Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: DiabloTX on January 09, 2005, 09:42:52 PM
-
With the outstanding job he did with TLOTR (Tolkien Nazi's excluded) and the success of the movies do you think there's chance he could make The Silmarillion into a series of movies? I know the book is far too indepth in detail for it all to be covered in film but do you think Peter could pull it off?
-
There is no way he could make that into a series of movies. Mind you, he could pick a tale or two for individual telling but there are like thirty stories in that book that could lead to movies. I also doubt he would want to do another Tolkien flick.
Look at Lucas. He said he would make the first three episodes after he finished the first series, and someone held him to it. While Episode One was good, Episode Two looked like he just wanted to get it over with and the buzz is that Episode Three will be more of an obligation than an adventure movie. I look for Jackson to do something totally different over the next few years.
-
Bad Taste, Part 2!
-
Tolkien nazis..lol
Have you read the Silmarilion?
-
I'd rather see "The Hobbit" next.
Great story and it can be done in one movie. One very long movie, but one movie.
-
The Hobbit would def. be a more logical choice for a next movie, I agree. But I am more interested in the history of Middle Earth at this point.
No, I haven't read any of Tolkien's books. I have made at least a half dozen attempts at reading TLOTR but I can't get into it. Fantasy and Sci Fi are two genres that I really don't like to read. I have read some books from those genres (2001 series, Mote In God's Eye, Dragonlance, etc...) but for the most part I don't like the way they are written, Tolkien's prose specifically is very hard for me to read. I have a friend who has read all of Tolkiens work many times and over the last 20 years or so he as told me of the great stories in them, especially in The Silmarillion. The story of Melkor (sp?) is one that he was fond of telling me about.
I use "Tolkien Nazi's" only as a term to describe those who can only focus on the movie's deviation from the books to the point that they can not enjoy the effort Jackson and his crew put into making the movies which if you watch the extras in the DVD's will make you appreciate the movies that much more. At least they make me appreciate them more.
-
The Silmarillion is a terrible tease. Great hints of fantastic stories.
I wish Tolkein still lived so he could flesh them out.
-
Peter Jackson ****ed LOTR up majorly. I'm not a tolkien nazi either. I just recognize that he completely messed the whole story and point of it up.
It's like he remakes the movie "Topgun." But he's going to cut out all the flying scenes.
The first one was decent. The Second one great. The Third one was an abomination. Even the extended edition. I actually demanded my money back from the movie theater.
-
I'm a Tolkien ÜberNazi and loved the films. I want a Hobbit film and a Silmarillion TV series (In Band of Brothers quality please).
Sure that would beat that silly big ape remake he's doing now.
-
Originally posted by takeda
I'm a Tolkien ÜberNazi and loved the films. I want a Hobbit film and a Silmarillion TV series (In Band of Brothers quality please).
Sure that would beat that silly big ape remake he's doing now.
Let him make that ape movie. As soon as he get's it done maybe that will make him want to get back to TLOTR. I think you have a good idea though doing a tv series like BOB or From The Earth To The Moon.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Peter Jackson ****ed LOTR up majorly. I'm not a tolkien nazi either. I just recognize that he completely messed the whole story and point of it up.
It's like he remakes the movie "Topgun." But he's going to cut out all the flying scenes.
The first one was decent. The Second one great. The Third one was an abomination. Even the extended edition. I actually demanded my money back from the movie theater.
Well, you are def. entitled to your opinions of the movies but it certainly sounds like you'd qualify as a TN. I understand your point of view, that friend of mine didn't much care for any of the movies. And in my humble opinion I think that's a shame. I hate to say but it is a reason why I am glad I couldn't finish the books. I have another friend who loved the books except for The Fellowship. But you really can't satisfy everyone no matter how hard you work to not do that. And remember, all 3 movies were written by 3 people collaborating on the story so if you think its fluffied up, blame all them not just Jackson.
-
Doesn't excuse the crappiness.
My top gun analogy still stands.
-
Peter Jackson is a ****ing butcher.
-
Meh... If JRRT himself was still among us you wouldn't even recognize LoTR by now, he loved rewriting his stories, merging characters, adjusting them or even wholesale turning them from good to evil or viceversa.
So in the movies we had lots of changes, I found some were great, some understandable, a few questionable, and one or two downright wrong.
So, ok, no Scourging or Bombadil or Glorfindel... but hey, all the rest was there, gorgeously rendered and the story got across.
What do you want him to do? a 6 hours movie that gives someone a tourist-class-syndrome-coronary and gets him sued?
-
*shrug* the lotr movies were good, matched what i remember from the books (last time i read them was when i was 12) pretty closely (i cant comment on what happened to merry and pippin, i always skipped over that part because it was boring), some of the stuff didnt look the way i envisioned it (the hobbits seemed a heck of a lot wussier that i would have thought), but it was still pretty good.
the hobbit would definatly be good, as long as he doesnt forget that it IS intended to be a childrens story.
-
"No, I haven't read any of Tolkien's books. "
Then you should start threads that you can accutally contribute too cause you sure cant contribute to this one. If you like the chicks version of the LOTR better then the original then you should ask yourself why.
-
Enjoyed the movies. Enjoyed the books more, but Jackson came pretty close with most of the important plot points.
He could have made 4 movies out of the books. Maybe he should have.
-
The scourging of the shire was the most important part of the entire series! What does jackson do? He cuts it out. Not even mentioning it besides a hint of it in the first one. The entire moral and plot lead up to the scourging. Without it, the story is just empty.
Bombadil, Glorfindel, the rangers from the north, the sailors along the coast of the Corsairs... All these are the coolest parts of the books!
Would you go see the movie Topgun if they cut out all the flying scenes?
-
I agree about the Scouring of the Shire. He actually filmed some of that but it was too much for the movie.
Bombadil is a silly diversion, and JRRT basically wanted a character that defied description, good cut. Glorfindel was just another elf... no biggie, (yea I know who he was, but he doesn't advance the plot.) The Rangers would have been nice, but that would have entailed way too much background on Aragorn... not doable in even a 4 hour movie.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The scourging of the shire was the most important part of the entire series! What does jackson do? He cuts it out. Not even mentioning it besides a hint of it in the first one. The entire moral and plot lead up to the scourging. Without it, the story is just empty.
:lol
that part always felt like an afterthought to me. while i was ticked off that he missed it out it really didnt make to much difference...
stop comparing them and enjoy the movie on its own merits, since the fact that they are the closest any movie has come to a book seems to be completly lost to you.
-
Actually, the book Strip Tease was closer...
Listen, if you think that your movie will be too long you cut off the **UNIMPORTANT** stuff.
-
cult books do demand that we stay as close as possible to the story line...too many people read em
same example with Harry Potter(they had to stay true to the books)
Rangers from the North ARE Aragons people(Numenoreans, blood line of the Kings)<<--spelled wrong...they should've put em in...
the part I missed the most was Bombadil takin the ring from Frodo and actually laughing at it...and them looking at him like he's some freak of nature...
-
they wasted more time blondifying the story then they needed to include the scouring of the shire.
Bombadil can be cut without impacting the story I would say.
-
Bombadil was a part of the story I could do without. Same with the whole barrow downs thing.... Hobits running naked... bleh.
Aragorn chewing Athelas and sticking it in Frodo's wound? Yuck.
The scourging of the shire was important becuase it showed how the hobbits had developed into formidable foes from wimps and it concluded the war of the ring w/ Saruman's death. Why Jackson felt he needed to flesh out Arwen so much when he completely ignored more important players like Imrahil and Glorfindel is a mystery to me.
-
Jackson's next project is the Beautiful Bones (I think thats what its called), sounds like a chick flick.
Anyway, PJ and Weta are rolling in the money now, so no matter what you LOTR dorks say the majority vote goes to PJ ;)
-
Originally posted by Steve
Why Jackson felt he needed to flesh out Arwen so much when he completely ignored more important players like Imrahil and Glorfindel is a mystery to me.
Because the films had to also be viewable by a larger audience who hadn't read the books. Characters like Arwen were fleshed out because she was also recurring character in the entire film.
To add characters which don't push the plot to where it needed to go, would literally bog down an already burgeoning plotline.
Listen to the DVD commentaries is my suggestion on the whys, and howcomes
Tronsky
-
Having read the books and seen the films, I thought PJ did an excellent job of telling the story his way. He included the important parts that tell you about the story of the ring, and left out the bits that had no impact on the story he was trying to tell.
Bombadil didnt bring anything much to the books imo. And the Scouring of the Shire definitely feels like an afterthought in the book. Including that in the film would probably have added at least 20-30 minutes to the film, and would have been a total and utter anti-climax (much like it was in the book, imo).
If I have one gripe about the film, it is the way that Faramir is portrayed in the second film (The Two Towers). He comes across as being sly and greedy when he initially wants the ring. This was not how he was portrayed in the book at all, and I dont think changing it brought anything to the film at all.
One other dissapointing thing was the casting of Elijah Wood as Frodo. I didnt empathise with his character much at all, and think it could have been much better played.
Btw I heard a great quote from Stephen King. It's on the documentary on the making of 'Stand By Me' (the film adaptation of the Stephen King novella 'The Body). When asked what he thought about the movie compared to the book, he basically says they cant be compared. 'Books and movies are like apples and oranges. They both taste great, but they are completely different' ;)
If you havent ever seen 'Stand by me', rent it and watch it. Amazing film :)
-
Bombadil would be cool, but unnecessary in a movie.
However, the Barrow Downs are a must. All of the hobbits get really powerful swords. Infact, one of the swords is what actually kills the Witchking.
-
All of the hobbits get really powerful swords
Apparently you and I read 2 different books. One of those swords did not kill the witch king. Those swords were ancient agreed.. powerful? How?
-
Characters like Arwen were fleshed out because she was also recurring character in the entire film.
Umm does this actually make sense to you?
Why was she a recurring figure? She wasn't a recurring figure in the book. I loved the films but Jackson needlessly expanded Arwen's role, IMHO.. This changed Aragorn's motivations entirely...Like he was accepting the mantle of the King of Gondor to, partially at least, save Arwen from death.
This also led to the very hokey presentation of Anduril before Aragorn traveled the paths of the dead. It didn't bother me a whole heck of a lot, just a completely needless departure form the book, IMHO. Like having elves at Helm's deep.
-
Well, there was a whole part in the Appendices to the book that told the story of Arwen and Aragorn. Looks like Tolkien thought that bit was only good enough for his extended version ;)
-
Originally posted by Steve
Apparently you and I read 2 different books. One of those swords did not kill the witch king. Those swords were ancient agreed.. powerful? How?
The sword with which Merry stabs the Witch King in the leg was forged in his (the Witch King's) ancient kingdom. This provides some form of power to the blade... look it up.
-
Yes,, thus my reference to ancient.... but it does not kill the witchking, it merely stabs him in the back of the knee. It wasn't the virtue of the sword's history that enabled the sword to wound the witch king, it was the fact that it wasn't wielded by a man. Thus Eowyn was able to slay the witchking by her hand, w/ a sword of no specially noted lineage.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Umm does this actually make sense to you?
Why was she a recurring figure? She wasn't a recurring figure in the book. I loved the films but Jackson needlessly expanded Arwen's role, IMHO.. This changed Aragorn's motivations entirely...Like he was accepting the mantle of the King of Gondor to, partially at least, save Arwen from death.
This also led to the very hokey presentation of Anduril before Aragorn traveled the paths of the dead. It didn't bother me a whole heck of a lot, just a completely needless departure form the book, IMHO. Like having elves at Helm's deep.
sigh...film(s)... better now?
By boosting her Role Arwen was used as a convient link to all 3 films - and could easier add to Aragorns character without a bulky backstory for those only familar with the films.
Also by using Arwen, Jackson for example was able to circumvent using characters like Glorfindel who would be introduced then almost immediately discarded at Rivendale few scenes later (without the need of further exposition) when the story needed to be pushed forward at the council of Elrond to maintain the flow of the film.
Tronsky
-
I was upset that they took out the Arwen/Galadriel sex scene.
-
"So passed the sword of the Barrow Downs, work of the Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it so long ago in the North Kingdom when the Dunedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had weilded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will."
JRR Tolkien - The Return Of the King
-
By boosting her Role Arwen was used as a convient link to all 3 films - and could easier add to Aragorns character without a bulky backstory for those only familar with the films.
The films didn't need another link. Look, you can spew all the irrelevent rhteoric you want... you're still wrong.
-
Look up.
I accept your surrender.
-
...puts on Wizard Hat
*LIGHTNING BOLT*
*LIGHTNING BOLT*
...now STFU I win!
-
NEEERRRRDDDSSSS!!!!!
Where's Ogre when you need him?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
"No, I haven't read any of Tolkien's books. "
Then you should start threads that you can accutally contribute too cause you sure cant contribute to this one. If you like the chicks version of the LOTR better then the original then you should ask yourself why.
:rolleyes:
The subject of this thread is not whether or not I can contribute to it, if you had bothered to re-read the first post. I am merely asking for argument pro or con, I'll go ahead and go out on a limb here and put you down as a con, to see if Peter Jackson could pull off putting The Silmarillion to film. Whether or not I have read it has no impact on Peter Jackson's ability to make it into a movie. It's a very simple question with an answer that is boolean, either yay nor nay.
-
Yup, thanks MT.
Had Eowyn stabbed the witchking before the blade stabbed his knee, nothing would have happened. It was the blade that killed the Witch King.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
With the outstanding job he did with TLOTR (Tolkien Nazi's excluded) and the success of the movies do you think there's chance he could make The Silmarillion into a series of movies? I know the book is far too indepth in detail for it all to be covered in film but do you think Peter could pull it off?
He could cut out all the crap and slim the movie down to only five or six hours. ;)
Actually, I don't think there is a director that could do it. Hell... I don't think there's a writer that could take the Silmarillion and come up with even a screen play.
-
Had Eowyn stabbed the witchking before the blade stabbed his knee, nothing would have happened. It was the blade that killed the Witch King.
This is how you interpret it? GAY,,, and wrong.
-
Stay tuned for the next exciting post in . . . dun dun DUUUNNN
BATTLE OF THE BBS DORKS!
;)
-
Originally posted by Steve
The films didn't need another link. Look, you can spew all the irrelevent rhteoric you want... you're still wrong.
Mate, you've gotta move out of your parents basement and get some sun...your taking this awfully seriously (and take off the wizard hat :aok )
Tronsky
-
Hey, my parent's basement is partially furnished and dad is gonna put a shower in this year. Don't touch the wizard hat!
-
Steve, what part about that quote do you not understand?
-
Sorry laser, but the quote only proves that the Barrow Blade had some power. Not that it dealt the fatal blow.
I was only proving to Steve that it was more than just "old".
-
Yes, but the killing blow couldn't have happened without it.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Yes, but the killing blow couldn't have happened without it.
in the movie, the way PJ fashioned it, YES it could...
NO man can kill me, said the WitchKing...
I am no man said Eowyn...
BTW those blades were made by Elves, and did have special hmm hmm powers of sorts, like glowing blue when Orcs are close...
-
No
Gandalfs and Frodos swords were made by elves, the swords the other hobbits have were made by men. They do not glow when orcs are near.
-
not too sure Pongo, would have to go back and check, just no time now, sure they had special properties...
-
Only Frodo (of all the hobbits) had an Elvish sword...
Meriodac's sword caused extra harm to the Witch King because it was wrought by his ancient enemies. Any sword would have hurt him, its just this one was kinda special.
now I gotta go wash off all this geek I got all over me.
-
Gandalf's sword Glamdring was the sister sword to Orcrist. Orcrist glowed blue when orcs were about. Don't remember specifically about Glamdring... would have to pull out "The Hobbit". I'm guessing yes, it glowed like Sting.
-
In for a penny.
The Numeroneon faithfull that the Valar allowed to escape the destruction on Numenour settled three realms in Middle earth. One for each of thier leaders sons.
Gondor(from the movie)
Cardolan(sort of west and south of the shire)
Artherdain(north of the Shire)
When Sauron started returning several hundred years into the third age his nazgul gathered to him and long befor he was powerful enough to show himself he sent the lord of the nazgul to the far north of the Misty mountains to create a kingdom to fight the western realms of the Dunadain. That fortress was called Angmar. The Northmen didnt know who the evil leader of the realm was and they named him the Witch King of Angmar.
Over a period of a hundred or more years the Witch King through terror and deciept and open war was able to eventually destroy the two north Kingdoms.
The kings and Nobility of Cardolan where burried on the Barrow downs. The weapons that the hobbits got there where forged in the North kingdom during the long wars with the Witchking.
Those swords where not enchanted to kill the witchking. They were just made at a time when all technology(magic) was supperior to the present time of the movie at the end of the third age and they were very well made even for thier time being made for nobility.
they are in turn far weaker then Glamdring and Sting. Made by noldor elves in the ancient city of Gondolin in the first age in the wars against Morgoth.
Tolkien imagined a world where technological progress was backwards and items and people from long ago where way more advanced then current equivilents.
The son is always weaker then the father. Unless the father breeds with a very supperior blood line to his own.
Tolkien was a racial purist.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
now I gotta go wash off all this geek I got all over me.
so knowledge is bein geeky?
-
Pongo, are there any direct stories about those wars?
-
For all it's worth, I rather thought Jackson did as well as possible on LOTR. Ok, some parts were skipped, and there was a lot of focus on the fighting, but this is the movie world, where the director is perhaps not the boss of everything he wants.
You can see this when looking at the extended versions, there is much more of nice little things in there.
Anyway, I've heard that the Hobbit is a likely project in nearfuture, and much of the LOTR crew and cast are in for the game!
-
Originally posted by SLO
so knowledge is bein geeky?
Knowledge of whether Frodo's navel lint is elvish or not ... yes it's geeky
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
...are there any direct stories about those wars?
They are covered to a certain extent in Unfinished Tales, which deals with material largely left out of the Silmarillion.
Originally posted by Pongo Those swords where not enchanted to kill the witchking.
I'd disagree with that point, and can cite two passages from LOTR to support the contrary view.
In The Two Towers, Aragorn says, referring to the capture of Merry and Pippin:
"Doubtless the Orcs despoiled them, but feared to keep the knives, knowing them for what they are: work of Westernesse, wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor.
Later, in ROTK, The commentary itself states in regard to the fate of Merry's blade:
"So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when when the Dunedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not thought mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.
-
You can read that how you chose I suppose. Like many of Tolkiens writtings. Was the wound one that was as deadly as any that could have been delt or was the sword dealing a wound that no other sword could have dealt. I read it that the wound was as lethal as could be. That the quality of the sword and its good enchantments made it worthy is of no doubt.
But the sword was not crafted to be the bane of the witchking. Tolkien is being ironic. This little dagger for a princling as a man would see it ended up being centeral in the demise of the being that destroyed the 2 northern realms of the faithfull numeronians.
Besides, It was Eowens sword that dispatched the witchking.
-
"And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)."
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 144, dated 1954
In my research Tolkien left alot of unresolved mysteries in his books. What killed the Witch King of Angmar is insignificant, all that is needed to be known is that he was killed.
In the movie you can clearly see Merry react to something happening to him as he stabbed the Nazgul. I have always wondered about that and I think Jackson left it vague on purpose.
-
Irrelivent to you perhaps. But not irrelivent to Tolkien. Such details are the foundation of the books that Tolkien wrote, the hint of them fills the movie and makes it far better then it would be otherwise.
The witch king was fated by Glorifindal to not be killed by a man, in tolkien land fate is a real thing. Elves in particular are bound by their fates.
Merry is reacting to the black breath. This is a power or curse that the nazgul possess that afflicts most who strike them or are stricken by them. Frodo suffered from it after weathertop, Eowen, Famier and Merry suffered from it after the battle of the pelenor fields. It can be cured by a herb called kings foil that Aragorn found near weather top. It is actually a semi major part of the book that Tolkien revisits several times.
Boreing details of the Tolkien nazis to you I am sure.
-
Oh, that's another thing. They left out the entire "The hands of the king are the hands of a healer" part.
But the point still stands. Had Eowyn stabbed the witchking before merry did, nothing would have happened.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Irrelivent to you perhaps. But not irrelivent to Tolkien. Such details are the foundation of the books that Tolkien wrote, the hint of them fills the movie and makes it far better then it would be otherwise.
The witch king was fated by Glorifindal to not be killed by a man, in tolkien land fate is a real thing. Elves in particular are bound by their fates.
Merry is reacting to the black breath. This is a power or curse that the nazgul possess that afflicts most who strike them or are stricken by them. Frodo suffered from it after weathertop, Eowen, Famier and Merry suffered from it after the battle of the pelenor fields. It can be cured by a herb called kings foil that Aragorn found near weather top. It is actually a semi major part of the book that Tolkien revisits several times.
Boreing details of the Tolkien nazis to you I am sure.
No, exactly the opposite. I wonder if you read what I posted? I said insignificant, not irrelevant. I really like finding out the details of the story but I realise that you can't put them all into a film. As I said in my research of Tolkien's work he likes being vague at times. What bores me to tears are the TN's constant cry of "the movies suck because they deviate so far from the books". We can go ad nauseum into the details that were left out or were changed but the bottom line is this, Jackson could not put everything into the movies that would make everyone happy. But if you want to keep arguing this go right ahead.
-
Originally posted by Steve
The Silmarillion is a terrible tease. Great hints of fantastic stories.
I wish Tolkein still lived so he could flesh them out.
Boy, I agree with that.
-
I have read your posts carefully, your repeated whining to the contrary is old and frail.
I must have missed anyone who loves the books saying the hate the movies. I certainly love the movies. But it is sad to those of us who know the story by reading it(not reasearching it) that the story was changed(weakend) for no reason. But if you learn the chicks version of the tale first you will never realize that.
I would hazard that no one who loves the books is totaly satisfied with the changes that PJ and the chicks made to the story line in the way of embelishment. where they had to cut they had to cut. Where they changed the fundimental motivations and relationships of the characters they failed.
But its a good movie. People without the attention span to read the books can now considerthemselves tolkein scholars by "researching" the books instead of reading them. Thats progress.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
But the point still stands. Had Eowyn stabbed the witchking before merry did, nothing would have happened.
So wrong...
From the book itself;
...he raised his mace to kill.
But then he stumbled forward with a cry of bitter pain, and his stroke went wide, driving in to the ground. Merry's sword had stabbed him from behind, shearing through the black mantle, and passing up beneath the hauberk had pierced the sinew behind his mighty knee.
'Eowyn!', 'Eowyn!' cried Merry. Then tottering, struggling up, with her last strength she drove her sword between crown and mantle, as the great shoulders bowed before her. The sword broke sparkling in to many shards. The crown rolled away with a clang. Eowyn fell forward upon her fallen foe. But lo! the mantle and hauberk were empty.....
Nothing in there about Merry's sword doing much damage, except causing him to 'stumble forward'. It wasnt until Eowyn drove her sword between crown and mantle that he began to disintegrate.
Matter settled I believe ;)
-
Merry's strike only served to allow Eowyn time to kill the Witch King. The knife he used, while powerful (not even CLOSE to Sting, Gandalf's sword etc) is more of a "complet the circle" thingy that JRR liked to do. It's IRONIC that it was forged during the wars in Arnor, but not crucial. I also read it that Merry could hurt 'em 'cause he wasn't a "man".
BUT Merry's strike a death blow? Not hardly. More of an annoyance. It's a timing thing. W/O Merry's strike, it's TRUE the Eowyn might not have struck the fatal blow, but that's like you driving down the road, mud hitting your windshield, and you not seeing the truck that pulled out infront of you. It's not the MUD that killed you, but it contributed to it. Coroner wouldn't put "cause of death: mud splash".
Quit being silly.
-
I must have missed anyone who loves the books saying the hate the movies. I certainly love the movies. But it is sad to those of us who know the story by reading it(not reasearching it) that the story was changed(weakend) for no reason. But if you learn the chicks version of the tale first you will never realize that.
I would hazard that no one who loves the books is totaly satisfied with the changes that PJ and the chicks made to the story line in the way of embelishment. where they had to cut they had to cut. Where they changed the fundimental motivations and relationships of the characters they failed.
But its a good movie. People without the attention span to read the books can now considerthemselves tolkein scholars by "researching" the books instead of reading them. Thats progress.
Well stated.
Charon
-
I think that the Witch-King wasn't killed by a man because it was his destiny to be killed by Merry and Eowyn. Not because men couldn't physically kill him.
-
I think thats how it works.
-
It's kind of like a heartattack. You die because of lack of blood, but the clog in an artery on your heart causes it.
-
Pongo, the implication is obvious that Meriadoc's blade , while not the one to deal the actual death-blow, was absolutely crucial, fashioned as it was by the ancient enemies of Angmar, the Dunedain of the North. Read that line again:
..breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.
Later on in ROTK, Gandalf says: "All blades perish that pierce that deadly King", the implication being that the WK had been struck by lesser blades previously to little or no effect.
Tolkien makes it clear that this blade was the right blade in the right hands at the right time. Merry breaks the spell, Eowyn deals the final blow. Neither one without the other. No irony intended or required. It is self-evident.
Tolkien creates a specific mythology around the barrow blades; if as you argue, the blades's provenance had so little do do with the final outcome, then why would Tolkien have reason to reference the magical properties of the blade following the WK's defeat? I think the narative intentions are explicit on this count.
I think that the Witch-King wasn't killed by a man because it was his destiny to be killed by Merry and Eowyn. Not because men couldn't physically kill him.
This is absolutely right. The motif of fate runs throughout Tolkien's works. Just as Bilbo was meant to find the ring when he did thus triggering the whole chain of events, the Fellowship were fated to be waylaid on the Barrow Downs and thus find the blades whose use would be crucial later on in the story.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
I have read your posts carefully, your repeated whining to the contrary is old and frail.
I must have missed anyone who loves the books saying the hate the movies. I certainly love the movies. But it is sad to those of us who know the story by reading it(not reasearching it) that the story was changed(weakend) for no reason. But if you learn the chicks version of the tale first you will never realize that.
I would hazard that no one who loves the books is totaly satisfied with the changes that PJ and the chicks made to the story line in the way of embelishment. where they had to cut they had to cut. Where they changed the fundimental motivations and relationships of the characters they failed.
But its a good movie. People without the attention span to read the books can now considerthemselves tolkein scholars by "researching" the books instead of reading them. Thats progress.
Ummm, no, you most defintiely qualify as a TN. There isn't a passage of whining in a single line of my posts. Your adherence to your mypic stance is getting most tiresome. Esp. the "those of us who know the story by reading (not researching..." is a TN comment if I've ever seen. And I have never said, written, or quoted myself as a "Tolkien scholar". You sir, are the very reason why some of us who don't like to read fantasy, as I stated earlier but I guess you missed that on your "read your posts carefully" claim. For someone who states to have read Tolkien, and I am not saying you haven't, it is quite illuminating to see don't understand the difference between what you think you have read and what is written. But like I said, if you want to keep arguing, keep barking little doggie. Just a little reminder, it wasn't me that changed the subject of this thread. Again, to make it clear to you, the point of this thread is....
Do you think Peter Jackson can make the The Silmarillion into a movie?
It's actually quite simple, as I've said before...
-
The first time I read LOTR was in about 1972. I have actually worn out two sets (paperback) of the work, rereading and rereading it. The movies did a pretty good job, within the limits of Hollyweird political correctness.
Were they perfect? NO way. Were they enjoyable? Absolutely. Tolkein's works are approachable from many directions--you can look at it from a "sword and sorcery" aspect, a moralist aspect, and about any other way you want. From each viewpoint the story seems a little different. What we got in the movies was PJ's interpretation.
Naturally, it won't agree with everything everybody else sees in the story.
-
Oh, those silly fanboys...
http://img84.exs.cx/img84/672/fanboi9xm.gif
These are funny:
1: http://img77.exs.cx/img77/2888/catapult1id.gif
2: http://img70.exs.cx/img70/3483/catapult7kc.gif
-
You have any more?
-
Just had those links, but I just found where they came from:
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=1416950
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Ummm, no, you most defintiely qualify as a TN. There isn't a passage of whining in a single line of my posts. Your adherence to your mypic stance is getting most tiresome. Esp. the "those of us who know the story by reading (not researching..." is a TN comment if I've ever seen. And I have never said, written, or quoted myself as a "Tolkien scholar". You sir, are the very reason why some of us who don't like to read fantasy, as I stated earlier but I guess you missed that on your "read your posts carefully" claim. For someone who states to have read Tolkien, and I am not saying you haven't, it is quite illuminating to see don't understand the difference between what you think you have read and what is written. But like I said, if you want to keep arguing, keep barking little doggie. Just a little reminder, it wasn't me that changed the subject of this thread. Again, to make it clear to you, the point of this thread is....
Do you think Peter Jackson can make the The Silmarillion into a movie?
It's actually quite simple, as I've said before...
Your right. Im not sure what your saying at all now. except that I am a Tolkien Nazi because I read the books to form my opinion of them and your somehow cool because you lack the attention span to do so.
No he could not make it into a movie. But how do I explain why to a person that cant even read the thing?
He could make a movie and call it the silmarillion which would no doubt entertain you..and it might be a great movie. But he could not make a movie of the story that is told in the silmariion.
If you read the things you wouldnt ask the question.
-
Originally posted by takeda
Oh, those silly fanboys...
http://img84.exs.cx/img84/672/fanboi9xm.gif
These are funny:
1: http://img77.exs.cx/img77/2888/catapult1id.gif
2: http://img70.exs.cx/img70/3483/catapult7kc.gif
the second two made me cry.
the first one was dumb