Ebert's review

[Jedi X]

actually, elfin is used quite a bit in archaic works. its not actually incorrect at all. but elven is the more popular usage.

anyway, ebert always has been a retard. i remember when he and siskel reviewed the animated lotr (the ones with all of the funky animation, like, not the japanese one but that other one- the one that just ended in the middle of the story. i never could believe that. i mean, you go through all this trouble to animate this story- and then you just stop half way?! why? does that make any sense to anyone? not me. just think about [Jedi X goes on for a good bit about this lack of closure: it seems to have had a profound effect on him, yet we will spare you his soliliquy- ED.] So they both, siskel and ebert, are talking about what a deep story it was and all that jazz, and now he is saying this. i mean, its like, make up your mind.

he says that the story doesn't have anything to do with our world, and life in general? huh? are you reading the same book as me, or are you just incapable of comprehending allegoric storytelling? who knows. i think all of those ju-ju babies have clogged his brain-pan.

i wont eve comment on the rest of his foolishness. he's just one of those guys "oh, look how cool i am, my favorite movies no one ever saw- thats because i got artistic integrity, i'm so deep". please, you not artistic- and you got no integrity. spare me your glory hogging, ebert. your just a fat man with too much time on his hands.

hey. did i see someone say something about gladiator? how can you find fault with that movie? we dont care about the roman empire? no kidding. its called "gladiator", not "rome". anyway, maximus is embodying all of the good qualities of rome, versus the corrupt embodiment of rome. so, caring about what happens to maximus IS caring about what happens to rome. they are one and the same.

[Wayfarer]

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by Jedi X
he's just one of those guys "oh, look how cool i am, my favorite movies no one ever saw- thats because i got artistic integrity, i'm so deep".

I don't know, but it seems he's actually going for a certain anti-intellectualism, too. He seems to find reading LotR as difficult as other people find Henry James (see "victorian travelogues" and "elevated, archaic, romantic prose style that tests our capacity for the declarative voice"). Archaic, sure. That's part of the charm. But what is "elevated" about the language? That he assuages profanity? Anyway, it sounds like he has difficulty reading and he's blaming it on the writer.

[Thorin II]

I don't think Ebert's as much of a culture snob as many of his peers (Siskel was much worse). Still, his review was pretty vacant. He definitely doesn't know enough about JRRT to comment on his intentions.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Jedi X
actually, elfin is used quite a bit in archaic works. its not actually incorrect at all. but elven is the more popular usage.

Elfin is more correct in modern English, which is why it's such a good indicator of who's an idiot in respect to Tolkien.

[Wayfarer]

I don't know any other way to say this guys, but y'all are being stupid. Come on. I know at least most of you are smarter than this.

Going briefly over the thread, we first have the foolishness of people who believe that minor mistakes made somehow invalidates the criticism made of the film. For god's sake, my parents have gotten my name wrong, and it's less similar (to my brothers') than Boromir's is to Faramir.

And for those of you who have problems with the usage of 'elfin', consider this- 'Elfs', 'Elfin', 'Dwarfs', 'Dwarfish' and et cetera are all the correct words to use In English. Tolkien discusses in the appendices that he 'translated' the words as 'Elves', 'Dwarves' and so forth because he felt that the traditional words had improper associations. So I think somebody can be forgiven should they make that mistake.

In fact, I think I need to go back and hammer home one point- Faramir's 'death'. A friend of mine, and the one person who I've ever known who most impressed me by his knowledge of Tolkien once, early in his career, mistakenly stated that Faramir was killed by a troll before the gates of Mordor. Now, if you think that that making a mistake (or two, or three, or 10) somehow proves that someone 'doesn't know anything about tolkien' and that 'their opinion doesn't mean anything' then shut down the forums, Ben, because nobody here has anything worthwile to say.

Then we have a wonderful post by Jedi X, who goes out of the way and emphasises his point with a boycot of the <shift> key.

He pipes up to ask, quite brightly, 'are you just incapable of comprehending allegoric storytelling?' Of course, some of you might be familiar enough with the subject matter to recall the author's professed loathing for Allegory.

He also decries the claim that Middle Earth 'doesn't have anything to do with our world, and life in general?' which I think he would do well to note has never been made in this thread.

Elfhelm, by what stretch of the imagination do you find 'elevated', 'archaic', and 'romantic' to be uncomplimentary? Strangely enough, what you say that sounds the most uncomplimentary to me. (What is "elevated" about the language?)

Lastly, I would like to offer a bit of advice that I've heard over and over again, but nobody seems to hear; you need to
consider the movies apart from the books. Is that such a hard thing to do? Because what I see is that a significant number of posters on this thread who seem to take the position that any dislike of Jackson's films must somehow be a dislike of tolkien. That's not the case, and to say that this triplet of Medieval Fantasy Action Movies is focused on spectacle, or emotionally and psychologically shallow, or does not relate to our world, has no bearing on the work of Tolkien, which is by turns intense and subtle, exhilirating and wearying, a story of which it was said "Here are beauties which pierce like swords or burn like cold iron; here is a book that will break your heart."

[Elfhelm]

One clarification because being misunderstood frustrates me terribly. I do not think the words "archaic" or "romantic" mean "bad". But it's not true. The language of LotR isn't archaic at all, compared to The Book of Lost Tales or the early poetry. And JRRT was not a Romantic. He was a medievalist. Why do I have to explain these accepted facts to someone who already knows them?

I said Ebert obviously finds Tolkien difficult reading. More's the pity. Other people have said that to me and I just tell them, "Slow down. He wasn't writing to be consumed by experience seekers. Let him tell you which trees are there. He loves trees. He's inviting you to love them, too." etc. Obviously Ebert read it once when he was about 28 (he said in 1970 I think)and perused it for an hour before his review of FotR and hasn't given it another thought since. His assessment of the book speaks for itself. To characterize what he said as liking the book is fooling yourself. He was talking down at it.

[Wayfarer]

Thanks for the clarification, Elfhelm. But read my title. ];-)

Why do I have to explain these accepted facts to someone who already knows them?

Now hold on. Even if those statements are accepted as facts, they're not insofar as there's room for disagreement, and I disagree with you.

Tolkien's language certainly is archaic when compared to the writers of today, which can be clearly seen by comparing the way people spoke in the films to the way they spoke in the book-(nonwithstanding the lines that were ripped directly from book to screen)

And I object most strenuously to any categorization of Middle Earth as Medieval, and even moreso to say that Tolkien as was a medievalist. There are a few segments of Middle Earth that are somewhat Medieval (Rohan comes to mind), but even those are not wholly so and most of the world is simply not even close. I have always considered Middle Earth to be a Romantic world.

In fact, I don't think I've mentioned this as it's a minor concern, as well as a matter of personal taste, but I was disgusted by the way much of Middle Earth was portrayed by Jackson- The gloomy, dark Bree, the grimy humans, and the overall medieval theme. I don't want 'fairy fantasy' but I feel that much of the nobility of the world has been lost.

And you know what, Tolkien is difficult reading. I know people who sit down to read LOTR and keep a dictionary handy for when they get stuck on words or phrases. I think you make the mistake of thinking that something can't be both difficult and enjoyable.

[Nurvingiel]

You might be amazed to discover that I actually agree with you. I just think you misunderstood some of the criticisms of Ebert's review.

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Going briefly over the thread, we first have the foolishness of people who believe that minor mistakes made somehow invalidates the criticism made of the film. For god's sake, my parents have gotten my name wrong, and it's less similar (to my brothers') than Boromir's is to Faramir.

Accidentally saying someone's name wrong is different from writing a professional review, which you had the chance to edit and review as much was needed before it was published. If you leave in such an obvious mistake, that demonstrates a lack of knowledge which reduces the credibility of the review.

And for those of you who have problems with the usage of 'elfin', consider this- 'Elfs', 'Elfin', 'Dwarfs', 'Dwarfish' and et cetera are all the correct words to use In English. Tolkien discusses in the appendices that he 'translated' the words as 'Elves', 'Dwarves' and so forth because he felt that the traditional words had improper associations. So I think somebody can be forgiven should they make that mistake.

Though Tolkien specifically used "elven"... I don't care.

In fact, I think I need to go back and hammer home one point- Faramir's 'death'. A friend of mine, and the one person who I've ever known who most impressed me by his knowledge of Tolkien once, early in his career, mistakenly stated that Faramir was killed by a troll before the gates of Mordor. Now, if you think that that making a mistake (or two, or three, or 10) somehow proves that someone 'doesn't know anything about tolkien' and that 'their opinion doesn't mean anything' then shut down the forums, Ben, because nobody here has anything worthwile to say.

It wouldn't matter if he had said this in a conversation or a hasty internet post, but again, he had time to edit out this mistake. (He probably only thought Faramir died because he mistook him for Boromir.)

Lastly, I would like to offer a bit of advice that I've heard over and over again, but nobody seems to hear; you need to
consider the movies apart from the books. Is that such a hard thing to do? Because what I see is that a significant number of posters on this thread who seem to take the position that any dislike of Jackson's films must somehow be a dislike of tolkien.

I, and many Mooters, do consider the films separate from the books. Some of my best Entmoot buddies hate the film with a passion, and love the books with equal passion.

"Here are beauties which pierce like swords or burn like cold iron; here is a book that will break your heart."

Great quote Wayfarer.


In sum, I have perfectly legitimate reasons for criticizing Ebert's review.

Cheers, Nurv

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
And I object most strenuously to any categorization of Middle Earth as Medieval, and even moreso to say that Tolkien as was a medievalist. There are a few segments of Middle Earth that are somewhat Medieval (Rohan comes to mind), but even those are not wholly so and most of the world is simply not even close. I have always considered Middle Earth to be a Romantic world.

You'll have to take up that argument with better scholars than me. I like medieval stuff like the various Arthurian tales, the Song of Roland, Beowulf, but I'm no scholar. Jane Chance has collected essays on Tolkien's medievalism but I haven't read them. I don't really like romanticism. It's too absolute for me. But I am very sure Tolkien was not of that ilk. His multiple versions of a single tale in multiple narrative voices and even multiple languages is enough to qualify him as a medievalist in my book. But like I say, I'm just a fan. If you want to argue with the scholars you'll have to go borrow that Jane Chance book from the library.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
I, and many Mooters, do consider the films separate from the books. Some of my best Entmoot buddies hate the film with a passion, and love the books with equal passion.

I have been accused many times of not liking the movies because I can't seperate the books though. That is not the case. I just think that jackson used too many hollywood cliches, not much character development and too much emphasis on the action. I do have many problems with the movie when compared to the books though. And since the movie carries the Lord of the Rings name - that is what it must live up to.

[Nurvingiel]

I agree. I was actually thinking of you and hectorberlioz when I said that, but I wasn't completely clear on what I meant my "separate".

The movies are separate from the books in that the half-decentness of the movies don't detract from my love of Tolkien.

I wouldn't have taken any issue with the movies if they had an original plot. However, as JD pointed out, since the plot is Tolkien's it must live up to Tolkien's original plot in terms of quality and canon etc.

[dawningoftime]

You know I have been on these boards for a while and people have said that Jackson did a hack job when it came to the movies. Let me ask this, if we were all to be honest is there really a director in hollywood who could do justice to the books? I mean I have friends who have read the books and say that TTT was the better of the three movies, I'm not kidding. I feel that if anyother director had done it the movies would have been shorter and there would have only two of them.

[Nurvingiel]

Possibly. But just because everyone might do it badly does not alter the fact that Jackson only did a halfway decent job adapting Lord of the Rings into a movie.

As a movie, I think it is excellent. But if he wanted to make a stand alone movie, he should have written an original plot.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Possibly. But just because everyone might do it badly does not alter the fact that Jackson only did a halfway decent job adapting Lord of the Rings into a movie.

I agree - plus I think that if a person who actually loved the books and had the money jackson did - could have made great movies. Instead we are left with great scenary and great action - but little else that resembles Lord of the Rings as Tolkien wrote it.

As a movie, I think it is excellent. But if he wanted to make a stand alone movie, he should have written an original plot.

yeah - but if he did that - he wouldn't have had the ready made audience he had in us Ringheads. His movie would have flopped if it wasn't based on Lord of the Rings or if he wasn't able to convince so many LotR fans that he did "the best possible job anyone could to bring Lord of the Rings to the screen".

[Millane]

JD you make Peter Jackson sound like an arrogant bastard, who sees himself as untouchable and above other directors and that his movies are perfect...
i quote directly from PJ's interview in febs Empire
"i often feel frustrated that we havent captured something of Tolkiens spirit"
he says he constantly thinks "i should have done better than that"
and lastly
"these are not the perfect films i had in my head when i set out"
JD what im trying to say is you keep trying to put Jackson as some sort of lesser fan than anyone else based on his movies, he says he's not perfect, he says he would have prefered to concentrate more on nature and make it feel organic but somewhere it never happened, i am starting to think PJ has got nowhere near the recognition he deserves even if it is just people acknowledging him as a great director or a man with great visionary...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Millane
JD you make Peter Jackson sound like an arrogant bastard, who sees himself as untouchable and above other directors and that his movies are perfect...
i quote directly from PJ's interview in febs Empire
"i often feel frustrated that we havent captured something of Tolkiens spirit"
he says he constantly thinks "i should have done better than that"
and lastly "these are not the perfect films i had in my head when i set out"

yeah - he says that constantly. That's what pisses me off so much about him. in the FotR EE commentary - he states that he only wanted to do a cool fantasy film and then chose Lord of the Rings because it already had a built in audience. He waited to say that until AFTER the films were out - before that he kept saying he was "making it by a fan for the fans" Half the time he doesn't even know what is in the Lord of the Rings. So - it's all just propaganda and PR . I see it has you believing he is a fan - so he did a good job lying to most people.

As for the last quote - he knows he's pissed off many fans - so he covers his ass with that quote.

JD what im trying to say is you keep trying to put Jackson as some sort of lesser fan than anyone else based on his movies, he says he's not perfect, he says he would have prefered to concentrate more on nature and make it feel organic but somewhere it never happened,

He did not have any desire to do that - he just wanted to make a cool action fantasy film - which he HAS stated too. He just says the other parts to keep the Lord of the Rings fans feeling like he was on their side the whole time.

i am starting to think PJ has got nowhere near the recognition he deserves even if it is just people acknowledging him as a great director or a man with great visionary...

I think he got too much recognition. He used every standard Hollywood film cliche in the book - from the constant slow motion, the need for the "comic relief character" - to the "oh my god - did frodo just fall into Mt doom?" or what about when Gollum fell?

[Millane]

he states that he only wanted to do a cool fantasy film and then chose Lord of the Rings because it already had a built in audience.

i dont see why that is bad myself, there are plenty of reasons why that is a smart choice, he was trying to make a succesful film why make a film that is going to interest like two people

"making it by a fan for the fans"

and there are plenty of fans who like them, and yes i still think he is a fan he has read the books, he obviously enjoyed them, hmmm seems like he needed no intricate plan to fool people that he was a fan, maybe you could explain why your a fan and then i might comprehend why you think he's not a fan...

He did not have any desire to do that - he just wanted to make a cool action fantasy film - which he HAS stated too. He just says the other parts to keep the Lord of the Rings fans feeling like he was on their side the whole time.

this is a very recent article, i will allow PJ to say what he wants when he wants, i dont really think that his sole intention was "cool action fantasy film" maybe one factor but not the only... if jackson doesnt care about the lord fans why bother making those comments, my posts were after the film have been out, they were going to be succesful i dont really see the point of keeping LotR fans on his side unless he does care somewhat about pleasing them..

I think he got too much recognition. He used every standard Hollywood film cliche in the book - from the constant slow motion, the need for the "comic relief character" - to the "oh my god - did frodo just fall into Mt doom?" or what about when Gollum fell?

this gollum falling thing, are you talking about mount doom or Shelobs lair? either one didnt annoy me at all, shelobs lair gollum needed to dissappear for awhile so he dissappeared, i dont see whats wrong with it

[Jedi X]

Then we have a wonderful post by Jedi X, who goes out of the way and emphasises his point with a boycot of the <shift> key.

you mean this thing has a shift key? i wondered how you guys were making those big letters...

CAPITAL LETTERS- hey, waddaya know- it works.

Of course, some of you might be familiar enough with the subject matter to recall the author's professed loathing for Allegory.

erm, i think he meant, political or religious allegory and such things. i'm sure that tolkien knew that every story ever written is an allegory of the real world and is meant to allow a reader to identify with a character by an established real world relation to his plight. i mean, come on, its all based on the kalevala and the nibelungenlied and eddas which are exactly that.

He also decries the claim that Middle Earth 'doesn't have anything to do with our world, and life in general?' which I think he would do well to note has never been made in this thread.

i was referencing-

The epic fantasy has displaced real contemporary concerns, and audiences are much more interested in Middle Earth than in the world they inhabit.

btw- dont take me too seriously, bro. i'm just here for comic relief, see-

"priest, rabbi and minister walk into a bar, bartender says- what is this some kind of joke?"

ba-dum bump

danke, danke- i be heer all ze veek

[Elfhelm]

Jealousy is so ugly.