RotK: a successful adaptation?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Thorin II
While I liked the movies and the adaptation, I completely agree that Elrond was terrible. I don't know how much of it was PJ and how much was Hugo Weaving, but they portrayed Elrond as bitter and negative. He seemed to be short on wisdom and his lack of faith in Men was particularly odd, given that he's a Half-Elf himself.

I wouldn't say "odd" about his lack of faith in Men, but rather "not portayed well". I did not enjoy Agent Elrond. Either Hugo Weaving is type cast into the Matrix, not a great actor, or both. Actually, my mental blending of Smith and Elrond is only due to the fact that Hugo Weaving has the exact same facial expressions, mannerisms, and voice tones in both characters.

[Sminty_Smeagol]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/...12&rid=1234868

hope this works. You know what's really sad... I kind of agree with the critics lately. After my first viewing of ROTK, I was stunned. I thought it was my favorite of the 3. But after not viewing it for a while... it doesn't hold up well for me. It is kind of surface. It is kind of repetitive and dull in terms of battle scenes. I was kind of like 'give me a break'. There were lovely artistic bits as well... But I think that's pretty much the only think I really like about it, this artistic aspects that went in to it.

I have now decided that the books were definately better than the films... I was questioning that a bit. They have more humanity.

((I think the Tale or Turin should be made in to a film or something... Everyone likes the beren and luthien story but I'm not too fond of that one ))

However, I do disagree entirely about this revier's lengthy bashings of tolkien.... stupid person.

[Uncle Merry]

Well, I live in a famliy of film buffs, and I loved all the films, and I love the books as well, I think they were well made and that we should be happy that we got someone like PJ and not wish we had more. He did a very good job with these films, and had a love for the books that I think is truely importent, you really have no idea how bad they could have been. The most importent thing I have to say is that this is the LOTR films, and not the books, the meaning of the word Cinema means "a moving Picture", which means if you're going to make a film out of the books, don't try to make them just like the books, try to say what Tolkien was trying to say in Cinematic form. Things like Helms Deep, which everyone seems to think was to long, but didn't the battle of Helms Deep take a whole night, and if it did then shouln't he show at least half an hour of it, I mean if your not going to show anything and just say it all happend then there is no point to the film. But if that's what you guys want, a film with just a lot of talking and no cinema, then go read your books and stop being babies about somthing you don't know anything about, and let us enjoy what we think is a work art.

P.S. But I do agree that the last 20 minutes or so were a bit off, but I loved the very last bit and the song for the end cradits I think hit the targit dead on, and if anyone has any to say about what I have sad, I would love to hear it!

Uncle Merry.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
I wouldn't say "odd" about his lack of faith in Men, but rather "not portayed well". I did not enjoy Agent Elrond. Either Hugo Weaving is type cast into the Matrix, not a great actor, or both. Actually, my mental blending of Smith and Elrond is only due to the fact that Hugo Weaving has the exact same facial expressions, mannerisms, and voice tones in both characters.

Yes it is unfortunate that Hugo will never be known as anyone but Agent Smith. I think, for me at least, that is what tarnished his Elrond. I could probably live with the way he acted, if I didn't have to think of him saying "Mr. Anderson" everytime I saw him! lol

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Sminty_Smeagol
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/...12&rid=1234868

hope this works. You know what's really sad... I kind of agree with the critics lately. After my first viewing of ROTK, I was stunned. I thought it was my favorite of the 3. But after not viewing it for a while... it doesn't hold up well for me. It is kind of surface. It is kind of repetitive and dull in terms of battle scenes. I was kind of like 'give me a break'. There were lovely artistic bits as well... But I think that's pretty much the only think I really like about it, this artistic aspects that went in to it.

I have now decided that the books were definately better than the films... I was questioning that a bit. They have more humanity.

((I think the Tale or Turin should be made in to a film or something... Everyone likes the beren and luthien story but I'm not too fond of that one ))

However, I do disagree entirely about this revier's lengthy bashings of tolkien.... stupid person.

I hold no credability to that review that you linked for two reasons.

1) Here is something the reviewer wrote in it:

Tolkien’s massive 1 000 page plus doorstop of a novel also isn’t about much really. Its Manichean concepts of good and evil are too simplistic to take seriously. Ideologues who insist that Tolkien’s novels are some kind of fascist tract however have it wrong. While they reflect Tolkien’s conservatism and dread of modernity (not to mention his racial and chauvinist attitudes), Lord of the Rings is simply something he wrote to pass the time.

I don't think I really need to comment, as I am sure you are all thinking the same thing as I am (ripping this guy's head off and pissing down his neck )

2) The reviewer apparently doesn't agree with all of the users at that website who have given it a 96 out of 100 rating, lol...

[jerseydevil]

All three movies were terrible adaptations.

Contrary to what Thorin II said - "I think it was a very good adaptation. For one thing, I give PJ some leeway based on the idea that his first goal is to make a good film, not to follow the book. Second, I think PJ chose (necessarily) to use a different POV than Tolkien did." Jackson repeatedly went on interviews stating how closely he was staying to the books and how it was "by a fan for the fans". We now know it to be otherwise and is nothing more than an action film.

Look at what people's favorite parts are - the battles, the special effects. These aren't what makes the story of Lord of the Rings - it's the interaction between the characters and that is what most people have the problems with in the movie.

[Millane]

personally i dont think that the battles contribute anything to why i (and most of the people i know who enjoy the movies) like them, if you have seen nearly any half decent violent movie you will know that the battles were not anything special and that claiming better battles than braveheart and gladiator was purely to promote the films and not true... there was good fighting in Fellowship and it got progressively worse as the trilogy went on... you would have thought that they were using cricket bats instead of sharp swords or awes, in Return of the King you see Gandalf hit an orc, his sword bounces off it and then youve got the blood (or lack of) there are a few instances where they show some blood (decapitations and so forth) but it really wasnt that well done, Jackson can do good violent/gory scenes and it saddens me that he didnt ( i bet for bloody ratings reasons )
the main reason i love the movies is the greatness that is portrayed, simple things like the honour of Boromir the loyalty of the Rohirrim to ride to death with Theoden, the portrayal of men and hobbits and occasionally the elves captured some of Tolkiens brilliance (and even a fraction is enough to make a film incredible, the dwarves are another matter ), the acting is superb with the occasional elf wrecking the mood (in particular arwen with her "you saw my son") but on the whole it is hard to complain about the acting because it was all so well done...
ahhh thats enough for now

[Uncle Merry]

Well, I agree with Millana in some ways, I do agree that some of my favorite scenes are not battle scenes, and that they are not realelistic in the bloody sort of way. But I do think that they wore portryed very well, if you which the ROTK preview on the TTT EE, you will see that he was thinking about the structure of the battles and that he didn't want them to be a lot of randome shots of people fighting. Also I very much agree with what Matthew said "but even so i though it was very well done, because i feel the LotR depends more on the overall power fo the story than the accuracy of the battle scenes." that PJ was not trying to make a gorey movie, he was trying to make a moving film, he didn't want you to be moved by how gorey the Ride Of The Rohirrim, but was how brave they were. Also I think the sword fighting was quite well done (even if it isn't gorey), and if you think you can find a swordmaster better then Bob Anderson, he's must likily a Samurei, and I don't think I would like the Samurei Aragorn as much as the kick ass one we already have!

P.S. And I also agree with what Matthew said about Disney, it's so evil! Don't make me say the sick things they put in your minds without you knowing! BURN DISNEY BURN!

[azalea]

I don't put much stock into that reviewer's opinion, either, because of his comments about Tolkien, but he did bring up a good point about Helm's Deep, that most of us could figure out beforehand. PJ spent too much time on Helm's Deep. He should have pulled back from that at least a little, so that when we got to the two big RotK battles, it wouldn't seem repetitive. Not for me, really, but the average moviegoer. Pelennor Fields was supposed to be the topper, and then the Black Gate kind of the last hurrah, not being looked at beforehand as a battle to be won.
I'm not of course saying Helm's Deep should have been cut (I always feel I have to qualify my statements, because people always seem to take one's comments and reply in the extreme ). I just think it could have been shorter and not made the bulk of the movie, the point of it, if you will. It could have been made one part of it, and then the other criticism of that reviewer would have been null, because the time spent would have been given to relationships between the characters, which is how we come to feel sympathy for them, and thus care about the events. My mom liked FotR, but didn't like TT because she said she wasn't led to care about the characters anymore.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by azalea
My mom liked FotR, but didn't like TT because she said she wasn't led to care about the characters anymore.

She's put her finger on it.

These are partially successful adaptations because they did the difficult bit: making that fantasy world believable.

What they didn't do well, especially in TTT and ROTK, were the basics of filmmaking: plot, character and structure. All of these elements were there in the story, they just needed to be a bit more selective and intelligent in how they drew them out on screen.

[Lady Ravyn]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
What they didn't do well, especially in TTT and ROTK, were the basics of filmmaking: plot, character and structure. All of these elements were there in the story, they just needed to be a bit more selective and intelligent in how they drew them out on screen.

On the contrary, I think RotK was my favorite of the 3 films because of its sense of character. I cried through almost the whole thing because of the sheer emotion of it all. I think the four actors who played the hobbits are to be commended the most for their preformance; Merr, Pippin, Frodo, and Sam were probably the most well played personalities in the movie. You could almost feel the Pippin's pain at being seperated from his long-time companion when he left with Gandalf for Minus Tirith; I cried right along with Sam at Frodo's "mood swings" shall we say. I could go on and on.
true, as an adaptation of the book it did NOT come up to par, but if you look at it as a movie, it was the best.

[Millane]

very good points uncle merry, we all know that PJ can disgust people with his gore (might have been Braindead that was banned in Queensland)... but what i dont understand is why he couldnt have had some cuts or anything remotely violent, gimli's axe should have wreaked havoc everytime he got it out but instead he just knocks orcs down the fighting in fellowship was superb, Aragorns fight with Lurtz was incredible and especially in the EE when you see Boromir **** everyone over and then Aragorn do the same to get to boromir, why bother having blood on the swords when you can clearly see they are just bouncing off the fighting could have been done so much better...

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Millane
very good points uncle merry, we all know that PJ can disgust people with his gore (might have been Braindead that was banned in Queensland)... but what i dont understand is why he couldnt have had some cuts or anything remotely violent, gimli's axe should have wreaked havoc everytime he got it out but instead he just knocks orcs down the fighting in fellowship was superb, Aragorns fight with Lurtz was incredible and especially in the EE when you see Boromir **** everyone over and then Aragorn do the same to get to boromir, why bother having blood on the swords when you can clearly see they are just bouncing off the fighting could have been done so much better...

Remember they needed to keep the movies PG-13...

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Remember they needed to keep the movies PG-13...

Why? Don't you rate the movie after you've made it? They could have made exactly what they wanted and have it rated after.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Why? Don't you rate the movie after you've made it? They could have made exactly what they wanted and have it rated after.

They do a lot of tricks to keep the rating down or to get it by the rating people. For instance - in Scream when Drew Barrymore is haning on the tree - they took out frames so it speeded up the shot. They did a lot of that in Gladiator - which I hate - it makes the film jumpy. They cut off Lurtz's head (who wasn't even in the books) in FotR and that was able to still be PG-13. So I agree with you on this regarding TT and RotK - but since I was more interested in the story and the characterization - which Jackson completely screwed up on - I didn't really care too much. Denethor doing a flaming bellyflop and Sam leaving Frodo bothered me more.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Lady Ravyn
On the contrary, I think RotK was my favorite of the 3 films because of its sense of character.

Certainly, the hobbits were the only characters who had any screen time at all to develop their personae.

I wonder if it's our attachment to the book characters that allows the film to take so many shortcuts. As a matter of curiosity: did you already know the story before you saw the films?

Everyone I know who hasn't read them had stopped caring about the characters by the end of the film.

[Lady Ravyn]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Certainly, the hobbits were the only characters who had any screen time at all to develop their personae.

I wonder if it's our attachment to the book characters that allows the film to take so many shortcuts. As a matter of curiosity: did you already know the story before you saw the films?

Everyone I know who hasn't read them had stopped caring about the characters by the end of the film.

I've read the books at least 5 times (i kinda lost count...)
and (at risk of sounding ditzy) what do you mean by short cuts?

[The Gaffer]

I mean how, especially in ROTK, the film makers simply fail to resolve sub-plots.

Take the Eowyn/Aragorn/Faramir love triangle. There are several scenes in TTT dedicated to setting up this story. As we know from the book, Eowyn's heartbreak is resolved in her courage in battle, Eomer's brotherly love, and some good, old-fashioned wooing by Faramir. In ROTK, we get a millisecond glance between the two of them and that's that.

What was the point in including it in TTT at all?

It seems as if they relied on us knowing already what this sub-plot meant and how it was resolved and just inserted a brief, less-than-one-second reference to it. I'm no film-maker, but to my mind, that's not how you go about telling a story.

I understand that it was a very difficult task to address all of the plethora of sub-plots, but in desperately trying to deal with them all, they ended up with a dog's breakfast of jumbled and incoherent plot lines.

Does that make sense?

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

At the risk of being highly repetetive, I think the point of reviewing the movie as an adaptation is not to get caught up on the small, or even the not so small details that they changed. While they did some things that made me squirm in my seat as I watched the movie, I think that Peter Jackson caputered the overall essence of the books, which is why I say it was a good adaptation. The theme, especially, of going through all this hardship and not being able to reconcile it upon returning home, or taking up the leadership of a people, that he captured amazingly well. Yes, I think he could have done a better job, but I think we will see that in the EE DVD in November. Again, there were stories that I missed horribly, and I think it would have been better for seeing the healer side of Aragorn. . .but the struggles of war and death and a soul-destroying journey, and then trying to go home and deal with that. . .that was done pretty well. And it is still visually stunning and beautiful.

[The Gaffer]

Apologies for butting in to ground that has probably already been well covered.

I agree with you, EG, in that the issue should really be about the overall theme and realisation rather than minor details here and there. On that point, I can stand in awe of the production design and applaud their focus on the story's bittersweet "lose it to save it" theme.

However, there's a third element to the general "adaptation" issue, and that's "telling the story well" as a film; that's what they didn't do, in my view. The jumpiness of script editing, and the orphaned sub-plots made it feel, to me, like a clumsy and arbitrary piece of story-telling.

However, I haven't seen the extended editions of TTT and, obviously, ROTK yet, so will retain some optimism.