[lindil]

Ok there are about a hundred points to respond to so I know I won't get them all...<P>#1] Lush, I appreciate your feeling a need to call me on what you perceived as a subtle bullying by seniority, if were true, I would agree, but a careful reading of my above posts will reveal that I did not bring up the " I have read it 20 X's" to intimidate anyone, there are plenty of folks on the board who have read it more than myself, but it was brought up solely to explain the depth of reponse some 'oldtimers' have towards PJ's 'vision' of the LotR.<P>And more so to see of R's response and defensiveness of the movie's/PJ was based on a new found familiarity with M-E.<P>She would not be wrong [ nor do I consider you to be] to be grateful to PJ for exposing them to M-E if he had in fact done so, but I thought that the self-observation of that [if it was true, which I still do not knowin R's case] would perhaps teach her much regarding the strong feelings and responses of the 'bookists'. I hope that is all as transparent as I am trying to make it. I tend to [due to my 'long -postedness' try and state my motives more minimally at times, hoping I will not have to explain them [and thus make my posts even longer - I am comong to the conclusion that it is a failed tactic ].<P>the full context, and my intentions can I hope be revealed by the inclusion of the following lines <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No offense meant at all Rinodwen, but how many times have you read the LotR? I have read it at least 20X's since 1977 or so.<P>It means alot to me on may levels, that is why I am at the Downs [feel free to see what I AM working on - instead of another LotR movie btw by hitting the Silm link below in my sig]. My point being that If someone is going to make a film of the widely acknowledged and voted upon Book of the Century, they are going to hear about just how well they did from the lovers of Tolien at the Barrow-Downs!<P>Maybe every other Fan-board out there is unanimous in their unstinted praise for the movies, but the Downs is by definition of it's founder, first and foremost a Site dedicated to the Writings of JRRT.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>I then followed it up with<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Nor do I. My point was not 'I have read it more times than you so I ____[fill in the blank].' But that to people who have spent decades experiencing a very refined peice of art in it's original form are then offered another interpretation, those steeped in the original will experience the movies very differently from those who see the movies first or perhaps after one reading. I not knowing your previous experience of the books did not make any assumptions re: your exsposure to the Books, and only spoke for myself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> in my next post.<P>I was invoking my experience only to explain my reactions and responses which had been called into question by: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>How many of you are making your dreams come true.<BR>I don't mean to be harsh... although I know it's going to come across that way in mere words. However! I simply can't understand how you can all be so critical, so judgemental! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think you will agree Lush, that frequent <BR>exposure and love for something may render a different reaction of subject <I>x</I> than will a first reaction. <P>Thus is the reason I think for the vast difference of reaction here at the Downs for thos who give the movie's such vastly different reviews. <P>The only time I did [and it was deliberate]<BR>throw any weight around was to let folks know the boundaries of discourse here, and that certain aspects were being repeatedly violated. I am glad to say that while I haev not read every line of every intervening post, the across the board negations [ 'why complain' and ' make your own movie'] seem to have ceased. And fot hat I am thankful, those points [and they are rreally more attitudes, I would argue]only serve to inflame and already hot-blooded [for some] issue. By the way, for me the whole purpose of discussing these thing is to share point's of view. Invariably, i learn new things in almost any thread I choose to visit, and I do my best to offer back what I can, not in a spirit of trying to convince people so much as to exteriorize certain thoughts, so they become clearer and perhaps less opaque to myself, and also to discover new views. If someone can fully enjoy the movies and the books and feels no tension or discord between them - wonderful! I saw a thead entilted 'why don't people like arwen in the movie?' and since i had a strong opinion and a fwe thoughts I wanted to chime in...<P>Which brings me to the next point:<P>I stated earlier <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Also please, if you seee a thread is titled in such a way that criticism is bound to be abundant inside, do not be so suprised. There are several threads in this forum where it is a giant praise fest for ol' PJ and his movies. Folks like myself who have criticisms aplenty, also should leave those threads to their topics. And not be wet blankets.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> and then in response to Vardamar's post asking to people to 'stop complaining"<BR>I posted <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Vardamar, then why on earth do you come to a thread entitled, 'why people don't like Arwen?'<P>this thread is obviously geared towards critique.<P>If you want to say Liv did a great job, then fine, support her, but to come to a thread started for the purpose of critique and then tell us to stop 'complaining' is rather mind-boggling.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It seems I slightly mis-characterized the original intent of the thread [while being faithful to it in my responses I hope] by stating it was solely for critique, this was only 1/2 correct it seems , and i apologize to Lily Ahern for that. However my point of reply remains 100% valid. Do not come to a thread devoted to exploring a controversy and then tell people to stop discussing or stating the 'negative' side of it. The rules of discussion at the Downs do not allow for that. As for threads devoted to a PJ fan - club or something similar, for me to go there and unleash a broadside would be rude, but if it was done once and then ended, I suppose it falls into a gery area, although i do not encourage anyone to test it's limits. Please everyone be aware of the nature of the topic you are entering into. <P>I can fully understand devoted lovers of the movie wanting criticism - free space or at least a space free of anti-movie angst to chat about what they loved - it is only natural, and conversly, suporters of the movie should not troll about seeking to disrupt threads devoted to abject,caustic, severe and blatant criticism of the movie either. <P>This thread was designed to facilitate a meeting of the minds and as such is likely to be a hot-bed [ which it has proven to be]. But any attempt to stifle either side of the debate is not allowed.By stifling I trust I have explained the Downs rules sufficiently above.<P><BR>Lush,re: <B>and $'s</B>I previously stated <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I agree with the thought that PJ did way more for commercial acceptance than needs be. He was guaranteed a blockbuster, just by virtue of the budget he had and the material he was working with and a great cast.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>And I stand by it although I will add Alan Lee, and the other artist/advisor whose name is eluding me, internet exposure topping all previously made films to the list. <P>With this crew, and the fact that two knighted actors and Kate Blanchett [among others] if it was being destrotyed so bad that it would bomb would have walked off the sets if it was going to be garbage.<P>Neither of us can prove either way our point defintively, but Cleopatra was not, i think the best rejoinder, because it had not previously been voted Book/Author of the Century and read by Millions of current Movie-goers when they were young.<P>The LotR had a bigger built in audience than anymover ever made [ with the possible exception of H.Potter, I am not really sure]. Again the cast, artistic advisors, massive internet exposure, massive media exsposure and of course a huge advertising Budget, and the fact that they cut costs enormously by filming all 3 in one go, literally guaranteed that the movies would make their money back and then millions.<BR>So I do not see how their was any need to twist the plotline of the movie if the books had attracted such fans, sure show moreof Arwen, that is justifiable, especially given the Tale in the appendix, but to say she nneds to replace Glorfindel and carry a sword [and bring Anduril] for the film to succeed seems highly unlikely. PJ was on the right track with the Osanwe/'watching over Aragorn in thought' and also with more scenes of them in Rivendell [ he missed a great opp. for a flash back at Lorien to btw]. <P>So sure, expand Arwen's role if it will help make the story more accessible on some commercially sub-concious level, but as I show above [ and to a small degree PJ himself showed ] it can be done with out distorting and changing the characters.<P>I do not advocate a mindless adherence to the books for the movie to be 'pure' but changing the characters motivations [Treebeard, Elrond, Aragorn and most radically Faramir] was a peice of editorial hubris by PJ and to the mind of myself and many others here, lowered the film's quality for some [ myself being one] and sadly for other's ruined it.<P>By the way, like Willie, I do not stay up nights worrying about it, but I do like to exorcise my self by depositing my reactions and feelings here, where who knows, maybe the next director/wrriter of the LotR may be lurking ! <p>[ January 31, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]