board77

Ok, now I have a vision of the ghost of Tolkien reading B77.

JRRT: That is sooo not what I meant! Damn these ethereal fingers that cannot type a response.... I really wish I'd thought of that Osgiliath detour for myself!

Alatar

Alatar wrote:

Ok, now I have a vision of the ghost of Tolkien reading B77.

JRRT: That is sooo not what I meant! Damn these ethereal fingers that cannot type a response.... I really wish I'd thought of that Osgiliath detour for myself!

Alatar

*whistle*




ttbk

<swoons also, considerately not landing on yovargas>

Goodness, I'd forgotten all about Whistler's interview with Tolkien!

What a beautiful piece of work that was.

Where has the dear man got to? He's a sort of legend himself, really.

Would anyone in the world consider it bad taste to postulate whether Shakespeare would have liked West Side Story - an adaption of Romeo And Juliet?

No, of course it wouldn't be bad taste.

TheCluelessMind wrote:

Would anyone in the world consider it bad taste to postulate whether Shakespeare would have liked West Side Story - an adaption of Romeo And Juliet?

No, of course it wouldn't be bad taste.

Clearly, he would not have -- too many people left alive at the end.

TheLidlessEyes wrote:

Would anyone in the world consider it bad taste to postulate whether Shakespeare would have liked West Side Story - an adaption of Romeo And Juliet?

No, of course it wouldn't be bad taste.

It would be pointless. None of us can possibly know what Shakespeare would have thought.

Speculation can be fun. Sometimes in the course of it you learn something about your subject. In this kind of discussion people would probably be hauling out everything they knew about Tolkien to support their positions. Of course no one expects or imagines that at the end we would really know what Tolkien would have thought. It's just fun to consider it, without even trying to come to a conclusion.

Edited upon reflection.

Sorry.

Edited.

a ghost of Whistler sighting


*sw00n*

*THUD*


carefully falling as not to hurt the other sw00nEEs

halplm wrote:

I realize you want more life around here, TLE, but pissing me off isn't going to get me to argue, just be pissed off.

Finally, Most of those guys are idiots, so I'd take thier opinions with a grain of salt.

Believe it or not, hal, not everything is about you.

From what I can gather, you hate PJ's movies (and have no respect for PJ) because he doesn't interpret the books the way you do.

From other posts you have made, I have seen that a LOT of people don't interpret the books the way you do. In many ways, your interpretation is unique, to say the least.

Your reasoning seems to be that if someone disagrees with your interpretation of the books and your assessment of the movies, that person must be an idiot. End of story.

Bottom line is that PJ made a very successful adaptation of the books to screen, which most people (whether they be Tolkien fans or not) enjoyed to some degree. You are in a distinct minority...and calling everyone who doesn't agree with you an "idiot" doesn't help or change anything.

Maybe (and I don't know if this is possible) you might want to take a few steps over to one side and re-view the movies from a different prespective. Because it seems that all you are doing is ranting.

tolkienpurist wrote:

Honestly, I think it would be a very interesting discussion if people cited to Tolkien's writings and life to substantiate their speculation.

Putting words in JRRT's mouth would be, "Tolkien would categorically have despised [or embraced] PJ's movies."

But, to say, "I think Tolkien would have objected to (or approved of) the treatment of XYZ scenes based on what he wrote in Letters [No]" could be a worthwhile discussion, if people were interested, and would be far from "absurd and offensive". Also, I don't see how that would be the same thing as saying what we as individuals thought of the movies.

This forum is languishing, people!

Here's one scene.
The Nazgul over Osgiliath.

Letter 246.
<I have posted this quote before in the "Hand of God" thread" and I return to it because it is the first time I have come across Tolkien's own thoughts on the subject and I think that they are importent.>
Frodo was given 'grace' first to answer the call .... And later in his resitance to the temptation of the Ring (at times when to claim and so reveal would have been fatal) ....

It is a sublimely beautiful and powerful visual as the fell-beast, echoing Frodo's own heartbeats, rises with slowly beating wings over the Osgiliath wall with the small, diminished figure of a defeated and wearied hobbit heeding the call of the Ring, a heartbeat away from placing it on his finger.
Only faithful Sam prevents him by rushing in and knocking him down.

When I read that quote, this scene immediately sprang to mind and I thought that Tolkien would not have approved the passing of grace from Frodo to Sam. Although in continuing to think about it I begin to wonder. Might he not have accepted the transference of the hand of providence (Eru) acting upon Sam in order to save both Frodo and the quest?

He may well have found the deviation from the text to be an unecessary diversion; he may have disliked the violence of the following scene (Frodo holding Sting to Sam's throat) although surely he would have responded, perhaps even approved, of the terrible beauty of the visual images.

Any thoughts?

Well, this is a dramatic instance of Sam saving Frodo from the Ring, but in the book Sam does the same in another way, does he not? On Mount Doom he holds Frodo's hand to keep him from reaching for it.

In other places I have the impression that Tolkien considers Sam almost an appendage of Frodo--"Alone he went, with his servant. . . ." Sam's will intervening might be part of the same grace that lets Frodo's own will resist in other places.

Sassafras wrote:

He may well have found the deviation from the text to be an unecessary diversion; he may have disliked the violence of the following scene (Frodo holding Sting to Sam's throat) although surely he would have responded, perhaps even approved, of the terrible beauty of the visual images.

Any thoughts?

He may well have approved of beauty terrible or not, but his level of aesthetic appreciation is neither here nor there - the problemn with the Osgiliath detour is that it is entirely irrelevant, except that it makes the exegies of the earlier deviations from the script marginally more sensible, the over-emphasis on the hold of the ring on Frodo, the peculier incnsistency of the Nazgul, are also symptons of PJ direction and story-telling which insists on using sledgehammers, when often a gentle push would suffice.

I often get the feeling that PJ notion of story telling, is that it's allowable to contort a story any which way you choose, as long as you come up with the money-shot. So the consequence is that we have P J who obviously thinks in a highly visual sense, creats in his mind and on his sketch pad the important visuals and the story is convoluted to make sure they happen.

if I want to see great images, then I will look at old masters

eborr wrote:

we have P J who obviously thinks in a highly visual sense,

Which is a good thing, if one is making a movie, since movies are a highly visual medium.

Quote:

creats in his mind and on his sketch pad the important visuals and the story is convoluted to make sure they happen.

I don't think this is entirely true; certainly not for the bulk of the films. And if it is sometimes true, so what? We got some stunning scenes because of it. As director and creator of the films, PJ could basically do whatever he wanted. It was his project, based on the works of Tolkien. He had to stay true to his own conception of the story and - most importantly - what would make a good movie that people would go to see. I think he succeeded admirably.

Quote:

if I want to see great images, then I will look at old masters

So, in general, you don't like movies, then? Or, you like movies that are basically straight theater transposed directly to the screen - like a video of a stage play? The medium of film, with very few exceptions, requires great images.

I thought the Osgiliath scene was beautifully done. I didn't give a fat rat's ass if it was "like that in the book." It worked, it fit with the story and it stops my heart everytime I see Frodo, tiny and small, standing on the ledge with the Nazgul rising above him. It was stunning film-making.

And that's what PJ was doing, remember? He was making a film.

Well said Jewel.

Thanks, Iavas.

*preens*

eborr wrote:

He may well have approved of beauty terrible or not, but his level of aesthetic appreciation is neither here nor there - the problemn with the Osgiliath detour is that it is entirely irrelevant, except that it makes the exegies of the earlier deviations from the script marginally more sensible, the over-emphasis on the hold of the ring on Frodo, the peculier incnsistency of the Nazgul, are also symptons of PJ direction and story-telling which insists on using sledgehammers, when often a gentle push would suffice.

eborr, you miss the point which is to indulge in an excercise set out by tolkienpurist ...

Quote:

Honestly, I think it would be a very interesting discussion if people cited to Tolkien's writings and life to substantiate their speculation.

All I was doing was speculating on how Tolkien might have reacted to the passing of grace from Frodo to Sam. I wasn't suggesting that he would or would not approve of the osgiliation of Osgiliath. Nor was I stating whether or not I approved or disapproved of the detour.

Actually I had a tremendous problem with this scene and the subsequent change to Faramir's essential character (as I saw it) but I've come to understand and accept that within the parameters of an adaption
it works quite well. Add to that the sublime visuals and, despite all of the faults --- and there are several --- it all adds up to one great film.
For me anyway.