Peter Jackson has improved Tolkien

[markedel]

Yeah I want caring guidance! I do!

The less coherant the thread gets the more fun the thread is!

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by LuthienTinuviel
peter jackson had hardly anything to do with sean bean's boromir. it was sean bean who played boromir, not PJ, at least the last time i checked it was. so since i see youve gotten so persnickety about keeping this on topic, that little arguement has no place here, because it doesn't have enough to do with p.j.

Boromir's portrayal has EVERYTHING to do with Peter Jackson. He wrote the screenplay and directed Sean Bean's performance. Jackson was quoted in an interview as saying that one of his goals in writing the script was to flesh out the character of Boromir. He commented that Boromir was rather one-dimensional in the book and he felt Boromir's betrayal and redemption had more dramatic potential than Tolkien took advantage of.

I find it rather disappointing and sad that some of you respond to my noble attempts to engage you in an intellectual discussion that could lead to your enlightenment with silly, juvenile name-calling. Examples:

BB: Boromir's portrayal in the movie was an improvement from the book.

Classic Purist Knee-jerk Response: TROLL!!!

BB: Jackson's version of the breaking of the fellowship was inspired because of the way it tied up loose ends and enhanced the plot over Tolkien's approach.

Classic Purist Knee-jerk Responses: IDIOT!!! JERK!!! MORON!!!

[Sween]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Boromir's portrayal has EVERYTHING to do with Peter Jackson. He wrote the screenplay and directed Sean Bean's performance. Jackson was quoted in an interview as saying that one of his goals in writing the script was to flesh out the character of Boromir. He commented that Boromir was rather one-dimensional in the book and he felt Boromir's betrayal and redemption had more dramatic potential than Tolkien took advantage of.

I find it rather disappointing and sad that some of you respond to my noble attempts to engage you in an intellectual discussion that could lead to your enlightenment with silly, juvenile name-calling. Examples:

BB: Boromir's portrayal in the movie was an improvement from the book.

Classic Purist Knee-jerk Response: TROLL!!!

BB: Jackson's version of the breaking of the fellowship was inspired because of the way it tied up loose ends and enhanced the plot over Tolkien's approach.

Classic Purist Knee-jerk Responses: IDIOT!!! JERK!!! MORON!!!

you really are a tool. for someone that is probably quite clever you are making some stupid assed statments. Never ever try to convince something is better than something else due to the fact that you prefer it. And then have a come back of simply your a pureist. I saw the movie first so dont call me a pureist. The fact of the matter BB is that the Movie would of made a crummy book and the book would of made a crummy movie if it was made as its written.

stop going round in circles its starting to p*** me off.

The only thing that PJ improved about the books and its something he can be very pleased about is there appeal. Having seen the movie i found it a lot easier to get into fellowship than the two towers and return of the king and it also sparked an intrest in reading in me something i had not ever previously done in this PJ can be proud but the book and movie are two very seperate things so dont try and compare them.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by theworkhorse regarding Frodo:
I liked the character portrayal, but again see no imporvement. He is different in the book. You do not get a sense of his fighting courage in the movie, (he stabbes the Cave Troll in the foot, for example). I agree with several other posters that he falls on his butt too much, and he does not show that hidden courage in confrontations. This is not interpretation, as Tolkien is clear on these points, so the problem is not in the books. I found Frodo to be rather un-wellrounded in the movie. For me, well rounded means that there are many facets to a characters personality and a growth/change in the character during the story. Frodo does not seem to change as much in the films as he does in the books. What do you see in his character in the movie that I do not see?

I disagree. I thought the screenplay did a excellent job of highlighting the changes in Frodo from the beginning of the story to the breaking of the fellowship. Even though Frodo didn't show his hidden courage in his confrontation with the ringwraiths, he showed courage and spunk in his decision to leave the shire with the ring. He also showed great courage in offering to take the ring to Mordor in the Council of Elrond. But by highlighting Frodo's fear in the movie, Jackson created a powerful emotional climax to the first film. Both the book and the movie did a great job with Frodo. But to be fair to Peter Jackson, he was able to capture the essence of Frodo and have him become the audience's "everyman" because he had the guts to take a different slant. If PJ had tried the Christopher Columbus approach with LOTR, it would have fallen flat IMHO.

[LuthienTinuviel]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
LT, have I mentioned how much I love you lately? Comments like this:

posted by BoP
Did PJ improve upon Tolkien? No.
Did he improve upon parts of Tolkien? Overall, no.
Did he mangle Tolkien? Yes.
Is BB a twat? Absolutely.

and i aslo agree with sween, your a tool.
oh and don't forget those huge words that bropous called you, i agree with that too..
oh and when you referred to yourself as one of those knuckledragging mouthbreathers, yea, that was on the money.

oh and your the only person who i don't want to share my ivory tower with, you smell like poo.

i am thisclose to putting you on my ignore list. which i vowed never to use here. i htink that everyone has a right to voice thier opinion, and if i don't want to read it, then i won't.
now i don't like your opinions (if you can call them that) but their so forkin funny that this thread has tunred into something like my favourite television show.

well have a good day, im going to go rock in a corner now while mumbling quietly to myself.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by LuthienTinuviel
:now i don't like your opinions (if you can call them that) but their so forkin funny that this thread has tunred into something like my favourite television show.

Is it the Lord of the Rings version of The Anna Nicole Show (for those of you not lucky enough to experience this thing, it's the human manifestastion of everything repulsive in human nature).

The endless baiting (trolling, I guess) is funny but the ferret like reliance on the same verbal tools (tools, heh heh) is a scream. Can anyone say they are "a huge Tolkien fan" and then trash the author's work? Hardly. It's just a desperate cry for attention.

[markedel]

What should be done is constant sticking to your point-the arguments of BB are as shifty as local wardheelers. Very disconcerting. Stick to your points and be firm-trust me, I've just spent an hour revising my flock of essays.

[LuthienTinuviel]

haha the anna nicole show!
i watched like the first five minutes of the first episode and i have never even watched that channel anymore!

egads, her clothes, and the way she whines. well her and BB do have something in comon, both thier heads are filled with the same stuff! haha

[webwizard333]

Yay! Both sides are using faulty logic!

Seeing as BB will never admit to the existence of a sigle flaw in the movie, this entire thread has become pointless. All I would like to add is that most of the people I know in real life, all preferred the book more to the movie (including those who saw the movie before reading), but that really doesn't prove anyting, other than that the support of the vast majority really doesn't help win an argument <resists urge to make cracks aboout certain candidates who have won elections in the past>.

Btw, Tom Bombadil worked wonderfully in the book, but would have failed if included in the movie.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by LuthienTinuviel
haha the anna nicole show!
i watched like the first five minutes of the first episode and i have never even watched that channel anymore!

egads, her clothes, and the way she whines. well her and BB do have something in comon, both thier heads are filled with the same stuff! haha

I'm glad the comparison was not lost. That is the worst show in history (except "Manimal"). I can't even stand the commercials.

They are alike. Deluded, living in they own little world, not embarrassed no matter how silly they appear. Yes, "the same stuff" is the only way to say it here.

I would have enjoyed a good debate on the subject, but there really hasn't been anything worthy of debate in a while. I think many of the "movie-only" lovers might feel, deep inside, they prefer the movie, but aren't well read enough to understand both arguements. Many might be secretly glad that Frodo's role as protagonist is dimished. Most people who started with the movie and then read the book seem to understand that the book has more to offer intellectually. I've considered taking the pro arguement but this is more fun.

[durin's bane]

Yeah, PJ might've turned him into an armored warrior with a sword, and Goldberry into a helpless damsel in distress. TB rocks!

Also, PJ's version of the Flight to the Ford made Frodo seem weak, having to be taken by horse with another, right after he gets the wound. Frodo was strong in the book, and endured the wound for many days, and went to Rivendell on horse by himself until he couldn't bear the wound any longer.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by webwizard333
Yay! Both sides are using faulty logic!

Seeing as BB will never admit to the existence of a sigle flaw in the movie, this entire thread has become pointless. All I would like to add is that most of the people I know in real life, all preferred the book more to the movie (including those who saw the movie before reading), but that really doesn't prove anyting, other than that the support of the vast majority really doesn't help win an argument <resists urge to make cracks aboout certain candidates who have won elections in the past>.

Btw, Tom Bombadil worked wonderfully in the book, but would have failed if included in the movie.

Well, this pretty much sums it up, except neither side is using anthing close to logic other than "I beleive, therefore...". But that is all there ever was to it.

[Sween]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Is it the Lord of the Rings version of The Anna Nicole Show (for those of you not lucky enough to experience this thing, it's the human manifestastion of everything repulsive in human nature).

The endless baiting (trolling, I guess) is funny but the ferret like reliance on the same verbal tools (tools, heh heh) is a scream. Can anyone say they are "a huge Tolkien fan" and then trash the author's work? Hardly. It's just a desperate cry for attention.

does she still have really big tits though? shes a bit like jordan shes got comedy boobs

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Sween
does she still have really big tits though? shes a bit like jordan shes got comedy boobs

Ummm... everything is huge.... really... huge.

[Sween]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Ummm... everything is huge.... really... huge.

ohh what a shame she used to be fit very fit. She allways was a silly [edited] though lol

*Edited by Khamûl

[Black Breathalizer]

This is really getting ridiculous. You know this thread is in the dumper when Anna Nicole Smith gets mentioned as part of a LOTR discussion.

1. I never said the movie was without flaws.

2. I never said the movie is better than the books.

3. What I AM saying it that Jackson added some nice touches that improved the storyline.

But some of you have chosen to ignore these statements and continue to portray me as some fanatic who believes the movie is superior to the books. That's hogwash and people who care enough to actually READ this thread know it.

The movie is great. The books are great. Each has its unique flaws and limitations. However, the strengths of the two provide true Tolkien lovers with the best of both worlds.

[webwizard333]

You know this thread is in the dumper when Anna Nicole Smith gets mentioned as part of a LOTR discussion.

Truer words have never been spoken.

1. I never said the movie was without flaws.

Perhaps you don't mean to, but you do give that impression by arguing against most posters' problems with the movie.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
2. I never said the movie is better than the books.

Ahem. *cough*

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I believe the Jackson's Breaking of the Fellowship is superior to Tolkien's. (Yes, I said that.) Now for the sake of this discussion, let's assume that both the book's and the movie's versions were presented to you without the weight of one being an adaption of the other. If you had to choose between the two based solely on the merits of how the two scenes play out and how they impacted the overall storyline and its characters, which would you choose?

I think most objective people would choose Jackson's. Why? Because it gives every character in the Fellowship (especially Merry and Pippen) the chance to contribute directly to Frodo's quest. Rather than having Frodo 'run away' after his confrontation with Boromir, it gave him a chance to say good-bye to Merry, Pippen, and Aragorn. Rather than leaving Aragorn without a word, Frodo is able to say good-bye to Aragorn and to leave with him understanding why Frodo was making the decision to go alone. It gives the first third of the story a better all-round sense of closure, IMHO.

Now, rather than simply telling me what a loudmouth jerk I am, please DEFEND Tolkien's version, thank you.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Ahem. *cough*

The joy of beleiving in what you say is to never have to worry that someone will throw your words up in your face when you contradict yourself just trying to score a point.

[LuthienTinuviel]

BB, we may have found common ground!

This is really getting ridiculous. You know this thread is in the dumper when Anna Nicole Smith gets mentioned as part of a LOTR discussion.

im going to go eat pie.