The Hobbit

Originally posted by Duke of Brabant
Let's fight Raven 😛.

Why was PJ the right person to film LOTR? Was it not just fortunate for him he could work with the right people who love the books even more than he does? I name John Howe and Alan Lee, or Christopher Lee and Ian McKellen, and the guy from Weta Workshop, etc... Name another movie PJ made that blew your mind away before ...[text shortened]... he Hobbit'. 🙂

I always thought Ridley Scott would have been the man to do it properly.

Why? You'll just end up losing again....

PJ loved the books hardcore. Ever seen an interview with him...? I can't think of any other movies PJ did that "blew my mind" but why on Earth would that matter?? The fact that he did not make any other fantastic movies does not take away from the greatness that was LotR.

Originally posted by Raven69
Why? You'll just end up losing again....

PJ loved the books hardcore. Ever seen an interview with him...? I can't think of any other movies PJ did that "blew my mind" but why on Earth would that matter?? The fact that he did not make any other fantastic movies does not take away from the greatness that was LotR.

I don't mind if PJ doesn't direct The Hobbit. He screwed up the friendship between the hobbits so bad that they ended up looking like a bunch of gay ewoks at the end of the movie.

PJ seems to do action well but misses out on the relationship scenes.

Most everything else was great though.

Originally posted by uzless
I don't mind if PJ doesn't direct The Hobbit. He screwed up the friendship between the hobbits so bad that they ended up looking like a bunch of gay ewoks at the end of the movie.

PJ seems to do action well but misses out on the relationship scenes.

Most everything else was great though.

Yes, that's my problem with PJ too. He misses out on the stuff that was very important to Tolkien. And in the end, I don't think the movies are really representative for the books.

Originally posted by uzless
I don't mind if PJ doesn't direct The Hobbit. He screwed up the friendship between the hobbits so bad that they ended up looking like a bunch of gay ewoks at the end of the movie.

Gah, they do not...! Can man not show the tiniest bit of affection without being called gay anymore??

Originally posted by Duke of Brabant
He misses out on the stuff that was very important to Tolkien.

Please elaborate.

Originally posted by Raven69
Please elaborate.

Not so much missing out stuff as changing completely events, characters, etc.

Lets see...Faramir not letting Frodo and Sam go free in "The Two Towers" but instead taking them to Osgiliath. The reason the filmakers gave for this was that if Faramir was able to refuse the lure of the Ring then it would lose its sense of power in the eyes of the audience. Unfortunately they forgot the long list of people who resisted the Ring before Faramir did: Bilbo (twice), Gandalf, Elrond, Aragorn, Galadriel, Boromir (that sequence in the mountains where he picks it up and then gives it back to Frodo. Nonsense. I guess he didn´t want it that badly then even though earlier at the Council of Elrond he seemed desperate to take it and use it). Plus taking them to Osgiliath allowed the Ringwraiths to see that Frodo was carrying the Ring, so Sauron would have learned that the Ring had been found and was being carried by a Hobbit very close to Mordor, something which he had no idea of in the books. So, Faramir shoots at the Ringwraith and it flies away. What about the others that were flying about? They run away too? These things can´t be killed, what are they afraid of? Plus, now that Sauron is aware of the Ring´s location he would assume that it´s being taken to Minas Tirith to be used against him, something he fears more than anything, so he would immediately lay seige to Osgiliath to try to stop this from happening. Or worse, he might figure out that they´re trying to take it into Mordor and would immediately seal his borders then send the Ringwraiths to hunt Frodo down. Game over.

One little character change in the wrong place messed up the logic of everything that followed it. He handled the 1st film well enough, probably because it had the most linear storyline easiest to put to film, but he really screwed up the other two.

Originally posted by Raven69
Please elaborate.

There's no point in elaborating 🙂. If you read the books (and you said you did 🙂) you'll know what I mean and probably say: "well, they had to cut out things to make it into a movie." Which is true, but PJ just cut away every non action part and threw the best stuff out. I'll give one example (one of many) that annoys me. Instead of letting Legolas skate on a shield of the stairs whilst shooting his bow like crazy, or making him summer sault to mount a galloping horse (all pointless scenes to be honest), PJ might have added a nice scene with elves singing or telling a legendary tale, like Tolkien portrayed them in the books. Tolkien loved myths, tales and sagas, and I'm pretty sure he did not like elaborate fighting scenes, having seen the horrors of war with his own eyes. Sorry Raven, PJ did not respect the spirit of the books, or he did not get what it was all about in the end. I prefer the unfinished semi-cartoon R. Bakshi made above the PJ abomination any day 🙂.

Originally posted by Duke of Brabant
There's no point in elaborating 🙂. If you read the books (and you said you did 🙂) you'll know what I mean and probably say: "well, they had to cut out things to make it into a movie." Which is true, but PJ just cut away every non action part and threw the best stuff out. I'll give one example (one of many) that annoys me. Instead of letting Leg ...[text shortened]... id not like elaborate fighting scenes, having seen the horrors of war with his own eyes.

I agree completely with you. I didn't even bother watching the third film because I got so annoyed when I watched the first two. I can see the necessity to leave out some scenes, also scenes I would really really like to keep, but what really annoyed me was that so much time was spent on things which actually are not that important in the book. And you are right about Tolkien's thoughts about this. I have a book which contains a letter he wrote to Forrest J. Ackerman, who had proposed an animated film of The Lord of The Rings. In that (long) letter he talks about what's wrong with the script by Zimmerman. One of the things he mentions is Zimmerman's love for fighting scenes while leaving out parts of the story which are essential for its character and atmosphere. I am sure he would have said the same about Peter Jackson's films.

Originally posted by Duke of Brabant
There's no point in elaborating 🙂. If you read the books (and you said you did 🙂) you'll know what I mean and probably say: "well, they had to cut out things to make it into a movie." Which is true, but PJ just cut away every non action part and threw the best stuff out. I'll give one example (one of many) that annoys me. Instead of letting Leg ...[text shortened]... I prefer the unfinished semi-cartoon R. Bakshi made above the PJ abomination any day 🙂.

While I agree that the Legolas scenes were a particularly low point in the movies (and those scenes kept getting bigger and more ridiculous one movie to the next) Peter Jackson did have to ensure that the films didn´t contain too much material that would have come off as silly or pointless to viewers who hadn´t read the books. Scenes such as Elves singing or reading poetry would have rubbed off on some people that way, and would also have seriously slowed the film down (though all those slow motion shots did that anyway). Obviously he forgot his own rule for films 2 & 3 and filled them with so much rubbish it seemed as though he was promoting a Playstation game, which in a way he was.

Originally posted by Duke of Brabant
Name another movie PJ made that blew your mind away before LOTR (and even after, because things like King Kong are just all about special effects, not pieces of cinematic art).

Braindead, Meet the Feebles, Bad Taste. All pretty good movies that won Peter Jackson quite a reputation in underground film fests. I think he did a fabulous job on the first film (especially the extended version) and the last two were good, but a bit more disappointing for Tolkien fans (especially after the first).

Still, they were much better than I had expected or that I thought could ever be, so kudos to him. Would be nice to see a different person do the Hobbit, though.

Originally posted by Raven69
Gah, they do not...! Can man not show the tiniest bit of affection without being called gay anymore??

uh, the TINIEST BIT of affection? Understatement of the year candidate there.

Slow motion camera, long slow motion stares into each other eyes, slow romantic music in the background, soft white light everywhere, frodo waking up to nice soft clean white sheets...

Come on, these guys just went through hell and killed, murdered and hacked to death everything in sight and then it's all back to sunshine and butterflies??

Talk about romanticizing death and the horrors of war. PJ missed the boat.

Originally posted by nige22
Peter Jackson did have to ensure that the films didn´t contain too much material that would have come off as silly or pointless to viewers who hadn´t read the books.

Exactly! People have to realize that a movie is a completely different media than a book. You can't get exactly the same "feel" from watching the movie as you do from reading the book. Basically, you can sit there and nit-pick at every small detail like Faramir not letting Frodo go right away, or there being no elf-singing scenes, etc, or you can just enjoy the movie for what it is...

Originally posted by Nordlys
And you are right about Tolkien's thoughts about this.

No one should assume what Tolkien would have thought of the film, as none of us are him, we can not know for sure what his reaction would have been.

Originally posted by uzless
uh, the TINIEST BIT of affection? Understatement of the year candidate there.

Slow motion camera, long slow motion stares into each other eyes, slow romantic music in the background, soft white light everywhere, frodo waking up to nice soft clean white sheets...

Come on, these guys just went through hell and killed, murdered and hacked to death everyth ...[text shortened]... nd butterflies??

Talk about romanticizing death and the horrors of war. PJ missed the boat.

Soft white light everywhere? Slow romantic music?? O_o I'm not sure we watched the same movie.....

Originally posted by nige22
Not so much missing out stuff as changing completely events, characters, etc.

Lets see...Faramir not letting Frodo and Sam go free in "The Two Towers" but instead taking them to Osgiliath. The reason the filmakers gave for this was that if Faramir was able to refuse the lure of the Ring then it would lose its sense of power in the eyes of the audience. U ...[text shortened]... sted the Ring before Faramir did: Bilbo (twice), Gandalf, Elrond, Aragorn, Galadriel, Boromir

And also Tom Bombadil, who predates good and evil in the novels. I can understand Jackson cutting him out, though - a blockbuster isn't a good medium for dealing with nuance.

Personally, I thought the first film worked well because it was more of a horror story. What ruined the films for me was the decision to cut out the Scouring of the Shire; it's arguably one of the most important chapters in LotR.