10-31-2002, 10:21 PM | #381 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 828
|
um, BeardofPants? I coulda sworn you and your buddies were the ones telling me that hating PARTS of the movie, didn't mean I should make the statement you all disliked the movie.
Well, let's follow your own logic. Perhaps this could mean that ...(cue drumroll)...I could actually like the construction of a scene from the screenplay better than the book without feeling the whole movie is better than the entire book. I'm going to eat pie now too. bye-bye. |
11-01-2002, 11:42 AM | #382 |
EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED
DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,176
|
Well that should be a big steaming plate heaped with crow pie or humble pie, son, 'cause if you had any intellectual honor whatsoever you would be packin' both in great greasy gobbets right down your own gullet.
Let us, in a sudden burst of clarity after 20 pages of horse manure-laced rants by yourself, review your original post: I quote: "Some of you purists may disagree, but in writing the screenplays to his movies, I think it's clear that PJ actually improved on The Master's great work. "Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Tolkien fan. But I love the changes that Jackson has made. Some of my favorites include: "Boromir's character. PJ made him much more "human." In the movie version, you could actually empathize with Boromir in a way you didn't in the book. Who didn't like the way he related to Merry and Pippin? "The Breaking of the Fellowship. PJ's version tied things together in a way that Tolkien wasn't able to do. "Arwen. Why didn't Tolkien highlight this beautiful love story? Using her in the flight to the ford was a stroke of genius. "I can't wait to see what improvements Jackson and Co. make to TTT!!!" [Becoming once again loudly sick. Sorry, kitty.] Well, BB, Boromir's character was more cartoonish and one-dimensional in Jackson's screeenplay, and I guess that would more fit your limited ability to conceptualize descriptions, subtleties and undertones. Boromir in the books was FAR more human than the film version, though I actually thought Sean Bean's characterization was one of the finer points of the film. Boromir in the books had far more levels to him, levels which were NOT untranslatable to the film medium, but which were ignored by Jackson and Boyens. Facile replacing complexity, and unfortunately, that was a recurring theme throughout the entire film. The Breaking of the Fellowship: Well, I'm sorry Tolkien did not tie everything up into a nice comic-book version in one easily-read chapter for you. I am sure that Ronald's heart bleeds "on the other side of the veil" that he lost your approval with his wordcraft. See, part of the wonder of Tolkien is a hanging thread of the story over here that is not tied up until much later; in this, Tolkien actually goes back and adds additional dimension and depth to his well-woven tapestry. Laying it all out right up front may be the way Spiderman is scripted, but Tolkien is another level of reading, a level which hopefully you will grow to appreciate fully. As for Arwen, the simple fact there is that she had VERY LITTLE to do with the story line in the long run. Jackson's rewriting of the story in her case meant putting Elrond's daughter out in the wilds with the full complement of Nazgul on the hoof in the vicinity, and that actually rips up Elrond's dedication to his daughter and his own wariness of letting distaff members of the family abroad after losing his own wife to Orcs in an attempt just to cross the Misty Mountains and visit family and friends in Lothlorien, EVEN WHEN ACCOMPANIED BY A STRONG ESCORT OF ELVEN WARRIORS!!!!!! You want to know who was REALLY weakened by this unnecessary strengthening of Arwen/Xena? THE NAZGUL! And while we are at it, WHY did Jackson not include Legolas shooting the winged Nazgul out of the sky over the Anduin, Gollum hanging onto a log following the three boats, the TRUE vision of Lothlorien with the mallorns and the platforms far above the ground, the Barrow-Wight scene, Old Man Willow, etc etc etc? CAUSE HE WASTED TOO MUCH FRIGGIN TIME EXPLORING AVENUES WHICH WEREN'T EVEN IN THE FREAKIN BOOK!!!!!!! Had Jackson not wasted his time with Arwen, the Cave Troll, this BS about the collapsing dwarf-toss bridges in Khazad-Dum, etc etc etc, he could have left in those portions of the book which were MUCH more important to the story as a whole. The origin of the sword which breaks the spell of the Witch-King is IMPORTANT!!!! The passing of the Elves into the West and Gildor's scenes with the hobbits were IMPORTANT!!!! the fact that Frodo did not know the fate of the rest of the Fellowship was IMPORTANT!!!! (Oh, and BTW, you can bet Frodo most certainly DID hear the blowing of the Horn of Gondor, so at least he had SOME idea they were in trouble). Fact is, kid, and you ARE a kid, at least intellectually, Jackson's detractions from the books far outweigh any points he may have scored for this-or-that aspect. It was totally unnecessary to make the changes he felt all-too-comfortable with, and just hang on, 'cause you ain't heard NOTHIN' yet.
__________________
"...[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. |
11-01-2002, 12:05 PM | #383 |
im quite stupid
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cockermouth
Posts: 2,058
|
some intresting points Bropus. The Nasgul did not come across as deadly in the film as they do in the book. But rember its hard to do this using film you cannot just say 'the nasgul are s** scary' know what i mean.
As for arwen i dont think this reflects badly upon the nasgul by all rights of tolkien lore she should be more than able to handle herself in the wild. Been of Maira blood by only a few generations. please also do not winge about wasting time with arwen sceans because shes only on screen for about 5 minutes and most of them are simply just replacing a character that has nothing to do later on. Also your statement about her having very little to do with the story in long run doesnt quite fit she marrys aragorn in the end you cannot have her not pop up again. Tolkien had the great advantages of apendecies where he could fill in all these little gaps to his hearts content (and why not) but movies do not work like this so give him his dues. Elrond was very badly depicted in the movie and i have no defence for him. I thought Boromir was depicted very well if anything he has taken that character and made people look at him diffrentally. All he wanted to do was protect his people....not such a bad guy is he? Im surprised no ones had a go at aragorn character as he is vastly diffrent from the book but he makes sence to be like that in the a movie if he was like he is in the book people would not of liked him. i think your grivences about lorien will be fixed in the special edition its a movie theres a thing called pace dont want people nodding off now do we? the cave troll and bridge scean were 2 of the best in the film from an action standpoint. we are all entitled to our opinions but action is a key comonent of a movie like this and the bridge i felt carried off there desperate escape from moria amazingly well IMHO. the sword thing can still be fixed. i had not read the books b4 hand and i managed to understand the elves passing into the west so it was there. Oh please frodo not knowing the fate of the fellowship the movie ended im sure he will muse over the subject in the two towers. Im not saying that the movie is better than the book because its not as the books not better than the movie the book would of made crap movie if it was made word for word and the movie would of made for a crap book (that make sence?) either way go scunthorpe united
__________________
Yeah god hes ok but i would rather be judged by a sheep than that idiot |
11-01-2002, 12:26 PM | #384 |
EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED
DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,176
|
oh come on, sween, let's pull together for FC Biggleswade!
__________________
"...[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. |
11-01-2002, 02:46 PM | #385 | |
im quite stupid
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cockermouth
Posts: 2,058
|
Quote:
seriouly though i did make some good points didnt i?
__________________
Yeah god hes ok but i would rather be judged by a sheep than that idiot |
|
11-01-2002, 04:01 PM | #386 |
'Sober' Mullet Frosh
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Queen's
Posts: 1,245
|
I certainly agree about elrond-he was done badly. Actually large chunks of rivendell were utter tripe.
__________________
"Earnur was a man like his father in valour, but not in wisdom" |
11-01-2002, 04:05 PM | #387 |
Hobbit
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 46
|
*Actually takes the time to read most of the argument* Can someone quote GRONK and then insult him? He feels so left out of the meaningless flaming...
|
11-01-2002, 04:21 PM | #388 | |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Quote:
How was that?
__________________
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 Last edited by Cirdan : 11-01-2002 at 04:23 PM. |
|
11-01-2002, 04:24 PM | #389 |
Hobbit
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 46
|
Yaaaaaay. Thanks that felt good.
|
11-01-2002, 05:01 PM | #390 | |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Quote:
__________________
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 |
|
11-01-2002, 07:18 PM | #391 |
Lady of Westernesse
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Canada (Help! Our parliament building is melting!)
Posts: 761
|
Hee hee, you're funny, GRONK.
*puts a PJ mask on the includes a...very...ugly...WART!* OK, BB, hit me with your best shot.
__________________
Yada, yada, yada |
11-02-2002, 10:04 AM | #392 |
EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED
DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,176
|
Sure, Gronk, I'll take a poke....
"Can someone quote GRONK and then insult him? He feels so left out of the meaningless flaming" INSULT: Third person voice in a conversation is really irritating. Feel better? ======================================== Sween: you made some EXCELLENT points in your post. ======================================== Guys. it looks like our "teacher" has taken a sabbatical.
__________________
"...[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. |
11-02-2002, 01:04 PM | #393 | |
im quite stupid
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cockermouth
Posts: 2,058
|
Quote:
__________________
Yeah god hes ok but i would rather be judged by a sheep than that idiot |
|
11-02-2002, 06:40 PM | #394 |
protector of orphaned rabbits
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Kalamazoo... yes, its a real place!
Posts: 1,236
|
hmm bropous, i don't think youve ever tried to insult me either! lets have it! wee!
thank you GRONK for the idea! you rock!
__________________
|
11-02-2002, 06:49 PM | #395 |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Hmmm, somewhete NOT in a human colon. When did you move?
*ducks* Oh, sorry. Was it not my turn? Well, have at me then. Should be plenty to work with...
__________________
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 |
11-03-2002, 01:19 AM | #396 | |
Hobbit
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 26
|
Quote:
The courage he showed in leaving the Shire and taking the ring at the Council of Elrond is not the fighting courage to which I was referring. He comes off as a wimp in battle. The courage of Hobbits in battle was important to the story. Tolkien describes in at least a dozen places a submerged fire and indominability of Hobbits, leading one to believe he wanted to emphasize that charactristic. This is a facet of Frodo's character that is missing so far, (though admittedly, Merry and Pippin show it a few times). Is having an 'everyman' necessary? Is there a rule in writing books and/or screenplays that says an 'everyman' is necessary or at least beneficial? (This is a real question, not a statement) In Tolkien's world, almost every character has traits that endear and relate them to the reader, so long as the reader has some measure of empathy and self-introspection. Differences in how the reader relates to a character reflect the differences between us all. (For me, I relate to Samwise, Gimle, and Boromir the most, because they were all workhorses (=Þ). In the movie, Frodo has the courage to take the ring; he is a wimp in Battle on Weathertop. At Rivendell, he has the courage to take the ring further; he is a wimp in the Chamber of Mazarbul. At Parth Galen, he has the courage to take the ring alone to Mordor; he falls down on his butt when Boromir chases him and he does not fight the orcs, (I would not say this is as wimpy as the others because fighting would not have been beneficial, but clearly he is not courageous in a fighting way). His character remains static through the film. It can be argued this is only the first film, and so things might change later on. We shall see in a few weeks. I hope it is the case, but it is irrelevant at this point. There is no growth in the character. |
|
11-03-2002, 02:19 AM | #397 | ||||
Hobbit
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 26
|
Quote:
One other thought on Tom, which others have probably mentioned before: the LOTR is not an allegory or a story. It is a history. Tolkien wrote a history for a world he imagined. History does not occur in a vacuum, there are always intricately woven threads that come together and split apart at unexplainable and unpredictable times. Tom Bombadil makes Middle Earth a more realistic history. He adds to the credibility of Middle Earth as a world of its own. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
theworkhorse |
||||
11-03-2002, 02:33 AM | #398 | |
Hobbit
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 26
|
Quote:
|
|
11-03-2002, 02:39 AM | #399 |
Hobbit
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 26
|
(Oh, and BTW, you can bet Frodo most certainly DID hear the blowing of the Horn of Gondor, so at least he had SOME idea they were in trouble).
Frodo mentions it during his discussion with Faramir in "Window to the West:" 'And you can tell me nothing of the cleaving of the horn?' 'No, I did not know of it,' said Frodo. 'But the day when you heard it blowing, if your reckoning is true, was the day when we parted, when I and my servant left the company.' |
11-03-2002, 01:12 PM | #400 | |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Quote:
__________________
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 |
|
|
|
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 |