Aragorn's Take On the Movies

[Inziladun]

This is an article about Viggo Mortensen discussing his opinion of the LOTR films. Seems I've heard similar criticisms before. Must have been on TORN.

[Galadriel55]

Good stuff, that article. Worth a read.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Seems I've heard similar criticisms before. Must have been on TORN.

Amusingly I originally saw this article the other day when I was browsing TORN. Judging by the reactions to Mr. Mortensen's few rather mild remarks people there (and elsewhere) are still taking criticism of the films as personal attacks. Fans, eh?

I think he has a fair point. I would probably agree that "Fellowship" is the strongest item on the menu, but for my own part I still consider even that to be a very deeply flawed film with insurmountable obstacles in terms of characterisation and the handling of the backstory. Peter Jackson's predilection for CGI is more obvious than ever by this point, of course. I honestly don't see the difference these days between him and someone like Michael Bay: making boring long-winded CGI-candy action films with no substance.

I haven't watched them in ages out of fear for my sanity but I don't recall the CGI in the adaptations of The Lord of the Rings being as obvious as in the films of The Hobbit. Perhaps the earlier films used it more where necessary and to fill in the gaps between practical effects where in these new ones it's more front-centre as it were (I'm looking at you, "Azog").

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Amusingly I originally saw this article the other day when I was browsing TORN. Judging by the reactions to Mr. Mortensen's few rather mild remarks people there (and elsewhere) are still taking criticism of the films as personal attacks. Fans, eh?

Yeah. the TORN reference was certainly pointed. It seems that from the start of PJ's LOTR endeavors there has been that vocal element that howls with outrage when one dares question his motives or judgement.

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I think he has a fair point. I would probably agree that "Fellowship" is the strongest item on the menu, but for my own part I still consider even that to be a very deeply flawed film with insurmountable obstacles in terms of characterisation and the handling of the backstory. Peter Jackson's predilection for CGI is more obvious than ever by this point, of course. I honestly don't see the difference these days between him and someone like Michael Bay: making boring long-winded CGI-candy action films with no substance.

That's pretty much the way I view the films. To those who say "well, Jackson did the best he could", my response is ever "not enough". No one can impart the feel of the books in any other medium, at least to my mind, and that is why I see no need for anyone to try. It'll just result in watered-down, pale imitations that can't help looking like the standard Hollywood blockbuster with a thin sheen of good story, courtesy of Tolkien.

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I haven't watched them in ages out of fear for my sanity but I don't recall the CGI in the adaptations of The Lord of the Rings being as obvious as in the films of The Hobbit. Perhaps the earlier films used it more where necessary and to fill in the gaps between practical effects where in these new ones it's more front-centre as it were (I'm looking at you, "Azog").

I've only seen the LOTR films once all the way through. I thought CGI Gollum was actually about as close as one could possibly be to the "real" one, but the Balrog, and the Eye of Barad-dûr were garbage. I've seen enough of the Hobbit trailers to know that I want no part of it.

[Lotrelf]

Was he appreciating Peter Jackson or what? I didn't get... :/

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Yeah. the TORN reference was certainly pointed. It seems that from the start of PJ's LOTR endeavors there has been that vocal element that howls with outrage when one dares question his motives or judgement.

Yes, I often go to TORn just to have fun with the zealots. But there are several erudite posters over there as well, but they tend to stay out of the movie discussions altogether (for their own sanity, obviously) and merely analyze the books in their own segregated forum.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I've only seen the LOTR films once all the way through. I thought CGI Gollum was actually about as close as one could possibly be to the "real" one, but the Balrog, and the Eye of Barad-dûr were garbage. I've seen enough of the Hobbit trailers to know that I want no part of it.

I actually liked the Balrog; after all, it did have wings as is canonically correct.

I often disparage Jackson, but there are many things he did right in the LotR films, and from a cinematographic standpoint I think he did fine. However, my stance is and always has been that Jackson's additions detracted from the movie and did not improve the plot over what was already in the books and not included in the films. Many people I have heard from over the years consider the first movie, FotR, as the best and the second, TTT, as the worst. Not surprisingly, the first movie had the least amount of additional drek (Warrior Princess Xenarwen the most notable) and the second had the most effluvia (right down to Aragorn kissing his horse amorously).

The Hobbit movies are more egregious in superfluous scripting of a fan-fic nature than all three LotR movies combined, even to the point of adding an unnecessary and ludicrous Mary-Sue character. Jackson has gone so overboard that the last vestiges of The Hobbit (and the alleged main character, Bilbo) were removed when the hobbit-centric title "There and Back Again", reflecting the unassuming nature of Bilbo Baggins, was changed to "The Battle of the Five Armies" which assumes the character of Jackson's juvenile love for decapitations, CGI swarming legions and explodey things.

Viggo was right. Jackson lacks subtlety.

[Kuruharan]

I saw a summation of this article on ew.com found it interesting, read the original article, and then couldn't resist coming to the Downs to see if the redirection problem had been sorted. Huzzah it seems to have been!

It is nice to see that at least one person involved in the production shares our dismay at how things turned out.

Recently I have been greatly (and I mean *greatly*) enjoying cruising around Song of Ice and Fire websites and discussions and laughing uproariously at all the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth going on in those locations regarding the changes the TV show has made to the story of the original stories.

It is hilarious!

I will, however, fully admit that my antics are entirely motivated by schadenfreude in watching what we suffered (and until this last Hobbit abomination is over are still suffering) happen to somebody else.

It is still a world of fun...especially watching the unfolding hand wringing and worry about whether or not the TV show will pass the books (spoiler alert: it will, and in one respect it already has.) At least we Tolkien fans never had to suffer through that.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I actually liked the Balrog; after all, it did have wings as is canonically correct.

Tsk.

[Snowdog]

Yeah, the effects took over. I guess itas why I can still manage to watch Fellowship every couple years or so.

[Mister Underhill]

Wait, what? Fourteen years? Lord.

Anyway, to the extent that the original trilogy did work, I thought Viggo was a significant part of it. He got a lot of critiques about how his physicality -- voice, height, etc. -- didn't match up for a lot of fans, but I thought he brought a commitment and a maturity that helped anchor the cast. For me he was believable -- as a legitimate outdoorsman, as a dangerous combatant, as a grown man. They put the character through some gyrations I didn't care for, but I thought Viggo always acquitted himself honorably. He's an actor who genuinely values good work, interesting work, challenging work over a payday.

[Belegorn]

I liked his Aragorn.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Let me put it this way. I bought all three LoTR films, but only
have watched FoTR after one dvd viewing. The others take such
liberties and even have continuity problems. One tiny example, PJ
makes a big thing of Merry and Pippin drinking Treebeard's drafts
but then at the end of TTT they're the same size as other hobbits,
when it would have been simple to have them a bit taller-and no
need to say anything or add one second to airing time. Then
there's the ridiculously oversized wargs in TTT, the horse kissing,
and on and on. FoTR I give a B- to, esp. the prequel, but the
other two, fagetabotit. And you see PJ's continued degenerative use
of cgi in The Hobbit movies (disclaimer, I've only seen the first,after
that there's no interest in seeing more destruction of the classic
children's book.

[Nogrod]

I guess everyone "knows" there is no turning a book into a movie without some compromises or a need to both cut and fill things as they are two different media with their own dynamics. A movie which would follow the storyline of the book in minute detail would be boring - and way too long (like 15 hours instead of 3).

So in principle all those who complain about changes made by movie-directors should be able to suggest how they would have done it differently and not just complain.

That said, I think we have a lot to complain with PJ's LotR - and even more with the Hobbit. Many of those criticisms have been made here and on other forums.

Instead of delving into those I'd like to continue where Kuruharan left us and compare PJ's movies to the Game of Thrones -series. For I think that in the GoT the changes made - sometimes pretty major ones - are actually made for the good. In the GoT the changes are oftentimes consistent, aid the developement of the characters and the plot, make the whole more dynamic and tight-knit... so more or less totally the opposite of the changes in the LotR (not to talk about the Hobbit). *

Now it is true it is easier to lay emphasis on all important issues and build storylines & characters when you can use ten hours to tell a story of a novel, but I still think the GoT screenwriters have something the PJ stuff didn't: an understanding or recognition of the spirit of the original text - and a will to transmit that into another medium.

Btw. I just saw that HBO had gotten their old problem with the producers of the Deadwood -series solved and it is once again to be seen... after seeing again after a long-long time the four first episodes in the last two days I must say I'm even more convinced that the future (or present) of visual storytelling is on the shoulders of the TV, not with cinema.


* There is a possibility some of the differences can be explained by the quality of the "originals" though...

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So in principle all those who complain about changes made by movie-directors should be able to suggest how they would have done it differently and not just complain.

Easy enough. My solution would have been to simply not attempt the unattainable.
To me, Tolkien's works have always been unique. There are tangible reasons why, such as the Professor's wonderfully authoritative, yet intimately archaic verbiage.
But there is also an ethereal quality that defies description, save that the books, and LOTR in particular, have a distinct feel that I have never encountered with any other work of fiction. Certainly none has left as deep an impression upon me.
To translate that intangible to another medium is quite futile. Not only that, but the act of making the story "suitable" for the Big Screen cannot help reducing it to the baseline of just another "fantasy movie", indistinguishable from the Eragons and Harry Potters.
My opinion of these movies has not changed from the time I first heard of PJ's intentions back when I first joined this forum. The act of translation was an unnecessary exercise in futility.

[Smaug's voice]

While I disagree with Viggo at some specific points, I loved his straight-forwardness in there.

Still, I do not dislike any of the films.

I like The Hobbit films as well. But not as an adaptation. Rather a re-telling.
The second film especially was a fantastic fantasy film on its own.
(if only they were not riddled by a love story and a videogame villain <sigh>).

I feel the main themes of the book are preserved - so far.
As long as Bilbo continues to be the central partin BOFA, Thorin's death is done well and Smaug dies before BOFA it'll be allright for me.

[Snowdog]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

The act of translation was an unnecessary exercise in futility.

True that.

And, being one that don't care for the screenplay, wrote my own movie "tweaks" that could have easily been filmed and would have remained true to the books while being easily watchable from a "movie-only" standpoint.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I will, however, fully admit that my antics are entirely motivated by schadenfreude in watching what we suffered (and until this last Hobbit abomination is over are still suffering) happen to somebody else.

I know what you mean, brother, I know.

I have a major issue with Peter Jackson's lack of subtlety (among other things), and I feel sort of justified (not that I need a justification, but even so) knowing that somebody massively involved in the production agrees.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Instead of delving into those I'd like to continue where Kuruharan left us and compare PJ's movies to the Game of Thrones -series. For I think that in the GoT the changes made - sometimes pretty major ones - are actually made for the good. In the GoT the changes are oftentimes consistent, aid the developement of the characters and the plot, make the whole more dynamic and tight-knit... so more or less totally the opposite of the changes in the LotR (not to talk about the Hobbit). *

Now it is true it is easier to lay emphasis on all important issues and build storylines & characters when you can use ten hours to tell a story of a novel, but I still think the GoT screenwriters have something the PJ stuff didn't: an understanding or recognition of the spirit of the original text - and a will to transmit that into another medium.

I am curious now that Season 4 is over if you still feel this way about the GoT changes.

It is not surprising to note that most of the hardcore Song dislike the changes and are growing to have an increasing loathing for the show. Hardcore LOTR fans had similar reactions. The amusing (and slightly annoying) thing is that PJ's Lord of the Foozle trilogy is frequently held up by the Song hardcores as an epic adaptation done right.

I guess all fandoms feel they are abused and exploited the worst.

[FerniesApple]

As regards GOT, HBO seem to be heavily consulting Martin at every step, and if the author himself agrees with the changes I dont see how anyone can moan about it. I think there is mutual respect between the two, and that is key. Respect. I think Martin is also open to fans voicing their concerns over character deaths too, ie nobody wants Tyrion to die in future episodes, and Martin may take that on board as he is writing, or the producers may give him a nudge if things are looking squishybloody. It seems a good way to do a show.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by FerniesApple

As regards GOT, HBO seem to be heavily consulting Martin at every step, and if the author himself agrees with the changes I dont see how anyone can moan about it. I think there is mutual respect between the two, and that is key. Respect. I think Martin is also open to fans voicing their concerns over character deaths too, ie nobody wants Tyrion to die in future episodes, and Martin may take that on board as he is writing, or the producers may give him a nudge if things are looking squishybloody. It seems a good way to do a show.

I think you are a little too optimistic.

Lately, Martin seems to have been distancing himself more from the show, especially as the details of the show move further away from some of the details of his story.

Then there is also the inevitability that the TV show will pass the books and provide an ending to the series before Martin can (I happen to be in the camp of believing that the TV series ending will be largely the same as the intended ending of the novels.)

Now, this is not to say that Martin has distanced himself from the show in the same way that, for example, Christopher Tolkien has distanced himself from the movies.

[FerniesApple]

You could be right, but from all the interviews I have seen with Martin I havent got the impression of any underlying niggles or regret. But then he seems like an easy going guy and the show has proved an amazing hit so he must be quite pleased its a high quality product. I know there are concerns he writes slowly but I doubt the showrunners will do a dramatic plot change without prior consultation, after all if they get him really riled he may just refuse to write more books.

I wish they could stop him Killing off my favorite characters tho I am hoping The mountain is still alive, that Arya road trip was something else.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by FerniesApple

I know there are concerns he writes slowly but I doubt the showrunners will do a dramatic plot change without prior consultation,

They have already done that a few times, in at least one case Martin said the change they made was explicitly against his advice.

after all if they get him really riled he may just refuse to write more books.

Financially speaking, he would be the only one who would lose if he did that.

Martin has already given Benioff and Weiss the outcome of the story and the outline of how the story will get there. In some respects the two of them don't really need Martin anymore.

I wish they could stop him Killing off my favorite characters

But that is allegedly why everyone loves his stories.

[FerniesApple]

oh didnt know they had gone against his advice sometimes. maybe it was a cinematic thing done for flow, technical reasons, made sense onscreen?, they seem to make good choices, and sometimes the dialogue seems straight from the page. But then I am not a book-first fan, when it comes to GOT I prefer the tv show, I find the books hard going and I gave up after the second one.