Lord of the Rings: Lucas's vindication

NO ! NO! NO!, Lucas has done a awsome job with the prequels

THe prequels are coming from Lucas himself, he writes the movies,

unlike Peter Jackson who uses a book that was writen by a man many years ago.

over the past years Lotr has been in are minds because they show one every year and a tralier comes out every six month. DVD marketing also helps.

soon after the ROTK comes out in theaters and dvd the LOTR comparison will come to an end. The TLOTR HYPE will decline.

I like Lotr, but i just think all these elements have contributed to Lotr for having the comparison to star wars.

the perquels are awsome, and LOTR

but i just think Star wars is the type of movies you can watch over and over again.

the down fall with LOTR is to long and the film is just to scrappy, should have done it the traditional way every 3 yrs. also most people would rather be a jedi than a hobbit.

like i said before like LOTR, have both movies, my heart is with Star Wars.

GO LUCAS!! cAN'T WAIT for EP3

 

soon after the ROTK comes out in theaters and dvd the LOTR comparison will come to an end. The TLOTR HYPE will decline.

Just wait until Jackson announces he'll be directing "The Hobbit." Then you'll see a level of fan anticipation that rivals that of TPM.

The LOTR movies turned the quiet Tolkien fandom into a movie fanbase that comes within a stone's throw of rivaling that of Star Wars in 77.

The PT movies, on the other hand, pretty much ensured that ours is the last generation of Star Wars fans.

 

The only reason the LOTR movies have brought out a new Tolkien fanbase is because they've brought out some of the sad people who refuse to read.

I love Tolkien, but I am not a purist. LOTR was narratively weak in ways that Jackson was able to correct through his somewhat liberal adaption. Personally, I think the movies are closer to real masterpieces than the book, although of course LOTR has a strong fantasy story and more cosmological depth than perhaps any fantasy story ever written, it is still plagued by Tolkien's weaknesses as a writer.

Tolkien's weaknesses as a writer?

You've got to be kidding me.

Jackson butchered those books. Poor J.R.R. is probably rolling over in his grave right now--I would be.

Let me tell you what Jackson did and had the nerve to call it LOTR:

1. Arwen Sue, a.k.a. I Wanna Screw Liv Tyler So I'm Putting Her Character in the Movie Ten Times as Much as In the Book.

2. Wussy Frodo (having Arwen Sue save his ass instead of having him save his own, like he does in the real LOTR).

3. Far-From-The-Book-Amir. [whine]"I must go take the ring to Daddy...[/whine]

4. The absence of Tom Bombadil and Goldberry, a.k.a. "Where the hell did the hobbits get their swords? [duh] Gee, I don't know--they must have fallen from the sky."

5. The absence of the Scouring of the Shire, a.k.a. I guess the Hobbits just went home and lived happily ever after, because after all, [sarcasm] it's not really the hobbits' story--they're not the real heroes. It's really the story of Arwen Sue and her cute butt and Aragorn's great need to be king so he can finally sleep with Arwen Sue.[/sarcasm]

We really need a *rolls eyes* icon around here...

Don't mind me...I'm in a very bad mood and I've been dealing with middle school children so don't blame me if I'm tired of people wanting to watch the movies because the books are "the wrong style" (for them, "too hard").

 

Middle Earth is the single greatest fantasy creation in literature when you add up The Hobbit and LOTR and The Silmarillion. But the Hobbit is the superior literary work of the three, and LOTR falls far short of the brilliant writing of, say, Ursula K. LeGuinn's "A Wizard of Earthsea."

There's nothing sacred about a faithful movie adaptation of a book. Two different artistic mediums, two different stories. Nothing about the films could possibly detract from Tolkien's literary achievement.

But I will add that Jackson's achievement in visualizing Middle Earth nearly equals Tolkien's achievement in conceptualizing it to begin with.

Personally, I wasn't fully satisfied with Jackson's interpretation of Frodo either. His non presence at the ford when Arwen calls the river down on the ringwraiths (although giving Arwen power over the river makes perfect narrative sense in the context of the film) disappointed me a bit. However, the perfectly realized scene, absolutely flawless in its execution, seeing the Nazgul and their horses washed away was a spectacular cinematic moment.

I can live with Jackson's and the actors' interpretations of the film's characters in return for that kind of visual and dramatic payoff.

There isn't a single moment in Lucas's prequel trilogy that comes close to that moment in FOTR, which was not even remotely the high point of the film.

 

You and your radical theories.

What? ? that's not radical it's the turth. If J.R.R never wroite LOTR there woudl be no LOTR movies. If The person who wroite the Wizard of Oz there would be no Wizard of OZ movie, or Neverendstory, Or Peter Pan, etc. Ever person who ever made any of those storsy into books should be on there hands and knees thanking those people for coming up with those sotrys. There the oldest must timeless tales ever to be put on paper.

PJ and other you have done what he has done owe ever thing to J.R.R and all those other writers.

 

Jackson's FOTR is Tolkien's EU: proof that Star Wars is not the only fandom to suffer from an inferior translation by an overblown hack.

 

"Without Tolkien writing these books there would be no LOTR movies."

You and your radical theories.

 

Jackson's FOTR is Tolkien's EU
Aside from my opinion that you seriously do not understand EU's positive contributions to the SW universe...I will just say that Jackson has done a wonderful job in bringing the LOTR story to the big screen; with the kind of fan's appreciation that we feel towards SW.

I think Jackson does have the advantage of that he is working with material ALREADY written...that has a huge following. GL is telling as grand a story as Tolkien, but when each new installment comes out, there is a wave of second guessing by fans:

"We expected something different..."
"GL should have..."
"I didn't like..."

While I have not read the books yet (planning on reading them) my understanding has been that jackson has tried to fit in as much as possible...within the time limitations of the American movie audience. That is why he released BOTH the theatrical and EE (just call them "special editions" man) versions with extended and new scenes. Fans don't mind sitting through a longer version...but it would have hurt the film to be released in theaters at such a long running time.

 

While I see what you're saying, Krash, I still think Jackson could have left out some Arwen-Sue scenes which weren't in the books to include what was in them.

Also, time constraint is no excuse for damaging characters, for making Frodo a wuss or for destroying Faramir.

 

Sometimes I get the feeling that people here are so...indoctrinated, for lack of a better word.
Why does it come as a surprise that someone claims that there were weaknesses in Tolkien's writing? Because we are constantly being told how great 'The Lord of the Rings' is?
'TLOTR' is a novel which is really great, but yes, it has weaknesses - after all, it's a human product like everything else around us (except nature, obviously).
There are several things the movies handle better than the book (I love the book btw); the integration of Arwen works better than yet another Elfin character (Glorfindel); not including Tom Bombadil and the Barrow-downs gives the story a better pace and structure; and most importantly, the characters are more outstanding and unique in the films than in the book - there is essentially very little difference between the characters in the book, and some of them, like Faramir, are quite unrealistic characters at that.

 

It's sort of silly for fans of novels to expect everything to be in the movie version of a story. They are two different mediums. There are a handful of movies that have been done well, but with something like LOTR, which is a huge work, parts of the story have to be changed in order to fit the new medium. LOTR is an interesting case because it's had so many fans for so long; it's sort of like the PT vs. the OT: some people had completely different ideas about what they would see on the screen.

Peter Jackson was lucky to get the budget to do three films as it is - one of the first studios he approached offered to allow one film, and I think New Line's initial offer had been two. I can't imagine scrunching all of LOTR into one three hour movie! The 9+ hours that it is now isn't even enough.

In order to scrunch the books into three films, the director obviously knew at the outset he'd have to leave things out (I think Bombadil/Goldberry was one of his favorite parts of the book but he knew it wouldn't work well into the script) and he said had to focus on what he thought the important themes were in the book when considering plot changes. Jackson also incorporates missing scenes into other scenes and dialogue as a homage to those lost parts.

As I haven't yet seen the final film, I must admit I don't completely understand all of the changes he's made for the movie. However, I've been able to keep the book and the movie separate and enjoy them equally. I love both, and realize they both have strengths and weaknesses.

 

Sometimes I get the feeling that people here are so...indoctrinated, for lack of a better word.
Why does it come as a surprise that someone claims that there were weaknesses in Tolkien's writing? Because we are constantly being told how great 'The Lord of the Rings' is?
'TLOTR' is a novel which is really great, but yes, it has weaknesses - after all, it's a human product like everything else around us (except nature, obviously).

It's when it becomes Peter Jackson LOTR's and story. It's not his never has been never well be. If J.R.R. never wrotie the book there would be not LOTR's movies. PJ owes ever thing to J.R.R.

 

Ree Yees: Surprise has nothing to do with it. It is insulting to J.R.R. Tolkien, who put his heart and soul into his creation, LOTR, to claim that Peter Jackson with his Liv Tyler-lust and ignorance of the hobbits' story could make Tolkien's story better.

I made this analogy in another thread: it would be like me going into the Prado Museum in Madrid, or the Louvre Museum in Paris, with a paint can and making strokes on one of El Greco's or Da Vinci's works and having the gall to call my version an "improvement".

True Tolkienites would have watched the book being recreated exactly as-is on screen, without important scenes being left out (I actually could have dealt with Tom Bombadil and Goldberry, or Galadriel's giving of the gifts...but the scouring of the Shire? That's important). If someone who doesn't understand Tolkien's story found it "boring" when those scenes were put on screen, or when Faramir's character was left as it was, or when they couldn't stare at Liv Tyler's ass for three hours...too bad. Leave LOTR to those of us who appreciate the story for what it is, not the fluff version.

 

If J.R.R. never wrote the book there would be not LOTR's movies. PJ owes ever thing to J.R.R.

OK. GOTCHA. We know that. You couldnt read a menu (or do the film version) if someone didnt write it first. I dont think anyone is disagreeing with you.


it would be like me going into the Prado Museum in Madrid, or the Louvre Museum in Paris, with a paint can and making strokes on one of El Greco's or Da Vinci's works and having the gall to call my version an "improvement".

But it might actually look better to some people. Just consider that for a second. In fact, its not really debateable, you just refuse to accept it.

If ..... [blah blah blah ="you dont like it"]...too bad. Leave LOTR to those of us who appreciate the story for what it is, not the fluff version.

Oh, now I get it. I didnt realize that certain literature was reserved for use only by the private club of the cool kids. No sharing. That would only spread the enjoyment of these great stories to lots more people. How horrible.
Yeah, PJ should have never tried to make these movies. We already had those incredible cartoons, right?

Jeez.

Some of you people are so selfish.
"Its not the way I like it, so its just dumb and bad and he shouldnt have done it at all. Wah."

Aw, your favorite character didnt make the screen version? Well, to paraphrase what somebody said just recently : TOO BAD. While most of us line up to enjoy this "Fluff" version together, you can go read your personal version all by yourself, and be sure not to tell me how it turns out.

Go make a movie, or get over yourselves.

 

Yeah, PJ should have never tried to make these movies. We already had those incredible cartoons, right?

No, we already had the incredible books. And I don't appreciate being flamed.

I didnt realize that certain literature was reserved for use only by the private club of the cool kids. No sharing.

Oh, I'll share. I'll even loan you my copy of the books. I just don't believe in watering down LOTR so that people who don't like the books can "appreciate" it.

But it might actually look better to some people.

Doesn't change the fact that it's insulting to the original creator.

I could splash paint over the Mona Lisa, and you might like my version better--but I'd better not call my version "The Improved Mona Lisa" and diss DaVinci's version.

Go make a movie, or get over yourselves.

No thank you--while you're flaming me, I think I'll go and...*gasp*...read something. Not everything has to be on screen.

you can go read your personal version all by yourself

My personal version? You mean the real version, the one Tolkien wrote?

 

A slavish adaptation of the book would have made a poor film in my view. Look at the Harry Potter movies. The first two are such bland attempts to recreate the novels that they come close to falling apart as popular entertainment.

I also think it's silly to insist that a liberal, or even a bad movie adaptation somehow detracts from the books. The text of Tolkien's works has not been tarnished in any way. It's still there to be read by anyone who wants to read it.

And by the way, the movies have not distracted the public from the greatness of the books. More of the books have been sold in the last three years than in the previous 20 years combined. I'd say that was unqualified great news for the longevity of Tolkien's place in the fantasy literature canon, not to mention the fact that the Tolkien estate has been immensely enriched by the popularity of the films.

 

or when they couldn't stare at Liv Tyler's ass for three hours
I don't appreciate being flamed

If you dont want to hear sarcasm, dont use it.

I just don't believe in watering down LOTR so that people who don't like the books can "appreciate" it

Thats the most sense youve made yet. Unfortunately, thats the reality. The books would never have been as widely accepted as the "watered down" films. Thats just the difference between page & screen. I think a direct translation would have sucked as a movie. I think most people would agree.
It usually works that way bringing books to movies.

Doesn't change the fact that it's insulting to the original creator.

Art isnt about territory. Its open. Its for sharing. To some, defacing a classic piece of art, is art. Dont try to draw lines of whats ok and whats not. Its art. Its all ok.
Besides; "Insulting" to a dead guy?
I think he'll get over it.

I think I'll go and...*gasp*...read something. Not everything has to be on screen.

Riiiigght. We were talking about a version of a FILM, so i referenced a FILM.
Very clever response though, assuming that I dont read.

the real version

The first. The original.

They're both "real".

 

Unfortunately, thats the reality. The books would never have been as widely accepted as the "watered down" films.

Very, very, very sad commentary on the world today...the dumbing down of society.

Dont try to draw lines of whats ok and whats not.

Don't tell me what to do.

Besides; "Insulting" to a dead guy?
I think he'll get over it.

Maybe so--and my dead grandmother would get over it if you insulted her. Doesn't mean I'd let anyone do it without getting an earful from me.

The first. The original.

They're both "real".

Maybe "authentic" is a better word...but not hardly.

If you dont want to hear sarcasm, dont use it.

Sarcasm is fine. Insults directed me are not fine.

 

Sarcasm is fine. Insults directed me are not fine.

Very, very, very sad commentary on the world today...the dumbing down of society.


Hmmmm. Interseting double standard you have going there. Since I enjoy the movies more than the books, I guess that means I'm part of that "dumbed down" society (.... which I guess youre not apart of....?)
Yeah, its got a veil on it, but... that feels like an insult.
Nicely done. Very tricky.

"Dont try to draw lines of whats ok and whats not. Its art."
Don't tell me what to do.

ok. lol. raaar.
Did you even get my point? It was about art. Its all ok..... There are no lines.....
Sorry I didnt present it well enough.

Maybe so--and my dead grandmother would get over it if you insulted her. Doesn't mean I'd let anyone do it without getting an earful from me.

Point taken. .... kinda. Thats your Grandma. Do you feel like you're defending Tolkien? Like he would be mad, so you're mad? Because the basic story is still the same as far as I can see. (Read the books as kid.) I think you're nitpicking.

and BTW, seriously, I was being a little sarcastic and all, but I'm not insulting you any more than you are me. Please, let it go. (Asking, not telling. )

 

Yeah, point taken...I think we're both a little passionate about this.

For the record--I have both the FOTR and the TTT DVDs...not the extended versions...I'm not forking out $40. I think they were cinematically very well done--I won't argue that. It's not someone enjoying the movies that bothers me. However, I get my back up when someone considers the movies a more superior art form than Tolkien's masterpieces of literature, especially when the poster who says that is usually insulting George Lucas out of the other side of his/her mouth. For that same reason I get my back up when someone says that Jackson "improved" on the books...yes, I'm defending Tolkien. I wouldn't want someone taking something I wrote, put my heart and soul into, revising it, and then saying that he/she had "improved" on it.

Anyway, I think I'm going to duck out of this conversation for the moment, but hopefully we can understand each other.

*extends olive branch*

 

Back on 11/27 I read these posts ...

Otis_Frampton - I find it humerous that some people criticize the dialogue and acting in the "fireplace" scene, yet praise the "reveal" scene in ESB as the pinnacle of the Saga. They are so similar in approach, acting style, and theme. They are both over-the-top seductions, which fail. It really brings home the idea that this is the same character, and GL knows what he's doing.

openmind - I?d love it if you guys could organize both conversations and compare the similarities, so that we can see the corresponding ideals in them.


I'm interested to see someone explain those similarities, too, if you're willing. I'd never thought of that before.