Ebert's review

[jerseydevil]

Millane - I'll get to yours later. I've said all my stuff repeatedly from FotR - you can go into all the threads and read all my comments.

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Jealousy is so ugly.

Who are you claiming is jealous?

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Who are you claiming is jealous?

Not you, don't worry. I mean... nobody in particular, just the amount of it that I sense is really ugly.

[Millane]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Millane - I'll get to yours later. I've said all my stuff repeatedly from FotR - you can go into all the threads and read all my comments.

okie dokie i'll go looking, and ill try to save you some time by simplifying my questions...
1. Why do you not think PJ is a Tolkien fan? (and no the movies don't count as a reason)
2. Where did PJ say his sole goal for lord of the rings was a "cool action fantasy film"?
if you could just answer those two ill be appreciative...

[crickhollow]

The series has never known what to do with its female characters. J.R.R. Tolkien was not much interested in them, certainly not at a psychological level, and although the half-elf Arwen (Liv Tyler) here makes a crucial decision -- to renounce her elfin immortality in order to marry Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) -- there is none of the weight or significance in her decision that we feel, for example, when an angel decides to become human in "Wings of Desire."

what?

Well, they didn't really touch on that in RotK, but I thought it was sufficiently dealt with in TTT. Elrond's voiceover during Arwen's vision of Aragorn's tomb and all that. I'm rather partial to that scene myself. It is by far a better development of Arwen's character than the flight to the ford.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Millane
1. Why do you not think PJ is a Tolkien fan? (and no the movies don't count as a reason)

He constantly contradicts himself in interviews and the commentary - and shows that he really doesn't know that much about the books. If he was a TRUE fan he would know far more of the books - and he would have read them more than once. He lied WAY too many times for me to trust anything he says. He made comments in the beginning that all the actors had to read the book before filming, he then said that all the actors had copies of the books for reference and that they would constantly be referring to them over and over again. This was stated BEFORE FotR came out. After it was released - we found out it wasn't true - Elijah never read the books - and still has not read the books. Most of the actors have not read the books, nor did they have them on the set for reference. You may want to trust a KNOWN chronic liar - but I choose not to. I will let his actions speak for themselves.

He liked the STORY - he was not a "TRUE fan" as he claimed in the beginning.

2. Where did PJ say his sole goal for lord of the rings was a "cool action fantasy film"?

YOU were the one who added in "SOLE GOAL" - I never said it was. I said "He just wanted to make a cool action film" there is a difference. I'm sure there were other reasons for making Lord of the Rigns - like making a **** load of money and diverting a lot of that money to his WETA Workshop - so he could build that up and get them on the special effects map.

See - I don't care WHAT he claims in interviews. He can claim anything he wants - it's his actions and what he has produced that show me that he had no real love for Lord of the Rings. He cut out Scouring of the Shire - didn't even film it because he hated that part. If he was a TRUE fan - he would not have butchered thew Flight to the Ford scene. He would have kept the story much close to Tolkien's original - instead of trying to invent all his own stuff. Why is Aragorn suddenly running from his heritage? Why is the movie so action centric? Why does the movie revolve so much around the humans - and in particular Aragorn and Arwen - because he wasn't a fan of the ORIGINAL story.

He kept the base (destruction of the Ring) and created his own and slapped
the title Lord of the Rings - so he would have a ready made audience for the thing. Then he went out on interviews saying how he couldn't change this or that because the fans would kill him. The fans trusted him - because they wanted to. Then when it wold come back to him that fans were pissed off about things - he always had ready made reasons. It's all typiucal PR and bull ****. My sister worked in Hollywood PR - I know how this crap works.

[brownjenkins]

as i've said in the past i don't really care if someone likes the movies or not... but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether one is a "true tolkien fan" or not... and this goes for PJ too... he brought the film to the big screen as he saw fit... he did some things well, others not so well

he gave some inaccurate info in interviews... did you ever think that maybe the actors lied to him about reading the books so they would get the part?

is one not a fan if they can't score a 99.9 on a tolkien trivia test?

LOTR is by far my favorite set of books... PJs movies are among my favorites... in as much that i've watched them more than twice... which i can probably only say about fifty or so movies

trash the movies as you like JD... but you have no right to judge whether someone else, anyone else, is a fan of the books or not just because of how knowledgeable they are about the books or how they choose to interpret them

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
as i've said in the past i don't really care if someone likes the movies or not... but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether one is a "true tolkien fan" or not... and this goes for PJ too... he brought the film to the big screen as he saw fit... he did some things well, others not so well

See - I don't think the movies are really that great from a film or book standard. They're great action movies - but they're no different than the Matrix or Gladiator (which I actually think is a much much better film) or any other action movie.

he gave some inaccurate info in interviews... did you ever think that maybe the actors lied to him about reading the books so they would get the part?

No - I think he lied about them requiring them to read it - like he lied about many other things. Just LotR book fans went for it hoiok line and sinker.

is one not a fan if they can't score a 99.9 on a tolkien trivia test?

That's not it at all - but there is a certtain love for the books that is required. I don't see his love for the BOOKLS in his actions. If he had a love for the books - there would never have been the Flight to the Ford scene as he wrote it. There are many other things that annoy me about the films and show that he was no true fan of Tolkien - such as Sam ACTUALLY leaving Frodo.

trash the movies as you like JD... but you have no right to judge whether someone else, anyone else, is a fan of the books or not just because of how knowledgeable they are about the books or how they choose to interpret them

I can judge how much of a fan they are - and how much gthey are trying to pull the wool over true fans by their actions. Jackson's action speak far louder than his words. He gave a watered down action movie - that is all. He likes action - that is fine - but don't lie about one's plans before the film comes out and then give excuses later on when what was stated ends up not being true. He said the stuff in the before the movie came out - so he didn't risk alienating the TRUE LotR fans - then he gave excuses in order to keep them.

I wonder how many people would be calling him a fan if he did have Arwen at Helm's Deep like he originally planned.

Oh - and I WILL judge his lies on what they were and I will judge how much of fan he is.

[brownjenkins]

ok... so is someone who enjoyed the film also not a TRUE fan of the books in your opinion?

[Elfhelm]

Hopefully this thread will get back to Roger Ebert at some tmie. We all know about how much some people here hate PJ. "Hate was the pallbearer" if you take my meaning. Hopefully they won't go off and seek psychotic fame by "killing him" as they have often suggested in other threads.

[brownjenkins]

in terms of ebert's review i think he misses the point of epic fantasy that so many, especially adults, do... i also feel that he is not just knocking the film, but the whole fantasy genre... film or written

i heard a fantasy author on npr the other day speak about fantasy as being the oldest form of storytelling... myths, religious traditions, folklore... they allow one too examine the big-picture-type themes that are tough to get across in more "real-world" stories where people tend to focus more upon the day to day of the characters... the author mentioned how adults would often speak of there confusion with fantasy novels due to all the foreign names, places and such... yet a ten-year-old had no problem following every point of the story

his point, which i think is valid, was a matter of attention span... children are more willing, and have more time, to immerse themselves in these kinds of things... while adults have an easier time with something where they don't have to think too much... the surroundings and characters are basically what they already know, they only have to follow the plot

i find ebert's comment about it being somewhat cartoonish as funny (especially with finding nemo at #4 on his list)... some of the best social commentary i've ever seen has been through cartoons from the simpsons to the lion king

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Hopefully this thread will get back to Roger Ebert at some tmie. We all know about how much some people here hate PJ. "Hate was the pallbearer" if you take my meaning. Hopefully they won't go off and seek psychotic fame by "killing him" as they have often suggested in other threads.

You know what elfhelm - if yiou want to address something - address directly to me - because I don't really give a **** if you like my opinions or not. So quit with the side comments.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
ok... so is someone who enjoyed the film also not a TRUE fan of the books in your opinion?

Tyey can enjoy the movies. But if they say that there was no way Jackson could do it better or if they don't criticise Jackson for no mistakes - then I do question whether they are a true fan. A fan is a person who loves the books, not just the story line, or one or two characters. I don't really care who enjoys the film.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
in terms of ebert's review i think he misses the point of epic fantasy that so many, especially adults, do... i also feel that he is not just knocking the film, but the whole fantasy genre... film or written

You see epic fantasy doesn't need cheap dwarf jokes, or brain dead people lighting a huge firework in a tent. The movie could have been a lot better and is far far cry from the level of the books.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Not you, don't worry. I mean... nobody in particular, just the amount of it that I sense is really ugly.

I have a question for you: If you weren't talking about JD, who were you talking about? I ask because, reading this thread, I got the impression you were talking about JD, but then you said you weren't. The statement was very confusing. Could you clarify this for me?

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
ok... so is someone who enjoyed the film also not a TRUE fan of the books in your opinion?

I know this isn't addressed to me, however, I'll put my 2 cents in anyway. I think someone can enjoy the films and still be a fan of the books. But if you can't see the obvious mistakes in the changes that were made for the obvious sake of action and submission to Hollywoodizing this film, then I have to say you are a blind fan. That's my opinion.

[Nurvingiel]

Elfhelm could just be referring to a general feeling he gets, not any one person's comment. I get the feeling he never intended to offend anyone.

Ebert's review made me wonder why he is regarded as a great movie critic. (He is often quoted by newspapers... but why? Maybe he does his research on the other movies he reviews.) I've already mentioned reasons why I don't like his review. On a more detailed level, I was thinking about the implications of this sentence:

The story is just a little too silly to carry the emotional weight of a masterpiece.

Do you think he could be referring to Tolkien with "a masterpiece", and Jackson's adaptation, and resulting different storyline, are "too silly" to carry the emotional weight of Tolkien's story?
That is probably too positive of a spin to put on it, since elsewhere he indicates to me that he hasn't read the books very thoroughly.

[Elfhelm]

You only seek clarification because you want something concrete to flame me about. If you don't know what I meant, I don't think you ever will. But I think you do. I think you just like to fight.

This thread is supposed to be about Ebert's review. I think it's only typical of this site that one or two people can't get over the fact that LotR is successful even though they don't like it and they turn every thread into a fight with anyone who likes it.

Here's a quote from a George song, if it means anything to you:

"Still the crowds came pouring in
Some had hoped to see him fail
Filling their hearts with jealousies
Crazy people with love so frail."

It means everything to me.

Now can we get back to Ebert?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
You only seek clarification because you want something concrete to flame me about. If you don't know what I meant, I don't think you ever will. But I think you do. I think you just like to fight.

I know what you meant - you just want to hide and make snide comments - instead of just coming out and saying it straight out.

I don't really care if you don't like my comments - I would hang jackson up by his toes given the chance. Happy? Oh - and I think he should be drawn and quartered too.

This thread is supposed to be about Ebert's review. I think it's only typical of this site that one or two people can't get over the fact that LotR is successful even though they don't like it and they turn every thread into a fight with anyone who likes it.

I can care less if LotR is successful. Idon't like the movie - and neither do a lot of other people. But the people who don't like it are constantly criticized and many reasons are come up with from the "sheep crowd" that has nothing to do with why I or other do not like the movies. Ebert doesn't like them - and I agree with his reasons for not liking them. But everyone wants to bash him on this thread - because he doesn't like the movie - just the way you and other bash me for not liking the movies.

You know - Titanic was a pretty forgettable, cliched film - it did very well in the theaters though and made tons of money. How many people consider it a classic?

[Nurvingiel]

My post is off-topic Elfhelm, but it should be pointed out that if you really wanted this thread to get back on track, you should have replied to my comments on Ebert's review.
Secondly, I stuck up for you, and you're damaging my efforts by completely asking for a flame in your very first comment. The best way to avoid getting flamed is to let someone else divert the discussion, and not to make any comments.

It is not necessary to respond to this post here, but anyone is free to PM me, and I promise to reply.

To continue with the discussion, see my previous post.

Edit : Cross-posted with JD.

[Ruinel]

Back on topic.

I happen to agree with the majority of what Ebert said in his critique of the movies.