Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 1/8/2003 5:31:07 AM EST
Tuesday, January 7 12:34 AM EST By Brian Briggs Wellington, New Zealand - A recently leaked trailer for The Return of the King has Tolkien fans outraged over the apparent addition of a new character - Jar-Jaromir. The scene depicted in the trailer shows Jar-Jaromir shouting, "Gondora gonna fallsa"; he then trips over a corpse and knocks down a couple of Uruk-hai. [img]http://www.bbspot.com/Images/News_Features/2003/01/jaromir.jpg[/img] "While The Two Towers is performing better at the box office than The Fellowship of the Ring, we are worried about a demographic that is skewing much older than desired. More mature fans are very good to have, but it's the younger fans who buy the merchandise. That's really what brings in the bucks on a movie like this," said producer Tim Wilcox. "People complained a lot about Gimli just being there for comic relief," continued Wilcox. "We answer that criticism by directing the humor through Jar-Jaromir in The Return of the King. There's this funny scene where Jar-Jaromir decides it's best to hand the ring over to Sauron, but then he drops it and kicks it into Mount Doom. Hi-larious." Purists, miffed by the deviations in The Two Towers, were so enraged by Jar-Jaromir as to be rendered speechless. A less pure, calmer fan who was able to form words said, "Tolkien mentioned a lot of different races and creatures, but never a Gungan or even a half-Gungan. I think I'm going to vomit." One fan tried to rationalize the move. "Maybe the Star Wars universe and Middle-earth intersect. Middle-earth certainly is a long time ago and why couldn't it be in 'a galaxy far, far away?' Nothing said it's our earth." He then broke down and started crying. Director Peter Jackson explained how the Jar-Jaromir character was added after all the other footage had already been shot. "That's the brilliant thing about digital editing and graphics. We didn't even imagine Jar-Jaromir in the movie until a couple of weeks ago, but now we can just edit him right into the key scenes. I really think it's going to be a hit with the toddlers." Jackson added, "I just love it when he shouts, 'Yousa steala precious from meesa!'"
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 6:05:38 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/8/2003 6:05:56 AM EST by Greenhorn]
Heh heh, that's pretty darned funny. Onion?
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 6:22:59 AM EST
LOL. wait, that's not funny at all.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 6:33:53 AM EST
Good thing the Eye of Lucas never became fixed on Middle-Earth.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 8:45:37 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/8/2003 8:50:45 AM EST by USNJoe_Retired]
You might want to read this... [url]http://www.jitterbug.com/origins/lotr.html[/url] Star Wars / Lord of the Rings Yoda / Gollum (greenish, raggedy midget with a speech impediment) Lightsabers / Magic swords Obi-Wan Kenobi / Gandalf Princess Leia / Galadriel Darth Vader / Saruman Emperor Palpatine / Sauron Obi-Wan digs Anakin's lightsabre out of an old wooden box, gives to Luke [b]Bilbo digs his magic sword out of an old wooden box, gives to Frodo[/b] Darth cuts off Luke's hand, which plunges into the abyss with Luke's lightsabre [b]Gollum bites off Frodo's finger, which plunges into the abyss with the One Ring[/b] Yoda foretells the future, and Luke must decide whether to help his friends or not. Yoda warns that he's seen only one possible future. [b]Galadriel foretells the future, and Sam must decide whether to help his friends or not. Galadriel warns that she's seen only one possible future[/b] Darth tries to convince Luke to join the dark side, thereby bringing order to the galaxy [b]Saruman tries to convince Gandalf to join the evil wizards, thereby bringing order to Middle Earth[/b] Mundane name and special name (Ben and Obi-Wan) [b]Mundane name and special name (Strider and Aragorn)[/b] Mysterious figure throws back hood of robe to reveal that he's Obi-Wan [b]Mysterious figure throws back hood of robe to reveal that he's Gandalf[/b] Luke: "I shouldn't have come, I'm endangering the mission." (Because Darth can sense him) [b]Glorfindel: "It is you, Frodo, and that which you bear that brings us into peril." (Because Sauron can sense the One Ring)[/b] Luke watches from across a chasm as his mentor Obi-Wan duels with Darth Vader using blue and red lightsabres [b]Frodo watches from across a chasm as his mentor Gandalf duels with a Balrog using blue and red flaming magic swords[/b]
Originally Posted By gardenWeasel: Good thing the Eye of Lucas never became fixed on Middle-Earth.
View Quote
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 8:49:07 AM EST
Lucas ripped off most of his ideas for the forst Star Wars movie from a Japanese samurai movie called The Hidden Castle, not LOTR.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 8:50:12 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 9:05:31 AM EST
Just so long as he dies in the end. [xx(][50]
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 10:01:58 AM EST
Originally Posted By raven: Lucas ripped off most of his ideas for the forst Star Wars movie from a Japanese samurai movie called The Hidden Castle, not LOTR.
View Quote
The Hidden Fortress is the basis for Star Wars, but only conceptually. The elements that came through are the princess in distress, the evil warlord, the two comic relief characters, and the noble Samauri (jedi). Lucas did a lot of original thinking for Star Wars.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 3:46:46 PM EST
It wouldn't surprise me one bit after Jackson's travesty of Tolkien's [b]Two Towers[/b].
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 4:02:22 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 5:33:41 PM EST
Originally Posted By zonan: It wouldn't surprise me one bit after Jackson's travesty of Tolkien's [b]Two Towers[/b].
View Quote
And it wouldn't surprise me if the rabid Tolkienistas could actually believe that.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 5:41:02 PM EST
Ok, that was damn funny! And here I was already to be pissed off!
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 5:42:59 PM EST
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By zonan: It wouldn't surprise me one bit after Jackson's travesty of Tolkien's [b]Two Towers[/b].
View Quote
And it wouldn't surprise me if the rabid Tolkienistas could actually believe that.
View Quote
Oh SHIT, here we go again... J.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 5:49:14 PM EST
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By zonan: It wouldn't surprise me one bit after Jackson's travesty of Tolkien's [b]Two Towers[/b].
View Quote
And it wouldn't surprise me if the rabid Tolkienistas could actually believe that.
View Quote
Save it for soylent_green. [%|] So we made some mistakes in the past. I was hoping we could eventually move on, if that is what this is about.
Link Posted: 1/9/2003 5:22:53 AM EST
LoL
Link Posted: 1/9/2003 5:40:49 AM EST
Originally Posted By Fruit_of_the_Looms: Just so long as he dies in the end. [xx(][50]
View Quote
No, just so long as he dies [b]slowly[/b] in the end.
Link Posted: 1/9/2003 9:09:21 AM EST
Originally Posted By zonan: So we made some mistakes in the past. I was hoping we could eventually move on, if that is what this is about.
View Quote
No, I am not "attacking" you (I frankly didn't even bother to look at your screen name before replying), I have just heard that same sentiment from a few different folks who are enamored of the books to the extent that they moan as if fatally wounded at any necessary change that has to be made to make them work as movies.
Link Posted: 1/9/2003 4:29:19 PM EST
Originally Posted By RikWriter: I have just heard that same sentiment from a few different folks who are enamored of the books to the extent that they moan as if fatally wounded at any necessary change that has to be made to make them work as movies.
View Quote
I agree that many changes were needed, and thought Jackson did a fairly decent job in the first film. My disappointment came as a result of the [i]unnecessary[/i] changes. They, too, could have been justified if they were somehow superior to the original work--but, for the most part, they were not. He made every character but gandalf into a weakling. They all questioned. Aragorn's uncertainty about fulfilling his destiny, Legolas' fear regarding the outcome of the battle, etc., none of which were present originally. He made the king of Rohan into a wimp. In the book, HE wanted to lead a charge. He wasn't cowering in his fortress, fearing death, only to magically change his mind when a valiant Aragorn strode in and said, "We should charge." Of course there was Aragorn's completely needless disappearance when he was thought dead. The most unforgivable was the horrible portrayal of Faramir, brother of Boromir. They made him into just another weak fool. Why? There were plenty already. In fact, almost everyone in Jackson's movie has been made spineless. Faramir stood out from the rest just because he [i]didn't[/i] try to take the ring--he sent him from the waterfall with his blessing, his provisions, and his advice. Oh well, it's still better than most of the stuff being released--just disappointing to see the unnecessary changes.
Link Posted: 1/9/2003 5:10:00 PM EST
Originally Posted By zonan: I agree that many changes were needed, and thought Jackson did a fairly decent job in the first film. My disappointment came as a result of the [i]unnecessary[/i] changes. They, too, could have been justified if they were somehow superior to the original work--but, for the most part, they were not.
View Quote
I guess both the definition of "unecessary" and the determination if they were superior are subjective opinions. I happen to hold the opposite opinion about most of the changes.
He made every character but gandalf into a weakling. They all questioned. Aragorn's uncertainty about fulfilling his destiny, Legolas' fear regarding the outcome of the battle, etc., none of which were present originally. He made the king of Rohan into a wimp. In the book, HE wanted to lead a charge. He wasn't cowering in his fortress, fearing death, only to magically change his mind when a valiant Aragorn strode in and said, "We should charge."
View Quote
First off, making someone have doubts doesn't make them a weakling. It makes them human. I've never met a sane person who had no doubts. Second, Theoden wasn't afraid of death in his fortress in the movie, he was overwhelmed by the hatred that would make Saruman wish to totally wipe out every single man, woman and child in the kingdom of Rohan.
Of course there was Aragorn's completely needless disappearance when he was thought dead.
View Quote
That is one change I didn't like, but I understand why they did it...they wanted to give Arwen something to do.
The most unforgivable was the horrible portrayal of Faramir, brother of Boromir. They made him into just another weak fool. Why? There were plenty already. In fact, almost everyone in Jackson's movie has been made spineless. Faramir stood out from the rest just because he [i]didn't[/i] try to take the ring--he sent him from the waterfall with his blessing, his provisions, and his advice.
View Quote
I disagree on both counts. First off, there were no weaklings among the heroes in the movie IMHO. There was more realistic courage and realistic human doubt that allowed more viewers to identify with the characters. Second, I never liked the book portrayal of Faramir. He always seemed too good to be true--he turned up his nose at the Ring as if it didn't exist, DESPITE the fact that his father the Steward of Gondor was desperate for any weapon to fight Mordor and DESPITE the fact that "daddy always liked Boromir best." I found the movie portrayal, where he was tempted by the Ring for the good of his country and his father but in the end did the right thing despite the fsct that it meant his possible execution. I also found that the movie showed more clearly what a noble deed it was by accentuating both the desperate need for help of Gondor and the consequences for Faramir.
Link Posted: 1/9/2003 5:48:02 PM EST
This is a joke right? The above picture was rendered/altered through graphics software, no?
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 3:53:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/10/2003 3:56:01 PM EST by zonan]
Originally Posted By RikWriter: First off, making someone have doubts doesn't make them a weakling. It makes them human. I've never met a sane person who had no doubts.
View Quote
Yes, but the strongest are able to keep that to themselves, rather than displaying it to everyone.
Second, Theoden wasn't afraid of death in his fortress in the movie, he was overwhelmed by the hatred that would make Saruman wish to totally wipe out every single man, woman and child in the kingdom of Rohan.
View Quote
Yes, I didn't communicate my complaint properly. Throughout the movie, Theoden changed his mind at whim. In the fortress he was going to retreat further, but when Aragorn suggested they charge instead, he immediately changed his mind. Most of the characters displayed this indecisiveness which was not at all present in the original work. Someone wrote this on a C.S. Lewis mailing list, which articulately explains my problem with the film:
Jackson's failure to grasp the depths of Tolkien's Christian world view. He cannot comprehend the depths of the hold that sin has on us--hence Smeagol telling Gollum to "leave and never come back." Too easy, too simple, a clumsy handling of what Tolkien does much more believably and subtly in potraying the same inner conflict. Ironically, the failure to appreciate the true depths of evil also makes it impossible for him to believe in the real potential human beings have on the other side, for heroism and integrity. One's ability to appreciate sin and grace go hand in hand. So good characters like Faramir are felt to be too good to be believable, and hence have to be "complicated." As a result, Faramir too has a cheap and unmotivated conversion. What is it about the attack of the Nazgul that suddenly makes him think it is a good idea to send Frodo and Sam off into Mordor alone? That is a decision Tolkien's Faramir could make in Tolkien's scene, but not one that this Faramir can make believably in Jackson's scene.
View Quote
I may be reading too much into it, but regardless of Tolkien's Christian worldview, Jackson's inability to recognize that true evil exists reaks of moral relativism--relativism which was not present in the original work (which is one of the reasons why I enjoyed it so much).
First off, there were no weaklings among the heroes in the movie IMHO. There was more realistic courage and realistic human doubt that allowed more viewers to identify with the characters.
View Quote
I consider it indicative of weakness when someone is [b]repeatedly[/b] changed by a few words of another. The fact that we can identify better with Jackson's watered-down characters is evidence of our watered-down nature.
Second, I never liked the book portrayal of Faramir. He always seemed too good to be true--he turned up his nose at the Ring as if it didn't exist, DESPITE the fact that his father the Steward of Gondor was desperate for any weapon to fight Mordor and DESPITE the fact that "daddy always liked Boromir best." I found the movie portrayal, where he was tempted by the Ring for the good of his country and his father but in the end did the right thing despite the fsct that it meant his possible execution.
View Quote
We'll just have to disagree here. I think there were enough "human" characters in Jackson's portrayal, and I believe it needed someone who was different.
I also found that the movie showed more clearly what a noble deed it was by accentuating both the desperate need for help of Gondor and the consequences for Faramir.
View Quote
Noble, but completely unbelievable. Why would Faramir suddenly decide it was a good idea to let Frodo go free with the ring after he had just finished trying to give it away to the nazgul (another of Jackson's fabricated events)?
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 6:03:06 PM EST
Originally Posted By zonan: Yes, but the strongest are able to keep that to themselves, rather than displaying it to everyone.
View Quote
Who displayed it to everyone? The only people who I saw any main characters displaying doubt to were close friends and confidants, not the general public.
Yes, I didn't communicate my complaint properly. Throughout the movie, Theoden changed his mind at whim. In the fortress he was going to retreat further, but when Aragorn suggested they charge instead, he immediately changed his mind. Most of the characters displayed this indecisiveness which was not at all present in the original work.
View Quote
I don't recall seeing much indecisiveness in any of the major characters---and Theoden was but days from being under complete control of Saruman for months. I think we can cut him a little slack. [;)]
Jackson's failure to grasp the depths of Tolkien's Christian world view. He cannot comprehend the depths of the hold that sin has on us--hence Smeagol telling Gollum to "leave and never come back." Too easy, too simple, a clumsy handling of what Tolkien does much more believably and subtly in potraying the same inner conflict.
View Quote
Don't buy that at all, seeing as how Smeagol is re-conquered by the Gollum later on. Seems like a stretch to me.
I may be reading too much into it, but regardless of Tolkien's Christian worldview, Jackson's inability to recognize that true evil exists reaks of moral relativism--relativism which was not present in the original work (which is one of the reasons why I enjoyed it so much).
View Quote
I didn't see any moral relativism in the movies either so I think you are indeed perhaps making something of nothing in this case, as is the person who you quoted.
I consider it indicative of weakness when someone is [b]repeatedly[/b] changed by a few words of another. The fact that we can identify better with Jackson's watered-down characters is evidence of our watered-down nature.
View Quote
WHO is repeatedly changed?
We'll just have to disagree here. I think there were enough "human" characters in Jackson's portrayal, and I believe it needed someone who was different.
View Quote
We do have someone different: Gandalf and the Elves. To a great degree, Jackson wanted to show that the Elves, who were so much wiser, stronger and more moral than humans, were leaving and humans, fallible and imperfect things that we are, had to rise to the occasion.
Noble, but completely unbelievable. Why would Faramir suddenly decide it was a good idea to let Frodo go free with the ring after he had just finished trying to give it away to the nazgul (another of Jackson's fabricated events)?
View Quote
He wasn't trying to give the ring to the Nazgul, he was trying to put it on. The presence of a Nazgul has an influence that causes Ring-bearers to want to put the Ring on, which will give them away. The reason Faramir changed his mind was very clear and very believable to me: he had graphic proof right before him that 1)Sauron's forces were going to come after the Ring wherever it was and 2)the Ring had such an influence on the Bearer that it would be of no use in defending Gondor.
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 6:10:12 PM EST
Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:
Originally Posted By raven: Lucas ripped off most of his ideas for the forst Star Wars movie from a Japanese samurai movie called The Hidden Castle, not LOTR.
View Quote
The Hidden Fortress is the basis for Star Wars, but only conceptually. The elements that came through are the princess in distress, the evil warlord, the two comic relief characters, and the noble Samauri (jedi). Lucas did a lot of original thinking for Star Wars.
View Quote
Thank you. I tried to say the same earlier but could not log in. I have heard this accuation many times. Ironically, it is told by Lucas detractors in a "gotcha" way - especially ironic since nobody ever drew the connnection until Lucas himself mentioned it. These same people ususally have not even seen "The Hidden Fortress," yet parrot what someone else said because it fits their world view. This is a common human frailty that we all should aspire to overcome. I'm sure we as gun-owners are guilty of the same quite often - you only have to look at the oft e-mailed BS story about "GEN Reinwald" and the boy socut summer camp as proof. The internet - spreading BS at record speeds.
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 6:12:57 PM EST
I wonder how many people besides Rikwriter could take a very amusing thread and successfully turn it into another bitch fest? [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 6:49:20 PM EST
Originally Posted By legrue: I wonder how many people besides Rikwriter could take a very amusing thread and successfully turn it into another bitch fest?
View Quote
1)Not that I am dissing zonan, but he was the one that first brought up a bitch about the LOTR movies, not I. And I am not discussing the subject alone either. You seem to conveniently forget that fact. 2)Zonan and I are having a civil discussion, not bitching at each other. I haven't seen any flaming and as far as I know, no one is upset. 3)Isn't there some filter feature you could use to filter me out if I am that offensive to you?
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 6:54:06 PM EST
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By legrue: I wonder how many people besides Rikwriter could take a very amusing thread and successfully turn it into another bitch fest?
View Quote
1)Not that I am dissing zonan, but he was the one that first brought up a bitch about the LOTR movies, not I. And I am not discussing the subject alone either. You seem to conveniently forget that fact. 2)Zonan and I are having a civil discussion, not bitching at each other. I haven't seen any flaming and as far as I know, no one is upset. 3)Isn't there some filter feature you could use to filter me out if I am that offensive to you?
View Quote
And the prosecution rests.
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 7:06:21 PM EST
Originally Posted By Adam_White:
Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:
Originally Posted By raven: Lucas ripped off most of his ideas for the forst Star Wars movie from a Japanese samurai movie called The Hidden Castle, not LOTR.
View Quote
The Hidden Fortress is the basis for Star Wars, but only conceptually. The elements that came through are the princess in distress, the evil warlord, the two comic relief characters, and the noble Samauri (jedi). Lucas did a lot of original thinking for Star Wars.
View Quote
Thank you. I tried to say the same earlier but could not log in. I have heard this accuation many times. Ironically, it is told by Lucas detractors in a "gotcha" way - especially ironic since nobody ever drew the connnection until Lucas himself mentioned it. These same people ususally have not even seen "The Hidden Fortress," yet parrot what someone else said because it fits their world view. This is a common human frailty that we all should aspire to overcome. I'm sure we as gun-owners are guilty of the same quite often - you only have to look at the oft e-mailed BS story about "GEN Reinwald" and the boy socut summer camp as proof. The internet - spreading BS at record speeds.
View Quote
Having seen both I never made the connection until Lucas mentioned it. One is Sci Fi and the other is a period Samurai flick. It isn't as obvious as the other Kurosawa hijackings by western directors. In addition Lucas drew upon many other elements and sources besides Hidden Fortress. His Millenium Falcon vs. Imperial Tie Fighter dog fight was based upon WWII fighter vs. bomber stuff. It doesn't mean he ripped off WWII.
Link Posted: 1/11/2003 4:23:26 AM EST
Originally Posted By legrue: And the prosecution rests.
View Quote
Yes, please, go rest somewhere while the adults talk.
Top Top