At 10:57 AM 5/7/2007 +0000, Cristina A. Montes wrote:
>I had no problems with visually representing Sauron as an eye (no pun
>intended). But this is on the premise that he is not a disembodied
>corporeal eye, but a spirit appearing in the form of an eye.
A spirit appearing the shape of a disembodied corporeal eye. That's not
what the Eye depicted by Tolkien is.
Again, it's not the mistake itself that's the problem here. That's merely
sloppy, and I've seen worse. It's the taking over Jackson's quite
different, quite specific image and attributing it to Tolkien, without even
realizing that you're doing it, that's the problem.
>I think what David referred to was a list of misconceptions that
>originate from the movie. I am in favor of such a list, not for the
>purpose of putting down scholars who make mistakes or, for that
>matter, bashing Peter Jackson but for the sake of
>maintaining high standards in scholarly studies on JRRT.
Yes. The question of whether Jackson's decisions made sense cinematically,
and the question of how much he deviated from Tolkien at all, are separate
questions from the one of whether we should keep them separate in our
minds. And above all whether a scholar writing a paper should.
>(I, personally, like the movies.
>They're not perfect reproductions of the original, but I believe it's
>impossible to make a movie that's 100% faithful to its source
>material, so I tend to be forgiving as long as the movie is at least
>80% faithful, and faithful where it counts.)
Now, the question of whether one likes the movies and the question of how
faithful they are to Tolkien are also separate questions from each other.
So I'll say that I enjoyed watching the movies as movies, but that the "80%
faithful where it counts" is such a ludicrous overestimate that I must
protest. There is a certain vague resemblance in broad outlines of plot
and character (well, some of the characters, anyway). But "where it
counts" is the feel, the spirit, the ethos, the morality of Tolkien. And
there the only faithfulness is a residuum of about 5% that even Jackson
couldn't eliminate despite his best efforts to.
>Anyway, my own list of movie deviations from the source material, in
>no particular order:
>I'm sure there are more.
Understatement of the year, and a strangely picayune list, considering what
we're facing here. Remember Gaffer Gamgee's complaint? "And while you've
been trapessing in foreign parts, chasing Black Men up mountains from what
my Sam says, though what for he don't make clear, they've been and dug up
Bagshot Row and ruined my taters!"
- David Bratman