Peter Jackson has improved Tolkien

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by markedel
I think it's wrong largely because it shortchanges Aragorn, doesn't delve into Frodo's psychological turmoil, and only lightly skims over the big picture.

It's interesting how people can read the same books and watch the same movies and come up with entirely different opinions. I completely disagree that Jackson shortchanged Aragron, didn't delve into Frodo's mindset, and skimmed over the fact that the Third Age was coming to an end. Obviously due to the medium, it wasn't the same as the book but I don't think I imagined seeing these things on the big screen.

The reality is that there could NEVER be a LOTR movie that would satisfy you Purists, no matter how well made. From reading many of the 'alternative views' here, it's crystal clear that this is not a debate over the relative merits of the two storylines or how faithful Jackson was to Tolkien for you folks. It's simply that Jackson and Company didn't crawl inside your head and give you YOUR vision of Middle Earth, period.

I'm really sorry for you people. You guys are like the early fans of an alternative rock group that goes mainstream and hits the big time. You'd rather walk away griping and complaining than be seen enjoying a band that "dumbed down their act" or "sold out" to the masses. It's really a shame because you could be having so much fun joining the rest of us as we get psyched for The Two Towers.

[LuthienTinuviel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
It's interesting how people can read the same books and watch the same movies and come up with entirely different opinions. I completely disagree that Jackson shortchanged Aragron, didn't delve into Frodo's mindset, and skimmed over the fact that the Third Age was coming to an end. Obviously due to the medium, it wasn't the same as the book but I don't think I imagined seeing these things on the big screen.

The reality is that there could NEVER be a LOTR movie that would satisfy you Purists, no matter how well made. From reading many of the 'alternative views' here, it's crystal clear that this is not a debate over the relative merits of the two storylines or how faithful Jackson was to Tolkien for you folks. It's simply that Jackson and Company didn't crawl inside your head and give you YOUR vision of Middle Earth, period.

I'm really sorry for you people. You guys are like the early fans of an alternative rock group that goes mainstream and hits the big time. You'd rather walk away griping and complaining than be seen enjoying a band that "dumbed down their act" or "sold out" to the masses. It's really a shame because you could be having so much fun joining the rest of us as we get psyched for The Two Towers.

NO IT'S NOT THAT HE DIDN'T CRAWL IN MY HEAD! I SAID THAT I LIKED THE MOVIE YOU NINCOMPOOP. but you still insist on lumping me in with the purists and elitists, YOU WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT ONE WAS IF THEY PISSED ON YOU! (what's this thing with piss, and YES i DO kiss my mother with this mouth.)

the first paragraph in your post was great, you were off to great start, telling everyone calmly that you didn't agree with them. following that should have been a paragraph to back those statements in paragraph one up. not one containing your retarded use of the word purists.

oh and don't even get me started on the rock group thing, ive been there done that. ive got YEARS of experience in THAT feild under my belt, boy.

and i am pshyed for the two towers, im making myself a god blamin costume to dress up and see it! maybe if you got to know us before assuming that all the rest of the people here are out of the same exact mold.
check your reading comprehension youngin' and don't talk to me until you can come to your senses (read i didn't say change your opinion, cause i know you'll bring that up) and learn to argue politley.

more or less, when your done talking out of your ass, come and see me.

[LuthienTinuviel]

oh wait one quick question to BB, have you ever even read the books? i hope you have.. but im just checking cause it sure seems like you went out and bought the cliffs notes.

oh and a quick statement:

i don't hate the movie, i don't hate the books, i hate you. there is a difference. recognise it, love it, embrace it, because it's the truth.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The reality is that there could NEVER be a LOTR movie that would satisfy you Purists, no matter how well made. From reading many of the 'alternative views' here, it's crystal clear that this is not a debate over the relative merits of the two storylines or how faithful Jackson was to Tolkien for you folks. It's simply that Jackson and Company didn't crawl inside your head and give you YOUR vision of Middle Earth, period.

I'm really sorry for you people. You guys are like the early fans of an alternative rock group that goes mainstream and hits the big time. You'd rather walk away griping and complaining than be seen enjoying a band that "dumbed down their act" or "sold out" to the masses. It's really a shame because you could be having so much fun joining the rest of us as we get psyched for The Two Towers.

Ye gods, you just don't GET it, do you? There really is no arguing with you. You've got it fixed in your head that we're all narrow-minded grumbling nitpickers and you're so convinced that you are the only one who knows how it really is. And there is absolutely nothing we can ever say or do that will make you see otherwise. Because you don't want to, all you really want is flaunt your supposed superiority and look down on us 'purists'.

Well news flash makker! I liked the movie YES I DID and I think that PJ did a great job bringing it to the screen. And I am grateful that he tried it when everybody else thought it impossible. And I saw it about 5 times and I like each and every viewing of it. And I'm actually counting down the days until TTT. BUT there is no way you can communicate the greatness of Tolkien's LOTR in film, you need reels and reels to do that and you'd still wouldn't succeed. I understand why PJ cut some scenes and they don't disturb me. It's the unnecesary changing of things that bugs me. If you make a movie from a book, you follow the book in every way humanly possible because otherwise all you're doing is filming your own fanfiction. And that goes for all books, not just LOTR.But hey, that's my purist view.

I am also GLAD that he didn't make my version of it, hell my vision of LOTR is as flawed as my knowledge of quantum mechanics! All I ever wanted was for him to make it the way TOLKIEN invisioned it. Which he did in some ways but not in others.

And that's all I'm going to say about it.

[Gerbil]

Ooh fun, can I join?

Nice to see the same discussions going on now as when I first joined the board which was umm.... dunno, but way before FotR came out.

Blimey, what's the chances that if I disappear for another year ('hurrah' I hear you cry!) I'll return to the same?

At least I now know that Arwen is not involved in any battles, so I've got this thread to thank for that. I am guessing she replaces Halbarad (?) who legs it to Aragorn with his standard. Oh well, you guys probably all know tons more stuff than me about the film but I'm happy enough with the trailer.

Personally I get through it by completely distancing the films from the book - if I compare them then the films come up short in virtually every way. If I think about the film on it's own, it's blooming marvellous guvnor.

As others have mentioned though, purists are after what Tolkien would have wanted (even if of course they are having to assume what it is Tolkien would have wanted ). Personally, I don't think he'd have been disappointed with much of it (assuming he was prepared to understand the differences between books and films as mediums in their own distinct rights), eg I'm sure he would have been stunned to see the whole Moria sequence (minus those stupid bloody comedy moments from Sam and Gimli, oh and the sodding climbing orcs), but the bits that were changed would have got him in a rage.

Of one thing I am sure - he'd have loved the music

Can't wait until the next film is out and we've got some fresh material to argue endlessly and pointlessly over.

PS Who knows, by the time the third film is out I might have actually done something with my stupid website. Hmmm, probably not

[Black Breathalizer]

Note to Luthien Tinuviel and Eärniel --- Please read the following VERY CAREFULLY:

If you are a Tolkien fan who LIKED the movie then I'm NOT talking about you so don't get all heated up and stuff. I'm talking to people here who HATED the movie but LOVE the book. Got it now?

Thank you.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Note to Luthien Tinuviel and Eärniel --- Please read the following VERY CAREFULLY:

If you are a Tolkien fan who LIKED the movie then I'm NOT talking about you so don't get all heated up and stuff. I'm talking to people here who HATED the movie but LOVE the book. Got it now?

Thank you.

So, did you get that? I know we all have difficulty reading but he did caps AND intalicize the key action words. Now how could anyone find that condescending? If anyone could understand reading problems it's BB. After all he can't even read the posts where all save one or two have said they liked the movie. Is it his fault he can't get it through his head that we just don't agree with the premise of this thread.

I liked the Tolkien rising from the grave bit... very halloween. Shouldn't he be buried in a barrow?

[Gerbil]

Shouldn't he be buried in a barrow?

Probably, but apparently PJ removed them first

[LuthienTinuviel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Note to Luthien Tinuviel and Eärniel --- Please read the following VERY CAREFULLY:

If you are a Tolkien fan who LIKED the movie then I'm NOT talking about you so don't get all heated up and stuff. I'm talking to people here who HATED the movie but LOVE the book. Got it now?

Thank you.

then what the HELL was my little part in the satire about, what about the rude comments, eh? maybe YOU should get the comprehension tests, Mr. Nannyfoofoo.

i don't think that anyone here but BoP HATED the movie (and even that wanes sometimes ) and hey, we all love the book here, so that little "fact" of yours has been proven pointless.

youve dug your grave too deep, just like dwarves in Moria, and we all know what they found ... and no, it wasn't just a pair of wings.


so , no i guess i don't got it now

oh hey gerbil haven't seen you fer a while! you seem to show up at all the mediocre and blended parts of the good posts eh?

[Gerbil]

oh hey gerbil haven't seen you fer a while! you seem to show up at all the mediocre and blended parts of the good posts eh?

Ullo I just headed for the largest most recent threads.
Also, I missed this place, so slid straight back into the threads that sounded like they were around when I was last here

Point me in the direction of the best threads and I'll happily head off and read 'em.

After I've watched the TTT trailer and a few choice scenes of FotR again that is!

[Starr Polish]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
It's interesting how people can read the same books and watch the same movies and come up with entirely different opinions.

I don't find it all that funny. In fact, I believe it's something called "being an individual", "differing opinions", "different perspectives". Life would be pretty boring if those things didn't exist.

I completely disagree that Peter Jackson...skimmed over the fact that the Third Age was coming to an end.

Being a movie-to-book fan, I can honestly say that I didn't really feel that the Third Age (or any age, for that matter) was coming to an end.

The reality is that there could NEVER be a LOTR movie that would satisfy you Purists, no matter how well made. From reading many of the 'alternative views' here, it's crystal clear that this is not a debate over the relative merits of the two storylines or how faithful Jackson was to Tolkien for you folks. It's simply that Jackson and Company didn't crawl inside your head and give you YOUR vision of Middle Earth, period.

Like I said earlier, life would be boring if we all agreed. In case you hadn't noticed, the only person anyone in this thread is angry at is you. BoP isn't at anyone's throat for liking the movie, likewise, I'm not yelling at someone for not liking the movie (which is exactly what YOU'RE doing). Also, no one here has ever said "Peter Jackson's movie sucks because it's not exactly what I think it should be! Why can't he read my mind?" I imagine Faramir with black hair, but this doesn't mean I'm angry at PJ for giving him blond hair, and it doesn't mean I'm not going to enjoy the movie or the character.

It's really a shame because you could be having so much fun joining the rest of us as we get psyched for The Two Towers.

The rest of us? I wasn't aware that you were the general public. I am having fun anticipating the movie, and I'm doing it without attacking other people's opinion of Tolkien and Jackson, and without using badly written parodies to defend my opinions.

[BeardofPants]

Well said, as always, SP.

Originally posted by Starr Polish
I am having fun anticipating the movie....

As am I. Fellowship may not be my cup of tea, but I'm still getting caught up in the excitement of seeing the next installment.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Note to Luthien Tinuviel and Eärniel --- Please read the following VERY CAREFULLY:

If you are a Tolkien fan who LIKED the movie then I'm NOT talking about you so don't get all heated up and stuff. I'm talking to people here who HATED the movie but LOVE the book. Got it now?

Thank you.

Could you please get over the fact that some people love the book and hate the movie? They might hate it for other reasons than the fact that the movie deviates from the book.

BoP, I just saw your post, I was just going to write that I thought that you were getting excited about the TT. Gosh, I hope that makes BB feel better.

[Entlover]

Originally posted by Eärniel
[B. It's the unnecesary changing of things that bugs me. If you make a movie from a book, you follow the book in every way humanly possible [/B]

We don't really know if the things changed were necessary or not, til we've seen the whole movie (all 3 parts) We haven't yet got the whole picture of what PJ's trying to do, all we can do is guess. The dictum that you must follow the book in every way is debatable. You have to use different methods in a movie to show, for example, introspection: you have to show instead of tell, laying it open to the charge of being an action flick.

Gerbil! I missed you. Good to have you back.

People, please stop name calling. It's very childish and detracts from the cogency of your arguments.

[Earniel]

We don't really know if the things changed were necessary or not, til we've seen the whole movie (all 3 parts) We haven't yet got the whole picture of what PJ's trying to do, all we can do is guess.

True enough, I only looked at the way FOTR was since that is all I've got for now.

The dictum that you must follow the book in every way is debatable. You have to use different methods in a movie to show, for example, introspection: you have to show instead of tell, laying it open to the charge of being an action flick.

That's also why I said it was my own purist view.

Hey Gerbil, nice to have you back!

[Ringlambeion]

I am not a purist but your message was an extremely valid one. The only thing that you said that was complete crap was when you said that Tolkien should have focused more on the love story between Aragorn and Arwen. If you wanted Lotr to be a love story you were mistaken. If you were looking for one of Tolkien's love stories why not read the Silmarillion? Beren and Luthien kick ass over any story that Aragorn and Arwen could produce. Lotr wasn't meant to be a love story it was based on freindship and unbreakeable bonds of trust and care. Not soppy romantic bore. Also PJ is a genius with his portayal but Arwen shouldn't have taken Frodo to the Ford it should of been Glorfindel like in the book and the crying and the dreamy sequence doesn't do the film any good. Also Aragorn being given the elfstone on the bridge by Glorfindel is a significant part to the storyline and this later contributes to the fame and nickname of Aragorn. This should have been put in the film. Another thing also is that Tolkien's break of the fellowship was written fine for me and probably plenty of others to understand. It also is a lot more atmospheric in the text as of the description Tolkien uses to show Frodo strain and the madness of Borormir. Boromir was also shown to be too soft in the film. The race of Gondor (especially the hiers to the stewartd) were superstitious and stubborn but hardy. This means that they were brought up to be warriors and in the book this shows by the way that Boromir acts towards the hobbits.

[Black Breathalizer]

Try Doc Breathalizer's patented "Lose your Hatred of PJ's LOTR Movies in 30 Days" Hatred-Loss Program and YOU TOO can look forward to enjoying the FOTR extended DVD and December's TTT.

Hear how THESE recovering Purists came to see the light thanks to their hate-loss mentor, Black Breathalizer:

BeardofPants: I hated FOTR but now I'm actually LOOKING FORWARD TO THE TWO TOWERS. Thank you, BB!

Luthien Tinuviel: I don't hate the movie anymore--I hate BB instead. Hey...he did it!!! The man's brilliant!

Cirdan: I've posted pages of complaints about the film adaption here but now I've gotta admit I liked it. Thank you for giving me the courage to speak up, BB!

For a limited time, BB is offering his program to YOU for ONLY three payments of $39.99. (U.S dollars) If you are not completely satisfied and gushing over Arwen and Frodo's flight to the ford in 30 days, you can return it for a full refund. Act now! Supplies are limited!

[bropous]

Black Breathalizer, you may think you're being cute with tripe like the immediately prior post, but in truth, you are showing yourself to be a movie-hypnotized moron who could not enjoy reading Tolkien if your life depended upon it, and a sad tragic character desperately grasping for humor and yet missing your mark by leagues.

Get off your little superior trip, child, because you haven't the slightest clue about that of which you opine. Most of us know Tolkien for REAL, having read the books long before the facile and simplified film came along, and even most who have seen the film first and then read the books concede the books are far richer and far more entertaining than the film(s) so far.

I have said time and again that this is only one-third of the full film series, and that we may be making some rash judgements which may not hold up over time. However, the difference between us'un's and you'un's is that us'un's can debate and learn from each other. You'un's are like a PC which can blurt forth information and yet cannot think independently of programming and who cannot learn anything from even myriad repetitions of function.

BB, you are, in all honesty, a total schmuck. 'Nuff said.

[Cirdan]

BB: Doctor, I don't understand. Everybody hates PJ and they are taking it out on me.

Freud: Son, you're only projecting your feelings of alienation onto PJ. You must confront the fact that some people may not like you.

BB: We did you get that idea, doc. You must be some elitist snob who thinks he know everything.

Freud: God, you are an annoying little piss ant!

Can this thread degrade anyone more than this type of juvenile drivel?

on topic: I saw Ridley Scott's Legend and I liked the way he used a very animated naturalized set to impart a magical feeling into the film. This is something I thought was left out of FotR. There are just a few places where anything like this was used, and it focused mainly on the cast and not the set. Most of the magic-related scenes are portrayed like a DnD game.

Does anyone else have a alternative director suggestion and why?

Damn that demon was cool!

[bropous]

"Damn that demon was cool!"

Oh, you mean the cross between a balrog, a middle ages demon and Doctor Frank N. Furter?

Kubrick could have done magic with Tolkien. Too bad he did not try it.