The Hobbit (films) will be made. Finally!

[Porthos]

And Peter Jackson WILL be in charge! :smallbiggrin:

In a dash, so here are a couple of bare links discussing the news. :smallsmile:

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/urgent-peter-jackson-jackson-will-executive-produce-hobbit/
http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2007/12/18/28150-peter-jackson-and-new-line-cinema-join-with-mgm-to-produce-“the-hobbit”/

What a great early christmas present! :smallbiggrin:

[thorgrim29]

I'm confused, what sequel? I'm a bit worried, because, Jackson being himself, the dwarves will likely be portrayed as comic releif, and the whole focus of the fims will be on the elven jerks, with a jumbled battle of five armies and a dragon battle one hour long.....

[Lord of the Helms]

I'm confused, what sequel? I'm a bit worried, because, Jackson being himself, the dwarves will likely be portrayed as comic releif, and the whole focus of the fims will be on the elven jerks, with a jumbled battle of five armies and a dragon battle one hour long.....

Haha, this is pretty spot on.

If Jackson makes it, I won't be seeing it. He bumraped the Lord of the Rings trilogy badly enough already, no need to see any more of his atrocities. Even if he isn't directing it, him having all the creative decisions in his hand? Dee-sass-turr :smallannoyed:

And yes, what sequel? :smallconfused:

[Maelstrom]

Baring the expected Peter Jackson bashing, this is *great* news...

[Porthos]

I'm confused, what sequel? I'm a bit worried, because, Jackson being himself, the dwarves will likely be portrayed as comic releif, and the whole focus of the fims will be on the elven jerks, with a jumbled battle of five armies and a dragon battle one hour long.....


Haha, this is pretty spot on.

If Jackson makes it, I won't be seeing it. He bumraped the Lord of the Rings trilogy badly enough already, no need to see any more of his atrocities. Even if he isn't directing it, him having all the creative decisions in his hand? Dee-sass-turr :smallannoyed:

And yes, what sequel? :smallconfused:

Party Poopers! :smalltongue:

Anyway, I'm in far too good in a mood to get involved in the usual Peter Jackson flamewars. :smallwink:

As for questions of a sequel to The Hobbit, this is actually fairly old news. Peter Jackson is planning, last I heard, to take things from the appendices and various other Tolkien works and create a "bridge" movie that links The Hobbit and The Fellowship of the Ring.

And you know what? When you win a metric ton of Oscars and you get a studio roughly SIX BILLION DOLLARS in revenue from a project, you should be able to do whatever you want when you to continue the films.

Nothing but great news all the way around! :smallbiggrin:

[bluish_wolf]

I'm confused, what sequel?...

"The first film would be a direct adaptation of The Hobbit, while the second film would draw from "footnotes and source material connecting 'The Hobbit' with 'Lord of the Rings,'" [MGM's chief executive Harry Sloan] explained."

(http://www.mania.com/52800.html)

[Thinker]

Peter Jackson sucks because he ruined literature. If I wanted to see some fantasy other than the masterpiece by J.R.R Tolkien, I would have gone to see any other churned out Hollywood crap. That some people think of him as anything more than a hack stealing the works of geniuses is beyond me. I hope this venture fails so utterly that he is barred from creating any more movies or creative ventures.

[Porthos]

Peter Jackson sucks because he ruined literature.

Looks at LOTR books on shelf.

Nope they're still there. :smalltongue:


I hope this venture fails so utterly that he is barred from creating any more movies or creative ventures.

Six Billion Dollars in revenue from Movies/DVDS/TV Rights/Ancillary deals.
Seventeen Oscars in total for the series.
Countless Awards and Nominations from Various Guilds and Film Boards around the world.

The phrase is, I do believe: Scoreboard.:smalltongue:

Besides, last time I checked, no one was holding a gun to your head and forcing you to watch them. :smalltongue:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Whoops. Looks like I'm getting sucked into the flamewars. Better step back while I still can. :smallbiggrin:

[Telonius]

Is the Hollywood writers' strike still going on? There's still the chance that they'll have to use the book as the script. :smallbiggrin:

[Porthos]

Is the Hollywood writers' strike still going on? There's still the chance that they'll have to use the book as the script. :smallbiggrin:

Yes it is still going on. Which means, unless you had someone on the filmscreen reading the book aloud, that you need a writer to turn it into a script. Even if it was a nearly word for word transcription. :smallwink:

Funnily enough books and screenplays ain't the same thing. :smallbiggrin:

In all seriousness, the Writers Strike ain't going to last forever. So PJ and co can go into prepreduction and make all the sets and props they need and then work on the script once the Strike is over. Filming isn't scheduled to start until 2009, so they have plenty of time to hammer out another Oscar Worthy script. :smallsmile:

[TheEmerged]

TheEmerged Second Rule of the Internet: whereever there is something that some people like, there will be an equal number of people that feel the need to mock it :smallredface:

[reorith]

Peter Jackson sucks because he ruined literature. If I wanted to see some fantasy other than the masterpiece by J.R.R Tolkien, I would have gone to see any other churned out Hollywood crap. That some people think of him as anything more than a hack stealing the works of geniuses is beyond me. I hope this venture fails so utterly that he is barred from creating any more movies or creative ventures.

seconded. i was into jackson bashing before it was cool :(


TheEmerged Second Rule of the Internet: whereever there is something that some people like, there will be an equal number of people that feel the need to mock it :smallredface:

i thought the second rule of the internet was don't talk about the internet.

[CrazedGoblin]

I'm confused, what sequel? I'm a bit worried, because, Jackson being himself, the dwarves will likely be portrayed as comic releif, and the whole focus of the fims will be on the elven jerks, with a jumbled battle of five armies and a dragon battle one hour long.....

wasent Bilbo unconsious for that battle at the end??

[Pink]

Well, I'm pumped, at least for the first movie. I'm not so sure about how a sequal would do. I'm not really sure I care to know what they might put in the middle. I mean, Bilbo is supposed to live more or less peacefully right? (needs to reread the hobbit and LOTR again some time)

As for Peter Jackson's Job with LOTR thus far...I honestly think he made the books into a wonderful movie series that was exciting, fullfilling and still keeping to the main roots of the books. Of course it wasn't a perfect adaptation, but honestly, such a thing rarely exists when transfering from any media to another. To that end you can't judge each product based upon the other, rather you have to let them be judged on their own medium and how well it maintains the essence of the original.

[Rogue 7]

I still don't get why everyone hates the LOTR movies. What exactly did PJ do that destroyed the books? Only major change I saw was the dead @ Pelennor Fields and the Elves at Helm's Deep. He cut Bombadil, but that was really more of a non sequiter than anything else.

[sciencemile]

A slightly Modified quote
Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings Adaptation is the worst adaptation of the books, except for every other adaptation of the books.

Just imagine what would have happened if Fox had gotten a hold of the rights; it would have been Eragon all over again.

At this point, Peter Jackson is the only one I want directing these films, since he has shown the ability to minimize the amount of suckiness that tends to result from translating one medium to another (though I still feel that, putting aside the fact that the elves didn't show up in the books, in no circumstances should archers be used to charge a proportional force of melee fighters)

On the other hand, I shall reserve a bit of judgment, just in case it does cause disappointment, by saying that the success of the previous films could result in Victory syndrome, which might heavily diminish the quality of these next films.

[XiaoTie]

I still don't get why everyone hates the LOTR movies. What exactly did PJ do that destroyed the books? Only major change I saw was the dead @ Pelennor Fields and the Elves at Helm's Deep. He cut Bombadil, but that was really more of a non sequiter than anything else.

Arwen saving Frodo and the death of Haldir (the poor sonovagun had nothing to do with that war) at Helm's Deep are my main grudges against PJ. But I did liked the movies, they were pretty cool. Like pink said

Of course it wasn't a perfect adaptation, but honestly, such a thing rarely exists when transfering from any media to another.

[dehro]

I can't help but defend JP a little. there was simply no way that anyone could ever make a movie quoting word for word or adapting by the page any of the work by Tolkien. LOTR is litterature, a classic. it works perfectly as a written saga...you can't make a movie out of it, that's it. you can't unless you are ready to adapt it. there are pages upon pages of crossreferences, poems, resumes of situations far off, people telling things and tales... you simply can't put it into film without the film becoming totally dull and unwatchable.

I love every page of LOTR to bits, but I also think PJ has done the best anyone could do, given the scope of what he had to work with. he has of course made several questionable decisions (arwen anyone? faramir?) and a few innuendo's to his passion for sillyness (legolas skating on a bloody shield)..and poor Hama not being given what recognition was due to him.. (I guess anyone of us has his own little moments in the book he'd have loved to see in the movie)....but all in all he has worked with great respect for the material, with great competence and a very keen eye on how a movie should be paced, whatever the source of the tale. the only alternative would have been not making a movie of it at all (which has been my position on the matter right untill I've actually seen the movie and felt that it wasn't that bad after all)

no, I can't really say that I'm unhappy about the result or that I'm not glad that he gets to do the hobbit. I am very much perplexed about the second movie..there does not seem to be a need for it, I think..but then..we'll see (I for one, will)

[ALOR]

I just pray that it doesn't have to be 3 hours long......and if it is please give us an intermission for our bladders sake. Other than that I'm looking forward to it

[ARMOURERERIC]

New Line did not have much of a choice, if production did not commence by Jan 1, all rights reverted back to MGM, which already made it clear that they would hire Jackson and New Line would not goet anything.

Also, as some of you are aware, there was a lawsuit by Jackson against New Line for underpayment of his cut on FotR, within the last 90 days, there was a preliminary hearing and it came out that NL was destroying documents, NL was held in contempt and ordered to pay $125K to the courts in fines.

I think NL finally decided to cut their losses.

As for the wrters strike, if this is made in New Zealand, it will be non-union, so there will be no strike impact.

Eric

[ShadowyFigure]

The Lord Of The Rings had there Flaws but they also had great action scenes and feeling. Unless of course you watch thing through your but hole, :smallamused: Hpefully the hobbit will be just as good and iwth just as much feeling, If i wanted a 100% adaption i'd read the book.

[....]

Arwen saving Frodo and the death of Haldir (the poor sonovagun had nothing to do with that war) at Helm's Deep are my main grudges against PJ. But I did liked the movies, they were pretty cool. Like pink said

Yeah, because making Glorfindel show up, save Frodo, and then vanish into nothingness and contribute nothing to the story would be awesome.

And trying to flesh out Aragorn's love interest as more than a pretty elf is UTTER BLASPHEMY!

[Tweekinator]

And trying to flesh out Aragorn's love interest as more than a pretty elf is UTTER BLASPHEMY!

This. I need say no more.

[Pink]

I just pray that it doesn't have to be 3 hours long......and if it is please give us an intermission for our bladders sake. Other than that I'm looking forward to it


The length of a film should never exceed the capacity of the viewer's bladder

This here because quotes don't count for words.

[The J Pizzel]

I've got two degrees in production and film and I'm insanely over analytical of movies to the point that I drive my friends and family crazy. I say this not to show off, but to maybe explain that I'm pretty harsh when it comes to reviewing movies. That being said, my opinion on LotR has always been...

PJ's LotR is a masterpiece of modern film. It is everything I could ever want as a die hard fan, or just another person watching a fantasy flick. I've read the trilogy several times and thank the gods nightly that he didn't try to adapt the books word for word. Many of my friends whom have now grown to like the books and the entire genre as whole have plainly said they still wouldn't have had anything to do with this genre (including DnD) had it not been for PJ and his trilogy.

I have all 3 extended cuts and watch them all about once every three months. I am extremely grateful for these movies and way excited about him making the Hobbit. Those movies are fricking amazing and with PJ behind the wheel, The Hobbit will be too.

/end transmission.

JP

[The_Snark]

Well, I'm pumped, at least for the first movie. I'm not so sure about how a sequal would do. I'm not really sure I care to know what they might put in the middle. I mean, Bilbo is supposed to live more or less peacefully right? (needs to reread the hobbit and LOTR again some time)

As for Peter Jackson's Job with LOTR thus far...I honestly think he made the books into a wonderful movie series that was exciting, fullfilling and still keeping to the main roots of the books. Of course it wasn't a perfect adaptation, but honestly, such a thing rarely exists when transfering from any media to another. To that end you can't judge each product based upon the other, rather you have to let them be judged on their own medium and how well it maintains the essence of the original.

My sentiments exactly, pretty much. Jackson's adaptations had their flaws

Flaws, spoilered because they aren't all that revelant: -Tom Bombadil and the Barrow-downs being taken out... but I understand the reasons for this one. The movie is already three hours long, Bombadil was not all that relevant to the rest of the plot, and he would have been very hard to portray on screen without coming across as silly.

-Faramir's portrayal, taking Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath. They needed something to happen to Frodo and Sam, of course, if they were removing Shelob's lair to Return of the King... but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

-Denethor's portrayal. He wasn't that much of a jerk in the books. Came across as downright villainous at times, particularly in extended scenes.

-The Army of the Dead. I'm okay with the Army being at the Pelennor Fields; they didn't want to suddenly introduce the Grey Company, or didn't think it could explain turning the tide of the battle. What I objected to was that they looked like horror-film ghosts, rather than the grey, mist-accompanied legions I had always envisioned.

-Silly stunts with Legolas, like skating down a shield, or scaling one of the Mumakil. (If they'd really wanted to make him kill one, he could have shot it in the eyes.) Similarly, Gimli was turned into comic relief far too often.

-The part in which Gollum convinces Frodo to drive Sam away, only for him to come back. Not needed, not wanted.

-The scouring of the Shire. Left out.

Saruman: "Saruman's home could be wrecked, and he turned out, but no one could touch yours. Oh no!"

Peter Jackson. "Actually, I like it that way. Cut the sarcasm from that line." *thumbs nose*

The nice, all-happy ending bothered me.

But for all these flaws, I thought the movies were still very good. They impressed the first time I saw them, and they held up to second viewings. And just like Tolkien's books began a more widespread fantasy movement, the movies inspired several other fantasy book-film adaptations...

... and watching them, you can clearly see how much worse things could have been. The Harry Potter movies have been mediocre (in my opinion), ranging from the first couple unexciting movies to the later ones, which skipped from scene to scene and would be very hard to understand without reading the books...

... and on the very other end of the scale, there's the Eragon movie (which was terrible, no matter what you thought of the original material) and that recent adaptation of Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising. (If you haven't seen that, don't. They took a six-book series and condensed it to one movie. This meant they had to take out a lot of the plot, so they took a few elements out of one of the books and added in the following 'plot': "I'm the Chosen One, so I win.") It could have been so much worse.

So, to sum up and hopefully get back on topic: Hobbit=good. Sequel=?

[Swordguy]

My sentiments exactly, pretty much. Jackson's adaptations had their flaws

Flaws, spoilered because they aren't all that revelant: -Tom Bombadil and the Barrow-downs being taken out... but I understand the reasons for this one. The movie is already three hours long, Bombadil was not all that relevant to the rest of the plot, and he would have been very hard to portray on screen without coming across as silly.

-Faramir's portrayal, taking Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath. They needed something to happen to Frodo and Sam, of course, if they were removing Shelob's lair to Return of the King... but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

-Denethor's portrayal. He wasn't that much of a jerk in the books. Came across as downright villainous at times, particularly in extended scenes.

-The Army of the Dead. I'm okay with the Army being at the Pelennor Fields; they didn't want to suddenly introduce the Grey Company, or didn't think it could explain turning the tide of the battle. What I objected to was that they looked like horror-film ghosts, rather than the grey, mist-accompanied legions I had always envisioned.

-Silly stunts with Legolas, like skating down a shield, or scaling one of the Mumakil. (If they'd really wanted to make him kill one, he could have shot it in the eyes.) Similarly, Gimli was turned into comic relief far too often.

-The part in which Gollum convinces Frodo to drive Sam away, only for him to come back. Not needed, not wanted.

-The scouring of the Shire. Left out.

Saruman: "Saruman's home could be wrecked, and he turned out, but no one could touch yours. Oh no!"

Peter Jackson. "Actually, I like it that way. Cut the sarcasm from that line." *thumbs nose*

The nice, all-happy ending bothered me.
...

So, to sum up and hopefully get back on topic: Hobbit=good. Sequel=?

Not flaws - differences from the books "Flaws" is perjorative. But your summation is good.:smallbiggrin:

Seriously, I honestly don't think there's enough material available for a sequel. Well, there is - but not in coherent format, and not in "story" form. Jackson'd be going completely off the map in this - he hasn't needed a ****-hot script-writer thus far, but with this he'd absolutely have to have one.

I'd much rather see the Lay of Beren and Luthien. Or the story of Feanor. Or the Breaking of the Seige of Angbad and the Battle of the Sudden Flame.

But I'll watch the movies PJ produces nonetheless. And so will everyone here who's kvetching about the first three movies. Clearly we'd be better off if they had never been made.

[Soveliss]

I can't wait for it to come out myself!

[The_Snark]

Not flaws - differences from the books "Flaws" is perjorative. But your summation is good.:smallbiggrin:

Well, those were the differences from the books that I didn't like. Hence my reference to them as flaws. Not all of the differences were bad.

[Seraph]

Haha, this is pretty spot on.

If Jackson makes it, I won't be seeing it. He bumraped the Lord of the Rings trilogy badly enough already, no need to see any more of his atrocities. Even if he isn't directing it, him having all the creative decisions in his hand? Dee-sass-turr :smallannoyed:

And yes, what sequel? :smallconfused:


Peter Jackson sucks because he ruined literature. If I wanted to see some fantasy other than the masterpiece by J.R.R Tolkien, I would have gone to see any other churned out Hollywood crap. That some people think of him as anything more than a hack stealing the works of geniuses is beyond me. I hope this venture fails so utterly that he is barred from creating any more movies or creative ventures.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Darkseraph15/Bawwwww_bunny.jpg

[Alex Knight]

I want this movie for one reason.....SMAUG!!!!:smallbiggrin:

[jmaccabeus]

the dwarves will likely be portrayed as comic releif,

Half the time in The Hobbit, the dwarves were comic relief. Just ask Bombur. :smalltongue:

In any case, I'm certainly very happy about this. Maybe the Lord of the Rings movies weren't perfect, but they were very, very good. Hopefully, Jackson makes sure to keep the book's lighter tone; my main concern is that he might make it too much like the other movies.

[Laurellien]

This is great news. Apart from a few plot inconsistencies perpetrated by Jackson, he has largely done a stellar job at representing the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

[Tormsskull]

LotR Books -> Rocked.
LotR Movies -> Rocked.


If you think that the movies didn't authentically portray the books, remember that they are aimed at two different audiences. Books are aimed at smart people who enjoy reading. Movies are aimed at anyone with $8.00 in their pocket.

[factotum]

I don't think PJ did such a bad job of LOTR. If there is a flaw in the trilogy, it's that he (and his co-writers) really didn't understand that the corrupting power of the Ring was extremely subtle; in their hands it became a sort of sledgehammer that instantly corrupted anyone who so much as saw it, which is why Faramir's reaction to it was so utterly different in the film than it was in the books. (I mean, in the books Gandalf is quite happy to pick the Ring up after taking it out of the fire in Bag End, whereas he doesn't dare touch it himself in the film--which kind of makes his "It's quite cool!" assurance to Frodo somewhat suspect :smallsmile: ).

[Rowanomicon]

When I first saw the bit about a sequel I thought they were making The Hobbit into two movies so they could go into more detail and not make it 3 hours long.
I don't really know about this whole making a movie from a book that doesn't exist bit though.
Oh well, I can't be unhappy about them making a Hobbit movie and I'll go see the other one too, hopefully it's good.

[TheElfLord]

I must say I'm slighty concerned about the so called sequel to the Hobbit. I agree that Jackson didn't do a perfect job with the LotR movies, but then no one could (Even Tolkien wasn't satesfied with how the books turned out). I have some major issues with some things in the movies, but that doesn't stop them from being great movies.

The biggest problem I have with Jackson is his push to take things to the extremes. Making it bigger, dirtier, uglier, more massive. He did it too much in LotR which was an epic movie. The Hobbit is on a much smaller scale, so I worry about the possible alterations, although he won't be the director. However it will still probably be a good movie and I will happily see it.

A sequal however? The 60 years between the Hobbit and Fellowships were times of relative peace with Biblo living happily in the Shire. Sure Saron was gearing up for war, but it was a gathering phase. Almost everything found in the Apendices takes place before the Hobbit, so I am slighty concerned. I don't have enough info however, and will withold judgement till I am better informed.

[....]

I don't think PJ did such a bad job of LOTR. If there is a flaw in the trilogy, it's that he (and his co-writers) really didn't understand that the corrupting power of the Ring was extremely subtle; in their hands it became a sort of sledgehammer that instantly corrupted anyone who so much as saw it, which is why Faramir's reaction to it was so utterly different in the film than it was in the books. (I mean, in the books Gandalf is quite happy to pick the Ring up after taking it out of the fire in Bag End, whereas he doesn't dare touch it himself in the film--which kind of makes his "It's quite cool!" assurance to Frodo somewhat suspect :smallsmile: ).


To be fair, movies have a lot of ideas to get across in a short span of time. Things have to be less subtle in movies than in books.

[XiaoTie]

Yeah, because making Glorfindel show up, save Frodo, and then vanish into nothingness and contribute nothing to the story would be awesome.

And trying to flesh out Aragorn's love interest as more than a pretty elf is UTTER BLASPHEMY!

Right, because everyone would instantly love a pretty elf just because she happened to save a hobbit (carrying the One Ring or not :smalltongue: )

[Prophaniti]

As for questions of a sequel to The Hobbit, this is actually fairly old news. Peter Jackson is planning, last I heard, to take things from the appendices and various other Tolkien works and create a "bridge" movie that links The Hobbit and The Fellowship of the Ring.

A bridge movie? That would suck! Nothing happens in the interrim. The original animate movie of LotR covered the period perfectly with a quick time-lapse animation and one line of narration! How can you make a (good) movie out of that?!

Now, if they tried to make a movie of some of the more exciting parts of the Silmarilion... That at least has the POTENTIAL to be good.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

If Jackson is indeed going to direct the film, my desire to see it has greatly gone down. I think he did a disservice to the story, although the turned out to be decent action pictures. I personally think Peter Jackson is a second rate director, and is nowhere near as good as many think he is.

[DraPrime]

If Peter Jackson doesn't screw this up like he did King Kong, then I'll be very satisfied.

[Shraik]

He's trying to beat Lucas, that's what he is doing. Star Wars still holds supreme for most succesful movie franchise and he hopes to change.
The Deviant.

[thorgrim29]

Bear in mind, I never said it would ne a bad film, only that the dwarfs would be comic relief, and that the end battle would probably suck.... Oh and we'll spent one hour inside the magical forest of the elves, where everything is pretty and no dwarves are confined without ale (ale! the dwarven lifeblood, elven monsters), with Legolas as the nice elf who helps the good guys escape, because PJ is hot for Legolas.

That being said..... it cant be worse then the comic adaptation of the hobbit (the singing, the dragon that looks like a cat). I'll probably rent it though. On the subject of the LOTR films.... I liked the first two, dispite Gimli and Legolas switching roles. In the books, Gimli is the badass warrior (holding the gate at helms deep alone for a while if memory serves), Legolas is a guy with a bow, not an invincible killing machine while Gimli has "funny" lines (not the beard mainly) and is generally useless (he actually loses a drinking contest with the effin elf in the extended version). Return Of The King was rushed way too much for my liking. Faramir was demaned, Denethor was a jerk, Aragorn suddenly became the king, with no prior hint (the kings grass). But my biggest grief is with the battle of Pellenor's feild, especially the undead army.

Also, how many movies can the guy produce at the same time? Is he not supposed to be adapting Halo?

[sealemon]

PJ's LotR is a masterpiece of modern film. It is everything I could ever want as a die hard fan, or just another person watching a fantasy flick. I've read the trilogy several times and thank the gods nightly that he didn't try to adapt the books word for word. Many of my friends whom have now grown to like the books and the entire genre as whole have plainly said they still wouldn't have had anything to do with this genre (including DnD) had it not been for PJ and his trilogy.

QFT. Couldn't have said it better myself, and am really looking forward to the films. F#%$ the naysayers.

[thorgrim29]

QFT. Couldn't have said it better myself, and am really looking forward to the films. F#%$ the naysayers.
Nay Nay, I say nay.

[Serenity]

OK, I'll admit, I never made it through Return of the King...what was the effin' point of gathering the army of the dead if not to intervene at Pellenor?

[....]

Right, because everyone would instantly love a pretty elf just because she happened to save a hobbit (carrying the One Ring or not :smalltongue: )

No, but it was a good way to introduce the character, since she did more than stand there and look solem/happy, which is all she did in the book.

Switching out Glorfindel for another character is no more destructive to the story than taking out Tom Bombadil. Neither character adds anything to the story at all, Glorfindel dosn't do anything but save Frodo. If he'd gone after the ring, or helped fight Sauron, or ANYTHING in the Lord of the Rings, I'd understand the anger.

Even the animated cartoon LOTR replaced him with Legolas, although Legolas was pretty much a wuss in that movie.

[Shadowdweller]

Despite their flaws I thought Jackson's films really nailed a few aspects of the books (e.g. gollum). My biggest gripe was the Star Power effect: Viggo Mortenson consistently outplayed the supposedly knowledgeable and wise Gandalf in terms of sagacity and assurance. Gimli's debasement to role of comic relief.

I just hope Ian Holm ends up playing Bilbo once again.

[Serenity]

Am I the only one who thought Gimli wasn't 'debased?' He was funny, sure, but I never had any doubt in watching it that he was a competent and ferocious warrior. He kept up fine with Legolas at Helm's Deep.

[JadedDM]

Oh, yes. I certainly hope they don't turn the dwarves into comic relief. They clearly were never intended to by funny. Not with such serious names like Thorin, Balin, Dwalin, Dori, Nori, Ori, Oin, Gloin, Bifur, Bofur, Bombor, Fili and Kili.

:smallamused:

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

Guys, I also think it's important to note that PJ is going to be an executive producer only on the films, but will not be directing the two films. After reading that (I thought he was directing them since that seemed to be the assumption), I think the films will likely be better than originally anticipated. As I stated in an earlier post, I think very little of Peter Jackson as a director. I mean, before he made the LOTR trilogy, he really only had two so-so pictures in Heavenly Creatures and The Frighteners to his directing credit. It still confounds me why he was chosen in the first place to direct a movie huge movie trilogy like LOTR with such a pathetic directing resume.

[Swordguy]

Oh, yes. I certainly hope they don't turn the dwarves into comic relief. They clearly were never intended to by funny. Not with such serious names like Thorin, Balin, Dwalin, Dori, Nori, Ori, Oin, Gloin, Bifur, Bofur, Bombor, Fili and Kili.

:smallamused:

No freaking kidding. Bombur is basically one 300-page fat joke.

Some of you people need to lighten the heck up.

[EvilElitest]

Arwen saving Frodo and the death of Haldir (the poor sonovagun had nothing to do with that war) at Helm's Deep are my main grudges against PJ. But I did liked the movies, they were pretty cool. Like pink said

I just think it was badly directed and had awful editing, as well as bad drama. The adaptation was pretty good though and i loved the weapons/armor


Yeah, because making Glorfindel show up, save Frodo, and then vanish into nothingness and contribute nothing to the story would be awesome.

And trying to flesh out Aragorn's love interest as more than a pretty elf is UTTER BLASPHEMY!
1. Didn't they do that with Haldir? he showed up twice then died. Yeah
2. If they had cut the love interest in half we would have been able to have Saurman's speech and Shelob in the second movie, also if they cut out Faramir's journy to olgilith

QFT. Couldn't have said it better myself, and am really looking forward to the films. F#%$ the naysayers.
because nothing says "I am a mature and understandable movie critic" like "screw everyond who disagrees with me"
Can we make Peter Jackon a seperate thread?
On that subject, i think i know what the sequel will be

The scourging of the shire? ether that or the corruption of the Men of the west by Sauron (Both aren't sequals i admit but...)

Also, i think LOTRS would have been a perfect movie if the spit it into six hour and half films. I mean harry potter is an awful series and look at its money
from,
EE

from,
EE

[Porthos]

because nothing says "I am a mature and understandable movie critic" like "screw everyond who disagrees with me"

Well, considering the opening comments (and indeed many of the later ones) to this thread about PJ, can you really be surprised that some people are reacting to the critics in such a fashion? :smallamused:

I think you'll find that people who have honest and rational disagreemements with the films will be treated fairly kindly. People who say things like "he bumraped the Lord of the Rings trilogy badly enough already"?

Not so much. :smalltongue:

[captain_decadence]

Also, people gotta remember that unlike the Lord of the Rings, the Hobbit was originally a children's novel. The dwarves should be humorous. Bilbo should be kind of a bungler and a coward. Gandalf should be a Deus Ex Machina in lots of situations.

It's simpler in so many ways than the Lord of the Rings, a lot like the adaptations into movies are. So I think it will translate more smoothly into a movie.

Also, who cares about Haldir? Who was he? I have read the Lord of the Rings every year since I was in fourth grade and he never seemed like anything beyond a random elf. Then the movies come out and people get mad that he got replaced.

[Dancing_Zephyr]

In every look forward to'ed event in media, there are always people who will never be happy with what is presented. Whether it is the LotR movies, or coming up the final Wheel of Time book. It doesn't matter how good the movie is, how well the book resolves the plot or if said piece receives many awards. There will still be people who have an irrational hatred towards said book/movie/what have you. Usually it is the diehard (no, not the movie) fanatics who possess this hatred.
The LotR movies were good movies, but that is all they were. There weren't meant to be perfectly accurate portrayals of the book on the screen. It is extremely difficult to translate from one medium to another, and I thought the LotR movies were excellent movies. I look forward to the Hobbit movie, but I'm baffled about why a sequel is necessary.

[ocato]

PJ is hot for Legolas.


This sums up my main complaint about the LotR movies. I loved them, I thought they were entertaining and a good mix of pleasing (most) fans and being approachable to nonfans.

However, this elf fetish he has is a little hard to swallow. Don't get me wrong, in LotR, elves are pretty great. However, DWARVES ARE TOO.

Legolas being unstoppable in combat at all turns. Never gets a hand laid on him. Gimli gets knock down a few times and generally doesn't get the same attention or potency.

Running scene at the start of Two Towers: Legolas is fine and Gimli is stumbling and exhausted. Dwarves are slower but aren't they hardier? Better at long-term toil? et cetera?!

Return of the King extended start-off scene: Legolas beats Gimli in drinking contest. Dwarf Enthusiasts riot.

[Swordguy]

Running scene at the start of Two Towers: Legolas is fine and Gimli is stumbling and exhausted. Dwarves are slower but aren't they hardier? Better at long-term toil? et cetera?!


That was from the book.



Return of the King extended start-off scene: Legolas beats Gimli in drinking contest. Dwarf Enthusiasts riot.

That wasn't. And everyone I know who games hates the hell out of it.

[jamroar]

ether that or the corruption of the Men of the west by Sauron (Both aren't sequals i admit but...)

Given that it's a Hobbit->LOTR interquel, I guess it's "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen: the superduper extended edition".

[The_Snark]

On that drinking contest scene: Peter Jackson apparently figured elves were immune to the effects of alcohol. Clearly, he wasn't paying attention to the scene in The Hobbit, in which the wood elf butler and captain of the guards drink themselves into a stupor on wine. Not even specially potent elven wine; it was made by Men. Hiss.

[jamroar]

On that drinking contest scene: Peter Jackson apparently figured elves were immune to the effects of alcohol. Clearly, he wasn't paying attention to the scene in The Hobbit, in which the wood elf butler and captain of the guards drink themselves into a stupor on wine. Not even specially potent elven wine; it was made by Men. Hiss.

Yes, but while that scene states they weren't accustomed to drinking such potent wine, it's implied the Elf King Thranduil (Legolas' father) was. Presumably some of that rubbed off on his son. So there is some basis for that, but it's not an elf thing, just a Legolas one.

[The_Snark]

Yes, but while that scene states they weren't accustomed to drinking such potent wine, it's implied the Elf King Thranduil (Legolas' father) was. Presumably some of that rubbed off on his son. So there is some basis for that, but it's not an elf thing, just a Legolas one.

Possibly, but it's still not justified; the scene portrays Legolas as being unused to drink, yet not feeling the effects at all. And I don't think Gimli would be unused to strong liquor, either.

[factotum]

OK, I'll admit, I never made it through Return of the King...what was the effin' point of gathering the army of the dead if not to intervene at Pellenor?

What the army of the dead did in the book was to crush the Corsairs of Umbar. The other cities of Gondor (they had a few, although you'd never know it from the film :smallsmile: ) sent a much smaller force to assist Minas Tirith than they could have done for fear of a sneak attack from the south. With the Corsairs scattered, there was no longer a need for that defence, so they could afford to provide extra troops for Aragorn to take with him to the battle.

It should also be noted that the Dead never actually killed anybody in the book--their primary weapon was fear.

[Serenity]

Fair enough. Question the second: did Tolkien relate the battle in which they got rid of the corsairs before or after the Black Fleet showed up and turned out to be Aragorn and friends? I was under the impression that it was a major point of suspense in both mediums that we knew the fleet was coming, but didn't know that Aragorn had co-opted it until he showed up. Imagine your average theatre-goer's reaction when they watch Aragorn go through all the trouble of recruiting the dead, and the next time they see him, the dead just aren't there.

As for the absence of the Scouring of the Shire...what did you want PJ to do? Add an extra half hour that's essentially a stand alone story with its own mini-arc after all the main action has been resolved? I can understand the great feel it gave the ending of the book, but I just don't think it's something you could do in a movie.

[dehro]

That was from the book.



That wasn't. And everyone I know who games hates the hell out of it.

anyone who plays a dwarf, for sure...:smallbiggrin:

but yeah,,I agree, the comic relief bit worked fine in the movies, but was still uncalled for.

[Lord of the Helms]

It was unknown to the reader of the books who was on the ships before they raised Aragorn's banner; the issue with the dead was narrated in-story afterwards, which I found a lot more interesting than their Deus Ex Machina character in the movies.

What sucked about the movies is manifold and can hardly be listed all; There's been plenty of things mentioned already and I doubt we're even halfway there. In short, a lot of the cuts and almost all changes were far off to the horrible end, and many more things were just plain idiotic on an absolute level (the Uruk-Hai adhering to the inverse ninja law was particularly bad, and Gollum driving a wedge between life-long friends? So. Very. Bad. Legolas? Urgh. Denethor? Gimli the joke-on-short-legs? )

I do wonder about the supposed Hobbit sequel - not it's (non-) quality but rather what specific events or plot it shall cover in the stated period. Aragorn and Arwen?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Darkseraph15/Bawwwww_bunny.jpg

Yes, I agree, that sums up the effect of Peter Suckson's Lord of the Rings movies quite well :smallsmile:

[EvilElitest]

Given that it's a Hobbit->LOTR interquel, I guess it's "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen: the superduper extended edition".

But you have to admit my idea is cooler


Unless,


unless

didn't Tolkien start to right a sequal to LOTRS where the men became corrupted and started trying to take over the world, but Tolkien dropped the idea because he found it to much like real life?

Oh and can we please please please start a seperate thread on Peter Jackon's films, because it is a big enough topic to deserve its own thread


from,
EE

[Daze]

As I stated in an earlier post, I think very little of Peter Jackson as a director. I mean, before he made the LOTR trilogy, he really only had two so-so pictures in Heavenly Creatures and The Frighteners to his directing credit. It still confounds me why he was chosen in the first place to direct a movie huge movie trilogy like LOTR with such a pathetic directing resume.

With all due respect cube, you are forgetting Braindead (Dead Alive in the states)... probably (as verified on these very boards) the best zombie movie ever made. But anyways...
(rest of this post not neccessarily directed at anyone in particular)

I'm firmly of the opinion that the people who love to degrade Jackson so much are either film novices, too young to know better, totally impatient or way too singleminded for their own good.

Film novices you ask?
Complaining about relatively small plot variations in a 10+ hour movie trilogy obviously means you have no idea what it takes to adapt a book to the big screen. The challenge of such a task... my lord.
Did some alterations annoy me? Absolutely... Arwen's pumped up importance and Faramir's downplayed humanity most particulary, and a few other things here and there. (Scourge of the shire ending was sorely missed imo)
Most times though, its better to see the forest for the trees... but that's hard when you're too young to know better and overly impatient.

Singleminded people?
You get yourselves a favorite book, comic, film, cartoon, video game...whatever... and you analyze it to the point where it can no longer be enjoyable. You take what is otherwise a considerable intelligence and wield it like a cudgel; applying no wisdom, yielding no compromise. And in a situation where something is adapted from something you may enjoy.. woe betide the poor sucker who doesn't just hand the reigns over to you... because you obviously know how to go about a mega-million dollar film project better than anyone else would.

Fact is LOTR was an excellent movie adaptation. It was epic, beautiful, exciting and brought the magic of Tolkien to a wider audience than ever before dreamed. A whole generation of children will now appreciate the Fantasy genre and maybe... just maybe, we can bring some imagination back into this world because of it (someday perhaps.. and a grudging half-nod to Harry Potter too, but thats another discussion).

So if we wanna pick apart what was wrong and different with the LOTR films, we can do that. It's fun to do if your a real buff of the literature and works of JRRT, I dabble in it myself. Stretches out the ol' intellect... great exercise for our collective cerebellums.

But to call the movies (and it's director) crap, no good, or a disgrace is borderline ignorant.

thank you.

Happy Holidays ;)

[EvilElitest]

I'm firmly of the opinion that the people who love to degrade Jackson so much are either film novices, too young to know better, totally impatient or way too singleminded for their own good.

Dear gods, did you watch Return of the King? The editing almost made me choke. The direction was over the top and the screen play was flawed. I will give credit to the costumes and prop department though, that was amazing

But can Peter Jackson's films get their own thread please
from,
EE

[Porthos]

But can Peter Jackson's films get their own thread please
from,
EE

Nothing is stopping you from creating one, you know. :smallwink: But I think it is safe to say that any thread about Peter Jackson movies (upcoming or not) are going to have discussions on the mertis (or lack there of) of PJ's directoral style. It just comes with the territory.

Especially on a board that has a high amount of fantasy "enthusiasts".

You might as well ask the river not be wet, while you're at it. :smallsmile:

PS: I thought the film editing in RotK was fine (and the direction top notch). And so to did, apparently, many film boards and guilds around the world.

But that's the funny thing about subjective opinion. It's subjective. :smallamused:

[Prophaniti]

There are many things that annoy me or ar just plain wrong with the movies, but there is only one thing PJ did that is absolutely inexcusable.
rant:
He made Frodo a damn wuss:smallfurious:. This entirely breaks the story. The plot ends at weathertop if Frodo is that much of a cowardly pansy. The wraith stabs him right through the heart, as it intended, and Frodo instantly becomes one of them. Then it's off to Mordor and the end of Middle Earth. The only reason this didn't happen was that Frodo found the strength to defy them and attacked, an audacious move that set the wraith back on his heels, causing his strike to go awry and into Frodo's shoulder. Of course, some of the blame is the actor's, but PJ let it happen, perhaps even encouraged it. There is no, I repeat, NO excuse for this pathetically poor portrayal of what should have been an inspiring character./rant.

Other than that, I can live with what he did, I do know how hard it is to adapt something like that, and books are a very different medium in which different things are more easily done. I just pray he doesn't ruin Bilbo in a similar fashion, although I realize that Bilbo is not as strong as Frodo and actually IS something of a coward.

[EvilElitest]

Nothing is stopping you from creating one, you know.
It is to depressing to start the thread, i'd love to read one, but to start one i'd have to say my views on what i liked and disliked and that just makes me depressed
from,
EE

[Porthos]

It is to depressing to start the thread, i'd love to read one, but to start one i'd have to say my views on what i liked and disliked and that just makes me depressed
from,
EE

Well, my overall point is that Thread Drift Happens. :smallsmile: And, like I said, just because someone starts a PJ: Like His Movies Or Hate Them thread, it isn't going to stop discussion about that subject here.

And I suspect we both know that. :smallwink:

Might as well accept it and move on. Gods know I accept and expect, for the most part, all of the PJ bashing that comes with threads like this. You just have to mentally skip over posts that annoy you too much.

Makes for a much healither forum experience, I've found. After all, I would have never survived The Miko Wars if I did have the Skip Over Posts filter in my head. :smalltongue:

[EvilElitest]

Well, my overall point is that Thread Drift Happens. :smallsmile: And, like I said, just because someone starts a PJ: Like His Movies Or Hate Them thread, it isn't going to stop discussion about that subject here.

And I suspect we both know that. :smallwink:

Might as well accept it and move on. Gods know I accept and expect, for the most part, all of the PJ bashing that comes with threads like this. You just have to mentally skip over posts that annoy you too much.

Makes for a much healither forum experience, I've found. After all, I would have never survived The Miko Wars if I did have the Skip Over Posts filter in my head. :smalltongue:

Miko did not fall, it was all roy's fault for not accepting her view on right and wrong:smalltongue:

Oh and Belkar is CN

Good advice

from,
EE

[dehro]

as I'm not a movie expert but still like to learn new stuff (though I do have some taste, or like to pretend I do) I'd like to know the finer details..
what exactly (or where in the movie if you have a particular shot in mind) was wrong with the editing?

[EvilElitest]

as I'm not a movie expert but still like to learn new stuff (though I do have some taste, or like to pretend I do) I'd like to know the finer details..
what exactly (or where in the movie if you have a particular shot in mind) was wrong with the editing?

Ok, basic stuff


1. ETHER STICK TO THE STORY OR DON't. If PJ wants to change the story fine, but only if he goes through with it. For example

In the second movie he spends so much time with the unnesary love triangle between Eowyn, Arwin and aragorn. I'm like "Damn it, i don't bloody care. If he had cut that stuff out, or at least cut out 75% he could have cut out the Faramir taking them to Othgiloth scene and instead had the Schlob scene in the second movie, ending in a cliff hanger. A good example of this is when Aragorn falls off the cliff. I'm going "Ok, didn't happen in the book but lets see what comes out of it." Answer, nothing. He makes out his his horse, sees an army (of whom we were already aware) and goes back safe. Why waste 15 min. that could have been used on schelob, or Saurman's speech, or even the Journy of the Uruk-hai (I loved the orc talking to eachother in the book) The third book is the shortest, if he had just stopped screwing around in the second movie and got his ass on his job we could have had a good movie. he could have make the supsense as a movie so much better, with the mouth of Sauron and everything (I saw the extended version, that scene sucked) It wasn't the changing he did that annoyed me, it was the fact he did them in the most time wasting manner possible. I mean the skull trap? WTF? Frodo and sam's lost friend ship? It didn't add anything to the story and wasted time
The elves at helm's deep? Sure, it didn't hinder the story (though it didn't make sense) and added to the scene, because they are adding
to an already existing scene. It is when he makes his own stuff that everything goes to hell
2. I don't care about Legalos' fancy tricks, stop wasting time
3. I want to watch an enjoyable scene, so stop cutting away from it. All throught Return of the King, we focus on one thing for five min, cut away to something else, cut away to something else, cut to something else, then back to the first thing again. If he would stop wasting time (elrond showing up in the third movie with the sword, just give him the sword in the first movie and give me another ten mins of the Siege of Minis Tirith, or Arawin's leaving the world, guess what i don't care, there are plenty of other more interesting events than liv's talor's character.) The battle of helm's deep was interesting, enjoyable and entertaining, but the siege in the second movie was boring and unethusastic, i felt that no body was really trying. I liked the charge and nothing else. If he would have gotten his act together and figure out his own script, then I cold have watched a good half hour straight of the battle of the Pellonor fields without interruption and felt the drama.

4. Read the damn book if your going to try to follow a scene. Editing a scene i don't mind, but the mix up with hte orcs in the towers, not cool
5. His sense of drama in the third movie was really really really dull
6. ONE ENDING. Not two, not three, not five, not freaking eight. ONE damnit
7. A comic relief has to be funny. Tickle me gimli wasn't funny. basic theory, the actor who played Gimli is a GOOD actor, the Mr. bloom is a VERY BAD actor. So instead of wasting screen time watching pretty boy climb up an elephant, have Gimli get some bloody screen time, i prefer his acting.
just a few of my complaints,

[Heliomance]

He's trying to beat Lucas, that's what he is doing. Star Wars still holds supreme for most succesful movie franchise and he hopes to change.
The Deviant.

I thought PotC had beaten SW, box-office wise at least.

[multilis]

As for the absence of the Scouring of the Shire...what did you want PJ to do?
Not throw in extra scenes of Holywoodish sillyness suspense. If after that you don't have time to do parts of the book, that is fine.

Our hero rides over a cliff. We think he might be dead. But no, he isn't he managed to save himself at last moment. How many times has that been done in movies before? Lots of similar stuff, eg end of movie one Sam jumps in water and almost drowns when you know the cliche Frodo will save him.

Too much phoney cliche "suspense", too much showing off special effects, too little real suspense that a Hitchcock could do in his sleep. Eg if it is dark you don't see everything, you get suprise scares when you suddenly do see enemy swooping down, fires in the dark can look great (eg even Mad max did better job on fire at night)

[Muz]

Lots of similar stuff, eg end of movie one Sam jumps in water and almost drowns when you know the cliche Frodo will save him.



Sometimes character jeopardy isn't about making the audience go "Oh, my gosh, he's DEAD! He'll never make it!" before they do. The character IN that jeopardy doesn't know he's in a work of fiction; sometimes it's about the emotional movement of that character and what jeopardy they're willing to place themselves in. Sam doesn't know how to swim, but he's damn well gonna get his butt out there to Frodo because that's just how much he wants to stay with him. THAT'S what it's about, not "trick the audience into thinking Sam's going to drown."

[Daze]

Ok, basic stuff


1. ETHER STICK TO THE STORY OR DON't. If PJ wants to change the story fine, but only if he goes through with it. For example

In the second movie he spends so much time with the unnesary love triangle between Eowyn, Arwin and aragorn. I'm like "Damn it, i don't bloody care. If he had cut that stuff out, or at least cut out 75% he could have cut out the Faramir taking them to Othgiloth scene and instead had the Schlob scene in the second movie, ending in a cliff hanger. A good example of this is when Aragorn falls off the cliff. I'm going "Ok, didn't happen in the book but lets see what comes out of it." Answer, nothing. He makes out his his horse, sees an army (of whom we were already aware) and goes back safe. Why waste 15 min. that could have been used on schelob, or Saurman's speech, or even the Journy of the Uruk-hai (I loved the orc talking to eachother in the book) The third book is the shortest, if he had just stopped screwing around in the second movie and got his ass on his job we could have had a good movie. he could have make the supsense as a movie so much better, with the mouth of Sauron and everything (I saw the extended version, that scene sucked) It wasn't the changing he did that annoyed me, it was the fact he did them in the most time wasting manner possible. I mean the skull trap? WTF? Frodo and sam's lost friend ship? It didn't add anything to the story and wasted time
The elves at helm's deep? Sure, it didn't hinder the story (though it didn't make sense) and added to the scene, because they are adding
to an already existing scene. It is when he makes his own stuff that everything goes to hell
2. I don't care about Legalos' fancy tricks, stop wasting time
3. I want to watch an enjoyable scene, so stop cutting away from it. All throught Return of the King, we focus on one thing for five min, cut away to something else, cut away to something else, cut to something else, then back to the first thing again. If he would stop wasting time (elrond showing up in the third movie with the sword, just give him the sword in the first movie and give me another ten mins of the Siege of Minis Tirith, or Arawin's leaving the world, guess what i don't care, there are plenty of other more interesting events than liv's talor's character.) The battle of helm's deep was interesting, enjoyable and entertaining, but the siege in the second movie was boring and unethusastic, i felt that no body was really trying. I liked the charge and nothing else. If he would have gotten his act together and figure out his own script, then I cold have watched a good half hour straight of the battle of the Pellonor fields without interruption and felt the drama.

4. Read the damn book if your going to try to follow a scene. Editing a scene i don't mind, but the mix up with hte orcs in the towers, not cool
5. His sense of drama in the third movie was really really really dull
6. ONE ENDING. Not two, not three, not five, not freaking eight. ONE damnit
7. A comic relief has to be funny. Tickle me gimli wasn't funny. basic theory, the actor who played Gimli is a GOOD actor, the Mr. bloom is a VERY BAD actor. So instead of wasting screen time watching pretty boy climb up an elephant, have Gimli get some bloody screen time, i prefer his acting.
just a few of my complaints,

With all due respect EE, you're criticisms (as valid as many of them are) are one's of screenplay, not editing. They're about pacing and story design decisions... the screenplay and script writers.
The editing in these movies (and I've seen the trilogy quite a few times now btw) was actually pretty good from a technical standpoint. The effects were good, cuts were clean, and sound well synched... all in the realm of the film editors... story decisions are not their domain.
And I say this from being a film/video editor for a number of years... we just take what we're given and try to make it look good.

And to answer the common criticism about Arwen in he movies...
fact is, it was added to get more women to enjoy the movie. Otherwise, there's practically no female presence. An old trick, but effective... I knew a few gals who liked Liv Tylers character. Cheap? Absolutely, but effective none the less.

PJ did the best he could with a huge source material. Could some things have been done differently? Sure, but all and all it was fine work from a movie point of view.

Edit: As opposed to story accuracy point of view. I mean think about it. If you never read or even heard of LOTR or Tolkien, would you say these were good flicks? Be honest about it... of course you would.

[Serenity]

Not throw in extra scenes of Holywoodish sillyness suspense. If after that you don't have time to do parts of the book, that is fine.

Our hero rides over a cliff. We think he might be dead. But no, he isn't he managed to save himself at last moment. How many times has that been done in movies before? Lots of similar stuff, eg end of movie one Sam jumps in water and almost drowns when you know the cliche Frodo will save him.

Too much phoney cliche "suspense", too much showing off special effects, too little real suspense that a Hitchcock could do in his sleep. Eg if it is dark you don't see everything, you get suprise scares when you suddenly do see enemy swooping down, fires in the dark can look great (eg even Mad max did better job on fire at night)

Uh, the thing keeping them from putting in the scouring of the Shire wasn't time, it's that it's a self-contained plot arc after the main plot of the movie is already over. It's like sitting through Star Trek Nemesis, watching them foil Shinzon's evil plot, and then sitting around for an extra 45 minutes as they warp off to another system for a semi-related adventure. The story of destroying the Biggest Bad in Middle Earth is infinitely more important to tell.

[EvilElitest]

With all due respect EE, you're criticisms (as valid as many of them are) are one's of screenplay, not editing. They're about pacing and story design decisions... the screenplay and script writers.
The editing in these movies (and I've seen the trilogy quite a few times now btw) was actually pretty good from a technical standpoint. The effects were good, cuts were clean, and sound well synched... all in the realm of the film editors... story decisions are not their domain.

Wait, isn't story editing still editing? Or how the film is orginized?



And I say this from being a film/video editor for a number of years... we just take what we're given and try to make it look good.

the movie did have good speical effects and pretty good filming


And to answer the common criticism about Arwen in he movies...
fact is, it was added to get more women to enjoy the movie.
I don't mind her replacing Glorfindal really, it is just her scenes in the first and second movies, they wasted time and added nothing interesting


Otherwise, there's practically no female presence. An old trick, but effective... I knew a few gals who liked Liv Tylers character. Cheap? Absolutely, but effective none the less.
There are already plenty of female fans of Tolkien who would watch the movie without need liv Tylers, if he cut out half an hour of those love scenes than we could have had Schelob in the second movie


PJ did the best he could with a huge source material.
No he didn't, he wasted time. That was my point. I don't mind his changing
the story really, if he chances it well. In the books the gondorians didn't have plate mail. Do i care that they chanced it? No, i felt it added to the coolness. Same with the elves showing up. Did it happen in the book? No. Does it make sense. No, not even by the movie justifications. Does it add to the scene. Yes, oh gods yes it does, because it was cool
I missed teh barrow downs and tom bombidil, but i could understand why they took them out, because losing them for better senes is a good trade in my option. I could understand why they didn't include every line for obvious reasions so i don't mind his editing of the material. I liked Lurgz a lot, and i will admit the Boromir Death scene was great. It is when he does it and activlly slows and hinders the movie's progress that it pisses me off



Could some things have been done differently? Sure, but all and all it was fine work from a movie point of view.
But it wasn't. Not at all


Edit: As opposed to story accuracy point of view. I mean think about it. If you never read or even heard of LOTR or Tolkien, would you say these were good flicks? Be honest about it... of course you would.

No, i wouldn't, i would just give him credit for imaginiation, but there would be much that didn't make sense (presuming i didn't read the books) that i wouldn't understand. I give fellowship nine stars (that one was well edited), two towers a seven, and Return of the King a seven and a half. If i had not ready the books, each would go down one star, because i would be going "WTF? THAT DOESN'T MAKE BLOODY SENSE" the whole time and i would feel like he was making it up as he went along
from,
EE

[Muz]

If i had not ready the books, each would go down one star, because i would be going "WTF? THAT DOESN'T MAKE BLOODY SENSE" the whole time and i would feel like he was making it up as he went along

I know multiple people who hadn't read the books when they saw the movies and had absolutely zero problem following them. (And a few later picked up the books and then put them down because they didn't like Tolkien's writing style.) :smallsmile:

[EvilElitest]

I know multiple people who hadn't read the books when they saw the movies and had absolutely zero problem following them. (And a few later picked up the books and then put them down because they didn't like Tolkien's writing style.) :smallsmile:

I am a person who must have total understanding of everything that is going on. So like at the paths of the dead i would have been all like "What? Oh come on, way to pull a deus ex machina out of thin air mr. Jackson. Wat a ripoff" Or with the mouth of Sauron i'd be all like "What the hell was his point? he just appears and dies, it is almost as if he had a larger role in a different medium"
from,
EE

[Serenity]

What larger role? What exactly did he do in the book that was so much more than show up and taunt Aragorn and his army? And I may not have finished the RoK book, but I read enough to know that Tolkien didn't give the Dead any moe setup than they got in the movie.

I found Arwen's scenes very interesting, because they brought actual development to acharacter who is fairly major. I would be infinitely more pissed if they just had Aragorn marry some random elf chick at the end instead of developing their love.

[Muz]

I am a person who must have total understanding of everything that is going on. So like at the paths of the dead i would have been all like "What? Oh come on, way to pull a deus ex machina out of thin air mr. Jackson. Wat a ripoff" Or with the mouth of Sauron i'd be all like "What the hell was his point? he just appears and dies, it is almost as if he had a larger role in a different medium"
from,
EE

So you're not a "Give the audience 2 + 2 and let them get to 4" kind of guy, I'm guessing. :smallsmile:
(I think that's a Pixar philosophy, but I'm not sure; I heard it somewhere, anyway, likely on a DVD commentary on some other movie.)

[Justin_Bacon]

I thought PotC had beaten SW, box-office wise at least.

That seems doubtful: There are two Star Wars movies above Dead Man's Chest on the All-Time list; two more before At World's End; and another before the original movie. Then you've got Empire Strikes Back to round out the list.

Doing the math: Star Wars has roughly $2,131,000,000 in total box office. PotC has $1,037,000,000.

LOTR has $1,032,000,000.

These are domestic figures, unadjusted for inflation. (Obviously Star Wars benefits the most from inflation adjustment.)

My guess is that both LOTR and PotC would need 3 more films to have a chance to beat SW's numbers. (Unless they waited about 20 years to let inflation do the work for them.)

[EvilElitest]

What larger role? What exactly did he do in the book that was so much more than show up and taunt Aragorn and his army? And I may not have finished the RoK book, but I read enough to know that Tolkien didn't give the Dead any moe setup than they got in the movie.

Sauron never appears in person in LOTRS (hence why he is rather vauge). The Mouth of Sauron is the closest we get to understanding his goals. the sense is suppose to be scary, and horrifying (i admit more so as the audience doesn't know if Frodo and Sam are dead) and his demands make all the characters realize how hopeless they are. In the movie he kinda shows up, goes "Hey, i'm evil, have a shirt" and Aragorn cuts his head off, dispite the fact it is a freaking parley. What
And the army of the dead are more of a surpise than a Deus ex machina in the books


I found Arwen's scenes very interesting, because they brought actual development to acharacter who is fairly major. I would be infinitely more pissed if they just had Aragorn marry some random elf chick at the end instead of developing their love.
But when it literally harms hte movie's effectiveness, i am against it. her replacing Glordindal, ok i'm cool. Her scene with Aragorn in Fellowship, i'm cool. The weird and time consuming dream sequences and the unnecessary role in Return of the King, no if it weakens the plot
from,
EE

[Arang]

Tom Bombadil was removed because he did not add to the plot and was an unnecessarily complicated character for what he did add in the first place. The scourging of the Shire was removed to put back what some of Tom Bombadil was supposed to convey: that there is something that cannot be taken away.

[Daze]

Wait, isn't story editing still editing? Or how the film is orginized?

Well technically speaking anytime you adjust anything it's "editing", but in film lingo the editors are strictly tech guys. The "story" people consist of writers, directors and the occasional nosey, know-nothing producer. Just didnt want ya giving us editors a bad name ;)



the movie did have good speical effects and pretty good filming
It was shot great actually. Although artful cinematography is made a heckuva lot easier when you have beautiful, virgin country like New Zealand to shoot with.



I don't mind her replacing Glorfindal really, it is just her scenes in the first and second movies, they wasted time and added nothing interesting

There are already plenty of female fans of Tolkien who would watch the movie without need liv Tylers, if he cut out half an hour of those love scenes than we could have had Schelob in the second movie

"plenty" of female Tolkien fans? Lets not kid ourselves brother. There's a "few", the fantasy domain is dominated by guys... always has been and maybe always will be. Jackson (and the executive produces I'm sure) wouldn't want to ignore such a large potential audience. Hence Arwen. Personally I agree with you about those scenes, but they were a neccessary evil from a money making point of view. (and what other view is there really? none when it comes to film unfortunately)




It is when he does it and activlly slows and hinders the movie's progress that it pisses me off
Nothing is 100%... never, ever. You take the good with the bad, the crust with the bread. Just the way these things work. All in all, the good things outnumbered the bad.



No, i wouldn't, i would just give him credit for imaginiation, but there would be much that didn't make sense (presuming i didn't read the books) that i wouldn't understand. I give fellowship nine stars (that one was well edited), two towers a seven, and Return of the King a seven and a half. If i had not ready the books, each would go down one star, because i would be going "WTF? THAT DOESN'T MAKE BLOODY SENSE" the whole time and i would feel like he was making it up as he went along
from,
EE

I call BS on you EE.... you know damn well you woulda liked it.
And wtf anyway? 9 stars? 7 1/2 stars? out of ten right? Those aint so bad... from the way you talk, I woulda expected a 2 or 3!

And as Muz said, I knew people who never read the books either. They had no problem with the movies (short of length maybe). I think what bothers you was that these flicks were TOO user friendly, not the reverse.

[EvilElitest]

Well technically speaking anytime you adjust anything it's "editing", but in film lingo the editors are strictly tech guys. The "story" people consist of writers, directors and the occasional nosey, know-nothing producer. Just didnt want ya giving us editors a bad name ;)

Alright, i'll take that


It was shot great actually. Although artful cinematography is made a heckuva lot easier when you have beautiful, virgin country like New Zealand to shoot with.
Landscape, props, and the land was very nice.



"plenty" of female Tolkien fans? Lets not kid ourselves brother. There's a "few", the fantasy domain is dominated by guys...
Wait, just a second, I know there aren't many female role players, but far more female fantasy fans who enjoy litature that is fantasy. It is a minoraty i admit, but considering the vast number of Tolkien fans (who will go watch the movie anyways), girl who just like fantasy, girls who just want to watch the films, Olando Bloom fangirls, and girl who are going with friends who will be coming, i think that is a sizable auidence. I understane


always has been and maybe always will be. Jackson (and the executive produces I'm sure) wouldn't want to ignore such a large potential audience. Hence Arwen. Personally I agree with you about those scenes, but they were a neccessary evil from a money making point of view. (and what other view is there really? none when it comes to film unfortunately)

No i am all for her getting more screen time, (such as replacing Glordindal or talking with Aragorn and elrond, but it got to point of being absurd


Nothing is 100%... never, ever. You take the good with the bad, the crust with the bread. Just the way these things work. All in all, the good things outnumbered the bad.

No i didn't want 100%, re-read what i said again. I just want all the changes to enhance the plot.


I call BS on you EE.... you know damn well you woulda liked it.
And wtf anyway? 9 stars? 7 1/2 stars? out of ten right? Those aint so bad... from the way you talk, I woulda expected a 2 or 3!

hey, i've just been saying what i don't like, there are plenty of things i like

The first movie was great, and I loved the speical effects and the props and the monsters. I also liked most of th actors, It was teh screen play that put me off.
And it is 10 as the highest and -5 as the lowest


And as Muz said, I knew people who never read the books either. They had no problem with the movies (short of length maybe). I think what bothers you was that these flicks were TOO user friendly, not the reverse.
I have higher standards
from,
EE

[Skjaldbakka]

You can't make a movie that follows the book. It is not possible. Well, I suppose you could, but it would be a horrible mess. You ready for the reason:

You read a book. You watch a movie.

[EvilElitest]

You can't make a movie that follows the book. It is not possible. Well, I suppose you could, but it would be a horrible mess. You ready for the reason:

You read a book. You watch a movie.
i've already made this clear, i don't care if they alter to book, i care about the facthat PJ was unable to pull of his own alteration without screwing himself over
from,
EE

[Executor]

Fun fact: CNN.com rates The Battle of the Pelennor Fields from Jackson's Return of the King as both one of the BEST and one of the WORST battle scenes of all time. I quoth:



The Orcs get even more hideous, the Oliphaunts are awe-inspiring, the Winged Nazgul had you cowering behind your popcorn. Theoden is at last redeemed on the battlefield, and with one line and swish of her sword, Eowyn proves she's equal with the men. This spectacular whirlwind of CGI, distorted sound and awesome scale stunned audiences, and was rightly hailed as a movie milestone. Then it all goes horribly wrong. (See below.)



... and then the staunch resistance of the Men of Gondor and the Rohirrim's endeavors on the battlefield are all rendered utterly pointless when the Army of the Dead swoop in at the end. Couldn't they have turned up a bit earlier? An oversimplified cop out.

And I must add that the battle in the book was FAR more awe-inspiring and filled with carnage. There was no army of invicible dead guys to sweep the place clean, Aragorn came used them to free southern Gondor and then brought up the rest of Gondor's army to Minas Tirith. The Gondorrim and Rohirrim fight for the rest of the day with the orcs, and the battle is very long and very terrible. They win through personal valour and strength of arms, not any Deus Ex Armyina

I have only three problems with Peter Jackson:

His complete neuteuring of Gondor. When I first read the books, Gondor conjured up images of Rome and Byzantium, made me think of tall, stern man with grey eyes that flashed with pride and a grave dignity could not be taken from them. Though assailed by the greatest hosts of Mordor, but they would NOT go gently into that good night. That was the book Gondor. The movie Gondor was full of cowards and jackasses like Denethor, the only noble Gondorrim we ever see ends up dead. In every scene we see them fight in, the orcs completely destroy them. Then the Rohirrim show up and, despite all military logic, charge head on into a phalanx of braced pikes and [B]win. It pissed me off.

His cavalry charge fetish. He loves the cavalry charge, and infantry are completely jipped because of it. The first charge, the one that saved the Hornburg, was legimately magnificent and made some sense because the sun or Gandalf's light blinded the uruks and disorganized their phalanx. The Charge of the Rohirrim at Minas Tirith was awe-inspiring, but made no military sense. What I had thought was that Theoden makes his speech before they're visible to the Mordor forces, then the Rohirrim charge up and over the ridge, and down into the flank before the orcs have time to form up. That makes sense, and would still be cool.

His Elf-love. Specifically, his Legolas lovin'. Legolas, surfing on a shield, down a stairway in a battle, shooting arrows the whole way. Yeah, 'nuff said.

[factotum]

It also has to be said that if the Army of the Dead were as freakin' powerful as all that, Aragorn SHOULD have used them to defeat Sauron before allowing their freedom. I mean, we're talking about the fate of the whole world here, and the oath the Dead broke was one to fight Sauron anyway!

[Lord of the Helms]

Even not taking the books into account at all, the movies were a horrible hollywoodized mess and nothing short of terrible. Denethor was downright disgusting. The entire arc with the Ents made zero sense: They had their Entthing to decide how to answer to Saruman destroying their trees, then said they'd do nothing. Then Merry and Pippin led them to destroyed trees, and suddenly they say "he destroyed our trees! Ents SMASH!". Huh? The gross inverse Ninjaing of the Uruk-hai (one of them is a tough fight for Aragorn, but they are mowed down by the hundreds without anything approaching resistance by a dozen riders storming out of the Hornburg? Whuh?). Legolas need not really be discussed, and Gimli's "I'm a dwarf, and short people are funny! Laugh at me!" was moronic beyond belief. Frodo was a whiny emo (horrible actor), Gollum seperating him from Sam was completely unbelievable in any context at all. Gandalf, supposedly a wizard, spends much of the third movie running around wacking people over the head. The Aragorn/Arwen love arc, and Aragorn's own emo-ness, was as grating as anything this side of Episode II can be. All we're left is is a couple of fancy special effects holding together the poor battle scenes of a dumb hack and slash movie with character development somewhere below zero.

And THEN we can start comparing it to the book. Oh yeah, that'll be a massacre.


It also has to be said that if the Army of the Dead were as freakin' powerful as all that, Aragorn SHOULD have used them to defeat Sauron before allowing their freedom. I mean, we're talking about the fate of the whole world here, and the oath the Dead broke was one to fight Sauron anyway!

But the primary weapon of the dead was fear, and bringing that against an army backed by Nazgul is not going to be terribly effective.

[factotum]

But the primary weapon of the dead was fear, and bringing that against an army backed by Nazgul is not going to be terribly effective.

The primary weapon of the dead was fear IN THE BOOK. That clearly wasn't the case in the movie--you didn't see hordes of terrified Orcs running away from Minas Tirith as the Dead scoured it, did you?

[Vault of Trivia]

I have nothing but respect for PJ he made something no one else stepped up to do and the resulting creation was just plain good yes it had holes yes it missed things out from the book but get real that was always going to happen books never translate exactly onto screen play.

That whole hobbit love scene at the end still creeps me out a bit though

Bring on Smaug!

:belkar:

[Codename GT]

Some of these people seem to be whining and complaining that Shelob was not, in fact, in the second movie. Despite the fact that, if you would just look in the timeline in the appendixes of Return of the King, you would see that Frodo's funtime with Shelob happened the exact same day that the Pelennor was overrun and Faramir was wounded.

So I just have one question to ask those of you that go with that: were you also pissed that the films of The Two Towers and The Return of the King didn't tell all of the story involving Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Merry, Pippin, Gandalf, and company in the first hour and a half, and then after that tell Frodo and Sam's story?

All Jackson did was tell the story just about as it happened chronologically. And he didn't make stupid segues like Bombadil, and he didn't make the audience sit through another forty minute plotline after the storyline ended. You want Scourging of the Shire? Last I checked the book is still in existence.

Ooh, and onto The Hobbit, I look forward to it. Smaug should be absolutely awesome, and I am hoping that Ian McKellen and Ian Holm come on board. I hope they can give Bard more of a part in it, though... his role in the book came in randomly and became important for just about no reason.

[EvilElitest]

Some of these people seem to be whining and complaining that Shelob was not, in fact, in the second movie. Despite the fact that, if you would just look in the timeline in the appendixes of Return of the King, you would see that Frodo's funtime with Shelob happened the exact same day that the Pelennor was overrun and Faramir was wounded.

So? the reason why Tolkien wrote it that way was because he, unlike PJ, he has an accual idea of suspense. The drama is so much greater because you think that Frodo is accually dead.


So I just have one question to ask those of you that go with that: were you also pissed that the films of The Two Towers and The Return of the King didn't tell all of the story involving Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Merry, Pippin, Gandalf, and company in the first hour and a half, and then after that tell Frodo and Sam's story?
If he stopped wasting time with Aragorn love, then i could see him pulling it off


All Jackson did was tell the story just about as it happened chronologically.
Don't even go that, that is BS and we both know this.


And he didn't make stupid segues like Bombadil, and he didn't make the audience sit through another forty minute plotline after the storyline ended. You want Scourging of the Shire? Last I checked the book is still in existence.

I don't really care about Bombadil, he didn't really add much to the story in the book or the movie. While i liked the scouring of the shire, i was more hoping of having a longer battle of Pelonor fields (one that doesn't suck) and more screen time for the actors that are good


Ooh, and onto The Hobbit, I look forward to it. Smaug should be absolutely awesome, and I am hoping that Ian McKellen and Ian Holm come on board.

We can all hope that


I hope they can give Bard more of a part in it, though... his role in the book came in randomly and became important for just about no reason.

Not really, he is mentioned quite a few times, pior and i rather liked him, but i can see your point
from,
EE

[Executor]

Hey EE, would you agree with me that Gondor got totally jipped in the movie, all the honour and glory went to PJ dear horsemen while the Gondorrim got to cower in their city.

[EvilElitest]

Hey EE, would you agree with me that Gondor got totally jipped in the movie, all the honour and glory went to PJ dear horsemen while the Gondorrim got to cower in their city.

Well lets run a brief comparasion




Now the Book Gondorians are tall, fair, strong, and great men

Movie Gondorian are short, squate, and get their ass handed to them on a regualar basis


Book Gondor is a large country with many vassel states

Movie Gondor is one city and a ruined out post. Nothing else

Book Gondor have knights who are the trained professionals, elite amoung all men

Movie gondor are owned by the orcs, were as the old rohan dudes are totally fine against Uruk-hai

Book Gondor wear chain with extremely elaborate and ornate styles, much like the elves

Movie Gondor wear full plate that is very bulky with funny cone helmets


Minas Tirith in the Books is a massive fortress, greatest left among the race of men, a fotress so vast an amazing that even the full force of mordor tremble before them. The full might of mordor is needed to breach the first gate and even without a gate is is said to be a great fortres

Movie- A small city taht is owned by mordor with pretty much no trouble, falling apart because of catapults in no time, siege towers breach it, and the entire regiment is decimated in no time


In the Books the Gondorians put up a hell of a fight

In the movies, they suck, like really suck

In the books the city has a massive wall surronding it, with only one weak spot, the gate

In the movie, the wall sucks, just sucks

In the books the calvary is like the Rohan calvary but heavy instead
In the movies, they get owned

In the books Denethor is a strong willed man who gives in to despair
In the movies he is CRAZY. He is totally and utterly crazy. But he can do an olimpic run while on fire
CARZY i say



So no, the gondorians were fine in the movie, just in a sucky sort of way
from,
EE

[Executor]

It's good to know that i'm not alone in my thoughts about PJ's treatment of the Gondorrim.

PS: I call them Gondorrim to go along with Tolkien's name convention on several other notable groups. Galadhrim, Rohirrim, Gondorrim simply makes sense.

[Skjaldbakka]

In the Books the Gondorians put up a hell of a fight

Actually, in the books, the people of Gondor give in to despair, leaving the city burning. It was all Gandalf could do to keep the city from falling apart around him. The people of Gondor only got to really kick butt after Aragorn returned.

[factotum]

Actually, in the books, the people of Gondor give in to despair, leaving the city burning. It was all Gandalf could do to keep the city from falling apart around him. The people of Gondor only got to really kick butt after Aragorn returned.

The only person we see in the books who gave in to despair was Denethor. We didn't really see much of the "average person on the street" during the battle, so we don't really know how they were reacting. Certainly the main Gondorian army was still doing their damnedest to keep the city from falling, even though the main gate lay in ruins and they had a Witch-king breathing down their neck!

[Codename GT]

So? the reason why Tolkien wrote it that way was because he, unlike PJ, he has an accual idea of suspense. The drama is so much greater because you think that Frodo is accually dead.

Are you referring to the sequence with the Mouth of Sauron? Because that's the only time you, as the reader, are led to believe Frodo is dead and left hanging there for some time. At the end of Two Towers, Sam still discovers that Frodo is alive... the last sentence of the book is "Frodo was alive, but taken by the enemy." Or maybe it's not the last. But it's right down there. More importantly, you also know that Sam took the Ring. So the film has the exact same amount of tension between Sam vs Shelob and Sam rescuing Frodo, with the added tension of "where's the Ring?" and the fact that you don't have to wait a year before finding this out.


If he stopped wasting time with Aragorn love, then i could see him pulling it off

Love stories pull people in too, that's what's made the Lay of Luthien so popular, is it not? The Aragorn/Arwen love story parts gave movie Aragorn a driving force besides his Kingly aspirations and his desire to see Sauron destroyed. It rounds him out as a character. Would you rather have seen Aragorn and Gandalf adventuring into the mountains to find the sapling before the coronation?


Don't even go that, that is BS and we both know this.

It is not, in fact, BS. People like their stories told as they happen, with exceptions being that a character really isn't doing anything especially noteworthy, so the author spreads that character's parts around to when he IS doing something interesting, which sort of creates a bit of chronological inconsistency. But Tolkien didn't even bother to do this. He had to have Aragorn do his thing, and THEN we find out what happens to Frodo. That part of Two Towers and Return of the King always irked me, because it always seemed that Tolkien wrote it that way because he thought that the audience would not have the attention span and dedication to keep everything straight and keep track of who's doing what. And I don't like having my attention span insulted.


I don't really care about Bombadil, he didn't really add much to the story in the book or the movie. While i liked the scouring of the shire, i was more hoping of having a longer battle of Pelonor fields (one that doesn't suck) and more screen time for the actors that are good

What actors sucked? Because last I checked the actors did a fine enough job that they won the Best Picture award for various awards ceremonies. What part of the battle of Pelennor Fields didn't match up to you? The fact that the Orcs got past the gate? The book version of the Battle of Pelennor Fields had the good side thoroughly trouncing the evil side, except when the Witch-king attacked, but even he wouldn't have killed Theoden had Gandalf not been distracted by Denethor. Without Denethor, the Witch-king and his entire army would have been owned. Epically.

Do note, the trilogy is why I got into fantasy in the first place, I love the trilogy... but I wouldn't have ever even read the trilogy had it not been for a film called The Fellowship of the Ring, directed by one Peter Jackson. And I read the trilogy three times by the time Return of the King came out (re: over the course of a year and a half), so I know a little bit about how the story goes. I still think that Jackson did a fine job, though some things irked me, such as the placement of Barad-Dur during the Battle of the Black Gate and the fact that Frodo PUSHED Gollum over the side. I also didn't like that Merry was at the Black Gate, that Faramir-Eowyn got precisely .5 seconds together in the theatrical version, and that Saruman was not even included in the theatrical version.

[EvilElitest]

Actually, in the books, the people of Gondor give in to despair, leaving the city burning. It was all Gandalf could do to keep the city from falling apart around him. The people of Gondor only got to really kick butt after Aragorn returned
Not really, in the books they put up a hell of a fight at the river and the Prince of the Swans (I forget his spelling) does lots of damage, they shoot many arrows from the wall, and rally when the Riders show up.


Are you referring to the sequence with the Mouth of Sauron? Because that's the only time you, as the reader, are led to believe Frodo is dead and left hanging there for some time. At the end of Two Towers, Sam still discovers that Frodo is alive... the last sentence of the book is "Frodo was alive, but taken by the enemy." Or maybe it's not the last. But it's right down there. More importantly, you also know that Sam took the Ring. So the film has the exact same amount of tension between Sam vs Shelob and Sam rescuing Frodo, with the added tension of "where's the Ring?" and the fact that you don't have to wait a year before finding this out.

No, just no on the tension part. In the second book, you have suspense as you learn about Shelob, as you come to the cave you feel very worried, then you see Frodo go down, Gollum vs. Sam, Sam's epic moment, your very sad as Frodo is "dead" then you find out he is alive, just in time for him to be captured by orcs. The second book, as the second movies should have ended with a feeling of worry, as the viewer/reader wonders weather or not Sam will be able to save frodo from Shagrat and Gorbag



Love stories pull people in too, that's what's made the Lay of Luthien so popular, is it not? The Aragorn/Arwen love story parts gave movie Aragorn a driving force besides his Kingly aspirations and his desire to see Sauron destroyed. It rounds him out as a character. Would you rather have seen Aragorn and Gandalf adventuring into the mountains to find the sapling before the coronation?
1. Rounds him out as a character? He was pretty rounded out if PJ had stopped wasting time and including his interactions with all the undevolped characters (Gimli, Eomer, to a lesser extend Theoden, Faramir, Legolas, Hama, Hobbits, ect). Instead they wasted time
2. I would rather have a cooler Siege
3. Explaining the tree would help



It is not, in fact, BS. People like their stories told as they happen, with exceptions being that a character really isn't doing anything especially noteworthy, so the author spreads that character's parts around to when he IS doing something interesting, which sort of creates a bit of chronological inconsistency. But Tolkien didn't even bother to do this. He had to have Aragorn do his thing, and THEN we find out what happens to Frodo. That part of Two Towers and Return of the King always irked me, because it always seemed that Tolkien wrote it that way because he thought that the audience would not have the attention span and dedication to keep everything straight and keep track of who's doing what. And I don't like having my attention span insulted.
Considering the VAST and vast amount of information explained on both sides, it makes more sense story wise to keep them separate,



What actors sucked?
Olando Bloom (granted he wasn't as bad as he was in other films on account of his not talking), the dude who played Farimer, the Dude who played Eomer, the Gal who played Eowyn (not that bad, but her lines and delivery were very bad), the dude who played the Pirate captain, dude who played Merry, King of the dead and Uruk-hai number 4,837. You know the one who i'm talking about
Actors who did not impress me include Aragorn, pippin, Arawin, all most all of the minor characters, Isildur,Haldir, Gladerial, and Treebeard

Actors who weren't good, but it wasn't their fault-Gimli did a great job dispite his crappy role, Denethor's character was ruined beyond repair, the Mouth of Sauron and the WK
Actors i liked- Lurgz (yes i know he is the WK but he did a better Job, Gothmog (I know), Biblo, Frodo, Sam, Gandalf, Saurman, Elrond, Aragorn's horse, all the Uruk-hai stunt actors, some others who i forget

Best Actor- Sean Bean as Boromir, great death scene, if only PJ could do that for other scenes


Because last I checked the actors did a fine enough job that they won the Best Picture award for various awards ceremonies.

Good for them, i really don't think they all deserve it.


What part of the battle of Pelennor Fields didn't match up to you?
To basic, badly directed, boring as hell (except for the charge) and didn't make sense (how does charging a spear wall work out?), and the dues ex machina. Wasn't exciting enough, and wasn't interesting, i think Helm's deep was better


The fact that the Orcs got past the gate?
Not really, i don't care about a minor detail about that, just how badly done it was


The book version of the Battle of Pelennor Fields had the good side thoroughly trouncing the evil side, except when the Witch-king attacked, but even he wouldn't have killed Theoden had Gandalf not been distracted by Denethor. Without Denethor, the Witch-king and his entire army would have been owned. Epically.
No, just not true

In the book the Forces of Mordor win the river and attack the city
the city fight well, but hte gate is destroyed, Gandalf vs. WK, when the Riders charge into an undefended flank, at the same time the Knights of Gondor, led by prince whats his name charge out of the city followed by infrentry
Then the Haradrim/southron forces attack the Riders, theoden is able to slay the king but the rest of the southern army is fighting the riders, while the easterlings are figthing the men of gondor
Theoden is killed, as is the WK, Eomer leads a second charge, mets up with the Gondorians
At the same time, Gothmog rallies the orcs and charges out to crush the human forces, who are forced back
Then Aragorn along with all his army attacks the evil dudes rear, causing immense damage, meets up with the other two forces and has a huge fight but wins
The sun also comes up to harm the mordor forces

from,
EE

[Codename GT]

No, just no on the tension part. In the second book, you have suspense as you learn about Shelob, as you come to the cave you feel very worried, then you see Frodo go down, Gollum vs. Sam, Sam's epic moment, your very sad as Frodo is "dead" then you find out he is alive, just in time for him to be captured by orcs. The second book, as the second movies should have ended with a feeling of worry, as the viewer/reader wonders weather or not Sam will be able to save frodo from Shagrat and Gorbag

Shelob felt like a one-off character that Tolkien used just to wound Frodo one more time, aka a plot device. Book 2 ended with the defeat of Saruman, the leaving of Gandalf towards Minas Tirith, and Frodo being captured by Orcs. One high note and two very very ominous notes. Movie 2 ended with the defeat of Isengard at the Hornburg (and the sacking of Isengard), Gandalf proclaiming that the Battle for Middle-earth was only beginning, and Gollum and Smeagol coming to an agreement regarding the Master and the Precious. One-ish high note and two very very ominous notes. Jackson's choice to cut the movie there was a pacing move, which really makes sense. The Battle of the Hornburg and the attack on Isengard were both very exhilarating, and pumping out Shelob in there too would be like giving us our Christmas presents early.


1. Rounds him out as a character? He was pretty rounded out if PJ had stopped wasting time and including his interactions with all the undevolped characters (Gimli, Eomer, to a lesser extend Theoden, Faramir, Legolas, Hama, Hobbits, ect). Instead they wasted time
2. I would rather have a cooler Siege
3. Explaining the tree would help

1. I felt that his relationship with Merry, Legolas, and Gimli were well-developed enough in little scenes. Though Jackson did choose to focus more on Aragorn's destiny.
2. I quite enjoyed the siege of Minas Tirith, at least the opening stage with the Nazgul on their Fell Beasts swooping in. I'm a Gandalf mark, so him taking complete charge was amazing for me. The charge of the Rohirrim was pretty cool too... though I do wish that the silent confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch-king in the courtyard should have been put into the movie. Their scene in the extended edition was blasphemous.
3. No comment, though I did think that the sapling part was stupid, and they also made the tree re-bloom during the siege, as Denethor lost hope. Metaphor or something.


Considering the VAST and vast amount of information explained on both sides, it makes more sense story wise to keep them separate,

It leaves you less to work through and remember at a time, but you create more work for yourself in the long run if, say, you leave Aragorn's part in Book III to read Frodo's in Book IV, then come back to Book V and have to recall all of that. I'd rather read the story altogether, rather than focus one "book" on one aspect. It's important to remember that Tolkien created an epic mythology, just like The Odyssey, which also makes use of the separation.


Olando Bloom (granted he wasn't as bad as he was in other films on account of his not talking), the dude who played Farimer, the Dude who played Eomer, the Gal who played Eowyn (not that bad, but her lines and delivery were very bad), the dude who played the Pirate captain, dude who played Merry, King of the dead and Uruk-hai number 4,837. You know the one who i'm talking about
Actors who did not impress me include Aragorn, pippin, Arawin, all most all of the minor characters, Isildur,Haldir, Gladerial, and Treebeard

Actors who weren't good, but it wasn't their fault-Gimli did a great job dispite his crappy role, Denethor's character was ruined beyond repair, the Mouth of Sauron and the WK
Actors i liked- Lurgz (yes i know he is the WK but he did a better Job, Gothmog (I know), Biblo, Frodo, Sam, Gandalf, Saurman, Elrond, Aragorn's horse, all the Uruk-hai stunt actors, some others who i forget

Best Actor- Sean Bean as Boromir, great death scene, if only PJ could do that for other scenes

I actually liked Legolas and Gimli in the films. "Never thought I'd die fighting side by side with an Elf." "What about side by side with a friend?" "Aye... I could do that." remains one of the most memorable quotes that I have of these movies, along with almost anything Gandalf said and Aragorn's speech.

Also thought that Viggo Mortenson did a great job. In the books I was strictly a Gandalf mark but I became a huge fan of Strider. I was irked about the changes to Faramir, Denethor, and the mouth of Sauron, but I still feel that the parts were well-acted. It wasn't their fault that the characters took the direction they did.

Oh and I hate Liv Tyler.


To basic, badly directed, boring as hell (except for the charge) and didn't make sense (how does charging a spear wall work out?), and the dues ex machina. Wasn't exciting enough, and wasn't interesting, i think Helm's deep was better

I agree with you, Helm's Deep was my favorite battle of the series by far. Black Gate had suitable tension and the big climactic feel to it too, though. But I loved the gritty nature of the Battle for the Hornburg.


No, just not true

In the book the Forces of Mordor win the river and attack the city
the city fight well, but hte gate is destroyed, Gandalf vs. WK, when the Riders charge into an undefended flank, at the same time the Knights of Gondor, led by prince whats his name charge out of the city followed by infrentry
Then the Haradrim/southron forces attack the Riders, theoden is able to slay the king but the rest of the southern army is fighting the riders, while the easterlings are figthing the men of gondor
Theoden is killed, as is the WK, Eomer leads a second charge, mets up with the Gondorians
At the same time, Gothmog rallies the orcs and charges out to crush the human forces, who are forced back
Then Aragorn along with all his army attacks the evil dudes rear, causing immense damage, meets up with the other two forces and has a huge fight but wins
The sun also comes up to harm the mordor forces

-The forces of Mordor would have won the river anyway, as the forces there were weakened.
-Their were thousands more Gondorians in the city in the book, including Imrahil of Dol Amroth, who if I remember correctly had traces of Elf blood in him.
-In the book the only reason Theoden died was because Gandalf was busy watching Denethor burn himself alive. Gandalf states this himself.
-The second charge of the Rohirrim failed because Eomer decided to be suicidal after seeing his sister "dead". The subsequent charge, however, killed quite a few of the forces of Mordor on the way.
-The people of Minas Tirith were actually able to leave the city and join the fighting in the field, essentially taking away half the difficult part for the Riders, as there are twice as many Men than there were in the movie.
-Gothmog sucked as a commander in the book... after the Witch-king died everything more or less fell apart for Team Evil.
-Aragorn had the Rangers of Arnor with him, in addition to the sons of Elrond, in addition to a bunch of Gondorians who were GOING to attack the Corsairs. They don't have ghosts, but Rangers and Elves sure help.

[EvilElitest]

Shelob felt like a one-off character that Tolkien used just to wound Frodo one more time, aka a plot device.

Not really, considering the amount of time he spent devolping who she was, how she thought, her relationship with Sauron ect.


Book 2 ended with the defeat of Saruman, the leaving of Gandalf towards Minas Tirith, and Frodo being captured by Orcs. One high note and two very very ominous notes.
Exactly, taht is why i liked it


Movie 2 ended with the defeat of Isengard at the Hornburg (and the sacking of Isengard), Gandalf proclaiming that the Battle for Middle-earth was only beginning, and Gollum and Smeagol coming to an agreement regarding the Master and the Precious. One-ish high note and two very very ominous notes.
not really, because gandalf's statement we already know that, while Gollum's evilness vs. spider scene is not nearly as ominous


Jackson's choice to cut the movie there was a pacing move, which really makes sense. The Battle of the Hornburg and the attack on Isengard were both very exhilarating, and pumping out Shelob in there too would be like giving us our Christmas presents early.

If Jackson had cut out
All the dream sequences
the journy to Olthgilath
The Love Triangle, or at least 80 percent of it
Aragorn falling off a cliff
The ents being unnecessarily stupid (what?)
Gimli comidy relief
Creepy Grima scene (with the son and Eowyn)
we could not only have had Shelob in the second movie, but
A better devolped, less rushed and less boring Grima scene
Saurman's parely in its real form, just leave him in the tower
Treebeard's house
The Uruk-hai's talk with the mordor orcs (my favorite part in the book)
The gimli legolas devolpment better if you include the glittering caves ect.
Faramir being more interesting
The palentir being ether at the end of the second or the 'VERY' start of the third





1. I felt that his relationship with Merry, Legolas, and Gimli were well-developed enough in little scenes. Though Jackson did choose to focus more on Aragorn's destiny.
Aragorn's options of his comrads
Merry- Hey aragorn
Strider- Who the hell are you?
Merry- I'm merry, a hobbit
Stirder- Oh right, one of the short ones who doesn't have the ring, ok don't care
Legolas- I
Strider- Don't talk
Legolas-?
Strider- I'm just going to lay it out straight, you are an awful actor, you have not talent at all, you only got this role because of a pretty face. So lets be realistic, all you have to do is shoot things in extremly unrealistic and time wasting manner, while i do the talking. Any decent director would have simple avoided using you, but as mr. jackson has massive elf love you can spend your time shooting things all day
Gimil- Hey aragorn
Aragorn- Hehe, short man





2. I quite enjoyed the siege of Minas Tirith, at least the opening stage with the Nazgul on their Fell Beasts swooping in. I'm a Gandalf mark, so him taking complete charge was amazing for me. The charge of the Rohirrim was pretty cool too... though I do wish that the silent confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch-king in the courtyard should have been put into the movie. Their scene in the extended edition was blasphemous.
I felt taht the siege of Minas tirith and the following battle should have been
Helm's deep, times 10 epic




3. No comment, though I did think that the sapling part was stupid, and they also made the tree re-bloom during the siege, as Denethor lost hope. Metaphor or something.

They did? Oh yeah that didn't make any sense


It leaves you less to work through and remember at a time, but you create more work for yourself in the long run if, say, you leave Aragorn's part in Book III to read Frodo's in Book IV, then come back to Book V and have to recall all of that. I'd rather read the story altogether, rather than focus one "book" on one aspect. It's important to remember that Tolkien created an epic mythology, just like The Odyssey, which also makes use of the separation.

understandable but for the sake of time and drama they shouldn't have wasted so much time, when Schelob occured in the third film i was all like "yawn, he will be ok in ten mins." were as if he had been stunned in the end of the second movie, i would have been like "Oh dear, he is going down, suspense"


I actually liked Legolas and Gimli in the films. "Never thought I'd die fighting side by side with an Elf." "What about side by side with a friend?" "Aye... I could do that."
Not really, while Gimli was a good actor, he was a total comidy relief while Legolas was a played by Olando bloom and just shot stuff all day. It hurt me inside to watch Olando Bloom talk,




Also thought that Viggo Mortenson did a great job. In the books I was strictly a Gandalf mark but I became a huge fan of Strider.
He wasn't great, but he wasn't awful, but his "Noooooooooo" line in the second movie after finding the orc bodies and his "tracking" hurt me inside

I was irked about the changes to Faramir, Denethor, and the mouth of Sauron, but I still feel that the parts were well-acted. It wasn't their fault that the characters took the direction they did.
Denethor and MOS were good actors, just with hard roles. Faramir was NOT a good actor. They should have just had Sean Bean play him

Oh and I hate Liv Tyler.
Good man, i'm no fan



I agree with you, Helm's Deep was my favorite battle of the series by far. Black Gate had suitable tension and the big climactic feel to it too, though. But I loved the gritty nature of the Battle for the Hornburg.

I liked the system of Hornburg
1. Elf Archers mow down uruks
2. Uruks bring siege ladders up
3. Beserkers get on wall ect.
By Boromir's death was my favorite scene of all

-
The forces of Mordor would have won the river anyway, as the forces there were weakened.
-Their were thousands more Gondorians in the city in the book, including Imrahil of Dol Amroth, who if I remember correctly had traces of Elf blood in him.
-In the book the only reason Theoden died was because Gandalf was busy watching Denethor burn himself alive. Gandalf states this himself.
-The second charge of the Rohirrim failed because Eomer decided to be suicidal after seeing his sister "dead". The subsequent charge, however, killed quite a few of the forces of Mordor on the way.
-The people of Minas Tirith were actually able to leave the city and join the fighting in the field, essentially taking away half the difficult part for the Riders, as there are twice as many Men than there were in the movie.
-Gothmog sucked as a commander in the book... after the Witch-king died everything more or less fell apart for Team Evil.

1. the river was held by Farimir and the prince
2. true
3. No, Gandalf said that he might have been able to pervent this, not absolutly
4. Bear in mind Tolkien pretty much says that hte Riders had no way to win if it had not been for Aragorn
5. And the forces of mordor almost won as it was
6. Not really, he rallied them together and almost won as both Rohan and Gondor were on the verge of destruction


-Aragorn had the Rangers of Arnor with him, in addition to the sons of Elrond, in addition to a bunch of Gondorians who were GOING to attack the Corsairs. They don't have ghosts, but Rangers and Elves sure help.
But that isn't an insta win, that is just a lot of dudes fighting on his side, much different
Found this on the sight of DM of the rings, thought it was funny

DM: Okay, the horse made his Knockdown check…you’re on your back.

Denethor: Wait, wasn’t there a burning pyre right behind me? Ohhh…crap.

DM: Oh yeah…*rolls* your cloak ignites!

Denethor: CRAP! Okay, okay…no water…maybe there’s water outside! I’m gonna jump up off the pyre and head for the door!

DM: While you’re on fire…? Okay, I guess you can try that. Make a Con check for half damage.

Denethor: Hey, 20! Sweet!

DM: …okay. You’re running…everyone else is too shocked by you running away while ignited…*rolls fire damage, dice all come up 1’s*

Denethor: Am I outside?

DM: Yes…and you’re on fire. There’s nothing there but the tree and a few startled guards.

Denethor: CRAP again! *rolls Con check* hey, 18! Okay, okay…I’ll look for the quickest way down! They’ve got to have water down in the city proper.

DM: The quickest way? …are you sure? *rolls fire damage, gets three 1’s and a 2* Stupid dice.

Denethor: Yeah! I really don’t wanna be on fire anymore. Quickest way down it is!

DM: …okay. In panic, you sprint to the edge of the cliff…and jump off.

Denethor: HEY! What the-?

DM: You fall down the hundreds of feet from the very peak of Gondor, the rush of air feeding the flames. Much too far a fall to conceivably survive, even if you WEREN’T an old man. And on fire.

Denethor: Oh, come on! Don’t I at least get a Dex check?

DM: …yeah, sure.

Denethor: *rolls* Hahah, 20! Take that, DM!

DM: Okay, okay…you manage land in a well. You’re not on fire anymore. Just squished

best defense of his flaming foot ball field run


I think you all misunderstood Jackson’s approach to the character in your rush to condemn his version of Denethor. He actually repented at the end there after he was knocked into the pyre, and realized that he just had moments left of his life, so he did the most he could for the war effort by jumping while flaming into the enemy. I think Jackson’s editing failed him there - they forgot to include the shot of Denethor landing with a smile in that group of surprised orcs.

If Denethor was in D&D

The Denethor situation shows the problem with suicide in D&D. He’s a high-level character, so the 1d6/round damage from being on fire will take a long time to do him in. So he decides to add in the 20d6 damage for falling.

Peter Jackson is the camra man of Sauron


A death as sad and solemn as the passing of Socrates, and as tragic in its quiet yet moving dignity!

Burning Denethor, last Steward of Gondor, sprints while yodeling all through the citadel of the White Tower of Ecthalion, and plunges down the cliff, a ragged torch of screaming.

From that sad day, the Men of the West still call this cliff, Philmosuxitatum, after the Adunic Tongue, which means: this film sucketh.

In the High Elvish, the cliff is called Laurelalindruin, which means, I was laughing so hard it totally broke my suspension of disbelief. In Sindarin: Morgulyaletur, which means, after this point in the film, I was rooting for the Dark Lord, and wishing the doofus characters would all die (who had NOTHING in common with the beloved characters in the beloved books).

In their secret tongue, the Dwarves called this leap: Zazbek-Zura-Balthzakhor-Filmsuxxizmor, which means, if you think this scene sucks like a lemon in explosive decompression, just wait until the scene where Sam is ordered by Frodo to leave him along in the Black Land with Gollum.

Woe unto the Free peoples of the West. Jackson, the Mouth of Sauron, just made them look stoopid.




from,
EE

[Serenity]

You know, I also disliked the way the Ent scenes worked out, but changing it would have only saved about the 30 seconds where Merry tells Treebeard to go to Isengard. Otherwise, it would have run about the same time--the Entmoot ends, Treebeard announces that they've decided to help. They go to Isengard, and the battle would have unfolded as before.

And I'm sorry, but to claim that the acting in the movie was bad is simply wrong. By any objective standards, every actor did a solid job, and most were stellar.

The Mouth of Sauron fulfilled his purpose just as in the book. He threatened the alliance, and showed them evidence that Frodo was dead, and that therefore their cause was lost. Aragorn cut off his head because the Mouth of Sauron was an evil bastard and they were there for the express purpose of making war.

[EvilElitest]

You know, I also disliked the way the Ent scenes worked out, but changing it would have only saved about the 30 seconds where Merry tells Treebeard to go to Isengard. Otherwise, it would have run about the same time--the Entmoot ends, Treebeard announces that they've decided to help. They go to Isengard, and the battle would have unfolded as before.

But they could have made the story more clear, or at least as interesting as it was in the books


And I'm sorry, but to claim that the acting in the movie was bad is simply wrong. By any objective standards, every actor did a solid job, and most were stellar.

and.......

Look, saying "Simple wrong" isn't a standard, just to point that out. I stand by my belief that while some of the actors were quite good, some were unimpressive, and some were down right awful (Olando Bloom, i'm looking at you)



The Mouth of Sauron fulfilled his purpose just as in the book. He threatened the alliance, and showed them evidence that Frodo was dead, and that therefore their cause was lost.

In the books the Mouth of Sauron comes off as scary, in the movie while the mouth thing was creepy, he came off as dumb



Aragorn cut off his head because the Mouth of Sauron was an evil bastard and they were there for the express purpose of making war.
Wait, a dude comes out in Parely and you cut his head off? And somehow that is right? Dude, not cool, that is just cowardly

Truce, the idea that nether side fights for the purpose of coming to terms. When a dude comes out to talk terms, even if he is an evil bastard, you listen to what he has to say, then let him go unless they tries to threaten you. Loping a dude's head off who isn't even armed is just cowardly, and frankly makes Aragorn look less noble and more barbaric. If Sauron, the lord of all evil can abide by a truce, then shouldn't the good guys do so as well
not cool, just not cool
from,
EE

[Prophaniti]

EDIT:@ EE: yeah, that DM of the Rings site is hilarious. He manages to grab every major screw up in the movies and mock the hell out of it. Remember the scene at Dunharrow?
DM- Anduril, the Shards of Narsil reforged. Elrond presented it to you before you left Rivendell.
Aragorn- I don't remember this.
DM- The sword of Elendil, your grandsire. Only you can wield it.
Aragorn- That never happened, man. Sounds like you forgot.
DM- You mean I didn't... Oh, crap! Ok, suddenly Elrond shows up at your camp.
Elrond- Hi.
DM- He gives you the sword.
Elrond- Here is the sword. And keep your hands off my daughter.
DM- Then he leaves.
Seriously the only excuse for a screwup that major. Also funny as hell. Love the strip.

Agreed wholeheartedly about the Ent scene. The whole point was that Treebeard already knew the edges of the forest were being burned and cut by orcs. He already suspected Saruman. The presence of the Hobbits and advice from Gandalf finally convinced him to act, AT THE ENTMOOT. I hate the way they did it. Also, they dropped Quickbeam who would have been a fun character.

Also agreed about the Mouth of Sauron scene. Chopping off someone's head at a parlay is an evil act, even if the guy eats babies. You're supposed to be better than he is, not on the same level. They should have sent him back through the gate like in the book. Same end effect, Aaragorn doesn't look like a bastard. 'Course, most people these days aren't familiar with even such a basic chivalric concept, so the irony and injustice to Aaragorn's character is lost on most modern movie-goers.

90% of the problems I have with the movies stem from them making unnecassary changes that detract rather than add to the story. Some changes must be made to translate to a movie, but many, such as the botching of Aaragorn's receiving of Anduril, where total crap and obviously happened because Agent Elrond wanted more screen-time in movie 3. What happened to the days when actors and artists sacrificed a little for the art, instead of sacrificing the art for their egos?

[EvilElitest]

Agreed wholeheartedly about the Ent scene. The whole point was that Treebeard already knew the edges of the forest were being burned and cut by orcs. He already suspected Saruman. The presence of the Hobbits and advice from Gandalf finally convinced him to act, AT THE ENTMOOT. I hate the way they did it. Also, they dropped Quickbeam who would have been a fun character.

Am i the only one who noticed taht EVERY race in LOTRS gets gibbeted of their real power except for elves?



Also agreed about the Mouth of Sauron scene. Chopping off someone's head at a parlay is an evil act, even if the guy eats babies. You're supposed to be better than he is, not on the same level. They should have sent him back through the gate like in the book. Same end effect, Aaragorn doesn't look like a bastard.
Thank you
Nothing say good guy like "stabbing defenseless person"


'Course, most people these days aren't familiar with even such a basic chivalric concept, so the irony and injustice to Aaragorn's character is lost on most modern movie-goers.
300 comes to mine

90% of the problems I have with the movies stem from them making unnecassary changes that detract rather than add to the story.
In general yes
Auduril, WTF was that?
The ents didn't make sense
And the Skull trap (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1203)
What could possible make somebody make a trap that drops skulls on people? What?
I didn't mind the elves showing up, but i withed they just called them the Grey Company and had Elrond's sons there, so it would at least pretend to make sense



Some changes must be made to translate to a movie, but many, such as the botching of Aaragorn's receiving of Anduril, where total crap and obviously happened because Agent Elrond wanted more screen-time in movie
Logically i think Elrond could have showed up with the Grey Company, wouldn't be to much of a stretch


What happened to the days when actors and artists sacrificed a little for the art, instead of sacrificing the art for their egos?

I think it is more filmakers pretending to make art for money
from,
EE

[Executor]

Well, the Rohirrim certainly get an oversized slice of glory as compared to the other Men, I know that much. Yeah, I have to agree with you EE, the Elves and the Rohirrim are the only Middle-earth races that PJ cares about.

Just you wait, Battle of Five Armies will end with the good guys getting saved by an awe-inspiring charge of cavalry. Probably Rohan, possibly Elvish horsemen.

[EvilElitest]

Well, the Rohirrim certainly get an oversized slice of glory as compared to the other Men, I know that much. Yeah, I have to agree with you EE, the Elves and the Rohirrim are the only Middle-earth races that PJ cares about.

I don't think he likes the Rohan per say, just Calvery. I mean the Gondorians are all senile and cowardly, the dwarves are short comedy reliefs, the Ents are mentally disabled, the orcs lose the tiny amount of character devolpment then had and the hobbits aren't even worth mentioning.



Just you wait, Battle of Five Armies will end with the good guys getting saved by an awe-inspiring charge of cavalry. Probably Rohan, possibly Elvish horsemen.
Elvish certainly, PJ denying his favorite race a chance to shine using his favorite miltary tatic?
Also Legolas will save the dwarves from the elvish prisons
from,
EE

[Serenity]

I just don't see it. Where are the men of Gondor these despicably pathetic cowards you're claiming them to be? In the movie I saw, they fought bravely against an overwhelming force, even when frickin' trolls were breaking through their gates. I saw a funny Gimli, yes, but I never had any cause to doubt his prowess in battle. Did Legolas do amazing stunts? Yes. Why shouldn't he? It was a movie about epic battles, and I would be disappointed if there weren't cool stunts. And it was Tolkien who wrote the elves as all but Gods on Earth.

As to the acting...well, what can I say to convince you? I can tell you that each and every performance, yes, even Bloom's, who I normally don't care for, moved me on some level. I believed in the characters, I cared for the heroes and despised the villains. I can tell you that my friends and I are all heavily involved in theatre, and that we all found the acting superb, and I can point out that the Academy, who are in the business of judging such things, certainly felt the acting deserving of award. Other than that, since you haven't really given your criteria for declaring the acting bad, I'm not sure how to respond. You have mentioned Aragorn's 'Big No', however, and as to that: it is patentedly ridiculous to say that that scene did not perfectly capture the character's anguish because it literally did.

[EvilElitest]

I just don't see it. Where are the men of Gondor these despicably pathetic cowards you're claiming them to be?

All the running they tend to do is tesiment to that. Not orginized retreat mind you (as it is in the books) routing seems to be a standard for these dudes
Lets have a look at the movie track record

1. Sneak attack on Othgiloth, they route, to be fair teh nazgul show up so it isn't totally their fault but compare to the books where they put up an orginized defense
2. Charge the city. Now cowardly, the opposet, stuipid
3. They all abandand their posts when Denethor goes crazy
4. The guards stand by and watch their boss get beaten by an old man with a stick? What?
5. Their entire country is run by a loony, not in the book sense (where denethor is a good man but goes insane, but a total whack job, i mean the actor isn't bad but he was out of his mind. The people seem cool with it though
6. route at the first gate (to be fair, trolls)
7. Route at the second gate
8. Route at the third gate
9. Route at the fourth gate
10. No orginized defense it seems, funny considering they have 3,000 years to prepare for an attack like this
11. When the riders show up, were are they? They don't help in the battle, they kinda fade away
12. With the exception of the two towers bonus material, i've never seen them accually win a fight



I saw a funny Gimli, yes, but I never had any cause to doubt his prowess in battle.
In the book Gimli is the noble repersentive of a dying race
In the movies he is "Tickle me Gimli"
I'm sorry, but second movie onward were there any lines he delivered that were not a badly written joke?


Did Legolas do amazing stunts? Yes. Why shouldn't he? It was a movie about epic battles, and I would be disappointed if there weren't cool stunts.
Cool stunts are ok, like gimli and Aragorn jumping onto the ramp. Stupid ones are not. Lets take the two most absurd

1. Legolas slides down a star case on a shield, shooting arrows into a crowd, slides the shield into an orcs' neck, lands on his feet, shoots three more dudes and then starts shanking. Not only is this stupid, it is over the top, unrealistic to the point of breaking my acceptence of the movie (to the movie's credit, they were generally realistic battle wise mostly) and here is a question
Legolas shoots five arrows while going down on a shield right?
He shoots on in mid air and three right after landing on his feet. All of these arrows dispite the absurd circumstances hit and kill their targets. Now here is my question. When the orc bomber shows up, Aragorn yells for legolas to shoot him. My question is, if legolas can shoot eight guys in a few seconds who are armored while he goes down on a shield, why when he is standing still against an unarmored oppenent who has a shiny light that screams "please shoot me" he can't seem to kill him? I mean he misses the neck twice. What
2. The elephant trick. Just no, there is no way that even makes sense. For one, how freaking thin must that rope that he can simple server it with a small knife? How can arrows support his weight? Who the hell was this dumb to allow this? WTF!?


And it was Tolkien who wrote the elves as all but Gods on Earth.

I can't make a response to this, on account of it simple not registering in my mind. You point fails, just leave it at that


As to the acting...well, what can I say to convince you?
Logic would be nice


I can tell you that each and every performance,
Every single actor did a great job in a three part movie? Yeah, that is absurd right their.


yes, even Bloom's, who I normally don't care for, moved me on some level.
I must say it was his best preformence i've ever seen, because he didn't have any lines. He was still awful


I believed in the characters, I cared for the heroes and despised the villains.
Faramir? Come one, that dude's dilvery reminded me of a kid trying to lie about why he didn't do his home workd


I can tell you that my friends and I are all heavily involved in theatre, and that we all found the acting superb,
Good for you


and I can point out that the Academy, who are in the business of judging such things, certainly felt the acting deserving of award.
And i hightly disagree with them, i find that idea simple absurd, and i imagine there was more to that than meets the eye


Other than that, since you haven't really given your criteria for declaring the acting bad, I'm not sure how to respond.
you never asked, though i've never seen a movie were every single actor is good
Name me an actor and i'll give my option


You have mentioned Aragorn's 'Big No', however, and as to that: it is patentedly ridiculous to say that that scene did not perfectly capture the character's anguish because it literally did.

His two supposed friends have just been speared and burned to death, he left Frodo for nothing and he has nothing to live for now
He should be upset, depressed, angry
He should NOOOOOOOO, in a tone as if he was really pissed as his computor for giving him the blue screen of death for the eight time
now grieving, just frustrated.
from,
EE

[Serenity]

Well, I'm obviously not including random orcs, hobbits, elves or men, but yes, I felt that the core heroes of the Fellowship, Denethor, Theoden, Eowyn, Faramir, Saruman, Bilbo, and most of the other named characters gave at the least solid performances. Were they all stellar? Of course not. But none of them were what I'd call bad.

[Azukius]

just to say EE, you're right.

[Codename GT]

His two supposed friends have just been speared and burned to death, he left Frodo for nothing and he has nothing to live for now
He should be upset, depressed, angry
He should NOOOOOOOO, in a tone as if he was really pissed as his computor for giving him the blue screen of death for the eight time
now grieving, just frustrated.

Actually it was more of an AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! Booting the Uruk helmet (which broke Viggo's toe, if I remember correctly) and clenching his fists before him as he fell to his knees. He then lowers himself to all fours dejectedly and stares down, and that's how he sees the traces of Merry and Pippin laying down. He says "A Hobbit lay here" sadly, but also remembering them fondly.

Also: the Gondorians had a +3 bonus for being in their native city and Gandalf carries a +5 leadership bonus.

[EvilElitest]

Well, I'm obviously not including random orcs, hobbits, elves or men, but yes, I felt that the core heroes of the Fellowship, Denethor, Theoden, Eowyn, Faramir, Saruman, Bilbo, and most of the other named characters gave at the least solid performances. Were they all stellar? Of course not. But none of them were what I'd call bad.

1. Boromir was amazing, best preformence in the film
2. Saurman was very good, but i am a huge fan of Mr. Lee so
3. Bilbo was good, i wished he got more screen time
4. Denethor was a good actor, his role was freaking screwed up (also, how in the hell did he run the length of a foot ball field while on fire?
5. Eowyn, meh, she sounded way to forced and boring, no interest there
6. To his credit, Theoden tried. he wasn't a good actor, his delivery and his movements weren't very good and it was apparent that he wasn't a very good actor, but he did put a hell of a lot of effort into his role so i rather liked him. Though i might be bias because he was left handed
7. Faramir was awful, his lines, his face, his belivabilty, his dilevery, his movments, his, well everything hurt me inside

just to say EE, you're right.
you are a wise and learned man, i've been waiting 3 years for somebody to say that:smallbiggrin:

Actually it was more of an AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
He sounded midly frustrated, not grieving.


Booting the Uruk helmet (which broke Viggo's toe, if I remember correctly) and clenching his fists before him as he fell to his knees.
1. He broke his toe, really?
2. But his movements looked staged and unreal, it certainly wasn't natrual. But he was a good sword fighter, i liked his scene in the end of the first movie


He then lowers himself to all fours dejectedly and stares down, and that's how he sees the traces of Merry and Pippin laying down. He says "A Hobbit lay here" sadly, but also remembering them fondly.
He sounded droll, uncaring and boring in that scene, not real emotion or body movment that impressed me. Ironically enough, Gimli was a very good actor but his role was ruined



Also: the Gondorians had a +3 bonus for being in their native city and Gandalf carries a +5 leadership bonus.



Wait what?


from,
EE

[TheElfLord]

1. He broke his toe, really?
2. But his movements looked staged and unreal, it certainly wasn't natrual. But he was a good sword fighter, i liked his scene in the end of the first movie


Except is was natural. The take that made it in the movie is the one he broke his toe on, and his reaction after the kick is an improvisation trying to stay in character despite a broken toe.


Back on the subject of the Hobbit Film, what I am slightly concerned about is the lack of a female prescence. There are no female characters in the Hobbit. I'm worried that the film makers may feel the need to add a female character, much as they greatly increased Awen's role in LotR. Will they turn Bard into a woman? Add a female Dwarf? These thoughts are starting to haunt me.

[EvilElitest]

Except is was natural. The take that made it in the movie is the one he broke his toe on, and his reaction after the kick is an improvisation trying to stay in character despite a broken toe.

Wait, so that is why his voice changes from grief to pain? Ok, then it is the director's fault for keeping that clip


Back on the subject of the Hobbit Film, what I am slightly concerned about is the lack of a female prescence. There are no female characters in the Hobbit. I'm worried that the film makers may feel the need to add a female character, much as they greatly increased Awen's role in LotR. Will they turn Bard into a woman? Add a female Dwarf? These thoughts are starting to haunt me.
Well i lost my will to live
from,
EE

[Sir_Norbert]

They'll probably just get Angelina Jolie to play Thranduil.

[Codename GT]

There's nowhere that they CAN put a woman in The Hobbit. In The Lord of the Rings, Eowyn was already in there and Arwen was made to do cool things because they didn't want to cast Glorfindel for what would have been two scenes. There is no way that they can improvise a woman in The Hobbit.

Oh, and making Bard a woman would be like making Beowulf a woman, since Beowulf was a source of major inspiration for Bard vs Smaug (sorta). Also like making Aragorn a woman.

Speaking of Aragorn, did you know he also almost drowned after he fell off that cliff, fur rlz? Something about getting sucked under but he managed to kick himself back up at the absolute last second. I also liked how the pain behind that yell was real, though kicking the helmet was a tad bit unnecessary for conveying grief. Probably just a reaction, because he's probably a little pissed that they came all that way and they still weren't able to save the Hobbits.

[EvilElitest]

They'll probably just get Angelina Jolie to play Thranduil.

my eyes, she is an awful actoress
from,
EE

[daggaz]

Despite their flaws I thought Jackson's films really nailed a few aspects of the books (e.g. gollum). My biggest gripe was the Star Power effect: Viggo Mortenson consistently outplayed the supposedly knowledgeable and wise Gandalf in terms of sagacity and assurance. Gimli's debasement to role of comic relief.

I just hope Ian Holm ends up playing Bilbo once again.

Pretty much what I think. I read the books numerous times, and somehow, I managed to miss the whole split personality issue of Golem. Each time. Maybe I was wrapped up in the other details, maybe I just read too fast? I saw that scene where he is arguing with himself, and I was like... WOW, OMG. How did I miss that?

Things I disliked?
1. Gimli being stupid comic relief (not at all funny) and totally pansified.
2. The over-focus on the Uru-kai.. i know they needed a 'main enemy' for part 1, but come on... also, the regular orcs and goblins were WAY better.
3. Casting the ugliest man EVER as an elf. The guy from the matrix movies. UGH. Depp would have been far far better.
4. The shield on the stairs scene (tho i liked when he took down the elephant)
5. The shire looked like the set to Telletubbies.

Things I loved?
1. Gollum
2. The Nazgul
3. When she kills the witch king
4. The Balrog
5. Sauron's lieutenant at the black gate
6. Shellob
7. "They've got a cave-troll"
8. The goblins and little orcs
9. Bilbo Baggins
10. Gandalf, especially when he gets upset and/or kicks ass
11. When Glan.. the elf queen is tempted by the one ring

[Maelstrom]

Things I disliked?
...
5. The shire looked like the set to Telletubbies.

Really? That is one of the things that stood out in my mind that fit the description of the books so well....

[EvilElitest]

Pretty much what I think. I read the books numerous times, and somehow, I managed to miss the whole split personality issue of Golem. Each time. Maybe I was wrapped up in the other details, maybe I just read too fast? I saw that scene where he is arguing with himself, and I was like... WOW, OMG. How did I miss that?

I'm surprised, that really stood out to me


Things I disliked?
1. Gimli being stupid comic relief (not at all funny) and totally pansified.
2. The over-focus on the Uru-kai.. i know they needed a 'main enemy' for part 1, but come on... also, the regular orcs and goblins were WAY better.
3. Casting the ugliest man EVER as an elf. The guy from the matrix movies. UGH. Depp would have been far far better.
4. The shield on the stairs scene (tho i liked when he took down the elephant)
5. The shire looked like the set to Telletubbies.

1. Yeah pretty much
2. Really, that is one of the things i liked, in fact i felt the should have gave a similer focused to the mordor orcs
3. Wait what? I think depp should have played Legolas
4. ???
5. Eh? Care t explain


Things I loved?
1. Gollum
2. The Nazgul
3. When she kills the witch king
4. The Balrog
5. Sauron's lieutenant at the black gate
6. Shellob
7. "They've got a cave-troll"
8. The goblins and little orcs
9. Bilbo Baggins
10. Gandalf, especially when he gets upset and/or kicks ass
11. When Glan.. the elf queen is tempted by the one ring
1. I don't think he needed to be CGI but other than that he was great
2. They were very god
3. Meh, i hated that actress
4. Very nice
5. Meh, he did a good job but his scene was ruined (they lopped his head off what?)
6. That was one of the best scenes accually
7. Hehe
8. I think they needed more screen time
9. Good actor
10 Good actor
11. Gladreial, it was ok
from
EE

[Vaynor]

Peter Jackson sucks because he ruined literature. If I wanted to see some fantasy other than the masterpiece by J.R.R Tolkien, I would have gone to see any other churned out Hollywood crap. That some people think of him as anything more than a hack stealing the works of geniuses is beyond me. I hope this venture fails so utterly that he is barred from creating any more movies or creative ventures.

Notice it says "Based on the book by J.R.R. Tolkien," not, "Direct translation of the book by J.R.R. Tolkien."

[EvilElitest]

Notice it says "Based on the book by J.R.R. Tolkien," not, "Direct translation of the book by J.R.R. Tolkien."

what annoys me is that most of the changes don't make sense
from,
EE

[ARMOURERERIC]

They'll probably just get Angelina Jolie to play Thranduil.


Or Rosie O'donnel to play Smaug so they can save on makeup

[EvilElitest]

Or Rosie O'donnel to play Smaug so they can save on makeup

bum dump (symbol sound):smallcool:
from
EE

[Dea_al_Mon]

When you consider the amount of time it takes to READ the book, PJ did a hella good job turning it into something that you can watch between luncheon and tea. Sure, some stuff got cut and other things got added, but it was all for the sake of continuity. I'm just glad that the Council of Elrond was relatively painless. Rather than going to the book and saying "Okay, it starts here, and it ends...ummm...it ends...ooookay...*flipflipflip*...*flip*...ohmigod ....you've got to be kidding...it ends here...okay, I quit". I mean, that chapter was about a fifth of FOTR. Madness...

I'm excited to see how this works out. Sure, some things will work, some things won't, but overall, I'm sure it will be just as awesome as LOTR.

[Mr. Scaly]

Wait a sec...they KILLED the Mouth of Sauron?! Oh my God! I mean, I thought the 'march to Barad-Dur and get surrounded' was a little odd but really...they killed him?! Stupid director's cut.

Anywho...despite that sudden revelation I liked the movies. Aragorn was surprisingly believable. He really did 'look foul but feel fair' to use Frodo's term. Gandalf and Saruman were brilliant. Boromir and Bilbo were awesome. Gollum kicked tail. Heck, even the hobbits all played their roled well. ^^

In fact, the only one of the heroes I loathed was Legolas. Stupid self-righteous elves...everything he did ticked me off for some reason.

[EvilElitest]

Wait a sec...they KILLED the Mouth of Sauron?! Oh my God! I mean, I thought the 'march to Barad-Dur and get surrounded' was a little odd but really...they killed him?! Stupid director's cut.

Anywho...despite that sudden revelation I liked the movies. Aragorn was surprisingly believable. He really did 'look foul but feel fair' to use Frodo's term. Gandalf and Saruman were brilliant. Boromir and Bilbo were awesome. Gollum kicked tail. Heck, even the hobbits all played their roled well. ^^

In fact, the only one of the heroes I loathed was Legolas. Stupid self-righteous elves...everything he did ticked me off for some reason.

1. Yes they killed a messenger. Who didn't do anything physically threating. Honorable that, much like kicking a messenger into a well
2. Gandalf, Saurma, Boromir, Bilbo an Gollum were amazing, though their were some only decent actor
3. Legolas ticked you off because he is played by olando bloom
from
EE

[Mr. Scaly]

1. Yes they killed a messenger. Who didn't do anything physically threating. Honorable that, much like kicking a messenger into a well
2. Gandalf, Saurma, Boromir, Bilbo an Gollum were amazing, though their were some only decent actor
3. Legolas ticked you off because he is played by olando bloom
from
EE

1) The heroes of today seem to be getting pretty violent toward non-combatants. You don't see Superman vapourising self-righteous messengers at least so there must be something still sacred.

2) True that. I wonder how Billy Boyd felt knowing that he was playing an idiot and doing it very well?

3) Oh, my hatred of elves goes all the way back to Tanis Half-Elven and his entire family. Film-Legolas is the successor to pretty much every elven people I've come across in literature. Every single one is remarkably the same. My only hope is the elves of Lorwyn...

[EvilElitest]

1) The heroes of today seem to be getting pretty violent toward non-combatants. You don't see Superman vapourising self-righteous messengers at least so there must be something still sacred.

Ug, it is not honorable, it is cowardly. We ( don't do that. It is one of the things we don't do. Ug


2) True that. I wonder how Billy Boyd felt knowing that he was playing an idiot and doing it very well?

he can act differently, but in both master and commander and in Four weddings and a funeral he wasn't very impressive


3) Oh, my hatred of elves goes all the way back to Tanis Half-Elven and his entire family. Film-Legolas is the successor to pretty much every elven people I've come across in literature. Every single one is remarkably the same. My only hope is the elves of Lorwyn...

Ouch, i can't really argue with that
from
EE

[Mr. Scaly]

Ug, it is not honorable, it is cowardly. We ( don't do that. It is one of the things we don't do. Ug


he can act differently, but in both master and commander and in Four weddings and a funeral he wasn't very impressive


Ouch, i can't really argue with that
from
EE

It's something that needs to change, both in life and in entertainment. And I really don't want to preach about politics, so that's all I'll say on that...

Actually, from the way he acted in the behind the scenes interviews he should just be a comic relief actor. Pippin was pretty good in the movies.

Show me a race of elves that doesn't live centuries, live at harmony with the forests, and look down on all non-elves and I will weep with joy.

[EvilElitest]

It's something that needs to change, both in life and in entertainment. And I really don't want to preach about politics, so that's all I'll say on that...

Actually, from the way he acted in the behind the scenes interviews he should just be a comic relief actor. Pippin was pretty good in the movies.


Alright consider it dropped



Show me a race of elves that doesn't live centuries, live at harmony with the forests, and look down on all non-elves and I will weep with joy.

Umm, the elves in my games are just like that (except for the forest thing) but tend to be slightly aware of how over done they are?
from
EE

[Mr. Scaly]

Well that's a start...

The closest I've seen so far are probably the Lorwyn elves, from Magic: the gathering. They only live about fifty years or so, they're more likely to replant entire forests than care for them, and they may be holier than thou but they're psychotic...anything they consider ugly (non elves) are hunted down and actively exterminated. So much for isolationist perfection.

I think the best thing about forums is the license to rant at times. :smallwink:

[dehro]

In the books Denethor is a strong willed man who gives in to despair
In the movies he is CRAZY. He is totally and utterly crazy. But he can do an olimpic run while on fire


methinks you would turn into bloody Ben Johnson yourself, with yr arse on fire...

EE, your trounching of the acting and the actors a few pages back does no good to your point, because it's mostly personal and has the taste of being arguments put up just because pissing on the actors makes you feel better and more secure in defending your case.
in fact I am hard put if I have to point out someone who has specifically ruined the role he was cast for. (ok, Bloom is not my favorite either). all in all, they all did a good job, some of them adding more texture to the roles they had, others working with the limitation of a script and a role that here and there could have been better, some just fillin the role the best they could but still adequately.
none of them has really let down anybody or appears a "mis-cast".. LOTR is not shakespeare..there are plenty of roles that require no special acting talent or that are such that you mainly have to look the part and say your lines, or cut the nasty orc (haldir now does not look at all elvish to me, but again, that's personal). hell there are actors who have been able to make faces even with their own face severely covered up by prosthetics...
there are no doubt other actors that could have been a better choice, or actors that appear a little bit out of tune with what we expect from then, but then, we have read the book and made up our mind on how they should look and act. the acting, nevertheless, ranged from adequate to brilliant, in my opinion. it certainly did not deserve the trounching you gave it.
Personally I have a grudge against Faramir, but since the role was so utterly crushed and debased, I think we will never know if the actor would have fared better had faramir had the role his "stature" deserved. I think not, but that's opinion, again

bad lines or scenes are hardly the fault of the actor (I'm thinking of the surfin' elf here, and the jolly dwarf...frankly disgusting and forgivable only in the light of the much good PJ has done elsewhere in the movies)

this is all moot though..the real question is..after such a debate..will you go and watch the hobbit or won't you?...if yes, then PJ wins the topic, whatever you say :smallbiggrin:

[dehro]

Add a female Dwarf?
who would notice the difference? :smallbiggrin:

my eyes, she is an awful actoress
from,
EE
http://rsrc2.bubbleshare.com/media/00/07/08/31/4883466fee7ac8c58df55c781789d293/580x435/angelina-jolie-1152x864-482_580x435.jpg

who cares?:smallbiggrin:

[Mr. Scaly]

(smacks self in forehead)

[dwaro]

Oh, yes. I certainly hope they don't turn the dwarves into comic relief. They clearly were never intended to by funny. Not with such serious names like Thorin, Balin, Dwalin, Dori, Nori, Ori, Oin, Gloin, Bifur, Bofur, Bombor, Fili and Kili.

:smallamused:

Small nitpick. Those names were from the Prose Edda. Though they may sound funny, I doubt they were intended as such. Or maybe they were. It's a children's book, after all.

[Talya]

I disagree with most of the complaints here. Jackson's LotR trilogy were the best films I've ever watched. Books do not translate perfectly into movies, certain changes must be made in order to make the transition from print to film. People complain when things aren't kept the same, but they cannot be, stories never translate perfectly from different medium.

That doesn't mean they aren't without flaws, and I have a few complaints of my own. None of them are mentioned above, so before anybody thinks I'm bashing LotR, let me mention what I like about his choices making the film.

(1) Casting.

Every single actor chosen, with the possible exception of Elijah Wood, was absolutely perfect for the role. Especially the hobbits, but Theoden was amazing, Gandalf was superb, the other hobbits were right on the money. The acting was worthy of Shakespeare, it was a nearly flawless performance for the ensemble.

(2) Attention to detail

The visual and audio detail was nothing short of astounding. From every last strand of hair to the stitching in their costumes; from every whisper of wind to every musical note, it was all calculated for effect.

(3) Tough decisions that needed to be made. Some were easy (removing Bombadil). Some were harder, such as removing Glorfindel for Arwen...but totally necessary. Arwen, for example, is the prime motivating force for the main character of the story (Aragorn), and yet due to Tolkien's incompetence in writing personality -- especially that of women -- she was relegated to appendices. Glorfindel, while a powerful being very important in LotR lore, was irrelevant if the backstory is not being told. Replacing him with Arwen was a stroke of genius. Similarly, due to shortsighted narrative on the part of Tolkien, Faramir -- a mere man without even the noble blood of numenor -- was utterly unaffected by the Ring in the books. This utterly castrates the ring in terms of its place as an irresistable corrupting evil. The movies kept Faramir's nobility and good nature, but showed him as influenced by the ring as everyone else, which was a very good and necessary thing.

Now, on to my complaints.

Things added that should not have been there:

(1) Elves at Helm's Deep. No, this isn't a complaint about something changed from the book, but bringing them added nothing to the sequence, yet took up precious time that could have been used elsewhere. That time will become very important to other points I'm going to make.

(2) The Warg attack/Aragorn falling off the cliff. Again, this added very little of necessity, but took up a tremendous amount of time.

(3) Aragorn's unwillingness to take his role as the heir of Isildur. I don't really get the point of this.

(4) The reforging of the sword added to movie 3. It should have been done in movie 1, and part 3 is where we need the most time to correct the flaws.

(5) Bringing the army of the dead to Pelenor fields. This made the entire (awesome) battle before it completely irrelevant. It was anticlimactic to bring an invincible army of the dead to pelenor fields; it wasn't in the books that way and it was not an improvement to make it that way in the movies.

Let's go to stuff that needs to be added back in.

(1) Saruman of Many Colours. This very short phrase was left out, and subtlely important to why Gandalf was recast as "the White."

(2) The reforging of the sword in movie 1. (see 4 above)

(3) Elves at Pelenor Field. Why add them at Helm's Deep when Elrond and his sons were supposed to be at Gondor kicking serious ass? Bring them back where they belong.

(4) The Black Ships. Since we don't have an army of the dead after we take the black ships (and don't want to bring it to Pelenor fields - see 5 above), he needs his mortal armies he brings with him to join the battle at Pelenor fields. This would add substantial time to the movie, which is why so many additions would need to be removed.

(5) Scouring of the Shire. Instead of spending 45 minutes wrapping up loose ends ... including a bizarre scene where the surviving fellowship members all spend 5 minutes jumping on a convalescing Frodo in bed, let's put in the true end of Saruman and Grima Wormtongue.

I also considered Elijah Wood sub-optimal as Frodo. He wasn't great in the role. Likewise, Gimli may have been a bit too "comical," although he did kick ass in battle. I can't fault John Rhys Davies for it, it was a scripting issue.

[Irenaeus]

I must admit my first reaction to this is "No, please. No more".

The films were OK, but sometimes before RotK premiered, I noticed that I had gotten really tired of the hype, the media attention, the endless number of geek rants that would start whenever the movies were mentioned, a few elements of Peter Jackson's directing style and Tolkien in general. For me, at least, things can be done to death. I'd rather have him leave the whole thing completely and do something new etirely of his own and get som new impulses. It has been a while now, hasn't it?

On another subject: I am a strong supporter of creative license when it comes to adapting books to the screen. I may sometimes think the changes were for the worse, but that is an entirely different matter.

Some of my favorite adaptations screws the book over completely.

As for Jackson himself, I strongly prefer his older stuff.

[Prophaniti]

I disagree with most of the complaints here. Jackson's LotR trilogy were the best films I've ever watched. Books do not translate perfectly into movies, certain changes must be made in order to make the transition from print to film. People complain when things aren't kept the same, but they cannot be, stories never translate perfectly from different medium.

That doesn't mean they aren't without flaws, and I have a few complaints of my own. None of them are mentioned above, so before anybody thinks I'm bashing LotR, let me mention what I like about his choices making the film.

(1) Casting.No disagreement here. Everyone was very good in their roles, with the exception of Elijah Wood.


(2) Attention to detailAgain, no arguments. Costuming and most visual realizations had the perfect epic feel.

(3) Tough decisions that needed to be made. Ok, just some minor arguments here.
Replacing him with Arwen was a stroke of genius. Right. I may not like that they dropped Glorfindel, but I can see why they did it, and it still works for telling this part of the story.
Similarly, due to shortsighted narrative on the part of Tolkien, Faramir -- a mere man without even the noble blood of numenor -- was utterly unaffected by the Ring in the books. This utterly castrates the ring in terms of its place as an irresistable corrupting evil.I strongly, almost vehemently, disagree with you here. Faramir was not untouched by the ring, his was simply a strong enough will, like that of Gandalf or Galadriel, to resist it completely. The 'noble' blood of Numenor is not a boon to ones ability to resist the call of corruption. If it was Numenor would never have fallen. I despise what they did there. First off, it is another example of the plot breaking. If he had taken them, even that far, it becomes that much less likely that they won't be caught. And if a Nazgul had seen Frodo that close and holding up the ring of power that close to Mordor, the Enemy would never have let them free. He would have scoured the area around the city like mad, and there is simply no way they would have avoided all the patrols and escaped.


Now, on to my complaints.

Things added that should not have been there:

(1) Elves at Helm's Deep. No, this isn't a complaint about something changed from the book, but bringing them added nothing to the sequence, yet took up precious time that could have been used elsewhere. That time will become very important to other points I'm going to make.Agreed, though I am also of the opinion that the Helms Deep sequence would have been far more interesting, dramatic and suspenceful without them. Men did stand alone there, and Men (with Gandalf's help) won the day.


(2) The Warg attack/Aragorn falling off the cliff. Again, this added very little of necessity, but took up a tremendous amount of time.Agreed. Arwen just needed more screen time in movie two, apparently.


(3) Aragorn's unwillingness to take his role as the heir of Isildur. I don't really get the point of this.Well, obviously the character doesn't have enough angst! He needs more angst![/sarcasm]. I don't get it either, although nothing about truly bothers me.


(4) The reforging of the sword added to movie 3. It should have been done in movie 1, and part 3 is where we need the most time to correct the flaws.Wholeheartedly agreed. Reasons are likely similar to the flashback sequence when Aragorn fell off the cliff. Agent Elrond there just demanded more screen time in movie 3.


(5) Bringing the army of the dead to Pelenor fields. This made the entire (awesome) battle before it completely irrelevant. It was anticlimactic to bring an invincible army of the dead to pelenor fields; it wasn't in the books that way and it was not an improvement to make it that way in the movies.It really, really was a dumb idea. Also, judging from the movies Gondor only has one city, you never get even an inkling of other forces or cities or strongholds. It would have been much better for Aragorn to show up with the Dunedain and reinforcements from the rest of Gondor, as well as made a whole lot more sense.


Let's go to stuff that needs to be added back in.

(1) Saruman of Many Colours. This very short phrase was left out, and subtlely important to why Gandalf was recast as "the White."

(2) The reforging of the sword in movie 1. (see 4 above)

(3) Elves at Pelenor Field. Why add them at Helm's Deep when Elrond and his sons were supposed to be at Gondor kicking serious ass? Bring them back where they belong.

(4) The Black Ships. Since we don't have an army of the dead after we take the black ships (and don't want to bring it to Pelenor fields - see 5 above), he needs his mortal armies he brings with him to join the battle at Pelenor fields. This would add substantial time to the movie, which is why so many additions would need to be removed.Agreed for the most part.


(5) Scouring of the Shire. Instead of spending 45 minutes wrapping up loose ends ... including a bizarre scene where the surviving fellowship members all spend 5 minutes jumping on a convalescing Frodo in bed, let's put in the true end of Saruman and Grima Wormtongue. Agreed again. There is no such thing as 'too long' when making an epic like this into a movie, and dropping the Scouring of the Shire was a big mistake.


I also considered Elijah Wood sub-optimal as Frodo. He wasn't great in the role. Likewise, Gimli may have been a bit too "comical," although he did kick ass in battle. I can't fault John Rhys Davies for it, it was a scripting issue.'Sub-optimal' doesn't even begin to cover how short Elijah falls from the character of Frodo. He, more than anything else in the adaptation, is responsible for completely breaking the story. Weathertop is the end-game if Frodo drops his sword and cowers, since there's no reason for the wraith to miss his heart. Gimli, despite from being the brunt of too many comic-relief moments (why the hell is he trying on a chain hauberk at Helms Deep? He brought and wore his own armor!), was still close to the book, and well acted. Losing a drinking contest to an elf? That's just a case of the writer not knowing what the hell he's writing about. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DidNotDoTheResearch)

I very much enjoy the movies, and in no way disparage them entirely. I simply think it's kind of sad that in order to fully enjoy them I have to ignore the fact that they are based on a novel that I love dearly. I expected it completely, in fact I recall being trepidacious when they first came out, and pleasently surprised with how close they did come to the books. I find only a handful of places where they fell short, remarkable in so large an adaptation of so large a story. All in all, a great effort. I simply dream of more.

[dehro]

(1) Casting.

Every single actor chosen, with the possible exception of Elijah Wood, was absolutely perfect for the role. Especially the hobbits, but Theoden was amazing, Gandalf was superb, the other hobbits were right on the money. The acting was worthy of Shakespeare, it was a nearly flawless performance for the ensemble.

they were very well cast, but not perfect..and elijah wood was as good as several others could have been, maybe slightly better. faramir now...


Arwen, for example, is the prime motivating force for the main character of the story (Aragorn), and yet due to Tolkien's incompetence in writing personality -- especially that of women -- she was relegated to appendices.
not true... aragorn needed to be just as he was depicted in the books... driven by fate, prophecy, sense of duty, inner nobleness, moral strenght and loyalty. this is epic of the middleage-classic genre, we are reading, not some modern introspective roman where the driving force is love uber alles (which is by the way as biased as many other similarily anal ideas of the freudian kind)


Faramir -- a mere man without even the noble blood of numenor -- was utterly unaffected by the Ring in the books. This utterly castrates the ring in terms of its place as an irresistable corrupting evil. The movies kept Faramir's nobility and good nature, but showed him as influenced by the ring as everyone else, which was a very good and necessary thing.
he bloody was no mere man. he had the antique blood of numenor..whatered down by centuries, but not unlike aragorn and shadowfax, now and then, great figures of the past find their qualities reborn amids their descendants.then again, he was also a man of lore and knowledge, taught in no small ways by Gandalf himself. Faramir was utterly debased in the movie


(3) Aragorn's unwillingness to take his role as the heir of Isildur. I don't really get the point of this.
strictly by the book if I remember well.. he was a reluctant heir that could possibly face opposition in his claims and had the responsability to right the wrongs done in the past by his ancestors..and he had to face the army of the dead as first real "trial" to test the quality of his claims not an easy feat to look up to.


(5) Scouring of the Shire. Instead of spending 45 minutes wrapping up loose ends ... including a bizarre scene where the surviving fellowship members all spend 5 minutes jumping on a convalescing Frodo in bed, let's put in the true end of Saruman and Grima Wormtongue.
I'd have loved to see it, but what makes for a quick "finale" reading, would take at least a couple of hours to be done properly and explained to the non readers of the book.


as for the rest, I quite agree with your comments.

[Serenity]

Are you guys seriously telling me the movies would have been seriously improved by the huge buildup of Aragorn winning an undead army to his side, only for that army to not actually do anything? You can't show Aragorn stealing the black fleet; it would completely ruin the suspense. You can't go back and show it after the Battle of Gondor; it would totally ruin the pacing. So basically, you would have the movie spend significant time building up a plot point, only to drop it with a throwaway line about using them to get the ships. Have you never heard of Chekov's Gun?

And there is simply no way that the Scouring of the Shire could work on screen. You've just sat through several thrilling hours in which the heroes defeated the Ultimate Evil in the world. The climax is over and done with, and now it's time for the denouement. Instead, you get an extra hour of semi-self-contained plot about the heroes driving a more minor villain out of there home. I'm sure it works great in the book. On screen? It would be awful pacing.

[Talya]

not true... aragorn needed to be just as he was depicted in the books... driven by fate, prophecy, sense of duty, inner nobleness, moral strenght and loyalty. this is epic of the middleage-classic genre, we are reading, not some modern introspective roman where the driving force is love uber alles (which is by the way as biased as many other similarily anal ideas of the freudian kind)

In the books Aragorn was driven by Arwen. She was his motivating force. The fact that Tolkien had no idea how to write women kept his motivating force out of the narrative, which was stupid.



he bloody was no mere man.
Yes, Faramir was "just a man." Like Boromir and Denethor, his own blood.

The fact was, Tolkien went to great lengths to point out previously that all men, whether of pure numenorian noble blood like Isildur and Aragorn, or more common human blood like the nine, were easily corrupted by such magic, and that the ring was so all-corrupting that even Gandalf (one of the Maiar!), Galadriel and Elrond had to stay away from it. Doubly so for humans. Likewise for dwarves, who were consumed by the seven. A halfling was chosen to carry the ring because they were resistant to its effects (but not immune.)

So after all that, Tolkien has this mere common man of gondor utterly and completely immune to the ring. Which was sheer stupidity on the part of the storyteller.


strictly by the book if I remember well.. he was a reluctant heir that could possibly face opposition in his claims and had the responsability to right the wrongs done in the past by his ancestors..and he had to face the army of the dead as first real "trial" to test the quality of his claims not an easy feat to look up to.

Aragorn was not reluctant in the books, it was his plan from the start, to reclaim the throne of Gondor. (Also, it was a condition of Elrond allowing him to marry Arwen, but that was decided long before the events of Fellowship of the Ring.)

[Talya]

Are you guys seriously telling me the movies would have been seriously improved by the huge buildup of Aragorn winning an undead army to his side, only for that army to not actually do anything? You can't show Aragorn stealing the black fleet; it would completely ruin the suspense.

Yes, you can. They show it in the much improved extended version of the movie. The problem was, at that point he should have released them, and brought his armies of rangers and freed men on the black ships.

[Irenaeus]

I really can't seem to leave the LotR movie discussions alone.

In the books Aragorn was driven by Arwen. She was his motivating force. The fact that Tolkien had no idea how to write women kept his motivating force out of the narrative, which was stupid.I agree. I don't think the movies improve on this in any way, though. Giving her more screen time without adding any depth was a very superficial way of adressing this, prolonging the overlong movies even more. Tyler's acting certainly did not help either. I find Arwen's scene at the ford in the Fellowship positively cringeworthy.


So after all that, Tolkien has this mere common man of gondor utterly and completely immune to the ring. Which was sheer stupidity on the part of the storyteller.I strongly disagree here. He quite consistently uses pride and ambition as the ring's main tools of corruption, not so much race. Faramir can resist the ring the short time he has access to it because he is rather humble and reluctant, not because of any heritage or lack of such.

Just because Tolkien's world has elements of strong racial determinism, does not mean that race is everything, even in Middle-Earth.

I also think that within the context of any medieval-like setting, using the word "common" to describe a nobleman, is not very fitting. That is just nitpicking, though.

Edit: To Serenity:As for Chekov's gun, I think the main point is not that the gun has to be fired, but that you should not introduce it if you don't have any such plans. It is a rule for the elimination of unneccesary elements in a play, not for adding more of them.

I don't think it can be easily applied here either way.

[Hopeless]

Peter Jackson sucks because he ruined literature. If I wanted to see some fantasy other than the masterpiece by J.R.R Tolkien, I would have gone to see any other churned out Hollywood crap. That some people think of him as anything more than a hack stealing the works of geniuses is beyond me. I hope this venture fails so utterly that he is barred from creating any more movies or creative ventures.

Er, would someone please explain whats going on?

Last time I checked the Lord of the Rings were an incredible trilogy and probably the only time it would be released in a format that brings the books to the big screen.

Now its the turn of the Hobbit and I have to say if he's any where as close to the book as the LOTR then it should be just as remarkably good.

Now other than putting too much Arwen in the first movie which I forgave because I have wondered how a badly hurt hafling could hold onto the reins of that horse when he's slowly being turned into a wraith what exactly did Peter Jackson do to merit this much wrath?

Is it becuse of Tom Bombadil? Or something else?

[WalkingTarget]

So after all that, Tolkien has this mere common man of gondor utterly and completely immune to the ring. Which was sheer stupidity on the part of the storyteller.

Uh, Denethor is from the same Numenorean stock as Aragorn, just not in the royal line. His wife, Boromir and Faramir's mother, was Finduilas of Dol Amroth, sister of Imrahil, who had evlish ancestry (Legolas recognizes this when he met Imrahil).

I'm not sure that this makes him "common" as that seems like a fairly impressive pedigree to me. Sure, it's not as impressive as Aragorn's but better than you're average Gondoran.

Part of what allowed him to resist the Ring is that he'd vowed to let Frodo keep it safe before he knew what it really was (he knew it was important, but not that it was the Ring). If I remember right, he doesn't even see it. The whole point is that Faramir was wiser than his brother and is approaching Aragorn in nobility of character and so he realized that it would be best to get it out of his reach as soon as possible.

[EvilElitest]

methinks you would turn into bloody Ben Johnson yourself, with yr arse on fire...

No, you'd fall down onto the ground screaming in agony, or maybe running in circles. Hell, Denethor ran by a freaking pool of water



EE, your trounching of the acting and the actors a few pages back does no good to your point, because it's mostly personal and has the taste of being arguments put up just because pissing on the actors makes you feel better and more secure in defending your case.
Wow, thank you for missing the point, launching an incorrect and badly worded personal attack, and failing misriible at both
1. The bad actors are some of the reasons why i don't like the movie, along with shotty directing and editing.
2. I am not pissing on the actors, that is just a weaklings way of trying to destroy to harm a strong point. I've listed the actors i liked and don't like (note i like more than i don't like) and listed reasons when asked. So don't even try to pull such that, my point was the actors



in fact I am hard put if I have to point out someone who has specifically ruined the role he was cast for. (ok, Bloom is not my favorite either). all in all, they all did a good job, some of them adding more texture to the roles they had, others working with the limitation of a script and a role that here and there could have been better, some just fillin the role the best they could but still adequately.
No, some of them did, and they were the good actors. The bad actors were not


none of them has really let down anybody or appears a "mis-cast".. LOTR is not shakespeare..there are plenty of roles that require no special acting talent or that are such that you mainly have to look the part and say your lines, or cut the nasty orc (haldir now does not look at all elvish to me, but again, that's personal). hell there are actors who have been able to make faces even with their own face severely covered up by prosthetics...
Wow, if these are your standards for a good actors then don't even try to criticize mine


there are no doubt other actors that could have been a better choice, or actors that appear a little bit out of tune with what we expect from then, but then, we have read the book and made up our mind on how they should look and act. the acting, nevertheless, ranged from adequate to brilliant, in my opinion. it certainly did not deserve the trounching you gave it.
No, an actor needs to be judged based on their skill, general skill. I hated the way Gimli was portrayed, nothing at all near what i imagined when i read the book, but he was still a good actor


Personally I have a grudge against Faramir, but since the role was so utterly crushed and debased, I think we will never know if the actor would have fared better had faramir had the role his "stature" deserved. I think not, but that's opinion, again
Awful delivery, dead voice, one puppy eyed facial expression, no phyical portrayal, and boring as hell. They could have had shawn bean play him, i mean come on



bad lines or scenes are hardly the fault of the actor (I'm thinking of the surfin' elf here, and the jolly dwarf...frankly disgusting and forgivable only in the light of the much good PJ has done elsewhere in the movies)

Both were disgusting, but while the actor who played Gimli was able to prevent becoming Jar Jar Binks, Bloom just made it worst


this is all moot though..the real question is..after such a debate..will you go and watch the hobbit or won't you?...if yes, then PJ wins the topic, whatever you say :smallbiggrin:
No, just no
Watching a bad movie doesn't make PJ a good director, i've read Eragorn and Eldest and that doesn't make Chris a good writer
I'll watch it to see if it is good or bad. now if i bought the movie then your point would make more sense (though i was given return of the king for christmas but that doesn't count)



who cares?
sex appeal does not make you a good actor.
from
EE

[EvilElitest]

I disagree with most of the complaints here. Jackson's LotR trilogy were the best films I've ever watched. Books do not translate perfectly into movies, certain changes must be made in order to make the transition from print to film. People complain when things aren't kept the same, but they cannot be, stories never translate perfectly from different medium.

I for one am aware of that, i just don't like PJ's style, it is amateurish



(1) Casting.

Every single actor chosen, with the possible exception of Elijah Wood, was absolutely perfect for the role. Especially the hobbits, but Theoden was amazing, Gandalf was superb, the other hobbits were right on the money. The acting was worthy of Shakespeare, it was a nearly flawless performance for the ensemble.
No movie has every actor chosen perfectly for the role, but as i said, Gandalf was superb, as were many of the actors. Theoden wasn't a good actor, but he tried and pretty much made up for it. I rather liked Frodo, but i hated Merry, Pippin was ok


(2) Attention to detail

The visual and audio detail was nothing short of astounding. From every last strand of hair to the stitching in their costumes; from every whisper of wind to every musical note, it was all calculated for effect.

though i think the music was little too heavy, i agree with the rest of it, the weapons were very good


(3) Tough decisions that needed to be made. Some were easy (removing Bombadil). Some were harder, such as removing Glorfindel for Arwen...but totally necessary. Arwen, for example, is the prime motivating force for the main character of the story (Aragorn), and yet due to Tolkien's incompetence in writing personality -- especially that of women -- she was relegated to appendices. Glorfindel, while a powerful being very important in LotR lore, was irrelevant if the backstory is not being told. Replacing him with Arwen was a stroke of genius.

Don't really care about ether of these changes, but Tolkien was very god at writing personality for his characters, every one of teh named ones are unique in some way. he didn't have any women however


Similarly, due to shortsighted narrative on the part of Tolkien, Faramir -- a mere man without even the noble blood of numenor -- was utterly unaffected by the Ring in the books. This utterly castrates the ring in terms of its place as an irresistable corrupting evil.
Incorrect, Faramir is tempted by the ring, but resists it, because he is modest instead of proud. For the record he is of noble blood, second only to Aragorn's line



The movies kept Faramir's nobility and good nature, but showed him as influenced by the ring as everyone else, which was a very good and necessary thing.
No, it wasted time with a mass jumble of unnecessary changes (not changes like cutting Tom mind you, just another example of PJ's bad editing techniques)

Now, on to my complaints.


Things added that should not have been there:

(1) Elves at Helm's Deep. No, this isn't a complaint about something changed from the book, but bringing them added nothing to the sequence, yet took up precious time that could have been used elsewhere. That time will become very important to other points I'm going to make.

(2) The Warg attack/Aragorn falling off the cliff. Again, this added very little of necessity, but took up a tremendous amount of time.

(3) Aragorn's unwillingness to take his role as the heir of Isildur. I don't really get the point of this.

(4) The reforging of the sword added to movie 3. It should have been done in movie 1, and part 3 is where we need the most time to correct the flaws.

(5) Bringing the army of the dead to Pelenor fields. This made the entire (awesome) battle before it completely irrelevant. It was anticlimactic to bring an invincible army of the dead to pelenor fields; it wasn't in the books that way and it was not an improvement to make it that way in the movies.

Totally seconded, with two minor notes
1. I wouldn't mind the elves showing up because they are cool, if they at least tied it in somehow. Instead say they are from riven dale and say they are the Grey Company.
2. I don't mind the warg fight but it should have ended faster and not had the whole cliff thing


Let's go to stuff that needs to be added back in.

(1) Saruman of Many Colours. This very short phrase was left out, and subtlely important to why Gandalf was recast as "the White."

(2) The reforging of the sword in movie 1. (see 4 above)

(3) Elves at Pelenor Field. Why add them at Helm's Deep when Elrond and his sons were supposed to be at Gondor kicking serious ass? Bring them back where they belong.

(4) The Black Ships. Since we don't have an army of the dead after we take the black ships (and don't want to bring it to Pelenor fields - see 5 above), he needs his mortal armies he brings with him to join the battle at Pelenor fields. This would add substantial time to the movie, which is why so many additions would need to be removed.

(5) Scouring of the Shire. Instead of spending 45 minutes wrapping up loose ends ... including a bizarre scene where the surviving fellowship members all spend 5 minutes jumping on a convalescing Frodo in bed, let's put in the true end of Saruman and Grima Wormtongue.

[QUOTE]
As i said, total agreement, if PJ didn't stop wasting time he could have done this

[QUOTE]
I also considered Elijah Wood sub-optimal as Frodo. He wasn't great in the role. Likewise, Gimli may have been a bit too "comical," although he did kick ass in battle. I can't fault John Rhys Davies for it, it was a scripting issue.
Wood was ok, and while Gimli was bad, it wasn't the actors fault, good actor, bad role

from
EE

[zeratul]

Three things

1. I thought Faramir was a really good actor, with terrible lines, and a terrible character adaptation. Book faramir was far more interesting, and less boring and lame. I think he did the best he could with awful materials.

2. Just out of curiosity, why didn't you like Frodo? I though he was pretty good, perhaps not as good as vego, but still a good acotor.

3. We seem to be ignoring Eomer a little bit. I personally thought he was awesome, well cast, great armor, and good actor.

[LordVader]

No offense, but I laughed a little when I saw the comment about killing the Mouth of Sauron as being "cowardly" and "dishonorable".

Apparently, killing the messenger for the greatest power of evil in the entire world is a bad thing? God knows that that bastard is cowardly, twisted, wretched and vile, so killing him is wrong why?


EE, you seem to want more or less a direct translation of the LotR plotline into film version. While it may be feasible, let's face it, it'd bore the hell out of people who didn't like, or wouldn't read, the books. The Scouring of the Shire would just be an EXTREMELY depressing end to the movie, let's face it. And it would seem horribly anticlimatic, and overall just ruin everything the movie had built up to just so we can watch Saruman beat up some hobbits and then get stabbed to death.

I, for one, am glad this was left out.

I'd also like to see many of those changes, and the Army of the Dead removed for some serious Gondorian orc butt-kicking action, but it would've made for a much longer battle at the Pelennor and wouldn't have been as dramatic, which is key in a movie.

[Lord_Asmodeus]

I don't really get why people get so worked up when the movies do things differently than the books, I just look at movies and books as separate things and I judge each on their own merits. the LOTR movies were great MOVIES, they were fun, exciting, lots of great action and so on and so forth, and thats what they were supposed to be - MOVIES, not direct translations of the book onto film. If a book was great and the movie "version" of it sucked, then the movie sucked and the book was great, simple as that.

[dehro]

No offense, but I laughed a little when I saw the comment about killing the Mouth of Sauron as being "cowardly" and "dishonorable".

Apparently, killing the messenger for the greatest power of evil in the entire world is a bad thing? God knows that that bastard is cowardly, twisted, wretched and vile, so killing him is wrong why?


basically there is no style in it:smallbiggrin:
that and it diminishes the "righteousness" of the goodies...since they stand for honor... and other funny things. it doesn't feel right to kill someone who is out to parley (and their name is not barbosssa) under the "protection" of a white flag. as insulting as he is, you still send him home with all bits attached.
and it doesn't add a thing to the movie, so it's unneccessary. (seeing it I couldn't help thinking of a certain attitude, generally accepted by vast parts of population in the States, of "no rules when you kick buttock of bad people"...but PJ is a kiwi, so that doesn't add up and was just a passing thought, probably worth cencorship, so sorry about it..)
but it's a minor point really, the whole thing of the mouth of sauron is definitely a minor point.

[Arang]

The way I read it, Aragorn kills the Mouth of Sauron because he's not there to parley. All he does is belittle the main characters and try to scare them, which really isn't something you should be standing for if you're there just to fight, and Aragorn was. That's the entire point. They're there to fight, everyone knows it, and it was time to get on with it.


badly worded personal attack
:smallconfused:

[Zenos]

The way I read it, Aragorn kills the Mouth of Sauron because he's not there to parley. All he does is belittle the main characters and try to scare them, which really isn't something you should be standing for if you're there just to fight, and Aragorn was. That's the entire point. They're there to fight, everyone knows it, and it was time to get on with it.


:smallconfused:

Yeah, he seemed to be more on to the spreading of propganda than than actual parlay. I would understand it if Aragorn cut him down where he stood. He had nothing good to say (and he wasn't actualy carrying a white flag) so therefore he was an enemy who was "attacking" them with his poisionous words, therefore Aragorn had the right to attack.

Did anyone understand my argument?

[MCerberus]

I will likely see the movie, even though The Hobbit was my least favorite.

Even if it wasn't perfect, the Jackson LotRs were good enough to make people want to read. That's something in this culture. Oh, and just think, he could have Timeline'd it. *curls into little ball remembering the massacre*

[Sir_Norbert]

I don't really get why people get so worked up when the movies do things differently than the books, I just look at movies and books as separate things and I judge each on their own merits.
Because when you give your movie the same name as a well-loved and respected book, you are saying "This is a movie version of this book and should be judged as such". I doubt Peter Jackson would have quite so many detractors if he'd called his movies My Fantasy of How Lord of the Rings Should Have Been Done. He'd just have more people saying "Why the heck did you bother?"

But let's get one thing straight, I don't complain just because things are different. As many people have already said -- and as everyone but a fool knows -- a movie version has to be different just because it's a different medium and, obviously, because LotR is a huge book. What I complain about is all the gratuitous changes -- Peter Jackson basically saying "I couldn't give a rat's lard about trying to understand why Tolkien did things this way, I think I know better!" It's that level of disrespect to a great writer that really annoys me and the other complainers.

[dehro]

badly worded personal attack

:smallconfused:
he's right..sorta... I was thinking in the wrong language while writing..so it came out a bit harsher than intended.

[Arang]

he's right..sorta... I was thinking in the wrong language while writing..so it came out a bit harsher than intended.

Still, though. "Your personal attack sounded like it was written by a moron"?

[EvilElitest]

No offense, but I laughed a little when I saw the comment about killing the Mouth of Sauron as being "cowardly" and "dishonorable".

Apparently, killing the messenger for the greatest power of evil in the entire world is a bad thing? God knows that that bastard is cowardly, twisted, wretched and vile, so killing him is wrong why?

Yes the Mouth of Sauron is an evil bastard, yes he is a cruel inhumain person and yes he is the messanger of the most evil person currently around, but he is still being honorable. This is a parley. AKA, you don't kill the messengers. Hell, morder could have opened fire the moment they rode up but they didn't. And when the most evil guy in the world can be honerable and you can't that is kinda pathetics. Parely works under certain rules. Both sides, instead of killing eachother when they have the chance, but instead they allow eachother to discuss terms and talk. Even if one side is rude, uncouth, and evil, if he is acting under diplomatic immunity, then he is protected as long as he also obeys the rules. Like the killing in 300 of the messegers, it is cowardly, dishonorable, and hypocritical. who are the good guys here? If morder can be honorable, why can't aragorn? Considering this point was mentioned in the book it seems just silly and isn't a good moral to show in a good light



EE, you seem to want more or less a direct translation of the LotR plotline into film version.
um, no i don't, i've already made that clear, i don't mind changes (cutting out Tom, replaceing Glordindal with Arwin ect) if they make sense and add to the drama


While it may be feasible, let's face it, it'd bore the hell out of people who didn't like, or wouldn't read, the books. he Scouring of the Shire would just be an EXTREMELY depressing end to the movie, let's face it. And it would seem horribly anticlimatic, and overall just ruin everything the movie had built up to just so we can watch Saruman beat up some hobbits and then get stabbed to death.
i liked that chapter, i sent the message out that no ending is perfectly happy and perfect, things move on. And your home isn't always as you remembered



I'd also like to see many of those changes, and the Army of the Dead removed for some serious Gondorian orc butt-kicking action, but it would've made for a much longer battle at the Pelennor and wouldn't have been as dramatic, which is key in a movie.

But that battle wasn't really that dramatic at all, with the exception of the charge it was extremly boring
from
EE

[Sleet]

For me it's very simple. Jackson made decisions I disagreed with, but I've yet to find a director who hasn't. He made immensely enjoyable films that I've watched and re-watched many times over.

I'm glad he's at the helm for The Hobbit - I hope he gets Guillermo Del Toro to direct. :smallbiggrin:

[Arang]

i liked that chapter, i sent the message out that no ending is perfectly happy and perfect, things move on. And your home isn't always as you remembered



But it ruins the pacing. Imagine if, at the end of Star Wars, it turned out that the guy in the cantina had been following Luke ever since Tatooine and there was a final fight in the ceremony chamber after the Death Star has been blown up and Darth Vader defeated. It could work in a book, but it doesn't in a film. There is a climax, then the end, not a climax, smaller climax and then the end.

[factotum]

It could work in a book, but it doesn't in a film. There is a climax, then the end, not a climax, smaller climax and then the end.

Surely that particular boat already sailed (if you'll pardon the pun :smallsmile: ) with the scene at the Grey Havens, which occurs after the climax proper. By your logic, that scene shouldn't have been in there either.

[Arang]

No, there is no tension, no conflict and as such, no excitement in the Grey Havens sequence. Therefore it is part of the end, not another, smaller climax.

[Lord of the Helms]

But it ruins the pacing. Imagine if, at the end of Star Wars, it turned out that the guy in the cantina had been following Luke ever since Tatooine and there was a final fight in the ceremony chamber after the Death Star has been blown up and Darth Vader defeated. It could work in a book, but it doesn't in a film. There is a climax, then the end, not a climax, smaller climax and then the end.

...Ever seen Army of Darkness? It had exactly that kind of ending, and it was one of the best parts about the film. I found the whole direct "everyone's happy ever after" exceedingly lame, personally.

[Eric Tolle]

Last time I checked the Lord of the Rings were an incredible trilogy and probably the only time it would be released in a format that brings the books to the big screen.

Not according to my local time traveler:

Lord of the Rings, 2038

Summary: After inheriting a ring from his uncle, the hobbit Frodo undergoes a perilous journey to save Middle Earth.

Notes: Production bylines were "By fans for fans" and "The correct version".

The director, self-appointed Tolkien scholar Brandon Moore claimed the movie was a completely accurate transcription of the novel series, with every scene and line of dialogue included. The first of a proposed six movie series that would cover the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy, the 192 minute movie covered the first third of the book "Fellowship of the Ring".

Due to extremely poor critical reviews and audience reactions, the movie failed to make it's costs back at the box office, and the subsequent movies were never made. It is widely believed that the extremely poor performance of the film caused movie studios to avoid the fantasy genre, and killed several concurrent movie projects, including "The Dying Earth" and "Chrestomanci" (Citation Needed).

Reviews:

"The most tedious thing I ever went to, more boring and almost as long as my last marriage."

"Occasionally they interrupt the lack of action to recite doggerel poetry at each other. The sweeping orchestral score seems to indicate we should find this moving for some reason."

"The director took a Renfair, removed all the interesting sexy bits, and filled it up with bad poetry. Give this a miss."

"They included the Tom Bombadill scene just as it was from the books! That's why this is the best movie EVER MADE!"