Jackson Purists Deplore Tolkien Changes - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Bêthberry · 08-23-2005, 07:45 AM

What I was surprised with was the reactionary nature of some of Tolkien's changes. I mean, he put Arwen back in the sewing room, giving her little to do other than sewing that banner and looking beautiful. Isn't this Tolkien aware of just how horrible the sweatshops are in the thread trade?

Tolkien missed out, too, on using Arwen's finest line. Surely given how much he depicts her simply as a reward he ought to have maintained some fidelity to Jackson and at some point had Arwen say to Aragorn, "If you want me, come and get me."

dancing spawn of ungoliant · 08-23-2005, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

he put Arwen back in the sewing room, giving her little to do other than sewing that banner and looking beautiful.

Yeah, I think this Tolkien dude is some sexist weirdo! He made a random Elf bloke steal Arwen's part at Bruinen!!! Besides, he forgot to put the Lothlorien Elves to Helm's Deep. I mean, come on, the Rohan guys wouldn't have ever survived without the Elf army!

And where's the drinking game between Legolas and Gimli! It was the best part in the movie and Tolkien left it out!

Ah, this is so annoying. Why didn't Tolkien just stay true to PJ's original masterpiece? He couldn't even get such a simple thing right as Faramir's hair colour! This Tolkien probably got the writing job only with a false resume!

Elladan and Elrohir · 08-23-2005, 11:13 AM

I'm glad that other Downers share my concerns about the drastic changes Tolkien made to Jackson's movies. That's why I posted this article to begin with. We need to raise awareness that there is such a thing as a "Jackson purist."

Tolkien appears to be getting too big for his breeches, to borrow the colloquialism. He's taken Jackson's work, enlarged it, changed some of the most enjoyable details, used language that is now approaching archaic, enlarged almost all of the major characters, and destroyed Legolas' hottiness.

I think all copies of Tolkien's book should in the future have the following posted on the title page:

"WARNING: The following work is very loosely based on Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, produced by New Line Cinema. Readers should take caution and understand that this is only Tolkien's interpretation of Jackson's work."

Durelin · 08-23-2005, 12:04 PM

Tolkien clearly has no respect for classic film culture. He deliberately removed due tribute to such a timeless masterpiece as Back to the Future.

Fordim Hedgethistle · 08-23-2005, 12:16 PM

I'm delighted to see that we have finally turned our attention toward a fuller examination of the true nature of the relation between the films and the book, but if I could nudge the conversation slightly: which of the versions (theatrical or extended edition) is the truly canonical?

Durelin · 08-23-2005, 12:39 PM

The One Jackson always had aspirations for putting lembas on grocery store shelves everywhere. Thus, particularly in the case of The Fellowship of the Ring: Extended Edition, The Extended are far for canonical. It was Jackson's intention for Legolas to show us all how good lembas are, and thus the Extended Edition of the first of his great masterpieces most closely reflects his grand vision of a box-office smash. I think we can assume that all Extended Editions did so.

THE Ka · 08-23-2005, 11:32 PM

Quote:

...I'm the most unhappy about the removal of any swashbuckling stunts by Legolas."

They have a pirate movie for that, you know...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This report sounds like such an anachronism at times through reading it, I had to go through it twice to see If someone wasn't making yet another Tolkien-Works April Fool's joke. I hope this is just a phase, it amazing what people have come to. I do not like to label, as would anyone else who likes to help others understand about a artists' written creation, but it is really hard to understand where these fellows are getting at. It's as if you read a book or biography one day, and wake up the next to find the news blaring about the dead author being seen on a bus with a bag of bagels...

Do those who are knowledgeable about M E live in such alturnate universes? Really, it's just amazing.

~ Aesthete

Bêthberry · 08-30-2005, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

I'm delighted to see that we have finally turned our attention toward a fuller examination of the true nature of the relation between the films and the book, but if I could nudge the conversation slightly: which of the versions (theatrical or extended edition) is the truly canonical?

My understanding is that New Line Cinema actually has the editted bits that were removed for both the theatrical and the extended editions and that these will be released just before the copyright extinguishes on those versions.

Apparently there is some controversy over who should be accorded directorial rights, PJ or the video editor, and no confirmed title yet, although both "The NewZeamarillion" and "HoME: History of Many Editions" are both being considered.

Fordim Hedgethistle · 08-31-2005, 09:19 AM

Of course the greatest scandal is that this Tolkien person utterly occluded Figwit!

Thanks for that information about the forthcoming material Bb. I look forward to seeing that as it will help me answer some of the more pressing questions that Tolkien simply sidestepped: are there female orcs? why did not the winged Balrog fly out of the chasm? when and how was the highway between Rivendell and Helm's deep constructed (presumably some time after the Fellowship went into Moria and before the Elven army and Elrond arrived in the south with little or no trouble)?

Any news yet on when Jackson's letters are to be published?

08-23-2005, 07:45 AM	#1
Bêthberry Cryptic Aura Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 6,003	What I was surprised with was the reactionary nature of some of Tolkien's changes. I mean, he put Arwen back in the sewing room, giving her little to do other than sewing that banner and looking beautiful. Isn't this Tolkien aware of just how horrible the sweatshops are in the thread trade? Tolkien missed out, too, on using Arwen's finest line. Surely given how much he depicts her simply as a reward he ought to have maintained some fidelity to Jackson and at some point had Arwen say to Aragorn, "If you want me, come and get me." __________________ I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away.

08-23-2005, 11:13 AM	#3
Elladan and Elrohir Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Halls of Mandos Posts: 332	I'm glad that other Downers share my concerns about the drastic changes Tolkien made to Jackson's movies. That's why I posted this article to begin with. We need to raise awareness that there is such a thing as a "Jackson purist." Tolkien appears to be getting too big for his breeches, to borrow the colloquialism. He's taken Jackson's work, enlarged it, changed some of the most enjoyable details, used language that is now approaching archaic, enlarged almost all of the major characters, and destroyed Legolas' hottiness. I think all copies of Tolkien's book should in the future have the following posted on the title page: "WARNING: The following work is very loosely based on Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, produced by New Line Cinema. Readers should take caution and understand that this is only Tolkien's interpretation of Jackson's work." __________________ "If you're referring to the incident with the dragon, I was barely involved. All I did was give your uncle a little nudge out of the door." THE HOBBIT - IT'S COMING

08-23-2005, 12:16 PM	#5
Fordim Hedgethistle Gibbering Gibbet Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Beyond cloud nine Posts: 1,844	I'm delighted to see that we have finally turned our attention toward a fuller examination of the true nature of the relation between the films and the book, but if I could nudge the conversation slightly: which of the versions (theatrical or extended edition) is the truly canonical? __________________ Scribbling scrabbling.

08-31-2005, 09:19 AM	#9
Fordim Hedgethistle Gibbering Gibbet Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Beyond cloud nine Posts: 1,844	Of course the greatest scandal is that this Tolkien person utterly occluded Figwit! Thanks for that information about the forthcoming material Bb. I look forward to seeing that as it will help me answer some of the more pressing questions that Tolkien simply sidestepped: are there female orcs? why did not the winged Balrog fly out of the chasm? when and how was the highway between Rivendell and Helm's deep constructed (presumably some time after the Fellowship went into Moria and before the Elven army and Elrond arrived in the south with little or no trouble)? Any news yet on when Jackson's letters are to be published? __________________ Scribbling scrabbling.

08-23-2005, 12:04 PM	#4
Durelin Estelo dagnir, Melo ring Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 3,063	Tolkien clearly has no respect for classic film culture. He deliberately removed due tribute to such a timeless masterpiece as Back to the Future.

08-23-2005, 12:39 PM	#6
Durelin Estelo dagnir, Melo ring Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 3,063	The One Jackson always had aspirations for putting lembas on grocery store shelves everywhere. Thus, particularly in the case of The Fellowship of the Ring: Extended Edition, The Extended are far for canonical. It was Jackson's intention for Legolas to show us all how good lembas are, and thus the Extended Edition of the first of his great masterpieces most closely reflects his grand vision of a box-office smash. I think we can assume that all Extended Editions did so.