PJ defences...debunked.

I've always been somewhat in the middle as well... I enjoy the films despite their flaws, but I am not blind to those flaws. I am disappointed at some of the changes PJ has made, especially those in TTT, but I still enjoy the parts of the film that I feel were well done.

I think one source of disagreement that perpetuates the FAD vs Purist debates is the significance of the deviations from the book. Many arguements stem from different interpretations of the book, or whether or not a change in plot has significant effects on the characters, etc. On the extremes, purists feel that PJ's deviations destroy characters or themes that are central to the books, while FADs feel that such changes do not harm, or even improve, such things. The two groups are continually trying to get the other to see things their way.

Originally posted by kohaku
I've always been somewhat in the middle as well... I enjoy the films despite their flaws, but I am not blind to those flaws. I am disappointed at some of the changes PJ has made, especially those in TTT, but I still enjoy the parts of the film that I feel were well done.

I think one source of disagreement that perpetuates the FAD vs Purist debates is the significance of the deviations from the book. Many arguements stem from different interpretations of the book, or whether or not a change in plot has significant effects on the characters, etc. On the extremes, purists feel that PJ's deviations destroy characters or themes that are central to the books, while FADs feel that such changes do not harm, or even improve, such things. The two groups are continually trying to get the other to see things their way.

Click to expand...

Well, if any FAD can tell me how the following "improves" or at best "does not harm" the story, I am all "ears":

1. Focus of story changed from hobbits to men (thus destroying the theme of the value of "little people" in the grand scheme of things).

2. Frodo is badly weakened almost from the beginning and by the time we get to the end of TTT, has apparently chosen Gollum as a companion over Sam.

3. Aragorn goes from a "hidden king" awaiting the opportunity to claim his birthright (and his bride), a noble knight and healer who is wise and mature enough to forebear claiming the Ring to a vacillating, irresolute fellow frightened of his "weak blood" and rejecting of his heritage who permits Frodo and Sam to go alone to Mordor because he fears that he may succumb to the lure of the Ring.

4. Elrond goes from a wise and noble counselor, healer and leader to a cynical, angry, nasty fellow who has nothing but contempt for men, dwarves and hobbits.

5. Merry, Pippin and Gimli are reduced to "comic relief".

6. Boromir and Gollum are portrayed with considerable sympathy to the point where we never see Boromir's questioning of Galadriel's motives and we get to see the "good" Smeagol overcome and banish the "evil" Gollum. Gone is Sam's proper understanding of "Slinker" and "Stinker".

7. Faramir and Theoden are lacking in nobility. Faramir is a bully whose mind is so easily turned that Sam is able to talk him out of bringing the Ring to his father. Theoden is "rescued" and then treats his rescuers without gratitude. Instead of engaging Saruman, he and his people "run for the hills".

And, of course, there are other great changes: Treebeard is dense and clueless. Elves appear at Helm's Deep even though the prologue battle involved "the last alliance" between men and elves. The hobbits do a tour of Osgiliath and Frodo is shown playing peek-a-boo with the Ringwraith - and on and on.

I happily await anyone who can show me how any of these changes is an "improvement" on the original or does not in fact in some way do harm. Go to it!

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Boromir and Gollum are portrayed with considerable sympathy to the point where we never see Boromir's questioning of Galadriel's motives and we get to see the "good" Smeagol overcome and banish the "evil" Gollum. Gone is Sam's proper understanding of "Slinker" and "Stinker"

Click to expand...

I watched the first documentary on Tolkien and the coming together of ME on the TTT EE and one of the screenwriter ladies pretty much set the tone of what's going to happen with Gollum at the end...She said "Gollum is a tragic hero" and she and another guy said that Gollum is to be 'pitied' rather than despised and that is wasn't his fault he got corrupted by the ring.

Yes pity does play a part in the story, but the tone and understanding being set is 'Poor Smeagol! Gollum has him trapped and he isn't responsible for his actions". Hence the 'Good Smeagol/Bad Gollum" debates in TTT and the beliefs of the screenwriters obviously are setting 'Smeagol' up to be the 'tragic hero'.

Another further moving away of the importance of the hobbits' role in the movies.

sigh

I will be watching the whole EE and be posting my review by Thursday.

I guess the "tragic hero" ladies forgot that Gollum murdered his good friend and cousin Deagol to gain the Ring long before there could be any claim that it had adversely affected him ("the Ring made me do it!"). Furthermore, Gandalf states that the Ring simply made Gollum more of what he was - rotten! Yes, he had the Ring for 500 years, but he was thrown out of his grandmother's hole a lot sooner than that because he had become such a stinker! On the other hand, Bilbo had the Ring for many years and was virtually uncorrupted. Indeed, he was even able to give it up voluntarily in the end. So to suggest that Gollum was a fine fellow until he came into possession of the Ring is to prove that someone didn't read the book or at least didn't read it with much comprehension!

Right Thorin...

Gollum (in the book) conquers his dark side temporarily NOT via his own self exorcism--

rather it is due (ironically) to his swearing by the 'precious'!!!


A very significant point....

But if you notice what he swears... you can see how his darker-even-than-usual side managed to twist things later to overcome even that....


I'll not bore anyone with the details (this time!) but... PJ's changes here do a great deal of stomach-turning damage to Tolkien's more subtle (and more significant) themes.

I agree that PJ's changes are for the worse, and I have yet to hear convincing arguements that lead me to think otherwise. However, the debate continues because there are people who believe his changes improve or do not affect the story.

Originally posted by Goroshimura
PJ's changes here do a great deal of stomach-turning damage.

Click to expand...

Take care when watching the TTT EE: one or two inventions there may find your description of the damage literally accurate!

Originally posted by joxy
Take care when watching the TTT EE: one or two inventions there may find your description of the damage literally accurate!

Click to expand...

My good joxy! Are you saying that the EE of TTT is worse than the original film???? And if so, pray tell us in what way! I purchased it for my husband who liked the first two films (he read the book years ago and isn't bothered by Jackson's "new" story). It hasn't arrived yet, but I want to know what you have seen that has made you give such a "stomach turning" warning. If I remember, you had hopes that the EE might improve the second film... although, of course, I may be wrong about that. Still, since no one here will be "upset" about "spoilers", I really would like to know what you have seen that bothers you so. Thank you.

Well, I am at the point where Aragorn comes back to Helm's Deep from the cliff falling episode. I have to say that to this point, I'm not too impressed with the extras (especially the Ents, I was hoping for much better than what I got). Some are directly from the book (and should not have been cut out) Others are useless to the story and actually took away from it. Others are fabricated but did add to the story and background.

I will finish watching tonight and will write a full "Purist's Review".

Originally posted by Thorin
Well, I am at the point where Aragorn comes back to Helm's Deep from the cliff falling episode. I have to say that to this point, I'm not too impressed with the extras (especially the Ents, I was hoping for much better than what I got). Some are directly from the book (and should not have been cut out) Others are useless to the story and actually took away from it. Others are fabricated but did add to the story and background.

I will finish watching tonight and will write a full "Purist's Review".

Click to expand...

Thank you. This, however, is what I was getting at when I said we should be setting up a site or at least some sort of schedule for a review of the completed trilogy at the time of the release of ROTK. Certainly it will be only the theater version begin considered, but we can always do addendums when the EE is released. Consider: we have not only to address what Jackson does in the third film, but how the third film affects the other two and how cohesive the whole thing is as well as how successful/unsuccessful it is as a whole vis a vie the book and on its own as cinema. At the present time, for us purists at least, if we just post on the various threads, it's liable to be scatter-shot and decidedly redundant as we make the same points over and over again (as we have already had to do on these threads in the past). But again, I will defer to my betters in this and "go with the flow".

However, I thank the great Dwarf in anticipation of his cogent and credible promised review of the EE of TTT.

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
My good joxy! Are you saying that the EE of TTT is worse than the original film???? And if so, pray tell us in what way! I purchased it for my husband who liked the first two films (he read the book years ago and isn't bothered by Jackson's "new" story). It hasn't arrived yet, but I want to know what you have seen that has made you give such a "stomach turning" warning. If I remember, you had hopes that the EE might improve the second film... although, of course, I may be wrong about that. Still, since no one here will be "upset" about "spoilers", I really would like to know what you have seen that bothers you so. Thank you.

Click to expand...

I don't think joxy is saying it is an inferior film, but rather that some scenes (1 in particular) invented by PJ literally turned his stomach. It's not to hard to find what he's talking about, I believe he has said it several times.

Not too impressed with the extras? Why am I not surprised? With the exception of the Ents, and perhaps the funeral, the extras are a wonderful "tie-up."

Originally posted by Gandalf White
Not too impressed with the extras? Why am I not surprised? With the exception of the Ents, and perhaps the funeral, the extras are a wonderful "tie-up."

Click to expand...

Come now...You have to admit that there was some useless info there, purist or not. I don't want to give my review away but I will say that M&P with the orcs and the brooch and Gandalf and Aragorn discussing Aragorn and Sauron were definite bonuses from the book....The rest (up until the parts I've watched) is nothing to get excited over....nevermind the other parts from the theatre version that made my skin crawl and reminded me of how horrible it was....more on that later.

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Are you saying that the EE of TTT is worse than the original film???? And if so, pray tell us in what way!
....I want to know what you have seen that has made you give such a "stomach turning" warning. If I remember, you had hopes that the EE might improve the second film.

Click to expand...

Dear Mrs M! As the White Wizard has realised below my comment about stomach-churning was (almost) serious, and refers to one specific scene.
I have two threads in the TTT section, "New and Nasty Nonsense about Nerves",
and "TTT EE - Good and Bad - The Mixture as before".
The stomach-churner is the subject of NNNN, so I will not sully anyone's ears here by repeating the details.
I did indeed anticipate improvement in the EE, and it is certainly there - BUT accompanied, as ever, by an equal amount of dross. I deliberately placed "Good" ahead of "Bad" because I think there is a slight balance in that direction.

To give you an idea, of the "bad", bearing in mind your comment about spoilers:
the new beginning is excellent, looks like getting even better, as Sam's box of earth seems to have miraculously appeared, but then falls with a crash, as it is not that after all.
the promise that M&P were being allowed to grow up at last is dashed in what should have been a brilliant new scene, over the ent-draught, but in which PJ returns to little better than slap-stick.
this is repeated in another potentially great introduction, the aftermath of the flooding of Isengard.
there is an elaborate attempt to explain PJ's idea of the Boromir/Faramir/Denethor relationship which seems to me totally over-the-top.
then, in the aftermath of HD, the sickener - another touch of "comedy" for Gimli and Legolas.

On the margin between bad and good, PJ has the curious idea of transplanting parts of the Old Forest into Fangorn - I'll leave that to be seen.

Then there are the good points, which I still actually place first, but again I leave those for your viewing pleasure.

Finally, I must, regretfully, put yet more money into PJ's pockets by urging everyone to buy the EE, if only for a priceless section of the additional material. "From Book to Film - Finding the Story" is a remarkable attempt at explaining, and even excusing, all the changes that we have discussed here for so long. It is interesting to note that they are aware of criticisms made here, but with a wonderful mix of naivety and arrogance they convince themselves, and try to convince us, that they did the "best possible thing in the best possible of worlds" - while cheerfully admitting that Tolkien would have disliked a lot of it!
They couldn't "find" the story when it was handed to them on a plate, with a $300m side order!

Well, given Jackson's penchant for dark and nasty things, I'm not surprised that he couldn't "find" Tolkien's story! In fact, I think that the most Jackson really understood about the story as a whole was the general plot line, the locations and the name of the characters. After that, he and his were lost - and these films show it!

Interestingly enough, Tolkien sums up Jackson's problem when he has Galadriel tell Frodo that she can "see" the Dark Lord's thoughts, but because he is evil and therefore limited, he cannot "see" her's. I don't think Jackson could "see" Tokien's vision not because he is evil but because he simply failed to raise his eyes high enough. In the end, all he could give us were the lower, cruder, fouler things because that's all that he could really "see" in the tale.