The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

**lindil** · 12-13-2003, 10:10 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> As for merchandising, well it's inevitable really. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not so. Witness The Matrix, We got a cell phone, a video game [with an hour more of the story only there] and a few adds. No action figures, books [?!] or mountains of cheap plastic crappola. They easily could have cashed in on any or all of the above to make millions more, but had the decency and taste to refrain.dininziliel offered many points which were dead on for me: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>...and still I alternate regularly between "Wow--that's wonderful" and "expletive deleted." There are things that cheapen the story and ME <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>and <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The changes in FotR were understandable and did not destroy the integrity and meaning of the story. In TT the departures from the story seemed to have added more changes for the sake of personal gratification as well as for ticket-selling "tension," as they are fond of saying. While tension is indeed essential, it's lamentable that Jackson did not have a little more faith in either the audience or the story itself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Bingo! PJ ended up having faith in Howe and Lee, his animators, etc, but he did not trust the story anywhere near enough to be able to use the title The Lord of the Rings without some qualifier being [imo] seriously needed. and finally <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>How sad to see the purity of that experience irrevocably changed by cheapness of marketing and story rewrites. I would like to be able to further separate the book from the movies, but the disappointment with the movies of coming so close yet falling so far gets in the way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I can actually ignore most of the cheap plastic garbage everywhere [because I am rarely exposed to it], but the story re-writes will sadly forever mar [for many, if not most] lovers of the books. PJ had a once in a multi-decade chance to do it right and like frodo at mount doom, at the end he claimed the script for himself.Too bad he really had the ability to make adaptations that fans and purists, and neophytes alike all could have loved. Some may feel that PJ is being justified for all of this due to vast commercial success, critical acclaim from hollywod pundits, truly he has 'received his reward' here. He has however not done well enough by JRRT's heirs to merit the right to do more. Which might have happened had be been far more conservative in his re-writes. We will never know because he did not, but we do know the estate like many, 'purists' see no reason to let PJ 'adapt' any more of their fathers work. DaveM gave us: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> As far as I'm concerned, the only thing in the movies worth seeing is when Tolkien's own work makes it on screen. The 'stuff' of Jackson & the writers hangs off Tolkien's work, adding nothing, but is kept afloat by the scraps of Tolkien's genius which has survived. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I would say a bit more than scraps survived , but totally agree with the premise, the movies do best, at times near perfectly, when they are faithful to the spring from which they flowed. Attempts to re-direct the flow of the river, as it were, are almost always in hindsight [or with a modicum of foresight] foolish.Thankfully from the reviews I have read [one mostly from a good friend and longtime lover of JRRT] THe Rotk seems to be molded far more like FotR interms of the number and severity of 'adaptive license' PJ leaves us with.But sadly I am left hoping that maybe in another 20 or 30 years, someone else will buy the rights from new line, and do it by the book.Many people think it fair that PJ be judged by the standard of faithfullness to the books. I disagree. He used the exact title of the Books, with no qualifiers. In a title when the article "the" is used as in The Lord of the Rings it signifies that something is 'the genuine article' [no pun intended] it is what it claims to be. By the standards of the English Language I do not think PJ's movies can ever be The Lord of the Rings but at best a ' Lord of the Rings'.[ 12:14 PM December 13, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

12-13-2003, 10:10 AM	#15
lindil Seeker of the Straight Path Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: a hidden fastness in Big Valley nor cal Posts: 1,680	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> As for merchandising, well it's inevitable really. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Not so. Witness The Matrix, We got a cell phone, a video game [with an hour more of the story only there] and a few adds. No action figures, books [?!] or mountains of cheap plastic crappola. They easily could have cashed in on any or all of the above to make millions more, but had the decency and taste to refrain.<P>dininziliel offered many points which were dead on for me:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>...and still I alternate regularly between "Wow--that's wonderful" and "expletive deleted." There are things that cheapen the story and ME <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>and<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The changes in FotR were understandable and did not destroy the integrity and meaning of the story. In TT the departures from the story seemed to have added more changes for the sake of personal gratification as well as for ticket-selling "tension," as they are fond of saying. While tension is indeed essential, it's lamentable that Jackson did not have a little more faith in either the audience or the story itself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Bingo! PJ ended up having faith in Howe and Lee, his animators, etc, but he did not trust the story anywhere near enough to be able to use the title <I>The Lord of the Rings</I> without some qualifier being [imo] seriously needed. <P><BR>and finally <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>How sad to see the purity of that experience irrevocably changed by cheapness of marketing and story rewrites. I would like to be able to further separate the book from the movies, but the disappointment with the movies of coming so close yet falling so far gets in the way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I can actually ignore most of the cheap plastic garbage everywhere [because I am rarely exposed to it], but the story re-writes will sadly forever mar [for many, if not most] lovers of the books. PJ had a once in a multi-decade chance to do it right and like frodo at mount doom, at the end he claimed the script for himself.<P>Too bad he really had the ability to make adaptations that fans and purists, and neophytes alike all could have loved. <P>Some may feel that PJ is being justified for all of this due to vast commercial success, critical acclaim from hollywod pundits, truly he has 'received his reward' here. <P>He has however not done well enough by JRRT's heirs to merit the right to do more. Which <I>might</I> have happened had be been far more conservative in his re-writes. We will never know because he did not, but we do know the estate like many, 'purists' see no reason to let PJ 'adapt' any more of their fathers work. <P>DaveM gave us:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> As far as I'm concerned, the only thing in the movies worth seeing is when Tolkien's own work makes it on screen. The 'stuff' of Jackson & the writers hangs off Tolkien's work, adding nothing, but is kept afloat by the scraps of Tolkien's genius which has survived. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I would say a bit more than scraps survived , but totally agree with the premise, the movies do best, at times near perfectly, when they are faithful to the spring from which they flowed. Attempts to re-direct the flow of the river, as it were, are almost always in hindsight [or with a modicum of foresight] foolish.<P>Thankfully from the reviews I have read [one mostly from a good friend and longtime lover of JRRT] THe Rotk seems to be molded far more like FotR interms of the number and severity of 'adaptive license' PJ leaves us with.<P>But sadly I am left hoping that maybe in another 20 or 30 years, someone else will buy the rights from new line, and do it by the book.<P>Many people think it fair that PJ be judged by the standard of faithfullness to the books. I disagree. He used the exact title of the Books, with no qualifiers. In a title when the article "the" is used as in <I>The Lord of the Rings</I> it signifies that something is 'the genuine article' [no pun intended] it is what it claims to be. <P>By the standards of the English Language I do not think PJ's movies can ever be <BR><I>The Lord of the Rings</I> but at best a ' Lord of the Rings'.<p>[ 12:14 PM December 13, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ] __________________ The dwindling Men of the West would often sit up late into the night exchanging lore & wisdom such as they still possessed that they should not fall back into the mean estate of those who never knew or indeed rebelled against the Light.