My God, It Was Horrible (Part III)

[aragil]

No, I went to the film in a bright blue gown based on the styles of the Renaissance. I unfortunately have a closer resemblance physically to Ioreth than Eowyn. And the fact that I attended the film in costume has very little to do with my devotion to or any admiration for said film--my friends and I used the films as an excuse to get together for our own reasons, which included designing and making costumes for Ren fests. Either way, I totally fail to see the relevance...but anyway, it wasn't an Eowyn costume.

My apologies for mistaking who you were dressed up as. But that wasn't my point. Thorin was painting people who dress up as some sort of nutter-fanatics. I don't agree with that stereotype, and the only reason I brought up your name was to show that the act of dressing-up in character was not just confined to fans of the movie (as decades of RenFests have no doubt shown).


If anybody is interested in discussing the characterizations in the films, I'd love to hubristically suggest my own thread on the matter: Characterization in the third movie was absolutely PERFECT!!!
That thread has been languishing in obscurity for a while now, and it would be fun (for me at least) if anybody wanted to bring in new perspectives.

 

[Rhiannon]

My apologies for mistaking who you were dressed up as. But that wasn't my point. Thorin was painting people who dress up as some sort of nutter-fanatics. I don't agree with that stereotype, and the only reason I brought up your name was to show that the act of dressing-up in character was not just confined to fans of the movie (as decades of RenFests have no doubt shown).

Did Thorin say that? I didn't infer that from whatever it was that Thorin said. Ah well. I'm not interested enough to go figure out who is arguing with who over what at the moment. However, I have to say that people who dress up are nutter-fanatics. It just happens I'm not a movie nutter-fanatic, I am garb nutter-fanatic, any kind of period clothing makes me swoon. I maintain that I am a happier, more interesting person that people who are not nutter-fanatics. If people aren't nutty-fanatic about something, they're usually just too dull for words.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

Did Thorin say that? I didn't infer that from whatever it was that Thorin said. Ah well. I'm not interested enough to go figure out who is arguing with who over what at the moment. However, I have to say that people who dress up are nutter-fanatics. It just happens I'm not a movie nutter-fanatic, I am garb nutter-fanatic, any kind of period clothing makes me swoon. I maintain that I am a happier, more interesting person that people who are not nutter-fanatics. If people aren't nutty-fanatic about something, they're usually just too dull for words.

Everyone escapes in their own way. A lot are into very destructive activities (for themselves and society). So, until I see a bunch of sword carrying renfesters hacking their way through the crowds in the mall, I say....swoon away friend!

 

[Eriol]

Answer to question 1: Gandalds time is supposed to be over and the age of man begining. How woould it look if (like in the book) gandaldf is responsible for saving ME, while this supposed king is coming into his own? He accepted the mantle of king in the paths of the dead. Why should gandalf be more in tune than the king?

#2: He spent way too much time on scenery and too little time on believable character development. Jrr characters are constantly contradicting previous behaviors.

1. I think you read the book backwards, F-H . Gandalf is not an Elf. He is the Enemy of Sauron. His time is over only when Sauron dies. (That is very clear in the book, and when Aragorn goes to him for counsel Gandalf states it flatly -- "I was the Enemy of Sauron. I will leave soon. This is your problem". Only, this happens after Sauron dies).

It's a pity I don't have the book here to offer Aragorn's explanation of why should they follow Gandalf's lead in "The Last Debate". Check it out. "Gandalf was the leader against Sauron from the start, and I think we should still follow him" is the gist of it. Pretty much what Elrond said in the C of E.

That Gandalf is the leader of the resistance against Sauron has nothing to do with who is the King.

2. It shouldn't be too hard to give us loads of examples if the characters are "constantly contradicting previous behaviors". Care to offer a few?

 

[joxy]

Answer to question....

The comments you make are interesting but they are not answers to the questions I asked.
When Mrs M commented on the changes in Gandalf's personality, and you told her she needed "to be educated and accept the issues surrounding screenplays, adaptations and the like", I asked you how those issues explained the changes in personality. Your reaction to that question seems to be based on a disapproval of Tolkien's plot-line.
You said that ""jrrs work lacked the required writing style to make it suitable for adaptation as it was written". I asked in response to that: how is it then that MOST of PJ's film consists of material that IS "adaptation as it was written"? Your response criticises Tolkien's excessive interest in visual matters and his inconsistent character development, both of which criticisms are more usually directed at P Jackson; and it doesn't address the question.

 

[Thorin]

I still stand by my comment, Rhiannon not withstanding. For the most part, the people coming dressed for the films are people influenced by the costumes and hype of the movie. When teenage kids (who for the most part probably never even heard of Tolkien before the movies) come dressed up exactly as movie characters, you can't tell me that they are people who've been reading Tolkien for a long time.

The problem with Denethor's 'burning' is not as significant as the horrific character changes that PJ did with him to begin with. Making him a pig, a bully and a psycho from the start without even having the palantir to try and explain such a person's motives was the worst thing about RoTK.

And FH, your continual criticism of Tolkien has crowded out any objective reasonability to analyze anthing of this movie. Perhaps it might be better for you to remove yourself from any sort of analyzation of the movie characters. Gandalf's behavior towards Denethor was WAY out of character. Clocking Denethor with his staff, deceiving Denethor and going against his wishes (as in the case of the lighting of the beacons), running over him with his horse and pushing him on to the fire pyre (when it actually looked like Denethor was trying to escape it - look at his facial expression when he is on it) were totally out of character.

His continual pessimism and deflated view of any hope he had was contrary to the book Gandalf who, despite feeling to some extent that sending Frodo off was a 'fool's hope', nonetheless roused the troops and gave them hope in the success of the quest. Movie Aragorn did this at the expense of the Gandalf we all came to recognize from the first two movies. There is a wonderful book called 'Following Gandalf' which shows what kind of character Gandalf was and his role in ME, and without even comparing the book to the movie makes it pretty plain to the reader how out of character Gandalf was in the movie.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

1. I think you read the book backwards, F-H . Gandalf is not an Elf. He is the Enemy of Sauron. His time is over only when Sauron dies. (That is very clear in the book, and when Aragorn goes to him for counsel Gandalf states it flatly -- "I was the Enemy of Sauron. I will leave soon. This is your problem". Only, this happens after Sauron dies).

It's a pity I don't have the book here to offer Aragorn's explanation of why should they follow Gandalf's lead in "The Last Debate". Check it out. "Gandalf was the leader against Sauron from the start, and I think we should still follow him" is the gist of it. Pretty much what Elrond said in the C of E.

That Gandalf is the leader of the resistance against Sauron has nothing to do with who is the King.

2. It shouldn't be too hard to give us loads of examples if the characters are "constantly contradicting previous behaviors". Care to offer a few?

I don't have my book either or I would give you the reasons why I said that about gandalf.

Secondly, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. If you can't see the contradictions in tolkiens characters, then what good is it if I point them out?

 

[Foe-Hammer]

The comments you make are interesting but they are not answers to the questions I asked.
When Mrs M commented on the changes in Gandalf's personality, and you told her she needed "to be educated and accept the issues surrounding screenplays, adaptations and the like", I asked you how those issues explained the changes in personality. Your reaction to that question seems to be based on a disapproval of Tolkien's plot-line.
You said that ""jrrs work lacked the required writing style to make it suitable for adaptation as it was written". I asked in response to that: how is it then that MOST of PJ's film consists of material that IS "adaptation as it was written"? Your response criticises Tolkien's excessive interest in visual matters and his inconsistent character development, both of which criticisms are more usually directed at P Jackson; and it doesn't address the question.

PJ's characters are consistant in and of themselves. The complaints about pj was that his characters were not consistant with tolkiens. My point is that in order for pj to follow tolkiens, the movie would have flopped because tolkiens were not suitable for screenplays etc.

Is that a better explanation?

 

[Foe-Hammer]

And FH, your continual criticism of Tolkien has crowded out any objective reasonability to analyze anthing of this movie. Perhaps it might be better for you to remove yourself from any sort of analyzation of the movie characters. Gandalf's behavior towards Denethor was WAY out of character. Clocking Denethor with his staff, deceiving Denethor and going against his wishes (as in the case of the lighting of the beacons), running over him with his horse and pushing him on to the fire pyre (when it actually looked like Denethor was trying to escape it - look at his facial expression when he is on it) were totally out of character.

His continual pessimism and deflated view of any hope he had was contrary to the book Gandalf who, despite feeling to some extent that sending Frodo off was a 'fool's hope', nonetheless roused the troops and gave them hope in the success of the quest. Movie Aragorn did this at the expense of the Gandalf we all came to recognize from the first two movies. There is a wonderful book called 'Following Gandalf' which shows what kind of character Gandalf was and his role in ME, and without even comparing the book to the movie makes it pretty plain to the reader how out of character Gandalf was in the movie.

That is my point. PJ made a better gandalf that is more consistant and believable for a movie audience.

I think you are the one who should remove himself from the discussion of the movie since you think you have a better handle on what would work on film, yet you have no training in that area. You have said the movie would have been better had it stayed closer to the book, yet it is breaking records for three years as is.

Perhapes you should limit your discussion to just admitting that you are complaining for the simple fact that it is different than the book and you don't like it?

 

[Eriol]

Secondly, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. If you can't see the contradictions in tolkiens characters, then what good is it if I point them out?

That's so right... only it applies to PJ Gandalf. Thorin just pointed out the contradictions in PJ Gandalf, not in comparison with Tolkien's but in itself.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

As for Tolkien's Gandalf (or any other character), if you had pointed ONE contradiction you might be right. We're still waiting. If you won't point them out, how can you know we're blind?

 

[joxy]

PJ's characters are consistent in and of themselves. My point is that in order for pj to follow tolkiens, the movie would have flopped because tolkiens were not suitable for screenplays etc.

The way that some of PJ's individuals change their characters and behaviour from one appearance to the next, the fact that they are NOT consistent, is a prominent factor in these films.
We have listed some of his inconsistencies. Now we wait for details of Tolkien's inconsistencies.
MY point was that to a large extent PJ DOES "follow tolkiens", which contradicts your theory that "tolkiens is not suitable for screenplays etc".
It's as I've said before, ad nauseam no doubt, these films are good IN PARTS, in every respect, including that of adaptation.
The question is: what is there in the OTHER parts of T that are so different that they are impossible to adapt equally well?

 

[Foe-Hammer]

That's so right... only it applies to PJ Gandalf. Thorin just pointed out the contradictions in PJ Gandalf, not in comparison with Tolkien's but in itself.

Thorin said: "His continual pessimism and deflated view of any hope he had was contrary to the book Gandalf who...."

That is what I was responding to.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

The way that some of PJ's individuals change their characters and behaviour from one appearance to the next, the fact that they are NOT consistent, is a prominent factor in these films.
We have listed some of his inconsistencies. Now we wait for details of Tolkien's inconsistencies.

See above.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

The question is: what is there in the OTHER parts of T that are so different that they are impossible to adapt equally well?

Other parts of ??? the book?

One example is Faramir. The discription of him in the book makes a very complex character that never really engages in a lot of those behaviors. To include Faramir in the depth that JRR wrote him would have added more time to the movie that would have been cut up also. So, the important part of Faramir is focused on. (IE the relationship with his dad.)

 

[joxy]

See above.

See what above?
A Tolkien inconsistency? A Jackson consistency? Or something else? And in which posting?

"Parts": Yes, of the book. Most of the parts of the book that PJ adapts, he adapts well. Other parts, the parts I was referring to, he adapts badly. My question is, if the books are so unsuitable for adaptation, or as you say "jrrs work lacked the required writing style to make it suitable for adaptation as it was written", how is that he manages to adapt any of them so well, as he does,
and what is so different about those "other" parts that makes them so unsuitable while the rest is not unsuitable?

Faramir: I'm not sure what you're saying: that book Faramir is so complex that he is not "suitable" for adaptation? If that IS what you're saying then how was it that several other more complex characters were adapted perfectly adequately? If that is NOT what you're saying I'm sorry I misunderstood and await clarification.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

See what above?
A Tolkien inconsistency? A Jackson consistency? Or something else? And in which posting?

"Parts": Yes, of the book. Most of the parts of the book that PJ adapts, he adapts well. Other parts, the parts I was referring to, he adapts badly. My question is, if the books are so unsuitable for adaptation, or as you say "jrrs work lacked the required writing style to make it suitable for adaptation as it was written", how is that he manages to adapt any of them so well, as he does,
and what is so different about those "other" parts that makes them so unsuitable while the rest is not unsuitable?

Faramir: I'm not sure what you're saying: that book Faramir is so complex that he is not "suitable" for adaptation? If that IS what you're saying then how was it that several other more complex characters were adapted perfectly adequately? If that is NOT what you're saying I'm sorry I misunderstood and await clarification.

I have been over this stuff several times and my patience in re-explaining it is waning.

Define "badly". Badly because there are not the book version or badly because they are just plain bad? You'll have to site examples.

I haven't seen one example of PJ not changing one thing about any character. If you know of one, please let me know, but to my knowledge, not one character is left pure in the book sense.

I do not have my book, but if you read Faramirs discription (he likes music etc) you will see that he was not just a person at odds with his father. Developing the rest of those traits would have just ended up on the floor, so PJ developed the part that was the most important in furthering the storyline. This is one of the nuances of adapting a book to screen.

 

[joxy]

I have been over this stuff several times....

Define "badly".....examples.

....not one character is left pure in the book sense.

Faramirs discription....Developing the rest of those traits would have just ended up on the floor, so PJ developed the part that was the most important in furthering the storyline.

But you still haven't told me what it was that you were inviting me to "see, above".

Badly, in both senses, of course, though they usually co-incide.
The Flight to the Ford is a clear concise account in the books; it's confusion from start to finish in the film.

Not "pure", of course; that's like the old argument of "you can't include everything". I didn't mean that any of PJ's characters is totally accurate; I would never have expected that and feel no regret about it. I should have left out the first word in my phrase that many of PJ's characterisations are "perfectly adequate". They're not perfect, but they are adequate, they are satisfying: Bilbo, Sam, Legolas, Saruman, Grima, Gandalf in the first two films.

Certainly all these, and most of the rest, including Faramir, have far more complex aspects than could ever be represented in the time available for the films. Again, the "you can't include everything" argument applies - we didn't expect that and we're satisfied not to have got it. PJ began very well with Faramir, with the capture of F&S, and particularly with The Forbidden Pool, which I think is one of the best scenes in the films, but inexplicably fell apart with the diversion to Osgiliath and the abrupt volte-face about letting S&F go free. Giving special attention to the father/son thing was a reasonable idea, but it went way over the top in the way it was presented.

 

[Ol'gaffer]

I still stand by my comment, Rhiannon not withstanding. For the most part, the people coming dressed for the films are people influenced by the costumes and hype of the movie. When teenage kids (who for the most part probably never even heard of Tolkien before the movies) come dressed up exactly as movie characters, you can't tell me that they are people who've been reading Tolkien for a long time.

Well, I went to the premier night dressed as a charecter from the movies, and I've been reading the books for a longer period. And although I'm a part of a minority, I can say that not all of the people there were just movie fans in clothing. But neither where they purists.

And FH, your continual criticism of Tolkien has crowded out any objective reasonability to analyze anthing of this movie. Perhaps it might be better for you to remove yourself from any sort of analyzation of the movie characters.

But then this would have to go to Mrs.M and Joxy as well, as they are both obviously very biast toward the books, so they cannot begin to analyze the charecters of the movie as a charecter of a movie without starting to rag on about how poor they were compared to the books.

 

[Ol'gaffer]

Badly, in both senses, of course, though they usually co-incide.
The Flight to the Ford is a clear concise account in the books; it's confusion from start to finish in the film.

But this is solely your opinion. Infact, I can safely predict that by this far watching the movie, you were so put off by some changes that you just hated the chase scene. And maybe you haven't noticed, but one cannot film a chase scene in a 'clear' way, meaning that you are most of the time in a wide shot and keep it intense and exciting.

Not "pure", of course; that's like the old argument of "you can't include everything". I didn't mean that any of PJ's characters is totally accurate; I would never have expected that and feel no regret about it. I should have left out the first word in my phrase that many of PJ's characterisations are "perfectly adequate". They're not perfect, but they are adequate, they are satisfying: Bilbo, Sam, Legolas, Saruman, Grima, Gandalf in the first two films.

No, by saying Pure doesn't mean add eveything. But more that they are not exact with the book, because quite simply no adaptation could ever adapt them direct from the book.

Certainly all these, and most of the rest, including Faramir, have far more complex aspects than could ever be represented in the time available for the films. Again, the "you can't include everything" argument applies - we didn't expect that and we're satisfied not to have got it. PJ began very well with Faramir, with the capture of F&S, and particularly with The Forbidden Pool, which I think is one of the best scenes in the films, but inexplicably fell apart with the diversion to Osgiliath and the abrupt volte-face about letting S&F go free. Giving special attention to the father/son thing was a reasonable idea, but it went way over the top in the way it was presented.

There's a major difference there, Faramir is a side charecter, compared to Gandalf, his part in the movies is a miniscule, that's why he is so hard to create on screen as a working part of the movie. Gandalf has so much screen time that it is far easier developing his charecter and making the audience familiar with him than in the books in which Faramir has nearly a hundred pages to himself, then another forty something in the appendices explaining his history. A movie simply cannot do that.

 

[Thorin]

But then this would have to go to Mrs.M and Joxy as well, as they are both obviously very biast toward the books, so they cannot begin to analyze the charecters of the movie as a charecter of a movie without starting to rag on about how poor they were compared to the books.

I don't think so. I have always found Maggot to be fairly accurate in her explanations of characters either in the movie itself or as a book comparison.

One need not compare RotK Gandalf to the book to see the inconsistencies in character traits shown in the first two movies. However, unlike Maggot, Foe-Hammer's continual "Hey, the movie is great and the characters are great and improved upon by Jackson from that hack, Tolkien" attitude, shows serious bias that compromises reason, rationality and any sort of level headed objectivity concerning any of the characters.

If I compared the amount of Maggot's objective and positive comments concerning the movies and Foe-Hammer's even remote or friendly criticism of any thing in the movies, I would find the scales tipped massively in Maggot's favor. As a matter of fact, I have found FH has more comments against Tolkien then against Jackson. He is entitled to his opinion, but that doesn't make it more objective then Maggot or joxy's.