Did Pj suddenly forget what movie he was making

[markrob]

Originally posted by Ol'gaffer
Another person who sees this!

for a time now, I seen the same thing in Joxies post, a hateful tone when speaking of Jackson, he claims that there is none, but now that two see it I know that I'm not delusional.

Yeah, you got watch those purists, there sneaky little creatures dont ya know? Kinda reminds me of Gollem eh?

 

[Arvedui]

Ahem......

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

I would say as a unashamed "purist" that Mr. Jackson evokes the following emotions in me:

1. Frustration (no explanation necessary).
2. Distrust (given his famous "promise" of faithfulness).
3. Annoyance (given what "could have been").
4. Sorrow (see all three above).

Now, I might hate someone who injured my children (depending on the day that he did it, that is!) or who killed my cats and/or dog (on ANY day!), but as I am by nature a slothful person, I just couldn't work up enough energy to "hate" Mr. Jackson even supposing what he did was worthy of that kind of effort!

I understand how it might make you "ultraFADs" feel better to think that we "nasty" purists are being mean to the little fellow, but I assure you, I don't think any of us really care enough about the matter to put forth the necessary effort to do so! However, if it makes you feel better to indulge yourselves in visions of all of us sticking pins in small rotund dolls in glasses and shorts, go for it!

 

[markrob]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
I understand how it might make you "ultraFADs" feel better to think that we "nasty" purists are being mean to the little fellow, but I assure you, I don't think any of us really care enough about the matter to put forth the necessary effort to do so!

THAT, is such BULL. Just about every post, at least by you, is reeking of hidden udder dislike for the director. You put tons of effort into how to cleverly drop cynical jabs at Jackson. I have to give it to you though, your are quite eloquent in your written expressions. It is wise to not BS a BS'er.

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by markrob
....sounds like a personal attack on Jackson to me....

Originally posted by Ol'gaffer
I seen the same thing in Joxies post, a hateful tone when speaking of Jackson....

Originally posted by Arvedui
If you are implying that joxy should receive a warning for Personal Attacks....

My line was "the sort of taste he has"
Justify calling that a personal attack, please.
Justify calling that a hateful tone, please.
Chacun a son gout: PJ has one kind of taste, I have another; where's the attack, where the hateful tone, in that?
Sorry to be so repetitive. I do think it needs saying though, as Mrs M agrees: we have better things to do than go around hating, or being aggressive towards P Jackson.
This area is headed "Tolkien's....versus....PJ's"; "versus" implies disagreement, conflict even; discussion of that disagreement must involve comment on the "taste" of the two subjects of the thread. Unfavourable comment, on the taste of either, is light years away from personal attack.

Briefly, a defence of my six-word post, that offends so severely:
The "sort of taste he has" includes favouring urine-stained inns, and twisting axes in dead nervous systems; and he presents us with the effect of that taste in his films. That is a straightforward fact.
I do not share that taste, and I have no regrets about saying so.
If you do share it, I'm sorry for you, but I don't attack you for it.

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by markrob
BULL....reeking of hidden udder dislike....cynical jabs....a BS'er.

Who's next in line for a personal attack?

 

[Thorin]

Thorin, why? why is that a possible problem? That's the whole point. You can justify changes by both the book and by personal taste. For that is the FAD way! I think PJ was way off on alot of things but he put a little personal taste (yeah he said he would be true but come on, your in charge of a multi million dollar production you know your going to fudge a little bit.) Hell, its human nature, free spirit, and I can tell you got that in you.

The problem is that the FAD has his own criticisms as well. And if most of these are "justifying changes by both the book and by personal taste" then they have no right to criticize purists who find valid fault with criticisms. The result is hypocrisy. For example I have received undying criticism for slamming the Arwen fiasco and this is what I've been told by FADs:

- It's in the spirit of Tolkien
- Arwen could have done it
- Arwen needed more time
- You can't compare the book and movie
- changes needed to be made from the book

Alrighty then. All criticisms because I'm comparing to the book. "Look at the movies as movies not adaptations!!" They shout at me. Yet these same FADs will complain that:

- Faramir should have had black hair
- Legolas on a shield was stupid
- Arwen's lines weren't dumb but Sam's lines were
- PJ should have kept that scene in (hmm, a scene exactly from the book)

Funny. All of these things and more are perfectly acceptable within the movie's context. What's the problem? FADs are painting themselves into a hole because deep down they have their own criticisms based on their bias of the book and yet sometimes they totally forget that they shouldn't be doing it (or at least not criticizing purists for doing it) and just criticizing it as a movie.

Either love the movies for what they are as movies, or engage in criticism of them based on the books (which in my opinion is the more reasonable and objective thing to do and why I say that purists (for the most part) are more objective than FADs....and logical for that matter).

The problem you all seem to be having with purists is the nit picking weenie comments that none of us on this forum have truly engaged in (i.e. Denethor didn't look anything like I wanted him to and it spoiled the movie).

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by markrob
THAT, is such BULL. Just about every post, at least by you, is reeking of hidden udder dislike for the director. You put tons of effort into how to cleverly drop cynical jabs at Jackson. I have to give it to you though, your are quite eloquent in your written expressions. It is wise to not BS a BS'er.

Wherever did you get your degree in psychiatry - or mind reading - or self-delusion that you consider yourself qualified to tell someone else just exactly what he or she is thinking?

I'm sorry, but the only thing you said that I must assume was accurate in the above post was your definition of yourself since it is a self-definition (and who would know better, I ask?). Other than that, I'm afraid you were 100% wrong! Even Mr. Jackson has a better record than that!

(Oh, and it's "utter". Udders are found on a cow, not a "bull". Of course, it could have been an attempt at a pun - in which case I now understand why Mr. Jackson's low comedy doesn't bother you! )

 

[markrob]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Wherever did you get your degree in psychiatry - or mind reading - or self-delusion that you consider yourself qualified to tell someone else just exactly what he or she is thinking?

Ha, the hypocrisy never ends! One of the main reasons some of us like to hang around these boards is to not let "self appointed all mighty Tolkien fans" like you project your all knowing wisdom into the mind of ole JRRT himself. How many times do I hear....well I'm sure Tolkien would have liked this, or done this, or was thinking this?....etc. If I had the time to accumulate as many post as you I could go back and discover many times where you and a whole lot of other 'chosen' ones) have claimed to know Tolkie's inner thoughts and wishes. I saw one today, I will go look for it and give you an example.

 

[markrob]

My example is under the FADS point proven thread. One of many I might add, but I guess you knew that since mind reading is your specialty.

 

[markrob]

Originally posted by Thorin
The problem is that the FAD has his own criticisms as well. And if most of these are "justifying changes by both the book and by personal taste" then they have no right to criticize purists who find valid fault with criticisms. The result is hypocrisy. For example I have received undying criticism for slamming the Arwen fiasco and this is what I've been told by FADs:

- It's in the spirit of Tolkien
- Arwen could have done it
- Arwen needed more time
- You can't compare the book and movie
- changes needed to be made from the book

Alrighty then. All criticisms because I'm comparing to the book. "Look at the movies as movies not adaptations!!" They shout at me. Yet these same FADs will complain that:

- Faramir should have had black hair
- Legolas on a shield was stupid
- Arwen's lines weren't dumb but Sam's lines were
- PJ should have kept that scene in (hmm, a scene exactly from the book)

Funny. All of these things and more are perfectly acceptable within the movie's context. What's the problem? FADs are painting themselves into a hole because deep down they have their own criticisms based on their bias of the book and yet sometimes they totally forget that they shouldn't be doing it (or at least not criticizing purists for doing it) and just criticizing it as a movie.

Either love the movies for what they are as movies, or engage in criticism of them based on the books (which in my opinion is the more reasonable and objective thing to do and why I say that purists (for the most part) are more objective than FADs....and logical for that matter).

The problem you all seem to be having with purists is the nit picking weenie comments that none of us on this forum have truly engaged in (i.e. Denethor didn't look anything like I wanted him to and it spoiled the movie).

Hold on there Thorin, true and original FAD's like myself DO indeed have critcisms but dont harp on about it and let it ruin our lives. This FAD will not be heard giving you the excuses about Arwen you have listed, that is some mighty generalization. Show me a FAD that has complained about the hair color of a character and I will show you that he/she is no true FAD, of which the founding principles of FADSHIP apply from 2001. This person would be labeled a FAKEFAD, and not part of my team of loyal FADIST. Nit picking weenies have been replaced by 'mind readers, self appointed by God himself Tolkien fans, Jackson bashers, and whatever catagory maggott falls into!

 

[Gandalf White]

Originally posted by Thorin
(or at least not criticizing purists for doing it) and just criticizing it as a movie.

Either love the movies for what they are as movies, or engage in criticism of them based on the books (which in my opinion is the more reasonable and objective thing to do and why I say that purists (for the most part) are more objective than FADs....and logical for that matter).

I only criticize purists when they say "the Arwen scene was ludicrous because Tolkien didn't write it that way." If a certain scene wasn't written by Tolkien it does not follow that it is bad cinema.

For your information, criticizing the movie as a movie and wishing it had parts from the book overlap at times and are not illogical. I have said many times that I wish scenes from the book had been kept in order to make it a better movie. The change did not necessitate a bad scene, or make the films themselves horrible, but while they are great, they could have been better.

I have never yet watched a movie that lives up to its source material, and since you dislike the movies it is painfully obvious why you would want to judge them based on the books.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Oh, some of Jackson's inventions were corking "good" cinema. Even the good Joxy notes that he liked the "falling staircases" in Moria though there was no such thing mentioned in the book! And there are other things that were acceptable. Old Man Willow's predatory appearance in Fangorn (rather than the Old Forest) was certainly acceptable. So even was that little moth in FOTR given that there was no other way for Gandalf to send for his "eagle taxi". At least it gave a reason for the appearance of the large bird when needed. And there were other "inventions" that did not bother me in the least: Boromir's sword instructionwith M&P during the journey south (remember, Tolkien did not fill in every hour of that journey with descriptive situations, so Jackson was perfectly free to improvise always providing he kept within the scope of the tale!). It is not these little "inventions" that are the problem. They seldom take up too much time and they definitely don't "go against the grain" of the tale.

On the other hand, there are far too many other "bits" that do just that and even in the flow of Jackson's own narrative, were unnecessary, consuming both time and treasure to implement - not to mention pushing out of the second film material that should have been situated there onto the third film. This resulted in the loss of the resolution of the Saruman thread and the complete absence in ROTK of the most visible "villain" in the whole tale! Now that was just plain silly and could easily have been addressed had Mr. Jackson shown a little self-control over his desire to fill the time in TTT with endless battle scenes! And, frankly, it would have been a courtesy to Christopher Lee whose presence in the films - though I did not totally agree with Jackson's version of the character - certainly was a very positive thing. Mr. Lee's very presence enhanced the whole film. He deserved better from Mr. Jackson than to be dispossessed to show endless numbers of c.g. orcs killing and dying. But that was, after all, Mr. Jackson's "call".

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by Gandalf White
I only criticize purists when they say "the Arwen scene was ludicrous because Tolkien didn't write it that way." If a certain scene wasn't written by Tolkien it does not follow that it is bad cinema.

Some of PJ's inventions, such as the falling staircase, which, as Mrs M reminds you, I freely admit to enjoying, ARE good cinema, period. Others, such as your Arwen, are reasonably good, in themselves. All of them, in OTHER films, would be fine.
In the LOTR films, however, only some of them work. I see the falling staircase as fitting in with its location within the film; I don't see the Arwen scene as flowing in with its surroundings to the same extent, and others simply stand out like the proverbial sore thumb, as inappropriate for their location in the films.
Of course, I make another free admission, that I don't see any justification for the inclusion of ANY inventions, and I have not seen any coherent explanation from anyone for any of them. I base this on two main points:
that LOTR is an exceptional book, one which has been widely admired for many years, and which has an intricately woven structure of characterisation, location, and action;
and that it was always necessary, and accepted by all, that time restrictions required many omissions, leaving no time for inventions.

 

[aragil]

Originally posted by joxy
Of course, I make another free admission, that I don't see any justification for the inclusion of ANY inventions, and I have not seen any coherent explanation from anyone for any of them. I base this on two main points:

I would say that a variety of explanations is preferable to everybody replying in lock-step. The fact that it works for one viewer for one reason, and for another viewer for a different reason means that the invention works on multiple levels. If one bought into the idea that movie-making is an art, then one might even say that 'inventions' do not need to be justified beyond the enjoyment of the audience, even if the inventions are the direct cause of omissions of the source material.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by aragil
I would say that a variety of explanations is preferable to everybody replying in lock-step. The fact that it works for one viewer for one reason, and for another viewer for a different reason means that the invention works on multiple levels. If one bought into the idea that movie-making is an art, then one might even say that 'inventions' do not need to be justified beyond the enjoyment of the audience, even if the inventions are the direct cause of omissions of the source material.

Yes, but some of Jackson's inventions got him into trouble in his own film(s)! By adding the attack of the warg riders and all that that entailed, he cut deeply into the time he had to spend on the Ent thread (to its great detriment). In adding Osgiliath, he had to cut out many of the scenes in Ithilien. All that was done in Osgiliath regarding Faramir's speeding the hobbits on their way could have been done in Ithilien except that ludicrous business with the winged Nazgul which not only wasn't needed but was downright silly and inexplicable. He also had to cut a lot of scenes in the Dead Marshes (which made that passage seem like a half hour's walk) and, of course, put the crossing into Mordor (and Shelob) into the third film thus eliminating the resolution of the Saruman thread and the appearance of the only visible villain in the films so far - Saruman.

And all of this happened in the films themselves and had nothing whatever to do with the adaptation from the book.

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by aragil
....a variety of explanations is preferable to everybody replying in lock-step.
....it works for one viewer for one reason, and for another viewer for a different reason....
....one might even say that 'inventions' do not need to be justified beyond the enjoyment of the audience....

Certainly, and many have been offered, but my point, in relation specifically to the PJ-ian inventions, is that none of the explanations I've seen have made coherent sense, within themselves. They tend to run along the lines of "all films need a love interest" and "modern audiences would find that idea too complicated", generalisations that can't be justified.
I've said that some of the inventions, in themselves, work for me, but I'd still have much preferred not to have them at all, in THESE films.
I note your inclusion of the qualification, "even", and that could well be true of many books, and many films, but I return to my claim that LOTR is such a special book that it should have been allowed to provide close to ALL the enjoyment that any audience could ask for - and there can be no doubt, surely, that it contains enough material to achieve that, with plenty left over?!

 

[aragil]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Yes, but some of Jackson's inventions got him into trouble in his own film(s)! By adding the attack of the warg riders and all that that entailed, he cut deeply into the time he had to spend on the Ent thread (to its great detriment). In adding Osgiliath, he had to cut out many of the scenes in Ithilien. All that was done in Osgiliath regarding Faramir's speeding the hobbits on their way could have been done in Ithilien except that ludicrous business with the winged Nazgul which not only wasn't needed but was downright silly and inexplicable. He also had to cut a lot of scenes in the Dead Marshes (which made that passage seem like a half hour's walk) and, of course, put the crossing into Mordor (and Shelob) into the third film thus eliminating the resolution of the Saruman thread and the appearance of the only visible villain in the films so far - Saruman.

And all of this happened in the films themselves and had nothing whatever to do with the adaptation from the book.

I think what you feel as the 'great detriment' of the Ent thread is the change from the books (i.e. Ents choose not to go to war), which would not have been helped by more or less screen time. To be honest, with the EE I don't feel that there are any significant events from this part of the book that weren't included in the movie (possible exception of the character Quickbeam). The same goes for me with Ithilien and the Marshes- eventwise, there just wasn't much more to include. Ironically, the 'ludicrous business' of the Nazgul from Osgiliath was drawn directly from the books- the fact that so many book-lovers absolutely detest this sequence underscores some of the difficulty involved in adapting a book to movie, I should think. As for what was missing in RotK involving Saruman, of the 150+ reviews I've read, over half the people say they didn't miss Saruman. As his scene will reappear in the EE, I'm not too worried about it (I do feel sorry for Mr. Lee- he obviously enjoyed making these films very much, I hope the incident doesn't leave him with a bad taste in his mouth). I have seen the movie, and I'd have to say that I didn't feel much was missing either- and this after viewing FotR and TT the two previous nights!

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by aragil
....the Ent thread....would not have been helped by more or less screen time.
....the 'ludicrous business' of the Nazgul from Osgiliath was drawn directly from the books....
....what was missing in RotK involving Saruman....Mr. Lee....I hope the incident doesn't leave him with a bad taste in his mouth....

Given more time, it could have made much more sense. As it is, we have Treebeard not knowing about all the trees having been destroyed, and his abrupt change of mind, both of which seem wrong, within PJ's invented scenario itself.
Frodo was not at Osgiliath, and he didn't offer the Ring to a flying Nazgul, did he?!
Acording to C Lee himself, almost everything of his was missing! He had done all the work and the whole scene of the confrontation had been filmed, and was to be the dramatic beginning to ROTK. Suddenly to find, within four weeks of the film's release, that this was not going to be seen in cinemas, would do more to most people than to affect their sense of taste. Take a look at all the news reports, and at C Lee's web site, to find out what he does think about it.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by aragil
I think what you feel as the 'great detriment' of the Ent thread is the change from the books (i.e. Ents choose not to go to war), which would not have been helped by more or less screen time. To be honest, with the EE I don't feel that there are any significant events from this part of the book that weren't included in the movie (possible exception of the character Quickbeam). The same goes for me with Ithilien and the Marshes- eventwise, there just wasn't much more to include. Ironically, the 'ludicrous business' of the Nazgul from Osgiliath was drawn directly from the books- the fact that so many book-lovers absolutely detest this sequence underscores some of the difficulty involved in adapting a book to movie, I should think. As for what was missing in RotK involving Saruman, of the 150+ reviews I've read, over half the people say they didn't miss Saruman. As his scene will reappear in the EE, I'm not too worried about it (I do feel sorry for Mr. Lee- he obviously enjoyed making these films very much, I hope the incident doesn't leave him with a bad taste in his mouth). I have seen the movie, and I'd have to say that I didn't feel much was missing either- and this after viewing FotR and TT the two previous nights!

The Ent thread was very poorly developed. In fact, Jackson actually appeared to depend upon the audience's knowledge of Ents and what they were in order to simply cut away the time required for any type of explanation about these "walking trees". And this from a man who was supposed to have targeted an audience that did not "know" Tolkien! Well, if his theater audience really didn't know Tolkien, they weren't very much informed about the Ents at the end of TTT either - and they never even saw the huorns who actually won the Battle of Helm's Deep!

As for the Nazgul, I cannot imagine to what you are referring in the book. There are only two times that we meet the Nazgul in Frodo's plot thread in TTT, the first is when they are in the Dead Marshes (winged Nazgul's flyover restored in the EE of the film) and the second when the Captain of the Nazgul is leading his army into battle across the bridge and Frodo is tempted by the Ring to reveal himself. Neither of these in any way, shape or form can be construed as anything like the silly peek-a-boo bit in Osgiliath.

As for those in the audience who "don't miss" Saruman. I would be willing to bet that these are the same folks who believe anything that isn't a pitched battle is "boring" and "useless" (as I have seen posted from time to time). I do think that most discerning film goers are going to be a bit confused by the disappearance of what till now has been the only really visible "villain/enemy" in the whole story - unless you count the TV satellite dish on the roof of Barad-dur, that is!