In-depth critique of the movies?

[9ko]

I'm looking for well-written and in-depth writing about how Jackson's movies failed to represent the themes and the characters from the books. Searching the web hasn't been the very helpful. I've found some scholarly papers, but I'm sure I've read more accessible articles before, I just can't find them now. The best, most cogent, things I'm finding are forum posts and blog posts, which are fine, but they generally just talk about a couple of things so they don't really provide a good and deep analysis. Any help would be appreciated.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Well, you're in the right subforum, anyway. You may find some by scrolling through the threads here. Admittedly, the nature of a forum like TTF means more argument than not, going back to earliest days. Example:

My God, It Was Horrible!

All you doomsayers were right. It was absolutely horrible. I was crying in the theater. I wanted to walk out, but I didn't b/c my friends were there! All the party is screwed up, out of order, shortened. The trip to Bree was in 45 minutes or so...not 1.30 like it should've been. IT...

thetolkien.forum

 

[Radaghast]

I think probably the best way is to try an analysis yourself. You can go by character or by chapter and see what you come up with. Watch the films with the book handy so you can take notes. I've wanted to try something like this for a while now but haven't found the time.

There are major characters and plot points you can focus on, perhaps, such as Frodo and Aragorn, and whether it was a good idea to remove the warg attack near the Misty Mountains. Then build from there. There are also threads you can find here, in addition to the one SES posted.

 

[9ko]

Yeah, I read that old post and some others here. I was looking for something more like a published article, with a more objective approach.

I'm not going to do it myself. First of all I really don't want watch all the movies. I got annoyed watching the first one, so why put myself through that again and again? Life is too short.

Anyway, I know I have read something like this online before, but I can't find it now. Thanks anyway.

 

[Erestor Arcamen]

There's some decent comments on this Reddit thread regarding this too if you're on there.

https://www.reddit.com/r/lotr/comments/xnc1e9/can_someone_compare_the_books_to_the_movies_are

And here's an old thread that has Roger Ebert's review of the Two Towers movie, w/discussions

Roger Ebert's TTT Review

Just looked at Ebert's review of TTT....Purist's be justified. Just a few quotes here for the FADs... "It is not faithful to the spirit of Tolkien and misplaces much of the charm and whimsy of the books, but it stands on its own as a visionary thriller. I complained in my review of the first...

thetolkien.forum

 

[Taurlumiel Orchannis]

My only real thought on the Peter Jackson films:
They're great for visual representations of locations and characters, but I would definitely not watch them as a substitute for or even an introduction to the books. In my opinion, they lack the depth and nuance of the novels and overall make less of an impression, even though they are impressive and very good films in themselves.

 

[Deimos]

My only real thought on the Peter Jackson films:
They're great for visual representations of locations and characters, but I would definitely not watch them as a substitute for or even an introduction to the books. In my opinion, they lack the depth and nuance of the novels and overall make less of an impression, even though they are impressive and very good films in themselves.

And weapons and clothing, i.e. cultural artefacts.

 

[Taurlumiel Orchannis]

And weapons and clothing, i.e. cultural artefacts.

Yes, I agree.

 

[Eldacar]

Well, you're in the right subforum, anyway. You may find some by scrolling through the threads here. Admittedly, the nature of a forum like TTF means more argument than not, going back to earliest days. Example:

My God, It Was Horrible!

All you doomsayers were right. It was absolutely horrible. I was crying in the theater. I wanted to walk out, but I didn't b/c my friends were there! All the party is screwed up, out of order, shortened. The trip to Bree was in 45 minutes or so...not 1.30 like it should've been. IT...

thetolkien.forum

I really love reading old threads concerning the movies. For someone who was too young to be part of the fandom at the release of the movies it always feels like the admiration a lot of people have currently been unanimously from the start and then there's @Beorn leaving the cinema threatening PJ with death and torture. The Internet is a fantastic place 😂

But concerning the topic I don't think I have ever read a comprehensive in-depth analysis that critiques the failings and achievements of Jackson when interpreting Tolkien. Most of it is blog posts and articles that concern themselves with specific aspects of the books and how they are transferred to visual media. I mean such a work would be an entire book for sure and not a very small one at that. I am afraid you have to piece it together from various sources.

 

[d4rk3lf]

So here is my humble opinion..
I've already write same things many times on this forum, but here it is, concise, and all in one place...
(pardon me, I am a bit drunk, so there might be a lots of grammar (or logical) mistakes.
But I will give my best to stay 100% accurate.

THE GOOD:
1) Weta studio did amazing job with 3D effects. I am personally involved (it's my living) in FX, and even I know how I could do these effects now (for example Balrog), I do not know how they did it so PERFECTLY back then... actually.. I know.... but that is so freaking hard (making particles behaving like fluid simulation),But somehow they did it. Kudos!
So... Effects are nearly PERFECT... all 3D + practical effects combination is PERFECT (except Legolas sliding through Oliphant nose (that is just too cheesy)
2) The costumes were perfect. How orcs looks, the way the Rochirims armor looks.. the Hobbits... everything...
3) Action Sequences? The battles were VERY WELL done... I mean really... Watcher in the water? It's a perfect scene... Troll scene? Another very good action scene. Balrog? Even better. I am still amazed how these scenes are made, and want to find out who is responsible.

THE BAD:
Ruining the characters;
1) Gandalf - Instead of very sharp, impatient (because of other's stupidity) , most intelligent guy, and very willing to get his hand dirty... we got "good old grampa" Gandalf... very interesting in the books, very borring in the movies..
2) Aragorn - instead of very sharp guy, waiting his chance to become a leader, we got guy that is unsure of himself.
3) Denethor - I imagine him as a wise guy... in the movie.. he is lunatic
4) Faramir - Do I need to say anything here? I don't think so.
- So all in all.. only 2 characters.. Bilbo and Boromir is a correct in movie.

THE EVIL:
Ruining the whole point of the story.:
1) One of the point of LOTR was "Hobbits grew".
We don't see it in the end (just retarded jumping on bed sequence).
2) Frodo's wound never heal.. the evil that was upon him, will never be fixed in mortal world - we don't see that point also
3) Sam is the greatest hero.
He is the only one, who had so little self ambition, that even ring couldn't hold him up.. and only one who had the strength to give back ring to Frodo.

 

[Vardarianna]

So here is my humble opinion..
I've already write same things many times on this forum, but here it is, concise, and all in one place...
(pardon me, I am a bit drunk, so there might be a lots of grammar (or logical) mistakes.
But I will give my best to stay 100% accurate.

THE GOOD:
1) Weta studio did amazing job with 3D effects. I am personally involved (it's my living) in FX, and even I know how I could do these effects now (for example Balrog), I do not know how they did it so PERFECTLY back then... actually.. I know.... but that is so freaking hard (making particles behaving like fluid simulation),But somehow they did it. Kudos!
So... Effects are nearly PERFECT... all 3D + practical effects combination is PERFECT (except Legolas sliding through Oliphant nose (that is just too cheesy)
2) The costumes were perfect. How orcs looks, the way the Rochirims armor looks.. the Hobbits... everything...
3) Action Sequences? The battles were VERY WELL done... I mean really... Watcher in the water? It's a perfect scene... Troll scene? Another very good action scene. Balrog? Even better. I am still amazed how these scenes are made, and want to find out who is responsible.

THE BAD:
Ruining the characters;
1) Gandalf - Instead of very sharp, impatient (because of other's stupidity) , most intelligent guy, and very willing to get his hand dirty... we got "good old grampa" Gandalf... very interesting in the books, very borring in the movies..
2) Aragorn - instead of very sharp guy, waiting his chance to become a leader, we got guy that is unsure of himself.
3) Denethor - I imagine him as a wise guy... in the movie.. he is lunatic
4) Faramir - Do I need to say anything here? I don't think so.
- So all in all.. only 2 characters.. Bilbo and Boromir is a correct in movie.

THE EVIL:
Ruining the whole point of the story.:
1) One of the point of LOTR was "Hobbits grew".
We don't see it in the end (just retarded jumping on bed sequence).
2) Frodo's wound never heal.. the evil that was upon him, will never be fixed in mortal world - we don't see that point also
3) Sam is the greatest hero.
He is the only one, who had so little self ambition, that even ring couldn't hold him up.. and only one who had the strength to give back ring to Frodo.

OMG! This! I'm in agreement with pretty much all of this!
You capture all the points so eloquently d4rk3lf!
I will say that along with Bilbo and Boromir, I thought Eomer and Eowyn were close.

 

[Ricardo]

I won't write on essay on this, primarily because I am not very good at long writings that make sense.

I certainly could write a book on what's wrong with the LOTR movies. With the Hobbit trilogy it is easier: EVERYTHING.

But I do think that if you are going to criticize you have to keep in mind it's a movie adaptation that of course cannot follow the books literally, not enough running times and certain parts of the books are difficult to represent with images. I am not against removing certain parts and even adding some new ones, as long as they make sense.

And many of the changes in the PJ movies only made sense from a marketing perspective, they had to have a big love story, because movies have love stories, and that introduced a chain of bad effects and narrative gaps.

Excluding the old forest caused parts of the movies to make no sense. I understand that Tom Bombadil himself maybe wasn't central to the main story, but Tom wasn't all that happened there. To remove that they should have substituted by something else that was coherent, like how the hobbits obtained magical swords, they took the easy path, the swords/knives weren't magical and how Merry could hurt the witch king, well, ooops.

This is just an example, the inconsistencies are all over. I do think that even reading the books, you cannot fully understand the whole story without reading the Silmarillion, but if you only watch the movies, you really don't know what they are talking about.