The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

pandora · 11-30-2003, 07:14 AM

RotK will be out here soon and I will not be seeing it. The first two movies were such a crushing disappointment that I simply won't part with any more money to support Jackson's awful version of the characters and story.The films have worked well, very well, as a set of images (with the exception of the casting of Boromir and Aragorn) but the script has been truely pathetic.Return of the King, if the stories are ture, will be another display of Jackson's ignorance of JRRT's meaning as well as his talentlessness as a movie maker.Having read the scene of Gandalf dismissing Saruman last night I can say that any adaptation of Lord of the Rings that does not contain this scene is not actually an adaptation of the book at all. Given the constraints of adapting a book for a movie I could live, reluctantly, without the Scouring of the Shire but the downfall of Saruman is simply a basic element of the book and particularly of the character development of the book. But then, Frodo's biggest development point in the first book was sacrificed at the alter of Jackson's ignorance: we finally see what it is in him that Gandalf sees when he defies the Nazgul alone and unaided. Except that in the film he is rescued instead. Later, instead of taking the burden on himself and leaving the Fellowship he asks Aragorn's advice. Over and over again Jackson has betrayed the central themes and characters of the book for no great purpose. His additions have never improved anything and his choices as a director have been third-rate.The loss of the final part of the story: the Scouring of the Shire shows how little ability Jackson has as a movie-maker, especially when combined with the loss of Saruman's excommunication. Audiences love a good bit of fore-shadowing. Done right, it can really lift people's enjoyment of a film as the events alluded to earlier are finally revealed and explained. In the LotR the best example of this is when Sam sees the damaged shire in the mirror (it's also a subtle characterisation point that Sam continues on dispite this vision, but Jackson's not interested in characterisation). By dropping this, at least partly in favour of the appalling Saurman/Gandalf breakdancing competition, Jackon managed in one fell swoop to undermine the characters, the story, the meaning, and the dramatic tension of the story.The second film had about 10 minutes worth of material that worked, basically the Ents. Everything else was a good slide-show but fell apart as soon as the action started. From the laughable wargs to the dire "Aragon's dead! No, wait a minute-there he is" sub-"plot", to the sudden appearance of the Olympic Torch runner, to the ludicrous charge of the Rohirrim down that huge hill - nay, cliff - onto the waiting pikes of the orcs it was a fiasco.So, no Return of the King for me, thanks. Twice bitten, thrice shy (I'm a slow learner)!

11-30-2003, 07:14 AM	#294
pandora Haunting Spirit Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 60	RotK will be out here soon and I will not be seeing it. The first two movies were such a crushing disappointment that I simply won't part with any more money to support Jackson's awful version of the characters and story.<P>The films have worked well, very well, as a set of images (with the exception of the casting of Boromir and Aragorn) but the script has been truely pathetic.<P>Return of the King, if the stories are ture, will be another display of Jackson's ignorance of JRRT's meaning as well as his talentlessness as a movie maker.<P>Having read the scene of Gandalf dismissing Saruman last night I can say that any adaptation of Lord of the Rings that does not contain this scene is not actually an adaptation of the book at all. Given the constraints of adapting a book for a movie I could live, reluctantly, without the Scouring of the Shire but the downfall of Saruman is simply a basic element of the book and particularly of the character development of the book. <P>But then, Frodo's biggest development point in the first book was sacrificed at the alter of Jackson's ignorance: we finally see what it is in him that Gandalf sees when he defies the Nazgul alone and unaided. Except that in the film he is rescued instead. Later, instead of taking the burden on himself and leaving the Fellowship he asks Aragorn's advice. Over and over again Jackson has betrayed the central themes and characters of the book for no great purpose. <P>His additions have never improved anything and his choices as a director have been third-rate.<P>The loss of the final part of the story: the Scouring of the Shire shows how little ability Jackson has as a movie-maker, especially when combined with the loss of Saruman's excommunication. Audiences love a good bit of fore-shadowing. Done right, it can really lift people's enjoyment of a film as the events alluded to earlier are finally revealed and explained. In the LotR the best example of this is when Sam sees the damaged shire in the mirror (it's also a subtle characterisation point that Sam continues on dispite this vision, but Jackson's not interested in characterisation). By dropping this, at least partly in favour of the appalling Saurman/Gandalf breakdancing competition, Jackon managed in one fell swoop to undermine the characters, the story, the meaning, and the dramatic tension of the story.<P>The second film had about 10 minutes worth of material that worked, basically the Ents. Everything else was a good slide-show but fell apart as soon as the action started. From the laughable wargs to the dire "Aragon's dead! No, wait a minute-there he is" sub-"plot", to the sudden appearance of the Olympic Torch runner, to the ludicrous charge of the Rohirrim down that huge hill - nay, cliff - onto the waiting pikes of the orcs it was a fiasco.<P>So, no Return of the King for me, thanks. Twice bitten, thrice shy (I'm a slow learner)!