|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Tenth Walker
The Shire
Jun 24 2013, 2:59am
Post #1 of 78
(2121 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Support for Sir Peter Jackson
|
Can't Post
|
|
Greetings to all,
The purpose of this post is to get something off my chest. What has been annoying me all this time is how people rip into Sir Peter Jackson & crew for doing what they have in making the “Lord of the Rings” & “The Hobbit” films. Putting aside my personal opinion of the films (I LOVE them); I still don’t understand why there is so much animosity about this subject.
The main reason that people object to the films seems to be that they are not “Tolkien” enough. For heaven’s sake it is impossible to exactly render a book into a film. Tolkien himself (as was shown in a recent article on TORN) was quite happy for changes to be made to his books in order to make them into films. He even suggested taking out Helms Deep! If the great man himself was happy with changes why should we be any different? Anyhow, Peter Jackson never claims to be Tolkien, he has made it quite clear that his films are simply an “interpretation” of Tolkien’s books. If you want to have “real” Tolkien just go to your nearest bookstore and buy Tolkien’s books. Furthermore, has anyone stopped to think what great good Peter Jackson has done Tolkien? You go to any bookstore and you will find new editions of Tolkien’s books in a prominent place. Bookstore owners wouldn't do that if Tolkien’s books weren't selling like hotcakes. More people are reading Tolkien’s work now than ever before. Why? Because Peter Jackson has introduced people to the world of Tolkien and he has given them an abiding love for the “Tolkien world”. Has anyone else done that? My belief is that if Tolkien himself were alive he would be very grateful to Peter Jackson & crew. J.R.R. Tolkien was not as short-sighted and narrow-minded as some other people seem to be.
Don’t get me wrong, I love debates; I have them all the time with my family. I just can’t stand how some people get really nasty and call Peter Jackson & crew every name under the sun simply for making some films. For an example I once read a comment (NOT on TORN) that the only reason Peter Jackson made “The Hobbit” was to get lots and lots of money, and to feed his enormous ego!! I am a lover of Tolkien’s work myself, after having first read the entire “The Lord of the Rings” at the age of seven. Since then I have delved deeper into Tolkien’s work, and I love what he has done. I also love what Peter Jackson has done, I have great confidence in his ability as a film-maker, director, and screen- writer, and I simply can’t wait for the next two films to come out. j
I hope I haven’t offended anyone, these comments are not meant to be taken personally. I just believe Peter Jackson – Tolkien fans need to rally around and give them the support they deserve.
Signed: The Tenth Walker
(This post was edited by Altaira on Jun 24 2013, 4:35am)
|
|
|
Galasriniel
Registered User
Jun 24 2013, 3:07am
Post #2 of 78
(1055 views)
Shortcut
|
I have been skimming (or not looking at) many of the threads lately because I am sick of all of the complaints about things being "non-canon". I love the books, but I also love the movies and personally do not see anything wrong with the changes made. I wish people would be more open minded to differences between the books and films! Many are automatically writing off changes as a detriment to the films without waiting to see how the changes play out in the trilogy as a whole. Sir Peter Jackson gave us a great film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings - why shouldn't we support and trust him now?
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jun 24 2013, 3:21am
Post #3 of 78
(1062 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I admire PJ for having a vision and sticking with it.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
He said from the start that he was making his version of LOTR (and by extension The Hobbit) because making the definitive film is impossible given that fans each have their own version of the story in their heads.
However, we do encourage people to discuss what they like and dislike about the movies; our only requirement is that they don't break our Terms of Service regarding criticising others, making people feel unwelcome and trying to drive people away. Where else are people going to discuss their disappointments and their celebrations than with other people who also understand Tolkien?
Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."
"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.
Ataahua's stories
(This post was edited by Ataahua on Jun 24 2013, 5:32am)
|
|
|
Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea
Jun 24 2013, 3:30am
Post #4 of 78
(1020 views)
Shortcut
|
I love everything about his adaptations. I love the look, the feel, the writing, the characters. I love and have enjoyed all of it. I give him total credit for doing what was said would never be done. For that it takes a strong vision and a lot of self confidence. He has both and I salute him.
As for the rest, well, I am confident enough in my enjoyment that no one else's opinion will ever spoil or ruin my enjoyment. I am in control of what I enjoy not someone else. Having said that, I do believe that hearing other opinions is a very good thing. As Iron sharpens iron so one man Sharpens another so the good Book says and I believe that to be true. Sometimes differing opinions, as long as they are not ad hominem can add context and help me consider things I have not in the past. Besides, a boring place indeed this would be if everyone thought the same. I enjoy all opinions as long as they aren't personal attacks.
Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13
|
|
|
Old Toby
Grey Havens
Jun 24 2013, 4:14am
Post #5 of 78
(1113 views)
Shortcut
|
|
As strongly worded as your post is
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I have to agree with your feelings. To me, comparing films to book is probably inevitable, but also probably pointless and there's no reason at all to start getting into personal attacks and disparaging remarks about the director, the artistic team, the writers, etc. That kind of reaction is not only presumptuous, but childish and rude. Fortunately, I think for the most part, posters here on these boards are smart enough to steer clear of those waters (although some come perilously close).
The way I see it, these films are a gift. I enjoy each and every one of them for what they bring to me, whether they follow Tolkien's canon or add embellishments of their own. This is someone else's vision, in this case, Peter Jackson's, and either you enjoy his vision or don't. And I do think that reading other people's opposing views can be very enlightening, and we need to encourage this type of discussion. The one thing I just cannot fathom however, is why people who have strong dislikes for this first film still will be going to see the next two. We will have the same writers, the same director, the same cast, the same creative team, so....how in God's name would anyone expect things to be different? I can only surmise it's some sort of cinematic masochism. And we can only prepare ourselves for the predictable negative remarks that will ensue once the next film is out. And the next. I'm not talking about people giving critiques of the film, but those who go way beyond the call and who seem to have a need to hammer the nail in until it comes out the other side, if you get my meaning.
Ah, but I don't agree that ALL people object to the film for not being 'Tolkien enough'. Certainly here on these boards, which are for the most part populated with Tolkien geeks of one sort or another, that may hold true. But this first film received a lot of negative remarks from critics who, I'm pretty sure, have never even read The Hobbit. And it's funny (or actually...not funny) how they disliked the parts of the movie that us fans loved! Just goes to show ya....Anyway, the point is that people have judged AUJ by other standards than simply comparison to canon. Mostly, from what I remember, it was the 48fps that stuck in their throats. (Personally I was astounded and loved it! But hey, if you didn't like it that way, it was offered in the regular format, so I don't understand the beef.)
And yes, I think PJ's films have brought many to read Tolkien who would otherwise not have done so. And that, too, is a gift.
Okay. I've rambled on long enough. Thanks for the post Tenth Walker, and welcome to the passionate, crazy, frustrating, funny, irritating, and engaging boards of Torn! 
"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)
(This post was edited by Old Toby on Jun 24 2013, 4:19am)
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jun 24 2013, 4:26am
Post #6 of 78
(1023 views)
Shortcut
|
I can only surmise it's some sort of cinematic masochism.
... I think that's a great description of me seeing the third Matrix film, and the second and third prequel Star Wars movies. Based of the previous films I didn't expect these to be any good - but there I was, popcorn in hand, wilting hope in my geek-heart, watching the opening credits on the big screen...
Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."
"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.
Ataahua's stories
|
|
|
Tinkerbell
Lorien
Jun 24 2013, 4:54am
Post #7 of 78
(984 views)
Shortcut
|
Maybe with age i've become a bit of a cynic. Films I thought I enjoyed
in the past I view snippets presently, wondering what allured and endeared me to these
films. I think I might know now, though not sure. I think in the past, film said one thing,
and it was believed and felt in the connection with an audience. These days, many films
say the same things, and I now tend to say 'no,' it is 'not so.'
It matters little, I think...as long as i was entertained then. Yet, I think that's part of the art of
cinema is that it might try to prove certain aspects such as a message, sentiment or 'convincing' cgi, ect.
Proving seemingly elicits disprovers. a forceful 'it is' on the part of a film almost asks for an 'it is not'
from viewers. Thus, I think it's a careful balance that a film must maintain. I don't think you'd want to
close the minds of your audience. Are films capable of transporting and making one believe for the short
duration of the film? 
I go back and watch parts of lotr and, maybe i'm biased, this is a story i can follow 
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Buchanicus
Lorien
Jun 24 2013, 6:08am
Post #8 of 78
(905 views)
Shortcut
|
TORn member formally known as ryan1976.
|
|
|
Starling
Half-elven
Jun 24 2013, 6:11am
Post #9 of 78
(926 views)
Shortcut
|
"...wilting hope in my geek heart..."
I love it!
|
|
|
Old Toby
Grey Havens
Jun 24 2013, 6:32am
Post #10 of 78
(902 views)
Shortcut
|
|
yeah I think that's what it all comes down to in the end
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Whether or not a film entertains us, transports us and makes us believe for those few hours. And I, for one, definitely was transported and believed in every single one of these films, LOTR and AUJ, and can't wait to be transported once again. Beam me up, Mr. Scott! (oops, wrong movie)
"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)
(This post was edited by Old Toby on Jun 24 2013, 6:33am)
|
|
|
Yngwulff
Gondor
Jun 24 2013, 6:58am
Post #11 of 78
(894 views)
Shortcut
|
Giving PJ/PB the benfit of the doubt would certainly be in order here as we've only seen the 1st film, and theres a lot of movie left to be seen still. So judgements on a 2 min triler and 1 film out of 3 is really unfair until we get the complete picture as 99% of our ill forebodings are mainly conjecture and guesses at this point.
“I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.”
|
|
|
emre43
Rohan
Jun 24 2013, 7:25am
Post #12 of 78
(867 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Couldn't agree more The Tenth Walker
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I just lost the will to argue anymore.
|
|
|
emre43
Rohan
Jun 24 2013, 7:27am
Post #13 of 78
(870 views)
Shortcut
|
AUJ is only the 15th film ever to take $2 billion at the box office.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jun 24 2013, 8:00am
Post #14 of 78
(882 views)
Shortcut
|
Like you, I really enjoy AUJ and am looking forward to the next two.
We're lucky. Some people here and elsewhere didn't enjoy it, or were disappointed in some aspects of it and have criticisms that they want to air and discuss. Why not? Their response is as genuine as ours and it's interesting to hear it. It would be pretty boring if we all thought the same. The debate's fine - but like you, I find that sometimes the level of personal animosity - hatred, even - that gets directed particularly at Peter Jackson and Philippa Boyens (and sometimes by association at anyone who says they like the film) is unreasonable. Debate's fine; cynicism destroys. Just my view.
|
|
|
Yngwulff
Gondor
Jun 24 2013, 8:28am
Post #15 of 78
(833 views)
Shortcut
|
Things are not the same as they were 20 or even 10 years ago. More people, bigger theaters, larger world wide distribution of films, and inflation make it not a definative indicator of a films success in comparison with film releases from the past. What would Star Wars bring in today? 3 Billion??
I was referring to the naysayers on AUJ and PJ/PB's past performance with LOTR. I don't agree with all PJ/PB choices in AUJ, but I liked it and watched it on DVD again after seeing it at the theater. In as far as we have not seen the entire series yet, its kind of hard to compare it as a whole until we have and placed it side by side to the LOTR series with which it is being judged by as the standard. So far it has had all the major parts of the book, albeit tweaked a bit, but all there, and I believe that trend will continue through the next 2 films I don't think DOS or TABA will flop, but there is a minute possibilty that they could, hence, 'benefit of the doubt' no matter how large or small that percentage may be.
“I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.”
(This post was edited by Yngwulff on Jun 24 2013, 8:31am)
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Jun 24 2013, 8:45am
Post #16 of 78
(824 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree with you (what's new?)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I would certainly not direct criticism at PJ. My main gripe at the moment is at the inclusion of a made-up character in the next film, and the possibility of too much Legolas, both of which I feel could detrimentally affect the story and take away from the characters so well established in the first film, and/or prevent their further development.
However, when it comes to PJ, I think the man is a genius, and I'm incredibly grateful to him for giving me so much pleasure through his work. He seems to be genuinely enthusiastic about what he does, despite recognizing the need to be pragmatic. I also like the way he has always been able to interact with his films' enthusiasts, and connect with them.
I think what PJ has achieved with these films is simply incredible – though some seem to take it for granted. The level of skill needed to be able to produce these films is phenomenal, when you think about all the elements involved.
Just thought I'd add my bit of support.
Like you, I really enjoy AUJ and am looking forward to the next two.
The debate's fine - but like you, I find that sometimes the level of personal animosity - hatred, even - that gets directed particularly at Peter Jackson and Philippa Boyens (and sometimes by association at anyone who says they like the film) is unreasonable. Debate's fine; cynicism destroys. Just my view.
|
|
|
Kelvarhin
Half-elven
Jun 24 2013, 8:54am
Post #17 of 78
(820 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree too. It's fairly easy to discuss negatively without resorting to nastiness and discussing in this manner tends to encourage further discussion, whereas nastiness and name-calling tends to close it down.
I've seen evidence in my local bookstore of the impact the LOTR/Hobbit movies have had on JRRT's books. Before the films came out I would have to ask them to order any Tolkien book I wanted in, now I can find them on the shelves all the time. Personally I rejoice in this fact, I hope it continues for many years to come.
Bag ENZ Home of the Hobbit *with thanks to cameragod ;D*
 
One by one they faded, and fell into shadow...
One book to rule them all
One book to find them
One book to bring them all
And in TORn bind them
In the land of TORnadoes...where the brilliant play
|
|
|
elaen32
Gondor
Jun 24 2013, 9:06am
Post #18 of 78
(816 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Totally agree with all you say dormouse
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and with what TTW says. Discussion is good, personal attacks, whether on PJ or those who support him, is not. No film is going to replicate a book, or if it did, it would be a pretty bad film. It was PJ and co who had the courage and vision to embark on adapting these books for film. It certainly was not a sure fire money spinner when they were trying to sell their ideas to the studios and many thought they were mad to consider filming live action LOTR. Yes, the main people have become very rich on the back of these films, but I for one don't begrudge them that. For the naysayers, can you imagine the films being made by Disney, Spielberg or Lucas? But everyone has the right to dislike the films,of course, just not to pretend to know and then condemn the presumed motivations of others
"Beneath the roof of sleeping leaves the dreams of trees unfold"
(This post was edited by elaen32 on Jun 24 2013, 9:12am)
|
|
|
emre43
Rohan
Jun 24 2013, 10:46am
Post #19 of 78
(765 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Replying to my own post but that is supposed to say $1 billion not 2
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
Lindele
Gondor
Jun 24 2013, 12:37pm
Post #20 of 78
(750 views)
Shortcut
|
(written last December)
A VERY RESPECTABLE HOBBIT
As the box office numbers roll in and the world reacts to the first installment of The Hobbit trilogy, An Unexpected Journey, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about Peter Jackson, and why I believe that directing The Hobbit was one of the most noble and humble choices in the history of cinema. The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit trilogies were and are incredibly ambitious and risk heavy, and it took and continues to take a special kind of person to see them through.
Peter Jackson was born in New Zealand in 1961 and began making films at an early age. He had no formal training, and certainly did not go to film school. But through trial and error and sincere dedication he quickly created a name for himself in the splatter film genre. His passion was special effects, including prosthetics and make-up, and through this he was ultimately largely responsible for the creation of Weta Workshop and Weta Digital (the world renowned companies behind the special effects and visual effects of The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit). It wasn’t until the early 1990’s with films like Heavenly Creatures and The Frighteners that he started earning respect and recognition from Hollywood, and in 1994 Heavenly Creatures was nominated for best screenplay at the Academy Awards. The advances in Weta Digital’s visual effects led to Jackson and his team wanting to tackle something big; something in the fantasy genre that would be visual effects heavy, and thus The Lord of the Rings.
One of the most fascinating things about Peter Jackson as a filmmaker is the way in which he, instead of packing up and moving to Hollywood once he acquired recognition, stayed in New Zealand and built up a filmmaking empire around him. He wanted to continue to make films from the comfort of his own home, and nothing was going to stop him. Fortunately New Line Cinema (the studio behind The Lord of the Rings) was on board with this and was willing to take a risk on a relatively unknown filmmaker.
I doubt that Peter Jackson nor anybody else for that matter really understood how massive The Lord of the Rings was going to be, both from a production and commercial standpoint. But his dedication and unwavering attention to detail was ultimately responsible for one of the most successful film franchises of all time. Jackson dove in head first and never looked back. The production of the trilogy was groundbreaking in that all three films were shot at once (over a period of 14 months), not to mention halfway across the world from the studio comfort of Hollywood. Though ultimately rewarding, and most definitely unprecedented, the production of the trilogy was incredibly grueling. I can think of several recorded instances where Jackson stated that he would never do something of that scale and length again. Wrong.
In December of 2007 the first official studio announcement came that The Hobbit would finally be adapted into a film(s) and that Peter Jackson would be the executive producer. Fans across the world cautiously rejoiced, anxious to find out who would ultimately helm the project, but relieved that Peter Jackson would at the very least be involved, knowing full well that he did not want to direct. And you can hardly blame him. After The Lord of the Rings, the idea of directing The Hobbit must have seemed not only daunting and repetitive, but anti-climactic and doomed for critical failure. Critically, taking this step would for Peter Jackson be nothing short of a competition against himself.
The success of The Lord of the Rings films is the reason that Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit exists at all, but it is also its doom. General audiences and critics alike will want to compare The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings; unfortunately there is no way around that. Not to mention, being that the cinematic world has already been established, the element of surprise and originality is by nature lost in his adaptation of The Hobbit. Over a decade ago Peter Jackson and his team put Middle-earth into the psyche of millions in a way that had never been done before; and though returning to that world has its own charms, it can never be the same as being introduced to it for the first time.
In addition, the very nature of the book, The Hobbit, is incredibly difficult to translate to screen. The episodic structure and many anti-climaxes lend themselves poorly to a traditional cinematic story arc. The all male cast of which includes no less than thirteen dwarves is an obvious visual nightmare. In the book they play nicely and relatively unimportantly in the background, but on the screen those characters would need to be developed and have personalities of their own.
The above clearly illustrates why Peter Jackson had countless reasons not to direct The Hobbit, and originally decided against it. In 2008 it was announced that the Mexican director Guillermo del Toro, of Hellboy and Pan’s Labyrinth fame, would direct the two film adaptation, and I can honestly say that if Jackson wasn’t going to do it del Toro would have been my next choice. But the next two years proved to be a nearly impossible labyrinth for the films to get through. Between lawsuits and studio indecisiveness del Toro decided to leave the project in the spring of 2010. Once again the film was left without a director, and scheduled to begin production in early 2011. But Peter Jackson was determined to see this project through. He believed that the fans deserved to have these films. And ultimately fate knew what it was doing, because Peter Jackson, having written the script and been heavily involved in pre-production decided that directing The Hobbit was something he actually wanted to do. He was able to put everything else aside; the story complications, the inevitable scrutinization from critics and audiences, and do what he loves to do. He came to the realization that working with his filmmaking family in the country he loves, on a story that he is passionate about, is all that really matters. And that is why I believe that his decision to direct The Hobbit was not only noble and courageous, but also very humble. It should not be forgotten that his decision to shoot the films in 48 frames per second, as opposed to the traditional 24, was equally as courageous. Under severe scrutiny he has come up with a way in which he hopes audiences will start going out to the movies again; something new and immersive that will motivate people to get out of their homes and go to the theater. You can argue whether you like or dislike this filmmaking tool all day, but it was a bold and motivated creative choice nonetheless.
As a creative force, Jackson has the resources to do anything he wants, and if you think for a second that he made these films (or broke the book up into a trilogy for that matter) for money, then obviously I at the very least have failed to communicate the nature and spirit of his being. I have heard time and time again from the people who are close to him or who have worked closely with him, that Peter Jackson has remained remarkably unchanged by his success. He is one of the most powerful filmmakers in the world, yet he still makes time for his fans; he still shows up to formal events in overly casual attire, and he still contains a childlike passion for his craft. I believe that he is a pretty extraordinary human being for all of that, and I doubt that any other filmmakers would have had the dedication and passion required to bring these beloved stories to the screen.
Well done Sir Peter Jackson, well done.
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Jun 24 2013, 1:01pm
Post #21 of 78
(760 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No one can say for absolute certain what Tolkien would have thought of Jackson's screenplay...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Tolkien himself (as was shown in a recent article on TORN) was quite happy for changes to be made to his books in order to make them into films.
Can you show me where you read this? Because I've read letters of Tolkien's where he ripped Morton Zimmerman a new one for making certain changes to his story. Some of Tolkien's criticisms would certainly apply to what Jackson has done (like turning the eagles into a rent-a-car service). I also think Tolkien would strongly object to the portrayal of Radagast, seeing as how he was on record as disliking the fact that his books were co-opted by the hippy/drug movement. Now NO ONE can say for sure whether Tolkien would have liked the films, but if his son's feelings are any indication, well, you know how that would go. 
Anyway, I know there's been a huge surge in "positivity" threads where criticism of Jackson and co. are discouraged (this is like the 3rd or 4th one in about a week), but allow me to rain on the PJ love train (slightly) for a minute. We all understand that sometimes, changes need to be made in translating book to film. Some things that work in a book would be dead-boring on film and would just take up valuable space, blah blah blah, you all know the drill. If you've noticed, the majority of us who complain about the changes to The Hobbit actually LOVED the LOTR trilogy, because there are some differences in the way Jackson and Co. went about LOTR as opposed to The Hobbit. In LOTR, Jackson tried to make everything look as real as possible, but he's seemingly abandoned that approach for sugary visuals and high-flying "Crouching Tiger" style antics in TH. Also, what grates on some of us is the fact that changes to TH have mostly been done to lengthen the story and pad it out to the point that many of us feel as if it's not quite Tolkien's story anymore. There were plenty of changes to LOTR, but the vast majority of those were because the filmmakers had to omit things for time's sake. With TH, Jackson is throwing in everything but the kitchen sink and turning fairly tame sequences into major battle/action scenes (the trolls, the barrels, the stone giants).
Anyway, I generally liked AUJ when it stuck to the book, but I wanted to see Tolkien's story on screen. I got Tolkien's story, but underneath many layers of Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Philippa Boyen's story (Azog chasing Thorin, Nazgul tombs, etc). So while I generally liked AUJ, I wouldn't rate it as high as LOTR. I know that many of you disagree and would place AUJ rigfht alongside LOTR, and that's great that you were able to look past the changes and stuff - I have grudgingly accepted Azog's presence and some of the other major changes, but it still just doesn't quite sit right with me. I will still likely see all 3 films (unless DoS turns out to be a total wash). Anyway, doesn't make any of us more or less Tolkien fans because of our thoughts on Peter Jackson and his films. And to be fair, Jackson's movies have certainly introduced many people to the great world of Tolkien. Some folks who have not read The Hobbit would likely be shocked at how different the book is, however.
And to be clear, I'm not trying to argue with anyone, or force negativity onto anyone, but those are just my opinions.
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Jun 24 2013, 1:08pm
Post #22 of 78
(735 views)
Shortcut
|
I would certainly not direct criticism at PJ. My main gripe at the moment is at the inclusion of a made-up character in the next film, and the possibility of too much Legolas, both of which I feel could detrimentally affect the story and take away from the characters so well established in the first film, and/or prevent their further development.
Wouldn't this also apply to the inclusion of Radagast and Azog in AUJ? After all, neither were part of the original story.
(This post was edited by Salmacis81 on Jun 24 2013, 1:09pm)
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
Jun 24 2013, 1:09pm
Post #23 of 78
(719 views)
Shortcut
|
"Is one of Great Stories
of the First years of
this Century".
"..One of those Stories
that stay with you.."
Bomby
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Jun 24 2013, 1:25pm
Post #24 of 78
(724 views)
Shortcut
|
If you read JRRT's response to the Zimmerman treatment, you see Zimmerman greatly modified the role of the eagles, as well as the timing in which they appear. Part of the reason I applaud the current team is that they seem quite aware of this criticism on part of JRRT, and have used the Eagles exactly as written. SPJ did not make them a deus ex machine - JRRT did.
So actually that very fact makes me happy with the portrayal.
Manwe, when asked a simple "Yes" or "No" question, contemplated, and responded "the middle one."
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Jun 24 2013, 1:32pm
Post #25 of 78
(700 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Agree with so much here Tenth Walker
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
specially on an emotional level with what you are expressing. While, as some others have said, we don't want to quash discussion and debate, the negativity directed at the team at times I find disturbing and in fact a bit embarrassing. Here we are, fans of a most literate and scrupulously polite man - even to the Nazi Regime, who he held in complete and utter disdain - and we use such rude and inflammatory language at a production team. These are films, after all - they cannot change the source work. If anything, as Kelvahrin says, we now see our favorite author prominently featured in our bookshops and in our culture.
So despite the debate on aspects of the film - which are totally appropriate, and I respect all of our TORn brethren for having passions, whatever their angle - I would like to say that I offer a wave of support to SPJ and the entire team; and am thrilled at their work and accomplishments.
Manwe, when asked a simple "Yes" or "No" question, contemplated, and responded "the middle one."
|
|
|
|
|
1
