The Battle of the White Council

[Eruanno]

Originally Posted by mhagain

There's a problem here.

You're looking for logic and patterns where there are none.

Jackson does whatever he feels is best for the movies he wants to make. If he ends up thinking that a Galadriel freak-out would suit the scene, we'll get a Galadriel freak-out, and he won't care if it doesn't make sense in the context of what he's shown before.

As for whether or not it makes sense in the context of what Tolkien wrote, he's already shown that he doesn't care much about that.

Enjoy the movies for what they are if you wish, but don't go looking for any kind of pattern or scheme in them, because it doesn't exist.

I must say I agree with this post.

The problem with Professor Tolkien's work is that the scope and depth of the world often results in Sir Peter Jackson and co. misinterpreting what the Professor would have intended.

However, like many here I suppose, the legendarium and the films are two separate subjects.

Thank you to all for the replies.

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by Eruanno

I must say I agree with this post.

The problem with Professor Tolkien's work is that the scope and depth of the world often results in Sir Peter Jackson and co. misinterpreting what the Professor would have intended.

However, like many here I suppose, the legendarium and the films are two separate subjects.

Thank you to all for the replies.

You're right! PJ and co. seem to misinterprete Professor's work a lot. It can be removed by looking at his work in more depth (than they do originally). With The Hobbit films, I feel, they're trying to make more money(I'm not accusing him of that, please don't get me wrong). Two movies were enough for the book. They give their own "touch" and that entirely different from that of Professor's. I really have no problem with some changes made in Hobbit and LotR movies, but the thing is: if something can be shown directly as it is in the book, why give your own "touch"?

[Moonraker]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

You're right! PJ and co. seem to misinterprete Professor's work a lot. It can be removed by looking at his work in more depth (than they do originally). With The Hobbit films, I feel, they're trying to make more money(I'm not accusing him of that, please don't get me wrong). Two movies were enough for the book. They give their own "touch" and that entirely different from that of Professor's. I really have no problem with some changes made in Hobbit and LotR movies, but the thing is: if something can be shown directly as it is in the book, why give your own "touch"?

Does PJ actually write the script for the movies? How much input does he have for the script?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Moonraker

Does PJ actually write the script for the movies? How much input does he have for the script?

I don't think the roomful of monkeys with typewriters allow PJ much access.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Moonraker

Does PJ actually write the script for the movies? How much input does he have for the script?

He shares the screenwriting credit with Boyens, Walsh and Guillermo Del Toro for both "An Unexpected Journey" and "The Desolation of Smaug." How much that translates to genuine involvement is of course impossible to quantify, but he is the director after all, and has the final say in everything.

Except, you know, for the faceless men in a conference room at Warner Bros. who actually have the final say in everything.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

He shares the screenwriting credit with Boyens, Walsh and Guillermo Del Toro for both "An Unexpected Journey" and "The Desolation of Smaug." How much that translates to genuine involvement is of course impossible to quantify, but he is the director after all, and has the final say in everything.

Except, you know, for the faceless men in a conference room at Warner Bros. who actually have the final say in everything.

Not entirely, or these films wouldn't be so darned long.