peter jacka$$ should be hung by his ba!!s and beaten daily.

he took the greatest fantasy adventure series ever written and turned it into a bleeding heart love story! it should have never gone past story board.

look at it, in the first 30 min of the series he castrates 2 of the main characters, makes another look like a scatterbrained stoner and wastes almost 10 min that could have been used to add some depth and backround so we can see some tart (who should have had about 10 seconds of screen time) on a horse. i mean he makes frodo seem like a pantywaist hidin behind his mommas' skirt by havein arwen hold him up and challenge the witchking. then, he shows aragorn pi$$in and moanin to arwen (again she shows up) about how he dosn't want to face what's coming...

this is the first 45 min of the first movie... how can we take anything that happens after that seriously? might as well put frodo in motly, aragorn in a dress and have gandalf walkin around doin bong hits!

true tolkien fans join me, let our voices be heard!

although I agree with your views...if they really wanted to go by the books there would have been 6 movies instead of 3...just not enough room in movies for the charactors to develope...love the books

It's what I expected it to be. Relax. Frodo was done right. They went to the appendices to give Arwen more of a character then ten seconds of that screen time. He used a lot of Tolkien's notes and put them into the movie. Gandalf was done right. Read the description of how he's supposed to be again. Aragorn was an exile. He didn't want to become a king. Pippin was also portrayed quite well as a matter of fact. If it wasn't for him then there wouldn't have been a battle in Balin's Tomb. I'm a true LotR fan and that movie made a lot of sense just as in the book. Everyone did great for their characters. Just like in the book, Sam was the hero. Everyone thinks that it was Frodo, but if it wasn't for Sam then Frodo would have been dead before they reach the Mountain of Doom. Read the books again. Read the Hobbit again. They Ian McKellen portrays Gandalf is superb!

BTW....There are three books, that's why Peter Jackson did it in three instead of six movies. Plus get the extended edition of the Lord of the Rings. They are longer with more character development and more character background. It explains things even more clear then what they did in the theatrical versions. Those movies were well done.

i expected some editing of story from book to movie, it just pisses me off how he did it.

how was frodo done right? they make him look like a weak willed wimp by havein someone else challange the witch king. that scene in the books shows just how resilliant and strong willed hobbits, specially frodo, are.

yes, i agree, arwen is a well developed character in the apendix's, but we're dealing w/ the body of the books, the story of the war of the ring, not w/ the apendix... if liv tyler wanted more screen time she should have taken the role of eowyn and if jackson wanted to deal w/ the apendixs he should have done other movies about them.

ur point about how gandalf was described in the beginning of the books is fitting. however; it also says that outside the shire he's an entirely different person. he gets very focused and energetic. yet thruout the movies he acts stoned out of his gord.

yes, aragorn was a king in exile, but he had known and accepted his destiny from a young age. he DID want to become king. there r a number of times that gandalf has to rein him in, cuz "the time is not right". narcil was the heirloom of his house, u would have had to try to pry the hilt of that sword from his cold dead hand and he still would have kicked ur ass for trying and yet in the movie it's sittin on a tray collecting dust.

never had a prob w/ pip. him droppin the stone down the well was in the books...

i never said the acters didn't do a good job w/ their characters. i enjoyed vito morganson as aragorn, iam mckellen does do a good job (as he was directed) as gandalf and sean astin does got sam down perfectly, loved him. jacka$$ just did a piss poor job of directing. he continually adds unnessessary sh1t to add dramatic (and romantic) effect to the detriment of the story.

never said sam wasn't a hero. every member of the fellowship was a hero. ur correct, if it wasn't for sam frodo wouldn't have made it.

i have read the series a cpl dozen times, including the hobbit. i'v read all tolkien middle earth books at least once.

no, there r 5 books. the felloship of the ring is one, then both the two towers and the return of the king r split into 2 books. one half dealing w/ frodo and sam the other dealing w/ the others of the now split fellowship. jacka$$ could have eddited it that way

i won't pay to even rent those abomanations. dosn't matter if each has an extra 10 min of film... most of the characters r deep as puddles in the movies, a few min of film for each won't help. does he go into the backround of the weapons of the hobbits and why they would even affect one of the nazgul? i understand why pekerwood left out the old forrest but the backround of those weapons, specifically merrys it of the upmost importance. i can keep tearin points like that up but i'm runnin out of room...

no, the movies wern't well done and i won't relax, sry

There's nothing we can do about it now I guess, I still like the movies because they are fantasy. In the extended editions, the special features explain why he didn't go into all that background, plus if you were stabbed with a blade like the Nazgul's you wouldn't have that much in you to challenge the Witch King...that's just me though. They were done in his vision. A lot had to be changed. If you went line for line, it'd be a boring movie and it wouldn't make any money at all, ya know?

Plus in a movie, how can you have all that time to go into background? How is one able to pull that off? Some stuff had to be left out. They were focusing on Frodo going to Mordor to destroy the ring, not the rest of that stuff. Also, Frodo is strong willed. He made it all the way to Mount Doom before the One Ring claimed, before he had nothing left.

As for Gandalf being energetic? He was to a point. There was also much he had to do. If you were that old, and knew your time was coming....would you be as energetic as he was? Everyone has their own interpretations of things and sees the characters in different light. I realize that in the book Aragorn had Narsil in his sheath, but to the crowd's eye aat least...for those who had never read the books it wouldn't have made sense to them. Peter Jackson had to deliver it to a large audience. I was one of those people who have never read the books before I saw the movie. After I saw Fellowship I knew I had to read the books to fully understand. I came to understand where his vision was going to. Tolkien and Jackson's visions of the story were slightly different but not far off. That is all I'm going to say for now. I'm out.

Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh (whom you neglect to mention) had to adapt a massive amount of material. When making a film they have these things called deadlines, budgets, etc. etc. You know, I would bet, if Jackson knew that he could get the funding to produce the 20+ hour version that could include nearly every single book reference then I bet he would have done it. But what you don't realize is that it doesn't work like that. Hell, they barely got the studios to give them the money for the first one. (If you haven't noticed, Fantasy movies are not exactly mainstream blockbusters.) Not to mention the actors, who need to be paid (not to mention their own busy schedules that need to be worked around) the people who build sets, the people who operate the camera-- My POINT is... it's impossible. It couldn't be done. The content was more then sufficient. (It did win MANY awards as you know.)

Since this movie HAD to sell or there would never have been a Two Towers or Return of the King, the characters had to be written to work on screen (aka the script.) Which, if you're not familiar with, it's not an easy task. Alas, it is impossible to completely capture the imagination that Tolkien conjured (which that TOO has many references from other literature.) But, some how they did what they could with the time, the money.

You have to realize that movie making is a business. A HUGE business. It made serious money. Peter Jackson's direction was excellent, and it never would have even been produced without him. That aside, many many people would have never even read the story (some people, apparently do not read books) so really... i'd say they were an excellent set of films.

wow, just realized ur new here, hella deep topic to start with. dude, it's great havin this debate w/ u, but make sure u browse the other forums, do some posting and get to know the ppl, have fun and good luck.

that being said:

very true, the atrocity has been commited. just takin this oppertunity to vent about it and hopefully enlighten all the unfortunate souls who saw the movies before reading the books.

i understand why a lot of the details and backround had to be left out. my problem is w/ what he left out and put in it's place. goin back to my original post, the chase scene to the ford. if he leaves it true to the book, it takes 3 or 4 min, done. the way he did it wastes time w/ the touchy feely scene between arwen (in the book it was an elf-lord named glorfindel) and aragorn. then the moron wastes even more time by dragging the chase out. that time could have been put towards a brief explination about narcil and why aragorn would carry a broken sword.

k, the morgul blade, the knife the nazgul stabbed frodo w/. they were made specificly to weaken and eventually turn the victum into shades under the control of the nazgul. yes most would have headed the witchkings call at the ford after having the sliver of blade in them for so long. that just proves the point i made in my first post about castrating frodo.

"his" vision took the most influential fantasy series of our age and turned it into a love story. ur right, the main story line of the movies were the same as the books: getting frodo to mt doom to destroy the ring. however, he kept wasting time bringing in elements that should stay in harliquin romances.
arwen, while she plays a huge role in argorns life, is only in the books for a paragraph here and there. dipsh1t also wastes time w/ farimir and eowyn. time that could have been used to develop the main characters and add more backround.

ya, frodo is strong, but after showing him as a gutless wonder in the first movie, how can anyone watching the movies truely understand how much fortitude it took for him to make it that far? anyone just watchin the movies just figures that it's sam carryin the pantywaist where he needs to go.

that's the thing, gandalf was one of the councel of wizards along w/ saruman and radagast, sarun was a member at one time as well. the wizards r istari, they're imortal, that's why gandalf comes back after he sacrifices himself to defeat the balrog. he isn't old and feeble, far from it he is a very powerful being. yes everyone sees things in a different light, i'm just trying to bring the light of truth to those who only have jackoffs dim representation of this classic tale.

i'm glad u took the time to read the books. i know my life changed the first time i picked up the hobbit.

if u understand where jacka$$ was trying to go, plz enlighten me, cuz i don't see it at all.

woah! 2 new guys in a row. hey dude. don't spend all ur time here w/ the 2 crazy old guys, surf the other forums, post like crazy and get to know the great ppl here. have fun and good luck!

k, thx for lettin me know there is someone else responsable for those monstrosities.

i know what it takes to turn a novel - in this case 3 - into movies. i understand content is going to be lost in the transition. i have friends in the industry so i know what goes into makin a movie. unfortunatly makin movies is big busness and i wish he hadn't gotten the money...

my main point has ALWAYS been what he added. i'v used the chase to the ford as an example already. a second is the scene he castrates aragorn in (i got half the theatre to laugh when i said "f**k this" and was physically restrained from leaving by my date and a friend). he wastes time havin vito bemoan his fate for 5 min. he could have used that time to give aragorn some depth by being true to the books and have him tell arwen about how he's been waiting for this moment for centuries...

a third example from the first movie is the battle at amon hen. IT WASN'T F**KIN NESSESSARY! the fellowship heard boromir blowing his horn and by the time they got there, the orcs, marry and pippin were gone. that's it. yet jackwash added a 15 minute battle scene for "dramatic effect". to me not knowing the fate of the hobbits was more dramatic than a fight. that's another 15 min that could have been used to develop characters or explain that the weapons of the hobbits were made by the men of westernesse to combat the witchking and his shadowy minions...

so in the first movie, he could have freed up 35-40 min for story and character development. THAT is the point of my rant and always has been.

i agree that it is "impossible to completely capture the imagination that Tolkien conjured". ur right in saying that "some" ppls don't read, i also know that there is a new generation out there that will be affected by these movies as i was by ralf bakshis' animated version in 78' and it warms my heart.

i just cannot agree that jackwash did a good job or that they r exelent films.

*sighs*

This is an endless, daresay, argument. Which it's not because you're just waging war with opinions.

You shouldn't believe that Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh TRIED to leave things out. No, like I said, they did the best with what they had. But, this can be said about nearly EVERY film...which always involve cuts, rewrites etc. I think a great example to compare the LOTR franchise to would be Akira. Which features an absolutely massive amount of source material. It's huge, and originally Katsuhiro Otomo wanted to do an entire adaptation of the manga to film. Could you imagine a 200 hour movie, with that amount of work, and incredible f*cking animation? It's impossible. Budget would cost more then Japan itself.

That aside, we could go into how the Spider Man movies, which don't follow the comic story at all, the X-Men films which made me leave the theatre, or classics like Clockwork Orange or The Third Man, which had a completely different ending which caused a lot of conflict with director and the writer.

It's endless... Could bicker about it till the end of time. Most people say books are better then then films. Other people would rather watch the films. Should just be glad that movies like LoTR get people to go out and pick the books up out of curiosity. That was how I was introduced to LOTR. The movie blew me away and I went out and got/read the book the day after seeing it.

i look at it as a debate. we're BOTH expressing our OPINIONS w/o animosity.

that's the point i'v been trying to make, they wasted time adding in "dramatic effect" scenes and the love story element. to the detriment of character development and backround. tolkien isn't a love story, it's heroic fantasy.

i know they had to cut large chunks of material to adapt it to film. if i thought otherwise i would have started my rant w/ the exclusion of the old forrest and tom -who happens to be one of my fav characters. i know that would have been at least 45 min of film and while it would have been fun to see the only point that is truely important to the development of the story is where the hobbits got their swords. but that one little fact snowballs into a story breaking detail at the battle before the gates of minas tirith. it would only have taken a min or two to explain as aragorn hands them the swords in hollen.

if ya want to tear apart comic adaptations, start a new thread and get more ppl involved i know i'd be postin, it will just get burried here.

i'm pleased that the movie inspired u to read the books. next time u pick them up, go slowly, savor them, and as u read think of the movie, how much deeper it could have been if jackwash had left out a cpl love scenes and added a few more details

I'd like to point out something OBVIOUS....

Peter Jackson made King Kong (if there was a finger down throat to induce vomit emoiticon I'd use it here) 18 hours long and 17 hours too long as he made it clear this was his first film where he had artistic control.

He did not have it in LoR, and made that clear. You do the best you can with what you have, and they made the films for mass appeal. I mean, it took to film three to make best picture.

Be realistic.

the best way to watch and enjoy Jackson's LOR is to not compare them to Tolkien´s work...he created a mythology that was up to each individuals interpretation of his work..(thus Jackson´s take), the movies, while most impressive tend to go way off course of the books, especially (IMO), the Two Towers and The Return of the King, where there are events in the movie that dont correspond to the books, and of course Arwen's appearance instead of Glorfindel (no doubt to attrack more female viewers).
That being said, the movies are impressive, beautifully done and I do not tire of watching them,..just like I do not tired of reading LOR (Once a year, every year for the past 10 years)

i agree about kk, i just fell asleep tryin to watch it.

well, if he was that unhappy about what the ones w/ control were doing he should have walked...

how does makein the film for "mass appeal" have bearing on the points i have brought up?

realistic? we're talkin about a fantasy story...

No, I mean realistic about Hollywood and what it will and will not make. Mass appeal has everything to do with it... everything.

I don't think Peter Jackson was mad or upset about his limited creativity, I think he just made it clear the burden of choice was not on his shoulders. He is not "to blame".

that's the thing, i'v been a tolkien fan for so long i can't help but compare them to the books... if he wanted to "create" a mythology of his own he should have written his own, not turned the most influential fantasy work of our time into a love story.

he definatly goes way off course. he did a decent job w/ most of fellowship (w/ the exception noted above) it started getting bad w/ the "battle" at amon hen. after that only bits and pieces of the books made it into the movies. by the return of the king very little but the names came from the books.

lol viggo, orlando and elijah weren't enough to draw female viewers?

except for the storyline, i agree they r impressive movies.

the hobbit is the first book i picked up after i had my eye surgery and i could read again.

No, Orlando Bloom was plenty.

But here is the thing, you simply cannot compare a book to a film. You can't.

Next you'll complain about Dune, right?

You can do one of the other, but not both unless you understand that the film is merely an adaptation. In a different genre of art.

i'm not denying that "mass appeal" heavily influenced the editing of the movie, i'm asking u to look at the examples i have made and tell me why that would have made it less appealing...

I'm pretty sure they do focus groups, surveys, and screenings to see what people like most. That's all. You might be giving people too much credit, guy!

i knew one of the 3 would get ya

i know that it's an adaptation, i'v stated that a number of times and realize that cotent has to be edited to run in the available time. my contention is that he ADDED content that takes time away from being able to develop the characters and add depth to the world.

Yes, but again you are giving people too much credit. In a vapid world there must be romance and white lights, jewelry and scenes of ships floating in the magical sea....