Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Berandor" data-source="post: 1231580" data-attributes="member: 225">I'll try to phrase it carefully.Yes, the LotR trilogy is based on the books by Tolkien. Yes, that is apparent at nary a glance. Yes there are differences and departures. These differences and departures have been explained by the filmmakers who believe they have a very good reason to do so.Do the changes make sense? Most of them, speaking in cinematic terms, do. Are they necessary? You could argue about that. Perhaps the unchanged version would have gotten even better, perhaps it wouldn't have worked. We don't know.There's also no sense in argueing. We are watching Peter Jackon's Lord of the Rings, his interpretation of a book he obviously holds in high regard, as seen by the generally respectful approach of the movies.Also, the Extended Versions come very close to the books, even with many minor changes (who says what and when, etc.). This is not a book. Things that work in a book don't necessarily work in a movie. There were no elves at Helm's Deep? But was it a cool scene, and did the elves bring a shimmer of hope to the hopeless situation? Yes on both accounts. It worked for me. The movies can't butcher anyone's life work who hasn't worked on them. Tolkiens books are still there for us to relish, and the movie is there for us to relish as well.From a purely technical standpoint, the movies are awesome, masterfully done. Casting, cinematography, score, effects, everything is excellent. You must admit at least that. So the book is better in your opinion. That's fine, and probably true to me as well. But they're not the same. And, frankly, when someone puts out the fantasy movie everybody I know has always dreamed of, based on one of the greatest works in (fantasy) literature, producing some of the best movies period, then I can forgive a few misconceptions - especially if it will be redeemed by the Extended Cut.  Jackson had his reasons for leaving the Saruman scene out of TT, and thought it'd work better in RotK. Now he finds it doesn't and also thinks it might work without it. Let's find out if he's right in the cinema in one month's time. I honestly think it even a little insulting, some of the imo anal complaints ("Theoden didn't say that! That's Aragorn's line!" - not necessarily the Saruman argument). I mean, I also didn't like TT at first, but now I can sort of understand his reasons for most of the changes, and I certainly can live with them, especially in the EE. Peter Jackson really tries to do his best adaption, and I think he's earned a little trust. Finally, it is an old saying that if it don't bleed, than you didn't really cut - especially in film-making. Berandorgetting a little riled up</blockquote>

Verification