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?