Skip to comments.Why It's Time For The Peter Jackson Era Of 'The Lord Of The Rings' To End
Posted on 02/22/2014 7:44:18 AM PST by Perdogg
Peter Jackson has made some remarkable movies.
Theres no denying that his sprawling Lord of the Rings trilogy was the very definition of epicfilled with massive battles, touching moments, and beautiful cinematography, not to mention a lovely score.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Tom Bombadil is nowhere to be foundthat one mysterious figure who could put on the Ring with no effect, who could give it back without flinching (Sam gave it back, but he flinched) and whoaccording to Gandalfwould be the last man standing should Sauron lay waste to the rest of Middle Earth.Heh. I remember these types when the LOTR movies were still new, especially Return Of The King. Even the extended editions of these movies were over four hours long each; I missed the Scouring too, but could we really sit in the theater for six hours while that level of exposition went on?
And absent Bombadil, we also lost the Barrow Downs and the wights.
But perhaps the most glaring omission in Jacksons trilogy was the endingthe return of the four Hobbits to the Shire where Saruman had set up his miniature tyranny. Without going into great detail, this was the final straw for me when watching The Return of the King. The homecoming was important. The reactions of Frodo and Pippin and Merry were fundamental to bringing Tolkiens tale full circle.
And this is newsworthy because? Honest question, I don’t get it.
I don’t think there was any way that Tom Bombadil could have been in the story without leaving the viewer confused as to the danger of the ring and probably would have hurt the box office take.
But I think the Scouring should have been in the storyline to show that Hobbits weren’t as helpless as it seemed and that Saruman was still dangerous, even when he was at his weakest.
This isn’t listed under news, this listed under general chat. If you are not interested, move on.
Couldn’t believe they stretched the Hobbit into 3 episodes.
It has been adultered to do so. I just finished the novel.
It’s a question of how much alteration there was. Jackson drew upon other Tolkien works to flesh out the storyline.
Yes, I do think the chase scene in the first Hobbit was a bit much because it was obvious to me that they were zig-zagging across a small field.
I agree with him on this, but the first time I read LOTR I thought the scouring was anti-climatic. Maybe I was just disappointed the book was ending.
Jackson fought tremendous odds to deliver an economically viable and excellent product to the market.
Let's take some joy in this.
I challenge the author and critics to do better.
I agree it is entertaining. I especially love the music - in particular when Enya sings in Sindarin.
The river chase scene in the second Hobbit was dangerously approaching saturday morning cartoon standards.
I read an interview with Ralph Bakshi yesterday that was from 2008. He wanted Led Zeppelin for the soundtrack to the animated one.
Said the books were for the hippies in the East Village...
For instance, in the Mines of Moria, as if it weren't a dramatic enough chapter, here's Aragorn telling Frodo "Lean forward!" so that the rock bridge they're standing on can teeter in the right direction.
In a word, asinine.
I couldn't have agreed more.
Something that Hollywood has lost the skill of is telling a story. Especially an epic tale but storytelling in general.
Time was when a movie was over 2 hours, there would be several "acts" to the presentation, so that the audience got a dedicated break to use the restroom, get more popcorn since you will be in your chair another hour, call the babysitter, stretch your legs, grab a cigarette, etc.
It also helped audiences to process what they've just taken in, talk to their crowd, etc.
Now the stories just go on and on and on and on without taking a definite turn or any closure (until the end).
Theater owners think that breaks in the film would cut down on the number of screenings. (A) you can charge more for a 3 hour or 4 hour film, (B) the audience is more likely to buy some snacks midway in if they think they are going to be seated another 1:20. Instead, Hollywood doesn't give a damn when you step out to "take care of business". You pro'lly won't miss anything important. If it was, you'd be given opportunity to go at another time or strong warning signs that "something you don't wanna miss" is coming up.
Then again, people watch movies at home a lot now, so take a break every 15 minutes if you want, and you'll never be fully immersed in the tale. It's only a movie. It's only a movie...
Yes, there was a consensus of “too many endings” for that film. That was made mention of even in the audio commentaries on the extended-edition DVDs. It still cut down the number of endings of the book, which meant it must have been really difficult to pare down. Tolkien himself didn’t believe it was possible to translate the book to film in any wise.
I've walked out of two plodding Lars Von Trier movies (AFTER the 90 minute mark). I shan't go to another.
You think “Entr’acte” breaks would be a good sell in the theaters these days?
That was fantastic! There was a scene in the first movie where Frodo comes around a bend when leaving the eleven city and Galadriel is standing on the shore. The music crescendoes and there is a narrative in the background of hope, faith and strength. For a fanatasy epic is was particularly moving and a brilliant moment in Jackson’s efforts to capture the feeling of the moment.
Actually, although I enjoyed the movies, it became increasingly obvious that Peter Jackson didn’t really understand Tolkien at all.
In particular, the concepts of honor and nobility, which were so important to Tolkien, were completely omitted from the movie. I won’t go into details, but that was evident again and again.
I prefer to watch movies on film. I don't think the craft is getting better with the new technologies. They "photoshop" the colors in movies these days and run other "film process" filters over their videos to disguise the medium used. Would anyone be happy if "instagram filters" replaced all other forms of photography?
I actually went to see that LOTR cartoon in the theaters when it first came out. What a bust. It just suddenly ended in the middle of a fight scene, with a note at the end, saying to watch for the sequel. Needles to say, the ‘sequel’ never came.
Thanks for the ping.
it must be a slooooowww day over at Forbes if this is all their writers can find to bitch/write about
Indeed. The totality of the director’s cut is TWELVE HOURS for what is really just one long movie in 3 chapters. ...and that’s not much more than a summary of the book. Add in Tom, poetry, the scouring, etc and you’ll get a miniseries so long few will watch it and few can afford it (with such top-end production values).
One of my favorite parts of the LOTR trilogy is the “Scouring of the Shire”. I loved Jackson’s films but I don’t understand why he messed with Tolkien’s storyline for Saurman. I was looking forward to seeing how he depicted the “Scouring” chapter.
Of course you cannot put EVERYTHING in a film rendering of any book. That’s why part of the fun of it is arguing over why the director did this or didn’t do that. It’s a great “shoot the bull” discussion starter.
I must have gone out for popcorn and missed the lovely sex scene.
I have not read the books. I loved the movies. This seems like nit picking. The Trilogy will stand as one of the all-time great movie series, along with “Star Wars,” “Rocky,” “Dirty Harry,” and perhaps the James Bond series.
For the diehards, that wouldn't be a problem. Ever see the line up for a new i-phone? People pitch tents for that.
That didn’t tell me much info. Not really interested on clicking thru on my phone. Next time plz post a decent amount. Thanks in advance.
I missed the Scouring chapter. It showed what to do when confronted by tyranny, not only by the foreign enemy Saruman but his traitorous Hobbit followers as well. We here, especially, should “hold these truths to be self-evident. . . “ I think the omission was political correctness on Jackson’s part.
The churl with the pumpkin and the four heroes sullenly quaffing beer was as anti-climatic as possible.
He’d have done better to make six movies instead of three, the same two-book-per-volume split Tolkien used.
The purists who complain about things like omitting Tom Bombadil -- an entirely useless and vacuous character -- wouldn't be satisfied if Tolkien made the movie himself.
I got the same impression from Jackson's work on the Narnia films...
Leading with complaining there’s no Bombadil (whom I find to be one of the most annoying characters in the history of fiction) doesn’t really get me to sign up.
When complaining about how a movie is different than the book it’s based on always remember the line from Stephen King, they didn’t change the book, the book’s right there, anybody that like the way it is in the book better can read the book instead.
Yup. Just went right over his head.
To fulfill modern-dau expectations of character “growth,” I believe he felt impelled to include the ridiculous notion of Aragorn as torn and indecisive as to his goals.
Here’s a guy who’s in his 80s. He had fallen in love with Arwen at 20 years, and been engaged to her since he was 50. At this point he was informed that only a man who was King of both Gondor and Arnor would be allowed to marry her, setting up a parallel with the “impossible task” of recovering a silmaril for Beren to be allowed to marry Luthien.
So here’s a guy who has spent 30-some years working with great intensity towards this specific goal, and Jackson feels obliged to portray him as weak and unsure of himself.
In the books Aragorn was sometimes unsure what road to take. He had absolutely no doubt where he was headed in the long run.
But I blame this more on modern critics and intellectuals than on Jackson.
Next time you watch “The Longest Day” complete and uncut — keep an ear out during the first half for repetition of the line “Hold until relieved,” right up to just prior to the intermission.
Jackson got the orcs very wrong, IMO.
Possibly because places like England are in dire need of a scouring by the troops returning from fighting Muslims overseas — only to find that Islam has infested their own home Shires.
Hey...if you can’t rip-rap that Elf Yip-yap, you ain’t gettin’ none anyway.
Bombadil was originally a character in a poem that Tolkien composed prior to the LOTR books, in 1934 (three years before “The Hobbit”).
LeD Zepplin — but not “Queen”?
In fact, I can say that for most of my DVD collection. For about a 10-year period, I collected over 200 DVDs that are now gathering dust in my basement. I had visions at one time of building a massive DVD library and building a "home theatre" of sorts in my home in which I would invite people over for a truly cinematic experience - sort of like Hugh Hefner in his Playboy mansion.
Alas, that never quite came to pass. Instead, when I am in the mood to watch something, I plug in headphones and run Netflix on my MacBook Pro and watch "House of Cards", "Breaking Bad" or "Lost" on demand. Netflix has mostly lousy movies but they have a decent collection of TV shows that don't have all those commercials.
Getting a DVD to play on the television is actually a hassle by comparison. I have to go down to the basement to find what I want to watch, then I have to insert it into the Blu-Ray DVD player (I still have yet to see a Blu-Ray DVD) and then I have to figure out what buttons on the remote control get me to the DVD and then you have to change the TV to VIDEO 2 or some such setting. Then the audio doesn't come on and you have to go to your stereo receiver and select the right channel to bring in the audio. Such a hassle.
My wife keeps telling me to put the DVDs on Ebay so I can get rid of them (some of them are still shrink-wrapped!) but I'm just too damn lazy I guess.
You wouldn’t happen to have Charlton Heston in “The Warlord” would you?
Look at Gone With The Wind and Ben-Hur.
Long movies, both...yet audiences sat enraptured.
Here’s an interesting take on a subject... you might enjoy..
Time travellers: please dont kill Hitler
No I agree. I bought and eventually gave away my LOTR extended DVD’s because as time went on, the more I watched them the more I realized Jackson got it totally wrong. He dissed the high and lofty for the earth hippie vibe.
Have seen neither of the Hobbit movies in the theater. Rented the first one and it just reminded me of Jackson’s LOTR on steroids. Don’t know if I’ll rent the 2nd and 3rd or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.