|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oiotári
Tol Eressea
Oct 17 2010, 1:59am
Post #76 of 202
(678 views)
Shortcut
|
okay, back to physics
get some sleep ... 3 am, yikes 
The wide world is all about you:
you can fence yourselves in, but you cannot for ever fence it out
You can only come to the morning through the shadows
(This post was edited by Oiotári on Oct 17 2010, 2:00am)
|
|
|
tumhalad
Bree
Oct 17 2010, 2:22am
Post #78 of 202
(686 views)
Shortcut
|
Ok, I don't want to get into a purist vs. gusher stoushe, but really, accusing me of hypocrisy is plain unfair. My point is to allow those of us who hold contrarian views to hold them without calling us "ignorant". That's all. And as for using the old canard - books and films are different "medium", well, you can do better than that. If you like the films so much, be prepared to defend them properly. Don't expect those of us who actually care whether or not Frodo's character was dealt with well enough, (or Faramir's, Gimli's, Aragorn's, Denethor's, Galadriel's etc) to pander to your moral outrage and shut up.
As for the films earning money - so what? This says nothing at all about the quality of the translation from film to book, merely that people like slash and hack sword epics. It manifestly does not intuit that the films were faithful adaptations, as I believe they were not.
As for the barely veiled accusation that I'm a troll, and therefore a kind of parasite, allow me to exonerate myself and reclaim my dignity. I am fully aware that there is such a thing as the Socratic method, and it should be obvious that I don't hold my views simply to outrage people. How insulting. If you think I'm the only "uber-purist" out there, check out the Reading boards, or better yet, this thread:
http://www.minastirith.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=001478;p=1
Many of my own arguments and thoughts are articulated by others in this forum. It is extensive, and deals with every aspect of the film making process, the films themselves, the motivations etc of the directors, producers etc.
(This post was edited by tumhalad on Oct 17 2010, 2:31am)
|
|
|
Tim
Tol Eressea
Oct 17 2010, 2:25am
Post #79 of 202
(679 views)
Shortcut
|
This says nothing at all about the quality of the translation from film to book, merely that people like slash and hack sword epics.
That in your moral outrage at being called ignorant (understandable) you don't commit the same crime yourself.
King Arthur: Who are you who can summon fire without flint or tinder?
Tim: There are some who call me... Tim.
|
|
|
tumhalad
Bree
Oct 17 2010, 2:32am
Post #80 of 202
(673 views)
Shortcut
|
I have a right to be morally outraged, me and my kind were labelled "ignorant". 
(This post was edited by tumhalad on Oct 17 2010, 2:34am)
|
|
|
Tim
Tol Eressea
Oct 17 2010, 2:37am
Post #81 of 202
(674 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Hey you're entitled to your opinion of the movies
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
but you can't speak for anyone but yourself - so you really can't say why anyone else likes the movies without making some uninformed assumptions. Take me for example. The movies were much more to me than hack and slash. See? 
*ah your edit adds some tone to your previous post I couldn't detect before so perhaps I needn't drive my point further. 
King Arthur: Who are you who can summon fire without flint or tinder?
Tim: There are some who call me... Tim.
(This post was edited by Tim on Oct 17 2010, 2:39am)
|
|
|
tumhalad
Bree
Oct 17 2010, 2:42am
Post #82 of 202
(662 views)
Shortcut
|
 No I still don't "see". There is plenty of evidence that many others hold similar or identical views with regards to the films as I do. Check out the forums above, for example. As such, I can reasonably claim to represent a particular point of view, while acknowledging that there are of course various emphases etc that others ascribe (think different pet hates). All I'm asking is that all "purists" who share this kind of opinion are respected.
Moreover, I am obviously not ascribing to you the opinion that the films are "hack and slash". But I'm under no obligation to qualify my opinion every time I make it. I don't hold to the mantra that all opinions are equal, I certainly respect your right to have an opinion, but I think there is more evidence to suggest the films were poorly written and poorly executed in terms of plot, tone, moral meaning than otherwise.
So, and yes this is an edit, so I'm not sure if it adds "tone" (I maintain the right to edit my posts):
-I respect your right to feel any way you like about the films, however
-I do not agree with you and I reserve the right to say so
-I am not seeking to lecture people, only to defend my intellectual integrity.
-The fact that there are not many others like me on this board does not negate my position or make it a void truth-claim. Purists are vocal elsewhere.
-I am asking only to be respected
-I am looking forward to the Hobbit, despite misgivings.
(This post was edited by tumhalad on Oct 17 2010, 2:49am)
|
|
|
Tim
Tol Eressea
Oct 17 2010, 2:49am
Post #83 of 202
(672 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No I think you misunderstand me
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm not saying it's impossible for others to have views close to yours - what I'm saying is you can't presume to know why the movie made a lot of movie because then you're saying you've magically jumped into millions of peoples heads and found out why they dug the movies. Thus I would never say something like "Everyone who hates the movies is a book purist." See what I mean now?
King Arthur: Who are you who can summon fire without flint or tinder?
Tim: There are some who call me... Tim.
|
|
|
Tim
Tol Eressea
Oct 17 2010, 2:52am
Post #84 of 202
(652 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well nobody's under any obligations at all
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But I'm under no obligation to qualify my opinion every time I make it.
But it weakens your point when you call out someone on something then do that very thing yourself. That's all I'm saying.
King Arthur: Who are you who can summon fire without flint or tinder?
Tim: There are some who call me... Tim.
|
|
|
tumhalad
Bree
Oct 17 2010, 3:00am
Post #85 of 202
(638 views)
Shortcut
|
Sure, I think I understand you better. But I'm making the claim that people generally are inclined to like the LOTR due to the most part for its action, its scenery, its music and not the particulars of its adaptation. Of course I have no direct evidence of this, but I don't think its an unreasonable claim, and what's more you will have a hard job convincing me that people like the films because they were faithful to the book.
My own opinion is that those who say that do not know the books as well as they could.  *tries to deflect a rain of moral outrage, again*. The books are objective entities, and while it's certainly true that people can gain different "meanings" from the book, certain things, including the particulars of the ring quest itself, cannot be doubted.
For example, in the books it is explicitly clear that the Ring must be destroyed not only lest it fall into Sauron's hands but also lest it fall into the hands of the "good". In case there is some doubt about this, let me make it clear. This is the central moral message of the book. I wouldn't have minded so much about superficial things like Frodo's age, the Elves at Helm's Deap, the absurd Radioactive Scrubbing Bubble episode in RoTK (euh!) if Jackson et al. had got this right. Instead, they fudged it, fundementally altering the moral landscape of the story. Instead, "only Sauron" can use the ring according to Aragorn, as it "answers to [him] alone". This is a fundemental difference between the books and the movies, not a mere aesthetic one designed to couch the transition from book to script. It is gratuitous and unecessary, and worst of all cheapens the central message of the story. If you really think this is debatable, go watch the movies again, go read the books. Now, obviously the fact that this is changed does not mean much to most audiences, or they wouldn't have gone along to see the film in droves. But they did come away with a misguided appreciation for what is ostensibly meant to be Tolkien's story. Therein lies the tragedy.
|
|
|
tumhalad
Bree
Oct 17 2010, 3:10am
Post #86 of 202
(633 views)
Shortcut
|
But I'm under no obligation to qualify my opinion every time I make it.
But it weakens your point when you call out someone on something then do that very thing yourself. That's all I'm saying.
No, I'm not saying people need to qualify their opinions every time they make them. Be prepared to defend them, sure. All I'm asking is that mine be respected as valid.
|
|
|
Tim
Tol Eressea
Oct 17 2010, 3:13am
Post #87 of 202
(687 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm sure there are other points you could bring up
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
but I would address the one you made about the temptation of good. This is not glossed over in the movies - both Gandalf and Galadriel are dramatic examples of the Ring's power to corrupt even those who are good and would use it for good. As a matter of fact, it's emphasized even more in that it blatantly tempts Aragorn and (unlike the book) he says he won't take the Ring within 100 leagues of Minis Tirith. There are more examples I could name but...
But, um, we may be taking this thread too off topic... not sure.
Would I have liked the movies to stick closer to the book? Yes. On the whole though I thought the movies kept enough of the book that I enjoyed it anyway. But hey that's just me.
I hesitate to make claims that people generally liked the movies for one thing or another not just for the reasons I've previously stated - but it also astounds me constantly the variety of viewpoints exhibited just on this little message board. I mean reasons for liking or not liking things just pop out of people's mouths that I would have never even considered. Again just my perspective and perhaps food for thought.
Cheers!
King Arthur: Who are you who can summon fire without flint or tinder?
Tim: There are some who call me... Tim.
|
|
|
tumhalad
Bree
Oct 17 2010, 3:20am
Post #88 of 202
(644 views)
Shortcut
|
but I would address the one you made about the temptation of good. This is not glossed over in the movies - both Gandalf and Galadriel are dramatic examples of the Ring's power to corrupt even those who are good and would use it for good. As a matter of fact, it's emphasized even more in that it blatantly tempts Aragorn and (unlike the book) he says he won't take the Ring within 100 leagues of Minis Tirith. There are more examples I could name but...
I didn't say it was glossed over, i said it was dealt with poorly. Yes, the ring tempts, but this is a contradiction in the movie. Aragorn is at once tempted while also filmed saying that it "answers to Sauron alone". As for Galadriel and Gandalf, in the movies the nature of the temptation seems to be that it can be used, but then the film contradicts itself time and time again. "Aragorn is right. We cannot use it" Gandalf says at the "council" of Elrond. The whole message is lost, diluted in a morass of bad script writing. What is the point of showing the temptations of the ring if it only answers to Sauron. Strangely enough, this is a paradox the book never had to deal with. I just find it absurd that the filmmakers were not more aware of their source material.
Anyhow yes it probably is off topic; thanks for the discussion.
|
|
|
Arwen Skywalker
Lorien
Oct 17 2010, 5:18am
Post #89 of 202
(631 views)
Shortcut
|
Temptation one of the Ring's methods of answering to its master. This is a means to ensure its own, and in turn, Sauron's survival. The Ring isn't looking out for Frodo, Boromir, Gollum or anyone else. It's only looking after Sauron. It doesn't answer to its victim any more than Palpatine answers to Anakin Skywalker by stroking his ego.
And besides, Aragorn says: "You cannot wield it. None of us can. The One Ring answers to Sauron alone. It has no other master." That has a different connotation than merely using it. He means that it cannot be a weapon against Sauron, as Boromir tried to argue just one line earlier. In other words, wielding is a specific way of using. It should also be noted that Aragorn says nothing about only Sauron being able to use the Ring. I do agree with you that Gandalf would have been more accurate by saying "we cannot use it against Sauron" but on the other hand, shouldn't it be obvious that he was only addressing one way the Ring could be used? The message of the story isn't lost just because this isn't spelled out in big capital letters.
|
|
|
macfalk
Valinor
Oct 17 2010, 7:50am
Post #90 of 202
(595 views)
Shortcut
|
That's the book's message according to you - I haven't seen it set in stone anywhere. Have you?
I have read the books three times and I say that is not the message of the book. I say PJ is a very, very brave and talanted filmmaker. You see? This is my opnion, it's not worth more than your opinion in any way, but don't come here and claim that you have found the official message which is the "correct one" and that the discussion should be ended. "hack and slash"... gee.
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Oct 17 2010, 8:09am
Post #91 of 202
(586 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"You can only come to the morning through the shadows."
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
You Got this right (3:07 US Central Daylight Time) Good Morning Middle-earth!
Kangi Ska Resident Cynic
The Hobbit is here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Oct 17 2010, 8:12am
Post #92 of 202
(586 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Obviously a good story teller and writes to her market.//
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Kangi Ska Resident Cynic
The Hobbit is here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Oct 17 2010, 8:19am
Post #93 of 202
(616 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Terry Pratchett said outloud to me
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
That J K Rowling was a talented hack that lifted the core of her stories from J R R Tolkien and himself and that she should acknowledge the fact. (This is not an exact quote but very close,) I was surprised. By the way I love all three writers.
Kangi Ska Resident Cynic
The Hobbit is here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Oct 17 2010, 8:42am
Post #94 of 202
(588 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Hay, I was not trying to insult you.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I had no intent of attacking you or your views and it was not I that slung around the term ignorant (As I know we all are to a point). And I was not saying that the Lord of the Rings books & the Lord of the Rings were different medium but that the stories will differ (to a large extent) because of the limits of the medium. They also differ as to the intent of the story teller.
I love The Hobbit & The Lord of the Rings books, else I would not have spent over thirty years reading and studying them. I enjoy The Lord of the Rings movies for what they are, this being a visually stunning retelling of the masters epic. There are valid things that can be said in criticism of both sets but this post is not the place for that. I do not think we need to get our feathers ruffled. Or go on the offense-is-a-great-defense war path. I advocated the Socratic method because it is based on the negotiation of mutually acceptable terms from which might spring understanding and respect.
Kangi Ska Resident Cynic
The Hobbit is here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Oct 17 2010, 8:45am
Post #95 of 202
(591 views)
Shortcut
|
And I would like to point out that I do not travel with a flock. Being white tends to make one stick out in a black mob.
Kangi Ska Resident Cynic
The Hobbit is here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
Mithrandír
Lorien
Oct 17 2010, 9:00am
Post #96 of 202
(595 views)
Shortcut
|
A press release from a studio is band to use big words.I wouldn't pay much heed to it.
Social Science's biggest problem, is social science.
"The ring has awoken. It's heard its masters call"
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Oct 17 2010, 9:03am
Post #97 of 202
(589 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I respest your rights as a human being.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I respect your right to have opinions. Respecting your opinions requires discussion in terms that we agree upon. Anger and name calling are the end of discussion and the root of war. I am all for peace and understanding if at all possible.
Kangi Ska Resident Cynic
The Hobbit is here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Oct 17 2010, 9:10am
Post #98 of 202
(593 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The ring is looking out only for its self.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As it contains an essential part of Sauron's former power it needs him to be whole again just as Sauron needs the ring.
Kangi Ska Resident Cynic
The Hobbit is here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
tumhalad
Bree
Oct 17 2010, 10:28am
Post #99 of 202
(590 views)
Shortcut
|
Temptation one of the Ring's methods of answering to its master. This is a means to ensure its own, and in turn, Sauron's survival. The Ring isn't looking out for Frodo, Boromir, Gollum or anyone else. It's only looking after Sauron. It doesn't answer to its victim any more than Palpatine answers to Anakin Skywalker by stroking his ego.
And besides, Aragorn says: "You cannot wield it. None of us can. The One Ring answers to Sauron alone. It has no other master." That has a different connotation than merely using it. He means that it cannot be a weapon against Sauron, as Boromir tried to argue just one line earlier. In other words, wielding is a specific way of using. It should also be noted that Aragorn says nothing about only Sauron being able to use the Ring. I do agree with you that Gandalf would have been more accurate by saying "we cannot use it against Sauron" but on the other hand, shouldn't it be obvious that he was only addressing one way the Ring could be used? The message of the story isn't lost just because this isn't spelled out in big capital letters.
It is confused. He says "the ring answers to Sauron alone. It has no other master." This serves to confuse the central matter of the story. The point is, they can wield the ring, and they could do so very effectively if they wanted to.
|
|
|
tumhalad
Bree
Oct 17 2010, 10:30am
Post #100 of 202
(606 views)
Shortcut
|
I respect your right to have opinions. Respecting your opinions requires discussion in terms that we agree upon. Anger and name calling are the end of discussion and the root of war. I am all for peace and understanding if at all possible. I called no body names and I got angry because my opinions were labelled ignorant.
(This post was edited by Altaira on Oct 17 2010, 2:47pm)
|
|
|
|
|
