Okay, so what do you think NOW?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Boro

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.

Originally Posted by Boro

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.

Originally Posted by Boro

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.

Originally Posted by Boro

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.

Originally Posted by Boro

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.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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.

Originally Posted by Boro

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.

Originally Posted by Boro

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.

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.


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

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.

[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.

[sassyfriend]

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

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by sassyfriend

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.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by sassyfriend

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.

[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....

[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 . . .