What All Was Wrong with PJ's LOTR

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by Gordis

And, could someone, please, explain to me, WHY in Osgiliath movie-Faramir let Frodo and Sam go free after witnessing how Frodo in a trance offered the Ring to a Ringwraith and then nearly killed his companion?
Normally Faramir, witnessing such strange behavior, would have been morally obliged to put Frodo somewhere safe - in a deep dungeon or in a fortified mental hospital. Instead, Faramir suddenly decided to let Frodo go free in the direction of the "Witch-King's lair" - so that he could offer the Ring to the Nazgul unhindered, when next they meet

http://www.istad.org/tolkien/faramir.html

This article focuses on the changes in Faramir rather than why he let the Hobbits go after witnessing the impact of the Nazgul's arrival on them. As for the latter, this is not rocket science, my friends. The scene with the Nazgul reinforced to Faramir the impacts of the Ring on its holder, including succeptibility to the Nazgul who where there at the time specifically due to being attracted by the armies and battle. This outcome was one more nail in the coffin of any further thought on Faramir's part of transporting the Ring to his father in the capital city. Far better to let it be carried off alone by the Hobbits.

Was it a poor decision? Based on the end results and outcome, it was anything but.

Gordis, I think your difficulties with this (and other) parts of the movie are not due to them not making internal-to-the-movie sense. It's because your prejudiced - you've decided the movies suck, PJ's changes are lousy, and with due respect, it seems to me that when you approach the changes from this mindset you're setting yourself up to routinely fall somewhere between "I don't understand" and "I can't stand ..."

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Jon S.

Gordis, I think your difficulties with this (and other) parts of the movie are not due to them not making internal-to-the-movie sense. It's because your prejudiced - you've decided the movies suck, PJ's changes are lousy, and with due respect, it seems to me that when you approach the changes from this mindset you're setting yourself up to routinely fall somewhere between "I don't understand" and "I can't stand ..."

Come now, Jon, let's not resort to calling everyone who's critical of the movies prejudiced. I too didn't think much of the way Faramir's decisions were handled in the movie. I can understand and see the reasoning you gave. But just because I still find it weak and that it could have been better handled differently, doesn't make me or anyone else prejudiced against it.

Surely one can find something flawed without this being due to an inflexibility of mind.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I think you underestimate Gordis, Jon, and overestimate Peter Jackson. Prejudice works both ways.

I'm someone who actually liked the movies when they came out because I watched them for enjoyment without a lot of analysis or comparison to the canon. I saw Fellowship of the Ring EIGHT TIMES at the theater. But the movies, even as movies disregarding their relationthip to Tolkien, got progressively worse as the series went on. Then, upon reflection, study, and comparison to Tolkien's canon the flaws began to stand out as more and more egregious. Realizing that most of the flaws were not necessary but just added in for adolescent coolness factor only made it worse.

I don't abhor these films. I own the DVDs, both theatrical and extended editions. But I don't blind myself to their blatant weaknesses just because they say Lord of the Rings on them.

As I said, I think prejudice can work both ways when it comes to evaluation of these films.

Besides, this thread is for criticism of the films. I don't think it is productive to defend them here or to "attack the messenger" as it were.

[Jon S.]

I spend far more time on musicians forums where the banter is rougher and folks less sensitive. I usually adjust to the prevailing mode upon returning here, this time apparently less so, and I recognize that "prejudice" is a loaded word in our culture. My apologies.

This being said, adopting an overall negative view of a director can color one's case-specific judgments on his decisions. I do see this here but will henceforth find a gentler way to express it and/or not post. Thanks.

[Earniel]

No harm done. (Or did you just accuse us of being too sensitive? )

Originally Posted by Jon S.

This being said, adopting an overall negative view of a director can color one's case-specific judgments on his decisions.

I won't deny that. In that view it will be interesting to see how the Hobbit movie will be received, since it'll have another man at the helm.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Jon S.

I spend far more time on musicians forums where the banter is rougher and folks less sensitive. I usually adjust to the prevailing mode upon returning here, this time apparently less so, and I recognize that "prejudice" is a loaded word in our culture. My apologies.

This being said, adopting an overall negative view of a director can color one's case-specific judgments on his decisions. I do see this here but will henceforth find a gentler way to express it and/or not post. Thanks.

Hehe well Jon.. I share your sentiment (definitely on adopting an overall negative view of a director, no matter what..). I coin it OTDFETUFD... Obsessive Tunnel-vision Detail Fixation & Excessive Time Utilization Forum Disorder

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I don't know. I kind of liked that ghost movie with Michael J. Fox in it. The material was clearly more suited to Jackson's abilities and I think he did a good job with it.

[Gordis]

I certainly wasn't prejudiced against PJ when I went to see the "Fellowship". I simply knew nothing about him and didn't care at all what he looked like or what other films he had directed. I simply wanted to see Tolkien's book on screen and hoped it would be good.

But then, watching this "masterpiece" I couldn't help to judge: the film AND the director. The Fellowship was bad enough, but I really didn't undersand how awful it could get before I saw the TT and ROTK and worst of all, the extended ROTK.

Especially grievious is that it were only the director and the scriptwriter who did the loosy job. Props, in contrast, were wonderful. I pity all these costume designers and weapon-makers and the computer guys who made such a wonderful Gollum and nice Fell-beasts - they deserved to work for a better film.

[mithrand1r]

Originally Posted by Gordis

I certainly wasn't prejudiced against PJ when I went to see the "Fellowship". I simply knew nothing about him and didn't care at all what he looked like or what other films he had directed. I simply wanted to see Tolkien's book on screen and hoped it would be good.

But then, watching this "masterpiece" I couldn't help to judge: the film AND the director. The Fellowship was bad enough, but I really didn't undersand how awful it could get before I saw the TT and ROTK and worst of all, the extended ROTK.

Especially grievious is that it were only the director and the scriptwriter who did the loosy job. Props, in contrast, were wonderful. I pity all these costume designers and weapon-makers and the computer guys who made such a wonderful Gollum and nice Fell-beasts - they deserved to work for a better film.

I thought the Props, music, locals used, costumes and special effects were well done.

In fact FOTR was (except for pippin and merry) very good upto Bree.

From there, IMHO, more and more problems (for me) entered the film.

I expected differences between book and movie.

Considering the amount of source material available, I did not expect the movie to need to add material which did not IMO help the story move along.
(This was also annoying since I heard PJ&Co say how you cannot fit everything into 3hr long films, yet they added at least 30-60 minutes of material into each of these films)

Boromir was one character that I thought the movie improved upon. It made him seem more noble, real and understandable to me than he was in the book.

Faramir and Aragorn were not the same characters that I knew from the book.

The Ents seemed inconsistent to me. (even if you only use the film material)

The battle scenes were done well (mostly) and ok to watch, but I could have lived with shorter battle scenes if it meant that the book could have been better adapted onto the screen.

(somewhat ironic since Tolkien spent relatively few pages when describing battles, yet battles take a relatively large portion of the movies.)

Overall, I enjoyed watching the films, but it could have been so much better with the resources available. Separated from the books, the films are not bad. When I consider them as adaptations of the books, I think the films fail at this attempt. At best a C.

http://www.entmoot.com/showpost.php?...0&postcount=21

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by mithrand1r

I thought the Props, music, locals used, costumes and special effects were well done.

Props were very good.
Music was good, IMO, but here I am a poor judge. Yet, I think some scenes would look better with less loud music. Silence is a great addition to horror scenes.
Locals - good, except Rohan (can't imagine horses enjoying these rocky barren lands) and the ridiculous beacons set upon mountain tops of the Hithaeglir.
Costumes were good, except for the nazgul. I can understand why the poor Nine had donned such trashy old robes with frayed edges while on a secret mission, but why in Angband the WK wears the same old cloak at the Pelennor is beyond my understanding. And his helmet... Why not take the old-fashioned steel crown?

Special effects were good in FOTR and I think in TT, but not in ROTK. I hated these unrealistic catapults throwing pieces of masonery huge enough to kill a mumak and breaking walls of Minas Tirith like those of a sand castle.

In fact FOTR was (except for pippin and merry) very good upto Bree.

Even Bree was not that bad. I started to feel sickened only after the wizard kung-fu fight and the ridiculous setting the nazgul on fire at Weathertop. Arwen scratching Aragorn's throat with her sword and muttering spells at the Ford didn't help either. And then I saw Elrond - and that was the end for me. HOW could they choose such an actor for Elrond????

I expected differences between book and movie.

As did I. I am fine with no Tom, no Barrows etc. But why such unnecessary additions and long and boring fights?

Considering the amount of source material available, I did not expect the movie to need to add material which did not IMO help the story move along.
(This was also annoying since I heard PJ&Co say how you cannot fit everything into 3hr long films, yet they added at least 30-60 minutes of material into each of these films)

I second that.

Boromir was one character that I thought the movie improved upon. It made him seem more noble, real and understandable to me than he was in the book.

He was OK. Only why not give him and Faramir dark wigs? Strawberry blondes among the Dunedain... hmm.

Faramir and Aragorn were not the same characters that I knew from the book.

I didn't like them either, esp. Faramir, but I am cool with them. Denethor's portrayal, in contrast, makes me spit and swear.

The Ents seemed inconsistent to me. (even if you only use the film material)

Never cared about them much anyway...

The battle scenes were done well (mostly) and ok to watch, but I could have lived with shorter battle scenes if it meant that the book could have been better adapted onto the screen. (somewhat ironic since Tolkien spent relatively few pages when describing battles, yet battles take a relatively large portion of the movies.)

So much time wasted on that and Aragorn-Arwen additions that could have been used for something vital.


As a matter of fact, the whole battle of Helm's Deep could have been omitted saving the time for the principal scenes: the Parley with Saruman, Gandalf and WK at the Gate, Houses of Healing, Mordor scenes etc.

[mithrand1r]

Originally Posted by Gordis

I didn't like them either, esp. Faramir, but I am cool with them. Denethor's portrayal, in contrast, makes me spit and swear.

I must have blocked my memory. Denethor was a hatchet job. In the book he was much more noble. Unfortunately the strain finally over took him and he went mad with dispair. In the movie, he appeared to be a madman. Sauron may have been an improvement.

Originally Posted by Gordis

So much time wasted on that and Aragorn-Arwen additions that could have been used for something vital.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Gordis

As a matter of fact, the whole battle of Helm's Deep could have been omitted saving the time for the principal scenes: the Parley with Saruman, Gandalf and WK at the Gate, Houses of Healing, Mordor scenes etc.

Not a bad idea. I could have lived without the olympic torch orc.

Bree was a bit darker for my tastes, but I could live with it.

Dark wigs? not a bad thought, but wrong hair color is minor compared to some of the portrayals in the movie. Although this is a minor issue that could have been corrected with little effort.

Regarding battle scenes from ROTK. What about the scrubbing bubbles (army of dead)? They really cleaned up the battlefield of enemies.

Regarding Rohan: Never considered what horses would like. Makes some sense though.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Not to get too far off topic here but I wonder whether there is some reason none of the non-Hobbit women seemed to sport anything more than an A-cup. I wonder if Fran Walsh forbade PJ from casting any women with anything but a boyish figure. Certainly Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchett are beautiful but neither are anything approaching full-figured.

Now that I re-evaluate the title of the thread, I don't suppose I'm off-topic after all. Another flaw in the movie is not enough full-figured women.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts

Not to get too far off topic here but I wonder whether there is some reason none of the non-Hobbit women seemed to sport anything more than an A-cup. I wonder if Fran Walsh forbade PJ from casting any women with anything but a boyish figure. Certainly Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchett are beautiful but neither are anything approaching full-figured.

I think Tolkien always described Elf women as willowy - though I am not sure.

As for Eowyn, she could hardly pass for a man if she had D-cups.
Merry at least should have felt them.

Eowyn

[feawen]

As a fuller figured woman i guess with the above post! why is middle earth filled with boyish hobbit woman and stunning thin flat chested elves? where are all the normal beauties? Inner beauty! Surely the books taught us to not judge by appearances, if a humble hobbit can save the world surely an average looking women exists in middle earth!

so anyway rant over! I am sure you're gone over the whole elves in Helms deep. But my it gets on my wick! It never happened! What did it being to the whole thing? Nothing it being nothing expect from death elves. If you wanted to show that the war was going on in other places stick Legolas on a wall have him look towards home and say people are fighting, just like the books!

Oh and now im started, where was the scoring of the shire. Make a big point that the world will never be the same and at the end the shires not changed oh ya thats good! Not!

And i would have liked to see now of the houses of healing one of my fav bits in the books and you get 3 minutes when you get who knows how long on arwen. Who asks i never liked her anyway!

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

The Houses of Healing could have told the audience so much about Aragorn, his personality, leadership style, and nobility. Instead we have a generation of movie-goers who think the King Elessar is an angst-ridden warrior with self-esteem issues.

[Ant]

Very true about the houses of healing and the scouring of the shire, but I have to admit that if the movie had gone on much longer id likely have died of boredom.

We also have to remember that LOTRs the movie is basically an action movie where the books are if anything...well I guess its a drama. But its the kind of book that you couldn't really put a tag on. Theres so much to it.

With that in mind, there are somethings that are considered important by PJ and many that are considered irrelevant, even to the point of adding things in order to add extra dimensions.

I must say though that perhaps the most irritating thing for me about the movies -and its been said already- is Elrond. That dude who plays him must be THE worst possible choice. He's not handsome. He's not fair to look at. He has really wierd eyebrows..and why does he look so grumpy all the time? When Merry and Pippin come running out at the council and say they're going too...whats with Elronds face?!

[Ant]

(And as for Bombadil, i'm truly glad PJ left him alone. Had he been in the movies, he'd have been a nightmare. PJ would probably have gotten Sly Stallone to play him. Hehe)

[mithrand1r]

Originally Posted by Ant

Very true about the houses of healing and the scouring of the shire, but I have to admit that if the movie had gone on much longer id likely have died of boredom.

I think that the they could have shown the scouring of the shire. I think it would have been difficult to do, since it is easy to make it seem to much of a let down from the defeat of Sauron.

Originally Posted by Ant

We also have to remember that LOTRs the movie is basically an action movie where the books are if anything...well I guess its a drama. But its the kind of book that you couldn't really put a tag on. Theres so much to it.

LOTR was definitely an action film. I think PJ&Co wanted to use the Tolkien name to see as many tickets as possible. In this respect, Mission accomplished. I think the film could still have succeeded if it stayed closer to the source material. The film did a decent job of giving the flavor of LOTR, but it fell short in adapting the book to film.

Originally Posted by Ant

With that in mind, there are somethings that are considered important by PJ and many that are considered irrelevant, even to the point of adding things in order to add extra dimensions.

I must say though that perhaps the most irritating thing for me about the movies -and its been said already- is Elrond. That dude who plays him must be THE worst possible choice. He's not handsome. He's not fair to look at. He has really wierd eyebrows..and why does he look so grumpy all the time? When Merry and Pippin come running out at the council and say they're going too...whats with Elronds face?!

Disappointing characters for me: Aragorn, Frodo, Faramir, Denethor, Merry/Pippin, Awren.

Aragorn: Too wishy washy at times. It seemed that he did not want the kingship.

Frodo: Too much like baggage at times, although he had his moments.

Faramir: Barely recognized him in the movies.

Denethor: Why anyone in Gondor woulf follow this madman is beyond me.

Merry/Pippin: Too much used for comedic relief.

Awren: Tried too hard to expand her role. Could have possibly had her in a flashback with Aragorn.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by feawen

Oh and now im started, where was the scoring of the shire. Make a big point that the world will never be the same and at the end the shires not changed oh ya thats good! Not!

This is where I think the movie-makers handled it well enough. You get to see the scourging in Galadriel's mirror, neatly explaining this will happen in they fail, so if they succeed, Jackson doesn't have to add another 30 minutes of movie. I think it worked well enough, even though it did mess up some of the themes Tolkien included in the book.

And i would have liked to see now of the houses of healing one of my fav bits in the books and you get 3 minutes when you get who knows how long on arwen. Who asks i never liked her anyway!

Ah, the Houses of Healing, I would have loved to see more of that as well! It is a lovely chapter that could have worked on film IMO.

While I agree some pieces of Arwen could have been cut, I do like the fact that the movie shows more of her. In the book, on my first reading, I hadn't had the foggiest where this Elf-woman comes from and who she was. The movie-Arwen has a bit more substance. That said, I had hoped they would have done it differently nevertheless. I quite liked the scene where she's leaving and has a vision of her son, but all the nonsense of her fate being tied to the ring or that silly bit with the nazgul was somewhat a waste of time.

Originally Posted by Ant

I must say though that perhaps the most irritating thing for me about the movies -and its been said already- is Elrond. That dude who plays him must be THE worst possible choice. He's not handsome. He's not fair to look at. He has really wierd eyebrows..and why does he look so grumpy all the time? When Merry and Pippin come running out at the council and say they're going too...whats with Elronds face?!

I don't mind Hugo Weaving, and I'm sure he's a good actor, but he is just not Elrond. The frown, oh the needless frown! Why? Elrond, who is described as wise and kind as summer, a grumpy frowning guy? No, no, no. I'm pretty sure the man's capable of a smile. I blame mis-directing on this one.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Not to dwell on the Arwen thing but in the book it was supposed to be a surprise. We were supposed to wonder why in the world Aragorn didn't go for Eowyn, and what his cryptic explanations really meant. I personally liked the mystery not being revealed until the end. It was for us the readers just as it was for Frodo and the Fellowship.

As for not having time to add Scouring, Houses, etc. I never thought this story was suited to a theatrical set of movies in the first place. Make it a full-season miniseries on HBO or Showtime and show EVERYthing. That would have been awesome.