“Most” cringeworthy? Hardly. That’s gotta be the “nervous system” comment. At least the shield surfing was kind of cool.
I would say 90% is a good figure.
Frankly, I forgive him the foibles because without him the movies would never have been made.
-
Treating the DVD extended editions and special features as full-on complete projects, instead of cutting room floor filler. The theatrical release versions were just the obligatory outlines for what was to come
-
Using the previous Tolkien calendar artists as the basis for art design and staying faithful to previous creative fan visions, instead of coming up with some crappy “new vision”.
-
Everything Rohan related was chillingly perfect…Eowyn, the funeral dirge, the look, the feel of the city, it brings chills every time I watch Two Towers.
-
The whole first half of Fellowship while in the Shire was perfect (extended DVD version of course), the party, Gandalf, Bilbo, the near word for word nods to Tolkien’s writing and dialogue…just wow!
Ugh. At least it was mercifully short.
I can’t stand the scene where Legolas climbs up on an Oliphant etc etc…
I came in to mention the casting, which I agree was almost entirely perfect. I wanted to particularly highlight Elijah Wood, just because it seemed so odd to me when I first heard it. I mean, when you hear Ian McKellen is Gandalf, or Christopher Lee is Saruman, or John Rhys-Davies is Gimli, you think, “Yeah, they’ll be perfect!” And of course they were. But when you get Elijah Wood as Frodo, that’s a real WTF 
moment.
And now, when I read those books, I hear all of Frodo’s lines in Wood’s voice, because he totally pwned that role. Absolutely brilliant.
I loved the seamless integration of the extra scenes! I am so fucking tired of having to view deleted scenes seperately.
And, dumping Glorfindel to add more Arwen was inspired.
I also agree with most of the other stuff here.
When I hear people nit-pick and complain about the films, the thing running through my mind is “Who could possibly done a better job of it?” Seriously! There are a lot of great directors out there, but I can’t think of a single one who could have accomplished what PJ did. It pretty much required a director with a through understanding of the possibilities of special effects, who had, or could build, an world-class effects shop. That’s a pretty small group - Lucas, Spielberg and Robert Rodriguez are the only ones I can think of. There are fans of the book who can’t abide the thought that anyone would change or edit Tolkein’s words, but I’m trying to imagine the horrible mess that a hack like Akiva Goldsmith would have made of “Ron Howard’s Lord of the Rings”. PJ, Phillipa and Fran did a brilliant job.
Everything you said is true. I cannot think of a director that would have done a better job. Lucas definitely would not have. I have hopes though that PJ producing & Guillermo Del Toro directing the Hobbit might actually be an improvement. It is much to ask but I found Pan’s Labyrinth a masterpiece. I also note both directors look Hobbitish. 
I don’t think any other books have the fanatical fan base with the detailed knowledge that LotR has. I think that is why you see so much nitpicking. Most casual fans and many of the expect fans love the movies. I am one of the harsh critics and I acknowledge that the problem is mainly mine and not PJs. Every major change hurt me and many of the minor changes.
Aiyeeeeeeeee! :eek:
I’m sure that del Toro will do a brilliant job with The Hobbit and agree with you about Pan’s Labyrinth. But I don’t think that even he could have pulled off creating the Lord of the Rings trilogy if Jackson had never been born.
I’ve watched all the documentary stuff about the making of the films, and am continually amazed at how everything came together. For instance, if you listen to the commentaries, you’ll find out that many scenes you assumed Jackson had directed were actually directed by some of his collaborators, like Barry Osbourne or Fran Walsh. Try to imagine Orson Welles letting Herman J. Mankiewicz direct a few scenes of Citizen Kane. Substantial talent is too often encumbered with an equally substantial ego. Jackson has an ability to delegate responsibility that is rare, a a genius eye for talent in others.
Again, I agree 100%. Del Toro was not even a major fan of the LotR so I am sure he would not have approached it the way PJ did.
Dude, it takes a while to render that many gungans.
-Joe
I didn’t. Much too dark, and hwaaaay too politically biased.:mad: I can just see Del Toro’s take on the Hobbit, posing the Hobbits as a Commune and the Dragon as a Nazi.
I don’t have a political horse in this race, so I don’t have a perspective on that part of the story. Hard to get worked up about a Fascist being portrayed as an evil bastard.
Jackson, Walsh and Boyens are writing the script with del Toro and besides, PJ is the producer, and can fire del Toro if he doesn’t like the direction he’s taking it. But I think that’s a baseless fear. I’m confident he’ll continue Jackson’s style and direction.
That said, it’s hard to believe that Jackson was too busy to do this because he’s going to direct a film based on a fricken video game! As Rocky said to Bullwinkle “That trick never works!”
Wow, I’m quite frankly very surprised that the movies are getting any criticism at all here. When I read the thread title I thought the thread would be 30 responses of “everything!” I posted some (IMO very valid) criticisms here when the films were new - all the while admitting that I liked them - and practically got pelted with rotten eggs.
Anyway, I’d say this is pretty much spot on (and funny, because my preference for the movies is in reverse order to my preference for the books):
Well, it’s arguable whether the FET-JONS and Franco were really Facists:
wiki:Although Franco and Spain under his rule adopted some trappings of fascism, he, and Spain under his rule, are not generally considered to be fascist; among the distinctions, fascism entails a revolutionary aim to transform society, where Franco and Franco’s Spain did not seek to do so, and, to the contrary, although authoritarian, were conservative and traditional.[1][2][3][4][5] Stanley Payne, the preeminent scholar on fascism and Spain notes: “scarcely any of the serious historians and analysts of Franco consider the generalissimo to be a core fascist.”[4][6] The consistent points in Franco’s long rule included above all authoritarianism, nationalism and anti-Freemasonry; some authors also quote integralism.[7] All in all, Franco’s regime showed a frontal rejection of Communism, Socialism and Anarchism, three ideologies that were widespread in Spain with generous support from abroad, especially from the Soviet Union.
And if you do consider them Fascist, then the other side were Commies, and thus hardly Saints on earth. In fact, Stalinism was as evil as Nazism.
Did you see the companion thread? To those LOTR fans who hate Jackson’s LOTR cycle, how would YOU have done it better?
DrDeth, I think you are reading too much into the movie. The fascist made a very convenient fantasy style bad guy and of course the rebels were just ‘noble’ peasants fighting for what was right. They barely spoke of Franco or the Reds. You and I and others might know the history of the time being displayed but most probably knew nothing about it and had no clue the rebels were anti-fascist commies. They were just the good guys without any political message. I don’t recall any communist propaganda. Do you?
I have to agree with 90% figure used above. I also liked the one-liners that Gimili had that added some depth to his character. Especially as it was used to enhance the developing friendship and respect between Gimili and Legolas through thier competitions during battles.
also, am I the only on that thinks Guillermo del Torois aging into a Mexican Bruce Vilanch?:eek:
Most of what I wanted to say has been posted already. I utterly reject the last two paragraphs of your post, msmith537. But this:
Well put. 
Until recently I couldn’t articulate what I loved most about Peter Jackson’s LOTR. Then for a larf I rented Ralph Bakshi’s “The Lord of the Rings”, and while shaking my head over it afterwards I had a breakthrough. IMHO, the problem with Bakshi’s approach was that because it was “fantasy”, he thought the film had to be fantastic. As in, “Who needs verisimilitude or logical consistency? Just slap on the psychedelic palette and they’ll eat it up.” Hence the bizarro mutated foliage of the Shire and the interminable acid-trip Ford of Brunien sequence, among other failures (again, IMO). Compare that to Jackson & Co.'s actual locations and meticulous details. For me, grounding the story in such a realistic setting only heightened the suspension of disbelief so vital to enjoying fantasy.
To illustrate in fewer words, when I first watched “The Fellowship of the Ring” and terrifically costumed orcs snarled in an amazingly rendered landscape, my brain approved. But a little while later when the sunlit Shire opened up and Hobbit children ran shouting “Gandalf!”, well, that’s when the film had my heart. It still has it, all these years later and all my nitpicks notwithstanding.
Very well said. The viewer wanted to move right into Hobbitown. The designers he hired were brilliant, and more importantly were people who had dedicated their entire careers to illustrating LotR. I doubt any of Hackshi’s people had even read the books before being hired. Again, most directors want to work with people they have worked with before. Jackson did too, but with no more than half a dozen key people. And they hired the best possible people. That’s one of the most amazing things about the whole project. Weta was a couple dozen folks doing practical effects and models before the project started, and wound up as competitor to ILM. This is something that Disney and Sony have failed trying.
My wife, who had never read the books, says that she was a goner from the first words spoken in the darkness by Galadriel. But the adorable Hobbit kids (PJ’s among them) sure didn’t hurt.