Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Redacted
Cho, I'm the same, but I saw LOTR and I can honestly tell you its one of the most gratifying experiences of my life. I LOVED seeing the story come to life the way it did - the movies are indescribably superb. You're really missing something by not seeing them.
Just don't watch Return of the King. It will make you angry. I still can't watch it without screaming at my TV the whole time. :(
I am curious why you would scream at the TV the whole time ... I had some issues with it but nothing to scream at the TV. You can PM if you don't want to spoil it for the people who haven't seen it.
I really liked Return of the King too. I was very disappointed they didn't put the *real* ending in the movie though, and I hated all the "hollywood" touches they had to add to the end to try and make it more dramatic. They do that in everything it seems and it's irritating and takes away from the story I think. It wouldn't be the same watching just the first 2 movies though and not seeing the final part as well though.
I always wondered, in the extended versions, did they ever have the bit where they go back home to find it taken over, or did they leave it out of that version too? They always released the extended versions after the first releases and we can't afford to buy the movies 2 times -_- Now that they would be cheaper none of the stores around here sell the extended versions -_-
I feel in general that RotK felt more "loosely based on a book by the same name" than an adaptation, but my biggest complaints come from the extended edition. While cutting the talk with Saruman at Orthanc made me seriously annoyed, I felt they so bungled it in the Extended Version as to make cutting it almost preferable--then the way the killed Saruman! Then the waterfall of skulls in the Paths of the Dead that seemed straight out of Pirates of the Caribbean (nothing against that series--I enjoy it, but I don't want it in my LotR). Then there's the debasing of Eowyn's fight with the Witch-king by taking out the Black Breath and the House of Healing, plus giving only a very minimal nod to her romance with Faramir. But my absolute biggest complaint is that the Witch-king breaks Gandalf's staff. Gandalf is a Maia, essentially a god; the Witch-king is an undead mortal sorcerer. In the book, their contest seemed to be a very narrow victory for Gandalf and the Witch-king withdrew; in the movie, the Witch-king is pretty clearly the victor. And that is wrong on so many levels. A Maia held off Morgoth, a Vala infinitely more powerful than Sauron, for several thousand years; Gandalf should not have his staff broken by an undead mortal, Nazgul or no. I have a number of smaller quibbles, but those are my major complaints.
Against the rest of the films, my complaints are mostly of the small variety, but I still get angry about Jackson's misinterpretation of the "glowing polarized Galadriel you shall have a queen" segment in FotR, too. I have a great deal of respect for Jackson in most things, but that scene and most of RotK...I feel like he truly failed to understand some of the hypostatic premises of Tolkien's mythos when he made them.
EDIT: Yes, I completely forgot another complaint: the cutting of the scouring of the Shire. Sure, it's a little anticlimactic, but cutting it cheapened the victory. The point of that segment is to make the quest hit home. Even if they didn't go full-blown with it, they could still have shown that the Shire was not left unscathed by the War of the Ring.
Yeah, That Really bothered me too, for the exact same reason... cutting that out made the ending seem a bit off, too quick and "they all lived happily ever after" neat. For people who never read the book, I'm sure they missed nothing... but that was a very important part of the book in my opinion. I was even surprised more was not done with Samwise getting past the watchers at the tower of Cirith Ungol, it could of been such a quick simple scene but its inclusion would have given the next scene far more impact. I know there was no way of including everything, but I just felt too many times throughout the movie, I was thinking "cool, lets see how they do the next scene.... hey, what the hell..." or thinking "hey... is that right?".
Still I liked it, just I too felt it missing some important things.
Unless you can find the rarer Director's Cut versions, don't even bother. As for "Hobbit #1" (1 of 3), the visuals are generally stunning, but you'd hate it if you're a JRRT purist. I was amazed that, for someone (P. "S-B" J.) who obviously knows the material so well, he managed to get every single scene that came from the book so spectacularly wrong!
(Yes, the initials of the King Kong director's new middle name, S-B, stand for exactly what you think they do. No aspersions on his mother, though, even if Sharkey's men did lock her up.... ;-) )
The Director's Cut of LotR3 is not so bad, but I refuse to watch the cinema version. When I walked out of the theater I handed my brother the keys: I was too ticked-off to drive.
The fact that they ACTUALLY DEALT WITH Saruman in the Director's Cut made it more tolerable than the other version. But I'm in full agreement with most of the issues brought up by the rest of y'all and am glad I'm not alone as a JRRT purist here. Lotho Jackson should never have attempted The Hobbit.
(On a separate note, I was more distracted in "Hobbit" by CG effects, partly because I hadn't gotten above Anim8or in my own CG dabbling when the first films came out. Not so much Uncanny Valley, as the Orc's skin (there weren't any Orcs in the book!) shouting about its Most-Excellent-Subsurface-Scattering in certain shots. That's fine and dandy in an all-CG flick, but not next to actual live actors. And the eagles... where does one begin?)
If there were no movie, only book readers would know the story.
If movies were exactly like the books nobody new would read the books.
Knowing that the book is different and "better" is at least some reason to attract more readers.
There are some things in books that just simply cannot be expressed in movies.
Hating the movie is wasted energy.
Try producing a movie exactly like a great book and you'll end up making concessions or go broke.
I do not think that Jackson's additions to the story (nominally from the LotR appendices - but with lots of fan-fiction such as Azog's vendetta against Durin's line) improved the film beyond what a more focused book adaptation would have been. Do we really need imminent danger (which echoes the Nazgul-Arwen pursuit from the FotR film, one of many unneeded linkages) to get the heroes from the troll cave to Rivendell? Do we need a fairly long White Council scene? Is the framing story with Old Bilbo and Frodo anything but otiose gimmickry to get a cheer from fans of the LotR films? The first line of The Hobbit is one of the most famous in children's literature; starting with 'My Dear Frodo' and a long flashback to Erebor kind of buries it (ten or fifteen minutes into the film, I think).
That said, Riddles in the Dim Blue Light (because Riddles in the Dark would be unfilmable) was worth the price of admission all by itself (minus, perhaps, the silly way in which the Ring gets onto Bilbo's finger, echoing the equally contrived scene in Bree from FotR, which is probably intentional, alas). I don't know how many of Andy Serkis's facial muscles were simulated to get us Gollum, but it is flat-out brilliant work, and best of all, it is CGI in service of the story rather than so many places where it seems to be the reverse.
A film will never be as good as a book, unless you start with a very weak book to begin with. That's beside the point. The point is that some changes enhance the cinematics and some changes just screw up the story. Elves at Helm's Deep makes no sense in the story. The Witch-king breaking Gandalf's staff makes no sense in the story. Cutting or screwing up the talk with Saruman makes no sense in the story. Replacing Glorfindel with Arwen makes no sense in the story--and this from someone who generally approves of Jackson's improvements to Arwen's virtually non-existent character. Glorfindel is a Noldo who has seen the light of the Two Trees of Valinor--that is why he can ride against the Nine. Arwen, on the other hand, is only half Noldo (well, High Elven, at any rate; Galadriel's mother was a Vanya), a quarter human, and a quarter Sinda. Furthermore, only one of her High Elven ancestors had seen the light of the Two Trees--Galadriel. Elwing was born in Middle-earth.
It always amazes me the way some people latch onto fantasy fiction as if it were immutable science. Then chide the non-devotes who don't know the lineage of every character in the story or what they had to eat on the night the moon was blue. As if the changes would affect the spin of the Earth or negate gravity or have any other effect on reality.
I've read LoTR and The Hobbit both at least three times, and I still enjoyed the movies. Even though I recognized that there were some differences. In fact the differences drew me back to the book one more time to satisfy my itch. However, I didn't throw eggs at Peter Jackson or his effort. On the contrary, I applaud him for making a massive success where others had only paid lip-service. I'm old enough to remember the earlier cinematic attempts. I appreciate Jackson's efforts.
Even "immutable science" is subject to re-writes upon closer examination.
Perhaps, unlike "immutable science", written fiction is an absolute against which any interpretation can be compared, but if you want to achieve the same level of perfection in another media you're out of luck. The original author is dead. And any other interpreter in any other media is a different viewpoint. It ain't gonna' be the same. If you aren't happy with that reality, dive in and do it yourself.
Like I said, I have a great deal of respect for Jackson as a filmmaker, but there are times when he shows a complete lack of understanding of Tolkien's mythos. He's not making a movie of some book that no one has ever read or cares about, or a book by an author who didn't provide extensive notes for why everything in the world is the way that it is. I am aware that New Line Cinemas does not have the rights to The Silmarillion, but that doesn't mean that Jackson and his cohorts should not familiarize themselves with it. Details matter--especially from such a detailed artist as Tolkien. What makes Middle-earth so compelling is that it is so detailed. It has lineage and it has legacy. You get the feeling that there's a bigger world out there beyond the quests of the heroes; it makes it feel like there's something out there worth fighting for. This is especially true of the Elves, some of whom have been in the world since before the first rising of the sun. I love Cate Blanchett--I think she truly gave Galadriel that feeling that "I've been here since the beginning." But Jackson failed in the "You shall have a queen speech"--it was completely out of character and a horrible misinterpretation of the book. When he said she glowed, it was with the light of the Eldar--the reflection of the Two Trees of Valinor, which she had seen. Not some eerie polarized light. Her speech was a reflection of what would happen if she took the Ring, not an actual temptation to do so. Galadriel had rejected the Ring before Frodo ever entered the Woodland Realm.
To accept any adaptation as perfect is to allow no room for improvement, and while Jackson's adaptations certainly earn high marks, he leaves a great deal of room for improvement. An adaptation should always remain true in spirit to the original, even if not in every detail--Jackson's adaptations often fail to capture the grandeur of Tolkien's spirit.
"When he said she glowed, it was with the light of the Eldar—the reflection of the Two Trees of Valinor, which she had seen."
And just where in the movie would the story of the two trees of Valinor have been introduced and defined as the "Eldar"? And how would the glow of two trees been illustrated? Do we need another scene or three or another movie?
Tolkien did create a world but you can't squeeze it all into the minds of the viewing public in a few short hours.
In a book especially in a large trilogy or a series of books made over a lifetime you have time to expound on that world. But in Tolkien's case, the references that come from the appendicies and The Simarillion add a depth that is difficult to grasp in a lifetime of reading by scholars and other obsessives and certainly not in even nine hours of film by the average person.
It didn't have to be mentioned, but it shouldn't have been freakin' polarized blue dark glow, leaving half the audience believing Gimli's tale that she's an elf witch. How would it have been illustrated? A very bright white light, just like Arwen in the flight to the Fords because it's from the same cause (re:Arwen should not have been in that scene). Really not that difficult. No extra dialogue or scenes necessary. Besides, prior to the movies LotR was a niche market; they could have assumed an educated audience instead of pandering to the masses. But clearly Jackson likes action even where it adds nothing to the plot. While he's an infinitely better storyteller than George Lucas, they have that unfortunate trait in common.
It didn't have to be mentioned, but it shouldn't have been freakin' polarized blue dark glow, leaving half the audience believing Gimli's tale that she's an elf witch. How would it have been illustrated? A very bright white light, just like Arwen in the flight to the Fords because it's from the same cause (re:Arwen should not have been in that scene). Really not that difficult. No extra dialogue or scenes necessary. Besides, prior to the movies LotR was a niche market; they could have assumed an educated audience instead of pandering to the masses. But clearly Jackson likes action even where it adds nothing to the plot. While he's an infinitely better storyteller than George Lucas, they have that unfortunate trait in common.
For that one scene in FotR, Jackson (inadvertently? very effectively!) deposed the Noldor queen, who crossed the ice from the West with the sons of Feänor in pursuit of the Silmarils, and in her place set up Jadis the Accursed, who spoke the Deplorable Word over dying Charn and subjected Narnia to a century or more of Yule-less winter. This, without any indication that Lotho Jackson ever read Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia!
For that one scene in FotR, Jackson (inadvertently? very effectively!) deposed the Noldor queen, who crossed the ice from the West with the sons of Feänor in pursuit of the Silmarils, and in her place set up Jadis the Accursed, who spoke the Deplorable Word over dying Charn and subjected Narnia to a century or more of Yule-less winter. This, without any indication that Lotho Jackson ever read Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia!
That reminds me that I'm very disappointed with Disney's depiction of Jadis. While I'm not a huge Narnia fan and overall enjoyed Disney's interpretations, Lewis set up Jadis as a beautiful, charismatic (and dark haired) figure--and she was none of those things in any of the films. Films Jadis was actually a rather dull villain.
In the end, I'm inclined to think Tolkien was right--fantasy is not the best genre for movies. The human imagination is much more vivid than the screen, and the screen will inevitably disappoint.
I genuinely hope those who go to see it enjoy it, but I am going to be skipping it. I quite liked Fellowship of the Ring, but Two Towers and Return of the King, in my opinion, crossed the line from adaptation to annoying fan fiction. Everything I have seen of The Hobbit looks like the same take, so I will just save myself the pain. :-) I'm curious about the 48 frames per second version though. Anyone who wants to post their opinions on that, I would love to read them.
The 48fps was... odd. I'm still not sure what I think of it. Sometimes it did feel like watching video rather than film, and I think this has more to do with the way lighting works than with actual image clarity. In one or two interior scenes, I felt extremely conscious that the scene was illuminated by a nice fire-coloured studio light somewhere off camera. I think that, just as sound engineering had to be re-learned as vinyl disks gave way to digital compact discs (early CDs had a notoriously 'harsh' sound), cinematography has to be rediscovered for the higher frame rate. As it is, I think The Hobbit is a less than successful experiment in the craft.
But then, I still think that 3D films are a passing fad.
I enjoyed TTT despite its differences from the book, except for Helm's Deep, where I found the presence of Haldir's Elven warriors to be definitely crossing deep into fan-fic territory. For the most part, I think Jackson kept quite true to the spirit of The Hobbit, though it is Jackson, so there are plenty of scenes where peril and action occur when they just didn't need to. :P
3D films have been a passing fad ever since the concept was first thought of.
mac
I went into it with reduced expectations (and a few drinks down the hatch), so it wasn't dreadfully upsetting. But I don't remember any scene from the book that was actually included in the film, which Jackson did not in some measure mess up. It was mostly his misrepresentation of the characters and their motives and interactions that got me. It was a prequel, which the book never was, and suffered from the same Sequelitis (or Prequelitis) that most film (and book) follow-ons suffer from.
I went into it with reduced expectations (and a few drinks down the hatch), so it wasn't dreadfully upsetting. But I don't remember any scene from the book that was actually included in the film, which Jackson did not in some measure mess up. It was mostly his misrepresentation of the characters and their motives and interactions that got me. It was a prequel, which the book never was, and suffered from the same Sequelitis (or Prequelitis) that most film (and book) follow-ons suffer from.
For me, I consider the fact that Tolkien didn't originally intend The Hobbit to be part of his legendarium--it got retrofitted in the LotR appendices--so I don't mind some of the minor changes that make the tone more cohesive with the tone of LotR. For example, I'm very grateful Jackson didn't include the singing Elves in Rivendell. I am, however, glad he kept "Blunt the Knives"... :P
For me, I consider the fact that Tolkien didn't originally intend The Hobbit to be part of his legendarium--it got retrofitted in the LotR appendices--so I don't mind some of the minor changes that make the tone more cohesive with the tone of LotR. For example, I'm very grateful Jackson didn't include the singing Elves in Rivendell. I am, however, glad he kept "Blunt the Knives"... :P
What!? No, "Tra-la-la-la-lally? :roll:
Not from Lord Elrond and his kin, thank you. Legolas can make up for it, if he likes. :P