Oscars and Lord of the Rings

Then perhaps I shouldn't tell you that he's supposedly making an American Doctor Who movie?

I agree Chris Columbus pretty nearly achieved perfection on the first HP movie, though some purists bashed him. I have one friend who complained Hermione's hair wasn't sticking out enough. Well pthaw. I thought she was a charming little scene stealer who lost her edge as she got older.

I'm impressed that you (Figgy) can embrace PJ entirely and thoroughly detest another director...I didn't think either were consistent enough to accept or reject in toto. I thought the Potter movies lost their charm, but couldn't quite figure whether it was the books getting darker or the actors getting older and hence less delightful. Never thought to pin it on the director.

Then perhaps I shouldn't tell you that he's supposedly making an American Doctor Who movie? -Tin

If Moffat hadn't unequivically quashed that story such news could have caused a catastrophic crabbit explosion- you have to take more care your Maj! Nobody wants crabbit fallout all over Forumshire.

halfwise wrote:I agree Chris Columbus pretty nearly achieved perfection on the first HP movie, though some purists bashed him. I have one friend who complained Hermione's hair wasn't sticking out enough. Well pthaw. I thought she was a charming little scene stealer who lost her edge as she got older.

Oddly enough, most of the HP purists I've met name the first two movies as the best of the franchise (although depending on the extremity of their purism, that might not be praise in their eyes ). I thought that the first two movies stuck the closest to the book. I think Aflonso Cuaron is given too much criticism from the HP purists for PoA. Yes, the Marauders should have been explained, but in general he captures the story of the book while also giving the movie a sense of heart and its own unique identity that IMO most of the other HP movies lacked.

I'm impressed that you (Figgy) can embrace PJ entirely and thoroughly detest another director

What's always surprised me is how some people here (I'm thinking mainly of Ringdrotten in this case -- not meant as an attack; he's just the first one who came to mind) can praise PJ's job of adaptation yet criticize the recent Sherlock Holmes movies. On the other hand, I feel that the first RDJ Sherlock Holmes got a lot of unfair criticism in general, so meh. Nonetheless, it strikes me as a curious form of doublethink, but I think that a lot (though not all) of "purist debates" are, in the end, based on whether someone did or did not like a particular book or films more than they're based on anything measurable about the works themselves.

I think I had an easier time enjoying the Potter movies because I just don't know them as well as Tolkien.

I had to watch all the LoTR movies twice: the first time through I'd have hissy fits, then I'd let it sink in and resign myself to the differences, and the second time through I'd enjoy them. So the more I watch them the more I enjoy them. Wears down my defenses.

(except for Denethor - most of the other changes didn't really change the characters. (Okay, Gimli went way out of bounds but since they used almost none of Tolkien's lines I kinda forgot he was Gimli (and it was okay with me that they saved Arwen from being a friggin' wallflower (they pulled back from going totally overboard thank god)))).

I should clarify what I mean by impressed - I wasn't being sarcastic (my mind honestly doesn't work that way), just dazzled by the sudden realization that somebody can think so differently that I have to class it as originality.

I am glad you clarified Halfwise, as I wasnt sure quite what you meant, I mean its obvious that I could love one directer yet hate another, everyone has their preferences and just because I love PJ doesnt mean I have to love Yates? The first 3 Potters were simply true to the magic, and Yates films stripped away the magic as surely as an acid bath. he tried to make them seem darker and more urban, he ignored the heart of Potter and sterilized him. Some of the scenes in the films he made were teetering on the edge of the pedestrian with a final plunge into the banal in the last two. I hate the visual look of the films too, the Burrow was all wrong, as was Hogsmead and Diagon Alley. But what I miss the most was the way Hogwarts felt, he made it seem strangely empty and souless like a stage set whereas before it felt like a place full of people it felt like a real school. Remember in the first film where Harry has first arrived and is sitting in the tower window looking out and stroking Hedwig, that scene was beautiful, and the first Christmas Ron and Harry had where he was given the Cloak, it felt right, Yates made it feel desolate and worst of all unmagical.

I think stripping some of the magic from Hogwarts was actually intentional: it was taken over by the wrong side. But it could have been tweaked to provide just the right mix of old magic and painful reality.

Ah well, the first one was still a treasure.

and Yates films stripped away the magic as surely as an acid bath. he tried to make them seem darker and more urban, he ignored the heart of Potter and sterilized him.- Mrs Figg

Odd as I would say PJ striped away the reality of Tolkiens world as surely as an acid bath. He tried to make them more action based and less character driven, he ignored the heart of Tolkiens message and sterilizes him.


Odd but true!

well as you can see I am quite sensitive to atmospheres, I feel it in my guts, and I dont often get it wrong, and I just dont get what you mean about LOTR, I get the total opposite, I feel fully emerged in ME when I watch them.

Kind of agree there, Eldo let's just all agree to disagree on that matter.. we have discussed it throughly once or twice... x100

though I have a syndrome called "bringing-up-Lotr/hobbit-when-talking-about-things-that-really-has-nothing-to-do-with-i"t xD

For anyone interested, I deleted my post that Norc is responding to since I thought it was overly snarky and crabbit (but she was sneaky and saw it first!), but the basic point was that it feels like all too often we have someone dragging criticisms of LOTR and PJ into unrelated discussions. I realize that this thread began as a discussion of LOTR and that there have been comparisons with PJ throughout, but it just feels like it's hard to have a general movie discussion on this forum without someone bringing up PJ.

oh, Eldo xD you deleted the post to then write exactly the same xD
(yes, I am sneaky or just living on the internet )

Deleting posts?! Is that appropriate for a Free Spirits Forum?- not like going off topic isnt the norm here and the thread is about LotR's and oscars not HP and the oscars. (unfortunelty I never saw the post in question so I have no idea as to its content)

I deleted my own post because I regretted making it. The only time I've deleted posts not made by me is when they're made by spambots. But Norc saw and responded to the post so I figured I should try to better explain what I meant. I summarized what the content of the post was in my response immediately after Norc's. But part of the reason I deleted the first post is that I realized this thread is not the best example of what I was talking about.

EDIT: Just to elaborate, while this thread is obviously not HP and the Oscars, it drifted into an HP discussion (just as many threads tend to drift around on Forumshire). And at that point it just feels pointlessly negative to bring up criticisms of PJ that we've all heard a million times before when people are having a pleasant, positive discussion about a different topic. But again, I realize the HP stuff is tangential to the opening post, so I'll just shut up now.

I see what you mean Eldo, yes, this isn't the best example but this is a thread about oscars, lotr and movies generally, so ... ok.. I'll shut up too. but I am a bit tired of always bringing up PJ and.. okay.. no. stop.

I agree Eldo, PJ bashing does get rather tiresome and predictable some times. There is a time and place for it, and in the middle of talk about HP its a bit of a downer.

Man, George Bush was such a d***

I hate the new bus-company.

I need a new pair of pjs for bed. Doh!

Just to clarify I didn't make the Pj comment just to bash- the HP conversation preceding it had widened out a little to discuss comparisons in the styles of two different directors and Mrs Figgs comments about one of them in favour of the the other struck me as being intriguing in light of her view on PJ- hence my comment. Not wanting to open it back up just to make it clear.

Yeah, like I said, this thread isn't the best example of what I'm talking about, but I do feel that threads sometimes get unnecessarily dragged into old arguments (and I'm not trying to blame any one person for this). But I've said my piece so I'll let this one be.

I dont get it, what has my preference of Columbus over Yates got to do with my love of PJ, am I missing something here, I dont get the connection. Why are people saying its incongrous, its weirding me out. Why is it intriguing in the light of my liking PJ??? do explain.

Mrs Figg wrote:I agree Eldo, PJ bashing does get rather tiresome and predictable some times. There is a time and place for it, and in the middle of talk about HP its a bit of a downer.

I never get tired of it. It's never a downer for me. There is never a time when it shouldn't come up, Mrs Figg! Every time I see criticism, I feel less and less alone.

Nobody has told me why me liking Columbus over Yates has anything to do with PJ.