10-26-2002, 12:20 PM | #321 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 828
|
Instead of quoting music lyrics that add nothing of interest to this thread topic, why not actually address a relevant point, Cirdan?
Even though your earlier "evidence" was an off-topic comparison of the book to the movie, let's use one of your points for the sake of creating a relevant discussion: Cirdan said: Quote:
|
|
10-26-2002, 01:45 PM | #322 |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Sorry but I'm not interested in peicemeal debate. I went to the trouble of posting a complete arguement in some format that could be understood by all. I don't want to repost it for each point. I'll debate when you've posted a response to each point is some structured way. Neatness counts.
__________________
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 |
10-26-2002, 02:05 PM | #323 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 828
|
Cirdan, you gave us a structured arguement on the merits of the book versus the film. What you posted was fine. Unfortunately, the thread topic is whether or not Peter Jackson's script and characterizations improved the LOTR story in any way. If you don't want to actually discuss a topic on a discussion board, fine by me. But then don't waste our time with postings that have absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic.
In all 321 posts, I've yet to find anyone here with the honesty to admit that PJ did anything that was an improvement over the books, even something as plainly obvious as Boromir's characterization. All I'm asking for here is a little more honesty and little less ruthless bashing of poor innocent, little me. |
10-26-2002, 02:16 PM | #324 |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
If you had read carefully you would have seen that I compared story lines. What other basis could you possibly have to compare? Character development, movement, etc are all elements of the storyline. If we aren't comparing the two why then are you discussing TB? Logic, boy, logic.
__________________
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 |
10-26-2002, 03:46 PM | #325 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 828
|
All I'm trying to say is that in the course of a three-hour movie, Peter Jackson came up with a few great enhancements to the storyline and characters. If we want to talk about all the things PJ didn't include that the book did, you win. I'll grant you all that the book's depth comes shining through. Okay? This discussion is not about which one is better. It is about whether some of Jackson's devices improved Tolkien.
If you guys are honest with yourselves, you would have to grant me that PJ did some things better than the book. That is ALL I've been saying. And no one seems willing to fess up and admit to even one teeny weeny little improvement Jackson made. I find that odd. What are you people scared of? Afraid you'll be cursed by Tolkien's Ghost or something? |
10-26-2002, 03:50 PM | #326 |
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
Ah, poor BB. Noboby taking diddums seriously anymore? Awwww. Maybe it's because diddums has changed his argument around so many times now, that nobody is quite sure what diddums is trying to say.
Sure, if you wanna argue that, then it's probably true. There are probably *some* things that PJ did better. But again, it falls to movie vs book - something you quite plainly said that you didn't want. Make up your mind bozo.
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords |
10-26-2002, 04:08 PM | #327 |
The Buddy Rabbit
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Trapped in the headlights..
Posts: 3,372
|
Ok one little concession to keep BB happy
Jackson did the music a lot better than Tolkien did Happy now? |
10-26-2002, 04:54 PM | #328 |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Good one, Coney. Heh heh... music.
I wayched the movie again last night. Eight year olds tend to have one track mindds, but I don't mind going along for the ride. Once the visuals become memorized one tends to see more and more flaws. I really don't understand the reassigning of dialog. Boromir throws the rock in the pool of the watcher. Why switch it? And why does the watch dangle Frodo around while the others hack it's limbs off? Wasn't the first grab enough? Just something to discuss while BB mounts his assault of logic. I'm looking forward to me and the boy's LotR reading tonight. We're at the bridge at Khazad-dum.
__________________
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 |
10-26-2002, 05:35 PM | #329 |
Hobbit
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 26
|
Too many questions
Sorry about the lapse...too much homework!
I have searched and searched for literary critics of Tolkien, and found many. However, most of the negative criticisms focus not on literary devises or character developement, but on the merits of the work as a whole and the genre of literature. These critics include: Philip Toynbee, who in 1961 announced with great relief that popular enthusiasm for Tolkien was now thoroughly tapped out and his works were finally on their way to "merciful oblivion." Edmund Wilson, who in 1956 dismissing the book as "balderdash" and "juvenile trash Germaine Greer, who arrived at Cambridge as a student in 1964, wrote "it has been my nightmare that Tolkien would turn out to be the most influential writer of the twentieth century. The bad dream has materialized." Judith Shulevitz, wrote: "no modern work of fiction in which people say things like "There lie the woods of Lóthlrien! . . . Let us hasten!" can be anything less than "death to literature itself." I know you would disagree with these critics, but I could not find too many others. I have not been able to obtain Shippley's book, and perhaps being a Tolkien enthusiast and former colleague, he might offer the criticisms you have sighted. In any case, who are the critics YOU have read? I am most interested to find them. |
10-26-2002, 05:42 PM | #330 |
Hobbit
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 26
|
Too many questions (II)
It seems you want to discuss specific points of comparison between the book and film based on technical superiority. To do this, it would seem we have to juxtapose the movie and the film to see which one is technically superior on specific points, (i.e. Boromir's character development, the chase scene at the ferry, the breaking of the fellowship, etc.). We must pull ourselves away from the temptation to "look at the film through book-colored eyes." We must pretend that we have the option to choose between the two based on technical superiority. If we do not, then we are only left with subjective opinions, which you have made clear are not what you want.
Do you agree? |
10-26-2002, 06:00 PM | #331 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 828
|
Thanks for your posts, theworkhorse. I'll give you a response when I have more time. We may disagree but I respect you for your thoughtful approach.
But frankly, I am growing tired of reading the same worn-out insults from some of you. If you want to insult me, at least be clever about it like bropous. Ol' bropous may be my sworn archenemy, but I must admit I find his wicked sense of humor fun. If you don't want to actually discuss the thread topic, then please leave it alone and allow those of us who want to carry on an lively discussion about Jackson's changes the opportunity to do so without your interruptions. |
10-26-2002, 06:04 PM | #332 |
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
Sorry, your holier than thou attitude dont' work no more. Must be all those insults and skits.
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords |
10-26-2002, 06:04 PM | #333 | ||
Hobbit
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 26
|
Too many questions (III)
Quote:
But I do agree his cut from the movie was a good choice. It is an act that could be very cleanly cut and not be too costly to the plot. Quote:
It seemed to be an adequate change to me, but I fail to see the IMPROVEMENT. I think the scene in the book was sound. However, people on this tread have pointed out several technical flaws in the film. A hobbit outrunning a horse is not anything I wish to dwell on, but it does show potential flaws in the film. What was wrong with the book at this point that needed to be corrected? Do the critics address this? |
||
10-26-2002, 06:19 PM | #334 | ||
Hobbit
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 26
|
Too many questions (IV)
Quote:
I think the change was adequate, and probably necessary for film adaptation, but not an improvement. Quote:
|
||
10-26-2002, 07:17 PM | #335 | |
Hobbit
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 26
|
Too many questions (V)
Quote:
In reading certain passages, I get the impression that Boromir was benevolent to his "inferiors," like his brother, other soldiers, and his people. These passages show that this side of his character was not something created by Pete, but merely emphasized in an appreciable manner. The book, being able to show these themes easier because of the medium, can be more subtle. Films can not be quite as subtle, so they must necessarily focus on ideas more clearly. Thus, this is not an overall improvement, merely a necessity of media. The affection for the Hobbits is merely a way of showing a side of the character that could not otherwise be portrayed in the film. I liked the change, it was heartwarming. But it does not really change the character of Boromir. In any case, the changes to the rest of his character are worse than the books and so negates any improvement that other good changes made. His selfdoubt and whining are not only out of character, but weaken Boromir as a character. Only with the whole story of LOTR can this be seen. Tolkien's Boromir was strong and majestic, confident and regal. His bearing in the book portrayed his upbringing. His weaknesses in the film seem out of place for a man raised as he was. What purpose does Boromir's doubt play in the story? To make the audience relate to him better? I relate to him better in the book than in the movie. While many people may find the opposite true, this is merely a subjective measure, and nothing more. So it in not technically superior. |
|
10-26-2002, 08:43 PM | #336 | ||||
Hobbit
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 26
|
Too many questions (VI)
The is getting to be like a "Rocky" series. It never ends.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1) Fear of the corruption of the ring, made clear by its effect on Boromir 2) The knowledge that his road would lead to certain death in success or failure. 3) His departure would be made more difficult if he had to confront the others with his decision. This second and third fears are down played in favor of the first in the movie. So why is this better? The movie makes it seem like the ring's corruptive power is the ONLY reason he leaves. That is very one dimensional. Friendship, trust, and sacrifice are all negated in favor of corruption. The movie could have shown these factors quite easily, but did not. Pete could have shown a short clip of the fellowships discussion while Frodo and Boromir are away. Sam's point especially would have shown the other dynamics quite clearly. It would be enlightening to hear why Pete chose not to show it. In any case, I do not see how the movie improved a multidimensional decision with a one dimensional decision. Quote:
I have thought far too much today, so I am going to go log off my brain for a bit and await you replies. |
||||
10-26-2002, 10:14 PM | #337 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 797
|
OK BB.
You've now had my thoughts at length. You've had Cirdan's thoughts at length. You've had TheWorkHorse's thoughts at length. Not to mention points from others earlier in the thread. So far as I can tell you've responded to 1 of Cirdan's points semi-seriously. If, as you say, you wish to actually discuss this, then some intelligent responces are due from you right about now. I can hardly wait |
10-27-2002, 12:07 AM | #338 | |
protector of orphaned rabbits
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Kalamazoo... yes, its a real place!
Posts: 1,236
|
Im sorry to do this, but he makes it SO EASY!
Quote:
__________________
|
|
10-27-2002, 09:17 AM | #339 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 828
|
Whoa...when it rains it pours. Too much good stuff to address all at once. But I'll respond to a couple right now:
Tom Bombadil. Gerbil and theworkhorse say that according to Tolkien's letters, JRR had a very good reason for Tom. Whatever it was, it had nothing to do with his main plotline other than to provide a "safe haven" point in the story. In fact, the ring having no power over Tom actually detracted from the corrupting power of the ring theme that Tolkien was creating. I'm not saying Tolkien didn't think he had reason for including Tom (whatever the hell it was), I'm justing saying most good editors would have talked him out of it. Boromir. theworkhorse said: "In reading certain passages, I get the impression that Boromir was benevolent to his "inferiors," like his brother, other soldiers, and his people. These passages show that this side of his character was not something created by Pete, but merely emphasized in an appreciable manner. The book, being able to show these themes easier because of the medium, can be more subtle. Films can not be quite as subtle, so they must necessarily focus on ideas more clearly. Thus, this is not an overall improvement, merely a necessity of media. The affection for the Hobbits is merely a way of showing a side of the character that could not otherwise be portrayed in the film. I liked the change, it was heartwarming. But it does not really change the character of Boromir." I would agree with you that Boromir's character didn't really change. Jackson highlighted aspects of his character than Tolkien only implied. But that is the whole point. One of the most frequent comments about the movie from Tolkien book lovers was, "I liked Boromir in the movie a whole lot better than I did in the books." Having him presented in a more likeable light was a wonderful improvement to the story for many reasons: Quote:
|
|
10-27-2002, 10:58 AM | #340 |
EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED
DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,176
|
Son, don't flatter yourself by calling yourself an "archenemy" of mine. Only individuals of consequence could ever attain that level of disdain from this braincasing. You don't even get close.
As for my soccer "tangent" [my characterization] being the inspiration for your third-grade reject skits, mayhaps you actually got your inspiration from the dialogue between "bro" and pous" which occurred before. A theatrical aside does not a full scene make. So now we know that you are as adept at script-writing as you are at analyzing Tolkien. Bombadil unnecessary? In my own [oral] retellings of the story over the years to family and friends, I have omitted Bombadil and perhaps even Gildor and Glorfindel, along with other "minor" characters simply in expedience. I had not a captive audience for three-plus hours JUST to tell Fellowship. It is possible Jackson felt he had to change dialogue in his own modern RETELLING. Fact is, BB, no matter how you kick and scream at purists and hold yer breath til your teats turn blue, Jackson's RETELLING of Tolkien falls flat on EVERY level. There, I said it, go and blow yer nose, there's a good little thing. One cannot IMPROVE upon the creation of another. One can [I]imitate, copy, mirror, reflect, reproduce, repeat, echo, reecho, translate, match, or even parallel. Jackson has, arguably, done little more than mock, take off, mimic, ape, simulate, impersonate, approximate, misrepresent, counterfeit and parody a great work of literature with inserting unnecessary changes, ending, at times, with a true travesty, caricature and burlesque of the original, which was PERFECT, child, PERFECT, and required NO editing to transmogrify it into a work of truly inspired film. BB, the more and more you flail about, shift your position, amend your premise, all you do is show yourself as an individual who is completely and unmitigatedly out of his depth when discussing Tolkien. It must be truly sad to be so intellectually lazy that you can neither: 1) Fully appreciate a work of such complexity and depth that it not only challenges the imagination but also speaks to the very ethical core of every individual who dares reach past personal limits to embrace the scope of just a majestic work of literature; 2) Cogently present a premise and back it up with logically-connected supporting evidence; nor 3) Completely understand the works of Tolkien. EVERY facet of the story is necessary, young-'un. To make a film of the books which changes basic elements is in no way an improvement. Every argument you have presented where you think the film outdid the book is a whining protest that "the written way was too hard for my tiny pointed brain to process." What an embarassing admission in the face of true Tolkien scholars like Gerb, Cirdan, the workhorse and BoP. Schmuck.
__________________
"...[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. |
|
|
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 |