The overall feeling...

[Nalana]

Now that all three movies have been shown, do you think PJ and the whole crew working on this trilogy, did justice to Tolkien's work?

[BeeBombadil]

Yes, and with great love and detail.

[Angadraug]

I think PJ and crew did the best job possible. The movies turned out wonderful, much better than I expected since I had never heard of PJ before. I don't think they all get enough credit for what they have done with these three movies. All you hear about is people complaining about little things he's changed or left out. I mean this project took 7 years for PJ and crew to complete. 7 years, just think of how long that is for a couple movies. And the amount of work they put into these films like the locations, sets, and costumes were incredible. My congrats go out to them.

[Phervasaion]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> All you hear about is people complaining about little things he's changed or left out. I mean this project took 7 years for PJ and crew to complete. 7 years, just think of how long that is for a couple movies. And the amount of work they put into these films like the locations, sets, and costumes were incredible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I definatly agree. I mean they have speant seven years on it and in my opinion have done a wonderful job on all three films. There are a few scenes that people complain about not bieng in the films but you cant expect them to put in all the scenes because of the time limit. I myself would like to see a few more scenes in the films but i try not to complain to much, and some of the scenes turn up in the extended editions anyway (Im hoping to see Houses of Healing and development of the Eowyn and Faramir in RotK EE).

[The Barrow-Wight]

I almost (actually did) closed this because I thought it was a duplicate of one of the official threads.<P>Please keep comments to those about the <B>entire trilogy</B>. Comments about the specfic films need to go into the designated for that.<p>[ 3:56 PM December 22, 2003: Message edited by: The Barrow-Wight ]

[Theron Bugtussle]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>...do you think PJ...did justice to Tolkien's work?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Based on the caveat that this is "Peter Jackson's <I>The Lord of the Rings</I>, based on JRR Tolkien's novel of the same name," I think he did a great job. He told a wonderful story wonderfully. I think they may be the best trilogy of movies ever made. (Trilogy in the sense of needing three movies to tell a single story.)<P>Where PJ felt the need to "improve" Tolkien, I feel he did miserably in several large respects. And none of the points I take issue with have anything to do with cuts for the sake of the movie's duration. (I do not intend to detail my issues. That would be both off-topic of this thread on Overall Impressions, and repetitive of several other threads and many individuals' contributions there.)<P>Did PJ do justice to Tolkien's work? No. He told a different story in many respects using different characters. Where minor characters varied from Tolkien, I thought it was more within acceptable bounds of directorial privilege. Where major characters or major plotlines varied from Tolkien, I cannot think of a single instance where I thought Jackson was better. <P>I do not think that Jackson's intention was 'to do justice to Tolkien,' but to take a great story and 'improve' it. And if not for such a superb story and set of characters from Tolkien originally, he would have had little success.<P>Interestingly enough, this may be a huge shot in the arm for the already popular book by Tolkien, which can only be positive.

[Jjudvven]

Well, I'd say that for the most part, PJ did do justice to Tolkien's tale. There are, of course, countless ways to improve the trilogy, and there was much missing that I would have liked to see on the big screen... but overall, I say a big round of applause to PJ and the entire cast and crew. Kudos!

[doug*platypus]

Peter Jackson, Richard Taylor, Ngila Dickson, Alan Lee and thousands of others most definitely <B>did</B> do justice to Tolkien's incredible book by making movies that were equally incredible. They had a scale, an attention to detail, and basically a love of the craft that Tolkien had.<P>Phillipa Boyens and Fran Walsh <B>did not</B> do justice to the works of Tolkien. After seeing the Appendices to <I>The Two Towers</I> I'm even more convinced of that. At times, Boyens seems deluded into thinking that she is the great writer behind these films. In fact she and Walsh are <B>not</B>. That honour belongs to the Professor, and only him. <P>80% of the introduced dialogue was predictable drivel that any one of us on the Downs could have done as well, or better. <I>The Return of the King</I> had some great moments, mainly I believe due to the fact that six dialogue editors were hired (check the credits). <I>Gollum's Song</I> is a good example, I believe. Written by Fran Walsh, it performs the job well, and the lyrics are appropriate for Gollum. But the language and style used are so obvious and blunt, it comes out crass compared to any dialogue kept from the books. Annie Lennox's song at the end of the third movie is basically the same. Enya's <I>May it Be</I>, however is hauntingly beautiful not just in its sound but its words. As a <B>real</B> songwriter she knows that understatement sounds much better. Certain language used makes the song relevant to Frodo without being a plain description.<P>Forgive my seemingly endless ranting. But listening to Boyens describe how <I>Gollum's Song</I> was written, you'd honestly think that Fran Walsh was the greatest genius of our time. Hardly.

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Where PJ felt the need to "improve" Tolkien <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I do not believe that Jackson, or any of the production team, felt that they were "improving" Tolkien. I severely doubt that any of them feel that they could write a better book. They simply made changes (in characterisation and plot) that they felt would work better in <B>film</B> format. Whether or not they succeeded is a matter of opinion.

[Lord of Angmar]

I would say that, in large part, Peter Jackson and crew captured the essence of the JRR Tolkien novels in a manner far superior to what most contemporary directors could do with the material. The themes and the ideas felt much the same as reading the book (shining through brighter in some parts than in others). As a whole, the trilogy is a masterpiece and a fantastic exercise in imagination, magnitude, vision and scope. <P>Having scene the third movie twice, I would like to comment a bit more on the 'overall feel' of the trilogy. I did not believe that the ending presented to us by Peter Jackson to the trilogy was an adequate summation (*braces for the hurdling of many rocks*) to the story. In the book, I was always given the feel that the tale was ultimately a tragedy. The Elves passed away for Valinor never to return to Middle Earth again, their works and lands fading at their departure. Frodo's leaving for Valinor was to me a tragic ending, as a rift was grown between him and the Shire that he had once so dearly loved, because of his experiences in the wide world without. I did not get more than a fleeting sense of these ideas in the final passages of the movie. The Grey Havens were too light and happy feeling, and the real meaning of the departure to Valinor, for the Elves, for Frodo, and for Middle Earth, could be guessed at by none of my peers who had not read the <I>Lord of the Rings</I>. When I read the book, it made tears well up in my eyes to envision the last ship sailing away in the mist, its crew gazing back one last time at mortal shores, and I could almost hear the sad, operatic music that would fill the air if a movie were to be made. I got, instead, the feeling of (this is going to sound like blasphemy to many Tolkien/Jackson fans) a Disney movie wrap-up. Perhaps that was just my take on it, but I wonder if anyone else here envisioned the ending the way I did. I also thought that Elrond appearing at the wedding of Arwen and Aragorn was a grievous blow to the story, but that is perhaps for another thread.<P>Cheers, Angmar

[doug*platypus]

The writers have been quoted as saying that they improved on the death scene of Boromir. I'm sorry that I don't actually have a source for that to report, but I have heard <B>and</B> believe it. Like I said, Boyens just kind of radiates that feeling when describing the evolution of <I>Gollum's Song</I> on the Two Towers extended edition.<P>I don't deny that there were some improvements over the book, but I think that the writers could often have shown a bit more humility and respect to the source material. Obviously there would have been no movie without it. They all (especially Peter Jackson) ended up knowing the books and appendices <B>extremely</B> well, but still managed to be able to cut out key passages, concepts and character traits. Unfortunate.

[Gorwingel]

I thought that they did as well as they could do. This is a very complicated story with a giant backstory, which makes it very hard to bring to screen. I thought the visuals were top notch, most definitely the best I had ever seen, and I also thought that all the actors put in performances that will define them for the rest of their lives. But the screenplay could have most definitely used some work.<P>I am right in the middle though of watching the extended editions of the first two movies, and one thing that I am realizing right now is that they all do fit well together. I think that even though parts of the story were not in my opinion, up to par. That it was amazing that they could keep this level of quality for three in a row. There is not a single film I like more or less. And that is the major achievement I think. It is hard to make one great film, but to make three that is almost impossible.

[Arcuwen]

I completely agree with you, Saucepan Man. PJ and company did not try to improve Tolkien's work, they just adjusted it for the silver screen. And yes, everyone has their own opinion's of how the trilogy turned out: what was done well and what could have been done differently. Because if each and every one of us attempted to make a trilogy of movies for LOTR, each and every movie would be different, because when we read the books, the image we see in our mind is the image we think is correct. Whether it is correct or not is something that no one can say; it's like someone saying that having blue as your favorite color is wrong. You may picture the dead from the paths of the dead as gray and ghostly skeletons, whereas Peter Jackson pictures them as green and half decayed. There is no way the movies could be perfect for everyone, but I think PJ and the whole crew that worked on LOTR did their best to make the movies as close to each person's images of the books as possible. And man did they do an amazing job (of couse, that is only my opinion). There are so many bad roads they could have taken on the making of these movies just to be accepted by all the Hollywood hobnobs, but instead of the goal being to be as successful as possible, it was to portray LOTR as close to TOLKIEN as possible without making each movie 10 hours long. In conclusion, if movies about LOTR were to be made, this was the way to make them.

[Lord of Angmar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Because if each and every one of us attempted to make a trilogy of movies for LOTR, each and every movie would be different, because when we read the books, the image we see in our mind is the image we think is correct.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Not to mention budget differences. Just kidding. I'm not a literalist.<P>In all seriousness though, I see what you are saying. People may disagree on the merit of the films, but this thread does not seem to be the place to debate that merit. I can only explain the impression I gleaned from the movies (overall a very good one) and any 'feelings' that I felt conflicted with the feeling I got from the books (hence my post concerning my thoughts on the final passage of the <I>Return of the King</I> movie). <P>Cheers,<BR>Angmar