Aragorn's Take On the Movies

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Amusingly I originally saw this article the other day when I was browsing TORN. Judging by the reactions to Mr. Mortensen's few rather mild remarks people there (and elsewhere) are still taking criticism of the films as personal attacks. Fans, eh?

Yeah. the TORN reference was certainly pointed. It seems that from the start of PJ's LOTR endeavors there has been that vocal element that howls with outrage when one dares question his motives or judgement.

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I think he has a fair point. I would probably agree that "Fellowship" is the strongest item on the menu, but for my own part I still consider even that to be a very deeply flawed film with insurmountable obstacles in terms of characterisation and the handling of the backstory. Peter Jackson's predilection for CGI is more obvious than ever by this point, of course. I honestly don't see the difference these days between him and someone like Michael Bay: making boring long-winded CGI-candy action films with no substance.

That's pretty much the way I view the films. To those who say "well, Jackson did the best he could", my response is ever "not enough". No one can impart the feel of the books in any other medium, at least to my mind, and that is why I see no need for anyone to try. It'll just result in watered-down, pale imitations that can't help looking like the standard Hollywood blockbuster with a thin sheen of good story, courtesy of Tolkien.

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I haven't watched them in ages out of fear for my sanity but I don't recall the CGI in the adaptations of The Lord of the Rings being as obvious as in the films of The Hobbit. Perhaps the earlier films used it more where necessary and to fill in the gaps between practical effects where in these new ones it's more front-centre as it were (I'm looking at you, "Azog").

I've only seen the LOTR films once all the way through. I thought CGI Gollum was actually about as close as one could possibly be to the "real" one, but the Balrog, and the Eye of Barad-dûr were garbage. I've seen enough of the Hobbit trailers to know that I want no part of it.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Yeah. the TORN reference was certainly pointed. It seems that from the start of PJ's LOTR endeavors there has been that vocal element that howls with outrage when one dares question his motives or judgement.

Yes, I often go to TORn just to have fun with the zealots. But there are several erudite posters over there as well, but they tend to stay out of the movie discussions altogether (for their own sanity, obviously) and merely analyze the books in their own segregated forum.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I've only seen the LOTR films once all the way through. I thought CGI Gollum was actually about as close as one could possibly be to the "real" one, but the Balrog, and the Eye of Barad-dûr were garbage. I've seen enough of the Hobbit trailers to know that I want no part of it.

I actually liked the Balrog; after all, it did have wings as is canonically correct.

I often disparage Jackson, but there are many things he did right in the LotR films, and from a cinematographic standpoint I think he did fine. However, my stance is and always has been that Jackson's additions detracted from the movie and did not improve the plot over what was already in the books and not included in the films. Many people I have heard from over the years consider the first movie, FotR, as the best and the second, TTT, as the worst. Not surprisingly, the first movie had the least amount of additional drek (Warrior Princess Xenarwen the most notable) and the second had the most effluvia (right down to Aragorn kissing his horse amorously).

The Hobbit movies are more egregious in superfluous scripting of a fan-fic nature than all three LotR movies combined, even to the point of adding an unnecessary and ludicrous Mary-Sue character. Jackson has gone so overboard that the last vestiges of The Hobbit (and the alleged main character, Bilbo) were removed when the hobbit-centric title "There and Back Again", reflecting the unassuming nature of Bilbo Baggins, was changed to "The Battle of the Five Armies" which assumes the character of Jackson's juvenile love for decapitations, CGI swarming legions and explodey things.

Viggo was right. Jackson lacks subtlety.

[Kuruharan]

I saw a summation of this article on ew.com found it interesting, read the original article, and then couldn't resist coming to the Downs to see if the redirection problem had been sorted. Huzzah it seems to have been!

It is nice to see that at least one person involved in the production shares our dismay at how things turned out.

Recently I have been greatly (and I mean *greatly*) enjoying cruising around Song of Ice and Fire websites and discussions and laughing uproariously at all the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth going on in those locations regarding the changes the TV show has made to the story of the original stories.

It is hilarious!

I will, however, fully admit that my antics are entirely motivated by schadenfreude in watching what we suffered (and until this last Hobbit abomination is over are still suffering) happen to somebody else.

It is still a world of fun...especially watching the unfolding hand wringing and worry about whether or not the TV show will pass the books (spoiler alert: it will, and in one respect it already has.) At least we Tolkien fans never had to suffer through that.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I actually liked the Balrog; after all, it did have wings as is canonically correct.

Tsk.

[Snowdog]

Yeah, the effects took over. I guess itas why I can still manage to watch Fellowship every couple years or so.

[Mister Underhill]

Wait, what? Fourteen years? Lord.

Anyway, to the extent that the original trilogy did work, I thought Viggo was a significant part of it. He got a lot of critiques about how his physicality -- voice, height, etc. -- didn't match up for a lot of fans, but I thought he brought a commitment and a maturity that helped anchor the cast. For me he was believable -- as a legitimate outdoorsman, as a dangerous combatant, as a grown man. They put the character through some gyrations I didn't care for, but I thought Viggo always acquitted himself honorably. He's an actor who genuinely values good work, interesting work, challenging work over a payday.

[Belegorn]

I liked his Aragorn.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Let me put it this way. I bought all three LoTR films, but only
have watched FoTR after one dvd viewing. The others take such
liberties and even have continuity problems. One tiny example, PJ
makes a big thing of Merry and Pippin drinking Treebeard's drafts
but then at the end of TTT they're the same size as other hobbits,
when it would have been simple to have them a bit taller-and no
need to say anything or add one second to airing time. Then
there's the ridiculously oversized wargs in TTT, the horse kissing,
and on and on. FoTR I give a B- to, esp. the prequel, but the
other two, fagetabotit. And you see PJ's continued degenerative use
of cgi in The Hobbit movies (disclaimer, I've only seen the first,after
that there's no interest in seeing more destruction of the classic
children's book.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I will, however, fully admit that my antics are entirely motivated by schadenfreude in watching what we suffered (and until this last Hobbit abomination is over are still suffering) happen to somebody else.

I know what you mean, brother, I know.

I have a major issue with Peter Jackson's lack of subtlety (among other things), and I feel sort of justified (not that I need a justification, but even so) knowing that somebody massively involved in the production agrees.