The Campaign Builder's Guild

Quote from: Elemental_Elf

Quote from: An Angel

Quote from: an ElfEragon is one of my favorite movies. I laugh so hard every time I watch it!

I think we all cried. That movie was terrible.

The latest D&D movie, featuring a Black Dragon, was actually pretty good, if a bit low budget-y.

Its hard to believe Jeremy Irons was in that movie (actually, he was Obi-Wan in Eragon... So maybe he has a thing for piss poor fantasy).

I think he just wants to show off how he still looks and sounds awesome regardless of how bad the movie is. :P

Quote from: Renaissance AngelI'm taking the piss of course. Peter Jackson loves the Tolkien mythos too much to mess with it like that.

Really?  I seem to remember a certain Scouring that Tolkien considered, 'an essential part of the plot, foreseen from the outset', as Tolkien would say in his Foreward to LOTR, that was "messed with".

Please don't misunderstand, in general, I was amazed at what a great job Jackson did in visualizing and getting the feel right.  I also had no other problem with other cuts or additions (Elves in Helm's Deep?  OK, I can roll with that...) because though they were changes, they did not alter the fundamentals of what Tolkein was trying to get across in the story.

But while I like the first 2 movies, the third really came across as a direct affront to Tolkien's intent, and something of an in insult to his memory.

I'm glad the scouring wasn't in it.

Authorial intent is not always the be-all-end-all of storytelling, and I think the film was better without it.

Quote from: Renaissance AngelI'm glad the scouring wasn't in it.

Authorial intent is not always the be-all-end-all of storytelling, and I think the film was better without it.

Authorial intent and the importance of it has much to do with the author in question.  I tend to hold the author in question in extraordinary esteem.

The movie, especially book 3 told a very different story due the ommision of what was perceived by the author as worthy of mention in his own introduction, and one of the few things so mentioned.
I consider it a dumbing down of the story; removing the actual necessary coming full-circle.  I agree with you that it made the film easier to grasp and follow for a certain, very large demographic of paying moviegoers.  After all, there were bills to pay.

I disagree that the film was 'better' for it; I would concede that perhaps dumbing it down made it more palatable to a large part of the paying market.

Quote from: Renaissance AngelI'm glad the scouring wasn't in it.

Authorial intent is not always the be-all-end-all of storytelling, and I think the film was better without it.

I have to agree. The point of a movie adaption is to eliminate all of the frills and showcase the core of the book(s). The scourging isn't necessary to the story main plot. It is merely an event that extrapolates and enriches the back story of the world.

Quote from: Elemental_Elf

Quote from: Renaissance AngelI'm glad the scouring wasn't in it.

Authorial intent is not always the be-all-end-all of storytelling, and I think the film was better without it.

I have to agree. The point of a movie adaption is to eliminate all of the frills and showcase the core of the book(s). The scourging isn't necessary to the story main plot. It is merely an event that extrapolates and enriches the back story of the world.

The 'scourging' (sic) isn't necessary to the story main plot?
"It (the Scoring of the Shire) is an essential part of the plot, foreseen from the outset,..." (J.R.R. Tolkien, from the LotR forward).  I tend to take the word of the author here, EElf.  According to the main who wrote it, it is necessary to the main plot.  I tend to think he knew what he was doing.
Doesn't mean everyone has to agree.  

Quote from: LordVreeg

Quote from: Elemental_Elf

Quote from: Renaissance AngelI'm glad the scouring wasn't in it.

Authorial intent is not always the be-all-end-all of storytelling, and I think the film was better without it.

I have to agree. The point of a movie adaption is to eliminate all of the frills and showcase the core of the book(s). The scourging isn't necessary to the story main plot. It is merely an event that extrapolates and enriches the back story of the world.

The 'scourging' (sic) isn't necessary to the story main plot?
"It (the Scoring of the Shire) is an essential part of the plot, foreseen from the outset,..." (J.R.R. Tolkien, from the LotR forward).  I tend to take the word of the author here, EElf.  According to the main who wrote it, it is necessary to the main plot.  I tend to think he knew what he was doing.
Doesn't mean everyone has to agree.  

I think what EE was trying to say is that removing it doesn't cause the story to fall to pieces. It's built onto the core story and is by no means the lynchpin holding the story together. Having said this I was rather miffed when Jackson left it out after hinting at it in the first movie with Galadriel's mirror. That was a big part of the winding down of the fellowship and I very much enjoyed it

well, if that was what he meant, then I cannot disagree.  I do consider it essential to getting the full impact and completing the cycle (and Tolkien was huge on connecting the dots)...but removing it did not make it worthless or nonsensical, i agree.

QuoteThe movie, especially book 3 told a very different story due the ommision of what was perceived by the author as worthy of mention in his own introduction, and one of the few things so mentioned.
I consider it a dumbing down of the story; removing the actual necessary coming full-circle. I agree with you that it made the film easier to grasp and follow for a certain, very large demographic of paying moviegoers. After all, there were bills to pay.

film[/b], a piece of cinematic art, as opposed to merely an audiobook of the Lord of the Rings with pictures?

It's certainly possible that Peter Jackson sat in his studio and thought to himself "cutting the Scouring of the Shire will appeal to dumber, more tasteless moviegoers, of which there are many."  Perhaps he did it unconsciously.  But it's also possible (and much more likely, if the man has any professional integrity at all) that he decided it simply wasn't working as a part of the piece of art he was trying to make.  That's not an insult to Tolkien or his fans, and it's not "dumbing down," even if said fans happen to disagree with his artistic judgment.

Quote from: Polycarp

QuoteThe movie, especially book 3 told a very different story due the ommision of what was perceived by the author as worthy of mention in his own introduction, and one of the few things so mentioned.
I consider it a dumbing down of the story; removing the actual necessary coming full-circle. I agree with you that it made the film easier to grasp and follow for a certain, very large demographic of paying moviegoers. After all, there were bills to pay.

film[/b], a piece of cinematic art, as opposed to merely an audiobook of the Lord of the Rings with pictures?

It's certainly possible that Peter Jackson sat in his studio and thought to himself "cutting the Scouring of the Shire will appeal to dumber, more tasteless moviegoers, of which there are many."  Perhaps he did it unconsciously.  But it's also possible (and much more likely, if the man has any professional integrity at all) that he decided it simply wasn't working as a part of the piece of art he was trying to make.  That's not an insult to Tolkien or his fans, and it's not "dumbing down," even if said fans happen to disagree with his artistic judgment.

I was not aware that the term 'plot' had a different meaning in a book than in a movie.  I know that they are different mediums and have many different foci; but  I seem to remember plotting being the one place that they converged.
Hmm, let's look it up in Merriam-Websters...
": the plan or main story (as of a movie or literary work)"
well, 'Plot' does not have a differfent meaning in movies than in books.

Well, I don't want to say you are wrong, but a book or a movie still tell a story.  All and sundry are welcome to disagree, but you did not hear me complaining about the removal of Bombadil, much though I love that part, or the inclusion of the elves in Helm's Deep..becasue they are not essential to the plot, in inclusion or removal.  The central story of the Hobbit's growth and change, of the passing of an age and the baggage involved, and the growth and coming of age and prominence of the hobbits, is not changed by them and others.
PC, I disagree.  You can substitute 'simplification' for 'dumbing down', and 'standing as a piece of art in it's own right' for 'mass-market appeal', but the effect is the same in my eyes.  

This debate was inevitable... :P

Quote from: Renaissance AngelThis debate was inevitable... :P

see, now I am in accord with you...it was...

On the plus side:

Martin Freeman as Bilbo = Definite Win.