My God, It Was Horrible (Part III)

simbelmyne · Dec 21, 2003

Dude, where's your argument?

it's toolette, actually thanks for making me laugh, at least. (although not sure that's what you were going for)

Foe-Hammer · Dec 21, 2003

Originally posted by simbelmyne
THE POINT: The stupid lembas doesn't matter except to show at THIS moment Frodo believes Gollum is honest and Sam is lying. OK, I'll buy it. Frodo identifies with Gollum because he begins to understand Gollum's consuming desire to possess the ring

Frodo has become paranoid that he will lose the ring - that obsession dominates his thoughts. Why is he so worried about Sam stealing it and not the slightest bit worried about Gollum stealing it? He knows Gollum has gone to any lengths in the past to get it back, and he now has a window into his mind and how much Gollum wants it. If he was REALLY so paranoid that he can't see Sam is his friend, he would surely be paranoid about Gollum taking it from him too...he would trust no one, even if he picked Golum to go forward with him and left Sam behind.

Not to mention if he's gotten to the point where he has zero ability to tell right from wrong, why does he keep going on a journey to destroy the ring at all?

Gollum swore an oath on the ring to serve Frodo and in frodos eyes gollum was doing all that he asked. Frodo felt his fate would mirror that of gollum, thus his desire to "help" gollum. Frodo wanted to believe gollum was redeemable and didn't see the treachery. Because frodo had seen the negative effect the ring had on many good people, he sent Sam away.

Gandalf White · Dec 21, 2003

Originally posted by simbelmyne
THE POINT: The stupid lembas doesn't matter except to show at THIS moment Frodo believes Gollum is honest and Sam is lying. OK, I'll buy it. Frodo identifies with Gollum because he begins to understand Gollum's consuming desire to possess the ring

Frodo has become paranoid that he will lose the ring - that obsession dominates his thoughts. Why is he so worried about Sam stealing it and not the slightest bit worried about Gollum stealing it? He knows Gollum has gone to any lengths in the past to get it back, and he now has a window into his mind and how much Gollum wants it. If he was REALLY so paranoid that he can't see Sam is his friend, he would surely be paranoid about Gollum taking it from him too...he would trust no one, even if he picked Golum to go forward with him and left Sam behind.

Not to mention if he's gotten to the point where he has zero ability to tell right from wrong, why does he keep going on a journey to destroy the ring at all?

The lembas is not stupid, it is nicely used...

Who says Frodo trusted anyone? Perhaps he thought that he was succeeding in bringing Gollum back. At any rate he needed Gollum and Sam seemed the imminent threat.

And who said anything about zero ability to tell right from wrong? It may be distorted, but he knows what he's on the journey for.

Mrs. Maggott · Dec 21, 2003

I haven't read the whole thread, so this may have already been addressed. But Post 1, #6 - the decapitation referred not to the Nazgul, but to his winged steed. If this is redundant, forgive me, but I thought I'd post it before I forgot.

Thorin · Dec 30, 2003

I'll say this about the Frodo/Gollum/Sam thing:

It may have worked in the movie, but (like the Arwen change) it wasn't Tolkien. Nevermind the fact that it NEVER happened in the book,

1) there is no way that Frodo would have banished Sam, and
2) no way would Sam ever have left Frodo's side, especially when he felt the way he did about Gollum (and more so in the movie).

PJ went for the overly dramatic version and eventually ended up where Tolkien did, but he forgot the characters of the book and their personalities and loyalties that did not make them act in the way that the movie did.

If Gandalf White and Foe-Hammer want to call me a NPW for bringing that up rather than blindly accept PJ's version as 'improvements' on Tolkien then so be it.

Gandalf White · Dec 30, 2003

Hold on a minute!

Thorin said:
I'll say this about the Frodo/Gollum/Sam thing:

It may have worked in the movie, but (like the Arwen change) it wasn't Tolkien. Nevermind the fact that it NEVER happened in the book,

1) there is no way that Frodo would have banished Sam, and
2) no way would Sam ever have left Frodo's side, especially when he felt the way he did about Gollum (and more so in the movie).

PJ went for the overly dramatic version and eventually ended up where Tolkien did, but he forgot the characters of the book and their personalities and loyalties that did not make them act in the way that the movie did.

If Gandalf White and Foe-Hammer want to call me a NPW for bringing that up rather than blindly accept PJ's version as 'improvements' on Tolkien then so be it.

Heaven help me!

*throws hands up in disbelief*

I am fully aware of the fact that it never happened in the books, and that the book characters would never act that way. All I have pointed out is that the scene is perfectly logical with PJ's characters. Nor have I said that it is "better than the books," although I disagree with the adjective 'overdone.' It worked for me in the movie; I thought it well-executed.

Time and time again I have stated Tolkien to be the Master, what he wrote was Law, there can be no improvement. To imply that I would blindly accept PJ's version as "better" is quite disturbing. Further so is the implication that I am (a) of the same disposition as Foe hammer and (b) participate in the same insulting manner.

I thought better of you, Thorin.

Odo Proudfoot · Dec 31, 2003

Gandalf White said:
Time and time again I have stated Tolkien to be the Master, what he wrote was Law, there can be no improvement.

Now, now, don't go overboard here, Gandalf White. Of course Tolkien's book is outstanding, fantastic, marvellous etc.etc., and no doubt the only book I will have read more than a dozen times in my life, but there is always room for improvement (do I sound like a schoolmaster here? ).

On the whole, PJ's films are not an improvement over the book, mainly because they are too short, but also because of some of the less successful deviations (AotC comes to mind, also the entire Arwen subplot struggles to convince). On the other hand, PJ has managed to convey some of Tolkiens moments and brought them to life on screen in a way that surpasses their emotional impact in the book, and at such moments I do feel he has improved on the book (from the last film, the lighting of the beacons, and Sam and Frodo on their rock come to mind; from earlier films I'd nominate Isildur and Elrond at the Crack of Doom, the Fellowship recovering from the fight with the Balrog outside Moria, and the death of Boromir from FotR; Gandalf fighting the Balrog and the build-up to the battle of helm's Deep from TTT).

Odo

Mrs. Maggott · Dec 31, 2003

Has anyone noticed a change in definitions here? We went from the admission by most FADs that certain events "didn't happen that way in the book" but that the characters were portrayed (to a greater or lesser extent) as they had been in the book - to the recognition that Jackson's seminal characters were so different that any unbelieveable action (Frodo sending Sam away and him going) was "consistent" with the films' characters! What happened to the contention that Jackson's characters really weren't all that different than Tolkien's?

I am more than ever reminded of the old radio/tv show disclaimer that "...any resemblence to persons living or dead is purely coincidental". Maybe that's the statement Jackson should have used rather than his amorphous statement that the films were "based upon J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. He should have said, "...any resemblence to the characters in the book entitled LOTR is purely coincidental."

Barliman Butterbur · Dec 31, 2003

Beorn said:
Are you a Tolkien fan, or are you a Jackson fan?

- Mike B

Wahoo! I take it you're a bit micturated (can't say p-i-s-s-e-d, or the censorbot will delete it) about ROTK! Anyway, my self-admittedly sarcastic pal, call me a heretic, I'm a fan of both. (Love it when you get on about something, too!)

Lotho

Foe-Hammer · Dec 31, 2003

Mrs. Maggott said:
Has anyone noticed a change in definitions here? We went from the admission by most FADs that certain events "didn't happen that way in the book" but that the characters were portrayed (to a greater or lesser extent) as they had been in the book - to the recognition that Jackson's seminal characters were so different that any unbelieveable action (Frodo sending Sam away and him going) was "consistent" with the films' characters! What happened to the contention that Jackson's characters really weren't all that different than Tolkien's?

I am more than ever reminded of the old radio/tv show disclaimer that "...any resemblence to persons living or dead is purely coincidental". Maybe that's the statement Jackson should have used rather than his amorphous statement that the films were "based upon J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. He should have said, "...any resemblence to the characters in the book entitled LOTR is purely coincidental."

Contentions change when discussing different events. Most of the characters were consistant with Tolkien, but some were even better. Some scenes were improvements and some scenes were very close to the book. You seem to want to pidgeon hole all fads into a position of stupidity in order to make your argument logical. You complain about dirty faces and hiil slopes, but turn a blind eye to magic rings, flying dragons, and invisible nazgul that would have been 100% more effective by shedding their robes and strangling everyone with their bare hands. Tolkiens writings are not holy scripture nor are they infallible. The sooner you come to your senses and admit that, the sooner we will get to a discussion that actually has a chance of going somewhere.

Mrs. Maggott · Dec 31, 2003

Foehammer said:
Contentions change when discussing different events. Most of the characters were consistant with Tolkien, but some were even better. Some scenes were improvements and some scenes were very close to the book. You seem to want to pidgeon hole all fads into a position of stupidity in order to make your argument logical. You complain about dirty faces and hiil slopes, but turn a blind eye to magic rings, flying dragons, and invisible nazgul that would have been 100% more effective by shedding their robes and strangling everyone with their bare hands. Tolkiens writings are not holy scripture nor are they infallible. The sooner you come to your senses and admit that, the sooner we will get to a discussion that actually has a chance of going somewhere.

You're absolutely right that "contentions change when discussing different events." It might be nice if you remembered that when you talk about "dirty faces and hill slopes" the discussion of which you have rather taken out of context.

Furthermore, the fact that you believe the Nazgul could "strangle" anyone or that they rode on "flying dragons" rather exhibits that you are perhaps in the same boat as Mr. Jackson regarding them - and other things. The Nazguls' great weapon was the fear then engendered around them. We are told in fact that their own folk would gladly slay themselves at their command, so great is the fear and horror that they inspire. Did you see any "fear" inspired by that poor imitation in Osgiliath? I didn't! In fact, he obviously put poor Frodo to sleep! Furthermore, they flew on what might be considered a sort of "left over" pterodon rather than a "dragon". There is nothing to suggest that the creatures spat fire - a truly "dragonish" trait! If they did, then Frodo would have been fried and the Ring recovered from the ashes.

No, Tolkien's writings are not "Scripture", but they are the criteria upon which these films at least should be judged. That means that every time the Director wanders off on his own, he has left the "path of wisdom" as it were.

fadhatter · Dec 31, 2003

at least tolkien was logical enough no to make frodo send sam home on the nearest taxi!!! how in the heck did jackson think sam was gonna get back home?

Gandalf White · Dec 31, 2003

Lol!

fadhatter said:
at least tolkien was logical enough no to make frodo send sam home on the nearest taxi!!! how in the heck did jackson think sam was gonna get back home?

When you're covering your own rear end, apparently finding that your "best friend" is lying and wants to take something you cannot let go of you don't really care where he goes as long as it's away from you...

Foe-Hammer · Dec 31, 2003

Mrs. Maggott said:
You're absolutely right that "contentions change when discussing different events." It might be nice if you remembered that when you talk about "dirty faces and hill slopes" the discussion of which you have rather taken out of context.

Furthermore, the fact that you believe the Nazgul could "strangle" anyone or that they rode on "flying dragons" rather exhibits that you are perhaps in the same boat as Mr. Jackson regarding them - and other things. The Nazguls' great weapon was the fear then engendered around them. We are told in fact that their own folk would gladly slay themselves at their command, so great is the fear and horror that they inspire. Did you see any "fear" inspired by that poor imitation in Osgiliath? I didn't! In fact, he obviously put poor Frodo to sleep! Furthermore, they flew on what might be considered a sort of "left over" pterodon rather than a "dragon". There is nothing to suggest that the creatures spat fire - a truly "dragonish" trait! If they did, then Frodo would have been fried and the Ring recovered from the ashes.

No, Tolkien's writings are not "Scripture", but they are the criteria upon which these films at least should be judged. That means that every time the Director wanders off on his own, he has left the "path of wisdom" as it were.

Q: What was the main goal of the Nazgul?
A: Aquire the One Ring for Sauron.

Q: Did this great weapon of "fear" accomplish that goal?
A: No.

Q: On Weather Top, wouldn't it have been much easier to have two Nazgul create a diverson, while two others grab poor little Frodo from behind, tear his head off and take the Ring?
A: Doh!

(This so easy, it ain't even a challenge anymore.)

As far as dirty faces and hill slopes are concerned, you lost that debate a year ago.

NetherDemon · Dec 31, 2003

fadhatter said:
at least tolkien was logical enough no to make frodo send sam home on the nearest taxi!!! how in the heck did jackson think sam was gonna get back home?

Well, how exactly were Sam and Frodo planning on returning in the first place? Hmm?

They weren't. After a couple days in Mordor, it was pretty evident they were on a one-way trip.

They had no clue that Eagles would carry them away. They believed Gandalf was dead from his fall in Moria. They had no clue what happened after the Urukia attacked and they were seperated. Then they ran into Faramir, who tells them that Boromir was dead. They had no clue if anyone else in the fellowship was alive. They had no reason to believe they would be rescued or would be able to find their way back home.

Mrs. Maggott · Dec 31, 2003

Gandalf White said:
When you're covering your own rear end, apparently finding that your "best friend" is lying and wants to take something you cannot let go of you don't really care where he goes as long as it's away from you...

Is that in fact what is said or implied in the film? That Frodo believes that Sam is considering trying to take the Ring from him? If so, what makes him believe such a thing after all this time during which Sam hasn't attempted to take the Ring?! Is it something that perhaps Gollum says? And if that is in fact the case, that alone speaks volumes about both Jackson and his "version" of the story.

Sephiroth · Dec 31, 2003

Mrs. Maggott said:
Is that in fact what is said or implied in the film? That Frodo believes that Sam is considering trying to take the Ring from him? If so, what makes him believe such a thing after all this time during which Sam hasn't attempted to take the Ring?! Is it something that perhaps Gollum says? And if that is in fact the case, that alone speaks volumes about both Jackson and his "version" of the story.

Gollum tells Frodo Sam wants to take the ring from him & that soon he will try it

then when Sam is sleeping Gollum takes all of the Lembas, puts crumbs on Sam & throws it away

then they wake up, Frodo sees the Lembas, Sam tells him that the ring is too much for poor Frodo & that perhaps he should bear it for a while

Gollum again whispers something in Frodos ear & Frodo tells Sam to leave(their on the middle of the stairs by this point) to wich Sam starts crying & Frodo & Gollum leave him there by himself

Sam goes down the stairs, finds the Lembas Gollum threw away & then goes back(Frodo meanwhile has fought with Shelob, thrown Gollum down a crack in the mountain, & gets stabbed right before Sam comes back & kills Shelob)

Thorin · Dec 31, 2003

Mrs. Maggott said:
Is that in fact what is said or implied in the film? That Frodo believes that Sam is considering trying to take the Ring from him? If so, what makes him believe such a thing after all this time during which Sam hasn't attempted to take the Ring?! Is it something that perhaps Gollum says? And if that is in fact the case, that alone speaks volumes about both Jackson and his "version" of the story.

SPOILERS

It is in fact that way, Maggot. Gollum plays the lying school bully who gets others in trouble with the teacher. He begins to play Wormtongue to Frodo after throwing away the lembas and sprinkling crumbs on Sam thereby 'framing' Sam for treachery. When Sam protests he looks guilty in Frodo's eyes and tells Sam to take a hike, which Sam does while Gollum smirks....Oi! It is really bad but when you know what to expect, you can get over it.

As I said before this scene, Denethor and Gandalf are the biggest changes. Otherwise the plot is pretty much the same, the editing is better and the emotion and acting are much better. Overall it was a good film and a much better adaptation then the other two.

Mrs. Maggott · Dec 31, 2003

Thorin said:
SPOILERS

It is in fact that way, Maggot. Gollum plays the lying school bully who gets others in trouble with the teacher. He begins to play Wormtongue to Frodo after throwing away the lembas and sprinkling crumbs on Sam thereby 'framing' Sam for treachery. When Sam protests he looks guilty in Frodo's eyes and tells Sam to take a hike, which Sam does while Gollum smirks....Oi! It is really bad but when you know what to expect, you can get over it.

As I said before this scene, Denethor and Gandalf are the biggest changes. Otherwise the plot is pretty much the same, the editing is better and the emotion and acting are much better. Overall it was a good film and a much better adaptation then the other two.

You mean, aside from Gandalf - Jackson's best character - and the relationship between Sam and Frodo - his other "best" in the films. Besides that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?! Oiy!

Foe-Hammer · Dec 31, 2003

Why am I not surprised that you continue to rag a film you haven't even seen?

My God, It Was Horrible (Part III)

Member

Member

Gone Missing

Home is where the cat is

LOTR Purist to the end

Gone Missing

Back into the fray!

Home is where the cat is

Worthy Keeper/Bree Roué

Member

Home is where the cat is

Member

Gone Missing

Member

Champion of Morgoth

Home is where the cat is

New Member

LOTR Purist to the end

Home is where the cat is

Member

Share this page

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency