Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Irony ([info]isntitironic) wrote in [info]fandom_wank,
@ 2004-01-20 16:34:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood:energetic
Entry tags:fandom: lord of the rings, fandom_wank's thoughts on yaoi, serious business, she's on a mission guys!

Micro-Mini LOTR Movie-Hate Wank
Peter Jackson is apparently responsible for all that is wrong with LotR fandom these days. Okay, sure, a case can be made for that. But I wouldn't tend to blame him, as this rather vitriolic individual (who claims she liked the movies... I'd be scared to see her discuss a movie she hated) does, for fangirls not knowing the proper names of horse colours. Do you really think he was intimately involved in writing every question for the trivial persuit game?

A commenter hopes the movies will be forgotten quickly and the fandom will go back to being like it used to be. Excuse me while I point at and mock the hopelessly naive.


(Post a new comment)


[info]wolfsamurai
2004-01-21 02:11 am UTC (link)
Damn, you totally beat me to this one. The entire rant is ~so~ damned schitzo. One second she's cursing Peter Jackson for being the AntiChrist and later she's all but begging for him to do the Hobbit. WTF? Also nice was the "even I couldn't get through the first part of Fellowship at that age [14]". Gee, arrogant much?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]starherd
2004-01-21 05:57 am UTC (link)
No no no, my *son* is the AntiChrist.
Peter Jackson is a Bad Crack Dealer, or possibly a Pimp.
Get it right.

> Gee, arrogant much?

I try :-D

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]thespacecat
2004-01-21 10:27 am UTC (link)
I don't buy that either. I read Fellowship when I was 10, and it was far from a Herculean task. I personally hold to the standard that a book can only be a great book if people under the age of 13 can enjoy it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]split
2004-01-21 02:27 am UTC (link)
I think a movie should be faithful to the books of which it's based on, but only to a certain extent. Movies and books are two different medium; you honestly can't expect them to tell a story the exact same way. For example, it's much easier to get into the characters' heads and know what they're thinking when you're reading a book, while it's much easier to construct a vivid action scene in a movie.

I want to laugh at those purists who think either form is superior to another. You are comparing apples to oranges, okay? Why not just enjoy either on its own merit?

(Reply to this)


[info]raisedbyhyenas
2004-01-21 02:51 am UTC (link)
People, people, people...I think it's supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. Claws in, now.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]phosfate
2004-01-21 09:49 pm UTC (link)
I really liked the Star Wars novel. Then the movie came out and totally fucked up the fandom.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]starherd, 2004-01-21 11:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]phosfate, 2004-01-21 11:52 pm UTC

[info]sagralisse
2004-01-21 03:11 am UTC (link)
Wait a minute. Who said all the horses of the Mark were grey? Snowmane and Shadowfax were light grey and Arod was dark-grey, but nowhere in LOTR does Tolkien say that all the Rohan horses are greys. She may be thinking about the mearas, but that was a line of horses that only the royalty were allowed to ride anyway. They had enough genetic variation to have ponies (Stybba) but no chestnuts or bays? That's weird.

Arod was "a great dark-grey horse," but Hasufel was "smaller and lighter, but restive and firey", so that could mean lighter grey, light brown or it could mean smaller-boned.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]kookaburra
2004-01-21 04:31 am UTC (link)
Well, when the three hunters first see Eomer and his Merry Men, the horses are described as having "their manes braided proudly on their grey necks" or something like that. I think it's described like that, because Tolkien reeeeeaaallly liked grey and white horses. (Other than the Nazgul's rides, does he even describe any other colour?) However, in real life, if you had an entire line of grey horses, it would be really hard to keep one disease from wiping out your entire stock because of the decreased genetic variability. I don't know if that's a problem with breeds such as Lipizzaners or Friesans, (as my specialty is Quarter Horses) but I could imagine they'd have a problem with it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]sagralisse, 2004-01-21 07:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kookaburra, 2004-01-21 07:32 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sagralisse, 2004-01-21 07:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mariagoner, 2004-01-22 06:40 pm UTC

[info]katsaris
2004-01-21 09:55 am UTC (link)
Actually I think (but am not sure) that the very name Hasufel means "grey-coated" in Old English.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]sagralisse, 2004-01-21 03:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2004-01-21 04:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sagralisse, 2004-01-21 05:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kookaburra, 2004-01-22 10:04 am UTC

[info]serai
2004-01-21 10:05 pm UTC (link)
OK, folks. I've heard some grousing about Shadowfax's color being wrong in the movie, because Tolkien said he was gray and the movie horse is white. This is an example, I think, of words being used differently in different contexts.

I asked a horsewoman friend of mine about that, and she told me that the Shadowfax in the movie is "a grey". All white horses are "greys", which is a color that runs the gamut from dark iron to what we think of as white. The only white horses that aren't "greys" are albinos, and those are some ugly horses. Red eyes, weird skin - you wouldn't want one playing Shadowfax.

Why do I bring this up? Because the horse color bochinche is a perfect example of the sort of detail that really doesn't matter. A lot of the book fans are so fixated on seeing the book on screen that they completely miss the story that's actually being told, as opposed to the story they want to see. Which is too bad, because the story being told onscreen is really incredibly good, whether you think it's a good adaptation of the book or not.

But when I see those nitpickers, I can only remember the immortal words of Abraham Lincoln: For those that like that sort of thing, I think it is just the sort of thing that they would like. :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]sagralisse, 2004-01-21 11:41 pm UTC
BTW - (Anonymous), 2004-01-21 11:49 pm UTC
Re: BTW - (Anonymous), 2004-01-22 01:05 pm UTC
Re: BTW - (Anonymous), 2004-01-23 04:13 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]katsaris, 2004-01-22 12:32 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]iczer6, 2004-01-22 03:27 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kookaburra, 2004-01-22 10:07 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]katsaris, 2004-01-22 05:16 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]serai, 2004-01-22 09:26 pm UTC

(Anonymous)
2004-01-21 03:44 am UTC (link)
*blinks*

This rant is inspired by one of my friends mistaking Eowyn's claim to fame in Return of the King for laid-on-thick feminism. Given that that's one of the few scenes that flows very nearly like it did in the book (the dialogue is truncated, and for once, it's more believable/less like a mythological story that way), I'm shocked. Peter Jackson is not a feminist, at least not in the sense that this scene would mean, *had he added it*. No, he's just a hack director and a *marketing wizard*.

Okay, so her friend misinterpreted a scene that was done well, and got a meaning of it that PJ probably didn't intend, so...because of this, PJ is a hack?

And freaking out because the fangirls think a horse that was gray in the books is brown? Please.

--Jezrana

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]iczer6
2004-01-21 03:57 am UTC (link)
[Okay, so her friend misinterpreted a scene that was done well, and got a meaning of it that PJ probably didn't intend, so...because of this, PJ is a hack?]

Yup it's all HIS fault. It's not because her friend is a moron or anything like that.

We should introduce her to 'elitest' manga fan who bitched about translations. I think they'd get along rather well.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]starherd, 2004-01-21 06:16 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]gaisce, 2004-01-21 07:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]starherd, 2004-01-21 08:59 am UTC

[info]calluna
2004-01-21 03:52 am UTC (link)
Yeah, because if the movies had been the same as the books word-for-word the kiddies would never have started obsessing over TEH HOTT ELFZ.

Came here to report this one myself; you beat me to it.

(Reply to this)


[info]baskinglizard
2004-01-21 03:57 am UTC (link)
A friend of mine made a comment after the film about that particular line 'pandering to the feminists in the crowd." I explained to him that no, that exchange (or an approximate version of it) is in the text, so he could just bugger right off.

However. I am sick to death of 'OMG like Peter Jackson totallly ruined the books!!1!one!" Some people just have to realize that it was just not possible to tell the story exactly as it appeared in the book, and accept that some changes had to be made. The books are still exactly the same as they have always been (barring some new covers and such :), and hopefully the films will get at least a few people interested enough to read the original story.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]katsaris
2004-01-21 05:53 am UTC (link)
"Some people just have to realize that it was just not possible to tell the story exactly as it appeared in the book, and accept that some changes had to be made."

I agree with what you said, but personally I still reserve the right to whine (and wank ;-) about the fact that Peter Jackson IMAO also made changes, additions and ommissions that (again IMAO) did *not* need to be made. Resulting in a movie that wasn't only inferior to the book (that was probably inevitable given the time constraints), but also far inferior to the-movie-that-might-have-been if a more competent director had been given the job of adapting it...

:-) So, yeah...

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: - [info]baskinglizard, 2004-01-21 05:57 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]eiviiaru, 2004-01-21 06:51 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2004-01-29 03:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]eiviiaru, 2004-01-29 08:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sagralisse, 2004-01-21 07:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]serai, 2004-01-21 10:17 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2004-01-22 12:33 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]katsaris, 2004-01-22 12:53 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]baskinglizard, 2004-01-22 02:33 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2004-01-22 10:05 am UTC
Re: (part 1) - [info]katsaris, 2004-01-22 05:10 pm UTC
Re: (part 1) - [info]starherd, 2004-01-23 10:34 pm UTC
Re: (part 1) - (Anonymous), 2004-01-29 03:14 pm UTC
Re: (part 2) - [info]katsaris, 2004-01-22 05:10 pm UTC
Re: (part 2) - [info]mariagoner, 2004-01-22 06:48 pm UTC
Re: (part 2) - (Anonymous), 2004-01-29 03:15 pm UTC
Re: (part 2) - [info]katsaris, 2004-01-29 09:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]serai, 2004-01-22 09:38 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pariforma, 2004-01-22 10:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]serai, 2004-01-22 10:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]katsaris, 2004-01-22 11:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]starherd, 2004-01-23 10:49 pm UTC

[info]serai
2004-01-21 10:12 pm UTC (link)
It ain't just that the book couldn't be filmed. It wouldn't matter a tit if PJ filmed the book exactly as it was written, because it would still be the book he saw in his head, and that wouldn't be the book that each individual nitpicker saw in his head. So the wank would never, ever stop, no matter how "faithful" PJ was. To what they want of course - the gods forbid he should have the right to be faithful to Tolkien in his own way.

Because, of course, being a nitpicky geek gives one the automatic right to tell an artist what he should or shouldn't do with his art. Especially if you're a nitpicky geek who's never been anywhere near a film set, and/or doesn't know an Arriflex from a Boflex.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]thespacecat, 2004-01-22 12:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]serai, 2004-01-22 09:42 pm UTC

(Anonymous)
2004-01-29 03:10 pm UTC (link)
I'm one of those horrible people who, actually, fucking hated the books and would rather die slowly than read them again, but quite liked the movie, because Peter Jackson can direct a battle scene and Tolkein's battle scenes (narrative derived - is that one r or two? - from the tradition of Norse sagas) read like fucking shopping lists.

I make myself somewhat unpopular by mentioning this in fantasy bookstores.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: - [info]baskinglizard, 2004-01-30 06:12 am UTC

[info]pet
2004-01-21 05:09 am UTC (link)
I didn't get that she was blaming Peter Jackson for ruining the books. I honestly got more of a tongue-in-cheek "why'd you have to go and do such a damn good job? Now I have to deal with these morons all the time! It's all your fault!" vibe off the rant. And I have to say, I agree with her. :)

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]rhi_silverflame
2004-01-21 07:13 am UTC (link)
didn't get that she was blaming Peter Jackson for ruining the books. I honestly got more of a tongue-in-cheek "why'd you have to go and do such a damn good job? Now I have to deal with these morons all the time! It's all your fault!" vibe off the rant.

Yeah, except when fernwithy starts going off, it kind of lends this whole air of "legitimate book uberpurist" to the rant, so I can see where the confusion might come in . . .

But I gotta agree with you, too. :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Not to rock the boat or anthing...
[info]croik
2004-01-21 05:24 am UTC (link)
...but I couldn't be happier with all the changes that were made from the books to the movies. I could barely drag myself through the books, and it's not (as some people accuse) because I have no imagination or taste, I just happen to find his style of writing kind of bland. *shrug* Just my opinion. And things like "the all powerful singing Tom" and "the return of Sharky" irk me beyond all belief.

So I'll be forever content as a fan of the movie-verse, far away from 1000 year family trees and the history of Middle-Earth horse breeding.

Oh, and if she ever finds a movie adaption that is 100% accurate to its source material, I will swallow my mouse whole. And I like this mouse ^^

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Not to rock the boat or anthing... - [info]starherd, 2004-01-21 05:56 am UTC
Re: Not to rock the boat or anthing... - [info]kijikun, 2004-01-21 06:50 am UTC
Re: Not to rock the boat or anthing... - [info]kookaburra, 2004-01-21 07:36 am UTC
Re: Not to rock the boat or anthing... - [info]kijikun, 2004-01-21 07:38 am UTC
Re: Not to rock the boat or anthing... - [info]starherd, 2004-01-21 09:13 am UTC
Re: Not to rock the boat or anthing... - [info]zana16, 2004-01-21 09:53 am UTC
Re: Not to rock the boat or anthing... - [info]serai, 2004-01-21 10:24 pm UTC
Re: Not to rock the boat or anthing... - [info]croik, 2004-01-21 11:16 pm UTC
Re: Not to rock the boat or anthing... - [info]katsaris, 2004-01-22 01:04 am UTC
Re: Not to rock the boat or anthing... - [info]serai, 2004-01-22 09:46 pm UTC
Re: Not to rock the boat or anthing... - [info]katsaris, 2004-01-23 01:23 am UTC
Re: Not to rock the boat or anthing... - [info]starherd, 2004-01-23 10:59 pm UTC

[info]musette
2004-01-21 05:50 am UTC (link)
Okay if you're going to throw a fit about using "white" as a colour descriptor for horses, don't act as if "grey" is an exceedingly technical term you fuck! Grrargh, I know I can get wanky when people call my horse "brown" (he's a dark bay, thankyouverymuch), but you can't expect people who aren't familiar with horses to know the colours that are used since they aren't colours used for /anything/ else.

(Reply to this)


[info]kasra
2004-01-21 09:28 am UTC (link)
Hook. Line. Sinker.

[info]starherd, you've just made my day.

(Reply to this)


[info]nyoda
2004-01-21 10:06 am UTC (link)
I think that she was speaking tongue-in-cheek.

Also, I understand her ambivalence about the movies vs. the books. I loved the movies, yes. And some of the changes made sense, strengthening the story the movie was telling. The beacon fires being lit across the land was a telling and powerful image. And it makes sense that Merry would figure out quickly who "Dernhelm" was, since Merry and Eowyn had become friends. The "Paths of the Dead" scene was good...even though it was almost nothing like the Paths of the Dead scene from the book.

But then there are other changes that make no sense at all, and that the fangirls have latched onto. Such as the notion of "immortality necklaces." I don't know why the fangirls are so convinced that Arwen gave Aragorn her immortality when she gave him her necklace, but convinced they are, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Whenever I saw an image of the dying Arwen juxtaposed with the image of her necklace falling and breaking, I winced. I knew that all across the country, fangirls would be saying, "See? It's the NECKLACE that makes her immortal and if it breaks, she'll die!"

Symbolism is lost on fangirls.

Or, to use another example, there's the scene in which Aragorn tells Eowyn that she cannot come to war with the rest of the Rohirrim. In the book, Aragorn tells Eowyn that she cannot come along because she has accepted another duty--to rule in Rohan in the stead of her uncle Theoden. This, Aragorn tells her, is a duty from which he cannot free her; Theoden gave her the responsibility, and Aragorn has no right to take it away.

But there's no mention of duty or responsibility in the movie, though it would make sense in view of the theme of nobility and responsibility running through the story. No, Aragorn just tells her that she cannot come along because she does not really love him.

And the "Arwen's life is now tied to the Ring" thing. [sarcasm] Yeah, that was a necessary change. I guess the whole "throwing the One Ring in Mount Doom to destroy Sauron and save the immediate WORLD" wasn't important enough. [/sarcasm]

As I said...I love the movies. I love them passionately. But, nevertheless, I can see that alterations that Jackson made which do not strengthen the story--scenes which would have been stronger had he stuck with the text.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]pet, 2004-01-21 04:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]serai, 2004-01-21 10:30 pm UTC
Can't miss an opportunity to wank... - [info]starherd, 2004-01-22 12:11 am UTC
Re: Can't miss an opportunity to wank... - [info]serai, 2004-01-22 09:59 pm UTC
There's a difference, hon. - [info]starherd, 2004-01-23 11:21 pm UTC
Oh, and PS - [info]serai, 2004-01-22 10:07 pm UTC
Re: Oh, and PS - [info]starherd, 2004-01-23 11:34 pm UTC
Re: Oh, and PS - (Anonymous), 2004-01-29 03:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]thespacecat, 2004-01-22 12:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mariagoner, 2004-01-22 06:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]serai, 2004-01-22 09:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]starherd, 2004-01-23 11:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2004-01-29 03:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]katsaris, 2004-01-29 09:41 pm UTC

[info]thespacecat
2004-01-21 10:32 am UTC (link)
Also, this person is guilty of hypocrisy; when she references the horses' colors, she refers to Shadowfax as white. In the books, Shadowfax was, as his name implies, grey. In a moment of hypocrisy myself, that is one of those tiny, insignificant changes that I, as a fan of the books, have ranted slightly about and am still irritated by; the stereotypical pure-white horse ridden by the cowboy just cheeses me off. Also because Shadowfax is more reminiscent of Gandalf's form as the Grey rather than the White. I personally loved Gandalf the Grey and thought the White was a little lame.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Is it hypocricy if... - [info]starherd, 2004-01-21 01:05 pm UTC
Re: Is it hypocricy if... - [info]thespacecat, 2004-01-22 12:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]serai, 2004-01-21 10:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]thespacecat, 2004-01-22 12:07 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]serai, 2004-01-22 10:19 pm UTC
I wish I had my "elitist book snob" icon here...
[info]kannaophelia
2004-01-21 11:41 am UTC (link)
Erm, I though that the point was that the movie machine is promoting the movie canon as LOTR canon. Arhgue that it *is* if you must, but you know, when I think Jane Eyre, I think of Charlotte Bronte's book about a small plain girl who made her own life before finding happiness, not the movie canon where Jane is Jane Fontaine impossibly beautiful and went straight back to Rochester after her aunt died.

And it would be nice if people would label their movieverse fics so I can avoid all the horrendous Aragorn/Legolas OOC-ness them like the plague.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: I wish I had my "elitist book snob" icon here... - [info]nyoda, 2004-01-21 12:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pet, 2004-01-21 04:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sagralisse, 2004-01-21 05:39 pm UTC
Re: - [info]kannaophelia, 2004-01-21 05:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]iczer6, 2004-01-21 07:38 pm UTC
*Hates to see intelligent people misled* - [info]starherd, 2004-01-22 12:22 am UTC
Re: *Hates to see intelligent people misled* - [info]iczer6, 2004-01-22 03:37 am UTC
Re: *Hates to see intelligent people misled* - [info]starherd, 2004-01-22 07:49 am UTC
Re: - [info]kannaophelia, 2004-01-22 01:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]serai, 2004-01-21 10:34 pm UTC
Re: - [info]pet, 2004-01-22 01:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]serai, 2004-01-22 10:25 pm UTC

  
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map