The Gang of Five
The forum will have some maintenance done in the next couple of months. We have also made a decision concerning AI art in the art section.


Please see this post for more details.

Peter Jackson and his rending of Tolkien.

WeirdRaptor

  • Cera
  • *
    • Posts: 4766
    • View Profile
    • Knowhere: A Geek Culture Fan Forum
Before I start, its preferable that you've read the books before you even bother looking at this, because a lot of spoilers concerning how things were in the books as opposed to how they are in the films are going to be brought up. (Extrem spoiler warning)

















As you know, I'm a loyal supporter to Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings" adaptation, but there are times while watching the films that I just wish he'd stuck closer to the books, and often I can find no logical reason as to why certain things were changed. And as a lover of the books, its sometimes hard to watch certain things in the second half of "The Two Towers" and a few parts of "The Return of the King". I will repeat that I love the film trilogy, and now, my peeves with the films I love.

1. The treatment of Faramir's character. My gosh, of all the things to do to make more opposition for Frodo on his quest, did they really need to butcher any characters? One can argument that as a wussy papa's boy that Faramir is more interesting, I don't think so. I found the strength and the willingness to do the right things right from the beginning in the original Faramir to be much more interesting and it made me like him all the more. The books did show that Faramir was conflicted was struggling, but he followed what he knew was right, not what his father said was right. This film Faramir is ridiculoud! Trying to desparately please his daddy like some children AFTER he's already well into his mid 20s? Ludicrous!

2. Denethur. The proud, noble stewart who called for Prince Imrahil's help and actually had a reason for being as insane as he was, or the nearly motiveless madman from the films. Hmm........

3. Gollum. Never in the films did I ever get the sense that Gollum was at all dangerous. In the books, he wa sboth dangerous and pathetic all in one. In the films, he's just like some lost kid with deformed features.

4. Treebeard. A wise old entity of the forest not knowing that Sarumon was chopping down the trees? Eh? WTF!

That's all for know. Feel free to comment your opinions on the matter. I'd like to hear them.
"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf


Malte279

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 15608
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ineinemlandvorunsererzeit.de.vu
Quote
The treatment of Faramir's character.
I'm so with you on that WR!
The Faramir of the movies was nothing like this most noble man in the book (with only Aragorn to equal him in his integrity).
I read that they changed Faramir's character as they felt his conduct might disenchant the ring. In the book he actually says he wouldn't pick up the ring if he found it lying beside the road. I kind of understand why they would change that in the movie after we saw the impact the ring had on the other character, but I still think that they made Faramir too "evil" in the film.
Quote
Denethur. The proud, noble stewart who called for Prince Imrahil's help and actually had a reason for being as insane as he was, or the nearly motiveless madman from the films. Hmm........
What I considered the worst thing was the way they depicted Denethor's death in the movie. I consider his suicide a really impressive scene in the book. You can kind of understand what drove him to madness. Of course they showed his immense grieve over the loss of Boromir in the movie, but they failed to mention his Palantir and the active efforts of Sauron to drive Denethor into despair and madness by showing him the huge armies that were to move against him.
For lack of a better word I must call his death in the book "stylish". Climbing onto the pyre, breaking his staff, clinging to the Palantir and lighting the pyre. Even inspite of the clear madness he had shown before there was something dignified about his depature.
In the movie they stripped him of that dignity which I found a really inappropriate thing to do. In the movie they didn't even let him ultimately choose his death, but rather let him be kicked into the fire by Shadowfax. The most tasteless thing however was to let the poor Steward of Gondor run all the way just to drop down the cliff for spectacularities sake. How could he even run that far (almost half a mile I reckon) while he was completely ablaze?
If I was to pick one scene from the triology where I would say Peter Jackson messed really up I would pick the scene of Denethor's death.
I mentioned the lord of the rings audio play which I have before. The death scene of Denethor is really impressive in that play. The voice actor did an excellent job in making his voice sound erratic in some, yet almost composed in other moments depending on what was said. There was a very fitting music in the background too. I suppose my vision of Denethor's death was strongly influenced by the audio play.
Quote
Gollum. Never in the films did I ever get the sense that Gollum was at all dangerous. In the books, he wa sboth dangerous and pathetic all in one. In the films, he's just like some lost kid with deformed features.
I admit that he appeared rather friendly. They might have done better if they had shown some scenes in which Gollum is tempted the way he is in some ROTK scenes when he sees the ring. Personally I was too impressed with the performance of Gollum in general to count this as a major lapse in the movie, but I see why you do.
Quote
Treebeard. A wise old entity of the forest not knowing that Sarumon was chopping down the trees? Eh? WTF!
They overdid the lack of determination on the part of the Ents. While in the book it does take them days to get roused, they do get roused without first deciding that they wouldn't join the war. I strongly suppose they did it to have that scene in which the Ents finally do get roused right in front of the gates of Isengard. They probably meant to keep the audience at suspense as (to those who don't know the book) it might have taken some of the excitement away if they had known all along (during the desperate fight at the Hornburg) that there was still a huge army of Ents and Huorns ready to smash Saruman's forces. Again I must confess I wasn't too bothered by this.

Another scene from the Two Towers which DID bother me was the supposed death of Aragorn and his return to the others. It wasn't in the book and I didn't feel it really contributed to the movie in any positive manner. I suppose they included it to have Arwen into the movie once again.
An earlier plan was to let her join Aragorn and the others in Helm's Deep along with the elves (who weren't present according to the book either). I suppose they had to include the elves to make the audience happy (and gosh, those elves ARE cool ;)), but I'm kind of relieved that they kept Arwen out of it at that point.


Nick22

  • Administrator
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 41623
    • View Profile
No film is ever perfect, althgough IMo Jackson did an outstanding job on the trilogy. Yes Faramir wasn't as noble as in the book, and Gollum was far less "evil" than he was in the book, but for those flaws, Jackson could have done much worse. he could have done a Ralph Bashiki imitation, and we know how much you loathe Bashiki's film Wr. Remember that there were many scenes that were cut out of the Two Towers and Return of the King, that didn't make into theatres.
Winner of these:


Runner up for these:




Malte279

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 15608
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ineinemlandvorunsererzeit.de.vu
I think everybody who has written here so far likes Peter Jackson's adabtation. I certainly do. When pointing out those scenes, changes, etc. we don't agree with I understand this to be done for the sake of critical discussion, not for the sake of talking bad of the movie in general.


Nick22

  • Administrator
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 41623
    • View Profile
I know that Malte.  I have discussed the LOTr trilogy to minute detail on another board I frequent, so I daresay I know a great deal about the trilogy. But that goes for you and Wr as well, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Winner of these:


Runner up for these:




Malte279

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 15608
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ineinemlandvorunsererzeit.de.vu
So are there any scenes or interpretations in the Jackson triology which you would have done differently? Anything you would criticize about it? Anything you would have included / left out?


Nick22

  • Administrator
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 41623
    • View Profile
I would have included the Scouring of the Shire, to be honest...
Winner of these:


Runner up for these:




WeirdRaptor

  • Cera
  • *
    • Posts: 4766
    • View Profile
    • Knowhere: A Geek Culture Fan Forum
I think that's a given. We'd all have loved to see the Scouring of the Shire.

And yes, I know that Jackson's trilogy could have been worse, heck, even Bakshi's LotR could have been even worse than it was (though I'm glad it wasn't), but it could have been better in many instances in the second movie, but that doesn't mean I hate the films. I love them, as a matter of fact. But still, one can portray Faramir as being less noble than he was without figuratively man raping him the way Peter Jackson did. If there is one thing I despise about Jackson's adaptation, its his variation of Faramir and his attempts at making Gollum cute.
"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf


Malte279

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 15608
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ineinemlandvorunsererzeit.de.vu
I thought about that too, but I see why they excluded it. Even the way it is many "average" viewers of the movie are complaining that it is going on for too long after the ring was destroyed. Fanatics like us ;) would enjoy the cleansing of the Shire, but I'm afraid the echo from the majority of the audience would have been a negative one. There was an immage of what a Shire to be cleansed would have looked like in Galadriel's mirror.
The mood of the movie kind of deviates from the mood of the book due to the fact that the Shire remained intact in the movie while inspite of the cleansing the impression created by the book is that the Shire is among the many things that will fade away with the coming of a new age.


WeirdRaptor

  • Cera
  • *
    • Posts: 4766
    • View Profile
    • Knowhere: A Geek Culture Fan Forum
Yeah...the cleansing of the Shire would have been another hour, and very anti-climatic. Its no secret why it was cut.
"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf


Nick22

  • Administrator
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 41623
    • View Profile
Although it wasn't that way in the book Wr. the Scouring of the Shire, was the last battle of the War of the Ring.
Winner of these:


Runner up for these:




WeirdRaptor

  • Cera
  • *
    • Posts: 4766
    • View Profile
    • Knowhere: A Geek Culture Fan Forum
You think I didn't know that already? But it still doesn't change the fact that its anti-climatic.
"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf


Malte279

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 15608
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ineinemlandvorunsererzeit.de.vu
Inspite of me being a great fan of the books I still think it was the right decision not to include the scouring of the Shire and the battle of Bywater in the movie. Yet another battle after the destruction of the ring... I think it might have drawn out the movie too much. Compared to the previous battles (which were kind of trying to top each other) it would have been a rather small skirmish (about 400 combatants).


WeirdRaptor

  • Cera
  • *
    • Posts: 4766
    • View Profile
    • Knowhere: A Geek Culture Fan Forum
Yeah. For the films, they were definitely trying to get everything as big and specacular as they could, which is good and all, but it doesn't leave much room for the smaller stuff, even if you would have liked to have seen it. I would have loved to see the Scouring of the Shire, but, what Malte said is true, it would have been a leftdown after Helm's Deep and Minas Tirith.
"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf


Nick22

  • Administrator
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 41623
    • View Profile
I would have liked to see Gandalf commenting on the fighting in Erebrus, that would gaiven the sense of how far Sauron's power had spread:to every corner of Middle-Eartrhg. The Scouring of the shire ties into that.
Winner of these:


Runner up for these:




Malte279

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 15608
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ineinemlandvorunsererzeit.de.vu
You mean Erebor, the lonely mountain? While I would have found that very interesting indeed it wasn't even mentioned in the book, only in the appendixes. How did you find the look of the characters of the triology. Did the outward appearance of the characters match the image you had in mind before watching the triology? Were there any characters you would have imagined to look very different?


WeirdRaptor

  • Cera
  • *
    • Posts: 4766
    • View Profile
    • Knowhere: A Geek Culture Fan Forum
Is that question directed at the both of us and anyone else who wishes to answer, or is that intended only for Nick?

To answer: I pictured Frodo looking a little different, to tell you the truth.
Sean Astin as Sam, on the other hand...he WAS Sam as far as I was concerned.
Sir Ian McKellan as Gandalf...perfection.
Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn: perfection.
Dominic Monaghan and Billy Boyd as Merry and Pippin: perfection.
Sean Bean as Boromir: He actually breathed life into a character that was used merely as a plot point by Tolkien.  
Orlando Bloom as Legolas: perfection.
John Rhys Davies as Gimli: perfection.
Liv Tyler as Lady Arwen: perection.
Cate Blanchett as Galadriel: perfection.

The same goes for all the rest of the cast, except for David Wenham as Faramir: he looked too dumb for the role, Miranda Otto as Eowyn: she was too sappy for the role, and Hugo Weaving as Elrond: what were they smoking?
"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf


Malte279

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 15608
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ineinemlandvorunsererzeit.de.vu
The question was meant to everybody :)
In most cases the figures matched the picture I had in mind.
In case of the hobbits I somehow imagined them to have a different kind of haircut (I lack the descriptive term here). My image of hobbits was undoubtedly influenced by a very good comic adaptation of "The Hobbit" which I got my hands on before I even read the lord of the rings.
In case of Denethor I had imagined him to look less aged. More like somebody in his late 50s with only a bit of grey in his hairs which I fancied to look red. I imagined him to have a full beard and be slightly corpulent. In a way he looked a bit like Gimli looks in the movie in my imagination and funnily enough the actor of Gimli originally applied for the role of Denethor.
I somehow wasn't too pleased with the look of Shelob. I cannot pinpoint why, but I think I fancied her to feature something that would make her look a bit different from an ordinary spider blown up to extraordinary size. Somewhat like this:

What you see in that image looks like a spider but is not just an oversized spider.


Nick22

  • Administrator
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 41623
    • View Profile
Having Christopher Lee as Saruman was a stroke of genius. Lee is a master at playing sinister villians, and he turned in a stellar performance as Saruman.
Winner of these:


Runner up for these:




Malte279

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 15608
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ineinemlandvorunsererzeit.de.vu
I second that!
I think he had a good point in being angry about the cutting of the third movie's Saruman scenes from the cinema version of the movie.