Purists Unite!

[-K-]

I don't understand the "1/3" statistic; could you explain it, and tell us the source?

the source is houghton mifflin publishing. they have sold 32 million copies before the first movie came out in december 2001. they have sold 14 million copies after the first movie came out. that's roughly 1/3.

my arguement is that PJ is digging for answers to provide the purists. his statement that it was about book sales is bogus. as mrs. maggot pointed out, he was in it for the money. the movies would have seen huge ticket sales regardless, i felt that way for a while. if PJ had really wanted to increase tolkien readership, he would have made a movie more true to the books. this would retain more readers than his current version.

the inaccuracies, the perversion of the deeper meaning, and the 'gameboy kiddy' effect made for a movie that would not appeal to those who would really enjoy the books for the rest of their life. at least, it would not appeal to the same proportion of this group of potential tolkien enjoyers.

don't feel raw about me stealing your ideas. that thought had been in my mind for a while. and i admit from a much older post that i have read. if you made that post, feel free to take the credit.

*i found the post, and so i credited you, as it was indeed yours

 

[joxy]

....they have sold 14 million copies after the first movie came out.
....my argument is that PJ is digging for answers to provide the purists.
....if PJ had really wanted to increase tolkien readership, he would have made a movie more true to the books.
don't feel raw about me stealing your ideas....i credited you, as it was indeed yours

Far from feeling bad about it, I was delighted to find you had the same idea! Thanks very much for the credit; the thought is much appreciated.
Thanks for the statistics too. Is that for sales in the US, and of the complete set of TLOTR?
That digging for answers is something else that has arisen before, in connection with the DVD extras, which always give me the impression that PJ's family are like naughty children caught out in mischief, so search for excuses, and when they find them, believe in them and proudly proclaim them!
I also agree about the hypothetical "truer" films being even more successful - we agree on many things.

 

[-K-]

Far from feeling bad about it, I was delighted to find you had the same idea! Thanks very much for the credit; the thought is much appreciated.
Thanks for the statistics too. Is that for sales in the US, and of the complete set of TLOTR?
That digging for answers is something else that has arisen before, in connection with the DVD extras, which always give me the impression that PJ's family are like naughty children caught out in mischief, so search for excuses, and when they find them, believe in them and proudly proclaim them!
I also agree about the hypothetical "truer" films being even more successful - we agree on many things.

indeed we do.

i am unsure as to what exactly the stats are referring to. worldwide sales of all published tolkien literature is closing in on 100 million as far as i am aware. tolkien may well usurp agatha christie and some other greats (last time i checked agatha christie had hit 120 million).

well, having established (at least for ourselves) that accurate movies would be better AND achievable, i'd like to ask you and mrs. maggot what you would do if given the chance to direct the lotr movies to maintain accuracy and manage the logistical nightmares involved. i will post my own ideas when i have the time to.

keep in mind that PJs version of the lotr on film will not remain the only one. especially after the copyrights expire in 2023.

 

[Ol'gaffer]

whopee!

A thread for purists to bash the movies and fads who like them safely! All because they said "only purists may post here!"

Great work! another thread that serves absolutely no other purpose than for the purists to do what they claim never to do, bash the movie.

and before you respond that they're "discussing" and "debating" with who? how can you debate about that when there are no other people here to argue against you? or are you going to debate on what scene was worse?

please...

 

[-K-]

whopee!

A thread for purists to bash the movies and fads who like them safely! All because they said "only purists may post here!"

Great work! another thread that serves absolutely no other purpose than for the purists to do what they claim never to do, bash the movie.

and before you respond that they're "discussing" and "debating" with who? how can you debate about that when there are no other people here to argue against you? or are you going to debate on what scene was worse?

please...

it seems obvious to me that you haven't read the whole thread. it is equally obvious that you also never fully read my first post.

i realised that making such a thread took away the opportunity for fads to respond or argue against anything in this thread. so i posted an alternative if they didn't like what is said. if you have a problem with something specific in this thread, you have the option of starting a new one to debate against it.

all i asked was that fads do not debate something posted by a purist within this thread, within this thread. you are still fully at your leisure to disagree, and make us aware of it. just create your own thread.

if you really want to make sure that we know you disagree, create a post with a link to your thread here.

i believe there is no need to:

-accuse us of bashing the movies in safety. (i have given you options to launch a counter-arguement)
-insinuate that WE created the 'purist only' rule as a group, I created the 'purist only' rule on my own. (and i gave you the option of PMing me if it made you upset)
-tell us our posts serve no purpose (i think that's really for us to decide)
-accuse us of hypocrisy (purists to claim what they...)
-negate a chance of response on our part (before they respond that...)
-chide us about how we should argue which scene is worse (we haven't done it, nor do i think that any of us plan to)

again, even if you are angry, and feel that these things needed to be said to us, create a new thread to do it in. it seems like i'm saying this alot, but it is a viable option. and if you want to make sure that we see it, post a link in this thread.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Very few purist "bash" the films unless, of course, that by that word you actually mean criticizing them. However, we do not - or at least we try not to - "bash" FADs for liking them. It would be nice if that attempt were reciprocated by some FADs I could mention.

Of course, the fact that most FADs consider any criticism of the films - however valid - as "bashing" should tell us all something as well!

 

[-K-]

Of course, the fact that most FADs consider any criticism of the films - however valid - as "bashing" should tell us all something as well!

that's really unfair mrs. maggot. i am trying to maintain a thread that does not degenerate into this kind of thing. inflammatory remarks are not what i want. i will not agree or disagree with what you said, but it's not good to have it in this thread.

it forces fads into a very unfair situation if we do not allow them to participate in the thread, and simultaneously make such comments. these kind of comments obligate them to respond in order to defend their dignity.

 

[joxy]

<Originally Posted by Mrs. Maggott
Of course, the fact that most FADs consider any criticism of the films - however valid - as "bashing" should tell us all something as well!>
that's really unfair mrs. maggot.

"Most" may be an exaggeration, but certainly some have said we "bash".

 

[-K-]

all i am asking is that comments are made about the movies only. not about the various qualities of FADs. if you want to do that, do it in a thread in which they are given a chance to IMMEDIATELY respond in their own defense (also not one that i want to keep free of bickering). this is the equivalent of the french launching farm animals at sir arthur and his knights in monty python and the holy grail.

 

[Arvedui]

all i am asking is that comments are made about the movies only. not about the various qualities of FADs. if you want to do that, do it in a thread in which they are given a chance to IMMEDIATELY respond in their own defense (also not one that i want to keep free of bickering). this is the equivalent of the french launching farm animals at sir arthur and his knights in monty python and the holy grail.

Welcome to TTF, -K-. This is how it works. This place contain a lot of threads that have a different content than what was originally designed from the thread-starter. No matter how much you want to, you will never be able to "own" a thread. Sorry if I sound harsh, but that is the truth. If posters don't want to listen to you, then there is nothing you can do about it.


But I still want each and every poster to follow the intention that was put forth in the first post. As -K- said: once you start discussing people with other views, then the arguments will be flying in this thread also. IMO, there are too many such threads already.

Most of the 'purists' (what silly nonsense, labelling eachother like that) know my view about the films, and know that I do not say this because I believe that the films were great adaptions.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

that's really unfair mrs. maggot. i am trying to maintain a thread that does not degenerate into this kind of thing. inflammatory remarks are not what i want. i will not agree or disagree with what you said, but it's not good to have it in this thread.

it forces fads into a very unfair situation if we do not allow them to participate in the thread, and simultaneously make such comments. these kind of comments obligate them to respond in order to defend their dignity.

I agree that we should be able to debate these matters without descending into name calling and overly inclusive judgments, but the fact that some FADs (however many or few) consider thoughtful critiques of the films consitute "bashing" is enlightening regarding the mindset of those who think this way.

Remember, I was responding to Ole gaffer's post which did include the word "bashing" with reference to criticism of the films. I don't necessarily think that it is "bad form" to bring to people's attention that this is in fact a response of at least some FADs. Inflammatory remarks should be equally unwelcome from either side, nor do I consider it to be necessarily "inflammatory" simply making a point without using language that could be considered confrontational.

 

[-K-]

Remember, I was responding to Ole gaffer's post which did include the word "bashing" with reference to criticism of the films.

Yes, but also remember that Ol'gaffer's post shouldn't have been there in the first place. The reason I asked non-purists not to respond was to avoid a 'back and forth'. It's always one post like that which starts the whole thing up again. So, for future reference, if another non-purist posts something insulting like Ol'gaffer just did, then please ignore them entirely. And I'll request that a mod just simply removes their post. Please don't respond to their insult and create a war zone out of this thread.

To get back on topic, I wrote earlier that I would post my ideas on how the movie might remain accurate.

I would like to think that in the end, PJ did genuinely increase Tolkien readership whether that was his major goal or not. Also, I am sure that PJ has for the present stolen all of the public's appetite for a Lord of the Rings movie. However, there is the expiry of the copyrights in 2023. These will no doubt be surrounded by a whole bunch of hype.

At first, I dreaded this day. Seeing how unhappy the movies that PJ filmed made me, I was convinced that there will be a whole new load of bad Lord of the Rings movies made right after the copyrights expired. I am still convinced of this. I am also convinced that the expiry of the copyright is the only chance for a true to the books movie to be made.

With the rights tied up in Hollywood, only people in Hollywood can create such a movie. When the copyrights expire, everyone and their dog can film a Tolkien movie, no matter what their affiliation. I have no hope in Hollywood creating an accurate Lord of the Rings movie. I think it is nearly a requirement for the person who films the movies to be unaffiliated, or only very loosely affiliated with Hollywood. The expiry of the copyrights allows this.

To create a movie that could actually compete with PJs version, you'd need to really prioritize certain things. For example, visuals are nearly unimportant. To attempt to compete with PJs visuals is a waste of time. This was the one thing that PJ did spectacularily. You can't ignore visuals, but putting anything more than basic visuals will be time and money wasted.

The main priorities for such a movie would be accuracy in acting. PJ also picked most of his characters so they looked the part, spending too much time concerned with how your actors 'look' is also a waste. But, you need to concentrate on how well they will 'act' out the parts of their characters. One thing that always bugged me was the fact that Viggo Mortissen had never read the books when he was called up to try out for the movies. I think that had he read the books (including the Silmarillion), before becoming in any way involved in the movies, he would have probably have spoken out against some of the changes PJ made to the character of Aragorn in the movies.

I think in order to get your actors to act out their parts well, and accurately, you'd need to do a few special things. Take the money you save from axeing a CGI squad into a few CGI specialists, and spend it all on educating your actors on the text. Pay them to spend the month it would take to immerse themselves in Tolkien's writing, with a special emphasis on the characters that they are playing. Have them read the books, read the Silmarillion, watch PJs movie, listen to the booktapes, debate various topics. All in an effort to create a set of actors with a very good understanding of the story.

Actors who have read the books, listened to the booktapes, seen PJs movie, and debated their own interpretations of their character with others would have a REAL appreciation for their character. That way, you would be spared the horrible task of making sure each actor knows how to portray their character accurately. They will be expected to do it themselves. Good actors enjoy that kind of a challenge. Maybe even pick a few actors for each role, and have them compete to understand their character better. This I see as the most difficult and most integral portion of the filming process, given my approach.

I honestly think that PJs 'visual epic' style of handling the Lord of the Rings drove the cost of the movies up. Spending a huge amount of time with actors would not drive the cost up as high, but would require much more effort on the part of cast and crew to spend the time 'understanding' what they were doing. It would take a crew that was genuinely cared for the books themselves. I honestly believe that such people do exist.

One thing that I have always maintained is that in order to be done right, you need to give the Lord of the Rings enough time to be made into film. This would make for a brutally long filming period. The less time wasted, the better. You need to have actors who know what to do without being told. I think 6 films of 3 hours each could actually be completed, if you had such a cast.

such things are really just fantasy in themselves. but i keep in mind that PJ also kept the idea of filming the Lord of the Rings in his fantasy for a long time. And in the end, he did get a chance to make it happen.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

To begin with, let me apologize for responding to a post that perhaps should not have been made. However, it might be wise to clear that with the admins if you have not already done so before making that caveat.

Now, let's look at some of what you are saying: I wouldn't worry about a spate of films about LOTR after the expiration of the copyrights. Unless somebody like Pixars decides to do an animated version, I sincerely doubt that anyone is going to try a "live action" film anytime soon given the scope (and cost) of Jackson's films. Someone might think about a TV series like Upstairs Downstairs which went on for years and that wouldn't be bad at all. In fact, in something like that, the action would be minimal (more talked about than viewed). Most of what was going on would be character exposition including dialogue. Still, there is really too much action in Tolkien for that to be very tempting unless they can figure out a way to do both (like the Sharpe or Horatio Hornblower series, perhaps). In any event, I really don't see anything happening in the near future.

As for Mr. Mortensen: he didn't want to take the part but his son, Henry, who loves the book talked him into it. However, I think you are wrong to believe that a knowledgeable actor would have fought Jackson on his redefinition of the characters. The fellow who played Faramir read the book and told Jackson he was doing the character all wrong. However, he was "talked into" Jackson's interpretation once it was 'explained' to him. And, remember, you had Christopher Lee on the set who is an acknowledged expert in Tolkien, and apparently he had no problems with Jackson's "new characters"! No, I think film actors (and maybe all actors) make their judgments based upon how the thing "plays" rather than how it was originally written.

How could the films have been better? Jackson could have read the book again (and not just when he was 18) and tried to visualize what Tolkien was saying which, in fact, is what every reader of the book does. Had he done so, he might have realized that he didn't need to overdramatize elements in the plot that were quite dramatic enough or "plump up" characters to make them more "cinematic" when Tolkien had given him just about everything a good film maker needed to make a great film.

Mr. Jackson would have been far better off simply taking what he was given and spending all his time simplifying and editing a very complex and lengthy story so that it could be well told on film within a limited time period. He chose to do otherwise, however, and we all just have to live with that fact.

 

[-K-]

He chose to do otherwise, however, and we all just have to live with that fact.

I find such an attitude too fatalistic for my tastes. For now I am content that I am unable to enjoy the current versions of the movies available (PJ and Bashki), but can still hope for another go at it, but many years down the line. I have time to wait, I am only 19! And remember, that after Bashki failed at producing the full three movies, they said it never could be done. PJ has proved one thing, that the Lord of the Rings CAN be brought to the big screen.

Similar to the Star Wars revival of recent years as the previous generation who loved it so much wants to show it anew to their children, I believe the same will eventually happen with Lord of the Rings. Until then, I will patiently await it.

Note that the Star Wars revival happened about 20 years after the original run was released. 20 years from now, the copyrights will be void. I think this environment may produce a good film.

 

[-K-]

As for Mr. Mortensen: he didn't want to take the part but his son, Henry, who loves the book talked him into it. However, I think you are wrong to believe that a knowledgeable actor would have fought Jackson on his redefinition of the characters. The fellow who played Faramir read the book and told Jackson he was doing the character all wrong. However, he was "talked into" Jackson's interpretation once it was 'explained' to him. And, remember, you had Christopher Lee on the set who is an acknowledged expert in Tolkien, and apparently he had no problems with Jackson's "new characters"! No, I think film actors (and maybe all actors) make their judgments based upon how the thing "plays" rather than how it was originally written.

Still, with a director who cared in any way about accuracy, the voices of such actors would be heard. PJ was just too absorbed in his own interpretations to listen to any of these actors, and they no doubt knew it. In a movie geared for accuracy, a knowledgeable cast would be an invaluable asset.

To the dismay of FADs, this talking Faramir 'into his role' is good ammunition for a purist. It shows clearly that Jackson thought of his take on the Lord of the Rings as superior to the original intentions of the author.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Well, of course, at 19 I might find no problem waiting 20 years in hopes that another film will come down the pike. In fact, by that time, who knows what will happen given the tremendous advances in technology going on virtually continuously.

However, at 63, I cannot say as I am sanguine about being around in 20 years and even if I am, I don't know if I would care to sit through another 12 hours of film if it should happen. Indeed, I don't know if I want to do it now! On the other hand, I don't need to wait. There's always the book, you know - and even (as I find with The Sil) the audio version if I wish to garden or clean or paint or make dolls or sew or craft while I listen. All in all, it's a great world!

 

[Arvedui]

Words of wisdom there Mrs. M. Except for one thing: PJ has ruined my mental images of how everything looked in Middle-earth. And I am afraid that it will take a few years before I can have my own 'mental movie' back in line without Mortensen, Wood, Austin and the others, and with my own vision of places and scenery.


*sigh*

 

[Ol'gaffer]

Yes, but also remember that Ol'gaffer's post shouldn't have been there in the first place. The reason I asked non-purists not to respond was to avoid a 'back and forth'. It's always one post like that which starts the whole thing up again. So, for future reference, if another non-purist posts something insulting like Ol'gaffer just did, then please ignore them entirely. And I'll request that a mod just simply removes their post. Please don't respond to their insult and create a war zone out of this thread.

my post was an opinon. If you found it offensive the I apologise. But I aimed to point out that numerous people here who critizise the movies, nearly always say that "this is a forum meant for discussion" and this has occured in threads meant for only bringing out the best in the movies.

so why are you then getting worked up when one "fad" as you put it, points this out in your thread? Why should you have the luxury of "owning" a thread, so to speak, when purists have a number of times "attacked" (I know that it's a strong word, but there isn't anything else to describe it) the "fad" threads that promote and hype the movies?

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.

 

[-K-]

Words of wisdom there Mrs. M. Except for one thing: PJ has ruined my mental images of how everything looked in Middle-earth. And I am afraid that it will take a few years before I can have my own 'mental movie' back in line without Mortensen, Wood, Austin and the others, and with my own vision of places and scenery.


*sigh*

wow, i would have talked about that in other threads, but i think that is going too far for most FADs to even listen to you anymore.

for me, astin is a very close match with sam. but he was a little off.

for me, mortensen was again quite close. but a little off.

some of the big beefs i had with the visuals in the movies were frodo (as well as you), wargs (or were they giant chipmunks on steroids?), wizards battling, the balrog, gandalf and the balrog, ents, and legolas.

it's unfortunate that even though i find it so horribly difficult to enjoy the movies, the images contained therein are stuck in my head. even the ones that i thought were absolutely inaccurate.

my cure for myself is rereading the books themselves, listenening to the booktapes (i always 'hear' characters as they are played in these), and enjoying the artwork of artists whose visions of middle-earth are close to mine.

if you want a great place to find tolkien art, there is always:

http://www.nightrunner.com/gallery/html/index.html

it's about the best place i am aware of.

my personal reaction to the movies has one positive outcome, i now have a much deeper respect for the books themselves. tolkien could have easily made the lotr in book to attract a huge audience, just as these movies did. but instead, he cared enough to make them as well as possible, knowing full well that such a version of the story would attract much fewer fans. indeed tolkien thought no one at all would read them.

 

[Sarde]

That is a really great gallery! Thanks for providing the link to it.

How is it that a movie disturbs someone's 'mental picture' of the characters and Tolkien-inspired art does not (or so I assume)? Because I have not seen fierce discussions about the way some of the Tolkien-artists portray ME and the beings in it. Perhaps it is because of the power of the film medium?

The movies as well as pictures by Alan Lee, Ted Nasmith etc. to me are just one interpretation of the book. Some interpretations I like better than others, probably because some come closer to my own mental picture than others. For example, I love Ted Nasmith because his pictures represent the gloom and darkness I feel when reading TLOTR and I really don't like Roger Garland because everything he draws has all the colours of the rainbow and I really don't think Shelob is green and yellow and pink and red. But he can draw Shelob any way he wants to and I can't be bothered with it.

Peter Jackson himself has said that his movie is an interpretation. It is one way of seeing it, as everyone has his one way of seeing it. If someone else had made the movies, not matter how well they did it and how devoted they were (as I think also PJ is), there would still be comments from the NPWs, because no one could ever get it right besides they themselves, I guess...