Purity and the Critics

[joxy]

Then you haven't been reading Aragil's posts.
....the lists of continuity errors in other films and you will see just how irrelevant these sorts of things are considered,
If Tolkien's mistakes are dismissed as merely being human, than Jackson's similar mistakes should be dismissed in the same way. If they are not, that says far more about the bias and unfairness of the person treating them differently....

I have been reading them, so I must have missed, or forgotten, the references; please refer me to one.
I've seen all sorts of such lists already, of course, including those for TLOTR. That's a different matter from the mistakes being "considered irrelevant". Who considers them irrelevant, and why? I've tried out various analogies from other industries where mistakes are extremely relevant, and in which large amounts of money are spent in attempts to avoid them, which are largely successful. Why should cinema be so different? After all, it's easy enough - I'd sit in a cinema for three hours with a notebook for no pay at all, and that's all it takes.
I don't dismiss book mistakes, and I don't dismiss film mistakes. I regard the nature of the mistakes in their contexts, as not being of equal importance. Anyway my point was about why PJ's mistakes should be compared specifically with T's. Everyone makes mistakes, and there is no reason why different people's mistakes cannot be compared, without a suggestion of bias or unfairness.

There seems to be some sort of confusion in that last "Quote" of your last entry, which I don't think IS all from me. Could you clarify it with regard to who is being quoted?

In the interest of fairness, very little of PJ's $300M budget could be dedicated to continuity.
....while Tolkien is a great writer, Jackson is somewhat more "incompetent" because of blunders like the barrels.
Here's another try, which I believe I've brought up before.

Why on earth not?? The other industries I've quoted spend an appropriate proportion of their equally large budgets on "quality control" of all kinds. In cinema of all things, in which a main objective is to "hit the eye", surely what is actually shown on the screen should be a major consideration for that sort of control? And, as I have just said in another post, it's not such a hard job,
to sit in a cinema with a notebook, and surely not such a highly-paid one.
Yes, certainly MORE incompetent, or careless, or inefficient, or clumsy, or whatever adjective one might choose, to plant such
an obvious mistake in front of our eyes, compared to a sword in an obscure part of T's book. In fact, it is SO obvious, that I have been waiting for someone to come up with an explanation that it is NOT a mistake, but is some clever plot trick - I'd be more prepared to believe that, than to believe that a professional could let through such a mistake.
It's nice to know that these discussions DO promote extra readings of the books! Gimli's example is what is called a "deliberate mistake" - he's exaggerating to Eomer, who has no way of knowing it's not true! That's MY story of explanation, anyway!

On second thoughts, about it NOT being a mistake, it looks as if actually letting it through to the world COULD not have been a mistake - too many people could, or should, have known about it: Elijah and Sean - how could they not notice the barrels they'd been resting against had vanished? - the famous "continuity person" - the editors, who apparently couldn't have noticed that two strips of wallpaper they were laying side by side were of different colours, or that two jigsaw puzzle pieces they had joined didn't match - through to PJ himself, with overall reponsibility.

 

[Snaga]

snaga:
It was a pleasure to read your analysis and dialogue with Thorin. You manage to maintain your position quite well.

I am going to get to the point: "This" not just having some signs a religion.

This phenomena already is a religion. People believe that Tolkiens myths present truths about our world. Tolkien's works replace religious scriptures as the source for advice in troubles of life, ethical guidance and courage. Unlike novels, Tolkiens works are usually read here and there, again and again, like religious scriptures.

I claim that Tolkien has perhaps unintentionally and perhaps against his will created a religion.

People believe (and they might be right) that Tolkien has not just created "his" world but that he has coveyed an eternal, real truth through myth. That is religion.

Secondly you seem to underestimate how widely Tolkiens works were known before the movies. Tolkiens book has been continuously one of the most read book ever since it's publication. There are millions of people who know the myth. In fact the decision to make these films based on the knowledge that there is a huge audience ready to see them if the films present the book well enough. The real risk was never weathe there was interest in the subject, but the unusual combination of masses having quite unpredictable qualitative expectations. That was the gamble.

As films, the LOTR trilogy is not nearly as good as they seem. I predict that they do not last the time. But they give a boost for the myth. There will be other versions. In fact I have seen wonderful ballet on Hobbit and a theatrical version of Lotr.

What do you think?

Gloer: thank you, and I am glad that you liked the analysis. I don't feel that I underestimate how widely Tolkien's works were read: I have seen plenty of statistics on that subject. But I think you in turn are perhaps not exactly right about how the book is read. While some may read Tolkien over and over again, I think this is a minority and probably a small one. For the most part people read the story, enjoy it and move on. It is appealing and approachable, and this in turn leads to more readers based on word-of-mouth recommendation. It is only the minority who become more absorbed in it.

Therefore, I suspect that while on reflection most would agree that Lord of the Rings "present truths about our world", most do not give it a privileged position as a quasi-religious text. After all, every piece of fiction presents truths about our world, or it would not resonate with us at all. I also think it may be misleading to say that for many purists it "replaces" the scriptures. I suspect that Thorin would deny that with considerable vehemence. I think it is more accurate to describe it as "complimentary", or more likely that it reinforces a pre-existing worldview. That worldview structures how the text is interpreted, so that differing people will find varying things within it. For that reason, I want to emphasize that I do not believe all purists have the same world view. Earlier on this thread, both Goro Shimura and Mrs Maggott implied or stated that purist share Tolkien's fundamental beliefs (and others do not). I reject that, but have a different formulation: that they believe they share Tolkien's fundamental beliefs. However, there may be more than one idea of what those fundamental beliefs were. Nonetheless, and because of this identification, there does seem to be some process in which Lord of the Rings (et al) becomes a privileged text, more than merely a much-loved novel.

You are correct to say there is an inherent gamble in adapting a widely-read and deeply-loved novel to the screen. But, and I don't have any proof of this, my feeling is that most casual readers of Tolkien did like the movies, and the number of people who share the Purist rejection of the movies is very small.

The question of how enduring the movies will be, I am not sure. The original Star Wars movies have stood the test of time reasonably well, and I could imagine that these movies will do likewise. As I described in my TMF analysis, there is an inherent appeal in the movies to the 'teenage condition', notwithstanding that some of the lustre will dull over time. Indeed, given the enduring nature of the books, I suspect there will be a kind of symbiosis between these two phenomena for some time to come. The movies will spawn new readers of the book, and the book will renew interest in the movies.

 

[joxy]

....my feeling is that most casual readers of Tolkien did like the movies, and the number of people who share the Purist rejection of the movies is very small.

Your long philosophical entry is interesting, but it was becoming too profund for me, until I came to that line, which achieves two truisms and a false implication, within one sentence!
Not only "most casual readers", but almost everyone, "likes" the films; it's only in the DEGREE of liking that anyone differs.
The number of people who reject the films IS very small - I haven't come across one yet.
The implication? That "purists", whoever they may be, reject the film; that's false.
The films are good in parts; everyone likes them to some degree.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

My problem is not Mr. Jackson's "mistakes" but his intentional changes of the characters in the story. Mistakes can be overlooked or edited out if they are terribly obvious (like the car in FOTR). Given how films are created (the shooting takes place "out of sequence") and the tremendous scope and complexity of these films, it is surprising that even more mistakes were not made.

Had Mr. Jackson's "transgressions" been limited to mere errors and questionable scenes (the too steep slope at Helm's Deep, the thousands of orcs surrounding the company in Moria and then running off before the Balrog comes), I would have had no problems with these films. But Jackson's inexcusable and unnecessary character revisions have frankly ruined them for me however good they may be as films.

 

[Greenwood]

There seems to be some sort of confusion in that last "Quote" of your last entry, which I don't think IS all from me. Could you clarify it with regard to who is being quoted?

My apologies for the confusing quotes in my last post. I had an attack of incompetence in seting it up. It has now been fixed.

I have been reading them, so I must have missed, or forgotten, the references; please refer me to one.

See post #213 of this thread.

On second thoughts, about it NOT being a mistake, it looks as if actually letting it through to the world COULD not have been a mistake - too many people could, or should, have known about it: Elijah and Sean - how could they not notice the barrels they'd been resting against had vanished?

From the above I guess you have no idea how movies are actually shot. Your comments only have validity if all the sections of the scene you are referring to were shot in sequence at the same time. This is not how movies are shot. The diiferent shots that were cut together to make the completed scene you are talking about might have been shot days apart; in a film shoot of this length and complexity they might have been shot weeks or even months apart and then cut together to make the completed scene. That is how films are shot and that is why minor continuity errors are chuckled over. If you think that actors, be they Elijah and Sean, or Lord Laurence Olivier, are going to remember the background props to some scene that shot hours or days or more ago, you are asking them to be superhuman.

 

[jallan]

Snaga posted:

Jallan, it doesn't surprise me that you find it hard to take seriously a cultural analysis of why people like or dislike the movies.

I would take seriously a cultural analysis based on genuine data rather than supposition.

Your posts are shot through with (what appears to be) an insistence on objective standards of aesthetic judgement.

Your posts are shot through with (what appears to be) an insistence on objective standards of aesthetic judgement, e.g. criticism of the sense of some scenes is labelled anti-modernist, obviously to you a bad thing, whatever exactly you mean by anti-modernist.

When someone falls short of the Jallan-standard they have "failed", and are "incompetent".

Close to truth if you would stop leaning on the word incompetent and looking at what was meant by it when it was used. As I've shown in a previous post, your choice of words also falls short of what you probably mean or exagerates. So does mine at times.

But do you have no standards by which people or works of art succeed or fail or almost succeed or almost fail and so forth? I recognize also that taste and familiarity has a lot to do with this.

Seemingly Purists as a group fall short of your standards, have "failed" to appreciate the films as you have.

Anyone who disagrees, presumably because their criteria are different, then they are in your book "stupid", or at least viewing without thought.

Anyone who disagrees, presumably because their criteria is different, then they are in your book "stupid", or at least viewing without thought (e.g. not viewing with your particular modernist(?) approach and insisting authoritatively that a demand for realism is archaic for everyone because you don't want it.)

If you don't like accusations thrown back at you like this, then don't make accusations that apply at least as much to you as to the person you are accusing.

In fact neither of us used the word "stupid" until you introduced it now. Why did you do so?

As to viewing without thought, I know myself that my experience of a film or book may be very different depending on the mode in which I experience it, and that a critical discussion of the book or film may show me much that I have missed, both good and bad.

I deny such criteria exist. Therefore I look for the origins of matters of taste and aesthetic judgment, while you prefer to attack those who do not share your view.

And how to you look? By amassing evidence? You posted:

The Arwen issue is very interesting too. The hostility to her presence at the Fords is quite revealing. Purists find this particularly disturbing, because the idea of the strong female character is one they are not predisposed to.

Perhaps I should keep posting this quotation until you either provide evidence or withdraw it. An analysis based on supposition is only a good as the truth of the supposition. This seems to me to be guilt-by-association innuendo on those who do not share your views.

There are discontinuities in the horse chase. I do not perceive them to be faults. Moreover the horse chase looks great and is very powerful. I believe it is a great scene, you feel that it fails. You feel that makes me stupid, unthinking etc., I think that makes you narrow-minded.

You are using the word "stupid" again, not me.

The horse chase does not look great to me. I have explained why. So broaden my mind, if you can.

In any event if I use criticisms of a specific scene as an example of more general trends, that is not a non-sequiter. It is only a non-sequiter to you because you refuse to accept the whole discussion.

I do not accept your supposed truisms as an answer to what I see as problems.

I am not interested (particularly) in "the question of how people can or should enjoy a particular sequence in a particular film"... I am interested in why they do so. I am not "evading" that question: I never intended to address it!

A well done helicopter shot shows us the Nazgûl converging on Arwen, mostly from behind. But one Nazgûl appears in front of her to the left. What will happen next? In the next shot all the Nazgûl are behind Arwen and the conflict that had been set up disappeared without explanation.

I would be interested in the question of why people enjoy (or don't enjoy this). I found it a cheat. I suspect most people feel the same but let it pass as a glitch. Fair enough. So did I. But when boosters of the film begin praising the excellence of this sequence then it is reasonable to say: "Wait a minute ... the chase sequence has problems. Just look at it!"

You clearly misunderstand my analysis of Centrists if you think that 'trying to understand what is on the screen' was my definition! Even more so, if you think that I believe Centrists are "correct".

That was your concise explanation in one post. I thought it revealing.

Correctness is not something I am concerned about.

This is more difficult to let pass. But I think you mean here that the approach taken is more important than whether the results of that approach are necessarily correct at all times for all Centrists. Fair enough. But does this also apply to your approach to imagining motives of Purists? Should not care about correctness?

But I think that what was happening in that chase was sloppy cutting, that the chase includes two continuity errors, the one I have gone into here and the later U-formation one. This is not a case of minor continuity errors outside areas where one would not expect the auidence to be focusing attention.

Of course, you previously thought I was placing myself in the "TMFs" and so you found evidence that I was subtly implying the "correctness" of that view too!

I have been careful not to label you. You tacitly admit that your claim that I called you a Jackson-Purist was not correct. You make another incorrect claim. You may be misled by my modifying your anti-Purists agrument into anti TMF arguments as an indication that your statements could cut both ways. I generally try to be careful about attributing motivation.

If you have a case to make as to the real reasons Purists are predisposed to be Purists, then present it with support beyond your own suppositions.

I choose not to express myself in the style of unnuanced certainties that you choose because I do not think in unnuanced certainties.

When you wish to hint and suggest you do this. But there are exceptions:

Not only this, within the sect of Tolkien purists, the more strident the attacks, the more uncompromising the criticisms, the more extreme the displays of hostility the greater the status gained thereby. When will it run its course? Not for some time I would guess. Because by attacking the movies, the devotees, the purist assert their own purity. They assert that they belong, that they continue to defy modernity, the critics, and the polluters of Hollywood. It is not the act of criticising the movies that is important, but the symbolism of the act.

You seem certain here of other people's motives.

Your posts are shot through with (what appears to be) an insistence on the absolute correctness of your judgment on why other people think and do what they do.

Is anyone who disagrees with your unsupported accusations "stupid" or unthinking?

 

[aragil]

It's nice to know that these discussions DO promote extra readings of the books! Gimli's example is what is called a "deliberate mistake" - he's exaggerating to Eomer, who has no way of knowing it's not true! That's MY story of explanation, anyway!

Your story is at variance not only with myself, but also with the author's own son- who, incidentally, probably has the highest opinion of the author conceivable. CT does not think that his father was incompetent- of this we can be sure. Yet he labels the Gimli mis-speak as nothing more than a curiousity- almost something to chuckle over.
From The Hitory of Middle-earth, Volume VIII, The War of the Ring, chapter II, 'Helm's Deep':

A curious point arises in Gimli's remark after his rescue of Eomer during the sortie from the postern gate (TT p. 140): 'Till now I have hewn naught but wood since I left Moria.' This is clearly inconsistent with Legolas' words in 'The Departure of Boromir', when he and Gimli came upon Aragorn beside Boromir's body near Parth Galen: 'We have hunted and slain many Orcs in the woods'; compare also the draft of a later passage (VII.386) where, when Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli set out in pursuit of the Orcs, Gimli says: '... those that attacked Boromir were not the only ones. Legolas and I met some away southwards on the west slopes of Amon Hen. We slew many, creeping on them among the trees ...' I do not think that any 'explanation' of this will serve: it is simply an inconsistency never observed.(21)


21. The second of these passages (VII.386) was lost in TT (p. 22).
In the fair copy manuscript of 'The Departure of Boromir' as originally written Legolas in the first passage (TT p. 16) said only: 'Alas! We came when we heard the horn, but we are too late. Are you much hurt?'; the fuller form of his opening words on seeing Aragorn, in which he mentions the hunting and slaying of Orcs with Gimli in the woods, was added later (both to the manuscript and the following typescript). It is therefore possible that my father had now rejected the idea that appears in the second passage ('We slew many'), and did not reinstate it again until after the writing of 'Helm's Deep'. But this seems unlikely, and in any case does not alter the fact of the inconsistency in the published work. This inconsistency may have been observed before, but it was pointed out to me by Mr. Ralph L. McKnight, Jr.

This last bit about the changing conceptions is interesting, in that I believe that this is what happened in the movie with the barrels. As Greenwood says, sometimes shots that appear back-to-back at the cinema were filmed a very long time apart. The scene at Amon Hen had a long history, and was shot over several years (once during principal photography, and then again later in 'Pick up' shoots during the year between FotR and TT). At some point the scene was very different- we were going to see Frodo physically change into a Gollum-esque creature when pressured by Faramir, much like Bilbo did in FotR at Rivendell. I have seen clips of this- it was filmed in an empty cave, one without barrels. My guess is that when they decided to get rid of the Frodo tranformation, they then decided to put in the scene of Frodo telling Sam how the Ring has increased it's hold over him. Incidentally, we see this stuff all over the place- there are vestiges of Arwen at Helm's Deep, and various other 'remainders' where the Film makers shot one thing, and then changed their mind about it.
And, not surprisingly, many of the same things occur in the books. Aragorn's actions towards the Hobbits in Bree are in many ways reflections of the fact that when the scenes were originally written by Tolkien, Aragorn was a Hobbit as well!

In any case, I suppose I should let the conversation return to the thread's intended purpose. Still, if I've helped you to see how inconsequential these lapses are in both book and movie, then the 4 post diversion was worthwhile.

 

[Gloer]

snaga:

I agree that the films and the books will create a positive symbiosis even though some see too many differences between the two. Perhaps there are differences, but looking from afar the books and the films are about the same story. Now that the films are new the rejection due to differences is strong. In the future if you like one, you accept the other as it is. And there will be a huge database even literature and academic studies on the differences of Tolkien and Jackson. This of course adds to the "knowledge" Tolkien fans have to learn

I do not quite agree with you that Tokien is only a supplementary scripture.
Tolkien himself wanted to convey his catholic convictions if any. This is a debate that we should not engage ourselves here. I would rather divert attention towards the clear fact that Tolkien's works are appealing to such a wide variety of people that they can not be merely supplementary.

You claim that people neccessarily read different things to Tolkien's works according to their "real" religious back ground. Is it really so? Perhaps we should not automatically assume that the "real" religion and it's texts are somehow primary source for religious experience, code ethics, solace.

The way Tolkien wrote his myths mean that there are no reference points to existing "real" myths or religion. Tokien's myth does not need The Bible, Book of mormon or any other "real" religion to reflect back to the reader - it stands alone.

The difference between religious scriptures is that Tolkien does not claim it to be history or from the real world (L Ron Hubbard did that with his science fiction).

However the lacking claim is not a real obstacle: religious stories need only to be true in spirit, even if they may be incorrect in reality.

In fact I think the fundamentalist word for word faith in the factuality of scriptures is a deviation from the faith in the message conveyed in the story. However the question weather the scripture is accurately describing facts is a secondary one. It is not really interesting from religious point of view. And this makes Tolkien interesting: Even if he was not making outrageous claims of religious kind, a´la Hubbard or Smith, Tolkien may still have planted a seed for one.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Certainly the films contain elements of the book including plot and many characters - at least in name. And that, alas, is the problem. Jackson's characters are certainly not the same as Tolkien's and this makes a tremendous difference in the essence of the tale. It may not seem that it does upon general viewing - after all, the "good guys" win in the end - but the motives and viewpoints of the characters indicate a moral point of view that is definitely affected when those motives and viewpoints are changed.

Of course, much of this is very subtle and doesn't "shout" at the viewer, but subtle or not, Jackson's story has a very definite moral message that is not the same as Tolkien's. Indeed, in some cases, Jackson's characters and/or their actions are almost diametric to Tolkien's. And whereas this may not affect the quality of the film as film, it certainly affects the ultimate meaning of LOTR.

 

[joxy]

From the above I guess you have no idea how movies are actually shot.
The diiferent shots....might have been shot days apart....might have been shot weeks or even months apart....If you think that actors....are going to remember the background props to some scene that shot hours or days or more ago, you are asking them to be superhuman.

Then you guess wrong - I know enough to have taken the time factor into consideration.
Whether one of your three estimates, or Aragil's new "several years", for the time between the shots, is correct, I see no reason why Elijah and Sean needed to be "superhuman" to remember when they made the second shot that the first one had included the barrels and this one didn't. The "continuity" person certainly should have known - there are more differences than just the barrels, and surely they have lists of the "properties" used in each shot that's made? The guys' appearances are very much the same, so the makeup and wardrobe people did their jobs pretty well; why should continuity have been so much harder to do properly?
Obviously though, the blunder MUST have been seen, by many people, at many different stages; it must have been "chuckled over", and have deliberately been allowed to go through to the finished product. This is my criticism of the film industry: they ARE less meticulous about their product than most other industries, and there's no practical or financial excuse for it.
It is all so inconsistent: some things done wonderfully well, others thrown casually aside.
Certainly their product still sells well, and I suppose that's all that matters to them.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Frankly, even if some small matter were forgotten, someone puts these films together for release! Surely, that person would notice if there are egregious mistakes in the shots and either "edit them out" or do something else to avoid a blatant error. Of course, as has been noted, when Jackson reshot some scenes, so much time had passed that the horses the actors were riding had been sold and they had to substitute others. So the shot begins with the rider on a grey horse and "a second later", he is on a brown horse - and so forth. Now, they knew that these problems would arise, but apparently Jackson was so unstrung, that he just kept reshooting stuff even knowing the problems that this practice would create. In this, at least, we might properly question his "competence" as a director. Why he felt the need to keep going back again and again to reshoot stuff that he had already supposedly completed (as well as changing things overnight so that the dialogue memorized on Tuesday could not be used on Wednesday!) leads one to believe that Mr. Jackson was not nearly so "prepared" as we have all been led to believe!

 

[joxy]

Your story is at variance not only with myself, but also with the author's own son.
....if I've helped you to see how inconsequential these lapses are in both book and movie.

Well, I did say it was only my story, that I'd just thought up! It still seems more reasonable though than all the troubling, over inconsistency and curiosity, that Mr McKnight and Mr T jr obviously put themselves to; frankly, I think "they do protest too much".
Gimli was in a mood towards working himself up for a fight; he was full of the dwarves' version of "bravado"; he said the first thing that came into his head to show how keen he was to use his axe on the hillmen. That he said something that was not accurate is something anyone in such a fraught situation might have done. He could have deliberately exaggerated for effect; he could have forgotten the "time-line". It doesn't call for much pondering over, and doesn't qualify as an error, or even much of a curiosity. Other people were "nit-picking", for a change!
I'm not saying, though, that Tolkien didn't actually make other errors; my point is that his errors, or anyone else's, have nothing to do with my comments on the errors in PJ's films. As Treebeard might say, "a film producer (with lots of money, time, hindsight, and experience) should know better".

Thanks for your help, but I didn't need it, as I've never thought either set of lapses, very different from each other though they are, was "consequential". The only consequences the film lapses have are to make this product look slightly slipshod at times, and to show that the film industry generally has a casual approach to the details of its products.

 

[Snaga]

I would take seriously a cultural analysis based on genuine data rather than supposition.

It is not supposition, it is my conclusions based on observation. If you require academic rigour, why do you spend your time posting on fansites, which do not insist on such standards?

Your posts are shot through with (what appears to be) an insistence on objective standards of aesthetic judgement, e.g. criticism of the sense of some scenes is labelled anti-modernist, obviously to you a bad thing, whatever exactly you mean by anti-modernist.

A rejection of the cultural values of the modern world. You are wrong that I see this as an objective standard. On the contrary, I have stated otherwise repeatedly. This attempt to turn back my own words against me is laughable.

But do you have no standards by which people or works of art succeed or fail or almost succeed or almost fail and so forth?

What do you mean by succeed or fail in this context?

Seemingly Purists as a group fall short of your standards, have "failed" to appreciate the films as you have.

They do not share (all of) my values. In what sense does that represent a failure? It represents a difference in perspective.

Anyone who disagrees, presumably because their criteria is different, then they are in your book "stupid", or at least viewing without thought (e.g. not viewing with your particular modernist(?) approach and insisting authoritatively that a demand for realism is archaic for everyone because you don't want it.)

Whatever one may say about people such as Thorin, Mrs Maggott, or Goro Shimura they are not stupid. I have never said so.

If you don't like accusations thrown back at you like this, then don't make accusations that apply at least as much to you as to the person you are accusing.

Weak! Insofar as my views reflect my cultural perspective I do not deny they are as much open to this form of analysis as anyone elses. That has never been disputed by me. But your attempt to throw back any statement I make is just a lame alternative to engaging 'with thought' on the subject.

In fact neither of us used the word "stupid" until you introduced it now. Why did you do so?

It is your contention that the films can only be enjoyed "if you watch the films mindlessly". When this was understandably interpreted as an accusation that those who enjoy the movies are unintelligent, you demanded explanations as to how these could be enjoyed without being 'mindless'. When explanations are offered you cut them down as having "failed" in your usual dismissive style. It invites the conclusion that you think those who like the movies are stupid. And that in turn leads to my conclusion that you are being narrow-minded.

Perhaps I should keep posting this quotation until you either provide evidence or withdraw it. An analysis based on supposition is only a good as the truth of the supposition. This seems to me to be guilt-by-association innuendo on those who do not share your views.

OK, since you insist here are some examples.
http://thetolkien.forum/showpost.php?p=18716&postcount=7 http://thetolkien.forum/showpost.php?p=380535&postcount=3http://thetolkien.forum/showpost.php?p=181891&postcount=8http://thetolkien.forum/showpost.php?p=189205&postcount=8 The last is a particularly good exposition of the purist position posted by, but not written by Mrs Maggott.

You are using the word "stupid" again, not me.

The horse chase does not look great to me. I have explained why. So broaden my mind, if you can.

I chuckled over this one! I'm afraid you will have to do that for yourself, Jallan my friend. If you want to listen to other perspectives, you will do so. If you prefer to shoot down other people's points of view, you are well-equipped to do so.

I would be interested in the question of why people enjoy (or don't enjoy this). I found it a cheat. I suspect most people feel the same but let it pass as a glitch. Fair enough. So did I. But when boosters of the film begin praising the excellence of this sequence then it is reasonable to say: "Wait a minute ... the chase sequence has problems. Just look at it!"

Holding you to your own standard, should I ask you for some evidence to support your argumentum ad populum? You found it a cheat, because you expect continuity but Jackson did not shoot a continuous scene. Others do not demand continuity, and found no problem with the scene. My explanation is that they accept the sense of a horse-chase, as a whole, without feeling driven to dissect it shot by shot. So far your only explanation is that they are viewing "mindlessly". Is that really the limit of your ability to understand other people?

That was your concise explanation in one post. I thought it revealing.

No, it was a single characteristic. I might say that a cow has a tail. Do you take this as meaning I think the definition of a cow is that it has a tail?

This is more difficult to let pass. But I think you mean here that the approach taken is more important than whether the results of that approach are necessarily correct at all times for all Centrists. Fair enough. But does this also apply to your approach to imagining motives of Purists? Should not care about correctness?

No, that isn't what I meant. I meant that in analysing how people arrive at their views about in this instance the LotR movies, or in fact any work of art, the "correctness" of their views is not the matter under discussion. Moreover, I do not believe in matters of aesthetic judgement "correctness" is an appropriate attribute to look for. These matters seem to me to be necessarily subjective. It seems to me that you believe there ARE objective standards. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

But I am not entirely clear what your final question was there. I think you mean here that perhaps I do not care whether my account of the "motives of Purists" is correct or not. First let me note that I think the word "motives" is perhaps suggestive of a more conscious chain of causation than I am suggesting. If I am right about your question, I do believe an account of this type needs to be plausible, and shrugging and saying "that's how I see it" is not sufficient.

But I think that what was happening in that chase was sloppy cutting, that the chase includes two continuity errors, the one I have gone into here and the later U-formation one. This is not a case of minor continuity errors outside areas where one would not expect the auidence to be focusing attention.

As it is not a minor continuity error, I find this explanation implausible. I accept that you don't like it, but I see no reason to believe that Jackson and his entire team would have made a monumental gaffe. It seems more likely to me that the scene is exactly as they intended, and that he was never aiming for the continuity that you desire.

I have been careful not to label you. You tacitly admit that your claim that I called you a Jackson-Purist was not correct. You make another incorrect claim. You may be misled by my modifying your anti-Purists agrument into anti TMF arguments as an indication that your statements could cut both ways. I generally try to be careful about attributing motivation.

I merely decided I didn't wish to trawl back to see whether you had labelled me or not. The fact that I was "misled" suggests that there are drawbacks in using this as a means of expressing yourself. Would it be too much to ask that you make your points rather more clearly in future?

Your posts are shot through with (what appears to be) an insistence on the absolute correctness of your judgment on why other people think and do what they do.

No. I have listened to all the points raised, and I am considering to what extent I should revise my opinion. That paragraph you quote is one that I am no longer satisfied with. The question, originally raised by Aragil, of the relative importance of the activity in poring over texts, given that non-Purists may behave similarly is another. But I insist on the validity of trying to understand why other people think and do what they do. So far all your posts are so negative in tone that I am still inclined to believe you do not think it is valid, despite your protestations.

Is anyone who disagrees with your unsupported accusations "stupid" or unthinking?

No. But nor do I discount the possibility that someone may reject my analysis without thinking. Do you actually have a basis for disagreeing, or do you disagree in principle? Do you actually disagree at all? Do you have anything constructive to say on this topic? If you yet again decide to reply by throwing back statements with a few words changed, don't expect me to indulge you again.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

I think we are speaking at rather cross-purposes. My problem with Mr. Jackson is not that he is incompetent (he isn't in the main) or stupid (he certainly isn't!) but that his moral worldview has "tainted" (and that word has been carefully chosen) a story whose own moral worldview I share. This is what makes his revisionist efforts particularly painful and upsetting. If he had merely edited out parts of the story or combined characters or made Elrond blond instead of dark or some other merely physical changes to the narrative, I would have had no problem. But his wilful, intentional and essential changes made in many of the characters has "damaged" the story in my eyes (I do not claim to speak for others).

Yes, one may watch these films as Mr. Jackson's version of LOTR - and I would have been happy to watch Mr. Jackson's version of Bradbury's Martian Chronicles or Pullman's His Dark Materials because neither of these stories strikes within me the same deep and abiding moral "chord" as does LOTR. But, as I have noted many times, this is my own subjective opinion (not the "changes"; they are quite objective and real, but the reaction to them) and I don't expect anyone else to feel as I do - although it would seem that there are those on this forum who, in fact, do.

 

[Snaga]

I would rather divert attention towards the clear fact that Tolkien's works are appealing to such a wide variety of people that they can not be merely supplementary.

That isn't clear to me.

You claim that people neccessarily read different things to Tolkien's works according to their "real" religious back ground. Is it really so? Perhaps we should not automatically assume that the "real" religion and it's texts are somehow primary source for religious experience, code ethics, solace.

I don't think that "real religion and its texts" are the primary source for religious experience, or indeed solace. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that many Christians get more solace from Tolkien than from Ezekiel! But I think they are more likely to get their fundamental beliefs from their 'real religion', although each of us constantly reconstructs these beliefs in their own mind, as they weigh new experiences against them. In this sense reading another book (e.g. LotR) might modify beliefs, but my argument is that the reader brings these beliefs and values with them when they read the text.

The way Tolkien wrote his myths mean that there are no reference points to existing "real" myths or religion. Tokien's myth does not need The Bible, Book of mormon or any other "real" religion to reflect back to the reader - it stands alone.

You are right. But the fact that it doesn't need any other religious understanding to be read and enjoyed doesn't mean that they do not bring these understandings with them as they interpret what they are reading.

In fact I think the fundamentalist word for word faith in the factuality of scriptures is a derivation from the faith in the message conveyed in the story. However the question weather the scripture is accurately describing facts is a secondary one. It is not really interesting from religious point of view. And this makes Tolkien interesting: Even if he was not making outrageous claims of religious kind, a´la Hubbard or Smith, Tolkien may still have planted a seed for one.

Hmm. I am not so sure this is right. To me, it seems that it would require people who view Tolkien in this way to constitute themselves as a social/religious organisation. I am not sure that even the purest of Purists take LotR quite as seriously as you suggest, and I do not see any signs of them creating any organisation as a result.

 

[jallan]

Snaga posted:

It is not supposition, it is my conclusions based on observation.

You have put together a number of true observations about some lovers of Tolkien and about some self-styled Purists to produce an imaginary ultra-Purist class. You have attributed to those ultra-Purists only those motivations that would seem most detrimental to their case and then projected that class onto individual persons such as myself, all this clothed in objectivity.

If you require academic rigour, why do you spend your time posting on fansites, which do not insist on such standards?

If you wish to be believed, then support your allegations. That your allegations are made on a website doesn't make them more believeable or any less likely to be questioned.

On the matter of failure of Purists:

They do not share (all of) my values. In what sense does that represent a failure? It represents a difference in perspective.

So when Jallan harshly criticizes something he is wrongly considering it a failure but when Snaga harshly criticizes something he is only pointing out a difference in perspective, e.g. that it failed from his perspective otherwise he would not be criticizing it. You fail to make the difference clear. Or from my perspective I see no difference.

Whatever one may say about people such as Thorin, Mrs Maggott, or Goro Shimura they are not stupid. I have never said so.

I have never said so. I repeated to you your strawman remark. You wrongly attributed to me the idea that anyone who disagreed with me is "stupid". Twice you attributed that opinon to me.

When explanations are offered you cut them down as having "failed" in your usual dismissive style. It invites the conclusion that you think those who like the movies are stupid. And that in turn leads to my conclusion that you are being narrow-minded.

I see. This seems another of your conclusions from observation. And if my perspective is different than yours I must be narrow-minded.

Here is another almost repeated sentence of the kind that you dislike: When objections are offered to you you cut them down in your usual dismissive style.

You don't like those repeated sentences. But I've never encountered any poster on any site who so invites this with remark after remark that can be repeated almost exactly to cut back on the poster. I don't do this normally. I've never done it before repeatedly.

As for the links to posts on Arwen, I give it to you that they are disturbing.

But your charge was that the dislike of strong women was the standard Purist position.

The standard Purist position on anything is that it should be presented with as few changes as possible, that the source work should be allowed to speak, however it may sound: e.g. as in a presentation of Shakespeare's A Merchant of Venice or a play based on Huckleberry Finn or a folksong sung based as closely as possible on a field recording. Leave it all alone. The rule is: don't change it, try to preserve all of the original.

That Tolkien Purists in general dislike strong women remains as suppositious as before, unless you can go through general posts on sexism in Tolkien and such and start matching Purists versus non-Purists to opinions presented. Attempts like these to rationalize either Tolkien's text or Jackson's films are common enough, inventions about why Tolkien must have felt something or why Jackson had to do something. More revealing would comments by Purists and Revisionists about women in situations where Purism and Revisionism are not being considered.

My explanation is that they accept the sense of a horse-chase, as a whole, without feeling driven to dissect it shot by shot. So far your only explanation is that they are viewing "mindlessly". Is that really the limit of your ability to understand other people?

I don't see any difference between the two explanations. You avoid the unpolitic word. But the custom of referring to blockbuster films as "mindless" entertainment is not coincidental. You play with words again. A lot of people watch uncritcally. I usually prefer not to.

As it is not a minor continuity error, I find this explanation implausible. I accept that you don't like it, but I see no reason to believe that Jackson and his entire team would have made a monumental gaffe. It seems more likely to me that the scene is exactly as they intended, and that he was never aiming for the continuity that you desire.

Considering how many admitted gaffes there are elsewhere in the films (but probably no more per meter of film than in many other films) I find it very easy to see this as an error, possibly because an intervening sequence showing Arwen passing the front Nazgûl was found not suitable for some reason. What point to set up an expensive heliocopter shot which would have necessitated careful coordination of the horses and riders without thinking carefully about the positioning and about the follow-up?

And other sequences in the films, even when stylized, seem intended to flow and mostly do flow logically.

So I don't agree with you. But am I therefore narrow-minded in believing this is to be an annoying error or are you narrow-minded in believing in Jackson-purist fashion that Jackson must have intended this?

I know the scene bothered me when I first saw it and I was not unsatisfied up until then with what had been done with Arwen. (Well her appearance in white did suggest an advertisment for feminine hygiene products as others have remarked ... but Jackson cannot be blamed for very inappropriate association that an image might bring up in particular individuals.) Once having seen the first glitch, my mind may have been more ready to notice the others than it otherwise would have been.

But once seen, never unseen.

The bunching of the horses is likely to be intentional, getting them closely behind Arwen to make the danger seem more greater without worrying about credibility to any who might look.

But it doesn't work if you see the trick. The background blurring of Aragorn, Gimli and Legoas in the exorcism scene are a similar trick to hide the unliklihood/impossibility that the three of them unarmed could hold off Théoden's men. But it fails when you see through it. The dramatic appearance of the Oympic Orc and so forth are a related problems.

But I insist on the validity of trying to understand why other people think and do what they do. So far all your posts are so negative in tone that I am still inclined to believe you do not think it is valid, despite your protestations.

I think it dangerous to create a cariacature model of what supposedly drives a particular class of people: this is ethnic stereotyping or class stereotyping or relgious stereotyping. It can dangerously dehumanize and very often hides more truth than it reveals.

If you really want to study purism and revisionism, then look in other fields also, notably in music. Different Purists often have very different motivations. Being pure and being reactive to society is only one of them and often not an important one. The may be more difference between Purist and Purist than between a cariactured typcial Purist and a cariacatured typical Revisionist.

And people are driven into Purism by seeing again and again what they respect being diluted and watered down. Read about the furor when Bob Dylan went electric.

 

[Snaga]

Jallan, I find this last post much more helpful. Thank you.

I dislike your approach of turning statements back at me for the most part because it seems that it does not communicate what you believe. Each time you have done this, I have replied to disagree with the statement, and you have replied by saying "I was showing you how that sentence could be turned back on you." Whilst you may believe I "invite" this, it is a game that anyone can play, and it allows no progess in understanding. It appears clever but is futile. (I observe that this last paragraph could be turned back on me, so go right ahead if you cannot resist).

I did not say you were narrow-minded for liking the Arwen-chase scene. I said it was narrow-minded to refuse to accept it was possible to like the scene without viewing uncritically. It is not a difference of perspective that is narrow-minded, it is the refusal to acknowledge the validity of other perspectives.

So when Jallan harshly criticizes something he is wrongly considering it a failure but when Snaga harshly criticizes something he is only pointing out a difference in perspective, e.g. that it failed from his perspective otherwise he would not be criticizing it. You fail to make the difference clear. Or from my perspective I see no difference.

It is you that uses the terms "fail" and "failure". I am confused at why you feel I should define for you what you mean by them. Nor do I understand why you insist I should use these terms. I disagree that all criticism represents an attempt to show "failure". I was critical of category that I put myself into as well. There are no perfect viewpoints, and thus all "succeed" and "fail" simultaneously. Therefore I see only limited utility in using these words. In addition, I feel they tend to lend themselves to sweeping use, in which the outcome or judgement (success/failure) obscures or overwhelms the process (engaging with the text/movie). By denoting something a failure, others may feel forced to defend their viewpoint, which reinforces difference and disagreement rather than constructively engaging in a dialogue. I presume you do not find this to be the case?

Of course, if you feel my criticisms are harsh, I invite you to point out where, and I will moderate my tone.

On my statement about Purists/Strong Women: I presented those posts as examples of observations upon which I drew my conclusions. You are correct to state that they are not conclusive, and while there are many avenues of research I could pursue to validate the statement I fear I lack the time to do this. Better than your suggestion would be to construct a questionnaire designed to capture data on peoples' attitudes to women, Tolkien, Jackson and other matters, from which a proper analysis might be drawn. I am aware of the proper methodologies, but I didn't post the thread anticipating such a demand!

I don't see any difference between the two explanations.

One way to term this might be analytical vs. holistic thinking. What is more important: the whole of the scene, or the individual shots and continuities between them? Is it possible to believe that there are issues with parts, but the whole is great? Or does a problem with a part, bring the whole thing down? My take on it is that whole scene works so problems at a lower level of detail are less important, or can be explained sufficiently so they become nullified. So I can see that it is possible to believe that there are continuity errors, but I prefer my own explanation. Similarly, I guess if you liked the whole TTT you would not just overlook the problem with a horse charge onto pike-wielding foot-orcs, but in fact believe that Gandalf's rays of light had somehow destroyed the coherence of their defence. But if you don't like TTT as a whole, then this will be held up as typifying the weaknesses. Is this not in fact how we form such opinions?

I think it dangerous to create a cariacature model of what supposedly drives a particular class of people: this is ethnic stereotyping or class stereotyping or relgious stereotyping. It can dangerously dehumanize and very often hides more truth than it reveals.

If you really want to study purism and revisionism, then look in other fields also, notably in music. Different Purists often have very different motivations. Being pure and being reactive to society is only one of them and often not an important one. The may be more difference between Purist and Purist than between a cariactured typcial Purist and a cariacatured typical Revisionist.

And people are driven into Purism by seeing again and again what they respect being diluted and watered down. Read about the furor when Bob Dylan went electric.

I disagree with dehumanizing or applying/ creating stereotypes. I hope that is not what I have done. My intention was to shed light on differing perspectives to promote understanding. It seems to me there has been a dialogue of the deaf between purists and "FADs", entrenched positions and limited progress. Hardly satisfactory.

I have to some extent, and will continue to study purism in other contexts. Notions of purity recur in most if not all human societies, and accompanying notions of what is taboo. Western ideas of artistic integrity, purity, revisionism and so forth are immensely interesting. For example, Shakespeare is more fundamental to western culture than Tolkien, but adaptations of his work into vastly different pieces do not provoke the same outrage. Indeed they often become well-loved in their own right: take "West Side Story" as a case in point. (Actually, I guess there may be examples of outrage: I can't think of any just now). What accounts for the difference?

It is naturally true that people will not like "dilution" of things that they love. But that is the surface phenomena, that invites further explanation, especially if notions of purity are invoked. Douglas and Wildavsky (1981) described US culture as consisting of "centre" and "border". "Border" viewpoints are drawn to notions of purity, which are as heterogeneous as the border viewpoints themselves (so radical environmentalists may have one idea of purity, Amish people another). It strikes me that Bob Dylan fans and many Tolkien fans may similarly be taking a stance on their much loved music/books from varying border perspectives. My original piece may not have reflected that heterogeneity sufficiently (nor my statement on strong women).

I hope you will accept that I am not trying to be judgemental, stereotyping or dogmatic. If you disagree, I am very happy to take criticisms or disagreements into account.

 

[jallan]

Snaga posted:

I did not say you were narrow-minded for liking the Arwen-chase scene. I said it was narrow-minded to refuse to accept it was possible to like the scene without viewing uncritically.

I accept that it is possible to find people who will like anything you can think of, no matter how unlikely it will seem, even being killed and eaten.

Yet from responses to my discussion of the chase sequence it seems that many were not looking at it closely and became rather disturbed when its flaws were pointed out to them (which is a normal response and one I also have when flaws I have not noticed are pointed out to me in works I enjoy). As to Jackson intending it, that is a normal response to someone pointing out an error: e.g. Tolkien intended to show Gimli's tiredness by having Gimli make a mistake or Jackson intended Haldir to give greetings from Elrond because we are to understand that Galadriel could not send out the Elves without Elrond's permission.

The individual reader/viewer, without outside evidence, may decide whether a particular explanation of a particular difficulty is more plausible than accepting that the narrator has blundered. Perhaps one should not be concerned with authorial intent at all? If something fails for a reader/viewer then it is a failure for that reader/viewer, regardless of intent.

Kneejerk-defenders go to great lengths to save appearances or adopt the position that "It doesn't matter!" or do both at once. Kneejerk-attackers do the opposite.

It is you that uses the terms "fail" and "failure". I am confused at why you feel I should define for you what you mean by them. Nor do I understand why you insist I should use these terms.

I did not ask you to define them for me. Nor did I suggest you should use them if you prefer not to. Regardless, you make the same kind of distinction that the word fail indicates.

I disagree that all criticism represents an attempt to show "failure".

I didn't say that. I know it doesn't.

There are no perfect viewpoints, and thus all "succeed" and "fail" simultaneously. Therefore I see only limited utility in using these words.

One viewpoint may be more correct than an opposing viewpoint. Galileo was burned for asserting a particular viewpoint against another viewpoint. He saw that looking at something another way made more sense out of it. All words have limited utility. I reject a viewpoint of total relativity.

In addition, I feel they tend to lend themselves to sweeping use, in which the outcome or judgement (success/failure) obscures or overwhelms the process (engaging with the text/movie). By denoting something a failure, others may feel forced to defend their viewpoint, which reinforces difference and disagreement rather than constructively engaging in a dialogue. I presume you do not find this to be the case?

For one person to claim a better perspective on a problem than another person's perspective equally reinforces difference and disagreement.

One can claim that to his or her perspective all perspectives are equally valid (or invalid), all are equally true (or false). That perspective logically fails because it denies its own truth against the perspective that perspectives can be relatively more or less true or false compared to one another. Accordingly all perspectives are not equally valid/invalid.

To take a practical example: if someone argues the perspective that homosexuality ought to be accepted by society and someone else argues the perspective that homosexuality ought not to be accepted by society, neither will agree with the perspective that neither party is correct because all perspectives are equally valid. There is now more disagreement rather than less, three positions rather than two.

On my statement about Purists/Strong Women: I presented those posts as examples of observations upon which I drew my conclusions. You are correct to state that they are not conclusive, and while there are many avenues of research I could pursue to validate the statement I fear I lack the time to do this.

My perspective on that is that one should not be so hasty as to make such generalizations. There are white Aryan supremist websites who claim Tolkien as their own. Tolkien is also claimed by the ultra-right wing politicos in Italy. See One Vote to Bind Them AllWhat does this tell you about Tolkien fans if you accept these perspectives as generally valid?

My take on it is that whole scene works so problems at a lower level of detail are less important, or can be explained sufficiently so they become nullified. So I can see that it is possible to believe that there are continuity errors, but I prefer my own explanation. Similarly, I guess if you liked the whole TTT you would not just overlook the problem with a horse charge onto pike-wielding foot-orcs, but in fact believe that Gandalf's rays of light had somehow destroyed the coherence of their defence. But if you don't like TTT as a whole, then this will be held up as typifying the weaknesses. Is this not in fact how we form such opinions?

You can only first experience a work through its parts. For me it was as though Fellowship provided some unpleasant mouthfuls. But many parts tasted excellently. That partly makes one able to overlook the bad. But it would be wrong to say that it was good as a whole, if you mean that the bad parts therefore cease to be bad.

But The Two Towers had a rotten taste in too many of the mouthfuls throughout it for me to stomach it as a whole. I am aware from experience that expectation that something ought to taste one way may make unexpected flavor seem bad. But on a second viewing the film seemed seven worse to me.

And what I find bad many others find bad, the same features that defenders of hte films are hard put to it to defend. There is more unity on what was good and bad in the films than appears on the surface.

It seems to me there has been a dialogue of the deaf between purists and "FADs", entrenched positions and limited progress. Hardly satisfactory.

But often those who pretend to be deaf do hear, if not immediately, eventually. Arguments tried once are no longer presented or are now easily confuted ... on both sides. Introducing unsupported asserations about why people are predisposed to particular positions doesn't help if those assertions are not correct.

For example, Shakespeare is more fundamental to western culture than Tolkien, but adaptations of his work into vastly different pieces do not provoke the same outrage.

The Purists won on Shakespeare.

The bastadrized and revised forms of this plays began to disappear at the end of the nineteenth century. It was discovered that Shakespeare as written was more popular than Shakespeare adapted to supposed contemporary tastes by adaptors who thought they knew better what was required for contemporary audience or who though they could fix up the plays.

Indeed they often become well-loved in their own right: take "West Side Story" as a case in point. (Actually, I guess there may be examples of outrage: I can't think of any just now). What accounts for the difference?

Free adaptations of that kind are from the beginning distinguished from the originals and don't pretend to be a presentation of the original. Ran is based on King Lear but does not pretend to be King Lear. I think most LR Purists would enjoy The Lord of the Rings (circa 2002) if the entire work were similarly adapted.

But more often than not book readers find films adaptatoins of books to be trivialized and dumbed-down.

It is naturally true that people will not like "dilution" of things that they love. But that is the surface phenomena, that invites further explanation, especially if notions of purity are invoked. Douglas and Wildavsky (1981) described US culture as consisting of "centre" and "border". "Border" viewpoints are drawn to notions of purity, which are as heterogeneous as the border viewpoints themselves (so radical environmentalists may have one idea of purity, Amish people another).

You look too deep for most cases.

For example, Sherlock Holmes fans were generally annoyed by Nigel Bruce's comic (Gimlied down) Dr. Watson. Bruce is on record as seriously and genuinely apologizing for trivializing the character as he was compelled to do by his director and by the scripts. One can hardly find a commentary on the more recent Jeremy Brett portrayals of Holmes without reading joyous exclamations of "at last ... an intelligent Watson!" -- a cry of triumph against needless formula musack-style Hollywood revisionism and cheap comedy.

Although early Basil Rathbone Holmes films were good enough as films to be still viewable with great pleasure today by most ... Holmes Purists felt strongly that sticking to Doyle's own concepts would have been better. They find themselves vindicated.

Burroughs fans still await a well-done Purist vision of Tarzan done by the books (though early Weismuller is usually acceptable as a variant realization of the concept different enough to be viewed as a different story and different person altogether).

Non-extremist Americans may be just as addicted to "purity". They want to be normal, to follow the norms of the culture in which they find themselves, to go along with the crowd, an attitude of conformity that may be no different than those who find themselves in an extremist crowd. But the non-extremist needs less self-justification and can use the argument: "Why can't you think and believe like most of us?"

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

The problem stems from familiarity with the source material. I for one did not read the book(s) that were the source for the Star Wars films (always assuming that there were source books, of course!), nor did I read the Jurassic Park book before seeing the film. I read Jaws after the film (and believed that the film was superior). I never read Puzo's Godfather books. However, when one has read (and reread and rereread) the source material and is fond of it (the Sherlock Holmes stories), then adaptations of the book or books to film is going to undergo far more scrutiny than the adaptation of an unknown quantity. The fact that this should surprise or alarm anyone is itself somewhat surprising. Very few works of literature have the same following as Tolkien's books - especially LOTR. Given the outcry that followed Bakshi's efforts, I don't know why anyone would be disturbed or annoyed that as many if not more outcries have arisen from Jackson's efforts especially given the very real - and intentional distortions within his films.

 

[joxy]

Given the outcry that followed Bakshi's efforts, I don't know why anyone would be disturbed or annoyed that as many if not more outcries have arisen from Jackson's efforts especially given the very real - and intentional distortions within his films.

It's certainly interesting that PJ obviously didn't take into account the criticisms of his predecessor, and indeed that he offered his own versions of some of the very things that received the most criticism in that cartoon version.
Learning from someone else's mistakes is easier than learning from one's own.
Did I hear a whisper of that word, "hubris", again?