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

Thread: Purist scale

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > Introduce yourself! > Purist scale   [1] [2] >>
I wonder if we should have a sliding scale with, liberals being -10 moderates being around 0 and purists being at around +10.
I recon The Tyrant is about +9.5 and PJ is about -3. I would rate myself at being about +6. Anywhere above +4 you can call yourself a purist and anywhere below -4 you should call yourself a liberal.
"I'm late, I'm late - for a very important date!"

But before I rush off (or get killed by Primmy!) I have to say: GB is definitely Minus 8, and closer to 9 actually, but I'll cure him, you see if I don't! Eldo, I feel is somewhere on the scale between -4 and +4; Tinuviel sadly too close to the Liberal sector for comfort (despite her lovely nose), and Mr Tyrant is going to be most crabbity you gave him such a low number on your scale!!! :lol:

Biffo says, "Catch youse lader, allegaters!" ( :oops: ...and Primmy sends her all her love and kisses... :oops: )
Is a +10 purist the stereotypical "RAR I hate any changes from the book!" type of individual or someone who holds to a more realistic and pragmatic approach, however strongly?
Obviously a +10 would be someone who will accept NO CHANGE, Eldo. I only wish I could be Brave and Smart enough to hold such a view. Even Mr Tyrant granted the movies fifteen minutes of reasonable cinematography (though I suspect he only said it so as not to sound totally inflexible :geek: ). Eldo, I suspect you of having too close an affinity with a certain enemy of all True Purists who is worse than Sauron and Morgoth put together. (You know who I'm talking about - "He who must not be named." NO! It's not Voldemort, you fool of a Took! :x )
The problem with the extreme position is of course that, much as the fact is over-repeated by defenders of the films, there [i:31fifcxj]are[/i:31fifcxj] crucial differences in the media. You can't use a book as a screenplay and expect it to work because of time and pacing issues. People can spend months reading a book, but you've only got about three hours total for a theatrical movie. You also have to keep things [i:31fifcxj]visually[/i:31fifcxj] interesting, which makes long sequences of dialogue hard to retain literally. In short, the story has to adapt to fit the new medium. That doesn't mean that all of the changes that PJ made were necessary, but some changes will inevitably have to be made.
Yes indeed Eldo, Noom's scale seems ludicrously biased to me :roll: .

I'm certainly no fanatic, but even I have some Purist sentiments. I'm just not strictly attached to them as long as a film maintains the essentials of plotting and characterization. As I've said before, I prefer films which are at least 60% true to their source material, and even better 70-80% (in terms of subtracting story elements, I don't count additions). On Noom's scale that would place me well into the Purist Side.

[b:2jopy2ev]GB[/b:2jopy2ev]
My suggestion for the scale:

10+ ABSOLUTELY TRUE TO TEXT = Purist "SUPREME." (Yes, an impossible standard).

1+- 9+ MINOR DELETIONS = Purist "EXCELLENT." (Yes, almost impossible).

0 - 9- MINOR ADDITIONS = Impure "PERSON" (Eldorion and Tinuviel)

Minus 10 - 50 LOTS OF CHANGES/ADDITIONS/DELETIONS but keep title "The Hobbit" ( but only if you feel like it) = Bearded "LIBERAL."
/
ya, I'd put myself at -6 or so. I understand why they change it, but I don't neccessarily enjoy HOW they change it.
I don't like the definition of purist as someone who clings to the details of the story and complains about every last change. Now before anyone calls me a hypocrite, I think a lot of cuts are necessary to make a movie, particularly a [i:3f2dvm35]good[/i:3f2dvm35] movie. However, I have strong feelings about how the process of adaptation should be approached and whether PJ did a good job or not, so I consider myself a purist (and on most forums I'm one of the most extreme; few people will go so far as Odo and petty). There are, I suppose, variants of purism. More than I have alredy mentioned even, since there are also those who want the spirit of the book to be preserved, something I am quite vocal in not caring about very much compared to the details. :mrgreen:
Dear Odo Banks, I can see why it is your brother that is WISE and not yourself. Wise Odo would not have seen the need to change the lower part of the scale from -10 to -50. It is now a very lop sided scale. -50 to +10. Someone else will want to change it from -50 to +50 and then we will have the purists saying I am the purist and then when one purist is arrogant enough to claim the high ground of +50 someone else will change the scale to _100 to +100. I bet you are one of these people that sais, "I am behind you 110% when every real person knows that there is only 100%. Oh Wise Odo, I am so glad you are on this forum, you add a lot of class to the vulgarity that goes on here. :ugeek:
Moron? Me? Just to prove I'm not, let me shed a ray of blinding light upon this scale business. Light as a simple and natural and obvious thing.

10 = No deletions: PERFECT PURIST
9 = 10% deletions: ALMOST A PURIST
8 = 20% deletions: SILLY SOD
7 = 30% deletions: FULL ON SOD
6 = 40% deletions: VERY SAD CASE (AND DANGEROUS)
5 = 50% deletions: EVEN SADDER CASE (AND DELUDED)
4 = 60% deletions: LUNATIC
3 = 70% deletions: LOONEY LUNATIC
2 = 80% deletions: PETER JACKSON
1 = 90% deletions: PETER JACKSON'S COVEN
0 100% deletions: TOLKIEN LIBERALS
-1 to -50 Anyone who dares call a Banks a moron! :x


Sorry Mr Tyrant. I have tried hard to be flexible in my views, though it gives me no joy! This is the kind of warm and fuzzy outcome that occurs when one tries to be fair and democratic and tries to please everyone. There are no winners - but I've given the wishywashy what the wishywashy want! :roll: I did not mean to betray you, but I feeI I've been bullied into making this Liberal Friendly Scale.
Thinking about this, I'm pretty sure that everybody cares about faithfulness to the book to some extent. I have a hard time imagining GB being okay with an 'adaptation' that had Frodo use the Ring to destroy Sauron and install himself as the benevolent dictator of all Middle-earth. Now obviously that's an extreme example, but I think many people could also agree that combining Gondor and Rohan into a single kingdom with Eowyn as Boromir's sister would be undesirable. I don't want to speak for anyone, but I think there is common ground if we look deep enough.

As the changes become less drastic, we start to see differences. Even though most everyone thinks that faithfulness is important, I have observed differences in two broad questions:
[list:1sn4jfii][*:1sn4jfii]How should faithfulness be manifested?[/*:m:1sn4jfii]
[*:1sn4jfii]How much faithfulness should there be?[/*:m:1sn4jfii][/list:u:1sn4jfii]
Do people find this to be accurate?
I don't mean to sound rude here, but I think Odo Banks (and family?? :? ) should stay serious on the more serious threads. Sorry, at least, on some of the Vulgar Threads! :lol: (I think I'm starting to GET this Banks business! :roll: ) I realize everyone likes to have a joke here on this forum, but I think Noom has brought up a good idea. I don't mind if The Hobbit is changed where necessary or if the Director puts in fresh ideas, I mean we all have the book still. This raises an interesting question about Noom's Scale though. I mean, where does my attitude place me? I am a Purist I guess, but if I like the idea of alterations to the actual book being made, does this make me a horrid Liberal??? So maybe even Odo could make a serious contribution on this. I mean, wouldn't that be the [i:191hmxdp]respectable [/i:191hmxdp]approach? :lol:

[quote="Eldorion":191hmxdp]As the changes become less drastic, we start to see differences. Even though most everyone thinks that faithfulness is important, I have observed differences in two broad questions:

How should faithfulness be manifested?
How much faithfulness should there be?[/quote:191hmxdp]

I'm not sure that this is actually what Noom is asking. Sorry :- Grey Pilgrim.
You're not trying to pick a fight with one of the Bankses are you, Mr Pilgrim? :x Of all the people to pick on, why me? I'm the one trying to make this forum sensible! It's mainly GB who brings all the silliness. We're trying our best to control him, but as a Moderator (oh la-dee-dah!!!) it's him who has ALL the power. But if you want a fight, I'll give you one - on any scale! :ugeek:

Btw it worries me that you're so ready to encourage changes. Not even GB does that. He [i:3tox36th]accepts [/i:3tox36th]them gladly but even I don't accuse him of actually [i:3tox36th]encouraging[/i:3tox36th] them.
I was offering a somewhat different scale. I'm really not sure where to place myself on Noom's.

And yes, you're a dirty lib like GB. :mrgreen: <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
We were posting together again, Eldo, it seems. You're right - I think Mr Pilgrim is a dirty liberal! :P :P :P
[quote="Odo Banks":76i16079]We were posting together again, Eldo, it seems. You're right - I think Mr Pilgrim is a dirty liberal![/quote:76i16079]

You never stop joking do you, Odo. I can see that already.


[quote="Eldorion":76i16079]I was offering a somewhat different scale. I'm really not sure where to place myself on Noom's.[/quote:76i16079]

Perhaps this could be a new thread? Does it really belong here?


[quote="Eldorion":76i16079]And yes, you're a dirty lib like GB.[/quote:76i16079]

You obviously enjoy the same things Odo does. :lol:
There's nothing wrong with us joking, is there? We haven't offended you, have we? Mr Pilgrim, folk are free to express their opinions here, however diverse, but surely we can joke a bit too. I might be a bit paranoid, but the comments you made in your last post about Eldorion and me seem slightly pointed. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> Don't like being called a dirty lib, hey???? Sticks and stones, mate. Sticks and stones. (Remember Eldo called you it first. I just politely went along with him. <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> )
I think it's reasonable to have discussions of the validity of different scales in a thread about scales. Thread topics tend to meander on most forums, though we've turned into something of an art form. :P

And yes, I do like joking around. <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />
[quote="Eldorion":1mmg0a6m]I think it's reasonable to have discussions of the validity of different scales in a thread about scales. Thread topics tend to meander on most forums, though we've turned into something of an art form.
And yes, I do like joking around. [/quote:1mmg0a6m]

I wasn't suggesting we had to make a new thread, I just thought what you suggested sounded interesting. I'm not here to tell anyone what to do. I'm sorry if you might have thought I was doing that. :oops: And I like the jokes. That's part of why I think this forum rocks!

[quote="Odo Banks":1mmg0a6m]There's nothing wrong with us joking, is there? We haven't offended you, have we? Mr Pilgrim, folk are free to express their opinions here, however diverse, but surely we can joke a bit too.[/quote:1mmg0a6m]

I didn't say there was anything wrong with joking, Odo.

[quote="Odo Banks":1mmg0a6m] might be a bit paranoid, but the comments you made in your last post about Eldorion and me seem slightly pointed. Don't like being called a dirty lib, hey???? Sticks and stones, mate. Sticks and stones. (Remember Eldo called you it first. I just politely went along with him. )[/quote:1mmg0a6m]

I think you are a little paranoid if you think I was trying to criticize you in any way. But if I gave that impression, I am sorry. I do find you a bit strange though, Odo, but I think you act strange deliberately. :lol:
Don't worry about it Pilgrim, it's 2 AM here and I'm tired. :lol: I could easily have just misread your post, and anyway, miscommunication happens. It's just part of life. <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' />
Thank you, Eldorion. I hope Odo feels the same as you do about this. I think I might have touched a nerve. :?
It's rather hard to [i:445g2csp]not[/i:445g2csp] touch a nerve when talking to Odo. :mrgreen:
It depends on which Odo, Odo Banks is just a moron whereas Wise Odo is the most amazing contributor to this forum. Wise Odo is wisdom personified, it would not surprise me to find out that Illuvitar blesses him at night when he is sleeping; souch profound classy and insightful thought and poetry drip from his mind, a very nectar of inspiration. If I was to alter the scale to fit the mind of Wise Odo, I would have to add an extra few dimensions, a 3rd 4th and 5th dimension. Wise Odo saves me from myself. (someone really needs to tidy up the non poetic works on his collections thread)

Noom, the no 1 fan of Wise Odo. <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />
And I've heard all Haradians have anothr name: Dufuses! (Named after their greatestr (sic) leader: Amir Dufus the Third! Take that "KAPOW!" "WHAM!" "KAPUT!" (I'll give you [i:13fviryj]moron[/i:13fviryj]!)
Now now Noom, for all their prickliness, the Odo brothers are BOTH friends of mine. I certainly wouldn't consider Mr Banks a Moron. A bit of a Zealot maybe. But then so is Wisey. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />

And my objection to The Scale isn't how many points it has, or whether or not it's "lopsided" (Odo's version). No indeed, my objection is to the unexamined assumptions, and the inherent bias of a scale that equates "Purism" with Positive and so-called "Liberalism" with Negative.

Eldorion was at least on the right track before slipping into Odo-like vulgarity. :roll:

If one MUST have a scale, it should be applied to films being reviewed, not to the individuals reviewing it. Calling each other "Purist" and "Liberal" is rather inane, and there really is no way to objectively gauge such a thing. Obviously some of us are more Purist than others, but as I've pointed out to Eldo before (and he appears to concur) there are always some who can claim to be "purer than thou".

And Eldo's right on the money, I WOULD object to SUBSTANTIAL subtractions or alterations of the source material's ESSENTIAL elements (particularly as it relates to MY favourite Classics :roll: ). And that sort of thing DOES happen in film all the time (see Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, almost nothing like the book in any way, shape, or form, or Harry Potter:Goblet of Fire, which was seriously butchered--though it still manages to just about pass the Basic Plot test).

So, any Purism Scale should be applied to the actual film, and it would make more sense to base it on two things: the ratio of original source material kept in, and also how well it manages to coherently present the basic plot points (with the understanding that sub-plots must often be sacrificed for films). As such, it could be as simple as a 0-10 scale. In which case I would give LotR a 7.5, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang a 0.5, and HP:GoF a 5.

Of course the Purism Scale shouldn't necessarily be the Be-All and End-All of a film critique. A decidedly Non-Pure film can occasionally still be a Good, if not Great Film. Personally, films like Dune come to mind.

And Of Course, every film critic (including us) would no doubt grade a film differently. But just like standard film ratings, there's room for diversity of opinion. No Scale for Art can be entirely objective.

[b:1s29y8ez]GB[/b:1s29y8ez]
Dear oh dear, this is what happens when you let liberals try to do things. It all gets washed and debated down until its no longer worth doing. We of a more tyrannical approach to life can cut through this nonsense and keep everything neat and simple and pure.

The scale need only have two points. Right and Wrong. If you agree with me then obviously you are in the right- everyone else is wrong.

You see, whilst I will have my pure views always to stand upon, firm as rock, you poor liberals will still be here arguing what percentage the boundary between liberal moderate and liberal centralist should be set at!! Or how much tolerance should be given to opposing views. Hah! Its sad yet funny. :lol:
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":39keehwu]Eldorion was at least on the right track before slipping into Odo-like vulgarity. :roll: [/quote:39keehwu]

Sorry, I'll try to be more respectable. <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />

[quote:39keehwu]And Eldo's right on the money, I WOULD object to SUBSTANTIAL subtractions or alterations of the source material's ESSENTIAL elements (particularly as it relates to MY favourite Classics :roll: ).[/quote:39keehwu]

Perhaps the difference, the 'scale', if you like, is in what we consider to be essential? It could be interpreted as meaning 'fitting the same one paragraph plot summary' to 'not changing the natures of any major characters' and anywhere in between. Purists seem to have a broader definition of essential, so they dislike more changes than others (whatever you want to call them, since you seem to dislike "liberals"Wink Smilie.

[quote:39keehwu]And that sort of thing DOES happen in film all the time (see Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, almost nothing like the book in any way, shape, or form, or Harry Potter:Goblet of Fire, which was seriously butchered--though it still manages to just about pass the Basic Plot test).[/quote:39keehwu]

I've never read the book Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, but Goblet of Fire (and, to a lesser extent, the fifth movie as well) were worse than anything that PJ did. It doesn't help that I dislike the film as cinema as well, but it was changed [i:39keehwu]way[/i:39keehwu] too much. :roll:

[quote:39keehwu]Of course the Purism Scale shouldn't necessarily be the Be-All and End-All of a film critique. A decidedly Non-Pure film can occasionally still be a Good, if not Great Film. Personally, films like Dune come to mind.[/quote:39keehwu]

I completely agree. I don't recall if I've mentioned this here or just on other forums before, but I can appreciate and even love films that I think are poor adaptations. I judge them separately as cinema and as adaptations and do my best to not let the judgment in one category affect the other.
:roll: :roll: there REALLY needs to be more woman on this forum, u guys are just looney!!!!! it's not good to stereotype!!!!!
Yes, Tin, we need more of us sensible people on the forum. These Men (boys!! <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> but I should be polite :lol: ) bury themselves in ambiguity and silliness. It's an ego thing at it's root, and don't we know it! You and I must try hard to bring some Feminine Good Sense to the forum. Men! :roll: :roll: :roll: (...boys... <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> )
Lads, women will always try to bring Commonsense to everything they touch on, but we must not let them bother us with standards that surely have no place here!

Now, Mr Tyrant, I'm glad you spoke. "Right and wrong." Perfect! You make all the other waffle that preceded and postceded your last post sound like... well, waffle... Bravo! I here and now put myself on the side of "Right"!

But to help clarify things (for the Ignorant), may we say that Right = [i:1qfhqevi]Purist[/i:1qfhqevi], and Wrong =[i:1qfhqevi] Liberal[/i:1qfhqevi]? I know this slightly complicates the picture - but I feel we must reach the Ignorant somehow, and not just give up on them. :ugeek:
When does this stop being funny? :roll:
Is there something wrong with being looney? :mrgreen:
Right on, Eldo! [size=150:15yvozmb][b:15yvozmb]Right on! [/b:15yvozmb][/size:15yvozmb] :lol: :lol: :lol: You can be as looney as you like. I'm used to it. So long as you remain a [i:15yvozmb]Respectable [/i:15yvozmb]Looney... :x (Mmm... and don't think this doesn't mean I won't try to [i:15yvozmb]un[/i:15yvozmb]-Looney you. I'm still trying to rid the forum of the silliness of you and your confederates, as you know full well! :x Mmm....??? Talk about a conundrum! :? )
Noom, at the risk of returning to the point of this thread, I think that there is a scale you can place as regards to fans. I think fans who want minimal and necessary change only would be Purists (10). Then the more you delete from the book version the less Purist you become. Adding stuff from Tolkien's other Middle-earth stories (like the White Council, or even the story of how Golf was invented) to me would not lessen your Purity ( :roll: ). I think on this Gandalfs Beard and I would agree. Adding totally new stuff though would tend drag you down the Scale, but if it's good ideas being added (like Arwen's extra parts in the Lord of the Rings movies, or the Warg attack on Aragorn and Theoden), I wouldn't care if it did lower me on the Scale. By the way, I think the whole Puritan-Liberal thing is a little tired now. Perhaps we should drop it. (Though no doubt Odo and pettytyrant won't have a bar of that idea! :lol: )
[quote="Grey Pilgrim":2h0pf04u]Adding stuff from Tolkien's other Middle-earth stories (like the White Council, or even the story of how Golf was invented) to me would not lessen your Purity ( :roll: ).[/quote:2h0pf04u]

I agree with most of what you say, but I think that purists tend to feel that adaptations of Tolkien's stories shouldn't mix elements of different stories together. At least, that's the sense I've gotten from various other purists. If you do not personally mind that's fine, though. <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' />

[quote:2h0pf04u]By the way, I think the whole Puritan-Liberal thing is a little tired now. Perhaps we should drop it. (Though no doubt Odo and pettytyrant won't have a bar of that idea! :lol: )[/quote:2h0pf04u]

The purism debates have been going on for [i:2h0pf04u]years[/i:2h0pf04u]. :mrgreen: The earliest references I've been able to find are from 1999 on some of the oldest surviving Tolkien message boards, though there was a somewhat distinct purist faction in debates over Tolkien's languages on the Usenet groups that is even older. With [i:2h0pf04u]The Hobbit[/i:2h0pf04u] coming up I don't think it's going anywhere. In the end it's much larger than this one forum and isn't really something we can just end. That said, I've never heard the phrase "Tolkien liberal" anywhere else. :lol:
Good old Eldo, what a Lore-master- even got Lore on how long the arguments have been going on for! (I think maybe Odo coined 'Tolkien-liberal' and in fairness to him its a lot more friendly a title than I would have applied).

Ahh Odo, I did consider substituting Right for purist and Wrong for liberal then I realised that the whole idea of doing so was a bit of a liberal approach so no, right and wrong. Lets keep things simple. Once you start pandering to this sort of nonsense you are lost.

As to your claim Grey Pilgrim;

"By the way, I think the whole Puritan-Liberal thing is a little tired now. Perhaps we should drop it. (Though no doubt Odo and pettytyrant won't have a bar of that idea!"

I have made only 2 posts here on the subject, this being one of them, so I am certainly not the driver here, I have no need for such a debate, my purity of belief on the matter needs no defending. I am merely trying to help others. And from your post GP it is clear you are ill; you claim the extra scenes given to Arwen and (of all things) the badly shot, crudely edited, poorly animated warg scene are "good" additions.
Oh dear, oh dear. I can see you need much help if you think what those films needed was time wasted on yet more pointless action scenes rather than any of Tolkien's character development or story telling.
If you want wargs what's wrong with the actual scenes in the actual books after Caradhras and including the Companies pursuit to Moria-Gate?- (although sadly lacking as those scenes are in main characters being ludicrously dragged off cliffs to have poorly contrived and shoehorned in visions of their lovers).
You have inspired (annoyed <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> ) me enough GP that I feel I should outline what is wrong with the warg scene as an example of the purist view and why we are right. <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />

That scene from a writing point of few serves two purposes. Its primary purpose is to separate Aragorn from the rest in order to include a reminder scene about Aragorn and Arwen's relationship. That's ten minutes of film in a film with lots of fights that's tight for time spent on a fight scene. A fight scene that was poorly shot with little idea of what the scene was about (check the extras on the special editions for conformation on that -"just a lot of footage of people rushing about on horseback"Wink Smilie.

The secondary purpose of the scene was to add clarity and extra drama to Aragorn's relationship with Eowyn. However as they are about to screw that up very shortly afterwards this is redundant. By having Eowyn declare her love for Aragorn almost immediately they kill that beautiful, sad, sub-plot stone dead as well as destroying the emotional high point on which Aragorn sets out on the Paths of the Dead (the point in the book where Eowyn actually declares her love).

So the warg scene is a failure on three points. It fails as an action scene because its not well made, rushed and silly (dragging Aragorn off a cliff).
It fails as a way to include Arwen because it feels contrived and does nothing not covered already in conversation between Aragorn and Eowyn (as they travel to Helm's Deep and talk about the elfstone he wears).
And it fails with regards the Eowyn story because they muck it up completely anyway.

It is overall a waste of screen time, it is not based on anything in the book and it fails to serve the purposes it was written for. But typical of these sort of PJ changes it is a crowd pleaser, but scratch a little deeper and there's nothing there (something you should never be able to say about anything associated with LoTR).

Purism is not just a matter of hating any changes, it is a matter of hating poorly conceived changes which insult (or worse) fail to understand the source material.
The charge of Tolkien "Liberal" is an invention of Odo's. Sadly, others have since taken up the dubious appellation :roll: (you know who you are <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> ).

However, despite the Tyranny of those who would arrogantly impose their Blind Zealotry on others in a Failed attempt to claim the Intellectual High Ground :P , I must concur with Petty at least as far as the Warg Battle goes (or at least part of it's presentation). It was, to my mind, one of the weaker alterations in the films. I didn't like the Warg design (They're supposed to be Wolves Dammit, not Paleolithic "Boar"-Hyena Hybrids :roll: ). And that scene had some of the least effective CGI in the films. But that's as far as I'll go. I don't object to the idea of the scene, just the poor production on it.

[b:647ljksp]GB[/b:647ljksp]
Bravo! Mr Tyrant! .... and from now on no namby-pamby, from here-on-in it's Them and Us, the Wrong against the Right, Those who Think they Know and Those who Know They Know! <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> (Good to see out destablilising strategy is working - all we need to do is accumlate the cash to make our Raid on MGM... err... I hope I'm not saying too much... :? I do get excited when I think of your Machiaevelian plan... err... I shoudn't have said that either.... Luckilly, I don't expect The Wrong will be clever enough to thwart us! :twisted: ) )
Oh GB will you make up you mind! Are you With Us or are you just plain Wrong?? :x My goodness, Mr Tyrant has made is simple enough, even for Tolkien Liberals! :roll:
"I don't object to the idea of the scene" you said GB. Nor do I except on the grounds that its wrong.
Are you arguing that the scene is successful in what it tries to do and that it carries off these ideas? If so I'd like to the hear the argument for that.
If not, despite hiding behind your liberalism, you are essentially admitting its wrong, that it does not belong in the film and should not be there.
Humph. Silly silly Noom et al.


Something is either pure or it is not pure, there is no scale.
[quote="aXXa":355k81t5]is data parallel the best!!,is so why?

_____________
[url=http://odlewygipsowe.blox.pl/tagi_b/61879/gipsowe-odlewy.html:355k81t5]Odlewy gipsowe[/url:355k81t5][/quote:355k81t5]

No. Because.

I suspect you are not the real aXXa, are you? <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />
[quote="Nagual":tpg7csrd]Humph. Silly silly Noom et al.


Something is either pure or it is not pure, there is no scale.[/quote:tpg7csrd]

Then according to you, everyone who placed themselves on the scale is silly for buying into it. In life we are all silly, we are someones fool. The question you have to answer for yourself is, whos fool are you?
As I am quite clearly pure in my views Nagual I assume I am exempt from your "humph"!

Come on GB (and GP- you seem just as ill with liberalism)- where's the case for the defence? I've got you crushed in the grip of purist reasoning- either the warg scene is good; a justifiable and reasonable adaptation that transmits matters of character or narrative relevant to the viewing audience or its yet another example of PJ wasting film time pleasuring himself and no-one else all over the screen to the disgust of the pure of mind? Which is it?
There is no such thing as an absolute pure adaption so if it is an absolute either or situation, its either pure or not then there naver has been or will be an absolute pure transfer of book to film.
Noom you are preceding from a misunderstanding. The word purist comes after the word 'adaptation'.

Of course changes will be made, for reasons of time and for reasons of the differences in story telling technique employed by the two mediums. But a purist adaptation is one which draws exclusively on the source material. PJ's LoTR are not this sort, they ditch the source material were it suits in favour of their own ideas and large chunks are entirely rewritten or fabricated. This is the problem. Its not a petty argument about what should not or should have been left in, its a wider argument about whether when adapting a book to film you have the right to substantially alter it and still call it an adaptation.
[quote="pettytyrant101":z4i2i28x]either the warg scene is good; a justifiable and reasonable adaptation that transmits matters of character or narrative relevant to the viewing audience or its yet another example of PJ wasting film time pleasuring himself and no-one else all over the screen to the disgust of the pure of mind? Which is it?[/quote:z4i2i28x]

I feel that I have to stick up for GB and GP here. :mrgreen: While I think that the warg scene was unnecessary and unfaithful from top to bottom, I can understand why someone could like the concept but dislike the execution of it. I think it's rather [i:z4i2i28x]un[/i:z4i2i28x]reasonable to insist they take a different stance on it.
You are too soft of heart young Eldo! Either a scene serves its purpose within a film or it does not. Whether or not its a likeable concept is irrelevant. We are talking here about what actually ended up on screen under the guise of an adaptation.
I have outlined why I believe this scene fails on its own terms and as narrative as well it being generally agreed that its execution is poor. There should be no fence sitting on these matters. Its either a good bit of film or not. And I stick by not. I just want to know if the liberal camp are prepared to defend it with equal arguments or if its just a case of a silent acceptance of their defeat!!
  [1] [2] >>