Faramir does not need to know anything about the Ring - though he would know about Isildur & the fall of Sauron. All he would need to know is that the Ring is the work of the Enemy. For that reason alone he would reject it. He is not 'naive' in the sense that while he may not know much about the Ring per se he does know a great deal about Sauron, & as far as he is concerned the Ring=Sauron

No. None of the Valar would succumb. Neither would Tom (we are explicitly told so), or, in my opinion, would Goldberry. As Mr Hicklin has pointed out, & leaving aside those exceptions to the rule, only those who possess the Ring (either physically or mentally) would be at risk of falling to it. However, the Ring could only tempt them to claim it, it could never force them to. Of course, it could manouvre them into using it - either for some trivial, 'innocent' purpose (hiding from annoying relatives) or 'for the greater good' (to save an innocent person) but the possessor would have to make the decision themselves. They would probably succumb - 'probably' is as far as we can go, in that it wouldn't be possible to hand over the ring to every inhabitant of M-e & watch to see what happened.

My good fellow Sauron the White, you apply the allusion far more literally than I ever meant, an interpretation which of course demonstrates your point that there are many ways of taking things.

WCH, I wouldn't say that Bombadil is exactly care-free. He does, after all, save the hobbits twice, from Old Man Willow and from that ghastly Barrow Wight. Interesting that you employ the id allusion, for I would have thought that he is more eros than id, especially given the Goldberry figure, and particularly as he seems contrasted with the thanatos that is the Barrow Wight. (Admittedly this is a bit of a sanitised, Victorian eros, but this is Tolkien we are discussing after all.)

I myself did make the point some eons ago that PJ's Prancing Pony scenes had to be much darker than Tolkien's because the movie missed this first trip into the dark fantastic. Subtly isn't a PJ trait anyway.

If you wanted to see a Pranciny Pony scene that was something out of the Twilight Zone, see the play. They did this rather poor musical dance number which was a cross between "Master of the House" from LES MISERABLES and the cast of DELIVERANCE complete with a few men in coonskin caps no less.

I think Jackson was trying to show the hobbits were out of their element and the darker setting set the stage for the events of that night.

Bethberry - how else could you take the very idea of the Higgins song except to make fun of the singer for being so myopic? I see that as rather obvious. But maybe thats just me. :)

Sauron the White, it is an abiding temptation in the teaching profession to delight in explanation, explication, expoundification, nay, even pontification. To that end, I find the advice of Laurence Sterne positively invaluable, and so I here call upon him in reply to you:

To my mind, Jackson wanted to add a little dark mystery, a bit of byronic appeal, to Aragorn/Srider, so he made the introduction of Strider dangerous. Appealing to the set who dotes on pirates, I believe.

Just informationally, folks: my surname is actually Hicklin; but the B-D software wouldn't let me have another letter, nor apparently can I correct it without starting a new account.

I am amazed how people can read the LotR and not see how utterly significant and important Tom Bombadil is.

You don't like the use of his primary colors so he should just be dumped? As Charlie Brown would say, "Good grief!" Bombadil is the essence and embodiment of hope, and the inspiration for Sam and Frodo to continue on their quest at all costs to themselves.

As Goldberry said, "He is."

Merry

Meriadoc ... you have completely misrepresented my objectionS to Bombadil. Primary colors indeed!!!!!

For your benefit, and in the interests of completeness and debate integrity, I give you again my reasons from an earlier post that you may have either missed or overlooked:

Allow me to also point out that the negative opinion on Bombadil is not exclusive from the pro-film crowd. There have been other posts, both here and elsewhere, of people who were glad TB was not in the films.

It might be pointed out that Gollem was used in a major American TV broadcast using objectionable language for humorous effect. It had the audience in stitches--at least those who weren't offended by a major character of Tolkien's using language which he would never have countenanced in his character's mouth. So making fun of Bombadil wouldn't necessarily mean anything other than an opportunity for more publicity.

Leaving Bombadil out is neither here nor there for me. It has it's drawbacks, such as omitting a character who is immune to the Ring's influence and the subtle hints that the hobbits are in for more than they yet really appreciate. Yet I can also understand the omission from FotR given time constraints.

However, to reply to the criticism that Bombadil is so completely alien to LotR's Middle-earth as to render visual representation impossibly ludicrous, I offer this very fitting, very Shire-friendly portrait of The House of Bombadil by Alan Lee. (My own tastes do not lend themselves to the depictions by, for example, the Hidebrant brothers.) Amidst all the harrowing incidents on the journey to destroy the Ring, it is easy to overlook the fact that Tolkien does provide scenes of significant respit, The House of Bombadil being the first. To lessen the sites of relief represents an interpretation based more on (supposedly) PJ's own philosophical world vision than on Tolkien's. I don't offer Alan Lee's drawing as a definitive representation, but as an example of how Bombadil could have been represented as consistent within the LotR universe. The inclusion of the rainbow suggests just one way in which for Tolkien "hope" remained important.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64...ombadilLee.jpg

Sauron the /White,

I do not believe I said I was directing my comments specifically to you, but I apologize if that is how you felt. I intentionally did not use quotation marks because I did not wish to single any individual out, but someone in this thread at some point used the words "primary colors" in describing his or her dislike visually of Tom Bombadil.

Secondly, I do not believe I said I was directing my comments towards the "pro-film crowd." I directed my comments to people, and in fact, I actually said "...how people can read the LotR...." So in this case, if anyone should be offended (and I certainly am not wishing to offend anyone, but I apologize if I have), it would be the numerous readers of the book who object to Tom Bombadil.

The "you" I used in my post's second paragraph is a generic you pronoun that refers back to its antecedent, which in this case is the noun "people." I did not quote anyone in particular when I said "primary colors," because I felt that this expression pretty much encompassed the prevailing thought, if not the exact words, of many who had objected to Tom Bombadil, and as I said earlier, I did not wish to single out any particular individual.

Here is what I previously posted:

"I am amazed how people can read the LotR and not see how utterly significant and important Tom Bombadil is.

"You don't like the use of his primary colors so he should just be dumped? As Charlie Brown would say, 'Good grief!' Bombadil is the essence and embodiment of hope, and the inspiration for Sam and Frodo to continue on their quest at all costs to themselves.

"As Goldberry said, 'He is.'

"Merry"

Sauron, once again, sorry if you thought I was singling you out. I wasn't. I respect what you say and how you say it. You and so many others on this list are extremely intelligent and challenging intellectually. It is a real pleasure being a part of this group.

Merry

Meriadoc... no problem and no explaination is neccessary - but appreciated. I did use the phrase primary colors in a far earlier post. I guess I did not like having my three point post reduced to two words. No harm no foul.

And I like it here also. :)

Bethberry... I have always like that Alan Lee illustration from the big red edition of LOTR. Notice that Lee selected architecture as his focal point and shunned the visual of Bombadil himself. I cannot speak for Mr. Lee - but it seems a very wise decision.

And there's the rub. One of the main reasons why films and books cannot be the same. Now putting aside my view of what you say here (I'm not sure I agree with it 100%) - how CAN a director show that the Bilbo's look is something that only Frodo 'sees' and not what actually 'happened'. without a narrator to tell us this detail it can;t work.

People seem to forget that Faramir WAS tempted by the Ring. One of the reasons he stoped himself taking it was he tied himself to his word, as Faramir himself tells Frodo. But HE WAS TEMPTED. He fought internally with himself and did not take the Ring. Therefore, to me, I see the trip to Osgiliath as a Detour. I didn't like it - but in the long run it did not make any difference.

Wise of course than none of us can speak for Alan Lee as we can't say that he choose The House of Bombadil because he rejected depicting Tom. The chapter after all is called In the House of Tom Bombadil and the evocation of place seems to me to be Lee's great talent in his Tolkien illustrations. In fact, most chapter titles in LotR emphasise place or event rather than character; indeed, in this book, of the twelve chapter titles, only one is given to a character (Strider).

Despite your feelings that Tom's description is unfortunate, many have found this enigmatic character's description something worth putting to ink, paint and paper (as well as more contemporary methods of illustration). To my mind, the least successful is probably one of the first attempted, that by the Brothers Hildebrant, which often "sets" the style many think of as Tom. Yet their work lies in a particular style and vein of folk art and there is more to Tom than their sentimental rustic style captures.

Here are just a few attempts, which may or may not tickle your fancy. They do suggest, however, that Tom tickles many other people's imagination.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64...Goldberry4.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64...Goldberry5.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64...Goldberry6.jpg

. . . to be continued in a next post, due to the limitations on images . . .

. . . continuing on . . .

In fact, there are several images of Tom in computer games devoted to LotR. Perhaps Tom holds a special appeal for gamers?

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64...oldberry12.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64...Goldberry3.jpg

And of course there are those who cannot resist the urge to recreate Middle-earth in Lego.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64...Goldberry8.jpg


If these other artists can be drawn to depict Tom, why could not PJ attempt it also? It seems to me to be a limitation in his imagination/interpretation of Tolkien to forgo the attempt to depict an enigmatic character and a place of unusual fairie elements. Although of course I don't have access to Jackson's internal thought processes and can merely make suppositions about the absence of the House of Bombadil from the film.

Sure it can. One only has to create an 'unreality' vibe over the whole (Frodo-POV) frame- which is what PJ himself *did* with Arwen's entrance, and (excessively) every time Frodo put the Ring on. Depicting the protagonist's experience of being drunk/drugged/ill/whatever is one of the oldest tools in the director's box.



At any rate, that scene (though overdone and devoid of subtlety) doesn't bother me in itself- but it's an indication of PJ's misunderstanding of the Ring which led to his perversion of Faramir later.

And the Osgiliation not only inverted Faramir's resistance to temptation (I never said he wasn't, just that he didn't act on it), but also led to the utterly preposterous scene of Frodo offering the Ring to the Nazgul, a scene which makes absolutely no sense even in terms of PJ's movies, much less the books. Supposedly the same audience which couldn't accept Faramir resisting the lure of the Ring is expected to swallow whole the idea that, having seen that Frodo is non compos mentis and liable to hand over the ultimate weapon to the first Evil Minion he runs across, on that basis changes his mind and sets him loose. Bah!

Again, much better PJ had developed Faramir's character- which he doesn't do at all. All PJ shows us of Faramir is that Daddy hates him, and he's something of a bully.

WilliamCH... I am in complete agreement about the horridness of the Brothers Hildebrandt illustration of Bombadil. I would attribute half of it to the bros and half to TOlkiens description which they seemed to do fairly accurately. I have looked over the ones that you thoughtfully included as well as the ones from Bethberry.

The lego one is the least damaging on my optic nerves. ;)

In the case of all Bombadil illustrations I think it is the song and not just the singer.

It wouldn't work in that scene - we were in a 'normal' situation, nothing was happening out of the ordinary - and the 'shock' factor would not have worked. It needed to be a 'surprise'.

you see, you have a viewpoint and an understanding of the Ring. PJ has another. It's his viewpoint - not that I agree with it in a lot of cases - but he's entitled to his 'understanding' - Tlkien's world is not black and white. It's why we have so many arguments on this website. Everyone is entitled to their view - and I suppose that means you're entitled to think he's wrong LOL.

they tried to answer that one in the commentaries by saying they transposed the scene when Frodo is tempted (maybe too strong a word)to show the Ring to the WK near Minas Morgul - it was a cheap idea to do this, but it did take away a BIT of the pain I get when watching this scene. Probably my least favourite scene in the trilogy. But I put up with it. By accepting that it was a diversion to Osgiliath and Faramir kills (or at least downs) the fell beast so that his rider can't get back to tell Sauron where the Ring is!!!!

PS - to be totally faithful to the book - would everyone want the Fellowship to be an 18 certificate as we would have to have Merry Pippin and Sam running around naked on the Barrowdowns before Tom gets them some clothes? ;)

WCH wrote:
This may be beside the point, but I think that your interpretation is far from the only one the book supports; I don't think it's "very clear" in the book. On the contrary, it is several times suggested that Bilbo had started to become corrupted by and possessive of the Ring.

Now, I do agree that Peter Jackson largely misunderstands and over-simplifies the workings of the Ring. His depiction of Faramir is one of the gravest mistakes that this over-simplification led to. However, I also think it's a mistake to over-simplify in the other direction. As I see it, the moment in the book when Frodo sees Bilbo transformed is a complex one, in which both Frodo's perceptions and Bilbo's motivations can be seen as influenced by the Ring.

Yes, but.

There's nowhere a suggestion that the Ring produces an instantaneous or even long-term change in physical being (aside from invisibility)- indeed its tendency is rather the opposite.* On the other hand, the Ring very clearly affects the sensory perceptions.

*Gollum's physical appearance: caused by the Ring, directly, or merely by extreme and unnatural age, combined with centuries in the dark?

Hey Merry, totally with you on the importance of Bombadil to the story.

Just some thoughts
 

Wow! A thread comparing and contrasting the books and the movies. How novel! ;)

Anyway, I've been trying to figure out Sauron the White and others with a similar bent (and I mention him by name apurpose as he knows that, from me, this isn't personal but just to make a point) and what they are trying to 'get' from some of their posts. Earlier in thread many of the posts are like similar discussions that we've all had recently wherein the books are considered perfect and the popular movies are considered garbage...or the movies are just wonderful and those who cannot see the digital light are simply cloak-wearing troglodytes that just can't give Peter Jackson a break.

The Downs, if I have this right, preceded the movies. Therefore one would assume that members may have joined due to their love of the books. Others, after the movies came out, joined as well, and these member may love the books, movies or both, but there existed a time when PJ movie love was not possible. The forum culture, therefore, may reflect this book bent especially if we also consider the age of some of the members.

That said, we have StW asking why there seems to be bias in regards to the books/movies. I define bias as the tendency, when no other evidence presents itself, to choose the side one more prefers. StW, seeing this bias, for some reason wants these persons to not only admit their bias (which should be apparent) but also to renounce it when not presented with rock solid contrary evidence.

I live near Pittsburgh Pennsylvania (USA) and the Steelers, a (American) football team, holds a near religious status in the area (and the world, truth be told). If you are in the home stadium when the Steelers are playing, would you think it odd that many of the fans are cheering their local team? In that word, Duh! When a referee makes a questionable call - objectively, if we had perfect knowledge, the call could go either way - would it seem odd if the home crowd saw it as for the Steelers while the fans of the opposing team saw it otherwise? Same crowd, but assume that the referee makes a completely awful call that, given perfect knowledge, we know should not have been made but benefits the Steelers. Home team's opinion is like, "Well, you'll have that in sports," while the opposing team is outraged that such a travesty was permitted. When the call is reversed, the attitudes are reversed as well.

Note that in both cases you have some that are truly fair and so denounce the unfair call regardless of the team.

So, it would seem to me that StW has come to the Downs, which again I assume to be more book-philic than PJ-philic, and expect persons to convert to the "PJ got it spot on" team when the call is completely subjective. Do you prefer the Steelers or the (rival) Browns? In Pittsburgh, Browns-love is tolerated but one wouldn't hear much about it pre-game on the news, in the neighborhood, at parties and during the 5000 hours of post-game analysis. PJ's work is new and not the reason why many persons are here.

Does that make sense?

I'm not disregarding the arguments for or against, and have enjoyed the discussion on this thread, but with the exception of maybe being provocative I'm not sure why certain points of view are considered extreme.

alatar starts the tape... And, yes, PJ's films are popular and successful and have been seen by almost everyone on the planet, and with the TV broadcasts will soon be seen by our extra-terrestrial neighbors as well, but again, we have one data point, and so cannot extrapolate anything. In other words, we do not know what another director/writer/producer could have done, nor what the outcome would have been if PJ were truer to the books or truer to his vision (or whatever). But we can fill up a lot of pages with guesses. ;)

Anyway...

Bombadil was the hook that got me into not only LotR but the Sil as well. What's all of this other stuff to which ole Yellow Boots is referring? PJ, not knowing that FotR would be successful enough for the trilogy to continue, couldn't afford putting a hook in his first flick for movies not yet scripted. ;)

What was the significance of the necklace that Tom plucks from the Barrow hoard?

Was there a necklace? I recall that he selected a brooch set with blue stones from the hoard and said that he would give it to Goldberry to wear in remembrance of the past owner.

Sorry; thanks. Jewelry always confuses me. And the significance of the brooch?

Anyway, the inclusion of Bombadil is not on my Top Ten list of things I would have done differently.

Originally posted by alatar:
You could check out this thread. It's a whole discussion about the significance of the brooch:

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthr...dil%27s+brooch

I think the book is richer for having Bombadil in it. I believe that it's Bethberry who earlier made the point that acts as one of the many helpers that Frodo and the other Hobbits meet along the way, an early example of the "help unlooked for" that Elrond will later tell Frodo that he may find on his journey. But I can understand why one might opt to leave him out of a film adaptation as he appears in 3 early chapters of FotR and never again. So leaving out Bombadil is not among my Top Ten of things I would do differently either.

As for the significance of the brooch - I thought that it connects to the theme of loss in the book. "Fair was she that long ago wore this on her shoulder" but now all that remains is a trinket to remind Bombadil and Goldberry of the unnamed owner/wearer. I don't have the book at the moment but I recall Bombadil wearing a sad expression or at least pensive one as he contemplates the brooch. I thought that he is far from being "goofy" or "cartoonish" in this passage.


Edit: Cross posted with radagastly

Alatar.... the Steelers??? Wasn't that the team that the league conspired with the refs in the Super Bowl a couple of years ago to give them the game despite their quarterback never crossing the goal line and then admitting it on national TV? Just want to make sure that your analogies and comparisons are the same ones that I understand.

and you said

Good luck to you. I have a weekly therapist who has been trying for a couple of years now with no luck. ;)

No clue. I have to admit that I've never drank the kool-aid, and would have to work on caring less. If it weren't for people thinking that I must be recording the games, I'd most likely be rid outa tahn. Regardless, the point that you well make is that some would believe that their team can do no wrong, and react crazily when one suggests it. Others admit it with a chuckle - nudge nudge wink wink - but see it as the nature of things. Still others lessen or lose their interest when they see examples of the game being fixed, even when it's in their team's favor.

Not sure why you're so interested in getting bookites to speak heresy, as obviously you're wise enough to know all of this as well.

What does he/she think of the films/books? And sorry, but it's always a wonder to me as to what makes people tick.

And thanks, radagastly for the link. Seems that there's been more discussion on that thread since I last peaked in. But I still don't know why Tolkien makes a point of it...anyone have PJ et al's email address? Surely he'll know...

Alatar .. here is the serious answer to your musings.

You have a point and I do understand it. And it does explain alot. Having said that, I would also say this. The concept of being a prejudiced "homer" is one that is foreign to me. I view myself, and hopefuly people here, as intelligent beings who 1) can use their minds well, 2) are open minded, and 3) strive to be free from the sort of prejudgements you speak of. What good does it do the advancement of knowledge, discussion, debate or anything else if we proudly stand up and say

... "well yes I am a provincial yahoo who admits I see things with blinders on and looks at the world with rose colored glasses on so I only see what I want to see..."

To say that most here came from a solid background of books and read them long before Jackson set a single scene to film is no excuse or rationalization for being blinded to the beauty of the movies. Sorry but it just isn't. It explains the prejudice. It explains the blinders. It explains the rose colored glasses. But it is no excuse.

It reminds me of a line in an old Simon and Garfunkel song "The Boxer". "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." I have always strived to not be that man. I would hope that others also do the same.

For my part, I do not fit the description that you hint at. Like many here, I found the books long ago. I first read them right out of college in 1971. I imagine I read LOTR at least a half dozen times before the Jackson films. And by that fact, you can see I am no peach-fuzzed 20something who was dazzled by the films and did not even know there were any books.

I have always been something of a contrarian, a rebel and an iconoclast. I greatly enjoy going against the grain regardless if it be rooting for the visiting team or being the only one in the room to advocate looking at an unpopular social or political position for the sake of discussion. I guess I am like another line from a song from Bruce Springsteen.. "when they said sit down I stood up".

So for you to explain things here by rationalizing that people have more history with the books and see them as perfect and thus its normal to rag on the films .... sorry but that does not ring true for me. It does apply to people who do not want to go beyond their small minded limits. It does apply to people who proudly wear those blinders or rose colored glasses and have no interest in taking them off.

But its still not right.

I don't know about YOU, StW, but I watch sports games for the intellectual high I derive from carefully and coldly analyzing the performance of all involved (from a purely objective standpoint). The excitement of supporting one team over the other strikes me as somehow...provincial and small-minded. Then I say to all those stupid yokels, "Look at me! I'm different! I choose not to enjoy this in the same way you do!" Then I laugh to myself because I am wiser and saner than they. Ba ha ha.

Everybody wears glasses of some color, StW.

Yes, but you're assuming those of us who don't like the movies have taken a dislike to them on principle. I didn't. On the contrary, I wanted more than anything to like them. I dreamt of being able to sit down & be transported to the Middle-earth I knew & loved. Look, I reckon Ive watched the movies more than many of those who loved them. I saw FotR 3 times in the cinema, bought the theatrical version (on VHS) when it came out & watched it probably half a dozen times, same with the DVD extended version (probably more than that, as I also watched it with the commentaries. Same thing with TT & RotK. All that plus watching the movies a couple of times when they were on TV. Lal & I even spent one Sunday a couple of years back & watched the extended versions back to back.

Now, I think that shows that I've tried. I like bits, &, as movies, I find them entertaining enough - if I'm in the mood for that kind of thing. Thing is, now I find I'm very rarely in that kind of mood. The bits I liked originally have lost any interest for me due to having seen them a few times, but the bits that irritated me have become more & more grating.

As things stand (& this is something I've stated before) I'm not violently opposed to the movies. Actually, I find them dull, over-simplified & often illogical, but I can't really summon up the energy to get annoyed about them. I appreciate the effort of all concerned, & can only admire Jackson's persistence. I also accept that he loves the books - that kind of dedication & commitment alone would deserve all the awards & kudos he recieved. I just think that the movies are a heroic failure. They failed to present the M-e I know & love. And yet that isn't down to books & movies being different media. I keep going back to the BBC radio dramatisation. That was an adaptation into a different medium, but it was a faithful one, & when I listen to that I am taken to the M-e I know & love.

I can just imagine! If we go to PJ, we can be assured that he won't say yeah or nay. He'll probably realise that Tom B was the original Tomb raider and decide that Goldberry can be immortalized in a remake of Laura Croft. After all, if he can redo King Kong he can redo anything.

Davem ... yes, I do understand that there are people here who have definite objections to the movies as movies. That is fair and proper and I have no complaint with that. That is not to whom my comments are aimed at.

There is a sizable contingent here who simply object to the movies because they were not like the books. Period. It comes across again and again and again in post after post after post in thread after thread after thread. If you find that sentence repetitive, its intended to mimick the nature of those same carping posts produced by people blinded by their own prejudgments.

This thread is about movies and books. I am reminded of another fine book turned into a fine movie - THE COLOR PURPLE. There is a great scene where Celie is talking to Shug Avery about Celies abusive husband Albert. It seems that Albert is the lover of Shug and he is tender, doting and caring with her. He is not abusive in the slightest to Shug. And when the two women open up and exchange their very different experiences to each other about the same man, Shug cannot understand why Albert does what he does to Celie.

Celie sums it up in one concise sentence.

"He beat me 'cause I ain't you."

And that fits like a glove on the hand of many posters here. They do not like the movies because they are not the books. You do not have to wander far to find evidence of this. Simply look at this threads title.

It's not because they were "not like the books" in the sense that the adaptation process necessarily changed certain things. My great disappointment (and it was truly that- I haunted TORC and TORN and lapped up every bit of leaked news, really looking forward to the release) stemmed from the fact that PJ so clearly didn't understand his source material. I was hoping for an epic-with-brains like Lawrence of Arabia et al, and what I saw (even in Fellowship, whose plot-alterations I didn't often mind that much) was instead a bigger, badder Indiana Jones movie. All of Tolkien's deeper currents beneath the shallow level of 'plot' had disappeared; and in the sequels were indeed frequently turned on their heads.

That I think underlies the distaste many book-fans have for the movies- we couldn't watch them without being painfully aware of how much was missing (not of the plot, but of the Tolkienian mental universe). And this isn't (at least in my case) due to some prejudice against movies or a lack of understanding of the cinemtic medium: I duly took 'History of Film' and 'Cinema as an Art Form' (and got A's)- so I'm reasonably aware of film's potential to convey a tremendous degree of intellectual content and subtext. A film adaptation of the Lord of the Rings didn't *have* to be superficial.

It's interesting that you bring up The Color Purple. *That* Spielberg, the Spielberg who also made Schindler's List, should have been the model, rather than that other Spielberg, maker of popcorn movies.

StW: The thread's title is obviously self-satirizing.

davem: The BBC radio dramatization is truly, truly awesome; easily the best adaptation of the books to any other medium. I listen to it every Christmas, and it still sends chills up my spine. Every time.

In some ways, it's listening to the BBC radio version that makes me inclined to like the movies less than I might otherwise, because the radio series reminds me that however good the movies may have been, they could have been sooo much better. The BBC version, on the other hand, captures the spirit of Middle-earth in a much more complete and deep way. It's a demonstration and a reminder of what The Lord of the Rings films could have been, of the story's full potential for adaptation.

And your previous post wasn't?!?

Note that I used the word 'bias' specifically, as to me bias is (quoting someone in Frank Herbert's writings) 'if I can, I will vote for my side,' whereas prejudice (pre-judgment) would mean that, 'regardless of any argument put forward, I will vote for my side.' In fact, before I even read your post or see the movies, I already know what I will think about them. davem's (like the one above) and others posts indicate that they may have a book bias, but were not prejudiced to the movies. Like them, I too wanted them to be great and yield the same thrill as the books. Maybe I set my expectations too high?

And, as my title suggests as my default position, I seriously doubt that you entertain no biases or prejudices. If you are human, then you got them with your DNA.

I consider myself intelligent but don't really like chocolate and would not wear anything coloured purple if it were the last shirt in the drawer. Bias is not anti-intelligent. Bias is a filter we use to make decisions a little more quickly. Should I eat the carrot or the snail? Last time the snail made me sick, so I'll grab the carrot.

The cynic in me wonders if any of us do this. ;)

Open minded does not mean accepting all positions, or weighting them equally. Because we are intelligent, we have to sift the data for relevance. That said, because we are all unique, we can arrive at different answers given the same data.

Sounds good, but striving does not equal attaining. It's been said that one should remove the beam from one's own eye before commenting on the speck in another's. But I hear ya.

People who do this do not realize that they are doing so. Or, actually, persons who admit to wearing glasses are at least being honest.

Not a rationalization, but an explanation. If you grew up hating peas, no amount of argument is going to persuade you to enjoy the yucky green things. Rational? No. But noting that person with a distaste for peas was forced to eat them as a child at least sheds light on why he/she may not like them, even when they've been prepared in a more appealing sauce.

My question to you is: What do you want from these discussions (besides entertainment and some good thinking), and with whom are you really arguing? Earlier posts suggest that it may not be with those that love/prefer the books over Jackson's work, but with those that hold or are perceived to hold views with which you do not agree or think are rational/consistent/other.

:eek:

And here we're getting closer to the real issue. So does this mean that on pro-Jackson sites you argue that he wasn't true to the books and should have included Bombadil? Again, I then see someone who is either arguing for the fun of the play, or is arguing with a voice from the past. Regardless, it's been fun.

So I present evidence (however scant) as an explanation as to some, but not all, persons behaviour, and you, being open minded and a product of psychological Lasik surgery, cannot consider this to be even an approximation of the perfect truth. As I and others have said, we all wear glasses, and it's the coloured lenses that make life fun (most times).

Please define "small-minded." The mind is the product of the brain, and not sure if there's been any volumetric data. And if that's not what you mean, I would think that this forum is open to all those that are civil and follow the rules.

Why does that bother you so? Was there someone or group that oppressed you in some way with a "my way or the highway" stick? People here like the books, or movies, or both, or hold obstinate views even when presented with airtight evidence to the contrary. Even I, noted for being exemplary in all matters large and small along with being most humble and unassuming, may, for a moment or two, hold onto a view or idea just for old times' sake. ;)

So what?

from WilliamCH

Which speaks directly and in support of something I have said here in other posts --- longtime readers of LOTR were indeed handicapped by thier voluminous knowledge of the books when they went to see the films. It did not help them but instead hampered them. In this case, too much knowledge can be a bad thing.

I do wonder what constitutes the TOLKIENIAN MENTAL UNIVERSE.

There is a part of Jackson which is the teen-age boy who loves action and "cool stuff". And when you listen to both his interviews and the extras on the DVD's that certainly came across. However, I would disagree with those who maintain that all that was included at the expense of the more sublime portions of LOTR, the more subtle moments, the softer and more emotional scenes and incidents. Its there if anyone just wants to see it.

Ignorance is bliss, someone said. My wife, not reading the books ever! enjoyed the movies more than I when we saw them in the theater. Now that they've been in the house and on broadcast TV, and now that she's seen them more (still not having read those books) sees many more flaws and has actually used the word, "stupid" when viewing certain scenes. Yes, it's one data point, but our theory of TMU will want to be considered in light of this possible outlier.

That makes sense. If only I could be a teenager again. :rolleyes:

There were so many...;)

Alatar.... you post before my response to William came up after I posted. So here is one directed to your response to me... (this is getting complicated and where do I get a scorecard?)

I have always associated readers - and I mean avid readers - with those of higher intelligence. No data here to support that. No surveys or longitudinal studies bearing that out. Just my basic hunch and premise that I steer by. Avid readers seem to be the more sharper knives in the drawer.

Thus, I am a bit taken aback when I see those same intelligent beings prone to the same prejudgments and blinders that we (or I) normally assign to the more educationally challenged amongst us.

You seem to be saying that its okay to have prejudices and bias since that is part of the human condition ... and besides..... we were all confortable with our quaint ways long before you hit our sleepy little town ... so if you dont like it here .....

or as Matthewm once told me "just leave".

I do enjoy the exchange especially with you and several others and will stop at currying favor by naming names. It is fun and works the mind a bit and right now I need all the mental exercise that is available to me. ;)

My previous reply to you

.

I guess it was like that line in the Kris Kristofferson song ....

"I'm a walking contradiction
partly truth partly fiction".

Thought the winking smilie tipped that off.

Just thought you deserved a more literate reply to your longer post than "good luck".

We are handicapped by knowledge?? If PJ would have made a work comparable to the books, in depth, spirituality or morality, - but somehow with a different message, then this argument would have had some merit. But that was not his purpose nor his achievement. If I had to choose between knowing the books and somehow better appreciate their hollywoodization, the choice would be obvious for me.
My regards to someone who has this much imagination ;).
Great post, great ending :D.

Raynor -- yes Yes YES a hundred times yes. Yes you are handicapped by knowledge..... if that knowledge of the books has the following effects on your ability to sit and enjoy the films ............

if you do not know the difference between a book and a film

if you refuse to accept the difference between a book and a film

if you refuse to accept the different elements and constructs of the two different mediums

if you refuse to accept the constraints and limitations of the mediums as they compare to each other

That is a huge handicap that some have here that prevents them from performing the most simple task ---- accepting something for what it is and not what it is not.

In addition, yes, voluminous knowledge of the books is indeed a handicap in enjoying the films IF it results in

you sitting before the screen making comments to yourself "the book was not like that".... or "that did not happen in the books"..... or "the wrong character is speaking those lines"..... or "what happened to my favorite character of _______" .... or "they combined several events together" ..... or "they left out some stuff" .... or any one of ten thousand other objections that basically mean "when I compare the medium of the book to the different medium of the movies, they end up different". As they say these days.. "DUH?"

Like Robert deNiro said in THE DEERHUNTER. "This is this. This isn't something else. This is this."

But it seems that in your world we aren't allowed to accept what it is and still dislike it. Comparison with the books aside, there are things in the films I sincerely dislike just because of what they are or who the actors are. My view on the films isn't entirely mediated by what I know of the books, though obviously it has an effect.