4 ms·
To call Jackson's work an "evisceration" is just so misguided I can barely stand to read on. J.R.R. Tolkien was an academic of the highest caliber, and it seems
by tomasien 14y ago
To call Jackson's work an "evisceration" is just so misguided I can barely stand to read on. J.R.R. Tolkien was an academic of the highest caliber, and it seems his son has retained his love of the more arcane and in-depth aspects of the Middle Earth world. I, personally, agree with them: I find the Silmarillion to be the most interesting work of Middle Earth, but that's only because I'm a massive geek.
As far as a pop-culture and on-screen rendition of the books go, Jackson's work has been superbly loyal to the source literature and to the audience who pays to see them.
This is just straight-out snobbery, and I don't care for it.
- marze 14y agoCartoon physics meets gratuitous story changes. The Jackson films have gone downhill from Fellowship (which wasn't too bad) to the unwatchable Hobbit film.
- floody-berry 14y agoIt has been loyal insofar as the character's names are the same and occasionally including lines verbatim from the books (although sometimes in the wrong place). I don't actually know if them myriad of changes, small and large, made the films more accessible to someone who had never read the books, but calling the work "superbly loyal" is laughable - especially the Lord of the Rings "Extended Editions" which contain almost no material from the books whatsoever.
- geargrinder 14y agoWhile the Jackson films may be entertaining and good in their own right, they aren't very loyal to Tolkien's source material, or even their own canon, as someone else has pointed out. For a Tolkien fanatic like myself, they are almost unwatchable. I can understand changing details and dialogue because it is a different medium. But Jackson changes the motivations and major actions of many of the main characters in LoTR.