Thread: Purist scale
  >>
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.
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!!!
Biffo says, "Catch youse lader, allegaters!" ( ...and Primmy sends her all her love and kisses... )
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.
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."
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!
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! I did not mean to betray you, but I feeI I've been bullied into making this Liberal Friendly Scale.
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?
[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.
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.
And yes, you're a dirty lib like GB.
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.
And yes, I do like joking around.
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. 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.
Noom, the no 1 fan of Wise Odo.
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.
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 ). 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.
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.
Sorry, I'll try to be more respectable.
[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 ).[/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".
[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.
[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.
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.
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.
[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! )[/quote:2h0pf04u]
The purism debates have been going on for [i:2h0pf04u]years[/i:2h0pf04u]. 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.
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).
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".
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.
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 , 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 ). 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.
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.
Something is either pure or it is not pure, there is no scale.
I suspect you are not the real aXXa, are you?
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?
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?
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.
I feel that I have to stick up for GB and GP here. 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.
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!!