Barrel-Riding Test Photos at Aratiatia Rapids - TORn

halfwise wrote:The weakness in Petty's argument is saying that PJ was praised for the PJ elements in LotR.  He wasn't, rather allowed to exhibit them without sufficient censure while other aspects were widely praised.  This allowed him to think the bad parts were actually part of the package of praise.

I think PJ and Co. have been quite aware of the criticisms they have received. They make numerous references to criticism in the commentaries and bonus features of the The Two Towers and The Return of the King. They brush a lot off it off as angry purists, but I'm sure they know there were non-purists who had major issues with the films as well. But those people were in a minority and everyone knew it.

Good points Petty.

Still those are of course arguments as to why the movies are different. Not to whether they are different, which was kind of what I was trying to get at.

We all saw the same movies yet came away with so different reactions. It's really interesting to hear people peoples perspective and reason for both liking and disliking the films.

Though I agree with you. The (partly forced) faithfulness to Tolkien was a large part of what made the LotR movies work to the degree they did, and the lack of faithfulness to Tolkiens story in the Hobbit movies are what's making those movies such a mess.

Bluebottle wrote: 

It's just interesting to think what makes people have such diffrerent reactions. There will be something about the movies that makes them resonate so deeply with a group of people. Something they saw that I didn't.

I am one of those people. I reacted on a visceral level to the High Romance, it was achingly Romantic. Wagner and DG Rossetti would have had kittens watching it.

Eldorion wrote:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:This seems to me to be very much the approach Eldo has too.

I still dont really understand it- for me if I dont enjoy a film or think it has qualities it cant by definition be a decent film.  

Either I'm misunderstanding what Blue has said or I think you've misunderstood my posts.  I have long insisted that whether the films are faithful to the books is a very different question from whether they are good movies.  But I've also been quite open in my opinion that the LOTR movies (which I love) are good or great, and that AUJ (which I did not care for) is at best mediocre, or (I have found myself drifting towards) downright bad.

I am pretty much in total agreement with you Eldo  

Pettytyrant101 wrote:.

Frankly, as far as this crabbit is concerned everyone who excuses the LotR's as somehow fundamentally better and different from TH arent looking close enough and worse are part guilty for TH- you let PJ get away with this in LotR's not only unquestioned but you praised him for it

Thats patently not true. People are NOT ignorant to the flaws in LOTR, we just dont care enough about them for it to make much difference to our enjoyment.

Well Figg, I might have said it before and though I might disagree, I'm glad you liked them. There are more that enough things to be negative about in life. (Petty might disagree with this as well though.  )

I would be interested to hear how well acquainted you were with the books before you saw the movies.

They were part of my DNA. I had imprinted on them on a cellular level.  

But srsly I had read Tolkien avidly since a child. Grew up on a diet of Arthurian legend, Nordic myths, classical music and Pre-Raphaelites. It was a heady mix, it kind of filled my head with Knights, Quests and queer beasties. I cant look at a landscape or a castle without imagining the clash of swords and the sounding of horns.

That's nice to hear.  

A lot of my problems with the movies on original viewing stemmed from me being so engrossed in Tolkien Middle Earth from the books. So picking out the alterations came very easy. My friend who wasn't as familiar with the books had a more positive reaction.

It's interesting that you had the opposite reaction while also very aware of the books.

I suppose its because my primal concern is the cinematography the way it looks is the most important thing for me. If it appeals to my aesthetic sense it works. I also didnt have any problem what so ever with the dialogue of LOTR, I genuinely believe its way way above the quality of AUJ. and I do notice when its bad. There were large parts of AUJ where the dialogue is terrible and has a very contemporary twang to it which is glaringly obvious. I didnt get that in LOTR. Obviously I am not a script writer and not an expert, but I am not particularly thick either and I know when something doesnt sound right. So when Petty says the dialogue in LOTR was bad, I just dont notice it, I cant think of one instance where the dialogue seemed off. Obviously there were detours and changes but overall its fine by me.

One example I can think of (though I know you'll disagree, Figgy):

Anyway...you need people of intelligence on this sort of mission...quest...thing...

whats wrong with it? is it the 'thing' that disturbs you? It is a modern way of speaking I will admit, but until you had pointed to it I hadnt really noticed it. I just found it funny rather than annoying to be honest Theres much worse stuff in AUJ.

Besides it sounding glib and rather stupid (to me), it's uncharacteristic of the character, though all too characteristic of the dumbing down of the character for the movie. Perhaps, I'm over-thinking it. After all, it is inspired by the book, but it just seems dumbed down.

In re: to AUJ, no argument there.

There are more that enough things to be negative about in life. (Petty might disagree with this as well though- Blue


No I agree entirely- there are more than enough things to be negative about in life, if there wasnt I wouldn't be so bloody crabbit about it now would I?!  

Ah, I've heard you talk so much about it with so fervent joy that I thought you saw being crabbit as a positive thing. And as such having to many things to be crabbit about wouldn't be possible.

But perhaps that would be going to far even for you scots, for all your talk of it veing the national characteristic.   

Yeah, I was expecting Petty to say that he would be crabbit if there was a shortage of things to be crabbit about.

I think the further North or South you go, the more crabbit people get either because its too hot or too cold, if we all lived in a nice warm temperature we would be all a lot more easy going. Thats why the English are less crabbit than the Scots, its warmer.

Crabbit is force for good- if the world were perfect there would be nothing to make a person crabbit- but its not, its hsokingly assembled this place and there is load to get crabbit at so it gets better.

Crabbit is therefore both a joyous good doing state and at the same time bloody crabbit inducing  
Its a complex thing, which is why it shouldn't be attempted unsupervised by amateurs or Americans  

Well. I think certain parties could be forgiven for thinking you scots take a bit more pleasure in it than it necesarily merits.

It's pretty hot where I live, maybe that's why I'm crabbit.
                   (I don't know if I've used that term before about myself, interesting.)

bungobaggins wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:I think at this point even the most ardent PJ apologist has to admit it is a complete rewrite. Even those guys on TORn are admitting as much (no matter what kind of spin they put on it) its a massive wholesale invention.

This is an interesting thread.

http://newboards.theonering.net/forum/gforum/perl/gforum.cgi?post=676651#676651

I think there are quite a few people over on torn who could do with a less stifling, egg-shell-walking atmosphere. There are still people over there that feel the way we do!  

Thanks for the link.
I read the first page of responses, and although there were a variety of responses, this one stuck out for me:

Annatar598 wrote:
Of sorts. The little fight was a bit too overdone perhaps, and I don't think the grandess of the misty mountains theme suited the failure of a battle. I mean, the "little basterds" were only dealing out paper cuts!

The invented Bilbo and Trolls thing was the highlight. I loved it. It's one of the great slight deviations from the source material that work great.

I prefer the first half of AUJ to the second. Bag End is pure gold.

I'm confused as to what this poster is talking about in the first sentences, but I am annoyed and really put off by idea of the Troll scene being the highlight of the movie.
How can anyone who enjoys Tolkien take to the crappy, stupid additions to his Hobbit in PJ and Co.'s movie? As many others have said before me: there is simply no reason to change things simply for the sake of changing things, especially when the changes in question are inferior.

Where on earth do opinions like this come from?

haldad wrote:
If anything, the first movie was TOO true to the books, which meant that the pacing was off. Aside from Azog, and a couple of brief scenes, the whole movie is taken from the book page by page.

Of course, it is the book's fault that the pacing was off (read: the movie was too damn long), and not the fault of the various action sequences and added material.

This same argument concerning the horrible abuse Voyage of the Dawn Treader suffered in its recent movie annoys me no end. Instead of a quality adventure movie, we get trite shite dredged from the depths of human non-creativity (read: mystical green mist no-one could care less about).

The only people I see making these arguments are apparently horribly out of touch with the source material.


P.S.
It is not only supporters of the movies that can be out of touch, of course. I met a girl near my own age who disliked the movie greatly for how it misrepresented central characters. And then went on to explain how Bilbo's main motivation in The Hobbit is greed.  

Yes, the true story of the Hobbit messed up the great pacing of the screenwriters own inventions.  

That's certainly a new one.  

I wouldnt bother trying to understand these people, they just need a good slapping. ''Its the books fault'' *slap* ''I love action sequences'' *slap* ''The cgi is great'' *slap slap* ''I want PJ's babies'' *slappedy slap slap*   ''Heroic Wheelbarrows are cool'' *thwackety slap Bazinga slap*   

Ah, so you're a Pavlovian.   

Seems as good a method to use as any.   

Ah, so you're a Pavlovian.- Bluebootle

{{{ I have heard it said she does like her puddings }}}

OI!!!!!