[Bêthberry]

posted by SaucepanMan
You mean it’s not legitimate to adopt contrasting arguments and tactics depending upon the nature of the discussion? But Bêthberry, that proposition runs counter to all of my professional instincts!

Actually I have never sought to deny anyone’s entitlement in this discussion to hold the views that they do. Nor have I ever sought to suggest that those views do not matter because they are outweighed by popular opinion. Indeed, I have been at pains to try to avoid giving that impression. I am simply trying to bring some perspective to the discussion.

Oh, my bad! my bad! I never said it was wrong to explore various strategies of debate, Sauce. I simply observed that here, at least, you seem very fond of reiterating popularity as a satisfactory evidence of the quality of a movie. It is one criterion certainly, but not the only one and I can't recall off hand if you have considered others. (Apologies of course if you have and I have an audio fixation on your popularity claim.)

posted by SpM
My own perception is that the LotR films will hold up over time, since they have the same “groundbreaking” feel to me as the likes of Star Wars (the first) and Raiders of the Lost Ark. And I have a feeling that Jackson will become as much a household name as the likes of Lucas and Spielberg. But that’s just my opinion.

Here we might be on to something. To me, Jackson's films are not 'groundbreaking' the way Lucas' and Spielberg's are/were. In fact, to me, they are very derivative. Certainly the CGI techniques represent a step forward in technology, but that to me is simply a developmental stage in technology rather than an important advance in cinematic art. Would you care to elaborate on what you feel is groundbreaking about the LotR films?

posted by SpM
"For my part, my qualms about the movies were based upon their filmic qualities and not upon their relationship with the antecedent text." [posted by me :P]

Now that’s the kind of discussion I would like to see more of on this Forum. It would certainly make a change to discuss the films as films, rather than simply by reference to the text upon which they are based. [posted by SpM ]

A long time ago, on a post far, far away (Post #116, to be exact, on this thread) I posted:

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Both of these statements might together, I think, explain why I am disssatisfied with the movies as movies. PJ's imagination is watered by two sources: Tolkien and Lucas. Yet rather than out of this creative ferment producing new vintage wine, he produces some vinegar.

Take, for example, the skateboarding scene in Helm's Deep. Or the dwarf tossing comment. In Star Wars that kind of bragadocchio reflects upon the characters. Han Solo's "That's great kid. Now, don't get cocky" works as a humorous interjection into the battle because it says something about both Han's and Luke's characters. The line reads like the effort of those fighting to lessen the impact and force of ... The Force, if you will. It is part of their battle strategy. At Helm's Deep, the skateboarding and dwarf tossing are mere additions for the sake of humour. And both the tragedy of the battle and the dignity of the characters are lost.

The same thing when Aragorn's horse nuzzles him awake from the dream of Arwen. Haha, sure, funny, but how does that develop Aragorn's character or depict this supposedly iconic love and romance? It doesn't. It is just a but of cheap humour thrown in.

Similarly, for me, is Gandalf's arrival atop Shadowtax and the great rearing shot of the horse. Roy Rogers to the rescue? The cowboy motif fits Han Solo because that is how he is presented throughout the ST trilogy: he is a gunslinger in space. But Gandalf is not. He has, from the beginning, been a wizard and interjecting a cowboy image late in the game takes artistic skill which the director does not have.

This discussion could turn into a version of the Canonicity argument: the Director, the film, the audience, but I don't think it is so much a question of 'dumbing down' for the audience. Rather, I think it is a question, as Mr. Underhill suggests, of PJ's nature as a filmmaker. This is his interpretation of how to bring Tolkien to the screen. Yet he fails to appreciate the mythic or moral stature of LotR and his fails to understand how Lucas uses humour in ST. Thus, we have diminished charactertisations and misplaced comedy and changes which don't ring true as a movie.


Knights in battle have a different tone than cowboys in space. PJ could not amalgamate the two into a unified, coherent filmic vision. Too many semes show. (And, yes, I do mean 'semes' )

*coughs and smiles*