Reply to: Smug again

[NotAllThere]

No, the height of the gates at Bree would be a detail. Sam's unwavering loyalty to Frodo and Frodo's continued defiance and resilience were major themes that were messed with, that isn't detail, to give just a couple of examples.

I think it was the screwing about with the characters that annoyed me most. Although that stupid ending to the battle of the Pellenor fields irked me no end.

I think I had better give the Hobbit a miss.

Films are films and books are books. I found LOTR worked as films. Jackson was attempting to make movies that appeal to a wide audience, not just a few die-hard Tolkein fans who will moan about any changes. On that basis I think he has succeeded.

I wasn't expecting a faithful portrayal of the books, but what I found was sufficient to satisfy me as a Tolkein fan. Sure, characterisation and plot gets changed, but overall it had the feel of the stories - as does The Hobbit. The representation of the place of Middle Earth is excellecnt.

If you want to see a film where they've completely screwed with the plot, try Earthsea. They cast a white boy as Ged ffs.

[alluvial]

[greenlake]

Maybe you watched a different film to me

[alluvial]

Maybe you watched a different film to me

Or read a different book.

[d000hg]

Maybe you watched a different film to me

[alluvial]

Well I don't think they were messed with. To me the characters were depicted pretty well.

Well all I can say is Faramir, ultimate good guy to git.

[d000hg]

No, the height of the gates at Bree would be a detail. Sam's unwavering loyalty to Frodo and Frodo's continued defiance and resilience were major themes that were messed with, that isn't detail, to give just a couple of examples.

Well I don't think they were messed with. To me the characters were depicted pretty well.

[Zippy]

Zippy

as a bird like

if you had to get ravaged, would it be Aragorn or Oakenshield ?


whos is the ladies top ravager-in-chief ?

laydees

I've given this very little some thought and it would have to be Aragorn, only cecause he looks good on a horse.
I'm shallow, me.

[alluvial]

Bombadil would have been the Jar Jar Binks if they'd left him in. I don't think casting and portraying him would be at all easy to do well.

I've read LotR several times and found the films wholly enjoyable and authentic enough - in a story that long really most things ARE details to a degree. And they captured the essence/mood of the story very well IMO.

Whereas The Hobbit... they stopped all the dwarves being dwarves FFS. Presumably because they wanted to make it more edgy and serious and you can't have a serious character being short and fat and hairy. Dwarves with cool 12 O'Clock shadows are crap.

No, the height of the gates at Bree would be a detail. Sam's unwavering loyalty to Frodo and Frodo's continued defiance and resilience were major themes that were messed with, that isn't detail, to give just a couple of examples.

I think it was the screwing about with the characters that annoyed me most. Although that stupid ending to the battle of the Pellenor fields irked me no end.

I think I had better give the Hobbit a miss.

[EternalOptimist]

The first Hobbit movie was great but I was judging it against the LOTR movies which I thought were beauitiful. brilliant (despite some story changes - but, ahhh, Rohan). Will watch the second movie and see if it improves

I think the scouring of the Shire was filmed for LOTR but subsequently cut. I think they got the point across without it, but it may appear in some 'anniversary' set. I hope so.

Zippy

as a bird like

if you had to get ravaged, would it be Aragorn or Oakenshield ?


whos is the ladies top ravager-in-chief ?

[d000hg]

Bombadil would have been the Jar Jar Binks if they'd left him in. I don't think casting and portraying him would be at all easy to do well.

I've read LotR several times and found the films wholly enjoyable and authentic enough - in a story that long really most things ARE details to a degree. And they captured the essence/mood of the story very well IMO.

Whereas The Hobbit... they stopped all the dwarves being dwarves FFS. Presumably because they wanted to make it more edgy and serious and you can't have a serious character being short and fat and hairy. Dwarves with cool 12 O'Clock shadows are crap.

[NotAllThere]

The problem with Bombadil is that it's difficult to explain what he is. He would just have seemed, as you say, twee and rather pointless even though he's apparently the oldest being in Middle Earth.

He's Illùvatar, Eru, the One. Most adaptions leave him out.

[Zippy]

The first Hobbit movie was great but I was judging it against the LOTR movies which I thought were beauitiful. brilliant (despite some story changes - but, ahhh, Rohan). Will watch the second movie and see if it improves

I think the scouring of the Shire was filmed for LOTR but subsequently cut. I think they got the point across without it, but it may appear in some 'anniversary' set. I hope so.

[Bunk]

No Tom Bombadil and Goldberry, no barrow wight. The whole of the first section of the book was pretty much omitted. Yes I understand these had little bearing on the overall story and some think Bombadil a bit twee but even so, I would have liked to have seen Goldberry

The problem with Bombadil is that it's difficult to explain what he is. He would just have seemed, as you say, twee and rather pointless even though he's apparently the oldest being in Middle Earth. The barrow-wight I would have liked to see though.

The scouring of the shire would have made the third movie unbearably long. Fine for an extended DVD release but not for the cinema.

[alluvial]

No Tom Bombadil and Goldberry, no barrow wight. The whole of the first section of the book was pretty much omitted. Yes I understand these had little bearing on the overall story and some think Bombadil a bit twee but even so, I would have liked to have seen Goldberry

And no Scouring of the Shire. :banghead:

(And I agree about Goldberry )