Arrrrrrrrrgh!!!!!!!!!

[Elessar II]

Hey! You were the one who gave it a B+.

 

[joxy]

Something must be playing up with the thread.

Actually, I think you're right, and not just with one thread.
A month's postings in another thread seem to have gone the same way as PJ's barrels.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

I am astounded! Astounded, I say! Astounded! Foe-Hammer states that s/he has found every change introduced to the movies to have been necessary for presenting the story on film. Astounded, I tell you. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Peter Jackson in his online nom de plume.

I'm willing to concede that I'm too much of a purist in my viewing of the movies. I feared even before the first movie came out that I would be 'too close' to the books to be able to properly enjoy the movies. My fears were unfortunately realised. And I freely admit their cause.

But to suggest that everything that Peter Jackson added was absolutely necessary smacks of a degree of incredulousness that it is utterly remarkable. Such a suggestion speaks to a degree of non-critical acceptance that seriously diminishes the strength of any argument you make in the future. Every single change was necessary!?!? I am aghast! Everything? The minor things like putting the beacons on top of snow-covered mountains that would have been impossible to man. That was absolutely necessary? The minor scene of portraying Gimli as the type of stereotypical dwarf that Tolkien hated by showing incredibly crude table manners. That was absolutely necessary? (Gimli was royalty. His father did Bilbo's dishes, and yet he can't eat at table?) Bilbo just disappearing at the birthday party, without Gandalf;s theatrical embellishment. That was absolutely necessary? And major things like changing the character of Faramir. That was necessary? How!?! It only changes the portrayal of Faramir as representing the promise that was Gondor, and who Boromir might have been. How was that absolutely necessary? How? Aragorn as an exile reluctant to make any claim to his heritage, from the book's Aragorn whose entire life had been devoted to becoming king of Arnor and Gondor in order to win Arwen. That was absolutely necessary? How!?! Especially seeing as how the portrayal of the love story between Aragorn and Arwen was the weakest aspect of the movie. Did Beren ever sway from his love of Luthien? No. Would Aragorn have ever swayed from his love of Arwen, or Arwen from her love of Aragorn? No. Tell the story of that love story. It's far far more poignant. But no, according to Foe-Hammer, this change was absolutely necessary.

I'm sorry, but to claim that I have no right to question the legitimacy of some of Peter Jackson's changes is laughable. And, quite frankly, disqualifies you from serious contribution to the discussion, as you have clearly stated that your only contribution is that there is nothing to discuss.

Astounded, I say! Astounded!

Heh, heh, heh.......Please explain to the group how you get this:

"But to suggest that everything that Peter Jackson added was absolutely necessary"

From this qoute by yours truely....

"So far, yes. But I don't look at the changes until someone complains."

Astounding, laughable, and disqualification? You miss-quote a simple post such as that and you have the gall to utter such attacks?

THAT is the exact reason why you are a NPW and as such almost impossible to get a reasonable response from.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.....shame on you!

 

[simbelmyne]

"So far, yes. But I don't look at the changes until someone complains."

Astounding, laughable, and disqualification? You miss-quote a simple post such as that and you have the gall to utter such attacks?

How is this mis-quoted? I asked you if every change PJ made was necessary and you answered that, as far as the changes you've seen, they were. Surely you've recognized many changes from the book. Please explain to me if I misunderstand

And you have to admit, the part about PJ's online nom de plume is pretty funny

 

[Iluvatar]

Thanks to simbelmyne for answering Foe-Hammer's request. And there I think the matter should rest. I have no interest in getting into a war of insults, especially since as of yet I haven't uttered any. However, that being said, I am curious. What exactly am I being called when I am being called a 'NPW'?

 

[33Peregrin]

Wow. I was bothered in the movies.. quite a lot. I forgave them for everything, because it was them that made me find the books. Some things about them certianly did bother me a lot, but I thought that everything would be OK in the end. I worked hard to accept some things, especially the Faramir changes. Not surprisingly, I don't care about any changes in FOTR, because I saw it before the books. I supported the movies, and always will, but I wasn't prepared for some things in ROTK.
I do believe that some things could be a great deal better, some changes did not have to be made. Still, I always understand they don't have to be exactly like the books, in fact, some changes are welcomed in the movie. I love the Scouring, but isn' it fun to have the hobbits return to a good Shire, and not experience 'One of the saddest hours of their lives.'?But couldn't it have been Frodo's idea to leave the Shire? Couldn't Sam have only had one duaghter when he returned from the Grey Havens? And couldn't they have been living in Bag End? It's those things that get to me sometimes. But the movies are amazing, some things are just so well done. No matter who made it, most people would not like it completely, because it could never be the books. It could have been better, but it could have been a great deal worse. Oh well. But it seems PJ doesn't realize how much a persons actions affects their character- but OH Well.
I love the movies, I will always love them.
The one change that I couldn't accept, that I can never live with is Frodo telling Sam to go home. I thought Faramir's changes were bad. Oh well though- we have the books. I have to plug my ears at that part, close my eyes. And I can still enjoy the movie!
There ar things that I would want to do different. But the movies are awesome, and they are what we get. I want to like the movies, so I do what I can to enjoy them.

 

[Eledhwen]

I think I have enjoyed Iluvatar's 'live' analysis of the film more than any of the other threads - such passion! Welcome to the ranks of the Nit-picking Weenies (NPWs) Iluvatar!

I won't join in the fray, if that's alright. I've said all I want to say in other threads, including that I enjoyed the films. As for the changes, I think "Arrrrrrrrrgh!!!!!!!!" puts it very well.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

How is this mis-quoted? I asked you if every change PJ made was necessary and you answered that, as far as the changes you've seen, they were. Surely you've recognized many changes from the book. Please explain to me if I misunderstand

And you have to admit, the part about PJ's online nom de plume is pretty funny

It assumes that we all notice the same changes. It is my assertion that the NPW's assume that a lot of the movie are changes when in fact they are right out of the book. And, I can't tell you how many times I have caught the npw's arguing figments of thier imagination as if jrr really wrote them.

 

[nthman]

My question is this: Do you believe that EVERY change PJ made in adaptation was made because it was NECESSARY to presenting the story on film? That the choice was between presenting material the way JRRT did and the way PJ chose to?

I think it is very easy to criticize after the fact. It's probably much more difficult to make these decisions during the creative process which was a furious thing during the making of these films. PJ referred to it as furiously laying down the tracks in front of a train moving at full speed or something to effect. To use a very American cliche, it's easy to be an armchair quarterback and say how things should have been done better. An example is the demise of Saruman. We have heard much criticism here about how it was left out of the end of TTT and then left out of the beginning of ROTK after it was stated it would be shifted to that movie. But PJ and the editing team got to see the scene cut into those parts of the movies and screened them for the cast and crew edited that way and decided it was not for the best. Then there is input from the studio constraints on the running time of the movie and the like. It's late, I'm tired, I hope all that made some sort of sense.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

I think it is very easy to criticize after the fact. It's probably much more difficult to make these decisions during the creative process which was a furious thing during the making of these films. PJ referred to it as furiously laying down the tracks in front of a train moving at full speed or something to effect. To use a very American cliche, it's easy to be an armchair quarterback and say how things should have been done better. An example is the demise of Saruman. We have heard much criticism here about how it was left out of the end of TTT and then left out of the beginning of ROTK after it was stated it would be shifted to that movie. But PJ and the editing team got to see the scene cut into those parts of the movies and screened them for the cast and crew edited that way and decided it was not for the best. Then there is input from the studio constraints on the running time of the movie and the like. It's late, I'm tired, I hope all that made some sort of sense.

Hey, that makes perfect sense to those of us who choose to live in the real world. Unfortunately the people who NEED to understand that are in fact sitting there with their hands over their eyes.

 

[Gandalf White]

However, that being said, I am curious. What exactly am I being called when I am being called a 'NPW'?

Well that, my friend, would be a "Nit-Picking Weenie." Not to be taken personally, of course. The other 'camp' is the FAD's, or Film Adaptation Defenders. Really, these terms are incredibly broad generalizations and are usually unapplicable.

 

[Eledhwen]

Some of the changes are out of the book, but placed in an entirely different context, eg: Galadriel saying "The world is changing...", and Old Man Willow being moved to Fangorn along with some of Tom Bombadil's words. These are reasonable changes to make in the contraction of the book to cinema, which still incorporate some of Tolkien's great lines.

Other changes take parts from the Appendices and put them in the film, eg: the infill of Aragorn and Arwen, and the Warg attack, which seems to be an amalgamation of the wolf battle on the route between Caradhras and Moria and Battle of the Fords of Isen (though the aftermath of that, with the death of Theodred, is also shown, though his burial is changed.)

And then there are the changes that don't make any sense to me at all, where Tolkien's scenes are cut and replaced by PJ's. I was prepared to enjoy such things for the sake of entertainment (eg: I enjoyed the Elves arriving at Helm's Deep), but many of the changes lessened the story for me.

Other changes I particularly disliked were the insertion of thuggery from Faramir, Gandalf and Sam, and the portrayal of Denethor.

 

[Iluvatar]

Ayuh, I found the change in Denethor particularly galling. The change in Faramir was the single worst defamation, but because it is so obvious and glaring a change it can easily be dismissed as an example where the [illegitimate male offspring] Peter Jackson just knew better than did Tolkien.

But the change to Denethor's character is more subtle. Denethor is not a sympathetic character in the book, and he does in fact go mad in the book, so perhaps the [illegitimate male offspring] Peter Jackson's take on him is legit. And I guess maybe it is. But it lacks in subtlety. In the book Denethor was a good and noble ruler, even though he was incredibly severe. Here he's just a crackpot, insane from the get go. Yes, Denethor knew who Aragorn was and was not about to allow him the throne. But being Isildur's heir did not automatically qualify Aragorn for the throne of Gondor. In fact, there was a precedent for doing so. Aragorn's ancestor Arvedui had made the same claim for the throne after the southern line of kings had ended. So Denethor's unwillingness to cede the crown was well within historical precedent. It was only Aragorn's magnificent nobility - and dramatic rescue of the city combined with his healing - that made it obvious to all (we surmise) that he was to be King Elessar. But all that would have required subtlety. Something that the [illegitimate male offspring] Peter Jackson seems to have been unwilling to offer. Perhaps it could not have been done. I'm not a filmmaker, so I don't know. But I have seen subtle portrayals in other movies (check out Alec Guiness emerging from the box in The Bridge Over the River Kwai some time), and I believe that it could have been done. I don't know that. I just believe it to be true.

After the first movie I lamented the Mirror of Galadriel scene, where Galadriel momentarily transforms into a dark armoured queen. I was appalled by that scene. It seemed so absolutely phony, but a friend of mine suggested taht it was necessary in order to show the temptation that the ring was for Galadriel. To this, I replied, as I still do, "Try acting." To the [illegitimate male offspring] Peter Jackson I say, "Try directing."

Anyway, since I'm told that I'm not actually living in the real world, I'll go back to my own little universe now. Toodleedoo!

 

[Foe-Hammer]

But the change to Denethor's character is more subtle. Denethor is not a sympathetic character in the book, and he does in fact go mad in the book, so perhaps the [illegitimate male offspring] Peter Jackson's take on him is legit. And I guess maybe it is. But it lacks in subtlety. In the book Denethor was a good and noble ruler, even though he was incredibly severe. Here he's just a crackpot, insane from the get go. Yes, Denethor knew who Aragorn was and was not about to allow him the throne. But being Isildur's heir did not automatically qualify Aragorn for the throne of Gondor. In fact, there was a precedent for doing so. Aragorn's ancestor Arvedui had made the same claim for the throne after the southern line of kings had ended. So Denethor's unwillingness to cede the crown was well within historical precedent. It was only Aragorn's magnificent nobility - and dramatic rescue of the city combined with his healing - that made it obvious to all (we surmise) that he was to be King Elessar. But all that would have required subtlety. Something that the [illegitimate male offspring] Peter Jackson seems to have been unwilling to offer. Perhaps it could not have been done. I'm not a filmmaker, so I don't know. But I have seen subtle portrayals in other movies (check out Alec Guiness emerging from the box in The Bridge Over the River Kwai some time), and I believe that it could have been done. I don't know that. I just believe it to be true.

Sorry to dissapoint you but PJ did present Denathor as a good steward. I do not remember the exact words but in the first movie Boromir tells how his father is a good man but his rule is failing. Meaning, that it is just begining to fail. This coinsides with the rise of sauron and even though we do not see the palintir ( which may appear in the EE? haven't heard that one yet) it fits nicely with denathors downward sprial.

Anyway, since I'm told that I'm not actually living in the real world, I'll go back to my own little universe now. Toodleedoo!

I never mention you, but if you say it applies to you, who the heck are we to disagree?

 

[joxy]

....PJ did present Denathor as a good steward. I do not remember the exact words but in the first movie Boromir tells how his father is a good man....

You mean that, by having Boromir say in FOTR that his father is good, PJ presents D as a good steward?
Or do I misunderstand you, again?
To that I can only say you are putting an awful of lot of meaning into one phrase, and also, well, Boromir WOULD say that about his father, wouldn't he?!
What Iluvatar said is that PJ made D "a crackpot, insane from the get go", and indeed he does show him that way, in the flashbacks, before Boromir even gets to report on his father in FOTR.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

You mean that, by having Boromir say in FOTR that his father is good, PJ presents D as a good steward?

The fact that there was a change in his behavior means that he wasn't doing it previous.

To that I can only say you are putting an awful of lot of meaning into one phrase, and also, well, Boromir WOULD say that about his father, wouldn't he?!

So, you are trying to say that PJ was presenting Boromir as a son in denial about his father? What other scenes support that? I think you are putting your own imaginations into it. Good means good.

What Iluvatar said is that PJ made D "a crackpot, insane from the get go", and indeed he does show him that way, in the flashbacks, before Boromir even gets to report on his father in FOTR.

In what flashbacks are Denathor portrayed as insane or a crackpot? I saw him overly proud of Boromir and especially critical of Faramir, but I saw no insanity.

I didn't see his cheese slide of his cracker until after Boromirs death.

 

[joxy]

So, you are trying to say that PJ was presenting Boromir as a son in denial about his father?
In what flashbacks are Denathor portrayed as insane or a crackpot?

No, I didn't say anything like that. I'm just saying that any man would say his father was "good", "wouldn't he?".
Iluvatar's words. My view has always been that PJ's Denethor was way "over-the-top" in every encounter he had with his sons.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

No, I didn't say anything like that. I'm just saying that any man would say his father was "good", "wouldn't he?".
Iluvatar's words.

If in fact the father WAS good, yes. But only a son in denial would say his father was good when in fact he was not. So, pj was presenting boromir as a son in denial, or denathor as a good steward. I still would like to see some supporting material that supports the denial angle. (it ain't there)

My view has always been that PJ's Denethor was way "over-the-top" in every encounter he had with his sons.

My view has been that it was a convienent end to the rule of the steward. But then again, that was what jrr did too.

What Iluvatar said is that PJ made D "a crackpot, insane from the get go", and indeed he does show him that way, in the flashbacks, before Boromir even gets to report on his father in FOTR.

It seemed to me that you were agreeing that pj presented denathor as a crackpot.

 

[joxy]

....only a son in denial would say his father was good when in fact he was not.

It seemed to me that you were agreeing that pj presented denathor as a crackpot.

"In denial" is too much of a psychological notion to apply to this case!
Boromir was in effect the ambassador of Denethor, the most important human ruler in M-E, who just happened to be his father, and was speaking of him in "diplomatic" terms, to use the term both literally and metaphorically.

The first posting DID look rather that way, but I hope the second explained what my words for it have always been.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

"In denial" is too much of a psychological notion to apply to this case!
Boromir was in effect the ambassador of Denethor, the most important human ruler in M-E, who just happened to be his father, and was speaking of him in "diplomatic" terms, to use the term both literally and metaphorically.

Then why admit his rule was failing? Why not just keep up the facade?