Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Melko Belcha]

Sorry azalea, but the point I trying to make is that there are alot of people who feel that the films failed to capture Tolkien's vision. And BB, I can bet that out of those 9 there is a good chance that 6 or 7 of the people have never read the books, or only read the books after seeing the movie.

[Black Breathalizer]

As has been beautifully illustrated by IronParrot and 'moi' with a number of irrefutable examples, Jackson has done a masterful job of capturing Tolkien's vision on film. The nay-sayers here have a little clique that emboldens them to think they are more than just another far right fringe group of Tolkien book geeks. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

The only thing I've heard from the Purists in this whole thread is that Jackson didn't give you YOUR vision of LOTR. When it's pointed out to you that Jackson's LOTR is just as valid a representation of Tolkien as your own, we get idiotic drivel like, "well, Roger Ebert said..." Give me a break.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
As has been beautifully illustrated by IronParrot and 'moi' with a number of irrefutable examples, Jackson has done a masterful job of capturing Tolkien's vision on film. The nay-sayers here have a little clique that emboldens them to think they are more than just another far right fringe group of Tolkien book geeks. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

The only thing I've heard from the Purists in this whole thread is that Jackson didn't give you YOUR vision of LOTR. When it's pointed out to you that Jackson's LOTR is just as valid a representation of Tolkien as your own, we get idiotic drivel like, "well, Roger Ebert said..." Give me a break.

It has NOT, by ANY MEANS, been "illustrated". You have merely stated that it is your opinion, and given some lengthy rhetoric to "prove" that it is accurate. If that is illustrating that he did it well, does this mean that whoever is the longest-winded must be right?

The nay-sayers here have a little clique that emboldens them to think they are more than just another far right fringe group of Tolkien book geeks. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

I could insert some rude comments about not giving a rat's behind about Tolkien and his work right about here...

The only thing I've heard from the Purists in this whole thread is that Jackson didn't give you YOUR vision of LOTR. When it's pointed out to you that Jackson's LOTR is just as valid a representation of Tolkien as your own, we get idiotic drivel like, "well, Roger Ebert said..." Give me a break.

Ah. So you're telling me that PJ thought that it was Arwen who went to the Ford, not Frodo by himself, and that Merry and Pippin just tripped over Frodo and said "Cool, an epic quest to destroy an ancient item of great evil! Sounds cool, I'm in!" and that Galadriel turned into a demonic monster, rather than "beautiful beyond enduring", that Faramir took Frodo to Osgiliath, rather than aiding them? If that is the case, then either he never read the book, or he is illiterate. Don't know where the additions came in...he most have fallen asleep while reading the skewed synopsis.

My point is that it is NOT an interpretation. It is a a rewriting, an "improvement".

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Quoting an influencial film critic while discussing a film is not idiotic drivel - do you not see the stupidity of your posts?

This is idiotic drivel - it doesn't even make sense.

"Jackson has improved Tolkien"
"Jackson understands Tolkien's vision better than Tolkien"
"Jackson has brought more skill to his craft than Tolkien did to his"
"Peter Jackson is God"

[edited]

edited by azalea: please be careful about the personal comments you make.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
As has been beautifully illustrated by IronParrot and 'moi' with a number of irrefutable examples, Jackson has done a masterful job of capturing Tolkien's vision on film. The nay-sayers here have a little clique that emboldens them to think they are more than just another far right fringe group of Tolkien book geeks. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

The only thing I've heard from the Purists in this whole thread is that Jackson didn't give you YOUR vision of LOTR. When it's pointed out to you that Jackson's LOTR is just as valid a representation of Tolkien as your own, we get idiotic drivel like, "well, Roger Ebert said..." Give me a break.

First of all, you did not make your point with irrefutable examples, [edited], or else others would not be disputing the dribble that you have so irresponsibly puked upon this thread.
If PJ had been successful in capturing Tolkien's vision, which he has obviously not done, there would not be those among us to argue against your point of view. There are clearly significant changes from the book in which examples have clearly and concisely been provided to you. And it has been explained to you in clear and simple language that even you should be able to understand, that these significant changes to the story line, as well as the characters, changes the basic themes of the story itself.
However, you are much like many to whom Hollywood tries to appeal to. [edtied] And I forgive you for your limited vision and your incapacity to recognise the difference between the great works of a great literary artist and the failed attempt by a Hollywood lackey to bring a great adventure from a wonderful piece of classic art to the big screen.

[Lizra]

I find all that name calling offensive. Please, I don't think using spoilers means you have license to flame-bait shamelessly!

[Artanis]

Lizra is the one person that make most sense in this thread

[azalea]

Sorry, Ruinel, but I had to edit your post. Please, I know this can be a frustrating debate, but it is important that we keep it civil, and not resort to name-calling. Thank you.

Edit:
Facts for everyone to keep in mind about this thread:

You are not going to change anyone's mind about the movie.

No one can really KNOW if Jackson captured the "spirit" of Tolkien's vision or not, because each reader has his own ideas about what that "spirit" is. It can be argued effectively, but it is ultimately subjective.

Tolkien cannot speak for himself in this matter, although we have Letters that can be used in arguing the points. However, although Tolkien surely had his own ideas about why he wrote it and what it is about, he could not dictate that to his readers unless he had decided to explicitly write it out in the published work. He wrote a story, which he had published. In doing so, he was permitting each reader to form his own ideas about the spirit of the work.

In titling this thread "literal" vs. vision, I don't think (and I think he said this) BB meant literal as in word for word. I think he meant Did Jackson, despite the changes he made to the original story, capture the essence of LotR and its themes? and If not, what specifically did he change that failed to capture that essence and why did it fail, and How would sticking to the text in that instance have better conveyed the theme in question while still remaining feasible in the cinematic sense? Or something along those lines. This has been an interesting topic so far, and can continue to be as long as we can keep a sense of humor about it, or at least some emotional distance.

MB, I wasn't referring to your post in specific, but to the general path down which the thread was heading. (Plus I was afraid BB would ACTUALLY post all those other reviews! )

[Ruinel]

Sorry, I'm having a crappy day. But, that was nothing compared to what I wanted to say.

[azalea]

In that case, thanks for exhibiting restraint in your post.
I'm sorry you're having a bad day.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by azalea
In that case, thanks for exhibiting restraint in your post.
I'm sorry you're having a bad day.

Thanks. I'll make a serious effort not to do this in the future.

[Elfhelm]

To be fair, though, BB did use the terms geek and idiotic, as well as leaned on the word purist in a negative way. Surely an intelligent fan of Tolkien can be forgiven for getting upset at being called idiotic.

That said, I have also eloquently spoken on behalf of PJ in this thread, as well as condemned some things I felt were unconscionable (such as the excessive splatter). But I'm not an admin so I guess I don't get the nod.

[Ruinel]

Thanks.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Yes, I most definitely admire you for that.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Yes, I most definitely admire you for that.

who?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Elfhelm.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Elfhelm.

Ah. Ok.

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The only thing I've heard from the Purists in this whole thread is that Jackson didn't give you YOUR vision of LOTR.

If we were arguing that PJ did not capture our vision of LotR then the argument would be more along the lines of The Shire (which I did like) didn't look like I had pictured it, or Moria (again I liked) wasn't the Moria I thought of, or that the Balrog looked nothing like what I think it looks like (this one is true, I laugh everytime I see that thing). That is not captureing a persons own vision, and is pointless to argue because that is all a matter of opinion.

But changing things that are described in detail in the book and changed in the film have nothing to do with my vision but Tolkien's vision. My vision of Treebeard is the Treebeard Tolkien clearly describes in the book, a wise and ancient creature, not the Treebeard in the film, a creature who dosen't even know what's going on around his borders. My vision of Faramir is the Faramir described in the book, a very noble man like the kings of old, not the film Faramir that is a carbon copy of his brother.

I am upset with the films because Tolkien describes characters (his vision of the characters) and alot of the characters of the film are totally different then the way Tolkien described them. I am not talking about looks either, but personality. My vision of the characters are the way Tolkien described them and intended them to be, not some guy who cares nothing about the characters, but only cares about the money that finds its way into his pockets.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
My vision of Faramir is the Faramir described in the book, a very noble man like the kings of old, not the film Faramir that is a carbon copy of his brother.

Book Faramir is so much different from Movie Faramir. Book Faramir is nothing like his brother. His is noble, as you said. But I felt that he was far less desperate and of a calmer temperment than Boromir... who, to me, seemed hell bent on getting the One Ring (albeit for what he thought was good intentions). I had an immense respect for Book Faramir. Movie Faramir was none of these things. He was the anti-Book-Faramir. And this was very disappointing.

[Wayfarer]

The only thing I've heard from the Purists in this whole thread is that Jackson didn't give you YOUR vision of LOTR.

Oh really?

Well, to be honest, it's true. Jackson has not given me my vision of LOTR. Nor has he given us something close to Tolkien's vision of LOTR.

I think it's pretty clear to any reasonably thinking person that Jackson has given us one thing, and one thing only. And that's Jackson's vision. And that's not worth the price of a cheap ace-books paperback.

The arbitrary, ridiculous changes to character, to plot, to history, to the world in general, make it obvious that Jackson cares little for exquisite craftmanship of Tolkien's Middle Earth.