What Did Jackson Do Right?
That's the basic question: what did Peter Jackson do right in his trilogy of LOTR?
For myself, he brought the place to visual life for people who had never read the books, or had not thought a lot about them after they probably read them for school or something.
I always loved Tolkien's works, so when I heard that someone was making movies based on them, I thought, "Yeah, right. Can't be done well, so nevermind." I did not go see FOTR when it was threater-released.
When it came out on DVD, my sister bought it and stuffed it in the player while I was busy doing something else. I sortof listened...and of course the music got me, but as I said, I was busy doing other things and didn't pay a lot of attention.
I was, however, startled by the production values, and how "right" things looked. I rather liked the age of things, the "this has been here awhile and care has been taken to preserve and keep it beautiful".
The second time my sis played it, again she picked a time I was busy, and again I didn't have time to watch properly. Same thing with the third time, but that time I put down my sewing and just watched.
That was, oh, maybe 20 viewings ago...within a month I was in FOTR rpgs, and so, to answer my own question, I think Jackson did almost everything right! He brought Middle-Earth to life.
I don't expect to be very active in this forum, but for once, I couldn't resist it
Quote:He brought Middle-Earth to life
No. He brought his vision of ME to life, a vision who is as valid (or not) as mine or yours (but, at the end, it wasn't Tolkien's vision and, mind, the professor wrote the tale). A vision that, besides, and of course IMHO, if it were a RPG instead a movie, it would be called a mary-sueish vision.
Ok, even Mary-Sues have a point, so, movies have a point too. But, honestly, and being totally frank, Tolkien would have disliked it a lot, at the sight of a part of his work (after all, LOTR is only a little part of his work) being messed and messed just for the sake of Hollywood, merchandising, fans (mostly of them now drawn away by the movie of the moment, from Troy to Kingdom of Heaven) and dollars (especially the last one).
I just hope, for the sake of my sanity and others' who have loved Tolkien's works for decades, that they never would make a movie based upon The Silmarillion&related books. The good thing is that it will never come to happen while Christopher Tolkien is alive. The bad thing is the man is like 85 or so and who knows what the heirs will do.
Re: What Did Jackson Do Right?
I can see both points of view. Perhaps a lot of it is just that when reading any book, everyone sees and hears in their mind the places, characters, and sounds in their own way, which is always different than every other reader.
In my mind's eye and ear when I read the books, I see and hear the sights and sounds of the places, characters, and creatures in the movies, and it really adds a dimension. But that won't be the case for everyone.
It would be impossible to film LOTR in its entirety and exactly how Tolkien would want it because it is such a huge and complex story, and movies do have some inherent limitations. But I do believe that Jackson and company tried hard to do a good job and be as faithful to the books as they could find a way to be. I disagreed with a few of the changes they deliberately made, but some of them were at least partly remedied in the Director's Versions.
Re: What Did Jackson Do Right?
I disagree there About the changes, I mean.
I can understand (and agree, even) with some things that did not appear in the movies, such as Gildor, Tom Bombadil, all the trip from Bag Ends to Rivendell etc.
But the rest? What he did to Arwen (no comments...), Elrond (Eärendil's son and Elros' brother dislinking men that much!!), Faramir (again, no comments...), Denethor (siiiigh), Gimli (PJ's official buffoon) and Theoden (have you seen Poltergeist?) --especially all these, the more damaged in their spirits-- it was made for free; the fight Gandalf vs Saruman; elves in Helm's Deep; all those dreams and scenes Aragorn/Arwen (invented!); Frodo being taken to Osgiliath; a horse named as a King of Rohan (!!!); Galadriel/Elrond chatting telepathically as if they were using their cell phones; Elrond in Rohan; Saruman's death *and* no struggle in the Shire (one of the basic pillars of the whole history of LOTR!), just to quote a few examples... there is no justification to do this.
If he had time to include so many scenes involving Arwen and Aragorn (invented scenes, I repeat) and to send elves to Rohan (my, what a nonsense) etc etc, he had time to follow what Tolkien wrote.
So, definitely, he did his vision, and it was a mary-sueish vision, making chars act against themselves just for the sake of fans and dollars. My complaints have little to do with how were portrayed, for example, Rivendell or Moria. Any reader displays them at his will, as all authors do (Nasmith, Howe etc); I do too, in my mind, and no movie will change it, thanks to Eru. I don't complain either because the million of teenagers (or not so teenagers) ruining the forums and rpg boards I used to be a part until some of us decided to leave or to hide or to change to an email mode to survive.
I complain (this time at least) because the corruption of Tolkien's spirit
And please don't take me wrong. I bought the three DVDs and the three OSD, as well as the thee DVDS-EE. And went to theater a lot of times (including the three premieres, oh yeah ) As movies, well, they are fun, as are too Gladiator or Troy or Kingdom of Heaven. But in the same way they had little to do with Roman Empire after Marcus Aurelius, Homer and the crusades and the knight templars, PJ's LOTR has not a lot to do with LOTR. If all these movies served to rouse people's interest for history, or for Tolkien, cool. But, in my experience, they served mainly (like 90%?) to mislead people that now like to think that Marcus Aurelius' son (which name I can't remember right now, sigh) was slain like in Gladiator; that the War of Troy was as in the movie, a lover's tale (and no, I don't mean Helena&Paris :P); that knights templars were as displayed in KoH... or that Tolkien's universe is as PJ did.
And still people (PJ's lovers) say movies rock; please, allow us, Tolkien's lovers, at least, to complain a bit about Tolkien and Books rock, PJ and movies... huh?
Re: What Did Jackson Do Right?
What did PJ do right? Easy. He made an absolutely stunning movie.
Did he always hit the mark? No.
I don't like the expression 'rock', but if I am to use it: Do the movies rock? Yes - but the books rock even more. The only real trouble that I see in the movies (as well as in the movies Troy and Galdiator ect) is that some people might look at them and take them as the real thing. The movies as Tolkien's LOTR, Troy as history. But they are not. Those movies are interpetations and fantasy. (In case of Troy it only vaguale resembles the story written by Homer). They are not *meant* to stick 100% to the book LOTR/Ilias, you name it.
I don't mind the movies. I love them, really really much. (Yes, there are a few moments in there that I absolutely despise, but those I ignore for the most part, and just fast forward through them when I watch the DVD) I understand most of the changes that they made, simply because a lot of things that work in a novel won't work at all in a movie - pace is one thing, chronology of events another - and the fact that for a movie audience everything has to be easier to understand while in a book you have much more time to bring across information.
Actually, I was one of the people who defended the movie when it forst came out against a lot of my friends.
PJ made a vision, and it is very much *his* vision of Middle Earth into a movie. That is alright, because it is just another version of the story. As someone once said, there are several versions of the Lord of the Rings. The is the book, and what is written there. Then there is the vision Tolkien had of Middle Earth when he wrote it, which I am sure was even more vast (and therefore not entirely the same) as what he wrote down. Then there is the version that everyone of us dreams up while reading the book. And then there is the movie.
Really, I like the movies. What I do mind is that now when I go into a roleplay who say they play LOTR I have to explain why I play this or that according to the book.
The book comes first, always. And as long as the interpretation that the movie is is not taken as canon I am happy, because personal interpretations are fine.
Truly, PJ could have made things better here and there, and in some cases he should have, but there was no way he could have made everyone completely happy, because we all are interpreting, because we take the words from the book and turn them into pictures in our minds - as many different pictures as readers.
Quote:The only real trouble that I see in the movies (as well as in the movies Troy and Galdiator ect) is that some people might look at them and take them as the real thing.
Ai, Andranneth. As always you expressed it better than I did. It is like the "I'm a Tolkien fan" I have heard (well, mostly read) so many times, coming from people that have seen the movies and did not read the book or, even if they did, they only did read LOTR, as if it were Tolkien's only work. And I can't help but think: My mother would get mad at this.
She teaches literature in a High School (I think it's the right term, like Gymnasium in Germany, the last step before to join the uni), and one of the first things she taught me about literature was to correct me when each time I said "I am a fan of this or that author". She was right when she asked me: "Do you have read more than a couple of his/her books? Do you know of his/her life, ideas, thoughts, motivations? Do you know his/her works, completely or closer? Then don't claim but to like the couple of books you did read. You would need to know him/her more than this to claim to be a fan".
I understood it (with a few grunts :P) but since the movies were released, I understand it better.
And, as always, my mind moved away from the issue, sigh XD Resuming the topic: it is hard to deal or to role-play with people who are definitely movie-versed and take PJ as canon, if you try to discuss or to play taking the books as canon. This is the main gap between the groups. I, personally, don't join places which are movie-versed, since I have no interest in them (as I would never join a place to discuss about the Crusades and the Poor Knights Of Christ And Of The Temple Of Solomon aka the templars) if they were HoK-versed. The problem comes when they claim to be Tolkien's fans (instead to be PJ's fans) or they join a board of yours and want to discuss or RP the movie and not the books.
Quote:Do the movies rock?
As movies, yes, but I think I already explained my POV
And I do apologize, sincerely, if I harmed someone (take it as a language barrier!) since it was not my intention (well, none complained still, but just in case); this is but the result of a few years of endless arguments about this topic XD
Quote:And I do apologize, sincerely, if I harmed someone (take it as a language barrier!) since it was not my intention (well, none complained still, but just in case); this is but the result of a few years of endless arguments about this topic XD
Don't worry. No one will complain because there is nothing to complain about. This is a place where everyone can state their opinions, as long as there are no personal insults. So, please don't worry about that.
However, I have a little question... what does "XD" mean?
Re: What Did Jackson Do Right?
For the most part I think Jackson cast the movie very well. The mains were just right in my eyes, with one exception: Arwen. I really think someone more ethereal would have been better, but I cannot think of someone I would have put in her role. She was the heaviest, most human-looking in physique of the Elves, and yet, that is perhaps fitting as she is 1/4 human.
But the ones that really get me are the lesser characters. I have never quite made friends with Haldir, and with some of the unnamed-in-the-movie but named-in-trading-card Elves I positively disagree: namely Orophin, Rumil, and on the very top of the list is Glorfindel, followed second by Erestor.
I really really disagree in those two choices. Glorfindel in many (comparatively, for there are few to begin with) shots looks almost childlike, not at all like a mighty Balrog-slayer. Erestor looks like someone who...never laughs!
I do not actually have the trading cards or I am sure I would mention more in this category or extra-turned-character.
Still, when it comes to the mains, especially the Fellowship, I cannot see anyone else in their roles, even though I know Boromir and Faramir had dark hair.
Re: What Did Jackson Do Right?
I really don't like how elves look in the movies; too much androgynous and/or aged (as Elrond). Sigh, ok: to be honest, most of them looks gay in my eyes. Dwarves, though, look ok.
Of the whole casting, I really like Boromir, Bilbo, Theoden, Sam, Denethor, Saruman and Eomer (that for men); and Eowyn and Galadriel (that for women), despite in my mind Galadriel looks more as Michelle Pfeiffer when she was younger. But I love Cate Blanchett since I saw her in "Elizabeth" and "Premonition" (and that was long before LOTR).
And, of course, for me, the perfect Gandalf would have been Sean Connery (think in The Name of the Rose) ;)
Re: What Did Jackson Do Right?
(Sorry, been working long hours.)
I like the way most of the elves look, just not all of them, it's like Mr Jackson just got all the tall peeps from NewZealand who looked even a bit elvish and put them incostumes. Some of those ladies are really pretty and the guys look okay too but I like Legolas best because when I saw him I felt like I knew what an elf looked like when I couldn't quite get that from the books. (My fault there, not too pictorial in my imagination.) Elrond was great too, and he should look older cuz he's old, right? I thought he was great.
Jackson mighta tried to get all those elves to look adrogynous so guys and gals looked kindof alike but I think he didn't get that because you can still tell the guys from the gals easy. Galadriel was the best elf, she was just the best of all, graceful and I have to be careful talking about her because I got a crush on her. Anyway, the guy who was her husband in the movie, Celeborn, I liked him too. We didn't get to know him too good, but I liked him a lot even though jealous he was married to that amazing Galadriel. It was Gimli falling for her that made finally like Gimli.
I do not agree with the looks of all the characters either, but the castingg was at least done pretty decend, so that the acting fits mostly. Kate Blanchett as Galadriel is the perfect fit, because she has both the looks and the air, and the elegant movement - a point where Orlando Bloom fails.
I know it is possibly not the most important part, but I just see when a person is not in balance (once the eye is trained to see it one can't switch it off - made watching Matrix II a trial), and very often, in some places where I could *see* he was working on moving gracefully, dance-like..it just wasn't there.
Elrond... from the acting part I would say good fit, even though it doesn't fully fit with the description The face of Elrond was ageless, neither old nor young, though in it was written the memory of many things both glad and sorrowful...his eyes were grey as a clear evening, and in them was a light like the light of stars. Venerable he seemed as a king crowned with many winters, and yet hale as a tried warrior in the fulness of his strength. - But honestly, with only human actors avaiable, that is very difficult to achieve.
Faramir especially I pictured differently, too, but again, the casting itself ..just fit. Just for the looks I still keep the picture in my mind.
The one character I clearly didn't buy is Haldir... i think he's also the main reason for the slash invasion in LOTR fanfic.
Celeborn... not sure there, that scene also has a certain 'off' touch for me, but so far i haven't fully figurred out the reason.
Re: What Did Jackson Do Right?
On the whole I was very happy with the casting of the main characters. I am sadly not closely familiar with the physical descriptions in the books, but most everyone had the right effect overall (for my imagination, anyway). No matter how he was described in the books, Gandalf will now always have the face, voice, and mannerisms that Ian McKellen portrayed. I also especially liked Sean Bean as Boromir, he is such a powerful actor. And Cate Blanchett was just perfect. Of all the speaking roles, I was the least convinced by Haldir.
I don't understand why the main Elves (Legolas, Elrond, Galadriel, Celeborn, Arwen, Haldir) did not seem at all androgynous, but many of those we only glimpsed did. There is no reason why they should look androgynous, so in my mind, they don't. I remember reading that Jackson and team had trouble finding New Zealanders who even came close to looking Elven so they couldn't necessarily get the right looks for the Silmarillion ones. I sure don't agree with how they looked in the movies and just ignore it in my mind's eye.
Re: What Did Jackson Do Right?
I usually do not comment on such questions; but I will comment here.
I appreciate the books and films as two different mediums. I've adored the books since I was eleven and now I am fascinated with the films. I believe Pete did what no other director could do with the literature and I will forever admire and appreciate him for it, even if he does make a film about a Giant Ape.
I love just about everything about the films. Sure, he made a lot of changes, but the justifications behind his changes make sense to me. He was making a film for an audience of which at least half had not read the books and were not immersed in Tolkien's legends. Sacrifices had to be made, things altered, added, deleted.
And personally, I believe Tolkien would have appreciated what Pete did. I think that had he lived into this century he would have been worldly enough to understand what Pete was achieving and possibly even collaborated with the NZ team. I don't believe he would have boycotted it like Christopher did. Certainly, there would have been things he did not like (like Legolas using an Orc shield as a skateboard...) but on the whole, he would havebeen pleased, I think.
As for casting - with the exception of John Noble, I don't think it could have been better. Liv has scores of critics, but I think that she, in the simplest words, was wonderful. And very, very brave to take on what was sure to become such a controversial part.
Re: What Did Jackson Do Right?
What did you not like about John Noble? I think he's a great actor and made the best out of the script, which unfortunately did not/could not leave much room for character developement or showing the deep conflict of Denethor. He managed to show the madness in a believable way, even though the reason for it is never shown in the movie.
Denethor as a character suffered the most from the lack of time he was given in the movie, and that of course restrained the actor a lot, too.
Re: What Did Jackson Do Right?
I believed in his acting and I think he at least looked the part...but he just wasn't Denethor for me, know what I mean? Whereas I can look at the Ians and the Seans and go - yep, Hobbits and Men and Wizard - when it came to him, it just wasn't how I imagined it. But I hold him no ill-will and I do think he did the best under difficult circumstances and altered plotlines!
Re: What Did Jackson Do Right?
I agree, the Denethor in the movie and in the books have very little in common. But that is definitely the problem of the skript. Even in the book he is sometimes veiled and one has to read carefully to see the full depth. In the movie - forgive my language, but Denethor just comes across as just a j...
While the extended versions did something to repair Faramir to an extend, Denethor just didn't get a chance.
Really, I am not a fan of flashbacks, and looking at TTT, the movie had far too many of them - but in terms of Denethor and his sons I would have loved to see jut a short flashback to more hapy times. It would have helped a bunch.
But yes, I believe that John Noble would have been perfect, had the character of Denethor been given just a little more space.
Just look at him and Jean Bean together in that tinsy little scene they had - it could have been grand, but there was no time.
About the changes, I mean. 
) As movies, well, they are fun, as are too Gladiator or Troy or Kingdom of Heaven. But in the same way they had little to do with Roman Empire after Marcus Aurelius, Homer and the crusades and the knight templars, PJ's LOTR has not a lot to do with LOTR. If all these movies served to rouse people's interest for history, or for Tolkien, cool. But, in my experience, they served mainly (like 90%?) to mislead people that now like to think that Marcus Aurelius' son (which name I can't remember right now, sigh) was slain like in Gladiator; that the War of Troy was as in the movie, a lover's tale (and no, I don't mean Helena&Paris :P); that knights templars were as displayed in KoH... or that Tolkien's universe is as PJ did.
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies