LOTR = Typical Action Films?

[Black Breathalizer]

This quote is from the "Capturing Tolkien's Vision versus..." thread:

Originally posted by Nazgul King Squirrel
(Peter Jackson) wanted to make an action movie based on the LotR, not make THE LotR into a movie, that is clear, why do you have such a problem with that? Do you think that, by itself, PJ’s tale becomes shallow, or loses quality?

I find it interesting that some of you love to rail against PJ's films for being...gasp...Action movies!!! How dare PJ put in action sequences like the ents attack on Isengard, the battle of Helm's Deep, the wizard's duel, Gandalf versus the Balrog, the cave troll attack, etc., etc., etc.!!! I'll bet that Action film hack Jackson will give us a spider attack and not one but TWO huge battles in ROTK. Yep, any action film gimic for the all-mighty dollar.

If you want to call PJ's movies "action stories," that's fine. But then prepare yourself to defend the Tolkien books against the same charge.

The reality is that JRR Tolkien's incredible books -- AND Peter Jackson's films -- are much more than that.

[Nazgul King Squirrel]

I find it interesting that some of you love to rail against PJ's films for being...gasp...Action movies!!! How dare PJ put in action sequences like the ents attack on Isengard, the battle of Helm's Deep, the wizard's duel, Gandalf versus the Balrog, the cave troll attack, etc., etc., etc.!!! I'll bet that Action film hack Jackson will give us a spider attack and not one but TWO huge battles in ROTK. Yep, any action film gimic for the all-mighty dollar.

BB you are really amusing.

Since I haven’t spoke of, yet, of “ents attack on Isengard, the battle of Helm's Deep, the wizard's duel, Gandalf versus the Balrog, the cave troll attack” your rant becomes, let’s face it, absurd.

Ask first about it, then you would be entitled to criticize the answer, that’s the way it works.

If you want to call PJ's movies "action stories," that's fine. But then prepare yourself to defend the Tolkien books against the same charge.

The reality is that JRR Tolkien's incredible books -- AND Peter Jackson's films -- are much more than that.

Now BB, we know you love the movies, but you have obviously a problem with the lighter types of the movie entertainment industry. Otherwise why deny the obvious?

Why such a need to be calling the movies something they obviously are not?

They are action movies. PJ wanted to, and did produce action movies. Do you think there is something degrading, shameful about an action movie? Is that it? That only deep, thoughtful movies are truly “proper” movies?

If you enjoy the movies much more than the books, it is your personal taste, BB. You don’t need to feel ashamed of it; it is acceptable. You don’t need to claim the movies are what they are not, nor were meant to be.

Accept it, and enjoy it, calling an car a tree don’t makes the former into the later, you know…

[thranduil]

I doubt anyone here is against action taking place in lotr. As long as it isn't overdone and overemphazised, cough, helms deep, cough. But I can only speak for myself. Even though some action maybe lengthy in these films I feel they still have meaning and a deeper purpose. There are no movies even similair to these. THe movie keeps a purpose with providing adequate action sequences. These cannot be typical action films, at all.

[GenX]

I believe that everything that Thranduil has to say is great! Now that there is finally somebody here that knows what they are talking about I might start posting some of my wonderful ideas. I have long watched this site monitoring every nook and cranny that you have posted. But back on the subject I apoligize for my outburst. The movies that were produced depict a realm that nobody has every been to. These movies are very acurate to the books. though I know that some of you may disagree, I do think that some things have been left out that should not have been overall the movies could not have been better.

They are not a typical action film. In my view even better then the books.

[thranduil]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GenX
[B]I believe that everything that Thranduil has to say is great! Now that there is finally somebody here that knows what they are talking about I might start posting some of my wonderful ideas. I have long watched this site monitoring every nook and cranny that you have posted.

I'm glad something I said was appreciated, but i'm not sure what this had to do with the subject.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by thranduil
Even though some action maybe lengthy in these films I feel they still have meaning and a deeper purpose. There are no movies even similair to these. THe movie keeps a purpose with providing adequate action sequences. These cannot be typical action films, at all.

Amen. Reasonable people can disagree over the time spent on the action sequences, but there is no disputing the majority of the action scenes were straight from the books.

In criticizing the films for their action-orientation, the Jackson bashers only end up belittling the very story they profess to love.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
This quote is from the "Capturing Tolkien's Vision versus..." thread:I find it interesting that some of you love to rail against PJ's films for being...gasp...Action movies!!! How dare PJ put in action sequences like the ents attack on Isengard, the battle of Helm's Deep, the wizard's duel, Gandalf versus the Balrog, the cave troll attack, etc., etc., etc.!!! I'll bet that Action film hack Jackson will give us a spider attack and not one but TWO huge battles in ROTK. Yep, any action film gimic for the all-mighty dollar.

If you want to call PJ's movies "action stories," that's fine. But then prepare yourself to defend the Tolkien books against the same charge.

Why? There was much more to Tolkiens books than ACTION. Jackson just left out mostly anything that did not have action.

You are so ignorant - first of all no one - including me has said that there could be NO action. of crouse there would be the trolls marching on Isengard and so forth. The thing is - he had the Black Riders cutting off the head of a hobbit, they stormed the gates of bree, the whole scene on weather top was way out there. The wizards duel I can't believe you are bringing this up - the wizards duel took away time that could have been used to have the gif giving scene. He extended actions scenes that didn't need to be - such as the troll in moria. The fellowship never fought the troll. The scene is about 15 minutes long.

Another example is the Council of Elrond. the council was a very calm affair - it did not end in a screaming match.

Farmer maggot is another thing - he didn't have to have farmer maggot chasing them through his fields. Pippin and Merry ddin't even steal his mushrooms or anything. Again he added an action sequence which was a scene that actually showed the characters and was a very nice scene in the book.

Jackson turned many scenes from none action to action and he increased the action five fold on the action scenes.

[thranduil]

yes, jackson made many scenes more action oriented than in the books, to please the audience and to keep them entertained. It is true that many parts annoy many book readers, but not all of the changes and additional action scenes were bad. I think that although he added action, it remained its own movie with good plots. Not all of the action was used to look amazing, but to give a feeling of the real danger they had to face, i think.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by thranduil
yes, jackson made many scenes more action oriented than in the books, to please the audience and to keep them entertained. It is true that many parts annoy many book readers, but not all of the changes and additional action scenes were bad. I think that although he added action, it remained its own movie with good plots. Not all of the action was used to look amazing, but to give a feeling of the real danger they had to face, i think.

i think the movie is justa series of loosely - very loosely connected action scenes. I also don't think that is was used to show the real danger. After a whiole with so much danger and no build up - it's just "oh - what now?" The road to Rivendell should have been character development with a lot less action. The black riders were never action villains - they were pyschological and generated fear. This was never shown - because jackson turned the nazgul into action villians.

Another thing - look at how Pippin and Merry were portrayed in Fellowship of the Ring. As I said - they were not innocent as in the book - they came across as brain dead idiots as demonstrated in the fireworks scene.

[thranduil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The black riders were never action villains - they were pyschological and generated fear. This was never shown - because jackson turned the nazgul into action villians.

True, it was overly done. But if you noticed, the nazgul do cause that kind of fear you are talking about as well. Note Butterbur cowering around the corner, obviously terrified, when the wraiths enter the prancing pony. Another is a wraith asks a hobbit (farmer Maggot) for Baggins and the hobbit answers and runs inside. Or in TTT when the wraith flies above Sam, Frodo, and Gollum

[Cassius]

You call the ringwraiths action villains? How absurd and amusing. If you will notice, the RW's only clash swords with two people, and both in the same ten minutes, Samwise and Aragorn. The rest of the time they are riding around screeching or stabbing empty beds. They totally inspire fear, and give you massive chills and headaches.

P.S. Thranduil, it is ButterBUR not ButterBEER.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by thranduil
True, it was overly done. But if you noticed, the nazgul do cause that kind of fear you are talking about as well. Note Butterbur cowering around the corner, obviously terrified, when the wraiths enter the prancing pony. Another is a wraith asks a hobbit (farmer Maggot) for Baggins and the hobbit answers and runs inside. Or in TTT when the wraith flies above Sam, Frodo, and Gollum

Well I would be scared too - but that doesn't mean he portrays the psychological terror they instill. Really - in mordor they're afraid of being seen - not that they feel cold and everything. he made them far more action oriented than they should have been. Fro one thing - in Osgiliation - the Ring Wraith would have instilled fear in all the citizens and fighters and it didn't (not that I think think the osgiliath scene had any place in the movie). That is why the Ring Wraith was used against Gondor - was more to instill fear against Sauron's enemies not to actually fight.

[Cassius]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Fro one thing - in Osgiliation - the Ring Wraith would have instilled fear in all the citizens and fighters and it didn't (not that I think think the osgiliath scene had any place in the movie). That is why the Ring Wraith was used against Gondor - was more to instill fear against Sauron's enemies not to actually fight.

Hm, geez, I wonder where everybody went after the nazgul arrived in Osgiliath, did they man the towers? did they loose a volley of arrows? NO! They all ran like pansies behind a wall! They were hiding, not going into danger in brave gondor fashion.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cassius
Hm, geez, I wonder where everybody went after the nazgul arrived in Osgiliath, did they man the towers? did they loose a volley of arrows? NO! They all ran like pansies behind a wall! They were hiding, not going into danger in brave gondor fashion.

The how did the nazgul beast get shot at?

They seemed to be more afraid in general - not quaking in fear of the Nazgul. Not resulting from psychological fear.

[Aden]

Well,I agree that PJ's movies can't be considered as action movies and as Thranduil said action is good as long as it's not overdone ( ok maybe some scenes are extreme ). But I was really annoyed with many other things ( Gimli is a clown, Arwen replaced Glorfinel etc). It was not what I expected...

[thranduil]

Originally posted by Aden
( Gimli is a clown, Arwen replaced Glorfinel etc)

Exactly. I would rather add an action sequence to the movies than see another scene of an honourable and respectable dwarf being the joke of middle earth!!

[Cassius]

Myself Being a dwarf fanatic, I was surprised when I saw the movies how much Gimli had changed from a honorable and somewhat quiet dwarf to the comic relief. People are hard to please, and some changes had to be made, but come on? Dwarven comedies?

P.S. It doesn't even finish the kill count which proves a dwarf with an axe is better than an elf with a bow and two (supposed to be one) knives.

[thranduil]

Originally posted by Cassius

P.S. It doesn't even finish the kill count which proves a dwarf with an axe is better than an elf with a bow and two (supposed to be one) knives.

sorry off the subject. But BB wrote on a thread on TTT s.e. that it will show the ending of there competition.

[Aden]

Thank you for your understanding Thranduil and Cassius I'm glad you feel that way too.

[argolath]

Aden and Thranduil are right action's ok but...