Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: Do you like the movies?

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Two Towers > Do you like the movies?   [1] [2] >>
is it just me or does it seem like everyone on this website hates pj and the lotr movies? just a thought. Paranoid Smilie
No, just me and a couple of others. But perhaps because i seem to be everywhere lately, you think i am everyone?

Seriously, i don't really hate the movies, that's just a pose. I find the various plot and character changes PJ made to be very amusing and entertaining. Legolamb on the skateshield, for instance. Or Gimli and the Wargs!!! Hahahahahaha!

Even i must admit PJ made a very good LOTR parody (with or without the intention to do so).
I wouldn't say we all hate them, but, as for me, i think PJ's a good director and the movies are pretty good. I just think the books are alot better. Elk Grinning Smilie
i think so also. the movies are so amazing but the books are better!!! Big Smile Smilie
I like the movies for what they are: adaptions of very long detailed novels about people, places and things that never existed except on paper. There are things I would change, if it were me, but overall, I like all three movies, though I was a bit let down with TTT's siege at Helm's Deep.

But then I'm probably in the minority about liking Ralph Bashki's adaption as well. For what it was, an adaption that took 1-1/2 books and turned them into a 2 hour animated movie, I believe that an admirable job was done and in some respects, the Bashki's adaption is a bit closer to the novels than PJ's, but then in other area's PJ's is more accurate than Bashki's.

Actually I would like to see a thread on what PJ and/or Bashki did that was not in the books, but enhanced the stories a bit. For example, in both we see Saruman as an active character, while in the books Saruman is only talked about until Gandalf's confrontation with him after the battle at Helm's Deep.
I enjoyed the movies and I really liked them until I read the books, I like the movies don't get me wrong. I would have to say that they will go as some of my favorites. I think that they SEE of the first two are alot better than the theatrical cuts. Not sure about ROTK since that SEE will not come out til November. I think that PJ did a good job in developing the characters (for the most part) there was the obvious hack job that he did w/ Faramir but that is for another thread. I also think that there were a few liberties that he took that he should not have, Faramir being one and the whole Sam and Frodo thing in ROTK that one really hacked me off. I would have to say that being a bigger fan of books than of movies I take these as a loosely interperted form of what the author ment. Anyone that is a fan of any book that has been made into a movie should do this IMO otherwise you will never like the movie if you are always looking for the flaws or the changes in the story. Really take The Godfather for example I am a huge fan of Mario Puzo and I read that book long before I saw the movie and when I saw the movie I was disappointed becuase I was trying to find all of the things that were wrong instead of paying attention to the fact that FFC (Coppala) for the most part stayed true to the heart of the story. I think that PJ tried to do this with LoTR but he just strayed from the point at times, added a few things and even took some things out. All in all I liked the movies but I do enjoy the books more.

Ashley276
I don't like PJ at all, you can even say i hate him. He changed to many things and put some characters in the movie. ~Irima-arwen
Quote:
I don't like PJ at all, you can even say i hate him. He changed to many things and put some characters in the movie.

I think it would be more accurate to say that one does not like PJ's work. Or at least, not his work on LOTR.
As you may or may not have noticed, many people say that they do not like (or even stronger feelings have been expressed) PJ. I have finally figured out that is the kind of statement that tends to bother me and takes away crediblility of the opinion, unless, of course, one has met the gentleman. Orc Grinning Smilie
Val posted this in another thread......

Quote:
From The Silmarillion - Of the Fifth Battle


Quote:
But now a cry went up, passing up the wind from the south from vale to vale, and Elves and men lifted their voices in wonder and joy. For unsummoned and unlooked for Turgon had opened the leaguer of Gondolin, and was come with an army ten thousand strong, with bright mail and long swords and spears like a forest. Then when Fingon heard afar the great trumpet of Turgon his brother, the shadow passed and his heart was uplifted, and he shouted aloud: "Utilie'n aure! Aiya Eldalie ar Atanatari, utulie'n aure! The day has come! Behold people of the Eldar and Fathers of Men, the day has come!" And all those who heard his great voice echo in the hills answered crying: "Auta i lome! The night is passing!"


This obviously is not a film section, but I felt a very similar emotion when the Elves turned up unexpectedly at the Battle of Helm's Deep in the film. I sometimes wonder if PJ got his inspiration for that idea from reading the above quotation?


I wonder how many other bits of the film, especially those we have issues with, were inspired by Tolkien's writing and were used by PJ to keep them in line with Tolkien. A redeeming feature one hopes.

If someone has a real issue with something used in the films maybe they could post it here and we can try and find something else it relates to within Tolkien's writing?
Quote:
This obviously is not a film section, but I felt a very similar emotion when the Elves turned up unexpectedly at the Battle of Helm's Deep in the film. I sometimes wonder if PJ got his inspiration for that idea from reading the above quotation?

I just think PJ put in the Elves at helm's deep because otherwise we wouldn't see any Elves fighting, safe Legolamb, and because he couldn't show the other races fight against Mordor's armies at Lothlorien, Dale or Erebor.

I doubt whether PJ ever read the Silmarillion, why would he ? He was making a movie based on LOTR (at least that was what he told us). I feel he only put in the Elves at helm's deep out of practical reasons. The movie lads and lasses made 500 Elvish costumes... they had to be used one day! Heh.

Furthermore, i think the movies would be more in line with what Tolkien wrote if PJ tried to follow the books a bit more, instead of changing the story of the books in the movies, and then change this changes by putting in something of the books (ripped out of context) to make it more akin to what Tolkien wrote.
3 movies good, 3 books BETTER!
I think pj did a great job! However, the college my Dad works at did a mock argument about this, and the result was that the movies were true to Tolkien, and very very good. The guy arguing against the movies, however, made several good points. For instance, the light-up Galadriel in FOTR made her look like she stuck her finger in a lightbulb socket, and they made some characters weaker to make others stronger. And they added Arwen! SHAME!
Lotr os pg-13 for epic kissing and some scary Elf-princesses for crying out loud! The AWEFUL SMOOCHING! UGH! GROSS! Making Out Smilie
It's soooo not Tolkien! I mean, in the Lay of Leithan (spelling?) there ain't no kissing! But it's easy to point out the bad parts of a movie, and forget all the good parts. I mean, those Nazguls! Those were great! And the scenery/special effects were tremendous! But now I've rattled on WAY too much for anyones liking so I'll just shut my fair Elven mouth!
By the way, I agree w Virumor
Every time I hear that one of my favorite books is being turned into a film, I always think it will be awful. And usually it is. There are few exceptions.
But LOTR surprised me. I expected to see too many special effects and not enough story. Instead, I saw Middle-earth in all it's glory, and I was there. It literally took my breath away. The special effects are so seamless. The acting is brilliant. The depth of detail is endless.
I have to say I really love all three films. But Tolkien's original book will always be a true work of inspired genius. Nothing can touch it.
I agree. Middle-earth was brought to life in all its glory even if some of the storyline suffered for whatever reason.

I doubly agree with your last paragraph.
Eldarwen has spoken the words of the wise. The movies may not be everybody's interpretation of the books, it is PJ's, and we should respect that. And it's better than others I have seen... Elf Winking Smilie
About the movies, ah, yes. I've been running the idea of a long posting in my head. I'm never going to get the time to do it, so I'll just state it more plainly.

I like a lot about the movies. The design work is truly wonderful, especially garments. The clothing, the weapons, the buildings are really gorgeous and extraordinarily well filmed. The acting is almost invariably of the highest quality. I think the actors, to the extent that it is in their control, are very true to the characters in the books.

I don't object to things left out. That had to be done to make a movie. Some of the additions don't bother me much except in that they take up time that could have been used doing scenes more out of Tolkien. The horse Brego and Aragon episode is nice enough, but completely unnecessary. I wouldn't have had elves show up at Helm's Deep, but I don't mind. The scene of Aragon with the youth that starts with "Give me your sword..." in TTT is really wonderful. There is even one case where PJ does something that Tolkien misses: he shows Boromir as likable teaching the hobbits to fence. In the books, I always found Boromir always a little dark until his death.

What is really wrong with the movies, and it permeates everything, is that PJ and the writers do not have the vision of the possibilities of moral depth. that Tolkien does. Everyone is morally dumbed down. It seems that they cannot imagine people, or elves being as wise or good as Tolkien does.

Sam is the only character that goes through the movie with a heart as strong as Tolkien's Sam. Aragorn is very close to Tolkien's and one of the best and most completely physical inhabitation of a character I've seen a film actor do. He is only frayed a bit from the Tolkien Aragorn by needing to be "bucked up" by Arwen when he doubts. The real Aragorn does not doubt and he does not waver in his intentions and hopes with Arwen. Neither does Arwen waver. They both do in the movie.

The movie gutted the character of Faramir. That's not the most extreme, but I think the most painful. In the book, he is completely the man who would never take the Ring, and would be well past that adolescent angst vis-a-vis his father that the movie depicts. That whole shallow soap opera of brothers and father there functions levels way below Tolkien's world. (Otherwise, I think Wenham does Faramir marvelously well and to Tolkien. I saw him in a movie called, I think, Molokai where he played Damien de Veuster, the Belgian priest in Hawaii ministering to lepers. It was not a great movie, but it was a truly great performance.)

Tolkien's Denethor is, at worst, proud and cold. But he is always assiduously attentive to the defense of the city and rules with strength and intelligence and seeking the good. There is a horror to his insanity. He is a loss. PJ's Denethor is downright loathesome and exhibits no particular talents, and we are not sorry to see him go.

Tolkien's Ents are ancient and deep with wisdom, memory and thought. That trick of Pippin's makes Treebeard little more than a buffoon.

Speaking of buffoons, Merry and Pippin are supposed to be young gentlemen and the particular friends of Bilbo and Frodo. Despite a youthful hobbitlike lightheartedness, they are far more serious and brave than the movie depicts. For instance, Pippin's swearing fealty to Denethor is respected and praised by Gandalf, but in the movie Gandalf treats him like a foolish child. Again, though, the actors do very well with what they are given.

Eowyn is fairly close to the book. That scene of her as a giggly bad cook is an awful degradation of Tolkien's character.

The possession of Theoden by Saruman turns him into a simple pawn and replaces the terrible descent of his spirit and the potency of his redemption with a bit of fairy tale magic. Further, the king of Rohan would not ever question his duty to ride to the aid of Gondor when summoned.

Gimli has been turned into comic relief. The books' Legolas would never express or feel the doubts and fears the movie's Legolas did at Helm's Deep.

Elrond is just kind of bitchy. Galadriel is done well enough. I'd have done it differently, but she isn't as cheapened in spirit as most of the rest of the characters are. Eomer is fine. There is no sense of the innate greatness and nobility of Isildur. He comes across as something of a brigand. Saruman, however, is right on the money. That scene of duelling staffs pretty much cheapens the story, though.

Other than thinking the astonishingly excellent computer graphics of Gollum never stops looking like astonishingly excellent computer graphics, I think the character of Gollum is even less of a moral actor than the book. There is a real sorrow and pathos, even hope and, eventually regret at his fall in the book that doesn't make the movie. And Frodo sending Sam away in being duped by Gollum is completely false to the three characters and their relationships. Additionally it makes Frodo look stupid.

Okay, it goes on. I cannot assert that PJ has some responsibility to follow the book or do what I would want him to do. I don't think he is a traitor or at all dishonest. He also seems like a nice guy.

What he seems not to have is Tolkien's belief, faith in the ascendant perfectibility of the human soul. It seems that the characters he portrays are as good as he can imagine them to be or thinks that we can accept. I read somewhere in the text of a book of African sculpture that the purpose of a work of art is to summon us to be better than what we are. (Possibly it was more that a great work of art summons us to be better than what we are. My memory is imperfect.) I think Tolkien does that. I think PJ entertains, which is, of course, no crime.
Nice post Shaya, I enjoyed reading it! Orc With Thumbs Up Smilie
The thing I liked about the book is the small links between LOTR and for example the Silmarillion. I only began to notice those links after reading the Silmarillion which I did after I've read LOTR.
In the movie those links have sometimes been taken out.
Seeing the movies LOTR almost lost it's flavour to me. Where the book has it's own history dripping all over the place, the movie seems to be ripped out of it's time, it's culture, it's heritage. The movie has blurred my vision on those things.

But I must say, that after reading here again (I've joined this site over a year ago, but was never active) I regained my love for LOTR. Again I see the depth of the story again. Again I see, thanks to you all, the links with it's history again.
"in the books' Legolas would never express or feel the doubts and fears the movie's Legolas did at Helm's Deep." ( a quote from 'Shaya Puma' which appears to have been deleted since)

a lot of interesting points here. firstly i'd like to say that legolas does express doubts and fears to gimli in the book if u look at about pg 520 he says that "too few" bowmen have come. so if ur gonna write an essay get ur facts right, i think everyone shud stop slagging Jackson's films, can anyone here honestly say we will see a better version on film than his. i saw the films first then read the book so they had an influence on me.

Theres just this one bit i can't stand in the films, where merry and pippin run in to add themselves to the fellowship in the council of Elrond, the bit where Gandalf does this "look" as if to say they're crazy but i like em! i can't really do it justice with words just watch it. Cheesey as hell (but i like it!)
Davetherave, a small nit: Are you quoting someone without adding your own comment or is the above your comment? If the latter case you don't need to "quote"; if the former, you should add your comment and should probably designate where the quote came from as I couldn't find it in this thread. Elf Winking Smilie

You may use the edit button at the bottom of your post to clarify it, if that needs doing: in which case I'll edit or delete this my post. Please don't feel embarassed; I don't mean to pick on you, I just wanted to better understand your intent. Happy Elf Smilie
A very nice post Shaya. I'm just commenting on a few things you mentioned!

Quote:
He is only frayed a bit from the Tolkien Aragorn by needing to be "bucked up" by Arwen when he doubts. The real Aragorn does not doubt and he does not waver in his intentions and hopes with Arwen. Neither does Arwen waver. They both do in the movie.

With the wavering of Aragorn, PJ just tried to bring out the mental confrontation that might have been going on in Aragorn's mind. The movie Aragorn has been shown to be weak in his mind doubting the strength of his lineage and his fate. He believes that he too is as weak as Isildur was and hence the mental battle and dilemma.

Quote:
The movie gutted the character of Faramir. In the book, he is completely the man who would never take the Ring, and would be well past that adolescent angst vis-a-vis his father that the movie depicts. That whole shallow soap opera of brothers and father there functions levels way below Tolkien's world.

Faramir's character was done pretty well. He loved his brother and admired him. But then he wished his father would stop lamenting the loss of Boromir. Actually, Faramir wanted his father to see that he himself is as good as his brother. The movie clearly shows that.

Quote:
Tolkien's Denethor is, at worst, proud and cold. But he is always assiduously attentive to the defense of the city and rules with strength and intelligence and seeking the good. There is a horror to his insanity. He is a loss. PJ's Denethor is downright loathesome and exhibits no particular talents, and we are not sorry to see him go.

Denethor has been portrayed as insane. But then if a character is given a screen timing of just 1 hour it is very tough to actually develop him in detail as can be done in a book in a matter of a few pages. Actually, the idea of Denethor as a power-crazed person did go down well with me since I never compared the movies with the books. Denethor's character could explain a lot of things in the movie.

Quote:
Tolkien's Ents are ancient and deep with wisdom, memory and thought. That trick of Pippin's makes Treebeard little more than a buffoon.

PJ's ents too are deep with wisdom, memory and thought. Pippin's "trick" (as you call it) was just to go home safely. He obviously didn't know thet the trees had been cut at that part. And as with a shepherd, a loss of his sheep makes him kill the wolf won't the treeherds do the same thing? The Ents were brilliant.

Quote:
Speaking of buffoons, Merry and Pippin are supposed to be young gentlemen and the particular friends of Bilbo and Frodo. Despite a youthful hobbitlike lightheartedness, they are far more serious and brave than the movie depicts. For instance, Pippin's swearing fealty to Denethor is respected and praised by Gandalf, but in the movie Gandalf treats him like a foolish child. Again, though, the actors do very well with what they are given.

Pippin and Merry were solely for comical relief and for moving the watchers emotionally. The movie hobbits were harmless, little creatures who had nothing to do with any of what happened and they were dragged unknowingly into the war and everything. They were portrayed as lovable beings who were at the wrong places at the right times.

Quote:
Eowyn is fairly close to the book. That scene of her as a giggly bad cook is an awful degradation of Tolkien's character.

Eowyn is justified. She is shown in the movie to be a strong character as she is in the books. And then, Tolkien never wrote that Eowyn was a good cook. Wink Smilie

Quote:
The possession of Theoden by Saruman turns him into a simple pawn and replaces the terrible descent of his spirit and the potency of his redemption with a bit of fairy tale magic. Further, the king of Rohan would not ever question his duty to ride to the aid of Gondor when summoned.

I find PJ's Theoden to be more human-like that Tolkien's. Tolkien's Theoden was quite frail and was not able to take decisions for himself. I liked PJ's Theoden to be more enjoyable and brave.

Quote:
Gimli has been turned into comic relief.

Good stuff!

Quote:
The books' Legolas would never express or feel the doubts and fears the movie's Legolas did at Helm's Deep.

But then the movies cannot show what a person is thinking if the person doesn't say it on screen. (whether live or in a pseudo-thought voice)

Quote:
Saruman, however, is right on the money. That scene of duelling staffs pretty much cheapens the story, though.

You can't trap a wizard like Gandalf without indulging him in a fight. Well done, I say!

Quote:
Other than thinking the astonishingly excellent computer graphics of Gollum never stops looking like astonishingly excellent computer graphics, I think the character of Gollum is even less of a moral actor than the book. There is a real sorrow and pathos, even hope and, eventually regret at his fall in the book that doesn't make the movie.

Gollum has been portrayed as a negative character so its obvious that people don't sympathise with him.

Quote:
And Frodo sending Sam away in being duped by Gollum is completely false to the three characters and their relationships. Additionally it makes Frodo look stupid.

This was brilliant! It shows the weakening of the will of Frodo and the power the Ring had on his mind and decision-making as he approached Mount Doom. Remember, Frodo is raged at Sam when he talks of Frodo lending him the Ring to carry. It makes a good run-up to Frodo claiming the Ring in the Cracks of Doom.

On a whole, I think that the changes made in the story were made for a reason and for good reasons at that. Remember, the movie wasn't made solely for theose people who had read LOTR already. He had to include those people who had never heard of Middle-Earth or Tolkien till the movie came out. And if he had to stick true to the books. It would have taken him 10 years for all the movies to come out. Its not easy to convert a 2500+ page long story into a 9 hour movie and staying true to the book as well. He had to explain the story to everyone (including LOTR ignorants) and the only way that could be done was the way he did. I don't think anyone will be able to better the movie for another half-a-century. Its not easy to make a movie. Trust me! And its very hard to get a producer who will buy it.

If you forget whatever you know of Middle-Earth and LOTR and then watch the movie as if its the first time you are hearing of Middle-Earth, then you'll really like the movie. I completely blanked my mind throughout the movie and viewed it as an ignorant will. I never compared the movies to the books.

There's no point in blaming PJ for what he did. There was no other way he could do it and definitely no better way to do it than what he did. Kudos to Peter Jackson and the Lord of the Rings movies!
I'd like to see 'Shaya Puma' do a better job than Peter Jackson, at least he appears to have read the book!
Very good response, Lord_aragorn86. Clearly we disagree on a lot of points. As I've said, I don't know that PJ has to make a movie accurate to the book. I just think he could have and would have preferred that he did.

I am not a moviemaker, not in the least, Davetherave. Are any of us? If that were a requirement, then nothing could be said here.

Otherwise, did I read aright from you that I seem not to have read the books? I have, at least thirty times, at least four times aloud (I wouldn't have thought about it until I did it, but that really is a richer reading experience).
This is what I love about some of these discussions. I agree with a lot of what Shaya Puma posted but at the same time I agree with Lord_Aragorn's comments (mostly) so for me it is a matter of acknlowledging all that I didn't like about the movies because they differed from the written word but at the same time realising that PJ had to make a lot of additions and changes purely to portray the essence (or as close as he could get) of the story.

Quote:
Quote:
The movie gutted the character of Faramir. In the book

Quote:
Faramir's character was done pretty well. He loved his brother and admired him. But then he wished his father would stop lamenting the loss of Boromir. Actually, Faramir wanted his father to see that he himself is as good as his brother. The movie clearly shows that.


No matter how much PJ managed to portray parts of Faramir's character, I agree with Shaya that the most important part of him was lost totally. He should have been so much more in the movies.

Quote:
Gollum has been portrayed as a negative character so its obvious that people don't sympathise with him.


I sympathised with him.
Yeah, I can appreciate that about Smeagol. He is treated sympathetically. It's not quite the thing it is in the book, but I can see it is a real attempt to replicate the book's character. I really dislike the beat-us-over-the-head two people duality treatment. I know that a lot of people really liked that. I really didn't. Mostly with Gollum I just didn't buy it as a real character. If other people do, I don't have an argument. It's not like I want people to not enjoy anything I don't enjoy.
Quote:
did I read aright from you that I seem not to have read the books?

I never meant that. Of course you had read the books and hence the dislike with some parts of the movies.

Quote:
I sympathised with him.

Because you had read the book. The first timers believed that Gollum was actually a villainous character and it was good that he fell to his death.

Quote:
No matter how much PJ managed to portray parts of Faramir's character, I agree with Shaya that the most important part of him was lost totally. He should have been so much more in the movies.

When one's favourite character is not portrayed as one had visualised it himself/herself, he/she doesn't like that character while the others may love it. It happens with everyone. Even with me.
Just for clarity, I meant the point about my not reading the book for Davetherave, not Lord_aragorn86.
I must say that I really liked the movies, because they took the books I love most and brought them to life on the big screen. Granted, there were some things that I found irritating at first when I saw the movie. For example, the whole bit of Arwen saving Frodo when actually it was Glornfindel. But once I decided that the movie could not replicate the book word for word, I was okay with the changes that were made. For instance, the elves showing up at Helms Deep. No it didn't happen in the book that way as they were busy defending their borders from orcs and such, buy hey...the whole room still cheered when the elves showed up! My young teen sons had lots of questions about why things happened in the movie the way they did, and it gave me the chance to say , "read the books and it will make a lot more sense." Hopefully thats what PJ's movie accomplished. Hopefully the LOTR movies have instilled yet another generation to pick up the books and read the whole story.
Quote:
The movie gutted the character of Faramir

I kind of have to agree with this. This was one of the few parts of the movies that I had a lot of trouble with, that Faramir actually drags Frodo halfway back to Minas Tirith before letting him go, instead of letting him go at the waterfall. I think it is important that Faramir does not want power nearly as much as Boromir does, and so is not nearly as easily corrupted, and this kind of minimized that. However, it did give the opportunity for Sam's beautiful speech about "the stories that mattered," so it was not all bad...
Quote:
Quote:
I sympathised with him.

Because you had read the book. The first timers believed that Gollum was actually a villainous character and it was good that he fell to his death.


I think that the movie Gollum could elicit some sympathy even in those who had not read the books- in fact, I think I would have been more sympathetic if I hadn't read them. or almost. The whole scene where Smeagol says "go away and never come back!" to Gollum was something that we did not get to see in the books- that for a while he may have been truly good and truly free. It also makes the misunderstood "betrayal" by Frodo more poignant.
You guys have already exhausted the discussion I would take part in, so I won't go on for long. I just agree that they gutted Faramir and Denethor and all that. I thought the Ents could've been better but weren't too bad. I used to hate the movies with a vehemence, which some of our older members might remember, but I am a little more sympathetic to our PJ than before. I still think the movies could have been a whole lot better, but hey... he tried.
Dude, the LOTR movies ROCKED!!!!!!!!!!
Personally, I like the movies, i already bought the trillogy... but i take em as an interpretation of PJ, as the way he thought the world of Tolkien could be, the most accurate way he could.. but still, we can never compare the way others think about anything just because we are not them... i mean, i used to imagine Hobbiton, and Bilbo,and Gandalf... in this very personal way... and at some points.. i am pleased with PJ work.. but at some others.. I just remember to myself "ok, it is a movie, one of a million ways to imagine LoTR" and that is it, i enjoy it as i enjoy an other movie (well, not the same but kinda) and that is it... PJ managed to finish it, they are ok to me, it was his job, his dream, and he did well...
I think it is important to seperate the movies from the books...
It has never happend, and WILL never happend, that everyone is pleased with a film based on a book. Especially when you decide to make a film about Tolkiens books. He has many fans (Dooh) and many of us reads his works over and over.
I am impressed that PJ really did a movie, he knew that either we would love it or hate it, a risk-taker on its highest level. I love the movies (despite the rights or wrongs) but I also love the books. Both have their own charm. The movie pleases my eyes and the books pleases my imagination...
Quote:
It has never happend, and WILL never happend, that everyone is pleased with a film based on a book.

Well, I did find "The Green Mile" quite pleasing and also "The Guns of Navarone" and "Where Eagles Dare" which are all based on books. But then, that's not the point. The question is "Do you like the movies?" and my answer is "Yes, I do!" Simple, ain't it?
Lord_Aragorn: I liked the green mile also.

But all in all, I truly enjoyed the movies...and I think just as much as the books. When you read a book you have your own ideas in your mind of how people and places appear. As we are reading we set the scene in our minds. We all don't have the same visions. I'd say LOTR films came darn close to mine...and I love them all! PJ did a great job...as well as all the actors/actresses. An epic.
The movies, taken as a whole, are among the best ever made. But they are far, far beneath the book. The movies are comparatively light and superficial, both in terms of character and in terms of intellectual content. The movies are still compelling entertainment, primarily because the book, on top of its philosophical and intellectual interest, is also a terrific tale and adventure story. This latter the movie captures. There were also some explorations (e.g. Arwen and Aragorn) that were illuminating. But usually the movies just skimmed over issues that were treated in depth in the book. One example: Elves and their sense of time, and what it might mean for humanity to be in the presence of an immortal race. Even the all important topic of the inherent evil of absolute power and the nature of true leadership is barely broached.
I just saw that Shaya Puma's great post is on this thread on page 2. ( I first read it somewhere else.) It's a must read.

(Grondy merely added the link to page 2.)
Quote:
I first read it somewhere else.

You must have read it on POTW. And yeah it was a good post. Such long ones are very hard to come by. And ofcourse, I disagree with most of what he says!

But, how come you saw the post only now? Its a big pity, people do not start reading the threads from the very beginning. Its a good habit to do so. Makes you understand lots of stuff and also helps you find out if what you want ot say has already been said by a like-mided member or not. Saves repetitions, that!
I love the books !!!But I also like the movies, the EXTENDED version that is
I think the first movie was the best as it kept as much to the book as it could only missing out small things rather then changing the story to much. The second movie made me mad there was no reason to change the story so radically that it changed how you felt about characters PJ managed to make theoden & faramir look like morons which is far from the truth it makes my blood boil. PJ uses the excuse the he couldent fit everything in but then why does he include made up stuff like Aragorn falling off the cliff what was that about he totally lost the plot!. The third film managed to get back on track a bit the stOry was still messed up but the riders of Rohan turning up at the Pelennor fields was the best moment in all the films it brought tears of joy to my eyes so that made up for all the other nonsense. Overall I do love the films just for there visual beauty but if only they were made for the tolkien fans and not the masses they would have been ten times better.
Quote:
but if only they were made for the tolkien fans and not the masses they would have been ten times better.

Precisely. As you may know, there are (or rather, were) more number among the "ignorant" masses and fewer numbers of those who were Tolkien fans from before. And when you make a movie, you try to make it such that it would cater to all types of people. Same thing for LOT movies. PJ had not only to make the movie interesting to the Tolkien enthusiasts but also to the larger number of those people who didn't even know that Tolkien ever existed. And I personally feel that PJ did an excellent job. I don't think that his version can be bettered.
i liked the movies, but the problem is i saw them before i read LoTR, so gimli wil always be a lil wlesh man and balrogs will always have wings, y'know, i really wished id read the book first
Watching the LOTR movies is like eating fried liver : it's disgusting, yet you still have to eat your way through.
I like fried liver, onions, bacon, mashed taters and gravy so I'm OK.
What's mashed taters ?
Quote:
What's mashed taters ?
That's where one places 20 pounds of potatoes in a burlap bag and drives a D-6 Caterpiller tractor back and forth across it until they are extruded through the bag's weave. Or is that how one make riced potatoes? Elf Sticking Tounge Out Smilie
to get back to the main topic...
I knew the movies before the books (sad, but true...), a friend of mine made me watch them, I wasn't very interested in fantasy. but I was so impressed I immediately read the book afterwards, and felt sorry I hadn't read it before. the books are better than the movies are, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the movies are bad, does it? of course, some things were stupidly changed for no reason, as it seems (maybe there was some deeper reason we can't know...?). but on the whole pj and his team did good work. and it certainly was a lot of work. they had a hard task. trying to make a movie of the book of the century is a big job, and as it already had so many fans before, it was clear from the beginning that many of them wouldn't like it. but before complaining about his work try to make it better, ok? among all their flaws the movies also contain many very well done scenes, the special effects such as gollum were really good and in my opinion the cast was well chosen, most of it. isn't viggo mortensen a wonderful aragorn? and sean astin was a really good sam, only to name a few examples. also the music was really wonderful, and most of the settings were fitting ot the story, I think.
if you don't try to compare the movies with the books, and just look at them as "individuals", you'll see that they're not bad. and if you can't accept them as what they are, just be thankful for all the new and lasting fans they provided the books with. f.i. in my area (countryside, sleepy little village full of farmers, etc. Wink Smilie) tolkien isn't very well known. if it weren't for the movies I might have stumbled over tolkien in a library in some years when studying at university or I might never have read it...
I'm glad the movies exist, and if it's only because of their introducing me to the books.
Quote:
if you don't try to compare the movies with the books, and just look at them as "individuals", you'll see that they're not bad.

Not bad, but not good either. Too many plotholes and things that don't make sense, whilst the action scenes and special effects weren't world-shattering either.

Mediocrity à gogo.

They're as good as the Star Wars prequels to me.
Our wet washcloth has spoken. elfbiggrin: Though I think PJs movies were much better the Lucas's prequels.
I abhor some of the changes in character: particularly Faramir, Gimli, and Théoden. The "being possessed" by Saruman was utterly corny and totally out of sync with Tolkien; I was disgusted the first time I saw it, since the King of the Golden Hall was my favorite chapter in the book of TTT. Also, Gimli is reduced to nothing but comic relief: in the books he represented the ancient culture of the Dwarves... in the movies, he's belching in front of Théoden and acting in a way no Dwarf would act without being ashamed. As for Faramir, it's as if he was a whole new character, since he was nothing like Tolkien's Faramir, both in looks and personality.
  [1] [2] >>