![]() |
![]() |
#321 |
Enting
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 59
|
Several observations:
In the film, Boromir holds Frodo back for quite obvious reasons: there is nothing that the hobbit could do anyway, and the quest would not be served by him falling into the abyss with the Wizard. In the book, it is noted that as they leave Moria after Gandalf's fall everyone is weeping, not just Frodo and/or the hobbits. Of course, that doesn't mean that everyone would be lying around blubbing, but it certainly does mean that everyone's countenance would have betrayed their grief. Yet also in the book, as the remainder of the Company retreats from the gate, Gimli takes Frodo and Sam aside to look in the Mirrormere (which, of course, wasn't there so that particular scene was out). However inspirational a look into that magical lake might be, the scenario did denote a certain acceptance and ability to go forward with the Quest rather than a group that was so transfixed with grief that they needed to be tongue-lashed into movement. In the film, Aragorn does seem rather untouched by the calamity and I find this all the more odd because he is the one who wanted to go to Moria while Gandalf held back - exactly the opposite scenario than took place in the book. That alone should have added to his grief but he seemed rather remote and untouched as has been mentioned. It appeared as if he took it as a slight "glitch" in the progress of the journey rather than the fall of their leader and the dashing of all hope of success. He mouths Tolkien's words about "Farewell Gandalf" but one doesn't get the feeling that it is all that hopeless - or at least any more "hopeless" than it was when Gandalf was with them.
__________________
Mrs. M. "A Queen among farmer's wives" |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#322 |
Hobbit
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 43
|
look again
![]() ![]() Gandalf was still hanging on when Frodo turned back !!!! before he said "FLy your fools!" |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#323 | ||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 828
|
Quote:
In many ways this is a PERFECT example of why Jackson showed Aragorn's human side more. If we hadn't seen Aragorn's self-doubt about the ring in Rivendell, his singing of the Lay of Luthien, and later on, his tears at the death of Boromir, most people might have agreed with Elf Girl and thought he was too cold and inhuman. In many ways, Tolkien's character on film would have significantly increased that perception. Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#324 | |
Enting
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 59
|
Quote:
But Boromir (a seasoned warrior) knew that even if Gandalf could have been pulled up onto what remained of the bridge, it would require a strong man, not a hobbit to do it. Of course, the coils of the balrog's whip still were entwined about the Wizard's legs which meant that any such attempt to pull him back up would be futile since it would require strength enough to pull the balrog with him - and quite aside from not wanting to retrieve the creature, I doubt that anyone there - or all of them together - had that kind of strength. No, Boromir's restraint of Frodo was a worthy, understandable and intelligent act and certainly does not denote any attempt to separate the Bearer from the Wizard.
__________________
Mrs. M. "A Queen among farmer's wives" |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#325 | |
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#326 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 828
|
Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#327 |
Marshal of the Eastmark
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,412
|
Mirrormere was there, they just didn't look into it, at least not on camera. Obviously some things are there for the book fans to supply the details ourselves.
__________________
cya |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#328 | |
Enting
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 59
|
Quote:
![]() However, doubtless I shall quickly disappoint you again given our diametric views on these films! ![]()
__________________
Mrs. M. "A Queen among farmer's wives" |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#329 | |
Marshal of the Eastmark
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,412
|
Quote:
__________________
cya |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#330 | |
Marshal of the Eastmark
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,412
|
Quote:
You are quick to tell people what they have to accept, but you are slow to accept that it is a difference of taste, and not an absolute fact. Just because we disagree with BB and particularly dislkie the concept of "improving Tolkien", doesn't mean we can cheat the rules of fair dispute.
__________________
cya |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#331 | ||||
Lurker
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Lothlórien
Posts: 3,419
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
There's antimony, arsenic, aluminum, selenium... |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#332 | |
Enting
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 59
|
Quote:
I tell no one what they have to accept save only where one is speaking of facts. Yes, you have to accept that one plus one equals two. It isn't a matter of my "opinion" vs. your "opinion", but a matter of black and white as it appears on the printed page. Jackson changed the story no matter how many "familiar scenes" he managed to put in to give veresimilitude to his deviations. The names were the same, but many of the characters were different, something which is easily seen when one character mouths the words that belong to an entirely different character - and Jackson does this more than once (see Elrond above). He keeps the plot relatively true in the first film (with the exception of the "million orc army" and the "stairs of doom" in Moria), but in the second film, he no longer even attempts to do that. I have not "cheated" or in any way broken the "rules" of fair debate. I have merely pointed out where Jackson failed in this matter. When you change at the most fundamental level many of the main characters in the plot, you have changed the story even if its outward semblance remains familiar. And as always happens in such matters, with each film the audience has been willing to accept an even greater deviation from the original story simply because we have become familiar with Jackson's characters and they no longer bother many film goers. This is called "gradualism"; that is, "getting used to" something by virtue of length of exposure to it. I guarantee, if a Tolkien lover saw TTT first (knowing the story), he would certainly want to know why Jackson had been permitted to use either TTT or LOTR in the title since the film had little to do with either.
__________________
Mrs. M. "A Queen among farmer's wives" Last edited by Mrs. Maggott : 04-29-2003 at 03:11 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#333 | |
Lurker
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Lothlórien
Posts: 3,419
|
Quote:
__________________
There's antimony, arsenic, aluminum, selenium... |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#334 | |
Enting
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 59
|
Quote:
Certainly, when younger readers first come upon the tale (and the same thing happens in The Hobbit), they see the most obvious elements. However as time goes on and the book is read again (and again), the great Truths being postulated by Tolkien make themselves known and much of what is hard to understand in the story (why there is a chapter devoted to Scouring of the Shire when it seems to "anti-climactic" for instance) becomes not only understood, but frequently is seen as more important than many other more obvious plot threads. Jackson gave us the story as someone who was seeing only its most superficial aspects. Therefore, he could see no reason why this or that couldn't be changed; why Arwen couldn't be made more prominent (and martial) and Aragorn less "heroic" - and so forth. But this attitude denotes a serious lack of understanding of the author's vision and meaning of the tale. It is a "comic book" approach to LOTR which really should not surprise us given the "comic book" nature of Jackson's past films.
__________________
Mrs. M. "A Queen among farmer's wives" |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#335 |
Marshal of the Eastmark
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,412
|
You have been arguing so long that all your opinions have become incontravertible fact in your head. But they are still only opinions.
It is your opinion that the focus of the story is hobbits. It is the opinion of others that the focus of the story is men. The fourth age, which the war begins, is the age of man. In my opinion it is perfectly valid to see the story from that point of view. I think the story can be written from myriad points of view, each could be valid in its own way. Aragorn has doubts. Are you saying the Aragorn of the book doesn't have any doubts if it is time for his return? We've all been over Xenarwen till it's a dead horse. When you think of all the awesome elven women in the Silmarillion, and of Eowyn later in the book, surely Arwen comes off as a sissy. It is my opinion that the girl who stays home sewing while her man is off to war is not particularly interesting. Just think of Luthien who chased Beren down to say we are in this together. And beside, it is my opinion that Xena is hot! Elven kings in Tolkien's books aren't compassionate! um... in my opinion ... they are more often cold. I never thought of Elrond as compassionate. He hardly even helped, except that he thought fondly of Bilbo. Yes you can meet here, but please move along ... my pretty idyllic dreamworld is getting all mussed up by your farmboys. Now hold on, it was common for the hobbit boys to raid Farmer Maggot's field. They rarely took much. What do you mean sneak thieves!? Now we both know that the two of them had recruited Sam to spy on Frodo, and isn't that sneaky!? But they were doing it because they were worried for him. As to their bumbling, well Pippin does bumble a few times in the book. And he does she that Pippin has the presence of mind to leaev the brooch, and he sets it up that Pippin (the bumbler) knows just how to get the Ents to fight. So their characters are still heroic, and hopefully we will see the serious side in the next movie. And you're saying that Frodo didn't turn into a mean-spirited, weak, and bitter hobbit from his experience? Now that's just your opinion, and mine is that he did. The saddest thing is what the Ring does to Frodo. In your opinion, you stated that many films, and gave Harry Potter as an example, have been more faithfully rendered. Frankly, in my opinion, Harry Potter shouldn't even be mentioned in the same place as Lord of the Rings. The books were written in a time when novels are cinematic to begin with. And secondly, Jackson's movies plumb depths of the human soul that those lightweight bits of fluff don't even know about! And I also am of the opinion that the depths Jackson found were from the LotR books to start with. So now I am saying that you not only mistake your opinion for fact, but that you have entrenched yourself in a position that you are only interested in defending at any cost, even at the cost of truth. At least that's what it looks like from here.
__________________
cya |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#336 |
Enting
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 59
|
I am sorry I failed to make myself clear. I did not say that the focus of the LOTR was the hobbits, TOLKIEN said it. Indeed, most of what I brought to you is either quotes from Tolkien himself or from books by those who have delved deeply into his works. These things have absolutely nothing to do with me or my opinions. It is one thing to have a difference of opinon with a third party about these matters - and quite another to have it with the chap who wrote the book.
Frankly, to suggest that Tolkien might not have known what he is talking about regarding his own work suggests to me at least, the same mindset as prompted Mr. Jackson to "rewrite" the story. I suppose it can be happen, but it will always result in a product that is inferior to the original.
__________________
Mrs. M. "A Queen among farmer's wives" |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#337 |
Marshal of the Eastmark
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,412
|
No, I do not believe that there is a final authority on anything, not even the author himself. If he were an authority on screenplay writing, or drama in general, then his opinions would carry more weight. But since he practically calls drama a bastard art, even though Aristotle calls it one of the three forms of poetry, he makes himself less an authority on the subject of fiction to drama conversions. I like Tolkien fine, but if he thinks he's better than Shakespeare, he's got another think coming, as the Gaffer would say.
In drama, you have to imagine the story from each character's perspective. In fiction you only have to read the writer's perspective. In fiction a writer can be full of opinions and colorful truisms, but in drama the actors have to use dialogue convincingly to convey those same ideas. I bet none of the people trashing the screenplay has ever even tried to write one of their own. But they still want to say it has nothing to do with the genres. That would be speaking from a position of not-knowing. Stop beating me over the head with "Tolkien said so". Tolkien never wrote a play in his life. He didn't even think it was literature. If your opinion is valid you can support it without having to resort to "but Tolkien said" all the time.
__________________
cya |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#338 |
Enting
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 59
|
Again, I am sorry, but it doesn't matter if Tolkien never wrote a play in his life. Obviously, what he did write was so good that a lot of people wanted to see this "non-play" brought to the screen.
Jackson raised money and backers by promising to do just that: bring Tolkien's "non-play" to the screen. A great deal of interest was garnered (including in these sites) because of the belief that Jackson was going to at least attempt to bring Tolkien's "non-play" to the screen. But in the end, all we got was Jackson's attempt to fob his amateurish rip-off as a legitimate expression of Tolkien's "non-play". Frankly, if Tolkien's work were so inferior, why should Jackson have even wanted to spend all that time and money attempting to bring it to the screen when he could have given us another of his famous "splatter" films? Considering that the best dialogue, the best action, the best drama and the greatest moments in these films occurred at those places wherein Jackson stuck as closely as possible to Tolkien's "non-play", I would say that the actors would have had a lot happier interpreting Tolkien than Jackson.
__________________
Mrs. M. "A Queen among farmer's wives" |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#339 | |||
Lurker
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Lothlórien
Posts: 3,419
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
There's antimony, arsenic, aluminum, selenium... |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#340 | |
Marshal of the Eastmark
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,412
|
Quote:
Yes, it does matter, I am sorry to inform you, that Tolkien did not know anything about writing drama, and that he spoke ill of Shakespeare, and that he said drama is not literature. As a result, Tolkien is not an authority on drama. Therefore, continually beating Peter Jackson over the head with your Tolkien book is just not in the rules of fair dispute. It's called the "appeal to authority" fallacy, and isn't a fallacy if the authority is valid. But when the supposed authority is not knowledgeable on the subject (even though he be a monumental genius in many other ways), it is a fallacy. Peter Jackson made the movies because he is a fan, just like us. Most of us diagree with him, just as we disagree with each other, about how to convert it. But it's not true to say he was ripping off Tolkien, or us. In my opinion, everything in both movies so far has been honestly rendered in accordance with his interpretation, together with Phillippa Boyens. Saying things like "if he ever even READ the books" etc, is just taking cheap shots.
__________________
cya |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tolkien's Languages | Forkbeard | Middle Earth | 3 | 10-14-2004 01:08 PM |
Tolkien's message =to die with dignity. Can any one help explain this interpretation | Seblor | Lord of the Rings Books | 6 | 12-18-2002 01:18 PM |