Thorin
LOTR Purist to the end
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,428
This is going to be long but it is necessary.
Despite being ridiculed for two years, called NPWs (nit-picking weenies), told to get a life and quit criticizing movies we haven't even seen yet, the Purist, that strange species that was a minority at one time on this forum, seems to be receiving more and more affirmation concerning the movies and the numbers seem to be growing.
Lets lay it out on the table and see the views of the FAD (film adaptation defender) laid waste by PJ's own efforts and logical reasoning. There has been alot of solid evidence from TTT alone to show why the movies fall so short and not just from a NPW's opinion. These things have been scattered across the movie forum where many haven't seen them all. I have tried to bring them into a summary view. This list is by no means complete. I show the usual arguments followed by a rebuttal.
1) PJ had to make cuts and edits of book material because of time restraints Even with this view, the movies are still 3 hours each. Alot of stuff can be put into 3 hours, never mind the EE's extra footage. Were this the case, why did PJ add in his own fabricated scenes that rarely added anything new to the story (at least in the theatre version). We see that this argument doesn't hold water when made up scenes take up space that could have been filled with book material.
2) PJ changed Aragorn's character to appeal to the audience as being more 'human' By taking Aragorn in a different direction than Tolkien wrote him only took away from the human-ness of Aragorn, not added to it. Tolkien's Aragorn was a man with a destiny, a man who knew the prize and goal that awaited him. Yet, he had doubts and misgivings about himself. We are all like that. We can relate to a person like that and we want to be a person like that. How many of us like the idea of PJ's Aragorn? A man who is born into a royal race and runs away from it like a scared pup. Then when he sees that he has no other choice, he kicks and screams along the way continually blasting away at his self worth, and misplacing the confidence of others? A man who goes to such great lengths to deny his birthright when so many others are counting on his leadership, that he even 'breaks up' with the very motivation for his getting the kingship, an Elven princess?
3) Faramir could not have resisted the ring so easily and PJ helped "correct" Tolkien's oversight. Mrs. Maggot brought up a very good point about this. In some ME races, an oath was very serious. Faramir was a noble man and keeping this oath would be expected by someone like Tolkien's Faramir.
Despite this obvious reasoning that should put this FAD fallacy to rest, PJ himself contradicted his own view many times in his movies. Aragorn (who showed even more weakness than Faramir in the movies) resisted it quite well. Boromir had the ring in his hand and gave it back with only a pondering hesitation. Then he was subjected to the ring for the remainder of the journey. The point of Tolkien's story is that the ring gradually corrupts. Frodo succumbed after possessing the ring for a long time, Boromir succumbed only after he realized that the ring was going beyond his grasp. Why wouldn't Faramir resist the ring being more noble than all three of them (by the movie's standards), with only a brief encounter?
Again this is contradicted by PJ again when he has them so close to home and still fully intends to bring them to daddy when a Nazgul comes on the scene and interrupts them, then he lets them go after a speech by Sam. So much for the power of the ring.
4) PJ's LoTR was to be more like a fire side telling of LoTR and not an accurate potrayal of LoTR as Tolkien wrote it Were this the case, why take such fine detail to make it as authentic and accurate to Tolkien as it was?
* Millions of chain mail link
* Getting the two most prolific Tolkien artists who based their drawings closely on the descriptions of the book and creating detailed 'big'atures of these images
* spending hundreds of hours on hobbit feet alone
* getting the elven language just right
* creating details that the average person would miss (i.e. elven runes on sword blades)
These are creations from a person not trying to accurately portray Tolkien? PJ's own words contradict himself. He admitted that they read the chapter to give the scene justice. A poorly done script does cannot be explained away by such an argument.
5) NLC had more say as to what was to be in the movie and what was to be cut. PJ's hands were tied. The poor editing and lack of cohesion and lack of book scenes in the movie should be blamed on NLC.This may be true in some instances. Nonetheless, some of the scenes that were put in the EE (many of them fabricated) still fumble and stink with PJ-isms. Lets look at one of them that NLC was responsible for cutting: the gift giving scene. PJ almost seemed to be getting it right! Then Sam cuts in to queen of ME "Don't I get one of those shiny daggers?" Oh my heck! Could you have screwed Sam's character up even more? PJ is still the director and what he put in (including all his fabricated nonsense) was still his choice. Despite what he may have been 'strongly encourged' to leave out, all that made it in to the theatre version was because PJ wanted it that way. He alone must take responsibility for whatever makes it into the theatre version.
6) If the movies were to be made just like the book, they would have flopped and not been as successful.The problem with this argument is that the movies flopped, lost cohesion, created distortion and contained contradictions when PJ strayed from the book and did his own thing.
* The Arwen scenes in FoTR where Arwen 'emasculates' Aragorn and he lets her go into danger like a doofus "because she said so".
* The 'stand out like a sore thumb' dialogue such as "If you want him come and claim him", "Give us the hafling, she-elf", "Nobody tosses a dwarf", "Let's go hunt some orc", "Let him go or I'll have you, Longshanks", "I'd rather die than see the ring on an elf's finger", "Don't tell the elf",
* The side trip to Osgiliath where the ring bearer is revealed to the Nazgul on the borders of Mordor. Wouldn't this Nazgul have revealed that to Sauron? So much for secrecy.
* Useless and distracting scenes such as the warg battle and Aragorn falling off the cliff.
* The overblowing of Pippin's 'mischevious' hobbit-ness to the point that he is a bumbling idiot, even at the council of the highest beings in ME. "Where are we going again?"
* The overblowing of Elrond's lack of faith in men to the point that he becomes a bitter, crotchety old Elf with nothing but disdain for even Aragorn.
* The cheesy, over the top wizard fight
* The cheesy exorcism of Theoden
* Gandalf being rescued by talking to a moth
* The overblowing of Saruman's allegiance to Sauron that he becomes a total lacky
* The addition and continual focus on Lurtz, the fearless leader of the Uruk-hai
* Gandalf's sputtering, wide eyed and crazy, "IS IT HERE?? IS IT SAFE??"
* Having M&P convince Treebeard to attack Isengard. Really. The oldest being in ME known for his unhasty-ness being convinced, no, being tricked by impulsive hobbits?
The success of the movies do not hinge on the above stated. Rather, the movies succeed as good quality script when we see Tolkien shown on the screen, and not the efforts of "PJ The Gweat and Tewwible" and his 'awesome' screenplay abilities.
7) Arwen had to be in the movies because if it was done like the book, you would have a virtually non-existant character and you couldn't bring her in to RoTK out of nowhere for the wedding Cinematically, I can understand this reasoning. However, we don't just have more scenes of Arwen (the scenes in Rivendell solved this problem nicely). Instead, we have some sort of sub-plot heroine doing things out of character with how she was written and in so many fabricated scenes arguing with Elrond that it gets tedious. Including more Arwen doesn't justify her meeting the fellowship before the Fords, putting a sword under her betrothed's neck, and defying he ringwraiths with her sword.
8) PJ must have been doing something right, look how much money the movies have made. Again, this has nothing to do with the movies being good, as much as the one time viewing by the millions of fans of Tolkien's following. Add the major special effects that draw in the teenage, 'game boy' population and you will have some definite repeat viewers. This doesn't mean it is a 'great' movie, just popular. Look at Titanic. Can you honestly tell me that the movie's storyline and dialogue brought the people in and kept them coming back? Heck no. It was the special effects that were virtually unmatched in the movie world at that time. The last 45 minutes were enough to bring people back two or three times! PJ's eye candy (and it is impressive in many instances) are a big drawing factor to today's 'smash em up and give me some explosions' fans who like a good action movie.
I'm sure there are many other evidences I am forgetting. If anyone has another, maybe they can PM me so I can add it to the list.
Despite being ridiculed for two years, called NPWs (nit-picking weenies), told to get a life and quit criticizing movies we haven't even seen yet, the Purist, that strange species that was a minority at one time on this forum, seems to be receiving more and more affirmation concerning the movies and the numbers seem to be growing.
Lets lay it out on the table and see the views of the FAD (film adaptation defender) laid waste by PJ's own efforts and logical reasoning. There has been alot of solid evidence from TTT alone to show why the movies fall so short and not just from a NPW's opinion. These things have been scattered across the movie forum where many haven't seen them all. I have tried to bring them into a summary view. This list is by no means complete. I show the usual arguments followed by a rebuttal.
1) PJ had to make cuts and edits of book material because of time restraints Even with this view, the movies are still 3 hours each. Alot of stuff can be put into 3 hours, never mind the EE's extra footage. Were this the case, why did PJ add in his own fabricated scenes that rarely added anything new to the story (at least in the theatre version). We see that this argument doesn't hold water when made up scenes take up space that could have been filled with book material.
2) PJ changed Aragorn's character to appeal to the audience as being more 'human' By taking Aragorn in a different direction than Tolkien wrote him only took away from the human-ness of Aragorn, not added to it. Tolkien's Aragorn was a man with a destiny, a man who knew the prize and goal that awaited him. Yet, he had doubts and misgivings about himself. We are all like that. We can relate to a person like that and we want to be a person like that. How many of us like the idea of PJ's Aragorn? A man who is born into a royal race and runs away from it like a scared pup. Then when he sees that he has no other choice, he kicks and screams along the way continually blasting away at his self worth, and misplacing the confidence of others? A man who goes to such great lengths to deny his birthright when so many others are counting on his leadership, that he even 'breaks up' with the very motivation for his getting the kingship, an Elven princess?
3) Faramir could not have resisted the ring so easily and PJ helped "correct" Tolkien's oversight. Mrs. Maggot brought up a very good point about this. In some ME races, an oath was very serious. Faramir was a noble man and keeping this oath would be expected by someone like Tolkien's Faramir.
Despite this obvious reasoning that should put this FAD fallacy to rest, PJ himself contradicted his own view many times in his movies. Aragorn (who showed even more weakness than Faramir in the movies) resisted it quite well. Boromir had the ring in his hand and gave it back with only a pondering hesitation. Then he was subjected to the ring for the remainder of the journey. The point of Tolkien's story is that the ring gradually corrupts. Frodo succumbed after possessing the ring for a long time, Boromir succumbed only after he realized that the ring was going beyond his grasp. Why wouldn't Faramir resist the ring being more noble than all three of them (by the movie's standards), with only a brief encounter?
Again this is contradicted by PJ again when he has them so close to home and still fully intends to bring them to daddy when a Nazgul comes on the scene and interrupts them, then he lets them go after a speech by Sam. So much for the power of the ring.
4) PJ's LoTR was to be more like a fire side telling of LoTR and not an accurate potrayal of LoTR as Tolkien wrote it Were this the case, why take such fine detail to make it as authentic and accurate to Tolkien as it was?
* Millions of chain mail link
* Getting the two most prolific Tolkien artists who based their drawings closely on the descriptions of the book and creating detailed 'big'atures of these images
* spending hundreds of hours on hobbit feet alone
* getting the elven language just right
* creating details that the average person would miss (i.e. elven runes on sword blades)
These are creations from a person not trying to accurately portray Tolkien? PJ's own words contradict himself. He admitted that they read the chapter to give the scene justice. A poorly done script does cannot be explained away by such an argument.
5) NLC had more say as to what was to be in the movie and what was to be cut. PJ's hands were tied. The poor editing and lack of cohesion and lack of book scenes in the movie should be blamed on NLC.This may be true in some instances. Nonetheless, some of the scenes that were put in the EE (many of them fabricated) still fumble and stink with PJ-isms. Lets look at one of them that NLC was responsible for cutting: the gift giving scene. PJ almost seemed to be getting it right! Then Sam cuts in to queen of ME "Don't I get one of those shiny daggers?" Oh my heck! Could you have screwed Sam's character up even more? PJ is still the director and what he put in (including all his fabricated nonsense) was still his choice. Despite what he may have been 'strongly encourged' to leave out, all that made it in to the theatre version was because PJ wanted it that way. He alone must take responsibility for whatever makes it into the theatre version.
6) If the movies were to be made just like the book, they would have flopped and not been as successful.The problem with this argument is that the movies flopped, lost cohesion, created distortion and contained contradictions when PJ strayed from the book and did his own thing.
* The Arwen scenes in FoTR where Arwen 'emasculates' Aragorn and he lets her go into danger like a doofus "because she said so".
* The 'stand out like a sore thumb' dialogue such as "If you want him come and claim him", "Give us the hafling, she-elf", "Nobody tosses a dwarf", "Let's go hunt some orc", "Let him go or I'll have you, Longshanks", "I'd rather die than see the ring on an elf's finger", "Don't tell the elf",
* The side trip to Osgiliath where the ring bearer is revealed to the Nazgul on the borders of Mordor. Wouldn't this Nazgul have revealed that to Sauron? So much for secrecy.
* Useless and distracting scenes such as the warg battle and Aragorn falling off the cliff.
* The overblowing of Pippin's 'mischevious' hobbit-ness to the point that he is a bumbling idiot, even at the council of the highest beings in ME. "Where are we going again?"
* The overblowing of Elrond's lack of faith in men to the point that he becomes a bitter, crotchety old Elf with nothing but disdain for even Aragorn.
* The cheesy, over the top wizard fight
* The cheesy exorcism of Theoden
* Gandalf being rescued by talking to a moth
* The overblowing of Saruman's allegiance to Sauron that he becomes a total lacky
* The addition and continual focus on Lurtz, the fearless leader of the Uruk-hai
* Gandalf's sputtering, wide eyed and crazy, "IS IT HERE?? IS IT SAFE??"
* Having M&P convince Treebeard to attack Isengard. Really. The oldest being in ME known for his unhasty-ness being convinced, no, being tricked by impulsive hobbits?
The success of the movies do not hinge on the above stated. Rather, the movies succeed as good quality script when we see Tolkien shown on the screen, and not the efforts of "PJ The Gweat and Tewwible" and his 'awesome' screenplay abilities.
7) Arwen had to be in the movies because if it was done like the book, you would have a virtually non-existant character and you couldn't bring her in to RoTK out of nowhere for the wedding Cinematically, I can understand this reasoning. However, we don't just have more scenes of Arwen (the scenes in Rivendell solved this problem nicely). Instead, we have some sort of sub-plot heroine doing things out of character with how she was written and in so many fabricated scenes arguing with Elrond that it gets tedious. Including more Arwen doesn't justify her meeting the fellowship before the Fords, putting a sword under her betrothed's neck, and defying he ringwraiths with her sword.
8) PJ must have been doing something right, look how much money the movies have made. Again, this has nothing to do with the movies being good, as much as the one time viewing by the millions of fans of Tolkien's following. Add the major special effects that draw in the teenage, 'game boy' population and you will have some definite repeat viewers. This doesn't mean it is a 'great' movie, just popular. Look at Titanic. Can you honestly tell me that the movie's storyline and dialogue brought the people in and kept them coming back? Heck no. It was the special effects that were virtually unmatched in the movie world at that time. The last 45 minutes were enough to bring people back two or three times! PJ's eye candy (and it is impressive in many instances) are a big drawing factor to today's 'smash em up and give me some explosions' fans who like a good action movie.
I'm sure there are many other evidences I am forgetting. If anyone has another, maybe they can PM me so I can add it to the list.
Last edited:
