Was Peter Jackson's LotR trilogy a good film adaptation?

[kenjib]

Here's Ormus' thought on the matter and the reason why I created this topic:

Originally Posted by Ormus

I am a Tolkien fan. I have read The Hobbit, LotR, The Silmarillion, many times over. I love these books above any other. When I first saw there would be a movie, I thought...maybe it could be good. I am aware that everyone and there grandma think that the LotR movies are the greatest thing to ever happen, but as a true fan of the literature I think they are an abomination. I could write a thesis on everything that is wrong with them. If Tolkien saw those movies he would roll in his grave. How's that for a definition of my arguement Malechi. Tell you what, we'll sit down and watch all nine agonizing hours of the trilogy and I can point out everything that I think is wrong. And if you think me saying that your favorite movie sucks is the most offensive post of the year.... :banana:


LotR Movies

I have always been a big Tolkein fan as well and have read them all more than once. I've read Unfinished Tales as well though I never read Christopher's later and longer series. I've also picked up Children of Hurin as soon as I could and read that.

I thought the movies were done very well. I have a few minor nitpicks - the giant flaming eye was cheesy, for example - but they aren't really a big deal. Many changes from the original made sense within the film format though. For example, while the scouring of the Shire was extremely important to the hero's journey story structure of the book I can really see how it completely would not work in the movie format.

My only major complaint was that the movie lacked "magic." It took a very literal approach to interpretation whereas I would have liked something that was a little more daring - something that made my heart ache. Of course that would have meant a film that did not have the same broad, mass market, appeal and would not have big the huge success that LotR was. With Peter Jackson at the helm, considering his prior films, I wouldn't have expected anything in the romantic/surreal style though. It's just not what he does (not even Heavenly Creatures, which still has a very literal feel to it despite the elements of fantasy escapism). Another approach that I would have liked was for it to look back more toward the classical epics that Tolkein was inspired by as a professor of Anglo-Saxon literature and give a very old world feel - again though this was really something one should not expect from Peter Jackson even though there were a few hints of this with the Rohirrim. You would need a much darker, heavy-handed director. In their day directors like Werner Herzog, John Boorman, or Ridley Scott might have done interesting things.

A few moments in the film were pretty memorable - the way they handled Faramir's death was nicely done even though it was different. On the other hand, some scenes in the book left me a little disappointed - Eowyn's killing of the witch king, for example, which is maybe my favorite part of the trilogy. I've always loved Eowyn in the books but she was a little bit weak in the movies - bad casting there. Then again with such anticipation for that scene perhaps my too-high expectations played a large part in the letdown.

On the whole though, the movies were very good. I thought that the Two Towers, in particular, was head and shoulders above the other two. In fact, I can rewatch that one much more often than the other two. Thanks in large part to the tremendous quality of the actors involved (most specifically Theoden's performance was amazing) it has an epic Shakespearian feel that I just love.

[markwars]

I loved the books.....I loved the movies. I can't imagine changing much at all.

[Uprising]

I originally read the Lord of the Rings when I was in middle school. Maybe 12 years old. I thought it was ok but i remember putting the books down in boredom more than once. I tried to read them again when I was about 18, but I couldn't get past The Two Towers. It wasn't a fun read for me.

When news of the film adaptation was first announced, I was pumped so I pulled out the books and started to read them again. This time I couldn't get past The Fellowship. I was just bored out of my mind. I was constantly falling asleep while trying to force myself to stay awake and read them.

Final realization....the books bore me to death. They're snoozers in my opinion.

The movies rocked my socks off. I liked the over the top action and creatures. I'll even laugh at the occasional cheesy cliche lines peppered through out the films. I don't really care if they are an accurate depiction of Tolkien's books or not. I loved the movies. I have all 3 Extended Edition flicks.

[royaldoy]

The books were great. The movies were great. Hollywood "hollywoodized" the books. No surprise there. Comparinging the movies to the books is easy for anyone who has read the books. To point out flaws or changes is easy. You have to expect it when going to see a movie based on a book. Just because a movie can stay faithful to a book doesn't make it a better movie than a movie who does not adhere to the way a book was written. A movie's a movie and a book is a book. I enjoyed both.

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by royaldoy

The books were great. The movies were great. Hollywood "hollywoodized" the books. No surprise there. Comparinging the movies to the books is easy for anyone who has read the books. To point out flaws or changes is easy. You have to expect it when going to see a movie based on a book. Just because a movie can stay faithful to a book doesn't make it a better movie than a movie who does not adhere to the way a book was written. A movie's a movie and a book is a book. I enjoyed both.

That's close enough to what I was going to write I think I'll just QFT.

~Aldin, who asks doubters how they could have made the movie any "better" while still maintaining the mass market appeal it needed to have

[Sweetcurse]

TT is not as good as the other two. FOTR is the superior film with it's quaint feel and understated perfomances. TT has quite a few cheesy moments like lame-o Legolas sliding on the shield. ROTK was very good, especially in the extended version but it felt rushed at times. I had the feeling that PJ ran out of steam.

[cavie]

I am on my second read of the books but this time I've prefaced them with reading the Histories of Middle Earth and the Simarillion. There is a lot of detail and depth to Tolkien that I don't think could have been put in a movie made now days. The movies were done well considering this. I enjoy the books and will read them again and again. I also own the DVD's and watch them again and again from time to time. I believe the adaptation was done well.

[Chimpy]

Originally Posted by Sweetcurse

TT is not as good as the other two. FOTR is the superior film with it's quaint feel and understated perfomances. TT has quite a few cheesy moments like lame-o Legolas sliding on the shield. ROTK was very good, especially in the extended version but it felt rushed at times. I had the feeling that PJ ran out of steam.

I couldn't say it better. (Longer perhaps, but not better. )

[Agent Minivann]

Almost universally making a movie adaptation requires making cuts and changes. There are two parts to making an adaptation of a book: maintaining the spirit of the book and making the movie watchable. There are few times that you can nail both in the same movie. There are the purists that will not be satisfied with ANY LotR adaptation that doesn't have word for word dialogue, all the songs *shudder*, and doesn't change a single thing about the story. For LotR that would probably require at least 6 movies of close to 4 hours each. I'm a geek, but I'm not that much of a geek. The group that would love that would not pay for tickets enough to make that even break even. The movie has to have enough appeal to reach the fanboys and the general public. PJ did a remarkable job of capturing the spirit of the books without sacrificing the quality of the movie as a stand alone entity.

[Hahma]

Originally Posted by Agent Minivann

Almost universally making a movie adaptation requires making cuts and changes. There are two parts to making an adaptation of a book: maintaining the spirit of the book and making the movie watchable. There are few times that you can nail both in the same movie. There are the purists that will not be satisfied with ANY LotR adaptation that doesn't have word for word dialogue, all the songs *shudder*, and doesn't change a single thing about the story. For LotR that would probably require at least 6 movies of close to 4 hours each. I'm a geek, but I'm not that much of a geek. The group that would love that would not pay for tickets enough to make that even break even. The movie has to have enough appeal to reach the fanboys and the general public. PJ did a remarkable job of capturing the spirit of the books without sacrificing the quality of the movie as a stand alone entity.

Well said Agent Minivann. There has to be give and take in an adaption and I think they did a good job of it for both Tolkien fans and mass audience. The minority of people that want the word for word, song for song *Shuddering too* adaption have to understand that no studio in their right mind would produce such an adaption just to suit such a small number of "Real" Tolkien and "Real" literature fans such as Ormus.

[Dictatorbilbo]

I think that it really is impossible to compare movies to books; In books, everything that you "see" is in your head, whereas it's the exact opposite with movies.

You cannot honestly think that any movie would ever match up perfectly with what you had in your head; Reading a book and watching a movie are two very different experiences, and should be regarded as such.

You can't say that the direction north is in every way supperior to the kumquat- It doesn't work.

[jcb231]

In my opinion art is, almost without exception, best enjoyed in its original format. The format it was written for by its creator.

Therefore in my eyes any attempt to do a strict, bound-by-the-book adpation would have failed and failed miserably. The fact that Jackon took liberties, made (gasp) changes, and in general made the work his own was what saved it. The LOTR books are great. The LOTR movies are great. Neither should stand in for the other and both can be enjoyed equally for what they are.

Recently the Harry Potter films have been chuggng out of the WB studio, swapping through a small group of directors. Chris Columbus made the first two, and they were slavishly devoted to Rowling's text, much, I feel, to their detriment. I passed on seeing the third in theatres at first....then I learned it had a new director and took greater liberites with the work. I heard my friends say that it felt like a real movie, and not just the book put onto the screen. They were very very right...the third was a good work in its own right, not just a puppet show of the book. The same was true, to a lesser extent, with the fourth. I hope the fifth will hit the lofty heights of the third though.

The Harry Potter series is, I think, a good example of how to approach a book-to-movie adaptation, and also how not to approach it, all in the same series. The key word is adaptation....which implies change. Faboys that bemoan the lack of spandex in a superhero movie never seem to stop and think that spandex looks RIDICULOUS in real flesh-and-blood life and only looks halfway cool in the hands of a talented comic-book artist or in some cases an animator. One must truly adapt a story for each new medium it is presented in. What works on stage doesn't work on screen. What works on the screen doesn't work on the printed page. What works in a comic doesn't work on radio......and round and round we go.