|
Critics of Peter Jackson's Version of LOTR
We've all seen quite a few adaptations from books to movies but IMO Peter Jackson has done a great job of bringing this impossibly dense book to the screen. He is satisfying the vast majority of people who've read LOTR (like me) and those who didn't know a hobbit from a cave troll. I too prefer Tolkien's version on certain things but seeing PJ doing such a classy job of it, I care not. Most book adaptations butcher the book. Compared to them, the changes PJ made are minor and done for the sake of the film medium.
The LOTR is not the Bible and in fact the movie versions of the Holy Gospels deserve more criticisms than Jackson's LOTR. I'm sure many Tolkien devotees were waiting for this moment to show the world their acumen on all things Tolkien. But in Jackson's movie version of LOTR things are all right in Middle Earth. |
I agree
|
Kudos to Peter Jackson for bring us into the world of
Middle Earth. What an epic. |
I like PJ's interpretation. I don't envy his situation though, because either way a lot of people will complain. Oh, that movie strays too much fromt he book and doesn't have heart. Or, Oh, that movie keeps too much to the book and doesn't have heart.
|
I think what's important to realize is that good adaptations succesfully take a book and project the same feelings you had while reading it when putting them on screen. It has less to do with the plot than the "soul" of the book --- although I didn't get through The Two Towers in time, I think Jackson has kept the soul of the books in his films. Contrast this with Chris Columbus, who's taken a pretty good book and made a soulless clinical exposition of its contents that has all the excitement of watching an animatronic rendering at Disneyland (not to say the Potter films have bad acting, they just don't grab the viewer as well, IMO).
|
Considering this was a nearly unfilmable book, I think Jackson did a great job. Two Towers was even better than Fellowship.
|
I do not. I believe he has taken the books and moved them up to 2002 tastes in movies. MTV style editing, CGI action shots, etc.
I don't deny they are fun to watch, but I do think the great author would NOT approve of them in any way. I grew up reading the books and listening to the BBC radio series, which did a fantastic job of fleshing out the book. Jackson's version to me is "based on", but not the real thing. It follows the "law", but not the sprit of the law....as we say in the legal world. |
Originally posted by Scot1458 I do not. I believe he has taken the books and moved them up to 2002 tastes in movies. MTV style editing, CGI action shots, etc. As far as CGI, that's a bogus argument. CGI is a way of doing things. It's like complaining that Orson Wells used those newfangled composite shots. Or that makeup was used. CGI gives better results at a lower cost most of the time. It's not CGI for CGI's sake. It's CGI for the movie's sake. |
Originally posted by Scot1458 It follows the "law", but not the sprit of the law....as we say in the legal world. |
Books and movies are totally different.
One shouldn't expect a movie to stay totally true to a book. Things that work in books just don't work in movies often times, be it due to simply not working visually or stuff having to be cut out due to time contstraints. I've yet to come across a single change that bothered me. I like the story told in the movies so far better than the book counterparts. |
PJ Rules! I have been waiting for some decent fantasy movies for years. It is a genre that is not done in movies nearly enough. Finally someone has made a decent medieval fantasy series of movies! Like most others, I thought LOTR would be impossible to put on film and that nobody would be crazy enough to do it, much less be able to do it right. Thanks to Peter Jackson for having the guts to do this!!! It's unfortunate that none of the three movies will win Oscars because the Academy ignores fantasy movies. I think the cast & crew of these movies deserve some kind of special achievement award!
|
Look, a huge part of LOTR is the poetry. The verse, the songs, all that stuff. That is part of the reason why it took JR so much time to write them. He had to create a whole new Language!
The BBC series (it's about 15 hours long) does a great job of using this. There are many songs, poetry reading, it's like you are imernsed in this new world. PJ totally disposes of all of that. Take out the orcs and put in Germanic barbairans and you have Gladiator. IMO ( and I know I'm in the vast minority) PJ is the Michael Bay of Austiralia. I know 21 year old fanboys are just laping this stuff up, and compared to othe fantasy films of late I don't doubt why. PJ is making this for them. 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. Let's be honest here. JR's books are not for your "phat", "word", "emeinem loving fanboy. They are deep meaningfull, beatuiful pieces of literature. (JR was an English Prof!). PJ is just dumbing down the book for the masses. Nothing wrong with that, but let's admit it. |
I'm not going to admit that the movies are "dumbed down." They are adapted for a different medium, which means that different expository techniques must be used. I believe that many of the major themes have been saved from the book (importance of the individual, destruction of nature by industry), which I don't think would have happened on a film pumped out for the so-called "eminem" crowd. The fact that the movie can appeal to both people who want to look for literal and more meaningful themes makes it a better piece of film, IMO. I understand that people can be fans of the novels and not the movies, but let's not elevate Tolkien's work to holy writ.
|
Granted, I had heard some PJ critics saying bad things, but most of what I have heard/Read have been praise to him for what he has accomplished. I really havent read to many negitive reviews. I have read LOTR's, the book almost 10 times now, and I think, IMO, PJ has done a great job, an excellent job on something I thought I wouldnt see on screen for some time.
|
They're not dumbed down, their simply film adaptations.
The songs/poems are a perfect example of what I was talking about when I said something work great in books but aren't translatable to movies. |
Originally posted by Josh Hinkle They're not dumbed down, their simply film adaptations. The songs/poems are a perfect example of what I was talking about when I said something work great in books but aren't translatable to movies. These books were written late 40s - 50's. And you can NOT tell that is the time period they were written in. They could have been written in 1950, 1850, even 1750. PJ's movies are clearly 2002 dated material. They will be stamped with our time, as Logan's Run is stamped with the mid 70's. and I do believe they are "dumbed down". Again, the letter of the law is being followed, the "spirit" of the law is not. They are great and stand alone all on their own, I admit that. To say they ARE in all aspects Tokien's work, they are not. And I KNOW he would not be very fond of them. |
Originally posted by Scot1458 Let's be honest here. JR's books are not for your "phat", "word", "emeinem loving fanboy. They are deep meaningfull, beatuiful pieces of literature. (JR was an English Prof!). PJ is just dumbing down the book for the masses. Nothing wrong with that, but let's admit it. None of this excludes me from agreeing with the fact that the works are deep, meaningful, and beautiful works of art. I knew this from the first time I read the Hobbit and the trilogy. In my opinion, PJ is doing with the books what he can. He gave us some songs. A solemn and beautiful Beren and Luthien, sung by Aragorn and a more exciting Hobbit song. I fully expect to hear more songs in the extended edition of TT. I hardly consider that to be dumbing down the books to make exciting literature. For me, I only have to hear Samwise or Gollum or Aragorn or even Arwen speak in order to be flooded with the same emotion I felt reading the books. It's an isolated example, but when my mom (who hates fantasy) calls me and asks me for some more background on how Gandalf became a wizard, it is simply more evidence for me that PJ has successfully conveyed the "spirit", history, and mythopoeic vision of Tolkien's world to both die hards and the uninitiated. Maybe that's just me though. :) stoolie |
Responses to your bold in regular font.
Originally posted by Scot1458 Look, a huge part of LOTR is the poetry. The verse, the songs, all that stuff. That is part of the reason why it took JR so much time to write them. He had to create a whole new Language! The BBC series (it's about 15 hours long) does a great job of using this. There are many songs, poetry reading, it's like you are imernsed in this new world. The BCC series (IIRC) is a radio broadcast, no? They only have sound to work with. They can't show you how vast Middle Earth is (which PJ made cool) they can't show you Mordor (I'm sorry the "Great Eye" CGI looks really tacky on top of that tower). So of course they will rely on poetry and song. Also, they have an estimated extra 2 hours per episode to work with, so of course they would include songs and the like. They've got the time. Five hour movies are economically unfeasible. PJ totally disposes of all of that. Take out the orcs and put in Germanic barbairans and you have Gladiator. I understand where you're coming from with this, but honestly, I don't think you remember how bad Gladiator was. IMO ( and I know I'm in the vast minority) PJ is the Michael Bay of Austiralia. I know 21 year old fanboys are just laping this stuff up, and compared to othe fantasy films of late I don't doubt why. PJ is making this for them. A. Isn't he from New Zealand? No offense, but a basic misstatement of a major fact makes me think less of your credibility in determining what Peter Jackson's motives and who his intended audiences are. It's like me saying Led Zeppelin is the worst American rock band of the 70's... 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? Let's be honest here. JR's books are not for your "phat", "word", "emeinem loving fanboy. They are deep meaningfull, beatuiful pieces of literature. (JR was an English Prof!). PJ is just dumbing down the book for the masses. Nothing wrong with that, but let's admit it. I'm sure a film student could bring a new dimension of insight into even earlier films by Mr. Jackson. Is he "dumbing it down" or making it accessible to a wide audience? You speak of the trilogy as if it was Joyce's Finnegan's Wake -- Tolkien is extremely accessible, as millions of very young readers have enjoyed the trilogy as well as The Hobbit -- did Tolkien "dumb down" his books because an 8-yr old can read it and love it? Nope. Neither did Jackson. |
Jackson's doing his own version on LOTR; other directors would have done things differently. It's not clear that using a different director--even a more talented director--would have resulted in better films.
Imagine if you will: John Boorman's LOTR (which almost happened) Stanley Kubrick's LOTR David Lynch's LOTR M. Night Shamalyan's LOTR The Coen Brothers' LOTR George Lucas's LOTR Michael Bay's LOTR Simon West's LOTR James Ivory's LOTR Pedro Almoldrovar's LOTR Baz Lurhman's LOTR (actually, please don't imagine that, it might make you physically ill.) Think about those anytime you feel tempted to condemn Jackson's LOTR. |
Originally posted by Scot1458 JR was an English Prof! |
Originally posted by CROM1 I agree I'm about halfway through reading "FELLOWSHIP" and I have no problems at all with the movie version. Unlike the feelings I had after reading "LA CONFIDENTIAL" after seeing the movie. :yack: The movie and the book were day and night IMHO... Sure some things were changed for pacing and things like that but Jackson is working some serious magic with the flims. :up: IMHO this is where DVD is KING. They can always add the stuff they cut out and more :up: |
Originally posted by Josh Hinkle They're not dumbed down, their simply film adaptations. The songs/poems are a perfect example of what I was talking about when I said something work great in books but aren't translatable to movies. |
I can understand most of all of your all points. We are talking money here. New Line put their existence at stake in these movies. Making films of the novel how I thought they should be done probally would have only made half the money they have so far.
It's funny not many of you are arguing against my opinion, but are are isntead makeing a defense of PJ distancing from the books as I"ve stated. As touching as Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli's tributes to the fallen Boromir are, they would have been pure death at either the end of 3 hours of FOTR or the opening of TTT. But that is what gave the books LIFE! Those touching moments are events that (lets go out on a limb here) would have been done if these were reality. Regarding the CGI, it worked for movies like Braveheart, Spartacus, Ben Hur, etc. It totaly takes me out of the movie. I know I'm watching a video game. I though the movies were made in New Zealend, while I thought PJ was an Aussie. My mistake if this is incorrect. |
Originally posted by Scot1458 ... Regarding the CGI, it worked for movies like Braveheart, Spartacus, Ben Hur, etc. It totaly takes me out of the movie. I know I'm watching a video game. ... |
Originally posted by Scot1458 Regarding the CGI, it worked for movies like...Spartacus, Ben Hur, etc. It totaly takes me out of the movie. I know I'm watching a video game. :whofart: |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:01 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.