Okay, so what do you think NOW?

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Snowdog

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]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

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

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).
May PJ rot in the deepest pit of Mordor until the end of his days!!!

[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.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Tuor in Gondolin

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.