Posted on 02/22/2014 7:44:18 AM PST by Perdogg
Peter Jackson has made some remarkable movies.
Theres no denying that his sprawling Lord of the Rings trilogy was the very definition of epicfilled with massive battles, touching moments, and beautiful cinematography, not to mention a lovely score.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
That was fantastic! There was a scene in the first movie where Frodo comes around a bend when leaving the eleven city and Galadriel is standing on the shore. The music crescendoes and there is a narrative in the background of hope, faith and strength. For a fanatasy epic is was particularly moving and a brilliant moment in Jackson’s efforts to capture the feeling of the moment.
Actually, although I enjoyed the movies, it became increasingly obvious that Peter Jackson didn’t really understand Tolkien at all.
In particular, the concepts of honor and nobility, which were so important to Tolkien, were completely omitted from the movie. I won’t go into details, but that was evident again and again.
I prefer to watch movies on film. I don't think the craft is getting better with the new technologies. They "photoshop" the colors in movies these days and run other "film process" filters over their videos to disguise the medium used. Would anyone be happy if "instagram filters" replaced all other forms of photography?
I actually went to see that LOTR cartoon in the theaters when it first came out. What a bust. It just suddenly ended in the middle of a fight scene, with a note at the end, saying to watch for the sequel. Needles to say, the ‘sequel’ never came.
Thanks for the ping.
it must be a slooooowww day over at Forbes if this is all their writers can find to bitch/write about
Indeed. The totality of the director’s cut is TWELVE HOURS for what is really just one long movie in 3 chapters. ...and that’s not much more than a summary of the book. Add in Tom, poetry, the scouring, etc and you’ll get a miniseries so long few will watch it and few can afford it (with such top-end production values).
One of my favorite parts of the LOTR trilogy is the “Scouring of the Shire”. I loved Jackson’s films but I don’t understand why he messed with Tolkien’s storyline for Saurman. I was looking forward to seeing how he depicted the “Scouring” chapter.
Of course you cannot put EVERYTHING in a film rendering of any book. That’s why part of the fun of it is arguing over why the director did this or didn’t do that. It’s a great “shoot the bull” discussion starter.
I must have gone out for popcorn and missed the lovely sex scene.
I have not read the books. I loved the movies. This seems like nit picking. The Trilogy will stand as one of the all-time great movie series, along with “Star Wars,” “Rocky,” “Dirty Harry,” and perhaps the James Bond series.
For the diehards, that wouldn't be a problem. Ever see the line up for a new i-phone? People pitch tents for that.
That didn’t tell me much info. Not really interested on clicking thru on my phone. Next time plz post a decent amount. Thanks in advance.
I missed the Scouring chapter. It showed what to do when confronted by tyranny, not only by the foreign enemy Saruman but his traitorous Hobbit followers as well. We here, especially, should “hold these truths to be self-evident. . . “ I think the omission was political correctness on Jackson’s part.
The churl with the pumpkin and the four heroes sullenly quaffing beer was as anti-climatic as possible.
He’d have done better to make six movies instead of three, the same two-book-per-volume split Tolkien used.
The purists who complain about things like omitting Tom Bombadil -- an entirely useless and vacuous character -- wouldn't be satisfied if Tolkien made the movie himself.
I got the same impression from Jackson's work on the Narnia films...
Leading with complaining there’s no Bombadil (whom I find to be one of the most annoying characters in the history of fiction) doesn’t really get me to sign up.
When complaining about how a movie is different than the book it’s based on always remember the line from Stephen King, they didn’t change the book, the book’s right there, anybody that like the way it is in the book better can read the book instead.
Yup. Just went right over his head.
To fulfill modern-dau expectations of character “growth,” I believe he felt impelled to include the ridiculous notion of Aragorn as torn and indecisive as to his goals.
Here’s a guy who’s in his 80s. He had fallen in love with Arwen at 20 years, and been engaged to her since he was 50. At this point he was informed that only a man who was King of both Gondor and Arnor would be allowed to marry her, setting up a parallel with the “impossible task” of recovering a silmaril for Beren to be allowed to marry Luthien.
So here’s a guy who has spent 30-some years working with great intensity towards this specific goal, and Jackson feels obliged to portray him as weak and unsure of himself.
In the books Aragorn was sometimes unsure what road to take. He had absolutely no doubt where he was headed in the long run.
But I blame this more on modern critics and intellectuals than on Jackson.
Next time you watch “The Longest Day” complete and uncut — keep an ear out during the first half for repetition of the line “Hold until relieved,” right up to just prior to the intermission.
Jackson got the orcs very wrong, IMO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.