The Books were better than the Movies, but Jackson did a pretty good job. Quite honestly, if you put everything in the books into a hundred-hour long movie, it'd be pretty darn boring and confusing. Think of all the footnotes in the books. Movies require fairly quick pacing, as opposed to a book where the author can fill in a lot of background.
Dang, now "The Hobbit" is gonna get screwed up...probably by that a$$hat who directed "Alone in the Dark" and "Doom."
Dang, now "The Hobbit" is gonna get screwed up...probably by that a$$hat who directed "Alone in the Dark" and "Doom."
I think that with the considerable success of the LOTR trilogy, whoever picks up the Hobbit would be likely to go with the same style, thus being less likely to screw things up. At least whatever new guy they pick will have something to base his work off of.
GoPackGo
Diamond Member
- Oct 10, 2003
- 6,519
- 595
- 126
Some of the fanboys want the movie to be several years long...that it follows the timeline minute for minute. granted...every 16 hrs or so is of frodo sleeping....and its loop real...but after the first month or two you could get past it.
In fact...im starting a rumor right now...Peter jackson actually filmed the entire trilogy minute by minute. He is just waiting for the right technology to be able to release it.
PowerEngineer
Diamond Member
- Oct 22, 2001
- 3,606
- 785
- 136
As someone who thoroughly enjoyed the books, I appreciate the impossibility of turning LOTR into a movie that we purists would agree does it justice. I found some of the movie's omissions a bit distasteful (e.g. the scourging of the Shire). I also didn't care for the expansion of Arwen's role, or that crazy "lost in space" episode after Aragon gets bonked on his head. But I'm willing to grant these to Peter Jackson as artistic license for doing what had to be done to make it work as a movie.
But...
I was amazed at the significant change he needlessly made to the Gollum's demise at Mount Doom. In the book, Gollum falls off the outcropping as he jumps around celebrating after acquiring the Ring (by biting Frodo's finger off). In the movie, Gollum falls off during a fight with Frodo after he already has the Ring. I can already hear some of you exclaiming "big deal", but Jackson's change really did change the whole ending.
When it came right down to it, no one was capable of intentionally destroying the Ring. Only by Gollum's careless step while celebrating his victory over Frodo to finally possess it was the Ring accidentally destroyed. Taking that away is something that Jackson shouldn't have done.
:thumbsdown:
Both applies. But anyway, I can't win against a mob of uncritical people.
You just praise the movies because they were made. Period. You don't care if the masterpiece was butchered. You don't care if the story now suck. You don't care if the characters don't respect their emotions/motive. Jackson, whatever he says, doesn't respect Tolkien. The main motive of Jackson/New Line was the money flow it would create, you can see it by the multitude of DVD Packages that were released: Normal Edition, Extended Edition, Platinum Extended Edition including a rubber-chicken-with-a-pulley-in-the-middle...
It's not to late to open your eyes. I can proudly say that mines are. I respect Tolkien.
Don't get me wrong, I was the FIRST that ever wished the movies to be GREAT! But... Deception...
You just praise the movies because they were made. Period. You don't care if the masterpiece was butchered. You don't care if the story now suck. You don't care if the characters don't respect their emotions/motive. Jackson, whatever he says, doesn't respect Tolkien. The main motive of Jackson/New Line was the money flow it would create, you can see it by the multitude of DVD Packages that were released: Normal Edition, Extended Edition, Platinum Extended Edition including a rubber-chicken-with-a-pulley-in-the-middle...
It's not to late to open your eyes. I can proudly say that mines are. I respect Tolkien.
Don't get me wrong, I was the FIRST that ever wished the movies to be GREAT! But... Deception...
dainthomas
Lifer
- Dec 7, 2004
- 14,935
- 3,914
- 136
Mines are what?
Of course their main motive was money. Try getting someone to front hundreds of millions for a movie without expecting a return.
If Jackson didn't respect Tolkien, he wouldn't have pushed for three movies and dedicated years of his life to the project. Just because every point doesn't meet with the approval of every Tolkien "purist" on the internet doesn't mean that the "story now suck". If you think you can make a better movie, then let's see it.
The books haven't gone anywhere, you can still read them anytime you want.
The movies were great. So what if they didn't follow the book word for word? Some things just don't translate so well to film. Regardless; the movies were great and I would certainly watch them multiple times (I own the...)
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 66,288
- 14,706
- 146
I liked the books...I've probably read the series 4-5 times since I was introduced to it over 35 years ago. Very well written, and has been said here numerous times, trying to make a movie that was truly faithful to the books would be an immense undertaking. That being said, I think they did a GREAT job with the movies. Of course, they seemed to get better and better as the trilogy progressed, due to improved technology and such, but overall, I think they did followed the storyline fairly well, and gave Tolkein the respect his works deserved. MUCH better than tha animated "The Hobbit" that was released some 25 years back...that was pretty bad.
Fingolfin269
Lifer
- Feb 28, 2003
- 17,948
- 34
- 91
This is ridiculous. I'm a big time Tolkien fan (my freaking name is from the Silmarillion... if you've read that thing a couple of times you are a Tolkien fan imho). I thought the movies were as good as could be expected from a Tolkien fan's perspective and stellar as far as your average movie-goer expected.
I have no idea what the more elitist Tolkien fans could want from the movies. Jackson took the most important parts of the books and crafted them into a film. I disagree with his decision to add certain romantic elements (flashbacks with Arwen and such) as well as the addition of that random fight scene on the way to Helm's Deep. Making Legolas a ninja was kind of annoying too but hey, you cannot have everything.
To be honest, the movies are completely separate from the books. If you did not like the movie trilogy then why should you care if they make the Hobbit? Just don't watch it.
I have no idea what the more elitist Tolkien fans could want from the movies. Jackson took the most important parts of the books and crafted them into a film. I disagree with his decision to add certain romantic elements (flashbacks with Arwen and such) as well as the addition of that random fight scene on the way to Helm's Deep. Making Legolas a ninja was kind of annoying too but hey, you cannot have everything.
To be honest, the movies are completely separate from the books. If you did not like the movie trilogy then why should you care if they make the Hobbit? Just don't watch it.
Fingolfin269
Lifer
- Feb 28, 2003
- 17,948
- 34
- 91
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
The 1977 Rankin/Bass Hobbit movie was quite faithful to the book. Yes, it's a children's movie... because it was a children's book. Fancy that.
And maybe it's because I'm a Ralph Bakshi fan, but I thought his LoTR movie was quite good, all things considered. I enjoyed his vision of Middle Earth better than Peter Jackson's.
And maybe it's because I'm a Ralph Bakshi fan, but I thought his LoTR movie was quite good, all things considered. I enjoyed his vision of Middle Earth better than Peter Jackson's.
meltdown75
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2004
- 37,548
- 7
- 81
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
I'm gonna vote for the movies and books being about on par. Even though I'm partial to the books myself.
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
Commercially, yes. Critically, no. Most people are easily dazzled with some fancy CGI....that much is obvious. But if you view the movies critically, they are very very thin. Maybe you don't care because you still enjoy watching them. Good for you. I have a minor in Film Studies and can't help but demand a movie be full and rich to achieve greatness or even acceptibility.
I completely disagree with you. For me what makes Jackson's LOTR so compelling is that they are incredibly rich in character development and story, the detail in costumes, art and architecture is equally stunning. Effects are also stunning, but except for the ghost army, they are so well integrated into the story that they don't seem like effects at all.
btw, I saw this article by Royd Tolkien and thought it was worth posting here..
Opinion about Jackson/New Line from a Tolkien family member
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter