Lord of the Rings: Did PJ lose the plot?

[reapersaurus]

...And some of us choose to ignore the filmmaker's political opinions and still give it a big thumbs up.

oh, absolutely.
I don't think ANY war movie with kick-ass giant bugs in it needs anything else (certainly not politics) to get a big thumbs-up from me.

 

[Hypersmurf]

a) Come on.
You know what a "WW2-era" description means.
It means that the backdrop is about a war that is fought for Good reasons against a truly despicable foe, with a loss meaning genocide.

To retort that the book happened to be published in 1959 is completely argumentative and ignoring the point.
Do you disagree that Starship Troopers is a "WW2-type" book?

Wait - "WW2-type" has a very different meaning to "WW2-era".

When I read "WW2-era", I immediately assumed it was either written or set in the late 30s or early 40s.

"Era" refers to time, not theme.

-Hyp.

 

[reapersaurus]

thanks for pointing it out, Hyp.

In my eyes, though, in the context I wrote it, it's rather obvious that I'm intimating "WW2-type" book (especially since the previous sentence, I'd mentioned the book's THEMES).

"type" or "era", the discussion was (is) about Starship Troopers material being a statement about war. A very clean, easy-to-support war like WW2, where the enemy was an almost-cartoonishly Evil force.
I am not aware of many other wars that were as blatantly-clear in the mandate to oppose the enemy than in WW2. Similarly, a book that details a war between mankind and an alien race of bugs who's sole directive in the war is the extinction of man is equally blatantly-clear.

A movie that calls upon that "era" or "type" of war is what was being mentioned.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In my eyes, though, in the context I wrote it, it's rather obvious that I'm intimating "WW2-type" book (especially since the previous sentence, I'd mentioned the book's THEMES).

Well, to be fair, in the sentence in question, you compared "WW2-era" to "modern-day". Thinking that you were comparing 1940 to 2000 was a reasonable interpretation of the sentence, given that you used two temporally-inclined phrases.

It might be a nitpick that didn't advance the debate, but it was a fair one

-Hyp.

 

[Salthanas]

This is a total copout, and doesn't convince me at all.

Handwaving Gandalf's mistake(s) by saying he wasn't 'omniscient' or 'perfect' ignores that he himself related to the reader the dire danger the One Ring represented.
Who did the reader hear the background of the Ring from?

Are we supposed to forget the sense of dread and danger that he instilled in us the previous chapter?
No.
That's why it's a MISTAKE.
A HUGE mistake, in both character actions AND storywriting.

I don't believe for an instant that a millenia-old character who is known for his Wisdom, who just spent years researching to make SURE that the Ring WAS The One Ring, a person who knew (firsthand?) the terrible nature and strength of Sauron.... I don't believe that Gandalf would make so collosal of blunder as underestimating Sauron's influence and power.

Fanboys can handwave the writing mistakes in the Trilogy, and say that it doesn't bother them, but that doesn't make it any less obvious to me (and others).

BTW: another example, similarly handwaved and "not a problem" by fans of the book is the orcs killing each other at Cirith Ungal conveniently allowing Sam to waltz thru the heart of the enemy unobstructed, even after a warning had been set off.
I'm sure there are many other examples, that just are "not problems" to fans of the books, that other people find are obstacles in heaping praise on the original story.

You seem to have totally ignored all the reasons I gave for why Gandalf did what he did and then launched into a rant on the matter. What specifically was Gandalf's mistake, he wanted Frodo to leave the Shire unnoticed to avoid news reaching Sauron (this is due to Gandalfs extreme paranoia regarding Sauron in case you did'nt twig), leaving quickly and in a dramatic fashion simply makes it all the easier for Sauron to trace the Ring so theres nothing really wrong with this. He then goes to investigate rumours which could affect their journey intending to only be away for a short time and gets captured in the process. There is nothing really wrong with Gandalf's plan, its only Saruman's defection that totally throws things out of order.

And its all very well saying that fanboys can wave away all the mistake but detractors can and often will try to make cite mistakes using the art of fitting square pegs into round holes. Personally as obnoxious as some of the Tolkien zealots are I don't have quite the same problem with them as I do with some of the Tolkien detractors who are just as blinded and often more purile partly because people who want to spend their time trying to tear things down rather than talking about things they like are generally like that IMO. They are often as blinded by their dislike of Tolkien as the fanboys are of their admiration for him.

While I think it's objectively proveable, I know 2 things:
1) People are capable of believing the sun is blue if that's their opinion, regardless of proof to the contrary.
2) We're dealing with subjective enough subject matter here, that I would have to write a thesis paper, and research and annotate my proof(s) to make it clear enough that it could be called "objective proof", and it's not worth it to me.

If its so obvious then why doesn't everyone agree with you? Your not one of these tedious people who thinks that somehow his or her viewpoint is the only correct one I assume? Or is it just that the only people who don't agree with you are Tolkien fanboys

 

[buzzard]

a) Come on.
You know what a "WW2-era" description means.
It means that the backdrop is about a war that is fought for Good reasons against a truly despicable foe, with a loss meaning genocide.

To retort that the book happened to be published in 1959 is completely argumentative and ignoring the point.
Do you disagree that Starship Troopers is a "WW2-type" book?

Oh, so I'm supposed to argue with what you think, rather than what your write. I see. So if I catch you in anything other factual inconsistencies, you were obviously thinking something else. BTW W.W. II is not the only defensible war in history or legend.

Do you guys understand that many other people are able to read a book, then see an adaptation that is DIFFERENT from the book, and still enjoy the influences on the film from the book?
Many people don't require a wrote-recreation of a book (even if it WAS filmable) to make them happy with a movie.

Do you understand that maybe Starship Troopers was a lousy movie? Maybe it was so unrelated to the book that it shouldn't have had that name? How about it be called Starship Poopers, since it was just a joke anyway?

Hell, I think I could make a pretty good objective case that people who read books and don't like a movie becuase it's not exactly like the book are (at best) ineffecient and unrealistic in their expectations.

Here's how:
The people who like the book (most likely) are fans of the material and genre.
The movie is almost always in the same genre and uses a lot of the same material/backdrop.
Therefore, any person who likes the book should like the genre and material that the movie presents. That (IMO) is the majority of the way towards liking a movie.
The majority of films made do NOT have material or a genre that appeals to the average person (total guess).
Therefore, using the fact that a movie doesn't follow exactly by the book as reason for not liking a movie that matches the genre and material that the viewer enjoys, is inefficient and unrealistic.

That argument made essentially no sense whatsoever. It is logically inane, and inconsistent. However, undoubtedly what you wrote isn't what you were thinking, so any counter arguments will be dismissed with appropriate handwaving.

However I have never said the movie had to be eactly like the book. However I would like it to have something to do with the book other than mockery and some character names. Your little ramble does not even come close to adressing my concerns, or even bear on them in a tangential way. But then you were obviously thinking something else. Ahem.

Let me sum up, enjoy the movie, you are entitled to your opinion. I still think the movie is crap, and an insult to the book. I'd think it was crap even if I hadn't read the book.

buzzard

 

[Endur]

All I want to say about Starship Troopers or Battlefield Earth is that I am so glad LOTR didn't turn out like them. The books were ok, but the Battlefield Earth movie is unwatchable, and Starship Troopers was also bad (but not as bad as BE). Those are good examples of a director deviating from a book and making a movie bad because of the deviations. The lack of powered armor in Starship Troopers was a major change. I understand the reasoning, but it was a major deviation from the book.

With regards to ROTK, Aragorn and Gondor were somewhat short-changed. Aragorn didn't challenge Sauron through the Palantir, Aragorn didn't do anything with Anduril other than wave it around, we see hardly anything of Gondor besides Faramir + Denethor, etc. Oh well, there just wasn't time for more.

The Scouring is an "odd ending" and including it changes the whole tone of the story. I understand his choice to not include it.

 

[Nightfall]

Jeez,

You come on here, critize ONE lousy movie and people call you a heathen. Oh wait I do that anyway. So I guess I deserved. Or maybe no.

Buzz, I agree with you about Starship Troopers being a lousy movie. Glad someone agrees with me.

 

[reapersaurus]

a) You seem to have totally ignored all the reasons I gave for why Gandalf did what he did and then launched into a rant on the matter.

b) If its so obvious then why doesn't everyone agree with you?

a) I didn't ignore them - they simply didn't convince me, and they didn't counter my stated reasons.

b) That's a big question.
But there are many reasons, not the least of which is human nature/psychology:
The more people read (and/or learn) something, the more their approach becomes similar to the material. They become more agreeable towards the subject, to justify their long exposure to it.
This is the basis of brainwashing, and a recognized psychological observation, AFAIK.

Further, most people that are fans of something prefer not to point out its flaws. I'm not talking about the internet - I'm talking about real people.
When people like something, they seldom talk about the parts they didn't like - they concentrate on the parts they did. This is human naure - to appear agreeable, and fun to be around. Conflict and disagreeableness are not virtues in human society (again, not talking about the internet).

It's usually people who DON'T like something that will talk about the flaws in a work.
Guess who reads these LotR threads?
People who LIKE the work, for the vast majority.

I even like LotR - quite a lot, actually.

This doesn't blind me to the things that don't work in it.
To me, something that can hold up to scrutiny INCREASES my respect for the work.
Which is why I started this thread here to debate what I perceive to be things that don't work in the book. I'd appreciate more input.
However, what you've mentioned here is not convincing at all, mainly because you haven't been addressing my points.

 

[Vocenoctum]

With regards to ROTK, Aragorn and Gondor were somewhat short-changed. Aragorn didn't challenge Sauron through the Palantir, Aragorn didn't do anything with Anduril other than wave it around, we see hardly anything of Gondor besides Faramir + Denethor, etc. Oh well, there just wasn't time for more.

Aragorn's Challenge could be worthwhile, depending on how it's done. The part where Aragorn grabs the Palantir in the movie may have done, if they'd added him saying he felt Sauron or something. They never did Sauron's Side in anything, or that could have worked. (Image of Sauron "They have Isildur's heir!", but what image of Sauron?)
I think <that hobbit>'s grabbing of the Palantir worked fine, in the book is a bit more time and a different location, but no matter.

For Denethor's madness, I wonder how people that never knew anything about the book thought of it. We don't have a lot of Denethor's scenes, so it's perfectly logical that he's always nutty.

I wanted more of the war from inside Minas Tirith. So much work for the sets and stuff, and then they show mostly the Field. I like teh field though

Sam taking the tower would have worked better had they shown him using the ring. I think they wanted to avoid having it seem "easy" for him though. (resisting/ using the ring that is)

Faramir deserves more time in RotK, I can see Eowyn getting her time, I think her part was done enough. Faramir is mostly just a body getting carted around. A Weekend at Minas Tirith perhaps...