Okay, so what do you think NOW?

[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).
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]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

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.
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]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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...

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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 And Wood-elves do seem to enjoy their wine, now, don't they?

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

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).

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.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

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.