Purity and the Critics

[Mrs. Maggott]

But these films aren't perfect as films! TTT is a fine example of how Jackson got carried away and invented things that didn't help the plot flow and were often silly or confusing on their face. However critically acclaimed they may be, I don't know of anyone who is saying that they have reached some sort of cinematic perfection. Even the highest ratings granted to them is a matter of overall judgment (their good points outweight their faults). One wonders if, stripped of all their technological hoopla, the story and/or characters would have maintained such a high rating in the minds of many critics.

Furthermore, purists have not been permitted by FADs in many instances to simply debate in terms of faithfulness to Tolkien and still less on the issue of personal likes and dislikes. We have been challenged to debate them as films and so began such topics as the insane hillslope, the Olympic orc, the king's "indoor charge" and Frodo's "peek-a-boo" with the Ringwraith in Osgiliath etc. in TTT. And, I might add, FADs did their own amount of arguing these points in defense of the film(s), so it cannot be said that your side of the issue did not engage in the dispute about cinematic faults with the films.

 

[Greenwood]

I don't know of anyone who is saying that they have reached some sort of cinematic perfection.

Neither do I. I certainly haven't.

Among film critics and historians the movie Citizen Kane is generally placed at the top of the list of the best movies ever made, but you can make an extensive list of things that are arguably wrong with it (some people find it hard to follow; sixty years later people still debate "Rosebud", and what's with that screaming cockatoo?). If it had been based on a previously pubished book I am sure the list would be even longer. As it is, it was meant to represent William Randolph Hearst and people list all the things that it got wrong about Hearst. However, overall it remains (by majority opinion) the greatest film ever made. (And no, I am not comparing the LOTR trilogy to Citizen Kane or Peter Jackson to Orson Welles.) All films are rated on "overall" quality, as are books.

Furthermore, purists have not been permitted by FADs in many instances to simply debate in terms of faithfulness to Tolkien and still less on the issue of personal likes and dislikes.

The number of ways the films are different from the books is extensive and except when a purist claims that something in the movie is different from the book when it is demonstrably from the book, I don't think most people who like the films have a problem with purists - I certainly don't. Faithfulness is a somewhat more subjective matter, however, especially when some purists raise the books to the level of religion. Then any difference becomes a matter of blasphemy as Thorin keeps thundering. Tolkien's LOTR is not the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, or any other religious work. It is a work of literature; a great one in my opinion and the opinion of many others. However, it is not sacred. In my opinion, the movies, overall, are faithful to the story and spirit, certainly not one hundred percent and some characters not as well as others (Faramir -- poorly), but overall surprisingly well.

We have been challenged to debate them as films and so began such topics as the insane hillslope, the Olympic orc, the king's "indoor charge" and Frodo's "peek-a-boo" with the Ringwraith in Osgiliath etc. in TTT.

But, they are films and should be judged as films. They are not perfect films. They have flaws, even as cinema: hill slope above Isengard - absurdly steep; Olympic orc - a little silly, but he never really bothered me; the king's charge - Tolkien certainly indicates Theoden charged out from the Hornburg, whether from a hall as small as in the movie, I don't know; Ringwraith in Osgiliath - defensible as showing Frodo falling under the spell of the Ring, besides we are told in the book that Ringwraiths have poor vision in the real world and Frodo is not wearing the Ring, if he had been he would have been in the unreal world with the Ringwraith and been seen, as for the winged beast seeing Frodo - he is just a beast, he is just looking at somebody standing in front of him (Would I have done that scene - I don't think so.). In the end all of these scenes amount to just a few seconds each during a three hour film. Overall, they do not make the film a bad film, in the views of critics and filmgoers. (I, personally, think TTT is the weakest of the three, but only in relative terms. And I would agree that it is probably the weakest because it strays the furthest from the book, but it still stands as a wonderful film.) The three films together are an incredible cinematic achievement. Are they on the same level as the books -- no! The books will certainly outlast them and I expect will be read as long as the English language is read.

If the purists are going to call the films bad films, it is fair to point out that the weight of evidence (critical opinion of film professionals and acceptance by the public) is against them. It is the purists who are trying to hold the films up to some impossible level of perfection and then condemn them and Jackson when they inevitably fall short.

 

[joxy]

It is as if the music is always so loud that it's painful!

You didn't mean that literally( did you?!), and I take your point, but I'd give it the literal meaning as well. Sometimes that music does out-Wagner Wagner. And still no-one has told me why the heavenly choir yells "doo-wah" at the fallen staircase scene.

<Originally Posted by Greenwood
What is a "Jackson-purist"?> Touché.

I think few are driven crazy by this.

What IS that "Jackson-purist" thing about? You've got me baffled!

And I think NONE are driven crazy by this. I said so in a post above, and asked Greenwood for examples, which have not been forthcoming.

 

[Ol'gaffer]

I cannot understand and others cannot understand some of the silly changes that were made.

I can. I have no problems what so ever with the scenes, and most short, that did not destroy the movies atleast to me.

I'm sorry for you that the Glorfindel extreme horse race feat. the black riders wasn't in the movie, but I personally would have found it useless to introduce just some elf to the public who haven't read the books, only to have him dissappear after that scene.

Arwen worked well in that scene. But, if you hate that scene, I can't change your mind about it.

 

[joxy]

....many purists go further and say that the films are bad as films and that Jackson is a bad director. That kind of assertion is open to challenge by the fact that the films have been so widely praised by professional film critics and film makers. When Jackson becomes the first director to ever be nominated as "best director" three years running by the Directors Guild, it is fair to point that out in refutation to the charge that he is a bad director.
The stridency with which purists attack the films and make....references to Jackson's personal apperance and charges of dishonesty.

I haven't seen one who says the entire films are bad, and that PJ is a totally bad director. The opinion on that subject is that the films have SOME cinematic faults, and that, therefore, PJ is not FULLY competent in his job. That really isn't such a dramatic claim; perfection, and even near-perfection, are quite rare commodities in most professions.
However, if faults of the kind that jump out at the viewer at regular intervals throughout these films are not important enough to these film critics, film makers, and Directors Guild members, to make them qualify their praise, then I have to say that the film industry must set itself a lower standard than is expected in most of those professions.
After people being "driven crazy", we now have them attacking with "stridency". I await evidence, for both claims.
I think PJ invites comments on his personal appearance; he certainly flaunts it a lot in the EE extras!
Again we have an odd claim, of allegations of "dishonesty". Are you referring to the FACT that PJ's product is not the one that he promised in many references before the films were made? I don't count that fact as "dishonesty", but rather as carelessness.
Of course, if that isn't what you're referring to, then this must be added to the list of examples to be awaited.

I have no problems what so ever with the scenes, and most short, that did not destroy the movies at least to me.
Arwen worked well in that scene. But, if you hate that scene....

The changes don't DESTROY the films for anyone, and no-one HATES the Arwen scene- as others have agreed, the very idea of having an emotion as strong as hate about a film is ridiculous.
You may not mind the changes at all, and I certainly don't mind them myself to the extent of having them make the films worthless, but can you really understand them, which this topic is about?
Most of them leave me completely baffled, despite the many attempts at explanation we've seen here.
As an example, the Glorfindel argument just doesn't work: there's nothing wrong with having a character not appearing again.
I understand that PJ is perfectly happy with his major villain of the first two films hardly appearing at all in the last one - not an exact parallel, but the principle's the same.

 

[Greenwood]

After people being "driven crazy", we now have them attacking with "stridency". I await evidence, for both claims.

Definition from Random House Webster's dictionary:

strident -- 1. harsh in sound; grating: strident voices.
2. having an obtrusive, insistent character: strident opinions.

Over two years of Thorin calling Arwen in the movie blasphemy whenever her name comes up, and many times when it hasn't, I would say fits defintion number 2 above.

In looking back over your posts for the last three or so weeks I found at least ten occasions on probably five different threads (I was going to list them all, but the system went down and I lost the info; you can find it yourself by lookiing at your old posts.) when you went on about Jackson's competence as a director because Saruman was not in ROTK when the trailer on the DVD of TTT indicated he would be. IMHO, that fits definition number 2 above. (BTW have you yet seen RTOK? Not having seen it certainly does not seem to give you pause in commenting about it.)

And while we are on the subject of examples, earlier I gave you some examples when you asked for them including the My God It Was Horrible (part III) thread. You replied:

I haven't seen, and can't find that MGIWH thread,

That statement is rather interesting since while looking up your posts I found that you had posted on that thread at least twice. If you still can't find the thread it is here. You post multiple times per day, almost always criticizing the movies, but you can't seem to remember the posts you make. I'll use that as an example of someone "driven crazy" by the movies.

I also came across a statement of yours that you never visit the book forums here on the forum. I take it that means that you are far more interested in criticizing the movies for not being Tolkien than you are in sharing your knowledge of Tolkien with readers who may have questions about the books.

So, lets see: an apparent single-mindedness in making frequent complaints about something that hasn't even been seen, even to the degree of not remembering things that were seen. Where have I seen that kind of behavior discussed? Oh yes, Snaga's second post on this thread:

Firstly the movies themselves are an offense, since they are not by Tolkien. This means they must be rejected a priori, as a falsehood. But then, each 'deviation' may be unpicked with the assumption that it is 'wrong' at best, at worst 'heretical'. Certain omissions may be tolerated (e.g. Tom Bombadil) but expansion is not acceptable, and neither is any revision. This causes extreme revulsion and hostility - it is a falsehood. The idea that this might be a reasonable translation to the screen is irrelevant, because "changes the facts". Again, the obsession with the minutae is more important than the whole. But more importantly, the authoritarian attachment to a single version of the truth: that the 'canon' may not be changed, or polluted.

 

[Arvedui]

Thank you for bringing the light back on that particular extract from Snaga's rather long post.
I am one of those who falls under that description, and I willingly admit that my views on the film can sometimes be rather Taliban-like.

But there is a reason for this: It is called feeling, or perhaps mood? my english is failing me a little here.
I cannot be critisized for not posting in the book-sections or elsewhere, so that angle won't work on me.
I have read the book in question more than 20 times, I guess. To be honest, I have lost count, but I know that I have read it at least once every year since I bought it. And perhaps that is the main reason as to why I dislike the film as adaptions of the book. (Yes, I am in fact able to distinguish between the two.) I know the book to well. I have made my own 'mental film' of the Lord of the Rings a long time ago.
And that is why I end up with the feeling that 'this is not right' when I see the film, or even a feeling that what is shown on the screen is ridiculous. And I claim my right as an individual to both be allowed to have an opinion, and be able to voice that and give examples as to why I have that opinion. So perhaps I could be respected for having an opinion, in the same way as I respect that others disagree with me? The quote that you bring from Snaga gives me the impression that it does not respect that I have a view that differs from his (or from my fellow guildmember Greenwood who brought it back into the light).

Which brings me to another point: I am not a 'purist.' I am who I am, and there is none like me elsewhere in the world. Frankly, I am sick and tired of people hiding behind labels. What I post is my own view, not the views of any group.

And, believe it or not, I have seen the first two parts of the film multiple times. Not because I am looking for faults, but because I am able to enjoy them as a film. And it also has a number of details that I find are close to my personal 'images'.

I have enjoyed discussing the film vs. the book, but I am sad to see when this developes into a nasty verbal fight with accusations being thrown at eachothers. And this have come to the point that I now must give some thought to the fact that my assignment as a moderator is perhaps not compatible with participating in film-discussions. Personally, I find this extra sad.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

You didn't mean that literally( did you?!), and I take your point, but I'd give it the literal meaning as well. Sometimes that music does out-Wagner Wagner. And still no-one has told me why the heavenly choir yells "doo-wah" at the fallen staircase scene.

I'm sorry that I wasn't being clear. I was alluding to the fact that if music (any music) is always at the same ear-splitting level, it loses the ability to convey any meaning. Hence, if a film is a continuing offering of action, action, action without any intervening period during which the audience may "recoup" and "regroup" for the next period of action, action, action - well, one becomes the victim of "sensibility overload" - a sort of cinematic "battle fatigue". When that happens, it may be that the viewer simply begins to lose interest or becomes numbed by the pace and "volume" of the film. I know that I need periods of introspection even in action films or the whole thing becomes simply "too much" to be enjoyable.

For example, in the first Indiana Jones film, I loved the scenes which took place in the university and the shot of Jones' home in the evening as he is preparing to leave on his expedition. Also, I loved the scene which took place in the upper room of the man in Cairo who translated the headstone. There was a wonderful hand-built light there with insets of colored glass. No shooting, no riding, no shouting - there was danger (the poisoned figs), but all in all, it was done at a very different pace than the rest of the film. To me, this type of pacing made the film.

I'm not saying that Jackson didn't pace the first two films - although I think he paced FOTR better than TTT - but I cannot speak about ROTK yet.

 

[Greenwood]

I have read the book in question more than 20 times, I guess. To be honest, I have lost count, but I know that I have read it at least once every year since I bought it. ....... (Yes, I am in fact able to distinguish between the two.) I know the book to well. I have made my own 'mental film' of the Lord of the Rings a long time ago.

We are quite alike in the above.

And I claim my right as an individual to both be allowed to have an opinion, and be able to voice that and give examples as to why I have that opinion.

You have that right and I support it.

So perhaps I could be respected for having an opinion, in the same way as I respect that others disagree with me?

Total agreement, once again.

Which brings me to another point: I am not a 'purist.' I am who I am, and there is none like me elsewhere in the world. Frankly, I am sick and tired of people hiding behind labels. What I post is my own view, not the views of any group.

And I have never declared myself as either a "purist" or a "FAD", though I am sure many of the proclaimed "purists" consider me a "FAD". (Half the time I have to remind myself what FAD stands for.) My inclination is to be a "purist" (I react negatively to many of the things in the films that "purists" react negatively to), but I refuse to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" as some purists do in their condemnation of the films. As films they are spectacular; even as adaptations I believe they are quite good and they do a far better job than the vast majority of film adaptations have done. These are, of course, my opinions as to the quality of the films. And I repeat, I do not challenge people for their opinions, expressed as opinions. I do, however, object to the tone of some of the "purists" in their criticisms of the films. I object to the ad hominem attacks on Jackson (i.e. the endless comments about his appearance, particularly his weight; and the accusations of dishonesty). I object to the treatment of LOTR as a religious text with changes from it being labeled "blasphemy" (you cannot blaspheme a fictional work); or what I see as the implications that only Christians (and I suspect only observant, fundamentalist Catholics at that) can truly understand LOTR (see the Purists' Unite thread here ).

Finally, when I am challenged to give examples, I will try to give examples. When these examples are then ignored and statements are then made that I have failed to give examples (in my opinion implying that I cannot and that my statements are therefore suspect), I will respond. When I give an example and joxy says that he has never seen that thread and cannot find it on the forum, I think it perfectly fair to point out that he in fact posted on that thread.

 

[Arvedui]

Yup.
Keep in mind that I expressed my personal view only.

And whenever I feel too negative about mr. Jackson's adaption, I remember the one by Bakshi. That helps.

 

[joxy]

Thorin calling Arwen in the movie blasphemy....I would say fits definition number 2 above.
....you went on about Jackson's competence as a director because Saruman was not in ROTK....have you yet seen RTOK? Not having seen it certainly does not seem to give you pause in commenting about it.
My God It Was Horrible (part III) thread. That statement is rather interesting since while looking up your posts I found that you had posted on that thread at least twice.
You post multiple times per day, almost always criticizing the movies, but you can't seem to remember the posts you make. I'll use that as an example of someone "driven crazy" by the movies.
I take it that means that you are far more interested in criticizing the movies for not being Tolkien than you are in sharing your knowledge of Tolkien with readers who may have questions about the books....

Finally, when I am challenged to give examples, I will try to give examples. When these examples are then ignored and statements are then made that I have failed to give examples (in my opinion implying that I cannot and that my statements are therefore suspect), I will respond. When I give an example and joxy says that he has never seen that thread and cannot find it on the forum, I think it perfectly fair to point out that he in fact posted on that thread.

I haven't seen much from Thorin, but if he really said that about blasphemy, I'd say the idea was "silly" rather than "strident".
If I comment on incompetence from PJ it is always in respect of some specific point which I refer to clearly. I'm far from considering him generally or totally incompetent. It would be as ridiculous to suggest such a thing as it IS to suggest he is totally competent; we're all human; we all make mistakes sometimes - don't we? In this case the facts are known world-wide; there is absolutely no need to have seen the films to be know the facts and to comment on them. One day a major film is going to open with a brilliant dramatic scene, the confrontation with Saruman; the next day it isn't. I await a better description, and explanation, for that, than incompetence. As for the rest of ROTK, I comment only on features of it which have been reported here, as I have no reason to doubt that those who report them are being truthful and accurate about them. As Mrs M said, you don't have to go to Venus to be able to talk about it - to which she received what I consider a distinctly strident and un-called-for response.
When you referred to the MGIWH thread, in response to jallan, not to me, I looked for it, but it wasn't on the first two pages of the index. It is now low down on the second page. Certainly I've posted to it, but only when it was listed on the first page. I have better things to do than remember the titles of all the threads.
I do make quite a lot of postings, though there are several with similar and higher totals over a shorter period. I try to make them brief and to the point, and apologise if they begin to get a bit too wordy. Those "criticisms" are what we are all here for, on one "side" or the other, so I make no apology for criticising. I do ask though that people consider the favourable comments that I also make, as I actually find the films extremely good, "in parts", and say so, and I certainly don't have such a ridiculously strong emotion as being "driven crazy", by even their worst moments.
This is the only area of TTF that I use; that is my choice. "Criticism", which I prefer to call "consideration", is what interests me.
It is NOT all about the films not being Tolkien; I've made it very clear that I consider the strictly cinematic aspects too, and probably find their share of the "bad" parts of the curate's egg even larger than those of the adaptation aspect.

As you raised the matter of those three examples again, I have to reply again.
You did not give the examples to me; you gave them to jallan in response to his " 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?"
The examples, "hack" and "sell-out", were about "self-appointed guardians".
My reference, to "examples that have not been forthcoming", was about people being "driven crazy by the films".
I didn't imply that the MGIWH didn't exist, and I didn't make any other implications. It's fair to comment on my postings to it, but it's also irrelevant.

I'm sorry that I wasn't being clear.

You WERE clear; I agreed with you, and I was making a feeble attempt at exercising my soh in my reply

 

[Greenwood]

I remember the one by Bakshi.

Please! I just had lunch!

 

[Arvedui]

I know a place on the Web that has some images from Bakshi. Do you want the link????

 

[Greenwood]

Joxy,

When you quote me, please include the relevant portions of my quote. I specifically referred to the number 2 definition of strident:

having an obtrusive, insistent character: strident opinions

emphasis added

I pointed out that Thorin has been invoking "blasphemy" in regard to Arwen for more than two years. While I admire his consistency ( ), I certainly categorize that as insistent.

In the same vein, you have been pointing to the dropping of Saruman from ROTK for weeks now on threads all over the movie section and citing it to question Jackson's competence as a director. I would also categorize that as insistent. BTW, on one of those threads I pointed out the following (but have yet to see a response):

This sort of thing has happened many times in movie productions, and on a much bigger scale. Alfred Hitchcock, high on any list of great film directors did a movie called Suspicion in 1941 starring Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine (who won an Oscar for her role as Grant's wife). In it Fontaine suspects Grant, who is a bit of a rogue, is also a murderer plotting to kill her. When Hitchcock finished the film Grant was a killer. The studio, the production board and initial test audiences hated it. No one would accept Cary Grant as a murderer. Hitchcock reshot a new ending and the film was a great success.

Another famous movie was Lost Horizon (1937), directed by Frank Capra from the classic James Hilton novel. Capra is another one of the greatest directors in the history of cinema. The story goes that when the film was shown to preview audiences, they hated it, particularly the opening section. Capra's response was to throw away the first one to two reels of the film (I don't remember if it was one or two). The film has been considered a classic ever since.

Until probably the 1970's it was not at all unusual for films to be shown to preview audiences before their general release and for scenes to be cut or even whole plot lines changed as a result of the audiences' reaction. Nobody in the film industry (or any film buff) would think anything about PJ cutting something as minor as a seven minute scene from a 3 hr 20 min film a month before it opened. Using something like that to attack PJ's abilities as a fim maker on a film that goes on to make the "year's ten best lists" of the great majority of film critics is one of the reason's the purist's complaints are not taken seriously.

Theatrical productions routinely have "out-of-town" try-outs and long preview runs while the directors rework the production and even the script before their official openings.

(you may find it here )

As for why Jackson dropped Saruman from the beginning, he has said that spending that much time on it seemed too much like ending the last film, rather than getting into the story of the new film. You may think that his decision is wrong, but he is the director. I would say that he made the decision after seeing how it played is a credit to his flexibility rather then a question of competence.

As Mrs M said, you don't have to go to Venus to be able to talk about it

I consider the analogy at best misapplied and at worst, silly. No one has been to Venus, and there is no prospect of anyone going there, probably within any of our lifespans. If one wants to discuss Venus after reading the reports of the findings of the various space probes that have been there, that is fine and something one can certainly do. If however, one states that they haven't read any of those reports and still insists on discussing Venus, that is silly.

Whether a movie is good or bad is a subjective thing, an opinion, and it should be based on the entirety of the film. When you haven't seen the film there is no way you can form an opinion except on the basis of preconceived ideas. This is proven when the person who hasn't seen the film rather consistently cites the negative opinions of people who have seen the film, but ignores contrary opinions. Even after the person sees the film they have already given up their claim to any sort of an unbiased view of the film. They have made it quite clear that they will be going to see the film in an effort to validate their previously stated negative view of the film.

 

[Thorin]

Over two years of Thorin calling Arwen in the movie blasphemy whenever her name comes up, and many times when it hasn't, I would say fits defintion number 2 above.

Ah! I hear my name being called and slandered without my permission or presence! I must intervene.


When I used the term blasphemous, it was not in the religious sense. Rather it was to convey and emotionally emphasise the extent of the change made. It was also made in looking at the changes with regards to Tolkien's LoTR as the definitive source, not in comparing it to anything else religious or otherwise.

Having Faramir have blonde hair instead of black like the books is a minor change. However having the delicate and awesomely beautiful Elven princess revered by most free beings in ME so out of character is a "blasphemous" change in comparison.

No feeble attempt to explain it can excuse such a deviation of character from the written source. The fact that this characterization was abandoned by the writers shows how foolish it was to change it.

 

[Greenwood]

I know a place on the Web that has some images from Bakshi. Do you want the link????

My memories of it are bad enough. (I think I saw it the day after it opened).

Luckily, I don't have the kind of memory that Tolkien gives to elves. Aren't their memories supposed to be akin to reliving the event?

 

[joxy]

I specifically referred to the number 2 definition of strident: <having an obtrusive, insistent character>
....you have been pointing to the dropping of Saruman from ROTK for weeks now on threads all over the movie section and citing it to question Jackson's competence as a director. I would also categorize that as insistent.

As for why Jackson dropped Saruman from the beginning, he has said that spending that much time on it seemed too much like ending the last film, rather than getting into the story of the new film. You may think that his decision is wrong, but he is the director.

BTW, on one of those threads I pointed out the following: <This sort of thing has happened many times in movie productions>

If however, one states that they haven't read any of those reports and still insists on discussing Venus, that is silly.
When you haven't seen the film there is no way you can form an opinion except on the basis of preconceived ideas....

They have made it quite clear that they will be going to see the film in an effort to validate their previously stated negative view of the film.

We're back to the battle of the dictionaries! The NewOED says that strident means <loud, harsh, grating, presenting a point of view - especially a controversial one - in an excessively and unpleasantly forceful way>
"Insistent" isn't mentioned, but it's perfectly possible to be insistent without being excessively and unpleasantly forceful, so I happily admit to insistency, if there is such a word, and indeed consider it a good trait rather than a bad one. Maybe jallan will tell us whether he accepts any of the NewOED's ideas on the subject.

You tell us PJ's explanation; I don't understand it, I can't make sense of it. How is the new start more of the film than the other?

You give those examples of other films being changed in a similar way, so maybe that IS the way things are done in the film industry. No wonder films are so expensive! I don't like it though - the DVDEE told us four weeks before ROTK how it would begin, at the exact moment that they were deciding not to do it that way - misleading to the purchasing public, to put it mildly.
One man's common practice, another's incompetence.

I stated clearly that it's only when I HAVE read reports, that I discuss anything from ROTK, or from Venus. If personal experience, of anything, were a pre-requisite for discussion, then conversation would be dead.

If I am asked, I will say that I shall see ROTK, like any other film, primarily for the pleasure of what's good in it; any note I take,
of whether the reports I have heard, good and bad, were accurate, will be a secondary consideration, but still an important one.

 

[Greenwood]

You tell us PJ's explanation; I don't understand it, I can't make sense of it. How is the new start more of the film than the other?

And I must say that I don't understand the last sentence above.

As for whether the opening of ROTK works, you might be in a position to have an opinion if you had seen it. As it is, I suspect that when you finally do see it you will criticize it since you have already invested so much time and effort in criticizing it.

You might as well say "I don't like spinach," when you have never tasted it because you have heard other people's description of spinach. You might or might not like spinach if you actually tasted it, but I think the only way you would ever really know is if some one fed you some while telling you it was something else entirely

As for the meaning of "stridency", you asked for examples and I gave them. You have now accepted my statement that some purists have been strident and even applied the term to your some of your own posts. I commend you on your flexibility.

Ah Thorin, but since the first film Arwen hasn't picked up as much as a steak knife in TTT or ROTK as far as I can remember, but you are still referring to her as Xen-Arwen and crying "blasphemy". I would think you might be pleased at the possibility that your outrage was passed on to PJ and he did not place Arwen at Helm's Deep or the Pelennor Fields.

I remember saying two years ago that just because they filmed scenes of Arwen fighting didn't mean they would end up in the film. You were rather vehement in insisting that there was no way they wouldn't use them. Instead of being glad and giving ole PJ some credit for "seeing the light", you are still bashing him for "Xen-Arwen" and "blasphemy".

BTW, nice to "see" you again.

 

[joxy]

And I must say that I don't understand the last sentence above.
As for whether the opening of ROTK works, you might be in a position to have an opinion if you had seen it. As it is, I suspect that when you finally do see it you will criticize it since you have already invested so much time and effort in criticizing it.
You might as well say "I don't like spinach," when you have never tasted it because you have heard other people's description of spinach.
As for the meaning of "stridency", you asked for examples and I gave them. You have now accepted my statement that some purists have been strident and even applied the term to your some of your own posts.

Yes, I was trying to cut down my verbiage, and obviously cut it too short.
You said of the Saruman scene that to PJ <spending that much time on it seemed too much like ending the last film, rather than getting into the story of the new film.>
I still don't understand what he means, but whatever he means, I have two questions about that quotation:
Why did it take him so long to find out whatever it is, after spending massive sums on the scene, and giving it prominent publicity, as being the start of ROTK?
In what way does the present start to the film improve on the idea of having the Saruman scene as its opening?
On seeing the DVD EEE I was delighted to see that the confrontation would open ROTK, and that it had been produced so brilliantly; it would be dramatic, would have the one prominent villain as its central character, and would be an essential lead into further plot lines throughout the film. I thought it was as perfect a choice for the opener, as that of TTT was - well done, PJ!
How has he actually managed without any of that? Are the reports correct, that the opening scene is now a distant flashback to Smeagol and Deagol? Whatever the opening scene is, how is it better at "getting into the story of the new film"?
Of course, seeing it will develop my opinion, but I have said before I have no reason to doubt the veracity of anyone here, in giving reports of it. That gives me a reasonable position for forming initial opinions. Of course, when I see it I shall check on those opinions, and form new ones on matters that haven't arisen before. As always, I shall criticise the bad, and praise the good!
Spinach is a matter of taste - ugh! - but whether Saruman or Smeagol or anyone else opens the film is a fact, which I am quite happy to accept from anyone here who offers it.
You gave examples of stridency in the sense of insistence, which my dictionary does not offer, and I accepted them with Webster's definition - but more as a compliment than a criticism!

 

[Greenwood]

First, I am sure the EE version of TTT on the DVD was completed quite a bit sooner than a month before ROTK was released, though it only became available one month before ROTK hit the theaters. As for the amount of money spent on the unused scene, the scene is going to be used in the EE of ROTK so it was not a waste of money. It is in the nature of film-making that lots of stuff gets filmed that never makes it into the final release. Did you ever see the movie the Big Chill with Kevin Kline, Glenn Close and a bunch of others? It came out in the 1980's. One of the stars of the movie during filming was Kevin Costner. In the final version the only thing you see of Costner are close-ups of his hands as his character's corpse is prepared for his funeral! His entire performance was cut; "left on the cutting room floor" as the saying goes in film-making. I have never heard that Costner was cut because of his performance, but rather because the movie was always supposed to be about a bunch of old college friends getting together for the funeral of one of their buddies (Costner) who had committed suicide. The dead friend was supposed to appear in a series of flashbacks. When the film was finished the director decided the flashbacks just didn't work so they were all cut. They had written the film with them and gone to the expense of filming them all but they also dropped them all. That is the way fim-making goes sometimes. By the way, the movie was a hit when released.

As for when and why Jackson made the change in the opening of ROTK, I don't know. Perhaps after they had finished it with Saruman in the opening they started showing it to selected people and got a negative response. I don't know. I do know that the opening he released works quite well, in my opinion.

BTW, I love spinach. Have since I was a kid. Must have been all those Popeye cartoons.