5 ms·

I agree with you. I think Peter Jackson is a poor director, and that those movies start mediocre and get markedly worse as they go. Jackson never passes up an o

I agree with you. I think Peter Jackson is a poor director, and that those movies start mediocre and get markedly worse as they go. Jackson never passes up an opportunity to streeeetch a scene out with fake tension, or to mock one of his characters, or to bolt on some flashy but empty set piece.

Victerius 5y ago
This is, like, the opposite of what most LOTR fans think. It's a novel perspective...
- sonofhans 5y ago
  Example: the fellowship is fleeing the Balrog in the Mines of Moria. Gandalf makes his stand and is whipped by the Balrog, and falls to the edge of the precipice. The Balrog’s whip coils up from below, wraps his ankle, and drags him down to the depths as he cries, “Fly, you fools!” Unless you’re Peter Jackson, in which case Gandalf (a) falls on his own accord, with no whip around his ankle, and (b) whispers, which sounds nice on camera, but wouldn’t be heard by his fellowship. The movie is chock-full of this bullshit. Now, I’m not upset that Jackson deviated from the book, although I do notice — I’ve been reading LOTR since I was 9, and did research on Tolkien in graduate school. My problem is that many of his changes make things worse. Yes, he got some things right, but the consistency of his flaws just grates on me. Faramir, for instance: in the book he does the right thing, and lets Frodo and Sam leave unhindered. This is in clear contrast to his brother, and an important illustration of one of Tolkien’s core beliefs: the evil is a choice, not determined fate or destiny. In the movie, though, Faramir succumbs to the ring initially and leads the hobbits around for 15 minutes. I’m convinced that Jackson made this choice, and many others, only to pad runtime. He did the same thing to even worse effect in The Hobbit. And yet with all that padding, he left out The Scouring of the Shire, one of the most important parts of the book. Screw Tom Bombadil: he was fun, and his immunity to the ring is a great moment, but the story can live without him. Leaving out the Scouring though is an awful choice; it’s a lovely and concise illustration and recap of most of the books themes, and shows the character’s growth in a clear light.
  - Victerius 5y ago
    Yes. I agree. The movies don't show Gandalf casting a spell on the door in Moria and the counter spell being cast by Durin's Bane. Nor Glorfindel helping Frodo escape the Ringwraiths or Gandalf repelling the wraiths alone on Weathertop. Those would have been cool to include. As sacrilegious as this sounds to the majority of the fanbase, I hold hope that the trilogy will be rebooted by another director. Not necessarily as a way to create a superior product, but to compare how two studios have approached the story.
    - Covzire 5y ago
      I've read the hobbit but never the LOTR, but in the making of LOTR videos they point out (a few times I think) that Tolkein's writing style was highly unusual and extremely difficult to adapt to a screenplay. It's been awhile since I saw them but one comment they made was that Tolkein seemed to just keep the story elements flowing on and on almost like he was writing more of a historical account rather than a novel with a classic arc. What we got on film was the classic arc more or less, meaning they had to twist and bend the source material somehow. They basically thought that a faithful adaption would not have found wide audience appeal because Tolkien broke too many rules of writing novels. I wonder though..
      - robscallsign 5y ago
        I had read the LOTR several times, but it wasn't until I listened to it as an audiobook did it click for me just how much of the spoken dialog in the movies is pretty much word-for-word from the books. I get what you and others are saying about Tolkiens narrative style, but a lot of the dialog transitioned well to the big screen.
        ekianjo 5y ago
        And it's mixed up with awfully bad Hollywood lines such as "Because I believe there is still Good in this world". Such a poor written next to Tolkien's.
    - 5y ago

Victerius 5y ago

This is, like, the opposite of what most LOTR fans think. It's a novel perspective...

sonofhans 5y ago
Example: the fellowship is fleeing the Balrog in the Mines of Moria. Gandalf makes his stand and is whipped by the Balrog, and falls to the edge of the precipice. The Balrog’s whip coils up from below, wraps his ankle, and drags him down to the depths as he cries, “Fly, you fools!” Unless you’re Peter Jackson, in which case Gandalf (a) falls on his own accord, with no whip around his ankle, and (b) whispers, which sounds nice on camera, but wouldn’t be heard by his fellowship. The movie is chock-full of this bullshit. Now, I’m not upset that Jackson deviated from the book, although I do notice — I’ve been reading LOTR since I was 9, and did research on Tolkien in graduate school. My problem is that many of his changes make things worse. Yes, he got some things right, but the consistency of his flaws just grates on me. Faramir, for instance: in the book he does the right thing, and lets Frodo and Sam leave unhindered. This is in clear contrast to his brother, and an important illustration of one of Tolkien’s core beliefs: the evil is a choice, not determined fate or destiny. In the movie, though, Faramir succumbs to the ring initially and leads the hobbits around for 15 minutes. I’m convinced that Jackson made this choice, and many others, only to pad runtime. He did the same thing to even worse effect in The Hobbit. And yet with all that padding, he left out The Scouring of the Shire, one of the most important parts of the book. Screw Tom Bombadil: he was fun, and his immunity to the ring is a great moment, but the story can live without him. Leaving out the Scouring though is an awful choice; it’s a lovely and concise illustration and recap of most of the books themes, and shows the character’s growth in a clear light.
- Victerius 5y ago
  Yes. I agree. The movies don't show Gandalf casting a spell on the door in Moria and the counter spell being cast by Durin's Bane. Nor Glorfindel helping Frodo escape the Ringwraiths or Gandalf repelling the wraiths alone on Weathertop. Those would have been cool to include. As sacrilegious as this sounds to the majority of the fanbase, I hold hope that the trilogy will be rebooted by another director. Not necessarily as a way to create a superior product, but to compare how two studios have approached the story.
  - Covzire 5y ago
    I've read the hobbit but never the LOTR, but in the making of LOTR videos they point out (a few times I think) that Tolkein's writing style was highly unusual and extremely difficult to adapt to a screenplay. It's been awhile since I saw them but one comment they made was that Tolkein seemed to just keep the story elements flowing on and on almost like he was writing more of a historical account rather than a novel with a classic arc. What we got on film was the classic arc more or less, meaning they had to twist and bend the source material somehow. They basically thought that a faithful adaption would not have found wide audience appeal because Tolkien broke too many rules of writing novels. I wonder though..
    - robscallsign 5y ago
      I had read the LOTR several times, but it wasn't until I listened to it as an audiobook did it click for me just how much of the spoken dialog in the movies is pretty much word-for-word from the books. I get what you and others are saying about Tolkiens narrative style, but a lot of the dialog transitioned well to the big screen.
      - ekianjo 5y ago
        And it's mixed up with awfully bad Hollywood lines such as "Because I believe there is still Good in this world". Such a poor written next to Tolkien's.
  - 5y ago