|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Oct 17 2010, 11:35am
Post #101 of 202
(702 views)
Shortcut
|
making accusations or criticizing your approach. I was merely making a general philosophical statement about discussions and arguments(War being the social form of ultimate argument). I admit I was being formal but that seems necessary to breach the impasse that we might come to an understanding.
So if you want to talk, say something and we can discuss it. I promise that I will not attack you, though I might criticize what you say. And here I am meaning criticism to indicate: The process of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating assertions.
Kangi Ska Resident Cynic
The Hobbit is here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
(This post was edited by Altaira on Oct 17 2010, 2:47pm)
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Oct 17 2010, 1:01pm
Post #102 of 202
(675 views)
Shortcut
|
|
A talent is equal to 6000 drachmas.//
[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.
|
|
|
Flagg
Tol Eressea
Oct 17 2010, 1:59pm
Post #103 of 202
(672 views)
Shortcut
|
I did not say that you were 'the only über-purist out there'. I specifically said that I had directed my post towards you because you 'seem to be the only representative of the über-purists in this discussion'. I also stated that 'my post was really meant for the über-purist community in general'. Nowhere did I even come close to implying that you were the only one who held these views. In fact I outright acknowledged the existence of a wider community of you.
In case you were wondering, I would define 'über-purist' as 'someone so fixated on the canon of events described in the book that they will dislike or hate any interpretation which is not identical or nearly identical to it, solely because of its differences from the source material'.
I would call myself a highly optimistic normal-level purist. As lovely as it would be for the filmmakers to use the books as the script for a ninety-hour epic, it's also ridiculous. Peter Jackson's adaptation was far better than anyone could reasonably expect it to be. The difference between us is that I am willing – even glad – to overlook the deviations and just enjoy this visual retelling of my favourite story for what it is, while you seem so focused on what you perceive as Jackson's unforgivable desecration of Tolkien's work that you will never be able to enjoy the films like the rest of us.
I do not respect the opinions of what I call 'über-purists'. (I am talking about über-purists in the general sense here, not just you or Tolkien ones.) I think that they are unreasonable and ungrateful. Especially the ones who gather together on message boards and spend hours pointing out and gloating over the flaws in adaptations, constructing detailed lists of reasons to hate 'revisionist' adaptations, and just generally rolling around in their own hatred. I only come to message boards to talk about things that I actually, you know, like.
|
|
|
Arwen Skywalker
Lorien
Oct 17 2010, 2:59pm
Post #104 of 202
(661 views)
Shortcut
|
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.
The Ring can be wielded as a tool, as Frodo and Bilbo did to become invisible. But I will remind you that this was not the type of use Gandalf was referring to in the Council and he would have been derailing the topic if he did that. You can temporarily use the Ring for your own purposes but in the end, it controls you. Meaning that you can't use it against Sauron, no matter how much you want to. He is the only one who can use the Ring while still having control over it and this is why he is its only master. I don't see what's so confusing about that.
(This post was edited by Arwen Skywalker on Oct 17 2010, 3:03pm)
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Oct 17 2010, 3:09pm
Post #105 of 202
(670 views)
Shortcut
|
|
RE;He (Sauron) is the only one who has control over the Ring.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I would suggest that this be modified slightly. I would say: Sauron is the only one who has absolute control over the Ring if he has it in his possession. Others can use it but they will absolutely control it for "the ring has a will of its own" and this will distort and ultimately defeat anyone of power who attempts to wield it. I do not see this out of line from what is stated in the movies.
Kangi Ska Resident Cynic
The Hobbit is here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
Arwen Skywalker
Lorien
Oct 17 2010, 3:46pm
Post #106 of 202
(659 views)
Shortcut
|
The fundamental difference was that practically no one expected Frodo to take on the burden of the Ring. Everyone in the wizarding world expected Harry to have a special destiny for most of his life. I admit I haven't read the HP books in a while but the only thing Harry and Frodo have in common is that their missions involve destroying objects that contain the essence of the Dark Lords of their universe. I was not thinking of Dumbledore at all when I was first introduced to Gandalf. And I don't remember Dumbledore ever getting pissed off at any of his mentees.
That's not to say there aren't parallels between Middle Earth and the Potterverse. To name one example, both stories frown upon the search for immortality. The Hobbit does remind me of HP in the sense that it is initially a childish story that gets progressively darker. But there are enough differences to say that Rowling was not merely recycling Tolkien.
(This post was edited by Arwen Skywalker on Oct 17 2010, 3:47pm)
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Oct 17 2010, 4:05pm
Post #107 of 202
(657 views)
Shortcut
|
was certainly influenced heavily by Tolkien. She was also influenced by Terry Pratchett (though as far as I know she has never admitted it.) I do not se her recycling anything. The seven books are a delightfully entertaining read and are as a whole an amazingly complex structure. They lack the depth of Tolkien and the incredibly humorous insights into the workings of western society that Pratchett's volume of work shows. But they are good and are destined to become classics (in my opinion) I have not read any of the Twilight books as I like my vampires Del Toro style and I am so far past my teenage years that they have been consumed in the mists of time. I did see the first Twilight movie with my then 19 year old son and his girlfriend and they laughed all the way through it.
Kangi Ska Resident Cynic
The Hobbit is here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
(This post was edited by Kangi Ska on Oct 17 2010, 4:06pm)
|
|
|
Lindele
Gondor
Oct 17 2010, 4:20pm
Post #108 of 202
(668 views)
Shortcut
|
LET'S ALL JUST KEEP COMPLAINING!!!! God forbid we enjoy the weekend after hearing such great news!
|
|
|
squire
Half-elven
Oct 17 2010, 4:26pm
Post #109 of 202
(653 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes, anyone of sufficient power can wield the Ring, and defeat Sauron
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
At least, that is the nature of the Ring in the book, as revealed at the Council of Elrond. Elrond explains, when Boromir suggests using the Ring against the Enemy:
‘We cannot use the Ruling Ring. That we now know too well. It belongs to Sauron and was made by him alone, and is altogether evil. Its strength, Boromir, is too great for anyone to wield at will, save only those who have already a great power of their own. But for them it holds an even deadlier peril. The very desire of it corrupts the heart. Consider Saruman. If any of the Wise should with this Ring overthrow the Lord of Mordor, using his own arts, he would then set himself on Sauron’s throne, and yet another Dark Lord would appear. And that is another reason why the Ring should be destroyed: as long as it is in the world it will be a danger even to the Wise.' (Elrond speaking, in LotR II.2, bold emphasis by squire)
This is, as has been mentioned, quite different from the answer given in the film, at this point, in response to Boromir's question:
STRIDER
You cannot wield it. None of us can.
The one ring answers to Sauron alone...it
has no other master.
[they debate about Aragorn's identity]
GANDALF
Aragorn is right...we cannot use it.
ELROND
You have only one choice..the ring must
be destroyed. (New Line Pictures, The Fellowship of the Ring)
So the film, while using some of the same language ("...too great for anyone to wield at will..." vs. "You cannot wield it.") conveys a much simpler message about the Ring's essential evil. In the book, the Ring can be wielded "by those who already have a great power of their own", i.e. Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, Saruman. Such a great lord or lady could in fact destroy Sauron with the Ring's power. But the end does not justify the means, and the result of using the Ring for that purpose is that they would become just as evil as Sauron, and replace one Dark Lord with another. It is a subtle lesson of huge implications that Tolkien wishes us to learn: Evil is not an aspect of Sauron (and his Ring); rather Sauron (and his Ring) is an aspect of Evil, which is defined by Tolkien as the use of Power to dominate and direct other free wills.
The film, for what some might say were obvious reasons of simplicity and dramatic presentation, smooths this sophisticated moral message into something more easily digestible: Evil is circularly defined as meaning everything that is bad. It is a temptation from without, which we may respond to or resist, depending on whether we are already more bad or good inside. The evil Ring is an embodiment of this outside temptation. If it is used by anyone except Sauron, it delivers its user to Sauron no matter what the user's initial intentions were.
So the book presents a Ring of Power, whose Power, even when used to do good, is ironically the essence of Evil; while the film presents a Ring of Evil, whose possession just turns one into a bad person. Although much of the film's basic plot still works under this simpler construction of the Ring's nature, what is missing are the repeated scenes in the book wherein the Ring tempts people like Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, Faramir, Denethor, and Sam to use its Power to do good.
squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd (and NOW the 4th too!) TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
 = Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.
(This post was edited by squire on Oct 17 2010, 4:34pm)
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Oct 17 2010, 4:27pm
Post #110 of 202
(652 views)
Shortcut
|
|
People feel the way they feel.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Some times talking about it eases the pain of an imperfect world.
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, 4:30pm
Post #111 of 202
(653 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I was wondering where you were.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I knew you had the knowledge and resources to clear this up. Thanks.
Kangi Ska Resident Cynic
The Hobbit is here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
Tim
Tol Eressea
Oct 17 2010, 4:44pm
Post #112 of 202
(653 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Actually the movie does touch on this book point
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
For example in the scene where Frodo is trying to give Gandalf the Ring Gandalf says:
Don't tempt me Frodo! I dare not take it. Not even to keep it safe. Understand Frodo, I would use this Ring from a desire to do good. But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine
And this point is further hammered home when Galadriel is temped and says:
In place of a Dark Lord, YOU WOULD HAVE A QUEEN! NOT DARK, BUT BEAUTIFUL AND TERRIBLE AS THE DAWN! TREACHEROUS AS THE SEA! STRONGER THAN THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE EARTH! ALL SHALL LOVE ME, AND DESPAIR!
So the point made at the Council Aragorn is right...we cannot use it. is further expounded upon in these two spots. The movie does this frequently so as to draw out the narrative and make it more digestible for a 3 hour movie instead of a long middle narrative and a 5 hour movie. One can even say the point "bookends" the point made at the council.
If I recall correctly I also remember a point being made that even if someone like Gandalf or Saruman or Galdriel did gain possession of the Ring the contest between them and Sauron would not be without uncertainty. It would still be possible for Sauron to overpower the new Ring wielder and take back his Ring. In the long run it all boils down to the same thing. There will be a Dark Lord on the throne and so movie Aragorn is right. The Ring has no other master than a Dark Lord. Who that Dark Lord's name is in the end is irrelevant.
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, 4:45pm)
|
|
|
Flagg
Tol Eressea
Oct 17 2010, 5:10pm
Post #113 of 202
(634 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You're picking apart semantics
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I always assumed that when they said no one but Sauron could wield the ring, they meant that no one but Sauron could successfully wield the ring and survive in their original form without being consumed by it. That wielding the ring against Sauron was in theory possible, but that it wasn't an option for the White Council because the wielder would invariably become the next Dark Lord.
And Tim is right; the films do acknowledge that the ring could in theory be used against Sauron. Both film-Gandalf and film-Galadriel are tempted by it, but reject it because they know that it will consume them. I really don't see the problem here.
|
|
|
Tim
Tol Eressea
Oct 17 2010, 5:32pm
Post #115 of 202
(610 views)
Shortcut
|
King Arthur: Who are you who can summon fire without flint or tinder?
Tim: There are some who call me... Tim.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Oct 17 2010, 5:40pm
Post #116 of 202
(625 views)
Shortcut
|
Taken at face value, yes, of course you're right that the wording has changed from book to film and with it some of the layers of meaning. Inevitable, I suppose, given that film is a much more compressed medium. But I think they did try for more subtlety than you're allowing: first, because the meaning of 'cannot' in 'you cannot wield it.... we cannot use it' is not as straightforward as you're suggesting. You're assuming that that means 'the Ring won't work for us' but couldn't it also mean 'we can't allow ourselves to use it' as it does in the book? In the same way I might say 'I can't drive my brother's car'. In fact I can, having a valid driver's licence. But his car is much bigger and more powerful than mine so I wouldn't drive it, for fear of the consequences. I can, but I choose not to.
Then, as Tim says, the films do show various characters - Gandalf, Galadriel, Aragorn, being tempted by the Ring - and since they're essentially good characters doesn't that imply that the temptation might be wearing 'good' clothing? The films achieved this rather beautifully, I think, by conveying the seductive voice of the Ring, different for each person. You might even argue that they went further than the book in allowing it to tempt Faramir. And for anyone who wanted to think more about what was meant, the Extended Edition DVDs have some discussion of the nature of evil and of the Ring as Tolkien presents it....
|
|
|
Oiotári
Tol Eressea
Oct 17 2010, 6:38pm
Post #117 of 202
(602 views)
Shortcut
|
I will accept that definition 
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
|
|
|
Oiotári
Tol Eressea
Oct 17 2010, 6:42pm
Post #118 of 202
(603 views)
Shortcut
|
|
complaining about complaining is still complaining //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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
|
|
|
Altaira
Superuser
Oct 17 2010, 7:40pm
Post #119 of 202
(602 views)
Shortcut
|
Many of us are ecstatic and thoroughly enjoying all the great news. There's evidence of that all over the board, I promise.
Also, don't mistake critical analysis, or speculation, for complaining. I see a lot of that going on too. But, yes, when all is said and done there are people who will always see the glass half-empty. It's just human nature. The best thing I've found is to not let it frustrate us glass 'half-fullers' (and vice versa).
Koru: Maori symbol representing a fern frond as it opens. The koru reaches towards the light, striving for perfection, encouraging new, positive beginnings.
"Life can't be all work and no TORn" -- jflower
"I take a moment to fervently hope that the camaradarie and just plain old fun I found at TORn will never end" -- LOTR_nutcase
TORn Calendar
|
|
|
Arwen Skywalker
Lorien
Oct 17 2010, 7:45pm
Post #120 of 202
(596 views)
Shortcut
|
that age-old question among schoolchildren: can I go to the bathroom? I think all of us can remember a time when a teacher wouldn't let us go until we said "may I." We can theoretically go but we'd get in trouble if we go without a hall pass. But even when we grow up, most of us still say "can I" unless the language police was around. If I'm making the wrong assumption, maybe I don't get out enough. I personally don't know anyone who says "may I" as their default way of asking permission. People in real life often don't use the word "can" in a straightforward way, so like you, I'm not sure why some people don't understand it when that happens in a story.
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Oct 17 2010, 8:09pm
Post #121 of 202
(581 views)
Shortcut
|
(unless the language police were around) Just funnin'. The language police kill a living language.
Kangi Ska Resident Bird Brain
The Hobbit is here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
verityfate
The Shire
Oct 17 2010, 10:01pm
Post #122 of 202
(579 views)
Shortcut
|
A comparison is possible and can be a good thing especially in coming to an understanding of what makes one book or movie superior to another. A simple statement of personal taste without comparison is not valid criticism. So I will end by asking you what you mean by creative and how it applies to the situation.
Well, obviously superiority is mostly about individual taste, but I do think that Tolkien was more creative than Rowling. What I meant was that Rowling recycled old cliches and made them interesting again, but in Avatar, the story is basically the same as others like it except it takes place...in space!
I mentioned Twilight off the top of my head, because, imo, it can't compare to Tolkien, whereas Rowling, although not in any way a challenge in terms of creativity, was at least written well and had an interesting story. Basically, I think that Tolkien is superior to Harry Potter, and Harry Potter is far above Avatar in creativity, ect.
well, green has always been my favourite colour...;)
(This post was edited by verityfate on Oct 17 2010, 10:02pm)
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Oct 17 2010, 10:13pm
Post #123 of 202
(564 views)
Shortcut
|
I can not judge Twilight (Except by the first movie) But I agree with your ranking of Tolkien and Harry Potter.
Kangi Ska Resident Bird Brain
The Hobbit is here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
Maggot_farms
Registered User
Oct 18 2010, 12:17am
Post #124 of 202
(562 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thankfully your probably correct.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
When studios begin posturing about up coming projects they do tend to direct the attention of the advertising in varying directions. I just hope these films stay faithful to Tolkien's vision, rather than trying to equal the grandeur of the LOTR's literary scope. Fingers crossed.
|
|
|
Maggot_farms
Registered User
Oct 18 2010, 12:33am
Post #125 of 202
(554 views)
Shortcut
|
|
what is troublesome about the two movies
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
My concern is that the project is going to try and increase the story so much that there will only be a skeleton left of the original Hobbit story line. Tying in the two books is a great idea for the movies but at what cost? I have my fingers crossed that PJ and his crew will be respectful. I really liked what they did with LOTR. I'm surprised by the reaction this post has gotten. I guess this website is more of a Peter Jackson fan website than a pure Tolkien one.
I'm definitely anti-3D though. I think its just a cheap marketing ploy.
|
|
|
|
|
GOODNESS!!!!!!
[
