Who here thinks...

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Q

quizzelsnatch

Senior member
Nov 12, 2004
860
0
0
was ruined by Peter Jackson?



EDIT:


i mean, the movies. who here thinks peter jackson ruined the movies?
 
Malak

Malak

Lifer
Dec 4, 2004
14,696
2
0
Originally posted by: quizzelsnatch
was ruined by Peter Jackson?
Click to expand...

Not at all. I think he did a wonderful job with what he had to work with. He managed to convince the big wigs that people would sit for a 3 hour movie and more, and he proved it right. But that's all they would give him. In 3 hours he did as much as he could for each book, and did it very well. I wouldn't want any other director.
 
MichaelD

MichaelD

Lifer
Jan 16, 2001
31,528
3
76
Originally posted by: malak
Originally posted by: quizzelsnatch
was ruined by Peter Jackson?
Click to expand...

Not at all. I think he did a wonderful job with what he had to work with. He managed to convince the big wigs that people would sit for a 3 hour movie and more, and he proved it right. But that's all they would give him. In 3 hours he did as much as he could for each book, and did it very well. I wouldn't want any other director.
Click to expand...

Very well said. :)

I've read all the books. Years ago! I was very impressed with all the movies.

Let's be honest here; depending on the reader, the book might or might not stir realistic visualizations and images. It's all dependant on how much interest said reader has in the subject matter.

For me, I finally got to see the book, visualized for real!!! It was magic for me.

I own and continue to watch the entire 3-part series and vividly remember the books, the illustrations of maps, etc, in the books....it's great.

A+++ For the movies. :)
 
Q

quizzelsnatch

Senior member
Nov 12, 2004
860
0
0
Originally posted by: malak
Originally posted by: quizzelsnatch
was ruined by Peter Jackson?
Click to expand...

Not at all. I think he did a wonderful job with what he had to work with. He managed to convince the big wigs that people would sit for a 3 hour movie and more, and he proved it right. But that's all they would give him. In 3 hours he did as much as he could for each book, and did it very well. I wouldn't want any other director.
Click to expand...

ehh, when you put it that way, sort of. But, i still think that some of the plot changes he made in the movie were horrible choices and could've been done like they were in the book without adding any extra time. It's just something that, after you read the book, makes you not want to watch the movie because of the large changes. I can see the choice of removing tom bombadil from the first one, but why have faramir take frodo to osgiliath? That was a pointless thing to do, and i believe it even added time to the movie.


edit: or when gandalf meets the witch king and the witch king breaks his staff... wtf?

edit2: and saruman's cut from the movie, and when they just CUT OUT the entire end of the book where frodo comes back to the shire. that was an important part of the book.
 
Malak

Malak

Lifer
Dec 4, 2004
14,696
2
0
Yes, I could poke more holes in the movies too, but I think overall I wouldn't say they were even remotely "ruined". I had serious issues with several characters including Faramir, but still think he did a good job as a whole.
 
S

sswingle

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2000
7,183
45
91
Get the extended DVDs and watch the two extra DVDs in each set. They talk about what was cut and changed and why they did it. I forgive them more after hearing their reasoning. And it wasn't just Peter Jackson that made the choices, he had lots of people agreeing it was the right thing to do.
 
N

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Tom Bombadil sucked.

I was glad about most of the stuff he changed... I liked that he left out Tom Bombadil and The Scouring of the Shire, because both seemed pretty out of place even in the books themselves (I know why they're in the books, I just still think that they were distractions).
 
Malak

Malak

Lifer
Dec 4, 2004
14,696
2
0
Originally posted by: loki8481
Tom Bombadil sucked.

I was glad about most of the stuff he changed... I liked that he left out Tom Bombadil and The Scouring of the Shire, because both seemed pretty out of place even in the books themselves (I know why they're in the books, I just still think that they were distractions).
Click to expand...

I think it would have been nice to see the ending.... the end of the movie seemed rather long and dull to me.
 
T

TheStu

Moderator<br>Mobile Devices & Gadgets
Moderator
Sep 15, 2004
12,089
45
91
I felt the Scouring of the shire was very important. It change the overall aspect of the hobbits... You have Frodo, Sam, Pippin, and Merry woho all went off and and adventured and fought and went so far beyond the conventional idea of hobbit and then they return home and free their kinfolk and fellow hobbits and the others see that they don't have to be helpless... additonally I liked how Saruman got owned in the end
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom