OK, I've gotta ask...

[Maylith]

When I was very small, I remember watching the animated versions of the Hobbit and tLOTR and loving them. I also remember watching them with a bit of a cringe maybe 10-15 years ago.

Well, about half a year ago or so, I tried to go back and watch them again. I got through the Hobbit by dint of some excellent beer and good companionship, but I gave up and ran screaming at tLOTR. IMHO, there's a such a thing as Too Much Campyness (tm), even though my campy tolerance level is pretty high. I'm not saying they're a classic, or that I might not try watching them again, but oh, my.

As far as the films go, I loved them. Yes, they were an interpretation, but I could appreciate them for that. The truly PERFECT movie, of course, is always going to be whatever goes on inside your own head while you are reading it straight from the master, and nothing is ever going to change that.

[Darklaw]

The truly PERFECT movie, of course, is always going to be whatever goes on inside your own head while you are reading it straight from the master, and nothing is ever going to change that.

Here, here... My sentiments exactly.

[BlackSmurf]

As for me, I simply chose to enjoy some well-made films based on someone's interpretation of a story that I think is one of the greatest ever written. (...) That's why I love these films; that's why I even love the animated version of LotR - because I choose to.

(...) he (Darklaw) chose to enjoy it, as did I: some people chose to enjoy mistery, some horror, some romance, and some action.

Oh, fortunate people! How I envy you! Being able of watching PJ's trilogy and enjoy it is quite a hit. But having such a control over your tastes is much better!

For a non Tolkien-related example, I saw "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" and "Pirates of the Caribbean" in a single, continous session. I was willing to enjoy both of them (on spite of my, er, rooted prejudices against Disney ). But for some obscure, unknown reason, one of the movies (doesn't matter which one), one of the movies made me sick, meanwhile the other charmed me.
If heavens granted me the chance, I'd choose to like, not just Jackson's pseudo-LoTR, but every harrypotter, alvinmaker, alicecooper, mollymaloon, foobarman, dragonlance, matrix, foundation and every single bit of junk ever written or filmed. What the heck! I'd even choose to enjoy real live! Since, as somebody said, pleasure of whatever kind is too scarce in this world.

[Balrog in a Bucket]

I always thought of Aragorn being more bratish when I was reading the books. "No, I don't want to take responsibility, accept what fate has given me, and rule Gondor, I just can't! I want to be a ranger, run around in the forest, and go hump a tree somewhere! No Elrond! I'd rather practically doom all of my kind than lift a finger!" He was more of a dynamic character, I guess. That and the hobbits were fatter and always stealing stuff from people (some are 'burglars'), the dwarf had more of a kung-fu monkish style, but with an axe (Gim-Lee, after all), Legolas tried too hard to do elf-stuff in all the wrong places, and I was kinda dissapointed with Faromir in the middle of the Two Towers , that plot change was totally unnecessary. Other than that, I enjoyed the movies very much, and I even got a few laughs.

Oh, yes, and, um...
the fight with the balrog was kinda lame. Deleryn would have done much better than THAT Gandalf, but NO he DIED.

The fight is still etched on my memory.

"M A H!"
"Good, no traps! Maybe, just once, I won't detect monsters... I'm eager to find out what's in that square thingy anyways!"
{teleports}
"Hey, What's that 'U'? Now there are a bunch of 'u's surrounding me, this should be fun!"
"M D A!"
"Oh, no! Frost Ball didn't work!"

But anyways, you get the idea.

[Burb Lulls]

I know several of these things have been said before, several times, but I may as well re-iterate the two main points simply.

1: Peter Jackson's depiction of the LoTR is just as valid as anyone elses; goodness knows I did a bit of 'augmentation' to the character's personalities when reading the book. The only person who truely knows tLotR perfectly is Tolkien.

2: Before laying into it for oversights and missing plot points, try watching it as a completely normal fantasy movie based on nothing. A touch unthankful to Tolkien, but it gives a more unbiased view on the actual quality of the movie.

If you don't like the thing because it got too boring or the acting being sub-par, perfectly fine and valid. If you don't like it because of Bombadil being left out, Gandalf's robes being the wrong shade of grey or Arwen actually existing ; these points could have added to the movie, but don't detract from it in their abscence.

[Canderel]

[offtopic]
BlackSmurf, I am quite interested to know which of the two movies you preferred (League or Pirates).

I much preferred pirates, mostly because of Johnny Depp. The movie had a nice sense of humor. League was kinda bland and predictive.
[/offtopic]

I hadn't read the books for years when I went to see them movies. They were quite nice, with TT (Gollum was great) as best, then FoTR, and last RoTK. I think it's because I like the ring plot, and dislike the world's end plot. Or lemme rephrase... I like looking at the plot with gollum (very well done) and frodo, and dislike looking at orcs, and armies. (War movies aren't my favourite).

What I find strange is that everyone hates Legolas... but no-one cares about Gimli. Gimli was such an empty character in the movie. Basically there for comic relief.

Legolas I thought was over the top, but attracted lots of female viewers, so as a commercial stand point, that was the reason for his huge amounts of screen time. That is also why Arwen's screentime was also maxxed. To draw females to the movie. Eowyn IMO was much prettier.

[Darklaw]

What I find strange is that everyone hates Legolas... Legolas I thought was over the top, but attracted lots of female viewers, so as a commercial stand point, that was the reason for his huge amounts of screen time. That is also why Arwen's screentime was also maxxed. To draw females to the movie. Eowyn IMO was much prettier.

I totally agree about Arwen vs. Eowyn. I thought the casting of Eowyn was absolutely spot on; but Liv Tyler as Arwen just didn't quite fit in with my own idea of things. I had the same reservations about the actors playing Galadriel and Celeborn; but those, I think, were the only things I would have changed with regards casting (though I have no idea, at this point in time, who I would have got to fill those rolls). Mr. Bloom's Legolas was actually very close to my own idea of the character.

Y'know what I would absolutely love to see? If everyone who has read LoTR could make their own version of the film. I would be so excited to see everyone else's ideas about the story...

[BlackSmurf]

[offtopic]
BlackSmurf, I am quite interested to know which of the two movies you preferred (League or Pirates).

Oh, no, it has no importance at all! I wrote it just as an example of how, unlike some other contributors (many other perhaps?), I'm plainly unable to choose which movie I like and which not. It depends of some unknown factor beyond my will. What is silly from my side is let than a movie drives me sick or whatever, but that's the stuff I'm made of.
Anyway, since you are interested in it, I'll answer your question by private message.

If you don't like the thing because it got too boring or the acting being sub-par, perfectly fine and valid. If you don't like it because of Bombadil being left out, Gandalf's robes being the wrong shade of grey or Arwen actually existing ; these points could have added to the movie, but don't detract from it in their abscence.

Ok, but then, the movies were claimed to be a trueful translation of the LotR, which ultimately they are not. Something similar was done time ago with Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula, and that's indeed a good tactic for atracting to the theaters foolish people like me. I guess that this is what mades me mad about Peter Jackson. He owes me four or five euros for the ticket and an apology for the lie.
But do you know which is worse? There are millions of people out there that never have read LotR, that perhaps have don't even seen the movie, and that will remain forever conviced that Jackson's trilogy reflect the book as it is.

I do hate the fact that the movies really don't seem to take Tolkien's writing seriously. I've heard comments from various people around me (who have not read Tolkien) that 'Lord of the Rings is a children's fairytale.'

I'm with furiosity at this point. (But, as a disgression, I softly disagree with her contemptous use of the expression "fairy tales". I've loved children fairy tales since I first read "The Hobbit" at the high school. That's again a matter of taste, since many of my very favourite movies turn out to be fairy tales, but I rather prefer an story adressed to wise children that another one targeted to dumb adults. End of disgression.)

Coming back to Burb Lulls' post:

Before laying into it for oversights and missing plot points, try watching it as a completely normal fantasy movie based on nothing. A touch unthankful to Tolkien, but it gives a more unbiased view on the actual quality of the movie.

Ha, ha, ha! :bitter laugh: I'm afraid I won't be able to follow your well-meaned advice, since my ultimate criteria for judging every movie I watch is: "Let see if it reminds me of the LotR!", and I'm currently stuck into this point. Thank you, anyway.

[LogrusMage]

If you don't like the thing because it got too boring or the acting being sub-par, perfectly fine and valid. If you don't like it because of Bombadil being left out, Gandalf's robes being the wrong shade of grey or Arwen actually existing ; these points could have added to the movie, but don't detract from it in their abscence.

i disliked arwen's screwy role, but not because it was a variation from the books. if it'd been in the books, it'd have ruined them for me as well.

hollywood doesn't try to shoehorn john-woo-style fight scenes, fire-breathing dragons, and starship battles into every romantic comedy, why must they shoehorn a comical/tragic/comically tragic romance into every action movie, fantasy flick, and scifi epic?

[Darklaw]

hollywood doesn't try to shoehorn john-woo-style fight scenes, fire-breathing dragons, and starship battles into every romantic comedy, why must they shoehorn a comical/tragic/comically tragic romance into every action movie, fantasy flick, and scifi epic?

Good point...

[Elliott]

To improve the chance of women going to see it.

[LogrusMage]

To improve the chance of women going to see it.

so they don't do the inverse, then, because - sufficiently improves the chance of men seeing romantic comedies?

problem is, they'r trying to tack on a new audience segment that's gonna have a very low rate of attendance whatever they do, at the cost of making the movie substantially less attractive to their *primary* audience segment.

[danielfishman]

When I saw the films, I was annoyed by how much emphasis was put on Aragorn & Arwen. But then I re-read the books, and realised that it was actually quite a major part of the book as well. In fact you could say (as someone else said somewhere else) that, at least before he recieves Anduril, most of Aragorn's motivation comes from the fact that he can't marry Arwen until he becomes King of Men.

[LogrusMage]

When I saw the films, I was annoyed by how much emphasis was put on Aragorn & Arwen. But then I re-read the books, and realised that it was actually quite a major part of the book as well. In fact you could say (as someone else said somewhere else) that, at least before he recieves Anduril, most of Aragorn's motivation comes from the fact that he can't marry Arwen until he becomes King of Men.

which books did you get that from? certainly not the trillogy. arwen's refered to only once in all 3 books, and that as a line-item when Elrond listed off several elves as examples to make a point.

[Atarlost]

You skipped the appendices, didn't you? I'm pretty sure there's a big section about them in there.