Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Will the real purist please stand up?
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

Morthoron
Gondor


Jul 22 2013, 12:02am

Post #26 of 110 (541 views)
Shortcut
That, undoubtedly, is the purest bit of purism... [In reply to] Can't Post

In fact, it purees my purity. Wink

Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.



Ziggy Stardust
Gondor


Jul 22 2013, 12:05am

Post #27 of 110 (550 views)
Shortcut
You hit it! [In reply to] Can't Post

I'd also like to add the replacing of Glorfindelh with Arwen in film 1. Other than that, and all you mentioned, I thought he did great with The Lord of the Rings. Obviously there were some flaws, but it turned out fine.
The Hobbit, I love it, but I can find some things that I wished would have been left alone. For instance, instead of Azog, why couldn't they have Bolg pursue Thorin? It would've made more sense.


Ziggy Stardust
Gondor


Jul 22 2013, 12:07am

Post #28 of 110 (550 views)
Shortcut
I refuse to watch the Rankin/Bass for the reasons you listed [In reply to] Can't Post

but also because they left out two chief characters: Legolas and Gimli. How could they? That was sacrilege right there.


Morthoron
Gondor


Jul 22 2013, 12:11am

Post #29 of 110 (520 views)
Shortcut
Or better yet... [In reply to] Can't Post

[replyOn a related note, if they wanted a warg battle, why didn't they show the Fellowship fighting the wargs before they got to the Gates of Moria? Different flick I know, but the point is they are adding in fight scenes (I guess for the sake of entertainment) while taking out fight scenes that were in the actual book.


Perhaps the best spot for Jackson's wargish overkill would have been when the Fellowship was spied on by the crebain in FotR. It certainly would have followed the book, and wouldn't have been an unnecessary addition in a section of the films that didn't require extended fighting (considering the Battle of Helms Deep occurs directly afterward). Particularly since The Two Towers had one egregious enormity after another after another and another.

I'm surprised PJ didn't call it The Four Towers just to add a couple more bigatures and long, imposing pan shots.

Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.



Barrow-Wight
Rohan


Jul 22 2013, 12:45am

Post #30 of 110 (539 views)
Shortcut
and they also forgot [In reply to] Can't Post

Eomer and Faramir. I believe Legolas and Gimli were in the background of a few scenes and Faramir was too but no mention of Eomer I don't think. My nephews stopped watching after 30 minutes I told them them they wouldn't like it


Buchanicus
Lorien


Jul 22 2013, 1:31am

Post #31 of 110 (530 views)
Shortcut
AGREE [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
It has such a "class-style" to it.

I consider myself a Tolkien fan/lover/appreciator... and same goes for the movies that we have seen so far.

I certainly always resented the view that one cannot me satisfied with AUJ (or the Rings trilogy) and still be a "true Tolkien fan" - whatever that means.


I cannot stand being put into some category! I grew up with the books..read them MANY times...know them inside and out...and guess what...

I LOVE THE MOVIES! And shocker...I LOVE THE BOOKS TOO!!

TORn member formally known as ryan1976.


Inferno
Superuser / Moderator


Jul 22 2013, 1:49am

Post #32 of 110 (528 views)
Shortcut
Did someone say 'XenArwen'? [In reply to] Can't Post

I've been waiting for an excuse to post this old 'gem'.




It's stuff like this that reminds me that, no matter how bad I may think elements of the films may have been, it could always have been much much worse.

Evil

Inferno.

======================
Good night, tOR.Nados. Good work. Sleep well. I'll most likely delete you in the morning.
======================


Buchanicus
Lorien


Jul 22 2013, 1:55am

Post #33 of 110 (524 views)
Shortcut
And it does feel like a class-system [In reply to] Can't Post

I feel that if I love the movies on here then there's a whole group that decides I'm beneath them...or if I say how much I love the books then there are folks who think that i'm an arrogant jerk. It's annoying and frustrating.

TORn member formally known as ryan1976.


Inferno
Superuser / Moderator


Jul 22 2013, 2:00am

Post #34 of 110 (532 views)
Shortcut
Yeah, how dare they? [In reply to] Can't Post

Especially since *everyone* knows that you all are really here at my (and the other admin's whims).*points to footer* ;) (it's lines like this where I really wish the 'sarcastrophe' had taken off as a valid punctuation mark)

I hope you do realize that there's a 3rd, even larger, group here that is willing to live and let live, and have thoughtful, polite discussion without thinking you're a jerk, arrogant or any other kind. We sometimes get drowned out by the more strident voices, but we are here. Well, I should say they are here. I don't get around nearly as much these days as I really should or would like to.

Inferno.

======================
Good night, tOR.Nados. Good work. Sleep well. I'll most likely delete you in the morning.
======================


L. Ron Halfelven
Grey Havens


Jul 22 2013, 2:19am

Post #35 of 110 (507 views)
Shortcut
To join the Purist Front of Judea you've got to REALLY hate the movies.// [In reply to] Can't Post

 




Silverlode
Forum Admin / Moderator


Jul 22 2013, 2:33am

Post #36 of 110 (483 views)
Shortcut
And gold leaf. What happened to standards? // [In reply to] Can't Post

 

Silverlode

"Dark is the water of Kheled-zâram, and cold are the springs of Kibil-nâla, and fair were the many-pillared halls of Khazad-dűm in Elder Days before the fall of mighty kings beneath the stone."



Ataahua
Superuser / Moderator


Jul 22 2013, 2:47am

Post #37 of 110 (504 views)
Shortcut
Wait, has she got horns?? Or have her ears over-grown? / [In reply to] Can't Post

 

Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."

"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.


Ataahua's stories


(This post was edited by Ataahua on Jul 22 2013, 2:47am)


Retro315
Rivendell

Jul 22 2013, 2:55am

Post #38 of 110 (508 views)
Shortcut
Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

I think in broad strokes I've been able to separate the two things.

I think Peter Jackson's movies are quite good movies, and that they have employed wonderfully talented, passionate people. I'm a visual artist, so especially the art direction and cohesion and thought put into little details appeals to me as an effort "worthy of Middle-earth".

I enjoy all the films and find them to be exciting, thrilling, and fairly adequate adaptations.

But there's never a moment, even in my fanboyish enjoyment of PJ's flicks, where I'm not saying "that bit shouldn't be there ... that's now how I'd have done it ... oh man, that decision just guts Tolkien's story".

It's the side trips, the weird tangents, that flavor a story. You just can't be cutting Tom Bombadil, Barrow-wights (actually that one's pretty important to the Aragorn and Angmar history), Glorfindel, Ghan-buri-Ghan ... but you really shouldn't be cutting Beregond and Bergil, Ioreth, Prince freaking Imrahil. Basically every new character from The Return of the King novel is nonexistent in the films, other than a few choice orcs and the Mouth of Sauron.

I'm constantly thinking "oh I should just get off my duff and make a comic adaptation" or "you know ... The Hobbit and TLOTR would really be far more suited for an HBO type chapter-by-chapter TV series ..."


Kathuphazgân
The Shire

Jul 22 2013, 3:05am

Post #39 of 110 (594 views)
Shortcut
Once upon a time... [In reply to] Can't Post

...I considered myself a Tolkien purist. I remember being all up in arms over some early production stills of the Fellowship of the Ring film featuring plate armour, which barely appears in any of Tolkien's work.

Then, in late Summer or early Autumn 2001, I had the fortune to attend a lecture on an Anglo-Saxon poem--Iumonna Gold Galdre Bewunden--at Kansas State University.

Arriving early, a friend and I encountered a tweed-jacketed English gentleman enthusiastically examining the highly-accurate huge Ohno glass model sculptures of naval warships on the second floor of the student union. He engaged us in conversation, telling us all about the guns and history of each ship. By and by, we learned that he was the very professor whose lecture we had come to hear--Tom Shippey. I could not resist asking him what he thought of the new films, since he had seen them (or at least a somewhat completed version of one or more of them) at that point.

He assured me that Tolkien would have loved them. Tolkien loved being told a good story; and he'd have loved the Peter Jackson films, regardless of their fidelity to his work. Oh, he might have grumbled a bit at a tiny point or three, but he'd have had a grin on his face as he watched them all.

...and besides--everything is better with plate armour. Cool


(This post was edited by Kathuphazgân on Jul 22 2013, 3:14am)


Buchanicus
Lorien


Jul 22 2013, 3:22am

Post #40 of 110 (467 views)
Shortcut
Haha! [In reply to] Can't Post

Right...well as my first post was semi serious, that second post was meant to be more of the sarcastic "welcome to the internet" type jab at myself for even worrying about it in the first place ;)

TORn member formally known as ryan1976.


Inferno
Superuser / Moderator


Jul 22 2013, 3:39am

Post #41 of 110 (456 views)
Shortcut
I believe those are just ridiculous-length ears. // [In reply to] Can't Post

 

======================
Good night, tOR.Nados. Good work. Sleep well. I'll most likely delete you in the morning.
======================


demnation
Rohan

Jul 22 2013, 4:05am

Post #42 of 110 (497 views)
Shortcut
That's a great little anecdote! [In reply to] Can't Post

Something I've learned about Tolkien by reading biographies and letters is that he took his work less seriously than many of his most devoted fans.


Altaira
Superuser / Moderator


Jul 22 2013, 4:37am

Post #43 of 110 (500 views)
Shortcut
Thanks for sharing that, K. And I, as a purist, proudly stand up! [In reply to] Can't Post

Welcome to the forums, K! Smile

I think the way the word 'purist' has evolved nowadays more refers to someone who would rather have not seen *any* movie made of Tolkien's works ever, because they could never match up to the vision of the story and place they have in their head (more often than not projecting their own vision to what the author must have wanted). However, movies *were* made (not just PJs) and we all now have to decide what to do with the movies that were given to us.

The flip side to people who would rather not have seen any movies made are the folks here who proudly wear the title 'narf' (not a real fan) - referring to the fact that one who likes the movies as well as professing to love the books, couldn't possibly be 'real' Tolkien fans. Funnily enough they/we *are* real Tolkien fans - just like Tom Shippey! I consider myself very much a book 'purist.' However, as has been pointed out by others numerous times here, I have no problem mentally separating the books from PJ's movies. Both have flaws, and 99% of the flaws of both don't bother me in the least - certainly not enough to hate either one, or the person(s) who perpetrated them (hate being a word I avoid using because it just drags my life into a place I don't want it to be).

So, yes, there are a lot of 'purists' who like, and even love, the movies. I stand among them - I just prefer the title 'narf' because it's much more whimsical and implies that I don't take my own view quite so seriously (i.e., the only viewpoint that could possibly be correct, at the same time assuming that my vision is the only way Tolkien would have wanted his world visualized).

I've had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Shippey several times myself, and I'm now even more impressed by his ability to separate his very knowledgeable viewpoint of Tolkien and Middle-earth from the interpretation of one set of screen-writers and a director.

Thanks again for sharing! Smile


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





Michelle Johnston
Rohan


Jul 22 2013, 10:50am

Post #44 of 110 (488 views)
Shortcut
JRRT as always provides the answer [In reply to] Can't Post

The root of JRRT's universal appeal is middle earth is offered to us with an utter sense of surety that whilst it is a sub created world it has legitimacy and authority which enable us to dwell inside the stories. What gives it even more legitimacy is that Tolkien viewed himself as reporting an inherent truth in the strategic sense, from which he had to identify tactically what precisely happened. The Silmarrillion never received a fixed tradition in that sense, Christopher's version was merely another possible version, The Hobbit was fixed in the early 1930's but way before Tolkien had discovered a great deal of the reality of the world Bilbo was travelling in. The one time he managed to actually report as accurately as he could the truth of middle earth is with the War Of the Ring. That's not how I see it, what I think is unimportant, it is how he saw it. It is clear from all his letters and Biography.

When PJ filmed the LOTR he made decisions which he considered necessary for film and a good deal of his reporting was accurate. Frodo and co emerge at Bree and who is to say they did not visit Bombadil it just was not reported. However I agree with all that Elizabeth has said there was some serious misreporting as well beyond cinematic taste. ( I love the films though).

When PJ began the Hobbit he knew that the Dwarves who knocked on Bilbo's door were not the Dwarves of the book they were viewed though a seven year olds lens nor could they possibly have met the Exiles of Imladris as is reported in the book. One could go on. So he has stepped in with a version of events which for some will seem more real than the book and for others not. Bilbo did go on his journey he did find the ring and he was transformed by the experience as were others who paid heavily for their journeys that is probably the only certainty.

The Hobbit is much more complex for us as a community of Tolkien lovers, it is filmed with the wisdom of hindsight that Tolkien did not have when he was writing in 1932 and inevitably is a product of now so we have more to consider. A flawed book and a flawed film, a film that is being made very similarly and yet rather differently to the earlier ones. (I love AUJ and I am genuinely excited about how they are going to add and embroider the various journeys and interactions).

Tolkien worked on his sub created world all his adult life and I have been discovering the truth of his work all my adult life and PJ only aids that journey. I am not really interested what label you put on that but I am delighted to recognise in what others say here that they are on the same journey .

My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.


RosieLass
Valinor


Jul 22 2013, 4:03pm

Post #45 of 110 (418 views)
Shortcut
Shippey's books are fantastic! [In reply to] Can't Post

Highly recommended.

As much as I admire Shippey, however, I have a hard time believing that JRRT's opinions would be that wildly divergent from those of his son.

Bless his heart, the man was a genius. But he was also a curmudgeon, and I just don't see him "sitting and grinning" through any film, much less one based on his life's work.

"BOTH [political] extremes are dangerous. But more dangerous are team fanboys who think all the extremists are on the OTHER side." (CNN reader comment)

It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)


Elenorflower
Gondor


Jul 22 2013, 4:34pm

Post #46 of 110 (400 views)
Shortcut
I think JRRT may have liked [In reply to] Can't Post

parts of LOTR, but I cant imagine him liking AUJ at all.


Arandiel
Grey Havens

Jul 22 2013, 5:18pm

Post #47 of 110 (358 views)
Shortcut
I thought it was the Judean Purist Front... or was it Purists'? I'm confused!// [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Walk to Rivendell: There and Back Again Challenge - traveling through Middle Earth with thirteen rowdy Dwarves, one grumpy Wizard, and a beleaguered Hobbit

Join us, Thursdays on Main!


IdrilofGondolin
Rohan

Jul 22 2013, 6:09pm

Post #48 of 110 (371 views)
Shortcut
I understand Your point but Disagree [In reply to] Can't Post

I adored the book Princess Bride. Felt the movie really missed the mark. I've never understood why it is so popular. . IMO the really funny stuff in the book was untranslatable to film so the film wasn't nearly as funny or clever as the book. Thought both Westley and Buttercup were wildly miscast. But I am not a purist about these things because I don't care all that much. LOTR is different. I am very invested in these books and was unhappy with a lot of the changes PJ made to the characters and story in the films. I am not as invested in the TH so am not so concerned with the changes made. Don't like the juvenile humor much. I enjoy watching AUJ much more than any of the LOTR films because I can be more tolerant of the changes..


Werde Spinner
Rohan


Jul 22 2013, 8:26pm

Post #49 of 110 (365 views)
Shortcut
I was once a purist [In reply to] Can't Post

...and it was no fun. I found myself complaining about every tiny divergence in the LOTR films from the book. (Except Tom Bombadil. I didn't care about him at all then, sadly.) I complained that Boromir and Faramir were blond. I complained that it took Eowyn two strikes to chop off the fell beast's head. I complained that Gollum didn't fall off by himself into the lava. I complained that it took five days to get to Helm's Deep and only three to get to Minas Tirith. Etc., etc., etc.

Finally, I learned to calm down and think of the movies as being separate from the book. I'll always have the books to go back to, and I can watch the movie and enjoy watching Middle-earth brought to life without throwing a hissy fit over tiny details. In short, being a purist was no fun for me, because I spent so much time dwelling over the negatives I had no time to enjoy the positives. So, I just prefer to think of myself as a sane, dedicated fan now, not a purist or an insane fan one way or the other. There are fans who take their fandom far too seriously in every fandom, and I'd rather be one that can still see a laugh in things.

"I had forgotten that. It is hard to be sure of anything among so many marvels. The world is all grown strange. Elf and Dwarf in company walk in our daily fields; and folk speak with the Lady of the Wood and yet live; and the Sword comes back to war that was broken in the long ages ere the fathers of our fathers rode into the Mark! How shall a man judge what to do in such times?"

"As he ever has judged. Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house."


Inferno
Superuser / Moderator


Jul 22 2013, 8:44pm

Post #50 of 110 (351 views)
Shortcut
The interesting thing for me [In reply to] Can't Post

is that I enjoy the Hobbit movie a lot more than I enjoy the LotR movies (at least so far), when I really have never much liked The Hobbit book. It definitely holds a special place in my heart as The Hobbit is why I read the Lord of the Rings, but I haven't read it in years (conversely, The Silmarillion is the book I've read most in my life, and is my favorite of Tolkien's works.)

Maybe it's because I've got more distance from The Hobbit novel, or perhaps because I'm less invested in it than I am in Lord of the Rings, but I really enjoy AUJ quite a lot more than I've enjoyed any of the LotR movies (which, although I had some serious issues with some things, I really do quite like). I had no interest in seeing a midnight showing of AUJ, although I was there for all 3 LotR line parties here in SLC. Even if I have been unable to get past the fact that Azog is really dead in the books, and it bugs me to see him on screen, I still like AUJ the best of the Jackson Middle-Earth movies. Go figure. =)

As to The Princess Bride, I'd seen the movie dozens of times before I'd ever read the book, so that may have colored my perspective on the film a bit. But I do think that Goldman knew what he was doing when he put together the screenplay for the movie, and understanding the process involved in making The Princess Bride definitely helped me get past some of the drastic changes that occurred in the LotR movies-- even if I don't agree with everything in them. Essentially, that's my original point. Someone who was well-versed enough in both crafts, created a lot of changes between book and movie when he wrote them both, and they both worked well; therefore I could give Jackson & co. a lot more leniency and benefit of the doubt with the differences between movie and book because they do understand the craft of screen-writing a lot better than I do.

Inferno.

======================
Good night, tOR.Nados. Good work. Sleep well. I'll most likely delete you in the morning.
======================

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.