The Irony of Jackson Bashing

[Nurvingiel]

** hopes Dunedan was kidding **

No Elf Girl! Don't stop debating! This thread has had tons of new posts since yesterday. Unfortunately, after reading them I'm not sure we're really getting anywhere. Everyone in this thread can be (somewhat crudely) divided into three categories:
Movie haters
Book purists (aka Movie critisizers)
Movie lovers

The first and last groups are diametrically opposite and will never agree ever. The middle group can easily make arguments for the other two. Most people belong to more than one group, making our debate complicated and never-ending.

I won't leave the thread Elf Girl, because you just got here!

I wouldn't want to miss a great endless debate anyway.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
** hopes Dunedan was kidding **

No Elf Girl! Don't stop debating! This thread has had tons of new posts since yesterday. Unfortunately, after reading them I'm not sure we're really getting anywhere. Everyone in this thread can be (somewhat crudely) divided into three categories:
Movie haters
Book purists (aka Movie critisizers)
Movie lovers

The first and last groups are diametrically opposite and will never agree ever. The middle group can easily make arguments for the other two. Most people belong to more than one group, making our debate complicated and never-ending.

I won't leave the thread Elf Girl, because you just got here!

I wouldn't want to miss a great endless debate anyway.

You forgot the 4th category:

Book & Movie Lovers

[hectorberlioz]

actually, I think there are only three after all..

Book Purists(who criticise and hate the movies as well)
Book/Movie lovers
Movie Lovers.

and of course they come in different colors.
meaning: some people like the movie to a certain degree or some people like the movies well enough that they dont really have a complaint.
these two would fit in the middle section.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by thranduil
As for insulting HB avatar I though I made it clear I was sorry and that there were no hard feelings. But I suppose you are holding a grudge about it for some reason.

I understand that you have apologized, but my point was that in the earlier debates it wouldn't have happened at all.

[Black Breathalizer]

I come here to discuss my favorite film adaptations of my favorite books. Instead I come here and read this stupidity.

I've got news for some of you: There are a hellovalota movie fans out there. The idea I use clones to enhance my POV is sophomoric and ridiculous. Grow up, people.

I think any more of this stupid discussion should be dealt with by our moderators. Not only is it insulting to newer posters, it is a juvenile way of trying to detract from a person's thoughts and ideas. For the last time, I have only one (and need only one) persona here: Black Breathalizer.

[brownjenkins]

i have to go back to what i said the other day... try to be objective when you watch a movie adaptation of a book, especially one you really like... and if you can't be, don't go

i can't believe the people i see here who actually compare it to bakshi's... which while it had a few redeeming qualities, had a lot more shortcomings (and I saw it in the theater when it came out)

i have a five and nine year-old who both love the first two movies and neither have picked up the book yet (though they both want to)... there aren't a lot of non-animated three-hour, or even two-hour movies that a five-year-old will sit though even once, so jackson must have done something right... and they seem to be understanding many of the essential plot twists and characterizations that some people here are claiming that the movie does not have... they found the black rider scene at the tree and in bree both scary and suspenseful... they see frodo as a hero generally scared, but brave at times... the action and comic relief keep them interested, and in general they return to it much more than a movie like harry potter, because it is more than just jokes and action

bottom line - you can hate it and criticise specifics (and I do agree with some criticisms, galadriel is an ice-queen at best)... but you lose credibility with statements implying that no true fan of the book could like the movie, or with the inability to understand while another might enjoy it

lighten up

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i have to go back to what i said the other day... try to be objective when you watch a movie adaptation of a book, especially one you really like... and if you can't be, don't go

i can't believe the people i see here who actually compare it to bakshi's... which while it had a few redeeming qualities, had a lot more shortcomings (and I saw it in the theater when it came out)

i have a five and nine year-old who both love the first two movies and neither have picked up the book yet (though they both want to)... there aren't a lot of non-animated three-hour, or even two-hour movies that a five-year-old will sit though even once, so jackson must have done something right... and they seem to be understanding many of the essential plot twists and characterizations that some people here are claiming that the movie does not have... they found the black rider scene at the tree and in bree both scary and suspenseful... they see frodo as a hero generally scared, but brave at times... the action and comic relief keep them interested, and in general they return to it much more than a movie like harry potter, because it is more than just jokes and action

bottom line - you can hate it and criticise specifics (and I do agree with some criticisms, galadriel is an ice-queen at best)... but you lose credibility with statements implying that no true fan of the book could like the movie, or with the inability to understand while another might enjoy it

lighten up

Good post!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i have to go back to what i said the other day... try to be objective when you watch a movie adaptation of a book, especially one you really like... and if you can't be, don't go

I am objective. As I said - I think that the movies are average. They aren't great masterpieces. They could have trulky been great movies - and that's what bugs me. They could have stayed closer to the books. Great scenary, great special effects - not much else.

i can't believe the people i see here who actually compare it to bakshi's... which while it had a few redeeming qualities, had a lot more shortcomings (and I saw it in the theater when it came out)

That is true - but bashki's had more of the feel of the book. If Bashki or a similar director had the money that Jackson had - a great movie could have been made that stayed closer to the books. It is only the first part of Bashki's movie that I like anyway.

i have a five and nine year-old who both love the first two movies and neither have picked up the book yet (though they both want to)... there aren't a lot of non-animated three-hour, or even two-hour movies that a five-year-old will sit though even once, so jackson must have done something right... and they seem to be understanding many of the essential plot twists and characterizations that some people here are claiming that the movie does not have... they found the black rider scene at the tree and in bree both scary and suspenseful... they see frodo as a hero generally scared, but brave at times... the action and comic relief keep them interested, and in general they return to it much more than a movie like harry potter, because it is more than just jokes and action

I should hope a FIVE year old would find the black riders scary. The movies weren't meant for a 5 year old - or even a nine year old. For one thing - they are even rated PG-13. I'm not going to say - oh yeah - a 5 and 9 year old like them and understand them - they must be great. My argument is that they aren't very intelligent movies. This sort of proves my point - 5 and 9 year olds enjoy a lot of action.

As for understanding the plot twists and stuff - that is great - too bad half the underlying plots have been so changed that they have no bearing in the book.

bottom line - you can hate it and criticise specifics (and I do agree with some criticisms, galadriel is an ice-queen at best)... but you lose credibility with statements implying that no true fan of the book could like the movie, or with the inability to understand while another might enjoy it

I have never made that statement nor have anyone else. BB has misquoted various people though.

I personally don't really think the movies are that great. They are just action movies. I do not consider them any better than the latest crap Star Wars movies. I go to the theater to see them too - but I am not at all happy with them. They could have been better. They have the lame jokes and are nothing more than action movies too. I however wasn't expecting Star Wars to be deep meaningful movies - like I was expecting LotR to be.

[hectorberlioz]

I personally don't really think the movies are that great. They are just action movies. I do not consider them any better than the latest crap Star Wars movies. I go to the theater to see them too - but I am not at all happy with them. They could have been better. They have the lame jokes and are nothing more than action movies too. I however wasn't expecting Star Wars to be deep meaningful movies - like I was expecting LotR to be.

which is exactly why the lotr movies deserve criticism. they could have been very good.
but they werent.

[brownjenkins]

My argument is that they aren't very intelligent movies. This sort of proves my point - 5 and 9 year olds enjoy a lot of action.

you'd be surprised how insightful and discerning they can be (thus my comparison with harry potter... which has little outside of action and comedy)

I personally don't really think the movies are that great. They are just action movies.

fair enough... i'd put them somewhere in my top twenty... not To Kill a Mockingbird, Monty Python's Holy Grail or The Shining... but on par with the original Star Wars or Alien, action movies with more than average drama and characterization... i can't think of a single "fantasy" genre movie that has been better as a whole

[Nurvingiel]

I love debating with you BB, I wish you posted more often. Actually, you and I are probably among the few who only post once a day. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but I suspect a few people post tons in one day, because I'll come back in 24 hours to find about 800 new posts up here. I exaggerate. But I felt left out of the debated topics since I wasn't here for a lot of it. Somehow, people got suddenly got mad at each other. (And again, in case that statement ticks someone off, I'm not thinking of anyone in particular.)

I don't compare this movie to Bakshi's since I haven't seen it. However, I have seen pictures of the scenes, so I can comment that the animation sucks. Whatever comments you can make about Peter Jackson, his Middle-earth does look pretty realistic. For the most part, it was right in line with my mental images from the book - with the exception of Frodo, Pippin, Celeborn, Gimli, Treebeard, Theoden, Eowyn, Faramir, Arwen, Helm's Deep, and Orthanc. The Nazgul were very close (but no cigar.) That seems like a long list, but think of the stuff that, in my mind, he got bang on. Gandalf, Legolas, Merry, Sam, Galadriel, Mordor, The Shire, Aragorn, Boromir, Elrond (close enough), Gondor, Fangorn and many other little things that were perfect and therefore I didn't notice them.

You can say what you want about the Galadriel ice queen thing, but Cate Blanchett is a genius, and I think she completely salvaged any awkward scenes, including the negative exposure thing.

The thing I said about categories was just to illustrate 1) that some people will never agree on some points and 2) some people will agree with many different points of view.

Black Breathalizer, you have to admit that the movies aren't perfect. For example, why is it that in the Osgiliath battle, when Frodo and the Nazgul faced off, the Nazgul didn't attack Frodo. What would have stopped it? This scene reminds me of the scene in the book (which it was probably emulating) where Frodo, Sam, and Gollum are hiding near the road as part of Sauron's army, headed by the Nazgul captain, ride by. The Nazgul captain stops and senses the Ring, and Frodo is drawn to him. I felt they had a weird connection in that scene, as they also did in the movie. The difference is, Frodo was right in front of the Nazgul, who had plenty of time to pummel Frodo and take the Ring.

Gotta go to class!
Cheers, Nurvingiel

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
fair enough... i'd put them somewhere in my top twenty... not To Kill a Mockingbird, Monty Python's Holy Grail or The Shining... but on par with the original Star Wars or Alien, action movies with more than average drama and characterization... i can't think of a single "fantasy" genre movie that has been better as a whole

There hasn't been because they usually resort to the same crap jackson did. Excalibur - although not a "fantasy" movie - is a ton better than Lord of the Rings and it isn't non-stop action.

[azalea]

I had to edit several posts. Please be careful with the language you use (if you HAVE to use the word a**h*le, please use ***). Also, DON"T FLAME! THINK about how what you're saying will sound to the person to whom it is directed! Calling people stupid, idiot, ridiculous, and other similar things are considered flames! If the argument gets you so worked up that you find yourself saying this kind of thing, just refrain from posting for a while, go to a different forum, and cool off.
Aside from all of this, the thread keeps going off topic. Personal comments need to go to PMs. Also, I know it's hard not to continue the same debates about the movie to other threads, but you guys have to keep your posts relevant to the original topic of discussion. There are a few different threads that are intended specifically to debate the merits different aspects of the movies. THIS thread topic as I understand it was to discuss HOW THE MOVIES REFLECT TOLKIEN'S UNDERLYING THEME OF THE INEVITABILITY OF CHANGE. I'll find a thread for you guys to continue your debate about Peter Jckson's treatment of TLotR as an adaptation. I'll bring it up in a minute.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by azalea
I had to edit several posts. Please be careful with the language you use (if you HAVE to use the word a**h*le, please use ***). Also, DON"T FLAME! THINK about how what you're saying will sound to the person to whom it is directed! Calling people stupid, idiot, ridiculous, and other similar things are considered flames! If the argument gets you so worked up that you find yourself saying this kind of thing, just refrain from posting for a while, go to a different forum, and cool off.
Aside from all of this, the thread keeps going off topic. Personal comments need to go to PMs. Also, I know it's hard not to continue the same debates about the movie to other threads, but you guys have to keep your posts relevant to the original topic of discussion. There are a few different threads that are intended specifically to debate the merits different aspects of the movies. THIS thread topic as I understand it was to discuss HOW THE MOVIES REFLECT TOLKIEN'S UNDERLYING THEME OF THE INEVITABILITY OF CHANGE. I'll find a thread for you guys to continue your debate about Peter Jckson's treatment of TLotR as an adaptation. I'll bring it up in a minute.

Ya know, I find it really funny how you edit my post for calling Ruinel an idiot, and you tell me not to flame, but Ruinel posted that we are "dumb f**ks" and you don't even edit her post and say "don't flame". What's up with that?

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks Azalea, I'm sure we'll all start asking ourselves if our mothers would approve before posting. Speaking of PM's... Since your PM's are turned of Black Breathalizer, I was hoping you would email me instead! ---> trillion13@hotmail.com <--- Then we wouldn't get left behind in debates, we could have our very own one.

I agree with you Jerseydevil, I think Excalibur (the one with the Carmina Burana soundtrack right?) was a better movie. That's not to say that LotR is a bad movie because of it, Excalibur is one of the best movies ever made. A Few Good Men is also an excellent movie, but it's incomparable to LotR since they're in completely different genres.

For LotR, it's the little things like turning the dignified, noble Gimli into the comic relief character and having comments like "You're gonna have to toss me." and "Don't tell the elf."

I think that detracts from the overall seriousness of the movie, and the dignity of the characters.

(I broke my own quasi-rule about posting more than once a day. Just trying to keep up to date!)

[azalea]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Ya know, I find it really funny how you edit my post for calling Ruinel an idiot, and you tell me not to flame, but Ruinel posted that we are "dumb f**ks" and you don't even edit her post and say "don't flame". What's up with that?

What page is that on? I read the whole thread, and didn't see that post. I did see one that was edited, though. I wasn't on yesterday, so if it was posted and edited before I could see it, that explains it. If not, please let me know where it is and I'll edit it, or you can report it so that if I'm not on, another mod can do it.

[brownjenkins]

i agree about Excalibur being a great film, though i would probably put it on a similar level as LoTR... an excellent movie, but with a few faults, a touch on the dry side, and merlin, while good, needed a little work... still probably in my top-twenty (which is probably more like 50 ) but not an A+ list film like the first three i mentioned...

LoTR is actually much better than i expected, but unlike some, i did not expect very much... my main changes would have been in casting (galadriel and sam)... and i do agree that the Osgiliath battle with the Nazgul just didn't make much sense... at worst they should have had to fight him off a little more convincingly

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
There hasn't been because they usually resort to the same crap jackson did. Excalibur - although not a "fantasy" movie - is a ton better than Lord of the Rings and it isn't non-stop action.

Now you see? This is exactly what I mean when I say there is a double-standard here that says it's OK to do things to other writers work but not to Tolkien. I'm sure Thomas Mallory would have more objections to Excalibur than Tolkien would have to this set of movies. But of course, Mallory is somehow less important than Tolkien. I keep pointing to the fact that there has been NO proper Phillip K. Dick movie. Bladerunner, for instance, and Minority Report are just the most distorted screenplays you'll ever see. By comparison, Jackson is an angel.

[hectorberlioz]

well of course Phillip K. Dick hasnt built up millions of fans over decades.
Bladerunner came out, people figured they shouldnt hope for the best P.K. Dick adaptation.
so, yes Tolkien is more important.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by azalea
What page is that on? I read the whole thread, and didn't see that post. I did see one that was edited, though. I wasn't on yesterday, so if it was posted and edited before I could see it, that explains it. If not, please let me know where it is and I'll edit it, or you can report it so that if I'm not on, another mod can do it.

Hmmm, it appears it was edited. Sorry then azalea. But my post was in direct relation to what she said. I'd never come out and flame someone unless incited, which I and the other people clearly were with what Ruinel said...