Ok, I have something of the opposite take on Harry Potter. I thought several of the characters in the movies were better than Rowling’s versions. Hermione and Hagrid, for example. I don’t agree there are grand themes in Harry Potter. The movie didn’t have the depth you mention because there was no depth in the book, either. Astute filmmakers realized they had to “fix” the stories so the films didn’t fall on their faces. I like the first film better than the book.
With LOTR we have the opposite situation: Tolkien’s an Oxford professor, and an assistant lexicographer who helped create the most famed dictionary in the world. Peter Jackson is a guy who grew up thinking Hammer horror films were wonderful art, and who made casting decisions with such inspired justifications as “He’d always admired Christopher Lee”. He and his wife, having made a major blunder by cramming too much in the first film (it might well have ended at Rivendell) were suddenly left with the discovery that the second book lacked the multitude of great lines, locals, and situations that made the first film relatively easy to make without substantial changes.
Having now got himself into a real bind, where the style he developed for the first movie was unworkable for the second, he and his adoring wife proceed to make huge changes to make the script more like the first film. Result? Prolonged scenes like Pippin and Merry commentating from Treebreard’s branches. Shots that would have been merely irksome, except some idiot – probably the great master Jackson – decided to shoot them against a lifeless, and unconvincing blue screen – or something of the sort. Frodo being hauled back to a cool city that was much underused in the book. Gratuitous inclusion of the sexy babes (ok, semi-sexy) from the first film. As for the manner in which it was done, I’d agree with Number Six in large part, that hubris overshadows Jackson’s earlier obsessive protests of being a Tolkien aficionado. But it’s hubris on the part of a large body of the crew. The pasty-faced WETA set manager (is it? I’ve loaned out my DVDs) whatever-his-name, is so complacent and smug it makes me want to smack him. His design almost rivals the latest Marriott Hotels. That and our local model railway club scenery. At least this vanity didn’t seem to seep to the actors, or the film would have been doomed.
Comics are slightly different then books. With a few exceptions (Sandman, Transmetropolitian, Preacher, etc), most comics have many differnet writers. The scriptwriter for the Spidey movie showed much more respect for the character then, say, the idiots behind the Clone Saga. The interpretation is a valid one, and trying to be true to 40+ years of continuity is a tiny bit silly. I do have problems with the movie, but once again, they’re seperate from this issue.
As much as I’d like to, I haven’t seen any old Hammer horror films. However, I know that Chrisopher Lee has made a carrer out of playing bad guys-- scary, menacing, bad guys. Considering that Saruman fits that description, it would make sense that Jackson, having seen his work, thought that he fit the part. It should also be noted that Lee is a huge fan of Tolkien’s. He’s reread the books every year, and corresponded with Tolkien before his death. He also did a damn good job, as did Jackson.
I’d go into some more anti-elitist stuff, mentioning how Ian McKellan is a trained Shakesperan actor who still turned in a great performance in a superhero flick, and how some people have an elitist attitude toward Tolkien, and how Tolkien himself hated Shakespere… but I think we’ve beat up on you enough.
Perhaps you would’ve been happier if George Lucas adapted Tolkein’s works for the big screen? Maybe you’d have more pedantic nitpicks or justified rage when Smeagol says “Meesa takesa Preciousa, mon!!!” or the Hobbits singing at the end of Return of the King or even worse Frodo saying “Yippee!!!” as he tosses the one ring into Orodruin?
That you can so easily insult the crew who poured their heart and soul into this project is disgusting to me. Even if the movies were crap, which they aren’t, the set design, the costumes, the cinematography and everything else surrounding the cast and script is of the absolute highest quality. The sets and costumes alone…can you honestly not feel the love and care that went into them? Marriott Hotels? My God! You are so blind.
You make me sick, and you give Tolkien fans a bad name.
(I meant to add: People like Epigramcracker do much to counteract the bad name you are giving to Tolkien fans to people like me. “People like me” would be new Tolkien fans who were led to Tolkien via the movies. I read you and say “man, Tolkien fans are assholes!” I read Epigramcracker, and say “p_w is probably the exception rather than the rule. Thank goodness!”)
Reading these boards makes me glad that I am not a Tolkien geek. I first read LOTR (twice actually because I really enjoyed them) in jr. high and high school–about ten years ago. Since then, I had forgotten most of the details, but remembered the basic story and the themes and spirit of the books. I decided to read them again when I heard that the movies were being made. So I reread The Hobbit and The Fellowship of the Ring just before the first movie came out. And I did indeed sit through that movie and think, “Why did they change that? What’s Arwen doing here? I wish they hadn’t left this part out!” After watching the movie on video, with more distance between having read the book and watching the movie again, I was able to enjoy it more. Much more. So I decided to wait until after seeing The Two Towers movie before rereading that book. It was great! I wasn’t anticipating each scene and fuming over what was different. I was just able to sit back and really enjoy it. And then upon rereading the book, I still say the changes aren’t that major. A little rearranging of the order of things. A shift in Faramir’s character. Compositing some characters. Adding a few scenes. IT’S NOT A BIG FREAKIN’ DEAL! It is such a shame that the Tolkien elitists are the ones who should be enjoying these movies more than anyone, and yet they can’t because they are so concerned with nitpicking that they ruin the experience for themselves. I’ve seen a lot of movies based on books I’ve read and I maintain that these movies (even TTT) have stayed more true to their source than most movies do. By a long shot.
To everybody, sorry about my petty little ouburst there. To see those talented and dedicated craftspeople insulted like that set me off and I’m not articulate enough to strike back with style.
My thoughts EXACTLY! Peter Jackson has given the nitpicking elitists a wonderful, beautiful gift, and they treat it as if it’s an old shoebox full of rusty nails.
Well, I appreciate the gift. I love these movies, and thanks to them, I now know about and love the books.
But yeah, I will NOT be re-reading Return of the King until after the movie comes out, because I’ve seen what knowing the books intimately and reading them immediately prior to seeing the movies turns a person into, one who can’t possibly fully enjoy what’s unfolding right there in front of their faces because of that damned open notebook inside their heads. They’re too busy jotting down groans and gripes and nitpicks and whines and whys and why nots.
That’s your opinion, and you’re welcome to it (I sure as hell don’t want it). But don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say that there were grand themes in the books; I just said that there were themes. Positive themes for the children in the target audience – escaping from the mundane, accepting people based on themselves instead of their appearance or upbringing, building friendships, standing up for what you think is right even if it means going against authority – if not necessarily deep themes.
Maybe your dismissal of the books as being too shallow is why you didn’t notice how the characters in the movie just don’t work. The “astute filmmakers” ended the second movie with the music-swelling, tearful return of Hagrid to Hogwarts just because it was in the book and they wanted something to tug at your heartstrings, not because anything in the movie actually established its significance. People in the audience who hadn’t read the book were just left wondering what was the big deal.
In other words: Tolkien wrote books, Jackson writes movies. If Jackson had taken it upon himself to rewrite LotR as a printed work, then maybe I’d be incensed enough to go on internet message boards and write spitting, dismissive personal attacks on him and his spouse (but I hope not). But that’s not the case; he’s a filmmaker who adapted an established book to film. Films which, apparently, were good enough even to get people who found the entire thing insulting, arrogant, and amateurish to still buy the DVD set and watch the special features. (Before, of course, wiping their hands of the whole thing and loaning the set out). So as far as that hack Jackson’s concerned – cha-ching!
Whatever. I can’t comment on this as I don’t know where it came from. It doesn’t have anything to do with adapting the story of the book to film, so I can only assume that you were sitting on something uncomfortable while writing it.
Dear person who has apparently lost their equipoise: I don’t know whether you’ve been involved in theater and film (I have to a limited degree) but MANY directors, MANY actors who have had successes (and failures) “poured their heart” into it. So what.
As Oscar Wilde said, dying for something doesn’t make it right.
As for the aesthetics of the set design: the sketches by Alan Lee, and his contribution are good. My quarrel is with the implementation – and not in every situation. Bilbo’s hobbit hole was magnificient. Hobbiton was fair. Moria sucked wind. Isgard was straight 3D game animation shit.
Well, I’m no JRRT geek (student is more like it) but in between practicing medicine, posting here, and soaking in my hot tub, I’ve enjoyed reading virtually all of JRRT’s middle-earth related writings, including the 12 volume HOMES series. I’m not yet fluent in Quenya nor will I ever be, but I can curse in the Black Speech, and I can name at least 3 Vala who did not appear in The Silmarillion. I know Trotter’s real name, and where Ond is.
And I am only grateful to Peter Jackson for giving his vision of LOTR life so we could all enjoy it. Seeing it has raised my enjoyment of JRRT’s writings up another notch. So thanks, PJ.
Yeah, nitpicking is fun, and as an obsessed fan I’ve done my share, but I refuse to disrespect the man and his movie-making minions who brought this off.
I’m still a bit cheesed about elves in Helm’s Deep though. But I expect I’ll get over it.
Nai tiruvantel ar varyuvantel i Valar tielyanna nu vilya.
May the Valar protect you on your path under the sky
QtM
Words of a dilettante. I’m sure that Peter Jackson, the insufferably smug guys at WETA, and all the rest would be sorely wounded, if they had ever heard of you.
Completely agree. It was the first movie, and the first half of the second movie I was thinking about. The director/writer really screwed up the last part of the second movie. But part of this was due to the very difficult problem they faced from the original book – that Rowling shifted the tone from light humor to something darker.
First of all, this is a rant thread. Second, one of the points of art is to evoke emotional responses – and that means negative responses can be just as valid as positive ones. Jackson isn’t a bad filmmaker, but he is one who seems to be enormously and unusually blind to his own weaknesses.
Having unquestioning sycophants only feeds his illusion that he’s a complete master of all elements of film, say in the way that Hitchcock, Kubrick, or Spielberg are. Jackson isn’t in their class.
I want to be clear that I’m not criticizing ANYONE in the audience for liking the film. As I’ve said elsewhere, any audience reaction to art is inherently ok.
I am, however, giving airplay to the notion that it’s useful to be critical of those who are in control of our society’s art. There’s nothing wrong with us saying: that was good, now give us something better. Isn’t that what we’d ask of a new car, a new TV, a new restaurant?
Actually, I am a professional writer/video person. Sorry to disappoint you. And if I had their ears, believe me, I’d make my remarks sting.
If you’re in the camp of one of my ex-bosses, who excused poor performance by saying “The best is the enemy of the good”, then we don’t have a lot to say to one another.
Right. Many thanks to Peter for his extraordinary effort, and for pushing something through that was anything but a sure bet for him. I’ve watched “The Fellowship of the Ring” several times, and expect to watch it several more times. I don’t think I’ll buy TTT.
I don’t disrespect the man. I would encourage him to examine his weaknesses more closely. (On the other hand the WETA guy . . . a long trip off a short pier would be constructive.)
Elves in Helm’s Deep. Hmm. Yeah. They were supposed to be leaving Middle Earth about then, weren’t they? Signing off to all the troubles of the world.
Moria and Isengard, however, look nothing like mines. Not excusable. My cousin was irritated with the silly “dirt all over us” drab costumes of the common folk of Edoras. Etc.
No, it’s not that Rowling suddenly shifted her tone, it’s that the filmmakers failed in their adaptation. That shift in tone is there in the source material; make the audience feel it. The Harry Potter filmmakers just decided to throw the key events on screen and hope that it all carried through.
I’m not really interested in going too far into a discussion of movies that I thought were basically forgettable, but then I do enjoy typing. And note again my distinction between “themes” in Rowling’s books and “grand themes.” I’d hate to find myself in a position of making some movie at some point in the future, only to have yahoos on the internet pointing out that I went on record calling the Harry Potter books “great literature.”
No. If someone chooses not to seethe in anger over Peter Jackson’s adaptation of a book, that doesn’t make him a sycophant. And even in a rant thread, there is a distinction between criticizing a work of art and criticizing the artist. Pointing out that an effect wasn’t convincing, or that a plot change was misguided, is fine. Making personal comments, like calling the writer an idiot and an egomaniac, the effects manager pasty-faed and smug, and for that matter, making a nasal self-satisfied jab at a fan’s screen name, is just petty and pointless.
Well, if I were talking to the artists themselves, there would be two possible approaches:
Being measured, and pointing out things like: maybe next time the props department should consider a budget allocation that gave greater emphasis to the dynamics of sword fighting, rather than the static features of armor which don’t display with full impact on film.
Which would be promptly ignored.
Or 2), One could respond both emotionally and with reason – in effect responding with the genuine emotion the artist intended to evolk in the first place: for example:
The sword fighting sucked, it was obvious that Aragorn was unpracticed – and didn’t have the muscles to swing a sword. The DVD makes clear that he was only added to the cast at the last moment, and didn’t know anything about the story. The $100,000s spent on “realistic” weapons was wasted, since 1 in 1000 people know what a realistic sword or armor looks like, but anybody can identify an oaf artlessly swinging a sword. Tell the bozos in the props department to get a little perspective. And hire a few more people like the actress who played Eowyn – who seemed to be the only person in the films who had a clue about sword fighting.
My experience from years at an arts college suggests the first argument would be completely ignored, while the second might receive some consideration.
I guess, since this is really more of a “fan appreciation” forum than one for art criticism, I should just give up.
You all think superhero costumes belong in Middle Earth? Fine.