What All Was Wrong with PJ's LOTR

[Coffeehouse]

In the realm of literature my friend, none of these characters are particularly colorfully portrayed, nor are they especially deep.

[Gordis]

*shrugs*

[Coffeehouse]

Lol

[jammi567]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

In the realm of literature my friend, none of these characters are particularly colorfully portrayed, nor are they especially deep.

Tolkien certainly was more of a plot writer, rather then a character one. But if you go too far the other way, you get stories like the Harry Potter series.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by jammi568

Tolkien certainly was more of a plot writer, rather then a character one. But if you go too far the other way, you get stories like the Harry Potter series.

You mean as in more in the direction of character-depth?

I actually like the way characters are portrayed in Harry Potter. J.K. Rawling certainly is talented.

The Harry Potter movies do however, as opposed to the LOTR-movies in my opinion, portray more flat characters than is the case of the books, and that's one reason why I'm disappointed with a few of the HP-movies

[jammi567]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

You mean as in more in the direction of character-depth?

I actually like the way characters are portrayed in Harry Potter. J.K. Rawling certainly is talented.

Yes.

But look what happened to the overall plot. It was weak and glaringly inconsistant.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by jammi568

Yes.

But look what happened to the overall plot. It was weak and glaringly inconsistant.

A few times yes, but it didnt really bother my pleasure of reading the story

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

There are more ways to portray depth than just describing a character's inner thoughts and motivations. Tolkien's characters were plenty deep enough via their actions and spoken words.

Besides, depth is overrated. Most real people aren't all that deep. We're pretty much who you see. You are what you do. The pop psych stuff many writers and filmmakers inject into their characters and stories is often unnecessary filler.

A writer's rule of thumb should be: show, don't tell.

[Ant]

Hey all. Im a new poster here but long time reader.

My views on the movie I imagine are nothing new, but what the hey, still gonna post em.

For me the movie was a darn good effort at reproducing Tolkiens works in movie form. And the term 'movie-form' is the key issue here. The books could never be reproduced in moie form and remain entirely true to the tale. PJ obviously wanted to appeal to as wide a range of people as possible, kids and adults and yet remain as true as possible to the books so as not to piss off all of us hardcore book fans. Quite clearly he could never keep us all entirely happy and many of us would be annoyed at differing parts of the movies.

The LOTR's could be said to be based on ethics that are not as prominent or as well defined as they used to be. Morals, courtesy, fellowship (fellowship..who would use that word in todays society?) valiantry, loyalty. These are all words that we can see today, but the meaning is not what it was back when Tolkien wrote the LOTRs. And so these terms and ideals, as well as the book itself, would need to be adapted to suit modern times. Let's not forget, PJ wanted to make money. I would imagine that that was his greatest motivation. In fact, if I recall, PJ had not actually read the books before the idea of the movie was raised. I certainly don't think that he wanted to make Tolkiens great works (in my opinion, the greatest fictionary work of all time) known to the 'youth of today' or people that were not aware of it.

Ok, I could yack on like that forever. Things that annoy me about the movies...

As one person has said, the Hollywood feel. Forget the fact its made in NZ. That's irrelevant. The movie is Hollywood through and through. Look at Arwen and the raising of the river that 'destroys' the nazgul. If you're gonna pay a hot gal like Liv Tyler a crap load o' cash, you gotta give her somthing to do. Glorfindel was a great character. An elf lord. One of the few that can actually withstand the Nazgul (though not all 9 gathered together) yet he was omitted. Why? To sex up the movie of course, and to get the moneys worth out of Liv Tyler. Much better to have her stand across the river and to cast her silly spell, than to have Glorfindel and his great horse outrun the Nazgul and to have Elrond raise the river and Gandalf -with his flair for the dramatic- add the horses for nothing more than aethstical purposes. Movie watchers need to have women in the books and the corny romances, which is also why the entire droning dream scenarios keep popping up all over the place. Remember, LOTRs has very few women in it, and they do very little in the sense of action.

On the point of sexing up, look at Aragorn. He's meant to be ugly of course. Or at least very rough looking. Instead PJ gives us the shiney actor whos name escapes me. All of the hair flicking, the lovely camera angles, the photo shots as he looks over his shoulder and smiles. Makes me shudder. And his falling over the cliff is also vital to our modern day cinema. It's meant to add some cliffhangers (pardon the pun)..to keep us on the edge of our seats. To give Eowyn a chance to cry and all that crap. Im pretty sure even had I never read the books that id have known he wasnt really dead, so poor was the delivery of the drivel we had to endure.

Another matter of great annoyance is the swiftly fading terror of the Nazgul. by the third survived encounter with these dreaded ring-wraiths, i'd imagine that even the youngest and nerviest of kids watching would have not been afraid. Far too many close encounters with them. Far too many unharmed escapes. For me PJ came nowhere near to capturing the utter terror that is meant to shroud the Nazgul.

There's a great many cinematic errors too. Watch the Two Towers, the scene after the Rohirim have slain the orcs and Aragorn is reading what came next. The part where he traces the hobbits to the edge of Fangron...the mighty forest that they hadnt even noticed looming over them. Makes me chuckle.

I've typed for ages! I will maybe type some more later. There is a great many issues i'd bring up. But...having said that, I repeat what I said at the beginning...

A great effort of a movie. As one poster brilliantly put earlier: I just mentally hold my breath through these things.

(edited to fix a few spelling errors)

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I'll just respond to one of the things mentioned in the above post: the quickly diminishing fear inspired by the Nazgul.

In addition to showing them too often, PJ showed them WAY too early and WAY too clearly. We're much more afraid of the unknown than what we can see.

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by Gordis

And, could someone, please, explain to me, WHY in Osgiliath movie-Faramir let Frodo and Sam go free after witnessing how Frodo in a trance offered the Ring to a Ringwraith and then nearly killed his companion?
Normally Faramir, witnessing such strange behavior, would have been morally obliged to put Frodo somewhere safe - in a deep dungeon or in a fortified mental hospital. Instead, Faramir suddenly decided to let Frodo go free in the direction of the "Witch-King's lair" - so that he could offer the Ring to the Nazgul unhindered, when next they meet

http://www.istad.org/tolkien/faramir.html

This article focuses on the changes in Faramir rather than why he let the Hobbits go after witnessing the impact of the Nazgul's arrival on them. As for the latter, this is not rocket science, my friends. The scene with the Nazgul reinforced to Faramir the impacts of the Ring on its holder, including succeptibility to the Nazgul who where there at the time specifically due to being attracted by the armies and battle. This outcome was one more nail in the coffin of any further thought on Faramir's part of transporting the Ring to his father in the capital city. Far better to let it be carried off alone by the Hobbits.

Was it a poor decision? Based on the end results and outcome, it was anything but.

Gordis, I think your difficulties with this (and other) parts of the movie are not due to them not making internal-to-the-movie sense. It's because your prejudiced - you've decided the movies suck, PJ's changes are lousy, and with due respect, it seems to me that when you approach the changes from this mindset you're setting yourself up to routinely fall somewhere between "I don't understand" and "I can't stand ..."

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I think you underestimate Gordis, Jon, and overestimate Peter Jackson. Prejudice works both ways.

I'm someone who actually liked the movies when they came out because I watched them for enjoyment without a lot of analysis or comparison to the canon. I saw Fellowship of the Ring EIGHT TIMES at the theater. But the movies, even as movies disregarding their relationthip to Tolkien, got progressively worse as the series went on. Then, upon reflection, study, and comparison to Tolkien's canon the flaws began to stand out as more and more egregious. Realizing that most of the flaws were not necessary but just added in for adolescent coolness factor only made it worse.

I don't abhor these films. I own the DVDs, both theatrical and extended editions. But I don't blind myself to their blatant weaknesses just because they say Lord of the Rings on them.

As I said, I think prejudice can work both ways when it comes to evaluation of these films.

Besides, this thread is for criticism of the films. I don't think it is productive to defend them here or to "attack the messenger" as it were.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Jon S.

Gordis, I think your difficulties with this (and other) parts of the movie are not due to them not making internal-to-the-movie sense. It's because your prejudiced - you've decided the movies suck, PJ's changes are lousy, and with due respect, it seems to me that when you approach the changes from this mindset you're setting yourself up to routinely fall somewhere between "I don't understand" and "I can't stand ..."

Come now, Jon, let's not resort to calling everyone who's critical of the movies prejudiced. I too didn't think much of the way Faramir's decisions were handled in the movie. I can understand and see the reasoning you gave. But just because I still find it weak and that it could have been better handled differently, doesn't make me or anyone else prejudiced against it.

Surely one can find something flawed without this being due to an inflexibility of mind.

[Jon S.]

I spend far more time on musicians forums where the banter is rougher and folks less sensitive. I usually adjust to the prevailing mode upon returning here, this time apparently less so, and I recognize that "prejudice" is a loaded word in our culture. My apologies.

This being said, adopting an overall negative view of a director can color one's case-specific judgments on his decisions. I do see this here but will henceforth find a gentler way to express it and/or not post. Thanks.

[Earniel]

No harm done. (Or did you just accuse us of being too sensitive? )

Originally Posted by Jon S.

This being said, adopting an overall negative view of a director can color one's case-specific judgments on his decisions.

I won't deny that. In that view it will be interesting to see how the Hobbit movie will be received, since it'll have another man at the helm.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Jon S.

I spend far more time on musicians forums where the banter is rougher and folks less sensitive. I usually adjust to the prevailing mode upon returning here, this time apparently less so, and I recognize that "prejudice" is a loaded word in our culture. My apologies.

This being said, adopting an overall negative view of a director can color one's case-specific judgments on his decisions. I do see this here but will henceforth find a gentler way to express it and/or not post. Thanks.

Hehe well Jon.. I share your sentiment (definitely on adopting an overall negative view of a director, no matter what..). I coin it OTDFETUFD... Obsessive Tunnel-vision Detail Fixation & Excessive Time Utilization Forum Disorder

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I don't know. I kind of liked that ghost movie with Michael J. Fox in it. The material was clearly more suited to Jackson's abilities and I think he did a good job with it.

[Gordis]

I certainly wasn't prejudiced against PJ when I went to see the "Fellowship". I simply knew nothing about him and didn't care at all what he looked like or what other films he had directed. I simply wanted to see Tolkien's book on screen and hoped it would be good.

But then, watching this "masterpiece" I couldn't help to judge: the film AND the director. The Fellowship was bad enough, but I really didn't undersand how awful it could get before I saw the TT and ROTK and worst of all, the extended ROTK.

Especially grievious is that it were only the director and the scriptwriter who did the loosy job. Props, in contrast, were wonderful. I pity all these costume designers and weapon-makers and the computer guys who made such a wonderful Gollum and nice Fell-beasts - they deserved to work for a better film.

[mithrand1r]

Originally Posted by Gordis

I certainly wasn't prejudiced against PJ when I went to see the "Fellowship". I simply knew nothing about him and didn't care at all what he looked like or what other films he had directed. I simply wanted to see Tolkien's book on screen and hoped it would be good.

But then, watching this "masterpiece" I couldn't help to judge: the film AND the director. The Fellowship was bad enough, but I really didn't undersand how awful it could get before I saw the TT and ROTK and worst of all, the extended ROTK.

Especially grievious is that it were only the director and the scriptwriter who did the loosy job. Props, in contrast, were wonderful. I pity all these costume designers and weapon-makers and the computer guys who made such a wonderful Gollum and nice Fell-beasts - they deserved to work for a better film.

I thought the Props, music, locals used, costumes and special effects were well done.

In fact FOTR was (except for pippin and merry) very good upto Bree.

From there, IMHO, more and more problems (for me) entered the film.

I expected differences between book and movie.

Considering the amount of source material available, I did not expect the movie to need to add material which did not IMO help the story move along.
(This was also annoying since I heard PJ&Co say how you cannot fit everything into 3hr long films, yet they added at least 30-60 minutes of material into each of these films)

Boromir was one character that I thought the movie improved upon. It made him seem more noble, real and understandable to me than he was in the book.

Faramir and Aragorn were not the same characters that I knew from the book.

The Ents seemed inconsistent to me. (even if you only use the film material)

The battle scenes were done well (mostly) and ok to watch, but I could have lived with shorter battle scenes if it meant that the book could have been better adapted onto the screen.

(somewhat ironic since Tolkien spent relatively few pages when describing battles, yet battles take a relatively large portion of the movies.)

Overall, I enjoyed watching the films, but it could have been so much better with the resources available. Separated from the books, the films are not bad. When I consider them as adaptations of the books, I think the films fail at this attempt. At best a C.

http://www.entmoot.com/showpost.php?...0&postcount=21

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by mithrand1r

I thought the Props, music, locals used, costumes and special effects were well done.

Props were very good.
Music was good, IMO, but here I am a poor judge. Yet, I think some scenes would look better with less loud music. Silence is a great addition to horror scenes.
Locals - good, except Rohan (can't imagine horses enjoying these rocky barren lands) and the ridiculous beacons set upon mountain tops of the Hithaeglir.
Costumes were good, except for the nazgul. I can understand why the poor Nine had donned such trashy old robes with frayed edges while on a secret mission, but why in Angband the WK wears the same old cloak at the Pelennor is beyond my understanding. And his helmet... Why not take the old-fashioned steel crown?

Special effects were good in FOTR and I think in TT, but not in ROTK. I hated these unrealistic catapults throwing pieces of masonery huge enough to kill a mumak and breaking walls of Minas Tirith like those of a sand castle.

In fact FOTR was (except for pippin and merry) very good upto Bree.

Even Bree was not that bad. I started to feel sickened only after the wizard kung-fu fight and the ridiculous setting the nazgul on fire at Weathertop. Arwen scratching Aragorn's throat with her sword and muttering spells at the Ford didn't help either. And then I saw Elrond - and that was the end for me. HOW could they choose such an actor for Elrond????

I expected differences between book and movie.

As did I. I am fine with no Tom, no Barrows etc. But why such unnecessary additions and long and boring fights?

Considering the amount of source material available, I did not expect the movie to need to add material which did not IMO help the story move along.
(This was also annoying since I heard PJ&Co say how you cannot fit everything into 3hr long films, yet they added at least 30-60 minutes of material into each of these films)

I second that.

Boromir was one character that I thought the movie improved upon. It made him seem more noble, real and understandable to me than he was in the book.

He was OK. Only why not give him and Faramir dark wigs? Strawberry blondes among the Dunedain... hmm.

Faramir and Aragorn were not the same characters that I knew from the book.

I didn't like them either, esp. Faramir, but I am cool with them. Denethor's portrayal, in contrast, makes me spit and swear.

The Ents seemed inconsistent to me. (even if you only use the film material)

Never cared about them much anyway...

The battle scenes were done well (mostly) and ok to watch, but I could have lived with shorter battle scenes if it meant that the book could have been better adapted onto the screen. (somewhat ironic since Tolkien spent relatively few pages when describing battles, yet battles take a relatively large portion of the movies.)

So much time wasted on that and Aragorn-Arwen additions that could have been used for something vital.


As a matter of fact, the whole battle of Helm's Deep could have been omitted saving the time for the principal scenes: the Parley with Saruman, Gandalf and WK at the Gate, Houses of Healing, Mordor scenes etc.