Peter Jackson has improved Tolkien

[bropous]

What socialistic tripe.

In case you didn't know, even the "Happy Birthday" song is STILL under ownership. Public acceptance does not transfer rightful ownership.

Who owns the "mythology" [sic] of the Lord of the Rings? I'll tell you who: Tolkien Family Enterprises or whatever the legal name of their entity is.

Sheesh, save me from fatuous sophistry....

[Black Breathalizer]

Oh really, bropous?

The Tolkien Family Enterprises own the LOTR mythology?!?!?!?!

You might want to go around the web and tell that to every would-be author who writes Lord of the Rings fan fiction.

You might want to check with Christopher Tolkien right after he's asked if he wants a gift LOTR mug with his burger and fries next Christmas.

Go tell that to the countless authors who's artistic work is clearly Tolkien-influenced.

You can call me Mr. Fatuous all you want, but at least know what you're talking about first.

[Earniel]

Neither influence or fanfiction determine to whom an author's work belongs. Authors rights are legal matters. Middle-earth is Tolkien's property and through him the property of his heirs. Even I draw tolkien-inspired drawings but that doesn't make me the owner of ents or Rivendell or whatnot. You can check nearly every decent fanfiction: they often put a disclaimer in that middle-earth IS NOT theirs but Tolkien's.

YOU tell every author that has gone through all the trouble of creating his own unique world that he DOESN't own it.

[Black Breathalizer]

Oops, sorry. I've just GOT to remember when I get into these discussions that Purists take everything literally. And some people think religious fundamentals are rigid.

Okay, LEGALLY the Tolkien family estate, Houghlin Mofflin, and Saul Zalentz OWN Middle-Earth. Okay, are we all agreed on that?

Now if we've established that, we can move back to the real discussion point---in the appropriate thread.

This thread is about how Peter Jackson enhanced the Lord of the Rings experience for many lovers of the books.

[Blackheart]

Troll sat alone on his crusty old throne
And munched and mumbled a worn old bone

You swap directions quicker than a snake in a pool of motor
oil.

Copyright is indeed a legal function. And Tolkien was against dramatization of his story.

Preciscely because, suddenly, it no longer belongs to the readers.

The Balrog is now a schlitz malt liquor ad. Elrond merges into the Matrix. Arwen is no longer a princess, but a sword weilding hussy.

Before the "power" of cinema crushed everything into a pre packaged visual, fans were free to visualize, and imagine as they saw fit.

That is pretty much what Tolkien feared would happen.

Now would you like fries with your Frodo Burger, or will that be Onion Rings of Power?

You are rough, abrasive, and I don't see your dialogue as promoting any kind of consensus.

[Black Breathalizer]

I come on this board and the first thread I see is "LOTR movie=ignorant fans." I read comments from a click of posters here who are worried "their" story is now open to a bunch of morons who don't -- gasp -- know who Tom Bombadil is. I'm supposed to agree with this kind of elitist garbage?!?!?!? I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with anyone who feels that Tolkien must remain the exclusive property of a bunch of snobby bookgeeks.

The other thing is that discussion boards are about discussions. The most boring bulletin boards are where a group of like-minded people post nothing of interest. I guess my new mission in life is to help the poor misguiding bookgeeks (hehe...I didn't use the P-word, BoP) that post here overcome their prejudices and narrow-mindedness by showing them the light of Peter Jackson.

[Cirdan]

Actually, the most boring boards are the ones where paranoid idiots spend all there time ranting at other posters, deriding their opinions, and showing very little in the way of anything resembling debating skills. These boards are very easy to find for like-minded individuals.

[Lizra]

Both types are boring. You've made you opinions very clear, I don't see any reason to beat each other with them! (unless of course, this is what you enjoy doing)

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I come on this board and the first thread I see is "LOTR movie=ignorant fans." I read comments from a click of posters here who are worried "their" story is now open to a bunch of morons who don't -- gasp -- know who Tom Bombadil is. I'm supposed to agree with this kind of elitist garbage?!?!?!? I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with anyone who feels that Tolkien must remain the exclusive property of a bunch of snobby bookgeeks.

The other thing is that discussion boards are about discussions. The most boring bulletin boards are where a group of like-minded people post nothing of interest. I guess my new mission in life is to help the poor misguiding bookgeeks (hehe...I didn't use the P-word, BoP) that post here overcome their prejudices and narrow-mindedness by showing them the light of Peter Jackson.

I think you'll find that most people here loved the movie, most probably put it in thier top three movies. I don't understand how you say Tolkien must remain property of bookgeeks when he wrote books - you have to read them to understand Tolkien. As I've said before, its fine by me for people to watch the movie and not read the books, but you can't tell me they know about Middle Earth - you have to read the books to get a complete picture. And guess what?, I don't think anyone really knows who Tom Bombadil is.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Actually, the most boring boards are the ones where paranoid idiots spend all there time ranting at other posters, deriding their opinions, and showing very little in the way of anything resembling debating skills.

Thankfully, YOU are above such behavior, Cirdan.

I'm not interested in a flame war here. I've tried to bring something worth saying to these boards. If you've found me crude and rude at times, I'm sorry. But I will say that some of you who have found my manner offensive might do well to take a long hard look in the mirror. As I pointed out, the popular thread "LOTR movie=ignorant fans" was here long before me.

[Cirdan]

Ace is not a regular here so that "LOTR movie=ignorant fans" isn't representative of the threads most of the people here start. I like the Moot because people DO debate topics without attacking each other personally. I may get tense in one thread but it doesn't carry over. Certainly addressing comments at someone that hasn't posted in a week is unusual. This is my last post on this topic as I think it has been beaten to death. It has become just a poll thread anyway since it is not a matter of facts but of opinions and debating it is pointless.

[BeardofPants]

I know I said I'd stay away, but someone told me to check out the latest bit of flatulent verbage.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
As I pointed out, the popular thread "LOTR movie=ignorant fans" was here long before me.

Ahem. And I'll just quote what I said all those months ago.

Quote by moi:
It's an adaption for eru's sake, NOT the real McCoy. If you're gonna hate it, hate it for more valid reasons. Hate it, cos it's a terrible movie, NOT a terrible adaption...

Right. I think that's my butt covered.

[Grey_Wolf]

A reply to the Post Title:

Oh, has he now!

[bropous]

Well, and I have still to see where the original poster has proved his premise that the film enhanced Tolkien in any way.

I have, however, seen some quite humorous posturing which has added nothing to the discussion.

Tell ya what, BB, we live in nations of laws. A person who has created a thing has ownership of a thing. A person who creates a knock-off of someone else's creation does not gain even miniscule ownership of the original. One may rail against purism and legalistic language, but as a person I highly admire often says, "words mean things." Ownership means something, too. If you would like to put the postulate to the test, go ahead, create a series of posters based on the Lord of the Rings and try selling 'em anywhere for any period of time. The Tolkien family would shut you down so fast it would make your head swim.

There HAS been a positive benefit from the films which no one can ignore, though, which is the tremendous increase in a Lord of the Rings book sales which has been triggered by the release of the films. This is something the prior attempt by Bakshi never really pulled off. People have seen the hints of what is in the books on the screen and have been spurred to pick up the books. Reading the Lord of the Rings imparts important themes to the reader, and by and large, a great increase in readership of the Lord of the Rings brings a positive effect to society. The books teach important values, and it is truly the books which are the true essence of the works of the Master, and not the retelling of the story in film medium.

I reassert my premise that the films have not enhanced the works of Tolkien in any way, and have yet to see ANY evidence to the contrary. Someone obviously never learned real debating, in which a person posits a theory, someone takes up the counter argument, and EACH side presents argument in support of their opposing positions. Simply making an assertion and then assailing the motivations of the other side is not an argument, it is a brawl.

[Grey_Wolf]

It is my opinion that he HAS NOT enhanced the story. Removing and changing scenes for the sake of speedy storytelling, PJ probably thought was necessary. But I feel, it's a pity, having read the book several times.

[bropous]

Well, and here's a kicker too: I LOVED the film! Despite its variance from the books time and again, I thought it was incredibly directed, beautifully scripted, had fantastic set and costume design, and has a cadre of fantastic actors who all worked very hard, and succeeded well, in bringing the FLAVOR of Tolkien's world to the screen.

In one of the screenings I saw, I simply divorced myself from my "purist" self and absorbed the film like a new initiate to the Tolkien milieu. The film WORKS. I have no idea where some folks come up with the "poor pacing" argument, the pacing flowed fine. Now, of course, all film analysis is subjective, and I admit my subjectivity in this matter wholeheartedly.

I would venture that I have not ever seen a better film, except MAYBE Ben-Hur, and even then, hey, this is the film I've waited for for 25+ years, ever since I first read the books. And even though, notwithstanding that this is the best made film I've seen [Kubrick is fine, but I still hold this film is better than, say, Apocalypse Not], it simply in no way enhances Tolkien, simply because of what Gray_Wolf said, that Jackson added to and subtracted from the original work to expediate the storytelling in the film medium.

Original premise STILL fallacious.

[Draken]

Heck I go offline for a few days and see what I miss! What an entertaining thread!

I'm happy to let the film and the book stand separately. I enjoyed both. Some may think one is better than the other but that is subjective opinion, not something you can "prove" and not something I'm going to get upset about. Douglas Adams, in writing radio, book and TV versions of "Hitchhikers" made each quite notably different - he wasn't too bothered about changing his original work to better fit the media it was being told in. Maybe, had he been alive now, when cinematic techniques allow convincing recreations of fantasy worlds, Tolkien would have had the same approach to a screenplay of the book. Maybe not. We'll never know.

As to ownership, erm, yes well I don't think it's a matter of debate how copyright works. But once something enters the culture, it acquires a life of it's own. LotR is the keystone of a whole genre of vaguely medievalish, magic-laden heroic fantasy incorporating familiar elements of European folklore. We can, and do, interpret and comment on such worlds as we see fit – Tolkien’s included. No, I can’t produce LotR merchandise without receiving a writ. I could however, publish a critique on LotR, state my own opinions about it (no matter how far removed from Tolkien’s original intentions), even quote passages from it verbatim (within limits, and so long as I acknowledged the source). To publish is to share your ideas with the world, and while you can tie down the ownership of the manuscript and of copyrightable names, that’s all you can tie down. Everything else is in the public domain – and rightly so.

Apart from the change in medium from book to film, a lot more has changed. Tolkien was an Oxford don, writing in the mid-20th Century. The screenplay for the film was written at the turn of the 21st Century, for a Hollywood market speaking Americanised English. Tolkien would probably never come up with a phrase like “Let’s hunt some orc” (or whatever it was) – Peter Jackson found nothing wrong with it because it fitted in with either his or his target audience’s use of language. At least, when the hobbits arrived at the “Prancing Pony”, nobody said “Yo, barkeep!”

Personally, I tend to fall back on the original published work. For me the definitive “Hitch-hikers” is the radio programme, and the definitive LotR is the book, but that’s just my own preference. If people think that the streamlining of the plot and different emphasis on certain characters makes the film a better “finished product” – well that’s their point of view. Counting up Oscars, Grammies, Emmies, box office returns, book sales, positive reviews, negative reviews, amusing anecdotes, karma points or whatever all adds to the fun, but doesn’t add any objectivity to a subjective debate.

[Black Breathalizer]

bropous, you are taking this as a book vs. the film debate. It is not and never has been that. Like you, I love the book and I love the movie. My premise is that Jackson enhanced fans' appreciation of the Tolkien story by providing us with this awe-inspiring movie series.

Way back at the beginning of this thread, I gave specific examples. One of them was the sacrifice of Merry and Pippen at the breaking of the Fellowship. To me, Jackson added to Tolkien's theme of "the selflessness of true friendship" by having Merry and Pippen lure the uruk-kai away from where Frodo was hiding so he could continue the quest. It gave Merry & Pippen a genuine purpose for being part of the Fellowship that they didn't have in the books and meant they played a key role in Frodo's quest before the adventure took a major left turn with their capture.

Does this mean I dislike the original version now? No. It just means my pleasure was enhanced by Jackson's retelling. I like to

The same could be said of Frodo's character.

PJ admitted that he pushed the envelope with Frodo more than any other character because he wanted to give the movie's audience a sense of closure that they otherwise weren't going to have given the storyline. But in my view, there was nothing in Jackson's treatment of Frodo that was untrue to the character of Tolkien's Frodo. In the book, Frodo WAS afraid of going on alone; PJ only emphasized it more than Tolkien did.

One of the most amazing things to me is that Jackson was able to help Elijah Wood capture the 'everyman' spirit of Frodo that you get from reading the books. An everyman character from any book that is being brought to the big screen is a HUGE challenge for any director to pull off successfully. Jackson understood that to get the audience to relate to a "hobbit" lead character and understand his conflicting emotions at the end of the movie, he had to take a slightly different tack than Tolkien did in the books.

He did it magnificently IMHO.

Okay, brophous. You baited me into this post. Now please show this pathetic Grade D debater the error of his misguided ways.

[bropous]

Good points, Draken.

For me too, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy radio version is ALSO the definitive version. It introduced me to some really incredible music by Jean-Michel Jarre and led me to pick up Tomita, Kitaro, Vangelis, and more and more Mike Oldfield.

But then again, the Hitchhiker's series, while extremely witty, insightful and entertaining, simply isn't in the class that Lord of the Rings is, but I don't think you were implying. Adams created the Hitchhiker's series in a comparatively short period of time, and maybe the shorter "gestation period" of his work made him more amenable to changes to his original works.

But then again, maybe ol' Ronald was just a lot more stubborn, a lot more willing to not let his works be remade unless done properly, and, frankly, far crankier and grumpier about the "ownership" [oooo, full circle] of his own creation to allow someone else to alter it for the sake of distributing his works to the "unwashed masses."

Tolkien was an Oxford professor of languages. The replacement of his masterfully crafted dialogue was unnecessary. The revision of his wonderfully detailed chronology was not needed. The alteration of the actions and motivations of his intricately developed characters was also not required, and yet all were done. And still it is an effective, wonderful film.

But in NO way does the film ENHANCE Tolkien. How in the living Hades can the Lord of the Rings be enhanced when we're not even gonna get the Scouring of the Shire??? How in the Seven Levels of the Underworld was LotR enhanced by turning Frodo into a mewling wuss at amon Sul and the Fords of Bruinen?

AND: HOW was the Lord of the Rings enhanced when Awen was turned into a trite, brazen warrior maid? ANSWER: It was not.

[bropous]

1. It is impossible to argue the premise, "Peter Jackson has Improved Tolkien" WITHOUT it being a book v. film argument. Your premise draws a quite clear distinction between Jackson's film, which you have presented as a purification of the incomplete works of the Professor.

2. You persist in using changes to the initial story line as proof that Jackson enhanced Tolkien's storytelling. Again, Jackson has DETRACTED from Tolkien's original story by IGNORING the already tremendously perfected books, taking liberties to twist Tolkien's characters into sad masquerades of what the Master originally scripted, perverting the original story line to "punch it up" for rap-blinded cultural Orcs in the audience, and by taking portions of the story far, far away from the intent which is spelled out, quite clearly, in the books. This holds for your assertions of both Merry and Pippin and Frodo. Frodo was repainted as a wimp. Period. That enhances Tolkien's character of Frodo in NO way.

Finally, again we come back to this weak and unsupported assertion that Tolkien's works were ENHANCED by the Jackson films. Simply dumbing down the story line, and that is EXACTLY what Jackson did, does not add any ENHANCEMENT to the original. Simply making the dialogue more appropriate for some Hairy Potty film or some other piece of celluloid tripe currently issuing forth from the nether regions of Hollyweird in no way brings ANY improvement to a fantastic work of literature like Teh Lord of the Rings, the greatest work of literature penned in the twentieth century.

Grade D? Try F, cowboy. You rail at everyone around for not being objective, and yet in support of your own premise, all you have done has been to present subjective criteria after subjective criteria. "You twist and turn like a...twisty, turning thing...." Failing grade in debating class.