The Irony of Jackson Bashing

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Telcontar: That really is not an option for me. I really couldn't not go to see something which has the name The Lord of the Rings on it. Even if I am, in my mind, all but convinced that it will be a poor portrayal of Tolkien's magnificent work, I still have (in my subconscious, I suppose) a deep-down hope that it will be good.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
But I have complete respect for many, many people who feel the movies perfectly captured Tolkien's vision: Dunedain, for example, and a few others who haven't posted for a while.

Thanks Gwai

However, I don't think the movies perfectly captured Tolkien's vision, I just appreciate the visions that it has given me by bringing it to life and telling one of my favorite stories, where I can look past changes, because for the me the positives far outweigh the negatives

[Telcontar]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
That really is not an option for me. I really couldn't not go to see something which has the name The Lord of the Rings on it. Even if I am, in my mind, all but convinced that it will be a poor portrayal of Tolkien's magnificent work, I still have (in my subconscious, I suppose) a deep-down hope that it will be good.

As so do we all. But if you think something will not be good, think of how hard it will be to be convinced that it was really ever good? Plus to you all, your imagination will never be what someone else's portrayal of M.E. is, so it will never be perfect, even if JRRT himself was alive and made a movie out of it. You are competing against your imagination. How can anything ever beat that? Nothing is ever perfect, but you can still enjoy it and recognize when things have to changed, especially for the good (maybe). I still haven't seen anything that was a detrimental change to the story, but that is just me.

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks Ruinel!

I'm certainly not a movie-hater, and I will be seeing RotK over Christmas break, probably more than once. I will go with great friends, and myself and at least one other friend will probably wear cloaks, just for the halibut.

Anyway, I have strong opinions about the movie, for reasons already stated, but just because I strongly criticise bits of the movie doesn't mean I hate them.

I criticised the "Flight to the Ford" scene harshly when FotR first came out because I knew Jackson could have done it better. FotR and TTT are both very good movies, and there are several scenes which show incredible brilliance and poignancy. This leads me to believe that Jackson didn't have to delete Frodo's defiance of the Nazgul, because he is obviously a skillful director, why would he needlessly make a character have less depth? (In the book, I felt that scene showed Frodo's incredible strength of character.)

Referring to the title of this thread, I don't think there are many (or any) actual Jackson bashers in this thread. I don't read criticising (I hate that word, I can never spell it!) the movie as bashing Peter Jackson.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Referring to the title of this thread, I don't think there are many (or any) actual Jackson bashers in this thread. I don't read criticising (I hate that word, I can never spell it!) the movie as bashing Peter Jackson.

Actually, there are a number of Jackson bashers in this forum. On the other hand, Nurvingiel, you represent most Tolkien fans who love the books and love the movies too. You don't have to like everything Jackson did to enjoy the films and appreciate how wonderful many parts were.

It has been analyzed to death in other threads here, but I would briefly like to counterpoint your concerns with the Flight to the Ford scene from the film. From the film maker's perspective, it served many purposes:

1. Introduced Arwen to the audience and explained her relationship to Aragorn.

2. Provided a visual explanation for the flood.

3. Perhaps provided a more convincing scenario to a non-Tolkien audience than having a near-death halfing ride a large horse to the ford by himself.

4. Gave the audience an understanding of Arwen's strong sense of faith (hope) early in the series.

5. Provided the movie a strong visual (Arwen & Frodo chased by the Nine).

6. Provided a nice bookend to Eowyn's heroism in ROTK.

7. A display of courage at the ford by Frodo may have lessened the emotional impact of Frodo's decision at the end of the film to go on to Mordor alone for the non-Tolkien audience.

Frankly, if the Flight to the Ford scene is the worst Jackson "trangression" in this film series, then I will be a very happy camper.

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks BB As the honoured representative of the Book and Movie Lovers with Book Purist Leanings (BMLBPL) I think I epitomize this by agreeing with half your points, and having some type of rebuttle for the other half . (By the way fellow BMLBPL, you can always vote me out! )

1. They could have done that at the dinner, a scene she was actually in.

2. I agree, and I thought the flood was also really well done. But it appeared as though Arwen caused the flood, when actually it was Gandalf (maybe Elrond collaborated on that too, I forget.)

3. Too bad non-Tolkieners, you're not seeing an ordinary movie! Frodo could out-ride the Nazgul because a) he is a hero, and super tough to the end. I felt this wasn't emphasised enough in FotR and TTT. b) he's riding a pro-star elven horse, which the audience knows because it understands Arwen, who spoke to it in elven. The audience has the benefit of subtitles, no reason to complain. c) Frodo should have at least defied the Nazgul, even if he didn't get there by himself. See a.

4. It succeeded in this, but the scene where Arwen gives Aragorn did that too, and was sufficient to outline her incredible hope and love for Aragorn as well. This may come as a surprise to people, but Arwen is (supposed to be) so far from being a main character she needs opera glasses.

5. That part was super cool. Again, I agree. (It would also have worked with Frodo alone, but this ties in with your near-death argument.)

6. You may have a point but I don't quite get it. Do you mean the Arwen and Eowyn are character foils? Ooh, we could make a thread out of that.

7. Rather than detract from the emotional impact at the end of the movie of his decision to go it alone, I think defiance in this scene would have augmented it. (As mentioned previously, I don't think it matters if the non-Tolkien audience misses some of the subtleties. Even if they do, they will still enjoy a good movie.) I think it would have been an improvement to emphasise Frodo's heroism, rather than have him end up as someone who is either almost dead or almost putting on the Ring.


I have certainly contributed to the analyzing to death of this scene. But points 1 through 6 are just nit-picks. I don't really have any issue with those changes, but point 7 is very important. Frodo is the hero of this story, and he is a hero. I feel this gets lost along the way.

Woah. I'm gonna let someone else post now.
Cheers, /\N/\

[The Gaffer]

There are many ways I could (and have) criticise them, especially the Fords scene (saved, IMHO, by Liv's performance and the Flood scene) (BTW, in the book, it's all Elrond's work, with Gandalf adding a few touches, like the horses), the spontaneous collapse of Moria and the Osgiliath thing.

However, the main reason I like the films is that, in very broad terms, they succeed in that same immersive way that the books do. Because of the depth of detail you can be drawn into the fantasy world. That's what this sort of film should be about.

It feels like we now have two quite different ways of accessing the same world (book and film).