Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Thanks to PJ, my Lord of the Rings has become even MORE rich and MORE wonderful than it has been before the new films came out (I never thought it possible.)

I have disagree strongly here. The movie can never be more rich than the book since so much was cut out. It's only natural since they had to make the movie with a reasonable length but it will result in making a less rich movie. What made the book so rich (this is my personal opinion, I do not have the audacity to assume I speak of everyone) was Tolkien taking all these strands of little-side stories and entwine into one amazing tale: Tom Bombadil, Fatty Burger, the scourging, the woses, the tragedy of the ents, ect. Lose them and you lose richness. I have to partially agree with JD: the only thing the movies really added to (my appreciation of) LoTR are the visual presentations of the scenery.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
If Tolkien purists were honest, THAT is the real reason why they are not embracing these movies like everyone else. They fear that, just like the many tellings of the Camelot story, this particular telling of the tale is so good and so compelling that it will leave its own permanent stamp on the mythology (the way people think about the story).

Please do not assume to know why I and others like me dislike the movie or parts therein. I know people who read the LoTR, though it was an 'okay' book but did not really like the movie. Otherwise, I know purists who really liked the movie but just didn't considered it LoTR. I also grow very tired of your continuing negative generalisations about purists.

No offence BB, but you're so bent on defending the movies no matter what, that I don't think you can fully understand other people's view on it. The movies will definately leave its own permanent stamp on the way people see the Middle-earth mythology, I don't think many people will deny that. You only have to look at certains fans to know that Orland Bloom will forever determine Legolas's looks for some people. Some may regret it, others may appreciate that. However the point is that not everybody thinks this particular telling of the tale is so good and compelling.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Eärniel
The movies will definately leave its own permanent stamp on the way people see the Middle-earth mythology, I don't think many people will deny that. You only have to look at certains fans to know that Orland Bloom will forever determine Legolas's looks for some people.

That is my point. See? We're really not that far apart. The books and the films are now working together to shape the modern view of the story.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
That is my point. See? We're really not that far apart. The books and the films are now working together to shape the modern view of the story.

They're NOT working together. Tolkien is the ONLY true Lord of the Rings - and whether I made a movie or someone else made one - Tolkien's would still always be the TRUE Lord of the Rings.

Your comparison to Camelot before is erroneous also - because if there were any ancient texts of Camelot - most have been lost. I know archeologists get scraps every now and then. But the only reason people can take liberties with King Arthur and Camelot - is because it's based on legend (and parts may or may not be true). Lord of the Rings is a book and has ONE author and will always be the only true story.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
That is my point. See? We're really not that far apart. The books and the films are now working together to shape the modern view of the story.

CAH! *chokes on sandwich* You are joking!

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
That is my point. See? We're really not that far apart. The books and the films are now working together to shape the modern view of the story.

I wouldn't exactly use the words working together. But it is true that the new movie will have a significant impact on the way new readers will view the already existing book. My point is that that impact is NOT necesarily a good thing.

[Melko Belcha]

---The hauntingly beautiful music of Middle-Earth (ala Howard Shore).
Only positive thing to come from the movies


---The incredible debate between Gollum and Smeagol,
Cannot even describe how much I hated that scene

---The broken stone staircase.
Number one complaint about Fellowship, waste of time

---A deeper appreciation of the love between Aragorn and Arwen.
Didn't do anything the Appendix hadn't already done

---That Gandalf and company came to the aid of Helm's Deep from the east rather than the west as previously reported by Tolkien.
It makes perfect since for Gandalf to come from the west, he is a messanger from the West. Please describe how the way the movie did it is better then the way Tolkien did, I need a good laugh.



LOTR is not just Tolkien's tale anymore
It will always be Tolkien's tale, even if a movie comes out someday that is 100% true, it will still be Tolkien's.

....and THAT, my friends, is the real motivation behind the vicious attacks on these brilliant (lame) movies.
You really have no clue do you?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
---The incredible debate between Gollum and Smeagol,
Cannot even describe how much I hated that scene

I didn't think this was that terrible. I thought Faramir was far worse.

---The broken stone staircase.
Number one complaint about Fellowship, waste of time

I wouldn't think that was the number one complaint - I would think the butchering of Flight to the Ford would be the most hated part of Fellowship. The Fellowship thread had a huge discussion on that.

Everythng else I agree with completely. And I think the Arwen Aragorn scenes - especially in TT were over blown hollywood crap. Having them in Rivendell on the bridge was fine.

[Ruinel]

Was Smeagol/ Gollum debate as bad as what PJ did to Faramir? oh... I do not think so. DAMMIT! I just saw that JD posted that! DAMMITDAMMITDAMMIT!

As far as changing how Gandalf came in, only someone who didn't know Tolkien's stories would have made that change.

[Melko Belcha]

I didn't think this was that terrible. I thought Faramir was far worse.
Faramir was worse, but I really hated that Gollum debate, I was hanging my head in shame at that part.

I wouldn't think that was the number one complaint - I would think the butchering of Flight to the Ford would be the most hated part of Fellowship. The Fellowship thread had a huge discussion on that.
The reason it is my biggest complaint because PJ decided that for the theater release it was more important then some of the scenes straight from the book that only appeared in the EE. It was the proof that he cared more about the action then character development and many other things, something he went overboard with in TT.

Everythng else I agree with completely. And I think the Arwen Aragorn scenes - especially in TT were over blown hollywood crap. Having them in Rivendell on the bridge was fine.
I agree, putting in that small part in Fellowship I enjoyed because it gave some more depth to Aragorn as a character, but TT was overkill and another thing that wasted time that could and should have been used to bringing the book to life.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha

I wouldn't think that was the number one complaint - I would think the butchering of Flight to the Ford would be the most hated part of Fellowship. The Fellowship thread had a huge discussion on that.
The reason it is my biggest complaint because PJ decided that for the theater release it was more important then some of the scenes straight from the book that only appeared in the EE. It was the proof that he cared more about the action then character development and many other things, something he went overboard with in TT.

Well through out the Extended Edition commentary all he did was say "needed to speed up the action here" needed to get them out of here as quickly as possible" "needed to give more action"

I agree, putting in that small part in Fellowship I enjoyed because it gave some more depth to Aragorn as a character, but TT was overkill and another thing that wasted time that could and should have been used to bringing the book to life.

I agree too - the scenes with Arwen in TT were complete hollywood junk. I can't wait - well actually I can - to see what he has to say for why he did all these changes. Remember though - he was staying true to the book for the fans.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Ruinel
ACK!!! ... OH... mustn't ... flame... oh... restrain.. self... no.... ACK!!! ... mustn't .....
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! !

First of all... if I had a 13 year old daughter, she would have the intelligence to know that the movie was a failure in it's attempt to represent a great masterpiece. She would know that the BOOK represents the true tale, as it was told by the master himself. She would know that the characters in the film are NOTHING like the master had envisioned!!! That the movie is an ABOMINATION!!!

........*struggles with self to keep from flaming* .........

UNLESS SHE WAS A [edited] MORON!!!!

Just reading through the last few pages, and have to say: This is a hilarious post.

[azalea]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha

The reason it is my biggest complaint because PJ decided that for the theater release it was more important then some of the scenes straight from the book that only appeared in the EE. It was the proof that he cared more about the action then character development and many other things, something he went overboard with in TT.

When I read this, the thought came to me that he did it backwards, didn't he? The breaking staircase should have been in the EE, and he should have kept the gift-giving scene in the theatrical release.

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by azalea
When I read this, the thought came to me that he did it backwards, didn't he? The breaking staircase should have been in the EE, and he should have kept the gift-giving scene in the theatrical release.

Yes, God forbid he give up one of his pointless additions to actually put in material from the book that he had already filmed. The movie is stressed for time, lets cut out material from the book for a action scene that happens inbetween two action scenes.

Actually it probably wasn't the action he cared for, he couldn't go without his brilliant Dwarf tossing line, because it is more true to Tolkien then a part that is actually in the book, and it improved the story so much.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
Yes, God forbid he give up one of his pointless additions to actually put in material from the book that he had already filmed. The movie is stressed for time, lets cut out material from the book for a action scene that happens inbetween two action scenes.

Actually it probably wasn't the action he cared for, he couldn't go without his brilliant Dwarf tossing line, because it is more true to Tolkien then a part that is actually in the book, and it improved the story so much.

After your last sentence you forgot to add rolly eyes. Here I'll add them

Actually it probably wasn't the action he cared for, he couldn't go without his brilliant Dwarf tossing line, because it is more true to Tolkien then a part that is actually in the book, and it improved the story so much.

I needed to add an extra one for me.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by azalea
...The breaking staircase should have been in the EE, and he should have kept the gift-giving scene in the theatrical release.

I agree with this. Galadriel's gifts would have helped the story more than the action and suspense of the stairs of Moria.

"Nobody tosses a Dwarf" ... oh, gah! Poor Gimli. The comic relief of the Fellowship. And anyone who knows Tolkien knows that the Dwarves are so much more than this. *sigh* What a tragedy.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Yes, it's ridiculous. I mean, in The Producers MEL BROOK'S comic relief character had more character.

[Black Breathalizer]

Deal with it, gang. Peter Jackson's movies are now as much a part of Lord of the Rings as Tolkien's books. Future generations won't be wondering why the "gift-giving scene" was kept out of the theatrical release, they'll wonder why the book didn't have the collapsing staircase and why Arwen isn't written about much.

This is not an ownership issues, so please don't give me a bunch of "it will always be Tolkien's story, he owns it" garbage. I'm talking about Lord of the Rings in terms of the perception of modern society. Like myths through the ages, Jackson has now placed his permanent stamp on the story. Tolkien could have prevented this if he wanted exclusive control over how it was presented...but he didn't. He sold the film rights.

As a result, the Lord of the Rings mythology now belongs to J.R.R. Tolkien and Peter Jackson. If you don't believe me, you might want think about L. Frank Baum's novel, The Wizard of Oz. Please tell me where your impressions of that tale came from?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Deal with it, gang. Peter Jackson's movies are now as much a part of Lord of the Rings as Tolkien's books. Future generations won't be wondering why the "gift-giving scene" was kept out of the theatrical release, they'll wonder why the book didn't have the collapsing staircase and why Arwen isn't written about much.

This is not an ownership issues, so please don't give me a bunch of "it will always be Tolkien's story, he owns it" garbage. I'm talking about Lord of the Rings in terms of the perception of modern society. Like myths through the ages, Jackson has now placed his permanent stamp on the story. Tolkien could have prevented this if he wanted exclusive control over how it was presented...but he didn't. He sold the film rights.

As a result, the Lord of the Rings mythology now belongs to J.R.R. Tolkien and Peter Jackson. If you don't believe me, you might want think about L. Frank Baum's novel, The Wizard of Oz. Please tell me where your impressions of that tale came from?

No - Jackson doesn't own sh*t - it's Newline. And no - he didn't reinvent Lord of the Rings and no people - unless they are morons will be thinking - why wasn't this scene in the book.

The books are popular - and will continue to be more popular than Jackson's crap movies. You might like the movies - that's fine - but only 50 years from now or 10 years from now will you be able to say whether they have made any impression. Already people aren't going to see them as much as Fellowship of the Ring. People are complaining about them. it was bound to happen and it will continue to lose steam.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
...Peter Jackson's movies are now as much a part of Lord of the Rings as Tolkien's books. Future generations won't be wondering why the "gift-giving scene" was kept out of the theatrical release, they'll wonder why the book didn't have the collapsing staircase and why Arwen isn't written about much.

The only people that will be wondering such a stupid question would be those idiots who have no idea that the book came before the movie. And I am not really conserned with a mentally deficient group of people who don't have the sense given to a snail. And if they are not asking themselves, "what's with the rope around Gollum in TTT?" Then they are brainless twats and not worthy of my concern.

This is not an ownership issues, so please don't give me a bunch of "it will always be Tolkien's story, he owns it" garbage.

It will always be Tolkien's story, he owns it. BWAHAHAHA!!! When a learned person hears "Lord of the Rings" that person's thoughts go to TOLKIEN not some looser film director that will be forgotten in a few years. Tolkien is a master of literature, not some Hollywood lackey.

[Black Breathalizer]

Looks like I hit a nerve.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Already people aren't going to see them as much as Fellowship of the Ring. People are complaining about them. it was bound to happen and it will continue to lose steam.

800 million for each of the first two at the boxoffice and they're....losing steam? Will TTT lose steam when the DVD comes out? What about the Extended version of the film? Since "people are complaining about them", will ROTK be a dud at the boxoffice next Christmas? I swear, some of you people live in a self-delusional fantasyland. You have to share a retelling of LOTR with the rest of the world now. So what? Get over it.