Sean Astin's acting

[Rúmil]

I am responding to your allegation that Tolkien's characters had inconsistencies.

In fairness, I did add some arguments to the point of Sam's fire.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

Remember, I said Tolkiens sam works well in the book but not on screen and the same is true for pj's sam.

Tolkiens sam makes mistakes that endanger the "Mission, quest, thing" (I love that bit), while frodo does not. Even with the rings effect on him, he is able to hold his tounge while sam acts like a giddy schoolgirl on her first date. The same is true at the meeting with faramir. Frodo is in control, while sam puts his foot in his mouth. It is no wonder that Faramir put his pressure on sam when sam spilt the beans about the ring. He knew that sam was a motor mouth and frodo was not. This is how tolkien wrote sam.

Now, for PJ to add that part of sam into the movie, the viewer would not view sam as the trusty companion, but as a bumbling boob that could not be trusted. I remember in the book when sam ended up with the ring wondering how this idiot was going to complete the "thing". Then, when he finds Frodo again, it was totally un-believable to me that he actually succeeded in rescuing him.

Viewers of any visual medium don't want to go on a character roller coaster ride. Sam is smart, sam is not, hows he gonna pull this off, How did he pull that off. They spend their time focused way too much on sam and the finer points of the film are lost. Look at the movie "Casa Blanca". Rick (HB), was the same tough selfish character through the entire movie, but in the end, becomes what he was in the early days. simple and straight forward. and how many characters are really developed? 3. The rest of the actors are one way at all times.

So to put this much developement into sam would take away from aragorn, frodo, gollum (probably the most key character to develope), et al.

Sam, as a character, was basically a loyal friend. This has to be pj's focus. PJ's sam has accomplished that.

Tolkiens would not have.

 

[Rúmil]

Foe-Hammer, you seem more to repeat your opinion than to develop any arguements.

Do not forget that Sam, in Tolkien's mind, is the hero of Lotr; and there are ways in which a cunning director can develop many characters simultaneously, especially when working on separate plot-lines.

You think PJ's Sam is not an idiot? How about infamous lines such as 'he will not understand'?

You say Tolkien's Sam would not have worked; how do you know, it was never tried! If that is you opinion, who could contest your right to uphold it? But do not state it as an objective fact.





Maybe, after all, the book did not work for you. This has nothing to do with the books and everything to do with you. This is not a disparaging remark, some people fall for it, others don't.

However, as it has convinced so many people around this forum, it must not have anything compromisingly, intrinsically wrong with it.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by Rúmil
Foe-Hammer, you seem more to repeat your opinion than to develop any arguements.

Then you are blind. I just did in my last post. Gave reasons etc.

Originally posted by Rúmil
Do not forget that Sam, in Tolkien's mind, is the hero of Lotr; and there are ways in which a cunning director can develop many characters simultaneously, especially when working on separate plot-lines.

Sam is a hero in pj's mind too. But, as I just explained and you refused to listen, he cannot keep the viewer on a rollercoaster.

Originally posted by Rúmil
You think PJ's Sam is not an idiot? How about infamous lines such as 'he will not understand'?

"He will not understand" needs to be in context. It is not a statement of stupidity. Sam cares for him so much that he puts himself in harms way to protect him from a terrifing nazgul while mighty warriors with spears and arrows hide amongst the rubble of osgiliath.

Originally posted by Rúmil
You say Tolkien's Sam would not have worked; how do you know, it was never tried!

Because if Tolkiens sam and the rest would have worked, a movie would have been done (and been sucessful) long ago. Even Tolkien knew they wouldn't work.

Originally posted by Rúmil
Maybe, after all, the book did not work for you. This has nothing to do with the books and everything to do with you. This is not a disparaging remark, some people fall for it, others don't.

However, as it has convinced so many people around this forum, it must not have anything compromisingly, intrinsically wrong with it.

Of all the stupid remarks you have made this is the worst. Usually you are assuming what others feel, but in this case, I have told you twice that tolkiens sam worked, and you say that the book didn't work for me?

***Ancalagon***

 

[Rúmil]

Then you are blind. I just did in my last post. Gave reasons etc.

I do not see any arguments. You just develop your opinion.

Sam is a hero in pj's mind too. But, as I just explained and you refused to listen, he cannot keep the viewer on a rollercoaster.

I do not refuse to listen. You did not explain, you stated. Please at least allow me to differ.

"He will not understand" needs to be in context. It is not a statement of stupidity. Sam cares for him so much that he puts himself in harms way to protect him from a terrifing nazgul while mighty warriors with spears and arrows hide amongst the rubble of osgiliath.

This does not explain how 'he will not understand' does not imply Sam has not quite the average metal capacities.

Because if Tolkiens sam and the rest would have worked, a movie would have been done (and been sucessful) long ago. Even Tolkien knew they wouldn't work.

A movie was not made since PJ arrived because the tchnology was not available for the special effects. Do you think no-one had the idea to make changes until PJ came around?

I have told you twice that tolkiens sam worked

I remember in the book when sam ended up with the ring wondering how this idiot was going to complete the "thing". Then, when he finds Frodo again, it was totally un-believable to me that he actually succeeded in rescuing him.

You said twice that he worked and once that he did not. Which assertion am I to follow?

Do me a favor you npw, take off the gandalf hat and get a life.

What makes you think that I do not already have one?




PS: could you please adopt a calmer tone in discussing this issue? thank you. and I dislike 'npw'. I found the film enjoyable, I just want to point out how it could have been better.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

Since you refuse to see that which as plain as the nose on yer face, I don't see the benifit of explaining explanations to you.

You seem to be content with the limits of your understanding. So, I'll leave you in your state of blissful ignorance. Perhapes someone else can breech the walls you have constructed.

 

[Gothmog]

Mod's comment.

Please can we have a calmer discusion about this subject!!

Foe-Hammer there is no need to resort to personal insults and name-calling..

 

[Foe-Hammer]

Re: Mod's comment.

Originally posted by Gothmog
Please can we have a calmer discusion about this subject!!

Foe-Hammer there is no need to resort to personal insults and name-calling..

Actually, the wat he/she is acting, I'd call it a compliment.

Jeeze!

 

[Quick Beam]

Foe, chill, ur insults are not welcome here. read the rules.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

Just like my post said, I'm leaving it to someone else to try to explain it to her.

 

[Rúmil]

Please at least get my gender right

 

[Foe-Hammer]

I got a lot of it right. You just refuse to see it.
sorry, I didn't get the feel that you were a man.

 

[Quick Beam]

That was funny foe, lol.

 

[Gothmog]

Re: Re: Mod's comment.

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
Actually, the wat he/she is acting, I'd call it a compliment.

Jeeze!

The comment stands as written

 

[Foe-Hammer]

OK, goth, you seem to be the one with the problem. you want to explain the problem you have with the original statement?