Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
08-27-2007, 12:22 AM | #1 |
Wight
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 101
|
Okay, so what do you think NOW?
It has been a few years now since the release of all of the LOTR movies by Peter Jackson. We have all had time to reflect. Whay is your opinion of them now? Has it changed?
By the way, I am BACK!!!
__________________
"If I yawn again, I shall split at the ears!" |
08-27-2007, 09:36 AM | #2 |
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,481
|
Oddly enough, as my wife and I sat watching the end of LotR:FotR on TNT this weekend (as noted on another thread), whereas initially my wife was 'wowed' by the film when we watched it in the theatre, this night she saw Galadriel as "psycho."
I also something that I might not have noticed when watching the movies for the SbS, and so will be checking that - and maybe even posting there. Anyway, Welcome (back?) to the Downs.
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
|
08-27-2007, 03:45 PM | #3 |
Wight
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 101
|
Thanks for the welcome back! It has been a few years since I last posted before doing so early this morning.
Okay, I will state from the start that I own all three DVDs. I enjoy watching them, but when I see them now I feel as if I was "suckered" into acceptance by being overwhelmed with how WELL Peter Jackson did in his recreation of the the Shire, Hobbiton, and Bag End. In my opinion, they were done so magnificently that I was so taken by that wondrous moment as Gandalf arrived by pony trap and Hobbiton was revealed so perfectly that I was willing to just accept everything from that moment on. And I did. It seems to me that the further they went along with the story the more liberties he took with Tolkien's material. I loathe the way he had Gandalf beating Denethor with his staff. I do not like the way in which Theoden was portrayed as being somewhat jealous of Aragorn, and that Theoden was reluctant to go to Minas Tirith, wherein the book he said he would go to help, even if he did not feel any threat himself. I can not stand the way they had Treebeard appear to be stupid and having to be tricked by Merry and Pippin to enter the war. I did not like the psychotic portrayal of Galadriel. I did not like at all the treatment they had of Frodo choosing Gollum over Sam. But most of all, I detest the way in which the superb honor demonstrated by Faramir in the book is totally lacking in the film. He was not in the least bit tempted by the lure of the ring in the book, and the manner in which he was loved by the people of Gondor is also totally missing from the movie. He just did not come across in the film as the highly honorable individual that I had always taken him to be from the book. Merry
__________________
"If I yawn again, I shall split at the ears!" |
08-27-2007, 07:17 PM | #4 | |
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,481
|
Quote:
Anyway, although I ended up not liking many of the changes, still, Peter Jackson made films that were better than nothing, and hopefully these will inspire someone else to redo them in twenty or so years.
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
|
|
08-27-2007, 07:20 PM | #5 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Home. Where rolling green hills and clear rivers are practically my backyard.
Posts: 600
|
Quote:
I was also disapointed with how much screen time the battle at Helms Deep got. Sure it was well done, but I wish some of that time had been spent on other things.
__________________
One (1) book of rules and traffic regulations, which may not be bent or broken. ~ The Phantom Tollbooth |
|
08-28-2007, 12:01 AM | #6 | |
Mighty Quill
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Walking off to look for America
Posts: 2,276
|
Quote:
I like the movies and still like the movies, I think that they have a few...well a lot of changed things, but they're still darn well good adaptions... Well I can't say I like the movies I LOVE them... I'M RAMBLING PEOPLE I'M STOPPING NOW!
__________________
The Party Doesn't Start Until You're Dead.
|
|
08-28-2007, 08:05 AM | #7 |
Wight
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 101
|
I, too, like the movies, but in all sincerity I believe a person who had not read the books first would probably like the movies better than those of us who read the books first.
__________________
"If I yawn again, I shall split at the ears!" |
09-02-2007, 09:45 AM | #8 | |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,750
|
Quote:
Anyway... I've not been near the films for a while and I'm quite happy with that. I had grown bored with them. I feel myself slowly slipping back into my old ways with regard to Lord of the Rings, my old images and mental pictures slowly reasserting themselves from the leaf mould of an old mind. To me, there was always a slightly unfashionable, musty, eccentric, hippyish quality to Tolkien's stories, like they're an old early 70s Genesis album replete with songs about giant hogweed that you might find at the back of the cupboard or an amiable old schoolteacher with a bushy beard and leather patches on the elbows of his tweed jacket. I am getting back to that and it's marvellous. The films are too....MTV. I like my comforts and Lord of the Rings is one of them. Not that I do not like them, no, they're marvellous entertainment, but they don't have the Tolkien Essence I seek. The films don't allow my mind to go off on mad tangents, savouring the smells of the Old Forest and picturing Frodo as he ought to be. I think one of the reasons I've grown to dislike Elves so much lately is the image of them in the films - all skinny minnie models with bleached hair like they've come from some medieval dressing up party on a Floridian beach. The films are in one corner and the books in another, invested with long, beloved memories of The Times Before...
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
|
09-02-2007, 10:21 AM | #9 |
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In a flower
Posts: 97
|
I agree with a great deal of what Lalwendë has said. I enjoyed the films and own all the versions, extended ect., but I have not viewed them in some time. I like the books much better, it is simply a much better story with more detail. Yes the films are fine entertainment, and give some of the story of Middle Earth, but it is Jackson's interpretation of the story, not Jackson's story.
I also did not like the changes of the Elves in the movie. I much prefer the book Elves, they have a much more 'humanistic' quality about them in the books. They're flawed in the books and that makes them more lovable.
__________________
Lurking behind Uncle Fester |
09-02-2007, 12:02 PM | #10 | ||||
Laconic Loreman
|
Quote:
To which case I see it on the same level as making a movie off a real life event. If you want to make an authentic, and good representation of a real-life event, than you try to stay as true to the actual story as you can. Jackson did not do this in his films...there were other things deemed more important than staying true to what the author wrote. If you want a comparison to a 'fictional' movie based off a 'fictional' book, I would suggest The Day of the Jackal...which is a near carbon copy of the book. There are many differences between the book The Day of the Jackal and LOTR; I doubt anyone would argue that you need to show every single blade of grass that is in the books. But my point is to create a good representation of whether it be a fictional book, a real life event, or whatever it is, than all you really need is a respect and love for what the author wrote (or a respect for the events that took place), and a respect for the intellect of the audience. My point with United 93 I never questioned Greengrass's ego, he was making a movie that would be as near to the actual event as possible, and never let his ego get in the way. I can't say the same for Jackson and company, who's primary focus always seemed to be money. Therefor, we end up with a very entertaining movie, yet a bad representation of Tolkien's story. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It may be a trivial matter as far as the entertainment of the movie goes, but when dealing with whether these movies are a good representation of the books...it is surely not trivial. Especially when you have the director who was definitely aware of Tolkien's feelings on 'tomatoes' and 'The Scouring,' and he treats his thoughts in such a disrespectful way. Am I being too harsh? Maybe some think so, sorry I'm very blunt and straightforward and not going to beat around the bush. Sorry if anyone's taken any offense, but I'm not going to crown Jackson the greatest director this world has ever seen, with the toilet humor and bilge he pulls.
__________________
Fenris Penguin
|
||||
09-02-2007, 03:43 PM | #11 | |
Wight
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 101
|
Quote:
__________________
"If I yawn again, I shall split at the ears!" |
|
09-02-2007, 04:35 PM | #12 | |||||||
Wight
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England, UK
Posts: 178
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Compare all those beautiful moments to other 'fantasy films' (**** like Eragon and Dungeons And Dragons) and maybe you will see just how great these films were. Not perfect, but great. Quote:
And I never once found the Elves 'lovable'. That sounds vaguely like a cuddly animal, probably not what Tolkien imagined.
__________________
'Dangerous!' cried Gandalf. 'And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord.' |
|||||||
09-02-2007, 05:53 PM | #13 | ||||
Laconic Loreman
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I know that Verlyn Fleiger (who's wrote 3 stellar books regarding Tolkien) came out and blasted the movies as being just a Hollywood action film. Who's to say she's wrong? No one, that's her opinion. Yes there were experts who worked on the movies, but there were also 'experts' who shouldn't be titled such (example the 'dwarvish' guy) and also experts who have flat out ripped the movies to shreds. In fact Fleiger (with regards to FOTR) says the only thing she enjoys is Sean Bean's performance and the scenery (yet with the scenery the actors are constantly in the way!) And some would think I'm a harsh critic! Quote:
And that's just some of the bigger ones that have sprung to my mind. I never said there wasn't anything Jackson got right, but just because things were 'right' doesn't mean it just negates everything that he got wrong and changed around. Whether it is better for the movie that he made these changes...I don't know, but since there are tons and tons of changes (many of them being to the characters and plot!) I don't see it as a good representation. And I don't see the films as a good 'introduction' to Tolkien's Middle-earth...I see it as a good welcome to Jackson's 'Middle-earth.' Just a little aside about Saruman's death. To start out, Mr. Lee wasn't too happy with his 'death' having to happen in Isengard as he knew The Shire was the 'proper' place. But also, Chris Lee actually boycotted the premiere of ROTK because he was angry about the scene being cut from the theatrical. I remember watching the TV interview and he was furious over Jackson editting out his death, and said there would then be no reason for him to go to the premiere. A day later Lee actually recanted these statements and said that he wouldn't be going to the premiere, but he couldn't say anymore because of his confidentiality agreement. hmm....
__________________
Fenris Penguin
Last edited by Boromir88; 09-02-2007 at 06:01 PM. |
||||
09-02-2007, 06:37 PM | #14 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 903
|
"Gee whiz Wally , I gotta wonder what the rest of the world was watching since all these nifty folks here think the movie was a pile of crap? Why did people pay all that money to see crap? Why did those crappy movies win all those awards? Why did the professional critics love those crappy movies? It doesn't make sense Wally."
"Gosh Beav , I dunno. Maybe everybody is just stupid except for a few real smart guys who know all the answers while the rest of us go around with our heads stuck up our butts." "Gee whiz Wally. I don't want my head up my butt" "For heavens sake Beav, its just an expression. It means that regular guys like us are a bunch of jerks and only a few smart guys really know anything. You know it like at school where a few really smart kids always get called on and everybody else just sits there." "Thanks Wally." -------------------------------------------------------------- apologies to the old LEAVE IT TO BEAVER TV show. |
09-02-2007, 07:27 PM | #15 | |||||||||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,436
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As regards the comparison with United 93, I would agree that was a superb film. And, having watched the companion documentary, I was impressed with the lengths to which the director and others involved went to to assuage the feelings of the relatives and enhance the accurate depiction of the protagonists. But don't kid yourself that that film too did not have an eye to the box office. Or indeed, the Bourne Supremacy which, by all accounts, is an action-fest (not my cup of tea, but I am sure that it will be hugely successful and entertain many). But, as Sauron the White points out, we are not talking here about a portrayal of real life events. The considerations involved were different. Jackson was looking to make a successful and entertaining film from Tolkien's novel. There were no relatives to appease or real-life characters to depict correctly. Should he have taken into account the feelings of the Tolkien purists? To my mind he did, and he certainly satisfied me. Of course, many remain dissatisfied. But there is a line to be drawn. In my view, he got that line more or less in the right place. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I don't know why I got myself back into this. When one posts an opinion, one always feels obliged to defend it. Yet, really, I do not care what anyone else thinks of these films. I only care that they are a great source of enjoyment for me. Yet it does annoy me when they are belittled, precisely because I think that they are such great films. So worthy of praise. Yet, because they depart from the book in a number of respects, they are crucified as not being worthy. No, they are not the deepest films ever made. Yet, they had depth. Seriously, just watch Eragon or umpteen other films of the same genre and tell me that these films are not head and shoulders above their rivals. For all the gripping action scenes and unsubtle (Gimli-based) humour, they have moments of great depth and poignancy. I will finish by relaying my experience of today. As anticipated, we sat and watched TTT, generally held to be the worst of the three films, as far as comparison with the books goes. Yet, once again, so many scenes brought tears to my eyes. The despair of the Three Hunters when they thought Merry and Pippin dead, the pain of the mother sending her children away from the burning village, the unknowing diffidence of Theoden on first hearing of his son's death followed by his very real anguish that he feels when burying his child, Eowyn's lament at Theodred's funeral (mouthed in the background by fellow mourners), the wonderful dialogue between Gollum and Smeagol, the look of fear on the faces of the old men and young boys as they were armed in readiness for defending Helm's Deep, the anguish of their wives and mothers as they left to prepare for battle, the desperate last ride out from the Hornburg, and the appearance of Gandalf astride Shadowfax as the sun rose in the east behind him,. Just a few of the moments that I found incredibly moving, supplemented in no small way by the magnificent score. And, you know what, not all of those were written by Tolkien. Yet, for me, they capture the essence of the world that he created. Heck, I even appreciated the Wargs this time round. There is so much more to these films than crunching axes and belching Gimlis. And that's what I find so entertaining and so enjoyable about them. I like a good action flick as much as the next fellow. But there is so much more to these films than simple swords and sorcery. Thanks, in a large part, to the man who wrote the book on which they are based. But I give due credit too to those who brought them to the screen for my delectation. Finally, Boro and others, if you find the films so entertaining, why not just let them entertain you? Why the need to find fault because there were tomatoes present, or because Faramir would never act that way, or because Gandalf would never have let himself be humbled by the Witch-King. These films do not tell the story told by the books, so don't let the books shackle your enjoyment. Enjoy the films for what they are and enjoy the books for what they are. Then, surely, you can let yourself be happy that you are lucky to have two such rich sources of enjoyment.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|||||||||
09-02-2007, 10:43 PM | #16 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
|
Tolkien's work has depth and the movies do not. They were made to be blockbusters, and as such their potential value was limited from the start. I would love to see someone come at Tolkien (preferably Hurin) from a more mature angle, as has been discussed elsewhere on the forum, but as long as the Estate exercises no control over who the film rights are sold to, any future installments will be made with CGI monsters being priority number one.
|
09-21-2010, 11:15 AM | #17 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: In Eldamar beside the walls of Elven Tirion
Posts: 551
|
Hmm. First time I watched them when I was 11, "Mommy, I'm scared!".
Second time when I was 16, "Hmm, it's pretty cool." Third time when I was 16, "Hey, this is great!" Fourth and fifth time, "Er...it deviates FAR too much from the book." In the middle I became more obsessed with the movies than the books, but then after a while I just got over my movie obsession because they forgot too many facts, changed too many personalities, and turned the story into something almost completely different. They're cool movies, but they're not 'Lord of the Rings' per se.
__________________
"Hey! Come derry dol! Can you hear me singing?" – Tom Bombadil Last edited by Galadriel; 04-03-2011 at 09:28 AM. |
09-28-2010, 07:03 AM | #18 |
Emperor of the South Pole
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Western Shore of Lake Evendim
Posts: 606
|
|
09-28-2010, 08:59 PM | #19 | |
Gruesome Spectre
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Heaven's doorstep
Posts: 8,046
|
Quote:
It was with reluctance that I saw the movies to begin with, and that was only at the urging of my better half, who at the time hadn't read the books. I recall being disappointed with the first half of FOTR (disliking the Hobbits' characterizations, esp. the buffoonish Merry and Pippin, thinking Viggo M. was nothing like my mental picture of Aragorn, and continuously rolling my eyes at Arwen riding out to save him and the Hobbits). I believe I slept through the second half, though whether that was due more to boredom or the Samuel Adams lager I'd consumed with dinner, I don't recall. I tried to be objective, I really did. But throughout all three movies I found myself unable to lose myself in them, or to cease comparing them to the books. When the DVDs were released, my wife (who was quite impressed by the movies) insisted on buying them. I've since tried to watch them, but have found myself invariably getting up and wandering off. Granted, that's normally what my ADHD-riddled self does when asked to sit still for long periods anyway, but it seems to happen more quickly with these masterpieces of PJ's. I much prefer the books, or the Downs, to anything of Tolkien's the Silver Screen would throw at me.
__________________
Music alone proves the existence of God. |
|
09-29-2010, 04:17 AM | #20 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: In Eldamar beside the walls of Elven Tirion
Posts: 551
|
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.
__________________
"Hey! Come derry dol! Can you hear me singing?" – Tom Bombadil |
11-23-2010, 04:37 PM | #21 |
Blossom of Dwimordene
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The realm of forgotten words
Posts: 10,311
|
Hear hear!
__________________
You passed from under darkened dome, you enter now the secret land. - Take me to Finrod's fabled home!... ~ Finrod: The Rock Opera |
12-08-2010, 03:02 AM | #22 | |
Wisest of the Noldor
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
"Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning." –Elmo. |
|
12-08-2010, 06:32 AM | #23 |
Blossom of Dwimordene
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The realm of forgotten words
Posts: 10,311
|
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.
__________________
You passed from under darkened dome, you enter now the secret land. - Take me to Finrod's fabled home!... ~ Finrod: The Rock Opera |
05-04-2011, 02:25 AM | #24 |
Pile O'Bones
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 17
|
Professor J.R.R.Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is an epic. And it is never easy to film an epic. Peter Jackson did a great job in re-creating the Middle Earth, especially Hobbiton and Minas Tirith. He gave us movies, which never fails to entertain.
However, the lack of proper characterization of his characters riled me up a good deal. Legolas was a tag-along, when he was supposed to be brave and a great support; Frodo's behavior was akin a scared youth, not of a fairly confident, middle-aged Hobbit; Aragorn was okay, but the reluctant-hero part needed some time getting used to. PJ totally butchered the characters of Denethor and Theoden King. These changes made no sense to me. And Faramir - I could probably fill a book with my rants about this. Faramir and Legolas are my favorite characters (from the book). And instead of the kind, gentle soul that I was expecting, I found a competitive and rude person. I have read a lot of point of views about PJ's reasoning for changing the plots and the characterization of the characters. But, none could or did satisfy me. I agree that a movie is quite different from a book and some changes have to be made. What may sound good while reading a book need not look good while watching a movie. But, there should be a limit in regards to those changes. For example, I didn't understand what leverage did a rude Faramir or a jealous Theoden supply to the plot. Moreover, I also believe that the old forest should have found a place in the movie. According to me, that journey contributed a lot towards the development of the Hobbit's characters. Another thing that I found very irritating was the clownish outlook of Merry and Pippin. Especially Merry, and he is such a great character in the book. All being said; even though I enjoyed the movies, they failed to vibrate that cord in my heart which dances every time I see that Lord of the Rings book on my bookshelf and the chocked excitement that rises in me whenever I open it and start reading the prologue. So, even though great movies they may be, Lord of Rings for me will always be those beautiful words penned by Tolkien which has influenced my life so much. |
|
|