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

Brethil
Half-elven


Jul 26 2013, 4:15pm

Post #101 of 110 (235 views)
Shortcut
"Bow"? Okay. (mutters *where's my violin...?*) [In reply to] Can't Post

Mr. Smudge is a real purriest. Or so I've heard.

The first TORn Amateur Symposium starts this week in the Reading Room! Come and join in!









Elthir
Gondor

Jul 26 2013, 4:28pm

Post #102 of 110 (227 views)
Shortcut
Purism? [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
I agree with 0% of Jackson's changes. They are all unartistic and horrible. They were wielded with the level of respect that I would expect from a slash fiction author (...).





A notable point here is that you disagree with the specific changes Jackson made.


For myself, I don't have a problem with changes in general, and certainly not cutting (I would have cut more than Jackson did). One of my favorite scenes in Jackson's 'film two' is not from the book, but that is because so much of the rest of this film is too filled [for examples] with Hollywood silliness, Jackson's 'over the top' stylings [which I think shows in the acting], and yet more emphasis on fighting and invented 'friction' between characters.

Am I a purist?

And as for the visuals -- not that I don't have my problems with some of them [although some were stunning in my opinion] -- but even this aspect amounts to 'not much' given the overall films. I mean, even if I thought all the visuals were right and wonderful, they become fairly meaningless in a film that I think essentially wastes them.


What I see on the web are individuals essentially doing what Jackson claimed he was trying to do: translate the books faithfully, and that includes a comparison to the books. Yes it's subjective, of course it is, even what it means to be 'faithful' or 'faithful enough' is subjective, but the books are in play according to Jackson himself... at least with The Lord of the Rings he claims to be making a faithful translation to film, and enough of his fans claim he did just this.

Jackson did not claim to be making a new piece of art to be judged wholly separate from the books; and one cannot help but find subjective opinions when it comes to the so called 'needs of film' -- and yes Jackson or his fans can offer reasons in this light -- however, case still not closed necessarily, as the needs of film are quite opinion based to begin with.


I'm not sure I know anyone who simply says 'change = bad because I'm a purist', but rather [statements like] 'I find this specific change bad, while the book was perfectly suited here to film, in my opinion.' Again to me that's engaging with what Jackson and crew were also engaging in, in theory, but disagreeing with his ultimate [and specific] choice about what film needs when weighing faithfulness to the source.

There is also: 'this part could have been better if the film adhered more closely to the book' but that's still not simply 'change is bad because it's change and I'll accept no alterations from the book.'


I'm not sure what the definition of 'purist' is, but if I knew, maybe I could know if I was one or not, according to that definition.

Smile



(This post was edited by Elthir on Jul 26 2013, 4:36pm)


L. Ron Halfelven
Grey Havens


Jul 26 2013, 4:46pm

Post #103 of 110 (225 views)
Shortcut
I insist on the entire Red Book-- not JRRT's shoddy abridged version.// [In reply to] Can't Post

 




ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Jul 26 2013, 9:26pm

Post #104 of 110 (202 views)
Shortcut
Faithfull translation [In reply to] Can't Post

does not equate to drastic character changes such as Aragorn, Faramir, Frodo and his relationship with Sam.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Jul 26 2013, 10:22pm

Post #105 of 110 (191 views)
Shortcut
Absolutely agree. About this and the eariler "Arwen 'passing' as superflous refuse", but especially about this. [In reply to] Can't Post

I thought the Fell Beast was fine and made sense too. Like you, I was with it right up until the moment when. . . . a Nazgul, a formerly human lieutenant of Sauron broke the staff of an Emissary of Eru and The Valar, who in an earlier, less powerful incarnation had defeated an Older than Earth, Never Human, Demonic, Holy Spirit turned to evil lieutenant of Melkor The Morgoth. The simple equation of Legolas' " A Balrog of Morgoth, of all Elf Banes the MOST deadly save The One who sits in The Dark Tower," combined with Gandalf's own acknowledgement of being "more dangerous than anything you will ever meet unless you are brought alive before the throne of The Dark Lord," assures that Gandalf is mightier than The Witch King. Tolkien understood dramatic tension . . . so he made Gandalf ambiguous about the outcome of such a meeting, and he left it unresolved in action, despite having already laid out why one would almost certainly prevail over the other.

What is worse, the defeat was not explained. If it had been laid out that Sauron's power had greatly increased AND that he was lending the greater part of his evil force to The Witch-King for the purpose of overcoming Gandalf, it might have worked. But, from all observation, all that can be inferred from a film only perspectve is that The Nazgul is doing this all on his own power, breaking the staff of the Chief of The Istari Wizards as easily as he broke Frodo's blade in the novels. Now, having broken Arwen's blade before crossing the river would have been a great touch.

In Reply To
The tragedy of this is that the visuals were awesome. Seeing the clips in the trailer gave me chills. When I saw the movie in the theater I couldn't believe the scene had been cut.

Frankly, I loved WK on the Beast. It made no sense, in the book, for him to have been on a horse at the gate and then moments later on the Beast attacking Théoden. Putting him on the Beast was a good call.

The whole confrontation was magnificent, right up to the point at which Jackson apparently felt it necessary for Gandalf to lose (another "ratcheting up the tension"). That was just wrong. It would have been quite sufficient and effective to end it just as the book did, as "unfinished business."

I have often wondered why the scene was cut. Was it because Jackson realized having Gandalf lose was going too far? It would have been easy to cut away just a few seconds earlier. My darkest suspicion is that they were just out of time: they had 5 hours of film that had to fit in 3+.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Jul 26 2013, 10:27pm

Post #106 of 110 (193 views)
Shortcut
I wouldn't call the films disastrous. Given the time alloted them, both the animated Hobbit and the [In reply to] Can't Post

animated Rings were pretty true to the amount of the story they were able to show. Aside from the Elves having deformed bodies and less than graceful faces, the Rankin-Bass Hobbit was very true to most of that story, with the exception of the omission of Beorn, The Arkenstone and the Stone Giants.

The Animated Rings movie was, in some places, much more true to the book than even many parts of the livea films, but they had far less time to work with, and so, in the end, a lot more of the story was cut. They did a strongly faithful adaptation of roughly the first half of the work, with the other half left entirely untouched.

In Reply To
A lot of Zimmerman's concepts, rightly deplored, were typical studio claptrap. Jackson made a very serious attempt to capture the spirit and, most successfully, the look of Middle Earth. It's really the fact that Jackson did so well and came so close that makes these debates have the lifespan they've had. Real disasters like the cartoons and what Zimmerman would have done would have been deplored and then ignored in the space of a few months.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Elthir
Gondor

Jul 27 2013, 12:56am

Post #107 of 110 (170 views)
Shortcut
And the 'little' things [In reply to] Can't Post

Agreed Elendil.

I could add the 'little' detail of 'Gandalf' bashing Denethor too [and I could go on in general]. When I first saw that I thought it was a joke clip.

Smile

Or Gandalf explaining 'death' to Pippin [just came to mind].


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Jul 27 2013, 10:07am

Post #108 of 110 (153 views)
Shortcut
As wrong as Gandalfs death speech is [In reply to] Can't Post

I love it.

I interpret it to mean that the fea of the deceased is travelling to Mandos and this is what they see as they are "flying" there, with his description stopping short of the final destination.

Gandaf bashing Denethor in some ways a step less horrible than the Mout of Sauron's death, but is also in some measure worse.

Manwe to the departing Istari..."ok guys now remember don't use force or power to lead the free people“


(This post was edited by ElendilTheShort on Jul 27 2013, 10:12am)


Elthir
Gondor

Jul 27 2013, 2:20pm

Post #109 of 110 (132 views)
Shortcut
next stop: Mandos [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
I interpret it to mean that the fea of the deceased is travelling to Mandos and this is what they see as they are "flying" there, with his description stopping short of the final destination.




And I'm sure all those people who had never read the books interpreted it the same way Wink


I'm just joking and I get your meaning Elendil. I didn't miss your subject line Smile


Michelle Johnston
Rohan


Jul 27 2013, 9:46pm

Post #110 of 110 (154 views)
Shortcut
False jeopardy arcs [In reply to] Can't Post

Elizabeth I just wanted to say I have enjoyed your incisive interventions on this thread and more so because with out rancour you remind me of an example of a key failing of the screen writers with LOTR. The creation of false jeopardy arcs to ratchet up the tension which actually does nothing of the sort.

To portray the majesty of the Eldar on screen was always going to be difficult but on the "Arwen leaving" to portray Elrond (the son of Earendil, lived through three ages etc ) as the manipulative father just did not work and Arwen whom had an appointment with destiny would never have forsaken that whatever the outcome.

These arcs are particularly noticeable in TTT. Legolas at Helms Deep lack of belief and its re establishment, the Ents will they, won't attack Isengard, whereas other really tense elements the night mare journey of Pippin and Merry and the tension of the subtleties of the parley with Saruman were left undeveloped.

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

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.