Peter Jackson has improved Tolkien

[Black Breathalizer]

The Scene: The Mines of Moria where we find the wizard Black Breathalizer leading the fat, little, movie-maker, Peter Jackson, and his Fellowship of screenwriters, actors, and WETA techs through the darkness when suddenly...

[The caverns are filled with the irritating sounds of whining, moaning, and groaning.]

Orlando Bloom: PURISTS!!!!

Viggo: Quick! Shut the doors!

[The Fellowship succeeds in shutting the door but not before it is hit by hot air blasts of "XenArwen sucks!" and "Where's Tom Bombadil?"]

Sean Bean: (incredulous) They have a BeardofPants!!!

Black Breathalizer: To the Worldwide Movie Box Office. That'll show them. Hurry!

[To the stirring sounds of a Howard Shore soundtrack, the Fellowship hurries out the back door and head to the Worldwide Movie Box Office when suddenly a firey TROLL-like creature appears.)

Sean Bean to Black: What is this new devilry?

Blackie: Sigh...It is a bropous, a purist from the English Premier League. This foe is beyond any of you. RUN!

(The others cross over the bridge to world wide acclaim while Blackie stands and defies the evil bropous.

Black Breathalizer: You shall not...have the LAST WORD!

(A firey blast spews out of bropous's big gapping mouth...

bropous: Ha! If it were to hold that Jackson improved Tolkien, AGAIN YOUR ORIGINAL ASSERTION, then the logic holds that the films ARE better than the books, even if the improvement has been amended to only a subjective improvement in your perception.

Syllogism:
An improved thing is better than the original.
The Jackson film(s) improved Tolkien's books.
Ergo, the Jackson films are better than the books.

Cogitum, ergo non-sequitur, BB?

(BB shrugs off the creature's firey blast effortlessly.)

Black Breathalizer: (in heroic fashion) I am the wielder of the sacred TRUTH...I utterly REJECT your illogical premise. This is NOT an all-or-nothing proposition. Jackson has build a house using the Master's blueprints. It is quite possible for him to improve upon the design of some rooms, copy others, and decide not to include the basement.

bropous: (momentarily taken aback by BB's brilliant logic) uh...huh?

Black Breathalizer: A visitor to the house is well within his rights to say, "Hey, Pete, I really like the way you did this kitchen, man! It's really an IMPROVEMENT!" That same guy might have liked the original design overall but has to grudgingly admit that Jackson has made some fine enhancements to the plans.

(Unable to match wits with the mighty word wizard, the creature, bropous, gives up and leaps into the dark purist void, utterly defeated.

The End.*

*Note - This post is clearly a masterful work of ART and therefore cannot be improved upon in any way, shape, or form so don't even try.

[Artanis]

Heh, I just dived into this thread, and I found many of the posts here quite enjoyable. BB and Bropous, your arguing styles are ... *searching for the right word, but didn't find anything better than* ... entertaining.

Regarding labels, purist is simply a way to describe a Tolkien fan who believes passionately that the books are not to be messed with and give a reactionary thumbs down to the movie because it's "not the way Tolkien would have done it."

I realize that I fit nicely into this description of a Tolkien purist, perhaps with omission of the word 'passionately'. To me the 'true' story is always that of the original artist, in this case Tolkien. And to answer your original assertion: PJ did a fantastic job in making the film, but (being a purist) I really don't think he improved Tolkien's work. I specially agree with what others have said, the storyline of the film became too much alike other fantasy/action films.

[theworkhorse]

I do not think Pete improves on Tolkien. Many of the changes he made, however distasteful to Tolkien purists, were in hindsight usually due to necessity, not interpretation. I hated Arwen's character and I hate what she will become. But her role nicely ties up several ends of the book that would not work in the movie.

I thought Boromir's character was fairy well done, though a more imposing man would have worked better in my mind's eye.

One character that really disturbed me was Elrond. His who demeanor was different from what I imagined. More plainly, I felt that Pete got it wrong. This is not caused by film necessities, but by a difference in interpretations. What is with the condescending attitude toward Gandalf? Why does Elrond hate men, especially considering he is part human?! His antipathy and arrogance seem to be out of character for what Tolkien wrote.

I do not think we can fairly determine whether the scenery was better than Tolkien described it. I imagine it was fairly equivalent.

One area that Pete did improve upon was the fight scenes. They were great! But can we really put too much stock in that? After all, showing a fight is easier than writting about it.

I gave this movie an 'A' as a movie, and a 'B' as an adaptation of the books. There is room for improvement, but contraints may leave Pete and I disappointed.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by theworkhorse
One character that really disturbed me was Elrond. His who demeanor was different from what I imagined. More plainly, I felt that Pete got it wrong.

Just because he was different that you imagined, doesn't mean Jackson was wrong.

Originally posted by theworkhorse
What is with the condescending attitude toward Gandalf?

What condescending attitude? I thought the exchanges between Gandalf and Elrond were treated as two great leaders discussing the great issues of the day in private. If anything, the privacy of their talk allowed Elrond to be more candid than he might be in a public setting.

Originally posted by theworkhorse
Why does Elrond hate men, especially considering he is part human?! His antipathy and arrogance seem to be out of character for what Tolkien wrote.

First, it wasn't hate but frustration and disappointment--and the reasons for it were clearly explained in the movie. Elrond was frustrated that their great peril was due to the fact that he was unable to convince Isildur to destroy the ring.

Being half-human actually helps explain why Elrond would be more critical than someone else might.

[theworkhorse]

"Just because he was different that you imagined, doesn't mean Jackson was wrong."

That is why I said that: to admit that it was due to my own imagination and interpretation,


"What condescending attitude? I thought the exchanges between Gandalf and Elrond were treated as two great leaders discussing the great issues of the day in private. If anything, the privacy of their talk allowed Elrond to be more candid than he might be in a public setting."

I totally disagree. The entire exchange seemed to be between as a superior and an underling. He is dismissive of almost all of Gandalf's ideas. And he seems to think Gandalf is niave. It did not seem like equals discussing, but one pushing his way onto the other.


Also, hate is perhaps too strong a word, but disdain is definitely not. Frustration and disappointment are explained in the movie, as you noted, but there is something else there in the way he says his lines. Especially the lines about men are weak. Just sounds like more than frustration. I guess the point is moot though: just our own interpretation of actor connotations.

[olsonm]

Elrond was certainly emotional in that scene. But I saw nothing in the exchange that would make me think that Gandalf was being berated. To what end? Elrond was clearly astonished by the news Gandalf was telling him (of Saruman) and he let his emotions show. He disagreed with Gandalf about trusting in men, but he was just expressing his opinion, an opinion which most viewers can anticipate will prove to be wrong.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
They have a BeardofPants!!!

Yes. Fear me.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Yes. Fear me.

Do you have a spear that can skewer a wild boar with? Oh, dear, is this a chatty post BB mentioned?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
Do you have a spear that can skewer a wild boar with? Oh, dear, is this a chatty post BB mentioned?

No, but I have these nuisance wings poking out of my back. (Chatty? Who us? - What's with your blasted Roosters taking out our Warriors in the NRL finals?? )

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
No, but I have these nuisance wings poking out of my back. (Chatty? Who us? - What's with your blasted Roosters taking out our Warriors in the NRL finals?? )

I heard about that but I don't really follow NRL. Go Aussies, anyway.

I'd better say something OT: I really think that Elrond has some problem with Men. I don't think it is mentioned in the movie that Elrond is half-elven, so the general public would get the idea that he doesn't like Men. I think that Elrond was perhaps slightly condescening toward Gandalf, and I think this is a mistake since I would place Gandalf 'higher' in the scheme of things.

Originally posted by BlackBreathalizer
Just because he was different that you imagined, doesn't mean Jackson was wrong.

Yes, but going by the book (which I don't have handy at the moment) Elrond's personality in the movie wasn't like what Tolkien wrote. From what I remember Elrond was more patient. Is this an improvement from the book?

[olsonm]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
Yes, but going by the book (which I don't have handy at the moment) Elrond's personality in the movie wasn't like what Tolkien wrote. From what I remember Elrond was more patient. Is this an improvement from the book?

In Elrond's other scene he was much more like he was in the book. That indicates to me that Elrond was used (in his scene with Gandalf) as a expositional device which allowed PJ and co. to get across their radically simplified history of the Dunedain in a somewhat naturalistic way. So it really isn't important to compare this scene to the book as it was establishing movie only info. I think the thematic uniformity that this change created greatly benefited the movie (esp. given it's length relative to the book); but only for the sake of the movie as a stand alone entity. So I don't consider it an improvement over the book but a clever simplification.

[Dunadan]

I agree with that, except that the portrayal of Elrond in the film makes more sense than in the book. In LOTR there are loads of unanswered questions about Elrond (why does he sit at home when he's the only living person who's been to Mount Doom, for example?) and his character is one-dimensional. You have to really dig around the Appendices to fill in the details and make sense of him (which Tolkien himself never intended readers to have to do). I liked the character in the film a lot more, and it made more immediate sense to me.

cheers

D.

[Blackheart]

Gack.

I'm so glad I'm an Elitist, and a Purist.

I used to feel a small twinge of guilt for that, you know, bashing the uneducated masses for their purile tastes.

But for some reason, I feel redeemed now. Thank you, thank you, ever so much.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by olsonm
In Elrond's other scene he was much more like he was in the book. That indicates to me that Elrond was used (in his scene with Gandalf) as a expositional device which allowed PJ and co. to get across their radically simplified history of the Dunedain in a somewhat naturalistic way. So it really isn't important to compare this scene to the book as it was establishing movie only info. I think the thematic uniformity that this change created greatly benefited the movie (esp. given it's length relative to the book); but only for the sake of the movie as a stand alone entity. So I don't consider it an improvement over the book but a clever simplification.

You're right. olsonm. This was a scene that Jackson wrote and filmed in the summer of 2001 after completing the initial edit of FOTR was completed. Jackson said he felt he needed another expositional scene in Rivendell to help the audience to better understand what was happening.

And now on to Blackheart....

[We see a meeting room filled with a bunch of guys and gals sitting around in a circle self-consciously looking at their feet. Blackheart breaks the silence...]

Blackheart: My name is Blackheart and I'm...a Purist.

The others: (in a cheerful drone) Hi Blackheart.

Black Breathalizer: (in his soothing counselor voice) Thank you for coming to tonight's meeting, Blackheart. The first step towards recovery is admitting that you are indeed a Purist.

Blackheart: But uh, actually I don't view my condition as a problem.

[The others shake their heads sadly and we hear a few whispers about "men being weak" and "desiring power."]

Black Breathalizer: (still speaking in his soothing counselor-type voice) If you wish to enjoy life here in the Jackson era, Blackheart, you need to understand and deal your fanatical addition to a strict interpretation of Tolkien and take one day at a time. There is still hope. The extended DVD and TTT will be here before you know it.

[webwizard333]

I found you in my school History book Black Breathalizer. Your in a section on debating styles. In this section there is a debator who mostly does not address the issues, but insteads adresses the people who bring up the issues. My book labels this as faulty logic. For the most part, you've made snide comments about people being purist and elitist simply because they did not share the same view you did that the movies improved upon the books. I have looked through the thread, and not found one mention from the people you've debated with that says your an idiot or anything of the sort. I did find, however, you making fun of other posters' opinions and at one point calling another poster childish because they refused to continue to listen to you call them purist and elitist without end. What I'm trying to get at, is that you seem to be an elitist of sorts against people wh

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by webwizard333
I found you in my school History book Black Breathalizer. Your in a section on debating styles.

You found my debate style outlined in a HISTORY book?!?!?!?? Congrats, webwizard, you got me pegged, dude.

[BeardofPants]

I hate to disappoint you BB, but we've all got you pegged. It goes something like this:

X disagrees with BB.

BB: Purist!

X asks for an argument.

BB: Elitist purist!

X sees the cyclic nature of the "rebuttle" but continues to ask for an Actual Argument.

BB: Purist! (Whispers aside: I'll set up a strawman!)

X gets bored of being called a purist and leaves the thread.

BB: Childish purist!

<Inserts some silly, snide scenario in an attempt to belittle them.>

[Blackheart]

[[We see a meeting room filled with a bunch of guys and gals sitting around in a circle self-consciously looking at their feet. Blackheart breaks the silence...]

Blackheart: My name is Blackheart and I'm...a Purist.

The others: (in a cheerful drone) Hi Blackheart.

Black Breathalizer: (in his soothing counselor voice) Thank you for coming to tonight's meeting, Blackheart. The first step towards recovery is admitting that you are indeed a Purist.

Blackheart: But uh, actually I don't view my condition as a problem.

[The others shake their heads sadly and we hear a few whispers about "men being weak" and "desiring power."]

Black Breathalizer: (still speaking in his soothing counselor-type voice) If you wish to enjoy life here in the Jackson era, Blackheart, you need to understand and deal your fanatical addition to a strict interpretation of Tolkien and take one day at a time. There is still hope. The extended DVD and TTT will be here before you know it.

Thank you so much. You bring back memories of all the time I wasted as a therapist dealing with egocentric rabble-rousers who seek to monopolize attention so that they can feel something other than their neurotic ennui. I tip my hat to you, you have captured the essence in a most astounding manner.

However, I should point out that power is there for those who can take it. I don't need anyone's permission to state baldly and flatly that the adaptation presented by Mr. Jackson falls short of the book, just as any movie falls short when compared to the literature it is based upon. You can certainly disagree, but I have yet to see anything convincing about your supposition that the movie was an enhancement of the book, which is a secondary clarification that the movie was an improvement over the book. That is of course your opinion, and you are welcome to it. I shall allow myself the opportunity to laugh snidely in an elitist and purist manner in your general direction. Ha. Ha. Ha.

For me it has to do with the inherent shortcomings of Drama Vs. Literature. Of course, it's not like you actually care about having a discussion based on the relative merits of the picture vs. the book. You've already made up your mind, presented your position, and decided that anyone who holds a separate opinion has an invalid argument, merely because they must be against dramatization, or some kind of "purist".

Well here's something for you to mull over. I think that [i]I[i/] could have done a better job than Jackson, given the same budget. My caveat is of course that 300 million isn't likely to drop in my pocket any time soon. But I still reserve the right to state that I would do better than an add for Schlitz Malt Liquor for my Balrog, and a sword wielding hussy for the daughter of the one of the eldest and most refined individuals in the Third age.

On the whole, the only thing I was impressed with was the attempt, the effort, that went into trying to recreate the atmosphere. I certainly must give some credit there. However, the fact that they did succeed to a degree, only causes me distress when something obviously garish and ill fitting rears it's ugly head. Rather like a turd in a punch bowl, if you prefer vulgar analogies.

So call me a purist. I am a purist. And I'm an elitist too. And as an elitist, you just aren't measuring up to my high standards, I'm afraid

This should give you plenty of stuff to squawk about, and I shall return in due time to give you more.

[cassiopeia]

Ok, I'm going to sum up my feelings (hopefully) in this post. There are some parts of the book that I think could be improved. Maybe Arwen and Elrond's involvement. But I DON'T think that Peter Jackson improved any part of the book. Now I love the book and the movie. Heck, I went to see it three times at the movies and probably have watched it more than twenty times on video. I don't know if I could have done a better job at making the movie, but I probably would have suggested some different scenes. BB, you seem to think from your previous posts that if everyone thinks the film is great then it IS great. From this thread, the majority of posters think that PJ didn't improve the movie (even though they love the movie), so by your logic, maybe PJ didn't improve the movie.

[webwizard333]

I'd just like to add two things tonight.

1) Ignore the last sentence in my previous post, at that point I was desperately trying to finish the post before my mom came into the room and found out I wasn't doing the homework I was supposed to be doing. I think my final point was that-You seem to be sayings other people are elitist, when you yourself seem to be trying to force an elitist opinion on others. Or something along those lines, it's late and I'm having difficulty verbalizing myself.

2) I really liked the movie! I thought that the sets were beautiful, some of the musical score was brilliant, much of the acting was superb, and that it had amazing special effects. Despite these and other great qualities, I still personally feel it falls short of the film. This was in part to my belief that it had made unnessecary changes to the overall plot and that for my own personal tastes in entertainment books are almost always better than movies.

I'll add some more tomorrow.