Learning from Peter Jackson

[Lizra]

The text leads me to the brink of believing Saruman's persuasive powers are "magical". Much stronger than anything normal. I find their descriptions to be "bewitching". Now "posession" is certainly a Peter Jackson twist, and I must agree with your point of the book not supporting an actual exorcism, as done in the movie! BUT....I still get a "have your cake and eat it too" feeling with the descriptions of Saruman's vocal powers, and the denial of magic or hypnosis.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

I think I understand what you are saying. There does seem to be a more "wizard" like aura around Saruman in the book than in Letters. Given that the letter is very early (1955, shortly after publication) I think Tolkien could probably reconcile this if he were asked directly, but I agree that the sparce nature of his commentary does seem to leave some of these issues hanging.

Lembas is another that comes to mind, I always had the impression it had some sort of "special quality" to it beyond just a good recipe, so I was surprised by Tolkien's account of it in Letters. There were other things that surprised me too.

[Elfhelm]

I have gone around to various Tolkien fans I know, many of whom have read the books more than once, but most only read them once, and asked them if they like the movies. Every single one of them said yes.

I then asked if they thought certain scenes were a little hokey. I would mention things like the Thriller style transformation of Theoden or the challenge by Arwen to the ringwraiths at the Ford. Again, every one of them grinned and said yes. Almost all of them knew, for instance, that it was a male elf who rode with Frodo, though only one knew Glorfindel's name. I also asked things like "Did you envision Aragorn being a little older?" and "Does Frodo seem kind of wimpy?" and "What do you think of the characterization of Faramir?" They generally agreed with me. And all of them agreed that Faramir was far more noble and honorable in the book.

However, every one of them said it did not change their opinion of the movies. They all felt the movies were far better than they ever thought anyone would do with the story. They all loved the way the Shire was depicted and most of the casting.

So I derived several things from my straw poll:

1. The vast majority of fans who read and re-read the books don't mind the alterations the screenwriters did.

2. The people here who get upset and argue viciously that Peter Jackson is a bad man for doing what he did are a tiny minority of the fans.

3. The person here who thinks every alteration Jackson and his writers did were strokes of genius is the only person I've ever heard of who thinks that way.

So I conclude that we here are arguing for the pleasure of arguing and we are just enjoying the sight of our own cranky opinions.

p.s. I love Shakespeare and have never agreed with any director of any Shakespeare production completely. That's part of my love and if I were told that I was wrong for disagreeing like that, it would say nothing about me and everything about the person who said that!

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
So I conclude that we here are arguing for the pleasure of arguing and we are just enjoying the sight of our own cranky opinions.

Oh, how I laughed when reading this. Thank you, I needed that. But I must say you have some very good points.

[Lizra]

You mean Lembas are just tasty, nutritious wafers! So the elves were just really smart....."highly evolved" or something? no mystical powers? that's all? .... I want magic, dang it! I will not read any of these "letters"! Ignorance IS bliss!

[jerseydevil]

Well I still think jackson is a hack who couldn't produce an intelligent, emotional movie no matter what. Come on - does even the burping/fart thing after eating Lembas belong in Lord of the Rings? It's in the extended edition. So yes - even with the extended edition - I have problems with some of the additional scenes.

I have always said the movies were average. Not the great master piece so many others think. They're action movies, with a lot of comedy and an underlying love story and adventure.

[Sheeana]

Who's bein' cranky?






JD - Inasmuch as I hate the LOTR movies, Heavenly Creatures *is* a very good film. You should check it out sometime if you already haven't.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sheeana
JD - Inasmuch as I hate the LOTR movies, Heavenly Creatures *is* a very good film. You should check it out sometime if you already haven't.

I didn't say he couldn't make a good movie - I said he couldn't make an intelligent movie.

BTW - I will look into the movie and see for myself though.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Almost all of them knew, for instance, that it was a male elf who rode with Frodo, though only one knew Glorfindel's name.

Just to nitpick a little. No one rode with Frodo in "Flight to the Ford" Glorfindel put Frodo on his horse Asfaloth, and when the Black Riders approached, Glorfindel called to the horse in the Elven tongue, telling him to fly, and the horse bore Frodo, alone, across the ford.

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Based on the text, what isn't valid is that Saruman is the greatest of the Maiar, or that Saruman bred the Uruk-Hai. In the books, Sauron was the greatest, or at least the most powerful of the Maiar, and it was Sauron that bred the Uruk-Hai. These are not interpretations, but facts.

Great point SGH. For anyone who has payed attention to the detail in the books it is very easy to see that the Uruks came from Mordor and the Half-orcs bred by Saruman was the squint-eyed southerner at Bree and the ruffians in the Shire. Out of all the changes in the film, having the Uruks become pod-people has to be my most hated.

[Sween]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
Great point SGH. For anyone who has payed attention to the detail in the books it is very easy to see that the Uruks came from Mordor and the Half-orcs bred by Saruman was the squint-eyed southerner at Bree and the ruffians in the Shire. Out of all the changes in the film, having the Uruks become pod-people has to be my most hated.

i think that having them as pod people makes perfect sence this is an area that Tolkien does not go into and therefore is up for debate. Plus The enemy did allways manage to riase huge forces very fast so i think that it works

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by Sween
i think that having them as pod people makes perfect sence this is an area that Tolkien does not go into and therefore is up for debate. Plus The enemy did allways manage to riase huge forces very fast so i think that it works

Well Tolkien says that Orcs multiply in the same manner as the Children of Iluvatar and Bolg is the son of Azog. Uruks are nothing more then large soilder-orcs, so I don't see the debate.

Uruks = large solider-orcs of the late Third Age
Orcs multiply in the same manner as the Children of Iluvatar.

Even though Tolkien never talks about Orc children they must have existed with the hints he has given, Men and Elves have children, and the Orcs multiply the same as Men and Elves. And we atleast know of one Orc who had a son.

[azalea]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha


Even though Tolkien never talks about Orc children they must have existed with the hints he has given, Men and Elves have children, and the Orcs multiply the same as Men and Elves. And we atleast know of one Orc who had a son.

I always thought when in The Hobbit it says Gollum had a few hours earlier caught a "small goblin-imp," it meant it was a goblin child, especially because Gollum later refers to it as a "nassty young squeaker." (Not that it has any relevance to the thread topic, but I thought I'd add to what you'd said about it.)

[Valandil]

Don't quite understand what all this talk about children or pod people has to do with which multiplication tables orcs use.

And does Tolkien really say the orcs use the same multiplication tables as the other children of Illuvatar???

[Melko Belcha]

Orcs reproduce (multiply) in the same manner as the Children of Iluvatar. In other words it takes a male Orc and a female Orc to make more of the species, the same as Men, Elves, Dwarves, and Hobbits.

[Valandil]

Huh????? What do you mean?

[Sheeana]

Well, when a daddy orc really loves a mummy orc, they will have a very special cuddle. When they have this very special cuddle, if the conditions are right, a baby orc will grow in mummy orc's tummy. Nine months or so later, there will be a baby orc born to mummy and daddy orc because of this very special cuddle. And that's how you make baby orcs!

[Valandil]

...OH!!!

But could PJ show that and keep his rating?

I guess you can skirt around some things in a book that you have to either show, ignore or modify in a movie... huh?

Can't show it... especially not with Orcs!

If you ignore it... you don't realize Saruman is doing something un-natural!

You make this change... you get a similar point across.


PS: Sheeana - LOVED your explanation. You're not a mom yet though, are you? I'm a dad of young boys (surprising I know with my apparent bewilderment) and I'm takin' notes!

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Valandil
Huh????? What do you mean?

Valandil, according to Tolkien, it was the greatest mockery to Iluvatar by Morgoth, that when he bred the hidious race of Orcs, that they were to reproduce in the same fashion as the Children of Iluvatar.

[Valandil]

Huh...? Reproduce? Like with a XEROX machine (here we go again )???

Uh - Sheeana ... what if a baby orc had two mummy orcs or two daddy orcs??? Ah... better not go there! THAT belongs on another thread... which I think I'll stay away from for just a bit...