Smoldering Hound Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 [quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1636892' date='Jan 3 2009, 13.35']LoL No, nothing is important as CGI. Not even elves. Thats why they all got turned into blond gay acrobats. legolas was played by a teenage girl bait and Gimli was a dwarf sidekick and caricature. But those explosions sure did look awesum ey?[/quote] Once again, completely missing the point. The gollum cgi allowed the emotion of the character to get through. Emotion=good visual storytelling. Nothing is as important as the story working for the medium it's being told in. Blond effeminate Acrobats is the quick visual method of describing otherworldly badasses who can do more than normal people. It's how you convert hundreds of pages of deep background into less than a page of screen time so you can fit the story into something that can be shown in a movie--because deep background doesn't work in a visual medium. Wait, you're complaining that an elf is played by someone "hot", when the hobbits in the books are clearly excited as all heck to meet them? Now you are just arguing to argue. More of the "just can't please these people" bait. Dwarves were honored in the works they left behind in Moria. Err...caracature? You mean when they actually DO give him lines involving meanless to the plot deep background you are also complaining? That's two counts of "just can't please these people" in less than 3 lines of text. Please give an example (other than Princess Bride) of what you think a successfull book to screen adaptation is...of a book you really like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 [quote name='b09boy' post='1614251' date='Dec 10 2008, 03.44']So you're calling bullshit on the rain thing while basically admitting I'm right. Underplaying a problem is not calling bullshit on it. Or how about this: aside from the beginning of the scene the rain is never actually touching the characters or is only seen in the background of the shot. They literally dip a character's head under water to make them look wet then add drops of rain digitally.[/quote] The rain was physically added to the set by the use of giant rain towers on location. There wasn't any CG rain in the film, I believe. IIRC, the rain was supposed to be going on continuously but the extras were getting pissed off by it and the costumes were being damaged, so they selected a point where the rain would stop and went with that instead. [quote name='chessRuffian' post='1618196' date='Dec 13 2008, 16.25']FoTR was awesome, though. i remember loving that movie... maybe thats why i was disappointed by the other two.[/quote] To be fair, this was a problem with the book as well: the first third is great but the rest can be a bit flat. Humphrey Carpenter points this out on the DVDs, that having the Fellowship being chased by Black Riders or going through Moria is good stuff, but cutting back and forth between Aragon getting angsty over his destiny and Frodo having a nervous breakdown whilst the author's prose style is regressing by the century every other chapter is less interesting, even when awesomeness is taking place (Pelennor Fields etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The SmilingKnight Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 [quote]The gollum cgi allowed the emotion of the character to get through. Emotion=good visual storytelling.[/quote] You mean those oversized baby eyes that were supossed to make him more appropriate for kids around the world and emotional level of a spanish soap opera? Yeah i can see how that worked on audience like you. I would take Gollum from Ralph Bakshi cartoon anyday over this attempt. Though having one of the more obvious characters form the books done in barely appropriate manner is hardly a special feat. [quote]Blond effeminate Acrobats is the quick visual method of describing otherworldly badasses who can do more than normal people.[/quote] Ahahahhahaahahahhahhhahahhhaha! [quote]because deep background doesn't work in a visual medium.[/quote] Are you even aware what you are saying? [quote]Wait, you're complaining that an elf is played by someone "hot", when the hobbits in the books are clearly excited as all heck to meet them?[/quote] :o :bs: Hobbits get a boner at meeting HOT elves! :rofl: :lol: Stop it youre killing me. [quote]Err...caracature? You mean when they actually DO give him lines involving meanless to the plot deep background you are also complaining?[/quote] Im not sure what that sentence means at all but yes, a caricature of the all dumbed down, generic fantasy DnD dwarfs we ever seen. Cross-eyed, burping, spitting on himself barserker dwarf. Ho, ho, ho! Instead of a real Gimli that is clearly described in the books as a young secretive, "keeps to himself" dwarf that most of the felowship was even scared off a bit at the beginning of the journey. [quote]Please give an example (other than Princess Bride) of what you think a successfull book to screen adaptation is[/quote] If you mean fantasy books - there are none as far as im concerned. Which doesnt make this pile of crap any better at all. These few examples i mentioned are just tip of the iceberg really. We have Arwen riding alone to meet Strider and the hobbits, "battling" nine wraiths on her own. Like Elrond or the rest of the elves in Rivendell would ever let her go to do that. Completely insane. Then we have Aragorn who is "scared" of his destiny. WTF? Elrond refusing to give him his daughters hand because he (Aragorn) betrayed and abandoned his struggle?? The we have Elrond lying to Arwen about that possible future - her actually leaving for Gray Harbors because of it - for christ sake. Elrond himself carrying reforged sword to Aragorn, leaving Rivendell and traveling undreds of miles on his own. (but hey, since he was a WIZARD maybe he flew all the way, right?) And my favorite Faramir deciding to take Frodo in captivity and return him to Gondolin but changing his mind when he saw Frodo almost giving the Ring to Nazgul. "Now we understand each other. You may go." :stunned: And this are just some of the more glaring ones i can remember right now. Not that i imagine you will think any differently because your previous answers clearly show your "opinions" of the books themselves. Yeah i couldnt wait for Peter to massacre everything that is good in Songs and replace key points in the story with his own brilliant versions of events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoldering Hound Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 "If you mean fantasy books - there are none as far as im concerned." Q. E. D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordNedsHead Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Not to belabor the point (I'm sure its already been discussed ad naseum) but why is sliding down a flight of stairs on a sield impossible? Just cause you can't do it doesn't make it so. Man I wish I had Steve O's number to get him and the guys from Jackass to give it a try. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The SmilingKnight Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 [quote]Q. E. D.[/quote] That was really pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin's bastard Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 [quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1636892' date='Jan 3 2009, 22.35']LoL No, nothing is important as CGI. Not even elves. Thats why they all got turned into blond gay acrobats. legolas was played by a teenage girl bait and Gimli was a dwarf sidekick and caricature. But those explosions sure did look awesum ey?[/quote] Could you elaborate on how all elves were turned into acrobats (I won't even go into what issues that might possess you to draw those conclusions about their sexuality)? I remember Legolas doing extraordinary physical feats, the rest I remember were only acting as highly disciplined soldiers at most. [quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1637381' date='Jan 4 2009, 12.18']We have Arwen riding alone to meet Strider and the hobbits, "battling" nine wraiths on her own. Like Elrond or the rest of the elves in Rivendell would ever let her go to do that. Completely insane.[/quote] No, it's not. Arwen not being as mighty as the riders that were sent out in the books isn't a vital point to get across at all. And it's not like she actually puts fear into the Nazgûl like Glorfindel does so she doesn't come across anything like him, or Aragorn who actually fights them (after all they are at that point in the book described as having little power over those who aren't afraid, and elves do not fear the dead). It also saves them the bother to introduce and explain Glorfindel and why they won't take him along in the quest. And why is it important that she would never be sent out to look for Aragorn? It has no bearing on the story and her brothers fought at the battle of the Pelennor Fields so there's no issue of Elrond's children being protected at all costs that needs to be gotten across. [quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1637381' date='Jan 4 2009, 12.18']Then we have Aragorn who is "scared" of his destiny. WTF?[/quote] Changes like this are not that hard to understand why they occurred, no matter if one likes it or not. It adds something the books have fairly little of, character development. [quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1637381' date='Jan 4 2009, 12.18']And my favorite Faramir deciding to take Frodo in captivity and return him to Gondolin but changing his mind when he saw Frodo almost giving the Ring to Nazgul. "Now we understand each other. You may go." :stunned:[/quote] That part is very understandable since it's actually a fairly strange part in the book. That far in the story the Ring has tempted practically all that has come near it, even mighty characters like Gandalf and Galadriel. Then we get to when Faramir captures Frodo and just lets them go on a story he cannot fully verify, even though Gondor is desperate to defend themselves at that point when they know how the enemy musters. It tells us about the difference between him and Boromir (which is still shown very clearly) but at the cost of diminishing the Ring's power. That cost would be greater in the film format than in the book as well. The movies certainly have their share of flaws and it's perfectly fine not to like them but I think many who complain too often miss where the same relevant points are presented, even though the scene doesn't follow the book word for word. To each their own but when you get too critical on that particular area it seems like a pretty big hazard to watch any film adaptation of a book, not least fantasy books. After all, any respectable artist will make their own version of a story when they adapt it, rather than just copying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The SmilingKnight Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 [quote]Could you elaborate on how all elves were turned into acrobats (I won't even go into what issues that might possess you to draw those conclusions about their sexuality)? I remember Legolas doing extraordinary physical feats, the rest I remember were only acting as highly disciplined soldiers at most.[/quote] They were presented as such through Legolas of course. He is the one we see most of in the movies so if he can do such ridicolous feats then so the others can too. The fact that other elves mostly just stood in place dying only makes the whole thing even more stupid. [quote]Arwen not being as mighty as the riders that were sent out in the books isn't a vital point to get across at all. And it's not like she actually puts fear into the Nazgûl like Glorfindel does so she doesn't come across anything like him[/quote] Its not about fighting them or her being as powerfull as someone else. Arwen is a treasure of her people. A grandgranddaughter of Luthien herself. One who brought likeness of Luthien back to the world. She is precious to all elves and there is no way, no way at all that she would be left to leave Rivendell alone. If she did whole of the Rivendell would folow. Thats why that idea is completely insane. Her brothers are warriors and there is no reason why they wouldnt fight. That has nothing to do with Arwen. [quote]Changes like this are not that hard to understand why they occurred, no matter if one likes it or not. It adds something the books have fairly little of, character development.[/quote] Im sorry but only a complete moron can understand this in such a way. You fucking cannot accuse Aragorn of betraying fight against the Enemy - especially not through mouth of Elrond because it is precisely Elrond who raised him and knows every detail of life long desperate struggle of Aragorn against all odds. Instead of going with original idea thats far more interesting jackson turned it into a pathetic fantasy cliche making Aragorn what he is not. thats not character development - thats idiocy of highest caliber. [quote]That part is very understandable since it's actually a fairly strange part in the book. That far in the story the Ring has tempted practically all that has come near it, even mighty characters like Gandalf and Galadriel. Then we get to when Faramir captures Frodo and just lets them go on a story he cannot fully verify, even though Gondor is desperate to defend themselves at that point when they know how the enemy musters[/quote] No its not understandable at all. For christ sake frodo just wanted to give the ring to nazgul and thats the reason Faramir decides to let him go? Are you mad? And also if you bothered to read the books - Faramir was tempted by the ring. very much so. That he resisted that temptation was the reason he let Frodo go - because he felt himself what Ring does truly - so he knew bringing it to Gondor would mean destruction of it. Through the books we find out he has been a friend with Gandalf for a long time - learning from him and he was a fairly intelligent on his own. So he didnt just decide on this matter out of the blue. The way it was presented in the books was much more effective and significant and logical and emotional and in fact it would have been easier to film it that way - reducing the cost of completely unnecessary setup of Osgiliath, short battle and CGI needed for the Nazgul and who knows what else. [b]Time and money that could have been spent somewhere else.[/b] Not on one of the commanders letting an unknown hobbit go BECAUSE HE JUST OFFERED THE RING TO THE ENEMY!!! [quote]After all, any respectable artist will make their own version of a story when they adapt it, rather than just copying it.[/quote] Who cares? If any "respected" artist does a crap job of it he deserves to be called on that. its not about literally copying the book. Its about not changing something that would work better as it was originally into your own ideas when they are idiotic and go directly against characters and the story itself just so you can say "ha i did it my way". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The hairy bear Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 [quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1638193' date='Jan 5 2009, 12.04']- so he knew bringing it to Gondolin would mean destruction of it.[/quote] Given that it had been destroyed for two ages, I wouldn't have cared for it.:D :leaving: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Stark Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 The argument going on above is a great example of why some people will NEVER be pleased with a movie or TV adaptation. Expecting too much purity of translation. I'm sorry, Jaquen, but I fully expect you, and a number of other posters, to be disappointed in the GoT adaptation if it's made. You make some fair points, and I myself wasn't completely pleased by all of Jackson's changes, but to argue about Arwen having an increased role? This was, without a doubt, GOING to happen. Giving Aragorn more angst about his destiny? GOING to happen. It's inevitable in adapting the work for a wider, modern-day audience. There was another poster on the old "pre-pilot-greenlight" topic who had a long litany of complaints, but one of the first was that the Argonath statues had BEARDS. Seriously. I stopped reading after that. A visual adaptation made for purists first is doomed to failure. Liberties will be taken. Being faithful to the story is not the same as an unabridged reading put to film. Less than trimming for a 12 hour series than a 3 hour movie, sure, but there will still be some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordNedsHead Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 OMG Frank Stark. I think that was the best blog post I have ever read ;P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Stark Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 [quote name='LordNedsHead' post='1638384' date='Jan 5 2009, 12.51']OMG Frank Stark. I think that was the best blog post I have ever read ;P[/quote] Thanks! I avoided a good 15-20 minutes of work with that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The SmilingKnight Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 [quote]Given that it had been destroyed for two ages, I wouldn't have cared for it[/quote] heh, bloody hell. -Gondor.... damn it. [quote]but to argue about Arwen having an increased role[/quote] Who is doing that? [quote]Giving Aragorn more angst about his destiny[/quote] He had plenty in the original version if you didnt notice without being called a traitor, coward and a weakling. By Elrond of all people. [quote]A visual adaptation made for purists[/quote] Thats bullshit, trolling and using strawman arguments. Each and every change peter did was actually worse then the original version and ultimately harmful to the whole story turning it into cheap drama with soap opera twists and characters. In every single case the original version would be better and easier to film and would have been far more dramatic and meaningful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin's bastard Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 [quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1638193' date='Jan 5 2009, 12.04']They were presented as such through Legolas of course. He is the one we see most of in the movies so if he can do such ridicolous feats then so the others can too. The fact that other elves mostly just stood in place dying only makes the whole thing even more stupid.[/quote] Very strange line of logic there. So because Aragorn can survive all those wars and lead all those people every Dúnadan can do that? I don't know where you saw a battle where the Elves didn't move and thus died since the only battles shown are the one in the prologue and the one at Helm's Deep. In the first no one seems to die in their front and in Helm's Deep we see Aragorn leading them in a charge. [quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1638193' date='Jan 5 2009, 12.04']Its not about fighting them or her being as powerfull as someone else. Arwen is a treasure of her people. A grandgranddaughter of Luthien herself. One who brought likeness of Luthien back to the world. She is precious to all elves and there is no way, no way at all that she would be left to leave Rivendell alone. If she did whole of the Rivendell would folow. Thats why that idea is completely insane. Her brothers are warriors and there is no reason why they wouldnt fight. That has nothing to do with Arwen.[/quote] That's not that relevant to the story so it's not strange at all that something was changed there imo. If I didn't expect things like that changed (and could accept them in the context) I would have never watched the movies at all. Especially not if I went to the length to call it "insane." [quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1638193' date='Jan 5 2009, 12.04']Im sorry but only a complete moron can understand this in such a way. You fucking cannot accuse Aragorn of betraying fight against the Enemy - especially not through mouth of Elrond because it is precisely Elrond who raised him and knows every detail of life long desperate struggle of Aragorn against all odds. Instead of going with original idea thats far more interesting jackson turned it into a pathetic fantasy cliche making Aragorn what he is not. thats not character development - thats idiocy of highest caliber.[/quote] If I were you I'd take it more easy with the insults since you can come off as immature. Try to keep a constructive tone and the thread will be much more worth reading and the chance of being taken seriously increases. Saying that the change isn't due to them wanting to implement character development is pure wrong though since that has clearly been stated from the script writers. LotR has fairly often been criticized for having flat characters so that's hardly something new. Aragorn isn't betraying any fight against the enemy in the movies. He's fighting, he just doesn't think he can lead his people in the beginning. Aragorn isn't being turned into any more of a cliché than he already was either. A great hero that belives in himself and does great deeds is way more common than those with conflicts within. And I'm sure you really understand that it's pretty subjective what's interesting and what's not. [quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1638193' date='Jan 5 2009, 12.04']No its not understandable at all. For christ sake frodo just wanted to give the ring to nazgul and thats the reason Faramir decides to let him go? Are you mad? And also if you bothered to read the books - Faramir was tempted by the ring. very much so. That he resisted that temptation was the reason he let Frodo go - because he felt himself what Ring does truly - so he knew bringing it to Gondor would mean destruction of it. Through the books we find out he has been a friend with Gandalf for a long time - learning from him and he was a fairly intelligent on his own. So he didnt just decide on this matter out of the blue. The way it was presented in the books was much more effective and significant and logical and emotional and in fact it would have been easier to film it that way - reducing the cost of completely unnecessary setup of Osgiliath, short battle and CGI needed for the Nazgul and who knows what else.[/quote] That Frodo scene isn't what we were talking about, we were talking about Faramir. And your memory is again not entirely correct since it's a mix of that and the story of his brother. And I've read the book, which is obvious from my first post, so there's no need for that silly remark. I know why Faramir gives up the Ring but I also know more than my own opinions and I've heard about people having issues with someone giving up the Ring freely so close to Mordor and so late in the story. The movies are targeting a lot of different people and they were trying to make the Ring seem more difficult to resist, as well as taking the chance of showing Osgiliath before the battle (so it wasn't about cutting costs which you seem to imply should be a factor). [quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1638414' date='Jan 5 2009, 19.31']He had plenty in the original version if you didnt notice without being called a traitor, coward and a weakling. By Elrond of all people.[/quote] Could you point out where Elrond calls him either of those three things? Elrond says that he has little faith in the strength of Men and that Aragorn has made his choice but I can't remember him scolding him at all for that. He just urges Aragorn to claim his destiny. It's Boromir that calls him afraid and then they use Boromir's death, and what it represents, as a mile post in Aragorn's life. But I don't think we will reach any consensus here since I think there's a difference in our understandings of why things were changed. We are probably not that far apart in what we would have thought the ideal version for ourselves to be but the movies was for a broader audience than that. As will A Game of Thrones be, if it is to be at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The SmilingKnight Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 [quote]Very strange line of logic there. So because Aragorn can survive all those wars and lead all those people every Dúnadan can do that?[/quote] We are talking about uber silly acrobatic feats "legolas" performs not Aragorn. Aragorn does not perform anything so obviously silly and inapproprate and so unnecessary. The fact that legalas was turned into such a stupid cliche for the kids does not make it any less stupid. [quote]I don't know where you saw a battle where the Elves didn't move and thus died[/quote] Helms deep, before Aragorn led them to die again. Not to mention how stupid it was to have Lothlorien elves there in the first place. [quote]That's not that relevant to the story so it's not strange at all that something was changed there imo.[/quote] Not relevant to the story? What Arwen is is not relevant to the story? :aplause: Great argument. You mean its not relevant to this stupid movie i hope. [quote]Saying that the change isn't due to them wanting to implement character development is pure wrong though since that has clearly been stated from the script writers[/quote] I didnt say that. It only shows how big idiots they are if thats what they do to develop a character. One more time - intentions of those who "invented" such briliant changes does not make those changes any less stupid then they are. [quote]Aragorn isn't betraying any fight against the enemy in the movies. He's fighting, he just doesn't think he can lead his people in the beginning. Aragorn isn't being turned into any more of a cliché than he already was either. A great hero that belives in himself and does great deeds is way more common than those with conflicts within.[/quote] Elrond refers to the past up to that point. If Aragorn didnt abandon a fight against the Enemy then why is Elrond saying that? If he doesnt scold him about that it even more stupid since if Aragorn truly abandoned the fight he would not be allowed into Rivendell at all. In the books Aragorn has enough doubts about whether he will succeed so this change was absolutely unnecessary. Like all the others too. And ultimately it is cheap and stupid in on itself. If they really wanted to develop his character there were enough other ways to do it. They didnt want to do that really, thats why they used such a cheap and stupid "excuse" for his angst. [quote]That Frodo scene isn't what we were talking about, we were talking about Faramir.[/quote] No, we were talking about both. If you dont have any real arguments to counter such obvious examples of idiocy dont try to avoid them in such obvious ways. [quote]And I've read the book, which is obvious from my first post, so there's no need for that silly remark.[/quote] Its not obvious at all just because of your posts. If you have read it then you failed to understand it n many levels. [quote]And your memory is again not entirely correct since it's a mix of that and the story of his brother.[/quote] Of course that Boromir and what happened to him was very important in rejection of the Ring by Faramir. Since you cant seem to grasp the simplest concepts of logic and character development or importance in the books i thought it would be just a futile effort from my side. I mean, if you have read the books then why am i explaining all this to you in the first place? Your logic thus far is: but they wanted that to change because they wanted blah, blah, blah and changing original ideas simply must occur so whatever they do is simply fantastic! There are no words with which i can express my disgust at this kind of reasoning. [quote]The movies are targeting a lot of different people and they were trying to make the Ring seem more difficult to resist, as well as taking the chance of showing Osgiliath before the battle (so it wasn't about cutting costs which you seem to imply should be a factor).[/quote] Yes, they are targeting morons who can accept that Faramir lets go the ring after seeing a hobbit offer it to the Nazgul as a valid reason but would be aghast at original concept of many reasons which enabled Faramir to reject it. I SAID that they could have used all that movie time and money wasted on such a stupid horrible scene somewhere else - like for example true quality character development. [quote]Could you point out where Elrond calls him either of those three things?[/quote] Doesnt have to. Its the meaning of his words. He clearly says that Aragorn has left the fight which means he is a betrayer of all his bloodline and history, a coward and a weakling. I dont have the movies anymore to quote his exactly because i threw them in the trash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoldering Hound Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Feeding thread jacking trolls is ultimately pointless as they are and can never be satisfied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The SmilingKnight Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Of course, you mean to say you dont have any real arguments so youre down to using strawman ones again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin's bastard Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I see the keyboard warrior tone wasn't diminished despite my suggestion. [quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1640139' date='Jan 7 2009, 03.30']We are talking about uber silly acrobatic feats "legolas" performs not Aragorn. Aragorn does not perform anything so obviously silly and inapproprate and so unnecessary. The fact that legalas was turned into such a stupid cliche for the kids does not make it any less stupid.[/quote] If you apply a kind of logic to one case you should be able to do the same to a similar one, otherwise it's a clear indicator that the logic might be false. Saying that all Elves are this or that just because one of them shows such tendencies isn't good logic, especially since there are plenty of other Elves who show nothing of the same. If you or I find it silly is subjective and not much reason to discuss, we have our opinions and we know what we like and dislike. The reason I posted was to first address some flawed arguments and then produce a line of thought that might make you understand why things were altered. Understanding is not the same as agreeing, a point you need to note when reading my posts. [quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1640139' date='Jan 7 2009, 03.30']Not relevant to the story? What Arwen is is not relevant to the story? :aplause: Great argument. You mean its not relevant to this stupid movie i hope.[/quote] I clearly wrote that that aspect of her isn't important to tell the story. If I had argued that Arwen wasn't important I would have said that they shouldn't have used her at all, like Bakshi did. They did what he did with Glorfindel though, used that space to introduce a character that would be relevant in the story. And of course I mean the core story that the movies tell. A movie will never tell all the small details of a work like this, in fact it shouldn't since it would make for dreadful pacing. [quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1640139' date='Jan 7 2009, 03.30']I didnt say that. It only shows how big idiots they are if thats what they do to develop a character. One more time - intentions of those who "invented" such briliant changes does not make those changes any less stupid then they are.[/quote] Again you argue soley on subjective opinion. That's not relevant base for a discussion since neither of us will change our opinions from a discussion like this. You said that only a moron would interpret the change as that they wanted to introduce more character development. I proved you wrong. It's still true, even if you don't like how they did it. [quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1640139' date='Jan 7 2009, 03.30']Elrond refers to the past up to that point. If Aragorn didnt abandon a fight against the Enemy then why is Elrond saying that? If he doesnt scold him about that it even more stupid since if Aragorn truly abandoned the fight he would not be allowed into Rivendell at all. In the books Aragorn has enough doubts about whether he will succeed so this change was absolutely unnecessary. Like all the others too. And ultimately it is cheap and stupid in on itself. If they really wanted to develop his character there were enough other ways to do it. They didnt want to do that really, thats why they used such a cheap and stupid "excuse" for his angst.[/quote] Elrond doesn't say that and the movies doesn't say that Aragorn isn't fighting the Enemy. As I said, not wanting to take the throne of Gondor isn't the same thing as not fighting the Enemy at all. Exactly how do you figure him swearing to help Frodo destroy the Ring is not fighting Sauron? And since you talk so much about reading the books you should know what the Rangers of the North are about. Aragorn of the book is much more flat in his character development so if that's enough then it's according to low standards of character development. I like it myself but I realize that character development wasn't the strong point of Tolkien, nor anything he focused that strongly on overall. [quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1640139' date='Jan 7 2009, 03.30']No, we were talking about both. If you dont have any real arguments to counter such obvious examples of idiocy dont try to avoid them in such obvious ways. Its not obvious at all just because of your posts. If you have read it then you failed to understand it n many levels. Of course that Boromir and what happened to him was very important in rejection of the Ring by Faramir. Since you cant seem to grasp the simplest concepts of logic and character development or importance in the books i thought it would be just a futile effort from my side. I mean, if you have read the books then why am i explaining all this to you in the first place?[/quote] You only mentioned the travel to Osgiliath and I wrote a comment about that. When you add another aspect it looks like you thought I wrote about that when I didn't, thus I had to make it clear so you understood the point. I've already clearly written that the movies have their flaws so it should be clear why changing the angle won't be a good idea when answering one of my points. I'd say the contrary. To act like you and demand that it should always be true to the text isn't understanding it at all, or it's at least not showing any understanding, it's just repetition. It's when you truly understand the book that you realize what isn't important when you make a simplistic version of the story since you understand what the core is all about. I don't think they made the best choices since that's a matter of opinion but anyone who truly understands the book sees the similarity of points they tell, even when they are told in different ways and/or at different times in the story. Faramir's rejection isn't complicated at all so I don't see why you act like it is. It's not one of the scenes where the Ring comes across as the most powerful and since the movie format tells things in a different way they chose to have him take longer in his decision and taking the chance to introduce Osgiliath to the viewers. [quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1640139' date='Jan 7 2009, 03.30']Your logic thus far is: but they wanted that to change because they wanted blah, blah, blah and changing original ideas simply must occur so whatever they do is simply fantastic! There are no words with which i can express my disgust at this kind of reasoning.[/quote] Now you are displaying a lack in reading comprehension. Nowhere in our discussion have I said that a change is good or bad so you clearly read your own things into what I write, which explains the quality of the discussion I guess. I wouldn't call others on strawman arguments if I wrote like this myself. I thought you displayed a lack of understanding why changes were made and what the core elements of the story is, therefor I explained some things to you. I've made it clear that subjective opinions about it isn't really worth debating, thus I've stayed away from expressing mine. Then again I don't get mad when people have different views than mine. [quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1640139' date='Jan 7 2009, 03.30']Doesnt have to. Its the meaning of his words. He clearly says that Aragorn has left the fight which means he is a betrayer of all his bloodline and history, a coward and a weakling.[/quote] That's not what the movie version says at all. That might be your opinion about Aragorn in the movies but movie-Elrond certainly doesn't imply that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The SmilingKnight Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 [quote]The reason I posted was to first address some flawed arguments and then produce a line of thought that might make you understand why things were altered. Understanding is not the same as agreeing, a point you need to note when reading my posts.[/quote]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]If you apply a kind of logic to one case you should be able to do the same to a similar one, otherwise it's a clear indicator that the logic might be false[/quote] 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]I clearly wrote that that aspect of her isn't important to tell the story[/quote] And clearly you are wrong since that "aspect" of her is important to the story and only a moron could claim otherwise. [quote]You only mentioned the travel to Osgiliath and I wrote a comment about that.[/quote] Its not so hard to scroll up and see this: [quote]And my favorite Faramir deciding to take Frodo in captivity and return him to Gondolin but changing his mind when he saw Frodo almost giving the Ring to Nazgul.[/quote] [quote]Faramir's rejection isn't complicated at all so I don't see why you act like it is[/quote] Im not. [quote]I thought you displayed a lack of understanding why changes were made and what the core elements of the story is, therefor I explained some things to you[/quote] Yes its always nice just to imagine things when you run out of arguments. You explained things to me? Is that supposed to be funny? 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]I've made it clear that subjective opinions about it isn't really worth debating[/quote] No, these issues are not subjective. They are objective differences of how story and characters develop in the books compared to idiotic and ultimately absolutely useless changes jackson forced in without any effect or reason. - 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valyrian-Steel Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 You know if you ask me, they just need to rehire the people who did Rome for HBO. The structure of that series was as close to ASOIAF as anything else I've ever seen on screen, big or small, and it was well made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.