LOTR = Typical Action Films?

[azalea]

This thread is the most current one that I think would be appropriate to be deemed the official "Has Jackson done a good job of adapting TLotR to film" thread. I'd like to see the majority of discussion about this topic be done here, rather than leaking into each thread. That way, we can have a lively debate pro vs. con, and yet the other threads will be available for specific instances, and for other topics unrelated to debate concerning Peter Jackson. I hope this will be satisfactory for everyone.

[I'm not saying you can't debate stuff in the other threads, just that the GENERAL argument regarding Peter Jackson's OVERALL job need not permeate the entire forum, because that has it's very own thread...here. ]

[Bacchus]

Not to nitpick, but the Bree gate scene was not made up out of whole cloth. The Nazgul threw down the gates and passed through the town like a gale on October 2, according to Gandalf at the Council. This event left the inhabitants waiting for the world to end, as I recall.

As I've said before, my opinion is that PJ on balance did a quite good job of adapting the books to film. I state this opinion as a dyed-in-the-wool purist in the matter of the books. I am fully aware of every minor (and major) change made from the original, down to being able to list quotes lifted from other parts of the story and inserted into the movie. Personally, I find the attention to detail in using obscure quotes in new ways quite good. [example-the opening lines of FOTR spoken by Galadriel were spoken by Fangorn in ROTK]

[azalea]

I wanted to respond to a question Root16 asked in the other thread, so I'll just reply here.

He asked what PJ said that demonstrated his lack of knowledge about the books. In addition to making some changes that were a far departure from the book (which I feel that one who knew the books intimately wouldn't have made), in both EEs he asks Phillipa and Fran "was this in the book?" or "This was from the book wasn't it?" This tells me that although he has read the books, he hasn't read them as much as I would have expected someone making the movies to have done.
[FYI, I'm not a "Jackson hater," I happen to really like the movies, but I think it's apparent that he is less familiar with ME as presented in the books than he could have been. It may have been intentional, that he didn't want his movie making creativity hampered by a need to stick to the written page, and for that reason he had Phillipa Boyens on board to be the "voice of the book" for him]

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by azalea
I'm not a "Jackson hater,"

I'm the jackson hater. *waves hand high in the air*

[Root16]

I think I'm gonna have to agree with you here, Azelia, that he wouldn't have made certain changes had he been more familiar with the books. On the other hand, I'm not that familiar with the books and I wouldn't have made the changes he made. So... heh, I dunno.

[azalea]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm the jackson hater. *waves hand high in the air*

Tee hee (Although I think you can be spotted without having to raise your hand. )

originally posted by Root16
I think I'm gonna have to agree with you here, Azelia, that he wouldn't have made certain changes had he been more familiar with the books. On the other hand, I'm not that familiar with the books and I wouldn't have made the changes he made. So... heh, I dunno.

I think that speaks to the fact that NO ONE would have duplicate adaptations of the book, since everyone is different and has a different view of the important points of the book, as well as different ideas about what makes a good movie, etc. It is obvious to many that Jackson loves both the macabre (this is esp. obvious if you watch his other movies) and battle sequences. Thus, it should be no surprise that he has played up both the macabre elements of the story (Dead Marshes, etc.) as well as the fight scenes (Helm's Deep). I give him credit for allowing the women to embellish the "love scenes," to give the movies some depth in that respect (I happen to like the scene with Aragorn and Arwen on the bridge in Rivendell...*sigh* ).
Someone who dislikes a lot of gore would play down the battle scenes in their version, and perhaps do a lot more dialog (perhaps including the feast in Rivendell, with the exchange between Bilbo and Aragorn) -- the possibilities are endless! I think the differences are what makes life both interesting and frustrating at the same time.

[Root16]

I think the extent to which film adaptions could range for LOTR is particularly large. There are so many different things that different people connect with. There are actually few things that everyone feels unanimous about. And there is tons of stuff, specifics, scenes and characters, that everyone has a different opinion about and connects to in their own ways, as well as the more broader themes which you pointed out. So it's virtually impossible for someone to make a film adaptation which pleases themself, the book readers and also the non book readers and of course the pesky studio that is putting their neck on the line (in the case of New Line, rumor had it if the movie tanked, the studio would go bankrupt).

[Black Breathalizer]

One thing we need to keep in mind is that if these films were crappy, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The only reason Tolkien Purists are up-in-arms is because these films have touched such a responsive cord around the world and have become so popular in their own right.

I would like to be directed to the parts of the EE where Jackson asks questions about what's in the books. Everything I've seen on both of the EEs lead me to the exact opposite conclusion, that Jackson knew Tolkien's story better than most people.

[Root16]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
This quote is from the "Capturing Tolkien's Vision versus..." thread:I find it interesting that some of you love to rail against PJ's films for being...gasp...Action movies!!! How dare PJ put in action sequences like the ents attack on Isengard, the battle of Helm's Deep, the wizard's duel, Gandalf versus the Balrog, the cave troll attack, etc., etc., etc.!!! I'll bet that Action film hack Jackson will give us a spider attack and not one but TWO huge battles in ROTK. Yep, any action film gimic for the all-mighty dollar.

If you want to call PJ's movies "action stories," that's fine. But then prepare yourself to defend the Tolkien books against the same charge.

The reality is that JRR Tolkien's incredible books -- AND Peter Jackson's films -- are much more than that.

Agreed, nothing more to be said here.

Ok, I'll sum it up in my own words: Profound entertainment.

[Root16]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
One thing we need to keep in mind is that if these films were crappy, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The only reason Tolkien Purists are up-in-arms is because these films have touched such a responsive cord around the world and have become so popular in their own right.

I would like to be directed to the parts of the EE where Jackson asks questions about what's in the books. Everything I've seen on both of the EEs lead me to the exact opposite conclusion, that Jackson knew Tolkien's story better than most people.

Yes, I would appreciate some quotage on this front as well! I got the impression from watching the movie, chiefly, but from interviews and the EE DVDs as well, that PJ has a tremendous and profound love and respect for Tolkien.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
One thing we need to keep in mind is that if these films were crappy, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The only reason Tolkien Purists are up-in-arms is because these films have touched such a responsive cord around the world and have become so popular in their own right.

That is so far off base. My problem with the movies - is I don't think they are very good - PERIOD. I would have watched them in the theater - but they would not be getting this kind of response if they weren't Lord of the Rings. The only reason these movies are getting talked about at all - or getting the type of attention they are is becuase of the books. Take away the books and you just have an average action fantasy movie.

I would like to be directed to the parts of the EE where Jackson asks questions about what's in the books. Everything I've seen on both of the EEs lead me to the exact opposite conclusion, that Jackson knew Tolkien's story better than most people.

That's because you are in love with jackson and obviously want to have his child - you have an inability to see anything wrong with jackson or his movies. it's gone way past ass kissing now.

[Root16]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
That is so far off base. My problem with the movies - is I don't think they are very good - PERIOD. I would have watched them in the theater - but they would not be getting this kind of response if they weren't Lord of the Rings. The only reason these movies are getting talked about at all - or getting the type of attention they are is becuase of the books. Take away the books and you just have an average action fantasy movie.

You're all alone in a sea of head scratching.

Actually, that's an interesting point you make. Hard to know one way or the other. Any idea how you would analyze such a claim to find out if there is any verisimilitude to it?

Are you saying that's it only because Lord of the Rings is such a good story, and the story shines through the "average action fantasy movie" that it really is?

Please clarify. You might have an interesting point to make here, even if you're wrong. :P

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Root16
You're all alone in a sea of head scratching.

Actually I'm not all alone. There are more people who have problems with the movies than don't have problems with them. They may not have as many problems with them. So I don't know what you mean? Have you READ the full thread as well as the other threads?

[Root16]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Actually I'm not all alone. There are more people who have problems with the movies than don't have problems with them. They may not have as many problems with them. So I don't know what you mean? Have you READ the full thread as well as the other threads?

I haven't read too many posts on this board, but from what I have gathered, most people think the movies are good or great, while a very small handful find them boring, really bad or or just plain no good.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Root16
I haven't read too many posts on this board, but from what I have gathered, most people think the movies are good or great, while a very small handful find them boring, really bad or or just plain no good.

Well I just think they're average and not what I expected at all from a movie based on Lord of the Rings and I was very disappointed.

[Root16]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well I just think they're average and not what I expected at all from a movie based on Lord of the Rings and I was very disappointed.

I respect that. I just wish you would give some specifics so I could see if I can see where you're coming from. Everyone once in a while I'll ask myself why I like the films. What's so great about them. Is there really any substance there at all. Or is it all just exposition very well sugar coated? Is the execution and cinematic beauty enough? Should these films have more substance? An interesting point, seeing as PJ has commented on the first two films just being a lead up to the real pay off, ROTK, that he felt like he had to get through all this exposition that was necessary in the first two films.

[zinnite]

Originally posted by Root16
I haven't read too many posts on this board, but from what I have gathered, most people think the movies are good or great, while a very small handful find them boring, really bad or or just plain no good.

Many of us do think they are good or great, but many of those same people also think there are some serious/ridiculous flaws, additions, and omissions. I'm one; I love the films, but there's some stuff that just p***es me off about them.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Root16
I respect that. I just wish you would give some specifics so I could see if I can see where you're coming from. Everyone once in a while I'll ask myself why I like the films. What's so great about them. Is there really any substance there at all. Or is it all just exposition very well sugar coated?

To answer this - I think there is very little substance to the films. I was looking for intelligent films - not void of action - but more concentrating on the characters and the friendships. Instead Jackson concentrated too much on the action - going so far as to throw out the Gift Giving scene.

Is the execution and cinematic beauty enough?

No - that is not enough. The latest Star Wars movies have that - and I would hardly call them great films.

Should these films have more substance?

yes they should have - as I said above.

An interesting point, seeing as PJ has commented on the first two films just being a lead up to the real pay off, ROTK, that he felt like he had to get through all this exposition that was necessary in the first two films.

"had to get through" that is the type of wording of jackson's I can't stand. He's always saying "couldn't linger, need to move on, needed to get them out of there as soon as possible" That's why the movie is an action movie and why it feels rushed. he has very little characterzation.

[Root16]

had to get through" that is the type of wording of jackson's I can't stand. He's always saying "couldn't linger, need to move on, needed to get them out of there as soon as possible" That's why the movie is an action movie and why it feels rushed. he has very little characterzation.

Yea, I've noticed this too and it has bothered me,

He also said the studio told him they wanted a "roller coster of a film" - So you can see what's influencing him saying these things.

If only we lived in a perfect world. You definately make valid points. Something tells me we are going to get the substance we have been craving in the third film, though.

The sad thing is, being that New Line was funding the film, it is as much their film as PJ's or Tolkien's! So all the blame can't be heaped on PJ. Most of it, in fact, should be directed to New Line.

[Quickbeam]Anway, I think these discussions end up being a moot point.[/Quickbeam]

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Root16
He also said the studio told him they wanted a "roller coster of a film" - So you can see what's influencing him saying these things.

Well then he shouldn't have gone all over the place saying how he was doing the films for the fans and making comments like "I can't change that - the fans would have my head". He had more control than he admits.

If only we lived in a perfect world. You definately make valid points. Something tells me we are going to get the substance we have been craving in the third film, though.

I doubt it - because Jackson isn't that great of a director. And he wants to create an action film. His passed history with the films doesn't make me expect anything better than what he has given.

The sad thing is, being that New Line was funding the film, it is as much their film as PJ's or Tolkien's! So all the blame can't be heaped on PJ. Most of it, in fact, should be directed to New Line.

Actually most should be leveled at Jackson and the writers. NO reason for dwarf tossing jokes or for merry and pippin to act like brain dead idiots. No reason for Aragorn to be a wimp running from his heritage like he is in the movie.

[Quickbeam]Anway, I think these discussions end up being a moot point.[/Quickbeam]

They do end up being moot - but maybe someone on here will be the next director for a Lord of the Rings movie and remember some of the complaints. I'll be waiting for another version and hopefully they will get it right. Jackson fell far short.