The Hobbit

[Usivius]

well, I for one, thought the trilogy was very well done. Was it the books translated literally to the screen? No. (thank goodness). But it was a fine adaptation that can be viewed over and over. (we are gearing up for a spring trilogy watching with friends ... noon to midnight...)

[Zarathustra]

The less a Tolkien-based project has to do with Jackson, the higher its chances of being a quality product.

Jackson wasn't the problem with the movie trilogy. It was Philippa Boyens. She's the one who decided that Aragorn had to go over the cliff in TTT, and that the Gollum-Sam-Frodo triangle had to be changed for more dramatic effect, and that Faramir couldn't be a noble good guy from the start. Most of the time the movie left the books, it was Boyens's fault.

[Montresor]

It's the whole tone of the films, not just the obvious plot differences which struck me as utterly un-Tolkien-esque. The overall atmosphere was so unlike the novels, and more in tune with a low-grade dungeons and dragons adventure, that I still pin the director for the lion's share of blame.

The script was just downright awful too.

[TIC TAC]

IMHO the film adaptation of the trilogy was far above my expectations. No adaptation has a prayer of capturing a person's imagination perfectly, nor is it capable of sticking to the letter of the original text.
Stan Lee was once asked what he thought about the changes Sam Raimi made to the existing storyline of Spiderman as presented in the comics. Lee responded that he didn't give it a second's thought. The movies are the movies and the comics are the comics. Making a movie didn't suddenly erase or invalidate what had been drawn and written before. I feel the same way about LOTR. If you are a purist you probably don't want to watch the films because they offer a different take on the subject. You are watching Peter Jackson's vision not Tolkien's. I'm fine with it.
Having said all that I'm more concerned about Del' Toro presenting the Hobbit with the same feel and flair that Jackson had, in spite of the fact that Jackon is producing.
We'll see.

[Usivius]

IMHO the film adaptation of the trilogy was far above my expectations. No adaptation has a prayer of capturing a person's imagination perfectly, nor is it capable of sticking to the letter of the original text.
Stan Lee was once asked what he thought about the changes Sam Raimi made to the existing storyline of Spiderman as presented in the comics. Lee responded that he didn't give it a second's thought. The movies are the movies and the comics are the comics. Making a movie didn't suddenly erase or invalidate what had been drawn and written before. I feel the same way about LOTR. If you are a purist you probably don't want to watch the films because they offer a different take on the subject. You are watching Peter Jackson's vision not Tolkien's. I'm fine with it.
Having said all that I'm more concerned about Del' Toro presenting the Hobbit with the same feel and flair that Jackson had, in spite of the fact that Jackon is producing.
We'll see.

Well spoken. What a person carries with them wil not be the same thing others see/feel.
And I don't mind if the hobbit has a different feel to it than the Jackson trilogy, only because the Hobbit DID have a different feel.
i just care that it is in the hands of someone capable.

[Zarathustra]

And I don't mind if the hobbit has a different feel to it than the Jackson trilogy, only because the Hobbit DID have a different feel.
i just care that it is in the hands of someone capable.

I was going to make exactly that point. If we're going to be true to the author's work, it has to have a different feel.

I thought the tone of the movies was fine, especially the darker parts. There was a loss of depth, but that just a process of going from book to screen. They really did try harder than anyone else on the planet would have tried, down to the types of clothing, armor, runes on the walls, etc. They took lines directly from the books. They hired language coaches to make sure the pronunciation of imaginary names was "correct." The music was done with an astonishing amount of care and thoughtfulness.

Take a look at the vast collection of extras on the Extended Edition DVDs. Look at the liner notes on the Complete Recordings editions of the score (3 cds, one DVD-audio per movie). These people did an astounding amount of work to try to make this as rich and faithful to Tolkien's work as possible. It's an achievement unlike like any other in the history of film.

[ItisWritten]

The less a Tolkien-based project has to do with Jackson, the higher its chances of being a quality product.

Jackson wasn't the problem with the movie trilogy. It was Philippa Boyens. She's the one who decided that Aragorn had to go over the cliff in TTT, and that the Gollum-Sam-Frodo triangle had to be changed for more dramatic effect, and that Faramir couldn't be a noble good guy from the start. Most of the time the movie left the books, it was Boyens's fault.

You mentioned three out of the 5 plot points that bothered me. Movie-Denethor's do-nothing maniac, and in the fight with the Witch King, Eowyn was too afraid. She was supposed to be fey and fearless, but the script seemed to avoid her despair at Aragorn's rejection.

Still, Jackson's LOTR is a quality product. The problem is that Jackson aims for the spectacle, whether it's action or emotion. Thus we have Frodo screaming when Gandalf falls (instead of wordless shock), the Rohirrim fighting the mumak head-on (sure, it was grand, but unrealistic even for fantasy), Shelob spearing Frodo (instead of the sufficient jab in the neck), and at the end, the hobbits crying for 15 freaking minutes!

[Usivius]

and at the end, the hobbits crying for 15 freaking minutes!

no argument there,,,,

[wayfriend]

I go to movies to get the spectacle. I don't go to verify that everything happens the way I know it will. I think Jackson - rightly - added things to surprise is, and things to make us say, wow!

[Montresor]

For the record, the films could have been a radical departure from the books and still have been good. However, they butchered the novels for no good end, and simply came out with a trite and uninspired popcorn-churner. There was nothing in it but the tackiest, most flamboyant parody of a fantasy world, which had about the artistic and emotional depth of a D&D supplement.

The overall presentation was done in the most banal and over-obvious style, I got tired of hearing the dreadfully ham-fisted soundtrack soar at every laboured moment, or seeing the camera pivot in a 360 about whatever supposedly awe-inspiring structure we encountered (a technique which was used so often, it verged on self-parody by the second film).

The film lacked any kind of subtle nuance whatsoever. Hardly surprising when one considers Jackson was at the helm. What were great moments in the book, became hollow in the film. The Mines of Moria in the film, to take one example, seems like a ten minute trek through a dungeon, and fails to capture the enormity, wonder, or horror of the sequence in the novel.

I could go on, but I won't. In the end, it comes to preference. If you like the kind of film the LoTR trilogy was, that's fine. Personally, I don't (and I stopped at the second one, anyway - not bothering to watch Return of the King).

[Worm of Despite]

The less a Tolkien-based project has to do with Jackson, the higher its chances of being a quality product.

Jackson wasn't the problem with the movie trilogy. It was Philippa Boyens. She's the one who decided that Aragorn had to go over the cliff in TTT, and that the Gollum-Sam-Frodo triangle had to be changed for more dramatic effect, and that Faramir couldn't be a noble good guy from the start. Most of the time the movie left the books, it was Boyens's fault.

I used to have serious issues with the Faramir change, but Philippa defended it pretty well. If you're making a huge motion picture, you want to keep the drama and tension up, and the general audience is not going to get it if the heroes suddenly stop during their perilous journey, have a semi-interrogation, and then are let go with advice and aid. It fits the travelogue framework of Tolkien's text, which was a novel that made plenty of detours for geographic descriptions, songs, etc. But the movie needed to be streamlined.

For the record, the films could have been a radical departure from the books and still have been good. However, they butchered the novels for no good end, and simply came out with a trite and uninspired popcorn-churner. There was nothing in it but the tackiest, most flamboyant parody of a fantasy world, which had about the artistic and emotional depth of a D&D supplement.

I won't argue something so subjective, but I will say that it had some technical depth--perhaps more than any other film or set of films in history: if you watch the making-of DVDs in the Extended Editions, you'll see hours upon hours of the incredible work and detail that went into making the film's props, costumes, digital effects, etc.

[Zarathustra]

For the record, the films could have been a radical departure from the books and still have been good. However, they butchered the novels for no good end, and simply came out with a trite and uninspired popcorn-churner. There was nothing in it but the tackiest, most flamboyant parody of a fantasy world, which had about the artistic and emotional depth of a D&D supplement.

The overall presentation was done in the most banal and over-obvious style, I got tired of hearing the dreadfully ham-fisted soundtrack soar at every laboured moment, or seeing the camera pivot in a 360 about whatever supposedly awe-inspiring structure we encountered (a technique which was used so often, it verged on self-parody by the second film).

The film lacked any kind of subtle nuance whatsoever. Hardly surprising when one considers Jackson was at the helm. What were great moments in the book, became hollow in the film. The Mines of Moria in the film, to take one example, seems like a ten minute trek through a dungeon, and fails to capture the enormity, wonder, or horror of the sequence in the novel.

I could go on, but I won't. In the end, it comes to preference. If you like the kind of film the LoTR trilogy was, that's fine. Personally, I don't (and I stopped at the second one, anyway - not bothering to watch Return of the King).

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, by your own admission, your opinion comes from a place of ignorance, since you didn't even bother finishing it. If you don't like 360 camera movements, I suppose you don't have to finish the series to make that kind of decision. But to say it lacked any subtle nuance, when every detail was crafted with exquisite attention and thoughtfulness (down to the silverware) . . . well, is it possible that whatever subtlety was there, you just missed it? For instance, did you notice the faint Gondor theme played simply and subtly on horns during Boromir's first scene at the Council? Well, no of course not, because you didn't watch long enough to actually hear the Gondor theme in its full glory.

Speaking of the music, it's certainly true that everyone has different musical tastes, but to call it "ham-fisted" also speaks of a vast, glaring ignorance of the time, effort, and attention went into creating this 12 hours of original score. It contains 80 leitmotifs, one for each major character (including three for the ring itself), each developed over time to reflect their journeys. For instance, did you notice the first time the Fellowship theme was played occurred when Sam and Frodo set off through the cornfield? It was played softly without fanfare, and incompletely (since the Fellowship was just forming). Then gradually, it was developed more fully as more members were added, until it reached its full-blown treatment when the complete Fellowship made their dramatic exit from Rivendell to the lands surrounding the Misty Mountains? There were completely different styles and instruments for each race and culture. For instance, Lothlorien Elves received "vertical," chromatic chord progressions with an Eastern flavor, whereas the Rivendell Elves received a more "horizontal" chord progression treatment. Most movies are scored in a matter of weeks. Shore devoted 5 years to composing and recording this music.

In the liner notes I mentioned before, it states:

"Gollum's wretched theme is intertwined with the music for the History of the One Ring, which sighs the films to life with two prolonged rising pitches, a half-step apart. This same rising half step can be heard in the Evil of the Ring/Sauron theme and, inverted, in the martial, clangorous music of Isengard. Isengard, however, inverts the figure, dipping down a half-step, then returning upwards, a figure that dead-sets it against the Fellowship theme, which begins with the same down-up-down shape transformed to a more stable and heroic whole-step. This circular sense of interconnectivity permeates Shore's score not only to reinforce the cultural relationships present in Tolkien's world, but also to highlight the most important dramatic concepts: dedication, seduction, purity, good and evil."

I'm betting you didn't realize this. I could go on, and on. Isn't it possible that the nuance was there, but you simply missed it?

[Montresor]

Forgive me for missing the subtle nuances, but a scalpel amongst a sea of hammers is hard to pick. I was far more overwhelmed by what a cliched piece of Hollywood craftsmanship the film was, as well as constantly barraged by the film's overlaboured script and cinematography to really give a damn about the silverware (btw, I had watched enough 'making-of's' before seeing the film to know that that stuff was in there. My point being that all that attention to detail was laid to waste by the bigger picture).

But I was referring more to Jackson' tendency to emotively spell out everything to the audience as if they were 12 year olds.

As for the soundtrack, that they spent a lot of time and thought on it is patently obvious. For me, however, it never rose above the level of your average cartoon show's musical score. On the whole, for me, the soundrack was one of the very worst things about the trilogy.

Ingmar Bergmann once described film soundtracks as barbaric. While I don't agree on the whole, I see his point that, when done poorly, they are little more than the emotional equivalent of a laugh track. For me, the LoTR films is one of the best examples of that I have seen in recent years.

Oh, and, I tell a lie - I did see about 20-30 minutes of the Return of the King. Forgive me for holding that impression against it, or the impression of the first two parts against it, but - unless it was a radical departure from them - I think I can safely say I wouldn't like it.

I won't argue something so subjective, but I will say that it had some technical depth--perhaps more than any other film or set of films in history: if you watch the making-of DVDs in the Extended Editions, you'll see hours upon hours of the incredible work and detail that went into making the film's props, costumes, digital effects, etc.

That it did. I just think all that work failed as a result of the overall flamboyancy of the rest.

Have you seen Kurosawa's Red Beard? That easily beats the LoTR films in terms of the detail they went to recreate their world. It even extended to them making medicines from the Tokugawa period and shelving them in cupboards on sets which were not once opened for a single shot.

Of course, you're right, it is all very subjective. On man's Seven Samurai might be another's Weekend at Bernie's.

[Zarathustra]

Montressor, I have a long list of disappointments with the film, so I can understand criticism in general. I think I was reacting to your relatively hasty and dismissive criticism. Obviously, I'm a huge fan of the score. I'm probably the only member here with the entire complete recordings of the score (in addition to the original incomplete CD releases--I got each of them before the movies came out, so I knew the music even before each movie).

Yes, they certainly could have been better. And the fact that so many parts were perfect make the mistakes even more glaring.

Of course you shouldn't judge a movie on its silverware. I was bringing up a ridiculously anal example to show that a good amount of detail was in fact contemplated for the movie (whereas you described those details as lacking or ham-fisted). The point was that they tried to make every detail authentic. They didn't want you to look at Hobbit forks and recognize them as something you'd buy at Macy's. And they had a good role model who represented the artistic side of anal-attention to detail: prof. Tolkien himself. Have you ever read Leaf by Niggle? Or Tolkien's published letters? He was a man who found himself unable to complete the whole picture because took such delight in the details. So maybe you didn't give a damn about the silverware. . . but I fancy that Tolkien might have. After all, he wrote a short story about his tendency to get caught up in the leaves when he was supposed to be painting a tree, and unable to finish the whole (which actually happened with his creation).

[Montresor]

I see what you mean, and agree wth the sentiment. Some people hate Philip Glass, but I love his stuff. Likewise I can perfectly understand why you think the Shore score is great, whereas I don't.

I like all that nitty-gritty detail in film. Many films do it well (I already mentioned Red Beard as being a particularly extreme version of that, Barry Lyndon is another). My problem was that - even though I heard about it all before seeing the film - by the time I had seen the actual movies, I was so overwhelmed by their overall atmosphere and bombasity (for me), that I had not been able to appreciate the finer touches they injected, and they seemed largely irrelevant to my impression of the bigger picture.

But, yeah, horses-for-courses . . .

[ItisWritten]

I used to have serious issues with the Faramir change, but Philippa defended it pretty well. If you're making a huge motion picture, you want to keep the drama and tension up, and the general audience is not going to get it if the heroes suddenly stop during their perilous journey, have a semi-interrogation, and then are let go with advice and aid. It fits the travelogue framework of Tolkien's text, which was a novel that made plenty of detours for geographic descriptions, songs, etc. But the movie needed to be streamlined.

I understood the issues as well, since Faramir's sole conflict in the books was with his father. Still, there was no need to go all they way to Osgiliath and have Frodo confront a Nazgul. (Sam's line near the end of TT, "We shouldn't even be here." is truly unfortunate.)

The problem within the script was the changes to Frodo's character, which were established when he ran away on Weathertop and did not confront the black riders at the ford. He was too weak for Faramir's interrogation to have any substance. Return Frodo's strength, and the byplay would provide enough conflict as is. JMO.

And the fact that so many parts were perfect make the mistakes even more glaring.

That is so true. For every Gollum-frames-Sam, there was a Gandalf-balrog freefall.

As much as I question several of Jackson and Boyens' script decisions, I marvel that they came as close as they did.

[Zahir]

Montressor--just so I can have a better notion of where you are coming from--would you please name four or five film adaptations of novels you consider superior? And one or two maybe you consider good but could have been much better? Please?

[Worm of Despite]

I used to have serious issues with the Faramir change, but Philippa defended it pretty well. If you're making a huge motion picture, you want to keep the drama and tension up, and the general audience is not going to get it if the heroes suddenly stop during their perilous journey, have a semi-interrogation, and then are let go with advice and aid. It fits the travelogue framework of Tolkien's text, which was a novel that made plenty of detours for geographic descriptions, songs, etc. But the movie needed to be streamlined.

I understood the issues as well, since Faramir's sole conflict in the books was with his father. Still, there was no need to go all they way to Osgiliath and have Frodo confront a Nazgul. (Sam's line near the end of TT, "We shouldn't even be here." is truly unfortunate.)

The problem within the script was the changes to Frodo's character, which were established when he ran away on Weathertop and did not confront the black riders at the ford. He was too weak for Faramir's interrogation to have any substance. Return Frodo's strength, and the byplay would provide enough conflict as is. JMO.

That I will agree with. The whole Frodo in Osgiliath was unneeded, as was Sam's by-the-committee, optimistic "there's always hope" speech.

Have you seen Kurosawa's Red Beard? That easily beats the LoTR films in terms of the detail they went to recreate their world. It even extended to them making medicines from the Tokugawa period and shelving them in cupboards on sets which were not once opened for a single shot.

I've seen Red Beard, though at the time I didn't know it was anymore accurate than Yojimbo, Samurai, Ran, etc., as far as period. Well, okay, definitely more accurate than Ran.

[Montresor]

Montressor--just so I can have a better notion of where you are coming from--would you please name four or five film adaptations of novels you consider superior? And one or two maybe you consider good but could have been much better? Please?

Do you mean novels in general, or adaptations of LoTR?

If the latter, there's only one contest, which I think is flawed, but superior (the Ralph Bakshi animated version, for those who don't know it).

If the former, there are many excellent film adaptations of books including, but not limited to, Cross of Iron, Bridges of Madison County, The Name of the Rose, The Shining, and Rashomon.

For adaptations which were good, but could have been much better, two that jump to my mind are Shogun (the full 12 hr version, not the woeful two hr edit), and Omega Man (the original adaptation of I am Legend).

[Cail]

Carpenter's The Thing is a tremendously good adaptation of the book.