It’s not just you… this was discussed in the FOTR EE extras. Much of the film is digitally color-graded, to accent certain parts of the picture or give a scene an overall color tone. All those bright greens and gloomy blues are there on purpose. Sometimes it really works (especially in the first scenes in Hobbiton in FOTR), and other times I find it slightly annoying, but overall its pretty effective. I think it’s a neat tool, but one that should be used with subtlety and care.
In the movie, that was said by Sam at Dwarrowdelf, so at least they kept the character right.
Maybe because we don’t think the films are all that great?
Clearly TTT didn’t impress the Oscar folks as much as FOTR did. So I don’t seem to have been the only one to have noticed a drop-off from Film #1 to #2.
I won’t go to large type to say this one more time, but bolding seems appropriate: I’m a hell of a lot more irked by Jackson’s including a whole bunch of stuff that wasn’t there in the first place, than I am about his leaving stuff out. And altering the characters in ways that seem to be without foundation or reason, as I’ve described above.
Oh really? One of the major themes of the book was that you can change stuff around however you like, and I’m still supposed to like it? Gandalf disagreed when Saruman did that. But thanks for playing.
Maybe because we don’t think the films are all that great?
Maybe you didn’t like them for reasons which i might not understand, but i have absolutly no problem with people not liking a film. But your argument is based upon the fact that because PJ did things you didn’t like the entire movie(s) become invalid? I dont think so.
Son, you’re the one who’s presented his opinion as truth: “in two excellent 3 1/2 hour films based on some of the greatest works of literature ever PJ has made some of the most amazing films ever.” I think I’ve done a reasonably good job at expressing my opinion as my opinion. And my opinion, which I’ve expressed some detailed reasons for holding, is that because Jackson did enough things that are, in my opinion, downright stupid or have no reason being even in the movie, the movie is overall a turkey, despite some partially redeeming moments.
But since I’m back here, that gives me a second shot at this:
There’s imagination and escapism of all sorts of different types. Armageddon and Dumb and Dumber involve escapism, at the very least, and surely some modest smidgen of imagination. JRRT would not have liked either.
So just because Jackson’s version involves imagination and escapism doesn’t mean it’s something that’s true to the spirit of Tolkien. Whether it is or isn’t, we can debate. But this doesn’t support either side of that debate.
What I would submit is that Tolkien wrote to please himself, not the public; fortunately, a good chunk of the public discovered they liked Tolkien’s world. You admit that Jackson changed things from the book to the movie for the purpose of selling the movie to the mass market; I can say that that is unquestionably not in the spirit of Tolkien.
I’m a fan of battle and fight scenes, I liked the fact that there were so many of them, but I didn’t like the way they were shown. Maybe they were compensating for weak CGI, but a lot of the action was shot so fast and with so much jump cutting from one viewpoint to another that I had a lot of trouble seeing what was going on.
This was especially so in the battle at Helm’s Deep. It was shot at night, in the rain, with lots of fast jump-cutting from scene to scene. Something dark would jump at something dark and then outher dark things would move and then we’d move to a long shot of dark masses blobbing around then a jump cut to something dark with a gleaming metal somewhere and something darker moving and then …
I think it hurt the dramatic tension because I was having trouble telling who was winning and who was losing or who was orc or who was human.
[minor nitpick]You mention “jump cuts” three times there, but what you describe is not a jump cut. A jump cut is a technical flaw (sometimes done on purpose) in film editing, wherein a the subject on screen is edited so that they “jump” from one point to another. For example, a poorly-edited interview in which the subject’s words are cut, and you can see the cut as the person “jumps” suddenly. These are usually covered by backup footage.
Now, I might agree that some of the battle scenes use fast editing and that was sometimes confusing. Overall, I felt the battle scenes were very well edited, but there were a few cuts that were somewhat confusing (and possibly meant to be so, to convey the confusion and chaos of battle). However, I do see your point… just don’t use the word “jump cut” to make it, bcause there were no jump cuts in the battle scenes.[/minor nitpick]
For what it’s worth, I liked the frantic cuts in the battle scenes. A battle is supposed to be confusing. That’s actually one of the things which can be done better on film than on the page, I think.
But I still wasn’t too impressed by the movie overall. I won’t complain about cuts made to shorten the movie, since I understand that it was necessary. But I didn’t like the things that PJ put in. Specifically, I didn’t like the bit with Aragorn being presumed dead, and I really didn’t like the whole deal with Faramir. No, a movie-maker adapting a classic is not obligated to follow the original in every detail. But he should at least consider the fact that the book is a classic for a reason, and that maybe the author was better than himself at telling a story. I don’t think that the way things happen in the book is better because that’s the way Tolkien wrote it. I think that Tolkien wrote it that way because it’s better.
Why is it that this topic brings out the rabid wolves in people? I feel the need to increase the love here. I think one of the most important things to remember is that the Books and the Movies can coexist in the same world; neither one has to override or invalidate the other. It’s like that psychologist lady who said that making a movie of Harry Potter was bad because it would keep kids from using their own imaginations–that’s BS! Nothing can replace or anihilate your own personal vision. And even if something varies from it, that something deserves respect because it’s someone else’s vision and probably just as important to them as yours is to you.
So let’s all sit around a fire and make s’mores… please?
FWIW, After watching TTT, I went back and watched FotR again (what, I had 3.5 hours to kill - it was the EE). It made me appreciate FotR more than before because I saw what PJ was doing to set up things in Fellowship for Towers. I’m hoping that this will be the same when we see RotK - that certain places, scenes or characters were augmented/diminished/altered so that it would ultimately make sense in the end. It actually wouldn’t surprise me if they wrote the screenplay backwards, in a sense.
A little quip…
Aragorn’s falling off of the cliff serves a few purposes, to make those who haven’t read the book think that he is dead, to bring the Arwen’s decision element into it, and to allow those at Helm’s Deep to eventually find out about the outnumbering of their people, which is in the books.
And I know for a fact that they had script revisions day in and day out. (FOTR: SE disc 4, from vision to reality)
P.S - sorry to all non-LoTR fans for bumping this thread, although if your reading this apology then you must have some like of LoTR so why am i apologising?
To stay on topic for a second - I liked TWO TOWERS, as a book and as a movie. I must admit to a certain confusion when Faramir chose to try and take the ring in the movie (Wait - that’s not in the book!), but I rather liked it. After all, if the ring can corrupt people so readily, it seems a bit odd in the book that he just lets the hobbits go with some snacks and a kind word. It complicates the character of Faramir a bit, and I liked that. And Gollum was tremendous.
It seems to me that in watching a movie adapted from a book, you have to let the book go to a certain extent, and appreciate the movie for what it is. Or don’t watch it. But in the end, an opinion is an opinion, and you can like or dislike whatever you… um… choose.
<hijack>Someone mentioned in this thread that Gandalf is a Maia. I’ve read LOTR, THE HOBBIT, and THE SILMARILLION, and the most they ever tell you about the wizards in those books is that they’re called the Istari and that they were probably sent by the Vanyar. Where did you find out that they were Maia?</hijack>
<nitpick>
Vanyar were a subset of the elves that reached the Undyning lands.
</nitpick>
The Book of Lost Tales or Unfinished Tales has a section on the selection of the 5 Istari.
