Crimes Against Tolkienity

[Lord of Angmar]

Let me start off by saying that I have so far thoroughly enjoyed Peter Jackson's film interpretations of J.R.R. Tolkiens <I>The Fellowship of the Ring</I> and <I>The Two Towers</I>, and I expect the same degree of enjoyability out of the third installment in the movie trilogy, <I>The Return of the King</I>. <P>Having read Squatter of Amon Rudh's contributions to the <A HREF="http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=002485" TARGET=_blank>PJ wants to do The Hobbit [seriously]</A> thread, I feel obliged to list and explain several aspects in particular which many entirely object to.<P><UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>The Scourging of the Shire<P>No, I am not referring to the chapter "The <I>Scouring</I> of the Shire" and its being left out of the films. I am referring to the destruction that Peter Jackson and New Line inflicted upon the natural world in filming the <I>Lord of the Rings</I> trilogy, particularly their creation of the Shire, in which they molested the New Zealand countryside, boring holes into hills to create hobbit-holes and even destroying miles and miles of natural greenery to <I>pave a long road</I> by which filming supplies could be brought to the rural location. As J.R.R. Tolkien was, as a rule, strictly anti-industrialization and a puritan when it came to leaving alone the natural world, this seems to be the ultimate irony.<P><LI>Marketing, Marketing, Marketing <P>I do not fault Peter Jackson and crew for this one as much as I do New Line Cinemas, who have shamelessly turned the trilogy into one of the largest and most disgusting movie-merchandise empires in cinematic history. Everything is offered to us the movie patrons, from recreations of the film props (swords, knives, One Rings), to expensive clay and metal casts of movie characters, to the most shameless end of the spectrum, the Mattel Aragorn and Arwen dolls and the advertising packages with such enterprises as sports organizations, car dealerships and mobile phone companies. Would Tolkien have wanted the name of his books paraded around solely as a means of profit for the company producing his movies and the highest bidding organizations? I think not. <P><LI>The Changes <P>Although I myself was fine with a few of the changes made to the movies, in the minds of many some (or most) of them have gone too far. As Squatter has pointed out, the changes made to Tolkien's words (in many cases apparently as a means for appealing to action-crazed mass audiences) have severely compromised the respect of the Tolkien estate for the movie producers and screenwriters. J.R.R. Tolkien himself disapproved of almost all of the major changes made in the few other film adaptations (and there were <I>many</I> changes), and I doubt he would have wished for too much gutting and plot-changing, especially since a 9+ hour film trilogy should be able to adequately address the plot without making too many additions to the storyline and to the dialogue.<P></UL><P>Do not take the above to mean that I am a <I>Lord of the Rings</I> movie hater or opponent of Peter Jackson. I personally am a fan of the movies, and unlike many other avid Tolkienites I am able to, for the most part, keep the books and the movies separate in my mind, so the changes in plot do not cause as great a fuss for me as they do for others. Feel free to debate or add to any of the above points.<P>Cheers,<BR>Angmar<p>[ 2:18 PM December 12, 2003: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

[Meela]

I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that everything they built was environmentally friendly, and removed afterwards, leaving no impression on the landscape.<P>I don't mind the film merchandise, but car dealerships? That doesn't have anything to do with Tolkien.<P>I will perhaps add more later. I am unable to put my thoughts into words at this moment.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I personally am a fan of the movies, and unlike many other avid Tolkienites I am able to, for the most part, keep the books and the movies separate in my mind, so the changes in plot do not cause as great a fuss for me as they do for others. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I'm one of the minority also. I've only encountered a handful of us so far.

[Silmiel of Imladris]

As annoying and disturbing these things are LOTR is not the only movie to do such things. Almost every movie that is filmed on location destroys some kind of wilderness and they all market products especailly the blockbusters. It makes me sick too but Peter Jackson is not the only one at fault. This is what movies have turned into. When they were first invented they were a treat and they were simple but now to compete with eachother and TV, big movies have to be made. It is the changing times but I think when it comes to the sets there should be laws that movie companies have to put everything back where they found it.

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I was under the impression that everything they built was environmentally friendly, and removed afterwards, leaving no impression on the landscape. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That's certainly the case with Edoras. It was on National Trust property (or whatever the New Zealand equivalent is), and they were obliged to return it to precisely the state that they found it in as a condition of filming there. In one of the TTT EE documentaries, they explain how they carefully removed the turf, preserved it during the filming, and then returned it when they had finished. <P>Hobbiton is, I believe, still there and has become something of a tourist attraction. I'm not sure about how I feel about that. I suppose it depends upon what the land was being used for before. Helm's Deep was filmed in a quarry, so hardly a great loss to the landscape there. And I can't think of any other outside locations that were really affected by the filming. Much of it (Fangorn, Lothlorien etc) was done in a studio.<P>As for merchandising, well it's inevitable really. And they will only sell these things if people are prepared to buy them. And I speak as one who has a few items myself (calendars, Uruk-Hai/Rohan mugs etc) . And I would love one of those metal casts of Bilbo's trolls, if only it wasn't so costly. Personally, the only thing that I have a real problem with is the endorsements of such products as Pringles and KFC. Remember, there has always been a certain amount of merchandising around the books (diaries, calendars and the like).<P>I too am a big fan of the films. But I agree, Lord of Angmar, that Tolkien would have disapproved of many of the changes, those made to the characterisations particularly. But I like to think that he would have enjoyed the visualisation of his world. For me, so much of that aspect of the films (Lemming-Hyenas apart ) rings true from the books.

[BeeBombadil]

I was in New Zealand in May and June of this year. It was refreshingly free from the commercial crap that seems to accompany the movie here in the states. People were enormously proud of the films, of Peter Jackson, and of their country, all without seeming arrogant or obnoxious. It seemed that every third person in NZ had worked on the film or knew someone who had. A very funny fellow told us about a friend of his who drove a van of Uruk-Hai to Glennorchy every morning for the film and then home again at night and how he hated looking in the rearview mirror...it freaked him out!<P>There was destruction of natural resources during filming but remarkably little. There was harvesting of wood for Fangorn's construction. NZ Dept of Conservation's laws are very strict and they do a marvelous job preserving NZ's natural beauty. Jackson hired a lawyer whose sole job was to get the permits required for shooting on Dept. land...the poor fellow later said that if he had known what he was in for, he might have thought twice!<P>As for all the crass marketing going on here...leave it. No one's putting a gun to your head to buy any of the action figures, posters or books out there. Just enjoy the movies for what they are...one man's vision of Tolkien's work.

[BeeBombadil]

Sorry, forgot to tell you about Hobbiton. It's actually a sheep farm, located outside a small town called Matamata. There's not much to Matamata but the town has put up a small sign as you enter and leave saying that it is Hobbiton. <P>The farmer, whose land was scoped by Jackson from helicopter, got tired of having fans walk all over his fields, looking for Hobbiton and decided, since the wool and lamb industry is not doing so well at the moment, to offer a combo-sheep farm and hobbit tour. For $50NZ, you can go to his farm and see where Hobbiton was. It's enormously disappointing-looking, as all the planting is gone and all you can see of the burrows are plain dull plywood doors and windows...not very atmospheric. I passed. Still, I did bring home a brochure just for fun.<P>From what I've read, the farmer earned himself over $350,000NZ.

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that everything they built was environmentally friendly, and removed afterwards, leaving no impression on the landscape.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>As Saucepan Man said, I know that Edoras was put up in 2 months, & then taken down in 2 weeks, leaving no traces. I think that some of the stuff they might've left a little behind, but I thought they did a pretty good job of not leaving to much of a mark behind :/.

[Dininziliel]

I am in a quandary of ambivalence. I love and hate the movies.<P>I have by now accepted Jackson's movies as his version based on LotR and not the filming of LotR. Perhaps if he had not succeeded in rendering ME itself so well it would not be such a big deal. I cannot count the number of times I have watched the extended versions of both FotR and TT, and still I alternate regularly between "Wow--that's wonderful" and "expletive deleted." There are things that cheapen the story and ME:<P>--The schlock horror schticks such as a manic-looking Gandalf grabbing Frodo from a dark corner while scary music plays to ask, "Is it secret? Is it safe?" And the yep-they're-gonna-do-it obligatory eye-opening of the dead elf in the Dead Marshes which is right before the oh-no-not-this-too scary ghoul images clawing out for Frodo.<P>--The continuity gaffes, of which enough has been heard except the extremely unfortunate distraction during Boromir's/Bean's amazingly effective death scene where now he has his gloved & gauntleted hand upon Aragorn's/Mortenson's shoulder and now he doesn't. You get pulled and jerked around in two directions at once too many times.<P>--The stunts that everyone seems to feel substitute for substance--those ones mainly with Legolas. I like them, too, but can't help feeling I'm easily impressed to be falling for a cheap trick designed to wow the easily impressed.<P>Then there are the plot deviations and outright destruction of the story. I am a tad more at peace with the Faramir thing since watching the extended TT, but it seems with each movie that more and more license is being taken with the story. I won't enumerate the plot destructions as that's been done better than I could articulate them. <P>I feel we--the fanatics--have been taken for a ride by Jackson. The changes in FotR were understandable and did not destroy the integrity and meaning of the story. In TT the departures from the story seemed to have added more changes for the sake of personal gratification as well as for ticket-selling "tension," as they are fond of saying. While tension is indeed essential, it's lamentable that Jackson did not have a little more faith in either the audience or the story itself.<P>After reading about the even more outrageous changes in RotK, I seriously considered not seeing it. And I am someone who bought a 5 disc DVD player just so I could watch the extended FotR without having to disturb the air. I find myself thinking that Jackson should have been 10 years older before he was allowed to make the movies. There are some truly wonderful moments in the movies; however they just make some of the changes even more of a travesty. <P>It is the difference between a masterpiece that transcends time and the box office, and a bunch of movies that are very good and ground-breaking, but will recede into the pantheon of epics like <I>Ben Hur</I> and <I>Jurassic Park</I>.<P>It is the difference between <I>Lord of the Rings: the Movies Based on the Book</I>, and <I>Lord of the Rings</I>. I could have added much more respect to the awe of Jackson's movies if he had titled them, <I>Peter Jackson' LotR</I>. It is the story that deserves awe, not the movie-making.<P>Those of us who grew up and nourished ourselves on the book have a longing to be in it because, in a very real sense, it is true and profound. How sad to see the purity of that experience irrevocably changed by cheapness of marketing and story rewrites. I would like to be able to further separate the book from the movies, but the disappointment with the movies of coming so close yet falling so far gets in the way.<P>I guess I feel I was given a ticket to go to Hobbiton, and all I got was those plywood doors. But I keep coming back to try to find a way to be happier with the plywood because [sigh] that's all I'm going to get.<p>[ 12:15 AM December 13, 2003: Message edited by: dininziliel ]

[Gorwingel]

Well I have to owe everything to the movies, because that is how I got here. I know that some people do not consider people who saw the movies before they read the books "real fans”, but FOTR is what introduced this entire world to me. Though after reading the books and seeing the movies I do personally think that the books are much greater because they are more about the story, the quieter moments, and the language.<P>Well you do all know that right now New Line and the Tolkien estate are in a fight about many things (building a museum to hold the movie props in New Zealand, the possibility of a Hobbit movie, etc.) and I personally think that this is a great display of the feelings that some fans have about the movies. The fans who have really not been heard, and who I think should have been heard more. J.R.R. Tolkien would have hated all of this, because all this nonsense was not he, and it all really against his personal beliefs. Wasn’t it the publishing house that sold the rights for the films? Because I don’t think it was him. I could never see him personally selling the rights so that someone could make a film of his works.<P>I do get very extremely annoyed about the intense marketing of these films though. I really think it is too much. The batteries, the cars, the cell phones! It is getting ridicules! I think though that part of this marketing blitz is because New Line is the studio it is. This is a fairly young studio who is not known for epic filmmaking, and whose other major franchises are Austin Powers, Nightmare on Elm Street, and Blade. But, oh well. I think the films could have been worse, but I do thing that some of the changes, even though PJ swears they were necessary, are not.

[Gashberz]

I have no problem with it. But car dealerships? Thats taking it too far. I mean what do cars have to do with the movies? NOTHING! My god man. Once they make a movie based off of something famous they have to drag it thru the mud by making evrything for it. But hey come on its not as bad as the merchandising of STAR WARS! <BR> -Cheers!

[davem]

Its funny, after 'experiencing' the Bakshi monstrosity, i was distinctly wary about seeing Fellowship but it won me over (despite seeing it for the first time in a cinema where a party of schoolkids was out for a Christmas treat, & they COULD NOT keep quiet, or refrain from stupid comments, & even laughed while Boromir was dying - though they did cheer when Aragorn beheaded Lurtz. Iknow, you're asking yourselves how I can <I>still</I> be annoyed about it after two years!). Hence I was looking forward to Towers, but wass intensely disappointed. In fact I loathed it- though after seeing the SEE I now merely dislike it intensely. I'm now ambiguous about Return. I want it to work, but think it won't. Actually, though I've read virtually everything Tolkien wrote on ME (HoME once & LotR, Sil, Hobbit, letters & UT more times than I can remember) I'm not a 'purist' in the sense of being opposed to movies being made, & having been determined to hate them no matter what. I wanted them to be great, but, after Towers I've kind of lost interest. I have decided to make a final judgement after watching all 3 movies together in the SEE's.<P>My point, after all this waffle, is that those of us who feel hurt & disappointed by the movies are not a bunch of sad pedants who would have been up in arms if even a single line of Tolkien's had been changed. It goes deeper, & all the excuses & justifications by the filmakers, all the 'you couldn't do 'X' in a movie' or 'Y' wouldn't have worked' or 'you think about doing 'Z' differently to the way we've presented it & you'll see why we had to do it this way' just don't hold up for us. I'd just ask those who think we're being awkward & angry for trivial reasons to keep in mind that some of us did feel genuinely hurt by what we saw on screen.

[Eurytus]

You know I can't help but think that, whilst suffering the slings and arrows of the Tolkien fanatics (not my word, it was used here), PJ will be somewhat comforted by the fact that his trilogy is very likely to be the highest grossing trilogy in movie history, with tons of critical acclaim, the universal acclaim of his team of actors, a hatful of awards, and has resulted in his being paid $20 million plus 20% of the gross for doing King Kong (which has always been his dream project anyway and which no-one would finance him for before LOTR).<BR>Not to mention all the money he has made out of these films of course.<P>Yep, I think he will feel that the positives outweigh the negatives.<P>Let's not forget that for most of the movie going public, 4 years ago it was "Peter who?"

[davem]

Yeah, he's made far more money out of Tolkien's work than Tolkien himself did.<P>Whether you believe there's any justice in that is a matter of opinion, I suppose.<P>I wonder whether, if he hadn't been able to obtain the filmrights & had had to make his own fantasy movie, he be any richer or better known now than he was 4 years ago. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing in the movies worth seeing is when Tolkien's own work makes it on screen. The 'stuff' of Jackson & the writers hangs off Tolkien's work, adding nothing, but is kept afloat by the scraps of Tolkien's genius which has survived.

[Jjudvven]

dininziliel, I agree with what you said about alternating between "oohs" and "aahs" and "why the hell did they have to put THAT s**t in?!". Some moments are done so well I get shivers watching them, while other just make me want to turn off the tv, or skip forward a scene or two. I'm afraid that the third installment will be much the same: filled with amazing heartbreaking scenes, but also packed full of seemingly pointless deviations from Tolkien's Tale. (however, I have already reserved my midnight showing tickets)

[lindil]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> As for merchandising, well it's inevitable really. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Not so. Witness The Matrix, We got a cell phone, a video game [with an hour more of the story only there] and a few adds. No action figures, books [?!] or mountains of cheap plastic crappola. They easily could have cashed in on any or all of the above to make millions more, but had the decency and taste to refrain.<P>dininziliel offered many points which were dead on for me:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>...and still I alternate regularly between "Wow--that's wonderful" and "expletive deleted." There are things that cheapen the story and ME <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>and<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The changes in FotR were understandable and did not destroy the integrity and meaning of the story. In TT the departures from the story seemed to have added more changes for the sake of personal gratification as well as for ticket-selling "tension," as they are fond of saying. While tension is indeed essential, it's lamentable that Jackson did not have a little more faith in either the audience or the story itself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Bingo! PJ ended up having faith in Howe and Lee, his animators, etc, but he did not trust the story anywhere near enough to be able to use the title <I>The Lord of the Rings</I> without some qualifier being [imo] seriously needed. <P><BR>and finally <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>How sad to see the purity of that experience irrevocably changed by cheapness of marketing and story rewrites. I would like to be able to further separate the book from the movies, but the disappointment with the movies of coming so close yet falling so far gets in the way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I can actually ignore most of the cheap plastic garbage everywhere [because I am rarely exposed to it], but the story re-writes will sadly forever mar [for many, if not most] lovers of the books. PJ had a once in a multi-decade chance to do it right and like frodo at mount doom, at the end he claimed the script for himself.<P>Too bad he really had the ability to make adaptations that fans and purists, and neophytes alike all could have loved. <P>Some may feel that PJ is being justified for all of this due to vast commercial success, critical acclaim from hollywod pundits, truly he has 'received his reward' here. <P>He has however not done well enough by JRRT's heirs to merit the right to do more. Which <I>might</I> have happened had be been far more conservative in his re-writes. We will never know because he did not, but we do know the estate like many, 'purists' see no reason to let PJ 'adapt' any more of their fathers work. <P>DaveM gave us:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> As far as I'm concerned, the only thing in the movies worth seeing is when Tolkien's own work makes it on screen. The 'stuff' of Jackson & the writers hangs off Tolkien's work, adding nothing, but is kept afloat by the scraps of Tolkien's genius which has survived. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I would say a bit more than scraps survived , but totally agree with the premise, the movies do best, at times near perfectly, when they are faithful to the spring from which they flowed. Attempts to re-direct the flow of the river, as it were, are almost always in hindsight [or with a modicum of foresight] foolish.<P>Thankfully from the reviews I have read [one mostly from a good friend and longtime lover of JRRT] THe Rotk seems to be molded far more like FotR interms of the number and severity of 'adaptive license' PJ leaves us with.<P>But sadly I am left hoping that maybe in another 20 or 30 years, someone else will buy the rights from new line, and do it by the book.<P>Many people think it fair that PJ be judged by the standard of faithfullness to the books. I disagree. He used the exact title of the Books, with no qualifiers. In a title when the article "the" is used as in <I>The Lord of the Rings</I> it signifies that something is 'the genuine article' [no pun intended] it is what it claims to be. <P>By the standards of the English Language I do not think PJ's movies can ever be <BR><I>The Lord of the Rings</I> but at best a ' Lord of the Rings'.<p>[ 12:14 PM December 13, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[lindil]

Lord of Angmar, your thread here inspired me to start the following thread <BR><A HREF="http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=17&t=000861#000000" TARGET=_blank>PJ on trial for crimes against Tolkienity !</A> in Middle-earth Mirth. All are welcme to testify in support of PJ or with 'accusations'!<p>[ 3:07 AM December 14, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[lord_of_rohan2003]

As I stated earlier I was a fan of the first movie before reading the books and im still discovering the great world of Tolkien.I think that the movies and the books are both masterpiecies in their own rights.<P>Now granted I can see where PJ and crew will butcher,delete,and completly destroy parts of Tolkiens story but thats only given when Hollywood makes a movie bassed of a novel,sure it can be aggravating(Dream Catcher anyone?)but overall I am happy with how it turned out,so far.<P>One good thing about these movies is that it's bringing in a whole new generation young and old to JRRT world with myself and others being some of those.And I think I can speak on the behalf of all of us were getting tired of being called trend followers.<P>Dont get me wrong im not pointing fingers and saying someone here has called me that,so far folks have been cool with me,but at other websites I have been to the moment you say you read Tolkien after seeing the movies they immediatly attack you saying crap that as soon as the movies and hype dies down i'll just dissaper and find the next big thing to be part of But it's funny that they say that when they listen to popular music off MTV,buy the way overpriced trendy clothes,etc.etc.I guess that they feel special that they were part of something before it became "hip".<P>But anyway to get back on topic yes the movies have their flaws,yes there is much more I wish they could of add(or left alone)and I deffintly wish that some charcters could of been invited to the movies(Glorfindel?Bombadil?hello?)but when you think of all the childish gross out comedies,the pointless action movies,and other sedative yawners these movies are a breath of fresh air from the typical mound of dog dodo <P>But if I do have one complaint,why is Gandalf on my can of sour cream and onion pringles?

[Lord of Angmar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But if I do have one complaint,why is Gandalf on my can of sour cream and onion pringles?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Why indeed? That a picture of Gandalf the White would be put on a potato chip can says alot about the level of respect that the <I>Lord of the Rings</I> is held in by the folks at New Line.

[Fingo]

Reading through these posts, I've come across points I agree with and points I don't, but I've got to come right out and say that some of this is being taken just a bit too seriously. <P>Believe me, I am a Tolkien advocator, and was dissapointed by some of the changes made to the movies (Faramir probably being the greatest of these dissapointments) but the fact that we live in a money powered society cannot be escaped.<P>Peter, Fran, and Phillipa did what they thought would make the movie sell and lo and behold, it did, as made evident by the merchandising and all going along with it. Another point to consider is that PJ probably wasn't the one to liscense the rights for all the merchandising, it was New Line itself.<P>Watching the movies, I think about some parts that could have been made better (in my opinion) or emphasized more (in my opinion) or other parts I realized were missing should have been added (in my opinion). Reading these posts I was struck with the thought, that unless we all got the chance to make our own Lord of the Rings movies, we'd never be truely satisfied with someone else's rendering of it.<P>Tolkien wrote the story with a point he wanted to convey to reader, but unless he actually sat down and talked with the reader themselves, its all subjective, just like any other work of literature.<P>I too am one of those who can keep the books and movies seperate, and enjoy both for what they are. I hope we can all learn not to dwell too much what's wrong or what's right as opposed to just what is.

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But if I do have one complaint,why is Gandalf on my can of sour cream and onion pringles?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>O goody, now we've got Gandalf the White with Green speckels . I enjoy posters & swords, etc., but I do think that they've taken the marketing thing <B>way</B> to far .

[Gorwingel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Not so. Witness The Matrix, We got a cell phone, a video game [with an hour more of the story only there] and a few adds. No action figures, books [?!] or mountains of cheap plastic crappola. They easily could have cashed in on any or all of the above to make millions more, but had the decency and taste to refrain.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>They also had a deal with a beer company<P>Well actually for the Matrix they did have dolls and action figures. It is just that they were not really sold in toystores (I saw them in some speciality and comic book stores) because it is an R rated film. R rated movies are not directed towards kids and young people as PG-13 rated films are. If the Matrix would have had a more family friendly rating there would have been more merchandising I swear, it would have been everywhere, because they would have most defintely had the hype for it.<P>I think one of the reasons we have had a lot of marketing for LOTR is because it appeals to so many different kinds of people (Which I think is one of the really good things about these stories, and I think most of you would agree with that statement). If a company connects themselves with LOTR they can reach kids, teenagers, adults, and older adults. Basically everyone in the general population! But oh well, it is too late now, and that is sad. It is sad that the general public will forever connect LOTR with batteies

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I think that the movies and the books are both masterpiecies in their own rights. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well said, Lord of Rohan. I have been an avid fan of Tolkien's works for some 25 years. And yet I do not feel let down, disappointed or resentful in any way about these films. Granted, I would have loved to have seen every detail of the book presented on screen just as Tolkien wrote it. One of my biggest gripes with the films (and it's not that big) is the way in which Merry and Pippin come into the tale. I would have loved to have seen the conspiracy unmasked. But I wholly accept that, if these films are to be brought to the big screen in any way which would do justice to Tolkien's visualisation (ie requiring a big budget), then compromises need to be made. <P>Jackson was entitled to make whatever changes he thought were necessary to make the films popular. Indeed, he was obliged to do so given the big budget that this whole project required. He made those changes and has sought to explain many of them (certainly the most radical). While I do not agree with some of the choices that he made, I accept his reasons for making them. And I agree with him on many counts. <P>Actually, I feel really quite lucky. For I have two masterpieces to enjoy. The books and the films. The books will, of course always come first (by a long way) in my affections. But the films are, to my mind, great films and ones that I can enjoy immensely. Having come to terms with the changes, I feel no need for the fact that I know the <I>real</I> story to impair my enjoyment of them.<P>And as Eurytus has pointed out, they are incredibly successful films. Not only in monetary terms (although that is certainly the case), but also in terms of their mass appeal and in the acclaim that they have received among Jackson's peers in the film-making community and amongst film-critics. So, on that basis, he has acheived what he set out to do: bring the story to the screen in a format which would have mass appeal.<P>I suppose that I just cannot understand why people get so irate about it all. I accept of course that people have a right to their opinons, but these feelings of anger, resentment, disappointment or whatever just wash over me. To me, as Lord of Rohan said, the books and the films are each masterful works of art in their own right.<P>And just to put in a word for New Line, let's not forget that they did take a gamble with these films. There was no guarantee that they would be so successful, so it was a big risk for them investing the amount that this project required. They are, in my view, entitled to a bit of payback. Yes, I hate such things as the KFC endorsements and think that they go to far, but I see it as an inevitable development in today's world.<P>As for the Matrix films, Gorwingel is right. I saw some action figures in a major toy department today, right alongside the LotR action figures . And, in addition to the reasons that Gorwingel gave, I think that the relative lack of merchandising speaks more to the relative level of success of the two film trilogies than to the integrity of the film-makers.

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I think that the movies and the books are both masterpiecies in their own rights. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You can't argue to much with that. I just have a little bit of difficulty being able to seperate the two, especially after seeing the movie when I reflect back on it.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>One of my biggest gripes with the films (and it's not that big) is the way in which Merry and Pippin come into the tale. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I thought that was the whole trashing of Saruman's death scene?

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I thought that was the whole trashing of Saruman's death scene? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>One of the advantages of spoilers. I've come to terms with it before having to sit though it in the cinema. <P>Seriously, I do have a few gripes. Some are things I would like to have seen done as in the books. Others concern scenes that I don't think work well in the context of the (somewhat different) story told in the films. Like Frodo making to offer the Ring to the Nazgul and Theoden's exorcism (detracting from the character of Wormtongue). And then there are a few aspects where the visualisation is slightly off for me (*coughWargscough*).<P>But, really, these are trivial compared the incredible impact that the films have made on me. They do not detract from my enjoyment in any major sense.

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>They do not detract from my enjoyment in any major sense.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That's pretty much the same here. There are a few gripes that I have that I doubt I'll be coming to terms with, but the LotR series will still be awesome movies . (for the most part )

[Trippo The Hippo]

Well I am one of the people able to seperate them and honestly there are not alot of things I dislike. I think there have been alot of valid points raised many that I agree with but I think that its important that we dont get to worked about them at the end of the day its just a movie. Also I was wondering if anyone knows how some of the actors feel about the changes wasn't there at least a few tolkienites on the movie who would have gotten offended at some of these changes?

[Dininziliel]

Lindil writes: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> PJ had a once in a multi-decade chance to do it right and like frodo at mount doom, at the end he claimed the script for himself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Oh, well said! And it's even more apt as the closer to the end of the films he got, the more he changed the story.<P>Fingo writes: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Reading these posts I was struck with the thought, that unless we all got the chance to make our own Lord of the Rings movies, we'd never be truely satisfied with someone else's rendering of it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I love the idea of having Jackson's raw footage, or just be able to use what's in the extended versions. The technology will soon be available. Unless I was having aural hallucinations, Jackson mentioned in TT extended version that he would enjoy seeing others' versions. How lovely if we could all have our own personal versions. This could be another ground-breaking milestone for Jackson's LotR.<P>Trippo the Hippo writes: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I think there have been alot of valid points raised many that I agree with but I think that its important that we dont get to worked about them at the end of the day its just a movie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>This very thought occurred to me upon reflection after I logged out last night. "It's just a movie," "Keep telling yourself, 'It's only a movie,'" (which was a tag line for a very bad early schlock shocker in the early 70's). I was thinking about my reactions and those of others. I'd really like to be free of my expletives deleted and just enjoy the movies for their own sake, but even on that level, there are too many glaring gaffes in continuity which shine out all the more because of all the money and time up there on the screen. <P>However, I hope I am managing to stay on the up side of feeling down about the movies. I shouldn't like to be a Gollum about it all, as if the book was "my Precious"! <P>I think that w/RotK it will be much easier to separate the movie from the book--the vast changes should at last create a comfortable chasm. I'm only going because, as a wise friend told me, "You can't <I>not</I> go," and because I saw a picture of <I>The</I> Witch King of Angmar on a Nazgul in a book about the movie. That's about it. Oh! And I want to see Sam, Gollum & Frodo at Mt. Doom. (That's still in the movie, right?) sorry.<P>If even half the people leave the theatre thinking and talking about faith, hope, and Love--in these faithless, hopeless and loveless times--instead of the cool stunts, awesome battle scenes, and how cute Legolas is, then much can be forgiven.<p>[ 12:55 AM December 14, 2003: Message edited by: dininziliel ]

[doug*platypus]

<B>Very Clean, Very Green</B><P>As several others have pointed out that the production did <B>not</B> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> scourge the shire <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't think a slap on the wrist is really necessary. However, as a student studying a Masters of Environmental Engineering at Massey University in Aotearoa (New Zealand) I have to defend the production of these movies. No large production has ever in my opinion been coordinated with such a small impact on the environment. <P>The Department of Conservation, helped by legislation such as the Resource Management Act (an all-embodying type of legislation apparently unique to our country) watched the production like a hawk, especially given the sensitive nature of many locations. The river running through Rivendell was constructed just outside Wellington. DOC stipulated that no water was to be taken from an already existing river, and no additional water was to be diverted into it. So PJ and Co built an entirely self-contained river that had no impact on the local environment. <P>The scenes for the battle on Dagorlad were shot on Army land next to Tongariro National Park. Likewise Hobbiton was private land. So if you have a problem with what was done there, I suggest you take it up with the Army or the farmer at Okoroire. But I can tell you with 100% certainty that both those parties would have caused more damage to the New Zealand environment than Peter Jackson. I can only hope that every other film crew that comes to our shores treads as lightly as this one did. <P><BR><B>Marketing</B><P>Absolutely right, it's sickening. Light-up evenstar has got to be one of the worst. Whenever I see cheesy Star Wars merchandise, I console myself with the fact that most of the money Lucas makes goes into personally financing the next film (also I love my Darth Maul pencil case). However, New Line have made so much profit from the movies alone that the amount earned from crappy plastic Tolkien merchandise just makes me nauseous. <P>Quality items such as swords are a little different, I think. A lot of people are very interested in having a piece of memorabilia such as these. As long as it's the quality stuff I think that there is nothing wrong with that. After all, some people were dressing up as elves long before the movies were even thought of. It all depends on whether it's a <B>rip-off</B> or a <B>homage</B> in my opinion.

[Eurytus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> As far as I'm concerned, the only thing in the movies worth seeing is when Tolkien's own work makes it on screen. The 'stuff' of Jackson & the writers hangs off Tolkien's work, adding nothing, but is kept afloat by the scraps of Tolkien's genius which has survived. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Which is of course exactly why the Bakshi version (which was if anything more fathful than Jackson's) was such a roaring success.<P>Oh, hang on a minute....it wasn't was it. I guess having bits faithful to the sacred texts is not enough after all.

[pandora]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I guess having bits faithful to the sacred texts is not enough after all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, well, a genius in our midst. Yes, being faithful to the book and having a budget of 5 dollars and a large piece of blanket that the dog peed on is not enough to make a movie of LotR. Just as PJ having a big budget and the talent of a dead squid isn't enough either.<P>Bakshi failed honestly: he tried; Jackson never even tried. I seriously, and I mean this, doubt that Jackson has read the book. I'm sure he skimmed all sorts of bits he thought were "boring". There's certainly no evidence that this pathetic hack of a director understood the book or cared about the characters. <P>Bakshi failed in the way that I would fail if I tried to dramatise LotR with 5 friends on a small stage in a church hall; Jackson failed in the way that Hollywood often fails: the visualisation was perfected while the script was treated as a mere detail that could be scribbled together quickly to connect the fight and battle scenes together. <P>Who needs to find out what happened to Saruman or the hobbits when there's a great big <B>battle</B> to film? Utter, utter, beautifully designed and shot garbage.

[Eurytus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Jackson never even tried. I seriously, and I mean this, doubt that Jackson has read the book. I'm sure he skimmed all sorts of bits he thought were "boring". There's certainly no evidence that this pathetic hack of a director understood the book or cared about the characters. <BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>And you sarcastically call me a genius……<BR>Yes, someone who built themselves up from financing their own low budget films, to winning an Oscar for Heavenly Creatures (a universally admired film), to winning several for LOTR (so far), to earning $20 million and 20% of the gross for his dream picture and being named one of the most powerful men in Hollywood.<P>Yeah, right, someone who has achieved more than you or I, or anyone here can ever hope to is a pathetic hack.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Careful, pandora - your accusations against Peter Jackson for allegedly not reading the book cannot be sustained. There is a huge difference between not reading a source, and interpreting it in a personal manner. If you watch the documentary supplements on the EE of the movies, you will see that he is a genuine Tolkien fan, just as we are. I would not choose the same interpretation of the book as he did, but it is not fair to deny him credit for doing his personal best out of a love for LotR.<P>Let's give credit where credit is due and above all, please don't get personal about opinions here - each member is entitled to express his/hers, so keep the discussion about the topic, not about the previous posters.<p>[ 5:32 AM December 15, 2003: Message edited by: Estelyn Telcontar ]

[Evisse the Blue]

Well- I agree with you, pandora, though probably not with your choice of angry words. But basically I see your point. Even if Jackson is a LOTR fan, I'm pretty sure he strays far from what LOTR is really about, while staying oh so true to Hollywood. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>out of a love for LotR. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>...and for the huge money-making machine it has become. Yes, the 'marketing' topic.<BR>But, come on: let's think positive.<BR>I for one, think that the merchandising positively sucks. Not being an American and not even an European sure has its advantages: one is not subjected to seeing Gandalf on a can of sour cream and onion pringles. Not owning a DVD player, I don't have to cringe at buying a DVD of FOTR, immediately before the release of a second DVD with a few 'additional scenes' that mysteriously haven't made the previous one, which, as a true fan, I'll also have to buy.<P>Ok, enough sarcasm for one post. <P>And you wonder what this has to do with Tolkien. Well - by reading his letters, you get a sense of this man's integrity and of his strong opinions that he voiced relentlessly. He was particularly disgusted of this 'culture for the masses' and comercialism. (see what he has to say against Disney, for instance, or against those who attempt a 'audience-friendly' translation of Beowulf). So, I can only laugh while trying to picture his reaction to the LOTR-movie marketing hysteria.<BR>Wheew. I'm glad I got that off my chest. Please be nice and act like a support group.

[pandora]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>your accusations against Peter Jackson for allegedly not reading the book cannot be sustained. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>They are sustained by pretty well every line of the script he used. I'm sure he scanned the book but I don't think he actually read it, certainly before making the films. If he did read it he must not have liked it much given how much of the important material he changed or left out (while including a lot that was not important).<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> There is a huge difference between not reading a source, and interpreting it in a personal manner. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>There's a huge difference between interpreting and adding third-rate material of your own for no reason while mangling the original material.

[Eurytus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Not owning a DVD player, I don't have to cringe at buying a DVD of FOTR, immediately before the release of a second DVD with a few 'additional scenes' that mysteriously haven't made the previous one, which, as a true fan, I'll also have to buy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I find this a mysterious criticism. We are not talking about PJ “doing a Lucas” here. Releasing the films and then without prior warning releasing the widescreen versions, the THX versions, the limited editions, the special editions and doubtless before long the ultimate editions.<P>No, New Line pursued a totally sensible policy in my opinion. They announced well in advance that they would be releasing 2 versions (3 if you include the box set) of each film. They also announced the sort of things they would contain regarding extras. This then left it up to the consumer which one they brought or whether they brought all of them. You do not have to buy them all and their solution was far preferable to the alternatives.<P>1. The aforementioned “Lucas method” releasing previously unannounced versions of the films meaning that people have to keep updating if they want the most “complete” version.<P>2. Releasing the theatrical version only, meaning that all those additional scenes would never see the light of day.<P>3. Releasing the extended editions only meaning that the casual fan will be wondering what’s going on. Quite apart from the fact that in the case of the FOTR, the theatrical version had a superior Hobbition beginning in my opinion. Great though the additional footage was you cannot beat the soaring music as Gandalf rides through the cutting, the camera rises and you catch your first sight of Bagend.<P>I fail to see exactly what New Line did wrong here.

[Eurytus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If you watch the documentary supplements on the EE of the movies, you will see that he is a genuine Tolkien fan, just as we are. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>100% correct. Though I would add that they also show how many of the supporting people concerned were also real fans.<BR>Basically you cannot see the intricate detail given to the smallest things (such as a button or belt buckle) and still think they do not care.

[Lord of Angmar]

Pandora, I am afraid your accusations are false. Peter Jackson was a long-time Tolkien fan, and claims to have the highest respect for JRRT's works. That is one of the reasons he was chosen to direct the <I>Lord of the Rings</I>. Furthermore, making statements like "he must not have liked it very much" is not a coherent way to make an argument. While I do disagree with many of the changes that Peter Jackson made on the original text, I think it is unfair to say that he dislikes or disrespects the source material, and I doubt there are many better-suited directors than Mr. Jackson (this may sound like somewhat of a contradiction to my initial tough stance in this thread, but remember my initial intent was merely to convey the complaints of Tolkien purists).<P>My mistake about the "Scourging of the Shire" bit in my first post. I was under the impression from complainers on other Tolkien-related websites that it had been far more environmentally unfriendly, and I am glad to hear from the more knowledgeable that this is not so.<P>Cheers,<BR>Angmar

[pandora]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Peter Jackson was a long-time Tolkien fan, and claims to have the highest respect for JRRT's works. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Well, he can claim to be the Queen of Sheba if he wants.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Furthermore, making statements like "he must not have liked it very much" is not a coherent way to make an argument.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Okay: by constantly undermining the character of Frodo and skipping or changing important parts of the characterisation and motivation of other characters such as Aragorn, Elrond, Gandalf, Faramir, and Saruman Jackson has demonstrated that he is not willing to film what is the easiest aspect of the book to adapt: the characters. Since this is also the most important aspect of the book we must ask why he changed it. <P>The obvious answer is that Jackson simply didn't care enough about the characters to try. Why else would he not bother with the resolution of Saruman's story? Why else destroy the entire purpose of Frodo's stand at the ford and his leaving of the Fellowship? Why play around with Sam and Frodo's relationship? ANYONE that liked the book would see these scenes as absolutely crucial to story. <P>The added material likewise shows that Jackson was not very interested in the book: the terrible side-trip to Osgiliath was probably the low point of the second film, unless it was Aragorn's "death" which was also added.<P>Do you think Jackson added this crap material because he prefered the original? Of course not! He added it in because he thought it was better, and if that's what he thinks is better he must have a very low opinion of the original.

[Eurytus]

Yeah I think he should have kept in the clown in yellow Wellington boots and that fox that wonders what Hobbits are doing outside. That would really have made the film complete.<P>Somehow I think that PJ’s changes have been vindicated through the only medium that means anything. He has the box office results. He has the critical acclaim.<BR>Given that there are certain Tolkien fanboys who simply would never be satisfied unless the book was filmed exactly as it is in their imagination, then why should he worry too much about what they think?

[pandora]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> omehow I think that PJ?s changes have been vindicated through the only medium that means anything. He has the box office results. He has the critical acclaim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>So has "Titanic" but it's still crap.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Given that there are certain Tolkien fanboys who simply would never be satisfied unless the book was filmed exactly as it is in their imagination <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I was not expecting that but, paradoxically, it is what I got. Jackson's film does, in fact, pretty well look the way I imagined it (apart from the Shire which was a bit off).<P>The problem is that Jackson did not film the STORY of LotR. The story is not something imagined, it is written down in black and white. That story may need to be compressed and altered to make a film, even a 9hr film, but Jackson has gone beyond that to produce a patchwork mess largely of his own devising using the names from the book and little else <I>as regards the story</I>.