Peter Jackson has improved Tolkien

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by bropous
Oh, you mean the cross between a balrog, a middle ages demon and Doctor Frank N. Furter?

yeah, he was a horny devil...

Kubrick could have done magic with Tolkien. Too bad he did not try it.

Yes, it's too bad he was getting too old by the time the CG was good enough to pull it off. Judging by Barry lyndon he would have no problem letting it run a bit long to complete the story. He wouldn't change the story just for a bit more popularity among the pre-teens either.

[markedel]

I enjoyed the movie-but in some parts the relation to the book was only in passing.

[bropous]

Absolutely agreed, Cirdan.

[LuthienTinuviel]

Luthien Tinuviel: I don't hate the movie anymore--I hate BB instead. Hey...he did it!!! The man's brilliant

correction, i never hated the movie.
correction your not brilliant. your dumber than ham.

AND I LOVED LEGEND!
your absolutley right he could have done a sweet job on LotR! hmm i should rent that... i haven't seen it in a while.

haha it was funny, the first time i saw legend, i woke up at three am and it was on commercial free, so im sitting there totally enthralled and wondering what the hell i was watching. things are trippy when your half asleep and legend makes it even more so!

[BeardofPants]

You know, we should all make a point of ignoring BB, since it is increasingly obvious that he is not after an intellectual debate at all, but rather, is more interesting in stirring up the ants nest and getting reactions from us.

I would liked to have seen kubrick's version of LOTR... would have been a bit bleak though, knowing him. Ridley Scot is a bit dubious - he has his good moments, and then he'll produce a turkey like G.I Jane or Black Hawk Down.

[Black Breathalizer]

I'm the only one who has offered any discussion points in the past few pages. The rest of you obviously feel the only way you can offer a comeback to my iron-clad arguements is to attack me personally.

[Sween]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
You know, we should all make a point of ignoring BB, since it is increasingly obvious that he is not after an intellectual debate at all, but rather, is more interesting in stirring up the ants nest and getting reactions from us.

Yeah mate stop stiring up trouble thats what i excell at

he doesnt do it as well as me though you see BB the secreat is not to get them to direct it at you but set them against each other

Heres a tip insult america and jerseydevil will come running

[Lizra]

What a tip Sween! I kind of thought it was sort of.... be liberal in your foriegn affairs, or conservative with everything else, (and JD will come running) is this accurate JD?

[Gerbil]

Tim Curry is excellent - I don't think I've seen him in a film (no matter how bad) where he doesn't impart something special to his character. Legend is cool - from the cheesy yet cool Tangerine Dream soundtrack, via Unicorns (stupid woman!) and the Devil to the constant floaty dandeliony stuff in the air (a 'prop' Ridley was later to use again in Gladiator at the end with all the rose petals in the air). Hell, he even got a young Tom Cruise in there
Almost as good as Labyrinth, but that's only cos I like David Bowie and Jennifer Connolly in that film is simply the most gorgeous girl ever to have existsed ever.

[Cirdan]

When I watched The Count of Monte Cristo the other day, Eichard Harris struck as someone who would make an excellent Gandalf. Ireally liked Ian's portrayal but there was something about Harris than struck me as closer to Gandalf.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
You know, we should all make a point of ignoring BB, since it is increasingly obvious that he is not after an intellectual debate at all, but rather, is more interesting in stirring up the ants nest and getting reactions from us.

I would liked to have seen kubrick's version of LOTR... would have been a bit bleak though, knowing him. Ridley Scot is a bit dubious - he has his good moments, and then he'll produce a turkey like G.I Jane or Black Hawk Down.

The only good thing about GI Jane was that Viggo was in it and he bashed Demi Moore. Ahh, he looked good in shorts. Sorry, about that, couldn't help myself. I only watched Black Hawk Down to see Orli, then I was bored after about half an hour of constant gun fighting, so I stopped watching it.

I think BB is just a troll, maybe he should go out in the sun....

[theworkhorse]

Its 4 am., I had nothing better to do than reread this whole thread.
BB, I had some questions for you, because I do not understand your argument. It seems you idea has become clouded by the intense bantering of this thread. I cannot figure out how you have come up with this.

When you say Jackson has improved Tolkien, (the title of your thread), do you mean only small parts of the story, or the entire story as we have seen it so far?
-the title would imply entirety, but your arguments retract from that stance a bit.
-can improvement be anything but an all or nothing thing?

How do you measure improvement? Is there any non-subjective scale we can use?
-I have read this tread over and over, but I have not seen alot that is not subjective.
-

Earlier in the tread, you asserted that Pete's film would become the definitive version, (similar to the "Wizard of Oz"). Is that true for the masses in general, or only the people who see the movies and also read the book, (assume movies seen before books read)?

If someone hated the movie, thought it could be better, or thought it was a good movie but not an improvement, are they necessarlity a purist?
-some people who have not read the books may have found the movie boring or poorly done. Obviously, they would never appear on this Moot, if these existed, do they affect this thread at all?
-can someone who read the books be critical of the movie, as a movie?

I am afraid your initial statement is so controversial, some people, (myself included), are immediately dismissive. It seems your message has been muddled by anger, replies that are too quick, and ideas that are not clearly expressed.

Can you explain these things to me so I can understand what you are exactly proposing? I love when people have ideas that no one else agrees with. Makes us rethink why we believe what we believe. When everyone agrees, life is boring and evolution of ideals stunted.

theworkhorse

[Black Breathalizer]

I would like to thank theworkhorse for his efforts to get this thread back on topic.

Originally posted by theworkhorse
BB, I had some questions for you, because I do not understand your argument...When you say Jackson has improved Tolkien, (the title of your thread), do you mean only small parts of the story, or the entire story as we have seen it so far?

I have *tried* to make it clear throughout this thread that I thought that Peter Jackson improved the storyline and characterizations in SOME places of Tolkien's story. The ONLY way anyone can confer anything otherwise from this thread is the title of the thread itself. If you want to argue that my title should have been more clear, I'll grant you that.

Originally posted by theworkhorse
How do you measure improvement? Is there any non-subjective scale we can use?

Most professional writers, English professors, and film critics would agree with my points. Like doctors, there is always room for professionals to disagree, hence second opinions.

Originally posted by theworkhorse
Earlier in the tread, you asserted that Pete's film would become the definitive version, (similar to the "Wizard of Oz"). Is that true for the masses in general, or only the people who see the movies and also read the book, (assume movies seen before books read)?

My point was simply that in future years more people will watch the flims than see the books. So for these people, the film will represent their understanding of LOTR. The books will always be the definitive version for anyone who reads them. I'm was just making a comment that we're increasingly becoming a film-watching versus book-reading society.

Originally posted by theworkhorse
If someone hated the movie, thought it could be better, or thought it was a good movie but not an improvement, are they necessarlity a purist? Can someone who read the books be critical of the movie, as a movie?

I find it hard to believe that anyone can love LOTR and not like anything about the movie. Sure, there are things we can all nit-pick about. But there are posters here who at least claimed that they found nothing good about the first film. If they liked the movie -- or at least parts of it, I've no problem with that. But when Tolkien fans say they disliked (or downright hated) because of eye-rolling dialogue, corny music, and because it just doesn't stand out as something different from the rest of the fantasy genre, I have to wonder what is really going on here.

Most fans I know love the movie while remaining enough of a nit-picker to wish they could have directed one or two scenes. But pardon me if I find it odd that some self-professed Tolkien fans are dismissing the movie entirely. If you liked parts of the movie, then I'm NOT talking about you. But there are some here who have said the movie didn't do it for me at all--and you people know who you are.

Originally posted by theworkhorse
I am afraid your initial statement is so controversial, some people, (myself included), are immediately dismissive. It seems your message has been muddled by anger, replies that are too quick, and ideas that are not clearly expressed.

As I mentioned once before on this thread, nothing I've posted has been meant to be taken personally and I haven't taken anything written here personally (except for Luthien Tinuviel's posts. She's hurt me deeply.) All of this stuff is meant to be fun so I would ask you all to always assume there is a big wink face on anything that's obviously meant to be provoking or just plain silly.

Originally posted by theworkhorse
Can you explain these things to me so I can understand what you are exactly proposing? I love when people have ideas that no one else agrees with. Makes us rethink why we believe what we believe.

To be continued...

[Black Breathalizer]

Here is my list of areas where I thought Peter Jackson's script made the overall story better (thus, dare I say it?, improving Tolkien):

1. No Tom Bombadil. He was unnecessary to the book and a welcomed omission from the movie.

2. Increased drama and tension with the ferry scene. Having the riders chase the hobbits to the ferry was cool.

3. The increased sense of drama and tension in Rivendell. I loved Elrond's line, "The Ring cannot stay here." Reading the book, you understand the Rivendell will eventually become an island in a sea of darkness. But you don't get a sense that there is any immediate danger. The change, while absolutely necessary for a movie, added an extra element of tension.

4. Moria. It was absolutely incredible. Okay, to be honest, Jackson didn't improve on Tolkien here, but he certainly captured the magic of Tolkien's descriptions and gave us stunning visuals. More than that, he gave us an action/adventure sequence that while fantastical, was grounded in a sense of reality that made the audience feel and understand the terror of the Fellowship's predicament.

5. Boromir. We have discussed this before. One of Jackson's biggest improvements on the story was to give us a more well-rounded and human Boromir than Tolkien did. And for every person here who rolls their eyes at Bean's "My brother..." line, there are a 1000 who find it the most heartwrenching moment of the film.

6. The Breaking of the Fellowship. Jackson's version works better. I've talked about it before and don't need to go into it again.

7. Frodo. Jackson and Woods took some risks with Frodo and, in doing so, gave audiences a well-rounded person that millions of people identify with (even though he is a "hobbit") while staying true to the character that Tolkien created. Some of you disagree with this statement but the aspects of Frodo's character that people here seem to have problems with are in the book. The issue is really just the level of emphasis.

8. Aragorn. Jackson and Viggo not only captured Tolkien's great action hero, but they really dug into the character to bring out qualities in Aragorn that made him more well-rounded and believable. Again, those qualities were not created by Jackson, he just brought them to the surface in a way that made Tolkien's great warrior come to life.

Is everything in the movie an improvement on Tolkien. Of course not. But while I can be accused of misleading readers here with my thread title, I have yet to have any of you clearly articulate why I am wrong. Tell me why Tolkien's Boromir is so much better than the character Sean Bean gave us? Tell me how much better it was to have Frodo leave everyone without a word? Share with us why the highlighting of Aragorn's insecurity and temptations was a bad thing. Tell us why Tom Bombadil was necessary to the story?

Originally posted by theworkhorse
When everyone agrees, life is boring and evolution of ideals stunted.

Amen.

[durin's bane]

Yes, though I've got my complaints, I still think that a live-action movie is the best thing to ever happen to the LOTR world.

Lothlorien was fantastic. It was just like how it was described in the book! It really gave me that kind of "mysterious, and yet so open" feeling. Seeing the movie first really helped me understand Tolkien's work better (all that long describing can confuse me). Yes, sure there's things in the movie that are left to be desired, but it's a good movie nonetheless.

[Black Breathalizer]

The best part about Jackson's Lothlorien, durin's bane, is that the best is yet to come. The Extended FOTR DVD is supposed to give us ALOT more of Lothlorien than we got the first time around.

[durin's bane]

Really? Oh man, I wish I had a DVD player!

[markedel]

You have your points BB-and the changes were necessary to make a good movie. However to they simplify several multilayered concepts, and its this complexity that makes the story more then just a good yarn. The movie is a great adventure but not much else. The book approaches the grandeur of myth-which is the point.

Not that I mind the movie as the movie, its just that there's no point comparing them.

[Gerbil]

1. No Tom Bombadil. He was unnecessary to the book and a welcomed omission from the movie.

That sounds like you've copied and pasted directly from some other source. It also shows you don't understand the importance of Tom Bombadil in Middle Earth as a whole. Try re-reading the council of Elrond bit where they discuss him. I don't mind the fact that his bit was cut, since they cut it cleanly, and I have fears he'd have come across as some camp dwarf. That it meant we get the awful and meaningless and just plain stupÃ*d scene of Aragorn giving the hobbits weapons was a very good case for it being included though - this section (especially given the significance of the swords in the RotK) introduces more problems than it solves.

2. Increased drama and tension with the ferry scene. Having the riders chase the hobbits to the ferry was cool.

This is not an improvement on the book at all. It IS however, a fairly standard screenplay adaptation feature. Replace hidden menace and slow build up of unknown terrors for a real 'enemy' and also allows a few jumpy moments (not famed for their effectiveness in print).

3. The increased sense of drama and tension in Rivendell. I loved Elrond's line, "The Ring cannot stay here." Reading the book, you understand the Rivendell will eventually become an island in a sea of darkness. But you don't get a sense that there is any immediate danger. The change, while absolutely necessary for a movie, added an extra element of tension.

You mean the increased sense of stupidity and ignorance in Rivendell surely? Gandalf is made to seem like a bumbling old ignorant arse being talked down to by Elrond (who is one of the few people who 'knows' Gandalf's true identity and as such is most likely to hold him in reverence). Gandalf's plan was never to let the Ring stay there, and Elrond knew. I won't even bother going into the plot inconsistencies that allowed Elrodon time to send a messenger safely to Minas Tirith for Boromir and back etc. etc. (which I think they clarify somewhat in the extended DVD thank God). The Council is a joke - the Dwarven hatred of elves hammed up to stupid levels (and to be immediately forgotten when the fellowship is chosen), Boromir's insolence to Aragorn (totally stupid, plus if they knew there was an heir to the throne why the hell were they not looking for him?), not to mention Elrond's smuggness. Oh and of course the 'oh so amusing' comedy moments of Pippin at the end degenerate a powerful and important moment into farce.

4. Moria. It was absolutely incredible. Okay, to be honest, Jackson didn't improve on Tolkien here, but he certainly captured the magic of Tolkien's descriptions and gave us stunning visuals.

Moria is indeed a fantastic sequence as a whole, and the Balrog is truly astounding, I must admit. Here is where PJ gets as close to what I feel Tolkien wanted to portray. But even here he's way off. Trolls are too big for me but that's a personal preference. The famous circus trick of orcs climbing the walls merely for the sake of 1 or 2 camera shots has to be one of the stupidest mistakes ever made on film. Makes a mockery of any scene involving orcs in battles in future. Gosh - helm's deep, there's a huge wall in the way. LADDERS! Except of course they should be able to simply climb over and around it etc. etc.

Oops, running out of space - TBC.

[Gerbil]

5. Boromir. We have discussed this before. One of Jackson's biggest improvements on the story was to give us a more well-rounded and human Boromir than Tolkien did.

Boromir is practically royalty - plus he has a very high (prideful) opinion of himself. He's not MEANT to come across as your kindly next door neighbour. Evreything hinted about Minas Tirith portrays the nobility and pride dumbed down massively. A mistake. The one good thing they did do was portray his relationship with Pippin and Merry correctly.

6. The Breaking of the Fellowship. Jackson's version works better. I've talked about it before and don't need to go into it again.

Certainly not, since most people think you are wrong. It works well in the film, but the book is better.

7. Frodo. Jackson and Woods took some risks with Frodo and, in doing so, gave audiences a well-rounded person that millions of people identify with (even though he is a "hobbit.

What is your obsession with getting a 'more rounded person'?. Characters can be developed without being more rounded. Tolkien uses the differences of people and races to emphasise specific points.

8. Aragorn. Jackson and Viggo not only captured Tolkien's great action hero, but they really dug into the character to bring out qualities in Aragorn that made him more well-rounded and believable. Again, those qualities were not created by Jackson, he just brought them to the surface in a way that made Tolkien's great warrior come to life.

Erm, I think someone earlier in the thread asked if you had read a different LotR to everyone else, because this last statement certainly adds weight to the arguement. Of all your points, this one is definately the one where I'd go 'You doth speak utter crap'. A lot of your points will always come down to opinion, but here you are quite clearly wrong. Aragorn in the movie is a man riddled with self-doubt and weakness who overcomes this. From hints about the TTT, he's also going to have a few problems 'keeping it in his trousers' so to speak. Tolkien's Aragorn is totally different, character- and motivation-wise. Of that there is no doubt. The one saving grace is that Viggo does an amazing job with the rubbish material Jackson has given him. So Aragorn comes across well in the film. All credit to Viggo, none to PJ and Co.
Oh, and I noticed you were pleased yet again he was more rounded a character