posted
I know there are a lot of people who love the movies that Jackson made (we're a visual people after all)and I know there are a lot who love the books. I saw the first two movies and lost interest because I felt it departed waaaaayyy too much from the books and Tolkein's vision. I read two books about Tolkein by Tom Shippey titled, "The Road to Middle Earth" and "JRR Tolkein: Author of the Century" and it further cemented my dislike for the movies. I've seen quite a bit of the video media where they tried to bring the story to the screen and all of them somehow missed the mark. I know what I think of them, but I'm curious as to what your opinions are. Do you really think the attempt to contain such a huge story into a movie ought to be made at all? I'm an artist by hobby and I feel somewhat robbed of my imaginary picture when going from book to movie. In general, do you think it wise at all to put books into movies considering the botch jobs in the past? I think the LOTRs movies are great for those who've never read the books and aren't familiar with them or the details they contain. I'd love the imput from those who've read the books and seen the movies too. Thanks. Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I thought the movies were okay for what they were, but any attempt to make those books into movies will always fall short, unless they make some 25 hour UltraEpic.
Personally, too many of my favorite scenes were left out of the movies that I was looking forward to from the books. Too many characters were changed and either edited out all together, or were given much larger roles just because they were cool. The Elves at Helm's Deep was cool and all, but wasn't right. Many of the lines taken directly from the book were stolen and give to other characters.
And much of the story line was changed for cheap, or non sensical reasons. The Army of the Dead was never supposed to have attacked Minas Tirith, they never made it past Pelargir. I don't see why they couldn't have made that fight take place at Pelargir and then taken the men from Ethir, Lebinin and all the Southron lands and brought them up. It would have been far cooler I think to see the standard of the king break the wind above the black ships than for the CGI Army of the Anticlimax to come onto the field and wipe out all the tension that had just been created.
So in closing, yes, I think for what they were, they were okay movies. But I certainly don't consider them to be a true representation of the novels. Still, it was the best try we've seen yet, and will probably see for decades to come.
And I look forward to a cinematic version of The Hobbit, which as soon as Sony and New Line get their foots out of their..places..will be made into a movie. It was by far a smaller book, and the overhead will be far less. I think it will be a more accurate book, or at least has the chance to be.
Long live Prince Imrahil of Dol Amroth. Long live Glorfindel. Long live Tom Bombadil. Love live Elrohir and Elladan. Long live...so on and so forth people cut out of the movies.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They cut the Three Rings. One of the greatest themes of LOTR is the death of the Elven civilization... that no matter what they do they will pass. "Footsteps of Doom" went from Galadriel explaining that no matter what Frodo does, win or loose, will bring about the end of the Elves in Middle-Earth, to "oh look out! Scary ring in the forest!"
And then they did a half-assed attempt to explain the Three failing by saying Arwen is dying from the "evil that now comes from Mordor". What the heck does that mean?
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I worked my way through The Hobbit in high school (after they did a play version of it, in which a 6'2" guy played Bilbo ), and I really didn't care for Tolkien's writing style, so I never read the other books until after I'd seen the movies. Thus my opinion is biased.
(Edited to change 'Frodo' to 'Bilbo'. I'm bad with names. )
posted
Raia, at what point did you start to lose interest?
Personally I think Books I-III are extremely boring. Whenever I reread them, I start at IV and read until VI. So I guess I mean I think Fellowship is boring, and half of Two Towers. But halfway through Two Towers (Book IV) it starts to get good. If you haven't made it that far Raia, you don't know what you are missing.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The movies were entertaining, but probably the biggest sellouts I have ever seen. I regret having watched them now. They don't hold a candle to Tolkein's masterpiece.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I grew up with the books... my parents were both fans and read them to us as kids. We had the Hobbit on audio tape and it was our favorite beadtime thing. My passion for Tolkien's world has only increased as I've gotten older...as I'm finally wise enough to actually understand everything the Professor was saying. I'm to the point now where the Silmarillion is a more pleasing read than LOTR. Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I too am passionate about the books. I liked that the movies were made, because it introduced so many more poeple to the story, and also because all the discussions and excitement rekindled my Tolkien passions even stronger than ever. I thought that visually the movies were almost perfect. It astounds me that they were able so faithfully to reproduce my exact mental picture of everything and everyone. I believe that for everyone working on these movies they were a total labor of love. Their attention to detail rivaled even that of Tolkien himself, and it was awesome to see that. (The exception for me was Lothlorien, it looked all wrong.)
But the storytelling wasn't done well at all, I don't think. It pretty much completely failed to capture what was so cool about the books. PJ made it into an action thriller, in fact. I thought that sucked. The actors were all great other than Elrond and Galadriel who both sucked mightily. The thing that really upset me the most, though, even more than their bizarre addition of that interlude when Aragorn was presumed dead which prevented them showing some 10 minutes of the real story which they couldn't afford to cut out, the really upsetting thing is when they made the characters do things that were totally out of character.
Aragorn's initial denial of his heritage and the mantle of leadership was just so wrong. Faramir forcibly taking Frodo to Minas Tirith was a horror. Other things they did that were untrue to Elrond, to Gandalf, Gimli, the Ents, Merry and Pippen, and others, I think I've just blocked. But worst of all was Frodo sending Sam home alone from Mordor. He would never ever have done such a thing and it's vile slander to suggest that he would. Those things really upset me because they were base lies told about people I love and admire. Why did they have to do that? I can't forgive them for it.
quote:Aragorn's initial denial of his heritage and the mantle of leadership was just so wrong.
Um.....not that I agree with the movies on this point, but he HAD refused to return to Gondor as himself, going instead in disguise, and then leaving again. There were some doubts, in the books as well, although not to the extent the movies made it out to be.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I grew up with the books and have read them many times over the years, and like Peter Beagle says in his intro, I'm one of the many people who wish they could go to Middle Earth. And I was upset with many of the same things mentioned above in the movies. However, in answer to the initial question, I do think it was worthwhile to attempt to distill the books into the films. I think Jackson did a great job of capturing the essence of a masterpiece. His vision is not mine--I, too, would not have made the same kind of "action thriller" as someone said. But in spite of every plotline or characterization with which I took issue, I own the extended version DVDs and will most certainly watch them again over the years. I thought Gandalf and the hobbits were all marvelously cast. I think Jackson is to be commended for bringing his considerable talents to bear on bringing this epic to life in what clearly was a labor of love.
p.s. -- although I really did hate that whole Aragorn presumed dead part in The Two Towers, as well.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's the boring stuff Raia. Just skip it. Start at Book IV. You should be able to pick up most of what is going on, and maybe you'll enjoy it enough to go back and read I-III.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've read the books 10 or 15 times through, and don't find any of it boring. It's my favorite story ever. I do still find Frodo's and Sam's trip through Mordor to be harrowing, yet it's a crucial part of the story, and without pushing forward through the very heart of darkness, one can't feel the full glory of the light that is the Field of Cormallen.
To those who want to go to Middle Earth, look around you. We're here. The only thing we lack is a remembrance of the astonishing beauty, awe, and wonder that is all around us, and a love of things we find in the world and of things shaped by clever hands and hearts. All we lack is eyes to see. Look up into the sky at night and sing a song in praise of Elbereth. Fashion things useful and beautiful, and wear them, or wield them, with a remembrance of who you are. Then will you dwell in Middle Earth.
I'm reading the Silmarillion again right now. When the Katrina came through the other day I was reading how Ea was brought to be, through the great Song of the Ainur after the Theme of Eru, the One. It seemed so fitting, even as I read of the shaping of Arda out of chaos, and of the Valar contending mightily against the destruction of Melkor to order the world in peace and beauty, that this vast whirlwind of devastation was tossing the limbs and trees around my head like dandelions in the breeze. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate, and will continue to hate, all three movies.
I don't even care about how well done the cinematography was, how closely they followed specific story events, how great the actors were, any of it.
They took out the Scouring of the Shire, which was arguably the entire point of all three novels.
When I read the books, the Scouring of the Shire is what brought the entire story together for me, because it's what differentiated Lord of the Rings from just another series of crappy plot-driven fantasy novels. The Hobbits go out into the world and have their adventures, learn about evil and how to confront it, learn about how the world works, but NONE of it matters if we don't see them learn to apply it to their normal lives.
That's what the Scouring of the Shire was: the application of all they'd learned to their home. They'd been part of the world community, participated in a series of world events, and they translated that into becoming, for the first time, an important part of their OWN community.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disliked the movies immensely, but it's made my appreciation for the books all the more valid and savory. To me, the books are it. The only one that I've not read is the "Silmarilion". I started, but never finished; I intend to ammend that. Tom Shippey's books about Tolkien as the man, his schooling, etc.. has made me absolutly hunger for the books even more; to understand the subtle plot threads and to futher appreciate Tolkien's love of language; the over-all glimpse into his life as the whole and not just from one perspective. I highly recommend to anyone who loves Tolkien's books to read Tom's work. Very informative and very inspiring! It's driven me to pick up some of Tolkien's other, less known work and I'm always on the look-out for it. They also inspired my own writings. My deepest wish is for directors like Jackson to leave such things alone! But I suppose he has to make a living too. Maybe some day someone will come along and film them right...
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have loved the books since I was ten, and I frequently re-read them for fun.
However, I also loved the movies. They are a different animal, no question, but I loved them nonetheless.
There were a lot of things I'd have liked to have seen in the movies that were cut out, such as the entire Scouring of the Shire, and passages that Jackson cut that agreed needed to be cut in a film adaptation (can anybody say Tom Bombadil?). on'I can separate the two from each other, and I'm fine. Though I do find that re-reading the books now, I see the movie sets, props and actors in my head. I don't consider that a problem, though.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The movies win by default, because I could never get passed whats-his-name just after the Hobbits leave the shire. Also, the movies were boring, and I sound like Lerris.
Posts: 413 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually one of the things that my friends and I (LOTR freaks all) discovered is that, a lot of what people missed in the movies were given to different characters for various reason. Lines direct from the books were in the wrong characters mouths in the movie.
However, some of what people find contradictory is reflected in various sections of the appendicies (which I have found many die hard fans never read). Particularly, the argument between Elrond and Aragorn about Arwin's future. It actually happened before the events of the movie, but it did happen per the books. Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I loved the movies. They were great, whatever they were. What Peter Jackson did was, in many ways, fabulous.
Book-wise, I like the Hobbit. The books of LOTR itself I find I have to edit, a bit like like the princess bride is "supposedly" edited. I skip Tom Bombadil completely, for example.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
they better make a movie bout' the Hobbit else I probly will never buy another Sony product.
IP: Logged |
posted
The Hobbit (after I read Silmarillion) is actually my least favorite because the language seemed so childish. But i very much liked the movies because I never really could get a picture of all the characters and lands when I read the books, so now I have pictures supplied to me. I also watched the special features on all the extended editions and they explained a lot of the instances where they changed a character or left out a scene or gave lines to another person. I wish they didn't have to, but in order to make money they have to make people who wouldn't care about the books fall in love with the movies.
Posts: 27 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raia: I did not succeed in reading the books. I tried twice. They were just so boring, I could not work my way through them.
posted
Yeah but there's a lot of explanation you should probably read in Book IV to understand V and VI. V has always been my favorite.
I don't think I've ever stopped reading something halfway through just because one part of it wasn't as good as the rest. It just took me a very long time to wade through Fellowship. It's a 400 page snooze fest.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love both. And that's all there is to it.
Posts: 3932 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Ok, I watched the Fellowship when it first came out and then read two towers and return of the king to know what happens next and then after that read fellowship.
The books are mostly for those who want almost everything explained the movies mostly if you want the visualization.
IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really agree there Blayne, in the sense that the story in the movies and in the books really isn't the same. It's not just a matter of reading to have loose ends tied up, it's incredibly different in some places.
Watching the movies without having read the books does nothing to bring to life preconceived ideas of what something should look like. To one who hasn't read the books, it all looks cool yes, but you can't look at a mallorn tree and go "yeah that's what I thought it'd look like!" or see Bag End and say "Hm, it looks just right."
It doesn't bring anything to life if you haven't read the book, because you didn't have any idea what it was supposed to look like to begin with.
I'd say the movies are for fans who have already read the books and want to see visuals of their mind's eye, and for people who have no interest in reading the books just so they can get the gist of it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
when i read books i visualize it myself. i develop a clear picture in my head and sometimes i don't want that ruined by a lousy attempt at making it into a movie. i loved the books, always will. the only book of the series i started to drift in was the "silmarillion" but that was because i didn't really understand it. after reading tom shippey's books about tolkien, i gained a deeper love and understanding about ALL his work. i can't wait to read the 'silmarillion'.
only book series i REALLY fell asleep in was 'the wheel of time' by robert jordan... what a snooze-fest...
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I pretty much skip several chapters of the Lord of the Rings, I read books 2,3,and 5. I read the hobbit as a kid but could never get passed book 1 of the Lord of the Rings...finally I forced myself through it...Thank goodness I did..the Return of the King is great...
Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
), and I really didn't care for Tolkien's writing style, so I never read the other books until after I'd seen the movies. Thus my opinion is biased.![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
