Okay, so what do you think NOW?

[Meriadoc1961]

It has been a few years now since the release of all of the LOTR movies by Peter Jackson. We have all had time to reflect. Whay is your opinion of them now? Has it changed?

By the way, I am BACK!!!

[alatar]

Oddly enough, as my wife and I sat watching the end of LotR:FotR on TNT this weekend (as noted on another thread), whereas initially my wife was 'wowed' by the film when we watched it in the theatre, this night she saw Galadriel as "psycho."

I also something that I might not have noticed when watching the movies for the SbS, and so will be checking that - and maybe even posting there.

Anyway, Welcome (back?) to the Downs.

[Meriadoc1961]

Thanks for the welcome back! It has been a few years since I last posted before doing so early this morning.

Okay, I will state from the start that I own all three DVDs. I enjoy watching them, but when I see them now I feel as if I was "suckered" into acceptance by being overwhelmed with how WELL Peter Jackson did in his recreation of the the Shire, Hobbiton, and Bag End. In my opinion, they were done so magnificently that I was so taken by that wondrous moment as Gandalf arrived by pony trap and Hobbiton was revealed so perfectly that I was willing to just accept everything from that moment on. And I did.

It seems to me that the further they went along with the story the more liberties he took with Tolkien's material. I loathe the way he had Gandalf beating Denethor with his staff. I do not like the way in which Theoden was portrayed as being somewhat jealous of Aragorn, and that Theoden was reluctant to go to Minas Tirith, wherein the book he said he would go to help, even if he did not feel any threat himself. I can not stand the way they had Treebeard appear to be stupid and having to be tricked by Merry and Pippin to enter the war. I did not like the psychotic portrayal of Galadriel. I did not like at all the treatment they had of Frodo choosing Gollum over Sam. But most of all, I detest the way in which the superb honor demonstrated by Faramir in the book is totally lacking in the film. He was not in the least bit tempted by the lure of the ring in the book, and the manner in which he was loved by the people of Gondor is also totally missing from the movie. He just did not come across in the film as the highly honorable individual that I had always taken him to be from the book.

Merry

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Meriadoc1961

Okay, I will state from the start that I own all three DVDs. I enjoy watching them, but when I see them now I feel as if I was "suckered" into acceptance by being overwhelmed with how WELL Peter Jackson did in his recreation of the the Shire, Hobbiton, and Bag End. In my opinion, they were done so magnificently that I was so taken by that wondrous moment as Gandalf arrived by pony trap and Hobbiton was revealed so perfectly that I was willing to just accept everything from that moment on. And I did.

Think that that was intentional. If Peter Jackson failed to set his hook with the Shire, you, me and many others may not have helped make the films as popular as they were. His portrayal of Gandalf the Grey hooked me, and I kept up with the news and so knew going in that the story was going to be altered somewhat, and hoped that it wouldn't end up being a train wreck.

Anyway, although I ended up not liking many of the changes, still, Peter Jackson made films that were better than nothing, and hopefully these will inspire someone else to redo them in twenty or so years.

[Finduilas]

Originally Posted by Meriadoc1961

Thanks for the welcome back! It has been a few years since I last posted before doing so early this morning.

Okay, I will state from the start that I own all three DVDs. I enjoy watching them, but when I see them now I feel as if I was "suckered" into acceptance by being overwhelmed with how WELL Peter Jackson did in his recreation of the the Shire, Hobbiton, and Bag End. In my opinion, they were done so magnificently that I was so taken by that wondrous moment as Gandalf arrived by pony trap and Hobbiton was revealed so perfectly that I was willing to just accept everything from that moment on. And I did.

It seems to me that the further they went along with the story the more liberties he took with Tolkien's material. I loathe the way he had Gandalf beating Denethor with his staff. I do not like the way in which Theoden was portrayed as being somewhat jealous of Aragorn, and that Theoden was reluctant to go to Minas Tirith, wherein the book he said he would go to help, even if he did not feel any threat himself. I can not stand the way they had Treebeard appear to be stupid and having to be tricked by Merry and Pippin to enter the war. I did not like the psychotic portrayal of Galadriel. I did not like at all the treatment they had of Frodo choosing Gollum over Sam. But most of all, I detest the way in which the superb honor demonstrated by Faramir in the book is totally lacking in the film. He was not in the least bit tempted by the lure of the ring in the book, and the manner in which he was loved by the people of Gondor is also totally missing from the movie. He just did not come across in the film as the highly honorable individual that I had always taken him to be from the book.

Merry

Well said. I agree with you in all your points, and even though few people mention Galdalf hitting Denethor, I was always bothered that he hit a defenceless man, not only once but three times.

I was also disapointed with how much screen time the battle at Helms Deep got. Sure it was well done, but I wish some of that time had been spent on other things.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Originally Posted by Finduilas

Well said. I agree with you in all your points, and even though few people mention Galdalf hitting Denethor, I was always bothered that he hit a defenceless man, not only once but three times.

I was also disapointed with how much screen time the battle at Helms Deep got. Sure it was well done, but I wish some of that time had been spent on other things.

Well I think that Gandalf hitting Denethor was pretty funny and he wasn't exactly defenseless since he did have a sword. And I was mad too for how much time Helm's Deep had in TTT, I wanted more Hobbits...well I kinda have an obsession with Hobbits, ut thats another story...
I like the movies and still like the movies, I think that they have a few...well a lot of changed things, but they're still darn well good adaptions... Well I can't say I like the movies I LOVE them...
I'M RAMBLING PEOPLE I'M STOPPING NOW!

[Meriadoc1961]

I, too, like the movies, but in all sincerity I believe a person who had not read the books first would probably like the movies better than those of us who read the books first.

[Knight of Gondor]

There were plenty of bones to pick with PJ's rendition. The radical departure from Faramir's true character. Frodo's portrayal as a simpering weenie. Gandalf smacking Denethor in the head. Aragorn's reluctance. Gandalf's humbling before the Witchking. Denethor's flaming plunge of death. Frodo telling Sam to leave. Sam leaving. Legolas's brilliant wit ("A diversion"), Gimli's use for comic relief, Arwen's fate suddenly and inexplicably being "tied to the Ring"...etc.

Yet, despite all my intellectual quarrels with plot differences, the movies (especially Return of the King) stunned and amazed me. They blew me away when I saw them in theaters, and at home. I just recently completed watching the trilogy again (with a younger brother who was finally old enough to see the movies) and I have yet to see any movie that compares. The glory of so many moments -- the whole battle of Pelennor (especially Theoden's speech and the Ride of the Rohirrim) Sam and Frodo at Mt. Doom, Aragorn's "For Frodo" death charge, Gandalf telling Pippin about the Grey Havens, the very end of the film at the Havens (which chokes me up just thinking about) -- all of this redeems the film and more.

[Sauron the White]

Regarding the Jackson portrayal of Galadriel in the Mirror scene with Frodo -
This direct from the writing of JRRT himself.

"She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illuminated her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful."

The words Blanchett speaks seem to be taken directly from the paragraph that precedes this description.

I do not know what film others saw, or what version of LOTR others have read, but it seems to me that Jackson nailed this scene as written by Tolkien himself.

[Folwren]

I have always liked that scene with Galadriel. All, except, her delivery of the line "I know what it is you saw." But, ignoring that...

The part where she tells Frodo what she would be like with the Ring...what others describe as psychotic, or whatever, has always stirred me deeply. I like it. Most everyone else has told me that they don't. *shrugs* Oh well.

-- Folwren

[Finduilas]

I agree with Folwren and Sauron the White on Galadriel.

I didn't like how they did Bilbo's speach at his party. I think it would have been so funny/fun if they had done it more booklike. Of course, the way they did it, Gandalf wasn't in the mix which tied in more later, but they could have had Bilbo continue, and just leave out Gandalfs flash.

It seems that some people disliked the scene in TT with Boromir and Faramir in Osgiliath. Despite some of its problems, I liked it because...
1. Since they twisted Faramir, it was nice to see the reason.
2. It showed a great love between the brothers.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Originally Posted by Meriadoc1961

I, too, like the movies, but in all sincerity I believe a person who had not read the books first would probably like the movies better than those of us who read the books first.

I saw the movies first but, I like the books better...Actually I read the books because my friend was whining and complaining because PJ left the Scouring of The Shire out, so I was curious and read the books and love LotR even more than before. The books and the movies make me cry, but the books make me cry even more. Well I'm done now.

My 100th post!!!!

[Elladan and Elrohir]

For me, well, I'm suckered, I'm hooked, to use words from previous posts.

I get to have my cake and eat it, as far as the films go: My love for the books makes the movies seem that much richer and more glorious, and yet I still enjoy them as separate entities from Tolkien's masterpiece, unworthy of comparison with it in the end.

It's been said before, but I'll mention it again: Jackson brought Middle-earth to life. Is it Tolkien's Middle-earth? No, not really; it's Jackson's Middle-earth. Very similar in some areas, very different in a lot of others. But it is a vision that PJ has realized. He has not cut out a carbon copy of the Professor's work, nor has he gone too far (for the most part) in making Middle-earth his own.

I realize that last statement, at least, may face (and does face) vehement disagreement among some on this board. But that's my perspective.

Alatar continues to hope for a remake in 20 years. I'm divided. On the one hand, plot-wise and character-wise, I see a LOT of different ways the filmmakers could have approached it and made it something different, but perhaps far better. But on the other hand, the visual realization of Middle-earth is so strong that I don't know whether any director will ever dare to try to come up with a new one. PJ created, in my mind, the definitive Bag End, Dwarrowdelf, Helm's Deep, Minas Tirith, among many others. A new director would have to go in a radically different direction visually (and thus stray significantly from Tolkien in that regard, and perhaps lose the fans immediately) in order to be perceived as being original.

So yeah, now I pretty much see them as my favorite films of all time. Not that I've really seen very many, especially great ones.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Elladan and Elrohir

Alatar continues to hope for a remake in 20 years. I'm divided.

You must be young... Back in the day there were no cell phones, internet, digital pretty much anything, and so I figure by the time my kids hit mid-life, movies may become more interactive in ways we cannot imagine today.

It's not that I don't appreciate the films; I've just seen too many changes to think that PJ's version is the end-all be-all.

[Finduilas]

Yes, PJ did bring Middle Earth to life. His sets were awesome. And I don't think that many could outdo them. But he could have done at least a 100% better at the movie itself. I don't think he could have easily bettered his sets. Not unless he spent 20 years doing it. But I still stick to everything I said, he messed up terribly on many parts. (And not so terribly, but still badly, on another many parts.)

[Sauron the White]

Imagine for a few moments if you could go back into the past in mid 2001. FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING would be released in just a few months and anticipation was extremely high.

Now imagine that you could look into the future and discover the following:

- all three films would be massive hits with all three breaking into the All Time Worldwide Box Office list Top Ten
- one of the three films would be only the second film to break the magical $1billion dollar mark and still be in second place years later
- the collective films would be nominated for over 30 Academy Awards, win 17 including Best Picture of the Year
- numerous other awards would be heaped upon the films including many BAFTA's, Golden Globes and other
- The three films would be almost universally praised by professional film critics and be among the highest critically acclaimed films of each year
- one of the films would eventually crack the prestigious AFI's list of the Best Films of All Time and make the Top Fifty.
- many Tolkien related websites would have post after post from readers gushing about the films and their favorite scenes

I think you would have been very happy.

When I read many of these posts I have to wonder if people saw the same films that I did.

[Meriadoc1961]

I appreciate everyone's thoughts and comments.

While reading through these posts it seems to me that all seem to be in agreement that visually the trilogy is a masterpiece. And since Jackson WAS so adept at capturing visually Minas Tirith, Rohan, The Shire and Bag End, The Black Gate, the Ents, Gollum, the Balrog, the Mines of Moria, Rivendell, Shelob, Lorien, etc., etc., then why the need to change the characters? That is what disturbs me when I watch the films. I like them, but I see no need for Jackson to have changed the characters at all. There was absolutely no reason for him to have done what he did with Gandalf being a bully and beating Denethor. There was no need to have Frodo tell Sam to leave. Frodo is supposed to be a very wise individual, and yet he comes across as a weak fool in many ways in the movie. The portrayal of Gimli as a buffoon was not needed at all, and in fact, I believe Tolkien would have been particularly insulted by that portrayal of the Dwarf, a member of a race he respected. Treebeard was no fool, either, and yet he has to be tricked by the hobbits in order to do the right thing. And what he did with the character of Faramir is practically unforgiveable, and absolutely pointless, not to mention how Aragorn went from being a person of high character and purpose to a man who was trying to flee from his duty. Why? How was any of this an improvement, and how was any of it necessary?

[Sauron the White]

Meriadoc...
Perhaps if you watched the extra features, especially the commentary from the writers and producers, that comes with the special editions of the three films you would gain some explaination of why they did what they did.

It would take time - many hours of repeated viewings watching the same films over and over again but listening to the audio commentaries of different people who actually made the movie.

I do think that would provide you with an explaination and would help in understanding why some of these changes were made.

Besides that, there is the obvious difference between the art form of a book and that of a film. That would require a few book length postings to fully explain.

[Meriadoc1961]

Sauron the White,

I did view the extra commentaries from the DVDs, and as I have said, I do like the movies. I just do not agree with the writers' and director's stated reasons for changing the characters. It is my opinion that the movie COULD be made that still had all the visual beauty and still be true to the characters, or at the very least, to the main characters, as originally developed by Tolkien.

I do not believe anyone could have improved upon what Jackson did to create the Shire, and particularly Bag End in Hobbiton.

[Sauron the White]

Meriadoc ... I missed where you said you watched the commentaries - sorry. I do feel - rather strongly- that everyone has a right to their own opinion regardless of its origins or foundations. So your opinion is right for you. I also feel that much of the anti-Jackson criticism is from people who first and foremost think and believe in LOTR as a book. For them, it should never change. I do feel that many cannot get beyond that.

In the end some filmmaker could film the book page for page and turn out 29 hours of film and miss one speech in hour 12. Some purist on one of these sites would mention it and say it detracts from an otherwise noble effort. I truly believe that would happen. You just cannot please some folks.

I view the books and the movies as two very different ways to tell much the same story. I love them both. And that is right for me.

Neither JRRT or PJ was or is perfect. They are human so that is part of the package. I love what each gave us and appreciate each for its own individual merits.

Glad to see you are strong in your passions. Keep on posting.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

In the end some filmmaker could film the book page for page and turn out 29 hours of film and miss one speech in hour 12. Some purist on one of these sites would mention it and say it detracts from an otherwise noble effort. I truly believe that would happen. You just cannot please some folks.

Sauron, will you please give that strawman a rest?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Meriadoc ... I missed where you said you watched the commentaries - sorry. I do feel - rather strongly- that everyone has a right to their own opinion regardless of its origins or foundations. So your opinion is right for you. I also feel that much of the anti-Jackson criticism is from people who first and foremost think and believe in LOTR as a book. For them, it should never change. I do feel that many cannot get beyond that.

Much agreed. I read LotR 20-some times before seeing the movie, so I would have to say that my viewing was biased. So your observation is fair. Still, this does not excuse Peter Jackson from criticism, and even if there were no books, his movies contain internal inconsistencies that could have been resolved otherwise.

alatar, knowing that he may be asked, "What inconsistencies?" plans to reread his posts in the Sequnce-by-sequence.

You just cannot please some folks.

I'm one of those folks.

[Sauron the White]

from StW

In the end some filmmaker could film the book page for page and turn out 29 hours of film and miss one speech in hour 12. Some purist on one of these sites would mention it and say it detracts from an otherwise noble effort. I truly believe that would happen. You just cannot please some folks.

reply from WCH

Sauron, will you please give that strawman a rest

In all honesty and sincerity I do not bring it up to disparage anyone or to tar anyone with an extra wide brush. It is nearly six years of reading criticism of the Jackson films that has convinced me of this. Over and over again, on several different boards and in other formats as well, I have seen mounting evidence of this mentality and attitude.

I remember with crystal clear clairty one of the first posts I read from someone who had seen an advance copy of FOTR in which they said something like this.... and I am reconsturcting from a memory nearly six years old ....

I knew something was terribly wrong when the first words you hear in the film are words coming from the mouth of Galadriel but actually belong to Treebeard.

The viewer had not yet seem one minute of actual film but was already poisoned because Jackson and the writers had switched the speaker of a line of dialogue. From that early review it has just gone downhill ever since.

I truly believe that there is no pleasing some Tolkien readers. I would love to be convinced otherwise but post after post, article after article, confirms that feeling.

William - I do not see this as a strawman. I truly believe it and have been convinced of it through repeated examples.

[Meriadoc1961]

At the risk of appearing inconsistent, the opening scenes of FOTR impressed me. I thought what was done was an excellent way to give needed background to the story. The narration was true to the story, even though Galdriel was speaking it instead of Treebeard. (Hey, later on Treebeard is given words to say that are spoken by Bombadil in the book!) And the battle scene at Mt. Doom I thought was also magnificent.

My only complaints have been in the change of CHARACTER I see in the films, especially the further we got along in the tale. I do not recall Gandalf behaving in a way that was inconsistent with his character from the books in the first two films, particularly FOTR, but I definitely saw him in a light that, in my opinion, was uncalled for and not necessary with his beating of Denethor. But by then I had already been sucked into the Middle-earth world Jackson had created that I was able to tolerate it, if you will.

Sauron, you had no need to apologize, for I had not posted that I had seen the commentaries to the DVDs before. I do, however, appreciate your kind words anyway. I also hope you do not believe I am "blasting" Peter Jackson and his efforts. I actually do like the movies, and I have recommended them to others! But the "purist" in me thinks they would have been even better had the characters not been tampered with in the manner they were.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Meriadoc1961

I do not recall Gandalf behaving in a way that was inconsistent with his character from the books in the first two films, particularly FOTR,...

In FotR Gandalf, previously confined to watch the ending of the Third Age from high atop Orthanc, having escaped later tries to sway the Fellowship into walking down through the Gap of Rohan, which just so happens to be in the neighborhood of Saruman. I started referring to him as Gandalf the Black, as he almost seemed to be working for Saruman.

[Meriadoc1961]

Originally Posted by alatar

In FotR Gandalf, previously confined to watch the ending of the Third Age from high atop Orthanc, having escaped later tries to sway the Fellowship into walking down through the Gap of Rohan, which just so happens to be in the neighborhood of Saruman. I started referring to him as Gandalf the Black, as he almost seemed to be working for Saruman.

Alatar, I will have to check that out as I had never caught that, but it seems a bit minor in terms of being out of character compared to beating up the Steward of Minas Tirith.

Merry

[The Saucepan Man]

Well, as some here will know, I have always been an avid supporter of Jackson and his LotR films. In recent times, I have rather given up on arguing the toss over the finer points as I have heard it all before and said it all before. But I remain steadfast in my conviction that these three films (or, perhaps more accurately, single film in three instalments) were extraordinary film events, groundbreaking in so many respects and as revolutionary for the fantasy film genre as Star Wars was for the sci-fi film genre.

Before going on, a little background for those who do not know my stance on these films or the books. I am a long standing Tolkien fan. I first read The Hobbit aged 9 some 30 years ago and LotR followed shortly thereafter. LotR has always been the foremost among my favourite books and I am currently reading it to my children, having recently got through TH with them.

So I am no film fan boy and nor do I lack an appreciation of Tolkien's literary achievements. As such, I am under no illusions that Jackson's films depict (in may cases) quite different characters and events to those portrayed by Tolkien on the page. That, to me, does not matter. The point for me is whether I enjoy them as films.

Much as I appreciate Sauron the White's argumentation and admire his pluck in sticking up for Jackson as his films, it really doesn't matter to me how popular a film is, how many awards it has won or what the critics have said about it (they might affect whether I bother investing time in watching a film, but marginally so). And I am long past the point of caring about the "Tolkien purists" gripes, major or minor. The question asked how I feel about the films now, after all this time, and that is the question that I shall answer.

I am not one to watch a film over and over again. However good it is, I get bored of watching the same thing repeatedly. I own all three films (special edition) on DVD but have watched them (until recently) about once each since getting them. I think that I saw each film twice in the cinema. So I have probably seen these films a lot less than many here.

Recently, Mrs S and I sat down to watch FotR (we have TTT planned for this weekend), and I was glad to find that my appreciation for the film had not diminished one jot. Indeed, if anything, it had increased. I am not usually an overly emotional person, but I found tears welling in my eyes so many times. They might not (completely) be Tolkien's characters but, darn it, I still care about them. It might not (completely) be Tolkien's story but, darn it, I cared what happened. On so many levels (visually, emotionally, technically, suspensefully) the films utterly blow me away each time that I watch them.

I compare that to my recent experience of watching Eragon, a very poor film in my opinion (I have not read the book), and there is just no comparison. Similarly, though less so, with the Narnia and Harry Potter films (again, I have not read the books). Admittedly, through my book fandom, I have more emotional investment in the LotR films (and I was blown away to see the world that inspired such enchantment in me as a child brought to life), but that cannot be the complete answer as the changes from book to film just don't bother me. As examples of their genre, these are, to my mind, outstanding films. Yes, they are big on action and somewhat unsubtle, but so are so many other films churned out by Hollywood which make little or no impact on me. These films impact me massively every time that I watch them. And, yes, there are internal inconsistencies, but these are present in almost every other film of similar genre, and they pale into insignifigance, in my view, in comparison with the overall magnificence of the films. Perhaps other directors could have made better adaptations, although they would still have been adaptations and liable to arouse similar ire from the purists, but we are in any event here entering the realms of hypothetica. If they exist, those directors did not (and probably had no inclination to) film LotR. One thing for sure, a good many directors (and writers, producers SFX teams, actors etc) would have made a much worse job of the project.

I happen to agree with Sauron the White that, on any analysis, these films were massively successful as films and I consider that they stand head and shoulders above others in the same and similar genres. I believe that they will stand the test of time. But I make no objective claims. This has been a purely subjective view.

Tolkien once suggested that his book was unfilmable. He was probably right. No one, in my view, could have brought the book to life as he wrote them. Any film would have necessarily been an adaptation. Does it follow that the films should not have been made? My life would have been the worse for it, and my wife would never have discovered the book. So, again from a purely subjective standpoint, my answer is a resounding no.

One final point. I could understand the controversy from Tolkien fans over the changes when the films first came out. But why do people still get so hot under the collar about them? These are the films that we have. I happen to think that they are rather good. If you agree, why not just enjoy them for what they are and stop putting up obstacles to your experience? If not, then what does it matter? You don't need to watch them. The book is still there, and it remains unchanged.

[Boromir88]

Just as SpM has been a supporter of Jackson's films, I have been the harsh critic. Though, I will give Jackson credit, when I think credit is due, but to me Jackson made a lot of 'fatal' mistakes.

So what do I think of the movies? Well as movies are out to make money and 'entertain' I would say Jackson did an absolute stellar job. If I want to keep myself focused and entertained for a good 3+ hours I pop in one of them. For many different reasons, the cast, the battles, the music...etc all make the movies fun to watch. And so as films, I agree with Sauce they will stand the test of time.

However, as these films are 'based' off of JRR Tolkien's story, and Jackson, Walsh, Boyens...etc were propelling. LOTR was already an extremely popular book long before Jackson came up with an idea of making them into movies. And those involved with making the movies attached them to Tolkien's books, therefor I find it impossible not to compare them. They have to be compared.

For the question of are the films Tolkien's Middle-earth? Or did it bring Middle-earth to life? I would have to say a definite 'no' to both.

(As a disclaimer I'm going to say 'Jackson' a lot, to which I mean 'Jackson, Walsh, Boyens, Newline...the whole crew, because it gets burdensome to list everyone involved or just say 'Jackson in Company' all the time. It's very easy to blame the one person who is the figure head everyone knows and recognizes. Jackson is the director of the film, he is the man making the decisions, so he should take the praise, or the criticism. However, problems with the movies, may not solely be Jackson's fault - it may not even be his fault at all.

Newline controlled the purse, and those who control the money, often control the power. Newline was pumping money into the film, you better believe they wanted to see a lot of money in return. It's a business, that's what happens. Newline was funding the 'project,' if they weren't happy with it, funding's gone...plug pulled. So, you better believe Newline was going to get the film they wanted.

Therefor, when I say 'Jackson' I pretty mean everyone involved. I use Jackson's name because he is the director who put himself in the forefront. When things go right Jackson gets most the praise, so it's only fair that when things go wrong Jackson bears the brunt of the critism. Anyway that's my little side rant ).

Did the movies bring Middle-earth to life? For me, no, because Middle-earth was already brought to life by the books. I think Tolkien did an amazing job with the use of language and imagery that got me to imagine the characters, their motivations, the plot...etc just by using language. It was the books that brought Middle-earth to life. But, that's my own personal opinion, as I read them before watching the films. Maybe if you saw the films first it is different, I don't know. But, for me, the films didn't bring Middle-earth to life, because the books had already done that.

Are the films Tolkien's middle-earth? I agree with Elladan and say they're not. Yes characters are given the same name (although some are made up), and the same general plot happens...but many of the characters are changed, many things are added (and changed) therefor, I don't think it's a good representation of Tolkien's Middle-earth. It is a creation of Jackson.

I was asked if the books were 'unfilmable.' I mean they're so long, there's a lot of depth to them...etc. Can a good representation actually be made? I think so, depending upon the motives of those in charge. Since Hollywood is a business, sadly 'money' often takes over as the primary motive, and not really the 'purpose of the author' takes a back seat.

No one claims that a carbon copy has to be made to make a good representation of the books. Even the author himself in Letter 210 says the deletion of scenes is a necessity if a film is to be made off his books. However, he was so apprehensive about movies being made because often times (in Hollywood) what happens is directors 'change' things without considering the intent of the author or how that change effects the meaning of the story. There are a lot of things 'different,' a lot of characters 'different,' so what we end up with is a different story. Yes the same thing happens in the end, but it is still not 'Middle-earth.'

I'm not talking about here whether the changes Jackson made were better for a film, since it is a different medium. As the question I'm answering is 'are these good representations' completely different from 'does this change work for the movies?'

No you don't need a carbon copy to create an accurate representation of the story, all you need is a director who never loses site of what is important...and that is the authenticity of the story.

Paul Greengrass, who directed the recent 'Borne Ultimatum' (getting great reviews and I can't wait to see it) also made the controversial United 93. Greengrass was facing a lot of heat when he was making this film. Critics were saying he shouldn't be doing it, they were saying he was just trying to make money off of a tragedy. But Greengrass creates a great film...why? Because he never got dragged down by Hollywood and never lost focus of the authenticity of the event.

Before starting the film Greengrass went to the family members who lost love ones on that plane and first asked them 'Hey can I make this film?' And also if they were willing he asked them to describe their loved ones...how were they like? How did they look? Do you remember what they were wearing? Did you talk to them that day? What did you talk about? Greengrass never lost sight of the authenticity of what happened on that plane, and what we have is a finished product that is not only emotional, powerful, and outright stunning, but also...authentic.

I never got this same feeling from Jackson. Sure he spent years making the film, but he spent years making his own story, completely different from making an accurate story of Tolkien's world. Also Jackson (as well as Walsh and Boyens) showed an extreme disrespect - to the point of arrogance - with the 'I can do better' attitude. Ok, it's nice to have confidence, but let's be real. Tolkien was a man who C.S. Lewis said, was 'inside language.' Tolkien, maybe not as far as films go, but as far as 'creating a good story,' had far more knowledge than Jackson (and everyone involved) combined.

Some of the 'arrogant' remarks I was talking about. Tolkien said that The Scouring was an 'essential part of the plot.' When asked why Jackson left it out of the movies he said it was a 'no brainer.' Now, whether leaving out the Scouring was better for the films or not, isn't the issue. First off we don't know, because we don't really have something of the same sort to compare it to. Also, again I am talking about a representation of the story. Jackson decided leaving out the Scouring was a 'no brainer,' eventhough the author said it was an 'essential part of the plot.'

Also, Tolkien said that tomatoes did not belong in Middle-earth...Jackson found out this info and said 'that's silly.' What did he do? He put tomatoes in his story. May seem small and insignificant, but it shows a complete disregard and disrespect to the author. So, I never get the same feeling that Jackson cared about 'authenticity' in the way that Greengrass did when he made United 93.

I can live with many of Jackson's changes, because for the most part he has a reasonable explanation. He at least explains what he was trying to do for the film and how it works (most of the time). Therefor, I can live with Eomer saving the day instead of Erkenbrand and Arwen replacing Glorfindel. But, changes like the ones I mentioned a few paragraphs above is no excuse, that's just disrespect.

It's not that Tolkien's story is 'unfilmable.' (In fact an author has 1 medium to capture their audience...language...words. A director has several not only language - dialogue - but also through vision with sets and costumes, emotions through music...etc. It should be a lot easier for a director than!) It's not that a 100% carbon copy has to be made to create an accurate representation of Tolkien's books. It's the fact that Jackson (and everyone) was more concerned about other things than creating an authentic story, and so what we get is a bad representation of the story.

[Sauron the White]

from Boromir 88

No you don't need a carbon copy to create an accurate representation of the story, all you need is a director who never loses site of what is important...and that is the authenticity of the story.

Paul Greengrass, who directed the recent 'Borne Ultimatum' (getting great reviews and I can't wait to see it) also made the controversial United 93. Greengrass was facing a lot of heat when he was making this film. Critics were saying he shouldn't be doing it, they were saying he was just trying to make money off of a tragedy. But Greengrass creates a great film...why? Because he never got dragged down by Hollywood and never lost focus of the authenticity of the event.

There is a major distinction to be made here that renders your comparison less than effective. The events depicted in UNITED 93 were based on actual real life events. Middle-earth is a contrived fiction, an imaginary world filled with imaginary characters. There is no crying need to match items of clothing exactly or depict events in actual time or sequence as they really happened in an adaption of a fictional work. At least not the essential need that there is in depicting a recreation of actual avents. As it was, I do believe Jackson and team tried mightily to get things right. where possible and where important.

Too much of these debates come down to a clever and contrived definition of terms. You use the term AUTHENTICITY. I fear that the definition of that would hopelessly limit the arguement of either side in this discussion.

Jackson did hire many experts ranging from experts on the various langauges to experts on the look and design of Middle-earth in the effort to get it right - or as you put it to preserve the authenticity of Middle-earth. Efforts were expended to get it right and to preserve the authenticity of that world and the people in it where possible and within the limits of the cinematic medium.

The presence or absence of a tomato in the story is so trivial as to be meaningless to 99% of those who saw the films.

If Jackson tried to improve the books, that does not make him guilty of denying the One True God. I recently reread the books for the umpteenth time and was amazed at how more dramatic and touching the film version of the death of Boromir is compared to the book version. Should we burn Jackson at the stake for this transgression?

As far as The Scouring goes, this has been explained by the writers in detail in the special editions. It was felt that the climax of the film was the destruction of the ring and the fall of the Barad-dur. As it was, Jackson bore the brunt of some who criticized the film for having "too many endings" and going on far too long after that climatic scene. To add the Scouring of the Shire would have only lengthened the film by even more.

Personally, I found that very quiet tavern scene (at the end of ROTK) far more touching as the four hobbits sit around the table - their great deeds unappreciated by their fellows - while all the hobbits around them rejoiced in the trivialities of hobbit life. And as it should be. And I am sure the four would have it no other way. I found that beautiful.

In the end it is folly to compare to films to the template of the book and hold them up as the last word as to what is pure and good and holy. The book and the film are two very different things. Each has their own qualities, boundaries, limits and components that the other does not have.

Again, this is like comparing apples to cinderblocks. In the end the experts announce that after deep and exhausting study apples do indeed taste better. But cinderblocks are harder and make for better building materials. The comparison is meaningless.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Meriadoc1961

It has been a few years now since the release of all of the LOTR movies by Peter Jackson. We have all had time to reflect. Whay is your opinion of them now? Has it changed?

By the way, I am BACK!!!

I think one of them is on Channel Four this evening?

Anyway...

I've not been near the films for a while and I'm quite happy with that. I had grown bored with them. I feel myself slowly slipping back into my old ways with regard to Lord of the Rings, my old images and mental pictures slowly reasserting themselves from the leaf mould of an old mind.

To me, there was always a slightly unfashionable, musty, eccentric, hippyish quality to Tolkien's stories, like they're an old early 70s Genesis album replete with songs about giant hogweed that you might find at the back of the cupboard or an amiable old schoolteacher with a bushy beard and leather patches on the elbows of his tweed jacket. I am getting back to that and it's marvellous. The films are too....MTV. I like my comforts and Lord of the Rings is one of them.

Not that I do not like them, no, they're marvellous entertainment, but they don't have the Tolkien Essence I seek. The films don't allow my mind to go off on mad tangents, savouring the smells of the Old Forest and picturing Frodo as he ought to be. I think one of the reasons I've grown to dislike Elves so much lately is the image of them in the films - all skinny minnie models with bleached hair like they've come from some medieval dressing up party on a Floridian beach.

The films are in one corner and the books in another, invested with long, beloved memories of The Times Before...

[Quempel]

I agree with a great deal of what Lalwendë has said. I enjoyed the films and own all the versions, extended ect., but I have not viewed them in some time. I like the books much better, it is simply a much better story with more detail. Yes the films are fine entertainment, and give some of the story of Middle Earth, but it is Jackson's interpretation of the story, not Jackson's story.

I also did not like the changes of the Elves in the movie. I much prefer the book Elves, they have a much more 'humanistic' quality about them in the books. They're flawed in the books and that makes them more lovable.

[Boromir88]

The events depicted in UNITED 93 were based on actual real life events. Middle-earth is a contrived fiction, an imaginary world filled with imaginary characters.~Saruman

I was answering a question about what I felt would make a good representation of the books...or if the books were 'unfilmable.'

To which case I see it on the same level as making a movie off a real life event. If you want to make an authentic, and good representation of a real-life event, than you try to stay as true to the actual story as you can. Jackson did not do this in his films...there were other things deemed more important than staying true to what the author wrote. If you want a comparison to a 'fictional' movie based off a 'fictional' book, I would suggest The Day of the Jackal...which is a near carbon copy of the book.

There are many differences between the book The Day of the Jackal and LOTR; I doubt anyone would argue that you need to show every single blade of grass that is in the books. But my point is to create a good representation of whether it be a fictional book, a real life event, or whatever it is, than all you really need is a respect and love for what the author wrote (or a respect for the events that took place), and a respect for the intellect of the audience. My point with United 93 I never questioned Greengrass's ego, he was making a movie that would be as near to the actual event as possible, and never let his ego get in the way. I can't say the same for Jackson and company, who's primary focus always seemed to be money. Therefor, we end up with a very entertaining movie, yet a bad representation of Tolkien's story.

Jackson did hire many experts ranging from experts on the various langauges

I believe one of those so called experts PJ hired was a self proclaimed 'dwarvish expert.' I find that funny considering Tolkien never created a language for the dwarves (besides the names of a few places, people, and the saying 'Baruk Khazad! Khazad-Aimenu'). So this self-proclaimed expert in the dwarvish language, was just making up his own bilge.

The presence or absence of a tomato in the story is so trivial as to be meaningless to 99% of those who saw the films.

Again I'm not talking about whether it's good for the film or not (same can be said about The Scouring), I am talking about Jackson's ego in thinking he knows more about Middle-earth than Tolkien. Tolkien said in his story tomatoes didn't belong, Jackson got word of this and said 'that's just silly.' So what did he do, he put tomatoes in...that's disrespect towards the author and also has the arrogant air of 'I know more than some author who's past his prime.' To which case I think we can apply Tolkien's comments about Zimmerman in Letter 210:

He may think he knows more about The Lord of the Rings than I do, but he cannot expect me to agree with him.

I'm sorry but when the author of the book says that something doesn't belong in his story, or that something is 'essential' to his story. And the director responds with remarks of 'that's just silly,' and to prove his point that it's silly he goes directly against what the author said. That's plain out arrogance and disrespect.

It may be a trivial matter as far as the entertainment of the movie goes, but when dealing with whether these movies are a good representation of the books...it is surely not trivial. Especially when you have the director who was definitely aware of Tolkien's feelings on 'tomatoes' and 'The Scouring,' and he treats his thoughts in such a disrespectful way.

Am I being too harsh? Maybe some think so, sorry I'm very blunt and straightforward and not going to beat around the bush. Sorry if anyone's taken any offense, but I'm not going to crown Jackson the greatest director this world has ever seen, with the toilet humor and bilge he pulls.

[Meriadoc1961]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

To me, there was always a slightly unfashionable, musty, eccentric, hippyish quality to Tolkien's stories, like they're an old early 70s Genesis album replete with songs about giant hogweed that you might find at the back of the cupboard or an amiable old schoolteacher with a bushy beard and leather patches on the elbows of his tweed jacket. I am getting back to that and it's marvellous. The films are too....MTV. I like my comforts and Lord of the Rings is one of them.

Interesting...I have always associated Middle-Earth and the books with the Beatles and the Moody Blues!

[Sir Kohran]

I think one of them is on Channel Four this evening?

LOL, a while ago my younger brother was hammering on my door screaming, 'Lord of the Rings is on!' I didn't watch most of it but saw the last half hour. I was amazed at how primitive the theatrical version felt compared to the extended.

Therefor, we end up with a very entertaining movie, yet a bad representation of Tolkien's story.

This seems very unfair. It wasn't perfect, but it certainly wasn't 'bad' - the sadness, heroism and sheer spirit of the books are definitely there, if in a lesser form.

I believe one of those so called experts PJ hired was a self proclaimed 'dwarvish expert.' I find that funny considering Tolkien never created a language for the dwarves (besides the names of a few places, people, and the saying 'Baruk Khazad! Khazad-Aimenu'). So this self-proclaimed expert in the dwarvish language, was just making up his own bilge.

Oh really? What about all the various Elvish lines in the movies which used Tolkien's languages, or the Elvish lines used by Enya in 'May It Be'? Viggo even asked for more Elvish lines because he enjoyed using different languages.

I'm sorry but when the author of the book says that something doesn't belong in his story, or that something is 'essential' to his story. And the director responds with remarks of 'that's just silly,' and to prove his point that it's silly he goes directly against what the author said. That's plain out arrogance and disrespect.

This just sounds ridiculous. Of all the things to criticise, you find a type of food being used a problem?

but when dealing with whether these movies are a good representation of the books...it is surely not trivial.

But it *is*. Anyone who judges an adaptation by whether or not it includes something so small as a tomato just comes across as nit-picking to an insane level.

Sorry if anyone's taken any offense, but I'm not going to crown Jackson the greatest director this world has ever seen, with the toilet humor and bilge he pulls.

Oh really? Does Gandalf's fight against the Balrog, Boromir's last stand and Aragorn's promise to him, Sam willing to drown to follow his master, Gandalf and Eomer's arrival at Helm's Deep, Faramir turning away from temptation and releasing the hobbits, Sam's tearful speech to Frodo, Faramir's mournful ride, Rohan's epic charge in the golden morning, Sam carrying Frodo up the mountain, Aragorn's speech to the soldiers at the Black Gate, the final victory and celebration in Gondor, Frodo's last farewell to his comrades and Sam's return to his home and family count as toilet humour and bilge?

Compare all those beautiful moments to other 'fantasy films' (**** like Eragon and Dungeons And Dragons) and maybe you will see just how great these films were. Not perfect, but great.

I also did not like the changes of the Elves in the movie. I much prefer the book Elves, they have a much more 'humanistic' quality about them in the books. They're flawed in the books and that makes them more lovable.

Actually I think the Elves were one of the things they got right - the physical beauty with a tint of sadness. Also, the book 'version' of the Elves seems nigh on perfect. The film Elves struck me as more flawed (Elrond and even Galadriel change their minds in ROTK and TTT respectively on how to treat Men).

And I never once found the Elves 'lovable'. That sounds vaguely like a cuddly animal, probably not what Tolkien imagined.

[Boromir88]

This seems very unfair. It wasn't perfect, but it certainly wasn't 'bad'

In my opinion it is 'bad.' I don't get why people take offense to someone who doesn't think the movies should be hailed and praised as 'great' pieces of film. Simply because I don't think they're good representations doesn't mean no one can think they are.

This just sounds ridiculous. Of all the things to criticise, you find a type of food being used a problem?

How many times must I say I am not talking about this causing any 'problems' with the movies. I'm making a point about Jackson's attitude towards what Tolkien wrote. Tolkien said tomatoes didn't belong in his world, Jackson said that's just silly so he includes them in his movies. By including tomatoes Jackson shows he knowingly disregarded something Tolkien said about his story and went against it. Which to me shows arrogance on the part of Jackson.

Oh really? What about all the various Elvish lines in the movies which used Tolkien's languages, or the Elvish lines used by Enya in 'May It Be'? Viggo even asked for more Elvish lines because he enjoyed using different languages.

That's got nothing to do with the self-proclaimed 'dwarvish expert.' Ok, they did get a team of experts together, I believe Tom Shippey was was among them. So, they were able to get things right, that doesn't mean I'm just going to ignore all the 'wrong' and pretend it's just not there.

I know that Verlyn Fleiger (who's wrote 3 stellar books regarding Tolkien) came out and blasted the movies as being just a Hollywood action film. Who's to say she's wrong? No one, that's her opinion. Yes there were experts who worked on the movies, but there were also 'experts' who shouldn't be titled such (example the 'dwarvish' guy) and also experts who have flat out ripped the movies to shreds. In fact Fleiger (with regards to FOTR) says the only thing she enjoys is Sean Bean's performance and the scenery (yet with the scenery the actors are constantly in the way!) And some would think I'm a harsh critic!

Oh really? Does Gandalf's fight against the Balrog, Boromir's last stand and Aragorn's promise to him, Sam willing to drown to follow his master, Gandalf and Eomer's arrival at Helm's Deep, Faramir turning away from temptation and releasing the hobbits, Sam's tearful speech to Frodo, Faramir's mournful ride, Rohan's epic charge in the golden morning, Sam carrying Frodo up the mountain, Aragorn's speech to the soldiers at the Black Gate, the final victory and celebration in Gondor, Frodo's last farewell to his comrades and Sam's return to his home and family count as toilet humour and bilge?

No but what about Gimli being transformed into a bumbling buffoon that likes to belch and fart? Or Gandalf beating down the Steward of Gondor? Or Aragorn chopping off the Mouth of Sauron's head? Or Denethor chomping down them tomatoes (!) during that beautiful 'charge' of Faramir? Or Legolas being made into a Captain Obvious superelf trick stud? Or googly eyed Frodo losing most of his courage and bravery? Or Gollum tricking Frodo into sending Sam home? Or the green slime army of the dead which virtually makes Rohan's glorious charge useless? Or the marshmellow man Gothmog limping around Pelennor? Or The Witch-King owning Gandalf, breaking his staff, making him whine? Or Denethor sending Boromir off as a secret agent to bring him back the Ring? Or Sauron being shown as an eye? Or the Gondorian soldiers transforming into pathetic guys who suddenly lost the ability to actually fight? Or the absense of The Scouring? Or just making up characters like Lurtz and Madril? Or Aragorn's tumble off the cliff? Or the Witch-King-Frodo scene at Osgiliath? Or Saruman's death? Or Aragorn being the stereotypical 'reluctant' King until the very end?

And that's just some of the bigger ones that have sprung to my mind. I never said there wasn't anything Jackson got right, but just because things were 'right' doesn't mean it just negates everything that he got wrong and changed around. Whether it is better for the movie that he made these changes...I don't know, but since there are tons and tons of changes (many of them being to the characters and plot!) I don't see it as a good representation. And I don't see the films as a good 'introduction' to Tolkien's Middle-earth...I see it as a good welcome to Jackson's 'Middle-earth.'

Just a little aside about Saruman's death. To start out, Mr. Lee wasn't too happy with his 'death' having to happen in Isengard as he knew The Shire was the 'proper' place. But also, Chris Lee actually boycotted the premiere of ROTK because he was angry about the scene being cut from the theatrical. I remember watching the TV interview and he was furious over Jackson editting out his death, and said there would then be no reason for him to go to the premiere. A day later Lee actually recanted these statements and said that he wouldn't be going to the premiere, but he couldn't say anymore because of his confidentiality agreement. hmm....

[Sauron the White]

"Gee whiz Wally , I gotta wonder what the rest of the world was watching since all these nifty folks here think the movie was a pile of crap? Why did people pay all that money to see crap? Why did those crappy movies win all those awards? Why did the professional critics love those crappy movies? It doesn't make sense Wally."

"Gosh Beav , I dunno. Maybe everybody is just stupid except for a few real smart guys who know all the answers while the rest of us go around with our heads stuck up our butts."

"Gee whiz Wally. I don't want my head up my butt"

"For heavens sake Beav, its just an expression. It means that regular guys like us are a bunch of jerks and only a few smart guys really know anything. You know it like at school where a few really smart kids always get called on and everybody else just sits there."

"Thanks Wally."
--------------------------------------------------------------

apologies to the old LEAVE IT TO BEAVER TV show.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Boro

Well as movies are out to make money and 'entertain' I would say Jackson did an absolute stellar job.

First off, if the fims hadn't made (or been capable of making) money, then they wouldn't have been made in the first place. I, for one, am very glad that they were made. Secondly, if they entertain, then they have done much of what is expected of them. I, and my teary eyes, think that they went much further than that.

Originally Posted by Boro

And those involved with making the movies attached them to Tolkien's books, therefor I find it impossible not to compare them. They have to be compared.

Logically, this makes no sense to me. They were based on the book, but were rendered in a completely different medium. There is no need to compare if one simply wishes to enjoy the films. I will admit that, because the films were based upon the book, they have a special significance for me. But it does not follow that I have to compare one to the other. I can enjoy them both for what they are, separately and differently.

Originally Posted by Boro

For the question of are the films Tolkien's Middle-earth? Or did it bring Middle-earth to life? I would have to say a definite 'no' to both.

Firstly, I should clarify that, when I said that the films bring the books to life for me, I meant that, in almost every respect, the films captured the visual images that I already had of the books. The films did not visualise Middle-earth for me, but rather captured my own visualisation magnificently. Secondly, I disagree that the films did not capture Tolkien's Middle-earth. They might not tell exactly the same story with exactly the same characters but, for me, they captured many of Tolkien's themes perfectly: the importance of friendship, the valiant stand of good against evil in the face of hopeless odds, courage and valour, the bettering of the mighty by the humble, beauty and primitive power in simplicity, trust in hope against the odds and so on. These things are just not present in your run-of-the-mill swords and sorcery gorefest. Yet they were, for my money, present in spades in Jackson's films.

Originally Posted by Boro

Therefor, when I say 'Jackson' I pretty mean everyone involved.

I thoroughly agree. When things are perceived to be wrong with the films, Jackson generally takes the wrap. It couldn't possibly have been the actors' fault, so let's blame Jackson's direction or the lines that he wrote. It does you credit, Boro, to share the "blame". But I would rather credit all concerned with all that is right about the films (the majority of things, in my view).

As regards the comparison with United 93, I would agree that was a superb film. And, having watched the companion documentary, I was impressed with the lengths to which the director and others involved went to to assuage the feelings of the relatives and enhance the accurate depiction of the protagonists. But don't kid yourself that that film too did not have an eye to the box office. Or indeed, the Bourne Supremacy which, by all accounts, is an action-fest (not my cup of tea, but I am sure that it will be hugely successful and entertain many). But, as Sauron the White points out, we are not talking here about a portrayal of real life events. The considerations involved were different. Jackson was looking to make a successful and entertaining film from Tolkien's novel. There were no relatives to appease or real-life characters to depict correctly. Should he have taken into account the feelings of the Tolkien purists? To my mind he did, and he certainly satisfied me. Of course, many remain dissatisfied. But there is a line to be drawn. In my view, he got that line more or less in the right place.

Originally Posted by Boro

Also Jackson (as well as Walsh and Boyens) showed an extreme disrespect - to the point of arrogance - with the 'I can do better' attitude.

I have seen the interview where one of them (Boyens, I think) says this. To my mind, this line has been misunderstood and misinterpreted by those who criticise the film, often to their own ends. I see them as saying that they changed the book where they thought that it would work better on film. That is their right. They were making a film based on the book. In many respects, I think that they succeeded. The Scouring of the Shire is one example. Much as I personally love that chapter, it would, for the reason that Sauron the White has stated, have been a disaster, film-wise, to add it on to the end, after the major climax of the trilogy. It was not disrespect. It was good film-making. The tomatoes example is simply too trivial to bear response.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I've not been near the films for a while and I'm quite happy with that. I had grown bored with them.

A healthy attitude, I think. Films are not meant to be watched over and over again, until one gets so bored that one picks holes in them to amuse oneself. As I said, I have watched the films only infrequently, with long gaps between them. And I enjoy them all the more for that, when I do watch them again. Equally, I do not read and re-read LotR over and over again, as I am sure that it would bore me too if I did so. I am currently re-reading it again (to my chldren) after a gap of some four years, and thoroughly enjoying it.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Not that I do not like them, no, they're marvellous entertainment, but they don't have the Tolkien Essence I seek.

I would agree that they are marvellous entertainment. And they are, admittedly, not pure Tolkien. Many others had a hand in their making and their influence inevitably shows. Yet, as I have said, for me, they do retain the essence of Tolkien and the essence of his Middle-earth. That is one of the things that, for me, sets them so far above many other films of the same type.

Originally Posted by Boro

Therefor, we end up with a very entertaining movie, yet a bad representation of Tolkien's story.

To my mind, an extremely entertaining film, a reasonable adaptation of Tolkien's story (it was never meant to be, nor could it ever be, an authentic representation), but a wonderful recreation of much of the essence of Tolkien's Middle-earth.

Originally Posted by Boro

I never said there wasn't anything Jackson got right, but just because things were 'right' doesn't mean it just negates everything that he got wrong and changed around.

Is your glass half empty or half full ...?

I don't know why I got myself back into this. When one posts an opinion, one always feels obliged to defend it. Yet, really, I do not care what anyone else thinks of these films. I only care that they are a great source of enjoyment for me. Yet it does annoy me when they are belittled, precisely because I think that they are such great films. So worthy of praise. Yet, because they depart from the book in a number of respects, they are crucified as not being worthy. No, they are not the deepest films ever made. Yet, they had depth. Seriously, just watch Eragon or umpteen other films of the same genre and tell me that these films are not head and shoulders above their rivals. For all the gripping action scenes and unsubtle (Gimli-based) humour, they have moments of great depth and poignancy.

I will finish by relaying my experience of today. As anticipated, we sat and watched TTT, generally held to be the worst of the three films, as far as comparison with the books goes. Yet, once again, so many scenes brought tears to my eyes. The despair of the Three Hunters when they thought Merry and Pippin dead, the pain of the mother sending her children away from the burning village, the unknowing diffidence of Theoden on first hearing of his son's death followed by his very real anguish that he feels when burying his child, Eowyn's lament at Theodred's funeral (mouthed in the background by fellow mourners), the wonderful dialogue between Gollum and Smeagol, the look of fear on the faces of the old men and young boys as they were armed in readiness for defending Helm's Deep, the anguish of their wives and mothers as they left to prepare for battle, the desperate last ride out from the Hornburg, and the appearance of Gandalf astride Shadowfax as the sun rose in the east behind him,. Just a few of the moments that I found incredibly moving, supplemented in no small way by the magnificent score. And, you know what, not all of those were written by Tolkien. Yet, for me, they capture the essence of the world that he created. Heck, I even appreciated the Wargs this time round.

There is so much more to these films than crunching axes and belching Gimlis. And that's what I find so entertaining and so enjoyable about them. I like a good action flick as much as the next fellow. But there is so much more to these films than simple swords and sorcery. Thanks, in a large part, to the man who wrote the book on which they are based. But I give due credit too to those who brought them to the screen for my delectation.

Finally, Boro and others, if you find the films so entertaining, why not just let them entertain you? Why the need to find fault because there were tomatoes present, or because Faramir would never act that way, or because Gandalf would never have let himself be humbled by the Witch-King. These films do not tell the story told by the books, so don't let the books shackle your enjoyment. Enjoy the films for what they are and enjoy the books for what they are. Then, surely, you can let yourself be happy that you are lucky to have two such rich sources of enjoyment.

[Sauron the White]

I know that Verlyn Fleiger (who's wrote 3 stellar books regarding Tolkien) came out and blasted the movies as being just a Hollywood action film. Who's to say she's wrong?

So just to be clear - Verlyn Fleiger is a film expert? She has the qualifications to make these statements and to be considered as someone with the background, education and credentials to pronounce upon the quality of a film? She knows so much about film that the rest of us should be cowed by her opinion and ignore the massive worldwide success of the movies based on box office revenue, industry awards and professional critical acclaim? All this is to be shoved into the dustbin of life because of the opinion on a film by one Verlyn Fleiger?

Which to me shows arrogance on the part of Jackson.

What I see here is a very small number of people who somehow, someway feel that they are the Keepers of the True Knowledge of JRRT. Only they know what is holy and good. The rest of the world is out of step..... those people who bought over $3 billion dollars of tickets to see the movies were fools ..... those critics who praised the films were boobs .... the members of the professional industries who heaped many awards on the three films were all idiots. All are ignorant cretins ...... everybody but that small number of the Chosen Few. You want to talk about arrogonace and lack of respect? Thats a great example of it right there.

[Quempel]

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Well Beav if the playing field is level and an actual account of how many tickets were sold the movie, Gone With the Wind spanks everything.


And oh golly Beav, Star Wars A New Hope won a bunch of awards too, including some oscars and BANFA awards.

Just because Gibson made money and won awards off of The Passion doesn't make him Jesus either.

[Boromir88]

So just to be clear - Verlyn Fleiger is a film expert?~Sauron

You don't need to be an expert to have an opinion about whether you like a movie or not. That's all I have been doing (as well as Fleiger), is stating our opinion about the movies. If Jackson can sit here and be praised he shouldn't bother a few needling critics that don't think the movies are a good representation of the books.

those people who bought over $3 billion dollars of tickets to see the movies were fools

A popular and entertaining film doesn't mean it's an accurate portrayal of the story. If you notice thats the question I was answering, not whether these were well-liked and entertaining films. Sauce has come in to argue why he thinks the films do represent Middle-earth, I happen to disagree, that's what we do in a discussion.

You want to talk about arrogonace and lack of respect? Thats a great example of it right there.

I would appreciate that instead of putting words in my mouth and saying I wrote anything about people who liked the movies are 'ignorant' and 'idiots' that you acted more like SpM. Come in state your opinion, argue your opinion, and praise the movies all you want. I'm going to come in here and argue why I think Jackson, Walsh, Boyens, et all were very arrogant and why the movies did not represent the books, to me. There's no need to make it personal and start saying that I'm calling anyone stupid fools for liking the movies, as I've done no such thing.