Jump to content

The Lord Of The Rings


Nats
 Share

Recommended Posts

Because in the Hobbit (the book) they do in fact run though the goblin tunnels and they fought they did fight the goblins, ok there was not much detail about the fight in the book so Jackson had to improvise but by your own words to don't object to that as for the fir trees, that to was in the book pretty much as it was on screen fire, goblins and being saved at the last second...only thing added there was the White Org. As for the Amazon elves ( I assume that you mean the mirkwood elves they too were a part of the original story!

 

Yes, they run. They don't go on a rollercoaster ride with everything conveniently collapsing behind them. The fir-trees are burning in the book, which makes sense, but they don't topple over an abyss with Dwarves (and a hobbit) clinging to them, which makes no sense. With regard to the Amazon Elves I thought precisely of that Hollywood warrior girl (as always, there is only one of them) who is not in the book, not in Mirkwood nor anywhere else. Not that I would care about that one after all the damage which Jackson has already wrought. If he absolutely needs a token for the satisfaction of the radical feminists, why not turn Dori, Nori and Ori into Dwarf girls?

Edited by Romanike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh stop being a party pooper! I LIKE the movies you don't have to but don't go raining on everyone's parade just because to have a nonexistent bee up your bonnet, :) so I am reserving the right to NOT to magically turn you into a three day old soggy toasted sandwich with my Rincewindly powers and have Smaug eat you but rather just not get into a pointless augment about nothing... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest AvidReader

Maybe I'm weird, but I enjoy books for what they are, and the films thereof for what they are, too.  Each taken on its own merits. Maybe it's because they are such totally different experiences. A film can never do justice to good prose, but it has its alternative advantages.

 

Amen!

 

I don't think they can be taken separately. In that case Jackson should forget about hobbits and, for Heaven's sake, write his own story. But if he is determined to exploit the merchandise of a work of classic literature, then this will set the stakes he will have to jump over.

 

He didn't.

 

I disagree. I thought he has brought the books to life in a way very few movies do, especially not movies ADAPTED (see this word means it is not a faithful word for word copy of the book, no movie ever is, as that would make them hours and hours long and terribly boring!) from such complex books with such rich imagery. Strangely when adapting a book for a movie too much imagery is usually a bad thing because the readers have already created a rich visual concept for themselves and then the movie does not match up, which is probably what has happened to you. For me, and many others however, Jackson has not only matched our internal imagery but surpassed it, and this has never happened to me before. (Narnia movies as a case in point - HORRIBLE adaptation that lost all the magic of the books for me. They only came kind of semi-close to capturing it with Voyage of the Dawntreader but that is a whole other discussion).  

 

As Rincewind has already pointed out, Jackson came to the franchise as a long time fan of the books. He came with love and passion to do justice to an incredible world created by Tolkien. There were several other adaptations of the books prior to this - ever heard of them? No - with reason - they were AWFUL! In my opinion Jackson succeeded not in small part because he insisted on filming all three films for both LOTR and The Hobbit in one go. This gives the movies a continuity and immersion in the world that is rare in sequels. 

 

Yes, they run. They don't go on a rollercoaster ride with everything conveniently collapsing behind them. The fir-trees are burning in the book, which makes sense, but they don't topple over an abyss with Dwarves (and a hobbit) clinging to them, which makes no sense. With regard to the Amazon Elves I thought precisely of that Hollywood warrior girl (as always, there is only one of them) who is not in the book, not in Mirkwood nor anywhere else. Not that I would care about that one after all the damage which Jackson has already wrought. If he absolutely needs a token for the satisfaction of the radical feminists, why not turn Dori, Nori and Ori into Dwarf girls?

 

Its a movie, if they just ran through the tunnels in the pitch dark as they did in the book, you would be staring at a black screen with intermittent noises and muffled shouting for the duration of 3 pages of text. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I try very hard to separate book from film and usually suceed - for instance Pride and Prejudice is one of my favourite books and I also loved the most recent P & P film with Keira Knightly, which wasn't the book I know but a great film in its own right.

 

The problem with the Hobbit isn't that it doesn't follow the book, it's that its overblown, bloated, far too long, minor scenes are endlessly dragged out for the sake of 3D special effects, there are tedious amounts of very similar fight scenes which go on for far too long - and yes I know this all boils down to the simple fact that the story as it is written for the film does not warrent nine hours of bum-numbing watchiing.

 

I enjoyed Smaug though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did like the first thirty minutes of the film. The Dwarves are doing a good job, some of them are even more distinct than in the book, and Bilbo is cast with a much better actor than Frodo. That is the kind of film-making that Jackson should have pursued throughout. More realism and fleshed-out characters, please! But dopey Radagast with his rabbits is an abomination, and from the moment on the Company enters the Misty Mountains, the film deteriorates into Jackson's usual never-ending sequences of BOOM BANG BOOM FIZZ until I went ZZZZZZZZ. My daughter's attention had left her already much sooner. And she is 13!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I try very hard to separate book from film and usually suceed - for instance Pride and Prejudice is one of my favourite books and I also loved the most recent P & P film with Keira Knightly, which wasn't the book I know but a great film in its own right.

 

The problem with the Hobbit isn't that it doesn't follow the book, it's that its overblown, bloated, far too long, minor scenes are endlessly dragged out for the sake of 3D special effects, there are tedious amounts of very similar fight scenes which go on for far too long - and yes I know this all boils down to the simple fact that the story as it is written for the film does not warrent nine hours of bum-numbing watchiing.

 

I enjoyed Smaug though.

I did not notice the two and a half hours go by when watching either of the Hobbit movies and that says a great deal about how good they are IMO. As for Smaug he is the one thing that I think could have been done better...he needed more jewels on his belly! LOL my one big problem with one of the movies :P!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess every one is entitled to their opinion. Rincewind ... can we discuss soggy toasted sandwich spells? ;)

 

lol yes indeed we can, I believe I have one tucked up my sleeve! Just knew it would come in handy one day :) just need to think of a filling any ideas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest AvidReader

lol yes indeed we can, I believe I have one tucked up my sleeve! Just knew it would come in handy one day :) just need to think of a filling any ideas?

 

hmm I will have to think about it LOL Is there any particular training I need for this spell? Long hours of preparation? Practicing certain gestures perhaps? (I really can't demonstrate which ones I mean as they are rather ... well you know what I mean :P )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL yes I know what you mean! You only need to things, the ability to freely move all fingers and you need to have a clear idea of what filling you want in your toasted sandwich!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad to see someone else who likes both the books and the movies, have you seen th Hobbit movies yet? I have enjoyed them thoroughly, I think that they are quickly being added to my very short list of movies that are as good or better than their original books :) lol.

I have the Hobbit but haven't watched it yet. I was planning to watch it over the winter months, but somehow it never got to the top of the pile. Maybe soon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the Hobbit but haven't watched it yet. I was planning to watch it over the winter months, but somehow it never got to the top of the pile. Maybe soon!

:) a wonderful movie. Hope that you enjoy it when you see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOTR thread and I think we all agree a classic book.

The Hobbit I read after and I think it was generally viewed a child's primer for LOTR.

The film for me was too long and despaired on the dish washing dwarf song.

With Romanike and Viccie. Thought the film was aimed at children/teenagers and lost the adult LOTR film audience.

Now I await the dreaded soggy toasted sandwich spell :)

Edited by Clavain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I first listened to the Rob Inglis narration of Lord of the Rings when I was five or six, and probably have re-listened to it at least 20 times since then as well as read the books around ten times. More recently I brushed up on my Tolkien mythology, and purchased most of his histories of Middle Earth. I was taking a break from rereading the trilogy and instead read Milton's Paradise Lost, and realized how closely Tolkien's works mirrored Christian creation stories. I had previously thought all his thought to be completely original (and much of it is), but have not been able to reconcile this new view with my previous adoration. His world follows a different path and has much more elaborate explanations for things than simply "because God made it this way," and is much more palatable to me, but they do not show the completely genius mind that I believed was behind his works. This being said, I know that I loved and respected his works, and that deep down I still do. They are no less good for being an alternate telling of a world religion, and they have helped me to explore Christianity through the lens of fantasy and to truly appreciate all the other great works that it has inspired. I know that some day I will be able to come back to these books with the same amount of fondness that I felt only a year or so ago. 

As for the movies, I feel mixed towards them. I never really liked a lot of Jackson's choices, not even looking at how he adapted the storyline to film. To me, the trilogy is palatable, and even enjoyable as a shared experience, but The Hobbit x3 represents a lot of poor direction. The trilogy has a very dark tone to it that The Hobbit does not share, and Jackson tried to mesh the two together in the new movies. The result was a roller coaster of dark and humorous scenes that did not form a cohesive whole. He did do the best job I have ever seen of a display of the true wealth of the dwarves, but failed in showing the regality of wizards or the advanced society of the goblins. It was saddening to see an evolved, albeit cruel, race reduced to a parody of an unorganized rabble. This was a race that went on to develop dynamite and the most ingenious torture devices of Middle Earth! They were intelligent creatures that did not fit into Jackson's world view, and were changed into something that everyone could find a mutual disgust for. His choice of making Thrandiul into some weirdo was distasteful and did not represent the regality of the elves. The creation of Tauriel was confusing and not altogether well executed. I find these films harder to enjoy, and require the presence of good friends to truly allow me to let go of my disgust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

realized how closely Tolkien's works mirrored Christian creation stories.

 

Not quite so. The early drafts of the Silmarillion were explicitly polytheistic, and a Christian "bed of Procrustes" was only nailed around the whole concept as an afterthought, needlessly producing plenty of unresolvable inconsistencies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...