Ebert's review

[Elfhelm]

You think the story is silly? You think people only read Tolkien to escape reality?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
You think the story is silly? You think people only read Tolkien to escape reality?

I do think a lot of people read Tolkien to escape reality. I do think that Jackson's films are silly and cliched and dumbed down.

You know - a person can agree with Eberts opinions on the film without agreeing with his supposed feelings of the books.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
You only seek clarification because you want something concrete to flame me about. If you don't know what I meant, I don't think you ever will. But I think you do. I think you just like to fight.

I'll have you know I haven't flamed anyone in ... *thinks* ... well, a while. Are you volunteering to break my dry spell? That would be fun.
And I asked because I DO NOT know who you meant.

This thread is supposed to be about Ebert's review. I think it's only typical of this site that one or two people can't get over the fact that LotR is successful even though they don't like it and they turn every thread into a fight with anyone who likes it.

I posted about Ebert's review. I think he's far more qualified to give a review of a movie than any of you blind, ignorant sheep are.

Here's a quote from a George song, if it means anything to you:

"Still the crowds came pouring in
Some had hoped to see him fail
Filling their hearts with jealousies
Crazy people with love so frail."

It means everything to me.

Now can we get back to Ebert?

I have always said that there are good qualities of this film. The special effects were outstanding, the models superb, the costumes breath taking, the skill of the props and weapons makers was wonderful.

I do not think the movie was a proper tribute or representation of Tolkien's stories. And I can say this because I am not jealous, nor do I hope for him to fail. I so wanted him to succeed that it was painful to see PJ's work on the screen.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
You think the story is silly? You think people only read Tolkien to escape reality?

You are a blind sheep. I said...

I happen to agree with the majority of what Ebert said in his critique of the movies.

I think the screenplay made parts silly that were never meant to be silly.

Why would a Tolkien reader think that 'people only read Tolkien to escape reality'? You are in desperate need of a public flogging. Are you bating me?

[Elfhelm]

Ruinel, you must be kidding around with me, eh?

I'll ignore the "sheep" and "flogging" in the spirit of fun, but...

That it falls a little shy of greatness is perhaps inevitable. The story is just a little too silly to carry the emotional weight of a masterpiece. It is a melancholy fact that while the visionaries of a generation ago, like Coppola with "Apocalypse Now," tried frankly to make films of great consequence, an equally ambitious director like Peter Jackson is aiming more for popular success. The epic fantasy has displaced real contemporary concerns, and audiences are much more interested in Middle Earth than in the world they inhabit.

Yes, he refers to the movie in one sentence, but the rest of that paragraph shows that he is one of the people who will strive to prevent any fantasy film from getting awards because he obviously looks down on the genre. I happen to feel upset about it because I am a writer.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Yes, he refers to the movie in one sentence, but the rest of that paragraph shows that he is one of the people who will strive to prevent any fantasy film from getting awards because he obviously looks down on the genre. I happen to feel upset about it because I am a writer.

Well maybe you should be more upset with the fact that if jackson had done the movie closer to the books - he might have truly have seen a GREAT movie in that genre and changed his opinion of the genre - instead of seeing the same old same old fantasy hackfest.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
You think people only read Tolkien to escape reality?

That's one of the reasons I read it. (One of many.)


I was originally put off by his apparent lack of knowledge of both the books and the movies, but he does have several worthwhile points to make about the movies:

The second film was inconclusive, and lost its way in the midst of spectacle. But "Return of the King" dispatches its characters to their destinies with a grand and eloquent confidence. This is the best of the three, redeems the earlier meandering, and certifies the "Ring" trilogy as a work of bold ambition at a time of cinematic timidity.

Still, Jackson's achievement cannot be denied. "Return of the King" is such a crowning achievement, such a visionary use of all the tools of special effects, such a pure spectacle, that it can be enjoyed even by those who have not seen the first two films.

In a scene where Gandalf rides his horse across the drawbridge and up the ramped streets of the city, it's remarkable how seamlessly Jackson is able to integrate computer-generated shots with actual full-scale shots, so they all seem of a piece.

Enormous bestial Trolls pull back the springs for catapults to hurl boulders against the walls and towers of Minas Tirith, which fall in cascades of rubble (only to seem miraculously restored in time for a final celebration).

There is little enough psychological depth anywhere in the films, actually, and they exist mostly as surface, gesture, archetype and spectacle.

[Elfhelm]

I was moved at many points to tears. I felt a lot of emotional depth and I felt they were very relevant to our times. And everyone else I speak with feels the same. The only place I ever see the opposite opinion is here. I have to conclude that the moot is out of touch with the rest of humanity. I hope people take that in a friendly light. I don't mean it in any derogatory way.

p.s. Nurv, thanks for the kind words. I'll just avoid the thread for a while because I don't want to argue with people. Sorry it came off the other way.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
I was moved at many points to tears. I felt a lot of emotional depth and I felt they were very relevant to our times. And everyone else I speak with feels the same.

So - there were some emotional scenes. that doesn't mean that the movies don't jump around and that there is very poor continuation of plot lines. It doesn't mean that there are lame jokes.

The only place I ever see the opposite opinion is here. I have to conclude that the moot is out of touch with the rest of humanity. I hope people take that in a friendly light. I don't mean it in any derogatory way.

maybe because this is a TOLKIEN site - not a Jackson site. I don't base my opinions on others. I don't care if everyone in the world liked this movie - I don't. I think it was just an average movie.

I was looking forward to Lord of the Rings when it was first announced it was being filmed. I am just very disappointed by it and don't like the bait and switch Jackson did from the interviews he gave before they came out - and then the noted difference afterward.

[Nurvingiel]

I don't think we're out of touch with humanity, but rather, we don't reflect all "groups" equally. Who would post on a Tolkien message board? Only a die hard fan of the books, movies, or both. Many people here are book fans first, movie fans second.

This leads to a harsher criticism of the movies being posted here than if you were to ask random people on the street what they thought.

And, why not? We're, for the most part, knowledgable about Tolkien and enjoy talking about both the books and the movies.

[Wayfarer]

Elfhelm, if the only place you've ever seen criticism of the films is here, I think you're the one that's out of touch. I've heard Jackson criticised for various things since his first film came out, and many of the complaints I've raised were those I first heard from people who had never read the books.

I was once, as you are still, blinded to the movies by the fact that they were at least based on Tolkien's Middle Earth. I have since gotten over that- it's time some of you did as well.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
I was once, as you are still, blinded to the movies by the fact that they were at least based on Tolkien's Middle Earth. I have since gotten over that- it's time some of you did as well.

You were at one time blinded by the films? Was I the only one that didn't like the movies from the first 12:01am showing of FotR?

I thought you were like me and disliked the movies from the first time they showed Sauron in that stupid outfit thing and then when merry and Pippin first opened their mouth - when Aragorn pulled out a fully forged sword at bree, or when the Council of Elrond turned into a screaming match, or when ice-Queen galadriel was shown, or the wizards duel, or the birthing of the Uruk-Hai, etc. I felt it was no need to mention Flight to the Ford.

[Wayfarer]

Oh, to be sure, I saw all those things to start with. But I was blinded by the fact that it was at least loosely based on Tolkien. I wanted it to be good, and so I refused to admit to myself that it wasn't. I tried to convince myself using all the standard things you hear around here (look at them as movies, take it with a grain of salt) and when at the end of several months I couldn't make myself believe that FOTR wasn't a bad movie. So I admitted what, in retrospect, had been obvious all along.

[jerseydevil]

I saw FotR 8 times in the theater (twice the day it opened, 12:01am and 9:30pm) trying to like it - because it was Lord of the Rings - but my opinion never changed no matter how I much I tried to like the movies.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Ruinel, you must be kidding around with me, eh?

errrrrrrrr... sssssuuuuuuure, of course I was kidding around.

I'll ignore the "sheep" and "flogging" in the spirit of fun, but...

gasp!!! ...erk! ... must be... good.... ACK!!!... NOT.... bad... ACK!!! ... good!!!... ACK!!!

[Wayfarer]

*pokes Ruinel with a stick, just to see what happens*

[brownjenkins]

jerseydevil
Tyey can enjoy the movies. But if they say that there was no way Jackson could do it better or if they don't criticise Jackson for no mistakes - then I do question whether they are a true fan. A fan is a person who loves the books, not just the story line, or one or two characters. I don't really care who enjoys the film.

this is where i lose you... being a fan of the book has absolutely nothing to do with how one views the movie... they are two completely different things... and on the criticism issue, some people are the glass half empty type, others are the glass half full type, live and let live

i love stephen king too... i love his book "the shining" and i love the movie... both are very different (in fact SK, didn't like kubrick's movie very much because it was so changed)... but i keep the two separate... i would no more say that someone who likes the movie must not be a fan of the book than i would say that someone who hates the movie must be a fan of the book

if you want to say that someone who likes PJs films has bad taste in movies, so be it... but, don't judge other's respect and/or dedication to the written works of tolkien unless they are talking about the book

Ruinel
I know this isn't addressed to me, however, I'll put my 2 cents in anyway. I think someone can enjoy the films and still be a fan of the books. But if you can't see the obvious mistakes in the changes that were made for the obvious sake of action and submission to Hollywoodizing this film, then I have to say you are a blind fan. That's my opinion.

i can see the mistakes, and have pointed them out in other threads... they just don't bother me... or more importantly, compromise my enjoyment of the parts i liked in the film... it's a matter of attitude as i said above

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
this is where i lose you... being a fan of the book has absolutely nothing to do with how one views the movie... they are two completely different things... and on the criticism issue, some people are the glass half empty type, others are the glass half full type, live and let live

Then they never really cared if Lord of the Rings was made into a film - that is fine. But if one claims to be a fan of the books - then I would assume that they would want the movies to resemble and be a good representation of the books they claim to love so much.

It is impossible to look at them completely on their own - if you are a true fan of the books. You may be able to forgive somethings - but it would be impossible to say that one doesn't expect the movies to live up to some standard of the book.

i love stephen king too... i love his book "the shining" and i love the movie... both are very different (in fact SK, didn't like kubrick's movie very much because it was so changed)... but i keep the two separate... i would no more say that someone who likes the movie must not be a fan of the book than i would say that someone who hates the movie must be a fan of the book

I read the books and I have seen the movies - and the movies are generally not very good. I can forgive the changes in the movie - because I don't care that much about Steven King. I liked his books - I do not consider myself a fan. However I do not think that either movie lives up to the book.

if you want to say that someone who likes PJs films has bad taste in movies, so be it... but, don't judge other's respect and/or dedication to the written works of tolkien unless they are talking about the book

Why not? As I said above - if they don't care how their supposed favorite book is portrayed on the screen I do question their actual love of the books. They most likely just "like the books" if they aren't upset by some of the major problems and changes.

i can see the mistakes, and have pointed them out in other threads... they just don't bother me... or more importantly, compromise my enjoyment of the parts i liked in the film... it's a matter of attitude as i said above

What I was referring to - were people who keep saying how there were no problems with Jackson's movies and that we should just forgive him for any mistakes - because no one could do it better. If one finds nothing wrong with Jackson's movies and yet claim to love Tolkien - I do wonder if they are a true fan of the books. Because the movies have the same title, it is impossible to keep them completely seperate.

[Anglorfin]

I have to say that when FotR first came out I was appalled. I didn't like it in the least. But as the year wore on and EVERBODY else I talked to remarked on how I was too much of a purist and that I should just let things go I relaxed a little. That is, until TTT came out. I was appalled by TTT, but at the same time it made me appreciate what Jackson had done in FotR a little bit more. I didn't fall for the spectacle in TTT at all. I thought a lot of it was unnecessary and wrong. Not that I didn't enjoy the battles or the little 'extras' but as a whole the mood was just too different.

And as for Rotk I of course had to see it. I have to say of the three it was both the best and worst. Best because it obviously brought so many things to a close and finished the story. Because of this it only makes sense that there should be a lot of emotion involved. Worst because it also forgot to do a lot of things. I understand the time constraints in a movie but nonetheless some parts still seemed inconclusive. Also, enough of the feeling was changed as to stir slightly different emotions, or even confusion. I must admit that if I didn't read the books a lot of what I felt wouldn't be there as strongly. Only because I knew what I was supposed to feel was I able to feel it during the movies. For instance, looking back from a movie perspective, the very ending where Frodo leaves would not have held as much emotion if I had not read the books. There were still questions to be answered in regards to that little piece. Like why exactly he was allowed and where exactly he was going. (One would hope that this would be enough to spark a layperson's interest in the books) But this curiosity would infect the pure emotion that was supposed to be felt, and erode it into something significantly less in my eyes.

So in conclusion it's hard for anyone to separate books from movies from an emotional standpoint, but the separation is very very apparent from a literary standpoint. This is where I think a lot of the confusion lies. People understand that they are two different entities on an outer level without really exploring the subtle shifts on the emotional level. It's harder to do that I think because the emotions have become part of us through reading so it's hard to look at the movies with a clean slate in that respect.




On another note about Ebert's remark:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is little enough psychological depth anywhere in the films, actually, and they exist mostly as surface, gesture, archetype and spectacle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Didn't Tolkien create or 'renew' many of the archetypes within the fantasy genre? I thought it was mostly due to his characters that their personalities became archetypal in many later works of the genre.

[brownjenkins]

it's not impossible to keep the movies and the books separate... it is impossible for you to keep the books and the movies separate... i was hoping that you could learn to accept the fact that some people are different in the way they appreciate a creative work and its interpretations, even if you cannot understand this POV (see my sig)

allow people to express there likes and dislikes without attacking their integrity, either directly or implicitly... flame the film, not the poster

btw - good point on archetypes Anglorfin, i think most people forget how much tolkien had to do with bringing those mythological archetypes back into the literary world