RotK: a successful adaptation?

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Expanding her role is one thing - showing her love for Aragorn is one thing - changing her role at the Flight to the Ford is something completely different. The original version was fine for the movies and WOULD have worked.

I never said it wouldn't. In fact, I never said I liked what they did to Flight to the Ford. But that wasn't what I was referring to, and not what I thought you were referring to.

Can you please show me where I said the movies could NOT alter anything from the books?

It was implied. Perhaps I interpreted wrong. But you seem to be very much attached to the books. . .and I can accept even the changes I didn't like because I am capable of looking at them as seperate entities.

You see - I don't have to get over it - they're my opinions. Why don't you just get over it? Just because he may not have the same idea with what is staying close to the book is - way too much was changed for him to even claim it was close to the book.

It wasn't your opinions I was telling you to get over, it was your attitude. Again, he may have a different interpretation of "staying close to the book." I do to. I have hold nothing against your opinions and everything against your way of thinking that everyone sees the world the same as you. But that's your sacred opinion, isn't it, so we'll just leave that be then.

Yeah - he brought Arwen back to the way she was in book in the end because he had to. Initially as is demonstrated in FotR - she was going to be Xen-Elf going off to Helm's Deep. With the outcry from BOOK fans - he had to bring her back closer to the books.

I don't know how you can be so sure of his motives. Did you talk to him? Apparently you are incapable of seeing any good in him, only the bad.

Pippin and Merry were strictly brain dead comic relief and Gimli was mostly comic relief. Gandalf was a dottering old fool - I have said all this aobut the characters - and yes - I do have a problem with them. Come on - Gandalf pushing the gates of Moria inward when he KNOWS the only open outward. Why did he do that in the movies? Because Jackson wanted the cliched cheap laugh. Ha ha - gandalf just tried pushing the stone in - duh duh.

I thought the characters of Merry and Pippin were quite redeemed in Return of the King. Again, how are you so certain of his motives?

it's avalid reason for SOME changes - not the MAJORITY of the changes. And he made MANY mistakes - not minor mistakes.

Since when did the word many become synonomous with major? He made some mistakes. He's not perfect. Neither are you, nor anyone else for that matter. And I think it's a perfectly valid reason for the majority of the changes, actually. And that's my opinion.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
I never said it wouldn't. In fact, I never said I liked what they did to Flight to the Ford. But that wasn't what I was referring to, and not what I thought you were referring to.

Well that is an example among many that was changed from the books that didn't need to be.

It was implied. Perhaps I interpreted wrong. But you seem to be very much attached to the books. . .and I can accept even the changes I didn't like because I am capable of looking at them as seperate entities.

I have said over and over again - as have all the other people who don't like the movies - that we were not expecting a page by page books to screen version.

I am capable of looking at them as seperate entities too - but I don't even really care for them as films. Except for special effects - there isn't much left to the movies.

As for completely seperating them - it's impossible - they share the SAME title. Jackson had a RESPONSIBILITY to live up to Tolkien if he wanted to use Lord of the Rings as the title.

It wasn't your opinions I was telling you to get over, it was your attitude.

And why should I? I don't like his movies.

Again, he may have a different interpretation of "staying close to the book." I do to. I have hold nothing against your opinions and everything against your way of thinking that everyone sees the world the same as you. But that's your sacred opinion, isn't it, so we'll just leave that be then.

See the problem I have - is that I TRUSTED him in his early interviews BEFORE the movies came out - and I agreed with him on his comments on staying close to the books and his examples. I felt betrayed and cheated after they came back. I don't think you really followed his early interviews I guess. Maybe you didn't even really know they were coming out until AFTER the previews hit the theaters.

I don't know how you can be so sure of his motives. Did you talk to him? Apparently you are incapable of seeing any good in him, only the bad.

No - I can base it on how he contradicts himself from one interview to another. And how his story chnages overtime. It isn't too hard to see it - if you followed his interviews that is.

I thought the characters of Merry and Pippin were quite redeemed in Return of the King. Again, how are you so certain of his motives?

They were somewhat - you have to take all three films as one. That is what they are supposed to be - ONE FILM.

Since when did the word many become synonomous with major? He made some mistakes. He's not perfect. Neither are you, nor anyone else for that matter. And I think it's a perfectly valid reason for the majority of the changes, actually. And that's my opinion.

I'm glad that's your opinion - it's not mine. So what are the valid reasons for all these changes and I want something more intelligently thought out than "books and movies are different medium".

I didn't use many as a synonym for major. I was saying that he made many mistakes - which were not just minor. You can have many minor mistakes - that add up to be major. There are probably only about 10 or so major mistakes in the films - the rest are many minor mistakes that add up to major mistakes.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well that is an example among many that was changed from the books that didn't need to be.

But that was not what I was replying to.

I have said over and over again - as have all the other people who don't like the movies - that we were not expecting a page by page books to screen version.

Then why can you not accept a few changes? The way you say it, it seems like that was what you were expecting.

I am capable of looking at them as seperate entities too - but I don't even really care for them as films. Except for special effects - there isn't much left to the movies.

Well that's something else entirely. I could easily be wrong but I don't think you'd brought that up until now.

As for completely seperating them - it's impossible - they share the SAME title. Jackson had a RESPONSIBILITY to live up to Tolkien if he wanted to use Lord of the Rings as the title.

Impossible for you then. That's nice. You're inflexible.

And why should I? I don't like his movies.

I respect your negative opinion of his movies. I wasn't referring to that.

See the problem I have - is that I TRUSTED him in his early interviews BEFORE the movies came out - and I agreed with him on his comments on staying close to the books and his examples. I felt betrayed and cheated after they came back. I don't think you really followed his early interviews I guess. Maybe you didn't even really know they were coming out until AFTER the previews hit the theaters.

Okay, so that's how you feel about it. Then you were optimistic and felt let down. That's too bad. I knew they were coming out for a while, but maybe I didn't have the time to obsessively follow all the interviews the way you did.

No - I can base it on how he contradicts himself from one interview to another. And how his story chnages overtime. It isn't too hard to see it - if you followed his interviews that is.

Again, my mistake for having a life outside of Lord of the Rings. I stand somewhat corrected, or I might be if I followed the interviews. Which I don't.

They were somewhat? - you have to take all three films as one. That is what they are supposed to be - ONE FILM.

I am looking forward to seeing all the movies at once, as they should be viewed, and watching how the characters grow and change throughout the films.

I'm glad that's your opinion - it's not mine. Like so what are the valid reasons for all these changes and I want something more intelligently thought out than "books and movies are different medium".

Well excuse me for not coming up with specific examples. . .of which there are many. . .and how can you say the conclusion I have come to about how books and movies are different is not intelligently thought out when you don't know my thought process? Please. . .

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
But that was not what I was replying to.

But we were talking about changes between the book and movie and that is a major one.

Then why can you not accept a few changes? The way you say it, it seems like that was what you were expecting.

Because there weren't justa few changes and the major ones were very major.

Well that's something else entirely. I could easily be wrong but I don't think you'd brought that up until now.

I have repeatedly said this since FotR has come out and I have repeatedly been accused of not.

Impossible for you then. That's nice. You're inflexible.

I'm not inflexible. We are them as an adaptation in this thread - therefore we can NOT discuss them as seperate entities but how they RELATE to the BOOKS.

I respect your negative opinion of his movies. I wasn't referring to that.

I know - you were referring to my attitude. I don't like the movies - so what attitude am I supposed to take when everytime I say I don't like the movies people give me a speach on how I;'m supposed to and how I'm not seperating the movies from the books, or as Elfhelm is now trying to claim - I'm jealous of jackson.

Again, my mistake for having a life outside of Lord of the Rings. I stand somewhat corrected, or I might be if I followed the interviews. Which I don't.

I do have a life outside of tolkien and these are the types of underhanded sarcastic comments that piss me off - and give me the damn attitude you seem to not like.

I am looking forward to seeing all the movies at once, as they should be viewed, and watching how the characters grow and change throughout the films.

The thing is - are you going to be open minded enough and seperate the books from the movies enough to see the gaps in the plots?

Well excuse me for not coming up with specific examples. . .of which there are many. . .and how can you say the conclusion I have come to about how books and movies are different is not intelligently thought out when you don't know my thought process? Please. . .

Because I have repeatedly said why I don't like the movies from the time FotR came out - but the only thing I have heard you saying really is that books and movies are different mediums and changes had to be made and therefore we shoudl forgive jackson.

Well you know - it was supposed to be Lord of the Rings - and it fell far far short of what the movies should have been and COULD have been and I'm not willing to just let jackson get a freeride and be forgiven and let him spew out his excuses and just accept them.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
But we were talking about changes between the book and movie and that is a major one.

I was referring to Return of the King. .. which is what this thread is about.

Because there weren't justa few changes and the major ones were very major.

But some of them worked. In my opinion.

I'm not inflexible. We are them as an adaptation in this thread - therefore we can NOT discuss them as seperate entities but how they RELATE to the BOOKS.

As movies, of the story of Lord of the Rings. The movies are not of the books, but based on the books. Seperate entities. We're discussing the relationship between two seperate entities.

I know - you were referring to my attitude. I don't like the movies - so what attitude am I supposed to take when everytime I say I don't like the movies people give me a speach on how I;'m supposed to and how I'm not seperating the movies from the books, or as Elfhelm is now trying to claim - I'm jealous of jackson.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with your dislike of the movies. I was referring to is your unwillingness to see other points of view, and that your viewpoint is the only correct one. It's far more general than Lord of the Rings. But I suppose that's not what we're discussing on this thread. . .

I do have a life outside of tolkien and these are the types of underhanded sarcastic comments that piss me off - and give me the damn attitude you seem to not like.

Your attitude is the cause of such comments, not the result.

The thing is - are you going to be open minded enough and seperate the books from the movies enough to see the gaps in the plots?

Certainly. I am not blinded to their faults. You cannot say I haven't been critical of the movies at all.

Because I have repeatedly said why I don't like the movies from the time FotR came out - but the only thing I have heard you saying really is that books and movies are different mediums and changes had to be made and therefore we shoudl forgive jackson.

I am basing everything I say off of what I have seen in this thread, not the entirety of what I've seen you post on Entmoot. And yet you're only looking at what I've said in these past few pages.

Well you know - it was supposed to be Lord of the Rings - and it fell far far short of what the movies should have been and COULD have been and I'm not willing to just let jackson get a freeride and be forgiven and let him spew out his excuses and just accept them.

Right, you don't like Jackson and you don't like the movies. That's too bad. I liked them overall. I had my problems. There are some things I won't "forgive' Jackson for. But I can see good in the films and you cannot.

[Nurvingiel]

To make this discussion flow more smoothly, I recomend avoiding personal comments about other posters, because it's easy to get side-tracked from the topic.


I enjoyed watching RotK EG, but I don't feel it was successful as an adaptation. As a movie, it was good, but there is a difference. Jackson is not making a stand-alone movie.

Which changes did you feel were sucessful?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf

I was referring to Return of the King. .. which is what this thread is about.

Arwen in the flight to ford has a bearing on RotK and is just one of many examples of changes. if you want a plot change that is stupid - is Sam ACTUALLY leaving Frodo. Now it was one thing to have Sam pretend to leave Frodo and sort of sneak behind (it was a strectch to have Frodo and Sam even get that far) it was far worse to actually have Sam leave Frodo.

But some of them worked. In my opinion.

Well of course there are some that do. You make a thousand changes - there a bound to be some that you get right. I never said there weren't any changes that weren't good. There are many changes that i would havbe made - it would be impossible to film it without SOME changes. It did not require the changes Jackson made though.

As movies, of the story of Lord of the Rings. The movies are not of the books, but based on the books. Seperate entities. We're discussing the relationship between two seperate entities.

Adaptation means how well were the books brought over to the screen. Not as seperate entities - but in relationship to the books - how well was the movie done and how does it compare.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with your dislike of the movies. I was referring to is your unwillingness to see other points of view, and that your viewpoint is the only correct one. It's far more general than Lord of the Rings. But I suppose that's not what we're discussing on this thread. . .

How do you know I'm unwilling to see other points of view? I can see others points of view - but that doesn't mean I have to stop sharing my view or constantly be told erroneously why I have this particular view. You have repeatedly made false accusations toward how I feel, as have many others. I don't care whether you or anyone else disagrees with me - you aren't shutting up about your opinions - does that mean you are unwilling to see my point of view?

Your attitude is the cause of such comments, not the result.

You haven't been here long enough to make such a statement - because you don't know what you are talking about. You only see me this way because this is the way I have become through repeated false accusations like you make. I've been here for over two years - you have only been here for a year. You don't know how I was in the beginning - on this thread, forum or the others. So don't judge - what you don't know.

Certainly. I am not blinded to their faults. You cannot say I haven't been critical of the movies at all.

So tell me - where did I say YOU were NEVER critical of the movies?

I am basing everything I say off of what I have seen in this thread, not the entirety of what I've seen you post on Entmoot. And yet you're only looking at what I've said in these past few pages.

I am basing my comments on post by post item by item. I have not accused you of never having disagreed with jackson - I have seen where you have. But I have also seen you issue false accussations against me and my beliefs. Sorry -I do not have time to repost TWO years of all my back arguments everytime I state my opinion.

Right, you don't like Jackson and you don't like the movies. That's too bad. I liked them overall. I had my problems. There are some things I won't "forgive' Jackson for. But I can see good in the films and you cannot.

There you go again with your false accusations. How many times do I have to state that they were AVERAGE films - that I gave them a C. That the special effects were great, that the scenary was awesome. I might have seen them in the theaters - I might not have - I probably would have eventually gotten them on DVD - but not as soon as they came out.

The problem I have is the characterizations and the jumpiness of the plot and some major changes to major parts of the plot - which were unnecessary to bring the books to screen - I also thought the Dwarf tossing jokes, the farting and burping, the implication that pipe weed was pot.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Hmm. . .

Moving the reforging of Narsil to Return of the King I thought worked. It accentuates the change from Aragorn, Ranger of the North, to Ellesar, King of Gondor. As an example.

I'll think on it. . .there's more, but I need to see it again, methinks. Or have time. Whatever.

[cassiopeia]

With regard to the Saruman and Eowyn/Faramir plotlines, I wonder if these may have been different if Jackson had decided to release the movies after all three had been cut and finished. That's the problem when releasing one part of something that is a work in progress -- you can't change the earlier parts. It seems to me that if Jackson had stuck closer to the books, these problems wouldn't have occured.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
Moving the reforging of Narsil to Return of the King I thought worked. It accentuates the change from Aragorn, Ranger of the North, to Ellesar, King of Gondor. As an example.

Well the reason he did that - was because he initially had Aragorn running from his heritage. Aragorn went on the quest somewhat reluctantly and not the "I am here to reclaim my lands" attitude he had in the book. So - in that sense - I don't think it worked - because it weaked Aragorns character.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
Moving the reforging of Narsil to Return of the King I thought worked. It accentuates the change from Aragorn, Ranger of the North, to Ellesar, King of Gondor. As an example.

I can see that one. I think an un-reforged Narsil was important to FotR, but with respect to RotK, that change didn't detract from the movie.

I didn't like Sam leaving Frodo at all, but I suspect you didn't either. Sean Astin was so excellent as Sam, despite that scene. Why Sam didn't keep the lembas when he found it? Maybe they actually changed the scene to show how tough Sam was - in the end, he climed the stairs three times! That's dedication. (Just kidding, I'm sure that wasn't why.)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
With regard to the Saruman and Eowyn/Faramir plotlines, I wonder if these may have been different if Jackson had decided to release the movies after all three had been cut and finished. That's the problem when releasing one part of something that is a work in progress -- you can't change the earlier parts. It seems to me that if Jackson had stuck closer to the books, these problems wouldn't have occured.

I think if he had planned the movies out better - he would have been able to. I wonder - in addtion to the Arwen plot line he was forced to change - how many other things he was forced to change which have never been talked about.

Also - a good director woudl cut the eye candy - not the meat of the movie to make it fit in the allotted time. he seems to have done the opposite. Increase the battle scenes - in exchange for plot development, conclusions and characterization.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Also - a good director woudl cut the eye candy - not the meat of the movie to make it fit in the allotted time. he seems to have done the opposite. Increase the battle scenes - in exchange for plot development, conclusions and characterization.

I often say this in response to people giving reasons like "the movies were so long already" to justify the absence of "The Scouring of the Shire". I like the way you put it.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Arwen in the flight to ford has a bearing on RotK and is just one of many examples of changes. if you want a plot change that is stupid - is Sam ACTUALLY leaving Frodo. Now it was one thing to have Sam pretend to leave Frodo and sort of sneak behind (it was a strectch to have Frodo and Sam even get that far) it was far worse to actually have Sam leave Frodo.

Very well, I suppose it does. I liked the Sam leaving Frodo bit. Okay.

Well of course there are some that do. You make a thousand changes - there a bound to be some that you get right. I never said there weren't any changes that weren't good. There are many changes that i would havbe made - it would be impossible to film it without SOME changes. It did not require the changes Jackson made though.

I suppose we actually agree on something then. A miracle.

Adaptation means how well were the books brought over to the screen. Not as seperate entities - but in relationship to the books - how well was the movie done and how does it compare.

Very well. You are right, but I suppose I have a slightly more flexible interpretation. That's fine.

How do you know I'm unwilling to see other points of view? I can see others points of view - but that doesn't mean I have to stop sharing my view or constantly be told erroneously why I have this particular view. You have repeatedly made false accusations toward how I feel, as have many others. I don't care whether you or anyone else disagrees with me - you aren't shutting up about your opinions - does that mean you are unwilling to see my point of view?

I'm perfectly willing to see your point of view. I can see how you feel betrayed by Jackson, after he said he was keeping close to the books and then made drastic changes that stick in your mind and ruin the movie for you. I can understand that.
Does that mean you think I should "shut up" about my opinions? They're perfectly valid, something I don't believe you have acknowledged.

You haven't been here long enough to make such a statement - because you don't know what you are talking about. You only see me this way because this is the way I have become through repeated false accusations like you make. I've been here for over two years - you have only been here for a year. You don't know how I was in the beginning - on this thread, forum or the others. So don't judge - what you don't know.

You seem to have miscalculated. I have been here for two years. You've only been here a month longer than I.

So tell me - where did I say YOU were NEVER critical of the movies?

Well, you certainly seem to think that I was of the opinion that everything was perfect. But perhaps I have misinterpreted.

I am basing my comments on post by post item by item. I have not accused you of never having disagreed with jackson - I have seen where you have. But I have also seen you issue false accussations against me and my beliefs. Sorry -I do not have time to repost TWO years of all my back arguments everytime I state my opinion.

Then why do you expect me to base my comments on anything more than your posts here? I hardly think that's fair.

There you go again with your false accusations. How many times do I have to state that they were AVERAGE films - that I gave them a C. That the special effects were great, that the scenary was awesome. I might have seen them in the theaters - I might not have - I probably would have eventually gotten them on DVD - but not as soon as they came out.

Well, excuse me, you just seemed so bloody negative about it. . .

The problem I have is the characterizations and the jumpiness of the plot and some major changes to major parts of the plot - which were unnecessary to bring the books to screen - I also thought the Dwarf tossing jokes, the farting and burping, the implication that pipe weed was pot. [/B]

And I agree with those problems. I think they're there too. But I liked some of the other things enough that I liked the movies overall. Okay. So we disagree on some points. That's nice.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I think if he had planned the movies out better - he would have been able to. I wonder - in addtion to the Arwen plot line he was forced to change - how many other things he was forced to change which have never been talked about.

Also - a good director woudl cut the eye candy - not the meat of the movie to make it fit in the allotted time. he seems to have done the opposite. Increase the battle scenes - in exchange for plot development, conclusions and characterization.

That's the whole problem -- he kept changing things in the movies after the FOTR/TTT was released. Like Arwen at Helm's Deep or Saruman. I'm sure he planned to have Eowyn/Faramir in the ROTK, but realised too late that it needed to be cut because the movie was going too long. Tolkien loved tying up loose threads, so in this respect the movies are not a good adaptation. And I was half hoping to find out what happened to Bill the Pony in the ROTK.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
I suppose we actually agree on something then. A miracle.

See I don't think it's such a miracle - because I have agreed with other things you have said in the past - I just don't always state that when I agree with something.

Does that mean you think I should "shut up" about my opinions? They're perfectly valid, something I don't believe you have acknowledged.

I didn't think I had to say your opinions weren't valid - they're your opinions. i wasn't attacking your opinion - I was DEFENDING my opinions.

You seem to have miscalculated. I have been here for two years. You've only been here a month longer than I.

That is true - I looked at 2002 and automatically thought 1 year.

Well, you certainly seem to think that I was of the opinion that everything was perfect. But perhaps I have misinterpreted.

Nope - because you have stated several times in this thread that you didn't think everything was perfect. But you are able to live with them and accept them. I on the other hand think that the movies fall far short than what they should have. They could have truly have been great movies and should have been - that is partly what i am so upset about.

Then why do you expect me to base my comments on anything more than your posts here? I hardly think that's fair.

Because you have been attacking my opinions and I have been defending them and you have been making erroneous statements concerning why I don't like the movies.. I havent' said that you are wrong in your opinions - I have been stating why I disagree with you. I fyou are going to be stating WHY I feel something then you should be looking at my other posts. Where have I said HOW you feel about things?

Well, excuse me, you just seemed so bloody negative about it. . .

I am negative about it - because Special effects, scenary, costuming - is all eye candy. Characterization, plot development and conclusions are what makes a good or great movie. The other stuff is just extras. I'm not willing to just accept the eye candy and say - oh the battles were awesome and forgive the movie for all it's other short comings.

And I agree with those problems. I think they're there too. But I liked some of the other things enough that I liked the movies overall. Okay. So we disagree on some points. That's nice.

You are obviously able to accept the changes more than me. I wonder if in a year or two you will feel the same way.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
Like Arwen at Helm's Deep...

He would have never heard the end of it if Arwen was there.

And I was half hoping to find out what happened to Bill the Pony in the ROTK.

The thing is - Bill the Pony appeared out of no where as it was. One minute he is just a pack animal - the next minute Sam is crying over him at the Gates of Moria. Again - lack of explanation in the plot story - not even in the Extended Edition was their anything about Bill the Pony in FotR.

If he wasn't going to fully include the story behind bill the pony - don't throw some small ridiculous bone to the Lord of the Rings fans so they can oooh and ahhh at Bill the Pony. There was no need to even have that scene really. There was never any affection between Bill and Sam shown before and the time like that could have been used for the Gift Giving scene, which overall was a much more important scene to the overall story.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
See I don't think it's such a miracle - because I have agreed with other things you have said in the past - I just don't always state that when I agree with something.

I was being sarcastic. . .gods. . .I know we've agreed on things in the past, I was just kidding.

I didn't think I had to say your opinions weren't valid - they're your opinions. i wasn't attacking your opinion - I was DEFENDING my opinions.

Okay. . .if you say so. . .

That is true - I looked at 2002 and automatically thought 1 year.

Heh, new year and all. . .good that's cleared up then.

Nope - because you have stated several times in this thread that you didn't think everything was perfect. But you are able to live with them and accept them. I on the other hand think that the movies fall far short than what they should have. They could have truly have been great movies and should have been - that is partly what i am so upset about.

Okay, it just seemed you were asking me to defend something I'd already said I disagreed with. Whatever. . .

Because you have been attacking my opinions and I have been defending them and you have been making erroneous statements concerning why I don't like the movies.. I havent' said that you are wrong in your opinions - I have been stating why I disagree with you. I fyou are going to be stating WHY I feel something then you should be looking at my other posts. Where have I said HOW you feel about things?

I can't even remember how this all started or why, and I don't care to look over. . .it's been an unreasonably long and not so good day for me, so I'm sorry I let that affect the way I was writing. Right now I'm just too lazy to look over what's already been said.

I am negative about it - because Special effects, scenary, costuming - is all eye candy. Characterization, plot development and conclusions are what makes a good or great movie. The other stuff is just extras. I'm not willing to just accept the eye candy and say - oh the battles were awesome and forgive the movie for all it's other short comings.

Fair enough. . .I thought there was some characterization and plot development, and even conclusions in some part, enough for me to be able to forgive some shortcomings, in addition to the gorgeous battle sequences and all. (I saw the Rohirrim riding out of the camps and decided that I could die happy now ) But I certainly saw enough shortcomings.

You are obviously able to accept the changes more than me. I wonder if in a year or two you will feel the same way.

Or maybe, wonder of wonders, you might feel the same way as I do? But I doubt that. Which is fine, of course. Actually, now that I've gotten over the visual beauty of the film I am more and more annoyed by some of those shortcomings. Eek. But I don't think I'll ever hate the movies, because there was enough of a balance. Sometimes. Er. Point being, I'll still enjoy them for the shallow visual prettiness and some of the things they did get right in terms of characterization. Though I might not acknowledge the existence of the theatrical versions Oh, and Billy Boyd's song. That was sooo pretty.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
Or maybe, wonder of wonders, you might feel the same way as I do? But I doubt that. Which is fine, of course.

I doubt it to - because I desperately wanted to like the movie. As I said - going to the movie 8 times in the theater just to try liking it. I wasn't interested in the special effects and eye candy though - I was interested in the story, mood, characters and plot. Things I found surely lacking.

Actually, now that I've gotten over the visual beauty of the film I am more and more annoyed by some of those shortcomings.

That's because most people seem to first be awed by the eye candy - but then after several viewings - it gets old and unfulfulling.

Eek. But I don't think I'll ever hate the movies, because there was enough of a balance. Sometimes. Er. Point being, I'll still enjoy them for the shallow visual prettiness and some of the things they did get right in terms of characterization.

I was never interested in the eye candy - like I said. And the special effects and scenary were beautiful - but that isn't what makes a long standing film.

DR Zhivago has different, but awesome scenary - but that isn't what makes it a great movie. It's a great movie because of the characters and the story/plot and the mood it evokes.

Though I might not acknowledge the existence of the theatrical versions

Oh - but the theatrical versions are the OFFICIAL versions. If those aren't done to your satification - then the movies don't live up to your satisifaction.

Oh, and Billy Boyd's song. That was sooo pretty.

It was good - but i just wish it wasn't so obvious what jackson was trying to do. That is another problem I have with Jackson - one can see right through him. It was so cliched to have Pippin singing while the battle at Osgiliath is going on. That sort of thing has been done a thousand times in so many movies - it gets old. It was hard for me to just get immersed in the movie - because the film techniques were so obvious.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I doubt it to - because I desperately wanted to like the movie. As I said - going to the movie 8 times in the theater just to try liking it. I wasn't interested in the special effects and eye candy though - I was interested in the story, mood, characters and plot. Things I found surely lacking.

Ooh. . .sad. Very sad. I can see what you mean. . .I think I'm beginning to get a much better idea of why you are quite so negative about the movies. *poor JerseyDevil*

That's because most people seem to first be awed by the eye candy - but then after several viewings - it gets old and unfulfulling.

I'm just a very visually-oriented person, which is why I liked them so much. But yeah, they certainly do get old. And *mostly* unfulfilling. I can still watch scenes like Boromir's death over and over again, but the movies as a whole certainly do get old.

Oh - but the theatrical versions are the OFFICIAL versions. If those aren't done to your satification - then the movies don't live up to your satisifaction.

That is one way of seeing it. . .

It was good - but i just wish it wasn't so obvious what jackson was trying to do. That is another problem I have with Jackson - one can see right through him. It was so cliched to have Pippin singing while the battle at Osgiliath is going on. That sort of thing has been done a thousand times in so many movies - it gets old. It was hard for me to just get immersed in the movie - because the film techniques were so obvious.

Yeah. . .he was a bit unsubtle. . .and cheesey. . .that got a bit irritating. . .

Oh dear. Now I'm feeling all negative about the movies. I feel disillusioned. Alas. Oh well, I can still enjoy the eye-candy. *dreams of the Rohirrim charge* sooo pretty. . .*drool*