Barrel-Riding Test Photos at Aratiatia Rapids - TORn

  "few liberties"

Mrs Figg wrote:I think at this point even the most ardent PJ apologist has to admit it is a complete rewrite. Even those guys on TORn are admitting as much (no matter what kind of spin they put on it) its a massive wholesale invention. Enjoyable for non book fans, or casual viewers, but anyone else is going to have insurmountable problems with it.

Hopefully that will be the change from AUJ though. Because I don't think AUJ could have been enjoyable for anyone but the non book fans. Certainly not for the casual viewer.

azriel wrote:We got the wrong director & thats that. He is neither sensitive, sympathetic,empathetic,Has clear insight, long reaching insight...in fact what HAS he got   Hes got the "gift of the gab", hes persuasive when hes after something for his own ends, He should have been a politician!

I think PJ's biggest strength is his ambition, without which the LOTR project would never have gotten off the ground. And he was willing to invest a monumental amount of time and energy into making an large-scale series of films that came closer to capturing the breadth and depth of Middle-earth than I think most people suspected. Plus he is very good at action sequences when he's kept reigned in (Helm's Deep is still an amazing sequence). And while I can't say where exactly credit for some of the more emotional scenes are, I think there are plenty of moving emotional moments in LOTR. Boromir's death and Sam and Frodo climbing Mount Doom are two stand-out moments just off the top of my head.

I think PJ was much better-suited for LOTR than for The Hobbit, and the more successful he's gotten the less self-control he's had, but he's not a bad director.

Bluebottle wrote:Hopefully that will be the change from AUJ though. Because I don't think AUJ could have been enjoyable for anyone but the non book fans. Certainly not for the casual viewer.

I know plenty of book fans who like AUJ. But I do agree that the films are made more with the LOTR films and their fans in mind. Prequels before adaptations.

Mrs Figg wrote:I think at this point even the most ardent PJ apologist has to admit it is a complete rewrite. Even those guys on TORn are admitting as much (no matter what kind of spin they put on it) its a massive wholesale invention.

This is an interesting thread.

http://newboards.theonering.net/forum/gforum/perl/gforum.cgi?post=676651#676651

I think there are quite a few people over on torn who could do with a less stifling, egg-shell-walking atmosphere. There are still people over there that feel the way we do!  

Man, I never knew what to make of Kangi Ska.  Glad to see some TORnsibs pointing out the obvious. Although...

As long as it is all based in MIDDLE EARTH, rather than EARTH, im happy. the more we get in middle earth the better! hey, I would be so happy if he released dos as a 6 hour movie!

Exploitation films for Ringers, indeed.

Eldorion wrote:
I know plenty of book fans who like AUJ. :shrug:But I do agree that the films are made more with the LOTR films and their fans in mind.  Prequels before adaptations.

Obviously there will be exceptions. There were probably book fans who enjoyed the movie, but I would venture that an overwhelming majority of them also enjoyed LotRs films.

However I was more referring to the casual viewer. To me AUJ simply didn't work as a movie and I would say very few casual viewers will have become fans of Peter Jacksons ventures into Middle Earth through it.

Hopefully DoS will at least be a decent standalone movie for any other faults I can pick with it. The Screencrush review doesn't bode well for that part though.

Ah, I think I understand what you're saying a little better now. I agree that AUJ is unlikely to have made any new converts to Middle-earth. I shudder to think that one day in the not too distant future, people could be introduced to the story and setting by watching the Hobbit trilogy before LOTR. That's almost as wrong as watching the Star Wars prequels first.

Eldorion wrote:

azriel wrote:We got the wrong director & thats that. He is neither sensitive, sympathetic,empathetic,Has clear insight, long reaching insight...in fact what HAS he got   Hes got the "gift of the gab", hes persuasive when hes after something for his own ends, He should have been a politician!

I think PJ's biggest strength is his ambition, without which the LOTR project would never have gotten off the ground.  And he was willing to invest a monumental amount of time and energy into making an large-scale series of films that came closer to capturing the breadth and depth of Middle-earth than I think most people suspected.  Plus he is very good at action sequences when he's kept reigned in (Helm's Deep is still an amazing sequence).  And while I can't say where exactly credit for some of the more emotional scenes are, I think there are plenty of moving emotional moments in LOTR.  Boromir's death and Sam and Frodo climbing Mount Doom are two stand-out moments just off the top of my head.

I think PJ was much better-suited for LOTR than for The Hobbit, and the more successful he's gotten the less self-control he's had, but he's not a bad director.

yes I totally agree Eldo, PJ was the right director for LOTR, and he was pretty much 100% successful at capturing ME imho. It wont date badly either because it has a classic look and emotional depth.

Eldorion wrote:Ah, I think I understand what you're saying a little better now. :)I agree that AUJ is unlikely to have made any new converts to Middle-earth.  I shudder to think that one day in the not too distant future, people could be introduced to the story and setting by watching the Hobbit trilogy before LOTR.  That's almost as wrong as watching the Star Wars prequels first.

Yeah, that's my big problem with AUJ. It's just doesn't work mas a movie, which the LotRs films did in my opinion for all my gripes about them from a Tolkien perspective. (Petty might disagree with that part as well though.)

Exactly, I see fewer children picking up the books as well if they see the Hobbit movies first sadly.  

unfortunately I think you are right, any child that reads the Hobbit is going to be very confused. Fed on a diet of unsubtle glossy video game Blockbuster Hobbit films, I hope they dont miss out on the charm of the original.

Petty might disagree with that part as well though- Blue

You might be right  

Thought I might.  

Though saying they are decent movies aren't really linked to either my enjoyment or appraisal of their quality.

saying they are decent movies aren't really linked to either my enjoyment or appraisal of their quality.- Blue

This seems to me to be very much the approach Eldo has too.

I still dont really understand it- for me if I dont enjoy a film or think it has qualities it cant by definition be a decent film.  

Well, it's mainly come to me through rationalising why the movies seem to resonate so deeply with so many people.

So I've come to see them as decent movies. Though not really in a style I'd go in for normally.

If you make a blockbuster style movie with the sweeping romantic epic story of the LotR as a base, it's going to resonate with a lot of people. And I find myself thinking I might actually have found it enjoyable, in a throwaway sort of way, if not for all my gripes with their treatment of Tolkien.  

it's mainly come to me through rationalising why the movies seem to resonate so deeply with so many people. - Blue

Mmm I had always (correctly!) just assumed everyone else was wrong.  

Yeah, it's easy to think that way. And they would be from your perspective, of course.   

It's just interesting to think what makes people have such diffrerent reactions. There will be something about the movies that makes them resonate so deeply with a group of people. Something they saw that I didn't.

There are a lot of people who loved the LotR movies, but are very open about the glaring deficiencies in the Hobbit movies. I tend to think there's a reason for that.

And what I put above is my theory.

There are a lot of people who loved the LotR movies, but are very open about the glaring deficiencies in the Hobbit movies. I tend to think there's a reason for that.- Blue

Its more obvious in TH mainly because they have made so much more up this time.
The only thing that saves LotR's from the same fate as TH is that there was too much story not too little for three films.

Had PJ felt he was in a position to just abandon the book story all together and invent his own in LoTR's he would have.

The difference between the two sets of films in my view has nothing to do with the skill or quality of the writers, or PJ's direction or tastes- its simply about how much PJ takes centre stage.

LoTR's he pops out of the woodwork- like Legolas shield surfing for example, or including the elves at Helms Deep, whilst keeping the basic set up- a big figth at Helms Deep between Saruman's army and the Rohirrim. And this is generally true of all three LotR's films but the balance increases towards more PJ as the films progress.

In TH PJ is the woodwork and Tolkien occasionally gets to pop half a head out. The balance has shifted almost entirely to PJ.

But its all the same faults, just the difference is that further shift in balance.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:This seems to me to be very much the approach Eldo has too.

I still dont really understand it- for me if I dont enjoy a film or think it has qualities it cant by definition be a decent film.  

Either I'm misunderstanding what Blue has said or I think you've misunderstood my posts. I have long insisted that whether the films are faithful to the books is a very different question from whether they are good movies. But I've also been quite open in my opinion that the LOTR movies (which I love) are good or great, and that AUJ (which I did not care for) is at best mediocre, or (I have found myself drifting towards) downright bad.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:The difference between the two sets of films in my view has nothing to do with the skill or quality of the writers, or PJ's direction or tastes- its simply about how much PJ takes centre stage.

I pretty much agree with your assessment here, but I'd say more specifically that PJ has felt more able to let his most childish impulses run free on screen and also felt less beholden to fans of the source material. This is a continual pattern that can be seen across all three LOTR movies, King Kong, and now The Hobbit. I suspect he has also been given freer reign by the studio, although even with LOTR he had a remarkable amount of freedom given the size of the investment in those films.

But they are not just films, created solely as films, they are adaptations, so surely if you are familiar and fond of the source how well they adapt it is a large element in the enjoyment factor also?

"even with LOTR he had a remarkable amount of freedom" - Eldo

I think he might have had freedom in terms of he could have got away with more with the backers- but I think he had been convinced at that time that he had to get the book fans on board the project in order to create the necessary buzz to push it to the mainstream audience. I think he was restrained by that choice to a degree, but as he went on and added more of his own likings and less Tolkien and they made more money and got more and more critical praise and swept the Oscars he felt his way was vindicated.

Frankly, as far as this crabbit is concerned everyone who excuses the LotR's as somehow fundamentally better and different from TH arent looking close enough and worse are part guilty for TH- you let PJ get away with this in LotR's not only unquestioned but you praised him for it  

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Frankly, as far as this crabbit is concerned everyone who excuses the LotR's as somehow fundamentally better and different from TH arent looking close enough and worse are part guilty for TH- you let PJ get away with this in LotR's not only unquestioned but you praised him for it  

I was only 13, give me a break!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:But they are not just films, created solely as films, they are adaptations, so surely if you are familiar and fond of the source how well they adapt it is a large element in the enjoyment factor also?

Because I am so familiar and fond of the source material, this used to be a stumbling block for me.  But I made my peace (sort of) with the LOTR movie quite some time ago and now I judge them, and The Hobbit, separately on their merits as movies and as adaptations.  And I don't think either is flawless in any regard!

If I wasn't a fan of the source material, the adaptational element would never have bothered me.

I think he might have had freedom in terms of he could have got away with more with the backers- but I think he had been convinced at that time that he had to get the book fans on board the project in order to create the necessary buzz to push it to the mainstream audience. I think he was restrained by that choice to a degree, but as he went on and added more of his own likings and less Tolkien and they made more money and got more and more critical praise and swept the Oscars he felt his way was vindicated.

Agreed.  Actually, the size of the book fandom and its enduring popularity was an important component of PJ's sale of the movie project to New Line Cinema.  Kristin Thompson discusses this in her book The Frodo Franchise (which I highly recommend).  LOTR would never have been made into a major movie if it wasn't so enormously popular beforehand.  Not given the climate of fantasy cinema at the time.

Frankly, as far as this crabbit is concerned everyone who excuses the LotR's as somehow fundamentally better and different from TH arent looking close enough and worse are part guilty for TH- you let PJ get away with this in LotR's not only unquestioned but you praised him for it  

I don't see how people who think that the LOTR movies are fundamentally better than TH can be responsible for how the Hobbit movies turned out.  The causal chain doesn't seem to be going in the right direction here.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Its more obvious in TH mainly because they have made so much more up this time.
The only thing that saves LotR's from the same fate as TH is that there was too much story not too little for three films.

I agree. The restraint PJ showed in these films was caused by the books themselves. There was only so much deviation he could do from the basic storyline and characterizations. But deviate he did.

I'd also like to point out that while there is a bigger contingent who dislikes THAUJ than the LotR movies, the former is still very popular. And, yes, there is a large contingent who will lap up anything PJ does and call it gold.

Radaghast wrote:I agree. The restraint PJ showed in these films was caused by the books themselves. There was only so much deviation he could do from the basic storyline and characterizations. But deviate he did.

You can see the progression of PJ's increasing deviation from the source material within the LOTR trilogy, even though they were filmed at the same time and the resultant changes were only made during post-production or pick-up shooting.  The length of the book left less room for additions, but I think the bigger issue was PJ's changing attitude.  The size of LOTR had no impact on changes that he made.

I'd also like to point out that while there is a bigger contingent who dislikes THAUJ than the LotR movies, the former is still very popular. And, yes, there is a large contingent who will lap up anything PJ does and call it gold.

AUJ was definitely popular among plenty of Tolkien and/or Jackson fans, but it made much less of an impact on the general moviegoing public, as seen by the significantly lower box office returns.  Not to say that AUJ failed to make money, because that's not at all true, but it didn't light the world on fire like LOTR did.