My list of everything wrong with the movies (Not EE)

[Anarion]

Originally Posted by Knight of Gondor

Please keep in mind that this movie wasn’t created for the sole enjoyment of you and Tolkien Purists everywhere.

Also please keep in mind that this topic is to remain friendly, though we may disagree. I read your comments as sniping and derogatory, but will not respond in kind.



“And what gift would a Dwarf ask of the Elves?” – Galadriel, to Gimli, in extended scene ‘Farwell to Lórien’.



:rollseyes



We won’t see the sapling I know, so I just mean the tree.



Right. Such astute and picky viewers as yourself will surely not miss those details, but for the rest of America, who is not as smart and thorough as you, they stand a good chance of getting confused. Which would you have: LotR with very small success (low budget, poorer casting and quality, and general acceptance of the public accompanied with every little detail the way you would have done it? Or a few details that would have pleased you being left out, and having it be the top trilogy in the world?

Please go back and re-read this topic, as I am only repeating myself again.

What is the difference between question and commentary?
Examine subjectivity and objectivity in relation to human attitude and response. View political theories, patriotism as compared to anachronism and interrelated religious and philosophical ideas.

[Lalaith]

for the rest of America

You're right, the film wasn't made just for Tolkien purists. But it wasn't made just for Americans, either.

[Knight of Gondor]

Yes, I've already been reminded once that LotR has opened for (and has been loved by) audiences that live in other countries. I just love mine so much, I tend to forgot about the others, ha ha!

Nonetheless, I don't believe I made that particular error again, did I?

[The Saucepan Man]

Arwen at the River, I think was Glorifindel in the book..

You’ve got a lot of people that join you there...but if you only “think” it was Glorfindal...!

Actually, it wasn't Glorfindel in the book either. Frodo was on his own. Glorfindel simply lent him his horse.

I thought that was a bit of a bad move. I understand that many complained of “too many endings”, but from the behind-the-scenes stuff, PJ explains that he pretty much never intended to do the scouring, pretty much because he didn’t like it. I think that wasn’t a good reason, but for others, it will pass.

Actually, I think that Jackson is on record as saying that this is one of his favourite chapters. He left it out for cinematographical reasons, which stand up pretty well to scrutiny in my book. The destruction of the Ring and defeat of Sauron is the climax of the film, indeed the trilogy of films. It simply wouldn't have worked to have another mini-climax following that. Quite apart from the timing issue. There is a prevalent view among reviews that I have seen (presumably by critics who have not read the books) that the ending was 15 minutes too long. By all standard film-making conventions, RotK should have ended with Aragorn's coronation, Arwen's appearance and the honouring of the Hobbits. So let's be thankful we at least had the Grey Havens.

And a lady by the name of Megan Bashem (spelling?) wrote an article about how the whole big picture of the general Good vs. Evil theme was overlooked (intentionally, Basham believes, and I agree) to keep the cast, crew, and audience more comfortable with their worldview that there is no such thing as a true, concrete sense of Right and Wrong. (Such a thing would mandate a Creator of Right and Wrong, which they don’t believe in, and really don’t want to)

Sorry, in what way was the Good v Evil theme not covered? The free peoples are good, and they are fighting a war against Sauron, who is evil. Seems pretty straightforward to me. In fact, I have read a number of articles complaining that the films are too simplistic in their portrayal of good and evil (elves and hobbits: good; orcs: evil) and that it therefore has nothing relevant to tell us about the complex world in which we live. Yes, the films are not overtly religious in their portrayal of good v evil (and rightly so, in my view), but then neither is the book. Nevertheless, many of the values which Tolkien held dear (which were influenced by his relious beliefs), and which are espoused in the book, seem to me to be present in the films.

And a lot of run-of-the-mill movie goers don’t want to have to think about what they watch. For them, it’s mindless entertainment. PJ knew he had to target those people while still remaining as true as he could to us fans.

I do think that you may make a good point here. There is far more emotional investment in a book than in a film. Most films demand no more than 3 hours of someone's time, whereas a book will demand a lot more. So I think that it's understandable that people expect far less "thought-provoking" content from films, particularly big budget productions aimed at the mass market, than they do from books. Books also require less in terms of sales to recoup their production costs than films, certainly those requiring the kind of investment necessary to bring Middle-earth to life. So, again, I think that it's understandable that those involved in making the LotR films aimed for mass, rather than specialist, appeal.

[Knight of Gondor]

I can understand where some people might think that LotR is actually TOO concretely right and wrong. (Especially with that line about having to fight a war, even though you don't feel like risking it? Peace activist Mortenson, grit your pearly whites!) The movie itself couldn't have been more clear about right and wrong. It's just a shame that the writers and staff don't like that idea quite so much.

Please see this link: http://www.boundless.org/features/a0000860.html If this does not bring you to it, visit the base website, Boundless.org and go to archives, type in Megan Basham's name, and find the article "Tolkien versus Jackson". I will not post it here because that is a side issue, off-track from fault-finding in the movies. Nevertheless, I found it to be an excellent article.

[Lalaith]

Knight of Gondor, it's a very interesting article, (although I personally disagree with it!) Perhaps you should start another thread in the movie forum to discuss it.

[Miriel Undomiel]

Jackson did an exellent job with the movie. How much can we Tolkienfans expect?
If it wasn't for Jackson there would proboably be a tenthousen times worse movie. If another director had taken the job of filmatizing the book, he might just look at the project as a job. Jackson has put tens of years into this trilogi because he wanted to. New Line Cinema didn't throw the book in PJ's face and say: ''do whatever you like, just make it good enough to sell.''

As for time passing in movies: just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it didn't happen!!!!!! The Hobbits ate very much, so what do you think happened a few hours after a meal? Just because we didn't see anyone sneaking behind a bush, doesn't mean they kept it in until the war was over! It's a movie, not some crazy reality about elves and hobbits!

[starkat]

I think the theatrical versions are good. and the EE's are better.