What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

[Grond]

Foe, now you've made my point. Had the technology existed in 1977 to create a Tolkien world as Lucas used to create Star Wars, you would have had two extraordinary sci-fi/sci-fantasy hits that year, and it would likely not have mattered what script was used. Your logic that the script has anything to do with it is pure speculation. The Bakshi movie was a piece of crap, both because of production value, vision and the like. Heck, I was listening to a recording of Bakshi yesterday on BBC and he said he never read the book before making the movie.

I won't go on with this debate because it is apparent your position in this (as in so many others) has no wiggle room. You cannot be swayed by any arguments whether they be logical of not. All I can say is that to make a comment such as, "The closer the LOTR movie is to the book and follows the logic of the npw's, the worse it does. The more the story is allowed to change for the medium of film, the better it does." shows no logic or vision whatsoever, mainly because it seeks to prove a point that can never be proved or disproved.

There... I give up!

 

[Gilthoniel]

All that glitters.....

I'm not addressing this to anyone inparticular but ReadWryt's comments encouraged me to add my own thoughts.
I just wondered how much money the last version of 'Romeo & Juliet' make when it was released? Probably, at a generous estimate, less than a 1/10th of what FotR will make. Yes, it was populist but it was still fairly elitist.
I'm not denying that this was a populist film but what would you rather have: a film that nobody went to see but which satisfies the purists or one that wets the appetiites of many and encourages them to read the book?
The visualisation of a book is a unique experience; a film is one perosn's visualisation of a story. Give Peter Jackson credit - this is a good adaptation of the book: you might not like what he's done but I have yet to hear a serious bad word about the film from regular audience goers. And you can't escape that - the public likes it. Surely that means something to those who pour scorn.

 

[Gilthoniel]

All that glitters.....

I'm not addressing this to anyone inparticular but ReadWryt's comments encouraged me to add my own thoughts.
I just wondered how much money the last version of 'Romeo & Juliet' make when it was released? Probably, at a generous estimate, less than a 1/10th of what FotR will make. Yes, it was populist but it was still fairly elitist.
I'm not denying that this was a populist film but what would you rather have: a film that nobody went to see but which satisfies the purists or one that wets the appetiites of many and encourages them to read the book?
The visualisation of a book is a unique experience; a film is one perosn's visualisation of a story. Give Peter Jackson credit - this is a good adaptation of the book: you might not like what he's done but I have yet to hear a serious bad word about the film from regular audience goers. And you can't escape that - the public likes it. Surely that means something to those who pour scorn.

 

[Grond]

Alas, Gilthoniel, welcome to the forum.
And you have double posted.

There are some purists in the forum who may pour scorn but many, many more just pour disappointment for what they think could have been.

By the way, welcome to our humble forum.

 

[Gilthoniel]

Grond
Thank you for your welcome. I hope you don't think I can be converted so easily!!
Your comments about The Godfather/Shogun are interesting and not having read either, I assume them to be correct. However, fantasy is generally so off the wall for your average Joe that directors have a far greater task in explaining a storyline to viewers than would someone describing your average run of the mill bank heist which is more in their sphere of comprehension. Given that and the average attention span of your typical movie watcher, did you really expect anything more? I don't see how any studio would stump up anything like $300 million if they knew that all they were getting was lots of dialogue and minimal action. It was always going to be the other way around. If JRR can sell the rights to the film for £10,000 then I don't see why we should be worried about a betrayal of the story at this stage. He wrote it to make money and the film is making money not to mention his estate - he'd be happy.

 

[Elfarmari]

Despite the fact that I thought there were alot of problems with the movie, I think it was well put together, and will encourage people to read the book. This is probably the kind of movie that many people will say it was a good movie, and then complain about the details. That's definitely what I am doing. The only person I know who saw it and really didn't like it at all is my mom, who doesn't like violence in a way, shape or form. My brothers loved it as an action film, and are thinkingabout reading the book. THis is probably what will happen with a bunch of people. I think we'd all be happier if the movie had been twice as long, which twice as much detail, but most people wouldn't go see a movie that long, and it would not be successful.

 

[Grond]

Originally posted by Nienor
...I think we'd all be happier if the movie had been twice as long, which twice as much detail, but most people wouldn't go see a movie that long, and it would not be successful.

Nienor, you've hit the nail on the head. The only way to have made the movie to have totally satisfied me (a serious purist) would have been to have a film for each book of the LOTR of which there are six. That would have meant six 3 hour adventures which no studio in their right mind would ever have made. So, we're back to what we actually have with PJ's three movies and I'm through complaining until I see the next one.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

Grond,

"The closer the LOTR movie is to the book and follows the logic of the npw's, the worse it does. The more the story is allowed to change for the medium of film, the better it does." shows no logic or vision whatsoever, mainly because it seeks to prove a point that can never be proved or disproved.

Facts have already proven it. The PJ version is making more money than the 1978 movie and since the 1978 movie is more in line with the book (and is actually preferred by some on this forum), and all the complaints about the pj version have nothing to do with technology, the facts support my statement.

Now, if you want to see a perfect example of a point that cannot be proved yet is voiced time and time again, here it is.....

many more just pour disappointment for what they think could have been.

$300 million is quite a few facts.
"what they think could have been" is wishful thinking by the uneducated and recalcitrant.

 

[chrome_rocknave]

Pardon me, but "thinking about what could have been" may be wishful thinking but it is not wholly by the uneducated. Rather it is the educated that enjoy speculating on what "could have been". There is no need for calling people "uneducated " and "recalcitrant" when indeed the only stubborn one here is you

 

[Foe-Hammer]

You can't base a debatable argument on "I think". And to persist in it just puts a body in they catagory I described.

Sorry.

 

[chrome_rocknave]

Well everything is an opinion. Even what you said just now is an opinion. So whether you use the term "I think" or not it is still an opinion..... Whats wrong with opinions--we're all voicing ours here..?

 

[Foe-Hammer]

I never said there was. I called a guy a dork who tried to come off as a Tolkien expert when he knew he wasn't. Don't ask what happened from there, but now I'm being lectured in allowing everyone their opinion even though it is my opinion that he is a dork.

 

[Grond]

Foe, apparently I have little chance in changing your opinion here. But what I'm saying is that you can't equate Bakshi's failure or PJ's success solely on the fact that the script of one or the other is closer to the book. You've got to know that is a bunch of bull. You're smarter than that. There are other things that dictate that more than the scripting. Things like advertising, actor popularity and the like. How about one was live action and the other a cartoon. I know many serious Tolkien fans didn't even see the movie because it was done in cartoon form by Fritz the Cat. You're not seriously putting forth that making the movie closer to the book = bad cinema are you??


And Foe, calling someone a dork is stating an opinion but it is also making an insult.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

Grond,

I am only using the criteria that the npw's had stated are their problems.
They have said they perferred the 78 version because it was closer to the book. I have not heard of those who liked that movie say so because of the technology used. Technology doesn't matter to a purist.

It's pretty simple.
Closer to the purist's view=Box office bomb
Adapting realistically for the media of film=Box office blockbuster

Unless you purist's would like to now change your reason's for claiming the film would be better if it was closer to the book, I must stand by my statement.

BTW, you going off on markrob is not justified because you didn't like what he said. You were wrong to use such offensive language. IMO.

 

[chrome_rocknave]

I would rather see a box office bomb movie that was close the the book than a box office success that was totally screwed up...
*I'm not saying that FOTR was screwed up or anything though...

 

[Foe-Hammer]

I'm not suprised in the least. As a matter of fact, I'm sure no one is suprised by that.
That is the reason no one listen's to the purists insisting that their suggestions would have made the movie better.
Besides movies are adapted from the book for the screen. It's a pretty simple concept that means the movie will not be the same as the book.

 

[chrome_rocknave]

and I also am not surprised by your response...

I understand that the movie couldn't be exactly the same. I know that some stuff just had to go for the sake of time. However, I can't agree with everything PJ done.....then again I cant disagree with everything he's done. Hmmm..you seem speak as if I were a purist? Is that indeed what you would label me?

 

[Foe-Hammer]

You prefer a bomb, that's fine.

 

[Thorin]

Give me a break, Foe..

Are you telling me that distorting Arwen's character, making orcs come from slimy pods and such are the big contributers to FoTR success and that keeping it closer to the book would be a "bomb"? You honestly can't be serious?

FoTR was a success because it was a good movie that was hyped and expected to draw millions. It's only been anticipated as a movie for three years and as a wanted project for 50 years...That alone made it money. Never mind if the movie was absolutely horrible that everyone only saw it once and regretted it, it still would have made millions. They could have had Sam and Frodo dance a tango and put Saruman in a G-string and it still would have made millions!

Keeping some of the main characters and events truer to the book would not have altered it's success anymore. The movie AS A WHOLE is what made it successful. You obviously don't give Tolkien any credit as to making a "makeable movie" true to his script. Sad, for a Tolkien fan....

The whole point we have been making (and long before you came along, I might add), is that it IS possible to have made the movie closer to the book, and some scenes would have improved the movie had they left it the same, and it still could have maintained it's "blockbuster" status. As a matter of fact, despite the little changes, if they would have only remained true to Arwen's character and not botched Saruman so bad, this purist, here, would have gone numerous times to help contribute to this "blockbuster". And I think many other purist fans would have as well.

Which brings me to another point...As much as PJ says that this movie was for the fans, half the stuff we argue and some of you justify are changes dumbed down and edited so non-Tolkienites could understand....for the fans...yeah. Fans may enjoy it, but it wasn't MADE for the fans.

 

[lilhobo]

so by making arwen non-existent and Saruman non-existent, then that would have made PJ a tolkien fan????

Just coz Tolkien did NOT write Arwen to be waving swords around that he wouldnt have modified it later , noting the numerous appendices he kept adding to the book???

Thats absurd,

the bottom line is PJ brought ME alive on the screen, thats why is is blockbuster despite "faults"

any tolkien fan should be grateful