Purity and the Critics

[joxy]

Never said it. Never implied it....I gave the dictionary definitions of the words competence/incompetence and pointed out that they seemed to me to fit what I have understood them to mean when I have seen the words used.

When you brought up the word "incombustibility" you said it was an "analogous case" to "incompetence"; I took my implications and extrapolations from that - sorry that I got you wrong. As the implications and extrapolations are necessary to the comparison of the two words, and they now prove to be wrong, I don't now see the point of raising it in the first place. You had given the definitions of "incompetence" in a previous post; I didn't see then, or later, that they ruled out qualification of the word.

It seems to me you are not taking things at face value at all.
I was saying that people can understand and appreciate things beyond a 'realist' portrayal because of the progression in the arts.
....if something looks great, then describing the person who created it "incompetent" may not be entirely convincing.

I didn't say I was, in general. I said I preferred the simplicity of taking a scene in a film at its face value rather than making it the subject of an intense debate about the realist and impressionist arts movements, or entering into any consideration of progression in the arts. It's simply not important enough for that.
Of course, in general, I do look well beneath the face. Sometimes I see errors or faults, of one sort or another, the sort of thing that happens in many products, of one sort or another. I might put them down to "carelessness" by the maker of some other products; in the case of a product costing $300 million I find that rather too mild a word, and have substituted "incompetence".
I don't know that I've said that anything in the films that looks great is also incompetent. The incompetencies are usual relatively small, silly-looking things like the vanishing barrels. I suppose I could say that the falling staircase scene, which I think is one of the greatest things to look at in the films, was really an incompetent idea, both because it has nothing to do with the books, and because it actually interrupts the flow of the film at that point and doesn't fit in with what comes before and after it.
I'm not accusing PJ of beating his wife, or eating babies for breakfast; an occasional lapse into incompetence isn't such a big deal.

 

[Greenwood]

As for the "hard sciences": ordinarily I would agree with you, but it has been shown in the past that individual scientist's preconceptions frequently lead to disputes even in the ostensibly "proveable" disciplines. Of course, I forgot to mention chemistry which is certainly not open to very much in the way of dispute. Put a dollop of sodium in a glass of water and the result will be the same no matter what the person performing the experiment believes!

Yes, if you put a dollup of X into a glass of Y, chemistry tells us that Z will happen. But there are hidden assumptions even in that sentence. The most obvious assumptions involve the temperatures of X and Y and the ambient pressure in the room in which the experiment takes place. There is even the assumption that the experiment is taking place in "air". At different temperatures and different pressures something different might happen. (You are also assuming the experiment is being done under visible light. Perhaps if you were observing under a different portion of the spectrum, that might affect the outcome.) My point is that even in the "hard sciences" there are preconceptions. We can do our best to identify them and control for them, but it is in the nature of being human that these preconceptions exist and you can never know if you have thought of all of them. How can you know if you have thought of everything since by defintion you can only think of what you have thought of? Scientists are human. They make assumptions they are not aware of. It is not possible to do otherwise. This is not meant as a criticism of science or scientists -- I am one myself.

Of course, in general, I do look well beneath the face. Sometimes I see errors or faults, of one sort or another, the sort of thing that happens in many products, of one sort or another. I might put them down to "carelessness" by the maker of some other products; in the case of a product costing $300 million I find that rather too mild a word, and have substituted "incompetence".

OK, let's do a little of that looking "well beneath the face" as you call it and avoid some of that "mindless" viewing that jallan is always impugning to others. Let's look at a few thinks in LOTR -- Tolkien's book that is. We have this immensely powerful ring, apparently capable of corrupting just about anyone. In the opening chapter, A Long-Expected Party, when Gandalf finally convinces Bilbo to leave the Ring for Frodo, Bilbo says:

"You had better take it and deliver it for me. That will be safest."

To which Gandalf responds:

"No, don't give it to me".

When Bilbo drops the envelope Gandalf picks it up and places it on the mantle. In the next chapter Gandalf asks Frodo for the Ring and Frodo, with some reluctance hands it to him. Gandalf holds it up as if it is nothing more than an ordinary Ring before tossing it in the fire for his final test. Yet later in the same chapter when Frodo offers to give the Ring to Gandalf the response is:

" 'No!' cried Gandalf, springing to his feet."

Later at Rivendell, we have:

When he had dressed, Frodo found that while he slept the Ring had been hung around his neck on a new chain, light but strong.

So, we have this incredibly powerful and corrupting Ring which sometimes Gandalf can handle and sometimes he recoils at the prospect of handling. And who took it from Frodo while he slept and placed it on a chain? Did we miss a scene of Gandalf and Elrond and maybe some housemaid at Rivendell struggling over the Ring as Frodo slept. The Ring is central to the whole story, the most powerful object in Middle Earth, yet Tolkien is inconsistent in his treatment of it. Incomptence! Tolkien is clearly an incompetent writer.

We can find other evidence of incompetence on the part of Tolkien the writer. Eowyn joins the ride of the Rohirrim as Dernhelm, and no one recognizes her! There are indications that the leader and the men of the troop she is riding with are in on some sort of unspoken agreement to ignore Merry's presence. But let's look "beneath the surface", let's not be "mindless". This means that all of them, including a Marshal of the Mark are blithely disregarding the wishes and stated orders of their King. This is absurd! Once again Tolkien is an incompetent writer.

At the battle before the Black Gates suddenly eagles appear. From where? And just in time to carry Gandalf in to Mount Doom to rescue Sam and Frodo. Now, really! Are we really supposed to mindlessly accept such a convenient appearance of winged transport. How "mindless" are we supposed to be? Tolkien is simply an incompetent writer.

Now in forty years of reading LOTR it never occurred to me to consider Tolkien incompetent because of the above little inconsistencies and plot contrivances. I doubt I even noticed them the first few times I read the books. But under the positions being advanced here by some they prove Tolkien is an incompetent writer and anyone who enjoys the books and considers them great literature is guilty of mindless acceptance of inferior writing.

 

[joxy]

The Ring is central to the whole story, the most powrful object in Middle Earth, yet Tolkien is inconsistent in his treatment of it. Incompetence! Tolkien is clearly an incompetent writer.

....all of them, including a Marshall of the Mark are blithely disregarding the wishes and stated orders of their King....Once again Tolkien is an incompetent writer.

Are we really supposed to mindlessly accept such a convenient appearance of winged transport....Tolkien is simply an incompetent writer.

Now in forty years of reading LOTR it never occurred to me to consider Tolkien incompetent because of the above little inconsistencies and plot contrivances.

....under the positions being advanced here by some they prove Tolkien is an incompetent writer and anyone who enjoys the books and considers them great literature is guilty of mindless acceptance of inferior writing.

Sorry I still can't do that weird accent, but, again, "wait just a minute!"
Only a few postings ago I was found guilty of excessive implying and extrapolating. Now I find you are a master of both arts.
Until I have given them much further consideration, I neither accept nor reject your contentions that your examples show Tolkien at fault, in one way or another.
IF they are correct, then the implications you make, that "Tolkien is simply an incompetent writer", do NOT follow.
IF they are correct, it never occurred to me, and it doesn't occur to me now, that they demonstrate that Tolkien was, without qualification, incompetent.
IF they are correct, they not only imply but clearly confirm that Tolkien was, in certain specific instances, incompetent. And that would be no big deal. I've made it clear that it's no big deal for PJ to be regarded occasionally as incompetent; the same applies to Tolkien; and the same applies to every human being who has ever lived.
Your final sentence contains more assumptions, or implications:
That great literature must consist only of superior writing.
That it is mindless to accept the inferior writing contained in an otherwise great work.
That any such acceptance is a matter of "guilt".
Again, you may not considered my assumptions and implications to be justified, but I have used only your own words on which to base them.

 

[aragil]

IF they are correct, they not only imply but clearly confirm that Tolkien was, in certain specific instances, incompetent. And that would be no big deal. I've made it clear that it's no big deal for PJ to be regarded occasionally as incompetent; the same applies to Tolkien; and the same applies to every human being who has ever lived.

I believe this is Greenwood's point.

 

[Greenwood]

I believe this is Greenwood's point.

Aragil,

Thank you.

Interesting, isn't it, how free joxy feels about tossing around the word "incompetent" when referring to Peter Jackson and how touchy he is when the word is applied to Tolkien for exactly the same crimes he accuses Jackson of.

 

[Greenwood]

IF they are correct, .....

IF they are correct, .....

IF they are correct, .....

joxy,

IF you think something I have quoted is incorrect, expecially when I provided specific quotes, THEN PROVE IT! I assume you have a copy of LOTR. Show me where my quotes from the book are false or misleading! Do that, or don't post! I resent the subtle implication that I am somehow misleading or providing false information given by your (three!) capitalized "IF they are correct, ...". IF you don't know that Eowyn took Merry with her as Dernhelm on the Ride of the Rohirrim that can only mean that you either never read the book or have forgotten major portions of the plot. In either case, you should not be wasting our time.

The Eowyn/Dernhelm/Merry plotline I cited above is in the second edition of LOTR and I used it because I assumed it was the plotline that would be most familiar to readers on the forum. In the first edition of ROTK, Tolkien wrote that Theoden was "not well pleased" when he discovered Merry was along. Either Tolkien realized, or someone pointed out to him, that it was absurd to expect that Theoden would discover that his wishes/orders were disobeyed and a) would not demand to know how Merry came along, b) not demand that the offending rider, Dernhelm, be brought before him and c) not recognize Dernhelm as his beloved niece Eowyn! Thus, in the first edition of LOTR Tolkien was even more incompetent (if we allow your levels of incompetency argument ). Tolkien fixed the situation as best he could in the 2nd edition, but given the years he had spent preparing the story of LOTR I don't see how we can use a word as mild as "carelessness". Surely such a gaffe, involving such major characters and such a major plot point, after years of work and rewriting must rise to at least the same level as perceived problems in "a product costing $300 million". How can one do anything but label Tolkien an incompetent writer.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

In the first edition of ROTK, Tolkien wrote that Theoden was "not well pleased" when he discovered Merry was along. Either Tolkien realized, or someone pointed out to him, that it was absurd to expect that Theoden would discover that his wishes/orders were disobeyed and a) would not demand to know how Merry came along, b) not demand that the offending rider, Dernhelm, be brought before him and c) not recognize Dernhelm as his beloved niece Eowyn! Thus, in the first edition of LOTR Tolkien was even more incompetent (if we allow your levels of incompetency argument ). Tolkien fixed the situation as best he could in the 2nd edition, but given the years he had spent preparing the story of LOTR I don't see how we can use a word as mild as "carelessness". Surely such a gaffe, involving such major characters and such a major plot point, after years of work and rewriting must rise to at least the same level as perceived problems in "a product costing $300 million". How can one do anything but label Tolkien an incompetent writer. <quote> Greenwood

Ah, but you see, Tolkien did "correct" the matter. Furthermore, given the incredible complexities of the story together with the fact that unlike The Silmarillion and The Hobbit, Tolkien had never expected to write LOTR (it started as a sequal to The Hobbit and nothing more), I do not think you can suggest anything as glaring as "incompetence".

On the other hand, Jackson started with a finished story that had been pretty much "edited" of the type of error you mentioned. However, rather than remaining as faithful as possible to a proven product and using his time editing it to fit the new format (film) - and that would have taken long enough - he decided to "rewrite" the story in his own image. This created further problems that he was seldom able to "fix" because of time constraints. Indeed, in many instances the changes he made were not amenable to sensible resolutions even if he had the time to "fix" them! To me, this alone is a sign of a lack of competence on Jackson's part. Let me put it this way:

[1] Supposedly, Jackson knew the story well (which I personally doubt).

[2] Knowing the story, he was (or should have been) aware of its tremendous complexity.

[3] Knowing of its complexities, he should have been content with editing it for time and clarity rather than attempting to rewrite the characters and plot.

[4] The fact that he chose instead to present his own "version" of the story by changing not only the characters but many parts of the plot and the narrative flow - which actions often resulted in the sort of mixups and mistakes that have been noted - seems to indicate a lack of competence on his part no matter how spectacular the finished product may appear.

I do not think you can compare the above with Tolkien's efforts to write a huge and complex story in a relatively short period of time (after the success of The Hobbit) while keeping it "in tune" with his earlier efforts in The Silmarillion. The two are worlds apart. The first is one man's creative effort starting virtually from "scratch", the second is one man's creative effort starting from a finished product which required fundamental changes in translation from one media to another. I would state that the second effort is the less difficult of the two (notice, I didn't say "easy").

 

[Greenwood]

Ah, but you see, Tolkien did "correct" the matter. Furthermore, given the incredible complexities of the story together with the fact that unlike The Silmarillion and The Hobbit, Tolkien had never expected to write LOTR (it started as a sequal to The Hobbit and nothing more), I do not think you can suggest anything as glaring as "incompetence".

First, I do not think Tolkien is an incompetent writer. I was being sarcastic. Notice the little rolled-eyes smilies at the end of my post. I was making the point that if someone wants to be hypercritical you can easily find things to point at and yell "incompetence!" You have to look at the whole project. Tolkien's LOTR, in its entirety, is a magnificent work. Jackson's film trilogy is also magnificent (in its entirety). Both have details that can be criticized (and I do not dispute Jackson's has more than the book), but the details do not justify a charge of incompetence as a writer leveled at Tolkien nor a charge of incompetence as a director leveled at Jackson.

Second, Tolkien's change in the 2nd edition of LOTR avoids the problem of Theoden knowing about Merry being along and not inquiring further, but it does not deal with the problem of Elfhelm and his men a) not recognizing Eowyn and b) defying their kings orders.

I do not think you can compare the above with Tolkien's efforts to write a huge and complex story in a relatively short period of time (after the success of The Hobbit) while keeping it "in tune" with his earlier efforts in The Silmarillion. The two are worlds apart. The first is one man's creative effort starting virtually from "scratch", the second is one man's creative effort starting from a finished product which required fundamental changes in translation from one media to another. I would state that the second effort is the less difficult of the two (notice, I didn't say "easy").

A "relatively short period of time"??? The Hobbit came out in 1937, LOTR in 1953-1955, that's sixteen years. Maybe to an elf that is a short period of time, but to most of us mortals it is a significant portion of our lives. Also, Tolkien had no real "need" to keep LOTR "in tune" with The Silmarillion. The Silmarillion had not been published (and no publisher wanted to publish it). I can understand Tolkien's desire to keep the two "in tune", one of the reasons LOTR has such a feel of being a real world with a real history is Tolkien's years of inventing that history for The Silmarillion, but since it was unpublished, Tolkien could put anything he wanted and change The Silmarillion accordingly later if it looked like it was going to be published. And, of course, there are discrepancies between LOTR and The Silmarillion, i.e. the infamous two Glorfindels!

In my opinion, no reasonable person not blinded by prejudice, who watched these films after reading the books, could possibly doubt Jackson's considerable familiarity with the books. In my opinion, most of the purist critics of the film have virtually no concept of the difficulties of adapting such a long and complex book as LOTR to the screen. The oft repeated mantra of "just follow the book" is absurd, in my opinion. I don't agree with all of Jackson's decisions in making the adaptation, there are many that I would have done differently, but these are magnificent films. Of course, they are Jackson's "version" of LOTR. If any of the purists who criticize so severely had the opportunity to make LOTR into films, the films would be their versions of LOTR. Based on the criticisms I have seen, in my opinion, a purist's film version might well have been "closer" to Tolkien, but would have been disasters as films.

Finally, I recognize the difference between Tolkien's original creation and Jackson's adapting an existing work to the screen. My objection is the loose use of the word incompetent. You would be hard-pressed indeed to find a film critic or film professional who would categorize Jackson as an incompetent director. I merely point out that if you are going to throw the word at Jackson based on the trivial things I have seen cited, than the charge can equally be laid on Tolkien. I think the charge is absurd in both cases.

 

[joxy]

....how touchy he is when the word is applied to Tolkien for exactly the same crimes he accuses Jackson of.

Do me a little favour: read my postings when you comment on them:
I said, in the posting you were talking about:
"I've made it clear that it's no big deal for PJ to be regarded occasionally as incompetent; the same applies to Tolkien".
So, sometimes Tolkien is incompetent, and when he, or anyone else, is competent, then, far from it being a crime, it's no big deal.
I'm NOT touchy about T's incompetencies, and I do NOT think incompetence is a crime, or accuse anyone of crime.

If you think something I have quoted is incorrect, expecially when I provided specific quotes, then prove it.
I resent the subtle implication....

The same request again, for you to read - I'll even add pretty-please this time.
I said, in that other posting you were talking about:
"Until I have given them much further consideration, I neither accept nor reject your contentions".
I did NOT say they were incorrect.
That is why I very carefully repeated "IF they are correct" - to allow for both possibilities.
I haven't "given them further consideration" yet; when I do that, I'll decide whether to declare them correct or incorrect,
and if I decide the latter, and declare that here, I'll offer the proof you require.

I do NOT go in for "subtle" implications.
If an "F" in place of an "f" is a subtle implication, then black is white.

....a charge of incompetence as a director leveled at Jackson.
....a purist's film version might well have been "closer" to Tolkien, but would have been disasters as films.
You would be hard-pressed indeed to find a film critic or film professional who would categorize Jackson as an incompetent director.

We're back to square one now:
I haven't leveled that charge - my comment, far from a charge, is that he is a director who occasionally shows incompetence.
I am a member of that same class of people who would NOT categorise him as an incompetent director. I don't categorise him
at all; I say he occasionally makes mistakes, which, applied to a "professional", means, imho, temporary acts of incompetence.
On your middle point: PJ is often a purist himself, staying closely with the material he was privileged to work on, and that, by remarkable coincidence, is usually where his film works best as a film. If he had stayed a purist for longer the films would have been, far from disasters, even better, and therefore more successful, than they ARE now! <Note the u-case, 3 of them>

 

[Goro Shimura]

I'd just like to say that this thread is extremely irritating.

Seeing the same arguments get rehashed over and over... seeing people misconstrue their opponents over and over. Seeing the wheedling and the nitpicking increase while the content decreases....

Argh!!!

To make matters worse... derivative versions of this thread seem to engulf, destroy, and water down what few good threads there are that do get going.

ARRRGH!!!

Is there any place where the film can be discussed vis a vis the books? A lively discussion... a friendly debate.... Is it to be had???

 

[joxy]

I'd just like to say that this thread is extremely irritating.

It's not compulsory to visit this thread, and many other threads are available: consult the index pages.

 

[Goro Shimura]

It's not compulsory to visit this thread, and many other threads are available: consult the index pages.

Oh... good idea.

Thanks.

 

[joxy]

Thanks.

My pleasure: Sayonara.

 

[Goro Shimura]

Adios.

It's been fun.

 

[aragil]

I'd just like to say that this thread is extremely irritating.

Seeing the same arguments get rehashed over and over... seeing people misconstrue their opponents over and over. Seeing the wheedling and the nitpicking increase while the content decreases....

Argh!!!

To make matters worse... derivative versions of this thread seem to engulf, destroy, and water down what few good threads there are that do get going.

ARRRGH!!!

Is there any place where the film can be discussed vis a vis the books? A lively discussion... a friendly debate.... Is it to be had???

I would say that at one point this thread was very unique in that it was not comparing book and movie, but rather audience attitudes towards both. Unfortunatley, I think that it is this thread which has been hobbled by derivative versions of other threads, and I think that the vast majority of threads on this board do discuss book vs. movie, and sometimes they become tiring. But maybe that's just me.

 

[Greenwood]

We're back to square one now:
I haven't leveled that charge - my comment, far from a charge, is that he is a director who occasionally shows incompetence.
I am a member of that same class of people who would NOT categorise him as an incompetent director. I don't categorise him
at all; I say he occasionally makes mistakes, which, applied to a "professional", means, imho, temporary acts of incompetence.

My point has remained the same throughout this particular exchange and that is your charge of incompetence leveled at Jackson as a director is absurd. You keep trying to soften it, but it is by its nature an extreme and inflammatory charge. I know the medical system is extremely different in Britain than in the States, but would you go to a medical doctor who is described as "occasionally incompetent" or who has "temporary acts of incompetence"? Believe me, if you used those terms about a doctor, or most any other professional in this country you would be on the receiving end of a rather large lawsuit.

I am not trying to defend everything Jackson has done in the films. I am not objecting to criticism of him or his films. I am objecting to unfair or extreme criticism. Snaga started this thread to with an analysis of why he thought some purists were extreme in their criticism. There were objections that there was no such extreme criticism. I gave examples, including labeling Jackson an incompetent director, a clearly over-the-top charge. You have been engaging in a dance of words to get out of your own previous posts.

 

[joxy]

My point has remained the same throughout this particular exchange and that is your charge of incompetence leveled at Jackson as a director is absurd. You keep trying to soften it, but it is by its nature an extreme and inflammatory charge.
I know the medical system is extremely different in Britain than in the States, but would you go to a medical doctor who is described as "occasionally incompetent" or who has "temporary acts of incompetence"?
There were objections that there was no such extreme criticism. I gave examples, including labeling Jackson an incompetent director, a clearly over-the-top charge. You have been engaging in a dance of words to get out of your own previous posts.

My point has remained the same throughout this exchange:
To summarise:
<1> everyone makes mistakes.
<2> when a professional makes a mistake it is reasonable to describe the fact of the mistake as an incompetent act.
<3> there is no big deal about saying that someone has been temporarily incompetent.
<4> saying that someone is incompetent in respect of a specific incidence of it doesn't imply that he is an incompetent person.
<5> the attribute incompetence IS subject to qualification whereas other attributes such as incombustibility are NOT subject to it.
<6> I do not level a general charge of incompetence against Jackson.
<7> Incompetence isn't such a big deal that it needs to be called a "charge" of any kind, and certainly not of an "extreme and inflammatory" kind.
<8> If I had "labeled" PJ as an incompetent director it WOULD be o-t-t; I haven't done so.
I have no doubt that medical doctors occasionally make mistakes, which I would call acts of incompetence. For the serious ones there are disciplinary procedures. If the doctor is allowed to continue practising, people continue to use his services, making allowance for the fact that everyone makes mistakes.
The dance has been the same one, to the same tune, throughout the discussion.
My eight points - not such a short summary, so I apologise for that - boil down to two:
You, or the US in general, attach a greater degree of seriousness to the word incompetent than we do in the UK.
You read my statements about specific instances as general statements.

 

[aragil]

You, or the US in general, attach a greater degree of seriousness to the word incompetent than we do in the UK.
You read my statements about specific instances as general statements.

Not to try and fan any flames here joxy, but Greenwood's reading is not specific just to him, nor indeed to the US. As Snaga says, he is British, and he goes with incompetence as being a general term. Having just asked my office-mate (an Indian who is very proud of speaking 'British English') I've learned that she too considers incompetence to be a general term, one without levels, and a label which is considered quite insulting.

 

[jallan]

Snaga posted:

You believe to categorise is to mock.

Of course I do not believe that.

I believe it can be used to mock, attempting to fit people into your caricature Purist and caricature Centrist model. Why not mock in return?

It is my contention that people have attitudes and values that predispose them to view the movies positively or negatively.

It is my contention that people have attitudes and values that predispose them to view anything postively or negatively.

Revealing of what? Go read the TMF description again. I said they are inclined to view uncritically. I don't want to put it more strongly than that, because I don't believe it is warranted.

Well then why not say that purists are inclined to view critically? Of course, that wouldn't stir up the pot And I was criticizing what you said in that post, not what you said elswhere.

You seem rather Snaga-hostile yourself! You seem to believe that because I say that people's stances are indicative of wider attitudes, this means I think anything they say can be necessarily disregarded. If I said that anywhere, please point it out, and I will withdraw it.

You did not say it. You just do it.

You seem to be rather Jallan-hostile yourself!

Anyway Jallan, I think you ought to calm down. I'm glad I didn't offend you, but your sneering is pretty unpleasant. I don't want to discuss in that tone.

I am and was quite calm. And amused.

You make assumptions again.

Do you know that one of the best ways to stir someone up is to tell them to calm down? Perhaps.

As to sneering ...

From your original post:

Perhaps it is unsurprising if those who are better acquainted with the books have more to say: you would expect them to have parts that they thought should have been handled differently. But a normal reaction would be to shrug, and move on.

Instead the inquisitorial obsessing over the movies has lasted years. 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.

Lots of sneering mixed with supposition and hostility. Few facts though.

For example, in what forum anywhere has stridency and hostility gained anyone a great amoun of status, other than perhaps among a small clique in the short term?

These are old debating tricks: if you can't successfully attack what people say then attack their motivation or attribute feelings or opinions to them that you can attack.

Purists, it seems, are too strident and obsessed with Tolkien trivia, not like scholarly Snaga with his never-ending obsession about Uruk-hai. Purists are rude, not like Jackson-devotees.

But unsupported guesses as to motivation provides the excuse to disgregard any oppostion to your ideas and any complaints about the films as purist-sectarianism. I've watched you do this. So have others.

And I'm not a Purist, despite your unfounded statements.

Before the films appeared there were both Tolkien-Purists screaming in horror at every reported change and Jackson-Purists condescendingly justifying every single one as necessary (including some that didn't actually come to pass). That's the real problem with dropping Saruman from the third film: all the "Jackson had to increason Saruman's role" arguments from some Jackson-Purists suddenly failed. If it doesn't work in the third film, then Jackson is a fool. If it does work, then the whole structure of justification for what Jackson did is in jeapardy.

But though I found things to blame in the first film, including that horse race, I found much more to praise. On the whole, I loved it. Saw it nine or ten times in the theatre. Bought the DVD.

I came into the second film with expections of very much enjoying it.

The second film was rot! (My opinion of course.)

Your fantasy pop-psychology explanation fails with me. Your categories fail with me. And there are a lot of people here and on other Tolkien forums who experienced the same thing: first film good ... then disaster. And this reflects back psychologically on the first film. The flaws grow in importance ... even though parts of it were magnificent.

Perhaps the film would seem better, as RAD's keep insisting, if one could forget all about the source material. But that's almost a damning indictment: bad will seem better if you forget about the good.

If the film is indeed so different an entity from the books, then why keep forcing it on people who loved the book? If the films are supposed to be the same, then they fail. If they are supposed to be different, then stop pushing them on Tolkien fans as though the must like them. The result is much like the response Robert Jordan fans would get if they pushed Robert Jordan indescriminately on all Tolkien fans as really the same as Tolkien: "Stop pushing your garbage at me!"

Your explanations about stylization of the horse chase fail. I understand stylization. It is Jackson indulging in such visual gimmicks and gags and stylization as the horses in a straight line against the sensibility of what is supposed to be happening that I object to. Those things leap out at me. The Two Towers was filled with such things -- false drama, false comedy, too much of the film being both overwrought but flat at the same time.

When Jackson's gimmicks work with the sensibility of the tale, as for example the flashes of the Eye within the Ring and the murmuring temptation of the Ring, they work well. The moth worked well (at least in my opinon).

But yes, Jackson is surprisingly bad at times (if you don't like the word incompetent) at catching horrendous plot holes and in making the sense of his scenes match the visuals. It sometime seems that he doesn't care about the meaning as long as it looks cool or sounds cool or seems cute: hence shield-surfing and Sam bopping Orcs with his frying pan. That last is not just Jackson, unfortunately.

Disklike of that incident and of the Gimli jokes only duplicates the invective of viewers against the character of Jar Jar Binks for much of the same reasons. George Lucas is also on occasion bad or possibly "incompetent".

That's another debating trick: if you can't make a strong counter-argument to what a person means, pick on the exact wording.

 

[Greenwood]

You, or the US in general, attach a greater degree of seriousness to the word incompetent than we do in the UK.

As I pointed out a few pages ago, the dictionaries, including the OED disagree with you.

my comment, far from a charge, is that he is a director who occasionally shows incompetence.

Now if you want to change that to "he is a director who occasionally makes mistakes", I will be happy to agree with you.