Who's afraid of the big bad purists?

Top 31. May 30, 2002 1:02 PM

» warpath474 - Desertblue...I did not flame him

I disagreed with his opinion. Quite strongly, I will admit, but I made no personal attacks on him. And you are wrong, this is a discussion area, not an area where one person is Lord and mighty over everything.

-- posted by warpath474

Top 32. May 30, 2002 11:10 PM

» desertblue - Re: Desertblue...I did not flame him

In response to message posted by warpath474:

The point is not did "I" think you flamed him. It's how he will probably see it. He's erased similar threads before, and yes, this is HIS site. But since I am not his guardian I will just bow out now.

-- posted by desertblue

Top 33. Jun 2, 2002 8:44 PM

» Michael_Martinez - Re: Re: Desertblue...I did not flame him

In response to message posted by desertblue:

I deleted a thread which had explicit flames, and did so as a matter of convenience because I did not have the time to clean up the thread properly.

There are many people who just don't get the problem that the use of tobacco in these movies presents. They are welcome to express their disagreement with me without flaming. That won't make them right, but I'm not going to delete threads just because someone disagrees with me.

-- posted by Michael_Martinez

Top 34. Jun 26, 2002 3:35 AM

» Laurelin70 - It's a question of culture

Hi, I'm new here, but I've been reading your articles for long time. Now I was very surprised by your strong attack to the use of smoke in the film. I do know that in the USA there is a huge battle about it, but I think that it shouldn't affect the movies. For example, if you make a movie whose story is placed in the Thirties, you can't cancel the cigarettes from the culture of that time. So, in the Lord of the Rings you have a culture that consider smoking pipe as a good way to relax or pass the time (because it was so for Tolkien himself, I think). I don't think that smokers are prompted by a film, but by a whole culture.
I agree with you about the effects of the smoke, but isn't it a little of "terrorism" from you to say that movies mustn't contain cigarettes/pipes/smokers? I admit that to see Gandalf and Bilbo enjoying a good smoke of pipe communicated to me a sense of peace and intimacy, that's not like I want to smoke pipe! I think that was the intention of the filmaker: to communicate a certain sense of intimacy through an image easy to understand.

-- posted by Laurelin70

Top 35. Jun 26, 2002 2:53 PM

» Michael_Martinez - It's a question of life and death, not culture

In response to message posted by Laurelin70:

It's my understanding that the European Union is about to take on the American tobacco companies. Since movies (including the Peter Jackson fantasy films) DO affect the habits that young people develop, it is important for people to stop making excuses for the gratuitous use of tobacco in this movie.

The only way we can put an end to the madness stemming from the use of tobacco products is for all people to realize that they ARE deadly toxins which are naturally highly addictive.

It is not a matter of choice, of culture, or of anything other than highly effective marketing at the expense of human life.

-- posted by Michael_Martinez

Top 36. Aug 21, 2002 5:38 AM

» fudgepuppy_kid - did they really...

In the movie, there was this scene when Saruman was talking to an Uruk (I think) and (correct me if I'm wrong bcos the last time I saw the movie was like 8 months ago) there was this thing that he said about how orcs came to be, that they were once elves but they were corrupted and mutilated by evil. Is there any truth to this? (I thought the orcs were "bred by the Dark Power.")

-- posted by fudgepuppy_kid

Top 37. Aug 22, 2002 2:49 PM

» Michael_Martinez - Re: did they really...

In response to message posted by fudgepuppy_kid:

The movie has established its own history, and neither you nor anyone else should be concerned about whether that history resembles Tolkien's history. There are now two Middle-earth mythologies vying for audience comprehension: Tolkien's and Jackson's.

As long as everyone understands that, I don't think people need to be concerned. We will all, I am sure, experience some confusion over what's what. But just don't try to use the movies to understand the books, or vice versa.

-- posted by Michael_Martinez

Top 38. Aug 24, 2002 2:04 PM

» Aerlinnel - Re: Re: did they really...

Well, it is true that the movie has inspired quite masses of fanon that have no actual grounding in the books themselves (e.g. the idea that Legolas is exactly 2931 at the time of the WotR - a made-up fact that I myself fell for! *wince*). But there very well might be truth to part or all of movie-Saruman's statement: in the Silmarillion, it is said "that Melkor, ever watchful, was first aware of the awakening of the Quendi, and sent shadows and evil spirits to spy upon them and waylay them. So it came to pass...that if any of the Elves strayed far abroad, alone or few together, they would often vanish, and never return; and the Quendi said that the Hunter had caught them, and they were afraid."
And then, later: "But of those unhappy ones who were ensnared by Melkor little is known of a certainty....This is held true by the wise of Eressëa, that all those of the Quendi who came into the hands of Melkor, ere Utumno was broken, were put there in prison, and by slow arts of cruelty were corrupted and enslaved; and thus did Melkor breed the hideous race of the Orcs in envy and mockery of the Elves, of whom they were afterwards the bitterest foes." So I don't think that PJ was too far off on this one.

-- posted by Aerlinnel

Top 39. Aug 25, 2002 12:54 PM

» Michael_Martinez - Re: Re: Re: did they really...

In response to message posted by Aerlinnel:

The origins of Tolkien's Orcs are a convoluted subject, with no real clear decisions on his part. The movie Saruman's statement concerning Elf origins is far less problematic for the Tolkien purist than the notion that Saruman's Uruk-hai (a branch of normal Uruks, who were bred by Sauron) should emerge from pods.

However, it's just a movie, a rather enjoyable one, and for all its faults it achieved far more than (I think) most people believed it would, or at least hoped it would.

I expect "The Two Towers" to be better, and I feel certain that "The Return of the King" (despite the Gondorian suits of armor) will be deemed the best of all three films, when all is said and done.

-- posted by Michael_Martinez