Yes, the movies Spartacus and Ben Hur were actually based on Nintendo games of the same name I believe...and didn't ILM do the effects on those flicks??

Braveheart = CGI

Ben Hur / Spartacus = no CGI and IIRC no scenes with 20,000 people in it

Hmm, no CGI in LOTR?

You mean Gollum should have been a really skinny guy in tights?

The Balrog and Cave Troll with guys in "Godzilla-like" outfits or stop motion photography maybe?

Or how about Battle of the Pelennor Fields with an army made up of a few hundred extras with lots of tight shots so we never get the sense of the scope of the battle?.

LOTR the book and the movie has one foot set in the fantasy world of elves and dragons and one foot set in the "real world" CGI is more than appropriate for Tolkien's world.

Maybe Jackson should've rehired the 100,000 extras used in Ghandi... :)

no, no, no.

My fault for not convenying it correctly.

I was responding to:

My comments on the CG was not meant that he shouldn't use them (Gollum looks great) but again like Lucas he seems to be using them to show whole battle scenes.

And again I'll go back to the fact that it's cheaper and easier to use CG than to outfit 10,000 people with costumes and make-up and what not. Also, the battle of Helm's Deep requires these hordes, it's not like Peter Jackson added them in for kicks and giggles. Would you argue that representing the Balrog in CGI was wrong too?

I was saying those movies did NOT use CGI for the battle scenes, and they work wonderfully.

Harryhausen's monters have more life than anything CGI.

Actually what they should have used was the technique that was used in DRAGONSLAYER. It's not stop motion, but it looks REAL!

And I would rather watch half an army of REAL men that bits and bytes on a computer screen. I don't think this is Tolkien's work at all.

Scot1458,

It seems as though you don't want modern technology to be used in the creation of these movies because of the age and content of LOTR books. I can sorta see your point, but I don't see how 30 year old movie technology could create some of the creatures required in these books. I've always thought we'd end up with an Ed Wood type film if somebody tried. But PJ's work is amazing.

The balrog is the best example I've seen. (I can't get to part II til the 25th to see more examples personally) I can't remember direct quotes on what it looks like since its been over a year since I read the book last, but how do you create a critter that is a combination of darkness and fire without digital technology? Or at all, frankly. I never even got a solid pic in my head when reading. I thought the film was excellent on showing this demon. And, IIRC the book, fairly accurate in that the fight was 80% posturing between it and Gandalf.

Frankly, if I was going to find some fault in the films, it would be in the story changes/omissions, not in the filming methodology. I'd say your opinion is just really weird, not really wrong or even opposite of most of us.

ok, lets forget about CGI and pretend PJ used all SFX I loved.

He still threw the essence of the books, the spirit, the world of middle earth out IMO. Gone is the verse, the poems, the rymes, all we have is action action action.

It's like Peral Harbor by Michael Bay with goblins instead of soliders.

Its a movie not a book
 

Scot,

As for verse, poems, rhymes, and songs they really do make an essential part of Tolkien's world.

And PJ addressed some of that in the Extended Version of FOTR (Merry and Pippin singing in Hobbiton, Aragorn singing of Luthien, Gandalf's Lament by the elves, and Sam's improvised poem for Gandalf). But try to put more and the movie's pace becomes a problem. Put yourself in PJ's shoes (err feet) he's got 3 hrs to cram in all the story and stopping for songs, poetry, and histories of various peoples (that often have nothing to do with the plot) would lengthen the film to unmanageable levels (even if Helm's Deep, flight to the Bridge of Kazad-Dum, or Flooding of Isengard were significantly shortened) And when you read the chapter to Helm's Deep did it not spark your imagination? That was Tolkien's intent I believe and PJ realized what he imagined for the film.

Movies simply have their limitations compared to books (interior dialog and the reader's attention over many sittings) A movie has to keep the general audience's attention in one sitting. What you are proposing is an extemely expensive experiment in film that only die-hard Tolkien fans would be patient enough to sit through. PJ rightly decided to focus on film's strength over the written word. The visual realization and kinetic thrills that film can offer. Your expectations of the film medium is just unrealistic. You expect a movie to act like a book. And I believe you also discount's one of Tolkien's aims which was to create an exciting adventure story. And unlike directors like Michael Bay, Peter Jackson's treats the characters with as much care as the special effects. The difference is like night and day I believe. PJ struck the right balance by making a version that satisfies the general public and the majority of the fan's of Tolkien's works.

Tolkien's written word is irreplaceable and the movies were never meant to take its place. And Tolkien's books are more popular than ever due to Peter Jackson's love for his books. I hope we can at least agree on that.

Re: Its a movie not a book
 

I totally agree!!

What choices did he have? release each movie as an 8 hour book on film or try to keep as much of the feelings from the book and convey them onto the screen.

Icould see the emotions and feelings that the Fellowship members had for one another. The willingness of Sam to face his fears and journey to what may be his death to help a friend and do what he promised.

I believe Peter Jackson kept the spirit of what Tolkien wrote alive in his films. I do think to do this he was forced to make some changes to keep the plot and movie as dramatic as possible.

I can live with the changes especially since I expect that just like in FOTR the TT extended edition will bring the movie that much closer to the Tolkien writings by filling in areas that would only please us more diehard fans :)

Inverse, when you utter such blasphemies as these, please use spoiler tags, so the chances of causing massive brain damage in your readers are seriously decreased.

Thanks.

Frankly, I couldn't stand all the poems and songs in the books. In my opinion, it really broke up the story. Doing away with them probably made it better as far as my experience went.

This is what I'm talking about! There IS no LOTR without the poerms and the songs. Tolkien didn't throw them in there to "break up the story!".

Oh well, I guess I should just let it be and realize that de-evolution has taken place in the worlds of literature and film.

Re: Its a movie not a book
 

Yes, I did enjoy the extended version alot more than the theaterical cut because of the extended scenes. They made my appreciation of the film rise a little.

And I'm not saying I could have done a better job in the time span, no way in hell.

My main "beef" is that PJ rushes his camera shots with MTV/Michael Bay editing, as if to say "look how KWEL this is", and totaly displaced most of the songs/poems.

Even the Ranking/Bass Hobit and the animated LOTR has them in it!!!!


But I can see your valid points, and based on the financial risk the studio took, I can understand duming the films down to get a larger audience.

Yep, you're right - just because I didn't care for the poetry and songs in the books, I'm not as evolved as you.

I think there are a lot of flaws with Tolkien's work. It's a great story, but there's barely a whisper of actual human interaction, and I think the first half of the Fellowship of the Ring has some absolutely terrible pacing. He is the Father of Modern Fantasy, but that doesn't mean everything he wrote was perfect - the pioneer rarely is.

You like the poetry and songs - good for you. I don't. But I don't think that has anything to do with literature and film in general.

Obviously not. But the poetry and verse Tolkien so lovingly employed in the books smply cannot be conveyed in a series of films that must be crammed into 9-10 hours.

What Peter Jackson wanted to convey was the relationships with the characters, the lush settings that Tolkien spent pages upon pages describing, and the ultimate questions of loyalty, humanity and friendship that is the heart of LOTR. Jackson took great pains to try to bring some of the history and references to Ages past to try to further touch on some of the depth to which Tolkien created. Touches like the elves leaving for the Grey Havens, the Lay of Leithian, and even commenting on the blood of Numenor - who would have expected such details in a movie adaptation?

Sure Rankin/Bass made use of some of the poetry in their renditions of The Hobbit and Return Of The King, but these minor additions are engulfed by myriad faults, changes and deletions - so much so that I would dare say Tolkien would be horrified had he seen either.

Let's put it this way: literature cannot be translated to film without elements of the book lost in the process. That being said, there are elements in visual mediums with which the book could never touch (ie. Gandalf and the Balrog, much more descriptive than the book). Each medium has its strengths and weaknesses. When you have 1000+ page book to translate into 9-10 hours of film - there are a lot of elements and touches that there is simply no time for, and there are elements that simply do not work in film.

As another poster commented, I think you have problems with the methodologies Peter Jackson employs. You also have a problem with a certain aspect of the book left out in film. Personally, I think you hold unfair and unrealistic expectations with these films. Can they possibly compare to the richness and depth of Tolkien's written word? No. Can they give us a glimpse into the magnificent world of Middle Earth and translate some of the themes and moods from the books? Yes. Should Peter Jackson's version be hailed a triumph of cinema? IMHO, yes. In your opinion, obviously not.

Personally, I feel that Jackson made the right trims and edits to the source material. An element such as Tom Bombadil, which is a brilliant passage in the book (one that speaks to the reader directly and marks a major shift in tone), would not work in a film version - and, for the sake of pacing (in the least), needed to be excised.

Not everyone will agree with the translation or vision of Wingnut Films, but you have to applaud the loving effort they poured into the work. Everyone involved in the process were fans who took great care translating a difficult, "unfilmable" book into cinema that so many have embraced (fanboys and unwashed masses alike).

Quote:

---

Oh well, I guess I should just let it be and realize that de-evolution has taken place in the worlds of literature and film.

---

Perhaps you should open your eyes and mind then. I suggest you read Jordan's Wheel Of Time series or George R. R. Martin's Song Of Ice And Fire series and come back to me with your pretentious "de-evolution" commentary.

If you are going to condemn the state of film and literature today, please provide appropriate examples. All I see are grudges with CGI technology and the lack of poetry in one set of films from a Kiwi director.

In the end, why bother comparing the books and the films? Enjoy each for what they have to offer. Your expectations and opinions are much to high, methinks...

-matt

I did not mean de-evoluation in people, just in tastes or in popular culture. (myself included at times.)

Sorry if my comments seemed like they were directed at a person per say.

Personally, I feel that Jackson made the right trims and edits to the source material. An element such as Tom Bombadil, which is a brilliant passage in the book (one that speaks to the reader directly and marks a major shift in tone), would not work in a film version - and, for the sake of pacing (in the least), needed to be excised.

This a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The Tom Bombadil passage envokes the implication of reality. An event that has NO bearing on the quest. It changes the tone slightly, and it is over with no reaction on the story.

Yet PJ's movies every SECOND is about the quest, the drive to Modor. If you and I would travel on a quest, things would occur that had no bearing on the voyage. Talking to someone at a gas-station, siting down to eat lunch with a stranger... these kind of things.

Yet in the movie, it "served no purpose" and was removed.

And this emphasis on how short the movies are and PJ couldn't fit the verse in is bogus. How long would it be to add 10 minutes of it?

Regardless, both are good movies and productions on their own. If they had been based on anything else, I would hearld them.

To me, when I read Tolkien, I don't envision PJ's movies at all.

I really like PJ film adaptation, but I agree some of the culture of the books is lost. I also love the score as is, but often wonder why, during some of the scenes they didn't use some of Tolkien's poetry and make some of the score lyrical.

It wouldn't have changed the pacing of the movie and it might have put more of the cultural "soul" into the movie...

The way I see it is that PJ's interpretation is about as true to the source material as possible, given that the film had to actually have a reasonable chance of making money.

Scot, the film done the way you are suggesting would NEVER have been made because 1) it would have been too long, and 2) it would not have made money.

I take my hat off to Peter Jackson, who obviously has obviously put a super human effort into these movies and keeping them true to JRR's vision while still making a immensely popular movie. New Line shelled out over $300 million up front to make 9 hours worth of film, an additional 1 to 2 hours of additional footage to be added into special editions, and another 30 hours or so off additional material DVD's.

No matter what, there will be some people that dislike his interpretation. There are people that dislike The Godfather, Citizen Kane, Gone With the Wind, Star Wars, etc.

That's just the difference between books and movies. Books can be as long as they want, and through in as much detail that has no bearing on the plot, and not lose readers.

Movies are tied down to strict lenght requirments, both for financial reasons from the studies and by audiences. I couldn't sit through a 5 or 6 hours version of each movie with a bunch of non-quest related stuff and songs/poems that were entertaining in the book, but would likely be boring and distracting in the movie.

Jacksons movies are simply the best parts of the books portrayed pretty much how I envisioned them. I know you disagree with that, so no need to repeat the same things you've said 10 times already. ;)

(Just a foreword: I apologize in advance if I've misinterpreted your post at all.)

With all due respect, I don't think you understand the scene in the book with Tom Bombadil. There is no implication to reality at all - unless you were referring to the passage as Tolkien, in essence, "winking" at the reader. It's a point at which the tone and pace of the book switches from relative safety to unpredictability and darkness - Tolkien is giving a heads up to the reader that this is the point of no return. The device he uses is Tom, who is talking, albeit subtly, to the reader - he is a creature who cannot be affected by the Ring, but cannot affect the Ring either. He is a passenger, much like the reader. Does a movie-goer truly need to be given such warnings? Do we need a 20 minutes of dancing and singing and allusion to tell us that we're changing pace and tone? Perhaps he and Goldberry could have been incorporated, but I feel this scene unneccesary and one that could possibly confuse the movie-goer.

If you and I were to travel on a quest no doubt we would run into strange people and events. But do we need to focus a film on every bizarre and strange event that might have happened? Is that encounter with a character at a gas-station necessary in the grand scope of things? Does it serve a purpose that furthers the story? You have to remember that this isn't a book that you can pick up and put down whenever you like. This is a film where you are glued for 3 hours in front of a screen - where there is simply no time to tell all of the tales that may have been so interesting when picking up the book and reading a few chapters at a time. Peter Jackson is interested in getting the key players to the key scenes - of course, one may argue what he believes to be "key". But obviously, we can't show every little nook and cranny that the Fellowship runs into. This is a film where you have to sustain the viewer's interest for 3+ hours.

Did you read LOTR in one sitting? Could you bear to do that? This is a movie. If you want endless exposition and diatribes about strange occurrances then you can read the book - or make a 15 hour film based on Fellowship Of The Ring (nevermind the other two books). Unfortunately, this is the inherent weakness of film adaptations - it's difficult to fit everything in and still keep the audience riveted.

In a sense, LOTR is unfilmable - it we're talking relatively verbatim translations. I know you agree with that, and aren't asking for something so complex - but I'm just babbling away, don't mind me. hehe... :)

Quote:

---

And this emphasis on how short the movies are and PJ couldn't fit the verse in is bogus. How long would it be to add 10 minutes of it?

---

And who is to say that 10 minutes would be enough? Or too much? Or just the right amount of poetry? Jackson added some of this element back in the EE (ie. the Lay Of Leithian; the Hobbits song and dance) and it was both relevant (the comparison between Aragorn and Arwen to Beren and Luthien) and an homage to Tolkien's poetry. Once again, be aware that the movie is already long by film standards. It would be nice to fit more of that element into the movie, but there are pacing issues and length issues that must be addressed if you were to do so. Frankly, I think the poetry add a lot to the books in terms of describing plot and setting and motivations - but this device, frankly, has a hard time translating into the film medium. Do you have any examples of passages that you felt should have been incorporated? And how would you have done so? I'm actually curious - it would be interesting to see how it could be done effectively.

Quote:

---

Regardless, both are good movies and productions on their own. If they had been based on anything else, I would hearld them.

To me, when I read Tolkien, I don't envision PJ's movies at all.

---

Interesting. To me, nothing will ever eclipse the literary majesty of Lord Of The Rings - but Peter Jackson's vision and faithfulness to the source material is astonishing. Gollum in particular was absolutely stunning in performance and I felt he was exactly as I would have imagined. In fact, I would say that, other than a few deviations and changes from the plot of the books, Jackson's vision is scarily similar to what I envisioned while reading. I have minor quibbles with a few alterations but they are very minor. When I step back from my love of the books, it becomes quickly apparent that the changes made were for the good of the film. IMHO, anyway...

To each his own though. Personally, I just feel it's unfair to compare both works. I'm just happy that I have both visions and I think both are spectacular in their own way.

-matt

In all honesty, Tolkien probably would have been appalled with the film version for one main reason: the fact that the movie was considered "impossible" by many to make, until the appropriate TECHNOLOGY was available. Kinda the antithesis of Tolkien's whole point.

Now, every time I type "Tolkien" I keep thinking of that one poster's "Keep On Tolkien" shirt from the "Freaks" post in the TTT Forum. If I can't find one of those, I'll have to get one silk-screened pretty soon.

Considering that I doubt you ever met the guy, and quite frankly you don't know him personally, I find this claim of yours to be ludicrously arrogant and, frankly, I think you're full of yourself to pretend you know what J.R.R. Tolkien would think.

Simon Tolkien, J.R.R.'s thirdson and the guy who manages his estate, has been on the record saying that while he definitely dislikes the concept of LOTR movies, he didn't disapprove of what Peter Jackson has done. (Coming from Simon Tolkien, who has a reputation for being a hardass, that's actually praise.)

Chrisopher Lee, who plays Saruman, reads Tolkien's trilogy every year (according to him) and is the only member of the cast to actually have met J.R.R. Tolkien. (Which gives you an idea of how old Christopher Lee is, considering J.R.R. died in 1973.) And Christopher Lee completely approved of what Peter Jackson has done, to the point of agreeing to be in the movies!

Sounds to me like I just disproved you entirely. ;)

Even if Tolkien was alive today and he publicly stated his disapproval of PJ's version it wouldn't change my enthusiasm for the films.

For example, Stephen King harshly disapproved of Stanley Kubrick's version of The Shining and so Stephen King went on to make a TV version that was more (in King's opinion) faithful to the source. Well, it is Kubrick's version that I still prefer even though he took liberties with the source material.

As to whether certain books should be made into movies at all. I say "bullocks". As I stated before books are books and movies are movies. And as for Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Phillipa Boyens, I don't think better director/writers could have tackled this project with as much care and love for the material. I was constantly surprised by how much of the book was retained and it still managed to be a cohesive movie. That was PJ's challenge and that's what impressed me the most. And as a Tolkien fan I'm glad it wasn't made by "strangers".

I'm not saying the LOTR the movie is perfect (or the second coming of cinema). And neither is the book to me. There are a lot of scenes interpreted or expanded by PJ that I much prefer over the book and vice versa. And if The Godfather, The Wizard of Oz, or Gone With The Wind was released in the age of the internet it would be bombarded with as much scrutiny and criticism.

The question is "Does it work as a movie?" not "Is it just like the book?" I'm not bothered at all by criticisms based on the former.