Author Topic: Lord of the Rings  (Read 7801 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Svevan

  • Not Afraid of Being Afraid
  • Score: -9
    • View Profile
    • Continuity
Lord of the Rings
« on: July 30, 2007, 07:24:02 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Attacking LOTR films and insulting Peter Jackson=loss of credibility

Glad you backed up your point.

Quote

Originally posted by: Mashiro
Peter Jackson loves the Lord of the Rings and lovingly made those films, far better than anyone could have done.

Compared to who? Loving the series doesn't mean you can't destroy it through idiotic decisions.

Quote

Originally posted by: Mashiro
Well thankfully you're not a person in charge of making those decisions as you would have deprived the world of one of the greatest film trilogies ever made.

Compared to what? Star Wars? Indiana Jones? Spider-Man? Are these the pinnacle of trilogies?

There are two trilogies that come to mind that are better than LotR: The Man With No Name trilogy by Leone, and the Godfather trilogy, even though the third film sucked. I don't need to bring up these or other famous trilogies (like the Apu trilogy or the BRD trilogy) because the statement "greatest film trilogies ever made" seems to be an effort to separate the films from regular discussion. They're still movies. Just because they are a capital-T "Trilogy" does not mean that they are elevated to a new plane of film criticism. That's nonsense.  

Making blind statements like "best [anything] ever" just puts the discussion out of whack. Use some facts and detailed opinions and make a case for what you believe, don't just ham fistedly tell me it's good and leave it at that.

Quote

Originally posted by: Mashiro
It would be impossible to translate everything the books held for the series onto the big screen and anyone who denies that is just lying to themselves.

This is an erroneous statement. The translation of material to the big screen does not mean that the material must be mutilated to fit our pre-conceived idea of what a movie looks like. Film critic Andre Bazin wrote a whole essay about this that deserves to be read, but I can't find it complete online. It is called "In Defense of Mixed Cinema."

The article focuses at first on the critique that adaptations are not "pure" cinema. Some people in the 50s said that the great films, like Citizen Kane and Bicycle Thieves were better because they were original works and not adapted from literature or theatre, like Olivier's three Shakespeare films. Bazin states that adaptation is a fine thing and completely valid as part of cinema, but it is often done wrong. He is critical of unfaithful adaptations that turn their works into a "movie." Hollywood is very often responsible, in his mind, but he also references some French directors who bastardized Hugo and Dumas, treating the literary accomplishments of those authors like nothing more than a scenario or treatment for a new script. Here's a quote:

Quote

...when an American director turns his attention on some rare occasion to a work by Hemingway, for example For Whom the Bell Tolls, he treats it in the traditional style that suits each and every adventure story.

He is critical of this because he believes film and literature are not as separate as many people pretend, and Hemingway's work deserves more than to be classified into a movie genre. Later Bazin says

Quote

When someone makes a film of Madame Bovary in Hollywood, the difference of aesthetic level between the work of Flaubert and the average American film being so great, the result is a standard American production that has only one thing wrong with it - that it is still called Madame Bovary.

Rewrite that sentence and replace Madame Bovary with LotR, and Flaubert with Tolkien. Of course, Peter Jackson isn't American, but he might as well be: LotR is about as Kiwi as The Chronicles of Narnia, another terrible adaptation that emphasized action over plot, special effects over character, and swooping retarded impossible camera movements over simple natural cinematography.

Bazin believes that it is possible to adapt a book to film without altering the total story or events. He understands that simplification must be necessary sometimes, but those who try to stay true to the material have to work much harder, and will make much better films, than those who see each and every novel as a simple plot outline for the next big action/drama/romance film. For reference, see the Harry Potter films. Even those that removed a lot of plot, like HP3, are still almost identical to their literary partners.

The problem lies in classifying films, as marketing heads and studio bosses understand "genre" rather than quality. The qualities of Tolkien's LotR are history, mythology, symbolism, and personal reality. Try explaining that to the guy who may give you $300 million to make them into films. In today's "big-money" movie market, only "fantasy epics" with "CGI monsters" deserve cash, since people pay to see them. If Jackson had made LotR into an encyclopedic history that didn't jump around narratively and stayed true to the source material's structure (Two Towers is written in two parts that Jackson obliterates, preferring the narrative conventions of action movies) they may have been good films, even if parts were removed. Instead he made Peter Jackson's LotR, which has a giant squid fight, two forty-five minute battle sequences, and a romantic subplot. No thanks, Mr. Jackson. Stick to King Kong.

This doesn't mean the movies aren't worth their salt, for they have (some) great things to offer. They, like the Madame Bovary mentioned by Bazin, merely don't deserve to be called Lord of the Rings. Someone else could come by in 50 years and make much better films out of Tolkien's work, for Jackson has made something that is the opposite of definitive: it's idiosyncratic.    
Evan T. Burchfield, aka Svevan
NWR Message Board Artist

My Blog

Offline GoldenPhoenix

  • Now it's a party!
  • Score: 42
    • View Profile
RE:Lord of the Rings
« Reply #1 on: July 30, 2007, 07:34:14 AM »
You know why I am not backing up my points? Because frankly I don't care, your and my movie tastes (not to mention the vast majority) are drastically different, so carry on. I found the LOTR movies to have extremely powerful characters, strong plot (I agree Narnia was lacking), along with mixing in action (which the LOTR books have alot of). So quote all the movie critics you want, I'll continue being my anti-intellectual self. You don't respect my opinion on it, I don't respect yours on movies, so we are even. For your information the Harry Potter movies destroyed one vital character, Dumbledore, especially in 4 where he physically assaulted Harry and acted insane.

In regards to the Godfather triliogy, I found Godfather 1 to be weak in acting, not to mention it had some of the cheesiest fight scenes around. Godfather II was far superior in every way, but LOTR I found to have a fine balance of action/character/story and consider it to be the best triliogy.
Switch Friend Code: SW-4185-3173-1144

Offline NinGurl69 *huggles

  • HI I'M CRAZY
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
    • Six Sided Video
RE: Lord of the Rings
« Reply #2 on: July 30, 2007, 08:01:43 AM »
Monty Python and the Holy Grail > LotR
:: Six Sided Video .com ~ Pietriots.com ::
PRO IS SERIOUS. GET SERIOUS.

Offline Pale

  • Staff Layton Hat Thief
  • Score: 4
    • View Profile
    • PaleHour
RE: Lord of the Rings
« Reply #3 on: July 30, 2007, 08:04:12 AM »
Where did this come from?  I don't understand the origin.

Also, I saw transformers over the weekend.

I hated it for the first hour.

Liked it for the rest of the movie.

Really liked it when I got home and thought about it more.

Random guy trying to hit on a hot chick... uncool.

As soon as Optimus talked... AWESOME!
:: I was an active staffer forever ago, or was it yesterday. Time is an anomaly. Father of two boys.
---------------------
:: Grouvee :: Instagram

Offline GoldenPhoenix

  • Now it's a party!
  • Score: 42
    • View Profile
RE:Lord of the Rings
« Reply #4 on: July 30, 2007, 08:16:12 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: Pale
Where did this come from?  I don't understand the origin.

Also, I saw transformers over the weekend.

I hated it for the first hour.

Liked it for the rest of the movie.

Really liked it when I got home and thought about it more.

Random guy trying to hit on a hot chick... uncool.

As soon as Optimus talked... AWESOME!


And this has to do with LOTR how? IC how it is, the mods can go off topic but posters can't!
Switch Friend Code: SW-4185-3173-1144

Offline Mashiro

  • Silent Protagonist
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: Lord of the Rings
« Reply #5 on: July 30, 2007, 08:20:34 AM »
Incoming massive post . . .  

Offline NWR_pap64

  • You are not the boss of me
  • Score: 25
    • View Profile
    • Nintendo World Report
RE: Lord of the Rings
« Reply #6 on: July 30, 2007, 08:26:36 AM »
Very random indeed...

Why is it that whenever I see Evan being a movie critic I think of Jay Sherman?

"IT STINKS!"
Pedro Hernandez
NWR Staff Writer

Offline vudu

  • You'd probably all be better off if I really were dead.
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: -19
    • View Profile
RE: Lord of the Rings
« Reply #7 on: July 30, 2007, 08:30:45 AM »
Remember kids, if you don't read any of the crap Evan spews forth his opinion doesn't count!
Why must all things be so bright? Why can things not appear only in hues of brown! I am so serious about this! Dull colors are the future! The next generation! I will never accept a world with such bright colors! It is far too childish! I will rage against your cheery palette with my last breath!

Offline Mashiro

  • Silent Protagonist
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE:Lord of the Rings
« Reply #8 on: July 30, 2007, 08:35:57 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: pap64
Very random indeed...

Why is it that whenever I see Evan being a movie critic I think of Jay Sherman?

"IT STINKS!"


oh god I just thought of the mental institution scene "It stinks! It Stinks! It stinks!" - "Yes mr. Sherman everyyyyyything stinks".

Anyway back to epic post . . .  

Offline Stogi

  • The Stratos You Should All Try To Be Like
  • Score: 18
    • View Profile
RE: Lord of the Rings
« Reply #9 on: July 30, 2007, 08:44:55 AM »
Man, this is uncanny of Clerks 2.
black fairy tales are better at sports

Offline Pale

  • Staff Layton Hat Thief
  • Score: 4
    • View Profile
    • PaleHour
RE:Lord of the Rings
« Reply #10 on: July 30, 2007, 08:45:24 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Quote

Originally posted by: Pale
Where did this come from?  I don't understand the origin.

Also, I saw transformers over the weekend.

I hated it for the first hour.

Liked it for the rest of the movie.

Really liked it when I got home and thought about it more.

Random guy trying to hit on a hot chick... uncool.

As soon as Optimus talked... AWESOME!


And this has to do with LOTR how? IC how it is, the mods can go off topic but posters can't!

Hah.. Aren't they both movies?? =P

But seriously, I was just trying to calm the tension down a bit.  
:: I was an active staffer forever ago, or was it yesterday. Time is an anomaly. Father of two boys.
---------------------
:: Grouvee :: Instagram

Offline GoldenPhoenix

  • Now it's a party!
  • Score: 42
    • View Profile
RE:Lord of the Rings
« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2007, 08:49:56 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: Pale
Quote

Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Quote

Originally posted by: Pale
Where did this come from?  I don't understand the origin.

Also, I saw transformers over the weekend.

I hated it for the first hour.

Liked it for the rest of the movie.

Really liked it when I got home and thought about it more.

Random guy trying to hit on a hot chick... uncool.

As soon as Optimus talked... AWESOME!


And this has to do with LOTR how? IC how it is, the mods can go off topic but posters can't!

Hah.. Aren't they both movies?? =P

But seriously, I was just trying to calm the tension down a bit.  


OMG Pale is comparing Transformers to LOTR!

I only responded because Evan felt the need to take my playful jab at what he said about Mantidor and take it out of context.
Switch Friend Code: SW-4185-3173-1144

Offline Sir_Stabbalot

  • Posts: 28
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE:Lord of the Rings
« Reply #12 on: July 30, 2007, 08:55:38 AM »
I love the LotR books. I'm a history buff, and Tolkien made an entire world with history, legends and enigmas.

The movies... Those I like, but not as much. They stray from the books at a lot of parts. Plus ever since LotR Peter Jackson seems to have something against cutting scenes from his movies. Seriously, King Kong would have been great for an hour or two, but it was too damn long.  
"I am going away, but the State will always remain" - Louis XIV, on his deathbed.

"Chimps are like fine wine: I drink them both." - A friend of a friend of mine.

Offline GoldenPhoenix

  • Now it's a party!
  • Score: 42
    • View Profile
RE:Lord of the Rings
« Reply #13 on: July 30, 2007, 08:59:32 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: Sir_Stabbalot
I love the LotR books. I'm a history buff, and Tolkien made an entire world with history, legends and enigmas.

The movies... Those I like, but not as much. They stray from the books at a lot of parts. Plus ever since LotR Peter Jackson seems to have something against cutting scenes from his movies. Seriously, King Kong would have been great for an hour or two, but it was too damn long.


I actually appreciated King Kong's length, it helped me care more for the characters. In alot of ways it reminded me of The Majestic, one of my all time favorites, it started out really slow but I really appreciated it in the end.
Switch Friend Code: SW-4185-3173-1144

Offline MaryJane

  • Ain't got nothing on Felica Hardy
  • Score: -13
    • View Profile
RE:Lord of the Rings
« Reply #14 on: July 30, 2007, 09:09:29 AM »
This thread started from mine about Harry Potter... There are still some unanswered questions in that thread Svevan...

Personally I loved LotR I didn't agree with everything though, like I thought the actress who played the Elf who was supposed to be the most beautiful creature ever wasn't nearly pretty enough.

Silly monkeys; give them thumbs they make a club and beat their brother down. How they survive so misguided is a mystery. Repugnant is a creature who would squander the ability to lift an a eye to heaven conscious of his fleeting time here.

Offline Sir_Stabbalot

  • Posts: 28
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE:Lord of the Rings
« Reply #15 on: July 30, 2007, 09:11:18 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Quote

Originally posted by: Sir_Stabbalot
I love the LotR books. I'm a history buff, and Tolkien made an entire world with history, legends and enigmas.

The movies... Those I like, but not as much. They stray from the books at a lot of parts. Plus ever since LotR Peter Jackson seems to have something against cutting scenes from his movies. Seriously, King Kong would have been great for an hour or two, but it was too damn long.


I actually appreciated King Kong's length, it helped me care more for the characters. In alot of ways it reminded me of The Majestic, one of my all time favorites, it started out really slow but I really appreciated it in the end.


But there's not much depth to the characters in King Kong. I mean, I can understand some movies needing it, but Kong doesn't rely on characters that much.
"I am going away, but the State will always remain" - Louis XIV, on his deathbed.

"Chimps are like fine wine: I drink them both." - A friend of a friend of mine.

Offline Mashiro

  • Silent Protagonist
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE:Lord of the Rings
« Reply #16 on: July 30, 2007, 10:35:31 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
You know why I am not backing up my points? Because frankly I don't care, your and my movie tastes (not to mention the vast majority) are drastically different, so carry on. I found the LOTR movies to have extremely powerful characters, strong plot (I agree Narnia was lacking), along with mixing in action (which the LOTR books have alot of). So quote all the movie critics you want, I'll continue being my anti-intellectual self. You don't respect my opinion on it, I don't respect yours on movies, so we are even. For your information the Harry Potter movies destroyed one vital character, Dumbledore, especially in 4 where he physically assaulted Harry and acted insane.

In regards to the Godfather triliogy, I found Godfather 1 to be weak in acting, not to mention it had some of the cheesiest fight scenes around. Godfather II was far superior in every way, but LOTR I found to have a fine balance of action/character/story and consider it to be the best triliogy.


Yeah, what she said.

Evan you have a great knowledge of many things and you can back up your "this sucked ass"-esk statements with tons of quotes and source material and what not. And that's great. I don't have your acting school wisdom but I know what I enjoy in life and why I enjoy it, so if you want I will not just "force" feed you an answer but give you some facts and detailed opinions to go along with it.

Let's begin with why I personally enjoyed the Rings movies (not just as a trilogy but as individual films).

The Fellowship of the Rings: Let's begin by me saying I was not a reader of the original books. Though many of my friends at the time were and when the movie was announced there was much excitement in the air and I got swept up in it. I just had to see what the big deal was. When I saw Fellowship I began to understand what it was all about.

Right from the get go I was enthralled in the film. The opening segment explaining the whole origin of the rings and the original epic battle against lord Sauron was absolutely beautiful (and still one of my favorite openers to a film to date). Right from the get go you understood this would be a tale of Good vs Evil on a scale which we haven't seen before on the cinematic scale and of course the classic inner battle against succumbing to great power that in the end will corrupt you. (Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.)

From the epic battle of the past we are then brought to the beautiful country side with the introduction of some of our main characters. The beautiful musical score from Howard Shore helps to suck you in to the beautify that is unfolding on screen. Immediately you can already understand the nature of some of the characters, such as Gandalf. "A wizard is never late, nor is he early, he arrives precisely when he means to”" comes to mind as a line that helps to explain Gandalf as a character while he is Gandalf the gray (serious but lighthearted and from the scenes that follow very loving and caring of his friends and all life that surrounds him).

The great character set ups and introductions persist throughout the film as well as the spectacular cinematography which allows us to look at this massive unique world of Middle Earth like never before. The film does an excellent job of portraying the scale of the journey ahead and the dire nature of the task assigned to Frodo.

The first film does a great job of establishing the "heros journey" and establishes the supporting of "the hero" quite well. This leads us to care for the charcaters and when events happen such as Gandalf plummeting to his apparent doom we care. The events which, in the end, cause the fellowship to break up and establish the basis of the Two Towers was handled well. It helps to show the growth of many of the characters as well as the growth of the bond between them. Aragorn, Legoloas and Gimlli's resolve at the end shows the ever so prevalent bonds of friendship cannot easily be broken and that very friendship strengthens their bond with one another and empowers them to venture forth on a seemingly impossible task of catching up to Merry and Pippin.

The bonds of friendship shine at the end for Frodo and Sam as well with Sam nearly drowning just to stay by his best friends side and aide him on his quest.

The underlying purpose of the film was to establish those bonds between our main characters, introduce the viewer to the massive world of Middle Earth and provide the back story and plot for the ominous evil that is Lord Sauron and Saruman. It does so beautifully and drags people into the world of Lord of the Rings and made even those of us who had never even been interested in the series suddenly fall in love with the universe that was presented to us.

Needless to say, in my eyes, the film was a great success and was beautifully entertaining from start to finish. The pacing was well done, the characters were portrayed fantastically, the musical score was brilliant and it showcased many universal themes (good vs evil, power corrupting those whom were once pure, and the heros journey) in a way that cinema has never done so before.

That is in a nut shell, why I enjoyed the first movie so much.

Second and third reasons coming soon.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evan if I have one problem with you it's how you can toss aside others opinions with no respect. Saying to Mantidor he lost credibility for enjoying the action segments of the film is pig headed and quite frankly unfair. The reason why I will toss around my opinion at you and "ham fistedly"  tell you why it's good is because you do the same to others. For all your knowledge and proverbial wisdom of subjects you come off as extremely close minded and as a person unwilling to accept the views of others.

I've said it in other posts but everyone has different experiences with various subject matter, may it be movies, video games, books or other mediums and that while we all have our own opinions on things it's unfair to state "loss of credibility" for it.

Offline wandering

  • BABY DAISY IS FREAKIN HAWT
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
    • XXX FREE HOT WADAISY PICS
RE:Lord of the Rings
« Reply #17 on: July 30, 2007, 11:46:28 AM »
The Lord of the Rings films are good. They're visually gorgeous, and do a good job of capturing the moving story, and detailed world, that is presented in the books.

That's not to say they are perfect. I agree with you, svevan, that Peter Jackson and co. made alot of terrible changes to the source material, because they are too devoted to the "rules" of scriptwriting.

Quote

Bazin believes that it is possible to adapt a book to film without altering the total story or events.

It is possible, but, in my opinion, rarely advisable. Psycho is one of the best films ever made, and, from what I've heard, it has little in common with the book its based on.

Quote

For reference, see the Harry Potter films. Even those that removed a lot of plot, like HP3, are still almost identical to their literary partners.
An interesting example. The majority of the HP films are mediocre, in my opinion, and I think part of the reason for that is that they are too faithful to the books they're based on. They try to cram too much plot into too little time, and wind up feeling, as a result, simultaneously too long and too rushed.

Quote

If Jackson had made LotR into an encyclopedic history that didn't jump around narratively and stayed true to the source material's structure (Two Towers is written in two parts that Jackson obliterates, preferring the narrative conventions of action movies) they may have been good films, even if parts were removed. Instead he made Peter Jackson's LotR, which has a giant squid fight, two forty-five minute battle sequences, and a romantic subplot. No thanks, Mr. Jackson. Stick to King Kong.

I think you're harping on the wrong things. Changing the Two Towers' structure didn't hurt the story much, in my opinion. And the books had a giant squid, and long battle sequences, and a romantic subplot.

Oh, and by the way, King Kong sucks.  
β€œ...there are those who would...say, '...If I could just not have to work everyday...that would be the most wonderful life in the world.' They don't know life. Because what makes life mean something is purpose.  The battle. The struggle.  Even if you don't win it.” - Richard M. Nixon

Offline ShyGuy

  • Fight Me!
  • *
  • Score: -9660
    • View Profile
RE: Lord of the Rings
« Reply #18 on: July 30, 2007, 12:10:46 PM »
What the....?

How can there be quotes in the first post? This thread has the timeline structure of a Tarantino film!

Offline that Baby guy

  • He's a real Ei-Ei-Poo!
  • Score: 379
    • View Profile
RE: Lord of the Rings
« Reply #19 on: July 30, 2007, 04:44:28 PM »
I'm not reading all the text.  In fact, I barely read any at all.  I probably disagree with every single one of you.  Yep.  You're all wrong.


Finally, someone had the balls to say that.

Offline GoldenPhoenix

  • Now it's a party!
  • Score: 42
    • View Profile
RE:Lord of the Rings
« Reply #20 on: July 30, 2007, 04:50:35 PM »
Quote

Originally posted by: thatguy
I'm not reading all the text.  In fact, I barely read any at all.  I probably disagree with every single one of you.  Yep.  You're all wrong.


Finally, someone had the balls to say that.


I said it first
Switch Friend Code: SW-4185-3173-1144

Offline that Baby guy

  • He's a real Ei-Ei-Poo!
  • Score: 379
    • View Profile
RE: Lord of the Rings
« Reply #21 on: July 30, 2007, 05:09:23 PM »
You didn't disagree with yourself, did you?

Offline GoldenPhoenix

  • Now it's a party!
  • Score: 42
    • View Profile
RE:Lord of the Rings
« Reply #22 on: July 30, 2007, 05:11:31 PM »
Quote

Originally posted by: thatguy
You didn't disagree with yourself, did you?


I disagreed with your disgreeable statement about me disagreeing.
Switch Friend Code: SW-4185-3173-1144

Offline that Baby guy

  • He's a real Ei-Ei-Poo!
  • Score: 379
    • View Profile
RE: Lord of the Rings
« Reply #23 on: July 30, 2007, 05:15:29 PM »
See, now you're just making things up.  It makes you look stupid.  You should stop.

Online Kairon

  • T_T
  • NWR Staff Pro
  • Score: 48
    • View Profile
RE:Lord of the Rings
« Reply #24 on: July 30, 2007, 05:24:19 PM »
Boy am I glad I didn't like the books much to begin with...
Carmine Red, Associate Editor

A glooming peace this morning with it brings;
The sun, for sorrow, will not show his head:
Go hence, to have more talk of these sad things;
Some shall be pardon'd, and some punished:
For never was a story of more woe
Than this of Sega and her Mashiro.