S
Scottgun
Guest
I think you are being rashly dismissive if you regard it as carping. He raises real, substantial objections and to wave them off is to stick fingers in the ears yelling, “La la la! I can’t hear you!”
- Status
D
Della
Guest
And both of you are taking it far too seriously, my friend. I pointed out several flaws, and not all of them, either. I think you and the author of the article are the ones with their minds made up and who don’t what to listen to anything contrary.
Still, IT’S JUST A MOVIE. If you don’t like the movies, that’s up to you, but I will see what I see in it, the good and the bad, for myself, if it’s all the same to you. 
T
tomarin
Guest
It’s just a movie, but it’s one based on a beloved children’s classic that many of us hold dear. Just sayin’.And both of you are taking it far too seriously, my friend. I pointed out several flaws, and not all of them, either. I think you and the author of the article are the ones with their minds made up and who don’t what to listen to anything contrary.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
I guess Peter Jackson knows he will get criticized no matter what actions he chooses to take with regard to his interpretation of Tolkien’s works.Tell us how you *really *feel!
I do understand feeling this way. Jackson made plenty of artistic decisions that I disagree with. But I still find them to be a lot of fun to watch.
I do sometimes wonder about whether we might see someone redo the movies in 20 or 30 years from now. Maybe if that happens, they will come out more to your liking.
I will choose to see the movie but I have no expectation of it being faithful to the book. Case in point, Tauriel.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
Just wait. In ten years, Jackson will have a five-film adaptation of the Silmarillion.
(And I would go to see each one of them.)
Can’t say I won’t do the same thing.
D
Della
Guest
Yes, I hold it dear, as well. But, we always have the book. So, what difference does the movie really make? Some people will never like any adaptation of any book if it isn’t a word-by-word rendering, as if that’s even possible. I took film classes several years ago and made short films. It’s not easy even with original material. With already published material it’s even worse because you can never meet everyone’s expectations no matter what you do. I am a HUGE Tolkien fan who can say in all honesty that PJ’s interpretation brought Middle Earth to life for me. Do I like everything he did? Certainly not. Am I getting my panties in a twist over it? Of course not. It’s only a movie.It’s just a movie, but it’s one based on a beloved children’s classic that many of us hold dear. Just sayin’.
T
tomarin
Guest
Well I hugely enjoyed LOTR and barely noticed the departures from the novel found in the films. But with The Hobbit he seems to have taken liberties of a more serious nature, first and foremost by imposing a darker, more adult tone on it, so I can see why people are upset such as the blogger linked to above. And that’s why I haven’t seen the movies.Yes, I hold it dear, as well. But, we always have the book. So, what difference does the movie really make? Some people will never like any adaptation of any book if it isn’t a word-by-word rendering, as if that’s even possible. I took film classes several years ago and made short films. It’s not easy even with original material. With already published material it’s even worse because you can never meet everyone’s expectations no matter what you do. I am a HUGE Tolkien fan who can say in all honesty that PJ’s interpretation brought Middle Earth to life for me. Do I like everything he did? Certainly not. Am I getting my panties in a twist over it? Of course not. It’s only a movie.
S
Scottgun
Guest
That’s kinda the rub. On the one hand, it does indeed intend to have a darker and more adult tone, but on the other hand, it’s almost cartoonish in its silliness when there is any action. During the escape scene in the barrels down the river I recall facepalming and looking away from the movie screen because I was literally so embarrassed in a this-is-just-too-darn-stupid-to-look-at kind of way.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I’m with you, Della.I could carp like this man did too, but I won’t. Do I approve of all the choices PJ made? Not at all. But, did his choices “ruin” the story, the essence of Tolkien’s intent? No, they didn’t. Sure, PJ emphasized some things I wouldn’t have, took some shortcuts (it’s an ADAPTION not the BOOK), and the films were padded with too much CGI and chase scenes, I admit. But a bit of patience (a seemingly forgotten virtue these days) to simply letting one man’s vision interpret another’s does yield much to like and even love in these films. Martin Freeman’s performance alone, understated and sincere lifts one above the craziness around him, making it all believeable, and worth a ticket. I simply won’t pick at the films nor can I call them bad, horrible, ruinuous or any other overly exaggerated description. If people want to pick at the films let them. It won’t spoil my enjoyment of them one little bit.
I look forward to seeing the third Hobbit movie (these are the only movies I’ve seen in the theater in the past three years). And I am confident I will enjoy myself. I, too, do not agree with all of Jackson’s artistic decisions. But the good outweighs the bad for me.
T
tomarin
Guest
I’ve read some positive reviews of the third installment, vis-a-vis the other two, so perhaps Jackson saved the best for last.I’m with you, Della.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I wouldn’t be surprised.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
I remember being in the just-too-darn-stupid-to-look-at zone with the surfing Legolas during the Two Towers.
D
Della
Guest
Please pardon this long explanation, but I think it is needed at this point in the thread:
The Hobbit began as a tale Tolkien told his children that, at the time, had no connection to his larger tale of Middle Earth, as told in The Silmarillian. After the great success of TH, he was commissioned to write another “hobbit” book, which became LOTR. Having turned the ring from a mere plot device in TH into a darker force in LOTR, he realized that the two stories didn’t mesh. He wrote several appendexes to fill in the gaps with the intention of rewriting TH to blend in with the later, longer, darker story. He never did that, probably because of the popularity of TH as a stand alone book. Fans certainly never fussed about the discrepencies between the tone of the two tales, either because they were enchanted by the whole work.
Now for the films, PJ took the appendexes and added them to TH, essentially doing what JRRT had intended to do. It can be certainly be argued that PJ didn’t get everything right–his addition of a female warrior elf, for instance and the love triangle between her and Kili and Legolas, as one glaring example. I just dismiss such “out there” additions for the joy of having the larger story more complete in the films. I loved the addition of the White Council, for instance, about which JRRT only alluded, whetting our desire for a more complete account of it If the tone of the two stories is quite different we can only really blame JRRT himself–indeed he was quite sensible of it. But we cannot fault PJ for attempting to mesh the two stories as JRRT himself had wished to do.
P
Phil502
Guest
Okay this is it this is where I hold the line!!! Legolas can do anything!
What about the Oliphant he takes out in ROTK? Just Kidding, the surfing deal was kind of comedic.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
You can also refer to the way Legolas mounted the horse during an orc attack in The Two Towers.
D
Della
Guest
Such things are meant to appeal to the kids, not so much to us adults. For instance, my dh and I saw the pirate movie in which three of the pirates fight with each other in a wheel that is rolling down hills and over everything in sight. I sat and groaned thinking, “Can’t we just get on with the story?” A 12 year old boy sitting near us was in movie heaven watching that silly scene. That’s when it hit me, I’m not the only one seeing this film nor is my age group the only ones who buy tickets. If some of the scenes go over the top, it’s for the 12 year olds in the audience. I sometimes think PJ is just a 12 year old at heart. A lot of that kind of abandon and merriment permeates the films. It’s not my cup of tea, but it does no harm, so I just let such things pass.
P
Phil502
Guest
LOL yea that was so off, it didn’t even look like it possible for them to fake it on the screen.
Thats a fair point and I’m not really complaining, these movies have become to me kind of a comfort thing, like when I’m feeling blue or maybe sick. My wife laughs and says how many times you going to watch this. I have to remind her that she bought me the boxed set with extended scenes way back then.
D
Dandelion_Wine
Guest
BRILLIANT!! Thanks for posting that.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Honestly, the fun things that Legolas does are some of my favorite Jackson additions to LotR and the Hobbit. Walking in top of the snow in Fellowship while everyone else sinks through, mounting the horse in Two Towers, taking down the oliphaunt in Return of the King and – yes – even the barrel chase in Desolation of Smaug. I think it is great fun.
I think Jackson uses such things to highlight the fact that the elves are different from the humans and they can do things the humans cannot do.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
I don’t know if you already know this, but the walking in the snow part was not a Jackson addition but it was in the book. So, PJ was being faithful when he put in the walking on top of snow scene.Honestly, the fun things that Legolas does are some of my favorite Jackson additions to LotR and the Hobbit. Walking in top of the snow in Fellowship while everyone else sinks through, mounting the horse in Two Towers, taking down the oliphaunt in Return of the King and – yes – even the barrel chase in Desolation of Smaug. I think it is great fun.
I think Jackson uses such things to highlight the fact that the elves are different from the humans and they can do things the humans cannot do.
- Status