LOTR = Typical Action Films?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by thranduil
If a hobbit was in danger of being killed by something alot bigger than them would they

a. Jump at it with there swords and try to slay it.

b. Run away or try to hide.

From knowing the history of hobbits we know the answer is B.
Admit Merry and Pippin were obviously trying to avenge there friend. Not trying to save themsevles.

I agree they were tryign to avenge their friend - but there are more ways of showing friendship than through just that. I have a problem with Merry and Pippin town idiot mentality Come on - how retarded was the - "err this here quest" statement when Pippin announces he's coming along? They're practically braindead - I'm surprised they can dress themselves.

As for the effects, they could have been worse. They satisfied me. But if your gonna bring up bad effects I admit Galadriel was horrible!

Yes - mirror of galadriel (or nicknamed - ice queen) was one of the worse scenes in the movie.

[thranduil]

If your gonna call them idiots why don't you just call pippin an idiot instead of them both. While Pippin did some stupid things, he made up for it, matured, and learned his lesson throughout the shows. As for Merry he has done nothing idiotic or foolish except for having some fun in the shire. Which really the firework stealing really wasn't bad. It just showed theyr'e daring and have fun.

Overall Merry and Pippin (good)


-set off on a very dangerous quest.

-try to avenge frodo (troll).

-Show frodo to Buckleberry ferry.

-Confront Strider at Bree.

-Save frodo and basically middle earth by leading the uruk hai away from frodo and the ring. basically sacrifing themselves.

(bad)

-steal some fireworks

-make dumb comments

-steal from farmer maggot

-causes goblins in moria to know they are there

I'm sure even you JD, will be able to accept that the goods greatly outway the bad. While yes the bad were annoying and caused trouble but look at what good they did. Anyone can easily see that Merry and Pippin are not just some average hobbit idiots. They are very couragous and helpful (in most cases). I rest my case.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by thranduil
If your gonna call them idiots why don't you just call pippin an idiot instead of them both. While Pippin did some stupid things, he made up for it, matured, and learned his lesson throughout the shows. As for Merry he has done nothing idiotic or foolish except for having some fun in the shire. Which really the firework stealing really wasn't bad. It just showed theyr'e daring and have fun.

Overall Merry and Pippin (good)


-set off on a very dangerous quest.

-try to avenge frodo (troll).

-Show frodo to Buckleberry ferry.

-Confront Strider at Bree.

-Save frodo and basically middle earth by leading the uruk hai away from frodo and the ring. basically sacrifing themselves.

(bad)

-steal some fireworks

-make dumb comments

-steal from farmer maggot

-causes goblins in moria to know they are there

I'm sure even you JD, will be able to accept that the goods greatly outway the bad. While yes the bad were annoying and caused trouble but look at what good they did. Anyone can easily see that Merry and Pippin are not just some average hobbit idiots. They are very couragous and helpful (in most cases). I rest my case.

I don't like Merry and Pippin in the movie. I have always thought they were portrayed as town morons. I'm not going to change my mind. I think that lighting the fireworks in a tent was stupid and showed absolutely no brains - stealing the fireworks was completely different. i did NOT like the way Pippin and Merry were protrayed in the movies and I thought the actors were terrible for them.

As for farmer maggot - farmer maggot should have been left out - for one thing - Merry and Pipping never stole his crops - they were friends with Farmer maggot. it was just an excuse for Jackson to have another brainless out of place action scene.

By the way - ahlf their speech was this childish brainless mimocry - like "duh - my name - let me just think a minute....."

[thranduil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I don't like Merry and Pippin in the movie. I have always thought they were portrayed as town morons. I'm not going to change my mind. I think that lighting the fireworks in a tent was stupid and showed absolutely no brains - stealing the fireworks was completely different.

Okay Okay they "were" town idiots and matured. I'll leave it at that. I agree about lighting it off in a tent. Why?
Though Jackson portrayed them that way apparently to show the seriousness of the quest and how it changes people. And how people can grow from experiences and others examples.

How about Parth Galen? That scene was excellent!

[Cassius]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Great sets don't make a movie. Great special effects don't make a movie.

FotR had way too much action compared to the books. Yes - TT had more action - but TT also had some more action in the books. FotR was about friendship and the quest. Too many meaningful scene were chopped, destroyed or changed completely.

I assume that no sets at all would be acceptable, or better yet, why don't we film it in the streets of new york? Of course good sets don't completely make the movie, but crappy sets will ruin the whole thing. Can you imagine a hobbiton in the big city??

Heaven forbid any action at all, I mean come on, who needs it? I wouldn't call the while movie action, simply because it is not. The scenes of Frodo and Sam walking through the shire were so action packed! Look at how much the grass became stamped down, and how fried the sausage was! Totally like braveheart man!

Oh man, and Peter Jackson REALLY should be lynched for making the hobbiton scenes lighthearted and joyful! Man he totally ruined Tolkien's image of a happy, exhuberant place!

Oh, and Merry and Pippen were so badly portrayed! Gandalf really had no reason to yell at them at all! They weren't ever a little goofy in the books! They were always stone-faced and serious like Aragorn.

Oh yeah, and there were no scenes ever where there was no action at all! Man, the Green Dragon scene was SO violent I had to shut my eyes to protect myself from the gruesome horror of people having a joyful time!

Come on people, think about it for a second. If the movie was SO action oriented then why didn't they spend an hour and a half on the prologe to cover the deaths of Anarion and Gil Galad? Lothlorien lasted a good fifteen minutes without any action at all, not including the river and Argonath.

[hectorberlioz]

I assume that no sets at all would be acceptable, or better yet, why don't we film it in the streets of new york? Of course good sets don't completely make the movie, but crappy sets will ruin the whole thing. Can you imagine a hobbiton in the big city??

I dont remember JD saying no sets is better than bad acting. but he did say that sets and special effects dont make a movie worthwhile, if it doesnt have a good story or good acting.
the special effects and and the sets didnt outweigh the bad job PJ had done with the story and carachters, in JD's opinion.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cassius
I assume that no sets at all would be acceptable, or better yet, why don't we film it in the streets of new york? Of course good sets don't completely make the movie, but crappy sets will ruin the whole thing. Can you imagine a hobbiton in the big city??

Get off it - because that's not what I'm saying at all. If you're going to stretch everything out with what I said - no wonder I think you are BB.

Heaven forbid any action at all, I mean come on, who needs it? I wouldn't call the while movie action, simply because it is not. The scenes of Frodo and Sam walking through the shire were so action packed! Look at how much the grass became stamped down, and how fried the sausage was! Totally like braveheart man!

wow - 5 minutes of no action. Soon after they run into Pippin and Merry - with angry Farmer Maggot. Why even include Farmer Maggot. You can twist what I say all you want - but no action here and there does not mean that Lord of the Rings isn't an action movie. Matrix Revolutions is an action movie and it has slow moments too, but it is still an ACTION MOVIE.

Oh man, and Peter Jackson REALLY should be lynched for making the hobbiton scenes lighthearted and joyful! Man he totally ruined Tolkien's image of a happy, exhuberant place!

Where have I complained about Hobbiton? Other than the fact that Frodo didn't just disappear from Hobbiton like he does in the movies or Ringwraiths cutting off heads. Maybe you are BB - or at least like him - I'd be surprised if you read the books too. Especially if you can't see my complaints.

Oh, and Merry and Pippen were so badly portrayed! Gandalf really had no reason to yell at them at all! They weren't ever a little goofy in the books! They were always stone-faced and serious like Aragorn.

I never said they were always serious - I said they weren't retarded town idiots with no brains as they are portrayed in the movies.

Oh yeah, and there were no scenes ever where there was no action at all! Man, the Green Dragon scene was SO violent I had to shut my eyes to protect myself from the gruesome horror of people having a joyful time!

Again why don't you listen and stop twisting what I say. Would you not consider martrix Reloaded or Revolutions an action movie?

Come on people, think about it for a second. If the movie was SO action oriented then why didn't they spend an hour and a half on the prologe to cover the deaths of Anarion and Gil Galad? Lothlorien lasted a good fifteen minutes without any action at all, not including the river and Argonath.

So what is they had a few slow moments - there was hardly any characterization. All action movies have slow moments - Lord of the Rings is no different than Terminator 3. There was slow moments in their too - it doesn't mean it's not an action movie.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
I dont remember JD saying no sets is better than bad acting. but he did say that sets and special effects dont make a movie worthwhile, if it doesnt have a good story or good acting.
the special effects and and the sets didnt outweigh the bad job PJ had done with the story and carachters, in JD's opinion.

Hector - understands. Maybe he can translate for you - cassius.

[hectorberlioz]

hectorberlioz: official translator for arguements/discussions

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
hectorberlioz: official translator for arguements/discussions

Hey that is steady work that will be around for years (maybe decades )

Where else can you find this level of job security? (The salary may be another matter entirely. )


"Action" films are not bad in of themselves.

I consider LOTR to be above (way above IMHO ) your average book.
A movie adaptation of LOTR has the potential to be much better than your typically average "Action" movie.

Does that mean the film will be devoid of any action? No, but the focus will not be primarily on Action/reaction events.

(I wish I could articulate this better )

There were many things that I liked about PJ&co. LOTR movies, but there still were many things that could have been done better.

[The Gaffer]

Having read this thread I'm starting to agree with the title of this thread.

Including the Voice of Saruman at the end of TTT would've been possible, it just would've meant that they had to think of a different way of ending the film than the traditional cavalry riding to the rescue. As a result,

the Voice of Saruman ends up on the cutting room floor

[Cassius]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Matrix Revolutions is an action movie and it has slow moments too, but it is still an ACTION MOVIE.

I'd be surprised if you read the books too. Especially if you can't see my complaints.

I never said they were always serious - I said they weren't retarded town idiots with no brains as they are portrayed in the movies.

Again why don't you listen and stop twisting what I say. Would you not consider martrix Reloaded or Revolutions an action movie?

Excuse my sarcasm, but I think that this whole thing is utterly and completely silly.

Of course I have read the books, of course I have complaints, and I do see yours I really do but you seem so convinced that the movies are crap that you ignore everything that they did right. I have never read one thing, ONE thing that you liked about the movies. If you could do that then I think that I would have a less draconian attitude towards your opinions. It is like you are telling all of those thousands of people that worked on these films for years that they did a crappy job and need to start over because YOU didn't like it. They worked hard and long to bring us the best on screen adaptation there ever has been for LOTR.

To concede, I do think that at least was too goofy, but not badly cast. I am upset with the Theoden exorcism scene is, and I do not like how Aragorn asks HIM to ride out with him, when it was the other way around. I hate how Theoden is a pit of despair and sucks people into it. There were no women and/or children at helm's deep. They were at the city with the pukel-men, the name eludes me.

Tell me one thing, ONE THING that you think was good and I will stop being so overly critical and my more purist self will become apparent.

[Cassius]

Oh by the way, I would say that matrix reloaded and revolutions with the nasty rave s*x parties has a distinctly different mood than LOTR. They are action, these have action in them, in some cases too much, but that is what was in the book. Why not take some of a good thing and turn it into a lot of good thing that will attract customers to help put food on the plate? Tolkien didn't write much action because the english language lacks the words to describe fighting without being visual. I have tried, and it doesn't work, that is one reason why I draw my own illustrations.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cassius
Of course I have read the books, of course I have complaints, and I do see yours I really do but you seem so convinced that the movies are crap that you ignore everything that they did right. I have never read one thing, ONE thing that you liked about the movies. If you could do that then I think that I would have a less draconian attitude towards your opinions.

Look at my two years of posts. It's not hard to do. I believe I told you to look at the TT thread I started the night Two Towers came out. The question is - did you?

It is like you are telling all of those thousands of people that worked on these films for years that they did a crappy job and need to start over because YOU didn't like it. They worked hard and long to bring us the best on screen adaptation there ever has been for LOTR.

I personally don't care if they even spent ten years on the films - I don't like the movies. I think they could have been a lot better. I think they could have been INTELLIGENT movies - instead of the typical hollywood action flick.

Tell me one thing, ONE THING that you think was good and I will stop being so overly critical and my more purist self will become apparent.

I've said many things that they got right - such as the scenary. Look at my two years of posts as I have said - in there you will see me mention things I thought they did well. I don't like the films though - I think Jackson is a hack. I think he lied about how much he was making the films as a fan. If he was a fan he would never have destroyed flight to the ford the way he did.

I also question jackson's motivation by the way considering the action. He OWNS the special effects companies - don't you think he has even more of a self interest in making the films as action oriented as possible?

By the way - I HOPE Jackson and people involved with the film read this. I hope they see what I have to say about their film. I hope they see all the other negative things people say.

[hectorberlioz]

It is like you are telling all of those thousands of people that worked on these films for years that they did a crappy job and need to start over because YOU didn't like it. They worked hard and long to bring us the best on screen adaptation there ever has been for LOTR.

well, they have better have learned their lesson.
Today is full of movie directors who hope good effects will cover up the rest of their bad job. thats why I started my thread "filmakers abuse CG". All those directors out there are too lazy to take the time to make a quality movie.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
well, they have better have learned their lesson.

Exactly - just because they worked long and hard on the action sequences and special effects does not mean that they brought the best adaptation to the screen. I will wait for the TRUE Lord of the Rings - not this hollywoodized crap piece Jackson decided to give us.

Today is full of movie directors who hope good effects will cover up the rest of their bad job. thats why I started my thread "filmakers abuse CG". All those directors out there are too lazy to take the time to make a quality movie.

It is. Also - hollywood is convinced the American movie going public is a bunch of idiots. They were even making comments that Harry Potter needed an american actor because Americans woudln't go see it with just british actors. They have no respect for their own customers and until the movie public starts demanding more - they always will. It's just going to get worse to where they just think they can slap together some cheap CGI and action sequences - and then claim it's a great movie. Look at the crap Star Wars movies we have been given lately. Over done CGI - with dumb scripts and in some areas terrible acting.

[hectorberlioz]

Look at the crap Star Wars movies we have been given lately. Over done CGI - with dumb scripts and in some areas terrible acting.

I'd say bad acting 90% (im saving ewan and liam and a couple of others)
oops wrong forum for star wars.

Exactly - just because they worked long and hard on the action sequences and special effects does not mean that they brought the best adaptation to the screen. I will wait for the TRUE Lord of the Rings - not this hollywoodized crap piece Jackson decided to give us.

Whoever takes on LotR next will(he better ) learn from PJ's mistakes.
But I think I'll get to lotr next so...

[Cassius]

I can understand that you think that the movies are crap, and i also understand that you are critical of their work. But I think that we can safely say that as of now, these movies are the best adaptation that has ever come to the screen. Criticism is a good thing, when it is constructive. Keyword: CONSTRUCTIVE. Totally slamming the works won't help anybody. If you are so insulted by them, then simply don't see them. I would like a more book-oriented movie made but you know how much these "bad" movies cost, how much do you think a more real adaptation would be?

Don't blame the underdogs of the movie-making process. Mostly the CGI people, because they did their job well. Jackson doesn't own their company, WETA workshop does. He may have some stock or something in that but he certainly doesn't own them. The artists worked hard to keep the on screen adaptations as accurate as possible. How else would you put a balrog on screen? an actor? I do not think so. Is there a set big enough to hold the whole Argonath (which were misinterpreted in the movies grrr...)?

I don't think that everybody deserves criticism, and I am not saying that no one deserves criticism, but lets try and keep it constructive.

[Cassius]

Originally posted by jerseydevil

It is. Also - hollywood is convinced the American movie going public is a bunch of idiots.

It's just going to get worse to where they just think they can slap together some cheap CGI and action sequences - and then claim it's a great movie. Look at the crap Star Wars movies we have been given lately. Over done CGI - with dumb scripts and in some areas terrible acting.

I wonder why people think that the public is stupid, they only have a few thousand years of knowing how to manipulate the mob to find out. The general public is stupider than you say. Everybody swarms over the scandals and finds outrageous opinions to send out amongst those that they commune with, the mob destroys lives, simply because the publice is too stupid to care.

I wouldn't call the CGI scenes "slapped" together! Maybe you people that do not know the buisiness and technology can say that, but the rest of the CGI community and myself know different. My career is in that field, more into the videogaming aspect than movies, but the concept is the same, and the work is difficult. I am a little tiffed that you cannot appreciate how hard we work on this sort of stuff.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cassius
I can understand that you think that the movies are crap, and i also understand that you are critical of their work. But I think that we can safely say that as of now, these movies are the best adaptation that has ever come to the screen. Criticism is a good thing, when it is constructive. Keyword: CONSTRUCTIVE. Totally slamming the works won't help anybody. If you are so insulted by them, then simply don't see them.

I do give constructive criticism. I givce a reason for EVERY part of the movie I do not like. It is not that I just slam them without giving a reason. Anyone who bothers to read my posts know exactly why I don't like the movies and whihc parts I find the worst parts.

I would like a more book-oriented movie made but you know how much these "bad" movies cost, how much do you think a more real adaptation would be?

Actually - not anymore than these movies cost and most likely less - because there would be less over the top special effects - because there would be less over the top action scenes.

Don't blame the underdogs of the movie-making process. Mostly the CGI people, because they did their job well. Jackson doesn't own their company, WETA workshop does. He may have some stock or something in that but he certainly doesn't own them.

Sorry - but Jackson is one of the founders.

The artists worked hard to keep the on screen adaptations as accurate as possible. How else would you put a balrog on screen? an actor? I do not think so. Is there a set big enough to hold the whole Argonath (which were misinterpreted in the movies grrr...)?

I never complained about the quality of workmanship - and I have only criticized a couple of parts of the CGI. So I don't why you are preaching this to me. You show me where I complained about any of tht stuff. If you go into the FotR threads - you will see that the Balrog scene is one of my favorite parts - except for Gandalf and the stupid stair scene before that.

I don't think that everybody deserves criticism, and I am not saying that no one deserves criticism, but lets try and keep it constructive.

I have kept it constructive. As i said - all my complaints have a reason. I do think based on the moves though that Jackson lied to the Tolkien fans and is just an action moive hack. I have demonstrated all the reasons why I think he is a hack.