I have posted my review at Suite101

[Michael Martinez]

Who's afraid of the big bad purists?

http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/tolkien

[Darth Tater]

Damn purists, they're so... pure.

Nice article, though I do have to dissagree with you about the smoking thing. I won't go into that now though, since this has already been debated in depth a while ago.

[Lelondul]

I agree - great article Michael, though your anti-smoking crusade is weak. I understand that smoking related-deaths have touched you personally - and that truly is tragic - my sympathies. But smoking is so ingrained in the cultures of Middle-earth (whether they were from Tolkien's own subconcious or not), I was actually looking forward to seeing how smoking was treated (I was even dissapointed at the lack of detail in the pipes ). Smoking in Middle-earth was as central to the Hobbit culture as were seed-cakes and ale. Should then, the scences in The Prancing Pony be cut for fear of young people poisoning their livers with copious amounts of fermeted grains? Gratuitous? Hardly! Lets be sensible here. Do you skip over all the smoking references when re-reading LotR because you find them so distasteful? Perhaps the Hobbit's preference for six meals a day should be omitted since obesity is rampant these days (especially in the US)?

I would personally feel more robbed had Gandalf and Bildo's smoke-ring-contest been left out as opposed to the numerous other ommitances that exist!

Your comparison of Hobbits drinking rat-poison, or blowing their brains out is completely asinine and only reveals your own deep-personal bias towards this subject. I understand what with the popularity your columns have generated, I imagine you've earned the right to make them your own personal tools for furthering your agendas, but disagreing with your potrayal of smoking's treatment in he movie as much as I do, I'm compelled to call you on this.

Keep up the good work, I find your columns by-in-large very entertaining and insightful.

Regards.

[Steerpike]

Besides, that wasn't tobacco, that was Hobbit weed!

Middle Earth is too unlike our world for me to consider those scenes to be promoting tobacco.

[Wayfarer]

I have to admit, I really am a Bad Purist.

But I liked the movie. And I plan to see it at least once more in theatre, likely twice.

Overall... It was a bit of a nip and tuck job. A little missing here, a little there, this bit relocated. But it had the right spirit.

Good enough for me.

[hama]

Of course it has been a few months since I last read FotR but I can't recall the rat poison scene or the Hobbits with hand guns scene from the books. Now smoking pipe weed DOES ring a bell.

I recently saw Micheal's version's of Titanic and Pearl Harbor but both were a bit confusing without the people dying when the ship sank or the japanese attacking the United States.

[Michael Martinez]

It's a shame so many naive people believe that smoking is important to either Middle-earth or the story. Tolkien put in a personal affectation which he did not know was a deadly, self-destructive habit. He was not a man who would have dealt with human life so callously as many of his readers today would.

If any of you can personally guarantee that not one person will take up the use of tobacco as a result of watching movies which depict tobacco use, then you are certainly justified in snickering at my rejection of gratuitous tobacco use in the films.

Of course, research has shown that movies DO influence children to take up the habit. And the fact that Tolkien was ignorant of the dangers of tobacco doesn't excuse today's generations.

Human life is precious, and should not be thrown away for the sake of making movies.

That, my friends, is just plain stupid.

Think about that.

Or not.

[Fat middle]

i think you're right: Tolkien didn't know how dangerous smoking could be. Perhaps he had not use it if he had know.

But i also think that smoking is important to the story, not from the pov of the leasure it can provide but as the symbol of friendship and that sort of peaceful life that hobbits have at the Shire. That's one of the core points of the story, and i'm glad PJ hasn't rejected a symbol that can remark it.

[Ñólendil]

I didn't mind the tobacco scenes, and I don't really know if people are going to be influenced by it (let's hope those action figures don't come with pipes), but it is probably a better idea to leave it out. Kids shouldn't see the movie anyway, it's too damn dark and scary.

I was looking forward to your review Michael. I knew you were taking the 'see it as a movie stand', and I agree with that. I didn't mind all the changes to the story as much as you did. Gimli was a bit over the top I guess (considering the book), but it didn't bother me at all. I really got my mind into the 'seeing a movie' mode.

What do you mean by the 'change in Sauron's character'? Besides the 'Sauron is the Eye' idea.

What was the subtle gesture Legolas shared with Gimli? You mean at the end of the movie? What was the line of Legolas used by someone else? I vaguely remember that, but I don't remember which line it was.

I agree about Aragorn and Boromir. It was pulled off beautifully. My mother was one of the members of the party seeing the movie with me that hadn't read the book. During the battle, after Boromir was shot with an arrow, she leaned over to my dad and said 'Is he going to die?' with worry in her voice. She almost cried when he did. Later the same day she downloaded the Enya video and she broke into tears seeing Boromir walk with the company. I really like their portrayal of Boromir.

The biggest thing that bothered me is what I'm very surprised to find unmentioned by you! Galadriel! Lothlórien! What the heck was that? Peter Jackson made all the dark scenes darker, and he made the light ones dark. He is too obviously uninspired by Light and goodness. Galadriel was the bizarre, dark witch of the Wood, which was a strange and gloomy land. It required knowledge of the romance to dislike, so it doesn't affect my overall judgment of the movie, but it still is regrettable. Why have we been forbidden a glimpse of Cerin Amroth? It was the end of the Lothlórien chapter that J. R. R. Tolkien said was the part (along with two others) that most moved him in the story.

[Michael Martinez]

The story would survive without the smoking, and any other commodity could have been shipped from the Shire to Rivendell. But though both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings depict smoking without any repercussions, it has yet to be shown that books influence young minds the way movies do. Peter Jackson was wrong to include the smoking -- which serves NO fundamental purpose in these movies, and it's extremely misguided for anyone to applaud his irresponsibility on this issue.

The fact that so many people don't give a damn about the lives which are ruined through the influence of the film industry every year shows just how far we have to go in righting a terrible wrong. There should be no exceptions. No movies should get any special dispensation on this subject.

Go stand beside the bed of any hospital patient on a respirator and you'll see instantly why it is so important for our society to learn from this terrible lesson that history has, apparently, only taught to a few.

Even if the film industry stops depicting tobacco use as of today, millions more have been condemned to die from the effects of tobacco in the coming decades. That cannot be changed. But we CAN change is the growth of that statistic.

If we can stamp out smallpox and polio, why can we not stamp out tobacco addiction? Why do people have to blindly support it in the name of art, when they would be just as quick to condemn any other form of mass murder?

Whether you shoot someone or slowly poison them over the course of 20 years, you are still killing another human being.

If none of you can restore good health and life to those who have suffered, then why are you so determined to defend Peter Jackson on this issue? Many of you have complained about Arwen. Others have complained about faithlessness to the story. But it's okay with you to have these Lord of the Rings movies blacken Tolkien's legacy by helping to induce yet another generation to poison itself through the use of tobacco products.

Is that where your priorities really lie?

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Inoldonil
I was looking forward to your review Michael. I knew you were taking the 'see it as a movie stand', and I agree with that. I didn't mind all the changes to the story as much as you did. Gimli was a bit over the top I guess (considering the book), but it didn't bother me at all. I really got my mind into the 'seeing a movie' mode.

It was not so much minding (or objecting to) the changes in the story as simply being aware of them. It is jarring, to know a story so thoroughly, that one's knowledge of the tale brings up immediate corrective responses for even minor departures.

I enjoyed the movie the second time more than the first, expect that my pleasure will increase with each viewing, despite whatever flaws I may find in it. It is like breaking in a new pair of shoes. I will eventually find a comfort-level.

What do you mean by the 'change in Sauron's character'? Besides the 'Sauron is the Eye' idea.

Sauron is a physical being in the book (or else Gollum met an imposter). But Sauron also returns to life after only a thousand years in the book. The movie's prologue gives the impression that he doesn't return to life until after Sauron finds the One Ring. I don't understand why they decided to do that, unless they felt that the additional history would be encumbersome (and it might -- it's hard to tell, when you are only an armchair critic).

What was the subtle gesture Legolas shared with Gimli? You mean at the end of the movie? What was the line of Legolas used by someone else? I vaguely remember that, but I don't remember which line it was.

I think you should see the movie again.

The biggest thing that bothered me is what I'm very surprised to find unmentioned by you! Galadriel! Lothlórien! What the heck was that? Peter Jackson made all the dark scenes darker, and he made the light ones dark. He is too obviously uninspired by Light and goodness.

This is Peter Jackson we're talking about. He likes to make movies about good and evil, light and dark. He likes contrasts, and I'm sure that is in part why he was drawn to this story.

As for why the Lothlorien material was so brief, it's my understanding they cut 45 minutes from the movie. Hopefully, we'll see it all restored on the DvD.

[Ñólendil]

I guess I should see it again.

But are you telling me that the difference of Lórien is due simply to time-cuts? Galadriel was a strange witch-lady of the Elves! Lórien's not even seen in day-time! Surely the 'freak-out' (as Darth Tater put it to me) scene of the Lady bothered you? I prefer everything to become dark around her, and to see her in her light, tall, beautiful and terrible. PJ's Galadriel is cold, very cold.

The trouble is, I didn't see a lot of contrasts in the movies. It included good people experiencing a lot of bad things. The viewer is taken from the horror of Mória and thrown into the sadness of Lothórien, interrupted by the hideous Uruk-hai scenes under Isengard.

Don't get me wrong, as a movie I give it a 10 out of 10.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Inoldonil
I guess I should see it again.

But are you telling me that the difference of Lórien is due simply to time-cuts? Galadriel was a strange witch-lady of the Elves! Lórien's not even seen in day-time! Surely the 'freak-out' (as Darth Tater put it to me) scene of the Lady bothered you? I prefer everything to become dark around her, and to see her in her light, tall, beautiful and terrible. PJ's Galadriel is cold, very cold.

I think he filmed a more robust Galadriel than time permitted him to show us. I wasn't thrilled with the freakout scene, but then, I wasn't expecting a BBC sitting-at-tea quality production, either.

The trouble is, I didn't see a lot of contrasts in the movies. It included good people experiencing a lot of bad things. The viewer is taken from the horror of Mória and thrown into the sadness of Lothórien, interrupted by the hideous Uruk-hai scenes under Isengard.

Don't get me wrong, as a movie I give it a 10 out of 10.

I saw a lot of contrasts. Whether they were well-done -- that's a decision to be reached only after some time has passed.

I liked the contrasts between "Arwen of light" and "normal Arwen" (although even I would not have done that -- Glorfindel is said to have dwelt over Sea in the Blessed Realm -- Arwen has never been there).

I liked the contrasts between Aragorn and Boromir, although I also regretted the brevity of their screen time. Both characters deserve more screen time. But then, many who live deserve death. And many who die deserve life. Blah, blah, blah.

Peter Jackson's contrasts are not simply portrayed in tones of black and white. He also uses mood, sound, and action to provide contrast. Look at the scene in Moria where Pippin knocks the skeleton into the well. One moment there is total noise; the next there is total silence as the party listens for the sound of approaching enemies. Gandalf breathes a sigh of relief -- but then they hear the first screeches of the Orcs. It's a very well-done scene, as that sort of suspense has been done to death and is really very cliched. I'm surprised they pulled it off.

[Ñólendil]

I meant specifically: the contrasts between light and dark, good and evil. Particularly in the environments and story. There's much more dark and evil than there is light and good.

[Darth Tater]

I really didn't wanna get into this again, but I feel I have to comment on this anti-film-smoking cruisade. I would understand your opinion if you were simply talking about Hollywood pre-packaged films. But PJ's LOTR certainly doesn't fit into that category. It was a work of art, and he obviously felt his piece benefited from the smoking (I'd have to agree. Anyone at all formiliar with cinema can tell you that there's nothing quite as beautifull as whisps of smoke from a pipe on the silver screen. But beyond that, it shows the connection between the hobbits and Gandalf, as well as a connection to the simple rural life of a farming village.) On the Tolkien Trail my image of Strider shows him clutching a pipe, the same as in Tolkien's image and PJ's image. Do you think this artistic choice I made is offensive? As someone who works with visual mediums of all sorts, The image of Strider smoking a pipe has always been very special to me. It's difficult to put into words, but it helps define him in a visual manner.

Am I erresponsible for drawing that image? I certainly don't think so. LOTR is a thinking movie, and anyone who starts smoking because they see a hobbit and a wizard doing it obviously aren't thinking. Should PJ sacrifice his art for this small minority (which I really doubt exists)? I don't think so. I mean, the small possibility exists that someone who just kicked the habit could read this thread, see all the discussion about smoking, and decide to start up again! Of course the likelihood of that is next to nil, and not worth stopping the discussion for.

Honestly, you're ok with Aragorn slicing the arm off an orc, stabbing it in the chest, and then slicing its head off (which made the audience cheer, btw, so they obviously approved), but you have a problem with a couple of fantasy characters smoking rings and ships?

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Darth Tater
I really didn't wanna get into this again, but I feel I have to comment on this anti-film-smoking cruisade. I would understand your opinion if you were simply talking about Hollywood pre-packaged films. But PJ's LOTR certainly doesn't fit into that category. It was a work of art,

I'm sure the families of the people you're helping to murder will appreciate your sentiment: that art is more important than human life.

[noldo]

Oh, come on... I'm sure a fantasy movie as surreal as FotR couldn't draw anyone, neither an adult or a child, upon smoking. And besides, they're pipes (so not necessarily tobacco in there ), not cigarettes.

And like Tater, I'd be much more worried about the violent scenes in the movie, not the peaceful moments enjoying a smoke or a two.

[Ben]

I too find smoking distasteful in real life and in productions.

However, that was far from the only "bad" thing that the main characters did. There was graphic violence, gore, and death onscreen. Naturally combat is more important to the plot than smoking, but there are people who would condemn any violent film or television show and argue that this would send impressionable tots off to fights. Additionally, there was alcohol use. The scene in the Prancing Pony glorifies drinking (one of the teenage-like Hobbits, maybe Pippin, saying "That comes in pints?")

Peter Jackson is hardly the worst offender on this issue, either - Hollywood as a whole is more deserving of your criticism than PJ. I wish that smoking didn't have to be in movies, but I'm not convinced that the displayed tobacco use is going to have more of an ill effect than the violence or alcohol on children.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by noldo
[B]Oh, come on... I'm sure a fantasy movie as surreal as FotR couldn't draw anyone, neither an adult or a child, upon smoking. And besides, they're pipes (so not necessarily tobacco in there ), not cigarettes. [/q]

I hope you're right about these particular movies failing to influence anyone into thinking that the use of tobacco is cool, desirable, and safe. But if you believe that pipe-smoking is not harmful, you have obviously missed out on a truckload of data which has been published over the last 20 years.

There was no need for the use of tobacco in these movies. Furthermore, there is no point to anyone's trying to defend the use of tobacco in these movies. Reason is certainly not on your side in this matter.

If any of you seriously hope to "reason" with me on this, forget it. The tobacco companies have already admitted to their culpability and they have released documents (under subpoena, of course -- they certainly didn't give it up voluntarily) revealing just how much they relied upon movies and television to help them build their markets.

These people lied to everyone so that they could make more money by selling a highly addictive and extremely deadly substance to their customers. But if you feel they weren't lying about the health risks associated with tobacco through all those decades that people demanded to know the truth, then you have to accept they are lying now in admitting that the doctors were right all along.

In which case, why wink benignly at any effort to promote the use of tobacco, when it's only being sold by a callous group of liars who couldn't care less how many people they hurt?

That's absolutely unreasonable.

But I'll tell you what. Here is an offer of compromise. Just tell me how many people you're willing to sacrifice for the sake of putting tobacco into the movies you want to watch. I'll start counting now and will shut up until we reach that number.

Of course, I'll start counting with the tens of millions of people who have either died or are suffering from tobacco addiction around the world right now.

But at least we'll all know just how many human lives you all feel are an acceptable price to pay for the sake of making movies.

[noldo]

And what comes to the nasty effects of tobacco, I don't deny them. I witness them myself everyday. Of course pipe-smoking isn't any safer than cigarette smoking. I just meant that it's not very obvious it's tobacco they're smoking there. Yes, it's pipe-weed (referred in the film only as weed), we're in Middle-Earth! Would you take out the same kind of elements that create surrounding mood in such films as Star Wars etc. etc... We're talking about abolishing artistic rights for health guidance. I don't know about you, but to me it's parcing the freedom of speech, among other things. And when sanitary goals go beyond cinematic goals in movies, they will lose part of their magic. For instance: "What would a film about drug abuse be without actually showing drug abuse?"

We're all human. Not machines. Machines, accepting any kind of media without judgement and as if it was the truth and a total right thing to do.

Pipe-weed was a part creating the mood of the hobbits' life and taking it out would have been shadowing the truth and totally against the books. Aye, Michael?

I myself smoke, and not because I read Gandalf grab a pipe on the pages of LotR a couple of years ago.