Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Wayfarer]

I note with a sigh that the extended lengths that you're going to to try and justify X, Y and Z component of the film really isn't as bad as it seems only make them seem more like... well, like screw-ups which need to be explained away and justified.

Iron Parrot, above you have argued that the aforementioned attack resolves problems, and yet you fail to realize the problems it creates.

Let me add to what Melko has already said. Helm's deep was, at the time of the battle, inhabited by the much of the population of the westfold. That's quite a few people.

In the films, however, after a brief scene which depicts an attack on generic Rohirrim, we are given to believe that somehow the tiny population of Edoras is the really important group. Why? Why does the population of Edoras make it any more dramatic than the much larger group of civilians that were already there?

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
I note with a sigh that the extended lengths that you're going to to try and justify X, Y and Z component of the film really isn't as bad as it seems only make them seem more like... well, like screw-ups which need to be explained away and justified.

I, for one, appreciate IP's explanations. You may disagree with his perspective, but he always gives well-thought out reasons for his positions.

Originally posted by Wayfarer
In the films ... after a brief scene which depicts an attack on generic Rohirrim, we are given to believe that somehow the tiny population of Edoras is the really important group. Why? Why does the population of Edoras make it any more dramatic than the much larger group of civilians that were already there?

The point was to wipe all ALL of the men and women of Edoras. Since the majority were not housed behind the walls of Helms Deep, it became Saruman's number one target.

[bropous]

I sincerely can't roll my pantslegs up high enough for some of the sophistry vomited forth in this screed.

You know, Peter J. raised the cash, took a huge gamble, and it's currently paying off. Read it, deal with it, live with it. He didn't ask your permission. Tough.

J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" it ain't. Quite simply, NO film could ever be so.

Some folks can revel to their dying day that they are part of a super-secret-decoder-ring-in-Elvish-only club of elites. Me, I don't care, frankly, at this point whether Jackson included this-or-that in his films. Tolkien's world will never be lessened in my own imagination.

Too bad so much time and effort is wasted in such useless "how many angels can dance on the head of a balrog" arguments.

Go outside. It's spring. Smell the flowers. Feel the love. I'm climbing mountains. See y'all in winter.

[Lizra]

Hi bropous! Wait for me! I need to put on my red lipstick! Har har har!
I'm glad this thread got out of the gutter! It's a case where you should agree to disagree. There could be a scale from..."Tolkien's writing is sacred, no movie should ever be attempted"....to ..."As long as there are elves, hobbits, dwarves and a wizard named Gandalf, I don't care". I think I would fit in at...."Tolkiens books stand on their own, but I enjoy films that take a few liberties, in the name of entertainment".

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Lizra
1) It's a case where you should agree to disagree.
2) Tolkiens books stand on their own...

1) I definitely agree; I've tried it a number of times.
2) No offense, but that sounds rather funny.

[Lizra]

Rephrase it for me, Mr. hoo hoo


I forgot the "me" part! sorry!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Lizra
Hi bropous! Wait for me! I need to put on my red lipstick! Har har har!

*folds arms across chest and taps foot on floor* Excuse me... but the topic of this thread is 'Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation', not beauty tips. Can we please stop spamming? This is getting out of hand.


......... just joking.

[Lizra]

I'm serious Gwai! I was just teasing! If you were here, I would have pinched you and winked! So how would you phrase the first level of "How I tolerate changes of Tolkien's work when making a movie"?
You are right...my quick dash off "stands on it's own" does sound funny.

[Lizra]

Oh, yes...I left out the word "me"!

[Lizra]

Originally posted by Ruinel
*folds arms across chest and taps foot on floor* Excuse me... but the topic of this thread is 'Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation', not beauty tips. Can we please stop spamming? This is getting out of hand.


......... just joking.

That was a private joke about some PM's. sorry

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Lizra
...I'm glad this thread got out of the gutter! It's a case where you should agree to disagree....

I'm trying really hard not to be critical of these statements. However, I feel the need to make a brief comment on them.

If we agree to disagree, then what is the point of continuing to post in any thread at this or any forum? If we do not debate our sides, why would we come here and challenge other views?

There are poignant sayings that involve thermal energy and removing yourself from a partitioned interior section of a dwelling specificly designed for the preparation of nutrients that I could post here that would be appropriate for my response to your own post but would inevitably invoke negative repercussions on me. Therefore, I will not post them here.

It is unfortunate that I have offended you with my posts and perhaps you should shelter your eyes and scroll down when you see my avitar or nick. And by the way, it is fortunate for those that do enjoy reading my posts that I'm not off spending my time baking cookies for the neighbor kiddies or dulling my brain by sitting in front of the TV watching soap operas while pondering the best detergent for getting out the skid marks in someone else's underwear. Instead I'm using my mind in interesting and unusual ways, utilizing the intelligence, curriousity and imagination that I possess. And, just to let you know, I'm happy here in the 'gutter'. So. thanks, you are too kind. And... you have a nice day.
http://smilies.crowd9.com/contrib/ruinkai/FIREdevil.gif

EDIT (by me). I would like to add that this post in no way reflects my opinion of homemakers in general. But was intended as a focus toward anyone who posts comments like a child, and acts like a hypocrite. If you're going to dish it out, you better be able to take it.

[Strongbow]

personally i think that the movies are ok.
they are very flawed but to addapt a series of this scope for filmis an insane task. Not everyone out there reads tolkien believe it or not. So PJ was/is faced with this predicament: Striking a balance between (1) making a totally literal interpretation wich would baffle the viewers who havnt read the books and take many many hours a piece to watch (2) making the movie short enough to view in theaters (3) keeping any plot that he includes going.

Therefor he had to remove some entire plots werent completly necesary for the main storyline. Sure we love some stuff that is missing, or done slightly different, but you have to realize that making a complete and literal interpretation wouldnt be appropriate for the situation

[azalea]

Strongbow: Just out of curiousity, what do you think of the things he outright added in that we "know" didn't happen, such as Aragorn falling off the cliff? Do you think it would have been better to eliminate that sequence and include, say, more dialogue between Treebeard/ the ents and the hobbits? IOW, would the movie have still "worked" AND been even better because it stuck to the source material more?

[Wayfarer]

J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" it ain't.

That's the problem.

Quite simply, NO film could ever be so.

That's an excuse.

I do not see any way whatsoever that a movie which advertises itself as 'Tolkien's Lord of the Rings', and is not, is an acceptable situation. I do not ask the impossible task of a perfect film, only a reasonable portrayal of Tolkien's world. The absolute rubbish that has been thrown in by Jackson bothers me to no end.

Strongbow: I am not in the least bit convinced that your post was well thought out or even original thought. It is barely worth replying to, and that because of the argument, which is common to the point of being overused.

I understand the nescessity of altering things during the transition from text to film. I simply dissagree that the changes made were justified.

I have not complained about replacing Glorfindel with Arwen, because that small change makes sense.
I disagree vehemently with the change in the Fords of Bruinen scene, however. That change reduced one of the most climactic scenes in the first book, the amazing cliffhanger that ends part one, to... trite crap. Is this nescessary? Does it make a better film? Absolutely not!

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by Ruinel
1.) If we agree to disagree, then what is the point of continuing to post in any thread at this or any forum? If we do not debate our sides, why would we come here and challenge other views?
2.) It is unfortunate that I have offended you with my posts and perhaps you should shelter your eyes and scroll down when you see my avitar or nick.

1.) I agree!

2.) Clue: Click on the profile button. Scroll to the bottom. If you really don't like someone, just add them to your ignore list. Then if he posts some silly bunch of insults, which is all he really ever does, his post will only say "This person is on your ignore list". If you really WANT to read that person's tripe, despite your past experience, you can click a link to display the post anyway, but I don't recommend it because it will just be more of the same.

I would say I agreed to disagree before coming here, and I also agreed to express WHY and HOW I disagree, for the amusement of all who think me a fool.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
2.) Clue: Click on the profile button. Scroll to the bottom. If you really don't like someone, just add them to your ignore list. Then if he posts some silly bunch of insults, which is all he really ever does, his post will only say "This person is on your ignore list". If you really WANT to read that person's tripe, despite your past experience, you can click a link to display the post anyway, but I don't recommend it because it will just be more of the same.

Lizra, I hope you are reading this, and taking note. Please feel free to put me on your ignore list if you really don't like what I have to say. By doing so, you will no longer be offended by anything I post. Have a nice day filled with sunshine and happiness.

As for me: I'm a big girl , and I can take care of myself. I don't need an ignore list to sheild my delicate eyes from other people's posts.

[Wayfarer]

: I'm a big girl , and I can take care of myself. I don't need an ignore list to sheild my delicate eyes from other people's posts.

Oh, so tempting. So very tempting. ]:D

[Elfhelm]

Back on topic, why shouldn't a screenwriter create one "might-have-been" scene to accomplish the result of several scenes that wouldn't fit?

And is there a maximum number of these might-have-been scenes allowed before the readers of the book think it is too drastic a change?

And is the number of such scenes less for fanatical fans?

And should screenwriters be guided in the opinions of casual readers, or be totally governed by the fanatical fans?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
I'm trying really hard not to be critical of these statements. However, I feel the need to make a brief comment on them.

Geez, Ruinel, your first post against Lizra was bad enough, but the second was worse So I'll say as you did - I feel the need to make a brief comment on them.

If we agree to disagree, then what is the point of continuing to post in any thread at this or any forum? If we do not debate our sides, why would we come here and challenge other views?

Informed debate between people with differing viewpoints is fun and intellectually stimulating - I think the "agreeing to disagree" part just means that we can accept the right of another person to have a view that differs from ours, without descending into personal attacks.

.... And by the way, it is fortunate for those that do enjoy reading my posts that I'm not off spending my time baking cookies for the neighbor kiddies or dulling my brain by sitting in front of the TV watching soap operas while pondering the best detergent for getting out the skid marks in someone else's underwear. Instead I'm using my mind in interesting and unusual ways, utilizing the intelligence, curriousity and imagination that I possess.

What, doing loving acts for others is wrong? Do you have a videocam in Lizra's house? I don't think she is brainless "hausfrau" by any means - she's intelligent and funny and a good poster. She does have a bit of a temper sometimes, 'tho, just like, um, er, .... you! However, she can apologize (did you see her apology several posts up?) Can you?

EDIT (by me). I would like to add that this post in no way reflects my opinion of homemakers in general. But was intended as a focus toward anyone who posts comments like a child, and acts like a hypocrite.

Well, take a look at your last 2 posts and see if some of your comments match this criteria.

I like you both, and I like to read (most of) your posts - they're insightful and intelligent and funny. Now just cool your jets and make up, please!