Post by Defender of the Faith on Oct 14, 2015 9:06:53 GMT -5
I found an interesting comment on Quora about the Lord of the Rings films, and I wondered what you guys thought of it. In my opinion, he is a bit hard on the films, but I definitely agree with him overall.
"Am I a die-hard fan? I don't know -- I don't know any Quenya beyond elen sila lumenn' omentielvo, nor Sindarin beyond mellon; but at least I know there's more than one Elvish, and that Sindarin is inspired by Welshbut the 'Elven-Latin' Quenya by Finnish. I've never even read much of The History of Middle-earth, but at least I've read The Silmarillion some 25 times or so, and The Lord of the Rings a good 50.
You decide if that's hardcore enough for relevance.
When I saw the film, The Fellowship of the Ring, I was impressed. I came away with a miles-long mental list of changes I noticed, for better or worse (regarded as film), but even with changes that bothered me, I could mostly understand the choices. I disliked removing Glorfindel and shoving Arwen into the narrative, but I understand the need to add more active female characters.
I left happy and satisfied that while I might disagree with some choices, as an adaptation of a very large and deep work, it was good -- nay, excellent.
Then The Two Towers opened in theatres. I went in excited. I came out not just disappointed, but positively offended and angry. Never has a creative work disappointed that more -- nor so needlessly, when Jackson had demonstrated an ability to make a good adaptation.
I saw The Return of the King, I suppose because I felt I should see the damned thing through. It was fetid {CENSORED}, of course, though my expectations were by now very low, so I wasn't taken by surprise and disappointed.
Since I don't seek out material just to get angry and vitriolic about it, I avoided the obviously ludicrous Hobbit films.
So: I liked the first film. I loathe and despise the latter two, and hence the trilogy as a whole.
How do I hate thee? Let me count the ways
As I hope I demonstrated, I made a good-faith effort to accept that changes had to be made, and differentiate between things that bug me just because they were altered, and those that infuriate me because they violate the spirit of the work, which my wife with her expensive screenwriting diploma tells me it is the adaptor's single rule and commandment to preserve.
This was grossly violated in the areas of character and (which often overlaps) tone and theme.
Some of this is from Fellowship. I still liked it because good predominated. But it's part of the rancid whole. In any case, this is only a partial list of my major complaints. It's perhaps a bit lengthy, because I've forced myself to omit a lot of smaller complaints, and I am likely missing some major ones since I've not subjected myself to the movies in a long time, and remember as little as I can.
Character flaws
Even some character changes I intensely dislike I can grudgingly halfway forgive, like changing Aragorn from confident to insecure -- at least it served a clear dramatic purpose. But then...
Gimli was turned from a doughty comrade, with some comic moments, into a bumbling farce. He belonged in a Marx Bros. film, not LotR.
Legolas was turned into a cartoon character. Perhaps the stunt choreographer got lost on his way to a Spider-Man set and accidentally did LotR instead.
Faramir was turned from a figure of nobility to sort of redeem Boromir into just another obstacle.
Aragorn murdered an emissary under protection of rights of parley. Jackson might as well have written down all of Tolkien's ideals of chivalry, nobility, and honour on a piece of paper and wiped his ass with it on screen.
Gandalf was rendered rather pitiful, always doubtful and rarely effective.
Agent Elrond was horribly miscast. He acted more like the human-hating Matrix character than the wise and kind master of Imladris.
Denethor was ruined. By failing to depict him as noble, the tragedy of his fall and madness are drained of impact. And what the hell was with the gross, undignified, lip-smacking gorge?
Everything about Théoden was terrible. First he looks like a mummified corpse. Then he's magically not even old anymore. Gandalf's role as wise counsel, kindler of hope, and healer of despair is turned into a cheap exorcism. And then Théoden is turned into a craven, fleeing rather than face his foes.
Merry and Pippin, apart from being much too silly, are made indistinguishable: one character in two bodies.
Fangorn was made entirely passive.
Tone
Jackson's films progressively degenerated into action farce.
The ridiculous knock-down/pop-up wizard fight looked like a rejected cut from The Phantom Menace.
Gimli, see above.
Legolas, ditto.
I realise that the lofty dignity of the novel is too much for a modern film, but Jackson seems to have gone out of his way to eliminate subtlety. Every line spoken in some parts is parodically blatant.
The antagonism between Sam and Gollum is turned farcical.
Bree. Just...why?
Bad visuals
For the most part, the visuals were great, but there were a few groaners.
Sauron, the Dark Lord, was represented as an evil lighthouse.
Wargs are "the evil wolves of the Misty Mountains", not giant mutant hyenas as though from Ang Lee's Hulk.
Théoden, see above.
The Mouth of Sauron was turned into a cartoon.
The Mûmakil were overdone.
Galadriel's photo negative scene was just silly.
Sheer stupidity
In the novel, Théoden sends his people to safety in Dunharrow, away from Isengard, while he leads the army toward Isengard to face Saruman. In the film, he leads the people to flee...by heading toward Isengard?!
Missed opportunity
The Scouring of the Shire. It should never have been left out; it was hugely important. It allowed us to really see how the hobbits had grown as characters, and added rich layers of nuance with the cost of the quest to Frodo, the redemption of Lobelia, and so on.
And that's my edited-down list of major flaws and pointless meddlings (as opposed to adaptation changes I can accept or at least forgive), out of the subset of such flaws that I can remember.
And that's why I hate the film trilogy."
"Am I a die-hard fan? I don't know -- I don't know any Quenya beyond elen sila lumenn' omentielvo, nor Sindarin beyond mellon; but at least I know there's more than one Elvish, and that Sindarin is inspired by Welshbut the 'Elven-Latin' Quenya by Finnish. I've never even read much of The History of Middle-earth, but at least I've read The Silmarillion some 25 times or so, and The Lord of the Rings a good 50.
You decide if that's hardcore enough for relevance.
When I saw the film, The Fellowship of the Ring, I was impressed. I came away with a miles-long mental list of changes I noticed, for better or worse (regarded as film), but even with changes that bothered me, I could mostly understand the choices. I disliked removing Glorfindel and shoving Arwen into the narrative, but I understand the need to add more active female characters.
I left happy and satisfied that while I might disagree with some choices, as an adaptation of a very large and deep work, it was good -- nay, excellent.
Then The Two Towers opened in theatres. I went in excited. I came out not just disappointed, but positively offended and angry. Never has a creative work disappointed that more -- nor so needlessly, when Jackson had demonstrated an ability to make a good adaptation.
I saw The Return of the King, I suppose because I felt I should see the damned thing through. It was fetid {CENSORED}, of course, though my expectations were by now very low, so I wasn't taken by surprise and disappointed.
Since I don't seek out material just to get angry and vitriolic about it, I avoided the obviously ludicrous Hobbit films.
So: I liked the first film. I loathe and despise the latter two, and hence the trilogy as a whole.
How do I hate thee? Let me count the ways
As I hope I demonstrated, I made a good-faith effort to accept that changes had to be made, and differentiate between things that bug me just because they were altered, and those that infuriate me because they violate the spirit of the work, which my wife with her expensive screenwriting diploma tells me it is the adaptor's single rule and commandment to preserve.
This was grossly violated in the areas of character and (which often overlaps) tone and theme.
Some of this is from Fellowship. I still liked it because good predominated. But it's part of the rancid whole. In any case, this is only a partial list of my major complaints. It's perhaps a bit lengthy, because I've forced myself to omit a lot of smaller complaints, and I am likely missing some major ones since I've not subjected myself to the movies in a long time, and remember as little as I can.
Character flaws
Even some character changes I intensely dislike I can grudgingly halfway forgive, like changing Aragorn from confident to insecure -- at least it served a clear dramatic purpose. But then...
Gimli was turned from a doughty comrade, with some comic moments, into a bumbling farce. He belonged in a Marx Bros. film, not LotR.
Legolas was turned into a cartoon character. Perhaps the stunt choreographer got lost on his way to a Spider-Man set and accidentally did LotR instead.
Faramir was turned from a figure of nobility to sort of redeem Boromir into just another obstacle.
Aragorn murdered an emissary under protection of rights of parley. Jackson might as well have written down all of Tolkien's ideals of chivalry, nobility, and honour on a piece of paper and wiped his ass with it on screen.
Gandalf was rendered rather pitiful, always doubtful and rarely effective.
Agent Elrond was horribly miscast. He acted more like the human-hating Matrix character than the wise and kind master of Imladris.
Denethor was ruined. By failing to depict him as noble, the tragedy of his fall and madness are drained of impact. And what the hell was with the gross, undignified, lip-smacking gorge?
Everything about Théoden was terrible. First he looks like a mummified corpse. Then he's magically not even old anymore. Gandalf's role as wise counsel, kindler of hope, and healer of despair is turned into a cheap exorcism. And then Théoden is turned into a craven, fleeing rather than face his foes.
Merry and Pippin, apart from being much too silly, are made indistinguishable: one character in two bodies.
Fangorn was made entirely passive.
Tone
Jackson's films progressively degenerated into action farce.
The ridiculous knock-down/pop-up wizard fight looked like a rejected cut from The Phantom Menace.
Gimli, see above.
Legolas, ditto.
I realise that the lofty dignity of the novel is too much for a modern film, but Jackson seems to have gone out of his way to eliminate subtlety. Every line spoken in some parts is parodically blatant.
The antagonism between Sam and Gollum is turned farcical.
Bree. Just...why?
Bad visuals
For the most part, the visuals were great, but there were a few groaners.
Sauron, the Dark Lord, was represented as an evil lighthouse.
Wargs are "the evil wolves of the Misty Mountains", not giant mutant hyenas as though from Ang Lee's Hulk.
Théoden, see above.
The Mouth of Sauron was turned into a cartoon.
The Mûmakil were overdone.
Galadriel's photo negative scene was just silly.
Sheer stupidity
In the novel, Théoden sends his people to safety in Dunharrow, away from Isengard, while he leads the army toward Isengard to face Saruman. In the film, he leads the people to flee...by heading toward Isengard?!
Missed opportunity
The Scouring of the Shire. It should never have been left out; it was hugely important. It allowed us to really see how the hobbits had grown as characters, and added rich layers of nuance with the cost of the quest to Frodo, the redemption of Lobelia, and so on.
And that's my edited-down list of major flaws and pointless meddlings (as opposed to adaptation changes I can accept or at least forgive), out of the subset of such flaws that I can remember.
And that's why I hate the film trilogy."
