[OT] Upon watching PJ butcher another's work.

[GreyOne]

Well, as soon as Celebrim raises the $310 + million dollars to create HIS"definitive" Tolkien translation of the series, we'll be able to see a great movie. Until then, we'll have to just deal with this truly horrible, horrible movie.

Frankly dude, I think your criticisms are weak. Nothing says pedantic more than criticising somebody's ADAPTATION of a book because its not the same as the book. And let's face it, Tolkien lacked one crucial thing all writers need: AN EDITOR

Most of the changes, to me, make perfect sense. And the pictures that I saw on screen brought Middle-Earth alive. The whole Faramir bitchfest is a strawman. Faramir became a more well-rounded character, as far as I'm concerned, BECAUSE of his indecision and similarity to his brother. In the end, he made the right decision. Doesn't that show his quality?

The criticisms of the quality of the film making alone make me question everything you and other nitpickers have said.

Why can't people just leave their baggage at the door and enjoy something at face value?


SHARK's comments get my vote!

 

[Bob Aberton]

I haven't even seen the movie yet, but, GreyOne, all I can say is, Amen, Brother!

The first truly great fantasy movies to come along, and people are bitching about "Theoden's too old!" "Faramir's portrayal is blasphemy!" "The movies sucked!" "PJ pissed on Tolkien's work!"

Geez. I haven't even seen the movie yet, and some of these grumbleasses are ruining my afterglow already

 

[National Acrobat]

I'm holding my breath for RotK. It's my favorite book of the three, and it has less actual chapters and story to it, unless you count all of the appendices and whatnot. With that said, there should be more room for a more faithful rendition. As I said before, I am of two minds. TTT was a fabulous fantasy film, I loved it. I was a bit miffed at several of the changes, but I didn't let it ruin my enjoyment of the film. However, it was very noticeable when half of the audience chose to take a bathroom break during the whole Arwen/Aragorn thing. I believe at least where I am, that does say something.

 

[Celebrim]

What can I say. You liked it. I didn't. You continue to accuse me of doing and thinking things I don't do and think. If I were adapting the movie, you can bet I would have done alot of changes too. The notion that I think somehow you can shrink 1000+ pages of prose into under 500 pages of script without making alot of changes is ridiculous. Do you think I know nothing about the craft of writing? Nonetheless, since I cannot prove to you it can be done better, and since it will be a good 15-20 years before any dares to follow this thing up with there own interpretation, I guess I have no way of convincing anyone that PJ made a cheap version of the LotR. Did he blow it? Well, in one since no, because there are sure to be lots of people (you folks) who love the movie. That is certainly a fine measure of success. And, certainly he will recieve many accollades from the critics and his peers. More power too him.

There was a time when Hollywood thought it ridiculous to hire experts in history and art as consultants for making movies. Who would care? Who is going to notice. What would be the point? Compare the costumes and weapons of say Ben Hur, to those of say Gladiator or indeed PJ's LotR? Which would you rather have? There was a time when the lavish detail in props and the attention to detail that we have come to accept as ordinary and essential was scoffed at. If I had suggested we do what is done now 30 years ago I would have been told I didn't know a thing about making movies. Then along came Star Wars and Hollywood was convinsed otherwise. It apparantly takes such things.

Today, talk to any screenwriter (and I've talked to several), and you will find that the working ones are pretty much convinsed that when adapting a work to the screen, the last thing you want to do is be faithful. It is artistic suicide in Hollywood to so much as suggest that you aren't going to put your own spin on the book, you are going to faithfully render the authors vision on the screen. You would be laughed at. You'd probably never work again. I seriously doubt anyone with the humility to make such a suggestion exists in the dog eat dog world of Hollywood. For this reason and others, generally adaptations of great works are disappointments or else are dismissed as unfilmable.

It is amazing that Peter Jackson managed to sell this project DESPITE the fact that any outsider could have told them that all they had to do was be remotely faithful and they had a billion dollar franchise on there hands. It is amazing to me that a work with so many departures in character and tone would be hailed as a faithful work, whatever other accolades it recieves. I do not know whether to be hopeful on those grounds or fearful. Certainly there is the possibility that between LotR and the Potter's it will now be much easier for a director to sell the notion of a faithful adaptation of other great works of 20th century literature, but I greatly fear that what this means is that we will have 20 years of quasi-adaptations and bastardizations of works and that Hollywood still won't realize or accept that if you respect the works of a good and popular writer - you will make more money than you would have otherwise. So, the day when I see good movie adaptations of books I've always wanted to see as movies is still probably a long way off.

In the mean time, enjoy yourself.

 

[ninthcouncil]

I think it's worth remembering, in consideration of what a novel adaptation can and can't get away with, that one of the best SF novel adaptations, "Bladerunner", took huge liberties with the original, but somehow managed to feel faithful (granted, it was considerably improved by the director's cut stripping out the dumbass "Hollywoodisation" elements forced on the director, but even before that it was a great film).

 

[Dinkeldog]

*lots of snippage*
In the mean time, enjoy yourself.

Someone should, anyway.

 

[shilsen]

Just got back from the film.

Decided to try a little trick.

Turned on part of brain which recognises similarities with the book, and enjoyed those scenes.

Turned off part of brain which dislikes changes from the original, watched those scenes as part of Jackson's film and not Tolkien's book, and enjoyed them too.

Had a blast.

Going back in a couple of days.

 

[Allanon]

Although I AGREE that some changes were AWFULL when compared to the book, one also had to look at another aspect of this film.

After the first movie the amount of merchandising surrounding the movie was staggerign but even more mind boggeling was the amount of rereleases of LOTR the book that showed up in bookstores everywhere.

And the incredible amount of books that were suddenly bought... Not by fantasy nerds or people with good tast for books but by people who would have otherwise never have bought the book.

Although they're will remain a fair amount of people who will LOVE the film but will never read the book my mother and girlfriend for example have suddenly both read the books and loved them, while before they'd just look at me and say that they didn't have that amount of time for a book of those proportions.

So although a small portion of die-hard old school Tolkien fans will hate the movie I personally Like PJ's simply because it has gotten people to read a fantastic book.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

There are a few things I agree with Celebrim on:

1. Didn't like seeing Gimli, Aragorn and Legolas beating on guards in Theoden's hall. That was totally unnecessary and a serious breach of etiquette. None of the four present would have been so disrespectful to Theoden.

I didn't quite understand this change, and I would have preferred to see Wormtongue on his belly as Gandalf stood over him.

That part was bad, and the book was much better and could have easily translated to film.




Most of the other changes are tolerable. I completely understand the reasons. The way PJ did the movie, Pippin and Merry would have had nothing to do if they did not do what they did with the Ents.

Let's face some truth here. TTT could easily be made into 2, possibly 3, long movies with all that was going on in the books. In TTT, there was no filler whatsoever like Tom Bombadil or the side-trip to the Barrow downs. It was non-stop action with so many integral characters that they could not possibly all be brought to life.

Overall, it is the greatest fantasy film of all time. I certainly hope that it encourages movie companies to take some more chances with fantasy films. The technology nowadays definitely allows for magic and fantasy to be simulated in all its glorious forms.

TTT wasn't perfect, but it was far from the trash you claim it to be Celebrim.

 

[shilsen]

Re: Re

There are a few things I agree with Celebrim on:

1. Didn't like seeing Gimli, Aragorn and Legolas beating on guards in Theoden's hall. That was totally unnecessary and a serious breach of etiquette. None of the four present would have been so disrespectful to Theoden.

I didn't quite understand this change, and I would have preferred to see Wormtongue on his belly as Gandalf stood over him.

That part was bad, and the book was much better and could have easily translated to film.

I didn't see them beating on guards in general, but on Grima's cronies. Note that as they move up the hall there's a group of Rohirrim (motioned to by Wormtongue) who keep pace with them. Only this group attacks them (Hama and others do not), and the three only fight them. But I do agree that this could have been done better if it was done as the book, and I think you're right that it would have translated quite easily.