Purity and the Critics

[aragil]

the one change that i think best represents something that there was absolutely NO REASON to change is the time until frodo sails into the undying lands. in the book, it is two years, in the movies four. that number is 100% arbitrary to a film audience. i constantly ask for what reason did this need to be changed? if PJ was willing to change such a small thing because he thought it improved the story, what of larger things. this really calls into question:

did peter jackson include truthfullness and faithfullness to the source in the filming of his movies?

LOL!! Of course, I've only seen the movie three times, but if my imperfect memory serves me correctly, Frodo says:
"It's been three years since Weathertop Sam. {The wound} has never really healed".
Let's see- Weathertop in October 3018, departure of the Ringbearers in Sept. 3021. PJ was a whole month off!!
Perhaps what should be called into question is whether or not people are being too hasty to call PJ into question. Perhaps, just perhaps, some things that people react so strongly to just aren't so bad, from a relative point of view.

I was active on the Forum for a while and Aragil and I fought many a battle together (side by side for the most part)

Indeed, as I recall we were rather derisively referred to as 'the twins' owing to our uncanny ability to race each other through the ether with essentially similar posts. How I've missed it! Hope you stick around in the movie forum, as your posts were usually appreciated by both sides in the arguments!

There are other tendencies in the world, and noone is only a member of TTF with no existence in other communities. In evitably people behave in ways influenced and structure by the sum total of their relationship with others and not merely by a part.

My point exactly!! I was worried that those who consider themselves purists might be offended by the specificity of your original post. Obviously, as with an theory yours will be judged by how well it describes the phenomena, but in this case it is worth keeping in mind that possibly the majority of factors on whether one enjoys the movies or not are not included in your original post- I would think the scope is beyond 100 such long and well-written posts to fully describe. That being said, I do enjoy your theory, and certainly some (not all) of your points ring quite true, IMO. I'm sure the thread will continue to provoke interesting and insightful posts both from those who consider themselves purists, and those that do not.

 

[Snaga]

But this is what is so appealing to people. In our world of 'grey areas' and moral lackness, we are intrigued by a world where despite the short comings of the characters, black is black and white is white. Evil is evil and good is good and good will triumph overall eventually. This has been the staple of fable, myth and fairy tale for ages. Why do you think they've lasted for so long?

This is in fact only what appeals to some people. And even if it is appealing, it does not correspond to everyone's worldview. For other there is entertainment in a world where evil is embodied so completely by supernatural beings, but not all feel the need to take this aspect seriously.

Tolkien didn't just write a good fantasy novel. He created a world, an entire myth the like of which religions have been creating for millenia. Therefore, the way we look at LoTRs is much different then looking at a Stephen King novel. It is a history that we are taking part in and that Tolkien is allowing us to be part of. How can one NOT internalize such a grand sweeping epic into their lives? This is why it is harder for the purist to accept certain changes though we can fully accept the changes to "Jurassic Park" or "The Shining".

Each person who engages with any text necessarily internalises it. But they do this individually and personally, in relation to their values. Thus the extent to which and the manner in which this takes place is not the same for everyone. Certainly plenty of people do not feel the same way as you; this much is evident.

It is that others who have the power to present LoTR in some other media, may not appreciate the depth and richness of a history that we all have come to love and integrate into our imaginary minds. There is worry that those images that make LoTR what it is will not be shown the respect that it deserves, nor that consideration is given as to why Tolkien wrote what he did the way he did. And there is the inherent fear that all fans of the book have that this medium will tarnish and affect their own world they have internalized. Movies are a powerful medium to do this. How many of us who have been reading the book for decades frustratingly find their plump, rotound view of Frodo being replaced by Elijah Wood's weepy blue eyes? Or the noble, handsome look of Elrond replaced by Hugo Weaving's gaunt, frowning Matrix-y visage?

Again and again, you use phrases like "the history that we all come to live"; "the respect that it deserves"; "the inherent fear that all fans of the book have". Each time you betray an inability to accept any view other your own. I spoke of the drive to purity, and the need to defend this purity against pollution; you speak of your internal world being "tarnished" by a powerful medium. But your examples of how this threat is substantiated is necessarily personal and a product of your own cultural reference points. Your view of Frodo may require him to be 'plump and rotund' but others have posted how very much Elijah Wood did fit their vision of him. You may not think Hugo Weaving looks right for Elrond, but I do not discount that others might believe he does appear 'noble', 'handsome' and indeed ageless. His 'Matrix-y'-ness is merely apparent to you as a product of your own internalisation of other cultural reference points, which amply demonstrates how the individual does not internalise and interpret fiction in isolation and objectively.

None of the purists here feel any sort of 'untouchable' status' to any attempt to portray LoTR. Were that the case, then the purist would have a problem with any other reader reading it. By your definition, the purist would not even attempt to try and create any sort of medium of LoTR himself were he even given the means, money, and time to do so. The issue is keeping the intent, characters, plot and meanings of the author intact when doing such an undertaking. Something the movies failed at miserably in many instances just as they succeeded in other areas.

I don't see how you get to the second sentence. However, I accept that you may believe that you could yourself 'do justice' to LotR, but others may well differ with you about what the 'intent, characters, plot and meanings' are! You say the movies failed miserably: but this is again your insistence that there is only one 'right' interpretation. Moreover, the rejection of the movies started well before they came to the screen, and similar hostility to further adaptation may be anticipated before they ever happen. This does indeed suggest the hostility is a priori, and not based on seeing the movies.

Reasonable changes are acceptable when one must consider the medium one is working with. However, when one makes an adaptation, there is a reasonable assumption both by adaptor and viewer that truthfulness and faithfulness to the source are a consideration. When one makes unnecessary changes when one could have stayed true to the book, that is unacceptable. Especially when characters, plots and meanings are altered by those changes.

Again, who is to say what is "reasonable"? You believe you must be the arbiter of this, and you believe it is in some way your duty to guard this so-called "truth" against those who would tarnish it. But your "truth" is not mine, and mine is not someone elses. Your absolutist attitude dictates that interpretations you disagree with are not merely 'disappointing' but 'unacceptable'.

It is speaking out of respect for a grand work that was supposed to be adapted faithfully. When it is not done so, it is every fan's right to speak their piece as to why it was not acceptable. Just as the movies should be praised when Tolkien is captured perfectly (or even decently) which it has in many instances and has been lauded on this forum by many purists.

To me, we are all here because of what Tolkien means to us. As fans, it is negligent for us to speak out when necessary meanings and characters are changed and altered (especially needlessly) then to blindly accept and praise such changes on the basis of arguments like "He needed to appeal to a broader audience" or "You can't expect it to be like the book". Such arguments show an even greater sense of 'puristic' thinking then book purists.

Of course it every fan's right to give their opinion, and I am not seeking to deny that to anyone. And it was indeed my very point to describe and explain why it is that Tolkien means so very much to purists that you feel the need to "speak out". You illustrate my findings very well, in the way you put that. To feel the need to "speak out" implies the moral character of issues, rather than merely artistic problems of interpretation: in other words the feeling that you need to defend personal values against "tarnishment".

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

We also must be very careful about pulling quotes out of context. Remember, a lot of our members get a real charge out of being "over the top" with their comments - and that's on both sides of the issue. They enjoy "stirring the waters" and getting everybody "het up", then metaphorically sitting back to enjoy the outcries of outrage that resulted. This is a far cry from being "serious" about such comments and yet, taken out of context, they certain read that way!

 

[Gandalf The Grey]

Dear Wonko the Sane,

I hope you won't delete your post.

For starters, your specific praise of Snaga's first two posts wherein you encourage him to consider submitting them for publication in a newspaper or magazine certainly deserves to stand.

And having read down to your signature, I couldn't help but notice how well your signature suits you, when seen in the light of the whole "package" you present throughout your post:

"Nerdanel was also firm of will, but more patient than Fëanor, desiring to understand minds rather than to master them, and at first she restrained him when the fire of his heart grew too hot; but his later deeds grieved her..."

... excluding in hope of course that the last phrase about "later deeds" won't come to apply!

While you may not impress people by being as glamorous as the Fëanors of the forum, I'd venture they could learn from you, Wonko the Sane.

 

[jallan]

Joxy posted:

To Jallan: Do you really think it is impossible to discuss ROTK on the basis of of only reports read here, and elsewhere, and that only those who have seen it are qualified to discuss its details?

No.

I did not say or think that was impossible to discuss ROTK on the basis of only reports read here and elsewhere.

Putting the question the way you did misses the point. Obviously it is possible.

But the credibility of someone repeating second-hand or third-hand comments is less.

Someone who has read a particular book or seen a particular film is obviously in very important ways more generally qualified to discuss the details of that book or film than one who hasn’t. It is possible that in other ways the person might be less qualified.

Still, not having read the book or seen the film puts one at a disadvantage.

Similarly an argument about whether the food at a particular restaurant is good or bad is better carried on by those who have actually eaten at the restaurant, regardless of how much their opinions may reflect differing tastes (and lack of taste). However someone who has never eaten there but who has a general knowledge of the kind of cuisine that the restaurant serves or who has other knowledge pertinent to the discussion may have something to contribute.

 

[Greenwood]

jallan,

Yes I have read Tolkien's comments, though not recently. I do not have my copy of his volume of letters with me at the moment. I know that there is a letter in which Tolkien is rather appalled at a "treatment" he was sent for a proposed movie version of LOTR by the Disney studios. The Zimmerman "treatment" that you refer to may well be different from that one, I will have to check. However, it does not alter my point. Tolkien's comments were made decades ago about a totally different potential film than the current trilogy. They do not "prove" anything about what Tolkien would think of these films. That you think the points he made then are directly applicable to the current films is merely your opinion. You cannot know what Tolkien would have thought of something done decades after his death.

I have certainly never said "any ‘true’ lover of Tolkien’s writing ought to appreciate the films" or anything remotely like it. There are lots of things that I winced or even cringed at in the films. I have always said that everyone is entitled to their opinions of the films (at least if they have seen them). I have no problem with someone hating the films. I don't have a problem with someone saying they don't represent the "spirit" of the books (though I disagree and personally feel that for the most part they do). I do have a problem with people saying that they "know" what Tolkien would think of the films. I do have a problem with people setting themselves up as "guardians" of Tolkien purity.

Mrs Maggott,

I don't know if you are referring to me when you write: "We also must be very careful about pulling quotes out of context."; forgive me if I have mistakenly gotten that impression. If you think I have taken the quote from the "Tolkien in the Movies" thread out of context, please point out how. That is an active thread in this section. As for my other quote from two years ago, I can PM you the URL for it. I did not include it because I really did not want to stir up a two-year-old fight and the person who posted it does not seem to be currently active on the forum. I think we must "also must be very careful about" implying that others are "pulling quotes out of context".

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Believe it or not, I was not referring to your or at least not explicitly. I was referring to anyone who goes back and looks at much of what has been posted over the years for certain things read differently well after the time at which they were written and when taken outside the context not only of the entire post but of what was ongoing in the thread at the time. This can result in someone reading something into the quote that was not originally intended or that sounds silly because some later development proves it wrong (in other words, if some speculation is made about TTT, it is going to sound stupid now that the film has been released. So unless it is clearly indicated that the post was made prior to the release of the film, such a quote can make the poster appear to be an idiot.

In short, doing this sort of thing can be a "dangerous" way of illustrating one's point. And that is all that I meant with regard to the subject.

 

[Greenwood]

Mrs. Maggott,

Thank you. I wasn't sure.

Greenwood

 

[jallan]

jallan,

Yes I have read Tolkien's comments, though not recently. I do not have my copy of his volume of letters with me at the moment. I know that there is a letter in which Tolkien is rather appalled at a "treatment" he was sent for a proposed movie version of LOTR by the Disney studios. The Zimmerman "treatment" that you refer to may well be different from that one, I will have to check.

You should really have checked first because you what you claim to know is wrong. You are referring to letter 210 where Tolkien responds to a screenplay by Morton Grady Zimmerman. Disney was not involved at all. The man behind this proposed film was Forrest J. Ackerman to whom Tolkien writes. The discussion you linked to mentions Zimmerman. A simple search on the web for [tolkien zimmerman] would have given you the facts.

However, it does not alter my point. Tolkien's comments were made decades ago about a totally different potential film than the current trilogy. They do not "prove" anything about what Tolkien would think of these films.

Correct. All I said was that they were pertinent. Some of the things Tolkien then criticized are the same kinds of things that people criticize in the current films. Why do you put prove in quotation marks? Who are you quoting?

That you think the points he made then are directly applicable to the current films is merely your opinion.

So far you’ve only given your opinions, mostly about unnamed purists who have done dire deeds. If you wish to make a case, provide some details to back it up, preferrably recent details. But I suspect anything you consider out-of-line posted by someone you consider a Tolkien-purist can be matched by something posted by a someone who might be considered a Jackson-purist.

You cannot know what Tolkien would have thought of something done decades after his death.

Agreed. I never claimed I did. If someone has said so, take it up with them.

I have certainly never said "any ‘true’ lover of Tolkien’s writing ought to appreciate the films" or anything remotely like it.

I never claimed you did. Accuracy please! You did claim to detect the opposite, but again didn’t cite anyone who said anything remotely like it. But a long enough search will likely turn up examples on both sides.

There are lots of things that I winced or even cringed at in the films. I have always said that everyone is entitled to their opinions of the films (at least if they have seen them). I have no problem with someone hating the films. I don't have a problem with someone saying they don't represent the "spirit" of the books (though I disagree and personally feel that for the most part they do). I do have a problem with people saying that they "know" what Tolkien would think of the films.

People are entitled to their opinions even if they haven’t seen the films. You can’t stop people from having opinions, even if based on heresay. I couldn’t stop you from holding our opinions that Tolkien was responding to a propose Disney film even by providing the correct information.

But why have you put know in quotation marks? Again, take it up with persons involved rather than making general insinuations about unnamed people. The thread you cited makes no claims to knowing what Tolkien would have thought of the films. The first post provides statements by Tolkien some of which do fit with the kind of criticisms made about Jackson’s adaptations and similarities are pointed out, I think fairly.

Personally, I doubt very much that Tolkien would have had much good to say about the films. But, Tolkien was very critical, and no-one is compelled to like exactly what he liked or dislike exactly what he disliked or to believe exactly what he believed.

I do have a problem with people setting themselves up as "guardians" of Tolkien purity.

Well perhaps you should take this up directly with those people, if you can find them, rather than making general insinuations about unnamed so-called purists. If people who feel that Tolkien’s original vision was generally far better than what appears in the film and could have been followed in the film can be said to be setting themselves up as self-appointed guardians of Tolkien purity, then those who claim that what appears in the film is as good or better than what appears in the books are also setting themselves up as self-appointed guardians of Jackson’s purity of vision.

There’s no difference.

Why do you put guardians in quotation marks? Who are you quoting? If you simply mean to emphasize, what is the purpose of the emphasis?

If you make a claim, you should ready to provide backup for that claim. Who are these people setting themselves up as self-appointed guardians on either side other than people attempting to argue their feelings and perceptions on a subject which has been established as a major section on this forum?

 

[Greenwood]

quote bu jallan
All I said was that they were pertinent. Some of the things Tolkien then criticized are the same kinds of things that people criticize in the current films. Why do you put prove in quotation marks? Who are you quoting?

The title of the thread in question is: "What Tolkien himself would have thought ... . Throughout the thread purists point to quotations from Tolkien's nearly fifty year old letter to "prove" that their criticisms of the movies are the same that Tolkien would have if he were alive. You have yourself posted on that thread. Now unless some one has found a way to talk to Tolkien from beyond the grave, no one knows "What Tolkien himself would have thought."

quote by jallan
You should really have checked first because you what you claim to know is wrong. You are referring to letter 210 where Tolkien responds to a screenplay by Morton Grady Zimmerman. Disney was not involved at all. The man behind this proposed film was Forrest J. Ackerman to whom Tolkien writes. The discussion you linked to mentions Zimmerman. A simple search on the web for [tolkien zimmerman] would have given you the facts.

jallan,

To paraphrase your comment above, you should really check your facts. In the volume of Tolkien's letters you will find an endnote to letter 207. That endnote states:

Forrest J. Ackerman, agent for the film company;
(emphasis added

Ackerman was merely an agent for a film company, he was not "the man behind" the proposed film.

If you also look at letter no. 207 (which also refers to Zimmerman's film treatment or as that letter calls it "Zimmerman - 'Story-Line' ") you will find the following quote from Tolkien:

I am entirely ignorant of the process of producing an 'animated picture' from a book, and of the jargon connected with it.

Thus the film treatment under discussion was for an "animated picture" -- a cartoon. I do not know which film company was behind the proposal, but Disney Studios was certainly the major producer of animated films in the 1950's and I admit I may have made an incorrect assumption that it was Disney. I wonder, however, how many of the people who point at this famous letter of Tolkien's and try to apply it to the current films know that the film treatment was for an animated, not a live action film?

Lastly on this subject, I just did "a simple search on the web for" [Tolkien Disney] and found the following site: http://www.orlandoweekly.com/news/eyedrive/archive.asp?eye=3292 which states that the Disney studio was looking at doing an animated version of LOTR in the 1950's (though the Zimmerman treatment was apparently not for Disney). Once again, I admit I may have mixed up the Zimmerman treatment with the Disney interest, but the mix-up was irrelevant to my point.

quote by jallan
If you wish to make a case, provide some details to back it up, preferrably recent details.

I have given some "details", but since you may have missed them I will repeat them: From the "My God it was Horrible (III)" thread in the ROTK film section we have:

A Plague. A Pestilence. Peter Jackson deserves to see King Kong bomb in the box office, since he showed how well the term 'hack' fits him when his master plan of making movies of The Lord of the Rings to get his foot in the door for King Kong.

From the "Peter Jackson hints at the Hobbit" thread in the What's New section discussing Jackson perhaps filming The Hobbit (I admit the last time I did not specifiy the thread though I described it:

And your momma PJ! I swear, if you touch the hobbit I will cut you 'another'.

And in the "Tolkien in the Movies" thread in this very section:

publicity stun[t], nothing more nothing less. did anyone even see or care about this tolkien sell-out.

i wonder how much jackson paid tolkien to sell-out his grandfather's legacy, it hardly legitimises the jackson work. its like getting einstein's hypothetical grand daughter who would have had an english degree, to speak about physics and the laws of relativity.

i mean do these FADS even "think" about what they write? i mean the act of writing should trigger "some" thought process right?

emphasis added

All of the above are from recent threads.

quote by jallan
People are entitled to their opinions even if they haven’t seen the films. You can’t stop people from having opinions, even if based on heresay.

No, I can't stop people from having opinions, even if based on hearsay. I can, however, point out that such opinions are fairly valueless.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

LOL!! Of course, I've only seen the movie three times, but if my imperfect memory serves me correctly, Frodo says:
"It's been three years since Weathertop Sam. {The wound} has never really healed".

Actually, the line is "Four years to the day..." I know that because I saw it for a 3rd time yesterday!

(Just keeps getting better and better! I was especially amazed yesterday at the sweep of that line of advancing Mumakil. The more I see it, the more I find to like. PJ knows how to block out a dramatic scene!)

And I think the reason for any tinkering with the timeline was this absolute: the age of Sean Astin's daughter, who jumps into Sam's arms at the end of the movie.

Lotho

 

[joxy]

From the "My God it was Horrible (III)" thread in the ROTK film section....
From the "Peter Jackson hints at the Hobbit" thread....
And in the "Tolkien in the Movies" thread in this very section:

All three of these use such peculiar language that I simply can't understand them. If you think you do understand them, please give a translation into normal English.

 

[Greenwood]

All three of these use such peculiar language that I simply can't understand them. If you think you do understand them, please give a translation into normal English.

From Random House Webster's Dictionary:

hack -- a person, esp. a professional, who surrenders individual dependence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward: a political hack.

sell-out -- a person who betrays a cause, organization, principles, etc., esp. for money or personal advantage; traitor

joxy,

I take it from your lack of understanding that English is a second language to you. Perhaps the above definitions will help. Take it from a native English speaker, the terms are not meant to be complimentary; they are certainly meant to be hurtful, especially calling Tolkien's great-grandson a "sell-out". The third example are American colloquisms and I suspect the censor function might get upset if I translate them. Let's just say they are not nice.

 

[Snaga]

Can I suggest that people who wish to discuss in detail Tolkien's letter relating to the Zimmerman movie script do so on the thread created for that purpose? It seems pointless to duplicate the same discussion here. However I must say I agree with Greenwood that the suggestion that we can know what Tolkien's views would be about Jackson's movies from a letter relating to a different movie entirely is very characteristic of the tendency my original post was about.

If people who feel that Tolkien’s original vision was generally far better than what appears in the film and could have been followed in the film can be said to be setting themselves up as self-appointed guardians of Tolkien purity, then those who claim that what appears in the film is as good or better than what appears in the books are also setting themselves up as self-appointed guardians of Jackson’s purity of vision.

There’s no difference.

This of course is not true at all. There is a qualitative difference between condemning Jackson for failing to reproduce one's own interpretation of Tolkien's work, and saying that Jackson's movie are excellent. The one asserts a narrow standard that must be lived up to, and attacks those that fail in this respect, and is necessarily dogmatic about what is "acceptable"; the other merely applauds another work, without assailing the validity of anything else. (As an aside, I don't remember anyone say that the movie are an improvement on Tolkiens work in general, and only infrequently in particular aspects.)

 

[joxy]

From Random House Webster's Dictionary:
I take it from your lack of understanding that English is a second language to you.
....hurtful, especially calling Tolkien's great-grandson a "sell-out".
The third example are American colloquisms.

No, I'm a native Yorkshireman, and did a college degree course in English!
As always, the US and UK are divided by a common language.
Here a "sell-out" is something excellent: the success of a product for which there has been more demand than supply, something that has "sold out (of stock)".
"Hack" colloquially refers to the process of obtaining access illegally to a computer system.
You mean the second quotation is a US colloquialism, better left unexplained?

 

[jallan]

The title of the thread in question is: "What Tolkien himself would have thought ... . Throughout the thread purists point to quotations from Tolkien's nearly fifty year old letter to "prove" that their criticisms of the movies are the same that Tolkien would have if he were alive. You have yourself posted on that thread. Now unless some one has found a way to talk to Tolkien from beyond the grave, no one knows "What Tolkien himself would have thought."

However, many of the complaints are of the same kind. That anyone can see. (They can also see that Tolkien suggested dropping Tom Bombadil because there would not be time to do him justice even though Zimmerman had put him in.)

For a similar discussion see The Mines of Moria ‘Anticipation’ and ‘Flattening’ in Peter Jackson’s The Fellowship of the Ring.

To paraphrase your comment above, you should really check your facts. In the volume of Tolkien's letters you will find an endnote to letter 207. That endnote states:

Forrest J. Ackerman, agent for the film company;
(emphasis added

Ackerman was merely an agent for a film company, he was not "the man behind" the proposed film.

Yes, he was the agent who wrote to Tolkien. As far as I know the film company was mainly Ackerman, Al Brodax (who later produced the Beatles animated film Yellow Submarine) and Zimmerman. At least these three are the only ones mentioned in all accounts I’ve read. Disney is never mentioned and Tolkien liked the artwork shown which he referred to as Rackham style rather than Disney style. Tolkien seems to have disliked Disney studio output intensely.

That doesn’t mean that all true fans of Tolkien must share Tolkien’s feelings about Disney.

If you also look at letter no. 207 (which also refers to Zimmerman's film treatment or as that letter calls it "Zimmerman - 'Story-Line' ") you will find the following quote from Tolkien:

Thus the film treatment under discussion was for an "animated picture" -- a cartoon. I do not know which film company was behind the proposal, but Disney Studios was certainly the major producer of animated films in the 1950's and I admit I may have made an incorrect assumption that it was Disney.

Yes. You did.

I wonder, however, how many of the people who point at this famous letter of Tolkien's and try to apply it to the current films know that the film treatment was for an animated, not a live action film?

It is mentioned in the first post in the thread that the film was to be a cartoon film. I wonder why you see animation or live-action as making any difference to Tolkien’s comments.

As to the various opinions you cited, I’m close to agreeing with them and I’e seen all three films. The language is over-strong. But really ... how does the fact that J.R.R. Tolkien’s grandson appears in one of the films indicate anything about the quality of the film one way or the other?

 

[Greenwood]

quote by joxy
No, I'm a native Yorkshireman, and did a college degree course in English!
As always, the US and UK are divided by a common language.

joxy,

My apologies if my last post to you was a bit flippant. You are quite correct that we seemed to have hit one of those occassions where as you say "the US and UK are divided by a common language". (BTW, do you remember, was that quote by Shaw?) I am afraid it never occurred to me that words with such a negative content on this side of the "Pond" could be so different on your side.

quote by jallan
how does the fact that J.R.R. Tolkien’s grandson appears in one of the films indicate anything about the quality of the film one way or the other?

jallan,

It makes no comment at all on the quality of the film. I was told that people were here to discuss the films in a civilized manner (which for the most part they do, especially compared to the reception the first film received). I was challenged to show a recent case of un-"civilized" manner. It seems to me that calling Tolkien's great-grandson a "sell-out" and actually accusing him of taking money to betray his family legacy is less than "civilized" and certainly fit within the type of reaction of some Tolkien fans that Snaga was referring to in his initial post on this thread.

 

[joxy]

....do you remember, was that quote by Shaw?

I'm pretty sure that the comment about the English language was made by that well-known Irish man! It's no problem; I've had to use the same quotation several times before

 

[Odo Proudfoot]

It has been suggested in these forums that Jackson's reasons for some of the changes from book to film are either 'ego' (he thinks he can improve on Tolkien's book), lack of understanding of the book ('he has only read it once'; or 'they used the book section by section and therefore lost track of the overall meaning'), or simply incompetence.

One could imagine similar reactions from some people who come across a painting by Van Gogh where the sky is yellow: Why does the man paint the sky yellow? Clearly, the sky is blue, this cannot be open to interpretation! He must either have a huge ego, thinking he can improve Nature (or God); he must be colour blind; or he is simply a lousy painter!

My view has always been that Jackson is a film director and an artist, and he makes these films the only way an artist can: he makes them so that they satisfy himself. The book makes an impression on him, and that impression is his personal one. He translates this impression to film and presents it to us, the viewers. It is up to us to accept or reject them - he is under no obligation to produce anything that necessarily pleases anyone but himself.

(Now, I am realist enough to understand that there are in reality certain other, important constraints at work. First of all he had to convince a big studio to invest a large sum of money in him, and then he had to make sure that the investment was going to be recouped. I am sure that this had led to certain decisions about the script. Yet, on the whole, Jackson strikes me as a man who will in the end make his own films, not just the films the studio wants. He has enough self-confidence to go his own way without doubting that his products will appeal to the mass audience he needs to be financially successful.)

Where he has made changes from the book that are not obviously driven by basic film considerations, he has made them because they give him the film he wanted, the film he internalises when he reads the book. To me he has the basic artistic freedom to do exactly that, and criticising him for the end product is as silly as criticising Van Gogh for his yellow skies. I greatly value artistic freedom, and for me the only acceptable response to art that one doesn't like, is to walk away from it. Casting aspersions on the artist's personality or competence misses the point that one cannot produce art without automatically also getting some of the artists personality embedded in it. These films are Jackson's take on LotR, and his will be as different from anyone elses as mine are from yours. This cannot be avoided, and it is futile to try and come to an objective final judgement on film vs. book

Odo

 

[jallan]

Odo Proudfoot posted:

To me he has the basic artistic freedom to do exactly that, and criticising him for the end product is as silly as criticising Van Gogh for his yellow skies. I greatly value artistic freedom, and for me the only acceptable response to art that one doesn't like, is to walk away from it.

To me everyone here has the basic freedom to write what they wish about how they feel about any work (subject only to constraints of moderators). Commenting on the work of others, whether it is praise or blame, is not innately silly though individual instances of it are likely enough to be silly.

I greatly value freedom of speech. For me the only acceptable response to someone who suggests that one should only praise and never adversely criticize is to suggest that person might first voluntarily take his or her own advice and not criticize anything said by anyone with which he or she disagrees.

One is just as likely to be in error in artistic matters in overpraising as in condemning. There are always works that are outside an individual’s range of comprehension and range of sympathy. There are also works that most find mediocre or worse but for some reason speak to particular individuals.

That is worth discussing.

I have sometimes found that words from another show me that I have been approaching a particular work or a particular creator’s efforts in the wrong way or show me why when approached from a particular angle some creators, including Tolkien, have great faults.

You might try to persuade the moderators to put your rule into effect: no adverse criticism of any artistic effort by anyone. I suspect you won’t get anywhere.