raithen

a) Peter Jackson has never said who he targeted as an "intended audience". He made the films because of his great love for the books and it was the fulfillment of one of his dreams to direct films based on Middle-Earth. Keep in mind the fact that he and New Line Cinema had no idea whether these films would be successful - there was a very real fear that they could ruin his career and fold the studio entirely.

b) Peter Jackson, Phillipa Boyens and Frances Walsh are all great lovers of the book. They wanted to adapt it as closely as possible to the written word, but some of it had to be changed to fit into film format. Repeat: changes had to be made. End of story.

Quote:

But just in terms of film-making, there are things that are just plain BAD about TTT. Things that I would suggest are the reason a number of posters admit they were uninvolved with the film, compared to the seductive nature of the first installment. Cheesy dialogue, distracting anachronistic jokes, bad editing, bad acting (the last scene WAS over the top in homoeroticism... I knew I wasn't chuckling just because I'm queer.) So if you want to talk about the director's intentions, I think he missed the mark on a number of points with TTT that have nothing to do with LOTR and everything to do with film-making.

a) One person's cheese is another person's gold.

b) Anachronistic jokes? Examples?

c) Bad editing? The only thing I thought was oddly paced was the intercutting between the Ent scenes and the battle at Helm's Deep. It was somewhat strange, but I think the goal was to show that these events were occurring simultaneously. It wasn't necessarily the device I would use - but I would hardly call it "bad" editing. To each his/her own though.

d) Bad acting? Now that's the first time I've heard this criticism! I truly fail to see how supposed "homoeroticism" in a scene could drag the acting level down a notch. That being said (and I've mentioned this before in another thread) I'm sick of this pervasive mentality that any affection or love shown from one man to another is inherently "gay". This scene has nothing to do with "film-making" and everything to do with the source material. If you hated the scene, then blame Tolkien - not Jackson. Even if it is homoerotic (it wasn't) - so what? Do you have a problem with that? Queer or not, you're coming across homophobic here, dude.

I'm sorry Duckie, but I find your arguments extremely flawed. I classify you as one of those people who crap on films that are obviously beloved - searching for any little nitpick, regardless of validity, to rant about.

People in this thread are quick to defend those who dislike the film and hold negative opinions. But God forbid we defend those who actually feel the movie was an instant classic, and a monumental achievement to cinema.

It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination - but it's obviously striking a major chord with people.

-matt

Duckie

a.
I was just quoting from the other poster's claim on that point, which I doubted.

b.
...and I admire their dedication from what I learned watching the FOTR interviews.

B.

a.
Yeah, yeah... subjectivity and all of that. I'll trade you my gouda for your boullion bars...

b.
the most obvious I remember was the skateboarding stunt. They were moments that threw me completely out of the film, and I never found them funny... groan-inducing maybe, but not funny.

c.
what you said. The flashbacks at the end bothered me the most, especially after that spectacular ent flood a much more elegant treatment was called for.

d.
Yes, BAD acting. The actors at times seemed to be having a laugh with the material (that last scene) and the delivery was awkward.

That last scene WAS homoerotic... I can't even accept that as a subjective reading it was just SO overt. And NO indeed, I do not have a problem with that. If I did, there would be a number of films in my collection that would have to be thrown on the bonfire right away! It just seemed so over the top within the context of the story that it was being done FOR laughs, even if homoeroticism is intended as has been suggested. Comparable scenes from FOTR for example manage to convey a friendship of great intensity, affection and love without sex mattering whether involved or not. But that scene from TTT had me thinking they'd better get jiggy with it real soon or their suppressed desire might come out in ugly ways.

Jepthah

WTF is this crap about 'homoeroticism' at the end of the film?

Did I completely miss something or are people reading their own issues into the movie?

Philzilla

that what I thought

El-Kabong

Given the nature of the internet, it's hard to tell if you're serious or being scarcastic, silly or stupid. For the puorposes the of this response, I'll assume serious. Forgive me if I'm taking this the wrong way. . . .

I'm sorry that I didn't conform to your narrow world view, that I instantly didn't fall to my knees and worship Jackson and the ground he walked upon, that I was unworthy to look upon the greatness of these divine films.

You're absolutely right, your excellency! I have seen the error of my ways!

Pointless and without merit? If I'm so wrong (and really, how can an opinion be wrong?), then refute some of my claims instead of just blowing in here and telling me what I should think and feel.

I actually liked the films and I'm just bringing it down to be spiteful? Why the hell would I possibly want to do that?

If you want to talk a post mired in ignorance, intolerance and hate, might I suggest you look in the mirror? As far as posts without merit and without point go, you sir have me outclassed.

A minor point of clarification - the hype did not come from the Hollywood Hype Machine(tm), but from all my friends. They were going on about it nearly every time I saw them - THEY were the ones that said the movie would clear up my bad breath. Strangely Hollywood didn't have much to do one way or another - aside from provide ammunition for all my friends to watch the trailers over and over again.

raithen

Har!

Quote:

b.
the most obvious I remember was the skateboarding stunt. They were moments that threw me completely out of the film, and I never found them funny... groan-inducing maybe, but not funny.

I'm sorry, but I feel the comparison of sliding down stairs and skateboarding is a little weak. Hardly what I would deem "anachronistic", but to each his/her own. I just felt that particular sequence was cheesy - a lot of fun, but cheesy. Care to shed any more light on supposed anachronisms?

Quote:

c.
what you said. The flashbacks at the end bothered me the most, especially after that spectacular ent flood a much more elegant treatment was called for.

That isn't necessarily "bad editing" - that's simply a disagreement with the way the film was paced.

Quote:

d.
Yes, BAD acting. The actors at times seemed to be having a laugh with the material (that last scene) and the delivery was awkward.

Well, you are entitled to your desire to trade gouda for boullion bars, but you're definitely the first person I've seen complain about the acting. If you've watched any of the making of documentaries or interviews with any of the actors you would quickly understand that every one of them had the greatest respect for the material. None of them were taking the piss during their performances - as much as you might believe them to be.

Quote:

That last scene WAS homoerotic... I can't even accept that as a subjective reading it was just SO overt. And NO indeed, I do not have a problem with that. If I did, there would be a number of films in my collection that would have to be thrown on the bonfire right away! It just seemed so over the top within the context of the story that it was being done FOR laughs, even if homoeroticism is intended as has been suggested.

Once again I will repeat myself: one man showing his platonic love and affection for another does not entail homoeroticism. I'm sorry, but the idea that there is some kind of blatant homoeroticism in this scene is both immature and way off base. Your welcome to this opinion, but again, even if it was the intention to convey this - your argument is with J.R.R. Tolkien, not Peter Jackson. Blame the guy who actually wrote the material, chief.

Quote:

Comparable scenes from FOTR for example manage to convey a friendship of great intensity, affection and love without sex mattering whether involved or not. But that scene from TTT had me thinking they'd better get jiggy with it real soon or their suppressed desire might come out in ugly ways.

a) Give me one example of dialogue that implies sexual desire or a hint of homoerotic love

b) "Ugly" ways? I'm sorry, but are you trying to say that queer love is "ugly"? This is the kind of mentality that further implicates that you have difficulty accepting any kind of affection from one man to another - be it platonic or not. Therefore, I think your opinion on this scene is more than a littled skewed.

-matt

Jason

Anachronistic jokes? Well, I found it distracting when:

1) In the very beginning, Gimli kept falling behind the others and was telling himself, "Breathe. That's the key. Keep breathing". I found it out of character and his being behind the rest reminded me of Eric Cartman trying to catch up to the gang. In the book, he says he will not tire before an orc does, too.

2) The step-surfing scene. It just didn't work. Legolas mounting the horse was incredibly cool, but this was a cheap stunt.

3) Toss me! A reference to the silly "Nobody tosses a dwarf" line from FOTR, which didn't bother me nearly as much as what was done in TTT, because it was a single isolated incident, while gimli jokes ran throughout TTT.

Duckie

Raithen...

If you can't handle a discussion without making personal attacks, I suggest you refrain from any further response. It's wholly uncalled for, 'chief.'

I'll address the 'homoeroticism' point since that is generating the most absurd insults.

Not that I justify my own opinions at all by what others have said or written, but I am hardly the only film-goer who has noticed the homoeroticism in TTT. Just a few days ago there was a mention in a Washington Post article... actually, he noted that 'cruising' was going on at other moments than just the ending.

Acting is more than dialoge and diction... it's body language and glances. The body language going on in that last scene was practically a set-up for a Hollywood kiss! I would suggest, seriously suggest, that to deny the implicit romance in that scene is a typically homophobic response.

Oh... and "ugly ways" was referring to ways OTHER than MANSEX. It was a joke. Brush up on your reading comprehension sweetie.

Jepthah

The homoeroticism is entirely in your fevered imagination, Duckie. Which in a larger sense is fine, I guess. Do you have a link to this WP article?

There was more possible 'homoeroticism' when Frodo hugged Sam on the boat at the end of FOTR than all through the entirety of TTT. And even that moment was just an emotionally honest one, rather than implying that anything more physical goes on between the two Hobbits.

Static Cling

Let's knock off all the "sweeties," "chiefs," and the rest of the not-so-thinly-veiled hostility, please... thanks. If you think someone is attacking you, report them, and leave them alone, instead of responding and making it worse. We'll take care of any offenders.

One anachronism: dwarf-tossing. I believe Jackson even mentions it as an anachronism during his commentary on the FOTR: EE.

However, I don't consider Legolas' shield-slide down the stairs as a skateboarding anachronism. I'm sure "back in the day," people sledded down snowy hills on flat surfaces... I see more of a resemblance to that than skateboarding.

caligulathegod

Yeah, that's what I took it to mean. Here is the rest of that quote: I love LOTR, I love the books, movies, the Silmarillion, the languages, the maps, etc. Also there are thousands like me that I can share my love with. But not everybody is going to feel the same. Sad thing is lots of those that have this same obsession just plain don't know how to share it. They knock non-fans over the head with it. They prosetylize about how great it is and they berate them for not sharing their love. They call them lazy for not devoting years to reading the texts. I don't know how many times I've seen people ask legitimate questions only to be shot down with "read the book", which is over 1000 pages plus appendices and supplemental texts that run over a dozen volumes and atlases and dictionaries. If I have a question about Odysseus's bow, I don't want to have to read the entire of Greek and Roman mythology and all of Homer to find out what its significance is. The wonderful thing about LOTR is that for whatever question, there is an answer and somebody knows it or can find it and will love to explain it. No need to belittle someone for their questions. Almost all of El Kabong's questions have answers right in Tolkien.

There's just this generation of fans that were taught that something is great, but don't really understand why it is great or even that it has flaws. They consider it a personal jihad to convert non-believers into worshippers. It can be Tolkien or even Citizen Kane. Doesn't matter. It's Allah as far as they are concerned and Tolkien is His prophet. There can be no questions or criticism about it or they issue fatwas. I feel sorry for the poor schmucks on rotten tomatoes that had negative reviews of it. They all have addendums to their reviews about how they get tons of flames threatening their lives or insulting their girlfriends.

Then there's the other fans. The ones that consider the texts sacred and bemoan the slightest deviation. They have no clue what adaption is or the difference between what works for film and in literature. It can be be because characters or situations were combined or left out (real-life stories get characters combined and dialog changed) or someone's hair is the wrong color.

I love these films and I love Tolkien, but sometimes I swear I get so embarrassed to be a fan.

Tolkien was the Harry Potter of the 60s and 70s. For those of us slightly after that generation, we caught the tail end of it in High School and might have even tried to attack the Tomes only to be bored or distracted or whatever. Our older sibs kept telling us how great they were, but they sure didn't seem like it. Now, years later, they have been translated into a more digestible form. Finally we can see what all the fuss is about. There's a hell of a lot of baggage a lot of us carry into these films whether we realize it or not. So we walk into the films and after having our friends and such over-sell the stories and get underwhelmed. It's so easy to understand that. The theatrical versions, especially, just kind of skimmed the basic action set pieces. A fan knows the background and motivation of nearly every character and can trace his family tree back 1000s of years (10,000s in some cases). The Extended versions help a lot, but it's still just going to be a big adventure story with Elves and Dwarves and Wizards and D&D crap to a non-fan and you are either going to like it or you are not. But since there are those of that it means so much more to, a non-fan is always going to be in the dark and wondering what the big deal is. I asked earlier why would a person devote so much time and energy to something they dislike and now I think I understand. You've had just a taste of something that so many people are obsessed with and it just doesn't seem to be "all that".

All I can say is if you can "get into" it, you will be well rewarded. There's a lot of a fascinating world to discover. You can even date girls and still read it.
If you can't, then don't worry about it. You are no less a person. You aren't lazy. You just plain aren't interested and that's OK. Just lighten up on the people that are. Don't make us feel bad just because we love it and you don't.
And to the fans, lighten up, too. You can't make people like it and you risk making them hate it even more than something they normally wouldn't give a rat's ass about. People don't usually start threads about films they dislike just to get a rise out of its fanbase. The only 2 film series that ever get this kind of treatment are Star Wars and LOTR and it's because the fans are so overzealous that they draw out "baiting". Some of the biggest jerk posts I read in forums seem to be more from overzealous fans and people reacting to the jerk fans. Don't make us all look like jerks. Ultimately, it's just a story.

Duckie

Sure thing, hon <---genuinely friendly term, especially if you're from Baltimore.

At least it's only "you homophobe" we're shouting at each other (and likely knowingly false accusations at that)... there are worse things.

The article was actually in the Village Voice
here

Okay, okay... I may be making more out of it than what's there because it's amusing, but it IS there... and so WHAT if my head is on fire?! <---It's a JOKE


added (after dousing head in more egg nog):

now, if Douglas Sirk had finished HIS version of LOTR...

Happy Fun Day Everybody!

Jepthah

OK, Duckie. Here's the deal: as often as J. Hoberman and the V.V. are "challenging" and "relevant" as a rag, they are just as often the stereotypical Noo Yawk snot-nosed, pretentious cocaine-snorters who can't see past the Hudson. Don't even get me started on Michael Musto (referenced in the linked above article), who even Big Gay Al from South Park would smack across the puss.

J.H. is the guy who claimed that WB did a post-mortem alteration of Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut, among other highlights of his scholarly and erudite page of film criticism.

I'm all for the Lavender Brigade adopting Wood, Astin, Bloom and Mortensen as new camp icons, but they need to remove the pink shades every once in a while and allow the story to play straight, if you will. Actually, knowing a few gay fans of LOTR, they prefer it that way (overall--let them lust after the delicious men on display by all means, for cinema is fueled by many types of fantasy).

By the way, if any of you want to be hilariously horrified, there are Tolkien 'fanfics' out there of both sexual orientations that will make you double over in agony.

GatorDeb

I haven't read the books, but I had no trouble with the first movie. Aragorn, Boromir, Gimly, Legolas, Bilbo, Frodo, Samwise, etc.

I cannot tell you what the name of Hugo Weaving and family are, although I do know they're father and daughter and he's the head of the elves.

Were you referring to Boromir dying? I thought it was to signify his bravery and loyalty - he turns from grumbling to brave.

Pointyskull

These assorted comments are cracking me up, including El-Kabong's original post.

Personally, I have loved the books for years, and I think Jackson's films are (so far) the definitive film translation of Tolkien's work. Are they absolutely perfect? No. Do they literally translate all of Tolkien's work exactly? No. Are they enjoyable films? Most definitely.

I love 'em. My 11 yr old daughter loves 'em. My wife, on the other hand, could not have been dragged there by an oliphant, and I imagine her comments would echo El-Kabong's. That's well and good. It's just a movie.

Keep the funny comments coming, but let's not turn this thing ugly. They're only movies.

Who else thinks things are getting WAY over analyzed?

raithen

Apologies if you took offense, but the "thinly veiled" sarcasm in your reply was not appreciated when I was attempting to have a serious discussion. Anyway...

Quote:

I'll address the 'homoeroticism' point since that is generating the most absurd insults.

Not that I justify my own opinions at all by what others have said or written, but I am hardly the only film-goer who has noticed the homoeroticism in TTT. Just a few days ago there was a mention in a Washington Post article... actually, he noted that 'cruising' was going on at other moments than just the ending.

Regardless of whether some people seem to think that there is some kind of "homoeroticism" in the film or books, Tolkien made it blatantly clear that the relationship was platonic. Not only that, Peter Jackson made it blatantly clear that Sam was very much heterosexual in the first film with his obvious crush for the hobbit waitress (whose name escapes me).

But if you do have some issues with Sam's speech or the nature of the friendship between he and Frodo, I suggest you direct your "observations" to the original author. It is not a fault of the film to show this relationship - which was one of your knocks on the TTT.

Quote:

Acting is more than dialoge and diction... it's body language and glances. The body language going on in that last scene was practically a set-up for a Hollywood kiss! I would suggest, seriously suggest, that to deny the implicit romance in that scene is a typically homophobic response.

Thank you for the lesson on acting. There was no intent on either Tolkien or Jackson's part to imply homoeroticism in that scene and I "seriously suggest" that implying more than platonic love between the two men is truly the only homophobic response. But to each his own. I obviously can't change your mind, and implying that either one of us is "homophobic" is obviously wasted time.

All I can say is this: Sam and Frodo are dear friends who are on a quest that has taken them far beyond the reaches of The Shire. They love eachother as friends and Sam can see the effects the Ring is having on his best friend. What would you do? Would you give an empassioned speech to try to cheer your colleague up? Or would you worry that such a display of affection and loyalty may come across homoerotic? Come on...

I feel it's a sad state of affairs in this day and age that platonic love between two men can be misinterpreted (intentionally or facetiously) as homoerotic. Once again I ask you for examples of dialogue, and hey what the hell - "body language", that displays homoerotic response.

Quote:

Oh... and "ugly ways" was referring to ways OTHER than MANSEX. It was a joke. Brush up on your reading comprehension sweetie.

Interesting that you bristle with indignation and tell me to not respond if I invoke any such personal "attacks" - yet you insult my intelligence and then call me "sweetie" in the same reply?

Anyway, as the mods would suggest, let's keep this discussion on the level.

-matt

Duckie

If the two characters in question were of the opposite sex, would the idea horrify you so much? Same scenario with implicit eroticism that only SOME of us see. Ask yourself.

I have no 'issue' with the homoeroticism present in TTT. I merely found it comical in it's dramatic context (BADLY acted, whether it was an intended element or not). Again, a homophobic (typical) response would be to deny it's there at all. Phobia means fear, doesn't it? Whether Tolkein intended it or not doesn't matter much until you get passed PJ's intentions and whether or not THEY are effectively conveyed. Even then it's just a measure of successful communication, not a determination of content.

"But, he's married with children!"<---now THAT's a very, very old joke.

silentbob007

caligulathegod and 12thmonkey, I really enjoyed your posts (though in a different way than most of the ones in here ). Unfortunately, I don't think calm, rational writing really fits in here ... three pages into this thread, it has spiraled into a political debate, where each side slings muck at the other ... after all, the purpose of the 'net, as I've been led to believe, is to slander others anonymously. This is the one place where rabid (LOTR, Star Wars, Harry Potter) fans can come and be the group that makes fun of people not having their obsession. I guess the moral is, off-the-cuff-from-the-hip-heated writing is the only acceptable kind of writing in this thread ... no real thought ... only the appearance of thought. The rest are either shot at from every side or ignored.

Speaking of obsession, why in the heck has another thread turned into a discussion of homoeroticism in relationship to LOTR? Is this the end-all of themes in these movies??? After all, it is what every discussion seems to boil down to. Is it perhaps time for a one-and-only thread?

Duckie

Because it is most definitely a relevant topic of interest. Whether you want to discuss Victorian ideas of male bonding versus modern perception (as well as whether one view necessarily invalidates the other), or how successfully, unsuccessfully or subversively it might be portrayed in the film, it's more relevant than the threadcrap you so generously contributed. Or was that just the appearance of a threadcrap?

El-Kabong

Perhaps their relationship wasnt as clear as you might think. I know that I was thinking "Wow, it's a really brave stance to make your main characters gay like that." when I was watching the first movie. Now since I have no background or context to the characters, that impression has to come from somewhere right?

I dont recall getting that same impression with the second go-round, but then with their story arc reduced so greatly there was no time for the gay subtext.

Dr. DVD

Anyone who says stuff like this either says it because they either have an agenda, or are gay themselves(whether they know it or not) and want to find it somewhere, or at least have no concept about the world of J.R.R. Tolkien and what the stories mean.

caligulathegod

It's actually kind of like junior high students giggling everytime the teacher says "come". As Freud once said, sometime a cigar is just a cigar. We don't have to read subtexts into everything. Bert and Ernie are NOT gay.

Philzilla

no, they are gay, they just may not be homosexuals
j/k

raithen

Nothing horrifies me, and the idea that my opinion would change based on gender is patently ridiculous. My entire point is that Tolkien made it explicitly clear that Sam was not gay. The theme of the books (and the movie) is that of loyalty, friendship and the bonds between people - whether frayed or undying.

As I've said before, the characters were not portrayed as homosexual nor was there any overt sexual eroticism. You merely have one male character confirming the bond of friendship and loyalty to another. Once again, if you can pinpoint any dialogue that presents a homoerotic overtone, I'd be more than interested in hearing it. Or if you can point out the body language that evokes this supposed homoeroticism...

Do you see this supposed subtext because of poor acting? Or does the poor acting merely underline it? What was comical - homoeroticism in the tale, or unintentional homoeroticism brought forth in film? Elaborate!

As for which stance is "more" homophobic: seeing homoerotic themes that aren't there, or denying homoerotic themes that are there - I don't see a difference as they are both homophobic. What it comes down to is that there was not an intentional homoerotic vibe that was supposed to be portrayed. Of course, I can't speak for Jackson, Walsh or Boyens, but I'm fairly certain they wanted to maintain the spirit of Tolkien's work - not introduce an entirely unneccessary element. One that is way out of the scope of the film and book.

It does matter because Jackson's intentions were to convey the spirit of the work. And once again I will reiterate: Tolkien did not intend for there to be homoerotic exchanges or subtext between Frodo and Samwise. Any such inklings are misinterpretations by the reader.

One must bear in mind that Tolkien himself was in the trenches in World War I and many of his experiences and bonding with other soldiers were transferred into the books. The idea that the words between his characters could be misconstrued as homoerotic is somewhat laughable - it is dialogue that is intended to show the affection between fellow men, in the face of insurmountable odds and certain death/failure. Viewing the exchanges as some sort of homosexual overtone sullies this theme.

I believe that Peter Jackson successfully conveys and holds true the spirit that Tolkien imbued into these characters. I fail to see anything homoerotic about these passages - but I can certainly see how one could pervert the context for amusement. Even I have poked fun at the idea of Sam and Frodo's "secret" love. But not for one instance do I feel that there was anything truly homoerotic. It's just a silly, immature joke - not one that has any true validity or creedence.

If you (and others) wish to perceive homoerotic undercurrents, by all means do so. I just find it sad - that the interpretation is so skewed. In my opinion anyway...

-matt

caligulathegod

I found 7 occurances of the word "faggot" in Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. While he meant it as "sticks for the fire" (just as it does in England today) does that mean he meant it in the perjorative sense as a subtext? Sometimes we are too culture-centric and read into everything our own experiences and prejudices. While that can be good or intentional for some art, this is Tolkien. His answer for how Orcs reproduce is "after the manner of the Children of Illuvatar". How much more chaste must he get before it becomes clear that sex is not an undercurrent in his work? He even left Aragorn & Arwen out of the story and had to put them in an appendix so you knew what the heck was going on with them.