Learning from Peter Jackson

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
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?

I'm saying that a literal interpretation of anything is misguided at best and - as history has shown us - often dangerous.

Jackson made changes to the story. But some of the "changes" you've shown outrage over are every bit as legitimate as your perspective is. As Jack Nicholson would say: "You can't handle the truth."

[Sister Golden Hair]

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.

Why shouldn't Squintyeyedsoutherner use Tolkien to support his/her view? Who would you rather people use, Santa Cluase and the Easter bunny?

[squinteyedsoutherner]

I pasted Tolkien quotes from my previous post into my current post, nothing new. Nice try though

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I'm saying that a literal interpretation of anything is misguided at best and - as history has shown us - often dangerous.

Get over it - we're not talking about life and death situations. Your comments about religious fananatism and presenting supporting evidene on a person's point of view of Lord of the Rings is completely out there.

Jackson made changes to the story. But some of the "changes" you've shown outrage over are every bit as legitimate as your perspective is. As Jack Nicholson would say: "You can't handle the truth."

I can handle the truth - the thing is tehy ARE NOT legitimate. Go ahead - defend Flight to the Ford. How was that a POV? What about dragging Frodo to Osgiliath? How about Treebeard not even knowing what was happening Fangorn until Merry and Pippin tricked him into seeing it? You tell me how this is "POV" changes. Sorry friend - you are the one who is blind and it comes out with every post you make.

[Black Breathalizer]

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

Really? Unfortunately for you, I copied your original post:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pointing to a Tolkien letter proves absolutely nothing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I rest my case with this poster.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Really? Unfortunately for you, I copied your original post:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pointing to a Tolkien letter proves absolutely nothing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I rest my case with this poster.

I never said that. What are you talking about by saying "YOUR original post"?

[squinteyedsoutherner]

didn't I just post that I added my old quotes back in?

[Bacchus]

squintyeyedsoutherner-would you please provide the Letter number for your quotes re: hypnosis? I'm interested in seeing the full context and comparing with comments made in TTT regarding Saruman's voice. BB claims that the quotes are not applicable to Theoden, and you claim they are. I'd like to make up my own mind. Thanks

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by Bacchus
squintyeyedsoutherner-would you please provide the Letter number for your quotes re: hypnosis? I'm interested in seeing the full context and comparing with comments made in TTT regarding Saruman's voice. BB claims that the quotes are not applicable to Theoden, and you claim they are. I'd like to make up my own mind. Thanks

The Letter is #210, section 34, third paragraph

[squinteyedsoutherner]

The trance/hypnosis quotes are from letter #210, it is Tolkien's response to a screenplay that is very similar to the films Jackson made. Tolkien is rather furious.

The Gandalf the white not using his "power" quotes are from letter #156. A very long but interesting explanation of many of the book's themes etc.

Why shouldn't Squintyeyedsoutherner use Tolkien to support his/her view? Who would you rather people use, Santa Cluase and the Easter bunny?

The Easter bunny has been possessed by Santa Claus for many years now.

[Bacchus]

Thanks, it's been a while since i read those Letters, and I didn't want to waste a bunch of time searching.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

For those who don't have the "Letters"

Z [Morton Grady Zimmerman, writer of movie synopsis] is altogether too fond of the words hypnosis and hypnotic. Neither genuine hypnosis, nor scientifictitious variants, occur in my tale. Saruman's voice was not hypnotic but persuasive. Those who listened to him were not in danger of falling into a trance, but of agreeing with his arguments, while fully awake. It was always open to one to reject, by free will and reason, both his voice while speaking and its afterimpressions. Saruman corrupted the reasoning powers.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Maybe this thread should be titled "Learning from Tolkien."

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Maybe this thread should be titled "Learning from Tolkien."

Well it should be I think - because Jackson isn't the final word on Lord of the Rings. Tolkien is the only one who can clear up any misperceptions. And even though I disagree with his letter concerning Orcs originating frmo Men - it is only becuase in his PUBLISHED works - it says they came from elves. Tolkien is the FINAL word on whether Jackson screwed something up in the movie. Jackson did not create Lord of the Rings - no matter how much the movie fanatics want to try making it out as if he did.

Too many of Jackson's changes go COMPLETELY against Tolkien and the style and heart of Lord of the Rings. Mithrandir pointed out some things in the "If Jackson Made the Silmarillion Movie" thread.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

If a theme of this thread is "were PJ interpretations positive or negative?' then why not acknowlege that there are instances of both.
One I now view as generally necessary and positive is the expanded Arwen role. The first time i read LOTR I was totally surprised when she showed up at the end. There are hints in the book, but you have to look hard for them. Oh, one change PJ should not have made, when they get to the ford instead of the made-up line "if you want him, come and claim him" just have Frodo come to for a bit , wave the sword, and say "By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall have neither the Ring nor me!" Gives Frodo more character, and Arwen can still replace Elrond's action in summoning the river.

A poor change was the motivation of the Ents to attack Isengard in the movie. Just to give a hobbit a line they make Treebeard out to be virtually senile, having no idea of Saruman's actions (even after meeting Gandalf). I would think the essence of the book version, a deliberate action of the Entmoot to attack, would have been better, just as much for movie viewers who are non-book readers as others.

'Though Isengard be strong and hard,
as cold as stone and bare as bone,
We go, we go, we go to war,
to hew the stone and break the door!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Tuor of Gondolin
One I now view as necessary and generally positive is the expanded Arwen role. The first time i read LOTR I was totally surprised when she showed up at the end. There are hints in the book, but you have to look hard for them. Oh, one change PJ should not have made, when they get to the ford instead of the made-up line "if you want him, come and claim him" just have Frodo come to for a bit , wave the sword, and say "By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall have neither the Ring nor me!" Gives Frodo more character, and Arwen can still replace Elrond's action in summoning the river.

I agree with possibly giving Arwen more screen time - not making her a central character though. I also completely abhor the Flight to the Ford scene - her sneaking up on Aragorn, her riding with Frodo, her defying the Nazgul and her calling up the River - NONE of that should have happened. I had no problem if she just took Glorfindel's place. I think keeping with the spirit of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings - the nipple shot in TT was unnecessary.

[hectorberlioz]

I agree with possibly giving Arwen more screen time - not making her a central character though. I also completely abhor the Flight to the Ford scene - her sneaking up on Aragorn, her riding with Frodo, her defying the Nazgul and her calling up the River - NONE of that should have happened. I had no problem if she just took Glorfindel's place. I think keeping with the spirit of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings

No kidding. Gandalf is a poweful wizard, why did he make the river rise? like in the books(oh wait! that was elrond, gandalf did the horses). It could not have been THAT hard for jackson to make it that elrond made the river rise.

the nipple shot in TT was unnecessary

Not to mention inapropriate for the movie.

[Celebréiel]

Originally posted by Tuor of Gondolin
A poor change was the motivation of the Ents to attack Isengard in the movie. Just to give a hobbit a line they make Treebeard out to be virtually senile, having no idea of Saruman's actions (even after meeting Gandalf. I would think the essence of the book version, a deliberate action of the Entmoot to attack, would have been better, just as much for movie viewers who are non-book readers as others.

Completely. That, for me (imho) , was the most annoying-teethclenching-scream at the people around me- part of the movie. It made absolutely no sense and dragged down the 'wise' ents. This was a good example of a totally pointless and confusing Jackson change. Would it have been so bad just to have Merry and Pippin's growth shown in their willingness to go to battle and keep the ents integrity by not having them be 'tricked'?
*sigh*

[Black Breathalizer]

Z [Morton Grady Zimmerman, writer of movie synopsis] is altogether too fond of the words hypnosis and hypnotic. Neither genuine hypnosis, nor scientifictitious variants, occur in my tale. Saruman's voice was not hypnotic but persuasive. Those who listened to him were not in danger of falling into a trance, but of agreeing with his arguments, while fully awake. It was always open to one to reject, by free will and reason, both his voice while speaking and its afterimpressions. Saruman corrupted the reasoning powers.

Tolkien is directing his comments to the power of Saruman's VOICE. There is a HUGE difference between "hypnosis and its scientifictitious variants" and possession. If jerseydevil wants to imagine that Tolkien was addressing Saruman's hold over Theoden with the above quote, that's his right. But it "proves" zippo because reasonable people can come to equally reasonable alternative conclusions after reading this quote.

In my opinion, Tolkien is clearly speaking to Saruman's ability to sway an audience (as described in the books). However, in the case of Theoden, Tolkien never described Saruman coming directly into contact with the King causing his decline. The king's advisor is Wormtongue, not Saruman. When you take these facts into consideration and combine them with Tolkien's actual description of Theoden's "awakening" in TTT, it is every bit as reasonable to assume possession as it is to assume otherwise.

[smaug_the_magnificent]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
In my opinion, Tolkien is clearly speaking to Saruman's ability to sway an audience (as described in the books). However, in the case of Theoden, Tolkien never described Saruman coming directly into contact with the King causing his decline. The king's advisor is Wormtongue, not Saruman. When you take these facts into consideration and combine them with Tolkien's actual description of Theoden's "awakening" in TTT, it is every bit as reasonable to assume possession as it is to assume otherwise.

This does not make any sense...