Tell me I'm not seeing this...

[Parrot]

Fair enough, except I think the question of things like chain-mail are a separate issue in regards to making the film "visually" authentic and or believable regardless of whether it follows the book.

 

[Legolas_lover12]

i think we r all making way too big of a deal outta this. i mean, will all of u tolkien purists complaining here really make a difference??? will it change the way the first movie was done??? will it change what PJ id doing with the second and third movies?? no it will not. so forget it. but i guess some ppl just have to have something to complain about.....................

 

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Legolas_lover12
i think we r all making way too big of a deal outta this. i mean, will all of u tolkien purists complaining here really make a difference??? will it change the way the first movie was done??? will it change what PJ id doing with the second and third movies?? no it will not. so forget it. but i guess some ppl just have to have something to complain about.....................

We have the right to complain and discuss. The purpose of doing so, in expressing our likes and dislikes is free speech and a chance to compare opinions with other fans. It is not some sort of political platform. Do you honestly think that we think our discussion is going to change anything in PJ's or NLC's agenda? You obviously don't understand what a discussion forum is about, apparently.

Believe it or not, Legolas Lover, it is about more then just why Aragorn is so hot and the joys of wanting to be the lover of Legolas, like that will change Orlando Bloom and Viggo's attitude towards adoring fans such as yourself.

 

[Legolas_lover12]

i know u have the right to discuss this. i'm just tired of seeing all these threads. and i also have the right to say that i don't like it. not that it will do any good. just me stating my opinion on this whole thing.

believe it or not, legolas lover, it is about more than just why aragorn is soo hott and the joys of being the lover of legolas,like that will change orlando bloom and viggo's attitude towards adoring fans such as yourself.

well, how to respond to that....................................let's see, the word DUH comes to mind. as in DUH it is about more than that. DUH there are other things to discuss. and i do talk about things besides legolas and aragorn. and DUH it won't change their attitude towards me.

you obviously don't understand what a discussion forum is about, apparently.

well, let's see, it is a place to discuss things. but just as you can discuss how PJ "ruining" the movie bugs you, i can discuss how you complaining about the movie bugs me. see??

 

[Thorin]

will it change what PJ is doing with the second and third movies?? no it will not. so forget it.

Hmmm....Does that sound like the simple voicing of the opinion that you don't like our complaining? Not likely. You are telling us what we should (or shouldn't) be talking about based on the illogical assumption that we can't do anything about it. State that you don't like it and move on. Don't tell us what we can and cannot say. Your opinion and full, undying support of the movie is welcome here just as my complaints are. However, if you do not like to see discussion on the good and bad parts of the movie, maybe you should stay out of the movie forums where the good and bad, the supporters and the complainers meet to voice there opinions....Pretty simple. Don't like it, leave. This isn't a one sided opinion forum here....Expect different opinions and take them or leave them.

 

[Legolas_lover12]

that was my opinion. that u should forget it. i knew u weren't going to. but i said it anyway. and these threads are everywhere. i try to ignore them. but sometimes i caome just for spoilers to TTT and get mad.

 

[Talimon]

But that's the whole point I'm trying to make, Parrot. Talimon and others defend PJ's changes by saying, "He is not trying to make a true adaptation, but a good movie." If that is the case, why throw inane references out that really adds nothing to the movie or explains things like the "flame of Anor", the three trolls from The Hobbit, and a shot of Gil-Galad at the beginning and yet change blatant dialogue and characters?

You are misunderstanding my original comment, Thorin, and I really wish that I had the exact quote from PJ. Next time you visit the bookstore look for one of the film-guides. It's on one of the last pages, the quote I'm talking about. I never said making a good adaptation wasn't a priority. It's just not the highest priority. The point is that when it ultimately comes down to making decisions, and PJ must choose between the adaptation and the movie aspects, he'll take the movie. I think one of the many perfect examples of this comes in the form of him editing out 20-30 minutes from the theatrical release. Now it is obvious that fans of the books would want as much material as possible. But for the good of the movie itself, 3 1/2 hours is too long. That's where such decisions come into place. And RW is right, New Line probably had a lot to do with it all as well.

If I have any goal in all of these discussions it's not to sell PJ's movie but rather to clarify the motives behind creating the movies. I think a lot of the disagreement is due to the fact that the two camps see the movie for something different. I'm actually dying in anticipation for the Extended DVD. I think a lot of the different arguments we've been making regarding PJ's motives and goals will be clarified thanks to the abundance of extra material and commentary tracks.

 

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Talimon
I never said making a good adaptation wasn't a priority. It's just not the highest priority. The point is that when it ultimately comes down to making decisions, and PJ must choose between the adaptation and the movie aspects, he'll take the movie.

Yeah, but Tal, once again, you're assuming that a good adaptation and a good movie are incompatible. A good adaptation that follows the book word for word, event for event, would obviously be impossible (though I think, if done well, would make a heck of a series!) But there were things in this movie that could have been closer to the book and still been as effective (maybe more). These changes were blatant variations from the book with really no purpose except the director wanted to change it. Please tell me how the excellent dialogue of Tolkien being replaced by lines such as "I'll have at you, Longshanks", "Nobody tosses a dwarf", and "Lets go hunt some orc", can be praised as differing adaptation made into a good move when the original dialogue was ten times better? Couldn't the more difficult dialogue that people say wouldn't work in a movie
(Which I don't believe. Many successful movies with more archaic language proves that wrong) have at least been paraphrased and still been true to the book? PJ's priority should have been making a great adaptation and tweaking this here and there to satisfy some of the more cinematic elements. I will admit, for the most part, he did just that. However, some of the gratuitous changes prove otherwise. And where they happened, they prove disasterous (IMO of course!)

Originally posted by Talimon
I'm actually dying in anticipation for the Extended DVD. I think a lot of the different arguments we've been making regarding PJ's motives and goals will be clarified thanks to the abundance of extra material and commentary tracks.

I am under the understanding that the extra footage is mostly (if not all) concerning Lorien. That would help make the scenes of Lorien and Galadriel (and boy, do they need help in this film!) more fleshed out and properly developed which is great, but it doesn't help the rest of the movie that need extra footage bad. The place where I would really have liked to see extra footage is the trip between the Shire and Rivendell. That to me was the most hideous of time compression changes.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

My point in this whole Eowyn/Aragorn duel thing is that Tolkien's Aragorn would never have drawn a weapon on any woman, let alone the beloved niece of his HOST, the King of Rohan. It wouldn't happen, it shouldn't happen, but like so many other things in Jackson's LOTR, it DOES happen. Then the Director goes and puts the icing on his cake and has the lady WIN! Gee! And this is the "man" who is going to be King! Thank God the orcs he runs into aren't female because he sure doesn't have much luck with the ladies!

Oh, my......

 

[I.am.Smeagol]

Tolkien's Aragorn would never have drawn a weapon on any woman, let alone the beloved niece of his HOST, the King of Rohan.

Indeed!

 

[Grond]

***Notice Notice Notice - - - Lots of manual typing will ensue***

from The Lord of the Rings - The Official Movie Guide by Brian Sibley, excerpts from chapter From Book to Script
...As the process of turning Tolkien's book into screenplays developed, the filmmakers increasingly drew on the original text. "When we first started writing these scripts," says Peter Jackson, 'we assumed that we would have to simplify and modernize the languages, because that was what a modern film would require. On the contrary, however, with each subsequent draft of the screenplays, we have gone further and further into Tolkien's language, because it is beautiful and evocative and , when spoken by good actors, comes alive in a way that is really fresh and exciting."

Nevertheless, cuts had to be made and scenes amalgamated or moved to create necessary dramatic tensions. Dialogue was sometimes borrowed from one part of the book to provide lines for a character in a scene somewhere else, and occasionally new dialogue had to be written, "in the style of Tolkien." One or two new characters in the original book have not, finally, found their way onto the screen, while others, notably the few female characters, have been given stronger roles in the film than they have in the original text.

Throughout the entire process of bringing this world famous book to the cinema, Peter Jackson has kept one overriding principle in mind: "My primary job has been to make three good movies, as opposed to making three movies that are totally faithful to the books. Nevertheless, I fully accept that I have a responsiblity not to disappoint those many people who love the books. Which is why we have really tried not to lose anything that we feel is key or important to the books and why, almost without exception, all those things that are memorable and vivid from reading the books are there in the movies.

Peter, you captured the world of Middle-earth beautifully in your adaptation... you just changed the story a tad too much for me. But, we all have opinions and mine is just one of em. BTW, is my extended DVD of the FotR coming in on 11/13 or 11/14???

 

[Talimon]

11/11, Veterans day. You'll have the day off to watch it (assuming you go to the store and buy it). If you pre-order you'll most likely have to wait a couple of days at the very least for it to ship. Though it is true that some places ship thier products the moment they arrive, thus resulting in folks getting thier DVD's before the street date. Personally I'm not taking risks here. I'm just going to head down to the store and buy it the day it is released. It's Veterans day, besides.

My point in this whole Eowyn/Aragorn duel thing is that Tolkien's Aragorn would never have drawn a weapon on any woman, let alone the beloved niece of his HOST, the King of Rohan. It wouldn't happen, it shouldn't happen, but like so many other things in Jackson's LOTR, it DOES happen. Then the Director goes and puts the icing on his cake and has the lady WIN! Gee! And this is the "man" who is going to be King!

Mrs. Maggot, for your own good, please don't go that low. You are beginning to do what purists were doing around this time last year: cirtiquing PJ's movie based on the trailer. The trailer doesn't tell us anything. It's a quick shot of Eowyn facin Aragorn. We have no idea how the scene develops, how it works out, what happens... You are basically going out and looking for wood to throw into your fire. Let it be, for the moment. We can talk all you want about TTT when TTT is released. Until then, don't get too passionate.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

This wasn't a "trailer"; it was a well documented and accepted site which DISCUSSED the scenario (among many other changes in TTT), gave pros and cons for each and a probability scale which for this scenario was five out of five. I was VERY careful not to just accept scuttlebut. Indeed, I was so concerned about this particular scenario, I took every possible care that I would not fall prey to mere speculation.

Frankly, my computer is so old that I don't get trailers very well so I did not depend upon a few moments of graphics. This whole scenario was well discussed including the blurb "she beats the pants off him".

If that's "low", the fault is Mr. Jackson's, not mine.

 

[Grond]

No one even thanked me for all that manual typing. No comments, no critique on what I thought was the exact passage our good Talimon wanted brought forward. Is my post not there??? I know it is. Talimon, what is your response to the quotes you apparently wanted brought forward?

 

[Ariana Undomiel]

Ok, the part with Eowyn fighting with Aragorn is not as serious as it first appears. If look closely Aragorn has a totally nonchalant look on his face and it appears that he thinks this woman is just playing around. Notice he is fighting with his dagger. Eowyn means business though as you can see when she gets the upper hand to Aragorn's surprise. Also I believe that that scene with Arwen kissing Aragorn is a flash back. There may be a few of those in the two towers. So don't go panicing yet.

~Ariana

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Here's where Jackson's "vision" not only differs from Tolkien's but is positively diametric to it. Tolkien's Aragorn was a mythic masculine figure who would no more have drawn a weapon on a woman than he would have dressed up as a drag queen. Jackson's Aragorn is a modern, fallible, fool-around type who would probably do something as foolish and discourteous as this. The problem is that those who defend this particular "scene", don't really understand the problem with it! After all, he really didn't try or want to hurt her! She was just a little stronger and better than he supposed and he just got "caught short"! What's the prob?!

Well, that's fine in the "modern" understanding of the male-female relationship, but it is TOTALLY AND ABSOLUTELY ALIEN to the relationship that existed between men and women in Tolkien's world. Therefore, no MAN - never mind one of Aragorn's stature - would have ever CONSIDERED drawing a weapon against a female opponent. It would have been as foreign to them as, well, "dressing in drag".

Jackson has "updated" LOTR; that is, he has changed Tolkien's mythic characters to the type of ordinary guys and gals we are used to seeing on the screen today. Role reversal is fine and a total lack of common courtesy towards women is not only unknown but positively politically correct. There was a previous thread somewhere about a p.c. LOTR. Well, Jackson has in fact produced a p.c. LOTR and most of those who are younger don't find any problem with it - in fact, they don't even see it!

 

[Grond]

Mrs. M, I appreciate your viewpoint but must point out the Eowyn was indeed attacked by a man. A dead man enslaved to a Dark Lord... but a man none the less. Tolkien's knightly good Men might not attack a woman, but his world was also filled with vile and wretched characters who would have slit her throat without a second thought.

Remember Lotho!!!!

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

I must have been particularly obtuse when I posted this point! I, of course, meant decent, chivalrous men like Aragorn, not men in general, dead OR alive. After all, women have been attacked by men since there have been women and men!

I was merely pointing out that ARAGORN would not have drawn a weapon on a woman. For heaven sake, he wouldn't even allow Eowyn to accompany him on the Paths of the Dead. He specifically said (in the book, at least) that he would have to ask permission of her uncle the King and her brother before he could even consider her request - and he could not wait for their return.

I'm sorry if I was not sufficiently clear about my meaning. I certainly did not mean that EVERY man in Middle Earth would forebear attacking a woman - but, frankly, I would have thought that it wouldn't be necessary to make that point under the circumstances!

 

[Ariana Undomiel]

Mrs. Maggott, I agree that it some of the chivalry has been knocked down a bit and that is sad, but another misfortune is that in this day and age, men don't really know what chivalry is any more. So very few people will probably even notice. Besides I don't think that Aragorn was attacking Eowyn at all. It seemed to me that she was in some major rage about something or other and she was attacking him. Aragorn reacted by whipping out his knife to weild off her blow, and didn't expect her to go any further. Obviously she had other plans. So perhaps it isn't really Aragorn's fault. LOL. Or perhaps we should wait till the movie comes out so we can see the entire scene in context.

~Ariana

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

And, alas, my dear, those who DO know - and have attempted to practice the art - would soon find that their most rabid detractors were WOMEN who perceived their gentle and manly behavior (that, after all, is what the term "GENTLE -MAN" means!) was somehow "sexist" and even constituted "sexual harassment"!

Several years ago, a very prestigious news magazine ran a HUGE story with a cover-filling headline noting that there ARE differences between men and women!!!! Heavens!!! What a blow to the army of androgenous anti-males!! I begin to sympathize with Mr. Jackson. Perhaps he could NOT present Professor Tolkien's Aragorn. To begin with, nobody would understand him - and then, nobody would believe him and finally, nobody would be able to stand him since after being in the dark for so long, such a bright light would be impossible to bear. It's sad, really, that so many people are only able to tolerate these great mythic Souls on the printed page. In "real life", they are simply too great to endure.