I'm with a lot of the other posters in here. Were the LOTR movies missing things? Yes. We're they "action-ized"? No. It's not like Michael Bay got ahold of them. Jackson, I think, was very respectful to the theme and feel of the books and didn't stray far from the story.
To me it has nothing to do with the books; the LoTR series was at best 'okay' as movies...the Hobbit isn't even that. It is a badly done laughably frantic over-actioned monstrosity. It makes the Avengers look slow and deliberate.
As for the Tolkien family 'legacy' and the assorted legal BS, while they are not blameless, they have been rather badly handled over the years and it is all a convoluted mess...much more complicated than is worth rehashing here.
Originally posted by ShakyMo I disagree several movies are better than the books
Godfather trilogy Starship troopers -horrible fascist book, great satirical film Original star wars trilogy Blade runner (although I really like Dick as an author) Shawshank redemption Misery The davinci code (even though the film is shite, its less shite than the book)
Originally posted by ShakyMo I disagree several movies are better than the books
Godfather trilogy Starship troopers -horrible fascist book, great satirical film Original star wars trilogy Blade runner (although I really like Dick as an author) Shawshank redemption Misery The davinci code (even though the film is shite, its less shite than the book)
And controversial - lotr movies
Jesus wept. THis is just .....sad.
I doubt he's read even one of those books honestly.
Originally posted by ShakyMo Yes see up this thread, didn't think so myself either.
The Star Wars books are adaptations of the movies. They weren't books first ...
I can see why people would be confused. I just looked it up and it seems like the first Star Wars book was released before the first Star Wars movie was available in cinemas (the book came out 1976, the movie 1977, according to Wikipedia), but the book is based on the script that Lucas wrote for the movie. So it's a novelization of a movie that was released before the movie. Not confusing at all.
<childish, provocative and highly speculative banner about your favorite game goes here>
Tolkien wanted to create a book that few people would read. The publisher made him write a book that would appeal to readers. Jackson made a movie of it to appeal to moviegoers. This goes against what Tolkien wanted in the first place, but is a perfect fit for what he eventually wrote.
Boy. This is full of fail. Could you provide a citation showing how 'the publisher made him write a book that would appeal to readers'?
For that matter, could you provide a citation demonstrating that Tolkien wanted to 'create a book that few people would read'?
No? What a surprise.
Pity you didn't read the article. To quote the relevant paragraph: "In 1937, as soon as it was published, The Hobbit immediately became a critical and popular success, to the point where its then publisher, Allen and Unwin, demanded a sequel urgently. Tolkien, though, did not wish to continue in the same vein. He had instead almost finished a narrative of the most ancient times of his universe, which he called The Silmarillion. Too difficult, decreed the publisher, who continued to harass him. The writer, a bit half-heartedly, accepted the project of writing a new story. In fact, he was about to set in place the first stone of what would become The Lord of the Rings."
Now, not reading the article is forgivable, but stop being a jerk.
And I'm sorry if I phrased things badly. Tolkien almost finished a book that few people would want to read, and wanted to publish that. That's what I meant.
Wow, some of you posters make me feel like a geriatric stick!
"There are better writers today?" Have you actually read these books? I mean, read them? The wordcraft is exquisite. Writers today, myself included, can't even edit properly, much less understand grammar and vocabulary. I've spent hours marveling at sentences in those books...
Sure, some think plastic is better than glass. Some would rather get McD's than fresh cut. Some would rather have a five-minute quickie than a life-long friendship.
Peter Jackson has great vision, but his movies contain too many: "Oh that's just silly!" scenes for me. I almost had to walk out of "Two Towers" (Horses galloping down that pitch, into a pike formation? Really?). "Return of the King" was even worse. Now "Hobbit" was too long and then had twenty minutes of epic sillyness. The last third of the movie could've been cut to three scenes and been the better for it.
Yeah, I understand Christopher Tolkien's grief. We live in a world that is all flash and no substance. Professor Tolkien lived in time before American pragmatism ruled the world. He tried to write about it.
I realize that this post is very late to the game, but I feel it had to be made. If you cannot find authors today that match up with whatever magically enchanced vision you have of Tolkien then the fault lies with you. Martin is great at writing large and sweeping stories that encapture massive casts and varied landscapes. Sanderson has creative and interesting worlds with characters that are easy to get into and enjoy. But all of them, Tolkien included, pale compared to Patrick Rothfuss. He, and his Kingkiller Chronicle series, is the first author to really grab me in a deep way. I actually have "marveled at his wordcraft", as you put it. I have read each of his books in that series 5 times each, and will very likely re-read them again while waiting for the third installment. Absolutely no other book as been good enough for me to read 5 times.
For the record, anyone who hasn't already picked up on Rothfuss already should. The Name of the Wind and The Wise Man's Fear cannot come any more recommended. Both are must reads.
1. These movies cost a shit ton of money to make. And visually Jackson has done an astounding job with Middle Earth. In order for the movies to be financially successful, some hollywood touches need to be made.
2. As for the action movie claims, The Hobbit is a pretty fast moving story and in particular the goblin > wargs/trees sequence is non stop action in the books as well as the movie. The goblin escape was handled quite poorly in the movie though, no reason at all for that huge fall then the goblin lands on top of them.
3. The good Jackson brings to the table FAR out weighs the bad. Again, his use of NZ as Middle Earth is stunning. And lets not forget Gollum, no one else would have done half as well as Jackson with Gollum. And the heart is still there. Jackson obviously loves the source material and it shows. I have no doubts that his adaptations are as good as we wer elikely to get, far better really.
4. Christopher is an ungrateful brat. Jackson has brought mllions to Middle Earth that have gone on to read and appreciate his fathers writings.
1. These movies cost a shit ton of money to make. And visually Jackson has done an astounding job with Middle Earth. In order for the movies to be financially successful, some hollywood touches need to be made.
2. As for the action movie claims, The Hobbit is a pretty fast moving story and in particular the goblin > wargs/trees sequence is non stop action in the books as well as the movie. The goblin escape was handled quite poorly in the movie though, no reason at all for that huge fall then the goblin lands on top of them.
3. The good Jackson brings to the table FAR out weighs the bad. Again, his use of NZ as Middle Earth is stunning. And lets not forget Gollum, no one else would have done half as well as Jackson with Gollum. And the heart is still there. Jackson obviously loves the source material and it shows. I have no doubts that his adaptations are as good as we wer elikely to get, far better really.
4. Christopher is an ungrateful brat. Jackson has brought mllions to Middle Earth that have gone on to read and appreciate his fathers writings.
Agreed. Before the movies, Tolkien had an underground cult following. Now everyone and their grandma is a Tolkien fan. Don't get me wrong, I looooved those days when not many people knew anything about LOTR but finding anything related to LOTR and the Hobbit back then was tough. After the movies came out millions of people went and bought the books which in turn made them in to life long fans and the book money still goes to the Tolkien estate so Chri$topher Tolkien can suck it. When I was 12 and first read the hobbit and lotr all we had were the books, 3 cartoons, and 2 DOS Interplay games. I'd have killed to have what we have now.
Like everythign else in life this is going to be subjective and will avry from person to person but on subject of movies betetr than books, my list is..
Clockwork Orange
Jaws
Blade Runner
God Father
There will be blood
Apocalypse now
Rquiem For a Dream
Shawshank Redemption
And my personal favorite..... Fight Club.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.' -Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid." -Luke McKinney
1. These movies cost a shit ton of money to make. And visually Jackson has done an astounding job with Middle Earth. In order for the movies to be financially successful, some hollywood touches need to be made.
2. As for the action movie claims, The Hobbit is a pretty fast moving story and in particular the goblin > wargs/trees sequence is non stop action in the books as well as the movie. The goblin escape was handled quite poorly in the movie though, no reason at all for that huge fall then the goblin lands on top of them.
3. The good Jackson brings to the table FAR out weighs the bad. Again, his use of NZ as Middle Earth is stunning. And lets not forget Gollum, no one else would have done half as well as Jackson with Gollum. And the heart is still there. Jackson obviously loves the source material and it shows. I have no doubts that his adaptations are as good as we wer elikely to get, far better really.
4. Christopher is an ungrateful brat. Jackson has brought mllions to Middle Earth that have gone on to read and appreciate his fathers writings.
Agreed. Before the movies, Tolkien had an underground cult following. Now everyone and their grandma is a Tolkien fan. Don't get me wrong, I looooved those days when not many people knew anything about LOTR but finding anything related to LOTR and the Hobbit back then was tough. After the movies came out millions of people went and bought the books which in turn made them in to life long fans and the book money still goes to the Tolkien estate so Chri$topher Tolkien can suck it. When I was 12 and first read the hobbit and lotr all we had were the books, 3 cartoons, and 2 DOS Interplay games. I'd have killed to have what we have now.
Underground cult following? Get real. LOTR is one of the top selling books of all time, far more people have read the books than have ever seen the film.
"It's a sandbox, if you are not willing to create a castle then all you have is sand" - jtcgs
Well J.R.R. Tolkien's great-grandson Royd Tolkien loved the movies.
"I was beyond excited just to go on set and see behind the scenes. To watch how such a colossal film is so intricately crafted and pieced together was inspirational and planted a seed in me that has since grown into a love of film production and a desire to reach the heights scaled by Peter Jackson. It was one of the best experiences I've ever had."
Is his opinion less valid than Christopher Tolkien's?
Is this great grandson a professor of Old English who was one of, if not the first, to hear all the stories the books are based on from his own father, JRR Tolkien himself? If Christopher Tolkien says the films have gutted the original books and turned them into an action movie, then who in his right mind can say otherwise? If Christopher Tolkien doesn't know Middle Earth, then who does? It should be clear that things were changed from the original books to "fit" into the type of movie Jackson wanted to make.
I really doubt there is anybody out there with any credibility in literature who will try to claim that the movies are a perfect "translation" of the books. It's a series of movies, the first probably being the best, Gandalf facing off against the Balrog was probably better in the movie than in the book. But a movie is only a movie, even if it does manage to capture the essence of the books.
Wow, some of you posters make me feel like a geriatric stick!
"There are better writers today?" Have you actually read these books? I mean, read them? The wordcraft is exquisite. Writers today, myself included, can't even edit properly, much less understand grammar and vocabulary. I've spent hours marveling at sentences in those books...
Sure, some think plastic is better than glass. Some would rather get McD's than fresh cut. Some would rather have a five-minute quickie than a life-long friendship.
Peter Jackson has great vision, but his movies contain too many: "Oh that's just silly!" scenes for me. I almost had to walk out of "Two Towers" (Horses galloping down that pitch, into a pike formation? Really?). "Return of the King" was even worse. Now "Hobbit" was too long and then had twenty minutes of epic sillyness. The last third of the movie could've been cut to three scenes and been the better for it.
Yeah, I understand Christopher Tolkien's grief. We live in a world that is all flash and no substance. Professor Tolkien lived in time before American pragmatism ruled the world. He tried to write about it.
I realize that this post is very late to the game, but I feel it had to be made. If you cannot find authors today that match up with whatever magically enchanced vision you have of Tolkien then the fault lies with you. Martin is great at writing large and sweeping stories that encapture massive casts and varied landscapes. Sanderson has creative and interesting worlds with characters that are easy to get into and enjoy. But all of them, Tolkien included, pale compared to Patrick Rothfuss. He, and his Kingkiller Chronicle series, is the first author to really grab me in a deep way. I actually have "marveled at his wordcraft", as you put it. I have read each of his books in that series 5 times each, and will very likely re-read them again while waiting for the third installment. Absolutely no other book as been good enough for me to read 5 times.
For the record, anyone who hasn't already picked up on Rothfuss already should. The Name of the Wind and The Wise Man's Fear cannot come any more recommended. Both are must reads.
Well, if nothing else, at least I came away from this forum thread with some new reading recommendations. Sweet! Thanks!
Is this great grandson a professor of Old English who was one of, if not the first, to hear all the stories the books are based on from his own father, JRR Tolkien himself? If Christopher Tolkien says the films have gutted the original books and turned them into an action movie, then who in his right mind can say otherwise? If Christopher Tolkien doesn't know Middle Earth, then who does? It should be clear that things were changed from the original books to "fit" into the type of movie Jackson wanted to make.
I really doubt there is anybody out there with any credibility in literature who will try to claim that the movies are a perfect "translation" of the books. It's a series of movies, the first probably being the best, Gandalf facing off against the Balrog was probably better in the movie than in the book. But a movie is only a movie, even if it does manage to capture the essence of the books.
Christopher should focus less on what was "gutted" and more of what was left. Instead of focusing on Helms Deep, focus on how well the Frodo/Sam/Gollum half of the story turned out.
The movies were nowhere near perfect. But I can forgive an hour of crap like Legolas sliding down an Oliphants trunk to get the 9-10 hours or so that were great.
Is this great grandson a professor of Old English who was one of, if not the first, to hear all the stories the books are based on from his own father, JRR Tolkien himself? If Christopher Tolkien says the films have gutted the original books and turned them into an action movie, then who in his right mind can say otherwise? If Christopher Tolkien doesn't know Middle Earth, then who does? It should be clear that things were changed from the original books to "fit" into the type of movie Jackson wanted to make.
I really doubt there is anybody out there with any credibility in literature who will try to claim that the movies are a perfect "translation" of the books. It's a series of movies, the first probably being the best, Gandalf facing off against the Balrog was probably better in the movie than in the book. But a movie is only a movie, even if it does manage to capture the essence of the books.
Christopher should focus less on what was "gutted" and more of what was left. Instead of focusing on Helms Deep, focus on how well the Frodo/Sam/Gollum half of the story turned out.
The movies were nowhere near perfect. But I can forgive an hour of crap like Legolas sliding down an Oliphants trunk to get the 9-10 hours or so that were great.
Honestly, why should he? I mean, even we can see the "gutted out" parts, and we're "just regular" fans, without any real attachment beside our love to the lore. He basically lived his whole life in it, he was there at the creation of it, he did a lot of editorial and other work with it as well, as JoeyMMO wrote since J.R.R. is gone C.T. is the one with the most knowledge (and attachment) to Tolkien's writings. I think he has every right to notice things which are devaluating his father's work.
Actually I don't understand the hostility in this thread... He didn't bashed GW2, nor praised Pirate101 for Eru's sake he just stated his sadness that Jackson and New Line Cinema are on a wrong path with the Hobbit, the slot machines, etc. Strange that this makes him "pompous brat" and "crybaby" at some poster...
Well, if nothing else, at least I came away from this forum thread with some new reading recommendations. Sweet! Thanks!
You're welcome, Rothfuss is legendary and I hope you enjoy his books. Just be prepared for a wait on the next book, he takes his time and it pays off. I'd also recommend Brandon Sanderson. The Mistbon trilogy is awesome, (as well as its follow up The Alloy of Law), but his grand epic is going to be the series spawning off from "The Way of Kings" and its a good read. His writing really comes into form on that book, and its definitely worth checking out as well.
So thats 7 books you can get into now. All of them I find to be better than The Game of Thrones, and I question why that series got so popular so fast. Not that it isn't good, its great. But its heavy reading, and has a cast so large I can't even remember a third of its characters. Even a third is huge, though. Besides, we all know that people read the books for Tyrion anyway. Maybe that's just me. I love that dwarf, always whoring it up and being snarky.
he just stated his sadness that Jackson and New Line Cinema are on a wrong path with the Hobbit, the slot machines, etc. Strange that this makes him "pompous brat" and "crybaby" at some poster...
what does the slot machine thing have anything to do with Peter Jackson? come on.
If he can't tell Jackson has a deep love and respect for HIS FATHER'S (not his) works, he is a grade A moron. The wrong path? He can go fuck himself. Jackson made a highly entertaining movie that captured the spirit and essence and soul of the novel, as he did with LOTR.
Comments
LOL. You think Star Wars was first a series of books?
To me it has nothing to do with the books; the LoTR series was at best 'okay' as movies...the Hobbit isn't even that. It is a badly done laughably frantic over-actioned monstrosity. It makes the Avengers look slow and deliberate.
As for the Tolkien family 'legacy' and the assorted legal BS, while they are not blameless, they have been rather badly handled over the years and it is all a convoluted mess...much more complicated than is worth rehashing here.
Jesus wept. THis is just .....sad.
The Star Wars books are adaptations of the movies. They weren't books first ...
I doubt he's read even one of those books honestly.
a yo ho ho
I can see why people would be confused. I just looked it up and it seems like the first Star Wars book was released before the first Star Wars movie was available in cinemas (the book came out 1976, the movie 1977, according to Wikipedia), but the book is based on the script that Lucas wrote for the movie. So it's a novelization of a movie that was released before the movie. Not confusing at all.
<childish, provocative and highly speculative banner about your favorite game goes here>
Pity you didn't read the article. To quote the relevant paragraph: "In 1937, as soon as it was published, The Hobbit immediately became a critical and popular success, to the point where its then publisher, Allen and Unwin, demanded a sequel urgently. Tolkien, though, did not wish to continue in the same vein. He had instead almost finished a narrative of the most ancient times of his universe, which he called The Silmarillion. Too difficult, decreed the publisher, who continued to harass him. The writer, a bit half-heartedly, accepted the project of writing a new story. In fact, he was about to set in place the first stone of what would become The Lord of the Rings."
Now, not reading the article is forgivable, but stop being a jerk.
And I'm sorry if I phrased things badly. Tolkien almost finished a book that few people would want to read, and wanted to publish that. That's what I meant.
Isn't Christopher Tolkien the guy who wrote/finished The Silmarillion from his father's notes?
Yeah... I wouldn't put that book into a resume.
Personally, I think he's just bitter because he never could take up his father's mantle, because he just sucks at writing.
I realize that this post is very late to the game, but I feel it had to be made. If you cannot find authors today that match up with whatever magically enchanced vision you have of Tolkien then the fault lies with you. Martin is great at writing large and sweeping stories that encapture massive casts and varied landscapes. Sanderson has creative and interesting worlds with characters that are easy to get into and enjoy. But all of them, Tolkien included, pale compared to Patrick Rothfuss. He, and his Kingkiller Chronicle series, is the first author to really grab me in a deep way. I actually have "marveled at his wordcraft", as you put it. I have read each of his books in that series 5 times each, and will very likely re-read them again while waiting for the third installment. Absolutely no other book as been good enough for me to read 5 times.
For the record, anyone who hasn't already picked up on Rothfuss already should. The Name of the Wind and The Wise Man's Fear cannot come any more recommended. Both are must reads.
1. These movies cost a shit ton of money to make. And visually Jackson has done an astounding job with Middle Earth. In order for the movies to be financially successful, some hollywood touches need to be made.
2. As for the action movie claims, The Hobbit is a pretty fast moving story and in particular the goblin > wargs/trees sequence is non stop action in the books as well as the movie. The goblin escape was handled quite poorly in the movie though, no reason at all for that huge fall then the goblin lands on top of them.
3. The good Jackson brings to the table FAR out weighs the bad. Again, his use of NZ as Middle Earth is stunning. And lets not forget Gollum, no one else would have done half as well as Jackson with Gollum. And the heart is still there. Jackson obviously loves the source material and it shows. I have no doubts that his adaptations are as good as we wer elikely to get, far better really.
4. Christopher is an ungrateful brat. Jackson has brought mllions to Middle Earth that have gone on to read and appreciate his fathers writings.
Agreed. Before the movies, Tolkien had an underground cult following. Now everyone and their grandma is a Tolkien fan. Don't get me wrong, I looooved those days when not many people knew anything about LOTR but finding anything related to LOTR and the Hobbit back then was tough. After the movies came out millions of people went and bought the books which in turn made them in to life long fans and the book money still goes to the Tolkien estate so Chri$topher Tolkien can suck it. When I was 12 and first read the hobbit and lotr all we had were the books, 3 cartoons, and 2 DOS Interplay games. I'd have killed to have what we have now.
Like everythign else in life this is going to be subjective and will avry from person to person but on subject of movies betetr than books, my list is..
Clockwork Orange
Jaws
Blade Runner
God Father
There will be blood
Apocalypse now
Rquiem For a Dream
Shawshank Redemption
And my personal favorite..... Fight Club.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
-Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
-Luke McKinney
Underground cult following? Get real. LOTR is one of the top selling books of all time, far more people have read the books than have ever seen the film.
"It's a sandbox, if you are not willing to create a castle then all you have is sand" - jtcgs
Is this great grandson a professor of Old English who was one of, if not the first, to hear all the stories the books are based on from his own father, JRR Tolkien himself? If Christopher Tolkien says the films have gutted the original books and turned them into an action movie, then who in his right mind can say otherwise? If Christopher Tolkien doesn't know Middle Earth, then who does? It should be clear that things were changed from the original books to "fit" into the type of movie Jackson wanted to make.
I really doubt there is anybody out there with any credibility in literature who will try to claim that the movies are a perfect "translation" of the books. It's a series of movies, the first probably being the best, Gandalf facing off against the Balrog was probably better in the movie than in the book. But a movie is only a movie, even if it does manage to capture the essence of the books.
Well, if nothing else, at least I came away from this forum thread with some new reading recommendations. Sweet! Thanks!
My gaming blog
Got to disagree on clockwork Orange, especially the British version with the different ending.
How do you know this without watching it? This is like saying you've never tried a food because it tastes bad.
Christopher should focus less on what was "gutted" and more of what was left. Instead of focusing on Helms Deep, focus on how well the Frodo/Sam/Gollum half of the story turned out.
The movies were nowhere near perfect. But I can forgive an hour of crap like Legolas sliding down an Oliphants trunk to get the 9-10 hours or so that were great.
Honestly, why should he? I mean, even we can see the "gutted out" parts, and we're "just regular" fans, without any real attachment beside our love to the lore. He basically lived his whole life in it, he was there at the creation of it, he did a lot of editorial and other work with it as well, as JoeyMMO wrote since J.R.R. is gone C.T. is the one with the most knowledge (and attachment) to Tolkien's writings. I think he has every right to notice things which are devaluating his father's work.
Actually I don't understand the hostility in this thread... He didn't bashed GW2, nor praised Pirate101 for Eru's sake
he just stated his sadness that Jackson and New Line Cinema are on a wrong path with the Hobbit, the slot machines, etc. Strange that this makes him "pompous brat" and "crybaby" at some poster...
You're welcome, Rothfuss is legendary and I hope you enjoy his books. Just be prepared for a wait on the next book, he takes his time and it pays off. I'd also recommend Brandon Sanderson. The Mistbon trilogy is awesome, (as well as its follow up The Alloy of Law), but his grand epic is going to be the series spawning off from "The Way of Kings" and its a good read. His writing really comes into form on that book, and its definitely worth checking out as well.
So thats 7 books you can get into now. All of them I find to be better than The Game of Thrones, and I question why that series got so popular so fast. Not that it isn't good, its great. But its heavy reading, and has a cast so large I can't even remember a third of its characters. Even a third is huge, though. Besides, we all know that people read the books for Tyrion anyway. Maybe that's just me. I love that dwarf, always whoring it up and being snarky.
what does the slot machine thing have anything to do with Peter Jackson? come on.
If he can't tell Jackson has a deep love and respect for HIS FATHER'S (not his) works, he is a grade A moron. The wrong path? He can go fuck himself. Jackson made a highly entertaining movie that captured the spirit and essence and soul of the novel, as he did with LOTR.