Posted on 10/14/2010 9:45:32 PM PDT by This Just In
eter Jackson vs. The Unions
Posted By Leigh Scott On October 12, 2010
So my good friends, the labor unions, have decided to pick a fight with Peter Jackson and his upcoming production of “The Hobbit.” Of course, they are not my good friends, I say that sarcastically. Unions in general are bad news these days. The idea of “protecting the worker” has somehow morphed like a T-1000 into huge, multi-billion dollar corporations that stifle economic growth while using illegal methods of coercion to blackmail money from employers. The fact that they are a de facto wing of the Democratic Party also compels me to deny their friend requests on Facebook.
The entertainment industry guilds are particularly pernicious. They have singlehandedly forced film production out of California, and now, ultimately, out of the country. Their bullying knows no bounds. They are quick with a nasty press release (as in the case of “The Hobbit”) but have no qualms about making threats to commit illegal actions to get what they want. One of Mr. Jackson’s studios burned to the ground shortly after the release of his retaliatory statements.
(Excerpt) Read more at bighollywood.breitbart.com ...
He was kicked off set for taking drugs.
He was only good in LOTR because the fight scenes made him seem manly. Without them, he would be as you described, which tortured the character of Aragorn.
I liked the movies, and likes the visual presentation of Middle Earth, but the movies screwed up many of the roles.
The most obvious was Arwen, Warrior Princess, who turned into Limp Arwen when the movie makers realized there was no way to write Xena into the LOTR.
In doing so, they took a critical scene away from Frodo, whose courage & strength are demonstrated in the Flight to the Ford in the books. And in the movies, Frodo remains a wimp. He doesn’t show an ounce of initiative or judgment, but screws up almost everything he touches.
Aragorn, in the book, WANTS to be King. In the movie, he rejects it as too great a burden - a Viggo sort of wimpiness that betrays the character of Aragorn. Had there been a fourth movie, I don’t doubt but that King Aragorn would have tried to compromise with the Orcs...probably by offering them a free dental plan funded by taxes on white farmers who had for so long oppressed them.
In the scenes at Rivendell, I kept hoping Arwen would say something like, “Grow a pair, Aragorn! You won’t get in my panties until you man up and get your throne! These breasts were made for princes to nurse, not poets”...although one doesn’t get the feeling Viggo would know what to do with them anyways.
The moron campaigned for Dennis Kucinich for president.
That’s all I need to know.
Not according to the AP test in US History or government.
The Constitution is a “framework” for government, not a contract with a people.
Our best and brightest are being mislead...intentionally.
But doesn’t own a motorcycle.
I think Arwen’s character was written into the movie to please feminists. Otherwise the LOTRs is a story about male heroes taking action.
The scene with Arwen at the river is invention.
The movies (because of time constraints) didn’t really go into the relationships between Aragorn and the Elves, nor that of his race (early, superior men who lived hundreds of years) and the current men; these would explain some of the issues with him taking the throne. Most of his people were gone (the steward and his sons being exceptions), and he was probably more akin to the departing elves.
Yes, that was just to give her a larger role ( I believe in the book it was a male elf who took Frodo there). That being said, there isn’t much “feminist” about some home-body who just wants to marry & bear a son...
Theoden’s daughter was more “male” (but prettier), but even she wasn’t too tough. In fact, she’s saved by a guy half her size...
As someone who wrote an (unproduced) adaptation of a book (the producers decided they couldn't afford the film), I can tell you, the fans of LOTR who complain about this stuff simply have no idea what goes into adapting a book. I am not trying to be insulting--hell, I thought I knew a lot before I worked on the adaptation of a much simpler story.
The fans of LOTR have very little to complain about if they're going to be realistic. Screen time, pacing, and something as simple as not giving a character too much to do because the nature of watching a motion picture dictates that people will simply get bored even if they're interested in that character--it's so incredibly complicated that I think LOTR deserved every award it got.
I've read so many complaints about things that were cut our or altered, and I just shake my head. Arwen is another example--there just wasn't time, and they chose to make her character (who isn't even IN the main book, she's in an appendix) what she was to mix it up.
I didn't get that Aragorn didn't want to be king. He understood the burden, but they certainly didn't spend tons of screentime showing him afraid of leading. They touched on it once, then we saw him taking command--so much more interesting than meeting someone who from the moment we meet him wants this thing and trudges forward to get it. This arc only strengthened the first film for non-book readers (who, sorry to tell you, had to be taken into account if they money would be there to make this financially workable).
Nope, sorry, the fans who complain about this have no idea how bad it COULD have been (such as with the initial TWO-movie idea, not to mention the ghastly animated version(s)), and their complaints are small potatoes.
Apparently, according to the armsmaster, the professional sword user who traided and advised the actors, kept the weapons, did all the health and safety with them and so on, Mortenson was THE best pupil he had ever had. He was VERY good with a sword. In fact, it wouldnt surprise me if some of the fight scenes were amended to give him more screen time, so as to show off that skill.
Aragorn, in the book, WANTS to be King. In the movie, he rejects it as too great a burden - a Viggo sort of wimpiness that betrays the character of Aragorn. Had there been a fourth movie, I don’t doubt but that King Aragorn would have tried to compromise with the Orcs...probably by offering them a free dental plan funded by taxes on white farmers who had for so long oppressed them.
I think that's enormously unfair. Viggo Mortenson had a very small part in the characterisation of Aragorn. The decision to make him unwilling to be king was made by the producers, director and writers. It was, in my opinion, an extremely good move too. It made LOTR a much, much better movie.
The whole point of a story is that you have a character in one situation at the start, and in a different situation/frame of mind at the end. The story is made by them progressing (or occasionally regressing) from one state to the other. The obstacles along the way create "drama". The point of LOTR the book is that it was very much about the hobbits, and the rest of the characters are just people they meet and interact with. That's fine on the printed page, but in the film, where the other characters have a lot of screen time, you need to show them progressing as well. Having Aragorn reluctant to take up the burden of Leadership of the reunited kingdom makes his final triumph all the more interesting.
I wasn't all that impressed with him in LOTR. Surely there was someone more "kingly" who could have played Aragorn.
Too bad Viggo never read The Lord of the Rings, or, if he did, the lessons in the books went right over his head. Sauron was a conglomerate of all the dictatorial enemies of the West (e.g. Stalin) and Mordor represented the USSR. The propaganda mouthed by Sauron's mouthpiece was straight out of the USSR playbook.
Good points and they both couldn’t wait to get married by the end.
bfl
BBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!! I laughed out loud when I saw that! Take THAT, Viggio!!!
Did you see Carlito's Way? Even the liberal toad Sean Penn was good in that one. even in Mortensen's small role as an ex-criminal trying to set up Al Pacino, he was a crapper in that one too.
If I summarize what you (and others) have written: Mortensen comes across as a major league douche bag. Pure and simple: he's unlikeable.
I do not doubt it could have been worse. However, it also could have been better.
The scene with Xena took away from Frodo, weakening the main character - and for no purpose. The movie could not sustain the new characterization, so they had to drop it without explaining the enormous switch in Arwen’s personality. Had her role been what it was in the book, the remaining scenes with her would have made sense, while allowing the most important character in the book to show his mettle - to help us understand that Frodo was a strong person, both well taught and brave.
No, Viggo wasn’t at fault for the change in his character - but no matter how athletic he is (and I believe that is very), he plays roles as though he’d prefer writing poetry. Maybe that makes him more likable to women, but he remains too wimpy to have won Arwen’s heart and to be the ‘hope of the west’ - someone who could lead the forces against Sauron or plausibly get men to follow him to Mordor.
Some scenes of invention are good. There is one in the 2 towers where Eowen (?) makes inedible soup that Aragorn has to pretend to eat to save her feelings. It gives a quick but strong reminder that Aragorn is a caring person while also capable of fighting.
The introduction of Xena was the most jarring change. Frodo NEEDED scenes prior to Rivendell to show he had strength - otherwise his offer to take the ring is stupid. As filmed, a guy who can’t walk out of the Shire without aid is going to take the ring to Mordor? YGBSM! No one would trust the character in the movie with that - but in the book, he had already shown great courage and leadership against the Barrow wights (spelling?) and is willing to take on the Nine.
The primary character in the book is Frodo, but in the movie he is just a short guy who needs to be rescued a lot. Maybe that was required to get funding. Maybe it was driven by the actor not having what it takes to carry the film. Or maybe Jackson lost sight of what the books are about.
This isn’t to take away from what Jackson achieved. When I watch the movies, I’m aware that the director did a task well that I couldn’t handle one day of, let alone the entire effort.
bump
More modification than invention - Arwen, Glorinfindel - no big whup
For what it’s worth, I always saw it as being about Sam
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.