|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Altaira
Superuser
Feb 1 2008, 5:26am
Post #51 of 132
(948 views)
Shortcut
|
I'd type more, but the candles are burning dangerously low in my shrine to PJ, I just sent up a prayer to him that he bless Hellboy 2. 
Brilliant, 5 by 5. 
*runs to check my own PJ shrine*
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
TORn Calendar
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Feb 1 2008, 5:28am
Post #52 of 132
(949 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The retrospective critical favorite for 1956 is "The Searchers".
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But it wasn't nominated then.
You're right that Around the World in 80 Days is not well-regarded, but among the 1956 nominees, I think most critics would pick not The Ten Commandments but Giant.
I think A Man Escaped is the best film of 1956, with Aparajito not far behind. But probably neither was actually released in the U.S. that year.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Jan. 28-Feb. 3 for "Many Meetings".
|
|
|
Tolkien Forever
Mithlond
Feb 1 2008, 5:43am
Post #53 of 132
(945 views)
Shortcut
|
Listen '5', this is getting as tired as I am & I really am not into online flame wars.
People get so uppitty over simple words these days, man.
'PJ worship', whatever. So you don't worship him, fine, I'm happy for you, but as you tell ME not to speak for others, don't do so yourself. They may well worship him, right?
Me calling them 'PJ worshippers' is just a sattirical way of saying 'PJ Lovers' or if that offends you, 'PJ fans', ok?
Obviously, as someone who loves, er, is a fan of PJ, as you have abundantly made clear, I guess I've gotten under your skin & I'm sorry. Please forgive me.
As for 'abomination', I'm quite glad you agree it has a 'thumbs down' connontation - that's quite the point I was trying to get across.
When you have Gandalf smacking Denethor in the face, Aragorn not wanting to be king, Elrond being the biggest jerk this side of Darth Sideous, Denethor acting like a madman, Sauron acting like a lighthouse instead of a Dark Lord with nine fingers & Frodo telling Sam to go home, that's an abomination & I believe both Christopher & JRR Tolkien would agree (go ahead & kill me for assuming their opinions, but I think we all know & have heard their views here on this one if we're honest).
Now go ahead & have the last word, I've had more than enough......
Good night & Peace, TF
|
|
|
Finding Frodo
Dor-Lomin
Feb 1 2008, 5:54am
Post #54 of 132
(982 views)
Shortcut
|
Main is Main. And the Main thing going on right now is the news that Del Toro was just announced to be the director of The Hobbit and The...whatever the other movie is. Some people are upset, some are excited, some want more information. If we all had the same opinion, there would be nothing to discuss. But that's not all -- here there be quizzes, news items and cartoons related to the books or the movies, and the Walk to Rivendell thread (shameless plug).
Movie is Movie. Although the animated films have been discussed, PJ's version of LotR is usually the topic. Most people like PJ's version, or else nobody would be interested in leading or participating in discussions. Some people don't like them or have quibbles with parts of them, and their posts can spark conversation, but there wouldn't be much point to having a movie-slamming board. We come here to share our enjoyment of things PJ got right about Middle-Earth. And of course there is more Hobbit movie speculation here too. It just spills over! If you don't enjoy the movies or are not interested, I suggest avoiding this board.
Reading Room is Reading Room. Purists and Tolkien scholars, draw up a chair. We are currently discussing The Fellowship of the Ring: "Many Meetings", so grab your book and jump in! But discussion is not limited to the current chapter -- post a question or run an idea up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes.
Arena is Arena. Dragon vs. Balrog, for example goes there.
Fan Art -- Do you make any? Post it.
Gaming and Collecting -- I have no idea what that's about.
Off-Topic -- Weird news, cast news, birthdays, personal stories, and get to know your TORnsibs. Hey, we haven't had one of those for awhile!
Pollantir -- Find out which way the wind is blowing. Who else here identifies him/herself as a purist, for example?
Moots -- If there's anything even remotely Tolkien-related happening in your neck of the woods, or if you just want to invite us all to a party, post it here! Moots are the best because we don't have these computers in the way of getting to know each other. Also people actually want to sit around and talk about Tolkien (OK, and PJ) with you, which is something I don't get much of in real life.
Feedback -- Have a problem? Have a question? Have a new footer or avatar and want to see if it works? Post it here (but delete it or put it in an old thread if it's just a test) (unless you really want everyone to notice your new avatar or footer).
This got really long. I hope you don't think I'm talking down to you. It's just been very hard to take your continuing criticisms of TORn and its members. Please continue to participate in discussions you enjoy and avoid the ones you don't. I don't go over to Gaming and Collecting and say, "Why are you people wasting your time with toys and games?" etc. I'm not interested in it, but that doesn't mean that NOBODY should be interested in it. I enjoy the Reading Room, though I often don't have time to post. Others have already participated in several rounds of book discussions, as has already been mentioned. Some don't care to dissect the text that they love, but they don't come in and post, "Why are you guys wasting your time analyzing every single word of this book?" They just leave it alone.
To sum up: Welcome to TORn, where we all love Tolkien in our own ways while respecting and caring about each other. Oh, and we rarely take ourselves terribly seriously.
Where's Frodo?
|
|
|
stormcrow20
Mithlond
Feb 1 2008, 7:20am
Post #56 of 132
(928 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I agree, it's all a matter of *personal opinion*//
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
"Good Morning!"
|
|
|
Windfola
Lindon
Feb 1 2008, 7:32am
Post #57 of 132
(910 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I read a different earlier interview on TORC
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
To what extent has the work of Tolkien influenced you ? Thank you and much success with the film!
Not at all. I could barely finish "The Hobbit". Curiously, that kind of fantasy, never called out to me. I think that fairy tales are in themselves a different genre. Heroic fantasy, in general, leaves me cold. I am more interested in Robert E. Howard's work of terror - his novels about the muscular Conan. Although there are two writers of fantasy that I think are sublime: Clark Ashton Smith and Lord Dunsany.
(This post was edited by Windfola on Feb 1 2008, 7:37am)
|
|
|
stormcrow20
Mithlond
Feb 1 2008, 8:18am
Post #58 of 132
(916 views)
Shortcut
|
The only accurate example of Gandalf's power is when the white light comes forth on the Pelanor Fields & the Nazgul fly away post haste, but that's hardly spectacular looking.
....
I wonder if some of these type of people have ever even read TLOR or if they have, do they even know who Feanor, Turin, The Wainriders, Ulmo or Morgoth were?
From Return of the King, The Siege of Gondor:
"Like thunder they broke upon the enemy on either flank of the retreat; but one rider outran them all, swift as the wind in the grass: Shadowfax bore him, shining, unveiled once more, a light starting from his upraised hand.
The Nazgūl screeched and swept away, for their Captain was not yet come to challenge the white fire of his foe."
In the book, the light came from Gandalf's hand, while in Jackson's film, it comes from his staff. Not exactly accurate. However, this minor change is one that I actually prefer. And I thought it was quite spectacular and well done. Inspiring even. But then, that's my personal opinion.
You mention the scene where Gandalf breaks Saruman's staff (with only a verbal command). That itself is an accurate example of Gandalf's power from the book, is it not?
"Good Morning!"
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Gondolin
Feb 1 2008, 8:28am
Post #59 of 132
(973 views)
Shortcut
|
|
*riding on silver-white horse, my staff ablaze with lightning*. . .
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
  That's Right, a great blue flash, blazing like the lightning, not like a flashlight! lol And why am I riding in such haste and wrath? To aid my dear Tolkien Forever, who is being assailed on all sides, and some of his words taken quite out of context.
Now he is wrong about Glorfindel, of course  , who SHOULD have been in the film, but mayhap he misunderstood my meaning. I too understood and came to terms with Arwen at the Ford. I hated it, but I understood it. What I did not understand was why Glorfindel could not have at least had a recognizable cameo to make up for it, knowing how beloved he is among cannon fans. He could have had a 12 second line at the council about sending the ring across the sea, and Gandalf could have said, "Nay, dear Glorfindel. Middle-Earth's salvation from this evil lies not across the Western Sea." And everybody would've been, if not happy, then at least consoled.
Yet on the other issues I completely agree with him, and let me say he is neither discrediting Peter, nor devaluing the films.
Now 5 by 5, I hate to dissent so strongly from you. You KNOW I love you, for you were the first to give me total support and agreement when I said Peter did Gandalf and LOTR a great disservice by so severely hampering and diminishing his most astounding magical displays. I do not forget or undervalue loyalty, even if its loyalty to something I love and not to me directly. And I would still gladly plant a (non as in NOT in any way) non-homoerotic kiss on your forehead and hug ya like a bear for your support on that key issue.
However, I think you are going too hard on T. Forever. One can like a film and still dissaprove of certain aspects of it, as both he and I and many others who are NOT EVEN strict PURISTS do.
And yes there is a difference between confidence in someone and worship of them. I have seen the worship. Confidence is " I think Peter did a really good job, maybe there were some flaws, but they didn't ruin it, and I am sure he won't repeat them in The Hobbit." That is confident. " Nobody can make it but him, and oohhhh its going to be crap if anyone else tries to do it, and he is like The god of Middle-Earth, and anybody elses vision is going to be heresey and crap, and wahhhhhhh I am not going to see it if he doesn't direct!" Sorry loves, but that is categorical deification and worship, and fanatical worship at that. And many of the people who worship at that level have not read the books, or else read the books only AFTER having seen the films, which of course gives a wholly different perspective.
Now I have said many times that I loved the movies, as great films and as good adaptations. But they could have been better adaptations, and it would have made them even better films. And don't even give me the "films are different from novels" line,as you know I am not talking about things that had to be ommitted, like Bombadil, but about smaller and more easily rectified ommissions and alterations, which needlessly detracted from the impact and clarity of the films.
To Peter's credit, the list of mistakes were, in my opinion, relatively few in number, and the over all film had the right look and feel. Yet there were poor choices, and some of them were glaring and hard to look around.
And while of course we can differentiate between the books and films A. there are still some visions that one longs to see on screen, and it hurts to anticipate them and not see them come to pass. . . And B. it is a real pain to know that, despite your knowledge of "what really happened" in a given seen, millions of fans of the films who are not avid readers are taking things like the breaking of Gandalf's staff and his beating of Denethor as gospel. And yes, I get pi$$ed off everytime I think about that aspect. Do you know some people think Gandalf used Shadowfax to KILL Denethor?!
I have come all to close to cursing out non-readers who told me that Gandalf the Gray wasn't much of a Wizard. And everytime I have to recite and read scenes from Fellowship where he revealed "Gandalf The Gray Uncloaked," to such a person, and they widen their eyes and say "ohh. Why wasn't anything like that in the film?" It makes me want to run out and punch Peter Jackson right in his kisser, just as I wanted to go hug him when I saw Gandalf enter the Shire, or Galadriel passing on unclad feet through the groves of Lothlorien. For me, the LOTR films are like the beloved relatives who give me great joy, but whom I sometimes want to. . . throw a book at. I know that Tolkien Forever feels much the same way.
As to awards. . . sure they have meaning. They are not everything, but when they are prestigious and olden, they hold weight. I love that I can say a film I love like American Beauty is an Academy Award Winner. I LOVE that I can boastfully tell anyone who dares gainsay LOTR, that ROTK won a Best Picture Oscar from the Academy, and that taken as a whole LOTR has more Academy Awards than any other film in history. That still doesn't mean it was perfect, because it was not, and I don't hesitate to throw that caveat in even as I am recommending it.
I believe Tolkien Forever when he says he loves the movies, because I feel the same way. And yet, there were things about them that I hated to see added, or altered or ommited. Its part of the reason I post here. I have been visiting this site since it was created, when the first LOTR rumours started flying. But, like The Council, for long I watched only, and waited. One might say, that "though I loved" the site and its members, "I came among you unseen" lol, reading every update, pouring through picture galleries, all of it. In retrospect I wish I had spoken up sooner but. . .
Like me, T. Forever loved the films, but took issue with certain missteps, and speaks about them in hopes that they will not be repeated in the next definitive film set in the time of Middle-Earth.
Now, to you Tolkien Forever, I understood Peter not doing Lightning from the fingertips, or fireballs shooting from anyones thumbs. That would have bordered on crass and cheap. But, just as other aspects of magic and the supernatural were well handled in the film, so too the fire enchantments of Gandalf. How much cooler would the battle with Saruman have been, if, instead of simply tossing one another around (that should have been kept but not exclusive), Gandalf had taken one of the sconced candles in Saruman's throne room, turned the flames blue and brilliant, as he does in other places in The Hobbit and Fellowship, and hurled that. Flames go up as a wall between he and Saruman, and Gandalf runs for the temporarily re-opened door. . . only to have Saruman wave his staff, snuffing the flames, re-sealing the doors, and tossing Gandalf back into the fray.
There are many things that could have been done. They weren't so I won't go on about it, but the description of what Gandalf does in the Great Goblin's lair is excellent and vivid, made for Cinema, and I would be sick with rage and dissapointment if it were poorly translated on account of Peter's distaste for magic (especially when Saruman, Sauron and even Arwen got to do all sorts of over the top, spectacular displays). I have to admit (don't yell at me! ) lol, I did kinda like the way Rankin-Bass handled Gandalf, the acorn, and the wargs. There, I said it. lol
"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."
|
|
|
Magpie
Elvenhome
Feb 1 2008, 3:29pm
Post #60 of 132
(932 views)
Shortcut
|
I enjoy the Reading Room, though I often don't have time to post. Others have already participated in several rounds of book discussions, as has already been mentioned. Some don't care to dissect the text that they love, but they don't come in and post, "Why are you guys wasting your time analyzing every single word of this book?" They just leave it alone.
Well said.
Why do I let it get my goat when someone makes a statement that could well include me and it's drastically misinformed? I don't really care too much what people who don't know me think of me. But then I feel this urge to 'explain' myself. I love the books, I wrote reams and essays and carried on endless conversations about the books and, right now, even though I'm in a private conversation with a fellow Tolkien fan about Children of Hurin, I don't write about the books.
But I have found that the visuals of the movie are a good scaffolding for which to discuss the story.
Here's what I think movie is about - or was about before The Hobbit took over our brains (and yes, there's some bias showing there but it is a different board today than it was last month).
We who frequent movie all love the story. Our discussions start from the basis of the movies but almost always includes the book. How are the two different? How well do they work together? Which take works better and why?
Some of us are book firsters. Some are movie firsters. Some haven't read the book at all but I would wager to say that includes only a minority. Some of us think PJ got it pretty close to perfect. Some of us think the movies as a whole are successful in representing our vision of Middle-earth but we have quibbles about certain aspects. Some of us don't really like the films. Yes... let me repeat that... some people who post on movie don't like the movies and I'm glad they do. Now, the particular people I'm thinking about always treat the people who like the movies as if they are intelligent, insightful and knowledgeable people. I am grateful for their participation and I think they add a lot to any discussion they weigh in on.
Tolkien Forever said: "I see many names here & elsewhere that only post on movie threads & never on subjects delving into the book related topics, hence my comment about 'I wonder if they've ever read the books'." which frankly offends me. Tolkien Forever: you wouldn't have to 'wonder' if you took the time to get to know people. Act as if you want to know more about them and what motivates their opinion on any particular issue. I don't post on the books but that's all you need to know to wonder if I've ever read them? I don't go around assuming people to be ignorant or ill read. I either seek them out in civil conversation to learn more or I ask them outright. No need to wonder.
This statement: And, for every post that dicusses the Movie, 75% gush & gush over PJ the Magnificent (gag) - sorry, couldn't resist. .
So, it always works better to have a civil conversation--making and backing up one's points--and refrain from making assumptions about any individual or making general statements about a group as a whole.
Lastly, this whole thing reminds me of my old folkdance Morris team. We had another Morris dancer join us after moving here from another Midwestern city. Almost immediately after joining he started to be very vocal about the fact that he didn't like our dances... he didn't like how we taught them... he didn't like our kit (costume). He continued to make those complaints for two years.
Every new member changes the group dynamic. That's a given. But to come into an established group, immediately rant against their established modus operandi (developed over many years in respect for changing dynamics) and not take the time to understand the individuals or their reasons for doing things a certain way is just, IMO, a poor display of successful social dynamics.
Unless, of course, one rather gets off on ferment. I don't. This will be my only contribution to this conversation.
|
|
|
Finding Frodo
Dor-Lomin
Feb 1 2008, 4:53pm
Post #62 of 132
(897 views)
Shortcut
|
I admire the way you can make your point and defend your friend and affirm the person you are replying to without attacking anyone else. Well, you're a little bit hard on the PJ-devotees and movie-onlies. I think they deserve our understanding, even if we don't agree with them. Nobody wants to see flame wars erupt on our beloved TORn. Your post gives me some hope that calm will be restored.
Where's Frodo?
|
|
|
Darkstone
Elvenhome
Feb 1 2008, 5:02pm
Post #63 of 132
(910 views)
Shortcut
|
Very well said.
Obviously not only have you read Tolkien's wonderful work of love, fellowship, nobility, kindness, and tolerance, but you actually understood it as well. And furthermore you put its message into practice. If only others who claim to love the book would do so as well.
You are exceptional.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.
(This post was edited by Darkstone on Feb 1 2008, 5:05pm)
|
|
|
Tim
Dor-Lomin
Feb 1 2008, 5:58pm
Post #64 of 132
(891 views)
Shortcut
|
I totally agree with you AinurOlorin. There were parts of the movie I did not like either, yet on the whole I loved them. I just think it's more constructive to not criticize those who disagree with us and paint in broad strokes and stereotypes. Calling someone a "worshiper" is not the ultimate insult, but it does tend to be marginalizing and slightly sarcastic. Awards and dollars and critical acclaim do not force anyone to like or love a movie. But at some point, imho, whether you like the movie or its creator or not, you have to recognize their real place in movie-making hierarchy and history. Sorry if I come across as saying someone has to like a movie, but to call a director "2-bit" when he's obviously been a huge success, can call forth images of Ed Wood instead of Spielberg. I totally respect one's opinion and right to disagree, I just would like it all to be a bit more respectful and less stereotypical.
I hope this made sense I just woke up.
"Sir are you classified as human?"
"Negative! I am a meat popsicle!"
(This post was edited by 5 by 5 on Feb 1 2008, 6:07pm)
|
|
|
Tim
Dor-Lomin
Feb 1 2008, 6:04pm
Post #66 of 132
(875 views)
Shortcut
|
Well said Magpie!
"Sir are you classified as human?"
"Negative! I am a meat popsicle!"
|
|
|
Tim
Dor-Lomin
Feb 1 2008, 6:24pm
Post #67 of 132
(872 views)
Shortcut
|
Maybe it would be less stressful to thank PJ for helping to give us an opportunity to talk about and educate people on the books? Just a thought. I too sometimes get frustrated about PJ's changes to make the movies more (in his opinion) "movie-like", but then when I'm watching the movie with like my kids or my parents, I just tell them about what happened in the book and then it's like several times broken into discussions about other factors, like the history of the elves, or Tolkiens friendship with C.S. Lewis, just good times ya know? I for one enjoy your passion for the books, keep sharing with the movie-firsters! You do a good job of it, and I'm sure that a lot of folks have just become more interested in Tolkien's creation because of that passion.
I have come all to close to cursing out non-readers who told me that Gandalf the Gray wasn't much of a Wizard. And everytime I have to recite and read scenes from Fellowship where he revealed "Gandalf The Gray Uncloaked," to such a person, and they widen their eyes and say "ohh. Why wasn't anything like that in the film?" It makes me want to run out and punch Peter Jackson right in his kisser, just as I wanted to go hug him when I saw Gandalf enter the Shire, or Galadriel passing on unclad feet through the groves of Lothlorien. For me, the LOTR films are like the beloved relatives who give me great joy, but whom I sometimes want to. . . throw a book at. I know that Tolkien Forever feels much the same way.
"Sir are you classified as human?" "Negative! I am a meat popsicle!"
|
|
|
Peredhil lover
Doriath
Feb 1 2008, 6:39pm
Post #68 of 132
(860 views)
Shortcut
|
Magpie, you said it better than I ever could! Great post!
I do not suffer from LotR obsession - I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
Farawyn
Nargothrond
Feb 1 2008, 6:42pm
Post #69 of 132
(885 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"I have come all to close to cursing out non-readers who told me that Gandalf the Gray wasn't much of a Wizard."
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Best line of the day. *mods way up*
*************
Disclaimer: The author of this message does not guarantee correct grammar, spelling or English usage. No responsibility can be accepted for the use of this message as a guide to written English.
**************
Discuss:
|
|
|
RosieLass
Doriath
Feb 1 2008, 9:16pm
Post #70 of 132
(869 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well, I would have made the point more tactfully.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But I agree.
Raimi or del Toro or whoever, I am just thrilled that it's NOT going to be Peter Jackson directing The Hobbit, for the reasons you outline in your post.
I know that offends some people, but it's the way I feel. I was extremely unhappy about his portrayal of the characters, and while the rest (casting choices, music, costumes, sets, etc.) was terrific, it's not enough to make me want to see any more of his Middle-earth. Or, even, to go back and look at the LOTR films. I haven't touched them since the ROTK extended version came out (and I still haven't watched that all the way through).
*dodges cream pies*
Oh Moon, lovely moon, with thy beautiful face,
Careering throughout the boundaries of space,
Whenever I see thee, I think in my mind,
Shall I ever, oh ever, behold thy behind.
--Edmund Gosse's house maid
http://mallika.vox.com/
|
|
|
Tim
Dor-Lomin
Feb 1 2008, 9:23pm
Post #71 of 132
(848 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm not offended. *puts down cream pie*
Now TXU Energy using the theme song to "Welcome Back Kotter" for their commercials... THAT offends me.
But I agree.
Raimi or del Toro or whoever, I am just thrilled that it's NOT going to be Peter Jackson directing The Hobbit, for the reasons you outline in your post.
I know that offends some people, but it's the way I feel. I was extremely unhappy about his portrayal of the characters, and while the rest (casting choices, music, costumes, sets, etc.) was terrific, it's not enough to make me want to see any more of his Middle-earth. Or, even, to go back and look at the LOTR films. I haven't touched them since the ROTK extended version came out (and I still haven't watched that all the way through).
*dodges cream pies*
"Sir are you classified as human?"
"Negative! I am a meat popsicle!"
|
|
|
Tolkien Forever
Mithlond
Feb 1 2008, 9:34pm
Post #72 of 132
(879 views)
Shortcut
|
Let me bang my head against the wall some more.......
I said I'd let 5 by 5 have the last word & I meant it - I have no desire for an endless discussion that bears no fruit.
Why oh why does a simple word or phrase 'offend' you folks so easy? The problem with 'tolerance' is that it's only tolerant of a viewpoint that thinks like them.
Tolerance should include all opinions, even - gasp - 'negative' ones.
Why the horror at posting a negative opinion on PJ? Why must a negative voice be silent?
That makes NO sense.
I think I'll bang my head against the wall some more:
I've been around awhile on various Tolkien sites & here too in the past checking out the movies, so I'm no 'newbie'.
One more reason I say I suspect SOME people haven't read the books is because of the threads they post or comments they make on threads, & I'm not alone in observing this either. They will ask questions like uh, say the discussion is about whether the Fellowship should've gone on in the pass on Caraedhras when it was snowing or turn back & the discussion is in the 'book' section or (like here 'the Reading Room), yet someone posts, 'They had to turn back because Saruman was casting a spell that brought down the snowstorm'.
Now, what can you say but, "you are confusing the movie with the book"?
Does this not lead one to believe that this person might not have read the books?
This just happened to me a few weeks ago with my pastor's wife. We were discussing TLOR & me reading it to my autistic son. We got on the subject of the book, she said she read it twice. The movie came up, I said I liked them but didn't like PJ distorting Tolkien's vision of the characters like Aragorn not wanting to be king, unlike the book.....
"But he didn't want to be king in the book"
"Yes he did"
"No he didn'T"
Liz, I've read the books 25 times at least, including just a few months ago, I'm sure he did."
"Well, I haven't read them in years & maybe I just remember the movie."
"That's it, you need to read the books again."
Finally, let me tell ya one thing about my perception of the films:
I loved them despite the things PJ did. The 'look' of Middle-Earth was wonderful. The Orcs were great, even though one guy kept showing up time & time again in slightly different make-up (they say his name in the Commentaries & I think he might be the Orc who pulls Aragorn over the cliff in TTT).
I understood the need to change things from the book to the film, but that does not in any way, shape or form justify changing the characters inner 'essence' from the way Tolkien made them to what PJ did, especially the Christ-like self sacrivicing characters of Gandalf & Aragorn & Frodo becoming a zombie. Sam, yes, he was pretty close to the 'suffering servant'.
I love TFOR - who wouldn't?
Bombadil's exclusion I understood because it would not have moved the movie's central plotline along.
Arwen, well, as I said previously, PJ wanted to puff her up.
The second half, pretty close to the book, except calling that Orc Lurtz, whatever, no big thing.
And, of course, "Let's hunt some Orc", LOL.......
TTT, I was very down after that. I thought the plotline in Helm's Deep of 300 versus 10,000 was unbelievably absurd. Too much so. Also, the bit with the Ents refusing to go to battle yet being right there the second Treebeard lets out that yell upon seeing Isengerd.
Finally, Faramir acting like a caniver instead of the noble Numenorean when he finds Frodo the Zombie has the Ring left me feeling very discouraged.....
The ROTK, however was redemption & as good TFOR.
What is there to say?
The Seige of Gondor & The Battle of Pelannor Fields are just tremendous, despite what folks here call the 'scrubbing bubbles' (king of the dead & ghosts). I understood the need to include them in one climactic battle instead of a flashback like the book.
Yes, there was "Go home Sam" & Sauron the Lighthouse, which was really silly, especially when Frodo drops like he's shot to avoid being seen - I still marvel that Elijah & Sean Astin could do that scene with a straight face, but that's acting I guess.
Overall, though the good far outweighed the bad.
I should add that I only have & watch the EE's & find them to be a far superior & complete version to the theatrical releases.
For example, in the FOTR EE, Frodo & Sam's first night sleeping outside is shown. Sam complains about a root in his back & how he can't sleep out here. This is shown to let us see how far he comes when he falls asleep after climbing the Endless Stair to Shelob's Lair.
Finally, since most of you don't know me well, you'll get used to my style.
I tend to say things in a tongue-in-cheek satirical style.
Lighten up & don't be so easily offended.
Life's to short to sweat such trivial things - I've been through so many hardships that it has taught me I shouldn't care less what anyone says or thinks about me. Either should you folks. Does it really matter what I think about you or PJ?
If you think I'm a jerk, does my opinion matter one iota?
|
|
|
Annael
Elvenhome
Feb 1 2008, 10:07pm
Post #73 of 132
(858 views)
Shortcut
|
Why oh why does a simple word or phrase 'offend' you folks so easy?
Try expressing your opinion without putting down those who don't share it.
.We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.
- Anais Nin
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
NARF and member of Deplorable Cultus since 1967
|
|
|
Tim
Dor-Lomin
Feb 1 2008, 10:16pm
Post #74 of 132
(849 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You gave me a headache with all that head banging ;-)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Let me bang my head against the wall some more.......
I said I'd let 5 by 5 have the last word & I meant it - I have no desire for an endless discussion that bears no fruit.
Why oh why does a simple word or phrase 'offend' you folks so easy? The problem with 'tolerance' is that it's only tolerant of a viewpoint that thinks like them.
Tolerance should include all opinions, even - gasp - 'negative' ones.
Why the horror at posting a negative opinion on PJ? Why must a negative voice be silent?
That makes NO sense.
I have tolerance for your viewpoint. Just please don't stereotype. With regards to PJ, you have a right to your opinion, I just stated why I don't think you can call him 2-bit or overrated. I have a right to my opinion, and that doesn't mean I won't tolerate yours. Nobody name-called or called for a banning. By all means, speak! Or type!
I think I'll bang my head against the wall some more:
*ouch*
I've been around awhile on various Tolkien sites & here too in the past checking out the movies, so I'm no 'newbie'.
One more reason I say I suspect SOME people haven't read the books is because of the threads they post or comments they make on threads, & I'm not alone in observing this either. They will ask questions like uh, say the discussion is about whether the Fellowship should've gone on in the pass on Caraedhras when it was snowing or turn back & the discussion is in the 'book' section or (like here 'the Reading Room), yet someone posts, 'They had to turn back because Saruman was casting a spell that brought down the snowstorm'.
Now, what can you say but, "you are confusing the movie with the book"?
Does this not lead one to believe that this person might not have read the books?
Yeah, it's cool to talk to people regarding books compared to movies on a case-by-case basis. It tends to stir folks up when you make sweeping generalizations.
This just happened to me a few weeks ago with my pastor's wife. We were discussing TLOR & me reading it to my autistic son. We got on the subject of the book, she said she read it twice. The movie came up, I said I liked them but didn't like PJ distorting Tolkien's vision of the characters like Aragorn not wanting to be king, unlike the book.....
"But he didn't want to be king in the book"
"Yes he did"
"No he didn'T"
Liz, I've read the books 25 times at least, including just a few months ago, I'm sure he did."
"Well, I haven't read them in years & maybe I just remember the movie."
"That's it, you need to read the books again."
You're right and well-handled. I would have said the same thing.
Finally, let me tell ya one thing about my perception of the films:
I loved them despite the things PJ did. The 'look' of Middle-Earth was wonderful. The Orcs were great, even though one guy kept showing up time & time again in slightly different make-up (they say his name in the Commentaries & I think he might be the Orc who pulls Aragorn over the cliff in TTT).
I understood the need to change things from the book to the film, but that does not in any way, shape or form justify changing the characters inner 'essence' from the way Tolkien made them to what PJ did, especially the Christ-like self sacrivicing characters of Gandalf & Aragorn & Frodo becoming a zombie. Sam, yes, he was pretty close to the 'suffering servant'.
I agree.
I love TFOR - who wouldn't?
Bombadil's exclusion I understood because it would not have moved the movie's central plotline along.
Arwen, well, as I said previously, PJ wanted to puff her up.
The second half, pretty close to the book, except calling that Orc Lurtz, whatever, no big thing.
And, of course, "Let's hunt some Orc", LOL.......
I agree.
TTT, I was very down after that. I thought the plotline in Helm's Deep of 300 versus 10,000 was unbelievably absurd. Too much so. Also, the bit with the Ents refusing to go to battle yet being right there the second Treebeard lets out that yell upon seeing Isengerd.
Finally, Faramir acting like a caniver instead of the noble Numenorean when he finds Frodo the Zombie has the Ring left me feeling very discouraged.....
TTT wasn't as disappointing for me as it was for you, though some of the examples you bring up were irksome.
The ROTK, however was redemption & as good TFOR.
What is there to say?
The Seige of Gondor & The Battle of Pelannor Fields are just tremendous, despite what folks here call the 'scrubbing bubbles' (king of the dead & ghosts). I understood the need to include them in one climactic battle instead of a flashback like the book.
Yes, there was "Go home Sam" & Sauron the Lighthouse, which was really silly, especially when Frodo drops like he's shot to avoid being seen - I still marvel that Elijah & Sean Astin could do that scene with a straight face, but that's acting I guess.
Overall, though the good far outweighed the bad.
I agree and actually think ROTK was better than FOTR.
I should add that I only have & watch the EE's & find them to be a far superior & complete version to the theatrical releases.
For example, in the FOTR EE, Frodo & Sam's first night sleeping outside is shown. Sam complains about a root in his back & how he can't sleep out here. This is shown to let us see how far he comes when he falls asleep after climbing the Endless Stair to Shelob's Lair.
I agree & I love the EE's.
Finally, since most of you don't know me well, you'll get used to my style.
I tend to say things in a tongue-in-cheek satirical style.
Lighten up & don't be so easily offended.
It also doesn't hurt to be a little careful not to offend.
Life's to short to sweat such trivial things - I've been through so many hardships that it has taught me I shouldn't care less what anyone says or thinks about me. Either should you folks. Does it really matter what I think about you or PJ?
Well, speaking for myself I take into account other people's opinions and am here to do so and have discussions. So yeah, in a way it does matter what you think. If it didn't matter, what would be the point in joining in any discussion?
If you think I'm a jerk, does my opinion matter one iota?
I don't think you're a jerk and have never called you that or anything else.
"Sir are you classified as human?"
"Negative! I am a meat popsicle!"
|
|
|
One Ringer
Dor-Lomin
Feb 1 2008, 10:50pm
Post #75 of 132
(824 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Empire Strikes Back Memories . . .
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Remember, George Lucas didn't direct The Empire Strikes Back, but it turned out to be one of the best Star Wars films. The same will be for The Hobbit.
"Death is just another pathway . . . one which we all must take."
-Gandalf from "The Return of the King"
(This post was edited by One Ringer on Feb 1 2008, 10:51pm)
|
|
|
|
|
