Who thinks the LOTR books are better?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by strider8

Me!!!!!!!!!

welcome strider, please introduce yourself at the welcome thread, located at the top of general messages forum

[jerseydevil]

I just have three words - the movies suck.

[strider8]

How can you not like the movie!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by strider8

How can you not like the movie!

no! don't say it!!, oh well, let's have it JD

[Lenya]

Originally Posted by strider8

How can you not like the movie!

You should go check out the thread on 'things I would like to change about the movies' (I think that's the name). There's a lot of reasons.

[me9996]

Originally Posted by strider8

How can you not like the movie!

Have you read the books? I agree with spider-man

[Twista]

Originally Posted by me9996

Have you read the books? I agree with spider-man

I think we can assume he has as he has quote from the book in his signiture.

And.. who is Spider Man?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

spider man, spider man, does whatever a spider can
spins a web, (eats a fly?)

i love that programme!

[Nurvingiel]

Chrys (aka Last Child of Ungoliant) is Spider Man.

Are you saying you like the movies more than the books Strider8? Or that you like the movies a lot?


(Though I acknowledge the presence of the 3 Bs Twista, there is just no excuse for the abomination that was "Arwen's" "character". Not that the words "Arwen" and "character" are being used very loosely here.)

EDIT:
I just realized this thread is entitled "Who thinks the LotR books are better", not the movies.

Heh. Um... never mind Strider8.

[IronParrot]

Here's a better question:

Who thinks that making comparative value judgments across different media is a totally pointless activity?

[strider8]

Originally Posted by me9996

Have you read the books?

Of course i have read the books.I have read all of them about 10 times.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by IronParrot

Here's a better question:

Who thinks that making comparative value judgments across different media is a totally pointless activity?

I don't think it's pointless when the movies were nothing but a typical cliched hollywoodized hack film, where plot sturctures and characters were completely changed. Not to mention where they used such obvious 101 film technics as having a character play the "comic relief" role. I do the think it's a valid question when the fil;ms were so dumbed down they become unrecognizable from the original works.

[Gordis]

I think, the good question would have been: Who believes than the movies are better than the books? And you get 0 replies.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

the movies are very goos movies, as far as epic action fantasy movies go
as adaptations of the greatest lierary masterpiece ever, they are ridiculously stupid, i mean i have 4 words to say: faramir, denethor, celeborn and arwen

[IronParrot]

Honestly, I've stopped caring about the whole "better" or "worse" question since I first came to terms with the omission of the Scouring of the Shire when I found out about it, oh, five years ago.

My current stance on it is that as long as we keep making prejudiced judgments about the movies and refuse to see them as anything but a parasitic shadow of the books, that will always be an obstacle preventing us from fully engaging in any intelligent critical analysis of the films as a self-contained narrative.

I'm not disputing that the sheer depth and quantity of material in Tolkien was dramatically reduced and compressed to fit into eleven hours of moving pictures. Yeah, so the films were reductionist in content and expansionist in aesthetics. But it's still a tautological argument to say that this reductionism makes the films "worse," because it's based on a presupposition of a value system that defines good and bad.

It's kind of like saying that all historical fiction is "worse" than history (and let's admit it, we often quite legitimately read Tolkien as a history), and then falling back on factual correspondence as a value system in and of itself. There's a Latin term for this kind of logical fallacy, but I don't remember it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by IronParrot

My current stance on it is that as long as we keep making prejudiced judgments about the movies and refuse to see them as anything but a parasitic shadow of the books, that will always be an obstacle preventing us from fully engaging in any intelligent critical analysis of the films as a self-contained narrative.

If this is directed at me - I have had intelligent critical analysiis aof the movie. The problem is - people insist that you must like them - because everyone else does. So what? I don't like them - I wouldn't like them if they weren't based on tolkien. I think overall - they are stupid movies. It's the same reason why - even though I like the first couple of star wars - I hate Return of the Jedi and the last two movies. And that isn't because of them being based on a book - which they aren't - it's because they're dumnb movies - with dumbed down charcters and stupid jokes.

I'm not disputing that the sheer depth and quantity of material in Tolkien was dramatically reduced and compressed to fit into eleven hours of moving pictures. Yeah, so the films were reductionist in content and expansionist in aesthetics. But it's still a tautological argument to say that this reductionism makes the films "worse," because it's based on a presupposition of a value system that defines good and bad.

It wasn't a reduction in the content of the movies that's the problem - it was that the movies were completely changed, they were cliched, they had stupid jokes such as dwarf tossing - that had no place in the movies whatsoever. I can't stand the movies because they are stupid movies. I actually think that the rwason why MOST people like the movies - especially Tolkien fans who like the movie - is because they feel they must settle for these hacked up pieces of crap. Also - because people have gotten used to stupid, no brain action films.

It's kind of like saying that all historical fiction is "worse" than history (and let's admit it, we often quite legitimately read Tolkien as a history), and then falling back on factual correspondence as a value system in and of itself. There's a Latin term for this kind of logical fallacy, but I don't remember it.

That's your own opinion concernign the movies and why people don't like them - however it is not MY reason for not liking them. deal with the reason why I don't like them - and I really wish people woudl stop trying to marginalize the reasons why some of us LEGITIMATELY don't like the movies - instead of the usual cleched comment of "well they counldn't make the movies word for word - no one would go." That isn't what people who don't like the movies were looking for - we were looking for a INTELLIGENT movie (which we did not get), that ACCURATELY, as near possible represented Tolkien's work. Having Aragorn the central character because Jackson didn't really care for the hobbits - isn't a legimate reason for making the movies Aragorn-centric. Nor is it legitimate reason for him to completely change so many of the characters from the book.

[Twista]

JD, so your final answer is simply that you dont like the films? As if i were to say that I dont think the film "Flubber" is a good film? If it is all as simple as that then i dont see why people keep arguing with you - then I'll simply except your point of view.

However, I've seen several of your bashing posts - mainly concerning the stupidness of the comic relief added through Merry, Pippin and Gimlie. Also I think you wrote somewhere how you hate Legoles is turned into a James Bond type character. It is a common fact that these things have to be put into films - or a greater majority of people will hate them also. At the end of the day there is more movie fans than there is Tolkien (really is a shame), and thats the honest truth.

You also seem to think that Jackson cared nothing for how the film was made, simply to make money. But if you took the time to watch some of the 'makings off' - which i doubt you will - then you can see there does seem to be alot of love and effort being put into it.

Dont get me wrong, everyone agrees the written works out match the films 1000 times over and I really dont want to get into this arguement with you, because no doubt I'll lose... but did you ever give them a chance?

[Durin1]

Hey, JD, I agree with you! lol

Some people have viewed the movies through rose-tinted glasses, not me. I was expecting better, more intelligent films.

But that's all in the past. I'm quite happy to just sit back and soak up all the heated discussions!

[jerseydevil]

twista you are partially right. I do have problem with Merry and Pippin and Gimli being used as comic relief - I have pointed out areas where I do not think the movies are good. The problem I have with the comic relief is that Jackson didn't have to resort to merry and Pippin being reduced down to brainless morons. He also didn't need to make it where it was a "comic relief character". In fellowship of the ring - this role was played by pippin and merry - in two towers it was palyed my gimli. It was completely obvious. A GOOD drtector isn't obvious with the type of film techniques they use.

As for Jackson putting a lot of effort and love into them and me watching "the making of". I have watched the making of. In fellowship he comes right out and says that he thought it would be great to make a fantasy movie. Then after thinking about it - he thought Lord of the Rigns would be good because it had a ready made audience. The thing is before Fellowship came out - he told numerous lies to get Lord of the Rings fans to accept the movies. He said how all the actors had to read the books, that they all had copies with them during the scenes and they woudl all do a reading of it prior to filming. This we know is not true now - because Elijah Wood had said he hasn't read the books nor did they have the books on the set. The ONLY fan of Lord of the Rings ended up quitting in Return of the King and refused to do publicity works for the movies and completely boycotted them.

As fro legaolas - I never had any problems with him - other than that stupid snowboard thing and stuff like that.

Jackson knew that the only way he could make money on the films is to make sure that the Lord of the Rings fans were convinced that 1) that they were going to stay true to the books - that was the message prior to Fellowship of the Ring. 2) That there was no other way to make the movies and keep keep people going - that he told AFTER fellowship of the Ring.

Sorry - he told numerous lies - and the Lord of the Rings fans bought them hook line and sinker. My feeling is that people are in complete denial and don't want to face the facts about the movies.

[mithrand1r]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Jackson knew that the only way he could make money on the films is to make sure that the Lord of the Rings fans were convinced that 1) that they were going to stay true to the books - that was the message prior to Fellowship of the Ring. 2) That there was no other way to make the movies and keep keep people going - that he told AFTER fellowship of the Ring.

Sorry - he told numerous lies - and the Lord of the Rings fans bought them hook line and sinker. My feeling is that people are in complete denial and don't want to face the facts about the movies.

These fabrications are part of the reasons that I was disappointed with the NewLine movies of LOTR. Before FOTR I had high expectations primarily by what PJ&Co. said and the financial backing that the film had received.

With the resources being devoted to producing LOTR and the claims to remain true to the spirit of Tolkiens' work, I expected a very good adaptation of LOTR to the silver screen.

What resulted was much less than I expected. Music, costumes and sets were, in general, excellent. The dialogue and adaptation (cuts, additions, changes, etc.) left much to be desired. (Hard to believe since there was more than enough material to work from)

As an action film, I thought LOTR was good. As an adaptation, I thought the film missed the mark.