[OT] Upon watching PJ butcher another's work.

[Assenpfeffer]

I may be in the minority on really disliking the movie, but I don't think I'm in the minority in disliking what was done with Faramir, or in thinking that Merry & Pippin relationship with Treebeard was done badly, or in thinking the whole Arwen thing was awkward.

I didn't notice any awkwardness to the Arwen scenes at all, nor do I think that the Fangorn stuff was "done badly."

I do think that Merry and Pippin's roles in the movie were cut down to virtually nothing, which is disappointing. I expect to see at least a bit more in the inevitable Extended DVD, however.

I also think that Jackson did the smart thing in not giving equal time to Fangorn, or to Frodo and Sam, and correctly placing the film's emphasis where it should be - in Helm's Deep.

 

[Tom Cashel]

How did Faramir immediately conclude from Gollum saying 'my precious', that Frodo bore the Ring of Power? Please only use movie internal logic.

Given that Faramir never explained why the pool was forbidden, explain how the audience is supposed to see Faramir as anything as a cruel and cunning person who is sadistically enjoying tormenting Frodo by forcing him to betray his companion? Please only use internal movie logic. Explain what they _are_ supposed to feel about Faramir given the acting and direction.

"Please only use internal movie logic"? "Supposed" to feel? Are you really as worried about getting it right where your own feelings are concerned as you are with Peter Jackson getting it right where Tolkien is concerned? Can you not infer anything at all without something telling you what, exactly, you are to infer?

Man...you've got issues. And, apparently, way too much time on your hands.

I thought you didn't want to even think about the Two Towers anymore? Do us all a favor...and don't.

BTW, that scene gets my vote for most boneheaded. Here's Grima: "But master, we can't take take Helm's Deep without an army several thousands strong! There's no such army around." Looks out the window at the army of 10,000 Uruk-hai. Drops a silent tear.

Sublime terror. I know I got a little teary the first time I saw the FotR previews....

I thought it was a nice effect.

 

[WizarDru]

WizardDru: If you liked the film, fine.

One 'D' is fine, thanks.

What I find particularly annoying is complaining about a film and people like you trotting out tired old anti-purist arguements without understanding a bit of what I'm saying. For instance:

I didn't label you as such, at least not intentionally. My point was, and is, that you most of your complaints are disagreements with Jackson's vision of the plot, characters and story. You give few examples of his failure to produce a good movie, and mostly only examples of anger at his choices. There's nothing wrong with that, but it appears that you are equating his choices for adaption (good and bad) with his skill as a filmmaker, which are not the same thing. Especially given the overwhelmingly positive critical response the film is getting.

When people trot out the 'Tolkien Purist' argument, that I'm misjudging the movie based on its treatment of the material, I tend to feel that I'm dealing with a 'Movie Purist' who is afraid to critically judge that popcorn epic he just watched.

Speaking of straw men...

Actually, as I stated above, I think there are legitimate claims to be made about mistakes within the film. However, you haven't really discussed those. The overuse of some techniques would be a legitimate criticism. Disliking Jackson's changes is a valid viewpoint, but has little to do with the movie's relative qualities to a non-fan.

"Judged on its own merits, this wasn't even the movie that Gladiator or Braveheart was."

Well, rottentomatoes notwithstanding, I think these might not be the best choices for comparison, given that they both take extreme liberties with the historical record and are no less unfaithful to their sources than TTT is. Which may have been your point, in that you felt they were better films, regardless. I tend to think they were as good as TTT....at the quality level in which all three operate, I find it hard to differentiate.

If you think it was so good, you defend the work - and try to avoid doing it with 'well it seemed to be well received' because so was the Dumb and Dumberer treaser.

Well, it's not my place to 'defend the work', as it's not mine. The work can defend itself, and judging by the critical response, already has. Obviously you're more than a little angry about Jackson's choices. I don't think it's a productive use of either of our times to debate about attitudes that aren't likely to change. I certainly don't want to contribute to your ire. I enjoyed the film, and you felt it was a betrayl of Tolkien's vision. I appreciate your viewpoint, and feel sorry you didn't, but there we are.

 

[Celebrim]

Henry: I don't take that as a slam at all. I have that experience all the time. I am a perfectionist and am rightly at times accused of being hypercritical. Among my geek friends, the general rule is if 'Celebrim' says the X is ok, then its good. If 'Celebrim' says that X is 'good', then you should stop what you are doing and immediately go see or do X.

Someone asked me to find a better fantasy movie. I do consider Star Wars a fantasy movie, and I would have to propose Star Wars. I think ,however, that alot of the reason that LotR is being so well recieved is not because it is particularly well done, but because there is a huge population out there that is literally starving for a good epic fantasy movie and will cling to anything that comes close to satisfying that need.

I also think that the critics are afraid to criticize the movies openly for fear of being lumped with the critics that now sound so foolish for snidely dismissing Tolkien's books and the Star Wars movies as juvenelia simply because they were fantasy. Would you want to take the risk of being the only critic who just doesn't 'get it', especially when there are many things you can justifiably praise - the massive scale, the attention to detail, the wonderful costuming with the riders of rohan, etc.

I too found Gladiator to be highly overrated (though I happen to love the costuming), and Braveheart even more so (though I liked some of the battle footage). The comparison to the two was meant to be a slam. That these two cheesy movies with all thier writing flaws would be so well recieved only reinforces my opinion that people really desparately want a good rousing swords epic.

It would be great if PJ had managed to make an approachable version of LotR for the masses. That would have been a termendous accomplishment. I do think it is possible, but the time has not yet come. Unfortunately, PJ wasn't able to achieve this lofty goal. The best the movies can come to explaining why the fans of the books consider them to be so excellent is by attempting to explain just how and why they books have been so influential.

 

[Desdichado]

Really, was the Dumb and Dumberer teaser well recieved in your theatre? Not in mine. The Bad Boys II trailer went down the bomb, though. I guess that's not surprising, seeing the movie in Detroit though...

 

[Assenpfeffer]

BTW, that scene gets my vote for most boneheaded. Here's Grima: "But master, we can't take take Helm's Deep without an army several thousands strong! There's no such army around." Looks out the window at the army of 10,000 Uruk-hai. Drops a silent tear.

THAT, I will grant, is goofy.

 

[Desdichado]

I also think that the critics are afraid to criticize the movies openly for fear of being lumped with the critics that now sound so foolish for snidely dismissing Tolkien's books and the Star Wars movies as juvenelia simply because they were fantasy. Would you want to take the risk of being the only critic who just doesn't 'get it', especially when there are many things you can justifiably praise - the massive scale, the attention to detail, the wonderful costuming with the riders of rohan, etc.

Nothing like a little conspiracy theory to justify your own sense of superiority over the critics, eh. Boy, I'm having fun!

I too found Gladiator to be highly overrated (though I happen to love the costuming), and Braveheart even more so (though I liked some of the battle footage). The comparison to the two was meant to be a slam. That these two cheesy movies with all thier writing flaws would be so well recieved only reinforces my opinion that people really desparately want a good rousing swords epic.

Sure, people do want good sword epics. There are plenty of them out there. Sounds to me like they're all doomed to being called cheesy on principle by you, though. How exactly was Braveheart cheesy, for example? Just because it actually included a romance angle in the plot? The nerve!

 

[Assenpfeffer]

Henry: I don't take that as a slam at all. I have that experience all the time. I am a perfectionist and am rightly at times accused of being hypercritical. Among my geek friends, the general rule is if 'Celebrim' says the X is ok, then its good. If 'Celebrim' says that X is 'good', then you should stop what you are doing and immediately go see or do X.

Let me ask you this, in all seriousness:

How has this made your life better? Does it make you happy to constantly be negative? To hate almost everything except that which meets some subjective standard of quality?

I've found that there's a point at which you ought to kick back, enjoy things, and not be a dope. Life is more enjoyable without all that senseless angst.

 

[Celebrim]

Assenpfeffer: Ok, I will answer you in all seriousness.

It has made me into a person of diverse and eclectic tastes. It has made into a person who knows what he likes, not merely a person who likes what he knows. It has made me an observent person that notices details others might miss. It has made me into a person who is constantly searching for new and different or more satisfactorily experiences. It has made me into a person that doesn't take things on face value, and who isn't always satisfied with just more of the same old fare. And in a more limited fashion, it has made me into a person capable of attaining quality (though again constrained by my limited talent).

Sure, there are times when I feel I have exahausted all the best of what a particular narrow genera has to offer - say science fiction novels - but I can expect several new novels of the highest quality are written soon and while I'm waiting I can explore other areas of literature. And, if I'm actually stuck for satisfying literature, well I can go play paintball, or fence, or canoe, or snorkel, or go hiking, or play D&D, or try to write my own stories, or play video games, or any other of numerous means of entertaining myself. And in each of these areas, I can strive to within the best of my limited talents and money to find the fullest and most satisfying experience I can find.

In general, my own 'negativity' never makes me unhappy. My major complaint against my own 'negativity' is that it sometimes ruins the enjoyment of other people for things that they would have otherwise enjoyed had I not run them down so.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Joshua and others:

I think that when Grima is next to Saruman and he is taken to the balcony to see the vast armies below, and a tear falls, is because I interpreted the tear as one of mixed awe and terror.

Awe: Grima was awed that such an army was on "his" side, and that they did in fact have the armies needed to do the job of conquering Rohan, and storming Helm's Deep.

Terror: Grima, if you gentlemen will recall, is still a quasi-barbarian from the country of Rohan. He has never imagined, let alone seen, such an awesome army. The fact that it really exists right before him, and is obviously ferocious and full of absolute ruthless determination, and is prepared to butcher all of Rohan to achieve victory, I think actually reaches into Grima and strikes a cord of fear and terror at what such an army is going to set about doing.

Celebrim:

Well, you are certainly entitled to your views, and I can partially agree with some aspects of your critiques, but I disagree with the conclusion. I still think that despite a few minor flaws and different interpreation choices, that the movie is fantastic. As I mentioned before though, I have never expected the film to be a literal take off on the books, simply because the books have far too much depth and stuff going on that could ever be accurately captured in a three hour movie. Thus, I accept the movie on its own merits as being a great film adaptation of the books, rather than a literal translation.

It's unfortunate that you feel so cheated at the movie. Well, on the bright side, you don't have to waste your money on the Return of the King. You know now, ahead of time, that you can just skip that film next year and save yourself some money and stress to boot.

Take care though. Hopefully, it will grow on you!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK