Peter Jackson is God

[Dunadan]

Okay then. How do you respond to the criticism that Jackson is simply unable to tell a story?

Several people have made this point on other threads, but not been answered. The main problem is that he totally sacrifices character development for plot, cutting too quickly between scenes and not giving the actors time to shine.

Then he totally fails to convey the plot.

The bits he did lift from the book were usually the wrong bits; "classic" lines to buy off the afficionados but which had no relevance to the story and just confused things. Good example was the 20-second clip of Saruman recruiting the Dunlendings.

Basically, I think Jackson is unable to tell a story properly, which might make him the God of Crap Stories, but not much else.

Don't get me wrong: I think the films are a tremendous achievement, but I think it's in spite of Jackson's direction, not because of it.

cheers

d.

[Coney]

Originally posted by Sween
didnt that get closed cos we all slagged off BB for been a bit of an idiot?

Probably

Edit: Yep it did..........my sincerest apologies BB...........

'tis a shame this thread isn't entitled "PJ is the new Messiah"...at least then we'd be justified in nailing him to a plank.

[Celebréiel]

Originally posted by Dunadan
I think the films are a tremendous achievement, but I think it's in spite of Jackson's direction, not because of it.

Hey I like that...well put. I wasnt just talking about Faramir before (even though yeah, from what weve seen the changes were annoying and useless(but ill accept that we should wait until RoTK to finally judge )) What about Gimli, Treebeard, Haldir??, Theoden' posession(which I tried to forget it as PJ's interpretations of what happend but its clearly to heighten tension ) PJ is far from the bestest director ever, hes good and yes he put alot of work and I have loads of respect for the people that worked hard on the movie....but its certainly not with out some major major *major* flaws.
~ Celebréiel

[Elf Girl]

Celebréiel, I completely agree. That post was very well put.

[Lizra]

I have a problem with these threads because I don't really know what Peter Jackson was thinking. I love the books and the movies. Of the two, I prefer the books, they offer so much more. BUT, I really enjoy the movies, they add a whole new dimension of Tolkien enjoyment via the things that were done right, which is an incredibly long list. I am glad these movies were made. I am not above "cheap thrills" (heck no, I like em! ) and will enjoy PJ's movie version of LoTR for many years. I don't really know if Peter Jackson said "Screw the book, I'm making some money here"....Or worked his butt off doing the best he could for ever and a day yet still couldn't bring off a 100% totally correct adaptation of an incredible complex story(s). I get a headache when I try to imagine making LoTR the movie.

[Elf Girl]

I wonder if PJ referred to the animated versions as he made the films...

Probably not, but interesting to think about.

[WallRocker]

Originally posted by Dunadan
. The main problem is that he totally sacrifices character development for plot,

I think the films are a tremendous achievement, but I think it's in spite of Jackson's direction, not because of it.

Well spoken. while I don't that PJ did the best job possible, he did have to cater to the Holleywood-ized crowd, who doesn't understand the awesome world Tolkien created(isn't that what we always complain about here?) But I do think that he could have catered a little more to the Tolkien *book* fans.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Dunadan
Okay then. How do you respond to the criticism that Jackson is simply unable to tell a story?

Several people have made this point on other threads, but not been answered. The main problem is that he totally sacrifices character development for plot, cutting too quickly between scenes and not giving the actors time to shine.

Character development in a movie is much different than character development in a book. Jackson communicates a great deal about his characters with brief glances, gestures, and plot points as well as with dialogue. If PJ had really done a horrible job of capturing the characters as you claim, then there is no way in the world that these movies would have captured the imagination of so many people. No matter how great a plot, if moviegoers don't care about the characters, it doesn't matter.

IMHO, Jackson's Gandalf, Aragorn, Frodo, Sam, Legolas, and Boromir are some of the most amazing characters ever seen on film and the others aren't far behind.

[azalea]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
I wonder if PJ referred to the animated versions as he made the films...

Probably not, but interesting to think about.

Actually, you're right. In the dvds (I forget if it's in the commentary or appendices or both) he says his first intro to Tolkien was seeing Bakshi's LotR. There are two scenes where he specifically says he tried to emulate Bakshi's version: one is at Bilbo's party -- the camera angle when Odo(?) Proudfoot has his feet on the table and says "ProudFEET!" (which was fine IMO), and then again when the four hobbits are hiding from the Black Rider under the tree (again, not something I had a prblem w/ -- it was a really good scene).
But the fact that Bakshi's version of LotR was the first taste of Tolkien PJ had may account for some of the "bad" changes he made -- it kind of shows where he was coming from, as opposed to being someone who would try to stay as close to the book as possible while still making a workable film.

[Huan]

Isn't the scene in Fellowship of the Nazgul repeadtedly stabbing straight down into the hobbits' beds also taken from the Bakshi cartoons? It's been awhile since I saw it, but I could have sworn I'd seen that done before, and I know it isn't in the book.

[cassiopeia]

Didn't Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh write most of the script? Yes, Peter Jackson had some input, but I was under the impression Philippa and Fran wrote the script and Peter shot it. Philippa was cast as scriptwriter because of her knowledge of The Lord of the Rings. So you have to criticize (or praise) them as well. I think the crew have done a wonderful job of bringing Middle-earth to life. But some of the changes the scriptwriters make don’t make sense. These have been described in other threads, so I won’t repeat them here.

[azalea]

This is getting a little OT, but I thought it was funny in the dvd when Phillipa is talking about them writing the script, and she describes how she and (I guess) Fran would write a part and then just write [they fight], knowing Peter will take care of doing that part, and Peter would write a scene and then just write [they kiss], leaving that part up to the women. So I think PJ did truly co-write the script, too.

[Arathorn]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Well it's funny since the movies were released there has been the biggest influx of Tolkien books bought in the history of Tolkien, how can you clasify bringing that much wealth and love for Tolkien as a bastardization? That is one of the main things I do not understand. Yes, maybe the films do not sit well with some of you, but think about all of the lucky people out there that have now found the very thing that we all love! I do not think it was done for mere money, I mean look at how much time and effort PJ & crew put into this, they worked for 5 years before any filming began! And why? Well, for a few reasons:

1) make the best possible interpretation ON SCREEN for AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE!,
2) to bring forth the world of Tolkien for people who would otherwise know nothing about him and his works.

To me those are two pretty damn solid reasons right there....

I always thought of the movies as an effective marketing tool for the books. The books are soooo good but people tend to shy away from the daunting number of pages. The original publisher, as you all know, cut it up into 3 volumes to make it less daunting. PJ et al, IMO, made eyecandy to seduce the uninterested.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by azalea
I'm having deja vu.

Yeah, me too. I wonder how long this thread will stay open for?

Dunedain: there's a really good reason why everyone is not taking BB seriously. His rep as a trouble maker precedes him. Check out this thread for more details. He pretends to be Mr. Innocent, but we all know better.

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Character development in a movie is much different than character development in a book. Jackson communicates a great deal about his characters with brief glances, gestures, and plot points as well as with dialogue. If PJ had really done a horrible job of capturing the characters as you claim, then there is no way in the world that these movies would have captured the imagination of so many people. No matter how great a plot, if moviegoers don't care about the characters, it doesn't matter.

Agreed. However, in a film, I think you have to take more time over it or the audience will not get it. The characters make sense to us because we already know them from the book.

I'm not trashing the film here; I think they did Frodo/Gollum really well, for example, and I love the movies overall. If anything, there needed to be more pruning of content to allow more space for development.

However, I don't think it's possible to argue that the film successfully portrays the strategic aspects of the book (the bluffing game they play with Sauron). This is the essential plot which makes sense of everything else that's going on. The things they replaced it with (e.g. Frodo waving the ring at a Nazgul in Osgiliath) were clumsy, and they only get away with it because no-one knows what's going on anyway so one more inexplicable action piece isn't going to make any difference.

IMHO, Jackson's Gandalf, Aragorn, Frodo, Sam, Legolas, and Boromir are some of the most amazing characters ever seen on film and the others aren't far behind. [/B]

Certainly Sean Bean was tremendous in FOTR, and Ian McKellen dominated TTT; the others were mostly great too, especially Christopher Lee. I suppose I have a slight problem with Frodo: he always seems to have the same expression on his face, and he comes across as a weaker character than in the books.

BTW, I think I joined Entmoot partly because of the debates which BB initiated under the "Jackson has improved Tolkein thread". It doesn't bother me if things get heated along the way and I don't think we should try to censor it in any way (as long as the language stays moderate).

Given there's a new film out, I welcome the chance to revisit the question of how the films enhance (or otherwise) the overall vision of the epic.

cheers

d.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Dunadan
I don't think it's possible to argue that the film successfully portrays the strategic aspects of the book (the bluffing game they play with Sauron). This is the essential plot which makes sense of everything else that's going on. The things they replaced it with (e.g. Frodo waving the ring at a Nazgul in Osgiliath) were clumsy, and they only get away with it because no-one knows what's going on anyway so one more inexplicable action piece isn't going to make any difference.

The strategy of the West plays out in ROTK. The bluffing really takes place after Gondor & Company repells the attack from Mordor on Minas Tirith. The only real strategy (if you could call it that) involving Sauron from TTT involved the Palantir and the movie finished before getting to that part.

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The strategy of the West plays out in ROTK. The bluffing really takes place after Gondor & Company repells the attack from Mordor on Minas Tirith. The only real strategy (if you could call it that) involving Sauron from TTT involved the Palantir and the movie finished before getting to that part.

True, and I can see this may be their intent, but the scene has to be set during TTT, right from the start. What about the Isengard/Mordor rivalry in the orc raid? Because the Uruks get the upper hand, Sauron thinks Saruman may have the Ring. Aragorn is aware of this from the first Chapter of TTT. Then there's Gandalf's summation of the state of play when he appears to Aragorn et al. The strategic importance of Rohan is clear to the reader from Chapter 2, and Saruman's bewitching of Theoden is revealed as part of Sauron's strategy to weaken Gondor. As a result, the book's plot is on a knife-edge; the film's is not.

It may well be that to convey this, the film makers would have to make more changes to the text, not less. Who knows. However, to my mind, TTT is the book which transforms the adventure story into one of strategy and intrigue; TTT the film simply did not achieve this.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Dunadan
What about the Isengard/Mordor rivalry in the orc raid? Because the Uruks get the upper hand, Sauron thinks Saruman may have the Ring.

I don't disagree with you. But the trouble Jackson had is that he made it clear in FOTR for purposes of brevity to show the audience that Saruman and Sauron are in league with each other from the start. So the decision was made early on to limit the strategic elements of the story to Saruman's efforts to build an army and destroy Rohan, Theoden's decision to go to Helm's Deep, and the West's efforts to keep Sauron's eye on them and away from the Ringbearer by bringing the war to his gates. It would have been nice to have more but I understand Jackson's decision to simply it for the movies.

[Sminty_Smeagol]

Originally posted by Sminty_Smeagol
*licks peter jackson's feet* BLESS MY CROPS OH MIGHTY ONE!

Jackson God doesn't like me He didn't bless my crops!!!

Wait... I don't have crops.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Sminty_Smeagol
Jackson God doesn't like me He didn't bless my crops!!!

Wait... I don't have crops.

That's because Lord PJ did not bless you with crops, oh Smited_Sminty_Smeagol.

I suggest a human sacrifice. (hint hint) Don't use the sheep or BoP will be angered. *insert more smiting here*