Purists Unite!

One man's meat, as they say, is another's poison. Many people loved these films because they gave "visual structure" to what before had been limted to the imagination. Frankly, even had Jackson been 100% faithful to Tolkien, his insistent images would still be a problem for those whose mental image of the book had been damaged by "real" images (if one can put it that way). The fact that he was less than faithful in the eyes of many, only serves to make those images more problematic.

I have yet to try to read the book since I have seen at least the first two films, but you're right. Not Frodo so much, but certainly Gandalf and even Aragorn are going to be hard to "recreate" in my mind. As Tolkien's Frodo is more mature than Mr. Wood, I won't have all that much trouble deleting that "image" from my mind.

Good luck!

Go on and ask a moderator to remove this post, but all you'd be doing would be just limiting that which the purists claim these forums are about, debating.

Click to expand...

I wish to clear up any misconceptions as to post editing or removal by Mods. This is for all to read it is not aimed at the poster I have quoted.

All threads in Open Fora are open to all members to post in. Mods can only deal with posts that break the rules of TTF. Asking for a thread to be limited to one particular group of members does not prevent others from posting and Mods cannot be called in to remove posts. (The one exception to this that is accepted by general agreement is on organised Debate threads which are found now in the Debating Forum).

Posts within a thread will only be delt with by a Mod if they either break the Rules of TTF directly or if the manner of posting is such that it is clear the intent is to disrupt the discussion of the topic of the thread. So far there has been no evidence that either of these critiria have been met.

In this thread I ask that the general view of the thread starter be respected in regard of the content of the posts so as to avoid problems.

Yes, I was rather of the opinion that a thread starter really could not define terms except in the general nature of the subject of the thread. Certainly, I did not believe that anyone could refuse the right to post to any other member. One may request that only those who hold this or that opinion post, but that would be as far as it goes.

Gothmog said:

This is for all to read it is not aimed at the poser I have quoted.

Click to expand...

I hope you mean posTer.

I most certainly did and I will put it right now.

Arvedui said:

PJ has ruined my mental images of how everything looked in Middle-earth.
....my own 'mental movie' back in line without Mortensen, Wood, Astin and the others, and with my own vision of places and scenery.

Click to expand...

This one realises surprises me.
From the purely visual point of view I find the films as near to perfect as the strongest of PJ fans could wish for.
It's not what the people look like, it's what they say and do, that is a problem.
And not the places and scenery, but what's done in them.
Give us a few examples of where it goes wrong, for you.

-K- said:

i will set the definition of a purist as:

-a person who feels the movies suffered as a result of the changes made

Click to expand...

Admittedly, I have not read the entire thread, so I am unsure of whether the definition has changed. However, if it remains as posted above, please be aware that I am a purist.

There are then two obvious conclusions that we can come to: 1) I am a purist. 2) Your definition is flawed.

I think Arvedui has problems with his own personal mental images being contradicted by those of PJ. To my delight, I didn't have this problem with LotR. Indeed, my further reading of UT has been greatly enhanced by the movies.

joxy said:

This one realises surprises me.
From the purely visual point of view I find the films as near to perfect as the strongest of PJ fans could wish for.
It's not what the people look like, it's what they say and do, that is a problem.
And not the places and scenery, but what's done in them.
Give us a few examples of where it goes wrong, for you.

Click to expand...

What they say and do is a part of the characters, right? And that is mainly what is wrong to me. First and foremost Aragorn, but also Frodo and Pippin. With regards to places and scenery, I think that Orthanc is not the way Tolkien described it. I have always imagined Orthanc with smooth sides, shining like glass.

Just a few examples. I am running short of time.

*clears throat and is slightly uncomfortable* I am a puritist but I did enjoy the movies. There were several things, though, that bothered me so much that I have to skip over them every time I watch the movies. One thing in particular was the way that Frodo chased Sam away in ROTK. I don't care if it adds more drama. I hated it! *sits and fumes for several seconds.* That's not how it happened. Frodo never would have done that. I was also very dissapointed that The Scouring of the Shire didn't make it into the film.

I would call myself a purist...I have read and reread the books so many times I can almost hear the music in my mind's eye...
I would give anything for a version that was true...I did not, cannot accept the fact that one of the scariest moments in the book, an important point that Tolkien made...that evil is sometimes very inviting, and must be fought off to the end, was blemished by having a she-elf save Frodo, when actually it was Frodo himself who saved the day by holding onto the right of it. Arwen did not save him. Elrond brought the river up, Gandalf the white horses, but it was Frodo's decision to continue to resist rather than take the easy way out and just give up that saved him at the Ford. While I do love the movie, as a "version" of LOTR, I was appalled at this. For myself, for the people in the audience who didnt know any better, and for JRR himself. I do get it..I know that you have to make things marketable. Bakshi was considered a flop because he did not do that. While he also took liberties, he stayed truer to the book than Jackson. (Does anyone but me notice that it was not Arwen or Legolas who met Sam, Pippen, Merry and Frodo before Aragorn got them to the Ford?) They used the same horse...Asfaloth, but not the same elf. Ok, remember, I am a purist.
At any rate, I love this particular thread. It is good to see that there are others like myself who really know what he wrote. All of it. Sometimes it seems that the only Tolkien folks know is the Jacskson version.
How very sad that is for them.

Arvedui said:

With regards to places and scenery, I think that Orthanc is not the way Tolkien described it. I have always imagined Orthanc with smooth sides, shining like glass.

Click to expand...

I don't have chapter and verse handy, but I believe Tolkien did describe Orthanc as appearing as if it were rough-hewn from the black stone of which it was made. However, he could've meant either exterior or interior, not both, as was depicted in the films. Personally, I believe it meant both.

I am pretty much a purist, myself. Granted, to make a totally true movie would've cost way more than PJ had to spend, and each movie would've been a trilogy unto itself, but I'd have sat through each one, happily.

Though I am not let down by the films. Yes, PJ took liberties, but that's to be expected. Where he was faithful, he did an amazing job of it, and I think he really captured the essence of Middle-earth. He made the films seem realistic in a way that no other fantasy movie has even been made to feel. I was drawn into each film, especially the first, and given that complete sense of realism that Tolkien managed to establish in his writings. No other fantasy film or book I've ever partaken of has done that, at least for me.

So does anyone else have ideas about how to stay closer to the book without taking up more time? Obviously the whole Aragorn's cliff business and "Go home, Sam," are totally unnecessary, and time consuming, but what of other areas where PJ replaced something much lengthier? Like for example, a rough idea about how to keep the parley with the Mouth of Sauron short (pardon the pun) without cutting his head off? And would there be a reasonable way to show the Palantir's involvement in Denethor's madness without taking too long? I really hate how much his character was cheapened into a very typical, greedy movie villain, and think the Palantir could have made it all so much more understandable, frankly his slide into self-destructive despair and madness seems rather forced as portrayed in the film to me, but I can't off-hand think of how you could portray such a complicated character accurately in a comparable amount of time.

I am definitely a Tolkien Purist.

Now what is this about Tolkien's works being made into movies?

No such thing has happened, at least not since the few animated attempts in the 1970s by Rankin-Bass and Ralph Bakshi (although Bakshi's is barely tolerable as Tolkien, he at least stuck to the freaking plot fairly well).

I know that some Kiwi guy made some pretty successful Fantasies movies at the beginning of the Century, but I was not aware they were Tolkien's work.

And I hear he did some sort of "Prequel" to them... Apparently there was some tension over the making of them...

MB