Learning from Peter Jackson

[Black Breathalizer]

The kind, old wizard, Black Breathalizer, sits on a rock with all the little mooters gathered around him eagerly awaiting the pearls of wisdom he is about to bestow upon them:

"I have no problem with differing opinions from my own. But one of the things I've noticed here in the Moot is that some of you people want to cling your own personal views of LOTR by wrapping yourselves in a "Only MY view is true to Tolkien" blanket. Rather than open your minds to differing perspectives and viewpoints, you rigidly hold on to your personalized LOTR-view by staunchly refusing to believe there could possibly be another valid way to look at the story other than your own."

"It's kind of sad really. You see life, my young Mooters, is about realizing the world is full of different perspectives. The realization that none of us hold exclusive rights to The Truth is the first step towards growing up and becoming mature adults. So what you have to decide is what to do with the opportunity that has been given to you by Peter Jackson. Jackson was meant to make the Lord of the Rings films and YOU were meant to learn something from them...and that is an encouraging thought."

[Ruinel]

For those who innocently get sucked into BB's moronic threads, I say: boycot this thread!!!Seriously, does BB need anymore attention? Maybe he is just some sad, lonely guy sitting int the dark someplace and really needs this attention. If you want to give it to him, go ahead and argue with him here. If you want to really make a statement, then BOYCOT THIS THREAD!!! Let it fall to the bottomless pit of unpopular threads and finally go to rest, unanswered, in the archives.

[Lizra]

So what is this thread supposed to be about BB? That there is more than one way to interpret a story? Everybody knows that! Save your "pearls of wisdom" for the kindergarten set! I think we LIKE to discuss our personal interpretations. Can YOU handle it? Get over it dude! You are quite the gadfly!

[Black Breathalizer]

Doe the truth hurt that much, Ruinel?

I don't care if you and others don't post here. This place isn't about a particular poster or a particular thread. Did you notice what happened when the 'What Else?' thread was closed? A new thread was simply opened up and the discussion continued on. Big deal.

I'm here to talk about LOTR and have some fun. Sometimes my posts are controversial, sometimes they are meant to be funny, and sometimes they're INCREDIBLY profound. But they are always done in a spirit of debate (which -- news flash -- is what a discussion board is supposed to be about!!!) If you don't want to play, cool. But whether you agree with me or hate my guts, the fact of the matter is that I've contributed to the discussion on this board. So get over yourself.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Did you notice what happened when the 'What Else?' thread was closed? A new thread was simply opened up and the discussion continued on. Big deal.

Yep, and that thread is lucky to be open. When a thread gets closed it isn't normal policy to allow a dupicate thread to open. Sort of defeats the purpose of closing the other thread. However, I discussed it with the thread starter and decided to leave it open as long as it didn't spin out of control. I will leave this thread open too, at least for now. It looks pretty flame baity, but we'll see.

[Sween]

I think BB needs a girlfiend! Tell me lad when was the last time you got some was it a long time ago? Did all the talk of a plump bearded new zeland man put the ladies off?

Join the fight to get BB some action! If you know a lady that would likwe to listen to his inlightiening statement call on

01900 iamasaddespratePJlovinnymp



awww bless hes kinda cute really isnt he

(yes thats right ive been down the pub all afternoon and soon im going for a curry then some lovin )

[azalea]

Adding to what SGH said, this thread also needs to stay on topic. Since it wasn't made clear in the first post, I'll spell it out here: the topic for discussion in this thread is: Are differing viewpoints acceptable when interpreting scenes from LotR/ the storyline (for instance, filling in action where it isn't explicitly written in the book, stuff like that), or is it unacceptable to fill in or have an alternate interpretation of characters, scenes, actions, etc.?
Is the book as written the final word, or has the story become bigger than the book, a legend that is open to the reader's imagination to go beyond the printed page?
To reiterate: calm, polite debate/ discussion is acceptable. Sarcastic comments or personal put-downs are considered flaming. Do not give in to temptation to cross that line. If you can't contain yourself, don't post in the thread. This goes for all the threads, but this one looks like it is already heading that way.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by azalea
Since it wasn't made clear in the first post, I'll spell it out here: the topic for discussion in this thread is: Are differing viewpoints acceptable when interpreting scenes from LotR/ the storyline.

Thanks azalea for spelling out what I thought was rather obvious.

A perfect example of where a few misguided souls have gotten on their high horses and erroneously bashed Jackson is the wizards' duel. Some people have moaned and groaned that Jackson hollywoodized Gandalf's capture instead of following the book. Oh really? Read the book again. Tolkien didn't describe Gandalf's actual capture. Given the circumstances, Peter Jackson's film version of events is actually the most logical way he could have depicted it.

To think that Gandalf would have surrendered to Saruman without a fight when he had just learned the Nine were abroad and Frodo was in extreme danger is highly dubious. Yet this scene from FOTR has been a favorite target for Jackson bashing. It illustrates how some so-called "purists" make assumptions from vague text descriptions and then make further assumptions that their assumptions are the only way a scene should have been done in order to be "true to Tolkien."

In presenting us with the wizards' duel, thankfully, PJ gave us a scene more true to Tolkien and his characters than the so-called "purists" here would have been able to offer.

[The Gaffer]

Maybe it would be helpful to start by categorising all of the ways in which the films had to deviate from the books. For example:

1) Things which weren't described in the books but had to appear on film for it to make sense; e.g.
- wizards' duel
- spawning uruk-hai
- Aragorn/Arwen love scenes

2) Things which were described in the books but had to be portrayed differently for filmic reasons; e.g.
- Theoden exorcism
- spontaneous collapse of Moria
- excision of Bombadil
- irascible Elrond

3) Things which were just different in the films; e.g.
- no Glorfindel
- Osgiliath detour
- dwarf-throwing

Make sense?

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Sween
I think BB needs a girlfiend! Tell me lad when was the last time you got some, was it a long time ago? Did all the talk of a plump bearded new zealand man put the ladies off?

Join the fight to get BB some action! If you know a lady that would like to listen to his enlightening statement call on

01900 iamasaddespratePJlovinnymp

Please read what azalea wrote. [POST DELETED]


Last edited by Sister Golden Hair

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
A perfect example of where a few misguided souls have gotten on their high horses and erroneously bashed Jackson is the wizards' duel. Some people have moaned and groaned that Jackson hollywoodized Gandalf's capture instead of following the book. Oh really? Read the book again. Tolkien didn't describe Gandalf's actual capture. Given the circumstances, Peter Jackson's film version of events is actually the most logical way he could have depicted it.

To think that Gandalf would have surrendered to Saruman without a fight when he had just learned the Nine were abroad and Frodo was in extreme danger is highly dubious. Yet this scene from FOTR has been a favorite target for Jackson bashing. It illustrates how some so-called "purists" make assumptions from vague text descriptions and then make further assumptions that their assumptions are the only way a scene should have been done in order to be "true to Tolkien."

In presenting us with the wizards' duel, thankfully, PJ gave us a scene more true to Tolkien and his characters than the so-called "purists" here would have been able to offer.

Why is the most logical when he says - "They took me and they set me alone on the pinnacle of Orthanc, in the place where Saruman was accustomed to watch the stars."

I'll agree that I put my own spin on it that Saruman ENTRAPPED Gandalf. I do believe it is much more believable than the damn wizards duel. I think that the wizards duel is hollywoodized crap and just another wasted over the top action scenes that take away from the characterization and emotional scenes that make Lord of the Rings books so enjoyable.

Jackson could have done a lot in NOT presenting Gandalf in "real time" seeing Saruman and doing it as a flashback as it is done in the book. I think the wizards duel was ridiculous - whatever you may think BB.

BTW Gaffer - you left out the ridiculuos portrayal of the Flight to the Ford. And Frodo's greatest lines and a scene that does a lot to develop Frodo as a STRONG character.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
BTW Gaffer - you left out the ridiculuos portrayal of the Flight to the Ford. And Frodo's greatest lines and a scene that does a lot to develop Frodo as a STRONG character.

Agreed: for me that's the most annoying difference. I'd be tempted to put it in the third category, or maybe we need a fourth:

4) Things which were different from the books and detracted from the experience

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

"I have no problem with differing opinions from my own. But one of the things I've noticed here in the Moot is that some of you people want to cling your own personal views of LOTR by wrapping yourselves in a "Only MY view is true to Tolkien" blanket. Rather than open your minds to differing perspectives and viewpoints, you rigidly hold on to your personalized LOTR-view by staunchly refusing to believe there could possibly be another valid way to look at the story other than your own."

Perspective is not the issue BB. In the who else thread (closed because of your posts) you argued that the posession presented in the film was an expansion of what was presented in the book. Tolkien however, without any doubt, has stated that Saruman's power was his gift of persuasion and that no hypnosis, trances or any other "variant" exist in his story. In short, you were wrong, not in my opinion, not by my perspective, but based on the statements of Tolkien himself, whom I might add always takes second place to Jackson in your posts when there is conflict between film and movie. It is so hard to believe (in fact I don't) that you are even a fan of the book.


Perhaps next you can join a Beethoven fan site to argue Walter Murphy and the Big Apple Band's disco version "a Fifth of Beethoven" was an improvement on the original, after all, it did sell more copies that year.

[hectorberlioz]

[QOUTE]Perhaps next you can join a Beethoven fan site to argue Walter Murphy and the Big Apple Band's disco version "a Fifth of Beethoven" was an improvement on the original, after all, it did sell more copies that year.[/QOUTE]

Ok, whats the address for that site? I'm going to go argue there
STUPID DISCO! hmmph

[QOUTE]A perfect example of where a few misguided souls have gotten on their high horses and erroneously bashed Jackson is the wizards' duel. Some people have moaned and groaned that Jackson hollywoodized Gandalf's capture instead of following the book. Oh really? Read the book again. Tolkien didn't describe Gandalf's actual capture. Given the circumstances, Peter Jackson's film version of events is actually the most logical way he could have depicted it.[/QOUTE]

The only thing I have to say to this is: If he ('he' as in PJ) had REALLY followed the book, then the wizards duel would not have had to be puit in. Why? because Gandalf would not be in Isengard as the movie moves along, because he would have told his tale at the counsel.
The flashbacks would not have had to portray gandalf and saruman's duel. I understands PJ's motives behind it though, having basically three hours, there was still not enough time for everything and the audience who had not read the books would not have understood anything.
But, of course, he was still not bieng true to tolkien.
He could have toned down the 'wowness' of it, at least.

[Millane]

Well this topic seems to be a little one sided, but i think that PJ made the best possible movie out of Lord of the Rings... i think most of the so called 'purists' [phrase edited] like to show off the fact that they have read LotR, a friend of mine said after seeing TTT 'im so pissed off that they didnt show gandalf grabbing onto the balrogs leg' i think he expected me to praise him because he had read the book. do any of you really wish Tom Bombadil was kept in because i can tell you it wouldnt have improved the movies he is a great character in words but the movie could not have done justice to him.
Why cant you accept the movie's and book as separate things, you want an exact replica of the book try and do it yourself.

yeah and if you keep up [phrase edited] i tell you all to BOYCOTT THE MOVIES if your all feeling so anti-PJ, see how many of you could manage that if that doesnt happen then i expect that you are really closest PJ lovers and your ashamed of it for some reason...

edited by azalea: I appreciate your position, but please remember what I said above, and don't post anything that could possibly be taken as a flame; that will only cause others to respond likewise and cause the thread to go downhill. Thanks for your cooperation.

[jerseydevil]

Millane - you have one thing wrong. Jackson made the best possible movie HE could make. I feel there are plenty of directors who could have made a far more INTELLIGENT movie - instead of making a dumbed down action flick. Had you even known any of Jackson's movies before Lord of the Rings?

And yes - I'll see Jackson's movie. How else can I know how terrible Jackson is as a director without having watched the movies?

As for Tom Bombadill - very few people have said that they think any movie version should have kept him in. And NO ONE has asked for an "exact replica of the book".

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
(Jackson made) a dumbed down action flick.

Let's examine this criticrism that jerseydevil has leveled at PJ a million times:

Here are the major action sequences from the first two films that are directly from the books:
The ringwraith attack on Weathertop
The flight to the Ford
The watcher on the water
The fight in Balin's Tomb
Gandalf versus the Balrog
The orc attack at Amon Hen
The chase of the uruks by the Three Hunters
The ambush of the uruks at Fangorn
The battle for Helm's Deep
The Ents attack on Isengard
The ambush of the Haradrim

Tolkien action scenes NOT shown in the film:
The warg attack in Hollin.
Old Man Willow
The orc chase from Moria and the battle on the outskirts of Lorien.

New action scenes from Jackson:
Warg battle

hmmm...I guess upon further analysis Peter Jackson actually toned down Tolkien's "hollywoodized" version.

The Purist response will likely be: "yeah, well, Tolkien didn't put the emphasis on the fighting like Jackson does." As I've been pointing out here , "Tolkien Truth" is in the eyes of the beholder. The simple fact that the films have such a 'real feeling' about them is going to result in an emphasize on the ugliness, harshness, and conflict of Tolkien's world as well as its harmony and beauty.

Millane, you are dead on

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Millane
Why cant you accept the movie's and book as separate things, you want an exact replica of the book try and do it yourself.

I agree with the first part of this sentence but not with the second part.

One can argue that, since book and movie are two different media, one should look at them as seperate things. However, it's the same story we're dealing with here. That makes it not so easy to keep both things seperate in your mind. The movie is based on the book, which makes me immediatly rate the movie by its closeness to the book. It's a natural thing to do. When somebody paints a portrait of you, don't you judge it on first hand on how much the portrait resembles you?

Although I suppose one should also give the movie some credit of its own. (Even a portrait can be pretty on its own without resembling the person depicted) Granted, Jackson took some 'artisic license' in some scenes, well many scenes actually, but he did put a story on film that was said to be unfilmable. Whatever his reasons were for doing so, I for one am glad he made the movies. True, the movies could have been better - with or without Jackson at the helm- but they also could as easily have been far, far worse. (I speak only for the two already released films here.)

I think another issue is that those who don't like the movies in their entirety, don't necesarily want an exact copy of the book, which seems to be the usual accusation when somebody voices displeasure with a certain scene or part. It's not always that black-white.

Personally, I thoroughly detest Arwen's scene at the fords -however- I do not immediately demand that scene to be 100% accurate to the book. I'm sure there were other ways to have a good scene with Arwen there and without that camp 'Come and claim him' line.

The wizard duel is different example. While I found wizards tripping eachother over their staff rather untolkienish, the scene was enjoyable enough on its own. I do wish some scenes had been different (or beter in my eyes) but not always for the reason that they don't follow the book close enough.

Of course, once again it's all down to personal preferences and opinions, I know that. And I am fully aware that not everyone, if any one at all, agrees 100% with what I typed here. But that's besides the point. Opinions and preferences are still what makes us individuals. So I for one hope we can stop belittling eachother's opinions for 'not being the thruth' and accept also that -opinions though they may be- everybody is entitled to them and that yours are as good mine.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Of course, once again it's all down to personal preferences and opinions, I know that. And I am fully aware that not everyone, if any one at all, agrees 100% with what I typed here. But that's besides the point. Opinions and preferences are still what makes us individuals. So I for one hope we can stop belittling each other's opinions for 'not being the truth' and accept also that -opinions though they may be- everybody is entitled to them and that yours are as good mine.

Well said, Eärniel. As you've pointed out, the issue is not differing opinions. The danger is when some posters try to bolster their arguements by saying Tolkien agrees exclusively with their personal views.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

The danger is when some posters try to bolster their arguements by saying Tolkien agrees exclusively with their personal views

Actually no, some people here are REAL fans of the book, and Tolkien, and have opinions about the story based on what the author himself said about the work. You just don't care what Tolkien wrote regarding his OWN story.

Don't hide behind the word subjective - the exorsism isn't another viewpoint, it's a change in the story to get a horror effect that the author specificaly said wasn't present in the story.

Weathertop was not a swordfight. Tolkien wrote a letter explaining why it is important that there be no swordfight on weathertop - again that is not a differing point of view it is a change to create action.

The actual fighting at Helm's Deep is 11 pages in the book - it's 1/3 of the film, that is what people are trying to point out to you. The action has been expanded greatly.

4. Why didn't a mortally wounded little Frodo ride to the fords on that big white horse all by himself like in the books

As I have said before, your contempt for the original story it's characters, it's themes and it's symbolism is clear.