A book of journey and a film of action!!!

[Kavrangoz]

........................

[Ynhockey]

Okay d00d, you need to chill. Are you some enemy of Jackson's ?

First of all, what would you think of a movie where all they did was walk around and suddenly you have some long-bearded fool singing "Merry dol derry dol dillo i'm tom bombadil" and then you'd have the extremely boring, eventless journey from Rivendell to Moria and all the other 'hikes' of theirs ?

Second of all, you don't seem to have read Tolkien's works carefully either. Saying that orcs should have green skin and all... lmao!

[Darth Saruman]

Originally posted by Kavrangoz
Peter Jackson is stupid.Because he says that he is a fan of Tolkien.
But i think that fans show respect.Peter Jackson had to choose;

A real film but less money
A made-up film with lots of money

He made the second choice but by choosing it he chose DISHONOUR

And i want you to look at general appearance of orcs and goblins,
not details. Kavrangoz, you are one crazy dude.

[Talimon]

Yeah, pretty lame arguments in my opinion.

[Legolas_sheila]

:) J.R.R. TOLKIEN IS BETTER THAN PETER JACKSON WILL EVER BE.:mad: SO WHY DO YOU HAVE TO ARGUE WHEN YOU KNOW THE TRUTH?

TOLKIEN CANNOT BE COMPARED!!
(he's better than the rest, he's better than them all!!):)

[Rangerdave]

Originally posted by Kavrangoz
He does NOT have the right to change that book.


First off. Mr. Jackson did not change the book, the book is still the same as it ever was. What he did do was adapt the story from a literary to a cinematic genre. You may have disagreements with his adaption, but that in no way reflects any change in the writen word of Professor Tolkien.

Also, in regards to his "rights" to change the story in any way, He most certainly does have that right. the people at New Line Entertainment paid a hefty price to gain precisely that right. The fanbase may not like his adaptions, but if Mr. Jackson chooses to make Gollum a six foot pile of Custard played by a pale blue Scotish person, he can. I fear that you have confused the meaning of the term "right".

If you feel that the cinematic release of the Fellowship of the Rings is poorly made, the best option is to not grouse about it, but rather encourage others to read the original work and allow them to decide for themselves.

RD

[seadragon]

so we are back on the old argument about peter jackson's film.

Film is an entirely different medium to the printed word.
the book is an outstanding work undoubtedly.
in my opinion so is the film. and this constant argument about the way pj has changed the book is beginning to get me down. it seems to me you should be able to accept both representations of this story and appreciate each on it own merits!

[joxy]

Originally posted by seadragon
it seems to me you should be able to accept both representations of this story and appreciate each on it own merits!

That would be fine if the two had equal, or comparable, merits.
Instead, when PJ sticks to the book the film is great,
but as soon he changes people's characters, actions, and words,
the film falls into mediocrity, until the original is allowed to rescue it again. Compare the carrot scene with any of the genuine ones!!
It's like having bits of a third-rate comedy playing alongside a classic.

[Talimon]

Originally posted by joxy


That would be fine if the two had equal, or comparable, merits.
Instead, when PJ sticks to the book the film is great,
but as soon he changes people's characters, actions, and words,
the film falls into mediocrity, until the original is allowed to rescue it again. Compare the carrot scene with any of the genuine ones!!
It's like having bits of a third-rate comedy playing alongside a classic.

Give PJ some credit. You are talking as if any adaptation of the source material is holy or something. He managed to adapt the scenes in a powerful way. The scenes are powerful due mostly to his adaptation skills, not the source. Go check out Bakshi. It's possible to stay truer to the book (supposedly) and still lack any sort of emotion.

[seadragon]

this makes me mad

it seems to me that no matter what pj did he was never going to please the stalwarts that keep bringing up the old chestnuts that the book does it better.

why are you constantly complaining about these differences
who cares i don't.

i love both and will continue to do so !!!!!!

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon


Give PJ some credit. You are talking as if any adaptation of the source material is holy or something. He managed to adapt the scenes in a powerful way. The scenes are powerful due mostly to his adaptation skills, not the source.

I would give him credit if he did the changes well and when they're needed.

Do you mean the changed scenes are MORE powerful than the originals? I don't agree: Tolkien was a very powerful writer and his scenes have all the power they need- when PJ changes them they don't become more powerful- they usually just become silly- people laugh at them- they say so on some of the threads here.

[Talimon]

Your words:

Instead, when PJ sticks to the book the film is great,
but as soon he changes people's characters, actions, and words,
the film falls into mediocrity, until the original is allowed to rescue it again. Compare the carrot scene with any of the genuine ones!!
It's like having bits of a third-rate comedy playing alongside a classic.

You are saying that when the movie sticks to the books it is a classic, but when it doesn't it's third rate. Then you say that the reason it's so good is because the original is there to rescue it. This gives the impression that there weren't any film-makers involved to begin with, or countless hours spent working on the film. You are saying that the original content on it's own made this film. I'm saying that it's not the original content per se, but rather the film makers adaptation skills that made it so good. I mention Bakshi because he stayed truer to the book (or so many claim) and yet it comes off as very dry. It's not about the message, it's about the messanger... It's not what you say it's how you say it... the point remains. It would be very easy to stay true to the book and make a horrible movie. I think you are getting elements mixed up here when you say that what saves/makes this movie is the original content. You need good actors to put forth that content. You need good sets and costumes to make it believeable. You need the right music, the right cinematography. You need the right feel. The movie has this, and it's largely what makes it as good as it is. That feeling, that element.

[Parrot]

Instead, when PJ sticks to the book the film is great,
but as soon he changes people's characters, actions, and words,
the film falls into mediocrity, until the original is allowed to rescue it again.

No, offense Joxy, but I think absolute statements like these show, beyond all doubt, that you are watching the film through carrot-colored glasses; by which I mean never giving in to the experience of the film in and of itself, and allowing PJ take you where he wants to take you; but instead watching it warily and analytically, only hoping to find digressions from the book on which to pounce. It is your right to find particular faults with the film, but to suggest that whatever is right about the film is to be attributed to Tolkien and whatever is wrong is the fault of Jackson, is more that a little narrow-minded, IMO.

[ltas]

Originally posted by Confusticated


Alright...ANYONE who thinks that Peter Jackson changed the book...just head over the book store or Library....buy/barrow a new copy of the book and go through and highlight any changes made by Jackson...
Need i say more?
I will!

Hey. Please don't be overcritical about Kavrangoz's statements (or anyone else who doesn't speak English as first language, for that matter). IMHO it's quite clear that Kavrangoz meant that PJ changed the details of JRRT's story when he made a film about it...

[Talimon]

Originally posted by ltas


Hey. Please don't be overcritical about Kavrangoz's statements (or anyone else who doesn't speak English as first language, for that matter). IMHO it's quite clear that Kavrangoz meant that PJ changed the details of JRRT's story when he made a film about it...

But he is making a point that I think many could/should listen to: The book's quality and detail remains regardless of the movie. No matter how many changes the film-makers make the book will still be the same book with the same legacy. It's important to make that distinction.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
You need the right feel. The movie has this, and it's largely what makes it as good as it is. That feeling, that element.

I am afraid you lost me to some extent in what you said about the art of film-making, but my one comment is that the film does have a good feeling, that it IS a good film, but only 95% of the time, and the other 5% is when it diverts drastically (not mildly, as it has to do from time to time) from the original and completely changes the tone, atmosphere, feeling, whatever you call it- in other words those changes look, as I said, as if they're from a different film. The carrot, the falling skeleton, just are not worthy of being in such a GOOD film!

[Arvedui]

Ahoy, there. Try to take things a little easier okay. Sounds as though some of you out there are more than a little mad because PJ didn't make the film exactly like the books. In my opinion, that couldn't in any way have been possible. How long would the Fellowship have been then? Six hours? Or maybe he should have made six films (remember that The Lord of the Rings is actually six books)? I think we should show some gratitude for the people who made this film possible, even though Tom Bombadil isn't there, or that Gildor and the elves don't show up when the hobbits are having a close call with the Black Rider, or that Arwen is blown totally out of proportions, or that the role of Saruman is a little twisted or any other detail that those of us who know the book almost by heart gets a little annoyed about. What I have experienced is that quite a lot of my friends have decided to read the book after having seen the movie.
What better accomplishment can a fan of LOTR like PJ do? Have any of you out there recruited more new Tolkien readers than Mr. Jackson? I don't think so.;)

[joxy]

Originally posted by Parrot


No, offense Joxy, but I think absolute statements like these show, beyond all doubt, that you are watching the film through carrot-colored glasses; by which I mean never giving in to the experience of the film in and of itself, and allowing PJ take you where he wants to take you; but instead watching it warily and analytically, only hoping to find digressions from the book on which to pounce. It is your right to find particular faults with the film, but to suggest that whatever is right about the film is to be attributed to Tolkien and whatever is wrong is the fault of Jackson, is more that a little narrow-minded, IMO.

I'll tell you what I AM doing (and beyond all doubt- I am the only one who can say that about myself!):
Watching the film and thoroughly enjoying it, then finding it suddenly changes tone for a few minutes and goes back again to greatness. When I check on the book afterwards I find that the crass parts are additions- they may (or may not) be needed, but if they are then they should be done well- and they're not done well. I'm not saying that applies to ALL the changes, but it's clear that some of the writers just do not have the "feel" of Tolkien, so their contributions look as if they're meant to be in another story altogether. I knew nothing about P Jackson until recently and I have read here that his previous films have not been too good- in that case he has improved a great deal, but can't help letting some of his old habits through occasionally!
Here's what I'm NOT doing:
"watching it warily and analytically, only hoping to find digressions from the book on which to pounce".
The (badly-done) digressions throw themselves at me, and I am sure at many others.
BUT, the film still manages to be 95% great!!

[Talimon]

I know quite a few people who would slaughter you for saying PJ's previous movies were bad. And once you see those movies, you'll know what I mean when I say they would literally slaughter :). Much like FotR, you either love or hate PJ's movies. But Heavenly Creatures is a great movie, regardless, and Forgotten Silver is arguably the greatest mockumentry ever (after Spinal Tap, of course). His other movies are more controversial, but they are all awesome cult movies. You have to have a sick sense of humour of course, but they are all hillarious, and not for the wrong reasons. They try to be funny, and it's not what I'd call slapstick ;). I think FotR was a BIG change for PJ, which is part of the reason I commend him so highly for it. There aren't many directors who have made movie both like Bad Taste and FotR. They are practically opposites.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
I know quite a few people who would slaughter you for saying PJ's previous movies were bad. And once you see those movies, you'll know what I mean when I say they would literally slaughter :). Much like FotR, you either love or hate PJ's movies

It's not ME that's saying they were bad- I know nothing about them- I am just quoting what I have read in these forum postings as others' opinions. I shan't be seeing the films you list- they don't sound interesting to ME, and I'm as entitled to my opinion as anyone:-)
Finally- you're quite wrong- I, and I am sure a big majority, don't accept that there are two opposing views, to EITHER love OR hate FOTR. I don't actually LOVE films at all, but I admire and enjoy that 95% of FOTR that has been made with the care it deserves.

[Sam_Gamgee]

Kavrangoz, yes he has no right to change the book. but really hes changing the book. because i always thought that portraying somthing different from how you would portray it, was having a different opinion. and having different interperatations. thinking somthing different from you is not changing the book.

[Diamond Took]

...until YOU can do better...

[Ariana Undomiel]

Unfortunately more and more director's are making films that are loaded with either action, romance, humor, or tragedy or all of the above. They think that the only way to score with the public is to make a fast paced film that you don't even have to think about or have the time to do so while you watch it. It's like we are now in an MTV movie culture. There are some exceptions to this of course. Films such as K-Pax and A Beautiful Mind are more slow paced and give you gobs to chew on.

Peter Jackson had a nice mix of positive elements in his film and even though it was much faster paced than the book, it was somewhat necessary because if he made his movie as drawn out as the book it would turn out to be like 10 hours long! Not that I wouldn't love that. LOL.

~Ariana

[Ariana Undomiel]

I still have seperate images when I either watch the movie or read the book. But when I am just thinking about the story in general I put it all into one fascinating mass in my mind. Ahhhh, the power of the imagination. Such a gift!

~Ariana

[seadragon]

i see the old arguments are still going on.
i have just finished reading the book again (16th time i believe)
it is still a powerful piece of writing. each time i find something new in it.
though some parts are still a long drawn out thread that seems to go on forever.
the dvd is still my favorite in my collection and i watch it as and when i can. their are parts that do not measure up to the book and parts that are better.
as i keep saying they are two distinct forms of enteretainment. ans as such do not need to be compared.
let each stand on it own merits!!!!!!!

[Ariana Undomiel]

Exactly!!!!

~Ariana