I just found another Peter Jackson's blunder

[Ricardo]

View attachment 43832
Looks like PJ is back on the menu boys!​

I am on a diet.

 

[Ent]

it has to do with carelessness when writing the script.

Where we find a 'carelessness' in writing the MOVIE script itself, this is certainly a 'blunder.'
However, my questions come when our 'blunders' are directed at a 'difference from Tolkien's text, or characters, or events as written by Tolkien.'
I do not see such as a blunder, as there was never an intent to adhere strictly to Tolkien's text.

Some would say PJ's use of "shall not" vs. "cannot" is a 'blunder' due to it's second definition* below.
This comment ASSUMES or EXPECTS - (both of which are a problem) - there was INTENT to adhere to the text. There never was.
The change does massive injustice to Tolkien's INTENT, but the adaptation was not of Tolkien's Words, or of Tolkien's Intent, but of Tolkien's 'story.'** And 'story' is a very broad term.

*Blunder Definitions:
1: to move unsteadily or confusedly
2: to make a mistake through stupidity, ignorance, or carelessness

Even with definition #2 of blunder above, the question is: "what is a 'mistake'"? That, too, requires some measuring stick.
Many try to apply the measuring stick of Tolkien's words, character development, precise meaning, or exacting event correlation as the measure, etc.
This is just not the case. The ONLY criteria was to be "an adaptation of Tolkien's STORY."

**Story definition:
1. an account*** of past events in someone's life or in the evolution of something.
2. an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment.

***Account definition:
A report or description of an event or experience.


I mean, even if we go back to the original post, and then review the response by @Elthir, we see the original thing called a 'blunder' was perhaps missing just a few elements needing to be considered in the full grasp of the statement made.

It would be perfectly fine to say PJ 'blundered' where he was messing up details of and within his own story.

But we cannot say he 'blundered' because his recounting of Tolkien's story doesn't match Tolkien's account precisely. The expectation is that it intended to. It simply didn't.

Even decades ago, when I did my website on the massive differences between L. Frank Baum's Wizard of Oz, and the MGM 1939 movie, I could not refer to any of the differences as "blunders" unless they were mistakes made by the movie producers. (Of which there were also quite a few, and these were 'blunders'. They were also handled differently, on the website.)

But my dear @Ricardo - we can agree to disagree. I sense both of us feel quite justified in the perspectives we hold, and neither of us sees a route to a change. This, too, is fine.

Above all, this is the comment you make I appreciate most, and am thrilled by:

I don't have a problem with people liking the movies, I would never tell people what to like or what to not like, I just express my opinion.

As long as we grasp the truth all are entitled to their opinion - and more especially, to their perspective (the two are not the same) - we can all be "happy campers."

ADAPTATION DEFINITION: the act of changing something to make it suitable for a new purpose or situation

 

[Erestor Arcamen]

Yeah, I always saw this as Aragon basically saying "it's the beards" as in the dwarf women have beards too, thus making them hard to differentiate from the dwarf men.

 

[Ashley]

*Blunder Definitions:
1: to move unsteadily or confusedly
2: to make a mistake through stupidity, ignorance, or carelessness

**Story definition:
1. an account*** of past events in someone's life or in the evolution of something.
2. an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment.

***Account definition:
A report or description of an event or experience.

@Ent Just out of curiosity, what dictionary do you use when you are providing these definitions?

 

[Ent]

By the way, @Ricardo - rather than digging out on the forum here where else I've spoken to the whole unfolding scenes of Moria issue, I'll find my essay on it later on my home computer, and send it to you soon, attached to a PM. It's got a bit more development on it, as I've expanded it a little toward inclusion in the book. (far from done... but has the rudiments of what the sequence contains.)

what dictionary do you use

Multiple. I review Oxford, Cambridge, Collins, Websters (usually with a slightly skeptical eye, though at times Websters hits things more succinctly and directly than others), Dictionary.com, and sometimes even ask AI for a general rendering from its review of all its various sources to compare its summary with my own..

The result is a 'compendium' of these primary sources, as they 'match' across the review.
Sometimes I also refer to "Etymology Online" and a couple other Etymology sources I have electronically, if I am seeking the meaning as it was at some point in history - or a word's sources and understandings/definitions in other languages.

Words are critically important to me.

Indeed, our own great and illustrious @Squint-eyed Southerner and I went 'head to head' as some like to say, on a particular word at one point in time.
I maintained (and to a degree, still do), Tolkien used it incorrectly.
Squint maintained such was not so.
In working at the word for quite some time, I came to see Tolkien was at the leading edge of - perhaps even one of the earliest movers of - the 'change' of the word and its meaning as history unfolded. (Words and their meaning are always on the move.)

So it may well be Tolkien did not use it "incorrectly" at all - but "intentionally" - molding it as it was in the process of doing in any event. A promulgator of the change, one might say.

 

[Eljorahir]

For me, I like how the short scene gives (or at least teases) a few book-accurate tidbits.

Gimli's not good on horseback by himself.
The first dwarves were created underground.
Dwarf women are non-existent in Tolkien's published work (I think).

 

[Ent]

Dwarf women are non-existent in Tolkien's published work (I think).

oh how very interesting. I'll peek into this. Thanks for another on my 'to research' list..!!!

 

[Elthir]

Yeah, I always saw this as Aragon basically saying "it's the beards" as in the dwarf women have beards too, thus making them hard to differentiate from the dwarf men.

Me three. And in the context of the film, I think one could interpret Viggogorn as possibly making a joke -- or at least, I'm not sure if one can say Meowyn herself, for certain, didn't take it as a joke.

I wonder if non-Tolkien fans thought Aragorn was "revealing" something here, or possibly not.

(. . .) Dwarf women are non-existent in Tolkien's published work (I think).

Dís is mentioned in Appendix A, at least.

 

[Eljorahir]

Dís is mentioned in Appendix A, at least.

I stand corrected on that one.

That's what I get for skipping the appendices for most of my read-throughs over the years.

Edit: The mention of a single dwarf-woman in the book maybe makes Gimli's line perfectly true and even a little funnier:

"It's true you don't see many dwarf women..."

 

[Elthir]

Gimli's not good on horseback by himself.

He basically blunders off its back

 

[Ent]

@Elthir and @Eljorahir above - blowing the fun right out of my intended future research project..!!
Such is the power of The Tolkien Forum. 🤣

 

[Eljorahir]

He basically blunders off its back

Maybe Gimli should have taken the blunderbuss.

No, I guess that's only in Farmer Giles of Ham. Wrong universe.

 

[Deimos]

Maybe Gimli should have taken the blunderbuss.

No, I guess that's only in Farmer Giles of Ham. Wrong universe.

He probably should have just taken the bus.

 

[Elthir]

Dear Ent, instead of researching the She-dwarrows, you'll now have more time to compare Jackson's "Shire-grass" with proper, Oxfordshire (types of) grass.

and I expect the outcome of such research to fall in line with my opinion as mumbled in post 11

 

[Ent]

Ah, dear @Elthir. I shall do my best (when the time comes.)
But be aware - many questiosn must be answered before a perspective can be built.
1. My 'research' is generally not extended to PJ's works - other than as they are comparative to Tolkien's original.
2. I must determine whether true "Shire-grass" of so many ages ago, is in fact similar or the same as current "Oxfordshire (types of) grass.
3. I must then consider PJ's adaptation consistent with what true "shire grass" may have looked like, as well as current "Oxfordshire (types of) grass may be like.

This at a minimum, before I can address your mumblings, and respond in kind with some of my own.

(Note: As this particular research item feels more like a tidbit for the PJ Forum than the Tolkien Forum, it also of necessity falls a little lower on the 'research project priority' scale, I fear. Nonetheless, I will give it some address in its time.)

 

[Ricardo]

Where we find a 'carelessness' in writing the MOVIE script itself, this is certainly a 'blunder.'
However, my questions come when our 'blunders' are directed at a 'difference from Tolkien's text, or characters, or events as written by Tolkien.'
I do not see such as a blunder, as there was never an intent to adhere strictly to Tolkien's text.

For me there is a difference between altering a text or scene and making a change (whether it's adding something, removing something or changing something) that makes the plot wrong, inconsistent, both very common in the movie (again, I have a long list of examples).

Some would say PJ's use of "shall not" vs. "cannot" is a 'blunder' due to it's second definition* below.
This comment ASSUMES or EXPECTS - (both of which are a problem) - there was INTENT to adhere to the text. There never was.
The change does massive injustice to Tolkien's INTENT, but the adaptation was not of Tolkien's Words, or of Tolkien's Intent, but of Tolkien's 'story.'** And 'story' is a very broad term.

I think this particular mistake is understandable. I myself didn't realize about that. But again, adhering strictly to the text is not what I expect, but changing the context of the story is not acceptable IMO. They are using Tolkien's name and Tolkien's work titles, they should respect Tolkien's intent and I fully expect that.

*Blunder Definitions:
1: to move unsteadily or confusedly
2: to make a mistake through stupidity, ignorance, or carelessness

well for me this fall in the second point, carelessness. In Peter Jackson's defense this fact wasn't stated in LOTR but in the much more obscure War of the Jewels, that's why I consider it minor.

Even with definition #2 of blunder above, the question is: "what is a 'mistake'"? That, too, requires some measuring stick.
Many try to apply the measuring stick of Tolkien's words, character development, precise meaning, or exacting event correlation as the measure, etc.
This is just not the case. The ONLY criteria was to be "an adaptation of Tolkien's STORY."

Here you are mixing different things. Some are acceptable, some are not.
They can change words as long as they don't change meaning.
Character development is definitely a point I am not willing to budge. When I saw what Jackson did to a character like Faramir, or Frodo I thought that completely unacceptable.
Changing the event correlation is ok, but not when it leads to serious plot problems, there are parts of the books that contain elements that are important later, if they were to remove that part they need to come up with alternative ways to explain it, and they didn't. An example is the whole Tom Bombadil story, I can elaborate separately if you want.

**Story definition:
1. an account*** of past events in someone's life or in the evolution of something.
2. an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment.

***Account definition:
A report or description of an event or experience.

Again, there isn't a one size fits all here, it depends on the story or the account and how they do it. In many cases they did it wrong.

I mean, even if we go back to the original post, and then review the response by @Elthir, we see the original thing called a 'blunder' was perhaps missing just a few elements needing to be considered in the full grasp of the statement made.

I said it was minor, but when there so many you either become complacent or react to even minors problems in the narrative.

It would be perfectly fine to say PJ 'blundered' where he was messing up details of and within his own story.

there are plenty examples about that. And in the case of the Hobbit practically 80% of the movies.

But we cannot say he 'blundered' because his recounting of Tolkien's story doesn't match Tolkien's account precisely. The expectation is that it intended to. It simply didn't.

not about matching it precisely, it's about contradicting it.

Even decades ago, when I did my website on the massive differences between L. Frank Baum's Wizard of Oz, and the MGM 1939 movie, I could not refer to any of the differences as "blunders" unless they were mistakes made by the movie producers. (Of which there were also quite a few, and these were 'blunders'. They were also handled differently, on the website.)

I can't comment on that. The wizard of Oz was never among my favorites.

But my dear @Ricardo - we can agree to disagree. I sense both of us feel quite justified in the perspectives we hold, and neither of us sees a route to a change. This, too, is fine.

Isn't that the purpose of the forum? to exchange ideas, opinions, information. If we all agree on everything and knew everything it would be boring.

Above all, this is the comment you make I appreciate most, and am thrilled by:

As long as we grasp the truth all are entitled to their opinion - and more especially, to their perspective (the two are not the same) - we can all be "happy campers."

ADAPTATION DEFINITION: the act of changing something to make it suitable for a new purpose or situation

I think we can agree that calling this particular a "blunder" was innapropiate because
1) it's an obscure fact that only devote Tolkien fans will know
2) It's really not important within the story

But I tend to look at the movies with a very critical eye, because of the many real blunders. And they seem to happen mostly in the felowship of the ring, although some of them have consequences in the other 2 movies, especially the return of the king.

I tried to put myself on the perspective of a movie watcher that has no read the books, or has read them casually, and I find that I wouldn't have a clue what the movie is about and that IMO is bad story telling.

 

[Elthir]

Thank you Ent. I look forward to your grassy conclusions, given that I can hardly look backward to them.

And for full disclosure, I should add: it's just a bit more than very likely that no amount of research will ever alter my opinion that modern Oxfordshire/English grass is "better" (in some measure) for Tolkienian Shire-grass -- than modern New Zealand grass or grasses.

And if the grasses turn out to be the same. . . my bad (blunder)!

Silliness somewhat aside, here's an actual film-based expectation I had had, long, long ago now:
Oh the first film would "surely" (I thought) open with a depiction of the Shire based on Tolkien's own illustration -- JRRT's drawing come to life, so to speak -- bird's eye view -- zooming in, slowly down to Gandalf approaching Bag End.

I still wanna see this. Someday maybe 🐾

 

[Ricardo]

I want to add a comment about Christopher Tolkien disliking the movies and that being the reason why there isn't a Silmarillon movie.

First, I have a profound respect for Christopher Tolkien. I think his work is underrated and commendable. If you read the history of Middle Earth you realize how difficult his task was. A bunch of separate manuscripts, letters, notes, often contradictory, often changed. Some existed in multiple copies (carbon copies or transcripts) and Tolkien altered some things in the original and some things in the copy.

Coming up with a book that reveals a consistent story out of that material is an incredible feat. While it has some mistakes, the Silmarillion is consistent from page 1 to the end. Even the geography, the dates, the language are taken care of, and that wasn't easy because as I said, Tolkien changed his mind multiple times and while a brilliant creator, it seem he wasn't too organized. (and at the time, they didn't have computers or AI to help).

Christopher was not only JRRT's son, he was probably his biggest fan and the most knowledgeable expert in his father's work. And he felt that Peter Jackson didn't respect his father's writings. They could have made a lot of money by selling the rights to the Silmarillion but PJ clearly crossed several lines and I think Christopher thought that giving the rights to his father's most important work would be disrespecting his memory.

 

[Ricardo]

Here are some of CT's comments on the movies.

"Eviscerating" the books: In a 2012 interview with the French newspaper Le Monde, Christopher Tolkien famously stated that the films "eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25." He felt that the films sacrificed the depth, beauty, and philosophical themes of his father's work for the sake of fast-paced action and a more conventional Hollywood narrative.

Commercialization and "Monster" of Popularity: He saw the massive commercial success and merchandising surrounding the films as a "monster" that had "devoured" his father's creation. He believed that this commercialization had "reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing."


Divergence from the source material: While some adaptations make minor changes, Christopher Tolkien felt that Jackson's films made significant alterations that changed the essence of the story and its characters. He was particularly unimpressed by changes made for dramatic effect, such as adding the Elves to the Battle of Helm's Deep or altering the character of Faramir.

 

[Ent]

I respect your decision to hold your position, on many levels and in many areas, @Ricardo.
We fully agree Tolkien's work has not yet "been done justice" in any way - either by any movies yet made, or frankly, by any books yet written.
This is not in the least where our disagreement lies.
We simply disagree on certain semantics. And my view is to how other members of the Forum 'see and react' to foreceful statements like "Another of PJ's blunders."
This is a bit condemnatory, (and in my view amiss unless it relates to his fidelity to his own script), and has brougnt many to let me know they simpluy will not speak of things here on the forum because they are met with such criticism by (what many call) the purists on Tolkien's works.

So I act to try to 'level the field' a bit, so people see "it's OK to disagree, and share" as well as to help some others consider HOW they say WHAT they say to see if there is a more "inviting" way to move into 'discussion' rather than 'argument' or even 'contention.'

(This at times brings a certain level of 'argument' - even 'contention' - all of its own. But I still believe serves a certain purpose.)

Trust me, sir @Ricardo, I drive many people nuts. But I would rather drive some nuts, than see people continue to leave, or remain quiet, at risk of riling the more hard-core among us.

You yourself are far from 'demanding' or 'insisting' people see things your way. And it also seems you are receptive to others' input.
That said, we can leave it here as the 'profit' of the exchange has pretty well run its course.

I won't respond to either of your posts above, given the situation as it is...feeling this is the best course of action to take at this time.

(Though if you want it, I will still be happy to send you some of my explorations in Tolkien's inclusions and intentions in his text still overlooked and not seen by most, including any writers in the arena I have so far encountered.)