Crimes Against Tolkienity [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Lord of Angmar

12-12-2003, 01:16 PM

Let me start off by saying that I have so far thoroughly enjoyed Peter Jackson's film interpretations of J.R.R. Tolkiens The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, and I expect the same degree of enjoyability out of the third installment in the movie trilogy, The Return of the King. Having read Squatter of Amon Rudh's contributions to the <A HREF="http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=002485" TARGET=_blank>PJ wants to do The Hobbit [seriously]</A> thread, I feel obliged to list and explain several aspects in particular which many entirely object to.<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>The Scourging of the ShireNo, I am not referring to the chapter "The Scouring of the Shire" and its being left out of the films. I am referring to the destruction that Peter Jackson and New Line inflicted upon the natural world in filming the Lord of the Rings trilogy, particularly their creation of the Shire, in which they molested the New Zealand countryside, boring holes into hills to create hobbit-holes and even destroying miles and miles of natural greenery to pave a long road by which filming supplies could be brought to the rural location. As J.R.R. Tolkien was, as a rule, strictly anti-industrialization and a puritan when it came to leaving alone the natural world, this seems to be the ultimate irony.<LI>Marketing, Marketing, Marketing I do not fault Peter Jackson and crew for this one as much as I do New Line Cinemas, who have shamelessly turned the trilogy into one of the largest and most disgusting movie-merchandise empires in cinematic history. Everything is offered to us the movie patrons, from recreations of the film props (swords, knives, One Rings), to expensive clay and metal casts of movie characters, to the most shameless end of the spectrum, the Mattel Aragorn and Arwen dolls and the advertising packages with such enterprises as sports organizations, car dealerships and mobile phone companies. Would Tolkien have wanted the name of his books paraded around solely as a means of profit for the company producing his movies and the highest bidding organizations? I think not. <LI>The Changes Although I myself was fine with a few of the changes made to the movies, in the minds of many some (or most) of them have gone too far. As Squatter has pointed out, the changes made to Tolkien's words (in many cases apparently as a means for appealing to action-crazed mass audiences) have severely compromised the respect of the Tolkien estate for the movie producers and screenwriters. J.R.R. Tolkien himself disapproved of almost all of the major changes made in the few other film adaptations (and there were many changes), and I doubt he would have wished for too much gutting and plot-changing, especially since a 9+ hour film trilogy should be able to adequately address the plot without making too many additions to the storyline and to the dialogue.</UL>Do not take the above to mean that I am a Lord of the Rings movie hater or opponent of Peter Jackson. I personally am a fan of the movies, and unlike many other avid Tolkienites I am able to, for the most part, keep the books and the movies separate in my mind, so the changes in plot do not cause as great a fuss for me as they do for others. Feel free to debate or add to any of the above points.Cheers, Angmar[ 2:18 PM December 12, 2003: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

Meela

12-12-2003, 01:38 PM

I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that everything they built was environmentally friendly, and removed afterwards, leaving no impression on the landscape.I don't mind the film merchandise, but car dealerships? That doesn't have anything to do with Tolkien.I will perhaps add more later. I am unable to put my thoughts into words at this moment. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I personally am a fan of the movies, and unlike many other avid Tolkienites I am able to, for the most part, keep the books and the movies separate in my mind, so the changes in plot do not cause as great a fuss for me as they do for others. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm one of the minority also. I've only encountered a handful of us so far.

Silmiel of Imladris

12-12-2003, 04:23 PM

As annoying and disturbing these things are LOTR is not the only movie to do such things. Almost every movie that is filmed on location destroys some kind of wilderness and they all market products especailly the blockbusters. It makes me sick too but Peter Jackson is not the only one at fault. This is what movies have turned into. When they were first invented they were a treat and they were simple but now to compete with eachother and TV, big movies have to be made. It is the changing times but I think when it comes to the sets there should be laws that movie companies have to put everything back where they found it.

The Saucepan Man

12-12-2003, 05:54 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I was under the impression that everything they built was environmentally friendly, and removed afterwards, leaving no impression on the landscape. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's certainly the case with Edoras. It was on National Trust property (or whatever the New Zealand equivalent is), and they were obliged to return it to precisely the state that they found it in as a condition of filming there. In one of the TTT EE documentaries, they explain how they carefully removed the turf, preserved it during the filming, and then returned it when they had finished. Hobbiton is, I believe, still there and has become something of a tourist attraction. I'm not sure about how I feel about that. I suppose it depends upon what the land was being used for before. Helm's Deep was filmed in a quarry, so hardly a great loss to the landscape there. And I can't think of any other outside locations that were really affected by the filming. Much of it (Fangorn, Lothlorien etc) was done in a studio.As for merchandising, well it's inevitable really. And they will only sell these things if people are prepared to buy them. And I speak as one who has a few items myself (calendars, Uruk-Hai/Rohan mugs etc) . And I would love one of those metal casts of Bilbo's trolls, if only it wasn't so costly. Personally, the only thing that I have a real problem with is the endorsements of such products as Pringles and KFC. Remember, there has always been a certain amount of merchandising around the books (diaries, calendars and the like).I too am a big fan of the films. But I agree, Lord of Angmar, that Tolkien would have disapproved of many of the changes, those made to the characterisations particularly. But I like to think that he would have enjoyed the visualisation of his world. For me, so much of that aspect of the films (Lemming-Hyenas apart ) rings true from the books.

BeeBombadil

12-12-2003, 06:42 PM

I was in New Zealand in May and June of this year. It was refreshingly free from the commercial crap that seems to accompany the movie here in the states. People were enormously proud of the films, of Peter Jackson, and of their country, all without seeming arrogant or obnoxious. It seemed that every third person in NZ had worked on the film or knew someone who had. A very funny fellow told us about a friend of his who drove a van of Uruk-Hai to Glennorchy every morning for the film and then home again at night and how he hated looking in the rearview mirror...it freaked him out!There was destruction of natural resources during filming but remarkably little. There was harvesting of wood for Fangorn's construction. NZ Dept of Conservation's laws are very strict and they do a marvelous job preserving NZ's natural beauty. Jackson hired a lawyer whose sole job was to get the permits required for shooting on Dept. land...the poor fellow later said that if he had known what he was in for, he might have thought twice!As for all the crass marketing going on here...leave it. No one's putting a gun to your head to buy any of the action figures, posters or books out there. Just enjoy the movies for what they are...one man's vision of Tolkien's work.

BeeBombadil

12-12-2003, 06:48 PM

Sorry, forgot to tell you about Hobbiton. It's actually a sheep farm, located outside a small town called Matamata. There's not much to Matamata but the town has put up a small sign as you enter and leave saying that it is Hobbiton. The farmer, whose land was scoped by Jackson from helicopter, got tired of having fans walk all over his fields, looking for Hobbiton and decided, since the wool and lamb industry is not doing so well at the moment, to offer a combo-sheep farm and hobbit tour. For $50NZ, you can go to his farm and see where Hobbiton was. It's enormously disappointing-looking, as all the planting is gone and all you can see of the burrows are plain dull plywood doors and windows...not very atmospheric. I passed. Still, I did bring home a brochure just for fun.From what I've read, the farmer earned himself over $350,000NZ.

The Only Real Estel

12-12-2003, 10:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that everything they built was environmentally friendly, and removed afterwards, leaving no impression on the landscape.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As Saucepan Man said, I know that Edoras was put up in 2 months, & then taken down in 2 weeks, leaving no traces. I think that some of the stuff they might've left a little behind, but I thought they did a pretty good job of not leaving to much of a mark behind :/.

Dininziliel

12-12-2003, 11:10 PM

I am in a quandary of ambivalence. I love and hate the movies.I have by now accepted Jackson's movies as his version based on LotR and not the filming of LotR. Perhaps if he had not succeeded in rendering ME itself so well it would not be such a big deal. I cannot count the number of times I have watched the extended versions of both FotR and TT, and still I alternate regularly between "Wow--that's wonderful" and "expletive deleted." There are things that cheapen the story and ME:--The schlock horror schticks such as a manic-looking Gandalf grabbing Frodo from a dark corner while scary music plays to ask, "Is it secret? Is it safe?" And the yep-they're-gonna-do-it obligatory eye-opening of the dead elf in the Dead Marshes which is right before the oh-no-not-this-too scary ghoul images clawing out for Frodo.--The continuity gaffes, of which enough has been heard except the extremely unfortunate distraction during Boromir's/Bean's amazingly effective death scene where now he has his gloved & gauntleted hand upon Aragorn's/Mortenson's shoulder and now he doesn't. You get pulled and jerked around in two directions at once too many times.--The stunts that everyone seems to feel substitute for substance--those ones mainly with Legolas. I like them, too, but can't help feeling I'm easily impressed to be falling for a cheap trick designed to wow the easily impressed.Then there are the plot deviations and outright destruction of the story. I am a tad more at peace with the Faramir thing since watching the extended TT, but it seems with each movie that more and more license is being taken with the story. I won't enumerate the plot destructions as that's been done better than I could articulate them. I feel we--the fanatics--have been taken for a ride by Jackson. The changes in FotR were understandable and did not destroy the integrity and meaning of the story. In TT the departures from the story seemed to have added more changes for the sake of personal gratification as well as for ticket-selling "tension," as they are fond of saying. While tension is indeed essential, it's lamentable that Jackson did not have a little more faith in either the audience or the story itself.After reading about the even more outrageous changes in RotK, I seriously considered not seeing it. And I am someone who bought a 5 disc DVD player just so I could watch the extended FotR without having to disturb the air. I find myself thinking that Jackson should have been 10 years older before he was allowed to make the movies. There are some truly wonderful moments in the movies; however they just make some of the changes even more of a travesty. It is the difference between a masterpiece that transcends time and the box office, and a bunch of movies that are very good and ground-breaking, but will recede into the pantheon of epics like Ben Hur and Jurassic Park.It is the difference between Lord of the Rings: the Movies Based on the Book, and Lord of the Rings. I could have added much more respect to the awe of Jackson's movies if he had titled them, Peter Jackson' LotR. It is the story that deserves awe, not the movie-making.Those of us who grew up and nourished ourselves on the book have a longing to be in it because, in a very real sense, it is true and profound. How sad to see the purity of that experience irrevocably changed by cheapness of marketing and story rewrites. I would like to be able to further separate the book from the movies, but the disappointment with the movies of coming so close yet falling so far gets in the way.I guess I feel I was given a ticket to go to Hobbiton, and all I got was those plywood doors. But I keep coming back to try to find a way to be happier with the plywood because [sigh] that's all I'm going to get.[ 12:15 AM December 13, 2003: Message edited by: dininziliel ]

Gorwingel

12-12-2003, 11:52 PM

Well I have to owe everything to the movies, because that is how I got here. I know that some people do not consider people who saw the movies before they read the books "real fans”, but FOTR is what introduced this entire world to me. Though after reading the books and seeing the movies I do personally think that the books are much greater because they are more about the story, the quieter moments, and the language.Well you do all know that right now New Line and the Tolkien estate are in a fight about many things (building a museum to hold the movie props in New Zealand, the possibility of a Hobbit movie, etc.) and I personally think that this is a great display of the feelings that some fans have about the movies. The fans who have really not been heard, and who I think should have been heard more. J.R.R. Tolkien would have hated all of this, because all this nonsense was not he, and it all really against his personal beliefs. Wasn’t it the publishing house that sold the rights for the films? Because I don’t think it was him. I could never see him personally selling the rights so that someone could make a film of his works.I do get very extremely annoyed about the intense marketing of these films though. I really think it is too much. The batteries, the cars, the cell phones! It is getting ridicules! I think though that part of this marketing blitz is because New Line is the studio it is. This is a fairly young studio who is not known for epic filmmaking, and whose other major franchises are Austin Powers, Nightmare on Elm Street, and Blade. But, oh well. I think the films could have been worse, but I do thing that some of the changes, even though PJ swears they were necessary, are not.

Gashberz

12-13-2003, 12:56 AM

I have no problem with it. But car dealerships? Thats taking it too far. I mean what do cars have to do with the movies? NOTHING! My god man. Once they make a movie based off of something famous they have to drag it thru the mud by making evrything for it. But hey come on its not as bad as the merchandising of STAR WARS! -Cheers!

davem

12-13-2003, 04:04 AM

Its funny, after 'experiencing' the Bakshi monstrosity, i was distinctly wary about seeing Fellowship but it won me over (despite seeing it for the first time in a cinema where a party of schoolkids was out for a Christmas treat, & they COULD NOT keep quiet, or refrain from stupid comments, & even laughed while Boromir was dying - though they did cheer when Aragorn beheaded Lurtz. Iknow, you're asking yourselves how I can still be annoyed about it after two years!). Hence I was looking forward to Towers, but wass intensely disappointed. In fact I loathed it- though after seeing the SEE I now merely dislike it intensely. I'm now ambiguous about Return. I want it to work, but think it won't. Actually, though I've read virtually everything Tolkien wrote on ME (HoME once & LotR, Sil, Hobbit, letters & UT more times than I can remember) I'm not a 'purist' in the sense of being opposed to movies being made, & having been determined to hate them no matter what. I wanted them to be great, but, after Towers I've kind of lost interest. I have decided to make a final judgement after watching all 3 movies together in the SEE's.My point, after all this waffle, is that those of us who feel hurt & disappointed by the movies are not a bunch of sad pedants who would have been up in arms if even a single line of Tolkien's had been changed. It goes deeper, & all the excuses & justifications by the filmakers, all the 'you couldn't do 'X' in a movie' or 'Y' wouldn't have worked' or 'you think about doing 'Z' differently to the way we've presented it & you'll see why we had to do it this way' just don't hold up for us. I'd just ask those who think we're being awkward & angry for trivial reasons to keep in mind that some of us did feel genuinely hurt by what we saw on screen.

Eurytus

12-13-2003, 05:45 AM

You know I can't help but think that, whilst suffering the slings and arrows of the Tolkien fanatics (not my word, it was used here), PJ will be somewhat comforted by the fact that his trilogy is very likely to be the highest grossing trilogy in movie history, with tons of critical acclaim, the universal acclaim of his team of actors, a hatful of awards, and has resulted in his being paid $20 million plus 20% of the gross for doing King Kong (which has always been his dream project anyway and which no-one would finance him for before LOTR). Not to mention all the money he has made out of these films of course.Yep, I think he will feel that the positives outweigh the negatives.Let's not forget that for most of the movie going public, 4 years ago it was "Peter who?"

davem

12-13-2003, 08:36 AM

Yeah, he's made far more money out of Tolkien's work than Tolkien himself did.Whether you believe there's any justice in that is a matter of opinion, I suppose.I wonder whether, if he hadn't been able to obtain the filmrights & had had to make his own fantasy movie, he be any richer or better known now than he was 4 years ago. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing in the movies worth seeing is when Tolkien's own work makes it on screen. The 'stuff' of Jackson & the writers hangs off Tolkien's work, adding nothing, but is kept afloat by the scraps of Tolkien's genius which has survived.

Jjudvven

12-13-2003, 10:04 AM

dininziliel, I agree with what you said about alternating between "oohs" and "aahs" and "why the hell did they have to put THAT s**t in?!". Some moments are done so well I get shivers watching them, while other just make me want to turn off the tv, or skip forward a scene or two. I'm afraid that the third installment will be much the same: filled with amazing heartbreaking scenes, but also packed full of seemingly pointless deviations from Tolkien's Tale. (however, I have already reserved my midnight showing tickets)

lindil

12-13-2003, 10:10 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> As for merchandising, well it's inevitable really. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not so. Witness The Matrix, We got a cell phone, a video game [with an hour more of the story only there] and a few adds. No action figures, books [?!] or mountains of cheap plastic crappola. They easily could have cashed in on any or all of the above to make millions more, but had the decency and taste to refrain.dininziliel offered many points which were dead on for me: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>...and still I alternate regularly between "Wow--that's wonderful" and "expletive deleted." There are things that cheapen the story and ME <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>and <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The changes in FotR were understandable and did not destroy the integrity and meaning of the story. In TT the departures from the story seemed to have added more changes for the sake of personal gratification as well as for ticket-selling "tension," as they are fond of saying. While tension is indeed essential, it's lamentable that Jackson did not have a little more faith in either the audience or the story itself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Bingo! PJ ended up having faith in Howe and Lee, his animators, etc, but he did not trust the story anywhere near enough to be able to use the title The Lord of the Rings without some qualifier being [imo] seriously needed. and finally <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>How sad to see the purity of that experience irrevocably changed by cheapness of marketing and story rewrites. I would like to be able to further separate the book from the movies, but the disappointment with the movies of coming so close yet falling so far gets in the way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I can actually ignore most of the cheap plastic garbage everywhere [because I am rarely exposed to it], but the story re-writes will sadly forever mar [for many, if not most] lovers of the books. PJ had a once in a multi-decade chance to do it right and like frodo at mount doom, at the end he claimed the script for himself.Too bad he really had the ability to make adaptations that fans and purists, and neophytes alike all could have loved. Some may feel that PJ is being justified for all of this due to vast commercial success, critical acclaim from hollywod pundits, truly he has 'received his reward' here. He has however not done well enough by JRRT's heirs to merit the right to do more. Which might have happened had be been far more conservative in his re-writes. We will never know because he did not, but we do know the estate like many, 'purists' see no reason to let PJ 'adapt' any more of their fathers work. DaveM gave us: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> As far as I'm concerned, the only thing in the movies worth seeing is when Tolkien's own work makes it on screen. The 'stuff' of Jackson & the writers hangs off Tolkien's work, adding nothing, but is kept afloat by the scraps of Tolkien's genius which has survived. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I would say a bit more than scraps survived , but totally agree with the premise, the movies do best, at times near perfectly, when they are faithful to the spring from which they flowed. Attempts to re-direct the flow of the river, as it were, are almost always in hindsight [or with a modicum of foresight] foolish.Thankfully from the reviews I have read [one mostly from a good friend and longtime lover of JRRT] THe Rotk seems to be molded far more like FotR interms of the number and severity of 'adaptive license' PJ leaves us with.But sadly I am left hoping that maybe in another 20 or 30 years, someone else will buy the rights from new line, and do it by the book.Many people think it fair that PJ be judged by the standard of faithfullness to the books. I disagree. He used the exact title of the Books, with no qualifiers. In a title when the article "the" is used as in The Lord of the Rings it signifies that something is 'the genuine article' [no pun intended] it is what it claims to be. By the standards of the English Language I do not think PJ's movies can ever be The Lord of the Rings but at best a ' Lord of the Rings'.[ 12:14 PM December 13, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

lindil

12-13-2003, 11:15 AM

Lord of Angmar, your thread here inspired me to start the following thread <A HREF="http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=17&t=000861#000000" TARGET=_blank>PJ on trial for crimes against Tolkienity !</A> in Middle-earth Mirth. All are welcme to testify in support of PJ or with 'accusations'![ 3:07 AM December 14, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

lord_of_rohan2003

12-13-2003, 12:25 PM

As I stated earlier I was a fan of the first movie before reading the books and im still discovering the great world of Tolkien.I think that the movies and the books are both masterpiecies in their own rights.Now granted I can see where PJ and crew will butcher,delete,and completly destroy parts of Tolkiens story but thats only given when Hollywood makes a movie bassed of a novel,sure it can be aggravating(Dream Catcher anyone?)but overall I am happy with how it turned out,so far.One good thing about these movies is that it's bringing in a whole new generation young and old to JRRT world with myself and others being some of those.And I think I can speak on the behalf of all of us were getting tired of being called trend followers.Dont get me wrong im not pointing fingers and saying someone here has called me that,so far folks have been cool with me,but at other websites I have been to the moment you say you read Tolkien after seeing the movies they immediatly attack you saying crap that as soon as the movies and hype dies down i'll just dissaper and find the next big thing to be part of But it's funny that they say that when they listen to popular music off MTV,buy the way overpriced trendy clothes,etc.etc.I guess that they feel special that they were part of something before it became "hip".But anyway to get back on topic yes the movies have their flaws,yes there is much more I wish they could of add(or left alone)and I deffintly wish that some charcters could of been invited to the movies(Glorfindel?Bombadil?hello?)but when you think of all the childish gross out comedies,the pointless action movies,and other sedative yawners these movies are a breath of fresh air from the typical mound of dog dodo But if I do have one complaint,why is Gandalf on my can of sour cream and onion pringles?

Lord of Angmar

12-13-2003, 12:32 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But if I do have one complaint,why is Gandalf on my can of sour cream and onion pringles?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why indeed? That a picture of Gandalf the White would be put on a potato chip can says alot about the level of respect that the Lord of the Rings is held in by the folks at New Line.

Fingo

12-13-2003, 12:55 PM

Reading through these posts, I've come across points I agree with and points I don't, but I've got to come right out and say that some of this is being taken just a bit too seriously. Believe me, I am a Tolkien advocator, and was dissapointed by some of the changes made to the movies (Faramir probably being the greatest of these dissapointments) but the fact that we live in a money powered society cannot be escaped.Peter, Fran, and Phillipa did what they thought would make the movie sell and lo and behold, it did, as made evident by the merchandising and all going along with it. Another point to consider is that PJ probably wasn't the one to liscense the rights for all the merchandising, it was New Line itself.Watching the movies, I think about some parts that could have been made better (in my opinion) or emphasized more (in my opinion) or other parts I realized were missing should have been added (in my opinion). Reading these posts I was struck with the thought, that unless we all got the chance to make our own Lord of the Rings movies, we'd never be truely satisfied with someone else's rendering of it.Tolkien wrote the story with a point he wanted to convey to reader, but unless he actually sat down and talked with the reader themselves, its all subjective, just like any other work of literature.I too am one of those who can keep the books and movies seperate, and enjoy both for what they are. I hope we can all learn not to dwell too much what's wrong or what's right as opposed to just what is.

The Only Real Estel

12-13-2003, 06:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But if I do have one complaint,why is Gandalf on my can of sour cream and onion pringles?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>O goody, now we've got Gandalf the White with Green speckels . I enjoy posters & swords, etc., but I do think that they've taken the marketing thing way to far .

Gorwingel

12-13-2003, 07:46 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Not so. Witness The Matrix, We got a cell phone, a video game [with an hour more of the story only there] and a few adds. No action figures, books [?!] or mountains of cheap plastic crappola. They easily could have cashed in on any or all of the above to make millions more, but had the decency and taste to refrain.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They also had a deal with a beer companyWell actually for the Matrix they did have dolls and action figures. It is just that they were not really sold in toystores (I saw them in some speciality and comic book stores) because it is an R rated film. R rated movies are not directed towards kids and young people as PG-13 rated films are. If the Matrix would have had a more family friendly rating there would have been more merchandising I swear, it would have been everywhere, because they would have most defintely had the hype for it.I think one of the reasons we have had a lot of marketing for LOTR is because it appeals to so many different kinds of people (Which I think is one of the really good things about these stories, and I think most of you would agree with that statement). If a company connects themselves with LOTR they can reach kids, teenagers, adults, and older adults. Basically everyone in the general population! But oh well, it is too late now, and that is sad. It is sad that the general public will forever connect LOTR with batteies

The Saucepan Man

12-13-2003, 08:44 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I think that the movies and the books are both masterpiecies in their own rights. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well said, Lord of Rohan. I have been an avid fan of Tolkien's works for some 25 years. And yet I do not feel let down, disappointed or resentful in any way about these films. Granted, I would have loved to have seen every detail of the book presented on screen just as Tolkien wrote it. One of my biggest gripes with the films (and it's not that big) is the way in which Merry and Pippin come into the tale. I would have loved to have seen the conspiracy unmasked. But I wholly accept that, if these films are to be brought to the big screen in any way which would do justice to Tolkien's visualisation (ie requiring a big budget), then compromises need to be made. Jackson was entitled to make whatever changes he thought were necessary to make the films popular. Indeed, he was obliged to do so given the big budget that this whole project required. He made those changes and has sought to explain many of them (certainly the most radical). While I do not agree with some of the choices that he made, I accept his reasons for making them. And I agree with him on many counts. Actually, I feel really quite lucky. For I have two masterpieces to enjoy. The books and the films. The books will, of course always come first (by a long way) in my affections. But the films are, to my mind, great films and ones that I can enjoy immensely. Having come to terms with the changes, I feel no need for the fact that I know the real story to impair my enjoyment of them.And as Eurytus has pointed out, they are incredibly successful films. Not only in monetary terms (although that is certainly the case), but also in terms of their mass appeal and in the acclaim that they have received among Jackson's peers in the film-making community and amongst film-critics. So, on that basis, he has acheived what he set out to do: bring the story to the screen in a format which would have mass appeal.I suppose that I just cannot understand why people get so irate about it all. I accept of course that people have a right to their opinons, but these feelings of anger, resentment, disappointment or whatever just wash over me. To me, as Lord of Rohan said, the books and the films are each masterful works of art in their own right.And just to put in a word for New Line, let's not forget that they did take a gamble with these films. There was no guarantee that they would be so successful, so it was a big risk for them investing the amount that this project required. They are, in my view, entitled to a bit of payback. Yes, I hate such things as the KFC endorsements and think that they go to far, but I see it as an inevitable development in today's world.As for the Matrix films, Gorwingel is right. I saw some action figures in a major toy department today, right alongside the LotR action figures . And, in addition to the reasons that Gorwingel gave, I think that the relative lack of merchandising speaks more to the relative level of success of the two film trilogies than to the integrity of the film-makers.

The Only Real Estel

12-13-2003, 08:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I think that the movies and the books are both masterpiecies in their own rights. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You can't argue to much with that. I just have a little bit of difficulty being able to seperate the two, especially after seeing the movie when I reflect back on it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>One of my biggest gripes with the films (and it's not that big) is the way in which Merry and Pippin come into the tale. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I thought that was the whole trashing of Saruman's death scene?

The Saucepan Man

12-13-2003, 09:07 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I thought that was the whole trashing of Saruman's death scene? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>One of the advantages of spoilers. I've come to terms with it before having to sit though it in the cinema. Seriously, I do have a few gripes. Some are things I would like to have seen done as in the books. Others concern scenes that I don't think work well in the context of the (somewhat different) story told in the films. Like Frodo making to offer the Ring to the Nazgul and Theoden's exorcism (detracting from the character of Wormtongue). And then there are a few aspects where the visualisation is slightly off for me (*coughWargscough*).But, really, these are trivial compared the incredible impact that the films have made on me. They do not detract from my enjoyment in any major sense.

The Only Real Estel

12-13-2003, 09:10 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>They do not detract from my enjoyment in any major sense.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's pretty much the same here. There are a few gripes that I have that I doubt I'll be coming to terms with, but the LotR series will still be awesome movies . (for the most part )

Trippo The Hippo

12-13-2003, 10:34 PM

Well I am one of the people able to seperate them and honestly there are not alot of things I dislike. I think there have been alot of valid points raised many that I agree with but I think that its important that we dont get to worked about them at the end of the day its just a movie. Also I was wondering if anyone knows how some of the actors feel about the changes wasn't there at least a few tolkienites on the movie who would have gotten offended at some of these changes?

Dininziliel

12-13-2003, 11:51 PM

Lindil writes: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> PJ had a once in a multi-decade chance to do it right and like frodo at mount doom, at the end he claimed the script for himself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh, well said! And it's even more apt as the closer to the end of the films he got, the more he changed the story.Fingo writes: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Reading these posts I was struck with the thought, that unless we all got the chance to make our own Lord of the Rings movies, we'd never be truely satisfied with someone else's rendering of it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I love the idea of having Jackson's raw footage, or just be able to use what's in the extended versions. The technology will soon be available. Unless I was having aural hallucinations, Jackson mentioned in TT extended version that he would enjoy seeing others' versions. How lovely if we could all have our own personal versions. This could be another ground-breaking milestone for Jackson's LotR.Trippo the Hippo writes: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I think there have been alot of valid points raised many that I agree with but I think that its important that we dont get to worked about them at the end of the day its just a movie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This very thought occurred to me upon reflection after I logged out last night. "It's just a movie," "Keep telling yourself, 'It's only a movie,'" (which was a tag line for a very bad early schlock shocker in the early 70's). I was thinking about my reactions and those of others. I'd really like to be free of my expletives deleted and just enjoy the movies for their own sake, but even on that level, there are too many glaring gaffes in continuity which shine out all the more because of all the money and time up there on the screen. However, I hope I am managing to stay on the up side of feeling down about the movies. I shouldn't like to be a Gollum about it all, as if the book was "my Precious"! I think that w/RotK it will be much easier to separate the movie from the book--the vast changes should at last create a comfortable chasm. I'm only going because, as a wise friend told me, "You can't not go," and because I saw a picture of The Witch King of Angmar on a Nazgul in a book about the movie. That's about it. Oh! And I want to see Sam, Gollum & Frodo at Mt. Doom. (That's still in the movie, right?) sorry.If even half the people leave the theatre thinking and talking about faith, hope, and Love--in these faithless, hopeless and loveless times--instead of the cool stunts, awesome battle scenes, and how cute Legolas is, then much can be forgiven.[ 12:55 AM December 14, 2003: Message edited by: dininziliel ]

doug*platypus

12-14-2003, 03:59 PM

Very Clean, Very GreenAs several others have pointed out that the production did not <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> scourge the shire <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't think a slap on the wrist is really necessary. However, as a student studying a Masters of Environmental Engineering at Massey University in Aotearoa (New Zealand) I have to defend the production of these movies. No large production has ever in my opinion been coordinated with such a small impact on the environment. The Department of Conservation, helped by legislation such as the Resource Management Act (an all-embodying type of legislation apparently unique to our country) watched the production like a hawk, especially given the sensitive nature of many locations. The river running through Rivendell was constructed just outside Wellington. DOC stipulated that no water was to be taken from an already existing river, and no additional water was to be diverted into it. So PJ and Co built an entirely self-contained river that had no impact on the local environment. The scenes for the battle on Dagorlad were shot on Army land next to Tongariro National Park. Likewise Hobbiton was private land. So if you have a problem with what was done there, I suggest you take it up with the Army or the farmer at Okoroire. But I can tell you with 100% certainty that both those parties would have caused more damage to the New Zealand environment than Peter Jackson. I can only hope that every other film crew that comes to our shores treads as lightly as this one did. MarketingAbsolutely right, it's sickening. Light-up evenstar has got to be one of the worst. Whenever I see cheesy Star Wars merchandise, I console myself with the fact that most of the money Lucas makes goes into personally financing the next film (also I love my Darth Maul pencil case). However, New Line have made so much profit from the movies alone that the amount earned from crappy plastic Tolkien merchandise just makes me nauseous. Quality items such as swords are a little different, I think. A lot of people are very interested in having a piece of memorabilia such as these. As long as it's the quality stuff I think that there is nothing wrong with that. After all, some people were dressing up as elves long before the movies were even thought of. It all depends on whether it's a rip-off or a homage in my opinion.

Eurytus

12-15-2003, 02:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> As far as I'm concerned, the only thing in the movies worth seeing is when Tolkien's own work makes it on screen. The 'stuff' of Jackson & the writers hangs off Tolkien's work, adding nothing, but is kept afloat by the scraps of Tolkien's genius which has survived. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which is of course exactly why the Bakshi version (which was if anything more fathful than Jackson's) was such a roaring success.Oh, hang on a minute....it wasn't was it. I guess having bits faithful to the sacred texts is not enough after all.

pandora

12-15-2003, 04:10 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I guess having bits faithful to the sacred texts is not enough after all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, well, a genius in our midst. Yes, being faithful to the book and having a budget of 5 dollars and a large piece of blanket that the dog peed on is not enough to make a movie of LotR. Just as PJ having a big budget and the talent of a dead squid isn't enough either.Bakshi failed honestly: he tried; Jackson never even tried. I seriously, and I mean this, doubt that Jackson has read the book. I'm sure he skimmed all sorts of bits he thought were "boring". There's certainly no evidence that this pathetic hack of a director understood the book or cared about the characters. Bakshi failed in the way that I would fail if I tried to dramatise LotR with 5 friends on a small stage in a church hall; Jackson failed in the way that Hollywood often fails: the visualisation was perfected while the script was treated as a mere detail that could be scribbled together quickly to connect the fight and battle scenes together. Who needs to find out what happened to Saruman or the hobbits when there's a great big battle to film? Utter, utter, beautifully designed and shot garbage.

Eurytus

12-15-2003, 04:26 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Jackson never even tried. I seriously, and I mean this, doubt that Jackson has read the book. I'm sure he skimmed all sorts of bits he thought were "boring". There's certainly no evidence that this pathetic hack of a director understood the book or cared about the characters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And you sarcastically call me a genius…… Yes, someone who built themselves up from financing their own low budget films, to winning an Oscar for Heavenly Creatures (a universally admired film), to winning several for LOTR (so far), to earning $20 million and 20% of the gross for his dream picture and being named one of the most powerful men in Hollywood.Yeah, right, someone who has achieved more than you or I, or anyone here can ever hope to is a pathetic hack.

Estelyn Telcontar

12-15-2003, 04:29 AM

Careful, pandora - your accusations against Peter Jackson for allegedly not reading the book cannot be sustained. There is a huge difference between not reading a source, and interpreting it in a personal manner. If you watch the documentary supplements on the EE of the movies, you will see that he is a genuine Tolkien fan, just as we are. I would not choose the same interpretation of the book as he did, but it is not fair to deny him credit for doing his personal best out of a love for LotR.Let's give credit where credit is due and above all, please don't get personal about opinions here - each member is entitled to express his/hers, so keep the discussion about the topic, not about the previous posters.[ 5:32 AM December 15, 2003: Message edited by: Estelyn Telcontar ]

Evisse the Blue

12-15-2003, 06:41 AM

Well- I agree with you, pandora, though probably not with your choice of angry words. But basically I see your point. Even if Jackson is a LOTR fan, I'm pretty sure he strays far from what LOTR is really about, while staying oh so true to Hollywood. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>out of a love for LotR. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ...and for the huge money-making machine it has become. Yes, the 'marketing' topic. But, come on: let's think positive. I for one, think that the merchandising positively sucks. Not being an American and not even an European sure has its advantages: one is not subjected to seeing Gandalf on a can of sour cream and onion pringles. Not owning a DVD player, I don't have to cringe at buying a DVD of FOTR, immediately before the release of a second DVD with a few 'additional scenes' that mysteriously haven't made the previous one, which, as a true fan, I'll also have to buy.Ok, enough sarcasm for one post. And you wonder what this has to do with Tolkien. Well - by reading his letters, you get a sense of this man's integrity and of his strong opinions that he voiced relentlessly. He was particularly disgusted of this 'culture for the masses' and comercialism. (see what he has to say against Disney, for instance, or against those who attempt a 'audience-friendly' translation of Beowulf). So, I can only laugh while trying to picture his reaction to the LOTR-movie marketing hysteria. Wheew. I'm glad I got that off my chest. Please be nice and act like a support group.

pandora

12-15-2003, 07:17 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>your accusations against Peter Jackson for allegedly not reading the book cannot be sustained. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They are sustained by pretty well every line of the script he used. I'm sure he scanned the book but I don't think he actually read it, certainly before making the films. If he did read it he must not have liked it much given how much of the important material he changed or left out (while including a lot that was not important). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> There is a huge difference between not reading a source, and interpreting it in a personal manner. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There's a huge difference between interpreting and adding third-rate material of your own for no reason while mangling the original material.

Eurytus

12-15-2003, 07:39 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Not owning a DVD player, I don't have to cringe at buying a DVD of FOTR, immediately before the release of a second DVD with a few 'additional scenes' that mysteriously haven't made the previous one, which, as a true fan, I'll also have to buy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I find this a mysterious criticism. We are not talking about PJ “doing a Lucas” here. Releasing the films and then without prior warning releasing the widescreen versions, the THX versions, the limited editions, the special editions and doubtless before long the ultimate editions.No, New Line pursued a totally sensible policy in my opinion. They announced well in advance that they would be releasing 2 versions (3 if you include the box set) of each film. They also announced the sort of things they would contain regarding extras. This then left it up to the consumer which one they brought or whether they brought all of them. You do not have to buy them all and their solution was far preferable to the alternatives.1. The aforementioned “Lucas method” releasing previously unannounced versions of the films meaning that people have to keep updating if they want the most “complete” version.2. Releasing the theatrical version only, meaning that all those additional scenes would never see the light of day.3. Releasing the extended editions only meaning that the casual fan will be wondering what’s going on. Quite apart from the fact that in the case of the FOTR, the theatrical version had a superior Hobbition beginning in my opinion. Great though the additional footage was you cannot beat the soaring music as Gandalf rides through the cutting, the camera rises and you catch your first sight of Bagend.I fail to see exactly what New Line did wrong here.

Eurytus

12-15-2003, 07:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If you watch the documentary supplements on the EE of the movies, you will see that he is a genuine Tolkien fan, just as we are. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 100% correct. Though I would add that they also show how many of the supporting people concerned were also real fans. Basically you cannot see the intricate detail given to the smallest things (such as a button or belt buckle) and still think they do not care.

Lord of Angmar

12-15-2003, 07:44 AM

Pandora, I am afraid your accusations are false. Peter Jackson was a long-time Tolkien fan, and claims to have the highest respect for JRRT's works. That is one of the reasons he was chosen to direct the Lord of the Rings. Furthermore, making statements like "he must not have liked it very much" is not a coherent way to make an argument. While I do disagree with many of the changes that Peter Jackson made on the original text, I think it is unfair to say that he dislikes or disrespects the source material, and I doubt there are many better-suited directors than Mr. Jackson (this may sound like somewhat of a contradiction to my initial tough stance in this thread, but remember my initial intent was merely to convey the complaints of Tolkien purists).My mistake about the "Scourging of the Shire" bit in my first post. I was under the impression from complainers on other Tolkien-related websites that it had been far more environmentally unfriendly, and I am glad to hear from the more knowledgeable that this is not so.Cheers, Angmar

pandora

12-15-2003, 08:26 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Peter Jackson was a long-time Tolkien fan, and claims to have the highest respect for JRRT's works. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, he can claim to be the Queen of Sheba if he wants. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Furthermore, making statements like "he must not have liked it very much" is not a coherent way to make an argument.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Okay: by constantly undermining the character of Frodo and skipping or changing important parts of the characterisation and motivation of other characters such as Aragorn, Elrond, Gandalf, Faramir, and Saruman Jackson has demonstrated that he is not willing to film what is the easiest aspect of the book to adapt: the characters. Since this is also the most important aspect of the book we must ask why he changed it. The obvious answer is that Jackson simply didn't care enough about the characters to try. Why else would he not bother with the resolution of Saruman's story? Why else destroy the entire purpose of Frodo's stand at the ford and his leaving of the Fellowship? Why play around with Sam and Frodo's relationship? ANYONE that liked the book would see these scenes as absolutely crucial to story. The added material likewise shows that Jackson was not very interested in the book: the terrible side-trip to Osgiliath was probably the low point of the second film, unless it was Aragorn's "death" which was also added.Do you think Jackson added this crap material because he prefered the original? Of course not! He added it in because he thought it was better, and if that's what he thinks is better he must have a very low opinion of the original.

Eurytus

12-15-2003, 08:31 AM

Yeah I think he should have kept in the clown in yellow Wellington boots and that fox that wonders what Hobbits are doing outside. That would really have made the film complete.Somehow I think that PJ’s changes have been vindicated through the only medium that means anything. He has the box office results. He has the critical acclaim. Given that there are certain Tolkien fanboys who simply would never be satisfied unless the book was filmed exactly as it is in their imagination, then why should he worry too much about what they think?

pandora

12-15-2003, 08:42 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> omehow I think that PJ?s changes have been vindicated through the only medium that means anything. He has the box office results. He has the critical acclaim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So has "Titanic" but it's still crap. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Given that there are certain Tolkien fanboys who simply would never be satisfied unless the book was filmed exactly as it is in their imagination <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I was not expecting that but, paradoxically, it is what I got. Jackson's film does, in fact, pretty well look the way I imagined it (apart from the Shire which was a bit off).The problem is that Jackson did not film the STORY of LotR. The story is not something imagined, it is written down in black and white. That story may need to be compressed and altered to make a film, even a 9hr film, but Jackson has gone beyond that to produce a patchwork mess largely of his own devising using the names from the book and little else as regards the story.

Bêthberry

12-15-2003, 08:43 AM

Reaching back a ways into this thread ... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Not so. Witness The Matrix, We got a cell phone, a video game [with an hour more of the story only there] and a few adds. No action figures, books [?!] or mountains of cheap plastic crappola. They easily could have cashed in on any or all of the above to make millions more, but had the decency and taste to refrain. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Saucepan Man is correct, Lindil. Matrix action figures were made and have been marketed mainly through comic book and fantasy stores. I've seen many at The Silver Snail in Toronto, Canada, and some at Toys R Us. I've also seen many Keenu Reeves lookalikes walking the streets: merchandising extended into clothing. The demographic for Matrix is different from that for Lord of The Rings and so it is marketed differently. Movie tickets alone (however exhorbitant their price) cannot recover the tremendous costs involved in making movies these days. And why blame the merchanisers if there are fans who wish so much to recreate the world of LOTR, Matrix, Star Wars, PotC, HP, to the extent of wanting actually to live in it? KFC, Burger King and other companies would not buy the rights LOTR logos if Tolkien fans did not reward them for doing so.Personally, I think the car merchandising is hilarious. It reminds me of Tolkien's view of the automobile. (He would use them; he just wouldn't own or drive one.) Pure deconstruction, that.[ 9:52 AM December 15, 2003: Message edited by: Bêthberry ]

Eurytus

12-15-2003, 10:01 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> So has "Titanic" but it's still crap. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually whilst Titanic may have received the Oscars it never had the same sort of sustained high reviews and “fan-buzz” that LOTR has. Titanic’s reviews were largely mediocre and you only have to look at its IMDB ranking to see that it is not that highly rated.As a side note though, whilst I do not particularly like Titanic I find it a little bemusing how many people claim that it is “really bad” or “it sucks” or that it’s the “worst film ever made”. You can find these types of viewpoints expressed on pretty much any internet board and it bears little relation to reality. Does Titanic deserve to be the biggest grossing film of all time? Probably not but let’s not pretend that it is a really bad film. It may not be even in my top 100 but I do not believe that it is a badly made film. And whilst the love story may be a little long winded and clichéd it is no where near as tragically bad as the love story in Attack of the Clones. A film which some people claim to be as good as the original trilogy.

pandora

12-15-2003, 12:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I find it a little bemusing how many people claim that it is ?really bad? or ?it sucks? or that it?s the ?worst film ever made?. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Worst film ever made is surely a title that Highlander II will hold until the End but any film about The Titanic which has a story about a rich girl engaged to a cad who then falls for a poor but honest boy and includes a gunfight is certainly not high on my list, particularly since my great-grandfather helped build the ship.The scene of the flares going up redeemed the movie from total forgetableness, though. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> a little long winded and clichéd <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Antarctica: it's a bit nippy out. Talk about understatement!Well, we're well off topic now.

Theron Bugtussle

12-15-2003, 02:37 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Pandora: ...Jackson simply didn't care enough about the [book] characters.... The added material likewise shows that Jackson was not very interested in the book: the terrible side-trip to Osgiliath was probably the low point of the second film, unless it was Aragorn's "death" which was also added.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The massacre of the character of Tolkien's Faramir and the trip to Osgiliath are cases of PJ thinking the addition of more drama would enhance the story. So it is clearly his decision that the book was inferior in those points. With which decision we mostly all disagree. The proof is not in the box office. Porn sells, but that does not make it 'right.'What justification for another "resurrection," though? Not only is it untrue to the text and spirit of the book, but what movie purpose could it serve? Does he think audiences need a second resurrection to make the first (Gandalf's) more believable? Man on the street interview: "Well, personally, I was undecided about going to see LotR-TTT, until friends told me two of the main characters died and came back. Now I can't wait!"(I am hoping some of you teen--or teen-at-heart--girls can enlighten me on this. Does Viggo become more of a heartthrob to women due to the PJ-induced sympathy factor? If so, do you realize you are being manipulated? ) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Do you think Jackson added this crap material because he prefered the original? Of course not! He added it in because he thought it was better, and if that's what he thinks is better he must have a very low opinion of the original.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree, except that he may not have a low opinion of the original, just a higher opinion of his own 'adjustments.' Anyway, regardless of what he might have said in his justifications, PJ has added so much extra-book material, he certainly didn't do it to cut down the size of the material, or to make storytelling 'compromises.'I think the movies are good--or great. But I don't think they are enhanced one bit by these major character and storyline departures from Tolkien. On the other hand, it could have been worse: the movies might have flopped, and there likely would have been two results. No one would touch the LotR as movie material for years or decades down the road, possibly never. And people would have blamed Tolkien. Both unforgivable.

Lord of Angmar

12-15-2003, 03:02 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Pandora:Do you think Jackson added this crap material because he prefered the original? Of course not! He added it in because he thought it was better, and if that's what he thinks is better he must have a very low opinion of the original.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Correcton: He added it in because he thought it was better from a cinematic standpoint, as indeed much of it was from the perspective of mass audiences.

pandora

12-15-2003, 05:46 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> He added it in because he thought it was better from a cinematic standpoint, as indeed much of it was from the perspective of mass audiences.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I totally deny this on most of the new material and many of the omissions. The scene at the ford was more exciting when Frodo was alone. The final confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman is tense and exciting and satisfies the wish of the viewer to know how Saruman was deal with. The whole breaking of the staff could have been moved from Orthanc to the Shire if time was a problem. I could have lived with that. But to just discard a major character because he has no more fight scenes is simply lousy story-telling.The prologue disrupts the flow of the mood of the film; it was a mistake when Bakshi did it and it was a mistake when Jackson copied it. Jumping in at the Last Alliance is reminiscent of the sex-education sketch in Meaning of Life "What's wrong with a bit of the Nazgul on the Road, boy? There's no need to go charging like a bull at the Last Alliance! Then maybe the Black-Breath, that's good. Build up to it! Foreplay!" Slowly building tension is not Jackson's best suit; he assumes the audience has the same attention span he does and is simply tapping its collective feet waiting for the next bit of hack and slash.The changes to the balrog scene made it too long and drawn out, actually losing tension compared to the book, particularly with the weak dwarf-tossing joke and the ridiculous "lean, lean" on top of that block of stone. The charge of Rohan at the end of the battle of Helm's Deep produced a few sniggers in the cinema when I saw it; the book's ending was much better and could have looked GREAT. Elrond is simply a pain in the bum, as is Arwen. Frankly, no one that I know that has seen the movie (and, yes, they do all like it) give a damn about either of them because their characters are unsympathetic (Elrond) and boring (Arwin). They literally could be taken out of the movie without doing any (further) harm.The Mirror of Galadriel in the book was a gift to a director working on a trilogy as it gave a chance to tease the audience with events from the third film (ie the scouring of the Shire) while at the same time building up Sam's character a bit more. But Mr Jackson missed that trick along with most other chances to be subtle and engaging.The fight at Weathertop, if filmed straight from the book would have been fantastic: the Nazgul as black holes in the night sky approaching silently over the crest of the hill, their positions only marked by the background stars blinking out of existance. What a scene! Surely anyone could make that a thrill to remember!? Apparently not quite anyone.Instead we got to see the inflammable clowns that run into each other. That was another scene that got a lot of laughter in our local cimema and also marked the point where my optimism about the films really started to drain away.Oh, god, the list just goes on and on! Some changes had to be made, some characters never stood a real chance of making it in and although I would have liked to have seen old Tom I miss the Barrow-Downs more from the point of view of the story; Tom's role could have been reduced to the rescuing Frodo from the barrow-wight and been left more or less at that and at least the later reference to the Old Forest would have made some sense.That's film-making and some things and people won't make it in. I have no problem with the principle. It was the practice that let me down.These films have been badly directed, end of story.

Lord of Angmar

12-15-2003, 06:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The final confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman is tense and exciting and satisfies the wish of the viewer to know how Saruman was deal with. The whole breaking of the staff could have been moved from Orthanc to the Shire if time was a problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I absolutely agree. I do not agree, however, with many of the other points you made. And I do not agree that Peter Jackson is an entirely unsubtle, action-obsessed buffoon as you are unambiguously implying. Tolkien's works are not exactly studies in subtlety, nor do all of the devices in his plot translate well onto the big screen. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>These films have been badly directed, end of story.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, that is not the end of the story. Though I may have started this thread to point out the faults of the Lord of the Rings moviemakers (mostly directed towards New Line Cinemas as opposed to Peter Jackson), I now grow weary of the bashing that Peter Jackson has been taking on these fora and, for that matter, all over the web. To say that he has been utterly incompetent in the creation of these movies is a statement of ignorance. Peter Jackson faced the difficult challenges of dealing with skeptical, profit-mongering executives and trying to keep an enormous, unprecented group of actors and professionals focused for an extremely extended period of time, all while trying to please mass audiences as well as Tolkien purists with source material whose complexities and pacing make for an immeasurably difficult translation onto celluloid. The films contain a high level of technical and personal achievement from special effects/costume and set designers and cast members, respectively. Although Peter Jackson did take many (often, granted, seemingly unwarranted) liberties with the storyline, the themes, character motivations and overall feeling of the books, in my own humble opinion, still shine through. To say that these films by Peter Jackson were badly directed, especially without having even seen the final and most important installment, is absolutely ridiculous.End of story.

doug*platypus

12-15-2003, 06:23 PM

The Thread So FarEurytus, congratulations on inserting a post that had everything to do with other movies and almost nothing to do with LOTR! I wish I had the heart to do that, I could go on about Star Wars ad infinitum.Pandora... best post ever. I heartily agree and I've almost had enough of people who endorse the wholesale slaughter of a great book without admitting that yes the movies did have faults. They may be your favourite films, but don't let that block your mind off completely to criticisms. I'm willing to admit that in some instances the movies are superior to the books, but nevertheless they are not nearly as good as the Hollywood hype machine tells you they are.It looks as though the Pandora/Lord of Angmar argument may now consume this thread. Oh well, it was nice while it lasted! What was the topic again? Apologies to whoever started the thread. Perhaps it would have been better broken down into two or three, one for each question. Hijacking is rife in the Movies forum.

Lord of Angmar

12-15-2003, 06:35 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Apologies to whoever started the thread. Perhaps it would have been better broken down into two or three, one for each question. Hijacking is rife in the Movies forum.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sadly, it was I who started the thread, and now I am defending one of the parties that I was initially accusing. I can defend this action somewhat, though, as my initial intent was to provide the arguments of many Tolkien purists in an easily accessible manner, and then leave it open to debate. Since Pandora has attacked Peter Jackson far more than I would have cared to, I felt the need to defend the director, as I am still a fan of the movies despite their admitted flaws and despite New Line's shameless over-advertisment and -merchandising.[ 7:39 PM December 15, 2003: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

doug*platypus

12-15-2003, 06:50 PM

Fair enough, and very well said.

The Saucepan Man

12-15-2003, 08:45 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> He added it in because he thought it was better from a cinematic standpoint, as indeed much of it was from the perspective of mass audiences. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well said, Lord of Angmar. I agree entirely. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I totally deny this on most of the new material and many of the omissions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, pandora, you may deny it. But that does not stop it being true. Jackson did not make the changes just to p**s off the Tolkien purists. He made them because he felt that they would make for better films. You (and others) may disagree with the changes that he made and feel that the films are worse off for them. I disagree with some of them too. But that does not get away from the fact that Jackson's reason for making them was because he thought that they worked better cinematically. And he has, in large measure, been vindicated, given the incredible success of these films. Many millions of people, including long-time Tolkien fans like myself, believe them to be great films.And I have been left in no doubt, from interviews that I have read and from the TTT EE documentaries, that he, Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens, as well as many (if not most) of the remainder of the production team have great admiration and respect for Tolkien's works. Many of them, Jackson included, have been fans of the books for a long time, just like many of us here. They were not trying to improve on what Tolkien wrote. They were simply trying to render his story in a format suitable for the silver screen. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The scene at the ford was more exciting when Frodo was alone. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You cannot look at these scenes in isolation. Jackson and the rest of the script-writing team made a decision to enhance the role of Arwen, so as to bring an additional strong female character into a story rather bereft of such characters. They also chose to play up the romance of Aragorn and Arwen (largely with material based on the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen in the Appendices to the book). Having her ride with Frodo to Rivendell gave them a chance to introduce her as a central character and to increase her involvement in the story. You may disagree with the decision to increase Arwen's role, but there was a cinematic reason for it (and, in my view, it was a good one). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The final confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman is tense and exciting and satisfies the wish of the viewer to know how Saruman was deal with. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with you on this one, although I can understand why the scene was not included in RotK, given that Saruman plays no part in the events portrayed in it, and also given the need to bring Sauron to the fore as the major villain. It should have been included at the end of TTT though.And, much as it is one of my favourite chapters from the book, I can wholly understand the decision to omit the Scouring of the Shire. A new sub-plot and second mini-climax would (on screen) totally destroy the major climax of Sauron's defeat. Given the criticism made by some reviewers that RotK takes too long to end, including the Scouring would have been a major mistake. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The prologue disrupts the flow of the mood of the film <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am not at all sure how it can disrupt the flow of the film when it is at the beginning. But surely it was absolutely necessary to bring audiences (the majority of whom will not have read the books) up to speed with the basic premise of the film right at the outset. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The changes to the balrog scene made it too long and drawn out, actually losing tension compared to the book <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have seen very little criticism of this scene. Personally I thought that it was very well-paced, although I agree that the "Dwarf tossing" jokes are unnecessary and detract from Gimli's character. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Elrond is simply a pain in the bum, as is Arwen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Elrond's character is admittedly very different. I thought that he worked well in FotR, but tired of his "overbearing and selfish father" act in TTT. But I can see the cinematic benefits of giving the character an "edge" and building up the tension and uncertainty in Arwen's decision. I did, however, think that they went too far in having her set off for the Grey Havens in TTT. Notwithstanding the tension build-up, it should ultimately have become apparent that she would never have made the decision to leave. As for Arwen's enhanced role, I have covered that above. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> These films have been badly directed, end of story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If that were the case, then the films would not have been anything like as successful as they have been, and they would certainly not have received such critical acclaim, among both film-critics and Jackson's peers in the film industry. The direction may not have been to your taste, but I can see no grounds whatsoever for claiming that they were badly directed. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Pandora... best post ever. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hardly. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I heartily agree and I've almost had enough of people who endorse the wholesale slaughter of a great book without admitting that yes the movies did have faults. They may be your favourite films, but don't let that block your mind off completely to criticisms. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I happen to think that these are great films. But by no means am I saying that they are flawless (but, then again, neither are the books). There are changes that were made that in the films I find irritating and unnecessary. But that is not because they alter the story told in the book, but because I feel that they do not work in the context of the (somewhat different) story told in the films. So I do not view these films with an entirely uncritical eye. Nevertheless, I can see good reasons, from a cinematographic perspective, for most of the changes that were made. And I see no reason to let the fact that the story told in the films is different from that told in the books to ruin what, for me, are thoroughly enjoyable films.

Evisse the Blue

12-16-2003, 03:07 AM

The Jackson DilemmaIt's useless, there are two opposite viewpoints here that will never ever reach an understanding or even a common ground of criticising/defending. Even though I'm in the criticising camp, I won't go back to bashing, I'd rather raise an issue that caught my attention while reading this last page: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> the movies might have flopped, and there likely would have been two results. No one would touch the LotR as movie material for years or decades down the road, possibly never. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So, do you think that if the movies had flopped - and as we can plainly see, for some they did; the directors would refrain from taking on the dropped challenge? I think not. They would take it as an incentive to prove that their vision on LOTR would fare better. Now - as the majority acclaim Jackson's version as the best movie ever made, the directors are likely to back off from making another adaptation of LOTR, as they feel it wouldn't measure up to this one. So, if anything, it will inhibit creativity and prohibit a new vision of Tolkien's work. That's how I see it. And of course, the new Tolkienites converted to the books after watching the movies will forever confuse and mix lines /scenes added by Jackson with the original ones, thus frustrating themselves and everyone else in the process. I've seen it happen, even on the Downs. So there.

Eurytus

12-16-2003, 03:38 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Pandora... best post ever. I heartily agree and I've almost had enough of people who endorse the wholesale slaughter of a great book without admitting that yes the movies did have faults. They may be your favourite films, but don't let that block your mind off completely to criticisms. I'm willing to admit that in some instances the movies are superior to the books, but nevertheless they are not nearly as good as the Hollywood hype machine tells you they are. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You do realise that this sentence <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> They may be your favourite films, but don't let that block your mind off completely to criticisms. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>works equally well if you change the word films to books don’t you. Not that many people here seem to see it that way of course.And best post ever?!? A post that contains this; <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> These films have been badly directed, end of story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Apparently the fact that Pandora feels that the films have been badly directed has rendered the whole discussion moot.

Eurytus

12-16-2003, 03:52 AM

“The final confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman is tense and exciting and satisfies the wish of the viewer to know how Saruman was deal with.”So if we stick rigidly to the book you think audiences would be happy to see a confrontation with a character they have never even seen? Don’t think so? In the book Saruman only gets a couple of mentions and is never seen before this confrontation so how exactly are they going to make him seem like a big villain. Answer, they can’t and wouldn’t.“The prologue disrupts the flow of the mood of the film”As someone else has already mentioned it is actually impossible to disrupt the flow of a film when it has not even had a flow established yet. From a story point of view it was imperative to establish background to the story and having a half hour story telling session from Gandalf in front of the fire at Bagend was not likely to cut it.“The fight at Weathertop”Um, in the book there basically isn’t one. Frodo takes one stab and blacks out soon after seeing Aragorn wave a brand around a couple of times. Yep, I can see how that would get the audience on their feet!“Tom's role could have been reduced to the rescuing Frodo from the barrow-wight and been left more or less at that.”And so you are somehow qualified to approve deviations from the text now? And what a change! A technicolour dwarf popping up, saving the Hobbits from barrow wights and disappearing again. “These films have been badly directed, end of story.” And yet the majority of the public and critics do not seem to agree with you.

Eurytus

12-16-2003, 03:55 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The proof is not in the box office. Porn sells, but that does not make it 'right.' <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So now you are trying to attach “morals” to making changes in the story of LOTR? And equating PJ’s version with Porn?Superb!You are wrong of course. And not just about that. The proof is in the box office and it is the only proof that the film industry gives any credence to.

Lalaith

12-16-2003, 05:09 AM

I have sympathy with a lot of the viewpoints expressed here, from both sides of the discussion. Like all art, the film has varying levels of appeal, and this is my view of how successful it is on these levels. Visual/aural: near-perfect, I don't think anyone could have done better. Emotional: varying. The comradeship of the Fellowship was conveyed extremely well, as was the excitement and fear of being in the midst of battle. Other more subtle emotional issues were badly handled, with Tolkien's interesting and unusual perspectives turned into Hollywood cliches that audiences would "understand." For example, Boromir and Aragorn's relationship was turned into something straight out of a 'Nam movie, and Aragorn's chivalrous treatment of the lovestruck Eowyn into a Love Triangle. Intellectual: this is where the films are most unsatisfying. In FotR, the rich, layered narrative of the book was simplified to a computer game: walk, fight, walk, run,turn, walk, fight. In TTT, the narrative was still like a computer game, but one where you are stuck at a level, blundering about trying to find how to move to the next one. Anything that might have been in the slightest bit intellectually demanding - the council of Elrond, for example - was simplified with a result of pure cheese: "You Shall Be the Fellowship of the Ring!" Ugh. As for the changes, some worked and some didn't. Say what you like, but the bizarre Aragorn horse-snogging scene, the to-ing and fro-ing in Fangorn and Osgiliath did NOT add anything to the cinematic experience. I went to see the film three times, each time with people who had never read the books, that is, representatives of those 'mass audiences' that PJ was trying to appeal to. They felt confused and bored by those scenes.

pandora

12-16-2003, 06:33 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Having her ride with Frodo to Rivendell gave them a chance to introduce her as a central character and to increase her involvement in the story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have no problem with introducing her before the Ford and her being part of the general flight but the key moment of Frodo on his own has no bearing on Arwen having joined them any more than in the book it was dependant on Glorfindel. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> You may disagree with the decision to increase Arwen's role, but there was a cinematic reason for it (and, in my view, it was a good one).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I could have lived with it if it had been done well but Arwen is a total flop; no one I have talked to - man or women - cares a jot whether he character lives or dies. I am aware of the reality that the producers may not have thought that way and Jackson probably was forced into trying to amplify the character. It could have been far worse: she could have been dropped in to replace Legolas! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> A new sub-plot and second mini-climax would (on screen) totally destroy the major climax of Sauron's defeat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, I agree. To get the Scouring in would have been very difficult indeed but I think it could have been done if less time was spent on the big battle (I admit that I'm going by what I've been told of the time spent on the Seige of Minas Tirith). I'll return to this below in reference to Eurytus' remarks. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I am not at all sure how it can disrupt the flow of the film when it is at the beginning. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We start off with a major battle and then move to the tranquility of the Shire and then try to build back up. Why not go straight into the Shire and start the long, slow but with moments of action like the balrog, build up to the high drama of the third film? The Last Alliance could be put in almost anywhere that Aragorn or Gandalf has a chance to talk about the "olden days". Putting it at the start is pretty weak, like showing the Germans marching into Paris at the start of Casablanca; it fits better after we have established some rapport with the characters and setting. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But surely it was absolutely necessary to bring audiences <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just the opposite is true: for those that do not know the book the building up and unveiling of the dreadful danger of the "funny magic ring" is better than simply handing out a potted history at the start. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Personally I thought that it was very well-paced, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just what took the balrog so long?! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The direction may not have been to your taste, but I can see no grounds whatsoever for claiming that they were badly directed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't think theres a single scene in the first film that wasn't badly handled and some ranked alongside the worst in any film I've ever seen.Surely no one can watch the Gandalf/Saruman scene and not feel deeply embarassed for JRRT?The second film is better but not much. The plot is further disrupted by Arwen's increased role, Osgiliath is a blunder, Legolas' surfing, more "He's dead. No, wait: there he is" scenes (like LotR needs more of those!). It's generally just bland but pretty. On to Eurytus: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> So if we stick rigidly to the book you think audiences would be happy to see a confrontation with a character they have never even seen? Don't think so? In the book Saruman only gets a couple of mentions and is never seen before this confrontation so how exactly are they going to make him seem like a big villain. Answer, they can't and wouldn't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Please, please, please try reading what I've said before posting pointless comments like this. I never said, and will never say that the film should have stuck rigidly to the book.In fact I think that bumpping Saruman's role up was not only a good idea but an absolute necessity. His unseen presence in the book would not have worked in a film.The problem is that he has been promoted only to be dropped completely at the end. That's BAD.PJ: "Here's Saruman, he's our major on-screen bad guy. We've got Christopher Lee to play him."Exec: "Oh, good stuff. I expect he get's bumped off at the end after a titanic struggle with the forces of good?"PJ: "Whatever." <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> As someone else has already mentioned it is actually impossible to disrupt the flow of a film when it has not even had a flow established yet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I should have said the flow of the story, I suppose. The act of jumping from the prologue to the Shire makes for a pointless change in setting and mood and undermines the later build up of tension since a lot of the possible mystery is destroyed by what is just a load of exposition. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> From a story point of view it was imperative to establish background to the story and having a half hour story telling session from Gandalf in front of the fire at Bagend was not likely to cut it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>First of all it was not imperative any more than knowing the Roman History of Britain is imperative to understanding Excalibur. The story is about people under threat. The audience knows about people already and understands the concept of threat. You can go from there and gradually reveal the nature and magnitude of the threat. The exact same footage could have been faded in once the logical place for the flashback was reached; no long vocal story-telling is needed. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Um, in the book there basically isn't one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There isn't much of a fight but there is a hell of a good bit of scene-setting and the establishment of the Nazgul as something much more sinister than a bunch of hunckbacks on horses. Big visual oppertunities await the right director. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And so you are somehow qualified to approve deviations from the text now? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>First of all, it's not a deviation. Secondly, I'm at least as qualified as Jackson. Thirdly, deviations are unavoidable. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And yet the majority of the public and critics do not seem to agree with you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yet no one ever offers any evidence of why they are well directed. All I ever hear is apologies: "You have to do that in a film", or "Jackson had to appeal to women", or "There's not enough time to show that".So: what great strokes of directorial genius have I missed. Where did Jackson show the skills of a new Hitchcock, Scott, Ford, Capra, Hawkins, Huston, or Kurosawa? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> So now you are trying to attach "morals" to making changes in the story of LOTR? And equating PJ's version with Porn? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Unless you are a complete idiot you know that the point he was making was that there is no connection between quality and success. The "equating" was that you would claim that if a porn film is successful must therefore be a great movie. After all: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The proof is in the box office<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eurytus

12-16-2003, 06:50 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Yet no one ever offers any evidence of why they are well directed. All I ever hear is apologies: "You have to do that in a film", or "Jackson had to appeal to women", or "There's not enough time to show that". So: what great strokes of directorial genius have I missed. Where did Jackson show the skills of a new Hitchcock, Scott, Ford, Capra, Hawkins, Huston, or Kurosawa? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And you have offered absolutely zero examples of poor direction. In fact I am beginning to suspect that you do not know what a director does. All your criticisms to date have been based on differences between book and film. These are related to the script and have absolutely nothing to do with the quality of direction.Of course the point of the matter is that I do not need to argue with you about it. The critical and commercial success of the films proves it for me. Film companies are not in the habit of giving $20 million plus 20% of the gross to bad directors.Perhaps if you omitted the hyperbole from your arguments you might find that people might accept them or at least part of them. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> There isn't much of a fight but there is a hell of a good bit of scene-setting and the establishment of the Nazgul as something much more sinister than a bunch of hunckbacks on horses. Big visual oppertunities await the right director. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Right, the Nazgul in the book are really sinister. So sinister in fact that they still get beaten off by one guy with a flaming stick. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Secondly, I'm at least as qualified as Jackson. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, you are not as qualified as Jackson. Know why? Because he has earned the chance to do it. He took the gambles, he persuaded the movie chiefs, he built up the special effects shop, he wrote the script. Go away and get your own budget then I’m sure you can make the film you want but *****ing about the talents of a director who is set to make the highest grossing movie trilogy in history is frankly going to be a lonely (and pointless) task.

Eurytus

12-16-2003, 06:55 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> After all: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The proof is in the box office -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Read my original post; <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Somehow I think that PJ’s changes have been vindicated through the only medium that means anything. He has the box office results. He has the critical acclaim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Read, apply understanding and then realise, gee whizz, box office plus critical acclaim.Yep, pretty much the only indicator of success that means anything. Or are you one of the idiots who thinks that what one high-brow critic thinks is somehow more valid than the public at large?Though of course you can't be since many "high-brow" critics think that the book LOTR is turgid crap.

pandora

12-16-2003, 08:14 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> All your criticisms to date have been based on differences between book and film. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, actually they were not. I did suggest that if Jackson had stuck to a fairly literal interpretation of the material in the book he would have done a better job but that's not the same as saying the problem was the difference itself. A difference can be for the better or worse.For example: the scene with Gandalf jumping out from behind the door was stupid and the result of a poor director trying for cheap shocks because he can't actually pull off any more subtle fear or tension. It is different from the book but that's not what makes it bad; it's just plain old bad direction in and of itself.Anyway, there's no point talking to you about this as you seem to have an inability to read what is on the screen in front of you as well as a slavish devotion to being told what to like by accountants and critics.

Bêthberry

12-16-2003, 08:37 AM

This is not the forum I moderate, but as a fellow Downs member I would like to point out that personal attacks ruin the quality of good discussions. Please, everyone here, respect differences of opinion and refrain from baiting and character assassination. This is not the WWF. Thanks!

The Saucepan Man

12-16-2003, 08:38 AM

* Pandora and Eurytus. On the Barrow-Downs, we try to be respectful of the views of others, even though we might not agree with them. Discussions soon break down into slanging matches where people fail to adhere to this simple rule. So please moderate your posts and refrain from indulging in personal abuse. *Lalaith what you say about the films working on a visual and (to varying degrees) emotional level, but failing on an intellectual level, is interesting. I agree that the films downplay much of the intellectual content of the books, although I would not describe them as devoid of intelligence. And I actually think that they work very well on an emotional level. The Aragorn/Eowyn relationship seems little different to me in the film than in the book. They have just played up the tension with Arwen on the "will she stay or will she go" issue.In any event, the focus on the visual/emotional at the expense of the intellectual represents, to my mind, a good decision on the part of Jackson and the script-writing team. These kinds of films (action/adventure) work best on the visual and emotional level. That is not to say that those, like me, who enjoy these films are ignorant. It is just that we want to enjoy experiencing what we are seeing and feeling without having our attention diverted by complex issues requiring us to stop and think them through. Films like this work on an instinctive level. It is all about making them accessible.Clearly, both you and pandora would have preferred to have seen a different kind of film. One which did not focus so much on the action/adventure but encompassed more of the intellectual breadth of Tolkien's work. I have no doubt that such a film could be made, although I agree that Jackson would not be the man to make it. But I suspect that it would have failed to raise the financial backing required to bring Middle-earth to life in the visually stunning way that Jackson has been able to acheive. And I strongly suspect that it would have been a far less successful film, in terms of box office receipts and critical acclaim. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> the bizarre Aragorn horse-snogging scene, the to-ing and fro-ing in Fangorn and Osgiliath did NOT add anything to the cinematic experience. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree that Aragorn's white water adventure was gratuitous and unnecessary. Although I felt that the Arwen scenes were necessary, they could have been worked in elsewhere. Much of Fangorn I like, although I would have preferred to see the Ents make up their own minds to go to war. On the other hand, these scenes did give Merry and Pippin a chance to develop in stature (in more ways than one ), a process which is very much central in the third film, by the sound of it. Osgiliath (or something like it) I thought was necessary. A climax was required for the journey of Frodo and Sam to mirror the grand climaxes of Helm's Deep and the Ents' attack on Isengard, but it had to be one which would not overshadow them. Osgiliath provided this, although I think that it could have been handled better. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I went to see the film three times, each time with people who had never read the books, that is, representatives of those 'mass audiences' that PJ was trying to appeal to. They felt confused and bored by those scenes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Arwen is a total flop; no one I have talked to - man or women - cares a jot whether he character lives or dies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>On the other hand, everyone that I have spoken to about these films, both fans of the book and those who have never read it, enjoyed them tremendously. It's funny how we can all cite examples of people who hold the same views as us, isn't it? Suffice it to say that I disagree with much of what you say, pandora, on the merits of the scenes and characters that you refer to. There is little point in debating it further, however, since it will clearly make no difference whatsoever to your view. You are entitled to your opinion. I simply object to you stating points in a manner which suggests that they are absolute truths. They are not. They are matters on which opinions vary. Some acknowledgement that you are setting forth your opinions on these matters would not go astray, and would perhaps lead to a more constructive discussion. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I never said, and will never say that the film should have stuck rigidly to the book. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Eurytus, pandora is right on this (although, pandora, the preceding sentence is a prime example of where a little toning down would have been in order). Pandora, I accept that you are not simply claiming that the films should have followed the books in every respect (as some do). The difference between us is that I understand and, for the most part, accept the editorial and directorial decisions that Jackson and co made, whereas you clearly do not. I have little problem with them because they mostly work for me and because I accept that it was necessary for the film to achieve popular and critical success to recoup the financial outlay involved. As I said above, you would clearly have liked to have seen a different kind of film, one which, I suspect, would not have beeen anything like as successful as these films have been. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Yet no one ever offers any evidence of why they are well directed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is not true. Just take a browse through some of the older threads in this forum (this is, you will not be surprised to hear, a debate that has been raging for a long time) and you will see numerous explanations as to why certain scenes work on a cinematographic level. If you are really interested, take a look at some of HC Island's posts. He has not posted here for a few weeks (I suspect that he's avoiding RotK spoilers), but he is someone who has a good feel for film-making and a knack of explaining how and why scenes in these films work. Personally, I find it difficult to explain why a scene works for me: it just does. I have tried to set out my thoughts in a number of older threads, but I do not propose reiterating my arguments here because it would be going back over old ground and, in any event, there is, it seems, very little prospect of changing your mind. As I said, if you are interested, try browsing through a few old topics.As for Jackson's skill as a director, Eurytus is right, in terms of what Jackson set out to acheive. Jackson set out to bring Tolkien's story to the screen in a format which has mass appeal. He has succeeded overwhelmingly in doing so. He is therefore very good at his job, ie directing. He may not appeal to you as a director, but that makes him no less skillful at what he does. Some of the directors that you have listed do not appeal to me. I do not enjoy their films. And yet I recognise that they are highly skilled directors.And finally, once more, please can everyone show a little more respect for each other from now on. [ 9:40 AM December 16, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

pandora

12-16-2003, 08:40 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> This is not the WWF. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why have the World Wildlife Fund got involved? Is it because hobbits are endangered?

Child of the 7th Age

12-16-2003, 08:42 AM

I would hate to see this thread shut down. Can everyone please focus on the film, what you think is right and wrong, and less on personal barbs aimed at each other?There are no right or wrong answers here, and it's pretty clear there's a range of opinion, especially among folks who've read the books. Being on one side or the other of the issue, doesn't automatically make somebody a doofus.So please take a deep breath and think before you post.Cami, Shire Mod Edit: I cross posted with Bethberry and Saucepan Man in the space of the last five minutes, but we are all obviously trying to get the same point across.....[ 9:46 AM December 16, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

pandora

12-16-2003, 09:24 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> It's funny how we can all cite examples of people who hold the same views as us, isn't it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, I fnd it quite hard to find people that hold the same view as me about these films except in the particular case of Arwen ("which one is she?" is a common comment I hear). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I simply object to you stating points in a manner which suggests that they are absolute truths.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, this is really the polarizing result of being told over and over again that this is THE greatest set of films ever made. Absolute assertions provoke absolute rebuttals.But, yes, obviously I am really stating opinions, just as much as Eurytus or yourself or Jackson and the cast for that matter. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> As for Jackson's skill as a director, Eurytus is right, in terms of what Jackson set out to acheive. Jackson set out to bring Tolkien's story to the screen in a format which has mass appeal. He has succeeded overwhelmingly in doing so. He is therefore very good at his job,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I actually almost agree with all that. I think the crew has brought Tolkien's world to a mass audience in spite of the loss of the heart of the story. But you are right within that definition of the director's job that Jackson has done well. I just don't accept that a director of an adaptation only owes a duty to the studio and the audience, there is something due to the integrity of the source material too.I'd like to stress, once more, that I think the films are a breathtaking and beautiful visual evocation of Middle-earth. Also, Jackson almost certainly had to jump through some hoops that he would not have to if he had arrived at the project with a reputation like the one he now has.Arwen was probably one such hoop and as I said before it would not have surprised me if the studio had forced him to replace Legolas with her in the Fellowship itself. Worse fates have befallen adaptations in the past.Once out of the Shire Gandalf has been pretty good, as has Gollum (perhaps too overtly sympathetic but still pretty good so far) and I thought the Ents actually worked once you got used to them. Ents are always difficult to imagine anyway.The destruction by Saruman of the Circle of Orthanc was better than the book and got across the whole "industry gone mad" feel well.In the end, I wanted the BBC radio version with pictures. I got the pictures but I didn't get the script.

Eurytus

12-16-2003, 09:51 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I just don't accept that a director of an adaptation only owes a duty to the studio and the audience, there is something due to the integrity of the source material too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is doubtless a point of view that many hold but it does not necessarily ring true all of the time. Sometimes an adaptation needs to show less integrity to the source material. As an example we can view the Godfather film. Now that is pretty much universally hailed as a classic and yet would never have been the film it was had it followed the book. Indeed whole storylines have been ruthlessly cut out from the book. That does not mean that the book was bad, in fact I like it very much perhaps as much as the film, but the book would not have worked as a movie. The cuts were needed.Often adaptation can become more interesting once they deviate from the source material. Two examples of this (in my case) are the films Richard III (with Ian McKellen set in a fascist 1930’s Britain) and Love’s Labours Lost (set as a 1930’s musical). In my view both of these films benefit from making changes. The same could be said of Moby **** . The novel is massive and contains a great deal of basically documentary descriptions of the business of whaling. It would have been overlong if incorporated into the film.The Shining (Kubrick version) plays very loose with King’s book but just compare it’s quality to the TV version King endorsed. At their heart they are very different stories, they have different focus’s, but Kubrick’s adaptation is superior for the changes in my opinion.Changes were made to the Exorcist, changes which the author did not like but again the end product justified these amendments.The Shawshank Redemption takes a barebones story by King and transforms it into an absolutely classic film.Jaws made many changes and again was all the better for it.2001 A Space Odyssey left more unanswered than did the book and this made it different, and yet not the lesser for it.To my mind once a director acquires the rights to a work he is within his rights to make whatsoever changes he feels are needed. The “rightness” of his actions will only become apparent or not once the critics and the public judge him. It is not his job to make a film “for the author” or “for the hardcore fans”. An example of what happens when the film is made “for the author” is to be found in the Harry Potter films. To my mind they are too weighty and flabby.

Eurytus

12-16-2003, 09:54 AM

I am sorry if I found myself getting overheated during this discussion but I do find blanket statements of “he has no respect for the source material or Tolkien”, “he’s a bad director, end of story” and the like to be not only un-provable (or disprovable) but wildly exaggerated too. Paul Anderson is a bad director. Peter Jackson is not. Go back in time 5 years and swap one for the other and you’d see what I mean. The LOTR films would be a whole lot worse for it. Or you could just wait and see the Aliens v’s Predator film.

doug*platypus

12-16-2003, 04:39 PM

Defusing a Hijacking SituationIn order to prevent the wholesale war that is now being waged on this thread, about almost every aspect of the book to film transition, here are some links. I hope that we can attempt to limit our discussion to the thread topic at hand, and use one of the countless other threads for anything even slightly off-topic.<A HREF="http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=001756" TARGET=_blank>Thread for discussing the pitfalls of the Balrog and Moria in general.</A><A HREF="http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=000259" TARGET=_blank>Thread for those unhappy about Weathertop, and for those unhappy with the unhappy.</A><A HREF="http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=002423" TARGET=_blank>White-hot thread about Saruman and his early departure from the trilogy.</A>I couldn't find a good thread about the Prologue to FOTR, so I suggest that if anyone has thoughts on how it could have been improved, or if they believe that its inclusion was questionable, perhaps they could start a new topic. I for one am greatly interested to hear the good and bad points of the movie (i.e. not personal comments on Peter Jackson, positive or negative) since together we see a lot more than one person on their own. For instance, the Weathertop scene in FOTR never really bothered me until others pointed out how much better it could have been. Synopsis of Lord of Angmar's Original Post "Crimes Against Tolkienity"Has Tolkien been done grave injustices in terms of: <UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>The Scourging of the Shire The destruction that Peter Jackson and New Line inflicted upon the natural world?<LI>Marketing, Marketing, Marketing Would Tolkien have wanted the name of his books paraded around solely as a means of profit for the company producing his movies and the highest bidding organizations? <LI>The Changes J.R.R. Tolkien himself disapproved of almost all of the major changes made in the few other film adaptations (and there were many changes), and I doubt he would have wished for too much gutting and plot-changing, especially since a 9+ hour film trilogy should be able to adequately address the plot without making too many additions to the storyline and to the dialogue.</UL>I think we probably have about zero warnings left to get back on topic and stop machine gunning other posters before a mod wanders in and issues some smackdowns.

QuickSlash

12-16-2003, 05:49 PM

To the point about marketing: I generally don't have much of a beef about that except for the very expensive things. Did they really need to make over-priced busts of the characters? I doubt it. Action figures, replicas, those are very nice. I'd like some replica jewlery and weapons myself, but I lack sufficient funds. One problem, I *do* have, though, is something I saw on tv about an hour ago on TNT. I'm one of the people who stops everything s/he's doing when a commercial for the movie comes on, no matter how many times it's been seen. This time, however, they sliced in scenes of basketball for no apparent reason. It seemed to be made to glorify the sport (Using lines such as, 'Become who you are meant to be'), however, at the end, they only told when the movie will premiere. Seems rather pointless and degrading to the film to me.As an afterthought, there's still what JRRT would've wanted. Personally, I don't think he would've wanted the movie made at all, so I suppose I'd say he wouldn't be happy with any of this wonderful nonsense. [ 6:53 PM December 16, 2003: Message edited by: QuickSlash ]

Finwe

12-16-2003, 07:43 PM

All I'm saying is be grateful that Peter Jackson didn't make the Balrog wear bunny slipper-like footwear. In Ralph Bakshi's version, the Balrog's feet looked like they were encased in bunny slippers. We should be grateful that we have a director of Peter's calibre, and not someone like Ralph Bakshi. I think we should take a couple of minute to calm down and be grateful to Peter for taking years out of his life to give us this epic. I don't think any one of us could have done it, ergo, we don't have the right to bash Peter for the choices that he made.

Dininziliel

12-16-2003, 11:52 PM

Finwe writes: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> All I'm saying is be grateful that Peter Jackson didn't make the Balrog wear bunny slipper-like footwear. In Ralph Bakshi's version, the Balrog's feet looked like they were encased in bunny slippers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well . . . here is the intro I've sort of been hoping would not arrive.When Saruman is turning the pages of his tome on Moria and narrating the Balrog threat to Gandalf, there is a picture of said Balrog. Each and every one of the innumerable times I have seen this picture, a Bugs Bunny cartoon does a popup number in my head. It is one where Bugs ends up in a haunted castle inhabited by a mad scientist who creates a monster in his lab. This monster is red, furry, has a part down the middle of its furry head, and its head looks like broad shoulders tapering to the bottom. Whoever rendered that picture in FotR had to have seen that cartoon. I was much relieved upon seeing the "real" balrog. In fact, in my opinion, I think the balrog is the most underrated character in the whole extravaganza. I marvel each time I see it. To me, it is a masterpiece of cinematic artistry. I truly do admire what Jackson and crew did there.It's just too bad we got so much wonderful perception-boggling spectacle and so little soul-enlarging story. LotR is not in same league with The Shining. It is up there with the greatest books and plays of all time: Bible, Koran, Shakespeare, Bagghavad-gita (sp?). We are all having much the same reactions to the changes in LotR's story as we would if someone had scripted and directed the Christmas or crucifixion stories in the Bible but decided a few things needed to be changed for the sake of entertainment value.The story touches something deep within us. Those of us who read the book first--especially those of us with 25+ years of repeated readings--have developed within our hearts and minds a cherished relationship with the story, its characters, and its author. Along with being a ripping good story, it instructs, inspires, illuminates and elevates the darker, heavier corners of human existence. Again, if people come away from seeing one of the movies pondering and commenting on even one or two of the themes--faith, Love, commitment, hope, friendship, forgiveness, salvation, the wages of fear, the consequences of lusting for power and/or immortality--instead of the grandeur of special effects, stunts, and how cute an actor/actress was, then much can be forgiven. But I just don't see how that can happen. A simple perusal of the headings for the movie reviews tell what the public mind has been well trained to see and find significant--" . . . Orcs! Battles . . .!" This is the movies' disservice and main crime to Tokienity. I agree with Pandora--the world is there but not the story. Without the story the world is simply a beautiful picture to look at. Masterpieces are decided by time. As much as we would all like to have the definitive voice at this time, it is only possible to have opinions. Mine is that masterpieces don't cut from key moments too soon and don't have glaring continuity gaffes interspersed throughout the entire 9-12 hours. This is entirely independent from whether or not Jackson screwed the storyline.The last thing to mention, is that Tolkien has been dinged by critics since day one who said LotR was lightweight airy fairy fare. The outrage and genuinely deep (and sometimes bitter) disappointment of so many of us attests to the power of fairy stories exactly as Tolkien delineated in his lectures and writings ("On Fairy Stories"). This is the other "crime" against Tolkienity, and maybe the highest crime--by playing up the stunts, tension, cliched "startle-izations" (Gandalf's sudden clutching at Frodo from dark corner, floaty ghouly faces in Dead Marshes, etc.), l-u-v, and contemporary gag angles (tossing, boarding, etc.), the movies would seem to validate Tolkien's critics--It's just a movie/story for kids or immature adults who can't handle reality.When really, it is a story about the only way to handle reality--with faith, Love, and selfless commitment to something higher than one's personal life. And this does not include box office profit or public acclaim.

Eurytus

12-17-2003, 02:52 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The Changes J.R.R. Tolkien himself disapproved of almost all of the major changes made in the few other film adaptations (and there were many changes), and I doubt he would have wished for too much gutting and plot-changing, especially since a 9+ hour film trilogy should be able to adequately address the plot without making too many additions to the storyline and to the dialogue. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually the vast majority of the supposedly off-topic posts have been about this 3rd aspect of the original post. So linking to other threads about changes is not really the point.

Eurytus

12-17-2003, 03:00 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> LotR is not in same league with The Shining. It is up there with the greatest books and plays of all time: Bible, Koran, Shakespeare, Bagghavad-gita (sp?). We are all having much the same reactions to the changes in LotR's story as we would if someone had scripted and directed the Christmas or crucifixion stories in the Bible but decided a few things needed to be changed for the sake of entertainment value. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am not religious but to anyone who is, this post is basically blasphemous. Even without looking at it from a religious background it is ludicrous to compare LOTR to the Bible, Qu’ran, or Shakespear. It’s impact is not even close. And before people start throwing “The Big Read” and “Book of the Century” style posts at me you might want to consider this. All the examples noted have so pervaded society that the stories are known, even by people who have not read these works. Phrases and terms from them have entered the lexicon. Many of our terms have Biblical origins. Compare LOTR’s impact and the comparison becomes even more ludicrous. Before the films I could conduct a straw poll of all the people known to me and I guarantee that no more than half of them had read LOTR and most of those would have no idea whatsoever of the content of the story. Beyond the fact that it was about dwarves and elves maybe. And the people I know are probably more of a literary bent than the general UK population. In my English class at school, out of a class of 30, perhaps a handful had read and were aware of the story of LOTR. I guarantee that all 30 knew the basic stories of Genesis, Noah, Jesus, Romeo & Juliet, Macbeth et all.And despite the best efforts of some of the posters here no-one yet has sentenced someone to death for crimes against the LOTR. Ownership of countries have not been determined by passages from it. Crusades and holy wars have not been launched to reclaim territories described in it. And much as it may dissatisfy some, no-one but the criminally insane lives according to its statutes.LOTR as big as the Bible. Dream on.

pandora

12-17-2003, 05:16 AM

Well I'm glad the thread's been defused!The role of religion in LotR and in relation to LotR is surely a new topic and a dangerous one given how many christians seem to use this board. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> the movies would seem to validate Tolkien's critics--It's just a movie/story for kids or immature adults who can't handle reality. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's pretty well how I feel and why it winds me up so much; the idea that this is the image of JRRT's work that will be regarded as canonical by millions of people.I have to say that the marketing hasn't bothered me one way or the other. It may be that the marketing annoys those that like the films because they see it as unworthy of the project. I, on the other hand, feel that it exactly suited to the films: flashy and fun to look at but with no substance.And lay off Bakshi. Leaving the technical issues aside which are a product of the budget not the director, if one compares the direction of the scenes shared between the animated version and FotR Bakshi is superior in just about every one. For a particular instance which is a "Crime against Tolkienity": the Frodo/Bilbo ring sequence in Rivendell. The fact that this is often referred to as the "Bug-eye scene" tells you everything you need to know about Jacksons version's cheap shock tactics. Bakshi, on the other hand, gives us a scene of pathos where Bilbo is transformed in a different way. He shakes and his face contorts with supressed greed and we actually see him become pathetic and contemptible from Frodo's point of view. The long shot then shows that, without even realising it, Frodo has made a fist which is raising behind him. Then Bilbo masters himself and turns away becoming the simple old man that everyone loves from The Hobbit again, weary and tired from his unnaturally long life.In this sequence Bakshi has shown us the devastating effect of the bearing of the Ring on poor old Bilbo and the fact that it already has its hooks into Frodo in a way that was moving and quite powerful, even offering some insight into the question of why death can be a gift rather than a curse. Jackson's version was a criminal waste of the situation.Bakshi's version failed dispite its director's abilities because the technology and budget weren't there; Jackson's failed (for me) despite the big budget and technology because the director wasn't ready for a project where characters are so important.

Lalaith

12-17-2003, 05:36 AM

With regard to Saucepan Man's comments, I should clarify that despite my criticisms I did enjoy the films enormously. And I certainly wasn't expecting to see some kind of Ingmar Bergman art-house flick, I'm all for good battle scenes....But because I care about the book, there were certain aspects that I found very frustrating and/or disappointing, times (dwarf-tossing springs to mind) when I was jolted out of my enjoyment and involvement with the action, with a wince. Rather like the little girl with the curl - when the films are good, they are very, very good, but when they are bad they are horrid.[ 6:37 AM December 17, 2003: Message edited by: Lalaith ]

Eurytus

12-17-2003, 07:15 AM

Ah yes, the Bakshi version. Obviously superior. Let’s see how….The intro, superb especially the depiction of Sauron as one of the Knights who say “Ni”.Gandalf seems to like throwing rings into fires and quoting poetry. He never actually reads the fiery letters.Sam has apparently been eavesdropping (in the middle of a field!) because they have been talking about Elves and he loves Elves. Only one problem, they haven’t been talking about Elves at all.Saruman seemingly having his name changed to Aruman for the majority of the movie.The depiction of Elves. ***? How big are their eyes. And what’s with the 70’s porn star hair? I guess with female elves looking like female 70's porn stars you could call this consistency.Aragorn, the mini-skirt wearing Native American, explains at the Council of Elrond that he is the descendant of Elendil. Although since Elendil has never previously been mentioned we are none the wiser about what this actually means.The Balrog?!?!Pronouncing Celeborn as Keleborn.The inexplicable battle between the Rohirrim and the Orcs. Both sides line up and stand there for a while. Then 1 rider rides down between the sides and shoots one orc. The rest of the orcs cheer the rider? A lot of time passes. Eventually the orcs manage to pull one rider of his horse and this sends the rest of the riders into berserker mode.Why does Eowyn look like the Wicked Witch from Snow White?Magic ball lightening at Helm’s Deep. Nuff said.Frodo’s big “the burden is heavy scene”. What does Sam do? Get up and start whistling of course!Helm’s Deep. Love the way the orcs all retreat solely on the basis of a horn being blown. Before they even see the riders emerge. Gandalf’s ludicrously bloody slaying of the orcs. Right in your face and in slow motion too!Of course perhaps the biggest difference between Bakshi’s LOTR and Jackson’s is that PJ actually made a movie that people actually WANT to watch. Not something that was basically ignored after release.

The Saucepan Man

12-17-2003, 08:43 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Rather like the little girl with the curl - when the films are good, they are very, very good, but when they are bad they are horrid. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For me, it's more like - when the films are good, they are very very good, but when they are bad, they are mildly irritating. When I first read LotR, aged 11, it seemed to me to be an action/adventure story and I enjoyed it on that level, and, perhaps more subconsciously, on an emotional level. My favourite chapter at that age was Helm's Deep. Re-reading it as an adult, I have gained much more from it intellectually. When I see the films, I think that they appeal to me in much the same way as the book did when I first read it. So the fact that it does not explore the book's themes as deeply as does the book does not disappoint me.But the themes are still there. Dininziliel said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Again, if people come away from seeing one of the movies pondering and commenting on even one or two of the themes--faith, Love, commitment, hope, friendship, forgiveness, salvation, the wages of fear, the consequences of lusting for power and/or immortality--instead of the grandeur of special effects, stunts, and how cute an actor/actress was, then much can be forgiven. But I just don't see how that can happen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How can anyone (adolescent blood fest fans and Nazgirls apart ) watch these films and not be moved by Frodo and Sam's friendship (and Merry and Pippin's, for that matter), Sam's loyalty, Gandalf's hope and faith, Aragorn's love for Arwen, the Fellowship's committment to the cause, the consequences of Saruman's lust for power etc? These themes may not be as developed as they are in the book, but they are present. And this, to my mind, is one of the reasons why the films have been so much more successful than any other film in the same genre to date. That is why people who would not ordinarily have any truck with Hobbits and Elves have reacted so favourably to these films.I believe that it was suggested further up this thread that Jackson's films glorify war. Nothing could be further from the truth. In depicting the war against Sauron, Jackson, like Tolkien, is depicting a war that (like WW2 but unlike WW1) had to be fought. But, unlike Tolkien, he goes out of his way to depict the horrors of war. I found the scene before the Battle at Helm's Deep, where the children and old men are being armed for the forthcoming battle, with looks of utter dread and horror on their faces, to be exceptionally moving. That, to me, is a prime example of material that was not in the books which adds greatly to the film by conveying the very real horror of the situation they are facing.If people think that the films glorify war, they are getting the wrong message. Just like (to use an extreme example) White Supremacists who hold the book up as encapsulating their beliefs are getting the wrong message. (Really. There is a website devoted to such bunk. There is a link somewhere around here if you don't mind being revolted by the dangerous rubbish that they spout, but I will not give it here.)And just because some spotty, testosterone-driven youths see only the battle scenes and the Legolas stunts, it does not follow that this is all there is to the films. To my mind, these films are still conveying essentially the same messages as Tolkien was in the book, just in a more user-friendly package.And, much as I love the Bakshi film (it is part of my childhood), I really cannot see that it can hold a candle to Jackson's films, whether we are talking faithfulness to the source material, visualisation or direction. (By the way, Eurytus, Celeborn is pronounced Keleborn ).

pandora

12-17-2003, 08:54 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The intro, superb especially the depiction of Sauron as one of the Knights who say 'Ni'. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The intro was a mistake but you are picking on technical problems here which are a result not of the director but of the budget. Indeed, I had always assumed that the only reason Bakshi put the intro material in, especially in the the form that he did was because he had no budget to do it right. I was very surprised therefore when Jackson repeated the mistake with a big budget. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Gandalf seems to like throwing rings into fires and quoting poetry. He never actually reads the fiery letters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In the book he throws the ring into the fire but he does speak the words once in Rivendell. A simple piece of cimematic compression. Much more reasonable than having Gandalf go half-insane and start creeping about the Shire in thunderstorms. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Sam has apparently been eavesdropping (in the middle of a field!) because they have been talking about Elves and he loves Elves. Only one problem, they haven?t been talking about Elves at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A minor continuity error, much less sever than having Frodo etc camp under the stone trolls and nobody mentioning it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Saruman seemingly having his name changed to Aruman for the majority of the movie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>God knows what that was about. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The depiction of Elves. ***? How big are their eyes. And what's with the 70?s porn star hair? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I bow to your superior knowledge of 70's porn-stars' hairstyles but generally the elves looked no better or worse than any other versions. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Aragorn, the mini-skirt wearing Native American,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh, you mean the Aragorn that looks like he's lived in the wilderness for years (a bit like a Native American, for example) and has a voice that you could believe would lead men into the jaws of death? I assume that you prefer the Mr No-Charisma that Jackson used. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Although since Elendil has never previously been mentioned we are none the wiser about what this actually means. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>More continuity problems; both versions are rife with them, eg The Old Forest reference in TTT. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The Balrog?!?! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It did alright for its time; the still graphics used in the depiction of Gandalf's battle with it made up for the slippers. Jackson's balrog was terrific (literally). But again we're talking technical issues, not directorial. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Pronouncing Celeborn as Keleborn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which is the correct pronounciation, see appendix E. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The inexplicable battle between the Rohirrim and the Orcs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think Bakshi was going for a "Our champion fights your champion before the main battle" sort of thing that appears in some Celtic and Anglo-Saxon stories but it all went wrong. It still makes me laugh out loud at the idea that all the other orcs must have really hated that one that gets killed. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Why does Eowyn look like the Wicked Witch from Snow White? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Does it matter? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Magic ball lightening at Helm?s Deep. Nuff said. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Better than the sudden appearance of the Olympic-Torch Orc running in a conspicuous manner in front of a line of Elves with bows. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Frodo?s big ?the burden is heavy scene?. What does Sam do? Get up and start whistling of course! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I assumed Sam needed the toilet and was waiting for Frodo to shup up. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Love the way the orcs all retreat solely on the basis of a horn being blown. Before they even see the riders emerge. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They fall back but the charge fails, which it should have. Given that Jackson's version had horses charging down a cliff face onto the waiting pikes of the orcs I don't think you can really claim it as an improvement. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Of course perhaps the biggest difference between Bakshi's LOTR and Jackson's is that PJ actually made a movie that people actually WANT to watch. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I did say that Bakshi's version was a failure and it does contain some awful moments. Jackson succeeded in making a flashy piece of fluff that sold well but as an adaptation it is a failure and as a film I think it's very weak even without comparison with the source material. There's no depth.The first hour of Bakshi covers FotR and does it better than Jackson by far (except where Jackson copies Bakshi). The rest is a total write-off apart from Gollum. I would have prefered Bakshi to have given up and simply binned the project once it was clear he did not have the resources to do it right. But I would also have prefered Jackson to dump it once he realised that he couldn't handle characterisation, pace or subtlety.Finally: why did you even come to this thread? Was there some reason you thought that a topic entitled "Topic: Crimes Against Tolkienity" under "Movies" was going to be a hymn of praise to Peter Jackson?

Eurytus

12-17-2003, 09:49 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The intro was a mistake but you are picking on technical problems here which are a result not of the director but of the budget <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wrong, the representation of Sauron as one of the Knights who say “Ni” has nothing to do with budget. It was simply their choice to do so. It would not be hard to rent a better looking set of armour from a fancy dress shop, especially when it is only shown in silhouette. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Much more reasonable than having Gandalf go half-insane and start creeping about the Shire in thunderstorms <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yep, that’s right he went half-insane. More hyperbole. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> A minor continuity error, much less sever than having Frodo etc camp under the stone trolls and nobody mentioning it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Watch the extended edition. It is mentioned. Even in the normal version, given that Bilbo’s stone trolls have already been mentioned I should think that the maths are quite easy to work out. Stone trolls described by Bilbo. They are now camped under stone trolls. The same ones?? Hmm, not too difficult. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> God knows what that was about <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Saruman is referred to as Aruman many times during Bakshi’s version. Watch it and see. Perhaps Bakshi thought that two villains starting with S was too many. Who knows. It’s crap though. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Oh, you mean the Aragorn that looks like he's lived in the wilderness for years (a bit like a Native American, for example) and has a voice that you could believe would lead men into the jaws of death? I assume that you prefer the Mr No-Charisma that Jackson used <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A voice that you could believe would lead men into death? The voice of John Merrick? Hmm, personal opinion here I guess. And Native American or not, wearing a mini-skirt whilst trudging around wild heathlands and forests is more than a little stupid. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Although since Elendil has never previously been mentioned we are none the wiser about what this actually means. __________________________________________________ _ More continuity problems; both versions are rife with them, eg The Old Forest reference in TTT. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Right, a reference to the Old Forest in the Two Towers is equal to forgetting to mention exactly who Aragorn is descended from and who owned his sword previously. In fact, who he is heir to? OK? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> It did alright for its time; the still graphics used in the depiction of Gandalf's battle with it made up for the slippers. Jackson's balrog was terrific (literally). But again we're talking technical issues, not directorial. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again the look of the Balrog is nothing to do with technical issues. The format used is animation, ie pictures. Artists have been doing pictures of Tolkien for years, notably for the Tolkien Calendars. Awesome that Bakshi’s disco-boot wearing Cowardly Lion became far and away the worst ever depicted on the first try. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I think Bakshi was going for a "Our champion fights your champion before the main battle" sort of thing that appears in some Celtic and Anglo-Saxon stories but it all went wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Apart from the fact that they do not actually fight each other though. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Better than the sudden appearance of the Olympic-Torch Orc running in a conspicuous manner in front of a line of Elves with bows. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They use explosives to blow up the wall. It is a requirement for the fuse to be lit. Given that someone has to go up and light it and the presence of Elven archers I would say running probably was the best tactic in the circumstances don’t you? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> They fall back but the charge fails, which it should have. Given that Jackson's version had horses charging down a cliff face onto the waiting pikes of the orcs I don't think you can really claim it as an improvement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Point one is that Bakshi’s Orcs retreat solely on the basis of a horn call. They not only retreat they drop all their weapons. You find that valid? OK then…..And the whole point of the charge/pike scene was that they knew the sun would blind the Uruk’s and cause them to lose their focus. I felt that was clear enough. As did pretty much the rest of the cinema going population I think. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> But I would also have prefered Jackson to dump it once he realised that he couldn't handle characterisation, pace or subtlety. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Right he should have dumped it and missed out on the critic’s acclaim, over $1 billion of movie receipts, Oscar nominations and wins as well as obtaining the credibility to make his dream project of King Kong. Instead he should have stuck to low budget Zombie films.With recommendations like that I bet PJ is glad that he doesn’t have you as an advisor. In fact I bet every director is. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Finally: why did you even come to this thread? Was there some reason you thought that a topic entitled "Topic: Crimes Against Tolkienity" under "Movies" was going to be a hymn of praise to Peter Jackson? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So your idea of the thread is that it was to be a forum for people to criticise what Jackson has done without rebuttal? Yep, I can really see how your way is better. Though I thought this was a discussion forum rather than a “hey everyone lets express one viewpoint only forum”.

The Only Real Estel

12-17-2003, 10:11 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But I would also have prefered Jackson to dump it once he realised that he couldn't handle characterisation, pace or subtlety.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What!!?? And leave us with nothing to argue over? What are you thinking!? Seriously, wouldn't you rather have movies & argue over them than not have any movies at all? If hate parts of them, you can at least watch parts that you don't hate. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>LotR is not in same league with The Shining. It is up there with the greatest books and plays of all time: Bible, Koran, Shakespeare, Bagghavad-gita (sp?). We are all having much the same reactions to the changes in LotR's story as we would if someone had scripted and directed the Christmas or crucifixion stories in the Bible but decided a few things needed to be changed for the sake of entertainment value.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Um, that's a ridiculous statement. LotR is no where near the Bible. Or ever will be. Depends on whether you're religious or not I suppose, but that's just a bad, bad comparision. And to say that our reactions to the changes in LotR are even close to our reactions about a change in a crucifixion story is also way blown-out. Seriously, that's just a stupid statement. [ 11:15 AM December 17, 2003: Message edited by: The Only Real Estel ]

pandora

12-17-2003, 01:51 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Yep, that?s right he went half-insane. More hyperbole.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You obviously saw a different movie from me; the part in question was laughable. Gandalf acts totally out of character for him and in fact does something that no sensible person would. Half-insane just about covers it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Watch the extended edition. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How about Jackson just produces a complete film instead of a trailer for the DVD for a change? I don't remember being offered a discount because some of the film was missing (eg Galadriel's gifts). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Saruman is referred to as Aruman many times during Bakshi?s version. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I meant "God knows what Bakshi was thinking here" not you. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And Native American or not, wearing a mini-skirt whilst trudging around wild heathlands and forests is more than a little stupid.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The Scots will be upset to hear that. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Again the look of the Balrog is nothing to do with technical issues. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In animation complex drawings equals time equals money. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I would say running probably was the best tactic in the circumstances don?t you? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And carrying a bright light? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And the whole point of the charge/pike scene was that they knew the sun would blind the Uruk?s and cause them to lose their focus. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Given that they were charging straight onto pikes the orcs could simply have looked the other way: the Riders were commiting suicide. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I felt that was clear enough. As did pretty much the rest of the cinema going population I think. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It raised a few giggles in the cinema I was in. Whether that was because of the ridiculous slope they charged down or the risible tactics I don't know. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Right he should have dumped it and missed out on the critic?s acclaim, over $1 billion of movie receipts, Oscar nominations and wins <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh, we're back to the old bean-counter argument. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Though I thought this was a discussion forum <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Are you going to discuss something then or just shout "No" again? I've tried to initialise some dialog about how particular scenes were handled, or could have been handled, or were handled by other people. You ignored all of them and just ranted on and on and on and on and on and on about how fantastic is is that Jackson made all that money and how everything he did is justified because it got bums on seats.Tell you what: forget the whole thing. Just go away and be happy in your own little accountant-world that you are right and I'm wrong. I will not be responding to any further posts from you on this topic.Now, are there any adults here that want to discuss, for example, the "Bug-eye" scene?

Lord of Angmar

12-17-2003, 02:40 PM

Sadly, this thread has been utterly consumed by ridiculous argument. In retrospect, I find that its initial intentions were rather stupid, so I apologize.Pandora, your denouncing of Peter Jackson's movies and defense of Bakshi's movies is an exercise in futility, since I doubt you will find many on this forum (or, for that matter, on this planet) who agree with your view. It is one thing to criticize, but you have obfuscated your inability to make a productive argument or critique of the movies by making wrathful accusations, and unsupported statements such as "These films have been badly directed, end of story" and "Elrond is simply a pain in the bum, as is Arwen," and touting them as factual. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>For me, it's more like - when the films are good, they are very very good, but when they are bad, they are mildly irritating. (The Saucepan Man)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I could not have said it better myself.Cheers, Angmar

The Only Real Estel

12-17-2003, 02:45 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Do you think Jackson added this crap material because he prefered the original? Of course not! He added it in because he thought it was better, and if that's what he thinks is better he must have a very low opinion of the original.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think that neither of those are accurate. Jackson certainly doesn't have a 'low opinion of the original' & I'm not neccessarily even going to say that he thought his changes were better & that he should go back & re-write Tolkien's books. But some things work in books & don't work in movies. There's been an incredible ammount of griping here, more than I've ever done (suprise!!! ), & more than I ever thought I'd see! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Arwen is a total flop; no one I have talked to - man or women - cares a jot whether he character lives or dies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I've heard unnumerable people who love the character & are interested in it. Granted, I was a little put out by her apperance in FotR, & again (although to a lesser degree) in TTT, but seriously, I can be a more flexible than that! It's pretty much out of the appendixes & it's not changing an entire character or something. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Anyway, there's no point talking to you about this as you seem to have an inability to read what is on the screen in front of you as well as a slavish devotion to being told what to like by accountants and critics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There is something that is called 'personal opinions' also, pandora, & that was a mean-spirited knock on one. Box office figures do support the fact that Jackson can't be doing to badly if he continues to get people to flock to the theaters to see the movie. It can't just be the story, or any of that other stuff I've heard some people trying to feed us. I don't like some of the things that PJ did with LotR, but I think that calling him a bad director is just plain not true and it's ridiculous. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>or "There's not enough time to show that"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While that certainly seems like an over-used saying, it's true. Seriously, he doesn't have enough time to do the movies. I've said this from the beginning. But what are you going to do? Make a movie so long everyone will need their legs amputated because they didn't have any stretch time? Or we could throw in a bunch of intermissions to brake up the flow of the story & make people lose interest in it. Come on ... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I don't think theres a single scene in the first film that wasn't badly handled and some ranked alongside the worst in any film I've ever seen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Can you give some examples? I mean, surely you can give some main ones & some of the lesser ones for us? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Pandora... best post ever.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>O wow. Lets start dealing out best posts left & right, then. Everyone watch out for flying best post awards. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Jackson never even tried.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is one of the most un-founded statements I have ever read or heard. Had you stated it as 'your opinion' it would've been different, but to state it as fact is absolutly ridiculous. I'm sure New Line Cinema would just sit him in a chair dump a bunch of money in his lap, & let him slack off even if he wanted to, which I feel rather confident he did not. Now that I think about it, it's really not worth a reply...[ 4:10 PM December 17, 2003: Message edited by: The Only Real Estel ]

The Saucepan Man

12-17-2003, 03:24 PM

OK, let's get back to basics. The title of this thread is "Crimes Against Tolkienity". The premise is a discussion of issues relating to the films which might have offended Tolkien. The possible examples given by Lord of Angmar were the production team's treatment of the environment, merchandising and alteration of the characters/story.It is not about Jackson's skills as a director (although I am afraid that I have contributed to that little "red herring" myself). Nor should it provide an excuse to rail against everything that you find objectionable (or, on the other hand, delightful) about the films. Nor is it a forum for a comparison of the relative merits of the films made by Bakshi and Jackson (if you are interested in that, there are already threads on the Bakshi films - try doing a search against "Bakshi" or "Animated"). A little "off topic" deviation is to be expected, but this thread is getting out of hand.The substance of the films is of course on topic, provided that it relates to a discussion of aspects which you believe that Tolkien himself would have disliked, or perhaps ones which he would have appreciated. But don't trash scenes here just because you don't like them.So, let's try to keep on topic from now on, eh. And please, no more sniping or personal attacks. Otherwise some diligent mod just might come along and start liberally deleting posts.[ 4:27 PM December 17, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]