View Full Version : Peter Jackson is God
Black Breathalizer
01-12-2003, 11:04 AM
I have now seen TTT seven times (and counting) and with each viewing I find myself more and more in awe of the work of Peter Jackson and his incredible crew. They have taken a great story and transformed it into a set of film classics for the ages.
While everyone is entitled to their opinions, the criticisms that I've read here of the movies are without merit. The only real problem is time--it's a three hour movie that still feels rushed, particularly at the conclusion. But this will no doubt be addressed when another 50 minutes is added to the Extended DVD.
I can understand how Tolkien Purists might be taken aback by some of the changes in the movie. They caught me by surprise too. But the bottom line is: THEY WORK. Watching the movie again, you can't help but appreciate the fact that they were brilliantly conceived and really enhance the overall emotional themes of Tolkien's work. And THAT is what is really important in any movie adaption of a beloved book.
Bravo to Peter Jackson. Thanks to PJ, Frodo and Company will be alive and well for countless generations of video-viewers to come.
Sween
01-12-2003, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I have now seen TTT seven times (and counting) and with each viewing I find myself more and more in awe of the work of Peter Jackson and his incredible crew. They have taken a great story and transformed it into a set of film classics for the ages.
While everyone is entitled to their opinions, the criticisms that I've read here of the movies are without merit. The only real problem is time--it's a three hour movie that still feels rushed, particularly at the conclusion. But this will no doubt be addressed when another 50 minutes is added to the Extended DVD.
I can understand how Tolkien Purists might be taken aback by some of the changes in the movie. They caught me by surprise too. But the bottom line is: THEY WORK. Watching the movie again, you can't help but appreciate the fact that they were brilliantly conceived and really enhance the overall emotional themes of Tolkien's work. And THAT is what is really important in any movie adaption of a beloved book.
Bravo to Peter Jackson. Thanks to PJ, Frodo and Company will be alive and well for countless generations of video-viewers to come.
honest to god boy if PJ just puit a lump of clay on the screen for 3 hours and occasionaly shouted gandalf at it you would still love it.
tell me BB dop we have a life sized pic of PJ's rear end which we kiss each night?
LuthienTinuviel
01-12-2003, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Sween
tell me BB do we have a life sized pic of PJ's rear end which we kiss each night?
haha!:D :D
sween, have i told you lately how much i love you?
Lizra
01-12-2003, 11:42 AM
I think he's (BB) trying to flirt with BoP...:confused: ;)
Sminty_Smeagol
01-12-2003, 12:29 PM
*licks peter jackson's feet* BLESS MY CROPS OH MIGHTY ONE!
Blackboar
01-12-2003, 12:51 PM
I LOVE your sig!! Its so good!! I cracked up reading it:rolleyes: :D
Elf.Freak
01-12-2003, 01:19 PM
Blackboar! you have the Lembas commercial in your sig!:D
oh yeah! on subject...saying PJ is God...talk about over-obsessive! sure, i like the movies, but they'll be way better if PJ stuck to the book! i used to think that PJ did a good job with LOTR, but when i found out that he's cutting out Cirith Ungol >_< (that's my favourite part!).
so i wouldn't say PJ is so great now:mad:
Starr Polish
01-12-2003, 01:23 PM
When did he say he was cutting THAT? It's critical to the story!
Elf.Freak
01-12-2003, 01:27 PM
i heard it Here (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6857)
::Message to Blackboar::
i tried to send you a message, but it said that your message box is too full! if you can, clear it out so i can send you the message!
Blackboar
01-12-2003, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Elf.Freak
Blackboar! you have the Lembas commercial in your sig!:D
oh yeah! on subject...saying PJ is God...talk about over-obsessive! sure, i like the movies, but they'll be way better if PJ stuck to the book! i used to think that PJ did a good job with LOTR, but when i found out that he's cutting out Cirith Ungol >_< (that's my favourite part!).
so i wouldn't say PJ is so great now:mad:
I love that part of FotR!!
Anyway, Oringinally posted by Starr Polish
Why did he say he was cutting out THAT? Its critical to the story!
AND he's cutting out the Scoring of the Shire:mad: If he's a god then I say he is Hades!!
Well, he is good at some things.
Dúnedain
01-12-2003, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I have now seen TTT seven times (and counting) and with each viewing I find myself more and more in awe of the work of Peter Jackson and his incredible crew. They have taken a great story and transformed it into a set of film classics for the ages.
While everyone is entitled to their opinions, the criticisms that I've read here of the movies are without merit. The only real problem is time--it's a three hour movie that still feels rushed, particularly at the conclusion. But this will no doubt be addressed when another 50 minutes is added to the Extended DVD.
I can understand how Tolkien Purists might be taken aback by some of the changes in the movie. They caught me by surprise too. But the bottom line is: THEY WORK. Watching the movie again, you can't help but appreciate the fact that they were brilliantly conceived and really enhance the overall emotional themes of Tolkien's work. And THAT is what is really important in any movie adaption of a beloved book.
Bravo to Peter Jackson. Thanks to PJ, Frodo and Company will be alive and well for countless generations of video-viewers to come.
I agree and I am glad there is at least one person here that has the same feelings as I do. I am a huge fan of the books, however, like he said, the way the movies have been done, THEY WORK! I find it funny also that some people are complaining about scenes that "have been cut" that still might be in RotK. Get over it people, little itty bitty parts that are great parts in the book, would plainly suck on screen. I commend the crew that made the movies, at least they had an idea to put together the world we love, and in doing so have brought in countless fans who otherwise had no idea what the heck Middle Earth is. All I see around here anymore is complaint after complaint and critique after critique, plain and simple the bottom line is the movies are a huge success and while parts of them differ from the book, you still grasp and capture the same story. The theme and point of Lord of the Rings is still delved into the movies, so if a certain part of the movie is taken out, yet the main theme still remains then I am happy and that is exactly what has happened...
Celebréiel
01-12-2003, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Dúnedain
little itty bitty parts that are great parts in the book, would plainly suck on screen.
you still grasp and capture the same story. The theme and point of Lord of the Rings is still delved into the movies,
I cant stand it when people say that :rolleyes: PJ isnt the end all say all, at least accept that there might have been some way it could have worked that PJ didnt try.
And thats just the thing...with all these changes and total killing of characters the movies really *dont* capture the theme of the books....well...maybe on some waaaay way vauge idea, but it all could have been done SOOOOO much better....IMO ;)
~Celebréiel
Dúnedain
01-12-2003, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by Celebréiel
And thats just the thing...with all these changes and total killing of characters the movies really *dont* capture the theme of the books....well...maybe on some waaaay way vauge idea, but it all could have been done SOOOOO much better....IMO ;)
~Celebréiel
What characters are different? Go ahead, say Faramir. Yes, he was different for a few scenes, but then he gave us the Faramir that we all know and love. Granted I didn't like the fact that he was portrayed that way, however, he still showed who he really is in the end. He still showed that letting them go was more important than anything, even if his life would be "forfeit" and thus distancing himself from his brother and lending us his true character....
BeardofPants
01-12-2003, 02:19 PM
Thank god for Sween. :D BB, why don't you go bury yourself in the hole that is Peter Jackson's butt? :rolleyes:
Black Breathalizer
01-12-2003, 02:19 PM
Frankly, trying to judge Movie Faramir's character after TTT is like judging Movie Boromir's character after the Mines of Moria. We're only halfway through PJ's depiction of Faramir.
My guess is that after ROTK, most people (except for maybe the Purists who hang out here) will love the Movie Faramir even more than they did Book Faramir.
Sween
01-12-2003, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by BeardofPants
Thank god for Sween. :D BB, why don't you go bury yourself in the hole that is Peter Jackson's butt? :rolleyes:
ohh shucks :rolleyes: im imbarrsed! I knew taking members of ur family hostagew would get you kissing my pert ass!
no LuthienTinuviel you have not told me lately how much you love me but its allways nice to know (you are a girl arnt you?)
crickhollow
01-12-2003, 03:16 PM
guys, this thread stays open as long as there's a discussion, and not just insults being thrown back and forth. Keep it civil, please, hard as that may be. ;)
Sween
01-12-2003, 03:19 PM
QUOTE]Originally posted by crickhollow
guys, this thread stays open as long as there's a discussion, and not just insults being thrown back and forth. Keep it civil, please, hard as that may be. ;) [/QUOTE]
shut up you. lol messing (noticed u were a mod).
But we have to establish the point of this thread like all of BB it seems to be devoted to kissing PJ's ass. I mean wjhat point is he rasing apart from hge loved it and we are all entitiled to our opions that its not as good as the book but were wrong cos PJ's just so god like in sature?
Dúnedain
01-12-2003, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by crickhollow
guys, this thread stays open as long as there's a discussion, and not just insults being thrown back and forth. Keep it civil, please, hard as that may be. ;)
Yaaaaaaaay! Finally someone came in to calm down the tribes :D
Dúnedain
01-12-2003, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Sween
But we have to establish the point of this thread like all of BB it seems to be devoted to kissing PJ's ass. I mean wjhat point is he rasing apart from hge loved it and we are all entitiled to our opions that its not as good as the book but were wrong cos PJ's just so god like in sature?
He isn't saying that at all, in fact he is stating something different from the majority on this board and is getting bashed for it....
Black Breathalizer
01-12-2003, 03:41 PM
The thread title was meant to be provocative. I am tired of reading post after post bashing Peter Jackson and his talented team of artists. The bashing has been as mindless and juvenile as the stupid name-calling that's made up most of the posts here.
Thanks to PJ, we are getting THE BEST ADAPTION of the Lord of the Rings one could have ever hoped for or will ever get. For you Book Purists out there, the hard reality is that if a completely faithful adaption of the story was ever created, it would be a major boxoffice disaster. It took someone like Peter Jackson who: A) understood Tolkien better than anyone here; B) understood the art of making movies and how to write effective screenplays; and C) had a stamina and the passion for the process, to make this thing work, and work beautifully.
There are many of you who claim that the deviations from the books have "ruined" the movies. I believe quite strong that the opposite is the case. The "deviations" from the source material have strengthened the story and enhanced this modern mythology we call Lord of the Rings. If any of you are interested in any intelligent conversation about this, I'm game.
Earniel
01-12-2003, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I can understand how Tolkien Purists might be taken aback by some of the changes in the movie. They caught me by surprise too. But the bottom line is: THEY WORK. Watching the movie again, you can't help but appreciate the fact that they were brilliantly conceived and really enhance the overall emotional themes of Tolkien's work. And THAT is what is really important in any movie adaption of a beloved book.
Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
My guess is that after ROTK, most people (except for maybe the Purists who hang out here) will love the Movie Faramir even more than they did Book Faramir.[/B]
Aha! I knew it! In the only two posts he has in this thread he mentions purists! [EDIT: Oh and also in the third post that apeared when I was typing]
(Sorry for going off topic but I had made a bet with myself when I saw this thread. :D)
Well it's very difficult for ALL of us to say how Faramir will be in RoTK. Personally I thought the TTT Faramir was a completely different character than from the book. Hopefully RoTK is better.
Sminty_Smeagol
01-12-2003, 03:59 PM
Why do you think they changed Faramir's character so completely? I'm sure there is a reason behind every change made, and Faramir is certainly one of those changes... how does Faramir's different character benefit the movie? Why do you think they did it? Keep in mind I havent' eaten since wednesday so I'm all foggy but here's just an idea to throw in that I could come up with with my slow brain in a few minutes...
They moved Shelob to ROTK because Frodo and Sam wouldn't have enough to do in ROTK without Shelob. So, without this big danger at the end of TTT, maybe they thought they should make Faramir the danger?
azalea
01-12-2003, 04:02 PM
I'm having deja vu.
Earniel
01-12-2003, 04:10 PM
[B]Why do you think they changed Faramir's character so completely? I'm sure there is a reason behind every change made, and Faramir is certainly one of those changes...
Oh, I'm confident that there is a reason for this change. I think I have a pretty good idea about the why. It just doesn't mean I have to like it. :p And I'll grant PJ so much that he managed to pull all the changes together. You never would hear me say otherwise. But still.... I didn't like it much. Maybe with another viewing that might change but not now.
I'm having deja vu.
Expect one next year too.;)
Black Breathalizer
01-12-2003, 04:11 PM
Purist is not a dirty word. It's used to describe people who are uncomfortable with deviations from the book.
If being called a "purist" is thought to be bad by some people, it's probably because of the way some purists act. Case in point: The personal insults in this thread.
In the immortal words of Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along?" :)
Coney
01-12-2003, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by azalea
I'm having deja vu.
Ditto........still fun tho':D
BB when are you gonna realise that the difinitive film adaptation of LotR is going to be made by someone who is more interested in portraying an accurate version of Tolkiens book and is less interested in hacking the story to pieces in favour of the profit?
If any of you are interested in any intelligent conversation about this, I'm game.
hehehehe:D
Black Breathalizer
01-12-2003, 04:18 PM
I agree with you, Coney. The changes were profit-motiviated.
PJ wanted to make the best possible movie which meant making changes from the books for artistic reasons. If making the best possible movie means more public interest and more money, goodness gracious, what's wrong with that?
Coney
01-12-2003, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I agree with you, Coney. The changes were profit-motiviated.
PJ wanted to make the best possible movie which meant making changes from the books for artistic reasons. If making the best possible movie means more public interest and more money, goodness gracious, what's wrong with that?
Well, I guess that there is nothing wrong with it........if you see the bastardisation of Tolkiens work as a viable tool to make money.........personally I don't, but each to their own.
Black Breathalizer
01-12-2003, 04:34 PM
Bastardization of Tolkien?!??!?!
If you are going to use such strong language, back it up. Exactly how did Jackson "bastardize" Lord of the Rings? If you are going to trash someone, at least have the courtesy to explain your reasoning.
durin's bane
01-12-2003, 04:40 PM
If PJ is God, then it's pretty sad how he spends his life as a mere mortal making movies, instead doing god stuff.
Just ignore me. I have nothing signifigant to say. :D
Coney
01-12-2003, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Bastardization of Tolkien?!??!?!
If you are going to use such strong language, back it up. Exactly how did Jackson "bastardize" Lord of the Rings? If you are going to trash someone, at least have the courtesy to explain your reasoning.
Do you never get bored of this train of thought BB?:rolleyes:
Go an look to any reply to any of your posts..........if I didn't contradict them then I agreed with them.
I'll leave this thread to anyone who agrees with you....
Bastardisation
n : an act that debases or corrupts
Dúnedain
01-12-2003, 04:58 PM
Well it's funny since the movies were released there has been the biggest influx of Tolkien books bought in the history of Tolkien, how can you clasify bringing that much wealth and love for Tolkien as a bastardization? That is one of the main things I do not understand. Yes, maybe the films do not sit well with some of you, but think about all of the lucky people out there that have now found the very thing that we all love! I do not think it was done for mere money, I mean look at how much time and effort PJ & crew put into this, they worked for 5 years before any filming began! And why? Well, for a few reasons:
1) make the best possible interpretation ON SCREEN for AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE!,
2) to bring forth the world of Tolkien for people who would otherwise know nothing about him and his works.
To me those are two pretty damn solid reasons right there....
Dúnedain
01-12-2003, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Sminty_Smeagol
Why do you think they changed Faramir's character so completely? I'm sure there is a reason behind every change made, and Faramir is certainly one of those changes... how does Faramir's different character benefit the movie? Why do you think they did it?
To me there are 2 reasons for this change:
1) They wanted to make people think he was just another "man corrupted by power" and was greedy like his brother, only to show a complete turn around of his character to show the beauty of who he truly is...
2) An obvious reason to me is that, if you look at a map of Middle Earth, Osgiliath is practically next to the path Frodo, Sam & Gollum take to get to Cirith Ungol. From a location standpoint it brings the two paths together in a minor detour......
Dúnedain
01-12-2003, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The thread title was meant to be provocative. I am tired of reading post after post bashing Peter Jackson and his talented team of artists. The bashing has been as mindless and juvenile as the stupid name-calling that's made up most of the posts here.
Thanks to PJ, we are getting THE BEST ADAPTION of the Lord of the Rings one could have ever hoped for or will ever get. For you Book Purists out there, the hard reality is that if a completely faithful adaption of the story was ever created, it would be a major boxoffice disaster. It took someone like Peter Jackson who: A) understood Tolkien better than anyone here; B) understood the art of making movies and how to write effective screenplays; and C) had a stamina and the passion for the process, to make this thing work, and work beautifully.
There are many of you who claim that the deviations from the books have "ruined" the movies. I believe quite strong that the opposite is the case. The "deviations" from the source material have strengthened the story and enhanced this modern mythology we call Lord of the Rings. If any of you are interested in any intelligent conversation about this, I'm game.
I am with you man, I completely agree with everything you are saying, and I consider myself an avid enthusiast of the books and Tolkien's work....
Black Breathalizer
01-12-2003, 05:09 PM
If I like or dislike something and state it on a discussion board without explaining why I hold this particular opinion, why bother? Reading "I like it" or "I hate it" posts without offering any justification is boring and rather pointless because it doesn't give readers anything to discuss--unless you count a series of poster insults as a discussion (I don't).
sigh....Sometimes I think I need to teach a Discussion Board Posting 101 Class. :D
Sween
01-12-2003, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
sigh....Sometimes I think I need to teach a Discussion Board Posting 101 Class. :D
oh you are a character! wheres that bloody BoP when you need her :p !
and what prey tell is your first rule of disscussion board 101? Do you know who you remind me off and this is not so much a personal attack more an obversation you like a teacher that told us to have opinions and thats all very well and good but im allways right in the end.
Life is shades of grey not black and white
Coney
01-12-2003, 06:26 PM
If I like or dislike something and state it on a discussion board without explaining why I hold this particular opinion, why bother? Reading "I like it" or "I hate it" posts without offering any justification is boring and rather pointless because it doesn't give readers anything to discuss--unless you count a series of poster insults as a discussion (I don't).
You're obviously confusing me with someone who cares about your replies:rolleyes:
sigh....Sometimes I think I need to teach a Discussion Board Posting 101 Class.
Here beginneth the first lesson "My word is law and thy shall believeth only me" lol.
Seriously tho' BB why did you start this thread when it could have easily been added to the "PJ has improved Tolkien" thread?
Sween
01-12-2003, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Coney
Here beginneth the first lesson "My word is law and thy shall believeth only me" lol.
Seriously tho' BB why did you start this thread when it could have easily been added to the "PJ has improved Tolkien" thread?
didnt that get closed cos we all slagged off BB for been a bit of an idiot?
Elf Girl
01-12-2003, 06:30 PM
Black Breathalizer, this board is a haven for purists. I'm not saying that only purists visit here, but a vast percentege of us, (including myself) are purists. We try not to "bash" PJ, but if you "bash" us in favor of him, we may have no alternative.
Dunadan
01-12-2003, 06:31 PM
Okay then. How do you respond to the criticism that Jackson is simply unable to tell a story?
Several people have made this point on other threads, but not been answered. The main problem is that he totally sacrifices character development for plot, cutting too quickly between scenes and not giving the actors time to shine.
Then he totally fails to convey the plot.
The bits he did lift from the book were usually the wrong bits; "classic" lines to buy off the afficionados but which had no relevance to the story and just confused things. Good example was the 20-second clip of Saruman recruiting the Dunlendings.
Basically, I think Jackson is unable to tell a story properly, which might make him the God of Crap Stories, but not much else.
Don't get me wrong: I think the films are a tremendous achievement, but I think it's in spite of Jackson's direction, not because of it.
cheers
d.
Coney
01-12-2003, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by Sween
didnt that get closed cos we all slagged off BB for been a bit of an idiot?
Probably:D
Edit: Yep it did..........my sincerest apologies BB...........
'tis a shame this thread isn't entitled "PJ is the new Messiah"...at least then we'd be justified in nailing him to a plank;).
Celebréiel
01-12-2003, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by Dunadan
I think the films are a tremendous achievement, but I think it's in spite of Jackson's direction, not because of it.
Hey I like that...well put. I wasnt just talking about Faramir before (even though yeah, from what weve seen the changes were annoying and useless(but ill accept that we should wait until RoTK to finally judge;) )) What about Gimli, Treebeard, Haldir??, Theoden' posession(which I tried to forget it as PJ's interpretations of what happend but its clearly to heighten tension :rolleyes: ) PJ is far from the bestest director ever, hes good and yes he put alot of work and I have loads of respect for the people that worked hard on the movie....but its certainly not with out some major major *major* flaws.
~ Celebréiel :p
Elf Girl
01-12-2003, 07:02 PM
Celebréiel, I completely agree. That post was very well put.
Lizra
01-12-2003, 07:05 PM
I have a problem with these threads because I don't really know what Peter Jackson was thinking. I love the books and the movies. Of the two, I prefer the books, they offer so much more. BUT, I really enjoy the movies, they add a whole new dimension of Tolkien enjoyment via the things that were done right, which is an incredibly long list. I am glad these movies were made. I am not above "cheap thrills" (heck no, I like em! :) ) and will enjoy PJ's movie version of LoTR for many years. I don't really know if Peter Jackson said "Screw the book, I'm making some money here"....Or worked his butt off doing the best he could for ever and a day yet still couldn't bring off a 100% totally correct adaptation of an incredible complex story(s). I get a headache when I try to imagine making LoTR the movie.
Elf Girl
01-12-2003, 07:41 PM
I wonder if PJ referred to the animated versions as he made the films...
Probably not, but interesting to think about.
WallRocker
01-12-2003, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by Dunadan
. The main problem is that he totally sacrifices character development for plot,
I think the films are a tremendous achievement, but I think it's in spite of Jackson's direction, not because of it.
Well spoken. while I don't that PJ did the best job possible, he did have to cater to the Holleywood-ized crowd, who doesn't understand the awesome world Tolkien created(isn't that what we always complain about here?) But I do think that he could have catered a little more to the Tolkien *book* fans.
Black Breathalizer
01-12-2003, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by Dunadan
Okay then. How do you respond to the criticism that Jackson is simply unable to tell a story?
Several people have made this point on other threads, but not been answered. The main problem is that he totally sacrifices character development for plot, cutting too quickly between scenes and not giving the actors time to shine.
Character development in a movie is much different than character development in a book. Jackson communicates a great deal about his characters with brief glances, gestures, and plot points as well as with dialogue. If PJ had really done a horrible job of capturing the characters as you claim, then there is no way in the world that these movies would have captured the imagination of so many people. No matter how great a plot, if moviegoers don't care about the characters, it doesn't matter.
IMHO, Jackson's Gandalf, Aragorn, Frodo, Sam, Legolas, and Boromir are some of the most amazing characters ever seen on film and the others aren't far behind.
azalea
01-12-2003, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by Elf Girl
I wonder if PJ referred to the animated versions as he made the films...
Probably not, but interesting to think about.
Actually, you're right. In the dvds (I forget if it's in the commentary or appendices or both) he says his first intro to Tolkien was seeing Bakshi's LotR. There are two scenes where he specifically says he tried to emulate Bakshi's version: one is at Bilbo's party -- the camera angle when Odo(?) Proudfoot has his feet on the table and says "ProudFEET!" (which was fine IMO), and then again when the four hobbits are hiding from the Black Rider under the tree (again, not something I had a prblem w/ -- it was a really good scene).
But the fact that Bakshi's version of LotR was the first taste of Tolkien PJ had may account for some of the "bad" changes he made -- it kind of shows where he was coming from, as opposed to being someone who would try to stay as close to the book as possible while still making a workable film.
Isn't the scene in Fellowship of the Nazgul repeadtedly stabbing straight down into the hobbits' beds also taken from the Bakshi cartoons? It's been awhile since I saw it, but I could have sworn I'd seen that done before, and I know it isn't in the book.
cassiopeia
01-13-2003, 12:05 AM
Didn't Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh write most of the script? Yes, Peter Jackson had some input, but I was under the impression Philippa and Fran wrote the script and Peter shot it. Philippa was cast as scriptwriter because of her knowledge of The Lord of the Rings. So you have to criticize (or praise) them as well. I think the crew have done a wonderful job of bringing Middle-earth to life. But some of the changes the scriptwriters make don’t make sense. These have been described in other threads, so I won’t repeat them here.
azalea
01-13-2003, 12:27 AM
This is getting a little OT, but I thought it was funny in the dvd when Phillipa is talking about them writing the script, and she describes how she and (I guess) Fran would write a part and then just write [they fight], knowing Peter will take care of doing that part, and Peter would write a scene and then just write [they kiss], leaving that part up to the women. So I think PJ did truly co-write the script, too.
Arathorn
01-13-2003, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by Dúnedain
Well it's funny since the movies were released there has been the biggest influx of Tolkien books bought in the history of Tolkien, how can you clasify bringing that much wealth and love for Tolkien as a bastardization? That is one of the main things I do not understand. Yes, maybe the films do not sit well with some of you, but think about all of the lucky people out there that have now found the very thing that we all love! I do not think it was done for mere money, I mean look at how much time and effort PJ & crew put into this, they worked for 5 years before any filming began! And why? Well, for a few reasons:
1) make the best possible interpretation ON SCREEN for AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE!,
2) to bring forth the world of Tolkien for people who would otherwise know nothing about him and his works.
To me those are two pretty damn solid reasons right there....
I always thought of the movies as an effective marketing tool for the books. The books are soooo good but people tend to shy away from the daunting number of pages. The original publisher, as you all know, cut it up into 3 volumes to make it less daunting. PJ et al, IMO, made eyecandy to seduce the uninterested.
BeardofPants
01-13-2003, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by azalea
I'm having deja vu.
Yeah, me too. I wonder how long this thread will stay open for? :rolleyes:
Dunedain: there's a really good reason why everyone is not taking BB seriously. His rep as a trouble maker precedes him. Check out this (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5636&highlight=Peter+Jackson) thread for more details. He pretends to be Mr. Innocent, but we all know better.
Dunadan
01-13-2003, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Character development in a movie is much different than character development in a book. Jackson communicates a great deal about his characters with brief glances, gestures, and plot points as well as with dialogue. If PJ had really done a horrible job of capturing the characters as you claim, then there is no way in the world that these movies would have captured the imagination of so many people. No matter how great a plot, if moviegoers don't care about the characters, it doesn't matter.
Agreed. However, in a film, I think you have to take more time over it or the audience will not get it. The characters make sense to us because we already know them from the book.
I'm not trashing the film here; I think they did Frodo/Gollum really well, for example, and I love the movies overall. If anything, there needed to be more pruning of content to allow more space for development.
However, I don't think it's possible to argue that the film successfully portrays the strategic aspects of the book (the bluffing game they play with Sauron). This is the essential plot which makes sense of everything else that's going on. The things they replaced it with (e.g. Frodo waving the ring at a Nazgul in Osgiliath) were clumsy, and they only get away with it because no-one knows what's going on anyway so one more inexplicable action piece isn't going to make any difference.
IMHO, Jackson's Gandalf, Aragorn, Frodo, Sam, Legolas, and Boromir are some of the most amazing characters ever seen on film and the others aren't far behind. [/B]
Certainly Sean Bean was tremendous in FOTR, and Ian McKellen dominated TTT; the others were mostly great too, especially Christopher Lee. I suppose I have a slight problem with Frodo: he always seems to have the same expression on his face, and he comes across as a weaker character than in the books.
BTW, I think I joined Entmoot partly because of the debates which BB initiated under the "Jackson has improved Tolkein thread". It doesn't bother me if things get heated along the way and I don't think we should try to censor it in any way (as long as the language stays moderate).
Given there's a new film out, I welcome the chance to revisit the question of how the films enhance (or otherwise) the overall vision of the epic.
cheers
d.
Black Breathalizer
01-13-2003, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by Dunadan
I don't think it's possible to argue that the film successfully portrays the strategic aspects of the book (the bluffing game they play with Sauron). This is the essential plot which makes sense of everything else that's going on. The things they replaced it with (e.g. Frodo waving the ring at a Nazgul in Osgiliath) were clumsy, and they only get away with it because no-one knows what's going on anyway so one more inexplicable action piece isn't going to make any difference.The strategy of the West plays out in ROTK. The bluffing really takes place after Gondor & Company repells the attack from Mordor on Minas Tirith. The only real strategy (if you could call it that) involving Sauron from TTT involved the Palantir and the movie finished before getting to that part.
Dunadan
01-13-2003, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The strategy of the West plays out in ROTK. The bluffing really takes place after Gondor & Company repells the attack from Mordor on Minas Tirith. The only real strategy (if you could call it that) involving Sauron from TTT involved the Palantir and the movie finished before getting to that part.
True, and I can see this may be their intent, but the scene has to be set during TTT, right from the start. What about the Isengard/Mordor rivalry in the orc raid? Because the Uruks get the upper hand, Sauron thinks Saruman may have the Ring. Aragorn is aware of this from the first Chapter of TTT. Then there's Gandalf's summation of the state of play when he appears to Aragorn et al. The strategic importance of Rohan is clear to the reader from Chapter 2, and Saruman's bewitching of Theoden is revealed as part of Sauron's strategy to weaken Gondor. As a result, the book's plot is on a knife-edge; the film's is not.
It may well be that to convey this, the film makers would have to make more changes to the text, not less. Who knows. However, to my mind, TTT is the book which transforms the adventure story into one of strategy and intrigue; TTT the film simply did not achieve this.
Black Breathalizer
01-13-2003, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by Dunadan
What about the Isengard/Mordor rivalry in the orc raid? Because the Uruks get the upper hand, Sauron thinks Saruman may have the Ring. I don't disagree with you. But the trouble Jackson had is that he made it clear in FOTR for purposes of brevity to show the audience that Saruman and Sauron are in league with each other from the start. So the decision was made early on to limit the strategic elements of the story to Saruman's efforts to build an army and destroy Rohan, Theoden's decision to go to Helm's Deep, and the West's efforts to keep Sauron's eye on them and away from the Ringbearer by bringing the war to his gates. It would have been nice to have more but I understand Jackson's decision to simply it for the movies.
Sminty_Smeagol
01-13-2003, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by Sminty_Smeagol
*licks peter jackson's feet* BLESS MY CROPS OH MIGHTY ONE!
Jackson God doesn't like me :( He didn't bless my crops!!!
Wait... I don't have crops. :cool:
Cirdan
01-13-2003, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by Sminty_Smeagol
Jackson God doesn't like me :( He didn't bless my crops!!!
Wait... I don't have crops. :cool:
That's because Lord PJ did not bless you with crops, oh Smited_Sminty_Smeagol.
I suggest a human sacrifice. (hint hint) Don't use the sheep or BoP will be angered. *insert more smiting here*
Sminty_Smeagol
01-13-2003, 02:13 PM
:eek: YOU'RE RIGHT! JACKSON GOD DID NOT BLESS ME WITH CROPS! He must not love me then!! May Jackson God curse himself! I'm not making human sacrifices to such an awful God!
Cirdan
01-13-2003, 02:20 PM
How about a nail clipping then, hmm? Would you sacrifice that for one tiny spoiler pic and text, eh?
*returns to burning sacred crops*
Coney
01-13-2003, 03:57 PM
May Jackson God curse himself! I'm not making human sacrifices to such an awful God!
No need for human sacrifice.......what you need is a goat and a virgin (sex optional).
You kill the goat and *ahem* with the virgin.........not the other way around (very important that);)
Although by the look of PJ your more likely to please him by sacrificing a packet of razor blades and a can of slim-fast:eek:
*getting personal*;)
Sminty_Smeagol
01-13-2003, 04:29 PM
ANY VIRGINS HERE????????
squinteyedsoutherner
01-13-2003, 04:54 PM
I refuse to believe that God wears shorts.
Cirdan
01-13-2003, 05:29 PM
AAAAGHHH!! Those are not the legs of a god.
Coney
01-13-2003, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Cirdan
AAAAGHHH!! Those are not the legs of a god.
Hope not:( ......... no way in the seven hells am I genuflecting before anyone with podgy-hairy-knees;)
durin's bane
01-13-2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Character development in a movie is much different than character development in a book. Jackson communicates a great deal about his characters with brief glances, gestures, and plot points as well as with dialogue. If PJ had really done a horrible job of capturing the characters as you claim, then there is no way in the world that these movies would have captured the imagination of so many people. No matter how great a plot, if moviegoers don't care about the characters, it doesn't matter.
IMHO, Jackson's Gandalf, Aragorn, Frodo, Sam, Legolas, and Boromir are some of the most amazing characters ever seen on film and the others aren't far behind.
No way! He makes Frodo seem like a big baby, rather than the brave, devoted character he is in the books! Frodo is able to bear his Nazgul wound and the Ring with strength! He isn't weak to them! I think PJ did a poor job on Frodo in the movies.
But, that's just my opinion.
Black Breathalizer
01-13-2003, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by durin's bane
No way! He makes Frodo seem like a big baby, rather than the brave, devoted character he is in the books! Frodo is able to bear his Nazgul wound and the Ring with strength! He isn't weak to them! I think PJ did a poor job on Frodo in the movies.
But, that's just my opinion.If Frodo were "visably braver" as you are suggesting, the movies would have felt much less real, IMHO. To me, Elijah Wood does a fantastic job of showing his struggles with fear and doubt. The fact that he continues to quell those fears & doubts and keep going, shows real courage rather than the typical fantasy hero kind. Is it exactly like Tolkien wrote? no. But the type of bravery that Tolkien wrote wouldn't have worked on the big screen. Using his own approach, Jackson made Frodo "work" and that is no small feat.
durin's bane
01-13-2003, 07:16 PM
My goodness, all I was just doing was saying I liked the book Frodo better. Don't take things so seriously, BB. PJ ain't perfect, y'know...
Oh well...the movie Legolas still rules, though...
Coney
01-13-2003, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by Sminty_Smeagol
ANY VIRGINS HERE????????
I thought finding the goat would have been more of a challenge:eek:
Strange place the 'moot..............very strange indeed;)
Cirdan
01-13-2003, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by Coney
I thought finding the goat would have been more of a challenge:eek:
Apparently you haven't tried to find a virgin lately...
Maybe a virgin goat would be the ticket.
The 'Moot 'tis strange but stranger still are the many boxes of lint stacked over there in the corner.
squinteyedsoutherner
01-13-2003, 09:16 PM
OK, now that's really weird.
Sminty_Smeagol
01-13-2003, 09:34 PM
I am a virgin goat! Can I kill myself and appease the JGod?
Coney
01-13-2003, 09:48 PM
Ah well, .............. that would be an ecumenical issue.
BeardofPants
01-14-2003, 01:38 AM
This thread has officially gone to hell. So if PJ is God, then who is Satan? :eek:
crickhollow
01-14-2003, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
I refuse to believe that God wears shorts. that made me laugh out loud.
aw, I hate to spoil your fun, guys, but the thread has gone hopelessly off track...etc, etc, etc.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.