Okay, so what do you think NOW?

[Boromir88]

This seems very unfair. It wasn't perfect, but it certainly wasn't 'bad'

In my opinion it is 'bad.' I don't get why people take offense to someone who doesn't think the movies should be hailed and praised as 'great' pieces of film. Simply because I don't think they're good representations doesn't mean no one can think they are.

This just sounds ridiculous. Of all the things to criticise, you find a type of food being used a problem?

How many times must I say I am not talking about this causing any 'problems' with the movies. I'm making a point about Jackson's attitude towards what Tolkien wrote. Tolkien said tomatoes didn't belong in his world, Jackson said that's just silly so he includes them in his movies. By including tomatoes Jackson shows he knowingly disregarded something Tolkien said about his story and went against it. Which to me shows arrogance on the part of Jackson.

Oh really? What about all the various Elvish lines in the movies which used Tolkien's languages, or the Elvish lines used by Enya in 'May It Be'? Viggo even asked for more Elvish lines because he enjoyed using different languages.

That's got nothing to do with the self-proclaimed 'dwarvish expert.' Ok, they did get a team of experts together, I believe Tom Shippey was was among them. So, they were able to get things right, that doesn't mean I'm just going to ignore all the 'wrong' and pretend it's just not there.

I know that Verlyn Fleiger (who's wrote 3 stellar books regarding Tolkien) came out and blasted the movies as being just a Hollywood action film. Who's to say she's wrong? No one, that's her opinion. Yes there were experts who worked on the movies, but there were also 'experts' who shouldn't be titled such (example the 'dwarvish' guy) and also experts who have flat out ripped the movies to shreds. In fact Fleiger (with regards to FOTR) says the only thing she enjoys is Sean Bean's performance and the scenery (yet with the scenery the actors are constantly in the way!) And some would think I'm a harsh critic!

Oh really? Does Gandalf's fight against the Balrog, Boromir's last stand and Aragorn's promise to him, Sam willing to drown to follow his master, Gandalf and Eomer's arrival at Helm's Deep, Faramir turning away from temptation and releasing the hobbits, Sam's tearful speech to Frodo, Faramir's mournful ride, Rohan's epic charge in the golden morning, Sam carrying Frodo up the mountain, Aragorn's speech to the soldiers at the Black Gate, the final victory and celebration in Gondor, Frodo's last farewell to his comrades and Sam's return to his home and family count as toilet humour and bilge?

No but what about Gimli being transformed into a bumbling buffoon that likes to belch and fart? Or Gandalf beating down the Steward of Gondor? Or Aragorn chopping off the Mouth of Sauron's head? Or Denethor chomping down them tomatoes (!) during that beautiful 'charge' of Faramir? Or Legolas being made into a Captain Obvious superelf trick stud? Or googly eyed Frodo losing most of his courage and bravery? Or Gollum tricking Frodo into sending Sam home? Or the green slime army of the dead which virtually makes Rohan's glorious charge useless? Or the marshmellow man Gothmog limping around Pelennor? Or The Witch-King owning Gandalf, breaking his staff, making him whine? Or Denethor sending Boromir off as a secret agent to bring him back the Ring? Or Sauron being shown as an eye? Or the Gondorian soldiers transforming into pathetic guys who suddenly lost the ability to actually fight? Or the absense of The Scouring? Or just making up characters like Lurtz and Madril? Or Aragorn's tumble off the cliff? Or the Witch-King-Frodo scene at Osgiliath? Or Saruman's death? Or Aragorn being the stereotypical 'reluctant' King until the very end?

And that's just some of the bigger ones that have sprung to my mind. I never said there wasn't anything Jackson got right, but just because things were 'right' doesn't mean it just negates everything that he got wrong and changed around. Whether it is better for the movie that he made these changes...I don't know, but since there are tons and tons of changes (many of them being to the characters and plot!) I don't see it as a good representation. And I don't see the films as a good 'introduction' to Tolkien's Middle-earth...I see it as a good welcome to Jackson's 'Middle-earth.'

Just a little aside about Saruman's death. To start out, Mr. Lee wasn't too happy with his 'death' having to happen in Isengard as he knew The Shire was the 'proper' place. But also, Chris Lee actually boycotted the premiere of ROTK because he was angry about the scene being cut from the theatrical. I remember watching the TV interview and he was furious over Jackson editting out his death, and said there would then be no reason for him to go to the premiere. A day later Lee actually recanted these statements and said that he wouldn't be going to the premiere, but he couldn't say anymore because of his confidentiality agreement. hmm....

[Sauron the White]

"Gee whiz Wally , I gotta wonder what the rest of the world was watching since all these nifty folks here think the movie was a pile of crap? Why did people pay all that money to see crap? Why did those crappy movies win all those awards? Why did the professional critics love those crappy movies? It doesn't make sense Wally."

"Gosh Beav , I dunno. Maybe everybody is just stupid except for a few real smart guys who know all the answers while the rest of us go around with our heads stuck up our butts."

"Gee whiz Wally. I don't want my head up my butt"

"For heavens sake Beav, its just an expression. It means that regular guys like us are a bunch of jerks and only a few smart guys really know anything. You know it like at school where a few really smart kids always get called on and everybody else just sits there."

"Thanks Wally."
--------------------------------------------------------------

apologies to the old LEAVE IT TO BEAVER TV show.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Boro

Well as movies are out to make money and 'entertain' I would say Jackson did an absolute stellar job.

First off, if the fims hadn't made (or been capable of making) money, then they wouldn't have been made in the first place. I, for one, am very glad that they were made. Secondly, if they entertain, then they have done much of what is expected of them. I, and my teary eyes, think that they went much further than that.

Originally Posted by Boro

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.

Logically, this makes no sense to me. They were based on the book, but were rendered in a completely different medium. There is no need to compare if one simply wishes to enjoy the films. I will admit that, because the films were based upon the book, they have a special significance for me. But it does not follow that I have to compare one to the other. I can enjoy them both for what they are, separately and differently.

Originally Posted by Boro

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.

Firstly, I should clarify that, when I said that the films bring the books to life for me, I meant that, in almost every respect, the films captured the visual images that I already had of the books. The films did not visualise Middle-earth for me, but rather captured my own visualisation magnificently. Secondly, I disagree that the films did not capture Tolkien's Middle-earth. They might not tell exactly the same story with exactly the same characters but, for me, they captured many of Tolkien's themes perfectly: the importance of friendship, the valiant stand of good against evil in the face of hopeless odds, courage and valour, the bettering of the mighty by the humble, beauty and primitive power in simplicity, trust in hope against the odds and so on. These things are just not present in your run-of-the-mill swords and sorcery gorefest. Yet they were, for my money, present in spades in Jackson's films.

Originally Posted by Boro

Therefor, when I say 'Jackson' I pretty mean everyone involved.

I thoroughly agree. When things are perceived to be wrong with the films, Jackson generally takes the wrap. It couldn't possibly have been the actors' fault, so let's blame Jackson's direction or the lines that he wrote. It does you credit, Boro, to share the "blame". But I would rather credit all concerned with all that is right about the films (the majority of things, in my view).

As regards the comparison with United 93, I would agree that was a superb film. And, having watched the companion documentary, I was impressed with the lengths to which the director and others involved went to to assuage the feelings of the relatives and enhance the accurate depiction of the protagonists. But don't kid yourself that that film too did not have an eye to the box office. Or indeed, the Bourne Supremacy which, by all accounts, is an action-fest (not my cup of tea, but I am sure that it will be hugely successful and entertain many). But, as Sauron the White points out, we are not talking here about a portrayal of real life events. The considerations involved were different. Jackson was looking to make a successful and entertaining film from Tolkien's novel. There were no relatives to appease or real-life characters to depict correctly. Should he have taken into account the feelings of the Tolkien purists? To my mind he did, and he certainly satisfied me. Of course, many remain dissatisfied. But there is a line to be drawn. In my view, he got that line more or less in the right place.

Originally Posted by Boro

Also Jackson (as well as Walsh and Boyens) showed an extreme disrespect - to the point of arrogance - with the 'I can do better' attitude.

I have seen the interview where one of them (Boyens, I think) says this. To my mind, this line has been misunderstood and misinterpreted by those who criticise the film, often to their own ends. I see them as saying that they changed the book where they thought that it would work better on film. That is their right. They were making a film based on the book. In many respects, I think that they succeeded. The Scouring of the Shire is one example. Much as I personally love that chapter, it would, for the reason that Sauron the White has stated, have been a disaster, film-wise, to add it on to the end, after the major climax of the trilogy. It was not disrespect. It was good film-making. The tomatoes example is simply too trivial to bear response.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I've not been near the films for a while and I'm quite happy with that. I had grown bored with them.

A healthy attitude, I think. Films are not meant to be watched over and over again, until one gets so bored that one picks holes in them to amuse oneself. As I said, I have watched the films only infrequently, with long gaps between them. And I enjoy them all the more for that, when I do watch them again. Equally, I do not read and re-read LotR over and over again, as I am sure that it would bore me too if I did so. I am currently re-reading it again (to my chldren) after a gap of some four years, and thoroughly enjoying it.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Not that I do not like them, no, they're marvellous entertainment, but they don't have the Tolkien Essence I seek.

I would agree that they are marvellous entertainment. And they are, admittedly, not pure Tolkien. Many others had a hand in their making and their influence inevitably shows. Yet, as I have said, for me, they do retain the essence of Tolkien and the essence of his Middle-earth. That is one of the things that, for me, sets them so far above many other films of the same type.

Originally Posted by Boro

Therefor, we end up with a very entertaining movie, yet a bad representation of Tolkien's story.

To my mind, an extremely entertaining film, a reasonable adaptation of Tolkien's story (it was never meant to be, nor could it ever be, an authentic representation), but a wonderful recreation of much of the essence of Tolkien's Middle-earth.

Originally Posted by Boro

I never said there wasn't anything Jackson got right, but just because things were 'right' doesn't mean it just negates everything that he got wrong and changed around.

Is your glass half empty or half full ...?

I don't know why I got myself back into this. When one posts an opinion, one always feels obliged to defend it. Yet, really, I do not care what anyone else thinks of these films. I only care that they are a great source of enjoyment for me. Yet it does annoy me when they are belittled, precisely because I think that they are such great films. So worthy of praise. Yet, because they depart from the book in a number of respects, they are crucified as not being worthy. No, they are not the deepest films ever made. Yet, they had depth. Seriously, just watch Eragon or umpteen other films of the same genre and tell me that these films are not head and shoulders above their rivals. For all the gripping action scenes and unsubtle (Gimli-based) humour, they have moments of great depth and poignancy.

I will finish by relaying my experience of today. As anticipated, we sat and watched TTT, generally held to be the worst of the three films, as far as comparison with the books goes. Yet, once again, so many scenes brought tears to my eyes. The despair of the Three Hunters when they thought Merry and Pippin dead, the pain of the mother sending her children away from the burning village, the unknowing diffidence of Theoden on first hearing of his son's death followed by his very real anguish that he feels when burying his child, Eowyn's lament at Theodred's funeral (mouthed in the background by fellow mourners), the wonderful dialogue between Gollum and Smeagol, the look of fear on the faces of the old men and young boys as they were armed in readiness for defending Helm's Deep, the anguish of their wives and mothers as they left to prepare for battle, the desperate last ride out from the Hornburg, and the appearance of Gandalf astride Shadowfax as the sun rose in the east behind him,. Just a few of the moments that I found incredibly moving, supplemented in no small way by the magnificent score. And, you know what, not all of those were written by Tolkien. Yet, for me, they capture the essence of the world that he created. Heck, I even appreciated the Wargs this time round.

There is so much more to these films than crunching axes and belching Gimlis. And that's what I find so entertaining and so enjoyable about them. I like a good action flick as much as the next fellow. But there is so much more to these films than simple swords and sorcery. Thanks, in a large part, to the man who wrote the book on which they are based. But I give due credit too to those who brought them to the screen for my delectation.

Finally, Boro and others, if you find the films so entertaining, why not just let them entertain you? Why the need to find fault because there were tomatoes present, or because Faramir would never act that way, or because Gandalf would never have let himself be humbled by the Witch-King. These films do not tell the story told by the books, so don't let the books shackle your enjoyment. Enjoy the films for what they are and enjoy the books for what they are. Then, surely, you can let yourself be happy that you are lucky to have two such rich sources of enjoyment.

[Sauron the White]

I know that Verlyn Fleiger (who's wrote 3 stellar books regarding Tolkien) came out and blasted the movies as being just a Hollywood action film. Who's to say she's wrong?

So just to be clear - Verlyn Fleiger is a film expert? She has the qualifications to make these statements and to be considered as someone with the background, education and credentials to pronounce upon the quality of a film? She knows so much about film that the rest of us should be cowed by her opinion and ignore the massive worldwide success of the movies based on box office revenue, industry awards and professional critical acclaim? All this is to be shoved into the dustbin of life because of the opinion on a film by one Verlyn Fleiger?

Which to me shows arrogance on the part of Jackson.

What I see here is a very small number of people who somehow, someway feel that they are the Keepers of the True Knowledge of JRRT. Only they know what is holy and good. The rest of the world is out of step..... those people who bought over $3 billion dollars of tickets to see the movies were fools ..... those critics who praised the films were boobs .... the members of the professional industries who heaped many awards on the three films were all idiots. All are ignorant cretins ...... everybody but that small number of the Chosen Few. You want to talk about arrogonace and lack of respect? Thats a great example of it right there.

[Quempel]

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Well Beav if the playing field is level and an actual account of how many tickets were sold the movie, Gone With the Wind spanks everything.


And oh golly Beav, Star Wars A New Hope won a bunch of awards too, including some oscars and BANFA awards.

Just because Gibson made money and won awards off of The Passion doesn't make him Jesus either.

[Boromir88]

So just to be clear - Verlyn Fleiger is a film expert?~Sauron

You don't need to be an expert to have an opinion about whether you like a movie or not. That's all I have been doing (as well as Fleiger), is stating our opinion about the movies. If Jackson can sit here and be praised he shouldn't bother a few needling critics that don't think the movies are a good representation of the books.

those people who bought over $3 billion dollars of tickets to see the movies were fools

A popular and entertaining film doesn't mean it's an accurate portrayal of the story. If you notice thats the question I was answering, not whether these were well-liked and entertaining films. Sauce has come in to argue why he thinks the films do represent Middle-earth, I happen to disagree, that's what we do in a discussion.

You want to talk about arrogonace and lack of respect? Thats a great example of it right there.

I would appreciate that instead of putting words in my mouth and saying I wrote anything about people who liked the movies are 'ignorant' and 'idiots' that you acted more like SpM. Come in state your opinion, argue your opinion, and praise the movies all you want. I'm going to come in here and argue why I think Jackson, Walsh, Boyens, et all were very arrogant and why the movies did not represent the books, to me. There's no need to make it personal and start saying that I'm calling anyone stupid fools for liking the movies, as I've done no such thing.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

What frustrates me no end are those occasions where PJ took a scene from the book, and somehow decided he needed (and was qualified) to "improve" it. Case in point: the Mouth of Sauron. Tolkien's scene is tense and dramatic, and above all carries the superior character and moral strength of the Captains of the West. So tell me, please, what cinematic imperative required turning Aragorn into a war criminal? Does film-as-a-different-medium require that on this page of the script another decapitation is mandatory?

Again, the Voice of Saruman: Why does Gandalf prevent Legolas' "sticking an arrow in his gob?" Why, because "we need information." Whatever happened to "he was great once, of a kind we should not dare to raise our hand against?" Or for that matter, "do not be so quick to deal out death in judgment?" PJ again has ignored, indeed inverted, Tolkien's moral and spiritual compass.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

One of the wonderful aspects of opinion discussion threads is that everyone can express feelings and ideas, whether or not they have a foundation in other sources.

One of the worst things about opinion threads is that there are always several participants who dominate the discussion because they feel that, instead of merely expressing their ideas, they have to push their point by repeating it so long that others agree.

Fortunately, the Downs is so variegated that this will never happen. What does happen is that others are intimidated by the latent aggressiveness and stay away, thereby depriving the forum of the richness of many opinions.

Therefore I ask those who have posted repeatedly to refrain from posting again until others have had a chance to participate.

And please keep to the Tolkien topic - lists of other movies and their directors are at best a sidetrack and may be deleted as off-topic if they continue.

Thank you!

[Lalwendë]

This is why I won't take sides on the topic of the films. They are in one box and the books are in another. The films are something totally different, and I never watch a film based on a book expecting it to be even slightly faithful as it just doesn't happen - whether that's due to the translation of book to the medium of film or due to the ego of the director and his/her 'artistic vision' I cannot say, but it is likely both. In 95% of cases (including Lord of the Rings) the film is Less Good Than The Book or even An Outrage if you're really unlucky. In rare cases, the film is superior, despite not following the text too faithfully - in that category I'd count Children Of Men (a truly awesome film) or the BBC version of Middlemarch made a few years back (the most tedious book turned into dazzling TV) and controversially, Narnia.

The films of Lord of the Rings are like a nice Steak Canadian sarnie, whereas the books are the full roast dinner. Both good, but only the latter can be expected to really fill your belly.

Now I have to say comparing Jackson's Rings with other fantasy films is unfair. Firstly, Jackson had the most superior fantasy material to begin with anyway, so how could he really fail? Eragon is like the Argos Catalogue compared with Tolkien's work! Secondly, which fantasy films are we looking at? Has anyone actually seen Pan's Labyrinth? However going by the Hollywood-centric turn of discussion perhaps not.

Why do I have to continually ponder on whether Jackson's films were any good? Because let's be honest, a whole lot of people, maybe even most people, cannot be bothered reading books these days, certainly not books as long as Lord of the Rings. We are a small minority. The majority of people will have taken their knowledge of Tolkien's work as seen and interpreted by one Peter Jackson. They judge that story, those characters, and ultimately Tolkien himself according to one man's flawed vision. And that is at the root of why I carp at the flaws in the films.

Anyway. Film directors. I don't take a Hollywood-centric view of who is good, it's limiting. The Oscars are after all not really a judge of quality but of politics and sales. Some others who need to be considered under the rank of genius: Alfonso Cuaron - who owns the screen in the thoroughly awesome Children Of Men; Mike Leigh - I would watch soap powder adverts directed by this man; Ken Loach - maker of bleak, bitter yet strangely amusing films; Quentin Tarantino - just watch Kill Bill; Danny Boyle - Trainspotting, 28 Days Later, Sunshine etc...You can keep your Oscar Winning LA glitterati

[sassyfriend]

I think the movies are still by far better than the books

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by sassyfriend

I think the movies are still by far better than the books

You have read the books, right?

I doubt anything I could say would change your mind, but it's incomprehensible to me how anyone could prefer slick production values and pretty CGI graphics to the amazing verbiage and profound inner meanings found in the original works of Tolkien.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by sassyfriend

I think the movies are still by far better than the books

I'm guessing that, considering that you have read the books, you read them only after seeing the movies numerous times. If that's true, I can understand you - just like I am mad every time the movies differ from the books, you are probably mad about how the books differ from the movies.

But the books are still better.

[Sauron the White]

Well Beav if the playing field is level and an actual account of how many tickets were sold the movie, Gone With the Wind spanks everything.

Without a doubt. And based on even earlier figures, some contend that a larger percentage of the population may have seen BIRTH OF A NATION that any other film before or since. At least in the States. But neither of those negate the box office success of all three LOTR films.

And oh golly Beav, Star Wars A New Hope won a bunch of awards too, including some oscars and BANFA awards.

I did NOT see SW win the AA award for Best Picture or come anywhere the take of ROTK did with its 11 awards out of 11 nominations. SW won a few technical awards like many sci-fi/fantasy films often do. But its "excellence" stopped with special effects.

Just because Gibson made money and won awards off of The Passion doesn't make him Jesus either.

__________________

Maybe I missed something but who is claiming that Gibson is Jesus?

And Quempel, by using the example of three different films made by three different directors and three different sets of people you completely and totally miss the point that has been repeatedly made in these discussions. It is extremely rare in the history of film that any film or series of films have received all three of the measurements of success that a film is normally gauged on: those three being
1- box office revenues
2- professional critical acclaim
3- industry awards

All 3 for the same film or series of films. It just does not happen but did with the LOTR films.

[Aiwendil]

I did NOT see SW win the AA award for Best Picture or come anywhere the take of ROTK did with its 11 awards out of 11 nominations. SW won a few technical awards like many sci-fi/fantasy films often do. But its "excellence" stopped with special effects.

All the more reason to think SW is the better picture . . .

[obloquy]

Tolkien's work has depth and the movies do not. They were made to be blockbusters, and as such their potential value was limited from the start. I would love to see someone come at Tolkien (preferably Hurin) from a more mature angle, as has been discussed elsewhere on the forum, but as long as the Estate exercises no control over who the film rights are sold to, any future installments will be made with CGI monsters being priority number one.

[Sauron the White]

Quote:
I did NOT see SW win the AA award for Best Picture or come anywhere the take of ROTK did with its 11 awards out of 11 nominations. SW won a few technical awards like many sci-fi/fantasy films often do. But its "excellence" stopped with special effects.

from Aiwendil

All the more reason to think SW is the better picture . . .

could you please offer a bit more in the way of explaining that drive-by comment?

And regarding the assertion from JRRT himself that the Scouring of the Shire was an essential and important part of the book and thus should have been in the film .... I would dearly hope that when any author writes a book, everything they put on the page is considered as essential or important. Otherwise, why waste the space? A good editor should see to that. So if that is true, then everything in the book is essential making any cuts of material to film impossible by that criteria.

Again, a book and a film are two very different things, each with their own components, advantages and disadvantages, limits and boundaries and internal demands. To compare them is like comparing apples and cinderblocks. After exhaustive study the expert proclaims proudly that yes indeed apples taste better. However, cinderblocks make for a better building material. Hardly news.

[Boromir88]

So if that is true, then everything in the book is essential making any cuts of material to film impossible by that criteria.~Sauron

Tolkien did say he carefully considered every single on of his 600,000 words (in talking about The Lord of the Rings). However, I disagree with your remarks about the 'essential part of the plot.' Tolkien was no director (and in some ways I'm glad he didn't try to make movies out of his books). We do live in a different time, the majority of people want to see an action packed film, full of explosions and wild chases. So, Tolkien directing a movie for the audience of today, I don't think that would turn out too well. With that being said, he's no fool when it comes to moving making. He understood cuts need to be made as by around 3 hours people's bottoms get sore, and it would be impossible to film his entire book. We critics of the film aren't idiots either:

Contraction of this kind is not the same thing as the necessary reduction or selection of the scenes and events that are to be visually represented.~Letter 210 (Tolkien to Ackerman, in response to the Zimmerman script)

Tolkien understands things need to be cut out, but why he never really warmed up to movies being made off his story is because of the very nature of Hollywood:

But I would ask them to make an effort of imagination sufficient to understand the irritation (and on occasion the resentment) of an author, who finds, increasingly as he proceeds, his work treated as it would seem carelessly in general, in places recklessly, and with no evident signs of any appreciation of what it is all about.

It's not the necessity of 'contracting' scenes that annoyed Tolkien, it's Hollywood's nature to feel the need to change things around and create an action-packed thriller.

And about The Scouring, perhaps we can apply Tolkiens' response to how Zimmerman treated Helm's Deep and the Ents?

If both the Ents and the Hornburg cannot be treated at sufficient length to make sense, then one should go. It should be the Hornburg, which is incidental to the main story...

For the record, I disagree with Tolkien here, as no one wants to see the Ents, they would rather watch some big brawl of 2 large armies crashing into eachother. I'm one of those who would rather see the fight at Helm's Deep. But my point here is, that The Lord of the Rings is about the growth of the hobbits (particularly 4 in general). Tolkien says this right in the Foreward, this story (LOTR) is about them. So, the whole story of Aragorn becoming King, Gondor's war with Sauron, Rohan's involvement...etc are all just subplots. The Lord of the Rings is about the hobbits and I didn't feel this from the movies. I felt in the movies Jackson got it switched around...I probably wouldn't have felt that way if the 'essential part of the plot' was added into the movie.

Before anyone starts talking about there wouldn't be time to add in the Scouring, how about we talk about time usage and Jackson mishandling time? Lets take this comment from Letter 210:

The canons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies.

So, the 'intrusion of unwarranted matter, could this be the warg fight? And having the storyling of Aragorn's 'fall of the cliff' that follows? What's the purpose of that? How about Faramir taking the Hobbits to Osgiliath and having that scene where The Witch-King finds Frodo? Why did Frodo need to be taken to Osgiliath in the first place? Had Jackson not put in his own scenes that have really no purpose in the movie, then perhaps there would be more time for the essential part of the plot?

Sauce you bring up some good points about Jackson capturing some of Tolkien's themes. I think overall the 'friendship/bond' is there (excluding Frodo sending Sam away...I forget what Walsh and Boyens said about that scene I just remember I didn't like it). But, overall ya I definitely got that from the movies. As well as the smaller conquering 'bigger' odds (The Scouring would have shown this more!). But I do think that there are some things missing. What doesn't make sense to me is why does Aragorn stop Theoden from killing Grima in a fit a rage in TTT, but then in ROTK in a fit of rage himself Aragorn beheads the MoS? This creates continuity issues with Aragorn's character, plus misses the whole concept of the 'Rules of War' and the 'gentlemens war' which is in the books.

Also, I think some of these things start taking a back seat to Gimli's toilet humour, and the 'action fights' of the film. Not so much with FOTR (I thought that was well made movie that not only is fun to watch but captures the books the best...I honestly believe that was well done. Can't say I have that same feeling for TTT and ROTK though. Where the battles start replacing the story of the hobbits).

In some ways I can't blame Jackson because he's only making a movie that a lot of people want to see...we want to be entertained for the full length of the movie. That would be hard to do if there wasn't some slugfest that the audience was looking forward to. However, I will make the point that the books were already popular even before Jackson imagined making the movies. I think that as A Mr. Simon argued that the Lord of the Rings was so popular precisely because of the hobbits. The hobbits are most like your normal guy like you and me, and people want to feel a connection with themselves, they want to be able to identify with the characters. So, maybe making a film that focused more around the hobbits and their growth wouldn't have made such a bad unattractive movie at all? And maybe then will I feel that instead of watching an entertaining slugfest (speaking of TTT and ROTK...as I really thought FOTR was the best), I would also feel these movies were more accurate to the story.

[Aiwendil]

could you please offer a bit more in the way of explaining that drive-by comment?

Personally speaking, I don't see much of a correlation between the quality of a film and the number of awards it receives. Sure, Lucas has been consistently (and pointedly) ignored by the Academy - which puts him in the good company of, to name a few, Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, and Stanley Kubrick. In my opinion, that's a far more impressive list of names than the list of 'Best Director' recipients.

All that is, of course, highly subjective - the only real point I was trying to make is that one oughtn't consider the number of awards won a measure of how good a film is.

To address the original topic: as for me, I find myself less interested in Jackson's LotR as time goes on. I quite enjoyed them when they came out, though I was disappointed with them in many ways. But I think a large part of my enjoyment came simply from the novelty of seeing a new adaptation of my favourite book. Now that the novelty has worn off, the things I dislike (both in terms of departures from the book and aspects of Jackson's direction) come through more strongly.

[Sauron the White]

Boromir ... you have a very well crafted response above. Very good and I do not disagree with all of it. A few points that I would comment on are as follows:

JRRT wrote a great book in LOTR and created a wonderful mythology in the entire Middle-earth writings. He also was not half bad when it came to putting pencil on paper to illustrate some of his world. But his talents as an artist paled to his talents as a writer. Having said that, I think it is important to fully seperate his talents in those areas from his views about filmmaking. Unless I have missed some of the Professors career, he never delved into this area as an active participant. He never made a film. His entire experience was as an outsider looking in - an observer if you will. As far as I know, he never studied film academically or even had the dogged interest of the film hobbyist.

So his comments about film, are those of a writer who fears that his work will be butchered - probably as he watched the work of other authors butchered by the film industry. When Tolkien talks about the world he created, he is the unchallenged expert and I defer to him completely. When he talks about the area of film, he merely another one of the great unwashed who thinks they know something. I do not mean that to be cruel or unfeeling - just the straight facts.

Until you make a film, or at least study it thoroughly from those who have, you really cannot know what it entails.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the thoughts of JRRT (as expressed in his Letters) seem to be boiled down to this:

- "you may have to make some cuts or compressions, that is understandable- but please do not add anything that I did not write. "

Is that a correct summary of the flow of his ideas on film?

Because of it is, it assumes that Tolkien had every single ingredient withing LOTR that would make for a great film and he understood just what a great film needed. I am not sure that was the case. There are several things in the film, which were added and it contributed to the worth of the film.

For one, I was just rereading FOTR and noticed how the death of Boromir is far more dramatic and emotionally touching on film as opposed to how it is written in the book. Things were added making for a better film. I will NOT say that Tolkien should have wrote it that way and his book would have been better. NO. In the book it works just fine. But for a film the changes work to the betterment of a film.

The expansion of the role of Arwen - using material in and alluded to in the story in the Appendicies - greatly made the film more interesting to a female audience and gave the film a more egalitarian or modern feel as opposed to all these men (save Eowyn) acting as saviors like John Wayne riding to the worlds rescue. The expansion of the Arwen role did help the film with the audience reception of it.

I have always liked the film Aragorn and his touch of reluctance since it contrasts nicely with the military bravado of Boromir. It also adds a nice story and character arc that is resolved slowly throughout the films. I know many were put off by that, but I felt it added to both the character and the film.

YES, I will admit that the film was not perfect and some of these additions were not to the films benefit. I agree that the whole Osgiliath visit by Frodo and Same was completely unnecessary. It did not ruin the film - it did not help the film. I think Faramirs character could have done the same thing, perhaps more effectively, if it had kept to the book. His book lines about not willing to pick up the ring were it on the side of the road and Sams response are some of the most wonderful moments in the story. I too was sad to see this change.

We have to remember that any work by human beings is flawed. Yes, JRRT considered and reconsidered every one of his 600,000 words. But as much as any of us love the books they were not perfect. They may be the next closest thing to perfection but we all must admit that JRRT was not God and his work was not Divine.

Obviously the same thing must be said about the work of Jackson. Despite all the box office earnings, despite all the awards, despite all the glowing critics reviews, there are flaws in the movie which render it less than perfect. And that is to be expected.

I cringe every time I see the scrubbing bubbles of the Dead wash away the enemy on the Pelennor and in Minas Tirith. What makes it doubly worse for me is I really liked the portrayal of the Dead up to that sad event. Gandalf whacking Denethor with his staff does not put me off too much but the nonresponse of his armed soldiers standing impotently in the background is simply lazy filmmaking when scenes filmed on a stage in front of a screen were combined with background footage that just clashes. The farting and belching of Gimli certainly are not my favorite parts and I would have loved the character more without them. These are all flaws and others here have pointed out their own particular grievances.

Fine - that is the nature of the beast.

But we end up with so much wonder and so much beauty and so many amazing cinematic moments that it makes me very happy to have lived to see these films. I do not need my cup 100% filled with the perfect wine of the gods. That could be the standard, but I do not need it to make me happy.

I happen to feel that the character of Tom Bombadil is totally unnecessary to the book and just gets in the way. But I still love the books despite the old hippy and the contradiction of his powers and the ring. It has never made logical sense to me that Sauron once had the Ring firmly on his finger with a large army at his disposal and failed to control Middle-earth , but now if it obtains it the entire population of ME can mail in their backsides to the Dark Lord and its all over. But I still love the books despite those problems.

The films are no different. They are flawed with mistakes and have their own weaknesses and defects. But in the end we still end up with a movie that worked rather well as evidenced by its worldwide reception of several levels in which the industry and film students measure success.

And for that I am happy.

[Sauron the White]

from Aiwendil

Sure, Lucas has been consistently (and pointedly) ignored by the Academy - which puts him in the good company of, to name a few, Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, and Stanley Kubrick. In my opinion, that's a far more impressive list of names than the list of 'Best Director' recipients.

I would consider Lucas to be a good borrower from others and a good world builder and creator. Directing has never been his strong suit. He know virtually nothing about directing real people with real feelings and actual human emotion. Zilch - nada - zip - nothing. He directs comic book characters.

As the team of Lucas, Hitchcock, Welles and Kubrick - I will take the team of actual Oscar winners as follows (just to name a few)
Woody Allen
Frank Capra
Francis Ford Coppola
George Cukor
Clint Eastwood
Victor Felming
John Ford
John Huston
David Lean
Sydney Pollack
Martin Scorsese
Steven Spielberg
George Stevens
Billy Wilder
William Wyler

Peter Jackson is in very good company indeed. In fact, if I had to come up just four to go up against the four you named I would take Capra, Ford, Lean and Wyler and feel very confindent that I have the four greatest directors of all time. George Lucas could not have manned the cue cards for them.

[Aiwendil]

Sauron: As I said, any evaluation of "best directors" is going to be highly subjective. Personally, while I do think that Capra, Coppola, and some of the others you mentioned are very capable directors, I would take Hitchcock and Kubrick over the lot of them any day. I also consider Lucas to be on par with them - though I know I'm very much in the minority in that regard. Of course, this isn't the place to debate this sort of thing - which is why I limited myself to a "drive-by" comment before.

Again, the pertinent part of my comment is merely that one can't argue "awards, therefore excellence".

[Sauron the White]

Of course you will not obloquy. You simply have the nerve to call someone IGNORANT without a word of explaination and then make a drive-by comment without bothering to offer any proof or evidence.