Arwen, "warrior princess"
Jasper.
do with Arwen..... I mean, in the book she hardly has a role at all (okay,
she weaves a banner for aragorn and gives a crystal to Frodo). "If you want
him, come and claim him" sounds more like Eowyn to me..... Apart from that
he also lets pippin drop a SKELETON in a WELL (now what Pippin actually did
was dropping a stone into a hole - which was a well ;-) -). I think little
Peter is overstepping his boundaries here...
What's your opinion?
ThaJ
--==== Run, you fools ====--
who...@wherever.com
: I just saw the trailer again, and i'm kinda worried about what PJ wants to
: do with Arwen..... I mean, in the book she hardly has a role at all (okay,
: she weaves a banner for aragorn and gives a crystal to Frodo). "If you want
: him, come and claim him" sounds more like Eowyn to me..... Apart from that
: he also lets pippin drop a SKELETON in a WELL (now what Pippin actually did
: was dropping a stone into a hole - which was a well ;-) -). I think little
: Peter is overstepping his boundaries here...
OH NO! You mean Pippin dropped a SKELETON instead of a ROCK into the well?
That TOTALLY ruins the WHOLE POINT of the BOOKS! With that ROCK gone, ARWEN
showing up at the ford, and NO TOM BOMBADIL, there is NOTHING LEFT OF THE
WHOLE BOOK to see AT ALL! THEY RUINED IT!!! AAAARGHHH!!
I WANT A FAITHFUL ADAPTION OF THE BOOK!
LIKE "THE MUSKETEER" IS!!!!
Norseman
"Jasper." <jawa...@home.nl> skrev i melding
news:1_6M7.26538$Cw2.3...@zwoll1.home.nl...
My opinion is this has been discussed to death in here, and I'm not worried.
I would have preferred Arwen let Frodo ride off alone and challenge the
Ringwraiths on his own. I'd prefer she not call down the flood by
incantation either.
Pippin knocking over a skeleton, what's the big deal? It works. If these
changes has you worried... well, lets just say there are plenty more where
they came from.
These movies will forever change the depiction of fantasy on screen is my
prediction. Changes to the books is a sin to all who have read them, and
love them, but I bet PJ knows more about making movies, and telling stories
by the media, than JRRT and any who dwell in this newsgroup. Tolkien's work
will be lovingly portrayed, and retold for the first time in a way many of
us have dreamed of since we were children and read the books for the first
time.
I can't think of any better than Peter Jackson to do it. The unprecedented
detail and study that has gone into the making of these movies, proves to me
that he really cares, and that he has gone above and beyond what anyone
could expect, or even hope for, in the making of the films. He has brought
Middle Earth to life proper, coached and encouraged the actors deep into the
characters they portray.
The sets, the props... this is not a flat, shallow rendition. I say PJ
proved himself long before shooting ended. The wait is almost over, I feel
like a kid again.
Omega Wolf
"Norseman" <xx...@xx.no> wrote in message
news:998M7.2895$v05....@news1.oke.nextra.no...
[snip]
> love them, but I bet PJ knows more about making movies, and telling
stories
> by the media, than JRRT and any who dwell in this newsgroup. Tolkien's
work
Perhaps, but these movies should have been PJ's VISION of the story, not his
VERSION of the story. I understand that some scenes require cutting for the
sake of time, but the insertion of Arwen at the ford is simply not
justified --the significance of the scene is destroyed, and it makes PJ look
very much a hack.
O.W.
G. M. Watson
----------
In article <998M7.2895$v05....@news1.oke.nextra.no>, "Norseman"
<xx...@xx.no> wrote:
> My opinion is this has been discussed to death in here, and I'm not worried.
> I would have preferred Arwen let Frodo ride off alone and challenge the
> Ringwraiths on his own. I'd prefer she not call down the flood by
> incantation either.
Particularly since it's her dad that should be doing it. After all, the
river was under his control, not hers. I guess she'd been practising.
>
> Pippin knocking over a skeleton, what's the big deal? It works.
It would work fine in a Laurel & Hardy movie. In LOTR, it's major slapstick
overkill (bet it gives boffo yuks, tho).
>If these
> changes has you worried... well, lets just say there are plenty more where
> they came from.
Lawsy, Lawsy, these changes has me plenty worried, yassuh. But you is
(shudder) absolutely right, you is. And there ain't no hole for a true and
loyal hobbit-lover to hide in from this oncoming tsunami... Goodbye Numenor
all over again.
>
> These movies will forever change the depiction of fantasy on screen is my
> prediction. Changes to the books is a sin to all who have read them, and
> love them, but I bet PJ knows more about making movies, and telling stories
> by the media, than JRRT and any who dwell in this newsgroup.
So what? JRRT knew a lot more about Old Norse than Jackson ever will. What
the hell does that prove? Jackson and Tolkien dwell (dwelt) in two
completely different worlds. Tolkien was a great scholar and author, not a
whorish hired-gun filmmaker.
>Tolkien's work
> will be lovingly portrayed, and retold for the first time in a way many of
> us have dreamed of since we were children and read the books for the first
> time.
Um.. that would be "grossly simplified", right? And it won't have all those
big words and long boring stretches between action scenes that probably
bugged the hell out of you when you read them as a kid. Be warned, tho: It's
gonna have a few mushy romantic scenes. Yuck!!
>
> I can't think of any better than Peter Jackson to do it.
Oh, come on. Try. Try *real* hard. I know you can think of *someone*...
>The unprecedented
> detail and study that has gone into the making of these movies, proves to me
> that he really cares, and that he has gone above and beyond what anyone
> could expect, or even hope for, in the making of the films. He has brought
> Middle Earth to life proper, coached and encouraged the actors deep into the
> characters they portray.
Chalk up another victory for New Line's publicity department. They sure
nailed *you*, didn't they?
>
> The sets, the props... this is not a flat, shallow rendition. I say PJ
> proved himself long before shooting ended. The wait is almost over, I feel
> like a kid again.
That's good, because this movie is going to dumb down the book enough that
even a seven-year-old will be able to grasp every nuance. You should feel
right at home. Enjoy!
>
>
Norseman
news:u043sps...@corp.supernews.com...
> Um.. that would be "grossly simplified", right? And it won't have all
those
> big words and long boring stretches between action scenes that probably
> bugged the hell out of you when you read them as a kid. Be warned, tho:
It's
> gonna have a few mushy romantic scenes. Yuck!!
Cool, you've already seen it. How was it?
> > I can't think of any better than Peter Jackson to do it.
>
> Oh, come on. Try. Try *real* hard. I know you can think of *someone*...
Nope, not a one. Why don't you make a suggestion?
> That's good, because this movie is going to dumb down the book enough that
> even a seven-year-old will be able to grasp every nuance. You should feel
> right at home. Enjoy!
So you didn't like it? Where did you watch it?
I really do not see a need for derogatory comments here Mr. Watson. I love
the books, I love Tolkien's writing. Because I'm also excited about a movie
adaptation, I am an inferior fan unable to appreciate Tolkien's deeper story
nuances? This speaks volumes of your lack of tolerance. You're one scary
person.
James
>> Pippin knocking over a skeleton, what's the big deal? It works.
>
>It would work fine in a Laurel & Hardy movie. In LOTR, it's major slapstick
>overkill (bet it gives boffo yuks, tho).
Yes, I can imagine the moviegoers now. "AHAHAHA PIPPIN REVEALED THEIR
POSITION TO THE ORCS AHAHAH MAYBE THEYLL ALL DIE NOW AHAHAH BOOKS WHAT
BOOKS"
Seriously, though, do you have any legitimate objection to this
particular change? It shows how Pippin's idle and inappropriate
curiosity led to the Fellowship being trapped in Moria, and it means
the audience members won't spend hours asking each other "What? Why
did he throw the rock down the well?"
James
James
>> These movies will forever change the depiction of fantasy on screen is my
>> prediction. Changes to the books is a sin to all who have read them, and
>> love them, but I bet PJ knows more about making movies, and telling stories
>> by the media, than JRRT and any who dwell in this newsgroup.
>So what? JRRT knew a lot more about Old Norse than Jackson ever will. What
>the hell does that prove? Jackson and Tolkien dwell (dwelt) in two
>completely different worlds. Tolkien was a great scholar and author, not a
>whorish hired-gun filmmaker.
And another thing! One: you've completely (and, I think, deliberately)
missed Norseman's point. I'll spell it out here so you can't just
brush over it in your response (if you respond at all): Tolkien
designed his books as just that - books. His narratives do NOT suit
movies in their original, unaltered form. Film requires a completely
different story arc and narrative structure to print, and as PJ is an
expert in that field he probably has some idea of what changes are
necessary.
Two: Jackson isn't a "whorish hired-gun filmmaker". Apart from
anything, that insult is a complete non-sequitur to Norseman's post;
but it's also a completely inaccurate characterisation of PJ. He has
pursued this project for years, going from studio to studio searching
for one which will allow him to stick as closely to the books as
possible, with minimal studio interference. Why do you come up with
things like that? Do you seriously believe them (against all evidence)
or are you just lying to further your mysterious anti-movie agenda?
Phewf.
James
Bryan S. Slick
[Mon, 26 Nov 2001 01:46:05 -0800]
:> These movies will forever change the depiction of fantasy on screen is my
Good GOD.
Are you *always* this immature when someone writes a post in which they
find good things to point out about the upcoming movies?
--
Bryan S. Slick, sbryan7 at qwest dot net
"To those who preserve it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never
know."
______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Binaries.net = SPEED+RETENTION+COMPLETION = http://www.binaries.net
Bryan S. Slick
[Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:10:59 +0100]
:> That's good, because this movie is going to dumb down the book enough that
:> even a seven-year-old will be able to grasp every nuance. You should feel
:> right at home. Enjoy!
:
:So you didn't like it? Where did you watch it?
:
:I really do not see a need for derogatory comments here Mr. Watson. I love
:the books, I love Tolkien's writing. Because I'm also excited about a movie
:adaptation, I am an inferior fan unable to appreciate Tolkien's deeper story
:nuances?
Ding ding ding ding ding!!!!!
That's what the anti-movie fools (or a large portion of them) have been
spewing since word came of the first change to the story.
I wonder very much if Watson has any friends that aren't WASPs.
--
____ _________________
\ \ / / Virginia Tech Hokies
\ \ / ____ _____/ The Class of the Big East
\ \ / / / /
\ \/ / / / Bryan S. Slick, sbr...@qwest.not
\ / / /
\ / / / "To those who preserve it, freedom has a
\ / / / flavor the protected will never know."
\/ /___/
Blob
news:u043sps...@corp.supernews.com...
> ----------
> In article <998M7.2895$v05....@news1.oke.nextra.no>, "Norseman"
> <xx...@xx.no> wrote:
>
>
>
> > My opinion is this has been discussed to death in here, and I'm not
worried.
> > I would have preferred Arwen let Frodo ride off alone and challenge the
> > Ringwraiths on his own. I'd prefer she not call down the flood by
> > incantation either.
>
> Particularly since it's her dad that should be doing it. After all, the
> river was under his control, not hers. I guess she'd been practising.
> >
Steve Tyler controls rivers? Coolness!
It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value.
-- Arthur C. Clarke
Omega Wolf
"James" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:pg740ug613jpgbb92...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> movies in their original, unaltered form. Film requires a completely
> different story arc and narrative structure to print, and as PJ is an
> expert in that field he probably has some idea of what changes are
> necessary.
So, the movie has a "completely different" story arc!? Does it still
involve a quest to destroy the One Ring? You shouldn't use these terms in
your defense when you really don't know what they mean. PJ has butchered a
canonical scene where he could have created a new one to better introduce
Arwen to the audience.
You would argue that a director, being an expert in the field (of
film-making), can't make mistakes? Have you never seen a bad film?
[snip]
> but it's also a completely inaccurate characterisation of PJ. He has
> pursued this project for years, going from studio to studio searching
> for one which will allow him to stick as closely to the books as
> possible, with minimal studio interference. Why do you come up with
His perseverance has little to do with whether he was right for the project.
O.W.
James
>> movies in their original, unaltered form. Film requires a completely
>> different story arc and narrative structure to print, and as PJ is an
>> expert in that field he probably has some idea of what changes are
>> necessary.
>So, the movie has a "completely different" story arc!? Does it still
>involve a quest to destroy the One Ring? You shouldn't use these terms in
>your defense when you really don't know what they mean.
Sorry, you're right - it was the wrong term to use. I meant, of
course, "narrative structure" (which I used later). It's rather
disingenuous, though, for you to respond with such nitpicking as if
you don't understand what I was arguing, or as if it somehow
undermines the point I was making.
>PJ has butchered a
>canonical scene where he could have created a new one to better introduce
>Arwen to the audience.
There's not much here to reply to. You're offering no rationale, no
evidence to back up your claim that PJ is "butchering" the scene (less
of a real claim than a useless insult, anyway).
Also, why bring up the term "canonical"? All of LotR is canonical, and
obviously PJ had to change some things to bring the books to the
screen. Maybe you're right, and he should have stuck to changing the
non-canonical scenes - you know, the ones that aren't in LotR?
>You would argue that a director, being an expert in the field (of
>film-making), can't make mistakes? Have you never seen a bad film?
That wasn't what I was arguing at all. I was restating and rephrasing
Norseman's earlier point that JRR wasn't writing for film, and PJ is -
and as such, until we've seen the movie and can judge for ourselves,
PJ's changes should probably be given the benefit of the doubt,
because of his expertise in the field of writing for film.
>[snip]
>> but it's also a completely inaccurate characterisation of PJ. He has
>> pursued this project for years, going from studio to studio searching
>> for one which will allow him to stick as closely to the books as
>> possible, with minimal studio interference. Why do you come up with
>His perseverance has little to do with whether he was right for the project.
That's fine, because I wasn't talking about that at all. I was
responding to the claim that PJ is a "whorish hired-gun filmmaker".
He's not a hired-gun - the films were his initiative - and he is not
"whorish", because he's specifically tried to *avoid* circumstances
which would have made it possible for him to sell out. However, he is
a filmmaker, so GMW's slur was at least one-third right! :)
I'm sorry that you had such difficulty understanding my arguments.
I'll try to be clearer in future.
James
Morgil Blackhope
G. M. Watson kirjoitti viestissä ...
>In article <998M7.2895$v05....@news1.oke.nextra.no>, "Norseman"
><xx...@xx.no> wrote:
>> I can't think of any better than Peter Jackson to do it.
>
>Oh, come on. Try. Try *real* hard. I know you can think of *someone*...
You?
Morgil
--==<<DeMiGoBLiN>>==--
bit for further content of the story
If it didn't, I'd have to be a 24hour(+) movie for christs sake. then again
maybe they should've made it into an NBC miniseries huh?
"Omega Wolf" <omega...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ttinf$p72$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
--==<<DeMiGoBLiN>>==--
stuff he's done..
"Morgil Blackhope" <more...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ttm9i$4qh66$1...@ID-81911.news.dfncis.de...
James
>Can someone give me a filmography for peter jackson? I'm curious what other
>stuff he's done..
-two splatter movies ("Dead Alive", aka "Brain Dead", and "Bad
Taste"), one insane comedy ("Meet the Feebles", aka "Just the
Feebles")
-one brilliant mockumentary ("Forgotten Silver")
-one arthouse hit ("Heavenly Creatures")
-one Hollywood comedy-horror film ("The Frighteners")
The first and last two feature generally 100%-convincing special
effects, by the way.
More info here:
http://us.imdb.com/Name?Jackson,+Peter
James
--==<<DeMiGoBLiN>>==--
is a great movie for it's genre.
Funny an gory as hell.. but none were credits i would have hoped for.. but
we'll see what happens.
"James" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:chs40uoto9cotolro...@4ax.com...
William H. Hsu
>Things would most definatly have to be cut from the book or even changed a
>bit for further content of the story
>If it didn't, I'd have to be a 24hour(+) movie for christs sake.
PJ: "Who wants that?"
http://www.kddresearch.org/Swap/foxtrot-lotr.gif
>then again maybe they should've made it into an NBC miniseries huh?
--
Banazir
(waigt! comlg baglk!)
Omega Wolf
"James" <a@b.c> wrote in message
[snip]
> Sorry, you're right - it was the wrong term to use. I meant, of
> course, "narrative structure" (which I used later). It's rather
> disingenuous, though, for you to respond with such nitpicking as if
> you don't understand what I was arguing, or as if it somehow
> undermines the point I was making.
I'm not sure you know what you're arguing. What does placing Arwen at the
ford have to do with the narrative structure?
> There's not much here to reply to. You're offering no rationale, no
> evidence to back up your claim that PJ is "butchering" the scene (less
> of a real claim than a useless insult, anyway).
If you don't understand why the scene is ruined, then you have no grasp of
how important this scene is in Frodo's development. The temerity he shows
in confronting the Riders alone, quite unaware that crossing the ford has
taken him out of harm's way is thrown out. His reliance on Arwen (whose
challenge to the Riders is hollow because she can call down the flood)
instead destroys a critical element in the development of our protagonist.
> Also, why bring up the term "canonical"? All of LotR is canonical, and
> obviously PJ had to change some things to bring the books to the
> screen. Maybe you're right, and he should have stuck to changing the
> non-canonical scenes - you know, the ones that aren't in LotR?
There is a difference between making subtle changes, and destroying
important elements of the story. I use the term canonical because, yes, he
should have created NEW non-canonical scenes for Arwen, rather than hitting
us over the head with her at the expense of the story. And, I suspect this
won't be the only damage he does.
> >You would argue that a director, being an expert in the field (of
> >film-making), can't make mistakes? Have you never seen a bad film?
>
> That wasn't what I was arguing at all. I was restating and rephrasing
> Norseman's earlier point that JRR wasn't writing for film, and PJ is -
> and as such, until we've seen the movie and can judge for ourselves,
> PJ's changes should probably be given the benefit of the doubt,
> because of his expertise in the field of writing for film.
PJ has co-writers on the films where he has writing credit, so his
'expertise' is somewhat dubious. Besides, this isn't an original
screenplay, it's an adaptation of an existing novel -- one voted by readers
as the Book of the Millennium. But, apparently, PJ knows how to improve
upon it.
>> He's not a hired-gun - the films were his initiative - and he is not
> "whorish", because he's specifically tried to *avoid* circumstances
> which would have made it possible for him to sell out. However, he is
In other words, he avoided a situation where a studio wouldn't let him make
whatever changes HE wanted.
O.W.
Dave Mansell
omega...@NOSPAMhotmail.com (Omega Wolf) wrote:
> If you don't understand why the scene is ruined, then you have no grasp
> of how important this scene is in Frodo's development. The temerity he
> shows in confronting the Riders alone, quite unaware that crossing the
> ford has taken him out of harm's way is thrown out. His reliance on
> Arwen (whose challenge to the Riders is hollow because she can call
> down the flood) instead destroys a critical element in the development
> of our protagonist.
Except that you don't actually know exactly how this scene plays out in
the movie so you are citicising without the full facts, Even worse your
assertion that this destroys a critical element in the development of
Frodo is a huge insult to the skill of Tolkien in subtly developing the
characters over the space of the the books. The story and writing are more
than strong enough to survive this and change without any significant
deviation from the story. Tolkiens great narrative is not the fragile
house of cards that you seem to believe it is.
> In other words, he avoided a situation where a studio wouldn't let him
> make whatever changes HE wanted.
Words fail me, you would rather have had the studio suits make the
changes? You don't live in the real world obviously.
Dave
Apteryx
news:d1vM7.470$7G2.13...@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com...
> Ahh, I've seen the frightener.. not a bad peice.. I for one think Dead
Alive
> is a great movie for it's genre.
> Funny an gory as hell.. but none were credits i would have hoped for.. but
> we'll see what happens.
>
The Frighteners is OK, but it's his worst film. Its the only one of his
films I didn't bother to find room for in my (400 movies +) video
collection. His humour and Michael J Fox's doesn't really mix well. And
although I have never seen it, I have heard that Dead Alive (the US version
of PJ's Braindead, which I do have) was cut worse by the US distributors
than any of the characters in it.
I find the gore in his first 3 movies (Bad Taste, Feebles, Braindead/Dead
Alive) a little hard to take, but they are brilliantly funny when I manage
it.
But the only movie that had anything to do with him getting the rights to
this one was Heavenly Creatures, which is one of my favourite movies of all
tme.
--
Apteryx
Omega Wolf
"Dave Mansell" <nos...@cariad.net> wrote in message
news:memo.20011126...@dmansell.compulink.co.uk...
> Except that you don't actually know exactly how this scene plays out in
> the movie so you are citicising without the full facts, Even worse your
We know that Arwen rides Frodo to the ford, and verbally challenges the Dark
Riders. I don't need to know more to criticize this unnecessary change,
regardless of how the "scene plays out."
> assertion that this destroys a critical element in the development of
> Frodo is a huge insult to the skill of Tolkien in subtly developing the
> characters over the space of the the books. The story and writing are more
> than strong enough to survive this and change without any significant
> deviation from the story. Tolkiens great narrative is not the fragile
That's an interesting point of view: it's an insult to Tolkien to say that
his story shouldn't be hacked with. We could change all the names in the
story to monsyllabic English names (like John, Bob, and Sue) so they would
be easier to prounounce and remember, and the story would withstand that
too. Does that mean it's a good idea? Apparently, you would go right along
with it.
> deviation from the story. Tolkiens great narrative is not the fragile
> house of cards that you seem to believe it is.
It's not a matter of fragility, it's a matter of integrity. A concept
seemingly lost on a Peter Jackson apologist like yourself.
> > In other words, he avoided a situation where a studio wouldn't let him
> > make whatever changes HE wanted.
>
> Words fail me, you would rather have had the studio suits make the
> changes? You don't live in the real world obviously.
No, I would rather have a director who does what he says he's going to do:
adhere to the story. Or, no movie at all.
O.W.
Dave Mansell
omega...@NOSPAMhotmail.com (Omega Wolf) wrote:
> It's not a matter of fragility, it's a matter of integrity. A concept
> seemingly lost on a Peter Jackson apologist like yourself.
You know nothing about me but that one message. Ah well, no point in
arguing with a fundamentalist.
<plonk>
Conrad Dunkerson
news:MPG.166be5866...@reten.newsgroups.st...
> [Norseman]
>> Because I'm also excited about a movie adaptation, I am an
>> inferior fan unable to appreciate Tolkien's deeper story nuances?
> Ding ding ding ding ding!!!!!
> That's what the anti-movie fools (or a large portion of them) have
> been spewing since word came of the first change to the story.
Really?
Please cite even ONE example of someone saying that. Not someone
CLAIMING that is going on - those are a dime a dozen. I want to see
you quote someone actually doing this thing which is so very very
common.
Michael O'Neill
I'm tempted to applaud your cogent arguments in this thread, but you'd
risk getting a swelled head.
So I'll just post a smiley instead.
:)
M.
Dave Mansell
conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net (Conrad Dunkerson) wrote:
Well just today I was called a "Peter Jackson apologist" and someone else
was accused of "uncritical sycophancy." Would you like some more examples?
Conrad Dunkerson
news:memo.20011126...@dmansell.compulink.co.uk...
> Well just today I was called a "Peter Jackson apologist" and
> someone else was accused of "uncritical sycophancy." Would you like
> some more examples?
I didn't ask for examples of people being insulting - those abound
on all sides.
I asked for examples of people claiming that proponents of the
movies were 'inferior fans unable to appreciate the nuances of
Tolkien's story'.
Morgil Blackhope
Conrad Dunkerson kirjoitti viestissä ...
>I didn't ask for examples of people being insulting - those abound
>on all sides.
>
>I asked for examples of people claiming that proponents of the
>movies were 'inferior fans unable to appreciate the nuances of
>Tolkien's story'.
In this very same thread. Omega Wolf:
"If you don't understand why the scene is ruined, then you have no grasp of
how important this scene is in Frodo's development."
Morgil
Norseman
news:ATzM7.198774$3d2.8...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I asked for examples of people claiming that proponents of the
> movies were 'inferior fans unable to appreciate the nuances of
> Tolkien's story'.
Courtesy of G. M. Watson:
William H. Hsu
>"Dave Mansell" <nos...@cariad.net> wrote in message
>news:memo.20011126...@dmansell.compulink.co.uk...
>> Except that you don't actually know exactly how this scene plays out in
>> the movie so you are citicising without the full facts, Even worse your
>We know that Arwen rides Frodo to the ford
Yernow, now that I think about it, there ARE certain scenes I don't need
to see...
>and verbally challenges the Dark
>Riders. I don't need to know more to criticize this unnecessary change,
>regardless of how the "scene plays out."
It may be unnecessary, but there are ways and then there are ways to
incorporate Arwen. Is it confirmed that the flooding of the Bruinen
really is her handiwork? No voice-over by Elrond? How, if at all,
does Gandalf explain it afterwards in the film?
"'Who made the flood?' asked Frodo. "'Elrond commanded it,' answered
Gandalf. 'The river of this valley is under his power, and it will
rise in anger when he has great need to bar the Ford....If I may say
so, I added a few touches of my own: you may not have noticed, but
some of the waves took the form of great white horses with shining
white riders; and there were rolling and grinding boulders. For a
moment I was afraid that we had let loose too fierce a wrath, and the
flood would get out of hand and wash you all away. There is great
vigour in the waters that come down from the snows of the Misty
Mountains.'"
And of curse there is Frodo's quote, one of my 10 or 20 favorites
and IMHO one of the best one-liners ever spoken by nay hero in dire
straits:
"By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall have neither the ring
nor me!"
So, it could come down to this being obliterated by "If you want
him, come and claim him!". Or not. We shall see.
>> assertion that this destroys a critical element in the development of
>> Frodo is a huge insult to the skill of Tolkien in subtly developing the
>> characters over the space of the the books. The story and writing are more
>> than strong enough to survive this and change without any significant
>> deviation from the story. Tolkiens great narrative is not the fragile
>That's an interesting point of view: it's an insult to Tolkien to say that
>his story shouldn't be hacked with.
[...]
>> deviation from the story. Tolkiens great narrative is not the fragile
>> house of cards that you seem to believe it is.
>It's not a matter of fragility, it's a matter of integrity. A concept
>seemingly lost on a Peter Jackson apologist like yourself.
>> > In other words, he avoided a situation where a studio wouldn't let him
>> > make whatever changes HE wanted.
>>
>> Words fail me, you would rather have had the studio suits make the
>> changes? You don't live in the real world obviously.
>No, I would rather have a director who does what he says he's going to do:
>adhere to the story. Or, no movie at all.
Which has been the choice since the books were published. We've seen
the "no movie at all" choice and the "half movie" (or whatever fraction
of a movie you consider Bakshi's film to be).
I, for one, am going to watch the film trilogy for what it is: three
movies based upon TLoTR, in which New Line, PJ, and (Eru knows) a lot
of eople from actors and actresses to set builders and marketeers
(mustn't froget them, preciouss) invested a lot of time, for better
or for worse. I expect it to be very entertaining, even memorable by
turns, but I have no expectation that this will be THE DEFINITIVE
TLoTR (or even the definitive screen version) for me.
Yes, I do expect someone else to come along and tell the story
cinematically again. It's happened two or three times in our lifetimes,
and the book is barely (or nearly, counting from 1954) 50 years old; why
not again? But I don't expect a "videobook recording" cf. the
audiobooks that have adhered verbatim or nearly so. It IS a different
medium, and even were there no other pressing (read: remunerary)
considerations, there would still be some editorial and directorial
changes. If you insist on viewing it only as tampering, so be it.
Recent, relevant commentary:
http://greenbooks.theonering.net/anwyn/files/110101.html
http://www.ew.com/ew/holidaymoviepreview/2001/rings.html
(I, for one, don't find PJ's disclaimer on the last page disingenuous.
_TLoTR_ may be more than "just a book" to you and me, but
_TFoTR_/_TTT_/_TRoTK_ need not be more than a series of movies.)
--
Banazir
William H. Hsu
>Really?
I would cite Omega Wolf's post - cogently argued but clearly quite
dogmatic. I paged back two posts to cut and paste it but thought
better of quoting that much text without contributing anything further.
Key phrases (and this is not specific to OW by any means):
1. "X {does | does not} happen in the film adaptation.
I /don't need to know any more/ to conclude [generalization/critique]."
(emphasis added)
Of course, X could be anything from the One Ring being destroyed to
Bombadil's singing at Old Man Willow, or something in between such
as the Old Forest and Barrow Downs story being depicted at all.
IMHO, we can safely say that SOME X doesn't require further
elucidation for us to render an opinion ("I don't remember Boromir
surviving into Book V") and some is clearly negligible ("Trask, they
cut out the MIDGES!").
2. "This is the level of fidelity to the story I demand: Y.
Either that, or (I would prefer) to have no movie."
Sometimes the "I would prefer" is explicit, sometimes implicit, but
on rare occasion, it is just not to be found.
Because neither of these abstract examples actually says "unable to
appreciate the nuances" or unequivocally implies "inferior fan" as
Bryan asserts, let me quote OW's reply to Dave Mansell directly:
>> Tolkiens great narrative is not the fragile
>>> house of cards that you seem to believe it is.
> It's not a matter of fragility, it's a matter of integrity.
> A concept seemingly lost on a Peter Jackson apologist like yourself.
That would seem to me to be the one example you requested.
Personally, I make no claim that it is common, but the frame of mind
certainly exists.
-Bill
William H. Hsu
Well, Conrad, that's going to be a tall order to fill if the quote in
question doesn't satisfy you. "A concept seemingly lost on", IMO,
certainly qualifies as an implied claim of superiority in appreciating
nuance.
If you want the literal pattern "People who think well of the movies
ARE...", well, I can confirm that (according to Deja/Google) neither
that phrase nor an instantiation of the search clause
("movie" | "inferior fan") & "nuance"
can be found in the Tolkien newsgroups since Jackson's movies have
been known about.
(Digression: in fact, the only literal hit was a post on 26 Sep 1997
suggesting that Charlton Heston was a better casting choice than
Sean Connery for Gandalf. #-))
-Bill
Laurie Forbes
> Conrad Dunkerson kirjoitti viestissä ...
> >movies were 'inferior fans unable to appreciate the nuances of
> >Tolkien's story'.
> In this very same thread. Omega Wolf:
> "If you don't understand why the scene is ruined, then you have no grasp
of
> how important this scene is in Frodo's development."
Scænðînåvíàn tättlétålës! I don't see the word "Tolkien" ANYWHERE in your
examples.
(I tried, Conrad. They were just too much for me. But once my keyboard is
reforged....... )
Laurie Forbes
"William H. Hsu" <bh...@ringil.cis.ksu.edu> wrote in message
news:9tv0e0$1s1$1...@ringil.cis.ksu.edu...
> It may be unnecessary, but there are ways and then there are ways to
> incorporate Arwen. Is it confirmed that the flooding of the Bruinen
> really is her handiwork? No voice-over by Elrond? How, if at all,
> does Gandalf explain it afterwards in the film?
OK, let me help you out here, Bill. First of all, you may want to rethink
"incorporating" Arwen. A "soul proprietorship" may be more advantageous for
tax purposes - particularly for personal deductions. In her present state
she is ripe for a hostile takeover. However, our Mergers and Acquisitions
Division can work with your people to ensure a smooth transition to the
Human Resources Team. Let's do lunch. The last thing ANY of us want is
Arwen in Chapter VII --- OR in Chapter XI. (And CERTAINLY not in Chapter
XII!)
------------------------------
James
>> Sorry, you're right - it was the wrong term to use. I meant, of
>> course, "narrative structure" (which I used later). It's rather
>> disingenuous, though, for you to respond with such nitpicking as if
>> you don't understand what I was arguing, or as if it somehow
>> undermines the point I was making.
>I'm not sure you know what you're arguing. What does placing Arwen at the
>ford have to do with the narrative structure?
No, I don't think *you* know what I'm arguing - which is quite a
different scenario, obviously! In a book, you can "tell, not show" -
and have long exposition after most of the book has finished about
Aragorn's relatioship with Arwen. In a movie, you can't. Hence, you
have to *show* Arwen, not *tell* about Arwen. Hence, Arwen shows up
earlier, and the structure of the movie is changed. Hence, *narrative
structure*.
>> There's not much here to reply to. You're offering no rationale, no
>> evidence to back up your claim that PJ is "butchering" the scene (less
>> of a real claim than a useless insult, anyway).
>If you don't understand why the scene is ruined, then you have no grasp of
>how important this scene is in Frodo's development. The temerity he shows
>in confronting the Riders alone, quite unaware that crossing the ford has
>taken him out of harm's way is thrown out. His reliance on Arwen (whose
>challenge to the Riders is hollow because she can call down the flood)
>instead destroys a critical element in the development of our protagonist.
I agree that the scene at the Ford *does* tell us a great deal about
Frodo's character, but is it really that integral? Much of Sam's
dialogue with the other hobbits at the Green Dragon tells us about
Sam's character, but I won't complain at all if that dialogue is
altered, or even completely removed. This is one scene in an entire
nine hours of film - I think they'll have time to develop Frodo's
character, even if (gasp) Arwen *did* help him at the Ford.
This particular argument is obviously solely a matter of opinion, but
I am quite mystified by the strength of your reaction to a change to
this one scene.
>> Also, why bring up the term "canonical"? All of LotR is canonical, and
>> obviously PJ had to change some things to bring the books to the
>> screen. Maybe you're right, and he should have stuck to changing the
>> non-canonical scenes - you know, the ones that aren't in LotR?
>There is a difference between making subtle changes, and destroying
>important elements of the story. I use the term canonical because, yes, he
>should have created NEW non-canonical scenes for Arwen, rather than hitting
>us over the head with her at the expense of the story. And, I suspect this
>won't be the only damage he does.
Actually, I think the "new non-canonical scenes", to work at all,
would have required him to "hit us over the head with her" much more
than the Arwen-at-ford-and-such solution does.
>> That wasn't what I was arguing at all. I was restating and rephrasing
>> Norseman's earlier point that JRR wasn't writing for film, and PJ is -
>> and as such, until we've seen the movie and can judge for ourselves,
>> PJ's changes should probably be given the benefit of the doubt,
>> because of his expertise in the field of writing for film.
>PJ has co-writers on the films where he has writing credit, so his
>'expertise' is somewhat dubious.
His wife, Fran Walsh, who has collaborated with him on all of his
major projects, and Phillipa Boyens, also, I understand, a quite
well-thought-of writer. So if PJ's expertise isn't enough for ya, you
got three experts! Hoorah! :)
>Besides, this isn't an original
>screenplay, it's an adaptation of an existing novel -- one voted by readers
>as the Book of the Millennium.
Yes, we all like LotR. What's your point?
>But, apparently, PJ knows how to improve
>upon it.
Right. This is the point I've been making over and over again, that
has just been completely failing to get through. PJ knows how to
improve on it, because it was a *book* by a *writer* and this is a
*film* by a *filmmaker*. He knows how to adapt it for film. Are you
understanding this yet?
>>> He's not a hired-gun - the films were his initiative - and he is not
>> "whorish", because he's specifically tried to *avoid* circumstances
>> which would have made it possible for him to sell out. However, he is
>
>In other words, he avoided a situation where a studio wouldn't let him make
>whatever changes HE wanted.
So you would respect PJ more if he had signed on with a studio that
insisted on interfering with the project? Somehow I think you
wouldn't. This really suggests that you've set out to dislike the
movies, and are interpreting (or misinterpreting) all the evidence to
make them seem more of a failure to you.
James
James
>But the only movie that had anything to do with him getting the rights to
>this one was Heavenly Creatures, which is one of my favourite movies of all
>tme.
Agreed. That film is my main source of confidence in PJ's ability to
do justice to LotR.
James
William H. Hsu
>"William H. Hsu" <bh...@ringil.cis.ksu.edu> wrote in message
>news:9tv0e0$1s1$1...@ringil.cis.ksu.edu...
>> It may be unnecessary, but there are ways and then there are ways to
>> incorporate Arwen. Is it confirmed that the flooding of the Bruinen
>> really is her handiwork? No voice-over by Elrond? How, if at all,
>> does Gandalf explain it afterwards in the film?
>OK, let me help you out here, Bill. First of all, you may want to rethink
>"incorporating" Arwen. A "soul proprietorship" may be more advantageous for
>tax purposes - particularly for personal deductions. In her present state
>she is ripe for a hostile takeover.
Mind the tildies, Naneth!
>However, our Mergers and Acquisitions
>Division can work with your people to ensure a smooth transition to the
>Human Resources Team.
"Human Resources" - ai-ronic, nesupasu?
>Let's do lunch. The last thing ANY of us want is
>Arwen in Chapter VII --- OR in Chapter XI. (And CERTAINLY not in Chapter
>XII!)
Yes, I'll see you Stersday next at Burger King!
--
Ban Galbasi
(Labingi, Labingi! We hates it forever!)
G. M. Watson
----------
In article <MyoM7.8$Oc....@news1.oke.nextra.no>, "Norseman" <xx...@xx.no>
wrote:
> "G. M. Watson " <gm...@pop2.intergate.ca> skrev i melding
> news:u043sps...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Um.. that would be "grossly simplified", right? And it won't have all
> those
>> big words and long boring stretches between action scenes that probably
>> bugged the hell out of you when you read them as a kid. Be warned, tho:
> It's
>> gonna have a few mushy romantic scenes. Yuck!!
>
> Cool, you've already seen it. How was it?
Sort of a classic example of bimbo filmmaking... great looks, no brains. On
a more serious note, why don't you ask the same question of all the wingnuts
posting in here who've been raving about what a great film it's going to be?
(slight snip)
>
>> this movie is going to dumb down the book enough that
>> even a seven-year-old will be able to grasp every nuance. You should feel
>> right at home. Enjoy!
>
> So you didn't like it? Where did you watch it?
See above response. It would be at least amusing to hear you attempt to
justify your numbingly obvious double standard.
>
> I really do not see a need for derogatory comments here Mr. Watson. I love
> the books, I love Tolkien's writing. Because I'm also excited about a movie
> adaptation, I am an inferior fan unable to appreciate Tolkien's deeper story
> nuances? This speaks volumes of your lack of tolerance. You're one scary
> person.
My, you frighten easily. Got many dust bunnies under your bed these days?
>
>
G. M. Watson
----------
In article <5u540u0ms6p2hrrf2...@4ax.com>, James <a@b.c>
wrote:
> G. M. Watson :
>>> Pippin knocking over a skeleton, what's the big deal? It works.
>>
>>It would work fine in a Laurel & Hardy movie. In LOTR, it's major slapstick
>>overkill (bet it gives boffo yuks, tho).
>
> Yes, I can imagine the moviegoers now. "AHAHAHA PIPPIN REVEALED THEIR
> POSITION TO THE ORCS AHAHAH MAYBE THEYLL ALL DIE NOW AHAHAH BOOKS WHAT
> BOOKS"
>
> Seriously, though, do you have any legitimate objection to this
> particular change? It shows how Pippin's idle and inappropriate
> curiosity led to the Fellowship being trapped in Moria, and it means
> the audience members won't spend hours asking each other "What? Why
> did he throw the rock down the well?"
You appear to have an even lower opinion of the intelligence of the average
audience member than I do...
Be that as it may, one obvious answer to the question you pose is "For the
same reason that adolescent males feel compelled to spit off bridges and
high buildings...".
However, if you go back and read the relevant passage in the book, you will,
presumably, note the masterfully subtle yet powerful way in which JRRT
creates an aura of stark fear, building softly upon Pippin's simple action.
If Jackson is the "master filmmaker" that his sycophants have suddenly
decided he is (what does that make Martin Scorsese, I wonder?), hell, if he
had the brains god gave a duck, he would agree that the scene is perfect as
written and needs no embellishment (visual or written). But nooo... one can
never, in the spirit of HL Mencken, risk underestimating the intelligence of
the American moviegoing audience. So poor old klutzy Pippin now has to drop
in (clumsily *knock* in, in fact) something much bigger and much noisier,
thereby comitting the visual equivalent of repeatedly bludgeoning the
audience over the head with a heavy club inscribed with the phrase "Get
it???". God forbid that subtlety should be employed. Subtlety don't sell
tickets, man... This whole scene now sounds like something out of a Warner
Brothers cartoon. How friggin' appropriate.
G. M. Watson
----------
In article <9ttm9i$4qh66$1...@ID-81911.news.dfncis.de>, "Morgil Blackhope"
<more...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> G. M. Watson kirjoitti viestissä ...
>
>>In article <998M7.2895$v05....@news1.oke.nextra.no>, "Norseman"
>><xx...@xx.no> wrote:
>
>>> I can't think of any better than Peter Jackson to do it.
>>
>>Oh, come on. Try. Try *real* hard. I know you can think of *someone*...
>
> You?
>
> Morgil
Thank you, but I must, regretfully, decline... unless you happen to be an
eccentric billionaire.
>
>
G. M. Watson
----------
In article <MPG.166be5866...@reten.newsgroups.st>, Bryan S. Slick
<leg...@greenwood.net> wrote:
(snip)
>
> I wonder very much if Watson has any friends that aren't WASPs.
>
This from a guy whose signature promotes a mysterious affinity group of
indeterminate purpose called the "Virginia Beach Hokies"? (Did you forget
the "n", by any chance?)
More seriously, I completely fail to see what relevance the ethnic origin of
any of my friends and acquaintances has remotely to do with this discussion.
Care to elucidate?? I'm utterly baffled.
Michael O'Neill
>
> "Omega Wolf" <omega...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> writes:
>
> >"Dave Mansell" <nos...@cariad.net> wrote in message
> >news:memo.20011126...@dmansell.compulink.co.uk...
>
> >> Except that you don't actually know exactly how this scene plays out in
> >> the movie so you are citicising without the full facts, Even worse your
>
> >We know that Arwen rides Frodo to the ford
>
> Yernow, now that I think about it, there ARE certain scenes I don't need
> to see...
No! No! I take it all back! When can I get tickets!!!
M.
21st.Centuryboy
feature was - "Piranha 2 Flying Killers". Then he got to do what he wanted.
Food for thought.
I personally haven't looked forward to a movie this much since ROTJ. (please
no flames or jokes)
"James" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:fr760ukhtfkr7uf5h...@4ax.com...
James
>> Seriously, though, do you have any legitimate objection to this
>> particular change? It shows how Pippin's idle and inappropriate
>> curiosity led to the Fellowship being trapped in Moria, and it means
>> the audience members won't spend hours asking each other "What? Why
>> did he throw the rock down the well?"
>You appear to have an even lower opinion of the intelligence of the average
>audience member than I do...
But, without a paragraph to explain Pippin's motivation, it *would*
seem rather odd, wouldn't it?
GIMLI
That hole was plainly a well
for the guards' use, covered
with a stone lid. But the lid
is broken, and we must all
take care in the dark.
PIPPIN throws a rock down the Well.
GANDALF
Fool of a took!
>However, if you go back and read the relevant passage in the book, you will,
>presumably, note the masterfully subtle yet powerful way in which JRRT
>creates an aura of stark fear, building softly upon Pippin's simple action.
Oh, I agree completely! The Moria chapters, from start to finish, are
absolutely perfectly written (Gandalf's furious reaction to the rock
down the well always gives me the shivers; for me, it's the first
moment the reader is really made aware of the danger to be found in
Moria.)
>If Jackson is the "master filmmaker" that his sycophants have suddenly
>decided he is (what does that make Martin Scorsese, I wonder?),
A master filmmaker, presumably.
>hell, if he
>had the brains god gave a duck, he would agree that the scene is perfect as
>written and needs no embellishment (visual or written). But nooo... one can
>never, in the spirit of HL Mencken, risk underestimating the intelligence of
>the American moviegoing audience.
I think you're being needlessly insulting - or self-aggrandising -
here. "If he had the brains god gave a duck, he would agree with me
about everything!"
>So poor old klutzy Pippin now has to drop
>in (clumsily *knock* in, in fact) something much bigger and much noisier,
>thereby comitting the visual equivalent of repeatedly bludgeoning the
>audience over the head with a heavy club inscribed with the phrase "Get
>it???".
You're right, to some extent - the scene, as portrayed in the movie,
*is* certainly designed to tell the audience what has happened in a
more obvious and easily-understood manner. That's no secret. But I
don't think it's true that it's a visual "heavy club", and I actually
think that a slightly humorour portrayal of the incident may *add*
something to the scene, which is more suited to a film than a book,
and thus appropriate.
As I'm sure you're aware, many great film scenes of high dramatic
tension have been made all the more successful by the injection of
brief humour; it makes the tragedy (or horror) surrounding it all the
more upsetting. The Well/skeleton scene, as shown in the latest
trailer, has a great, nervy tension - a tension which is much
heightened, I think, by Pippin's unfortunate (and, to my mind,
brilliantly comic) body language and hapless expression.
>God forbid that subtlety should be employed. Subtlety don't sell
>tickets, man... This whole scene now sounds like something out of a Warner
>Brothers cartoon. How friggin' appropriate.
Perhaps you're thinking of the Bakshi cartoon?
James
Raven Mac Andhru
>>screenplay, it's an adaptation of an existing novel -- one voted by
readers
>>as the Book of the Millennium. But, apparently, PJ knows how to improve
>>upon it.
No.....but maybe he knows how to make a film that will appeal to a mass
audience,many of whom will not have read the books.Films,movies whatever you
want to call them are made for profit,they also have to be cut down to
roughly two hours or less actual screenplay.Any longer and your average
movie goer will get either bored or very uncomfortable(sore backside with
movie seating).So what if he strayed a little from the path and gave Arwen a
role she didnt have in the books ,he must have had a reason for it.All this
argueing about it it rather pointless as no-one here as seen the completed
film yet.Watch it and then comment.Btw has there ever been a film adaptation
of a book that stuck rigidly to the original text....i cant think of one
offhand!!
Raven
Dave Mansell
M. Watson) wrote:
> So poor old klutzy Pippin now has to drop
> in (clumsily *knock* in, in fact)
He does not clumsily knock it in as you imply. He delicately touches the
wrist of the skeleton, which is so fragile it collapses, unbalancing into
the well. You present the scene differently from the way it is filmed in
order to strengthen you argument, using emotive words like klutzy and
clumsily which IMO don't actually protray the scene as shown. Cinema is a
visual medium, and IMO the scene as shown in the trailer detracts nothing
from the story and allows a more visually dramatic scene. Since the
tension is allowed to relax in the book for a while before the tapping is
heard I think the tension will be able to develop quite nicely. Subtlety
works well in the written medium where the pace is dictated by the reader,
but in the compressed timescale it is an entirely different matter.
> This whole scene now sounds like something out of a Warner
> Brothers cartoon. How friggin' appropriate.
Indeed this appears to be the core of your whole technique. Take a small
item in the film and then exagerate it out of all proportion.
Dave
Conrad Dunkerson
> Personally, I make no claim that it is common, but the frame of mind
> certainly exists.
Point conceded. There have been a few statements made that lean
towards claims that 'movie opponents are 'better' Tolkien fans than
movie proponents'. I don't agree with the frequent claims that it is
universal (or nearly so) and/or that all movie opponents are snobs,
but clearly there are some fairly ridiculous movie opponents out there
as well.
For the record, I don't know how the movie is going to come out. I am
cautiously hopeful, but I've seen enough to know that I don't like
some of the things Jackson has done. If the movie is good overall or
even if they get some of the major scenes 'just right' then I won't
mind the changes so much. On the other hand, if they substantially
alter the bridge scene (for instance) I'll become a full-fledged
Jackson hater.
Bryan S. Slick
[Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:15:18 -0800]
:
:
:----------
If you had quoted enough of my message that I could derive the context of
the discussion from, perhaps your reply would be worth a significant
answer. As you haven't, and you're not exactly a memorable adversary in
any context, this is all you get.
--
Bryan S. Slick, sbryan7 at qwest dot net
"To those who preserve it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never
know."
______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Binaries.net = SPEED+RETENTION+COMPLETION = http://www.binaries.net
G. M. Watson
----------
In article <MPG.166d4cc86...@reten.newsgroups.st>, Bryan S. Slick
<leg...@greenwood.net> wrote:
> [G. M. Watson ]
> [Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:15:18 -0800]
>
> :
> :
> :----------
> :In article <MPG.166be5866...@reten.newsgroups.st>, Bryan S. Slick
> :<leg...@greenwood.net> wrote:
> :
> :(snip)
> :>
> :> I wonder very much if Watson has any friends that aren't WASPs.
> :>
> :This from a guy whose signature promotes a mysterious affinity group of
> :indeterminate purpose called the "Virginia Beach Hokies"? (Did you forget
> :the "n", by any chance?)
> :
> :More seriously, I completely fail to see what relevance the ethnic origin of
> :any of my friends and acquaintances has remotely to do with this discussion.
> :Care to elucidate?? I'm utterly baffled.
>
> If you had quoted enough of my message that I could derive the context of
> the discussion from, perhaps your reply would be worth a significant
> answer. As you haven't, and you're not exactly a memorable adversary in
> any context, this is all you get.
>
In other words, you not only don't acknowledge responsibility for the
content of your own posts, but you can't even recognize your own writing
when someone quotes it? That certainly boosts your overall credibility.
(Technical hint: To see what you previously posted, scroll up in the thread
until you see a post, or series of posts, bearing your name. Start clicking.
Your post containing this line almost certainly will be there somewhere.
Once you master this technique, it will immeasurably aid your currently
rather inadequate ability to put forth effective arguments.)
Nevertheless, my question stands: What do *anyone's* ethnic origins have to
do with this discussion? I'd hate to think you were trying to racialize this
argument, but perhaps you are, for some bizarre reason. If so, why?
Robert Julian Jr.
> (I, for one, don't find PJ's disclaimer on the last page disingenuous.
> _TLoTR_ may be more than "just a book" to you and me, but
> _TFoTR_/_TTT_/_TRoTK_ need not be more than a series of movies.)
>
> --
> Banazir
This kind of reminds be of the Beatles and the fans reaction to their
braking up.....
Reporter asks
"How can you do this to the World??? What are your fans to do???"
John Lennon
"The Beatles were just a band. Nothing more. Nothing less. We were a good
band, but the Beatles breaking up is not an earth shattering event. Life
will go on. Go out and live it."
Today I am Nob
EPI
I think some of you just have a fear that something you love so much will
become mainstream and you don't like it. I've been trying to get certain
friends and family to read LOTR for years and with many I have had no
results. But they're looking forward to the movie and that's not a bad
thing. The movies WILL be dumbed down because it's a movie. You can't thumb
back through and check a detail. There's not a map or an appendix to refer
to if need be. Viewers won't know the characters' thoughts and fears as told
by JRRT in the books. The filmmakers must visually relay the details that we
read and to do that they NEED to make changes. Let's take the rock and the
hole (well). So they make it a more traditional looking well rather than
explain what the hole is. I don't need dialogue wasted on these details if
they can do it visually. So it's a skeleton rather than a rock. I'm happy
the well bit is in at all - it seems that it was easily droppable in terms
of the major plotline. (I love it for the Pippin/Gandalf interaction so
close to the events at the bridge.) Film is a different medium and requires
a different treatment. You can't do a word-for-word translation of a work
from one language to another and expect it to work; why would you think this
is any different? Besides, the movie-going public and the readers of the
world are not the same breed. You can't shove every character in there and
expect some people to follow it. The movies will bring more people to the
book and I think that's a great thing. I might never have read LOTR but for
an uncle who saw me with a fantasy book when I was younger and gave me The
Hobbit and LOTR to read. That was my path to the books; my baby brother's
was The Hobbit comic books I read to him when he was small; others will go
by way of the movies. Not everyone is going to appreciate Tolkien the way we
do but many will learn to do so. Some certainly will not. I am looking
forward to sharing Tolkien with others whatever the level of their
appreciation and this film, for many, is the place to start.
Personally, I do have some concerns about the movie but I have resolved not
to nit-pick and to judge it by its faithfulness to the feel and theme and
overall plot of the books, not by some small detail that I have chosen to
champion as the movie's downfall. It seems premature to bash the film before
seeing it and to bemoan Tyler's acting before seeing what kind of job she
does. All my friends and family will have me along to explain anything wrong
and to clarify details as needed. I look forward to their questions and will
be giving copies of the books to many for Christmas. I know that not
everyone has a traditional Tolkien fan they can turn to for guidance but
maybe they will turn to this newsgroup.
I think that's about $.02 worth so I'll stop.
Jennifer
Omega Wolf
"James" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> No, I don't think *you* know what I'm arguing - which is quite a
> different scenario, obviously! In a book, you can "tell, not show" -
> and have long exposition after most of the book has finished about
> Aragorn's relatioship with Arwen. In a movie, you can't. Hence, you
> have to *show* Arwen, not *tell* about Arwen. Hence, Arwen shows up
> earlier, and the structure of the movie is changed. Hence, *narrative
> structure*.
You seem to misunderstand the term. Narrative structure is the ORDER of the
plot-moving events, (the classic format being Orientation, Complication(s),
Climax/Resolution). Arwen's appearance at the ford is a plot change -- it
does not change the narrative structure. Starting the film at Mt. Doom and
flashing back to how they got there would be a change in the narrative
structure.
> Actually, I think the "new non-canonical scenes", to work at all,
> would have required him to "hit us over the head with her" much more
> than the Arwen-at-ford-and-such solution does.
Absolutely not. A silent exchange of glances between Aragorn and Arwen
during the counsel would have sufficed nicely. Even a line of expository
dialogue could have subtly revealed this information.
> His wife, Fran Walsh, who has collaborated with him on all of his
> major projects, and Phillipa Boyens, also, I understand, a quite
> well-thought-of writer. So if PJ's expertise isn't enough for ya, you
> got three experts! Hoorah! :)
Too many cooks have apparently spoiled the broth.
> Right. This is the point I've been making over and over again, that
> has just been completely failing to get through. PJ knows how to
> improve on it, because it was a *book* by a *writer* and this is a
> *film* by a *filmmaker*. He knows how to adapt it for film. Are you
> understanding this yet?
If you come away thinking that the movie is a better STORY than the book,
then you can argue that he has improved on it. The medium of its telling
aside, a mediocre director like Jackson isn't going to better a masterpiece
like LotR, he's merely going to adapt it to film (ineptly, in my opinion).
> So you would respect PJ more if he had signed on with a studio that
> insisted on interfering with the project? Somehow I think you
> wouldn't. This really suggests that you've set out to dislike the
> movies, and are interpreting (or misinterpreting) all the evidence to
> make them seem more of a failure to you.
I would have prefered a director with more experience, and more respect for
the story. In fact, I had high hopes when I first heard about the films,
but the trailers have dashed them, confirming what I feared about Jackson.
Perhaps, and understandably (to some degree), Tolkien fans are so starved
for a LotR film that they are willing to embrace whatever Jackson throws our
way.
O.W.
James
>> Actually, I think the "new non-canonical scenes", to work at all,
>> would have required him to "hit us over the head with her" much more
>> than the Arwen-at-ford-and-such solution does.
>Absolutely not. A silent exchange of glances between Aragorn and Arwen
>during the counsel would have sufficed nicely. Even a line of expository
>dialogue could have subtly revealed this information.
That, I humbly suggest, would have seemed like a rather obvious token
appearance of Arwen - one line in the first movie isn't enough, I
don't think, to credibly establish Arwen and Aragorn's relationship -
at least, not sufficiently for it to become a very, very major theme
late in the third movie, approximately seven hours of screen time (and
two years of real time) later.
>> His wife, Fran Walsh, who has collaborated with him on all of his
>> major projects, and Phillipa Boyens, also, I understand, a quite
>> well-thought-of writer. So if PJ's expertise isn't enough for ya, you
>> got three experts! Hoorah! :)
>Too many cooks have apparently spoiled the broth.
Aha! I'll take this as an admitted victory for me on this point, then.
;)
>> Right. This is the point I've been making over and over again, that
>> has just been completely failing to get through. PJ knows how to
>> improve on it, because it was a *book* by a *writer* and this is a
>> *film* by a *filmmaker*. He knows how to adapt it for film. Are you
>> understanding this yet?
>If you come away thinking that the movie is a better STORY than the book,
>then you can argue that he has improved on it. The medium of its telling
>aside, a mediocre director like Jackson isn't going to better a masterpiece
>like LotR, he's merely going to adapt it to film (ineptly, in my opinion).
"Merely" adapting it to film? I feel I must have missed something in
your argument here - not to sound like I'm repeating myself, but isn't
that what a film adaptation is all about? Perhaps you're not
understanding what claim I'm arguing for. I don't argue that PJ's film
version makes a better story than JRRT's book, but that his changes
make the scenes he has changed work better for the screen than would a
reproduction of the scenes in the book.
That aside, Peter Jackson isn't a mediocre director by any stretch of
the imagination; this claim, which has become increasingly common
recently, is really quite ludicrous. You could argue that he's
terrible, or that he's brilliant, but presenting him as some
run-of-the-mill hack is really bizarre.
>> So you would respect PJ more if he had signed on with a studio that
>> insisted on interfering with the project? Somehow I think you
>> wouldn't. This really suggests that you've set out to dislike the
>> movies, and are interpreting (or misinterpreting) all the evidence to
>> make them seem more of a failure to you.
>I would have prefered a director with more experience, and more respect for
>the story.
That's not really what I was getting at in the point you're replying
to, but I'll let that go. Peter Jackson is a *very* experienced
filmmaker, whether you think he's suited or not; he's been involved in
film from a very early age, and has had enough time to perfect (or
attempt to perfect) his craft for critics to be extremely appreciative
of his recent work.
What makes you think that he has an insufficient respect for Tolkien's
story? Be specific.
>In fact, I had high hopes when I first heard about the films,
>but the trailers have dashed them, confirming what I feared about Jackson.
What's that, then?
>Perhaps, and understandably (to some degree), Tolkien fans are so starved
>for a LotR film that they are willing to embrace whatever Jackson throws our
>way.
Word to the wise: psychologising other people's arguments rarely works
as a debate tactic.
James
Raven
news:Q9EM7.10390$QU1.5...@typhoon.maine.rr.com...
> Scænðînåvíàn tättlétålës! I don't see the word "Tolkien" ANYWHERE in
> your examples.
> (I tried, Conrad. They were just too much for me. But once my
> keyboard is reforged....... )
Excellent! The Nårdic Cønspiräcy is building momentum.
Ravn.
Morgil Blackhope
G. M. Watson kirjoitti viestissä ...
>
>
>----------
>In article <9ttm9i$4qh66$1...@ID-81911.news.dfncis.de>, "Morgil Blackhope"
><more...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Oh, come on. Try. Try *real* hard. I know you can think of *someone*...
>>
>> You?
>>
>> Morgil
>
>Thank you, but I must, regretfully, decline... unless you happen to be an
>eccentric billionaire.
Yes I am. Start writing a script and I have my people
contact you in a year or two.
Morgil
Omega Wolf
"James" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> That aside, Peter Jackson isn't a mediocre director by any stretch of
> the imagination; this claim, which has become increasingly common
> recently, is really quite ludicrous. You could argue that he's
> terrible, or that he's brilliant, but presenting him as some
> run-of-the-mill hack is really bizarre.
It's not bizarre because he's not terrible or brilliant. He has managed one
excellent movie (Heavenly Creatures), but his few others are quite
forgettable. And making a painfully horrible movie like The Frighteners
after making HC shows he's wildly inconsistent, and quite mediocre.
> That's not really what I was getting at in the point you're replying
> to, but I'll let that go. Peter Jackson is a *very* experienced
> filmmaker, whether you think he's suited or not; he's been involved in
Spielberg is a *very* experienced filmmaker (producing 70+, directing 40+).
Jackson has been involved in only a handful (4 or 5) major productions
before LotR. How can you *possibly* consider him *very* experienced?
> >In fact, I had high hopes when I first heard about the films,
> >but the trailers have dashed them, confirming what I feared about
Jackson.
>
> What's that, then?
That he wasn't up to the task, and it shows. I can only cringe so many
times...
> >Perhaps, and understandably (to some degree), Tolkien fans are so starved
> >for a LotR film that they are willing to embrace whatever Jackson throws
our
> >way.
>
> Word to the wise: psychologising other people's arguments rarely works
> as a debate tactic.
Note the "perhaps" -- I was hypothesizing, not psychologizing. But, I'm
glad you felt compelled to attempt a rebuttal.
O.W.
Bryan S. Slick
[Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:44:00 -0800]
:Nevertheless, my question stands: What do *anyone's* ethnic origins have to
:do with this discussion? I'd hate to think you were trying to racialize this
:argument, but perhaps you are, for some bizarre reason. If so, why?
You might want to examine your own behavior in this thread as to why the
comment was made, Watson. If you can pull your head out long enough, you
may begin to understand.
As I have said before.. you're not worth the effort otherwise.
--
____ _________________
\ \ / / Virginia Tech Hokies
\ \ / ____ _____/ The Class of the Big East
\ \ / / / /
\ \/ / / / Bryan S. Slick, sbr...@qwest.not
\ / / /
\ / / / "To those who preserve it, freedom has a
\ / / / flavor the protected will never know."
\/ /___/
G. M. Watson
----------
In article <9u1bjb$5l6vm$1...@ID-81911.news.dfncis.de>, "Morgil Blackhope"
<more...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> G. M. Watson kirjoitti viestissä ...
>>
>>
>>----------
>>In article <9ttm9i$4qh66$1...@ID-81911.news.dfncis.de>, "Morgil Blackhope"
>><more...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Oh, come on. Try. Try *real* hard. I know you can think of *someone*...
>>>
>>> You?
>>>
>>> Morgil
>>
>>Thank you, but I must, regretfully, decline... unless you happen to be an
>>eccentric billionaire.
>
> Yes I am. Start writing a script and I have my people
> contact you in a year or two.
>
> Morgil
>
Let's do lunch, babe. Is Morton's still in business?
G. M. Watson
----------
In article <MPG.166e0ddc1...@reten.newsgroups.st>, Bryan S. Slick
<leg...@greenwood.net> wrote:
> [G. M. Watson ]
> [Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:44:00 -0800]
>
> :Nevertheless, my question stands: What do *anyone's* ethnic origins have to
> :do with this discussion? I'd hate to think you were trying to racialize this
> :argument, but perhaps you are, for some bizarre reason. If so, why?
>
> You might want to examine your own behavior in this thread as to why the
> comment was made, Watson. If you can pull your head out long enough, you
> may begin to understand.
>
> As I have said before.. you're not worth the effort otherwise.
>
And yet you keep responding to my posts for some reason. Still haven't
answered my question, tho.. guess you're just a race-baiter at heart (nicest
thing I can think to say about you at the moment). Another proud old
Virginia tradition, as I recall...
James
>Spielberg is a *very* experienced filmmaker (producing 70+, directing 40+).
>Jackson has been involved in only a handful (4 or 5) major productions
>before LotR. How can you *possibly* consider him *very* experienced?
Ah. I see. You're expecting much more from Jackson than I am,
obviously. I consider Spielberg a freakishly experienced filmmaker. I
would consider it true that if you make four or five movies, you are
very experienced in the process and requirements of filmmaking.
>> Word to the wise: psychologising other people's arguments rarely works
>> as a debate tactic.
>Note the "perhaps" -- I was hypothesizing, not psychologizing.
Oh, nonsense. You were psychologising, with a "perhaps" in front.
James
R. Cohen
>
> I would have prefered a director with more experience, and more respect for
> the story. In fact, I had high hopes when I first heard about the films,
> but the trailers have dashed them, confirming what I feared about Jackson.
> Perhaps, and understandably (to some degree), Tolkien fans are so starved
> for a LotR film that they are willing to embrace whatever Jackson throws our
> way.
>
> O.W.
*Dashed* them? *WOW* Are YOU going to be disappointed! I think you
have good points in both cases actually. Tolkein's scene at the well
is superior to what happens in the movie trailer (surprise) but does
the whole chapter in Moria depend solely on that one line? I don't
think so. We'll see if the scenes in the mines of moria are just one
big CGI fest or what. I also see what you're saying about the scene
at the river. That is a fine line by Frodo. But is that the only
instance where Frodo will be able to display his "stuff"? I don't
think so.
I can see that you're afraid that Jackson will "bludgeon" his way
through the novels, I guess we'll just have to see. *fingers crossed*
So far I'm hoping that this movie will be one of the better
adaptations of a fantasy epic ever made on film. I don't think there
have been many, if any, who have even come close. But that doesn't
mean that it will be perfect or even near perfect, it definitely won't
be.
You know, if this is going to tear your heart out, maybe you shouldn't
see the movie...
R. Cohen
> <snip it all>
And the Burger King glasses, don't forget the glasses!
I wonder how many "new" fans to the LOTR will come out of this movie.
I'm not sure how many will read all three books even if they like the
film. That's not intended to be a criticism btw.
Flame of the West
"William H. Hsu" wrote:
> >We know that Arwen rides Frodo to the ford
>
> Yernow, now that I think about it, there ARE certain scenes I don't need
> to see...
It's been cut from the film, but will be restored for the DVD.
--
-- FotW
"Why so glum, Wizard?"
--- Aragorn to Gandalf (Rankin-Bass RotK)
iceberg
wrote:
>I just saw the trailer again, and i'm kinda worried about what PJ
wants to
>do with Arwen..... I mean, in the book she hardly has a role at all
(okay,
>she weaves a banner for aragorn and gives a crystal to Frodo). "If
you want
>him, come and claim him" sounds more like Eowyn to me..... Apart from
that
>he also lets pippin drop a SKELETON in a WELL (now what Pippin
actually did
>was dropping a stone into a hole - which was a well ;-) -). I think
little
>Peter is overstepping his boundaries here...
>
>What's your opinion?
>
They decided they needed some sex and voila Arwen is now a member of
the Fellowship? And Liv Tyler? Love her, but as a warrior type? The
more commercials etc. I see the more I am convinced they have totally
screwed up this movie.
Iceberg
the softrat
>
>They decided they needed some sex and voila Arwen is now a member of
>the Fellowship? And Liv Tyler? Love her, but as a warrior type? The
>more commercials etc. I see the more I am convinced they have totally
>screwed up this movie.
>
read the list of (egregious) changes from the book ....
Now I'm scared!
(Why does an obviously second rate movie director think that he knows
more than the Author of the Century?)
((second rate ==> look at his underwhelming credits))
However the scenery in NZ is *still* magnificent!
(Hobbiton looks somewwhat hokey to me.)
the softrat "He who rubs owls"
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
The beatings will cease when morale improves.
Frode Hansen
"the softrat" <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:f4eo0u0nm7a2kl1iq...@4ax.com...
Possibly a tiny bit of spoiling here:
I was very impressed with Liv Tylers character in this film, and while not
pivotal, the character of Arwen, which she plays, is an important backdrop
for Aragorn's part of the quest. Actually, the first thing seen is her drawn
sword. It seems that Glorfindel's role in the book is somewhat switched with
Arwen's in the film. However, this is not done in an intrusive way, and
Arwen is not depicted as a warrior princess at all. I suspect it is a
storytelling technical 'grip' wich I actually think worked very well.
Regards,
Frode
G. M. Watson
----------
In article <f4eo0u0nm7a2kl1iq...@4ax.com>, the softrat
<sof...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Dec 2001 02:10:24 GMT, rha...@cts.com (iceberg) wrote:
>>
>>They decided they needed some sex and voila Arwen is now a member of
>>the Fellowship? And Liv Tyler? Love her, but as a warrior type? The
>>more commercials etc. I see the more I am convinced they have totally
>>screwed up this movie.
>>
> Well, I didn't think that they *totally* screwed up the movie. Then I
> read the list of (egregious) changes from the book ....
>
> Now I'm scared!
>
> (Why does an obviously second rate movie director think that he knows
> more than the Author of the Century?)
>
> ((second rate ==> look at his underwhelming credits))
>
> However the scenery in NZ is *still* magnificent!
>
> (Hobbiton looks somewwhat hokey to me.)
>
Have you noticed how unkempt, messy and overgrown the immediate area around
Bag End looks in the stills? Bag End itself looks more like the door to a
bear's den than a tidy hobbit-hole. Perhaps Gaffer Gamgee (not to mention
Sam) developed a serious drinking problem and severely neglected his
gardening duties-- for quite some time, by the look of it. It won't be the
sound of Sam's shears (or the cessation of said sound) that will alert
Gandalf to his presence outside the window; Sam's's going to need a
threshing machine and a hay baler at the very least.
Fred the Red Shirt
>
> ...Cinema is a
> from the story and allows a more visually dramatic scene. Since the
> tension is allowed to relax in the book for a while before the tapping is
> heard I think the tension will be able to develop quite nicely. Subtlety
> works well in the written medium where the pace is dictated by the reader,
> but in the compressed timescale it is an entirely different matter.
Firstly, the scene begs the question of what a skeleton was doing there
in the first place. Moria was not itself a tomb and the dwarves were
not inclined to leave the bodies of their dead stuck up on walls.
Even if an orc had put the body there to rot, Gimli would not have left
the skeleton there. The scenario itself alters the audience's perception
of the dwarves and dwarvish custom.
Now as to the dramatic content, dropping a stone into the well was
such a small thing that Gandalf's wrath is particularly jarring.
It conveys the notion of just how dangerous Moria is, how accutely
aware Gandalf is of that, and how oblivious Pippin is to the magnitude
of the whole endeavor.
Substituting an accidental slaptick scene for a deliberate act of
curiosity alters the sense of the scene and not, IMHO, for the
better.
--
FF
Dave Mansell
> Even if an orc had put the body there to rot, Gimli would not have left
> the skeleton there. The scenario itself alters the audience's
> perception of the dwarves and dwarvish custom.
because of the compressed action the skeleton is in the same room as
Balin's tomb, which the fellowship have just entered a short time before.
Presumably it is of one of the Dwarves who came with Balin.
------------------------------------------------------------
"Yet, somehow, the changes worked. Despite a number of
divergences from the original tale, Jackson and the cast
and crew managed to capture the soul of Tolkien's Middle
Earth. And that's saying a lot. " - Hear/Say
------------------------------------------------------------
Geir Friestad
|
| Firstly, the scene begs the question of what a skeleton was doing there
| in the first place. Moria was not itself a tomb and the dwarves were
| not inclined to leave the bodies of their dead stuck up on walls.
The skeleton is there because a whole heap of dwarves had been killed
off by the orcs there. In other words, it's not the sole skeleton in
the room. It was obviously the remains of a "last stand" sort of fight,
which is why the skeletons have not been removed and given a proper
burial.
--
Geir Friestad || ge...@portman.org || www.portman.org
"Episode 2: Alien & Violence Cosmic Bath."
James
>The skeleton is there because a whole heap of dwarves had been killed
>off by the orcs there. In other words, it's not the sole skeleton in
>the room. It was obviously the remains of a "last stand" sort of fight,
>which is why the skeletons have not been removed and given a proper
>burial.
Although I am on record as being completely in favour of the altered
well scene, I still don't understand how the skeleton is supposed to
have got there. He's perched on the rim of the well, dangling his feet
over the side, with arrows sticking out of his chest. What on earth
was supposed to have happened to him?
James
Fred the Red Shirt
Probably he was leaping up out of the well to attack the orcs but they
were waiting for him and shot him full of arrows in mid-air, the impact
of the arrows knocking him over on his back.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
--
FF
G. M. Watson
----------
In article <74l51ugj6mihgn1fa...@4ax.com>, James <a@b.c>
wrote:
He was done in by an incompetent scriptwriter who was under orders to
shorten and dumb down the whole Moria sequence.
James
>He was done in by an incompetent scriptwriter who was under orders to
>shorten and dumb down the whole Moria sequence.
The incompetent screenwriter being Peter Jackson, under orders from
Peter Jackson?
James
Eric San Juan
news:u192otr...@corp.supernews.com...
Tell me, how short and dumb have they made it? I haven't seen the film
yet (obviously you have) and so cannot really say how the whole of the
Moria sequence has been altered. It does appear, based on clips that
have been aired, that the well room has been combined with Balin's tomb.
That's condensing, to be sure, though I'm not sure what is "dumb" about
it.
(FWIW, on the Sci-Fi Channel's special on Sunday, a few clips from Moria
clearly showed the Fellowship coming across a great number of dwarven
skeletons riddled with arrows. Presumably the dwarf skeleton that falls
in the well is one of the same group, who probably are of Balin;s group)
(FWIW2, the two-minute clip showed on Fox's special last week was not
uncut and unedited, as they presented, according to some folks who have
seen the film. There is some time between the skelly falling into the
well and the attack beginning, "tension" time, I guess, which did not
come across in the clip aired on the special. All allegedly, of course)
G. M. Watson
----------
In article <ro391u8jip8lsqa4k...@4ax.com>, James <a@b.c>
wrote:
Not unless he's changed his name to Frances Walsh.
Dave Mansell
M. Watson) wrote:
Screenwriters are Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens.
Dave
"For all its wonderful sets Potter looks, by comparison,
like it was filmed in a garden shed."
Jeff Blanks
>"William H. Hsu" wrote:
>
>> >We know that Arwen rides Frodo to the ford
>>
>> Yernow, now that I think about it, there ARE certain scenes I don't need
>> to see...
>
>It's been cut from the film, but will be restored for the DVD.
??? So what's in the film?
--
Imagination is intelligence with an erection. --Victor Hugo
G. M. Watson
----------
In article <jblanks-1712...@user-38ld43g.dialup.mindspring.com>,
jbl...@mindspring.com (Jeff Blanks) wrote:
> nos...@erols.com wrote:
>
>>"William H. Hsu" wrote:
>>
>>> >We know that Arwen rides Frodo to the ford
>>>
>>> Yernow, now that I think about it, there ARE certain scenes I don't need
>>> to see...
>>
>>It's been cut from the film, but will be restored for the DVD.
>
> ??? So what's in the film?
>
I guess all those critics who've been praising the scene-- one
overenthusiastic reviewer in my home town said the scene, for him, evoked
the "Four Horsemen of the Apocaplyse"-- must be suffering from a collective
hallucination.
Fred the Red Shirt
> "James" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>
> [snip]
>
> > Sorry, you're right - it was the wrong term to use. I meant, of
> > course, "narrative structure" (which I used later). It's rather
> > disingenuous, though, for you to respond with such nitpicking as if
> > you don't understand what I was arguing, or as if it somehow
> > undermines the point I was making.
>
> I'm not sure you know what you're arguing. What does placing Arwen at the
> ford have to do with the narrative structure?
Simply replacing Glorfindel with Arwen is not that big of a problem.
It does significantly alter Arwen as a character in the story, but
she was a minor character anyhow. One problem I have with Arwen as
a warrior is that it will tend to detract from Eowyn as a warrior
later on.
>
> > There's not much here to reply to. You're offering no rationale, no
> > evidence to back up your claim that PJ is "butchering" the scene (less
> > of a real claim than a useless insult, anyway).
>
> If you don't understand why the scene is ruined, then you have no grasp of
> how important this scene is in Frodo's development. The temerity he shows
> in confronting the Riders alone, quite unaware that crossing the ford has
> taken him out of harm's way is thrown out. His reliance on Arwen (whose
> challenge to the Riders is hollow because she can call down the flood)
> instead destroys a critical element in the development of our protagonist.
>
I think you have misinterpretted Frodo's actions at that point. The
wound had weakened his resistance to the ring and to the Witch King.
He should have continued to flee. First, he was unable to flee and
then truning to fight was simply playing into their hands. He was
delusional at that point.
That scene doesn't show how courageous Frodo had become, it showed
how close he was to being lost. His decision to be ring-bearer at
the Council of Elrond showed his courage.
>
> There is a difference between making subtle changes, and destroying
> important elements of the story. I use the term canonical because, yes, he
> should have created NEW non-canonical scenes for Arwen, rather than hitting
> us over the head with her at the expense of the story. And, I suspect this
> won't be the only damage he does.
Yuck, adding newly created material into a movie is almost always
a disaster.
--
FF