Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) Subject: Moriarty's Film Script Review X-Nntp-Posting-Host: harper.uchicago.edu Message-ID: Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Organization: The University of Chicago X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 01:59:40 GMT Lines: 145 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uwm.edu!uwvax!uchinews!not-for-mail For the first time ever, I am actually _starting_ a movie thread. I hope that everyone can forgive me. :) I recently read "Moriarty"'s comments on the (old) script that he's read: they can be found at http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=4135 I am encouraged by his highly positive tone, and all in all I'm pleased by what I've heard. Also, quite a few of the aspects that bothered me have probably been fixed in the transition from two to three movies (Moriarty reviewed the two-film version). Having said that, I still feel a need to rant about some of the details revealed in these comments. Feel free to completely skip my comments 1) if you don't want any details about the upcoming films revealed ahead of time, 2) if you're just sick of film comments in general, or 3) you really want to. Again, note that none of what follows should be taken to suggest that I'm truly discouraged about the films that we will eventually see. Without further ado... Steuard's Film Fact Rant (v 1.0) What follow are the "factual" inconsistencies with Tolkien's books that I have noticed in reading through Moriarty's review of Peter Jackson's early two-film script for _The Lord of the Rings_, listed in the order in which they appeared in his comments. Feel free to discuss and disagree with my thoughts. 1. "Gandalf warns Frodo to hide the Ring carefully, only to show up seven months later, dirty, exhausted, dishevelled." Why in the world would Jackson want to reduce 17 years to 7 months? I can't imagine this advancing the plot, and there's _got_ to be some way of indicating the passage of time. Is he just trying to give Sam exposure as an adult at the party? Tolkien complained about Zimmerman's "contractions of time" quite firmly; why would Jackson think it was more appropriate here? 2. "When Gandalf discovers Sam, Merry, and Pippin eavesdropping, the roles are set for the four friends." I honestly cried out in startled horror when I read this (happily, the neighbors didn't complain). Does this remind anyone else of the Rankin-Bass rendition of _The Hobbit_, in which the Dwarves suddenly and inexplicably appear from behind stones and trees around Bilbo's door (entirely replacing "An Unexpected Party")? This isn't a well-organized and secret conspiracy, it's a childish game of spy-on-Frodo. However, I suspect that with three films to play with, this story compression device will no longer appear to be necessary. I sincerely hope so, at least. 3. "...the hatchling army of Uruk-Hai in the caverns below Isengard. ...when Saruman inspects his new troops." Ok, I could be misinterpreting this, and Moriarty could have been misinterpreting it, but... ORCS _HATCH_?!? Looks like the "bred from Elves" and "bred from humans" theories of Orcish origins are both wrong. Instead, we now have "bred from platypusses". 4. "...before another horrific encounter with the Witch King. Arwen's introduction here is strong..." This certainly seems to imply that Arwen replaced Glorfindel in this script. While this might be a reasonable movie-making tactic and could result in a better development of Arwen, I dislike elements of the story that are not at least "book consistent" even if not "book exact". Cut Glorfindel from the film, ok, but don't combine his character with someone else's. On another note, I sincerely doubt that Arwen would be _able_ to "ride openly against the Nine"; everything Tolkien wrote about Glorfindel (both in LotR and later) indicates that he was a _very_ powerful Elf. Personally, I have _some_ doubts that Elrond himself would have been up to the task, outside of Rivendell and without convenient rivers at his beck and call. True, nothing says that Arwen _couldn't_ have driven a guard of Nazgul from the Last Bridge, but there's no hint that she could, either. I'd prefer to see characters that were at least _consistent_ with Tolkien's descriptions, though I have no objections to developing them beyond what we actually see in the books if it's appropriate. 5. "...Helm's Deep, home of King Theoden and Grima Wormstongue." Please, please tell me that the name "Edoras" will appear in the final script. Please, please tell me that Tolkien's finely developed geography will not be massacred just to reduce the number of names that moviegoers have to keep track of. Again, maybe the true content of the script has been misunderstood by Moriarty or by me, and this could easily be something that was fixed in the three-film version... but it scares me that it was even considered. 6. "Gandalf's escape from Saruman leads him into even more peril here, and only the intervention of the King's niece Eowyn saves Gandalf." Check me on this, but didn't Eowyn take a very, very passive role in Theoden's court until Gandalf and Aragorn arrived and he was healed? Wasn't she completely depressed because of Grima's incessant verbal poison? Maybe there's a way to make this work, but I'm nervous... but I guess as long as it's done well... 7. "Gandalf's arrival and Galadriel's vision to Frodo both signal another acceleration of events." I'm vaguely worried by the implication that Gandalf was not present when Frodo awoke... that would be a good scene, and it seems unnecessary to give him an actual dramatic entrance. I'm extremely worried by the inclusion of "Galadriel's vision to Frodo" here before the Council of Elrond. If she's there, and she gets back to Lorien before the Fellowship, why didn't they just go with her? If Lorien is actually cut, then I take back everything I've ever said about my faith that Jackson is dedicated to preserving the full spirit and story in the books. Galadriel was _not_ at the Council, and I truly hope that it stays that way. 8. "when Bilbo says goodbye to Frodo at Rivendell. These are two people who love each other dearly, but at the first sight of the Ring, something dark and animal comes out in Bilbo." This may be reasonable, but why move it? I suppose that cutting the reunion in the Hall of Fire makes sense from the standpoint of timing, but it would certainly be unfortunate to remove the one glimpse we have of Rivendell as a place of rest and merriment. 9. "Gandalf the White leads the remnants of the Fellowship against Helm's Deep to free Theoden from the thrall of Saruman, then against an army of 10,000 Uruk-Hai in what will no doubt be one of the largest film battles in history." This bit makes me wonder if Moriarty _is_ confusing Edoras and Helm's Deep. If not, I remain disappointed. Meanwhile, what does the first "against" mean? Do they storm Grima's bedchamber? Gandalf's confrontation with Grima isn't a battle of swords, it's a battle of wills and words (and the other members of the Fellowship aren't really involved at all...). That's just about it; Moriarty's detailed comments stop after the first half of the script. Again, most of what I read reaffirmed my confidence in this project, and I'm very hopeful that having an extra film will have made a big difference in most of the above concerns. Still, it pays to be wary, and not to hope for absolute perfection. This concludes my rant. :) Steuard Jensen ###### From: Larry Richards Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1999 22:56:01 -0400 Organization: University of Virginia Lines: 11 Message-ID: <37AF94BF.D5347B65@virginia.edu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: slip-4-8.acc.virginia.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Corel-MessageType: EMail Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!uunet!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU!not-for-mail Steuard Jensen wrote: > I read Moriarty' script review as well and decided that Moriarty is a completely unreliable source. (at least I pray he is.) I have more confidence in PJ (from what I have read in his question and answer sessions) than to believe he could so *needlessly* butcher the story line. LGR ###### From: Mustardseed Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 00:25:40 -0400 Organization: Yale University Lines: 76 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: mars.its.yale.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: ewo3@mars.its.yale.edu In-Reply-To: Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.ycc.yale.edu!mars.its.yale.edu!ewo3 On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, Steuard Jensen wrote: > I recently read "Moriarty"'s > comments on the (old) script that he's read: they can be found at > > http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=4135 > > I am encouraged by his highly positive tone, and all in all I'm > pleased by what I've heard. I too read this, although not carefully in the interest of not *utterly* spoiling the movie for myself ;-). I'm putting my faith in the lyricism of the script upon glancing over the Frodo speeches. I believe Peter Beagle was working on the script, no? This still gives me hope that, if not plot specificities, the tone will be right. Which IMO is more important. > Steuard's Film Fact Rant (v 1.0) > > 1. "Gandalf warns Frodo to hide the Ring carefully, only to show up > seven months later, dirty, exhausted, dishevelled." > > Why in the world would Jackson want to reduce 17 years to 7 months? > I can't imagine this advancing the plot, and there's _got_ to be > some way of indicating the passage of time. Is he just trying to > give Sam exposure as an adult at the party? Tolkien complained > about Zimmerman's "contractions of time" quite firmly; why would > Jackson think it was more appropriate here? > hmm... maybe Gandalf comes back and tells Frodo about the ring, and *then* disappears for 17 years? Nah, that doesn't really work. Seriously tho... it would explain why they have twentysomethings playing *all* the hobbits and not just Pippin; if Frodo leaves the Shire only a year after the party, he'd be what, 34? Basically twentysomething in hobbit-years... > 2. "When Gandalf discovers Sam, Merry, and Pippin eavesdropping, the > roles are set for the four friends." > noooooooo! I hope not. > 3. "...the hatchling army of Uruk-Hai in the caverns below Isengard. > ...when Saruman inspects his new troops." > > Ok, I could be misinterpreting this, and Moriarty could have been > misinterpreting it, but... ORCS _HATCH_?!? Looks like the "bred > from Elves" and "bred from humans" theories of Orcish origins are > both wrong. Instead, we now have "bred from platypusses". well, maybe those rumor of Orcs interbreeding with animals included animals of the Lizard persuation? could be an interesting scene... I'm crossing my fingers that some of the things you indicate won't come true. But this trend to girlpower is not all bad... the one thing Tolkien was lacking. Yeah, yeah, it's wrong, I know, but still. I'm not going to shed any tears for Glorfindel. ~apintrix (although Elvish reincarnation is, admittedly, pretty neat...) ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 01:56:30 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 173 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: jbwhelan@amanda In-Reply-To: Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, Steuard Jensen wrote: > I am encouraged by his highly positive tone, and all in all I'm > pleased by what I've heard. Also, quite a few of the aspects that > bothered me have probably been fixed in the transition from two to > three movies (Moriarty reviewed the two-film version). I wouldn't bet on it. Moriarty reviewed a 300 page script. Sounds like that will run well over 4 hours, and would have had to undergo additional cuts if it were really to make two 2-hour movies as originally planned. Jackson may not have the option of adding all that much in the three-film version. > Having said > that, I still feel a need to rant about some of the details revealed > in these comments. Regarding your comments in general, I suspect you severely underestimate the difficulties in adapting a novel the size of LOTR to the screen with any degree of faithfulness. Some compromises will have to be made if they are to make an entertaining film that will at least capture the *spirit* of the novel. The best we die-hard fans can hope for is that Jackson will do Tolkien enough credit that a new batch of fans will be encouraged to go out and read his works. If, when reading his works, these new fans are surprised to find that it is not Arwen but Glorfindel that meets the company during the Flight to the Ford, this will be no major tragedy. > 1. "Gandalf warns Frodo to hide the Ring carefully, only to show up > seven months later, dirty, exhausted, dishevelled." > Why in the world would Jackson want to reduce 17 years to 7 months? It's more efficient. It allows him to introduce the 4 hobbits at the Party, and set the stage from there. It saves time not to have to represent the passages of long periods of time. > 2. "When Gandalf discovers Sam, Merry, and Pippin eavesdropping, the > roles are set for the four friends." > > I honestly cried out in startled horror when I read this (happily, > the neighbors didn't complain). This is not very constructive. Do you really think that Jackson should include the house at Crickenhollow? Do you really think he has time for that? Can you suggest another way for him to introduce Merry and Pippin to the Company? > 3. "...the hatchling army of Uruk-Hai in the caverns below Isengard. > ...when Saruman inspects his new troops." > > Ok, I could be misinterpreting this, and Moriarty could have been > misinterpreting it, but... ORCS _HATCH_?!? You could be misinterpreting it. In any event, Tolkien never gave us any details of Orc reproduction in any event. However Jackson chooses to handle this will not bother me. > 4. "...before another horrific encounter with the Witch King. Arwen's > introduction here is strong..." > > This certainly seems to imply that Arwen replaced Glorfindel in > this script. While this might be a reasonable movie-making tactic > and could result in a better development of Arwen, I dislike > elements of the story that are not at least "book consistent" even > if not "book exact". Cut Glorfindel from the film, ok, but don't > combine his character with someone else's. In that case, how would *you* introduce Arwen without using up precious screentime. It would have to be done efficiently. At the moment, I can't think of a better idea. > On another note, I sincerely doubt that Arwen would be _able_ to > "ride openly against the Nine"; It will be so in the movie, if Jackson does it that way. > I'd prefer to > see characters that were at least _consistent_ with Tolkien's > descriptions, though I have no objections to developing them beyond > what we actually see in the books if it's appropriate. It would be nice if he could do lots of elaboration without doing any condensing. If you were actually to try to write such a script yourself, I think you would be more sympathetic to the problems he must deal with. Just leaving out stuff that he does not have time to portray accurately could result in a chopped and incomprehensible film. I'd rather see Jackson take a few liberties than have the film bomb. > 5. "...Helm's Deep, home of King Theoden and Grima Wormstongue." > > Please, please tell me that the name "Edoras" will appear in the > final script. Maybe. > Please, please tell me that Tolkien's finely > developed geography will not be massacred just to reduce the number > of names that moviegoers have to keep track of. Anyone who wants to truly appreciate Tolkien's finely developed geography will have to read the books. Jackson will not be able to change that, no matter how he tries. If he tries too hard, he may create a confusing mess like "Dune" (which I rather liked, actually, but that sort of film adaptation will not win any new Tolkien fans). > Again, maybe the > true content of the script has been misunderstood by Moriarty or by > me, and this could easily be something that was fixed in the > three-film version... but it scares me that it was even considered. You expect too much. He's doing a 6-hour movie, not a 12-hour one. > 6. "Gandalf's escape from Saruman leads him into even more peril here, > and only the intervention of the King's niece Eowyn saves Gandalf." > > Check me on this, but didn't Eowyn take a very, very passive role > in Theoden's court until Gandalf and Aragorn arrived and he was > healed? Wasn't she completely depressed because of Grima's > incessant verbal poison? Maybe there's a way to make this work, > but I'm nervous... but I guess as long as it's done well... Tolkien's handling of women characters is the one aspect of LOTR that Jackson might actually be able to improve. It would make sense to introduce Eowyn at this point, since she will play a role later. > 7. "Gandalf's arrival and Galadriel's vision to Frodo both signal > another acceleration of events." > > I'm vaguely worried by the implication that Gandalf was not present > when Frodo awoke... that would be a good scene, and it seems > unnecessary to give him an actual dramatic entrance. I'm extremely > worried by the inclusion of "Galadriel's vision to Frodo" here > before the Council of Elrond. You worry too much. We will not be able to judge until we see how it is handled. > 8. "when Bilbo says goodbye to Frodo at Rivendell. These are two > people who love each other dearly, but at the first sight of the > Ring, something dark and animal comes out in Bilbo." > > This may be reasonable, but why move it? So you can have one Bilbo/Frodo Rivendell scene instead of two. > I suppose that cutting > the reunion in the Hall of Fire makes sense from the standpoint of > timing, but it would certainly be unfortunate to remove the one > glimpse we have of Rivendell as a place of rest and merriment. Adding an extra Rivendell scene would mean cutting out something else even more important. You severly underestimate the time contstraints, even with six hours to play with. > 9. "Gandalf the White leads the remnants of the Fellowship against > Helm's Deep to free Theoden from the thrall of Saruman, then > against an army of 10,000 Uruk-Hai in what will no doubt be one of > the largest film battles in history." > > This bit makes me wonder if Moriarty _is_ confusing Edoras and > Helm's Deep. If not, I remain disappointed. Meanwhile, what does > the first "against" mean? Do they storm Grima's bedchamber? You are worrying excessively over vague and perhaps inaccurate evidence. Moriarty may have just got confused, and if not, if will not damage the film. The film WILL have to take some liberties, and we will just have to see the film to see how good or bad the attempted adaptation is. It may be good, or it may be bad, but it will not be the same. ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review X-Nntp-Posting-Host: harper.uchicago.edu Message-ID: Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Organization: The University of Chicago X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999) References: <37AF94BF.D5347B65@virginia.edu> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 03:22:36 GMT Lines: 10 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uchinews2!uchinews!not-for-mail Quoth Larry Richards : > I read Moriarty' script review as well and decided that Moriarty is a > completely unreliable source. Perhaps, to give him a touch more credit, he simply doesn't know LotR well enough to know when his "summaries" are misrepresenting essential elements... and maybe it was just the two-film condensation that was the problem. I remain very hopeful. Steuard Jensen ###### From: mcresq@aol.com (McREsq) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Lines: 24 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder05.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 10 Aug 1999 13:51:30 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Message-ID: <19990810095130.16842.00001615@ngol01.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail In article , sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) writes: >On another note, I sincerely doubt that Arwen would be _able_ to > "ride openly against the Nine"; everything Tolkien wrote about > Glorfindel (both in LotR and later) indicates that he was a _very_ > powerful Elf. Personally, I have _some_ doubts that Elrond himself > would have been up to the task, outside of Rivendell and without > convenient rivers at his beck and call. True, nothing says that > Arwen _couldn't_ have driven a guard of Nazgul from the Last > Bridge, but there's no hint that she could, either. I'd prefer to > see characters that were at least _consistent_ with Tolkien's > descriptions, though I have no objections to developing them beyond > what we actually see in the books if it's appropriate. I disagree. There has been ongoing debate about the precise power of the Nazgul. Tolkien tells us their chief weapon was fear and elves were utterly immune to this power of the Nazgul. Elves certainly had the weapons technology to pruduce the necessary arms to hurt nazgul and since Elves exited in both worlds, they could fight tem directly on their own terms. Of course any single Elf would have trouble againt multiple opponents but any halfway decent elven warrior would be a match for a single nazgul. Russ ###### From: fernwithy@aol.com (FernWithy) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Lines: 91 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder05.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 10 Aug 1999 21:09:28 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <19990810170928.01746.00000243@ng-fp1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail > >It's more efficient. It allows him to introduce the 4 hobbits at the >Party, and set the stage from there. It saves time not to have to >represent the passages of long periods of time. At party: show children messing around and dancing on tables, and another child helping his Dad in the garden. Blank screen: Seventeen years later: Sam in the garden, in relatively similar clothes. When Pippin and Merry are later introduced, they also have similar clothes, and their names are used. Then again, only Merry is shown in any proximity to the party in the book, and if he's going to pare down the script, he'll probably cut the scene where Merry is helping Frodo at Bag End when people are trying to sack it for treasure. >This is not very constructive. Do you really think that Jackson should >include the house at Crickenhollow? No, but Crickhollow would be nice. > Do you really think he has time for >that? Can you suggest another way for him to introduce Merry and Pippin >to the Company? Of course he has time for it. It's the first leg of the journey. Unless he's planning to *really* mess up the feel of the story by underplaying the role of the hobbits, he'd best damn well give Book 1 a good hour, and that's enough time to get Sam and Pippin and Frodo on the Road, then they hook up with Merry in Buckland. (Pippin is there to help pack, if you recall. It requires no special introduction.) At Crickhollow, they reveal that Sam has been spying. I believe I have seen a version of the story that reveals it this way, without wasting an iota of time in the process. > >In that case, how would *you* introduce Arwen without using up precious >screentime. It would have to be done efficiently. At the moment, I can't >think of a better idea. I know! I know! They're all at Rivendell, and this pretty chick comes in with Elrond, then waves to Aragorn, and he smiles at her. In the course of an actual conversation about something, someone mentions her name, as in "Oh, by the way..." I know I've seen this approach somewhere, too. And it doesn't even waste screen time giving her lines! >It will be so in the movie, if Jackson does it that way. > > Forget the will of Iluvatar -- now we have the will of Peter Jackson. >It would be nice if he could do lots of elaboration without doing any >condensing. If you were actually to try to write such a script yourself, >I think you would be more sympathetic to the problems he must deal with. Or less. I've adapted from novels frequently (and illegally, since I didn't have the rights, but I couldn't stand the adaptations that are out there). It is *not* that difficult. The one very legitimate point you make is that it is hard to show the passage of time in performance, and inner conflicts will take excellent actors. But there is nothing about adapting that would necessitate making Glorfindel into Her Royal Dullness. >Just leaving out stuff that he does not have time to portray accurately >could result in a chopped and incomprehensible film. I'd rather see >Jackson take a few liberties than have the film bomb. I'd rather it not be made than have it be twisted and bolloxed up. If you can't get it all into three movies, wait 'til you can afford six and get it all in there. >Tolkien's handling of women characters is the one aspect of LOTR that >Jackson might actually be able to improve. It would make sense to >introduce Eowyn at this point, since she will play a role later. I am woman, hear me roar. And I'm roaring "Don't do this." >You worry too much. We will not be able to judge until we see how it is >handled. I think it's safe to say that if Galadriel's mirror is handled in Rivendell, then the rest is not going to be all that well-handled either. Is she to be Arwen's mother now? (Fern grasps at her heart, realizing that this is more than possible, given the suggestions already out there) >The film WILL have to take some liberties, And if it takes too many, we WILL have to stay away from it, and skewer it at every opportunity. --- FernWithy "If [moral] behavior is to be, it cannot be as a result of an intellectual moral stance; it is because there is such a thing as love, merely a practical fact, a practical force in human affairs." -- Stephen King (Danse Macabre) ###### From: orius@webtv.net (David Sulger) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 03:14:08 -0400 (EDT) Organization: WebTV Subscriber Lines: 3 Message-ID: <22358-37B122C0-68@newsd-251.iap.bryant.webtv.net> References: <19990810095130.16842.00001615@ngol01.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.webtv.net Mime-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAuAhUAuVe+0iBqE3wSXX9X/i2ct4bXLkMCFQCAFvaMvo/jZthyBmqtmJc+vDf2AQ== Content-Disposition: Inline Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!webtv.net!not-for-mail I just learned about this movie, thanks to this newsgroup. All I have to say is that I hope it doesn't get butchered too badly. ###### From: mercy@halcyon.com (Robert S. Frangooles) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: 11 Aug 1999 20:11:42 GMT Organization: WinStar NorthWest Nexus Lines: 28 Message-ID: <7osldu$o1i$1@brokaw.wa.com> References: <19990810170928.01746.00000243@ng-fp1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coho.halcyon.com X-Trace: brokaw.wa.com 934402302 24626 198.137.231.21 (11 Aug 1999 20:11:42 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Aug 1999 20:11:42 GMT X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!206.63.63.70!nwnews.wa.com!brokaw.wa.com!not-for-mail If you are not able to separate the two (book from dramatization) you will be disapointed. I would think this is pretty much a given. I realize that this is easier said than done, but it is (to me at least) at the core of being able to enjoy both. As an example, think about the recent movie "Elizabeth". In my opinion this was a very enjoyable movie, however if you were to let the facts (as far as the historical record dictates) be the guide to your enjoyment, you would probably despise it. This will most likely be the case for quite a few of the fanatics out there. I luckily am very adapt at suspending disbelief when I go to a film, which also make me very gullible ;). Bob FernWithy (fernwithy@aol.com) wrote: : : And if it takes too many, we WILL have to stay away from it, and skewer it at : every opportunity. : : --- : FernWithy : "If [moral] behavior is to be, it cannot be as a result of an intellectual : moral stance; it is because there is such a thing as love, merely a practical : fact, a practical force in human affairs." -- Stephen King (Danse Macabre) ###### From: "Moriarty" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 04:18:42 -0700 References: <37AF94BF.D5347B65@virginia.edu> X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 X-ELN-Date: 12 Aug 1999 11:21:38 GMT X-ELN-Insert-Date: Thu Aug 12 04:25:20 1999 Organization: The Moriarty Labs X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 Lines: 23 NNTP-Posting-Host: pool634-cvx.ds68-ca-us.dialup.earthlink.net Message-ID: <7ouao2$dee$1@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uunet!sea.uu.net!dfw.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!posted-from-earthlink!not-for-mail Larry Richards wrote in message <37AF94BF.D5347B65@virginia.edu>... >Steuard Jensen wrote: >> > >I read Moriarty' script review as well and decided that Moriarty is a >completely unreliable source. (at least I pray he is.) I have more >confidence in PJ (from what I have read in his question and answer >sessions) than to believe he could so *needlessly* butcher the story >line. > Well, Larry, you are free to believe anything you want, and you are free to disagree with my opinion, but if you want to check out the reliability of my reports over the last few years, just do a search of my name on AICN and you'll see that I don't send things in unless I've seen or read what I claim I have. I don't spread false rumors. I have an impeccable record, and it's easy to check. "Moriarty" out. ###### From: "Moriarty" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 04:21:07 -0700 References: <37AF94BF.D5347B65@virginia.edu> X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 X-ELN-Date: 12 Aug 1999 11:24:03 GMT X-ELN-Insert-Date: Thu Aug 12 04:25:20 1999 Organization: The Moriarty Labs X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 Lines: 30 NNTP-Posting-Host: pool634-cvx.ds68-ca-us.dialup.earthlink.net Message-ID: <7ouasj$dn7$1@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news.belnet.be!newshub.bart.net!news.tvd.be!uunet!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!posted-from-earthlink!not-for-mail Steuard Jensen wrote in message ... >Quoth Larry Richards : >> I read Moriarty' script review as well and decided that Moriarty is a >> completely unreliable source. > >Perhaps, to give him a touch more credit, he simply doesn't know LotR >well enough to know when his "summaries" are misrepresenting essential >elements... and maybe it was just the two-film condensation that was >the problem. I remain very hopeful. > > Steuard Jensen Steuard... I may not have devoted my life to studying the arcana of one particular set of novels, but I have enjoyed a long relationship with the books, and chose my words very carefully when writing my review. If something strikes you as different than the books, well, guess what? I included the detail on purpose. As far as the 2-film vs. 3-film debate, just remember that PJ is only adding a total of 30 pages of material to what already exists. The scripts were giant to begin with, and all told, the three films will be about 120 pages each. The 2-film draft is a solid blueprint by which to judge what shape the final films will take. "Moriarty" out. ###### From: Solinas Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 10:13:31 -0400 Lines: 31 Message-ID: <37B2D687.636659B9@erols.com> References: <19990810095130.16842.00001615@ngol01.aol.com> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: cTgvXZCSgs+DvbLWICmQJ4yf8FSQybf1S5B3E5+65tE= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Aug 1999 15:20:40 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!intermedia!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail McREsq wrote: > I disagree. There has been ongoing debate about the precise power of the > Nazgul. Tolkien tells us their chief weapon was fear and elves were utterly > immune to this power of the Nazgul. In the TT, The White Rider, Legolas tells Gandalf, ''The Winged Messenger! I shot at him with the bow Galadriel above Sarn Gebir, and I felled him from the sky. He filled us all with fear. What new terror is this?''. This shows that Elves AREN'T immune. Eldar might be, but Elves in general aren't. > Elves certainly had the weapons technology > to pruduce the necessary arms to hurt nazgul and since Elves exited in both > worlds, they could fight tem directly on their own terms. Of course any single > Elf would have trouble againt multiple opponents but any halfway decent elven > warrior would be a match for a single nazgul. Glorfindel was a Elda. Eldar are more powerful then the Dark-Elves. > Russ Luthien It's the end of the world as we know it, I feel fine! ###### From: Aaron Bady Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 10:25:23 -0500 Organization: Ohio State University Lines: 22 Sender: bady.1@ip213058.dialup.wvnet.edu Message-ID: <37B2E762.7336FE62@osu.edu> References: <19990810095130.16842.00001615@ngol01.aol.com> Reply-To: bady.1@osu.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: ip213058.dialup.wvnet.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu 934468071 11774 129.71.213.58 (12 Aug 1999 14:27:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@osu.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Aug 1999 14:27:51 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!nntp.service.ohio-state.edu!not-for-mail > Tolkien tells us their chief weapon was fear and elves were utterly > immune to this power of the Nazgul. Elves certainly had the weapons technology > to pruduce the necessary arms to hurt nazgul and since Elves exited in both > worlds, they could fight tem directly on their own terms. Of course any single > Elf would have trouble againt multiple opponents but any halfway decent elven > warrior would be a match for a single nazgul. I haven't read the books more than a dozen times or so, (which makes me something of a duffer on this group I guess) but that statement can't possibly be true. Your facts make sense, but come on, this is the freakin NAZGUL we're talking about; there's a reason people fear them! I think the "fear is their greatest weapon" line merely reflects the idea that it's more time efficient for them to fly around above Minas Tirith scaring the crap out of the guards who then get their clocks cleaned by orcs, than for the Nazgul to do the dirty work themselves. Maybe Glorfindel or other powerful elf lords could have a decent chance against a single elf, but I don't think Bob the elf on the street would be too anxious to jump in the ring. Aaron ###### From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?E=E4rendil?= the Mariner Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:17:30 -0400 Organization: Havens of the River Sirion Lines: 39 Message-ID: <37B2E587.A887752D@ma.ultranet.com> References: <37AF94BF.D5347B65@virginia.edu> <7ouasj$dn7$1@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <37b2d34c.5414744@news.kiva.net> Reply-To: sauron.darklord@bigfoot.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: qCDZVpydGOwauDrT0AoTEbRcN7trWmTzDY2fiUMf3gY= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Aug 1999 15:14:47 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-fra.pop.de!newsfeed.nacamar.de!howland.erols.net!outgoing.news.rcn.net.MISMATCH!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail A far as I know, from my knowledge (which, of course, as a simple member of a newgroup of obsessed Tolkien fans who constantly contradict one another, is not always correct), Tom Bombadil is not in the new movies. Though he is a great character, and I, personally, would like him to be in the movies, I can understand why he wouldn't be put in. Though to us it may seem like he has a great deal of influence on the script, to the people who don't know Tolkien's world so well, it would just seem unneccessary. After all, probably his biggest direct result on the outcome would be Merry's numenorean blade with which he hindered the Witch-king. However, that is not easy to tell in a movie (especially where you don't want to confuse people by going too deep into Tolkien's history of the world), and it is *not* really needed to tell the story. With an already very long script, the Barrow-downs scene would most likely be cut anyway. Swords are everywhere in these books. The only other times he is mentioned is, one, at the Council of Elrond, where he is mentioned as a possibility for hiding the Ring, then quickly discarded, and, two, on the return journey in RotK, where Gandalf goes to talk to him, but you never find about what. This is just me trying to rationalize another's decision, and not my personal feelings, so no flames please. If you still want Bombadil in, you can always sign the petition at http://Ringbearer.org -Earendil "Jeff G." wrote: > All I want to know is: Is Tom Bombadil in the script? Tom has always > been one of my favorite characters in the books and I was really > ticked when he was not included in the Bakshi version. > > Thanks, > Jeff G. ###### Message-ID: <37B2F60C.CAA8F699@mediaone.net> From: Cian X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en]C-MOENE (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review References: <19990810095130.16842.00001615@ngol01.aol.com> <37B2D687.636659B9@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 24 Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:27:56 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.128.99.214 X-Complaints-To: abuse@mediaone.net X-Trace: ndnws01.ne.mediaone.net 934475330 24.128.99.214 (Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:28:50 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:28:50 EDT Organization: Road Runner Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!24.128.1.125!chnws03.mediaone.net!24.128.1.101!chnws05.ne.mediaone.net!24.128.60.9!ndnws01.ne.mediaone.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Solinas wrote: > In the TT, The White Rider, Legolas tells Gandalf, ''The Winged Messenger! I shot > at him with the bow Galadriel above Sarn Gebir, and I felled him from the sky. He > filled us all with fear. What new terror is this?''. This shows that Elves AREN'T > immune. Eldar might be, but Elves in general aren't. Technically Legolas is Eldarin. The line in 'The Passing of the Grey Company' describes Legolas: 'for whom the ghosts of men have no terror', but perhaps the Nazgul have a little extra effect in this regard. But perhaps too, Legolas was speaking self inclusive to be nice -- after all, his response to the Nazgul was fairly aggressive. Twangggg! > Glorfindel was a Elda. Eldar are more powerful then the Dark-Elves. Glorfindel was 'extra empowered' by his reincarnate circumstance, due to the nature of his sacrifice in Gondolin. Why even the Witch King gets a bit nervous when Glorfindel shows up. Cheers, Cian ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review X-Nntp-Posting-Host: harper.uchicago.edu Message-ID: Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Organization: The University of Chicago X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999) References: <37AF94BF.D5347B65@virginia.edu> <7ouasj$dn7$1@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 13:37:48 GMT Lines: 32 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!128.174.5.49!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!not-for-mail First off, thanks! I never expected a personal response, and I appreciate the clarifications. (I'm assuming authenticity in all this, by the way; someone pretending to be Moriarty just to post these couple messages would be far too bizarre. Posted and emailed.) Quoth "Moriarty" : > If something strikes you as different than the books, well, guess > what? I included the detail on purpose. That was, in fact, my initial assumption, but in the face of direct attacks on your credibility, I thought I'd propose an alternative that still left room for completely unfettered hope for the project. :) > ...PJ is only adding a total of 30 pages of material to what already > exists. ...The 2-film draft is a solid blueprint by which to judge > what shape the final films will take. Naturally, I'm sorry to hear that, considering some of the concerns that I voiced in my earlier discussion. However... I'm _still_ hanging on to my hope for the excellence of the films for all I'm worth. Despite the "factual differences" that you pointed out in your review, I remain inspired by your overall strong approval. (I keep telling myself "it's only six hours!"... it helps a little.) Even with the prospect of total "book consistency" (not even "book completenes") fading away, I fully expect that Jackson will do the best that he possibly can to translate LotR to the big screen. Oh, and thanks for all the information you've managed to gather for us; I and many other fans are truly grateful. :) Keep up the good work! Steuard Jensen ###### From: jgabbardd@kiva.net (Jeff G.) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 14:00:07 GMT Organization: Kiva Networking Lines: 43 Message-ID: <37b2d34c.5414744@news.kiva.net> References: <37AF94BF.D5347B65@virginia.edu> <7ouasj$dn7$1@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: usrpri1-15.indy.kiva.net X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.cwix.com!206.97.64.40!news.kiva.net!not-for-mail All I want to know is: Is Tom Bombadil in the script? Tom has always been one of my favorite characters in the books and I was really ticked when he was not included in the Bakshi version. Thanks, Jeff G. On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 04:21:07 -0700, "Moriarty" < > >Steuard Jensen wrote in message ... >>Quoth Larry Richards : >>> I read Moriarty' script review as well and decided that Moriarty is a >>> completely unreliable source. >> >>Perhaps, to give him a touch more credit, he simply doesn't know LotR >>well enough to know when his "summaries" are misrepresenting essential >>elements... and maybe it was just the two-film condensation that was >>the problem. I remain very hopeful. >> >> Steuard Jensen > >Steuard... > >I may not have devoted my life to studying the arcana of one particular set >of novels, but I have enjoyed a long relationship with the books, and chose >my words very carefully when writing my review. If something strikes you as >different than the books, well, guess what? I included the detail on >purpose. > >As far as the 2-film vs. 3-film debate, just remember that PJ is only adding >a total of 30 pages of material to what already exists. The scripts were >giant to begin with, and all told, the three films will be about 120 pages >each. The 2-film draft is a solid blueprint by which to judge what shape >the final films will take. > >"Moriarty" out. > > > ###### From: sonshi57@mindspring.com (Douglas Henderson) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 15:15:25 GMT Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 46 Message-ID: <37b2e401.5953749@news.mindspring.com> References: <19990810170928.01746.00000243@ng-fp1.aol.com> <7osldu$o1i$1@brokaw.wa.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: a5.f7.02.36 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Server-Date: 12 Aug 1999 15:16:38 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!newscore.ipf.de!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!firehose.mindspring.com!not-for-mail On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 16:48:36 +0200, "Öjevind Lång" wrote: >Robert S. Frangooles hath written: >> >> >> >>This will most likely be the case for quite a few of the fanatics out >>there. I luckily am very adapt at suspending disbelief when I go to a >>film, which also make me very gullible ;). >> > > >If one becomes a fanatic by not wanting a film-maker to change too many >things in a story because then it is no longer the same story, then you can >count me among the fanatics. I've been doubtful from the beginning about >seeing the films. Those doubts have increased now that it seems that many of >the rumours are indeed true - Arwen will ride around on her great big harse >waving a sword and saving those helpless little men; Théoden will reside in >Helm's Deep and try to imprison Gandalf, who only manages to escape on >Shadowfax because Éowyn helps him; Gimli loves wine, women and song and a >merry quip, particularly at Legolas' expense; Merry and Pippin are incurable >little practical jokers; Sauron is observed talking and instructing his >minions; and so on. Those who can get a kick out of seeing such a rendition >of Tolkien's works are welcome to do so; but you might be somewhat more >sparing with the talk about "fanatics". > One argument I've heard until it bores me to death is that these films >must be defendedat all costs because they will "encourage more people to >read Tolkien". But lots of people read his works already, and I don't regard >them as some kind of gospel that must be transmitted to everybody at any >cost. > >Öjevind > A question. Could anyone make the LOTR, as it is, with minimal modifications, into a movie that would draw audiences? Printed word and movie screen are two different media and there is always a transmutation, mostly for ill, IMHO. Is the fault the filmmaker's for disappointing us, or our fault for having unrealistic expectations? ###### From: mcresq@aol.com (McREsq) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Lines: 74 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder07.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 12 Aug 1999 15:32:35 GMT References: <37B2E762.7336FE62@osu.edu> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Message-ID: <19990812113235.03680.00000030@ngol03.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail In article <37B2E762.7336FE62@osu.edu>, Aaron Bady writes: >> Tolkien tells us their chief weapon was fear and elves were utterly >> immune to this power of the Nazgul. Elves certainly had the weapons >technology >> to pruduce the necessary arms to hurt nazgul and since Elves exited in both >> worlds, they could fight tem directly on their own terms. Of course any >single >> Elf would have trouble againt multiple opponents but any halfway decent >elven >> warrior would be a match for a single nazgul. > > I haven't read the books more than a dozen times or so, (which makes me >something of a duffer on this group I guess) but that statement can't >possibly be >true. Your facts make sense, but come on, this is the freakin NAZGUL we're >talking >about; there's a reason people fear them! > I think the "fear is their greatest weapon" line merely reflects the idea >that >it's more time efficient for them to fly around above Minas Tirith scaring >the crap >out of the guards who then get their clocks cleaned by orcs, than for the >Nazgul to >do the dirty work themselves. > Maybe Glorfindel or other powerful elf lords could have a decent chance >against >a single elf, but I don't think Bob the elf on the street would be too >anxious to >jump in the ring. > It's a little unclear precisely where you're disagreeing with me. Tolkien said in one of his Letters that the Nazgul's chief weapon was fear. We see that played out by the reports of Boromir describing in Rivendell the Nazgul's effect on Gondorian forces in Osgiliath. We also see that in Unfinished Tales where Tolkien tells how even some of Aragorn's Dunedain of the North were driven off by the fear the Nazgul instilled in human opponents. Neverhteless, The Nazgul were not invincible. I think it was also in unfinished Tales where Tolkien tells us that Sauron was reticent to send the Nazgul out to search for the Ring because the fear they spread tended to operate as a beacon that allowed the Wise to know they were on the loose and where they were. Sauron clearly wanted to avoid a counter-attack by the Wise and therefore the Nazgul did much of their searching somewhat on the sly. We see the Nazgul's vulnerability during the attack on Weathertop. Unlike other encounters with mortals, on Weathertop, the 5 Nazgul are faced with a group that was not overly cowed by their chief weapon. It gets little press, but I think it interesting that Merry, Sam and Pippin gave a better account of themselves againt the Nazgul than did hardened Gondorian soldiers in the battle for Osgiliath. Led by Aragorn, the hobbits held their ground and the Nazgul were driven off by the fire wielded by Aragorn. (Note, there is some disagreement on the interpretation of what happened here but that's my reading of the scene, so there!). Elves would not be susceptible to the Nazgul's chief weapon. We see, somewhat analogously, in the Paths of the Dead that Legolas is utterly unconcerned by the ghosts of men. It is told that the Nazgul exist in the unseen world and that Elves exist in both the seen and the unseen world. Thus Elves would have a better ability to fight the Nazgul. The Witch King studiously avoided Glorfindel at both the Battle of Fornost and the attack at the fords of Bruinen. Thus, I think it fair to say that a decent elven warrior would be able to handle a single Nazgul - although, as you say "Bob" the elf might have trouble. Indeed, there were Elves such as Glorfindel that were considered powerful enough to take on all nine. Lock the Nine in a room with Glorfindel, Elladan, Elrohir, Aragorn and Faramir all outfitted with Elven or Dunedain weapons and I guarantee you it will be the good guys who walk out. Russ ###### From: mcresq@aol.com (McREsq) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Lines: 37 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder07.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 12 Aug 1999 15:40:46 GMT References: <37B2D687.636659B9@erols.com> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Message-ID: <19990812114046.03680.00000033@ngol03.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!howland.erols.net!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail In article <37B2D687.636659B9@erols.com>, Solinas writes: >> I disagree. There has been ongoing debate about the precise power of the >> Nazgul. Tolkien tells us their chief weapon was fear and elves were >utterly >> immune to this power of the Nazgul. > > In the TT, The White Rider, Legolas tells Gandalf, ''The Winged Messenger! > I shot at him with the bow Galadriel above Sarn Gebir, and I felled him >from > the sky. He filled us all with fear. What new terror is this?''. This >shows >that > Elves AREN'T immune. Eldar might be, but Elves in general aren't. Good quote. It appears Legolas was somewhat affected by the Nazgul fear thingy, but also relative to mortals less affected. He kept his composure up enough to draw a bead on it in the dark shoot the mother down, BTW, Legolas is an Eldar. His father Thranduil was a Sindarin elf, therefore Legolas is Elda not Avari. > >> Elves certainly had the weapons technology >> to pruduce the necessary arms to hurt nazgul and since Elves exited in both >> worlds, they could fight tem directly on their own terms. Of course any >single >> Elf would have trouble againt multiple opponents but any halfway decent >elven >> warrior would be a match for a single nazgul. > > Glorfindel was a Elda. Eldar are more powerful then the Dark-Elves. Legolas was an Elda. However, Glorfindel was also Calaquendi whereas Legolas was not. Russ ###### From: mercy@halcyon.com (Robert S. Frangooles) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: 12 Aug 1999 15:48:32 GMT Organization: WinStar NorthWest Nexus Lines: 77 Message-ID: <7ouqcg$aqu$1@brokaw.wa.com> References: <19990810170928.01746.00000243@ng-fp1.aol.com> <7osldu$o1i$1@brokaw.wa.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coho.halcyon.com X-Trace: brokaw.wa.com 934472912 11102 198.137.231.21 (12 Aug 1999 15:48:32 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Aug 1999 15:48:32 GMT X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!206.63.63.70!nwnews.wa.com!brokaw.wa.com!not-for-mail Öjevind Lång (ojevind.lang@swipnet.se) wrote: : Robert S. Frangooles hath written: : > : > : > : >This will most likely be the case for quite a few of the fanatics out : >there. I luckily am very adapt at suspending disbelief when I go to a : >film, which also make me very gullible ;). : > : : : If one becomes a fanatic by not wanting a film-maker to change too many : things in a story because then it is no longer the same story, then you can : count me among the fanatics. I've been doubtful from the beginning about : seeing the films. Those doubts have increased now that it seems that many of Well, in my short span of years (35) I have probably read the trilogy somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-15 times (frequence has diminished over the last 5-10 years). I have a very strong grasp of the story (though I do claim to be a "middle earth historian"). I just really really enjoy the trilogy as a read. If you believe you will get angry by seeing the movies then by all means you should not go. Unless you are a masochist there is no reason to knowingly make yourself miserable. : the rumours are indeed true - Arwen will ride around on her great big harse : waving a sword and saving those helpless little men; Théoden will reside in : Helm's Deep and try to imprison Gandalf, who only manages to escape on : Shadowfax because Éowyn helps him; Gimli loves wine, women and song and a : merry quip, particularly at Legolas' expense; Merry and Pippin are incurable : little practical jokers; Sauron is observed talking and instructing his : minions; and so on. Those who can get a kick out of seeing such a rendition : of Tolkien's works are welcome to do so; but you might be somewhat more : sparing with the talk about "fanatics". After spending several months reading this group (and enjoying) I see no reason not to use the word fanatic somewhat freely, if you do not see the fanatacism in many (if not most) of the threads, you aren't being objective. If all of the above modifications come about in the movie, we will just have to see how they work in the context of the film. If the movie works, the movie works. I think it is a bit pre-mature to have a point by point discussion of the film flaws, when the film hasn't even started filming. My opinion of film is that a director is an artist with a vision they are trying to put form to. That that vision should be controlled/limited by a text or the opinions of the fans who adore that text borders on censorship. Bakshi made a film that I saw when I probably done with my second or so reading, I was primed for it. I thought it sucked. It did not however ruin the trilogy for me. It was simply a bad movie. : One argument I've heard until it bores me to death is that these films : must be defendedat all costs because they will "encourage more people to : read Tolkien". But lots of people read his works already, and I don't regard : them as some kind of gospel that must be transmitted to everybody at any : cost. : : Öjevind : Since you are so upset over the changes suggested in the draft script review it would seem that you do consider them "gospel". I agree however that bringing about more readership because of a movie is really a phantom benefit, unless of course a spate of newbie questions is something the group considers a benefit! ;) Bob ps I have only seen Heavenly Creatures which I thought was an excellent film, I think PJ is going to create a very good movie. : ###### From: diane_hancock@hp.com (Diane Hancock) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 16:13:24 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard Cupertino Site Lines: 20 Message-ID: <37b2f1bb.70738817@news.corp.hp.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: ntdpc111.pa.itc.hp.com X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!news.cup.hp.com!not-for-mail On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 01:59:40 GMT, sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) wrote: > >4. "...before another horrific encounter with the Witch King. Arwen's > introduction here is strong..." > > This certainly seems to imply that Arwen replaced Glorfindel in > this script. > > On another note, I sincerely doubt that Arwen would be _able_ to > "ride openly against the Nine"; So now she's to be Arwen: Warrior Elf-Princess instead of Arwen: Banner Seamstress? Blech. By the time it's revealed that Dernhelm is Eowyn, fierce females will be old hat. I'm an Eowyn fan, I don't want her "specialness" downplayed. Diane H. ###### From: "Öjevind Lång" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <19990810170928.01746.00000243@ng-fp1.aol.com> <7osldu$o1i$1@brokaw.wa.com> Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Lines: 32 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 16:48:36 +0200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.244.159.85 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 934469545 130.244.159.85 (Thu, 12 Aug 1999 16:52:25 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 16:52:25 MET DST Organization: A Customer of Tele2 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!isdnet!newsfeed.icl.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail Robert S. Frangooles hath written: > > > >This will most likely be the case for quite a few of the fanatics out >there. I luckily am very adapt at suspending disbelief when I go to a >film, which also make me very gullible ;). > If one becomes a fanatic by not wanting a film-maker to change too many things in a story because then it is no longer the same story, then you can count me among the fanatics. I've been doubtful from the beginning about seeing the films. Those doubts have increased now that it seems that many of the rumours are indeed true - Arwen will ride around on her great big harse waving a sword and saving those helpless little men; Théoden will reside in Helm's Deep and try to imprison Gandalf, who only manages to escape on Shadowfax because Éowyn helps him; Gimli loves wine, women and song and a merry quip, particularly at Legolas' expense; Merry and Pippin are incurable little practical jokers; Sauron is observed talking and instructing his minions; and so on. Those who can get a kick out of seeing such a rendition of Tolkien's works are welcome to do so; but you might be somewhat more sparing with the talk about "fanatics". One argument I've heard until it bores me to death is that these films must be defendedat all costs because they will "encourage more people to read Tolkien". But lots of people read his works already, and I don't regard them as some kind of gospel that must be transmitted to everybody at any cost. Öjevind ###### From: Aaron Bady Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 18:35:37 -0500 Organization: Ohio State University Lines: 105 Sender: bady.1@ip213066.dialup.wvnet.edu Message-ID: <37B35A49.2A0F4B58@osu.edu> References: <37B2E762.7336FE62@osu.edu> <19990812113235.03680.00000030@ngol03.aol.com> Reply-To: bady.1@osu.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: ip213066.dialup.wvnet.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu 934497477 2429 129.71.213.66 (12 Aug 1999 22:37:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@osu.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Aug 1999 22:37:57 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newspeer1.nac.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!nntp.service.ohio-state.edu!not-for-mail McREsq wrote: > In article <37B2E762.7336FE62@osu.edu>, Aaron Bady writes: > > >> Tolkien tells us their chief weapon was fear and elves were utterly > >> immune to this power of the Nazgul. Elves certainly had the weapons > >technology > >> to pruduce the necessary arms to hurt nazgul and since Elves exited in both > >> worlds, they could fight tem directly on their own terms. Of course any > >single > >> Elf would have trouble againt multiple opponents but any halfway decent > >elven > >> warrior would be a match for a single nazgul. > > > > I haven't read the books more than a dozen times or so, (which makes me > >something of a duffer on this group I guess) but that statement can't > >possibly be > >true. Your facts make sense, but come on, this is the freakin NAZGUL we're > >talking > >about; there's a reason people fear them! > > I think the "fear is their greatest weapon" line merely reflects the idea > >that > >it's more time efficient for them to fly around above Minas Tirith scaring > >the crap > >out of the guards who then get their clocks cleaned by orcs, than for the > >Nazgul to > >do the dirty work themselves. > > Maybe Glorfindel or other powerful elf lords could have a decent chance > >against > >a single elf, but I don't think Bob the elf on the street would be too > >anxious to > >jump in the ring. > > > > It's a little unclear precisely where you're disagreeing with me. Tolkien said > in one of his Letters that the Nazgul's chief weapon was fear. We see that > played out by the reports of Boromir describing in Rivendell the Nazgul's > effect on Gondorian forces in Osgiliath. We also see that in Unfinished Tales > where Tolkien tells how even some of Aragorn's Dunedain of the North were > driven off by the fear the Nazgul instilled in human opponents. > > Neverhteless, The Nazgul were not invincible. I think it was also in > unfinished Tales where Tolkien tells us that Sauron was reticent to send the > Nazgul out to search for the Ring because the fear they spread tended to > operate as a beacon that allowed the Wise to know they were on the loose and > where they were. Sauron clearly wanted to avoid a counter-attack by the Wise > and therefore the Nazgul did much of their searching somewhat on the sly. > > We see the Nazgul's vulnerability during the attack on Weathertop. Unlike > other encounters with mortals, on Weathertop, the 5 Nazgul are faced with a > group that was not overly cowed by their chief weapon. It gets little press, > but I think it interesting that Merry, Sam and Pippin gave a better account of > themselves againt the Nazgul than did hardened Gondorian soldiers in the battle > for Osgiliath. Led by Aragorn, the hobbits held their ground and the Nazgul > were driven off by the fire wielded by Aragorn. (Note, there is some > disagreement on the interpretation of what happened here but that's my reading > of the scene, so there!). > > Elves would not be susceptible to the Nazgul's chief weapon. We see, somewhat > analogously, in the Paths of the Dead that Legolas is utterly unconcerned by > the ghosts of men. It is told that the Nazgul exist in the unseen world and > that Elves exist in both the seen and the unseen world. Thus Elves would have > a better ability to fight the Nazgul. The Witch King studiously avoided > Glorfindel at both the Battle of Fornost and the attack at the fords of > Bruinen. > > Thus, I think it fair to say that a decent elven warrior would be able to > handle a single Nazgul - although, as you say "Bob" the elf might have trouble. > Indeed, there were Elves such as Glorfindel that were considered powerful > enough to take on all nine. Lock the Nine in a room with Glorfindel, Elladan, > Elrohir, Aragorn and Faramir all outfitted with Elven or Dunedain weapons and I > guarantee you it will be the good guys who walk out. > I'm not saying Glorfindel and a few other elf lords couldn't make a good accounting of themselves and I agree that the nine were not the awesome powerhouses that many cowering mortals thought they were; still, they were not to be sneezed at. It's a pretty small point (I'm not disagreeing with you very much), but your statement: but any halfway decent >elven >> warrior would be a match for a single nazgul. is a bit farther than I would go. In "Flight to the Ford", Glorfindel tells Frodo that there are "few even in Rivendell that can ride openly against the nine" (pg 280 in my version). perhaps our definations of "halfway decent" differ? : ) If the nine are weak enough to be taken down by "halfway decent" elven warriors, then why weren't they? My interpretation is that Glorfindel and a *very* select few others might have attempted it (I would not count Aragorn in that list, wise and strong among mortals as he is - perhaps I am not familiar enough with the men of numenor though) but they were mostly busy elsewhere. By the way, where do you get the statement that Glorfindel might have been able to take on all nine anyway? (I can't remember anything like that). Aaron (In this corner, his lordship the Witchking, weighing in at... :) > > Russ ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 19:40:17 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 40 Message-ID: References: <37AF94BF.D5347B65@virginia.edu> <7ouasj$dn7$1@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <37b2d34c.5414744@news.kiva.net> <37B2E587.A887752D@ma.ultranet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Sender: jbwhelan@amanda In-Reply-To: <37B2E587.A887752D@ma.ultranet.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, [iso-8859-1] E=E4rendil the Mariner wrote: > A far as I know, from my knowledge (which, of course, as a simple member = of a > newgroup of obsessed Tolkien fans who constantly contradict one another, = is not > always correct), Tom Bombadil is not in the new movies. >=20 > Though he is a great character, and I, personally, would like him to be i= n the > movies, I can understand why he wouldn't be put in. [snip some good reasons] =20 > This is just me trying to rationalize another's decision, and not my pers= onal > feelings, so no flames please. I think it is odd that you should have to appologize for and distance yourself from a position so obvious as to be almost self evident.=20 Bombadil just plain will not and cannot possibly be in any halfway intelligent 6-hour adaptation. Jackson has to take a story that takes over 50 hours to read, and condense it to something that takes only 6 hours of screen time. Chopping out Bombadil is only the first and easiest of a thousand painful choices that must be made. If you want him in, you will have to wait for the 18-hour miniseries (no, not the 12-hour version -- he will probably have to be cut out of that too). =20 > If you still want Bombadil in, you can always sign the petition at > http://Ringbearer.org If you wish, but it will make no difference whatsoever. Besides, making such a vote will be meaningless unless you can suggest to Jackson some other section of his 300-page script that he can cut out in order to make room. -- John Whelan ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 20:11:12 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 77 Message-ID: References: <19990810170928.01746.00000243@ng-fp1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: jbwhelan@amanda In-Reply-To: <19990810170928.01746.00000243@ng-fp1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news1.carrier1.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed1.news.nl.uu.net!sun4nl!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan On 10 Aug 1999, FernWithy wrote: [snip stuff] > Forget the will of Iluvatar -- now we have the will of Peter Jackson. If Illuvitar had granted Peter Jackson the opportunity and means to make a 20-hour adaptation of LOTR, I am sure he would have been happy to do so. > >It would be nice if he could do lots of elaboration without doing any > >condensing. If you were actually to try to write such a script yourself, > >I think you would be more sympathetic to the problems he must deal with. > > Or less. I've adapted from novels frequently (and illegally, since I didn't > have the rights, but I couldn't stand the adaptations that are out there). It > is *not* that difficult. Well, I'd like to see your 2-hour script adaptation of the Fellowship so I could compare with Bakshi's or Jackson's. I'm sure it is in fact actually possible to write a 6-hour adaptation that is totally faithful, but will it be good? It seems to me that their are only three alternatives to some level of condensation of scenes and characters: 1) It plays like a soul-less plot summary, entirely lacking in depth or flow or characterization, and full of fast and confusing exposition. 2) It plays like "Scenes from the Lord of the Rings". Everything there is faithful, but it's not all there and it doesn't tie together, and the audience says "huh?" every time the scene shifts 3) Both of the Above. > The one very legitimate point you make is that it is > hard to show the passage of time in performance, and inner conflicts will take > excellent actors. But there is nothing about adapting that would necessitate > making Glorfindel into Her Royal Dullness. True. One alternative will be to leave her out entirely. I admit that this possibility is a reasonable choice, but Jackson has said that Arwen will be featured, and this will mean she needs to be featured WHILE Jackson is telling the bare story. He will not have time to set aside scenes just for Arwen that do not otherwise advance the story. Earlier, you suggested featuring her in a distracting cameo that serves no purpose except to make the audience go "huh?". Aside from the fact that even this wastes precious and extremely limited screen-time, it is also interferes with a films focus. It would be bad screenwriting. Sorry. > >Just leaving out stuff that he does not have time to portray accurately > >could result in a chopped and incomprehensible film. I'd rather see > >Jackson take a few liberties than have the film bomb. > I'd rather it not be made than have it be twisted and bolloxed up. If > you can't get it all into three movies, wait 'til you can afford six and > get it all in there. Perhaps, if Jackson does a good job and creates a popular and successful trilogy of films, then a demand will be created, and you WILL eventually see the 12-hour adaptation you desire, with the time for the faithfulness you want. This can only happen if Jackson does NOT follow your advice. If he did, his films would bomb, and no film company thereafter would touch Tolkein material with a 10-foot pole. A more-likely result of a commercially successful Peter Jackson trilogy would be a 2-hour live-action adaptation of the Hobbit. Now that is certainly something I would like to see, and at least here the material is not so vast that it could not be covered faithfully. > >The film WILL have to take some liberties, > And if it takes too many, we WILL have to stay away from it, and skewer > it at every opportunity. If you stay away from it, you will miss many opportunities to skewer it. -- John Whelan ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 20:26:30 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <37AF94BF.D5347B65@virginia.edu> <7ouasj$dn7$1@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <37b2d34c.5414744@news.kiva.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: jbwhelan@amanda In-Reply-To: <37b2d34c.5414744@news.kiva.net> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Jeff G. wrote: > All I want to know is: Is Tom Bombadil in the script? Tom has always > been one of my favorite characters in the books and I was really > ticked when he was not included in the Bakshi version. No. He will not be in the film. Jackson has said as much. Even if he had not, if would seem to me to be self evident that there is no room for Bombadil in any 6-hour adaptation. Now if they made one huge 3-hour film out of Book I alone, (from the beginning up to the Flight to the Ford) then I could see including him including him, along with the adventures of the Old Forest and the Barrow Downs. A lesser treatment will have to focus on those events that more directly concern Sauron and the Ring. Bombadil and the Old Forest are one big side-adventure. -- John Whelan ###### From: Larry Richards Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 20:31:12 -0400 Organization: University of Virginia Lines: 54 Message-ID: <37B3674E.673516F@virginia.edu> References: <19990810170928.01746.00000243@ng-fp1.aol.com> <7osldu$o1i$1@brokaw.wa.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: slip-3-3.acc.virginia.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Corel-MessageType: EMail Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU!not-for-mail Öjevind Lång wrote: > If one becomes a fanatic by not wanting a film-maker to change too > many > things in a story because then it is no longer the same story, then > you can > count me among the fanatics. I've been doubtful from the beginning > about > seeing the films. Those doubts have increased now that it seems that > many of > the rumours are indeed true - Arwen will ride around on her great big > harse > waving a sword and saving those helpless little men; Théoden will > reside in > Helm's Deep and try to imprison Gandalf, who only manages to escape on > > Shadowfax because Éowyn helps him; Gimli loves wine, women and song > and a > merry quip, particularly at Legolas' expense; Merry and Pippin are > incurable > little practical jokers; Sauron is observed talking and instructing > his > minions; and so on. Those who can get a kick out of seeing such a > rendition > of Tolkien's works are welcome to do so; but you might be somewhat > more > sparing with the talk about "fanatics". I agree with Ojevind to a certain degree. I want to see things happen in the order they did in the book. I want to see Crickhollow. I want to see Edoras. (What a great shot that would be.) I don't want Galadriel showing up in Rivendell. And what sillines is this where Pippin, Merry and Sam are all eavesdropping at Bag End (even if there aren't any eaves there). That not only contradicts the book, but sounds silly. Why not just show the entire shire outside the window listening in? (Shades of Life of Brian.) I don't mind if things are cut. I'm all for cutting out Bombadil and the barrow downs. If time is the issue, there's lots of speech making and songs and poetry recitations that can be cut. But don't use the extra time generated to stuff in things that contradict stuff in the book. You want to see more of Arwen? Fine. But you don't need to get rid of Glorfindel to do it. Everybody keeps claiming that time is an issue. But if you don't go into explaining every little detail that Tolkien does, then you find your self with a basic timeline into which a great deal of the original story can fit. (I mean, doesn't anyone else get bored with all the long winded speeches in TT and RotK?) Nevertheless, I still retain my faith that the movie will be great. From what I have seen of the casting, I am pleased. And New Zealand looks spectacular. So I remain hopefull. LGR ###### From: fernwithy@aol.com (FernWithy) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Lines: 31 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder06.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 13 Aug 1999 01:30:14 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <19990812213014.09001.00000358@ng-bh1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!newsfeed.enteract.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail >Now if they made one huge 3-hour film out of Book I alone, (from the >beginning up to the Flight to the Ford) then I could see including him >including him, along with the adventures of the Old Forest and the Barrow >Downs. A lesser treatment will have to focus on those events that more >directly concern Sauron and the Ring. Bombadil and the Old Forest are one >big side-adventure. > >-- John Whelan Well, so's Arwen, but you're defending his choice to not only include her, but actually *increase* her role! That's just silly. And as to your accusation that the scene in Rivendell as it appears in the books would confuse a screen audience, that's nonsense. It's the one place in the trilogy that Tolkien was practically writing for the screen, using every screen cliche there is -- their eyes meet across a crowded room, there is a sense of longing... at any rate, we see this from Frodo's point of view, so it's right that he only catches what is perfectly obvious to any stranger. Or are we changing the point of view? Which is my problem in the first place. It's the hobbits' point of view that makes LotR interesting. And if Jackson messes this up -- which he seems bound and determined to do, since this isn't going to catch a lot of new fans and it's just going to piss the old ones off (can we all say "Bakshi"? "Rankin-Bass"?), no one will ever touch Tolkien again. Do a live action right once, and it will never need to be made again. Screw it up royally, and it will never have a chance again. --- FernWithy "If [moral] behavior is to be, it cannot be as a result of an intellectual moral stance; it is because there is such a thing as love, merely a practical fact, a practical force in human affairs." -- Stephen King (Danse Macabre) ###### From: mark@pc-intouch.com (Mark Wells) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Organization: PC-InTOUCH Linux Conspiracy Message-ID: <37b3d136.106472049@news.pc-intouch.com> References: <37b2f1bb.70738817@news.corp.hp.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 1-36.dialup.pc-intouch.com Lines: 20 Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 08:10:01 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.212.198.18 X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: typhoon-la.pbi.net 934531603 207.212.198.18 (Fri, 13 Aug 1999 01:06:43 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 01:06:43 PDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!cyclone.swbell.net!typhoon-la.pbi.net.POSTED!not-for-mail On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 16:13:24 GMT, diane_hancock@hp.com (Diane Hancock) wrote: >So now she's to be Arwen: Warrior Elf-Princess instead of Arwen: >Banner Seamstress? Blech. By the time it's revealed that Dernhelm is >Eowyn, fierce females will be old hat. I'm an Eowyn fan, I don't want >her "specialness" downplayed. I have to agree with that. Let's save the Warrior Elven Princess theme for "Of Beren and Lúthien", where it makes some sense. For some reason Lúthien always seems to me like the Duke Nukem of the Silmarillion. Unlike Fëanor and Co., who are on some holy idealistic crusade to beat up on Morgoth, Lúthien just wanders around at home doing basically nothing (while Fëanor and Co. get slaughtered) until Sauron does something that personally inconveniences her, at which point she goes berserk and gets medieval on the respective asses of Fëanor and Co., Sauron, and Morgoth. Then she breaks for lunch. "Come on, who wants some?" ###### From: "Aris Katsaris" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 12:48:37 +0300 Organization: An OTEnet S.A. customer Lines: 40 Message-ID: <7p0psf$r2a$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> References: <19990812213014.09001.00000358@ng-bh1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: athe530-a063.otenet.gr X-Trace: newssrv.otenet.gr 934537935 27722 195.167.119.63 (13 Aug 1999 09:52:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@otenet.gr NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Aug 1999 09:52:15 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!iol.ie!news.indigo.ie!newspeer.te.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!news.otenet.gr!not-for-mail FernWithy wrote in message news:19990812213014.09001.00000358@ng-bh1.aol.com... > >Now if they made one huge 3-hour film out of Book I alone, (from the > >beginning up to the Flight to the Ford) then I could see including him > >including him, along with the adventures of the Old Forest and the Barrow > >Downs. A lesser treatment will have to focus on those events that more > >directly concern Sauron and the Ring. Bombadil and the Old Forest are one > >big side-adventure. > > > >-- John Whelan > > Well, so's Arwen, but you're defending his choice to not only include her, but > actually *increase* her role! That's just silly. Arwen is not a big side-adventure. If she had a couple of chapters to herself where the hobbits and/or Aragorn meet her then go away with no important impact on them as if they had never met her, (like Tom Bombandil) that would be a side-adventure. There was nothing adventurous about Arwen in the story. Romantic, dramatic, yes. And the story never sidetracked as it did with Tom, just so the hobbits could have an adventure meeting her. The inclusion of Arwen (as she is in the novels) would require a couple minutes and provides deeper characterisation for both Elrond and Aragorn - not to mention that it is a parallel to stories that were only hinted about in LoTR: there's a great significance there for the style of the story. The inclusion of Tom Bombadil would require half an hour or so and provide almost nothing: It's a return to a Hobbit-style adventure, which Tolkien added not because it was important to the story but because he had already created the character. And he's a quite annoying character btw. :-) Aris Katsaris ###### From: fernwithy@aol.com (FernWithy) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Lines: 10 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder06.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 13 Aug 1999 14:53:55 GMT References: <7p0psf$r2a$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <19990813105355.04720.00000435@ng-fo1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!blackbush.xlink.net!howland.erols.net!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail > >And he's a quite annoying character btw. :-) I'm lukewarm on Tom Bombadil (and on Arwen for that matter). If time is really a factor, I'd cut them both. --- FernWithy "If [moral] behavior is to be, it cannot be as a result of an intellectual moral stance; it is because there is such a thing as love, merely a practical fact, a practical force in human affairs." -- Stephen King (Danse Macabre) ###### From: eaa@hopper.unh.edu (Erich A Adler) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: 13 Aug 1999 16:11:55 GMT Organization: University_of New Hampshire Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <7p0psf$r2a$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> <19990813105355.04720.00000435@ng-fo1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: hopper.unh.edu X-Trace: tabloid.unh.edu 934560715 28533 132.177.137.8 (13 Aug 1999 16:11:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@tabloid.unh.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Aug 1999 16:11:55 GMT User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.7 (UNIX) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.gctr.net!nntp-cust.primenet.com!news.unh.edu!eaa In article <19990813105355.04720.00000435@ng-fo1.aol.com>, FernWithy wrote: >> >>And he's a quite annoying character btw. :-) > >I'm lukewarm on Tom Bombadil (and on Arwen for that matter). If time is really >a factor, I'd cut them both. >--- >FernWithy WooHoo, Someone who thinks like I do. After all what does Arwen truly supply to the story? Heck the first time I read it ( at age 11 when girls were icky) I got to the ending and I was wondering where this Arwen girl came from. Aw well, to each their own. erich -- Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try. -- Homer Simpson |---------------| | Erich Adler | |---------------| ###### From: "Öjevind Lång" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <19990810170928.01746.00000243@ng-fp1.aol.com> <7osldu$o1i$1@brokaw.wa.com> <37b2e401.5953749@news.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Lines: 41 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 16:14:59 +0200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.244.58.142 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 934553930 130.244.58.142 (Fri, 13 Aug 1999 16:18:50 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 16:18:50 MET DST Organization: A Customer of Tele2 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!newnews.hk-r.se!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail Douglas Henderson hath written: >> >A question. > >Could anyone make the LOTR, as it is, with minimal modifications, into >a movie that would draw audiences? I'm convinced that it could be made into a successful movie without such drastic changes as turning Arwen into a warrior princess, Gimli into a lover of wine, women, singing and quips, Merry and Pippin into a couple of "incurable pranksters" and Théoden into somebody who resides in Helm's Deep and tries to imprison Gandalf. >Printed word and movie screen are two different media and there is >always a transmutation, mostly for ill, IMHO. I quite agree, though I have seen some truly good screen adaptions of books: Laurie Lee's "Cider with Rosie", Jane Austen's "Sense and Sensibility" and "Pride and Prejudice", Dicken's "Oliver Twist", Stanislaw Lem's "Solaris" and a few others. It is possible, but rare. > >Is the fault the filmmaker's for disappointing us, or our fault for >having unrealistic expectations? I don't have unrealistic expectations. I'm very pessimistic about whatever Peter Jackson will make out of LotR. I have been doubtful all along about even seeing the stuff. At first, I thought I probably wouldn't since I still remembered Bakshi's monstrosity with nausea. Then, after having seen those rather nice pictures of how the film makers visualized their product, I became more positive to the project; but now we have had repeated reports of quite unnecessay changes in the narrative (and above all in the depiction of some of the persons in it), and they make me suspect that I may not bother to see the films after all. Öjevind ###### From: "Öjevind Lång" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <19990810170928.01746.00000243@ng-fp1.aol.com> <7osldu$o1i$1@brokaw.wa.com> <7ouqcg$aqu$1@brokaw.wa.com> Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Lines: 66 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 16:41:57 +0200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.244.58.142 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 934555548 130.244.58.142 (Fri, 13 Aug 1999 16:45:48 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 16:45:48 MET DST Organization: A Customer of Tele2 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!newscore.ipf.de!newsfeed.tli.de!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail Robert S. Frangooles wrote: >Öjevind Lång (ojevind.lang@swipnet.se) wrote: >: Robert S. Frangooles hath written: >: > >: > > >If you believe you will get angry by seeing the movies then by all means >you should not go. Unless you are a masochist there is no reason to >knowingly make yourself miserable. > > >After spending several months reading this group (and enjoying) I see no >reason not to use the word fanatic somewhat freely, if you do not see the >fanatacism in many (if not most) of the threads, you aren't being >objective. > >If all of the above modifications come about in the movie, we will just >have to see how they work in the context of the film. If the movie works, >the movie works. The point you seem unable to grasp is that some of us are only intrested in a film version that does not change the book drastically, and that we think such a venture possible without making the film a failure. > >I think it is a bit pre-mature to have a point by point discussion of >the film flaws, when the film hasn't even started filming. That is censorship, isn't it? We shouldn't discuss, let alone disapprove of, reported major changes in the narrative. > >My opinion of film is that a director is an artist with a vision they >are trying to put form to. That that vision should be controlled/limited >by a text or the opinions of the fans who adore that text borders on >censorship. We are talking about respecting the integrity of a text. That does not exclude changes: Tom Bombadil can't reasonably be accommodated in the films, some of Frodo and Sam's experiences while approaching Mordor may have to be struck out, and so on. But you simply won't accept any hampering of the director's "vision" even when that vision neglects the vision of the writer. Instead, you want to censor us. Bakshi made a film that I saw when I probably done with my >second or so reading, I was primed for it. I thought it sucked. It did >not however ruin the trilogy for me. It was simply a bad movie. Good for you. Personally, it took me months to suppress the memory of that abortion. > >Since you are so upset over the changes suggested in the draft script >review it would seem that you do consider them "gospel". Your language throughout your message is so intemperate that I can't help wondering why *you* seem so upset. Öjevind, the angry upset miserable fanatic prematurely discussing censoring gospel masochist who isn't being objective. ###### From: diane_hancock@hp.com (Diane Hancock) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 16:59:47 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard Cupertino Site Lines: 17 Message-ID: <37b44e30.159943456@news.corp.hp.com> References: <37b2f1bb.70738817@news.corp.hp.com> <37b3d136.106472049@news.pc-intouch.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ntdpc111.pa.itc.hp.com X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!enews.sgi.com!news.sgi.com!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!news.cup.hp.com!not-for-mail On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 08:10:01 GMT, mark@pc-intouch.com (Mark Wells) wrote: >For some reason Lúthien always seems to me like the Duke Nukem of the >Silmarillion. Unlike Fëanor and Co., who are on some holy idealistic >crusade to beat up on Morgoth, Lúthien just wanders around at home >doing basically nothing (while Fëanor and Co. get slaughtered) until >Sauron does something that personally inconveniences her, at which >point she goes berserk and gets medieval on the respective asses of >Fëanor and Co., Sauron, and Morgoth. Then she breaks for lunch. >"Come on, who wants some?" > OK, I guess now I'll have to read the Silmarillion (I'm ashamed to admit I haven't)! My impression of her from LOTR was that she just pranced around forests leaving flowers in her wake. Diane H. ###### From: mercy@halcyon.com (Robert S. Frangooles) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: 13 Aug 1999 17:07:53 GMT Organization: WinStar NorthWest Nexus Lines: 50 Message-ID: <7p1jd9$bh6$1@brokaw.wa.com> References: <19990810170928.01746.00000243@ng-fp1.aol.com> <7osldu$o1i$1@brokaw.wa.com> <7ouqcg$aqu$1@brokaw.wa.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coho.halcyon.com X-Trace: brokaw.wa.com 934564073 11814 198.137.231.21 (13 Aug 1999 17:07:53 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Aug 1999 17:07:53 GMT X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!newshub.northeast.verio.net!newsfeed.corridex.com!nntp2.savvis.net!nwnews.wa.com!brokaw.wa.com!not-for-mail Öjevind Lång (ojevind.lang@swipnet.se) wrote: : : The point you seem unable to grasp is that some of us are only intrested in : a film version that does not change the book drastically, and that we think : such a venture possible without making the film a failure. : If I didn't grasp that fact, I don't think this discussion would be occuring. : >I think it is a bit pre-mature to have a point by point discussion of : >the film flaws, when the film hasn't even started filming. : : That is censorship, isn't it? We shouldn't discuss, let alone disapprove of, : reported major changes in the narrative. : I am not saying don't discuss it. I am saying it is pre-mature and most likely a waste time since we really have don't know whether the items you are so infuriated about will even be in the film. We are after all discussing elements of an early draft. From the tone of the interviews with PJ that I have read I tend to think they will not. I am expecting a fairly dark version to appear. I think the Rankin Bass adaption has clouded your judgement to much. : : We are talking about respecting the integrity of a text. That does not : exclude changes: Tom Bombadil can't reasonably be accommodated in the films, : some of Frodo and Sam's experiences while approaching Mordor may have to be : struck out, and so on. But you simply won't accept any hampering of the : director's "vision" even when that vision neglects the vision of the writer. : Instead, you want to censor us. : I tend to agree that the changes discussed in the review are egregious. Tell me where I am trying to censor you. If explaining a viewpoint the opposite of yours is censorship I think we are working off of VASTLY different definitions of the word. If I am intemperate, you are most certainly hypersensitive. I am sorry if being direct gets your hackles up. If I were upset I would most likely call you a "close minded dogmatic fanatic who thinks they own LOTR", but since I am not upset, and don't "really" think that I only use it in example. : Öjevind, the angry upset miserable fanatic prematurely discussing censoring : gospel masochist who isn't being objective. : : ###### From: fernwithy@aol.com (FernWithy) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Lines: 34 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder05.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 13 Aug 1999 17:19:26 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <19990813131926.04722.00000652@ng-fo1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!howland.erols.net!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail > WooHoo, Someone who thinks like I do. After all what does Arwen >truly supply to the story? Heck the first time I read it ( at age 11 when >girls were icky) I got to the ending and I was wondering where this Arwen >girl came from. >Aw well, to each their own. > erich Well, she's integrally involved in the backstory, but in the actual LotR sequence, she's, well, backstory. If there were all the time in the world, I'd put it all in there. I'd even let them expand her part (I have a lot less trouble with expansions than with alterations). My preference is to have everything. But if they keep harping on time constraints, it seems to me that priorities need to be set, and the backstory, interesting as it is, can be left unspoken (not eliminated, just not spoken) without really changing the front story. The concern this is bringing up for me is less the unthinkable alteration of the Gospel of Tolkien (in fact, I have the same attitude toward all adaptations, even by authors I don't particularly care for), but the strong sense I'm getting that they are losing hold of the front story altogether. The fact that I'm not especially fond of Arwen as a character really doesn't play into it. I wouldn't leave her out if time permitted me to put her in. I'd show her just as Tolkien did -- walk her on, walk her off, even let her give Frodo the jewel though I think that was not really the best thing for him (aren't you all glad I believe in being faithful rather than in giving my own interpretation of how Tolkien should have written it?). If a movie were to be made of the Appendix story of Aragorn and Arwen, she'd be treated as she was in that. But I don't see any reason why a movie audience needs to know more about her than the book audience did -- namely, what Frodo knew, at about the time he knew it. --- FernWithy "If [moral] behavior is to be, it cannot be as a result of an intellectual moral stance; it is because there is such a thing as love, merely a practical fact, a practical force in human affairs." -- Stephen King (Danse Macabre) ###### From: mercy@halcyon.com (Robert S. Frangooles) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: 13 Aug 1999 17:29:38 GMT Organization: WinStar NorthWest Nexus Lines: 18 Message-ID: <7p1km2$ddc$1@brokaw.wa.com> References: <19990813131926.04722.00000652@ng-fo1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coho.halcyon.com X-Trace: brokaw.wa.com 934565378 13740 198.137.231.21 (13 Aug 1999 17:29:38 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Aug 1999 17:29:38 GMT X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed1.news.nl.uu.net!sun4nl!uunet!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!dfw.uu.net!sea.uu.net!nwnews.wa.com!brokaw.wa.com!not-for-mail FernWithy (fernwithy@aol.com) wrote: : : Well, she's integrally involved in the backstory, but in the actual LotR : sequence, she's, well, backstory. If there were all the time in the world, I'd If Tolkien was able to write women well, you have to wonder how the story might have evolved. : story. The concern this is bringing up for me is less the unthinkable : alteration of the Gospel of Tolkien (in fact, I have the same attitude toward : all adaptations, even by authors I don't particularly care for), but the strong : sense I'm getting that they are losing hold of the front story altogether. : I think the more recent interviews with PJ should serve more as a barmoter than the script review at issue. Bob ###### From: fernwithy@aol.com (FernWithy) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Lines: 22 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder07.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 13 Aug 1999 20:53:26 GMT References: <7p1km2$ddc$1@brokaw.wa.com> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <19990813165326.17348.00000526@ng-bk1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!152.163.239.227!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail > >If Tolkien was able to write women well, you have to wonder how the story >might have evolved. I guess it was just never a major issue to me. Though I'd like to know a bit more about the various women, or have some idea of the women of the Shire, his lack of female characters was much of a hampering influence. I don't see the story as being all that much different if a couple of members of the Fellowship had been women (though I do not under any circumstance condone changing them, which would draw attention to itself too much and make it seem important). >I think the more recent interviews with PJ should serve more as a barmoter >than the script review at issue. I hope you're right. I'd hate to see Elijah Wood and Sean Astin as Frodo and Sam wasted on a script as bad as the one proposed, because I think the casting is way cool. --- FernWithy "If [moral] behavior is to be, it cannot be as a result of an intellectual moral stance; it is because there is such a thing as love, merely a practical fact, a practical force in human affairs." -- Stephen King (Danse Macabre) ###### From: sonshi57@mindspring.com (Douglas Henderson) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 21:20:30 GMT Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Message-ID: <37b488da.493349@news.mindspring.com> References: <19990813131926.04722.00000652@ng-fo1.aol.com> <7p1km2$ddc$1@brokaw.wa.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: a5.f7.0c.72 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 13 Aug 1999 21:08:25 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 Lines: 49 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!firehose.mindspring.com!not-for-mail On 13 Aug 1999 17:29:38 GMT, mercy@halcyon.com (Robert S. Frangooles) wrote: >FernWithy (fernwithy@aol.com) wrote: >: >: Well, she's integrally involved in the backstory, but in the actual LotR >: sequence, she's, well, backstory. If there were all the time in the world, I'd > >If Tolkien was able to write women well, you have to wonder how the story >might have evolved. > >: story. The concern this is bringing up for me is less the unthinkable >: alteration of the Gospel of Tolkien (in fact, I have the same attitude toward >: all adaptations, even by authors I don't particularly care for), but the strong >: sense I'm getting that they are losing hold of the front story altogether. >: > >I think the more recent interviews with PJ should serve more as a barmoter >than the script review at issue. > >Bob Well, Tolkien is not as some of us would have him. But he derived some of his inspiration from the old epics and sagas and heroic modern emancipated women are few on the ground in those. It's part of the reason I like HK films and Chinese epics, women play a more prominent role (not that that is saying very much) Also, FWIW, I am not in favor of enhancing Arwen by having her swing a snickersnee or having Galadrial snuff a few Orcs or whatever. The absence of other warrior women makes the plight of Eowyn more poignant, and makes her plaint about the comment that the women's place is in the home means that the woman is given leave to be burned alive in the home when battles that she had nothing to do with go against them. This is some of the language that resonates the most for me. For his time, JRRT, was remarkably liberal and perceptive about women, given what I've read in LOTR. Galadial and Eowyn and Shelob, three strong female characters. Not bad. I like Hong Films with strong willed women, I like watching Xena, Warrior Princess. They are fine, but there is no reason for LOTR to be like them and to make LOTR more like them will please neither the people who think that most Western attempts at HK films fall far short, nor those who like Xena and will miss the campiness, nor the people who think that JRRT did a better job at telling a story than most alive today, and almost certainly better than a Hollywood scenarioist. ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review X-Nntp-Posting-Host: harper.uchicago.edu Message-ID: Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Organization: The University of Chicago X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999) References: <37b2f1bb.70738817@news.corp.hp.com> <37b3d136.106472049@news.pc-intouch.com> <37b44e30.159943456@news.corp.hp.com> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 21:39:34 GMT Lines: 15 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!uchinews2!uchinews!not-for-mail Quoth diane_hancock@hp.com (Diane Hancock): [snip description of Luthien blowing away many people] > OK, I guess now I'll have to read the Silmarillion (I'm ashamed to > admit I haven't)! My impression of her from LOTR was that she just > pranced around forests leaving flowers in her wake. Yeah, Luthien doesn't get much attention in LotR, but in fact she was (according to Tolkien) the single most powerful of all the Children of Iluvatar, whatever "powerful" means. For the record, "second most powerful" seems to have been a dead heat between Feanor and Galadriel. For more information, look in either _Morgoth's Ring_ or _The Peoples of Middle-earth_; I don't recall which (maybe it was mentioned in both). Steuard Jensen ###### From: orius@webtv.net (David Sulger) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 02:18:59 -0400 (EDT) Organization: WebTV Subscriber Lines: 16 Message-ID: <23838-37B50A53-30@newsd-253.iap.bryant.webtv.net> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.webtv.net Mime-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAuAhUAo1OUI5JRyq6PXwToTwfEKY0nHegCFQDEKi01fPyQXVpy1J2rDhqq+ct/7A== Content-Disposition: Inline Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!howland.erols.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!news-xfer.epix.net!uunet!ffx.uu.net!webtv.net!not-for-mail Well, after reading all the posts in this thread, I stick with my original statement: I hope the story doesn't get butchered too badly. From reading the posts in this thread, I've gotten a terrible suspision that once again Hollywood is dumbing down literature to cater to a half-literate audience, though perhaps my fears will prove to be unfounded. In a venture such as this, susbstancial deviation from the main plot and politically correct revisions will only serve to hurt the project, IMO. The producers probably know that LoTR fans will be among the first to see the movies. If they are done poorly or very unfaithfully, not only will the fans form a distase for the movies, but they will tell all their friends " I saw Fellowship of the Ring, and it sucked," or something very similar to that. It seems that Hollywood today is far more interested in what critics have to say about their productions rather than moviegoers themselves. I hope that this will not be the case with the LoTR movies. ###### From: "Aris Katsaris" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 10:40:30 +0300 Organization: An OTEnet S.A. customer Lines: 28 Message-ID: <7p36o7$qm3$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> References: <19990813131926.04722.00000652@ng-fo1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: athe530-c023.otenet.gr X-Trace: newssrv.otenet.gr 934616647 27331 195.167.121.151 (14 Aug 1999 07:44:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@otenet.gr NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Aug 1999 07:44:07 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!news.otenet.gr!not-for-mail FernWithy wrote in message news:19990813131926.04722.00000652@ng-fo1.aol.com... > If a movie were to be > made of the Appendix story of Aragorn and Arwen, she'd be treated as she was in > that. But I don't see any reason why a movie audience needs to know more about > her than the book audience did -- namely, what Frodo knew, at about the time he > knew it. Hmm... I think it depends on whether you think the Appendix story to be part of Lords of the Rings... I do consider it a very important part of it and I'd like to see it atleast in part in the movie. Expanding Arwen's role need not even mean adding anything that Tolkien didn't write - it may simply incorporating the Arwen-Aragorn story into the main narrative through flashbacks or whatever. As for Arwen's importance... I think she's very important to the Elrond part of the story. I agree though she's not *that* important to the main narrative. But then again Rose is even less important and I think people would object to her removal even more than to that of Arwen. Aris Katsaris ###### From: arain02@FSUNI.rz.uni-passau.de (Karim Arain) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Film Script Review Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 21:00:53 GMT Organization: [posted via] Leibniz-Rechenzentrum, Muenchen (Germany) Lines: 29 Distribution: world Message-ID: <37b87b09.19691820@nntpserver.rz.uni-passau.de> References: <37b2f1bb.70738817@news.corp.hp.com> <37b3d136.106472049@news.pc-intouch.com> <37b44e30.159943456@news.corp.hp.com> Reply-To: Karim.Arain@uni-passau.de NNTP-Posting-Host: news.rz.uni-passau.de X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/16.235 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!uni-erlangen.de!lrz-muenchen.de!news.rz.uni-passau.de!132.231.41.167 On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 16:59:47 GMT, diane_hancock@hp.com (Diane Hancock) wrote: >On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 08:10:01 GMT, mark@pc-intouch.com (Mark Wells) >wrote: > >>For some reason Lúthien always seems to me like the Duke Nukem of the >>Silmarillion. Unlike Fëanor and Co., who are on some holy idealistic >>crusade to beat up on Morgoth, Lúthien just wanders around at home >>doing basically nothing (while Fëanor and Co. get slaughtered) until >>Sauron does something that personally inconveniences her, at which >>point she goes berserk and gets medieval on the respective asses of >>Fëanor and Co., Sauron, and Morgoth. Then she breaks for lunch. >>"Come on, who wants some?" >> >OK, I guess now I'll have to read the Silmarillion (I'm ashamed to >admit I haven't)! My impression of her from LOTR was that she just >pranced around forests leaving flowers in her wake. > >Diane H. Well, that's practically all she did. UNTIL her father (Thingol) said Beren could only marry her if he got a silmarillion from Morgoth's crown and Beren went out for the journey and got captured by Sauron. THEN she really started kicking asses (well singing asses would be more appropriate in this case). After she got her man she just retired with him in some obscure part of Middle-Earth. Ciao. Karim