Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

shewolf85

Hello Peter Jackson

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1641271' date='Jan 8 2009, 06.37']You did not do any such thing.
You just try to find excuses for wrong and simply stupid changes that jackson introduced when in every example it is clear that those changes didnt have the effect you proclaim was intended.

Now stating that i dont understand your posts is another feeble attempt to make your arguments somehow correct.[/quote]
Either you quote where I express my likings of the changes or you can admit that you have trouble understanding what I write. That's a quick solution to that argument instead of the baseless tough guy comments that takes us nowhere.

[quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1641271' date='Jan 8 2009, 06.37']In the case of Aragorn and ridiculous "abilities" that were forced on legolas there is no similarity at all since Aragorn didnt display any ridiculous abilities such a legolas.
Thats clear enough and if you cannot understand that then either you are truly unable to do so or you are doing it intentionally.[/quote]
What characteristics they possess is irrelevant to my point. I'm saying that you are using flawed logic by saying that the movies say that all Elves are like Legolas when they in fact show nothing of the same abilities for the other Elves.

It doesn't matter if we are talking about something spectacular and normal. Saying that everyone in Gondor has hair because Boromir has hair is the exact same logic as you are using. It doesn't even matter if the statement is correct in itself since the logic to derive it is still wrong.

[quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1641271' date='Jan 8 2009, 06.37']And clearly you are wrong since that "aspect" of her is important to the story and only a moron could claim otherwise.[/quote]
No, that's not at all important to tell the story of the Ring. You need to learn to separate between core elements to a story and details. It's just as Glorfindel isn't important to tell the story, even though he's a very prominent resident of Imladris and a very frequently debated minor character from the book.

The second coming of the Beren and Luthien scenario could actually be told between Aragorn and any Elf woman. The details of who Arwen is can make that part of the story stronger but the core of that story is about love, immortality and sacrifice.

[quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1641271' date='Jan 8 2009, 06.37']You understand what core elements are? Should i believe you just because you say it when all of the things you posted prove the opposite?[/quote]
Yes, I certainly do. From the discussion I'm not entirely sure that you know what core elements are since you're discussing around details as if they were essential. If you actually bothered to argue why the story is impossible to be told with the exclusion of, for example, the fact that Arwen wouldn't go out on her own there would actually be a discussion.

We for example agree that Frodo seemingly tries to hand the Nazgul the Ring makes Faramir's choice illogical within the context of the movie. The problem is that a lof of your other criticism is based on things only being illogical within the context of expecting the movies to be exactly like the book, which is an impossible demand.

[quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1641271' date='Jan 8 2009, 06.37']- On the matter of Aragorn and Elrond i will find the exact quote so i can rub your subjective nose in it more.

Transcript from some site:
Gandalf: There is one who could unite them. One who could reclaim the throne of Gondor

[b]ELROND: He turned from that path a long time ago. He has chosen exile[/b]

- and thats not all of it since trancript i found ends there.[/quote]
I remember those words without the transcript and they don't say anything like you're suggesting. In what you write he's merely saying that Aragorn has no intention of claiming the throne of Gondor. Never is he hinting that he thinks Aragorn is weak due to that. In fact there's actually a scene where he speaks to Aragorn about the power he possesses to prove the opposite (at the grave of Aragorn's mother).

You also said that he thinks Aragorn has betrayed the fight against the enemy. You did however not answer me when I in return asked how the Rangers of the North aren't fighting the enemy, or how swearing to help destroy the Ring isn't fighting the enemy? Since Elrond's words doesn't say that you must have gotten that impression from somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]Either you quote where I express my likings of the changes or you can admit that you have trouble understanding what I write. That's a quick solution to that argument instead of the baseless tough guy comments that takes us nowhere.[/quote]
Then what are you arguing with me for? Are you trying to say its all subjective and doesnt matter?
You explicitly tried to defend several of the changes i mentioned so why is it so surprising for me to think you like them.
If you dont then say so instead arguing about them.
Also my comments are not tough guy comments. I call those changes idiotic or moronic because they are. Simply as that.
There is no other qualification suitable enough.

[quote]What characteristics they possess is irrelevant to my point. I'm saying that you are using flawed logic by saying that the movies say that all Elves are like Legolas when they in fact show nothing of the same abilities for the other Elves.[/quote]
Then why is Legolas displaying such ridiculous abilities if other elves dont have them? Did he go to a ninja school?
When i go to see a Lord of the Rings movie i dont expect to see a jackie chan movie y`know?

[quote]It doesn't matter if we are talking about something spectacular and normal. Saying that everyone in Gondor has hair because Boromir has hair is the exact same logic as you are using. It doesn't even matter if the statement is correct in itself since the logic to derive it is still wrong.[/quote]
Completely wrong comparison.
And completely obviously wrong logic from your side.
Its not even a question of spectacular vs normal.
Its a question of something completely ridiculous and idiotic vs normal.
Of forcing in idiotic jackie chan moves on characters that never displayed anything like that in the books that completely destroy any sense of seriousness of situations and turn something that should be serious into a brainless slapstick comedy.
Not to mention going against whole theme and the way setting, history and lore of the middle earth was constructed in the first place.

[quote]No, that's not at all important to tell the story of the Ring. You need to learn to separate between core elements to a story and details[/quote]
Aha...you meant the story of the ring. Well why didnt you say so. I was thinking we are talking about Arwen herself not the whole story.

[quote]It's just as Glorfindel isn't important to tell the story, even though he's a very prominent resident of Imladris and a very frequently debated minor character from the book.[/quote]
But Arwen is much more important to Aragorn and everything he does.
So i would not agree she is just a minor character that is not important for the story overall.

I was specificaly arguing that having Arwen riding out alone against nine ringwraiths is idiotic and insane which remains to be true.


[quote]discussing around details as if they were essential[/quote]
Arwen, Aragorn, Legolas and all the other changes are not details. They are very important parts of the story. Parts that make a whole.

[quote]We for example agree that Frodo seemingly tries to hand the Nazgul the Ring makes Faramir's choice illogical within the context of the movie. The problem is that a lof of your other criticism is based on things only being illogical within the context of expecting the movies to be exactly like the book, which is an impossible demand.[/quote]
Its illogical on the basic level of common sense most of all.

- no, thats not true. Thats strawmaning or at best not understanding what im saying unintentionally.

I repeatedly said that i dont advocate movie to be exactly like the book.
I AM SAYING that those specific changes were stupid and ultimately didnt bring anything at all to the movie itself apart from distorting the story in stupid ways and making a comedy of it. Bad comedy at that.

Those changes made the movie shallow, ridiculous and totally unbelievable. from a level of serious deep fantasy story to a level of slapstick comedy and cliches everyone is sick of in fantasy in general.

Lets imagine that choice of Faramir was filmed more or less exactly as it was in the books.
What would that bring to the movie?
It would make Faramir much deeper and believable as a character. It would make much more sense generally especially juxtaposing him against his brother and father. And it would make his choice much more meaningful considering that situation where he can take the Ring as easily as lifting his hand with death of Boromir as an excuse to boot.

Compare this to the absolutely idiotic trip to Osgiliath and all that happened there.

[quote]You also said that he thinks Aragorn has betrayed the fight against the enemy. You did however not answer me when I in return asked how the Rangers of the North aren't fighting the enemy, or how swearing to help destroy the Ring isn't fighting the enemy? Since Elrond's words doesn't say that you must have gotten that impression from somewhere else.[/quote]
Im not saying that, naturally. because i know that Aragorn id doing exactly that all his long life.
That is the result of Elronds words (as clearly seen above in that quote) and the fact that Elrond doesnt mention that later on or the fact that is not confirmed anywhere in the movie just shows how incredibly stupid those lines were. Stupid and absolutely unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jaquen Hgharr,

When adapting a book, especially a beloved and well know one, for film there are many things that have to be altered to gain a broader appeal. I, like you, don't agree with or understand all of the changes the Peter Jackson made but when a story transfers medium, much like in the oral tradition, when it moves from one teller to another the new story teller will emphasize the parts he thinks are most important, and alter the story to suit his tastes. This, more often than not, will generate ire on the part of those who hold a deep love for the older version of the story, and in their view the better or only version. The numbers, however, do not lie. $2.913 BILLION worth of people world wide were satisfied with Peter Jackson's adaptation, obviously you weren't one of them. I know several who are in the same boat with you, but whether or not a choice in the films was idiotic or not is totally subjective, since we will never have a replication of the production with the script changes you suggest. There is no way to know which the broader audience would have prefered. Since New Line footed the bill for production to make money, the amount of money brought in by the films is one of the only objective measures of success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How many people has bought the book, were/are satisfied with the book?

Does the fact that britney spears sells millions of albums means those are good?
mass market doesnt mean anything today other then there is a lot of people with very cheap and superficial tastes out there.
Thats was a target audience for jackson ripoff and for every one of those changes he made.
for people who will only see superficial momentary effect and wont think about it longer then that second of how long it lasts.
"Whooa legolas is scating on a shield shooting at stupid orcs!"
"Whoa legolas is jumping around the mumakil like he is jackie chan!"
"Look at teh funny dwarf he has his eyes crossed and spits overhimslef when he drinks!"

Dont talk to me about subjectivity and relativity man.

And dont try to sell me that broader audience bullshit either.

Who of them came to see Orlando Bloom as Legolas? Who ever imagined that as Legolas? Or was attracted to a movie to see Gimli turned into a comedy sidekick that spits over himslef?

Would people leave in throves if they didnt see legolas scating down a shield? Would they protest and ask for money back if Gimli was presented as he was in the books?

Dont be ridiculous.

How would you like some cheap comedy and kung fu in Godfather?
In Raging Bull, Taxi driver, Blade runner, Apocalypse today, Casablanca, Schindlers list and so on... you know, something for the "broader appeal" on the level of changes jackson invented. Some cheap cliches and slapstick comedy where it doesnt belong.

Jackson turned something deep and serious into a light superficial flick filled with cliches that dont have any origin in the books.
He turned it into something whole theater was laughing at, not just me, while they watched Return of the King.
And the funniest part was siege of Gondor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1642605' date='Jan 9 2009, 16.20']Then what are you arguing with me for? Are you trying to say its all subjective and doesnt matter?
You explicitly tried to defend several of the changes i mentioned so why is it so surprising for me to think you like them.
If you dont then say so instead arguing about them.
Also my comments are not tough guy comments. I call those changes idiotic or moronic because they are. Simply as that.
There is no other qualification suitable enough.[/quote]
Because you were saying that the changes wasn't due to the reasons I posted. For example you said that Aragorn's character wasn't changed due to them wanting more character development. I have to argue against that since it's a fact that that's the reason. After I showed that you turned the argument into it being a bad choice and I had to explain that that wasn't my point.

And yes, writing things like that about subjective opinions are how wannabe tough guys write. I can't see any other reason why anyone would like to come off like that so I drew that conclusion. There are plenty of other ways to show that one doesn't agree and that also makes one come off better.

[quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1642605' date='Jan 9 2009, 16.20']Then why is Legolas displaying such ridiculous abilities if other elves dont have them? Did he go to a ninja school?
When i go to see a Lord of the Rings movie i dont expect to see a jackie chan movie y`know?[/quote]
There are more than one possible answer but yes, I imagine that all Elves train to be good at what they choose to do, just as everyone else. Or do you mean that all humans are like Jackie Chan (seeing how he did a lot of his stunts without tricks)?

[quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1642605' date='Jan 9 2009, 16.20']Completely wrong comparison.
And completely obviously wrong logic from your side.
Its not even a question of spectacular vs normal.
Its a question of something completely ridiculous and idiotic vs normal.
Of forcing in idiotic jackie chan moves on characters that never displayed anything like that in the books that completely destroy any sense of seriousness of situations and turn something that should be serious into a brainless slapstick comedy.
Not to mention going against whole theme and the way setting, history and lore of the middle earth was constructed in the first place.[/quote]
No, the logic is exactly the same. The logic of saying "this single thing is this way so all similar things are exactly the same (even when they don't show any such tendencies)" is universal and a highly flawed form of reasoning.

You also continue with a flawed way of arguing since you post your opinion as if it was fact. You are welcome to think whatever you like about it but don't act like it's a universal truth. As for the thematical differences I certainly agree that the movies have a different feel in this regard though.

[quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1642605' date='Jan 9 2009, 16.20']Aha...you meant the story of the ring. Well why didnt you say so. I was thinking we are talking about Arwen herself not the whole story.[/quote]
Just a case of me assuming we were talking about the same thing. I only see the movies as trying to show the story of the Ring and all details around that that are put in are bonuses as I see it. Movies generally tend to flesh out the core story so I was actually surprised to see minor details like for example discussing the ring of Barahir. I guess the details that are correct according to the book can bring out the changes even further for some though.

[quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1642605' date='Jan 9 2009, 16.20']But Arwen is much more important to Aragorn and everything he does.
So i would not agree she is just a minor character that is not important for the story overall.

I was specificaly arguing that having Arwen riding out alone against nine ringwraiths is idiotic and insane which remains to be true.[/quote]
Yes, Arwen is important to Aragorn but I would actually argue that Jackson treats her as more important to the core story than Tolkien did, since the latter moved most of the details around her to the appendices. I would also argue that a character that the author features mainly in the appendices is a minor character.

And I didn't agree since the movies didn't have to have her in the exact same position. The book is a bit strange on the Nazguls but at that time of the books they are specifically described as having little power over those who aren't afraid (when Aragorn chases them away at Amon Sul). The book treats them very differently later on though, not least the Witch King, but given the first bit I don't see it as a huge stretch to make Arwen capable of riding out on her own in the context of the movie.

[quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1642605' date='Jan 9 2009, 16.20']Arwen, Aragorn, Legolas and all the other changes are not details. They are very important parts of the story. Parts that make a whole.[/quote]
Yes, most of the things we discuss are details. If we for example take Aragorn he's a ranger at Rivendell who also is the heir to the throne of Gondor through being a direct descendant of Isildur. Those are pretty much all the major points that he has to have in order to fulfill his part in the story. The rest are generally details that sets the context of everything. That's not saying that having good details isn't important, because it is, but you don't move away from the core story by changing them. So Aragorn's journey is basically the same in the movie, even though the character holds more doubt about his strength in the beginning, thus the change was on detail level according to me.

[quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1642605' date='Jan 9 2009, 16.20']Its illogical on the basic level of common sense most of all.

- no, thats not true. Thats strawmaning or at best not understanding what im saying unintentionally.

I repeatedly said that i dont advocate movie to be exactly like the book.
I AM SAYING that those specific changes were stupid and ultimately didnt bring anything at all to the movie itself apart from distorting the story in stupid ways and making a comedy of it. Bad comedy at that.

Those changes made the movie shallow, ridiculous and totally unbelievable. from a level of serious deep fantasy story to a level of slapstick comedy and cliches everyone is sick of in fantasy in general.

Lets imagine that choice of Faramir was filmed more or less exactly as it was in the books.
What would that bring to the movie?
It would make Faramir much deeper and believable as a character. It would make much more sense generally especially juxtaposing him against his brother and father. And it would make his choice much more meaningful considering that situation where he can take the Ring as easily as lifting his hand with death of Boromir as an excuse to boot.

Compare this to the absolutely idiotic trip to Osgiliath and all that happened there.[/quote]
But the important issue there is that it actually came across as illogical in the movie. Something only being "illogical" when compared to the book isn't as relevant.

If you don't think that the movies have to be exactly like the book, why are you arguing about things on the level of Arwen riding out alone? That part is irrelevant in the context of the movie, unless you are using the book as a chart for how things should be. Since you say they are unbelievable, explain how this part is illogical, only using the information presented in the movie.

Your explanations of your arguments is again only stating your opinion as if it were fact.

As for Faramir I don't think he would be more believable, apart from that Frodo scene which we have already agreed on. Him taking a longer time before fully resisting the temptation of the Ring and making his complex situation with his father visible earlier isn't less credible as I see it, especially since the things that happened in Ithilien in the book also happened in the movie.

[quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1642605' date='Jan 9 2009, 16.20']Im not saying that, naturally. because i know that Aragorn id doing exactly that all his long life.
That is the result of Elronds words (as clearly seen above in that quote) and the fact that Elrond doesnt mention that later on or the fact that is not confirmed anywhere in the movie just shows how incredibly stupid those lines were. Stupid and absolutely unnecessary.[/quote]
If you aren't saying that I don't understand at all where you get the "he has abandoned the fight against the Enemy" from. Elrond obviously said nothing like that since your quote only said that Aragorn has chosen not to take the crown of Gondor, just like his fathers before him, so that only proved my point, not yours. Your quote is crystal clear so it's impossible to interpret them as anything else than only being about the throne of Gondor, unless one doesn't know what "exile" means. I also gave another example of a scene where Elrond says what power Aragorn has so your words about Elrond saying he is weak and has abandoned the fight against the enemy seem completely baseless.

[quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1644179' date='Jan 11 2009, 03.11']Jackson turned something deep and serious into a light superficial flick filled with cliches that dont have any origin in the books.
He turned it into something whole theater was laughing at, not just me, while they watched Return of the King.
And the funniest part was siege of Gondor.[/quote]
I can't speak for your theater (although it sounds like the usual internet exaggeration) but according to the major Tolkien sites and forums that were around at the time of the movies (and probably still are) the reception of the movies were very good amongst the Tolkien fans. In every poll the ones that didn't find the movies acceptable or better were in a surprisingly small minority, not least since Tolkien fans are generally very conservative. Just a different example since it sounded like you were trying to say that most Tolkien fans didn't like them, which is thus false to the extent that is possible to see on the net.

As for the target audience it was quite obviously "everyone." There's tons of details only those with good Tolkien knowledge will pick up while the movies are still done to stand alone as movies in their eyes, not to just mimic the book.

But on to a more personal question out of sheer curiosity. Why in the world did you watch The Return of the King after you were so disappointed with the first two? You've written a lot about bad choices in our discussion but that must be pretty close to the top, given your disposition?

[quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1644179' date='Jan 11 2009, 03.11']"Whooa legolas is scating on a shield shooting at stupid orcs!"[/quote]
If that was what he did I can honestly admit that I would have been in complete shock. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jaquen Hgharr,

OK we get it. You hated it. You hate Peter Jackson. You are a book purist and can not be swayed and you use such iron clad points of logic as : [quote]Dont talk to me about subjectivity and relativity man[/quote] and [quote]And dont try to sell me that broader audience bullshit either[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='syrinax' post='1653815' date='Jan 19 2009, 07.41']Uwe Boll.[/quote]

Won't he want to wait until after the Ice and Fire video game adaptation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Ser Reptitious' post='1599392' date='Nov 24 2008, 20.30']Re: Jackson & LOTR

IIRC there was extensive speculation that the producers of the movies would force PJ to turn Sam into a woman, so that Frodo could have a love interest. After all, as common Hollywood wisdom dictates, the main protagonist needs to have a love interest!

So before this thread descends into bemoaning of all the little things that Jackson should have done differently, just remember how much worse this thing could have turned out.

IMO, Jackson struck the right balance between staying faithful to the source material and making the necessary adjustments to capture the mainstream audience that the huge budget for the movies obviously required.[/quote]

and all along i thought sam WAS his love interest....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×