|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rangerfromthenorth
Rivendell
Aug 24 2016, 8:22pm
Post #1 of 31
(2290 views)
Shortcut
|
|
An interesting Quote from Tolkien's Letters
|
Can't Post
|
|
"The canons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies."- Letter 210
Darn near prophetic... Just saying...
Not all those who wander are lost
|
|
|
Bracegirdle
Valinor
Aug 25 2016, 1:07am
Post #2 of 31
(2215 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It seems were JRRT alive today
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
his views may be somewhat in line with his son’s, although the operative or argumentative words from your quote may be “wholly different” and “poor films”.
"They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. “And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film. . .Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time,"
"The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away.”
-CJRT The absolute accuracy of these quotes may not be spot on as I found them on the often inaccurate internet some time back, and there appear to be several versions wherein a word or two are different. But the thought blazes forth nonetheless.
And over Middle-earth he passed
and heard at last the weeping sore
of women and of elven-maids
in Elder Days, in years of yore.
|
|
|
squire
Half-elven
Aug 25 2016, 2:19am
Post #3 of 31
(2207 views)
Shortcut
|
|
C. Tolkien's famous dismissal of the LotR films was originally published in French
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
He lives in France, speaks French, and was speaking to a French magazine reporter. The quotes were only later translated from the original Le Monde article of 2012. The writer was French journalist Raphaëlle Rérolle; the translator was Sedulia Scott; the website where Scott's translation appeared is called Worldcrunch.
For those who read French, perhaps you can comment on the accuracy of Scott's translation:
Original text: Invitée à rencontrer Peter Jackson, la famille Tolkien a préféré décliner. Pour quoi faire ? "Ils ont éviscéré le livre, en en faisant un film d'action pour les 15-25 ans, regrette Christopher. Et il paraît que Le Hobbit sera du même acabit."
Le divorce est systématiquement réactivé par les films. "Tolkien est devenu un monstre, dévoré par sa popularité et absorbé par l'absurdité de l'époque, observe tristement Christopher Tolkien. Le fossé qui s'est creusé entre la beauté, le sérieux de l'œuvre, et ce qu'elle est devenue, tout cela me dépasse. Un tel degré de commercialisation réduit à rien la portée esthétique et philosophique de cette création. Il ne me reste qu'une seule solution : tourner la tête."
translation: Invited to meet Peter Jackson, the Tolkien family preferred not to. Why? "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."
This divorce has been systematically driven by the logic of Hollywood. "Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time," Christopher Tolkien observes sadly. "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away."
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'.
Archive: All the TORn Reading Room Book Discussions (including the 1st BotR Discussion!) and Footerama: "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
Dr. Squire introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
 = Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Aug 25 2016, 7:46am
Post #4 of 31
(2188 views)
Shortcut
|
Whereas I do agree that the Jackson films did cater too much to the expectations of mass audiences for more action, more conflict, and more obvious villains, I must confess that a very literal book-to-movie translation (even with a lot of scenes elided or eliminated) probably would not have been as effective in the marketplace. The experience of viewing is quite different from a reading experience, and time limitations coupled with the mandate to "show, not tell," preclude a lot of the explanations, reflections, and buildup in the books.
The fact remains that these movies brought a very great many new readers to the books, for which we should all be thankful.
(This post was edited by Elizabeth on Aug 25 2016, 7:47am)
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Aug 25 2016, 11:56am
Post #5 of 31
(2165 views)
Shortcut
|
|
'exaggeration' or 'selection'?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It seems to me that the LOTR Peter Jackson movies didn't so much exaggerate the work as make a selection of it. So they get Frodo on the road as soon as he learns what the Ring is, and miss out the slower and more reflective or puzzling material - Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs, wounded Frodo's plod across the Long Leagues of Eriador to the ford, and much of Book VI after Mount Doom. It's possible to read a very similar 'exciting' subset of the book (also missing out a lot of Book IV, which got more time in the films and more of a straight treatment than one might have expected).
I certainly think it would be unfair to accuse the LOTR script writers of failing to understand the canons of the narrative art - my own view is that they understood very well how to weave their chosen selection into a narrative.
'Exaggeration' was more on show in the Hobbit movies, I thought. Some of it worked for me and some of it didn't. To give examples of my personal hits and misses, I liked the collapsing giant gold statue (the metaphor as well as the visuals were clever and spectacular enough for me to forgive it being a bit preposterous). But I found the ever-longer, ever-more spectacular fight scenes began to drag despite being well-done in their way, and I thought the added romance sub plot tedious and predictable. It was also a bit of a disappointment to me in its loved-and-lost-and-not-much-else simplicity, when the screen writers had Eowyn as Tolkien's equivalent. I would have liked Tauriel to have achieved something more interesting than falling in love and then complaining that it hurt.
Naturally there will be folks here whose likes and dislikes there are the exact opposite, and that's fine: I'm just giving my own reaction to illustrate the selection/exaggeration theme.
In here too ought to be a point about JRRT's 'core' of the work and CT's regret ate the neglect of "the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation". Who gets to say what the core of a work is (or could become in a retelling, remix, or cover version)? Is that exclusively a matter for the original creator and their estate to direct, or what? But I don't think I can debate that point - our recent discussion about Tom Bombadil already had me start down that line, and then realise that I'm not sure what I think about it....
~~~~~~
volunteers are still needed to lead chapters for our upcoming read-thorough of Book VI ROTK (and the appendices if there are sufficient volunteers) http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=909709#909709
A set of links to our Book III discussions can be found here: http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=886383#886383
A set of links to the Book IV discussions are here: http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=899201#899201
A wonderful list of links to Boook II, Book I and previous read-throughs is curated by our very own 'squire' here http://users.bestweb.net/...-SixthDiscussion.htm
(This post was edited by noWizardme on Aug 25 2016, 12:01pm)
|
|
|
rangerfromthenorth
Rivendell
Aug 25 2016, 2:50pm
Post #6 of 31
(2119 views)
Shortcut
|
I posted this in reference to the Hobbit films which were full of exaggeration and which just missed the whole point of the story. The BOFTA in particular is a bad movie, and a worse Hobbit.
I enjoy the LOTR, while there is selection, and some exaggeration, the core remains in tact, and they are excellent movies.
Not all those who wander are lost
(This post was edited by rangerfromthenorth on Aug 25 2016, 2:50pm)
|
|
|
rangerfromthenorth
Rivendell
Aug 25 2016, 2:54pm
Post #7 of 31
(2118 views)
Shortcut
|
You are correct. I was brought to Tolkien through seeing the Fellowship at a dollar theatre!
I was referencing more to do with the Hobbit films. While LOTR is far from perfect, it is an excellent trilogy and mostly faithful. Most of the changes made are because of the medium of telling the story.
Whereas the Hobbit movies display what pride leads to. With LOTR Jackson and company had to prove themselves. With the Hobbit they thought they could do whatever they wanted. I feel no one was able to tell Peter during the filming of the Hobbit, "That's a terrible idea."
But in the end, the Hobbits made a lot of money, so it is considered a success. Kinda like the treasure in Erebor, the allure of financial success ruined these movies.
Not all those who wander are lost
(This post was edited by rangerfromthenorth on Aug 25 2016, 2:55pm)
|
|
|
rangerfromthenorth
Rivendell
Aug 25 2016, 2:56pm
Post #8 of 31
(2115 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I would love to hear his thoughts on the Hobbit movies...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Because they are worse. I like the LOTR movies, but not so much the Hobbit ones.
Not all those who wander are lost
|
|
|
enanito
Rohan
Aug 25 2016, 3:03pm
Post #9 of 31
(2110 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Selection, interpolation, and extrapolation
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As we well know in the R.R., even among "connoisseurs" of Tolkien's works, there's a wide variety of interpretations. Varied conclusions are made based on published and unpublished texts, preferences are weighted towards and against earlier/later writings, and some view certain elements as conclusive (Tom Bombadil absolutely cannot be this or that), whereas others retreat back to the ambiguity inherent in Tolkien's writings.
Hence, any screen version of Tolkien's works is bound to cause consternation. Each one of us has their own "head-cannon" that interpolates and extrapolates the existing text, and we have fun in the R.R. sharing, learning, and sometimes changing and sometimes rejecting. And we best get along when we agree to disagree.
But making a movie necessarily entails not only fixing in place a certain interpretation, but also the possibility (probability) that many novices will believe this is also the original author's interpretation -- and I understand why this causes distaste for many with P.J.'s movies. Selecting, interpolating, and extrapolating Tolkien's works in a movie is just not kosher for many of us, especially when done in a Hollywood fashion.
I've never been fully convinced that Christopher's interpretation of his father's views on how his works should be treated going forward, are necessarily the views that his father would have had in the year 2012. Yet it is what it is, and I surely don't disparage Christopher's love for his father's devotion of a lifetime.
But talking about exaggeration and missing the point of the core of the original, is a bit dicey when dealing with purposefully ambiguous works. Although it does keep us busy here in the R.R.! :)
|
|
|
Bracegirdle
Valinor
Aug 25 2016, 4:40pm
Post #10 of 31
(2104 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Time! Time! Time! Only for a quick cut and paste
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
from June 2015
It may not be the first, but up to now the foremost “WOW!” factor has become my burden: [I was leading A Flight to the Ford discussion] There have been many defenses as to why PJ discarded Glorfindel. I personally accept none of them. There have been many justifications as to why he portrayed Arwen as more of a warrior-princess, tracker, hunter, rather than the elegant noble Elven Princess that Tolkien wished her to be - Undómiel the Evenstar of her people. To have her be able to stealthily creep up, in the wilds of the Trollshaws, and put sword to the neck of Aragorn “the greatest traveler and huntsman in this age of the world” is an insult to this reader and an affront to the very persona of Arwen, and in no way justifies the abandonment of Glorfindel – IMHO
________________________________________
I don’t like arguing about the many book to movie discrepancies, and generally stay away (being sorely outnumbered it seems).
Do I like the movies? Yes, after a couple viewings, I can accept them for what they are – beautiful eye-candy loosely based on the writings of Tolkien.
As I said I realize this is a movie board, but the discussion wanders to-and-fro giving me an in.
p.s. I read the books too many times pre-films to be able to accept PJ’s (movie) imagination above my own (book) imagination.
It’s said a picture is worth a thousand words. Again, I’ve used this quote before but it never gets old.
Film me these WORDS:
Primeroles and anemones were awake in the filbert-brakes; and asphodel and many lily-flowers nodded their half-opened heads in the grass: deep green grass bedside the pools, where falling streams halted in cool hollows on their journey down to Anduin.
(TT, IV, 4)
And yes Elizabeth. I too am pleased that the movies have brought many to the wonder and joy of the books!!
And over Middle-earth he passed
and heard at last the weeping sore
of women and of elven-maids
in Elder Days, in years of yore.
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Aug 25 2016, 7:50pm
Post #11 of 31
(2088 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I doubt seriously that he's seen them.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It's not clear that he really saw all of the LotR films. It wouldn't take much to generate that response, and given the strength of this opinion, I can't imagine him subjecting himself to The Hobbit, given the fairly bad reviews.
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Aug 25 2016, 8:02pm
Post #12 of 31
(2091 views)
Shortcut
|
Had the movies been faithful in their portrayal of Arwen, we'd have seen her once as a shadowy figure in the background in Rivendell and then turning up for the wedding/coronation. Very unsatisfactory (it's unsatisfactory in the books, too, but at least we have that Appendix). As I'm sure you know, Jackson had a whole warrior maiden concept of Arwen that got vetoed, leaving only the Glorfindel role, but I have no real problem with that. Glorfindel didn't have a continuing part in the story, so the effort made to introduce him really wouldn't have been justified. Part of the different tradeoffs between books and movies. I'm still hoping that in the future we'll get the 3-season, 24-hr quality TV version, which can do a much better job.
|
|
|
squire
Half-elven
Aug 25 2016, 9:19pm
Post #14 of 31
(2081 views)
Shortcut
|
|
There was a lot of middle ground, although getting her out of Helms Deep was certainly a step in the right direction.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
There's no reason the intimate scenes in Rivendell, and the flashbacks by Aragorn and cutaways to Rivendell later in the films, couldn't have been kept while removing her from the absurd Glorfindel role. In my opinion, her enlargement via those domestic scenes were a strength of the movie, having a solid basis in the Appendix 'Tale of A&A" and being very well done (until the silly twist in the third movie about her 'dying').
Not that I would have loved it, but having Legolas be the Elf that saves Frodo, in lieu of introducing Glorfindel and then losing him immediately afterwards, would have made much more sense than using Arwen when the decision to abandon the 'warrior elfmaiden' storyline had already been made. As many have pointed out, having Arwen be an expert rider and scout, and never seeing her in that role again, is just as silly as (in some readers' eyes) Glorfindel's abbreviated appearance in the book.
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'.
Archive: All the TORn Reading Room Book Discussions (including the 1st BotR Discussion!) and Footerama: "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
Dr. Squire introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Aug 25 2016, 9:29pm
Post #15 of 31
(2079 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Ralph Bakshi had Legolas handle Glorfindel's part.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Not that I would have loved it, but having Legolas be the Elf that saves Frodo, in lieu of introducing Glorfindel and then losing him immediately afterwards, would have made much more sense than using Arwen when the decision to abandon the 'warrior elfmaiden' storyline had already been made.
I haven't read the whole thread, so my apologies if someone else already mentioned that.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
Bracegirdle
Valinor
Aug 25 2016, 9:32pm
Post #16 of 31
(2080 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The imagination of Peter Jackson
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
You’re reasoning seems the most popular for substituting Arwen for Glorfindel: He wanted to give Arwen more screen time. Understandable. But this extra screen time imo could have been accomplished in many ways: in the flashback scene and her introduction to Aragorn, or talks with Elrond, or just beefing up her relationship with Aragorn sneaking in a small part of The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen, or you-name-it . . . imagination. If Jackson had the imagination to create non-book existent characters, or to completely change some events, surely he had the imagination to beef up Arwen’s role without taking her completely out-of-character and plunking her where she didn’t belong.
Yes, Glorfindel doesn’t have a continuing part in the story but . . . so what? His part in A Flight to the Ford is too important and could also have been beefed up. He also could have had a semi-large part in the Council . . . imagination. I see no problem in his not having a continuing part in the story, his part in the book is just too important (to me) to discard, most especially in the appalling manner chosen.
First impressions often stick, rightfully or no, and I felt blindsided when I first saw the total outrageousness of Arwen’s first appearance on screen, and I guess I just never have gotten over it.
I just want my Glorfindel . . . and my true-to-the-book gentle elegant Undómiel Evenstar of her people  .
And I am NOT being sexist – honest!
And over Middle-earth he passed
and heard at last the weeping sore
of women and of elven-maids
in Elder Days, in years of yore.
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Aug 26 2016, 7:01am
Post #17 of 31
(2058 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It depends on when the decision was made.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
There was apparently a lot of footage shot of Arwen at Helm's Deep (thank Eru we were spared that!). It may be that when they decided that the Warrior Elf-maiden Arwen wasn't working it was too late to re-shoot the "Glorfindel" scenes, although I agree that Legolas would have been a reasonable substitute.
(This post was edited by Elizabeth on Aug 26 2016, 7:02am)
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Aug 26 2016, 11:22pm
Post #19 of 31
(2019 views)
Shortcut
|
|
To me, it wasn't even really that Arwen was at the Ford...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Rather, It was the removal of Frodo's pronounced bravery in defying the Ringwraiths at Bruinen and the scary book sequence of the Nazgul mocking Frodo and calling across the water, "Come back! To Mordor we will take you!" I remember the hair on my arms tingling when I first read that. Instead, Frodo was a helpless invalid. I hated that scene in the movie.
And then, only to make matters worse, Arwen calls down the flood to sweep away the Nazgul (who use the fan-fiction moniker "she-elf"). She was neither the Master of Imladris nor the wielder of a Ring of Power. This could have been mitigated if she called upon her father to bring down the flood in that faux-Sindarin she was using. But no. Somehow, she managed it all herself.
Fast forward in the film a few days, and we have weepy Arwen, completely shorn of all power, mewling forlornly as Aragorn set off. Then later on we discover she is dying. One of the worst edit jobs and character assassinations of the film - with only the hatchet job to Faramir and Denethor being worse. Unless, of course, you consider Frodo being emasculated throughout the three films, and abanonging Sam. Okay, that was worse than Arwen, I guess.
Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
(This post was edited by Morthoron on Aug 26 2016, 11:23pm)
|
|
|
squire
Half-elven
Aug 27 2016, 12:30am
Post #20 of 31
(2010 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel about the LotR films.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Just kidding. I know what you're talking about in the issues you raise about the adaptation. But I don't think we need to revisit the 'Movie' forum back in the day when there was just one "Movie". Tears were shed, voices were raised, and people left TORn - if I remember.
If you look at the publicity for the new so-called Ultimate Blu-ray edition of the six films that everyone's been talking about this last week, the descriptive material on the LotR films - plot, technical credits, actor credits - is half the length and depth of the equivalent material on the Hobbit trilogy. Our TORn Movie forum for LotR amuses itself with clever caption games. No one really cares - or rather, no one really has anything more to say - about the LotR trilogy, as far as I can tell.
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'.
Archive: All the TORn Reading Room Book Discussions (including the 1st BotR Discussion!) and Footerama: "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
Dr. Squire introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.
|
|
|
Hamfast Gamgee
Tol Eressea
Aug 27 2016, 11:23pm
Post #21 of 31
(1850 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I have just done a little looking on said letter
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And to put this quote in some kind of context he was referring to the script of the Zimmerman movie which did indeed contain a lot of both omissions and additions. So it wasn't really that much of a prophetic letter. Though I am sure that if the Zimmerman movie was made into a film there would be some here who would say that they preferred it to the Jackson Hobbit movies!
|
|
|
Harold.of.Whoa
Rivendell
Aug 28 2016, 1:32am
Post #22 of 31
(1846 views)
Shortcut
|
As many have pointed out, having Arwen be an expert rider and scout, and never seeing her in that role again, is just as silly as (in some readers' eyes) Glorfindel's abbreviated appearance in the book.
Being a fan of Arwen's expanded role in FotR (and exceedingly grateful that the warrior princess idea was scrapped from TTT), one thing I wish would have been added to the film is a brief scene in Rivendell making it clear that Arwen went on her scouting mission without her father's approval (if not directly against his orders). That would serve as a de facto reason why she is never utilized in such a way again (she wasn't supposed to in the first place) and would tie in nicely with the arc the films have for her, Aragorn and Elrond.
|
|
|
Maciliel
Valinor
Aug 28 2016, 10:34pm
Post #23 of 31
(1719 views)
Shortcut
|
|
jackson's arwen was a reasonable adaptation of the character
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
jackson's arwen, especially in fotr, was a quite reasonable adaptation of the character.
it made sense for the film makers to remove glorfindel, as they removed tom bombadil, goldberry, ghan-buri-ghan, and more. i may or may not have made similar choices of condensation, but in his choice of giving glorfindel's actions to arwen, they definitely supported the narrative, strengthened her role, and were in keeping with the nature the nissi (female elves), as described elsewhere by jrr tolkien himself.
as lovely and compelling as tolkien's writing is for me, in his pages, poor arwen is kept in the shadows, and is limited to being an object of desire, a goal, and a mechanism to keep aragorn's hope alive. in the books, i would wish her to have a more detailed character, and a greater role. her primary function in the novels (after the overthrow of sauron) was to produce a male heir so that the kingdom could continue. two of her three children -- who just happen to be female -- are +++ not even given NAMES +++ (by tolkien) in the appendices. quite sad, that.
as much as i love tolkien's writing, he does not grant females the same depth or breadth of treatment, overall. i loved seeing more of arwen, and her actions were in keeping with skills that were well within possibility of her possessing (tracking, calling upon the natural elements for aid, riding, etc.).
for the person downthread who would have found it jackson's depiction more acceptable if an insertion was made in the films in which it was made clear arwen acted against her father's wishes / without his permission... well, that is quite in line with many sexist (and tired) tropes. gosh forbid a female character takes a brave and bold action that isn't inherently controversial within her social context, which deems she ought to stay at home and watch the boys go out into the wide world and do great deeds.
peter jackson's arwen managed to be both quite capable (and believable) as a tracker in the wild +and+ as an elegant, wise person of some stature in rivendell.
note: i'm glad that we did not see arwen at helm's deep, because that would have been too much a departure from the text, imo.
cheers --
.
aka. fili orc-enshield
+++++++++++++++++++
the scene, as i understand it, is exceptionally well-written. fili (in sort of a callback to the scene with the eagles), calls out "thorRIIIIIIN!!!" just as he sees the pale orc veer in for the kill. he picks up the severed arm of an orc which is lying on the ground, swings it up in desperation, effectively blocking the pale orc's blow. and thus, forever after, fili is known as "fili orc-enshield."
this earns him deep respect from his hard-to-please uncle. as well as a hug. kili wipes his boots on the pale orc's glory box. -- maciliel telpemairo
(This post was edited by Maciliel on Aug 28 2016, 10:44pm)
|
|
|
Bracegirdle
Valinor
Aug 29 2016, 12:16am
Post #24 of 31
(1709 views)
Shortcut
|
|
As Squire said “Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel…”
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Trusting that you have read this entire thread, as for me the Flight to the Ford depiction of Arwen is an abomination, a character assassination, and I must “… turn my head away.”
Cheers – - back at you . . .
And over Middle-earth he passed
and heard at last the weeping sore
of women and of elven-maids
in Elder Days, in years of yore.
|
|
|
Maciliel
Valinor
Aug 29 2016, 12:42am
Post #25 of 31
(1706 views)
Shortcut
|
|
yes, i have read this entire thread :)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
yes :) i have read this entire thread -- many great posts, and a great discussion. :)
i feel for you, bracegirdle, as i have been in your shoes -- where i have been the reader / watcher / consumer / etc. of some person's artistic / editorial decisions, which i have found execrable in comparison to the original, or what i deemed sound.
it is quite the paradox that in so many things, one (reasonable) person can find beauty and another (reasonable) person can find atrocity.
in that same vein, i am wholly sympathetic to christopher tolkien's positions, yet (paradoxically), i do not entirely share them, and find much that is beautiful, worthwhile, and truly in the spirit of his father's work in jackson's interpretations. that being said there are certainly many things which travel the spectrum from "not my taste" to "does not align at all with tolkien."
(i trust that i have expressed how i truly feel, as everyone else has on this thread.)
cheers --
.
aka. fili orc-enshield
+++++++++++++++++++
the scene, as i understand it, is exceptionally well-written. fili (in sort of a callback to the scene with the eagles), calls out "thorRIIIIIIN!!!" just as he sees the pale orc veer in for the kill. he picks up the severed arm of an orc which is lying on the ground, swings it up in desperation, effectively blocking the pale orc's blow. and thus, forever after, fili is known as "fili orc-enshield."
this earns him deep respect from his hard-to-please uncle. as well as a hug. kili wipes his boots on the pale orc's glory box. -- maciliel telpemairo
(This post was edited by Maciliel on Aug 29 2016, 12:43am)
|
|
|
|
|
1
