All hands on deck!
Morgoth's Curse
newsgroups into one of the finest Tolkien discussions forums anywhere.
You have contributed blood, sweat and tears to the noblest cause known
to humanity. Our vessel has weathered every rack and storm and sailed
boldly into seas where few have dared to enter.
But now, alas, our proud ship faces a deadly peril greater even the
treacherous maelstrom known as Peter Jackson. Our ship is stranded in
the sea of Apathy--drifting ever nearer to that hideous vortex known
as Corporate Greed.
If you truly care about the fate of our glorious vessel, you will
immediately report for duty! You will contribute to the discussions.
You will recruit new members to replace those who have fallen in
battle. You will man the oars and strive against the currents and
never count the cost to yourself! If our ship is to be destroyed, we
will at least go down with all flags flying!
Morgoth's Curse
Clams Canino
"Morgoth's Curse" <morgoths...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7e1tj5l5l2kntf7p9...@4ax.com...
> But now, alas, our proud ship faces a deadly peril greater even the
> treacherous maelstrom known as Peter Jackson.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34633579
Sorry.... :)
-W
Stan Brown
mar...@earthdink.net>:
Well, despite what he did to Tolkien, there's no denying he gave a
huge shot in the arm to the New Zealand film industry.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Bill O'Meally
Peter Jackson, "King of Middle-earth???" I think I'm going to be ill!
>
> Sorry.... :)
Not your fault. :-\
--
Bill
"Wise fool."
Gandalf _The Two Towers_
(The Wise will remove 'se' to reach me. The Foolish will not!)
DrGong
opinion that they are "Decent", with the Fellowship being perhaps very
good-great) one thing to remember it could of been MUCH worse!
Clams Canino
"DrGong" <Drg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d54815c7-2254-44c1...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
> In all seriousness, while the movies had major flaws (I been in the
> opinion that they are "Decent", with the Fellowship being perhaps very
> good-great) one thing to remember it could of been MUCH worse!
I think we all here at least agree that Fellowship was the best because it
had the least deviation.
Moving forward to The Hobbit - I hope Mr. Jackson takes very careful note of
the recent events concerning Avatar using the RealD (tm) 3D process - and
the worldwide success it's having.
I want to see Smaug in 3D!! And the Trolls!! and and and......
Weta Workshop did Avatar, and it's time they unleash the brave new world of
3D cinema on The Hobbit.
-W
Bill O'Meally
From Salon.com 1/5/10:
http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/the_lord_of_the_rings/index.html?story=/ent/movies/film_salon/2010/01/05/lotr_wtf
Andrew O'Hehir questions why so many critics fail to include Jackson's
LotR in their "Best films of the Decade" lists. (I'll spare everyone
my arguments about the new decade not beginning until *next* year --
for now).
His assessment when compiling his own list: "...when I asked myself
whether I had any overwhelming visual or emotional memory of that
film, I lopped it off in the first cut and never looked back".
One commentor comes pretty close to my own sentiment:
"They were long enough to be slow moving and boring but not long
enough to fully draw you in to their world as reading hundreds of
pages of Tolkein's work surely does."
I would add that Jackson could have doubled the length and still not
have come close.
Troels Forchhammer
<d54815c7-2254-44c1...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>
DrGong <Drg...@yahoo.com> spoke these staves:
Of course it could be much worse -- the Rankin & Bass 'Return of the
King' is very much a evidence of that -- but using this to justify
what Jackson et Al. did is rather like justifying Mr Smith beating
his wife and kids because Mr Brown next door had killed _his_ family.
Mr Smith's might be the lesser evil, but it is still wrong.
This is not to compare what Jacskon and cohorts did to beating one's
wife and kids, but just to show that this kind of argumentation is
fallacious.
I am honest enough with myself to admit that I would probably
consider the New Line trilogy the best fantasy films that I had ever
seen (but then I generally tend to dislike the films that are
described as good, artistically speaking), if I hadn't been so keenly
aware of the very grievous flaws in adapting Tolkien's underlying
ethical and thematic ideas (and even that might not have disappointed
me so deeply if I hadn't been na�ve enough to actually believe Mr
Jackson's statements about wanting to make it 'Tolkien's film').
The question is of course to what extend someone adapting another's
original work is to be required or expected to adapt on the
superficial level and to what extend on the deeper, thematic and
ethical, levels? Quite clearly anyone's personal answer to that will
depend on one's involvement with the original, but would it be
reasonable to expect there to be a more general answer? Or should the
film makers (for instance) only worry about making (their vision of)
a good film (and then to Hell with the original artist)?
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
To make a name for learning
when other roads are barred,
take something very easy
and make it very hard.
- Piet Hein, /Wide Road/
DrGong
they do a decent job of telling what for a movie is a complex tale.
Some of the major changes are due to the fact that in movies, you
show, not tell, while in novels you tell, and not show.
In Fellowship of the ring there is one major "wiff" (the "Wizards
battle") but otherwise it does a honest, if not overly deep telling of
the book. By the time the RoTK, the wheels are almost falling off,
and once agian there is a few moments that are so out of place that
they really stick out, and there is more of them in the 2nd and 3rd
movie. And I cannot see how one could make a better movie out of the
10 hours time limit. Of course, if I had to rewrite a few bits, there
would be a more then a few changes. (Wizard battle, Fairamir and
Dethanor (and Dethanor is more of a actor's choice then Directors
issue), Frodo sending Sam away, and drop one of the endings. with
the addition of the Houses of the healing, (to show the cost of
war). But if you where to give 20 directors the budget and rights to
make LoTR, I doubt any would be better then LoTR that PJ produced.
Most of the other changes (the dropping of the Scouring of the Shire,
the Barrow-weights, and addition of the Warg attack) actually made
sense in the fact it was a movie, and not a novel.
At least that my .02 lira, and solely opinon. If I want to watch a
great fantasy movies, I can watch the movies, if I want to read a
great novel, I have 3-4 copies of the LoTR around to read.
Derek Broughton
> DrGong wrote:
>> In all seriousness, while the movies had major flaws (I been in the
>> opinion that they are "Decent", with the Fellowship being perhaps
>> very
>> good-great) one thing to remember it could of been MUCH worse!
>
> From Salon.com 1/5/10:
>
http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/the_lord_of_the_rings/index.html?story=/ent/movies/film_salon/2010/01/05/lotr_wtf
>
> Andrew O'Hehir questions why so many critics fail to include Jackson's
> LotR in their "Best films of the Decade" lists. (I'll spare everyone
> my arguments about the new decade not beginning until *next* year --
> for now).
Too late now! It's true, there was no year 0, but there was no year 1 (or 2
or 3 ... to somewhere around 400), so one can make an arbitrary origin (as
in fact the originators of "AD" did). So one might as well make that
arbitrary origin "0". It makes things so much simpler all around - as the
western world discovered when we borrowed zero from the Arabs.
>
> His assessment when compiling his own list: "...when I asked myself
> whether I had any overwhelming visual or emotional memory of that
> film, I lopped it off in the first cut and never looked back".
>
> One commentor comes pretty close to my own sentiment:
>
> "They were long enough to be slow moving and boring but not long
> enough to fully draw you in to their world as reading hundreds of
> pages of Tolkein's work surely does."
>
> I would add that Jackson could have doubled the length and still not
> have come close.
Of course he couldn't - but I argue that nobody could have.
--
derek
Clams Canino
> In Fellowship of the ring there is one major "wiff" (the "Wizards
> battle") but otherwise it does a honest, if not overly deep telling of
> the book.
The "wiffs" in the name of "bigger or better cinema" are the most easily
overlooked of them all.
The "deliberate errors" run deeper because they serve no good purpose to
cinamatic conversion.
The real "gaffe" in Fellowship was portraying Aragorn as "reluctant" to
assume his role. While the "reluctant hero" thing is a common theme in some
stories, it's not the case in *this* story and the change doesn't even make
for "better cinema".
There are certain "plot devices" that are used in a lot of "hollywood films"
that Jackson seemed determined to insert into LotR in order to get a "better
*generic* movie" - as opposed to sticking with the story as written. And
it's those that glare the most - because they deviate from an "honest"
telling of the story without a some compelling reason to do so in the name
of cinema.
I number myself amongst those here who loved the film and DO agree with most
of what you said. But, it's those "needless changes and insertions" that
boggle and annoy someone like me, and totally infuriate people like Troels.
But overall I'm of the camp that the film did so well, and garnered so many
awards, precisely because despite all the stupid errors (and the not so
stupid errors), Tolkiens large epic adventure story did *largely* come out
the back door without "too much" damage.
-W
Troels Forchhammer
"Bill O'Meally" <omea...@wise.rr.com> spoke these staves:
>
> From Salon.com 1/5/10:
> http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/the_lord_of_the_rings/ind
> ex.html?story=/ent/movies/film_salon/2010/01/05/lotr_wtf
> Andrew O'Hehir questions why so many critics fail to include
> Jackson's LotR in their "Best films of the Decade" lists.
Interesting, thank you.
There's a couple of speculations that I found particularly
interesting. First he wonders 'Maybe the slow-burning backlash among
a certain segment of Tolkien purists has gradually taken its toll.'
Frankly, I very much doubt that. Enthusiasts and loves of Tolkien's
book have expressed negative opinions about the relation of the films
to the book, but overall only a negligible fraction of this has
actually been dealing with the films' cinematographic qualities --
for my own part I have expressly said that I know nothing about
cinematography (supposing that many would count me among these
'purists'). I can't really believe that professional film critics
would allow themselves to be influenced by the likes of myself
wailing that Jackson took too many liberties with Tolkien's work --
that would reflect rather badly on their professionalism, IMO.
Next O'Hehir wonders
Maybe the context in which the films were launched -- the
early Bush era, just after 9/11, when the "War on Terror"
hadn't yet become a dreary mixture of Orwellian gag-line
and grinding reality -- is now so deep in the cultural past
that the movies have lost the invisible penumbra of meaning
that seemed so strong at the time.
This is something that I noticed already when the films were
released, though it was far more dominant in the last installment.
The films are so rooted in a very fleeting zeitgeist that was
becoming dated already before the last extended DVD hit the market --
I remember cringing at times when watching RotK, not just because of
the 'transgressions' against Tolkien (I did and still do cringe at
the scene when Frodo sends away Sam on the Stairs of Cirith Ungol),
but because Jackson's RotK seems to me to be every bit as
uncritically fawning a justification of Bush's foreign policy as
Moore's _Fahrenheit 911_ is an uncritically damning diatribe against
it.
I think this may be a large contribution to the current lack of
support for these films -- philosophically, ideologically they are so
firmly ensconced in the first half of the noughties that they have
already become dated.
> (I'll spare everyone my arguments about the new decade not
> beginning until *next* year -- for now).
Well, you are of course right, but there is also some weight in the
argument of 'common use' when it comes to the definition of words . .
. ;-)
<snip>
> One commentor comes pretty close to my own sentiment:
>
> "They were long enough to be slow moving and boring but not long
> enough to fully draw you in to their world as reading hundreds of
> pages of Tolkein's work surely does."
>
> I would add that Jackson could have doubled the length and still
> not have come close.
He could have quadrupled the length, and still not have been able to
induce Secondary Belief (in me, at least). I do not know if Jackson
has ever read 'On Fairy-Stories' or if any of the script-writing team
have, but if so, none of them appears to have understood the insight
that Tolkien transmits in that essay -- or perhaps it is me, who
hasn't understood it properly: after all Tolkien does say that 'Drama
is naturally hostile to Fantasy', so perhaps I am looking for
something in the films that they simply cannot have.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom
of thought which they avoid.
- Soren Kierkegaard
Troels Forchhammer
<56bf1143-12f1-475a...@3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
> and they do a decent job of telling what for a movie is a complex
> tale.
I have no objections to any of this -- in fact I quite agree as far
as it goes (as I said earlier: if I had not known Tolkien's work as
well as I do, I would probably have have lauded Jackson's LotR as the
best fantasy films ever -- or at least in the top 10). My objections
stem from the fact that they are not even trying to tell _Tolkien's
tale_ . . .
> Some of the major changes are due to the fact that in movies, you
> show, not tell, while in novels you tell, and not show.
Discussions here and elsewhere have clearly revealed that there are
as many opinions on which changes are 'major' and which are 'minor'
as there are debaters (well, perhaps not quite, but almost <GG>).
None of the changes, however, that were, to me, 'major' appear to me
to be justifiable by that particular excuse :)
> In Fellowship of the ring there is one major "wiff" (the "Wizards
> battle")
The wizard battle is a little silly, I agree, but not significantly
more so than Tom Bombadil in the book -- it's main effect on me was
to make me all the more grateful that they had cut out Tom ;-)
> but otherwise it does a honest, if not overly deep telling of the
> book.
Yes, I agree. My expectations to the trilogy after watching FotR were
towering -- another probable part of the explanation for the keenness
of my later disappointment (though after _The Two Towers_ my
expectations had rather fallen from their high).
> And I cannot see how one could make a better movie out of the 10
> hours time limit.
I'd have no idea where even to start ;-) But on the other hand I
would have no problem seeing how one could make a better adaptation
of Tolkien.
> Most of the other changes (the dropping of the Scouring of the
> Shire, the Barrow-weights, and addition of the Warg attack)
> actually made sense in the fact it was a movie, and not a novel.
I think I'd rather have kept the Scouring and cut the Grey Havens.
The warg-attack fails to make sense to me (I really don't get what it
is Jackson is trying to show me with that side-line), but it is isn't
something that has bothered me. The Barrow-wight is inextricably (I
think) a part of the Tom Bombadil sequence, and as said above, I
fully support the decision to cut Tom, and I accept that this means
cutting the barrow. Letting Aragorn provide the Hobbits with the
ancient D�nedain blades was an excellent solution.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was
standing on the shoulders of giants.
- Sir Isaac Newton
Troels Forchhammer
"Clams Canino" <cc-m...@earthdink.net> spoke these staves:
>
<snip>
> The real "gaffe" in Fellowship was portraying Aragorn as
> "reluctant" to assume his role.
That and the glorification of Boromir, loving 'the warrior for his
glory', I'd say. These are the only two things that I'd mention in
the first installment, and I'd only class them as very mild irritants
(well, I did find the collapsing stair scene in Moria to be overdone
to the point of stupidity, but that has nothing to do with Tolkien --
that is just my lack of taste when it comes to film <GG>).
> While the "reluctant hero" thing is a common theme in some
> stories, it's not the case in *this* story and the change
> doesn't even make for "better cinema".
I'd put the 'two brothers fighting for their father's love' theme
(or, in this case, rather a 'younger brother fighting for father's
love') in this category as well.
> I number myself amongst those here who loved the film and DO agree
> with most of what you said. But, it's those "needless changes and
> insertions" that boggle and annoy someone like me, and totally
> infuriate people like Troels.
There's nothing in the films that infuriate me, please!
Except for one or two moments (notably Frodo sending Sam away) I
fully enjoy watching the films -- it is _afterwards_ when I stop to
think about it that my objections arise.
One thing that has struck me as amusing is that every time I see
Tolkien enthusiasts list their bid for 'the worst change', the list
is inevitably very diverse, including items that, to me, seem
superficial (complaining about the visualization of the Army of the
Dead, for instance).
The changes that sit the worst with myself are those that change the
ethical/thematic/philosophical foundations of Middle-earth. Tolkien
didn't 'preach' in his book, but instead he worked his position into
the causal foundations of his sub-creation, and, having spent quite a
bit of effort trying to understand also the deeper layers of the
book, this has become, to me, an inextricable part of the 'feeling'
of Middle-earth, so that when this is contradicted in the films, it
makes the film-version of Middle-earth feel plain 'wrong' to me
(mostly in retrospect -- I don't notice it much when actually
watching the film).
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own
image when it turns out that God hates all the same people
you do.
- Anne Lamott
Raven
news:Xns9CF8EE11...@130.133.4.11...
> The changes that sit the worst with myself are those that change the
> ethical/thematic/philosophical foundations of Middle-earth.
Such as movie-Aragorn exhorting the Rohirrim in Helm's Deep to "Show no
mercy, for you will be shown none!"? But "merciless" is not synonymous to
"strong" or "brave", and I have a sneaking suspicion that Tolkien new this
quite well. :-)
Jon Lennart Beck.
Jette Goldie
> In message <news:M8GdnVJxvuKHcdnW...@earthlink.com>
> "Clams Canino" <cc-m...@earthdink.net> spoke these staves:
>
>> While the "reluctant hero" thing is a common theme in some
>> stories, it's not the case in *this* story and the change
>> doesn't even make for "better cinema".
>
> I'd put the 'two brothers fighting for their father's love' theme
> (or, in this case, rather a 'younger brother fighting for father's
> love') in this category as well.
>
wasn't actually implied in Tolkien's book? certainly seemed that way
when I read it. and reread it. and reread it.
--
Jette Goldie
jette....@gmail.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfette/
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
Jette Goldie
> One thing that has struck me as amusing is that every time I see
> Tolkien enthusiasts list their bid for 'the worst change', the list
> is inevitably very diverse, including items that, to me, seem
> superficial (complaining about the visualization of the Army of the
> Dead, for instance).
>
The only moment in the movies that had me shouting *"NO"* at the
screen was Denethor's death scene.
Everything else was forgivable.
Clams Canino
"Jette Goldie" <jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hi36dr$htt$2...@news.eternal-
> > I'd put the 'two brothers fighting for their father's love' theme
> > (or, in this case, rather a 'younger brother fighting for father's
> > love') in this category as well.
> >
> wasn't actually implied in Tolkien's book? certainly seemed that way
> when I read it. and reread it. and reread it.
I also kind of read that into the book.
While while Boromir was alive, his brother took his 2nd place role for
granted and was fine with it.
But after the death of his brother, I got a sense from the book that he was
fighting for his father's love - just not in competition with his brother -
but for what was his own right now.
-W
Clams Canino
"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9CF8EE11...@130.133.4.11...
> That and the glorification of Boromir, loving 'the warrior for his
> glory',
Heh!
That one didn't bother me, because I knew Boromir himself "loved the sword
because it was sharp", and war for glory was in *his* nature as well.
> I'd put the 'two brothers fighting for their father's love' theme
> (or, in this case, rather a 'younger brother fighting for father's
> love') in this category as well.
Yes.... but I sensed some of that in the book. The younger brother needing
more love and respect from his father came through to me.
> There's nothing in the films that infuriate me, please!
OK...... I'm sorry!
> Except for one or two moments (notably Frodo sending Sam away)
Another cheap plot trick from most "girlie movies" - the couple *always*
breaks up before reuniting.
> The changes that sit the worst with myself are those that change the
> ethical/thematic/philosophical foundations of Middle-earth.
And I think that without reading the entire body of Tolkien's work - that
foundation is harder to grasp. I forgive Jackson most easily there, because
I presume he read The Hobbit and LotR only.
And I also presume his most recent readings of them were solely to work out
a screen play.
-W
DrGong
RoTK movie. That and Denethor, but I put that on the actor, not the
director as I have said. 2nd movie it isn't the forever long battle
sequence, but frodo almost exposing the ring to the ringwraith.
Derek Broughton
> In message
> <56bf1143-12f1-475a...@3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
> DrGong <Drg...@yahoo.com> spoke these staves:
>>
>
>> Most of the other changes (the dropping of the Scouring of the
>> Shire, the Barrow-weights, and addition of the Warg attack)
>> actually made sense in the fact it was a movie, and not a novel.
>
> I think I'd rather have kept the Scouring and cut the Grey Havens.
I don't think it would have worked. Movies don't do well with long
denouements, and the first couple of times I read the book, the Scouring was
too anti-climactic. Can you imagine Jackson trying to handle that? He'd
have had a second Helm's Deep, in the Shire!
> The warg-attack fails to make sense to me (I really don't get what it
> is Jackson is trying to show me with that side-line), but it is isn't
> something that has bothered me.
Well, we know there were wargs attacking Rohan, so I had no trouble
accepting that they _would_ have attacked. I just shrug that off as a
little detail that wasn't important enough for Tolkien to record. But they
didn't have to look like hedgehogs! afaict, it exists just to set the scene
for Aragorn's stupid dream sequence, and getting some tongue action from the
horse.
I loved the movies, but this was where I almost lost it.
--
derek
Clams Canino
I don't put it on the actor at all. I've seen him in other things.
Denethor was "written like Nero" is the real problem there.
-W
Clams Canino
"Derek Broughton" <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message news:ejof17-
> > I think I'd rather have kept the Scouring and cut the Grey Havens.
>
> I don't think it would have worked. Movies don't do well with long
> denouements, and the first couple of times I read the book, the Scouring
was
> too anti-climactic.
I agree. The most important part of the scouring was (IMHO) that Saruman
*still* failed to repent and paid for it. That "ending" was moved to the
2nd film.
The Grey Havens is a part that Jackson got pretty well. The emotions at the
parting were real, and the finality of it all hit home.
-W
Clams Canino
"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
> One thing that has struck me as amusing is that every time I see
> Tolkien enthusiasts list their bid for 'the worst change', the list
> is inevitably very diverse, including items that, to me, seem
> superficial (complaining about the visualization of the Army of the
> Dead, for instance).
OK, for my own amusement (and hopefully others) let's see what everyone
here thinks is the worst. You're asked to list your personal "Worst three"
in descending order from "worst".
1. The (unexplainable) changes made to Denethor - notably "Nerofication".
2. Frodo sending Sam away. (a common plot device)
3. Aragorn portrayed early as the typical "reluctant hero" (another common
plot device)
-W
Paul S. Person
<omea...@wise.rr.com> wrote:
<snippo>
>I would add that Jackson could have doubled the length and still not
>have come close.
True, true.
If you want a film from the same year as /FOTR/ that /does/ draw you
into its world, the first Harry Potter film definitely did that for me
(I had not read the book at that point, so it was all new).
But I think PJ did do accomplish one important achievement: I think he
proved that, if someone wanted to film JRRT's book as written, six
3-hour films should be long enough to do it in.
--
Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses.
Paul S. Person
<cc-m...@earthdink.net> wrote:
<snippo>
>3. Aragorn portrayed early as the typical "reluctant hero" (another common
>plot device)
You mean, of course, "Aragorn portrayed early and continuously as a
slacker more fit to clean the stables than rule a Kingdom".
Not to mention being unworthy of marrying the woman who sent her
children to warn the King of Rohan of the Orc attack from Isengard,
never mind an "Elf Warrior-Princess" or a shield-maiden who was niece
to the King of Rohan.
If you want to see how such a character ends up when things turn bad,
take a good look at /The Road/.
And, if you think that that is just the way the actor is, see /Eastern
Promises/. No slacker behavior there!
pmh
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> > In message <news:M8GdnVJxvuKHcdnW...@earthlink.com>
>
> >> While the "reluctant hero" thing is a common theme in some
> >> stories, it's not the case in *this* story and the change
> >> doesn't even make for "better cinema".
>
> > I'd put the 'two brothers fighting for their father's love' theme
> > (or, in this case, rather a 'younger brother fighting for father's
> > love') in this category as well.
>
> wasn't actually implied in Tolkien's book? certainly seemed that way
> when I read it. and reread it. and reread it.
>
> --
> Jette Goldie
> ("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
Many perceived shortcomings reflect not the material but the
complainer's own mind.
Morgoth's Curse
<cc-m...@earthdink.net> wrote:
Since I have never seen any of the movies, the only change that I can
criticize is the fact that Jackson made _ANY_ changes at all.
Fortunately, that covers every change, so I win either way. ^_^
Morgoth's Curse
Taemon
> From Salon.com 1/5/10:
> http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/the_lord_of_the_rings/index.html?story=/ent/movies/film_salon/2010/01/05/lotr_wtf
>
> Andrew O'Hehir questions why so many critics fail to include Jackson's
> LotR in their "Best films of the Decade" lists.
Surely that is not true? It might not be surprising that the movies aren't
well loved in this group, but I would be surprised if they are not on most
of those lists.
T.
Stan Brown
mar...@earthdink.net>:
> > when I read it. and reread it. and reread it.
>
> I also kind of read that into the book.
> While while Boromir was alive, his brother took his 2nd place role for
> granted and was fine with it.
>
> But after the death of his brother, I got a sense from the book that he was
> fighting for his father's love - just not in competition with his brother -
> but for what was his own right now.
I remember a scene after in "The Siege of Gondor" (V 4), when Faramir
points out to Denethor that it was denethor's choice that led to
Boromir being dead instead of Faramir, and Denethor replies that he
would send Faramir instead if he had it to do over again:
"'So be it!' cried Denethor. 'But not with your death only, Lord
Faramir: with the death also of your father, and of all your people,
whom it is your part to protect now that Boromir is gone.'
"'Do you wish then,' said Faramir, 'that our places had been
exchanged?'
"'Yes, I wish that indeed,' said Denethor. 'For Boromir was loyal to
me and no wizard's pupil. He would have remembered his father's need,
and would not have squandered what fortune gave. He would have
brought me a mighty gift.'
"For a moment Faramir's restraint gave way. 'I would ask you, my
father, to remember why it was that I, not he, was in Ithilien. On
one occasion at least your counsel has prevailed, not long ago. It
was the Lord of the City that gave the errand to him.'
"'Stir not the bitterness in the cup that I mixed for myself,' said
Denethor. 'Have I not tasted it now many nights upon my tongue
foreboding that worse yet lay in the dregs? As now indeed I find.
Would it were not so! Would that this thing had come to me!'"
Granted, this is in the context of faramir's not seizing the Ring
from Frodo, but still I think the rivalry is clear, and that Faramir
isn't just imagining that his father prefers/preferred Boromir to
him.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Clams Canino
"Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> Granted, this is in the context of faramir's not seizing the Ring
> from Frodo, but still I think the rivalry is clear, and that Faramir
> isn't just imagining that his father prefers/preferred Boromir to
> him.
Correct.
But Tolkien writes elsewhere that Faramir was fine with preference while
Boromir was alive.
It's after his brothers death, that Faramir is increasingly upset with his
fathers lack of love and respect for him. This is not "rivalry" per se.
-W
Clams Canino
"Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message news:hi4bqk$n96$1...@news.eternal-
> Surely that is not true? It might not be surprising that the movies aren't
> well loved in this group, but I would be surprised if they are not on most
> of those lists.
LotR is on some lists but not others.
I think the 3 volume release hurt it here, as well as the fact that it was
from the 1st half of the decade. If you look at a lot of those lists they
favor the nearer half of the decade.
Critics aslo favor "important" films. As good as it was, the only lasting
"importance" of LotR will be that it was the film that let James Cameran
know that CGI technology was now ready for him to film Avatar. It was
seeing the CGI work on Andy Sirtis' face via Gollum that assured Cameran
that "the hour was here" because CGI could handle realistic expression and
not look like a cartoon.
-W
Derek Broughton
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 20:32:01 -0500, "Clams Canino"
> <cc-m...@earthdink.net> wrote:
>
> <snippo>
>
>>3. Aragorn portrayed early as the typical "reluctant hero" (another common
>>plot device)
>
> You mean, of course, "Aragorn portrayed early and continuously as a
> slacker more fit to clean the stables than rule a Kingdom".
>
> Not to mention being unworthy of marrying the woman who sent her
> children to warn the King of Rohan of the Orc attack from Isengard,
> never mind an "Elf Warrior-Princess" or a shield-maiden who was niece
> to the King of Rohan.
>
> If you want to see how such a character ends up when things turn bad,
> take a good look at /The Road/.
Is that the book or the movie (or am I wrong in assuming you mean the Cormac
McArthy story)? (I know they were making a film, but I didn't think it's
out yet). I certainly don't get that sense from the book. The protagonist
admits he wasn't great as a husband or father before the world fell apart,
but afterwards he does as good a job as could be asked for.
--
derek
Paul S. Person
The movie. I have no plans to read that or any other book by that
author. And the only films based on his books I plan to see in the
future are those done by the Coen brothers.
And slackers always have excuses.
And the excuses are usually whiney ones.
But thanks for confirming that it is the /character/ who is a slacker,
not the actor.
Öjevind Lång
meddelandet news:4b451493$0$56792$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
Another example is "the Mobilization of the Rohan Hitlerjugend" in Helm's
Deep. The thought of sending children into battle would have horrified
Tolkien.
�jevind
Clams Canino
"�jevind L�ng" <ojevin...@bredband.net> wrote in message
> Another example is "the Mobilization of the Rohan Hitlerjugend" in Helm's
> Deep. The thought of sending children into battle would have horrified
> Tolkien.
Were they "sending them into battle" or just arming them for a last ditch
hold-out in thier enclosed trap in the keep at the deep.
-W
Öjevind Lång
"Clams Canino" <cc-m...@earthdink.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:CZWdnX33VsMasdvW...@earthlink.com...
I am pretty certain they were armed to fight on the ramparts. The thought of
such a thing would have been quite alien to Tolkien.
�jevind
Troels Forchhammer
> everyone here thinks is the worst. You're asked to list your
> personal "Worst three" in descending order from "worst".
With a single exception, I don't think I can really make such a list
with the kind of specific changes that you list, but I'll play
anyway, of course ;-)
It is, to me, not so much the individual changes that affect me, but
rather the cumulative effect of many small changes that ultimately
has the collective effect of fatally damaging what I have called the
'ethical/thematic/philosophical foundations of Middle-earth'.
However, if I am to try to identify individual elements, the list
would have to be headed by the one moment that I find myself unable
to watch: Frodo sending Sam away on the Stairs of Cirith Ungol. This
also has to do with this being one of my favourite chapters in the
book -- not least because of Gollum's near-repentance spoiled by
Sam's (let me be generous) country-oaf ignorance.
Apart from that I'd be more hard-pressed to come up with single
scenes, but I do find that Jackson's LotR overall _does_ 'love the
bright sword for its sharpness,' and 'the arrow for its swiftness,'
and in particular 'the warrior for his glory.' But they are
indifferent to 'that which they defend: the city of the Men of
N�menor;' there is a very strong element of 'them and us' rhetoric in
the films, and they certainly completely ignore what Faramir loved
about Minas Tirith, 'her memory, her ancientry, her beauty, and her
present wisdom.' In Jackson's world it is more important to be feared
for your strength than loved for your wisdom, and the concepts of
'good' and 'evil' are completely distorted from their values in the
book; to Jackson 'good' is 'us'. Another aspect of this theme is the
downplay and outright ridicule of such virtues as mercy, forgiveness
and pity. The scene when Frodo sends Sam away is the epitome of this,
but it permeates Jackson's whole LotR that pity and mercy is just
plain stupid and na�ve and it will bring nothing good to anyone
(opposed to Tolkien's work where there is an underlying belief in
some mystical value-in-itself of this, even when irrational, and that
it will benefit both parties, unless, of course, it is done with that
aim in mind).
Tied in with these is the portrayal of evil. In Tolkien's book, the
greatest danger is inside each and every character (with the possible
exception of Tom B): the danger of Tolkien's Master Ring is that it
tempts the characters to use its power to serve their own ends, and
this will inevitably (in Tolkien's work) lead to evil. In Jackson's
portrayal evil becomes something outside the characters: the Master
Ring is evil in its own right and seemingly capable of removing the
free will of the characters: we are supposed to accept that Faramir
was not really morally responsible for trying to capture the Ring,
nor that Frodo was really morally responsible for sending away Sam,
but that was certainly not how it worked in Tolkien's vision.
In addition to this, there are a few things that bother my personal
aesthetics or ethics -- I believe I have already mentioned the
collapsing stairs in Moria -- but these have nothing to do with
changes from book to film, and so don't deserve mention here.
I want to stress again that all of this is predominantly an
intellectual exercise on my part. I've learned to time my lavatory
visits or coffee making so that I don't have to watch Frodo sending
off Sam, and so I _do_ enjoy watching the films. It is easy for me to
talk myself into vitriolic denouncements of Jackson because I _do_
think he should be criticized for his treatment of Tolkien's ethical
/ philosophical themes, but I _also_ think that he made some
excellent films (though as previously stated my knowledge about
cinematography is virtually non-existing and my tastes in films are
dubious <GG>). As to whether the latter justifies the former, I
imagine that we weigh things differently from person to person, but
though I am inclined to say that I don't think it is justified this
does not change the fact that I can enjoy watching the films.
> 1. The (unexplainable) changes made to Denethor - notably
> "Nerofication".
Well, with the other changes I can understand why it was impossible
to portray Denethor as he was intended by Tolkien -- a coldly
rational, power-hungry, 'either you're with me or against me'
politician. All in all I think the portrayal of Denethor can find
more justification in the book than the portrayal of Faramir (I
suppose it was a part of the general weakening of his character that
made Jackson portray him so suicidally desparate to win his father's
respect).
> 2. Frodo sending Sam away. (a common plot device)
Been there . . . ;-)
> 3. Aragorn portrayed early as the typical "reluctant hero" (another
> common plot device)
I don't recall if Aragorn uses the palant�r prior to taking the Paths
of the Dead in the film? But I suppose not -- there is, in Jackson's
portrayal, nothing of that nobility and strength of will that enabled
Aragorn to, in the book, wrest control of the palant�r from Sauron
himself.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
People are self-centered
to a nauseous degree.
They will keep on about themselves
while I'm explaining me.
- Piet Hein, /The Egocentrics/
Öjevind Lång
"Clams Canino" <cc-m...@earthdink.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:3KadnWojN7xNpNjW...@earthlink.com...
1. The Neroification of Denethor.
2. Frodo being turned against Sam and turning him away.
3. The shortass jokes and the general degradation of Gimli.
Other good candidates are are, in no particular order: the "Aragorn
portrayed as a reluctant hero" item mentioned above; Elrond the hater of Men
("Man has failed! I saw him fail three thousand years ago!"); the (in the
film context) inexplicable decision of Denethor to send out Faramir and his
men to get killed to no purpose at Osgiliath; the fact that everything in
PJ's Middle-earth seems to be situated only a few miles from each other;
Merry and Pippin as a couple of little pranksters; Treebeard as an idiot who
has to be led to Isengard to realize that his trees are being killed;
Th�oden sobbing: "No parent should have to bury a child"; Saruman literally
getting thrown out of Th�oden's body; the inexpressibly silly "Crouching
Tiger, Hidden Dragon" fight between Gandalf and Saruman; Denethor's decision
to burn on a pyre followed by his horrified: "Shit! I'm on fire!" take and
his Monty Pythonesque running to a conventient breach in the parapet to take
a leap; Galadriel turning a sickly green and screaming; the visualization of
the Army of the Dead (Yes, I do hate it; the silent army in the book is much
more frightening); the Eye turning into a kind of moving searchlight towards
the end of the third film; Faramir as a Gestapo-like bully beating
information out of people... and more.
�jevind
Öjevind Lång
news:Xns9CF9DEEC...@130.133.4.11...
[snip]
> Apart from that I'd be more hard-pressed to come up with single
> scenes, but I do find that Jackson's LotR overall _does_ 'love the
> bright sword for its sharpness,' and 'the arrow for its swiftness,'
> and in particular 'the warrior for his glory.' But they are
> indifferent to 'that which they defend: the city of the Men of
> N�menor;' there is a very strong element of 'them and us' rhetoric in
> the films, and they certainly completely ignore what Faramir loved
> about Minas Tirith, 'her memory, her ancientry, her beauty, and her
> present wisdom.' In Jackson's world it is more important to be feared
> for your strength than loved for your wisdom, and the concepts of
> 'good' and 'evil' are completely distorted from their values in the
> book; to Jackson 'good' is 'us'. Another aspect of this theme is the
> downplay and outright ridicule of such virtues as mercy, forgiveness
> and pity. The scene when Frodo sends Sam away is the epitome of this,
> but it permeates Jackson's whole LotR that pity and mercy is just
> plain stupid and na�ve and it will bring nothing good to anyone
> (opposed to Tolkien's work where there is an underlying belief in
> some mystical value-in-itself of this, even when irrational, and that
> it will benefit both parties, unless, of course, it is done with that
> aim in mind).
I emphatically agree with this. Nothing to add, really.
> Tied in with these is the portrayal of evil. In Tolkien's book, the
> greatest danger is inside each and every character (with the possible
> exception of Tom B): the danger of Tolkien's Master Ring is that it
> tempts the characters to use its power to serve their own ends, and
> this will inevitably (in Tolkien's work) lead to evil. In Jackson's
> portrayal evil becomes something outside the characters: the Master
> Ring is evil in its own right and seemingly capable of removing the
> free will of the characters: we are supposed to accept that Faramir
> was not really morally responsible for trying to capture the Ring,
> nor that Frodo was really morally responsible for sending away Sam,
> but that was certainly not how it worked in Tolkien's vision.
Exactly. In the films, the Ring does not in any way test a person's
character; it's more like a nuclear device that has to be removed at once
before its contamination reaches the critical level. Quite simply put, I
don't think Jackson understands the point about the temptations of power.
That makes Frodo a sort of freak (a wimpish freak, at that, in PJ's
depiction) who somehow seems to possess an unusual immunity to the Ring's
radiation, instead of possessing a simple and humble ability to resist the
lure of power almost all the way to the end.
Actually, one can't help feeling that PJ despises Frodo for being so
immune to the Ring's call to power. If PJ had been acquired an avatar in
Middle-earth, it would have been as Boromir (too stupid to be Saruman).
�jevind
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
> The Grey Havens is a part that Jackson got pretty well. The emotions at
> the
> parting were real, and the finality of it all hit home.
I agree that this was one of the items that Jackson got right.
�jevind
Troels Forchhammer
>>
>> Granted, this is in the context of faramir's not seizing the Ring
>> from Frodo, but still I think the rivalry is clear, and that
>> Faramir isn't just imagining that his father prefers/preferred
>> Boromir to him.
Of course he doesn't imagine it -- Gandalf explicitly says that
Denethor loved Boromir better, so that was never the issue.
The context was changes that don't seem to improve the film, _as a
film_, and while there is some hints at Faramir regretting
Denethor's lack of respect _after_ Boromir's death, the theme still
represents a rather drastic change from book to film -- by extending
it to have existed before Boromir's death, by making Faramir's
emotions much more dominant, by removing that strength of will that
made Faramir so self-assured and turning him into a sissy that cannot
see beyond his own need to get his father's respect, and generally by
giving this theme a far, far greater amount of 'screen time' and
importance than it has in the book.
> Correct.
> But Tolkien writes elsewhere that Faramir was fine with preference
> while Boromir was alive.
Yes.
> It's after his brothers death, that Faramir is increasingly upset
> with his fathers lack of love and respect for him. This is not
> "rivalry" per se.
I believe that it is explicitly stated somewhere in the book that
there was _no_ rivalry.
Tolkien has Gandalf talk to Faramir before the latter rides out to
take commands of the outer defences saying
'Do not throw your live away rashly or in bitterness,' he
said. 'You will be needed here, for other things than war.
Your father loves you, Faramir, and will remember it ere
the end. Farewell!'
Jackson seems to have read this as if Faramir had become suicidal in
grief over his father's rejections and he then built Faramir's
character from that, but I have never seen it in that way, and I will
protest that given Faramir's character this is an extremely unlikely
reading to say the least. I will even say that Gandalf's excuse must
be his exhaustion and the long time since he last saw Faramir,
because Faramir as he is portrayed in the book would never become
bitter, though he would regret the situation and probably pity
Denethor, and he might be led to attempt some rash feats of bravery
in an attempt to please his father -- not just for his own sake, but
at least as much for the sake of Denethor. This is what Gandalf is
warning him against.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own
image when it turns out that God hates all the same people
you do.
- Anne Lamott
Troels Forchhammer
>>>
>>> I think I'd rather have kept the Scouring and cut the Grey
>>> Havens.
>>
>> I don't think it would have worked. Movies don't do well with
>> long denouements,
That may be -- as I've said often enough my knowledge of
cinematography is virtually non-existing. I might have cut the
crowning as well -- it serves no real purpose and can be shown in a
brief flash-back during the Scouring (the real eucatastrophe of LotR
is in the Field of Cormallen), but the Scouring is one of the most
important chapters of the whole book.
>> and the first couple of times I read the book, the Scouring was
>> too anti-climactic.
I don't remember having felt this way about the Scouring, but then I
hardly remember reading the book in Danish before I first read it in
English (and my Danish edition is pretty much in tatters, so I must
have read it more than once <GG>), but regardless of when this
realization came to me, I do see that this chapter is of paramount
importance in the book.
> I agree. The most important part of the scouring was (IMHO) that
> Saruman *still* failed to repent and paid for it.
That is probably one of the least important issues in that chapter.
There is at least two points to that chapter, which were both close
to Tolkien's heart:
- there can be no victory without a price
- there is no such thing as an ultimate victory
Both of these points are taken up elsewhere in the book, but the
Scouring is where both of them are emphasized and driven home (the
first is taken up again in the Grey Havens chapter).
Jackson reversed these and portrayed the end pretty much as a 'and
they lived happily ever after' kind of ending -- he missed the sense
of immense loss that is in the Grey Havens chapter, and there is no
hint that evil is not conquered for ever.
To show the end as Tolkien wanted it may not have been a very popular
thing to do, but I nevertheless would have preferred it that way.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable
from magic.
- Arthur C. Clarke, /Profiles of The Future/, 1961
(Also known as 'Clarke's third law')
Clams Canino
"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
> > I agree. The most important part of the scouring was (IMHO) that
> > Saruman *still* failed to repent and paid for it.
>
> That is probably one of the least important issues in that chapter.
Perhaps to YOU. :)
> There is at least two points to that chapter, which were both close
> to Tolkien's heart:
> - there can be no victory without a price
> - there is no such thing as an ultimate victory
Close to his heart perhaps, but I accept them as "a given".
> Both of these points are taken up elsewhere in the book,
Yes... which is why they can get dropped at the end.
> To show the end as Tolkien wanted it may not have been a very popular
> thing to do, but I nevertheless would have preferred it that way.
Understood. But it would not have been popular. :)
The Grey Havens threw more "cold water" on the ending than is normally
permissable in a film with a "good ending".
Trust me... you didn't want Mr. Jackson to handle the "Great Battle of
Bywater". :)
-W
Troels Forchhammer
Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> spoke these staves:
>
<snip>
> Jackson reversed these and portrayed the end pretty much as a 'and
> they lived happily ever after' kind of ending -- he missed the
> sense of immense loss that is in the Grey Havens chapter, and
> there is no hint that evil is not conquered for ever.
Well, I softened this up quite a bit before hitting send, but before
my final editing it was a fairly good example of what I mean when I
say that I can easily talk myself into vitriolic denouncements of
Jackson's LotR ;-)
These groups exist in order to discuss Tolkien's works, and Jackson's
LotR films (or any other adaptation) are relevant here only through
their being, after all, adaptations of Tolkien's book. I therefore
have no problem as such when the adaptation aspect, the
'faithfulness' to the original, becomes by far the most important
property of the films in our discussions here.
I have also devoted a great deal of effort in an attempt to
understand Tolkien's work at not just the surface layers, but also
the underlying stuff, and I do feel that I have come quite a long way
in doing that (despite the fact that there is still a _lot_ that I
don't understand -- in particular in the philological parts). Though
I certainly do not agree with Tolkien in every aspect of his ethics /
aesthetics / philosophy / ideology as these are expressed in the
books, I try to respect them, and by studying it, I have come to
realize how crucially important Tolkien's position in these matters
is to the 'feeling' of Middle-earth -- they are (I know that I'm
repeating myself for the umpteenth time here) built into the
fundamental causality of Arda.
Unfortunately all this has the effect that when I spend some time
over the course of a thread such as this on discussing and
investigating the differences between the Tolkien's and Jackson's
versions of the story, I focus increasingly on these differences, and
I find that Jackson did not respect Tolkien where such respect IMO is
due. This, then, causes me to grow more and more irritated with
Jackson the longer we discuss it, ultimately resulting in rather
acerbic commentary.
There's no point, I think, in trying to hide that I think that,
whatever his success in translocating the surface elements from the
page to the screen, Jackson did an exceptionally bad job at adapting
the deeper layers of the book, but the vehemence with which I
sometimes denounce his effort is not justified and is not a fair
representation of my opinion of Jackson's work in more sober moments.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
People are self-centered
Derek Broughton
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:23:55 -0400, Derek Broughton
> <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>>> If you want to see how such a character ends up when things turn bad,
>>> take a good look at /The Road/.
>>
>>Is that the book or the movie (or am I wrong in assuming you mean the
>>Cormac
>>McArthy story)? (I know they were making a film, but I didn't think it's
>>out yet). I certainly don't get that sense from the book. The
>>protagonist admits he wasn't great as a husband or father before the world
>>fell apart, but afterwards he does as good a job as could be asked for.
>
> The movie. I have no plans to read that or any other book by that
> author. And the only films based on his books I plan to see in the
> future are those done by the Coen brothers.
>
> And slackers always have excuses.
>
> And the excuses are usually whiney ones.
>
> But thanks for confirming that it is the /character/ who is a slacker,
> not the actor.
I certainly didn't. There's a brief period in the book where he talks about
life before the apocalypse, where it's clear that his marriage was at least
troubled, and possibly falling apart, but nothing that he does in _current_
time is indicative of a slacker. If anything, he's one of those people who
doesn't do well in civilization, but comes alive on the frontier (except of
course that he spends the whole book dieing). So it's either the screen-
writer, actor, or director who's the slacker.
The Coen brothers make great movies, but if that's what they've turned /The
Road/ into, they've missed the point at least as much as Jackson ever did.
And I completely don't blame you for not wanting to read the book. It's
utterly fascinating, but equally repulsing. I can't say I've ever felt
quite like I did on finishing it.
--
derek
Derek Broughton
Very interesting - because I'm sure you're right, and yet it's a natural
consequence of war. NOT mobilizing the youngsters is not really believable.
My "worst changes" are:
The pointless Aragorn dream sequence and unnatural relations with his horse,
and on a related note Elrond's appearance before Aragorn takes the Paths of
the Dead.
Elvish surfers at Helm's Deep (Elves at all are annoying, but surfing...).
--
derek
Derek Broughton
> Tolkien has Gandalf talk to Faramir before the latter rides out to
> take commands of the outer defences saying
> 'Do not throw your live away rashly or in bitterness,' he
> said. 'You will be needed here, for other things than war.
> Your father loves you, Faramir, and will remember it ere
> the end. Farewell!'
>
> Jackson seems to have read this as if Faramir had become suicidal in
> grief over his father's rejections and he then built Faramir's
> character from that,
Well, then, I'm as guilty as Jackson. I always thought that Faramir
intentionally mounted a last-ditch suicide campaign over his father's
treatment.
> but I have never seen it in that way, and I will
> protest that given Faramir's character this is an extremely unlikely
> reading to say the least. I will even say that Gandalf's excuse must
> be his exhaustion and the long time since he last saw Faramir,
> because Faramir as he is portrayed in the book would never become
> bitter, though he would regret the situation and probably pity
> Denethor, and he might be led to attempt some rash feats of bravery
> in an attempt to please his father -- not just for his own sake, but
> at least as much for the sake of Denethor. This is what Gandalf is
> warning him against.
I didn't even think it was for Denethor - it's for Gondor, but he never
intended to return. After all, his father essentially ordered him not to.
--
derek
Derek Broughton
>
> "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
>
>> > I agree. The most important part of the scouring was (IMHO) that
>> > Saruman *still* failed to repent and paid for it.
>>
>> That is probably one of the least important issues in that chapter.
>
> Perhaps to YOU. :)
LOL. I disagree too. Troels may be right that the other points were "more"
important, but I would hardly call this "least" important. Especially given
the Roman Catholic theology that pervades the story. Pride, and repentance
for it, are vitally important.
>
>> There is at least two points to that chapter, which were both close
>> to Tolkien's heart:
>
> > - there can be no victory without a price
>> - there is no such thing as an ultimate victory
>
> Close to his heart perhaps, but I accept them as "a given".
>
>> Both of these points are taken up elsewhere in the book,
>
> Yes... which is why they can get dropped at the end.
Ouch :-)
> Understood. But it would not have been popular. :)
> The Grey Havens threw more "cold water" on the ending than is normally
> permissable in a film with a "good ending".
>
> Trust me... you didn't want Mr. Jackson to handle the "Great Battle of
> Bywater". :)
Exactly what I was thinking. We'd have ended up with something resembling
Helm's Deep. Perhaps with Tom Bombadil and Old Man Willow replacing Gandalf
and hordes of Huorns.
--
derek
Troels Forchhammer
Derek Broughton <de...@pointerstop.ca> spoke these staves:
>
> Well, then, I'm as guilty as Jackson. I always thought that
> Faramir intentionally mounted a last-ditch suicide campaign over
> his father's treatment.
I think you misunderstand _Faramir_. He was daunted by
his father: not only in the ordinary way of a family with a
stern proud father of great force of character, but as a
N�men�rean before the chief of the one surviving N�men�rean
state. He was motherless and sisterless (�owyn was also
motherless), and had a 'bossy' brother. He had been
accustomed to giving way and not giving his own opinions
air, while retaining a power of command among men, such as
a man may obtain who is evidently personally courageous and
decisive, but also modest, fair-minded and scrupulously
just, and very merciful.
- J.R.R. Tolkien, _Letters_ #244 to a reader of LotR, c. 1963
I may be laying it on a bit thick when I say that Faramir might try to
act with rash boldness in an attempt to begin a healing of his father's
grief over Boromir's death, but he is _definitely_ not becoming
suicidal.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
We're leaving WISDOM
to starve and thirst
when we cultivate
KNOWLEDGE as such.
The very best comes
to the very worst
WHEN IGNORANTS
KNOW TOO MUCH.
- Piet Hein, /When Ignorants --/
Derek Broughton
> In message <news:d1gi17-...@morgen.pointerstop.ca>
> Derek Broughton <de...@pointerstop.ca> spoke these staves:
>>
>
>> Well, then, I'm as guilty as Jackson. I always thought that
>> Faramir intentionally mounted a last-ditch suicide campaign over
>> his father's treatment.
>
> I think you misunderstand _Faramir_. He was daunted by
> his father: not only in the ordinary way of a family with a
> stern proud father of great force of character, but as a
> N�men�rean before the chief of the one surviving N�men�rean
> state. He was motherless and sisterless (�owyn was also
> motherless), and had a 'bossy' brother. He had been
> accustomed to giving way and not giving his own opinions
> air, while retaining a power of command among men, such as
> a man may obtain who is evidently personally courageous and
> decisive, but also modest, fair-minded and scrupulously
> just, and very merciful.
> - J.R.R. Tolkien, _Letters_ #244 to a reader of LotR, c. 1963
>
> I may be laying it on a bit thick when I say that Faramir might try to
> act with rash boldness in an attempt to begin a healing of his father's
> grief over Boromir's death, but he is _definitely_ not becoming
> suicidal.
I really don't think that could be "laying it on thick" - I'm sure that if
_I'm_ not right, you must be :-) I just never felt it was rash boldness,
but a deliberate attempt to give his life to the best value for Gondor.
--
derek
Paul S. Person
IIRC, JRRT actually had them doing something very like that in his
version. That is, mobilizing every male able to hold a shield and lift
a sword ("bear arms"), trained or not.
Paul S. Person
Except, of course, for not showing the ship starting to move on the
Straight Road, the ocean falling away below.
Öjevind Lång
news:3arek5hgnbs0v0faj...@4ax.com...
Males, not children of thirteen.
�jevind
Paul S. Person
<de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
I can see that I was unclear.
I am, of course, talking about the character in the film, since I have
not read the book.
And, in the film, he doesn't do so well after civilization collapses,
either, however well he may or may not have been doing beforehand.
He spends the whole film as a slacker, and most of it as a whiney
slacker at that. The only action he even considers is to shoot his son
when things are going worse than usual. His only plan is to reach the
coast, but no reason is given; it isn't a goal, just an excuse.
>The Coen brothers make great movies, but if that's what they've turned /The
>Road/ into, they've missed the point at least as much as Jackson ever did.
They did /No Country for Old Men/, which is watchable if only for the
performances. The story wasn't as grim as /The Road/ either, just a
lot more bloody.
Someone else did /The Road/.
>And I completely don't blame you for not wanting to read the book. It's
>utterly fascinating, but equally repulsing. I can't say I've ever felt
>quite like I did on finishing it.
I'm not reading /any/ book by that author.
Clams Canino
"�jevind L�ng" <ojevin...@bredband.net> wrote in message
> >>>> Another example is "the Mobilization of the Rohan Hitlerjugend" in
> >>>> Helm's
> > IIRC, JRRT actually had them doing something very like that in his
> > version. That is, mobilizing every male able to hold a shield and lift
> > a sword ("bear arms"), trained or not.
>
> Males, not children of thirteen.
>
> �jevind
And I think that the arming of the male youth was both accurate and somehow
showed the "horrors of war" in a way Tolkien himself would have approved of.
And by the way, "the Mobilization of the Rohan Hitlerjugend" puts you
violation of the 1st corrollary of Godwin's Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law
Therefore according to Usenet Tradition that *particular point* must score
to any opponents of your position. :)
-W
Clams Canino
"Derek Broughton" <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message news:8i2k17-
> I really don't think that could be "laying it on thick" - I'm sure that if
> _I'm_ not right, you must be :-) I just never felt it was rash boldness,
> but a deliberate attempt to give his life to the best value for Gondor.
Same here.. but I saw it as "succeed or die trying". Close enough.
-W
Morgoth's Curse
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>There's no point, I think, in trying to hide that I think that,
>whatever his success in translocating the surface elements from the
>page to the screen, Jackson did an exceptionally bad job at adapting
>the deeper layers of the book, but the vehemence with which I
>sometimes denounce his effort is not justified and is not a fair
>representation of my opinion of Jackson's work in more sober moments.
On the contrary, Troels, I would say that that is the _only_ measure
of a truly great movie. Any movie can be superficially pleasing--mere
eye candy--but it is the underlying themes which determine whether it
still resonates after the audience's initial enthusiasm fades. That
is why movies like Casablanca or Spartacus or Dances With Wolves stand
the test of time while other movies eventually fade into oblivion.
Like most people here, I have seen hundreds of movies yet only a few
are truly worth rewatching and fewer still are worth rewatching
numerous times.
Morgoth's Curse
DrGong
important elements of the "Scouring of the Shire", due to the Roman
Catholic background (grew up Lutheran going to Catholic Schools).
My three "grr" moments
1. The (unexplainable) changes made to Denethor.
have to agree.
2. The end of the TT where Frodo almost exposes the ring to the ring
wraith.
3. Frodo sending Sam away.
Matthew Woodcraft
> "Paul S. Person" <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> skrev i meddelandet
>> version. That is, mobilizing every male able to hold a shield and lift
>> a sword ("bear arms"), trained or not.
> Males, not children of thirteen.
Gamling says "But most of them have seen too many winters, as I have, or
too few, as my son's son here."
I suppose that leaves it up to the reader to imagine how many would be
"too few". That's an option that isn't really available to a filmmaker.
-M-
Troels Forchhammer
I'm sure that that was _Denethor's_ intention, but why on Middle-
earth should Faramir accept Denethor's premises?
Faramir doubtlessly grieves for the situation (Aragorn says as much
in the Houses of Healing when listing the factors for Faramir's
malady: 'Weariness, grief for his father's mood, a wound, and over
all the Black Breath'), but grief doesn't make a good man suicidal.
Something might also be gained from studying the development of this
situation. The first draft actually makes defending the Rammas and
the river-forts Faramir's own idea:
�The Lord drives his son too hard, and now he must do
duty for the one that is dead as well.� [_Added in ink_:
But in truth Faramir went at his own will, and he it was
that most swayed the council of the captains. The council
of the Lord had decided that with the threat in the South
their force was too weak to make any stroke of war on their
own part. They must man the defences and wait. Yet ever
Faramir had urged that their outer defences must not be
abandoned, and the River was the one that the Enemy should
buy most dearly.
[_The War of the Ring_ (HoMe 8), 3,VI 'The Siege of Gondor' p.330]
Later, however, Tolkien changed, Christopher Tolkien quotes from his
father's notes:
The early conversation of Faramir and his father and
motives must be altered. Denethor must be _harsh_. He must
say he did wish Boromir had been at Henneth Ann�n -- for he
_would_ have been loyal to his father and brought him the
Ring. (Gandalf may correct this.) Faramir grieved but
patient. Then Denethor must be all for holding Osgiliath
�like Boromir did�, while Faramir (and Gandalf?) are
against it, using the arguments previously given to
Denethor. At length in submission, but proudly, to please
his father and show him that not only Boromir was brave
[he] accepts the command at Osgiliath. Men in the City do
not like it.
This will not only be truer to previous situation, but
will explain Denethor's breaking up when Faramir is brought
back dying, as it seems.
After which Christopher comments:
The first part of this passage was struck through, as far
as �Faramir grieved but patient�, and the second pan
allowed to stand; but this was then rejected also. Finally
the whole was marked with a tick, when my father at length
decided that this was how it should in fact be.
[ibid. p.333]
I think Tolkien's notes regarding Faramir's motivation bears
repeating: 'to please his father and show him that not only Boromir
was brave.' It would seem that there is an element also of _pride_
involved -- probably of the 'I'll show him who's brave!' kind, and if
there is any bitterness it is of this kind -- a mix of pride,
resentment, and 'I'll show him' determination.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Ash nazg durbatuluk,
ash nazg gimbatul,
ash nazg thrakatuluk
agh burzum ishi krimpatul.
- /The Fellowship of the Ring/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Troels Forchhammer
�jevind L�ng <ojevin...@bredband.net> spoke these staves:
> "Paul S. Person" <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> skrev i
> meddelandet news:3arek5hgnbs0v0faj...@4ax.com...
>>
<snip>
>> IIRC, JRRT actually had them doing something very like that in
>> his version. That is, mobilizing every male able to hold a shield
>> and lift a sword ("bear arms"), trained or not.
>
> Males, not children of thirteen.
Gamling says about the defenders that
'. . . most of them have seen too many winters, as I have,
or too few, as my son's son here.'
But I agree that this is highly exaggerated in the film -- Gamling's
grandson was probably a kid of some 17 summers or so; a too young man,
not a mere _child_. In the book, the women and children of Westfold
were hidden in the caves, not manning any part of the defences.
However, though I think it puts a rather unpleasant light to those who
ordered the arming of mere children, I rather think the children
themselves lack some of the qualities of the defenders of 'Die
Br�cke' ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Giving in is no defeat.
Passing on is no retreat.
Selves are made to rise above.
You shall live in what you love.
- Piet Hein, /The Me Above the Me/
Öjevind Lång
> "�jevind L�ng" <ojevin...@bredband.net> wrote in message
>
>> >>>> Another example is "the Mobilization of the Rohan Hitlerjugend" in
>> >>>> Helm's
>> > IIRC, JRRT actually had them doing something very like that in his
>> > version. That is, mobilizing every male able to hold a shield and lift
>> > a sword ("bear arms"), trained or not.
>>
>> Males, not children of thirteen.
>>
>> �jevind
>
> And I think that the arming of the male youth was both accurate and
> somehow
> showed the "horrors of war" in a way Tolkien himself would have approved
> of.
Those children might have managed to hold a shielde and a sword, but they
wouldn't have the strentgh to wield tem. Those things are heavy.
> And by the way, "the Mobilization of the Rohan Hitlerjugend" puts you
> violation of the 1st corrollary of Godwin's Law
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law
>
> Therefore according to Usenet Tradition that *particular point* must score
> to any opponents of your position. :)
Heh. Actually, as the Wikipedia article mentions, "The rule does not make
any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf
Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the
likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the
discussion progresses." True, it adds: "It is precisely because such a
comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that
overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs
the valid comparisons of their impact." Godwin was right, of course; but in
this context I find it quite relevant to compare the mobilization of
children for the slaughter to similar occurrences in Nazi Germany. The
distorted idea that any mention of Hitler or the Nazis automatically
disaqualifies the debater and means he has lost the discusssion is, of
course, completely wrong.
�jevind
Count Menelvagor
> "Clams Canino" <cc-mar...@earthdink.net> skrev i meddelandetnews:3KadnWojN7xNpNjW...@earthlink.com...
what about the bit where gandalf bops denethor on the head and stages
a comic coup d'état? although since i laughed out loud at that bit, i
suppose it wasn't a total loss.
Öjevind Lång
news:26dd4b80-c41c-4d42...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 7, 4:11 pm, �jevind L�ng <ojevind.l...@bredband.net> wrote:
[snip]
> a comic coup d'�tat? although since i laughed out loud at that bit, i
> suppose it wasn't a total loss.
It was completely un-Tolkienesque, but funny in a slapstick sort of way if
one managed to suppress one's desire for films made in the spirit of the
book. A similar incident is the one where Ugl�k kills another orc and then
announces: "Meat is back on the menu, boys!" Menu? I can hear Tolkien turn
in his grave.
�jevind
Jette Goldie
I read it more as a "hopeless, I don't care if I live but I will die
to hold the line" effort. When you don't care if you live and have
lost hope, you might as well be suicidal. This lack of hope and care
for life was what made him so susceptible to the "Black Breath".
--
Jette Goldie
jette....@gmail.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfette/
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
Jette Goldie
> "Paul S. Person" <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> skrev i meddelandet
> news:3arek5hgnbs0v0faj...@4ax.com...
>> <ojevin...@bredband.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Clams Canino" <cc-m...@earthdink.net> skrev i meddelandet
>>> news:CZWdnX33VsMasdvW...@earthlink.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Another example is "the Mobilization of the Rohan Hitlerjugend" in
>>>>> Helm's
>>>>> Deep. The thought of sending children into battle would have horrified
>>>>> Tolkien.
>>>>
>>>> Were they "sending them into battle" or just arming them for a last
>>>> ditch
>>>> hold-out in thier enclosed trap in the keep at the deep.
>>>
>>> I am pretty certain they were armed to fight on the ramparts. The
>>> thought of
>>> such a thing would have been quite alien to Tolkien.
>>
>> IIRC, JRRT actually had them doing something very like that in his
>> version. That is, mobilizing every male able to hold a shield and lift
>> a sword ("bear arms"), trained or not.
>
> Males, not children of thirteen.
>
Thirteen is not a child.
Derek Broughton
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 22:22:08 +0100, Öjevind Lång
> <ojevin...@bredband.net> wrote:
>
>>"Clams Canino" <cc-m...@earthdink.net> skrev i meddelandet
>>news:qLmdnearG4Jrq9jW...@earthlink.com...
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>> The Grey Havens is a part that Jackson got pretty well. The emotions at
>>> the
>>> parting were real, and the finality of it all hit home.
>>
>>I agree that this was one of the items that Jackson got right.
>
> Except, of course, for not showing the ship starting to move on the
> Straight Road, the ocean falling away below.
But Tolkien didn't show that either. As close as it comes is "the
Ship...passed on into the West, until at last on a night of rain Frodo
smelled a sweet fragrance on the air and heard the sound of singing..."
It's not actually like Jackson to not explicitly demonstrate something
Tolkien left to the imagination.
--
derek
Derek Broughton
> "Paul S. Person" <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> skrev i meddelandet
> news:3arek5hgnbs0v0faj...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 21:52:23 +0100, Öjevind Lång
>> <ojevin...@bredband.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Clams Canino" <cc-m...@earthdink.net> skrev i meddelandet
>>>news:CZWdnX33VsMasdvW...@earthlink.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Öjevind Lång" <ojevin...@bredband.net> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> Another example is "the Mobilization of the Rohan Hitlerjugend" in
>>>>> Helm's
>>>>> Deep. The thought of sending children into battle would have horrified
>>>>> Tolkien.
>>>>
>>>> Were they "sending them into battle" or just arming them for a last
>>>> ditch
>>>> hold-out in thier enclosed trap in the keep at the deep.
>>>
>>>I am pretty certain they were armed to fight on the ramparts. The thought
>>>of
>>>such a thing would have been quite alien to Tolkien.
>>
>> IIRC, JRRT actually had them doing something very like that in his
>> version. That is, mobilizing every male able to hold a shield and lift
>> a sword ("bear arms"), trained or not.
>
> Males, not children of thirteen.
Huh? It was a medieval, feudal, society. "Children" of thirteen would have
been expected to bear arms if they were of the nobility, and if they were
peasants they'd certainly be considered "able to hold a shield", though it
certainly would have been frowned upon at any other time. The particular
child in the movie, I wouldn't have placed as old as thirteen (10 maybe),
but I have no problem at all with arming all the teenaged boys.
--
derek
Derek Broughton
> In message <news:7qp9fc...@mid.individual.net>
> �jevind L�ng <ojevin...@bredband.net> spoke these staves:
>>
>> "Paul S. Person" <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> skrev i
>> meddelandet news:3arek5hgnbs0v0faj...@4ax.com...
>>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> IIRC, JRRT actually had them doing something very like that in
>>> his version. That is, mobilizing every male able to hold a shield
>>> and lift a sword ("bear arms"), trained or not.
>>
>> Males, not children of thirteen.
>
> Gamling says about the defenders that
> '. . . most of them have seen too many winters, as I have,
> or too few, as my son's son here.'
>
> But I agree that this is highly exaggerated in the film -- Gamling's
> grandson was probably a kid of some 17 summers or so; a too young man,
> not a mere _child_.
Is this a 'scand' thing? In England and France, in the middle ages, 17
would have been _very_ late to start your military _training_. Of course,
in a last ditch defence, they would have armed people they'd never have
considered normally, so instead of 14 year olds they'd have been big 10 year
olds. I'm really surprised to see both you and Öjevind have trouble with
it, and have to wonder if you really do have such an enlightened history.
Those of us from more southern climes thought you all came from Viking
berserkers :-)
otoh, if you're just calculating arithmetically because there's only three
generations - well, I'd be surprised if Gamling is over 50.
--
derek
Derek Broughton
> In message <news:9MqdnQ3STMIg5drW...@earthlink.com>
> "Clams Canino" <cc-m...@earthdink.net> spoke these staves:
>>
>> "Derek Broughton" <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
>> news:8i2k17-
>>
>>> I really don't think that could be "laying it on thick" - I'm
>>> sure that if _I'm_ not right, you must be :-) I just never felt
>>> it was rash boldness, but a deliberate attempt to give his life
>>> to the best value for Gondor.
>>
>> Same here.. but I saw it as "succeed or die trying". Close
>> enough.
>
> I'm sure that that was _Denethor's_ intention, but why on Middle-
> earth should Faramir accept Denethor's premises?
That's exactly how I have always read it though - that Faramir has decided
if he can't get his father's love, at least he'll get his father's approval
- by dieing the way his father wants him to. Which is not to say you're not
right - I have to read this again soon!
--
derek
Derek Broughton
> On the contrary, Troels, I would say that that is the _only_ measure
> of a truly great movie. Any movie can be superficially pleasing--mere
> eye candy--but it is the underlying themes which determine whether it
> still resonates after the audience's initial enthusiasm fades. That
> is why movies like Casablanca or Spartacus or Dances With Wolves stand
> the test of time while other movies eventually fade into oblivion.
You're really, seriously, trying to tell me that /Dances With Wolves/ is a
better movie than LOTR???????? It's a good movie, but for all Jackson's
faults, LOTR - any episode - is better.
> Like most people here, I have seen hundreds of movies yet only a few
> are truly worth rewatching and fewer still are worth rewatching
> numerous times.
I've only seen the LOTR films three times, but then I've only seen /Dances
With Wolves/ once.
--
derek
Derek Broughton
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:49:11 -0400, Derek Broughton
> <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>>> But thanks for confirming that it is the /character/ who is a slacker,
>>> not the actor.
>>
>>I certainly didn't. There's a brief period in the book where he talks
>>about life before the apocalypse, where it's clear that his marriage was
>>at least troubled, and possibly falling apart, but nothing that he does in
>>_current_
>>time is indicative of a slacker. If anything, he's one of those people
>>who doesn't do well in civilization, but comes alive on the frontier
>>(except of
>>course that he spends the whole book dieing). So it's either the screen-
>>writer, actor, or director who's the slacker.
>
> I can see that I was unclear.
>
> I am, of course, talking about the character in the film, since I have
> not read the book.
>
> And, in the film, he doesn't do so well after civilization collapses,
> either, however well he may or may not have been doing beforehand.
In the book, he isn't very successful - but it's clear from the very
beginning that he's dieing (he's hiding the fact that he coughs up blood
very early), and he's fighting to get his son to somewhere he has a chance
to survive. Not having seen the film, and not wanting to risk a spoiler, I
can only say I think he accomplishes his aims.
> He spends the whole film as a slacker, and most of it as a whiney
> slacker at that. The only action he even considers is to shoot his son
> when things are going worse than usual. His only plan is to reach the
> coast, but no reason is given; it isn't a goal, just an excuse.
That's explicit in the book. He's spent at least one winter, already, in
the cold North, and doesn't believe they can survive another, so they're
trying to head to somewhere it won't freeze (iirc, he's specifically aiming
for Florida).
>>And I completely don't blame you for not wanting to read the book. It's
>>utterly fascinating, but equally repulsing. I can't say I've ever felt
>>quite like I did on finishing it.
>
> I'm not reading /any/ book by that author.
I'm pretty sure I'm not reading any _others_ :-) But who knows what he'll
come up with in the future.
--
derek
Clams Canino
"�jevind L�ng" <ojevin...@bredband.net> wrote in message
> > And by the way, "the Mobilization of the Rohan Hitlerjugend" puts you
> > violation of the 1st corrollary of Godwin's Law
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law
> >
> > Therefore according to Usenet Tradition that *particular point* must
score
> > to any opponents of your position. :)
>
> Heh. Actually, as the Wikipedia article mentions, "The rule does not make
> any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to
Adolf
> Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the
> likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the
> discussion progresses."
Heh nothing. :)
Actually that's why I specified the *1st Corollary* to Godwin's Law as
opposed to citing Godwin's Law.
Just scroll down to the Corollaries section right below what you cut/pasted
and you'll find:
There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical
(by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there
is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that
once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned
the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This
principle itself is frequently referred to as Godwin's Law.
-W
Raven
news:s3tk17-...@morgen.pointerstop.ca...
> Of course, in a last ditch defence, they would have armed people they'd
> never have considered normally, so instead of 14 year olds they'd have
> been big 10 year olds.
Some years ago a small mass grave was found in Denmark from the Viking
age. Closer examination indicated that the corpses were locals, males,
slain in battle against victorious Wend raiders, who had bothered only to
throw their dead foes in a shallow grave before moving on. One victim as a
boy of twelve.
Kruk.
Raven
news:hi8g8m$2fm$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Thirteen is not a child.
Tell *that* to a kid who is permitted neither to shag or vote. :-)
Corbie.
Morgoth's Curse
<de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>Morgoth's Curse wrote:
>
>> On the contrary, Troels, I would say that that is the _only_ measure
>> of a truly great movie. Any movie can be superficially pleasing--mere
>> eye candy--but it is the underlying themes which determine whether it
>> still resonates after the audience's initial enthusiasm fades. That
>> is why movies like Casablanca or Spartacus or Dances With Wolves stand
>> the test of time while other movies eventually fade into oblivion.
>
>You're really, seriously, trying to tell me that /Dances With Wolves/ is a
>better movie than LOTR???????? It's a good movie, but for all Jackson's
>faults, LOTR - any episode - is better.
Individual tastes will differ to some extent, of course. I am sure
that there are a few sad wankers out there who still repeatedly watch
Battlefield Earth which many regard as the _worst_ movie ever made.
I do contend, however, that the moral themes in Dances With Wolves
mean that people will enjoy it long after Jackson's movies are
relegated to the status of B movies.
>> Like most people here, I have seen hundreds of movies yet only a few
>> are truly worth rewatching and fewer still are worth rewatching
>> numerous times.
>
>I've only seen the LOTR films three times, but then I've only seen /Dances
>With Wolves/ once.
Time will tell, Derek. When you are in hell (which is the inevitable
fate of all watched the movies) and I am in heaven (which is the
inevitable fate of all who refused to watch the movies), I will be
sure to visit a couple of centuries from now and let you know whether
anyone still watches Jackson's movies. ;-)
I'll even bring you a new set of the LOTR DVDs. Or would you prefer
Blu-ray? ;-)
Morgoth's Curse
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
> Actually that's why I specified the *1st Corollary* to Godwin's Law as
> opposed to citing Godwin's Law.
> Just scroll down to the Corollaries section right below what you
> cut/pasted
> and you'll find:
>
> There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical
> (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there
> is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums
> that
> once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever
> mentioned
> the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This
> principle itself is frequently referred to as Godwin's Law.
Yes, and of course referring to that principle as Godwin's law is wrong and
ignorant, since Godwin never said such a thing. Neither is there any such
rule in this newsgroup. I'm rather insistent on this because I have had the
misfortune to encounter debaters who kept claiming that Godwin's Law bans
all mentions of Hitler or the Nazis, and who just wouldn't listen when I
informed them that they were wrong. Naturally, you know better than that.
:-)
Nonetheless, for the benefit of those less well-informed, permit me to
quote another passage in the Wikipedia article you linked to: "However,
Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction, diversion or even
censorship, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole,
especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.
A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused to
ridicule even valid comparisons."
Let me give two examples, one of illegitimate and the other of legitimate
reference to Hitler in a debate: 1. Comparing an abortionist to Hitler
would, regardless of one's own opinions of abortions, be absolutely out of
line, not only because abortions are not comparable to the Holocaust but
also because the Nazis banned abortions. 2. On the other hand, if someone
were to announce that vegetarianism is good because no vegetarian could show
disregard for human life, it would be perfectly valid to rejoinder that
Hitler was a vegetarian.
As for my mention of "the mobilization of the Rohan Hitlerjugend at Helm's
Deep" I was not, of course, saying that the Rohirrim were like Hitler; what
I wanted to impart was that that episode in the film did immediately remind
me of what the Nazis did at the end of WWII. Despite the claims by more than
one debater here, sending children out to get killed even though their
deaths can't possibly affect the outcome of a battle was *not* the norm in
wars. I may be "in breach" of a misinterpretation of Godwin's Law, but I
really could'nt care less.
�jevind
Öjevind Lång
"Jette Goldie" <jgold...@btinternet.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:hi8g8m$2fm$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> �jevind L�ng wrote:
[snip]
>>>>> Were they "sending them into battle" or just arming them for a last
>>>>> ditch
>>>>> hold-out in thier enclosed trap in the keep at the deep.
>>>>
>>>> I am pretty certain they were armed to fight on the ramparts. The
>>>> thought of
>>>> such a thing would have been quite alien to Tolkien.
>>>
>>> IIRC, JRRT actually had them doing something very like that in his
>>> version. That is, mobilizing every male able to hold a shield and lift
>>> a sword ("bear arms"), trained or not.
>>
>> Males, not children of thirteen.
>>
>> �jevind
>
> Thirteen is not a child.
Rubbish. Have sex with a thirteen year old and find out what happens to you.
Anyway, as someone else pointed out, the children torn from their mother's
grasp in the film didn't look to be even teenagers. I don't give a shit if
they found the body of a murdered boy who was possibly only 12 years old in
a medieval mass grave. In Tolkien's idealized version of medieval Europe it
would have been impossible to arm a 12 year old. The actual practices of a
crowd of smelly, fleabitten, superstitious, priest-ridden medieval peasants
are irrelevant to a discussion of LotR.
Perhaps it is "a Scand thing" to disapprove of impressing child soldiers.
I find the claim surprising, though. I thought forcing children to become
soldiers was regarded as a war crime and that Thomas Lubanga is currently
facing a trial at the International Crimes Court in the Hague for doing
precisely that.
Heigh ho. Disapprove of child soldiers, and you get Godwin's law misquoted
at you and are informed by a whole bunch of people that *they* have no
problem with the institution of child soldiers.
�jevind
Öjevind Lång
news:s3tk17-...@morgen.pointerstop.ca...
[snip]
> otoh, if you're just calculating arithmetically because there's only three
> generations - well, I'd be surprised if Gamling is over 50.
In the real world, you'd probably be right. In Tolkien's world, not.
Öjevind
Jette Goldie
When I was 13 my classmates didn't care about the voting, but for
shagging and drinking they didn't feel any need for "permission" :-)
Raven
news:2ftfk5h6ojqs1diuf...@4ax.com...
> Time will tell, Derek. When you are in hell (which is the inevitable
> fate of all watched the movies) and I am in heaven (which is the
> inevitable fate of all who refused to watch the movies), I will be
> sure to visit a couple of centuries from now and let you know whether
> anyone still watches Jackson's movies. ;-)
> I'll even bring you a new set of the LOTR DVDs. Or would you prefer
> Blu-ray? ;-)
You know better than that. In a few centuries those two formats can be
expected to be far more obsolete than the celluloid strips are now that
first captured Die Asta onto the Silver Screen.
Ravn.
Troels Forchhammer
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> Gamling says about the defenders that
>> '. . . most of them have seen too many winters, as I have, or
>> too few, as my son's son here.'
>>
>> But I agree that this is highly exaggerated in the film --
>> Gamling's grandson was probably a kid of some 17 summers or so; a
>> too young man, not a mere _child_.
>
> Is this a 'scand' thing?
I doubt it ;-)
> In England and France, in the middle ages, 17 would have been
> _very_ late to start your military _training_.
Granted children in medieval times were stronger for their size, but
they were also smaller for their age. Have you tried to lift full-
size weaponry of the time? It was _heavy_ -- a child at 13 would only
in rare cases be able to lift the full-sized versions (and it was
only the very rich that could afford making smaller-sized versions
for their kids to train with).
Whether 12, 14 or 16 isn't really important -- the point is that the
film portrays the Rohirrim as arming children too young to wield
their weapons -- and if they can't even wield their swords how would
they fare with both sword and shield?
> Of course, in a last ditch defence, they would have armed people
> they'd never have considered normally, so instead of 14 year olds
> they'd have been big 10 year olds.
As �je points out the point is not medieval sensibilities, but
Tolkien's sensibilities -- arming kids not sufficiently strong
physically to wield their weapons well enough to actually make a
difference would _not_ be appropriate for Tolkien, regardless of
whether or not it was actually done historically (it would certainly
not surprise me if that was the case -- it'd give the _real_
defenders a few seconds extra as the attackers hack their way through
the kids, but such tactics would, IMO, be wholly unacceptable to
Tolkien).
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
"What're quantum mechanics?"
"I don't know. People who repair quantums, I suppose."
- /Eric/ (Terry Pratchett)
Clams Canino
"�jevind L�ng" <ojevin...@bredband.net> wrote in message
> Yes, and of course referring to that principle as Godwin's law is wrong
and
> ignorant, since Godwin never said such a thing.
Of course. That's why I made the *distinction* in my opening use of the
term. Then, for whatever reason, you attempted to misdirect my objection
back to "Godwins Law" and provided the correct text to support your "straw
man". In my last post I merely knocked the straw man down - by restating my
original intent. We also note that Godwin (though he carries little weight
here) supports the premise of the First Corralary - That "whomever felt the
need to invoke Nazi imagary as an argument progresses, was already in
termanally deep trouble".
>Neither is there any such rule in this newsgroup.
Agreed. Though I'm not aware of any hard and fast "rules" in this
newsgroup.
However, "Godwins's Law", as commonly "misused", does keep us aware that
when one invokes Hitler to make a point - one is usually seeking emotional
impact, and is skating on thin ice.
> I'm rather insistent on this because I have had the
> misfortune to encounter debaters who kept claiming that Godwin's Law bans
> all mentions of Hitler or the Nazis, and who just wouldn't listen when I
> informed them that they were wrong. Naturally, you know better than that.
> :-)
Of course I do.
Recently, I noted the strange relationship between Wagner and Hitler - and
Hitlers obsession with Wagner. But I did not do that to "make a point" -
just to note a "curiosity" in my suddenly colliding areas of study.
> Nonetheless, for the benefit of those less well-informed, permit me to
> quote another passage in the Wikipedia article you linked to: "However,
> Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction, diversion or even
> censorship, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as
hyperbole,
> especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually
appropriate.
> A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused
to
> ridicule even valid comparisons."
I don't dissagree with this.
However (in my opinion) your argument has more then enough problems of it's
own. :)
It is in that light, that I see the Hitler reference as "desiring to further
the emotional impact of the argument(s) as presented". (If we ever get done
talking about Godwin and Hitler.... I'll handle your argument on it's own
terms.)
> Let me give two examples, one of illegitimate and the other of
legitimate
> reference to Hitler in a debate: 1. Comparing an abortionist to Hitler
> would, regardless of one's own opinions of abortions, be absolutely out of
> line, not only because abortions are not comparable to the Holocaust but
> also because the Nazis banned abortions. 2. On the other hand, if someone
> were to announce that vegetarianism is good because no vegetarian could
show
> disregard for human life, it would be perfectly valid to rejoinder that
> Hitler was a vegetarian.
Agreed.
Though I will note that #2 is merely a "reverasl" of another argumentaion
error.
reductio ad Hitlerum and that a better example might have been used here.
> As for my mention of "the mobilization of the Rohan Hitlerjugend at
Helm's
> Deep" I was not, of course, saying that the Rohirrim were like Hitler;
No - but.... (Here's where I attempt the "kill shot") :-)
Of all the possible cases (and refences) to cultures and societies arming
thier youth (for whatever reason) - you chose to invoke the *image* of the
last stand of the Hitler Youth.
I merely cried foul.
> I wanted to impart was that that episode in the film did immediately
remind
> me of what the Nazis did at the end of WWII.
And this still happens daily in Africa, happened routinely in Southeast
Asia, and can be cited at least 100 times since the end of WWII. It's
*routinely* what many custures do when *desperation* ets in. So it "reminded
me" of many sad realities... not just the Natzis.
I don't find it peculiar, or specific, to the Nazis. Therefore I feel, in
the interest of fair presentation, that a Nazi reference (such as you used)
was for emotional impact.
> Despite the claims by more than
> one debater here, sending children out to get killed even though their
> deaths can't possibly affect the outcome of a battle was *not* the norm in
> wars.
The above is beyondthe scope of this post. I however personally the arming
of "youth" in last ditch defense is indeed the norm in most desperate
situations. We can debate the ages later, once we send those damn Natzis
back to bed . :))
> I may be "in breach" of a misinterpretation of Godwin's Law,
The straw man lives and breathes still?? :))
As shown above, not a misinterpretaion of the **1st Corralary** of Godwins
Law.
but I covered that already..... 3 times now?
> I really couldn't care less.
Yes you do. You just gave me at least 3 paragraphs to sort through.
And you made my breakfast get cold!!! :)
-W
Derek Broughton
> In message <news:s3tk17-...@morgen.pointerstop.ca>
> Derek Broughton <de...@pointerstop.ca> spoke these staves:
>>
>> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>>
>> Is this a 'scand' thing?
>
> I doubt it ;-)
I just found it very odd that you and Öjevind both objected strenuously and
the other commenters didn't even find it particularly noteworthy.
>> In England and France, in the middle ages, 17 would have been
>> _very_ late to start your military _training_.
>
> Granted children in medieval times were stronger for their size, but
> they were also smaller for their age. Have you tried to lift full-
> size weaponry of the time?
Certainly I have. Too many years in the SCA.
> Whether 12, 14 or 16 isn't really important
I agree. I can accept an accusation that Jackson made them _too_ young,
but...
> -- the point is that the
> film portrays the Rohirrim as arming children too young to wield
> their weapons
...surely that's the point of Gamling's words. No matter what the actual
age is, his grandson was _too_ young to be fighting. He was a child in
Gamling's eyes. I can't see any successful argument that Tolkien didn't
have the Rohirrim arming children. And while I said the kid in the film
looked more like 10, given your suggestion about medieval kids being small
for their age, maybe he _was_ a teenager.
> -- and if they can't even wield their swords how would
> they fare with both sword and shield?
I would thoroughly support the idea that the children would never have been
given swords. If you have to put them on the walls, you give them a spear
and tell them to poke anybody reaching the top of a ladder (there's little
hope they could push the ladders off the wall). If they're a last ditch
defence of the caves, again spears are a better weapon.
--
derek
Derek Broughton
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:00:40 -0400, Derek Broughton
> <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>>Morgoth's Curse wrote:
>>
>>> On the contrary, Troels, I would say that that is the _only_ measure
>>> of a truly great movie. Any movie can be superficially pleasing--mere
>>> eye candy--but it is the underlying themes which determine whether it
>>> still resonates after the audience's initial enthusiasm fades. That
>>> is why movies like Casablanca or Spartacus or Dances With Wolves stand
>>> the test of time while other movies eventually fade into oblivion.
>>
>>You're really, seriously, trying to tell me that /Dances With Wolves/ is a
>>better movie than LOTR???????? It's a good movie, but for all Jackson's
>>faults, LOTR - any episode - is better.
>
> Individual tastes will differ to some extent, of course. I am sure
> that there are a few sad wankers out there who still repeatedly watch
> Battlefield Earth which many regard as the _worst_ movie ever made.
I could watch it again. Some people watched the other Two Towers fall
hundreds of times. Battlefield Earth was certainly like watching a
disaster.
>
> I do contend, however, that the moral themes in Dances With Wolves
> mean that people will enjoy it long after Jackson's movies are
> relegated to the status of B movies.
I think most viewers forgot the moral themes before the credits rolled.
>
>>> Like most people here, I have seen hundreds of movies yet only a few
>>> are truly worth rewatching and fewer still are worth rewatching
>>> numerous times.
>>
>>I've only seen the LOTR films three times, but then I've only seen /Dances
>>With Wolves/ once.
>
> Time will tell, Derek. When you are in hell (which is the inevitable
> fate of all watched the movies)
Not so! There is no hell...
> and I am in heaven (which is the
> inevitable fate of all who refused to watch the movies), I will be
> sure to visit a couple of centuries from now and let you know whether
> anyone still watches Jackson's movies. ;-)
It won't count unless people are still watching /Dances with Wolves/ :-)
> I'll even bring you a new set of the LOTR DVDs. Or would you prefer
> Blu-ray? ;-)
I think, in Hell, they'll only have Death-ray.
--
derek
Derek Broughton
>
> "Jette Goldie" <jgold...@btinternet.com> skrev i meddelandet
> news:hi8g8m$2fm$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> Öjevind Lång wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>>>> Were they "sending them into battle" or just arming them for a last
>>>>>> ditch
>>>>>> hold-out in thier enclosed trap in the keep at the deep.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am pretty certain they were armed to fight on the ramparts. The
>>>>> thought of
>>>>> such a thing would have been quite alien to Tolkien.
>>>>
>>>> IIRC, JRRT actually had them doing something very like that in his
>>>> version. That is, mobilizing every male able to hold a shield and lift
>>>> a sword ("bear arms"), trained or not.
>>>
>>> Males, not children of thirteen.
>>
>> Thirteen is not a child.
>
> Rubbish. Have sex with a thirteen year old and find out what happens to
> you.
Don't be silly. Have sex with a thirteen year old in a medieval society,
and find out what happens to you. Age wouldn't even enter into it.
> Anyway, as someone else pointed out, the children torn from their
> mother's grasp in the film didn't look to be even teenagers. I don't give
> a shit if they found the body of a murdered boy who was possibly only 12
> years old in a medieval mass grave. In Tolkien's idealized version of
> medieval Europe it would have been impossible to arm a 12 year old. The
> actual practices of a crowd of smelly, fleabitten, superstitious,
> priest-ridden medieval peasants are irrelevant to a discussion of LotR.
> Perhaps it is "a Scand thing" to disapprove of impressing child
> soldiers.
> I find the claim surprising, though. I thought forcing children to become
> soldiers was regarded as a war crime
Of course it IS, but how can you argue that Rohan was anything like our
modern society?
> Heigh ho. Disapprove of child soldiers, and you get Godwin's law
> misquoted
You didn't. You got the 1st corollary, imo quoted correctly. Certainly
there was no call for calling these desperate kids "Hitlerjugend".
> at you and are informed by a whole bunch of people that *they* have no
> problem with the institution of child soldiers.
Now that's just plain insulting. I, and others, have no problem with
Jackson portraying that in the film. afaict, he got it right (per Gamling).
Nobody is suggesting that it should ever be, or even should _have_ ever
been, permitted. But historically it certainly happened, Tolkien seems to
have said it happened in /The Two Towers/, and if Jackson got anything wrong
it was only a matter of degree.
--
derek
Clams Canino
"Derek Broughton" <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message news:ejcm17-
> > Heigh ho. Disapprove of child soldiers, and you get Godwin's law
> > misquoted
>
> You didn't. You got the 1st corollary, imo quoted correctly. Certainly
> there was no call for calling these desperate kids "Hitlerjugend".
I think I put *that* part of the debate to bed. (Hopefully to stay.)
> > at you and are informed by a whole bunch of people that *they* have no
> > problem with the institution of child soldiers.
Another straw man and therefore a "bad debate tactic".
We **all** have a problem with child soldiers
However, it does seem that children *too young to be fighting* were indeen
armed in the last ditch defense of Helms Deep.
Jackson indeed depicted children *too young to be fighting* being armed.
Knowing Tolkien's feelings on war, and the bad things that happen in the
name of war ; I think he would have approved of the content of this scene,
and surely approved of the underlying message it sent.
I personally feel that trying to divinate (and then attack) the actual age
of the little actors depicted as being "too young to fight" is quite beside
the point. (so long as they were indeed "too young to fight")
I exhausted myself dealing with Godwin... Derek seems to have this under
control. :))
-W
Clams Canino
"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
> As �je points out the point is not medieval sensibilities, but
> Tolkien's sensibilities -- arming kids not sufficiently strong
> physically to wield their weapons well enough to actually make a
> difference would _not_ be appropriate for Tolkien
So at best we've reduced the crux of this argument to a technical gaffe?
The moral equivilent of using chicken leg where a turkey leg was the correct
meal?
What keeps standing (through all the rhetoric) is that the horrors of war
created a situation where children who were "too young to fight" were armed
in the last ditch defense of Helm's Deep. And I have a hard time swallowing
that Tolkien would not approve of the *message* that scene sent.
-W
Paul S. Person
<ojevin...@bredband.net> wrote:
<snippo>
>Rubbish. Have sex with a thirteen year old and find out what happens to you.
>Anyway, as someone else pointed out, the children torn from their mother's
>grasp in the film didn't look to be even teenagers. I don't give a shit if
>they found the body of a murdered boy who was possibly only 12 years old in
>a medieval mass grave. In Tolkien's idealized version of medieval Europe it
>would have been impossible to arm a 12 year old. The actual practices of a
>crowd of smelly, fleabitten, superstitious, priest-ridden medieval peasants
>are irrelevant to a discussion of LotR.
I guess you never heard of "Romeo & Juliet" laws. Basically, as long
as you are between 11 and 15 years of age, there wouldn't be any legal
consequences at all.
And, your continual claims about "Tolkien's idealized version of
medieval Europe" makes me ask if you are channeling him or something?
After, the man's professional interests would promote knowledge of
when a child became an adult in the sort of culture he was depicting
(far earlier than you appear to be willing to accept), and I see
nothing to suggest that his modeling of Rohan on such a culture was
bowdlerized in the manner you suggest.
> Perhaps it is "a Scand thing" to disapprove of impressing child soldiers.
>I find the claim surprising, though. I thought forcing children to become
>soldiers was regarded as a war crime and that Thomas Lubanga is currently
>facing a trial at the International Crimes Court in the Hague for doing
>precisely that.
Standards change. Just because our ancestors did something does not
mean that we should do it, or approve of it, or tolerate it.
Especially when done by others.
And you may not be able to distinguish between rebel/terrorist
movements and last-ditch defenses of an entire people, but most of the
rest of us appear to have no such problem.
> Heigh ho. Disapprove of child soldiers, and you get Godwin's law misquoted
>at you and are informed by a whole bunch of people that *they* have no
>problem with the institution of child soldiers.
You got Godwin's law (actually, as has been made clear, a corollary,
not the law itself) quoted to you because you attempted to pretend
that PJ was not following JRRT's lead but instead was following
someone else's. Now you are complaining because your duplicity has
been revealed. Live with it.
PJ isn't that good a filmmaker. There is no shortage of legitimate
criticisms possible. Imposing your personal views on a reasonable (if
exaggerated a bit for cinematic effect) interpretation of JRRT is not
helpful.
--
Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses.
Paul S. Person
<de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>Paul S. Person wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 22:22:08 +0100, �jevind L�ng
Well, precisely. This is the difference between book and film: the
film must show, the book can tell.
By not showing this, PJ clearly shows that he had long since lost all
control over the film and was just trying to finish it.
Clams Canino
"Paul S. Person" <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote in message
> >It's not actually like Jackson to not explicitly demonstrate something
> >Tolkien left to the imagination.
>
> Well, precisely. This is the difference between book and film: the
> film must show, the book can tell.
>
> By not showing this, PJ clearly shows that he had long since lost all
> control over the film and was just trying to finish it.
What it showed *me*, is that he had not read Silm. for a long time - if
ever.
If you go *only* by the text of LotR - there is no gaffe commited with the
ship at all.
And yes, I just check it.
Part of all of our complaints with Jacksons work is a lack of "depth" to his
Middle Earth.
The more I think about this, and read carefully Troels thoughts, I think the
depth we are missing is due to the fact that Jackson didn't read (or see)
the bigger picture.
When I imagine that he *only* read LoTR (and The Hobbit), a lot of the
"feeling thing" issues make more sense to me. (not the deliberate changes
though)
-W
Julian Bradfield
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 10:48:05 +0100, Öjevind Lång
><ojevin...@bredband.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>
> And, your continual claims about "Tolkien's idealized version of
> medieval Europe" makes me ask if you are channeling him or something?
> After, the man's professional interests would promote knowledge of
> when a child became an adult in the sort of culture he was depicting
> (far earlier than you appear to be willing to accept), and I see
> nothing to suggest that his modeling of Rohan on such a culture was
> bowdlerized in the manner you suggest.
Try reading Tom Shippey on Tolkien's bowdlerizing of Anglo-Saxon and
Norse culture.
But not if you want to sleep well that night.
Derek Broughton
> Part of all of our complaints with Jacksons work is a lack of "depth" to
> his Middle Earth.
> The more I think about this, and read carefully Troels thoughts, I think
> the depth we are missing is due to the fact that Jackson didn't read (or
> see) the bigger picture.
>
I've long supported Jackson's overall interpretation, but I think I have to
agree here. I doubt any of the three screenwriters had read of the other
works, except perhaps /The Hobbit/
--
derek
Alan Baker
You refused to watch the movies and yet you have the chutzpah to comment
on them?
Interesting.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
wrote:
>
> Time will tell, Derek. When you are in hell (which is the inevitable
> fate of all watched the movies) and I am in heaven (which is the
> inevitable fate of all who refused to watch the movies), I will be
> sure to visit a couple of centuries from now and let you know whether
> anyone still watches Jackson's movies. ;-)
You are a strong man and a true believer. I applaud you.
I, unfortunately, had to watch the movies. You might not know this,
but I debated Philippa Boyens on Oprah back in 2006 and couldn't avoid
preparing for this. (The show was eventually censored and never sent
because of my foul language.) But it was not a sin because I
threatened the cinema guys with a gun and didn't pay for the ticket.
Also, I sprayed the screen with hydrochloric acid afterwards to wash
away the residues of evil.
Noel
Troels Forchhammer
Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> spoke these staves:
> Try reading Tom Shippey on Tolkien's bowdlerizing of Anglo-Saxon
> and Norse culture.
You don't happen to remember where that is, do you? I went searching
for it last night in _The Road to Middle-earth_ which was where I
thought it should be, but couldn't find it . . .
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Original thought
is a straightforward process.
It's easy enough
when you know what to do.
You simply combine
in appropriate doses
the blatantly false
and the patently true.
- Piet Hein, /Originality/
Julian Bradfield
> In message <news:hib4er$mr8$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
> Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> spoke these staves:
>>
>> Try reading Tom Shippey on Tolkien's bowdlerizing of Anglo-Saxon
>> and Norse culture.
>
> You don't happen to remember where that is, do you? I went searching
> for it last night in _The Road to Middle-earth_ which was where I
> thought it should be, but couldn't find it . . .
I'm thinking specifically of one of the essays in the collection
"Roots and Branches", entitled "Heroes and Heroism: Tolkien's
Problems, Tolkien's Solutions".
But I think the general point is made in other articles as well.
Stan Brown
<alang...@telus.net>:
Not, perhaps, the *first* adjective that comes to mind! :-)
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Öjevind Lång
news:20lhk5hf69m92ledj...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> And you may not be able to distinguish between rebel/terrorist
> movements and last-ditch defenses of an entire people, but most of the
> rest of us appear to have no such problem.
You approve of child soldiers "in a right cause". That's all I need to know
about you. More than enough. No doubt you also approve of "enhanced
interrogation techniques". Do you also claim that Obama was born in Kenya?
>> Heigh ho. Disapprove of child soldiers, and you get Godwin's law
>> misquoted
>>at you and are informed by a whole bunch of people that *they* have no
>>problem with the institution of child soldiers.
>
> You got Godwin's law (actually, as has been made clear, a corollary,
> not the law itself) quoted to you because you attempted to pretend
> that PJ was not following JRRT's lead but instead was following
> someone else's. Now you are complaining because your duplicity has
> been revealed. Live with it.
I got a very silly corollary to Godwin's law quoted at me because the real
Godwin's law did not apply to me. Anyone except a twit can see that. I
repeat that Tolkien would have been horrified at the thought of possibly
winning a few minutes by arming children too weak to wield the weapons in
question. Jackson did not "follow JRT's lead". You live with THAT. And what
the hell do you mean by "duplicity", anyway? Go fuck yourself, you
neoconservative moron.
> PJ isn't that good a filmmaker. There is no shortage of legitimate
> criticisms possible. Imposing your personal views on a reasonable (if
> exaggerated a bit for cinematic effect) interpretation of JRRT is not
> helpful.
*You* are not helpful. I suggest you talke up that job in Abu Ghrabi that
was offered to you. Then you would presumably not pester the Tolkien
newsgroups again.
[PLONK]