As for Talimon, he is hopeless at this point. Such the politician, You ask him for a staight answer then he answers another question. He then tells you you are absurd for asking the questions you want him to answer. Thin skinned too I might add.
Radagast, nothing is personal here. We were in the middle of a debate, and what you offered was this:
As for Talimon, I can't help but read his criticisms of our criticisms and somehow see
Grima stricken by
Saruman's voice groveling at his (PJ's) feet and stroking his beard. But their is still hope, there are two more films to be released, and Grima does kill Saruman in the end so.....Talimon we will be waiting.
That isn't a contribution to the arguement, and were I not used to harsher forum posters from other boards I might even report that. Had you tacked that on to an actual arguement, maybe I could reply. You didn't, and as such all I can take from that is that you disagree with me. Since you haven't explained
why and with
what, there isn't much of a discussion.
Once they had been welcomed by the King (he asks the
food be brought for his "guests"), they passed from possible enemies to persons under the protection of the King's hospitality. That being the case, they would NOT have been attacked - and certainly NOT by anyone in the King's household. To do so would have brought disgrace not only upon that person, but upon the King and the
Rohirrim as well.
At the risk of being a hypocrite and doing what I was criticizing (drawing conclusions from a trailer), I'd say that the scene is
meant to be out of the ordinary. Indeed, were it so casual to raise a
sword against your guests then it wouldn't be much of a scene in the first place. Then again were the tale of LotR so ordinary it wouldn't be worth telling either, would it? I
assume that the point PJ is trying to make is that
Eowyn is so bitter about not being able to ride into battle that in her anguish she might even raise a sword against
Aragorn. I can easily imagine her, in that scene, quickly realizing that she has lost her temper, and after having done what she's done, run away in shame and tears. I don't think PJ wants it to be such a casual, everyday, "cultural" exercise.
Rohan is at war, perhaps the last war in it's existence.
Events that take place during this time aren't accurate reflections of Rohirrim "culture".
I think the more logical arguement here is whether that scene alters the charachters, and thier motivations. To be the judge of that I'd have to first see the scene, it's in entirety, and in it's context during the film. I certainly cannot agree that just by it's nature it automatically changes the "meaning" of Tolkiens tale.
Those who have real problems with criticism despite the "reasonable arguments" they use to defend the films, are in fact responding EMOTIONALLY, not intellectually to the critics.
Mrs. Maggot, with all due respect the critics are
at least as guilty of this as the fans. In fact, I'd argue much moreso. If you go back and read threads from December, you'll find that many critics (not all) were basing thier arguements on abstract ideas, along the lines of "it's not
Tolkien". Of course, just exactly
what Tolkien is was never an issue, just the fact that the movie certainly wasn't. If an "intellectual arguement" was the ideal here, someone forgot to tell folks.
However, you are missing an important point . The main object of discussion here is a film, a work of art. And the only true way to judge art is emotionally. The main arguement seems to revolve around whether the film captured the "meaning" of Tolkien. What this arguement ignores is that there isn't one, all encompassing meaning to Tolkiens book. I think the Proffesor himself would certainly agree that it has different meanings for different people. In fact, Tolkien himself never assigned the work with any concrete meaning. He states so in the Foreward:
As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical.
Earlier on, he also states how different aspects of the tale are more/less important to different people:
...for I find from the letters that I have reiceived that the passages or chapters that are to some a blemish are all by others specially approved.
As always, it seems that we return to square one: this is PJ's interpretation of LotR. I stated this before and I'll state it again: I have
no problem with people saying PJ's movie didn't match
thier own mental image/view on Tolkien. In fact, I find that the threads where people actually express thier own opinions on what Tolkien means to them and how PJ did/didn't capture that are the most interesting. What I won't accept is the statement that PJ has not captured LotR, period. Critics of PJ's movie have been stating this over and over, and that's the only thing really gets me, emotionally
and intellectually. You simply cannot make one large, all encompassing, let alone objective statement as to whether PJ captured LotR, for all or for none.