Fanboys, shut the hell up about LOTR!

The BBQ Pit
81

(1) Fanboys derive their sense of self-worth from their complete mastery of narrow and essentially meaningless topics, such as the arcane details of sci-fi and fantasy works.

(2) Identifying all the “alterations” gives them a chance to show off this mastery. The fact that NO ONE CARES is totally lost on them.

(3) One is marked almost as much by what one dislikes as what one likes, especially when one dislikes something that is popular or mainstream. For example, there are people who only will watch French films and proclaim their distaste for the allegedly inferior American films loudly and often to anyone who will listen. In their view, this marks them as people of taste, refinement and discernment who will not be bound by popular whims and fads. In other people’s view, they are pseudo-intellectual twits who lack any real capacity to enjoy life. As another example, I tend to drink imported beer and microbrews. To my mind, this marks me as someone with a little more taste (and income) than the masses that guzzle MGD. To others, I am an insufferable beer snob. But the point is, that by disliking something that is popular (such as the LOTR films), one marks oneself as an outsider, a contrarian, and a different kind of person. And, much as the fanboys might secretly want participate sufficiently in mainstream life to actually experience the kind of sex that involves participation of another human being, they also revel in their perceived status as outsiders. In their minds, they are elite and superior, and the disdain they arouse in most people is simply viewed as further proof that most people are stupider than they are.

(4) Fanboys always feel they could have done it better.

I’ll admit that at one point, I probably cared passionately about how warp drives actually worked and got offended when “Next Generation” changed those rules. And a whole bunch of other things. But then I grew up. And things like Elves at Helm’s Deep, Faramir being tempted by the Ring, no Tom Bombadil, and organic webshooters simply don’t bother me as much as they used to.

82

They can sense its presence, but not its location. The nazgul knew the ring was in the vicinity, but necessarily that it was on the parapet or that Frodo had it.

But you’re right–that scene and the Aragorn-over-the-liff scene were unnecessary. Mind, I haven’t yet listened to the PJ commentary track on the TTT EE DVD, so he may well have a good explanation for the inclusion of those scenes.

And if you guys want to know how bad it could been, track down a copy of Tolkien’s letters edited by Humphrey Carpenter in which Tolkien describes the horrifying changes American film producers wanted to make, including having the hobbits ride on the backs of eagles and “munching ridiculously long sandwiches.”

83

Damn, now I want to see a LotR adaptation with only 2 hobbits, who are riding on eagles and munch ridiculously long sandwiches. How infinitely cool could this movie have been??? :wink:

84

There’s a difference between clueless elitism and genuine sophistication. Saying that any French film is necessarily btter thsn any American film is indeed a sign of jackassed pseudo snobbery, because the French make a lot of crap, too, and swallowing crap just because it’s foreign is stupid. But having the ability to appreciate subtitled films or to taste the notes of flavors in a smoky dark beer does, IMO, mark one as being just a little bit sharper than the masses, but no doubt that’s my jackassery speaking.

If the LOTR fanboys were objecting to changes that genuinely violated the spirit of the books, like having Aragorn fight an incarnate Sauron, I’d be their ally. but in this case, it is indeed a bunch of narrow-minded Tolkien fundies pissing and moaning that PJ didn’t consult them on the making of the films.

85

It’s kinda ironic – you and I agree that by and large, the changes in the movies aren’t worth arguing about. And yet we are now engaged in a debate based on a change in the story as presented in the book; had the change not been made, we wouldn’t be debating this.

I’m equating the Nazgul’s sensing of the Ring to that of a person smelling garlic. If you step into a house where garlic is being prepared, you know garlic is somewhere nearby – the smell is strong. If you walk into the kitchen and stand by the chopping block where garlic is being sliced, you know you’re right there on top of it, just because the smell is so much stronger.

I dunno. I just gotta believe the Nazgul knew the Ring was right there, but he lost it when Sam tackled Frodo and knocked him off the parapet.

86

Exactly. He knew it was close, but not exactly where it was. If merely sensing the ring were enough, the series would have ended after the first 45 minutes of FOTR when the hobbits were on the road to Bree.

87

I can’t believe that Tolkein fanboys have the nerve to criticize Jackson. Hell, my favorite fantasy series is John Norman’s Gor novels, and I’d hate to tell you how badly they were treated on film … to do the same insult, Jackson would have had to have left out the hobbits … and the orcs … and Sauron.

Though I understand the Bakshi version came pretty close to being that bad …

88

Oh, and the Ring of Power would have had to have been left out, too.

89

Well, I know what to get you for Christmas now :slight_smile:

Obviously, some people are going to like it. I just thought it was unimaginative and dreary. I suppose I was hoping for something that made creative use out of the fact that elves are supposed to sing, and more “period”, if that makes sense for an imaginary time and place.

90

Love the books, love the movies so far, going to see RotK as soon as.

But,

The exhortation of Theoden, to the Rohirrim at the moment of their ride to Gondor ain’t no way clunky prose.

Ride now, Ride now! Ride to Gondor!

Just had to defend my favorite bit of the entire trilogy.

Tris

91

I’ve been reading the books at least once a year for 36 years now, and have large chunks of them practically memorized. And so I can assure you that PJ lifted large chunks of dialogue straight out of the characters’ mouths in the books. PJ himself has said that often they tried rewriting lines, and then went back to the originals because nobody could write them better than Tolkien. Yes, there were some dialogue changes, but not nearly as many as there could have been. (Not needing four hobbits??? :shudder:)

And frankly, I’ve always loved the flow of the books. The way the story – and the language he used telling it – changed from light-hearted to highly formalized and stylized by the time things had moved from the rural, peasanty Shire to the elevated civilization of Minas Tirith, for example, wasn’t the work of a hack writer. I have never understood how people aren’t captivated by the story; I was hooked from day one.

Like a lot of other people, there are changes PJ made that I don’t like – but mostly because they were unnecessary. Compressing the timeline in FOTR made sense to me even though I’d have rather he didn’t do it, to bring the pacing up to movie speed. Aragorn falling off the cliff in TTT was pointless and did nothing for the story. Having the Elves at Helm’s Deep at least carried through some themes about old alliances (and a group of Elves did come with the Rangers in the book, although they arrived after Helm’s Deep). Reducing Denethor to a bitter, twisted old man who died running and jumping in disgrace, rather than pridefully burning atop his son’s pyre, was pointless and demeaning to the character and really undercut a big plot point that PJ could have far more effectively used.

But all criticism aside, THE MOVIES WORK. As movies. And they bring out the major themes in LOTR in a truly powerful way. Knowing the story as well as I did was a huge plus for me; I didn’t have to worry about keeping track of what was happening, but could take the time to examine and appreciate the care with which PJ expressed the details of the story, while being swept along the currents of the larger story.

And the small things were done as well as the large ones. From the clothing to the leaf-shaped paddles to the glimpse of a pukel-man (I missed Ghan-buri-Ghan, too, he was one of my favorite bit characters!) to Shelob in all her nastiness, PJ really found no detail to small to be reproduced in loving exactness. This movie was enjoyable on SO many levels!

I always thought I was a fangirl and a purist, but PJ showed me that if done well enough, with enough care and love, even changes that I thought would be base heresy could be done successfully without ruining the story. And often actually made the storytelling – on screen – better.

Fantastic job. Just fantastic. The fanboys who complain about the petty details are losing out on a cinematic wonder.

92

I agree, Tokien’s books were difficult reading due to what you called his “clunkiness”. I didn’t like them at all, though I made myself get through at least the first one because they were supposed to be “so good”. I’ve read a lot of scifi and fantasy from Ann McCaffrey to Heinlein, but I found Tolkien dull and plodding.

The movies made them BETTER, not worse. And as you said, with long books, it’s only common sense that the folks remaking it into a movie aren’t going to have the time to do the book step by step onto the screen.

93

Interesting idea for a CS thread, but I doubt you’d get many people to post to it.:smiley:

Hey, I really like the books and I really liked the movies. And I thought the Elves at Helm’s Deep were way cool! Especially when they all “clicked” and turned their heads in unison. To paraphrase The Big Lebowski: “Nobody fucks with the Elves!”

94

I don’t see how anyone can watch these movies and not see that PJ clearly loves this story and these characters. I also don’t know how anyone could have possibly done these films any better. They will endure. They are are already classics.

95

Well, your not knowing how doesn’t make it so, Dio. There are any number of not-too-unreasonable suggestions going the rounds, such as, in RotK, not making Denethor out to be a nutjob and a glutton to boot.

I utterly agree that things could have been a thousand times worse. I’ve waited a quarter-century for these movies and I’d have bet money against them ever being made. Compared to, say “The Jungle Book” (and I don’t even mean the cartoon), the book’s been as good as transcribed word-for-word. But this doesn’t make everyone with a gripe a pseudo-intellectual saddo with no life bar ripping PJ a new one.

PJ loves this story and these characters? Yep, I’ll buy that. It’s just his understanding of 'em that seems to wobble now and then.

96

Wasn’t there an MPSIMS (or perhaps CS) thread a long time ago (like when FotR first came out :smiley: ) on the topic of “What if X had been written as a collaboration between A and B?” I recall the LotR collabo (Marching through the Two Towers, J.R.R. Tolkien and S.M. Stirling) and the Narnia collabo (Voyage of the Dawn Treader on the Sea of Time, C.S. Lewis and Stirling) proposed in it.

97

Just wait untill you see that scene in the movie … almost everyone thinks it is one of the best in the movie.

98

Or perhaps his understanding is just different than yours. It is possible to ascribe motivations to a character that are not written down, and - if they don’t contradict what is written - end up with two very different characters from the same character.

Tolkein is not around to tell us the motivations of his characters - and apparently changed his mind and evolved his world drastically as he developed it, wrote it, and lived with it after it was published, so its possible that some of their motivations were not even set in stone in his own mind.

99

Well, Gobear, just some quick points :
-These movies might be quite good, but some people must also understand that not everybody found them the greatest movies ever made. I didn’t. Many others didn’t, either. Therefore, it’s only natural that people criticize them.

-These movies are adapted from a very popular novel. It’s very logical that plenty of the criticisms are related to the way the novel was adapted.

-Yes, indeed, I was pleasantly surprised that Jackson stayed relatively faithful to the books. Many directors would have done a way worse job. And yes, I know that changes had to be made. But though I understand and agree with some of the changes (Arwen expanded importance, for instance), I just didn’t understand the point of other changes, and I regreted some choices (letting in this part, excluding that one…) . I’m not sure why I shouldn’t say so.

-Some changes had been made in order to let more room for things I happen not to like in movies generally speaking. In particular action scenes, ridiculous (for me) stunts, cliffhanging and “He’s dead…oh! no…he’s alive” scenes, special effects of horses sent flying or walls collapsing, etc…

For instance, in the first movie (the one I liked the most) I would have prefered some expanding about say, Saruman’s character rather than this incredibly long, boring and laughable fight scene with the troll. In the third one, essentially anything from the book which has been omitted in the movie I would have liked more than seeing Legolas jumping all over a computer-generated giant elephant.

I might be in the minority, but it won’t prevent me from voicing my opinion : “some of these uninteresting scenes could have been shortened in order to leave more time for the kind of stuff I like to see in a movie”

100

Hmmm…Gor novels are rather peculiar, and i’m not exactly surprised that a lot of things had been left out. Are you? Really?

(I didn’t even know a movie a movie had been made. And actually, I don’t like these novels at all, because they’re merely rehearsing over and over again the same concept that I happen to dislike…and this despite my interest in…well…that’s another story… and anyway that’s irrelevant to my point)
By the way, I didn’t dislike Bakshi version of TLOTR (though Jackson’s version is way, way better)…Am I the only one?