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: Main:
Extreme purists...
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All

NateGate
Rivendell


Nov 13 2014, 8:53pm

Post #1 of 89 (2748 views)
Shortcut
Extreme purists... Can't Post

I have been thinking about making a thread on this topic for a while, and it may be somewhat of a rant. In general, I don't generally agree with purists, but I can respect their opinions. Someone who says that they didn't particularly enjoy AUJ or DOS is fine in my book. Even if they think it's somewhat of a bad film, I can respect that. However, every group has its radicals, and some of the stories I have heard just make me gape with horror....


In this one blog, this father talked about how he took his family to see AUJ, everyone of them had read the book. Halfway through, the entire family marched out, and the father demanded a refund, calling the film a "horror" and "an insult to Tolkein". Another example, just a few weeks ago I was talking to a woman whose 19 year-old daughter went to see DOS, and literally left the theater crying with disappointment because it "diverged from the book".


Now I don't mean to ruffle any feathers. But, here PJ goes out of his way to create an epic film, putting almost a billion dollars into the production. Disliking it is fine, thinking it is somewhat bad is fine, but literally hating a movie based off of fiction....why?


(This post was edited by Altaira on Nov 13 2014, 10:07pm)


Hobbity Hobbit
Lorien


Nov 13 2014, 8:57pm

Post #2 of 89 (1712 views)
Shortcut
I agree [In reply to] Can't Post

I think what people forget is that it's an adaptation. It's nice to have something accurate, but what people forget is that the book is the author's work, AUJ, DOS, AND BOFTA is not the author's work, though it's based off of it. So when it was gone that means it would be free to be touched upon. The first trilogy was great, it was a little bit more accurate, but there are a lot of parts where it isn't, that doesn't make it worse. Arwen was expanded, and some parts of the story were changed. They took out Tom Bombadil and a few other characters.

"As the snowflakes cover my fallen brothers,
I will say this last goodbye."-from "The Last Goodbye"

(This post was edited by Hobbity Hobbit on Nov 13 2014, 8:58pm)


Smaug Report
Bree


Nov 13 2014, 8:58pm

Post #3 of 89 (1612 views)
Shortcut
This about sums it up. [In reply to] Can't Post

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. "

I will show you revenge...


Spriggan
Tol Eressea

Nov 13 2014, 8:58pm

Post #4 of 89 (1538 views)
Shortcut
Why worry? [In reply to] Can't Post

They don't sound like the kind of folks that get invited to a lot of parties, but it doesn't hurt anyone.


Arannir
Valinor


Nov 13 2014, 9:08pm

Post #5 of 89 (1572 views)
Shortcut
My opinion? [In reply to] Can't Post

That I feel this thread is unneeded. Sorry, but why do people get so defensive? This only leads to name calling, pigeon holing and generalizations - whatever the intentions and you just meaning the extreme people.

But there are just as many fans of PJ who will freak out at mostly any criticism... Often attacking people as purists who have issues with this trilogy as movies, not adaptations .

We had a thread about this two days ago or so... This might have been a better place to post this. Now people will probably react defensive from all sides again.

That is what I dislike.... Because it often end up badly for those who want to state their views in a balanced way without any labels.

This is not a personal attack on you. Not at all. I totally understand what you are trying to say and that you do not want to rob people of their opinions. But people have a right to dislike or downright hate these movies. Just as much as some love them to bits (and also constantly state that).

These people should not be labelled, patronized or pigeon holed any more than people with positive things to say.

Of course, the internet attracts the worst in some, especially when one can comment anonymously.

Those who like the movies should be bigger than that and either ignore the comments or at least not take them so personally and react so defensively.

IMHO

"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at." J.R.R. Tolkien

We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.



(This post was edited by Arannir on Nov 13 2014, 9:12pm)


priell3
Lorien


Nov 13 2014, 9:14pm

Post #6 of 89 (1512 views)
Shortcut
I agree with HH [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I think what people forget is that it's an adaptation. It's nice to have something accurate, but what people forget is that the book is the author's work, AUJ, DOS, AND BOFTA is not the author's work, though it's based off of it. So when it was gone that means it would be free to be touched upon. The first trilogy was great, it was a little bit more accurate, but there are a lot of parts where it isn't, that doesn't make it worse. Arwen was expanded, and some parts of the story were changed. They took out Tom Bombadil and a few other characters.



Some people just don't get "based on a book...".

MikeP


Noria
Gondor

Nov 13 2014, 9:25pm

Post #7 of 89 (1469 views)
Shortcut
Yes, why worry? [In reply to] Can't Post

There are people out there who didn't get what they wanted in these movies, either because they are not close adaptations of the book only, are not similar enough to the LotR movies or are, for some, just bad movies. I think the first two were unrealistic and the third is a matter of taste. None-the-less it is their right to dislike the films.

But gazillions of people like or love the Hobbit movies and TBOTFA is going to be a major success, just like AUJ and DoS. Why let the over-reactions of relatively few people bother you? The rest of us appreciate PJ's efforts. I'm just glad to be one of the happy horde of NARFs.


(This post was edited by Noria on Nov 13 2014, 9:26pm)


MistyMountain
Lorien

Nov 13 2014, 9:45pm

Post #8 of 89 (1421 views)
Shortcut
Perfect! [In reply to] Can't Post

Where is that quote from?


Starling
Half-elven


Nov 13 2014, 9:51pm

Post #9 of 89 (1395 views)
Shortcut
Theodore Roosevelt // [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Hobbity Hobbit
Lorien


Nov 13 2014, 10:19pm

Post #10 of 89 (1403 views)
Shortcut
Well yeah [In reply to] Can't Post

I guess it works both ways, it's the author's creation, but at the same time it isn't. I dunno, whether it should be based as closely to the book as possible depends on the person.

"As the snowflakes cover my fallen brothers,
I will say this last goodbye."-from "The Last Goodbye"


Elizabeth
Half-elven


Nov 13 2014, 11:04pm

Post #11 of 89 (1366 views)
Shortcut
Defensiveness doesn't help. [In reply to] Can't Post

Folks on TORn are a very polite and respectful bunch. There's a whole spectrum here, from people who have been Tolkien fans since the 1970's to people who've just discovered the Hobbit movies, and we have varying reactions to the movies, but we all get along fine and respect each others' taste.

Your complaint may be appropriate on some sites, where the discourse is less civil, but it seems to be an overreaction here.








Arannir
Valinor


Nov 13 2014, 11:07pm

Post #12 of 89 (1360 views)
Shortcut
It didn't stay that civil several times.... [In reply to] Can't Post

... over the last week alone.

But again, this is simply my concern regarding this topic and not a personal attack or anything like this towards the OP. More a general statement. No overreaction but calmly stated based on personal experiences here in the past :)

I agree about the generally civil and great atmosphere here, by the way. And I know that the OP is not a user who would deliberately heat things up... But it often happens regardless of the intentions. Happened to me myself.

"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at." J.R.R. Tolkien

We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.



(This post was edited by Arannir on Nov 13 2014, 11:20pm)


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Nov 13 2014, 11:25pm

Post #13 of 89 (1355 views)
Shortcut
Some people just have different ideas of this concept [In reply to] Can't Post

for many, if a movie was based on a book it should have more than a passing semblance to the source material. The characters, events and locations should more resemble what is in the source as opposed to what strongly resembles fan fiction at times.


Glorfindela
Valinor


Nov 14 2014, 12:11am

Post #14 of 89 (1307 views)
Shortcut
Well said, Arannir [In reply to] Can't Post

Not all who dislike the film are 'purists' – they may just dislike it because of the way certain things have been executed in it, such as the overall plot or parts of it, or they may not like some aspects of it while liking others. They may be very disappointed and feel the need to vent, or they simply like to debate the pros and cons of films.

It's all very subjective, and people's reactions to a film are based on a lot of things, and differ from one individual to another.


FoundEntwife
Rivendell


Nov 14 2014, 4:25am

Post #15 of 89 (1253 views)
Shortcut
I don't really worry over it [In reply to] Can't Post

i can see good reasons from those who don't like the films and from those (like me) who do like them. but there's really no need to fight about it.

This tale grew in the telling. . .






http://pencilword.blogspot.com


Bracegirdle
Valinor


Nov 14 2014, 6:07am

Post #16 of 89 (1252 views)
Shortcut
Purist? [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
In general, I don't generally agree with purists, but I can respect their opinions.

I consider myself a purist. I assume you mean by this book-firsters? Then I must assume you “don’t generally agree” with Tolkien’s writings? If I’m misinterpreting I apologize.

Sorry to beat a dead horse but I was quite disappointed at the deviations PJ took. But once I got used to the idea I could enjoy the movies for what they are: a great exciting moving work of art; eye-candy worth several viewings, yet based on the work of JRRT.

Yes, I was somewhat distressed for the impreciseness of the movies, but to walk out! That's just too too much!

It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him.
- JRRT
A dead dragon is not a big problem.
- BG


Drakblod
Rivendell


Nov 14 2014, 6:31am

Post #17 of 89 (1257 views)
Shortcut
Well spoken! [In reply to] Can't Post

I have voiced my opinions on these movies, both regardin PJs deviations and general storytelling, cgi, etc. And people seems to almost take these criticisms as personal assaults, they will violently defend the movies, and I feel that a big reason is because it's Peter Jackson and they feel that we "can't" complain about his movies just because he made LOTR.

like butter scraped over too much bread.


NecromancerRising
Gondor


Nov 14 2014, 10:17am

Post #18 of 89 (1243 views)
Shortcut
No.That is not the truth at all about you! [In reply to] Can't Post

People,fans of the movies, reacted and considered as a personal attack when you characterised them as "sheepish".You had already stated your opinion since your first post and every other post afterwards seeing no violent attack towards you.So please,do not be inaccurate just to feel good about yourself.Wink

"You cannot find peace by avoiding life"

(This post was edited by NecromancerRising on Nov 14 2014, 10:17am)


Elessar
Valinor


Nov 14 2014, 2:06pm

Post #19 of 89 (1187 views)
Shortcut
Those are extreme reactions for sure. [In reply to] Can't Post

Sometimes people act a little over the top in how they react to things. Personally, I wouldn't sweat people that feel the need to react in such a manner. Unless they come up to me and start cussing me out for liking the movies in the end it isn't much of a big deal. That's the great thing about here is we really don't get the extremes too much.



NottaSackville
Tol Eressea

Nov 14 2014, 3:01pm

Post #20 of 89 (1254 views)
Shortcut
PJ is not a charity case [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
here PJ goes out of his way to create an epic film, putting almost a billion dollars into the production.


Let's be clear - that billion dollars didn't come out of his pocket, nor did he get forced, as far as I know, to turn the Hobbit into a 3-movie epic. As far as I know, he did it because that's how he wanted to adapt the books.

I don't owe PJ anything for what he did. He did pour his life into these films - as did other people working on them. But I pour my life into my job, hoping that customers will buy what I've decided to make. It doesn't mean anyone is required to buy, or even like (or even not hate) my product.

But PJ, Fran and company are humans, and I DO owe it to them to treat them with respect just like I do my other fellow humans.

Look, I don't like the Hobbit movies. I loved the LOTR movies, even though I hated some of the things about them. PJ gave me images of Middle Earth richer than anything my poor imagination could conjure while reading the books, and for that I'm forever grateful. For that, I forgive all the "adaptations" of the LOTR books that turned my stomach.

But the Hobbit movies? I see almost nothing of redeeming value, at least when measured against what I wanted and didn't get. And even that part is OK. There's a LOT of movies out there that I don't like - frankly, what's "cool" in modern movies often makes me feel a little left behind. No big deal.

But HERE is why I really, deeply wish PJ had never made the Hobbit movies: I think he took from me the ability to EVER see the Hobbit book adapted into a movie that brings the book to life on the screen (not loosely "based on", but truly a move that reflects the book). No one is EVER going to walk into a movie studio and say "I want to remake the Hobbit. But I'm going to make it smaller. And shorter, And cuter. It'll be for kids and adults that are young at heart. No gratuitous violence. No massive graphical CGI. Not as many thrills. We're going to see the journey of a little, meek, middle aged man as he becomes horrified, and then courageous, and then heroic." The studio execs will laugh them out of the building.

That's never going to happen now. It's much like this:

Imagine an old growth forest, filled with giant trees, pristine creeks and quiet, timid animals. It is something I've always dreamed of going to, and hiking in and soaking up the amazingness of nature's peace, tranquility and beauty. Someone comes along and says "I'm going to make this BETTER, and make something for everyone to enjoy!" They cut down the trees, put up plastic replicas, throw in thrill rides, concession stands, loud music and restaurants serving (admittedly delicious) food 24 hours a day. The excuse being - look, you can't get 300,000,000 visitors to enjoy an old growth forest. But ForestLand(tm) is the most popular park on Earth! Just look at all the happy people!

But the thing is, what I wanted to visit was that forest. I actually love thrill rides, and greasy food and everything else, too. But I could have gotten them in a thousand other places. Now I'll never get to go to that forest. Even if someone else comes along, buys the land, knocks down everything and plants new trees, old growth forests take a lifetime and more to form, so I'll never get to see the forest.

THAT'S why PJ making his "adaptations" of the Hobbit movie does more than just make a movie I don't want to see. It took something from me that I'll never get back now.

Notta

Happiness: money matters, but less than we think and not in the way that we think. Family is important and so are friends, while envy is toxic -- and so is excessive thinking. Beaches are optional. Trust is not. Neither is gratitude. - The Geography of Bliss by Eric Weiner as summarized by Lily Fairbairn. And a bit of the Hobbit reading thrown in never hurts. - NottaSackville


NateGate
Rivendell


Nov 14 2014, 3:36pm

Post #21 of 89 (1202 views)
Shortcut
Happily disagree... [In reply to] Can't Post

I cringe at the idea of a Hobbit film for children. Granted the book was more for children, but making the Hobbit film non-violent, non-epic, and more playful wouldn't be congruous with the LOTR Trilogy, it just wouldn't. All Peter did was take the basic structure of the book and tone it up a bit for entertainment's sake. When the average Tolkein fan hears "Middle Earth", he expects violence, epicness, courage, tragedy, and heroics, not some Hobbit merrily prancing around on a beauty stroll throughout the land. That being said, I'm very happy with the way Peter has handled this whole thing, with a more adult like tone.


dormouse
Half-elven


Nov 14 2014, 3:52pm

Post #22 of 89 (1198 views)
Shortcut
I'm sorry you feel that way about the films [In reply to] Can't Post

If you were hoping for something else that you can't find in this version of The Hobbit, that's tough for you, and disappointing. But to say that Peter Jackson has taken that film away from you - the film you were hoping for? No, I don't believe he has. Seems to me that's making it all too personal.

If that film - The Hobbit as written, divorced from Lord of the Rings and the encroaching darkness - was ever a commercial possibility then it still is. Favourite books tend to attract multiple adaptations rather than just one; if a studio knows a book is very much loved and someone goes to them with a viable suggestion they'll buy, because they'll know the film will have a ready-made audience. This isn't the first film version of the book - why assume it will be the last? Of course there are all the complications over the rights, but none of that mess is Peter Jackson's fault, and look at the headaches it gave him.

That's the thing. I don't share your disappointment in the film but I can see what you mean: I can imagine something like the film you were hoping for. I'd have liked that too, though I'm lucky because for all the things I hope to see and haven't, I can still find the ancient forest and the little, meek, bumbling man in the present films, and a lot more besides. But that other film - your film - if it isn't a commercially viable proposition now, then it never was. If it was one before, then it still is. I don't believe Peter Jackson has made any difference to that at all - I don't believe he'd even want to.


Grand Bob
The Shire

Nov 14 2014, 4:09pm

Post #23 of 89 (1193 views)
Shortcut
A new way of looking at it [In reply to] Can't Post

Your post presented the discussion in a new way, but I like it. I have no problem with those who are either are not familiar with the material, or who are somewhat but don't feel close to it. For those people, these movies are the $700 million thrill ride they have been looking for; those who are happier with a story that might as well be "The Life and Times of Azog the Goblin" rather than "The Hobbit".
But then there are "the few" - people like you and me that ARE very close to the material. As I have stated, I have read The Hobbit over 40 times and will continue reading it yearly until "the end". I enjoyed Jackson's The Lord of the Rings movies (e.g. my glowing review on Blu-ray.com) and had high hopes for his adaption of The Hobbit. An adaption is one thing - but this one deviates from the source material to a far greater extent than any I have ever seen. Unfortunately, it just happens to be the adaption of "The Hobbit", a book I relish and one of the five most popular fiction novels of all time.
What is even more disappointing in my mind is that on a web site whose slogan is "forged by and for fans of JRR Tolkien", there are so many that not only have joyously embraced these movie deviations but give blanket approval to every embellishment and "improvement", citing them as evidence of the "genius" of Jackson/Boyens.
Allow me to add my standard disclaimer at the point and state that this is only my opinion. At least you and I can be thankful that the third movie (which in two and half hours will cover approximately the last 35 pages of the book) will soon be released and that it will all be over.
But I did enjoy your forest analogy!


Darkstone
Immortal


Nov 14 2014, 8:05pm

Post #24 of 89 (1195 views)
Shortcut
Look on the bright side. [In reply to] Can't Post

I’ve had a lot of disappointments with book adaptations. Movies of favorite books like Doc Savage, The Postman, The Shadow, A Princess of Mars, Gods and Generals, and others have failed miserably. As a result, what I anticipated to be exciting multi-film franchises became sad one-movie failures.

And worst of all, they became Hollywood poison so there is little hope anyone is ever going to remake them anytime within my lifetime.

Indeed, that is exactly what happened to Lord of the Rings. The Bakshi version was so bad that the movie rights holder, Saul Zaentz, refused to allow any other LOTR movie to be made for almost a quarter-century out of fear of another flop damaging his marketing gold mine (games, figures, calendars, coffee cups, etc.). And similarly United Artists wouldn’t release distribution rights to The Hobbit because it feared losing money if the film flopped. (That is, until the massive success of the LOTR films.)

But now, Hollywood knows that a Tolkien film can be successful. And Hollywood being Hollywood, expect someone to return to the Tolkien well really soon.

So thanks to Jackson I’m betting we’ll see a couple of reboots of The Hobbit and LOTR before we die. And hopefully at least one of them will be more to your liking!

******************************************
I met a Balrog on the stair.
He had some wings that weren't there.
They weren't there again today.
I wish he would just fly away.


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Nov 14 2014, 8:12pm

Post #25 of 89 (1154 views)
Shortcut
i disagree [In reply to] Can't Post

that you fall into a category of a few. A common argument is that there are only a few so called purists and the movies aren't for them . Last I checked LOTR and the Hobbit were two of the most widely recognised and read books. I think if the LOTR and Hobbit movies were much closer to the books they would still be hugely successful.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 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.