Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I would like to point out that Frodo was not, in fact, an "everyman". He was a very wealthy Hobbit, belonging to an old and respected family, and also quite a scholar and loremaster. How many Hobbits know even a smidgeon of Elvish?

[Rían]

(just to throw a little fuel on the fire.... )

While doing my paperwork, I popped on the director's commentary, and while I missed some of it (during particularly exciting moments with the checkbook), I really didn't hear PJ talk about improving, just enhancing.

However, I DID get the following from Philippa, during Boromir's death scene (at 1:26:30) - "I think this moment is better than the moment in the book" ..."and I do think it was a failing of Professor Tolkien's" (talking about how the movie, in her opinion, had improved the "emotional content and connection" between Aragorn and Boromir).

*flees the thread*

[Lizra]

Well....I agree! Boromir's death is better in the movie! Sue me! Why is it such blasphemy to like a scene better. No insult to Tolikien intended! My goodness, he wrote the whole fantastical kit and kaboodle! The ME mythology is more pleasurable than art class, and more complex than chemistry. I think a scene that is better is not a threat! What a big deal! (as my grandmother would say )

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I would like to point out that Frodo was not, in fact, an "everyman". He was a very wealthy Hobbit, belonging to an old and respected family, and also quite a scholar and loremaster. How many Hobbits know even a smidgeon of Elvish?

My "everyman" comment refers to the literary term for a character that the readers develop a special empathy for and identity with. We "live the story" through an everyman person.

Many believe that while Frodo was the everyman character in FOTR, the readers begin to identify more with Sam as Frodo becomes increasingly burdened by the ring.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I do agree with that (in regards to the book, as Sam didn't really become the "empathee" until ROTK, in my opinion).

Liz: Tisn't blasphemy to think it's better. I just don't.

I'm sure Rian posted that in regards to the discussion of whether or not PJ (and Co.) think that they have improved upon Tolkien. Which I personally don' think is possible and other people I know don't think has been done.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I'm sure Rian posted that in regards to the discussion of whether or not PJ (and Co.) think that they have improved upon Tolkien....

Yes, I did - someone was asking for a referenced quote, so I threw that in for info (and for fun )

I really liked that scene in the movie, BTW - it didn't seem out of character for either guy. I thought the book was great, too, in that part. I miss the laments over Boromir, tho.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Ditto. (in regards to everything, except throwing the quote in there )

[durin's bane]

Originally posted by Elvengirl
I pretty much agree with you. I thought FOTR was great.
No PJ did not change the basic plot of the story and I understand that he couldn't put every single part in the movie (Tom Bombadill). I think the scenes that stayed true to the book (or as close as possible) were very well done and did capture Tolkien's vision.

But the changes he did make were not for the better, such as Arwen's flight to the ford, Faramir and Osgiliath, Haldir's death, and Aragorn's cliff scene. They were ridiculous changes that did nothing to enhance the story. They were a waste of time that could have been used to include some of Tolkien's great work. That is what I am disappointed about.

Exactly. I completely agree with you.
If Jackson can find the time to make pointless scenes like that, then he has no excuse to say, "Well, I couldn't make room for Tom Bombadil, etc."

[Wayfarer]

And now I come to your latest post, BB. That 'cute' little 'court' thing, where you pasted stupid labels on our beloved insufferable Wayfarer. Shame!

Actually. *eyeshift* I thought that whole thing was funny.

I'd just like to get out of the way that I have as much sympathy for BB as I do for anybody. We have definite similarities in our *cough* insufferable styles.

But still, I think it clearly illustrates Breathalizers attempts to obfuscate (which is a big word that means 'hide') his lack of a good answer by using cute stuff.

Necessary? It depends on your definition of the word.

How... Clintonesque, eh? The fact is that the film would have worked as well or better the way tolkien originally wrote it in many instances. Even jackson has admitted it.

Oh, you mean the specific instances like at Weathertop and the flight to the ford?

If by 'specific instances' you mean 'every time frodo appeared in the films' then yes.

Jackson was guided by an even higher Tolkien theme: Keeping it REAL.

You mean 'keeping it real' by making aragorn, legolas, and gimli invincible killing machines while reducing the main character to a snivelling coward?

Do these changes hold with Tolkien's theme, which had Frodo demonstrating that strength and wisdom can be found in unlikely places?
BB: Of course. There are many instances of that to be found in the two (plus one on the way) films. Strider, Galadriel, Eomer, and Treebeard are all examples of that to be seen in the films thus far.

Um... You're an idiot?

That's all I can say to someone who would claim the above characters are suitable replacements for the strength that has been stolen from frodo.

Again and again, BlackBreathalizer, you will make a weak defense and then try to pass it off as something strong. Your tactic is a complete and utter failure.

I liked the films enough to watch them several times over, but the more I do the more uncomfortable I become with them. The fact is that this is another crappy jackson B-movie with a thin veneer of Tolkien glossed over it.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I'd just like to get out of the way that I have as much sympathy for BB as I do for anybody

That little, eh?

[azalea]

Lol, good one, GW!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

No offense to Wayfarer, of course. I just couldn't resist...

[Wayfarer]

You do realize the exact same thought crossed my mind when I was writing that, don't you?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I figured it would.

[Melko Belcha]

I don't know why I'm putting it in this thread, but oh well.

http://www.john-howe.com/portfolio/g...p?image_id=334

I find it interesting that Frodo showing the Ring to the Nazgul has been there since the begining. I love where it says, 'There is a hint to this in The Two Towers'. There's more then a hint.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
I find it interesting that Frodo showing the Ring to the Nazgul has been there since the begining. I love where it says, 'There is a hint to this in The Two Towers'. There's more then a hint.

Just to set the record straight since its been mentioned more than once in this thread: Frodo did not show the ring to the Nazgul in TTT. He was tempted to put on the ring - not show it off -- or worse yet, give it -- to the Nazgul.

What the audience sees is Frodo holding up the ring to put it on since it was still attached to the necklace around his neck.

[IronParrot]

I'm ridiculously behind in reading this thread, and I don't think I'll ever catch up (let alone respond to all of this), and it seems like this has degenerated into yet another debate of the same points over and over and over... but BB, if you need some help, just blow the Horn of Gondor. Even though I wouldn't stretch some of the finer points quite as far as you're taking them.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Just to set the record straight since its been mentioned more than once in this thread: Frodo did not show the ring to the Nazgul in TTT. He was tempted to put on the ring - not show it off -- or worse yet, give it -- to the Nazgul.

Hold it. That's what you think. I saw Frodo about to give the Ring to the Nazgul. (Little details like the chain notwithstanding. We know it comes off the chain sometimes. ) I'll ask around my school and see what the un-Tolkien-read people thought.

All that work... answering BB's each and every post... and he ignores it.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
My "everyman" comment refers to the literary term for a character that the readers develop a special empathy for and identity with. We "live the story" through an everyman person.

Okay.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Many believe that while Frodo was the everyman character in FOTR, the readers begin to identify more with Sam as Frodo becomes increasingly burdened by the ring.

That seems better for the story. To truly see what Frodo is suffering, we need a little space between him and us. To see how it shows.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Actually. *eyeshift* I thought that whole thing was funny.

Shame!