Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
If PJs Lord of the Rings is an action flick then what is Rambo III?

Rambo III is an action flick - just like Lord of the Rings is.

There is characterization especially in the EE and he obviously wanted to include this material but could not due to what his constrained him to in terms of time alloted to the release.

The reason why it's not in there - is bgecause as he says repeatedly in the commentary - "we just need to get them out of there as quickly as possibly", "We just needed to increase the action and tension here." He cut out all the characterization in place of action and dumbed down the characters and made them 2 dimensional.

Bilbo's characterization is perfect, Frodo and Sam quite good.

Why do you think I didn't mention Frodo, Sam or Bilbo.

Merry and Pippen were basically reduced to a single character this will hurt later on.

I still can't tell the two apart - and I saw it 8 times in the movies. I think I've only watched it twice or three times on DVD.

Gimli is funny in the books but not a purely comic character.

Gimli takes the cliched comic relief character in TT - because Pippin and Merry don't have that much screen time. It's so tranparent the Hollywood cliches - it's ridiculous.

Legolas is fairly well done I believe.

I agree Legolas is - again I did not list him.

Aragorn's character is very close. Let's not be silly he is as courageous and empathetic as he is in the literature - but he is unsure why? Because PJ had to think of some reason that Aragorn the rightful king was not king so he abdicates or something there is NO TIME in that movie to explain the sons of Elendil how they split the high kingship and how to southern line eventually failed and the North Kingdom is destroyed there is no way to put this smoothly and effetively into film.

Why - he didn't have to explain all that. So you think it's better that he completely reverses Aragorns charcter and makes him AFRAID of being King 0 then just biding his time. That all that had to be said - not the whole history - just that Aragorn was BIDING his time to reclaim his kingship.

Gandalf is also a strong character the scene with Saruman is ineffective and out of the character of our beloved Gandalf, why? To demonstrate, and that is a crital word in making movies, his postion as Gandalf's superior in the order of the Istari and on the Council.

Gandalf in the books never whimpered like he did in the presence of Saruman - not to mention with Elrond. He also acts like a lap dog to Elrond.

Just think people how many movies have over 10 developed characters? Think of why that is these are different forms of art.

A good movies can have multidimentional characters. My problem isn't with that weren't as fleshed out as they are in the book - but that he CHANGED their characterization.

PJ's movie is not an action movie, how much action is there that is added to the plot?

A lot of action - when in the books are the Blackriders cutting off hobbit heads? Where do they storm the gates at Bree? Where on Weathertop is fire thrown at them and set their clocks on fire (which miraculously are fine during the Flight to the Ford). Why does Farmer Maggot chase the hobbits instead of inviting them in for dinner? When does Saruman call up the snow and winds when the Fellowship is trying to cross Caradras? When does a troll ever fight in the Mines of Moria? Why does he have the Fellowship find out that the dwarves have been killed as soon as they enter Moria. I can go on and on and on. It's non stop action without anytime to rest. Where does faramir kidnap Frodo and Sam and take them to Osgiliath?

(edited do to character limits)
The Lord of the Rings is epic adventure, it is not a novel it does not address the human condition, Tolkien understood that he wrote high adventure in the old english-scandanavian tradition - so is the film.

You left out all the scenes that I mentioned where Jackson took no-action scenes and turned them into action. I'm sorry - but the ringwraiths weren't a physical marauding evil that hacked at things like they do in the FotR movie - they instilled fear in people. Jackson made them solely physical. He made the Council of Elrond into a shouting match. Funny - I don't recall any shouting or threats of violence to anyone at the council in the book (I remember long pauses of silence as people contemplated the enormity of the situation).

Jackson did a crappy job with bringing the books to the screen.

[Curufinwe]

PJ has made a monumental movie that has been applauded by critics, fans, audiences, and the academy (i.e. the people who make the movies his peers) He did not duplicate an 8 hour movie FOTR which is the only thing that would have satisfied you. His film is excellent it is interpretation of LOTR on screen he did a fine job for all the well thought and and non knee jerk reactions that I have previously posted. Please tell me how internally felt terror can be protrayed as well on film as in text then I can listen to your criticisms of the Ring Wraiths. You clearly think that just putting the books into screenplay form would have done. Oh yeah Aragorn was biding his time to reclaim the kingship, how did he lose it? What happened biding his time doesnt cut it - its terrible.wi So if you're so convinced of the terrible job he did prepare a screenplay show us what you would have done or just rewrite some scenes. I think everyone would admit that visually he did an amazing job of filming what Kubrick called the unfilmable. The scope score and depth are also excellent adaptions. Some characters are truncated for obvious reasons you can't have over 10 main characters - welcome to movies you don't answer that you suggest he has directly changed the characters by which apparently you mean Gimli which is true and is not really that drawn out by Tolkien, Elrond who just makes a cameo in the literature, and Gandalf's interaction with Elrond - who he certainly was deferential too for obvious reasons and that is present at the council, and Saruman for reasons I've already discussed but you dont even address. Out of a production with a million parts you criticize about 6 or 7. I know what you wanted - a pure duplication - and thats okay but it would have made a very slow movie that I would have loved and anyone who read the book would have. But would have been drawn out and extremely confusing for a novice audience and not as well received without a true dramatic forumula for rising and falling action etc. So If you didn't want to see what you saw rewrite it, show me the way. How should it be done. Don't say Gandalf should be more this and that tell me what lines you would change write then out I would be curious to see what you have to say. Its certainly more constructive than anything I've yet seen or heard lately.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
PJ has made a monumental movie that has been applauded by critics, fans, audiences, and the academy (i.e. the people who make the movies his peers)

The movie didn't even belong in the Best Picture category. The only reason it was nominated was because he played the politics. And just because critics liked it - it doesn't matter. It was an okay movie - as it stands (if you like hollywood cliches) - as Lord of the Rings it sucks sh*t.

He did not duplicate an 8 hour movie FOTR which is the only thing that would have satisfied you.

no it's not and your ignorant if you think it is. Every person who likes the movie and can't take the people who criticise it comes back with "the only thing you'd be a happy with is an 8 hour regergation of the book". As everyone at doesn't like the movie says - that's not the case.

His film is excellent it is interpretation of LOTR on screen he did a fine job for all the well thought and and non knee jerk reactions that I have previously posted.

To you it's excellent - it seems as if the majority of people who know Lord of the Rings - think it's a pretty weak interpretation.

Please tell me how internally felt terror can be protrayed as well on film as in text then I can listen to your criticisms of the Ring Wraiths.

There have been MANY MANY movies who have had pyscological horror. A good director can bring it very successfully to the screen. The ones who can't resort to action.

You clearly think that just putting the books into screenplay form would have done.

Please state where I said that.

Oh yeah Aragorn was biding his time to reclaim the kingship, how did he lose it? What happened biding his time doesnt cut it - its terrible.

Why doesn't it cut it? If he was found by Sauron - he would have been killed. You seem to only want to accept jackson's half a$$ answers - but are unwilling to look at how the movies could have been made and been kept closer to the books. Why did Faramir drag frodo all the way west and now have to Back track? Why didn't Sauron - after the Nazgul was within inches of the ring - send the other eight there? In the books - the Nuzgul NEVER got that close to the ring after Bree.

[jerseydevil]

So if you're so convinced of the terrible job he did prepare a screenplay show us what you would have done or just rewrite some scenes.

I've done it ad nauseum in the Fellowship of the Rings threads. I'm not going to repeat it all. I would have had a much deeper story and kept the characterization much more close to the books. I would have still have cut out Tom Bombadil.

I think everyone would admit that visually he did an amazing job of filming what Kubrick called the unfilmable. The scope score and depth are also excellent adaptions.

Of course it's filmable - it just takes a better director than a 2-bit hack like Jackson. He accomplished an amazing feat in producing an action movies - he just sucked at bringing any feeling to it.

Some characters are truncated for obvious reasons you can't have over 10 main characters - welcome to movies you don't answer that you suggest he has directly changed the characters by which apparently you mean Gimli which is true and is not really that drawn out by Tolkien,

I don't only mean Gimli - I listed all the charcters he screwed up. Pippin was my favorite in the book - he's my most hated in the movie - the same with Merry. They're portrayed as morons.

Elrond who just makes a cameo in the literature, and Gandalf's interaction with Elrond - who he certainly was deferential too for obvious reasons and that is present at the council, and Saruman for reasons I've already discussed but you dont even address.

I do adress - you just don't like my answers. Gandalf was never supservient to either one. In the books Gandalf always talks to them as equals. He doesn't go to Saruman whimpering about how he didn't know about the ring and begging for forgiveness. He doesn't get talked down to by Elrond.

Out of a production with a million parts you criticize about 6 or 7. I know what you wanted - a pure duplication

Again with the lame accusation with the duplication crap. No - it's not just 6 or 7 things I have a problem with. Did you read my posts even? [ edited by azalea -- rude question ]

- and thats okay but it would have made a very slow movie that I would have loved and anyone who read the book would have. But would have been drawn out and extremely confusing for a novice audience and not as well received without a true dramatic forumula for rising and falling action etc.

The problem is - there is no falling action in Jackson's movie -it's action scene after action scene.

So If you didn't want to see what you saw rewrite it, show me the way. How should it be done. Don't say Gandalf should be more this and that tell me what lines you would change write then out I would be curious to see what you have to say. Its certainly more constructive than anything I've yet seen or heard lately.

I'm not going to write a screen play for you. I told you already what I would have changed (at least parts). Accept that people hate the move and yet didn't expect a unaltered version from the book. I expected changes - I didn't expect Flight to the Ford to be butchered and reduced Arwen stealing all of Frodo's power and glory. That was a KEY scene of the entire book - it showed the strenght of Frodo and hobbits - instead he butchered it And added that lame line "If you want him, come and claim him"

[Curufinwe]

Well if it is an action movie its the first series of its kind to be nominated for the best picture of the year by the academy in consecutive years. By the way all I ever have seen are rebuttals I've read through them you dont read my posts, or maybe just dont comprehend I hope your a teenager for your sake. You have criticized the characterizations not settings not score not acting three major components of every film. You criticize the plot saying he turned something that appartently was rather devoid of action (which it is not) into something repleat with action. Then why does he cut off the orc attack against Isildur as he follow the path of the Ring in the prologue? Why cut out Old Man Willow and the barrowights? Why cut out the wolf attack at Caradharas? Why doesnt Legolas shoot down the Nazgul? PJ presented with a long long long story had to pick and chose some and pick up the action at points he felt as a director needed picking up. Most people who watch films and write reviews for a living believe he did a good job - the criticism is clear he did not reproduce the books verbatim don't expect it - LOTR never will be on the big screen exactly as written. The BBC miniseries was good, but it was about 24 hours long. He certainly fit in every major event so far that moved the plot along leaving aside crickhollow to bree seems pretty good to me.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
Well if it is an action movie its the first series of its kind to be nominated for the best picture of the year by the academy in consecutive years. By the way all I ever have seen are rebuttals I've read through them you dont read my posts, or maybe just dont comprehend

I understand all your posts. You think the movies are great. You think that anyone who doesn't like the movies would only be satisified with the word for word copy of the books, which isn't true. My complaints with the movie are valid. And I've watched the movie a ton of times trying to like it.

I also don't care if the academy nominated it at all. My sister worked in PR in Hollywood - I know how it all works.

I hope your a teenager for your sake.

Why do you say that? Because I disagree with you and you can't see how someone can not like the movies?

You have criticized the characterizations not settings not score not acting three major components of every film.

Yes - I have a problem with the way he changed plot elememts (some of which didn't have to be changed) and characterization. Acting - it's hard to tell - some of the dialogue and delivery was so crappy - it's hard to tell whether it's the acting, the direction or the script. It seems like a lot of the overblown acting I have a problem with is because of Jackson's direction. If I see one more close up of Frodo's face in slow motion as his eyes roll back into his head - I'll scream.

You criticize the plot saying he turned something that appartently was rather devoid of action (which it is not)

I never said that Lord of the Rings was devoid of action - but Jackson pumped up the action in almost every scene. It is NON STOP action. Look at the Worm Tongue scenes. Saruman possessing Theoden? An excercism? Give me a break.

into something repleat with action. Then why does he cut off the orc attack against Isildur as he follow the path of the Ring in the prologue?

Wow - he cut out one action scene to have it replaced by the falling staircase. I felt the same way with that scene as I did with the scene IN Jurassic Park II when the trailer is hanging over the edge. Just let the damn thing fall already and get it over with.

Why cut out Old Man Willow and the barrowights?

The barrow wights and Old Man Willow wasn't really an action scene. If it waqs - Jackson would have had Old Man Willow reaching down and grabbing the Hobbits and shoving them into the crack.

Why cut out the wolf attack at Caradharas?

Because he needed to add the terrible Wargs to the scene on the way to Helms Deep. Which really crappy computer animation too.

Why doesnt Legolas shoot down the Nazgul?

That's what you consider removing an action scene?

PJ presented with a long long long story had to pick and chose some and pick up the action at points he felt as a director needed picking up. Most people who watch films and write reviews for a living believe he did a good job - the criticism is clear he did not reproduce the books verbatim don't expect it - LOTR never will be on the big screen exactly as written.

There you go again with the Verbatim crap. NO WHERE did I say I expected verbatim. He cut out and redid Lord of the Rings into an action movie - pure and simple. Listen to his commentary. What is amazing about that - is that he even states - all he wanted to do was make a fanatsy movie - he actually didn't care about making Lord of the Rings - he just thought it would be cool to do.

The BBC miniseries was good, but it was about 24 hours long. He certainly fit in every major event so far that moved the plot along leaving aside crickhollow to bree seems pretty good to me.

Every major event - yeah - with a bunch of action. Why on weathertop does he have the frodo saying that the fire will attract the Balck Riders - when Aragorn point black states in the book that fire will help to keep them away?

Give me a break. If you think he made a good interpretation that's you - it's not the majority of people on this board anymore. With each passing movie - Jackson loses more and more fans. I can't wait to see how he screws up RotK.

[Curufinwe]

I have tried to explain myself and have done so. I think the movies are good, i have criticisms and I know he duplicated the intricately detailed settings as described in LOTR. I believe the soundtrack is also excellent, I think the acting is quite good - and I know the major thematic elements of LOTR are there. I have yet to here from anyone suggesting that Tolkien's themes of resistance sacrafice loyalty are absent. Aragorn and Gandalf are christlike figures Gandalf has been resuressected Aragorn's is added - but it is entirely in keeping with the themes present in the literature, noone seems to have commented on that possibly becuase they see some truth in it. A hobbit farmer chasing hobbits for 20 seconds is an action scene but our heros trapped in a hostile animated tree while our other protagonists panic is not, and Frodos life being at risk "That was touch and go" attacking a barrow wight is not I see the reasoning there - very well thought out. Your wrong about PJ in almost every way, he had thought about filming LOTR in his native New Zealand since he was a boy. Oh and PJ is certainly not losing more fans than he's gaining looking at the worldwide box office recepts for TTT which is now second all time to Titanic.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
I have tried to explain myself and have done so. I think the movies are good, i have criticisms and I know he duplicated the intricately detailed settings as described in LOTR. I believe the soundtrack is also excellent, I think the acting is quite good - and I know the major thematic elements of LOTR are there. I have yet to here from anyone suggesting that Tolkien's themes of resistance sacrafice loyalty are absent.

Just taking generally themese isn't good enough. Sorry - but that's my opinion. And Merry and Pippins loyalty - was really watered down compared to how it is portrayed in the books. They don't really show their loyalty until they get captured by the orcs to let Frodo escape.

Aragorn and Gandalf are christlike figures Gandalf has been resuressected Aragorn's is added - but it is entirely in keeping with the themes present in the literature, noone seems to have commented on that possibly becuase they see some truth in it.

No - because I think it's only you who have come up with the christlike attributes to Gandalf and Aargorn. A lot of characters have been "revbon" in movies and books - it doesn't mean that it's because there is some hidden meaning to them being christlike. It's only a way for Gandalf to take the place of Saruman as Gandalf the White. I gather you're religious and trying to find some spirtuality in the books - more so than what is in the Silmarillian.

A hobbit farmer chasing hobbits for 20 seconds is an action scene but our heros trapped in a hostile animated tree while our other protagonists panic is not,

Yeah - because Farmer Maggot chasing the Hobbits didn't happen. Also - the Old Man Willow lolled them to sleep - do you really think that Jackson would have kept that like that? NO of course not.

and Frodos life being at risk "That was touch and go" attacking a barrow wight is not I see the reasoning there - very well thought out.

He attacked his hand. Just like the only thing that happened in Moria with the troll was that they stabbed his foot.

Your wrong about PJ in almost every way, he had thought about filming LOTR in his native New Zealand since he was a boy.

Oh - you buy into his old propaganda I see. He states right out in the EE version that he just wanted to make a cool fantasy movie. Maybe you should listen to it.

Oh and PJ is certainly not losing more fans than he's gaining looking at the worldwide box office recepts for TTT which is now second all time to Titanic.

Is that so? Is that why so many LotR fans saw TT far fewer times than FotR? Is that why so many non-fans didn't even bother going to TT at all after seeing FotR? There are a lot of reasons why theater recipes go up. It's an erroneous way of describing how popular a movie is. It's based on ticket sale prices and they go up. My theater raised the ticket price from 8.00 - 8.50 between FotR and TT. It's also a 24 screen theater and was playing on four screens - that adds up to A LOT of money.

[Curufinwe]

This is truly sad at this point. I suggest you read the Lord the Rings critically. It was not my original suggestion about Gandalf and Aragorn it was the professor himself. If you can't recognize his universalist Catholic themes thats fine but please don't act like they aren't there. I suggest you learn more about him, or read Tom Shippey's analysis of his work he's excellent, I actually had the pleasure of meeting him once at Oxford and he's the premier Tolkien scholar in the world, naturally he enjoyed the film. You've have made many ridiculous assertions, but you've topped yourself, by explaining that 900 million dollars and counting in worldwide movie recepts suggests that a movie is less popular than a movie that grosses 800 million dolllars, unless inflation is over 10% between the past two years worldwide, which even a simple analysis tells us is untrue. It seems you've taken a vacation from reality on this point. Additionally I am entirely irrelegious and totally agnostic, it was Professor Tolkien who was a commited Catholic.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
Aragorn and Gandalf are christlike figures Gandalf has been resuressected

If Gandalf is a Christ-figure, then we must conclude that Tolkien was not Catholic, but a Jehovah's Witness. Gandalf is not God. He is a created being. He doesn't even directly communicate with God, until he dies. Tolkien once specifically stated that the Incarnation of God was INFINITELY greater than he would ever dare to write. I certainly do not deny that there are parallels, instilled by Tolkien's intensely deep faith, but preserving some parallels does not make it mean it stays true to the book. He destroyed the Eucharist spirituality of the lembas, turning it into a food concentrate, something which Tolkien SPECIFICALLY WARNED AGAINST. Galadriel was not portrayed as nearly as Marian as she was in the book. He didn't preserve the Catholic themes in the Lord of the Rings. Citing he keeping of Gandalf's fall as proof thereof is ridiculous, as this is a CENTRAL part of the plot.

As for Aragorn, he already has a "death and resurrection", if some people want to call it that, in the Paths of the Dead. To give him another, and attribute it Christ-like attributes, cheapens the death of Christ as something which is not sufficient, and must be repeated, in my opinion.

[Curufinwe]

Look your arguing with the wrong guy. I was quoting from Tom Shippey's interview of Tolkien, its easy enough to find. Look no one is cheapening the Death of Christ almighty. Gandalf is messianic ressurected with a task they're not THE SAME he's Christlike there are similaries colored by Tolkien's deep faith. The larger more important point I was making was that the christian themes that run through the epic were carried over into the movie.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
This is truly sad at this point. I suggest you read the Lord the Rings critically.

I've read the Lord of the Rings critically and I studied it too. There are a lot of parallels with Tolkiens belief - but your assertions are what is ridiculous and you saying that Jackson kept the central theme of christlike charcters is even more so.

It was not my original suggestion about Gandalf and Aragorn it was the professor himself.

Where did he states this? There have been enough arguments on how Tolkien hated allegory - I don't think he would come out then and state that Aragorn and Gandalf were Christlike and represented the resurrection of christ.

If you can't recognize his universalist Catholic themes thats fine but please don't act like they aren't there.

if you read my past psot s in a lot of threads - you would understand that I am very much aware of the catholic themes in the Lord of the Rings mythology - especially in the Silmarillian. I should know - I was raised Catholic.

I suggest you learn more about him,

Personally - in the short amount of time you have been a member of entmoot - unless you're one of the olmembers and decided to create a new name - I don't think you should be judging me on my knowledge of Tolkien. And even then you can't judge me.

or read Tom Shippey's analysis of his work he's excellent, I actually had the pleasure of meeting him once at Oxford and he's the premier Tolkien scholar in the world, naturally he enjoyed the film.

I don't need a Tolkien scholar or anyone to tell me whether I should like a film or not.

You've have made many ridiculous assertions,

NO I haven't - you just want to disagree with me and think that only your opinions are the right ones.

but you've topped yourself, by explaining that 900 million dollars and counting in worldwide movie recepts suggests that a movie is less popular than a movie that grosses 800 million dolllars, unless inflation is over 10% between the past two years worldwide, which even a simple analysis tells us is untrue.

Show me the website you are getting your numbers from - does it give the number os screens it was shown on too? was it shown in countries that FotR originally wasn't shown in? There are a lot of variables to gross ticket sales - that's why I never pay attention when they say such and susch grossed so much more than that movie.

It seems you've taken a vacation from reality on this point.

No - you just don't want to aceept that other people have different opinions. I didn't like FotR when people here were kissing jackson's [edited -- inappropriate]. Even though at that time I was getting shot down all the time - I stuck to my opinions - because they ARE MY feelings. Now more people side with my opinions - than don't, if you read this thread.

Additionally I am entirely irrelegious and totally agnostic, it was Professor Tolkien who was a commited Catholic.

I am perfectly aware Tolkien was a devout Catholic.

[Curufinwe]

The Two Towers has grossed more than Fellowship of the Ring people like the movie - a lot. ROTK will gross even more and then you'll say something about fuzzy math. Its a big conspiracy to inflate New Line's numbers so they dwarf every other movie released this year. Its a big conspiracy and thankfully the Jersey Devil has revealed the truth - you really should ask the New York Times if they need your service. This is what I have from you to sum up : Capturing the central themes is not good enough, representing every major character in the books was not good enough because a few of them weren't true enough to what you think they should be. You have no problem with either Frodo, Sam, Bilbo, Legolas or Boromir. You dislike Gandalf because of his scenes with two people last for about 20 mins of a 3 hour movie. Never a word about visual effects nor settings, nor the soundtrack no real criticisms of the acting excpet that it was "cheezy". And of course PJ was soo way off that everyone hates his movie so much they've gone to see it more than any other this year.
P.S. here are the numbers http://www.worldwideboxoffice.com/

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
The Two Towers has grossed more than every other movie released in four years please do yourself a favor get some counciling it will be okay people like the movie - a lot. ROTK with gross even more and then you'll say something about fuzzy math. Its a big conspiracy to inflate New Line's numbers so they dwarf every other movie released this year.

Sorry - if you don't understand how gross reciepts are figured and how they are inaccurate. What would be more accurate is the percentage of people who go to the movies based on the number of seats available.

Jersey Devil has revealed the truth - you really should ask the New York Times if they need your service.

I'll be happy to help.

This is what I have from you to sum up : Capturing the central themes is not good enough, representing every major character in the books was not good enough because a few of them weren't true enough to what you think they should be.

A few of them weren't true enough? Some of them were entirely hacked. Sorry - but the prortrlyal of most of the characters was crap.

You have no problem with either Frodo, Sam, Bilbo, Legolas or Boromir.

Actually - you're wrong with Boromir - I do have a problem with him. In the movie he was too nice. Also as for Sam - I didn't like that he didn't call Frodo master Frodo except maybe once.

You dislike Gandalf because of his scenes with two people last for about 20 mins of a 3 hour movie.

No - I dislike other scenes Gandalf is in. I just don't have to tell you all the problems I find with the movie. You can go through the threads and find out everything I have said. i don't have to repeat everything to satisfy you.

Never a word about visual effects nor settings, nor the soundtrack no real criticisms of the acting excpet that it was "cheezy".

Nope - did have some complaints about the visual effects - again I suggest you look at one of my many posts.

And of course PJ was soo way off that everyone hates his movie so much they've gone to see it more than any other this year.

i didn't say everyone hated his movie - they're just not as accepting of it. If you can't see that then you really do have your head stuck in the sand.

[Curufinwe]

The movie's gross is greater than FOTR by $50 million obviously the audience is growing. Please don't tell me about percentage of seats per theater. I can tell you that I went to see it a third times last Sunday and the theater was very full for a movie relased nearly 6 months ago. If a movie makes $50 million more as of right now - and that will grow - than a movie released last year its obviously more popular. Methods of gross accounting don't change that much year to year. We're talking about 9/10ths of 1 trillion dollars in 6 months, its a very popular film. Its okay take a breath it doesnt invalidate your opinions about the film It just shows that a whole lotta people feel very differently. Entmoot represents Tolkien devotees, purists, if you will, not the general public. I'm just surprised you hate it so much. It has been a boon for sales of the literature, and students in my English Lit class I've spoken to have taken it up and generally prefer it to the films. I was not happy with my first viewing of FOTR. Try looking at it as an interpretive work, one mans take on Middle Earth as a film. P.S. You didnt like Sam because he didnt say Master enough? Is that central to who he is? Wow your tough to please

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Okay, I don't think that flaming is really necessary. Could we please tone it down a bit?

-Mini-mod Gwai

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
The movie's gross is greater than FOTR by $50 million obviously the audience is growing. Please don't tell me about percentage of seats per theater. I can tell you that I went to see it a third times last Sunday and the theater was very full for a movie relased nearly 6 months ago.

It must be playing at a "cheap" theater then - it moved out of NJ - along time ago. Musch faster than FotR did too.

If a movie makes $50 million more as of right now - and that will grow - than a movie released last year its obviously more popular. Methods of gross accounting don't change that much year to year. We're talking about 9/10ths of 1 trillion dollars in 6 months, its a very popular film.

Fine - don't understand how the number of theaters a movie is realeased on affects gross sales or how ticket prices affect it - I don't care. I'm not even talking abotu how popular it is. If you look at the thread title - this is about how well jackson brought it to the screen.

Its okay take a breath it doesnt invalidate your opinions about the film It just shows that a whole lotta people feel very differently. Entmoot represents Tolkien devotees, purists, if you will, not the general public. I'm just surprised you hate it so much. It has been a boon for sales of the literature, and students in my English Lit class I've spoken to have taken it up and generally prefer it to the films.

I don't care if more people read the books. Why should I? I don't get any of the money. I care about the books and the way the characters are represented - that's all.

I was not happy with my first viewing of FOTR.

I wasn't happy with it my first and I wasn't happy with it my 8th, 9th or 10th - no matter how much I tried. The hollywood cliches and the dumbing down of the characters annoy me.

Try looking at it as an interpretive work, one mans take on Middle Earth as a film.

I have tried looking at it - and his interpretation sucks. He butchered it. After all his propaganda about keeping close to the books.

P.S. You didnt like Sam because he didnt say Master enough? Is that central to who he is? Wow your tough to please

No - it wasn't that big of thing. But it is part of his character. He worked for Frodo and Bilbo. He was Frodo's friend - but he was also Frodo's servant.

[Black Breathalizer]

I would like to welcome Curufinwe and applaud his contributions to this thread. You've made quite a number of dead-on points. I'm impressed. You're my new hero!

But I would advise you not to get frustrated when these wild-eyed Purists don't understand you. The problem is that you are trying to engage in a LOGICAL debate. It's clear you haven't had much experience with Tolkien Purists.

Case in point: jerseydevil. The guy tells you in one breath that he wasn't asking for a literal, page by page, interpretation of the story. Then in the next breath, he's telling you how the movie was ruined because of... why? ....(drumroll)... Jackson's way of using the campfire on Weathertop!

Thanks, jerseydevil. Your arguements always crack me up!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
1) But I would advise you not to get frustrated when these wild-eyed Purists don't understand you. The problem is that you are trying to engage in a LOGICAL debate. It's clear you haven't had much experience with Tolkien Purists.

Again Black Breathelizer, please do not flame.

[Curufinwe]

I know what the thread title was, it was you who insisted that his movies were so bad it was driving people away unfortunately the facts say otherwise, then you abandon your point and say look at the thread title. If you appreciate Tolkien you should want more people to read his stuff rather than just disagree with me for the sake of it.