The Critics' treatment of Tolkien & Jackson

[Nurvingiel]

Stephen isn't a hack..... and you can compare anyone to Tolkien, they just might come off worse.

Considering the critics treatment of Jackson and Tolkien, they both deserve respect as great (or amazing, as the case may be) artists in their fields. Jackson gets the respect, but Tolkien didn't at the time his books were under review.

There are some variables at work, like the time period they were being reviewed in, and the media type.

I think book reviewers tend to be harsher than movie reviewers. (Exception: that guy who reviews movies for CBC Radio. I almost fell off my chair when he had something nice to say about a movie. )

I love Tolkien. I defended him against my English Professor--and I did it with the same zeal I've defended Jackson against his detractors on this board.

BB, your English prof needs to rethink his position in the academic hierarchy. On the one hand, you have an Oxford professor who wrote a literary classic, and there is now a course at Oxford devoted to studying his works. On the other hand, you have a regular English prof. Hm. I hope you have other Tolkien supporters in your class! I knew you'd defend Tolkien zealously!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

There's an Oxford course on Tolkien's works?

[Nurvingiel]

Yes, I believe it's called "Tolkien Studies".

Why am I in science???

[Legolas_Frodo_Aragorn]

thats soooooooooooo cool.. want to get in

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Mussst...go...to...Oxsssford....

[Black Breathalizer]

I find it a little ironic that we can all agree that literary critics treated Tolkien horribly, "writers who write do, those that can't become critics", blah, blah, blah.

Yet some of the same people who hate the way the literary elite have "turned down their noses" at Tolkien over the years feel no qualms whatsoever in doing the exact same thing to Peter Jackson. You'd think true Tolkienites would know better.

I've been branded as a Jackson lover here. I am one. His films are not perfect, but they are incredibly well done and I feel blessed to know I will have these DVDs to play whenever I feel the urge to step into Middle-Earth for a few hours.

I am a Tolkien lover too. I've read the books every year since I was 14. I don't understand why people who call themselves a Tolkien fan would want to criticize films that pays homage to their favorite author's great work. The two works are not in competition with each other. Some things Jackson didn't get quite right and other things actually improved the story. The bottom line is that the two works compliment each other beautifully. The films give the books more vivid imagery and faces while the books give the films more depth.

[Nurvingiel]

I think we've all got ourselves stuck in a debate where we're not in the position where we'd really like to be. This is nobody's fault, but this debate has basically turned into BB versus everybody else.

To elaborate, BB says he doesn't feel that Jackson's movies are perfect. But I also think he feels stuck defending the movies zealously, and without comprimise, because the rest of us are harshly dumping on it. (And BB, I'm not picking on you, you just happen to be the only person on that side of the debate.)

Bringing us to the other camp, I'll use myself for an example. I think there's a lot of things done right in PJ's movies, and I also think they're great. But inexplicably, I feel the need to point out flaws in the movies, and focus solely on them. This is partly due to the opposite position BB is drawn into, to zealously defend the movies.

But I think the real reason is human nature, to focus on the negative, that has made both our positions stuck in a rut.

That being said, we can easily break out of this mold and have a proper debate. I'm going to say things that I thought was well done in the movie, and BB, you're going to tell us what you felt could have been done better. (As I said earlier, this will not invalidate your position defending PJ, it will strengthen it.)

Things that were well done in TTT:

1) Detailed armour and weapons. A great deal of effort went into crafting thousands of actual pieces of armour. I never thought two soldiers in the back ground were going at it with pool noodles or anything like that.

2) Sam. No need to elaborate, Sam rules all in the movie!

3) Galadriel. See above.

4) Eomer and Eowyn, also cool.

5) Special effects. The computer battles were awesome, using a technology that allowed computer generated soldiers to make decisions - leading to realistic and well done battles. Also things blowing up and the Balrog were awesome possum.

I think many movie critics were especially impressed with points 1, 3, and 5. One thing movie critics don't often do is criticise it's book to movie transition. (Roger Ebert is an exception, and he pooped on TTT from high heights.)

What most Mooters are looking for is the important elements of the book reflected in the movie.

There! Now that that's out of the way, I can state my real position without any previous connotations or strings attached.

For the most part, the spirit of the book was maintained in Jackson's great adaptation, however, some elements which I feel were very important in the book, were lost in the transition from the book to the movie.

Further, because Middle-earth was Tolkien's idea, and he wrote the books before the movie was even thought of, Tolkien is perfect. It's PJ's job to try to match that perfection in the movies, which he obviously can't do 100%. I acknowledge that the movies won't be perfect, but if PJ tries his darndest, then I will complain about silly bits, but I will also be happy and enjoy his movies.

Cheers, N

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Tolkien is perfect.

How true. Sorry, that jumped out at me, and I couldn't resist.

Anyway, I think I'll join in on this too!

Things I liked about PJ's movies as Movies about a Book (not necessarily related to the actual book):

1. Samwise: I thought he was very well portrayed, he seemed just about the exact same in the movies as he did in the books.
2. As N said before, detailed weapons and armor, but I would also add costumes and props to that list. All of that stuff was very well-done, in my opinion; the Elvish helms may have been a bit out there, but of course, we don't know what kind of helms Elves wore. I can't wait to see the Crown; will it be Egyptian style, as Tolkien said in one of his letters?
3. The CGI and everything fell in no wise short of awesome. The troll, the Balrog, Gollum; everything looked like it was actually there. (At least) Virtually indistinguishable from the rest of the movie.
4. Christopher Lee cast as Saruman. He is virtually perfect for that role.
5. The musical score was spectacular. Very fitting for the mood, IMO.

Things I like about PJ's movies as just plain movies:

Practically everything!

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
That being said, we can easily break out of this mold and have a proper debate. I'm going to say things that I thought was well done in the movie, and BB, you're going to tell us what you felt could have been done better.

Okay, Nurvingiel. Things about the FOTR & TTT films I did not like...in no particular order:

1) Gandalf's escape from Isengard being show as a flashback memory instead of a flashback recounting to Frodo of his escape. It felt awkward for Frodo to be left hanging as to why Gandalf didn't meet him in Bree. Saying "I was delayed" didn't do it for me. Frodo deserved more from Gandalf.

2) The extended Hobbiton introduction in the extended DVD. The hobbits were treated as more "dufus"-type characters and the innocence and zest for life that we saw from Frodo in the original version was missing. Biggest issue with it: It wasn't an extension of the original--it was a NEW version. Personally, I think it's wonderful to have new and extended scenes but I don't care to see "alternative" versions.

3) Lothlorien. It just didn't seem to have the same magic and "real" feeling that the other locations did. I don't know if it was an over-use of matte paintings or what, but I didn't find it as "magical" as the Rivendell or as dramatic as Helm's deep.

4) Wargs. I pictured the wargs as enormous wolves. The wolf-hyena hybred we were given just didn't feel right. I still liked having them in the films and thought the action was great. Most of the time in these films I've thought, "how did Peter Jackson capture my vision of Tolkien so perfectly?!?!?!? With the wargs, I thought, "nope, not quite right."

5) I agree with PJ--To hell with the extra five minutes it would have added to the film, the Galadriel gift-giving scene in the extended DVD of FOTR DESERVED to be in the theatrical release.

6) The ending of TTT felt a little rushed. I understand and support the reasons for Frodo & Sam being taken to Osgiliath. But their ultimate release seemed a tad too quick considering how long Faramir had held him.

7) I know this is my own problem but I always envisioned Shadowfax being this absolutely magnificent white horse. The film Shadowfax was impressive--but not as awe-inspiring as I would have liked to have seen. (But then, the horse I'm imagining probably doesn't exist.)

[Nurvingiel]

Hey you really put a lot of effort into that, thanks. You should be a movie critic!

I especially agree with 4, 5, and 7. For 7, I thought Shadowfax was introduced too much like a Marlboro ad, and I hate cigarettes! But he was a beautiful horse!

Well, if the rest of you guys were movie critics, what you put for things well done and flaws? So far you've heard from me, BB, and Windgem!

[LuthienTinuviel]

any small brained monkey can go see a movie, but it takes a special person to read and understand and love these books.

[Elvellyn]

What other books were published the same year as FotR first came out?

[Entlover]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Well, if the rest of you guys were movie critics, what you put for things well done and flaws? So far you've heard from me, BB, and Windgem!

I think the books are awesome, but I enjoy the movies because they bring them to life, not perfectly, but certainly better than I could do!

Things I like:
Sam (nuff said),
and Frodo - I think Elijah's done an excellent job portraying a very subjective character. I'm tired of people calling his expression constipated! How else would you portray the growing weight and evil of the ring?
Gollum.
Gandalf and Legolas (especially Legolas' fighting ability - and no I'm not a fangirl.
Theoden's grief, recital of the poem as he's armored, and his final leadership of the sortie from the fortress.
Helms' Deep and Edoras.
Eowyn, who did a lovely job of showing her wistful appreciation for Aragorn.

Things I dislike:
any and all battles between wizards. Wizards, even evil ones, are dignified; they don't fling people about. So I dislike the first battle in Isengard, and the possession and rescue of Theoden. I don't think it's in character for Theoden to have been so demented.
the mangling of the Entmoot. And Merry & Pippin's success at duping Treebeard - totally out of character for the Ent, he's much wiser than they are.
Aragorn falling off a cliff like an idiot. The swim was all right and the rest of the scene, but he could have got there less absurdly.

All that said, i think these movies will be among the all time cinema greats.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Elvellyn
What other books were published the same year as FotR first came out?

I did a search for books at chapters.ca for books published in 1954 (FotR and TTT) and I found Horton Hears a Who, by Dr. Seuss. Could they really be that old!?

I also found Henry & Ribsy by Beverly Cleary! I love Beverly Cleary! I can't believe she was still around when I was a kid in the 80's!

A 1955 search turns up... more Dr. Seuss, On Beyond Zebra.

Moses & Monotheism , by Sigmund Freud. Woah.

And last but not least... Borrowers Afield, by Mary Norton. One of my mom's favourite books!

[Coney]

Originally posted by LuthienTinuviel
any small brained monkey can go see a movie, but it takes a special person to read and understand and love these books.

*thoughtfully chews on a piece of banana*

V.true.

I wonder why so many newspapers, magazines etc have publised movie reviews from people who have never read the books?

[Elvellyn]

I

did a search for books at chapters.ca for books published in 1954 (FotR and TTT) and I found Horton Hears a Who, by Dr. Seuss. Could they really be that old!?

Oh,gee, I can imagine the critics in 1954...
Lets see, whats new this year
Hmmm. Horton hears a Who! A book about an elephant who tries to save a bunch of pepole on a peice of dust.
Interesting...Sounds good
*writing a good reveiw*
Fellowship of the Ring...a book about good people trying to destroy evil..Why thats rediculous! Who would want to read that!
*writing a bad review*

[mithrand1r]

I will just list without going into any real detail why.

Good:

»New Zealand as Middle Earth

»Music in LOTR

»Attention to many small details that help immerse the viewer into M-E (armor, weapons, clothing, structures, extras(people), etc.)

»Well portrayed Characters -- Gandalf, Gollum, Frodo, Sam, Sauruman, Eowyn, Galadriel, Bilbo, Ring Wraiths, Wormtongue (although I wished he did not look as despicable as he did), Balrog, Sauron(both forms)

»Battle with Balrog v. Gandalf

»visuals of Ents (could have been much worse)

»Orthnac(sp?), Rivendell, Moria, Helms Deep, Golden Hall, Baradur
and the Shire

»The Black Gate

»Storming of Isengard

»Gandalf does not touch the ring (at least I do not remember him touching the ring in the movie)

»Bilbo's party

»Anduin River & Argonoths

»Special effects that do not distract you from the story (i.e. they do not stand out as a sore thumb)

»The search for Merry&Pippin

Not so good:

»Severe compression of time

»Merry and Pippen too silly/commical in FOTR, though better in TTT

»Overuse of Gimli as comic relief, IMHO, in TTT.

»Dwarf jokes (they were not that bad, but I did not think they
were appropriate in LOTR)

»Aragorn, Gimli, Elrond and Boromir (actors very good, but char. could have been portrayed better IMHO) Aragorn is better in second half of TTT

»ford scene

»Weather Top

»Bree too short

»Council of Elrond

»Faromir

»Awren (no prob. w/actress, just how she was used in film)

»Lothlorian (nice, but I was expecting more. Gift giving scene for example)

»Frodo&Sam's Cloaks of Invisibility @ Black Gate

»Inconsistancy of the Ents

»Gandalf charge down the steep incline with the other horses then avoid all the orcs pikes

»Aragorn apparent death

»the wargs

»occassional mistakes with geography and other general internal inconsistancies (legolas eye color, orcs going northeast instead of northwest, etc.)

»"The movie's dialogue has the problem of assuming you already know the story, and so just skips ahead to the next interesting bit without bothering to add all the information and characterization that glue the story together and give it life and coherence. As a result, the movie starts running like a record of "Tolkien's Greatest Hits": all the neat bits of the story, but none of the framework that helps the neat bits make any kind of sense." While the movie is not that bad there are points in the film when that happens (Bree and Elronds Council come to mind)

»The battle scenes were very intense and sometimes difficult (for me) to follow all of the action.

Sincerely,
Anthony

[isthatbad!]

la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la
did u lik my song

[Black Breathalizer]

We interrupt 'la la land' for an actual post...

Originally posted by mithrand1r
Not so good:
»Gandalf charge down the steep incline with the other horses then avoid all the orcs pikes

What?!?!?! I can't believe anyone could find fault with THAT scene!!! That was one of the best pieces of film-making I've ever watched in my life!

The combination of the army charging down the steep hill, the incredible music--especially the voice of Ben Del Maestro, and that breathtaking moment when the sun comes up over the horizon, is one of the most truly awe-inspiring (to the point of having an almost biblical feel) moments in cinema history.

Regarding the orc spikes, just before the army comes charging into them, the sun temporarily blinds the orcs. While these orcs have been bred to withstand the daylight, it is logical to believe their eyes would have trouble adjusting to intense daylight. And ANYONE who has ever driven a car directly into the light when the sun is coming up knows how difficult that is.

[Balrog_of_Morgoth]

I had a little bit of trouble with the that seen as well. After second and third viewings, I agree the sun played a big part. To me, it seems that Gandalf lets his power shine forth as they close in on the front line of pikes and the Orcs mostly lower their pikes and shield their eyes in dismay.

It may have been better to illustrate that point more clearly to the viewers. I'm sure we are not the only ones who entertained these thoughts.