Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: I just wanted to say...

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Two Towers > I just wanted to say...   
That was brilliantly said!!!

You are absolutely right about personal interpretation. And that's what makes a classic. Everyone has a very different interpretation of the story, and when we put it all together, we get a tale so rich and fulfilling that we learn from it and treasure the knowledge it gives us for the rest of our lives. And PJ has shown us a perspective that we perhaps would never have been able to see by ourselves.

And the scouring of the Shire is definitely about Tolkien's fight against industrialism. From a storyteller's point of view, it would seem strange to include a chapter that would seem of little value to the development of the main plot nearing the end of the book. So it had to be there for a reason. And Saruman has constantly been portrayed as an industrialist of sorts. Furthermore if you had watched the National Geographic special on Tolkien, you would have found out that Tolkien's hometown was devastated by industries, a memory which would plague him for the rest of his life.
*gobsmacked*

Great Post Tommy, and I am reduced to making a pointless post just to say how great I thought it was!
As you would have once said, Tommie,

"I agree" Big Smile Smilie

Ditto, Plastic on this one. Great post, though I haven't got time at the moment to write a long reply.
It's great to finally find someone else who knows that the important part of these movies isn't whether specific 'important' events are included (or new parts are added), but that the concepts and ideas behind it are true to the book. I completely agree with you!
Might I respectfully disagree with this whole thread?

I did enjoy the movies, and I have written some about this in other posts but here I go again...with a couple different things to say.

When I watch a movie based on a book, I am hoping for several things but I would hope mostly for the postAuthorID's blessing on the film. Perhaps Tolkien was a crusty old coot and wouldn't have wanted any movie of his book made...and I can both respect that as well as look around it, for indeed he did give up the movie rights. And I'm fully aware that not even the most dignified version of this book would have satisfied everyone...movie goers can be critics too but I would say that any messin around with a reader's book (for indeed don't we all think that? "It's MY story!!") is asking for trouble no matter what you do.

Still, I would hope that PJ would have treated the text with more respect, given the talent and other resources available for this project to do it justice. If he was going to make a movie and call it Lord of the Rings, it ought to be closer to the book than this. Now the movies are good but what with all the variation I would have been much more happy to know that it was referred to as a film "inspired by" LOTR than to be touted as a retelling of the story itself.

To further illustrate my point, let's look at a story like Robin Hood or King Arthur. Not sure but there is probably an agreed-upon original text to these stories...and yet there have been a bunch of movies made about these characters and retellings of the story. Disney's Robin Hood features country music and animal characters. There were two other movies that come to mind, one a spoof, "Men in Tights" and one starring Kevin Costner. "The Mists of Avalon" is a woman's perspective on King Arthur, and there is another flick called "First Knight" which tells an alternate tale of Lancelot with only borrowed characters and setting. I don't have a problem with this because in both situations the characters or narrators (in the openings of the story) have said something like, "well, you know the tale, but here's
our take on things." and proceeded with it from there.

On the other hand, there was a book called "What Dreams May Come" and then a movie by the same name which was completely different. The book was almost a reference about one man's experience communicating with the spirit of his late brother(?). I'm not sure but I quite remember it being non-fictional. The movie, however, took one small part of that book about what happens when a person commits suicide and spun an altogether fictional story out of this for its script. I loved the movie because the acting and special effects were incredible but I will never think it was OK for the movie people to have done such a thing and use that title.

In music we know that often times a song will be covered by someone else and that is acceptable as long as there is permission granted to use the material. Personally, I don't care, in fact I quite LOVE it when an artist of one genre will try his hand at a song from another...or when a song is redone with different instrumentation or added harmony. Some of my favorite songs are cover tunes. But for me to enjoy that song, there has GOT to be a certain amount of dignity shown for the original song. And when you go to the symphony, most of which was written by dead composers and therefore "covered"...you will notice that the conductor and musicians have gone to great lengths to perform that piece EXACTLY the way the composer wanted it done, down to the precise length of every single note. All of these people no doubt have their own musical style and may have their own idea about what they would do with the music...but when the performance is given, the common goal is to USE the language of the sheet music to get it as close to accurate as you can.

Now...I may be biased here but I happen to think that Tolkien was no formula fiction writer whose masterpiece should be monkeyed with...I tend to think that he should be regarded as a literary composer. PJ had the tools to create a cinematic symphony and what he did was turn out a little ditty...a fun ditty to be sure, what with all the skateboarding and our chance to look at Liv Tyler's pretty face so much more than we ought...But I think I called all this variation "cheeky" in another post and I have not changed my mind.

So maybe my issues are more along the lines of...what's the difference between artistic license and what is getting closer to bait-and-switch. People have waited for a movie version of LOTR for decades, probably since its release as a book...and we have all the resources to finally pull it off...and this is what we get...if this is the best that PJ could do, it's really sad.

[Edited on 22/2/2003 by musicimprovedme]
I think you have some good points there, music.

But as far as I know, there is no Arthurian 'cannon' as such. In fact there is very little evidence of King Arthur even existing as he is most commonly represented. There are many, many variations on Arthurian romance and experts have argued about it for a very long time, so he is probably not a good example for your argument.

One thing that I did find particularly disrespectful of Tolkien's work was the script. Some of the dialogue was just so obviously 'not Tolkien' that it must have been obvious to people who had not even read the book.

For example, I thought that was a shame to put in lines like: " A cage. To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire." with rediculous lines like "Let's hunt some orc". It destroys the flow and consistency.

Overall, however, I think PJ did a good job.
Quote:
But as far as I know, there is no Arthurian 'cannon' as such. In fact there is very little evidence of King Arthur even existing as he is most commonly represented. There are many, many variations on Arthurian romance and experts have argued about it for a very long time, so he is probably not a good example for your argument.


NOT A REBUTTAL!!

I hope it goes without saying that I would rather not nitpick...but in case it doesn't, Alyssa, I didn't go looking for this to be snooty with you, and I don't think it matters who is right or wrong for this discussion in this thread. SO. In the spirit of "Good Point, let's explore this together!" I was surfing around to see if I could get info on fairy tale creatures and I found a great database with not only that but mythology etc. Had a lot to say about Arthurian Legend. It indicates that the tales were more of a historical fiction-type thing, largely started by one postAuthorID and then it kind of branched out from there. Seems to me based on this article that since then a lot of people have spun on the tale and can take credit for how we view the story now.

Here is the main link to the Arthurian section if you are interested in reading it for yourself.

http://www.pantheon.org/areas/folklore/arthurian/articles.html

From there, I used the index to look up Arthur and then Geoffrey of Monmouth, the postAuthorID of the first three books to mention King Arthur.

I thought it was interesting! Then again, it may just be one side of all the argument you mention about the origin of these legends.

[Edited on 22/2/2003 by musicimprovedme]
Quote:
for indeed he did give up the movie rights.

Unwillingly and for financial reasons, he said on many occassions that he hated the idea of Movies being made of his work, but taking care of his family came first.

Quote:
I would have been much more happy to know that it was referred to as a film "inspired by" LOTR than to be touted as a retelling of the story itself.


If you look at the credits it does say "BASED ON" the books, and not just a straight re-telling.

Quote:

I quite LOVE it when an artist of one genre will try his hand at a song from another...or when a song is redone with different instrumentation or added harmony. Some of my favorite songs are cover tunes. But for me to enjoy that song, there has GOT to be a certain amount of dignity shown for the original song.


Bit off-topic I know, and really just personal taste, but as one who loves to massacre other people's songs without their permission (and occassionally with, or at the request of the original artist) I love covers that show no respect at all for the original, for example, the Residents reworkings of (I can't get no) Satisfaction, and their "Residents play the Beatles, and the Beatles play the Residents" EP which just put the finishing touch on the rumour that they hated the Beatles.
And you should hear some of the things I've done to other people's songs....
Maybe it's just me, but I do feel strongly that when we criticize PJ for not specifying explicitly that his take on LOTR was purely his own interpretation, we are kinda nit-picking. After all, whenever anyone gets hold of someone else's work, they do see things from their own perspectives. As long as he stays true to the feel and ideas/general plot of the story, there shouldn't be a problem. Tolkien did not cover every little detail in chronological order. He did leave room for individual imagination.

Yes I do admit that I am rather upset he took certain liberties. But shouldn't we wait till the entire trilogy is out before we decide whether he has botched the job up? And so far, PJ hasn't made any irrepairable damage to the story.

Quote:

One thing that I did find particularly disrespectful of Tolkien's work was the script. Some of the dialogue was just so obviously 'not Tolkien' that it must have been obvious to people who had not even read the book.


I agree that some lines are rather inappropriate. But again remember, this is a commercial production, which has to have general appeal. Lines like "Let's hunt some orcs" may not work for Tolkien fans, or certainly any hardcore fantasy fans or medieval fanatics, but it certainly works for the average high school kid watching it for a bit of entertainment.

I think the question we should ask ourselves is this: If we were the ones making LOTR, could we have done a better job? If you even hesitate a moment to answer with a "yes", then PJ certainly deserves your little bit of respect and appreciation.
Well I for one am glad that people agree with me, but as much glad that people don't agree. So let's discuss then:

Musicimprovedme, you have some very good points I think, yet I am (what did you expect Tongue Smilie ) not inclined to totally agree with you.

Quote:
And I'm fully aware that not even the most dignified version of this book would have satisfied everyone...movie goers can be critics too but I would say that any messin around with a reader's book (for indeed don't we all think that? "It's MY story!!") is asking for trouble no matter what you do.


I totally agree with this. It's what I said as well I think. Glad you said you liked the movie though, because as a movie (here we go again), I don't think you can really hate it. I can't help but not believing people who say they don't like the movie, yet they love the book.

Quote:
Still, I would hope that PJ would have treated the text with more respect, given the talent and other resources available for this project to do it justice. If he was going to make a movie and call it Lord of the Rings, it ought to be closer to the book than this.


Like Plastic said, the credits do say: "based on the book by"... And what if PJ would have given the movies a different name? Would it have mattered. I can see (and fully respect, don't get me wrong) your point, because it obviously does matter to you, but I think it might have offended something if Jackson would have re-named the films (The Quest of the Ring? , Good and Evil in Middle-Earth? , One little Hobbit versus the Master of Evil?). These are silly suggestions of course, but I think renaming it would have offended people than contented them.

Quote:
Now...I may be biased here but I happen to think that Tolkien was no formula fiction writer whose masterpiece should be monkeyed with...I tend to think that he should be regarded as a literary composer. PJ had the tools to create a cinematic symphony and what he did was turn out a little ditty...a fun ditty to be sure, what with all the skateboarding and our chance to look at Liv Tyler's pretty face so much more than we ought...But I think I called all this variation "cheeky" in another post and I have not changed my mind.


Of course Tolkien was no formula fiction writer, and his masterpiece it not being monkeyed with, nor should it be.
I think the work of every writer, no matter how big or small, should be respected. But it's not wrong to give your own opinion on it all, right? And I don't think the changes PJ made really did a lot of harm to the general story, like Erkenbrand said too. The general story's still there. And again, Erkenbrand said this too: Tolkien left room for individual imagination. Why not use that room, and fill it with your own imaginations and wishes? That's the wonderful thing of a story like LOTR. It's not completed, there's room left for the reader (or film-maker) to do things with.

And yes of course there were some inappropriate lines, but here again I agree with Erkenbrand. This is a commercial film. It's what the great public wants. So PJ gives it to them. You get what you ask for... Though YOU yourself might not have asked for it. That's the way it works, I guess.

Smoke Smilie
Quote:
I think the question we should ask ourselves is this: If we were the ones making LOTR, could we have done a better job? If you even hesitate a moment to answer with a "yes", then PJ certainly deserves your little bit of respect and appreciation.


I assume you mean if said person was making the movies and indeed was in the position to. For I personally have no skill in doing this kind of thing. But if I did, and if indeed the project had been somehow bequeathed to me, YES, I think I would try harder to do a better job than this. Knowing how adamant Tolkien was about NOT seeing his work on the screen, I would have hoped that in some way, his spirit was tolerant of what I had done with it...looking down from that movie theater in the sky with at least some degree of relief that this is the extent of damage that was done, and artist to artist, that I had paid homage to his work gratefully and respectfully. I would have considered that my duty before taking on such a project.

Um...regarding the whole marketability of the movie...I have said before that I think the book was perfectly suited the way it was for a major motion picture. It has plenty of action, plenty of character development for actors to interpret, plenty of suspense, nice sense of drama balanced with a little humor here and there, and beautiful scenery, lends itself well to a musical soundtrack and score, makes nice posters. What more could PJ have asked for?

And with that...I'm going to respectfully bow out of this conversation, I'm just repeating myself anyway. I think I have been more competitive in my argument than I should be, hoping to win or change minds but I concede that this doesn't need to happen. You all have good points either way and like I said, I will own them all on DVD before it's all over too, just like everyone else*. There's no denying that they are fun movies and I am indeed very grateful for them because the movie introduced me to the book. So I'm just gonna shut up now. Ignore Smilie

*everyone cept ROSS.

[Edited on 22/2/2003 by musicimprovedme]
Way to go Tommie! See, I knew you could write a fine post when you really had something to say. Elf With a Big Grin Smilie
Quote:
... Geoffrey of Monmouth, the postAuthorID of the first three books to mention King Arthur.
But Geoffrey of Monmouth in the twelfth century, merely compiled some of the old oral tales, before they were all lost to the dustbin of history, this approximately four to eight hundred years after the fact. I gleaned this from Nikolai Tolstoy's Book The Quest for Merlin.

The Arthur, Merlin, and Robin Hood legends (myths) surely had some basis in fact however small, but their legends undoubtedly grew with the passage of time due to their passage from mouth to mouth. As would the stories of Middle-earth, were if not for Professor Tolkien having written down what he saw in his minds eye. And still we wonder about the Balrog's wings and the nature and origin of Tom Bombadil.

We should be happy that PJ has deemed fit to provide us with his insights of the tale. Where he has strayed we can override his visions with our those of our own, remembering that all we had before PJ, besides the books, were Rankin-Bass's crummy cartoons and Bakshi's incomplete rendition, which while good for its time, wasn't visually spectacular. IMHO. Happy Elf Smilie

Okay, transport yourself back in time 4 years, you're reading a movie magazine, and you come across an article about a Movie titled "Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings" do you:

a) Calmly say, "well good for him, admitting that he's going to change the plot of the book, and pointing out that it is his interpretation".

b) Think "oh Hooray, a movie of my favorite book, at last, and by a nice director as well."

c) Scream "WHAT THE **** IS THIS ALL ABOUT!" and than go on to point out to the world in general that Lord of the Rings is JRR Tolkien's work, and not Peter Jackson's and how dare he try and steal the glory for this masterpiece of a story. The egotistical git.

d) Say "Ooooh! I like Peter Jackson movies, wonder What this one's all about?"

e) say "Peter Who's Lord of the what-now?"

BTW, any dyed in the wool JRR fan who says anything other than c is lying. Nice idea after the facts, but irrepairable damage to any marketing campaign.
Quote:
BTW, any dyed in the wool JRR fan who says anything other than c is lying.
True. It's C for me.
C for me too. But I hadn't read the book back then, and I did find the movies wildly entertaining and I was also shutting up about this whole thing.

(pulling the duct tape off my mouth...er, fingers)

All criticisms aside though, I confess I don't know much about PJ aside from this series of movies. What I have heard is that his reputation was for chop-it-up movies, horror, etc., perhaps obscure indy movies. I could very well be wrong but I remember that whatever he did before, LOTR was a big departure from it. It's probably on another thread, I'm just too lazy to look it up, so don't bother answering that.

And I wonder if PJ was the only one trying to do the movie, did HE go after the project or was he chosen to do it...I personally would have liked to see what Spielberg would have done with this book, or if PJ was selected to do these films, who else was in the running. Had no one else stepped forward to try this before PJ?

[Edited on 24/2/2003 by musicimprovedme]
I am a lot more sympathetic towards PJ, maybe because I've seen the appendix discs of the FOTR Extended version DVD. The dedication of PJ, not to mention the hard work he puts himself through to come up with a film version that stayed as true to the books as possible is really an admirable effort. If he was purely commercial, I suspected he would have snapped up Miramax's initial offer of simply making a single film instead of the trilogy. THEN all of us here would be screaming and cursing from now till kingdom come.

Quote:

Um...regarding the whole marketability of the movie...I have said before that I think the book was perfectly suited the way it was for a major motion picture. It has plenty of action, plenty of character development for actors to interpret, plenty of suspense, nice sense of drama balanced with a little humor here and there, and beautiful scenery, lends itself well to a musical soundtrack and score, makes nice posters. What more could PJ have asked for?


The book would have made a horrible motion picture if PJ stuck true to it. We would have enigmatic characters that made little sense, poor chronological order, short and unexciting major battle scenes (all major battles in LOTR are covered in single chapters), references to other characters and places of Middle Earth that would make no sense to non-Tolkien readers and language that would have been difficult to comprehend by contemporary audience. And from the number of songs that Tolkien wrote, LOTR could very well be a musical! That certainly would be interesting wouldn't it? Big Laugh Smilie

Quote:

I personally would have liked to see what Spielberg would have done with this book


Honestly, I probably would hate it if Spielberg did the movies. Spielberg is one major commercial director that makes films appealing to the general audience through his use of action and comedy. He has basically only proven himself otherwise through his films depicting war and racial prejudice, and those are more arthouse films. And I can't imagine how much more hyped LOTR could be under Spielberg's hands, leading to that much more to flame.
(Sigh) You are probably right in everything you said Erkenbrand. Raising white flag.

Taping back up now. Ignore Smilie
Before I start rambling, I would like to commend Tommie, musicimprovedme, and everyone else who contributed to the discussion in this thread. I think you all have raised some excellent points. Music, I really enjoyed reading your posts, and I share a lot of your same feelings, although I think I have arrived at a much better place with TTT than possibly you have at this point (and thatís okay). Iím not going to go into some lengthy thing on this, because Iíve already fought this battle several times (here and elsewhere), but music, if your interested in reading my collective thoughts on TTT, you can read my original review of the movie (TTT reviews), and my second review entitled ďsecond time aroundĒ (in TTT movie forum). Together I think you will get a good idea of how I feel about the theatrical version of TTT at this point. Even though Iíve been able to find some positives to PJís TTT, I still remain highly disappointed with the theatrical release.

My biggest problem with TTT still remains in the fact that integrity wise, TTT in my opinion, was a radical departure from what PJ and Co. had achieved with FOTR. Yes there were changes to the theatrical version of FOTR that I didnít like, but I understood why those things were done. Those changes made sense for the sake of making the movie. The changes seemed to have rhyme, and reason, and there werenít these huge gashes to the original story, and there certainly wasnít anywhere near as much made up stuff. I personally still contend (even after seeing it twice) that half of the TTT was just some made up bulls@#%t, and that was way too much made up stuff for my personal taste.

Which brings me to my next point, I like what Val, and Erkenbrand said about either reserving judgment until the extended version of TTT comes out, or until we get to view the trilogy as a whole, and then we can ultimately decide whether or not PJ has made or missed the mark with the three films as a whole. I know for me, Iíve already issued my judgment on the theatrical version of TTT, and as I stated, I remain greatly disappointed in that version. As a movie by itself, itís absolutely spectacular, but as a film adaptation based on Tolkienís TT, I personally think it falls short. As Iíve stated before, I remain hopeful that the extended version of TTT will offer us a great deal more. I think in the case of PJís TTT, as Erkenbrand said, we need to wait until ROTK comes out to officially assess TTT, because probably then a lot of the changes PJ made to TTT will most likely prove to have more meaning, and we will be able to see more clearly the reasons why (hopefully) he choose to do things the way he did in the film.

I do have to take issue with something that has been raised in this thread though, and thatís the part where Tommie states ď This is a commercial film. It's what the great public wants. So PJ gives it to them. You get what you ask for... Though YOU yourself might not have asked for it. That's the way it works, I guess.Ē I feel that this really isnít true, and I will answer this with something I wrote in another thread (be grateful you were even able to view TTT). ď Unfortunately, the LOTR films arenít PJís they are New Lines. Yes PJ is directing them, so he gets to decide where, what, and how he wants to shoot, but again, unfortunately ultimately PJ does not get to decide what goes in them (at least not the theatrical versions anyway), New Line does. Since they put up the cash, they get the final say, and at the end of the day, they definitely donít care about the real Tolkien fans, all they care about is the almighty dollar. To PJís credit, if he really got to decide what goes in the films, we would have got the extended version of FOTR in the theaters in the first place, because thatís what PJ really wanted us to see. Also, I have recently read that New Line shot down the original version of TTT that PJ submitted that he wanted to come out in the theaters. They sent PJ, and Co. back to the cutting room floor, and made them chop it up until it was in a form to New Lines satisfaction for the sole purpose of creating a box office cash cow.Ē

What Iím getting at here is number one; these films werenít made because the masses wanted them. The majority, or masses if you will have never read the books, donít know anything about the real story, and probably could have cared less if these movies were ever made. If the masses really wanted these movies they wouldnít have to be commercialized to be profitable, they wouldnít have to be ďdumbed downĒ for the average moviegoer that doesnít know the story, and we would have 4 hour versions of each film instead of 3 hours because the masses can barely make it through a 2 hour movie let alone one thatís 3. One of the major complaints I hear over, and over again from people who havenít read the books, who didnít like FOTR or TTT is, itís too long. This makes me laugh every time, and itís the same reason why the Green Mile didnít get enough credit a few years back, the masses were put off from seeing it because they thought it was going to be too long. Number two, this isnít PJ giving the great public what they want, this is New Line (by the power of the almighty dollar) forcing PJ to give them (New Line) what they want so they can make a gigantic profit off of the masses.

Okay, Iíve rambled on way longer than I intended to, so Iím going to wrap it up by using a sports analogy if I may. The way I see it now, PJ has three at bats. Heís hit one out of the park (FOTR), and heís struck out once (TTT). Now heís coming up to the plate for his final at bat with a chance to drive in the winning run, and the real question now becomes, Is he going to win the game, or is he going to strike out? No matter what happens though, I am thankful for his efforts. IMO the extended version of FOTR is the greatest film of all time, and thatís not going to change even if he whiffs with ROTK. Also, I would like to add that I do think that PJ was the right man for the job even if I don't like some of the things he has done, or even if the three films collectively don't meet my expectations, he still has that one home run!
Elf Smilie

And here I thought no one could match MIM for brevity. Elf With a Big Grin Smilie What's more, it made complete sense, not saying that hers didn't too.

Well said Elfstone! Happy Elf Smilie
ok....God it's starting to hurt when I keep yanking off this duct tape. I think I will just leave it off.

I have had a softening of the heart towards PJ due to all this discussion. I still have a finger to point at this movie being a "cheeky" departure from the original text but based on what you all have been saying about who's really in control of the story...PJ or the studio, I can see where all this might not be PJ's fault.

I still think that, had this been my project...and again, that is a big assumption that I had indeed pursued and/or been asked to do the job, and that I was indeed in this field in the first place...I would have been very consumed with keeping the INTEGRITY (good word choice, I danced all around that but I don't think I used that word Elfstone) of the original text, and doing as much as possible to keep Tolkien (God bless 'im) from rolling over in his grave. I guess I have been unfair in assuming that PJ wasn't trying to do the same thing. And I guess it should be no surprise that money does rule the world. So I suppose I should cut 'ol PJ a little slack, then, and realize that if this had been my movie, I might very well have ended up in the same spot he was.

For the record, I never had any bone to pick with PJ's changing up of the chronology of the story. In Two Towers the book, for example, all the A-G-L stuff happens at one time, and they run into M-P with the Ents at Isengard, and then all the G-S-F stuff happens...or whatever. All three vignettes are dealt with separately. I don't care that the movie is all chopped up, it helps us get a more "meanwhile" sense to the story and it is more what we are used to seeing on screen in, say a TV drama or a sitcom. And this decision alone didn't change details of the plot or the characters (I suppose it could be argued that when the chronology changes, it changes the order in which we receive certain info about the story, which might affect our interp of the story). But you know...whatever. My problem will always be that things that happened in the book were left OUT and things that never happened at all were pulled out of somebody's butt to put IN. It seems like such an easy solution. You take out the bull-oney and put in the real story and you have spent roughly the same money, time, and energy to do the job RIGHT as you have to do it WRONG.

For example...I was really moved to see all those Elves give up their trip to the west to join in the battle at Helm's Deep. (remember I had not read that part in the book when I saw the movie.) DOGGONE IT a tear came to my eye and EVERYTHING, darn near busted a spring in my seat bouncing up and down for joy about those elves. Then I get to that part in the book where the battle happens...and I'm hoping for an even better experience of all these Elves coming to the rescue at the last minute, proving that when people put their whole hearts into something, like the people of Rohan were doing, standing bravely until the very end, then there is always help. I don't know...maybe I was thinking of God or something like that..."God helps those who help themselves", a commentary on keeping the faith and all that, but here I get to that part in the book and....NO ELVES. Well, I think the twins were there. But no legions and legions of selfless elves ready to give up their immortality etc...and I was just really MAD that the movie duped me that way. All that snot and kleenex were just wasted at the movie theater on something that was NEVER and WILL NEVER BE part of the LOTR story, snot and kleenex that COULD have been better spent on something from the book that did happen. I mean, these films have given us brilliant direction and brilliant acting. But if it's not applied to the real story, then what's the point?

So...when it comes to the movies, I will change my statement. I did enjoy them and re: PJ I can slip the noose back off. But whoever is responsible for this much artisitc liberty? I hope Tolkien's ghost (God bless 'im) visits them PERSONALLY each night because I still think it was a really presumptuous thing to do...and because D@MMIT Jumping Flame Smilie Jumping Flame Smilie Jumping Flame Smilie

(deargodsomebodyhelpmemysoapboxisgivingwaywillsomebodypleasejustpatmeontheheadandsaytherethere....INHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALE....) Shocked Smilie

art is a gift from its creator which was a gift to him by THEE CREATOR and I don't care what you call it or how you perceive it but art is not just paint on a canvas or words on a page or notes in the air...(Lord, have mercy, I'm sweating!) Things of beauty have POWER and if we don't treasure them as somewhat sacred then all we are left with is JUNK that the masses can handle! We have all taken something from Tolkien's work and been moved by it and if we don't care what happens to it...then what good is the gift of art at all??? I think the indignation of readers who are disgusted with these movies is from a sense that we should be the stewards of great literature and never EVER let it be confused with popular or dummied down mass market entertainment. That serves its purpose but let's just pray that for the sake of the original work, it's done as well as possible!!! Ignore Smilie Ignore Smilie Ignore Smilie

I feel like James Brown...can someone get my cape and help me off the stage.

I don't know why I bother getting so bent out of shape about this, except because it is fun to spar intellectually with people of such high caliber as yourselves...and also because I just can't get that vision of Tolkien in a posthumous fury, out of my head...I suppose that if in some way I can help Tolkien (God bless 'im) rest in peace, then this ranting has been worth it.

DEAR GOD I'VE BECOME AN ADVOCATE FOR THE DEAD...AND A H3LLFIRE AND BRIMSTONE PREACHER.

I'm grateful to you for your post Elfstone. All kidding aside, thanks for sharing your insight with us. I had sworn off this thread but you managed to get me to yank duct tape off my restrained body to get back in this discussion...I have sprained my nerve endings now, can I sue you? Big Laugh Smilie

[Edited on 27/2/2003 by musicimprovedme]
Quote:
I'm grateful to you for your post Elfstone. All kidding aside, thanks for sharing your insight with us. I had sworn off this thread but you managed to get me to yank duct tape off my restrained body to get back in this discussion...I have sprained my nerve endings now, can I sue you?


Your welcome music, and I'm grateful for your posts, and everyone elseís here at PT with something intelligent to offer. Funny enough music, it was your posts specifically that compelled me to respond to this thread. I was going to stay away from this thread altogether, because number one, I've been incredibly busy lately, and haven't had adequate time to get involved with some of the discussions going on here at our beloved PT, and number two, like I said, Iíve already fought this battle (read my reviews). For some reason though, I just wanted you to know that your not alone with a lot of your feelings, and disappointment with PJís TTT. I liked a lot of the things that you said, and I wanted you to know it, and no you canít sue me, because I already owe too much dang moola to other folks right now (please cry for me)Elf Winking Smilie

BTW, thanks for the kind words Grondy! What can I say, you caught me on my second cup of coffee.
Elf With a Big Grin Smilie
Quote:
Way to go Tommie! See, I knew you could write a fine post when you really had something to say.


Thanks Grondy! Love you too! Orc Grinning Smilie

Oh I don't think I'll bother discussing anymore because like Music said too I don't think I could say anything different from what I've said before and I can't go on repeating myself. Y'all know what I think now, and I know what you think now. Mighty interesting discussion though.

One thing I can't stop myself from saying: I've read some really stinking comments on the movie (not just here, but in other forums and places as well), and I think that if you're a die-hard Tolkien fan you should be able to look at the film as a film. Not as a reproduction of the book. (I'm repeating myself again and therefore I'm not gonna say much more). Tolkien did not like people filming his book, I agree. But you're not Tolkien. The book isn't yours. Well, not in the literal sense of speaking. So what's the use of making posts or comments or reviews like: "What in the name of God (imagine some very nasty swear words here) did PJ do to the book" or "PJ you're a big (swear words again)" or "This isn't a film, it's a (swear words again)". If you can only express your opinion by using swear words I think you're a pathetic kind of person. Sorry. I'll tape myself in now. Ignore Smilie Moderator Smilie
This is Tommie's last comment:

Quote:
If you can only express your opinion by using swear words I think you're a pathetic kind of person. Sorry. I'll tape myself in now.


This is Tommie's signature:

Quote:
What the h*ll are you looking down here for?


I find that just a little more than slightly amusing, certainly you see it? But I don't want to be nasty about anything and I respect both you and your opinions. Yes, I went off the deep end and got a little self-righteous there for a minute. And it's not my book but I feel a sense of obligation towards it and Tolkien to at least express that I hope it is dealt with justly. Thanks for letting me know that I got a little full of myself, TomBombadillo, seriously.

[Edited on 3/3/2003 by musicimprovedme]

[Edited on 4/3/2003 by musicimprovedme]
Point taken and no hard feelings. Big Smile Smilie Though I'm sure you know what I mean with "ONLY by using swear words". I meant that if you can't express your disagreement in decent terms, then don't bother at all for all I care.

I have been trying not to use four-letter words anymore, and I think "hell" is hardly the nastiest among them, nevertheless it is one. So point taken. Big Smile Smilie

Needless to say, I respect everyone's opinion and feelings, and I can quite understand your points, musicimprovedme, you have some very good arguments and I really enjoy discussing with you.
Likewise, thank you, Tommie, I'm glad it's all good. Cool Smilie .

Well, all this button pushing lately is wearing me out. I think I will go to the pub and knock back a cold one and talk about something safe and meaningless like religion or politics. I will probably get myself tossed out on my assssssssssssssss......k me no questions I'll tell you no lies.

[Edited on 14/3/2003 by musicimprovedme]