LOTR Movie=ignorant fans?

[Durin1]

In other words BB, you think that it is alright to "dumb" down the movies as much as they like?

3 hours is ample time to show 30 second scenes rather than wasting a whole hour on needless and pointless things (wargs, refugees etc).

So your "nice" sarcasm does not have to be confined to the EE DVDs.

[Black Breathalizer]

Dumb down = (verb) A term frequently used by naive Tolkien purists who have no clue whatsoever how screenplays are written or movies are made.

Durin1, you clearly disagree with Jackson's choices. But the success of the films would seem to indicate that PJ knew a tad bit more about how to bring LOTR to the big screen than you.

[Durin1]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Dumb down = (verb) A term frequently used by naive Tolkien purists who have no clue whatsoever how screenplays are written or movies are made.

Durin1, you clearly disagree with Jackson's choices. But the success of the films would seem to indicate that PJ knew a tad bit more about how to bring LOTR to the big screen than you.

Nobody's arguing about the success of the movies (it would have taken a really awful film for it not to have done well in the box office), and nobody is criticising PJ for bringing such a complicated piece of work onto the big screen.

Rather, it is your obvious disdain for us "purists". Aside from the banter, it seems that you cannot appreciate that people will have differing opinions about what would constitute a good screenplay and a decent movie. Instead of being patronising, wouldn't it be a better use of your energy if you devoted it to actually finding something positive to say? rather than being so dismissive when people actually find faults in PJ's adaptation.

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
There are many things "that would have been nice." Unfortunately, the filmmakers had to focus on what is absolutely necessary to move this plot forward. With three hour running times, they didn't have the luxury of adding "nice" things to the theatrical releases. You will get more of those pieces of cake in the Extended DVDs.

Ok, so it was absolutely necessary to the movie plot that the Second Age ended in 3434 and not in 3441? It was absolutley necessary to the movie plot that Gandalf brought the Rohirrim to the Battle of the Hornburg down from the East? I guess the audience watching the movie would never believe that they came from the West. It was absolutley necessary to the movie plot that only Uruks fought at Helm's Deep instead of like in the book where it was Uruks, Orcs, Dunlendings, and Orc-men? And I guess that since it is a fantasy movie the audience would never had believed that Theoden is influenced by the words of a crooked counciler, but had to be possessed by Saruman and had to take an exorcism to free him. There are so many changes that had to be done because God knows nobody really appreciates the original.

[Black Breathalizer]

Melko Belcha: Ok, so it was absolutely necessary to the movie plot that the Second Age ended in 3434 and not in 3441?

BB: OMIGOD!!! How on Earth did I miss that!?!?!?! These films have suddenly lost all of their appeal to me now. I can't believe what dolts Jackson and his crew were for making such a horrendous oversight!!!

Melko Belcha: Was it absolutely necessary to the movie plot that Gandalf brought the Rohirrim to the Battle of the Hornburg down from the East? I guess the audience watching the movie would never believe that they came from the West.

BB: Movie Adaptation Rule Number One: Make an entertaining movie. I guess Peter Jackson thought the drama of having Gandalf and the Rohirrim charge down the mountain from the east as the sun appears over the horizon was worth a little literary license. To me this is a perfect example of the dangers of purist thinking. If Jackson had taken the Melko Belcha approach, we movie fans would have lost one of the most brilliant ten seconds of cinematography in the history of film.

Melko Belcha: Was it absolutely necessary to the movie plot that only Uruks fought at Helm's Deep instead of like in the book where it was Uruks, Orcs, Dunlendings, and Orc-men?

BB:The focus of the second film was that Saruman's army was bred with a single purpose, to destroy the world of men.

Melko Belcha: And I guess that since it is a fantasy movie the audience would never had believed that Theoden is influenced by the words of a crooked counciler, but had to be possessed by Saruman and had to take an exorcism to free him.

BB: OKay, do it the Melko Belcha way. How are you going to explain Theoden's change of heart to the audience in the same amount of time as Jackson was able to do? An exorcism was effective on both a visual and dramatic level AND it explained the dramatic change in Theoden for the audience without unnecessary exposition. Under your scenario, I might complain that the change in Theoden was hokey because Gandalf talks to the old coot for a bit and - bango - he's suddenly his old self again. I would argue this would have felt much less realistic to the audience than the exorcism you complain about did.

Melko Belcha: There are so many changes that had to be done because God knows nobody really appreciates the original.

BB: Actually, the changes were made so that the audience could better appreciate the original. I would suggest you train your high powered focus on the big picture instead of Middle Earth dates and directions. If you do, you might just find something very special in these films you hadn't noticed before.

[Wayfarer]

Black Breathalizer, do yourself and everyone else a favor and shut up, if you're going to refuse to be reasonable.

You have repeatedly made ridiculous claims, and then been insulting and derogatory to anyone who disagrees with you, and you divert the issue when problems with your arguments are pointed out.

This is not your high school debate class. You don't get points for trashing everybody else. So get over yourself.


Case in point: You say

...filmmakers had to focus on what is absolutely necessary to move this plot forward. With three hour running times, they didn't have the luxury of adding "nice" things to the theatrical releases.

Melko asks

so it was absolutely necessary to the movie plot that the Second Age ended in 3434 and not in 3441?

And you immediately respond with mockery, trying to avoid giving a straight answer.

OMIGOD!!! How on Earth did I miss that!?!?!?! These films have suddenly lost all of their appeal to me now. I can't believe what dolts Jackson and his crew were for making such a horrendous oversight!!!

It's a simple question! Was it nescessary to the film that this date be changed? If you can come up with any other answer than "No, it wasn't", then you're pretty obviously just being belligerent. Hardly anyone would have noticed this fact, it doesn't make a difference one way or the other. It was an unnescessary change, and one that no excuse at all could possibly justify. You only do yourself a disservice by refusing to admit as obvious a fact as this.

For the record, you're right. That change doesn't ruin the movie. And even as a rabid, foaming at the mouth book purist I can't really bring myself to make a big deal of it. However...

The fact that Jackson and Co. would change this for no other reason that they can seems to me to be an indicator of exactly how little respect they hold for the original author. Who knows, it may have been a genuine mistake, but in that case it still shows how carelessly the story was handled.

Now, back to your earlier statement:

the filmmakers had to focus on what is absolutely necessary to move this plot forward. With three hour running times, they didn't have the luxury of adding "nice" things to the theatrical releases.

Let's look at the movies together and seriously consider this. With 'Only' three hours per film, there's not enough time to add 'nice' things, hmm? Okay, I'll buy that a movie should focus on what's nescessary to move the plot forwards. That's reasonable, after all.

Now, examine what made it into the movie. Well, to be honest, most of the bits that were cut are more or less understandable. They're mostly peripheral to the main plot, although there were a few that would have been great to have in.

However, the line of reasoning that 'they couldn't leave everything in' fairly falls apart in light of the great amount of footage that was added which had no basis in the text and did nothing to move the plot forwards.

Great examples of this would be the scene in moria where roughly a million goblins just stand there without attacking and then run away, or the ridiculous, interminable 'collapsing stairs' scene shortly after. The horrible, pointless 'Aragorn's death' sequence.

And (Be honest with me, please), the hour or so of exaggerated fight sequences? Even you, would be hard pressed to claim that's nescessary to move the plot forwards.

Jackson is a hack, who had never turned out a successful movie before he produced LOTR. To claim that anyone who dissagrees with his choices 'doesn't get filmmaking' is a child's tactic, and not worthy of you, BB. The fact that he can successfully follow the standard action-movie formula does nothing to show he's any good. "Titanic" grossed more than either of jackson's LOTR films so far, and almost as much as them both together. Yet it was an eminently forgettable film, and it's since faded from the public consciousness. Only time will tell, but I predict the same will happen to Peter Jackson's films.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Black Breathalizer, do yourself and everyone else a favor and shut up, if you're going to refuse to be reasonable.

I am incredibly embarrassed that my behavior has sadly fallen short in your Elf eyes, Wayfarer. In the future, I will try harder to follow the incredibly high Statesmanlike standards of message board conduct that you always model here for the rest of us.

Originally posted by Wayfarer
The fact that Jackson and Co. would change this (a date) for no other reason that they can seems to me to be an indicator of exactly how little respect they hold for the original author. Who knows, it may have been a genuine mistake, but in that case it still shows how carelessly the story was handled.

I'm bettin' a mistake is a pretty good guess. I'm having a hard time picturing this scene:
Fran Walsh: And the second age ends in 3441...
Phillipa Boyens: No no no, Fran...let's use 3434 instead...it works so much better!
Fran Walsh: You are SO right. That's brilliant! Why didn't I think of that!??!!?

I refuse to ignore the attention to detail shown by Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens, Alan Lee, John Howe, Richard Taylor, the actors, Weta, and everyone else involved because of a mistake made by a junior copy editor.

Originally posted by Wayfarer
...the line of reasoning that 'they couldn't leave everything in' fairly falls apart in light of the great amount of footage that was added which had no basis in the text and did nothing to move the plot forwards. Great examples of this would be the scene in moria where roughly a million goblins just stand there without attacking and then run away.

Having the Fellowship completely surrounded by goblins was a very dramatic and highly visual moment in the film. They didn't attack because they were frightened off by the sound of the approaching Balrog. That fact ADDED to the drama of the moment, in my humble opinion. The result is that the audience members unfamiliar with the story are sitting on the edge of their seats going, "omigod, what's so nasty that this legion of ugly-looking goblins are even scared off?!?!?!?"

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Jackson is a hack, who had never turned out a successful movie before he produced LOTR. To claim that anyone who dissagrees with his choices 'doesn't get filmmaking' is a child's tactic, and not worthy of you, BB.

Once again, I am really, really sorry. But please understand that not everyone can post with the same level of thoughtfulness, class, and maturity that you always show. Unlike you, there are times when I can't resist resorting to cheap shots and name-calling. But I promise to try harder in the future. While we may not always agree, I really look up to you, Mister Wayfarer. You are my role-model!

Originally posted by Wayfarer
"Titanic" grossed more than either of jackson's LOTR films so far, and almost as much as them both together. Yet it was an eminently forgettable film, and it's since faded from the public consciousness. Only time will tell, but I predict the same will happen to Peter Jackson's films.

Gulp, it's hard to argue with your ironclad logic on this one. I suppose you're right--these films probably won't have anywhere close to the shelf life the Star Wars films have had. You win.

[Wayfarer]

I am incredibly embarrassed that my behavior has sadly fallen short in your Elf eyes, Wayfarer. In the future, I will try harder to follow the incredibly high Statesmanlike standards of message board conduct that you always model here for the rest of us.

Now that's more like it. Here, have an autographed Wayfarer Wizard Hat.

Having the Fellowship completely surrounded by goblins was a very dramatic and highly visual moment in the film. They didn't attack because they were frightened off by the sound of the approaching Balrog. That fact ADDED to the drama of the moment, in my humble opinion. The result is that the audience members unfamiliar with the story are sitting on the edge of their seats going, "omigod, what's so nasty that this legion of ugly-looking goblins are even scared off?!?!?!?"

I disagree, and I think you and I must have radically different viewpoints on what exactly drama is. I see that scene as corny and overdone. LoTR is not a comedy, and the drama in that scene should have been, and was supposed to be, serious, nevertheless, I found it comedic, almost farcical (You don't have massively overwhelming numbers and charge an enemy from all directions, only to stop five feet from them). Drama is supposed to invoke an emotional response, that scene was to over-the-top to be believable, and had me snorting 'yeah, right'.

I thought that particular scene, and a number of others, were cheesy action, not drama (That's right. It was corny and cheesy!). One of the most dramatic scenes in the film, for me, was the first shot of helm's deep. The visuals and soundtrack of that scene were thrilling, imho.

In regards to what people unfamiliar with the story thought, I'll have to ask a few everymen what went throught their heads.

Once again, I am really, really sorry. But please understand that not everyone can post with the same level of thoughtfulness, class, and maturity that you always show. Unlike you, there are times when I can't resist resorting to cheap shots and name-calling. But I promise to try harder in the future. While we may not always agree, I really look up to you, Mister Wayfarer. You are my role-model!

Here. Have an autographed WayFarer Wizard Hat. *Pat Pat*

Gulp, it's hard to argue with your ironclad logic on this one. I suppose you're right--these films probably won't have anywhere close to the shelf life the Star Wars films have had. You win.

Star Trek? No, that's a series, it doesn't count.

I well understand your point, and I hope you understand mine. I merely wanted to direct your attention to the fact that having a high gross in the box office doesn't nescessarily make a good movie.

[Melko Belcha]

BB: OMIGOD!!! How on Earth did I miss that!?!?!?! These films have suddenly lost all of their appeal to me now. I can't believe what dolts Jackson and his crew were for making such a horrendous oversight!!!

It is just another example of things that did not have to be changed but were for no other reason then to change it. The people who have never read the book it will not make any difference, so why change something for no reason when the book fans will notice it in a second? I was not crucial to the plot so why was it changed?

BB: Movie Adaptation Rule Number One: Make an entertaining movie. I guess Peter Jackson thought the drama of having Gandalf and the Rohirrim charge down the mountain from the east as the sun appears over the horizon was worth a little literary license. To me this is a perfect example of the dangers of purist thinking. If Jackson had taken the Melko Belcha approach, we movie fans would have lost one of the most brilliant ten seconds of cinematography in the history of film.

But it changes so much about the story. Gandalf is an ambassador of the West, there is some much of the story that deals with the good from the West and evil from the East. The scene from the book holds a much more powerful meaning then sun light in the eyes. And some of the best cinematography in the history of film? Are you series? The shot of Gandalf on top of the ridge and the horsemen riding up was so chessey I was laughing. It falls in with some of the most corny stuff I have even seen in a fantasy movie.

BB:The focus of the second film was that Saruman's army was bred with a single purpose, to destroy the world of men.

You mean the Orc-men bred by Saruman, or do you mean the stupid change of having the Uruk-hai be the Orc-men. Another change that I can't stand, but I guess that PJ never bothered to read the Appendix then he might have realized that the Uruks came from Mordor 300 years before Saruman even moved to Orthanc. I guess he never read the story close enuff to realixe that the Uruk-hai are the large soilder-orcs of the late Third Age and the Orc-men (Half-orcs) are the ruffians who took over The Shire. And yes I have quotes to prove it.

BB: OKay, do it the Melko Belcha way. How are you going to explain Theoden's change of heart to the audience in the same amount of time as Jackson was able to do? An exorcism was effective on both a visual and dramatic level AND it explained the dramatic change in Theoden for the audience without unnecessary exposition. Under your scenario, I might complain that the change in Theoden was hokey because Gandalf talks to the old coot for a bit and - bango - he's suddenly his old self again. I would argue this would have felt much less realistic to the audience than the exorcism you complain about did.

I found the whole exorcism as chessey and an embarassment to Tolkien's work. That was the one scene that I almost walked out of theater for. There are just to many corny and chessey moments in TTT that I can't even count, PJ has turned LotR into a high budget D&D movie.

BB: Actually, the changes were made so that the audience could better appreciate the original. I would suggest you train your high powered focus on the big picture instead of Middle Earth dates and directions. If you do, you might just find something very special in these films you hadn't noticed before.

The only thing I have noticed from the films is even though PJ might have respect for the story he has no respect to the hard work of the author. The script has been treated recklessy, and there are many things that not only change the story but change the physics of Middle-earth.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
(Jackson) has no respect to the hard work of the author. The script has been treated recklessly, and there are many things that not only change the story but change the physics of Middle-earth.

This statement is absurd. Peter Jackson and most everyone who worked on these films are huge Tolkien fans. If you would bother to watch any of the backstory videos on the making of the film series you would realize these movies were crafted with the upmost love and respect for the author.

You can question the decisions of PJ and Company but no one who has any inside knowledge of how the films were made can question their devotion to Tolkien and love of the books.

[Wayfarer]

Breathalizer, with all due respect, what else would they say?

Do you honestly think that, whatever PJ's view might have been, the backstory videos would have been any different? Do you honestly think that Jackson would ever admit 'No, I think tolkien's writing sucked so I don't have any qualms about changing things.'

Of course not! You should recognize the background clips for what they are- propaganda. How the filmmakers truly felt is shown by their words, not their actions.

You know what, I do think that PJ and co liked the books. You could even say that they were fans. But 'Devoted to Tolkien'? Hardly. Jackson himself indicated something to the effect that he wanted to make these films, not because of any devotion to the author, but because he thought they could be profitable.

The filmmakers, judging from their art, are all the kinds of people who picked up the LOTR, read it, and said. "Gee, that was a good book." without more than a cursory attempt to understand the intricacies of the sub-created world. Because they only had a surface understanding, they only portrayed the surface in film. That's their real failing, and that's the reason that the Jackson films have indeed resulted in ignorant fans - they were made by ignorants, for ignorants.

[Black Breathalizer]

You can find some in every crowd:

The "Flat Earth" Society
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

The "Elvis is Alive" Society
http://elvis-lives.8m.com/iselvisalive.html

The "Bigfoot Exists" Society
http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/

and now, we have...

The "Jackson is a No-talent Hack who's so-called 'Respect for Tolkien' is Sheer Propaganda" Society
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com

[Wayfarer]

And you're a member!!!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
BB: The movies were never designed to "tell the bigger picture" nor should they have been. The moment a screenwriter begins adding details (names, people, places, etc.) that have nothing to do with the central plot, all he does is confuse the audience unnecessarily.

There are many things "that would have been nice." Unfortunately, the filmmakers had to focus on what is absolutely necessary to move this plot forward. With three hour running times, they didn't have the luxury of adding "nice" things to the theatrical releases. You will get more of those pieces of cake in the Extended DVDs.

Making Aragorn into a wimp afraid of his heritage had no cenematic value, taking Frodo's strongest and VERY important part at the Ford was the worst change Jackson made, Gandlaf wimpering to Saruman about the Ring (Gandalf would have been strong - not walking beside Saruman saying "There's still time right? I'm sorry."). The wizards duel - complete butchering and completely not necessary to the movie or the story. The exorcism scene - over the top and unnecessary. Making Galadriel into the ultimate Ice Queen - unnecessary (not to mention the ridiculout "evil" voice overs). Dragging Frodo to Osgiliath - again - unnecessary.

of course changes have to be made to the book. But Jackson cut out most of the keep points in charatcer development and replaced them with over the top action sequences. Farmer Maggot - turned into an action scene where he chases after the hobbits instead of inviting them in for dinner. The Ringwraith - cutting off the head of a hobbit (the ringwraiths were not physically violent, they were pyschologically frightening). The stupid extension of Moria, Half way through I just wish someone would just friggin die already. It's way too long and could have been cut in half and then they could have gotten the gift giving in there. The Council of Elrond - turned into a heated argument (again - adds nothing to the story - not to mention there were like 9 people only at the council). Aragorn falling off the edge of the cliff - completely unnecessary and ridiculous - again Jackson implies that Arwen has magic powers to bring people back to life. The constant dwarf tossing jokes.

Don't go on and on about the filmakers having to stick with what was absolutely necessary to keep the plot moving along. They added so much ridiculous fluff it contradicts your argument. Jackson did far more than just make the NECESSARY changes to bring the books to the screen. But he's an action director - his past films demonstrate that. What more can you expect from him but action, cheap overacted emotional scenes, and cheap jokes.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Dumb down = (verb) A term frequently used by naive Tolkien purists who have no clue whatsoever how screenplays are written or movies are made.

Durin1, you clearly disagree with Jackson's choices. But the success of the films would seem to indicate that PJ knew a tad bit more about how to bring LOTR to the big screen than you.

i want to finally know how many films you have made since you seem to think that only YOU or the people who like the movies know anything about what it takes to make a movie. I just want you to know - I had wanted to BE a film maker and had read many books on film making (not the same thing as personal experience - but you practically are declaing yourself an expert filmmaker).

Please - supply we with a movie you have directed so I can purchase it. It'll allow me to confirm that you actually know something about movie making - at least more than us "ignorant" book fans.

If you can't - then shut up already about how we don't understand what it takes to make a movie - because then you don't know anymore than what we do.

By the way - I know people who write screen plays.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
OKay, do it the Melko Belcha way. How are you going to explain Theoden's change of heart to the audience in the same amount of time as Jackson was able to do? An exorcism was effective on both a visual and dramatic level AND it explained the dramatic change in Theoden for the audience without unnecessary exposition. Under your scenario, I might complain that the change in Theoden was hokey because Gandalf talks to the old coot for a bit and - bango - he's suddenly his old self again. I would argue this would have felt much less realistic to the audience than the exorcism you complain about did.
......
Actually, the changes were made so that the audience could better appreciate the original. I would suggest you train your high powered focus on the big picture instead of Middle Earth dates and directions. If you do, you might just find something very special in these films you hadn't noticed before.

Say YOU. Now please supply me with your list of movies you have directed so we can determine if you have an epertise in film making. You seem to rant on and on about how to make movies.

All the situations you seem to mention in your posts that are impossible to bring to the screen have been brought successfully to the screen by countless other directors. You argue on and on how the ringwraiths had to be made the way they were in the movies because you can't bring the psychological terror to the screen. It's amazing all the pychological horror movies out there where not a single drop of blood is spilled. I have a supicion that your guide to movie making is George Lucas and not much beyond that.

By the way - I don't care that Glorfindel or Tom Bombadil were cut out. Neither one were necessary to the overall story. I don't care about the dates, or the location of troops - those are unnecessary to the overall story. I would have also have replaced Glorfindel with another character - but there is no excuse for taking Frodo's strength and removing the key scene of him standing up and rejecting the Nazgul and giving it to Arwen. There are many things Jackson did that were completely UNNECESSARY and turned the movie too far away from the book.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Black Breathalizer, do yourself and everyone else a favor and shut up, if you're going to refuse to be reasonable.

You have repeatedly made ridiculous claims, and then been insulting and derogatory to anyone who disagrees with you, and you divert the issue when problems with your arguments are pointed out.

This is not your high school debate class. You don't get points for trashing everybody else. So get over yourself.


Case in point: You say
Melko asks
And you immediately respond with mockery, trying to avoid giving a straight answer.It's a simple question! Was it nescessary to the film that this date be changed? If you can come up with any other answer than "No, it wasn't", then you're pretty obviously just being belligerent. Hardly anyone would have noticed this fact, it doesn't make a difference one way or the other. It was an unnescessary change, and one that no excuse at all could possibly justify. You only do yourself a disservice by refusing to admit as obvious a fact as this.

For the record, you're right. That change doesn't ruin the movie. And even as a rabid, foaming at the mouth book purist I can't really bring myself to make a big deal of it. However...

The fact that Jackson and Co. would change this for no other reason that they can seems to me to be an indicator of exactly how little respect they hold for the original author. Who knows, it may have been a genuine mistake, but in that case it still shows how carelessly the story was handled.

Now, back to your earlier statement:Let's look at the movies together and seriously consider this. With 'Only' three hours per film, there's not enough time to add 'nice' things, hmm? Okay, I'll buy that a movie should focus on what's nescessary to move the plot forwards. That's reasonable, after all.

Now, examine what made it into the movie. Well, to be honest, most of the bits that were cut are more or less understandable. They're mostly peripheral to the main plot, although there were a few that would have been great to have in.

However, the line of reasoning that 'they couldn't leave everything in' fairly falls apart in light of the great amount of footage that was added which had no basis in the text and did nothing to move the plot forwards.

Great examples of this would be the scene in moria where roughly a million goblins just stand there without attacking and then run away, or the ridiculous, interminable 'collapsing stairs' scene shortly after. The horrible, pointless 'Aragorn's death' sequence.

And (Be honest with me, please), the hour or so of exaggerated fight sequences? Even you, would be hard pressed to claim that's nescessary to move the plot forwards.

Jackson is a hack, who had never turned out a successful movie before he produced LOTR. To claim that anyone who dissagrees with his choices 'doesn't get filmmaking' is a child's tactic, and not worthy of you, BB. The fact that he can successfully follow the standard action-movie formula does nothing to show he's any good. "Titanic" grossed more than either of jackson's LOTR films so far, and almost as much as them both together. Yet it was an eminently forgettable film, and it's since faded from the public consciousness. Only time will tell, but I predict the same will happen to Peter Jackson's films.

All I can say is perfectly said and I second that!!!!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
This statement is absurd. Peter Jackson and most everyone who worked on these films are huge Tolkien fans. If you would bother to watch any of the backstory videos on the making of the film series you would realize these movies were crafted with the upmost love and respect for the author.

Oh - you mean your one of the stupid people who actually bought Jackson's propaganda? In the full length commentary - Jackson declares that he just felt like making a fantasy movie. He gave it some thought and decided to make Lord of the Rings becuase if had a BUILT-IN following and would have ready-made fans. In past interviews Jackson stated that ALL the actors had to read the books - Elijah Wood has repeatedly said that he still hasn't read the books but would still like to.

My sister worked in Hollywood PR - it's amazing that you bought his load of lies. However, going by your ridiculous and constant defense of the films no matter what - I shouldn't be suprised you bought them hook, line and sinker. As I have said and Wayfarer has said - Jackson is a hack.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Breathalizer, with all due respect, what else would they say?

Do you honestly think that, whatever PJ's view might have been, the backstory videos would have been any different? Do you honestly think that Jackson would ever admit 'No, I think tolkien's writing sucked so I don't have any qualms about changing things.'

Of course not! You should recognize the background clips for what they are- propaganda. How the filmmakers truly felt is shown by their words, not their actions.

You know what, I do think that PJ and co liked the books. You could even say that they were fans. But 'Devoted to Tolkien'? Hardly. Jackson himself indicated something to the effect that he wanted to make these films, not because of any devotion to the author, but because he thought they could be profitable.

The filmmakers, judging from their art, are all the kinds of people who picked up the LOTR, read it, and said. "Gee, that was a good book." without more than a cursory attempt to understand the intricacies of the sub-created world. Because they only had a surface understanding, they only portrayed the surface in film. That's their real failing, and that's the reason that the Jackson films have indeed resulted in ignorant fans - they were made by ignorants, for ignorants.

I guess I should read the full thread befoere posting all my replies - it would have saved a lot of typng if I just quote Wayfarer and said - "As I have said REPEATEDLY"

Actually BB - Jackson IS a no talent hack. That is why all his films have sucked. The Lord of the Rings in my opinion is only a C average movie. Exaclibur is a far better movie than Jackson - it has more emotion and feeling. It doesn't resort to lame jokes (although one part annoys me when Merlin hits his head), or cheesy slow motion in almost every scene. There is only one part in excalibur where they use slow motion I can remember - that is when they are galloping through the Cherry Blossoms and works very well.

The LotR movies will fall off the face of the movie radar screen within a few years of release of RotK - just like Wayfarer pointed out Titanic did. As for Star Wars - the only real classic in the Star Wars series was part IV (Star Wars). I can add possibly Empire Strikes Back - but after that they all quickly go down hill. Also - Star Wars was a classic becuase so much of the movie was new in techonological achievements in special effects and NOT in the story telling part. You can't honestly think that Phantom Menace (which I actually had to look on my DVD case for the name because I forgot) and Attack of the Clones were good films.

By the way Wayfarer - I think you meant to say...

"How the filmmakers truly felt is shown not by their words, but their actions."

instead of ."How the filmmakers truly felt is shown by their words, not their actions."

[Black Breathalizer]

Jerseydevil & Wayfarer:

You may want to get started crafting your "Jackson is STILL a no talent hack, a Best Director Academy Award doesn't meant squat," comments to post here on March 1 of next year. It's always important to never let facts get in the way of a good Purist rant.