'An attrocious movie which is a despicable insult to a wonderful book'

[Dain]

I think it was inevitable that the film versons would simplify things (I'd say "dumb it down", but that may be provocative ). Some of the characters in Tolkien are too subtly powerful, and that wouldn't work on screen. Hence Theoden having to be physically possessed and excorcised, and the take much, much longer to recover (though his face popped right back!). And with Faramir, they needed to make the tension of his decision more dramatic, so he takes them to osgilliath and only at the last moment changes his mind. I don't need or want these changes, nor do many of us, because we know the characters and the books so well that we know instantly when something is wrong and what is going on. But why are we viewing the glass half empty? I rather think it's half full--and more, really. I mean, as Erulasto says, we still have the books, but now we have a visual as well, and they got an amazing amount of that right, for me. And when you get the extended DVD, you can always skip the bits you didn't like and pretend they happened the right way, or fill in the missing bits. <P>Davem--funny, it went the other way for me. 1st time, hated it. 2nd time, blown away by parts of it (still couldn't understand some of the changes...)

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Maybe for those who don't know, or understand, the book its ok, but for those who do understand it, what they've done is so wrong, so twisted, its unforgivable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Ah, that old chestnut again. Look, I'm with Squatter on this. We can have differing views about the films, but let's be careful about how we express them. I have had just about enough of being told that, because I enjoy the films, I cannot truly understand the books, despite having first read them over 25 years ago and having been a firm fan of them since then. It is just this sort of a comment which irks those of us who enjoy the films and provokes the kind of uncivil exchange that we should all try to avoid. What? Are we supposed to fell guilty, or perhaps inferior, for liking the films?<P>No. To reiterate a point that I have made on a number of different threads covering broadly the same topic: <B>You can enjoy both the books and the films</B>. Enjoyment of them is not mutually exclusive. Indeed, you can enjoy the films <B>and still</B> love and appreciate (yes, and understand) the books.<P>Of course the films are different from the books. I agree that they have flaws in them. They are not all time great films. But they are, to my mind, very well done, and just about as good a representation as I can imagine without any compromise on the quality of the visualisation. And in my view, Erulasto is quite right: it is the wonderful visulaisation that is the great strength of these films.<P>And I do have to back Erulasto up on one other point. The language used to describe both these films and those involved in their production is at times rather immoderate and unnecessarily so. And the attitudes and motives ascribed to them are often to my mind pretty unfair. Davem, how do you know that the scriptwriters thought that they could write it better than Tolkien? I strongly suspect that they thought no such thing. I am sure that they believed that they could render it better <B>for film</B>than the original. But that is a different thing entirely. As I understand it, all 3 scritpwriters are long-time fans of JRRT's works. They are, in that sense, of like mind with us. So, let's show them a little respect. Personally, I remain grateful to them for bringing the vision of Tolkien's world so accurately alive for me (except those darned Hyena-Teddybear-Lemming hybrids, of course )<p>[ February 18, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[davem]

Ok, for one thing, we have them saying on the fellowship commentary that they think the way they portrayed Boromir's death was 'better than the book'. <BR>Then, where in the film, are we given any sense of the history, culture & tradgedy of the Ents, one of Tolkien's greatest creations? <BR>I also first read LotR 25 years ago, & these are just not films of the books I love. The violence is brutal, excessive & too often cruel. Where is the beauty, nobility & sadness? If it creeps in its cliched & caricatured. These films are shallow. Maybe, viewed as films in their own right, they work, but come on, these are not films of LotR. They miss the metaphysical & philosophical depth - the real point of the book for me. <BR>Has anyone read Verlyn Fleiger's books - Splintered Light & A Question of Time?. Can I suggest that anyone who thinks these films are more than a cross between Star Wars & Harry Potter does that.

[Tar-Palantir]

Davem said:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Ok, for one thing, we have them saying on the fellowship commentary that they think the way they portrayed Boromir's death was 'better than the book'. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>That does not mean that their intention was to write a script better than the book. All it says is they think the scene turned out better than the book, and for your information many 'fans' of Tolkien agree. It is a very moving scene. In fact they were hard pressed to even get this book into script form, let alone try to "improve Tolkien" as you say - that is an allegation you can't prove. I think they walked the tightrope of not alienating non-readers and pleasing Tolkien fans deftly, it must have been difficult. <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Maybe, viewed as films in their own right, they work, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You're starting to catch on there...<P>but then you lose it...<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> but come on, these are not films of LotR. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I hate to break it you, but they are. Just because you do not see perfection you shun it. In my mind how can a fan of LotR not enjoy seeing such effort endeavored on this. The visually stunning nature has been awesome, many of the creatures (black riders spring to mind) were portrayed well, the locations were generally well done and adhered to the novels (Edoras, Helm's Deep, Emyn Muil was good, Dead Marshes) Plus Fellowship was 'awesome' in that regard - Did you have a problem with Hobbiton too?<P>There is beauty, nobility and sadness. It simply cannot be on as a grand a scale as the novels - these are real people these actors, they cannot be 'elves' from the novels - there is no actor in this world who can play Aragorn in his greatness. How do they authentically make Treebeard and the Ents come to life? They can't. And without the time to do the entire novels, character development and plot development will not be on the same scale - why on Earth do you need to be so harsh on it? Why on Earth did your first post need to be so inflammatory?<P>Like I said in my first response, I feel bad that you don't enjoy it as much as I get to. And I'm not even a fervent backer of these films! I just think it's a shame to waste (I hate to shout, but here goes) <B>the best screen version of LotR you will ever see in your lifetime.</B> I'm guessing that won't mean much to you, but I relish it.<p>[ February 18, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[Darkside]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I was shouted down with 'everyone has their opinion'. Yes, everyone does, and everyone has a right to express their opinion. This doesn't mean that I can't disagree with those opinions, especially if they're expressed in less-than-civil terms (i.e. 'it's horrible, a travesty, an insult). My point was that if you say something negative, be prepared to face the consequences. If someone has the opinion that my mother is a whore, they can express it just fine. But they shouldn't be surprised if I deck them for that opinion. (an extreme example, but I hope you get what I mean)<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Erulasto, when I stated my 'everyone has their opinion' comment it was in response to you stating: <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>At first I got mad at people yelling stupid things like 'abomination' and 'travesty' and 'sacrilege'. Now I just feel pity for them - pity that they have such small, unimportant lives that warrant this level of fury over a movie; and more importantly, pity because I wish they could see the movies as I have seen them - with utter wonder and gratitude to truly feel like I was finally walking in Middle-Earth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You made a personal attack on those people that did not like the movie and have freely expressed that opinion. I was trying to point out that personal attacks are unwarranted in a civil forum. I never said that you couldn't disagree, you just don't need to insult someone when you do. It tends to invalidate any point you make. Honestly, unless you are Peter Jackson, or anyone else involved in the production, you shouldn't take anyone's opinion of the movie so personally.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>We can have differing views about the films, but let's be careful about how we express them. I have had just about enough of being told that, because I enjoy the films, I cannot truly understand the books, despite having first read them over 25 years ago and having been a firm fan of them since then. It is just this sort of a comment which irks those of us who enjoy the films and provokes the kind of uncivil exchange that we should all try to avoid. What? Are we supposed to fell guilty, or perhaps inferior, for liking the films?<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Saucepan Man,<BR> I know we don't see eye to eye on the films and I hope I have never insulted you, or anyone else. This is a touchy subject. I understand what you are saying here, because the 'non-likers' are getting the same treatment. We are idiot's for not being able to love the films for what they are. You do and I don't. I would never tell you that you are wrong or don't love the books as much as I do. I am sorry if any post ever came out that way. I am glad that you can have both. I just want to be able to not like the movies and not be treated like a pariah. Which is why I agree, we all need to be careful about the way we post an opinion.<P>I think everyone needs to take a few minutes and relax. Maybe we should have a different Movies forum for those that need to express a disliking for the films.... just a thought <p>[ February 18, 2003: Message edited by: Darkside ]

[davem]

Actually, no, I didn't like the Shire- it wasn't 'English' enough, the whole atmosphere was wrong, the light was wrong. I don't live in Oxfordshire/Berkshire, which was Tolkien's model for the area, but I've been there, & their Shire was just wrong. it wasn't 'lived in/farmed on' enough.<BR>And you've made the essential point yourself. You cannot film it - no actors can portray the beauty of the Elves, the dignity of Aragorn. As Tolkien himself says of dramatising fantasy, the results are either silly or morbid. The makers of these films have proved you can actually make it both.<BR>Why was I so harsh? Oh, God, I don't know. I just felt annoyed. I'm actually known as being very placid & easy going, & I think its because I just get all the venom out straight away, & don't hold back & bottle it up. I don't get bothered if people do the same with me.

[Tar-Palantir]

ahhhh... I feel the fertile soil of common ground under my furry hobbit feet. Just a few grains of this stuff and we can sew goodwill throughout the Barrow Downs. <P>I hereby agree to disagree, and will argue this point no further. Unless someone dangles the proverbial carrot by going on a tirade... then I might join in the fun! <P><B>Davem</B> - It's a funny point really that Shire business, rather a little microcosm of the discussion. You didn't like it for various reasons and I respect that, yet it's a funny situation, because I suspect no Producer/Director/Set designer would have even gone to those lengths (you know all about the year in advance of gardening, landscaping, letting fence lines grow in,etc.. beforehand) that PJ and Co. did. Hence it too is apparently unfilmable (obviously not more difficult than the likes of Fangorn, but still impossible to perfect). The difference for me is - I appreciated all the extraordinary effort given, and it enhances my view of the place, gives it more soul, and I find that true throughout the films.<P>Cheers,<BR>

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Ok, for one thing, we have them saying on the fellowship commentary that they think the way they portrayed Boromir's death was 'better than the book'. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Actually, I think that they have a point here. It does work very well in the visual medium, especially with Sean Bean's fine acting. Actually, looking back on it, I think that the portrayal of Boromir and Sean Bean's performance was one of the highlights of the films. Just imagine, he could have been portrayed as a brute and a bully ... Instead, he was given an incredibly sympathetic portrayal, which is as it should be.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Has anyone read Verlyn Fleiger's books - Splintered Light & A Question of Time?. Can I suggest that anyone who thinks these films are more than a cross between Star Wars & Harry Potter does that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>So then we will see the light, will we? I'm sorry, but isn't this just a wee bit patronising? I have thought long and hard about what I think about these films, particularly after seeing TTT (because the changes disturbed me at first). And, having done so, I am content to enjoy them for what they are. It doesn't mean that I am somehow unable to understand the "truth" or that I love or understand the books any less.<P>Great post, Tar-Palantir. I agree with everything that you have said.<P>Darkside, my grievance certainly does not stretch to everyone who dislikes the films. I have seen some very well-argued and persuasive critiques of the films. And no, you have not insulted me. Sorry if I implied that you did. I agree that there are those on both sides of this particular fence who need to be careful about how they phrase their posts. But there really is no need for discussions on this topic to become so heated if just a little care is exercised in this area.

[Darkside]

Thanks Saucepan Man! I heartily agree on the taking care issue.<P>Tar-Palantir, <BR> I, too, agree to disagree. And I <B>love</B> carrots!

[Faenaduial]

How sad that you can't enjoy the movies for themselves.<P>I have been reading LOTR once a year since 1975. I love the books. That doesn't mean I can't enjoy the movies even when there are significant changes. I was sorry that PJ & Company changed the character of Frodo & Faramir to the point where I feel they don't reflect what was written. But that doesn't mean the movies can't be enjoyed. I just view them as someone elses take on LOTR, same as we have seen in print.<P>Lighten up a little and try to enjoy life a little more.

[davem]

Saucepan man, well, yeah, if you read Flieger's books you will see the point I'm making, expressed far better than I myself can make it. Why is that patronising? And even if I expressed the point in a patronising way, that doesn't invalidate the point itself, does it?<BR>I hated the movie (& I stress MOVIE, because like the book, its one story split into three). The writers haven't understood the real point of the book. They've put the surface onto the screen & left out what really matters.<BR>Why all the emphasis on violence, brutality & ugliness at the expense of the beauty, nobility & overwhelming sense of loss of the original?<BR>Without the Warg attack we could have seen Frodo & Sam sharing a meal with Faramir at Henneth Annun. Without the Elves at Helms Deep episode, there would have been time to show Merry & Pippin with Treebeard at Wellinghall being told about the loss of the Entwives.<BR>Wherever the film makers found any conflict in the book they put it on screen in the most violent & brutal way they could, & if they couldn't find enough violence in the book, why, they just invented some of their own.<BR>They've taken something 'high & beautiful' & churned out something both morbid & silly.<BR>Look, its like someone looking at the peaks of the Himalayas, being overwhelmed by their beauty, & deciding they want to make that beauty accessible, so they chop the top 20 feet off the mountains & put them on the ground, so people can see them easily. But you lose the majesty & the sense of awe which made them special, and just end up with a lot of big pointy boulders. The depth, meaning & subtlety of the book is lost in these movies. They are Harry Potter meets Star Wars, & if thats your bag, that's fine. I liked Star Wars, & thought Harry Potter was ok too, but Lord of the Rings is more than an action fantasy, it is a work of genius by a great writer, a profound work of human imagination by a man who'd known tragedy , horror & death first hand, a deep meditation on humankind & our relationship to eternity & the divine ('Nobody tosses a Dwarf!' - how we laughed at that one!)<BR>Finally, if the writers didn't think they could do better than Tolkien, why would they change things, because they thought they could make them worse?

[The Saucepan Man]

Davem<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Saucepan man, well, yeah, if you read Flieger's books you will see the point I'm making, expressed far better than I myself can make it. Why is that patronising? And even if I expressed the point in a patronising way, that doesn't invalidate the point itself, does it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I am sorry. I misunderstood you. I thought you were suggesting that we only have to read these books to "see the light". I don't need to read the books. I understand the points that you are making. I simply disagree. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The writers haven't understood the real point of the book. They've put the surface onto the screen & left out what really matters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Let me make this absolutely clear. I am not saying that the films remotely approach the books as works of art. The books are literary masterpieces. The films are just very good films. But I think that it is unfair on the writers to say that they haven't understood the point of the book. Of course, they may well have different interpretations of parts of it to you and I. And they clearly (in my view) needed to change the emphasis of some of it for the big screen. But that is different to not understanding it. Yes, the films are shallower than the books. That was inevitable (unless they had made 6 commercially unviable 5 hour films). But I think that they have captured the essential spirit (and certainly to my mind the vision) behind the books.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Why all the emphasis on violence, brutality & ugliness at the expense of the beauty, nobility & overwhelming sense of loss of the original?<BR>Without the Warg attack we could have seen Frodo & Sam sharing a meal with Faramir at Henneth Annun. Without the Elves at Helms Deep episode, there would have been time to show Merry & Pippin with Treebeard at Wellinghall being told about the loss of the Entwives. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>To me, both films do include moments of great beauty and nobility as well as moments of brutality and ugliness. The Shire, Rivendell, Lothlorien, Rohan and Edoras, Henneth Annun and the Forbidden Pool are all portrayed beautifully. The locations generally are stunning. And as for nobility, well, as I have said above the portrayal of Boromir, and particularly his death, was for me the embodiment of nobility. Indeed, I see nobility by the truckload in all of the "good" characters in the films (yes, even Faramir ).<P>I too miss Frodo and Sam's discussion with Faramir and more of Merry and Pippin with the Ents. But replacing the additional battle scenes with these would have made the film a less commercially attractive proposition. I'm sorry, but in a film like this, action scenes sell.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> They've taken something 'high & beautiful' & churned out something both morbid & silly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Of course they are not perfect, but I, along with millions of other film-goers (many many fans of Tolkien's works included), do not see these films as remotely "morbid and silly".<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Look, its like someone looking at the peaks of the Himalayas, being overwhelmed by their beauty, & deciding they want to make that beauty accessible, so they chop the top 20 feet off the mountains & put them on the ground, so people can see them easily. But you lose the majesty & the sense of awe which made them special, and just end up with a lot of big pointy boulders. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Davem, that is a wonderful analogy and illustrates the point that you are putting across very well. And, in a sense, I do agree with you. As I have said, there is a huge gulf between the books and the films. But that does not make the films any less meritorious on their own terms, ie as films. The top 20 foot of Mount Everest would, I think, compare very favourably to the top 20 foot of Ben Nevis! <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Finally, if the writers didn't think they could do better than Tolkien, why would they change things, because they thought they could make them worse? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Surely you are not saying that the whole book could be filmed without changing a thing? Changes (and significant ones) were inevitable in order to turn it into a commercially successful film.

[davem]

Saucepan man, everything you say about the films is, for me, valid about Fellowship, but not about Towers. I felt so let down by Towers. I can't express how disappointed I was with it.Apart from anything else, by putting so much violence on the screen they had to cut back on the story, so we're only about half way through the actual story, with only 1/3 of the screen time left, so RotK will inevitably have to be butchered to fit the last film.<BR>Also, I can accept that the writers are fans of the book, but, to quote Proffessor Tolkien in 'On Fairy Stories' (talking about a dramatisation of The Wind in the Willows he saw with some children):<BR>'..a perceptive admirer (as distinct from a great admirer) of the book would never have attempted to dramatise it. Naturally, only the simpler ingredients, the pantomime & the satyric beast fable elements are capable of presentation in this form. The play is, on the lower level, tolerably good fun, especially for those who have not read the book'.<BR>A dramatisation of LotR could only have been a poor 'tribute' to the book, but the writers got carried away. They are not good enough writers. They changed some of Tolkien's greatest prose, or replaced it with drivel. 'Even the smallest person can change the course of the future' is, apart from being appalling english, simply not the way Galadriel would express herself - she might say something like (with apologies to the proffessor!)'It has often been seen by the wise that those deemed insignificant have brought to ruin the strongholds of the mighty'. Tom Shippey goes into this whole subject in his book, Tokien, Author of the century, the language each character uses is determined by the character's experiences & also in Galadriel's case by the fact that she is multilingual - she speaks at least 3 languages, Quenya, Sindarin & Westron ( as well as some Dwarvish. Each language (something Flieger goes in to in Splintered Light) comes out of a different perception of the world - the language you speak/think in, affects your perception of reality.<BR>Tolkien's creation is so subtle & complex, & therefore will fall apart, collapse into trivial nonsense, if it's not handled carefully enough. The writers have played fast & loose with the story. I truly believe that the 3rd movie will be a disaster. Towers has introduced too many changes to characters & storyline.

[gralin musicteeth]

I thoroughly enjoyed the first movie. Having not read the books beforehand, it told the jist of the story in an entertaining fashion. I cannot say the same for The Two Towers. It did not tell the story very well at all, and I can go into the mistakes in detail, but, as someone said before, that topic has been hashed to death. It is impossible to explore the deeper meanings and stuff you pick up the 3rd and 4th time around in a three hour movie. It can't be done. The work is extensive, to say the very least, but I think that PJ could have done better on the second movie. Nonetheless I enjoyed it for what it was: a few hour's entertainment.

[Iarwain]

After skimming through the past two pages of empassioned jabber, I've come to a point of complete exhaustion. And here and now, I'd like to make a proclaimation:<P>We all love the Lord of the Rings in one way or another. Some of us may love this new visual/audial rendition of it because of its captivating tale. Others, more traditional, enjoy it in a bound form that we can appreciate through hours of beautiful description and character development that form our epic tale. And then there are those who love them both; those who have read the masterpeice, and seen the work of art. Now think to yourself, who am I to criticize what others cherish deep within, do I not share the same? If someone came along and told you that Tolkien sucked and Dickens was better, would it really be much different?<P><BR>Beyond Lethargic,<BR>Iarwain

[Tar-Palantir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If someone came along and told you that Tolkien sucked and Dickens was better, would it really be much different?<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>So we would not be able to discuss that either? Without it being called jabbering I mean?<P>I actually found some new perspectives here Iarwain, believe it or not. No, not from your post, from the others actually discussing the merits of the movie, not whether one should or should not enjoy it. We also are not discussing Tolkien's validity here but the films, and if someone felt obliged to "cherish (these films) deep within" then they can share this or read another thread.<P>feeling invalidated,<BR>Tar

[Evenstar1069]

I was really really disappointed with TTT at first. But not so greatly done movies are a little better than no movies at all, it helped me visualize some things I couldn't before. And everyone has to make themselves a part of everything they do. I do think Tolkien did a great job though. I have to wonder what he would think of the movies.

[davem]

Iarwain, as the one who set this thread off, can I just say that I was just expressing my honest feelings about the movies - specifically Towers. The fact that this thread has continued so long surely means it has struck a chord, & still does, with a lot of people.<BR>The film makers have gone to a lot of effort to tie in their movies to the book - the DVD se is packaged to look like the book, the menus are laid out like pages from the book, Peter Jackson says on the appendix disc that this 'isn't our movie, its Tolkien's movie. In every way they've tried to imply that they're putting the book on the screen. So, they're either lying or stupid, because its not the book up there. <BR>There are any number of fantasy novels out there which they could have adapted, or they could have written an original screenplay, but they chose to do LotR, which as far as I'm concerned, obliges them to retain at least the spirit of the characters & the book, not to play fast & loose with them to the extent that the story becomes totally different to Tolkien's.<BR>Anyway, when interest in this thread dies it will come to an end naturally.

[Iarwain]

I'm sorry I ever spoke. <P><BR>Weeping in heartbroken remorse,<BR>Iarwain<P>P.S. You might have forgotten to realize that, since this thread has brought new ideas and views to your attention, my view is valid also. You completely misunderstood me if you think that I "cherish" these films (take a look back to page one, and you'll recieve quite a mouthful of my opinions of these films), but most of what is being said here (though very much worth being said) has been written over and over and over and over again and again and again. Hopefully, harsh words will not leave me shaking in a corner over this post.<P>P.P.S. "Jabbering" is only as much of an insult as you wish to make of it, I say nothing about you, I speak only of your posts.<p>[ February 21, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

[Carlas]

The books and movies are quite different and I know that many people think that the books have been 'twisted' and such, and that is a valid opinion, but, it is a movie!<P> Movies based on books never seem to be as good as the actual books(not any that I have seen anyways), and movies need to be different from the books. They cannot explain everything in as much detail as the books because of time constraints, and they cannot explain how the people feel, the directors must rely on the actors to do a good job. <P>The LOTR books are very different from the movies, and I cannot truthfully say that I was not mad when they took out some parts(or added some even). I like the books and the movies, because they feel like two different stories on the same subject, and they both have aspects that the others did not talk about as much.

As a relative newbie on the site, I can only say I am blown away by the quality of the posting and overall participation of this forum. <BR> I have read the trilogy at least once a year for many years; Tolkien is truly one of my oldest friends. I grieve for the lost potential of TT, as a movie it left me frustrated and angry. But if it opens up the world of Middle-Earth for even one person just a little bit, and allows them just a glimpse of Tolkien's genius, then it has my blessing. <BR> Read the introduction to the 1973 paperback edition by Peter Beagle; if you've read it before read it again...<BR>The road goes ever on-<BR>whether it's the movie or the books that push you out your own front door makes little difference-

[The Daughter of Gollum and Shelob]

SO not true! <BR>The films are fantastic. They are mostly true to the book (although some characters, like Tom Bombadil and some things, eg. Faramir taking Frodo, Sam and MY FATHER to Osgiliath), but generally, the mystic, weary mood of the book has been brilliantly captured. The overall film quality is outstanding; possibly the best films ever made.<BR>Go, Peter Jackson and Co.!

I was really excited when the movies came out, but then pretty disappointed when I saw them. If the book hadn't existed (I cringe at the thought), then the movies would've been average. My friends actually had to hold me down and cover my mouth to keep me from yelling when Arwen came to save Frodo in TFOTR. Then in TTT I got pretty mad about Shelob not being in there. At least they put in the "po-ta-toes" line. It would've been a sin not to.

[Mattius]

When I saw the first movie I thought it was absolutely fantastic and that PJ had done so well to create he world of middle earth and about 90% of the story to life. I had big expectations for The Two Towers but when I came out of the cinema I couldn't help but feel cheated. My confidence had been shattered, I had known before hand that there would have been changes but it was verging on the ridiculous. More faith was needed in Tolkien's work. I think that middle earth was still great and Rohan was brilliant but only 40-50% of the story really came through. For some reason it felt like some daft hollywood blockbuster rather than a spiritual incarnation of a great book.<p>[ February 25, 2003: Message edited by: Mattius ]

[lore_master]

holy $&*%, relax, it's only a movie. take a few shots of vodka, or gin, or something. personaly i liked the movie. and i mean SERIOSLY now, if you did not like or agree with the movie, maybe you should just take a chill pill or something. <P>remember all great works of art are critised and hated at first. but in 20 years when the three movies are hailed as one of the greatest works of modern theator, dont go and say 'i loved the movie, i was behind it all the way"<P>while it is not nearly in any realation close to the book in standards, it is the best anyone could have done.<BR>i'm not saying this to be rude, or critical of you, or your views and opinions, but just sit down take a chill pill and enjoy the books<P>thanks

[Tar-Palantir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> take a few shots of vodka, or gin, or something <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> take a chill pill <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Maybe that's the only way to enjoy the films? Shots of gin? Whatever floats your boat I guess...<P>Please do not tell others to DO anything. It is simply a discussion forum, if you do not like their opinion then please give some thoughtful insight as to why you feel that way. Educate the masses, don't try to censor them. More flies with honey and all that. If you read the previous 10 or 12 posts on this thread you'll see examples of this. It is much more educational for all involved, and less inflammatory.<P>Cheers,<BR>Tar<p>[ February 25, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

personally, i had never read the books b4 i saw the movie and i went to my friends house to watch it...and i was amazed beyond belief. the lotr fotr movie was the first one that got me really hooked on the whole atmosphere. yet i personally liked both films but i still am sad to say that i havent read the books but i am trying to go buy them somewhere close to where i live. i really enjoy the whole atmosphere of the world, but hopefully i will get to read them, i say this all the time that i havent read the books but i am really wanting to...so yes i am new at it but hope to become really knowledgeable about the whole books and all that other good stuff.

Cheers to Tar-Palantir for trying to keep this post on the high road. We are together much greater than the sum of all our parts as citizens of Middle-Earth.<BR>And for those of you who absolutely love TTT, I still don't like it much, but I am <I>really</I> trying...<p>[ March 02, 2003: Message edited by: Anborn ]

[Lush]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> holy $&*%, relax, it's only a movie. take a few shots of vodka, or gin, or something. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yes, but not straight. Vodka with Orangina works extremely well on all movie-related grudges, as I have found myself. Have a few glasses of that, and <I>who cares</I> about the inane lines coming out of Faramir's mouth? Just look at the mouth itself, and the eyes, and the hair...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Please do not tell others to DO anything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Tar, my dear, of course, pitching alcoholic substances to disgruntled Barrow Downs members is a delicate task, and perhaps lore_master is yet lacking in delicacy? Mind if I take over?

[Tar-Palantir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Mind if I take over? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I suppose we all have a specialty, don't we? Don't tip the scales too far though, this teetotaler is easily offended and will relish the chance to act prudishly superior. <P>Back to the subject of course. In spite of character changes and disappearances, plot and dialogue alterations, and an incessant need for slow motion shots of Frodo having his moments of turmoil, I really enjoyed it.<P>Mostly beacause of the sets, locations, special effects, costumes, music, Liv Tyler (the wealthy Elven heiress, I'd never have to work again...hehe) and of course, the pièce de résistance - Ents hurling rocks at Isengard.<p>[ March 03, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[Lostgaeriel]

Hi davem!<P>I'm sorry to have to say that I AGREE WITH YOU. I'm sorry about it because Mr. Jackson had every resource necessary to make a film masterpiece. Everything except a well-conceived & well-written script. (I suspect that the Ring began to have a strong influence on him. He began to believe that he and his accomplices were screen writers. Not only that, but they believed they could write a better story with better characters and a better plot than Tolkien did. HUBRIS.)<P>My first impression of FOTR was that it was excellent with a few flaws - notably the 'dwarf-tossing' & the 'still Sharp(e)' jokes. The 3 hours flew by. I forgave the omissions and changes...until I had watched it 4 times. Then it began to grate on me. The wholesale changes - simplfications of the characters Aragorn, Gandalf, and Frodo and elaborations of Saruman, and especially Arwen (whose increased attributes came at the expense of A, G & F) began to drive me mad. I cannot watch the video without shouting in anger at the TV screen.<P>I saw TTT on Friday nite (Feb 28) for the first time. It was the longest 3 hours of my life. I almost walked out when Faramir decided to take the Ring to Minas Tirith. The relatively small plot & character changes up to that point were annoying (I still don't see the point), but Faramir was just too much. I stayed 'til the end, but cried most of the time because I was so dreadfully disappointed by the waste of money, time and especially talent in the making of these films.<P>There were moments of technical brilliance -especially in FOTR. If the serious, mythical, epic tone and artistry had been maintained throughout, this trilogy of films could have become a true classic to be revered for another fifty or hundred years. <P>Mr. Jackson flails between making a serious 'film' and a movie 'parody'. The 'dwarf-tossing' & 'orc-boarding' should have been kept to the 'out-take' reel shown at the wrap party only. It is possible that he (and the cast & crew) got so wrapped up in the project that they forgot that though they needed to have some fun while they were working so hard, this was not necessarily the best stuff to commit to film.<P>Further, in TTT, Jackson has the characters tell us thru conversations, no pardon me, thru speeches to each other or directly by narration, what is <I>his</I> interpretation of the story. Talk about disrespecting your audience - that they won't be able to figure it out themselves. Talk about not being confident in your film-making skills - that perhaps the images you show us won't get your point of view across! Not to mention leaving some of it open to the audience's interpretation. <P>Mr. Jackson may like to think he is independent of the Hollywood $ensiblity, but he has shown that he has a great fear of box-office failure or no real vision for his films. <P>I really regret that the great director, David Lean never considered Tolkien's work for a film. His version would have been truly wonderful. He knew how to make a movie that tells a great epic tale. And he wasn't afraid of serious material.<P>I'm most upset that I will probably not live long enough to see another film version of The Lord of the Rings made. I have no doubts that it would be better than Jackson's.<P>[ March 03, 2003: Message edited by: Lostgaeriel ]<p>[ March 03, 2003: Message edited by: Lostgaeriel ]

[Tar-Palantir]

Very thoughtful comments Lostgaeriel. I agree with much, but don't come to the same conclusions regarding the validity of either the films or the creators - very interesting.<P>What I disagree with most are the major assumptions.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> He began to believe that he and his accomplices were screen writers. Not only that, but they believed they could write a better story with better characters and a better plot than Tolkien did. HUBRIS.)<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>They are screenwriters, and have been acclaimed as such in the past. They did not believe they could write a better story, and have said as much in interviews. They constantly refer to the challenges of getting it onscreen. Making it relevant and coherent to the public at large is one of those challenges. Not just pleasing you and me. Hubris? Wow. <P>Let me pose this to you - If LotR was perfectly captured on film, would that not reveal a flaw of simplicity in it? Sure it would, because the fact is that their complex nature and allowance of individual interpretation cannot be replicated visually. Movies en masse remove individual audience interpretation and replace it with perspective of the director, the nature of the medium. Specific camera angles, lighting, sound, you name it - in the books that is under MY control. Just something to consider, and why no film has ever appeased all. Especially not adapted screenplays.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Mr. Jackson may like to think he is independent of the Hollywood $ensiblity, but he has shown that he has a great fear of box-office failure or no real vision for his films. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>How do you know what his sensibilities are? No vision for his films? I think he had a vision and you just don't agree with it. You don't have to agree with it of course, just acknowledge it. He pursued the movies because he had a vision for them. And nobody can put in that kind of effort without a passion for it, in my humble opinion of course. Hollywood sensiblities? Other directors might parade around with their new found success and popularity, hitting all the banquets and awards shows, PJ does not do this.<P>Furthermore, many critics panned his decision not to incorporate flashbacks from the first film into TTT - that is a perfect example of "giving the audience credit". Non-readers were still taxed in keeping up with the storyline, even with the heavy-handed speeches. More subtlety would require more background and detail which there was not time to give.<P>I am also of the mind that mistakes such as Faramir and Elves at Helm's Deep were inevitable to some degree. Human mistakes. A few poor choices should not completely discredit the effort of the directors and writers. Or be cause to write them off as individuals.<P>I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree with you and especially davem. <p>[ March 03, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[dunadan_aragorn]

I am very tired of people arguing about this, some people like it, some people don't, deal with it!

[Arvedui III]

The more people berate the movies, the more I have to appologize for <I>accually</I> likeing them, and that's not fun. I bow to dunadan_aragorn for his post. <BR>That being said, yes there are annoying things they did in the movies, yes there are things that should have been in or not been in them, but honestly, they can't just cater to LOTR fanacics like us. <BR>The movie aren't <I> that </I> bad. Most of my friends who saw the movies are now reading the books. That can't be bad.<BR> Ok, I've given my little speach,now people may start hitting me with large pointly implaments. <p>[ March 06, 2003: Message edited by: Arvedui III ]

[Tar-Palantir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I bow to dunadan_aragorn for his post. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I don't. That post was thoughtless. In fact, <B>dunadan_aragorn</B>, why don't you refrain from telling other people what to do. Members are allowed to voice their feelings, and have done so in thoughtful ways. <P>You should take notes rather than criticize. Did you even notice that <B>Lostgaeriel </B> just saw the movie? Is it too late for him/her to discuss it? Come on, let others do their thing, ok? Pretty please?<p>[ March 07, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]