|
On June 26 2011 08:38 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2011 08:36 ZiegFeld wrote:On June 26 2011 08:21 Thorakh wrote:Damn I can't wait so long for the movies to come out  If they stay true to the story this time and don't fuck things up with bad actors (*cough* Merrin and Pippin and Aragorn *cough*) this could turn out to be fantastic. The Necromancer gets a speaking role? Wasn't he just referred to by Gandalf and people in the book, and never actually featured in the story? And wasn't the Necromancer actually Sauron? Yeah, the Necromancer was Sauron. ...Bad actors? How so, I thought they were great. Aragorn was really bland and just mumbled the whole time and Merrin and Pippin made me want to stab my eyes out with their over the top bad acting.
Aragorn was fine, imo. Merry/Pippen were there just for comic relief, aka, over-the-top ridiculousness, so them acting retarded didn't bother me in the least. I am an avid fan of the series, and read the books before I watched any of the movies, and I definitely can't understand all you, "OMG THEY MURDERED THE SERIES!!!! STOP PJ FROM RUINING ANOTHER GREAT BOOK!!!!!!!! LESS ACTION MORE TOM BOMBADIL SINGING!!! STORY!!! OMG!!!" people.
I think they did an amazing job with the series considering how massive the story is, and seeing as how the movies are only about 9-10 hours total including the extended versions. Every time I see stuff like that, and people wanting to see the cleansing of the Shire and such at the end of RotK....I just want to facepalm. The movie was 3.5 hours long as it was, and the storyline they went with still felt rather sparse.......and you want to add another hour onto the movie? And a rather anticlimactic hour at that.
|
Zurich15325 Posts
Didn't they have the cleansing of the Shire or do I remember the movies wrong?
I agree the adaptation was very very good overall. Except for Gimli. I won't forgive them making my favorite character a retarded clown.
|
On June 27 2011 21:15 zatic wrote:
Didn't they have the cleansing of the Shire or do I remember the movies wrong?
...
No, they left that part out. Saruman was killed by Wormtungue in Orthanc instead of throwing the palantir at him.
|
On June 27 2011 21:15 zatic wrote:
Didn't they have the cleansing of the Shire or do I remember the movies wrong?
I agree the adaptation was very very good overall. Except for Gimli. I won't forgive them making my favorite character a retarded clown.
They showed a scene of the shire being burned briefly by the Palantir but didn't make it clear if it was the corruption of Sauron trying to twist the power of the Palantir that caused this or if it was actually happening. But, in general, the movies stepped neatly around it by having Saruman killed in Orthanc.
Something to keep in mind is that the Shire was being pillaged at Saruman's behest despite him not being there, so even if he wasn't there for a final confrontation in the Shire it still could have been under attack by him.
|
as long as they show me some arguing baddies turn to stone , some kick ass eagles , a mountain side murky hole in which bilbo is clambering about until finding some shiny , some dark woodz , some treasure, some smaug, some arrow shootin bard , then ill be satisfied. thats all im asking for here. the production and peter jackson have already done extremely well at JAMMING so much content into the trilogy, though they may have adjusted and left out certain transitions and events for length, and well, overall impossibility of putting it all in. I dont expect to be disappointed, and with the HUGEmongous box office and dvd$$$ i dont foresee it not to be a worthy and as expected, over the top, production. <--- (double nergative)
|
On June 27 2011 20:32 SpeCiaL.. wrote:
honestly peter jackson will probably massacre the hobbit the same way as he massacred the LOTR trilogy, the only good one from that was the 1st movie.
Seriously what a load of crap, I've read the Hobit 2x, LOTR 3x times and made an entire movie dedicated to the silmarillion so I know the lore and I can honestly say that the LOTR movies were great. People who say otherwise are just begging to get attention. Of course its not perfect and things were cut, that's what you get when you turn a book into a movie. Compare other adaption (f.e. Harry Potter) and you can't deny how superior LOTR was in every single way. If you're not convicend by this argument go watch the 'making off' bonus on the extended edition version. The effort and detail that is put in this movie is just amazing. So saying the movies were bad is just ludicrous.
|
On June 27 2011 20:48 Cokefreak wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 20:32 SpeCiaL.. wrote:
honestly peter jackson will probably massacre the hobbit the same way as he massacred the LOTR trilogy, the only good one from that was the 1st movie. I did like all of them, but I have to agree, only the first was good, TT and RotK were way too focused on the massive battles at the expense of the story :/
Massives battles were, after all, what prevented an earlier movie. They tried once before but didn't manage to get the third episode out.
Jackson's innovation was the software MASSIVE capable of generating... massive battles. No wonder they used it extensively.
|
i see people every once in a while complain about the movies, but no one really gives a good reason why. can anyone give me some good reasons?
(please dont mention Tom Bombadil. that side story was completely pointless and very corny. it was, in fact, my least favorite part of the entire series and I read the books long before the movies came out)
|
Tbh PJ and his crew did an amazing job with the LOTR films. Sure there are plenty of stuff that could have been better and I also hate the fact that its a kids movie with to much joke and messing around. I wanted it darker and more serious.
BUT lets be real here. A project this massive has to make money, and then you cant turn down the key audience, you just cant.
And LOTR is a 1500page story that to alot of people are just plain boring because its to long, to many parts are just walking, running or freaking singing.
how are you supposed to get that much details into 3 movies? PJ had to have a focus and he had to be able to tell the story to people who had not read the books. And so anything that does not really bring the story of the ring closer to mordor, that just had to go.
Can anyone tell me what purpose the chapter of Tom Bombadil fill? Sure to fans yes, but honestly, what super important things got lost in the movies due to Tom not being in the movie? Yes thats correct nothing. Tom is an amazing chapter but tbh its more of a sidestory that does not really play any part in the real journey towords mount doom.
Same goes for alot of other stuff that got cut out.
|
On June 27 2011 21:51 Supamang wrote:
i see people every once in a while complain about the movies, but no one really gives a good reason why. can anyone give me some good reasons?
I love the movies, but it's not hard to find things to complain about. Some examples:
Too much focus on boring human characters in TTT and ROTK. They could have easily fit the Scouring of the Shire by giving some of the human characters less screen time (including Aragorn). Denethor was a total waste of character.
Poor presentation of some major story elements. For example in ROTK, the heroes are camping at some arbitrary place when they suddently see a hole in a rock. They enter the hole and find a cave full of ghosts that decide to join the heroes. The green ghosts float over the enemy army to auto-defeat it. WTF? I don't exactly remember if the books had the same problem, but I don't think the presentation was quite that poor.
Occasional cringeworthy dialog and poorly done action sequences (can't think of a specific example right now.... well, Legolas surfing, for example).
|
On June 27 2011 21:51 Supamang wrote:
i see people every once in a while complain about the movies, but no one really gives a good reason why. can anyone give me some good reasons?
(please dont mention Tom Bombadil. that side story was completely pointless and very corny. it was, in fact, my least favorite part of the entire series and I read the books long before the movies came out)
Because it's not a perfect adaption which contains all things. You mentioned Bombadil.
From the top of my head just from the beginning (until leaving for the Old Forest):
Random timeframe between the birthday party & Frodo leaving the shire (it's years in the book). Preperation of the journey (selling Bag End to the Sackville-Bagginses), Journey to Buckland (and some stuff on the way, like meeting the elves). Farmer Maggot & his dogs. Stuff happening at Crickhollow.
There's a lot of deviation from the books. I personally dont care, and I see that a movie adaptation needs to change things (or it would be a boring & bad movie) - but purists might be offended. It's basically a hardcore vs casual debate topic.
I personally liked the movies though - my only problem is that Gimli got the comic relief part, while he was an equal to Legolas in the books.
It was a good movie & a good adaption. But not a perfect adaption 
|
On June 27 2011 22:16 Zocat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 21:51 Supamang wrote:
i see people every once in a while complain about the movies, but no one really gives a good reason why. can anyone give me some good reasons?
(please dont mention Tom Bombadil. that side story was completely pointless and very corny. it was, in fact, my least favorite part of the entire series and I read the books long before the movies came out) Because it's not a perfect adaption which contains all things. You mentioned Bombadil. From the top of my head just from the beginning (until leaving for the Old Forest): Random timeframe between the birthday party & Frodo leaving the shire (it's years in the book). Preperation of the journey (selling Bag End to the Sackville-Bagginses), Journey to Buckland (and some stuff on the way, like meeting the elves). Farmer Maggot & his dogs. Stuff happening at Crickhollow. There's a lot of deviation from the books. I personally dont care, and I see that a movie adaptation needs to change things (or it would be a boring & bad movie) - but purists might be offended. It's basically a hardcore vs casual debate topic. I personally liked the movies though - my only problem is that Gimli got the comic relief part, while he was an equal to Legolas in the books. It was a good movie & a good adaption. But not a perfect adaption
A perfect adaption would be 30 hours long.
|
On June 26 2011 08:38 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2011 08:36 ZiegFeld wrote:On June 26 2011 08:21 Thorakh wrote:Damn I can't wait so long for the movies to come out If they stay true to the story this time and don't fuck things up with bad actors (*cough* Merrin and Pippin and Aragorn *cough*) this could turn out to be fantastic. The Necromancer gets a speaking role? Wasn't he just referred to by Gandalf and people in the book, and never actually featured in the story? And wasn't the Necromancer actually Sauron? Yeah, the Necromancer was Sauron. ...Bad actors? How so, I thought they were great. Aragorn was really bland and just mumbled the whole time and Merrin and Pippin made me want to stab my eyes out with their over the top bad acting.
you sir are crazy
|
So, inspired by this thread and the eventually to be released movie: The Hobbit, I shall once again attempt to read Tolkien. Ive tried before but failed miserably, it just takes too long to get going for my immature and impatient nature to handle. I loved the previous movies and they are the only movies I own (the extended versions with the documentaries). I was most impressed by the passion and methods with which the movies was made.
Now I ask you, is there a "softer landing" to Tolkien than the trilogy? Should I first read The Hobbit?
Also, has anyone here read Kalevala (due to Tolkien)?
|
On June 27 2011 21:37 Mithrandror wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 20:32 SpeCiaL.. wrote:
honestly peter jackson will probably massacre the hobbit the same way as he massacred the LOTR trilogy, the only good one from that was the 1st movie. Seriously what a load of crap, I've read the Hobit 2x, LOTR 3x times and made an entire movie dedicated to the silmarillion so I know the lore and I can honestly say that the LOTR movies were great. People who say otherwise are just begging to get attention. Of course its not perfect and things were cut, that's what you get when you turn a book into a movie. Compare other adaption (f.e. Harry Potter) and you can't deny how superior LOTR was in every single way. If you're not convicend by this argument go watch the 'making off' bonus on the extended edition version. The effort and detail that is put in this movie is just amazing. So saying the movies were bad is just ludicrous.
100% agree, I have issues with the movies sure (most of them revolving around the amount of time spent on Arwyn as well as how Faramir was portrayed), but they were a blast to watch and I thought they caught a lot of what made LOTR so great for me. I have never seen a movie take so much care creating the world of the movie, such that everything felt like it belonged there instead of springing out of of nowhere. This ability was also what endeared me to the books, and to Tolkien's approach to the Middle Earth mythos as well.
|
On June 27 2011 22:12 okum wrote:
I love the movies, but it's not hard to find things to complain about. Some examples:
Too much focus on boring human characters in TTT and ROTK. They could have easily fit the Scouring of the Shire by giving some of the human characters less screen time (including Aragorn). Denethor was a total waste of character.
Poor presentation of some major story elements. For example in ROTK, the heroes are camping at some arbitrary place when they suddently see a hole in a rock. They enter the hole and find a cave full of ghosts that decide to join the heroes. The green ghosts float over the enemy army to auto-defeat it. WTF? I don't exactly remember if the books had the same problem, but I don't think the presentation was quite that poor.
Occasional cringeworthy dialog and poorly done action sequences (can't think of a specific example right now.... well, Legolas surfing, for example).
What the hell? Do you even know what you're talking about? The LOTR story is about the age of men washing away the prior ages of Elves, Wizards, etc... Denethor's intransigence in the face of man's greatest hour of need and his attitude of throwing away what was left of the kingdom of Numenor simply because he felt slighted by Aragorn's ancestors was essential to the story of Minas Tirith.
And I won't even go into the ghosts of the men of the hills, because you must have missed that chapter of the book.
|
Nice that theyre improving the frame rate. That being said I think that unless you watch it on your computer the TV is most going to be a bottle neck anyway. Not to speak of the cinemas.
|
On June 27 2011 22:38 Jampackedeon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 22:12 okum wrote:
I love the movies, but it's not hard to find things to complain about. Some examples:
Too much focus on boring human characters in TTT and ROTK. They could have easily fit the Scouring of the Shire by giving some of the human characters less screen time (including Aragorn). Denethor was a total waste of character.
Poor presentation of some major story elements. For example in ROTK, the heroes are camping at some arbitrary place when they suddently see a hole in a rock. They enter the hole and find a cave full of ghosts that decide to join the heroes. The green ghosts float over the enemy army to auto-defeat it. WTF? I don't exactly remember if the books had the same problem, but I don't think the presentation was quite that poor.
Occasional cringeworthy dialog and poorly done action sequences (can't think of a specific example right now.... well, Legolas surfing, for example). What the hell? Do you even know what you're talking about? The LOTR story is about the age of men washing away the prior ages of Elves, Wizards, etc... Denethor's intransigence in the face of man's greatest hour of need and his attitude of throwing away what was left of the kingdom of Numenor simply because he felt slighted by Aragorn's ancestors was essential to the story of Minas Tirith.
Sure. It's just one aspect of the story that the movies did a relatively poor job reflecting (with characters such as Denethor being done poorly).
And I won't even go into the ghosts of the men of the hills, because you must have missed that chapter of the book.
I don't think I did when I read the book, although it's too long ago to remember. My point is that the movie did a poor job turning this into whatever part of the story it was supposed to be (or failing to do so, it should have left it out). Even Peter Jackson hated the ghost army thing... so I don't think I'm alone on that one.
Quoth Wikipedia:
According to a magazine article, Peter Jackson hated the Dead Men; he thought it was too unbelievable. He kept it in the script because he did not wish to disappoint diehard fans of the books. Nevertheless, he expanded their use as a deus ex machina, and CNN.com criticized his use of the Dead Men as such.[2]
[2] "This spectacular whirlwind of CGI, distorted sound and awesome scale [Battle of the Pelennor Fields] stunned audiences, and was rightly hailed as a movie milestone. Then it all goes horribly wrong. ...the staunch resistance of the Men of Gondor and the Rohirrim's endeavors on the battlefield are all rendered utterly pointless when the Army of the Dead swoop in at the end. Couldn't they have turned up a bit earlier? An oversimplified cop out."
|
On June 27 2011 22:57 okum wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 22:38 Jampackedeon wrote:On June 27 2011 22:12 okum wrote:
I love the movies, but it's not hard to find things to complain about. Some examples:
Too much focus on boring human characters in TTT and ROTK. They could have easily fit the Scouring of the Shire by giving some of the human characters less screen time (including Aragorn). Denethor was a total waste of character.
Poor presentation of some major story elements. For example in ROTK, the heroes are camping at some arbitrary place when they suddently see a hole in a rock. They enter the hole and find a cave full of ghosts that decide to join the heroes. The green ghosts float over the enemy army to auto-defeat it. WTF? I don't exactly remember if the books had the same problem, but I don't think the presentation was quite that poor.
Occasional cringeworthy dialog and poorly done action sequences (can't think of a specific example right now.... well, Legolas surfing, for example). What the hell? Do you even know what you're talking about? The LOTR story is about the age of men washing away the prior ages of Elves, Wizards, etc... Denethor's intransigence in the face of man's greatest hour of need and his attitude of throwing away what was left of the kingdom of Numenor simply because he felt slighted by Aragorn's ancestors was essential to the story of Minas Tirith. Sure. It's just one aspect of the story that the movies did a relatively poor job reflecting (with characters such as Denethor being done poorly). Show nested quote +And I won't even go into the ghosts of the men of the hills, because you must have missed that chapter of the book. I don't think I did when I read the book, although it's too long ago to remember. My point is that the movie did a poor job turning this into whatever part of the story it was supposed to be (or failing to do so, it should have left it out). Even Peter Jackson hated the ghost army thing... so I don't think I'm alone on that one. Quoth Wikipedia: Show nested quote +According to a magazine article, Peter Jackson hated the Dead Men; he thought it was too unbelievable. He kept it in the script because he did not wish to disappoint diehard fans of the books. Nevertheless, he expanded their use as a deus ex machina, and CNN.com criticized his use of the Dead Men as such.[2]
[2] "This spectacular whirlwind of CGI, distorted sound and awesome scale [Battle of the Pelennor Fields] stunned audiences, and was rightly hailed as a movie milestone. Then it all goes horribly wrong. ...the staunch resistance of the Men of Gondor and the Rohirrim's endeavors on the battlefield are all rendered utterly pointless when the Army of the Dead swoop in at the end. Couldn't they have turned up a bit earlier? An oversimplified cop out."
So....lets get this straight. You're criticizing the movies for not portraying certain aspects of the story well, while simultaneously admitting you don't even remember a major part of the story in the books.
I'll go out on a limb here, and say your opinion is pretty irrelevant.
|
On June 27 2011 21:51 Supamang wrote:
i see people every once in a while complain about the movies, but no one really gives a good reason why. can anyone give me some good reasons?
(please dont mention Tom Bombadil. that side story was completely pointless and very corny. it was, in fact, my least favorite part of the entire series and I read the books long before the movies came out)
All in all I think they did a great job, but these are the complaints I have:
The portrayal of Gimli and Legolas in movies 2 and 3. They're funny in the books too at times, but Jackson pretty much reduced them to comic relief.
The huge amount of battles in 2 and 3. Of course the battles have to be an important part of the last 2 movies, but they seemed to try to fit in every battle they possibly could. Besides showing the battles they had to (Helm's Deep, Pelennor fields, Isengard and battle before the black gate) in extreme detail, they fitted in a battle that's described only very briefly in the book (the one where Faramir's company attacks the Southrons in Ithilien) and even altered the story so they could show the battle at Osgiliath, which isn't described at all in the book. They could've had much more time to develop the story, explain Denethor's story better for example or even include the scouring of the shire if they just hadn't been so fixated on having half the movie be some battle.
Faramir's story. This might be my biggest complaint, I think it's absolutely appalling how much they botched Faramir's character. Whereas in the books, he's an extremely interesting character and the story of how contrary to his brother, he's able to resist the temptation of the ring, in the movies he randomly drags Frodo back to Osgiliath, then even more randomly decides to let him go after all. It just makes no sense and the only possible reason is that it allows them to show the battle for Osgiliath.
The grey havens. I realise it's hard to show the significance of the end of the book and Frodo and all the rest departing in the movie, but I feel like it would've been worth it to sacrifice some of the more useless scenes (ie. battles) to make it clearer to the audience who hasn't read the books why exactly Frodo's going away and where they're going.
Those are my biggest complaints. Some others would be the Nazgul in the journey to Isengard (in the books they're a subtle and constant fear looming over the Hobbits, nourished more by their absence than anything, while in the films they feel more like normal dudes with swords and horses) and overuse of special effects (wtf was that Legolas running around the Oliphaunt thingy?).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
