Lord of the rings question

ascan1984 · Aug 11, 2005

As fans ofthebook did the trilogy of movies live up to your expectations

JonClarke · Aug 11, 2005

The fim was a cinematographic tour de force. It was well acted, well fimed, and had an excellent score. Most (not all) of the special effects were also excellent. it also made squillions of money. But the fim fundamentally peverted almost every major theme of Tolkien's work, the characters and their motivations were almost unrecongisable. After trimming a lot of important content in the interests of managable length the film then introduced a lot of extraneous material. The action scenes were also over long and at the expense of character and plot development (a problem with many modern films). Much of the story was vulgarised (perhaps unavoidably) and (more seriously) sillified. The first film, where these developments were in embryo, was not too bad and I enjoyed much of it. The second, where they became more fully developed made me angier than any film I have seen for a long time. The third I found watchable only with great difficulty. For apologists who say that all these changes were neccessary to bring the story to film I found out there are a great many film adaptations of novels that have remained faithful to the characters and plot. Pride and Prejudice, Sense and sensibility, the three Harry Potter fims, to name a few. The fault for this lies squarely with Peter Jackon and the script writers who repeatedly said they thought they could improve on the original story and showed themselves utterly unable to comprehend or respect Tolkien's world view, story, or characters. I find it significant that Jackson's lifetime amibition as a film maker is not to bring to life the most popular and widely read and arguably best novel of the 20th century LOTR), but to remake King Kong. he should have stuck to that ambition. I could go on at some length about this, but I think I have provoked the ire of the Jacksonites enough. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

larper · Aug 11, 2005

Ok, I will try to counter argue that.. I liked the movies. Now, I am not saying that they are better than the books, I am just saying I liked them. I too saw the flaws and missing material, and understood immediately, without Peter coercing me to believe it, that the changes were necessary to make the film. The films were more about capturing the feel of Middle Earth, being able to actually see it for the first time, than about faithfully rendering the books. As such, he did a great job. He also, perhaps, did a wonderful job in getting people to understand why we are so fond of LotR, to the point that maybe they will pick up the books for themselves. Faithfully following the LotR books would be difficult to do on the big screen. One of my friends says that he always thought that it should be a 60 episode miniseries, one episode per chapter. Did I miss Tom Bombadil? No. In fact, he adds little to the story, and only raises questions (why is he immune while Gandalf is not, etc). But, I DID miss the Barrow Wight encounter. They got to Bree way to early, and where did Aragorn get all of those weapons on Weathertop? Basically, he did the best that anyone has done to date in trying this. And probably, no one will be able to top it simply because the scope of the story is too big. Now, the fact that he is making yet another remake of King Kong.... sheesh. I think he could do a great job with The Lensman series though, if Doc Smith's family will release the rights. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Vote Libertarian </div>

JonClarke · Aug 12, 2005

Certainly visually the films are a stunning realisation of ME, and in many ways are cinematographic realisation of Alan Lee's work. Alan, who is perhaps the best of the artistic interpreters of Tolkien, worked closely with Jackson. Equally too, the length and complexity of the book poses challenges to adaptation, roll on the mini series! I have not in principle objection to much material would have to be excised or condensed. So, for example, a case can be made for the condensation of the first few chapters, collapsing many years into a few weeks and the elimination for the Bombadill and scouring chapters, important though they are. The problem is that having created elbow room by excising material, that is then wasted on excessively long battle scenes in all three movies simply because they look cool. To a degree that is a failing of modern film direction tastes, and certainly Jackson is not the only one who does this. Lucas did the same in the three most recent SW films. Unfortunately what gets lost is minor things like plot and character development, which, to my old fashioned view, is much more important than cool effects or battles. For me, all too frequently the fim descends to low cheese level. there are about 10 Gimli jokes too many and much of the additional dialogue is truely cringe worthy, sounding like GWB on a bad day. Gollum was far too cartoonish (not entirely because of the CGI) and as for the olympic torch orc or the eye of Sauron.... All perhaps a matter of taste, but possibly a reflection that Jackson may not be able to operate at Tolkien's level. However there is far less justification for the inclusion of gratuitous new scenes. This begins with the 2nd film with the Warg attack, Aragon falling off the cliff, and Osgiliath. It carries on with the whole risible Arwen back story. If time is so important it seems completely nuts to do this. There is no excuse what so ever with what has <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

larper · Aug 12, 2005

I really do hate the way they portrayed Gimli. That was completely inexcusable. Legolas the surfer stunt boy was very wrong too, in my opinion. Yeah, he should have been deadly with a bow, and yeah, he should be fairly charasmatic, but he should also be somewhat aloof, and should be killing orcs with the appearance of the minimum of effort, not with stunts. The addition of the warg attack had me completely stumped. Didn't see the need for that, except to advance the Arwen plot line..... The prominence of the Arwen plot line was a concession to the audience. Face it, there are not that many female characters in LotR, and none of them play much of a role except for Eowyn. I never got used to the removal of the first chapters. How effective would it have been to see Frodo age, take his time, miss Gandalf's letter to "get out now", see the four of them taking their time to leave the shire, etc. Build up that suspense for the people who don't know what is about to happen, and let us who do revel in the shire a bit longer. But, unlike you, I don't see that he uprooted the characters moral centers. They still rang true (with the exception of Gimli) in my mind. Gollum they did better than I could ever have hoped. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Vote Libertarian </div>

Leovinus · Aug 12, 2005

One thing that I really didn't like about the movie was when Frodo and Sam were captured by Faromir and taken back to Gondor. That did not happen in the book. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

jcdenton · Aug 12, 2005

Jackson wanted to add to Faramir's character otherwise his role in the movie would have been too short. It was also used as a stop-gap measure so that Frodo and Sam's voyage in to Mordor with Gollum would mostly take place in Return of the King. I was more disappointed in Denethor's unexplained madness. They really should have included the Palantir during these scenes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

larper · Aug 12, 2005

I also was somewhat disappointed in Shelob. My friend Dan Frazier has painted the quintessential image of Sam and Shelob. Everything else pales in comparison. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Vote Libertarian </div>

larper · Aug 12, 2005

Here is Dan's "A Friend in Need" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Vote Libertarian </div>

spacefire · Aug 12, 2005

from the perspective of someone who hasn't read the books, I though the LOTR movies that I watched (the first two) were boring and didn't make much sense,a nd none of the characters was well developed, while the acting was overly dramatic. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

relaisterre · Aug 12, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />As fans ofthebook did the trilogy of movies live up to your expectations <hr /></blockquote> Read the books only once, a long time ago. Had no expectations whatsoever. Loved the movies. Purists have complained, of course. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />and showed themselves utterly unable to comprehend or respect Tolkien's world view, story, or characters.<hr /></blockquote> Funny, I thought this is where Jackson shined most of all. I felt tremendous respect for the source material coming from the movie. If the movies don't 100% represent the subjective and personnal idea of each single reader in the world, then it's not the director's fault. He's not a mind reader. It's his movies, his project, his vision. Pleasing everyone is impossible. Those who think he was disrespectful of the books can go out and film their own versions of the movies.

JonClarke · Aug 12, 2005

If you read the books only once a long time ago i suggest you are not the best judge of how well the films reflect the source. I complaint is not over rrivial details or even that Jackson's vision is differernt from mine. these are inevctiable and have to be allowed for. Different visiosn are ofdten helpful. What I object to is the fundamental pervision of characters. Take Elrond for example. In the book Elrond is an immortal half elf. He is noted for his wisdom, his knowledge, and his kindness to all beings of good will in ME - elses, men, hobbits, dwarves, wandering maiar. Rivendell is known as the Last Homely House. He also loves Aragorn as a son. In the fim we have a twisted individual bigoted against men, scarcely tolerant of Aragaon, who bullies his daughter (herself an immortal who has lived thousands of years). The fims are good (not great) cinema, bad adpataions, and will date rapidly. The over dramatisation that spacefire mentions, characteristic of "adventure" movies of the last 20 years, will see to that. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

larper · Aug 12, 2005

I did have trouble with Elrond myself. I think they chose the wrong actor. I just couldn't get past the Mr. Smith face. But again, he is trying to create a tension on screen that just wasn't there in the books. Elrond witnessed the weakness of men when Isildur failed to destroy the ring. From that point on, he distrusted men. It all has to do with the Arwen story line that just was not there in the book, but had to be there in the movie to make it palatable to the masses. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Vote Libertarian </div>

lunatio_gordin · Aug 12, 2005

Mr. Smith is right! the Arwen thing, maybe good for everyone else, but it was not a good part of the movie. Having not read the books, i'm certainly unqualified to comment, however as movies, taken separately fromteh book. they are good.

hracctsold · Aug 12, 2005

In response to your question, yes, I did like all of the movies. In fact, my wife commented to me that I was quoting lines of the characters before they had a chance, and was telling her what was coming before it happened. Yes, there were some parts of it that were long and drawn out, and seemed tedious, especially in the second movie. But that was also the parts in the book that seemed long, and it seemed the reward for finishing the second book was that you got to the best of the third. And yes, I did fall asleep during part near the end of the second movie, (but working and going to school may have had a part as well). I have read that series at least twice, and maybe three times, since I first discovered it in college in the '70's.I have even looked at the rip-off book that was made about that time as well. He was quoted as saying that he had one copy of Tolkein in one hand, and the copyright laws in the other. I have also logged time in reading most of the other works as well. As to Tom Bomadil, that was a disappointment, but there was literally more material in those books then was possible to show, without making it even longer then it was. As to character casting, the only suprise for me was the role of Boramir, the human. I can't say why, but he was just not what I was thinking of in that role. I do think the casting was great for many of the other characters though. One the most interesting parts was John Davies as the dwarf, and how they got a 6' 3'' guy to play a 3' 6'' character. And I think Gandalf was dead on good. As for liking or not liking it, over the years I have found there have been two camps on that subject, either you liked Tolkien and his work, or you did not care much for it, not much middle ground. I just adore when I can put myself in the place of the characters and live the story with them. Imagination and the ability to get into the storyline is lacking much in todays world I think, and even though

larper · Aug 13, 2005

Faromir falls in love with Eowyn in the Houses of Healing, not Arwen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Vote Libertarian </div>

JonClarke · Aug 13, 2005

I would say that, for the most part, the casting ranged to adequate to excellent. I really liked Sean Bean as Boromir, he did an excellent job although, once again, Jackson's Boromir has very different motivations to the original. However, I like almost every role that Bean does, he might be the only thing to induce me to see Try. Anyone else here seen him in "Sharpe"? Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

hracctsold · Aug 13, 2005

Jon, I did like the role that Sean Bean played as Boromir, it was just that for some unexplained reason his portrayal was different from what I thought. It might be as you mentioned about the motivation in the part. Sean has played several roles that have always been pretty good. The latest one that I enjoyed very much was as the bad guy in "National Treasure." The whole show was great, and his part just added to the whole. It was half way through the show that I realized they did not need to curse, have meaningless sex, and other things to have a good show. I also know that many will now display their displeasure to my opinion as theirs is the only one permissible, but such are the inequities of life. As to Arwen/Eowyn, I even looked it up last night to be sure of the facts, and still got it wrong, just as I did in the movie. Arwen was called the Lady of Rivendell, (pg.52), and Eowyn was called Lady Eowyn, (pg.54), and the Lady of Rohan (pg.266). Sorry about that.

flynn · Aug 13, 2005

Sharpes great I got the Box set. I felt Jackson done a good job, true there are a few bit missing but I tend to think more of the Extended DVDs than the cinematic release they are much closer to the book. Did anyone imagine Gandolfs fight with the Bolrog any other way, that was amazing. The extended version also had the captain of the gate which the cinematic release was missing, it worked much better with it in on the DVD. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "All God does is watch us and kill us when we get boring. We must never, ever be boring" - Chuck Palahniuk. </div>

hracctsold · Aug 13, 2005

That was one of the scenes of Gandalf that I quoted to my wife when we were watching it. The fight with the Balrog was just as I imagined it. I have not seen it on DVD I don't think, only on pay-for-view and vhs. Is that showing really that much better?

relaisterre · Aug 13, 2005

Some people have read these books so much and so often that they cannot feel anything but dissapointed when seeing the movies. A director cannot take what's in someone's mind and put it on film. Of course Elrond won't be like the one in the book. The one in the book is also shaped by the reader. The one in the film is shaped by what Jackson read and what he tought was best for the movie. I think Hugo Weaving did a great job of portraying Elrond, and I had no problem with my image of Agent Smith in the Matrix. I looked passed it, forgot about it, and liked Weaving's Elrond for who he was.

hracctsold · Aug 13, 2005

I have read a disturbing comment by someone in another thread on this message board, they were lamenting the fact of not liking to read over being able to watch TV or movies. That is the trouble with many people today, wanting to lose their imagination and wanting to be babysitted by other things. Now that is troubling to consider. I have read about a guy that has read LOTR over 10 times, or once a year. Now that, to me, is a little excessive to my way of thinking. But that is also why I try not to take much expectation into the movies, because others do not always look at things the way I do. But I have been surprised by some movies like Fantastic 4. It was a dumb comic book, but they did a good job at most of the ideas, and did good casting for the characters. For the most part, it was faithful to the concept of the comics as I remember them, even with VonDoom's history being changed and Reed not being yet married at the start. As to holding to a previous concept of a actor's character background I know what you mean. I remember Michael Keeton more as Beetle Juice then as a serious Batman. But he proved me wrong and did a good job at it. P.S. What does your tag line really say? Is that Latin? I think I got the diem to mean day. Is that right?

flynn · Aug 14, 2005

There is something like 5 aditional hours accross the 3 films on the Extended verison DVD, they do caost a bit more but are well worth it. Unlike most extended versions they arn't just things they couldn't fit in, these scenes were always meant for a version Peter Jackson couldn't expect a cinema audiance to sit through. As I said in my last post, the Captain of the gate works so much better than the cinematic release. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "All God does is watch us and kill us when we get boring. We must never, ever be boring" - Chuck Palahniuk. </div>

JonClarke · Aug 14, 2005

Hugo Weaving is great at playing fundamentally twisted characters, he was badly cast for Elrond, but did a good job with the material he was presented. Larper wrote: "he is trying to create a tension on screen that just wasn't there in the books. Elrond witnessed the weakness of men when Isildur failed to destroy the ring. From that point on, he distrusted men. It all has to do with the Arwen story line that just was not there in the book, but had to be there in the movie to make it palatable to the masses." And that is the nub of it for me. The film Elrond was not the book Elrond, buta conmpletel;y different character who happened to share a name and have a similar history. Book Elrond witnessed Isidur's failure but was not embittered by it. This difference is not a question of interpretation but a deliberate choice by Jackson and his script writers to redefine the character. I find that unacceptable. This is done for almost all the major characters. I don't think it was done to make the film more palatable. How is a bitter, racisct Elrond more palatable than a wise and hospitable one? I suspect the changes were made because Jackson et al. thought they could tell a better story than Tolkien. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Aug 14, 2005

Sean Bean is a much under-rated actor. He can play compromised hero (Boromir), villian (006 in Goldeneye) and showed excellent character development in the Sharpe series. I understand he has done some great stage work as well. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

Lord of the rings question

ascan1984

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

larper

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

larper

Guest

Leovinus

Guest

jcdenton

Guest

larper

Guest

larper

Guest

spacefire

Guest

relaisterre

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

larper

Guest

lunatio_gordin

Guest

hracctsold

Guest

larper

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

hracctsold

Guest

flynn

Guest

hracctsold

Guest

relaisterre

Guest

hracctsold

Guest

flynn

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page