LOTR = Typical Action Films? [Archive]

Black Breathalizer

11-03-2003, 10:03 AM

This quote is from the "Capturing Tolkien's Vision versus..." thread:Originally posted by Nazgul King Squirrel
(Peter Jackson) wanted to make an action movie based on the LotR, not make THE LotR into a movie, that is clear, why do you have such a problem with that? Do you think that, by itself, PJ’s tale becomes shallow, or loses quality?I find it interesting that some of you love to rail against PJ's films for being...gasp...Action movies!!! How dare PJ put in action sequences like the ents attack on Isengard, the battle of Helm's Deep, the wizard's duel, Gandalf versus the Balrog, the cave troll attack, etc., etc., etc.!!! I'll bet that Action film hack Jackson will give us a spider attack and not one but TWO huge battles in ROTK. Yep, any action film gimic for the all-mighty dollar. :rolleyes:

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

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

Nazgul King Squirrel

11-03-2003, 11:13 AM

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

BB you are really amusing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

thranduil

11-03-2003, 12:36 PM

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

GenX

11-03-2003, 02:13 PM

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

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

thranduil

11-03-2003, 02:34 PM

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

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

Black Breathalizer

11-03-2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
Even though some action maybe lengthy in these films I feel they still have meaning and a deeper purpose. There are no movies even similair to these. THe movie keeps a purpose with providing adequate action sequences. These cannot be typical action films, at all. Amen. Reasonable people can disagree over the time spent on the action sequences, but there is no disputing the majority of the action scenes were straight from the books.

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

jerseydevil

11-03-2003, 04:12 PM

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

If you want to call PJ's movies "action stories," that's fine. But then prepare yourself to defend the Tolkien books against the same charge.
Why? There was much more to Tolkiens books than ACTION. Jackson just left out mostly anything that did not have action.

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

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

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

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

thranduil

11-03-2003, 04:20 PM

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

jerseydevil

11-03-2003, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
yes, jackson made many scenes more action oriented than in the books, to please the audience and to keep them entertained. It is true that many parts annoy many book readers, but not all of the changes and additional action scenes were bad. I think that although he added action, it remained its own movie with good plots. Not all of the action was used to look amazing, but to give a feeling of the real danger they had to face, i think.
i think the movie is justa series of loosely - very loosely connected action scenes. I also don't think that is was used to show the real danger. After a whiole with so much danger and no build up - it's just "oh - what now?" The road to Rivendell should have been character development with a lot less action. The black riders were never action villains - they were pyschological and generated fear. This was never shown - because jackson turned the nazgul into action villians.

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

thranduil

11-03-2003, 04:46 PM

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

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

Cassius

11-03-2003, 04:56 PM

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

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

jerseydevil

11-03-2003, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
True, it was overly done. But if you noticed, the nazgul do cause that kind of fear you are talking about as well. Note Butterbur cowering around the corner, obviously terrified, when the wraiths enter the prancing pony. Another is a wraith asks a hobbit (farmer Maggot) for Baggins and the hobbit answers and runs inside. Or in TTT when the wraith flies above Sam, Frodo, and Gollum
Well I would be scared too - but that doesn't mean he portrays the psychological terror they instill. Really - in mordor they're afraid of being seen - not that they feel cold and everything. he made them far more action oriented than they should have been. Fro one thing - in Osgiliation - the Ring Wraith would have instilled fear in all the citizens and fighters and it didn't (not that I think think the osgiliath scene had any place in the movie). That is why the Ring Wraith was used against Gondor - was more to instill fear against Sauron's enemies not to actually fight.

Cassius

11-03-2003, 05:20 PM

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

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

jerseydevil

11-03-2003, 05:25 PM

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

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

Aden

11-03-2003, 07:57 PM

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

thranduil

11-03-2003, 08:02 PM

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

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

Cassius

11-03-2003, 08:19 PM

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

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

thranduil

11-03-2003, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Cassius

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

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

Aden

11-03-2003, 08:39 PM

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

argolath

11-03-2003, 08:56 PM

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

Balrog_of_Morgoth

11-03-2003, 09:02 PM

This is an interesting argument. Personally, I think you are all right to a degree, but none of you are totally right. (and what I'm about to say probably isn't right either, but oh well)

The movies had no choice but to use all those action sequences. Had the scenes from the book been left out, there would be an even greater outcry that PJ had butchered the films. Yes, he added the warg battle - but I personally like that scene a lot. ( I could have done without the cliff fall, though)

It could definitely be argued that Helms Deep drug on a bit. But I would argue that there had to be a center, main plot for the middle movie...something to be the driving force while all the peripheral things were happening. I think it succeeded, though there are many smaller things within this decision that I didn't like.

To have a movie that is within 3 hours and the ridiculously large amount of material to cover, you are faced with very tough decisions. Some would say, "then why add the warg battle," but I think it worked ok. The Aragorn/Arwen thing was very questionable, though. Anyway, nearly all the action scenes were from the books and necessary. The character development has been addressed and vastly improved upon in the extended cut (FOTR) and most likely will be with TTT as well.

Cheers,
BOM

thranduil

11-03-2003, 09:46 PM

true there is no way to please everybody. But what jackson did was take elements essential to the stories plot and combine it with material that would draw non readers to the movies as well. Some say it is pointless action, but that is not so. PJ either had to
1. make a straight from the book story, which would satisfy a few "True Tolkein Followers"
or
2. add some good entertaining action that would produce good scenes and even maybe dissappoint a "few" people by not having it adhere exactly from how Tolkein told it

In scenario two the show is much more entertaining while keeping the same story (mostly), and making a show that many many more people would enjoy.

and I guess scenario 3 would be for PJ to never make the trilogy.

jerseydevil

11-03-2003, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
true there is no way to please everybody. But what jackson did was take elements essential to the stories plot and combine it with material that would draw non readers to the movies as well. Some say it is pointless action, but that is not so. PJ either had to
1. make a straight from the book story, which would satisfy a few "True Tolkein Followers"
or
2. add some good entertaining action that would produce good scenes and even maybe dissappoint a "few" people by not having it adhere exactly from how Tolkein told it

In scenario two the show is much more entertaining while keeping the same story (mostly), and making a show that many many more people would enjoy.

and I guess scenario 3 would be for PJ to never make the trilogy.
No one was asking for a page by page book to movie adaptation. But the fact that jackson had action scene after action scene is ridiculous. Would you not agree that the Gift Giving scene was far more important to the movie than spending 15 minutes on the orc/troll fight in moria?

thranduil

11-03-2003, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
No one was asking for a page by page book to movie adaptation. But the fact that jackson had action scene after action scene is ridiculous. Would you not agree that the Gift Giving scene was far more important to the movie than spending 15 minutes on the orc/troll fight in moria?

True, I'm sorry for being unclear, I didn't mean a true page by page version. And the gift scene was more important than the troll fight, but why bring that up when it is in the special edition. No we don't see them use gifts except the phial in TTT regular edition, but in the extended it shows them use some of there gifts. Which I think is excellent that they have scenes like those in the se. Theyre scenes to please true fans, at least ones who have at least read the books.

jerseydevil

11-03-2003, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
True, I'm sorry for being unclear, I didn't mean a true page by page version. And the gift scene was more important than the troll fight, but why bring that up when it is in the special edition. No we don't see them use gifts except the phial in TTT regular edition, but in the extended it shows them use some of there gifts. Which I think is excellent that they have scenes like those in the se. Theyre scenes to please true fans, at least ones who have at least read the books.
What does it matter that it was in the extended edition - that is not the OFFICIAL version of the movie. The official movie was what was released in the movie theater.

thranduil

11-03-2003, 10:43 PM

so if jackson came out with new footage, that was true with Tolkein and he added it to the movies he made, lets say he deleted arwens scene inserted glorfindel instead, things like that, it wouldn't satisfy you because it wasn't in the "official" movie?

jerseydevil

11-03-2003, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
so if jackson came out with new footage, that was true with Tolkein and he added it to the movies he made, lets say he deleted arwens scene inserted glorfindel instead, things like that, it wouldn't satisfy you because it wasn't in the "official" movie?
BB- sorry Thranduil - no it would not satisfy me. He should have kept in certain parts right from the beginning - that's what movies are judged on. Reviews and awards aren't given on what is left on the cutting room floor. As for Glorfindel - I don't really care that Arwen took his place - as anyone can read in my posts - it's the overblown role that he gave her in the Flight to the Ford scene.

thranduil

11-03-2003, 11:01 PM

Anyways it doesn't matter. Back on subject. Even though Jackson may have changed some of the smallest things into some sort of action, most of all it worked. For example it is quite beleivable that at the council of elrond that there would be contention between the elves and dwarves, and what should be done about the ring. It made it seem more believable, for the screen. I don't agree that Jackson thought that his ideas overruled Tolkeins, but that some instances things should be changed to appear better on the screen. If you catch my meaning. But there can be no excuse for helms deep. But other than that the changes were good, and acceptable.

GenX

11-03-2003, 11:34 PM

A good debate over the effectiveness of the Nazgul. These creatures weren't just brought out from the Grey Heavens, they were tourmented and tortured with the rings they bore for hundreds of years. These creatures want the ring and long for it daily. I think that if I were stuck between living and death forever I would want to kill something too. The portrail of Nazgul as fear driven creatures is ubsurd these guys want some revenge. Jackson does do a good job.

Also I like butterbeer better than butterbur cassius though it is spelled incorrectly Thranduil.

jerseydevil

11-04-2003, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by GenX
A good debate over the effectiveness of the Nazgul. These creatures weren't just brought out from the Grey Heavens, they were tourmented and tortured with the rings they bore for hundreds of years. These creatures want the ring and long for it daily. I think that if I were stuck between living and death forever I would want to kill something too. The portrail of Nazgul as fear driven creatures is ubsurd these guys want some revenge. Jackson does do a good job.

Also I like butterbeer better than butterbur cassius though it is spelled incorrectly Thranduil.
Sorry - but there seems to be a lot of BB look-a-likes on the board lately. Let's see - there is Thranduil, Cassius and now you - all sound the same as BB. As I said in another thread - I wouldn't put it past him to create additonal names to make it seem like he has supporters. :p

As for your nazgul question - the nazgul weren't out for revenge - they were controlled by Sauron and the Ring. No where did Tolkien ever indicate they were physical in their actions. They were a psychological terror and instilled fear in people.

Melko Belcha

11-04-2003, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
As for your nazgul question - the nazgul weren't out for revenge - they were controlled by Sauron and the Ring. No where did Tolkien ever indicate they were physical in their actions. They were a psychological terror and instilled fear in people.

Anyone who has read Letters would know that this is true. Tolkien says that the Nazgul used fear and not phsical action.

And I agree that the action scenes in the movies was over done many times. All the action scenes in the books were blown up and made bigger in the movies.

Tuor of Gondolin

11-04-2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Jerseydevil

"Sorry - but there seems to be a lot of BB look-a-likes on the board lately. Let's see - there is Thranduil, Cassius and now you - all sound the same as BB. As I said in another thread - I wouldn't put it past him to create additonal names to make it seem like he has supporters."
_________________________________________________
Interesting theory.
It is curious that all three appeared virtually simultaneously, sound the same, and one keeps misspelling Tolkien (for deception?). Of course, it could be a coincidence?
__________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

Originally posted by Jerseydevil
"As for your nazgul question - the nazgul weren't out for revenge - they were controlled by Sauron and the Ring. No where did Tolkien ever indicate they were physical in their actions. They were a psychological terror and instilled fear in people."
________________________________________________
Correct. Although they could take physical actions, apparently they fought the Rangers at the fords at Tharbad in daylight (unsuccessfully). And the movie Hobbit headlopping was a bit much, and illogical if they were trying to keep their mission quiet.

hectorberlioz

11-04-2003, 01:42 PM

Black Breathalizer

11-04-2003, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Sorry - but there seems to be a lot of BB look-a-likes on the board lately. Let's see - there is Thranduil, Cassius and now you - all sound the same as BB. As I said in another thread - I wouldn't put it past him to create additonal names to make it seem like he has supporters. Are you serious?!?!? Give me a break. I admit I'm weird but I'm not THAT weird.

But if you want to make absolutely sure that the sudden increase in Tolkien fans who love the films and the books is because of the growing excitement over TTT EX and ROTK and not because of me, then tell your girlfriend detective, Sister Golden Hair, to check out the IP addresses.

To paraphrase a quote from the Highlander series: There can be only one...Black Breathalizer!!! :) :) :)

jerseydevil

11-04-2003, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Are you serious?!?!? Give me a break. I admit I'm weird but I'm not THAT weird.

Could have surprised me. :p

But if you want to make absolutely sure that the sudden increase in Tolkien fans who love the films and the books is because of the growing excitement over TTT EX and ROTK and not because of me, then tell your girlfriend detective, Sister Golden Hair, to check out the IP addresses.

IP addresses are not always accurate. Why would I have SGH check on it anyway? As for your other comment - it does not need to be commented on - although I do like the added "girlfriend detective" :rolleyes:

To paraphrase a quote from the Highlander series: There can be only one...Black Breathalizer!!! :) :) :)
Only one you - multiple personalities though.

Sister Golden Hair

11-04-2003, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Are you serious?!?!? Give me a break. I admit I'm weird but I'm not THAT weird.

But if you want to make absolutely sure that the sudden increase in Tolkien fans who love the films and the books is because of the growing excitement over TTT EX and ROTK and not because of me, then tell your girlfriend detective, Sister Golden Hair, to check out the IP addresses.

To paraphrase a quote from the Highlander series: There can be only one...Black Breathalizer!!! :) :) :) One's too many. FYI, I have already done an IP check with no help from JD. Things seem pretty obvious. Also, the fact that the other three accounts are exactly the same, and yours differs, means nothing. It only means that you may be posting from a different IP. You insult my intelligence. I would have rather told you this in PM, but you have that disabled. Also, multiple accounts is something that is watched and brought to the attention of the rest of the staff. I haven't said anything whatsoever to you BB, so I would thank you to leave me out of your remarks.

thranduil

11-04-2003, 04:12 PM

You are all worrying about nothing. Me and Cassius are not BB. Unless BB has two computers navigating both users, since me and cassius are both here.

Sister Golden Hair

11-04-2003, 04:37 PM

It would be interesting to see all of you on at the same time.

thranduil

11-04-2003, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
It would be interesting to see all of you on at the same time.
really, would it?

jerseydevil

11-04-2003, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
You are all worrying about nothing. Me and Cassius are not BB. Unless BB has two computers navigating both users, since me and cassius are both here.
Sorry - but you guys are never on at the same time. One is online and logs off and then another logs on. That's according to the "Who's online" control.

Radagast The Brown

11-04-2003, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer

But if you want to make absolutely sure that the sudden increase in Tolkien fans who love the films and the books is because of the growing excitement over TTT EX and ROTK and not because of me, then tell your girlfriend detective, Sister Golden Hair, to check out the IP addresses.I do like the movies. But I must say the producers twisted the story, and for me it kinda ruins the movies.
I felt when I saw the movie that we're jumping fro one action scene to another, and my frinds didn't get what's going on there (didn't read the books). It supposed to be an action movie, but it can't be only action. (when I say only action I mean to TTT. FOTR was more 'calm' - but still...)

[edit - SGH, they're goping to tell you they're brothers in a house with one computer:p ]

thranduil

11-04-2003, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Sorry - but you guys are never on at the same time. One is online and logs off and then another logs on. That's according to the "Who's online" control.

Really... You are quite the detective, maybe you should open a thread called who thinks thranduil is BB

Sister Golden Hair

11-04-2003, 06:01 PM

Or better: who thinks Thanduil, Cassius, and GenX, are BB?:)

jerseydevil

11-04-2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Or better: who thinks Thanduil, Cassius, and GenX, are BB?:)
Well I do - but I think I have made that perfectly clear.

thranduil

11-04-2003, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well I do - but I think I have made that perfectly clear.
well thats nice, but next time you make that clear do it in the general message forum.

jerseydevil

11-04-2003, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
well thats nice, but next time you make that clear do it in the general message forum.
Oh - after only 25 posts you have become an admin. :p Give me a break. :rolleyes: I must have hit way too close to the mark for you to get so defensive.

Cirdan

11-04-2003, 06:31 PM

heh, heh me too, JD.

Is it possible these are friends of BB's offspring?

As far as the topic goes, the action is drawn directly from the book, except some of the pointless add-ins like the warg attack and the two dwarf tossing debacles.

The problem arises when action is translated from text to screen. It is one thing to say the battle raged through the night and another to show it. It may be that too much was included in the action scenes making them drag on like a Charlie's Angels sequel.

There is an undeniable tilt towards action at the expense of all else. If it was to be just an action flick it would have been much shorter. It is the inclusion of some of the Tolkienish aspects that makes the movies so long. Those aspects, however, are what the bulk of the audiences came to see. Otherwise it would just be another PotC. Entertaining but not cult-worthy.

thranduil

11-04-2003, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Oh - after only 25 posts you have become an admin. :p Give me a break. :rolleyes: I must have hit way too close to the mark for you to get so defensive.

Im terribly sorry, but just wait one day you will see all four of us on the screen by coincidence, and then what, will you admit you made false accusations?::cool:

jerseydevil

11-04-2003, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
Im terribly sorry, but just wait one day you will see all four of us on the screen by coincidence, and then what, will you admit you made false accusations?::cool:
No - I'll just think that you got enough brains to get some of your friends to go on under the names - instead of you signing on and off to switch names.

thranduil

11-04-2003, 06:45 PM

My opinions aren't even all the same to BB's, as far as I know. I'm not sure but I thought I read that BB thought the movies were better than the books. I'm not sure if that is accurate, but I love the books, much more than the movies. All I have said is that the movies are enjoyable. Yes I like the movies. But BB would not change his opinion under any circumstance, even under another id. As far as I can guess.

jerseydevil

11-04-2003, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
My opinions aren't even all the same to BB's, as far as I know. I'm not sure but I thought I read that BB thought the movies were better than the books. I'm not sure if that is accurate, but I love the books, much more than the movies. All I have said is that the movies are enjoyable. Yes I like the movies. But BB would not change his opinion under any circumstance, even under another id. As far as I can guess.
Good cover. I noticed how you guys seem to seperate yourselves further AFTER I had posted last night that you guys were the same. It's too late to cover your tracks BB.

Sister Golden Hair

11-04-2003, 07:38 PM

Okay, enough. Nomatter if BB is 20 other posters, everyone back on topic. I could have really cared less, until BB made his little remark, but this is not the place to bicker over such silliness. Get back on topic or this thread will be closed. :mad:

Cassius

11-04-2003, 08:37 PM

Jeez people, does the word paranoid ring a bell. "Oh no, more than one person has a different opinion than I do? Heaven Forbid! I do not control everybodies opinion!" Not to mention that we are way way way off the subject by now.:D

Cassius

11-04-2003, 08:43 PM

Now, moving on. If you will remember, the witch king of angmar was forcibly driven out of the north, don't you think that he would have put up a fight to protect himself? And did he send an orc to kill Eowyn? Would he have just stood and let Gandalf wollup him at the gates of Gondor? Just making a point that the nazgul would have to have some fighting skills to make a lot of orcs and other less-than-savory creatures obey their commands. The nazgul you describe sound more like the mouth of sauron who runs from the field as soon as the fighting is about to start.

jerseydevil

11-04-2003, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Cassius
Jeez people, does the word paranoid ring a bell. "Oh no, more than one person has a different opinion than I do? Heaven Forbid! I do not control everybodies opinion!" Not to mention that we are way way way off the subject by now.:D
Nope - I'm not paranoid - and neither is everyone else. We just see through you and your little charade. As far as I'm concerned I'm boycotting your posts and ignoring you, aka BB, Thranduil, Gen-X - I hope everyone else does. There is NO sense in trying to have a discussion with someone who resorts to creating 3 names to back himself up.

Funny - BB - everyone thought you were an adult - I guess they were wrong. :rolleyes:

Earniel

11-05-2003, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Nope - I'm not paranoid - and neither is everyone else. We just see through you and your little charade. As far as I'm concerned I'm boycotting your posts and ignoring you, aka BB, Thranduil, Gen-X - I hope everyone else does. There is NO sense in trying to have a discussion with someone who resorts to creating 3 names to back himself up.

Suppose -just for the sake of the argument if you will- they are indeed seperate posters, whose opinions may correspond for some parts with eachother or who might even know eachother in real life or not. In that case you gave them quite a 'welcome' feeling. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Cirdan
As far as the topic goes, the action is drawn directly from the book, except some of the pointless add-ins like the warg attack and the two dwarf tossing debacles.
I suppose in the case of the warg-attack one can argue it is in exchange for the cut fight with the wolves from FoTR.

I don't really know whether LoTR can be defined as a typical action movie. From my experience most action movies only have a plot as an excuse to film so many minutes of people hitting and shooting eachother and breaking things. Though I agree with Cirdan that LoTR has an undeniable tilt towards action. In regard of the TTT-movie that stands to reason I suppose, the book has many fights: Éomer's battle with the orcs, Helm's Deep, the fight at Isengard and such. Yet personally, I think some action scenes were rather overdone.

jerseydevil

11-05-2003, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by Eärniel
Suppose -just for the sake of the argument if you will- they are indeed seperate posters, whose opinions may correspond for some parts with eachother or who might even know eachother in real life or not. In that case you gave them quite a 'welcome' feeling. :rolleyes:
I think you KNOW perfectly well they are NOT seperate posters. :rolleyes:

Black Breathalizer

11-05-2003, 09:55 AM

When people talk about the overdone action scenes, they point to Helm's Deep and say "it was only one small chapter in the book."

Jackson was making a film that had neither a beginning or an ending. He decided, rightly so, that Helm's Deep was the centerpiece for The Two Towers and the perfect climax to Chapter II. Was he right? Did he succeed? Well, an Academy Award nomination for Best Picture and 800 million-plus in world ticket sales would certainly seem to indicate so. Given the circumstances surrounding this "middle" film of the trilogy, Jackson's success with TTT is nothing short of mindboggling.

Cirdan

11-05-2003, 10:29 AM

Nope. The Shelob's lair chapter is a far better cliff-hanger ending. It wouldn't have fit with the battle scene but then much will be cut out for the TWO battle scenes of RotK. Helm's Deep was just a bit long for my taste. But that is not the point. It is different than a pure action film but that does not mean that the action was not overblown at times.

Maybe it would have actually won the oscar if the editing had been better.:p Hmm... and ticket sales. I guess spiderman is a classic, too.:rolleyes: Your mind must be easily boggled as neither point addresses whether or not it is an action film. Action films win oscars (Gladiator, Braveheart) and sell tickets (take your pick).

thranduil

11-05-2003, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
As far as I'm concerned I'm boycotting your posts and ignoring you, aka BB, Thranduil, Gen-X - I hope everyone else does.
:rolleyes:

Boycott my posts!?!:mad: Are you serious? :confused: Anyways I aggree with Cassius that obviously the nazgul used other teqhniques then there pyschological fear. Although in the books there "sword fighting" is reserved. But that doesn't mean they didn't do it. Like "someone" said, Tolkein didn't describe the birds and the bees of the ents either. Jackson still used there action and instilled terrible fear, yes it may have been toned down. But it was correct to a degree.

Cassius

11-05-2003, 03:36 PM

It is about time you ate your own words Jerseyman. Why would Sauron the great appoint the nazgul as his high servants if all that they could do was screech. Would evil creatures follow something that just screeches? Peter Jackson obviously saw in the writing what the true meaning was.

Earniel

11-05-2003, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I think you KNOW perfectly well they are NOT seperate posters. :rolleyes:

I think I'll reserve my judgement a little longer on this matter.

And I did say suppose in my last post. :)

Furthermore I think we all should drop the debate on who's who and concentrate on the topic at hand as to whether or not the LoTR-movies are action movies.

thranduil

11-05-2003, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Eärniel
I think I'll reserve my judgement a little longer on this matter.

And I did say suppose in my last post. :)

Furthermore I think we all should drop the debate on who's who and concentrate on the topic at hand as to whether or not the LoTR-movies are action movies.

True. Stated like a true Tolkein fan.

Cassius

11-05-2003, 05:22 PM

To respond correctly, we must define what makes an action movie. If an action movie is where one person has a long conflict with another, then all movies are action. Or do you think an action movie is totally devoted to having a whole lot of explosions at the sacrifice of a good storyline? Obviously the movies do not fall into the second.

LOTR has no relation to Lethal Weapon or Die hard, which are the definitive action movies. I think that the movies are more like star wars than those. look at what they have in common:

1. good story
2. okay cast
3. totally redefined the industry
and the list goes on...

They aren't action movies, but they do have some (SOMETIMES too much) action in them.

Nazgul King Squirrel

11-06-2003, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Or better: who thinks Thanduil, Cassius, and GenX, are BB?:)

I do:D

Cirdan
The problem arises when action is translated from text to screen. It is one thing to say the battle raged through the night and another to show it. It may be that too much was included in the action scenes making them drag on like a Charlie's Angels sequel.

There is an undeniable tilt towards action at the expense of all else. If it was to be just an action flick it would have been much shorter. It is the inclusion of some of the Tolkienish aspects that makes the movies so long. Those aspects, however, are what the bulk of the audiences came to see. Otherwise it would just be another PotC. Entertaining but not cult-worthy.

Interesting. But I would point that the emphasis is quite clearly on the action while everything else was much downplayed, to the point that JD included entirely new, unnecessary scenes, (if one wants to defend the theory that he wanted to simply make a movie adaptation) and had changed others to increase the action.

Cassius

11-07-2003, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Nazgul King Squirrel
I do:D

I thought that we dropped this already twice...

Interesting. But I would point that the emphasis is quite clearly on the action while everything else was much downplayed, to the point that JD included entirely new, unnecessary scenes, (if one wants to defend the theory that he wanted to simply make a movie adaptation) and had changed others to increase the action. [/B]

What you have to think about is the audience. All members of this site know that everybody does not have the same opinions. You have to try and please everybody when you make a movie, not just the mainstream Tolkien fanatics like myself and whole family. I was raised on Tolkien's books, not just "The Hobbit" but the LOTR and Silmarillion.

However unfortunate that is that other people do not have that basis, you still have to try and please the Jocks, the teenieboppers, the anarchists, the Women's rights activists and no matter what you do nobody will be totally satisfied.

The movies still could be better, I wanted the Barrows/Bombadil scenes in the movie. It explains how Merry's sword can break the Witch King's immunity. Obviously they didn't put it in, and that doesn't make me or others happy but they had to choose.

jerseydevil

11-07-2003, 02:16 PM

thranduil

11-07-2003, 02:32 PM

Cassius have you not read any of JD's quotes. Apparently not because if you had, you would not have mentioned anything from the Extended Editions. Apparently only what was shown in theaters counts. lol!

Originally posted by jerseydevil
What does it matter that it was in the extended edition - that is not the OFFICIAL version of the movie. The official movie was what was released in the movie theater.

Bacchus

11-07-2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
Cassius have you not read any of JD's quotes. Apparently not because if you had, you would not have mentioned anything from the Extended Editions. Apparently only what was shown in theaters counts. lol!
I find that a curious argument, considering the number of times i've seen JD complain about lembas-induced flatulence.

jerseydevil

11-07-2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
Cassius have you not read any of JD's quotes. Apparently not because if you had, you would not have mentioned anything from the Extended Editions. Apparently only what was shown in theaters counts. lol!
It doesn't matter - because the only people who know anything about what happens in the extended edition are those who have seen it. Everyone who has seen the movies - extended or otherwise - can follow the theaterical versions - because nothing was taken out of the extended edition.

You can't assume people know anything about Merry and Pippin's swords or any of galadriels gifts - because it was not in the theatrical release. :rolleyes:

jerseydevil

11-07-2003, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Bacchus
I find that a curious argument, considering the number of times i've seen JD complain about lembas-induced flatulence.
It was just something that I think deserved to be kept on the cutting room floor. It should NOT have been put into the extended edition, it had no place in Lord of the Rings period. That scene just demonstrates what kind of director Jackson is and what kind of movie he wanted to make. If he had any real love for Tolkien that scene would never have even been written into the script - let alone filmed.

Cirdan

11-07-2003, 02:57 PM

I'm pretty sure that Merry and Pippen lose their elven blades since the sheaths are found by the three hunters in the orc pyre. PJ stated he doesn't like magic so they will find some other way to kill the witchking. Maybe it will be attributed to Eowyn's estrogen power over the wraiths.

thranduil

11-07-2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Cirdan
I'm pretty sure that Merry and Pippen lose their elven blades since the sheaths are found by the three hunters in the orc pyre. PJ stated he doesn't like magic so they will find some other way to kill the witchking. Maybe it will be attributed to Eowyn's estrogen power over the wraiths.

Cirdan you have a good theory, but I really hope that your wrong.:D I just want the little hobbit to play a part in destroying the witch king. He had better contribute in one way or another. I mean PJ better not take out one of the most important things he did in the book!

jerseydevil

11-07-2003, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by Cirdan
I'm pretty sure that Merry and Pippen lose their elven blades since the sheaths are found by the three hunters in the orc pyre. PJ stated he doesn't like magic so they will find some other way to kill the witchking. Maybe it will be attributed to Eowyn's estrogen power over the wraiths.
It is funny how Jackson says he doesn't like magic -and then gives us the Wiazrds Duels (where he made the statement in the commentary :rolleyes:), Saruman causing the storm over Caradhras, the great and wonderful exorcism of Theoden. :rolleyes: And people still think that Jackson isn't full of **** when he talks.

jerseydevil

11-07-2003, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
I mean PJ better not take out one of the most important things he did in the book!
Why not? He took one of Frodo's greatest parts and gave it to Arwen. :rolleyes: Why are people so surprised by what Jackson does or say "Jackson better not do that - it's a key moment in the story" after seeing what he did to Flight to the Ford.

Bacchus

11-07-2003, 03:08 PM

I'm neither defending nor disparaging the shot. I do, however, consider the frequent references to it as evidence of the hack job PJ is alleged to have performed inconsistent with the cavalier dismissal of, for example, the gift scene as shown in the EE.

I will not waste my time trying to persuade you that PJ did a pretty good job on balance. You have a different opinion, and I respect that. However, I ask that you respect my opinion, as a dyed in the wool Tolkien fan, that the movie does a pretty good job of portraying LOTR. Would I have done certain things differently? Probably. Does the fact that PJ changed certain plot elements in any way detract from the books? Not at all. In fact, the existence of the movies enhances the books, in that readers who would never have read them now seek them out. My wife is a prime example. I've been trying for years to get her to read Tolkien, with no success. After seeing the movies, she has read not only LOTR, but is working on the Sil as well. If for no other reason, I am grateful for PJ for that.

thranduil

11-07-2003, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It is funny how Jackson says he doesn't like magic -and then gives us the Wiazrds Duels (where he made the statement in the commentary :rolleyes:), Saruman causing the storm over Caradhras, the great and wonderful exorcism of Theoden. :rolleyes: And people still think that Jackson isn't full of **** when he talks.

As for Saruman causing the storm over Caradhras. Jackson if he was to have the scene in the movie. Had to make a decision of follow Tolkein or please the audience more and make it more reasonable. In the book the mountain itself is trying to destroy the travelers. And it seemed more realistic and reasonable for Jackson to just have someone the audience knows is a wizard to be changing the wheather with his power to try and stop the fellowship.

And for some reason I wouldn't really call an exorcism magic.:D

Cirdan

11-07-2003, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Why not? He took one of Frodo's greatest parts and gave it to Arwen. :rolleyes: Why are people so surprised by what Jackson does or say "Jackson better not do that - it's a key moment in the story" after seeing what he did to Flight to the Ford.

Just wait until Arwen decides to have the sword reforged and trot it on down to Minas Tirith. If that doesn't make you ill...

jerseydevil

11-07-2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Bacchus
I'm neither defending nor disparaging the shot. I do, however, consider the frequent references to it as evidence of the hack job PJ is alleged to have performed inconsistent with the cavalier dismissal of, for example, the gift scene as shown in the EE.

I'm saying the gift giving scene doesn't matter as an overall plot element for the average movie goer since it was not included in the theatrical release. You can not say - well it was included in the extended edition - or jackson will fix it in the extended edition. The scene should have been in the theatrical release - that is my complaint. Most people do not know where Sam got the rope or anything without having seen the extended edition.

I will not waste my time trying to persuade you that PJ did a pretty good job on balance. You have a different opinion, and I respect that. However, I ask that you respect my opinion, as a dyed in the wool Tolkien fan, that the movie does a pretty good job of portraying LOTR.

I'm not saying anything disparaging toward your opinion. I just don't happen to agree with you on some things.

Would I have done certain things differently? Probably. Does the fact that PJ changed certain plot elements in any way detract from the books? Not at all. In fact, the existence of the movies enhances the books, in that readers who would never have read them now seek them out. My wife is a prime example. I've been trying for years to get her to read Tolkien, with no success. After seeing the movies, she has read not only LOTR, but is working on the Sil as well. If for no other reason, I am grateful for PJ for that.
See - the goal of the movie - was to bring Lord of the Rings to the screen. I've read the books 12 times. I wanted to see it brought to life. I really don't care about whether it brings more tolkien fans or makes more people read the books - I get no money out of it. I wanted to see - a more closer, more intelligent movie than the lame jokes (dwarf tossing, merry and pippin being town idiots in FotR), lame stunts (snowboarding down the stairs), action movie that jackson created.

jerseydevil

11-07-2003, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
As for Saruman causing the storm over Caradhras. Jackson if he was to have the scene in the movie. Had to make a decision of follow Tolkein or please the audience more and make it more reasonable. In the book the mountain itself is trying to destroy the travelers. And it seemed more realistic and reasonable for Jackson to just have someone the audience knows is a wizard to be changing the wheather with his power to try and stop the fellowship.

Whether the mountain was the one causing the storm or whether it was giants or whether it was just a normal storm - it did not have to be SARUMAN. Not after the little comment by Jackson about how much he hated cheap wizard magic. I wouldn't have had so much of a problem with that scene if he wasn't such an out and out liar and people fell for his proganda so easily.

And for some reason I wouldn't really call an exorcism magic.:D
Then what would you consider that hack job of a scene?

thranduil

11-07-2003, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
[B]I'm saying the gift giving scene doesn't matter as an overall plot element for the average movie goer since it was not included in the theatrical release. You can not say - well it was included in the extended edition - or jackson will fix it in the extended edition. The scene should have been in the theatrical release - that is my complaint. Most people do not know where Sam got the rope or anything without having seen the extended edition.

B]

Let me ask you one question Jersey Devil. What average movie goer who hasn't read the books gives a whoot where Sam got the rope. The only scene I even have seen a rope is around gollum. A very short scene, in which the audience assumes Sam packed some rope.

But speaking of ropes. I'm excited to see the repelling scene in E.E.
Even if it wasn't in the theaters.:D

Cassius

11-07-2003, 03:37 PM

What do the elven blades have to do with anything about the Witch King's death?! It was the numenorean daggers that broke the spell, i don't think that Jackson wanted to use the elven weapons instead.

If Jackson does soo much propoganda then why hasn't he won best director? We all know that if he was such a propaganda-meister then he obviously would've sucked up to the academy people to get an award. I don't know what you are talking about with the "cheap wizard magic" lying stuff.

There is no way that he can be such an all out liar like you say without making the movies into one and totally changing the plot and everything. He obviously has respect for Tolkien's work or he wouldn't have used the real Tokien language he would have concocted his own and taken credit for the whole thing.

jerseydevil

11-07-2003, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Cassius
What do the elven blades have to do with anything about the Witch King's death?! It was the numenorean daggers that broke the spell, i don't think that Jackson wanted to use the elven weapons instead.

So then a normal blade is going to kill the witch king? or is it just going to be some blade lying on the ground? :rolleyes:

If Jackson does soo much propoganda then why hasn't he won best director? We all know that if he was such a propaganda-meister then he obviously would've sucked up to the academy people to get an award. I don't know what you are talking about with the "cheap wizard magic" lying stuff.

He did suck up to them during FotR - it's just that a BETTER director and BETTER movie won. LotR nor him should have even been nominated - as I said in the FotR. He claimed he wasn't going to play the hollywood politics for TT. Academy Awards Thread (http://www.entmoot.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4028)

There is no way that he can be such an all out liar like you say without making the movies into one and totally changing the plot and everything. He obviously has respect for Tolkien's work or he wouldn't have used the real Tokien language he would have concocted his own and taken credit for the whole thing.
Using language from the books does not make him true to Tolkien. What would have made it true to tolkien would not have been not to make Aragorn running from his heritage, not having cheap dwarf jokes, not having farting (even if it was in the extended edition) not having merry and pippin town idiots, not changing everything meaningful scene into an action scene.

Bacchus

11-07-2003, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm saying the gift giving scene doesn't matter as an overall plot element for the average movie goer since it was not included in the theatrical release. You can not say - well it was included in the extended edition - or jackson will fix it in the extended edition. The scene should have been in the theatrical release - that is my complaint. Most people do not know where Sam got the rope or anything without having seen the extended edition.
Of course, Sam's rope was not included in the theatrical version of TTT, so that doesn't matter, by your logic.

I'm not saying anything disparaging toward your opinion. I just don't happen to agree with you on some things.
Not directly, no. But you have implied (or at least I have inferred) that no 'true' fan of the books could possibly have liked the movie.

See - the goal of the movie - was to bring Lord of the Rings to the screen. I've read the books 12 times. I wanted to see it brought to life. I really don't care about whether it brings more tolkien fans or makes more people read the books - I get no money out of it. I wanted to see - a more closer, more intelligent movie than the lame jokes (dwarf tossing, merry and pippin being town idiots in FotR), lame stunts (snowboarding down the stairs), action movie that jackson created.
I've lost count of my readings, but it is certainly in excess of 30. I've taken a college class on Tolkien, and I've been active in the online Tolkien communities for several years. I can more or less quote any scene from the books you ask. I can argue minutiae with the best of them. I consider myself a purist in the interpretation of Tolkien's writings.
As news filtered out from the project over the past few years, however, I found myself facing a decision. I could lament the inevitable changes (Elijah Wood as Frodo absolutely drove me nuts-Frodo is 50, not 20!), or I could set aside my biases and attempt to enjoy the film without interpreting it as an attack on the beloved books. Even so, the first time I watched FOTR, it required an effort to disconnect myself from the books. After all, lines were being spoken by different characters, and at different times. Some of the effects were distracting (Gandalf at Bag End, Arwen in the Trollshaws, and Galadriel at the Mirror, for example). On balance, however, I believe that the movies have thus far done quite a good job of portraying the essence of Middle earth-the sorrow of the Elves, the desparate Quest against overwhelming evil, and the struggles of Frodo, even if some of the particulars are disappointing.

Cirdan

11-07-2003, 03:56 PM

The best psrt about choosing this particular book is it came with a ready-nmade cult followingf that guranteed to fill the seats. People alway say the changes were to popularize the material. It was really only to expand the already existing fan base. Notice that the extended versions are designed to appease hard core tolkienites.

The gift giving scene is not critical because, for instance, Frodo can say, "Oh, here's that phial galadriel gave me before we left Lorien" and it fits in either edition.

PJ doesn't lie as much as he pitches to different audiences. This is part of the promotional aspect expected to sell the film. I saw one interview, in "From page to Screen" where he really played up "sticking to the text" while on the DVD he plays up not being confined to the text; making changes for the sake of change. It's not so much lying as it is... sales.

Cassius

11-07-2003, 03:58 PM

Amen

thranduil

11-07-2003, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil

Using language from the books does not make him true to Tolkien. What would have made it true to tolkien would not have been not to make Aragorn running from his heritage, not having cheap dwarf jokes, not having farting (even if it was in the extended edition) not having merry and pippin town idiots, not changing everything meaningful scene into an action scene.

Yes we all agree with you that these parts may not have been necessary. But heaven forbid they showed up in the movie anyways. Its a choice of looking past these changes and seeing the big picture, or else to despise these films.

"It is strange that we should suffer so much fear and doubt over such a small a thing."

Cassius

11-07-2003, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So then a normal blade is going to kill the witch king? or is it just going to be some blade lying on the ground? :rolleyes:

I wonder about you sometimes:rolleyes:. I just JUST barely reread ROTK and it mentions (not to mention Tom Bombadil) that the numenoreans enchanted their weapons for the fall of sauron and to repel evil. Lying on the ground indeed. You can reread the Eowyn-Witch King battle and afterwards you would notice that Merry's Numenorean sword with the red gem is writhing on the ground after striking the witch king with it.

Bacchus

11-07-2003, 04:07 PM

jerseydevil

11-07-2003, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Cirdan
The best psrt about choosing this particular book is it came with a ready-nmade cult followingf that guranteed to fill the seats. People alway say the changes were to popularize the material. It was really only to expand the already existing fan base. Notice that the extended versions are designed to appease hard core tolkienites.

yes - they were to appease the tolkien fans. jackson knows he didn't make most of the fans happy with the movies. he knows people have serious problems with the Flight to the Ford scene. of course he still acts like "oh I can't do that change - the fans will have my head".. Well I think forwhat he did at the Flight to the Ford scene - the least we can get is his head.

The gift giving scene is not critical because, for instance, Frodo can say, "Oh, here's that phial galadriel gave me before we left Lorien" and it fits in either edition.

The phial is the only thing they show in the theatrical release. The gift giving scene should have been included - especially after having that aweful negative "queen" scene at the Mirror. He turned galadriel into this very cold, witch character.

PJ doesn't lie as much as he pitches to different audiences. This is part of the promotional aspect expected to sell the film. I saw one interview, in "From page to Screen" where he really played up "sticking to the text" while on the DVD he plays up not being confined to the text; making changes for the sake of change. It's not so much lying as it is... sales.
Hence I use the word propaganda. Call it what you will. I know what it takes to sell movies too. Like I said - my sister worked in a PR firm in hollywood and handled the promotion for The Mummy II.

azalea

11-07-2003, 04:11 PM

I just have to say this: Pippin *burps*. That doesn't make it much better, but still...let's be accurate. ;)
Pj obviously has a "thing" for burping (would that count as "action?" ;) ), as he has included one in every version of each film -- he did it in FotR theatrical, Pippin in the Fotr EE, Gimli in TTT, and I bet he'll have one in the TT EE. My guess would be Merry or Pippin in the Flotsam and Jetsam scene. I thought it was stupid to have this in the movies; I just :rolleyes: when it happens.

jerseydevil

11-07-2003, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Cassius
I wonder about you sometimes:rolleyes:. I just JUST barely reread ROTK and it mentions (not to mention Tom Bombadil) that the numenoreans enchanted their weapons for the fall of sauron and to repel evil. Lying on the ground indeed. You can reread the Eowyn-Witch King battle and afterwards you would notice that Merry's Numenorean sword with the red gem is writhing on the ground after striking the witch king with it.
What does that have to do with what I said? I'm asking where is merry going to get this blade. Or is it just going to appear out of thin air for him. I was being facetious as to what Jackson would do. You know - Numernorean blades weren't just lying around all over the place. :rolleyes:

Sister Golden Hair

11-07-2003, 04:12 PM

Something I have known from the beginning is that the movies were not made in particular for the book fans, but I think there was always the element in them that the book fans would embrace them, which some have and some haven't. I think it is safe to say though that no true book fan has embraced them completely. It's a lot easier to accept the movies as is, if you haven't read the books, than it is to expect a book fan of many years and readings to do the same. Not all of the movie is bad. Not all of the movie is good. It is what it is. If you are a movie fan only, (superb.) A book fan? Well, (mediocre.)

jerseydevil

11-07-2003, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Bacchus
I think that this is rather understated. The fact is that the preexisting LOTR fan base is rather irrelevant to the success of the films. At a guess, perhaps 10% of the moviegoers have actually read the books. If New Line had assumed that only readers of the books would see the movie, it never would have been made.
It's no irrelevant - because it was the BOOK fans who went over and over and over again. If you look at my past post - I saw FotR 7 times in the theater trying to like it. i really wanted to like ti - but it's just a dumbed down action movie - when it should have been so much more. It wasn't from the one time non-book fans that they go their money from - it was from the book fans repeatedly going to see the movie.

As I said when FotR came out - I had one friend tell me it reminded him of Fast and Furiious. :rolleyes:

Cassius

11-07-2003, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Bacchus
I think that this is rather understated. The fact is that the preexisting LOTR fan base is rather irrelevant to the success of the films. At a guess, perhaps 10% of the moviegoers have actually read the books. If New Line had assumed that only readers of the books would see the movie, it never would have been made.

That is one of the points that I am trying to get across. The cost of making the movie as it was almost put New Line into Bankruptcy You have to appease the masses and all of their extentions (activists etc...) to make it work. There simply aren't enough of us fans to make up all of the cost if we all went five times. What else is important is that after watching the movies more people read the books and learned what it was all about. Sales of the books have gone up almost exponentially since the movies came out since people want to read them now that they know the basics of the plot and have some images to put to mind when they think of the master's ideas.

jerseydevil

11-07-2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
If you are a movie fan only, (superb.) A book fan? Well, (mediocre.)
Which is what I have always considered them. I have ALWAYS stated that I give them a C. They're just average movies. Nothing spectacular - except for some of the special effects.

thranduil

11-07-2003, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by azalea
I just have to say this: Pippin *burps*. That doesn't make it much better, but still...let's be accurate. ;)
Pj obviously has a "thing" for burping (would that count as "action?" ;) ), as he has included one in every version of each film -- he did it in FotR theatrical, Pippin in the Fotr EE, Gimli in TTT, and I bet he'll have one in the TT EE. My guess would be Merry or Pippin in the Flotsam and Jetsam scene. I thought it was stupid to have this in the movies; I just :rolleyes: when it happens.

And don't forget Jackson himself burping in Bree.:D As some may know in many countries it is polite to burp, it shows you enjoyed the food. Okay fine it has nothing to do with pippin burping. But since it wasn't in theaters it doesn't matter,right,....right......AM I RIGHT JERSEY DEVIL!:D

Cassius

11-07-2003, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It's no irrelevant - because it was the BOOK fans who went over and over and over again. If you look at my past post - I saw FotR 7 times in the theater trying to like it.

Your seven times doesn't really matter and it isn't irrellevent. Those stats alone are the basis for how and why the movie was made the way it was. Maybe if Bill Gates funded it with his whole fortune and decided to become Ghandi could it have been done for the book fans alone.

Of course Bill funding it would pose an even bigger problem, won't say why.

Cassius

11-07-2003, 04:23 PM

jerseydevil

11-07-2003, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
And don't forget Jackson himself burping in Bree.:D As some may know in many countries it is polite to burp, it shows you enjoyed the food. Okay fine it has nothing to do with pippin burping. But since it wasn't in theaters it doesn't matter,right,....right......AM I RIGHT JERSEY DEVIL!:D
It doesn't matter - although the scene should not have even have been in the extended edition either. It was completely out of place for Lord of the Rings.

As for bree and Jackson burping - well he's just a pig. I do have a problem with bree overall - because Jackson again stretched Tolkiens story. he made it into the cliched dark dreary town. It wasn't described like that in the books. :rolleyes:

jerseydevil

11-07-2003, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Cassius
Your seven times doesn't really matter and it isn't irrellevent. Those stats alone are the basis for how and why the movie was made the way it was.

Oh - I thought I was actually supposed to LIKE the film? I didn't know it was made that way to get me into the theater so I can go "Please just let me like it - I really have been waiting for this - and all I want is to like it." :rolleyes: And then when the flight to the ford scene comes and the pippin and merry idiots appear on screen - I just have to say - damn this sucks.

Maybe if Bill Gates funded it with his whole fortune and decided to become Ghandi could it have been done for the book fans alone.

if Bill Gates made the movie - it would have dialog cutting out every so often or something. Microsoft can't even develop good software - I hardly except bill gates to be able to do a movie.

thranduil

11-07-2003, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil

As for bree and Jackson burping - well he's just a pig. I do have a problem with bree overall - because Jackson again stretched Tolkiens story. he made it into the cliched dark dreary town. It wasn't described like that in the books. :rolleyes:

The weather and time that the scene took place in Bree does not mean Jackson stretched it. Look it was raining and it was night time, is that what makes it dark and dreary to you? I don't get it. Or because there were some ruff looking people in Bree. If so you have no argument with that point. Since all kinds of people could be at an inn. I just don't see how Jackson made the town different. Please explain.

thranduil

11-07-2003, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil

if Bill Gates made the movie - it would have dialog cutting out every so often or something. Microsoft can't even develop good software - I hardly except bill gates to be able to do a movie.

If Bill Gates roomed with Tolkein and got wind of the books he was writing..... oh too terrible to think...nnoo!!!! No! Don't Think it!

Lord of the Rings
by
Bill Gates
aka theif

Cassius

11-07-2003, 04:36 PM

I think what Jackson was trying to display was how inhospitable the weather and how much a nice warm bed in an inn would be welcome after a long scary soujorn through the wilderness. Anywhere, even home is dreary when it is dark and rainy.

Cassius

11-07-2003, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
if Bill Gates made the movie - it would have dialog cutting out every so often or something. Microsoft can't even develop good software - I hardly except bill gates to be able to do a movie.

Neither do I, it just represents the sillyness and futility to even think that you can try and please the book fans alone without wasting money.

thranduil

11-07-2003, 04:58 PM

waiting for any argument for Bree. ahem, cough, Jersey Devil, cough. Or any new scene that hasn't been debated to shreads.

jerseydevil

11-07-2003, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
The weather and time that the scene took place in Bree does not mean Jackson stretched it. Look it was raining and it was night time, is that what makes it dark and dreary to you? I don't get it. Or because there were some ruff looking people in Bree. If so you have no argument with that point. Since all kinds of people could be at an inn. I just don't see how Jackson made the town different. Please explain.
Well- for one thing it was NOT raining in the book.

It was dark and white stars were shining, when frodo and his companions came at last to the Greenway-crossing and drew near the village.

See - Jackson intensified the mood - different than what Tolkien had - just like he had intesified so many other things.

The hobbits rode on up the gentle slope, passing a few detached houses and drew up outside the inn....

Even from the outside the inn looked a pleasant house to familiar eyes. It had a front on the Road, and two wings running back on land partly cut out of the lower slopes of the hill, so that at the rear of the second-floor windows were level with the ground. There was a wide arch leading to a courtyard between the two wings, and the left under the arch there as a large doorway reached by a few broad stairs...

As they hesitated outside the gloom, someone began singing a merry song inside, and many cheerful voice joined loudly in the chorus.

No where does it describe the place as rainy or anything. Yes - it includes the word gloomy - it was night time. Also - the hobbits weren't use to see such large houses.

Cassius

11-07-2003, 05:08 PM

Good point, and i can see where I am beaten on this subject which is off of the subject anyways.... but the town was built to look scary and oppressive in the movies. I know it didn't rain, but my point was and is that skipping all of the dark parts in the barrows, maybe he wished to intensify the feeling of unhappiness. I am not justifying it, I am giving it purpose. these are just my own theories so don't take it for Jackson gospel, if there is such a ridiculous thing.**coughBBisthepastorcough**

*note* I ,unlike BB, will accept when they are wrong and not continually say "I am right and you are wrong" even when I know I am wrong.

thranduil

11-07-2003, 05:11 PM

Perfect argument! See in the book it also talks more about Bill Ferny and the Foreigner eyeing them closer. As well as after Frodo has the ring on. Everyone gets very upset, even Butterbur has a talk with Frodo about never doing anything like that again. The mood very well could be dark. As well as no news from Gandalf along with Merry missing. It is very dark and dreary in the books as well. I see nothing that implements Bree was all merry and happy except the quote you said about the people merrily singing inside. Since the a dark sky with some stars really doesn't lighten the mood much.

Cassius

11-07-2003, 05:17 PM

Back on the subject. As I said earlier you need to define action in moviemaking. From what I know, the movies are not a bunch of "loosely connected action scenes" and the show does have a plot unlike "die hard" or "lethal weapon" which are both about get revenge and kill lots of stuff and blow up people every ten minutes. If it was just action then the movie would have been half as long and skipped the story. Gandalf would know karate, the hobbits would do matrix stuff, and the elves would dress like 10th century english punk rockers with 'tude.

thranduil

11-07-2003, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Cassius

*note* I ,unlike BB, will accept when they are wrong and not continually say "I am right and you are wrong" even when I know I am wrong.

BB admits when he is wrong, you just don't see him admit being wrong much because in a debate it is almost unheard of for some to say " alright I give up. You got me."
where is BB anyways? Did he just feel he doesn't need to come because other people are defending the movies now? And don't say "ha ha, but he is here, cuz your here! ha, I'm so funny.":mad:

Cassius

11-07-2003, 05:21 PM

I have to agree with that last part. We are all sick of being called one person and no I havn't seen BB admit he is wrong.

Cirdan

11-07-2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Cassius
I have to agree with that last part. We are all sick of being called one person and no I havn't seen BB admit he is wrong.

Maybe after 200 or so posts, then he goes right back to it in another thread. I'm not sure what he really believes, other than he thinks "purists are snob in their Ivory Towers" or some such nonsense. He desparately wants to wedge movie fans from book fans. Problem is people don't come here to be wedged. The truth is that there is every shade of grey on how people feel about the book versus the movie thing.

As to the issue of the fan base. You must remember that this book has been around a while and done very well without advertisement. People have taken their children to see it because they enjoyed it as children. Word of mouth and reputation. The buzz was there because of the fan base. Popularity works this way. Recognition and word of mouth combined with the movies media blitz makes a powerful statement. If the movies had been made about some unknown book, by some unknown director, with no major stars, do you really think anyone would be lining up on the first day, pushing the boxoffice through the roof? Almost everyone in line for The FotR had read the book. I glad others jumped on the bandwagon and enjoyed the movie and eventually the book.

This was far from a long shot, except making it as a trilogy, with PJ desersve kudos for pushing, as the story would make no sense in a short film. It was fortunate the project came up during the economic bubble or it might not have been made.

thranduil

11-07-2003, 06:29 PM

[The hobbits rode on up a gentle slope, passing a few detached houses, and drew up outside the inn.

why didn't you keep on going, since you didn't I will.

The houses looked large and strange to them. Sam stared up at the inn with its three storeys nad many windows, and felt his heart sink. He had imagined himself meeting giants taller than trees, and other creatures even more terrifying, some time or other in the course of his journey; but at the moment he was finding his first sight of Men and their tall houses quite enough, indeed too much for the dark end of a tiring day. he pictured black horses standing all saddled in the shadows of the inn-yard, and Black Riders peering out of dark upper windows.

Too me, at least. That dampens the mood a little bit. And I would even go as far to call the mood dark. Yes the hobbits relax inside for a small time in a sense of false comfort. Given to them by the cheeriness and warmth in the inn. But the comfort is taken from them suddenly when Frodo does a dissapearing act. Yes it is not altogether the atmoshpere of Bree that causes the darkness, but the actions that happen with Frodo/ ring/ merry/ aragorn/ Bill Ferny/ southener. etc. that happened inside of Bree.

jerseydevil

11-07-2003, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
Too me, at least. That dampens the mood a little bit. And I would even go as far to call the mood dark. Yes the hobbits relax inside for a small time in a sense of false comfort. Given to them by the cheeriness and warmth in the inn. But the comfort is taken from them suddenly when Frodo does a dissapearing act. Yes it is not altogether the atmoshpere of Bree that causes the darkness, but the actions that happen with Frodo/ ring/ merry/ aragorn/ Bill Ferny/ southener. etc. that happened inside of Bree.
Yes - but the black riders weren't there. There were other ways of doing it. No where do you get the feeling in the movie of black riders being around every corner. You only get a sense of a very rough town. There is a difference in what that paragraph describes and the overall mood that Jackson created.

Having a DESOLATE town with most people going to sleep - with shadows and hearing doors slam or hoofs in the distance or horses neighing would have generated the fear that is descibed by Tolkien. it would have given the sense that they were alone - walking into the unknown. he should have had them walking alone - with the hobbits straring up at the windows and the houses. But no - Jackson didn't do any of that. He went for rain and people lying drunk in the streets instead. The typical D&D rouffian town - with thieves and beggars. :rolleyes:

thranduil

11-07-2003, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
No where do you get the feeling in the movie of black riders being around every corner.

What say you to this?

'Well, we can only hope the Riders won't come back yet,' said Frodo.

Frodo is referring to how fast Bill will get news to the riders. So untill now there really isn't much talk about Black Riders in Bree. (and this is quite a ways into the night.) Not even in the book does it give you a feeling of black riders around every corner. And after the hobbits turn in the movie depicts the Riders entering the Prancing Pony and shows what Tolkien said happened.

the windows had been forced open and were swinging , and the curtains were flapping; the beds were tossed about, and the bolsters slashed and flung upon the floor; the brown mat was torn to peices

This is the only part that has any actual events in Prancing Pony done by the riders, which note, PJ included this section quite accurately.

jerseydevil

11-07-2003, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
What say you to this?

But they NEVER actually SAW the riders in Bree until Merry went out walking by himself. What I quoted and what you quoted was from the beginning of Bree when they were ENTERING the town. They didn't know the black riders ever came around until after talking to Butterbur AFTER they were in their room with Strider.

Frodo is referring to how fast Bill will get news to the riders. So untill now there really isn't much talk about Black Riders in Bree. (and this is quite a ways into the night.) Not even in the book does it give you a feeling of black riders around every corner. And after the hobbits turn in the movie depicts the Riders entering the Prancing Pony and shows what Tolkien said happened.

It does too give the feeling that black riders are hiding behind every corner in the VERY SAME quote you quoted in the previous post.

...he pictured black horses standing all saddled in the shadows of the inn-yard, and Black Riders peering out of dark upper windows.

Looks to me as if Sam is looking around and picturing black riders behind every corner. It could have been a very tenseful moment with them staring up at the tall buildings (sort of what I notice people from the midwest and other parts of the country doing when they see NY for the first time). They were alone walking the streets - knowing they were being followed. It was a tense moment in the book. Something that Jackson did NOT bring out on the screen. :rolleyes:

This is the only part that has any actual events in Prancing Pony done by the riders, which note, PJ included this section quite accurately.
Bree could have had the mystery it had in the book and the fear the hobbits had walking into the unknown. As I said - instead jackson made it a typical D&D ruffian town with the cliched rain.

thranduil

11-07-2003, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by thranduil

Frodo is referring to how fast Bill will get news to the riders. So untill now there really isn't much talk about Black Riders in Bree. (and this is quite a ways into the night.) Not even in the book does it give you a feeling of black riders around every corner. And after the hobbits turn in the movie depicts the Riders entering the Prancing Pony and shows what Tolkien said happened.

Believe me or not, I did take that into consideration before I posted and originally had "So untill now there really isn't much talk about Black Riders in Bree." (unless you count Sams Imagination) so on.........

I thought it was quite worthless keeping that in so I deleted it, obviously I was wrong.

My point was the hobbits were frightened when coming to Bree. (Sams thoughts) Next was that they had a false sense of comfort. They felt everything was great and we have no reason to feel that the ring wraiths are around every corner. (the reader doesn't even know) Because in the books it gives nothing except the merriness of the inn. That gives me no tension. The only tension there is to feel is from the events happening inside the inn. But if there were wraiths around everycorner, like you say it makes you feel. Then Bree is infact a place at the moment that is dark and dreary, with some fear and tension. And if you are thinking the book portrays it as riders around everycorner, then why say Bree is too dark in the movies. Or is it just because he didn't go with your, Everyone in Bree inside houses, no busling on the streets, why on earth wouldn't there be. Especially after they talk about all the people coming up there way to find homes.

So what you are saying is you would've liked Jackson to make a pleasant inn, clear sky, bright stars, lots and lots of singing and good times, (like you said it was) thus presenting a very uplifting atmosphere. And you wouldn't want it to be rainy like Jackson made it. cuz it just ruins the mood tolkein set huh?But at the very same time cause fear and tension with riders around every corner. "pyschological fear" like youve said, that is pretty scary. Hard to have it both ways JD. :D

jerseydevil

11-07-2003, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
My point was the hobbits were frightened when coming to Bree. (Sams thoughts) Next was that they had a false sense of comfort. They felt everything was great and we have no reason to feel that the ring wraiths are around every corner. (the reader doesn't even know) Because in the books it gives nothing except the merriness of the inn. That gives me no tension. The only tension there is to feel is from the events happening inside the inn. But if there were wraiths around everycorner, like you say it makes you feel. Then Bree is infact a place at the moment that is dark and dreary, with some fear and tension. And if you are thinking the book portrays it as riders around everycorner, then why say Bree is too dark in the movies. Or is it just because he didn't go with your, Everyone in Bree inside houses, no busling on the streets, why on earth wouldn't there be. Especially after they talk about all the people coming up there way to find homes.

No - as I said - he made Bree into the cliched D&D ruffian town including the very essential rain. :rolleyes: The inn should have made Frodo relaxed - did it? No - he was uptight the entire time in the movie while at Bree. There was no need for the rain, there was no need for the people in the streets. The scene would have been much more powerful with them walking through deserted streets with the echo of their steps and distant noises. This would have lead Sam to picture black riders around every corner. I don't like the way Jackson did the scene. I think he cheapened it - as he cheapened most of the movie. It has absolutely none of the pyschological tension that is in the book. Bree ITSELF was not dirty or filthy or scary (as portrayed in the movie) - it was the imagination of the Hobbits that was making it scary. This is one of my biggest complaints with Jackson - he can't do psychological terror - he has to spoon feed the audience. He had to make big ugly people walking through bree and geering at the hobbits to bring out the fear. He either doesn't know how to do it any other way or else he just wants as much action as possible - "need to use those cool rain machines and have mud- lots of mud" :rolleyes:

So what you are saying is you would've liked Jackson to make a pleasant inn, clear sky, bright stars, lots and lots of singing and good times, (like you said it was) thus presenting a very uplifting atmosphere. And you wouldn't want it to be rainy like Jackson made it. cuz it just ruins the mood tolkein set huh?But at the very same time cause fear and tension with riders around every corner. "pyschological fear" like youve said, that is pretty scary. Hard to have it both ways JD. :D
There is nothing wrong with showing the way Bree actually is then change it to the way bree looks to the hobbits and then changing the atmosphere to more comfortable after getting into the inn.

As they entered into Bree - he could have shown Bree as just a normal town and then demonstrated that Sams imagination was getting the best of him. Instead with the movie - the whole scene is dark - when they enter the inn - it is dark. Jackson did not build up the tension or anything of them walking through the streets. It's more like the hobbits were just disgusted by the sight of the filth and more concerned with being mugged than they were of black rider being behind every corner. :rolleyes:

thranduil

11-07-2003, 09:21 PM

I see "some" of your points reasonable. Basically Bree is like any other busy city. Bums, trash, its all there, the good and the bad. But I still don't see how you would have done it. make it pleasant, but riders everywhere, causing the most psychological terror. I just don't see it happening on screen. I encourage you to try and film such a scenario. No truly, I have done many LOTR scenes myself. I'm interested if you could transfer that. I understand if you dont want to try, to busy, I know its not easy. But seriously i would really like to see that.

Anyways this was good debating a new scene.(osgiliath, exorcism,wizard duel, flight to the ford.) Well think of another "new" part of the film to discuss.:o

jerseydevil

11-07-2003, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
I see "some" of your points reasonable. Basically Bree is like any other busy city. Bums, trash, its all there, the good and the bad.

Too bad jackson went with ONLY the bad. Also - Bree was a village - not a city. Of course it had it's bad sections - but it was a medieval type of village - not a city from the industrial age.

But I still don't see how you would have done it. make it pleasant, but riders everywhere, causing the most psychological terror.

Where did I say to put the riders anywhere?There were NO riders visible - it was just the SENSE of riders. It was the desolation of the street - it was that fact of being in the unknown. That is what built the tension up in the book. There were no riders behind every corner - a good director wouldn't have to show riders to bring across the tension to the audience or to show what Sam was thinking.

I just don't see it happening on screen. I encourage you to try and film such a scenario. No truly, I have done many LOTR scenes myself. I'm interested if you could transfer that. I understand if you dont want to try, to busy, I know its not easy. But seriously i would really like to see that.

There have been many films that have used similar scenes - that have generated psychological terror - when really there was no evil there. I don't see why you think it is so impossible - unless you have never seen any movies other than action movies. Action movies don't go for psychological elements - they go for the cheap easy way out like Jackson took.

mithrand1r

11-07-2003, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
There have been many films that have used similar scenes - that have generated psychological terror - when really there was no evil there. I don't see why you think it is so impossible - unless you have never seen any movies other than action movies. Action movies don't go for psychological elements - they go for the cheap easy way out like Jackson took.

Originally posted by thranduil
. . .causing the most psychological terror. I just don't see it happening on screen. I encourage you to try and film such a scenario. No truly, I have done many LOTR scenes myself. I'm interested if you could transfer that. I understand if you dont want to try, to busy, I know its not easy. But seriously i would really like to see that.

If you want examples of directors that use suspense I suggest that Alfred Hitchcock is a good starting point.
Psycho (1960)
Rear Window (1954)
Spellbound (1945)

For more examples take a look at some old films
2001 (1968)
Maltese Falcon (1941)
Witness for the Prosecution (1957)
Cape Fear (1961)
to name a few

jerseydevil

11-07-2003, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by mithrand1r
If you want examples of directors that use suspense I suggest that Alfred Hitchcock is a good starting point.
Psycho (1960)
Rear Window (1954)
Spellbound (1945)

For more examples take a look at some old films
2001 (1968)
Maltese Falcon (1941)
Witness for the Prosecution (1957)
Cape Fear (1961)
to name a few
Thank you for the examples. I was going to say Hitchock. Also one - which is a horror movie - was Black Christmas.

There are so many which use suspense and successfully build up the tension. Movies that don't resort to spoon feeding the audience.

thranduil

11-08-2003, 01:11 AM

perhaps "stranger on a train" would be a better example. And "Dial M for Murder". I have no problem seeing this in a film that doesn't have a lot of action. But these films make it work because of the lack of action in the film. With Jacksons action it is very difficult to produce fear (psychological) when there is that much action already in the film. Ofcourse your response would be "well perfect have him change the whole movie. Take all the action out. Then it will bore the audience to death (non readers). But I will enjoy it." I wanted to see this terror in a film that is quite actionfull. Not some Hitchcock slow build up film with no action. (although I do love his movies) That was what I asked for.

jerseydevil

11-08-2003, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by thranduil
perhaps "stranger on a train" would be a better example. And "Dial M for Murder". I have no problem seeing this in a film that doesn't have a lot of action. But these films make it work because of the lack of action in the film. With Jacksons action it is very difficult to produce fear (psychological) when there is that much action already in the film. Ofcourse your response would be "well perfect have him change the whole movie. Take all the action out. Then it will bore the audience to death (non readers). But I will enjoy it." I wanted to see this terror in a film that is quite actionfull. Not some Hitchcock slow build up film with no action. (although I do love his movies) That was what I asked for.
They didn't need to be solely action the way Jackson did them. There could have been some intelligence to the movies instead of pure action and spoon feeding the audience. I'm not saying eliminate all action - but if you watch FotR - it is basically non-stop action from the time Frodo starts packing - all the way to Lothlorien - with only very short pause in Rivendell. Even in Rivendell Jackson made the council blow up into a screaming match. :rolleyes:

Gandalf purposely tells Frodo in the book - "do not just disappear - leave a forwarding address". yet in the movie - Jackson has Frodo just leaving. I would like to know what Sam told the Gaffer :rolleyes:

I'm glad that you got what you wanted - but it isn't what I was looking for - therefore I do not like the films.

And by the - you sound just like those arrogant hollywood types. if you produce ANYTHING that isn't all action - you will bore the audience. Hollywood doesn't think the movie goer has a single once brains in their heads. The audience would NOT be bored if it was produced and directed properly. I feel that Jackson did neither right.

I will wait for another Lord of the Rings movie - because as far as I'm concerned - Bakshi hit closer to the mark in the first half of his film than Jackson did. Also - if you look at the way the Hobbits enter Bree in Bakshi's version - that's the way Jackson SHOULD have done it. The difference is Bakshi was a TRUE tolkien fan without money - Jackson is a psuedo Tolien fan with a lot of money. I wish a director who had the love for the books like Bakshi did - had produced the movies with the money Jackson had.

Nazgul King Squirrel

11-08-2003, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Cassius
What you have to think about is the audience. All members of this site know that everybody does not have the same opinions. You have to try and please everybody when you make a movie, not just the mainstream Tolkien fanatics like myself and whole family. I was raised on Tolkien's books, not just "The Hobbit" but the LOTR and Silmarillion.

The argument has been used before, and it implicitly assumes that the only way to keep the interest oh “the masses” is by giving maximum emphasis to action and to downplay everything else. Personally I don’t believe it so. There are films that don’t opt for such solution to keep the audiences interest.

As for the movie having to be like in the books, well, for most of us, “Tolkien fanatics,” it didn’t. Certainly I do enjoy these action movies based on the LotR. They are enjoyable, if uneven in quality. There are those scenes that are quite delightful to watch, and those that simply don’t make sense, even accepting, as I do, that it was planed to be an action movie.

Originally posted by Cassius

However unfortunate that is that other people do not have that basis, you still have to try and please the Jocks, the teenieboppers, the anarchists, the Women's rights activists and no matter what you do nobody will be totally satisfied.

The lack of knowledge of the work as reason for such an option, or the supposed inability of the masses to understand but the very basic is also a fallacy. Oh, some wouldn’t understand, for sure, but a good director would manage to carry the message, if he wanted to. Again, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time it was done.

And "you" don’t have to please everyone, no movie is designed to please all, and any movie will have their target audience. On this case, the target was the action movie crowd. A valid option, I would believe, but not the only possible option.

It was transmitted, in part by the media's ignorance, that the movies were attempting to be faithful to the original books, something that it was not the case.

The alterations in many scenes are not simply the result of the necessary adaptations to make the transition from book to film, but the result of the desire to retell the story, with a complete emphasis on action. I think it would have been much more honest if the movies had been renamed, instead of following the original names, (it have been done in the past, think of bladerunner), and made plainly clear that the films were not attempting to be faithful to the original. In this way, the target audience would have still their movie, and the Tolkien fans would have focused more in the similitude’s they found, and less in the deviations.

Originally posted by Cassius

The movies still could be better, I wanted the Barrows/Bombadil scenes in the movie. It explains how Merry's sword can break the Witch King's immunity. Obviously they didn't put it in, and that doesn't make me or others happy but they had to choose.

They could for sure. As I said, I see the movies as having quite an uneven quality, even if overall enjoyable. I liked a lot the Bilbo scenes, for instance. But, no matter how much I try it, I cannot grasp the reasons for that strange option PJ made at the fords.

Nazgul King Squirrel

11-08-2003, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Cassius

That is one of the points that I am trying to get across. The cost of making the movie as it was almost put New Line into Bankruptcy You have to appease the masses and all of their extentions (activists etc...) to make it work. There simply aren't enough of us fans to make up all of the cost if we all went five times. What else is important is that after watching the movies more people read the books and learned what it was all about. Sales of the books have gone up almost exponentially since the movies came out since people want to read them now that they know the basics of the plot and have some images to put to mind when they think of the master's ideas.

Hence, the choice made for action movies, since a large number of people like them. It was not a choice of avoiding to displease as many groups as possible, but to focus in a single, large, profitable, moviegoers group. It was a deliberate choice to minimize risk and maximize profit. Not an attempt to make a close adaptation of the books.

thranduil

11-08-2003, 03:50 PM

You know I can't believe that FOTR is being bashed so hard. I expected this from TTT. FOTR to me was twice as good. I mean hobbiton scenes were excellent. Bilbo was perfect. Khazad Dum, Lothlorien. Maybe it was because it had just so many excellent sets that made M.E. come to life.

If either of these films "were" a typical action film it would be TTT. Not the FOTR. But if ROTK fails to hit closer to the books. I see a hour and a half battle at the pelennor fields. Which will make it another TTT. My hope is for ROTK to make a story and not just a battle, and to put closure to the films. If so I will love the trilogy. And if it doesn't then there will be only one film that I will be defending.

But ofcourse if you've got complaints do something about. Go to Hectorberlioz thread. You know all things are possible:cool:

jerseydevil

11-08-2003, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
You know I can't believe that FOTR is being bashed so hard. I expected this from TTT. FOTR to me was twice as good. I mean hobbiton scenes were excellent. Bilbo was perfect. Khazad Dum, Lothlorien. Maybe it was because it had just so many excellent sets that made M.E. come to life.

Great sets don't make a movie. Great special effects don't make a movie.

If either of these films "were" a typical action film it would be TTT. Not the FOTR. But if ROTK fails to hit closer to the books. I see a hour and a half battle at the pelennor fields. Which will make it another TTT. My hope is for ROTK to make a story and not just a battle, and to put closure to the films. If so I will love the trilogy. And if it doesn't then there will be only one film that I will be defending.

FotR had way too much action compared to the books. Yes - TT had more action - but TT also had some more action in the books. FotR was about friendship and the quest. Too many meaningful scene were chopped, destroyed or changed completely.

thranduil

11-08-2003, 04:14 PM

jerseydevil

11-08-2003, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
I didn't say it made it a Great Movie. But that it made me feel like it was more real.

As for action I suppose you were upset with the scene that merry, pippin, and boromir were practicing sword techniques. And then heaven forbid they tackled Boromir!!!!!! Let me guess "Uncalled for! Another overdone action scene from Jackson"

Yes - I did not think that was necessary. Boromir was a jerk in the book - then Jackson gives him this nice side - just so people can feel sorry for him when he dies. It's ironic - he makes Boromir nicer and makes Faramir an asshole. :rolleyes:

And as for your complaint that Merry and Pippin acted like idiots. It obviously was done to show charachter building throughout the trilogy. Isnt that what you said FOTR was about, building friendships and charachter. If you note, they have matured a very lot from the "firework scene" to TTT.

First - Merry and Pippin were just innocent. They didn't know what was outside their world. I have always compared Pippin and Merry to someone going to NY for the first time. They were not town idiots. Second - they only were in about 15 minutes of TT really. All of a sudden - they're mature. :rollyeyes:

ANd did you notice? The show was about the Quest.:D
Actually - no I didn't. I thought it was more about Aragorn regaining gondor and battling with his self doubts and his love with Arwen. If it's about the quest - then why is Frodo only in 15 minutes of Two Towers? :rolleyes:

thranduil

11-08-2003, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
First - Merry and Pippin were just innocent. They didn't know what was outside their world. I have always compared Pippin and Merry to someone going to NY for the first time. They were not town idiots. Second - they only were in about 15 minutes of TT really. All of a sudden - they're mature. :rollyeyes:

Actually - no I didn't. I thought it was more about Aragorn regaining gondor and battling with his self doubts and his love with Arwen. If it's about the quest - then why is Frodo only in 15 minutes of Two Towers? :rolleyes:

I didn't say they matured in TTT, but they matured throughout FOTR and in what we have scene in TTT of them they have changed. And as for the quest I cleary thought we were talking about the FOTR, the only thing I mentioned about TTT was merry and pippin maturing. I have nothing to say in defense of two towers. But I can tell you've only seen this movie twice, by your quotes about Aragorn regaining Gondor.

jerseydevil

11-08-2003, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
I didn't say they matured in TTT, but they matured throughout FOTR and in what we have scene in TTT of them they have changed.

Where did they mature in FotR? The only time they showed ANY maturity in FotR was when they lead the orcs after them - to save frodo.

And as for the quest I cleary thought we were talking about the FOTR, the only thing I mentioned about TTT was merry and pippin maturing. I have nothing to say in defense of two towers. But I can tell you've only seen this movie twice, by your quotes about Aragorn regaining Gondor.
I was referring to FotR- when I was talking about Aragorn and Arwen. The humans and elves were too much centerstage - and he hobbits took a back seat. That is one of the reasons many of my friends think that Boromir should have been given the ring.

As for me only having seen TT twice - that isn't true - I said I only saw it twice in the theaters. Aragorn is still a wimp though - questioning his destiny. :rolleyes:

thranduil

11-08-2003, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Where did they mature in FotR? The only time they showed ANY maturity in FotR was when they lead the orcs after them - to save frodo.

Um lets see. Obviously they matured by being around such a fellowship. Lets see one is a son of a steward of gondor, son of elve king, Son of arathorn. These are all highly respected people and apparently the hobbits really learned alot from being around them. As for sacrificing there lives for Frodo and the Quest, what could be more noble. One of the best parts of the film. How could they have done anything better than that? They did the best they could and succeeded.

jerseydevil

11-08-2003, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
Um lets see. Obviously they matured by being around such a fellowship. Lets see one is a son of a steward of gondor, son of elve king, Son of arathorn. These are all highly respected people and apparently the hobbits really learned alot from being around them.

So - where is it demonstrated? You are assuming they did solely on the fact they were part of the fellowship. My arguement with merry and Pippin was that they were town idiots in the movie anyway - not just innocent and young like in the book. In the book - in human years - they would be about 14 and 16. In the movies - they just plain act stupid.

As for sacrificing there lives for Frodo and the Quest, what could be more noble. One of the best parts of the film. How could they have done anything better than that? They did the best they could and succeeded.
So - one scene. :rolleyes: There is hardly any characterzation in Lord of the Rings - because all jackson really spends time on is the action.

Bacchus

11-09-2003, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So - where is it demonstrated? You are assuming they did solely on the fact they were part of the fellowship. My arguement with merry and Pippin was that they were town idiots in the movie anyway - not just innocent and young like in the book. In the book - in human years - they would be about 14 and 16. In the movies - they just plain act stupid.

So - one scene. :rolleyes: There is hardly any characterzation in Lord of the Rings - because all jackson really spends time on is the action.
Sorry, JD, but I've got to call you out on this one. Pippin was 29, and Merry 37. Given the coming of age at 33, I'd call their 'human' ages about 20 and 26.

While the movies do highlight the, shall we say, exuberence of the characters, this is not completely inconsistent with the books. Here are a couple of Pippin quotes:

[Frodo]I want to think.
[Pip] Good Heavens! at breakfast?

"All hail cousin Frodo, the Lord of the Ring!"

In addition, Pip fails to use the two months at Rivendell to glance at a map, cannot restrain himself from splashing bathwater everywhere in accompanyment to a song, tosses a stone into the well in K-D, and nearly tells the Bree-folk about Bilbo's disappearance.

In addition, I think that you missed the whole point of Boromir's character. His fall and redemption reflect the peril of the Ring and the power of free will and sacrifice in penance.

jerseydevil

11-09-2003, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by Bacchus
Sorry, JD, but I've got to call you out on this one. Pippin was 29, and Merry 37. Given the coming of age at 33, I'd call their 'human' ages about 20 and 26.

Well - "coming of age" in human years is generally considered 18 - not 21. 21 is just the stupid drinking age in America. Going by age ratio - that would put Pippin at 15.8 years old and Merry would be 20.2 years old. Also - when they actually started out on the quest - Pippin was only 27* and Merry 35* - which would be 14.7 years and 19 years respectively in human years.

* going by years - not taking in account of the months of their births.

While the movies do highlight the, shall we say, exuberence of the characters, this is not completely inconsistent with the books. Here are a couple of Pippin quotes:

[Frodo]I want to think.
[Pip] Good Heavens! at breakfast?

"All hail cousin Frodo, the Lord of the Ring!"

In addition, Pip fails to use the two months at Rivendell to glance at a map, cannot restrain himself from splashing bathwater everywhere in accompanyment to a song, tosses a stone into the well in K-D, and nearly tells the Bree-folk about Bilbo's disappearance.

In addition, I think that you missed the whole point of Boromir's character. His fall and redemption reflect the peril of the Ring and the power of free will and sacrifice in penance.
I know what Pippin and Merry said in the books - but they weren't town idiots. As I demonstrated - it was mostly just Pippin who was immature - and it was mostly just being innocent - not being a brain dead idiot. How many 14 - 15 year old (using 18 as the basis for human coming of age year) spends their time looking at maps?

As for the "All hail cousin Frodo..." they didn't grasp the full power of the Ring or what it meant at that time.

thranduil

11-09-2003, 05:56 PM

jerseydevil

11-09-2003, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
Jumping on the back of a cave troll and stabbing it over and over, is heardly being town idiots. They demonstrate courage and heroism. Like was pointed out to you, lots of the things are from the books or shows that they actually did do those kind of things.

As for the battle in moria It is only four minutes long. But for an action hater:D it must seem like half an hour to you.
I think they were fighting to save their life. :rolleyes: As for the cave troll - it was stupid and crappy computer animation as I said when it came out. legolas looked like a rubber band on it's back - especially when he "jumps" off.

The orc fight scene was much longer than it needed to be.

thranduil

11-09-2003, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I think they were fighting to save their life. :rolleyes: As for the cave troll - it was stupid and crappy computer animation as I said when it came out. legolas looked like a rubber band on it's back - especially when he "jumps" off.

The orc fight scene was much longer than it needed to be.

If a hobbit was in danger of being killed by something alot bigger than them would they

a. Jump at it with there swords and try to slay it.

b. Run away or try to hide.

From knowing the history of hobbits we know the answer is B.
Admit Merry and Pippin were obviously trying to avenge there friend. Not trying to save themsevles. I can't believe you really considered that. As for the effects, they could have been worse. They satisfied me. But if your gonna bring up bad effects I admit Galadriel was horrible!

jerseydevil

11-09-2003, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
If a hobbit was in danger of being killed by something alot bigger than them would they

a. Jump at it with there swords and try to slay it.

b. Run away or try to hide.

From knowing the history of hobbits we know the answer is B.
Admit Merry and Pippin were obviously trying to avenge there friend. Not trying to save themsevles.
I agree they were tryign to avenge their friend - but there are more ways of showing friendship than through just that. I have a problem with Merry and Pippin town idiot mentality Come on - how retarded was the - "err this here quest" statement when Pippin announces he's coming along? They're practically braindead - I'm surprised they can dress themselves.

As for the effects, they could have been worse. They satisfied me. But if your gonna bring up bad effects I admit Galadriel was horrible!

Yes - mirror of galadriel (or nicknamed - ice queen) was one of the worse scenes in the movie.

thranduil

11-09-2003, 07:14 PM

If your gonna call them idiots why don't you just call pippin an idiot instead of them both. While Pippin did some stupid things, he made up for it, matured, and learned his lesson throughout the shows. As for Merry he has done nothing idiotic or foolish except for having some fun in the shire. Which really the firework stealing really wasn't bad. It just showed theyr'e daring and have fun.

Overall Merry and Pippin (good)

-set off on a very dangerous quest.

-try to avenge frodo (troll).

-Show frodo to Buckleberry ferry.

-Confront Strider at Bree.

-Save frodo and basically middle earth by leading the uruk hai away from frodo and the ring. basically sacrifing themselves.

(bad)

-steal some fireworks

-make dumb comments

-steal from farmer maggot

-causes goblins in moria to know they are there

I'm sure even you JD, will be able to accept that the goods greatly outway the bad. While yes the bad were annoying and caused trouble but look at what good they did. Anyone can easily see that Merry and Pippin are not just some average hobbit idiots. They are very couragous and helpful (in most cases). I rest my case.

jerseydevil

11-09-2003, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
If your gonna call them idiots why don't you just call pippin an idiot instead of them both. While Pippin did some stupid things, he made up for it, matured, and learned his lesson throughout the shows. As for Merry he has done nothing idiotic or foolish except for having some fun in the shire. Which really the firework stealing really wasn't bad. It just showed theyr'e daring and have fun.

Overall Merry and Pippin (good)

-set off on a very dangerous quest.

-try to avenge frodo (troll).

-Show frodo to Buckleberry ferry.

-Confront Strider at Bree.

-Save frodo and basically middle earth by leading the uruk hai away from frodo and the ring. basically sacrifing themselves.

(bad)

-steal some fireworks

-make dumb comments

-steal from farmer maggot

-causes goblins in moria to know they are there

I'm sure even you JD, will be able to accept that the goods greatly outway the bad. While yes the bad were annoying and caused trouble but look at what good they did. Anyone can easily see that Merry and Pippin are not just some average hobbit idiots. They are very couragous and helpful (in most cases). I rest my case.
I don't like Merry and Pippin in the movie. I have always thought they were portrayed as town morons. I'm not going to change my mind. I think that lighting the fireworks in a tent was stupid and showed absolutely no brains - stealing the fireworks was completely different. i did NOT like the way Pippin and Merry were protrayed in the movies and I thought the actors were terrible for them.

As for farmer maggot - farmer maggot should have been left out - for one thing - Merry and Pipping never stole his crops - they were friends with Farmer maggot. it was just an excuse for Jackson to have another brainless out of place action scene.

By the way - ahlf their speech was this childish brainless mimocry - like "duh - my name - let me just think a minute....." :rolleyes:

thranduil

11-09-2003, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I don't like Merry and Pippin in the movie. I have always thought they were portrayed as town morons. I'm not going to change my mind. I think that lighting the fireworks in a tent was stupid and showed absolutely no brains - stealing the fireworks was completely different.

Okay Okay they "were" town idiots and matured. I'll leave it at that. I agree about lighting it off in a tent. Why?
Though Jackson portrayed them that way apparently to show the seriousness of the quest and how it changes people. And how people can grow from experiences and others examples.

How about Parth Galen? That scene was excellent!

Cassius

11-10-2003, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Great sets don't make a movie. Great special effects don't make a movie.

FotR had way too much action compared to the books. Yes - TT had more action - but TT also had some more action in the books. FotR was about friendship and the quest. Too many meaningful scene were chopped, destroyed or changed completely.

I assume that no sets at all would be acceptable, or better yet, why don't we film it in the streets of new york? Of course good sets don't completely make the movie, but crappy sets will ruin the whole thing. Can you imagine a hobbiton in the big city??

Heaven forbid any action at all, I mean come on, who needs it? I wouldn't call the while movie action, simply because it is not. The scenes of Frodo and Sam walking through the shire were so action packed! Look at how much the grass became stamped down, and how fried the sausage was! Totally like braveheart man! :rolleyes:

Oh man, and Peter Jackson REALLY should be lynched for making the hobbiton scenes lighthearted and joyful! Man he totally ruined Tolkien's image of a happy, exhuberant place! :rolleyes:

Oh, and Merry and Pippen were so badly portrayed! Gandalf really had no reason to yell at them at all! They weren't ever a little goofy in the books! They were always stone-faced and serious like Aragorn. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah, and there were no scenes ever where there was no action at all! Man, the Green Dragon scene was SO violent I had to shut my eyes to protect myself from the gruesome horror of people having a joyful time! :rolleyes:

Come on people, think about it for a second. If the movie was SO action oriented then why didn't they spend an hour and a half on the prologe to cover the deaths of Anarion and Gil Galad? Lothlorien lasted a good fifteen minutes without any action at all, not including the river and Argonath.

hectorberlioz

11-10-2003, 02:42 PM

I assume that no sets at all would be acceptable, or better yet, why don't we film it in the streets of new york? Of course good sets don't completely make the movie, but crappy sets will ruin the whole thing. Can you imagine a hobbiton in the big city??

I dont remember JD saying no sets is better than bad acting. but he did say that sets and special effects dont make a movie worthwhile, if it doesnt have a good story or good acting.;)
the special effects and and the sets didnt outweigh the bad job PJ had done with the story and carachters, in JD's opinion.

jerseydevil

11-10-2003, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by Cassius
I assume that no sets at all would be acceptable, or better yet, why don't we film it in the streets of new york? Of course good sets don't completely make the movie, but crappy sets will ruin the whole thing. Can you imagine a hobbiton in the big city??

Get off it - because that's not what I'm saying at all. If you're going to stretch everything out with what I said - no wonder I think you are BB.

Heaven forbid any action at all, I mean come on, who needs it? I wouldn't call the while movie action, simply because it is not. The scenes of Frodo and Sam walking through the shire were so action packed! Look at how much the grass became stamped down, and how fried the sausage was! Totally like braveheart man! :rolleyes:

wow - 5 minutes of no action. :rolleyes: Soon after they run into Pippin and Merry - with angry Farmer Maggot. Why even include Farmer Maggot. You can twist what I say all you want - but no action here and there does not mean that Lord of the Rings isn't an action movie. Matrix Revolutions is an action movie and it has slow moments too, but it is still an ACTION MOVIE.

Oh man, and Peter Jackson REALLY should be lynched for making the hobbiton scenes lighthearted and joyful! Man he totally ruined Tolkien's image of a happy, exhuberant place! :rolleyes:

Where have I complained about Hobbiton? Other than the fact that Frodo didn't just disappear from Hobbiton like he does in the movies or Ringwraiths cutting off heads. :rolleyes: Maybe you are BB - or at least like him - I'd be surprised if you read the books too. Especially if you can't see my complaints.

Oh, and Merry and Pippen were so badly portrayed! Gandalf really had no reason to yell at them at all! They weren't ever a little goofy in the books! They were always stone-faced and serious like Aragorn. :rolleyes:

I never said they were always serious - I said they weren't retarded town idiots with no brains as they are portrayed in the movies.

Oh yeah, and there were no scenes ever where there was no action at all! Man, the Green Dragon scene was SO violent I had to shut my eyes to protect myself from the gruesome horror of people having a joyful time! :rolleyes:

Again why don't you listen and stop twisting what I say. Would you not consider martrix Reloaded or Revolutions an action movie?

Come on people, think about it for a second. If the movie was SO action oriented then why didn't they spend an hour and a half on the prologe to cover the deaths of Anarion and Gil Galad? Lothlorien lasted a good fifteen minutes without any action at all, not including the river and Argonath.
So what is they had a few slow moments - there was hardly any characterization. All action movies have slow moments - Lord of the Rings is no different than Terminator 3. There was slow moments in their too - it doesn't mean it's not an action movie. :rolleyes:

jerseydevil

11-10-2003, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
I dont remember JD saying no sets is better than bad acting. but he did say that sets and special effects dont make a movie worthwhile, if it doesnt have a good story or good acting.;)
the special effects and and the sets didnt outweigh the bad job PJ had done with the story and carachters, in JD's opinion.
Hector - understands. Maybe he can translate for you - cassius.

hectorberlioz

11-10-2003, 03:21 PM

hectorberlioz: official translator for arguements/discussions;)

mithrand1r

11-10-2003, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
hectorberlioz: official translator for arguements/discussions;)

Hey that is steady work that will be around for years (maybe decades ;))

Where else can you find this level of job security? (The salary may be another matter entirely. ;))

"Action" films are not bad in of themselves.

I consider LOTR to be above (way above IMHO :)) your average book.
A movie adaptation of LOTR has the potential to be much better than your typically average "Action" movie.

Does that mean the film will be devoid of any action? No, but the focus will not be primarily on Action/reaction events.

(I wish I could articulate this better :o)

There were many things that I liked about PJ&co. LOTR movies, but there still were many things that could have been done better.

The Gaffer

11-10-2003, 04:42 PM

Having read this thread (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9534) I'm starting to agree with the title of this thread.

Including the Voice of Saruman at the end of TTT would've been possible, it just would've meant that they had to think of a different way of ending the film than the traditional cavalry riding to the rescue. As a result, the Voice of Saruman ends up on the cutting room floor :(

Cassius

11-10-2003, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Matrix Revolutions is an action movie and it has slow moments too, but it is still an ACTION MOVIE.

I'd be surprised if you read the books too. Especially if you can't see my complaints.

I never said they were always serious - I said they weren't retarded town idiots with no brains as they are portrayed in the movies.

Again why don't you listen and stop twisting what I say. Would you not consider martrix Reloaded or Revolutions an action movie?

Excuse my sarcasm, but I think that this whole thing is utterly and completely silly.

Of course I have read the books, of course I have complaints, and I do see yours I really do but you seem so convinced that the movies are crap that you ignore everything that they did right. I have never read one thing, ONE thing that you liked about the movies. If you could do that then I think that I would have a less draconian attitude towards your opinions. It is like you are telling all of those thousands of people that worked on these films for years that they did a crappy job and need to start over because YOU didn't like it. They worked hard and long to bring us the best on screen adaptation there ever has been for LOTR.

To concede, I do think that at least was too goofy, but not badly cast. I am upset with the Theoden exorcism scene is, and I do not like how Aragorn asks HIM to ride out with him, when it was the other way around. I hate how Theoden is a pit of despair and sucks people into it. There were no women and/or children at helm's deep. They were at the city with the pukel-men, the name eludes me.

Tell me one thing, ONE THING that you think was good and I will stop being so overly critical and my more purist self will become apparent.

Cassius

11-10-2003, 10:56 PM

Oh by the way, I would say that matrix reloaded and revolutions with the nasty rave s*x parties has a distinctly different mood than LOTR. They are action, these have action in them, in some cases too much, but that is what was in the book. Why not take some of a good thing and turn it into a lot of good thing that will attract customers to help put food on the plate? Tolkien didn't write much action because the english language lacks the words to describe fighting without being visual. I have tried, and it doesn't work, that is one reason why I draw my own illustrations.

jerseydevil

11-10-2003, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by Cassius
Of course I have read the books, of course I have complaints, and I do see yours I really do but you seem so convinced that the movies are crap that you ignore everything that they did right. I have never read one thing, ONE thing that you liked about the movies. If you could do that then I think that I would have a less draconian attitude towards your opinions.

Look at my two years of posts. It's not hard to do. I believe I told you to look at the TT thread I started the night Two Towers came out. The question is - did you?

It is like you are telling all of those thousands of people that worked on these films for years that they did a crappy job and need to start over because YOU didn't like it. They worked hard and long to bring us the best on screen adaptation there ever has been for LOTR.

I personally don't care if they even spent ten years on the films - I don't like the movies. I think they could have been a lot better. I think they could have been INTELLIGENT movies - instead of the typical hollywood action flick.

Tell me one thing, ONE THING that you think was good and I will stop being so overly critical and my more purist self will become apparent.
I've said many things that they got right - such as the scenary. Look at my two years of posts as I have said - in there you will see me mention things I thought they did well. I don't like the films though - I think Jackson is a hack. I think he lied about how much he was making the films as a fan. If he was a fan he would never have destroyed flight to the ford the way he did.

I also question jackson's motivation by the way considering the action. He OWNS the special effects companies - don't you think he has even more of a self interest in making the films as action oriented as possible?

By the way - I HOPE Jackson and people involved with the film read this. I hope they see what I have to say about their film. I hope they see all the other negative things people say.

hectorberlioz

11-10-2003, 11:17 PM

It is like you are telling all of those thousands of people that worked on these films for years that they did a crappy job and need to start over because YOU didn't like it. They worked hard and long to bring us the best on screen adaptation there ever has been for LOTR.
well, they have better have learned their lesson.
Today is full of movie directors who hope good effects will cover up the rest of their bad job. thats why I started my thread "filmakers abuse CG". All those directors out there are too lazy to take the time to make a quality movie.

jerseydevil

11-10-2003, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
well, they have better have learned their lesson.
Exactly - just because they worked long and hard on the action sequences and special effects does not mean that they brought the best adaptation to the screen. I will wait for the TRUE Lord of the Rings - not this hollywoodized crap piece Jackson decided to give us.

Today is full of movie directors who hope good effects will cover up the rest of their bad job. thats why I started my thread "filmakers abuse CG". All those directors out there are too lazy to take the time to make a quality movie.
It is. Also - hollywood is convinced the American movie going public is a bunch of idiots. They were even making comments that Harry Potter needed an american actor because Americans woudln't go see it with just british actors. They have no respect for their own customers and until the movie public starts demanding more - they always will. It's just going to get worse to where they just think they can slap together some cheap CGI and action sequences - and then claim it's a great movie. Look at the crap Star Wars movies we have been given lately. Over done CGI - with dumb scripts and in some areas terrible acting.

hectorberlioz

11-10-2003, 11:31 PM

Look at the crap Star Wars movies we have been given lately. Over done CGI - with dumb scripts and in some areas terrible acting.
I'd say bad acting 90% (im saving ewan and liam and a couple of others)
oops:p wrong forum for star wars.

Exactly - just because they worked long and hard on the action sequences and special effects does not mean that they brought the best adaptation to the screen. I will wait for the TRUE Lord of the Rings - not this hollywoodized crap piece Jackson decided to give us.
Whoever takes on LotR next will(he better:mad: ) learn from PJ's mistakes.
But I think I'll get to lotr next so...:p

Cassius

11-11-2003, 04:46 PM

I can understand that you think that the movies are crap, and i also understand that you are critical of their work. But I think that we can safely say that as of now, these movies are the best adaptation that has ever come to the screen. Criticism is a good thing, when it is constructive. Keyword: CONSTRUCTIVE. Totally slamming the works won't help anybody. If you are so insulted by them, then simply don't see them. I would like a more book-oriented movie made but you know how much these "bad" movies cost, how much do you think a more real adaptation would be?

Don't blame the underdogs of the movie-making process. Mostly the CGI people, because they did their job well. Jackson doesn't own their company, WETA workshop does. He may have some stock or something in that but he certainly doesn't own them. The artists worked hard to keep the on screen adaptations as accurate as possible. How else would you put a balrog on screen? an actor? I do not think so. Is there a set big enough to hold the whole Argonath (which were misinterpreted in the movies grrr...)?

I don't think that everybody deserves criticism, and I am not saying that no one deserves criticism, but lets try and keep it constructive.

Cassius

11-11-2003, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil

It is. Also - hollywood is convinced the American movie going public is a bunch of idiots.

It's just going to get worse to where they just think they can slap together some cheap CGI and action sequences - and then claim it's a great movie. Look at the crap Star Wars movies we have been given lately. Over done CGI - with dumb scripts and in some areas terrible acting.

I wonder why people think that the public is stupid, they only have a few thousand years of knowing how to manipulate the mob to find out. The general public is stupider than you say. Everybody swarms over the scandals and finds outrageous opinions to send out amongst those that they commune with, the mob destroys lives, simply because the publice is too stupid to care.

I wouldn't call the CGI scenes "slapped" together! Maybe you people that do not know the buisiness and technology can say that, but the rest of the CGI community and myself know different. My career is in that field, more into the videogaming aspect than movies, but the concept is the same, and the work is difficult. I am a little tiffed that you cannot appreciate how hard we work on this sort of stuff.

jerseydevil

11-11-2003, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Cassius
I can understand that you think that the movies are crap, and i also understand that you are critical of their work. But I think that we can safely say that as of now, these movies are the best adaptation that has ever come to the screen. Criticism is a good thing, when it is constructive. Keyword: CONSTRUCTIVE. Totally slamming the works won't help anybody. If you are so insulted by them, then simply don't see them.

I do give constructive criticism. I givce a reason for EVERY part of the movie I do not like. It is not that I just slam them without giving a reason. Anyone who bothers to read my posts know exactly why I don't like the movies and whihc parts I find the worst parts.

I would like a more book-oriented movie made but you know how much these "bad" movies cost, how much do you think a more real adaptation would be?

Actually - not anymore than these movies cost and most likely less - because there would be less over the top special effects - because there would be less over the top action scenes.

Don't blame the underdogs of the movie-making process. Mostly the CGI people, because they did their job well. Jackson doesn't own their company, WETA workshop does. He may have some stock or something in that but he certainly doesn't own them.

Sorry - but Jackson is one of the founders. :rolleyes:

The artists worked hard to keep the on screen adaptations as accurate as possible. How else would you put a balrog on screen? an actor? I do not think so. Is there a set big enough to hold the whole Argonath (which were misinterpreted in the movies grrr...)?

I never complained about the quality of workmanship - and I have only criticized a couple of parts of the CGI. So I don't why you are preaching this to me. You show me where I complained about any of tht stuff. If you go into the FotR threads - you will see that the Balrog scene is one of my favorite parts - except for Gandalf and the stupid stair scene before that.

I don't think that everybody deserves criticism, and I am not saying that no one deserves criticism, but lets try and keep it constructive.
I have kept it constructive. As i said - all my complaints have a reason. I do think based on the moves though that Jackson lied to the Tolkien fans and is just an action moive hack. I have demonstrated all the reasons why I think he is a hack.

thranduil

11-13-2003, 03:25 PM

Let me see if I can just name "most" of the action of the top of my head,

-Great Battle-----------------------------------Book
-Isildurs death---------------------------------Book
-Hobbits head cut off-------------------------PJ
-Farmer Maggot chasing---------------------PJ
-Riders chase them to Bucleberry Ferry---Book
-Riders crash down gate---------------------PJ
-sam and comp. start to confront strider-PJ
-Wraiths stab beds---------------------------Book
-Fight on Weather Top----------------------PJ
-Flight to Ford--------------------------------Book
-Wizard Duel----------------------------------PJ
-Birds spot Fellowship-----------------------Book
-Uruk hai being made-----------------------Book
- Caradhras-----------------------------------Book
-foul creature in the water-----------------Book
-Balins tomb----------------------------------Book
-Balrog----------------------------------------Book
-Parth Galen---------------------------------Book

Ya some scenes were changed but they were still scenes from the book. I'm guessing that PJ had about 4 minutes of action that were just his ideas. And the rest was Tolkeins work, it may be a little extended but its still in Tolkeins books. And obviously most of this action that is complained about is from the books. So if you say the films are typical action films, are you also saying that the books are typical action books, because 80 percent of the action comes from the books! Oh and ya I guess yelling at the council should be on the list as well.

Cirdan

11-13-2003, 10:35 PM

The rider chase to the ferry was not in the book.

The "Great Battle" was told as a story (not true action).

The Riders do crash a gate (see Knife in the Dark)

Sam does confront Strider in the book (altho no "longshanks!)

Uruk-Hai were not "made" in the book.

The fight at Weathertop was in the book but very changed in the movie.

Many of the scenes from the book are "juiced up" as has already been noted.

Another PJ scene is the stair leap. Not exactly a plot/character development shot.

Some of the juice up scenes are fine, like the watcher in the water, which was over the top but not egregiously so.

The troll fight was OK except it was too extended and the wound to Frodo was too extreme to be believable.

The stair jump was just silly.

There is really nothing wrong with action but when it stretches the limit of one's ability to "suspend disbelief" it does detract from the movie.

Adding action to Tolkien is like putting ketchup on prime rib.

jerseydevil

11-13-2003, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by Cirdan
The Riders do crash a gate (see Knife in the Dark)

They don't crash the gates of Bree when entering Bree though. And in the book they only ride down the gate keepers in Buckland.

All about Crickhollow there was the sound of hirns blowing, and voices crying and feet running. But the Black Riders rode like a gale to the North-gate...They rode down the guards at the gate and vanished from the Shire.

It wasn't the huge gate of Bree that they rode into and knocked down - let alone squashing the gate keeper like the did in Jackson's movie.

Sam does confront Strider in the book (altho no "longshanks!)

Agree - but in addition to Longshanks - Aragorn pulls out a FULLY forged sword - NOT Narsil. :rolleyes: :mad: When I saw that - I just thought - what the hell is this? The movie just seemed to be getting worse and worse and worse.

The fight at Weathertop was in the book but very changed in the movie.

Very much changed - so much so that in the book Aragorn never leaves the Hobbits at night and also tells them to MAKE a fire. There was no fire throwing or anything either. I am still wondering where the Black Riders got new robes after they were burned on weathertop. My only thoughts - like I said in the various FotR threads - is that they had luggage racks under their horses for change of robes. :p

Another PJ scene is the stair leap. Not exactly a plot/character development shot.

Complete waste of screen time and Jackson always argues how he couldn't do things because of spacing. The stair scene could have been eliminated and no one would have missed it. But you know - he needed to get his "No one tosses a dwarf" thing in their - other wise the repeated dwarf tossing jokes in TT wouldn't have worked. :rolleyes:

The troll fight was OK except it was too extended and the wound to Frodo was too extreme to be believable.

I think the troll was a waste. Khamul and I were talking about this last night too. I made mention of how Frodo's ribs would have been shattered by that spear thrust into the mithril coat. Mithril only stopped the blades - it did nothing to lessen the impact,

The stair jump was just silly.

As I said above and agree with.

There is really nothing wrong with action but when it stretches the limit of one's ability to "suspend disbelief" it does detract from the movie.

Adding action to Tolkien is like putting ketchup on prime rib.
Exactly.

jerseydevil

11-13-2003, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
Let me see if I can just name "most" of the action of the top of my head,

-Great Battle-----------------------------------Book
-Isildurs death---------------------------------Book
-Hobbits head cut off-------------------------PJ
-Farmer Maggot chasing---------------------PJ
-Riders chase them to Bucleberry Ferry---Book
-Riders crash down gate---------------------PJ
-sam and comp. start to confront strider-PJ
-Wraiths stab beds---------------------------Book
-Fight on Weather Top----------------------PJ
-Flight to Ford--------------------------------Book
-Wizard Duel----------------------------------PJ
-Birds spot Fellowship-----------------------Book
-Uruk hai being made-----------------------Book
- Caradhras-----------------------------------Book
-foul creature in the water-----------------Book
-Balins tomb----------------------------------Book
-Balrog----------------------------------------Book
-Parth Galen---------------------------------Book

Let's really do this right.

-Great Battle-----------------------------------Book

-Isildurs death---------------------------------Book/PJ changes
In the movie the one Ring doesn't burn Isuldur's hand (he's wearing a glove) also they only show him floating in the water - not that he wear the ring to become invisible and was shot when the Ring slipped off his finger.

-Hobbits head cut off-------------------------PJ

-Farmer Maggot chasing---------------------PJ

-Riders chase them to Bucleberry Ferry---PJ

-Riders crash down gate---------------------PJ

-sam and comp. start to confront strider-Book
In the movie - Strider/Aragorn does not pull out Narsil and there is no "All that is gold" poem.

-Wraiths stab beds---------------------------Book

-Fight on Weather Top----------------------PJ

-Flight to Ford--------------------------------PJ
You can't even say that the Flight to the Ford was in the book with the way Jackson changed it.

-Wizard Duel----------------------------------PJ

-Birds spot Fellowship-----------------------Book

-Uruk hai being made-----------------------PJ

-Caradhras-----------------------------------PJ
In the movie PJ has Saruman causing the storm.

-foul creature in the water-----------------Book

-Balins tomb----------------------------------Book/PJ changes
PJ had extended the scene more than it needed to be.

-Balrog----------------------------------------Book

-Parth Galen---------------------------------Book/PJ changes
The fight with the orcs was over done and the Urak Hai were nothing the way they are described in the books. I would also like to know where the "normal" orcs came from in the Two Towers - because they are no where in the battle in Parth Galen.

Black Breathalizer

11-13-2003, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by Cirdan
The "Great Battle" was told as a story (not true action).Right on, Cirdan. PJ should have had his actors TELL the audience big parts of the story!!!!! Now THAT would have been incredibly exciting, been true to Tolkien, and would have saved New Line a bunch of money on special effects.

It's truly a shame that the world will never get to see a true "purist" LOTR movie with Glorfindel, Tom Bombadil, singing, and plenty of jolly exciting stuff with characters sitting around and talking about what happened to them. Instead we'll have to suffer through another action-movie from this hack Jackson.

Cirdan

11-13-2003, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Agree - but in addition to Longshanks - Aragorn pulls out a FULLY forged sword - NOT Narsil. :rolleyes: :mad: When I saw that - I just thought - what the hell is this? The movie just seemed to be getting worse and worse and worse.

Oh, if we get started on the narsil we'll be here all night. Now Arwen's going to shlep it all the way to Gondor. It alters Tolkien's view of the character only being a part of a greater event and makes it into some psychological journey fo Aragorn. No longer is her selfless but now a wallower in an emotional morass. His change bothers me more than P&M.

I am still wondering where the Black Riders got new robes after they were burned on weathertop. My only thoughts - like I said in the various FotR threads - is that they had luggage racks under their horses for change of robes. :p

We always make fun of this point, picturing a suitcase filled with black crepe claoks. lol And the burning wraith with the branch in his head flails his arms like a windmill. If it was that easy to defeat them then why ever worry about them? They seem to only effect Frodo with the Black Breath.

I think the troll was a waste.

It could have been done right even with the added action, since the flight down the stairs in the dark couldn't be filmed. Why exaggerate Frodo's injury? Even if ther troll just threw the spear it wouldn't be so hard to believe.

jerseydevil

11-13-2003, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Right on, Cirdan. PJ should have had his actors TELL the audience big parts of the story!!!!! Now THAT would have been incredibly exciting, been true to Tolkien, and would have saved New Line a bunch of money on special effects.

Crdan was just pointing out how it is in the book. It is described - it's as a FLASHBACK. Which Jackson could have done while explaining the Ring's history ot Frodo or during the Council of Elrond which was a terrible scene.

It's truly a shame that the world will never get to see a true "purist" LOTR movie with Glorfindel, Tom Bombadil, singing, and plenty of jolly exciting stuff with characters sitting around and talking about what happened to them. Instead we'll have to suffer through another action-movie from this hack Jackson.
There is NO "purist" looking for a page by page Lord of the Rings movie - can you get that through your head? And yes - for the next 20 years we will have to suffer through that movie the hack jackson put together.

You obviously know nothign about Film making if you think that the way jackson made the movies was the only way to make them exciting and that it was impossible to keep true to the books.

Cirdan

11-13-2003, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
]PJ should have had his actors TELL the audience big parts of the story!!!!!

That doesn't seem like a very good idea to me, BB. Although it would have been more dramatic to wait for the council to reveal the ring's full history. Tolkien's slow reveal is far better than "Here's the whole story up front so your tiny brains won't get all confused along the way." I love the prologue, but the timing is poor. This would have saved time by elimiating the repeated returns to Isildur to add detail later.

It's truly a shame that the world will never get to see a true "purist" LOTR movie with Glorfindel, Tom Bombadil, singing, and plenty of jolly exciting stuff with characters sitting around and talking about what happened to them. Instead we'll have to suffer through another action-movie from this hack Jackson.

It's good to see you're finally coming around. We'll just have to try to enjoy what PJ is serving up for now. It's not quite as bad as you make it sound. Just the parts PJ added.

I hear the academy is just abuzz about the King Kong remake.

Black Breathalizer

11-13-2003, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You obviously know nothign about Film making if you think that the way jackson made the movies was the only way to make them exciting and that it was impossible to keep true to the books. I apologize. I've obviously been paying far much attention to the hundreds of film critics around the world who have praised Peter Jackson for his skill in bringing LOTR to the big screen instead of listening to you, jerseydevil.

Academy Award nominations and billions in revenues be damned if you don't have the official jerseydevil seal of approval. I stand corrected.

jerseydevil

11-13-2003, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I apologize. I've obviously been paying far much attention to the hundreds of film critics around the world who have praised Peter Jackson for his skill in bringing LOTR to the big screen instead of listening to you, jerseydevil.

The question is - how many of those film critics read the books? There was one film critic who, on reviewing FotR, called Frodo - Lord of the Ring. :rolleyes: The movies were average - Terminator 3 got great reviews too - as has many other action movies. It's doesn't mean the movies are GREAT movies and it doesn't mean that Lord of the Rings could have been made into a TRUE classic - unlike the movie that jackson gave us.

Academy Award nominations and billions in revenues be damned if you don't have the official jerseydevil seal of approval. I stand corrected.
It didn't deserve the nominations - nor did it end up winning. As for the millions - look at how much Terminator 3, Matrix Reolutions, Sprider-Man, Star Wars - etc had brought in. Now of those are great movies - yet they made tons of money. The amount of money a movie brings in has no bearing on whether the movie is actually good.

hectorberlioz

11-14-2003, 12:21 AM

Agree - but in addition to Longshanks - Aragorn pulls out a FULLY forged sword - NOT Narsil. When I saw that - I just thought - what the hell is this? The movie just seemed to be getting worse and worse and worse.
Bakshi also showed Narsil when aragorn takes out his sword.
I think Bakshi's version is just as bad as PJ's

jerseydevil

11-14-2003, 12:30 AM

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
Bakshi also showed Narsil when aragorn takes out his sword.
I think Bakshi's version is just as bad as PJ's
Narsil should be what is shown - the borken sword. It is Anduril that it is reforged into. Bakshi shows Narsil and except for the animation - Bakshi's version is much better than jackson's in many respects. It was far closer to the books and showed the friendship and was more Hobbitcentric. There were problems with Bakshi's one was that he ran out of money - but he was a TRUE fan of the books. If someone whith his love of the books - with Jackson's money - then there could be a TRUE Lord of the Rings movie made. And that movie would be a classic epic - not an crap hollywood action movie.

I put in my Bakshi version and double checked and Aragorn pulls out Narsil - not a fully forged sword like Jackson has.

hectorberlioz

11-14-2003, 12:34 AM

Not Sam. bakshi's Sam was retarded and looked like the troll from central park.
but, you're right, despite the animation, it did stay closer to the books.

jerseydevil

11-14-2003, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
Not Sam. bakshi's Sam was retarded and looked like the troll from central park.
but, you're right, despite the animation, it did stay closer to the books.
Sam was a little too brain dead in Bakshi's version - but Pippin and Merry were really good. I didn't like the way Aragorn looked - but overall the movie was better than jackson's. The Ringwraiths were great in Bakshi's - especially the Flight to the Ford scene (although animation could have been better).

hectorberlioz

11-14-2003, 12:45 AM

I was making jokes with my brothers and how Aragorn looked like a "indian cheiftain":p and Sam was "troll" and we did imataions of legolas(who's voice was supplied by anthony daniels-who is none other than c-3po in the starwars films) when he looks cross-eyed and is yelling "fly! fly!":p

jerseydevil

11-14-2003, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
I was making jokes with my brothers and how Aragorn looked like a "indian cheiftain":p

I was going to say that Aragorn looked too much like an indian.

and Sam was "troll" and we did imataions of legolas(who's voice was supplied by anthony daniels-who is none other than c-3po in the starwars films) when he looks cross-eyed and is yelling "fly! fly!":p
I didn't know that legolas was done by Anthony Daniels - I'll have to rewatch it now and listen to legolas. :)

hectorberlioz

11-14-2003, 12:55 AM

I thought Gandalf was really great in it(the bakshi version).

jerseydevil

11-14-2003, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
I thought Gandalf was really great in it(the bakshi version).
yes - he was. Much more wise and he walked more like he was weighted down and old. Also - he didn't wimp out and act like a whipped puppy while talking to Saruman.

The Council of Elrond was much better and it also included Bilbo.

mithrand1r

11-14-2003, 02:53 AM

Although I enjoyed Bakshi's version in many respects it does contain its own share of faults.
(The Tolkien Sarcasm Page (http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/tolksarc.htm) does a very good job of pointing out the faults of Bakshi's film.)

In some respects, since I thought PJ&Co. version of LOTR was going to be a film adaptation of LOTR, I was puzzled about why he did not borrow what Bakshi did well.

I thought Bakshi captured Bree well.

I never thought of Aragorn as an Indian, but I see how this could happen. ;)

Sam I agree looked goofy.

mithrand1r

11-14-2003, 02:56 AM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
yes - he was. Much more wise and he walked more like he was weighted down and old. Also - he didn't wimp out and act like a whipped puppy while talking to Saruman.

The Council of Elrond was much better and it also included Bilbo.

It was the hair that weighed Gandalf down so much. ;)

I think that Bakshi sticking closer to the book helped his version, since at times the animation was very poor, IMHO.

azalea

11-17-2003, 04:24 PM

This thread is the most current one that I think would be appropriate to be deemed the official "Has Jackson done a good job of adapting TLotR to film" thread. I'd like to see the majority of discussion about this topic be done here, rather than leaking into each thread. That way, we can have a lively debate pro vs. con, and yet the other threads will be available for specific instances, and for other topics unrelated to debate concerning Peter Jackson. I hope this will be satisfactory for everyone.

[I'm not saying you can't debate stuff in the other threads, just that the GENERAL argument regarding Peter Jackson's OVERALL job need not permeate the entire forum, because that has it's very own thread...here.:) ]

Bacchus

11-19-2003, 06:33 PM

Not to nitpick, but the Bree gate scene was not made up out of whole cloth. The Nazgul threw down the gates and passed through the town like a gale on October 2, according to Gandalf at the Council. This event left the inhabitants waiting for the world to end, as I recall.

As I've said before, my opinion is that PJ on balance did a quite good job of adapting the books to film. I state this opinion as a dyed-in-the-wool purist in the matter of the books. I am fully aware of every minor (and major) change made from the original, down to being able to list quotes lifted from other parts of the story and inserted into the movie. Personally, I find the attention to detail in using obscure quotes in new ways quite good. [example-the opening lines of FOTR spoken by Galadriel were spoken by Fangorn in ROTK]

azalea

11-20-2003, 04:46 PM

I wanted to respond to a question Root16 asked in the other thread, so I'll just reply here.

He asked what PJ said that demonstrated his lack of knowledge about the books. In addition to making some changes that were a far departure from the book (which I feel that one who knew the books intimately wouldn't have made), in both EEs he asks Phillipa and Fran "was this in the book?" or "This was from the book wasn't it?" This tells me that although he has read the books, he hasn't read them as much as I would have expected someone making the movies to have done.
[FYI, I'm not a "Jackson hater," I happen to really like the movies, but I think it's apparent that he is less familiar with ME as presented in the books than he could have been. It may have been intentional, that he didn't want his movie making creativity hampered by a need to stick to the written page, and for that reason he had Phillipa Boyens on board to be the "voice of the book" for him]

jerseydevil

11-20-2003, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by azalea
I'm not a "Jackson hater,"
I'm the jackson hater. *waves hand high in the air* :D

Root16

11-20-2003, 04:52 PM

I think I'm gonna have to agree with you here, Azelia, that he wouldn't have made certain changes had he been more familiar with the books. On the other hand, I'm not that familiar with the books and I wouldn't have made the changes he made. So... heh, I dunno.

azalea

11-20-2003, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm the jackson hater. *waves hand high in the air* :D

Tee hee:D (Although I think you can be spotted without having to raise your hand.:D )

originally posted by Root16
I think I'm gonna have to agree with you here, Azelia, that he wouldn't have made certain changes had he been more familiar with the books. On the other hand, I'm not that familiar with the books and I wouldn't have made the changes he made. So... heh, I dunno.

I think that speaks to the fact that NO ONE would have duplicate adaptations of the book, since everyone is different and has a different view of the important points of the book, as well as different ideas about what makes a good movie, etc. It is obvious to many that Jackson loves both the macabre (this is esp. obvious if you watch his other movies) and battle sequences. Thus, it should be no surprise that he has played up both the macabre elements of the story (Dead Marshes, etc.) as well as the fight scenes (Helm's Deep). I give him credit for allowing the women to embellish the "love scenes," to give the movies some depth in that respect (I happen to like the scene with Aragorn and Arwen on the bridge in Rivendell...*sigh* ;) ).
Someone who dislikes a lot of gore would play down the battle scenes in their version, and perhaps do a lot more dialog (perhaps including the feast in Rivendell, with the exchange between Bilbo and Aragorn) -- the possibilities are endless! I think the differences are what makes life both interesting and frustrating at the same time.:D

Root16

11-20-2003, 06:06 PM

I think the extent to which film adaptions could range for LOTR is particularly large. There are so many different things that different people connect with. There are actually few things that everyone feels unanimous about. And there is tons of stuff, specifics, scenes and characters, that everyone has a different opinion about and connects to in their own ways, as well as the more broader themes which you pointed out. So it's virtually impossible for someone to make a film adaptation which pleases themself, the book readers and also the non book readers and of course the pesky studio that is putting their neck on the line (in the case of New Line, rumor had it if the movie tanked, the studio would go bankrupt).

Black Breathalizer

11-20-2003, 06:12 PM

One thing we need to keep in mind is that if these films were crappy, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The only reason Tolkien Purists are up-in-arms is because these films have touched such a responsive cord around the world and have become so popular in their own right.

I would like to be directed to the parts of the EE where Jackson asks questions about what's in the books. Everything I've seen on both of the EEs lead me to the exact opposite conclusion, that Jackson knew Tolkien's story better than most people.

Root16

11-20-2003, 06:17 PM

Root16

11-20-2003, 06:19 PM

jerseydevil

11-20-2003, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
One thing we need to keep in mind is that if these films were crappy, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The only reason Tolkien Purists are up-in-arms is because these films have touched such a responsive cord around the world and have become so popular in their own right.

That is so far off base. My problem with the movies - is I don't think they are very good - PERIOD. I would have watched them in the theater - but they would not be getting this kind of response if they weren't Lord of the Rings. The only reason these movies are getting talked about at all - or getting the type of attention they are is becuase of the books. Take away the books and you just have an average action fantasy movie.

I would like to be directed to the parts of the EE where Jackson asks questions about what's in the books. Everything I've seen on both of the EEs lead me to the exact opposite conclusion, that Jackson knew Tolkien's story better than most people.
That's because you are in love with jackson and obviously want to have his child - you have an inability to see anything wrong with jackson or his movies. :D it's gone way past ass kissing now.

Root16

11-20-2003, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
That is so far off base. My problem with the movies - is I don't think they are very good - PERIOD. I would have watched them in the theater - but they would not be getting this kind of response if they weren't Lord of the Rings. The only reason these movies are getting talked about at all - or getting the type of attention they are is becuase of the books. Take away the books and you just have an average action fantasy movie.

:confused:You're all alone in a sea of head scratching.:confused:

Actually, that's an interesting point you make. Hard to know one way or the other. Any idea how you would analyze such a claim to find out if there is any verisimilitude to it?

Are you saying that's it only because Lord of the Rings is such a good story, and the story shines through the "average action fantasy movie" that it really is?

Please clarify. You might have an interesting point to make here, even if you're wrong. :P

jerseydevil

11-20-2003, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Root16
:confused:You're all alone in a sea of head scratching.:confused:
Actually I'm not all alone. There are more people who have problems with the movies than don't have problems with them. They may not have as many problems with them. So I don't know what you mean? Have you READ the full thread as well as the other threads?

Root16

11-20-2003, 06:45 PM

jerseydevil

11-20-2003, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by Root16
I haven't read too many posts on this board, but from what I have gathered, most people think the movies are good or great, while a very small handful find them boring, really bad or or just plain no good.
Well I just think they're average and not what I expected at all from a movie based on Lord of the Rings and I was very disappointed.

Root16

11-20-2003, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well I just think they're average and not what I expected at all from a movie based on Lord of the Rings and I was very disappointed.

I respect that. I just wish you would give some specifics so I could see if I can see where you're coming from. Everyone once in a while I'll ask myself why I like the films. What's so great about them. Is there really any substance there at all. Or is it all just exposition very well sugar coated? Is the execution and cinematic beauty enough? Should these films have more substance? An interesting point, seeing as PJ has commented on the first two films just being a lead up to the real pay off, ROTK, that he felt like he had to get through all this exposition that was necessary in the first two films.

zinnite

11-20-2003, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Root16
I haven't read too many posts on this board, but from what I have gathered, most people think the movies are good or great, while a very small handful find them boring, really bad or or just plain no good.
Many of us do think they are good or great, but many of those same people also think there are some serious/ridiculous flaws, additions, and omissions. I'm one; I love the films, but there's some stuff that just p***es me off about them.

jerseydevil

11-20-2003, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by Root16
I respect that. I just wish you would give some specifics so I could see if I can see where you're coming from. Everyone once in a while I'll ask myself why I like the films. What's so great about them. Is there really any substance there at all. Or is it all just exposition very well sugar coated?

To answer this - I think there is very little substance to the films. I was looking for intelligent films - not void of action - but more concentrating on the characters and the friendships. Instead Jackson concentrated too much on the action - going so far as to throw out the Gift Giving scene.

Is the execution and cinematic beauty enough?

No - that is not enough. The latest Star Wars movies have that - and I would hardly call them great films.

Should these films have more substance?

yes they should have - as I said above.

An interesting point, seeing as PJ has commented on the first two films just being a lead up to the real pay off, ROTK, that he felt like he had to get through all this exposition that was necessary in the first two films.
"had to get through" that is the type of wording of jackson's I can't stand. He's always saying "couldn't linger, need to move on, needed to get them out of there as soon as possible" That's why the movie is an action movie and why it feels rushed. he has very little characterzation.

Root16

11-20-2003, 07:18 PM

had to get through" that is the type of wording of jackson's I can't stand. He's always saying "couldn't linger, need to move on, needed to get them out of there as soon as possible" That's why the movie is an action movie and why it feels rushed. he has very little characterzation.

Yea, I've noticed this too and it has bothered me,

He also said the studio told him they wanted a "roller coster of a film" - So you can see what's influencing him saying these things.

If only we lived in a perfect world. You definately make valid points. Something tells me we are going to get the substance we have been craving in the third film, though.

The sad thing is, being that New Line was funding the film, it is as much their film as PJ's or Tolkien's! So all the blame can't be heaped on PJ. Most of it, in fact, should be directed to New Line.

Anway, I think these discussions end up being a moot point.

jerseydevil

11-20-2003, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Root16
He also said the studio told him they wanted a "roller coster of a film" - So you can see what's influencing him saying these things.

Well then he shouldn't have gone all over the place saying how he was doing the films for the fans and making comments like "I can't change that - the fans would have my head". He had more control than he admits.

If only we lived in a perfect world. You definately make valid points. Something tells me we are going to get the substance we have been craving in the third film, though.

I doubt it - because Jackson isn't that great of a director. And he wants to create an action film. His passed history with the films doesn't make me expect anything better than what he has given.

The sad thing is, being that New Line was funding the film, it is as much their film as PJ's or Tolkien's! So all the blame can't be heaped on PJ. Most of it, in fact, should be directed to New Line.

Actually most should be leveled at Jackson and the writers. NO reason for dwarf tossing jokes or for merry and pippin to act like brain dead idiots. No reason for Aragorn to be a wimp running from his heritage like he is in the movie.

Anway, I think these discussions end up being a moot point.
They do end up being moot - but maybe someone on here will be the next director for a Lord of the Rings movie and remember some of the complaints. I'll be waiting for another version and hopefully they will get it right. Jackson fell far short.

hectorberlioz

11-20-2003, 09:08 PM

They do end up being moot - but maybe someone on here will be the next director for a Lord of the Rings movie and remember some of the complaints. I'll be waiting for another version and hopefully they will get it right. Jackson fell far short.
well, jackson is short.

Root16

11-20-2003, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
They do end up being moot - but maybe someone on here will be the next director for a Lord of the Rings movie and remember some of the complaints. I'll be waiting for another version and hopefully they will get it right. Jackson fell far short.

It's gonna be a loooong time before another director will be so ambitious to try and top this film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings.

Just outta curiosity, what film directors do you hold in high esteem?

PJ claims he cries when watching parts of Return of the King as well do members of the cast as well. I, for one, am psyched; truncated as the film is looking to be shaping up to be.

hectorberlioz

11-20-2003, 09:58 PM

It's gonna be a loooong time before another director will be so ambitious to try and top this film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings.
not if we allkeep working at it.
it will not be a long time before anothre director tries lotr. know why? because im directing, and i will definitely top jackson's version.

Root16

11-20-2003, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
not if we allkeep working at it.
it will not be a long time before anothre director tries lotr. know why? because im directing, and i will definitely top jackson's version.

LOL - you're kidding, right?

Are you gonna use New Zealand?

Ringil

11-20-2003, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Root16

PJ claims he cries when watching parts of Return of the King as well do members of the cast as well.

I imagine a lot of us are going to cry, but for a different reason.

hectorberlioz

11-20-2003, 10:24 PM

LOL - you're kidding, right?
not if everyone works at it, it wont be a joke.

Are you gonna use New Zealand?
all around the world. maybe new zealand.
I know what you're going to say "what you're doing is expensive", well, we'll get help from lets say....
sam waltons daughters?:D . queen elizabeth?:D . once people (rich people) realize what a great script azalea and the crew have written, they'll be fighting to fund us.

Root16

11-20-2003, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
not if everyone works at it, it wont be a joke.

all around the world. maybe new zealand.
I know what you're going to say "what you're doing is expensive", well, we'll get help from lets say....
sam waltons daughters?:D . queen elizabeth?:D . once people (rich people) realize what a great script azalea and the crew have written, they'll be fighting to fund us.

You guys have a script? How long have you been working at this? This is really exciting. Now what we need is to merge Jacksons' vision with your guys script and we'll have the best of both worlds.

hectorberlioz

11-20-2003, 10:59 PM

well, we have our own vision, just as good as (and better) than jacksons.

Root16

11-20-2003, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
well, we have our own vision, just as good as (and better) than jacksons.

So y'all are working on a script?

You really wouldn't be able to release this for like 50 years methinks. No theater would wanna run another version of LOTR on the heals of this one.

But you guys have something of a script in the works?

Is there a thread or forum on here detailing the progress of this new film adaptation?

hectorberlioz

11-20-2003, 11:46 PM

we have a thread for it.
we need to actually get together to actually...ahem..start.:D
azalea and I are discussing the script...

Root16

11-20-2003, 11:53 PM

cool, what's the thread called?

jellyfishannah

11-21-2003, 12:24 AM

I think it's "LOTR remake crew and plans" It's in this forum.

mithrand1r

11-21-2003, 01:03 AM

Originally posted by jerseydevilActually I'm not all alone. There are more people who have problems with the movies than don't have problems with them. They may not have as many problems with them. So I don't know what you mean? Have you READ the full thread as well as the other threads?

Originally posted by Root16
I haven't read too many posts on this board, but from what I have gathered, most people think the movies are good or great, while a very small handful find them boring, really bad or or just plain no good.

Below are a few links from some of the other threads around here. Some of them have some criticisms of what was done in PJ&co LOTR films.

If you are interested in seeing what a particular user has posted you could click on the members button on the top of each page and search alphabetically for the user. Select the user and then search the posts the user made.

What people think of Two Towers (*SPOILERS*)
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=161539#post161539

Roman Circus
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=165028#post165028

Good&Not so Good of FILM LOTR (so far ;) )
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=187487#post187487

Jackson & the Misuse of Time
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=169746#post169746

Jackson & the Misuse of Time
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=169761#post169761

The Critics' treatment of Tolkien & Jackson
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=187682#post187682

Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=261185#post261185

Root16

11-21-2003, 01:35 AM

Wow, thanks a lot Mithrand1r!

You read my mind.

I wasn't in the mood to search through the forums to find the meat and potatoes as it were.

Should be interesting to read all the different opinions.

mithrand1r

11-21-2003, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by Root16
Wow, thanks a lot Mithrand1r!

You read my mind.

I wasn't in the mood to search through the forums to find the meat and potatoes as it were.

Should be interesting to read all the different opinions.

You are welcome.

I really should use this feature of the site more often, instead of retyping what I or other people have said over and over again.

azalea

11-21-2003, 03:29 PM

I never said Jackson didn't love and respect Tolkien's work, I said that he wasn't as familiar with the details of the story as one would think he'd be, which led me to believe that it'd been a while since he actually read the book cover to cover. I don't remember where in the commentary he asked the questions (it was a few different times throughout), so I can't give you the exact quotes, but maybe someone who is about to watch it can make note of when they hear it and post it here.

[And although it's off-topic, I have to agree that we shouldn't look at our little project to be in theaters for several years. I think it would be LotR overload for the viewing public, and it would be constantly compared to PJ's version, whereas I'd like to see ours stand on its own.]

Root16

11-21-2003, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by azalea
I never said Jackson didn't love and respect Tolkien's work, I said that he wasn't as familiar with the details of the story as one would think he'd be, which led me to believe that it'd been a while since he actually read the book cover to cover. I don't remember where in the commentary he asked the questions (it was a few different times throughout), so I can't give you the exact quotes, but maybe someone who is about to watch it can make note of when they hear it and post it here.

My bad. I actually do remember what you're talking about. Never bothered me, though. Not everyone is an intellect and studier of Lore. I don't understand how anyone can be expected to remember every detail in the book. Anyway, everyone has their own expectations. As for me, mine were for the most part exceeded, with certain aspects of the final product falling a little short. Script mainly.

[And although it's off-topic, I have to agree that we shouldn't look at our little project to be in theaters for several years. I think it would be LotR overload for the viewing public, and it would be constantly compared to PJ's version, whereas I'd like to see ours stand on its own.]

Ay, I hear ya.

Valandil

11-21-2003, 04:04 PM

Chipalote

11-22-2003, 01:38 PM

Battle scenes make up a large percent of the movies, but there are also strong bonds of friendship shown too. I think that without even reading the books you can tell that most of the fellowship would be willing to die for one another, and I don't think that, even though unnessesary, the brief love scenes with Arwen "ruined" the movies. As for Merry and Pippin, even though they might not be everyone's "perfect images" of the characters they imagined, are great for the movies. Their sense of humor gives a lighthearted feel that the movies wouldn't have otherwise. I don't agree with everything PJ did, but I think we have to give him a little credit. I mean, even with all our critisism these movies had to be a
helluva lot of work to make, and I think he pulled it off a lot better than any of us could of.

Chipalote:cool:

azalea

11-22-2003, 03:15 PM

[I tried to post this yesterday, but got kicked off Entmoot for some reason. This is in response to the two posts above Chipalote's]:
Of course, and as I said for all I know it could be deliberate, that perhaps he didn't want the details of the book to interfere with his own ideas in adapting the book to film. I was simply responding to earlier comments.
That being said, while I could understand it if the reason for his not reading it was what I stated above, I don't agree with Root16's excuse that not everyone goes in for Lore, etc. being a valid one for not being intimately familiar with the work. For the person who takes on the direction of ANY movie adapted from a book, the minimum requirement should be a thorough and COMPLETE knowledge of the source material. If he then chooses not to read it as a way of clearing his mind in the interest of creating the movie, it is his option, but that intimate knowledge of the book is to me the baseline for making the movie. Phillipa Boyens was serving in the capacity of "primary adapter" and she and Fran Walsh seemed more familiar with the details of the book than PJ. I am NOT making any kind of "judgement" against PJ, just making an observation based on things I've heard him say, in the TTEE and elsewhere.

Black Breathalizer

11-23-2003, 09:48 AM

I've watched the documentaries and listened to the writers' commentary track and I didn't hear anything that led me to believe Jackson wasn't initimately familiar with the story. The only comment that I found curious was by Fran Walsh, not Peter Jackson. At one point she asks on the commentary, "Who many books were in the Two Towers?" and Peter responds, "There were two in all three novels."

What I find absolutely amazing from watching the documentaries is how in the world Peter Jackson could have remembered even A FRACTION of the stuff he had to be directly involved with. As producer, production design-approver, writer, editor, and director, he was involved in EVERYTHING on a shoot lasting 280 days, lasting eight years, and covering three major films. Give the guy his due.

Root16

11-23-2003, 04:28 PM

Amen to that.

hectorberlioz

11-24-2003, 02:35 AM

this was posted by BB at the "theory" thread.
I found it very interesting too.
It has been analyzed to death in other threads here, but I would briefly like to counterpoint your concerns with the Flight to the Ford scene from the film. From the film maker's perspective, it served many purposes:[QUOTE]
Ok.
[quote]1. Introduced Arwen to the audience and explained her relationship to Aragorn.
-arwen never was a amin character in the first place. jackson did it so crazy feminists wouldnt kill him.

2. Provided a visual explanation for the flood.
would have been more fascinating if the audience didnt know what happenened first.

3. Perhaps provided a more convincing scenario to a non-Tolkien audience than having a near-death halfing ride a large horse to the ford by himself.
Frodo is a hero. Frodo is the ultimate hero.
if the book illiterate audience cant understand this, too bad.

4. Gave the audience an understanding of Arwen's strong sense of faith (hope) early in the series.
no, turns arwen into xena.

5. Provided the movie a strong visual (Arwen & Frodo chased by the Nine).
yeah, true.

6. Provided a nice bookend to Eowyn's heroism in ROTK. I dont see it.

7. A display of courage at the ford by Frodo may have lessened the emotional impact of Frodo's decision at the end of the film to go on to Mordor alone for the non-Tolkien audience.
:rollseyes:. the book illiterate audience should be smart enough to understand..., just dont see your point here...

Frankly, if the Flight to the Ford scene is the worst Jackson "trangression" in this film series, then I will be a very happy camper.

Gwaimir Windgem

11-24-2003, 04:18 AM

hector: May I recommend you use Europe? That's the area that it was intended to be in, after all. In fact, there is a specific valley (someone posted this on Entmoot a long time ago), that was the inspiration for Rivendell, where Tolkien went as a boy. :)

3. Perhaps provided a more convincing scenario to a non-Tolkien audience than having a near-death halfing ride a large horse to the ford by himself.

He didn't "ride a large horse". The horse carried him. This was made clear with very little dialogue in the book, and could have been in the movie, as well.

cassiopeia

11-24-2003, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by hectorberlioz

-arwen never was a amin character in the first place. jackson did it so crazy feminists wouldnt kill him.

Does Jackson say this, or is he just joking when he says it? Because it is a poor reason. I know there are worse things done in films than leaving out a certain female character. Personally I don't mind Arwen's role being increased in the films, just like Rosie's role is, but I don't like her taking away the best lines in the book and the courage Frodo shows at the Ford.

dawningoftime

11-24-2003, 07:48 PM

I think that Arwen's increased role is more is important because it makes the movie flow better rather then having her show up at the end of the third movie. The book as it is written does not flow well enough to translate it it cinema without making changes. There are some changes that have to be made. If there is anyone who is in film and can do a better job than Peter Jackson I would really like to see it.

jerseydevil

11-24-2003, 08:37 PM

zinnite

11-24-2003, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by dawningoftime
I think that Arwen's increased role is more is important because it makes the movie flow better rather then having her show up at the end of the third movie. The book as it is written does not flow well enough to translate it it cinema without making changes. There are some changes that have to be made. If there is anyone who is in film and can do a better job than Peter Jackson I would really like to see it.
Well, she didn't just "show up" at the end of ROTK--she was at Rivendell.
And the Aragorn-Arwen moments in the films are fine (if not a bit repetitive); I personally wish that story had been more fleshed out in the book rather than added as a footnote. I even think her substitution for Glorfindel is fine, but she shouldn't have taken Frodo to the Ford. It was unnecessary and pointless. Frodo should have been alone.

The point is not that somebody else could have done a better job, it is that Jackson himself could have and should have done a better job.

GrayMouser

11-25-2003, 12:54 PM

Have to disagree on the "Flight to the Ford " sequence- I think the half-conscious hobbit on the elven horse out-running the Black Riders would have looked far worse.

The scene I did hate was Sam at Rivendell whining to go home- I wrote him off him till his very last line in FotR.

And PJ's scene at Weathertop was an improvement- can you imagine half-size hobbits waving torches chasing away Black Riders?

It would have made them a joke thereafter.

"Oooh, here comes a Black Rider! Pass me a Bic."

squinteyedsoutherner

11-25-2003, 01:23 PM

How about this:

The hobbits and Aragorn are all seated in a circle each with their back to a small fire. Aragorn has warned them that an attack tonight is likely. They sit and wait as the tension mounts. At first they only feel the presence of something. Then suddenly a faint shape appears against the darkness, visible because it is even darker than the background. It slowly moves forward and becomes slightly clearer as more faint shapes appear behind the first. They hear sniffing and hissing in the dark, the shapes are still barely visible. Terror sets in, Merry and Pippin can no longer move. Suddenly Frodo disappears. Then a barely visible black shape rushes by the group. Frodo screams from somewhere distant. Before Aragorn has a chance to get a burning branch from the fire, the shapes are gone, and the feeling of paralyzing terror has subsided. Frodo is found lying on the ground moments later with a serious wound that will most likely pull him into the wraithworld if help does not come immediately, yet they are still alone in the wild, and the wraiths are still somewhere out there.

Black Breathalizer

11-25-2003, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
The hobbits and Aragorn are all seated in a circle each with their back to a small fire. Aragorn has warned them that an attack tonight is likely. They sit and wait as the tension mounts. At first they only feel the presence of something. Then suddenly a faint shape appears against the darkness, visible because it is even darker than the background. It slowly moves forward and becomes slightly clearer as more faint shapes appear behind the first. They hear sniffing and hissing in the dark, the shapes are still barely visible. Terror sets in, Merry and Pippin can no longer move. Suddenly Frodo disappears. Then a barely visible black shape rushes by the group. Frodo screams from somewhere distant. Before Aragorn has a chance to get a burning branch from the fire, the shapes are gone, and the feeling of paralyzing terror has subsided. Frodo is found lying on the ground moments later with a serious wound that will most likely pull him into the wraithworld if help does not come immediately, yet they are still alone in the wild, and the wraiths are still somewhere out there. The huge problem your scenario creates is that the film audience is left wondering, "why the hell did Frodo put on the ring??!?!?!?!" followed immediately by, "how the heck did those black riders find Frodo and stab him when he was invisible?!?!?!?"

squinteyedsoutherner

11-25-2003, 02:01 PM

Frodo puts on the ring for the same reason he tries to in Osgiliath and under the tree, Because he feels compelled to whenever the wraiths are near, that is easy to set up and from the book. Frodo enters the wraithworld whenever he puts on the ring, that is how they see him, that is why they keep trying to get him to put the ring on. Again easy to set up, in fact Gandalf has already told him not to wear it because he will draw the enemy to him.

I’ll take that over burned ringwraiths that return with unburnt robes the next day.

Black Breathalizer

11-25-2003, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
Frodo enters the wraithworld whenever he puts on the ring, that is how they see him. The Black Riders see Frodo in wraithworld? Pray tell, how does the audience know this unless you SHOW them as Jackson did? Until Weathertop, the audience had no clue the black riders could see Frodo when he had the ring on. Gandalf's warning would be the furtherest thing from the audience's mind.

As you're discovering, this filmmaking business isn't as easy as you might have first suspected. :)

hectorberlioz

11-25-2003, 02:52 PM

The Black Riders see Frodo in wraithworld? Pray tell, how does the audience know this unless you SHOW them as Jackson did? Until Weathertop, the audience had no clue the black riders could see Frodo when he had the ring on. Gandalf's warning would be the furtherest thing from the audience's mind.
So this is where things get messed up.
the audience is spoon-fed that frodo is seen by the wraiths in the wraithworld. instead of letting the audience figure it out for themselves-when they finally realize gandalfs warning.
i totally think squinteyedsoutherner's scene would have worked better.
Jackson thinks its Important to change things to make things clearer to the audience-as opposed to- Jackson thinks it important to make his movie as far close to the book as possible.
the latter would have been better despite the audiences confusion.

squinteyedsoutherner

11-25-2003, 09:53 PM

BB you’re missing my point, I don’t have a problem showing what Frodo sees when he puts the ring on either as it happens or as a flashback when the company finds him and asks him what he saw. My point was to create suspense instead of action, and to leave the wraiths more mysterious and terrifying by limiting what the audience clearly sees.

Nurvingiel

11-25-2003, 11:41 PM

This thread has ended up almost exactly like "The Irony of Jackson Bashing", but I think this one is more appropriate for a movie-adaption discussion. (I'm going to start posting in here instead of that one.)

I think LotR falls into the category of Very Good Action Movie. However, Great Movies Which May or May Not Contain Action beats the entire category of Action Movie. But you guys already know what I think from all my other posts on this subject.

Here's my last post from "The Irony of Jackson Bashing", which I think fits better in this thread.

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Thanks BB :) As the honoured representative of the Book and Movie Lovers with Book Purist Leanings (BMLBPL) I think I epitomize this by agreeing with half your points, and having some type of rebuttle for the other half ;). (By the way fellow BMLBPL, you can always vote me out! :D)

1. They could have done that at the dinner, a scene she was actually in.

2. I agree, and I thought the flood was also really well done. But it appeared as though Arwen caused the flood, when actually it was Gandalf (maybe Elrond collaborated on that too, I forget.)

3. Too bad non-Tolkieners, you're not seeing an ordinary movie! Frodo could out-ride the Nazgul because a) he is a hero, and super tough to the end. I felt this wasn't emphasised enough in FotR and TTT. b) he's riding a pro-star elven horse, which the audience knows because it understands Arwen, who spoke to it in elven. The audience has the benefit of subtitles, no reason to complain. c) Frodo should have at least defied the Nazgul, even if he didn't get there by himself. See a.

4. It succeeded in this, but the scene where Arwen gives Aragorn did that too, and was sufficient to outline her incredible hope and love for Aragorn as well. This may come as a surprise to people, but Arwen is (supposed to be) so far from being a main character she needs opera glasses. :)

5. That part was super cool. Again, I agree. (It would also have worked with Frodo alone, but this ties in with your near-death argument.)

6. You may have a point but I don't quite get it. Do you mean the Arwen and Eowyn are character foils? Ooh, we could make a thread out of that.

7. Rather than detract from the emotional impact at the end of the movie of his decision to go it alone, I think defiance in this scene would have augmented it. (As mentioned previously, I don't think it matters if the non-Tolkien audience misses some of the subtleties. Even if they do, they will still enjoy a good movie.) I think it would have been an improvement to emphasise Frodo's heroism, rather than have him end up as someone who is either almost dead or almost putting on the Ring.

I have certainly contributed to the analyzing to death of this scene. But points 1 through 6 are just nit-picks. I don't really have any issue with those changes, but point 7 is very important. Frodo is the hero of this story, and he is a hero. I feel this gets lost along the way.

Woah. I'm gonna let someone else post now.
;) Cheers, /\N/\

jerseydevil

11-26-2003, 12:25 AM

Nurvingiel - Elrond caused the flood - he has control over Bruinen. Gandalf added the "horses".

'Who made the flood?' asked Frodo.

'Elrond commanded it.' answered Gandalf. 'The river of this valley is under his power, and it will rise in anger when he has great need to bar the Ford...If I may say so, I added a few touches of my own: you may have noticed, but some of the waves took the form of great white horses with shining riders; and there were many rolling and grinding boulders...'

Black Breathalizer

11-26-2003, 11:10 AM

Frankly, the criticisms here of the film have nothing to do with the quality of the films--they boil down to each individual's personal set of storytelling preferences. We can agree to disagree on how well Peter Jackson's team adapted the books to the big screen. But the bottom line is that by any standard of measurement, Jackson's Lord of the Rings is a spectacular accomplishment and has clearly established itself as a modern day classic and THE film series of our time.

The excitement leading up to ROTK is unmatched in film history. And in this case, film fans won't be disappointed when ROTK finally comes out.

So in response to the topic of this thread, these films go far beyond mere B-movie "action flicks." The Jackson haters in this crowd who continually attempt to bash the films are looking more and more foolish as time goes on. Their views are no different from the Flat Earth Society's. Ignore the overwhelming facts and stand by your beliefs despite how utterly ridiculous they are to everyone else.

Sister Golden Hair

11-26-2003, 12:58 PM

So in response to the topic of this thread, these films go far beyond mere B-movie "action flicks." The Jackson haters in this crowd who continually attempt to bash the films are looking more and more foolish as time goes on. Their views are no different from the Flat Earth Society's. Ignore the overwhelming facts and stand by your beliefs despite how utterly ridiculous they are to everyone else.BB, what are the overwhelming facts being ignored that you speak of? I for one am not a hater of the films, and have successfully managed to divide my feelings between books and movies. But, the only facts that are really important as far as LotRs, are Tolkien's, not Jackson's. The movies are what they are and that's not all bad, but, they are not Tolkien, and therefore, they are not the books. Afterall, this is what these movies are based on isn't it?

Melko Belcha

11-26-2003, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Ignore the overwhelming facts and stand by your beliefs despite how utterly ridiculous they are to everyone else.

This is what kills me, you say that our facts are opinion, but your opinions are facts. The thing is they are all opinions, my feelings of the movies are my opinions, and your feelings about the movies are your opinions, neither is fact. You have said The Flight to the Ford in the book would not work on film, but what are your facts behind this? You can honestly tell me that you can read The Flight to the Ford in the book and not see the cinematic value in that scene? I am not asking you to dislike the way it was done in the film, all I am asking is that you take the time and see how well the scene from the book could have worked. That is what really gets me, I good care less that you love the films, I'm happy for you, but you act as if the changes in the films are the only things that could have made these films work, and nothing else would have, that if it was closer to the books it would have flopped in the theaters. There are many people I talk to who love the films and not even one of the changes bothers them, but they still will admit that if a scene in the film was done just like the book it would have worked just as well, if not better.

My nieces are bothering me right now and I lost what I was saying so I will just end this.

hectorberlioz

11-26-2003, 02:54 PM

Cheers for Melko Belcha!

Black Breathalizer

11-26-2003, 03:01 PM

First off, before going off on a tangent, please reread what I said above:

We can agree to disagree on how well Peter Jackson's team adapted the books to the big screen. But the bottom line is that by any standard of measurement, Jackson's Lord of the Rings is a spectacular accomplishment ...

The FACTS about this statement include:

Exhibit A: The first two films in the franchise garnered over 800 million at the box office apiece.

Exhibit B: Industry analysts predict the ROTK to become only the second film in movie history to break the 1 billion dollar mark at the box office.

Exhibit C: Industry analysts predict the film franchise to gross over 3 billion dollars worldwide.

Exhibit D: The first two films were universally acclaimed. The RottonTomatos.com site has critic approval ratings for both FOTR and TTT of over 90%, levels achieved by only the very best films.

Exhibit E: The franchise has garnered 18 Academy Award nominations including two in a row for Best Picture.

Exhibit F: The ROTK is the front-runner for Best Picture and Best Director.

Exhibit G: The LOTR DVDs have both set industry records in sales.

Exhibit H: The LOTR films have sprung thriving cottage industry in collectables.

Exhibit I: Industry surveys indicate the ROTK is the most anticipated movie in film history, eclipsing The Phantom Menace.

Need I go on??? Damn, I should be a lawyer! :) :) :)

jerseydevil

11-26-2003, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Frankly, the criticisms here of the film have nothing to do with the quality of the films--Obviously you can't read to well - A LOT of my problems are with the quality of the movies.

jerseydevil

11-26-2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Need I go on??? Damn, I should be a lawyer! :) :) :)
Too bad none of those things make a great movie. How mnay people talk about Titatanic as being a great classic movie? :rolleyes:

Earniel

11-26-2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The FACTS about this statement include:

Four of your so called "facts" are about a film that is yet to be released. It tends to make your reasoning a little shaky IMO.

Black Breathalizer

11-26-2003, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by Eärniel
Four of your so called "facts" are about a film that is yet to be released. It tends to make your reasoning a little shaky IMO. You're absolutely right. I'm standing on some awfully shaky ground relying on those insider reports. I guess we'll have to just wait and see how accurate those wild and crazy industry predictions turn out to be. :)

jerseydevil

11-26-2003, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
You're absolutely right. I'm standing on some awfully shaky ground relying on those insider reports. I guess we'll have to just wait and see how accurate those wild and crazy industry predictions turn out to be. :)
YOu stil fail to realize or to accept that just because movies make a lot of money - does not mean that they are actually good movies or will last the test of time. YOu bring up "The Phantom Menace" - it's actually a pretty forgettable film - and it made tons of money as you pointed out. Why did it make so much money? Because people couldn't wait for the new Star Wars movie to be released.

mithrand1r

11-26-2003, 10:35 PM

In some respects LOTR is similar to Raiders of the lost ark.

Both have ancient "artifacts" that can cause potential harm if they fall into the "wrong" hands.

Both have the hero travel around in their respective worlds.

Enemies await them at almost every corner.

At times the hero is able to find support from unlikely places and is given a moments rest from his various enemies.

The heros have to escape from some very tough situations.

Eventually the "artifact" is put beyond reach from the "wrong" hands.

Both have humor at various parts of the film.
(the monkey and Marion, Indy shooting swordmaster, Indy getting whacked by rotating mirror on ship)
(Dwarf tossing, Bonking head against chandelier (sp?), stealing fireworks and lighting fireworks in enclosed space)
to name some examples

The general pacing of ROLA is similar to PJ&co. LOTR (so far) with an almost nonstop pace of activity.

Granted, I am making some oversimplifications. I am sure if I started looking deeper for similarites, I can find many similarities with PJ&CO LOTR (to be fair, you can find the same similarities with the book, since I am making some oversimplifications here :)) and any action film.

In this respect PJ's LOTR is very similar to your typical Action film.

Ringil

11-26-2003, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
First off, before going off on a tangent, please reread what I said above:

We can agree to disagree on how well Peter Jackson's team adapted the books to the big screen. But the bottom line is that by any standard of measurement, Jackson's Lord of the Rings is a spectacular accomplishment ...

The FACTS about this statement include:

Exhibit A: The first two films in the franchise garnered over 800 million at the box office apiece.

Exhibit B: Industry analysts predict the ROTK to become only the second film in movie history to break the 1 billion dollar mark at the box office.

Exhibit C: Industry analysts predict the film franchise to gross over 3 billion dollars worldwide.

Exhibit D: The first two films were universally acclaimed. The RottonTomatos.com site has critic approval ratings for both FOTR and TTT of over 90%, levels achieved by only the very best films.

Exhibit E: The franchise has garnered 18 Academy Award nominations including two in a row for Best Picture.

Exhibit F: The ROTK is the front-runner for Best Picture and Best Director.

Exhibit G: The LOTR DVDs have both set industry records in sales.

Exhibit H: The LOTR films have sprung thriving cottage industry in collectables.

Exhibit I: Industry surveys indicate the ROTK is the most anticipated movie in film history, eclipsing The Phantom Menace.

Need I go on??? Damn, I should be a lawyer! :) :) :)

BB, You just don't get it.

Let me make this very simple for you to understand by using an old analogy.

Your reasoning (and I use the term very loosely) is similar to saying that a Ford Taurus is superior to a Lincoln because so many more people drive them.

One product appeals to (or in the case of cars, is affordable to) the masses. One is a cut above.