What All Was Wrong with PJ's LOTR

[EowynRocks]

I think that really it would be SOOO hard to get the movie just right but they still could have done a lot better!!!
Ranting points:
- Nazgul pathetic. Unable to catch running hobbit even when on horse
- Faramir = NASTY . What happened to the nicer version of boromir from the books?? He was ousted to be replaced by this EVIL person. Grrr.
- Aragorn is crying out for a self-esteem course
- Merry, Pippin and Gimli turned into idiots for comic relief.
AND THAT'S JUST A START.
PJ may have tried his hardest, it was necessary that they should cut things, etc, etc, etc, but IT COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER.

Phew. Rant over.
PS This is my first post - how was it?

[The Gaffer]

Hello Eowynrocks. I can see you'll fit right in.

What really nipped my head is that they did all the hard bits really well (rendering these different species and cultures, and making it all look real) and messed up the easy bits (tell a decent story that made some sort of sense with believable characters).

It was worth itthough, eh? The Shire, Ride of the Rohirrim, Sean Astin, Christopher Lee, er, .. um... that's it...

[Nurvingiel]

I agree. A good script and a good plot will go a long way for me. The thing is, those are actually the difficult bits in movie-making. CGI technology is so advanced, that you can do a great job with it if you have the budget. You need actual talent to write a good script, and that's what was lacking for the LoTR movies.

I agree that the casting was excellent - that's not particularly easy either.

[Curufin]

Well, I liked the music...

When I saw the first movie, I loved it. It blew me away. But then I went out and read the books, and now the movies rather disgust me in their entirety. They're just so...not Tolkien. And all the stupid bits - like the Elves at Helm's Deep...the stupid warg attack...the horse-snogging scene...Gimli as comic relief...the fact that all Elves looked perpetually stoned...

Nope, sorry. Not Tolkien to me.

[EowynRocks]

Yeah, you're right, Gaffer. They paid so much attention to the fiddly special effects like the orcs and the balrog.etc,etc,etc and they seemed to forget that lotr is a really cool book series, not some sleazy hollywood affair! Also Frodo was turned into a really nasty chap and poor old Sam got a really rough deal looking after such a grumpy old codger. Aragorn was just a sword swinging idiot, Legolas was cool but with really odd mega straight hair, Gimli was comic relief, Gandalf had several nasty moments (like asking frodo to choose caradhras or moria, etc.) Need I go on?
Sorry, it's a bit long. But once I get ranting I can't stop

[Jon S.]

Saying the movies are not Tolkien is like saying the sun is not the moon. Now that we've settled that, why not enjoy the movies for what they are? That's my approach and, not surprisingly, it works for me without detracting an iota from my love of the books.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Saying the movies are not Tolkien...

No, it's not. Not at all, because they're supposed to be Tolkien's story. These movies were not just an adaptation, they were a desecration.

The biggest crime to me is the destruction of many of the main characters. Frodo, Aragorn, Faramir, Gimli, Elrond, Merry, Pippin, and Denethor were particularly heinous.

Sam, Eomer, and Gollum were ok.

Legolas and Arwen...wha???

I can't even begin to address all the made-up scenes that took away from what the story was really about.

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts

they're supposed to be Tolkien's story.

That is simply not accurate. The movies are, as noted expressly in the credits, "based on" Tolkien. That is quite different from saying they are Tolkien.

I have posted here before how even Tolkien's version of the books is, in the author's words, also "based on" an earlier version - the Red Book of Westmarch - and why that is significant in terms of the idealization, by the Hobbits, of characters such as Aragorn and Faramir.

Re: Faramir: if you haven't already read this excellent analysis, you may find it interesting if for no other reason than as a mind-opener as to how to understand and reconcile artistic differences in character development (though this page is for Faramir, the same basic type of approach is possible when comparing any of characters in the movie versus the book): http://www.istad.org/tolkien/faramir.html

But in the end, we are each as comfortable and flexible with change and interpretation as we choose to be. I long ago gave up judging others on this score. Viva la differance (so to speak).

[minor spelling edits]

[BeardofPants]

Cos the movies still suck despite being tolkien-derived? I dislike the movies because they're crap movies, not because they're crap tolkien-derivatives.

[Curufin]

Saying the movies are not Tolkien is like saying the sun is not the moon. Now that we've settled that, why not enjoy the movies for what they are? That's my approach and, not surprisingly, it works for me without detracting an iota from my love of the books.

I agree with both DPR and BeardofPants - the movies are supposed to be Tolkien's story. Now if it said "loosely based" or "inspired by" I might be able to move on a bit, but they don't. It's "JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings." And it really isn't. And you'd be suprised how many people find out I'm a Tolkien nut and tell me they haven't read the books but they've seen the movies, so it's the same thing.

And BoP's right too - the second and the third movies don't even work as movies, independently of Tolkien's work...

[shesabrandybuck]

I personally love the movies. Having read the books and everything. It may not be "exactly Tolkien", but I think that PJ did a fantastic job. I do have to say that Frodo's character isnt exactly my favorite, and Legolas's lines arent the best, but overall I think that it was wonderful, and I enjoy watching them very much

[Jon S.]

I have little to add other than, as someone who does check this forum usually every day and often sees days to weeks go by without even a single new post anywhere in the entire Tolkien section, at least this discussion is prompting a new post or two in this thread.

It's something I find continually amusing on internet forums, the predictable arguments over whether something is truly inspired or not inspired by something else. For example, I came here from a guitar forum where the arguments over whether the Fender Custom Shop Stratocaster Reissues are truly worthy of that title or not make our discussions here look tame.

Interestingly, the best predictor I've found (admittedly anecdotally) of whether a person will say the movies work or don't work is the depth of his or her investment, emotionally, in the Tolkien cannon. The reason people who see the movies only typically enjoy them and don't react like you to them, Cur, is precisely because they take the movies on their own terms ... under which they work quite well.

All counterpoints welcome and invited - let's keep the action going on Entmoot! :dude:

[The Gaffer]

OK

Clearly, some people enjoyed the movies. However, the vast majority of people I know thought they were "meh" at best. My wife falls invariably falls asleep within 10 minutes.

And these aren't people who are particularly averse to the fantasy genre. They might well appreciate the Harry Potter movies, or the likes of Pan's Labyrinth.

[Jon S.]

I prefer my threads shaken, not stirred.

Look, I don't usually quote myself

Originally Posted by Jon S.

Interestingly, the best predictor I've found (admittedly anecdotally) of whether a person will say the movies work or don't work is the depth of his or her investment, emotionally, in the Tolkien cannon.

but my emphasis is on "emotionally." In my case, for example, I love the LOTR. I have re-read the book(s) at least twice from beginning to end at least twice a year for over 30 years. The next day after I first learned that the films would be made, I sat down with my daughter, then 5 years old, and literally read the Hobbit through the end of the Return of the King + selected Appendices, out loud in the evenings, over an 18 month period, just so she would have the wonderful experience of having read (or in this case, heard) the books before seeing the films.

I love the books but I am not emotionally so caught up with them that I make myself unable to enjoy another talented person riffing on Tolkien's themes.

But then again, I'm optimistic by nature (one of my colleagues is always saying that if someone left a load of horse **** on my front stoop, I'd open the door and say, "How nice! Someone gave me a pony but it ran away.").

[More spelling edits - I'm atrocious that way. ]

[Curufin]

I love the books but I am not emotionally so caught up with them that I make myself unable to enjoy another talented person riffing on Tolkien's themes.

See, I don't think PJ is talented at all, but that's an opinion, of course.

And it's just not within my understanding (not saying that there's anything wrong with it, just that I don't understand it) that someone can love something without having an emotional investment in it...

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Curufin

See, I don't think PJ is talented at all, but that's an opinion, of course.

And it's just not within my understanding (not saying that there's anything wrong with it, just that I don't understand it) that someone can love something without having an emotional investment in it...

Oh, I think he was some talent. Just not exhibiting it in the LOTRs. Have you seen Heavenly Creatures? It's a great movie. And the one I'd recommend to people who want to watch a Peter Jackson movie. His earlier movies are great too (Bad Taste, et alia).

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Oh, I think he was some talent. Just not exhibiting it in the LOTRs. Have you seen Heavenly Creatures? It's a great movie. And the one I'd recommend to people who want to watch a Peter Jackson movie. His earlier movies are great too (Bad Taste, et alia).

Curu - not sure if you caught this, but I'll re-post. Heavenly Creatures really is worth the watch.

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by Curufin

It's just not within my understanding (not saying that there's anything wrong with it, just that I don't understand it) that someone can love something without having an emotional investment in it...

Better to put it this way: love is often mistaken with control. True love involves letting go as much as hanging onto. I love and trust the Professor's books enough to be able to let go of them for others to reinterpret.

If this still doesn't make sense to you, I'm afraid now there really is nothing more I can add on this subject so at this point I'll do the "NPR caller thang," hang up, and listen to your replies.

[The Black Captain]

Okay - I realise that there are MANY, MANY pages here, but I get the general gist of people's nuances with the movies from reading just the first 3 pages I believe. So I would like to just give a general summary of what I think in relation to the huge book vs. movie debate.


- Faramir
Some people here are saying that Peter Jackson and the script writers turned him into an evil character. There is a site that endless people keep linking to here (http://www.istad.org/tolkien/faramir.html) that explains pretty well why they changed it.

I read something else entirely about the issue: in the book, basically Faramir's reaction to Frodo and Sam's quest to destroy the ring is "Oh, very good, tell me all about it and let's sit down and have a cup of tea."

IT JUST ISN'T INTERESTING WHATSOEVER IN A MOVIE.

In essence, they didn't change Faramir, except perhaps made him a but sullen and grieving over the death of his brother. They changed Frodo and Sam's willingness to tell Faramir details about their travels. Honestly - what would you think if you saw Frodo and Sam out in a place like they were? A species notorious for not travelling about at all yet here they are in a place far from home and near the battle scenes of Gondorrim forces fighting the orcs from Mordor? Very suspicious. He treats them with apprehension just as a normal person would do. He doesn't need to be the stark polar opposite of Boromir for people to like him. He never treats the hobbits badly either, all he does in capture them and interrogate them to which they are of very little help. Yet despite this all he still comes to the final wise conclusion that Frodo and Sam are well intentioned and he shouldn't come in the way of these good intentions and give them his blessing when he finally lets them go - in the hopes that they are successful as he sees first hand how having the Ring himself will probably lead to his death, just like it did for his brother.

- Saruman
The way he died in the extended edition was just plain bad. We finally get to see a bit more of magic and spell casting (which PJ stated his adversion of) which is why it was surprising. Yet then they kill him off so pathetically. It would have been better to keep him in until the Scouring of the Shire where he can be humiliated that this once great wizard is now an outcast from his own palace and wonders now around the likes of hobbits. Even a bunch of hobbits overpowering him and "de-staffing" him would have been much better. Heck - i reckon the audience would erupt in cheers seeing the hobbits showing this nasty piece of work who's the boss!

- The Mouth of Sauron
Come on - he wasn't even that nasty or that hope-destroying, which is what he's supposed to be. If they wanted to ad-lib in the movie, they could done a much better job about it so it's much more painful for Aragorn to hear this spokeperson for Sauron's words. They way Aragorn killed him was pretty lame as the Mouth didn't really set himself up as a powerful adversary.

- The middle movie
It suffers the same fate as POTCMC does -- it just seems far too "middle movie." It relies far too heavily on the fact that FOTR was it's beginning and ROTK was it's end so it really doesn't work as a stand alone movie that well. I think the battle scene at Helm's Deep was much better filmed and the tension was many times greater than the comparatively disappointing battle of Minas Tirith / The Plennor Fields in the final movie. But this movie in general just doesn't try hard enough to have the same great "beginning-middle-and-end" storytelling.

- Wargs
Unlike everyone else here, I know it wasn't much like in the book, but I still thought that it was handled well in the movie. They just looked more like wolf-and-boar hybrids than Tolkien would have wanted.

- The Undead Army
When they came and just swept over the forces of orcs and other such enemies from Minas Morgul..... it was just a cop out. It was just really annoying to see this great evil force so pathetically eradicated.

- The Torches
Remember the scene where all the torches light up because Merry has lit the one in Gondor on Gandalf's orders? And we see this great, immense distance that the lights follow to get the message eventually back to Rohan? We are supposed to believe that Gandalf and Merry rode all this way in just THREE days!!!!! So unbelievable. Through snow capped mountains and all too! I know you want to make Middle Earth look very big, Peter Jackson, but here you just made it look too big. FAR too big!

- Duel between Gandalf and the Witch King
I've read somewhere a long time ago that Peter Jackson has an adversion to actual magic being performed. Which is why he took "spell casting", for all intents and purposes, out of the movie. I think he should not let his personal tastes get in the way of telling a great story. There needed to be much more of an actual fight between the two of them to show just how much more advanced the two bearers-of-magic are beyond the capabilities of mortal men. All we got was a lame shattering of Gandalf's staff.

- The Witch King fighting
He didn't!!! He just targetted King Theoden and that's it. We never get to see him in motion with his mighty morning-star taking out his enemy. No sooner does he attack a single person, he is killed. He goes out like a sissy. If they made him look more foreboding by letting him slaughter more of the Rohirrim et. al. this short ending would have been much better received.

- The eagles
Yet again, another cop out. They come just in the nick of time to save the Fellowship and Gondorrim from the remaining Nazgul. Puh-leeeeeeeease! Really terrible!

- Trolls from "The Hobbit" vs. trolls from "LOTR"
While I think the enslaved trolls may have just never learned to talk because of the way they live, I still think that there should have been some middle ground somewhere, as of course, in The Hobbit they spend all night talking and arguing about (eating?) who they have found. People will be seriously scratching their heads when it comes to seeing the far different version of them in GDT's The Hobbit.

- Shelob
It would have been nice if there was more of a mention that she is actually an ancient demon that takes the form of a spider rather than just let people believe that Shelob is nothing BUT a spider.

- Were they goblins or orcs coming out of the high vaulted ceilings of the Mines of Moria (just before the Balrog came along) ???

- The 3rd movie makes you think that almost all Gondorrim die. Refer to the people below me for why I was remembered about this.



Honestly - I didn't hate the movies though. I thought they were all good. The above just lists the most annoying things about the movies to me, otherwise I think it is a more than fair adaption from book to screen as IT IS very hard to preserve the same kind of story-telling in a book on a screen. I think FOTR makes the best stand alone movie out of the three of them.

[Jon S.]

Look, they certainly weren't Academy Award winners but they didn't totally suck either. I personally saw all three at least twice apiece in theatres on "the big screen" and if the crowds for every single show were faking their enjoyment, all I can say is they were doing a damn good job of it.

Repeat views, home on a small screen, after you've already seen them in theatres, for these types of movies, what can I say, we need to be real.