Re: (Next to no) discussion on extended version of TTT?

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 "Aris Katsaris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> "jere7my tho?rpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> >      Once again, it wasn't about time; it was about inserting a
> > seven-minute denouement after the climax of the movie.  Jackson is
> > willing to do that for the EEs, but not the theatrical release.  And the
> > VoS will be back for the EE of RotK, so it's not like we lost it.
> 
> The theatrical version lost it. The theatrical version is supposed to be
> as much a self-contained work as the extended edition version, isn't
> it?

     First off, check the subject line.

     Beyond that, I am happy to admit that the theatrical versions have 
more flaws than the EEs.  But we've gone beyond talking about the movies 
per se, and are talking about Peter Jackson -- his understanding of the 
books, his willingness to make changes, whether or not he is a "real 
fan".  If we are to talk about the decisions Jackson made, we need to 
understand _all_ of the decisions he made; that includes the EEs.  We 
cannot say, "He cut the VoS, so he doesn't understand X," or "he doesn't 
love the books" without considering the fact that he put it back _in_ 
for the EE.

> Tell me, if someone finds "Lord of the Rings" (the books) flawed in
> certain respects, e.g. the character of Galadriel not well-characterized
> or whatever --  will you tell him to read "for Pete's sake, man read the
> Silmarillion"?

     Of course.  Regardless, that's not the case here; it's more akin to 
seeing a student reading a version of _Moby Dick_ or _Huckleberry Finn_ 
that was stripped-down for ease of teaching, or watching a movie version 
of "Henry V" that leaves out chunks of the text, then encouraging him to 
read or watch the full version before passing judgment.

     After seeing TTT, I was bothered by some of the problems in the 
movie.  My immediate thought was, "I hope these are fixed in the EE," 
and, by and large, they were.  It leads me to the conclusion that the 
theatrical releases are the versions for the masses, for people who just 
want an entertaining movie, and there's nothing wrong with that -- but 
the EEs are better movies for fans of the books, and in my eyes are the 
versions that best indicate how well Jackson loved and understood 
Tolkien.

> If I find flaws in a work, then I find flaws in a work.

     You are finding flaws in a work that was edited due to commercial 
constraints; of _course_ you'll find flaws in it.  That's inherent in 
the process, and only by sheer luck does commercialization ever result 
in a better product.

> I will watch the extended edition when it's convenient for me to
> do so. And I will keep on discussing the theatrical version which
> I have full knowledge of, having seen it several times on its
> entirety.

     But you continue to make points about Jackson's understanding of 
various characters which are contravened by the EE.  If it's in the EE, 
Jackson understood it; if you haven't seen the EE, you don't know what 
he did and didn't understand, and shouldn't assume you do.

     If you have not seen the TTT EE, you lack information about 
Jackson's understanding of the character of Faramir.

> > He also makes it clear that Faramir is trying to fulfill his
> > father's wishes when he takes Frodo to Osgiliath, and is not, in fact,
> > corrupted by the Ring.
> 
> Mad glimmer in his eyes aside?

     There is a moment when he is tempted -- when we hear the Ring 
whispering his name -- just as he is in the books.  Tolkien uses words 
very similar to "mad glimmer", doesn't he?

                                                  ----j7y

-- 
**************************************************************************
jere7my tho?rpe / 734-769-0913      "There is no spoon."  "SPOON!"  "There
    >>>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  <<<           is no spoon."  "SPOON!"  "There is no 
invert liws to reply via email       spoon."  "SPOON!" -- The Tick vs. Neo