What did Jackson do right?

[Thu]

All to often on these forums people gripe about what Jackson got wrong. Rather than get bent out of shape about it I am just happy that someone actually made the movies at all.

Now don't get me wrong I get as annoyed at some of these as anyone, particularly the overhaul of Aragorn's attitude toward his possible kingship, but he did get some things right.

For example:

The Shelob-Sam fight. That scene is one of my favorites from the book and I love Jackson's representation of that fight. It had the right amounts of giant creepy spider and Sam's doughty determination.

The general feel of the Nazgul. They are just as sinister and foreboding as I imagined them from the books.

The use of Sindarin. This could have easily been left out, but anywhere it was appropriate to have characters speak in Sindarin, they did so. Not knowing Sindarin myself I can't speak for the accuracy of what they said but I like the fact that they went to the trouble to do so.

The scenery in general, specifically I like Parth Galen and Amon Hen, the toppled statues and ruined stonework give the feel of a great civilization in decline.

[Earniel]

Welcome to the Entmoot, Thu.

The costumes and weaponry in general were awesome.

The Lighting of the Beacons was pretty memorable too.


But to be honest, I'm getting annoyed about how people are apparently not allowed to not like the Jackson movies. If someone mentions something they don't like about the movies, they're either griping, moaning, getting bent out of shape, ungrateful, and even possibly just jealous. But it's never just people who happen to have a different opinion.

[Galin]

An example to illustrate that what one person thinks Jackson got right, another can think he got wrong.

For example: (...) The use of Sindarin. This could have easily been left out, but anywhere it was appropriate to have characters speak in Sindarin, they did so. Not knowing Sindarin myself I can't speak for the accuracy of what they said but I like the fact that they went to the trouble to do so.

The way I see things, Sindarin was largely left out -- actual Tolkien-made Sindarin that is. What you really heard in the films was someone's idea of Neo-sindarin; and what some people don't realize is that no one, not even Tolkien, was fluent in any of his Elvish languages.

And Jackson not only largely substituted Neo-Sindarin for actual Sindarin (its arguable accuracy or inaccuracy aside), he largely substituted a different 'order' of Sindarin, too.


So I don't agree he got this right, and what he could have done was simply use actual Sindarin right out of the book, and use it where Tolkien thought it was needed for the tale. This seems simpler and cheaper... I would guess!

[Thu]

Fair enough.

As I said, I don't know enough of the elvish languages to make any kind of argument as to weather or not the Sindarin was used correctly.

What I liked about it was that they recognized that language was an important part of the book and tried to make the elvish language part of the movie when it would have been much easier to leave it out.



The more I think about it the things I like are mainly about the feel of the movie. I feel like they did a good job making middle earth come to life. The scenery, costuming and music were all well done. It's when I start to look at particulars that I begin to get annoyed.


@earniel: I am absolutely not trying to say that anyone who doesn't like the movies is griping, moaning etc. I just think that on these boards in particular that Jackson gets raked over the coals for the things he did wrong (and rightly so) and never gets credit for what he did right. I just wanted to at least have a venue for people to recognize that he did do some things right.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

What did Jackson do right?

Lose weight.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Thu

@earniel: I am absolutely not trying to say that anyone who doesn't like the movies is griping, moaning etc. I just think that on these boards in particular that Jackson gets raked over the coals for the things he did wrong (and rightly so) and never gets credit for what he did right. I just wanted to at least have a venue for people to recognize that he did do some things right.

I can understand the sentiment, but if you search this forum you will find several older threads that also concentrate on the aspects of the movie that people liked. So it's not like we never gave Jackson any credit. The Entmoot is a diverse bunch, and we had many a lively debate between fans and not-so-much-fans of the movies.

[The Gaffer]

Visualisation (with some notable exceptions), production design was uniformly excellent, casting was mostly good (also some notable exceptions).

FWIW I felt that he didn't make enough changes to the story.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Thu

Fair enough. As I said, I don't know enough of the elvish languages to make any kind of argument as to weather or not the Sindarin was used correctly.

I don't mean to harp on this, but using it 'correctly' might imply using it accurately, and my point rather tries to illustrate what I think Jackson did far too often in the film in general -- replace Tolkien with his own characters and ideas -- just as he did with the languages.

Almost _none_ of Tolkien's actual Elvish dialogue is retained. I can think of only one instance, in fact: _half_ of the opening spell that Gandalf tries. Instead, we get multiple muffled, breathless tracts of entirely fabricated Elvish, for fabricated dialogue (such as Arwen(!) raising the Bruinen against the Nazgul).

Carl Hostetter from his review of film one

Carl also explains about the 'kind' of language employed.

But this provides yet another example of how little appreciation Jackson had for the tone and "feel" of Tolkien's work. Yes, Jackson went to considerable length to include Elvish in the movie: but he did so mostly by _discarding_ Tolkien's _own_ Elvish exemplars -- which, please note, are almost entirely in the form of songs, poems, spells, and exclamations made in crisis or _de profundis_ that are used sparingly so as to punctuate the story and to not cheapen the effect of the Elvish -- and instead substituting for them long passages of made-up "Elvish" (however skillfully) constituting (mostly banal) _dialogue_ of the sort entirely _missing_ from Tolkien's own application of Elvish in his story (or anywhere else).

Carl Hostetter

So, whether one agrees with Mr. Hostetter or not (incidentally he is part of the linguistic editorial team currently publishing more of Tolkien's language related materials), this is what I meant about a different 'order' of Sindarin. And note Carl's 'however skillfully' here, which (I would guess) does not endorse the accuracy of the Sindarin in the films necessarily, but rather sets the issue aside.

What I liked about it was that they recognized that language was an important part of the book and tried to make the elvish language part of the movie when it would have been much easier to leave it out.

Here we can agree in general, but as far as being much easier to leave out, I would say that including Elvish examples from the book requires reading Tolkien's own explanations concerning meaning (so that the words will fit a given moment in the film well enough), and coaching with respect to pronunciation.

That doesn't seem that hard to me. Jackson made it arguably harder by inventing things for Elves to say in Elvish, then hiring someone to invent the Elvish -- then of course, coaching the actors on delivery and pronunciation.

I'll say this much: in general the flavour of the Neo-Sindarin reflects the flavour of Sindarin. In other words, good Neo-Sindarin sounds like Sindarin at least.

But again, obviously so does actual Sindarin sound like Sindarin

[brownjenkins]

While he may not have done a perfect rendition of Lord of the Rings, he did the best to date, and he brought a level of excellence to the fantasy movie genre that was sorely needed. He brought it to a new level, much like Kubrick did with 2001 for scifi, and that's a legacy they may ultimately be as big as Tolkien's was for written fantasy.

[inked]

Hired a really good prop company.

[Morwen]

I agree with those who have mentioned the sets - the conceptual designers on the movie were amazing; the amount of dedication and attention to detail really shows. Jackson employed Alan Lee and John Howe, illustrators of many of the most beautiful editions of Tolkien's work, as I'm sure many of you know. I particularly loved Rivendell and Gondor, felt Lorien was a bit of a let down (the main shots of the place are only in the extended version, disappointingly - they had some really great ideas).
The battle scenes in general - particularly Helm's Deep - were pretty revolutionary. I've watched a lot of other things made since where all the battle scenes just seem to be variations on Helm's Deep.
Also I thought the casting was great. There was a great dynamic between the Fellowship. The only weak links were people like Celeborn.

[Olmer]

Au contraire.
I think Marton Csokas as Celeborn was a very good choice. He portrayed the royal elf quite right - a great lord among his people, sindar-elves, he is his pedigreed wife's man when an ambitious, power-hungry Galadriel is stepping up.
In a few moments on the screen and without much words he managed to relate to viewers much more than the movie would allowed.

[The Gaffer]

Agree, he was OK. Celeborn in the book is a bit of a damp squib anyway.

Aragorn was the biggest casting goof, IMO. Sean Bean would have been better. Not convinced about Ian McKellen either.

[mithrand1r]

Boromir and Sam were well done.

Scenery, music, costumes and props were well done.

Chose NZ as location for filming the three films.

Movies are good fantasy movies. As an adaptation of LOTR, the movies fall short of the mark. With the resources available to PJ&Co., I was hoping for a better adaption of LOTR.

Originally Posted by Thu

All to often on these forums people gripe about what Jackson got wrong. Rather than get bent out of shape about it I am just happy that someone actually made the movies at all.

Now don't get me wrong I get as annoyed at some of these as anyone, particularly the overhaul of Aragorn's attitude toward his possible kingship, but he did get some things right.

For example:

The Shelob-Sam fight. That scene is one of my favorites from the book and I love Jackson's representation of that fight. It had the right amounts of giant creepy spider and Sam's doughty determination.

The general feel of the Nazgul. They are just as sinister and foreboding as I imagined them from the books.

The use of Sindarin. This could have easily been left out, but anywhere it was appropriate to have characters speak in Sindarin, they did so. Not knowing Sindarin myself I can't speak for the accuracy of what they said but I like the fact that they went to the trouble to do so.

The scenery in general, specifically I like Parth Galen and Amon Hen, the toppled statues and ruined stonework give the feel of a great civilization in decline.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by mithrand1r

Boromir and Sam were well done.

The Seans - Bean and Astin - were excellent. Especially the latter.

[mithrand1r]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

The Seans - Bean and Astin - were excellent. Especially the latter.

I thought Boromir in the movie was as good or better than Boromir in the book.

The actor did an excellent job portraying Boromir.

[The Gaffer]

Agreed, even though he doesn't look anything like I imagined Boromir.

There were a couple of shaky moments, like when he goes mad and tries to take the Ring. But a couple of his lines - "Gondor has no king; Gondor needs no king", "It is a strange fate that we should suffer so much fear and doubt over so small a thing." - were brilliant.

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__...oromir34_b.jpg

I think I read somewhere that he was after the role of Aragorn, and to be honest I think he would have been far better for it than Viggo.

Edit - dunno why that image doesn't display inline. Maybe the target site has disabled it or something.

[Rían]

I've never recovered from whathisname as Elrond - horrible, IMHO. He looked like he was cranky about being constipated. No hint of the noble lord who was "noble and as fair in face as an elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wise as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind as summer."

[The Gaffer]

While I agree with your words, I actually liked the way he was portrayed - the cynical old campaigner. However that was a failure of ambition on the part of the director. The character, as it was, was well-played.

I think in film you have to, in some ways, be more explicit about a character's motives. They had to get some aspect of Elrond across, and it had to make sense in the context of the film they were making, so his character was trimmed to fit.

In the book, we never really get an explanation for why Elrond doesn't "do more" to fight Sauron, and we don't find out about his loss/sacrifice of Arwen until the end. But we don't need one because the elves' tragedy is richly fed to us via songs, stories and description.

Without that, the film needs to explain why Elrond sits in his house all day. Hence "men are weak" etc.

So the error was with the script - for clumsiness - and the director - for not having the bollocks to try to portray the tragedy of the elves' long defeat and the dignity of Elrond.

It's a shame, I think it could have been done, but they would have had to make much more drastic changes to the story.

And maybe got a different director

[Starkhorn]

Going back to the speakeing of sindarin I remember reading somewhere that for some of the scenes with Arwen and Aragorn speaking elvish they were supposed to be in English but the actors had begun to learn sindarin and thought it would be more in keeping with the characters if they were to speak to each other in sindarin.