|
FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
09-26-2002, 11:51 PM | #81 | ||
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
Quote:
I could also approach it from a more technical vantage point and say that by upping the action, PJ has created a very disjointed film, that in places is very patchy. It is my opinion that it does not flow well. Furthermore, I feel that some actors, ie John Rhys-Davies, Christopher Lee, and Ian McKellen (he was amazing in Gods and Monsters), just were not utilised to their full potential. They had some amazing actors in Fellowship, and it seems that these talents were used ad hoc. And let me not get into the script! However, despite the film's blandness, I can appreciate that PJ is still an amazing director, and the sets are ... well... beautiful. When I got it out on DVD, and watched it, I may not have been overly enthralled with the flow of the film, nor the utilisation of some of the actors, but by god, that man can direct! Regarding your rather silly point that "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".... what are you? A fascist regime? People are allowed to hold differing opinions. Just because you think that the movie is gods gift to moviedom, does not make you right; any more than the fact that I find the movie somewhat blase makes me right. And there's the "O" word again. Finally, I'll leave you with the words of Ebert: Quote:
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords |
||
09-27-2002, 12:03 AM | #82 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: minneapolis MN
Posts: 920
|
Quote:
__________________
Gandalf lives...oh and Frodo too. Haldir Lives!!! |
|
09-27-2002, 12:22 AM | #83 |
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
Perhaps.
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords |
09-27-2002, 12:24 AM | #84 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: minneapolis MN
Posts: 920
|
That Ebert quote is somewhat inaccurate and overstated. Especially the last line. Tolkien's ME had a more important work to it than LoTR; the Silmarillion; in which Hobbit's do not appear. So the Hobbit POV is hardly critical to visiualizing Tolkien's ME. However, if he had said "The movie failed to achieve the level of Hobbit POV in Book I of the FoTR" I'd agree.
Quote:
__________________
Gandalf lives...oh and Frodo too. Haldir Lives!!! |
|
09-27-2002, 12:46 AM | #85 |
Viggoholic
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,749
|
I would say that the first sentence of the quote is the wrong way around.
__________________
Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try. |
09-27-2002, 12:54 AM | #86 |
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
I am aware that that particular sentence is wrong, but I chose to post it in it's entirety rather than snip and edit. It is the basic gist of what I am trying to say, inaccuracies aside.
I've decided to unsubscribe from this thread. I'd forgotten how fun it is to be the dissenting minority; and it's not that great having to justify everything down to every last rediculous detail. I knew I should have avoided this thread!
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords |
09-27-2002, 12:57 AM | #87 | |
Viggoholic
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,749
|
Quote:
__________________
Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try. |
|
09-27-2002, 01:09 AM | #88 |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
While I am one who easily accepts 90% as an adquate level of achievement, I still admire those who aspire to perfection. While I beleive PJ wanted to be as true to the book as possible, it was still done within the greater desire to create a popular and action filled adventure. This week on PBS they have replayed Ken Burn's "Civil War" series. The production of the series was as near to perfect to the original history, and as nearly perfect in it's presentation, as was possible. If the goal had been only to, as acurately as possible, depict the story as Tolkien intended it, it would have been a quite diffent film. I am satisfied with the film but then my expectations of the film industry. If BoP feels that the 90% mark isn't good enough then I respect that. Finally (really), if I were to give this the desert island test I would have to choose the book because the richness of the whole story would serve me best in the long run. No ulterior motive can I perceive to exist would serve anyone and the suggestion seems somewhat absurd, unless someone is planning to release their own film version of the story.
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
09-27-2002, 11:13 AM | #89 |
EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED
DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,176
|
Jsut as Smeagol has his Deagol, bro has his pous....
bro posits: "What is a successful thread, and what is an unsuccessful thread? should this be a thread unto itself? "For me, the most disinteresting threads are those where a statement is posted opening a thread, there are two or three two-lines posts which voice hearty agreement, and the thread dies. "The more interesting threads are those where there is a running discussion of a particular aspect of the original premise, and the back-and-forth ensues, with many points of view either defending or assailing the original premise. "I think this was a successful thread because of the contributions of ALL involved. "And again, we can go back to the original premise, whether the film ENHANCES Tolkien. I say it does not. "But again, one major missing piece of the puzzle has been overlooked in the counsels of the wise: We have only yet seen, at most, one-third of the total film. We have not seen the two other segments of the full story, and there are things we may be in store for which can sway our unfinished opinions 180 degrees in the opposite direction." pous counters: "But dang it, let's face some facts here. If Jackson were to ENHANCE Tolkien, he would not only have to include every nuance of the original work in the film, he would also have to add to the original work without detracting one iota from any other aspect of the source. So, Glorfindel and Bombadil and the Old Gaffer and Lobelia Proudfoot all would have had to have been in the film as well, Arwen would have had her story relegated back to backbencher status, Frodo would have attacked the Lord of the Nazgul on Amon Sul, he would have resisted the gathered Nine at the Fords of Bruinen, Fatty Bolger would have shown his courage blowing the horn of alert at Crickhollow, Old Man Willow would have snapped up sleeping Hobbits, ad infinitum. "Jackson completely changed the sequence of events at times, altered characters, infused viewpoints and material not found in the original source while still ignoring other aspects of the source material, and yet made an effective film which RETELLS the story the Master crafted over a lifetime of hard work and scholarship." bro: "Agreed. But overall, the film IS quite effective. The flow of the story line, the development of the differing and conflicting interests, the introduction of characters we are going to see more over the ensuing two films, the use of a recognized "Tolkien artist's" vision for set and costume design, the occasional faithfulness to the original, and even, at points, the alteration of the story line make it an effective and entertaining film." pous: "Well, I guess if you keep in mind that he was making the film so that folks who had not read the books would be drawn in too..." bro: "Precisely my point. We both know that, at times, the original work does get bogged down at points to folks who have not been completely taken with Middle Earth yet. It is this 'casting of a larger net,' to pull in uninitiates, which required 'simplification' of this quite intricate and baroque plot and not necessarily the desire of the filmmaker. Recall also that PJ had to raise what, $300 million to bring these books to film? He had to make sure that his backers also saw that this was a film which would appeal to a wide enough audience that their original investment would be recouped, with profits." pous: "And so it comes back to money." bro: "Ain't it always? pous: "Good point." ...at that point, the medication kicked in. [Sween: I live in Colorado, USA, so a lot of times I have to see my English Premiere League games on replay on Fox Sports World. I was glad to see ol' Man U win against the Spurs though, even though Keller is one of my favorite goaltenders...]
__________________
"...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160. |
09-27-2002, 11:37 AM | #90 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: minneapolis MN
Posts: 920
|
Quote:
__________________
Gandalf lives...oh and Frodo too. Haldir Lives!!! |
|
09-27-2002, 12:59 PM | #91 |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Excellent dialog bro and pous! It does a good job of dramatizng what we all have done with the movie. Had it been perfectly in line with our prior expectations (by some magic) then we could only say, "well, there it is." It's much more fun to analyze the differences.
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
09-27-2002, 08:46 PM | #92 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 828
|
Quote:
Now we finally get a discussion that actually raises some interesting points (on BOTH side, I will admit) and then you whine, "You expect me to actually DEFEND the things I say?!?!?!...gee, that's no fun. So I'm going to take my toys and go home!" I apologize if I've offended you by challenging you to a real discussion. Please feel free to go back to making your snide little comments about the film here on the LOTR movie board without worrying that I'll ask you to -- heaven forbid -- defend your remarks. |
|
09-27-2002, 09:00 PM | #93 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 828
|
bropous, great post. We may not always agree, but you are always interesting to read...with or without your medication.
|
09-27-2002, 10:09 PM | #94 |
Domesticated Swing Babe
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Reality
Posts: 5,340
|
Hi BB, I don't think PJ "improved" Tolkien, but I sure do think he made one heck of a great movie! I LOVE it! I watched FoTR under ideal circumstances (I think). I read LoTR about 5 or 6 times in my late teens, then put it down and a LOT of water passed under the bridge (30 years worth) before the movie came out. I was excited about seeing my beloved Tolkien on film, but really didn't remember any "details". I remember trying to figure out who Strider was for about two minutes before it came back to me! My husband said "Strider?" (he's never read LoTR) and I just kept saying Strider is good! Strider is good! But I couldn't remember why! When he grabbed Frodo and pulled him in the room it came back.
Anyway, I plan the same approach with TT. I have not read the book since last year after the first movie, and don't plan to, Hopefully, that way I won't be watching for "every little thing"! I'm very excited and can't wait to see the next movie.
__________________
Happy Atheist Go Democrats! Last edited by Lizra : 09-28-2002 at 08:26 AM. |
09-27-2002, 11:37 PM | #95 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Darkness
Posts: 1,211
|
Hurk.
Hurk.... Choke. Cough "Improved" cough. Ooogh. Gads that was just stuck in my throat. Frankly Tolkein would probably have been dead set against any dramatization. He thought it the absolute death of fairy stories. Fortunately I think this one is strong enough to survive the manhandling.
__________________
I have harnessed the shadows that stride from world to world to sow death and madness... Queer haow a cravin' gits a holt on ye -- As ye love the Almighty, young man, don't tell nobody, but I swar ter Gawd thet picter begun ta make me hungry fer victuals I couldn't raise nor buy -- here, set still, what's ailin' ye? ... |
09-28-2002, 12:04 PM | #96 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 828
|
Quote:
If the Professor was so dead set against any dramatization of his work he wouldn't have sold the movie rights. |
|
09-28-2002, 03:57 PM | #97 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: May 2001
Location: myob
Posts: 587
|
Actually, he only sold the rights because he needed the money.
__________________
Boo! |
09-28-2002, 04:14 PM | #98 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 828
|
I guess he wasn't so dead set against any dramatization of his work then, huh?
|
09-29-2002, 10:50 AM | #99 |
EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED
DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,176
|
No, BB, I guess YOU have never had a family to support, bills to cover which simply grow and grow, increasingly failing health, a steadily deteriorating economic position, and an increasingly proximate appointment "with the universe."
You need to read the Letters of JRR Tolkien. You'll see that he was pretty adamant he didn't want ANY aspects of his masterwork changed in order to bring it to the screen. He stuck to his guns for as long as he could, but, finally, needed the money. Every time soneone tried to write a script and pass it by him, he chewed it up and spat it out, right up until he HAD to sell the film rights. It's not because of some shallow sell-out to commercialism, he was stuck in a corner and he had to raise some funds, and the film rights to LotR was about all he had to use to raise funding. He was in a corner, and I for one, having been in a tight one or two myself over the years, can certainly understand why he had to do so, and it ain't because he suddenly got over his perfectionism when it came to his story. I can guarantee you that he would have gotten angry and offended at the first variance from the story he worked so very long to create; I bet you a dollar to a donut hole he would have walked out of Jackson's film in the first twenty minutes. If he had stayed to hear Arwen say, "What's this? A Ranger, caught off his guard?" he would have thrown his pipe at the screen. I do hope that in the future a remake will be embarked upon, keeping faithful to Ronald's original works and not creating new "accountrements" to hang on to an already PERFECT story. A film made of the books, true to the original, would ALSO draw in huge numbers of new fans. I just think he worked too long and too hard on these books to have all the changes Jackson made to the story line, not a single one IMPROVING on the original one iota. The story was perfect already.
__________________
"...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160. Last edited by bropous : 09-29-2002 at 10:55 AM. |
09-29-2002, 11:22 AM | #100 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 828
|
bropus, you've hit on the issue that I started a new thread on: The 'ownership' of mythologies like LOTR.
When a story is so powerful that it is embraced by society and becomes part of modern culture, the original creator of the story has to understand that its continuation as a modern mythology will depend more on the desires of the fans than the will of the author. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Research paper on Tolkien | The Telcontarion | Writer's Workshop | 10 | 12-16-2007 12:04 PM |
Whats on your Bookshelf? | hectorberlioz | General Literature | 135 | 02-12-2007 07:26 PM |
The Jackson haters A to Z | Curufinwe | Lord of the Rings Movies | 4 | 01-25-2004 03:44 AM |
Follow on from Gandalf v. HP...Tolkien v. Peter Jackson! | Elf.Freak | Entertainment Forum | 3 | 01-22-2003 02:22 PM |
a little orientation needed | DrFledermaus | The Silmarillion | 9 | 02-12-2001 05:48 AM |