What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

[Talimon]

Therefore, even if you are not willing to concede the point of the absurdity of the Director's scenario from Aragorn's side, then you MUST do so from Eowyn's. If she in fact draws on a guest for WHATEVER reason, she is either utterly ill bred or so immature as to be in more need of a switch to her backside than a sword in her hand!

Remember that last scene before Aragorn departs. Eowyn is on her knees pleading with Aragorn to let her ride with him to battle. Thier whole dialogue revolves around Eowyn wanting to go with Aragorn to battle, and Aragorn not allowing her to follow. If "anger" is too strong a word to express Eowyns feelings, certainly "bitterness" is not. She never draws her sword, but she is a shields-maiden, and as she later informs Faramir, she is not "gentle". If you study her lines with Aragorn, you can sense a tone of desperation, of being held back. As TheFool points out, this could evolve in any number of ways.

 

[Parrot]

Alrightythen, let me see if I follow all this; you, Mrs. Maggott, introduce the idea of Aragorn’s (possibly) defending himself from Eowyn as analogous to his being a drag queen, and then accuse others of ridiculous rhetoric and hyperbole? Okay. Further, you ask for things that the director might put in that would be unacceptable; asking people to judge that which they have not seen and have no idea in what context it might take place, but then reject the given answers as too obvious, foolishness; even though they had been posed as realistic possibilities in the past. It must be nice to have every game be a home-game and get to make up the rules as you go.

posted by Mrs. Maggott
What civilization are the Director and you commenting upon? I can assure you, it MUST be "modern"! No decent ancient civilization would DO such a thing. Hospitality was SACROSANCT! No one would draw a weapon upon a guest - ESPECIALLY if the guest had not drawn his first.

Riders of Rohan (Eomer) encountering A, L, and G.;

'Who are you, and what are you doing in this land?' said the Rider,
using the Common Speech of the West, in manner and tone like to the speech
of Boromir, Man of Gondor.
'I am called Strider,' answered Aragorn. 'I came out of the North. I am
hunting Orcs.'
The Rider leaped from his horse. Giving his spear to another who rode
up and dismounted at his side, he drew his sword and stood face to face with
Aragorn, surveying him keenly, and not without wonder.

Later;

'Then Eomer son of Eomund, Third Marshal of Riddermark, let Gimli the
Dwarf Gloin's son warn you against foolish words. You speak evil of that
which is fair beyond the reach of your thought, and only little wit can
excuse you.'
Eomer's eyes blazed, and the Men of Rohan murmured angrily, and closed
in, advancing their spears. 'I would cut off your head, beard and all,
Master Dwarf, if it stood but a little higher from the ground ' said Eomer.
'He stands not alone,' said Legolas, bending his bow and fitting an
arrow with hands that moved quicker than sight. 'You would die before your
stroke fell.'
Eomer raised his sword, and things might have gone ill, but Aragorn
sprang between them, and raised his hand. 'Your pardon, Eomer!' he cried.

Hama – Doorwarden of Theoden;

'This is the house of Theoden, not of Aragorn, even were he King of
Gondor in the seat of Denethor,' said Hama, stepping swiftly before the
doors and barring the way. His sword was now in his hand the point
towards the strangers.

Later Gandalf;

The courtesy of your hall is somewhat lessened of late, Theoden son of
Thengel,' said Gandalf.

**off to look up “SACROSANCT”**

(BTW, anybody notice Aragorn says he is “hunting orcs”? Whoa! Vuja De!)

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

You are comparing apples and oranges. Faramir's treatment of the hobbits is in fact the "nosegay" if you will, of hospitality. When both Frodo and Sam actually draw on him at their meal, he does NOT return their gesture or even make an effort to defend himself even though, in such close confines, one of the hobbits might have inflicted serious, even deadly injury.

Furthermore, Faramir's "orders" from Denethor were not to "kill" anyone he found abroad (except orcs and southrens), but to bring them to his Father. He chose to disregard that order after hearing the hobbits' tale. But that is not a failure of hospitality or cultural courtesy, that is the intentional disregard of an ORDER because, as the military commander on site, Faramir decided that it was better to do so. That might get him in trouble with Denethor (and it did), but it could not in anyone's wildest imagination, be considered a failure to conform to the cultural norms.

That brings us back to Eowyn: you speak of her desire to "prove herself" and her desperation and then appear to excuse all by contending that she probably doesn't intend to kill the target of her angst! Hoorah for her! If she really is involved seriously in drawing a weapon, she indeed has violated "the cultural norms" and if she is so "desperate to prove herself", she certainly has shown absolutely no maturity. If that is the case (and this duel takes place as I have been informed it will), Eowyn's character has been diminished to the point of utter silliness.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Parrot
Alrightythen, let me see if I follow all this; you, Mrs. Maggott, introduce the idea of Aragorn’s (possibly) defending himself from Eowyn as analogous to his being a drag queen, and then accuse others of ridiculous rhetoric and hyperbole? Okay. Further, you ask for things that the director might put in that would be unacceptable; asking people to judge that which they have not seen and have no idea in what context it might take place, but then reject the given answers as too obvious, foolishness; even though they had been posed as realistic possibilities in the past. It must be nice to have every game be a home-game and get to make up the rules as you go.

To begin with, I said that Aragorn would no more draw a sword/knife on Eowyn than he would dress as a drag queen. That particular analogy means, if you don't understand it, that BOTH of these actions would be entirely outside of anything that Aragorn would do. This is not to equate one action to the other EXCEPT TO POINT OUT that he would do neither.

Secondly, when I asked for a considered opinion about something that the Director would POSSIBLY do and am given something that NO ONE would either present or accept, then I must assume that the answer was not seriously given. Yes, none of us would accept Saruman and Gandalf embracing in loving friendship at the end of TTT or a forest fire in Fangorn or any number of extremely silly possibilities that would probably make a grand thread if we all wanted a good laugh! (And, by the way, if anyone seriously suggested that such things were possible, then THEY shouldn't have been taken seriously. I expected better, however, from those whom I DID take "seriously"!)

 

[TheFool]

I refuse to believe that Peter Jackson et al have written a scene where Eowyn intends to KILL Aragorn. *Eowyn pulls sword from Aragorn's corpse* "Ha! I am worthy! Now let me ride with you! Aragorn?!"
Does it matter if Eowyn even wins this (supposed) battle? The whole point of Eowyn is that she is not a 'lady', she has spirit and she is ROUGH! Maybe she knows she can't possibly win against Aragorn, but is willing to try anyway - something that would stand her in good stead for the battle with Morgul

If you want 'silly Eowyn', she pretends to be a man!! This has always drawn a wry smile to my face.

So have no 'cultural norms' been broken in Tolkiens works? eg Wormtongue is wavering between loyalty to Theoden and loyalty to Saruman; as a highly respected and noble member of the King's household, could he possibly commit treason?

 

[Parrot]

My point is, If you want a "seriously" "considered opinion" of something that might possibly happen then one would have to know and consider the context in which said events happen, or judge prematurely and quite possibly inaccurately. Either you're dealing in unquestionable absolutes or you're dealing with imperfect information; it's a loaded question.

 

[Parrot]

I will give you this; If Jackson has Aragrorn and Eowyn engage in a sword fight where Eowyn defeats an Aragorn who is trying to defeat her and has no ulterior motive for possibly allowing her to win, I will concede that he has gone "too far"! Do I need to add that I am not overly concerned about this eventuality?

 

[Radagast]

Fun debate

The Parrot and the Fool and bring up respectable points to argue but I still personally have a more favorable view of where Mrs. Maggot is coming from.

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.

My point of this post being that most of the points brought up here can only be answered subjectively. But it is always amazing that the people who liked the film are never attacked for liking it (as they should not be) but the people who have real problems with what they see wrong with the film and the way PJ chose to pose his "inaccuracies" are really viciously slammed.

Mrs. Maggot nailed it when she said that those who criticize specifics are labeled purists (when regarding these works, is that really a bad thing?), and then are stereotyped with lines like "we won't be satisfied if one line is out of place."

It is such an interesting debate in that you can see some people's true personalities come out. Some humourless and quite scary in their dealing with fellow posters.

Cheers to all!!

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

The whole point of Eowyn is that she is not a 'lady', she has spirit and she is ROUGH! <quote>

Eowyn is not a LADY? Do you know what a lady IS? A lady doesn't just sit around knitting mittens or sipping tea with her little finger extended. The term LADY means someone who is well bred, who knows and understands the social usages of her culture and who is at all times courteous and honorable. Eowyn is ALL of these things! For heaven's sakes! She is the King's niece and his care giver. She would have been brought up with all the social graces in the assumption that she would marry well and continue the King's line. Remember, it is not just the King and his offspring who do that, but also the King's siblings who are also reponsible to keep the line going in case the direct line is ended. This would be especially important in a society like the Rohirrim where battle threatens constantly. Indeed, Theoden's line DOES end with the death of his son and it is his nephew, Eomer, who then becomes king. It wouldn't matter if Eowyn were a shieldmaiden or even a "tomboy", she was raised as a LADY with the understanding of her high position in her society. To have her act as if she were a punk kid is ludicrous.

Furthermore, there were other examples given of weapon's drawn against Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas but these happened BEFORE they were accepted as guests, not after. 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.

It is this total disregard of what must obviously be the cultural norms of the society Jackson is creating within the film in order to produce a desired "cinematic event" that robs the film of its accuracy and any claim to seriousness. It's as if the Director had said, "I know this wouldn't happen, but it's just too good to pass up!"

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Re: Fun debate

Originally posted by Radagast
The Parrot and the Fool and bring up respectable points to argue but I still personally have a more favorable view of where Mrs. Maggot is coming from.
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.
My point of this post being that most of the points brought up here can only be answered subjectively. But it is always amazing that the people who liked the film are never attacked for liking it (as they should not be) but the people who have real problems with what they see wrong with the film and the way PJ chose to pose his "inaccuracies" are really viciously slammed.
Mrs. Maggot nailed it when she said that those who criticize specifics are labeled purists (when regarding these works, is that really a bad thing?), and then are stereotyped with lines like "we won't be satisfied if one line is out of place."
It is such an interesting debate in that you can see some people's true personalities come out. Some humourless and quite scary in their dealing with fellow posters.Cheers to all!!

I decided to address the above in a separate posting. For the longest time I had difficulties understanding why so many of Jackson's defenders got so obviously upset and even angry with any criticism of the film. At first, these persons argue reasonably, but when their arguments are successfully countered, words like "snobbish" and "low" have been used to describe the critics and their comments. There were even warnings about "redundant posts" - as if all of this isn't redundant! - when the same point was made on different BUT RELATED threads. I even wondered if some of Mr. Jackson's most vociferous advocates had stock in his company or were relatives! And then the light dawned! 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.

If a debate takes place on an intellectual level, you have comment followed by refutation followed by defense followed by refutation of the defense - and so on. No one gets angry. When points are made that CANNOT be refuted, both sides agree that the point is made and hooray to the side that made the point. No one's mind may be changed at the end, but no one gets insulted or "bent out of shape" either.

In an EMOTIONAL exchange, the critic is perceived as criticizing NOT the FILM, but the DEFENDER of the film. That means that if you disagree with me, you are not "making a point", but hurling an insult! Obviously, the result of THAT kind of exchange is infinitely different from the other, especially when the criticism is justified. You get criticism, argument in reply (rational at first) but if you then get (and continue to get) a rational and well thought out refutation of the defending arguments (as has happened in this case), the defender may eventually be drawn into an ad hominem attack since the perception is that the critic is attacking or criticizing that person rather than the film.

I don't know about anyone else, but my criticisms of the film (made, I might add on threads that I did not start), have been of the most intellectual kind (which, by the way, does NOT mean that they are without a certain passion at times!). I have never imputed to anyone that he or she was somehow stupid or foolish or anything else for liking the film. Indeed, I have said MANY TIMES that I enjoyed FOTR, but that did not mean that I could not make critical comments about it. For those who believe that such comments were directed personally at them, I can assure you, such was NOT the case. You are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine and while there might be issues to dispute that are worthy of personal involvement, movies ain't one of them!

 

[Parrot]

posted by Mrs Maggott
Furthermore, there were other examples given of weapon's drawn against Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas but these happened BEFORE they were accepted as guests, not after. 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.

So, basically you’re saying that I failed to consider the context in which these events take place? I feel like I can quit now because you are making my points for me. I don’t know what transpires between Aragorn and Eowyn in the film and choose to reserve judgment until I do. ‘Nuff said?

It's as if the Director had said, "I know this wouldn't happen, but it's just too good to pass up!"

I can’t help but wonder if Tolkien didn’t say this same thing when he sent her a-ridin’ with the Rohirrim?


As for this ‘Holier than thou’ line, please give me a break. For myself, I think I try to inject some humor in my posting and think I am pretty agreeable most of the time. However, if I think someone is taking a caustic or derogatory tone towards me or others, I have no problem responding in kind; and I think this is often the case when some purists are pontificating about the movies. Forum rules forbid telling someone they are simply too stupid to understand something, but there are no rules against pointedly implying this kind of thing. I have no problem with you purists expressing your criticisms (and actually agree with some of them) as opinions. It is the extrapolation of these specific criticisms into far-reaching generalizations about the film as a whole, and the director, expressed as fact rather than opinion, that I take issue with.

Example - In Mrs. Maggott’s first few posts she remarked that she personally didn’t care for the portrayal of Aragorn, with all the doubts and such. Okay. No problem there, I can see that. But then it continues to what these doubts do to the character of Aragorn and the overall story in the eyes of the audience. Whoa, hold up there! I am part of this audience and I don’t necessarily see it that way; so what are you really saying?

Now we have left the realm of opinion and entered the realm of …. what?… absolute truth, I guess, and this is where the wheels start to come off. Not “this is how I see it” but rather “this is how it is - PERIOD". I don’t like being told I “MUST” see something a certain way as this seems to carry the implication that if I don’t, I probably just don’t understand it. The incessant use of the really helps convey this. So, if you are going to tell me that my opinion is wrong you damn well better be able to prove it! End of rant; as you were.

 

[Talimon]

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.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Parrot
So, basically you’re saying that I failed to consider the context in which these events take place? I feel like I can quit now because you are making my points for me. I don’t know what transpires between Aragorn and Eowyn in the film and choose to reserve judgment until I do. ‘Nuff said?
I can’t help but wonder if Tolkien didn’t say this same thing when he sent her a-ridin’ with the Rohirrim?
As for this ‘Holier than thou’ line, please give me a break. For myself, I think I try to inject some humor in my posting and think I am pretty agreeable most of the time. However, if I think someone is taking a caustic or derogatory tone towards me or others, I have no problem responding in kind; and I think this is often the case when some purists are pontificating about the movies. Forum rules forbid telling someone they are simply too stupid to understand something, but there are no rules against pointedly implying this kind of thing. I have no problem with you purists expressing your criticisms (and actually agree with some of them) as opinions. It is the extrapolation of these specific criticisms into far-reaching generalizations about the film as a whole, and the director, expressed as fact rather than opinion, that I take issue with.

Example - In Mrs. Maggott’s first few posts she remarked that she personally didn’t care for the portrayal of Aragorn, with all the doubts and such. Okay. No problem there, I can see that. But then it continues to what these doubts do to the character of Aragorn and the overall story in the eyes of the audience. Whoa, hold up there! I am part of this audience and I don’t necessarily see it that way; so what are you really saying?

Now we have left the realm of opinion and entered the realm of …. what?… absolute truth, I guess, and this is where the wheels start to come off. Not “this is how I see it” but rather “this is how it is - PERIOD". I don’t like being told I “MUST” see something a certain way as this seems to carry the implication that if I don’t, I probably just don’t understand it. The incessant use of the really helps convey this. So, if you are going to tell me that my opinion is wrong you damn well better be able to prove it! End of rant; as you were.

1. You did NOT take into consideration the context of the scenarios you presented. As for "making your points for you", it would seem I was doing exactly the opposite; I was making MY points for ME.

2. As far as I know, I have only expressed my OWN opinion regarding the Eowyn/Arwen matter. I have not attempted to express anyone else's opinions on the matter nor have I any desire to do so. What you feel about it is entirely your own business.

3. Tolkien sent Eowyn into battle because in the story, she is in DESPAIR; she does not want to fight, SHE WANTS TO DIE and considers battle as the best way to accomplish a glorious death. Despair is a DEADLY SIN; Tolkien knew that and his treatment of Eowyn is very subtle and deep. It isn't "adventure" or "feminist foolery" but an attempt to reveal great and, frankly, HOLY truths through Eowyn's mental, emotional and moral struggle. Will that be so in the film, do you think?

4. I did not say anything at all about you except to mention the points you made in passing (see above). If you find yourself "insulted" because someone has expressed disagreement with your position or if you take personally comments made about something in which you had no part (the film), that is not my fault. My "attitude" (which you are subjectively construing) was hardly "holier than thou". I merely pointed out that an intellectual debate does not engender animosity whereas an emotional debate may do just that. To believe someone is "stupid" because he or she disagrees with you - especially when your argument is both subjective and does not address the criticism that has been made - well, that speaks for itself.

And why, pray tell, should you "take issue" with statements made that are no less "unsubstantiated" than your own general assertions? I believe that the audience is influenced by Jackson's treatment of the characters. That, frankly, is hardly "unsubstantiated" since ALL audiences are influenced by how characters are portrayed in films AND books. I believe that influence will be negative IN COMPARISON to the character in the BOOK - NOT negative within the context of the FILM. You think otherwise. I would hardly call you names or impute your intelligence simply because you hold a diametric opinion.

5. I have made no assertions as to how ANYONE on this forum thinks or FEELS about these matters. I have only said what I think about them in consideration of a number of things, most importantly, the original work. And guess what? I have as much a right to voice my opinions as you do. And, like everyone else, I have as much right to use graphics as well. When I use it means that I don't understand the reasoning behind whatever was said or done and I usually use them in conjunction with what was done IN THE FILM. I don't ever remember using them in response to what someone else has posted in SERIOUS response to the issue under debate or if I have, then I would probably have been unable to follow the rationale of the person making the argument. I would suggest that you look through some of the OTHER threads criticizing the film. You will find a lot of graphics that make my little editorial comment appear quite benign!

I admit to having made considered judgments about how uninformed viewers will perceive the characters in the film vis a vie the book (as mentioned above). But if you look at posts made by film supporters, you will see that they too admit that the audience will have a different perspective on the characters given the Director's changes. There is nothing WRONG with this contention and, in fact, the only place in which we would disagree is whether or not these changes are positive (film supporters) or negative (myself and some other film critics). I do not think I have EVER heard a supporter say that the film characters are EXACTLY as they are in the book. Since that is the case, surely it is not unreasonable to contend that they will be perceived differently by the audience?

6. Finally, I NEVER started one of these threads. I have only responded to things said within them. But the point I made regarding the obvious hostility and personal animosity that exists for ANYONE who criticizes the film(s) was certainly proven by your post and to my mind, needs no further justification.

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by Longshanks
I'll admit that there is very little "humour" in the original book, but its use in the film is a nessasary one.
A chuckle now and again is surely allowed.

Why do you say "admit"?
You're completely wrong, of course: there's plenty of humour in the books, exactly the amount that the writer thought appropriate, and the amount that has satisfied millions of readers over forty years.
It's the INVENTED form of humour that's so wrong: it DOES evoke "chuckles", or guffaws, or titters, none of them at all appropriate to either the book OR the film. Humour is something completely different, and could have been provided to as great an extent as anyone could possibly have wanted, from "original" material. It would have been high quality; PJ's substitute is mediocre, and that's being generous.

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
Eowyn....in her bitterness she draws a sword on him [Aragorn] and thrusts.

Well we have already had Arwen treating a sword like a toy and putting it at Aragorn's neck; so I don't see a little point like etiquette getting in the way of even THIS possibility!

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
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....

You've seen that stated "over and over".
I've NEVER seen it.

 

[Parrot]

My good Mrs. Maggott, I have no "personal animosity" towards you or anyone else here, much less "ANYONE who criticizes the film". Grond is a fairly frequent critic of the film and he is one of my favorite members here. I don't like the turn this thread has taken and apologize to all for my part in taking it there. I especially apologize for the thing, that was out of line Maybe we should just start over...

Hello Mrs. Maggott, I'm Parrot, nice to meet you. So what did you think of that whole Arwen thing?

(or maybe I should just stay out of this place altogether, I seem to be digging a lot of holes lately)

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

My dear Parrott:

YES and YES! Let us begin again. I say this as one who LOVES the film(s), looks forward to seeing them, has bought COUNTLESS goodies (like the busts and full length figures - not to mention poster of Aragorn grrrrr.....ah hem! and wants to buy the leaf brooch!). Also loved Lurtz who was a Maori warrior chosen for the part for his physical presence. What a MAGNIFICENT face!! I am an artist and I would LOVE to see what this man looks like sans makeup! He looks like he is already made of some wonderful tropical wood. It's too bad they didn't make him an Ent instead!

Behold! We have passion - a VERY good thing especially as everyone today has so much ennui that one wonders how they get up in the morning! (There is an old saying: "Which is worse - ignorance or apathy?" to which the reply is, "I don't know and I don't care!") But WE care. The souls who come to sites like this are motivated by something beautiful - the greates piece of literature of I believe, the 20th Century at least. I am glad that Mr. Jackson has attempted to bring it to those who might never even have even TRIED to read the work! That I disagree with some of what he has done, is not the same as saying that I HATE it or that I wouldn't want anyone to see it. Believe me, if people can come to heated words over much less meaningful things, then we can be excused or little moment of dispute!

P.S. Love your name and graphic (it's a mc caw isn't it? They are ssooo beautiful!) I would like to put up a mushroom, but I wouldn't have the vaguest idea as to how to do so! (maybe a mushroom with a crown?)

God bless!

 

[Grond]

I think I'll interject a little note here. This thread actually has been doing fine up until a page or so ago. Everyone has gotten a little 'emotional' and we all need to take a deep breath and remember that it is PJ's film; however, this must be balanced by the fact that it is "our" revered book that he is interpreting.

I will once more quote him where I think he has made his greatest error.

from Lord of the Rings - Official Movie Guide
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."

I simply feel the PJ has failed me. It is apparent that he didn't fail Talimon or Parrot.

Mrs. Maggot, as good Parrot said, I am one of the film's greatest critics... but at the same time I am thrilled that visually (in my own mind's eye) PJ has captured the essence of "my" Middle-earth. He didn't quite make the grade as far as plot consistency and characterization (again in my humble opinion). Let's all try to be a little more "forum friendly" as we carry on this debate.

 

[Talimon]

I never felt this thread lost it's a friendliness. So long as both sides accept that this is just an arguement and that nobody means harm, I don't see what's wrong with getting a little passionate. There is a fine line between criticizing a persons opinions and criticizing the person. I don't think that line was ever crossed in this thread.

I will once more quote him where I think he has made his greatest error.

I think the key point in that quote is this:

"...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."

As you can see, this statement by it's very nature is subjective. It immediately claims that it is only staying true to what the film-makers feel is memorable, but on top of that claims that there might actually be some exception even to that. I can understand, however, how some folk might have been caught up in the hyperbole that these statements appear to be presenting. I think PJ is just taking it for granted that folks recognize this is his movie, with the story being told his way. For me, that story resonates, "almost without exception".