My God, It Was Horrible (Part III)

Ol'gaffer said:

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.
....it couldn't have been anything else except him being just sick and twisted.

Click to expand...

I didn't "start a hoo-hah"; I used it as example of the dark corners of PJ's mind, which it unquestionably is. There's no big deal about it; we all have one or two of those corners. The difference is that we don't expose them to 6 billion viewers.
I was asked to show some dark corners; if that one isn't dark enough for you, I'll introduce you to some more.
The "real" Prancing Pony was nothing like that, so I do NOT understand why PJ wanted it to be that way. You can be strange and uncomfortable in any new place; it doesn't have to have a decor the colour of urine to make it so. "Pubs" are very rarely dark and dirty, and none are, or look, urine-stained; Mr Butterbur would be very upset to know that you, and PJ, think that his was so.
And finally, how many people would choose "urine-stained" as a way to describe a dark and gloomy place, anyway?! That HAD to come from a "dark corner"!
He's not "sick and twisted", just anxious to expose a dark corner now and again.

Thorin said:

....as unprovable as a purist saying that changing them to the book would have made it more successful.

Click to expand...

There must be one or two people who know and admire the books and have avoided the films because of their knowledge of
the standard of the adaptation. Their tickets to our hypothetical more accurate adaptation WOULD have made it that little bit more successful, in financial terms!

Fechin said:

Wow that could not have been said better I am speechless.

Click to expand...

Then you can give us a translation?

Rhiannon said:

But I think I am justified in saying that a large part of their success is due to the fact that there was a lot of marketing and hype and scary Orlando Bloom addictions; we have perhaps not been fooled, but we have been influenced. And not to say that there's anything wrong with marketing, even if I am sick to death of seeing Orlando Bloom's face pasted everywhere.

Click to expand...

You do realize that when you use the word "but" you have just effective negated everything you claimed before that?

Unless you can site some verifiable figures that support your claim and break down what percentage of people enjoyed the movie for which reasons, you are unfairly generalizing a huge amount of people. You may have an axe to grind against this movie and thats fine. Please realize that most people go to movies because they are curious and are interested in the subject. They go back and watch then again because they really enjoyed them. Niether requires a lot of hype. I don't remember a lot of hype over these movies UNTIL AFTER they were released and that came from sources other than the pr department of new line.

Thorin said:

Foe-Hammer, I for one don't really care if you try and give an example of the book's inconsistencies. I have seen your examples and they are lacking in credibility when you dig down past the surface (i.e. Faramir ignoring the ring is more credible then what we saw with PJ).

My biggest problem with your line of reasoning is that it cannot be proven. To say that the movies were successful because of how they were adapted and that changing them would have resulted in a less successful movie is as unprovable as a purist saying that changing them to the book would have made it more successful. You support one and scoff and ridicule those who may hint at the other.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Of course all these newbie folks are figuring that out. The vets on this forum know from experience that it is a futile effort arguing with you while you hold to your stubborn, unprovable opinions while insulting others for their stubborn, unprovable opinions.

Click to expand...

The difference is that my opinion is backed up by two failed films and yours is backed up by wishful thinking. Of course niether view is provable until it is tried. If you recall, my claim was made in response to the npw claim that the movie WOULD have been better if PJ had stuck to the book. (You guys even went so far as to create new screen plays and then anointed them "Better" without chunking down the bucks to bring them to the screen) That cannot be proven and additionally you have zero data that could even remotely support such a outrageous claim. So, I retorted with my claim that if any position has a remote chance of being valid it would be my claim that a film that went further from the book actually did better and it would be more likely for a film to do better the more it went away from the book than it would by sticking closer to it. Of course, there would be a point where you could go too far and it would flop, but judging by the immense popularity of the movie, PJ never even got close to the point of going too far.

Foe-Hammer said:

....you are unfairly generalizing a huge amount of people.
....most people go to movies because they are curious and are interested in the subject.

The difference is that my opinion is backed up by two failed films....
....yours is backed up by wishful thinking.
....judging by the immense popularity of the movie, PJ never even got close to the point of going too far.

Click to expand...

There's nothing "unfair" about it; as Rhiannon herself said: "there's nothing wrong with marketing", from which we can safely
go on to say: "there's nothing wrong in buying from marketing". There's no aspersion on anyone who saw the films as a direct result of any form of marketing; marketing is a perfectly respectable industry.
As before, there's absolutely NO way of knowing what MOST people do. I'd like to think that your GUESS is correct, but the entire advertising, media, public relations, and marketing industries wouldn't want to agree with us.

The two failed films are no backing at all.
There was one that hardly anyone has ever heard of, that had very little money spent on it. The other is a cartoon, which can't begin to be compared to a "serious" film, and it actually did quite well; the recordings are still available. Whether either of them
is a closer adaptation than PJ's is irrelevant. It's interesting to note, however, that PJ lifted some of his bright ideas directly from the cartoon - or if he didn't the coincidence is pretty startling.
Ours isn't backed at all, as we know there's no way of KNOWING what could happen. There is one small certainty though: that the people who have been put off seeing the PJ version by their knowledge that it is not as close an adaptation as they would have liked would make the hypothetical new film marginally MORE successful.
The "immense popularity" tells us precisely nothing about the level of satisfaction with the adaptation. The films are, if not "immensely" then certainly "quite" popular with ME! But PJ still went far too far away from his source to completely satisfy me.

joxy said:

There must be one or two people who know and admire the books and have avoided the films because of their knowledge of
the standard of the adaptation. Their tickets to our hypothetical more accurate adaptation WOULD have made it that little bit more successful, in financial terms!

Click to expand...

Ask yourself how many you lose to gain those few. I'll point you to the previous films that were closer to the book for your answer.

joxy said:

I didn't "start a hoo-hah"; I used it as example of the dark corners of PJ's mind, which it unquestionably is. There's no big deal about it; we all have one or two of those corners. The difference is that we don't expose them to 6 billion viewers.
I was asked to show some dark corners; if that one isn't dark enough for you, I'll introduce you to some more.
The "real" Prancing Pony was nothing like that, so I do NOT understand why PJ wanted it to be that way. You can be strange and uncomfortable in any new place; it doesn't have to have a decor the colour of urine to make it so. "Pubs" are very rarely dark and dirty, and none are, or look, urine-stained; Mr Butterbur would be very upset to know that you, and PJ, think that his was so.
And finally, how many people would choose "urine-stained" as a way to describe a dark and gloomy place, anyway?! That HAD to come from a "dark corner"!
He's not "sick and twisted", just anxious to expose a dark corner now and again.

Click to expand...

You're starting to sound like MM and her ran about "there are no dirty faces in ME" nonsence.

What would be the impression on the movie goer if the hobbits were to enter a perfectly clean bar, yet it is filled with all sorts of threatening characters? You see, the human mind can only have one thought going at a time, so we do not notice those contradictions in the book and it works just fine. When you view a movie, the eyes, ears, and mind work together at the same time and without a narrative to give arragorn (strider) a threatening facade, that scene would have fallen flat on it's face. The bar has to be dirty and dank because that is where unsavory threatening characters hang out and therefore no narrative is required.

joxy said:

There's nothing "unfair" about it; as Rhiannon herself said: "there's nothing wrong with marketing", from which we can safely
go on to say: "there's nothing wrong in buying from marketing". There's no aspersion on anyone who saw the films as a direct result of any form of marketing; marketing is a perfectly respectable industry.

Click to expand...

That I would agree with but she threw in other reasons that are absolutely ridiculous.

joxy said:

The two failed films are no backing at all.

Click to expand...

It surely is more than the other position.

joxy said:

Ours isn't backed at all, as we know there's no way of KNOWING what could happen.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

joxy said:

There is one small certainty though: that the people who have been put off seeing the PJ versions by their knowledge that it is not as close an adaptation as they would have liked would make the hypotherical new film marginally MORE successful.

Click to expand...

Again, you have no data to back that up because films that were closer did worse, and although you may gain a few npw's you would stand to lose an expotentially greater number who would be put off by it.

joxy said:

The "immense popularity" tells us precisely nothing about the level of satisfaction with the adaptation.

Click to expand...

Sure it does. It means people chunk down their hard earned bread on what they like. Unless you are now making the claim that people really hated the movie but continue to go see it and continue to rave about it to their friends just so they can be screwed by pj too?! Is that what you are claiming? If it is, get in line, other npw's beat you to that brainless claim.

joxy said:

The films are, if not "immensely" then certainly "quite" popular with ME! But PJ still went far too far away from his source to completely satisfy me.

Click to expand...

Cool for you.

Foe-Hammer said:

The difference is that my opinion is backed up by two failed films and yours is backed up by wishful thinking

Click to expand...

Your claim is based on false assumptions, not fact. You can't even compare the two previous movies to Jacksons. Staying true to the book isn't even a factor. Had Jackson's stayed true blue to the book it would still have been more popular and made more money then the previous two. Why? Because it is a better movie with CGIs, special effects and more advanced film making. It has NOTHING to do with the adaptation.

Foe-Hammer said:

So, I retorted with my claim that if any position has a remote chance of being valid it would be my claim that a film that went further from the book actually did better and it would be more likely for a film to do better the more it went away from the book than it would by sticking closer to it.

Click to expand...

More false assumption. You can't use Jackson's success and tie it in with how far he went from the book. That is even more unprovable (and highly unlikely) then to say that it would have made more money had it stayed true to the book.

You are still ignoring the simple fact that many people going couldn't care less how it was as an adaptation. Many didn't even read the books, they were just hooked on a good fantasy film. The fact that PJ tried (and admitted) to stay true to the books shows that he knew that there was a possibility that fans would be miffed had he chucked the book away. So your argument that 'further deviation would continue the success is not only laughable but improbable even from the movie maker's perspective. What you can say is that PJ deviated far enough to still keep the fans impressed.

So let me get this straight Thorin.....you are now claiming the story has little to do with the films success and that it's real success lies in the CG effects? You prove my point that tolkiens book as written was so weak, that it couldn't over-come the media of animation and become a successful film.

CG has NEVER rescued a film from bad adaptation or bad story. A CG loaded film done exactly like the R&B version would have been the exact same flop as the cartoon version. PJ did what no other film maker could...adapted jrrs work and made it better for film and thus a better story on film.

Foe-Hammer said:

You do realize that when you use the word "but" you have just effective negated everything you claimed before that?

Click to expand...

Er, no. Please explain to me this brand new grammatical that I suspect you just made up.

Unless you can site some verifiable figures that support your claim and break down what percentage of people enjoyed the movie for which reasons, you are unfairly generalizing a huge amount of people. You may have an axe to grind against this movie and thats fine. Please realize that most people go to movies because they are curious and are interested in the subject. They go back and watch then again because they really enjoyed them. Niether requires a lot of hype. I don't remember a lot of hype over these movies UNTIL AFTER they were released and that came from sources other than the pr department of new line.

Click to expand...

...
I'm sorry, but: Where do you live? A box? A houseboat out in the ocean somewhere? I was living in Japan when the first film came out and I was still surrounded with hype. I have a flyer advertising Fellowship with kanji on it for proof.

That I would agree with but she threw in other reasons that are absolutely ridiculous.

Click to expand...

What other reasons? Why were they ridiculous? Would you please provide evidence in addition to your snide commentary (since you are apparently incapable of not being snide?)

It surely is more than the other position.

Click to expand...

In your oh-so expert opinion. You are comparing two incomplete low budget animated films with little to no marketing to a massive film trilogy with a huge budget, hordes of nifty special effects, an actual marketing campaign, and a few built-in babe magnets. Is it just me, or is this an idiotic way to judge how successful an accurate adaptation of LotR would be?

Rhiannon said:

Er, no. Please explain to me this brand new grammatical that I suspect you just made up.


...
I'm sorry, but: Where do you live? A box? A houseboat out in the ocean somewhere? I was living in Japan when the first film came out and I was still surrounded with hype. I have a flyer advertising Fellowship with kanji on it for proof.


What other reasons? Why were they ridiculous? Would you please provide evidence in addition to your snide commentary (since you are apparently incapable of not being snide?)


In your oh-so expert opinion. You are comparing two incomplete low budget animated films with little to no marketing to a massive film trilogy with a huge budget, hordes of nifty special effects, an actual marketing campaign, and a few built-in babe magnets. Is it just me, or is this an idiotic way to judge how successful an accurate adaptation of LotR would be?

Click to expand...

My opinion gives people the benifit of being intellegent. Yours assumes everyone is wowed by money, FX, marketing and babe magnets. How utterly foul, elitest, and arrogant of you. Tell me, what does it feel like to know you are the only person on the face of the earth who is enlightened?

Foe-Hammer said:

My opinion gives people the benifit of being intellegent. Yours assumes everyone is wowed by money, FX, marketing and babe magnets. How utterly foul, elitest, and arrogant of you. Tell me, what does it feel like to know you are the only person on the face of the earth who is enlightened?

Click to expand...

Perhaps you could tell me. Since I and my opinions are, apparently, worthless, I wonder why you should care to hear another one. But I have nothing more to say to you. Actually there is quite a lot I want to say, but I'm not going to. You may choose to interpret this as a victory if your inflated ego so desires.

Rhiannon said:

Perhaps you could tell me. Since I and my opinions are, apparently, worthless, I wonder why you should care to hear another one. But I have nothing more to say to you. Actually there is quite a lot I want to say, but I'm not going to. You may choose to interpret this as a victory if your inflated ego so desires.

Click to expand...

I do not undrstand how you can claim that most people go see these movies for the reasons you sited.

I see no victory for anyone involved in this.

Foe-Hammer said:

I do not undrstand how you can claim that most people go see these movies for the reasons you sited.

I see no victory for anyone involved in this.

Click to expand...

Then we obviously have nothing more to discuss. Especially since you are intent on insulting me. And it is 'cited', not 'sited'.

Rhiannon said:

And it is 'cited', not 'sited'.

Click to expand...

And? Yer pint is?

All right people, let's all calm down just a bit, I'll close this thread for 24 hours so that everyone can calm themselves a bit.

The thread is now open again.

On that note, any more personal attacks towards anyone and I'll close this again.

We can violently disagree in harmony

Ol'gaffer said:

....any more personal attacks....

Click to expand...

If anyone, anywhere, says that I, or anyone else, "hate" ANYTHING or ANYONE, I shall take it as a "personal attack".

Foe-Hammer said:

...surround the ring and it's effect on characters. It is not consistant and therefore the characters are not consistant. And that in turns affect how they are viewed as equals.

Click to expand...

I've read this thread a few pages back...I'm not sure exactly what is being discussed. FH, what are you saying here? The inconsistancies in PJ's characters OR Tolkien's characters? What does it matter if the inconsistancies in PJ's characters are centered on what hapens to them when they encounter the ring? The point is the behavior of the characters is wildly inconsistant, both with how they act in other parts of the movies and with the book characters. Please provide an example for clarification