Your rating of TTT

[shilsen]

How succesfully the movie creators translate the original to the screen needs to be taken into account, after if you're not going to stick as closely to the original as you can why are you adapting it?

Because it's got an interesting story that you think you could do a good job making a film of? It's just like making a movie of a story idea by an unknown writer, except that you don't have the advantage of an existing body of fans, and the disadvantage of an existing body of fans. I'm a complete Tolkien geek, but I know that it's impossible to make a faithful translation from book to screen (heck, it's impossible to translate faithfully from language to language), and I don't expect it. I rate the movie on its merits.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

9. I just posted my thoughts in Dr Midnight's thread.

 

[nHammer]

I have a question for anyone here: Can you honestly rate a movie without comparing to the literary work it was adapted from? Is that a necessary criteria or factor? And if so, how big of a factor do you take that into account for giving your rating?

About half way thru the movie I stopped trying to compare it to the book, and just sat back and enjoyed a VERY well done movie.

 

[Shoon]

your least favorites a zero

HOLD YOUR HIGH HORSES? Battlefield Earth, worthy of a ZERO?

 

[Hand of Evil]

HOLD YOUR HIGH HORSES? Battlefield Earth, worthy of a ZERO?

Rollerball the remake also a zero!

 

[Welverin]

You missed the point

Because it's got an interesting story that you think you could do a good job making a film of? It's just like making a movie of a story idea by an unknown writer, except that you don't have the advantage of an existing body of fans, and the disadvantage of an existing body of fans. I'm a complete Tolkien geek, but I know that it's impossible to make a faithful translation from book to screen (heck, it's impossible to translate faithfully from language to language), and I don't expect it. I rate the movie on its merits.

Four words: as close as possible.

 

[shilsen]

Re: You missed the point

Four words: as close as possible.

Sorry, but I didn't understand your comment. May be too early in the morning Did you mean that a movie should be as close as possible to the original work, or that the movie TTT is as close as possible to the book, or both, or something else?

 

[Krug]

Re: Re: You missed the point

Sorry, but I didn't understand your comment. May be too early in the morning Did you mean that a movie should be as close as possible to the original work, or that the movie TTT is as close as possible to the book, or both, or something else?

I hope not. Frankly LotR the books were boring. Let's face it; Tolkien might be a master of world-building, but his pacing isn't too good. Being faithful to the books would have ended up giving a pretty dull movie. It might please the fans, but not the mainstream audience that Jackson needs to get to make the movies a hit.

 

[Valanthe the Sleepless]

Re: Re: Re: You missed the point

I hope not. Frankly LotR the books were boring. Let's face it; Tolkien might be a master of world-building, but his pacing isn't too good. Being faithful to the books would have ended up giving a pretty dull movie. It might please the fans, but not the mainstream audience that Jackson needs to get to make the movies a hit.

Well, I think it has more to do with good filmmaking than a desire to please the great unwashed. I gave the movie a 10, but I immediately recognize that while it's a moderately faithful adaption, but there are many differences.

But just as with FOTR, I think all of Jackson's changes are for the better. Having just seen it a second time on Friday, I was impressed with how well it works, and what a great movie it was. Many seem to forget that Jackson is making a movie that doesn't require you to have read the books to follow it. The movie has to make changes, sometimes dramatic ones, to answer an audiences questions or to simplfy the plot to prevent viewers from being confused. The films need to be entirely self contained, which they are. What is wonderful is how Jackson and crew managed to fill the films with so many references to the source material with visible references that would be missed by the more casual viewer, but a Tolkien fan would immediately see (Legolas on the Snow, phrases like "Riddles in the Dark", and so forth).

I'm stunned that no one has reacted much to one of the biggest flaws in the film, namely the unspoken logic gap that occurs when Faramir reveals that he knows that Boromir is dead. In the movie, no reason is given...and yet no one asks why. Readers of the book know why, but not a single viewer or reviewer I've encountered has commented on it, which is kind of odd.

I also strongly agree with Dinkeldog: book four is really dull until the end. Most of the folks I've talked with recently who read the books when they were younger skimmed over a good chunk of that part of the book, due to boredom, myself included.

 

[madriel]

I think Jackson's done a great job of translating LotR for the big screen. He's made the second half of TTT more entertaining than the book version. I'm hoping to see a lot more of Merry, Pippin and Eowyn in the extended edition.