The reasons you mentioned here are the same reasons I *HATED* the LOTR movies and why I probably won't be seeing these movies for years until they show up on netflix and I've got an extra 10 hours of so to kill. I hated the additions. Ok, you gotta leave Tom Bombadil out? Fine. But you have to swap out Gildor for Arwen because you want a strong female in the movie? Was Galadriel not enough? Eowyn? She kills the fucking Witch King of Angmar! Or the scene in in the Two Towers where Aragorn gets thrown off the cliff with the warg, and struggles and doubts himself? What the fuck? He's the motherfucking king of men! The greatest huntsman and Ranger in Middle Earth the heir of Isiuldur and descended from the blood of Numenor! There's not a point in the books where he's nothing short of incredible, he may doubt himself briefly when Gandalf falls in Moria, but he is a man on a mission, to prove his worth to his future Father in-Law! And until Narsil is reforged, he doesn't draw his sword to fight once. And what was up with the Elves arriving at Helms Deep to save the refugees of Rohan? I always thought that whole battle was symbolic of Age itself- the point where Mankind lives or dies. They have to prove themselves as a race, and it's Aragorn's first (in the books) moment that he unveils his power as the leader of free men. And the do Ents help, once they finish sacking Isengard, but they essentially just clean up the Orcs after their spirits have been defeated by the humans at Helms Deep. And the Third movie. My gosh. Faramir. Faramir is so, *so* off character-wise from his book version. He doesn't take Frodo and Sam to Minas Tirith to stand before Denethor. He understands Frodo and Sam's plight and is sympathetic. He is man not unlike Aragorn, not as noble but, Tolkein says that the blood of Numenor flows through him too. He says that if the thing he (Frodo) carries was on the side of the road, I would not pick it up. He knows the ring corrupted his brother, and it will corrupt anyone who uses it, and must be destroyed. He understands that Frodo must be the the one to do it, and helps him by giving him advice and provisions. Then you have the whole bit where Aragorn and the Representatives of the Free races of Middle Earth March to Black gate of Mordor, to keep Sauron distracted and his attention away from his own land while Frodo and Sam make the final trek to Mount Doom... I understand for pacing issues they need to speed it up for the movie, but in the Book it takes *WEEKS* for Frodo and Sam to get to Mount Doom, and *WEEKS* for the Host to reach the Black Gate; but in the movie? yeah everyone is where they need to be in like an afternoon... whatever. So yeah, I hate what Peter Jackson has done to my favorite books. mr. Jackson is great at visuals, I can't fault the man there, but the changes to what is considered some of the greatest works of Fiction in the 20th century are ridiculous and unnecessary. Nerd rage rant over.
Just to peeve Phil, I'll say I thought the LotR novels were drawn out and most definitely not amongst the best fiction of the 20th century. Never quite understood the appeal even though I was a huge d&d nerd. But yeah, I can understand it's frustrating when they change stuff for no good reason (I'd do a similar speech for GoT). SPOILERS Just watched the Hobbit, which was entertaining enough but had indeed plenty of weird, useless scenes. Can someone (Phil?) refresh my memory though: in the book, is there a reason why Gandalf doesn't call the eagles right from the get-go? And why he only uses his magic ooooonce in a while, even when the situation seems desperate? Loved the Oblivion trailer...
D&D would not be what it is without Tolkien nor countless other fantasy imaginings. Keep in mind that in 1937 the classic fantasy narrative was not the well beaten rug it is today. Tolkien created a rich tapestry and engrossing world imagining races of humanoids from the ground up paying huge attention to language, geneology and interplay between species while giving substance to the thoughts of classic fantasy staples (elves, goblins etc.). Even if you don't like the books it would be silly to downplay their place in the pantheon of fantasy literature. Gandalf doesn't call an eagle taxi to get them to the mountain because that would be a really shitty story and the eagles are noble beings that Gandalf would never consider bringing down to the level of a horse. They may have been willing to help a friend in need but not to be beasts of burden. It may have been answered at some point but I always assumed gandalf to be a genrally competent adventurer with a respect and restraint towards magic that reenforces his general image as a wise man with an awe for the nature of things. I also thought it gave the sense that powerfull magic was not something thrown around lightly or for mundane purposes even by powerful wizards. Is that enough nerd rage for yah?
There was a shot of Thorin that was all about Boris Vallejo. First look at Rivendell, landscape by Maxfield Parrish. Goblin caves: Piranesi meets Breugel. Art chops galore in this one. That was awesome. I'm enjoying the negative criticisms as much as the positive ones, but yours takes the cake for serious Tolkien geekdom. I salute you with [insert High Elvish sword name here.]
It's 2012, CGI is here to stay, and as someone said above, good CGI is something you will never notice. 90% of the genre films and TV shows we enjoy would never be made if the technology didn't exist in the capacity it does today. They would take too much time and money to do it with practical effects, and the results are sometimes pretty awful. Compare the effects of the Star Trek: TNG films with the recent 2009 one. No comparison. That said, I thoroughly enjoyed The Hobbit but I think it fails at being true to the source material in terms of tone and scope. The movie spends too much time laying groundwork for LOTR and it's not as light-hearted as it should be. The book is supposed to be the entry point for a 12 year old kid to the world of Middle Earth. This movie doesn't carry the same spirit. Will definitely see the other two, though.
I always assumed they simply did this to get Liv Tyler into the movie sooner. Not that this is a valid reason either. This I took to be for the ladies, as Ali G would put it "they do that to make me more accessible. Which means you girls think I will knob you, even if you is a minger." Again, not a great reason. I'm not sure why I wasn't as bothered by the changes in the LOTR although I certainly noticed them and winced on more than one occasion. I think perhaps I was happy it wasn't more bastardized. When I heard he was doing The Hobbit though I thought with such a short book he could simply let the story stand on its own legs. I would rather have seen a two installment movie that stayed true to the book. Of course, no one cares what I think.
Watched the film and loved nearly every minute. I thought it captured the spirit and levity of the book so well while integrating relevant stories from other parts of the Tolkien library. The pacing was excellent, and the balance of humor and grit was fantastic. And it was so beautifully shot. As an added bonus, it was kind of nice not knowing what would happen next, since so much background material from hither and yonder was added. I imagine Prof. J.R.R. would have really enjoyed this first installment.
A friend who got the Blu-ray edition of the Lord of the Rings trilogy said there were bits of new dialogue referencing the Hobbit films inserted into the movies...
Hm, if that's true, it seems awfully ... Lucas-y. On the other hand, even Tolkien made some tweaks along the way to present a more cohesive Middle Earth.
Thanks for bringing this up. Among other changes, Tolkien actually rewrote Gollum's riddle scene in the late 30s. In the original version, he voluntarily offers up the ring and loses gracefully. If changing that isn't along the lines of "Greedo fired first," I don't know what is, but for some reason Tolkien always gets a pass while Lucas gets roasted. In the 60s, Tolkien was set to rewrite the entire book from scratch to match the tone of LOTR but ultimately dropped it. Maybe that's what Del Toro and Jackson ended up doing with these films.
A few random thoughts. (Spoiler alert, although by this point the thread is full of 'em.) When Bilbo re-appears to the Dwarves after his encounter with Gollum, Gandalf gives him a look that appears to indicate that he knows Bilbo has the ring, or at least something better left unsaid for now. Anyone else get that impression? I liked that despite the fact that Sauruman "isn't evil yet," he is depicted as being a bit clueless (whereas by contrast Galadriel's second sight makes her appear as wise as Gandalf.) Get ready to groan: Sauruman's inability to accept the Necromancer as a real threat is sort of like how Jar-Jar's naive stupidity contributed to the rise of the evil Empire. Or, maybe he *is* aware, and plays it down by brushing off Radagast as a shroom-head. Some have said that the depiction of Radagast makes him the Jar-Jar of The Hobbit. I felt a bit that way on first viewing, but on second realized that he presents a good contrast, wizard-wise, and is clearly in keeping with Tolkien's deep love of nature and Jackson's spirit of silliness. When the trilogy is finished, Radagast's warnings re: the evil in the forest and at Dol Guldur will make more sense, and audiences will think better of him. The brief shot of Bilbo approaching the Shards of Narsil in the trailer isn't in the movie. DVD extra!
Oh I would never dream of his denying LotR's legacy. It is also, as you mention, very thorough. But, as with so many classics, that's where its real genius is. As far as being an actual well-written, interesting book... I agree that story-wise, these things are necessary. But you know. They still don't make much sense. My disbelief is not easily suspended. And I'm not alone: the crowd at the theatre seemed to enjoy the movie, but there was a load groan and sniggering when that whole "it happens to be the very night you need for the map to be revealed" scene took place.
In the book, it's possible to read the eagles scene a number of ways, but it might be suggested that Gandalf had attracted them. He intentionally climbs to the top of the tree he's in, where "splendor" radiates from his "wand," possibly a signal to the eagles. Immediately upon their appearance, Tolkien writes "Loud cried the Lord of the Eagles, to whom Gandalf had now spoken." What I remember most about that scene (in the book) is it was one of the rare times when Gandalf is described as being actually afraid, although he hides it. Nothing about a moth courier, though.
I'm a big OG Star Wars trilogy fan (let's face it - it was our Ovaltine), but suggesting that Lucas belongs on the same playing field as Tolkien, or for that matter Asimov, Roddenberry, or the other literary or pop SF/fantasy greats just seems wrong. Very, very wrong.
I never compared Lucas to Asimov or Roddenberry. And some people would take issue with you putting those latter two in the same sentence with one another. Science fiction and fantasy are two different things. Lord of the Rings is the genre-defining modern fantasy tale, and was certainly an influence on Lucas when he created Star Wars, which may have SF underpinnings but is, at its heart, a fantasy. There's no real difference between magic and The Force, especially when Lucas hammered home in the prequels that you need to be noble-born in order to use it well. In a fantasy story I can accept that there are higher powers at work making sure that things turn out a certain way. Eru Iluvatar (Middle Earth's supreme being) was actively influencing things so that Bilbo would end up with the ring. The dwarves arrived on just the right night to read the map, otherwise they wouldn't have taken the path they did at the time they did, and Bilbo wouldn't have encountered Gollum at just the right time to see the ring fall out of his pocket, etc., etc. Star Wars is pretty much the same way. It's a good thing that those imperial gunners didn't blow up that escape pod with the droids in it. ("What, do we get paid by the laser or something?") It was also a good thing that Ben Kenobi happened to be in the right place at the right time to scare off the Tusken Raiders. Good thing that Han showed up at just the right moment on Hoth before Luke froze to death. The list goes on.
The well written part is sure to get you into arguments with many a bibliophile but as for interesting, everyone must decide for themselves. I think you would find it hard to name a full size fictional book that did not rely on many coincidences aligning correctly for the story to progress as it does. Most epic tales involve such events of being in the right place at the right time as Roger points out, divine intervention involved or not.
For my part, I didn't really mean to make that sort of comparison. The references were strictly intended in terms of the movies and what people have said about them. I just sort of ran with the prequel comparisons I've encountered elsewhere. Probably shouldn't have gone there. In my own life, Tolkien was a huge imaginative influence at a young age, as was the first Star Wars film, but there's no question that the Middle Earth saga has the greater literary gravitas, and for good reason ... it's based on linguistic scholarship and a thorough understanding of many European mythologies. Originally, Star Wars seemed more about quoting old movies than trying to represent a grand mythos with deep resonance. It wasn't really until Lucas hooked up with Joseph Campbell that he started talking about the Star Wars universe in such high-falutin terms, not that there's anything wrong with it. For what it's worth, the moon runes bit was also in the book. Yes, it seemed a bit abrupt in the movie, so I can understand why anyone not familiar with the source material might find it snigger-worthy, but let's not forget that book is full of unbelievable things and plenty of intentionally corny moments.
Haha, well LoTR is one of those things I truly love, and so many things I love have been sullied by people trying to reinvent the wheel or fix something that wasn't broke. Lucas ruined Star Wars for me, Michael Bay ruined Transformers... I refuse to go quietly as Peter Jackson attempts to "improve" on something that doesn't necessarily need improvement.
I liked the movie a lot just as a movie goer. never read the book though but hated the cartoon when I was a kid. The CG was indeed shit however in certain scenes. I'm assuming that was what the 48fps stuff was all about. I do wanna live in the shire, that's for sure!
