Simon Lau

I was expecting something a little special for the final installment but the return of the king has not lived up to my expectations.

being a lord of the rings fan i was left a little disappointed as chunks of the book were left out. however the fight scenes are nothing short of spectacular.

Aragorn could do with fixing the gaps in his teeth

tiggers

I haven't seen the third one and won't be bothering, but the first two were dire in my opinion.

They ignored the subtleties of the book leaving out anything remotely clever and instead filling the screen with spectacular battle scenes, special effects etc.

I'm not saying they weren't well made, but they lacked any real substance.

Just a load of weirdos saying let's go here , fighting on the way, then let's go there, fighting on the way etc. etc.

Still I'm the only one in the whole world who thinks that so I'm obviously wrong

tiggers.

Geezer

tiggers,
Did u see the extended versions of the first 2? They made alot more sense to people whoh had read the book. Also, you can't really expect someone to make a verbatim copy of Toliens trilogy, as they are a bit hard going, although good stoies.

Remeber, this has to sell to the great movie going public, not fanatics who thnk books should be reproduced word for word.

I think this is one of the better bokk adaptations attempted by a filmaker.

You are perfectly entitled to your opinions of course, but if they are purley based upon the accuracy of the film to the book instead of as a view of the film as a piece of well put together entertainment, then that is bit blinkered.

Geezer

tiggers

No my opnions are based upon making the films something other than just a lot of epic fight scenes between different Tolkienesque species.

The book is so much more than that and I would have liked just a few of the clever parts of the book to have made it to the film, but alas it wasn't to be. Maybe the extended versions do this, but there are not enough hours in my life to waste finding out.

I understand I'm about the only person in the world who sees it this way so no worries.

What does annoy me is the way people are talking about these films as cinematic masterpieces - they are not!

For a true great piece of filmaking sit down and watch a film such as The Godfather and then tell me you think LOTR is great filmaking, epic yes - great no! While we're on the sibject The Godfather is also a lesson in how to adapt a book to the screen so there you go.

tiggers.

Geezer

but rather bizarrely, you have enough time to read them!

I said it was one of the better, not the best, and that still holds true

Geezer

tiggers

Yes, but I've already read the book haven't I so I shan't be wasting any time rather bizarrely or otherwise!!!!

JamieMacdonald

Geezer took the words right out of my mouth (about reading the books).

I thought the films were an excellent compromise between making a spectacular trilogy of films and keeping it real with regards to the books. To try to include everything covered in the books would make the film about 10 hours long!

The last film was good although I'm not sure if it was the best of the three like a lot of people are saying.

J

dba

what the hell is theending all about? when they all sail off?

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Tiggers: I have to say, I'm with you on this one, as, I suspect, will be any actual LOTR afficionados who read the book at least once before the film.

Alcazar

Geezer

Books don't necessarily translate well onto the big screen, that is why they alter them. What works in print and your imagination might not light everyones candle. People who whinge on about how the book is better are not really looking at it for what it is. Films, books, radio, television are very different mediums, and what works on one one won't necessarily work on another.

Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy was a brilliant book, and equally so on the radio (possibly even better), but was poor on the telly.

As for Stephen King, very popular books, very well written, but all the literal versions of stories are w@nk.

Michael Crichton books have had mixed fortunes, Jurassic Park being an average interpration of a very good book, the Andromeda Strain being a superb intrerpretation. However, it doesn't make Jurassic Park a bad film, it's a very entertaining and popular film.

All the Tolkien geeks just **** you off, they moan about the lack of a decent version of the books, and when one is made pillory it because it isn't exact. Well sorry guys, but New Line want to sell films to make money, not pander to fanatics. 90% of the poeple who see this film will not have read the books, but will enjoy the films because they are a huge departure from what has previously been attempted by filmakers.

Do you really think the masses would have appreciated sitting inthe cinema for an extra hour to see the Hobbitts poncing around in the forest, or farting about with Tom Bombadil? It adds nothing to the story as a whole.

Sure, bits have been cut out that it would have been nice to see, and certain facets of the story changed slight;y, but when you are investing $300,000,000 you want to make sure the film is going to have mass appeal.

Enjoy the books for what they are, and appreciate Peter Jacksons efforts for what he has acheived. Just look at the films as seperate entities.

Geezer

[Edited by Geezer - 12/21/2003 9:31:58 PM]

tiggers

No!

dba

However..........The Godfather was a mediocre book but the best film ever made,

tiggers

As one of my interests is the art of film-making I would be most interested to know in what way are they a huge departure?

tiggers.

tiggers

dba,

Now you are talking - that is how to make a film.

Peter Jackson should sit down and take some notes some time.

tiggers.

Geezer

Because no one (to the best of my knowledge, so please correct me if I'm wrong) has attempted to bring a story the size of LOTR to the big screen as accurately as this.

The Godfather is a somewhat different proposition, mediocre book into very good film, as is Monkey Planet (Planet of the Apes). Making a film like the Godfather, which is purely character based in the real world, and bringing Middle Earth to life are totally diffferent challenges.

What I am saying is that you are looking at these films in a bad light because you wanted a literal translation from the film, and are unable to see through that and judge the films on their own merits (I admit it is difficult to do that, I have read LOTR and at some points you can't help but think "why have they done that?").

I personally though E.T was dreadful, but I can still see it's merits as a film, but its not for me.

Geezer

[Edited by Geezer - 12/21/2003 10:02:28 PM]

tiggers

Quick example for you Geezer

What is the difference in terms of the visual scope of bringing Middle Earh in LOTR to the screen and say the galactic universe against which Star Wars is set.

Not a lot I think in terms of the size of the task in film-making terms so I ask you again why you think they're such a departure?

tiggers.

Geezer

Because Star Wars was conceived in George Lucas' mind as a film, never a book that was published, so we haven't the faintest idea what it really should be like.

Millions have read LOTR, and the imagery of Middle Eart is quite explicit, rather like the Harry Potter books, but considerably better!

Geezer

Carlos The Jackel

I loved the books but havent read them since I was a kid. I made a point out of not reading them again before watching the films even though I got them as a present recently. This was so I could not really compare the films to the books - and the films have been great IMO.

[Edited by Carlos The Jackel - 12/21/2003 10:17:23 PM]

tiggers

Ah! but you said:-
You did not say attempted to bring a book to the screen such that the imagery and story in the film matched that constructed in the minds of it's readers.

OK How about the bible - almost as well known as LOTR - big enough story for you - well known enough for you - numerous films made from it's stories and narrative thereby proving that film makers have attemoted to bring a story of this proportion to the screen.

Sorry - I just don't see in what way it is groundbreaking - it uses special effects developed on many other movies and is no more epic in it's size (filmmaking wise) than say Titanic. Just because it's bloody Tolkien eveyone thinks it's a sodding masterpiece when it is just a very average piece of movie making by a man with no previous track record to speak of.

tiggers.

Geezer

No one has tried to make the bible in it's entirity! (sp?).

Geezer

Marky-San

I thought they were all great movies.

Its like Marmite.

tiggers

And Peter Jackson has not made LOTR in it's entirety - he left out ALL the clever bits - that's the problem.

So you're only reason for calling it ground breaking is that you feel no one else has attempted to bring such a complex well know story to the screen.

You have rejected my two examples, but there are countless others that in the movie industry's opinion are probably harder to make such as sea based epics - try the recently relased Master and Commander or Titanic (not a brilliant film IMO, but a brilliant piece of film making).

Sorry, but I just don't see the LOTR films as anything other than ordinary and I'm not a Tolkien geek as you put it - I have read the book once and once only, but it was infinitely ore enjoyable than Jackson's overrated and overhyped tripe.

You're right about one thing though you can't compare The Godfather to LOTR - one is a brilliantly crafted, photographed and acted celluloid masterpiece, LOTR is average run of the mill special effects bonanza.

In 30 years time The Godfather will still be considered a masterpiece whereas LOTR will be filling the early Sunday morning movie slot on Sky Movies 198

tiggers.

tiggers

What brown and smelly - you're right there

Simon Lau

*entirety

tiggers and geezer, you have your own opinions and you've both made good valid points and there's no question that the film falls short of the book but like geezer said who wants to to see hobbits prancing the forest with tom bombadil (I would have liked to )? so can't have the best of both worlds. the return of the king is good for entertainment with all the special effects and photography you could ask of Middle Earth but it cannot be compared to the book is my conclusion.

ps. I think new zealand will have a lot more visitors next year

Simon Lau

dba, the ending where everyone sails off into the sun set is about good prevailing over evil and piece will forever be upon Middle Earth. so this is where the last of the magical folks set sail to their magical word. the Hobbits get a lift because they played their parts in keepers of the ring and also because they would died very soon if they didn't leave (bilbo baggins from old age and frodo from the stab wound left by Nazgul (the dark riders)).

r32

I've read the book, and thoroughly enjoyed it, will read it again soon. Perhaps the best book I ever read and I do read a lot.
The films though, well I really enjoyed them, I think these are a set of films that people will like or dislike. Its not fair to say that they are good or bad. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I went to see them not as a check on book accuracy, (as its almost impossible to get the depth and feelings that you can put over in a good book), but for entertainment. I was entertained. I also know of quite a number of people who have now been prompted to go and buy the book after watching the films, so a positive there then. I just could not imagine any one getting all the story of The Lord of The Rings into a film. But good try and its been brought to the masses.

Geezer

tiggers,
I haven't rejected them, just don't entirely agree with then as a comparison with LOTR. OK though, I'll accept that my statement is not completely true though, Abel Gances Napoleon was equally as ambtitious, especially considering when he made it.

The comparison with Godfather which you seem to hold so dear still does not stand up to scrutiny though. As mentioned, one is a fairly simple undertaking (in film making terms at least) and the other has to be special effects laden due to the nature of the source material.

Both will still be seen as great films in years to come, but they are totally different.

Geezer

[Edited by Geezer - 12/22/2003 8:50:23 AM]

Marky-San

Marmite - brown and smelly?? No, you know it means you either like it or hate it.

Your in the minority of 5 people I've heard of so far

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Jackson and Co haven't changed the book "a bit" for the screen, they've copped out and crumbled to the American PC brigade with the re-writing of Arwen Evenstar, (Liv Tyler,,what a munter!!!), as a major player.
FFS: she only appears in an appendix in the book!!
And suddenly, if you see a pic of ANYONE in the film it'll be ole donkey jaw herself!

Sheesh!

Alcazar

tiggers

Me and many many other film lovers thirty years plus since it was made.

No they won't and that's my point. The Godfather is already over thirty years old and is still regarded as one of the finest pieces of film making ever, in thirty years time LOTR won't even be remembered.

Get away - you're kidding!!!

Anyway as many as five and I thought it was only me

tiggers.