A sad experience

[Araréiel]

Unfortunately we are a society brought of on negativity and being too critical of the work of others. Instead of focusing on the good, we are told to focus on the bad and to pick apart anything good. Negative reviews are usually more entertaining to read than positive ones, and bad press surrounding celebrities garners more general interest in the mainstream. After a while we will adopt the same attitude, and that blows as it robs us of our ability to be able to enjoy things. I re-watched the whole EE trilogy this past week, ending last night, and was annoyed to find myself picking apart the special effects, where it's clear to me that they are in front of a green screen (Pip and Merry riding atop Treebeard, for instance), and where the special effects are slightly less smooth than at other spots (Legolas grabbing ahold of the horse's harness and swinging up unto its back). Some things annoyed me the first time around, primarily Legolas surfing down the stairs at Helm's Deep on the shield, or surfing down the oliphant's trunk at the battle at Minas Tirith. Those things were clearly to ride on the crushes of fangirls. It made me hate being a fan of Legolas to be lumped in with those stupid girls.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Another movie fan chimes in:

you know I gotta hand it to Peter Jackson. I'm reading LOTR for the first time for a class (I tried reading the Hobbit and got frustrated and gave up), and for the first 200 pages all they did was walk and stop at places to eat. And he made a pretty exciting movie.

[Thinlómien]

I seem to be making this the unofficial re-watching experience thread...

I rewatched the movies yet again during the holidays. It's funny, I remember that last time I saw them I liked them better than I used to, and now I'm back to sort of disliking them.

It seems like Jackson has lost all of Tolkien's subtlety and wisdom and turned it into a cheesy blockbuster. There are good moments and good portrayals - Sean Bean's Boromir is brilliant - but all in all the movies really lack too much of what makes LotR LotR.

Sometimes the movies are just really badly made. Viggo Mortensen does decent job as Aragorn (you would not have heard me saying this two years ago) but the script really kills all his effort. I don't know why they had to make him such an idiot. Look at any scene where there's Aragorn and Boromir (except B's death) and you see how totally unfriendlily he treats him and how completely devoid he's of social intelligence. (The crudest example is their first meeting in Rivendell where Boromir tries to talk and call Aragorn a friend but he just reads his book and says maybe one sentence in a self-important tone.)

Concerning Aragorn and Boromir though, I quite liked one thing. Watching FotR, it actually seems that the turning point for Aragorn is Boromir's death - it's then that he accepts who he is and what is his path. It actually works quite beautifully and surely gives even a new angle to look at the books.

And there, I think, lies the thing we all old complaining purist book fans actually owe to the movies. I dare claim I'm not the only one who has got new ideas about some things in the book because of how they've been interpreted in the movies. That surely is a valuable thing.

[mormegil]

Okay so recently I watched the Fellowship with my daughter, this time I watched in in an actual home theater with a projection screen and a killer sound system and I must say it was better. I think, more so than other films, great sound is a factor in this movie. That is why I loved it a lot more when it was in the theater. Now, with that said, it still didn't hold the same enchantment it did on the first few viewings but it was much better with better sound.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by mormegil

Okay so recently I watched the Fellowship with my daughter, this time I watched in in an actual home theater with a projection screen and a killer sound system and I must say it was better. I think, more so than other films, great sound is a factor in this movie. That is why I loved it a lot more when it was in the theater. Now, with that said, it still didn't hold the same enchantment it did on the first few viewings but it was much better with better sound.

Well one of the first things we did when we got our new Mothership-sized TV set before Christmas was watch FotR on it, and I must admit it was very enjoyable. We did spend a lot of the time going "Ooooh, look at that!" as we saw things that had previously been chopped off the side of the screen on our smaller TV!

And yes, good sound makes an amazing difference.

We never did get round to watching TT though

[Benjimir]

I have the extended editions on my media players at work (a Creative Zen) and watch them as I'm working on my websites. They are the only versions I can watch and pay any attention too. If I'm online at home, which often means playing LOTRO, its nice background noise at times.

But I was taught long ago in my youth to take movies as they are, and not mix them with the books. To try to compare any book to its movie version is impossible to do.

[BGreg]

When I first saw FoTR, I was simply amazed. Having read The Hobbit before, I knew some of the characters, but didn't know the storyline at all. So it was all a perfect surprise for me. Immediatly I decided to read the book, and did so very quickly.
Of course, I liked the book a lot. But still I enjoyed all the movies and thought they were a great work by PJ. However, every time I saw the movies again (and reread the books) I noticed more and more differences from the book. So it did have a negative influence on my pleasure of watching the movie.
Don't get me wrong, the movie is a masterpiece, but it's simply not IT. It doesn't have the subtlety Tolkien so fabolously incorporated in the book.

But I was taught long ago in my youth to take movies as they are, and not mix them with the books. To try to compare any book to its movie version is impossible to do.

It's a good thing you were taught that, Benjimir

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Benjimir

But I was taught long ago in my youth to take movies as they are, and not mix them with the books. To try to compare any book to its movie version is impossible to do.

Yeah, people keep saying that. I disagree.

The trouble with the films is not that they make departures from the book; that is inevitable and necessary in any adaptation. The trouble is that they make departures from the spirit of the book, unnecessary changes to the essence of the story that is The Lord of the Rings. Inherent differences in medium have nothing to do with it.

Both films and books are story-centric, and thus may be compared on how well they convey a particular story. The Lord of the Rings is a particular story, with a particular spirit that Peter Jackson does not understand, and which he was unable to capture.

You cannot take the films just "as they are." Since they were intended as an adaptation, I see no reason why we shouldn't judge them on that basis - how well did they function as an adaptation? There are aspects, of course, that do not correspond to the books at all, things that do not translate between mediums. Story is not one of these.

This idea is fresh in my mind, since I watched the extended trilogy straight (for the second time!) just two weeks ago.

[Morthoron]

Hi Lommie,

I think Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn is perhaps his weakest portrayal in his last 5 or 6 films (a few, like Eastern Promises, have been outstanding). His voice in no way carries any command like the formidable voices of McKellan or Lee (his speech at the Black Gate is thin and reedy), he aint tall (so it struck me as funny when folk were calling him 'Strider'), and as you mentioned previously, Jackson did him no favors with a muddled script, making Aragorn appear often friendless, whiny and indecisive (and Elrond was another whiny character in the films).

I will watch FotR or RotK occassionally, but I just can't bring myself to watch the Two Towers ever again. I'm hoping Del Toro presents a better scripted version of The Hobbit, or at least is able to flex his creative muscles and pimp-slap Jackson and Boyens when their plot-making gets ludicrous.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Hi Lommie,
I think Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn is perhaps his weakest portrayal in his last 5 or 6 films (a few, like Eastern Promises, have been outstanding). His voice in no way carries any command like the formidable voices of McKellan or Lee (his speech at the Black Gate is thin and reedy), he aint tall (so it struck me as funny when folk were calling him 'Strider'), and as you mentioned previously, Jackson did him no favors with a muddled script, making Aragorn appear often friendless, whiny and indecisive (and Elrond was another whiny character in the films).

Agreed. I think he does well enough as Strider the Ranger, but he really does not have the charisma and commanding aura of a great king. He looks silly when they've tried to make him look clean and noble and like you say, he does not have the voice for it either. (Foir example, the coronation scene is totally spoiled once he starts giving a speech - the joyous and "high" atmosphere is suddenly gone. He speaks like the Finnish prime minister Matti Vanhanen, and that's not a compliment.)