A 'darker' Hobbit

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Whether you believe PJ said what is attributed to him, Davem is quite right- that attitude is apparent throughout the films. He's constantly "improving" the books, with an eye toward more fights, more action, more noise and shrieking, more eye candy: So what if there's no fight on Weathertop- we need one! The cave troll fight we invented and the Balrog aren't enough excitement- lets have a physics-defying teetering staircase! Boy, a warg attack would juice things up! Let's turn the Dead of the marshes into water zombies! Gee, an avalanche of skulls would be neato-keen! Let's have a Nazgul nearly nab Frodo at Osgiliath! And on and on and on......

It not much of an argument to list a handful of plot-points and boast that PJ put them in the movies. Plot is *all* he ever perceived. Nothing more- and even then he couldn't get it right.

This is where the 'snobbish' Tolkien scholars are coming from. They know from long study that the Lord of the Rings is far more than just an adventure yarn, and it's painful to see it reduced to such a simplistic level-even beyond the plot and character vandalism, it's plain the PJ never understood what it was all about.

[Sauron the White]

Lets all join hands and learn together: a book is one thing - a film is quite another. What makes for a great book does not necessarily make for a great movie - and vice versa.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Lets all join hands and learn together: a book is one thing - a film is quite another. What makes for a great book does not necessarily make for a great movie - and vice versa.

Were you ever unfortunate enough to see the 'Hamlet' scene in Last Action Hero?

[Jack Slater (Schwarzenegger)is Hamlet]
Hamlet: Hey Claudius! You killed my father! Big mistake!
Narrator: Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and Hamlet is taking out the trash.
Old Man: Stay thy hand, fair prince.
Hamlet: [shooting him] Who said I'm fair?
Narrator: No one is going to tell this sweet prince good night.
Hamlet: To be or not to be? Not to be.

That's precisely what PJ did with LotR as far as I'm concerned.

[Sauron the White]

Everyone has a right to their opinion. I truly believe after several years on various JRRT based websites that there are a group of Tolkien book based people who would never ever ever be satisfied with any film adaption of LOTR. Even if someone would take a billion dollars and make 50 hours of film translating every blessed page with every single line and song, they would still find fault with something and that is what they would dwell on in post after post for years to come.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Everyone has a right to their opinion. I truly believe after several years on various JRRT based websites that there are a group of Tolkien book based people who would never ever ever be satisfied with any film adaption of LOTR. Even if someone would take a billion dollars and make 50 hours of film translating every blessed page with every single line and song, they would still find fault with something and that is what they would dwell on in post after post for years to come.

But...I liked the opening credits.

[Sauron the White]

fron Nogrod in a post attempting to refute my claim that the professional critics lavished acclaim upon the 3 LOTR films:

Collective praise by the critics? I'm not sure about the U.S. if every critic is fed by the big movie-corporations but at least in Europe I think most of the critics had a long list of reservations and some even scorned the whole project. So at least here it was not a "collective praise"...

If you look at two different websites you will get the proof of my point. The first is metacritic.com -- it keeps track of professional media critics reviews. It tries to limit itself to only the full time critics. Here are the figures for approximately 40 reviews they tracked

FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
92 out of 100 - listed by the site as getting "universal acclaim"

THE TWO TOWERS
88 out of 100 listed by the site as getting "universal acclaim"

RETURN OF THE KING
94 out of 100 listed by the site as getting "universal acclaim"

rottentomatoes.com is a bit more expanisve in thier definition of a film critic so they have between 175 and 227 listed. Here are the figures for the 3 LOTR films

FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
93% positive out of 183 critics reviews

THE TWO TOWERS
97% positive our of the 206 critics reviews

RETURN OF THE KING
94% positive our of the 227 critics reviews

Again, my point is NOT that the critics are always right. Sometimes the public can love a film that critics hate or vice versa. Sometimes the industry can bestow awards of excellence of films few saw while spurning the fan favorites of the year. The 3 LOTR films are the exception because they achieved the level of a rousing success by three distinct measurements of film success
box office take
critical acclaim
industry awards

Name me any other three films by the same director which can match that feat?

You can hate Peter Jackson and his work all you want. But to ignore the success of the films is simply denying the historical record.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

You can hate Peter Jackson and his work all you want. But to ignore the success of the films is simply denying the historical record.

There's an error of logic here. Hating Peter Jackson and his work or disliking the films does not mean denying the historical record. It means simply having independent judgement and freedom of thought. That is allowed in most democracies, although not in Mordor.

When I saw RotK in the cinema, I had the misfortune of sitting behind four young girls who did nothing but hoot, hollar and laugh with cynical derision at every speech Aragorn made--I got a running commentary on the movie. In fact, I suspect they came to the film in order to laugh at it. I won't repeat their verbal comments here as I'm sure they would earn me an infraction if not a wrist slapping from the mods. But their money still went into the movie coffers and I suppose one can say that they were entertained.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Everyone has a right to their opinion. I truly believe after several years on various JRRT based websites that there are a group of Tolkien book based people who would never ever ever be satisfied with any film adaption of LOTR. Even if someone would take a billion dollars and make 50 hours of film translating every blessed page with every single line and song, they would still find fault with something and that is what they would dwell on in post after post for years to come.

I was about to dismiss this as a strawman (akin as it is to the two different media = blank check argument); but have to agree that there are some who *know* (this is indisputable fact) that no film adaptation can ever do complete justice to any decent book- not even Harry Potter: and further as a matter of personal predeliction prefer that therefore no attempt should ever be made on a book as complex and multi-layered as The Lord of the Rings.

I don't myself fall into that camp. However, that is not nearly the same as claiming that, since no adaptation can ever be completely successful, we thereby must accept any old crap instead. PJ's action-adventure flicks are, again, shallow. There is nothing intellectually challenging, and what little tone of high seriousness to be found is quickly dispersed by the next popcorn-movie moment.

Imagine instead what Kurosawa (may he rest in peace) might have done with this story. Even if he put everyone in kimonos and samurai armor, the result would *still* have been far closer in spirit to the books than PJ's rock 'em sock' em extravaganzas. Imagine Coppola, or Kubrick, or any of a number of *serious* and intelligent directors whose megaphones PJ isn't worthy to polish. Even Ridley Scott would have done a better job, and that's not saying a lot.

The Lord of the Rings is not just a pulp-fantasy adventure story! But that's all PJ gave us. Far better he should have done something like Shannara or the Belgariad than take on an author he can't comprehend.

[Sauron the White]

WCH - Ridley Scott did his own version - it was called LEGEND and it sucked bigtime. Heroic fantasy has been something of quicksand for many filmmakers and Scott is just one example. The fact that Jackson did the three films and they had such huge success on several fronts is a profound statement in and of itself.

You claim the films are shallow. To support this you claim

There is nothing intellectually challenging, and what little tone of high seriousness to be found is quickly dispersed by the next popcorn-movie moment.

Sounds to me like you are a "glass is half empty" kind of person. Moments such as the funeral song sung by Eowyn is far from shallow and resembles nothing in pupl slam bam fiction. We have many soft moments such as the conversation about life and death between Gandalf and Frodo in Moria, Arwens vision of a child, Arwen by the tomb of Aragorn, Theoden reciting as he puts on his armor, the four hobbits back in the pub treated as strangers by the rest of the world they saved, ... all that and more. If Jackson wanted to make a mere sword and sorcery epic, none of that would have been in there. None of it.

SHALLOW says to me that it is very one dimensional and that single dimension is without nuance or subtlety. The scenes I mentioned put that claim to rest. And there are more. Many more.

If all you want to see is the action - that is your choice. Just admit your biases going in.