Purity and the Critics

Greenwood said:

Ah Thorin, but since the first film Arwen hasn't picked up as much as a steak knife in TTT or ROTK as far as I can remember, but you are still referring to her as Xen-Arwen and crying "blasphemy". I would think you might be pleased at the possibility that your outrage was passed on to PJ and he did not place Arwen at Helm's Deep or the Pelennor Fields.

I remember saying two years ago that just because they filmed scenes of Arwen fighting didn't mean they would end up in the film. You were rather vehement in insisting that there was no way they wouldn't use them. Instead of being glad and giving ole PJ some credit for "seeing the light", you are still bashing him for "Xen-Arwen" and "blasphemy".

BTW, nice to "see" you again.

Click to expand...

Yes. But this makes me even more mad. To blow her character way out of proportion and make me gag on my popcorn and howl over it for the next two years only to script her exactly as they should have to begin with only compounds my anger. He tried to tell the story better (and failed) and then went right back to Tolkien. Well the first movie was already spoiled. The fact that he even filmed Arwen at Helm's Deep makes me want to throttle him. Thanks, PJ for realising what the purists knew all along....Tolkien's way was better.

Yes, it could have been worse had he kept the Xen-Arwen thing going...but it makes me wonder why it all had to be done anyway. A good movie was spoiled for nothing.

Ol'gaffer said:

I can. I have no problems what so ever with the scenes, and most short, that did not destroy the movies atleast to me.

Click to expand...

In the second two films it seemed every time I got into the mood of the film something stupid or annoying appeared on screen to jolt me out of it. It wasn’nt only in a few places.

I'm sorry for you that the Glorfindel extreme horse race feat. the black riders wasn't in the movie, but I personally would have found it useless to introduce just some elf to the public who haven't read the books, only to have him dissappear after that scene.

Click to expand...

Cameo appearances in films by characters who are not later seen are common enough in books and films. They aren’t necessarily either useful or useless. It depends on the story. That characters are not reused does tend to open up tale, suggesting that what we are reading or viewing is part of an interlace of many other tales. Gildor and Farmer Maggott and Glorfindel and Imrahil and Arwen are all characters of that kind in the book.

Arwen worked well in that scene.

Click to expand...

But Frodo would have worked better in terms of the theme of the story as a whole. Jackson wanted to make the love story more central. It began well enough, then trailed off into confusion. All kinds of things would have worked well, including what Tolkien himself wrote. But as to what occurred ...

As presented the chace was scenically excellent. But Jackson’ eye candy that is dramatic only if the viewer doesn’t think. You have to watch mindlessly. See here for my comments on it.

But, if you hate that scene, I can't change your mind about it.

Click to expand...

And if you watch the films mindlessly then you will not understand. If you don’t accept my perceptions in the other thread, respond there. If you do accept it, then ask yourself why you didn’t notice something so obvious yourself.

Should I try to make myself unperceptive enough so as not to notice such glaring dramatic fakery in these films or other films.

Yet I find the Arwen chase to be a comparatively minor flaw compared to many other sections. The first film was the only one I liked (which seems to be a common reaction). There are so many other places in all the films where the action doesn’t make sense or the tone is wrong or the language fails or Jackson attempts to force a response which I don’t accept, because I can’t suspend disbelief in the nonsense presented on screen or in how poorly the source has been adapted.

(Yes, there are exceptions. For me the moth scene worked wonderfully, for example. Jackson’s protrayal of the Ring itself was also excellent. Giving a bow to Aragorn (where Tolkien had him unarmed) made sense. The acting was generally good and sometimes magnificent.)

My chief dislike is not that the films are different than Tolkien ... it is that they are too often unnecessarily worse than Tolkien. Too much is badly adapted, watered down, Hollywood-dumb, decked out with gimmicks and bad gags. Yes changes are necessary. But why must so many of the changes made be changes for the worse?

I don’t want need or want most of Jackson’s visions when Tolkien’s words and the internal visions I have from them are so often far superior.

jallan said:

Cameo appearances in films by characters who are not later seen are common enough in books and films. They aren’t necessarily either useful or useless. It depends on the story. That characters are not reused does tend to open up tale, suggesting that what we are reading or viewing is part of an interlace of many other tales. Gildor and Farmer Maggott and Glorfindel and Imrahil and Arwen are all characters of that kind in the book.

Click to expand...

But of the characters you mention:

Gildor -- seemed like a relatively minor, transient character in the book (though he does reappear again in the end)

Imrahil -- I have always thought of as a significant character in the book and I kind of missed him in the movie (but not enough to make a difference to me)

Farmer Maggott -- once again, a relatively minor character; books are filled with minor characters that the main characters meet in passing; if you call a waving scythe and a distant voice a movie appearance, well than he appeared but barely

Arwen -- certainly not a minor character; there are passing references to he sprinkled through the books and she marries the King!

Glorfindel -- Ah, the mighty Glorfindel; strong enough to face the assembled Nine and then what does he do -- nothing!

Greenwood said:

Imrahil -- I have always thought of as a significant character in the book and I kind of missed him in the movie (but not enough to make a difference to me)

Click to expand...

I think he might have showed up in the film- a fellow with long blond hair says something to the effect that "It is just as the Lord Denethor has long foreseen" when Gandalf says that Mordor is about to attack. He is also seen at the walls when Faramir and co. ride out, and I believe he is the one who brings the stricken Faramir to Denethor (as Imrahil does in the books). My bet is that this was Imrahil, but I can't seem to find him on the credits at IMDB.

In response to Arvedui, I can understand that you might resist the label. I myself don't like to be labelled either. If it is any comfort, I feel the group has a dynamic greater than the individuals, so that noone is compelled to live with the label if it doesn't fit. You seem to show some characteristics of what I have described, but are not entirely typical. In describing the group, it is necessary to look for those features that are distinguishing, which inevitably leads to a range of characteristics not apparent in their entirety in some of the people who might broadly fit.

Secondly, yes I am criticising the purist position, but in the sense of it being a 'critical analysis'; rather than it being an attack. I reject, for example, the notion that purists have been "driven crazy" in any sense. I will look at why these appellations are cast at purists in a later post. The purist position makes sense from their standpoint, and in seeking a cultural explanation of it, I am not seeking to add to the mutual hostilities. In fact, I hope that eventually, some understanding might allow people to diffuse the frustrations a little. I don't expect this will have any great effect though, because the differences are more than merely opinion.

I have, implicitly, been challenged to analyse the so-called ‘FAD’ phenomenon. To my mind, this is less exceptional than the Purism, but if the methods I used in my previous analysis are of any value then they ought to yield insight in the social and cultural roots of those who defend the works of Jackson.

At once it is necessary to distinguish between categories of FAD, in a way that is less necessary than with the purists. The purists are not homogenous, but do present themselves as a category with the usual variation in any group of people, but with important characteristics in common. This is not the case with the FADs – which necessarily makes the term FAD rather a blunt instrument. The key distinction I intend to make is between ‘True Movie Fans’ (TMFs) and another group who I will name the "Centrists".

The TMFs are generally young – predominantly in their teens. This is the key fact of their existence that determines their enjoyment of the movies. Teenage life is a search for an independent identity, in which relationships with friends are often (apparently) more important than family or partners. Family is the past, and partners are the future, but the present is about progressing past a series of barriers to independence, be they exams or parental rules. The barriers to independence are very often an enforcement of those things that make life boring: often excrutiatingly so. However, independence is daunting, causing great anxiety. Accordingly, teenagers value friendship highly. Only friends truly understand the need for excitement and the ambiguous fear of but excitement about the future. As a result close friends are possibly closer at this age than any other, but simultaneously popularity is highly important. But it is impossible to be intimate with every possible friend, so superficial signals serve to convey shared values. This leads both to an extreme interest in appearances, fashion and attitude; but it is in tension with the desire for independent identity and therefore lessens as the teenager reaches maturity. At this age, expressions of independence and individual identity are likely to become more significant than expressions of conformity. At the same time, teenagers often lack a strong stake in society, being uncertain about their future relation to it, and this leads to an often idealised (and even idealistic) view of the world.

So in relation to these behaviours we can see how the Lord of the Rings movies have a wide appeal. The youthful hobbits are easy to identify with; and their journey too resonates. They are easy to identify with because their behaviour is a mixture of teenage (Merry and Pippin) and immediately post-teen (Frodo and Sam) behaviour: the valuing of friendship more than family, the revelry, the goofing around, and independent spirit. Their quest also resonates: it is a journey that renounces home for danger, in an idealistic quest for good against evil. In doing so, along the way they face their fears, and are helped by older but undoubtedly ‘cool’ figures such as Aragorn and Legolas. They are trustworthy, knowledgeable, attractive and very stylish in appearance, speech and actions. The enemy is incontravertably evil: therefore giving moral certainty which has great appeal. Enemies are defined, and then friendship itself becomes a key theme to be explored: the most wonderful friendship forged in the face of shared adversity: just that which teenagers most aspire to.

These values are more or less shared with the book: and hence often TMFs will also enjoy the books. But the movies convey something else. They are big budget movies, viewed in the movie theatre, with resounding music, flamboyant special effects, the grand scale of the cinematography. As such it is in itself exciting and sensational, which further attracts the bored TMF. But additionally, they convey the values of Hollywood. To the purist these are abhorrent, but the TMF doesn’t recoil. Hollywood represents excitement, style, and above all success: the very things that the TMF aspires to. The more successful the movies are, the more the TMF feels justified in enjoying them, and consequently the more irrational criticism will appear.

The TMF therefore is notable in the movie discussions by uncritical praise for the movies. Their discussion is likely to be posed in a purely subjective assessment of what is cool, which character they liked the most, which scene was best. However, they are liable to react angrily, if the movies are criticised. The movies become close to their hearts, as they identify heavily with the characters who become to them like their friends, and they identify closely with the phenomenon. Thus they are likely to feel that the criticism is personal, and that they are obliged to defend the movies.

Is this a form of "Jackson purism"? It doesn't seem correct to put this label on it. Where as the "Purist" associates the works of the author with their own moral values, and therefore fears corruption, the TMF identifies the movies with their personal aspirations. When the movies are attacked, they do not respond with moral outrage, but with the idea that such criticism is stupid, that those who criticise don't "get it", and this may be personally annoying but not ultimately a serious threat to their world. However, the fact that the serious criticism is only from a minority position makes it far easier to ignore.

The Centrists are a different group entirely. I’ll discuss them in another post. This one is long enough!

jallan said:

In the second two films it seemed every time I got into the mood of the film something stupid or annoying appeared on screen to jolt me out of it. It wasn#&8217nt only in a few places.Cameo appearances in films by characters who are not later seen are common enough in books and films. They aren’t necessarily either useful or useless. It depends on the story. That characters are not reused does tend to open up tale, suggesting that what we are reading or viewing is part of an interlace of many other tales. Gildor and Farmer Maggott and Glorfindel and Imrahil and Arwen are all characters of that kind in the book.But Frodo would have worked better in terms of the theme of the story as a whole. Jackson wanted to make the love story more central. It began well enough, then trailed off into confusion. All kinds of things would have worked well, including what Tolkien himself wrote. But as to what occurred ...
And if you watch the films mindlessly then you will not understand. If you don’t accept my perceptions in the other thread, respond there. If you do accept it, then ask yourself why you didn’t notice something so obvious yourself.

Click to expand...

So basically the reason that I like the movies and the changes is because I watch them mindlessly unlike you?

For one, a cameo means that a person involved making a movie or a person linked to that story is seen for a few moments or says a few things, it won't be a cameo anymore if the charecter has an entire scene devoted to him or her.

I don't mind the changes because I can accept both views, I'm more open minded to that.

And like I've said, you can keep your opinions, they don't affect me, but don't try and tell me what I'm watching mindlessly or not.

Greenwood said:

However, many purists go further and say that the films are bad as films and that Jackson is a bad director.

Click to expand...

joxy said:

I haven't seen one who says the entire films are bad, and that PJ is a totally bad director. The opinion on that subject is that the films have SOME cinematic faults, and that, therefore, PJ is not FULLY competent in his job. That really isn't such a dramatic claim; perfection, and even near-perfection, are quite rare commodities in most professions.

Click to expand...

and from the "What Character Did PJ Do Right" thread here

joxy said:

And now Lee, one PJ's most vocal defenders, despite, or maybe because of his part, is demolished altogether - now tell me PJ is not incompetent.

Click to expand...

So which is it? Not FULLY competent or incompetent? When I point out the extreme positions some purists take you ask for examples or say that no one takes such extreme positions. Saying PJ is an incompetent director most people would understand, I believe, is the same as saying he is a bad director. Or do I have to look up "incompetent" in my Random House Webster's?

Greenwood said:

<Originally Posted by joxy
The opinion on that subject is that the films have SOME cinematic faults, and that, therefore, PJ is not FULLY competent in his job. That really isn't such a dramatic claim; perfection, and even near-perfection, are quite rare commodities in most professions.>
<Originally Posted by joxy And now Lee, one PJ's most vocal defenders, despite, or maybe because of his part, is demolished altogether - now tell me PJ is not incompetent.>

So which is it? Not FULLY competent or incompetent?
Saying PJ is an incompetent director most people would understand, I believe, is the same as saying he is a bad director.

Click to expand...

He's not FULLY, not entirely, not totally, not completely, certainly not mainly, incompetent.
Was it really essential for me to insert the qualification "tell me PJ is not competent, in respect of this specific incident"?
Don't readers here have the intelligence to know when such a phrase is to be "understood", "taken for granted"?
Like most other human beings he is sometimes incompetent.
I have invited defences of the Lee dismissal and been offered some. They don't convince me that I was wrong to say that,
in respect of that specific incident, he was incompetent.
The Lee incident is a major one; I and many others have quoted many other examples of incompetence, including those of a technical nature such as the disappearing barrels. They are all outweighed by his competence in most of the films, but they are still there, still incompetencies.
Obviously, "incompetent" isn't exactly a compliment, but saying it implies "bad" is going too far. PJ may be doing his best; it's just not quite good enough to qualify as perfection.
When we can all claim to be totally competent, the world will be a less interesting place.

Ah, I do enjoy these excursions into the meanings of words.

from Random House Webster's Dictionary:

competent (adj.) -- 1. having suitable or sufficient skill, knowledge, experience, etc., for some purpose; properly qualified.
2. adequate but not exceptional.

incompetent (adj.) -- 1. lacking qualification or ability; incapable.
2. characterized by or showing incompetence.

Click to expand...

My understanding of the above definitions is that while you may refer to levels of competence, the word incompetence is highly negative. Certainly, that has been how I have understood the word incompetence in general usage. Calling somebody incompetent, expecially in their chosen profession is highly negative, much more so then suggesting they are not fully competent. I considered this might be another case of differences in understanding across the "Pond", so I checked my OED. (Yes, I have one, but it is the Compact Edition and hence a bit cumbersome to use.)

incompetent (adj) -- 1. insufficient, inadequate
2. of inadequate ability or fitness; not having the requisite capacity or qualification; incapable

Click to expand...

Maybe it is me, but I get the same feeling of incompetent being a highly negative thing to call some one in terms of their profession.

NOTE: I have left out the definitions of competent and incompetent related to sanity and insanity because I was reasonably sure the words weren't be used in that sense.

The point of all this word play is that some "purists" show a great hostility to Jackson and the LOTR movies (why is the subject of Snaga's original posts that started this thread), yet when this hostility is pointed out there is a tendency to somewhat indignantly deny the hostility exists. (And I am not even discussing jallan's air of superiority with his frequent suggestion of mindlessness on the part of people who enjoy the films.)

As I have said before, if someone doesn't like the films, that's an opinion and everyone is entitled to one. But you should leave it at that. Snaga's analysis was why some purists don't. I look forward to his promised analysis of those he has called "Centrists".

(The reason for some being emphasized is because I realize that not all who call themselves purists engage in the described behavior.)

When someone accuses another of incompetence, that is a general comment on their abilities as a person, not a specific reference to their actions at a particular point in time, Joxy. If you want to be understood, use the language in the same way as everyone else. That way you won't have to keep clarifying.

Jallan posted

As presented the chace was scenically excellent. But Jackson’ eye candy that is dramatic only if the viewer doesn’t think. You have to watch mindlessly.

Click to expand...

Another excellent example of purist sectarianism: if you don't agree with me you are stupid! In particular, there is only one way to approach art. Again, the obsessive pseudo-realism, pseudo-objectivity: the demand that every detail must be explained, the parts are more important than the whole. The essence of the "Flight to the Ford" scene is that one horse with Arwen and Frodo is chased by the Nine. A realist perspective on this would demand that this is shot in a strict linear fashion, so you can see how each horse moves from A to B, with no breaks. A tracking shot. Or one step away from this, at least total realism in how the horses are positioned in relation to each other from one shot to another. By contrast, Jackson shoots a number of discontinuous shots of the horse chase, which give us a very powerful impression of a horse chase, with some pleasing symetries at times, and a great deal of dramatic tension, but ultimately not entirely realistic. But the demand for realism is again archaic: from the impressionists taking tentative steps, through to the modernist movement in the twenties, and the rise of abstract art, the demand for realism has been swept aside. The modern movie is perhaps less forward thinking in this than other forms. But even the staple of the fightscene now is closer to ballet than a real life brawl. The Matrix has reinvented it completely, taking elegance, poise and style over the physicality of bruises and falling over.

The demand for realism is at once the characteristic nitpicking over detail, combined with the disavowal of modernity.

Greenwood said:

I do enjoy these excursions into the meanings of words.

....while you may refer to levels of competence, the word incompetence is highly negative
....some "purists" show a great hostility to Jackson and the LOTR movies....
....if someone doesn't like the films....

Click to expand...

So do I enjoy them, and so did Tolkien, which is one of the many reasons why I admire Tolkien, and defend him, especially in matters of words.

If there are levels, or degrees, of competence, there should be levels, or degrees of incompetence! I do take your point though about the "negative" impression, that the word seems to have had forced on to it when it is used in an absolute sense. I made a deliberate effort to use it in a limited sense, as applying to individual instances, major and minor, which I clearly specified.
In that sense, it really shouldn't be a big deal. We can rely on proverbs, or truisms, to confirm that: "everyone makes mistakes", " to err is human". The NewOED takes the word quite calmly: "not having the necessary skills to do something successfully". Those disappearing barrels tell me that, in that very obvious instance, PJ may not have lacked the skills, but he certainly didn't use them!

I used to insist that no-one was "hostile", or "hateful" which was the more common accusation. One or two recent examples have lessened my insistence.

It's not about disliking the films - does anyone actually dislike them, in their entirety? Surely not. I've said many times,
ad nauseam indeed, that they are "good in parts", and I've substituted "great" for "good" for many of those parts; what more praise could any human being want than that? Some people here have accused other people of accusing them of "blasphemy" against Tolkien(!). I wouldn't want the idea to go around that PJ is also a figure of infallible divinity!

Snaga said:

When someone accuses another of incompetence, that is a general comment on their abilities as a person, not a specific reference to their actions at a particular point in time. If you want to be understood, use the language in the same way as everyone else.

Jackson shoots a number of discontinuous shots of the horse chase, which give us a very powerful impression of a horse chase, with some pleasing symetries at times, and a great deal of dramatic tension, but ultimately not entirely realistic. But the demand for realism is again archaic....

Click to expand...

See the above!

Maybe when a hypothetical "someone" makes that accusation, that is indeed a comment of the kind you specify.
When this someone used the word, he was quite clear that he was not making a comment of that kind. My reference definitely was to "particular points in time" and I hoped that the words I chose to express it in, as well as the context in which I made it, would be adequate to make the nature of the reference perfectly clear. I am sure that many other "someones" do not use the word exclusively as a "general comment on their abilities as a person", especially when they clearly state that they are using it with a specified reference to a "point in time".
You know how "everyone" else" uses language? I don't think Tolkien's old Chair is vacant at present, but no doubt you have made an advance application for the appointment when it is available. Unfortunately, I am pretty sure that the interview will show that your knowledge of the "way everyone else uses language" is not as far-reaching as you claim it to be.

I'm not clear what you're trying to establish about the chase. You seem to be defending a case either that hasn't even been presented, or that was won before it started. Jallan says it looks excellent, so do I, with minor reservations about the casting of a potato sack as Frodo, and Arwen's comical scar. PJ did a fine job of the spectacle, as he usually does. It's only when Jallan, and I, and many others, add thought to the process, that things fall apart: the whole context of the event is a nonsense, and we have given the details of the nonsense so many times that I refrain from yet another repeat. Realism as against impressionism doesn't come into the matter; it isn't an issue.

Greenwood said:

As I have said before, if someone doesn't like the films, that's an opinion and everyone is entitled to one. But you should leave it at that.

Click to expand...

As of late the opinions of FADs have been towards the movie as a movie and 'hey, it ain't Tolkien, but I liked it!" Purists like myself and Mrs. Maggot can respect that and it is all subjective.

FADs of old, however, weren't limiting it to just their opinion. They were trying to use the old 'spirit of Tolkien' argument and what Tolkien could have meant, or what was implied to justify a movie change. Those are fighting words to a purist! It no longer is an opinion, but an attempt to use the written source. Then it is up for grabs. When this occurs, I don't think it is fair to trod down the purist for stating and explaining his opinion in comparing the movie to the book.

Let me give you an example. Some FADs of old were butting heads with me over the whole Arwen Ford Fiasco. Instead of saying things like, "I liked it though it wasn't what Tolkien intended and it served a cinematic purpose" the argument presented was that because Arwen was Luthien's descendant and Luthien did some warrior things like rescue Beren from Morgoth's lair, it was wholly in Arwen's character to meet the fellowship, sneak up on a ranger and defy the Nine.

Surely you can't blame a purist for dealing with such interpretive nonsense?? Surely you can't expect us to just let that go??

joxy said:

If there are levels, or degrees, of competence, there should be levels, or degrees of incompetence!

Click to expand...

I do not know who you should see if you have a problem with the intricacies and vagaries of the English language, but I know it is not me. You are much closer to the source than I am.

To give you an analogous case: combustible and incombustible. There are degrees of combustibility; paper and gasoline are both combustible, but gasoline far more so than paper. However, there are no degrees of incombustibility. If something is incombustible, it doesn't catch fire and burn, period. You may melt it, but it is not going to burn.

joxy said:

Some people here have accused other people of accusing them of "blasphemy" against Tolkien(!). I wouldn't want the idea to go around that PJ is also a figure of infallible divinity!

Click to expand...

I have specified Thorin as using the term blasphemy and Thorin freely admits it, no need to try for anonymity. As for PJ, I don't accept "divine infallibility" from anyone, not even the Pope and I was raised Catholic! If we are going to talk about what I would consider right or wrong choices (in the sense of whether they worked, not in any absolute right or wrong sense), I will certainly give Tolkien a far higher grade than PJ! (Though to be fair, Tolkien worked on LOTR for a far longer time than PJ worked on the movie. I cringe everytime I think of the possibility of Bingo Baggins and Trotter the Ranger. And yes, I know the "purist" position is that Jackson should have just taken everything as close to verbatim as the different mediums allowed.)

Greenwood said:

<1>....if you have a problem with the intricacies and vagaries of the English language....
<2>If something is incombustible, it doesn't catch fire and burn, period.
I<3> cringe everytime I think of the possibility of Bingo Baggins and Trotter the Ranger.
<4>....the "purist" position is that Jackson should have just taken everything as close to verbatim as the different mediums allowed.

Click to expand...

<1> No problem - it's fun, as you said earlier!
<2> Hmm, it would be difficult to argue against the mathematical truth of that!
I'll give it a try though:
Incombustibility is a quality which refers to things in the class of inanimate objects. It is possible to establish scientifically which things qualify to be placed in that class. The members of that class have meanings which are absolute, which resist qualification.
Other qualities of which the names begin with "in", "un", etc can refer to things in other classes, such as the class of animate beings. Such qualities are "inadequacy", "incongruity", "inexactness", "ingloriousness"; they do sustain qualification in terms of time, place, agent, and recipient. I include "incompetence" in such a class.
There are fewer members of the first class than of the others. Therefore the quality of "incumbustibility" is in a minority in respect of its inability to be qualified. "Incompetence", being a member of a different class, is not comparable to it.
<3> Yes, the poor man certainly went through some agonies, but fortunately he got out of them pretty well. Of course, PJ could have been grateful to have all the work done for him before he started, but instead he decided to add a few painful barbs of his own, with Lurtz, and with she-elf.
<4> Well, PJ actually did a pretty good job of doing just that, being close to verbatim, in many cases; why not in more cases; why not in all cases?! Tolkien gave him much more than enough material, as we all know.

Thorin said:

As of late the opinions of FADs have been towards the movie as a movie and 'hey, it ain't Tolkien, but I liked it!" Purists like myself and Mrs. Maggot can respect that and it is all subjective.

Click to expand...

As far as I can remember, most of the so-called "FAD's" have always said, "it's a movie, it's not the book". I think many "purists" (and NPW's) have toned it down (and I applaud them for it) far more than there has been changes in the people who liked the films.

Thorin said:

FADs of old, however, weren't limiting it to just their opinion. They were trying to use the old 'spirit of Tolkien' argument and what Tolkien could have meant, or what was implied to justify a movie change.

Click to expand...

But saying you think the movies are "in the spirit of Tolkien" is an opinion! We may, however, disagree on what "the spirit of Tolkien" is! My objection (and I believe Snaga's point in this thread) is that some purists proclaim that they have a monopoly on knowing what "the spirit of Tolkien" is and approach defending it at times in extreme terms.

Thorin said:

I don't think it is fair to trod down the purist for stating and explaining his opinion in comparing the movie to the book.

Click to expand...

It would indeed be unfair. My objection is to things like the "B" word ( ) in reference to deviating from Tolkien. (His work is not sacred.) And charges that I person who enjoys the films is any way "mindless" (No Thorin, I don't remember you using that term.).

Thorin said:

Let me give you an example. Some FADs of old were butting heads with me over the whole Arwen Ford Fiasco. Instead of saying things like, "I liked it though it wasn't what Tolkien intended and it served a cinematic purpose" the argument presented was that because Arwen was Luthien's descendant and Luthien did some warrior things like rescue Beren from Morgoth's lair, it was wholly in Arwen's character to meet the fellowship, sneak up on a ranger and defy the Nine.

Click to expand...

Ah, good old Arwen again. The flight to the Ford is one of my favorite scenes in the books (I even chose to give a reading of it many years ago in a college class). I have no problem with the version in the movie. It is not what is in the book, but it is very dramatic and one of the cinematic high points (IMO) of the first film. I can understand Glorfindel being dropped from the movie and his loss bothers me not a bit. As to the rest of the above, if memory serves, I was the person who pointed out Arwen's relationship to Luthien and Luthien's history to you two year's ago. It was in response to a statement by you that Arwen's behavior at the Ford (drawing a sword, defying the Nazgul, calling up the flood, etc.) was against anything that Tolkien would ever have an elf maiden do. I believe Luthien's story refutes that contention. That is why I do not think Arwen's scene at the Ford violates "the spirit of Tolkien" in the sense that Tolkien would never have an elf maiden do anything like what Arwen does at the Ford in the movie (the "B" word again ). I don't remember saying anything about Arwen's first scene with Aragorn in the movie (personally I think it a bit silly, but no big deal).

LOL! It was indeed Greenwood who first pointed out the similarities between film-Arwen and book-Luthien! Sorry Thorin, but I don't think you'll get him to agree that it is 'interpretive nonsense'.

Thorin said:

the argument presented was that because Arwen was Luthien's descendant and Luthien did some warrior things like rescue Beren from Morgoth's lair, it was wholly in Arwen's character to meet the fellowship, sneak up on a ranger and defy the Nine.

Click to expand...

It's not just that Arwen is Luthien's descendant, it is that Tolkien very explicitly and deliberately says that Arwen and Luthien have the same character- they act alike. This has to be a meandering into the deepest level of the puritanism, where even the author gets it wrong!

Aragil said:

This has to be a meandering into the deepest level of the puritanism, where even the author gets it wrong!

Click to expand...

It is akin to the way some fans insist that LOTR is really a religious/Chrisitian/Catholic (take your pick) story despite Tolkien's repeated protests that it was not allegorical and that he disliked allegory. (If I remember correctly he even said something like "allegory in all its forms", but don't hold me to that.) At times it almost seems like even poor old Tolkien was not purist enough.

joxy said:

I'm not clear what you're trying to establish about the chase. You seem to be defending a case either that hasn't even been presented, or that was won before it started. Jallan says it looks excellent, so do I, with minor reservations about the casting of a potato sack as Frodo, and Arwen's comical scar. PJ did a fine job of the spectacle, as he usually does. It's only when Jallan, and I, and many others, add thought to the process, that things fall apart: the whole context of the event is a nonsense, and we have given the details of the nonsense so many times that I refrain from yet another repeat. Realism as against impressionism doesn't come into the matter; it isn't an issue.

Click to expand...

Firstly Jallan specifically attacks the chase scene as "mediocre" because "nothing flowed", because the Nine look (to him) as though they were trying not to catch Arwen; and because the Nine reigned in their horses to confront Arwen.

What I am trying to establish is that this view can only come from an attitude of general hostility in which the demand for "realism" is a stick to beat the movies, taking parts up against the whole, in an anti-modernist demand for realism. This is wholly characteristic of the purist. It has very little to do with 'adding thought to the process'. Firstly, because the implication that those who do not approach the scene with the intent to criticise are unthinking is highly sectarian. Secondly because the thought process that you are 'adding' is one that is one that you are culturally predisposed towards: the attempt to find fault with that that poses a threat to your ideal.

The Arwen issue is very interesting too. The hostility to her presence at the Fords is quite revealing. Purists find this particularly disturbing, because the idea of the strong female character is one they are not predisposed to. Whereas Eowyn is accepted, as the exception to the rule, there it should end. Moreover, elves as represented the ideal beings - perfected humans, in many ways - then the idea of the passive princess awaiting the victory of Aragorn is, to the purist, compellingly archaic. The attempt to provide a more modern role for Arwen is therefore bitterly resisted. Attempts to reinterpret the text are rejected.

Not sure exactly what all people mean when they talk of 'the spirit of Tolkien'. By my definition the spirit was there, but the style was not. This isn't to say that Tolkien's style should be seen in the movie... he didn't make them after all! Sometimes Jackson's style seems far enough away from Tolkien's that the movie may not feel like Tolkien for some viewers, and perhaps some express this using that 'spirit of Tolkien' term? And perhaps others don't know how to express this, and so they attempt to blame specific little things that they didn't like about the movies. Of course this is more of a question than a claim. What I dislike most about the movies is that I don't love Tolkien in Jackson's style. It is that simple. But some obviously do.

And if the degree to which Jackson and Tolkien's style differ is a big factor in people's level of acceptance and happiness with the movies, I'd also put forth the idea that Tolkien's style is more important (relative to that of the story line itself) for some than for others. That and the obvious - some like Tolkien in Jackson more than others.

Now to the final part of my analysis. The ‘Centrists’ are the group who are most commonly found debating with the Purists. This is curious in itself, because they frequently protest that they do not think the movies are nearly perfect. They will, when pushed, admit to having many points of variance with Jackson’s interpretation, and yet they are compelled to defend his work at great length. This is a curiosity worthy of some attention.

The first thing to note is that we should ignore most of the surface arguments displayed, because there is a strong inclination to opportunism in what arguments are deployed. If the Purist argues that a change is not in the spirit of Tolkien, the Centrist may well argue that it is, or at least that it could be in someone’s eyes. Arguments that originate from the books will be directed back to cinema as a separate entity, the movies as a separate work. Therefore, they will force the Purists more onto subjective turf where all opinions are valid, at which point they will declare that most people weren’t bothered by whatever scene the Purist complains about. They are very likely to argue that the popularity of the movies is proof of their worth, but they do so with less of the passion of the TMF, and more with the calculating deployment of a move that they know will at least take time to counter.

As sincere or otherwise these opinions may be, the key things that are noticeable is how more detached the Centrist is from the whole phenomenon. To them, attacks on the movie do not hurt, but they are motivated by the need to defeat the Purists. To understand the Centrist, we need to understand why they want to defeat the Purist: where does this need come from?

Whereas the Purist represents the Outsider in relation to society as a whole, the Centrist is likely to be much more at one with the mainstream. This doesn’t imply wholesale acceptance of the direction of public policy, public opinion or mainstream culture per se, but the Centrist has made his peace with it. He sees little prospect of perfection in the human heart, nor in the society that people create. Having accepted imperfection as fact, the Centrist works within mainstream society, and supports efforts to reform and improve it. The Purist by contrast is much more likely to believe in humans who start out as fundamentally good but in a corrupt society that ruins them: they are prone to listen to prescriptions for radical change. The Centrist rejects such views as unrealistic and extreme: the present is not so bad, and the future will, or at least can be, better. They accept progress and modernity and science as capable of providing solutions.

The Centrist relation to Tolkien is one of great enjoyment, at one step removed. They enjoy the experience of Middle Earth, without seeing within it their own values. Indeed, they are very resistant to such readings, and will enthusiastically quote Tolkien’s rejection of allegory as vindication of this view. They may spend a great deal of time exploring the intricacies of Middle Earth, but this is for its own sake rather than as a search for truth. If inconsistencies come up in Tolkien’s writing, these are acceptable imperfections, not worrisome problems to be painstakingly overcome. If differences of interpretation arise, they assert their right to their interpretation against opposing claims of absolute objective insight. They see Tolkien’s work as a great work: but not THE great work. When they see the movies, it reminds them of their enjoyment of the books, and poses no threat. They are detached from the experience: neither as enrapt as the TMF, nor enrage like the Purist.

The Centrist differs from the TMF in some fundamental ways. They are likely to be older, with a more settled relationship to their fellow humans. As such, they are likely to be less individualistic and entrepreneurial in outlook. They are used to differing opinions, and are skilled in overcoming and resolving difference. While the TMF is likely to take the attack of the Purists personally, but then dismiss it as irrelevant, the Centrist will be much more tenacious, and yet quite dispassionate. They uphold the centre against the marginal view of the Purist, and the more the Purist argues, the more convinced they will be that the Purist only continues because they are “crazy”.

At times the Centrist displays a strong willingness to debate, but often this is achieved by taking received wisdom from accepted experts and, if necessary, using those views in a critical discussion. While the Purist starts from fundamental principles of purity, and applies reason to derive an immovable position, the Centrist takes the view of the mainstream as a starting point and deploys convenient arguments to uphold it. And fundamentally, the view of the mainstream is antithetical to purism in all its forms. Such views are dismissed in the mind of the Centrist as crazy extremism: to be exposed, without great prospect over ever convincing its sadly deluded adherents of their errors. Thus in this, they feel happy with a level of expediency in debate: a secure foundation for their beliefs is not important, because they endorse their own subjectivity, and concentrate instead in looking for perceived absurdities in the Purist position.

EDIT: Adding the "In-" to make "Inconsistencies"