LOTR = Typical Action Films?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by thranduil
I see "some" of your points reasonable. Basically Bree is like any other busy city. Bums, trash, its all there, the good and the bad.

Too bad jackson went with ONLY the bad. Also - Bree was a village - not a city. Of course it had it's bad sections - but it was a medieval type of village - not a city from the industrial age.

But I still don't see how you would have done it. make it pleasant, but riders everywhere, causing the most psychological terror.

Where did I say to put the riders anywhere?There were NO riders visible - it was just the SENSE of riders. It was the desolation of the street - it was that fact of being in the unknown. That is what built the tension up in the book. There were no riders behind every corner - a good director wouldn't have to show riders to bring across the tension to the audience or to show what Sam was thinking.

I just don't see it happening on screen. I encourage you to try and film such a scenario. No truly, I have done many LOTR scenes myself. I'm interested if you could transfer that. I understand if you dont want to try, to busy, I know its not easy. But seriously i would really like to see that.

There have been many films that have used similar scenes - that have generated psychological terror - when really there was no evil there. I don't see why you think it is so impossible - unless you have never seen any movies other than action movies. Action movies don't go for psychological elements - they go for the cheap easy way out like Jackson took.

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
There have been many films that have used similar scenes - that have generated psychological terror - when really there was no evil there. I don't see why you think it is so impossible - unless you have never seen any movies other than action movies. Action movies don't go for psychological elements - they go for the cheap easy way out like Jackson took.

Originally posted by thranduil
. . .causing the most psychological terror. I just don't see it happening on screen. I encourage you to try and film such a scenario. No truly, I have done many LOTR scenes myself. I'm interested if you could transfer that. I understand if you dont want to try, to busy, I know its not easy. But seriously i would really like to see that.

If you want examples of directors that use suspense I suggest that Alfred Hitchcock is a good starting point.
Psycho (1960)
Rear Window (1954)
Spellbound (1945)

For more examples take a look at some old films
2001 (1968)
Maltese Falcon (1941)
Witness for the Prosecution (1957)
Cape Fear (1961)
to name a few

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by mithrand1r
If you want examples of directors that use suspense I suggest that Alfred Hitchcock is a good starting point.
Psycho (1960)
Rear Window (1954)
Spellbound (1945)

For more examples take a look at some old films
2001 (1968)
Maltese Falcon (1941)
Witness for the Prosecution (1957)
Cape Fear (1961)
to name a few

Thank you for the examples. I was going to say Hitchock. Also one - which is a horror movie - was Black Christmas.

There are so many which use suspense and successfully build up the tension. Movies that don't resort to spoon feeding the audience.

[thranduil]

perhaps "stranger on a train" would be a better example. And "Dial M for Murder". I have no problem seeing this in a film that doesn't have a lot of action. But these films make it work because of the lack of action in the film. With Jacksons action it is very difficult to produce fear (psychological) when there is that much action already in the film. Ofcourse your response would be "well perfect have him change the whole movie. Take all the action out. Then it will bore the audience to death (non readers). But I will enjoy it." I wanted to see this terror in a film that is quite actionfull. Not some Hitchcock slow build up film with no action. (although I do love his movies) That was what I asked for.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by thranduil
perhaps "stranger on a train" would be a better example. And "Dial M for Murder". I have no problem seeing this in a film that doesn't have a lot of action. But these films make it work because of the lack of action in the film. With Jacksons action it is very difficult to produce fear (psychological) when there is that much action already in the film. Ofcourse your response would be "well perfect have him change the whole movie. Take all the action out. Then it will bore the audience to death (non readers). But I will enjoy it." I wanted to see this terror in a film that is quite actionfull. Not some Hitchcock slow build up film with no action. (although I do love his movies) That was what I asked for.

They didn't need to be solely action the way Jackson did them. There could have been some intelligence to the movies instead of pure action and spoon feeding the audience. I'm not saying eliminate all action - but if you watch FotR - it is basically non-stop action from the time Frodo starts packing - all the way to Lothlorien - with only very short pause in Rivendell. Even in Rivendell Jackson made the council blow up into a screaming match.

Gandalf purposely tells Frodo in the book - "do not just disappear - leave a forwarding address". yet in the movie - Jackson has Frodo just leaving. I would like to know what Sam told the Gaffer

I'm glad that you got what you wanted - but it isn't what I was looking for - therefore I do not like the films.

And by the - you sound just like those arrogant hollywood types. if you produce ANYTHING that isn't all action - you will bore the audience. Hollywood doesn't think the movie goer has a single once brains in their heads. The audience would NOT be bored if it was produced and directed properly. I feel that Jackson did neither right.

I will wait for another Lord of the Rings movie - because as far as I'm concerned - Bakshi hit closer to the mark in the first half of his film than Jackson did. Also - if you look at the way the Hobbits enter Bree in Bakshi's version - that's the way Jackson SHOULD have done it. The difference is Bakshi was a TRUE tolkien fan without money - Jackson is a psuedo Tolien fan with a lot of money. I wish a director who had the love for the books like Bakshi did - had produced the movies with the money Jackson had.

[Nazgul King Squirrel]

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.

The argument has been used before, and it implicitly assumes that the only way to keep the interest oh “the masses” is by giving maximum emphasis to action and to downplay everything else. Personally I don’t believe it so. There are films that don’t opt for such solution to keep the audiences interest.

As for the movie having to be like in the books, well, for most of us, “Tolkien fanatics,” it didn’t. Certainly I do enjoy these action movies based on the LotR. They are enjoyable, if uneven in quality. There are those scenes that are quite delightful to watch, and those that simply don’t make sense, even accepting, as I do, that it was planed to be an action movie.

Originally posted by Cassius

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 lack of knowledge of the work as reason for such an option, or the supposed inability of the masses to understand but the very basic is also a fallacy. Oh, some wouldn’t understand, for sure, but a good director would manage to carry the message, if he wanted to. Again, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time it was done.

And "you" don’t have to please everyone, no movie is designed to please all, and any movie will have their target audience. On this case, the target was the action movie crowd. A valid option, I would believe, but not the only possible option.

It was transmitted, in part by the media's ignorance, that the movies were attempting to be faithful to the original books, something that it was not the case.

The alterations in many scenes are not simply the result of the necessary adaptations to make the transition from book to film, but the result of the desire to retell the story, with a complete emphasis on action. I think it would have been much more honest if the movies had been renamed, instead of following the original names, (it have been done in the past, think of bladerunner), and made plainly clear that the films were not attempting to be faithful to the original. In this way, the target audience would have still their movie, and the Tolkien fans would have focused more in the similitude’s they found, and less in the deviations.

Originally posted by Cassius

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.

They could for sure. As I said, I see the movies as having quite an uneven quality, even if overall enjoyable. I liked a lot the Bilbo scenes, for instance. But, no matter how much I try it, I cannot grasp the reasons for that strange option PJ made at the fords.

[Nazgul King Squirrel]

Originally posted by Cassius

That is one of the points that I am trying to get across. The cost of making the movie as it was almost put New Line into Bankruptcy You have to appease the masses and all of their extentions (activists etc...) to make it work. There simply aren't enough of us fans to make up all of the cost if we all went five times. What else is important is that after watching the movies more people read the books and learned what it was all about. Sales of the books have gone up almost exponentially since the movies came out since people want to read them now that they know the basics of the plot and have some images to put to mind when they think of the master's ideas.

Hence, the choice made for action movies, since a large number of people like them. It was not a choice of avoiding to displease as many groups as possible, but to focus in a single, large, profitable, moviegoers group. It was a deliberate choice to minimize risk and maximize profit. Not an attempt to make a close adaptation of the books.

[thranduil]

You know I can't believe that FOTR is being bashed so hard. I expected this from TTT. FOTR to me was twice as good. I mean hobbiton scenes were excellent. Bilbo was perfect. Khazad Dum, Lothlorien. Maybe it was because it had just so many excellent sets that made M.E. come to life.

If either of these films "were" a typical action film it would be TTT. Not the FOTR. But if ROTK fails to hit closer to the books. I see a hour and a half battle at the pelennor fields. Which will make it another TTT. My hope is for ROTK to make a story and not just a battle, and to put closure to the films. If so I will love the trilogy. And if it doesn't then there will be only one film that I will be defending.

But ofcourse if you've got complaints do something about. Go to Hectorberlioz thread. You know all things are possible

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by thranduil
You know I can't believe that FOTR is being bashed so hard. I expected this from TTT. FOTR to me was twice as good. I mean hobbiton scenes were excellent. Bilbo was perfect. Khazad Dum, Lothlorien. Maybe it was because it had just so many excellent sets that made M.E. come to life.

Great sets don't make a movie. Great special effects don't make a movie.

If either of these films "were" a typical action film it would be TTT. Not the FOTR. But if ROTK fails to hit closer to the books. I see a hour and a half battle at the pelennor fields. Which will make it another TTT. My hope is for ROTK to make a story and not just a battle, and to put closure to the films. If so I will love the trilogy. And if it doesn't then there will be only one film that I will be defending.

FotR had way too much action compared to the books. Yes - TT had more action - but TT also had some more action in the books. FotR was about friendship and the quest. Too many meaningful scene were chopped, destroyed or changed completely.

[thranduil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Great sets don't make a movie. Great special effects don't make a movie.

FotR had way too much action compared to the books. Yes - TT had more action - but TT also had some more action in the books. FotR was about friendship and the quest. Too many meaningful scene were chopped, destroyed or changed completely.

I didn't say it made it a Great Movie. But that it made me feel like it was more real.

As for action I suppose you were upset with the scene that merry, pippin, and boromir were practicing sword techniques. And then heaven forbid they tackled Boromir!!!!!! Let me guess "Uncalled for! Another overdone action scene from Jackson"

And as for your complaint that Merry and Pippin acted like idiots. It obviously was done to show charachter building throughout the trilogy. Isnt that what you said FOTR was about, building friendships and charachter. If you note, they have matured a very lot from the "firework scene" to TTT.

ANd did you notice? The show was about the Quest.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by thranduil
I didn't say it made it a Great Movie. But that it made me feel like it was more real.

As for action I suppose you were upset with the scene that merry, pippin, and boromir were practicing sword techniques. And then heaven forbid they tackled Boromir!!!!!! Let me guess "Uncalled for! Another overdone action scene from Jackson"

Yes - I did not think that was necessary. Boromir was a jerk in the book - then Jackson gives him this nice side - just so people can feel sorry for him when he dies. It's ironic - he makes Boromir nicer and makes Faramir an asshole.

And as for your complaint that Merry and Pippin acted like idiots. It obviously was done to show charachter building throughout the trilogy. Isnt that what you said FOTR was about, building friendships and charachter. If you note, they have matured a very lot from the "firework scene" to TTT.

First - Merry and Pippin were just innocent. They didn't know what was outside their world. I have always compared Pippin and Merry to someone going to NY for the first time. They were not town idiots. Second - they only were in about 15 minutes of TT really. All of a sudden - they're mature. :rollyeyes:

ANd did you notice? The show was about the Quest.

Actually - no I didn't. I thought it was more about Aragorn regaining gondor and battling with his self doubts and his love with Arwen. If it's about the quest - then why is Frodo only in 15 minutes of Two Towers?

[thranduil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
First - Merry and Pippin were just innocent. They didn't know what was outside their world. I have always compared Pippin and Merry to someone going to NY for the first time. They were not town idiots. Second - they only were in about 15 minutes of TT really. All of a sudden - they're mature. :rollyeyes:

Actually - no I didn't. I thought it was more about Aragorn regaining gondor and battling with his self doubts and his love with Arwen. If it's about the quest - then why is Frodo only in 15 minutes of Two Towers?

I didn't say they matured in TTT, but they matured throughout FOTR and in what we have scene in TTT of them they have changed. And as for the quest I cleary thought we were talking about the FOTR, the only thing I mentioned about TTT was merry and pippin maturing. I have nothing to say in defense of two towers. But I can tell you've only seen this movie twice, by your quotes about Aragorn regaining Gondor.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by thranduil
I didn't say they matured in TTT, but they matured throughout FOTR and in what we have scene in TTT of them they have changed.

Where did they mature in FotR? The only time they showed ANY maturity in FotR was when they lead the orcs after them - to save frodo.

And as for the quest I cleary thought we were talking about the FOTR, the only thing I mentioned about TTT was merry and pippin maturing. I have nothing to say in defense of two towers. But I can tell you've only seen this movie twice, by your quotes about Aragorn regaining Gondor.

I was referring to FotR- when I was talking about Aragorn and Arwen. The humans and elves were too much centerstage - and he hobbits took a back seat. That is one of the reasons many of my friends think that Boromir should have been given the ring.

As for me only having seen TT twice - that isn't true - I said I only saw it twice in the theaters. Aragorn is still a wimp though - questioning his destiny.

[thranduil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Where did they mature in FotR? The only time they showed ANY maturity in FotR was when they lead the orcs after them - to save frodo.

Um lets see. Obviously they matured by being around such a fellowship. Lets see one is a son of a steward of gondor, son of elve king, Son of arathorn. These are all highly respected people and apparently the hobbits really learned alot from being around them. As for sacrificing there lives for Frodo and the Quest, what could be more noble. One of the best parts of the film. How could they have done anything better than that? They did the best they could and succeeded.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by thranduil
Um lets see. Obviously they matured by being around such a fellowship. Lets see one is a son of a steward of gondor, son of elve king, Son of arathorn. These are all highly respected people and apparently the hobbits really learned alot from being around them.

So - where is it demonstrated? You are assuming they did solely on the fact they were part of the fellowship. My arguement with merry and Pippin was that they were town idiots in the movie anyway - not just innocent and young like in the book. In the book - in human years - they would be about 14 and 16. In the movies - they just plain act stupid.

As for sacrificing there lives for Frodo and the Quest, what could be more noble. One of the best parts of the film. How could they have done anything better than that? They did the best they could and succeeded.

So - one scene. There is hardly any characterzation in Lord of the Rings - because all jackson really spends time on is the action.

[Bacchus]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So - where is it demonstrated? You are assuming they did solely on the fact they were part of the fellowship. My arguement with merry and Pippin was that they were town idiots in the movie anyway - not just innocent and young like in the book. In the book - in human years - they would be about 14 and 16. In the movies - they just plain act stupid.

So - one scene. There is hardly any characterzation in Lord of the Rings - because all jackson really spends time on is the action.

Sorry, JD, but I've got to call you out on this one. Pippin was 29, and Merry 37. Given the coming of age at 33, I'd call their 'human' ages about 20 and 26.

While the movies do highlight the, shall we say, exuberence of the characters, this is not completely inconsistent with the books. Here are a couple of Pippin quotes:

[Frodo]I want to think.
[Pip] Good Heavens! at breakfast?

"All hail cousin Frodo, the Lord of the Ring!"

In addition, Pip fails to use the two months at Rivendell to glance at a map, cannot restrain himself from splashing bathwater everywhere in accompanyment to a song, tosses a stone into the well in K-D, and nearly tells the Bree-folk about Bilbo's disappearance.

In addition, I think that you missed the whole point of Boromir's character. His fall and redemption reflect the peril of the Ring and the power of free will and sacrifice in penance.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Bacchus
Sorry, JD, but I've got to call you out on this one. Pippin was 29, and Merry 37. Given the coming of age at 33, I'd call their 'human' ages about 20 and 26.

Well - "coming of age" in human years is generally considered 18 - not 21. 21 is just the stupid drinking age in America. Going by age ratio - that would put Pippin at 15.8 years old and Merry would be 20.2 years old. Also - when they actually started out on the quest - Pippin was only 27* and Merry 35* - which would be 14.7 years and 19 years respectively in human years.

* going by years - not taking in account of the months of their births.

While the movies do highlight the, shall we say, exuberence of the characters, this is not completely inconsistent with the books. Here are a couple of Pippin quotes:

[Frodo]I want to think.
[Pip] Good Heavens! at breakfast?

"All hail cousin Frodo, the Lord of the Ring!"

In addition, Pip fails to use the two months at Rivendell to glance at a map, cannot restrain himself from splashing bathwater everywhere in accompanyment to a song, tosses a stone into the well in K-D, and nearly tells the Bree-folk about Bilbo's disappearance.

In addition, I think that you missed the whole point of Boromir's character. His fall and redemption reflect the peril of the Ring and the power of free will and sacrifice in penance.

I know what Pippin and Merry said in the books - but they weren't town idiots. As I demonstrated - it was mostly just Pippin who was immature - and it was mostly just being innocent - not being a brain dead idiot. How many 14 - 15 year old (using 18 as the basis for human coming of age year) spends their time looking at maps?

As for the "All hail cousin Frodo..." they didn't grasp the full power of the Ring or what it meant at that time.

[thranduil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So - where is it demonstrated? You are assuming they did solely on the fact they were part of the fellowship. My arguement with merry and Pippin was that they were town idiots in the movie anyway - not just innocent and young like in the book. In the book - in human years - they would be about 14 and 16. In the movies - they just plain act stupid.

So - one scene. There is hardly any characterzation in Lord of the Rings - because all jackson really spends time on is the action.

Jumping on the back of a cave troll and stabbing it over and over, is heardly being town idiots. They demonstrate courage and heroism. Like was pointed out to you, lots of the things are from the books or shows that they actually did do those kind of things.

As for the battle in moria It is only four minutes long. But for an action hater it must seem like half an hour to you.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by thranduil
Jumping on the back of a cave troll and stabbing it over and over, is heardly being town idiots. They demonstrate courage and heroism. Like was pointed out to you, lots of the things are from the books or shows that they actually did do those kind of things.

As for the battle in moria It is only four minutes long. But for an action hater it must seem like half an hour to you.

I think they were fighting to save their life. As for the cave troll - it was stupid and crappy computer animation as I said when it came out. legolas looked like a rubber band on it's back - especially when he "jumps" off.

The orc fight scene was much longer than it needed to be.

[thranduil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I think they were fighting to save their life. As for the cave troll - it was stupid and crappy computer animation as I said when it came out. legolas looked like a rubber band on it's back - especially when he "jumps" off.

The orc fight scene was much longer than it needed to be.

If a hobbit was in danger of being killed by something alot bigger than them would they

a. Jump at it with there swords and try to slay it.

b. Run away or try to hide.

From knowing the history of hobbits we know the answer is B.
Admit Merry and Pippin were obviously trying to avenge there friend. Not trying to save themsevles. I can't believe you really considered that. As for the effects, they could have been worse. They satisfied me. But if your gonna bring up bad effects I admit Galadriel was horrible!