Okay, so what do you think NOW?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

You just cannot please some folks.

I'm one of those folks.

[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]

Originally Posted by Meriadoc1961

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. I started referring to him as Gandalf the Black, as he almost seemed to be working for Saruman.