Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Ruinel
*puts face in hands and weeps* I hate him... I hate him so much.

Don't we all?

[Lizra]

Originally posted by bropous
How many angels CAN dance on the head of a Balrog?

The correct answer is SEVEN.

If you gave any other answer, you are either an idiot, a moron, have never read the books, worship the movie, deserve derision and scorn, should be shunned, are worth nothing, have no value, and nowhere in life nor in death will you demonstrate any positive quality, even accidentally. You are WRONG, and therefore, DUMB.

Sound familiar?

Mein Gott, is there NOTHING more deserving of discussion than this tired old beaten dead horse? Has ANYTHING been said in the last TEN pages that had not been said, said again, chewed over, spat out and redigested in pages 1-15??????

Oh, that's right. New and inventive permutations on the ad hominem. I KNEW there was a purpose to this.

It just gets boring. Nothing new, no REAL new wrinkle, just re-examinations of one's own navel and self-praise for the superiority of "innies" versus "outies". Sophistry, pure and simple.

And does ANY of this advance understanding of either Tolkien's books or Jackson's films? I challenge all and sundry to provide evidence that it has.

Look around, folks, this thread has all the ambiance of an infinite number of monkeys banging away at an infinite number of typewriters and standing around waiting for the first copy of "Hamlet" to spill out, typo-free, from the simian copy production staff.

Solution? Shake hands, go off into the ether, and realize that no one is very likely to convince anyone else of anything.

Frankly, some folks might want to stop what they are doing before they go blind.....(hint hint)

BoP, glad to see you're still around, ya little contrarian you! Great disguise...

[Where's that red lipstick......Lizra?]

So true, so true.... A blast of that cool, fresh mountain air!

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Ruinel
I also, would like to know why Ghan-Buri-Ghan and the woses don't fit into ME.

First off, the woses really don't advance the plot at all so it's a no-brainer why PJ is cutting them out -- particularly when he's gonna have difficulty fitting everything else in as it is.

Regarding the woses, I personally never liked them in the story. I love Tolkien's books but the two parts that never "rang true" for me (and I emphasize me) is Tom Bombadil and Ghan-Buri-Ghan. Tom felt way too cartoonish for the more adult-slant that Tolkien gave the LOTR versus The Hobbit. And the G-B-G crew always felt to me like a poor version of the American Indians as portrayed in all the "old west" films of the 50s. They just didn't seem to fit in with the people of Rohan and Gondor.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Regarding the woses, I personally never liked them in the story. I love Tolkien's books but the two parts that never "rang true" for me (and I emphasize me) is Tom Bombadil and Ghan-Buri-Ghan. Tom felt way too cartoonish for the more adult-slant that Tolkien gave the LOTR versus The Hobbit. And the G-B-G crew always felt to me like a poor version of the American Indians as portrayed in all the "old west" films of the 50s. They just didn't seem to fit in with the people of Rohan and Gondor.

*hands BB a beer from the cooler* Dead Horse BBQ is on the table, help yourself.

Ok... I actually agree with you on Tom B. But you are way off on the Woses. They are not a poor version of the American Indians as portrayed in the 50's westerns. Reread it. Tolkien was trying to infuse the story with a variety of people, and also show that some of them were still primitive. As well, it shows an influence of the First Born on those that came after.

Wait, I thought we were going to discuss Weak Frodo?

[azalea]

That's REALLY disappointing, but not surprising at this point, and I suppose I can see why it's being cut. *reaches hand out hopefully to straws* Maybe he'll at least include them in a cameo on the EE?

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by azalea
That's REALLY disappointing, but not surprising at this point, and I suppose I can see why it's being cut.

I am sorry azalea, but I really have a hard time seeing why you would be disappointed with this decision. What made Ghan-Buri-Ghan so special to you?

[Artanis]

G-B-G and his people are certainly needed in the book. They led the Rohirrim towards Gondor by a hidden and safe road. The orcs held the main road. In the movie I guess the Rohirrim will just ride over the plains. They come from Helms Deep now, and not Dunharrow. No need for Woses and hidden roads. *shrugs*
Movie is movie. Book is book. I enjoy both.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
First off, the woses really don't advance the plot at all so it's a no-brainer why PJ is cutting them out -- particularly when he's gonna have difficulty fitting everything else in as it is.

Regarding the woses, I personally never liked them in the story. I love Tolkien's books but the two parts that never "rang true" for me (and I emphasize me) is Tom Bombadil and Ghan-Buri-Ghan. Tom felt way too cartoonish for the more adult-slant that Tolkien gave the LOTR versus The Hobbit. And the G-B-G crew always felt to me like a poor version of the American Indians as portrayed in all the "old west" films of the 50s. They just didn't seem to fit in with the people of Rohan and Gondor.

Good lord. American Indians?

And about Bombadil, I think it's sad that some people can't see the beauty of innocence in dark times. (no offense, Ruinel )

And you forgot Faramir, Glorfindel...

[azalea]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I am sorry azalea, but I really have a hard time seeing why you would be disappointed with this decision. What made Ghan-Buri-Ghan so special to you?

It isn't that he is so special to me, but I am one of those people who liked everything in the books -- there's no part that I dislike, so of course it wouldn't matter what had to be cut, I'd be disappointed in any case. The Wild Men IMO add yet another element of reality to ME, that there were other people/ beings not directly involved with the main plot, but found their way into the story. It makes it so realistic because in the "real world" there are so many people and places, and not all are affected the same way by major events, or are involved in them in the same way. By adding elements such as these, Tolkien added depth to the world he created.

I believe one of the criticisms of Tolkien offered by literary scholars (at least in his day) was that he didn't follow conventions such as streamlining the story; he added these kinds of elements that deviate from the main storyline (such as Bombadil and Ghan-buri-Ghan) and mentioned people and places that are seemingly out of place or irrelevant. But to me that is what gives the story depth and a certain richness not found in similar pieces of literature. I am currently reading Roverandom, and I can really tell that Tolkien loved making things up as he went along, making mention of other elements of the world "around" the story; I don't think he was comfortable NOT doing that in his writing. He obviously felt Woses were important enough to leave in the final draft.

Another reason: the more the merrier. I'll take anything and everything I can get in terms of the stuff of ME, I'd have loved for him to add MORE characters and chapters to the book.

That being said, I am not personally faulting Jackson for the omission -- as I said in my post, it is understandable to me, especially considering all of the other things that had to be left out, and I see it as a similar situation to Bombadil: the Wild Men aren't necessary for furthering the plot, and they are "drop ins;" they appear in a short episode and are never "seen" again in the course of the book/story. So it certainly makes sense in the interest of time to have the Rohirrim go straight to Gondor. It would also be confusing for the non-reader, because they aren't familiar with the geographical issues involved, which is why we see the Wild Men in the first place. It wouldn't make sense in the "movie world" as it has been presented thus far to include it (although I would argue that it COULD have worked if the movie had been paced differently and had a different feel to the presentation.)

BUT despite all of this, it is disappointing all the same. I can SEE the episode in my mind. I can SEE how it would look in a movie. And it looks great. If the time were unlimited, and the movies had been "literal," as we seem to be calling it here, it would have been a wonderful scene. This is why I hope someday a BBC series could be done, to include the things that are impractical/ unworkable on the big screen.
So don't worry, BB, I am not "bashing" Jackson; I love the movies. I'm just disappointed that it wasn't possible to include EVERYTHING, Ghan-Buri-Ghan included.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I agree with you, azalea; it really is rather similar to Tom Bombadil, and if he killed Bombadil, I don't see why he wouldn't kill the Woses. But it is a HUGE disappointment to me, as I have grown to be fascinated with the Drughu, and I was REALLY looking forward to seeing how PJ treated them. But now I REALLY don't like how he did.

[Black Breathalizer]

I appreciate your thoughtful (as always) response, azalea.

Gwaimir Windgem: Jackson didn't "kill off" Bombadil. In fact, in one of the "making of" shows about the LOTR movies, Phillippa Boyens said that the movie was made in such a way that it isn't saying the hobbits didn't enter the old forest and meet Tom Bombadil, it just isn't showing it. I would suspect that the same thing will be true of Ghan-Buri-Ghan.

Which leads me to an interesting thought: New Line has found that the "extended DVD" idea has been a huge commerical success. So after the three movies and three extended DVDs, what's to say that somewhere down the road, New Line and Jackson get the gang together to film EVEN MORE scenes from the books and update the graphics with the latest state-of-the-art CGI to add to a "Special 5th, 10th, or 20th Anniversary LOTR DVD"???

Prime candidates for new scenes would be Tom Bombadil, Ghan-Buri-Ghan, the burrow downs, and the scouring of the shire (although they would have to change the ending because Saruman will already be dead.) Just a thought -- don't be too surprised if it happens though. George and Steven did it with Star Wars and ET, why not Peter for LOTR?

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
...what's to say that somewhere down the road, New Line and Jackson get the gang together to film EVEN MORE scenes from the books and update the graphics with the latest state-of-the-art CGI to add to a "Special 5th, 10th, or 20th Anniversary LOTR DVD"???

Ah, but how will he go back and make Frodo the brave and strong hero that he is in the book? Will PJ cut the scene at Weathertop? Will he change Arwen's ride to the ford to Frodo's ride to the ford? So, that will remain, no matter how many 'special editions' PJ makes.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Which leads me to an interesting thought: New Line has found that the "extended DVD" idea has been a huge commerical success. So after the three movies and three extended DVDs, what's to say that somewhere down the road, New Line and Jackson get the gang together to film EVEN MORE scenes from the books and update the graphics with the latest state-of-the-art CGI to add to a "Special 5th, 10th, or 20th Anniversary LOTR DVD"???

*moans*

Nooo-oooh! How many more DVD's am I supposed to buy?

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Eärniel
*moans*

Nooo-oooh! How many more DVD's am I supposed to buy?

I have the special extended DVD edition, because I wanted to see how the movie was made and I wanted the extra scenes. The movie itself is well done to the extent of costume design and prop making and special effects. The scenery was well done as well. I truely enjoyed the computer generated images, nicely done.

However, it is NOT LotR. It is PJ of the Rings. A totally different story.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Ruinel
However, it is NOT LotR. It is PJ of the Rings. A totally different story.

Every telling of a story (fictional or real) is based on the storyteller's point of view, experiences, interests, and biases. Are the films Peter Jackson's version of Tolkien's tale? Yes. But is it the Lord of the Rings in heart, spirit, and soul? Absolutely. It would be very hard to argue it isn't.

People like to point out that PJ overdid the action-adventure aspects of the story. But at its heart, Tolkien's books are an action-adventure story. What makes it truly special is that the story was so much more than that. It transcended the traditional 'fairy tale' or adventure story of the time to create something so unique it fathered a whole new genre.

The same can be said for PJ's movies. To me, the aspects of Jackson's work that elevates it far above the typical action-adventure flicks we get is that PJ was true to Tolkien's themes of loyalty, friendship, self-sacrifice, honor, dignity, hope in the face of hopelessness, and true bravery. Critics can talk all they want about Arwen's ride, the loss of Tom Bombadil, or Frodo on Weathertop, it's those timeless themes of Tolkien's that stay in our heads and move us long after the credits roll. Most of us recall feeling those same emotions the first time we read the books. There can be no greater tribute to an author's vision.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Every telling of a story (fictional or real) is based on the storyteller's point of view, experiences, interests, and biases. Are the films Peter Jackson's version of Tolkien's tale? Yes. But is it the Lord of the Rings in heart, spirit, and soul? Absolutely. 1) It would be very hard to argue it isn't.

2) People like to point out that PJ overdid the action-adventure aspects of the story. 3) But at its heart, Tolkien's books are an action-adventure story. 4) What makes it truly special is that the story was so much more than that. It transcended the traditional 'fairy tale' or adventure story of the time to create something so unique it fathered a whole new genre.

5) The same can be said for PJ's movies. To me, the aspects of 6) Jackson's work that elevates it far above the typical action-adventure flicks we get is that PJ was true to Tolkien's themes of loyalty, friendship, self-sacrifice, honor, dignity, hope in the face of hopelessness, and true bravery. 7) Critics can talk all they want about Arwen's ride, the loss of Tom Bombadil, or Frodo on Weathertop, it's those timeless themes of Tolkien's that stay in our heads and move us long after the credits roll. 8) Most of us recall feeling those same emotions the first time we read the books. There can be no greater tribute to an author's vision.

1) Thanks for commending our effort.
2) Just action.
3) Okaaaaaaaay...whatever.
4) Hmm...seems to me you mean at it's face value, it was. If it transcends it, and in fact is much more than an adventure story, then it is not one at it's heart
5) Um...excuse me? Fantasy movies were "fathered" by Tolkien's books. and how in the nine Hells of Faerun can you say that it fathered a new genre, if they aren't even all out yet?
6) Yah. Whatever.
7) Correction. The hollow shadow of those timeless themes. And that's because there isn't anything else.
8) Again: Who made you the Official REAL Tolkien Fan, whom we should all try to be just like?

[Entlover]

Apropos of nothing, I have a soft spot in my heart for Ghan-buri-Ghan and his people, after reading the short story about them in one of the other (forget which one) histories of ME. Maybe it's already been mentioned -- its a great story about one of their carved stones set up to protect a house, and how it actually takes care of an attacker.
Too bad we can't have all the movie blow by blow -- but we have that in HP and it's none too thrilling.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

That was Unfinished Tales, I believe.

[Black Breathalizer]

At its heart, Tolkien's books are an action-adventure story. What makes it truly special is that the story was so much more than that. It transcended the traditional 'fairy tale' or adventure story of the time to create something so unique it fathered a whole new genre.

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Hmm...seems to me you mean at it's face value, it was. If it transcends it, and in fact is much more than an adventure story, then it is not one at it's heart.

If it is not an action-adventure story at heart, what is it?

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem Um...excuse me? Fantasy movies were "fathered" by Tolkien's books. and how in the nine Hells of Faerun can you say that it fathered a new genre, if they aren't even all out yet?

I was referring to Tolkien's books.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
1) At its heart, Tolkien's books are an action-adventure story. What makes it truly special is that the story was so much more than that. It transcended the traditional 'fairy tale' or adventure story of the time to create something so unique it fathered a whole new genre. If it is not an action-adventure story at heart, what is it?

2)I was referring to Tolkien's books.

It is a Quest. The Lord of the Rings revolves around the story of Frodo and Samwise, who haver VERY little action (as in actual fighting) after they leave the others. It is a tale of good and evil, of a suffering journey. It is Not an action story. Adventure, maybe, but not action by any means. Seeing it as just an "action-adventure story at heart" is the very reason the literary critics rarely like it.

2) I was referring to

It transcended the traditional 'fairy tale' or adventure story of the time to create something so unique it fathered a whole new genre.

The same can be said for PJ's movies.