shudder shudder shake

Well, not surprised, I had expected them to give Bilbo more to do in the final battle, but I had hoped they wouldn't. Bilbo just isn't a soldier, I hope they will realise how stupid it will look, and leave it out

Maybe like the Arwen/Helm's Deep debacle they will realize their folly before its too late (and hopefully this time before they waste a chunk of the budget and filming time on nonsense like this- have they learned nothing? I'm starting to wonder if they even read the book or if they just got someone to give them a rough outline so they could make up the rest themselves.)

[quote="pettytyrant101":3bjm5v75]have they learned nothing?[/quote:3bjm5v75] They've learned that they're able to make billions of dollars while disregarding faithfulness to the core characters and themes of the book.

[quote="Ringdrotten":2u9kty0h]Here's some interesting news! http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2010/09 ... more-38409 Some nice info in there, some talk of production starting in January! Probably not true, as with most Hobbit movie news, but one can still hope Some stuff there though, that I did not like: "And, inadvertently, we know of a possible change to the plot. The character summary says: although . . . he doesn’t have huge courage he does become, particularly in the last battle, very brave." I hope they don't make a big warrior out of Bilbo, that would be silly. Hopefully, this part of the article will prove false [/quote:2u9kty0h] They can't have Bilbo fighting- it would look so weird! Like in TRK, where Pippin or Merry kills that ORK. Except he would be, in the middle of a full scale battle fighting, Men twice his size! I mean it says in the first chapter that he is a burger- don't mess this up Jackson! I hope this doesn't happen, if it does, it may very well spoil the movie for me.

No Eldo I believe loads of people wanted it to be good, wanted to enjoy it and paid a lot of money to go see it in droves-and were stung and knew they were. Hence I believe they will be more wary this time. As I've said elsewhere, off of this forum I don't know a single person who, having watched those three films, has any remaining desire to ever have to see them again. And more people than for any other film in my entire life have said to me that they have never seen the end of RotK because they fell asleep first. And the bottom line is if someone earnestly asked me to recommend five enjoyable films to watch LotR wouldn't be there, and for the films of my all time favourite book not to be there is a terrible thing, but in all honestly would you really recommend them above other films? Even other blockbusters such as Avatar? Or Star Wars (New Hope)?

What makes you think they will stay restrained all the way till Five Armies? No I fear the troll scene will now involve a fight- no dwarves creeping up to be captured one by one, they will all go down axes swinging I reckon. And whats the chances of Bilbo tricking the spiders with words when he can just slaughter his way to the rescue (I know there's a bit of fighting here anyway in the book but it will be far, far more I bet). And the elves, appearing and disappearing in the woods, that's not threatening or dramatic enough for PJ. Lets have the elves hunt the dwarves down through the wood, on horseback, led by Prince Legolas. And Bard shooting Smaug- that's no good either. Get the hero do it after he's slaughtered all the orcs. Bard can get knocked out instead of Bilbo and Bilbo can pick up his bow and miraculously manage to draw it and shoot saving the day before he and Gandalf nip down to Dol Guldur to reveal and chase out Sauron before heading home! May the Valar forgive them because I doubt very much I will.

[quote="pettytyrant101":1g7rjlsn]No Eldo I believe loads of people wanted it to be good, wanted to enjoy it and paid a lot of money to go see it in droves-and were stung and knew they were. Hence I believe they will be more wary this time.[/quote:1g7rjlsn] I really think that what I said about hope to Ringdrotten is applicable here too. [quote:1g7rjlsn]As I've said elsewhere, off of this forum I don't know a single person who, having watched those three films, has any remaining desire to ever have to see them again. And more people than for any other film in my entire life have said to me that they have never seen the end of RotK because they fell asleep first.[/quote:1g7rjlsn] And lots of people I know, even ones who normally don't like fantasy and other geek-related stuff, loved the LOTR movies. Can we agree that personal anecdotes aren't a good basis for generalizations? [quote:1g7rjlsn]And the bottom line is if someone earnestly asked me to recommend five enjoyable films to watch LotR wouldn't be there, and for the films of my all time favourite book not to be there is a terrible thing, but in all honestly would you really recommend them above other films? Even other blockbusters such as Avatar? Or Star Wars (New Hope)?[/quote:1g7rjlsn] Not the original Star Wars (and maybe a few others), but they'd be pretty high up there, petty. Reiterating your own opinions does not make them any less of a minority opinion. I'm not saying you're wrong about the films' quality because it's a subjective measure that can't be labeled good or bad, but I don't think as many people agree with you as you seem to believe.

[quote="pettytyrant101":3qsty7s5]therefore it is the duty of those of us who can see the trickery to reveal it for the benefit of others less fortunate lest it be allowed to happen again. [/quote:3qsty7s5] It's not trickery for film-makers to have different priorities (even when there's good arguments to be made why they should think otherwise). More importantly, people are not "unfortunate" just because they disagree with you and I. [quote:3qsty7s5]When it comes to film personal anecdote is what most people go on- what is a film review but an anecdote?- all those critical applauds you credit to PJ's films are merely the anecdotes of people paid to give anecdotes.[/quote:3qsty7s5] Film reviewers also influence a lot of people's movie-going habits. They also a group with a broad spectrum of likes, dislikes, friends, etc.; as opposed to 'the people who petty talks to about LOTR'. You may have noticed that I talked more about box office than critical acclaim, anyway.

But it does suggest that the film was rather popular, which is the point I was making.

Why are you so resistant to the idea that other people simply honestly disagree with you? Your insitence that 'fooling' was involved smacks of a hubris that is quite unwarranted.

So, those who went to see the films several times in the cinemas, and later bought theatrical releases and extended editions and watched them several times were fooled? Those who were fooled by slick marketing probably didn't watch the films a second time, the ones who enjoyed the films for what they are, did

[quote="Ringdrotten":283h3wjq]Those who were fooled by slick marketing probably didn't watch the films a second time, the ones who enjoyed the films for what they are, did [/quote:283h3wjq] Very good point, Ringdrotten. Additionally, slick marketing is becoming less effective since the Internet is making it easier for early viewers to give feedback to other people. This has really taken off in the last few years but even when LOTR came out the Internet was growing fast. And, of course, movie critics (who a lot of people listen to) are able to say if a film is good or bad regardless of marketing. A slick marketing campaign is not enough to save a movie that audiences hate (Exhibit A: [i:283h3wjq]The Last Airbender[/i:283h3wjq]). Advertising aside though, audiences will go see movies they like even if petty doesn't think they should like them, because he is not the arbiter of cinematic quality.

[quote="pettytyrant101":fvppriwj]Please note the word 'purist' Eldo its the important one in that sentence![/quote:fvppriwj] Purism tends to deal specifically with adaptation quality (something you may note that I [i:fvppriwj]do[/i:fvppriwj] think can be assessed objectively or semi-objectively), not with how enjoyable a movie is to watch for someone who doesn't care about faithfulness. [quote:fvppriwj]Why you feel such people have some inherent right to judge a films quality whilst others don't is beyond me.[/quote:fvppriwj] My only real disagreement with you here is whether or not most people enjoyed the films. Critics and awards shows are sometimes - though not always - an indicator of how well received a film was by most people. Nowhere did I say that critics can objectively determine a film's quality; in fact, I specifically said [i:fvppriwj]nobody[/i:fvppriwj] can judge that. I suspect that the point of confusion was in my last post, where I admit that my wording was a little unclear, but in light of my overall point I think that it was clear I was referring to critics expressing their opinions (and people acting on them) rather than any sort of objective measure. [quote:fvppriwj]You say a lot of people go on what film critics say, yet most critics are not independent and like all journalists have the editorial nature of their employer to take into consideration amongst other things. Feedback from the internet can likewise be difficult to negotiate as it has not been unknown for film companies to post on forums and the like as a 'member' saying what a great film they've just seen.[/quote:fvppriwj] Even so, it is not usual for critics to be so close to unanimous about a film, nor can undercover studio employees stop other people on the Internet from responding on forums saying the undercover person is wrong about how good the film was. Yet LOTR had an overwhelmingly positive response, far more than most films. If you were right and this was all trickery, than a lot more films would have receptions like that. As it is though, LOTR stands out for its positive reception.

Yes, clearly, only a "liberal" would think that the highest grossing film trilogy of all time was very popular among movie-goers.

I had a response written about, but I'm just going to use a quote from an essay I wrote because I think it was better written. [quote:jwgfvv2k]Additionally, being a purist does not mean thinking the films are horrible. Personally, I thin the films did a poor job of staying faithful to the book through the process of adaptation (thus failing in that regard, though they could have been far worse), but I also think that all in all they are entertaining pieces of cinema. I stand in awe of the time and effort put in by the entire crew, by the level of artistry in the props and sets, the breathtaking locations, and the beautiful music. In my subjective opinion, PJ’s The Lord of the Rings has everything necessary to be considered great movies, even if I find flaws in them unrelated to adaptation. This has led to something of a mantra for me: great films, poor adaptations. I love watching these films, and have seen them more than any others except the original Star Wars trilogy (and that only because Star Wars has a six or seven year head start), but I can not help but be irked by the fact that they claim to be a version of The Lord of the Rings after all the disregard for the book shown by the filmmakers in many instances. I will not let the title of the films stand in the way of appreciating their artistic and entertainment value, however.[/quote:jwgfvv2k] In short, I think that being faithful and being entertaining are two different things with different requirements for each. Just because the films failed at one doesn't mean they automatically failed at the other and I have no problem watching the films and enjoying the good even while disliking the bad.

[quote="pettytyrant101":mi77zlhv]And surely the single aim of a film adapted from a book is to adapt the book?[/quote:mi77zlhv] I think the aim is - or should be - both to be faithful and to make an entertaining film. That's why there sometimes have to be changes made from the original so that the story flows better onscreen (though PJ used this excuse far beyond it's sell-by date). [quote:mi77zlhv]I'm not sure what this everything is.... Not things I would consider ideal for 'greatness' in a film.[/quote:mi77zlhv] No, the parts you mention are not "great", but there are other parts that I do consider great. That was sort of my point - though there is both good and bad, I am still able to enjoy the good. I think the amount of bad prevents them from being the best films I've ever seen, but I still think they're great (though that label is vague to the point of meaninglessness). [quote:mi77zlhv]how much of that is because they are films of LotR? but are you sure you are not forgiving more than you would other films [i:mi77zlhv]because[/i:mi77zlhv] its LotR?[/quote:mi77zlhv] I honestly can't say. I do tend to be [i:mi77zlhv]more[/i:mi77zlhv] critical of the decisions made regarding adaptation than I am with other movies, but I really don't know how much I would have enjoyed watching the films if I hadn't read the books first. Any answer I gave would be pure guesswork.

I think a lot of it comes down to personal taste.

Liberals! There should be some sort of spray!

(((Mr Tyrant, if we managed to ban CFC's, surely we could get rid of CTL's as well!)))

It's very rare for a film to be [i:2io31q61]both[/i:2io31q61] a popular success, and a critical success. The fact that Jackson's films were both extremely popular, and were critically acclaimed by critics (notorious for making Petty look like his sweet Aunt Matilda in their hate for popular films ), suggests that Jackson's films were objectively awesome. [b:2io31q61]GB[/b:2io31q61]

Well, he's actually my Uncle. You are, of course, quite new here! And, yes Respectability is Paramount on this Forum (with some), so if you don't mind, please keep your inuendos to yourself in future. That is: No More Sauce, Ringdrotten! Mind, I do offer something of an apology. I see now that what I said could be construed by the crude minded as a little [i:1x60hcn7]blue[/i:1x60hcn7]. On consideration, I should have said: "Is that Liberal Repellent small enough to put in your pocket?" No hard feelings, though. (Men do have crude minds mostly - Uncle Odo is an exception, of course).

I don't want something like that in my hand! (What if GB knew I had it? Imagine the strain on our relationship! )

Aha! I am conflicted. Part of me is ecstatic to have you back, Halfwise - the other part (the Pure part in fact) must without fear or favor umask you as the worst of kind of Tolkien Fan: the Tolken Traitor!!!

errmmm... when I said [i:21vav1au]Tolkien Traitor[/i:21vav1au], I meant, [i:21vav1au]Tolkien-Fans-with-Points-of-Views-not-Necessarily-Always-the-same-as-the-ones-I-have[/i:21vav1au]*! *The "TFWPOVNNATSATOIH" as I call them (though, you have to admit, [i:21vav1au]Tolkien Traitors[/i:21vav1au] is simpler! )