations.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I respect that there can be different opinions on this subject. But when a confessed Tolkienite says he doesn't like a movie that millions have embraced and that clearly captures the essence of Tolkien's great work, I question their objectivity and/or their motivations.

I say again, why should someone follow the masses? Can't people think for themselves?