[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Boromir

I would say Tom B. is the one exception.

I agree that he is the exception to the temptation of the Ring, but do you think he is the exception based on personality, or will, or something else?

Originally Posted by Boromir

Let me first start off, before I say anything else, by saying I've really enjoyed this discussion so far. I would hate to see it be reduced and squelched into a 'purists are snobs' and 'filmists are ignorant know-nothings.' So lets just stop assuming those two things and get to the discussion.

Thanks for this.

Originally Posted by SaurontheWhite

In the final analysis, this then seems to be Jacksons greatest and most serious sin in the eyes of the True Believers and Tolkien Purists. He actually had the temerity to believe that he could improve upon Holy Writ. Did he not know that he was dealing with the equal of sacred scripture written with the aid of Divine Inspiration?

If one is going to use such obvious sarcasm, then one is going to be seen as attacking people instead of their opinions. Nevertheless, I'll deal with both the exaggeration and the actual question that lies underneath: First, to the exaggerration. No, I don't consider LotR to be Holy Writ. And no, I don't consider it to be sacred scripture. And no, I don't see it as Divine Inspiration, although I do consider it to be inspired. Now, to the underlying question: Yes, I take exception to the difference between what Peter Jackson said he was going to do, and what he actually did. He did say that he would be true to the spirit and themes of Tolkien, and then he proceeded to improve upon the story when it didn't fit the clichés he wanted to use. The result was to (to varying degrees) compromise, needlessly, some of the strongest characterizations Tolkien achieved, notably in Aragorn and Faramir.

Originally Posted by STW

What is so wrong with feeling that you can imporve upon something?

Not a thing. But then admit that is what you are trying to do.

STW: Lets face it - nobody ever really thinks they are wrong. Especially when the world seems to validate your efforts with money, critical praise and industry awards.

LMP: This does not speak highly of the world.

STW: I do find that to be smug and very condescending.

Mea culpa. It was an overgeneralization. I grant that LotR-the-movie was an impressive feat of moviemaking. There are scenes that I love from it (Balrog vs. Gandalf at the beginnig of TTT). I cheered when it won the oscars it did. However, there are points at which I cringe because Jackson simply did the story a disservice. Most notably in my mind is Faramir's character, and to a lesser degree the psychologization of Gollum.

Originally Posted by STW

I asked you specifically where you got off criticizing the teleportation devices in TTT when they are none in the film ... BUT ... you ignored it. I asked you about the Lurtz name objection that you voiced ... BUT ... you ignored that.

You have me confused with Boromir. I actually don't object to Lurz as a representative leader of the orcs. I do wish, however, that Ugluk and Grishnakh (what a great evil character!) had made it into the movie; I simply can't see why they were excluded. After all, Lurz dies at the hands of Aragorn, and then the orcs are shown for the rest of the "run to Isengard" with nameless leaders. Why not include the names and characterizations of Ugluk and Grishnakh? Surely there was money to spare to pay two more actors to play such intriguing bit roles! Grishnakh has to be one of the most effectively realized characters in the entire story. He's my favorite orc.

Hmmm..... I didn't realize that Lurz is never named in the movie itself. So apparently that must have been for marketing purposes. And that orc that serves the role of Grishnakh in the movies, I was really, really disappointed that he wasn't Grishnakh. What would it have cost the story to include him? Bummer.

Originally Posted by STW

I do think my remarks do apply to some - especially those Purists who seem to view any attempt to improve on any aspect of the book as something equal to a serious sin.

If Jackson tried and succeeded, I would be happy to acclaim him for it. I do see a number of points at which PJ did a disservice to the story, and I don't see any examples where he actually improved the story. Can you give some examples of where he did?