LOTD - Why Am I Not Excited?
John Savard
wrote, in part:
> I am not a Lord of the Rings fan. I haven't read the books. I'm only
>vaguely familiar with the story. I saw the animated feature a long time ago
>and barely remember it. The hype for the upcoming films is inescapable.
>The media has been saying it's going to be this generation's Star Wars and
>such. I've seen two trailers now and between them they've barely raised my
>pulse. Fantasy films, at their best, create and transport us to a world
>that can only exist onscreen. That's what SW did better than any other
>movie before or since. I don't see this at all with what I've seen so far
>of LOTD. Honestly, this looks like any other fantasy film. I don't see any
>hint of a world that hasn't been imagined onscreen before.
>If this film didn't have Lord of the Rings in the title would anyone be
>excited about seeing this film based on the trailers?
As you may have noticed, your question has provoked quite a reaction
on the newsgroup rec.arts.movies.current-films.
Is it because Tolkien fans are defensive about the upcoming movie? No,
because many Tolkien fans have been highly critical of it, based on
facts that indicate that Peter Jackson may be taking unjustified
liberties with his source material.
Nor is it that your question is impertinent, or that its obvious
answer is negative. You may well be quite correct that, were it not
for the film's association with the written work "The Lord of the
Rings", there would be far less excitement about it.
No. The problem with your question is its _irrelevance_.
The answer to the question
If the upcoming Peter Jackson film trilogy based on "The Lord of the
Rings" had instead an original screenplay, J. R. R. Tolkien and his
works never having existed, would this movie generate even a fraction
of the current excitement surrounding it, on the basis of the
information we now have about the film itself, such as its trailers?
is only particularly significant if we make the assumption
The expected quality of this film can be judged with some degree of
accuracy from its trailers; the nature of the source material on which
it is based is largely irrelevant.
which assumption does not seem applicable in this case.
I suppose one _could_ make such an assumption if one believed that the
quality of a film is largely determined by the success and spectacular
nature of its special effects or production values, the quality of the
script being largely irrelevant. However, I do not have any reason to
conclude from your post that you are guilty of a cinematic
Philistinism this colossal.
Rather, if one accepts that the quality of the script does have a
significant bearing on the quality of the film, it appears that you
are assuming that having "The Lord of the Rings" as source material
does not make it more likely that the film's script will be a good
one, or that it does not open up a possibility, if it can do justice
to its source material, that the film may achieve greatness.
You have noted that you have not yourself read "The Lord of the
Rings". Perhaps you are also unaware of the esteem in which it is
held, as one of the greatest literary works of the 20th Century, if
not _the_ greatest.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
Ron Christian
John Savard <jsa...@ecn.ab.SBLOK.ca.nowhere> wrote:
>Is it because Tolkien fans are defensive about the upcoming movie? No,
>because many Tolkien fans have been highly critical of it, based on
>facts
...a few facts, a great number of rumors...
>that indicate that Peter Jackson may be taking unjustified
>liberties with his source material.
Ron
--
[www.europa.com/~ronc]
"I think he's injured."
"He said 'not' at the end of a sentence. He deserves to be injured."
Edward J. Kloczko
>
> In article <3b48bba...@news.powersurfr.com>,
> John Savard <jsa...@ecn.ab.SBLOK.ca.nowhere> wrote:
> >Is it because Tolkien fans are defensive about the upcoming movie? No,
> >because many Tolkien fans have been highly critical of it, based on
> >facts
>
> ...a few facts, a great number of rumors...
These few facts are ENOUGH to me and many others too.
> >that indicate that Peter Jackson may be taking unjustified
> >liberties with his source material.
>
Not only "liberties", but sheer lack of understanding of what LOTR is : one of
the major English written book of the XXe century. The apparition of PJ on
French TV during the Cannes Festival was _ridiculous_, to say the least. But
what to expect from someone who is just a very minor movie director? Not much...
Namárie
EJK
Aris Katsaris
Edward J. Kloczko <e...@free.fr> wrote in message
news:3B4AE50A...@free.fr...
> Ron Christian a écrit:
> >
> > In article <3b48bba...@news.powersurfr.com>,
> > John Savard <jsa...@ecn.ab.SBLOK.ca.nowhere> wrote:
> > >Is it because Tolkien fans are defensive about the upcoming movie? No,
> > >because many Tolkien fans have been highly critical of it, based on
> > >facts
> >
> > ...a few facts, a great number of rumors...
>
> These few facts are ENOUGH to me and many others too.
Too bad. The only real facts we have is that Bombadil is out, and that
Arwen's role has been enlarged.
It's a shame that the above facts are ENOUGH for you. They are not for
the rest of us.
Aris Katsaris
who...@wherever.com
: Not only "liberties", but sheer lack of understanding of what LOTR is : one of
: the major English written book of the XXe century. The apparition of PJ on
: French TV during the Cannes Festival was _ridiculous_, to say the least. But
: what to expect from someone who is just a very minor movie director? Not much...
It's just a movie. PJ's *interpretation* of the book. The book will forever
remain the book it is. Does comparing the book and the movie and finding dif-
ferences between them really make you feel like an intelligent and knowledge-
able person? A 2-year-old child can make the same operations.. "find differen-
ces between movie and the book" + "differences = bad" => "film = bad".
Get over the stupid snobism and perhaps watch the film before whining.
Ashford Wyrd
props, and sets look like etc... but not truly enough to go on... The rest
is all rumors, with varying degrees of validity.
"Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
news:9iethl$ego$1...@usenet.otenet.gr...
Edward J. Kloczko
The rest of us? I dind't knwo that you're so many in your classroom!
EJK
Edward J. Kloczko
Get over the stupid snobism of "differences = great movie", will you!
EJK
Aris Katsaris
Edward J. Kloczko <e...@free.fr> wrote in message
news:3B4B3EB7...@free.fr...
> who...@wherever.com a écrit:
> >
> > It's just a movie. PJ's *interpretation* of the book. The book will
forever
> > remain the book it is. Does comparing the book and the movie and finding
dif-
> > ferences between them really make you feel like an intelligent and
knowledge-
> > able person? A 2-year-old child can make the same operations.. "find
differen-
> > ces between movie and the book" + "differences = bad" => "film = bad".
> >
> > Get over the stupid snobism and perhaps watch the film before whining.
>
> Get over the stupid snobism of "differences = great movie", will you!
He didn't say any such thing. Denying something is not necessarily accepting
its complete opposite.
Aris Katsaris
Aris Katsaris
> >
> > Too bad. The only real facts we have is that Bombadil is out, and that
> > Arwen's role has been enlarged.
> >
> > It's a shame that the above facts are ENOUGH for you. They are not for
> > the rest of us.
> >
>
> The rest of us? I dind't knwo that you're so many in your classroom!
Wow, I'm just *awed* by the brilliance of your retort!
Aris Katsaris
R. Cohen
As a matter of fact, the latest "rumor" is that Arwen's role has now
been "reduced" again. Go figure!
We'll see how "faithful" the movie is to the book. Right now I'm
optimistic. I think there will be plenty of Tolkien "fans" who will
be disappointed regardless.
Jamie Armstrong
"R. Cohen" <rlcc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a140b0ad.01071...@posting.google.com...
>
> We'll see how "faithful" the movie is to the book. Right now I'm
> optimistic. I think there will be plenty of Tolkien "fans" who will
> be disappointed regardless.
If Tolkien himself had been given unlimited funding and complete control
over a film of his work, and had he had all the technology available to PJ,
there would *still* be people out there who would not be happy at his vision
of Middle Earth. How many people have looked at Tolkien's art and had no
quibbles whatsoever with any of the representations of places in Middle
Earth? I'd be amazed if there is even one.
Jamie
Ian Galbraith
:Edward J. Kloczko <e...@free.fr> wrote in message
:news:3B4AE50A...@free.fr...
[snip]
:> > ...a few facts, a great number of rumors...
:> These few facts are ENOUGH to me and many others too.
:Too bad. The only real facts we have is that Bombadil is out, and that
:Arwen's role has been enlarged.
And Arwen's role has reportedly been reduced again because of Liv
Tyler's inadequacies.
[snip]
--
Ian Galbraith
Email: igalb...@ozonline.com.au ICQ#: 7849631
"It's precisely when humour is offensive that we need it the most. Comedy
should provoke, blast through prejudices, challenge preconceptions.
Comedy should always leave you different than when it found you."
-Duckman
Ron Christian
Well gee. That didn't make any sense at all.
Ron Christian
Aris Katsaris <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote:
>
>Edward J. Kloczko <e...@free.fr> wrote in message
>news:3B4AE50A...@free.fr...
>> Ron Christian a écrit:
>>
>> These few facts are ENOUGH to me and many others too.
>
>Too bad. The only real facts we have is that Bombadil is out, and that
>Arwen's role has been enlarged.
And the latter appears now to be a disproven rumor.
But Aris, you don't *understand*. *Everything* is
wrong about the movies. The swords look like props.
The elves have pointy ears (or the elves don't have
pointy enough ears, depending on whether you're a
pointy-ear-advocate or not). Actors who aren't even
in the cast list don't look right for the parts they're
not going to play. Even though both Arwin and Eowyn
are cast as two completely different actresses, their
parts will be somehow combined. And finally, a minor
character with no speaking lines has the wrong kind
of name. It's all just a mess. <insert intense anxiety
here>
And Bombadil is absolutely essential to the story because,
he just is, that's all.
At least, that's what I see from reading through the
current crop of objections. Personally, I really like
the previews so far, and I'm going to give the films a
chance. I guess I'm not a true Tolkien fanatic.
Robert Whelan
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:43:40 +0300, Aris Katsaris wrote:
> :Edward J. Kloczko <e...@free.fr> wrote in message
> :news:3B4AE50A...@free.fr...
> [snip]
>
> :> > ...a few facts, a great number of rumors...
>
> :> These few facts are ENOUGH to me and many others too.
>
> :Too bad. The only real facts we have is that Bombadil is out, and that
> :Arwen's role has been enlarged.
>
> And Arwen's role has reportedly been reduced again because of Liv
> Tyler's inadequacies.
Which site did you read that on, or newsgroup? If on a newsgroup,
might you remember a key word or phrase, so I could look it
up on deja/google?
John Savard
wrote, in part:
>At least, that's what I see from reading through the
>current crop of objections. Personally, I really like
>the previews so far, and I'm going to give the films a
>chance. I guess I'm not a true Tolkien fanatic.
I don't disagree with you; my original statement was to indicate that
the original poster's question was being criticized because of
people's admiration and respect for the book - not because of any
unjustified defensiveness about the movie.
That a lot of the negativity about the movie could be unjustified -
well, that's quite possible.
However, Arwen could still be given Eowyn's best scenes and lines even
if another actress plays Eowyn in those scenes which _can't_ be given
to Arwen for obvious plot reasons, so whether or not that particular
rumor _is_ true, it is not certain to be false for the reason you
cite.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
Ron Christian
John Savard <jsa...@ecn.ab.SBLOK.ca.nowhere> wrote:
>However, Arwen could still be given Eowyn's best scenes and lines even
>if another actress plays Eowyn in those scenes which _can't_ be given
>to Arwen for obvious plot reasons, so whether or not that particular
>rumor _is_ true, it is not certain to be false for the reason you
>cite.
But that Peter Jackson has himself denied these rumors in interviews
should have been enough. The Tolkien fanatics appear to be searching
for reasons to hate the movies; they cling to rumors they don't like
and refuse to believe contrary evidence.
Ron Christian
You might start with the Peter Jackson interview on theonering.
John Savard
wrote, in part:
>>However, Arwen could still be given Eowyn's best scenes and lines even
>>if another actress plays Eowyn in those scenes which _can't_ be given
>>to Arwen for obvious plot reasons, so whether or not that particular
>>rumor _is_ true, it is not certain to be false for the reason you
>>cite.
>But that Peter Jackson has himself denied these rumors in interviews
>should have been enough. The Tolkien fanatics appear to be searching
>for reasons to hate the movies; they cling to rumors they don't like
>and refuse to believe contrary evidence.
I'm glad to hear that, this is positive news indeed.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
Ian Galbraith
:On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Ian Galbraith wrote:
[snip]
:> And Arwen's role has reportedly been reduced again because of Liv
:> Tyler's inadequacies.
:Which site did you read that on, or newsgroup? If on a newsgroup,
:might you remember a key word or phrase, so I could look it
:up on deja/google?
I think I saw it on rec.arts.books.tolkien ( and I notice this thread is
being crossposted there). Sorry I can't remember a thread title.
John Savard
Galbraith) wrote, in part:
>I think I saw it on rec.arts.books.tolkien ( and I notice this thread is
>being crossposted there). Sorry I can't remember a thread title.
I'm the guilty party, but the article of mine in which I added that
group just leads to a very small branch of this giant thread.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
Trevor Barrie
Ron Christian <ro...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>You might start with the Peter Jackson interview on theonering.
I would, could I but find it. URL?