Lord of the Rings Humour: Parodies, Satires and More [4]

malickfan wrote:I'm sure next time I sit down and watch the films I could be nitpicky and take note of all the differences and random gaps in logic (I actually never really considered any of the points you mentioned Forest) but I choose not to...that's probably one of the reasons I've stayed largely away from the Purist edits discussion, whatever LOTR's faults as an adaptation, they are still solidly entertaining blockbusters, and I'd rather remember them as such, if I were to sit down and analyse them the same way as TH I think I'll come away a little dissapointed...

There was a span of several years where I watched the entire trilogy about once every six months, often with my brother, and since he wasn't a big LOTR fan he'd often ask a lot of questions as it went on and I'd sometimes give him a running commentary of changes and flaws I saw.  This overlapped with me getting into the purist debates in a big way and writing the manifesto.*  But I eventually got to a point where I was like "I've hashed out all these issues 100 times, there's really nothing to be gained by reliving them all while rewatching the movie".  So by the time 2011 rolled around and I got to see them in theatres, I was, generally speaking, a lot better about sitting back and enjoying the films, though the beacons were an exception for the reason I mentioned above.

I do think that a big part of the reason why so many people gave LOTR a pass on the adaptation front was because they enjoyed the film.  From having had so many conversations about the movies with both purist and non-purist fans, I think most Tolkien readers don't like the idea of an adaptation straying too far from the book, and even some non-readers feel the same way.  Some people get almost defensive, like if something they enjoyed was unfaithful to the book, then they're somehow implicated in betraying the book themselves.  I honestly believe that a huge portion of the purist debates over the years came down to people using faithfulness as a proxy for arguing over whether or not they liked the films themselves, including on the purist side, but moreso on the side of defenders of the films.

Obviously The Hobbit films were far worse as adaptations and as films, but on the adaptation front, they share enough flaws that you can see the progression from LOTR, yet many of the harshest Hobbit critics are also LOTR's staunchest defenders.  I tend to think this comes from a feeling of betrayal, whereas purists already had low expectations going in.  But people still processing the shock of a bad and unfaithful Middle-earth movie reacted much more viscerally, which you could sort of see in the difference in tone found here and in Bree in, say, 2013. I should note that I while I combined "bad and unfaithful" up there since the two go hand in hand for so many people, I've always thought of the two as separate issues, and this is to me the only way that makes sense to think about the films.

*That would be this: http://eldorion.com/tolkienpurism/manifesto/

''And I still remember watching FOTR for the first time, took me quite a while to pick my jaw off the floor...'' Malick

yep me too

I first read LOTR as an adult, I have no idea why I missed it as a kid as I was book crazy and read everything. I did love it but I really fell in love with it when I saw the films. I was mesmerised and enchanted, no other films have even come close to the effect they had on me, even now, they do it every time. I think yep, these are brilliant. I remember being very disappointed they missed out Bombadil, one minute they were on the raft, the next minute they were in Bree. I remember groaning nooooooo! and somebody sitting next to me going sshhh! I remember not being at all scared of the Black Riders. apart from that FOTR was awesome.

Someone get the Doctor to drop off a copy of FotR to Figgs 10 year old self. We'll see who isn't afraid of the Black Riders then!

 the irony is that the Black Riders in the book did scare me. The bit where one of them crawls towards Frodo in the dark is straight out horror film. I remember getting the heebygeebies at that point. The fog on the Barrow Downs is another superb piece of atmospheric spookiness. That's part of the reason why I missed the Bombadil section, although to do them credit they did film the attack by Old Man Willow, or maybe I dreamed it? from the Old Forest to Goldberry waving to them from on top of the hill is all gold, its so rich in unforgettable imagery.

Jesus, lord alive !! that looks worse than when Gollum's teeth were rank !

He looks like the worst sort of used-car salesman (or worryingly like how I imagined Brad in the Dark Planet story!)

I had relatively recently gotten into a big argument on TORn where someone basically told me I couldn't criticize the beacons scene cause I couldn't understand what it was like to see it on the big screen.

I'd agree with this, actually. Though it had an unfortunate kick-off with Pippin lighting the first beacon, the mountain top scenes that followed were one of the high points in cinematic history. We can knock down PJ all we want for various bad choices, but at times the soul of a poet shines through.

halfwise wrote: the mountain top scenes that followed were one of the high points in cinematic history.  

I remember when I saw that scene in the theater it reminded me of the opening scene of a movie I'd seen years before, "The Horsemen" with Omar Sharif and a badly cast Jack Palance getting down and dirty in tribal Afghanistan. I haven't seen or thought about that film in decades. I wonder how it would hold up now with all that's happened in the world, both cinematically and geopolitically....

halfwise wrote:

I had relatively recently gotten into a big argument on TORn where someone basically told me I couldn't criticize the beacons scene cause I couldn't understand what it was like to see it on the big screen.

I'd agree with this, actually.  Though it had an unfortunate kick-off with Pippin lighting the first beacon, the mountain top scenes that followed were one of the high points in cinematic history.  We can knock down PJ all we want for various bad choices, but at times the soul of a poet shines through.

yep the beacons scene is up there with the classics

That entire scene is nothing without Howard Shore. PJ's contribution was negligible.

And it is dumb. The beacons are in completely the wrong places to be of any good to anyone.
Does look nice though and well complimented by the score, but stupid.

Any filmmaker can fly a helicopter around NZ and get some nice shots of mountains and insert CGI beacons and fire.

Pj would just have picked the shots in editing and worked with how to put them together, it would all be shot probably by the 3rd or even 4th camera units. Same guys did the Misty Mountains shots and the Rohan aerial stuff around Edoras most likely.
But in this at least PJ is not alone- nearly all directors unfairly get the credit for shots done by other units (I think if memory serves the second unit shot Boromir's death while PJ was off doing Helms Deep night shoots for example).

what soul destroying bollocks.

I did like that scene myself, but, I did think, those poor buggers sitting on top of a freezing cold mountain just waiting for a sign to light one of those dam things ! The music from Shore was epic, heroic style music & it really helped the scene to become well embossed in the mind. It did make the scene more powerful. I dont think peejers could have done anything else with that scene but to add heroic music, after all, those mountains could have been from anywhere & there wasnt any other hint at what was going on apart from the stirring music.

Mrs Figg wrote:what soul destroying bollocks.

There is no Santa Claus.

the music was maybe 66% of the success, and sure anyone could send up a helicopter crew, but you have to at least have the concept to do it, and then edit it.  Most great things seem obvious in retrospect, but somebody has to actually carry through with it.  Give the guy some credit...it's still his choices.

No denying they are his choices of footage, and the concept is a good one in that it provides a suitably epic build up to a big dramatic moment- Aragorn seeing the beacon and Rohan being called to the war.
It serves it purpose well in leading to the climax.
But it is still stupid what you are physically seeing if you stop to think it through for any length of time, and unfortunately the sequence is long enough for you to start asking the sort of questions Azreil did, and maybe to add a few more, like how anyone can see a beacon that is being lit ABOVE the cloud line.
It does rather undermine not just the physical reality Tolkien grounds his tales in, but also the stated physical reality PJ originally began making his films with- that they should be treated as history, as something which actually happened and was plausible.

I dont think I could handle that Counting bodkins that are dropping like flies ? Just imagine getting half way & you loose count ? ................... 1,...2,..3,.......

The domino Barad-dur ... amazing!