Okay, so what do you think NOW?

[Meriadoc1961]

It has been a few years now since the release of all of the LOTR movies by Peter Jackson. We have all had time to reflect. Whay is your opinion of them now? Has it changed?

By the way, I am BACK!!!

[alatar]

Oddly enough, as my wife and I sat watching the end of LotR:FotR on TNT this weekend (as noted on another thread), whereas initially my wife was 'wowed' by the film when we watched it in the theatre, this night she saw Galadriel as "psycho."

I also something that I might not have noticed when watching the movies for the SbS, and so will be checking that - and maybe even posting there.

Anyway, Welcome (back?) to the Downs.

[Meriadoc1961]

Thanks for the welcome back! It has been a few years since I last posted before doing so early this morning.

Okay, I will state from the start that I own all three DVDs. I enjoy watching them, but when I see them now I feel as if I was "suckered" into acceptance by being overwhelmed with how WELL Peter Jackson did in his recreation of the the Shire, Hobbiton, and Bag End. In my opinion, they were done so magnificently that I was so taken by that wondrous moment as Gandalf arrived by pony trap and Hobbiton was revealed so perfectly that I was willing to just accept everything from that moment on. And I did.

It seems to me that the further they went along with the story the more liberties he took with Tolkien's material. I loathe the way he had Gandalf beating Denethor with his staff. I do not like the way in which Theoden was portrayed as being somewhat jealous of Aragorn, and that Theoden was reluctant to go to Minas Tirith, wherein the book he said he would go to help, even if he did not feel any threat himself. I can not stand the way they had Treebeard appear to be stupid and having to be tricked by Merry and Pippin to enter the war. I did not like the psychotic portrayal of Galadriel. I did not like at all the treatment they had of Frodo choosing Gollum over Sam. But most of all, I detest the way in which the superb honor demonstrated by Faramir in the book is totally lacking in the film. He was not in the least bit tempted by the lure of the ring in the book, and the manner in which he was loved by the people of Gondor is also totally missing from the movie. He just did not come across in the film as the highly honorable individual that I had always taken him to be from the book.

Merry

[alatar]

Okay, I will state from the start that I own all three DVDs. I enjoy watching them, but when I see them now I feel as if I was "suckered" into acceptance by being overwhelmed with how WELL Peter Jackson did in his recreation of the the Shire, Hobbiton, and Bag End. In my opinion, they were done so magnificently that I was so taken by that wondrous moment as Gandalf arrived by pony trap and Hobbiton was revealed so perfectly that I was willing to just accept everything from that moment on. And I did.
Think that that was intentional. If Peter Jackson failed to set his hook with the Shire, you, me and many others may not have helped make the films as popular as they were. His portrayal of Gandalf the Grey hooked me, and I kept up with the news and so knew going in that the story was going to be altered somewhat, and hoped that it wouldn't end up being a train wreck.

Anyway, although I ended up not liking many of the changes, still, Peter Jackson made films that were better than nothing, and hopefully these will inspire someone else to redo them in twenty or so years.

[Finduilas]

Thanks for the welcome back! It has been a few years since I last posted before doing so early this morning.

Okay, I will state from the start that I own all three DVDs. I enjoy watching them, but when I see them now I feel as if I was "suckered" into acceptance by being overwhelmed with how WELL Peter Jackson did in his recreation of the the Shire, Hobbiton, and Bag End. In my opinion, they were done so magnificently that I was so taken by that wondrous moment as Gandalf arrived by pony trap and Hobbiton was revealed so perfectly that I was willing to just accept everything from that moment on. And I did.

It seems to me that the further they went along with the story the more liberties he took with Tolkien's material. I loathe the way he had Gandalf beating Denethor with his staff. I do not like the way in which Theoden was portrayed as being somewhat jealous of Aragorn, and that Theoden was reluctant to go to Minas Tirith, wherein the book he said he would go to help, even if he did not feel any threat himself. I can not stand the way they had Treebeard appear to be stupid and having to be tricked by Merry and Pippin to enter the war. I did not like the psychotic portrayal of Galadriel. I did not like at all the treatment they had of Frodo choosing Gollum over Sam. But most of all, I detest the way in which the superb honor demonstrated by Faramir in the book is totally lacking in the film. He was not in the least bit tempted by the lure of the ring in the book, and the manner in which he was loved by the people of Gondor is also totally missing from the movie. He just did not come across in the film as the highly honorable individual that I had always taken him to be from the book.

Merry

Well said. I agree with you in all your points, and even though few people mention Galdalf hitting Denethor, I was always bothered that he hit a defenceless man, not only once but three times.

I was also disapointed with how much screen time the battle at Helms Deep got. Sure it was well done, but I wish some of that time had been spent on other things.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Well said. I agree with you in all your points, and even though few people mention Galdalf hitting Denethor, I was always bothered that he hit a defenceless man, not only once but three times.

I was also disapointed with how much screen time the battle at Helms Deep got. Sure it was well done, but I wish some of that time had been spent on other things.
Well I think that Gandalf hitting Denethor was pretty funny and he wasn't exactly defenseless since he did have a sword. And I was mad too for how much time Helm's Deep had in TTT, I wanted more Hobbits...well I kinda have an obsession with Hobbits, ut thats another story...
I like the movies and still like the movies, I think that they have a few...well a lot of changed things, but they're still darn well good adaptions... Well I can't say I like the movies I LOVE them...
I'M RAMBLING PEOPLE I'M STOPPING NOW!

[Meriadoc1961]

I, too, like the movies, but in all sincerity I believe a person who had not read the books first would probably like the movies better than those of us who read the books first.

[Knight of Gondor]

There were plenty of bones to pick with PJ's rendition. The radical departure from Faramir's true character. Frodo's portrayal as a simpering weenie. Gandalf smacking Denethor in the head. Aragorn's reluctance. Gandalf's humbling before the Witchking. Denethor's flaming plunge of death (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=513765&postcount=22). Frodo telling Sam to leave. Sam leaving. Legolas's brilliant wit ("A diversion"), Gimli's use for comic relief, Arwen's fate suddenly and inexplicably being "tied to the Ring"...etc.

Yet, despite all my intellectual quarrels with plot differences, the movies (especially Return of the King) stunned and amazed me. They blew me away when I saw them in theaters, and at home. I just recently completed watching the trilogy again (with a younger brother who was finally old enough to see the movies) and I have yet to see any movie that compares. The glory of so many moments -- the whole battle of Pelennor (especially Theoden's speech and the Ride of the Rohirrim) Sam and Frodo at Mt. Doom, Aragorn's "For Frodo" death charge, Gandalf telling Pippin about the Grey Havens, the very end of the film at the Havens (which chokes me up just thinking about) -- all of this redeems the film and more.

[Sauron the White]

Regarding the Jackson portrayal of Galadriel in the Mirror scene with Frodo -
This direct from the writing of JRRT himself.

"She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illuminated her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful."

The words Blanchett speaks seem to be taken directly from the paragraph that precedes this description.

I do not know what film others saw, or what version of LOTR others have read, but it seems to me that Jackson nailed this scene as written by Tolkien himself.

[Folwren]

I have always liked that scene with Galadriel. All, except, her delivery of the line "I know what it is you saw." But, ignoring that...

The part where she tells Frodo what she would be like with the Ring...what others describe as psychotic, or whatever, has always stirred me deeply. I like it. Most everyone else has told me that they don't. *shrugs* Oh well.

-- Folwren

[Finduilas]

I agree with Folwren and Sauron the White on Galadriel.

I didn't like how they did Bilbo's speach at his party. I think it would have been so funny/fun if they had done it more booklike. Of course, the way they did it, Gandalf wasn't in the mix which tied in more later, but they could have had Bilbo continue, and just leave out Gandalfs flash.

It seems that some people disliked the scene in TT with Boromir and Faramir in Osgiliath. Despite some of its problems, I liked it because...
1. Since they twisted Faramir, it was nice to see the reason.
2. It showed a great love between the brothers.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

I, too, like the movies, but in all sincerity I believe a person who had not read the books first would probably like the movies better than those of us who read the books first.
I saw the movies first but, I like the books better...Actually I read the books because my friend was whining and complaining because PJ left the Scouring of The Shire out, so I was curious and read the books and love LotR even more than before. The books and the movies make me cry, but the books make me cry even more. Well I'm done now.

My 100th post!!!!

[Elladan and Elrohir]

For me, well, I'm suckered, I'm hooked, to use words from previous posts.

I get to have my cake and eat it, as far as the films go: My love for the books makes the movies seem that much richer and more glorious, and yet I still enjoy them as separate entities from Tolkien's masterpiece, unworthy of comparison with it in the end.

It's been said before, but I'll mention it again: Jackson brought Middle-earth to life. Is it Tolkien's Middle-earth? No, not really; it's Jackson's Middle-earth. Very similar in some areas, very different in a lot of others. But it is a vision that PJ has realized. He has not cut out a carbon copy of the Professor's work, nor has he gone too far (for the most part) in making Middle-earth his own.

I realize that last statement, at least, may face (and does face) vehement disagreement among some on this board. But that's my perspective.

Alatar continues to hope for a remake in 20 years. I'm divided. On the one hand, plot-wise and character-wise, I see a LOT of different ways the filmmakers could have approached it and made it something different, but perhaps far better. But on the other hand, the visual realization of Middle-earth is so strong that I don't know whether any director will ever dare to try to come up with a new one. PJ created, in my mind, the definitive Bag End, Dwarrowdelf, Helm's Deep, Minas Tirith, among many others. A new director would have to go in a radically different direction visually (and thus stray significantly from Tolkien in that regard, and perhaps lose the fans immediately) in order to be perceived as being original.

So yeah, now I pretty much see them as my favorite films of all time. Not that I've really seen very many, especially great ones.

[alatar]

Alatar continues to hope for a remake in 20 years. I'm divided.
You must be young...;) Back in the day there were no cell phones, internet, digital pretty much anything, and so I figure by the time my kids hit mid-life, movies may become more interactive in ways we cannot imagine today.

It's not that I don't appreciate the films; I've just seen too many changes to think that PJ's version is the end-all be-all.

[Finduilas]

Yes, PJ did bring Middle Earth to life. His sets were awesome. And I don't think that many could outdo them. But he could have done at least a 100% better at the movie itself. I don't think he could have easily bettered his sets. Not unless he spent 20 years doing it. But I still stick to everything I said, he messed up terribly on many parts. (And not so terribly, but still badly, on another many parts.)

[Sauron the White]

Imagine for a few moments if you could go back into the past in mid 2001. FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING would be released in just a few months and anticipation was extremely high.

Now imagine that you could look into the future and discover the following:

- all three films would be massive hits with all three breaking into the All Time Worldwide Box Office list Top Ten
- one of the three films would be only the second film to break the magical $1billion dollar mark and still be in second place years later
- the collective films would be nominated for over 30 Academy Awards, win 17 including Best Picture of the Year
- numerous other awards would be heaped upon the films including many BAFTA's, Golden Globes and other
- The three films would be almost universally praised by professional film critics and be among the highest critically acclaimed films of each year
- one of the films would eventually crack the prestigious AFI's list of the Best Films of All Time and make the Top Fifty.
- many Tolkien related websites would have post after post from readers gushing about the films and their favorite scenes

I think you would have been very happy.

When I read many of these posts I have to wonder if people saw the same films that I did.

[Meriadoc1961]

I appreciate everyone's thoughts and comments.

While reading through these posts it seems to me that all seem to be in agreement that visually the trilogy is a masterpiece. And since Jackson WAS so adept at capturing visually Minas Tirith, Rohan, The Shire and Bag End, The Black Gate, the Ents, Gollum, the Balrog, the Mines of Moria, Rivendell, Shelob, Lorien, etc., etc., then why the need to change the characters? That is what disturbs me when I watch the films. I like them, but I see no need for Jackson to have changed the characters at all. There was absolutely no reason for him to have done what he did with Gandalf being a bully and beating Denethor. There was no need to have Frodo tell Sam to leave. Frodo is supposed to be a very wise individual, and yet he comes across as a weak fool in many ways in the movie. The portrayal of Gimli as a buffoon was not needed at all, and in fact, I believe Tolkien would have been particularly insulted by that portrayal of the Dwarf, a member of a race he respected. Treebeard was no fool, either, and yet he has to be tricked by the hobbits in order to do the right thing. And what he did with the character of Faramir is practically unforgiveable, and absolutely pointless, not to mention how Aragorn went from being a person of high character and purpose to a man who was trying to flee from his duty. Why? How was any of this an improvement, and how was any of it necessary?

[Sauron the White]

Meriadoc...
Perhaps if you watched the extra features, especially the commentary from the writers and producers, that comes with the special editions of the three films you would gain some explaination of why they did what they did.

It would take time - many hours of repeated viewings watching the same films over and over again but listening to the audio commentaries of different people who actually made the movie.

I do think that would provide you with an explaination and would help in understanding why some of these changes were made.

Besides that, there is the obvious difference between the art form of a book and that of a film. That would require a few book length postings to fully explain.

[Meriadoc1961]

Sauron the White,

I did view the extra commentaries from the DVDs, and as I have said, I do like the movies. I just do not agree with the writers' and director's stated reasons for changing the characters. It is my opinion that the movie COULD be made that still had all the visual beauty and still be true to the characters, or at the very least, to the main characters, as originally developed by Tolkien.

I do not believe anyone could have improved upon what Jackson did to create the Shire, and particularly Bag End in Hobbiton.

[Sauron the White]

Meriadoc ... I missed where you said you watched the commentaries - sorry. I do feel - rather strongly- that everyone has a right to their own opinion regardless of its origins or foundations. So your opinion is right for you. I also feel that much of the anti-Jackson criticism is from people who first and foremost think and believe in LOTR as a book. For them, it should never change. I do feel that many cannot get beyond that.

In the end some filmmaker could film the book page for page and turn out 29 hours of film and miss one speech in hour 12. Some purist on one of these sites would mention it and say it detracts from an otherwise noble effort. I truly believe that would happen. You just cannot please some folks.

I view the books and the movies as two very different ways to tell much the same story. I love them both. And that is right for me.

Neither JRRT or PJ was or is perfect. They are human so that is part of the package. I love what each gave us and appreciate each for its own individual merits.

Glad to see you are strong in your passions. Keep on posting. :)

[William Cloud Hicklin]

In the end some filmmaker could film the book page for page and turn out 29 hours of film and miss one speech in hour 12. Some purist on one of these sites would mention it and say it detracts from an otherwise noble effort. I truly believe that would happen. You just cannot please some folks.

Sauron, will you please give that strawman a rest?

[alatar]

Meriadoc ... I missed where you said you watched the commentaries - sorry. I do feel - rather strongly- that everyone has a right to their own opinion regardless of its origins or foundations. So your opinion is right for you. I also feel that much of the anti-Jackson criticism is from people who first and foremost think and believe in LOTR as a book. For them, it should never change. I do feel that many cannot get beyond that.
Much agreed. I read LotR 20-some times before seeing the movie, so I would have to say that my viewing was biased. So your observation is fair. Still, this does not excuse Peter Jackson from criticism, and even if there were no books, his movies contain internal inconsistencies that could have been resolved otherwise.

alatar, knowing that he may be asked, "What inconsistencies?" plans to reread his posts in the Sequnce-by-sequence (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/forumdisplay.php?f=43).

You just cannot please some folks.
I'm one of those folks. :D

[Sauron the White]

from StW
In the end some filmmaker could film the book page for page and turn out 29 hours of film and miss one speech in hour 12. Some purist on one of these sites would mention it and say it detracts from an otherwise noble effort. I truly believe that would happen. You just cannot please some folks.

reply from WCH

Sauron, will you please give that strawman a rest

In all honesty and sincerity I do not bring it up to disparage anyone or to tar anyone with an extra wide brush. It is nearly six years of reading criticism of the Jackson films that has convinced me of this. Over and over again, on several different boards and in other formats as well, I have seen mounting evidence of this mentality and attitude.

I remember with crystal clear clairty one of the first posts I read from someone who had seen an advance copy of FOTR in which they said something like this.... and I am reconsturcting from a memory nearly six years old ....

I knew something was terribly wrong when the first words you hear in the film are words coming from the mouth of Galadriel but actually belong to Treebeard.

The viewer had not yet seem one minute of actual film but was already poisoned because Jackson and the writers had switched the speaker of a line of dialogue. From that early review it has just gone downhill ever since.

I truly believe that there is no pleasing some Tolkien readers. I would love to be convinced otherwise but post after post, article after article, confirms that feeling.

William - I do not see this as a strawman. I truly believe it and have been convinced of it through repeated examples.

[Meriadoc1961]

At the risk of appearing inconsistent, the opening scenes of FOTR impressed me. I thought what was done was an excellent way to give needed background to the story. The narration was true to the story, even though Galdriel was speaking it instead of Treebeard. (Hey, later on Treebeard is given words to say that are spoken by Bombadil in the book!) And the battle scene at Mt. Doom I thought was also magnificent.

My only complaints have been in the change of CHARACTER I see in the films, especially the further we got along in the tale. I do not recall Gandalf behaving in a way that was inconsistent with his character from the books in the first two films, particularly FOTR, but I definitely saw him in a light that, in my opinion, was uncalled for and not necessary with his beating of Denethor. But by then I had already been sucked into the Middle-earth world Jackson had created that I was able to tolerate it, if you will.

Sauron, you had no need to apologize, for I had not posted that I had seen the commentaries to the DVDs before. I do, however, appreciate your kind words anyway. I also hope you do not believe I am "blasting" Peter Jackson and his efforts. I actually do like the movies, and I have recommended them to others! But the "purist" in me thinks they would have been even better had the characters not been tampered with in the manner they were.

[alatar]

I do not recall Gandalf behaving in a way that was inconsistent with his character from the books in the first two films, particularly FOTR,...
In FotR Gandalf, previously confined to watch the ending of the Third Age from high atop Orthanc, having escaped later tries to sway the Fellowship into walking down through the Gap of Rohan, which just so happens to be in the neighborhood of Saruman. :eek: I started referring to him as Gandalf the Black, as he almost seemed to be working for Saruman.

[Meriadoc1961]

In FotR Gandalf, previously confined to watch the ending of the Third Age from high atop Orthanc, having escaped later tries to sway the Fellowship into walking down through the Gap of Rohan, which just so happens to be in the neighborhood of Saruman. :eek: I started referring to him as Gandalf the Black, as he almost seemed to be working for Saruman.

Alatar, I will have to check that out as I had never caught that, but it seems a bit minor in terms of being out of character compared to beating up the Steward of Minas Tirith.

Merry

[The Saucepan Man]

Well, as some here will know, I have always been an avid supporter of Jackson and his LotR films. In recent times, I have rather given up on arguing the toss over the finer points as I have heard it all before and said it all before. But I remain steadfast in my conviction that these three films (or, perhaps more accurately, single film in three instalments) were extraordinary film events, groundbreaking in so many respects and as revolutionary for the fantasy film genre as Star Wars was for the sci-fi film genre.

Before going on, a little background for those who do not know my stance on these films or the books. I am a long standing Tolkien fan. I first read The Hobbit aged 9 some 30 years ago and LotR followed shortly thereafter. LotR has always been the foremost among my favourite books and I am currently reading it to my children, having recently got through TH with them.

So I am no film fan boy and nor do I lack an appreciation of Tolkien's literary achievements. As such, I am under no illusions that Jackson's films depict (in may cases) quite different characters and events to those portrayed by Tolkien on the page. That, to me, does not matter. The point for me is whether I enjoy them as films.

Much as I appreciate Sauron the White's argumentation and admire his pluck in sticking up for Jackson as his films, it really doesn't matter to me how popular a film is, how many awards it has won or what the critics have said about it (they might affect whether I bother investing time in watching a film, but marginally so). And I am long past the point of caring about the "Tolkien purists" gripes, major or minor. The question asked how I feel about the films now, after all this time, and that is the question that I shall answer.

I am not one to watch a film over and over again. However good it is, I get bored of watching the same thing repeatedly. I own all three films (special edition) on DVD but have watched them (until recently) about once each since getting them. I think that I saw each film twice in the cinema. So I have probably seen these films a lot less than many here.

Recently, Mrs S and I sat down to watch FotR (we have TTT planned for this weekend), and I was glad to find that my appreciation for the film had not diminished one jot. Indeed, if anything, it had increased. I am not usually an overly emotional person, but I found tears welling in my eyes so many times. They might not (completely) be Tolkien's characters but, darn it, I still care about them. It might not (completely) be Tolkien's story but, darn it, I cared what happened. On so many levels (visually, emotionally, technically, suspensefully) the films utterly blow me away each time that I watch them.

I compare that to my recent experience of watching Eragon, a very poor film in my opinion (I have not read the book), and there is just no comparison. Similarly, though less so, with the Narnia and Harry Potter films (again, I have not read the books). Admittedly, through my book fandom, I have more emotional investment in the LotR films (and I was blown away to see the world that inspired such enchantment in me as a child brought to life), but that cannot be the complete answer as the changes from book to film just don't bother me. As examples of their genre, these are, to my mind, outstanding films. Yes, they are big on action and somewhat unsubtle, but so are so many other films churned out by Hollywood which make little or no impact on me. These films impact me massively every time that I watch them. And, yes, there are internal inconsistencies, but these are present in almost every other film of similar genre, and they pale into insignifigance, in my view, in comparison with the overall magnificence of the films. Perhaps other directors could have made better adaptations, although they would still have been adaptations and liable to arouse similar ire from the purists, but we are in any event here entering the realms of hypothetica. If they exist, those directors did not (and probably had no inclination to) film LotR. One thing for sure, a good many directors (and writers, producers SFX teams, actors etc) would have made a much worse job of the project.

I happen to agree with Sauron the White that, on any analysis, these films were massively successful as films and I consider that they stand head and shoulders above others in the same and similar genres. I believe that they will stand the test of time. But I make no objective claims. This has been a purely subjective view.

Tolkien once suggested that his book was unfilmable. He was probably right. No one, in my view, could have brought the book to life as he wrote them. Any film would have necessarily been an adaptation. Does it follow that the films should not have been made? My life would have been the worse for it, and my wife would never have discovered the book. So, again from a purely subjective standpoint, my answer is a resounding no.

One final point. I could understand the controversy from Tolkien fans over the changes when the films first came out. But why do people still get so hot under the collar about them? These are the films that we have. I happen to think that they are rather good. If you agree, why not just enjoy them for what they are and stop putting up obstacles to your experience? If not, then what does it matter? You don't need to watch them. The book is still there, and it remains unchanged.

[Boromir88]

Just as SpM has been a supporter of Jackson's films, I have been the harsh critic. :) Though, I will give Jackson credit, when I think credit is due, but to me Jackson made a lot of 'fatal' mistakes.

So what do I think of the movies? Well as movies are out to make money and 'entertain' I would say Jackson did an absolute stellar job. If I want to keep myself focused and entertained for a good 3+ hours I pop in one of them. For many different reasons, the cast, the battles, the music...etc all make the movies fun to watch. And so as films, I agree with Sauce they will stand the test of time.

However, as these films are 'based' off of JRR Tolkien's story, and Jackson, Walsh, Boyens...etc were propelling. LOTR was already an extremely popular book long before Jackson came up with an idea of making them into movies. And those involved with making the movies attached them to Tolkien's books, therefor I find it impossible not to compare them. They have to be compared.

For the question of are the films Tolkien's Middle-earth? Or did it bring Middle-earth to life? I would have to say a definite 'no' to both.

(As a disclaimer I'm going to say 'Jackson' a lot, to which I mean 'Jackson, Walsh, Boyens, Newline...the whole crew, because it gets burdensome to list everyone involved or just say 'Jackson in Company' all the time. It's very easy to blame the one person who is the figure head everyone knows and recognizes. Jackson is the director of the film, he is the man making the decisions, so he should take the praise, or the criticism. However, problems with the movies, may not solely be Jackson's fault - it may not even be his fault at all.

Newline controlled the purse, and those who control the money, often control the power. Newline was pumping money into the film, you better believe they wanted to see a lot of money in return. It's a business, that's what happens. Newline was funding the 'project,' if they weren't happy with it, funding's gone...plug pulled. So, you better believe Newline was going to get the film they wanted.

Therefor, when I say 'Jackson' I pretty mean everyone involved. I use Jackson's name because he is the director who put himself in the forefront. When things go right Jackson gets most the praise, so it's only fair that when things go wrong Jackson bears the brunt of the critism. Anyway that's my little side rant ). :D

Did the movies bring Middle-earth to life? For me, no, because Middle-earth was already brought to life by the books. I think Tolkien did an amazing job with the use of language and imagery that got me to imagine the characters, their motivations, the plot...etc just by using language. It was the books that brought Middle-earth to life. But, that's my own personal opinion, as I read them before watching the films. Maybe if you saw the films first it is different, I don't know. But, for me, the films didn't bring Middle-earth to life, because the books had already done that.

Are the films Tolkien's middle-earth? I agree with Elladan and say they're not. Yes characters are given the same name (although some are made up), and the same general plot happens...but many of the characters are changed, many things are added (and changed) therefor, I don't think it's a good representation of Tolkien's Middle-earth. It is a creation of Jackson.

I was asked if the books were 'unfilmable.' I mean they're so long, there's a lot of depth to them...etc. Can a good representation actually be made? I think so, depending upon the motives of those in charge. Since Hollywood is a business, sadly 'money' often takes over as the primary motive, and not really the 'purpose of the author' takes a back seat.

No one claims that a carbon copy has to be made to make a good representation of the books. Even the author himself in Letter 210 says the deletion of scenes is a necessity if a film is to be made off his books. However, he was so apprehensive about movies being made because often times (in Hollywood) what happens is directors 'change' things without considering the intent of the author or how that change effects the meaning of the story. There are a lot of things 'different,' a lot of characters 'different,' so what we end up with is a different story. Yes the same thing happens in the end, but it is still not 'Middle-earth.'

I'm not talking about here whether the changes Jackson made were better for a film, since it is a different medium. As the question I'm answering is 'are these good representations' completely different from 'does this change work for the movies?'

No you don't need a carbon copy to create an accurate representation of the story, all you need is a director who never loses site of what is important...and that is the authenticity of the story.

Paul Greengrass, who directed the recent 'Borne Ultimatum' (getting great reviews and I can't wait to see it) also made the controversial United 93. Greengrass was facing a lot of heat when he was making this film. Critics were saying he shouldn't be doing it, they were saying he was just trying to make money off of a tragedy. But Greengrass creates a great film...why? Because he never got dragged down by Hollywood and never lost focus of the authenticity of the event.

Before starting the film Greengrass went to the family members who lost love ones on that plane and first asked them 'Hey can I make this film?' And also if they were willing he asked them to describe their loved ones...how were they like? How did they look? Do you remember what they were wearing? Did you talk to them that day? What did you talk about? Greengrass never lost sight of the authenticity of what happened on that plane, and what we have is a finished product that is not only emotional, powerful, and outright stunning, but also...authentic.

I never got this same feeling from Jackson. Sure he spent years making the film, but he spent years making his own story, completely different from making an accurate story of Tolkien's world. Also Jackson (as well as Walsh and Boyens) showed an extreme disrespect - to the point of arrogance - with the 'I can do better' attitude. Ok, it's nice to have confidence, but let's be real. Tolkien was a man who C.S. Lewis said, was 'inside language.' Tolkien, maybe not as far as films go, but as far as 'creating a good story,' had far more knowledge than Jackson (and everyone involved) combined.

Some of the 'arrogant' remarks I was talking about. Tolkien said that The Scouring was an 'essential part of the plot.' When asked why Jackson left it out of the movies he said it was a 'no brainer.' Now, whether leaving out the Scouring was better for the films or not, isn't the issue. First off we don't know, because we don't really have something of the same sort to compare it to. Also, again I am talking about a representation of the story. Jackson decided leaving out the Scouring was a 'no brainer,' eventhough the author said it was an 'essential part of the plot.'

Also, Tolkien said that tomatoes did not belong in Middle-earth...Jackson found out this info and said 'that's silly.' What did he do? He put tomatoes in his story. May seem small and insignificant, but it shows a complete disregard and disrespect to the author. So, I never get the same feeling that Jackson cared about 'authenticity' in the way that Greengrass did when he made United 93.

I can live with many of Jackson's changes, because for the most part he has a reasonable explanation. He at least explains what he was trying to do for the film and how it works (most of the time). Therefor, I can live with Eomer saving the day instead of Erkenbrand and Arwen replacing Glorfindel. But, changes like the ones I mentioned a few paragraphs above is no excuse, that's just disrespect.

It's not that Tolkien's story is 'unfilmable.' (In fact an author has 1 medium to capture their audience...language...words. A director has several not only language - dialogue - but also through vision with sets and costumes, emotions through music...etc. It should be a lot easier for a director than!) It's not that a 100% carbon copy has to be made to create an accurate representation of Tolkien's books. It's the fact that Jackson (and everyone) was more concerned about other things than creating an authentic story, and so what we get is a bad representation of the story.

[Sauron the White]

from Boromir 88

No you don't need a carbon copy to create an accurate representation of the story, all you need is a director who never loses site of what is important...and that is the authenticity of the story.

Paul Greengrass, who directed the recent 'Borne Ultimatum' (getting great reviews and I can't wait to see it) also made the controversial United 93. Greengrass was facing a lot of heat when he was making this film. Critics were saying he shouldn't be doing it, they were saying he was just trying to make money off of a tragedy. But Greengrass creates a great film...why? Because he never got dragged down by Hollywood and never lost focus of the authenticity of the event.

There is a major distinction to be made here that renders your comparison less than effective. The events depicted in UNITED 93 were based on actual real life events. Middle-earth is a contrived fiction, an imaginary world filled with imaginary characters. There is no crying need to match items of clothing exactly or depict events in actual time or sequence as they really happened in an adaption of a fictional work. At least not the essential need that there is in depicting a recreation of actual avents. As it was, I do believe Jackson and team tried mightily to get things right. where possible and where important.

Too much of these debates come down to a clever and contrived definition of terms. You use the term AUTHENTICITY. I fear that the definition of that would hopelessly limit the arguement of either side in this discussion.

Jackson did hire many experts ranging from experts on the various langauges to experts on the look and design of Middle-earth in the effort to get it right - or as you put it to preserve the authenticity of Middle-earth. Efforts were expended to get it right and to preserve the authenticity of that world and the people in it where possible and within the limits of the cinematic medium.

The presence or absence of a tomato in the story is so trivial as to be meaningless to 99% of those who saw the films.

If Jackson tried to improve the books, that does not make him guilty of denying the One True God. I recently reread the books for the umpteenth time and was amazed at how more dramatic and touching the film version of the death of Boromir is compared to the book version. Should we burn Jackson at the stake for this transgression?

As far as The Scouring goes, this has been explained by the writers in detail in the special editions. It was felt that the climax of the film was the destruction of the ring and the fall of the Barad-dur. As it was, Jackson bore the brunt of some who criticized the film for having "too many endings" and going on far too long after that climatic scene. To add the Scouring of the Shire would have only lengthened the film by even more.

Personally, I found that very quiet tavern scene (at the end of ROTK) far more touching as the four hobbits sit around the table - their great deeds unappreciated by their fellows - while all the hobbits around them rejoiced in the trivialities of hobbit life. And as it should be. And I am sure the four would have it no other way. I found that beautiful.

In the end it is folly to compare to films to the template of the book and hold them up as the last word as to what is pure and good and holy. The book and the film are two very different things. Each has their own qualities, boundaries, limits and components that the other does not have.

Again, this is like comparing apples to cinderblocks. In the end the experts announce that after deep and exhausting study apples do indeed taste better. But cinderblocks are harder and make for better building materials. The comparison is meaningless.

[Lalwendë]

It has been a few years now since the release of all of the LOTR movies by Peter Jackson. We have all had time to reflect. Whay is your opinion of them now? Has it changed?

By the way, I am BACK!!!

I think one of them is on Channel Four this evening?

Anyway...

I've not been near the films for a while and I'm quite happy with that. I had grown bored with them. I feel myself slowly slipping back into my old ways with regard to Lord of the Rings, my old images and mental pictures slowly reasserting themselves from the leaf mould of an old mind.

To me, there was always a slightly unfashionable, musty, eccentric, hippyish quality to Tolkien's stories, like they're an old early 70s Genesis album replete with songs about giant hogweed that you might find at the back of the cupboard or an amiable old schoolteacher with a bushy beard and leather patches on the elbows of his tweed jacket. I am getting back to that and it's marvellous. The films are too....MTV. I like my comforts and Lord of the Rings is one of them.

Not that I do not like them, no, they're marvellous entertainment, but they don't have the Tolkien Essence I seek. The films don't allow my mind to go off on mad tangents, savouring the smells of the Old Forest and picturing Frodo as he ought to be. I think one of the reasons I've grown to dislike Elves so much lately is the image of them in the films - all skinny minnie models with bleached hair like they've come from some medieval dressing up party on a Floridian beach.

The films are in one corner and the books in another, invested with long, beloved memories of The Times Before...:cool:

[Quempel]

I agree with a great deal of what Lalwendë has said. I enjoyed the films and own all the versions, extended ect., but I have not viewed them in some time. I like the books much better, it is simply a much better story with more detail. Yes the films are fine entertainment, and give some of the story of Middle Earth, but it is Jackson's interpretation of the story, not Jackson's story.

I also did not like the changes of the Elves in the movie. I much prefer the book Elves, they have a much more 'humanistic' quality about them in the books. They're flawed in the books and that makes them more lovable.

[Boromir88]

The events depicted in UNITED 93 were based on actual real life events. Middle-earth is a contrived fiction, an imaginary world filled with imaginary characters.~Saruman
I was answering a question about what I felt would make a good representation of the books...or if the books were 'unfilmable.'

To which case I see it on the same level as making a movie off a real life event. If you want to make an authentic, and good representation of a real-life event, than you try to stay as true to the actual story as you can. Jackson did not do this in his films...there were other things deemed more important than staying true to what the author wrote. If you want a comparison to a 'fictional' movie based off a 'fictional' book, I would suggest The Day of the Jackal...which is a near carbon copy of the book.

There are many differences between the book The Day of the Jackal and LOTR; I doubt anyone would argue that you need to show every single blade of grass that is in the books. But my point is to create a good representation of whether it be a fictional book, a real life event, or whatever it is, than all you really need is a respect and love for what the author wrote (or a respect for the events that took place), and a respect for the intellect of the audience. My point with United 93 I never questioned Greengrass's ego, he was making a movie that would be as near to the actual event as possible, and never let his ego get in the way. I can't say the same for Jackson and company, who's primary focus always seemed to be money. Therefor, we end up with a very entertaining movie, yet a bad representation of Tolkien's story.

Jackson did hire many experts ranging from experts on the various langauges
I believe one of those so called experts PJ hired was a self proclaimed 'dwarvish expert.' I find that funny considering Tolkien never created a language for the dwarves (besides the names of a few places, people, and the saying 'Baruk Khazad! Khazad-Aimenu'). So this self-proclaimed expert in the dwarvish language, was just making up his own bilge.

The presence or absence of a tomato in the story is so trivial as to be meaningless to 99% of those who saw the films.
Again I'm not talking about whether it's good for the film or not (same can be said about The Scouring), I am talking about Jackson's ego in thinking he knows more about Middle-earth than Tolkien. Tolkien said in his story tomatoes didn't belong, Jackson got word of this and said 'that's just silly.' So what did he do, he put tomatoes in...that's disrespect towards the author and also has the arrogant air of 'I know more than some author who's past his prime.' To which case I think we can apply Tolkien's comments about Zimmerman in Letter 210:

He may think he knows more about The Lord of the Rings than I do, but he cannot expect me to agree with him.

I'm sorry but when the author of the book says that something doesn't belong in his story, or that something is 'essential' to his story. And the director responds with remarks of 'that's just silly,' and to prove his point that it's silly he goes directly against what the author said. That's plain out arrogance and disrespect.

It may be a trivial matter as far as the entertainment of the movie goes, but when dealing with whether these movies are a good representation of the books...it is surely not trivial. Especially when you have the director who was definitely aware of Tolkien's feelings on 'tomatoes' and 'The Scouring,' and he treats his thoughts in such a disrespectful way.

Am I being too harsh? Maybe some think so, sorry I'm very blunt and straightforward and not going to beat around the bush. Sorry if anyone's taken any offense, but I'm not going to crown Jackson the greatest director this world has ever seen, with the toilet humor and bilge he pulls.

[Meriadoc1961]

To me, there was always a slightly unfashionable, musty, eccentric, hippyish quality to Tolkien's stories, like they're an old early 70s Genesis album replete with songs about giant hogweed that you might find at the back of the cupboard or an amiable old schoolteacher with a bushy beard and leather patches on the elbows of his tweed jacket. I am getting back to that and it's marvellous. The films are too....MTV. I like my comforts and Lord of the Rings is one of them.

Interesting...I have always associated Middle-Earth and the books with the Beatles and the Moody Blues!

[Sir Kohran]

I think one of them is on Channel Four this evening?

LOL, a while ago my younger brother was hammering on my door screaming, 'Lord of the Rings is on!' I didn't watch most of it but saw the last half hour. I was amazed at how primitive the theatrical version felt compared to the extended.

Therefor, we end up with a very entertaining movie, yet a bad representation of Tolkien's story.

This seems very unfair. It wasn't perfect, but it certainly wasn't 'bad' - the sadness, heroism and sheer spirit of the books are definitely there, if in a lesser form.

I believe one of those so called experts PJ hired was a self proclaimed 'dwarvish expert.' I find that funny considering Tolkien never created a language for the dwarves (besides the names of a few places, people, and the saying 'Baruk Khazad! Khazad-Aimenu'). So this self-proclaimed expert in the dwarvish language, was just making up his own bilge.

Oh really? What about all the various Elvish lines in the movies which used Tolkien's languages, or the Elvish lines used by Enya in 'May It Be'? Viggo even asked for more Elvish lines because he enjoyed using different languages.

I'm sorry but when the author of the book says that something doesn't belong in his story, or that something is 'essential' to his story. And the director responds with remarks of 'that's just silly,' and to prove his point that it's silly he goes directly against what the author said. That's plain out arrogance and disrespect.

This just sounds ridiculous. Of all the things to criticise, you find a type of food being used a problem?

but when dealing with whether these movies are a good representation of the books...it is surely not trivial.

But it *is*. Anyone who judges an adaptation by whether or not it includes something so small as a tomato just comes across as nit-picking to an insane level.

Sorry if anyone's taken any offense, but I'm not going to crown Jackson the greatest director this world has ever seen, with the toilet humor and bilge he pulls.

Oh really? Does Gandalf's fight against the Balrog, Boromir's last stand and Aragorn's promise to him, Sam willing to drown to follow his master, Gandalf and Eomer's arrival at Helm's Deep, Faramir turning away from temptation and releasing the hobbits, Sam's tearful speech to Frodo, Faramir's mournful ride, Rohan's epic charge in the golden morning, Sam carrying Frodo up the mountain, Aragorn's speech to the soldiers at the Black Gate, the final victory and celebration in Gondor, Frodo's last farewell to his comrades and Sam's return to his home and family count as toilet humour and bilge?

Compare all those beautiful moments to other 'fantasy films' (**** like Eragon and Dungeons And Dragons) and maybe you will see just how great these films were. Not perfect, but great.

I also did not like the changes of the Elves in the movie. I much prefer the book Elves, they have a much more 'humanistic' quality about them in the books. They're flawed in the books and that makes them more lovable.

Actually I think the Elves were one of the things they got right - the physical beauty with a tint of sadness. Also, the book 'version' of the Elves seems nigh on perfect. The film Elves struck me as more flawed (Elrond and even Galadriel change their minds in ROTK and TTT respectively on how to treat Men).

And I never once found the Elves 'lovable'. That sounds vaguely like a cuddly animal, probably not what Tolkien imagined.

[Boromir88]

This seems very unfair. It wasn't perfect, but it certainly wasn't 'bad'
In my opinion it is 'bad.' I don't get why people take offense to someone who doesn't think the movies should be hailed and praised as 'great' pieces of film. Simply because I don't think they're good representations doesn't mean no one can think they are.

This just sounds ridiculous. Of all the things to criticise, you find a type of food being used a problem?
How many times must I say I am not talking about this causing any 'problems' with the movies. I'm making a point about Jackson's attitude towards what Tolkien wrote. Tolkien said tomatoes didn't belong in his world, Jackson said that's just silly so he includes them in his movies. By including tomatoes Jackson shows he knowingly disregarded something Tolkien said about his story and went against it. Which to me shows arrogance on the part of Jackson.

Oh really? What about all the various Elvish lines in the movies which used Tolkien's languages, or the Elvish lines used by Enya in 'May It Be'? Viggo even asked for more Elvish lines because he enjoyed using different languages.
That's got nothing to do with the self-proclaimed 'dwarvish expert.' Ok, they did get a team of experts together, I believe Tom Shippey was was among them. So, they were able to get things right, that doesn't mean I'm just going to ignore all the 'wrong' and pretend it's just not there.

I know that Verlyn Fleiger (who's wrote 3 stellar books regarding Tolkien) came out and blasted the movies as being just a Hollywood action film. Who's to say she's wrong? No one, that's her opinion. Yes there were experts who worked on the movies, but there were also 'experts' who shouldn't be titled such (example the 'dwarvish' guy) and also experts who have flat out ripped the movies to shreds. In fact Fleiger (with regards to FOTR) says the only thing she enjoys is Sean Bean's performance and the scenery (yet with the scenery the actors are constantly in the way!) And some would think I'm a harsh critic! :rolleyes:

Oh really? Does Gandalf's fight against the Balrog, Boromir's last stand and Aragorn's promise to him, Sam willing to drown to follow his master, Gandalf and Eomer's arrival at Helm's Deep, Faramir turning away from temptation and releasing the hobbits, Sam's tearful speech to Frodo, Faramir's mournful ride, Rohan's epic charge in the golden morning, Sam carrying Frodo up the mountain, Aragorn's speech to the soldiers at the Black Gate, the final victory and celebration in Gondor, Frodo's last farewell to his comrades and Sam's return to his home and family count as toilet humour and bilge?
No but what about Gimli being transformed into a bumbling buffoon that likes to belch and fart? Or Gandalf beating down the Steward of Gondor? Or Aragorn chopping off the Mouth of Sauron's head? Or Denethor chomping down them tomatoes (:eek:!) during that beautiful 'charge' of Faramir? Or Legolas being made into a Captain Obvious superelf trick stud? Or googly eyed Frodo losing most of his courage and bravery? Or Gollum tricking Frodo into sending Sam home? Or the green slime army of the dead which virtually makes Rohan's glorious charge useless? Or the marshmellow man Gothmog limping around Pelennor? Or The Witch-King owning Gandalf, breaking his staff, making him whine? Or Denethor sending Boromir off as a secret agent to bring him back the Ring? Or Sauron being shown as an eye? Or the Gondorian soldiers transforming into pathetic guys who suddenly lost the ability to actually fight? Or the absense of The Scouring? Or just making up characters like Lurtz and Madril? Or Aragorn's tumble off the cliff? Or the Witch-King-Frodo scene at Osgiliath? Or Saruman's death? Or Aragorn being the stereotypical 'reluctant' King until the very end?

And that's just some of the bigger ones that have sprung to my mind. I never said there wasn't anything Jackson got right, but just because things were 'right' doesn't mean it just negates everything that he got wrong and changed around. Whether it is better for the movie that he made these changes...I don't know, but since there are tons and tons of changes (many of them being to the characters and plot!) I don't see it as a good representation. And I don't see the films as a good 'introduction' to Tolkien's Middle-earth...I see it as a good welcome to Jackson's 'Middle-earth.'

Just a little aside about Saruman's death. To start out, Mr. Lee wasn't too happy with his 'death' having to happen in Isengard as he knew The Shire was the 'proper' place. But also, Chris Lee actually boycotted the premiere of ROTK because he was angry about the scene being cut from the theatrical. I remember watching the TV interview and he was furious over Jackson editting out his death, and said there would then be no reason for him to go to the premiere. A day later Lee actually recanted these statements and said that he wouldn't be going to the premiere, but he couldn't say anymore because of his confidentiality agreement. hmm....

[Sauron the White]

"Gee whiz Wally , I gotta wonder what the rest of the world was watching since all these nifty folks here think the movie was a pile of crap? Why did people pay all that money to see crap? Why did those crappy movies win all those awards? Why did the professional critics love those crappy movies? It doesn't make sense Wally."

"Gosh Beav , I dunno. Maybe everybody is just stupid except for a few real smart guys who know all the answers while the rest of us go around with our heads stuck up our butts."

"Gee whiz Wally. I don't want my head up my butt"

"For heavens sake Beav, its just an expression. It means that regular guys like us are a bunch of jerks and only a few smart guys really know anything. You know it like at school where a few really smart kids always get called on and everybody else just sits there."

"Thanks Wally."
--------------------------------------------------------------

apologies to the old LEAVE IT TO BEAVER TV show.

[The Saucepan Man]

Well as movies are out to make money and 'entertain' I would say Jackson did an absolute stellar job. First off, if the fims hadn't made (or been capable of making) money, then they wouldn't have been made in the first place. I, for one, am very glad that they were made. Secondly, if they entertain, then they have done much of what is expected of them. I, and my teary eyes, think that they went much further than that.

And those involved with making the movies attached them to Tolkien's books, therefor I find it impossible not to compare them. They have to be compared.Logically, this makes no sense to me. They were based on the book, but were rendered in a completely different medium. There is no need to compare if one simply wishes to enjoy the films. I will admit that, because the films were based upon the book, they have a special significance for me. But it does not follow that I have to compare one to the other. I can enjoy them both for what they are, separately and differently.

For the question of are the films Tolkien's Middle-earth? Or did it bring Middle-earth to life? I would have to say a definite 'no' to both.Firstly, I should clarify that, when I said that the films bring the books to life for me, I meant that, in almost every respect, the films captured the visual images that I already had of the books. The films did not visualise Middle-earth for me, but rather captured my own visualisation magnificently. Secondly, I disagree that the films did not capture Tolkien's Middle-earth. They might not tell exactly the same story with exactly the same characters but, for me, they captured many of Tolkien's themes perfectly: the importance of friendship, the valiant stand of good against evil in the face of hopeless odds, courage and valour, the bettering of the mighty by the humble, beauty and primitive power in simplicity, trust in hope against the odds and so on. These things are just not present in your run-of-the-mill swords and sorcery gorefest. Yet they were, for my money, present in spades in Jackson's films.

Therefor, when I say 'Jackson' I pretty mean everyone involved. I thoroughly agree. When things are perceived to be wrong with the films, Jackson generally takes the wrap. It couldn't possibly have been the actors' fault, so let's blame Jackson's direction or the lines that he wrote. It does you credit, Boro, to share the "blame". But I would rather credit all concerned with all that is right about the films (the majority of things, in my view).

As regards the comparison with United 93, I would agree that was a superb film. And, having watched the companion documentary, I was impressed with the lengths to which the director and others involved went to to assuage the feelings of the relatives and enhance the accurate depiction of the protagonists. But don't kid yourself that that film too did not have an eye to the box office. Or indeed, the Bourne Supremacy which, by all accounts, is an action-fest (not my cup of tea, but I am sure that it will be hugely successful and entertain many). But, as Sauron the White points out, we are not talking here about a portrayal of real life events. The considerations involved were different. Jackson was looking to make a successful and entertaining film from Tolkien's novel. There were no relatives to appease or real-life characters to depict correctly. Should he have taken into account the feelings of the Tolkien purists? To my mind he did, and he certainly satisfied me. Of course, many remain dissatisfied. But there is a line to be drawn. In my view, he got that line more or less in the right place.

Also Jackson (as well as Walsh and Boyens) showed an extreme disrespect - to the point of arrogance - with the 'I can do better' attitude.I have seen the interview where one of them (Boyens, I think) says this. To my mind, this line has been misunderstood and misinterpreted by those who criticise the film, often to their own ends. I see them as saying that they changed the book where they thought that it would work better on film. That is their right. They were making a film based on the book. In many respects, I think that they succeeded. The Scouring of the Shire is one example. Much as I personally love that chapter, it would, for the reason that Sauron the White has stated, have been a disaster, film-wise, to add it on to the end, after the major climax of the trilogy. It was not disrespect. It was good film-making. The tomatoes example is simply too trivial to bear response.

I've not been near the films for a while and I'm quite happy with that. I had grown bored with them.A healthy attitude, I think. Films are not meant to be watched over and over again, until one gets so bored that one picks holes in them to amuse oneself. As I said, I have watched the films only infrequently, with long gaps between them. And I enjoy them all the more for that, when I do watch them again. Equally, I do not read and re-read LotR over and over again, as I am sure that it would bore me too if I did so. I am currently re-reading it again (to my chldren) after a gap of some four years, and thoroughly enjoying it.

Not that I do not like them, no, they're marvellous entertainment, but they don't have the Tolkien Essence I seek.I would agree that they are marvellous entertainment. And they are, admittedly, not pure Tolkien. Many others had a hand in their making and their influence inevitably shows. Yet, as I have said, for me, they do retain the essence of Tolkien and the essence of his Middle-earth. That is one of the things that, for me, sets them so far above many other films of the same type.

Therefor, we end up with a very entertaining movie, yet a bad representation of Tolkien's story.To my mind, an extremely entertaining film, a reasonable adaptation of Tolkien's story (it was never meant to be, nor could it ever be, an authentic representation), but a wonderful recreation of much of the essence of Tolkien's Middle-earth.

I never said there wasn't anything Jackson got right, but just because things were 'right' doesn't mean it just negates everything that he got wrong and changed around.Is your glass half empty or half full ...? ;)

I don't know why I got myself back into this. When one posts an opinion, one always feels obliged to defend it. Yet, really, I do not care what anyone else thinks of these films. I only care that they are a great source of enjoyment for me. Yet it does annoy me when they are belittled, precisely because I think that they are such great films. So worthy of praise. Yet, because they depart from the book in a number of respects, they are crucified as not being worthy. No, they are not the deepest films ever made. Yet, they had depth. Seriously, just watch Eragon or umpteen other films of the same genre and tell me that these films are not head and shoulders above their rivals. For all the gripping action scenes and unsubtle (Gimli-based) humour, they have moments of great depth and poignancy.

I will finish by relaying my experience of today. As anticipated, we sat and watched TTT, generally held to be the worst of the three films, as far as comparison with the books goes. Yet, once again, so many scenes brought tears to my eyes. The despair of the Three Hunters when they thought Merry and Pippin dead, the pain of the mother sending her children away from the burning village, the unknowing diffidence of Theoden on first hearing of his son's death followed by his very real anguish that he feels when burying his child, Eowyn's lament at Theodred's funeral (mouthed in the background by fellow mourners), the wonderful dialogue between Gollum and Smeagol, the look of fear on the faces of the old men and young boys as they were armed in readiness for defending Helm's Deep, the anguish of their wives and mothers as they left to prepare for battle, the desperate last ride out from the Hornburg, and the appearance of Gandalf astride Shadowfax as the sun rose in the east behind him,. Just a few of the moments that I found incredibly moving, supplemented in no small way by the magnificent score. And, you know what, not all of those were written by Tolkien. Yet, for me, they capture the essence of the world that he created. Heck, I even appreciated the Wargs this time round. :D

There is so much more to these films than crunching axes and belching Gimlis. And that's what I find so entertaining and so enjoyable about them. I like a good action flick as much as the next fellow. But there is so much more to these films than simple swords and sorcery. Thanks, in a large part, to the man who wrote the book on which they are based. But I give due credit too to those who brought them to the screen for my delectation.

Finally, Boro and others, if you find the films so entertaining, why not just let them entertain you? Why the need to find fault because there were tomatoes present, or because Faramir would never act that way, or because Gandalf would never have let himself be humbled by the Witch-King. These films do not tell the story told by the books, so don't let the books shackle your enjoyment. Enjoy the films for what they are and enjoy the books for what they are. Then, surely, you can let yourself be happy that you are lucky to have two such rich sources of enjoyment.

[Sauron the White]

I know that Verlyn Fleiger (who's wrote 3 stellar books regarding Tolkien) came out and blasted the movies as being just a Hollywood action film. Who's to say she's wrong?

So just to be clear - Verlyn Fleiger is a film expert? She has the qualifications to make these statements and to be considered as someone with the background, education and credentials to pronounce upon the quality of a film? She knows so much about film that the rest of us should be cowed by her opinion and ignore the massive worldwide success of the movies based on box office revenue, industry awards and professional critical acclaim? All this is to be shoved into the dustbin of life because of the opinion on a film by one Verlyn Fleiger?

Which to me shows arrogance on the part of Jackson.

What I see here is a very small number of people who somehow, someway feel that they are the Keepers of the True Knowledge of JRRT. Only they know what is holy and good. The rest of the world is out of step..... those people who bought over $3 billion dollars of tickets to see the movies were fools ..... those critics who praised the films were boobs .... the members of the professional industries who heaped many awards on the three films were all idiots. All are ignorant cretins ...... everybody but that small number of the Chosen Few. You want to talk about arrogonace and lack of respect? Thats a great example of it right there.

[Quempel]

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Well Beav if the playing field is level and an actual account of how many tickets were sold the movie, Gone With the Wind spanks everything. :rolleyes:


And oh golly Beav, Star Wars A New Hope won a bunch of awards too, including some oscars and BANFA awards. :rolleyes:

Just because Gibson made money and won awards off of The Passion doesn't make him Jesus either.

[Boromir88]

So just to be clear - Verlyn Fleiger is a film expert?~Sauron
You don't need to be an expert to have an opinion about whether you like a movie or not. That's all I have been doing (as well as Fleiger), is stating our opinion about the movies. If Jackson can sit here and be praised he shouldn't bother a few needling critics that don't think the movies are a good representation of the books.

those people who bought over $3 billion dollars of tickets to see the movies were fools
A popular and entertaining film doesn't mean it's an accurate portrayal of the story. If you notice thats the question I was answering, not whether these were well-liked and entertaining films. Sauce has come in to argue why he thinks the films do represent Middle-earth, I happen to disagree, that's what we do in a discussion.

You want to talk about arrogonace and lack of respect? Thats a great example of it right there.
I would appreciate that instead of putting words in my mouth and saying I wrote anything about people who liked the movies are 'ignorant' and 'idiots' that you acted more like SpM. Come in state your opinion, argue your opinion, and praise the movies all you want. I'm going to come in here and argue why I think Jackson, Walsh, Boyens, et all were very arrogant and why the movies did not represent the books, to me. There's no need to make it personal and start saying that I'm calling anyone stupid fools for liking the movies, as I've done no such thing.

[Sauron the White]

Well Beav if the playing field is level and an actual account of how many tickets were sold the movie, Gone With the Wind spanks everything.

Without a doubt. And based on even earlier figures, some contend that a larger percentage of the population may have seen BIRTH OF A NATION that any other film before or since. At least in the States. But neither of those negate the box office success of all three LOTR films.


And oh golly Beav, Star Wars A New Hope won a bunch of awards too, including some oscars and BANFA awards.

I did NOT see SW win the AA award for Best Picture or come anywhere the take of ROTK did with its 11 awards out of 11 nominations. SW won a few technical awards like many sci-fi/fantasy films often do. But its "excellence" stopped with special effects.


Just because Gibson made money and won awards off of The Passion doesn't make him Jesus either.__________________

Maybe I missed something but who is claiming that Gibson is Jesus?

And Quempel, by using the example of three different films made by three different directors and three different sets of people you completely and totally miss the point that has been repeatedly made in these discussions. It is extremely rare in the history of film that any film or series of films have received all three of the measurements of success that a film is normally gauged on: those three being
1- box office revenues
2- professional critical acclaim
3- industry awards

All 3 for the same film or series of films. It just does not happen but did with the LOTR films.

[Aiwendil]

I did NOT see SW win the AA award for Best Picture or come anywhere the take of ROTK did with its 11 awards out of 11 nominations. SW won a few technical awards like many sci-fi/fantasy films often do. But its "excellence" stopped with special effects.

All the more reason to think SW is the better picture . . .

[obloquy]

Tolkien's work has depth and the movies do not. They were made to be blockbusters, and as such their potential value was limited from the start. I would love to see someone come at Tolkien (preferably Hurin) from a more mature angle, as has been discussed elsewhere on the forum, but as long as the Estate exercises no control over who the film rights are sold to, any future installments will be made with CGI monsters being priority number one.

[Sauron the White]

Quote:
I did NOT see SW win the AA award for Best Picture or come anywhere the take of ROTK did with its 11 awards out of 11 nominations. SW won a few technical awards like many sci-fi/fantasy films often do. But its "excellence" stopped with special effects.

from Aiwendil

All the more reason to think SW is the better picture . . .

could you please offer a bit more in the way of explaining that drive-by comment?

And regarding the assertion from JRRT himself that the Scouring of the Shire was an essential and important part of the book and thus should have been in the film .... I would dearly hope that when any author writes a book, everything they put on the page is considered as essential or important. Otherwise, why waste the space? A good editor should see to that. So if that is true, then everything in the book is essential making any cuts of material to film impossible by that criteria.

Again, a book and a film are two very different things, each with their own components, advantages and disadvantages, limits and boundaries and internal demands. To compare them is like comparing apples and cinderblocks. After exhaustive study the expert proclaims proudly that yes indeed apples taste better. However, cinderblocks make for a better building material. Hardly news.

[Boromir88]

So if that is true, then everything in the book is essential making any cuts of material to film impossible by that criteria.~Sauron
Tolkien did say he carefully considered every single on of his 600,000 words (in talking about The Lord of the Rings). However, I disagree with your remarks about the 'essential part of the plot.' Tolkien was no director (and in some ways I'm glad he didn't try to make movies out of his books). We do live in a different time, the majority of people want to see an action packed film, full of explosions and wild chases. So, Tolkien directing a movie for the audience of today, I don't think that would turn out too well. With that being said, he's no fool when it comes to moving making. He understood cuts need to be made as by around 3 hours people's bottoms get sore, and it would be impossible to film his entire book. We critics of the film aren't idiots either:

Contraction of this kind is not the same thing as the necessary reduction or selection of the scenes and events that are to be visually represented.~Letter 210 (Tolkien to Ackerman, in response to the Zimmerman script)
Tolkien understands things need to be cut out, but why he never really warmed up to movies being made off his story is because of the very nature of Hollywood:
But I would ask them to make an effort of imagination sufficient to understand the irritation (and on occasion the resentment) of an author, who finds, increasingly as he proceeds, his work treated as it would seem carelessly in general, in places recklessly, and with no evident signs of any appreciation of what it is all about.
It's not the necessity of 'contracting' scenes that annoyed Tolkien, it's Hollywood's nature to feel the need to change things around and create an action-packed thriller.

And about The Scouring, perhaps we can apply Tolkiens' response to how Zimmerman treated Helm's Deep and the Ents?
If both the Ents and the Hornburg cannot be treated at sufficient length to make sense, then one should go. It should be the Hornburg, which is incidental to the main story...
For the record, I disagree with Tolkien here, as no one wants to see the Ents, they would rather watch some big brawl of 2 large armies crashing into eachother. I'm one of those who would rather see the fight at Helm's Deep. But my point here is, that The Lord of the Rings is about the growth of the hobbits (particularly 4 in general). Tolkien says this right in the Foreward, this story (LOTR) is about them. So, the whole story of Aragorn becoming King, Gondor's war with Sauron, Rohan's involvement...etc are all just subplots. The Lord of the Rings is about the hobbits and I didn't feel this from the movies. I felt in the movies Jackson got it switched around...I probably wouldn't have felt that way if the 'essential part of the plot' was added into the movie.

Before anyone starts talking about there wouldn't be time to add in the Scouring, how about we talk about time usage and Jackson mishandling time? Lets take this comment from Letter 210:
The canons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies.
So, the 'intrusion of unwarranted matter, could this be the warg fight? And having the storyling of Aragorn's 'fall of the cliff' that follows? What's the purpose of that? How about Faramir taking the Hobbits to Osgiliath and having that scene where The Witch-King finds Frodo? Why did Frodo need to be taken to Osgiliath in the first place? Had Jackson not put in his own scenes that have really no purpose in the movie, then perhaps there would be more time for the essential part of the plot?

Sauce you bring up some good points about Jackson capturing some of Tolkien's themes. I think overall the 'friendship/bond' is there (excluding Frodo sending Sam away...I forget what Walsh and Boyens said about that scene I just remember I didn't like it). But, overall ya I definitely got that from the movies. As well as the smaller conquering 'bigger' odds (The Scouring would have shown this more!). But I do think that there are some things missing. What doesn't make sense to me is why does Aragorn stop Theoden from killing Grima in a fit a rage in TTT, but then in ROTK in a fit of rage himself Aragorn beheads the MoS? This creates continuity issues with Aragorn's character, plus misses the whole concept of the 'Rules of War' and the 'gentlemens war' which is in the books.

Also, I think some of these things start taking a back seat to Gimli's toilet humour, and the 'action fights' of the film. Not so much with FOTR (I thought that was well made movie that not only is fun to watch but captures the books the best...I honestly believe that was well done. Can't say I have that same feeling for TTT and ROTK though. Where the battles start replacing the story of the hobbits).

In some ways I can't blame Jackson because he's only making a movie that a lot of people want to see...we want to be entertained for the full length of the movie. That would be hard to do if there wasn't some slugfest that the audience was looking forward to. However, I will make the point that the books were already popular even before Jackson imagined making the movies. I think that as A Mr. Simon argued that the Lord of the Rings was so popular precisely because of the hobbits. The hobbits are most like your normal guy like you and me, and people want to feel a connection with themselves, they want to be able to identify with the characters. So, maybe making a film that focused more around the hobbits and their growth wouldn't have made such a bad unattractive movie at all? And maybe then will I feel that instead of watching an entertaining slugfest (speaking of TTT and ROTK...as I really thought FOTR was the best), I would also feel these movies were more accurate to the story.

[Aiwendil]

could you please offer a bit more in the way of explaining that drive-by comment?

Personally speaking, I don't see much of a correlation between the quality of a film and the number of awards it receives. Sure, Lucas has been consistently (and pointedly) ignored by the Academy - which puts him in the good company of, to name a few, Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, and Stanley Kubrick. In my opinion, that's a far more impressive list of names than the list of 'Best Director' recipients.

All that is, of course, highly subjective - the only real point I was trying to make is that one oughtn't consider the number of awards won a measure of how good a film is.

To address the original topic: as for me, I find myself less interested in Jackson's LotR as time goes on. I quite enjoyed them when they came out, though I was disappointed with them in many ways. But I think a large part of my enjoyment came simply from the novelty of seeing a new adaptation of my favourite book. Now that the novelty has worn off, the things I dislike (both in terms of departures from the book and aspects of Jackson's direction) come through more strongly.

[Sauron the White]

Boromir ... you have a very well crafted response above. Very good and I do not disagree with all of it. A few points that I would comment on are as follows:

JRRT wrote a great book in LOTR and created a wonderful mythology in the entire Middle-earth writings. He also was not half bad when it came to putting pencil on paper to illustrate some of his world. But his talents as an artist paled to his talents as a writer. Having said that, I think it is important to fully seperate his talents in those areas from his views about filmmaking. Unless I have missed some of the Professors career, he never delved into this area as an active participant. He never made a film. His entire experience was as an outsider looking in - an observer if you will. As far as I know, he never studied film academically or even had the dogged interest of the film hobbyist.

So his comments about film, are those of a writer who fears that his work will be butchered - probably as he watched the work of other authors butchered by the film industry. When Tolkien talks about the world he created, he is the unchallenged expert and I defer to him completely. When he talks about the area of film, he merely another one of the great unwashed who thinks they know something. I do not mean that to be cruel or unfeeling - just the straight facts.

Until you make a film, or at least study it thoroughly from those who have, you really cannot know what it entails.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the thoughts of JRRT (as expressed in his Letters) seem to be boiled down to this:

- "you may have to make some cuts or compressions, that is understandable- but please do not add anything that I did not write. "

Is that a correct summary of the flow of his ideas on film?

Because of it is, it assumes that Tolkien had every single ingredient withing LOTR that would make for a great film and he understood just what a great film needed. I am not sure that was the case. There are several things in the film, which were added and it contributed to the worth of the film.

For one, I was just rereading FOTR and noticed how the death of Boromir is far more dramatic and emotionally touching on film as opposed to how it is written in the book. Things were added making for a better film. I will NOT say that Tolkien should have wrote it that way and his book would have been better. NO. In the book it works just fine. But for a film the changes work to the betterment of a film.

The expansion of the role of Arwen - using material in and alluded to in the story in the Appendicies - greatly made the film more interesting to a female audience and gave the film a more egalitarian or modern feel as opposed to all these men (save Eowyn) acting as saviors like John Wayne riding to the worlds rescue. The expansion of the Arwen role did help the film with the audience reception of it.

I have always liked the film Aragorn and his touch of reluctance since it contrasts nicely with the military bravado of Boromir. It also adds a nice story and character arc that is resolved slowly throughout the films. I know many were put off by that, but I felt it added to both the character and the film.

YES, I will admit that the film was not perfect and some of these additions were not to the films benefit. I agree that the whole Osgiliath visit by Frodo and Same was completely unnecessary. It did not ruin the film - it did not help the film. I think Faramirs character could have done the same thing, perhaps more effectively, if it had kept to the book. His book lines about not willing to pick up the ring were it on the side of the road and Sams response are some of the most wonderful moments in the story. I too was sad to see this change.

We have to remember that any work by human beings is flawed. Yes, JRRT considered and reconsidered every one of his 600,000 words. But as much as any of us love the books they were not perfect. They may be the next closest thing to perfection but we all must admit that JRRT was not God and his work was not Divine.

Obviously the same thing must be said about the work of Jackson. Despite all the box office earnings, despite all the awards, despite all the glowing critics reviews, there are flaws in the movie which render it less than perfect. And that is to be expected.

I cringe every time I see the scrubbing bubbles of the Dead wash away the enemy on the Pelennor and in Minas Tirith. What makes it doubly worse for me is I really liked the portrayal of the Dead up to that sad event. Gandalf whacking Denethor with his staff does not put me off too much but the nonresponse of his armed soldiers standing impotently in the background is simply lazy filmmaking when scenes filmed on a stage in front of a screen were combined with background footage that just clashes. The farting and belching of Gimli certainly are not my favorite parts and I would have loved the character more without them. These are all flaws and others here have pointed out their own particular grievances.

Fine - that is the nature of the beast.

But we end up with so much wonder and so much beauty and so many amazing cinematic moments that it makes me very happy to have lived to see these films. I do not need my cup 100% filled with the perfect wine of the gods. That could be the standard, but I do not need it to make me happy.

I happen to feel that the character of Tom Bombadil is totally unnecessary to the book and just gets in the way. But I still love the books despite the old hippy and the contradiction of his powers and the ring. It has never made logical sense to me that Sauron once had the Ring firmly on his finger with a large army at his disposal and failed to control Middle-earth , but now if it obtains it the entire population of ME can mail in their backsides to the Dark Lord and its all over. But I still love the books despite those problems.

The films are no different. They are flawed with mistakes and have their own weaknesses and defects. But in the end we still end up with a movie that worked rather well as evidenced by its worldwide reception of several levels in which the industry and film students measure success.

And for that I am happy.

[Sauron the White]

from Aiwendil

Sure, Lucas has been consistently (and pointedly) ignored by the Academy - which puts him in the good company of, to name a few, Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, and Stanley Kubrick. In my opinion, that's a far more impressive list of names than the list of 'Best Director' recipients.

I would consider Lucas to be a good borrower from others and a good world builder and creator. Directing has never been his strong suit. He know virtually nothing about directing real people with real feelings and actual human emotion. Zilch - nada - zip - nothing. He directs comic book characters.

As the team of Lucas, Hitchcock, Welles and Kubrick - I will take the team of actual Oscar winners as follows (just to name a few)
Woody Allen
Frank Capra
Francis Ford Coppola
George Cukor
Clint Eastwood
Victor Felming
John Ford
John Huston
David Lean
Sydney Pollack
Martin Scorsese
Steven Spielberg
George Stevens
Billy Wilder
William Wyler

Peter Jackson is in very good company indeed. In fact, if I had to come up just four to go up against the four you named I would take Capra, Ford, Lean and Wyler and feel very confindent that I have the four greatest directors of all time. George Lucas could not have manned the cue cards for them.

[Aiwendil]

Sauron: As I said, any evaluation of "best directors" is going to be highly subjective. Personally, while I do think that Capra, Coppola, and some of the others you mentioned are very capable directors, I would take Hitchcock and Kubrick over the lot of them any day. I also consider Lucas to be on par with them - though I know I'm very much in the minority in that regard. Of course, this isn't the place to debate this sort of thing - which is why I limited myself to a "drive-by" comment before.

Again, the pertinent part of my comment is merely that one can't argue "awards, therefore excellence".

[Sauron the White]

Of course you will not obloquy. You simply have the nerve to call someone IGNORANT without a word of explaination and then make a drive-by comment without bothering to offer any proof or evidence.

[Aiwendil]

Obloquy - though it would seem we have similar cinematic opinions, I certainly would not call someone "ignorant" because he or she has a different opinion. This is obvioiusly a matter where personal preferences vary considerably, and if you can't keep your contributions civil, you should refrain from posting.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

What frustrates me no end are those occasions where PJ took a scene from the book, and somehow decided he needed (and was qualified) to "improve" it. Case in point: the Mouth of Sauron. Tolkien's scene is tense and dramatic, and above all carries the superior character and moral strength of the Captains of the West. So tell me, please, what cinematic imperative required turning Aragorn into a war criminal? Does film-as-a-different-medium require that on this page of the script another decapitation is mandatory?

Again, the Voice of Saruman: Why does Gandalf prevent Legolas' "sticking an arrow in his gob?" Why, because "we need information." Whatever happened to "he was great once, of a kind we should not dare to raise our hand against?" Or for that matter, "do not be so quick to deal out death in judgment?" PJ again has ignored, indeed inverted, Tolkien's moral and spiritual compass.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

One of the wonderful aspects of opinion discussion threads is that everyone can express feelings and ideas, whether or not they have a foundation in other sources.

One of the worst things about opinion threads is that there are always several participants who dominate the discussion because they feel that, instead of merely expressing their ideas, they have to push their point by repeating it so long that others agree.

Fortunately, the Downs is so variegated that this will never happen. What does happen is that others are intimidated by the latent aggressiveness and stay away, thereby depriving the forum of the richness of many opinions.

Therefore I ask those who have posted repeatedly to refrain from posting again until others have had a chance to participate.

And please keep to the Tolkien topic - lists of other movies and their directors are at best a sidetrack and may be deleted as off-topic if they continue.

Thank you!

[Lalwendë]

This is why I won't take sides on the topic of the films. They are in one box and the books are in another. The films are something totally different, and I never watch a film based on a book expecting it to be even slightly faithful as it just doesn't happen - whether that's due to the translation of book to the medium of film or due to the ego of the director and his/her 'artistic vision' I cannot say, but it is likely both. ;) In 95% of cases (including Lord of the Rings) the film is Less Good Than The Book or even An Outrage if you're really unlucky. In rare cases, the film is superior, despite not following the text too faithfully - in that category I'd count Children Of Men (a truly awesome film) or the BBC version of Middlemarch made a few years back (the most tedious book turned into dazzling TV) and controversially, Narnia.

The films of Lord of the Rings are like a nice Steak Canadian sarnie, whereas the books are the full roast dinner. Both good, but only the latter can be expected to really fill your belly.

Now I have to say comparing Jackson's Rings with other fantasy films is unfair. Firstly, Jackson had the most superior fantasy material to begin with anyway, so how could he really fail? Eragon is like the Argos Catalogue compared with Tolkien's work! Secondly, which fantasy films are we looking at? Has anyone actually seen Pan's Labyrinth? However going by the Hollywood-centric turn of discussion perhaps not. ;)

Why do I have to continually ponder on whether Jackson's films were any good? Because let's be honest, a whole lot of people, maybe even most people, cannot be bothered reading books these days, certainly not books as long as Lord of the Rings. We are a small minority. The majority of people will have taken their knowledge of Tolkien's work as seen and interpreted by one Peter Jackson. They judge that story, those characters, and ultimately Tolkien himself according to one man's flawed vision. And that is at the root of why I carp at the flaws in the films.

Anyway. Film directors. I don't take a Hollywood-centric view of who is good, it's limiting. The Oscars are after all not really a judge of quality but of politics and sales. Some others who need to be considered under the rank of genius: Alfonso Cuaron - who owns the screen in the thoroughly awesome Children Of Men; Mike Leigh - I would watch soap powder adverts directed by this man; Ken Loach - maker of bleak, bitter yet strangely amusing films; Quentin Tarantino - just watch Kill Bill; Danny Boyle - Trainspotting, 28 Days Later, Sunshine etc...You can keep your Oscar Winning LA glitterati ;)

[Sauron the White]

obloquy .... by using the term IGNORANT and then offering a definition, you seem to presume that I am not aware or have not seen the films you later cite as great films by great directors. How could you make that judgment about me if you failed to ask me first if I had seen them or other works by those directors? Only then could you determine if I was ignorant of their existence.

I do not judge any director as GREAT by a single film or even a few films. I feel you must take their body of work over a career. All four of the men I selected have a extensive body of work over several decades than can be examined and studied. They also met the test of time.

I fully agree with Lalwende that Alfonso Cuaron has made some excellent films and is a outstanding talent. I look forward to at least ten to twenty more years of his work. After we have an extensive body of his work, then we can see if he stands up there with the David Leans of this world.

Regarding Stanley Kubrick - PATHS OF GLORY is one of my 25 favorite films of all time. A truly great film. I think the only time he equaled that effort was with STRANGELOVE. But the man was a true talent in a spotty career.

Orson Welles - reinvented the cinema that D.W. Griffith gave the world with new camera angles, different ways to tell a story, and made film more of an art form. And he did this all with a single film - CITIZEN KANE. Welles never equaled that effort - of course, if KANE is the greatest film of all time then that would be nearly impossible. Welles himself said that he felt his follow-up film THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS was even better in some ways but it was so edited and chopped up that we may never know.

WCH - I cannot speak for Jackson, but my feeling about the Mouth of Sauron scene is that it shows that Aragorn no longer is willing to go through the motions of phony diplomacy - something which Sauron attempts to use only for his own purposes and is not any kind of real negotiation anyways. Aragorn recognizes this and knows that in minutes all hell will break loose so decides to rid Middle-earth of a rather large piece of garbage right there on the spot. Does that make him (in your words) a war criminal? Then we are back to the old internet discussion trap of a definition of terms.

[Bêthberry]

Here's looking at you, Esty.

Well, I had expected this thread to be about how repeated viewings and time bring a different perspective, rather than a rehash of the same old, same old.

Why do we watch films a second, third, repeated times? With a book, usualy it isthat we wish to contemplate deeper and richer meanings, pull things together with reflection in a way that is not possible on that first read? I don't think we try to recreate that first reading experience. With a movie, isn't that part of the inspiration to rewatch--in hopes of capturing again that visual delight?

So, what happens with Pajama Man's flicks when we rewatch them? Do subsequent viewings keep up our initial experience (whether it was delight or disappointment) or is it true that we can never go back again? Do we "get" things now that we didn't on a first watch--important things and not simply, "Oh yah, I caught that error that the Consistency Girl missed." Do the seams fall apart, with worn threads on hand me down viewings?

After all, if it is true that we live in Tolkien's long defeat, does that mean that it will never be as good (er, or bad) as it was the first time?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

WCH - I cannot speak for Jackson, but my feeling about the Mouth of Sauron scene is that it shows that Aragorn no longer is willing to go through the motions of phony diplomacy - something which Sauron attempts to use only for his own purposes and is not any kind of real negotiation anyways. Aragorn recognizes this and knows that in minutes all hell will break loose so decides to rid Middle-earth of a rather large piece of garbage right there on the spot. Does that make him (in your words) a war criminal? Then we are back to the old internet discussion trap of a definition of terms.

Even assuming that this were an entirely valid viewpoint, what entitled Jackson to completely reverse the way the author wrote the scene? This is not a cut-out-Bombadil or shorten-the-Council alteration, which constraints of time and medium necessitate. This scene uses the same sets, costumes, characters and screentime as the authentic scene- so wherein lay the necessity of changing it?

Setting aside definition-squabbles, it is an inherent part of Tolkien's message that one may not kill unlawfully or without need. Doesn't he emphasize this over and over? By all laws and traditions of war, ancient, modern, and in Middle-earth (as book-Mouth himself insists), heralds and ambassadors are sacrosanct.
But the PJ version is simple Might makes Right: I've got a big sword so I get to play Dirty Harry. How does this not differ from Orc-work? (cf. The New Shadow in HME XII). The authentic scene *emphasizes*, not undermines, the reasons why the Captains are, in fact, the Good Guys, and why Sauron is the Enemy not just politically but morally. It would have been splendid, especially with the acting firepower assembled, to watch the arrogant Mouth wilt beneath Aragorn's contempt: an expression of spiritual rather than physical superiority. This sort of reworking, indeed inversion, *with no cinematic imperative* reinforces the suspicion that PJ Just Doesn't Get It.

Another telling point is where Gandalf describes the 'possession' of Theoden as "an old trick of Saruman's. He's used it before." Oh, really? It seems PJ finds nothing incongruous that the leader of the White Council and the Heren Istarion, who had successfully pretended to be on the side of the angels until a few months previously, openly engaged in forcible possession of Eruhini? This act Tolkien unequivocally categorised as one of the very worst of all crimes, calling it "of Morgoth" and the practice of "Sauron and the necromancers;" yet apparently Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel etc were aware of this 'old trick' and condoned it. Again: Might Makes Right.
What on earth was wrong with Theoden's healing the way it was written? PJ could still have used the nifty age-morph effect, without Gandalf's deep-sea fishing, and the absurd Jackie Chan brawl that precedes it. If the scene needed visual punch, surely the lightning flash that flattens Wormtongue, and concomitant lighting effects (darkness and the ray of sunlight, and Theoden hobbling out into the open air) fills the bill?

It entirely escapes me how the requirements of a different medium mandate that a scene *in which the author made particular use of light and shadow- the essence of film* should be made over in such a radical fashion. Instead the suspicion arises that here as in the Denethor beatdown Hollywoodthink is ascendant: when in doubt, just clobber someone. If you're a Good Guy it's OK.

[Sauron the White]

WCH - you bring up a very good point regarding the Mouth of Sauron death. Had it been filmed the way that Tolkien wrote it in the book, perhaps it would have been great. We will never know (barring another effort someday). Again, I am not Peter Jackson or the writers so I cannot tell you with certainty why they decided to do it this way. I will offer this.

Tolkien wrote LOTR during the decade of the Forties. In that, he is much a product of his era. We all, to an extent, are. Even more than that, JRRT was also bound by even older traditions and values that were beginning to fade during his lifetime.
So to some extent, his writings are "out of time" or "out of sync" with post WWII developments in the arts. The rise of the anti-hero comes to mind as both a literary and cinematic trend which is not found in LOTR but which is found in spades in both mediums over the last fifty or more years.

It could be - and this is speculation on my part - that Jackson and company are also products of their times. It could be that the rigid code of the good guys simply appears dated and out of fashion with the code of the 21st century. I imagine an audience raised on Dirty Harry films and Charles Bronson revenge flicks hardly blinked an eye when Aragorn beheaded MoS. And it made Aragorn look like the righteous avenging angel of death who would not take any BS from an 100% evil baddie.

I can see the response coming - and I do not take issue with it. However, it seemed to be a crowd pleasing scene and certainly added to the finality of the Battle Before the Black Gate. After all, you just killed the emassary of Sauron and basically gave the finger to the entire land of Mordor just inches away from their borders. Its pretty much an "in your face" invitation to fight to the last man. That seemed to fit in with the entire sacrificial nature of the military strategy of marching to the Black Gates and is further emphasized as Aragorn leads the charge to certain death with the words "for Frodo".

All the great tales are told and retold through the prism of the generation that tells them and with the confines and realities of the time in history in which they are retold. LOTR is no different.

Regarding the words about Saruman and possession - you have a very good ear for detail. I have seen the films dozens of times and never picked that up as important. The way you explain it, you have a valid point of criticism. I just believe that 99% of the audience thinks nothing about it. Consider yourself ahead of the curve on that one.

[Meriadoc1961]

Well, I started this thread, and it just occurred to me that this was the first year since 1974 that I did not read the books starting in February. However, I did watch the movies in February. Which may mean that at least at a subconscious level I felt that the films were true enough to the books.

I did not mean for this to be a "bash Jackson and the films" thread. Maybe I did not make my own opinion clear enough in the beginning. I do enjoy the films, but I believe my preference is for the books. I believe that Jackson did tinker more with the characters the further on into the three films he went. And I believe that removing myself from the emotion as I saw the Shire and Bag End unveiled in the beginning of FOTR helps me to see the film in a more objective light, although it is practically impossible for me to watch LOTR and NOT get emotional again.

Merry

[Aiwendil]

Why do we watch films a second, third, repeated times? With a book, usualy it isthat we wish to contemplate deeper and richer meanings, pull things together with reflection in a way that is not possible on that first read?

Do we really re-watch films for a fundamentally different reason than that for which for re-read books? Speaking for myself, the motivation is the same in both cases - moreover, the motivation is quite simple: if I enjoy reading a book or watching a movie once, I'll probably enjoy it again. It's true that when I re-read my favorite books, I sometimes discover new layers of meaning, and this in turn motivates further re-readings - but this is also true of my favorite movies. Every re-reading of LotR yields new delights, but so does every re-viewing of 2001, for instance.

As for an attempt to "recapture the original viewing experience" - I'm not sure what this means beyond simply experiencing again the pleasure induced by the movie (which of course is the whole reason to watch it at all). The same surely applies to books.

[Bêthberry]

You could be right that there isn't a substantial difference between re-reading books and re-viewing movies. Yet the habit of revisiting movies is a fairly new ability, short of paying again at theatres. I seem to recall that it was Star Wars which really created this trend as much of its profits arose initially from patrons who returned to the theatre to see it again and again and again. And then of course the new video technology made it possible to treat movies as easily as books. Perhaps for those born post-SW there is no difference.

I also know people who rewatch movies in order to laugh at them the harder. After the first viewing, it seems the "semes" show up more for such viewers. I don't know any readers who reread books in order to make fun of them or find their faults--unless it is critics and academics who rake them over professionally.

Then again, rereading or re-viewing from the perspective of knowing how it all ends provides a different experience from that of sussing out all the clues together before one knows the 'answer.' All depends I suppose on what one does when one reads/watches.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

StW:

What you say about the antihero and the modern audience is an interesting point- but it seems to me that Jackson (& Walsh & Boyens) were rather schizophrenic in this case. After all, they spent a very great deal of effort (and screentime) reworking Aragorn as the reluctant nolo regi sort, I would assume because they reckoned modern filmgoing audience would dislike Tolkien's Man of Destiny. But then this approach to the revised character doesn't really square with the badass- it's as if Eastwood's reluctant gunfighter of Unforgiven suddenly morphed into Harry Callaghan.

This I think (in my personal opinion) to have been mistaken. Tolkien's original surge of popularity hit during the late 60's precisely among the same folks who were protesting American 'imperialism' in Vietnam and the like: yet the hippies didn't seem to mind the Returning King as written. And this was a generation raised on Hemingway and Salinger and Faulkner. As Tolkien was at pains to point out, there's nothing wrong with fairy-tales, even for adults; and that includes fairy-tale heroes like Aragorn. We're not expected to identify with him: that's what the hobbits are there for.

******

Another perplexing moral inversion occurred to me- especially perplexing in that the scene and the very dialogue are reprised from the book, but turned on their heads. In the movie, as the Three Hunters in Fangorn become aware of the mysterious old man, Aragorn: 'We must act quickly, before he can put a spell on us'whereuopn the three attempt an ambush (naturally unsuccessful).

Compare this to Tolkien's version: Then suddenly, unable to contain himself longer, [Gimli] burst out: 'Your bow, Legolas! Bend it! Get ready! It is Saruman. Do not let him speak, or put a spell upon us! Shoot first!'

Legolas took his bow and bent it, slowly and as if some other will resisted him. He held an arrow loosely in his hand but did not fit it to the string. Aragorn stood silent; his face was watchful and intent.

'Why are you waiting? What is the matter with you?' said Gimli in a hissing whisper.

'Legolas is right,' said Aragorn quietly. 'We may not shoot an old man so, at unawares and unchallenged, whatever fear or doubt be on us. Watch and wait!'

If there is one single overriding theme of the Lord of the Rings it is that the end never justifies the means- that the moral course is the only course, no matter what self-interest or even the Greater Good might dictate. Anything else is a form, greater or lesser, of Boromirism. The *whole point* of the Ring is that Might never, ever makes Right.

[Sauron the White]

from WilliamCH

Tolkien's original surge of popularity hit during the late 60's precisely among the same folks who were protesting American 'imperialism' in Vietnam and the like: yet the hippies didn't seem to mind the Returning King as written. And this was a generation raised on Hemingway and Salinger and Faulkner.

You are correct in that statement. However, we are discussing the change of things as they happened in the movies. For that it is important to remember two things: 1) the time the books were written by JRRT and the mores and values that he subsribed to as a man of his time, and 2) the films were released in the 21st century - a good two generations removed from the hippie era you refer to. The vast majority of the movie crowd came of age long after the Sixties were dead and gone.

I really do not want to get into a huge sidebar here, but being 58 years old and having lived through this period, the idea that everyone between ages 16 and 29 was running around for several years with shoulder length hair, beads, fringe jackets and smoking dope is a gross misreprentation of the period. It is no more accurate than saying all young male African-Americans today are rappers or gangsta's.

But that is a topic for some other forum.

[Meriadoc1961]

StW:

If there is one single overriding theme of the Lord of the Rings it is that the end never justifies the means- that the moral course is the only course, no matter what self-interest or even the Greater Good might dictate. Anything else is a form, greater or lesser, of Boromirism. The *whole point* of the Ring is that Might never, ever makes Right.

This is an excellent point, and one in which I am in full agreement. The book form of Faramir, compared to that of the film version, is another example of Jackson and crew missing one of the, if not THE most important, messages of the book, by changing his character. They should not have changed the character of Faramir at all, and neither was it necessary to change the scene when Gandalf first appears to the Three Hunters.

Merry

[Mister Underhill]

Well, it's good to see that some folks are sticking to their guns, both pro and con, down the long haul. There's nothing like consistency. ;)

Since filmmaker types always like to talk about their journey on a particular film, I'll talk about my journey with the LotR films.

If you check back through the dusty catacombs of the archives and look at posts from a Time Before the Films, you'll find Mister Underhill in there advocating cautious optimism about them, vigorously sparring with the hard-liners who contended that they should never have been made -- without having seen a single frame, just on principle. I still to this day wonder if Inziladun kept his vow to never see them.

Having as I do a bit more than a layman's knowledge about the filmmaking process -- especially when it comes to adaptations -- I even expected and agreed that there ultimately would be significant alterations made in the transition from novel to film. I was one of the first ones out there carrying the banner of "Judge the films as films!"

So, the movies came out. Fans laughed. Fans cried. Fans made music videos and devised krazy kaptions.

I had a few nits to pick with FotR, but overall I thought it was a pretty fair adaptation. Sure, it tilted towards action-blockbuster, but was that really a surprise? Anyway, I like action as much as the next guy, and there is good action in Tolkien after all. When Sam bashed an orc with a saucepan in the Chamber of Mazarbul, I laughed; when Gandalf fell I cried. The EE DVD came out, and I thought it was even better.

I was less forgiving with TTT. Interestingly, by the time it premiered, I'd had more time with the FotR DVD, and its flaws had started to show. More on that in a moment. Gollum exceeded all expectations, and I enjoyed the spectacle of Helm's Deep (excepting certain unlikely Elvish combat maneuvers of course), but -- well, no need to rehash old arguments. In my view, there were flaws. Deep ones. TTT EE -- meh... better, but not in a way that fundamentally changed its flawed nature.

By the time RotK rolled around, I think I had reached the stage of Acceptance. I enjoyed the spectacle, and with wayward plot elements inevitably drawing back towards certain surefire sequences and emotional moments, it could only go uphill after the nadir of TTT... and jeez this post is getting long. Downs-withdrawal these past moths, I guess.

So I'll move this along. CUT TO: Now!

I am, if anything, more sympathetic than ever to the chaos that affects any movie production, let alone one of the size, scope, and ambition of LotR. There are literally thousands of possible reasons for why a decision might be made to change X, Y, or Z. Given that, the movies are, if nothing else, an amazing achievement of logistics and intrepidity, and I am inclined to be more forgiving now, in some ways, about some things, than I was when the films were released.

But.

The thing that bugs me most about PJ and LotR is that when it comes to a choice between logic and a gag, he'll go with the gag every time.

For this reason, it's my opinion that his films are designed in such a way that they become less satisfying with repeated viewings, rather than more. I might get a shock or a thrill or a laugh out of a fundamentally illogical gag the first time I see it, or it might help to smooth me past a questionable plot point, but when I watch it again and again, the gag only jars me. It makes me think of a line from a Raymond Chandler story: "From thirty feet away she looked like a lot of class. From ten feet away she looked like something made up to be seen from thirty feet away."

I think I'd probably have a more favorable view of the movies if I'd only watched them once, from that "distance" of a first viewing.

Nowadays, I sometimes flip them in to watch particular scenes, the ones where the spectacle is totally kewl, and the ones where they got the moment completely right. For all the controversy over whether Gandalf slipped or let go, I thought they really nailed his fall in Moria and its immediate aftermath. But there are parts -- long stretches in TTT, especially -- that I find completely unwatchable.

[mark12_30]

Underhill, Bethberry Nice to see you around.

As of summer 2007: My chief delight in the movies is that my sons can watch them and gain some (partial) understanding of Where Mom Comes From. They're too young yet for the books, so for me the movies are a godsend. Someday they'll be ready for the books, and then a whole new depth of nobility, virtue, and even holiness will open up to them; I'm looking forward to that.

But in the meantime, I'm glad they've got the movies-- even with flambuoyant Legolas, oscillating half-aged Frodo, belching Gimli, and some tomatoes thrown in. Maturity will come with time. They'll love the books when they are ready for them. Their english is almost good enough now that I could start reading them The Hobbit for a bedtime story. Hmmmmmm. They love the cartoon. There's another place where there's far more meat in the books than in the movie, or in this case the cartoon. But that doesn't make the cartoon a flop.

Meanwhile my nephew has instantiated himself as a hobbit-burglar in some vast online game, and has reread The Hobbit to refresh his skills. And all my nephews play Middle-Earth Risk together. Proud Auntie.

[Meriadoc1961]

Mister Underhill,

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post. Something within its contents made me think of something my wife and I do occasionally, and that is we will find ourselves quoting lines from the movie, such as Pippin's incredulous, "But what about second breakfast?" in FotR. Although that is not a line lifted directly from the book, it is a line that I as a lover of the books am completely satisfied with in the movie for it does not change the character but actually reinforces Tolkien's view, which in this case is that hobbits love to eat, and they eat as many meals a day as they can.

I do really like the movies, and my only real complaint is the way so many of the major characters had their, well, character changed and for no really good reason at all.

[Lalwendë]

TT was on Channel 4 on Sunday and I had it on while doing other stuff - maybe that in itself says something, that the films are 'background noise' now rather than things to sit down in front of and seriously watch? But I digress...

It was with TT that I started to get the 'ump with Mr Jackson. It was here that he really altered the story - and I don't mean by leaving out this or that character or scene, but he altered it so much that it became 'his' not 'Tolkien's'. This in itself I would not feel quite so annoyed about but he was so inconsistent in his storytelling! I found myself tutting and asking myself what else I expected of someone who was known for making Zombie films.

An example? When Frodo holds up the Ring to one of the Nazgul at Osgiliath. It's not in the story of course, but what really did it for me was that had he done this, it would have made the rest of the story, even as presented/re-interpreted by Jackson, inconsistent. I don't like that to this day, I can't reconcile it, despite many discussions, including some here. I keep thinking that if they did something like this with an episode of Doctor Who the discussion boards would be going ape about rubbish writing, and I'd be right - many people who saw the films but had not read the books brought this exact problem up with me and I failed entirely to explain it. Because it is was inexplicable.

I am still annoyed about things like that now. The only way I can deal with it is by looking away or skipping scenes - it's like when a TV show has a scene of an operation on it... ;)

[alatar]

Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy was on TV again this past weekend. Strangely, I found that, for once, I *couldn't* watch it. Not sure why.

It's like I was actively trying to avoid it, almost as if to continue watching would be painful in some way. A reminder of how much time has past since it was released? The differences between the books and the movies?

Thoughts?

[Bêthberry]

I still to this day wonder if Inziladun kept his vow to never see them.



Well, he's back, so maybe he can tell us. :D

[Thinlómien]

I watched the extended editions all in a row on Saturday and I was left feeling quite empty...

I was bored ("oh, it's this scene, I'll go make some tea for us" or "how many minutes will this battle scene still last?").

And kind of sad someone like PJ made the films. It almost made me cry how he and his team have no eye for nuances at all, everything has to be big and blasting, either good or evil, and every single thing has to be explained to the viewer as if to a stupid kid. On the other hand it made me realise that however much Tolkien has been accused of writing black and white fantasy he has an amazing amount of nuances in his work (unlike some others!)

And then, I have to say I admired the film makers' eye for dramatic scenes. You can't really be cynical in the end of the Two Towers when the Rohirrim ride out in one last desperate attempt and Gandalf and Éomer appear.

But then again, Tolkien did that before them and even more impressively. When I last read LotR in July I cried my eyes out at the Pelennor fields. :D


PS. This thread is about the same topic: A Sad Experience (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=14455). I quite agree what I said (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=580159&postcount=26)there 1,5 years ago.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

I was bored ("oh, it's this scene, I'll go make some tea for us" or "how many minutes will this battle scene still last?").
This is what usually happens when I watch them. All of those films get considerably shorter than they were to begin with because I only watch the bits that I really like and those that are more faithful to Tolkien than others. I completely skip over the big battle scenes because they just aren't as exciting as they used to be. Peter Jackson effectively turned some very deep books into action films. Thanks PJ. :rolleyes:

[Snowdog]

Though I liked the films when they were released, and had fun at line parties and Trilogy Tuesday, subsequent watching burned me out on them. I went to see Fellowship about 8 times, and Two Towers 5 times, but Return of the King twice. Likewise, I watched the extended DVDs only a few times, with me usually falling asleep during them. They now collect dust on the DVD shelf.

Sadly, the movies burned me out on reading the books for a long time. I did read the books once in 2004 to clear my head of PJ's imagery and re-establish my own that I created in my head from the time I first read Lord of the Rings in 1975. Fortunately, most of my visions remained unscathed, and were even enhanced in the case of Boromir and maybe Gollum. I struggled a bit to clear my head of Cate as Galadriel, but did thanks to a good friend of mine who dressed herself as Galadriel and sent me a photo. I read it again this year and all was back to the way it should be.

I have to say that the movies were what they were, and are what they are, and I really have no desire to watch them again, like so many other movies. If I'm going to watch an old movie, it will be Cross of Iron or Kelly's Heroes or Holy Grail or Casablanca.... not the Lord of the Rings. About the most I watch of them anymore is when they are on broadcast TV and I tune in for a bit while some other show is running a commercial.

[Morthoron]

Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy was on TV again this past weekend. Strangely, I found that, for once, I *couldn't* watch it. Not sure why.

It's like I was actively trying to avoid it, almost as if to continue watching would be painful in some way. A reminder of how much time has past since it was released? The differences between the books and the movies?

Thoughts?

My daughter was watching it for awhile on TV, but in between the thousands of commercials (damnable Orkish marketers!) I just watched while doing other things. And it was not the extended version, rather, it was the movie version, so there was no Mouth of Sauron when the Black Gates opened. I also watched the infamous 'green scrubbling bubbles' scene, and it was just as irritating as the last time I saw it. Great cinematography, great bigatures, but deplorable scripting.

Funny thing, I can watch Lawrence of Arabia, another movie with remarkable cinematography, once a year, but I can't even sit through Return of the King.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Though I liked the films when they were released, and had fun at line parties and Trilogy Tuesday, subsequent watching burned me out on them. I went to see Fellowship about 8 times, and Two Towers 5 times, but Return of the King twice. Likewise, I watched the extended DVDs only a few times, with me usually falling asleep during them. They now collect dust on the DVD shelf.

This sounds painfully familiar, though I eschewed Trilogy Tuesday and have thrown out some of the DVDs. What collects dust on my shelf is an unopened, still in the wrapper CD of the RotK soundtrack. My original reactions to the films were clearly trackable by the number of times I was willing to spend money to see them, which if I'm remembering right was about the same as Snowdog's. I was willing to overlook most of the flaws in Jackson's FotR at first because that was the film that stuck most closely to the spirit of the books — and I was holding to the hope that, since there was time, things might get better (like, maybe he would give us a good reason for why he felt Aragorn needed to be a spineless ne'er-do-well). They didn't, and with my hope went my respect for the whole thing. It looked good, sometimes it sounded good, but Jackson increasingly showed that the heart he had designed for it was one of cold cash. A lot of RotK plain didn't make sense from any other standpoint. He'd tossed out Tolkien's books by that point and was winging it to appeal to the commercial audiences that would ring up profits and awards. My interest in the films deteriorated so quickly after those initial viewings, I sat in a TORn chartroom on Oscar night actively rooting for RotK to lose. Didn't do any good, alas. This as well as my editorials on the subject indicate my feelings on the matter.

Now, when I see the films in the TV listings, I might look in to see where they are, but only if it's either FotR or in the early parts of TTT (or close to the very end. I like the looks of the "cavalry comes at dawn" scene). I ignore RotK completely. I never listen to the soundtracks anymore. But my love for the books has never waned. In fact, if it hadn't been for the films, I might never have plowed through a couple of the HoME books. Shows how desperate I was for the Real Thing to wash the gunk of Jackson out of my brain. I wistfully wish that someone would do a decent remake, but I fear it won't happen in my lifetime.

Ah, well.

[skip spence]

Don't believe I think any differently about the movies now than I did back then. When FotR came out I went to see it twice in the theatres and loved it. Just the other day I watched the first half of the EE again curled up with some hot tea and a blanket nursing a cold. The novelty's gone now but I enjoyed it (especially the first part in the Shire) although I didn't have the patience to sit it through this time. But I never really watch films repeatedly anyway, hardly even once these days. However, I still think PJ did an excellent job with the first film. It was much, much better than what I had expected beforehand.

I liked TTT also, but to a lesser degree. I don't really have anything principally against the plot changes that were made and for me they often made the experience of watching the films for the first time more enjoyable because with them there was a sense of not knowing what's next, something that would be missing if the films were completely faithful to the books. Some changes did make me cringe, others were rather enjoyable. Examples of things I didn't mind are the Elves at Helm's deep, Arwens extended role, Pip and Merry and even Gimli as comical side-kicks... (though some Gimi-jokes were horrible, granted...)

By the time RotK came out the novelty of Lord Of the Rings-films had worn out for me and I didn't even bother to go and watch it in the theatres. Didn't like the looks of it in trailers and to be honest, I don't think I've watched it in its entirety even once, although I have seen all of the the movie-version in different sittings. And I didn't care much for it. Too loud and stupid and obvious.

Another reason I liked the first film best and the last film worst could be that my preference with the books is the same. I have read FotR more then ten times surely and always enjoy it immensely. RotK maybe only three times and with less enjoyment (though I do like it). TTT maybe five or six times and I adore some chapters in this one but care less for others.

[alatar]

LotR is like that friend* of convenience that is no longer convenient. You know, that friendship that came about because you and the other person cohabited a particular time-space moment. You were in the same class at school, and when the semester ended, so did the relationship. You worked together in the same office, played on the same sports team, etc.

It was the circumstances that held you together; when it dissolved, so did the bond.

That's how I can best explain my feelings towards LotR.

*Note that I use the word 'friend' loosely here. My personal definition of the word friend is one who, upon receiving your Red Arrow, jumps on his/her horse and starts riding to your aid at that very moment.

[Mister Underhill]

Do you think it has anything to do with having gone over them with a fine-tooth comb for the SbS and beyond? You know, like maybe over-familiarity breeds contempt?

I haven't watched the films in a long time either. I used to be a big re-watcher of movies, but lately when I have precious movie time (i.e., no babbling little hobbit about), I find that I usually crave something that I haven't seen yet.

[Galadriel]

Hmm. First time I watched them when I was 11, "Mommy, I'm scared!".
Second time when I was 16, "Hmm, it's pretty cool."
Third time when I was 16, "Hey, this is great!"
Fourth and fifth time, "Er...it deviates FAR too much from the book."

In the middle I became more obsessed with the movies than the books, but then after a while I just got over my movie obsession because they forgot too many facts, changed too many personalities, and turned the story into something almost completely different. They're cool movies, but they're not 'Lord of the Rings' per se.

[alatar]

Do you think it has anything to do with having gone over them with a fine-tooth comb for the SbS and beyond? You know, like maybe over-familiarity breeds contempt?
If you know me, you know that I have contempt for everything...;)

But it's funny, when now and then I've gone back to read some of the SbS (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/forumdisplay.php?f=43) posts, it takes a moment to realize that that was *me* writing those! I have almost no recollection of working on that project (that was a blurry time with new and little children, living in a zombie stupor from one moment to the next).

So I don't think that that's it. It's the only movie (trilogy) for which I've done anything like the SbS, and there's other movies that are friends of convenience, so...

I haven't watched the films in a long time either. I used to be a big re-watcher of movies, but lately when I have precious movie time (i.e., no babbling little hobbit about), I find that I usually crave something that I haven't seen yet.With so many little hobbits about, practically *everything* is something we haven't seen yet (or remember seeing). :D

[Mister Underhill]

If you know me, you know that I have contempt for everything...;)

But it's funny, when now and then I've gone back to read some of the SbS (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/forumdisplay.php?f=43) posts, it takes a moment to realize that that was *me* writing those! I have almost no recollection of working on that project (that was a blurry time with new and little children, living in a zombie stupor from one moment to the next).I can certainly relate to the zombie stupor. And you have, what, four? My hat is off to you, sir.

So I don't think that that's it. It's the only movie (trilogy) for which I've done anything like the SbS, and there's other movies that are friends of convenience, so...This discussion has me reflecting on what it is about the movies that I like to re-watch that draws me back to them, and I find that, for me, it usually has to do with the writers and the actors connecting for a performance that is just joyful, even if the text and the content of the performance isn't exactly joyful. Take Glengarry Glenross. I don't know if you've seen it, but the whole time Alec Baldwin is on screen, you can feel him feeling his oats, just sinking his teeth into the part of a lifetime, and even though his character is absolutely vile, you feel like cheering when his one lone scene is over. I should add a note of caution to any who would consider that a recommendation -- the film is about the petty intrigues and tribulations of a bunch of real-estate salesmen and they say the eff word about five hundred times. But still. That cast. The writing. And that scene. I could name so many others, but I'll spare you.

With LotR, for me, out of the principal cast, the only one who really connects on that level with any consistency is Ian McKellen, and there aren't enough just pure and simple great scenes to make me want to watch and re-watch it.
With so many little hobbits about, practically *everything* is something we haven't seen yet (or remember seeing). :DThe memory is the first thing to... something something.

[Morthoron]

This discussion has me reflecting on what it is about the movies that I like to re-watch that draws me back to them, and I find that, for me, it usually has to do with the writers and the actors connecting for a performance that is just joyful, even if the text and the content of the performance isn't exactly joyful. Take [I]Glengarry Glenross...

Glengarry Glenross is a great movie with a wonderful ensemble cast, and I know exactly what you mean about the actors sinking their teeth into a great script. I get the same reaction from movies like The Lion in Winter, where the dialogue between Peter O'Toole and Katherine Hepburn is absolutely electric.

But as far as LotR, you hit the orc right on the helmet, Mr. U. The cinematography, the effects and overall look of the film is dazzling, but the script suffers greatly. There are only brief flashes of good dialogue.

[Snowdog]

They're cool movies, but they're not 'Lord of the Rings' per se.

Well said! I myself prefer the movie that runs in my head when I read the books.

[Inziladun]

I myself prefer the movie that runs in my head when I read the books.

Indeed, yes!

It was with reluctance that I saw the movies to begin with, and that was only at the urging of my better half, who at the time hadn't read the books.
I recall being disappointed with the first half of FOTR (disliking the Hobbits' characterizations, esp. the buffoonish Merry and Pippin, thinking Viggo M. was nothing like my mental picture of Aragorn, and continuously rolling my eyes at Arwen riding out to save him and the Hobbits). I believe I slept through the second half, though whether that was due more to boredom or the Samuel Adams lager I'd consumed with dinner, I don't recall.
I tried to be objective, I really did. But throughout all three movies I found myself unable to lose myself in them, or to cease comparing them to the books.

When the DVDs were released, my wife (who was quite impressed by the movies) insisted on buying them. I've since tried to watch them, but have found myself invariably getting up and wandering off. Granted, that's normally what my ADHD-riddled self does when asked to sit still for long periods anyway, but it seems to happen more quickly with these masterpieces of PJ's. I much prefer the books, or the Downs, to anything of Tolkien's the Silver Screen would throw at me.

[Galadriel]

Well said! I myself prefer the movie that runs in my head when I read the books.

True, true! Jackson and the others changed the story so dramatically that it wasn't Tolkien's masterpiece, but a mere Hollywood-ized version of it; in other words, completely different from the real thing. Frodo was too weak, Merry and Pippin were blithering idiots, Gimli and Legolas were hideously useless sidekicks, Arwen was the cliched warrior princess, Denethor seemed like a loon right from the start, Faramir turned quasi-corrupt, and ELROND...don't even get me started on how they ruined him. The beautiful, comely image of the real Elrond Half-elven was, for a few months, turned to vapour in my mind.

[Galadriel55]

Hear hear!

[Nerwen]

True, true! Jackson and the others changed the story so dramatically that it wasn't Tolkien's masterpiece, but a mere Hollywood-ized version of it; in other words, completely different from the real thing. Frodo was too weak, Merry and Pippin were blithering idiots, Gimli and Legolas were hideously useless sidekicks, Arwen was the cliched warrior princess, Denethor seemed like a loon right from the start, Faramir turned quasi-corrupt, and ELROND...don't even get me started on how they ruined him. The beautiful, comely image of the real Elrond Half-elven was, for a few months, turned to vapour in my mind.

I'd not like the movie trilogy to end up on the list of FILMS YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO LIKE BY ORDER, THE INTERNET– we'd all do well to remember that people who have read a book– any book– first are rarely satisfied by the film version, no matter what it's like. That said, I think we can dispose of the old claim that Jackson & Co really went out of their way to be faithful to the source material. They did in some respects (apparently resisting pressure to take out all references to smoking, for example), but overall you can see everything has indeed passed through a pretty strong "Hollywood" filter.

Myself, I'm in the camp of people who enjoyed the films a lot the first time, somewhat the second time, and after that have decided they're okay, but rather lacking in replay value. Why? Well, it's not because I've noticed more minor "errors"– as far as I'm concerned Denethor could eat whole crates of tomatoes; that kind of thing doesn't bother me. Perhaps it does come down to the characterisations and the handling of certain scenes– not because I object to changes in principle, but because I think these are internal flaws– that is, flaws in the movies as movies. You might say it's a tribute to how well they did many things that it wasn't until the second or third viewing that it really started to bug me that I didn't care about any of the characters all that much.

It's only fair to say, though, that people who saw the films first quite often seem to have an exact mirror-image of this reaction, and don't like the characters and pacing and so on in the book.

[Galadriel55]

Well, I didn't like the movies from the first tie I saw them. Except for FOTR - that one was OK. TTT is the worst one, in my opinion. As for the book vs movie thing, its not always that I think that the book is better, just most of the time. For example, I prefer Narnia as a movie.

[Nerwen]

Well, I was talking about people who really fell in love with the films, not those who were lukewarm or didn't like them at all. And even so it doesn't apply to everyone, maybe not even most people. All the same, I've heard people complain a lot about the ways in which the book differs from the film trilogy. Not so much recently, it's true– but a few years ago this was fairly common. And as I said, the complaints have generally been about the exact same aspects that we are now complaining about, only the other way around.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

I also only can stand watching (en toto) FoTR. Fortunately
PJ and friends didn't go totally berserk there. But the
last two films :rolleyes:

One example of out of control "creativity". Andy Serkis says that
PJ discussed (and unfortunately Serkis seems to agree) that it
would be just darling to have Gollum in RoTK to not only
become traitorous to the nice hobbit- but to have planned to do
so all along [can't you just see a typically Hollywood mentality there
of - surprise plot twist] , which, among other things, makes pointless perhaps
the most poignant and sad scene in the novel, where Gollum
almost repents but is turned off by Sam's waking up as he's
watching Frodo.

[Mnemosyne]

You know, the more I think about it the more I think I get one of the fundamental "flaws" in the Jackson films, and I wonder how much our judgment of them as films is a little unfair.

When PJ & co. were making the films, did they really design them to last?

What I mean is this: when you experience a story for the first time, you don't know what's going to happen. Not knowing and trying to figure it out becomes half the experience, and a good writer will keep you in the dark long enough that you're genuinely surprised by the outcome, but it makes immediate sense: and more sense on subsequent experiences.

By contrast, when you experience the same story multiple times--especially years later when you've grown a bit older and wiser and thought about the story over time--you can't be kept guessing and you don't particularly want to be. Instead, the story becomes about the anticipation (whether eager or dreaded) of things that you already know, but the characters don't: for example, the plane scene in North by Northwest. It's precisely your knowledge of what's going to happen (and granted, you're a little clued in on it the first time) that makes the timing of that scene so enjoyable.

Well, a lot of the changes that Peter Jackson made to LotR shifted the experience of the plot to the needs of a first-experience audience, because what he was aiming for was a blockbuster. Hence the rejection of scenes that would have great anticipation value, like "Choices of Master Samwise," for the brief suspense you feel when Frodo wakes up and realizes he doesn't have the Ring. Hence the emphasis on heavy action sequences rather than character development, or even logic--Elves at Helm's Deep look really really cool until you think about geography and distance.

Ideally, for a project like this, you put in charge a director and a writing team who can fulfill both needs at the same time. Were Jackson & co. capable of that? I don't know.

But was that even their intention? I don't remember much from the interviews, etc., but I don't remember once a statement that they were building these films to last.

And they really haven't, even among my friends who have never read the books. Lord of the Rings is just one of those movies that you play in the background while doing other stuff. A truly great movie would, no matter how many times you've seen it, arrest your attention, make you sit up and watch, despite your best intentions. Yes, there are still moments where you might look up from your work and say, "Oh! Quiet now, I've got to watch this scene," but when that scene's over you resume your work or your conversation while gratuitous orc-slaughter goes on in the background.

[Galadriel55]

I agree with Tour in Gondolin. On all of his points. Might I just add that not only that irreplaceable (and truly one of the saddest) scene was basically not there, but also Frodo believed Gollum that Sam ate all the lembas. Tripple wreckage (I mean Frodo, Gollum, and kind of Sam - the way he reacted). :rolleyes:
May PJ rot in the deepest pit of Mordor until the end of his days!!!

[Morsul the Dark]

As Nerwen said many people who read books before watching movies are unsatisfied by the film.

That being said I Love the movies!

The trick? remember they are different things. Many scenes in the book wouldn't translate to film well, (Theoden, coming out of his stupor for example.)

And certain scenes come across stronger in film than the book (Helm's Deep for example)

Just my opinion

[Pitchwife]

Many scenes in the book wouldn't translate to film well, (Theoden, coming out of his stupor for example.)
Oh, they could, they would, and they should; all it takes is a good actor being allowed to do his job, instead of the director relying on special effects!
Sorry, Morsul, but you've chosen an extremely bad example here. Théoden's transition from depressed old man to vigorous leader is just the kind of showpiece any aspiring character actor would sell his soul for. Imagine what a great actor from the Golden Age, someone like Alec Guinness or Laurence Olivier, could have done with that scene! Heck, I'm sure Bernard Hill could have pulled it off just fine all by himself if PJ had only let him. Movies and theatre have done that kind of thing very successfully for ages without any cheap tricks.
Instead, we get a weak rehash of The Exorcist which only lacks Théoden starting to spew green pea soup.:confused:
And just so you know where I'm standing, things like this wouldn't irk me half so much if the movies hadn't handled lots of other things so very well. They got so close to getting it right, it's all the more of a pity they screwed up so badly when they did.

[Galadriel55]

I see Morsul's point, but that was indeed a bad example. Some scenes are done very well in the movie - like the one in Sammath Naur, where Frodo says "the Ring is mine", or like Gandalf's and Balrog's fight. However, the ratio of good scenes to VERY bad ones is about 1:25, in my opinion. I understand that its hard to film exactly what the book says, and I wouldn't complain if there were subtle changes to the story. However, when some of the wisest characters are made dunces, brave people made foolish and pathetic, and...well, I could go on for hours critisizing the movies. It just isn't right. If PJ decided to make his own story of LOTR, he should call it "PJ's version of LOTR". Otherwise, many people who haven't read the books call JRRT an idiot for PJ's overcreativeness.
In almost every other scene there is some fault. For example, since when does Legolas enjoy being drunk in the book? In the movie, he has a drinking game (or something of the sort) with Gimli. What utter nonesense!!!
The trick? remember they are different things
Sorry, Morsul, but I just can't read the books and then just switch a few (sarcasm intended) roles around to be able to enjoy the movies. It is either one version or the other. Either Faramir is noble, or he's a jerk. Elrond is either wise, or off his rocker. It just can't be both.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

An example of a book translated generally successfully to
the screen is the Day of the Jackal (director: Fred Zinnemann
starring Edward Fox- not the yet again weak remake). On
details the book generally is better but both work well-with
the movie using cinematography and music to good effect.

PJ did adequately in FotR, but, rather like a runaway horse
pulling away the reins from a rider, direction later
seems to have lost control and let the movie aspects just
take over.

[Pitchwife]

However, the ratio of good scenes to VERY bad ones is about 1:25, in my opinion.
I wouldn't be quite that severe with PJ; it doesn't take more than a handful of pickles to spoil a chocolate cake...

[alatar]

As I've stated many times, adding to your nausea...um, that I could have accepted PJ's version, warts and all, if only he had made Gandalf - when the wizard was powned by the Witch King - grin.

That said, I find it interesting to be on the 'other side' in regards to "The Walking Dead." Here, the graphic novel preceded the AMC TV series. I've not read the comic but have watched the first season.

Online, the fans of the graphic novel are posting angrily regarding the 'changes' made to the source material. I've enjoyed the show so far, and so have no idea why they are complaining.

Also, in this example, the author is available, and he's explained that he has wanted to stay faithful to the book fans while also expanding/modifying the material for the new media. Originally the author wanted to pack as much as possible into the limited space; with the TV series he feels freer to drag out the plot lines longer.

Interesting.

[Galadriel55]

I wouldn't be quite that severe with PJ; it doesn't take more than a handful of pickles to spoil a chocolate cake...

Yes, but while adding the pickles to the dough, PJ accidentally poured in half a bucket of brine... :) :p

[Galadriel]

Nerwen,

I think I make too many sweeping statements, forgive me. I have a tendency to do that. Perhaps it is safest to say I was both happy and disappointed with the films. I was happy because the costumes were great and the music just fit perfectly with ME. Not to mention the fact that it got many more people to read the book. However, I still feel that the movies were not faithful to the main effect of Lord of the Rings. It is simply an opinion, though I daresay many agree.

[Galadriel]

which, among other things, makes pointless perhaps
the most poignant and sad scene in the novel, where Gollum
almost repents but is turned off by Sam's waking up as he's
watching Frodo.

I agree heartily.

[Galadriel]

In almost every other scene there is some fault. For example, since when does Legolas enjoy being drunk in the book? In the movie, he has a drinking game (or something of the sort) with Gimli. What utter nonesense!

If I recall correctly, he doesn't get drunk in the game :p And Wood-elves do seem to enjoy their wine, now, don't they? ;)

[Galadriel55]

If I recall correctly, he doesn't get drunk in the game And Wood-elves do seem to enjoy their wine, now, don't they?

Legolas says that he feels some weird tingling on the tips of his fingers. I think we can safely assign that to the category "drunk" - especially since the only time such a reaction is mentioned is after he'd gone through a dozen pots of beer together with Gimli (who falls off his chair:rolleyes:).

As for the wine, it's not the same category than beer. 'Beer' is usually associated with taverns. 'Wine' - with palaces, nobility. If in the movie Legolas got drunk drinking wine, I wouldn't mind that much.:p

[Galadriel]

As for the wine, it's not the same category than beer. 'Beer' is usually associated with taverns. 'Wine' - with palaces, nobility. If in the movie Legolas got drunk drinking wine, I wouldn't mind that much.:p

Haha. True that. But beer is lighter than wine, and he had a lot, so I'm not surprised about the 'tingling' in his fingers :p But yes, I wish PJ had put in a scene where we get to see elves drinking their wine.

Oh God, he had better not cut out the scene with Galion and the guard in The Hobbit! That was my favourite in the whole book!

[Cirdan]

I'm rereading the LotR and I just rewatched extended editions of the films.

I'm not sure that I can watch them ever again though. Some things were done so incredibly well, certains sets, costumes, score, some of the casting choices, etc. but other things now irritate me beyond all tolerance!

Fortunately, there are other options such as:

http://www.fanedit.org/wp/?s=Lord+of+the+Rings

The problem I'm having in reading the books again is that somehow, some of the film actors have overwritten my imagination! I can't remember how I imagined Legolas. Now I see friggin' Orlando Bloom! AAAARGH! So I've been going through my collection of Howe, Nasmith, Lee, Sweet, etc. artwork frantically trying to find some resemblances to my lost visions. :confused:

[Galadriel]

The problem I'm having in reading the books again is that somehow, some of the film actors have overwritten my imagination! I can't remember how I imagined Legolas. Now I see friggin' Orlando Bloom!

It goes after a while, don't fret :p By the way, welcome to the Downs!

[Mänwe]

I've had some real pangs of nostalgia over the last week or so what with the start of Hobbit production and the first web video by Peter Jackson being posted online.

To think that's its been a decade since the Fellowship was released and the person I have become during that time...folk can forget the "growing pains" of growing up with the Harry Potter cast; as a 23 year old I can appreciate that the LoTR is far more epic! Though I should imagine me dedicating time to LoTR sites like the Downs has ingrained Tolkien in me more so, but then that is for said reason, LoTR is more epic than Potter was ever going to be.

My enduring memory of the journey from news of LoTR production to its release and then the release of the final film is as a 13 year old sat at home listening to a "sneak preview" cd of the soundtrack including the "Concerning Hobbits" track released some months before the Fellowship hit cinemas and having it on repeat trying to imagine how they'd recreate Hobbiton and wishing ever so hard that I could just watch the film there and then! Well we all must know how impatient a 13 year old can be!

I hope I have a similar memory over the next few years with the build up to the Hobbit's release.

[SlverGlass]

Professor J.R.R.Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is an epic. And it is never easy to film an epic. Peter Jackson did a great job in re-creating the Middle Earth, especially Hobbiton and Minas Tirith. He gave us movies, which never fails to entertain.

However, the lack of proper characterization of his characters riled me up a good deal. Legolas was a tag-along, when he was supposed to be brave and a great support; Frodo's behavior was akin a scared youth, not of a fairly confident, middle-aged Hobbit; Aragorn was okay, but the reluctant-hero part needed some time getting used to. PJ totally butchered the characters of Denethor and Theoden King. These changes made no sense to me. And Faramir - I could probably fill a book with my rants about this. Faramir and Legolas are my favorite characters (from the book). And instead of the kind, gentle soul that I was expecting, I found a competitive and rude person.

I have read a lot of point of views about PJ's reasoning for changing the plots and the characterization of the characters. But, none could or did satisfy me. I agree that a movie is quite different from a book and some changes have to be made. What may sound good while reading a book need not look good while watching a movie. But, there should be a limit in regards to those changes. For example, I didn't understand what leverage did a rude Faramir or a jealous Theoden supply to the plot.

Moreover, I also believe that the old forest should have found a place in the movie. According to me, that journey contributed a lot towards the development of the Hobbit's characters. Another thing that I found very irritating was the clownish outlook of Merry and Pippin. Especially Merry, and he is such a great character in the book.

All being said; even though I enjoyed the movies, they failed to vibrate that cord in my heart which dances every time I see that Lord of the Rings book on my bookshelf and the chocked excitement that rises in me whenever I open it and start reading the prologue.

So, even though great movies they may be, Lord of Rings for me will always be those beautiful words penned by Tolkien which has influenced my life so much.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

By contrast, when you experience the same story multiple times--especially years later when you've grown a bit older and wiser and thought about the story over time--you can't be kept guessing and you don't particularly want to be. Instead, the story becomes about the anticipation (whether eager or dreaded) of things that you already know, but the characters don't: for example, the plane scene in North by Northwest. It's precisely your knowledge of what's going to happen (and granted, you're a little clued in on it the first time) that makes the timing of that scene so enjoyable.

Well, a lot of the changes that Peter Jackson made to LotR shifted the experience of the plot to the needs of a first-experience audience, because what he was aiming for was a blockbuster. Hence the rejection of scenes that would have great anticipation value, like "Choices of Master Samwise," for the brief suspense you feel when Frodo wakes up and realizes he doesn't have the Ring. Hence the emphasis on heavy action sequences rather than character development, or even logic--Elves at Helm's Deep look really really cool until you think about geography and distance.

Ideally, for a project like this, you put in charge a director and a writing team who can fulfill both needs at the same time. Were Jackson & co. capable of that? I don't know.

Good post, Mnemo.

I loved the films when they came out (see my old posts for proof) but the thrill has diminished greatly. I would not be very interested in seeing them again.

But one thing about them that will last is the score. I can see me playing this for many, many years to come.

[sassyfriend]

I think the movies are still by far better than the books

[Inziladun]

I think the movies are still by far better than the books

You have read the books, right?

I doubt anything I could say would change your mind, but it's incomprehensible to me how anyone could prefer slick production values and pretty CGI graphics to the amazing verbiage and profound inner meanings found in the original works of Tolkien.

[alatar]

To each his/her own, Inziladun.

[Inziladun]

Oh, I'm not saying (s)he's wrong for the opinion; just that I don't get it.

[Galadriel55]

I think the movies are still by far better than the books

I'm guessing that, considering that you have read the books, you read them only after seeing the movies numerous times. If that's true, I can understand you - just like I am mad every time the movies differ from the books, you are probably mad about how the books differ from the movies.

But the books are still better. :p

[sassyfriend]

You are right about me seeing the movies first but no i'm not mad just kinda let down by some of the stuff in the books for example Boromir....

[Galadriel55]

You are right about me seeing the movies first but no i'm not mad just kinda let down by some of the stuff in the books for example Boromir....

Well, that's interesting... As a "book fan", I don't see how this could work...Boromir certainly adds dimention to the books not ony plot-wise but also character-wise... I'm really curious about your point of view.

[Formendacil]

Well, that's interesting... As a "book fan", I don't see how this could work...Boromir certainly adds dimention to the books not ony plot-wise but also character-wise... I'm really curious about your point of view.

Well, it's hard to say, because sassyfriend doesn't elaborate, but since he (she?) came to the fandom from the Movies, it would make sense that she (he?) was disappointed with Boromir's characterization in the Books as compared with how he was portrayed in the Movies. I think we've probably got to have threads on this forum somewhere already that argue about how faithfully Sean Bean's Boromir imitates Tolkien, and which is superior or preferred--and I'm CERTAIN there are a variety of opinions on the matter, though I get the feeling the consensus generally was that Tolkien's Boromir did not, on first glance, seem as noble as Bean/Jackson's.

Assuming I read this consensus right, it makes sense that someone starting with the Movies would find Tolkien's Boromir less... erm... "satisfying" is the wrong word... "noble," maybe?

That said, I echo G55 in saying I'd like to hear more of what sassyfriend is getting at.

[Formendacil]

As this is unrelated to the previous post, I'm going to commit the (hopefully venial) sin of double-posting. After writing the former, narrowly interested reply to G55 and sassyfriend, and having a full day of "nothing" *coughs* before my fall semester commences on Thursday, I read back through the entire thread, and thought it was about time I replied. The truly amusing thing about this read was the fact that the early parts of this retrospective, from when it started in 2007, read to me almost exactly like debates from right when the movies were new. Apparently more than not-quite-four years needed to elapse after the theatrical release of RotK before fandom was ready to talk about them more dispassionately. In any case, the posts from 2010 onward read almost like a different thread...

For myself, I was a Tolkien fan before the movies came out. I first read The Hobbit at age 11 and the LotR followed almost immediately, with The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales right behind. I admit that these latter were a real slog for an 11-year-old, but by the time the movie-FotR was about to be released, I was not-quite-15, and had read all the HoME that I could find in the local library and had started the process of collecting them for myself.

Bearing this in mind, and remembering that I was 14-almost-15, it's not to be surprised that I *had* to see the movies when they came out. I don't think there was a bigger Tolkien nut in Small Town, Alberta at that point, and if there was, I would have been sulky about it. I distinctly remember the utter fear that the movie adaptation would *RUIN* my favourite obsession, and being completely torn between wanting it to be an utter, validating success, and wanting no one to go see it and ruin the exclusive hold to "expert" that I held over a wonderful world.

Of course, no one could be allowed to see it before I did, so I was there in line for the very first local showing, two hours in the cold of a Canadian December (mercifully clement for that land), and another hour waiting in the theatre, getting hyper on over-priced drinks and candy.

Almost ten years later, it's kind of funny to look back at how obsessively afraid I was that the movies would be utterly terrible--or worse, terrible AND popular. I'm still a Tolkien nut; still probably the biggest Tolkien nut in the circles I usually frequent (and these circles include more Tolkien nuts than they used to)... and I almost never think of the movies. At the time I was afraid they would change my mental pictures forever, afraid they would ruin my enjoyment forever... things have come a long way.

Of course, the past decade has also been the transition from being fourteen to being twenty-four, and it's eminently possible that I've grown up, and that that has made all the difference--and, to be sure, much of the mellowness I feel towards Jackson's movies has a lot to do with the fact that I am no longer a teenager (not to disparage teens, but it was true about ME, perhaps...).

At the same time, however, the passage of ten years has allowed the hype of the movies to have crested and ebbed. Quite apart from destroying fandom, the tidal wave of the movies dragged in all sorts of interesting flotsam and jetsam in terms of new fans, and in no way "destroyed" Middle-earth. There has not been, as I almost feared, a "novelisation of the movie" to supplant Tolkien's masterpiece.

Perhaps, after a decade, what I think now is that the movies were ultimately forgettable. I could (and do) go on a long tangent about the pros and cons of different parts of the movies, but the point at the very end would be the same: at the end of it all, I feel a lot more charitable to the movies than I feared before them (and, after the euphoria of just watching them, tended to feel bitterly for sometime thereafter), but they've lost their grip on me. The movies were a monumental explosion of light, but it was ultimately just a gigantic flash in the pan.

[alatar]

Assuming I read this consensus right, it makes sense that someone starting with the Movies would find Tolkien's Boromir less... erm... "satisfying" is the wrong word... "noble," maybe?
How about 'human?' Book Boromir seemed cold, distant, just a character that provided some drama while the Nazgul regrouped.

Movie Boromir was a conflicted man; honourable, faithful, but torn between his duty to his father/country and his oath to his new companions. Sean Bean showed the struggle that the Ring caused, the torment, the despair. I liked in the extended version where he opens up to Aragorn, trying to find the strength that Aragorn has in resisting the Ring as well as relief from the burden that Denethor has placed on him.

[sassyfriend]

I love that part too. And that is exactly what i was trying to say, alatar. To me he just seems more loveable. In the book he just seems very unkind to everyone. Its strange he cried for Gandalf in the book but in the movie i don't find it strange at all.

[Inziladun]

The truly amusing thing about this read was the fact that the early parts of this retrospective, from when it started in 2007, read to me almost exactly like debates from right when the movies were new.

I remember the first debates with real nostalgia. That was a lot of fun. :)

I distinctly remember the utter fear that the movie adaptation would *RUIN* my favourite obsession, and being completely torn between wanting it to be an utter, validating success, and wanting no one to go see it and ruin the exclusive hold to "expert" that I held over a wonderful world.

And there, in a nutshell, are what it was claimed anyone against the movies must have based their feelings on. For me, at least, it wasn't quite like that.

I looked at the movies with a jaundiced eye from the start. That stemmed from a basic conviction that movies, as a whole, are an inferior form of entertainment compared to books. I wasn't enthused at all. I didn't think seeing someone else's vision of the books brought to "reality" was necessary. I knew nothing anyone could produce, no matter how expensively done, could surpass, or even augment, the scenes in my mind. So my thought was : "Why bother"?

Second, while I didn't fear the story would be "ruined", I was convinced fundamental things would be changed, and again, I had no interest in seeing that done.

Thirdly, I despised the inevitable commercialization that would follow the movies. McDonald's collectibles, action figures, and all that.

But, people said, the movies would have an upside, in that some who hadn't read the books would be induced to do so after seeing the movies. I was rather sceptical, even though I'm sure that has indeed been the case for a few. And another part of me railed that that would even be necessary. Such great books, and people won't pay any attention to them unless there's a Hollywood blockbuster associated? I thought that was a bloody shame, and I still do.

I've heard the arguments; books and movies are different, can't hold them to the same standards, one can enjoy both, ad infinitum. Personally, I'll take a book over a movie any time.

All that said, I did see the movies, sort of. My girlfriend, who later became my wife, wanted to see FOTR, so we did. I ended up sleeping through about a third of it, though a few pints of the local 1420 I'd had with dinner might have had something to do with that. I do remember seeing Arwen show up in place of Glorfindel, rolling my eyes at the exchanges between her and Aragorn, and the ludicrous alteration to the scene at the Ford of Bruinen. After that, it's sort of a blur. ;)

We did see the other two movies as well. At this late date, however, I don't remember much about those excursions. I recall the bits in Two Towers with Arwen rescuing Aragorn who had fallen from his horse (:rolleyes:), and the (Lórien!) elves showing up at Helm's Deep, and those are good enough examples of what I thought from the start the movies would be up to.

We now have all three on DVD, but I've never watched them all the way through. I start thinking "There has to be something better I can be doing", and I wander off.

Almost ten years later, it's kind of funny to look back at how obsessively afraid I was that the movies would be utterly terrible--or worse, terrible AND popular. I'm still a Tolkien nut; still probably the biggest Tolkien nut in the circles I usually frequent (and these circles include more Tolkien nuts than they used to)... and I almost never think of the movies. At the time I was afraid they would change my mental pictures forever, afraid they would ruin my enjoyment forever... things have come a long way.

I was never "afraid" of the movies; I just thought them unnecessary.

Perhaps, after a decade, what I think now is that the movies were ultimately forgettable. I could (and do) go on a long tangent about the pros and cons of different parts of the movies, but the point at the very end would be the same: at the end of it all, I feel a lot more charitable to the movies than I feared before them (and, after the euphoria of just watching them, tended to feel bitterly for sometime thereafter), but they've lost their grip on me. The movies were a monumental explosion of light, but it was ultimately just a gigantic flash in the pan.

"Forgettable", indeed. Yet, they certainly have their enduring fans, and in that PJ at least has been wildly successful. All I can do is quote Jean Brodie: "For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like."

[Galadriel55]

In the book he just seems very unkind to everyone.

Well, you could say this: Ugluk is also very unkind to everyone, but I hope you won't put him on level with the book-Boromir. He's not unkind just for the sake of it. He's not ungentle for the sake of being rough. He has more to his character than you put on. He's much deeper, and his motivations much more complex.

I don't believe that he was there "just to provide some drama". As I said, he is very important both plot-wise and character-wise to the story. It's like he doesn't die until the very end.

But that is just one character. Is that enough to completely ruin a read?


I first watched the movies when I was around six. My only reaction was WOW. They were cool. Not that I really understood anything, but they were cool. Shelob's lair was my favourite part, and the troll (he's not a troll! He's an orc! - I scream now) who jumped out at Frodo in Moria always scared me, even long after I knew that he was gonna do that. I probably had more impressions, but these are the only ones that I remember now.

I don't jump in my seat when the troll comes out anymore. I kinda miss that. :p And once I began actually understanding both the books and the movies, I came to like the book just that much more. Maybe I'm in the same situation as the almost-15-year-old-Formy, and my passion for PJ-hating will fall away. We'll see in a decade. :) But for now, books over movies without a doubt.

Edit: xed with Zil

[sassyfriend]

I'm thinking of reading the books again and hopefully be able to enjoy em better than i did. Not dissing book Boromir just haven't learned to love him in the books yet. But I do love Faramir in both books and Movies :D

[alatar]

I don't believe that he was there "just to provide some drama". As I said, he is very important both plot-wise and character-wise to the story. It's like he doesn't die until the very end.

But that is just one character. Is that enough to completely ruin a read?
You may have mistaken me, if you think that I prefer the movies to the books (I *did* write the SbS pages ;)).

I'm just noting a point where I found something nice to say about the movies, that they broadened and deepened my understanding of the Boromir character - something I may never have gotten from the books.

So say that either are 'all good' or 'all bad 'would be, to me, unreasonable. :D

Note that, when they are on TV, I may leave them on if I am hoping to fall asleep as the movies serve as great background noise. I hate to watch them intently, as in the SbS I've picked them mostly to the bones, and feel that I needn't go back.

[Galadriel55]

You may have mistaken me, if you think that I prefer the movies to the books (I *did* write the SbS pages ;)).

I was talking to sassygriend in that sentence. I know you like the books. :)

It's true, the movies have good points, but they are just so few compared to the bad points.

[sassyfriend]

Why is that? Yeah I know they leave stuff out in the movies but what can you or any of us do about it? :) Would've loved to hear Legolas sing. I think that would've been so cool!

[alatar]

I was talking to sassygriend in that sentence. I know you like the books.
I just want to be sure. Would hate to lose my 'hater' status...;)

[sassyfriend]

Lol no worries, alatar! ;)

[Galadriel55]

Why is that? Yeah I know they leave stuff out in the movies but what can you or any of us do about it? :) Would've loved to hear Legolas sing. I think that would've been so cool!

First of all, they not only left stuff out (something that I tend to forgive movies), but they put stuff in as well, stuff that wasn't supposed to be there. Stuff that directly contradicts the ideas and images of the books.

What can we do about it? Well, join the "haters" club... ;) Joking aside, nothing really. But that doesn't stop me from disliking them.

And thirdly, Legolas is a nice guy in the books (and he does sing!), but the movies' version is not him: it is a hollywood-ised elf, not a Tolkien elf. Being his fan isn't being Legolas' fan, but Orlando Bloom's fan.

[Bêthberry]

How about 'human?' Book Boromir seemed cold, distant, just a character that provided some drama while the Nazgul regrouped.

Movie Boromir was a conflicted man; honourable, faithful, but torn between his duty to his father/country and his oath to his new companions. Sean Bean showed the struggle that the Ring caused, the torment, the despair. I liked in the extended version where he opens up to Aragorn, trying to find the strength that Aragorn has in resisting the Ring as well as relief from the burden that Denethor has placed on him.

But is this criterion of "being human" necessarily one that fits LotR?

True, it is a modern value and suggests that the normal state of human beings is to be conflicted, but the heroic or warrior values which Tolkien was working with operate on different assumptions. There, the interest lies in those who, despite their conflicted state and the challenges that face them, are able ultimately to uphold their word, their value, their responsibilities. I'm thinking mainly of Sir Gawain in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.

This was the crucial flaw of Byrhtnoth (he of that Old English word ofermod in The Battle of Maldon, that he forgot his ultimate responsibility to protect his people and instead became mired in a personal code of honour (at least, according to Tolkien's analysis of him).

To 'humanise' Boromir is to confuse the heroic mode that Tolkien is writing in with modern psychological relativism. I always found Boromir interesting because I think Tolkien was writing a critique of modern male hegemony, but he isn't someone I pity or like. Everyone has his or her own tastes, of course, but I'm not sure if it does a service to the story to make Boromir 'likeable'.

It also, of course, makes it far more difficult to depict Aragorn's heroism in a sympathetic light and this was also a great failing of the movies. I remember having the movie ruined for me several times by folks around me who invariably broke out in derisive laughter and chatter at some of Aragorn's movements. It is Aragorn who should be given the focus of heroism, whose heroism should be tenable and real and believable in today's system of values and that Jackson utterly failed to do. He glorified the wrong guy.

Okay, I think I've said enough. :eek: :)

[Galadriel55]

He glorified the wrong guy.

You mak a really valid point. And maybe even glorifying Aragorn "in battle" isn't enough.

I daresay that Aragorn and Boromir are equals when it comes to strength and fighting skills and that sort of thing. (Reminds me of that passage on Caradhras, where one is described to be broader in the shoulders but the other taller... so different, but equal...) Nonetheless, Boromir dropped his pride and let Aragorn take the lead. It wasn't only because of Aragorn's high title (kings of Gondor scorned Arnorians before, so why not follow suit?). It was more because Aragorn was, well, Aragorn. It's the inner him that is superior over Boromir. He's glorified from the inside, if that makes sense.

We don't see a lot of that in the movies, do we? We know he's a good fighter and a King, but are we shown his inner (should I say hidden?) wisdom, strength, nobility, power, etc?

By the way, nice new siggy, Bb!

[alatar]

But is this criterion of "being human" necessarily one that fits LotR?
A reader needs to be able to connect with the characters in the story. I'd never connected with Boromir, as he just seemed bratty and headstrong. The movies have helped me take a second look.

True, it is a modern value and suggests that the normal state of human beings is to be conflicted, but the heroic or warrior values which Tolkien was working with operate on different assumptions. There, the interest lies in those who, despite their conflicted state and the challenges that face them, are able ultimately to uphold their word, their value, their responsibilities. I'm thinking mainly of Sir Gawain in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.Did not Boromir return at Parth Galen, even when the entire Fellowship was against him? Even when he sinned?

This was the crucial flaw of Byrhtnoth (he of that Old English word ofermod in The Battle of Maldon, that he forgot his ultimate responsibility to protect his people and instead became mired in a personal code of honour (at least, according to Tolkien's analysis of him).I was just talking about that this morning with the kids. ;):D

To quote Nickelback, "And they say that a hero can save us. I'm not gonna stand here and wait." For some reason, this seems appropriate.

To 'humanise' Boromir is to confuse the heroic mode that Tolkien is writing in with modern psychological relativism. I always found Boromir interesting because I think Tolkien was writing a critique of modern male hegemony, but he isn't someone I pity or like. Everyone has his or her own tastes, of course, but I'm not sure if it does a service to the story to make Boromir 'likeable'. I now understand his 'story,' his motivations, and he seems less of a cardboard cutout antagonist ("Boromir want Ring. Want Ring now!") and more the proto-Sam who sacrifices/overcomes.

It also, of course, makes it far more difficult to depict Aragorn's heroism in a sympathetic light and this was also a great failing of the movies. I remember having the movie ruined for me several times by folks around me who invariably broke out in derisive laughter and chatter at some of Aragorn's movements. It is Aragorn who should be given the focus of heroism, whose heroism should be tenable and real and believable in today's system of values and that Jackson utterly failed to do. He glorified the wrong guy.The movie is a bit messed up, and I may have written on that somewhere. ;)

Okay, I think I've said enough. Definitely not!

[sassyfriend]

I'm interested in hearing what everyone has to say even if i don't agree. ;) Still find Aragorn a cool guy even though he wouldn't let the others rest after moria. In a way I can see why, but dosen't he sound kinda mean how he says it? I thought even if he is their leader he could've still be gentler.

[Galadriel55]

I'm interested in hearing what everyone has to say even if i don't agree. ;) Still find Aragorn a cool guy even though he wouldn't let the others rest after moria. In a way I can see why, but dosen't he sound kinda mean how he says it? I thought even if he is their leader he could've still be gentler.

So he sould have told them, "the orcs will go after us at nightime anyways, so we might as well die well rested"? I don't get what you're saying. He was leading them away from danger - tired, weary, but in better condition than they would have been had they rested and not reached Lorien in time.

I think you should start a separate thread just about book vs movie Aragorns and Boromirs, if that topic interests you, sassyfriend. Or did you mean the whole books / movies discussion in general?

[sassyfriend]

I think in general. And I didn't mean Aragorn should let them get killed.

[Eönwë]

We don't see a lot of that in the movies, do we? We know he's a good fighter and a King, but are we shown his inner (should I say hidden?) wisdom, strength, nobility, power, etc?
In the EE, we get a deeper view of Aragorn, including a bit of the Houses of Healing. But I agree, there is not as much of it as there would be if the films were faithful to the books.

[Galadriel55]

In the EE, we get a deeper view of Aragorn, including a bit of the Houses of Healing. But I agree, there is not as much of it as there would be if the films were faithful to the books.

We barely see the Houses, much less what exactly goes on in them. And I don't think we ever find out that athelas only releases it's full healing power when Aragorn holds it in the movies. So viewers don't know about this special connection and ability.

[Mister Underhill]

Interesting discussion here on book versus movie Boromir, and his function in the story. My (now quite rusty) HoME-fu reminds me that Boromir was originally conceived as a nastier piece of work than he ended up being. There’s a suggestion in HoME VII that he starts thinking of seizing the Ring soon after the fall of Gandalf. In several early sketches, he and Aragorn head to Minas Tirith after the breaking of the Fellowship (he lies about why Frodo ran off), and when Aragorn is accepted as Lord there, Boromir heads off to seek an alliance with Saruman to help him get his position back. In one version Tolkien, contemplating the play of events after the fall of Mordor, muses, “What about Boromir? Does he repent? No – slain by Aragorn.” :eek: It was actually only late in the process that Tolkien settled on Boromir’s death and redemption. It would be interesting to discuss how Aragorn doesn’t hesitate to forgive and comfort Boromir, not to mention cover up for him (“The last words of Boromir he long kept secret.”).

Anyway, the history of the composition aside, for me Boromir calls to mind Chekhov’s Gun – there’s all this talk about the powerful temptation of the Ring, you eventually have to have someone from the good side give in to it. And Boromir is tailor-made for it. From his point of view, the answer to any problem is to meet it with as much power as possible. “Valour needs first strength, then a weapon,” is his motto. He can’t really see alternatives to strength and power; if they don’t suffice, then (a la Byrhtnoth), “We shall fall valiantly in battle.” He was always the guy who was going to make a play for the Ring sooner or later.

I would agree that the movie made Boromir more likable. I reckon if you want to reposition his death to the climax of FotR, you want to have him be a character that audiences really care about, and you want to make his redemption more complete.
It also, of course, makes it far more difficult to depict Aragorn's heroism in a sympathetic light and this was also a great failing of the movies.
This is an intriguing idea but I’m not sure I follow you. Could you elaborate on this point?

[alatar]

So he sould have told them, "the orcs will go after us at nightime anyways, so we might as well die well rested"? I don't get what you're saying. He was leading them away from danger - tired, weary, but in better condition than they would have been had they rested and not reached Lorien in time.
I think that what we may mean is that regardless of what needed to be done, Aragorn did not appear leaderly when doing it. Pretending that he's the trilogy hero and making people accept that he's the hero are two different things.

Plus I can never get over how he pronounces 'orc.' Always sounds like he's holding his nose. :D

[sassyfriend]

Boromir helped the fellowship when Gandalf died because he had more compassion and I don't think he wanted them to die either. Aragorn was being smart but he wasn't compassionate.

[Galadriel55]

Boromir helped the fellowship when Gandalf died because he had more compassion and I don't think he wanted them to die either. Aragorn was being smart but he wasn't compassionate.

I'd say that Boromir did it out of duty more than compassion. Aragorn is not only compassionate - he's empathetic. But again, I speak for the books.:D

[sassyfriend]

Why? What do you mean out of duty?

[Galadriel55]

Why? What do you mean out of duty?

Duty to the fellowship. Even though none of them gave actual oaths to help destroy the Ring and etc, I betcha they made "mental" ones. Boromir felt that it was his duty to help this bunch of oddballs. They would have had a much harder time without him on a number of occasions, it's true. They needed him. But he didn't go with them because of that. He went because he felt duty there, and to stand for the honour of Gondor.

[sassyfriend]

Ok now I understand. Sorry about that.