# [OT] Upon watching PJ butcher another's work.



## Celebrim (Dec 19, 2002)

Tonight I wasted $16 watching PJ butcher and urinate on Tolkien's TTT. 

I could write a really long rant on the myriad of things that PJ did that not only weren't as nifty as JRRT did them, but weren't even entertaining in there own right, but I really don't have the time to list them all and I really don't want to think about that POS movie anymore. 

So here is my summary of the movie. Sam is standing in Osgiliath where Faramir has brought them because he is consumed with lust for the ring. Sam says to Frodo, "By all accounts, we shouldn't be here. But we are." 

I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Bhaal (Dec 19, 2002)

PJ has admitted that TTT strays from the book more than the other movies.  He's keeping the overall feel of the books very well, you can't stop some of hollywood sneaking in and it's never going to be the exact same as the book.  It's not perfect, but I can't think of anyone who would be doing this better, and I'd rather have the movies anyway.  If you paid 16 dollars to see something you've already read then yes, you are wasting your money.


----------



## Reprisal (Dec 19, 2002)

It seems to me that this thread could grow quite substantially in the near-future, might I suggest that it be moved to a more fitting location?

 - Rep.


----------



## Azure Trance (Dec 19, 2002)

Mooooooooooooooooooooooovie Forum. And if you judge the movie by itself on it's own merits, then what?


----------



## SHARK (Dec 19, 2002)

Greetings!

Wow Celebrim, you sound truly angry. I'd be interested in hearing all of the things that you didn't like about the movie, and why.

Personally, I loved the movie, though in a rleated thread, I posted a number of departures that I can agree are significantly different from the book, but ultimately excused and tolerable, because frankly, Tolkien wrote such an excellent series of novels, and in each book there is simply so much going on that there are many difficult choices that you have to make, as there is only three hours to show the movie in. That constraint means, besides the mediums being very different, that there must be some significant changes and differences from the book to the movie. At the end of the day, I think the movie was excellent, and while some elements are indeed missed, as a Tolkien "purist" I can excuse these changes in deference to the medium and the very real constraints upon the different medium. I love the books, of course, and this movie is surely quite excellent!

Though I'm quite interested in your views Celebrim! Come on now, pour yourself a cup of coffee, relax, and let forth with it! What do you think is so wrong with the movie, and how is the good Professor Tolkien rolling over in his grave because of Peter Jackson's presentation of "The Two Towers"?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## Darkness (Dec 19, 2002)

Moved to the appropriate forum.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 19, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *Tonight I wasted $16 watching PJ butcher and urinate on Tolkien's TTT. *




You mean to say that Peter Jackson himself came over to your house, slapped you around and took $16 from your wallet, then ripped up and whizzed on your copy of LotR?

That bastard.

[/sarcasm]

Jeez, get a grip.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 19, 2002)

Temper, folks.  Temper.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 19, 2002)

I don't even know where to begin.

PJ includes all these odd erratic out of place 'Easter Eggs' for the fans of the book, that are really odd in the context of the movie and don't really serve a purpose.   They make the parts of the story where he is adhering to the book extremely choppy and brisk.  

And yet, for all his ability to get trivial details right, when it comes to doing the important scenes he completely blows it, rewrites it badly, dumbs down the dialogue to a 6th grade level, turns the characters into unempathetic fools, and misses the point completely.   There are only about 5 passages of dialogue that are both key to the story and which are monumental in character in TTT.   And yet, PJ is capable of drawing word for word some minor quotation from the book repeatedly, but when it comes to the moment of truth PJ utterly slips up.   Lose the minor dialogue and keep the important parts!  I can loose Merry dropping the elf leaf.  I can loose the gift of the coneys.  I can loose the EntMoot and the fact that Entish is a slow language.  I can lose any number of things that aren't important to the story, but I can't lose the story.   

I don't know how many times laughter broke out at odd moments in the theater because PJ can't stop over directing.   At times when we are meant to pity Gollum, people are laughing at him.   At times when the Orcs are meant to be intimidating, people are laughing at them.   And the heroic character of Gimli and Aragorns sally forth from the walls is broken by some weird dwarf tossing joke.   What's up with that?

Let me get this straight, its not even a very good movie in its own right.   FotR, that was ok.  Not great, but ok.  This was terrible.

Theoden was made to be a great fool.   Aragorn was made to be a great fool.  The power of the healing scene was completely lost in this chuckles rewrite.   Did anyone in this story act wisely?   Theoden did not go to Helm's Deep because he was a fool, he went to helm's deep because he was wise.  You know, how many times are we going to throw characters from high places and have them appear to be dead?  Between that and Galadriel/Elrond's pretty useless narration, we have nearly 15 minutes of film that can fill in all these gaps in the story were we ask 'Errr... just what is the motivation of these characters?'   How did Faramir find out about the ring of power, and why did he have a sudden change of heart?   Why did Sam care about seeing an Oliphant, and why bother dropping a dead soldier at his feet if Sam does not get to wonder whether or not the man was evil or whether he only served Sauron out of fear?  Why did gollum suddenly begin fawning over Frodo after the rope was taken off, and what about the quite important scene where Frodo curses Gollum?  Why play up the 'betrayal' at the pool, and play down the far more important 'nature of stories speach' that leads up to the all important 'Where have you been dialogue'.   Why play Sam up to be so cruel?   Why _again_ play Frodo as a useless fool?   Why is it necessary for Pippin to tell lies in order to cause the Last March of the Ents when the truth was and could be made to serve better?  Is Treebeard also a fool?   Who in this story isn't a fool?   My wife thought Grima Wormtongue was the most empathetic character in the story!  And for all his discussion that it was necessary to have the elves at Helm Deep to show the fading of the elves, I for one had I not read the book, would have NEVER drawn the conclusion that the elves are fading because 'only' a thousand of them show up to be the principal defenders of Helm's Deep.   Indeed, where it not for the dialogue, I would not have known the elves where fading at all (and what does that tell you?), and I seriously doubt any Tolkien noviate thought the Elves showing up at Helm's Deep was a sign of thier withdrawal from the affairs of ME.

I mean, I can accept that PJ screwed things up so much that the battles no longer make military sense, or that the time line no longer is carefully plotted out, or that the travel time between places is no longer accounted for.   It's a movie.   The average person isn't going to care, and if you haven't read the book you aren't going to know.   

But it's a pretty darn poorly written movie for all of that, and none of its problems are uncurable by simply better writing.

In many ways, we are again seeing the same sort of writing weaknesses that PJ showed in Heavenly Creatures.   All the best dialogue/monologue (indeed all the good writing) was stolen word for word from the transcripts of the trials, and between all this well crafted language we have PJ's quite weak filler.   How that managed to win 'Best Adaptation' I'll never know.   Strength of a young girls words plagerized for the screen I guess.

And on top of this, I could go scene for scene and say, 'Sorry, PJ, journeyman effort at best, what I don't understand is when you had the alternative between doing what you did and doing what Tolkien wrote, how you managed to chose what you did over the more visually powerful thing that Tolkien did?'  Where does a man get the arrogance to presume that he can tell a better story than the most beloved and popular book in English of the 20th century?  It's not just one scene where you can say, 'Well XF constraints..., 'Budget constraints...', and its certainly not 'Time constraints...'.   It's just _everywhere_.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 19, 2002)

Man, How I wish Chris Columbus had directed these movies.

(I NEVER thought I'd say that about any movie.)


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Dec 19, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *
> Let me get this straight, its not even a very good movie in its own right.   FotR, that was ok.  Not great, but ok.  This was terrible.
> *




Well, at least you now know you don't have to see the last one.

SD


----------



## Drew (Dec 19, 2002)

> FotR, that was ok. Not great, but ok. This was terrible.




Oh, I see...you're *INSANE.* That clears it up.  

In all seriousness, it sounds to me like you're letting your love for the original works cloud your opinion of the movies. Yes, there were changes, but I think that we need to wait until the final movie to wait and see if they worked or not.

If you haven't liked the last two movies, stick with the books my friend.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 19, 2002)

There were a few changes that I didn't like, but jeez they didn't even come close to ruining the story.  As a movie it was fantastic, as an adaption of Tolkien it was still pretty good except for a few glaring errors.


----------



## kengar (Dec 19, 2002)

Saw the movie last night. Felt there were a few rough patches and -frankly- a few parts that didn't even really make sense to have in. Overall,I enjoyed the film. I was *BLOWN AWAY* by the first movie, though. To be fair, I have seen FOTR several times now so it might be unjust to compare the two after seeing TTT only once. 

As a film on its own merits, IMHO, it was quite good. It did deviate from JRRT significantly in a few places. Without getting into TOO many spoilers or "book v. film: which is better?", here are my good, bad & the ugly:

Good:

The sets at Helm's Deep, Edoras & Fangorn forest were terrific. I was especially impressed by the forest. I had always had difficulty imagining it, but PJ did a great job creating an image that fit perfectly.

Gollum was PERFECT. He avoided the JarJar syndrome and was a real character with feelings and conflicts. Slinker v. Stinker was done creatively and true to the spirit. (btw Celebrim, Faramir found out about the ring from questioning Gollum).

Elijah Wood's portrayal of the Ring's growing influence over him. As well as his desire to see Smeagol redeemed.

The action scenes were visually exciting. A bit over the top compared to FOTR in places, but the TTT book was more action-packed too. Battle of Helm's Deep set a new standard for film in battle scenes. The wargs were frightening, the Ents looked & moved like they should. 

Gandalf v. Balrog: 'nuff said 

Eowyn was a pleasant surprise. I expected cheesecake, but the actress did a great job bringing her character to life. 

Theoden's scene at the grave was beautifully done.

The Black Gate. WW!

The Bad:

Aragorn & the river. Why??  

The whole scene with the Elves & Arwen, etc. It was confusing and deviated from the book in a major way without serving any easily understood purpose. Though the bit about what would happen if she married Aragorn and he got old was done very true to the appendices. (That & Liv Tyler in the gauzy gown were OK  )

Gimli was a little too comic, but John Rhys-Davies is a such an amazing character actor that he's fun to watch no matter what. At least the "counting game" was included.

The "healing" of Theoden was a _little_ bit corny. But I had more difficulty with the whole bit where Aragorn, Legolas & Gimli beat up the guards than I did with Gandalf & Theoden.

Sam's little speech towards the end. It was useful to allow some scene-jumping I suppose, but seemed a bit preachy.

The Ugly:

Faramir. Without a doubt, the worst part of the film was the way Faramir was portrayed. No slam on the actor, but it was a _major_ shift from the character as written in the book and not for any discernable reason. 



PS: As far as some folks' concerns about Shelob: bah! I think the way PJ set it up with Gollum's muttering at the end was a much better choice for the films.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 19, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *At times when we are meant to pity Gollum, people are laughing at him.   At times when the Orcs are meant to be intimidating, people are laughing at them.   And the heroic character of Gimli and Aragorns sally forth from the walls is broken by some weird dwarf tossing joke.   What's up with that?*




Well, I can't speak for some, but I can speak for myself, those I saw the film with and my audience that was present.  It was clear that they all enjoyed the film immensely.

Gollum did start out a little shaky, but there was plenty of pity for Gollum in my theatre...but an equal amount of fear and distrust.  The scene where the split personalities argue started comical (intentionally), but by the middle of it, it was deathly quiet in the theatre from the tension of Gollum's inner conflict.

As for the dwarf-tossing joke, that and all the other jokes for Gimli went over very well in our showing.  I realize you might find it a violation of the sanctity of the work, an opinion to which you're entitled, but most of us enjoyed it for bit of light humor it was intended to be, especially amid such scenes of darkness and death.

Personally, I think your distaste for the treatment of the material is distracting you from the quality of the movie itself.  Most of your dissatisfaction comes from the handling of character and plot elements in contrast with the source material, not necessarily with the actual film-making.  Much of the original dialogue, IMHO, simply would not work in a feature film without modification.  Similarly, much of the pacing of TTT would be extremely off for cinematic presentation, as well.  Complaining that Entdraught was missing or that the Entmoot should take three days or even that Treebeard's character is portrayed as much more relunctant and less wise than in the books are not problems with the film (I realize that you didn't cite such examples, of course, I'm just using such for illustration).  An argument can be made for where the film does have weak points, but you haven't really made them, IMHO.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Dec 19, 2002)

I saw it last night as well.  My thoughts:

First was the audience, which at 6:30 was mostly middle/high school immature kids.  VERY annoying, a definitely plan to go back and see it again without them.  I had to explain to the kid who wouldn't stop talking to me that I'd read the books for the first time 15 years ago, and many times since then.  Ugh.

This I think gives an explanation for the laughter - people just hadn't read the book, or weren't invested in the story enough.  I hardly think this is PJ's fault - some people just went because it's the next big thing - they're not even fans.  Of course, my gf cried during the scenes with Gollum fighting with himself, and she never read the books.

As for people mock-dying... that happens a fair deal in the book too.  Can't blame PJ.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Dec 19, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *Tonight I wasted $16 watching PJ butcher and urinate on Tolkien's TTT.
> 
> *




I am glad he did.  While I love the stories, I did not like Tolkien's writing style.  Enjoy the movie for what it is, an adaption, not a translation.  I thought it was excellent and you should have known it would be different than the books, did you see the first one?


----------



## KnowTheToe (Dec 19, 2002)

I have read many people's comments onthe love/dream sequences with Aragorn and the river sceen as well.  I think these were added for pacing.  It forced the movie to slow down a few times so we could catch our breath and enjoy the next major sceen.  You may not have liked them or would have chose a different way to break up the action and drama, but they were neccessary for pacing.  It is the same when you play D&D.  You don't want to go from battle to battle without any RP in between because the battles get muttled together and are less fun.

Face it, I am right


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 19, 2002)

WizardDru: If you liked the film, fine.  What I find particularly annoying is complaining about a film and people like you trotting out tired old anti-purist arguements without understanding a bit of what I'm saying.   For instance:

"Complaining that Entdraught was missing or that the Entmoot should take three days or even that Treebeard's character is portrayed as much more relunctant and less wise than in the books are not problems with the film..."

And how does this have to do with anything I said?  Why make a straw man out of my complaints by comparing me to a bunch of purist nit pickers that don't understand how to tell a story?  Did I make any complaints like that?  No, quite the contrary, I said, PJ actually put too much of this purist nit picky stuff in the movie just to be able to say he did so - and it hurt his movie.

If I was a nit picker, I might complain about the design of the black gate, but no that was fine.  Not the book, but accomplishes the same purpose of being 'impressive'.   I'm not complaining about changes wholesale and without thought.  In fact, my favorite part of FotR was the first 15 minutes or so when PJ/Boyens actually showed some decent ability at rewriting, addition, and arrangement when establishing Frodo/Bilbo/Gandalf as characters.  That wasn't 'from the book word for word', but it certainly was in the spirit of the book.

I don't claim to have 'made' my arguement.  I DO claim that the sort of things I have brought up as being really weak are the sort of things that alot of people agree as being really weak, even if I haven't bothered to fully justify my appraisal of these things as weak.  

When people trot out the 'Tolkien Purist' argument, that I'm misjudging the movie based on its treatment of the material, I tend to feel that I'm dealing with a 'Movie Purist' who is afraid to critically judge that popcorn epic he just watched.  

"Oh, the movie was great, I wouldn't change a thing!  It was perfect!  It was the best movie I ever saw!"

Please.  It started out as 'not Tolkein but at least the very best D&D movie ever made', but before the end of the movie PJ had completely lost his way in the story.   Only his good use of fantasy action and borrowed Tolkien grandeur was really keeping people in the story.  Judged on its own merits, this wasn't even the movie that Gladiator or Braveheart was.

I'm not necessarily the one here with a misplaced attachment to a peice of artistic material.  If you think it was so well written, trot out some examples of PJ's well written original lines.   If you think it was so good, you defend the work - and try to avoid doing it with 'well it seemed to be well received' because so was the Dumb and Dumberer treaser.

kengar: Please, don't get me started on PJ's treatment of the healing scene, and Aragorn & Co. whooping @$$ with his bare hands to protect Gandalf from attack JUST after Gandalf efffectively demonstrated that even Aragorn couldn't lay a sword on him.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 19, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *I don't claim to have 'made' my arguement.  I DO claim that the sort of things I have brought up as being really weak are the sort of things that alot of people agree as being really weak, even if I haven't bothered to fully justify my appraisal of these things as weak.*




Actually, "a lot" of people don't feel that way at all.  You're in the minority.



> *I'm not necessarily the one here with a misplaced attachment to a peice of artistic material.  If you think it was so well written, trot out some examples of PJ's well written original lines.   If you think it was so good, you defend the work - and try to avoid doing it with 'well it seemed to be well received' because so was the Dumb and Dumberer treaser.*




You're the one who's making the statement.  And it's clear that, by and large, most disagree with you.  The burden of proof is on *you*.

Sounds to me like you'd pretty much decided not to like the movie before going in.  Which is fine, but why you'd then bother to waste money going to see it is a mystery to me.


----------



## Tom Cashel (Dec 19, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> * FotR, that was ok.  Not great, but ok.   *






			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> *Man, How I wish Chris Columbus had directed these movies.
> *




I only read far enough to get a sense of where you're coming from, and you provided it with these two quotes.  Now I feel justified in ignoring your comments.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 19, 2002)

we'll if everyone's gonna turn this into a bash Celebrim, you might as well turn it into a bash jgbrowning and Celebrim.

im another of the minorities that wasn't very impressed with this film.

joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 19, 2002)

KnowTheToe said:
			
		

> *I have read many people's comments onthe love/dream sequences with Aragorn and the river sceen as well.  I think these were added for pacing.  It forced the movie to slow down a few times so we could catch our breath and enjoy the next major sceen.  You may not have liked them or would have chose a different way to break up the action and drama, but they were neccessary for pacing.  It is the same when you play D&D.  You don't want to go from battle to battle without any RP in between because the battles get muttled together and are less fun.
> Face it, I am right  *




he could have just as easily left out the warg scene and replaced it with more merry and pipen.  that way he could have slowed down the pacing and put in much needed character development.

joe b.


----------



## Bohemian Earspoon (Dec 19, 2002)

"udged on its own merits, this wasn't even the movie that Gladiator or Braveheart was."

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheLordoftheRingsTheTwoTowers-1118285/

116 reviews, all from established critics.  113 good, 3 bad, a 97% approval rating.  I think Braveheart got 83%, and Gladiator around 78%.

I dunno. I liked it! Sorry you didn't.  Hey, did Merry and Pippin actually do much in the second book? I don't think so.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 19, 2002)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> *we'll if everyone's gonna turn this into a bash Celebrim, you might as well turn it into a bash jgbrowning and Celebrim.
> 
> im another of the minorities that wasn't very impressed with this film.*




Nobody's bashing anybody.  I think Celebrim is taking his distaste for the film a little too seriously, but that's his perogative.

I like to hear _specifically_ what made the film a bad film in the eyes of those who didn't like it.  The whole group I was there with loved it - the movie got a standing ovation at the end.

I'm not sure it's as strong a movie as FotR, myself.  But as others have said, I've only seen TTT once and FotR probably 50 times.  So it's not fair for me to make the comparison right now.  I do intend to go at least once more.  (Hell, I saw Attack of the Clowns twice - now _that_ was a piece of steaming poo.)


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 19, 2002)

Faramir was nearly ruined by PJ's take on him, that is my main gripe.  He passed the test that Borormir failed, and it didn't take a Nazgul to do it.   That I thought was bad work by PJ.  The Treebeard having to be tricked into going to Isenguard was poor as well, but I guess they needed to get something interesting for Merry & Pippin to do.   Still they are pretty shallow characters compared to thier book versions, that's kind of sad.   The Arwyen scenes were the only times I checked my watch.  She is a bad actress and should stick to cheap trash like Armageddon.   The whole Aragorn over the cliff deal was poorly done and totally unnecessary.  Theoden should have been a lot older as well.   Good movie but could have been better.


----------



## Tom Cashel (Dec 19, 2002)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> *we'll if everyone's gonna turn this into a bash Celebrim, you might as well turn it into a bash jgbrowning and Celebrim.
> *




Okay, if that's the way you want it...........



No, seriously...that's fine to be less than impressed.  I didn't think it was perfect, or particularly faithful to the book...but I also don't much care.  I thought it was an entertaining film; a lot of fun.

I'm not faulting you or Celebrim for expressing an unfavorable opinion of the film.  I'm jeering Celebrim for his "Peter Jackson urinates on Tolkien" stance, his outrageous comment that the schlockmeister responsible for the ever-so-schlocky watered-down-fantasy mass-media tripe that is _Harry Potter_ should have directed LotR, and mostly his claim that he doesn't want to even _think_ about TTT anymore, but then goes into multiple-post ranting with very little provocation.

'Sfunny, is all.


----------



## Olorin (Dec 19, 2002)

I agree with Celebrim that many of the changes/additions were poor. I enjoyed the movie overall but I just can't fathom why the writers and director though some of these things were a good idea.

Faramir is the chief one. His character was done a huge disservice by forcing him to admit the ring is bad by external forces (the Ringwraith and Sam's speech), rather than by his own wisdom. It shows him to be just another weak man like his brother, rather than the wiser and nobler of the two. The addition of the Osgiliath scenes didn't even work well... Faramir only seems to react to outside circumstances, rather than making the right decisons on his own. And his tone and expression when telling his men to take Frodo and Sam to his father "bearing a great gift" made me feel like the Ring had its hooks into him already, after a much shorter time than it took Boromir to be corrupted.

The Aragorn "is he dead?" interlude following the warg battle (which I quite liked) served no purpose that I could tell and took away screen time from other things. If they really wanted to slow the movie down at that point, finish the battle and then cut away to Merry and Pippin talking with Treebeard, staying at his home, drinking the Entdraught. The focus on the Aragorn/Arwen romance was too much in this film, one scene would have been sufficient rather than the 3 flashbacks we got.

I have no problem with adding new scenes to the movies as long as they serve the overall story and stay faithful to the spirit of the books. The changes in Fellowship did quite well in this respect I thought. For TTT, I feel like the director/writers didn't try hard enough to make the existing material work on the screen.

The Theoden exorcism scene I had no problem with, as it simply exaggerated the cause of his decline, making it an overt effort from Saruman rather than just the poison tongue of Grima. Different means, same effect. That was a good example of adapting something from the books in a way that worked better on film while maintaining the spirit of the book.

But the changes to Faramir, the Aragorn interludes, also the presentation of Elrond as a man-hating elf (the impression I got from his scenes with Arwen and the messages from Galadriel) were not done well in my opinion.

And why did Haldir give greetings from Elrond?? He is a Galadrim and it was clearly Galadriel's doing that elves were sent to help the Rohirrim at all. That just seems like a continuity gaffe.

I still enjoyed the movie overall but felt that Celebrim had some valid concerns with they way some of the changes were done.
Just my two cents.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 19, 2002)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *No, seriously...that's fine to be less than impressed.  I didn't think it was perfect, or particularly faithful to the book...but I also don't much care.  I thought it was an entertaining film; a lot of fun.
> *




i think the film _should_ have been more than "entertaining" or "a lot of fun."  Tolkien was telling a good story, with lots and lots of excellent internal conflict/development. The whole story's a book about good/evil.

good/evil conflict should be more than just a good movie.  I really wish they would have gone into more depth about the concepts of loss.  its a story about how allowing evil to continue within oneself eventually leads to a massive "paying of the price."  and how that paying is never ejoyable, leaves scars that never heal, and defines what humanity is.  an inevitiable descent to death, with the best a human can do is display courage, will, grace perserverance, pity, wisdom, and acceptance.

jackson had a lot to work with, especially in this film.  moreso than i think in the other two, because this film is the real "decision" film.  its the part where the characters start to really feel the brunt of their decisions... its the part where the characters suddenly realise that in the end they're going to be consumed by their path. perhaps he's just waiting for RoTK to show this.. i'll wait and see.

basically, i expected more from the film than i got.  that's my fault, buddha and dukkha and all that...

joe b.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 19, 2002)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> *good/evil conflict should be more than just a good movie.  I really wish they would have gone into more depth about the concepts of loss.  its a story about how allowing evil to continue within oneself eventually leads to a massive "paying of the price."  and how that paying is never ejoyable, leaves scars that never heal, and defines what humanity is.  an inevitiable descent to death, with the best a human can do is display courage, will, grace perserverance, pity, wisdom, and acceptance.
> 
> jackson had a lot to work with, especially in this film.  moreso than i think in the other two, because this film is the real "decision" film.  its the part where the characters start to really feel the brunt of their decisions... its the part where the characters suddenly realise that in the end they're going to be consumed by their path. perhaps he's just waiting for RoTK to show this.. i'll wait and see.*




The theme of loss is one of the major ones of the book - but it's played up in the films, too.  So much so, in fact, that it could be said to be heavy-handed.

Galadriel says flat-out that Frodo's decision to be the Ringbearer will cost him his life.  The ramifications of Arwen's choice are clear.  The Elves are leaving Middle-Earth, and with them will pass away their wondrous era, and bring forth the dominion of Men.

So no, this is not one of Tolkien's themes that the movies blow off.  It's developed a bit differently, but I don't see that as an issue.


----------



## National Acrobat (Dec 19, 2002)

I can say that along with some others, I was totally blown away by the FotR. Great movie. I thought TTT was good as a movie, but I do have my gripes with the changes from book to film, but they really didn't keep me from enjoying the movie for what it was. A darn good fantasy movie. I saw an 8 o'clock showing which had little to no kids or teenagers present. I could tell that the scene with Arwen and the 'rescue' of Aragorn didn't really go over well because about half of the theatre, including myself, took a bathroom break at that time. Other than that, I think everyone enjoyed it.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Dec 19, 2002)

Now that we are getting past trollish statements like urination, we can finally discuss the nit and grit of the likes and dislikes.  I enjoyed the whole movie, thought it was as good as the first, adn showed great promise as to what fantasy can be.

I will agree that the Legolas, Gimli and Aragorn fighting the guards would have been better served if Gandalf's mere presence kept the guards at bay, but that is my opinion and does not in any way hurt the movie.

I will also agree that the death of Aragorn was unneccessary and might have been better served developing another part of the story, but I cannot say.  After watching much of the very boring interviews and discussions on the FoTR DVD, it seems to me Jackson put a lot of thought into every aspect of the film and did not lightly gloss over things.  It could be the movie team tried several other angles and did not think they worked very well.

As far as Faramir goes, I had not read the books in full and can't have any valididated opinion on this, but I think Eric Noah is probably correct in his assumptions of character and development and time.  He has posted it in the other threads on this topic.

If you think this movie was bad, rent Kate and Leopold.  Talk about a movie with pointless scenes and plot holes...


----------



## Ysgarran (Dec 19, 2002)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> *
> First was the audience, which at 6:30 was mostly middle/high school immature kids.  VERY annoying, a definitely plan to go back and see it again without them.  I had to explain to the kid who wouldn't stop talking to me that I'd read the books for the first time 15 years ago, and many times since then.  Ugh.
> *




I had this happen to me also.  I got the strong impression that the only reason they went to see the movie was because of the battle scenes.  About half way through the movie I had to tell them to keep their comments to themselves.  

I suspect this is going to be the weakest of the three films.  I don't feel as strong Celebrim about the weaknesses of the film though.   Celebrim does have some valid points, especially this business with Aragorn falling off a cliff.

Visually I thought the movie was truly impressive.  Gollum is probably the greatest computer animated character in film up to this point in time.   

Ysgarran.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 19, 2002)

I may be in the minority on really disliking the movie, but I don't think I'm in the minority in disliking what was done with Faramir, or in thinking that Merry & Pippin relationship with Treebeard was done badly, or in thinking the whole Arwen thing was awkward.  Nor am I the only one who was bothered by any of the complaints I've raised, I just seem to be the only on this board that was bothered by all of them.  Amongst my friends at work, my opinion is not an unusual one.

"Faramir only seems to react to outside circumstances, rather than making the right decisons on his own. And his tone and expression when telling his men to take Frodo and Sam to his father "bearing a great gift" made me feel like the Ring had its hooks into him already, after a much shorter time than it took Boromir to be corrupted."

I am of the crowd that believes when you write something, what you write next should logically follow from what has happened before.  Call me odd. I defy anyone to explain what the motivation was for Faramir's sudden change of heart other than the fact that in the book Faramir is a good guy, and the future story is emperiled if Faramir doesn't become a good guy at some point.  When Frodo tried to give the ring to the Nazgul, and Sam came to his sudden ephinany and made his speach, what does this have to do with Faramir?  Given Faramir's actions judged only by his character within the film, the logic thing for him to do when he sees Frodo aiding the vassel of Sauron is kill Frodo quickly and claim the ring for himself.  He doesn't for reasons that have nothing to do with the story PJ is telling.

Call me odd, but if I were Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas and had just been completely disarmed and overpowered by Gandalf in the previous scene, I wouldn't feel the need to take on the house carls of Edoras bare handed in order to protect him.  I don't think I would see this as a means of establishing trust, and while maybe you could argue it was in character for a hot head like Gimli or Legolas - hadn't we just seen Aragorn use a bit more tact just a few scenes earlier?  

And just how many times must you throw people off great heights and have them appear to be dead in one movie?  Gandalf once, ok.   But then Aragorn for no particular reason and adding nothing too the story, and then Aragorn again after getting blown off the top of the wall of Helm's Deep.   This is good movie making?  I suppose you are going to tell me all those single silent movie tears were subtle?

Tom: I got worked up again after coming into work and talking it over with my friends and "schlockmeister responsible for the ever-so-schlocky watered-down-fantasy mass-media tripe that is..." pretty well describes my feelings about TTT and PJ's directing/writing decisions.  Like I said, I never thought I'd find myself thinking Chris Columbus would have been a better alternative, but there you go.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Dec 19, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *
> "Faramir only seems to react to outside circumstances, rather than making the right decisons on his own. And his tone and expression when telling his men to take Frodo and Sam to his father "bearing a great gift" made me feel like the Ring had its hooks into him already, after a much shorter time than it took Boromir to be corrupted."
> 
> *




You don't know any of Faramir's motivations in this movie.  You assummed PJ was having the ring control his actions, but maybe he had internal struggles and was unsure what to do, then he received a message, his men were needed elsewhere and took Frodo with him.  His actions with Gollum were not mean, he captured him alive and could have easily shot him.  I took it as mercy.  Maybe it was not until the scene with the Nazgul that he made his decision.  The ring did not have to have anything to do with how he acted, it could have been indecision caused by the complexity of the situation.

Just for my info, because the only people who I have heard from that had serious gripes about the movie, were huge fans of the books, what fantasy movies would you say were as good or better?


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 19, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *And how does this have to do with anything I said?  Why make a straw man out of my complaints by comparing me to a bunch of purist nit pickers that don't understand how to tell a story?  Did I make any complaints like that?  No, quite the contrary, I said, PJ actually put too much of this purist nit picky stuff in the movie just to be able to say he did so - and it hurt his movie.*



Ahh, the Internet.  Where any bozo with a bone to pick with anything can get his say in.  If I were interested in the kinds of attacks you're making on the movie, I could at least read a professional critics opinion, rather than some anonymous yahoo on a D&D message board.  By the way, the professional critics seem to all disagree with you - at least the about dozen or so major reviews I've read of the movie.
*



			Please.  It started out as 'not Tolkein but at least the very best D&D movie ever made', but before the end of the movie PJ had completely lost his way in the story.   Only his good use of fantasy action and borrowed Tolkien grandeur was really keeping people in the story.  Judged on its own merits, this wasn't even the movie that Gladiator or Braveheart was.
		
Click to expand...


*Funny.  Gladiator came across to me as one of the most over-rated movies of the decade.  Russell Crowe as best actor that year?  C'mon -- is this just a popularity contest or what?  He sleep-walked through the whole movie, and the story was just Braveheart in a Roman setting.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 19, 2002)

"You don't know any of Faramir's motivations in this movie."

Ewww... now there is a great defence of PJ's characterization.  You are assuming that I am assuming something about Faramir's motivations.  I'm not.  I quoted a guy that did, but I'm just trying to grasp what Faramir's motivations were in terms of this movie.  However, even if I did conclude that Faramir was under the control of the ring, don't you would think I would be justified in concluding that given Galadriels voice-over narration just before that describing how the ring was calling to men and had almost achieved its purpose?

How did Faramir immediately conclude from Gollum saying 'my precious', that Frodo bore the Ring of Power?  Please only use movie internal logic.

Given that Faramir never explained why the pool was forbidden, explain how the audience is supposed to see Faramir as anything as a cruel and cunning person who is sadistically enjoying tormenting Frodo by forcing him to betray his companion?  Please only use internal movie logic.   Explain what they _are_ supposed to feel about Faramir given the acting and direction.


----------



## Henry (Dec 19, 2002)

Celebrim, please don't take this as a slam, but if your opinion of the first movie was that it was merely "OK", then I have a strong belief that I will at _the least_ enjoy The Two Towers immensely. You and I, having come from different experiences of Tolkien, have totally different opinions of these movies. Whereas you see a butcher of the source material, I see the Greatest Fantasy Movie of the entire 20th century. If you count the Star Wars Trilogy as fantasy, then I call it the Second Greatest Fantasy Movie.

As I noted in earlier threads, Peter Jackson has defined Tolkien for me because, try as I might, I could not, and cannot, get through the prose of Tolkien - it comes off as so unwieldy as to be frozen to me. While he may tell a great story, I cannot understand that story, because it is buried in beautiful but prolific discussions of minutiae of the world he described, with the only way to take it in to dig through it one page at a time. Its something that I will have to accept as my loss, but I have to thank Tolkien for inspiring one of the best-written and produced movies on the silver screen.

That's why I take it for what it is - because when all is said and done, if this story is even one TENTH the experience that Tolkien fans and scholars say that his books are, then I am overjoyed that I am alive in this day and age to see such a fun experience.

I will actually be saddened when the third part rolls around, because my friends and I have started a sort of ritual at Christmas time, and after next year the ritual will have to change.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 19, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *And just how many times must you throw people off great heights and have them appear to be dead in one movie?  Gandalf once, ok.   But then Aragorn for no particular reason and adding nothing too the story, and then Aragorn again after getting blown off the top of the wall of Helm's Deep.   This is good movie making?  I suppose you are going to tell me all those single silent movie tears were subtle?*




I didn't take the incident on the wall as "look, Aragorn's Dead!"  I just took it as he got blown off the wall.  Were you similarly enraged when he got knocked out by the Cave Troll in Moria?

I must have missed all these silent tears that people claim were there; the only time I can think of was with Eowyn.  Can you provide us with some other examples?


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 19, 2002)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *I must have missed all these silent tears that people claim were there; the only time I can think of was with Eowyn.  Can you provide us with some other examples? *



It's all blown out of proportion.  Arwen did it, but it was certainly appropriate there.  Sam also did it once or maybe twice, but again, it really fit the scene.  The one that didn't fit, IMO, was Grima dropping a silent tear when Saruman showed him the army.

BTW, that scene gets my vote for most boneheaded.  Here's Grima: "But master, we can't take take Helm's Deep without an army several thousands strong!  There's no such army around."  Looks out the window at the army of 10,000 Uruk-hai.  Drops a silent tear.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 19, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *I may be in the minority on really disliking the movie, but I don't think I'm in the minority in disliking what was done with Faramir, or in thinking that Merry & Pippin relationship with Treebeard was done badly, or in thinking the whole Arwen thing was awkward.  *




I didn't notice any awkwardness to the Arwen scenes at all, nor do I think that the Fangorn stuff was "done badly."

I _do_ think that Merry and Pippin's roles in the movie were cut down to virtually nothing, which is disappointing.  I expect to see at least a bit more in the inevitable Extended DVD, however.

I also think that Jackson did the smart thing in not giving equal time to Fangorn, or to Frodo and Sam, and correctly placing the film's emphasis where it should be - in Helm's Deep.


----------



## Tom Cashel (Dec 19, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *
> How did Faramir immediately conclude from Gollum saying 'my precious', that Frodo bore the Ring of Power?  Please only use movie internal logic.
> 
> Given that Faramir never explained why the pool was forbidden, explain how the audience is supposed to see Faramir as anything as a cruel and cunning person who is sadistically enjoying tormenting Frodo by forcing him to betray his companion?  Please only use internal movie logic.   Explain what they _are_ supposed to feel about Faramir given the acting and direction. *




"Please only use internal movie logic"?  "Supposed" to feel?  Are you really as worried about _getting it right_ where your own feelings are concerned as you are with Peter Jackson _getting it right_ where Tolkien is concerned?  Can you not infer anything at all without something telling you what, exactly, you are to infer?

Man...you've got issues.  And, apparently, way too much time on your hands.

I thought you didn't want to even think about the Two Towers anymore?  Do us all a favor...and don't.



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *
> BTW, that scene gets my vote for most boneheaded.  Here's Grima: "But master, we can't take take Helm's Deep without an army several thousands strong!  There's no such army around."  Looks out the window at the army of 10,000 Uruk-hai.  Drops a silent tear. *




Sublime terror.  I know I got a little teary the first time I saw the FotR previews....

I thought it was a nice effect.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 19, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *WizardDru: If you liked the film, fine. *





One 'D' is fine, thanks. 



> * What I find particularly annoying is complaining about a film and people like you trotting out tired old anti-purist arguements without understanding a bit of what I'm saying.   For instance:*





I didn't label you as such, at least not intentionally.  My point was, and is, that you most of your complaints are disagreements with Jackson's vision of the plot, characters and story.  You give few examples of his failure to produce a good movie, and mostly only examples of anger at his choices.  There's nothing wrong with that, but it appears that you are equating his choices for adaption (good and bad) with his skill as a filmmaker, which are not the same thing.  Especially given the overwhelmingly positive critical response the film is getting.



> *When people trot out the 'Tolkien Purist' argument, that I'm misjudging the movie based on its treatment of the material, I tend to feel that I'm dealing with a 'Movie Purist' who is afraid to critically judge that popcorn epic he just watched.  *





Speaking of straw men...

Actually, as I stated above, I think there are legitimate claims to be made about mistakes within the film.  However, you haven't really discussed those.  The overuse of some techniques would be a legitimate criticism.  Disliking Jackson's changes is a valid viewpoint, but has little to do with the movie's relative qualities to a non-fan.



> *"Judged on its own merits, this wasn't even the movie that Gladiator or Braveheart was."*





Well, rottentomatoes notwithstanding, I think these might not be the best choices for comparison, given that they both take extreme liberties with the historical record and are no less unfaithful to their sources than TTT is.  Which may have been your point, in that you felt they were better films, regardless.  I tend to think they were as good as TTT....at the quality level in which all three operate, I find it hard to differentiate.



> *If you think it was so good, you defend the work - and try to avoid doing it with 'well it seemed to be well received' because so was the Dumb and Dumberer treaser.*




Well, it's not my place to 'defend the work', as it's not mine.  The work can defend itself, and judging by the critical response, already has.  Obviously you're more than a little angry about Jackson's choices.  I don't think it's a productive use of either of our times to debate about attitudes that aren't likely to change.  I certainly don't want to contribute to your ire.  I enjoyed the film, and you felt it was a betrayl of Tolkien's vision.  I appreciate your viewpoint, and feel sorry you didn't, but there we are.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 19, 2002)

Henry: I don't take that as a slam at all.  I have that experience all the time.  I am a perfectionist and am rightly at times accused of being hypercritical.   Among my geek friends, the general rule is if 'Celebrim' says the X is ok, then its good.  If 'Celebrim' says that X is 'good', then you should stop what you are doing and immediately go see or do X.

Someone asked me to find a better fantasy movie.  I do consider Star Wars a fantasy movie, and I would have to propose Star Wars.  I think ,however, that alot of the reason that LotR is being so well recieved is not because it is particularly well done, but because there is a huge population out there that is literally starving for a good epic fantasy movie and will cling to anything that comes close to satisfying that need.

I also think that the critics are afraid to criticize the movies openly for fear of being lumped with the critics that now sound so foolish for snidely dismissing Tolkien's books and the Star Wars movies as juvenelia simply because they were fantasy.   Would you want to take the risk of being the only critic who just doesn't 'get it', especially when there are many things you can justifiably praise - the massive scale, the attention to detail, the wonderful costuming with the riders of rohan, etc.

I too found Gladiator to be highly overrated (though I happen to love the costuming), and Braveheart even more so (though I liked some of the battle footage).  The comparison to the two was meant to be a slam.  That these two cheesy movies with all thier writing flaws would be so well recieved only reinforces my opinion that people really desparately want a good rousing swords epic.

It would be great if PJ had managed to make an approachable version of LotR for the masses.  That would have been a termendous accomplishment.  I do think it is possible, but the time has not yet come.  Unfortunately, PJ wasn't able to achieve this lofty goal.  The best the movies can come to explaining why the fans of the books consider them to be so excellent is by attempting to explain just how and why they books have been so influential.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 19, 2002)

Really, was the Dumb and Dumberer teaser well recieved in your theatre?  Not in mine.  The Bad Boys II trailer went down the bomb, though.  I guess that's not surprising, seeing the movie in Detroit though...


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 19, 2002)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *BTW, that scene gets my vote for most boneheaded.  Here's Grima: "But master, we can't take take Helm's Deep without an army several thousands strong!  There's no such army around."  Looks out the window at the army of 10,000 Uruk-hai.  Drops a silent tear. *




THAT, I will grant, is goofy.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 19, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *I also think that the critics are afraid to criticize the movies openly for fear of being lumped with the critics that now sound so foolish for snidely dismissing Tolkien's books and the Star Wars movies as juvenelia simply because they were fantasy.   Would you want to take the risk of being the only critic who just doesn't 'get it', especially when there are many things you can justifiably praise - the massive scale, the attention to detail, the wonderful costuming with the riders of rohan, etc.*



Nothing like a little conspiracy theory to justify your own sense of superiority over the critics, eh.  Boy, I'm having fun!
*



			I too found Gladiator to be highly overrated (though I happen to love the costuming), and Braveheart even more so (though I liked some of the battle footage).  The comparison to the two was meant to be a slam.  That these two cheesy movies with all thier writing flaws would be so well recieved only reinforces my opinion that people really desparately want a good rousing swords epic.
		
Click to expand...


*Sure, people do want good sword epics.  There are plenty of them out there.  Sounds to me like they're all doomed to being called cheesy on principle by you, though.  How exactly was Braveheart cheesy, for example?  Just because it actually included a romance angle in the plot?  The nerve!


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 19, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *Henry: I don't take that as a slam at all.  I have that experience all the time.  I am a perfectionist and am rightly at times accused of being hypercritical.   Among my geek friends, the general rule is if 'Celebrim' says the X is ok, then its good.  If 'Celebrim' says that X is 'good', then you should stop what you are doing and immediately go see or do X.*




Let me ask you this, in all seriousness:

How has this made your life better?  Does it make you happy to constantly be negative?  To hate almost everything except that which meets some subjective standard of quality?

I've found that there's a point at which you ought to kick back, enjoy things, and not be a dope.  Life is more enjoyable without all that senseless angst.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 19, 2002)

Assenpfeffer: Ok, I will answer you in all seriousness.  

It has made me into a person of diverse and eclectic tastes.  It has made into a person who knows what he likes, not merely a person who likes what he knows.  It has made me an observent person that notices details others might miss.  It has made me into a person who is constantly searching for new and different or more satisfactorily experiences.  It has made me into a person that doesn't take things on face value, and who isn't always satisfied with just more of the same old fare.  And in a more limited fashion, it has made me into a person capable of attaining quality (though again constrained by my limited talent).

Sure, there are times when I feel I have exahausted all the best of what a particular narrow genera has to offer - say science fiction novels - but I can expect several new novels of the highest quality are written soon and while I'm waiting I can explore other areas of literature.   And, if I'm actually stuck for satisfying literature, well I can go play paintball, or fence, or canoe, or snorkel, or go hiking, or play D&D, or try to write my own stories, or play video games, or any other of numerous means of entertaining myself.  And in each of these areas, I can strive to within the best of my limited talents and money to find the fullest and most satisfying experience I can find.  

In general, my own 'negativity' never makes me unhappy.  My major complaint against my own 'negativity' is that it sometimes ruins the enjoyment of other people for things that they would have otherwise enjoyed had I not run them down so.


----------



## SHARK (Dec 19, 2002)

Greetings!

Joshua and others:

I think that when Grima is next to Saruman and he is taken to the balcony to see the vast armies below, and a tear falls, is because I interpreted the tear as one of mixed awe and terror.

Awe: Grima was awed that such an army was on "his" side, and that they did in fact have the armies needed to do the job of conquering Rohan, and storming Helm's Deep.

Terror: Grima, if you gentlemen will recall, is still a quasi-barbarian from the country of Rohan. He has never imagined, let alone seen, such an awesome army. The fact that it really exists right before him, and is obviously ferocious and full of absolute ruthless determination, and is prepared to butcher all of Rohan to achieve victory, I think actually reaches into Grima and strikes a cord of fear and terror at what such an army is going to set about doing.

Celebrim:

Well, you are certainly entitled to your views, and I can partially agree with some aspects of your critiques, but I disagree with the conclusion. I still think that despite a few minor flaws and different interpreation choices, that the movie is fantastic. As I mentioned before though, I have never expected the film to be a literal take off on the books, simply because the books have far too much depth and stuff going on that could ever be accurately captured in a three hour movie. Thus, I accept the movie on its own merits as being a great film adaptation of the books, rather than a literal translation. 

It's unfortunate that you feel so cheated at the movie. Well, on the bright side, you don't have to waste your money on the Return of the King. You know now, ahead of time, that you can just skip that film next year and save yourself some money and stress to boot.

Take care though. Hopefully, it will grow on you!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 19, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *
> I think ,however, that alot of the reason that LotR is being so well recieved is not because it is particularly well done, but because there is a huge population out there that is literally starving for a good epic fantasy movie and will cling to anything that comes close to satisfying that need.
> *






Seeing how many people I know who have never liked movies that are in the fantasy genre but who loved FOTR I'd have to say this is completely against my experiences.    
Just for reference could you list a few movies that you think are good?  Braveheart if one of my favs, but you are right on Gladiator.  I'm wondering what fits your defination of a good flick since LOTR seems to be a crime against cinema to you.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 19, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *I also think that the critics are afraid to criticize the movies openly for fear of being lumped with the critics that now sound so foolish for snidely dismissing Tolkien's books and the Star Wars movies as juvenelia simply because they were fantasy.   Would you want to take the risk of being the only critic who just doesn't 'get it'....snip*




Hello Celebrim. I haven't see the 2nd film yet, but I had to comment on this...

I think you're really mistaken on the mindset of mainstream film critics... While fantasy {and SF} is far more mainstream than in the past, its hardly to the point of being sacrosanct in the eyes of the nations critics. Wildly ambitious fantasies that get treated with the seriousness of Jackson's work would seem to me to be juicy targets for non-fan critics, looking to put fantasy 'in its place' as rank juvenalia. 

Critics are a fractious lot {no offense to any critics here}. For every ten touting a brave new work/filmaker, there are ten in the opposite camp aiming to invalidate it/them. I can't think of any filmaker that's above criticism. Nor any movement, school or genre.

Consider the reaction to films by people like David Lynch. Critics don't seem to fear "not getting" his work. Unless I'm mistaken, his films usually wind up both on critics Best Of and Worst Of lists... And look at the far more mixed critical response to Scorcese's "Gangs of New York".  I can't believe that Peter Jackson's "Rings" is beyond reproach whereas a major new work by Scorcese is not... Even hotshot new directors like Wes Anderson --a personal fav-- have their share of detractors. 

I think the near-universal positive response to The Two Towers is quite an achievement. I'm surprised more critics looking to make a name for thmselves haven't slammed it. Far from being in some inviolate place, its a big fat target out in plain sight...

And however successful you may feel Jackson's films are, I find it hard to imagine thinking of him in terms of a Chris Columbus or later-day Ridley Scott. He's far more ambitious, even when directing splatter films. And far more serious about the craft of filmaking. He may have, in your eyes, butchered a beloved work, but he did so with a love and attention to his own medium that can't be faulted...

He reminds me, in a way, of another filmaker that I like: John Boorman. From his highs --like Excalibur-- to his fascinating lows --like Zardoz, which I personally love-- there's this singularity of vision, and level of technical prowess that I take much enjoyment from...


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Dec 19, 2002)

I'm going to have to side with Celebrim on this one.  While I think it was a "good" movie and worth the price of admission, it could have been so much better.  

My gripes:  Gimli is a joke, the Jar-Jar of the film.  He was my favorite character in LOTR and he was reduced to comic relief.

The meeting of the three hunters with the riders of Rohan.  What happenned to the mention of Galadriel?  Gimli and Eomer make a pact to postpone their fight until after Eomer has looked upon Galadriel.  This is one of the defining moments of Gimli's character.  Of course, if you're nothing more than a court jester, your character needs no defining.

Faramir.  They dropped the ball on this big time.  Who the hell was that?  Faramir was the most noble character in the whole damned book.  Sam even said he had an air about him similar to that of Gandalf.  In the movie he was more akin to Saruman.  I can't believe that the noble Eowyn can ever fall for such a creep as Faramir.

The journey to Osgilath.  Why add this?  It serves absolutely no purpose but to further demean Faramirs character.   Then the ringwraith.  Sauruman knows who has the ring now, wtf was that all about?  

Aragorn's fall from the cliff.  Redundant.  Served no purpose.

The Elves at Helm's Deep.  Why?

Gollum.  He started off fine, but at moments diressed into too much of a Jar-Jar.

The sudden kung-fu-esque abilities of Arragorn, Gimli, and Legolas at Edoras.  Again, should be axed.

The disarmament at the gates.  Gimli's axe was worth a king's ransom, The Bow of Galadriel, which has yet to be mentioned, and where is Anduril?  This was a great scene that was cut for no purpose except to allow time to screw over Faramir and make Gimli fall down a couple more times.

Where was Erkenbrand?

Why was Hama never mentioned by name, except in reference to his girly-like son?

Merryand Pippin.  No mention of the Entwash.  No mention of the way they tricked the orcs into believing they had the "precious."

The Ents had to be talked into attacking Saruman?  Wtf?  And they did more than tear down a dike.  They redirected the course of an entire river, for christ's sake!  And no Quickbeam.


Shadowfax.  He just appears out of nowhere at Gandalf's call.  Explain, please.


I'm sure there are many more discrepancies.  Some of these could be disregarded as minor, but if they had cut the more stupid crap out, there would have been time for all of the proper characterization and then some.

Tolkien must be rolling over in his grave.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 19, 2002)

Flexor: Sure.  Some quick and highly incomplete list of movies I like:

"Lawrence of Arabia"
"Chariots of Fire"
"Casablanca"
"The Empire Strikes Back"
"The Sound of Music"
"High Noon"
"Friendly Persuasion"
"Harvey"
"Clerks"
"Little Big Man"
"Amelie"
"When Harry Met Sally"
"Gataca"
"Sense & Sensibility"
"Wings" 
"Metropolis"
"Citizan Kane"


----------



## coyote6 (Dec 19, 2002)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *The meeting of the three hunters with the riders of Rohan.  What happenned to the mention of Galadriel?  Gimli and Eomer make a pact to postpone their fight until after Eomer has looked upon Galadriel.  This is one of the defining moments of Gimli's character.  Of course, if you're nothing more than a court jester, your character needs no defining.*




The Gimli-Galadriel scene wasn't in the theatrical version of FotR; putting a reference to that scene in the theatrical version of TTT would've been nonsensical. I'd wager that the scene might show up in TTT's extended edition.


----------



## Mytholder (Dec 19, 2002)

SHARK said:
			
		

> *Greetings!
> 
> Joshua and others:
> 
> ...





I interpreted it as something like "y'know, I really would rather like to get wormy with Eowyn. Beardy wizard here promised me he'd arrange it. Now he's sending 10,000 genetically engineered Uruk-Hai to wipe out all humanity in Rohan.

Eowyn's human.

F***. No f***."


----------



## The Sigil (Dec 19, 2002)

Mytholder said:
			
		

> I interpreted it as something like "y'know, I really would rather like to get wormy with Eowyn. Beardy wizard here promised me he'd arrange it. Now he's sending 10,000 genetically engineered Uruk-Hai to wipe out all humanity in Rohan.
> 
> Eowyn's human.



Surprised it took someone else this long to post it.  That was my thought as well...  I could just see the words in Wormtongue's head...

"But you're sending this army to wipe out Eowyn, too!

This army is friggin' huge.

It's going to win.

Eowyn is good as dead."

*tear*

--The Sigil


----------



## The Sigil (Dec 19, 2002)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> > My gripes:  Gimli is a joke, the Jar-Jar of the film.  He was my favorite character in LOTR and he was reduced to comic relief.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Dec 19, 2002)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Bah.  Explain, exactly, what "Stupid Crap" could have gone.  Then explain what you would have put in its place.  I myself would have cut out the trip to Osgiliath and portrayed a wise/noble Faramir and would have cut out the Elvish reinforcements to Helm's Deep.  Finally, I would have cut Legolas' "surfing" scene and a couple of the "short dwarf" jokes.  That would have cut about 15 minutes.  I would have added that time to Merry & Pippen's thread - a little more about their interaction with the orcs and goblins and a little more about the ent battle and the entwash.
> 
> ...






The "stupid crap" I was referring to is most of the stuff in my previous post.  The bizarro Faramir, et al.

The entire Oz-gilath scene could go, the elves at Helm's Deep, Arragorn going over the cliff, Gimli's antics.  That's about an hour right there.



Edit:  Didn't mean to quote the entire post.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 20, 2002)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *The entire Oz-gilath scene could go, the elves at Helm's Deep, Aragorn going over the cliff, Gimli's antics.  That's about an hour right there.*




No.  It's maybe ten minutes.  Maybe.  So you'd have cut five or ten minutes from the film and put in Erkenbrand, who would need at least a half hour to develop the background neccessary for his presence to make any sense.

Then you're going to add Hama (who, just to clarify, IS in the movie - he's just not called by name,) another forty minutes of Merry and Pippin in Fangorn, a twenty-minute disssertation on Gondorian history by Faramir... need I go on?

All this would be cool to see, mind.  But it'd have made the movie grind to an utter stop for the audience.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 20, 2002)

Originally posted by JRRNeiklot
*My gripes:  Gimli is a joke, the Jar-Jar of the film.  He was my favorite character in LOTR and he was reduced to comic relief.*

I agree that he's a little too yuk-yuk.  He is _hardly_ Jar-Jar, however.  And he is still an orc-killing machine.

*The meeting of the three hunters with the riders of Rohan.  What happenned to the mention of Galadriel?  Gimli and Eomer make a pact to postpone their fight until after Eomer has looked upon Galadriel.  This is one of the defining moments of Gimli's character.  Of course, if you're nothing more than a court jester, your character needs no defining.*

As already noted, this wouldn't have made sense to include without the expanded Lothlorien gift-giving in FotR.  I'm certain we'll see it in the expanded edition.

*Faramir.  They dropped the ball on this big time.  Who the hell was that?  Faramir was the most noble character in the whole damned book.  Sam even said he had an air about him similar to that of Gandalf.  In the movie he was more akin to Saruman.  I can't believe that the noble Eowyn can ever fall for such a creep as Faramir.*

I agree.  This seems to be the focus of most fans' criticisms of the film.  I can only think that the intent was to leave the viewer with an ambiguous picture of Faramir.  I also think we'll need to see RotK before understanding the changes to the character.  I think PJ knows what he's doing, and when we've see the whole story it'll make sense.

*The journey to Osgilath.  Why add this?  It serves absolutely no purpose but to further demean Faramirs character.   Then the ringwraith.  Sauruman knows who has the ring now, wtf was that all about?*

_Sauron_ knows where the ring is now.  _That_ is the purpose of dragging Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath - to show the audience that Sauron thinks the ring is headed to Minas Tirith, and setting up the possibility of destroying it.  I understood this at once.  I don't see why people are having trouble with it.

*Aragorn's fall from the cliff.  Redundant.  Served no purpose.*

It let Aragorn ride into Helm's Deep with news of the approaching orc army.  Nevertheless, I agree that it was redundant and coupld have been developed better.

*The Elves at Helm's Deep.  Why?*

Why not?  There were Elves at Helm's Deep in the books - Elladan and Elrohir and their party.  The movie just increased their numbers a bit.  This is by no means harmful to the story, and the only possible argument against it is the Purist's - that it wasn't _exactly_ like the book.

*Gollum.  He started off fine, but at moments diressed into too much of a Jar-Jar.*

Again, no.  This movie has no Jar-Jar.

*The sudden kung-fu-esque abilities of Arragorn, Gimli, and Legolas at Edoras.  Again, should be axed.*

Did you even see the same movie I did?  I saw a fistfight, not a high-kicking wire-fu blowout.

*The disarmament at the gates.  Gimli's axe was worth a king's ransom, The Bow of Galadriel, which has yet to be mentioned, and where is Anduril?  This was a great scene that was cut for no purpose except to allow time to screw over Faramir and make Gimli fall down a couple more times.*

The Bow of the Galadhrim is in the FotR extended edition.  Again, it would have made no sense to include it in the theatrical version of TTT.  As for Anduril, we'll see it at a dramatically appropriate time in RotK.

*Where was Erkenbrand?*

Cut, quite sensibly, for the same reason as Glorfindel.

*Why was Hama never mentioned by name, except in reference to his girly-like son?*

Hama is in the movie.  He's the guy that gets killed by the scout in the warg attack.  Don't expect the film to spoon-feed you with little captions: "This is Hama, Door-Warden of Meduseld."

*Merryand Pippin.  No mention of the Entwash.  No mention of the way they tricked the orcs into believing they had the "precious."*

All sensibly cut for reasons of running time.  None of this is vital information, nor does it directly affect the story.

*The Ents had to be talked into attacking Saruman?  Wtf?  And they did more than tear down a dike.  They redirected the course of an entire river, for christ's sake!  And no Quickbeam.*

I disagree that this is any kind of flaw in the movie.  However, I _did_ really want to hear the Ents' marching song.  I thought this was the one song from the book that might possibly have made it into the movie.  Once again, I predict we'll see more of Merry and Pippin's interaction with the Ents in the extended version.

*Shadowfax.  He just appears out of nowhere at Gandalf's call.  Explain, please.*

I fail to see how any explanation beyond that given in the film (that he's an extraordinary horse) is neccessary or desirable in the fim's context.

*I'm sure there are many more discrepancies.  Some of these could be disregarded as minor, but if they had cut the more stupid crap out, there would have been time for all of the proper characterization and then some.*

Everything you've pointed out, even the stuff I agree with, is trivial nitpicking and doesn't have much to do with how good the film is.

Which is not to say that the film is perfect - it has some legitimate problems with dialogue and pacing, and the camerawork breaks down in at least one place.  But overall, it's clearly a very good film, if not quite as good as FotR - but then, I figured this'd be the weakest of the three films, anyway.  So I'm happy with the result, and plan to go see it at least one more time in the next two weeks.  (After that I'll probably wait until they tack on a RotK teaser at the end.)

*Tolkien must be rolling over in his grave. *

No, I doubt that very much.  See, Tolkien understood that in translating the books to a different medium, changes - many changes - would have to be made.  His letters go into the subject in some detail.


----------



## Sakzilla (Dec 20, 2002)

*PJs real problem...*

PJ had one huge obstacle to overcome - Tolkien's writing.  The visualization in the book on settings is fine, characters are roughly sketched, and the dialogue is either poetry or trite.

PJ walked into a very messy playground and cleaned the place up.  I've never understood the die hard love affair with Tolkien - many other fantasy writers are FAR superier at character development, dialogue, and pacing.  Tolkien was the first to put his own world on paper - big deal.  PJ was the first to put this truly epic setting on film - that IS a big deal.

I think the $6-800 million this film will gross worldwide (pre-DVD sales) speaks to how 'terrible' a film this is.  IF PJ ripped up the book, its because it needed ripping up.  My $8 was well spent, and I'll spend it a few more times just to see the fall of the Balrog/Gandalf into darkness and the Gollum personality arguments.

Ron


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 20, 2002)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *Why not?  There were Elves at Helm's Deep in the books - Elladan and Elrohir and their party.  The movie just increased their numbers a bit.  This is by no means harmful to the story, and the only possible argument against it is the Purist's - that it wasn't exactly like the book.
> 
> *




A minor nitpick here ... there were no elves (or other reinforcements) at Helm's Deep.  The Sons of Elrond arrived with Halbarad and the rest of the Rangers of the North -- the Grey Company -- _after_ the Battle of Helm's Deep is over, in fact, after the confrontation with Saruman and the casting out of the Palantir.


An aside: it's interesting how widely tastes vary with regard to Tolkien's writing.  Personally, they are my favorite pieces of literature, in part because of Tolkien's use of language.  He is sparing with his prose -- every word counts; every word packs power.  He is able to convey the width and breadth of a diverse fantasy world with millenia of established history with a minimum of fluff, and tell an epic story in the process.  Compared, say, to Robert Jordan, who in ten thousand pages of published work has a lot of showy scenery and self-important characters in a wanna-be epic that isn't going anywhere.

But that's just one man's opinion.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 20, 2002)

SHARK said:
			
		

> *I think that when Grima is next to Saruman and he is taken to the balcony to see the vast armies below, and a tear falls, is because I interpreted the tear as one of mixed awe and terror.
> *



I'm not really saying that the fact that he cried a bit is what made the scene boneheaded.  The fact that he doesn't know there's an army until he just freaking _walks a few feet to the window and looks out_ is what makes it boneheaded.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 20, 2002)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> *A minor nitpick here ... there were no elves (or other reinforcements) at Helm's Deep.  The Sons of Elrond arrived with Halbarad and the rest of the Rangers of the North -- the Grey Company -- after the Battle of Helm's Deep is over, in fact, after the confrontation with Saruman and the casting out of the Palantir.*




Fah... you're right, of course.  Mental snafu.


----------



## Sammael99 (Dec 20, 2002)

> *My point was, and is, that you most of your complaints are disagreements with Jackson's vision of the plot, characters and story.  You give few examples of his failure to produce a good movie, and mostly only examples of anger at his choices.  There's nothing wrong with that, but it appears that you are equating his choices for adaption (good and bad) with his skill as a filmmaker, which are not the same thing.  Especially given the overwhelmingly positive critical response the film is getting.*





I'll take you up on that one. There are many areas in which TTT is not a great movie to say the least. 

1- Pacing : When I saw FotR, I felt is was very much a patchwork of scenes with little flow between them. It was one of my main gripes about FotR. I'm told the extended version cures some of these issues, but I haven't seen it yet. However, I felt that beyond the first 15 mn of the movie (which were great, up to Theoden's hall) the patchwork feeling came back... with a vengeance ! The film jumps from one scene to the next, from one set of characters to the next, and is therefore compelled to include many more cliffhangers than are healthy in a movie. My guess is that's the reason we got the silly Aragorn falls down a cliff scene, or, in fact, the whole worg scene which was just an excuse for more combat and didn't contribute anything to the plot. Maybe the "extended" TTT will solve some of these issues too, but how long will that be ??? 

2- Characterization : Some of the characters were portrayed well, but on the whole, I feel Gimli and Legolas are there only for comic relief, Merry and Pippin are inexistent and Frodo is weak which contradicts the plot strongly (he was entrusted the ring partly because Gandalf believed him to be a lot stronger than he seemed). I'm not comparing book and movie here, it's just a movie point of view. That's why I'm not mentioning Faramir. I don't have any gripes with the character per se, even though I felt the book version of him was richer and more interesting.

3- Cheap Hollywoodization : A lot of the scenes (sometimes short, sometimes long) serve no purpose but to be spectacular. To me this has two main drawbacks : a. A lot of these scenes rely on special effects that, no matter how you slice it, are not as convincing as the real stuff. All those wide shots with lots of people moving systematically broke my suspension of disbelief because I could so obviously see that the motion was unnatural... b. A lot of the scenes are way over the top which really breaks suspension of disbelief again. Four horses charging through 5000 orcs ? Hello ? Legolas' ridiculous antics serve the same silly purpose and were also very bad IMO...

That being said, unlike Celebrim, there are many things I liked about the movie. Eowyn is probably number one. She was a great character (unlike Arwen), wonderfully played and altogether great. In fact, I felt Eomer was very good too, as was Grima. The sets were, on the whole, wonderful, just like they were in FotR. Some scenes struck me as very nice. Sam's speech at the end was pretty good, Gollum was great and impressive, both visually and character wise.

At the end of the day, I'm seeing here the same phenomenon that I saw when FotR came out, the 'greatest movie of all-time' syndrome. TTT is not an exceptional movie in the perspective of the history of cinema. FotR wasn't either. Is it the greatest fantasy movie ever ? Probably, although that could be debated. But that's not saying much...

Of well, that was my 0.2 cEUR


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 20, 2002)

*Re: PJs real problem...*



			
				Sakzilla said:
			
		

> *PJ walked into a very messy playground and cleaned the place up.  I've never understood the die hard love affair with Tolkien - many other fantasy writers are FAR superier at character development, dialogue, and pacing.  Tolkien was the first to put his own world on paper - big deal.  PJ was the first to put this truly epic setting on film - that IS a big deal.
> *



Oh yeah?  Name three!    I have yet to see a character as complex and interesting as Gollum in any genre, much less fantasy.  The dialogue is very skillfully crafted not, as you seem to want, to be realistic, but to be mythic.  To be epic.  Tolkien wasn't trying to write a "novel" he was trying to write an old-fashioned epic.  He did things like the dialogue, the pacing, etc. _on purpose_ and I've never seen such masterful use of the English language.  Sure, it makes for poor writing in a traditional novel sense, but since he wasn't writing a traditional novel, I fail to see why that is even brought up.  Do you complain about the dialogue in Beowulf or the Elder Edda?  Do you complain about the characterizations and pacing of Cu Chullain or the Iliad?

Also, a nitpick: Hama is not only in the movie, he is _named_ in the movie.  If you're going to complain about the movie because you're too cheesed off to _pay attention_ then don't expect much sympathy.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: PJs real problem...*



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *I have yet to see a character as complex and interesting as Gollum in any genre, much less fantasy.*




Hamlet??

Humbert Humbert??

Jay Gatsby??

Quentin Compson??

or even...

Paul Atreides??

Ender Wiggan??

I mean props to Gollum and all...


----------



## Eben (Dec 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by Sakzilla:
> I've never understood the die hard love affair with Tolkien - many other fantasy writers are FAR superier at character development, dialogue, and pacing. Tolkien was the first to put his own world on paper - big deal.




The big deal about Tolkien, in contrast to ANY other writer of fantasy, is the depth he has created in his stories. No other author to date has creted a world that breathes such a sense of historical realism as Middle-Earth.
More interesting characters and plots have probably been written. But not one fantasy setting, be it from litterature or somewhere else, can stand up to the comparison with M-E.
The amount of background (mythology, history, language (history of),...) Tolkien has created to make this world come alive is a very big deal.


----------



## jhallum (Dec 20, 2002)

> So here is my summary of the movie. Sam is standing in Osgiliath where Faramir has brought them because he is consumed with lust for the ring. Sam says to Frodo, "By all accounts, we shouldn't be here. But we are."
> 
> I couldn't agree more.




See, I don't agree that Faramir is consumed with lust for the ring, at least in the same way that his brother was, anyway.  

Faramir looked at the ring as a weapon of war to be used against the shadow, not as a means of personal power.  He could have taken the ring from Frodo by force at any time, but instead of doing so, he sends them away to his father, for him to decide what to do with it.  I think it preserves the original Faramir from the book, and looking at it in that light, I like the character more.  It is more true to the Faramir of the books, than the current interpretation that I see roaming the web.  It also makes Faramir's impending problems in RotK more accessible for the masses who won't ever crack open a book.


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 20, 2002)

Eben said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The big deal about Tolkien, in contrast to ANY other writer of fantasy, is the depth he has created in his stories. No other author to date has creted a world that breathes such a sense of historical realism as Middle-Earth.
> More interesting characters and plots have probably been written. But not one fantasy setting, be it from litterature or somewhere else, can stand up to the comparison with M-E.
> The amount of background (mythology, history, language (history of),...) Tolkien has created to make this world come alive is a very big deal. *




And this of course is why making a film of LotR is such a challenge.  You literally can't do it all.  So you must pick and choose.  You decide to simplify Merry & Pippin's relationship/interaction with Treebeard, showing less of them in film 2 and saving them for more screen time in film 3.  You decide to use the Faramir encounter not to showcase the Faramir of the book but instead to set up events for film 3 (Frodo's capture and the subsequent Nazgul attack will lead Sauron to believe the ring is on its way to Minas Tirith).  You dig the Arwen stuff out of the appendix because it makes Aragorn's journey just that much more meaningful and it also addresses the issues of the passing of the elves.  

Fortunately for me, I don't go into the theater thinking I can have it all --- I go in thinking I'm going to see something pretty darned close.  When I think of all of the terrible choices that could have been made ("let's turn Legolas into a girl elf" or "let's turn Merry into a girl hobbit" or "let's try to squeeze these 3 books into one 2-hour movie") I feel grateful that such love, such care, such devotion have been poured into this trilogy.  I just can't wait to see it all pay off in film 3.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Dec 20, 2002)

Heck, I _liked_ Gladiator. A lot. Braveheart, not so much.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 20, 2002)

After watching the extra stuff on discs 3&4 of the extended version of FOTR last night I can't complain anymore about differences from the books.   You CAN'T remake a book in a two hour flick.  You take what is central to the book and build your movie around that.    So if Faramir acting a little different is necessary for the MOVIE version then PJ was right to make changes.   I don't think I'll ever go into a movie again thinking, "this better be like the book", I'm going to judge it on it's own merits.    

TT was a great film, I had a blast watching it and I'll see it again this weekend.  End of FTM's griping about changes.


----------



## KenM (Dec 20, 2002)

I think the main thing with the changes to  Faramir is we have to see what happens to him in RoTK.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 20, 2002)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *Fortunately for me, I don't go into the theater thinking I can have it all --- I go in thinking I'm going to see something pretty darned close.  When I think of all of the terrible choices that could have been made ("let's turn Legolas into a girl elf" or "let's turn Merry into a girl hobbit" or "let's try to squeeze these 3 books into one 2-hour movie") I feel grateful that such love, such care, such devotion have been poured into this trilogy.  I just can't wait to see it all pay off in film 3.  *




This ought to be tattooed onto some people's backsides.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Dec 20, 2002)

*Laughing on the outside...*



			
				EricNoah said:
			
		

> *
> 
> "let's turn Legolas into a girl elf" or "let's turn Merry into a girl hobbit*




Or "let's turn Glorfindel into a girl elf." Sheesh, imagine if they'd done something so, so egregiously "Hollywood" just to put a few more butts into theater seats...


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 20, 2002)

KenM said:
			
		

> *I think the main thing with the changes to  Faramir is we have to see what happens to him in RoTK. *




Y'know, this is porbably true of all the changes.  It is a bit unfair to judge the full work when we've only seen 2/3ds of it.

Traditionally, the second movie/book of a trilogy is always the most difficult, as it's the transition from the introduction of the problem to the resolution of it, so it lacks a traditional beggining or end.  From that standpoint I think PJ did quite well, as TTT stands quite well on its own.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 20, 2002)

*Re: Laughing on the outside...*



			
				ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Or "let's turn Glorfindel into a girl elf." *




Don't you mean Garfunkel? 

Oh - oops, my mistake. I just always picture Glorfindel as Art Garfunkel, blond afro and everything. As you can tell, here in the KidPirateCthulhuCat household, he wasn't missed one bit.  

Your point, however, is a delightful one. I'd argue that they combined characters to give Arwen something to actually do, though, rather than to attract people - especially since it annoyed some Tolkein purists.  Let's face it - in the books, Arwen's biggest achievement is staying home and knitting a flag for Aragorn. Whee.


----------



## Mulkhoran (Dec 20, 2002)

Just to throw into some support for Celebrim here,

Didn't ANYBODY notice that instead of being a noble king of Rohan, Theoden was reduced to a doddering, worthless old fool?

Instead of sending his people to safety in the caves, and going himself to Helm's Deep, he brings them with him to certain death?

Instead of dealing with Grima as a noble king of fantasy would, he drunkenly chases him down the palace steps, swinging his sword, until Aragorn stops him?

Do you people actually think the movie's "everybody sucks but Aragorn! Lookit the PROTAGONIST!" theme *didn't* detract from the storyline?

PJ pulled a bait-and-switch, point blank.  The first movie was *lovingly* faithful to the original story, and as such, shoots down many of the "you HAVE to change this and that!" arguments.  These aren't minor changes, they're fundamental, and most importantly *totally unnecessary* changes to the story.

If he wants his own movie, he should write it himself instead of riding the coattails of a great writer.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Dec 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Laughing on the outside...*



			
				Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Don't you mean Garfunkel?
> 
> ...




Yeah, I actually think what you're saying is correct; I was just being a bit flip. Glorfindel has always been one of my favorite characters, though, so even though I realize why he was cut, and having done film work I agree with doing it, it doesn't make it easier for me to see him cut. 

I just wish they'd cast someone else as Arwen, but let's not go down that path...


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 20, 2002)

*Re: Laughing on the outside...*



			
				ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *Or "let's turn Glorfindel into a girl elf." Sheesh, imagine if they'd done something so, so egregiously "Hollywood" just to put a few more butts into theater seats...  *




In my view Glorfindel had to go one way or the other.  There was just no way for the character to be included and be someone other than some random guy in a bit part.  There were thus only two options:

1)  Cut the whole sequence entirely, or rewite it so completely that no new character needs to be introduced there.  Considering that the scene at the Ford of Bruinen marks the defeat of the Ringwraiths from the first film, cutting this scene means you have them throughout the movie, or you have to cut them entirely.  The changes cascade from there until we're looking at something which doesn't resemble LotR much at all.

2)  Replace Glorfindel with another character.  The obvious choice, which Ralph Bakshi took, is Legolas.  You'd have to handwave at a reason for him being there, but it could be done.

Then again, Legolas has lots to do throughout the three movies.  There's plenty of time to have the spotlight on him.  So if we have _another_ character to swap out with Glorfindel, a character who can credibly be dropped into that spot, a character who desperately needs more things to do, who would benefit the most from some additional screen time... who would that character be?

I dunno.  This change seems _so_ logical to me, it makes _so_ much sense as far as the movie's story is concerned, that I'm continually surprised at its being pointed out as an example of "Hollywoodizing" the books, or, even more foolishly, as some kind of weak point in the film.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 20, 2002)

Mulkhoran said:
			
		

> *Just to throw into some support for Celebrim here,
> 
> Didn't ANYBODY notice that instead of being a noble king of Rohan, Theoden was reduced to a doddering, worthless old fool?*




Nobody who didn't go into the movie with some kind of axe to grind, no.



> *Instead of sending his people to safety in the caves, and going himself to Helm's Deep, he brings them with him to certain death?*




He does send them to the caves.  In the movie's continuity, Helm's Deep is the only place of safety.



> *Instead of dealing with Grima as a noble king of fantasy would, he drunkenly chases him down the palace steps, swinging his sword, until Aragorn stops him?*




He thinks about killing Wormtongue in the book, too.



> *you people actually think the movie's "everybody sucks but Aragorn! Lookit the PROTAGONIST!" theme didn't detract from the storyline?*




Since most people didn't go into the theater with a deep desire to hate the movie, no.



> *These aren't minor changes, they're fundamental, and most importantly totally unnecessary changes to the story.*




Funny.  I heard the same thing about the fisrt movie from the same kind of people.  Hm.



> *If he wants his own movie, he should write it himself instead of riding the coattails of a great writer. *




He and his backers have paid for the right to ride those coattails.


----------



## ninthcouncil (Dec 20, 2002)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *When I think of all of the terrible choices that could have been made ("let's turn Legolas into a girl elf" or "let's turn Merry into a girl hobbit" or "let's try to squeeze these 3 books into one 2-hour movie") I feel grateful that such love, such care, such devotion have been poured into this trilogy. *




God, I can see it now... all the hobbits written out except Frodo, who's played by Haley Joel Osment. The company is never split up, and Frodo gets to throw the ring in Mount Doom while Aragorn (Vin Diesel) and Boromir (The Rock) lay the smackdown on Sauron a couple of yards away. Then everyone goes to live happily ever after with Galadriel (Pamela Anderson). Fortunately, Tom Bombadil and his irritating little songs are still not in it.

Oh, PS - did I mention the elven ninjas?


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Dec 20, 2002)

ninthcouncil said:
			
		

> *
> Oh, PS - did I mention the elven ninjas? *




Are they fighting penguin zombies?

Otherwise.. I think that is just silly.

SD


----------



## Olorin (Dec 20, 2002)

I was not impressed with the portrayal of Theoden either and I have no axe to grind.

He came across slightly better on my second viewing, but his strength was greatly diminished in the movie. In the books once he came to his senses and was freed from the thrall of Wormtongue, he was decisive and strong. The movie version seems weak.

He despairs much too easily, rather than choosing to sally forth in a glorious last charge of the Rohirrim, he has to be browbeaten into it by Aragorn.

I agree with whoever said they are making most of the secondary characters seem weak or foolish compared to Aragorn to hammer in his greatness to the casual viewers.


----------



## Mulkhoran (Dec 20, 2002)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *He does send them to the caves.  In the movie's continuity, Helm's Deep is the only place of safety.
> *




Good point, although I think it's that change to the movie's continuity that bothers me.  They removed the "additional" caves in order to support Theoden's newly-written weaknesses. 




> *
> He thinks about killing Wormtongue in the book, too.
> *




He *PARDONS* Wormtongue in the book. He gives him the option of swearing his allegiance, and riding with him to war vs. Saruman. He sends someone to ensure that he gets out of Rohan alive, after Grima spits on the floor and runs. Almost EVERYBODY ELSE wants him dead.  He doesn't chase him down the steps of his house, only to be held back by an outsider with a cliched line. 

I'll freely admit that this is colored by the fact that Theoden was one of my favorite characters, and to see him reduced to a fool - "It's all over, it's all over......the end, the end!" - just to support Aragorn as the Great Hero(tm) is extremely sad. It didn't need to be this way.






> *
> Since most people didn't go into the theater with a deep desire to hate the movie, no.
> 
> 
> ...




Clearly, you didn't read what I wrote. I'll say it again, for your sole benefit. I *loved* the first movie, and loved the extended edition even more. It was *exactly* how the movie should have been brought to the screen.

I waited a year for this movie, and if anything, went into the theater with a deep desire to love it. So much for your pointless and inflamatory assumptions.







> *
> He and his backers have paid for the right to ride those coattails. *




Be that as it may, it's still a bait-and-switch.  Why was the first movie such a good rendition of the first book, if he was just going to re-write whatever he wanted? Because he wanted to get people into the theater for the second movie, that's why. I don't hate the man, but I don't respect him either. He's showed how little he cares about the work he's using.


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Dec 20, 2002)

Olorin said:
			
		

> *He despairs much too easily, rather than choosing to sally forth in a glorious last charge of the Rohirrim, he has to be browbeaten into it by Aragorn.
> 
> I agree with whoever said they are making most of the secondary characters seem weak or foolish compared to Aragorn to hammer in his greatness to the casual viewers. *




I thought it was to show Aragorn's growing into becoming a leader.

SD


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 20, 2002)

I think we'll see Theoden come around fully when he finally confronts Saruman at Orthanc in film 3.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 20, 2002)

Olorin said:
			
		

> *I was not impressed with the portrayal of Theoden either and I have no axe to grind.*




It's funny how all these guys with screen names right from Tolkien "have no axe to grind."

Just saying.


----------



## Mulkhoran (Dec 20, 2002)

ninthcouncil said:
			
		

> *
> God, I can see it now... all the hobbits written out except Frodo, who's played by Haley Joel Osment. The company is never split up, and Frodo gets to throw the ring in Mount Doom while Aragorn (Vin Diesel) and Boromir (The Rock) lay the smackdown on Sauron a couple of yards away. Then everyone goes to live happily ever after with Galadriel (Pamela Anderson). Fortunately, Tom Bombadil and his irritating little songs are still not in it.
> 
> Oh, PS - did I mention the elven ninjas? *






Just to add to this, on the commentary on the 4-disc version, there are some *horribly* frightening suggestions about some of the things that were almost done. Here's two I remember.

1.) Ian McKellen talking about how they seriously considered having Gandalf give up smoking to "modernize" the movie, and chew on taffy instead.  I swear I am not making this up.

2.) Having Frodo do the voice over in the prologue. (Yay! First minutes of the movie and we know Frodo lives!)


And the thing about Aragorn fighting a manifested, material Sauron is not something I've completely ruled out, and ranks high in my fears of what might be in RotK.  They *are* lacking a major fight scene for him, you know...............................


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 20, 2002)

Mulkhoran said:
			
		

> *Good point, although I think it's that change to the movie's continuity that bothers me. They removed the "additional" caves in order to support Theoden's newly-written weaknesses. *




Eh?  If there are no additional caves, your case for Theoden's weakness is lessened considerably.


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 20, 2002)

edit -- ack!  it worked!  I got drawn in!  I'm sorry, very very sorry.


----------



## Mulkhoran (Dec 20, 2002)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> It's funny how all these guys with screen names right from Tolkien "have no axe to grind."
> 
> Just saying. *





My nick is the name of my first DnD character, and it's a fairly random collection of symbols.  But I'm getting the feeling you're not here for any discussion, just to sling flames.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 20, 2002)

Mulkhoran said:
			
		

> *My nick is the name of my first DnD character, and it's a fairly random collection of symbols.  But I'm getting the feeling you're not here for any discussion, just to sling flames. *




Um... sorry, chief, but I wasn't responding to you, nor was I talking about you.  I was talking about Olorin and Celebrim.


----------



## Mulkhoran (Dec 20, 2002)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *Arguments that Peter Jackson made film 1 a masterpiece and stuck faithfully to the story, and then purposely made film 2 stray just to "get us" are simply ridiculous.  You may not like his choices, fine, but he's trying to make Lord of the Rings movies, not create some sort of elaborate trap to damage you emotionally. *




I'm not saying it's an emotional trap or any such thing. It's a perfectly legitimate marketing gimmick.  Of three movies with a major need to pay off, if you can get all but the most devout purists to love the first, you can get most of them to pay for tickets to the second.

I'm not assigning conspiracy theories, just pointing out what appears to be a pattern. He's said before that the amount of money at stake is key to the film's development.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 20, 2002)

Mulkhoran said:
			
		

> *I'm not saying it's an emotional trap or any such thing. It's a perfectly legitimate marketing gimmick.  Of three movies with a major need to pay off, if you can get all but the most devout purists to love the first, you can get most of them to pay for tickets to the second.*




And if film #2 is a big turd, what about film #3?

How'd Highlander 3 do, anyway?


----------



## Mulkhoran (Dec 20, 2002)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Eh?  If there are no additional caves, your case for Theoden's weakness is lessened considerably. *




That's kind of my point.  They removed the option of him sending his people to safety, in order to contribute to the whole "leading his people to slaughter".  

On the other hand, the way Aragorn talks in the movie, he *had* the option of going to fight Saruman, and Aragorn doesn't think he should *go* to Helm's Deep. So regardless of outside book elements, the movie has Aragorn pointing out over and over again that this is a *BAD DECISION*, not something he has to do. Big difference.


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 20, 2002)

Yep, yep, I reacted hastily and deleted sluggishly. 

I can't be convinced of your opinion, so I shouldn't participate in this part of the discussion.


----------



## Mulkhoran (Dec 20, 2002)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> And if film #2 is a big turd, what about film #3?
> 
> How'd Highlander 3 do, anyway? *






All I'm saying is that if you reign in your personal changes for the first movie, you get more revenue from *two* movies.  If you don't, you lose a lot of revenue from the second movie, from people that didn't like the first. 

You're all right that this probably isn't happening, but I feel cheated. The first movie sent the message that the story would be treated in a certain way, and it was treated very differently for the second.  They're not three standalone movies, nor are they 2 sequels to FotR. They are an ensemble piece, and it's not too much to ask that they work together to set a tone.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 20, 2002)

Mulkhoran said:
			
		

> *That's kind of my point.  They removed the option of him sending his people to safety, in order to contribute to the whole "leading his people to slaughter".
> 
> On the other hand, the way Aragorn talks in the movie, he *had* the option of going to fight Saruman, and Aragorn doesn't think he should *go* to Helm's Deep. So regardless of outside book elements, the movie has Aragorn pointing out over and over again that this is a *BAD DECISION*, not something he has to do. Big difference. *




Okay, that makes more sense when elaborated upon in that way.  I still disagree that this is a crippling flaw in the film in any sense.  Remember that the _real_ showcase for Theoden's heroism is when he rides to the rescue (and his own death) at the Pelennor Fields.

And the expanded version may change our perspective on the issue, of course.


----------



## Mulkhoran (Dec 20, 2002)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *Yep, yep, I reacted hastily and deleted sluggishly.
> 
> I can't be convinced of your opinion, so I shouldn't participate in this part of the discussion. *






I shouldn't really be getting into this at all.  I was just curious to see if there were people out there that were as bothered as I was by the changes to this character, since I'd seen *nothing* in my search so far.  Didn't want to argue with people about this.

I hope you're right about the third movie, though. Thanks.


----------



## Mulkhoran (Dec 20, 2002)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Okay, that makes more sense when elaborated upon in that way.  I still disagree that this is a crippling flaw in the film in any sense.  Remember that the real showcase for Theoden's heroism is when he rides to the rescue (and his own death) at the Pelennor Fields.
> 
> And the expanded version may change our perspective on the issue, of course. *





Good points, of course.  All in the long-term context, I suppose.  It was just painful to watch those scenes.

Hopefully, EN is right, and we'll see the voice of Saruman scene in RotK, and that'll give him a chance to shine.

Really, the "painful" parts are over. There are very few things that are *essential* to the RotK story....................

"No living man am I......"


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 20, 2002)

Mulkhoran said:
			
		

> *All I'm saying is that if you reign in your personal changes for the first movie, you get more revenue from *two* movies. If you don't, you lose a lot of revenue from the second movie, from people that didn't like the first.
> 
> You're all right that this probably isn't happening, but I feel cheated. The first movie sent the message that the story would be treated in a certain way, and it was treated very differently for the second.*




This sounds (and I suspect that Eric took it this way, too - thus his comments) suspisciously like "They intentionally made Film #2 lousy just to spite me!"

I doubt that's what you're trying to say, but that's how it's reading.



> *They're not three standalone movies, nor are they 2 sequels to FotR. They are an ensemble piece, and it's not too much to ask that they work together to set a tone. *




You're right to expect that.  But if you do, you ought to view the whole thing _as_ one continuous unit.  Since we haven't seen RotK yet, it's impossible for use to say how the characters of Faramir and Theoden will continue to be developed.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Dec 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Laughing on the outside...*



			
				Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> In my view Glorfindel had to go one way or the other.  There was just no way for the character to be included and be someone other than some random guy in a bit part.  There were thus only two options:
> 
> ...




Look, as I've said, even on this thread, I understand the reasons he was cut. If you're trying to say it wasn't a "Hollywoodizing" point, though, that is not so. It most certainly is. Why couldn't Peter Jackson have made a 50 hour film project that stayed completely faithful to the books? Why would Glorfindel be replaced and a female character part get beefed up to replace him? Because of the way conventional filmmaking is done, the conventions of which have been determined by Hollywood over the past century. Hollywood has shaped our viewing habits to the point where we simply assume it's not possible to do a film that is true to any book. That's not true. It can be done, but it would have to be done outside the conventions of Hollywood-style filmmaking, at least for LotR.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 20, 2002)

Mulkhoran said:
			
		

> *"No living man am I......"    *




I'll be damned if I didn't just get a chill just from you quoting that.

Now, if they mess _that_ up, I will personally lobby for Peter Jackson to be tossed into a woodchipper.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Laughing on the outside...*



			
				ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *Hollywood has shaped our viewing habits to the point where we simply assume it's not possible to do a film that is true to any book. That's not true. It can be done, but it would have to be done outside the conventions of Hollywood-style filmmaking, at least for LotR. *




It can be done if you make assumptions that would make it impossible for the project to actually get made without some Sugar Daddy that'll throw a billion dollars at it.

So it's not just as simple as throwing out "Hollywood" conventions and not letting your film be locked into preconcieved notions of what films can and can't be, because somebody has to pay for it.  Nobody would pay for a 40-hour Lord of the Rings.

Besides, nobody here has made the assertion that a book cannot be faithfully adapted to the screen.  Look at the first Harry Potter.  It's almost a word-for-word and image-for-image adaptation, meticulously faithful to the source material.  And it's about as flat and soulless as a movie can be.  It's an example of why it's not _desirable_ to be _too_ faithful.


----------



## Mulkhoran (Dec 20, 2002)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'll be damned if I didn't just get a chill just from you quoting that.
> 
> Now, if they mess that up, I will personally lobby for Peter Jackson to be tossed into a woodchipper. *






You won't need a lobby. You think *I'm* p    d? You should see my wife.  She's foaming at the mouth for his blood, and has promised suffering quite remarkable, even for Hell, if he drops the ball on that one simple little thing I just mentioned.

Of course, she's a she, and she read the books as a kid, so the reasons should be pretty obvious.............


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 20, 2002)

Mulkhoran said:
			
		

> *You won't need a lobby. You think I'm p    d? You should see my wife.  She's foaming at the mouth for his blood, and has promised suffering quite remarkable, even for Hell, if he drops the ball on that one simple little thing I just mentioned.
> *




If it happens, I'll buy the plane tickets.  She can take care of the false papers.

You can't take guns on the airplane, but you _can_ declare drums of industrial acid as luggage.


----------



## Olorin (Dec 20, 2002)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> It's funny how all these guys with screen names right from Tolkien "have no axe to grind."
> 
> Just saying. *





I have been a fan of Tolkien for 20 years. I have used Olorin as my nick whenever possible for almost as long as I've been online. That has nothing to do with my views on the movie. *shrug*

If you are going to disagree with something I said, please address what I say. Thanks.

I liked *many many* things in TTT. Most of them have been mentioned by others. I enjoyed the movie overall very much.

I also disliked several things, among them Theoden's portrayal. The other chief things are Faramir's portrayal, the lack of attention paid to the Ents (and Treebeard's lobotomy) and the "Aragorn over the cliff" interludes.

I feel like some others that some of these changes/additions were ill-advised and lessened my enjoyment of the movie. I felt that the changes/additions to FotR were much better considered and executed. I don't feel that the more drastic changes to TTT were part of a plot by Peter Jackson and Co. to lure us in and then disappoint us, that's ludicrous of course. I think they struggled the most with trying to adapt TTT to film and it shows a bit.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Dec 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Laughing on the outside...*



			
				Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> It can be done if you make assumptions that would make it impossible for the project to actually get made without some Sugar Daddy that'll throw a billion dollars at it.
> 
> ...




Really? A lot of people buy entire runs of episodic TV shows. What would be the difference?

And who is the Sugar Daddy that funds such projects? Almost without exception, part of the Hollywood establishment.

Hollywood conventions are so pervasive that they seem to be regarded as laws of nature, but they aren't. It's just that we've been conditioned over th past 100 years to accept them.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laughing on the outside...*



			
				ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *Hollywood conventions are so pervasive that they seem to be regarded as laws of nature, but they aren't. It's just that we've been conditioned over th past 100 years to accept them. *




The problem is that _the people with the money_ accept those conventions.


----------



## Mulkhoran (Dec 20, 2002)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *
> but you can declare drums of industrial acid as luggage.
> *




GOTTA remember that...........................


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Dec 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laughing on the outside...*



			
				Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The problem is that the people with the money accept those conventions. *




Well, yeah. Nobody's arguing that. The reason they accept them, and reinforce them, is because they want to maximize their profits. By sticking with time-tested conventions, they minimize the risk involved. 

Way back in the early days of Hollywood, D.W. Griffith took flack from a studio boss for doing close-ups. "We're paying for the whole actor!" he roared. He thought the public wouldn't accept only seeing half the person's body or just their face after buying a ticket to see their favorite star. But, Griffith's films were successful, so the studios decided to do things the way he did them, and funded projects in which close-ups were done. Thus, a Hollywood convention was set due to the fact that funders will always fund known quantities. 

The Hollywood convention of film length was, especially in Hollywood's Golden Age, an hour and a half or less. A few studios took gambles on filmmakers they knew to have made successful films, and allowed longer ones to be made. Now, you'd be hard-pressed to find a Hollywood film under 2 hours. A convention was changed because those who funded films accepted that longer films could make money. But they sure weren't happy with the risk at first.

When the convention of screen ratio was beginning to be changed from 1.33:1 to widescreen in the early 50s, it only came about because the studios were losing money to TV, and had to gamble on new methods that went against the conventions.

The point is, Hollywood conventions can be changed, but it takes a big effort to do so. Right now, the nearly-unbelievable lengths of films released on DVD, such as the 4 DVD FotR, has the potential of changing even more conventions, if they make money. That's the important part - it has to make money to cause a change in convention. Then everybody will jump on the bandwagon.

Hey, sometimes I need to revisit my 5 years of film study


----------



## ninthcouncil (Dec 20, 2002)

To my mind, a lot of the more aggressive criticism of the movie is based on a lack of understanding of the differing dynamics of storytelling between book and film. The film is a representation of the book, not a reproduction, and with a complex and multi-threaded book like LotR, which rests on a mythic backstory almost impossible to reproduce in watchable form, this is particularly the case. A film which attempted to reproduce everything from the book would be unwatchable dramatically - and would never have been made. This isn't "Hollywoodization" - I'm as fed up with predigested pap that the Dream Factory has been churning out as anyone, and I work for the damn people - it's a fundamental difference in the techniques of the media, as real as the difference between a book and a play. Even if the film had been made outside the Hollywood system, by anyone on Earth, similar questions would have needed to be answered; narrative flows differently in different media.

That's not to say I'm entirely in agreement with every decision made, but I can see why most of them were done.

For instance, the Faramir/Osgiliath question. As Faramir was my favourite character when I read (multiple times) LotR all those years ago, I was a bit worried about this before I went in, having read suggestions that he had "got the shaft", and indeed his representation has changed significantly from the book. But on rereading the relevant chapters it was clear that Jackson and his writers had to make this passage more dynamic - it is incredibly talky. The Osgiliath interpolation, though unnecessary for the original plot, seems to serve a number of purposes:

1. Makes it clear that Gondor is itself buckling under attack, before we get to the main assault on Minas Tirith - which we won't of course see for a year - and showing why Gondor does not aid Rohan.

2. Replaces the lengthy (and sometimes quite sly, just in case we get too hung up on his saintliness) probing of Frodo that Faramir carries out with a dramatic demonstration of the malign power of the ring.

3. Gives the Ringwraiths - otherwise seen only once - a chance to reprise their menace from the first film (though, I do think that having the Fell Beast driven off by a single arrow hit from Faramir was a bit feeble).

4. Increases the dramatic content of the Frodo-Sam journey, which in the book is largely a lot of stumbling around and character interaction, and which if reproduced on film would hang like a millstone round the neck of the action segments. The Shelob episode occurs too late to be useful for this purpose, and has I think sensibly been moved to the beginning of RotK.

The film is rather more visceral (because more visual) than the book, and in this context I don't think it unreasonable for Faramir to be a rather harsher character. Instead of rejecting the Ring for reasons (such as his exposure to and sympathy with Gandalf, and his erudition compared to the more forceful Boromir) which might be rather difficult to convey without massive clunkiness, he reaches his decision based on things that happen on screen - signalling it with words largely taken from the book. "Well, Frodo, now at last we understand each other." As others have noted, it probably also helps to simplify his conflict with Denethor, given that the relevant backstory will not be obvious on screen. I think the guy's back on track.

The whole Faramir/Osgiliath thing is a compromise, and thus not perfect. It may be possible that it could have been done better, but given the exegencies of cutting the book down to a manageable(!) 9 hours, it's bearable. I thought Treebeard's ridiculous ignorance that Saruman's orcs had been denuding southern Fangorn was more questionable, and the dramatic benefits of Aragorn's "fall" seemed pretty limited to me, but that's a minor thing anyway, as it has little character impact.

It's inevitable that a few people with very strong attachments to the original text will find Jackson's "meddling" unacceptable. Perhaps they won't go to see the third one, as is their right. Given the witless trash that has so often been foisted on us as "fantasy" film-making in the past, I think that's a shame.


----------



## KenM (Dec 20, 2002)

I accept the changes that were done, film is a totally different meduim then books. My friend Jim said it best " To be TOTALLY faithful, each book would be divided into 3 movies" 3 movies for fellowship, 3 movies for the two towers, and 3 for RoTK.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Dec 20, 2002)

Hey, I understand what Jackson had to do. I've done some film work, shorts, and I know what it's like to have to change and cut characters. It can be maddening. So I don't envy him the task. I think he did a good job, in general.  A lot of it wasn't how I'd do it, but no studio's backing me...


----------



## Olorin (Dec 20, 2002)

ninthcouncil said:
			
		

> *(snip) and the dramatic benefits of Aragorn's "fall" seemed pretty limited to me, but that's a minor thing anyway, as it has little character impact.*




My main issue with the Aragorn scenes is if they have little character impact and don't serve the plot, why are they there? They take screen time away from other things that could have been shown.



> *It's inevitable that a few people with very strong attachments to the original text will find Jackson's "meddling" unacceptable. Perhaps they won't go to see the third one, as is their right. Given the witless trash that has so often been foisted on us as "fantasy" film-making in the past, I think that's a shame. *




I fully expected and wanted "meddling" to be done. A *literal* intrepretation of LOTR would be unwatchable. I simply feel the meddling done in TTT was not as well done as it could have been.


----------



## Lady Mer (Dec 20, 2002)

> You should see my wife. She's foaming at the mouth for his blood, and has promised suffering quite remarkable, even for Hell, if he drops the ball on that one simple little thing I just mentioned.
> 
> Of course, she's a she, and she read the books as a kid, so the reasons should be pretty obvious.............





Nice to know I'm not the only one. (It doesn't help that Merry was always my favorite hobbiet.) I firmly believe that if they do that scene right, then Return of the King will be my favorite of the movies.

Of course, if they do mess it up, I'll need a plane ticket too...


----------



## SHARK (Dec 21, 2002)

Greetings!

I have to agree with my friend Colonel Hardisson. I read somewhere or another that noone wanted to do the film at all, and Peter Jackson was *just* able to persuade New Line Cinema to produce and fund the project, which at $310 MILLION DOLLARS, if I recall, the most expensive film project of its kind EVER attempted. It is a huge amount of money, and it has been said that if this project didn't pay off for New Line, then they would have gone bankrupt as a company. The fact that FOTR brought in $860 million dollars worlwide is *after the fact*. At the time, of course, it was an impossibly huge gamble for New Line Cinema.

What's the point? No forty-hour totally faithful Lord of the Rings project would ever be done, because this one, as it is, was just barely done on a shoestring and a prayer.

What has been accomplished? A huge, excellent spectacle of a movie that faithfully tells the Lord of the Rings story, and has done so in such magnificent and beautiful ways as to make film and box-office history. It has also caused a huge increase in reading, as millions of people are right now, either re-reading Tolkien's books, or reading them for the first time, solely because of these movies. That by itself is a fantastic, honourable, and noble accomplishment indeed. In addition, Peter Jackson's fine films have now accomplished something that really has never been done before--fantasy movies, at least the Tolkien version of it--have been beautifully and wonderfully done, and done with such skill and glory as to actually reshape the very ideas and standards on what is thought worthwhile to do or not. Jackson has and will no doubt continue, to have a profound, if subtle effect on the way and style in which fantasy movies are made. 

And finally, Jackson has succeeded in bringing so much of Middle Earth to a vibrant, glorious life for all to enjoy. These films are a beautiful, majestic accomplishment, and Peter Jackson has shown himself to pour his passion and his committment for the last four years into making the best Lord of the Rings movie that is ever to be made. Noone else would have given it one tenth the love and committment that Jackson and his team have done. The rest of the movie making world would have made some shallow, foul farce of a movie on the same level as the goddamned "dungeons & dragons" movie, supposedly made by someone who was "totally committed" to making a great film portraying Dungeons & Dragons. Indeed, that is what we would have seen, had someone else been persuaded to try the project.

I'm so glad that Peter Jackson has made such a fantastic and excellent set of movies. OOH-RAH!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## GreyOne (Dec 21, 2002)

Well, as soon as Celebrim raises the $310 + million dollars to create HIS"definitive" Tolkien translation of the series, we'll be able to see a great movie.  Until then, we'll have to just deal with this truly horrible, horrible movie.  

Frankly dude, I think your criticisms are weak.  Nothing says pedantic more than criticising somebody's ADAPTATION of a book because its not the same as the book.   And let's face it, Tolkien lacked one crucial thing all writers need:  AN EDITOR

Most of the changes, to me, make perfect sense.   And the pictures that I saw on screen brought Middle-Earth alive.   The whole Faramir bitchfest is a strawman.  Faramir became a more well-rounded  character, as far as I'm concerned, BECAUSE of his indecision and similarity to his brother.  In the end, he made the right decision.  Doesn't that show his quality?  

The criticisms of the quality of the film making alone make me question everything you and other nitpickers have said.

Why can't people just leave their baggage at the door and enjoy something at face value?


SHARK's comments get my vote!


----------



## GreyOne (Dec 21, 2002)

Well, as soon as Celebrim raises the $310 + million dollars to create HIS"definitive" Tolkien translation of the series, we'll be able to see a great movie.  Until then, we'll have to just deal with this truly horrible, horrible movie.  

Frankly dude, I think your criticisms are weak.  Nothing says pedantic more than criticising somebody's ADAPTATION of a book because its not the same as the book.   And let's face it, Tolkien lacked one crucial thing all writers need:  AN EDITOR

Most of the changes, to me, make perfect sense.   And the pictures that I saw on screen brought Middle-Earth alive.   The whole Faramir bitchfest is a strawman.  Faramir became a more well-rounded  character, as far as I'm concerned, BECAUSE of his indecision and similarity to his brother.  In the end, he made the right decision.  Doesn't that show his quality?  

The criticisms of the quality of the film making alone make me question everything you and other nitpickers have said.

Why can't people just leave their baggage at the door and enjoy something at face value?


SHARK's comments get my vote!


----------



## Bob Aberton (Dec 21, 2002)

I haven't even seen the movie yet, but, GreyOne, all I can say is, Amen, Brother!

The first truly great fantasy movies to come along, and people are bitching about "Theoden's too old!"  "Faramir's portrayal is blasphemy!"  "The movies sucked!"  "PJ pissed on Tolkien's work!"

Geez.  I haven't even seen the movie yet, and some of these grumbleasses are ruining my afterglow already


----------



## National Acrobat (Dec 21, 2002)

I'm holding my breath for RotK. It's my favorite book of the three, and it has less actual chapters and story to it, unless you count all of the appendices and whatnot. With that said, there should be more room for a more faithful rendition. As I said before, I am of two minds. TTT was a fabulous fantasy film, I loved it. I was a bit miffed at several of the changes, but I didn't let it ruin my enjoyment of the film. However, it was very noticeable when half of the audience chose to take a bathroom break during the whole Arwen/Aragorn thing. I believe at least where I am, that does say something.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 21, 2002)

What can I say.  You liked it.  I didn't.  You continue to accuse me of doing and thinking things I don't do and think.  If I were adapting the movie, you can bet I would have done alot of changes too.  The notion that I think somehow you can shrink 1000+ pages of prose into under 500 pages of script without making alot of changes is ridiculous.  Do you think I know nothing about the craft of writing?  Nonetheless, since I cannot prove to you it can be done better, and since it will be a good 15-20 years before any dares to follow this thing up with there own interpretation, I guess I have no way of convincing anyone that PJ made a cheap version of the LotR.  Did he blow it?  Well, in one since no, because there are sure to be lots of people (you folks) who love the movie.  That is certainly a fine measure of success.  And, certainly he will recieve many accollades from the critics and his peers.  More power too him.

There was a time when Hollywood thought it ridiculous to hire experts in history and art as consultants for making movies.   Who would care?  Who is going to notice.  What would be the point?  Compare the costumes and weapons of say Ben Hur, to those of say Gladiator or indeed PJ's LotR?  Which would you rather have?  There was a time when the lavish detail in props and the attention to detail that we have come to accept as ordinary and essential was scoffed at.   If I had suggested we do what is done now 30 years ago I would have been told I didn't know a thing about making movies.  Then along came Star Wars and Hollywood was convinsed otherwise.   It apparantly takes such things.

Today, talk to any screenwriter (and I've talked to several), and you will find that the working ones are pretty much convinsed that when adapting a work to the screen, the last thing you want to do is be faithful.  It is artistic suicide in Hollywood to so much as suggest that you aren't going to put your own spin on the book, you are going to faithfully render the authors vision on the screen.  You would be laughed at.   You'd probably never work again.  I seriously doubt anyone with the humility to make such a suggestion exists in the dog eat dog world of Hollywood.  For this reason and others, generally adaptations of great works are disappointments or else are dismissed as unfilmable.  

It is amazing that Peter Jackson managed to sell this project DESPITE the fact that any outsider could have told them that all they had to do was be remotely faithful and they had a billion dollar franchise on there hands.  It is amazing to me that a work with so many departures in character and tone would be hailed as a faithful work, whatever other accolades it recieves.  I do not know whether to be hopeful on those grounds or fearful.   Certainly there is the possibility that between LotR and the Potter's it will now be much easier for a director to sell the notion of a faithful adaptation of other great works of 20th century literature, but I greatly fear that what this means is that we will have 20 years of quasi-adaptations and bastardizations of works and that Hollywood still won't realize or accept that if you respect the works of a good and popular writer - you will make more money than you would have otherwise.   So, the day when I see good movie adaptations of books I've always wanted to see as movies is still probably a long way off.

In the mean time, enjoy yourself.


----------



## ninthcouncil (Dec 21, 2002)

I think it's worth remembering, in consideration of what a novel adaptation can and can't get away with, that one of the best SF novel adaptations, "Bladerunner", took *huge* liberties with the original, but somehow managed to _feel_ faithful (granted, it was considerably improved by the director's cut stripping out the dumbass "Hollywoodisation" elements forced on the director, but even before that it was a great film).


----------



## Dinkeldog (Dec 21, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> **lots of snippage*
> In the mean time, enjoy yourself. *




Someone should, anyway.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 22, 2002)

Just got back from the film.

Decided to try a little trick.

Turned on part of brain which recognises similarities with the book, and enjoyed those scenes.

Turned off part of brain which dislikes changes from the original, watched those scenes as part of Jackson's film and not Tolkien's book, and enjoyed them too.

Had a blast.

Going back in a couple of days.


----------



## Allanon (Dec 22, 2002)

Although I AGREE that some changes were AWFULL when compared to the book, one also had to look at another aspect of this film. 

After the first movie the amount of merchandising surrounding the movie was staggerign but even more mind boggeling was the amount of rereleases of LOTR the book that showed up in bookstores everywhere. 

And the incredible amount of books that were suddenly bought... Not by fantasy nerds or people with good tast for books but by people who would have otherwise never have bought the book. 

Although they're will remain a fair amount of people who will LOVE the film but will never read the book my mother and girlfriend for example have suddenly both read the books and loved them, while before they'd just look at me and say that they didn't have that amount of time for a book of those proportions.

So although a small portion of die-hard old school Tolkien fans will hate the movie I personally Like PJ's simply because it has gotten people to read a fantastic book.


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 22, 2002)

*Re*

There are a few things I agree with Celebrim on:

1. Didn't like seeing Gimli, Aragorn and Legolas beating on guards in Theoden's hall. That was totally unnecessary and a serious breach of etiquette. None of the four present would have been so disrespectful to Theoden.

I didn't quite understand this change, and I would have preferred to see Wormtongue on his belly as Gandalf stood over him.

That part was bad, and the book was much better and could have easily translated to film.




Most of the other changes are tolerable. I completely understand the reasons. The way PJ did the movie, Pippin and Merry would have had nothing to do if they did not do what they did with the Ents.

Let's face some truth here. TTT could easily be made into 2, possibly 3, long movies with all that was going on in the books. In TTT, there was no filler whatsoever like Tom Bombadil or the side-trip to the Barrow downs. It was non-stop action with so many integral characters that they could not possibly all be brought to life.

Overall, it is the greatest fantasy film of all time. I certainly hope that it encourages movie companies to take some more chances with fantasy films. The technology nowadays definitely allows for magic and fantasy to be simulated in all its glorious forms.

TTT wasn't perfect, but it was far from the trash you claim it to be Celebrim.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 23, 2002)

*Re: Re*



			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> *There are a few things I agree with Celebrim on:
> 
> 1. Didn't like seeing Gimli, Aragorn and Legolas beating on guards in Theoden's hall. That was totally unnecessary and a serious breach of etiquette. None of the four present would have been so disrespectful to Theoden.
> 
> ...




I didn't see them beating on guards in general, but on Grima's cronies. Note that as they move up the hall there's a group of Rohirrim (motioned to by Wormtongue) who keep pace with them. Only this group attacks them (Hama and others do not), and the three only fight them. But I do agree that this could have been done better if it was done as the book, and I think you're right that it would have translated quite easily.


----------



## Bhaal (Dec 23, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *Nonetheless, since I cannot prove to you it can be done better, and since it will be a good 15-20 years before any dares to follow this thing up with there own interpretation, I guess I have no way of convincing anyone that PJ made a cheap version of the LotR.  *



Sure it can be done better, it always can, that doesn't mean it isn't good.  Also your accusations of it being "cheap" are quite unfounded.  In the literal sense, it certainly wasn't cheap, I'm sure both of us will agree.  In the metaphorical sense it wasn't either.  He rallied the most well known Tolkien experts and concept artists to insure that the feel of the movie was in agreement with everybody. He made every detail as authentic as possible, eg. making everything from scratch with who made it and what purpose it served in mind.  If you disagree with PJ and say his interpretation is cheap, you also disgree with his team of scriptwriters, tolkien experts and others who all have a very solid grip of the material.  So was everyone involved just a big idiot and you know how it's done?*



			There was a time when Hollywood thought it ridiculous to hire experts in history and art as consultants for making movies.   Who would care?  Who is going to notice.  What would be the point?  Compare the costumes and weapons of say Ben Hur, to those of say Gladiator or indeed PJ's LotR?  Which would you rather have?  There was a time when the lavish detail in props and the attention to detail that we have come to accept as ordinary and essential was scoffed at.   If I had suggested we do what is done now 30 years ago I would have been told I didn't know a thing about making movies.  Then along came Star Wars and Hollywood was convinsed otherwise.   It apparantly takes such things.
		
Click to expand...


*They are definately forging ahead, having an attention to detail and depth and generally doing things never done before (at least on this scale).  I don't see your point here, unless your point is that it wasn't groundbreaking enough.*



			Today, talk to any screenwriter (and I've talked to several), and you will find that the working ones are pretty much convinsed that when adapting a work to the screen, the last thing you want to do is be faithful.  It is artistic suicide in Hollywood to so much as suggest that you aren't going to put your own spin on the book, you are going to faithfully render the authors vision on the screen.  You would be laughed at.   You'd probably never work again.  I seriously doubt anyone with the humility to make such a suggestion exists in the dog eat dog world of Hollywood.  For this reason and others, generally adaptations of great works are disappointments or else are dismissed as unfilmable.
		
Click to expand...


*what.  So are you now saying PJ was faithful to the book and thus committed artistic suicide, or is this just some tangent about industry-saavy you are?  I disagree if you think PJ has none of his own spin in the movie (as well as the other writers).*



			It is amazing that Peter Jackson managed to sell this project DESPITE the fact that any outsider could have told them that all they had to do was be remotely faithful and they had a billion dollar franchise on there hands.  It is amazing to me that a work with so many departures in character and tone would be hailed as a faithful work, whatever other accolades it recieves.  I do not know whether to be hopeful on those grounds or fearful.   Certainly there is the possibility that between LotR and the Potter's it will now be much easier for a director to sell the notion of a faithful adaptation of other great works of 20th century literature, but I greatly fear that what this means is that we will have 20 years of quasi-adaptations and bastardizations of works and that Hollywood still won't realize or accept that if you respect the works of a good and popular writer - you will make more money than you would have otherwise.   So, the day when I see good movie adaptations of books I've always wanted to see as movies is still probably a long way off.
		
Click to expand...


*I agree this might spawn off some ill-conceived movies that ruin otherwise good books.  Hopefully though in the inevitable onslaught of fantasy adaptations, one or two of them will do a decent job.  And no offense but from the sound of it, you'll never be satisifed with a movie adaptation of a book.  Sometimes you have to accept that it will only be so good.

*



			In the mean time, enjoy yourself.
		
Click to expand...


*Too late, I already am.


----------



## Bagpuss (Dec 23, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *"You don't know any of Faramir's motivations in this movie."
> 
> Ewww... now there is a great defence of PJ's characterization.  You are assuming that I am assuming something about Faramir's motivations.  I'm not.  I quoted a guy that did, but I'm just trying to grasp what Faramir's motivations were in terms of this movie.  However, even if I did conclude that Faramir was under the control of the ring, don't you would think I would be justified in concluding that given Galadriels voice-over narration just before that describing how the ring was calling to men and had almost achieved its purpose?
> 
> ...




Having not read the book, here is my take on Faramir.

I didn't think the pool was forbidden, but instead thought Fararmir, knew Frodo was lying when he said there were just two of them, and that this creature was the missing companion he saw earlier. As far as I could see he was using the situation to test Frodo's character, to see if he would let this creature die just to stay out of trouble. It appeared a clever bluff to me, from his manner and the fact he delayed and delayed I doubted he would have actually killed him.

He seems different from Borimir to me. When he discovers about the ring he never comes closer than a swords length to it. He sees the strange connection between Gollum and Frodo, and by this time you can see Frodo is pale and acting weird about the ring. When they tell him Borimir died because of the ring, he is still duty bound to bring it to his father, but it looks to me he is already having his doubts about is it would be more a curse than a blessing to Gondor.

When Frodo is drawn to stand out in the open during the battle, Faramir is going to realise that the ring has some hold over him, at this point Frodo is nearly white as sheet and acting insane, would you still covert the ring?


----------



## The Sigil (Dec 23, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> What can I say.  You liked it.  I didn't.  You continue to accuse me of doing and thinking things I don't do and think.  If I were adapting the movie, you can bet I would have done alot of changes too.  The notion that I think somehow you can shrink 1000+ pages of prose into under 500 pages of script without making alot of changes is ridiculous.



I will say this just once, as I think it is the only time it needs to be said.  Each time you complain, you really should answer all of the following questions - you only answer the first and sometimes the second.  Keep in mind your three-hour time-limit on the movie (whether you as a director want more time, you can be darned sure that the studios were adamant about the three-hour limit and since its their money you're playing with, you have to play by their rules).

What changes did you dislike?  Why?  How would you have handled it instead?  What would you have changed that was left alone?  

As an example: I would have cut from the movie the trip to Osgiliath in favor of a more faithful portrayal of Faramir (read: one who was wise like Gandalf and did not give in to the temptation of the ring).  I would have cut Legolas' skateboard scene (as over-the-top silliness). I would have cut the Elves from Helm's Deep.  With the fifteen minutes-ish thusly freed up, I would have added more to the Merry/Pippin/Orcs and Ents thread to show Pippin and Merry deceiving Grishnakh, show them drinking the Entwash, and having the Ents decide to attack Saruman without being tricked.  I would have also shown a little more of the Ent battle at Isengard, specifically the ents "freezing their roots onto stones and tearing them off like crusts of bread, their roots doing the work of centuries in just seconds."

There are two types of criticisms: constructive criticism and whiny criticism.  People take it as whiny criticism if it is mostly "this sucks" or "they blew it on this" and not "it would be better if they did <blah blah blah> instead."  In other words, if you can't offer a better explanation - a specific one, not the ephemeral "they could have done better" but "<blah> would have been a better way to do it" don't expect most people to take your criticism as the constructive type.



> Do you think I know nothing about the craft of writing?
> Nonetheless, since I cannot prove to you it can be done better, and since it will be a good 15-20 years before any dares to follow this thing up with there own interpretation, I guess I have no way of convincing anyone that PJ made a cheap version of the LotR.



Sure you can.  Provide concrete examples of HOW it could have been done better.  Don't say, "it could have been" say, "THIS IS HOW it could have been."

I for myself would not call PJ's version of LotR cheap - monetarily or intellectually.  But that has already been covered in more detail already by others.



> Did he blow it?  Well, in one since no, because there are sure to be lots of people (you folks) who love the movie.  That is certainly a fine measure of success.  And, certainly he will recieve many accollades from the critics and his peers.  More power too him.



This sounds rather condescending to me - as was said before, "so in other words, nobody but you really knows how to do it right?"

I am forced to echo Psion's sentiments toward DocMorriarty - when Morriarty was complaining that (in his estimation) Monte Cook's "fanboys" gave RttToEE a lot of positive reviews, thus artificially improving it's rating, Psion's retort, was, IIRC, to the effect of "they're stupid fanboys that disagree with you thus they are artifically upping a rating, and thus their opinions shouldn't count  - as opposed to you, who, on the other hand have the only correct and reasonable opinion."

From your comments, Celebrim, I have to echo a similar sentiment... your attitude connotes that you feel that the "unwashed, ignorant masses'" high opinion of a movie is unwarranted - because of course you have the only correct and reasonable opinion.  Pardon me if I have a hard time seeing your side.  But enough of the ad hominim attacks. 

Did I think TTT was perfect?  No.  Did I think it was as good as LotR?  No.  And I have said as much.  Did I think it was a good movie that was reasonably (not completely as that is an impossibility given the current forces in Hollywood) faithful adaptation of TTT?  Yes.

LotR got an A+ from me.  The Extended Edition was even better.  TTT gets a B+ from me.  Who knows, TTT-E may warrant an A+.  In any case, I want to see RotK before I make my final, binding judgments.



> There was a time when Hollywood thought it ridiculous to hire experts in history and art as consultants for making movies.   Who would care?  Who is going to notice.  What would be the point?  Compare the costumes and weapons of say Ben Hur, to those of say Gladiator or indeed PJ's LotR?  Which would you rather have?  There was a time when the lavish detail in props and the attention to detail that we have come to accept as ordinary and essential was scoffed at.   If I had suggested we do what is done now 30 years ago I would have been told I didn't know a thing about making movies.  Then along came Star Wars and Hollywood was convinsed otherwise.   It apparantly takes such things.



And herein lies the observation that you yourself have made that wipes your argument out.  This makes it appear that you are not pissed off bad movie by today's standards - you seem to imply that it is in fact a very good movie by today's standards - but you are instead pissed off because TTT - specifically, Peter Jackson - did not do enough to change the perceptions of modern movie making.  You aren't pissed because it's good with regard to what it had to work with but you're pissed because you wish PJ had fought to get more to work with?  With apologies to Eric's Grandmother, what the heck kind of assinine complaint is that?!?!?  This is, for lack of a better term, an assault on a movie that "gamed well" because it didn't "metagame" well enough for your tastes.

If FotR had been a runaway success and Jackson was *then* authorized to make the other two movies, he could have dictated terms.  The best analog I can think of to this is Myst.  The original Myst had to be made according to certain terms because it wasn't a proven formula.  Certain compromises on the part of the authors had to be made in order to get the funding necessary.  When it turned into a breakaway hit, the authors could do Riven (Myst II) however the heck they wanted - because they had the proven track record (and the royalties pouring in) to get away with it.

If Peter Jackson were just now starting to shoot RotK, I could expect him to "metagame" the movie industry a bit.  But he's not.  For all intents and purposes, it is done.  For all intents and purposes, TTT and RotK were both done over a year ago.  Jackson has no ability to "metagame" with TTT and RotK because they're already finished!  It's the "price" he had to pay to get a guarantee that all three would be finished (to avoid another Bakshi catastrophe where the movie was literally only half-completed due to lack of funding).

That said, I fully expect whomever does the Hobbit or the Silmarillion to metagame the system for all it's worth. 



> Today, talk to any screenwriter (and I've talked to several), and you will find that the working ones are pretty much convinsed that when adapting a work to the screen, the last thing you want to do is be faithful.  It is artistic suicide in Hollywood to so much as suggest that you aren't going to put your own spin on the book, you are going to faithfully render the authors vision on the screen.  You would be laughed at.   You'd probably never work again.  I seriously doubt anyone with the humility to make such a suggestion exists in the dog eat dog world of Hollywood.  For this reason and others, generally adaptations of great works are disappointments or else are dismissed as unfilmable.



Gads, I'm glad Tolkien's original vision wasn't put on the screen.  Of all movie genre's Tolkien's original vision was clearly not "action" or "mythic" but "musical" - and with some pretty crappy lyrics, I'm afraid. 

Seriously, though, this just increases my suspicions that you're not upset at the "game" TTT exhibits, but rather its lack of metagaming.



> It is amazing that Peter Jackson managed to sell this project DESPITE the fact that any outsider could have told them that all they had to do was be remotely faithful and they had a billion dollar franchise on there hands.



Just like Ralph Bakshi's work, eh?  It was pretty faithful, as a matter of fact.  Problem is, it was hideously done.  Execution DOES matter.

Just like Rankin-Bass' work, eh?  Rankin-Bass may have been campy but RotK was, if nothing else, pretty faithful to the original storyline (if you ignore "Bilbo's Birthday" tying the thing together)... to the point of having a lot of stuff in it that only a die-hard purist could appreciate.  I watched that movie religiously for years and it was only after about 10 years of watching and several readings of Tolkien and some of the associated explanations from Tolkien that I understood more than half of the stuff in there.

Any outsider could have said, "you'll have a billion dollar franchise" - and an insider would have pointed out the pre-existing counter-examples.  It's not as easy as you make it out to be.

And again, your comments show not that you're disappointed in TTT, but you're disappointed in PJ's metagaming.  Again, we have the benefit of hindsight on this one - LotR is NOT by any stretch a guaranteed hit - or the previous versions would have been so.



> It is amazing to me that a work with so many departures in character and tone would be hailed as a faithful work, whatever other accolades it recieves.  I do not know whether to be hopeful on those grounds or fearful.



It is hailed as faithful because it is recognized that _given the constraints of the current system_ it was as faithful as can be expected.  In this case, I think "faithful" is a relative term.  Other systems (increased movie length, different paradigms in Hollywood, etc) might very well produce a better movie... but unfortunately, such systems do not exist.  You are lamenting the lack of the alternate systems here - which should have no bearing on your opinion of "how well did PJ do?"

And to be honest, I found that the general tone and story arc of Jackson's movies were a little darker than the LotR I read, but on the whole, they were good without introducing SO many characters that a moviegoer is lost.



> Certainly there is the possibility that between LotR and the Potter's it will now be much easier for a director to sell the notion of a faithful adaptation of other great works of 20th century literature, but I greatly fear that what this means is that we will have 20 years of quasi-adaptations and bastardizations of works and that Hollywood still won't realize or accept that if you respect the works of a good and popular writer - you will make more money than you would have otherwise.   So, the day when I see good movie adaptations of books I've always wanted to see as movies is still probably a long way off.



And again, you reveal your bias.  You're pissed because LotR did not redefine the system, not because it was the best it could be _given the constraints PJ had to work with_.  I might as well say I'm pissed that we don't theater-quality audiovisual equipment for my home.  But that doesn't mean I'm pissed at the movie-maker when the DVDs I watch are on a small screen in mono-sound because I only have the TV speaker.  They can't break out of the paradigm until I (the one with the money) decide to change my spending habits as it relates to my home theater (currently a TV plus a VCR and a DVD player).



> In the mean time, enjoy yourself.



I did, and I hope you will, too.  Let go of what you want the system to be and enjoy LotR for what it is... hopefully the seminal work in movies that proves that it's possible to remain true to a story without "spinning it" and still have good movie making.  Though again, I'm darn glad PJ spun LotR away from being a musical. 

Ultimately, the question should not be, "could it have been much better WITH a paradigm shift in the movie industry?" (Of course it could) but rather, "could it have been much better WITHOUT a paradigm shift in the movie industry?" (I think the answer is, "better but not much better.")  You're asking the wrong question and you're not judging a movie by its merits given the resources available to it.

Citizen Kane, by today's standards, would be awful.
So would Bela Lugosi's Dracula.
So would Gone With the Wind.
So would Psycho.
So would The Wizard of Oz.
So would Star Wars.
So would It's a Wonderful Life.
So would <insert any movie here> when judged by standards of a decade or two later.  Why do we hold the above movies as classics and hail their excellence today?  Because we recognize that they were some of the best movies GIVEN THE CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES THEY HAD TO WORK WITH... and because they were works that pushed the envelope and STARTED - not completed - a paradigm shift in the movie industry.  You can get away with pushing the envelope - but you can't create a new one overnight.

--The Sigil


----------



## Green Knight (Dec 25, 2002)

> I don't know how many times laughter broke out at odd moments in the theater because PJ can't stop over directing. At times when we are meant to pity Gollum, people are laughing at him. At times when the Orcs are meant to be intimidating, people are laughing at them.




You're basing part of your opinion on the way some people reacted in the theatre you were in? Sorry, but that's retarded. If you're gonna discuss what you feel were the problems with the movie, then stick to what YOU felt. Don't bring up the reactions of other people in the theatre. When I went to see Schindler's List, for instance, there were people THERE that were laughing! Does that mean that Schindler's List is a ridiculous movie? No. It just means that sometimes there're people who go to movies and think the cool thing to do is to MST3K the movie, no matter how good it is. 

BTW: Nobody laughed in the theatre I was in. Doesn't mean jack, though. I couldn't care less if 99% of the people in the theatre hated it, because I loved it. But from the reaction, including scattered applause here and there in the theatre when it was over (You NEVER get applause in a theatre), the audience apparently loved it. Who's to say my experience at the theatre isn't a more accurate representation of peoples' feelings about the movie than the reaction you witnessed at your theatre? If you're gonna be taking into account the reactions of people that you don't even know then you ought to take that little fact into account as well. That those folks in that theatre are an aberration, not the norm.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 25, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *  It is amazing to me that a work with so many departures in character and tone would be hailed as a faithful work, whatever other accolades it recieves.  *




It shouldn't be amazing.  Perhaps you're forgetting that what constitutes a "departure in character and tone" is _subjective_.  

When we say a movie is faithful, we can't really talk about it being faithful to the text alone, because the text cannot be taken in isolation.  The text alone is paper and ink.  It only becomes a story when someone reads it.  And with a reader comes a reading, an interpretation, personal emphasis on certain points.

So, is it amazing that many people don't share your opinions on what's important in the book?  If not, then the movie's acceptance shouldn't seem odd to you either.


----------



## Sulimo (Dec 26, 2002)

Well, I just saw TTT and for the most part I really liked it. I certainly enjoyed it alot more than my first viewing of FOTR.

As for why, I'm not quite sure. Maybe my expectations weren't as high. Or maybe its the fact that many of my fave sections of LOTR appear in Fellowship, and those fave bits from TTT got pushed into ROTK thus I had less to complain about. 

As for adaption problems...my main issue was with the whole Faramir arc which was horrendously done.


----------



## Michael Tree (Dec 26, 2002)

It's odd, but even though I feel TTT is overall a weaker movie than FotR, it has less things that _really_ bug me.  The pointless and formulaic staircase scene, the overdone and incomprehensible rotoscoped Galariel scene, and the lack of the Galadriel gift giving in the theatrical release all irritate me less than the aspects of TTT that I don't like.

Of all the changes and additions, only the pointless Aragorn falling off a cliff scene irritates me like the above FotR scenes.

Some scenes are even - gasp- better than in the original book.  The scene between Elrond and Arwen is much more powerful and significant than its equivalent in the books, which IIRC is little more than "Arwen and her father spent the night talking, and had a bitter parting" and some exposition in the appendixes.  The elves aiding in helm's deep also IMO may be an improvement, as it makes the battle that much more poinient to see elves, who have lived for thousands of years and would have lived for thousands more, laying down their lives in defense of humanity.  It's not the vision of elves that Tolkien had, but it's a valid one given the history of his mythos.

Other scenes simply wouldn't work as well on film the way they were in the book.  If the ents had a long discussion, and then just decided to go attack Isengard, as they did in the book, then it would show neither the Ents self isolation and conservativeness or their terrible wrath as strongly, nor would merry and pippin's role be as active or important.  Tolkien could show these things with lots of exposition and detailed description, but those are not tools available to filmmakers.

I'm not crazy about the changes in Faramir, but I suspect that PJ made them to be more dramatic.  Having him face the same test as Boromir, and fall under the terrible sway of the ring, but ultimately pass the test and rise above the temptation, is much more cinematically powerful than just having him seemingly immune from the beginning.  It makes him more human, and makes his choice to let Sam and Frodo free that much more significant.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 26, 2002)

I saw TTT for the third time yesterday, and for the third time, there was applause from the audience when it was over.

Truly, this is a dreadful film made by talentless hacks.


----------



## Bhaal (Dec 27, 2002)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *I saw TTT for the third time yesterday, and for the third time, there was applause from the audience when it was over.
> 
> Truly, this is a dreadful film made by talentless hacks.   *



You mean a dreadful film made by talentless hacks, watched and adored by people who wouldn't know a good movie if it sat on their head.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 27, 2002)

Bhaal said:
			
		

> *You mean a dreadful film made by talentless hacks, watched and adored by people who wouldn't know a good movie if it sat on their head. *




Including, I presume, every single movie critic in the US, execpt one guy in San Diego?


----------



## edbonny (Dec 30, 2002)

Bhaal said:
			
		

> *You mean a dreadful film made by talentless hacks, watched and adored by people who wouldn't know a good movie if it sat on their head. *




Following that logic, the always adored and ever-busy McDonalds must then be the finest cuisine of the land. I do think that TTT is the McDonalds' version of Tolkien's books (a nationally targeted, mass-marketed movie modified to suit current cultural "tastes" - if you'll excuse the pun).

BTW, I love McDonalds.

- Ed


----------



## Agback (Dec 30, 2002)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'll be damned if I didn't just get a chill just from you quoting that.
> 
> Now, if they mess that up, I will personally lobby for Peter Jackson to be tossed into a woodchipper. *




Sharpen your pencil. Because I am prepared to bet that at least they will modernize the syntax. The slightly overblown grandeur that many of Tolkien's characters adopt for important formal statements has not made it over into the films.

Regards,


Agback


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 31, 2002)

Agback said:
			
		

> *Sharpen your pencil. Because I am prepared to bet that at least they will modernize the syntax. The slightly overblown grandeur that many of Tolkien's characters adopt for important formal statements has not made it over into the films.*




You're probably right.  I expect we will lose "Begone, foul dwimmerlaik!..." at the least.  I can live with a bit of dialogue tweaking, though, as long as the emotional content of the scene isn't destroyed.


----------



## Henry (Jan 2, 2003)

Well, looking at box office earnings through the end of the year, The Two Towers is right on track to bust the doors off as one of the top 3 or 5 movies of 2002. It's made $200 million dollars so far - and it has so far made more money than the next four movies under it COMBINED. It is safe to say it is a hit with Tolkien fans, and a hit with the general public.

Now, that means NOTHING if someone didn't like the movie. And criticizing someone's opinion who didn't like the movie doesn't mean anything either. You just have to say, _"I have to disagree, and I'm sorry you feel that way, because I enjoyed the heck out of it."_ And leave it at that.

To me, Jackson changed what he changed. He proved with box office figures that he knows not only how to make a movie, but to EDIT a movie well. Editing and pacing can make a poorly budgeted movie very good, and poor editing can make an expensive and well-acted movie an absolute flop, so I have to take contention that just putting the books to film would have been an automatic hit.

Jackson has proven that he is the hottest commodity in directors for hollywood right now. Most studios would KILL for a literal Billion Dollar franchise, and Jackson has taken his vision of Tolkien's World, and make it entertaining for millions of moviegoers.


----------



## jdavis (Jan 2, 2003)

Well i waited to hit this thread until I actually saw the movie. The movies are fast on their way to becoming one of the highest grossing movie franchises ever and the third movie isn't even out, so I guess it is a proven commodity, it has been nominated for awards already and is generally loved by fans and critics alike. I really didn't like it at all, now I am sure that I am wrong and stupid and probably mentally handicapped for disliking it (after reading this whole thread it seems not liking this movie means you have to be a complete idiot) but I just did not like the movie, the first movie was awsome and the extended DVD is one of my favorite movies ever, I just didn't like The Two Towers, I can't put my finger on it and I can't point out any specifics that have not been argued into the dirt already. For some reason the movie didn't sit right with me, I don't care about movie deviations from the book, I expect those type of things and in some cases welcome them. This movie just rubbed me the wrong way, it just felt wrong, it was choopy and rough and gave me a headache and I had a hard time feeling anything for characters that I loved from the last movie, some of the characters were good and some got silly and some barely appeared, doesn't matter I just didn't feel drawn in like the last movie did, I tried, I want to love this movie, I want to shower it with praise, I can't think of any logical reason to not like this movie (well except it was edited by hyperactive monkeys, thus the headache) but it just didn't do it for me. I'm sure I'll see it again, I'm sure I'll buy it and I will be there for the next one with out a doubt, I still have high hopes for the next one. obviously I am wrong and misguided here, and I probably have some unknown chip on my shoulder that I haven't recognized yet, I can't back up any points or produce a better script to post here, I am not able to argue with all the professional critics who said it was great and I can't argue with all the people who have all these wonderful highly thought out arguements. All I got is a gut sense that I didn't like the movie, and the headache, you know maybe that is enough, maybe I don't have to prove any points or argue any of it, maybe I can just not like a movie that I felt was flawed. It felt like a piecemeal jigsaw puzzle where the pieces were shoved together whether they fit or not, to me it felt like he needed another couple of months worth of editing and work, sort of like this was only the rough draft. Of course that's just my opinion.

EDIT: THe whole Theater erupted in laughter almost every time Gollum came on the screen, I didn't get the joke but the 200 or so people in the theater with me thought he was hilarious.


----------



## rangerjohn (Jan 2, 2003)

What I don't get is how it makes Faramir's character better to have him succumb to ring like Boromir.  I don't think shaking it off at the end cuts it.  That's what Boromir did, and then went on to heroically sacrifice his life trying to save the hobbits.  So how is making Faramir a pale imitation of Boromir an improvement?


----------



## Lady Mer (Jan 2, 2003)

I never saw Boromir 'shake off' the effects of the ring. He tried to sieze the ring, Frodo fled, and Boromir felt sorry about it. But what would he have done if Frodo hadn't fled? He even admits to Aragorn that, in letting Frodo leave, 'you did what I could not'- just as Faramir eventually does.

Faramir is tempted, but ultimatly chooses to let Frodo leave. In terms of heroism, he occupies a niche between Aragorn and Boromir- just where he should be.


----------



## shilsen (Jan 2, 2003)

What Lady Mer said. In both the book and the movie, Boromir's sacrificing his life for the hobbits is almost a form of atonement for his former failing. In the book neither Aragorn nor Faramir is tempted. In the movie, as Lady Mer points out, there is a very neat progression between Aragorn, Faramir and Boromir.


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 2, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *I really didn't like it at all, now I am sure that I am wrong and stupid and probably mentally handicapped for disliking it (after reading this whole thread it seems not liking this movie means you have to be a complete idiot) but I just did not like the movie, the first movie was awsome and the extended DVD is one of my favorite movies ever, I just didn't like The Two Towers, I can't put my finger on it and I can't point out any specifics that have not been argued into the dirt already. For some reason the movie didn't sit right with me, I don't care about movie deviations from the book, I expect those type of things and in some cases welcome them. *




And that's a perfectly valid view, and there's nothing wrong with it.  No one can nor should tell you what you like, or what is good TO YOU.  The issue that I have taken umbrage with is the claim that PJ 'pissed on' JRRT's work, when it's clear that they've made the most sincere effort yet seen to make a work that is artistically as close as PJ felt possible for a movie adaption.  Disagreeing with it's pace and style is a matter of taste, and a perfectly valid reason to dislike the film.


----------



## jdavis (Jan 2, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *
> 
> And that's a perfectly valid view, and there's nothing wrong with it.  No one can nor should tell you what you like, or what is good TO YOU.  The issue that I have taken umbrage with is the claim that PJ 'pissed on' JRRT's work, when it's clear that they've made the most sincere effort yet seen to make a work that is artistically as close as PJ felt possible for a movie adaption.  Disagreeing with it's pace and style is a matter of taste, and a perfectly valid reason to dislike the film. *




I was actually scared to post to the thread, some of the attacks were just vicious. I think some people (on both sides) need to realize that this is just a movie. many peoples comments here were just uncalled for regardless of what they were repling to, or how uncalled for the first statement was. Peter Jackson spent years on this movie, heck New Line put the company up to make it, nobody tried to make a bad movie or destroy Tolkien's work, but every point that was brought up to illustrate how bad the movie was had merit. heck most of the bad points were agreed on, but that didn't stop people from roasting anybody who didn't like the movie. Both sides went over the top and it just got silly, it was just a movie. 

All that aside I do have one bone to pick with changes that were made (most of the changes didn't bother me as changes, they just bothered me in general). Since when did Elrond become king of the elves? I have heard that said at the theater and have read it in other places (I'm trying to remember where, I'll post a link when/if I find it). The silly elf telepathy scene!? between Galadriel and Elrond is worded to sound like she is asking what to do from her superior, and the elves showing up at Helm's Deep and saying Elrond sent them reinforces that. Maybe I am worng and it is just a confusing scene, I let a friend have it for refering to Elrond as the Elf King guy, he hadn't read the books, he got that from the movie. It's not a big thing but it annoyed me.


----------



## jdavis (Jan 3, 2003)

Short Peter jackson interview on stuff that was cut:
http://www.moviehole.net/news.php?newsid=804

The awards the movie is up for so far are best picture and best director (Golden Globes)


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Jan 3, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *Well, looking at box office earnings through the end of the year, The Two Towers is right on track to bust the doors off as one of the top 3 or 5 movies of 2002. It's made $200 million dollars so far - and it has so far made more money than the next four movies under it COMBINED.*




It's _already_ number 4 for the year, having only been out for a little over two weeks, and will certainly outscore Harry Potter 2 (which I've heard is pretty good.)  If it beats out Spider-Man and Attack of the Clowns, it'll be #1.

New Line is projecting (publically) that they expect the film to make over a billion worldwide.  I'm not sure how feasible that is, but if it does happen, it would make TTT the #2 movie of all time.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Jan 3, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *I was actually scared to post to the thread, some of the attacks were just vicious. *




Better stay off of Usenet, then.  Or, heck, even RPGNet.



> *All that aside I do have one bone to pick with changes that were made (most of the changes didn't bother me as changes, they just bothered me in general). Since when did Elrond become king of the elves? I have heard that said at the theater and have read it in other places (I'm trying to remember where, I'll post a link when/if I find it). The silly elf telepathy scene!? between Galadriel and Elrond is worded to sound like she is asking what to do from her superior, and the elves showing up at Helm's Deep and saying Elrond sent them reinforces that. Maybe I am worng and it is just a confusing scene, I let a friend have it for refering to Elrond as the Elf King guy, he hadn't read the books, he got that from the movie. It's not a big thing but it annoyed me. *




Eh?  No idea where you're coming from at all on this.


----------



## Henry (Jan 3, 2003)

Jdavis, and Celebrim: you have not reason to NOT post your views. I myself encourage it thoroughly. The only thing that CAN'T be really said about the movies is that they were box office failures; but whatever one feels about the movie itself is their perogative.

I disagree that Peter Jackson's work is a "cheap knock-off", or that just putting book to film would have guaranteed a billion-dollar franchise, because I and many others like me just couldn't get through Tolkien's book. Had it not been for posters on this site, and the movies themselves, I would have never know HOW the plot of this trilogy went. It was the awesome posters of this board that caused me to re-visit the trilogy last year, and I STILL couldn't get through it, because it turned me off with egregious exposition and a very slow and incomprehensible plot. But if not for the posters here who love Tolkien (such as our inestimable Col. Hardisson), I wouldn't have even tried in the last place.

So don't underestimate your opinion here - but don't be afraid to go against the opinions of the majority on here who liked the films as they were.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 3, 2003)

*Henry...*

...you and the other mods. might want to add "Tolkien adaptations" to list your list of verboten topics  . For some, its as hot a topic as religion, sex, or politics...

Its pretty amusing to see people bristle against what they perceive to be "blasphemous" assaults against the "orthodox" text. People like dogma, and they can be dogmatic about anything; fictional universes, Cajun hot sauces, defense packages against the run on 3rd and short... 

I don't mean to sound mocking. I think its great that Tolkien's work has such a powerful effect on people. The fact that three little books can do that is an amazing testimony to the power of literature.


----------



## jdavis (Jan 4, 2003)

> Better stay off of Usenet, then. Or, heck, even RPGNet.




I post nowhere but here. The whole reason I like posting here is that people are generally openminded here. Rarely do topics turn into chest thumping insult matches and when they do somebody comes around and puts their foot down. For some reason Tolkien is a really touchy topic. I did point out that *both* sides were getting a little to pushy and touchy. 

I'm not a book purist, I don't care if he mixes it up for the movies, and I only had one problem with book to movie changes, and it is a questionable one. I would love to discuss the movies, I just don't want to get alot of silly flack, it looked like a gang fight when I read through the thread, and if I had read the thread before I went to see the movie I'd of been on the other side of the arguement, I loved the first movie and I loved Peter Jackson's vision of Middle Earth, the second movie just didn't seem finished to me. I'm not trying to pick a side just pointing out that it was getting a little thick in here.

As far as the Elrond bit goes, it was something pointed out to me by people who have not read the books, they thought Elrond was telling Galadriel to send troops to help at Helms Deep, the troops that showed up said that Elrond sent them, thus Elrond must be the Leader of all the Elves.


----------



## jdavis (Jan 4, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *Jdavis, and Celebrim: you have not reason to NOT post your views. I myself encourage it thoroughly. The only thing that CAN'T be really said about the movies is that they were box office failures; but whatever one feels about the movie itself is their perogative.
> 
> I disagree that Peter Jackson's work is a "cheap knock-off", or that just putting book to film would have guaranteed a billion-dollar franchise, because I and many others like me just couldn't get through Tolkien's book. Had it not been for posters on this site, and the movies themselves, I would have never know HOW the plot of this trilogy went. It was the awesome posters of this board that caused me to re-visit the trilogy last year, and I STILL couldn't get through it, because it turned me off with egregious exposition and a very slow and incomprehensible plot. But if not for the posters here who love Tolkien (such as our inestimable Col. Hardisson), I wouldn't have even tried in the last place.
> 
> So don't underestimate your opinion here - but don't be afraid to go against the opinions of the majority on here who liked the films as they were. *




Nothing about these movies was cheap, and Jackson put years of work into them, he is still working on them, He has been nominated for a Golden Globe for the movie. I wouldn't of went to see a direct movie adaptation of the books, it would be like Oklahoma the musical, only in Elvish. And it would of been 20 hours long. I love the books, I have read them dozens of times, but if Tom Bombadil would of shown up in the first movie I would of ran out screaming. I don't fault 90% of the changes Peter Jackson has made and I am sure each change was a hard decision for him.

Tolkien is a hot topic, his books are the template for the whole fantasy genre. Not everybody likes his books but where would D&D of been without the LOTR books. I'm sure that Peter Jackson knew that he would be under the microscope doing these movies.

Edit: two golden Globe awards.


----------

