Learning from Peter Jackson

[Bacchus]

Lordy, people! I am not feeling the love at all.

I'm going to provide a couple of (unsolicited) observations/opinions.

1. PJ has, on balance, done an excellent job to date on the movies. No, he hasn't done everything quite the way I would have, but then again I don't know diddly about making a movie. I wonder how many of the second-guessers are professional moviemakers, or could have convinced a studio to invest 9 figures into a concept?

2. While PJ has altered some plot points and some characterizations, it isn't really fair to draw conclusions about them until we see the final installment. I didn't particularly care for the treatment given Faramir either, but I'm willing to see where he goes with it before throwing a fit.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Well, look who's here. Hiya Bacchus.

Well, to appreciate these arguments in this thread, you might have to wade through a lot of other heated threads. In particular, the "Who else" thread, which is now closed.

[Bacchus]

Hiya, Sis! It's been a while since I've popped into the Forest, hasn't it?

Haven't looked over the "Who else" thread, but I suspect I know what I'd see over there. Oh, well.

[evil]On a side note, it might be fun to have someone challenge me on my knowledge of the books, seeing how I also like the movie and all.[/evil]

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Bacchus
Hiya, Sis! It's been a while since I've popped into the Forest, hasn't it?

Haven't looked over the "Who else" thread, but I suspect I know what I'd see over there. Oh, well.

[evil]On a side note, it might be fun to have someone challenge me on my knowledge of the books, seeing how I also like the movie and all.[/evil]

Well, as you can see, here the setup makes the members and forums much more accessable to each other than on our other beloved board, closer contact so to speak. I'm not sure though, that that makes for better discussion, but very interesting and sometimes heated in such close quarters.

Granted your knowledge of the books is far superior to my own, and I also like the movies. I think you will find the problem isn't as much like or dislike for the books or movies, but what is Tolkien and what isn't.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
The same subjectivity that blinds us to the hairless foot also colors our perception of these arguments. It is only natural to believe our eyes, even when they are fooled.

Well - I for one have never seen this painting - if I had seen the painting - I would have a problem if it did not depict Sam as have hair on his feet.

The only thing I have EVER declared in terms of Jackson and his movie are my opinions. I don't really care if you or anyone else agrees or not.

I have my opinions - and I will state them - I think Jackson created an dumbed down hollywoodized action movie. And I think Jackson is a hack.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
They were his most prized living creation.

Well, I beg to differ but this isn't the right place for going further into that.

Originally posted by Elfhelm
But nobody ever says any of this. Nobody shoots down the Hildebrandts or the animated RotK or the earlier movie. But there are a certain half dozen people here who circle in and rip apart anyone who dares to enjoy the current movies. I don't see why they don't just stick to the books forums.

I think the fact that the movies are more attacked than the art is because the movies are far more accessible. It's rather hard to miss the movies nowadays. And many who haven't read the books, have seen the films. But the art is more difficult to find IMO, I only know it from the internet and then only when I actively search for it. So in that way the movies influence more people about Tolkien than the art ever could. And so I can understand that the movies get the brunt of the critic since the people who love the book want to see it presented as true as possible to Tolkien before all those people.

As for your last post: I agree. The more people get belittled and their views and points made rediculous, the more defensive people become and the more the 'niceties' from conversation get dropped. The more we debate in this way, the more fixed our views on the movie become and the harder we'll defend them. And the less willing we become to reconsider those views.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eärniel
The more we debate in this way, the more fixed our views on the movie become and the harder we'll defend them. And the less willing we become to reconsider those views.

I have felt the same way since FotR came out if you go back and look at those threads. I actually "enjoyed" TT more because I expected the Jackson hack job - so it didn't surprise me and also TT has more action anyway. I was surprised at how many people were shocked by the Osgiliath scene and the Theoden scene. We had similar scenes in FotR - Flight to the Ford and the Wizards Duel.

As for disagreeing with me on the Elves being Iluvatar's prized living creation - what would you say they were?

[Millane]

Originally posted by Sheeana
JD - Inasmuch as I hate the LOTR movies, Heavenly Creatures *is* a very good film. You should check it out sometime if you already haven't.

hmmm heavenly creatures was a damn good film but Braindead and Bad taste (now that ive seen it YAY! ) are way better, it always amazes me that PJ the creater of braindead and the like could make a 'big' fantasy classic adaptation
with the orcs coming from elves, does it actually say that they do, because i remember reading in the sil that the elves went missing etc but that was merely hinting not actually saying.

with the exception of one movie fan that referred to the so called "purists" as "queers

yeah who was that wierdo actually i like the books infinately times better than the movies, but yes im a movie fan, i like both shock horror...
Im re-reading the sil again and it just cements what i have always stuck to, no movie could outstrip tolkiens work, but im glad PJ had a crack (using his and others interprations) and IMO a bloody good job... ohhh yeah up with FEANOR
JD you mentioned earlier something along the lines of it was the best movie PJ could make, did you have someone in mind that could have made a better LotR movie? and im not being rude, but would you have preferred no movie or PJ's movie?
p.s Sorry for my language Azalea

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Millane
JD you mentioned earlier something along the lines of it was the best movie PJ could make, did you have someone in mind that could have made a better LotR movie? and im not being rude, but would you have preferred no movie or PJ's movie?

I didn't nor do I care who made it - just as long as it was a better movie than what Jackson delivered. Lord of the Rings should have been a much more intelligent film and less action based. Jackson's more into action and horror - therefore that is what he delivered with Lord of the Rings.

And to answer your question - I would have preferred no movie. I was looking forward to the movies from the moment they were announced and I was greatly disappointed by them. They could have been so much more and should have been so much more. Now - since Jackson did them - it will be another 20 years before someone tackles them. So yes - I wish they were never made so a more accomplished director and a TRUE fan of the books could have brought them to the screen.

[Millane]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I didn't nor do I care who made it - just as long as it was a better movie than what Jackson delivered. Lord of the Rings should have been a much more intelligent film and less action based. Jackson's more into action and horror - therefore that is what he delivered with Lord of the Rings.

And to answer your question - I would have preferred no movie. I was looking forward to the movies from the moment they were announced and I was greatly disappointed by them. They could have been so much more and should have been so much more. Now - since Jackson did them - it will be another 20 years before someone tackles them. So yes - I wish they were never made so a more accomplished director and a TRUE fan of the books could have brought them to the screen.

have you seen any of PJ's other films? because from my view his older movies were nothing like how LotR was done. so you cant think of anyone who could make LotR to your tastes? i agree with you that a genuine interest in the books is overall better than being incredibly skilled. the person who did the animated watership down said he would be happy to see a live action version but he is waiting to see a good script because all he is seeing is special effects people who dont really feel anything for the story... mind you he made the choice to have Bigwig back down to Woundwort

[Earniel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I have felt the same way since FotR came out if you go back and look at those threads.

I know, I wasn't speaking specifically of you when I posted that. Just something I perceived during the time I have spent on this movie-forum.

As for disagreeing with me on the Elves being Iluvatar's prized living creation - what would you say they were?

Just not his most prized creation.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
I don't see how any of this relates to the idea Theoden was posessed. ... I am responding to the point that the text implies posession. I don't think it does, and I think Letters supports that view 100%.

You may not believe the text implies possession, but many Tolkien fans feel it does. Since the text is ambiguous on the subject, they are just as "right" as you feel you are. Pointing to a Tolkien letter proves absolutely nothing. What does Tolkien's comments regarding the hypnotic versus persuasive power of Saruman's voice have to do with the King of the Golden Hall?

[azalea]

There's a LOT of off topic posting going on. While it IS interesting, I think it detracts from the discussion at hand, and also causes the thread to get watered down (for lack of a more precise term). Don't forget there are many threads that already exist where we can talk about some of the things mentioned that don't have direct bearing on this particular topic. I'll lead by example -- I want to make two quick comments about a couple of things that have been brought up here, but since they aren't about this topic, I'm going to post them in the appropriate thread, as much as I'd like to just put them here owing to my laziness. See you there!

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Pointing to a Tolkien letter proves absolutely nothing

"Neither genuine hypnosis, trances, nor variants, occur in my tale."

That means anywhere.


"Gandalf the white is still under the obligation of concealing his power and of teaching rather than forcing or the dominating of wills"

And

"when the PHYSICAL powers of the enemy are too great he can act in an emergency as an angel....In ONE or TWO cases he does reveal a sudden power he twice rescues FARAMIR and he alone is left to forbid the entrance of the Lord of the Nazgul to Minas Tirith - and yet so powerful is the whole train of resistance that he himself has organized that no battle occurs: it passes to other mortal hands"

That means no confrontation with Saruman through Theoden.

I rest my case with this poster.

[Black Breathalizer]

You should be a lawyer, squinteyedsoutherner. My point (which you are trying to hide from rather than address) was that the letter you are fond of pointing to doesn't apply to the situation we were discussing. If you are going to continue using Tolkien letters to bolster your personal opinions of LOTR, then they ought to at least be applicable.

But on the other hand, this is a shining example of what this thread is about. Rather than simply agree that there are equally valid ways of looking at the issue, you feel compelled to find things in Tolkien letters that help 'legitimize' your POV. Fundamentalists of every religious persuasion have been using this same misguided strategy to support their views for centuries.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Do you even read other people's posts?

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
Do you even read other people's posts?

Not when you edit your previous remarks a day later AFTER my post.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
You should be a lawyer, squinteyedsoutherner. My point (which you are trying to hide from rather than address) was that the letter you are fond of pointing to doesn't apply to the situation we were discussing. If you are going to continue using Tolkien letters to bolster your personal opinions of LOTR, then they ought to at least be applicable.

But on the other hand, this is a shining example of what this thread is about. Rather than simply agree that there are equally valid ways of looking at the issue, you feel compelled to find things in Tolkien letters that help 'legitimize' your POV. Fundamentalists of every religious persuasion have been using this same misguided strategy to support their views for centuries.

Sorry to tell you this, but in case you don't know- a person should use things that SUPPORT their opinion. I have no idea what you are trying to say? Your comment here is so completely laughable - it's ridiculous.

you feel compelled to find things in Tolkien letters that help 'legitimize' your POV.

Please - just bury your head in the movies - jackson didn't create Lord of the Rings TOLKIEN did. What TOLKIEN said is more correct than anything jackson put on the screen. You show your blindness toward the films more clearly with every post you make.

Please - go and read the books.

Can we add this to the "Stupid Things said by BB" thread?

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Please - just bury your head in the movies - jackson didn't create Lord of the Rings TOLKIEN did. What TOLKIEN said is more correct than anything jackson put on the screen. You show your blindness toward the films more clearly with every post you make.

I second that!!!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Not when you edit your previous remarks a day later AFTER my post.

Well you don't know what they edited. They could have simply edited a grammatical error or spelling mistake.