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

Thread: P.J's Films &Where from here?

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Hobbit (Movie) > P.J's Films &Where from here?   [1] [2] >>
Love them or hate them, I feel that PJ is finished with Middle Earth. I have a feeling that one of his apprentices will now take over. Quite a few of the people who worked on the Middle Earth movie series will take on the mantle. I hope so as least. I see the future of film middle Earth as a series of episodes of Middle Earth from the beginning. Like the Silmarillion, in a series of movies telling and showing Tolkien's evolution through the Ages from inception via Illuvatar as per the chapters of the Silmarillion supplemented with all other writings of JRRT. This is what I'm hoping for the future..... I hope that the movie rights are offered to someone who appreciates Tolkien's messages of Love, fairness, peace and the pursuit of equal happiness and love in Middle Earth...
How about Andy Serkis?

I don't think we'll have any more screen adaptations until CRT passes on. Then the only hope is that he passes the estate to someone who is more open minded about sharing Tolkien's work to a new generation.

I truly and heavily stand by my belief that the movies would have been infinitely better if PJ was given rights to the Silmarillion as well. It was his limitations on how he could explain and present things that led him to be more careless about the adaptation and add things in to make it work his way. For instance if he could've used more of Glorfindel, he probably would've been used instead of Arwen, even without giving him a major role. But he really only has that one scene in the book, and it just would've confused audiences as to who the hell is this guy, why didn't they tell me more about him, where did he go etc etc etc Hell he was taken to court because of a one line mention of "BLUE" wizards. If he didn't say blue, they wouldn't have had a case. That's all it takes! If he had full access to the entire story, there would've been far less red tape for his writing team, and there's no way that wouldn't have lead to a better, more accurate, product.

So after The Hobbit, the only way I can become truly excited about another screen adaptation is if the director has full access to canon. I don't expect anything for another 10 years MINIMUM. I'm ok with that, I'd rather have a quality release; besides, even after 200 views I can still put on a 4 hour edition of ROTK and be captivated by it. I'll take it.

Totally agree Balrogs.

But Jackson could have used more of Glorfindel without using the Silmarillion in any case. 

He could have employed the Appendices for example (Appendix A), which could have tied into the Witch-king's ultimate fall in The Return of the King. 

And if you bring in the Fall of Gondolin to explain more about Glorfindel, then you are adding more about a character who still essentially drops out of the story of The Lord of the Rings.

Also, did anyone really go to court over the use of "blue" wizards? I’m not saying you’re wrong here but does anyone have a reference, as I had not heard that Jackson was actually taken to court over this.

And interestingly there is also a later statement (later than the Istari text which refers to the other wizards as blue) from Tolkien that he (JRRT) didn’t know the colours of these wizards, and doubted the other two had distinctive colours. 

Anyway, I would like to see more actual examples with respect to this claim about full access.

There really isn't much to reference on it, just my personal opinion. Writing for American audiences is tough and if something isn't explained well enough, the people pull out their torches. So instead of trying to squeeze in the little things that have no real value in the LOTR story, he took out all the insignificant things and replaced them with significant things that he had plenty to go off of. With more access he could've shown a 10 second clip of Glorfindel fighting a balrog, or a glimpse of Gondolin forges when explaining the elvish swords, just enough that audiences would know he was a bad ass elf who's one of the oldest remaining beings. And of course the confusion of the two Glorfindels. PJ would've taken it upon himself to declare if they were the same or different. I'm not talking about what Tolkien said in HOME or letters, I'm talking about LOTR/Hobbit/Silmarillion. For me it's the little references to the greater world that make Tolkien great. However in a film you can't use descriptive tangents like in a book, so  you can't use these little references cause they just wouldn't make sense. That's that Smile Smilie  And the last thing I'm going to do is try and change your mind on something Galin, especially concerning the movies. Just a heads up now.

IMO common sense dictates that if he had access to all sources all 6 movies would've been better, if not just for little snippet scenes referencing cool events in the history of Middle Earth. This is especially true for video games too. They all suck because they're all made up stories because the writers aren't allowed to use any of the good stuff. In fact if you watch the commentaries of the movies, him and Fran repeatedly mention their limitations on explaining things.

I was misinformed about the court though. He was told not to use the line because of legal reasons, but no it never actually lead to a case. Fortunately. Because that is just so ridiculous.

For clarity here, your statement seems to be not simply that Jackson was unable to punctuate the story with references to the larger world, but that copyright limitations to posthumously published texts led him to alter something, or add something of his own...

... which appears to be your meaning given your example, where you say: "For instance if he could've used more of Glorfindel, he probably would've been used instead of Arwen, even without giving him a major role. But he really only has that one scene in the book."

But for me that doesn't hold up because Jackson not only did have more of Glorfindel, but more of Glorfindel in a way that A) shows his power B) ultimately connects to the Witch-king's fall through his prophecy.

And generally speaking, to my mind there has to be some artistic considerations given the limitations of screen time, with respect to how often one is going to pepper The Lord of The Rings films with Silmarillion references, or in what context this is done.

Subjective as it is for example, I wouldn't show any Balrogs before Gandalf's foe in Moria is revealed.

Also in my opinion, Jackson does have the right to show forges in Gondolin, since in The Hobbit Elrond speaks of certain swords in the story as being made in Gondolin.

 

Moreover I have read the filmmaker's reasons for replacing Glorfindel with Arwen and they were concerned with there being too many introductions at this point in the film (within the context of introducing Arwen in Rivendell soon after Frodo's escape), and thus they wanted to condense characters; at least in the comment that I'm aware of, which I quoted over at the Minas Tirith forums some time ago.

Peter Jackson had the legal right to every reference to the greater world of Middle-earth that appears in The Hobbit or The Lord of The Rings and its Appendices. 

I'm not actually clear about this part of your argument. You say "However in a film you can't use descriptive tangents like in a book, so you can't use these little references cause they just wouldn't make sense" but this seems to be in tandem with arguing that Jackson should be able to use clips (even as short as ten seconds) based on description in the Silmarillion. 

And if Peter Jackson or Fran Walsh (or any of the film writers) repeatedly mention their limitations on explaining things, then I would like to hear them. But again in the context of the claim that these limitations led Jackson to, in theory, make up stories in his films, as you say at least in part.

Again your comment about (especially) video games: "... they're all made up stories because the writers aren't allowed to use any of the good stuff" goes beyond saying that Jackson was not allowed to season his film adaptation with references to the Silmarillion.

Galin, once again unable to see the bigger picture, always caught up in semantics. Since I know you can't understand this, basically you're all caught up in the Glorfindel example, busting out all the chops. Fine, it was a bad example I came up with on the spot. I have had this thought before many times while watching AND reading with much better examples, but you know how it is (probably not, you're too all knowing for that). I don't agree, but I won't ride this train anymore, so you win. Moving on now....

I would love to see Glorfindel fighting a balrog though.

Balrogs, even as you admit to posting a bad example you yet do not offer any good examples. And once again cannot simply stick to the discussion about Tolkien or the Jackson films, but resort to personal remarks and mudslinging.

I would think you would now want to support your argument better, but what I get is a vague reference to 'much better' examples and the assertion that I just can't see the big picture.

And of course I focused on Glorfindel for part of my post, as that's the example you not only brought up initially, but expanded upon in your earlier response. I also spoke to the other reference you mentioned about the swords of Gondolin, but I don't see why Jackson would not have the right to show the swords being made in Gondolin...

... as this along with other references to the larger world of Middle-earth are in the books the filmmakers have the rights to.

That there are plenty of these references, without the Silmarillion, is a big picture reality at least. 

Making a Movie about characters who span thousands of years and a tiny bit part in one or two Chapters in one of many books from which PJ only has the rights to one of is simply impossible. I'm with you Balrogs. Galin nothing is simple in film. If Glorfindal had appeared in TFOTR, and had been propped up as an ancient and one of The Wise everyone would want to know where he came from and why and why he doesn't appear (similarly the back story of Cirdan) in The Hobbit White Council scenes and on and on. I feel that CT has done a great dis-service to P.Js films and to us as readers and viewers. I know that every word from every script was agonized over by lawyers from Tolkien's estate and on behalf of the studio's and many ideas were simply too risky to go with as to explain them ie, Glorfindal would risk a law suit.

It makes no sense to me at all and I blame the situation on a lot of the changes P.J decided to make.

I'm sure you probably havn't seen them, but in the special additions making of chapters a lot of this is explained.  Even the words "Blue Wizards" were risky.

I just think it's a shame that we couldn't see canon facts to set up and explain earlier history correctly.

Well, Balrogs has already admitted that the matter of Glorfindel was a bad example (in response to my points above). I’ll add that the confrontation with Glorfindel and the Witch-king occurred more than one thousand years before Frodo’s tale.

And just for clarity Brego, I’ve not argued that Glorfindel should be propped up as ancient and one of the Wise in the films. In any case he essentially vanishes from the story that the filmmakers are adapting, whether he has fought a Balrog in his past or engaged the Witch-king in his past.

And Jackson also has the rights to some ancient history about Cirdan, and obviously the rights to references about the White Council, both in the Appendices.

You are correct in that I haven’t seen the special edition commentary, but that makes me wonder what the filmmakers are saying there...

... since the argument here is not merely that Jackson could not punctuate the story with details from posthumously published works, but rather that the inability to use something from these texts led to an alteration, or Jackson making something up.

So can you please provide a specific example or examples from their commentary?

Perhaps start with The Lord of the Rings films: what scene do the filmmakers say was made up, or significantly altered, because they could not use something from the Silmarillion or some other posthumously published text?

Do the filmmakers note that they wanted to give Cirdan’s First Age history in the films for example, for some reason?

 

With respect to the Blue Wizards: Peter Jackson had every right to refer to the five wizards, but he chose to include the detail "blue" :shrug:

And not that you or Balrogs said otherwise, but I’m not sure the filmmakers would argue that this minor colour detail is really necessary in any adaptation of The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings.

They might want to use this detail, but even if they can’t, are they then forced to have Gandalf refer to them as the yellow wizards for example?

Actually I found a part of this reference to be a fairly clever nod...

... I believe Ian McKellen says he can't remember the names of these wizards, and not only are they not named in the books the filmmakers are allowed to employ, but it's very arguable that Tolkien himself couldn’t remember the names Alatar and Pallando, which would explain why he came up with different Quenya names in a later text!

Moreover this colour detail is arguably not necessarily accurate anyway! One problem with using posthumously published texts might be illustrated here: a lot of folks and the horses they ride in on might tell you that these wizards being blue is a fact…

… except Tolkien himself, at least according to the statement (from a letter) that I referred to above, which letter is dated after the Istari text, the Istari text being the source of the 'sea-blue' detail. 

From the Tolkien Estate FAQ:

"The Estate exists to defend the integrity of J.R.R. Tolkien’s writings. Christopher Tolkien's work as his father’s literary executor has always been to publish as faithfully and honestly as possible his father's completed and uncompleted works, without adaptation or embellishment."

That's why the Estate exists, and as far as Christopher Tolkien being open minded about sharing his father's work with a new generation, he has published many volumes with respect to the matter of Middle-earth. And of course other works too, like (for examples): Sigurd And Gudrun, Beowulf, The Fall of Arthur.

Note that it was an option in Tolkien's will that CJRT could have destroyed all or part of Tolkien's private writings about Middle-earth! No generation was entitled to any of it actually.

Yet Christopher Tolkien chose not only to publish a Silmarillion as a version for readers, but to publish its external history as well; and then went on to produce another version for readers (without scholarly interruption and explanation) of The Children of Hurin.

With respect to his duty to his father, while I can't speak for him obviously... 

... CJRT knows that his father did not want to sell the rights to allow other stories about Middle-earth to be written, and he knows that his father ultimately sold the film rights due to impending financial concerns: very simply put Tolkien was going to be hit hard with a notable tax and he needed the cash at that point.

And with respect to preserving the integrity of Tolkien's writing, while this role may be open to subjective interpretations, I'm not sure it necessarily means selling off the film rights, given that some filmmaker might produce something, to use Balrog's own words concerning Jackson's latest Hobbit film, that could be characterized as...

"Horribly, horribly inaccurate, and basically just a 2 hour long fight scene..."

from the thread "Just saw it..."

CJRT knows millions of people will see this film. Media colonization exists, as I would guess the author of the Wizard of Oz might now agree (if he was alive anyway).

Of course the books still exist. That said, as part of media colonization, we can't know how many people will choose not to read the book because after seeing the films they think they already know the story 'well enough', or will not like the books because they like the films and the books are too different, perhaps...

... nor can we know the effect, with respect to interpretation, that these films have when film goers actually do decide to read the books.

And when Christopher Tolkien defines his role in the Estate, these considerations might easily be included among other factors.

Galin, Im sorry, you are oversimplifying the art of Movie making. Back history is important as unlike us and especially you, 99% of the people watching have no idea what, who, where etc etc.  Everything you quote is valid but in this context makes no difference. BTW the legal team did worry about The Blue Wizards and were warned by Tolkien's estate but they went ahead anyway. This was Gandalf's cheeky line "Do you know, I have forgotten their names" in AUEJ.

Sorry Galin we are talking inter woven story threads which need to be shown correctly and as per Canon and as we unfortunately saw in the Movies PJ had to make things up.

Just because a name is mentioned in the licensed book doesn't mean PJ can then tell their Canon history.

Why is Moria full of Orcs? What happened to Durin? Why is the Magic door inscribed in Elvish?

Who or what are the Eagles and why can Gandalf call on them?

What are the Half Elven? Why do they have to choose a side? Where is Arwen's Mum?

What happened to the Nazgul after Sauron was defeated? Who are they?

Why do the Woodland Elves hate Dwarves?

Why is Sauron hiding in Dol Gul Dur, and who built it?

Who are the Numenorians?

Why would Thranduil know about Dragon fire?

What happened to Sauron after his defeat?

Where did Sauron fly too?

Why does Thranduil hide his people away?

What is Dragon sickness or Gold lust?

Why does Galadriel call Legolas her Woodland Kin in TFOTR? How are they related?

Why is Galdriel so powerful? Why can we see her ring?

Who is Melkor?

What is the relationship between Smaug and Sauron?

What is The Void?

Who or what is Eru?

Where is Valinor?

Etc Etc Etc

"From the Tolkien Estate FAQ:

"The Estate exists to defend the integrity of J.R.R. Tolkien’s writings. Christopher Tolkien's work as his father’s literary executor has always been to publish as faithfully and honestly as possible his father's completed and uncompleted works, without adaptation or embellishment.""

I think embellishment is a good word for our points. He had to embellish things to the point they were ridiculous because he couldn't look backwards so he decided to have fun with it instead. That's WHY it was just a 2 hour fight scene, because all he had to go off of was a fight scene in the books. Nobody knows who the hell these other dwarves who showed up are. Sure you can mention the name of their people, but you can't actually explain who they are, why they're so important, details about the land they came from, how they tie into Thrain and ultimately Durin's history etc.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything here. But I do think the movies would've been much better if PJ could include filler scenes from other sources. Like Glorfindel fighting the Witch King...this would have been the PERFECT scene to add in so he could be the one to carry Frodo. The audience would realize he was an important and powerful elf (stuff the audience loves), thus justifying his brief appearance. I can ALMOST guarantee he would've been used if PJ had access to the Sil. Otherwise audiences would be like "who the hell was that guy and where did he go? They might as well have just used Arwen!" And I honestly don't see how you could think otherwise. So yeah Arwen worked, but wouldn't it have been more exciting to use Glorfindel and show him fighting the Witch King with Cate Blanchett narrating?? 20 seconds, that's all it takes, and it would've been that much better.

I do not understand clearly, as to how the brief apperance of Glorfindel would be something so difficult to achieve, especially since characters like Haldir were given greater roles in the films.

These are very complicated problems and involve lawyers. Gildor isn't named because he cant be. Either can anyone else from any other books than TLOTR and The Hobbit and if mentioned in these their ancient histories as outlined in all other books cannot by law be used. Simple as that. We can argue till the Cows come home bit yes the movies suffered because of legal blockages....

I just think it's a huge shame and detremental to any further films.....

I plan to respond to Brego's earlier post, but for the moment, what do you mean here that Gildor isn't named because he can't be?

Gildor Inglorion from The Lord of Rings? Why can't he be mentioned? 

And I would put it rather: we can discuss (cows aside) if the films suffered from legal blockages in the context of the claim under discussion here: that is, we can discuss just what Peter Jackson "had to" do...

... because of his inability to employ posthumously published writings.

Balrogs, Peter Jackson had much more than the battle scene to work with...

... to generally state the obvious, the filmmakers had everything that is in The Hobbit to make a film (or films) about this book. The initial planning of an adaptation starts with a myriad of decisions that affect what the final film will include, or not include.  

And Jackson had the rights to much more about the Dwarves, considering Appendix A, Durin's Folk, in any case.

That said, people enjoyed the story of The Hobbit before the posthumously published texts were made available. I know I did.

In the book Thorin asks if the ravens would send messages to Dwarves in the mountains of the North, and especially to his cousin Dain in the Iron Hills; and Dain is explained again later, who he is and why he has arrived, when he is questioned.

In short, as much history or background as is needed to tell this story is there...

... are we now going to question the story as Tolkien told it? Or argue that a film needs more information about this than is found in the book itself?

Not that you or anyone said otherwise, but it's a subjective opinion that you need more background about Dain and Durin in a film of the Hobbit to make the film both faithful or successful (more than that which is already in The Hobbit)...

... and again, even if one agrees with this opinion, Jackson had full access to Appendix A, Durin's Folk.

 Like Glorfindel fighting the Witch King...this would have been the PERFECT scene to add in so he could be the one to carry Frodo. The audience would realize he was an important and powerful elf (stuff the audience loves), thus justifying his brief appearance.

A few points:

A) if it's perfect in your opinion, Peter Jackson had every right to include a scene of Glorfindel confronting the Witch-king (with the prophecy), but didn't.

B) even if Jackson chose to include Glorfindel here, that doesn't mean he has to be with Frodo on Asfaloth. Taking away Frodo's moment (alone) of defiance at the ford is a notable alteration in itself.

C) I'm not sure even the filmmakers would necessarily agree that illustrating Glorfindel as an important and powerful Elf justifies (in enough measure) a brief appearance in a film that already has a lot of characters.

One might argue that if you make a deal of Glorfindel, audiences might then wonder: why did we need to know this character was powerful and important if he vanishes from the story anyway.

C1) Ralph Bakshi chose to use Legolas here, arguably because he is a character that doesn't vanish from the story.

And although I believe there's a way to retain Glorfindel (or that it was possible to retain him), I would have also used Legolas before Arwen. I would have introduced Arwen in the film earlier in the story (earlier than introducing her in Imladris), by using the Appendices for a Strider "memory scene" as the company travels towards Rivendell.

Or possibly earlier.

I can ALMOST guarantee he would've been used if PJ had access to the Sil.

But you just said that the Witch-king scene could have been perfect, so why do you need Glorfindel also fighting a Balrog for your argument? And if you include Glorfindel with a Balrog, in my opinion this would diminish the effect of a Balrog later appearing in Moria.

I don't agree that Arwen for Glorfindel worked in all senses, incidentally, but that aside for now, at the end of your post you return to Cate Blanchett narrating about the Witch-king...

... which again, Jackson could have done!

Also, here you are arguing for (at least as part of a scene) narration in a film, even if only twenty seconds.

I'll keep that in mind for later

Lol Galin, you are just unable to grasp my point here and are focusing on all the wrong things. You are too detail orientated for us to ever connect. And I mean, look at all the times you use the word need. I never once said I needed anything. This is my point that you just can't see. It's not about needs. And how you mentioned my narration comment, which was a joke more than anything by the way, based off the general LOTR inside joke/meme that Cate Blanchette narrating makes anything better. But since that went over your head, well....I'll keep that in mind for later! I could go through your post paragraph by paragraph like you love to do, pointing out every little thing that could possibly be faulted, and I could if I wanted, but theres no point, cause you just don't get it man. Sorry. Oh well.

But I do have to ask...

Why are you even here? You don't even really like the movies. You have "many issues" with them (whatever that means in Galin speak), as you've stated many times. Just playing devil's advocate. Thus I truly believe you are unable to grasp what me and Brego are saying and I just don't know where to go from here. We're not even saying it would've made it acceptable to purists or anything, just that it would've been great if we could see more of the stuff audiences like from the sources they'll never read and how that would've made the movies better. And yeah I think it would've made the events he did use more exciting and less irritating. Less elves at Helms Deep, more elves fighting dragons and overlords. PJ said they decided to include the elves at Helms Deep cause they didn't have anywhere else to showcase them, but they knew audiences wanted to see elves in action. So instead PJ gives Thranduil a wife and a giant war elk. Embellishment. Sorry you don't approve of my broad examples that are simply there to get the point across, I agree they could be tuned a little better but if you couldn't figure out what I meant...though I know you did. But you decided to pull a you anyways. In fact, seeing exciting shots from the Sil might encourage folks to read more Tolkien instead of just LOTR or The Hobbit, which is a completely different writing style than the Sil, which most people don't even know exist. The story of the founding of the universe. The birth of men. Melkor becoming Morgoth. Most people think all that exists is Middle Earth, nobody knows where the hell everyone left to at the end of ROTK, so a trip to Valinor (yes, I know the Undying Lands are mentioned in LOTR, there is much more to it though). Details on what a maia is and/or a brief history of maia that lived in Middle Earth. Where orcs come from, just one example of what he made up to make do with what he had. Most people now think they're grown out of the ground because of The Two Towers. Why specifically the eagles couldn't just carry Frodo to Mt. Doom etc

I don't know what else to say at this point. Though I CAN guarantee people would love to see another ancient and powerful elf who once defeated a similar creature as the one who fell with Gandalf, no matter how brief his appearance. You're right they'd probably question where he went, maybe you could have him in the background when Aragorn is crowned King, but they'd still love the scene. People loved Elrond and, in reference to the film trilogy, he only appeared....what, 4 times? 10-15 minutes total screen time? And they didn't even show him in action. People love elves man I'm telling you, and the Silmarillion is all about elves.

Props Balrogs. And Galin I do understand what you are saying, but you have to understand that in film it's backstory that enables views to know what is going on. It is integral in these films especially as they span so many Ages. We readers know the back story and reasons that named characters in TH and TLOTR do the things they do. And it is canon backstory which PJ was unable to use a lot of the time.

I think the best example is in the Hobbit.

Gandalf runs off to do urgent things once the Company reaches Mirkwood in The Hobbit Book. If you had  only read the Hobbit and seen the TLOTR films you would have no idea where to or why he had to leave other than it was for something very important to another story.

Even if you had read both TH and TLOTR books and seen the films you would still only have a very vague idea as to what was going on. Yes there are brief outlines in The Appendices, but still not enough for non readers to make any sense of what the Hell was going on. Would be a mess.

I more than everyone would love for PJ to have created a totally canon version of all of the stories. Starting from the Sil and working through book by book (albeit with some updating of The Hobbit) but I'm afraid that for anyone or everyone who hadn't read all of Tolkien's books it would be a total mess and laughing stock of the industry.

Things are getting interesting. Balrogs, semantics are important. I started reading this thread, and after the first few posts I was basically agreeing with everyone here. Yes, rights to the sil would have improved the films. I was forced to question that, and while I'm still positive they would have, I think of it as less important now then I once did. I used to spend a lot of time reading old threads (I read the entire characters section in a couple of weeks), and I tended to side with Galin and agree with whoever he was arguing against. I only actually remember one adventure with a fun eastern European where I disliked some of Galin's posts. Galin tends to stay...calm... and actually support his claims with evidence. The implication here, which is usually correct, is that the person he's (Galin is a male name, right?) arguing with doesn't use evidence. I used to think that he was just being belligerent, but if he was then he has a degree of consistency which few other people who are just belligerent do (in my experience). Oh, and belligerent actually essentially means warlike, yet Galin is a hobbit from Buckland.

Galin. I wasn't going to say anything to you, but you said a myriad of. You can be irritating at times, since you force others to do research and provide sound arguments (surprisingly hard) or look foolish by comparison. Perhaps force isn't the right word, and that is a false dichotomy, but that seems to be what happens based on my experience (no, I'm (probably) not going to back this up with specifics, so discount it as anecdotal if you please). I do wonder sometimes why you are here, as it seems like there are other forums that would suit you better. I hope you stay though, because if you leave then it'll get much harder to ask a question and get detailed and accurate responses. It also seems like you are a member of some of these other forums, maybe that's why you have such great ability to mention lots of research.

Anyway, the point is that saying

Lol Galin, you are just unable to grasp my point here and are focusing on all the wrong things. You are too detail orientated for us to ever connect. And I mean, look at all the times you use the word need. I never once said I needed anything. This is my point that you just can't see. It's not about needs. And how you mentioned my narration comment, which was a joke more than anything by the way, based off the general LOTR inside joke/meme that Cate Blanchette narrating makes anything better. But since that went over your head, well....I'll keep that in mind for later! I could go through your post paragraph by paragraph like you love to do, pointing out every little thing that could possibly be faulted, and I could if I wanted, but theres no point, cause you just don't get it man. Sorry. Oh well.

is probably unwise. (I really would have shouted) IMPORTANT SIDE NOTE: Cate Blanchette is a god.

Would you like me to say why I think this, Balrogs?

To stay on topic, PJ is almost certainly finished with ME. Sure, more could be squeezed from the appendixes, but I hope we can agree this is very unlikely. Especially since it's already been done, twice. I think that a movie about the downfall of Numenor would/could be extremely amazing. For why, google search "Ardalambion" and click on the first result, then scroll near the bottom and click on the link that says "The Optimal LotR Prequel Movie".

As for if having rights to the sil would have improved the trilogy, I think that it couldn't possibly not, though it would be in a largely small and subtle way. That's what I like though, subtlety. However, I think the real reason why the information presented did not make much use of the appendixes is because, to quote a friend of mine who failed to finish the fellowship, "Tolkien is the Mac Daddy of fantasy". Thus nobody needed to explain why elves and dwarves were opposed to one another, because that's a notion which was ingrained into our culture by Tolkien. That, and flying demons of might...

There are some good points that was mentioned. In my opinion, if having the rights to the sil and other books, would it have improved the movies? Yes, it would have. Would it had made a drastic improvment? I would have to say, no. And as far as the rights are concerned, PJ didn't really have a lot of it. He pretty much had the rights to use Gondolin as a name reference only but not its history. This can be said for a lot of other things as well. To get a better sense of what I'm trying to say, here is another example. Minith Tirith. The name can be used, but it can only be used in reference to the Gondorian city only. Mentioning any reference to the elvish city of the first age was restricted.

Thanks Curufinwe! I guess I am a Hobbit of Buckland, I didn't notice that. And I do post at various Tolkien sites currently, or read them, and have fun at all of them.

Below is my response to Brego's earlier post, and you are quite correct Curufinwe, what I am trying to do is keep the matter on point: it seems to me that a specific claim has been made, and it's not simply that the films could have been better (in someone's opinion) if all the texts were made available... 

... but that the inability to use something off limits (A) led Jackson to do B... make something up or alter something.

Okay, to respond to Brego's post above, where he lists questions...

__________________

Brego, while back history can be important to story telling, the art of filmmaking is the art of story telling in a visual medium. Again to generally state the obvious, admittedly!

And to keep the Glorfindel example for a moment: did Tolkien feel the need, even in his long book, to digress about Glorfindel's history in Gondolin? In the drafts he noted to himself that Glorfindel might refer to his history of Gondolin, but this never appears in the ultimate version of the books.

Glorfindel's First Age history is hardly relevant to the story being adapted by Peter Jackson, and as I hear often enough, the film has to work for people who have not read the books, and can't be too confusing and shouldn’t have too many characters.

So the reason the filmmakers (as they explained it) dropped Glorfindel was: too many character introductions at this point, especially considering Glorfindel drops out of the story.

I actually see the logic of this concern, but even if it was all agreed upon as being a problem for a film, there are other ways to solve this in any case (other ways than the way that Peter Jackson actually chose).

And I'm aware that the filmmakers were warned about using "blue" wizards, the question I asked was: does the inability to use the word "blue" necessarily mean Peter Jackson had to refer to these characters as the yellow wizards, for instance (not that he did obviously)?

Sorry Galin we are talking inter woven story threads which need to be shown correctly and as per Canon and as we unfortunately saw in the Movies PJ had to make things up.

There's the "had to" of the argument, in my opinion the same implied "had to" in Balrog's original Glorfindel example, where he argued that due to the inability of A, Peter Jackson did B.

Also, I have not argued that just because there is a name mentioned in The Lord of the Rings that that alone means Jackson has the rights to something in posthumously published text. The examples I gave (Glorfindel, Cirdan) are more than references to names in Appendix A, but include history...

... history which could be developed into a scene for the films; again, if it makes artistic sense to include them in someone's opinion, subjective as that is. Too many historical digressions in a film is a real consideration as well, no matter if a digression explains something.

Anyway Brego, I asked you to please provide...

1) one or several examples from the filmmakers EE commentary where they claim they had to make up something in the films (something specific) due to the inability to use something else (again something specific from a source that they have no right to use).

2) or one of your own examples: how does the inability to use something (call it example A) necessarily lead to "made up scene", or example B?

Also some of the questions that you list are answered in The Lord of the Rings or Appendices, and some of the questions you ask are not even certainly answered in posthumously published texts!

More to the point: one of your questions is, for instance: "who or what is Eru?"

Even if you argue that such a question needs to be answered in detail in a film adaptation of The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings (both stories where this question is not answered in the books in the detail of the Silmarillion obviously), and even if the filmmakers themselves agree (which is not to suggest that they necessarily do)...

... with respect to your argument, the real question here is: what scene in the films did Jackson "have to" invent because he could not employ the Silmarillion description of Eru?

It seems to me that that's the position you have taken and that that was the heart of the Glorfindel example. And that is the kind of example I’m looking for.

Arwen's mother (another example from your post): who she is and what happened to her is noted in the sources Jackson has a right to use: The Lord of the Rings and its Appendices...

... but the question would be, what scene did Jackson invent because he wasn't able to use this material (at least in theory now, because this material was available to him).

Also, what was the Gildor point about? I still don't get why he can't be named.

Sorry, I could have added that to my last post but I was afraid people would fall asleep reading it before they got to the Gildor question.

There he goes with the "needs" and "had to's" again...."relevant." Galin I suggest re-reading my last post, I clarified several of the questions you asked.

"Even if you argue that such a question needs to be answered in detail in a film adaptation of The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings (both stories where this question is not answered in the books in the detail of the Silmarillion obviously), and even if the filmmakers themselves agree (which is not to suggest that they necessarily do)..."

It doesn't need to be. Nobody said that and nobody is arguing anything except for you.

"... with respect to your argument, the real question here is: what scene in the films did Jackson "have to" invent because he could not employ the Silmarillion description of Eru?"

Birthing orcs from the ground.

You are so adamant that audiences would shun Glorfindel because he doesn't have enough screen time. Other than my Elrond example, what about Haldir? Nobody even knows his name because he was so under-utilized, also maybe 10 minutes total screen time, AND he dies! Now have Glorfindel save Frodo, show him fighting the Witch King and/or a balrog, show him in a chair during the fellowship meeting, then have him lead the elves to Helm's Deep, and lastly have him in the background during ROTK.

Did it NEED to be that way? No. Do I think it would've been way better? I do. Seems way more relevant to the overall plot, Glorfindel was more important in the LOTR than Haldir, so he COULD be in all 3 movies, you'd keep the same number of characters...I could go on.

We're also not saying it's tons of scenes, probably more in the vicinity of 4 or 5 of PJ's...interpretations that could've been more accurate and/or cooler if he could use the Sil, among the other things he COULD have added in to give more detail to the history of ME. If you didn't like them as they are now, you probably still wouldn't like them if the scenes Brego and I are talking about were added. I really am quite amazed you don't think so, even if it just made one, 10 second spot more exciting.

Brego used "had to" in the very post I responded to Balrogs, keeping in mind the finger pointing at Christopher Tolkien here...

... as if to imply: if only Christopher Tolkien would have been more open minded about sharing his father's work, Peter Jackson would not have had to invent or alter things in The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. First example: we need not have seen Arwen meet Aragorn instead of Glorfindel.

Galin wrote: "... with respect to your argument, the real question here is: what scene in the films did Jackson "have to" invent because he could not employ the Silmarillion description of Eru?"

Balrogs responded: Birthing orcs from the ground.

So are you here arguing that Jackson "had to" (needed to) do this scene because he could not employ the Silmarillion? I asked the question in that context anyway.

And isn't it said in The Lord of the Rings films (by Saruman) that Orcs were once Elves?

As far as I recall Jackson suggested that Saruman's Uruk-hai came from the mud, which he of course did not have to show, but chose to show.

Moreover the ultimate origin of Orcs is not certainly answered in the posthumously published texts in any case, which is why it is so often debated on sites like these.

Now have Glorfindel save Frodo, show him fighting the Witch King and/or a balrog, show him in a chair during the fellowship meeting, then have him lead the elves to Helm's Deep, and lastly have him in the background during ROTK.

Did it NEED to be that way? No. Do I think it would've been way better? I do. Seems way more relevant to the overall plot, Glorfindel was more important in the LOTR than Haldir, so he COULD be in all 3 movies, you'd keep the same number of characters...I could go on.

Well here you are essentially criticizing Peter Jackson for not doing what he could have done with sources that were legally his to use (as you wrote "and/or Balrog" suggesting that a Witch-king scene would have worked fine). 

And with respect to what I think or don't think about something: in your last post you refer to something that might be "cooler" if Jackson could have used the Silmarillion (or other posthumously published texts), and (or) "more accurate" if he could have used such texts.

And now you say it's in the vicinity of four or five of Jackson's scenes that you think either could have been cooler or more accurate, or both. Okay, give me a specific example and maybe I'll tell you what I think in this context...

... but that's different from suggesting that Peter Jackson's made up film scenes (or making a third Hobbit film into a long battle scene, to use your generalization) were due to his inability to use some text that is off limits to the filmmakers. 

Keeping in mind your earlier explanation of the third Hobbit film, where you wrote: "That's WHY it was just a 2 hour fight scene, because all he had to go off of was a fight scene in the books."

Again you basically argued: due to limitations this is the result. Would you now at least agree that making a third film into a two hour long fight scene (as you put it) "need" not have been the case?

Would you not agree that not only are there plenty of ways to have filmed this story from the start, including with two films not three for instance, but Peter Jackson actually had more than what occurs in Tolkien's Hobbit, considering the Appendices and Dwarven history.

Peter Jackson's own defenses of his changes (as far as I'm aware anyway) seem often enough to be based on the claim that: something from the book (or the portrayal of a character like he is in the book)...

... won't work on film. And that's a very subjective claim in itself, in any case.

This is the first, only, and last time I'll do this. If you still can't agree to disagree after this, I give up. Forever. Again. Ok...

-

"... as if to imply: if only Christopher Tolkien would have been more open minded about sharing his father's work, Peter Jackson would not have had to invent or alter things in The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. First example: we need not have seen Arwen meet Aragorn instead of Glorfindel."

-

Yes, I believe with more back story we could've seen Glorfindel in a way that is both exciting and relevant to the film and canon. Fine, let Arwen pick him up and have Glorfindel totally replace Haldir; thus not only can we can show Glorfindel in epic elf fashion at Helm's Deep, we can then have a flashback intro scene for him in the Two Towers fighting a balrog, so people already recognize the awesome beast from the first movie, and realize PJ chose this elf because he is a bad ass. However he did not have access to said balrog and didn't want to downplay the witch king so early on, so decided to scrap him overall. But there you go using need again with my examples. No, we didn't need to see either of them, Gandalf could've taken him to Rivendell.

-

"Galin wrote: "... with respect to your argument, the real question here is: what scene in the films did Jackson "have to" invent because he could not employ the Silmarillion description of Eru?"

Balrogs responded: Birthing orcs from the ground.

So are you here arguing that Jackson "had to" (needed to) do this scene because he could not employ the Silmarillion? I asked the question in that context anyway.

-

Nope. *sigh* You can't ask questions in such specific contexts on the internet Galin. You need to realize not everyone is as nit picky as you and that in such a casual, friendly conversation, meaning not under perjury of law or having a gun held to your head, many will casually read "have to" in the sense that refers to an overall "could he." Did I HAVE TO go see the new Hobbit? No. I did not have to. But because of my die hard Tolkienism, yes, I had to. No, physically I would not have exploded if I didn't go, but yeah, I have to experience anything Tolkien related at least once. Did PJ HAVE TO include a scene involving orc origins, right or wrong? No. But he probably assumed audiences would want to know where they came from, so he HAD to find a way to appease them. Is that the answer you're looking for? No, he did not have to, but he had to find a way to meet the expectations he expected. Now, the question is would it have been better if he had the Silmarillion. I think it would've, and I don't really see how it couldn't have. But you don't, and that's fine. I definitely don't see him purposely showing something so blatantly wrong if he didn't have to; at least, not in the context of the LOTR trilogy, where inaccuracies are done differently than The Hobbit (the LOTR has most major events just altered within, The Hobbit completely removes major events and adds all new ones in, the stuff that was in the book is actually quite accurate). Now, notice my use of have based off a context people can follow without having to over analyze. In this case the literal sense of "have" is clearly implied because of the legality within that specific sentence's context, and I didn't even have to capitalize, italicize, or quote. When the overall question is "did he "have to" include an orc birthing scene?" you should realize there's a subjective component involved with this have and should not take it so literally. DO NOT TAKE THESE TWO SENTENCES TO THE GRAVE! These are just examples of the different implications of have/need and how both are used, as you seem to be so focused on just one. Did I HAVE to spell this out so clearly for you? Unfortunately yes, it seems I had to.

The "quotes" also represent a myriad of things and can be misleading. I couldn't tell if you were mocking me because I kept bringing it up, or if you were actually trying to emphasize the literal, physical NEED you were looking for, even though I already repeatedly stated that is not the case, so I'm not sure why you went for that context to begin with. Personally I also did not get an urgent "have to" vibe from Brego's post, yet you managed to because you are so detail orientated, every syllable counts. I re-read it and, taking in his entire message, did not get that impression remotely. BUT if you look at it really, really closely and interpret everything 100% literally (which I guess I'm used to technology and knowing you can't think like that on internet forums), copying/pasting/scrutinizing every line, then yeah you'll get a different, and maybe the wrong, impression. In my case, I already said several times need, had, or have are irrelevant, and as Brego and I were in agreement, I just assumed it would be implied to the overall discussion. But you are all about semantics and sometimes we overlook that. The internet is a fine line of being clear without thinking too specifically. I feel we're being pretty clear, but you're thinking very specifically...this thread is what happens in that scenario.

-

And isn't it said in The Lord of the Rings films (by Saruman) that Orcs were once Elves?

As far as I recall Jackson suggested that Saruman's Uruk-hai came from the mud, which he of course did not have to show, but chose to show.

Moreover the ultimate origin of Orcs is not certainly answered in the posthumously published texts in any case, which is why it is so often debated on sites like these.

-

The Silmarillion speaks of Melkor kidnapping east elves and corrupting them into orcs. So here it would've been FUN and COOL to talk about the original Eru, the original gods, who is Melkor, what's his connection to Morgoth (and thusly Sauron), and where did the first orcs come from, not necessarily in that order. IN FACT I do believe Chris Lee's line is one example of where PJ took a bit of a legal risk. But that's as far as he was willing to go with it and fortunately it worked out, just like the blue wizards. But yeah, I think it would have been "COOLER" and would've made the overall film better if we saw more of that line. I am fully aware of the multiple orc origin stories, however the Silmarillion is the most well defined and most reputable of the posthumous texts. I know you aren't a big fan, but most people are and accept the Sil as the "official" backstory. Can't please everyone. Yes you could dig through essays and letters in HOME and put potential bits and pieces to make what you think is official, but the Sil is the most "official" compilation of those letters and essays by the second most "official" compiler you could find after the Prof himself. And I don't necessarily think it'd be best for PJ to have the full legendarium cause then he might be like you and mix and match pieces from beginning to end to make a completely unique story that contradicts the published texts.

Also here is where you have to understand the audience isn't us, and nobody knows the difference between an Uruk-Hai and an orc. So by talking about Eru, you could clarify who Melkor is, then show Melkor corrupting elves so the audience could see "normal" orcs, now cut to Saruman's new breed, and THEN the casual audience would realize there IS a pretty major difference. But alas, we can't show Melkor corrupting elves or have a lead in to do the ainur justice. Even though Gimli mentions it, that's not how film works. That line before the battle (their armor thick and their shields broad, something like that) is to hype up the moment and be taken at face value, not the overall story.

-

Now have Glorfindel save Frodo, show him fighting the Witch King and/or a balrog, show him in a chair during the fellowship meeting, then have him lead the elves to Helm's Deep, and lastly have him in the background during ROTK.

Did it NEED to be that way? No. Do I think it would've been way better? I do. Seems way more relevant to the overall plot, Glorfindel was more important in the LOTR than Haldir, so he COULD be in all 3 movies, you'd keep the same number of characters...I could go on.

Well here you are essentially criticizing Peter Jackson for not doing what he could have done with sources that were legally his to use (as you wrote "and/or Balrog" suggesting that a Witch-king scene would have worked fine). 

And with respect to what I think or don't think about something: in your last post you refer to something that might be "cooler" if Jackson could have used the Silmarillion (or other posthumously published texts), and (or) "more accurate" if he could have used such texts.

And now you say it's in the vicinity of four or five of Jackson's scenes that you think either could have been cooler or more accurate, or both. Okay, give me a specific example and maybe I'll tell you what I think in this context...

... but that's different from suggesting that Peter Jackson's made up film scenes (or making a third Hobbit film into a long battle scene, to use your generalization) were due to his inability to use some text that is off limits to the filmmakers.

-

Here it is again. Do you not know what and/or means? It doesn't mean choose one or the other, it means it could be one or the other. Yeah, a witch king scene could've been fine, would've been WAY COOL, and it would've fallen into the realm of legally ok. Thus we have one or. Now show him fighting the witch king AND a balrog? OR just a balrog? Then we have left the realm of legality. Again I forgot you are so detail orientated and/or does not compute the same as others. I'll keep that in mind for later.

I've given you several examples of what he MADE UP and you nit pick them so they don't work. Damn dude I don't know if it's EXACTLY 4 or 5 (again with the specifics- "like 4 or 5" does not mean specifically "I'll fight to the death that it was only 4 or 5"Wink Smilie, it's 12 hours of film that I know pretty well but don't have memorized to the extent I can specify exactly how many times PJ faltered and what he should've done instead, I just know that it's not like there are a hundred scenes to choose from, just a few that could've been enriched with more history. A handful of changes, better?

Him showing orcs birthed from the ground is a fine example. He wanted to show audiences where orcs came from and that's how he chose to do it. No we'll never, ever know if he would've done it differently if he had The Sil, but we do know he would've at least had access to a credible source and maybe not even need consider another way.

And I do think it's far more likely he would've utilized Glorfindel, which I would've preferred, if he could show specific scenes of his epic history, but after Frodo he is hardly mentioned so he didn't have much to work with. So yes I also believe A reason, not THE reason, he didn't use Glorfindel is he didn't have enough to make him a compelling character. Why he used Haldir instead I don't know, I think it's cause he wanted whichever elf that went along to die and Glorfindel never dies in LOTR, but who knows.

As for what would've made it better overall, Brego has a great list, I listed a few things earlier, some more might be comparing Arwen/Aragorn to Beren/Luthien, the only other love tale to rival theres, would be pretty neat. Um, maybe a scene with Manwe and Thorondor, Cate Blanchette narrating, showing the eagles were sent by the gods, not mentioned in LOTR, then emphasizing Gwahir's words in LOTR that he was sent to bear tidings and not burdens. That way people will have the one excuse they need to shut up and stop asking why the eagles never carried Frodo to Mt. Doom or over Moria.

-

Keeping in mind your earlier explanation of the third Hobbit film, where you wrote: "That's WHY it was just a 2 hour fight scene, because all he had to go off of was a fight scene in the books."

Again you basically argued: due to limitations this is the result. Would you now at least agree that making a third film into a two hour long fight scene (as you put it) "need" not have been the case?

That not only are there plenty of ways to have filmed this story from the start, including with two films not three for instance, but Jackson actually had more than what occurs in Tolkien's Hobbit, considering the Appendices and Dwarven history.

-

The Hobbit is a little different. He basically re-wrote the whole story and it took a lot for me to not hate them. However, if you actually read my views towards the movie instead of taking words from another thread out of context, you'd see the only thing I cared about in The Hobbit movies was the cinematography. Of course it could've been done in two, every person on here has said that since the beginning, hell it could've been done in one. Now I've only seen those a few times each and it's been awhile for the first two, but they were so totally altered, I can't think of an example specific enough to appease you, but I do clearly remember watching them and thinking "if only he could've talked about that event from the first age, that would've been so much cooler." Maybe when I rewatch them if I remember I'll resurrect this thread. However I will concede that The Hobbit movies were SO different and so changed, it's near impossible to tell what would've been done differently. HAVING SAID THAT, I think PJ did this intentionally. I think A) Because him and CRT do not like each other, and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he did it just because he could, maybe even as a slight to CRT FOR being so restrictive. B) Because The Hobbit was too tame to make a live action film. Was great as a cartoon, but if you're giving it a "serious" tone, some things do have to change. All speculation of course, but The Hobbit is just soooo insanely inaccurate, I feel there has to be more than what it seems.

-

Peter Jackson's own defenses of his changes (as far as I'm aware anyway) seem often enough to be based on the claim that: something from the book (or the portrayal of a character like he is in the book)...

... won't work on film. And that's a very subjective claim in itself, in any case.

-

Finally we can agree on something. He has said that, and it is subjective. However I don't know if he's mentioned specifics, so I don't know the full story and would have to talk to him directly. I have a strict code of giving others the benefit of the doubt, thus I cannot fault him on what I do not know, even if I think I know. I'd LIKE to think most of Tolkien COULD be done on film, but I've never actually tried it myself, and film is very technical, and very specific, full of problems that don't arise until the moment itself, no matter how hard you try to make it smooth and seamless.

I give up Galin as you obviously havent seen all of the fims.

Eru created Melkor, Melkor is indeed mentioned in TBOFA, by Galadriel as she banishes Sauron. As for all of your other examples, they to me are all moot, as they lead to happennings within the books which PJ was allowed to use, yet cannot be mentioned.....

Imagine the power Galadriel could have weilded if she could have quoted lines from the Silmarillion regarding the wars with Melkor and his downfall in the Necromancer scene!

PJ cant even explain what, when or where Numenor or Valinor or the Void is, was or when!

Sorry I cant argue with someone who is obviously obsessed with CT and his anti film and modern use of his blessed Fathers stories. I've said it before, I think that you are indeed CT in diguise and simply do not or cannot understand modern movie making, or the curiousness, wonderment and wants for further Canon tales from JRRT which may now need to be altered thanks to legal stupidity

 Thinking about it further Galin. You constantly think and expect that the non reader film viewer has the pre history and Canon story in their heads when going into the theater to see these films..... They dont !  I wish they did ,but hey don't so due to legal requirements PJ has to invent non Canon explanations to previous events..... All I can say is what a shame. You cant argue with that. I think it is a great shame and these messages are going to detract from JRRT's actual messages of love and humanity, later when further movies are made. These will happen once CT is gone and the younger generations of JRRT realise, and allow further movies to be made. Love it or hate it it will happen. What a shame it couldn't be canon from the beginning...

Galin is CRT in disguise.....you know, that is entirely possible!

I remember asking Galin if he was CT two years ago lol.

Also Gildor was a typo.... I meant Glofindal.

Also Galin, the answers to all of your other questions have been answered already in hundreds of other threads and posts on PT, in which you have argued with many of us before.....

Brego wrote: As for all your other examples, they to me are all moot, as they lead to happennings within the books which PJ was allowed to use, yet cannot be mentioned.....

What example did I refer to that leads to "happenings" within the books that Jackson was allowed to use yet "cannot be mentioned". Cirdan? Glorfindel and the Witch-king? These were specific examples to a point made by Balrogs, about description that could be employed as scenes in a film.

Gildor isn't named because he cant be. […] Also Gildor was a typo.... I meant Glofindal.

Very well, then why can’t Glorfindel be named? He certainly can be as he appears in The Lord of the Rings just like Gildor Inglorion.

Also Galin, the answers to all of your other questions have been answered already in hundreds of other threads and posts on PT, in which you have argued with many of us before.....

That’s just vague hand waving [the answers are out there "somewhere"] instead of actually providing answers.

Imagine the power Galadriel could have weilded if she could have quoted lines from the Silmarillion regarding the wars with Melkor and his downfall in the Necromancer scene!

Peter Jackson chose to put Galadriel in his Hobbit film and then chose to have her confront Sauron. And given Jackson’s choice to invent these scenes, now it’s suddenly Christopher Tolkien’s “great disservice” that Galadriel can’t also say some line from the Silmarillion in a scene Jackson invented for her?

Did the filmmakers even want her to quote something from this book? I don’t know yet, without any reference to this EE commentary I asked about.

So the argument then seems to be: Peter Jackson had to now have Galadriel say something invented because he could not use something "canon" from a particular book, even though she is in a wholly invented scene to start with!

Jackson is only lacking Galadriel's words with the Necromancer because he invented this scene, so not only would it still be fan fiction to have her say something from the Silmarillion here, the writers have put themselves in this scenario of their own will. Moreover...

A) does Galadriel necessarily have to say anything invented here? Not in my opinion. Make the scene visual perhaps, in a visual medium.

B) or why can't she cry out, for example (from The Lord of the Rings): Elbereth Gilthoniel, o menel palan-diriel, le nallon sí di-nguruthos!  "O Elbereth Starkindler, from heaven gazing far, to thee I cry now beneath the shadow of death."

Sorry I can't argue with someone who is obviously obsessed with CT and his anti film and modern use of his blessed Fathers stories. I've said it before, I think that you are indeed CT in diguise and simply do not or cannot understand modern movie making, or the curiousness, wonderment and wants for further Canon tales from JRRT which may now need to be altered thanks to legal stupidity.

More mudslinging and assertion. I would rather hear these EE commentaries.

Thinking about it further Galin. You constantly think and expect that the non reader film viewer has the pre history and Canon story in their heads when going into the theater to see these films..... They dont!

Actually I'm quite aware of the rather obvious idea that people who haven't read the books don't know what is in the books.

You simply don't get it Galin. You cannot simply name someone because they are named in the licensed books then go on to have them play a role in those stories without knowing how they fit in. Cirdan is another good example. Why did he give his Ring to Gandalf. Why is he standing at the Havens waiting with the last Ship. Why is he old?

The list is endless as are your ill informed cut and pasting of other peoples posts. It's robotic and dogmatic and to be honest boring.

This thread is about whether or not the films would have been better if PJ had been able to extract canon information. We know for a fact he wasn't. You your self have to us time and time again that he couldn't. I don't understand why you seem to love arguing with people who simply wanted a canon based movie series of our favourite stories.

Lets again list "Names" and "Things" mentioned in TH and TLOTR and the appendices.

Men of the West.

The Dunadain.

The Noldor, Sindar, Green and Grey Elves.

Angmar.

Ungolient.

Maeras.

Corsairs.

Numenor.

Earendil.

Maia.

Balrogs.

Celebrimbor.

On and On and On and On. It's endless. You can't just have someone pop up for a scene, be an incredibly important player in an interwoven great story and just leave them never to be seen again with no resolution.

The Movies would have been a total mess and totally intelligible for the masses.

What I'm happy about is that a lot of people I know are now reading Tolkien after seeing the movies. Most of them realise that certain chapter or characters differ to the movies and they are ok with that. At least they are reading JRRT's work and they all seem to love it.

Movie making is a very difficult business when adapting books. Good writers rely on the readers innate imagination to fill i gap and or build the world in which they are visiting. In film you don't have that luxury. Everything must make sense and have historical meaning and it was most of the history of ME that PJ couldn't access

As an inbetweener, knowing much more than most people and much less than the scholars of Arda, I find it hard to feel credible inputing on this thread.

However, I believe that this forum has stretched from its practical and productive purpose. It seems to be that it has become a competition of 'who knows the most about the great professors work', and 'who understands humans to the greatest extent'.

Thus, I would humbly request both that Galin and Brego put aside their difference as diplomatic, intelligent humans. Embrace Tolkien as a master of the english language and as a storyteller, as is the purpose of this website. I emplore you to remain constructive with your answers, stop bitching to eachother about eachother, and respect others on this website who do not want to go through the most current thread to read about (what now appears to be) a personal conflict. 

Yours both dimplomatically and emphatically,

-Gror Falkbeard

Gror, I am always interested in keeping the matter about Tolkien or the films.

I invite you or anyone to read any thread in which Brego or Balrogs and I discuss something (including this one obviously), and note who digresses into the personal remarks instead of keeping on point about the books or films.

In the "old days" here a person posting as "Lord of All" (I think that was his name, it's been so long now) and I disagreed about things somewhat frequently, but if I recall correctly he largely kept his commentary about Tolkien or the arguments at hand... "argument" in the sense of civil discussion.

If any of my responses seem short that doesn't mean they are impolite or mocking, and I can't always tell how someone will interpret a given response, or read it in a tone that was not intended.

And responding in a way that attempts to illustrate a given argument is flawed or not very compelling is not a personal attack if it's done in a civil, acceptable manner (subjective as that can be however). We can't always agree, but we can disagree in a civil way...

... but that said, I'm not going to bend over backwards with niceties to those who choose to engage in personal commentary about me rather than my points or questions.

I even attempted to peel back on the quotation function at first, because for some reason some seem to find this aggressive or something, yet it helps with clarity and brevity of response, and is done in various Tolkien boards I read or post at.

I point out the mudslinging of Brego and Balrogs, yes, and for the record I don't mind but it's not a substitute for good argument and is unnecessary...

... but in any case, in my opinion I am not responding in kind but rather to points made in the discussion, as is simply part of civil discussion.  

 Why is Cirdan old?

Because he was born a long time ago  (just joking, an attempt a light humor, nothing more)

The list is endless as are your ill informed cut and pasting of other peoples posts. It's robotic and dogmatic and to be honest boring.

Speaking of unnecessary personal jabs... but if I'm boring to someone so be it. No one is forced to read my posts obviously.

Movie making is a very difficult business when adapting books. Good writers rely on the readers innate imagination to fill i gap and or build the world in which they are visiting. In film you don't have that luxury. Everything must make sense and have historical meaning and it was most of the history of ME that PJ couldn't access.

I agree it's difficult but I disagree that everything needs to have historical digression in a film. And I realize you don't really mean "everything" but even the question of what is better or not is quite subjective.

As for good writing in a film versus a movie, obviously that's a very subjective and complicated matter. I could quote Tolkien about writing for a film versus a book, but I'll just refer people to his remarks about this after seeing the film treatment he was given in his day (see the "Zimmerman treatment" in The Letters of JRR Tolkien, and related commentary)

And again the filmmakers themselves do not seem to blame the lack of a Silmarillion on why they made change after change (including character changes in The Lord of the Rings). Unless they do, but I keep asking to hear the examples in the EE, if there are any.

Of course one has to consider a myriad of considerations about how to make a faithful, interesting, exciting film out of the books, including what you should leave in or take out given the time constraints of film. 

That said, I don't have the time (nor the inclination) to write an entire film script, and then claim it is notably better than what Jackson produced, or also claim it's far more faithful and accurate with respect to Tolkien's books...

... even if it sometimes steers away from arguable "cool" stuff (in the legal sources) because films have a time limitation, and the quest of the One, with its characters as Tolkien draws them, is better attended to than something else, in my opinion.

I would consider that I am writing for a film not a book, and that I'm going to be limited by time; and that yes, I have to pick and chose just what (or who) I think "needs" to be given background in order to craft something that makes enough sense, is not too confusing, and so on, to viewers who have no idea what the book says.

And then if I posted my theoretical film script, after long, long work, someone would likely say: I disagree with this or that choice; or with a lot of it, or whatever.

What I can (or might) do, if I have time, is work with examples: I gave two ways for Jackson to have Galadriel confront the Necromancer, in a scene invented by the filmmakers in the first place, one using a wholly attested snip of Elvish (instead of invented Black Speech) to speak to the Necromancer.

You can argue that a Silmarillion related quote might be better here of course, but someone else will probably have a different opinion (even if what you have is from the Silmarillion), and maybe a lot of people will have different opinions about that...

... and when the smoke of many opinions clears, is the scene Jackson chose to film necessarily better with a Silmarillion quote, or was Jackson's choice necessarily due to copyright concerns?

Would ever Peter Jackson necessarily agree that what he gave Cate Blanchett to say here would have changed if he had access to posthumously published text? 

I really can't imagine there will be any films made from any other of Tolkiens works.  Which is rather unfortunate, in my opinion as there is so much interesting content that a large amount of people will never get to see.  But if, somehow, someone got the rights to work with the  Silmarillion, and came up with a reasonable way of portraying it, it could be incredible.  However, I feel it would be almost impossible to get any real scale of time into it, and I think there would be too many threads to hold together.

Gror, lol, you must be new here. I know it does get rather dogmatic, does'nt it.....

Gwindor agreed re filming the Sil.

 

Thank you Galin and Brego for clarification.

Understand, it is indeed hard to... understand, what is civil and uncivil discussion online (because words written words are emotionally interpreted). I implore you to continue, and ask for forgiveness, as I clearly misunderstood both of you.

Thanks once more for clarification on this matter.

Gror

 Lots of things are being discussed.

There seems to be some discussion about staying on topic, or at least there was, so what specifically we ought to be discussing deserves some more consideration.

Rereading the initial post shows no actual question, which is fine. The initial post was Brego's, and contained the following,

I feel that PJ is finished with Middle Earth. I have a feeling that one of his apprentices will now take over. Quite a few of the people who worked on the Middle Earth movie series will take on the mantle. I hope so as least. I see the future of film middle Earth as a series of episodes of Middle Earth from the beginning. Like the Silmarillion, in a series of movies telling and showing Tolkien's evolution through the Ages from inception via Illuvatar as per the chapters of the Silmarillion supplemented with all other writings of JRRT. This is what I'm hoping for the future.....

So perhaps the original intention was for a discussion of what ME movies will be and who will direct/write them. That, however, already has 4-6 threads of varying lengths. What the discussion turned to was something that occurred in the third post, written by Balrogs,

 

I don't think we'll have any more screen adaptations until CRT passes on. Then the only hope is that he passes the estate to someone who is more open minded about sharing Tolkien's work to a new generation.

I truly and heavily stand by my belief that the movies would have been infinitely better if PJ was given rights to the Silmarillion as well. It was his limitations on how he could explain and present things that led him to be more careless about the adaptation and add things in to make it work his way.

Right now, with out actually looking through a lot of the evidence claimed to support these claims, I feel like I agree with this for the most part, absent truly, heavily, infinitely, and with the second sentince as follows: "Then the only hope is that he passes the estate to someone who is willing to work like hell towards a movie which truly conveys the messages of the sil while still making a profit." This is because in my opinion, CT is open minded about sharing Tolkien's work to a new generation, he just dislikes the films because he thinks they are just action films for young persons which eviscerate the books, and that they have caused ME to be devoured by its own commercialism.

Anyway, the discussion seems to be about how rights to the sil could have improved the movies, and about what movies will be made in the future and when/how this will happen.

Now, the only way we can consider how rights to the sil would have affected the films is to consider how they would have been used. We can argue and even all agree that it would have been better for, say, Glorfindel to be a character in the films as he was in the books, but that would not change the fact that PJ didn't do this. Thus the EE commentary seems to be of premium importance. I had little time this weekend (hence I wasn't here), but luckily have tomorrow off from school. I have no obligations, commitments, or limitations. I will watch the commentaries for as many as possible and take notes, then provide my reaction, along with as many quotes that seem relevant as possible. If somebody else could do this as well, that would be nice, since it will show that these are not just my opinions. Hope to be done with the 12 hours of LotR by tomorrow, but I will be home for 1 hour between 7:30 AM and 10:30 PM tomorrow, and dinner and homework to account for if I'm to get some sleep. Thursday I should have time to start tH, but I want to watch the EEs without commentary in close succession before the commentaries (no need for LotR since I've seen those so many times).

Just wanted to provide a schedule for people, since I believe the commentaries have been asked for at least three times now.

With respect to how I think the movies will proceed, there are threads for that, but I believe I've given my opinion, which is that the next step is a fall of Numenor movie. If I ever came into a few million dollars, I'd beseech CT with the ideas that he would have full veto and writing power, including the ability to shut the whole operation down at any time, with no hope for any profit of any kind (throw away millions of dollars, yes). Highlighting the fact that, if done correctly, such a movie could be beneficial for the Tolkien estate. I would expect no response.

By the way, myriad is an adjective, and only a noun when plural, thus "a myriad of" is incorrect, while "myriads of" is. This is the most singular of my concerns, and certainly one of my idiosyncrasies, but I hope that a Tolkien forum can at least preserve this one grammatical construct. I don't really care, but I do care.

Reply to Balrogs, part one

Galin wrote: "... as if to imply: if only Christopher Tolkien would have been more open minded about sharing his father's work, Peter Jackson would not have had to invent or alter things in The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. First example: we need not have seen Arwen meet Aragorn instead of Glorfindel."

Balrogs responded: However he did not have access to said balrog and didn't want to downplay the witch king so early on, so decided to scrap him overall.

But did the filmmakers actually give this as a reason? Plus earlier you said that using the Witch-king scene would have been perfect, which I took to mean that you think it could have worked early on.

I have another way to retain Glorfindel in any case, but as this is only part one, and is fairly long....

Galin wrote: So are you here arguing that Jackson "had to" (needed to) do this scene because he could not employ the Silmarillion? I asked the question in that context anyway.
 

Balrogs responded: Nope. *sigh* You can't ask questions in such specific contexts on the internet Galin.

But I can and did, to make a point (see below).

Did PJ HAVE TO include a scene involving orc origins, right or wrong? No. But he probably assumed audiences would want to know where they came from, so he HAD to find a way to appease them. Is that the answer you're looking for? No, he did not have to, but he had to find a way to meet the expectations he expected.

I’ll get to “had to” later, but even if Jackson assumed audiences would want to know where Orcs came from, a wholly accurate way to say anything about the Orcs can be found in the speech of Treebeard, or a bit from the Appendices.

And look how subjective the argument is getting -- nothing wrong with that by the way, but in my theoretical adaptation of The Lord of the Rings I would claim that it is accurate to the source I am adapting to go with Treebeard’s words about the Orcs, and the brief description in Appendix A.

So how does this relate to the claim that CJRT has done a great disservice to fans, in that Jackson had to make changes due to his inability to use the Silmarillion (which again, the constructed Silmarillion itself does not certainly answer the question of orcs in any case)?
 

Now, notice my use of have based off a context people can follow without having to over analyze. In this case the literal sense of "have” [snip for brevity] Did I HAVE to spell this out so clearly for you? Unfortunately yes, it seems I had to.

I'm aware of the common uses of "had" or "had to". A man wants to cross the Thames to see the other side of London. His cab breaks down and he later explains that he "had to" take a bus...

... of course he doesn't mean that that was his only option.

And this is easily revealed if the same man said his cab broke down so he had to swim the Thames, as then we easily recognize the many options open to him (another cab, a bus, the Underground, a boat, walking)... including the idea that he only wanted to cross the Thames in the first place!

So why focus on the admittedly obvious? Due to this characterization of Christopher Tolkien.

If you or Brego had begun by saying that the film version of The Lord of the Rings could have been better than it was if posthumously published texts were open to Peter Jackson, that is one thing, and in a sense you did say that, but you said more than that too, in my opinion...

 ... as the idea illustrated by the Glorfindel matter (in my opinion) suggested that Peter Jackson’s changes or inventions were the result of his inability to use the Silmarillion. If you say the change of Arwen for Glorfindel had to be made (even if you obviously don't mean Jackson had no other option, for example) because of his inability to draw from the Silmarillion...

... I think my point helps set up the question: why isn't it Peter Jackson's great disservice to the fans that he didn't retain Glorfindel, if one agrees he could have retained him by using the available sources?

And admittedly that's but one example, so I asked for more. The filmmakers, I would guess, had plenty of minds to explore options outside of the Silmarillion, which of course was protected by copyright law well before Peter Jackson came along.

Moving on, hold on to your hats...

...  but I both agree and disagree with CJRT about making a film of The Lord of the Rings.

I agree that the limitations of film are notable in this scenario, but I yet think that a faithful, beautiful, and exciting version can be made; and I don't think you need the Silmarillion or any other posthumously published text to make it really amazing, and have it make enough sense to the general public.

I do think I would cut, cut, cut (which Tolkien himself preferred rather than alteration), and focus on what would make this tale work on film (subjective again)...

... but I do think that it's possible.

Reply to Balrogs, part II

The Silmarillion speaks of Melkor kidnapping east elves and corrupting them into orcs. So here it would've been FUN and COOL to talk about the original Eru, the original gods, who is Melkor, what's his connection to Morgoth (and thusly Sauron), and where did the first orcs come from, not necessarily in that order. IN FACT I do believe Chris Lee's line is one example of where PJ took a bit of a legal risk. But that's as far as he was willing to go with it and fortunately it worked out, just like the blue wizards.

Well, arguably so, but (and not that you said otherwise) "fun" and "coolness" doesn’t even necessarily add up to better (depending upon in what sense "better" is meant anyway) with respect to crafting a film adaptation of Frodo's quest.

We don’t get orc origins even in The Lord of the Rings, and I wouldn’t digress about this in a film, not at least beyond what is in the books. 

With respect to what Christopher Lee said in the films, the legality of that aside, he could have said something brief about their breeding from Appendix F.

I am fully aware of the multiple orc origin stories, however the Silmarillion is the most well defined and most reputable of the posthumous texts.

I know you aren't a big fan, but most people are and accept the Sil as the "official" backstory.

Rather I am a big fan of the constructed Silmarillion! But that doesn’t change the fact that the orc origin in this book is only one idea from JRRT himself concerning this matter.

I also note that the idea CJRT chose for the constructed Silmarillion is characterized as a belief of the Wise of Eressea, with no one (of the good guys anyway) able to confirm the certain truth of the matter internally (within the story itself)... 

... but in any case, to my knowledge Christopher Tolkien has never claimed that the constructed version should be considered "official", no matter how many people choose to accept it as such.

(...) And I don't necessarily think it'd be best for PJ to have the full legendarium cause then he might be like you and mix and match pieces from beginning to end to make a completely unique story that contradicts the published texts.

Other people now imagine their personal Silmarillions due to the publication of The History of Middle-Earth series, as no finished version exists in Tolkien's hand, except for Qenta Noldorinwa (an early version, dated 1930; although admittedly that's a bit of a simplification even concerning the textual scenario).

Generally speaking there is no "finished" Silmarillion by JRR Tolkien of course. And for clarity I am the first to accept Tolkien-published texts as being canon, and thus my personal Silmarillion is built around that notion.

In other words I try to avoid contradiction with author-published texts, which is what CJRT himself at least attempted when he constructed his version. For example he even slightly altered a description of one of Feanor's sons due to a statement in Appendix F about the Eldar.

Galin wrote: Well here you are essentially criticizing Peter Jackson for not doing what he could have done with sources that were legally his to use (as you wrote "and/or Balrog" suggesting that a Witch-king scene would have worked fine).

Balrogs responded: Here it is again. Do you not know what and/or means? It doesn't mean choose one or the other, it means it could be one or the other.

I do know what it means, the result being that (you seemingly agree that) the legal Witch-king scene could have been employed without the Balrog scene.

I've given you several examples of what he MADE UP and you nit pick them so they don't work.

I agree, except for the choice of “nitpick"

The Hobbit is a little different. He basically re-wrote the whole story and it took a lot for me to not hate them. However, if you actually read my views towards the movie instead of taking words from another thread out of context, you'd see the only thing I cared about in The Hobbit movies was the cinematography.

I read them. In my opinion you give a pretty negative review of the third Hobbit Film, but I especially note the last two lines of your commentary below, from a recent thread here:

I admit though, it's taken a bit more self will to embrace the Hobbit films. The first one I loved and said meh to changes, but the second one....man did he just stop caring! At this point the only real similarities are the names and places. Tauriel didn't even really bother me, as she could be easily slipped in without altering too much storyline, and I love Evangeline Lily, and saw potential there. But Morgul arrows? Cruel townspeople? Gandalf fighting the Necromancer? Half the troupe staying behind in Laketown? The remainder actually then fighting Smaug alone? I mean, come on....I just don't get why he did it, and that's what bothers me the most. It really was not necessary...like he did it just because he could.

And in my opinion a lot of Jackson's changes were made because he wanted to make them, could make them, and felt that, in his opinion, they were good choices for film. 

However I will concede that The Hobbit movies were SO different and so changed, it's near impossible to tell what would've been done differently. HAVING SAID THAT, I think PJ did this intentionally. I think A) Because him and CRT do not like each other, and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he did it just because he could, maybe even as a slight to CRT FOR being so restrictive.

You appear to be saying that, at least in part, Jackson possibly made changes to slight Christopher Tolkien!

I would hope not, and I would guess not too.

B) Because The Hobbit was too tame to make a live action film. Was great as a cartoon, but if you're giving it a "serious" tone, some things do have to change. All speculation of course, but The Hobbit is just soooo insanely inaccurate, I feel there has to be more than what it seems.

I don’t have a great problem giving The Hobbit a more serious tone. I've no great problem adding the White Council element either. And I think Freeman is the perfect Bilbo, in theory. But that’s just very general stuff, and certainly not a review of Jackson’s films.

Finally we can agree on something. He has said that, and it is subjective. [snip for brevity] no matter how hard you try to make it smooth and seamless.

I knew we could agree on something if we kept at it long enough.

As the person who started this thread........ I'm sorry..........

Honestly one reason I responded the way I did is cause I didn't think Galin cared about the movies and so I wouldn't have to deal with his technicalities and watch every step I make. But, alas...

Galin, I read your response to me, and I have a counter point to literally everything you said. But, meh, this is pointless and a waste of time for both of us and I feel my efforts are better directed towards teaching that brick wall how to tango, so I won't. If you couldn't agree to disagree after reading things the first time, much less the 100th, it's over. GG.

Btw, I do love how you always put cool in quotes haha, like it's an unacceptable term for such a serious topic, that cracks me up. Those blasted kids and their newfangled words...But hey didn't you know? It's "cool" to use cool in quotes!

 

Edit: And also, you COULD be Chris Tolkien. And sadly, I do think it's possible with certain Hobbit changes PJ wanted to.....deliver a very specific message to him, and it very possibly could have something to do with CRT not cooperating with the filmmakers, for whatever reason it may be (my best guess would be copyright issues).

I don't know what you're sorry about Brego, but in this thread you started, you also chose to add a negative characterization about Christopher Tolkien and then continue to argue your point... and discussion resulted.

:shrug:

It's a Tolkien discussion forum of course, and my guess is that your same statement would inspire more than roses and rainbows at other Tolkien discussion boards -- in other words, my guess is that there would be plenty of folks on the web who might disagree with you.

And Balrogs, call it technicalities as you like, but in my opinion you ended up agreeing that Glorfindel could have been retained without the Silmarillion. And when I asked for more examples of Peter Jackson's changes (actual changes in the film) that were the arguable result of his inability to use the Silmarillion...

... what I got in response, for example, was a list of things Peter Jackson wasn't allowed to employ (although again not all of the things on Brego's list can't be found in the Appendices in some measure), rather than examples of actual changes in the films arguably due to Jackson's inability to employ certain things.

These are hardly technicalities in my opinion.

And Balrogs, in your earlier post you basically said: Galin if you can't agree to disagree after I make this argument (in a fairly "long" post from you), then it's over...

... well it's fine with me if you don't want to continue, but in any case in my opinion I'm not doing something wrong or uncivil by not simply agreeing to disagree at some point in the discussion decided by you.

And about quoting the word cool: I sometimes put it in quotes because what is "cool" is open to subjective opinion, just like I did with the word "better" in this thread.

And note that I first quote "more accurate" along with "cooler" as both can be very subjective, but also note both words are not quoted in my second paragraph (from an earlier post, 17th of January):

Galin wrote: And with respect to what I think or don't think about something: in your last post you refer to something that might be "cooler" if Jackson could have used the Silmarillion (or other posthumously published texts), and (or) "more accurate" if he could have used such texts.

And now you say it's in the vicinity of four or five of Jackson's scenes that you think either could have been cooler or more accurate, or both.

I think your comment about this illustrates an interpretation of something in my posts that isn't really there from my perspective.

And if "could" is the issue then so could a lot of people on line be Christopher Tolkien.

And I agree that it would be sad, and (to add my opinion) arguably unprofessional for Peter Jackson to have made any changes in his Hobbit film for the reasons you noted (noted in the context of a possibility anyway). 

I may not be a fan of Jackson's work, but again I would at least hope this is not so.

Oh I'm sorry that the dwindling members of this site have to be belittled and attacked by you and your purism verging on fanatical belief that you know all that Tolkien had in mind and never put down on paper.

I simply cannot be bothered even reading most of your posts as they are dogmatic and deliberately rude and argumentative.

I just find it sad really.

 

Brego, again I'll just point any members of this site to read this thread (or any other) and decide for themselves just who is indulging in the personal attacking, or being rude.

Your last post, full of your own negative opinions and assertions about me or how I post (instead of the discussion at hand), being now part of this thread. 

Again people don't always agree, especially about the films, but that alone doesn't necessarily make things uncivil.

Ok...I'm done. This is a Galin specific post so if you don't wanna deal with PT drama...ignore! Brego we're just fueling the fire. Galin pretty much every single person in this thread, and a vast number of other thread you're in, has at some point, in so many words, stated you come off way too strong, arrogant, frustrating AND/OR judgmental sometimes, so if it is accidental, you'd think that'd at least spark some sort of "huh, maybe I do come off differently than I intend and should be more careful about how I phrase things" thought. But of course not, Galin never does anything wrong and is always being completely reasonable. At least in his eyes. Ha.

"And Balrogs, call it technicalities as you like, but in my opinion you ended up agreeing that Glorfindel could have been retained without the Silmarillion. And when I asked for more examples of Peter Jackson's changes (actual changes in the film) that were the arguable result of his inability to use the Silmarillion...

... what I got in response, for example, was a list of things Peter Jackson wasn't allowed to employ (although again not all of the things on Brego's list can't be found in the Appendices in some measure), rather than examples of actual changes in the films arguably due to Jackson's inability to employ certain things."

I also told you to drop the Glorfindel example and focus on the other 10 Brego and I gave you, like orc birthing, which you ignored and stuck with Glorfindel cause you can never be wrong, even though I did give very specific examples of a Glorfindel addition and how the Sil would be essential to fit him in and LOTR didn't have enough. Just cause his name is mentioned does not mean every backstory of him can be used. Oh wait sorry, it might not have been specifically 10 examples, that's called sarcasm, you should read into it sometime. Oh wait. And what we said is the movies would've been better if he could use the Sil, not necessarily specific scenes needed to be changed. YOU asked for specific changes. Why can't you get it through your head that what we're saying is he COULD have made certain scenes better, NOT that he HAD HAD HAD HAD to to make a scene work. Certain scenes COULD COULD COULD COULD COULD COULD have been done differently if he had more options, like orc birthing scenes, not SHOULD SHOULD HAD TO HAVE TO NEED TO SHOULD. And hell, let's say in all these blocks of text someone did say specific scene. Does it not compute that there is more to the entire argument than that aspect? The main and majority of arguments are referring to things he could've added? Are you unable to focus on multiple points at once? Get over the specific scenes!! The overall point is the movies could've been better with the Sil and this has been made quite clear, but you can't drop one aspect.

And your comment about people complaining about the Sil. Please. Those people are named Galin and purist friends who don't even like the movies anyways, and are the vast minority. Of every single person in this thread, you're the only one who doesn't think it would make a positive difference. And you'll fight to the death over it. If a Sil scene was added in and "some people had problems with it," I GUARANTEE they didn't like any of PJs other adaptions, so IMO their point is null and void.

LAST BUT NOT LEAST, you continually insist that he COULD have done it with the appendices, even though Brego and I emphasize you don't know that and there's no way to know it. Your shortening my paragraph for "brevity" is a perfect example of you interpreting things how you want. That COMPLETELY defeated the purpose of what I said. You have absolutely no idea what the filmmakers did. For all you know they absolutely tried to do a Glorfindel scene with what they had and WERE told he couldn't. You don't know, I don't know, nobody knows. Holy hell there are even several instances of close calls with copyright issues, like blue wizards, which is proof alone that he wanted to do more than he was allowed!

I'm so sick of this Galin. Everyone will think I'm a jerk for this, so I'm sorry to those who think this is childish, but just stop responding to me. We never, ever get along, you misinterpret every little thing I say (or change it around), and I dislike your style of discussion on the internet. Whether you see it or not, it comes off as very condescending and it seems you wanna play devil's advocate and push buttons just because you can. And I know you know I'm not the first person to say this. It's frustrating and frankly I don't want to deal with it anymore. If you absolutely cannot see how you come off this way and how annoying it is that you make 0 effort to change it, I pity you.

Also, I hate to say this, but nows the time...you've changed since Grondy left. You did not always come off like you do now, you used to be extremely friendly in tone. Then you changed. I dunno if you see it, but I absolutely do, and it's very unfortunate. And yes, others do too. I've also seen your posts on other Tolkien forums, and you act the exact same way, and other people say the exact same things as us and get into the exact same stupid semantical arguments. Just think on that for a second and see if something clicks.

Let me sum up this thread for you so we can close it and ideally delete it: Most people think the movies could've been better with more lore, others don't.

/end thread.

Balrogs wrote: I'm so sick of this Galin. Everyone will think I'm a jerk for this, so I'm sorry to those who think this is childish, but just stop responding to me.

You chose to be part of the discussion Balrogs (and if I recall correctly, after saying you would not respond to me again in some other thread a while back). In any case I plan to respond where and when I choose, just as you do. 

And I have never had a moderator at any site warn me about an aggressive style, or warn me about anything for that matter.

And over at Barrow Downs for example, people are not shy about noting their views in threads (if no moderator steps in), given certain responses I could point to over there.

 

The only example I can recall on the web is at Barrow Downs when someone in a thread complained I was 'stalking' him (or coming close to it). It was with Doug Kane (author of Arda Reconstructed), but as soon as I heard that he thought this, I stopped and apologized, and he said in a PM that I had shown my quality...

... and the 'stalking' complaint came about because I was responding to various points in his book, one at a time, over a period of weeks or months, but for my part, that was only because it took time to research each example, one by one, and comment on themI

And hey I have a life outside of the Tolkien forums too!

Still what I should have done was wait until I had finished researching all of them, and posted them all in one huge thread or two, similar to the way he gathered them all up for his book.

But in any case, like I say, although I felt every right to comment on each example, as he did in his book, I yet stopped when he asked, realizing why he asked, and we were fine after that.

And we still engage on line in a friendly manner, if sometimes we still clash about things. Actually he wasn't posting much at BD, at least then, but I had alerted him to the thread as I wanted him to know about it.

 

We never, ever get along, you misinterpret every little thing I say (or change it around), and I dislike your style of discussion on the internet.

Okay. You don't need to read or respond to any of my posts. No one has to.

Is this said with an angry or aggressive tone? I'm saying it with a shrug and in a matter of fact way, that's all.

I'll just generally say that if we are talking past each other, well that happens all the time on the web, but that doesn't necessarily equate to a personal attack or deliberate straw man tactics, from either side.

I don't mind a good debate, but I like to keep things on point, and I might get a little repetitive because I like to straighten out one thing before moving to the next...

... at least usually.

Also, I hate to say this, but nows the time...you've changed since Grondy left. You did not always come off like you do now, you used to be extremely friendly in tone.

As I said to Gror, I'm not going to bend over backwards to try to somehow make sure every sentence or phrase can only be possibly read as extremely friendly (subjective as that is) in tone, especially to you and Brego after once again turning certain parts of the discussion into your personal jabs and negative commentary.

That doesn't mean I am trying to annoy you two or whatever, but especially once this personal stuff begins I'm just going to get to the point.

Tar-Elenion (I don't think he posts anywhere now, but I read his stuff in the archives at various sites) used to post with a brevity and directness that some seemed to find aggressive or arrogant.

I didn't. He was just getting to the point in my opinion. I think my style is friendly enough, especially considering all the javelins you and Brego are casting at the moment. 

Again cast as you like :shrug:

I tried to inject some humor here but maybe you took that as arrogant, I don't know.

Maybe you will interpret it that way and maybe the next person will see it as an attempt to keep things calm and friendly. If anyone found it mocking or whatever, it's not intended that way, and whether you believe it or not, I am the author of my posts.

And noting my explanation of "cool" I think you injected something that isn't intended.

Let me sum up this thread for you so we can close it and ideally delete it: Most people think the movies could've been better with more lore, others don't.

Well in my opinion there was more to it than that, but we have been over this already. 

Why delete the thread in any case?

 

Turning to another aspect of the thread...

... I agree with you that we will likely not see a Silmarillion on screen in CJRT's lifetime, and my total guess is that Adam Tolkien will step in at some point and continue the policy of the Estate about copyright.

I wonder if CJRT will put anything in his will about it, although I'm no lawyer so I'm not sure what that would mean, even if he did.

Here's where we need Doug (who is a lawyer)?

I also wonder if CJRT will step down before he passes on.

He's in his 90s now, but who knows. I'm not even sure if he is done with publishing his father's work yet. The man is amazing. 

Anyway, now I'm drifting.

Coming from a third perspective, I see that this has become a personal thread from both sides. That being said, I won't say much. What I will say is this, people have to remember that even though their intentions are meant to be offensive, others may be offended. Those who make the comment must see this and take responsibility as coming off offensive.
  [1] [2] >>