Okay, so what do you think NOW?

[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.