- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What One Thing Did Peter Jackson Get Most Wrong? (LotR or Hobbit)
Posted on 10/14/19 at 9:10 am to mindbreaker
Posted on 10/14/19 at 9:10 am to mindbreaker
Although I have my quibbles with the LotR movies, overall I think Jackson did a good job of trying to give some idea of the depth of the books, while at the same time keeping things moving enough to keep your standard moviegoer interested. That’s definitely no easy task - prior to seeing his effort I would probably have contended that LotR was unfilmable - so good on him for doing the almost impossible.
With the Hobbit movies, that approach was pigeonholed in favor of really rad CGI dragons and goblin fights and etc etc. I was thoroughly disappointed.
With the Hobbit movies, that approach was pigeonholed in favor of really rad CGI dragons and goblin fights and etc etc. I was thoroughly disappointed.
2
Posted on 10/14/19 at 10:40 am to TheTideMustRoll
Since all of The Hobbit was a shite sandwich, I'm trying to forget it was even made.
For LOTR, it has to be Faramir's character. Faramir was more noble and pure of heart than portrayed in the movies.
Oh, and as much as I love Legolas, he became a little too OP as the series went on.
For LOTR, it has to be Faramir's character. Faramir was more noble and pure of heart than portrayed in the movies.
Oh, and as much as I love Legolas, he became a little too OP as the series went on.
Posted on 10/14/19 at 10:55 am to AggieHank86
quote:
For me, the question can be answered with one word… Orcs
No. You have an argument about the Gundaband Orcs and Goblins from the Hobbit movies, however the Orcs/Uruk Hai from the original trilogy were incredible and was a major part of what made those movies so great.
Posted on 10/14/19 at 11:26 am to TheTideMustRoll
quote:
With the Hobbit movies, that approach was pigeonholed in favor of really rad CGI dragons and goblin fights and etc etc. I was thoroughly disappointed.
There are a few good fan cuts on the internet. There was a decent movie tucked away in there.
Posted on 10/14/19 at 11:55 am to AggieHank86
There was this same thread a week or so ago about LOTR that was pretty good.
LOTR was great. It had minor grips but they did some of the greatest books of all time justice.
I actually liked the way they did the orcs. I would have preferred them to talk a little more. they were a little more intelligent in the books and they were all just a bunch of idiots in the movie. But the looks of them were incredible.
The Hobbit on the other hand was a complete abomination. Way way way too much CGI and bad CGI at that. One of the cool things about LOTR was for the most part, the orcs were actual people in costume. All the orcs in The Hobbit, even Azog looked like crap. If he's going to be the main villain you use, why have him as CGI? That was a horrible decision.
Even Jackson basically admitted that some of it sucked.
LOTR was great. It had minor grips but they did some of the greatest books of all time justice.
I actually liked the way they did the orcs. I would have preferred them to talk a little more. they were a little more intelligent in the books and they were all just a bunch of idiots in the movie. But the looks of them were incredible.
The Hobbit on the other hand was a complete abomination. Way way way too much CGI and bad CGI at that. One of the cool things about LOTR was for the most part, the orcs were actual people in costume. All the orcs in The Hobbit, even Azog looked like crap. If he's going to be the main villain you use, why have him as CGI? That was a horrible decision.
Even Jackson basically admitted that some of it sucked.
Posted on 10/14/19 at 12:00 pm to TygerTyger
There was a thread recently that discussed Jackson's changes to LOTR; changes and "things got wrong" are two different things.
For one thing, LOTR and Hobbit are 2 different things... LOTR was a masterpiece, even with the various details different.
Hobbit trilogy falls way down the list. At this point I hate that they were even made, haven't managed the interest to rewatch any of them, and only saw the last two at all just to finish it.
LOTR-
1st big change was deleting Bombadil; I don't think that was wrong. You would have to develop Frodo's time in the Shire more, and do the Conspiracy more, in order to lead in correctly. And then you'd have to make the time in the Old Forest last longer, and then spend a long time developing Bombadil and Goldberry, and then the barrow downs... you're talking about adding basically an entire movie very similar to Pan's Labyrinth in style. And then, there's no payoff to that, other than it would explain why Merry's blade works on the Witch King, and Gandalf would want to go visit Bombadil at the very end.
So, HUGE change, but done right.
The other changes he made in LOTR become more questionable, because a lot of them are character decisions. And because the basis of the story is how the Ring changes a person, and changes his decisions, this becomes a different tale.
1st- Theoden. This isn't Ring related, but does alter the Rohan king's character. Book Theoden wanted to ride out to fight Saruman on the fields, because they are horsemen and that's their thing. Gandalf told him to go to Helm's Deep, and he did. This established Theoden as the revived, loyal warrior who trusts Gandalf's leadership completely (which contrasts Denethor's later mistrust of Gandalf).
Movie Theoden goes to Helm's Deep, despite Gandalf telling him to ride out on the plains. This flips the motivation; and establishes Theoden as someone stubborn and unwilling to trust Gandalf, even after he just freed him from Saruman's spell.
Not sure it changes anything later.
cont...
For one thing, LOTR and Hobbit are 2 different things... LOTR was a masterpiece, even with the various details different.
Hobbit trilogy falls way down the list. At this point I hate that they were even made, haven't managed the interest to rewatch any of them, and only saw the last two at all just to finish it.
LOTR-
1st big change was deleting Bombadil; I don't think that was wrong. You would have to develop Frodo's time in the Shire more, and do the Conspiracy more, in order to lead in correctly. And then you'd have to make the time in the Old Forest last longer, and then spend a long time developing Bombadil and Goldberry, and then the barrow downs... you're talking about adding basically an entire movie very similar to Pan's Labyrinth in style. And then, there's no payoff to that, other than it would explain why Merry's blade works on the Witch King, and Gandalf would want to go visit Bombadil at the very end.
So, HUGE change, but done right.
The other changes he made in LOTR become more questionable, because a lot of them are character decisions. And because the basis of the story is how the Ring changes a person, and changes his decisions, this becomes a different tale.
1st- Theoden. This isn't Ring related, but does alter the Rohan king's character. Book Theoden wanted to ride out to fight Saruman on the fields, because they are horsemen and that's their thing. Gandalf told him to go to Helm's Deep, and he did. This established Theoden as the revived, loyal warrior who trusts Gandalf's leadership completely (which contrasts Denethor's later mistrust of Gandalf).
Movie Theoden goes to Helm's Deep, despite Gandalf telling him to ride out on the plains. This flips the motivation; and establishes Theoden as someone stubborn and unwilling to trust Gandalf, even after he just freed him from Saruman's spell.
Not sure it changes anything later.
cont...
Posted on 10/14/19 at 12:19 pm to Scoob
LOTR
next big change
Faramir experience. This one is huge, and done for visuals, but I think cheapens the story.
Book Faramir- it starts the same, with Frodo and Sam being captured by Faramir and his Rangers after the attack on the Southrons.
Frodo is taken aback when meeting Faramir, as he is almost a twin to Boromir in appearance, but the personality is a twin- to Aragorn.
Faramir begins to question him, and Frodo tries to be vague but honest. Faramir picks up on the quest, and intentionally stops asking, because others are around.
He then resumes the questioning, with just Sam and Frodo around, in the cave.
And explains why he stopped before, telling Frodo much of what he deduced.
In the process, he reveals his true character, and this emphasizes the power of the Ring, and the true tale of the book...
Faramir says "not if I found such a thing on the road, would I pick it up; nor would I give it to my father, despite his desire."
And he also says he understands why it destroyed Boromir, and states that were Boromir to have taken the Ring and survived, that Boromir would not be the man he and Denethor would have known, when he arrived back in Gondor with it.
Just a HUGE change; this underscores that the Ring preys on flaws, and to succumb to any temptation of it, is permanent and fatal.
The movie contradicts this, for the purpose of setting up the battle on Osgiliath. That's a cool visual, but ignores the vital point:
If Faramir were to have considered taking the Ring at all, he NEVER would be strong enough to give it away, like he did. I mean, that's the whole point of the story- it HAS to be destroyed. Not to stop Sauron (that could be done with the Ring, actually), but to destroy that part of Sauron that resides inside the Ring, and corrupts any who desire it.
next big change
Faramir experience. This one is huge, and done for visuals, but I think cheapens the story.
Book Faramir- it starts the same, with Frodo and Sam being captured by Faramir and his Rangers after the attack on the Southrons.
Frodo is taken aback when meeting Faramir, as he is almost a twin to Boromir in appearance, but the personality is a twin- to Aragorn.
Faramir begins to question him, and Frodo tries to be vague but honest. Faramir picks up on the quest, and intentionally stops asking, because others are around.
He then resumes the questioning, with just Sam and Frodo around, in the cave.
And explains why he stopped before, telling Frodo much of what he deduced.
In the process, he reveals his true character, and this emphasizes the power of the Ring, and the true tale of the book...
Faramir says "not if I found such a thing on the road, would I pick it up; nor would I give it to my father, despite his desire."
And he also says he understands why it destroyed Boromir, and states that were Boromir to have taken the Ring and survived, that Boromir would not be the man he and Denethor would have known, when he arrived back in Gondor with it.
Just a HUGE change; this underscores that the Ring preys on flaws, and to succumb to any temptation of it, is permanent and fatal.
The movie contradicts this, for the purpose of setting up the battle on Osgiliath. That's a cool visual, but ignores the vital point:
If Faramir were to have considered taking the Ring at all, he NEVER would be strong enough to give it away, like he did. I mean, that's the whole point of the story- it HAS to be destroyed. Not to stop Sauron (that could be done with the Ring, actually), but to destroy that part of Sauron that resides inside the Ring, and corrupts any who desire it.
Posted on 10/14/19 at 12:45 pm to Scoob
Next change- Denethor
Book Denethor is noble, dignified and strong. Pippin is struck by how much he resembles Aragorn.
Denethor, like Saruman, looks into the palantir, and thus comes into direct contact with Sauron himself. But where Saruman is too weak to resist, Denethor is not. He does NOT fall under the sway of the Dark Lord.
But what does happen, is that Sauron shows him all the power, all the armies amassed against Gondor, all the forces coming from the East and South, and the endless Orcs of the mountains, etc.
And so, Denethor perceives that defeat is inevitable. All the scheming and quests, the rallying of Rohan, etc... he sees- that ain't shite. If everyone joins up, they might withstand the first wave. But the next wave is bigger, and there are more coming behind that. It's done, over.
He's not a sniveling coward, he's not an uncouth boor like in the movie, he's basically Aragorn, but 100% convinced that there's no hope of winning. As he tells Pippin- go and die however you see fit. Because we're all going to die. Die at the gates fighting, die in the crypt, go home and die in the Shire.
Denethor chooses to die by his own hand, rather than fighting Sauron, because it's the last bit of independence he can present. And he makes a point of saying "no crypts for me, not like the kings of old"... which I think shows his disdain for Isildur and the line of the Kings, which he sees as having betrayed Mankind by not destroying the Ring when the chance was there. That's his "frick you" to everyone responsible, both Sauron AND Gandalf (and by extension, the Lords of the West and the Elves, who have abandoned mankind to this fate).
He doesn't fight, because he perceives that Gandalf is just using them as puppets, and that they will die in the process, and Gandalf will lose at the end anyway.
That is noble, and sad. In the movies, he's just a sniveling and raving madman.
Book Denethor is noble, dignified and strong. Pippin is struck by how much he resembles Aragorn.
Denethor, like Saruman, looks into the palantir, and thus comes into direct contact with Sauron himself. But where Saruman is too weak to resist, Denethor is not. He does NOT fall under the sway of the Dark Lord.
But what does happen, is that Sauron shows him all the power, all the armies amassed against Gondor, all the forces coming from the East and South, and the endless Orcs of the mountains, etc.
And so, Denethor perceives that defeat is inevitable. All the scheming and quests, the rallying of Rohan, etc... he sees- that ain't shite. If everyone joins up, they might withstand the first wave. But the next wave is bigger, and there are more coming behind that. It's done, over.
He's not a sniveling coward, he's not an uncouth boor like in the movie, he's basically Aragorn, but 100% convinced that there's no hope of winning. As he tells Pippin- go and die however you see fit. Because we're all going to die. Die at the gates fighting, die in the crypt, go home and die in the Shire.
Denethor chooses to die by his own hand, rather than fighting Sauron, because it's the last bit of independence he can present. And he makes a point of saying "no crypts for me, not like the kings of old"... which I think shows his disdain for Isildur and the line of the Kings, which he sees as having betrayed Mankind by not destroying the Ring when the chance was there. That's his "frick you" to everyone responsible, both Sauron AND Gandalf (and by extension, the Lords of the West and the Elves, who have abandoned mankind to this fate).
He doesn't fight, because he perceives that Gandalf is just using them as puppets, and that they will die in the process, and Gandalf will lose at the end anyway.
That is noble, and sad. In the movies, he's just a sniveling and raving madman.
Posted on 10/14/19 at 12:54 pm to Scoob
quote:I can't stand watching him eat.
In the movies, he's just a sniveling and raving madman.
Posted on 10/14/19 at 1:25 pm to Scoob
Next change- Aragorn and the Dead
In the books, it is suggested that of all the heroes, Sauron fears Aragorn the most. And that is because, using Sauron's rules and logic, Aragorn is the most dangerous opponent, the one most capable of challenging him and taking over his spot as Dark Lord. Because that is the ONLY threat Sauron can comprehend. He is INCAPABLE of thinking they would try to destroy the Ring. He fears being usurped, not vanquished.
Aragorn, like Denethor, looks into the Palantir and engages Sauron, and like Denethor, doesn't submit. So unlike Saruman, a direct challenge. And he then goes on a campaign to fight, which is also a challenge.
The whole purpose is to keep Sauron distracted, so that he never perceives the true danger. That stays the same in the books and movies. What does change is that Aragorn is fundamentally different, in his manner of fighting. Specifically, in the books he never uses the Dead as a tool to physically fight. He only uses them to terrify the fleet coming in, so he can take those ships himself. It's questionable whether they can actually fight anyway, as Legolas says simply "the shades of men do not disturb me, as I'm an Elf" or something to that effect. But the ghosts do frighten Gimli, and clearly the men involved.
Now, that's more of a metaphysical angle, something that doesn't lend to the action scenes.
But Legolas goes on to highlight the following:
That Aragorn's use of the Dead (his use of terror) does illustrate why Sauron fears him. Because that is a tactic Sauron would use to great effect.
But Aragorn does not and WILL NOT use them, because he fundamentally is GOOD in a way Sauron just can't conceive; and that is Sauron's true weakness- that he CAN'T understand Aragorn... or GOODNESS. It is utterly foreign to him, so he can't anticipate it.
Movie Aragorn USES the Dead in battle, both to take the fleet, and then at the gates of Gondor. It may seem like a ticky-tack thing to criticize, but again, we're discussing GOOD vs EVIL. Movie Aragorn uses "just a little" evil to win the day.
The ENTIRE MESSAGE of the books is, the moment you do that, you're LOST.
In the books, it is suggested that of all the heroes, Sauron fears Aragorn the most. And that is because, using Sauron's rules and logic, Aragorn is the most dangerous opponent, the one most capable of challenging him and taking over his spot as Dark Lord. Because that is the ONLY threat Sauron can comprehend. He is INCAPABLE of thinking they would try to destroy the Ring. He fears being usurped, not vanquished.
Aragorn, like Denethor, looks into the Palantir and engages Sauron, and like Denethor, doesn't submit. So unlike Saruman, a direct challenge. And he then goes on a campaign to fight, which is also a challenge.
The whole purpose is to keep Sauron distracted, so that he never perceives the true danger. That stays the same in the books and movies. What does change is that Aragorn is fundamentally different, in his manner of fighting. Specifically, in the books he never uses the Dead as a tool to physically fight. He only uses them to terrify the fleet coming in, so he can take those ships himself. It's questionable whether they can actually fight anyway, as Legolas says simply "the shades of men do not disturb me, as I'm an Elf" or something to that effect. But the ghosts do frighten Gimli, and clearly the men involved.
Now, that's more of a metaphysical angle, something that doesn't lend to the action scenes.
But Legolas goes on to highlight the following:
That Aragorn's use of the Dead (his use of terror) does illustrate why Sauron fears him. Because that is a tactic Sauron would use to great effect.
But Aragorn does not and WILL NOT use them, because he fundamentally is GOOD in a way Sauron just can't conceive; and that is Sauron's true weakness- that he CAN'T understand Aragorn... or GOODNESS. It is utterly foreign to him, so he can't anticipate it.
Movie Aragorn USES the Dead in battle, both to take the fleet, and then at the gates of Gondor. It may seem like a ticky-tack thing to criticize, but again, we're discussing GOOD vs EVIL. Movie Aragorn uses "just a little" evil to win the day.
The ENTIRE MESSAGE of the books is, the moment you do that, you're LOST.
Posted on 10/14/19 at 1:45 pm to Scoob
As a non-reader, I find these threads fascinating. Thanks to all of you who post.
Posted on 10/14/19 at 2:02 pm to Scoob
quote:
LOTR
next big change
Faramir experience. This one is huge, and done for visuals, but I think cheapens the story.
Probably the biggest injustice of the trilogy. I just dont get why they made him seem so weak and someone you couldnt trust.
He was an amazing character and his desires were completely different than what the movie made out. Movie version he was just like everyone else and similar to his brother with character flaws and longed for the ring.
Faramir was one of the most impressive characters and similar to Aragorn in a lot of ways. He was one of the relatively few characters that pretty quickly realized what was the overall goal of their journey and didnt desire the ring. Completely opposite from his brother obviously.
The Scouring of the Shire was probably the best part of the book they omitted but there just wasnt time for it. The movie would have been another two hours if you added that and wanted to truly do it right. So its understandable they left it out and they did a nice job with the ending.
Posted on 10/14/19 at 2:20 pm to AlxTgr
quote:That's such a huge disservice to what should be a great character.quote:
In the movies, he's just a sniveling and raving madman.
I can't stand watching him eat.
Think of Denethor in football terms-
he's been the captain on defense all season long, he's been playing hurt, the offense sucks and they've been forced to win 6-3 games.
He walked by the office before the game and overheard- "hey, we're bringing in Aragorn to lead us into the playoffs. Yeah, we'll announce it right after the game. Yeah, to open up the cap space, we're going to cut Denethor."
And now, it's late in the game, Gandalf (coach) has just called a fake punt that blew up, and he wants Denethor to come back in after hobbling off the last play where he likely tore his ACL. And Gandalf gives him a "I need you to step up for the team, we're out of the playoffs if you can't make this play".
Denethor perceives things this way; shite has been mismanaged, he's been having to keep things going despite the bad calls, and somehow they're not quite out. And he's fully aware that he's about to be dropped, something nobody has shown the courtesy of telling him to his face. He understands that everything is a line of shite, and no matter what happens, he's not in anyone's plans long term. He's played his arse off anyway, and now, even at the end, they want him to throw away his post-career long-term health.
And he's like, just frick you.
Posted on 10/14/19 at 2:55 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:In doing so, it also wrecks the Eowyn plot.
Faramir was one of the most impressive characters and similar to Aragorn in a lot of ways. He was one of the relatively few characters that pretty quickly realized what was the overall goal of their journey and didnt desire the ring. Completely opposite from his brother obviously.
Eowyn, you might remember, was attracted to Aragorn. In the books, it wasn't so much that Aragorn was a hot stud, but instead she recognized the innate nobility, the "Numenor" in him. She wanted more than just a warrior. She had never met a man like Aragorn before.
She's wasting away after in the Houses of the Healing, as much because of her understanding that Aragorn was outside her reach, as to her injuries. Faramir saved her, as she came to understand that he was equal to Aragorn, but not taken
. It wasn't physical... through the union of Faramir and Eowyn, you get to elevate Rohan beyond the thatched huts, to the levels of Gondor.
Posted on 10/14/19 at 4:53 pm to Scoob
Agreed on all the above posts on Faramir.
To add, remember, Faramir was a friend of Gandalf's. From childhood he looked up to Mithrandir, followed him around, and learned from him. He practically worshiped him and loved study of knowledge and lore. He was the noble scholar.
Boromir was the jock. He looked up to and worshiped Denethor, and found Mithrandir and all that book learning boring and unneeded.
Denethor loved the adoration of Boromir and was jealous of Faramir being drawn to Gandalf.
To add, remember, Faramir was a friend of Gandalf's. From childhood he looked up to Mithrandir, followed him around, and learned from him. He practically worshiped him and loved study of knowledge and lore. He was the noble scholar.
Boromir was the jock. He looked up to and worshiped Denethor, and found Mithrandir and all that book learning boring and unneeded.
Denethor loved the adoration of Boromir and was jealous of Faramir being drawn to Gandalf.
Posted on 10/14/19 at 5:36 pm to TygerTyger
quote:...AND, therein lies one of the big flaws of the Hobbit trilogy!
To add, remember, Faramir was a friend of Gandalf's. From childhood he looked up to Mithrandir, followed him around, and learned from him. He practically worshiped him and loved study of knowledge and lore. He was the noble scholar.
Boromir was the jock. He looked up to and worshiped Denethor, and found Mithrandir and all that book learning boring and unneeded.
Gandalf and Radagast, like Saruman, were NOT men, although they presented themselves as such. They were the Istari, Maia in Tolkien's mythology. Although forbidden to use their power openly, they were well above men, above Elves too. They were beings of Sauron's level (as was the Balrog).
Those who could see (Aragorn, Faramir) recognized this. Elrond and Galadriel deferred to them in the White Council. Saruman led it, Galadriel preferred Gandalf.
Radagast did his own thing, being more concerned about the animals of Middle Earth... but he wasn't a fricking clown with dried birdshit on his head. He'd have been Top 3 in power on the good guy side, and in the top 5 overall in both combined trilogies.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 6:56 am to AggieHank86
Making the movies in the first place
Posted on 10/15/19 at 8:16 am to TygerTyger
quote:
Since all of The Hobbit was a shite sandwich
Very much disagree. It had some very low lows, but also some very high highs. The opening scene with Bilbo and Gandalf, the dwarves singing Far Over Misty Mountain Cold, Riddles in the Dark, Bilbo and Smaug meeting and conversing, and even though some may not have liked that part, I enjoyed Gandalf vs the Necromancer (Sauron).
There's a really good movie mixed in with the bad. The Tolkien edit did a good job of nailing that down. The fault for it's failure isn't so much on PJ. The studios and Del Toro quitting set it up for failure from the beginning. When he quit, the studios should've allowed PJ to start over from the beginning and give him time. With LotR, There was only one studio to deal with, and he was given years of prep work. It's really sad that the studio money grab ruined The Hobbit.
Some film maker chick did a pretty good job at breaking down the movie’s problems.
The Hobbit: A Long-Expected Autopsy (Part 1/2)
The Hobbit: Battle of Five Studios (Part 2/2)
This post was edited on 10/15/19 at 8:28 am
Posted on 10/15/19 at 8:23 am to JohnnyBgood
quote:We can agree to disagree. I just think that Jackson completely changes the very NATURE of orcs for his films.quote:No. You have an argument about the Gundaband Orcs and Goblins from the Hobbit movies, however the Orcs/Uruk Hai from the original trilogy were incredible and was a major part of what made those movies so great.
For me, the question can be answered with one word… Orcs
In Tolkien, orcs were small, but sneaky and vicious. And there were LOTS of them. In Jackson, they became larger, stronger and more powerful than Men.
Do Jackson orcs make a visually-better cinematic element? Probably so.
This post was edited on 10/15/19 at 8:35 am
Posted on 10/15/19 at 8:26 am to iwyLSUiwy
quote:That thread was mine, too, but my premise was a bit different. Both threads did evolve in much the same way ... away from the question preseted.
There was this same thread a week or so ago about LOTR that was pretty good.
This post was edited on 10/15/19 at 8:36 am
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News