Ralph Bakshi version

''Opinions merely given as if they were self evident facts''.

Pot. meet Kettle.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:And yet I disagree with you Eldo, so it cant be self evident. I would rather rewatch Bakshis than PJs three films. Using your self-evident standard. PJ's films are therefore self-evidently worse.

You've been pretty clear that when it comes to Tolkien movies, you judge them on their closeness to the source material rather than their cinematic qualities.  Hence the second part of my statement.

I am not judging Bakshi purely on that criteria- I was, when I wrote an essay on here on that topic.

I never once in that, as I set out in its introduction, discussed how well it faired as cinema, or used its closeness to the source as a means of measuring that.

I wasn't talking about your comparison essay (which for the record I did find very interesting, although I don't think that PJ borrowing from Bakshi was some hideous moral wrong), but rather the general tone of most of your posts. You basically use "bad" and "different" as synonyms in this context.

I'm inclined not to watch either version again and let what I envisioned in my own mind recover from all these other imaginings.

You basically use "bad" and "different" - Eldo

Im not sure what you mean.

You seem to have missed the last part of that sentence (unless you just forgot to copy that into your post and are still confused?).

Edit: is your browser deleting parts of people's posts again?

The rest of the sentence didnt help.  

"is your browser deleting parts of people's posts again?"

I have no idea, is your post missing bits?  

Radaghast wrote:I'm inclined not to watch either version again and let what I envisioned in my own mind recover from all these other imaginings.

While I have my own issues with the adaptations available, the more I think about it the more I want a good one; by my own measure, of course. I think that's worth a few bad ones. It's when one version exists that blots out all the others that I may have a different problem.

In a way I think M.E.R.P. could've been that adaptation. A mod for game, but the necessary elements were in place. They merely had to be put together.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:The rest of the sentence didnt help.  

When you talk about the movies, at least PJ's, you seem to use the words "bad" and "different" as synonyms.  Say for example that you're pointing out that Bilbo does something in DOS that is incompatible with his actions in the book.  This is automatically a flaw in the movie and a black mark on PJ's record. regardless of whether or not it works as part of the story PJ is telling.

"is your browser deleting parts of people's posts again?"

I have no idea, is your post missing bits?  

Well it was more links that weren't showing up then words, so nevermind.

Recoveryanonymous wrote:

Radaghast wrote:I'm inclined not to watch either version again and let what I envisioned in my own mind recover from all these other imaginings.

While I have my own issues with the adaptations available, the more I think about it the more I want a good one; by my own measure, of course. I think that's worth a few bad ones. It's when one version exists that blots out all the others that I may have a different problem.

I wouldn't mind seeing a good adaption but I'm admittedly very picky about such things  

I have my perfect version, its the books, for me PJs films are a visual/musical accompaniment. (LOTR) They set the scene and the atmosphere, all the missing bits my brain fills in and the bits that are different my brain compensates for. They all go together to make a Whole. I dont have a problem with any of it.

On the other hand TH doesnt set the scene for me as it doesnt feel like ME, and the music was sub par. In this case it fails me. The illusion breaks down.

'This is automatically a flaw in the movie and a black mark on PJ's record.'- Eldo

I think it depends on what that is.

Take AUJ for example- PJ  has Thorin arrive separately. Its different from the book but I understand why he did it and I think it works fine on film (I dont think the original woudnt work either, but PJ's change here does not take away from the story and had a cinematic purpose) accordingly when I reviewed the film I did not count it as a black mark against PJ.

On the otherhand when Bilbo has a sword fight and kills a goblin that too is a change from the book, one which I think was clichéd cinema and took away from the character development of the main character rather than improved it, even in a cinema context, and was on top of that a dramaic deviation from the source it was based on.
I did hold that as a black mark against PJ.

Another exmaple is Arwen for Glorfindel- I dont automatically give PJ a black mark for choosing to make that alteration, any more than I do for Bakshi for using Legolas, but I do give black marks to PJ for then using the change to further his own agenda of changes and relegating Frodo to the stature of a bag.

I think you paint my views on this more black and white than they actually ever have been.

I started off teasing you on the last page (hence the mooning emoticon), but I do think that you go overboard in a lot of your criticisms (though undoubtedly you're being tongue-in-cheek at least some of the time). I didn't mean to imply that you were incapable of nuance, though.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Take AUJ for example- PJ  has Thorin arrive separately. Its different from the book but I understand why he did it and I think it works fine on film (I dont think the original woudnt work either, but PJ's change here does not take away from the story and had a cinematic purpose) accordingly when I reviewed the film I did not count it as a black mark against PJ.

Perhaps you're right, but I find the execution rather lacking and Armitage's Thorin insufferable.

och aye the noo-ance  

Armitage seems to be mad keen on Tolkien, but he doesnt convince me and he bores my pants off.

His character is a far from the book counterpart through no fault of his own (other than his accepting the role) but his performance is at least partly his fault.

Mrs Figg wrote:Armitage seems to be mad keen on Tolkien, but he doesnt convince me and he bores my pants off.

Apparently Tauriel is too  

I find the melodrama of the Thorin arriving scene funny in the way its executed - everyone just stares at the door that always make me laugh.
But I understand what they were aiming for in separating him off and not showing him involved in the 'party' aspect of the evening they wanted to keep an air of seriousness and grimness about him.

It also effectively tells the cinema audience he is an important person to be feared in some fashion, or at the least very respected and it separates him out for consideration from the rest of the dwarves, which is important with so many characters when you want to indicate to the audience who the important ones are.

I dont think it was executed very well, but that doesnt mean the idea was necessarily poor in terms of adapting the material.

och aye the noo-ance- Mrs Figg

   {{{{{ }}}}

 

As both actors and fans of Tolkien, I can't really fault Lilly, Armitage or Christopher Lee for wanting to be a part of the universe they've long admired, in some way, even if it's a bastardized version.

I suspect Lee was having second thoughts when he was reading that rubbish about mushrooms and yellow teeth.

he deserves better, as did Sir Ian. Actors of such calibre should get more respect