50 Reasons LotR sucks.

Malperion · Post by **Malperion** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:17 pm

"Captain Aragorn! Fell beast decloaking to starboard!"

"Chief Gimli! I need more power!"

"I can't bend the laws of magic Captain!"

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:32 am

synabetic wrote:
Disclaimer or no, I will hold you personally responsible if anything about the show sucks.

Well, I brought it on myself...

Malperion wrote:
"Captain Aragorn! Fell beast decloaking to starboard!"

"Chief Gimli! I need more power!"

"I can't bend the laws of magic Captain!"

Did you just reinvent Spelljammer?
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

synabetic · Post by **synabetic** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:38 am

Matthew wrote:
Did you just reinvent Spelljammer?

You read my mind, man.

Ringjammer?

Huh. Sounds like it could make a good name for this new version of Spelljammer... or it could be the title of a naughty Belgian film. The choice is yours.
_________________
"Um... just how -does- one wield a vorpal gnome, man?"

Malperion · Post by **Malperion** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:48 am

synabetic wrote:
You read my mind, man.

Ringjammer?

Huh. Sounds like it could make a good name for this new version of Spelljammer... or it could be the title of a naughty Belgian film. The choice is yours.

I choose both.

It will be a sweet, offensive ride until the lawyers descend upon the sordid venture...

synabetic · Post by **synabetic** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:32 am

Malperion wrote:
I choose both.

It will be a sweet, offensive ride until the lawyers descend upon the sordid venture...

I know I don't know you, but I like you already.

And totally off subject: Love the icon. You read the Death Dealer comics?
_________________
"Um... just how -does- one wield a vorpal gnome, man?"

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:38 am

I smell a Rowling in the air....

Malperion · Post by **Malperion** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:46 am

synabetic wrote:
I know I don't know you, but I like you already.

And totally off subject: Love the icon. You read the Death Dealer comics?

Actually just a big Frazetta fan. The icon resembles an NPC I used in an old Chivalry and Sorcery campaign years ago as a Big Baddy called Malperion the Bold. Definately one of my most effective characters as some of my players today still recall what a pain in the ass it was to fight him and his army of mercenaries.

Rigon · Post by **Rigon** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:55 am

Joe wrote:
Wow...the concept of a book being better than the movie. I think that is a given. (Edited on my part because I found the rant to be boring) Hmmm...

Quote:
Just because I say Picasso sucks does not make me an art expert.

True, but if you know a little bit about art/Picasso and someone tries to pass of there own half-assed work as "true to Picasso's vision" then you have a right to say how sucky their work is.

Quote:
it was not perfect...

Understatement!

Quote:
but it was the best darn effort i think ANYONE could have pulled off.

Not hardly. Just off of the top of my head here are the glaring differences:

1. Gimli the Clown: as all dwarves are merely along for comic relief

2. Legolas the Super-killing machine: because all elves can fly and shoot fire beams from the eyes

3. Faramir the Evil-hearted: just like his brother

4. High Elves at Helms Deep: cause humans, except for Aragon, suck

I don't have a problem with the movies, I think they are exceptional fantasy films, visually stunning and well made. My problem is what they did to the spirit of the story.

R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind

3rd Eye · Post by **3rd Eye** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:12 pm

Rigon wrote:
I don't have a problem with the movies, I think they are exceptional fantasy films, visually stunning and well made. My problem is what they did to the spirit of the story.

Well said and I shall summarize all of the movies' flaws with but a single heretical scene:
Frodo did NOT attempt to offer the Ring to a Ring Wraith at Osgiliath.
Faramir never took Frodo and the Ring to Osgiliath in the first place, neither to deliver the Ring to his father nor for any other reason. To have him do so changes the character of Faramir, soiling his honor. (And if, as the director has claimed, this change was intended solely to show the power of the Ring, and Faramir was truly that vulnerable to the Ring's influence after a mere few minutes of exposure, then why didn't it cause Faramir to simply take the Ring?)
Although Frodo suffered from fear and self-doubt, his will to carry out his mission and destroy the Ring never broke until he was literally on the brink of the Crack of Doom, when the Ring was at its greatest power and desperation. To have Frodo break any earlier severely diminishes his character, making him appear weak and pathetic.
If Frodo had shown the Ring to a Ring Wraith at Osgiliath, merely shooting the Wraith's flying mount with an arrow would not have driven the Wraith away. To show it driven away so easily to meekly withdraw, empty-handed, when its master's One Ring was right there before it makes the Wraith's character appear weak and pathetic.
Having included the heretical scene, all subsequent scenes in which the protagonists attempt to convince Sauron that Aragorn has the Ring are rendered foolish. Why would Sauron believe that? His Ring Wraith has seen that Frodo still has the Ring!
Obviously, any book that gets turned into a movie will likely have some scenes omitted, and others changed in some way but to concoct and invent wholly new scenes without the slightest regard for how they might contradict the very spirit of the book is sheer folly and when the book in question is The Lord of the Rings, meddling with the story in such a way is downright blasphemous.

Rigon · Post by **Rigon** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:03 pm

3rd Eye wrote:
Obviously, any book that gets turned into a movie will likely have some scenes omitted, and others changed in some way but to concoct and invent wholly new scenes without the slightest regard for how they might contradict the very spirit of the book is sheer folly and when the book in question is The Lord of the Rings, meddling with the story in such a way is downright blasphemous.

Amen brother, amen!

R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:10 pm

Great, now LOTR is a religion. What would you call it? Maybe Church of the overly detailed and boring novel?
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Rigon · Post by **Rigon** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:12 pm

Julian Grimm wrote:
Great, now LOTR is a religion. What would you call it? Maybe Church of the overly detailed and boring novel?

Perhaps.
R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind

Malperion · Post by **Malperion** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:24 pm

Julian Grimm wrote:
Great, now LOTR is a religion. What would you call it? Maybe Church of the overly detailed and boring novel?

Cool! I love striving against zealotry! Didn't realize that the secret ingredient of the movies was the yummy spice of blasphemy!

3rd Eye · Post by **3rd Eye** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:21 am

Julian Grimm wrote:
Great, now LOTR is a religion. What would you call it? Maybe Church of the overly detailed and boring novel?

I didn't call it a religion, and I don't regard it as such either. I used the words "heretical" and "blasphemous" in (what I thought was) an obviously hyperbolic fashion; but perhaps I overdid it, so I shall clarify

Whether you think it was "overly detailed and boring" or not, Lord of the Rings is widely (and I think rightly) regarded as the greatest work of Fantasy fiction in the English language. As such, the job of turning it into a movie should have been given to someone who would respect that work just as any director should respect any book when translating it onto the screen, but with even greater deference because of the great fame of this particular book.

The job should have been given to someone who would NOT be arrogant and presumptuous enough to think they could "enhance" the story (or even that it needed any "enhancement").

Peter Jackson was that arrogant and presumptuous. He did not merely condense and translate the novel for film he made pointless and grievous changes that seriously affected the story. He added whole scenes and greatly altered others, without the slightest regard to the consequences for character development or plot rationale. He inserted juvenile and insultingly idiotic comedy sequences that greatly detracted from what was supposed to be a serious story. He ignored opportunities to focus on drama in favor of ridiculous stunts, special effects, and sight gags.

In short, he raped the book.

Obviously, since you confess to lacking the good literary taste to have liked the book, you don't care that he raped it. I presume that you enjoyed the movies. If so, congratulations. Enjoy them.

However, I'd expect you to understand why those of us do like the book might be a little irritated by what Peter Jackson did to it. Don't get me wrong: I'm just as impressed as you are by the visual results, and I'll freely admit the trilogy of movies are possibly the best example ever of Fantasy on film and IF I'd never read the book, or perhaps if (like you) I hadn't liked it, that might be all I had to say about the movies.

But I did read the book, and I did like it so I do take offense at Peter Jackson doing something as arrogant, presumptuous, and appallingly stupid as having Frodo be a damned fool weakling and offer the Ring to the Ring Wraith at Osgiliath, where he shouldn't have been in the first place! I do take offense at shield-surfing, and dwarf-bowling, and all the other low-browed idiotic nonsense with which Jackson polluted Tolkien's story.

And I especially take offense at his pretending to have been paying homage to Tolkien or his pathetic ignorance in believing he really was, whichever.

And if your dislike of Tolkien's masterpiece is so great that you can't grasp the extent of the "blasphemy," then allow me to put it another way

I also love the works of Robert E. Howard, and my favorite Fantasy (or more accurately, Sword & Sorcery) film of all time is Conan the Barbarian. It wasn't particularly faithful at all to anything specific that Howard ever wrote, but it was at least faithful in spirit.

What I wanted from a Lord of the Rings movie trilogy was something like Conan the Barbarian not slavish devotion to the book at all, just a good-faith attempt to maintain the spirit but what Peter Jackson gave us was Conan the Destroyer, with a bigger budget and better special effects. He gave us an insulting, mutilated parody of the book.

And that's why the movies SUCKED.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:42 am

Julian Grimm wrote:
Great, now LOTR is a religion

Kinda like the Force?
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

synabetic · Post by **synabetic** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:46 am

Y'know, 3rd Eye, my first instinct was to read your latest volley, slightly roll my eyes and mutter "jeez" under my breath. But, then I thought of something.

Although I liked the books fine, and I loved the movies (yes, its possible to like both, I guess), I still know how you feel. See, since it started I have been a HUGE fan the Hellblazer comic. I was all sorts of excited about the Constantine movie (well, not as much as details on the film were released). Then I went and saw the damed thing.

It was a horror film. To me it was like a form of rape; I was -so- disgusted. To take something I love and cherish so much and pervert it, to take a character I adore and mutilate him beyond the possibility of imaginative perversions... well, needless to say I jumped on ANYONE who said "Constantine? Yeah, I dug that movie". Damn, I hated them. Even if it wasn't that bad of a film, it was still a steaming pile of German porno films as far as I and "true" Hellblazer fans are concerned.

Anyhow, I think I know how you feel here. In fact, I know I do. I just don't feel like that about the LotR films... Still, you (and those like you) have my sympathy.
_________________
"Um... just how -does- one wield a vorpal gnome, man?"

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:50 am

:roll

I hate everything equally. Saves effort.

synabetic · Post by **synabetic** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:58 am

serleran wrote:
:roll

I hate everything equally. Saves effort.

You even hate bacon??????
_________________
"Um... just how -does- one wield a vorpal gnome, man?"

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:04 am

Yes. Its nasty good stuff that clogs my arteries and makes me fart. I hate that. But, it tastes yummy. I hate that it makes me want it.

synabetic · Post by **synabetic** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:07 am

Ha! Best answer to that question. Ever.
_________________
"Um... just how -does- one wield a vorpal gnome, man?"

3rd Eye · Post by **3rd Eye** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:25 am

synabetic wrote:
I think I know how you feel here. In fact, I know I do. I just don't feel like that about the LotR films... Still, you (and those like you) have my sympathy.

I imagine there's a certain threshold of devotion to an original work, below which one either won't notice or won't mind significant changes, and above which one takes begins to take offense at changes. At the very extreme level of devotion one might take offense at even the most minor alterations, or perfectly sensible omissions for the sake of time, refusing to acknowledge that the film and the book can't be the same.

In the case of Lord of the Rings, my level of devotion to the original work is rather high certainly not to the point of religious zealotry, but high enough to be offended by many of the more glaring changes that Peter Jackson inflicted on it.

If I was a true fanatic, I'd be offended by the omission of all the scenes with Tom Bombadil near the beginning of the story (especially the encounter with the barrow wight), or the omission of all the Shire scenes near the end of the story. If I was a rabid zealot, I'd be offended by the arrival of the elves at Helm's Deep, or the initial refusal of the Ents to attack Isengard. If I thought the Lord of the Rings was a holy book, I'd even be offended by the juvenile antics of Merry & Pippin.

None of those things bothered me at all, though. As I said before, I didn't expect slavish devotion to the book; and I even liked a few of the changes for example, I thought it made the elves look a lot less like a bunch of self-absorbed whiners to have them show up at Helm's Deep, and it didn't damage the plot in any particular way to make that change (I thought it actually sort of helped).

What bothered me were the changes that did damage the plot, or which sullied the characters in unforgivable ways the most offensive of all (to me) being the aforementioned, non-existent scene in Osgiliath.

Quote:
The Heretical Scene
Frodo: "Hi there, Mr. Nazgl! I'm a spineless, mewling little coward, so please come and take this Ring away from me!"
Nazgl: "Well, hello there Mr. Baggins! Indeed, I'd love to relieve you of that burden it is, after all, my sole function in this world to secure that Ring for my master Sauron but you see, there's an inconvenient piece of wood in this animal underneath me, and I really can't be bothered to just jump off it and come down there and slaughter you and everyone around you, even though I could do so with great ease, so instead I'm afraid I'll have to just leave. Don't worry though, I won't bother to report the Ring's location to Sauron or anyone else on our side. That would make things too easy on us, don't you think? Bye!"
Frodo: "Wha? Wait, come back! I really don't want to walk all the way to Mordor anyway oh, well see you later! Oh, hello, Faramir."
Faramir: "That was a close call, eh? Good thing that fearsome, unbeatable Nazgl was inexplicably frightened away by my otherwise totally useless posturing."
Frodo: "Uh yeah, close call."
Faramir: "By the way, that was a really impressive display of weakness, you gutless little pansy. Now that I see just how powerful the Ring's influence is, and how easily you succumbed to it, I think the best thing to do is to send you off on your own, so you can have another chance to break and hand the Ring over to them."
Frodo: "What?"
Faramir: "You heard me. Your obvious lack of inner strength and your willingness to hand over the Ring at the first glimpse of a Nazgl have convinced me that you're definitely the right weakling err, halfling for this vital mission, upon which the future of the world depends."
Frodo: "Aw, crap Um, look, my feet are really hurting, so can I at least have one of those horses?"
Faramir: "No. I ain't walking all the way back to Minas Tirith just so you can get to Mordor faster. Beat it, half-pint."

Right after that plot-defiling heresy would come all the idiotic comedy crap, much of which revolved around Gimli, whose character came off as little more than a prop for stupid jokes as a result.

Malperion · Post by **Malperion** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:37 am

Quote:
I imagine there's a certain threshold of devotion to an original work, below which one either won't notice or won't mind significant changes, and above which one takes begins to take offense at changes. At the very extreme level of devotion one might take offense at even the most minor alterations, or perfectly sensible omissions for the sake of time, refusing to acknowledge that the film and the book can't be the same.

I think this is a spot-on comment regarding levels of tolerance in adaptations from books to film. I've been reading Tolkien for 25+ years and it would seem I have a higher tolerance for changes in the story than others. My biggest beef was around the treatment of Denethor (especially the scene where he was eating like a pig when Pippin was singing). Regardless, such changes (or even liberties taken) were not enough to diminish the spirit of Tolkien that I still felt while watching the movies as a whole. Such changes did not make the movies suck for me as it did for others.

And as for Hellblazer, that movie was damned to Hell as soon as I learned that Keanu Reeves was playing John Constantine! So by that logic I guess if Keanu Reeves played Aragorn, LOTR would have sucked beyond all hope for me. That fool can ruin any movie! Yeah...bring on the Matrix lovers now..

rabindranath72 · Post by **rabindranath72** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:39 pm

The most offensive scene to me was: Elrond goes to visit Aragorn to bring him the sword. WHAT?! An Elven King, thousands of years old, who WASTES his time to bring a sword to a man who is not even a king; like he was some valet or courier. Ludicrous at best.

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:44 pm

Meh, Rabid fanboyism on anything is a major turn off especially when you can't separate one work from another. The movies were fine. The books were ok if the repeated ring history, extensive detail and flow was trimmed down.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

rabindranath72 · Post by **rabindranath72** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:51 pm

fact is, most of the changes were gratuitous at best. why couldn't Aragorn get Anduril at the start? Making Elrond bring him the sword just stretches the credibility of the tale and of the characters, and does not add anything useful. Tolkien himself in his letters was well aware of the problems that making a film out of the books could bring. He even suggested to delete some characters from the tale if their presence was in some way troublesome. But on one thing he was adamant: NEVER change the role and behaviour of a character. And this is exactly what PJ did in the film lots of times.

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:55 pm

But look, the films themselves led a whole new generation to Tolkien's works. I'm sure there are thousands if not millions of new readers to the books hadn't it been for the films' success. That in itself was probably the largest boon to the collected works of JRR then anything ever before.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Malperion · Post by **Malperion** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:53 pm

Omote wrote:
But look, the films themselves led a whole new generation to Tolkien's works. I'm sure there are thousands if not millions of new readers to the books hadn't it been for the films' success. That in itself was probably the largest boon to the collected works of JRR then anything ever before.

-O

That's what I keep saying! They'll find Tolkien's full vision in the books they buy, because the highly successful movies led them there.

Traveller · Post by **Traveller** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:23 am

I guess I'm not a LotR purist, because I like the books (including The Silmarillion), the radio dramas (both BBC and NPR versions), the animated movies, and Peter Jackson's version of the story. All the versions of the story, even the books, have flaws. But to condemn one version of a story because it didn't conform to preconceived notions of things is just something I do not understand.

Regarding Frodo offering the Ring of Power to a Nazgul...the flip side of the discussion.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:55 pm

Quote:
Omote wrote:

But look, the films themselves led a whole new generation to Tolkien's works. I'm sure there are thousands if not millions of new readers to the books hadn't it been for the films' success. That in itself was probably the largest boon to the collected works of JRR then anything ever before.

-O

That's what I keep saying! They'll find Tolkien's full vision in the books they buy, because the highly successful movies led them there.

I could not have said it better myself. Though I did say it myself.

With any successful endeavor there will be those that call it a failure.

jaybird216 · Post by **jaybird216** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:18 pm

Joe wrote:
Those that do will ride their limos,

A limo that somebody else built.
The spirit of the OP (me) was just that... a sardonic poke at mindless Hollywood consumers. I can't believe a link to 50 obviously sarcastic and absurd sentences sparked 8 (and growing) pages of debate.

For the record, I'm an artist. People who couldn't draw a stick person themselves feel free to criticize my work, usually publicly. It comes with the territory. Sometimes you just gotta wear your big boy pants.

I liked the books AND the movies, yet I reserve the right to hold an opinion on both for better and for worse. Even though I didn't sweat it out in cammies in any desert (we have a 100% volunteer armed forces, BTW), I still have that right.

To paraphrase Mel Brooks' History of the World, "It is said in 1 million BC, the first artist was born. It was shortly followed by the inevitable afterbirth: The critic.".

I'm just saying.
_________________
Jason Braun
Art Monkey for Hire
Three-Headed Troll Art Wurks