Lord of the Rings: Did PJ lose the plot?

[Nightfall]

I remember an article by Newsweek discussing and making a comparison
/constrast of the movies versus the books. And I think it had one of the best lines I've read in a while. "This movie is more of Peter Jackson's vision of Middle Earth than Tolkien's. But that is what we all have, our own slightly altered yet similiar visions of Tolkien's grand work." To me I love movies because this was PJ saying "I'm going to read you this story. It may sound familiar but there might be some changes too. But it still the same story nonetheless." And that's how I feel most movies that adapt books should go. Take the writer's original vision and have the director tell us the story in his words.

So yeah now that it's out, there are things that bugged me about Jackson's vision of LotR, but not enough for me say he's not a great storyteller telling a great story. It's much like any great myth being told by another. It's not the same but still grand IF you have the right person telling it.

I'd also like to say I'm a Tolkein purist, but I love Jackson's work. To me I wish Tolkien had lived long enough or at least had some idea his works would be put to film. Then we could have his input as well. But I'm also sure it wouldn't be nearly as good since the man was a complete procrastinator at heart as well as often drawn in by too much detail. Doesn't mean though I think less of Lord of the Rings, the books. Just wouldn't be the same as a movie.

 

[ConnorSB]

Here's all I have to say:

LotR the movie may not have been perfectly accurate to the book.

But Starship Troopers was infinitly more wrong.

And Eowin was hot.

 

[barsoomcore]

A movie that was exactly what Tolkien wrote would be practically unfilmable, and certainly unwatchable.

Here's something to consider. The unabridged audio version of LotR is 55 hours long.

Let's just consider that for a second, shall we? 55 HOURS

So in making a 13-hour epic (assuming RotK:EE clocks in at 5 hours and the first two at 4), PJ has stripped roughly three-quarters of the story out -- and that's assuming it takes as long to film something as it does to read it -- frankly, I'd bet the reading was faster, but let's assume they're reasonably close for now.

So, given that 13 hours is pretty close to as maximum length anyone was ever going to be allowed to make these films at, can somebody suggest a three-quarters of the story that PJ would have been better off cutting?

And to forestall "but that's not all" comments -- cutting necessitates combining, and in some cases creating out of whole cloth, scenes and moments and storylines. There's no other way to do.

I've had to cut a film from 25 minutes to 20 and I can tell you it darn near killed me. Pretty much killed the film, too. To go from what was written to what was on the screen and present in large strokes the ideas that Tolkien explores so deftly in tiny scratches -- my hat's off.

He did better, frankly, than any of us had any right to expect. Good for PJ. I hope King Kong rocks.

 

[Nightfall]

I wanna see the Hobbit myself. But King Kong is okay.

And yes Starship Troopers along with Battlefield Earth SUCKED.

 

[Chain Lightning]

The question being asked is: "Did Peter Jackson lose the plot?"

My answer: "No."

But, as we're starting to discuss some of the changes Peter has made, I'll add in some of my opinions on those mentioned.

I think the change to Faramir was great. It was much needed. And I'm pretty sure it will be even better when RotK Extended Edition comes out. Right now, his character's story arc ends kinda lamely because of cut scenes. Jackson, Boyens, and Walsh had excellent and valid reasons for making these changes. The only character change I'd disagree with the most is really the whole thing with Arwen's health being linked to the quest to destroy the one ring.

I'm glad Tom Bombadil isn't in it. I like his character and all....but I just think its needed. They really wanted to keep the number of people immune to the One Ring to a total of zero. A decision I totally agree with. I also agree with leaving out the scouring of the Shire. Its a pretty lame addition to the over all trilogy. Its like me writing about the epic battles of World War II and adding this part at the end where one Nazi general escapes and starts to rebuild his army by starting to take over a small town in Kansas.

From a directing view-point....I think there were more mistakes I could point out. Chief among them were my gripes with the Nazgul scenes (Weathertop for instance), Eowyn vs. the Witchking, lighting of the beacons, Denethor's decent into further madness, and Cirith Ungol. Other than that.....everything else was pretty enjoyable. I got a pretty good feeling the RotK EE will fix most of my gripes. Probably the only remaining gripe that would never get fix is the one I have with most of the Nazgul scenes.

And while I'm listing things I didn't like: I want to bring up a tiny tiny gripe of mine. Its one that barely even hurts the film....but it was something I wasn't too happy with. It was the bad body language acting of some of the Orcs. Too me, the only bad acting in the whole trilogy. Such high calibre acting EVERYWHERE by everyone. But then.....you got these extras who do these cheezy cliched Orc performances. The worst being the one Orc from Cirith Ungol who explains how old Shelob feeds. I absolutely hate how he acts, walks, everything. Ok....that's off my chest now...heh heh. But remember...that gripe is really a minor concern when looking at the whole trilogy. Really really minor.

These movies kick butt....I'm so glad they came out.

I mean, what else are we gonna watch? Conan The Barbarian for the 239th time? Willow? Deathstalker? Kull?

Yah......exactly.......the LotR trilogy is like a beautiful long cool drink of much needed water in a continent sized desert named " Fantasy Movies ".

 

[Hypersmurf]

From a directing view-point....I think there were more mistakes I could point out. Chief among them were my gripes with the lighting of the beacons...

Really? That's one scene I've seen referred to by numerous people as fantastic (although they were speaking from an audience point of view, rather than directorial or critical)... what did you dislike?

I mean, what else are we gonna watch? Conan The Barbarian for the 239th time?

Ooh... I'm up for that!

-Hyp.

 

[barsoomcore]

I mean, what else are we gonna watch? Conan The Barbarian for the 239th time

Ooh... I'm up for that!

I'll bring the Cheetos!

 

[reapersaurus]

And yes Starship Troopers along with Battlefield Earth SUCKED.

Mentioning Starship Troopers in the same sentence... nay, the same _paragraph_ as Battlefield Earth makes me believe that you didn't see the same movie I (and many other people) did.

Most people I know of (other than slavish Heinlein fanboys who can't abide ANY variation from a book they love) enjoy the heck out of the movie.
My guess is that you 2 are doing exactly what Tolkein book-fans are doing with the LotR films: letting their handcuffed vision of the book blind them to a screen adaptation.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Most people I know of (other than slavish Heinlein fanboys who can't abide ANY variation from a book they love) enjoy the heck out of the movie.

The first time I saw Starship Troopers, I was just incredibly depressed about the armour (well, the lack of it).

The second time I saw it, I quite enjoyed it.

-Hyp.

 

[KenM]

The first time I saw Starship Troopers, I was just incredibly depressed about the armour (well, the lack of it).

The second time I saw it, I quite enjoyed it.

-Hyp.

I heard the reason they took out the powersuits was that they could not get them to look/ move right. IMO the movie still captured the themes/ spirit of the book.
The audio LOTR clocking in at 55 hours? I wonder how much of that is traveling/ songs, ect..