The Hobbit in July 2007?

[Sauron the White]

William ... I find it revealing that the two scenes you lead with - the charge of the Rohirrim and the death speech of Boromir - have been listed as some of the fan favorite scenes in several polls. I remember one on another Tolkien web site, either board77.net or torc.com in which the Boromir scene was voted as the best scene in any of the 3 films. The beacons scene was almost universally praised (perhaps with exception from the sacred cadre of True Believers) for its beauty and scope.

But of course you are nitpicking at one or two tiles rather than the beauty of the entire mosaic.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Oh, I can nitpick for pages given time. Look, I'll credit PJ (and Shore) for the Beacons sequence itself- unlike some purists I'll forgive him the logistical absurdity and geographical deviation from the book for the sake of sheer visual drama. But why the hell did Pippin light them? Because Gandalf told him to- countermanding the orders of the lawful Lord and Steward! Who didn't want them lit because his character was rewritten (and, yes, dumbed down) to make him a stock-Hollywood demented ogre.

So why not have them lit as Gandalf and Pippin are riding south, as in the book? Because PJ thinks he can "improve" one of the great stories of the 20th century- and in the process push might-for-right in total contravention of the books' moral compass.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

[quote]some of the fan favorite scenes in several polls. I remember one on another Tolkien web site, either board77.net or torc.com in which the Boromir scene was voted as the best scene in any of the 3 films.[quote]

Do I sound like someone who gives a rat's heinie what movie fanboys think?

[Imladris]

Oh my goodness someone let the children out.

However, I'd like to say that it's rather silly to say that since PJ produced a dumbed down Hollywood-ised version of Lotr/a wonderful beautiful film of LotR that the Hobbit will be the same. After all, look at PJs old track record --~~ I think most will agree that LotR was quite a step up from his norm, and there are a lot of other examples as well, including Tolkien. Most people I talk to (and I share this opinion) think that the Silmarillion does not add up to LotR, and that The Hobbit is inferior or superior, etc.

[Sir Kohran]

[QUOTE=William Cloud Hickli;528249][quote]some of the fan favorite scenes in several polls. I remember one on another Tolkien web site, either board77.net or torc.com in which the Boromir scene was voted as the best scene in any of the 3 films.

Do I sound like someone who gives a rat's heinie what movie fanboys think?

He said Tolkien web site, not movie fanboys.

[Sauron the White]

from William

Do I sound like someone who gives a rat's heinie what movie fanboys think?

Obviously not - but that was never the point. Only that several of the scenes you were so disgusted with are the favorites of a much larger audience. And in this case an audience of Tolkien fans - not rabid fanboys as Kohran pointed out. You have every right to march out of step with the rest of the world. And you can even tell yourself that only you are marching properly. Thats freedom.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

from William



Obviously not - but that was never the point. Only that several of the scenes you were so disgusted with are the favorites of a much larger audience. And in this case an audience of Tolkien fans - not rabid fanboys as Kohran pointed out. You have every right to march out of step with the rest of the world. And you can even tell yourself that only you are marching properly. Thats freedom.

Yes, but ...

We need to get some perspective here. The Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien is a literary masterpiece which will outlast us all & will live alongside the works of Homer, Virgil, Malory & the Icelandic Sagas. The LotR movies by Peter Jackson were made to bump up studio profits & flog popcorn to teenagers. If it wasn't for the possibility of a Hobbit movie the LotR movies would by now have faded into obscurity.

These movies are pleasant enough entertainment if you want to spend a thought free few hours, but they can't be classed alongside the work of a literary artist like JRR Tolkien. Tolkien's work is for the ages. PJ's movies are for 3 hours with a pizza & a couple of beers.

[Sir Kohran]

The LotR movies by Peter Jackson were made to bump up studio profits & flog popcorn to teenagers.

No, that's Eragon. The LOTR trilogy was ground breaking because it was capable of making profit and being deep, thoughtful and powerful in a way most movies don't bother to be.

but they can't be classed alongside the work of a literary artist like JRR Tolkien.

Of course not. They're not books. They're not supposed to.

PJ's movies are for 3 hours with a pizza & a couple of beers.

Again, more generalisations. If this was all the movies were made for then they could have made Independence Day or Pirates Of The Caribbean or some other mindless flick. The LOTR films are much more than that.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by davem

We need to get some perspective here.

Yes, a little perspective would be nice....

*The Dark Elf eyes the remainder of davem's post suspiciously*

Originally Posted by davem

The Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien is a literary masterpiece which will outlast us all & will live alongside the works of Homer, Virgil, Malory & the Icelandic Sagas.

Hmmm....so much for perspective. I think perhaps even Tolkien would consider your statement to be presumptuous, if not a bit flippant. I am not as certain as you are in casting LotR in such august company, particularly since educators, editors and publishers (who, of course, write the textbooks and literary compilations) do not necessarily share your extreme position. One of my favorite texts is 'The Land and Literature of England (A Historical Account)' by Robert M. Adams, a witty and often profound literary commentator. Adams offers a one line mention of Tolkien in the book (in the same sentence as C.S. Lewis, coincidently):

Meanwhile, C.S. Lewis, long a belligerent conversationalist for Christianity, enjoyed fresh accesses of popularity for the witty apologetics of The Screwtape Letters (1942); and J.R.R. Tolkien, slowly meditating an entire new world out of his Anglo-Saxon studies, produced in The Lord of the Rings tetralogy a cosmos exotic in its coloring but deeply Christian in its structure.

It is an excellent summation for the tail-end of a compound sentence, don't you think? Meanwhile, Malory receives several pages of commentary, and I believe that's about it for Tolkien in the literary world...a footnote. When discussing British writers of the first half of the 20th Century, George Orwell and James Joyce get far more critical comment. That's the reality of the literary situation the good professor is up against. I think LotR is categorized by many critics in the same manner as Watership Down, or The Once and Future King, which David Garnett, the formidable publisher, writer and member of the Bloomsbury Group, described as "one the curious classics of English literature". 'Curious' is used as almost a pejorative adjective.

Originally Posted by davem

The LotR movies by Peter Jackson were made to bump up studio profits & flog popcorn to teenagers. If it wasn't for the possibility of a Hobbit movie the LotR movies would by now have faded into obscurity.

These movies are pleasant enough entertainment if you want to spend a thought free few hours, but they can't be classed alongside the work of a literary artist like JRR Tolkien. Tolkien's work is for the ages. PJ's movies are for 3 hours with a pizza & a couple of beers.

Oh come now, you are being a little too hard on the movies, aren't you? First of all, I can't believe I am pressed into defending Peter Jackson (ah, the irony!), but for all the innumerable scripting/plot flaws (which I think everyone can agree are at the heart of vehement opposition), visually the films are astounding, and the cinematography and design work alone merits the critical acclaim the movies received (particularly the work of Alan Lee and John Howe). The films make the Star Wars debacles sophomoric (I would put up the Gollum characterization against Jar-Jar Binks any day). Technically speaking, Jackson trumps Lucas in nearly every aspect of filmmaking (not that it's hard, but critics always seem to use Star Wars as a comparative basis for films of the genre).

Speaking of Gollum, I believe his portrayal was superb, and there are numerous moments throughout the films that literally mirror Middle-earth in splendor and awe (I always crank the DTS 6.1 when the balrog squares off against Gandalf). The Shire and Bag-end are just as I pictured it (and the repartee between Sir Ian Mckellan and Sir Ian Holm is a pleasure).

Is it the best film ever made, or in my top 50? No, not by a long shot, but I could place it at the rear of my top 100 somewhere, and that's saying something (for me anyway). But like so many others I bemoan the fact that if Jackson had not been so heavyhanded with his script changes (as I stated elsewhere, most of which were utterly unnecessary), then the LotR films would be much higher in my esteem. Had Jackson maintained the (somewhat) lore appropriate nature of FotR for the balance of the last two movies, the effect would have been much greater. Such scope and sheer will! It was a monumental and exhausting undertaking for Jackson, I am sure; unfortunately, it seems his ego grew with each successive film.