A theory

[Bacchus]

At the outset, let me say that I am not attempting to denigrate or in any way belittle the opinions of any individuals. I am honestly curious about this, and I think it might make for an interesting discussion.

Is there a correlation between the age of individuals and their willingness to accept changes made to the story in the movie adaptation? Speaking for myself, I made a conscious decision to seperate the books from the movies, and to judge the movies based upon their own merits or lack thereof. Having done so, I can honestly say that I think the movies were very well done, despite the fact that certain plot and character elements were changed to a greater or lesser degree. But here's the catch. 15 years ago, I would have been screaming to the heavens about the changes. I would not have been able to evaluate the movies beyond noticing all the myriad little (and big) changes. Even more recently, I recall being angry at hearing that Elijah Wood had been cast as Frodo-Frodo was 50, not 20. Perhaps age has mellowed me to the point that I no longer consider it critical that the movies match precisely. I really don't know.

Thoughts?

[Elf Girl]

Eh- no. I'm 13, jerseydevil's an adult, Ruinel's 7000. I can't speak for the pro-movie faction.

[Dúnedain]

Well as I think I've made it apparent, I am a huge fan of the books, but yet I am in the same boat as you Bacchus. I love the movies and appreciate what they have accomplished, changes or not. I am 25...

[zinnite]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Well as I think I've made it apparent, I am a huge fan of the books, but yet I am in the same boat as you Bacchus. I love the movies and appreciate what they have accomplished, changes or not. I am 25...
Me three? While I do dislike some of the stuff in the films, I also keep them seperate from the books (as I do with almost all book-to-film adaptations).

I'm 28 by the way. I don't think age has as much to do with one's reaction as does one's familiarity with the books. Maybe the less experienced fans are more accepting of the films because they've read the books only once, maybe twice, as opposed to a grizzled old Tolkien veteran who has the background and knowledge to be more critical. I know a couple 15-16 year olds who fall into the latter category, and old fogeys who fall into the former. Age really isn't the issue, IMO.

[Beor]

I agree, age doesnt really seem like an issue, more of a personality thing, how much you are willing to budge on the subject. some will not budge at all, and some will. It just depends on how you view the books. Same with that Jesus movie that is coming out (I dont know what it is actullly called), some people will probably hate it, and some will like it. Just depends on how you view the suject matter.

(if you can find one coherent thought here, you win!);)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Bacchus
Even more recently, I recall being angry at hearing that Elijah Wood had been cast as Frodo-Frodo was 50, not 20.

I want to correct you on this. He was only 50 in hobbit years. Going by that fact that "coming of age" occurs when a hobbit is 33 and is generally 18 for humans (in todays age). Therefore Frodo would have been similar to a 27 year old human - which I believe Elijah Wood did perfectly. I never had a problem with Elijah Wood as Frodo - he actually looked like I thought. Except for the ridiculous eye rolls and stuff, which I blame the director for - I think he did a good job.

As for the question at hand - I'm not going to claim I kept them seperate. I expected certain things from the movies - especially with Jackson's proganda of saying how much he couldn't change this or that and then to go into the theater and see Flight to the Ford. I was expecting a more intelligent movie and not a dumbed down action movie with the cliched cheap low brow jokes. As movies go - I think they are just average. Great scenary though - he captured the LOOK of Middle Earth great.

And yes - I am an adult. And I do not like the movies. I don't even have the extended edition yet and not sure when I will get it. The only real reason I need the movie is so I can discuss it on the moot.

I read the books 12 times in 6 years starting when I was a freshman in high school and reading them two times a year (spring and fall). Zinnite - I was one of those 15-16 year olds who fell into the latter category. :) I used to know everything about Tolkien and Middle Earth and the Lord of the Rings. Sadly I have lost too much of my knowledge. But I do know that Jackson's movie does not contain the heart and soul of the Tolkien.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

JD: I think it was actually more of a difference in culture than actual biology. Remember, Hobbits usually lived to be about a hundred years old; that is of course much older than humans, but if the Hobbit "coming of age" were to be equated to the human "18", then Hobbits ought to live nearly twice as long as humans, as of course 33-18=15. So I think it's more of a cultural thing, though there is some biological difference. However, I will agree to the extent that it wasn't bad, since Frodo was pretty well unchanged from the age of 33-50.

I used to keep the films separate; in fact, when BB categorized the purists here a long time ago, I coined the term "Separatist Purist" to describe myself. :p However, I am afraid that since then, my love of Tolkien has been traumatized severely by the same BB's constant singing of the praise of Jackson and his nigh on perfect adaptation, which has made Tolkien's work better (but not replaced it :rolleyes: ) to the point that I'm afraid my "separatism" has been damaged too severely to be used for some time in this regard.

[brownjenkins]

36 here... little or no problem with the changes

i don't know if your theory is true for every individual... but there may be a general trend... rock-solid principles in my teens became nice ideals in my mid-20s, and are now just something to write about on message boards ;)

When you say that you agree with a thing in principle you mean that you have not the slightest intention of carrying it out in practice. ~Otto von Bismarck

[Valandil]

Originally posted by zinnite
I'm 28 by the way. I don't think age has as much to do with one's reaction as does one's familiarity with the books. Maybe the less experienced fans are more accepting of the films because they've read the books only once, maybe twice, as opposed to a grizzled old Tolkien veteran who has the background and knowledge to be more critical. I know a couple 15-16 year olds who fall into the latter category, and old fogeys who fall into the former. Age really isn't the issue, IMO.

I'm quite OLD , (41!!!) - there seems to be no correlation with age though, from the posts here.

I disagree that it's familiarity with the books though. I think another poster was perhaps more on target when he mentions "personality". I have read the books a number of times now - at least 6 or 7. I prefer the books as books, but I like the movies - and concede that they're probably better as movies than a direct translation (not sure if that's the best word - it'll have to do) from the book to a movie would be as a movie.

[The Gaffer]

I'm 38, and you can put me at the point on the spectrum that says

"Design and production excellent. Realises that changes have to be made in adapting a book, but felt that some of them weren't the right ones or didn't work."

[Valandil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
I'm 38, and you can put me at the point on the spectrum that says

"Design and production excellent. Realises that changes have to be made in adapting a book, but felt that some of them weren't the right ones or didn't work."

I DO agree that I don't like ALL the changes, but I figured there'd be some changes and couldn't expect to like them all - just from personal preference.

Would you say though, as I would, that all-in-all, you're glad we have the movies... warts and all? :)

[Sister Golden Hair]

Well, looks like I'm the senior here at 48:) I read the books when I was 16 and have read them several times. I remember way back when, looking forward to the Bakshi film coming out. Went to see it and was quite disappointed, although I think it was a bit truer to the books. I have to say that I have enjoyed the Jackson films and found that I could seperate myself between books and movies, but with some disappointment at times where the films just may have gone a bit too far or not far enough, with the omission of certian characters, and what I thought were some drastic changes in scenes that were unneccessary and at times just plain silly, but overall, I liked the movies. I have found that you have extreamists with both movies and books, and then you have your seperatists. Not sure how much age has to do with it, but how much you know Tolkien and how far your devotion goes, and can you still be a devoted Tolkien fan if you like the films, or is it a crime to try to have an open mind. Does liking the films condem you as a true Tolkien reader?:confused:

[azalea]

I think you might be onto something. I haven't seen anyone over thirty who comes on here rant about how they hated the movies as adaptations. It's those hot-headed youths.;) Then again, I don't know the exact ages of some of the adult mooters, so I don't know that we can ever get a definative answer. Plus, I do know someone IRL who thought they were poorly adapted and he is over thirty. So who knows. It might have more to do with feeling compelled to speak one's mind than how much one did or didn't like them (IOW, the younger ones who didn't like them tend to post about it more, whereas an older one would not, perhaps viewing posting about something they didn't like as being a waste of time. Conversely, if you like something, you want to post about it no matter what your age. I don't know, I'm just guessing.)
BTW, I'm 32, and although I had criticisms, I enjoyed the movies. :)

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Well, looks like I'm the senior here at 48.Depends on your birthday. :)Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Does liking the films condem you as a true Tolkien reader?:confused: If my experience here at the moot is any indication, it does. It's a shame that a talented group of Tolkien fan filmmakers can't be respected and appreciated for what they've accomplished. Instead of calling the changes made by the filmmakers "silly," Tolkien Purists might want to take a few minutes to browse the EE of FOTR and TTT and understand there were very important reasons for everything they did -- or didn't -- do. You don't have to agree with the choices they made, but at least respect the fact they were made for valid filmmaking reasons.

[Bacchus]

Thank you for the responses thus far. I have a few reactions:

1. jd, I disagree with your model equating 33 to 18, but further discussion of that is probably better addressed in a separate thread in the books board.

2. I intentionally omitted my age so as not to bias the hypothesis, but I'll gve it now. I am 33, and first read the books about 20 years ago. Since then, i've read the books on average twice annually.

3. I took a university Tolkien class at age 28. I recall having feelings of trepidation going in, relating to Tolkien's admonition (in "On Fairy-Stories") against overanalyzing the 'bones' that fed the 'soup'. I worried that academic study of the works might destroy the magic. I was mistaken in my fears. My feeling is that taking the class and being forced to think about the works in new ways both increased my appreciation and expanded my tolerance for other interpretations.

4. brownjenkins captures my thought well. I have no doubt that there are exceptions to my posited theory, but I was curious to see if generalizations were possible.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
If my experience here at the moot is any indication, it does. It's a shame that a talented group of Tolkien fan filmmakers can't be respected and appreciated for what they've accomplished.

There you go again. Jackson has given NO indictaion that he is actually a fan other than him saying he is a fan. But he has also said many ignorant things and obviously doesn't know the books as well as he tried to claim.

As for respecting the filmmakers? I don't have to respect them. I think some of their changes were crap. I don't care if it was Tolkien himself who did the movies. I think they were dumbed down hollywood action movies.

Instead of calling the changes made by the filmmakers "silly," Tolkien Purists might want to take a few minutes to browse the EE of FOTR and TTT and understand there were very important reasons for everything they did -- or didn't -- do. You don't have to agree with the choices they made, but at least respect the fact they were made for valid filmmaking reasons.
They were NOT made for valid filmmaking reasons - they were made because Jackson wanted to make a fantasy acrtion movie - not Lord of the Rings. There is NO excuse for Flight to the Ford, there is NO excuse for the dwarf tossing jokes, there is NO excuse for osgiliath or Faramir. He may say he has reasons and usually his reason are just becuase he "needed to make it more intense" :rolleyes:

So don't feed that old line about he had to do everything the ay he did it becuase of the restraints of making the movie - he didn't. It's a load of bull.

An I did look at the EE of FotR - I just don't buy his proganda and trying to convince the Tolkien as to why he did things.

[Bacchus]

azaelea, you also make good points relating to selection bias. Can we generalize based on a possibly biased sample?

[Bacchus]

The point of this thread is NOT to discuss whether the movies were good. It is rather to discuss whether ones perceptions of the movie might correlate with age.

[azalea]

Originally posted by Bacchus
azaelea, you also make good points relating to selection bias. Can we generalize based on a possibly biased sample?

Maybe you can, but I have no idea what that means.;) (I'm a dunderhead when it comes to probability and all that mess, and greatly respect people who can...probabilize.;) )

[BTW, I forgot to mention in my first post that I first read LotR all the way through when I was around 14 (my dad had read book one to me when I was about 8).]

[Bacchus]

Originally posted by azalea
Maybe you can, but I have no idea what that means.;) (I'm a dunderhead when it comes to probability and all that mess, and greatly respect people who can...probabilize.;) )

[BTW, I forgot to mention in my first post that I first read LotR all the way through when I was around 14 (my dad had read book one to me when I was about 8).]
LOL! Sorry, I drifted into technical jargon. Basically, the point you raised is a common problem in statistical analysis. If a subgroup (say for instance movie haters under 30) is more likely to respond than other groups, generalizing to the overall population is a tricky proposition.

[Root16]

Interesting thread. Well, in response to those who don't tolerate PJ's adaptation (JerseyDevil mostly)

I definately don't agree with all the changes, (I also don't agree with this website's rendition of an Ent, I thought PJ's rendition was closer to the mark, even if their eyes were too big and comical), but given the fact than he was tailoring to both fans and those who hand't read the books, that he was given 3 hundred million dollar budget, and that we are dealing with a drastically different medium that the written page, I think he did a pretty good job.

I think the way PJ approached the movies was at the least a decent approach. To make sure the spirit and themes of Tolkien make it into the film, rather than copy scene by scene verbatim. I think few film makers would have known how to properly approach this when worrying about this two camp audience. I think he got the spirit exceedingly well. Where he fails, in my opinion, is that he doesn't trust the source material enough! Some of the changes just don't seem necessary. He even says on the FOTR:EE DVD that they were toying with all these ridiculous changes but found themselves continually coming back to what Tolkien had. I just wish PJ had trusted the source material a little more to translate to the screen. Omitting Saruman for pacing reasons, now PJ is beginning to get excessive with worrying about the film being perfect as a film over his representation of Tolkien. This is a pretty dumb choice on his part, methinks.

I also wasn't partial to the dwarf jokes through out TTT. One way I justify this is that PJ is adhering too closely to the fundamentals of telling a story through film. That you need comic relief (Merry and Pippin in FOTR, Gimli in TTT) there are some other things he does that seem like he's relying too much on movie making conventions, where I think he could have gotten away with abandoning many of them and trusted more on the brilliance of Tolkien to carry through and keep the boat afloat as it were.

A film maker has a lot of people to please. It's unfortunate PJ isn't more of a genius than he is. But he is only human after all, and wasn't able to get everything perfect.

One other issue I'd like to raise for those who don't approve of the Arwen augmentation. Would have the movie been better if Arwen was included as a foot note like in the book? Would it have been better if she was eliminated altogether? I think it's ok on the written page to have characters merely introduced with no development, but on the screen, if Arwen had as many lines as she does in the books, people would have no idea who she was or why she made such a small appearence into the film.

About removing Tom Bombadil: to quote Christopher Lee "this thing could go on and on"

JerseyDevil, I would be very interested to know how you would have LIKED the film to be made. How would you have approached the task? Given the 3 hour time constraint (PJ's film making skill played no small part in stretching that from what the studio originally wanted as 2 hours per film)

Err... this post didn't hit on as many specifics as I hoped. I only got 5 hours of sleep last night (err.. this morning) Hopefully I'll be able to collect my thoughts better and make a more intelligent post later on in the day.

BTW, hi all. :) I saw your Saruman petition signature just now JerseyDevil, so that's why I'm replying.

Ok, that's all for now, I'll have more later.

[Black Breathalizer]

Excellent post, Root16. Welcome to the moot.

[Root16]

JerseyDevil said:There you go again. Jackson has given NO indictaion that he is actually a fan other than him saying he is a fan. But he has also said many ignorant things and obviously doesn't know the books as well as he tried to claim.

I'm not a Tolkien pro like many of you here are. I'm curious as to what Peter Jackson said that showed his ignorance of Tolkien's work?

Oh, one more thing. I think the script prolly was the weakest thing about the movies.

[Valandil]

Root16 - I agree with so much of what you said. Again, we're probably getting off-topic from Bacchus stated thesis, but in this movie forum, ALL threads seem to lead back to the sticky web / question of "whether or not I liked the movie"

When first viewing this site as a guest, my honest impression was that the site was just filled with movie-haters - as in, those who hated Jackson's LOTR movies. After posting here awhile, I see that it's generally the same 6-8 people who are so vehemently (and quite vocally) opposed to what he's done.

I enjoyed them myself - very much so! And... they passed one very great test. Those friends of mine who had not read the books but saw the movies, with me or otherwise, were able to follow them - and appreciate them. I think it may even lead some of them to read the books someday.

[azalea]

[B]Bacchus: Lol, yes, that makes it a little clearer to me what you meant.:)
I guess the best way to do an unscientific survey would be to compare how many people you know both over and under 30 that did or did not like the movie adaptations, then compare that with the number of people who post who didn't like the movie (of both ages) versus the ones that did. Then you could draw some conclusions about it. That's about as scientific I get where statistics are concerned.:)

Root16: Welcome to Entmoot.:) I agree with a lot of what you said in your post.

May I invite everyone else not discussing age correlations regarding LotR opinions to go over to the "LotR movies=Typical Action Films?" thread, which you will find a few threads down on this page? There you can continue the discussion of the overall job PJ has done with the films, and this thread will stay on topic.:)

[Root16]

Woops, sorry for ignoring the topic. I've been posting on www.rottentomatoes.com ROTK forum and no one keeps on topic there.

I agree with you Valendil. I think the movie's 'hollywood' accessiblity to a wide audience, particulary people ignorant of Tolkien, are given a unique ability to get a glimse of Tolkien's myth that they would have otherwised never had a clue about. Lot of non-readers have now read the books because of the movie and many have gone further than that, investigating more into Middle Earth.

I suppose I should comment on the topic of this thread (which is an interesting idea)

I guess I'm sort of surprised no correlation between age and tolerance of the adaptation can be drawn based on the posts in this thread. I think I would have ended up in the camp of the intolerables (I'm 24 btw) had I been more familiar with the books. I read The Hobbit when I was 14 and found it to be the quintessence of story telling. Right afterward I read Fellowship of the Ring, but at the time I had no idea what I was reading. I was given the impression that the books were just for kids. For some reason I never got around to reading The Two Towers. Maybe it had to do with me having a hard time getting over the fact that LOTR didn't continue with Bilbo and then Gandalf dying. I never fully allowed msyelf to immerse myself in LOTR as I had in The Hobbit. I had fallen in love with Bilbo and now this Frodo character with a not as cool a name was trying to fill Bilbo's shoes. :D In retrospect, I wish I had continued reading! But, then again, perhaps it was for the best...

So 8 years go by and I've pretty much forgotten about Tolkien and LOTR. I hear about the movies coming out, but my renewed interest in Tolkien and my excitement on dumbed down by my skepticism that the movies will be any good. I decide not to re-read Fellowship to save me from noticing all the changes from the books. I was absolutely blown away by the movie. I then re-read Fellowship with a new understanding of the Tome. I think if I had already read the trilogy before seeing the movie I would have cheated myself of an awesome experience. After seeing FOTR I finished the Trilogy but didn't find that the imagery from the movie negatively affected my imagination or ability to get lost (or is it found?) in Tolkien's Middle Earth as I was reading.

Azalia said:May I invite everyone else not discussing age correlations regarding LotR opinions to go over to the "LotR movies=Typical Action Films?" thread, which you will find a few threads down on this page? There you can continue the discussion of the overall job PJ has done with the films, and this thread will stay on topic. Sorry about that Azalia. Will be re-locatin' now. :)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Root16
JerseyDevil, I would be very interested to know how you would have LIKED the film to be made. How would you have approached the task? Given the 3 hour time constraint (PJ's film making skill played no small part in stretching that from what the studio originally wanted as 2 hours per film)

BTW, hi all. :) I saw your Saruman petition signature just now JerseyDevil, so that's why I'm replying.

I'll reply to this. I felt the movies should be more intelligent. I think jackson dumbed them down and made action them too action oriented. I think that what he did with Flight to the Ford was an outrage, I think making Pippin and merry brainless idiots took away from their innocence they have in the books, I think Gandalf isa dottering old fool in FotR, I think the black riders are just menacing - but not psychologically terrifying in the movie. I have my opinions stated here dating all the way from december 2001 - and anyone who has been here that long - can tell you that I do not think jackson did a good job with the movies. I didn't even think that they deserved to be nominated for best picture, best director and the best script adaptation was just a joke.

Oh - concerning the rest of your post - a lot of your points - such as using pippin and merry as comic relief and needed gimli for comic relief in TT - is what I have termed Filmmaking 101 class. it seems Jackson was very good at picking up stuff he learned in filmmaking 101 - too bad he doesn't seem to have gone beyond the cliched, beginners stuff.

Sorry azalea - wanted to post this. We can now take this discussion to one of the other "I hate Jackson's action flicks" threads. :D

[Root16]

I have to go at this moment - I wanna continue this discussion though. Talk to you later.

[Root16]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'll reply to this. I felt the movies should be more intelligent. I think jackson dumbed them down and made action them too action oriented. I think that what he did with Flight to the Ford was an outrage, I think making Pippin and merry brainless idiots took away from their innocence they have in the books, I think Gandalf isa dottering old fool in FotR, I think the black riders are just menacing - but not psychologically terrifying in the movie. I have my opinions stated here dating all the way from december 2001 - and anyone who has been here that long - can tell you that I do not think jackson did a good job with the movies. I didn't even think that they deserved to be nominated for best picture, best director and the best script adaptation was just a joke.

Oh - concerning the rest of your post - a lot of your points - such as using pippin and merry as comic relief and needed gimli for comic relief in TT - is what I have termed Filmmaking 101 class. it seems Jackson was very good at picking up stuff he learned in filmmaking 101 - too bad he doesn't seem to have gone beyond the cliched, beginners stuff.

Sorry azalea - wanted to post this. We can now take this discussion to one of the other "I hate Jackson's action flicks" threads. :D

Wow, I couldn't disagree more on all points. I thought the Ford scene was poetic, I thought Merry and Pippin were cute and innocent and stupid, but stupid in a cute way. Gandalf a dottering old fool? Wow. I really am curious to how you would have is role be better. The black riders were terrifying. That's exactly what they were. I'm surprised this movie managed PG-13 on account of those Black Riders. Remember, PJ had to be creative in keeping things interesting while staying out of R rating territory. He did an amazing job. I can't believe you are serious!

The one thing I do agree with you is PJ going by the book too much. It's too bad he's too humble to acknowledge his own innate talent as a story teller through film and realizes he transcends film making conventions (ie. that he doesn't need to rely on them to make a compelling and entertaining film, they only serve to hinder his talents)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Root16
Wow, I couldn't disagree more on all points. I thought the Ford scene was poetic, I thought Merry and Pippin were cute and innocent and stupid, but stupid in a cute way. Gandalf a dottering old fool? Wow. I really am curious to how you would have is role be better. The black riders were terrifying. That's exactly what they were. I'm surprised this movie managed PG-13 on account of those Black Riders. Remember, PJ had to be creative in keeping things interesting while staying out of R rating territory. He did an amazing job. I can't believe you are serious!

How is pyschological terror going to bump them up to an R rating? As for your comment regarding the Flight to the Ford scene and declaration that it is "poetic" I'll just name you BB5.

The one thing I do agree with you is PJ going by the book too much. It's too bad he's too humble to acknowledge his own innate talent as a story teller through film and realizes he transcends film making conventions (ie. that he doesn't need to rely on them to make a compelling and entertaining film, they only serve to hinder his talents)
yeah - right BB5. :rolleyes:

[hectorberlioz]

16 here, read the books several times plus browsing through them a bit here and there.
i remember azalea saying it was mostly the hot-headed youths that were attacking pj.
i'm one of them...:p

[Root16]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
How is pyschological terror going to bump them up to an R rating? As for your comment regarding the Flight to the Ford scene and declaration that it is "poetic" I'll just name you BB5.

yeah - right BB5. :rolleyes:

Glad we're having an intelligent discussion here. So far you still haven't given any specific reasons why you don' t like certain things or why you agree or disagree.

What part of the Flight to the Ford didn't you like?

What more could PJ have done without getting gory to show the terror of the Black Riders? I just don't see how this could have been done any better.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Root16
Glad we're having an intelligent discussion here. So far you still haven't given any specific reasons why you don' t like certain things or why you agree or disagree.

What part of the Flight to the Ford didn't you like?

I have gone over this and over this. Even just recently there are tons of posts where I talk about Flight to the Ford. I will do it again - Flight to the Ford was KEY character development scene for Frodo. It was completely destroyed by xena-elf. he also had all nine blakc riders following them. Made for a great overhead shot- but it must have been more powerful if they had ambushed them like in the books.

What more could PJ have done without getting gory to show the terror of the Black Riders? I just don't see how this could have been done any better.
I have gone over this too. The black riders were more action oriented in the movies. They did not present a terror - of "oh my god they could be around the corner". They were just all action. A good director coudl bring out the pychological terror of the Nazgul. I have a long thing in here where I describe how Bree should have been done to show Sam's fear of the Black Riders waiting behind every door.

[Root16]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I have gone over this and over this. Even just recently there are tons of posts where I talk about Flight to the Ford. I will do it again - Flight to the Ford was KEY character development scene for Frodo. It was completely destroyed by xena-elf. he also had all nine blakc riders following them. Made for a great overhead shot- but it must have been more powerful if they had ambushed them like in the books.

Wait, wasn't Frodo much in the same state of being overtaken by the 'sting' of the black rider in the book? I must have missed this key character develompent when I read the book. Anyway, I'm sorry if you are reiterating yourself ad nauseum. I'll browse the boards and get back to you.

I have gone over this too. The black riders were more action oriented in the movies. They did not present a terror - of "oh my god they could be around the corner". They were just all action. A good director coudl bring out the pychological terror of the Nazgul. I have a long thing in here where I describe how Bree should have been done to show Sam's fear of the Black Riders waiting behind every door.

Ok, I see what you're getting at. You're right, the movie didn't instill much fear, and I can see now how PJ could have created more fear.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Root16
Wait, wasn't Frodo much in the same state of being overtaken by the 'sting' of the black rider in the book? I must have missed this key character develompent when I read the book. Anyway, I'm sorry if you are reiterating yourself ad nauseum. I'll browse the boards and get back to you.

He was - but the KEY character development was that him being overcome by the nazgul blade - but him withstanding it and then in the end defying the nazgul at the river - which he did not get to do in the movie because he was passed out.


Ok, I see what you're getting at. You're right, the movie didn't instill much fear, and I can see now how PJ could have created more fear.
I have many posts in this forum. It's just hard because I just went into some depth again over my feelings recently. I'll answer your questions though - once you explore the forum a bit and see my comments. :)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Very good posts, Root16. You strike me as a very thoughtful person. Welcome to the Moot. :)

Azalea: Regarding people over 30: I know Rian's made an occasional rant ("Aragorn needs his buff she-elf for support"! :D), and she's in her 40's; Elfhelm I think is in his 30's (not sure), and he's spoken against Jackson, too. Of course, he's spoken for Jackson a good deal, also, so they would cancel each other out. :p I think SGH has spoken against his adaptation, too; not sure about that, though. So it's not just the hot-headed "adolescents". :) Rian's about as non-hot-headed as you can get! Of course, JD has too; but I don't know if he's in his twenties or thirties. And of course, Ru has too, and she's several thousand years old! ;)

[Black Breathalizer]

I think the key element isn't age but IQ. People who love the books and the films are obviously real smarties. :)

[Bacchus]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I think the key element isn't age but IQ. People who love the books and the films are obviously real smarties. :)
*sigh*

*waits for inevitable OT retaliatory conflagration and wonders why people feel compelled to sidetrack discussions*

[Sister Golden Hair]

Yep, you're right Bacchus. This discussion is becoming the same as every other thread. Same arguement, same people. We don't need 20 off topic threads that argue the same thing over and over.

Get back on topic folks!:mad:

[Valandil]

MY THEORY on it is that you see the same people making the same arguments because they practically run everyone else off.:(

[Beor]

No prob... After viewing the threads, it seems that age has nothing to do with it, and it all depends on how you view the subject matter , and how you react to changes thereupon (probably a new word ;) )

[Bacchus]

Yes, it does in a way depend on how you view the subject matter. However, does age tend to affect this? My reading of the above posts leads me to believe that perhaps it does, although not necessarily directly.

There isn't an arbitrary number that you can point to, of course. In my own case, as i stated earlier, i trace my tolerance to the class that I took five years ago. Therefore, it's not so much age as a deciding factor (although age is a more easily measured variable) as the fact that there is a definable event in my life that changed my outlook from an opinion very similar to jd's to the one I currently hold.

[azalea]

I agree with Bacchus.
I didn't mean that no one over 30 dislikes the movie adaptations (I happen to know one, as I said), just that the people I've seen do a lot of posting about their dislike are younger than me. Rian I think didn't like them, but aside from a few comments, I haven't seen her posting about it here. I'll list a few mooters who I have seen post a good deal about how they don't like them -- keep in mind I'm including posts I've seen over the past YEAR or so. Some of them no longer post about it, presumably because they feel they've said all they needed to say about it at this point. But these are the mooters who, if someone asked me, I'd say fit the above description:

Jerseydevil -- I don't know his age, but I think it's early twenties
Ruinel -- ditto
Elf Girl -- thirteen?
Gwaimir -- seventeen?
Sheeana -- early twenties?
Wayfarer -- eighteen?

I know there are others, but these are the ones that I remember seeing some pretty strong anti-Jackson statements from at some point in the past year.
Some people have stated their strong dislike of certain aspects of the movies, and there are people who have no particular liking for the film, but just haven't posted about it except in one or two places to say they didn't like it, but these are people who I'd say have the overall opinion that Jackson truly "failed" in his attempt at adapting LotR.

[Earniel]

I think age probably has an influence, but I don't think it's the deciding factor. I think things like taste, willingness to compromise and attachment to LoTR have a hand in it as well. Among others.

What I have noticed (not necesarily on the board, but also in real life) is that younger people tend to take a more black and white stance in this sort of argument that older people. And that younger people will defend that stance or viewpoint with often more zeal than elders.

For the record, I'm 22. I quite enjoyed FoTR but was rather disappointed by TTT. I applaud the effort that was poured into the movies but I have a gradual disappointment and/or dislike for some scenes. Though I enjoyed other scenes a lot as well, even those that weren't originally from the book.

Originally posted by Valandil:
MY THEORY on it is that you see the same people making the same arguments because they practically run everyone else off.:(
That would be a sad evolution.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Azalea: I'm actually eighteen, but it's all the same, IMO. IIRC, Wayf is like three days younger than me, or something.

And Ruinel is several thousand years old! ;) Though, admitted, she does ACT like she's in her twenties. :D

Another thought on this age thing: Maybe it has to do with the status of the book. For the younger people, it was pretty well a classic, whereas for the olders, it was newer, and so less "venerable" as a work in public opinion. A great book is a great book; but it takes decades before it becomes a truly high-range work, at which point it is viewed generally with more "respect".

[Root16]

I think it has more to do with personality and personal cirucmstances in relation to LOTR rather than it having much to do with age. I'd say 15% age and 85% other stuff. A person's individual personality prolly being the biggest factor.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Root16
I think it has more to do with personality and personal cirucmstances in relation to LOTR rather than it having much to do with age. I'd say 15% age and 85% other stuff. A person's individual personality prolly being the biggest factor. Yes, I have to agree with that. Back when I read the books, the technology to do such films didn't exist. I always liked it that there was little if no pictures in the books, because it left it to the imagination that way. I think a lot of readers from my era are set in their ways as to what this story is like and how it appears. People that saw the movies before reading the books I don't think can ever know the pleasure of the imagination in the same way. I also think though, that many young people,(girls) mostly, are into the movies for the hot actors more than what the story is about, and will probably never read the books.

[justaregularguy]

Originally posted by Root16
I think it has more to do with personality and personal cirucmstances in relation to LOTR rather than it having much to do with age. I'd say 15% age and 85% other stuff. A person's individual personality prolly being the biggest factor.

I agree. The personality factors might be what the Myers-Briggs test calls "thinking versus feeling" and "sensory versus intuitive."

For example, are you the type of person who sees primarily the forest or the trees? Is your primary way of assessing to get a gestalt feel for its totality or to focus closely on the individual components? That sort of stuff.

Myself, I will share my bias frankly. In a forest/gestalt sense, PJ nailed for me my overall concept of what Middle Earth is. I thank our good fortune every day that we got him and not Disney or Dreamworks. Because he got the forest/gestalt sense right, I am not troubled by the many departures from the book.

It's PJ's reinterpretation of Tolkien's rewrite of the Hobbits' Red Book to me.

P.S. FWIW: Age: 46.

[crickhollow]

age: 21

high hopes were dashed after the first movie, and it took me a long time to recover. I now like the movies (I was much better prepared to separate the movies and books the second time around), but could never watch them as many times as some of you crazy fanatics do. I'd rather read a book. ;)

[Root16]

Originally posted by justaregularguy
I agree. The personality factors might be what the Myers-Briggs test calls "thinking versus feeling" and "sensory versus intuitive."

For example, are you the type of person who sees primarily the forest or the trees? Is your primary way of assessing to get a gestalt feel for its totality or to focus closely on the individual components? That sort of stuff.

Myself, I will share my bias frankly. In a forest/gestalt sense, PJ nailed for me my overall concept of what Middle Earth is. I thank our good fortune every day that we got him and not Disney or Dreamworks. Because he got the forest/gestalt sense right, I am not troubled by the many departures from the book.

It's PJ's reinterpretation of Tolkien's rewrite of the Hobbits' Red Book to me.

P.S. FWIW: Age: 46.

That's an interesting take on it. Thanks for taking my point a step further. ;)

[Black Breathalizer]

The Scene: The offce of famed Moot Psychologist, Dr. Justaregularguy. The Doctor is about to conduct a personality test to see if there's a relationship between how a person ticks and their views on Peter Jackson's LOTR films.

Dr. Justaregularguy holds up a butterfly-looking ink stain picture to two people selected to represent the two sides of this issue:

Justargularguy: BB, vat do you see in dis picture?

Black Breathalizer: I see a beautiful forest scene... I see... peace... tranquility... I see universal love and understanding...

Justargularguy: I see, I see...und you, jerseydevil. Vat do you see?

jerseydevil: I see that hack, Jackson, who only makes mindless action-flicks... and... and...

(justaregularguy worriedly jots some notes in a big spiral notebook.)

jerseydevil: I also see that DISGUSTING Flight to the Ford scene with Arwen... and UN-psychologically scarey ringwraiths... and... PJ's STUPID Merry and Pippin... and a COMIC-RELIEF Gimili and... and... and... THAT IDIOTIC...

Dr. justaregularguy presses his secret call button for the straightjacket people.

:)

[Bacchus]

justaregularguy, that is a very interesting thought. In Myers-Briggs terms, which type do you posit is more tolerant of the changes?

[Root16]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The Scene: The offce of famed Moot Psychologist, Dr. Justaregularguy. The Doctor is about to conduct a personality test to see if there's a relationship between how a person ticks and their views on Peter Jackson's LOTR films.

Dr. Justaregularguy holds up a butterfly-looking ink stain picture to two people selected to represent the two sides of this issue:

Justargularguy: BB, vat do you see in dis picture?

Black Breathalizer: I see a beautiful forest scene... I see... peace... tranquility... I see universal love and understanding...

Justargularguy: I see, I see...und you, jerseydevil. Vat do you see?

jerseydevil: I see that hack, Jackson, who only makes mindless action-flicks... and... and...

(justaregularguy worriedly jots some notes in a big spiral notebook.)

jerseydevil: I also see that DISGUSTING Flight to the Ford scene with Arwen... and UN-psychologically scarey ringwraiths... and... PJ's STUPID Merry and Pippin... and a COMIC-RELIEF Gimili and... and... and... THAT IDIOTIC...

Dr. justaregularguy presses his secret call button for the straightjacket people.

:)

LMAO :D

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally posted by Root16
LMAO :D How "intelligent" of you. To laugh from this marvellous joke.
You seem like a different person now.


I'm 14. I liked did like the movie generally.

I agree with justaregularguy (in his last post).

[Root16]

Originally posted by Radagast The Brown
How "intelligent" of you. To laugh from this marvellous joke.
You seem like a different person now.


Huh? Ya lost me. I only feign intelligence.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The Scene: The offce of famed Moot Psychologist, Dr. Justaregularguy. The Doctor is about to conduct a personality test to see if there's a relationship between how a person ticks and their views on Peter Jackson's LOTR films.

Dr. Justaregularguy holds up a butterfly-looking ink stain picture to two people selected to represent the two sides of this issue:

Justargularguy: BB, vat do you see in dis picture?

Black Breathalizer: I see a beautiful forest scene... I see... peace... tranquility... I see universal love and understanding...

Justargularguy: I see, I see...und you, jerseydevil. Vat do you see?

jerseydevil: I see that hack, Jackson, who only makes mindless action-flicks... and... and...

(justaregularguy worriedly jots some notes in a big spiral notebook.)

jerseydevil: I also see that DISGUSTING Flight to the Ford scene with Arwen... and UN-psychologically scarey ringwraiths... and... PJ's STUPID Merry and Pippin... and a COMIC-RELIEF Gimili and... and... and... THAT IDIOTIC...

Dr. justaregularguy presses his secret call button for the straightjacket people.

:)
I don't know if I would have laughed as hard if that was about me, but clever none the less.

If I understand correctly, your theory is that younger people are less accepting of the changes in the movie than older people.

I'm 20 and I think some of the changes are dumb, others (more numerous than the previous) are either fine or necessary, and that the movies are overall very good. I'm confused, do I prove your hypothesis or not?

Cheers, /N\

[azalea]

I don't think you are a part of the theory because I think the original premise was concerning people who have a strong dislike for the movies (that those that are very bothered by the changes made from the book tend to be on the younger side). So since you liked them, you don't have a place in the hypothesis (aside from not not liking them -- make sense?:confused: ;) ).
Those who weren't that bothered are on the outside of it. To get an idea of the validity of the theory, we'd need the people who have strong negative feelings about the way it was adapted to post their ages. Then we would be able to compare how many are "younger" (whatever that may be) to how many are "older." But even that would be flawed, because it isn't necessarily a random sampling (and we don't know how many just decided not to post in the thread).

[Elf Girl]

The strongly anti-Jackson people that I can think of are me, jerseydevil, Gwai, BoP, Ruinel... anyone else?

I am 13.

[Ringil]

Nothing here that hasn't been said before, but I wanted to register another data point for the "age" theory.

I've very rarely posted on this board, although Tolkien's books are my favorite books, and have been since I first read LOTR and the Hobbit in 1965. I'm 54 (55 next month), old enough to be most posters' father (or grandfather). If I were a regular poster, I'm sure I'd be in the running for the purest Purist.

I thought the movies were quite forgettable: they were dumbed down (to cater to a largely "dumb" movie-going mass market - my opinion), much too action-oriented (ditto previous), did unnecessary and unacceptable damage to some of the important characters and events (some possibly unintentionally or because of perceived "filmic" improvements), lacked almost all the richness of the books (unavoidable, but an important loss), and were "jumpy" (more so FOTR and somewhat unavoidable).

[Nurvingiel]

A somewhat random post but...

You may enjoy other threads like "The Irony of Jackson Bashing" (> http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=305201#post305201) which is really a book vs. movie debate, with participants ranging accross the entire opinion spectrum. It's very cool.

And someone mentioned BeardofPants and I realize I haven't seen her/him in ages. Is BoP still posting these days?

[hectorberlioz]

The strongly anti-Jackson people that I can think of are me, jerseydevil, Gwai, BoP, Ruinel... anyone else?
me.:)
I am 16

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Nurvingiel: Yes, she is, but she isn't posting in this forum, I don't think. Seen a good deal of her in GM, though. :)

[Wayfarer]

Phooie.

Could it be that how people feel about Jackson has something to do, not with the age of the individual, but with they way in which they view Tolkien's works?

JRR Tolkien has been one of the two primary influences on my life. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I read The Hobbit when I was in third grade, and The Lord of the Rings the next year. That is perhaps the defining event of my life. When I discuss what I think of Tolkien words like superlative, rapturous, sancrosanct, and trancendent come to mind.

Do I dislike what Jackson has done to Tolkien's work? Well Duh. Believe me, I watched JFoTR over and over and over. It wasn't very good, but I kept going back because I wanted desperately that maybe this time it will be good after all, where had I not been a Tolkien fan to begin with I wouldn't have bothered seeing it once, hype or no hype.

On the other hand, I see people like BB, and even Jackson himself, say "Um... Sure, yeah, I'm a fan of tolkien. I mean, I liked those books and everything." But I get the distinct impression that they 'like' Tolkien in the same way that I 'like'... well, basically every book I've gotten all the way through. Sorry, fellas, it's not the same.

I'd hazard a guess that maybe some of the other die-hard tolkien purists feel the same. (Although, despite what BB would have you believe, not every person who dislikes Jackson is a Tolkien Purist. I believe that Sheanna, for example, has vehemently criticized them for purely cinematic failure).

[barrelrider110]

One's life experiences do tend to shape one's opinion. I'm 50. I first read the Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings when I was umm... 25 or so. I watched the first television broadcast of the animated Hobbit and was one of the 5 or 10 people in the theatre to watch Ralph Bakshi's LotR. I found both experiences very painful. Neither version did any credit to Tolkien’s work.

Jackson's movies are far and above either attempt. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not enamored with Jackson’s work—far from it. But, if I had not lived through the horror of the two first attempts I might have felt differently.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
When I discuss what I think of Tolkien words like superlative, rapturous, sancrosanct, and trancendent come to mind.

Preach it, brother! ;)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Do I dislike what Jackson has done to Tolkien's work? Well Duh. Believe me, I watched JFoTR over and over and over. It wasn't very good, but I kept going back because I wanted desperately that maybe this time it will be good after all, where had I not been a Tolkien fan to begin with I wouldn't have bothered seeing it once, hype or no hype.

I agree with you 100%. I went back over an over to the theater to see FotR just hoping that this time I would like it. It never happened. Everytime I saw the Flight to the Ford scene I cringed. Everytime I heard Merry and Pippin say something completely brainless I wanted to pull out my hair (the council of Elrond scene comes to mind). And it is true - if that movie was the same storyline without having Tolkien's following fanbase to rely on - it wouldn't be given two thoughts.

On the other hand, I see people like BB, and even Jackson himself, say "Um... Sure, yeah, I'm a fan of tolkien. I mean, I liked those books and everything." But I get the distinct impression that they 'like' Tolkien in the same way that I 'like'... well, basically every book I've gotten all the way through. Sorry, fellas, it's not the same.

This is also true. But I feel Jackson is only a fan as far as it was a good marketing decision to say he was.

I suppose I am a pure fan - because my mother threatened to take away my books when I was in high school. This was after trying to get me to read forever. I didn't get into reading until I was 14. For her to threaten to take away my books - was huge thing.

But as Ringil said and I have said many times- they are dumbed down movies. That is my problem with them. I am upset that Jackson went on and on about how close he was staying close to the books and then we see all these unnecessary changes. That is what I have a problem with.

I don't think age has anything to do with liking the movies - as much as to what people expected. For one thing - I know that SGH isn't into the Lord of the Rings as much as she is into the Silmarillion. She is more accepting of the changes. She would have a fit if the Sil was gutted the way LotR was though.

BB - by the way - I thought your little pychology session was very funny. :D

[mithrand1r]

Although I am about 30, I agree with JD that if this film was not JRRT LOTR I probably would not I have seen this movie once in the theatre. I would have thought who wants to spend three hours on a film. In fact that is part of the reason I never saw Titanic in the theatre or anywhere else.

If I never read LOTR I would have found
(1) FOTR to be an enjoyable action movie. (since the time seems to fly by without me noticing.)
(2) TT to be an slightly above average action film. The ents seemed to be inconsistent. The movie seems to be focused primarily on one battle, with a few relatively minor sideline stories.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I don't think age has anything to do with liking the movies - as much as to what people expected.


I will agree with that. Whether I read it here and/or on other tolkien sites, Hearing that Jackson was a tolkien fan and would make a movie "for the fans" raised my expectations considereably(sp?).

While I was not expecting a "page by page" adaptation of book to film, I was expecting a movie that
(1) was enjoyable while staying as close to the book where feasable and
(2) if changes from the book needed to be made that the movie would stay close to the spirit of the book. Lines such as "what do your elf eyes see" or "toss me" doesn't exactly fall into the spirit of the book, IMHO. While dwarf jokes may be funny at times, again it doesn't fall into the spirit of the book, IMHO.

On a side note: Does anyone know where PJ is quoted in saying that he was a big fan of LOTR and wanted to make a film for the fans or sentiments to that effect? I have tried searching the net, but I have not been sucessfull in finding that information.

[Bacchus]

Originally posted by Wayfarer

On the other hand, I see people like BB, and even Jackson himself, say "Um... Sure, yeah, I'm a fan of tolkien. I mean, I liked those books and everything." But I get the distinct impression that they 'like' Tolkien in the same way that I 'like'... well, basically every book I've gotten all the way through. Sorry, fellas, it's not the same.

I'd hazard a guess that maybe some of the other die-hard tolkien purists feel the same. (Although, despite what BB would have you believe, not every person who dislikes Jackson is a Tolkien Purist. I believe that Sheanna, for example, has vehemently criticized them for purely cinematic failure).
And here is my complaint. It seems, from some of the posts, that some consider it an article of faith that liking the movies in some way detracts from one's love of the books. I couldn't disagree more. In the matter of the books, I am at least as much of a purist as anyone here. JD has commented repeatedly about the 12 readings that he has done. I've lost count of my complete readings, but would estimate the nember to be over 30. does that sound like someone who is lukewarm on his love of the books? And yet I also like the movies. That doesn't mean that I think that the movies could not have been better, but by the same token, there are elements of the books that i feel could have been done better as well. And the movies could easily have been far worse.

[GrayMouser]

I'm 49 (damn you, barrelrider and Ringil- I wanted to be the voice of aged wisdom here:))

First read the Hobbit when I was twelve and LotR at thirteen, and will stand second to none when it comes to experiencing Tolkien as "superlative, rapturous, sacrosant and transcendental"

I lived in Middle-Earth through my adolescence (okay, there were a lot of good drugs then), and have read them through at least once a year since then- not counting picking it up and randomly starting anywhere.

I was cringing at the thought of the movies, but was reasonably pleased with FotR, definitely disappointed in TTT.

So maybe the age thing has something to it- you eventually come to accept that the pure flame does not burn forever, Life forces you into compromises, you start voting conservative...AAAARGHH!
Not that far!!!

[Earniel]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
So maybe the age thing has something to it- you eventually come to accept that the pure flame does not burn forever, Life forces you into compromises, you start voting conservative...AAAARGHH!
Not that far!!!
Nehheh, voice of aged wisdom indeed. :p

[Black Breathalizer]

I think it may not be age as much as it is maturity. I've met some kids who were pretty together and some pretty old coots who were awfully immature.

Seriously, GrayMouser's point is well taken. As we grow older, we develop a better understanding of the world and what it takes to succeed. Everyone has their own opinions of what could have been done better in these films. But most mature fans understand that nothing will ever match our own imaginations. We need to simply appreciate the wonderous images and story that Peter Jackson and crew have given us and admire the films in their own light while agreeing to disagree with Jackson on things that don't jive with our personal feelings.

Most people have absolutely no trouble integrating the things they liked from the films and the books. And those rare few who disliked the films don't view them as a personal affront to Tolkien and all true Tolkien fans. They simply move on.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
So maybe the age thing has something to it- you eventually come to accept that the pure flame does not burn forever, Life forces you into compromises, you start voting conservative...AAAARGHH!
Not that far!!!
There weren't compromises made - there were flat out changes that did NOT have to be done. I can understand taking out Tom Bo0mbadil, I can understnad having Arwen stand in for Glorfindel - I can NOT understand ehr being Xena-Elf and taking over Frodo's lines at the Ford. I can understand her love for Aragorn being shown more.

As for your tyou conservative comment - I guess that's your own shortcomings. Has nothing to do with liking a movie or a particular type of movie.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
But most mature fans understand that nothing will ever match our own imaginations. We need to simply appreciate the wonderous images and story that Peter Jackson and crew have given us and admire the films in their own light while agreeing to disagree with Jackson on things that don't jive with our personal feelings.

I guess then you just give up on your own individuality. Becuase thyat statement can go toward everything. You should have NO opinions on anything. Becuase just becuase you disagree with something - doesn't mean you shouldn't accept and embrace someone elses. Let's all go around ass brainless zombies now.

Most people have absolutely no trouble integrating the things they liked from the films and the books. And those rare few who disliked the films don't view them as a personal affront to Tolkien and all true Tolkien fans. They simply move on.
I don't care if a lot of people liked the films - I'm not worried about whether I am completely alone here in my feelings. They are MY feelings. I'm not blinded by the Hollywood propaganda machine that made Lord of the Rings top movies.

[azalea]

Aha! Now we're getting somewhere! ;) We have some more evidence that I might have been right (:D )when I said there are possibly equal numbers that disliked the films as adaptations, but it's the younger ones that tend to POST about it more.

I have only read LotR about 4 times, does that make me any less a "true" fan of Middle Earth than someone who has read it 10 times that amount? Of course I don't think so.:) I don't view number of readings as a valid test of fanship: if you read it and loved it so much that you want to go to Middle Earth (yeah we're here, I know I know!:rolleyes: :p ), you can call yourself a fan. There are those who are more enthusiastic about it, spend more time talking/ thinking about it, and those who study and read more about it, but they don't have sole ownership of the title "fan."

Anyway, it could be that it is how you tend to view life in general that affects your view of the movies. To each his own, that's why they make Fords and Chevrolets, as my grandfather would have said.:) I feel I'm lucky to be on the side that can enjoy them, I can see that it was very disappointing to those that can't. That's too bad, and I do think they would have been able to enjoy them if some the stuff we've talked about in other threads hadn't been done, which WAS possible.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by azalea
I have only read LotR about 4 times, does that make me any less a "true" fan of Middle Earth than someone who has read it 10 times that amount? Of course I don't think so.:) I don't view number of readings as a valid test of fanship: if you read it and loved it so much that you want to go to Middle Earth (yeah we're here, I know I know!:rolleyes: :p ), you can call yourself a fan. There are those who are more enthusiastic about it, spend more time talking/ thinking about it, and those who study and read more about it, but they don't have sole ownership of the title "fan."
But it really upsets me that Jackson used it as a propaganda tool to sell the movies to the "true fans". He has said repeatedly in the beginning that he was a huge fan of the books and was producing the movies for the fans of Lord of the Rings. Now that the movies are out - we find out he hardly knows anything about the books really.

[azalea]

Oh, yeah, there's no doubt that's annoying. As I've said before, the person making a movie adapted form ANY book should be thoroughly familiar with the text, as well as have a basic wish to keep as close as possible to the story as possible while still producing a filmable movie that is watchable for the wider viewing audience. I think PJ didn't have that wish as strongly as most of us on here. As Elijah Wood said in the cast commentary, he stayed true to himself. Unfortunately, that interfered with the antecedent story at times, resulting in scenes that didn't NEED to be changed/ added (regardless of how one FEELS about the scenes).

[Nurvingiel]

When compared to a lot of movies that came out around the same time as FotR, it is deservedly on top! (I can't think of any movies, but I think that illustrates my point - the others weren't memorable.)

In some respects, the book and the movie are completely separate for me. For example, I have no trouble differentiating between Faramir and Treebeard in the two media, and it isn't as though Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel, and Fredegar Bolger are erased from my mind.

On the other hand, there are some scenes that I can't differentiate at all. Many of the scenes Jackson did extremely well have either been inserted into my image of Middle-earth, or have influenced this image a great deal. (Like the Balrog battle, and the Fellowship lamenting Gandalf afterwards.)

For example, I was thinking of this scene last night. It's very short, but I think it's wonderfully done. It's the scene where Jackson shows Saruman and his orcs trespassing in Fangorn and cutting down trees.

Saruman turns away from an orc captain who asked for instructions about trees and says: Rip them all down. (Christopher Lee is such a fantastic Saruman!)
The scene changes immediately to the border of Fangorn, where orcs are pulling down a large hardwood (probably an oak, maybe a maple) with ropes, and it comes crashing down, uprooted rather than cut down.

Subtly, though maybe this wasn't intended, this demonstrates to me that orcs don't know very much about forestry, and you can easily infer that they don't care about harvesting the forest sustainably. It would take a lot less effort to cut down an oak with a two-man saw than to pull it down with ropes. Dumb orcs.

I was also thinking about the scene (right before the Crebain spy them out near Caradrhas) where Boromir is teaching Merry and Pippin how to use their swords. I found that scene very touching, and felt it outlined the fact that Boromir was a good-hearted man who wanted to do the right thing.

Both those scenes intertwine deeply with the book; I was only able to see that level of subtlety because I had read the book beforehand.

The fact that those levels are available to us is a credit to Jackson. There are some scenes that completely lack depth, but he deserves credit for the good ones.

If I had not read the book:
1) I would have missed a lot of subtleties
2) I would have enjoyed the movies immensely (like I did anyway)
3) I wouldn't have had any issues whatsoever with Flight to the Ford
4) I would have groaned almost as loudly at scenes I found idiotic i) the Excorcism of Theoden ii) Legolases shield-skateboarding at Helm's Deep iii) the silly scene where Aragorn falls off a cliff, doesn't die, and is woken up by his horse, and iv) Most of Gimli's lines.

There are only a few other movies that I think about as much as FotR and TTT: Schindler's List, Braveheart, The Matrix, Mosly Martha, and A Few Good Men. In my book, Jackson gets credit for being among these greats.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
When compared to a lot of movies that came out around the same time as FotR, it is deservedly on top! (I can't think of any movies, but I think that illustrates my point - the others weren't memorable.)

The Others and A Beautiful Mind (kept the audience COMPLETELY in the dark until the middle of the movie - but was exciting) were much better films than FotR. Also - Memento was a better film too.


There are only a few other movies that I think about as much as FotR and TTT: Schindler's List, Braveheart, The Matrix, Mosly Martha, and A Few Good Men. In my book, Jackson gets credit for being among these greats.
Jackson is a two-bit director who uses every known hollywood cliche in a his movies. You can see right through his use of comic relief. If he was a TRULLY good director - the audience wouldn't see the behind the scenes cliches and the flimmaking 101 stuff. The constant and repetitive use of slow motion is another example of this.

[justaregularguy]

Another thought from one of the older guys here (46).

To me, the issue is not, and will never be, "was the book dumbed down to make the movie."

Of course it was.

Just as Frank Baum's Wizard of Oz books were dumbed down to make the movie version. And there are many other examples (some of Steinbeck's novels come to mind, too, etc. etc.).

This is what happens when movies are made in the real world.

So the true issue is actually: Given the book-movie differences, would you rather the LOTR movies had been made, or not made at all?

I'm glad they were made.

And don't kid yourselves that, "If only someone other than PJ had been given license to make the films, they would have been more true to the book."

Based on everything I see in the cinema today, the opposite is the case. The norm is the movie version of Dune, not the wonderful productions we have for LOTR.

These views of mine are, admittedly, realism applied to fantasy. They are also a compromise on my part.

Now, is this approach the product of age or personality?

Probably both.

Now you'll have to excuse me. My wife is calling me for dinner. Meat's back on the menu tonight, boys! ;)

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The Others and A Beautiful Mind (kept the audience COMPLETELY in the dark until the middle of the movie - but was exciting) were much better films than FotR. Also - Memento was a better film too.


Jackson is a two-bit director who uses every known hollywood cliche in a his movies. You can see right through his use of comic relief. If he was a TRULLY good director - the audience wouldn't see the behind the scenes cliches and the flimmaking 101 stuff. The constant and repetitive use of slow motion is another example of this.
Well I didn't see Momento, but A Beautiful Mind was an excellent movie. In the end though, I did like FotR more.

Maybe it's more comparable to great action movies like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, or Goldfinger.

I agree that the movies are full of cliches, but despite that, I found them exciting and entertaining. Not just any old action movie is exciting to me. FotR isn't deep or meaningful or suspensful, but it is exciting and enjoyable to watch. Jackson did mangle parts of the book, but time has managed to dull the effects of the most appaling dwarf tossing jokes (TTT).

When you said slow motion, are you referring to the Buckleberry Ferry scene? It was more pointlessly drawn out than slow motion.

With respect to "Filmmaking 101", I thought this movie was beautifully filmed. New Zealand was the perfect choice for a setting too. Though I think Canada would also have been excellent.

Excellent question justareguarguy. I'm glad they were made too. Like I said to hectorberelioz in a PM, I'm excited about RotK despite the fact that Aragorn's face is on the side of a Pringles can and a bucket of KFC.)

Cheers!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
When you said slow motion, are you referring to the Buckleberry Ferry scene? It was more pointlessly drawn out than slow motion.

No - I'm talking about the overuse of slow motion - lkike whenever gets hit by a spear or knife or with Shadowfax, or when Aragorn and Eowyn is in Helms Deep and Aragorn walks up the stairs and turns to her. There are many more examples.

With respect to "Filmmaking 101", I thought this movie was beautifully filmed. New Zealand was the perfect choice for a setting too. Though I think Canada would also have been excellent.

Scenary isn't filmaking 101. The need for comic relief (obvious comic relief - Marry and Pippin in FotR - then switching to Gimli in TT), The use of slowmotion, over and over again, etc.


As for whehter I would rather have Jackson's version or no version - I would rather have no version. Or I should say - I would rather have the movies the way Jackson described how they would be BEFORE they were released.

[hectorberlioz]

Excellent question justareguarguy. I'm glad they were made too. Like I said to hectorberelioz in a PM, I'm excited about RotK despite the fact that Aragorn's face is on the side of a Pringles can and a bucket of KFC.)

its hectorberLIOZ.;) :D . just divide it into two sections hector-berlioz :)

wow! KFC too huh? sick.

[Nurvingiel]

Ok, I see what you mean now JD :)
Originally posted by jerseydevil
As for whehter I would rather have Jackson's version or no version - I would rather have no version. Or I should say - I would rather have the movies the way Jackson described how they would be BEFORE they were released.
When I first heard of the movie, I got the same impression. I thought a book purist was making a movie outside the cheapening influences of Hollywood. Boy was I wrong. However, I'm still glad the movies exist even if they have KFC advertising campaigns. Not ... bitter. :rolleyes:

I had heard that Jackson took 6 years to prepare the movie, and he was originally going to do it in six parts. Essentially, I thought that Jackson had a similar vision to me.

JD, do you prove the theory? From my understanding, you would if you were young.

We should see how many people prove the hypothesis of those who've posted in this thread. Our sampling would be biased, but it is anyway because 'Mooters aren't necessarily like the average movie-going public.

[Wayfarer]

And don't kid yourselves that, "If only someone other than PJ had been given license to make the films, they would have been more true to the book."

Based on everything I see in the cinema today, the opposite is the case. The norm is the movie version of Dune, not the wonderful productions we have for LOTR.

Actually, based on the films I've gone to see lately, PJLOTR is very close to the norm for recent films.

Granted, I don't go to see films unless I expect them to be good, but between the Star Wars, the Matrix, X-Men, Spider Man films, as well as other miscellenous releases, the 'action film' and 'popculture film' genres is pretty much saturated at the moment. Sure, that would tend to make someone producing a LOTR film more likely, but why couldn't we get something better than lukewarm?

In response to you assertion that the films would have been dissapointed no matter the producer, let me ask you this: do you really think that a nearly unknown, practically unheard of, director who (as far as I know) has never produced a good film in his life, is somehow equally qualified to turn into a film The Greatest Literature of All Time?

Come on.

It has become blatently obvious that Jackson, despite his enormous budget for the project, could not, at a fundamental level, do it right.

Let's look at the complaints that have and have not been raised, for a moment:

*There have been almost no complaints about the visual effects- they were, after all, the best money could buy.

*There are very few complaints about the casting choices that were made. Almost all of the actors chosen performed somewhat admirably.

*There haven't been any complaints, as far as I know, of the soundtrack. It was excellent.

Okay, so what are people complaining about?

*The pacing has been noted (by both tolkien fans and tolkien virgins) to have been by turns too fast and too slow.

*The dialogue has been scathingly criticized as being various forms and descriptions of bad.

*The plot and scripting have been described as 'cheezy'and 'over the top'.

*The storyline is garbled and mangled, with some elements making no sense and others being ridiculously convenient.

Taking that into consideration, I conclude the following: It seems that many parts of the film were done well, however, those parts which the director has the most control over were done badly. Why? Because Peter Jackson has no understanding of what makes a really good film. You spend all you want on special effects, hire the best actors in the world, travel to exotic locations for your scenery, and yet none of that will truly redeem a film that is badly written and scripted.

The fact is, the director did make a difference in this film, and not a positive one. Jackson hired the best people for every aspect of the process, and yet it was his own ineptitude that brought down what could have, should have, been an outstanding film.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
*There are very few complaints about the casting choices that were made. Almost all of the actors chosen performed somewhat admirably.

I have a problem with Elrond, Arwen. Galadriel, Merry and Pippin. Any of the problems I have with the other actors - I fault the director giving them over the top directions.

Taking that into consideration, I conclude the following: It seems that many parts of the film were done well, however, those parts which the director has the most control over were done badly. Why? Because Peter Jackson has no understanding of what makes a really good film. You spend all you want on special effects, hire the best actors in the world, travel to exotic locations for your scenery, and yet none of that will truly redeem a film that is badly written and scripted.

The fact is, the director did make a difference in this film, and not a positive one. Jackson hired the best people for every aspect of the process, and yet it was his own ineptitude that brought down what could have, should have, been an outstanding film.
Excellent points. That has been my point all this time too. The scenary was awesome, the special effects for the most parts were great. It was the script and the direction that sucked.

[Wayfarer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I have a problem with Elrond, Arwen. Galadriel, Merry and Pippin. Any of the problems I have with the other actors - I fault the director giving them over the top directions.

Agent-Smithrod was pretty bad, yes. And that ***** that played the part of Arwen deserves to be tossed... Well, I'd continue that train of thought, but I don't want to give anyone bad mental images.

I don't think the others were so bad, although all the hobbits were a bit on the thin side.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
I don't think the others were so bad, although all the hobbits were a bit on the thin side. Ironic since they're Hobbits! :D

Elrond wasn't really that bad, it's just that since I saw the Matrix I can't get that image out of my head. I think that's the trouble with casting hollywood actors in a movie like this - we see them in their previous roles. This may be due, in whole or in part, to unconvincing acting. In my case, it's at least half because I've seen other movies featuring Hugo Weaving in close proximity to LotR. Everytime I see Legolas in the movie, I think "Avast! Arr!" because Orlando Bloom is also in Pirates of the Caribbean.

Yarr.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Ironic since they're Hobbits! :D

Elrond wasn't really that bad, it's just that since I saw the Matrix I can't get that image out of my head. I think that's the trouble with casting hollywood actors in a movie like this - we see them in their previous roles. This may be due, in whole or in part, to unconvincing acting. In my case, it's at least half because I've seen other movies featuring Hugo Weaving in close proximity to LotR. Everytime I see Legolas in the movie, I think "Avast! Arr!" because Orlando Bloom is also in Pirates of the Caribbean.

Actually I had no idea Hugo Weaving was in the Matrix or Ian McKellan in X-Men. My problem with Hugo Weaving was that he didn't look very elvish at all. I also don't think Liv Tyler is good enough looking to play Arwen (sorry - not a sexist comment - but she is supposed to be incredibly beautiful). Galadriel was the same thing. Not to mention is was like an ice queen.

Merry and Pippin looked too old. They should have looked younger than Frodo and Sam - not like 30 year olds with no brains.

[Nurvingiel]

For you then, it was unconvincing (or bad) acting.

For me, unconvincing acting led me to seeing the characters of Elrond and Legolas as their previous roles. Both Orlando Bloom and Hugo Weaving sound exactly the same in their two most recent movies that I've seen. They have the pretty much the same mannerisms, and the same speech patterns.

For Weaving, that was The Matrix and LotR. For Bloom, it was Pirates of the Caribbean and LotR.

I think the trouble with Galadriel is she was handed dreadful dialogue. Cate Blanchette is a great actress.

The problem with Liv Tyler is she couldn't act her way out of a wet paper bag, so the awful dialogue she got... is still awful. It doesn't matter how pretty Liv is. If she acted like the etheral, graceful, noble elf that Arwen is, I wouldn't have had a problem.

I don't know anything about their respective acting abilities of the guys who play the Hobbits. I totally agree that a 50-year old hobbit shouldn't have been played by a 22-year old actor! (Frodo). And Sam was 10 years older than Merry, who was several years older than Pippin. Pip wasn't brainless, just young and inexperienced. That point was lost in the movies.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
For you then, it was unconvincing (or bad) acting.

No - for me it was the fact that they didn't match the role.


I don't know anything about their respective acting abilities of the guys who play the Hobbits. I totally agree that a 50-year old hobbit shouldn't have been played by a 22-year old actor! (Frodo). And Sam was 10 years older than Merry, who was several years older than Pippin. Pip wasn't brainless, just young and inexperienced. That point was lost in the movies.
Actually - Frodo to me was the same as I pictured. I have gone over the differences in age before on the forum. I think that because the coming of age for Hobbits is 33 - you would have to take that as the equivalent as 18 for a human. Just like Aragorn is 87 and not a withered old man - but more like a man in his 30's. Going by this - Pippin should have been about 14 or 15 and Merry should have been about 19. Frodo was only slightly above 21 in human years.

[Nurvingiel]

I did take the age factor into account when I said that, it's just that I didn't completely explain it.

It's really just that the hobbits weren't given enough time or dialogue (from the book) to develop their characters extensively. It would have been impossible to develop them as deeply as they were in the books.

The trouble with us when we're on line at the same time is we just took over this whole thread! :) (PS. Please check your PMs.)

Cheers! N.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
I did take the age factor into account when I said that, it's just that I didn't completely explain it.

It's really just that the hobbits weren't given enough time or dialogue (from the book) to develop their characters extensively. It would have been impossible to develop them as deeply as they were in the books.

I agree and the dialog they did have made them seem like a bunch of morons. I stil don't think either of them looked young enough to be merry and Pippin. They had 5 o'clock shadows half the times.

The trouble with us when we're on line at the same time is we just took over this whole thread! :) (PS. Please check your PMs.)

That's okay - people will catch up. :) and I checkec my PM - you must have posted while I was checking. :)