<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Pandora, I can sort of see where you are coming from, but I urge you to 1) be careful bad-mouthing the movie here in the support group that we are all having looking forward to the movie <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yes, I know. It just been such a total let-down for me; I was so looking forward to the project before I saw FotR. I get wound up when people are almost literally jumping up and down in excitement about the final installment and then I have to vent!<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> 2) try not to be so harsh on Peter Jackson. Yeah, some of the things he did weren't the best decisions. But I think if you give the guy half a chance, you'll find he had the utmost appreciation for the movie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I gave him 2/3rd of a chance. The first film was basically just Bakshi's version re-filmed (including several lines of dialog, an entire scene and a "prologue" all copied from the earlier film but not in the book) so I thought I'd give him a second chance with material that Bakshi hadn't covered in TTT. Alas, without a real fan's work to copy all we got was Jackson's mistakes.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> There are a lot of little details you never see in the movie that prove how much Peter loved the stories.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I would have liked to have seen them!<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I personally think it is one of the best movies I've ever seen, much less the best adaptation of LotR the world has ever seen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I think Bakshi did a better job of Fellowship in an hour than Jackson did in 3+. The scene with Frodo, Bilbo, and the Ring stands out as a point where Jackson showed his amateurishness: the Bakshi version is a strong, moving scene of pathos, Jackson's is a silly, badly done cheap shock. Again, Bakshi's battle at Weathertop is actually quite atmospheric and spooky while Jackson's is the Keystone Kops in cloaks (or Kloaks). <P>Basically, dispite being a total mess and a let down, Bakshi's version of the Fellowship is better than Jacksons in almost every scene as regards script and, especially, direction.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> How would YOU have done better? And not just with casting. Everyone has their own ideas about who should have played whom, I'm talking policy, location, props, plot, etc.? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I'd have changed the director. Simple as that. The cinematography, set and costume design, the vast majority of the casting and acting, and locations were superb. Un-beatable I think.<P>The only problem is the director and his total lack of sympathy or understanding for the story's meaning and the characters' development. We don't need Bilbo's bug eyes, Frodo being rescued, Gandalf hiding behind doors in storms and scaring Frodo into an early grave, badly designed wargs, even MORE false deaths, breakdancing wizards with continuity errors, dwarf-tossing jokes, suicidal Elronds, Sauron playing golf, skateboarding elves, horses charging pikes down cliffs, extra bonus orc characters, people being rescued by balrogs, ninja hobbit fighting machines and all the rest of it.<P>Just film the books. Adapt where the medium, budget and time require, but just film the books. Right? Don't try to add things because you ain't no Tolkein.<P>You did ask!<P>But the visuals ARE still terrific.<p>[ 11:52 AM December 01, 2003: Message edited by: pandora ]
|