The Hobbit: An Extraneous Journey

[Ruscundil]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

1. Making alterations is not proof of Jackson et all thinking they were improving the story. Either one accepts that with the film rights sold and Jackson chosen as the director has his own artistic license rights when it comes to making the films. Therefor, alterations are a part of Jackson trying to put his director stamp on the story. Alterations, in and of themselves, are not proof Jackson thought he improved the story.

Leaving aside your illiteracy, you're wrong. Jackson must consider his alterations an improvement to the story. Alternatively he must concede that his alterations either made no difference to, or negatively impacted on, this classic. It's really that simple.

One might argue that alterations made were based on the change of medium, which is a fair statement. It does not, however, change the fact that the story itself suffered as a result of alteration. End of story, I'm afraid... literally.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Ruscundil

Leaving aside your illiteracy, you're wrong. Jackson must consider his alterations an improvement to the story. Alternatively he must concede that his alterations either made no difference to, or negatively impacted on, this classic. It's really that simple.

One might argue that alterations made were based on the change of medium, which is a fair statement. It does not, however, change the fact that the story itself suffered as a result of alteration. End of story, I'm afraid... literally.

Ruscundil– please see my previous remarks about insulting people. Anyone can make a typo, you know.

[Ruscundil]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Ruscundil– please see my previous remarks about insulting people. Anyone can make a typo, you know.

Link please?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Ruscundil

Link please?

It would be nice if civil behavior did not require a suggestion.

[radagastly]

Originally posted by Ruscundil:
Link please?

Do you really need a link? It should be clear that the Barrow Downs Forum discourages flaming and insults. The 'Downs uniquely welcomes very young posters still learning to construct a sentence, and people for whom English is a second language, and college professors and authors who appreciate Tolkien, and many, many people in between. A responsible poster here ought to make allowances for such differences. Most do. And all of them here have occasionally been guilty of missing-reading a typo in one of their posts. That hardly makes any of them illiterate.

By the way, I notice you just recently joined the 'Downs. Welcome! As used to be said here, "Enjoy being dead!" Give this site a chance, and you will find some of the most stimulating and enlightening discussion of Tolkien available on the 'net.

With the release of the new "Hobbit" movie, a link to the forum posting policies would be in order. I don't know how to link, however. Especially in edit mode.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Ruscundil

Link please?

I'm talking about my exchange with davem. You can see it up there.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Ruscundil

Leaving aside your illiteracy, you're wrong. Jackson must consider his alterations an improvement to the story. Alternatively he must concede that his alterations either made no difference to, or negatively impacted on, this classic. It's really that simple.

One might argue that alterations made were based on the change of medium, which is a fair statement. It does not, however, change the fact that the story itself suffered as a result of alteration. End of story, I'm afraid... literally.

Get back to me when you decide you want to exchange ideas by having a discussion on the topic and not trying to win debate points with ad hominem arguments. I don't debate.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Ruscundil

Jackson must consider his alterations an improvement to the story. Alternatively he must concede that his alterations either made no difference to, or negatively impacted on, this classic. It's really that simple.

Actually it is not that simple. The studios and the financers of the movies lay a lot of restrictions and assert demands when making a multimillion dollar bussiness (which the Hobbit movies are from their POV): they expect to make profit and thence require certain things (like sexy dwarves for teenage-girls, enough funny battle-scenes for boys etc.). There's little PJ or any director can do about those.

Which is by no means meant as an apology to PJ and some of the choices he and his team has made (I dislike them as much as anyone here seems to dislike them), but it is not a simple thing why certain "changes" are being made.