Tolkien Expert Unimpressed With Rings Trilogy Films

Luthien, I salute you.

Originally posted by Lúthien Séregon
all actors in LotR had enormous talent. They were chosen for this, not for their popularity.

As for “leaving nothing to the imagination”, that professor obviously doesn’t quite understand that films are different from the books in that the audience IS forced to see things as they are shown on the screen.

Lord of the Rings is that type of film where it has to have extreme effects, or be a poorly presented movie

Click to expand...

Actors chosen for their talent not their popularity? Can you say Liv Tyler?

I think what this "expert" is talking about (whomever she may be) is that PJ "spoon-feeds" the story to us like we have no imagination and can't think for ourselves. By using the dialogue to tell you EXACTLY what is happening/how someone feels rather than SHOWING it to you. Not to mention in TTT the WILD inconsistencies in how the characters act from moment to moment. But I agree most of the acting is incredibly well-done.

Yes, CGI is necesary and breathtaking in some parts of the movies, but in TTT it REPLACED a good, thoughtful story. CGI should be there to make a good movie better, not to hide it's otherwise poor quality. For me, the perfect example is taking the viewer to the land across the sea. It's completely unnecessary, takes time away from the real story and could never live up to the beauty of our own imaginations. So why bother? PJ is so caught up in his CGI that he has abandoned the true themes of the story (of course the story itself has to be changed), which should be the goal of any filmmaker who CHOOSES to use a book for his starting off point.

Tolkien and the critics

I read Verlyn Flieger's petty little screed about the LOTR movies.

Anyone can make negative criticism or tear down or destroy, that takes no particular intelligence, and usually a mean, shrivelled spirit. And this woman is a professor of literature, was it? And this professor describes the movies as "lousy?" Could she come up with no better a word than that, this woman of letters?

Art: music, painting, sculpture, cinema, etc. — art attracts sulky little critics as moths to a flame. Just wave them off (or into the flame!) and enjoy the light.

People who get paid to be negative about art, and worse, who offer their miserable little opinions unsolicited, are beneath contempt.

—Lotho

"I think the (Lord of the Rings) films are lousy, poorly written and in many instances poorly acted. There’s also too much emphasis on special effects. That subverts one of the book's great strengths, which is the power to awaken the reader's imagination. These films, in fact, leave nothing to the imagination."
That's all it is!
The piece doesn't give the context, and doesn't say if there was any more.
Obviously, "lousy" is hardly the sort of word you'd expect to see from a professor, and that makes the whole thng look suspicious from the start - is it simply a spoof?
"Poorly written", though; who could disagree with that, in regard to most of the invented dialogue?
Too much emphasis on special effects? Apart from overblown battles, I don't think many of us would agree with that.
"Poorly acted"? A definite "no" to that one!

Gentlemen, we have a guild called "THe Time Lords" if you wish to discuss history, can we please stay on topic here?


And Goro, thanks.

Originally posted by Scatha
Gentlemen, we have a guild called "THe Time Lords" if you wish to discuss history, can we please stay on topic here?


And Goro, thanks.

Click to expand...

1. I'm not sure the Time Lords is the appropiate place to discuss this.
2. I know we're off topic, that's why I said

If you really wish to get into this, start a thread in S&B.

Click to expand...

Besides, we really exhausted that "article" already...perhaps spelling master has some more to share with us!

Originally posted by Robert E Lee
The forbearing use of power does not only form a touchstone, but the manner in which an individual enjoys certain advantages over others is a test of a true gentleman.

The power which the strong have over the weak, the employer over the employed, the educated over the unlettered, the experienced over the confiding, even the clever over the silly--the forbearing or inoffensive use of all this power or authority, or a total abstinence from it when the case admits it, will show the gentleman in a plain light

The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a wrong he may have committed against him. He cannot only forgive, he can forget; and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness of character which impart sufficient strength to let the past be but the past. A true man of honor feels humbled himself when he cannot help humbling others.

Click to expand...

Just need to remind myself of this sometimes....

Thanks for the 'thanks', Scatha....

Well, if a topic is exhausted, it is time to leave it to be closed.


My pleasure, Goro. Nice quote btw.

So, what makes this person more of an "expert" than you and I? I don't mean an expert on Tolkien himself but an expert on a journey through Middle Earth.

As I recall, she wasn't in my mind at all when I was reading the books.

It sounds like the only good adaptation for her would have been the book tapes because they allow one to use one's own imagination. For some odd reason, I don't think a blank black screen with voice actors would have worked in the theaters though.

She has some credentials as a Tolkien expert. These are her published articles/papers, which appear in academic journals or were presented at conferences and the like. These articles might be obtained via an academic library. As far as I can see they are not web-published. I have not been able to turn up evidence that her work is often cited by others, so how influential she is I don't know.

Nevertheless just because she is academically rigorous in her research on these topics, doesnt make her right about the Lord of the Rings movies. Being able to state an academically researched position is not the same as being 'right'. I will wait with interest to see if she does so, rather than this throwaway line which is no more valid than anyone else's opinion.

AU: Flieger, V.
TI: Jane Chance. Tolkien's Art: A Mythology for England
JT: JOURNAL OF THE FANTASTIC IN THE ARTS
IS: 0897-0521
PD: 2002
IU: VOL 12; PART 4
PG: 440-442
FQ: Quarterly: 4 issues per year
PB: JADE SEAS PUBLISHING
PP: USA
LA: English
DC: 800
LC: HQ750.A2
SM: 4983.760000
ID: RN111863258

AU: Flieger, V.
AU: Shippey, T. A.
TI: Allegory Versus Bounce: Tolkien's Smith of Wootton Major
JT: JOURNAL OF THE FANTASTIC IN THE ARTS
IS: 0897-0521
PD: 2001
IU: VOL 12; PART 2
PG: 186-200
FQ: Quarterly: 4 issues per year
PB: JADE SEAS PUBLISHING
PP: USA
LA: English
DC: 800
LC: HQ750.A2
SM: 4983.760000
ID: RN108092373

AU: Flieger, V.
TI: J. R. R. Tolkien and the Matter of Britain
JT: MYTHLORE
IS: 0146-9339
PD: 2000
IU: VOL 23; PART 1
PG: 47-59
FQ: Quarterly: 4 issues per year
PP: USA
LA: English
DC: 808.8015
LC: PR478.F35
SM: 6001.050000
ID: RN088443779

AU: FLIEGER, V.
TI: The Footsteps of AElfwine
JT: CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE STUDY OF SCIENCE FICTION AND FANTASY
IS: 0193-6875
PD: 2000
IU: VOL 86
PG: 183-198
FQ: Irregular: frequency variable
PB: Westport, CT; Greenwood Press; 1999
PP: Great Britain
LA: English
DC: 808.836762
LC: HB1
SM: 3461.456000
ID: RN076972321

AU: Flieger, V.
TI: Fantasy and Reality: J. R. R. Tolkien's World and the Fairy-Story Essay
JT: MYTHLORE
IS: 0146-9339
PD: 1999
IU: VOL 22; PART 3
PG: 4-13
FQ: Quarterly: 4 issues per year
PP: USA
LA: English
DC: 808.8015
LC: PR478.F35
SM: 6001.050000
ID: RN075549532

AU: Flieger, V.
TI: Better Than It Looks
JT: SCIENCE FICTION STUDIES
IS: 0091-7729
PD: 1999
IU: VOL 26; NUMBER 1
PG: 140-141
FQ: Thrice yearly: 3 issues per year
PB: DEPAUW UNIVERSITY - SCIENCE FICTION STUDIES
PP: Canada
LA: English
DC: 809.38762
LC: PN3448.S45
SM: 8145.182000
ID: RN058637038

AU: Flieger, V.
TI: Tolkien' s Experiment with Time: The Lost Road, "The Notion Club Papers" and J.W. Dunne
JT: MYTHLORE
IS: 0146-9339
PD: 1996
IU: VOL 21; NUMBER 2
PG: 39-44
FQ: Quarterly: 4 issues per year
PB: THE MYTHOPOEIC SOCIETY
PP: USA
LA: English
DC: 808.8015
LC: PR478.F35
SM: 6001.050000
ID: RN002770660

AU: Flieger, V.
TI: The Language of Myth
JT: MYTHLORE
IS: 0146-9339
PD: 1996
IU: VOL 21; NUMBER 3
PG: 4-6
FQ: Quarterly: 4 issues per year
PB: THE MYTHOPOEIC SOCIETY
PP: USA
LA: English
DC: 808.8015
LC: PR478.F35
SM: 6001.050000
ID: RN014043172

AU: Flieger, V.
TI: Tolkien's Experiment with Time: The Lost Road, "The Notion Club Papers" and J.W. Dunne
KW: Tolkien
KW: mythcon
KW: mythopoeic
KW: Oxonmoot
CN: J R R Tolkien centenary conference
CV: Oxford
CD: 1992; Aug
CS: Mythopoeic Society| Tolkien Society
CI: Incorporating the 23rd Mythopoeic conference (Mythcon XXIII) and Oxonmoot 1992
JT: MYTHLORE
IS: 0146-9339
IS: 0905520068
IS: 0905520092
IS: 1887726047
PD: 1992
IU: VOL 21; NUMBER 2
PG: 39-44
ED: Reynolds, P.
ED: GoodKnight, G. H.
PB: Tolkien Society; Mythopoeic Press; 1995
LA: English
MA: Papers
SM: 6001.050000
ID: CN012280403

I'd be interested in hearing from anyone familiar with these publications.

Yes, the individual who made the criticisms (not critiques), is certainly qualified to comment on Tolkien. However, that person was in fact commenting upon a personal view of the films, not making a cinematic criticism per se. Obviously, she didn't like them and she has every right not only to feel as she does but (as a Tolkien"expert") to comment upon their shortcomings.

As for the contents thereof: well, obviously the films were "lousy" in her estimation because the Director and his staff did not remain faithful to the book. She is aparently not all that interested in "good fantasy/adventure films" on that grounds alone. Most of us who comment positively on these films even when we point out that they really are no longer Tolkien's story, do so because they are good fantasy/adventure films. Obviously, Ms. Flieger does not find that a sufficient reason to praise the films - and that is her prerogative.

Was there too much emphasis in special effects? In my opinion, yes! If we'd taken one more flight around Orthanc or pulled down one more tree or seen one more orc "hatch" or been "treated" to one more shot of thousands of orcs running hither and yon in Orthanc, Moria and Rohan, I would have become heartily ill (and that was just the first film!). Yes and yes! Jackson got wrapped around the axle with his special effects to the point wherein valuable screen time was wasted on constant replaying of certain images. Now, of course, many of these s.e.'s were fantastic. But I do believe that character and story exposition were shortchanged to give us not only a lot of special effects but constant flying about New Zealand to show us the sights (the many aerial shots of the Fellowship paddling down the Anduin, flights over and around mountains etc. etc.). And while these certainly helped create the atmosphere to some extent, after a while, I found them tiresome and repetitive.

Ms. Flieger is not a film critic, but a Tolkien devotee. She criticized these films on that basis - as certainly is her right. She was not "taken in" or mollified by the beauty, excitement and actual cinematic excellence that Jackson did provide because he had in fact failed to do what was most important to this particular critic: provide Tolkien's LOTR on film. And she's right, you know.

Reopened.

Stay on topic, please.

Flieger Says: “ I think the (Lord of the Rings) films are lousy, poorly written and in many instances poorly acted. There’s also too much emphasis on special effects. That subverts one of the book's great strengths, which is the power to awaken the reader's imagination. These films, in fact, leave nothing to the imagination.”

Click to expand...

I think this comment is kind of...weird. I mean too much special effects? Its not like we can just go out and find a balrog or start breeding orcs or ents. I mean come on, what else could PJ have done?

Originally posted by LordOfMoria
....too much special effects?....what else could PJ have done?

Click to expand...

He could have done them better, and done them less!
Mrs M has given all the detail for this: almost ALL the special effects are over-done. I can recall only the Balrog as being given just the right amount of screen time.

Another wonderful comment and idea.

Why didn't PJ think of this? Insead of bringing Middle-Earth to life, why didn't he just cut back on the special effects, that allowed him to do so, and just put all his time on doing the scenes for a charecter who pops up, helps frodo, and is never heard of again?

The special effects did not take that much time that they would have taken valuable screen time, most of the air passes lasted no longer than 5 seconds, now I'm sure Mrs. M and Joxy, being the all knowing geniuses in film making could have fit tons of charecter developement there but PJ didn't.

And would you have rather than a thousand cgi orcs (that looked extremely real) have had a thousand extras in t-shirts and nike shoes a lá spartacus running on the set? Or instead of a cgi orthanc and matte painting in the background?

The special effects were there, and I'm sure that they really ruined the experience for you, but if you'd drop the magnifying glass and looked at the big picture instead of the small faults you can find, you'd probably see that the special effects were the major part that brought M-E to life.

Originally posted by joxy
He could have done them better, and done them less!
Mrs M has given all the detail for this: almost ALL the special effects are over-done. I can recall only the Balrog as being given just the right amount of screen time.

Click to expand...

I'm trying to think of a single special effect that takes up too much screen time, and I struggle.

The battle of the Last Alliance?
Gandalf blowing special smoke rings with Bilbo?
Fireworks at Bilbo's party?
The Eye when Frodo puts on the Ring?
The Wizard's fight?
The White Horses when the Nazgul try to cross the river?
The moth and the eagle rescuing Gandalf from Orthanc?
The Watcher in the Water?
The cave troll in Moria?
Galadriel's mirror?
The Argonath?
The Ents?
The healing of Theoden?
The Warg attack?
Gollum?
The Dead Marshes?
The Oliphaunts?
The Flying Nazgul?

I may be missing a few, but all of these are either absolutely essential or at least very helpful in understanding Middle Earth and the nature of its inhabitants and the storyline.

Diminishing these would severely reduce the impact of the story, in my opinion. Most of these cannot be left out, and once they're in you need to dwell on them a little bit, give them some time to make an impact, or else it becomes a ridiculous parade of one brief effect after another,.

Odo

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Ms. Flieger is not a film critic, but a Tolkien devotee. She criticized these films on that basis - as certainly is her right. She was not "taken in" or mollified by the beauty, excitement and actual cinematic excellence that Jackson did provide because he had in fact failed to do what was most important to this particular critic: provide Tolkien's LOTR on film. And she's right, you know.

Click to expand...

Forgive me, but she says nothing about Tolkien's LotR on film. She claims that the movies are poor as movies and that unlike Tolkien, they leave nothing to the imagination.

Leave nothing to the imagination??? Perhaps we simply should have had close-ups of the actors faces, saying they're traveling through the wilderness, while for all we know they're walking through an abandoned warehouse...

Originally posted by joxy
He could have done them better, and done them less!
Mrs M has given all the detail for this: almost ALL the special effects are over-done. I can recall only the Balrog as being given just the right amount of screen time.

Click to expand...

Then the movie wouldnt be as dramatic. I mean how could he have done them better? I thought they were excellent!