The Lord of the Rings

Jim Garten wrote: They always said LOTR could not be filmed, and after seeing the execrable 1980's animated effort, I was inclined to agree.... Then came Peter Jackson...... I am now the proud & awed owner of all 3 director's cuts & am utterly blown away by the sheer breadth of PJ's vision. If I had one small gripe, it would be the ommission of the scouring of the Shire, showing Saruman's end at the hands of Wormtongue (that shounds a tad rude...) - otherwise, all praise to him from whom all blessings come!

Totally agreement. I can't wait to see the extended version.

One other omission that I thought would have added some impact was the Sauron's Lieutenant's tossing of the mithril cloak and Frodo's clothing at the feet of Aragorn and Gandalf at the gates of Mordor. That scene in th ebook was powerful.

I know I'm getting the extended version for X-mas. Can't wait. 

I'll have to take the negative view. I was pleasantly surprised at how well Jackson did "Fellowship"- I'd been expecting disappointment, and I came out of the theater thinking that the changes he made were completely forgivable. The first film gave me reason to look forward with excitement to the rest of the series.

Then "Two Towers" came around...not only did I not like it, I disliked it enough to ruin the enjoyment I got from the first film. It was bad enough to waste time with the completely crappy scene with Aragorn getting knocked out and dragged by his horse, leading to yet more tacked-on Arwen dross (if so much story had to be cut, why do we have to suffer through so many 'pretty scenery + soaring soundtrack' scenes that go on too long?). The entire last scene with Faramir and Frodo in Ithilien/ Osgiliath was clumsy, mawkish, and completely untrue to the spirit (let alone the story) of the original.

And "Return" was almost completely a shame. Omitting "The Scouring of the Shire" was far more than cutting a superfluous scene; it was eliminating a necessary and esssential part of the story. It was like remaking Casablanca and having Ingrid Bergman stay this time.

And not being able to enjoy the second and third films allowed me to pay attention to some of the poor choices in filming. Jacksons' decision to film much of his scenes with oversaturated monochrome colors ruins a lot of the care that was taken with costuming, scenery, and creature design. The technique works for a film like "The Ring" because the bulk of the scenes are everyday shots, but Middle-Earth is inherently surreal to begin with. And why on Earth would he cast the distinctive voice of Rhys-Davies for two such prominent characters? I'm sure the budget could have stretched for one more actor. Speaking of which, I'm almost positive Tolkien didn't intend Gimli to be almost exclusively comic relief.

Nope, it was a monumental failure in my eyes. I'd like to think that it will encourage people to read the books, but I've already heard some say "yeah, I bought it, but I couldn't really get into it." So unfortunately Jackson's vision (or lack) will be the defining one, not Tolkien's.

It makes me think that Hollywood has run dry of its own self-authored crap, so it needs to remake, adapt, and otherwise crap-ify anything good that is left. Oh, any other fans of fantasy fiction giddy with the prospect of a made-for-TV "Earthsea" spectacle?  Maybe next they'll do Narnia with Heath Ledger as Peter and Jessica Simpson as Lucy.

Reed Lover wrote: The trilogy is an outstanding cinematic achievement.

It is a great film.As a piece of cinema you are allowed to forget the book. Jackson was adapting a book not remaking a film classic like Casablanca.

Reed Lover wrote: Reed Lover wrote: The trilogy is an outstanding cinematic achievement. It is a great film.As a piece of cinema you are allowed to forget the book. Jackson was adapting a book not remaking a film classic like Casablanca.

I'll bore anyone to tears explaining why I think Kubrick's version of "The Shining" is a masterpiece and can't be compared to the King book. But my Casablanca reference wasn't comparing films; I could have said it would be like adapting "Romeo and Juliet" and having them live, or doing a bio on Jesus and leaving off the crucifixion.

Jackson's film omitted a chapter Tolkien himself considered essential (and said so specifically in the foreward to every edition of the books that I've ever seen). That immediately places him at odds with the author's intent- not for one scene, but for the entire work.

Do you really think making the Lord of the Rings is the same as doing a film version of any other book? I'll wager that no other film ever released has had the kind of pre-existing audience that this trilogy had.

Cinematic achievement? Sure. No argument there. So was the "Final Fantasy" movie, or the "Matrix" films. Doesn't make it great, though.

What's the connection between "The Shining" and "Blade Runner" ?

I find both films boring

Well I never thought I would create such a great debate. Everyone here has made very succinct informed points. Thanks all for going balls to the wall here . And I would agree that there are a lot of films out there at least as good as LOTR, and certainly many I have enjoyed more. To make a proper adaptation of the books is probably impossible. There is no way to please all the Tolkien fans. Every single fan has his or her favorite part of the books.These movies were under major scrutiny even before they shot the first scene. I too was disappointed by some aspects of them. However I think it does well to tell the story overall. And the things they did well were amazing. It is way better than Bakshi's garbage can.