LOTR Movie=ignorant fans?

[samwiselvr2008]

we do not have to praise him, but i bet everyone here can find one good thing about his movie, other then the point that it was made after jrr tolkiens book

[jerseydevil]

Well I stayed away from this forum for months - because I had said everything I liked and didn't like about the movie before.

Really the only reason I checked this out was because the DVD is coming out tomorrow and I wanted to see what people were saying.

[BeardofPants]

But why should we? Debate is much more fun when people disagree anyway.

[Gildor]

Well. I bought it months ago, but I'll finally own this movie. I'm 47 and this will be the first movie I ever bought for myself. I do enjoy it. I do think PJ did a good job on it...but I still have to hide my face when Arwen does her little "want him come and claim him" bit with a weak, corpse-like Frodo in her arms.

Oh where is the valiant little hobbit--resisting against overwhelming odds and in the face of the nine with
"You shall have neither the ring nor me!"

Sigh. Oh well. I will quietly go into the West.

Good job, PJ!

[Entlover]

Originally posted by Gildor
this will be the first movie I ever bought for myself. Good job, PJ!

Me too, first movie I ever bought. Though I've ordered the extended version in November and will just rent it this week.

It may not be the best movie I've ever seen because I may have bad taste, I hate modern literature . .. but it's my favorite.

[Minyacamiel]

guys, a fan is a fan.... lol

[katya]

i think it doesn't matter if you read the books before, after or, heck, during the movie. just don' t think you know everything because you saw the movie. this goes for me. i saw the movie first. i am not ashamed though. actually if wasn't as if i didn't know anything; i had sort of read the hobbit, and all of my dad's side is into tolkien. but still. anyway, i am 14 right now. i think when i was younger, even a few years ago, i wouldn't have enjoyed the books nearly as much as i do. hey, my dad read LotR when he was around 17. i think i eventually would've read it even if it weren't for the movie, especially after hearing my friend at camp talk so much about it. for me i think it was just an age thing. i don't feel inferior (except when i read threads like this or the decline of entmoot one) to pre-movie fans. i am not an expert, how could i possibly be? but i don't need to feel second rate.

[IronParrot]

Hmm... I think a bit of refutation is in order.

"I respect his "opinion" on the movie. However - his interpretation of the book isn't an opinion though. He changed it to make it more palatible for non-LotR fans."

That's a filmmaking necessity. The books should absolutely not be a prerequisite for enjoying the film. LOTR was no more simplified than Lawrence of Arabia for those who weren't familiar with the details of the Eastern Front, or Braveheart for those who didn't know about the Scottish Wars of Independence, or The Sound of Music for those who haven't studied the Anschluss, or Doctor Zhivago for those members of the audience who haven't read Pasternak, or The Godfather for those people who didn't know the whole history behind characters such as Johnny Fontane and Luca Brasi that were reduced to periphery, or Gone With The Wind for those who didn't know that the original novel involved the Ku Klux Klan.

All of which are masterpieces, all of which are comprehensible, all of which are "palatable for non-fans". You don't need to be a history major to thoroughly understand any of these. But if you have such a background, it helps, because then you catch a lot of details. But it's really no use to get anal about the things that were altered or not there.

Heck, The Wizard of Oz is probably the most unfaithful adaptation of a well-known work of fiction I've ever seen. It's still an emotionally resonant classic as well as a landmark technical achievement; the fade from sepia to lush Technicolor when Dorothy opens the door to Munchkinland is one of the most legendary shots in film history. And that's not even mentioning how the film's music, "Over the Rainbow" in particular, has penetrated the realm of popular culture in a way that is almost unparalleled. Was "Over the Rainbow" in the Baum novel? No.

The Fellowship of the Ring is, relatively speaking, an extremely faithful adaptation. I'm glad Peter Jackson took on the project, because he actually understands the dynamic of cinema as an inherently different medium from the written word. Exposition is not done by description or lengthy background histories, because one cannot afford the luxury of interrupting the flow. Film goes at a very rigid pace, and the story has to keep up; you don't get as much push-and-pull dynamism as you do with the novel. That's not a flaw, that's just the characteristic of the medium. And since description lies in the visuals, the pace is pushed by action and reaction, which is the whole principle behind the very concept of drama ever since the days of the Greeks. Minor characters must be trimmed, because names are inherently easier to remember and keep track of than faces; and while you can flip a few pages back to check a name, recognizing faces on film has no crutch except for, perhaps, an often poorly inserted flashback.

What baffles me is why people are picking on the film when I never saw them devoting their efforts towards trashing Alan Lee and John Howe for not visualizing "their" interpretation, or leaving out certain details despite all the other ones that are expounded upon. Maybe that's because the film had more to deal with, so people found so much to pick on that they could actually formulate some semblance of a case.

Personally, the impression I got out of the film was that it was made by someone who cares.

[Agburanar]

I disagree.

I will agree that many 'classic' films are simplified for non-knowledgeable audiences. But if you are a member of the knowledgeable audience then you begin to get frustrated with bits that are 'wrong', out of character, pointless and generally too simple.

This was a film I may have enjoyed with no previous knowledge of the book, but being an avid fan I was disappointed to see so much that had been ignored or altered for no apparent reason.

[olsonm]

Nice post IP.

[Black Breathalizer]

Agburanar said: "This was a film I may have enjoyed with no previous knowledge of the book, but being an avid fan I was disappointed to see so much that had been ignored or altered for no apparent reason."

No apparent reason?!?!?!? Get out of your Tolkien Ivory Tower and get real.

Jackson gave us a THREE HOUR theatrical release movie and will be adding another 30 MINUTES in the extended version DVD. Contractually, Jackson was obliged to give New Line a two hour movie. He was able to convince the NL brass to release a three hour movie only after they screened it.

I have no doubt that the Extended Version will be the definitive version for Tolkien fans. A lot of the little things we had hoped to see in the theatrical release will be in this one.

[markedel]

I personally disagree with how PJ interperts some of Tolkien. But it's his interpertation and he did it well. The fact that it isn't the book doesn't make it a bad movie, the opposite in fact.

[Nurvingiel]

PJ did a great job of the movie. This is because he made a movie eveyone could enjoy, while remaining as true as possible to the book.

The Lord of the Rings movie is for people who only read the Hobbit in elementary school and people who speak Elvish. No matter what your level of involment (or fan-ness) you can enjoy the movie. This is as it should be. I wouldn't want LOTR to be only for snobs. (I'm not saying that purists are snobs, only that non-purists should be able to watch it too.)

A book and a movie are incredibly different forms of media. There are things you can do in a book that are impossible in a movie and vice versa. I think this has been pointed out before, but it's only too true.

I would have been prepared to watch a six-hour long Fellowship of the Ring if it had meant the inclusion of the Old Forest part and other details. However, I'm a huge purist-fanatic and not everyone has this kind of stanima for Lord of the Rings. Most people in this forum are probably pretty hard-core too.

I missed Glorfindel, Tom Bombadil, and Bilbo and Aragorn's friendship, but we can't have everything. In the big picture, these details aren't super important anyway. I'm happy because the movie rocked!

[BeardofPants]

I understand his reasoning for making things more clear to the less than well read fan, I really do. BUT. The expansion of the Arwen role so that SHE saved Frodo, and was wandering around a rather dangerous countryside.... well, it seems a bit stretching it. And if he's put in Lurtz, and isn't putting in some of the major ork characters and factions, well, it won't be pretty if I have to go down to Wellington.....

[Agburanar]

By changes for no apparent reason I meant useless bits of rubbish like the collapsing stairs in Moria, what did that serve? It's also details like Pippin's accidentally knocking the skeleton into the well. In the book the fact that he INTENTIONALLY throws a stone in demonstrates an important quality in his character missing in the film.

[Foul_Dwimmerlaik]

Arwen is 5, 5 and 6 (I think) generations removed from Finwe, Olwe and Elwe respectively. She is a recent decendent of a Maia. I doubt there are many places in Middle-Earth, much less the outskirts of her homeland, where she would be in much danger.

I won't have minded one bit if she arrived and gave Frodo her horse, or even if she was with Frodo when he says his line ("by Elbereth and this chick's great-great-grandma....") her lame line makes me cringe though (along with Gimli's dwarf-tossing line).

[crickhollow]

If only you understood the reason for the snobbishness: it has to do with the sharing of "a deep and abiding knowledge of literary masterworks of extreme detail and delightful creativity", to quote bropous. Watching the movie for the first time was almost like putting up a drawing from art class that you were really proud of, and then coming by later to find that your annoying little brother has drawn mustaches and devil horns on all the people. I'm sorry, was that too harsh? I'm late for class, will edit later!

[later this afternoon...] but I shouldn't say that PJ has marred the work completely. Gandalf was the same Ganalf I met on my way to the Lonely Mountain when I was 13, and the same again when I crossed paths with the Fellowship for the first time five years ago. The scene at the Fords, and in Lorien are the only two that really jolt me.

Sween, I think, has proven that Tolkien can be for everyone. It's a shame that so many people shrug it off by saying that they're not the literary types.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Foul_Dwimmerlaik
She is a recent decendent of a Maia. I doubt there are many places in Middle-Earth, much less the outskirts of her homeland, where she would be in much danger.

So? The misty mountains were still swarming with orcs. Maia or not, she's still capable of being kidnapped. Besides, Elrond was relatively protective of her: regardless of any watered down maiar powers, I doubt he would have let her run around the countryside like that. Do you realise how far weathertop is from Rivendell? Hardly a bunny hop away.

[olsonm]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Do you realise how far weathertop is from Rivendell? Hardly a bunny hop away.

Arwen didn't meet them at Weathertop, she met them at the Troll Shaws near where Glorfindel met them in the book. In the book Elrond asked Arwen to stay at Imladris and she chose to obey her father's wishes. Knowing what had happened to her mother; she probably did this to put her father's mind at ease but there is no evidence that Arwen had to do what her father asked of her (see: her betrothal to Aragorn).

[BeardofPants]

Olsonm:
Arwen didn't meet them at Weathertop, she met them at the Troll Shaws near where Glorfindel met them in the book.

Yes, I know this.

In the movie it is not really made clear, but I stand corrected if wrong.

Regarding the Arwen wandering, well, whether Elrond put his foot down, or whether Arwen chose not to is immaterial, as either way lands with her NOT wandering around the countryside. The situation with Celebrian should have been enough of a deterrant....