LOTR = Typical Action Films?

[Cassius]

It is about time you ate your own words Jerseyman. Why would Sauron the great appoint the nazgul as his high servants if all that they could do was screech. Would evil creatures follow something that just screeches? Peter Jackson obviously saw in the writing what the true meaning was.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I think you KNOW perfectly well they are NOT seperate posters.

I think I'll reserve my judgement a little longer on this matter.

And I did say suppose in my last post.

Furthermore I think we all should drop the debate on who's who and concentrate on the topic at hand as to whether or not the LoTR-movies are action movies.

[thranduil]

Originally posted by Eärniel
I think I'll reserve my judgement a little longer on this matter.

And I did say suppose in my last post.

Furthermore I think we all should drop the debate on who's who and concentrate on the topic at hand as to whether or not the LoTR-movies are action movies.

True. Stated like a true Tolkein fan.

[Cassius]

To respond correctly, we must define what makes an action movie. If an action movie is where one person has a long conflict with another, then all movies are action. Or do you think an action movie is totally devoted to having a whole lot of explosions at the sacrifice of a good storyline? Obviously the movies do not fall into the second.

LOTR has no relation to Lethal Weapon or Die hard, which are the definitive action movies. I think that the movies are more like star wars than those. look at what they have in common:

1. good story
2. okay cast
3. totally redefined the industry
and the list goes on...

They aren't action movies, but they do have some (SOMETIMES too much) action in them.

[Nazgul King Squirrel]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Or better: who thinks Thanduil, Cassius, and GenX, are BB?

I do

Cirdan
The problem arises when action is translated from text to screen. It is one thing to say the battle raged through the night and another to show it. It may be that too much was included in the action scenes making them drag on like a Charlie's Angels sequel.

There is an undeniable tilt towards action at the expense of all else. If it was to be just an action flick it would have been much shorter. It is the inclusion of some of the Tolkienish aspects that makes the movies so long. Those aspects, however, are what the bulk of the audiences came to see. Otherwise it would just be another PotC. Entertaining but not cult-worthy.

Interesting. But I would point that the emphasis is quite clearly on the action while everything else was much downplayed, to the point that JD included entirely new, unnecessary scenes, (if one wants to defend the theory that he wanted to simply make a movie adaptation) and had changed others to increase the action.

[Cassius]

Originally posted by Nazgul King Squirrel
I do

I thought that we dropped this already twice...



Interesting. But I would point that the emphasis is quite clearly on the action while everything else was much downplayed, to the point that JD included entirely new, unnecessary scenes, (if one wants to defend the theory that he wanted to simply make a movie adaptation) and had changed others to increase the action. [/B]

What you have to think about is the audience. All members of this site know that everybody does not have the same opinions. You have to try and please everybody when you make a movie, not just the mainstream Tolkien fanatics like myself and whole family. I was raised on Tolkien's books, not just "The Hobbit" but the LOTR and Silmarillion.

However unfortunate that is that other people do not have that basis, you still have to try and please the Jocks, the teenieboppers, the anarchists, the Women's rights activists and no matter what you do nobody will be totally satisfied.

The movies still could be better, I wanted the Barrows/Bombadil scenes in the movie. It explains how Merry's sword can break the Witch King's immunity. Obviously they didn't put it in, and that doesn't make me or others happy but they had to choose.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cassius
What you have to think about is the audience. All members of this site know that everybody does not have the same opinions. You have to try and please everybody when you make a movie, not just the mainstream Tolkien fanatics like myself and whole family. I was raised on Tolkien's books, not just "The Hobbit" but the LOTR and Silmarillion.

However unfortunate that is that other people do not have that basis, you still have to try and please the Jocks, the teenieboppers, the anarchists, the Women's rights activists and no matter what you do nobody will be totally satisfied.

You don't HAVE to please all those people - your main concern should be to please your core audience. I can't believe you actually threw in the women's rights activists. Why don't we have, a black elf, transvestite elf, the list can go on and on. The goal should have been to make an INTELLIGENT - not an action movie that reduced it down to the lowest common denominator. The movie could have been so much better.

The movies still could be better, I wanted the Barrows/Bombadil scenes in the movie. It explains how Merry's sword can break the Witch King's immunity. Obviously they didn't put it in, and that doesn't make me or others happy but they had to choose.

Well in the extended edition - Galadriel gives them the swords in the gift giving scene. Of course the only people who know this are the people who have seen the extended edition. The average movie goers will have no idea that the swords were given unless Jackson does a flashback. One reason the gift giving scene was so important.

[thranduil]

Cassius have you not read any of JD's quotes. Apparently not because if you had, you would not have mentioned anything from the Extended Editions. Apparently only what was shown in theaters counts. lol!

Originally posted by jerseydevil
What does it matter that it was in the extended edition - that is not the OFFICIAL version of the movie. The official movie was what was released in the movie theater.

[Bacchus]

Originally posted by thranduil
Cassius have you not read any of JD's quotes. Apparently not because if you had, you would not have mentioned anything from the Extended Editions. Apparently only what was shown in theaters counts. lol!

I find that a curious argument, considering the number of times i've seen JD complain about lembas-induced flatulence.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by thranduil
Cassius have you not read any of JD's quotes. Apparently not because if you had, you would not have mentioned anything from the Extended Editions. Apparently only what was shown in theaters counts. lol!

It doesn't matter - because the only people who know anything about what happens in the extended edition are those who have seen it. Everyone who has seen the movies - extended or otherwise - can follow the theaterical versions - because nothing was taken out of the extended edition.

You can't assume people know anything about Merry and Pippin's swords or any of galadriels gifts - because it was not in the theatrical release.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Bacchus
I find that a curious argument, considering the number of times i've seen JD complain about lembas-induced flatulence.

It was just something that I think deserved to be kept on the cutting room floor. It should NOT have been put into the extended edition, it had no place in Lord of the Rings period. That scene just demonstrates what kind of director Jackson is and what kind of movie he wanted to make. If he had any real love for Tolkien that scene would never have even been written into the script - let alone filmed.

[Cirdan]

I'm pretty sure that Merry and Pippen lose their elven blades since the sheaths are found by the three hunters in the orc pyre. PJ stated he doesn't like magic so they will find some other way to kill the witchking. Maybe it will be attributed to Eowyn's estrogen power over the wraiths.

[thranduil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I'm pretty sure that Merry and Pippen lose their elven blades since the sheaths are found by the three hunters in the orc pyre. PJ stated he doesn't like magic so they will find some other way to kill the witchking. Maybe it will be attributed to Eowyn's estrogen power over the wraiths.

Cirdan you have a good theory, but I really hope that your wrong. I just want the little hobbit to play a part in destroying the witch king. He had better contribute in one way or another. I mean PJ better not take out one of the most important things he did in the book!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I'm pretty sure that Merry and Pippen lose their elven blades since the sheaths are found by the three hunters in the orc pyre. PJ stated he doesn't like magic so they will find some other way to kill the witchking. Maybe it will be attributed to Eowyn's estrogen power over the wraiths.

It is funny how Jackson says he doesn't like magic -and then gives us the Wiazrds Duels (where he made the statement in the commentary ), Saruman causing the storm over Caradhras, the great and wonderful exorcism of Theoden. And people still think that Jackson isn't full of **** when he talks.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by thranduil
I mean PJ better not take out one of the most important things he did in the book!

Why not? He took one of Frodo's greatest parts and gave it to Arwen. Why are people so surprised by what Jackson does or say "Jackson better not do that - it's a key moment in the story" after seeing what he did to Flight to the Ford.

[Bacchus]

I'm neither defending nor disparaging the shot. I do, however, consider the frequent references to it as evidence of the hack job PJ is alleged to have performed inconsistent with the cavalier dismissal of, for example, the gift scene as shown in the EE.

I will not waste my time trying to persuade you that PJ did a pretty good job on balance. You have a different opinion, and I respect that. However, I ask that you respect my opinion, as a dyed in the wool Tolkien fan, that the movie does a pretty good job of portraying LOTR. Would I have done certain things differently? Probably. Does the fact that PJ changed certain plot elements in any way detract from the books? Not at all. In fact, the existence of the movies enhances the books, in that readers who would never have read them now seek them out. My wife is a prime example. I've been trying for years to get her to read Tolkien, with no success. After seeing the movies, she has read not only LOTR, but is working on the Sil as well. If for no other reason, I am grateful for PJ for that.

[thranduil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It is funny how Jackson says he doesn't like magic -and then gives us the Wiazrds Duels (where he made the statement in the commentary ), Saruman causing the storm over Caradhras, the great and wonderful exorcism of Theoden. And people still think that Jackson isn't full of **** when he talks.

As for Saruman causing the storm over Caradhras. Jackson if he was to have the scene in the movie. Had to make a decision of follow Tolkein or please the audience more and make it more reasonable. In the book the mountain itself is trying to destroy the travelers. And it seemed more realistic and reasonable for Jackson to just have someone the audience knows is a wizard to be changing the wheather with his power to try and stop the fellowship.

And for some reason I wouldn't really call an exorcism magic.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Why not? He took one of Frodo's greatest parts and gave it to Arwen. Why are people so surprised by what Jackson does or say "Jackson better not do that - it's a key moment in the story" after seeing what he did to Flight to the Ford.

Just wait until Arwen decides to have the sword reforged and trot it on down to Minas Tirith. If that doesn't make you ill...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Bacchus
I'm neither defending nor disparaging the shot. I do, however, consider the frequent references to it as evidence of the hack job PJ is alleged to have performed inconsistent with the cavalier dismissal of, for example, the gift scene as shown in the EE.

I'm saying the gift giving scene doesn't matter as an overall plot element for the average movie goer since it was not included in the theatrical release. You can not say - well it was included in the extended edition - or jackson will fix it in the extended edition. The scene should have been in the theatrical release - that is my complaint. Most people do not know where Sam got the rope or anything without having seen the extended edition.

I will not waste my time trying to persuade you that PJ did a pretty good job on balance. You have a different opinion, and I respect that. However, I ask that you respect my opinion, as a dyed in the wool Tolkien fan, that the movie does a pretty good job of portraying LOTR.

I'm not saying anything disparaging toward your opinion. I just don't happen to agree with you on some things.

Would I have done certain things differently? Probably. Does the fact that PJ changed certain plot elements in any way detract from the books? Not at all. In fact, the existence of the movies enhances the books, in that readers who would never have read them now seek them out. My wife is a prime example. I've been trying for years to get her to read Tolkien, with no success. After seeing the movies, she has read not only LOTR, but is working on the Sil as well. If for no other reason, I am grateful for PJ for that.

See - the goal of the movie - was to bring Lord of the Rings to the screen. I've read the books 12 times. I wanted to see it brought to life. I really don't care about whether it brings more tolkien fans or makes more people read the books - I get no money out of it. I wanted to see - a more closer, more intelligent movie than the lame jokes (dwarf tossing, merry and pippin being town idiots in FotR), lame stunts (snowboarding down the stairs), action movie that jackson created.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by thranduil
As for Saruman causing the storm over Caradhras. Jackson if he was to have the scene in the movie. Had to make a decision of follow Tolkein or please the audience more and make it more reasonable. In the book the mountain itself is trying to destroy the travelers. And it seemed more realistic and reasonable for Jackson to just have someone the audience knows is a wizard to be changing the wheather with his power to try and stop the fellowship.

Whether the mountain was the one causing the storm or whether it was giants or whether it was just a normal storm - it did not have to be SARUMAN. Not after the little comment by Jackson about how much he hated cheap wizard magic. I wouldn't have had so much of a problem with that scene if he wasn't such an out and out liar and people fell for his proganda so easily.

And for some reason I wouldn't really call an exorcism magic.

Then what would you consider that hack job of a scene?