|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lissuin
Doriath
Sep 11 2019, 11:45pm
Post #27 of 51
(5693 views)
Shortcut
|
|
2004: Here is the link to the essay by a Tolkien fan very unhappy with the films.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Promises Kept — Not the good ones, I'm afraid. ROTK-M At Last
https://web.archive.org/...hedain.netfirms.com/
These quotes are found in part 2. Characterization and Plot Evisceration Continues
I don't know who wrote it but read it from an earlier post in April where Solicitir referenced it.
http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=959802#959802
There's enough here to keep you guys writing for some time (she said very sweetly). Knock yourselves out. I have a Hobbit caption to choose. 
|
|
|
Solicitr
Mithlond
Sep 12 2019, 2:23am
Post #28 of 51
(5666 views)
Shortcut
|
I thought it was familiar!
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Menegroth
Sep 12 2019, 10:18am
Post #29 of 51
(5621 views)
Shortcut
|
They are from one Joan Barger, fanfiction author of LOTR. They are from 2003-04. IMO, the essays are classic, as are her turn-of-phrases.
|
|
|
lurtz2010
Nargothrond
Sep 13 2019, 12:13am
Post #30 of 51
(5553 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Jeez there’s no pleasing that person
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Do they have an essay about the hobbit films by any chance?
|
|
|
Solicitr
Mithlond
Sep 13 2019, 3:17pm
Post #31 of 51
(5471 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think she's right on the money.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And she -and I -could have been pleased: by much better films than PJ made.
Actually, I'm not as harsh about Shore's score, which overall I thought was quite good. However, I will grant that he did overrepeat the same stuff without variation too often (or the sound editor spliced in the same track too often); and I agree that ersatz-Celtic standing in for "olde" IS an overused cliche, and I couldn't stand his hackneyed Exorcist-like shrieking demonic choruses.
|
|
|
lurtz2010
Nargothrond
Sep 13 2019, 10:38pm
Post #32 of 51
(5427 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It’s like she despised every atom involved in the movies
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I didn’t think it was possible for someone to be so disappointed with the Lotr trilogy.
My respect for her opinion dropped to zero when I read her alternative TTT movie that she wrote. All those short scenes cut back and forth every 10 seconds or so would’ve been a mess and those constant long zooms across the land to show the geography between each of the storylines was just ridiculous.
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Menegroth
Sep 17 2019, 7:05am
Post #33 of 51
(5105 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Maybe no more a mess or ridiculous...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
than what PJ actually did. ;)
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Menegroth
Sep 25 2019, 10:05am
Post #34 of 51
(4794 views)
Shortcut
|
Do they have an essay about the hobbit films by any chance?
It's one person who wrote this, and ''it's'' a she.
And no, she's not on the Internet since 2012 at least and hasn't written anything on the Hobbit flicks AFAIK.
|
|
|
skyofcoffeebeans
Nargothrond
Sep 25 2019, 10:27am
Post #35 of 51
(4791 views)
Shortcut
|
They has often been historically used as a singular pronoun and is sometimes preferred by an individual. It's not inappropriate to use it when the gender is unknown, or if the poster would rather not use gendered pronouns at all. Nowhere in that post did that poster refer to a person as an it...
But regardless, her commentary on the Hobbit films would be great to read, though if she could barely suffer through LOTR I don't know that she ever saw most of Jackson's Hobbit filmography.
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Menegroth
Sep 26 2019, 9:58am
Post #36 of 51
(4688 views)
Shortcut
|
English is not my first language, sorry. Thanks for the clarification. As for "it", I was referring to my own incompetence at writing that sentence, i.e., I had no idea how to frame it.
I personally think Barger would have been terrified by the Hobbit movies and would not have watched most of them (it?). If anything, she would have finished AUJ. I guess.
(This post was edited by Paulo Gabriel on Sep 26 2019, 10:02am)
|
|
|
skyofcoffeebeans
Nargothrond
Sep 26 2019, 8:17pm
Post #37 of 51
(4626 views)
Shortcut
|
Quite selfishly, I'd read every piece of commentary she would write for them (except perhaps her script treatments; they read too brusquely for a script).
|
|
|
Solicitr
Mithlond
Sep 27 2019, 7:51pm
Post #38 of 51
(4505 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't want to start an argtument, but there is almost no tradition in proper English for using "they" as a substitute pronoun when the gender of the referent isn't known. It has suddenly increased in usage for political, not grammatical reasons; in proper English there is almost always a way to identify the referent without resorting to language abuse.
I wonder if in other European languages, which all have grammatical geneder for every noun, and in many cased the g.g. of a noun is apparently entirely arbitrary (certainly in German that's the case!), if grammatical gender has therefore been nearly as much a controversy, or if native speakers' attitude is more "It never mattered anyway."
|
|
|
squire
Gondolin
Sep 27 2019, 8:22pm
Post #39 of 51
(4500 views)
Shortcut
|
|
This article on language suggests there are two types of uses, one quite old and one relatively new.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The article notes that using 'they' as a singular pronoun, when the gender is not known or is not relevant, goes back a long way, centuries in fact: "...regardless of what detractors say, nearly everyone uses the singular they in casual conversation and often in formal writing."
The much newer usage, for when the gender is known but is not desired to be used as per a binary or similar identification, is relatively new. Note that this Merriam-Webster language article added the commentary on the second usage just this month!
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.
|
|
|
Solicitr
Mithlond
Sep 27 2019, 8:40pm
Post #40 of 51
(4496 views)
Shortcut
|
said, proper English. Casual demotic usage would legitimize all sorts of atrocities.
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Sep 28 2019, 7:06am
Post #41 of 51
(4462 views)
Shortcut
|
between the continual evolution of language and the intentional (or otherwise) torture of language. Much of of the definition comes down to personal taste.
For me, I'm good with neologisms, broadened meanings and the like as long as the meaning is clear and the wording is deliberate (rather than a gaffe). Also personally, the English language would be *a lot* more clear if punctuation was used better - especially commas and apostrophes! But that's a personal soapbox that I'll pack away for now.
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
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Menegroth
Sep 28 2019, 12:38pm
Post #42 of 51
(4438 views)
Shortcut
|
|
There's no argument to be had with me...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
since I was the one who said all along that "they" was weird and/or wrong. You should argue this with the other poster.
|
|
|
Noria
Hithlum
Sep 28 2019, 1:14pm
Post #43 of 51
(4432 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Languages, like everything else, evolve.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
IMO one of the great strengths of the English language is its ability to adapt, to encompass new words and new usages. The English language that we speak is not exactly the same as it was a century ago. That adaptive quality makes English flexible, expressive and vibrant.
My pet peeve is the newish thing of saying “No problem” instead of “You’re welcome”, unless of course the former is more appropriate to the situation. I also feel a bit sorry for anyone whose vocabulary is so small that they are limited a single word as verb, noun, adverb and adjective (hint: it begins with F).
And yes, this broader use of “they” is acceptable to me.
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Menegroth
Oct 2 2019, 6:26am
Post #44 of 51
(4253 views)
Shortcut
|
Because you thought the LOTR rants were good?
|
|
|
CMackintosh
Ossiriand
Oct 19 2019, 8:13am
Post #45 of 51
(3647 views)
Shortcut
|
likewise Rohan, Lothlorien, Ithilien, and even Mordor. The films don't even notice that these locations are every bit as valid characters as the animates. Of course, Tolkienj blew it with the Ents - he didn't make it clear enough that the Ents are tree-ish as well as animates, but it is rather hard to do. Olaf Stapledon in The Star Maker flubbed it even worse with some tree-men he came up with.
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Menegroth
Oct 22 2019, 5:16am
Post #46 of 51
(3547 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think he made it quite clear...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
that the Ents only somewhat resembled trees.
|
|
|
Saruman
Nevrast
Nov 14 2019, 2:47pm
Post #47 of 51
(2684 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't mind Elijah Wood as Frodo one bit, despite all of the logic presented in this thread. But there is one thing I will say against him, which accounts for the huge disconnect between movie-Frodo and book-Frodo: ELIJAH WOOD NEVER READ THE BOOKS. He admits it to this day. He went into the script with only the script, not Tolkien's canon. Therein lies the most glaring problem with film Frodo.
"I have seen it..."
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Nov 14 2019, 4:12pm
Post #48 of 51
(2676 views)
Shortcut
|
...if Wood had familiarlized himself with book-Frodo, his approach to the role might have been a bit different. However, I'm not sure about how much a difference that would have made, since ultimately Peter Jackson's vision for the films was the final word.
#FidelityToTolkien
|
|
|
Solicitr
Mithlond
Nov 14 2019, 4:55pm
Post #49 of 51
(2674 views)
Shortcut
|
I also feel a bit sorry for anyone whose vocabulary is so small that they are limited a single word as verb, noun, adverb and adjective (hint: it begins with F).
... but in the mouth of a veteran Navy chief, it can become as virtuoso a performance as a blues musician using just a twelve-bar progression and a handful of licks.
|
|
|
squire
Gondolin
Nov 14 2019, 9:16pm
Post #50 of 51
(2654 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That's an odd way to make a movie - let the actors decide who they are
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
What I mean is, I have understood that many of the film's performers and creatives did read Tolkien's book. They said in the various interviews on the DVD appendices that reading the book helped them and made the movie better in their judgment - and presumably, in Peter Jackson's as well.
On the other hand - there are plenty of conflicts between the book and the screenplay, in areas like character, theme, settings, etc. And most defenders of the film as a film have said that changes like that are part of any film adaptation from another work, and that the film should be taken on its own terms, not in reference to the source. A well-made movie should always satisfy and seem complete in every way to an audience that has never heard of, much less read or known, whatever sources it draws from.
Now I didn't know this about him before this post of yours, but it seems to me that Wood took that second, more film-artistic, approach. He was hired to play Frodo as written by Philippa Boyens, not Frodo as written by Tolkien. If it's not in the script, he doesn't want to know about it, for fear of being crippled by conflicts and questions about any differences in presentation.
Okay, I think, but.... but... Shouldn't Jackson have decided one way or another? Why would he let Wood refuse to read the book, but accept that (say) McKellen, Mortensen, Lee, and many others were using the book to understand and inform their character portrayals in conjunction, and at times in conflict, with the script?
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.
|
|
|
|
|
