Okay, so what do you think NOW?

[Meriadoc1961]

At the risk of appearing inconsistent, the opening scenes of FOTR impressed me. I thought what was done was an excellent way to give needed background to the story. The narration was true to the story, even though Galdriel was speaking it instead of Treebeard. (Hey, later on Treebeard is given words to say that are spoken by Bombadil in the book!) And the battle scene at Mt. Doom I thought was also magnificent.

My only complaints have been in the change of CHARACTER I see in the films, especially the further we got along in the tale. I do not recall Gandalf behaving in a way that was inconsistent with his character from the books in the first two films, particularly FOTR, but I definitely saw him in a light that, in my opinion, was uncalled for and not necessary with his beating of Denethor. But by then I had already been sucked into the Middle-earth world Jackson had created that I was able to tolerate it, if you will.

Sauron, you had no need to apologize, for I had not posted that I had seen the commentaries to the DVDs before. I do, however, appreciate your kind words anyway. I also hope you do not believe I am "blasting" Peter Jackson and his efforts. I actually do like the movies, and I have recommended them to others! But the "purist" in me thinks they would have been even better had the characters not been tampered with in the manner they were.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Meriadoc1961

I do not recall Gandalf behaving in a way that was inconsistent with his character from the books in the first two films, particularly FOTR,...

In FotR Gandalf, previously confined to watch the ending of the Third Age from high atop Orthanc, having escaped later tries to sway the Fellowship into walking down through the Gap of Rohan, which just so happens to be in the neighborhood of Saruman. I started referring to him as Gandalf the Black, as he almost seemed to be working for Saruman.

[Meriadoc1961]

Originally Posted by alatar

In FotR Gandalf, previously confined to watch the ending of the Third Age from high atop Orthanc, having escaped later tries to sway the Fellowship into walking down through the Gap of Rohan, which just so happens to be in the neighborhood of Saruman. I started referring to him as Gandalf the Black, as he almost seemed to be working for Saruman.

Alatar, I will have to check that out as I had never caught that, but it seems a bit minor in terms of being out of character compared to beating up the Steward of Minas Tirith.

Merry

[The Saucepan Man]

Well, as some here will know, I have always been an avid supporter of Jackson and his LotR films. In recent times, I have rather given up on arguing the toss over the finer points as I have heard it all before and said it all before. But I remain steadfast in my conviction that these three films (or, perhaps more accurately, single film in three instalments) were extraordinary film events, groundbreaking in so many respects and as revolutionary for the fantasy film genre as Star Wars was for the sci-fi film genre.

Before going on, a little background for those who do not know my stance on these films or the books. I am a long standing Tolkien fan. I first read The Hobbit aged 9 some 30 years ago and LotR followed shortly thereafter. LotR has always been the foremost among my favourite books and I am currently reading it to my children, having recently got through TH with them.

So I am no film fan boy and nor do I lack an appreciation of Tolkien's literary achievements. As such, I am under no illusions that Jackson's films depict (in may cases) quite different characters and events to those portrayed by Tolkien on the page. That, to me, does not matter. The point for me is whether I enjoy them as films.

Much as I appreciate Sauron the White's argumentation and admire his pluck in sticking up for Jackson as his films, it really doesn't matter to me how popular a film is, how many awards it has won or what the critics have said about it (they might affect whether I bother investing time in watching a film, but marginally so). And I am long past the point of caring about the "Tolkien purists" gripes, major or minor. The question asked how I feel about the films now, after all this time, and that is the question that I shall answer.

I am not one to watch a film over and over again. However good it is, I get bored of watching the same thing repeatedly. I own all three films (special edition) on DVD but have watched them (until recently) about once each since getting them. I think that I saw each film twice in the cinema. So I have probably seen these films a lot less than many here.

Recently, Mrs S and I sat down to watch FotR (we have TTT planned for this weekend), and I was glad to find that my appreciation for the film had not diminished one jot. Indeed, if anything, it had increased. I am not usually an overly emotional person, but I found tears welling in my eyes so many times. They might not (completely) be Tolkien's characters but, darn it, I still care about them. It might not (completely) be Tolkien's story but, darn it, I cared what happened. On so many levels (visually, emotionally, technically, suspensefully) the films utterly blow me away each time that I watch them.

I compare that to my recent experience of watching Eragon, a very poor film in my opinion (I have not read the book), and there is just no comparison. Similarly, though less so, with the Narnia and Harry Potter films (again, I have not read the books). Admittedly, through my book fandom, I have more emotional investment in the LotR films (and I was blown away to see the world that inspired such enchantment in me as a child brought to life), but that cannot be the complete answer as the changes from book to film just don't bother me. As examples of their genre, these are, to my mind, outstanding films. Yes, they are big on action and somewhat unsubtle, but so are so many other films churned out by Hollywood which make little or no impact on me. These films impact me massively every time that I watch them. And, yes, there are internal inconsistencies, but these are present in almost every other film of similar genre, and they pale into insignifigance, in my view, in comparison with the overall magnificence of the films. Perhaps other directors could have made better adaptations, although they would still have been adaptations and liable to arouse similar ire from the purists, but we are in any event here entering the realms of hypothetica. If they exist, those directors did not (and probably had no inclination to) film LotR. One thing for sure, a good many directors (and writers, producers SFX teams, actors etc) would have made a much worse job of the project.

I happen to agree with Sauron the White that, on any analysis, these films were massively successful as films and I consider that they stand head and shoulders above others in the same and similar genres. I believe that they will stand the test of time. But I make no objective claims. This has been a purely subjective view.

Tolkien once suggested that his book was unfilmable. He was probably right. No one, in my view, could have brought the book to life as he wrote them. Any film would have necessarily been an adaptation. Does it follow that the films should not have been made? My life would have been the worse for it, and my wife would never have discovered the book. So, again from a purely subjective standpoint, my answer is a resounding no.

One final point. I could understand the controversy from Tolkien fans over the changes when the films first came out. But why do people still get so hot under the collar about them? These are the films that we have. I happen to think that they are rather good. If you agree, why not just enjoy them for what they are and stop putting up obstacles to your experience? If not, then what does it matter? You don't need to watch them. The book is still there, and it remains unchanged.

[Boromir88]

Just as SpM has been a supporter of Jackson's films, I have been the harsh critic. Though, I will give Jackson credit, when I think credit is due, but to me Jackson made a lot of 'fatal' mistakes.

So what do I think of the movies? Well as movies are out to make money and 'entertain' I would say Jackson did an absolute stellar job. If I want to keep myself focused and entertained for a good 3+ hours I pop in one of them. For many different reasons, the cast, the battles, the music...etc all make the movies fun to watch. And so as films, I agree with Sauce they will stand the test of time.

However, as these films are 'based' off of JRR Tolkien's story, and Jackson, Walsh, Boyens...etc were propelling. LOTR was already an extremely popular book long before Jackson came up with an idea of making them into movies. And those involved with making the movies attached them to Tolkien's books, therefor I find it impossible not to compare them. They have to be compared.

For the question of are the films Tolkien's Middle-earth? Or did it bring Middle-earth to life? I would have to say a definite 'no' to both.

(As a disclaimer I'm going to say 'Jackson' a lot, to which I mean 'Jackson, Walsh, Boyens, Newline...the whole crew, because it gets burdensome to list everyone involved or just say 'Jackson in Company' all the time. It's very easy to blame the one person who is the figure head everyone knows and recognizes. Jackson is the director of the film, he is the man making the decisions, so he should take the praise, or the criticism. However, problems with the movies, may not solely be Jackson's fault - it may not even be his fault at all.

Newline controlled the purse, and those who control the money, often control the power. Newline was pumping money into the film, you better believe they wanted to see a lot of money in return. It's a business, that's what happens. Newline was funding the 'project,' if they weren't happy with it, funding's gone...plug pulled. So, you better believe Newline was going to get the film they wanted.

Therefor, when I say 'Jackson' I pretty mean everyone involved. I use Jackson's name because he is the director who put himself in the forefront. When things go right Jackson gets most the praise, so it's only fair that when things go wrong Jackson bears the brunt of the critism. Anyway that's my little side rant ).

Did the movies bring Middle-earth to life? For me, no, because Middle-earth was already brought to life by the books. I think Tolkien did an amazing job with the use of language and imagery that got me to imagine the characters, their motivations, the plot...etc just by using language. It was the books that brought Middle-earth to life. But, that's my own personal opinion, as I read them before watching the films. Maybe if you saw the films first it is different, I don't know. But, for me, the films didn't bring Middle-earth to life, because the books had already done that.

Are the films Tolkien's middle-earth? I agree with Elladan and say they're not. Yes characters are given the same name (although some are made up), and the same general plot happens...but many of the characters are changed, many things are added (and changed) therefor, I don't think it's a good representation of Tolkien's Middle-earth. It is a creation of Jackson.

I was asked if the books were 'unfilmable.' I mean they're so long, there's a lot of depth to them...etc. Can a good representation actually be made? I think so, depending upon the motives of those in charge. Since Hollywood is a business, sadly 'money' often takes over as the primary motive, and not really the 'purpose of the author' takes a back seat.

No one claims that a carbon copy has to be made to make a good representation of the books. Even the author himself in Letter 210 says the deletion of scenes is a necessity if a film is to be made off his books. However, he was so apprehensive about movies being made because often times (in Hollywood) what happens is directors 'change' things without considering the intent of the author or how that change effects the meaning of the story. There are a lot of things 'different,' a lot of characters 'different,' so what we end up with is a different story. Yes the same thing happens in the end, but it is still not 'Middle-earth.'

I'm not talking about here whether the changes Jackson made were better for a film, since it is a different medium. As the question I'm answering is 'are these good representations' completely different from 'does this change work for the movies?'

No you don't need a carbon copy to create an accurate representation of the story, all you need is a director who never loses site of what is important...and that is the authenticity of the story.

Paul Greengrass, who directed the recent 'Borne Ultimatum' (getting great reviews and I can't wait to see it) also made the controversial United 93. Greengrass was facing a lot of heat when he was making this film. Critics were saying he shouldn't be doing it, they were saying he was just trying to make money off of a tragedy. But Greengrass creates a great film...why? Because he never got dragged down by Hollywood and never lost focus of the authenticity of the event.

Before starting the film Greengrass went to the family members who lost love ones on that plane and first asked them 'Hey can I make this film?' And also if they were willing he asked them to describe their loved ones...how were they like? How did they look? Do you remember what they were wearing? Did you talk to them that day? What did you talk about? Greengrass never lost sight of the authenticity of what happened on that plane, and what we have is a finished product that is not only emotional, powerful, and outright stunning, but also...authentic.

I never got this same feeling from Jackson. Sure he spent years making the film, but he spent years making his own story, completely different from making an accurate story of Tolkien's world. Also Jackson (as well as Walsh and Boyens) showed an extreme disrespect - to the point of arrogance - with the 'I can do better' attitude. Ok, it's nice to have confidence, but let's be real. Tolkien was a man who C.S. Lewis said, was 'inside language.' Tolkien, maybe not as far as films go, but as far as 'creating a good story,' had far more knowledge than Jackson (and everyone involved) combined.

Some of the 'arrogant' remarks I was talking about. Tolkien said that The Scouring was an 'essential part of the plot.' When asked why Jackson left it out of the movies he said it was a 'no brainer.' Now, whether leaving out the Scouring was better for the films or not, isn't the issue. First off we don't know, because we don't really have something of the same sort to compare it to. Also, again I am talking about a representation of the story. Jackson decided leaving out the Scouring was a 'no brainer,' eventhough the author said it was an 'essential part of the plot.'

Also, Tolkien said that tomatoes did not belong in Middle-earth...Jackson found out this info and said 'that's silly.' What did he do? He put tomatoes in his story. May seem small and insignificant, but it shows a complete disregard and disrespect to the author. So, I never get the same feeling that Jackson cared about 'authenticity' in the way that Greengrass did when he made United 93.

I can live with many of Jackson's changes, because for the most part he has a reasonable explanation. He at least explains what he was trying to do for the film and how it works (most of the time). Therefor, I can live with Eomer saving the day instead of Erkenbrand and Arwen replacing Glorfindel. But, changes like the ones I mentioned a few paragraphs above is no excuse, that's just disrespect.

It's not that Tolkien's story is 'unfilmable.' (In fact an author has 1 medium to capture their audience...language...words. A director has several not only language - dialogue - but also through vision with sets and costumes, emotions through music...etc. It should be a lot easier for a director than!) It's not that a 100% carbon copy has to be made to create an accurate representation of Tolkien's books. It's the fact that Jackson (and everyone) was more concerned about other things than creating an authentic story, and so what we get is a bad representation of the story.

[Sauron the White]

from Boromir 88

No you don't need a carbon copy to create an accurate representation of the story, all you need is a director who never loses site of what is important...and that is the authenticity of the story.

Paul Greengrass, who directed the recent 'Borne Ultimatum' (getting great reviews and I can't wait to see it) also made the controversial United 93. Greengrass was facing a lot of heat when he was making this film. Critics were saying he shouldn't be doing it, they were saying he was just trying to make money off of a tragedy. But Greengrass creates a great film...why? Because he never got dragged down by Hollywood and never lost focus of the authenticity of the event.

There is a major distinction to be made here that renders your comparison less than effective. The events depicted in UNITED 93 were based on actual real life events. Middle-earth is a contrived fiction, an imaginary world filled with imaginary characters. There is no crying need to match items of clothing exactly or depict events in actual time or sequence as they really happened in an adaption of a fictional work. At least not the essential need that there is in depicting a recreation of actual avents. As it was, I do believe Jackson and team tried mightily to get things right. where possible and where important.

Too much of these debates come down to a clever and contrived definition of terms. You use the term AUTHENTICITY. I fear that the definition of that would hopelessly limit the arguement of either side in this discussion.

Jackson did hire many experts ranging from experts on the various langauges to experts on the look and design of Middle-earth in the effort to get it right - or as you put it to preserve the authenticity of Middle-earth. Efforts were expended to get it right and to preserve the authenticity of that world and the people in it where possible and within the limits of the cinematic medium.

The presence or absence of a tomato in the story is so trivial as to be meaningless to 99% of those who saw the films.

If Jackson tried to improve the books, that does not make him guilty of denying the One True God. I recently reread the books for the umpteenth time and was amazed at how more dramatic and touching the film version of the death of Boromir is compared to the book version. Should we burn Jackson at the stake for this transgression?

As far as The Scouring goes, this has been explained by the writers in detail in the special editions. It was felt that the climax of the film was the destruction of the ring and the fall of the Barad-dur. As it was, Jackson bore the brunt of some who criticized the film for having "too many endings" and going on far too long after that climatic scene. To add the Scouring of the Shire would have only lengthened the film by even more.

Personally, I found that very quiet tavern scene (at the end of ROTK) far more touching as the four hobbits sit around the table - their great deeds unappreciated by their fellows - while all the hobbits around them rejoiced in the trivialities of hobbit life. And as it should be. And I am sure the four would have it no other way. I found that beautiful.

In the end it is folly to compare to films to the template of the book and hold them up as the last word as to what is pure and good and holy. The book and the film are two very different things. Each has their own qualities, boundaries, limits and components that the other does not have.

Again, this is like comparing apples to cinderblocks. In the end the experts announce that after deep and exhausting study apples do indeed taste better. But cinderblocks are harder and make for better building materials. The comparison is meaningless.