Split Personality?

[Sauron the White]

Lalwende.... I am sorry to appear to tar everyone with the same brush when many do not deserve it. Thank you for pointing out the diversity within the Tolkien community. I will certainly keep that in mind when making future observations. I do think my remarks do apply to some - especially those Purists who seem to view any attempt to improve on any aspect of the book as something equal to a serious sin.

Boromir ... sorry to confuse your remarks with someone else. Allow me to discuss your reply.

The Elves in Helms Deep distance problem: It only becomes a problem when you calculate the distance based on the knowledge of the books because the films never make a big issue about it. And even if someone does put it all together based on the distance that others traveled then we have the situation of Elves being able to go without sleep and perhaps would be a great deal faster than mere humans. If people can accept that a short stocky untrained Dwarf can run 140 miles in 3 short days, I would think they would believe almost anything reasonable involving travel from Elves. Both are examples of willing suspension of disbelief. Some are willing to extend it to one area of the medium but deny it to the other.

Neither the book nor the film is perfect. They both contain errors and mistakes and holes.

Lurtz: yes, I know who that character is. Where in the film is he named? As far as I can remember, he never is. What is so wrong about the Uruks having a field commander? How is that some serious violation of the book? So what if Jackson invented an Uruk and gave him more personality, even an off screen name? He knew that the audience would better latch on to one identifiable Uruk than a whole slew of nameless orcs. Lurtz comes to personify the might and brutality of the Uruks both in his slaying of Boromir and in his battle with Aragorn. Having an identifiable character you can hang your hat on means so much more to viewers than waves of unwashed orcs outside of a major battle scene.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Boromir

I would say Tom B. is the one exception.

I agree that he is the exception to the temptation of the Ring, but do you think he is the exception based on personality, or will, or something else?

Originally Posted by Boromir

Let me first start off, before I say anything else, by saying I've really enjoyed this discussion so far. I would hate to see it be reduced and squelched into a 'purists are snobs' and 'filmists are ignorant know-nothings.' So lets just stop assuming those two things and get to the discussion.

Thanks for this.

Originally Posted by SaurontheWhite

In the final analysis, this then seems to be Jacksons greatest and most serious sin in the eyes of the True Believers and Tolkien Purists. He actually had the temerity to believe that he could improve upon Holy Writ. Did he not know that he was dealing with the equal of sacred scripture written with the aid of Divine Inspiration?

If one is going to use such obvious sarcasm, then one is going to be seen as attacking people instead of their opinions. Nevertheless, I'll deal with both the exaggeration and the actual question that lies underneath: First, to the exaggerration. No, I don't consider LotR to be Holy Writ. And no, I don't consider it to be sacred scripture. And no, I don't see it as Divine Inspiration, although I do consider it to be inspired. Now, to the underlying question: Yes, I take exception to the difference between what Peter Jackson said he was going to do, and what he actually did. He did say that he would be true to the spirit and themes of Tolkien, and then he proceeded to improve upon the story when it didn't fit the clichés he wanted to use. The result was to (to varying degrees) compromise, needlessly, some of the strongest characterizations Tolkien achieved, notably in Aragorn and Faramir.

Originally Posted by STW

What is so wrong with feeling that you can imporve upon something?

Not a thing. But then admit that is what you are trying to do.

STW: Lets face it - nobody ever really thinks they are wrong. Especially when the world seems to validate your efforts with money, critical praise and industry awards.

LMP: This does not speak highly of the world.

STW: I do find that to be smug and very condescending.

Mea culpa. It was an overgeneralization. I grant that LotR-the-movie was an impressive feat of moviemaking. There are scenes that I love from it (Balrog vs. Gandalf at the beginnig of TTT). I cheered when it won the oscars it did. However, there are points at which I cringe because Jackson simply did the story a disservice. Most notably in my mind is Faramir's character, and to a lesser degree the psychologization of Gollum.

Originally Posted by STW

I asked you specifically where you got off criticizing the teleportation devices in TTT when they are none in the film ... BUT ... you ignored it. I asked you about the Lurtz name objection that you voiced ... BUT ... you ignored that.

You have me confused with Boromir. I actually don't object to Lurz as a representative leader of the orcs. I do wish, however, that Ugluk and Grishnakh (what a great evil character!) had made it into the movie; I simply can't see why they were excluded. After all, Lurz dies at the hands of Aragorn, and then the orcs are shown for the rest of the "run to Isengard" with nameless leaders. Why not include the names and characterizations of Ugluk and Grishnakh? Surely there was money to spare to pay two more actors to play such intriguing bit roles! Grishnakh has to be one of the most effectively realized characters in the entire story. He's my favorite orc.

Hmmm..... I didn't realize that Lurz is never named in the movie itself. So apparently that must have been for marketing purposes. And that orc that serves the role of Grishnakh in the movies, I was really, really disappointed that he wasn't Grishnakh. What would it have cost the story to include him? Bummer.

Originally Posted by STW

I do think my remarks do apply to some - especially those Purists who seem to view any attempt to improve on any aspect of the book as something equal to a serious sin.

If Jackson tried and succeeded, I would be happy to acclaim him for it. I do see a number of points at which PJ did a disservice to the story, and I don't see any examples where he actually improved the story. Can you give some examples of where he did?

[Sauron the White]

from lettlemanpoet

If Jackson tried and succeeded, I would be happy to acclaim him for it. I do see a number of points at which PJ did a disservice to the story, and I don't see any examples where he actually improved the story. Can you give some examples of where he did?

Where did Jacksons films improve from the book version of LOTR?

I would have to sit down and watch each of the three films - some 11+ hours to give you a thorough answer. But off the top of my head..... and this is just my opinion based on a recent viewing of FOTR and reading that portion of the book...

--- the death scene of Boromir is both more dramatic and more emotionally touching in the film than in the book. I felt that making it a personal mano-on-mano thing with Lurtz and giving Lurtz larger and thicker arrows and the attitude and manner of an assassin was a very good way to focus all of the Uruk brutality into one central figure. The actual moments of death with the exchange between Boromir and Aragorn works better than the book.

--- the entire portrayal of Boromir in the film presents a far more likable character than the books did. I remember in the book - outside the Gates of Moria when Boromir is the one to distrub the Watcher with his silly throwing of stones. Hardly the smart move of the great warrior of Gondor. Jackson wisely made it a hobbit mistake. The moment on the snow where Boromir picks up the chain of the ring makes it a far more personal attraction that the audience can visibly see. I even liked the playful teaching Merry and Pippin to swordfight and then they get the better of Boromir. All that added to the character and improved the character of Boromir.

-- Even with eleven hours Jackson could not show everything and this may have motivated his decision not to depict any of the Elves actual battles against the forces of Evil but to instead incorporate the Elves into Helms Deep. For me, it worked. The blowing of the horn announcing their arrival, their march through the gates, that great pivot and turn, their bravery in battle... it all worked for me. I thought that was an improvement. I did not so much see this as a Jackson complete new invention as much as combining a story element that he did not have time to show with one that he was showcasing. ( I realize this is from TTT and not FOTR but it was a subject in your post)

-- Putting more emphasis on the character of Arwen was an advancement. With the exception of Eowyn, its pretty much a male "let me save you" story. Thats probably fine it is day. But in these times women and girls need something more to relate to. Giving them a female character in a leading role who is more than just arm candy was a wise move.

-- Getting rid of the weaker elements such as Tom Bombadil was a wise decision which made for a tighter tale and better film. I only wish JRRT had done the same. To this day I see no value in the dancing hippie with the doggerel sing-songs. The idea of introducing the Ring and how its power corrupts everyone, and then you showcase a being who is beyond its power, and THEN DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WITH IT was not the strongest part of the story. To me its pointless. Even if you get rid of the silly clothes and screwball songs its still pointless. For Jackson, this was addition by subtraction.

-- Lots of folks hate what he did to Aragorn, but I think it is understandable given the developments of post WWII literature and film. In the 21st century, we are used to the anti-hero, the figure who is not comfortable in his own skin and the role he has been cast into. It also makes for a significant character arc as Aragorn can build up his resolve and comfort level with his savior role over thre films. I am sure that Cecil B. DeMille would have had Aragorn as the penultimate HERO from minute one of the film and he would have never had a doubt about anything. That was fine for the first half of the 20th century but there is too much water under that dam to go completely back now. So I looked upon the character developemnt of Aragorn as a positive and more interesting than the Aragorn of the books.

-- And then there is the physical visualization of the world of Middle-earth that was near perfection. From the Shire to Isengard to Minas Tirith and everything included. You have to give the Jackson team credit for bringing ME to life.

And thats just from FOTR. Please give me more time to watch the others.

Yes, I take exception to the difference between what Peter Jackson said he was going to do, and what he actually did.

Obviously you care about this deeply and it means something to you. Speaking for myself, I could not care less what Jackson said in an interview, press release, or any other bit of pre-release information. All I wanted was a great film. That is what I felt I got. Further, I do think that Jackson was tiptoeing on fragile glass during the entire pre-FOTR release period. He badly wanted fan support and did not want to do or say anything to dampen pre-film enthusiasm. Were some Tokien purists seduced by that and later felt abandoned? Possibly. But I view this as just part of the film business and its means nothing to me or my feelings. Its the final product that counts. Like Shakespeare said "the plays the thing"... not how it was written or the anguish of getting it right.

But deeper than that, it seems that perhaps your belief in what are the themes and spirit of LOTR and what Jackson sees as important may not be the same thing. As I said in an earlier post, I do not think this is a complete 100% cut and dry situation. Every reader is free to read and bring to the table what they have in themselves. Every reader closes those 1200 pages and internalizes and interprets what they read for themselves. But I would bet that Jackson feels that he was as faithful as he could possible be given the change of medium from a book to three films. You and he would probably never agree, but I guess he feels he was true to the books as much as possible.

In these discussions, it seems that there may be a difference in priorities. Many people I would characterize as Purists, seem to place a very high priority - maybe their highest priority - on being as faithful as possible to the books. I do not know of any filmmaker who would agree with that as their highest priority. Their priorities would include
-- making a good or great film
-- making a profit for the studio so they can keep on working
-- making a film that is praised and will advance their career

I recall the admonition that Ernest Hemingway gave to other authors when selling their work for adaption as a film. Hemingway said there was only one way to do it. The author and producer meet on a deserted beach late at night. The author tosses the book to the producer. The producer tosses a briefcase filled with money to the author. And they never bother each other again.

I think Hemingway had it right and understood the realites of the film business.

Tolkien himself said he did not think the book was filmable. Christopher is still clinging to that fiction. But he went ahead and sold the film rights anyways (and you have to wonder about the ethics of that... "sure I will sell you the rights to build a high rise on this marshy swamp land" hahaha) thinking he could have it both ways keeping the cash without having to see a film made. He may have been right in his time ... but technology caught up with the process.

But Hemingway was right then and Tolkien should have read about it.

I hope this post is more in the spirit of a honest debate and intellectual exchange without name calling or meanness.

[Gwathagor]

Giving Gollum multiple personality disorder is Pete Jackson's cheap and easy way out of a complex character. Gollum isn't that simple.

[Quempel]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

Giving Gollum multiple personality disorder is ..... Gollum isn't that simple.

As a therapist in training I couldn't agree with you more. Gollum has a much more complex personality problem. DID very rarely presents so evil, and the splits usually do not know about each other, much less talk to each other. There are a handful of Cluster B personality types Gollum could easily fall into, but DID isn't it.

That said I belive anyone would have a hard time putting Gollum's personality into film, and maybe that is why Jackson did it the way he did it. And maybe the professor was right on some aspects not being filmable. And for the record the whole Gollum/Smeagol conversation is a favorite of mine in the movie.

[littlemanpoet]

STW, what you call PJ's improvements on the book may be separated into two categories. First: works better for movie medium

• the death scene of Boromir
• incorporate the Elves into Helms Deep
• Getting rid of the weaker elements such as Tom Bombadil
• the physical visualization of the world of Middle-earth

Second: improvement on the book

• entire portrayal of Boromir
• more emphasis on the character of Arwen
• Getting rid of the weaker elements such as Tom Bombadil
• character developemnt of Aragorn

One of the two, "getting rid of weaker elements", overlaps into both categories.

I grant you that the death scene of Boromir was moving and was better for the movie than the book version, which was better for the book.

Incorporating Elves into Helm's Deep, I'm not sure it was necessary to the plot for the sake of the movie. It went against my sensibilities at the time, but I see why PJ did it; just not sure it was necessary.

I knew PJ would remove Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire. I recognized that they wouldn't fit into his movie, but I do contest that Tom Bombadil was not necessary to Tolkien's story. You say that Tolkien did absolutely nothing with it. This is not actually true. The issue of Tom came up in the Council of Elrond, and more is learned about him there. However, Tom Bombadil is used effectively by Tolkien to bring about the "growing up" of Frodo. But that's only his plot purpose. Tom Bombadil's setting and theme purpose within the whole corpus goes far beyond that, but that's an entirely different discussion.

As to the physical visualization of Middle Earth, it seems that you put the cart before the horse. The two Tolkien artists John Howe and Alan Lee base their art on Tolkien's descriptions, and PJ's art department based their work on Howe and Lee's work. So what you call an improvement, I would call PJ actually achieving (in this one case) what he said he was trying to. So kudos to PJ on living up to Tolkien's descriptoins; but improving upon them? I don't think so.

Now onto what you claim as actual improvements over the book.

As to the entire portrayal of Boromir, it is certainly different. Boromir is more noble in the movie ( I can't help but place that beside his brother Faramir who is less noble in the movie). Boromir in the book is very much the son of his father, whereas in the movie the father is a ridiculous fool, which Denethor was not in the book. But back to Boromir. In the movie (seems odd to say but this just came to me) he had to die because he was more attractive to the viewing audience than Aragorn was. In the book Aragorn is clearly the more noble character. The problem with the representation of Boromir in the movie is that his brand of heroism is unabashadly glorified, whereas in the book the same type of heroism is shown to be shallow as compared to the purposeful and sacrificial heroism of both Aragorn and Faramir. So the book brings it deeper than the movie does. Sorry, I can't call that an improvement on the book per sé, but perhaps I can accept it in the movie (especially since Sean Bean is the actor).

I knew the movie would put more emphasis on the character of Arwen, since that's just the way Hollywood works. Again, not an improvement over the book in my opinion, but a necessary alteration for the movie.

As to the character development of Aragorn: this could take up an entire thread of its own, and I'm betting it already has. Notice that I could not discuss Boromir without mentioning Aragorn. Someone else has said that this is one of the biggest areas PJ "didn't get", and that the latter 20th into the 21st century just can't seem to "get", and that is the possibility of an actual good person, that such an entity simply cannot be believed. If so, that's just downright sad, and not a good sign for our times. If that comes off as smug and condescending, then all I can say is that western culture has apparently descended from something better that has been lost, and that's a shame. One of the things that Tolkien did best, was to communicate nobility of character. The death scene of Boromir in the movie was about the best I've seen it done by Hollywood! - - - and that was actually borrowed from another script (so I'm told)!

Originally Posted by STW

Jackson was tiptoeing on fragile glass during the entire pre-FOTR release period. He badly wanted fan support and did not want to do or say anything to dampen pre-film enthusiasm. Were some Tokien purists seduced by that and later felt abandoned? Possibly.... Its the final product that counts.

What you're saying, essentially, is that the end justifies the means. Your contention here seems to be that PJ lied in order to seduce Tolkien fans to watch his movie. And that's not a problem? In other words, PJ was saying to Tolkien fans the same kind of thing Saruman said to Gandalf when he was trying to win him over in order to use him as a pawn. If you are correct, then what PJ did was base betrayal. Do you really think that was what PJ was doing? If so, then it's worse than anything I've critiqued him for.

Originally Posted by STW

But deeper than that, it seems that perhaps your belief in what are the themes and spirit of LOTR and what Jackson sees as important may not be the same thing.

This comes as no surprise. And of course I think PJ has it wrong.

[Boromir88]

Folwren, nice insight about Gollum. The books set Gollum up as an even more repulsive and wicked person than the movies. So 'wicked' in fact that he has phantom stories about taking babies in the night and drinking their blood. But despite this, there is still that glimmer of hope that Tolkien created...and since there always is that small hope, I always wanted Gollum to pull through in the end.

Maybe it's just because I already knew Gollum wasn't going to repent, that I never got the same feeling in the movies, I don't know. Or also, I didnt like how they handled that Mount Doom scene (with the whole Frodo nearly tumbling in and Sam screaming REACH!!!)

Of course when we're talking about 'better' it's going to be subjective, on your own personal tastes. As far a who's the better 'story teller,' for me without a doubt it would be Tolkien. His knowledge of language, mythology, history...etc was just stunning. As CS Lewis said in Tolkien's obituary that Tolkien had 'been inside language.' And no matter what Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens created it could never come anywhere near the 'cauldron of a story' that Tolkien created.

I will admit that I have a soft spot for large battles and giant slugfests...which Jackson does do a nice job of creating. But that doesn't make LOTR a better story (in my opinion) that just made it cool to watch on screen.

So, let's see what we got...

the death scene of Boromir is both more dramatic and more emotionally touching in the film than in the book.

I actually preferred Boromir's death in the books. Seeing it through Pippin's eyes (as he describes it in the chapter The Uruk-hai) was more emotional than what the movie created:

His last memory was of Boromir leaning against a tree, plucking out an arrow; then darkness fell suddenly.

As great as the movies showed Boromir's final moments (absoluty the most tragic and touching parts of all the movies for me), Pippin's description of the battle made Boromir's last stand not only more heroic but more touching for me. As Boromir sent the Orcs fleeing twice, and the third time he was overcome as "they shot a rain of arrows: always at Boromir."

And I always found his last lines rather cliche: 'I would have followed you my brother, my captain, my King'? I don't know that sounds a little too cheesy and would have preferred them to just end it with Aragorn's 'I will not let the White City fall' and have Boromir's "smile" as is described in the story.

the entire portrayal of Boromir in the film presents a far more likable character than the books did.

This is a tough one because I actually think the book Boromir is a lot nicer, it's just more subtle and harder to notice. But, I see what you're saying because I've seen the movies change the opinions of Boromir in people...they actually did for me.

When I first read the story, I never hated Boromir, I thought he was a great warrior, he made a mistake that he tried to rectify, but he wasn't my favorite by any means (I was a Theoden person). However, after seeing Boromir (and Sean's performance...Bean was a favourite actor of mine even before he did Boromir) I got a different feeling about him. The movie moments of him talking to Aragorn in Lothlorien and him teaching Merry and Pippin how to 'spar' show a more likeable Boromir.

Then I went back through the books and noticed all the small things I missed with Boromir that made him my favourite character. Moments like when Pippin describes his 'lordly yet kindly manner,' moments that describe the bond between him and Faramir, moments where even Eomer of Rohan has great praise to say of Boromir, and even lines from Boromir like 'The Men of Minas Tirith do not abandon their friends in need.' Also we see that it is Boromir's strength that he adds to the Fellowship (something that the Fellowship greatly needed on Caradhras and in Moria).

Yes, I think Boromir is a sarcastic (and sometimes childish) person in the books, especially when he doesn't get his way. However, that just adds to Boromir's character and his 'growth,' plus it actually makes sense. In Gondor Boromir was used to having 'no rival,' he was used to making the decisions (as far as the military is concerned). He was used to giving orders and having people follow them. Then he's thrust into a situation where he is in far greater company than he, and he struggles with the fact that he is not the leader of the Company. He is not the one in a position of authority to 'give orders' when he's in the Fellowship. So, yes when Boromir doesn't get his way he can be stubborn (to put it lightly), he doesn't know humility. What really makes it work, is the contrast with Aragorn who is quite humble and willingly accepts orders (even orders from Boromir).

By Boromir's death however he has grown and learned humility. After trying to take the Ring from Frodo he goes back to the camp where Aragorn tells him to go find Merry and Pippin, and Boromir does so with no fight...then we have his final words to Aragorn: 'Go to Minas Tirith and save my people. I have failed.' Boromir's stubborn, sometimes childish, and 'anti-Gorn' qualities actually makes a great story because by his death we see how much he has grown through his journey with the Fellowship. Not only is he just a great warrior strongman now, but he recognized his mistake and I can't put it any better than Gandalf:

'Poor Boromir! I could not see what happened to him. It was a sore trial for such a man: a warrior, and a lord of men. Galadriel told me that he was in peril. But he escaped in the end. I am glad.'~The White Rider

I say it's a tough one because I've also seen people who have watched TTT EE when Denethor sends Boromir off to bring back daddy his little gift and seeing that Boromir's reason for joining the Fellowship was to sabotage it. I wish that part of the EE wasn't in there as FOTR did such a great job in creating Boromir's character, but that EE scene when Denethor pulls him aside is just irritating.

Even with eleven hours Jackson could not show everything and this may have motivated his decision not to depict any of the Elves actual battles against the forces of Evil but to instead incorporate the Elves into Helms Deep.

But this was a fight that 'men' had to resolve...or mostly do on their own. Some Elves were staying around and had their own battles, but it was time for Men to deal with Sauron, the Elves have been doing it for too long.

Also, as I mentioned it is a distance problem, that isn't just recognized by a few book people...Jackson has actually been questioned about it many times. The Elves came from Lorien, well that was the wooded place way back in FOTR the Fellowship went to. And then Gimli says they've been chasing the Uruks for 3 days through Rohan...so this is something anyone can put together, you don't even have to know the name Tolkien to realize we have discontinuity. Jackson was actually asked how he explains the Elves getting to Helm's Deep so fast he squirmed and looked at Walsh and Boyens...to which he answered that the Elves left almost immediately after the Fellowship left Lorien, and that scene in the movie with Galadriel and Elrond is a 'flashback.' Seems like he came up with a quick answer to cover his tail as he realized there was a mistake.

Also, Gimli being a terribly slow runner that held Aragorn and Legolas back was just something Jackson threw in because I guess he thought it would be funny. Aragorn actually remarks that he wishes he had the endurance of the Dwarves while they were chasing after the Uruk-hai (and it wasn't Aragorn making a joke). This adds to the trashing of Gimli's characters, as I've seen people making posts saying Legolas and Aragorn should have just killed Gimli because he was holding them back and he never does anything anyway. Making an argument that Gimli was a useless character that just cracks a bunch of jokes (I really liked Gimli's portrayal in FOTR, but by watching TTT and ROTK, I can't say I disagree with said people's view of Gimli when watching the movies).

Getting rid of the weaker elements such as Tom Bombadil was a wise decision which made for a tighter tale and better film.

Yes I agree that getting rid of Tom Bombadil for the film was a very smart move. That would have been film suicide to put in Tom. But I agree with elempi that Tom certainly does have a purpose in the story, and adds a lot to the story. Afterall besides Balrogs Tom seems to have the most questions asked about him, so he has to be an interesting character to many many books fans out there. Why Tom is so interesting? Perhaps its there is so much mystery about him, and an enigma such as Tom, can attract a lot of intrigue and interest from readers. I won't add much more than what was said, but also Tom goes to help forshadow the events at the end, when Saruman takes control of the Shire.

Lots of folks hate what he did to Aragorn, but I think it is understandable given the developments of post WWII literature and film.

Grant it book Aragorn seems much more certain and the all righteous hero in the books when compared to the movies; however this isn't so. Aragorn first serves as a good foil to both Boromir and Denethor, so all of Aragorn's good traits come through, so much so that it seems like Aragorn is just the perfect hero. However, this is not so, as Aragorn also has his own struggles and doubts in the books. Particularly after Boromir's death and the capturing of Merry and Pippin. Aragorn is at a loss, and starts doubting himself as the 'leader' of the company, but luckily for him Legolas and Gimli are there to pick him up. Plus, there is the confrontation with Hama when he asks Aragorn to hand over Anduril. Aragorn shows a little bit of power-hungriness as he tries to usurp Theoden's orders by saying he's the 'heir of Elendil' and his will should therefor trump Theoden's. But, again lucky for Aragorn that Gandalf is there to tell him he's being stupid.

I think this post that I came across a little while ago sums up elempi's (and many others) complaint about what Jackson did with the movies:

Okay, I started LotR a few days ago, and I am up to page 131. So far it has been a good read, and I like the way Tolkein writes, but so far it’s been pretty dull. When I say dull, I don’t mean bad, but just a little boring. It seems like it’s taking forever for little things to happen. Anyway, I’m just wondering, by what page or chapter does the action start to pick up? By action, I mean like fighting.

After watching the movies people expect to go into reading Tolkien and thinking there's going to be just lots and lots of slash'em up fighting. They are left dissappointed and dull when they find out that of the 1000+ page story probably only 20 pages describe actual fighting (if that). They want to see the high action, Orli surfing adventure, Jackson created. There is a lot of action in the books, it's just not in 'fighting.' The action is the suspense, forshadowing, tension building, character interaction, character development, The Big Bad Read, and the language itself. Now, not everyone who was introduced to LOTR by the movies has these expectations from the books. But, I do think that Jackson did (whether intentionally or not doesn't matter) create a misrepresentation of the story, that leads to some fans when they go and read the books for the first time wondering why is this just a drag?

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

--- the death scene of Boromir is both more dramatic and more emotionally touching in the film than in the book. I felt that making it a personal mano-on-mano thing with Lurtz and giving Lurtz larger and thicker arrows and the attitude and manner of an assassin was a very good way to focus all of the Uruk brutality into one central figure. The actual moments of death with the exchange between Boromir and Aragorn works better than the book.

--- the entire portrayal of Boromir in the film presents a far more likable character than the books did. I remember in the book - outside the Gates of Moria when Boromir is the one to distrub the Watcher with his silly throwing of stones. Hardly the smart move of the great warrior of Gondor. Jackson wisely made it a hobbit mistake. The moment on the snow where Boromir picks up the chain of the ring makes it a far more personal attraction that the audience can visibly see. I even liked the playful teaching Merry and Pippin to swordfight and then they get the better of Boromir. All that added to the character and improved the character of Boromir.

Can you be more ignorant and wrong? I do not think so. Sauron the White, your argument holds no substance. You are arguing that Boromir of the movies is better than Boromir in the books. WRONG. You can call me ignorant yourself if you like, but you are wrong. Boromir in the books is far more superior than PJ's mush ball Boromir. You obviously have little to no knowledge on the character, or at least have not studied his character. Maybe you should do that before making horrible misjudgments on Boromir.

I wish you would, before blurting out about Boromir, read the discussion Boromir88 and I had, in which he (Boromir88) kindly gave you the link. Here it is-

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...3&postcount=17

I would go on and on about defending book Boromir, the lordly and kind, and continue to tell you how wrong you are about movie Boromir's death scene being better than the book (for what Tolkien wrote is better) yet I see no need right now as Boromir88 laid it out on the table nicely.

You are never going to win this battle, defending the films against the books so irriationally. Say all you want about your cinderblocks. You are wrong. The book always rules out the movies. They are not supposed to be two different things, they are both "The Lord of the Rings" and the way that PJ chose to portray certain characters and events counter to the book does not rest well with the true Tolkien enthusiast, except for you and a small majority.

And alatar...I'm disappointed in you.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by MatthewM

You are never going to win this battle, defending the films against the books so irriationally. Say all you want about your cinderblocks. You are wrong. The book always rules out the movies. They are not supposed to be two different things, they are both "The Lord of the Rings" and the way that PJ chose to portray certain characters and events counter to the book does not rest well with the true Tolkien enthusiast, except for you and a small majority.

You've made Sauron the White's point rather well, and just when I was hoping that he was coming over to the Books side. Read the SbS to see my scene by scene criticisms regarding Peter Jackson's work where I quibbled on most everything; yet in all of that I hope to never ever to be on 'your' side as it's been the Movie-lovers' points of view that have extended my appreciation for both the movies and books.

And alatar...I'm disappointed in you.

Why? I never knew that you appointed me...

[Sauron the White]

Alatar - I read the very short article you linked to. It said nothing which changes the information I have been giving in this and the other thread on running and the necessity for extensive long distance training to run long distances. The only mention of glycogen is that is not exclusive and that other things can be employed in addition to the function glycogen serves to fuel the muscles of the body. "Limited use of free fatty acids" are not the same as fat people or a 4 foot 200 pound dwarf. Again, walking, be it on level ground or up a mountain, does not prepare one for the equal of 1.6 marathons a day for three days. The only thing that would do that is extensive training sessions over at least a three month period structured around long distance running possibly mixed with nearly equally strenuous power walking. . By my calculations, it would take a three months base base of nearly 18 miles per day to be able to run the 45 miles necessary in a single day. And then what happens on days two and three? Answer - you are flat on your back nursing a very tired, aching and depleted body which would not be ready for exercise for many more days. And what would it take to get up to that 3 month base of 18 miles a day. Most probably a year of serious training. Again, this is all mathematical and psyiological.

The article you linked to has no research stats beyond 10,000 meters or 6.2 miles. That was the limit of their research. The training methods for ultra-marathon distances does not change because of the discovery of using fatty acids. Again, not the same as fat people or fat dwarves. But I think you already knew that.

Matthew M ... since Alatar already said it, I will allow his words to speak for me

You've made Sauron the White's point rather well, and just when I was hoping that he was coming over to the Books side.

more from Matthew

Say all you want about your cinderblocks. You are wrong. The book always rules out the movies.

Well it seems that indeed you have all four aces up your sleeves. You will willingly engage in playing with me and others but in the end you can always play your aces as you have now done. Since the books will always triumph in any discussion, any debate, any difference of opinion, we might as well all just shut up and go home right now.

more from MatthewM

They are not supposed to be two different things, they are both "The Lord of the Rings" and the way that PJ chose to portray certain characters and events counter to the book does not rest well with the true Tolkien enthusiast, except for you and a small majority.

Regardless of your opinion, you cannot change reality. A book is one thing. A film is a different thing. In this case, the subject matter is the same, however, they are clearly not the same thing. And how is it that you speak "for the true Tolkien enthusiast". What is the litmus test for being "true"? I suspect I know the answer to that one. Were you elected or appointed to this position? Or perhaps self- appointed? And how did you determine that a "small majority" agreed with the Jackson films and me? Please show me the stats on this as many here would find them most illuminating.

It is most interesting that cooler heads here and myself seem to be able to find some middle ground on these issues. But you come along and we go back to square one with the Defenders of the Holy Word denying even the possibility of value in the Jackson films.

As Alatar said - you prove my point for me. Thank you MatthewM.

[Folwren]

My word! Why do things have to get so defensive and nasty?

Honestly, people, this isn't even on topic! If you want to discuss the three runners, why don't you do it on a thread made just for that? It seems that there is enough stuff to argue about!

This thread of Elempi's isn't even meant for whether or not the movie was accurate - or if the book was better. It was merely asking 'which do you prefer - the books' Gollum/Smeagol or the movie's - and why?' I don't believe Elempi meant for it to become a battle of whether or not PJ did a good job - because Gollum happened to be something that PJ did a particularly good job with.

Be reasonable and stop acting like children.

-- Folwren

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by alatar

Why? I never knew that you appointed me...

My comment towards you was pertaining to your remark on Boromir from book to film.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Since the books will always triumph in any discussion, any debate, any difference of opinion, we might as well all just shut up and go home right now.

Please do!

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Regardless of your opinion, you cannot change reality. A book is one thing. A film is a different thing. In this case, the subject matter is the same, however, they are clearly not the same thing. And how is it that you speak "for the true Tolkien enthusiast". What is the litmus test for being "true"? I suspect I know the answer to that one. Were you elected or appointed to this position? Or perhaps self- appointed? And how did you determine that a "small majority" agreed with the Jackson films and me? Please show me the stats on this as many here would find them most illuminating.

Yeah, right, because your posts did not hint at anything doubting your belief in JRRT's work... (extreme sarcasm)

It is obvious that there are, here at least, few people who agree with your book bashing movie thumping opinions.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

It is most interesting that cooler heads here and myself seem to be able to find some middle ground on these issues. But you come along and we go back to square one with the Defenders of the Holy Word denying even the possibility of value in the Jackson films.

Touching. Funny enough, I happen to love the films. In fact, they are my favorite movies of all time. I am just not about to defend them over the books, and the things/characters/events wrongly portrayed in the films deserve talking and complaining about. Again, keep your apples and your cinderblocks. You can use me as an example to prove your relentless point if you wish, I care not.

It's also rather funny how my post toward you was concerning your skewed opinions of Boromir, and not so much on your flawless movie talk.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

As Alatar said - you prove my point for me. Thank you MatthewM.

You are very welcome, Sauron the White.