Why Peter Jackson is a purist compared to the BBC!

[Primula Baggins]

Well, the brain cells that recall those discussions have all gone. At least in my case.

[axordil]

This is nothing. Go to a baseball forum and ask about the DH rule. THAT's an argument without end.

[sauronsfinger]

Sorry but I was not there seven years ago...

I guess I just accept the difference between a book and a film.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Oh, I certainly accept the difference between a book and a film, and often make that very point. And I defend the Jackson films more often than I criticize them. But this scene doesn't work for me, either as an adaptation of Tolkien's work or as a stand alone scene. And I agree with River that the vocal distortion is the biggest problem. When you have an actor as talented as Cate Blanchett, let her act. You can tell beneath the surface that she really nails those lines, with all of the power and authority that they need. But it get's lost in the distortion.

[Primula Baggins]

I disliked that aspect of it, too. And I believe somewhere I heard or read Blanchett saying she was surprised (implying displeased) by the modification.

[axordil]

I think the distortion was the least well executed aspect of the scene. Ideally, as with the image, the voice should have remained recognizably that of the character. Some distortion (dynamic broadening, echo) would have been OK. Multi-tracked dubbing, meh.

[sauronsfinger]

To me, it got over the power of the character. I especially liked the wild blowing of all the cloth and the darkening of the skies while she radiated light.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

sf, if I recall correctly, Tom Shippey liked the scene too, so you are in good company.

I did like the darkening of the skies while she radiated light, but I didn't care for the wildly blowing cloth.

I think might be time to split this discussion off, seeing as that it has already gone on longer than the original topic.

[Pearly Di]

To me, it got over the power of the character. I especially liked the wild blowing of all the cloth and the darkening of the skies while she radiated light.

I remember that Yavanna at the Imladris site -- my other favourite haunt during the movie fandom -- liked the scene too, sf.

We certainly get a vision of Galadriel as the Dark Lady.

I'm with the others who are less keen on the scene, but I can understand why it worked for other fans.

And yes, I separated the books from the films from the word go.

[Holbytla]

Don't know why, but everytime I see this thread's title I am reminded of a Hama thread. "Peter Jackson is goat's poop".

[Primula Baggins]

I miss Hama! But I shouldn't talk about people who aren't here, I think, so that's all I'll say.

[WampusCat]

Radioactive Galadriel was my least favorite scene in FotR. Let the woman act! I felt the same way about how PJ handled Théoden's awakening. It could have been so much more powerful if done through acting, not special effects.

(unabashedly off-topic, because It Needs To Be Said)

[Frelga]

I think the distortion was the least well executed aspect of the scene.

I didn't like it, either - it seemed like something from a 70s movie. But the part I really dislike is the transition back, when she stands there panting. That was straight from Ghostbusters and I didn't get the sense of moral struggle, the moral victory that should have been there.

I think PJ nailed the visual, with, perhaps the exception of Paths of the Dead. I don't think he grasped the inherent nobility of Tolkien's 'verse that we discussed in Expanding Universe thread..

[Impenitent]

Radioactive Galadriel was my least favorite scene in FotR. Let the woman act! I felt the same way about how PJ handled Théoden's awakening. It could have been so much more powerful if done through acting, not special effects.

(unabashedly off-topic, because It Needs To Be Said)

Oh, I do so agree! There are several other scenes that make me either or but I'll leave it at that.

Yesterday and today, seeing as I'm on 7 weeks leave, I watched FoTR, TTT and RoTK extended editions all over again. I feel quite fulfilled (apart from the or moments)

I haven't watched either of those BBC series; I've seen several of the Austen interpretations they've done, though, and really loved them! I wonder why they can do some things so well while falling down on others?

[yovargas]

Yeah, I'm pretty convinced if her voice hadn't been messed with so much, none of us would be talking about this right now. Even if some aren't crazy about the visual effect (I think they're okay), the gorgeousness of the language plus Cate's great acting would've made it a very powerful scene. I think the real problem is that her voice is so distorted that it gets hard to make out what she's saying, and it's her words that are truly powerful at this moment.

(ps - I loooove Théoden's transformation! I never understood why people had a problem with that. It's such a quiet, gentle effect, I find it very beautiful. And, though I don' remember the book scene that well anymore, it felt very much in keeping with the spirit of the book scene.)

[Pearly Di]

I didn't like it, either - it seemed like something from a 70s movie. But the part I really dislike is the transition back, when she stands there panting. That was straight from Ghostbusters and I didn't get the sense of moral struggle, the moral victory that should have been there.

Straight from Ghostbusters ...

Yesterday and today, seeing as I'm on 7 weeks leave, I watched FoTR, TTT and RoTK extended editions all over again. I feel quite fulfilled (apart from the or moments)

It's ages since I watched the films. I'm going to see FotR at the Royal Albert Hall next April, with a live orchestra.

I haven't watched either of those BBC series; I've seen several of the Austen interpretations they've done, though, and really loved them! I wonder why they can do some things so well while falling down on others?

The Beeb pretty much have it sussed when it comes to adapting 19th century novels. And earlier stuff: I adore their fantastic Clarissa, with Sean Bean, from 1991. It's very dark. And sexeh.

Pride and Prejudice (:love:) North and South (Richard Armitage brooding in those dark satanic mills ), Bleak House (superb), Jane Eyre in 2006 (marvellous), Cranford (last year), Sense and Sensibility (last year, not as good as Ang Lee's film though) Tess of the D'Urbervilles (recently on, I loved it), Little Dorrit (on now) ... the BBC rarely stuff this up.

It's just fantasy they don't seem to get. At the moment, anyway. Back in 1981, they hit the spot with their radio LotR.

Théoden. I quite like the exorcism scene, actually.

[Primula Baggins]

Do you get the sense, Di, that the BBC might be dismissive of fantasy? "Oh, this is only fantasy, that's for children. . . ." In my experience nothing is a better guarantee of poor results than contempt for the genre you're adapting (or even patronizing affection, which is really contempt for the people who like the genre).

I know people in RL with that attitude; they laugh knowingly and dismiss, say, Tolkien with an airy, "That could never happen, and anyway I'm not interested in books that aren't about human beings." As if Frodo and Sam are beneath their notice because they're called something else; the label is all.

[Pearly Di]

Do you get the sense, Di, that the BBC might be dismissive of fantasy? "Oh, this is only fantasy, that's for children. . . ." In my experience nothing is a better guarantee of poor results than contempt for the genre you're adapting (or even patronizing affection, which is really contempt for the people who like the genre).

But if you have contempt for a genre, why would you bother adapting it?

Merlin is currently occupying the Doctor Who slot, which is prime time TV viewing on a Saturday night.

I mean, ever since the LotR films, everybody should know that if you do fantasy really, REALLY well, you're onto a winner. PJ treated his source material with respect (I don't mean he was always faithful to the text or even the themes, I mean that he did actually have respect for the sort of story that LotR is) and it shows in his films (give or take a few cringey moments).

Knowing this, knowing the success they can have on their hands if they treat the Arthurian legends with respect (an adaptation can be lively and risky and still respectful), the BBC seem to think it clever to take a wildly revisionistic, almost anti-historical take on it all.

Maybe they think they're doing a good job. Maybe they think this is how it should be done.

I mean, they've got ladies in velvet and a cool castle and blokes wielding swords and the obligatory peasant and cool SFX and Anthony Head of Buffy grousing it up as Uther and a dragon ... what more do people want?

Um ... authenticity?

I know people in RL with that attitude; they laugh knowingly and dismiss, say, Tolkien with an airy, "That could never happen, and anyway I'm not interested in books that aren't about human beings." As if Frodo and Sam are beneath their notice because they're called something else; the label is all.

I've met people like that too.

Have they ever READ it????

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Of course not. That would be beneath them.

[Primula Baggins]

Do you get the sense, Di, that the BBC might be dismissive of fantasy? "Oh, this is only fantasy, that's for children. . . ." In my experience nothing is a better guarantee of poor results than contempt for the genre you're adapting (or even patronizing affection, which is really contempt for the people who like the genre).

But if you have contempt for a genre, why would you bother adapting it?

If enough people will watch it, they'll hold their noses and adapt it. A famous line about my own country—"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American people."

It just leads to, as you rightly point out, a half-heartedness that makes it really hard to do it right. PJ's respect for Tolkien was real, and it showed. He didn't always express it right by my lights, and sometimes I think he misunderstood what he was trying to portray; but he considered LotR important, worthy of tremendous effort, and I'll always be grateful for that.