Jackson's reputation - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

**lindil** · 12-14-2012, 08:10 PM

I was very pleasantly surprised. as no big fan of PJ's TT and RotK, I was really delighted by the movie, even the over the top radagast bits were ok.

I felt he did very little of the whole sale alterations of the story and opted to elaborate both from within M-E via the numerous UT borrowings, and in the extra plotline of the pale orc on the white warg.

Thorin seemed more like a Man than a dwarf...but it, was for me a very entertaining treat.

If only he had warmed up with TH and then done LotR...

Morsul the Dark · 12-18-2012, 03:13 PM

From a Defender's point of view, the neccessity to alter certain things for film is a truth. Defenders garner as much resentment for a "film purist's" inability or unwillingness to accept that reality.

Zil points out the books are unfilmable this is largely correct.

Truth is I went into The Hobbit to be entertained, I left my book at home wasn't taking notes of what was right about this or right about that. Using this criteria I found myself having a delightful time.

The issue with Jackson attackers is they go into the movie expecting or at the very least Wanting a page by page remake of their book. They ignore that any director will be unable to deliver on that promise, for any book. I find their arguments as biased and unfair as any Film Defenders. I'd like to reiterate this, arguments from Jackson Attackers may be correct, they however have set a standard by which all will fail.

The argument can't be won by either side. Jackson has his faults and the movies don't follow the book exactly point to attackers, the book is unfilmable thus needed certain changes, point to defenders. Even Steven

Boromir88 · 12-18-2012, 03:41 PM

Only time for a quick reply here. I was actually recently called a "Hobbit miser" after watching the movie and posting me thoughts in the review thread. I honestly didn't think I was being that critical, and didn't intend to be miserly about, because overall I had a good time watching it. I probably focused too much on the parts I didn't like and it was way too long, with certain plot lines being forced so Jackson could create a narrative over essentially the first several chapters of The Hobbit.

When I am critical, it's certainly nothing personal, and sometimes the feeling I get from book purists (I don't particularly like that identifier anymore than film purists, but for the sake of not being bogged down in definitions, I'll go with it) that it is personal. That somehow Jackson has done irreparable harm and tainted Tolkien's legacy. When that's the case, I'll go Devil's Advocate and just argue for the sake of something different than a bunch of griping.

My stance is, Tolkien's legacy speaks for itself and Jackson's not going to harm it. If I want to get a Tolkien story, I read one of the books he wrote. If I want to be mindlessly entertained on a crummy day, normally the LOTR movies make it onto my list to watch. (Admittedly it gets hard to watch TTT at times, since that one kind of falls apart/I lose interest after Theoden's healed). Both serve their purpose.

Glorthelion · 12-19-2012, 04:03 AM

I'm only making a humble comment here: I enjoyed the Hobbit film a lot. It is a very good film. However, it is not as faithful to the book as the LOTR trilogy. The Hobbit film contains more fan fiction composed by Peter Jackson like the white council part.

12-14-2012, 08:10 PM	#1
lindil Seeker of the Straight Path Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: a hidden fastness in Big Valley nor cal Posts: 1,680	I was very pleasantly surprised. as no big fan of PJ's TT and RotK, I was really delighted by the movie, even the over the top radagast bits were ok. I felt he did very little of the whole sale alterations of the story and opted to elaborate both from within M-E via the numerous UT borrowings, and in the extra plotline of the pale orc on the white warg. Thorin seemed more like a Man than a dwarf...but it, was for me a very entertaining treat. If only he had warmed up with TH and then done LotR... __________________ The dwindling Men of the West would often sit up late into the night exchanging lore & wisdom such as they still possessed that they should not fall back into the mean estate of those who never knew or indeed rebelled against the Light.

12-18-2012, 03:13 PM	#2
Morsul the Dark Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 3,448	From a Defender's point of view, the neccessity to alter certain things for film is a truth. Defenders garner as much resentment for a "film purist's" inability or unwillingness to accept that reality. Zil points out the books are unfilmable this is largely correct. Truth is I went into The Hobbit to be entertained, I left my book at home wasn't taking notes of what was right about this or right about that. Using this criteria I found myself having a delightful time. The issue with Jackson attackers is they go into the movie expecting or at the very least Wanting a page by page remake of their book. They ignore that any director will be unable to deliver on that promise, for any book. I find their arguments as biased and unfair as any Film Defenders. I'd like to reiterate this, arguments from Jackson Attackers may be correct, they however have set a standard by which all will fail. The argument can't be won by either side. Jackson has his faults and the movies don't follow the book exactly point to attackers, the book is unfilmable thus needed certain changes, point to defenders. Even Steven __________________ Morsul the Resurrected Last edited by Morsul the Dark; 12-18-2012 at 03:22 PM.

12-18-2012, 03:41 PM	#3
Boromir88 Laconic Loreman Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: USA Posts: 7,521	Only time for a quick reply here. I was actually recently called a "Hobbit miser" after watching the movie and posting me thoughts in the review thread. I honestly didn't think I was being that critical, and didn't intend to be miserly about, because overall I had a good time watching it. I probably focused too much on the parts I didn't like and it was way too long, with certain plot lines being forced so Jackson could create a narrative over essentially the first several chapters of The Hobbit. When I am critical, it's certainly nothing personal, and sometimes the feeling I get from book purists (I don't particularly like that identifier anymore than film purists, but for the sake of not being bogged down in definitions, I'll go with it) that it is personal. That somehow Jackson has done irreparable harm and tainted Tolkien's legacy. When that's the case, I'll go Devil's Advocate and just argue for the sake of something different than a bunch of griping. My stance is, Tolkien's legacy speaks for itself and Jackson's not going to harm it. If I want to get a Tolkien story, I read one of the books he wrote. If I want to be mindlessly entertained on a crummy day, normally the LOTR movies make it onto my list to watch. (Admittedly it gets hard to watch TTT at times, since that one kind of falls apart/I lose interest after Theoden's healed). Both serve their purpose. __________________ Fenris Penguin Last edited by Boromir88; 12-18-2012 at 03:53 PM.

12-19-2012, 04:03 AM	#4
Glorthelion Haunting Spirit Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 58	I'm only making a humble comment here: I enjoyed the Hobbit film a lot. It is a very good film. However, it is not as faithful to the book as the LOTR trilogy. The Hobbit film contains more fan fiction composed by Peter Jackson like the white council part. __________________ What did Aragorn say when Gandalf died in Moria? Damn Gulf