Peter Jackson passed over for The Hobbit and LOTR Prequel by New Line

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

IGN.com has an article discussing possible replacements for Jackson: The Hobbit Director Roll Call. Some on the list make me cringe. Aside from Jackson, Ridley Scott might do okay, but Ron Howard might be the best choice. I think Ron would try to capture the spirit of the book rather than pull off some weird, "visionary" interpretation. Others on the list I can't comment on because I'm not familar with their work.

---

Ridley Scott, I could see for the trilogy, but not for the Hobbit, it seems too light for him. I wonder what Tim Burton would do with the Hobbit. Talk about weird visionary :thinking:

Yeah, it makes me cringe too, Gregoshi. The thought that some weird visionary interpretation by a drug-addled idiot might happen isn't one to make me happy. Look what David Lynch managed to do to Dune. (shudder)

Ridley Scott?!? He's a goddamn hack who hasn't made a decent film since the early 80s. Ridley's shooting style is now virtually unrecognizable from his brother Tony who made an entire career out of directing shallow action pictures.

This project should definitely go to a director who knows how to handle 'unorthodox' material.

I'm a big fan of Tolkien for two reasons:

1. His writing style
2. The depth of his world


I have always been a fan of fantasy, but as of late I have completely stopped reading modern works because the writing styles are total immersion killers. "Dude! Like, hand me my magic +1 sword of killing stuff already!"


His works are dry, but go back and read "The Romance of King Arthur" and "Don Quixote" and you'll realize that his works are based on earlier liturature, not modern. Beowulf was a massive influence on him, and that's about as dry as you can get (and yet I love it). These works aren't about "character development." They're about telling a story that is entertaining. I don't think it's fair to judge his works based on today's standards. Tolkien wasn't alive today.


I personally think that Jackson did about as well as ANYONE could do bringing the books to film. Anyone who's seen the extended DVDs about the effort he put into the films would know that. As far as I'm concerned, they are probably going to be the best films set in the Fantasy Genre for a LOOOONG time. Ususally, fantasy films suck so much I can't even understand how anyone accepts the script. Sci-fi is almost as bad, but at least there's movies like 2001 A Space Odessy and Alien (Speaking of Ridley Scott) that provide SOME kind of quality to the mix.

Sure, there are better movies out there. But there aren't many better FANTASY movies out there. I kinda wish Tolkien were alive to find out how he would have felt about the movies. I know he was blatantly opposed to any movie adaptions of his works, and somehow suspect that he would not have cared for them. Then again, I also suspect that Jackson loved the works more than Tolkien himself did!

Peter Jackson is a lousy director and his first two LOTR movies were such a yawn I never even bothered to see the third.

I hope someone else gets to direct the Hobbit, Jackson has done more than enough damage to Tolkien already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

I read The Silmarillion and love it. The first part of the book on the creation of the world was very hard to get through the first time I read it, but the rest of it is wonderous and yet very sad as it goes on.

---

That's exactly what i think too... the first part when Melkor rebels is rather boring and its more like the Creation than a story... but when the elves come into the story it starts to get interesting.

screwtype, can you elaborate some more? You post hints that you've read the books, yet you mention the movies were boring. I guess my confusion is in how's the movie boring as compared to the books in your view?

The Stranger, I've started reading The Silmarillion again this week. I found the first part of the book much more interesting as I had every reading since the first. Maybe being familiar with the whole work helps better understand what is happening "in the beginning".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

screwtype, can you elaborate some more? You post hints that you've read the books, yet you mention the movies were boring. I guess my confusion is in how's the movie boring as compared to the books in your view?

---

I first read LOTR when I was twelve years old, and I got so deep into it that for weeks after I finished it, the real world seemed unreal to me. I was still living imaginatively in the world of LOTR.

I've probably read the trilogy a couple of times since and each time I've had that experience of becoming deeply absorbed in Tolkien's richly detailed fantasy world, albeit not to the same extent as the first time. The books have flaws, certainly, but I think they almost stand alone in literature in the conviction with which they conjure an alternative world. No suprise (to me at least) that they've spawned a vast genre of fantasy fiction in their wake, not to mention the D&D phenomenon and the core elements of fantasy RPG gaming.

But in answer to your question - how are the movies boring in comparison to the books - I never expected anyone to be able to create on film what Tolkien was able to create with the written word, that would be asking too much. So I was quite prepared for a much less compelling experience on film.

What I wasn't prepared for was the total lack of dramatic tension generated by the movies. I think it's clear that either Jackson has no idea how to generate tension, or else he was so overwhelmed by the technical difficulties that he had no energy left to put into the actual storytelling.

In any case, you know there's a big problem when you find yourself yawning halfway through a movie and then checking your watch every few minutes. I gave Jackson the benefit of the doubt with the first movie, since there isn't all that much action in the first volume of the books anyway, but when I found myself doing the same thing in the second film I knew he'd well and truly blown it. I had no interest in putting myself through the same experience a third time.

Thank you for the explanation screwtype. You have a good point regarding the tension as compared to the books and I'll add my two cents later when I have a little more time to compose my thoughts.

First off, before I get critical on Jackson's version of LotR protrayed in teh movies, I thought he did as good of a job as probably anyone could in bringing the story to film. He obviously liked and cared about the books. If you watch any of the extras on the DVDs about the making of the script, you quickly realize how much they agonized over adapting the story for the films. Their dedication to protraying the smallest detail of Middle Earth is beyond all expectations - from elven brooches the hobbits got from Galadriel to Gandalf wearing the red Elven Ring of Power Narya at the end of Return of the King.

That being said, often where Jackson felt he had to alter the story his changes were less than optimal. His changes were often silly Hollywood cliches. screwtype's mention of lacking tension being a factor in there too. Some examples:

1) Jackson altered the nature of the Ring Wraiths' pursuit of the hobbits from the Shire to Rivendell. In the books, the Wraith's were scary and creepy because they were seen but never actually confronted until Weathertop and the Ford of Rivendell. They were seen in the distance, never far way and the tension came from the feeling of being hunted. In the movies, Jackson introducted some additional chase scenes with the hobbits. They were silly and I kept wondering how we were to believe the hobbits managed to escape with them being on foot and the Wraiths on horseback. At Weathertop and Rivendell the hobbits had help to fend off the Wraiths.

2) In The Two Towers, Jackson introduced the warg/orc attack on the road to Helms Deep. Now, the book mentions in passing that wargs were attacking all over Rohan, so to introduce that into the movie I can understand. But to add the whole "fictional" bit with Aragorn falling off the cliff so everyone thinks he's dead is just cheesy and unnecessary - especially when you consider the struggling they had to do to try to trim the story down to a managable size for the movies.

Alas, I've run out of time. I may continue this later (or not ~D). Anyway, the above gives you a general idea of my thoughts on the movies.

Those are good examples, Gregoshi. I agree that Jackson was probably the person best able to pull off what he did finally achieve. He was great; but not perfect.

It seemed to me that Jackson added the warg attack in Rohan because he left out the warg attack prior to Moria. It was just a thought that came to me when I finally saw the warg attack on the way to Helm's Deep.

I wasn't pleased with Jackson leaving out whole sections of the returning to the Shire of the hobbits. He killed off Saruman; so I guess he couldn't then have Saruman as Sharky. But that whole part of the books was as important as the grand epic war. It showed how the war came to the Shire as much as the rest of Middle Earth. Instead, the hobbits returned to an unaffected and unconcerned Shire.

I also was annoyed with the time spent showing Saruman as somehow the instigator of their problems at the pass of Caradhras. Gandalf clearly states that perhaps it was instigated by Saruman, but instead points out that there are many powers and evils in the world that predate both Saruman and Sauron. In the end, it cheapened the whole segment.

The need to elevate Arwen to a major character also cheesed me off. Too much time was spent in the movie dealing with Arwen in scenes that were sheer invention. That time could have been better spent doing the return to the Shire properly or even doing Tom Bombadil.

I would have liked to see the gathering of Gondor's forces, arriving to help in the fight. The procession with the arrival of armies from the south and Prince Imrahil and the Swan Knights of Dol Amroth for example.

However, the scenes that annoyed me most of all were the ones involving Faramir and Frodo. The changes there were far too aggressive and unnecessary, to my mind. Faramir didn't decide to bring the hobbits back to his father. He certainly didn't take them to Osgiliath. Unneeded and pointless.

He nailed the Balrog though, and Gandalf's fight with it. I can forgive a lot just for giving me that visual. :wink:

I'm agreement with the two previous posts, and one more annoyance: having Frodo tell Sam to go home; then Sam finds the breadcrumbs and decides to go back to Frodo. What's up with that? Didn't he know he hadn't pigged out on the lambas?

Good point about Caradhras, Aenlic- in the book the mountain seemed its own entity.

CR

Sorry for the quick end to my previous post. My daughter needed the computer to do a writing assignment.

Good point about Caradhras. One of the cool things about Middle Earth is that various places are almost characters in themselves. Jackson got Fangorn right, but missed Caradhras.

You are dead on about the balrog Aenlic. The balrog was perfect. I thought the ents were extremely well done too. Both of those where awful in the Raph Bakshi animated version of LotR from the 70s and I can't recall any artwork of either over the years that I can say I was fond of. But they nailed both creatures/characters in the movies. Actually, Gollum was perfect too come to think of it.

It would have been nice to have Tom Bombadil but I agree with Jackson that it isn't crucial to the telling of the story. Same goes for the Scouring of the Shire at the end, although that part has much more significance than Tom Bombadil - it not only showed how the war affected the Shire as Aenlic points out, but it also shows the change in Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin. But, I guess Jackson decided he had too many ending to the movie already. :laugh4:

Just to wrap up my previous post, one of the annoyances I had watching the DVD extras about the story, was adherance by Jackson tp the Hollywood conventions that you can't do this or you can't do that in a movie. It seems to me that some of the greatest films ever made took chances and went against traditional movie making wisdom. I wish Jackson had done a little more of that when applying the story to film. I'm thinking of things like the need to insert "action" at certain parts instead of a more cerebral approach as in the books (Wraiths hunting the hobbits), the need to insert character flaws so a character can "develop" (Aragorn the Uncertain) or tweaking the story to add feel-good elements (elves at Helms Deep).

Despite some of the whining above, I really loved the movies. The shock that the movies were so well made makes the "if only" situations we are discussing stand out more.

Agreed. The things that annoy me about the movie aren't enough to overcome my enjoyment of them; unlike Lynch's version of Dune which is the only movie I've ever walked out of in the middle.

Let's hope that things work out for him to direct The Hobbit. I'd love to see Mirkwood and Beorn and Dale and the Lonely Mountain brought to life in the same way by the same hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Same goes for the Scouring of the Shire at the end, although that part has much more significance than Tom Bombadil - it not only showed how the war affected the Shire as Aenlic points out, but it also shows the change in Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin. But, I guess Jackson decided he had too many ending to the movie already. :laugh4:

---

I think it was an important point; showing how the hobbits had changed and that the war had come to their home.

Quote:

---

Just to wrap up my previous post, one of the annoyances I had watching the DVD extras about the story, was adherance by Jackson tp the Hollywood conventions that you can't do this or you can't do that in a movie. It seems to me that some of the greatest films ever made took chances and went against traditional movie making wisdom. I wish Jackson had done a little more of that when applying the story to film. I'm thinking of things like the need to insert "action" at certain parts instead of a more cerebral approach as in the books (Wraiths hunting the hobbits), the need to insert character flaws so a character can "develop" (Aragorn the Uncertain) or tweaking the story to add feel-good elements (elves at Helms Deep).

---

*Sighs* I hate it when Hollywood tries to improve on stories. There's a reason you're getting the best plots from books and not your scriptwriters!

Though, I do recall Aragorn being somewhat uncertain after Gandalf's fall into the abyss.

Quote:

---

Despite some of the whining above, I really loved the movies. The shock that the movies were so well made makes the "if only" situations we are discussing stand out more.

---

Very true. There were very good, but could be just that much better if only they had...

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

Ridley Scott?!? He's a goddamn hack who hasn't made a decent film since the early 80s. Ridley's shooting style is now virtually unrecognizable from his brother Tony who made an entire career out of directing shallow action pictures.

This project should definitely go to a director who knows how to handle 'unorthodox' material.

---

Well I don't know, he seems to have done pretty well to me. He directed both the original Alien and Blade Runner - both regarded as classics - then went on to direct box office hits like Thelma and Louise, Gladiator and Black Hawk Down (the latter which won two Oscars). His latest movie, Kingdom of Heaven, was not so well received but he blames that on the studio cut and has released his own cut, much as he did with Blade Runner.

I confess I haven't seen Gladiator or BHD, but that's because they were not my kind of movies. Plenty of other people seem to think they were pretty good though.

I concur with most of what others have said. Where Jackson adhered to the books, he did it very well.

The deviations from the books were, for the most part, pretty lame. The only changes or additions I approved of was the Merry and Pippin banter. There wasn't quite so much in the book, and I think that his decision to give them some more lines for comic relief was acceptable.

He did the same thing with Gimli in the second movie, and I hated it. In fact, I really didn't care for the second movie at all. He took WAAAY to many liberties, added a bunch of unnecessary scenes, and then was forced to end the movie several chapters early because they "ran out of time." I was particularly annoyed that Merry/Pippen TRICKED the Ents into helping them. The entire Entmoot scene was practically done for comic relief, which absolutely ruined the idea that the Ents are an ancient and extremely powerful (and poetic) race. Only in the extended version did they include Treebeard's poetry, which is one of the best scenes in the movie.

Of the three, Fellowship seems to be the closest to the original works, and in addition, borrows heavily on artwork done by artists. I can watch that movie today and identify images that almost perfectly match artwork I've seen done. That, to me, was fantastic, and showed his dedication not only to the books, but to the artists who have contributed to the Genre through the years. The Balrog was fantastic, and my favorite scene is the moment where Galadriel is tempted by the Ring. Both scenes worked very, very well.

I've already commented on the second movie (ptuie!). The third movie did seem somewhat more faithful to the books, though the entire "paths of the dead" scene was (IMHO) lame, and made even worse in the extended version with the skull waterfall (which seemed more appropriate for King Kong, and not RotK). But the very very end of the third movie was in most ways faithful to the books, and I competely agree with Jackson's decision to drop the "Scouring of the Shire." While I understand the importance of explaining that the war had touched the shire, I've always felt that that chapter was "pinned on" the end, since they actually encounter Sauraman on their way BACK to Rivendell. So he manages to completely overthrow and ruin the shire in a matter of months, which is something they could have avoided if they'd simply thrown him in captivity as soon as they encountered him.

Besides, it wasn't ABSOLUTELY necessary to the plot, and the movie was already 3 1/2 hours long at that point. I would have rather they showed them killing Sauraman in the movie cut than in the extended version, but I guess it doesn't matter now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by screwtype

Well I don't know, he seems to have done pretty well to me. He directed both the original Alien and Blade Runner - both regarded as classics - then went on to direct box office hits like Thelma and Louise, Gladiator and Black Hawk Down (the latter which won two Oscars). His latest movie, Kingdom of Heaven, was not so well received but he blames that on the studio cut and has released his own cut, much as he did with Blade Runner.

I confess I haven't seen Gladiator or BHD, but that's because they were not my kind of movies. Plenty of other people seem to think they were pretty good though.

---

As I stated before, I'm not disputing Scott's early films. The Duellists, Alien and Blade runner are his best films, period. No coincidence that the three I mentioned also sported the most solid scripts out of all films Ridley has done.

Either Ridley or James McTeigue would be good imo, Ridley is a bit more suited but after seeing how good a job McTeigue did on V for Vendetta i would actually prefer to see him direct the prequels

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

As I stated before, I'm not disputing Scott's early films. The Duellists, Alien and Blade runner are his best films, period. No coincidence that the three I mentioned also sported the most solid scripts out of all films Ridley has done.

---

I get the impression some of his later films have been basically aimed at making money rather than creating art. Perhaps he needed some.

I think he did a fantastic job of creating a believeable alternative world in Blade Runner, and IMO it is just that kind of dark, sombre, threatening vision that LOTR needed. Jackson completely failed to capture that sort of atmosphere, the lighting is all wrong, much too bright and sunny, the landscape is too barren, Frodo and Sam were too young for the part, everyone looks so clean and well scrubbed, no grime or sweat, and to top it all off Jackson turned the central story of Frodo, Sam and Gollum into a high camp freak show.

In fact the more I think about the LOTR movies, the more I realize just how badly Jackson screwed things up. Tolkien deserved better than this - much better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by screwtype

everyone looks so clean and well scrubbed, no grime or sweat

---

Obviously you did not pay any attention to Aragorn's hair throughout most of the films.

You took the words out of my mouth Sardo. You could almost smell Aragorn he looked so bad.

screwtype, you'll have to be more specific about locations where you thought the lighting was wrong and where the land was too barren. To me, Helms Deep was almost too gloomy & dark to enjoy the battle fully. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any location that looked wrong to me. I think I'll be watching the movies again very soon, so I'll have a chance to refresh my memory.

Some of the little things made the movies all the more amazing to me. For example, in both of the elven realms, Rivendell and Lothlorien, did you notice the leaves falling off the trees (but nowhere else)? When was the last time you saw that in any movie? Granted, the Fellowship was in Rivendell in autumn, but they didn't get to Lothlorien until December. To me it seemed a symbolism of the waning power of the elves in Middle Earth - the autumn of their days if you will.

BTW, while we are talking about the books vs the movies, I'll give a plug to the web site of a friend of mine who has compliled a rather lengthy list of differences between the books and films and also rates the significance of the difference to the story. It has gotten some attention globally. He has gotten emails from people around the world and has been informed his differences list was mentioned on a BBC radio program. I feel honoured to have made some contribution to the lists in our discussions about the movies. Anyway, here it is and enjoy it: Gary Appenzeller's LotR Differences Page

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

BTW, while we are talking about the books vs the movies, I'll give a plug to the web site of a friend of mine who has compliled a rather lengthy list of differences between the books and films and also rates the significance of the difference to the story. It has gotten some attention globally. He has gotten emails from people around the world and has been informed his differences list was mentioned on a BBC radio program. I feel honoured to have made some contribution to the lists in our discussions about the movies. Anyway, here it is and enjoy it: Gary Appenzeller's LotR Differences Page

---

Thanks for the link. That looks like a great site. I'll check it out when I get some free time...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sardo

Obviously you did not pay any attention to Aragorn's hair throughout most of the films.

---

Yeah, Aragorn was the only character who looked a bit scruffy. But the hobbits, with whom the movies spend most of the time, Frodo and Sam looked like they just got out of a nice bath.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

screwtype, you'll have to be more specific about locations where you thought the lighting was wrong and where the land was too barren. To me, Helms Deep was almost too gloomy & dark to enjoy the battle fully.

---

Remember, I only saw the first two movies, so I'm basing all my comments on them. I didn't want to waste my money watching the third.

The first problem is that it just didn't look like an inhabited world. It looked exactly like what it was - empty NZ landscape, interesting enough from a tourist POV, but not really evocative of Middle Earth.

The second problem is that the climate and the weather didn't reflect the action. It all just looked very temperate and nice, neither too hot nor too cold. It was fine to have sunny weather at the start, but from Weathertop on the weather should have better reflected what the characters were going through. Overcast skies, threatening weather, or at other times, parched, heated landscapes - something to create the right atmosphere.

Helm's Deep I agree was a little murky in places, but the real problem of that battle for me is that it simply wasn't "epic" enough. It looked like no more than a few hundred orcs making a nuisance of themselves. It's a long time since I read the books, but I seem to recall descriptions of vast enemy hordes covering the entire landscape. The cavalry rescue at Helm's Deep also looked too small.

IMO the lack of an "epic" quality inflicts most of the action, one never really gets a sense of an entire world under threat from a vast malevolent force, rather it feels more like a little stoush between a couple of minor tribes.

Screwtype, have you read the books?

Quote:

---

The first problem is that it just didn't look like an inhabited world. It looked exactly like what it was - empty NZ landscape, interesting enough from a tourist POV, but not really evocative of Middle Earth.

---

Most of Middle Earth WAS empty! Or rather, most of the lands that the characters passed through were empty. Particularly in the Fellowship. But in the Two towers, Rohan had been evacuated, and the lands Frodo and Sam passed through were particularly desolate. I don't think ANY encounter between the characters in the books was left out of the movies.

Quote:

---

The second problem is that the climate and the weather didn't reflect the action. It all just looked very temperate and nice, neither too hot nor too cold. It was fine to have sunny weather at the start, but from Weathertop on the weather should have better reflected what the characters were going through. Overcast skies, threatening weather, or at other times, parched, heated landscapes - something to create the right atmosphere.

---

I don't seem to remember the weather being that much of a factor in the books. They leave the shire in the spring or summer, IIRC, and by the time winter rolls around, they're in Gondor, which is much further South and I don't believe has a very harsh winter.

Quote:

---

Helm's Deep I agree was a little murky in places, but the real problem of that battle for me is that it simply wasn't "epic" enough. It looked like no more than a few hundred orcs making a nuisance of themselves. It's a long time since I read the books, but I seem to recall descriptions of vast enemy hordes covering the entire landscape. The cavalry rescue at Helm's Deep also looked too small.

---

Helm's deep wasn't an "epic" battle. It was a few hundred humans against a few thousand orcs. That's it. The battles of Pelenor Fields and the Fields of Celebrant were much more massive in scope. I won't say that he captured the feeling of the Helm's deep attack perfectly (I was incredibly annoyed by the presence of the elves), but it was ok. The cavalry rescue at the end I particularly disliked, but only from an asthetic standpoint.

Quote:

---

IMO the lack of an "epic" quality inflicts most of the action, one never really gets a sense of an entire world under threat from a vast malevolent force, rather it feels more like a little stoush between a couple of minor tribes.

---

I'm not sure how you're qualified to say this if you haven't seen the third movie. There were no massive conflicts in either the first two books or movies. The assault on Helm's deep was relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. If you had bothered to watch the third movie, I would agree that Gondor got the shaft in terms of being represented as a massive collection of different cultures (eveyone simply wore the same armor). But on the "evil" side, I think Jackson represented the Haradrim, the Coursairs, and of course the Orcs rather well. There is only one paragraph in RotK that mentions other races being involved on the side of evil, and not much of a description of exactly what he was talking about.

The Easterlings were mentioned much later as attacking Dale, of which the movies make no mention. But as I said before, the third movie was already 3 1/2 hours long. He had to cut something.

I realize I'm not going to convince you to like the movies, but by the same token, I think Jackson got the landscape and the sense of "grandeur" pretty much bang on. It was the tacked on bullcrap scenes that he added from outside the books that fell off the mark for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rameusb5

Screwtype, have you read the books?

---

Yes of course I've read the books. In fact I just said so. I first read the trilogy when I was twelve and have been a great fan ever since. Read it at least twice since then, but not for a long time. I wouldn't care about this topic at all if I hadn't read the books and known what LOTR the movie might have been!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rameusb5

Most of Middle Earth WAS empty! Or rather, most of the lands that the characters passed through were empty. Particularly in the Fellowship. But in the Two towers, Rohan had been evacuated, and the lands Frodo and Sam passed through were particularly desolate. I don't think ANY encounter between the characters in the books was left out of the movies.

---

Okay, perhaps "empty" is the wrong word. It just didn't look right somehow. Hard to put my finger on what was wrong, but it just wasn't Middle Earth-ish enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rameusb5

I'm not sure how you're qualified to say this if you haven't seen the third movie.

---

There's some truth in that, but I'm not going out of my way to watch it just to prove a point. ~:) I'm simply saying that the first two movies did not really convey the sense of an entire world under threat from a great evil force. It comes across more as a sort of extended camping trip with an occasional hazard to face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rameusb5

on the "evil" side, I think Jackson represented the Haradrim, the Coursairs, and of course the Orcs rather well. There is only one paragraph in RotK that mentions other races being involved on the side of evil, and not much of a description of exactly what he was talking about.

---

I don't even remember the Haradrim or the Corsairs. But for my money, he got the orcs totally and completely wrong. In the book they are short, with slanty eyes and yellowish skin - and sharp pointy teeth as I recall. In the movie, they are more like big hairy gorillas. I really hated his depiction of orcs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rameusb5

The Easterlings were mentioned much later as attacking Dale, of which the movies make no mention. But as I said before, the third movie was already 3 1/2 hours long. He had to cut something.

---

I don't mind him cutting stuff at all, or even altering the storyline to compress some of it. What I dislike about the movies is that they simply do not capture the spirit of the books. Not only that, but Jackson just doesn't know how to tell a story or how to create tension. The first two movies are just plain boring, and that is unforgiveable in my view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rameusb5

I realize I'm not going to convince you to like the movies, but by the same token, I think Jackson got the landscape and the sense of "grandeur" pretty much bang on. It was the tacked on bullcrap scenes that he added from outside the books that fell off the mark for me.

---

As I say, I expect a bit of tacked on bullcrap in a Hollywood rendition. But what I do expect at the very least in a story of this type is drama and excitement. Jackson's failure to create it is the main problem for me. But there are many others besides, some of which I've already tried to point out in the thread.

I agree that the orcs were... annoying. Particularly the reddish skinned Uruk-hai of the first movie. They did change the skin pigmentation (inexplicably) in the second movie, but I do think that for the most part, the orcs looked too human-like in his movies.

In RotK (which I would recommend you at least rent and watch on DVD, particularly the director's edition), he showed a lot more of the Mordor orcs, which weren't quite as human looking. In the extras feature on the DVD, they explained that they tried to get the extras playing the orcs to look hunched over and more primeval when they moved about, but it ended up looking like they were all walking around with big poopy diapers on. So this was a comprimise. To be fair, the orcs I think of from Middle Earth wouldn't be possible for a human actor to portray (just like Gollum). But I'd rather have actors in costumes than CGI most of the time. Gollum was very well pulled off, but I don't want to see yet another battle scene where most of the comabants are just CGI (hello Star Wars Prequil trillogy!).

It's obvious that you aren't going to ever like these movies and of course I'm not going to change your mind on this. There WERE things that he did that annoyed me (the witchking's mace on Pelinor fields is a perfect example of this). But overall I think the movies were sufficiently close to the books to consider the job well done. Obviously, you do not feel the same way. It's not surprising because when different people read the same book, it often leaves a completely different impression on them. Jackson's and my own impressions are simply more similar to each other than to your own impression.

Still, I am dissappointed that PJ won't be making the Hobbit. Honestly, I have severe doubts that anyone else in Hollywood has the love for Tolkien to properly do it.

Hmmm, well I must also disagree that he did Gollum well. Now as I said it's a long time since I read the books, but my image of Gollum was always of a guy with huge black eyes (to see in the dark) and black, oily skin. Jackson's Gollum has the big eyes, but they are mostly whites which gives him a very different look. And the pink skin was totally unexpected and wrong in my opinion. But then again, as I say, it's a long time since I read the books...

Actually, Gollum looked to me more like what an orc should look like than the orcs themselves, if they'd done a bunch of Gollums and given them yellowish skin I might have bought that.

The other thing that really annoyed me about Gollum - his very name comes from the *gulping* sound he constantly makes in the books, and yet the Gollum of the movie doesn't make that sound at all, instead he hisses all the time, which really annoyed the heck out of me. How could Jackson miss an obvious detail like that? Seems to me he chose to go entirely his own way with Gollum, and I wasn't very happy with the result.

But yes, I probably will eventually get the third movie out on DVD eventually. I'll probably have to watch it in instalments though ~:) What did you think of the third movie in relation to the previous two, BTW? Better, worse, or about the same?

Best: Fellowship. Most Faithful to the book. Not much "stupid" stuff added, and excellent visuals (IMHO). 9 out of 10. This ranks up with one of my favorite movies of all time.
Next: Return of the King. Relatively faithful to the books, including the standoff between Eowen and the Witchking. There were a few deviations (or rather, embellishments) upon the books that I found annoying (most notibly the paths of the dead). If the Fellowship is a 9 out of 10, then RotK is a 7.5 out of 10.
Worst: The Two Towers. I was incredibly annoyed when I watched this movie in the Theatres. Jackson really took the most liberties here. The extended version made up for this somewhat, but still, it's my least favorite (by far) of the three. To be honest, any time I try to watch this movie now, I fall asleep. If Jackson had made the same mistakes he made in this movie in the others, I would have hated them all. 4.5 out of 10 (and I'm being generous).


I will still contend that there is probably no other movie director in existance that has the same love for Tolkien as Jackson, while still having access to a big budget. Certainly there are better directors than him, but I doubt the books would have been adhered to even slightly had someone else done the movies.