My God, It Was Horrible (Part III)

Thorin said:

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.

Click to expand...

So you've entirely missed Joxys posts on "the sick twisted mind of the incompetend Peter Jackson" and how "he destroyes the books by being so incompetent" These are not accurate quotes, they're more of a summary of what I've read from Joxy.

And it's not commenting from either side, neither F-H or Joxy have commented or given "constructive criticism" toward the movies, they've both simply just bashed either the movie in Joxy's case or the books in F-H's case.

Oh, let's just kill them all and be done with it.

Nobody's opinion is unbiased. Nobody is bothering to make their opinion unbiased. An unbiased opinion isn't much of an opinion anyway.

My movie experience went something like this: Went to see Fellowship of the Ring. Liked it a lot. Thought it was really good. I really hated that Arwen-chase-scene nonesense. but other than that the changes were all things that I might not have liked, but I could deal with them. Year goes by. Went to see The Two Towers. I'm back in the USA now, so I use the film as an excuse to get together with two of my friends and we have a grand time causing chaos and then go see it together. I liked parts of it a lot. Thought parts of it were really good. But I was deeply bothered by the fact that they took away my second favorite character and replaced him with someone else using the same name. And some weird things happened with the plot, and I got really bored during that huuuuge long battle thing, and I didn't like it as much as Fellowship, but I thought 'eh, it's the middle film, it's hard to work with. I bet Return of the King will sort out the plot, and my Faramir will be back, and it'll be great.' Year goes by. I get together with my friends again. We eat a lot of popcorn and chocolate and cause more chaos and stalk Stef's boyfriend, and then, ta-da! Went to see Return of the King. Hated it. Uh oh. The plot weirdness begun in The Two Towers got worse, nothing made sense, the acting, which I enjoyed so much in the first two films, was suddenly no longer good, there were all these weird, unnecessary scenes that did nothing but confuse and annoy me, and of the two scenes that I had been waiting four years to see, one was not included and the other was done all wrong. It sucked. I felt betrayed. I felt annoyed. I felt seriously ticked off. And ticked off I remain. Not because I automatically hate Peter Jackson, but because I get the feeling that somewhere in the middle he decided that he was so successful he could just do whatever he wanted. I think hubris set in.

joxy said:

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

Click to expand...

Don't worry about it. We are in the middle of the discussion that was referring to.

Thorin said:

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.

Click to expand...

You are blind Thorin. Maggot is the queen of veiled insults. That may be because you don't bother looking up the 5 dollar words she uses to obfuscate her true meanings. IE, people who like these movies are either ignorant of jrrs work or they are from the video game crowd. I am niether, yet thoroughly enjoyed all three movies. The movie is making millions but thats because the people going are of flawed character. Those are not her exact words but they are the jist of what she has said in the past. Most of maggots positive comments are followed by a "but", "if only" or "tragically" type response effectively nullifying the positive. I occasionally respond in kind about her beloved jrr in order to perhapes give her a moment of pause and a chance to reflect.

And am I surprised you find yourself in agreement with her comments since you are both basically of the same mind? That is no great feat. You want to impress me or anyone else, get people who are diametrically opposed with each other to agree and then you have accomplised something worth bragging about.

joxy said:

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.

Click to expand...

I don't see it as confusing. She said that if she got him to the borders of her land the power of her people would protect him. She is chased for quite a while and eventually comes to the border of her land and the nazgul are de-horsed. I thought is was very clear. If you saw it differently, you can leave an explanation as to why you felt that way.

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.

Click to expand...

In the TE is was not entirely clear why Faramir released them. That is not to say because there was no reason apparent but because there were many reasons why he did. The EE made it very clear that Faramir released them because he saw that the ring was completely destructive and it would not help the cause in defending gondor. It was clear to me from the giddy-up that Faramir wanted to impress his father and that is why he took them to osgiliath. No it is not from the book, but it does work and is not that far of a stretch from faramirs character.

Ol'gaffer said:

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.

....they are not exact with the book, because quite simply no adaptation could ever adapt them direct from the book.

Faramir....is so hard to create on screen as a working part of the movie.

Click to expand...

Obviously my opinion, but shared by many!
Do I have to say this yet once more?: I do not "hate" anything about PJ's films, or about anyone else's films.
I don't "hate" anything, but if I did, it would be something much more serious than any film could ever be.
My reaction to the Flight to the Ford has always been that, from Arwen's encounter with Aragorn through to Frodo's revival at Rivendell, the whole thing is incoherent, within itself. I don't get your point about it being impossible to film a chase clearly.
This one is far from intense though - that's what Tolkien's chase would have been -, and I don't find it exciting at all.

This is a variation of my previous comment on the matter: a lot of what PJ has done IS direct from the book;
so, in those parts of the film, he has done something that "no-one could ever do"!?

And again, PJ did NOT find it hard, at first, to create him on the screen - he began very well. It's the continuous variations and fluctuations in him after that - as I said, after the Forbidden Pool - that are hard to account for.

In reply to your strange tirade against me, directed to Thorin, which I won't descend to quote:
I've said that PJ has some "dark" corners in his mind. Listen to him on the EE extras and you'll hear him speaking from those corners - and being perfectly happy with, and even proud of, what he says.
I've said that occasionally PJ shows acts of incompetence in his films. Look at Faramir's cave from which most of the large, substantial, and very obvious props disappear betwen frames of the film.
I've said nothing about PJ "destroying the books". The idea is absurd; the books will long out-last the films.
Your comments are not a "summary of what you have read from joxy"; they're a summary of your own imaginings.
I have never "bashed" the films; I have often praised parts of them, and have mildly pointed out the faults in other parts of them.
He doesn't need this, but I haven't seen Foe-Hammer doing any "bashing" either.

joxy said:

And again, PJ did NOT find it hard, at first, to create him on the screen - he began very well. It's the continuous various and fluctuations in him after that, as I said, after the Forbidden Pool, that are hard to account for.

Click to expand...

Well, none of us know for sure what he was thinking. To be fair to PJ, most people try to come up with a logical reason for the way it was shot. That means taking all the finer points of screen writing into account before claiming the scene could have been done better or a different way.

Foe-Hammer said:

And am I surprised you find yourself in agreement with her comments since you are both basically of the same mind? That is no great feat. You want to impress me or anyone else, get people who are diametrically opposed with each other to agree and then you have accomplised something worth bragging about.

Click to expand...

I stopped trying to impress you long ago, Foe-Hammer.

Our only hope on this forum is for diametrically opposed opinions to agree on certain points. This I believe has happened many times. Despite your views on myself and Maggot, we have always praised the movies where they went right (as I said before, as a movie and an adaptation, RoTK is the best out of all the three theatre versions) and have agreed on certain points of criticism with film defenders like Gandalf White (probably the most open-minded of the FADs on this forum), and aragil.

Rarely do we find staunch purists or staunch movie defenders (though both you and joxy come close to both camps ) who call the movies all good or all bad. Both of them would be ignorantly biased and pig-headed if they did.

Foe-Hammer said:

....all the finer points of screen writing....

Click to expand...

I take your point, but I have to question how much of those "finer points of screen writing" are included in these films"! I have the evidence of my ears and eyes to tell me that a lot of the writing is done with a very wide brush, and I have the comments by the writers themselves to confirm the idea! Subtle they are NOT.

joxy said:

In reply to your strange tirade against me, directed to Thorin, which I won't descend to quote:
I've said that PJ has some "dark" corners in his mind. Listen to him on the EE extras and you'll hear him speaking from those corners - and being perfectly happy with, and even proud of, what he says.

Click to expand...

And these are? Certainly you don't mean things like "I've always found creatures and monsters very exciting and fascinating."

I've said that occasionally PJ shows acts of incompetence in his films. Look at Faramir's cave from which most of the large, substantial, and very obvious props disappear betwen frames of the film.

Click to expand...

Yes, and look at your other comment in which you say how it took you to slow down the movie to 1/16 speed to actually see this. Your hypocrisy has no boundaries. Calling Peter Jackson incompetent on such a thing when it took you that much to see that actually.

I've said nothing about PJ "destroying the books". The idea is absurd; the books will long out-last the films.
Your comments are not a "summary of what you have read from joxy"; they're a summary of your own imaginings.

Click to expand...

No, they're all summarized from what I've read from your comments.

I have never "bashed" the films; I have often praised parts of them, and have mildly pointed out the faults in other parts of them.
He doesn't need this, but I haven't seen Foe-Hammer doing any "bashing" either.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, you're bashing was always called "constructive criticism"

joxy said:

In reply to your strange tirade against me, directed to Thorin, which I won't descend to quote:
I've said that PJ has some "dark" corners in his mind. Listen to him on the EE extras and you'll hear him speaking from those corners - and being perfectly happy with, and even proud of, what he says.
I've said that occasionally PJ shows acts of incompetence in his films. Look at Faramir's cave from which most of the large, substantial, and very obvious props disappear betwen frames of the film.
I've said nothing about PJ "destroying the books". The idea is absurd; the books will long out-last the films.
Your comments are not a "summary of what you have read from joxy"; they're a summary of your own imaginings.
I have never "bashed" the films; I have often praised parts of them, and have mildly pointed out the faults in other parts of them.
He doesn't need this, but I haven't seen Foe-Hammer doing any "bashing" either.

Click to expand...

Is this what they call "yellow journalism"?

MY PUPILS ARE BURNING!

Ol'gaffer said:

And these are?
....it took you to slow down the movie to 1/16 speed to actually see this.....Calling Peter Jackson incompetent on such a thing
No, they're all summarized from what I've read from your comments.
Oh yes, you're bashing....

Click to expand...

An old example, direct from FOTR DVD EE: "I wanted the interior of The Prancing Pony to have a urine-stained appearance."
It's perfectly true, I did have to try the 1/16 and I still wasn't convinced about that orc killing the smaller one! I didn't say that was anything to do with incompetence by PJ; in fact I said it could perhaps be explained by my DVD copy having a fault, and even I wouldn't blame him for that.
I can only repeat: they have nothing to do with my comments.
I haven't the strength to bash a boiled potato into mash.

Parrot said:

Is this what they call "yellow journalism"?
MY PUPILS ARE BURNING!

Click to expand...

LOL, yes it must have been - I was feeling slightly nauseated at the time - can't think why!
Is that any better?

joxy said:

I take your point, but I have to question how much of those "finer points of screen writing" are included in these films"! I have the evidence of my ears and eyes to tell me that a lot of the writing is done with a very wide brush, and I have the comments by the writers themselves to confirm the idea! Subtle they are NOT.

Click to expand...

By finer points I do not mean more precise or less broad. I mean the areas of screen writing that are not evident. A scene in a movie may offend your eyes and ears but that could be a matter of taste and not screen writing. If the offending scene is critial to another scene in the movie and if it is re-shot a different way, it might be detrimental to the second scene.

Because the movie is such a record breaking success, we must admit that pj and company did a mighty fine job in adapting this to the screen. No one, with any real credibilty, can claim that any script or scene change would have made this movie a bigger success.

Foe-Hammer said:

Because the movie is such a record breaking success, we must admit that pj and company did a mighty fine job in adapting this to the screen. No one, with any real credibilty, can claim that any script or scene change would have made this movie a bigger success.

Click to expand...

Sure we can. Oh wait, I forgot, I have no credibility. Huh, go figure. Of course, we all know that you have real credibility, so we can trust your opinion, right? Right? Oh wait, no. You haven't demonstrated any real credibility either. Isn't that funny. </snarkyness>
We don't have to admit anything of the kind. All we have to admit is that PJ & Co. managed to make a successful series of fantasy films that may or may not have been similar to a certain fantasy novel.

Foe-Hammer said:

Because the movie is such a record breaking success, we must admit that pj and company did a mighty fine job in adapting this to the screen. No one, with any real credibilty, can claim that any script or scene change would have made this movie a bigger success.

Click to expand...

You are correct that the movie was wildly successful. However, your assumptions based on that fact are rather off. Saying the movie is successful is just that; a great film that consequently brought in a lot of money. The success of the movie, however, is not based on how well it was adapted. There is no way you can imply that.

I am forced to agree that some script or a scene change or two would not make it more successful; however, I would argue that scene and script changes would make it better. Given enough tasteful changes, the movie may have been an even bigger success.

Gandalf White said:

You are correct that the movie was wildly successful. However, your assumptions based on that fact are rather off. Saying the movie is successful is just that; a great film that consequently brought in a lot of money. The success of the movie, however, is not based on how well it was adapted. There is no way you can imply that.

I am forced to agree that some script or a scene change or two would not make it more successful; however, I would argue that scene and script changes would make it better. Given enough tasteful changes, the movie may have been an even bigger success.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The two previous attempts at this story were much closer to the book, yet were absolute failures. Therefore, the version we have now with all it's differences is a better version. On that basis alone it is a long stretch to claim that any changes made that are closer to the book would be more likely to make the movie more successful.

Foe-Hammer said:

I disagree. The two previous attempts at this story were much closer to the book, yet were absolute failures. Therefore, the version we have now with all it's differences is a better version. On that basis alone it is a long stretch to claim that any changes made that are closer to the book would be more likely to make the movie more successful.

Click to expand...

....

Hah!

The Bashki film was not closer to the book, and was a failure due to the fact that it was absolutely absurd in every way, shape, and form. The Rankin & Bass film, while reasonably close to the book, was a failure due to the fact that it only covered the third book and was a small scale production. And anyway, I like it, for nostolgic reasons. When I was six I thought it was great.

The New Line films are without a doubt more successful, but this has nothing to do with the changes made in the story and everything to do with the budget, the marketing, the hype, and Orlando Bloom's complexion.

Foe-Hammer said:

I disagree. The two previous attempts at this story were much closer to the book, yet were absolute failures. Therefore, the version we have now with all it's differences is a better version. On that basis alone it is a long stretch to claim that any changes made that are closer to the book would be more likely to make the movie more successful.

Click to expand...

Of course what we have now is a better version, there's no denying that. But in no way does that give us basis to claim it couldn't have gotten any better. We have yet to see a very faithful adaptation with a decent budget.

Rhiannon said:

The New Line films are without a doubt more successful, but this has nothing to do with the changes made in the story and everything to do with the budget, the marketing, the hype, and Orlando Bloom's complexion.

Click to expand...

And the fact that they are very good films...

joxy said:

An old example, direct from FOTR DVD EE: "I wanted the interior of The Prancing Pony to have a urine-stained appearance."
It's perfectly true, I did have to try the 1/16 and I still wasn't convinced about that orc killing the smaller one! I didn't say that was anything to do with incompetence by PJ; in fact I said it could perhaps be explained by my DVD copy having a fault, and even I wouldn't blame him for that.
I can only repeat: they have nothing to do with my comments.
I haven't the strength to bash a boiled potato into mash.

Click to expand...

You have problems dear joxy, seriously.
Anyone in their right minds to start a hoo-haa about something like that quote is out of their right minds.
I understand perfectly why PJ wanted to have that kind of an outlook for the Prancing Pony, after all, it was a pub and a first time for the hobbits to enter in such a place, it must have been a strange experience and something uncomfortable at first.
Oh, but I forgot, this is PJ, it couldn't have been anything else except him being just sick and twisted.