Author Topic: Peter Jackson question (Read 1578 times)

Pongo · « **Reply #15 on:** January 10, 2005, 11:40:26 AM »

"No, I haven't read any of Tolkien's books. "

Then you should start threads that you can accutally contribute too cause you sure cant contribute to this one. If you like the chicks version of the LOTR better then the original then you should ask yourself why.

midnight Target · « **Reply #16 on:** January 10, 2005, 11:48:03 AM »

Enjoyed the movies. Enjoyed the books more, but Jackson came pretty close with most of the important plot points.

He could have made 4 movies out of the books. Maybe he should have.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #17 on:** January 10, 2005, 11:52:56 AM »

The scourging of the shire was the most important part of the entire series! What does jackson do? He cuts it out. Not even mentioning it besides a hint of it in the first one. The entire moral and plot lead up to the scourging. Without it, the story is just empty.

Bombadil, Glorfindel, the rangers from the north, the sailors along the coast of the Corsairs... All these are the coolest parts of the books!

Would you go see the movie Topgun if they cut out all the flying scenes?

midnight Target · « **Reply #18 on:** January 10, 2005, 12:02:20 PM »

I agree about the Scouring of the Shire. He actually filmed some of that but it was too much for the movie.

Bombadil is a silly diversion, and JRRT basically wanted a character that defied description, good cut. Glorfindel was just another elf... no biggie, (yea I know who he was, but he doesn't advance the plot.) The Rangers would have been nice, but that would have entailed way too much background on Aragorn... not doable in even a 4 hour movie.

vorticon · « **Reply #19 on:** January 10, 2005, 12:02:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
The scourging of the shire was the most important part of the entire series! What does jackson do? He cuts it out. Not even mentioning it besides a hint of it in the first one. The entire moral and plot lead up to the scourging. Without it, the story is just empty.

that part always felt like an afterthought to me. while i was ticked off that he missed it out it really didnt make to much difference...

stop comparing them and enjoy the movie on its own merits, since the fact that they are the closest any movie has come to a book seems to be completly lost to you.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #20 on:** January 10, 2005, 12:05:55 PM »

Actually, the book Strip Tease was closer...

Listen, if you think that your movie will be too long you cut off the **UNIMPORTANT** stuff.

SLO · « **Reply #21 on:** January 10, 2005, 01:24:04 PM »

cult books do demand that we stay as close as possible to the story line...too many people read em

same example with Harry Potter(they had to stay true to the books)

Rangers from the North ARE Aragons people(Numenoreans, blood line of the Kings)<<--spelled wrong...they should've put em in...

the part I missed the most was Bombadil takin the ring from Frodo and actually laughing at it...and them looking at him like he's some freak of nature...

Pongo · « **Reply #22 on:** January 10, 2005, 02:18:45 PM »

they wasted more time blondifying the story then they needed to include the scouring of the shire.
Bombadil can be cut without impacting the story I would say.

Steve · « **Reply #23 on:** January 10, 2005, 02:39:47 PM »

Bombadil was a part of the story I could do without. Same with the whole barrow downs thing.... Hobits running naked... bleh.

Aragorn chewing Athelas and sticking it in Frodo's wound? Yuck.

The scourging of the shire was important becuase it showed how the hobbits had developed into formidable foes from wimps and it concluded the war of the ring w/ Saruman's death. Why Jackson felt he needed to flesh out Arwen so much when he completely ignored more important players like Imrahil and Glorfindel is a mystery to me.

Vulcan · « **Reply #24 on:** January 10, 2005, 03:11:19 PM »

Jackson's next project is the Beautiful Bones (I think thats what its called), sounds like a chick flick.

Anyway, PJ and Weta are rolling in the money now, so no matter what you LOTR dorks say the majority vote goes to PJ

-tronski- · « **Reply #25 on:** January 10, 2005, 04:11:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Steve
Why Jackson felt he needed to flesh out Arwen so much when he completely ignored more important players like Imrahil and Glorfindel is a mystery to me.

Because the films had to also be viewable by a larger audience who hadn't read the books. Characters like Arwen were fleshed out because she was also recurring character in the entire film.

To add characters which don't push the plot to where it needed to go, would literally bog down an already burgeoning plotline.

Listen to the DVD commentaries is my suggestion on the whys, and howcomes

Tronsky

Glas · « **Reply #26 on:** January 10, 2005, 04:21:51 PM »

Having read the books and seen the films, I thought PJ did an excellent job of telling the story his way. He included the important parts that tell you about the story of the ring, and left out the bits that had no impact on the story he was trying to tell.

Bombadil didnt bring anything much to the books imo. And the Scouring of the Shire definitely feels like an afterthought in the book. Including that in the film would probably have added at least 20-30 minutes to the film, and would have been a total and utter anti-climax (much like it was in the book, imo).

If I have one gripe about the film, it is the way that Faramir is portrayed in the second film (The Two Towers). He comes across as being sly and greedy when he initially wants the ring. This was not how he was portrayed in the book at all, and I dont think changing it brought anything to the film at all.

One other dissapointing thing was the casting of Elijah Wood as Frodo. I didnt empathise with his character much at all, and think it could have been much better played.

Btw I heard a great quote from Stephen King. It's on the documentary on the making of 'Stand By Me' (the film adaptation of the Stephen King novella 'The Body). When asked what he thought about the movie compared to the book, he basically says they cant be compared. 'Books and movies are like apples and oranges. They both taste great, but they are completely different'

If you havent ever seen 'Stand by me', rent it and watch it. Amazing film

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #27 on:** January 10, 2005, 04:33:07 PM »

Bombadil would be cool, but unnecessary in a movie.

However, the Barrow Downs are a must. All of the hobbits get really powerful swords. Infact, one of the swords is what actually kills the Witchking.

Steve · « **Reply #28 on:** January 10, 2005, 04:36:27 PM »

Quote

All of the hobbits get really powerful swords

Apparently you and I read 2 different books. One of those swords did not kill the witch king. Those swords were ancient agreed.. powerful? How?

Steve · « **Reply #29 on:** January 10, 2005, 04:41:24 PM »

Quote

Characters like Arwen were fleshed out because she was also recurring character in the entire film.

Umm does this actually make sense to you?

Why was she a recurring figure? She wasn't a recurring figure in the book. I loved the films but Jackson needlessly expanded Arwen's role, IMHO.. This changed Aragorn's motivations entirely...Like he was accepting the mantle of the King of Gondor to, partially at least, save Arwen from death.
This also led to the very hokey presentation of Anduril before Aragorn traveled the paths of the dead. It didn't bother me a whole heck of a lot, just a completely needless departure form the book, IMHO. Like having elves at Helm's deep.