LotR revisited – what Peter Jackson got right and what he didn't

[wolfie65Participant 1240xp 1]

For many years, it has been kind of a tradition at my place to re-watch these movies around this time of year and I think they held up very well overall. The only other fantasy movie series that comes close to comparing in size and scope would be Harry Potter.

Having said that, I do have to see them as something separate from the book, they are, as Philippa Boyen very correctly states in the appendices to the extended edition, one group of fans’ version of the story.

I think they nailed the Hobbits, being more or less based on 17th/18 century Irish and West Country gentry,Bree looks good, so do the Nazgul. Aragorn is well done, so are Boromir and the Gondorians, being sort of a Lombard/Italic/Hellenic Mediterranean mix. Professor Tolkien would have been pleased with Rohan as Saxons on horseback, pretty much what he intended them to be, Orcs also seem appropriate as a mixed rabble of unmentionable origin…..

Landscapes are beautiful, animals also well depicted.

Where they fail, in my opinion, are the Elves and Dwarves.

Elves don’t look nearly ‘ethereal’ enough, they just look like humans with long hair and pointy ears. They move way too slowly – except Legolas, of course – aren’t Elves supposed to be really quick ? – Celeborn talks like he’s a little mentally challenged, the Elves, conjured out of thin non-Tolkien air by Mr. Jackson,  who come to relieve Helm’s Deep are far too lockstep for my taste, there should be much more fluidity in their drill maneuvers. Ralph Bakshi’s cartoon version did much better Elves.

The only Dwarf we see (alive) is also a little bit of a disappointment, Gimli is NOT comic relief in the book and I’m still not sure about the Scottish accent done by a Welshman…..I think this may have something to do with the fact that movie audiences – at least in America – might have trouble seeing short people as heroes.

[pagan8thParticipant 11218xp 0]

I think Liv Tyler was good as Arwen. She always seemed to tall and thin to me to be a human. In Armageddon looked ‘gangly’!

Elrond seemed to stern. Galadriel didn’t look elven really.

Often in films they portray the wise and elderly as being slow speaking and that just makes them seem slow witted.

Although the films are different from the books, the spirit of them is there and I do like them. Watched them all several times.

I don’t have prime, but I’ve heard little good said about that variant of middle earth.

[onlyonepinman 18072xp 1]

I think with the Elves they went with grace and elegance rather than speed.  But they do show the quickness of the Elves with Legolas – not just the rapid fire but also the quick draw when he pulls an arrow against Eomer.  So I think they got the Elves right.

Sure, Gimli comes across at times aasa bit of comic relief, but he isn’t really a comical character.  I don’t know whether they quite captured the spirit of the book with him,  but he is still a fine character and he still has depth in the film.  I think we have to accept that you do need that lighter hearted character in a film, especially of that length.

[wolfie65Participant 1240xp 0]

None of PJ’s Elves look like Elves to me. Another thing that bothers me about them is that Tolkien used Welsh and Finnish as inspiration for his Elvish languages, which goves us an idea of what he was thinking, while PJ’s Elves have a vaguely Japanese flavor. Maybe that has something to do with PJ being from the Pacific region, not Europe, as well as a big fan of East Asian martial arts movies and video games.

Personally, the real existing people I would picture as closest to Elves would be Scandinavians, especially Swedes and Finns. I’ve known some Swedish and Finnish people who could easily play believable Elves, little makeup required.

[onlyonepinman 18072xp 0]

The problem with making the Elves looks “Scandinavian” is that they would not look much different to the Rohirrim.  However,  having never seen an Elf for real, I couldn’t possibly say for certain what one looks like.  However I have met a fair few Swedes and Finns, having been there several times.  They don’t look too different to other central Europeans.

[grantinvanman 2246xp 0]

The best part of all the movies: GANDALF!

When I saw Sir Ian McKellen as Gandalf, it was like I was seeing the vision of the wizard from the first time I read The Hobbit in grade 3. He was perfect.

Sir Christopher Lee as Saruman was also equally perfect.

Whoever did the casting for those two, they nailed it.

[moonunitParticipant 4511xp 1]

Aragorn having a heroes journey arc was well done. In the book he comes fully formed, just waiting for his time to take on the mantle of king. In the films, despite being brave, skilled, selfless, and an inspiring leader, he doesn’t think himself worthy of the crown. We see it, he doesn’t, and when he finally picks up the palantir and confronts sauron it’s a great moment. I think he’s one of the greatest characters in film history and a great role model.

[wolfie65Participant 1240xp 0]

While there are many resemblances, both populatons being (still…) predominantly Germanic, there are easily observable differences between most Germans and most Scandinavians. In PJ’s LotR, the most Scandinavian-looking people would be Eomer, Eowyn, Rosie Cotton and maybe Aragorn. Given the cast PJ picked, I might have cast Miranda Otto as Galadriel.

[limburger 21772xp 0]

Elves are probably the trickiest to get ‘right’ in a movie.

You just can’t sell their age and grace within the confines of human anatomy.
Maybe CGI would be the answer here ? In the Starwars prequels there’s these odd aliens with long necks that create the clones. I wonder if a version of those creatures could have worked better ?

Tom Bombadill not being in the movie was probable a good choice. That encounter is soo at odds with the rest of the setting that it feels like they were doing drugs. OTOH … encounter at the start that gives the hobbits their weapons is something I do miss as it kind of explains why the knife used to stop one of the Nazgul could have worked at all.

The reversal of reasons for trying to go to Helms’ deep did not feel right.

The real annoyances start in the 3rd part. No scouring of the Shire, the encounter with Faramir completely at odds with the book version and the journey near Mordor not nearly as depressing and desperate either. It’s sort of rescued when we get to the part where to riders of Rohan finally charge into battle. I guess Theoden’s speech is too inspiring to skip.

[wolfie65Participant 1240xp 0]

I undersand most of the changes tyhey made from book to movie – which doesn’t mean that I necessarily approve of them, but I can see why they did what they did.

The biggest and most obvious example is, of course, that LotR – the book is part of the cultural history of Elves Tolkien invented to provide background and justification for his Elvish languages – he was, after all, first and foremost a linguist – based primarily on the history, culture and mythologies of northern Europe, while LotR – the movie is an action flick with battles and monsters, heavily influenced by east  Asian martial arts movies and video games.

Tolkien himself was correct when he said that his book is unfilmable as written, which is why he was so nonchalant about the movie rights. As a man of his time, he was probably also extremely naïve about what a hideously evil monster the movie industry really is. If anyone tried to film this book as it is written, they would end up with something resembling those never ending BBC series such as The Onedin Line, The Buddenbrooks, Peyton Place, Upstairs – Downstairs or Downton Abbey and half of the episodes would consist of Hobbits and Dwarves telling stories and singing songs, which would delight Tolkien fans but horrify the general public.

Philippa Boyens partially explains why they left out Tom Bombadil in the DVD appendices and that also makes sense from a filmmaker’s perspective. Firstly, you cannot expect Normie Ticketbuyer to remember something that happens towards the beginning of the first movie when it finally comes to fruition about halfway through the third movie, secondly, introducng a being who is even more powerful than Sauron and on whom the ring has absolutely no effect whatsoever would destroy most of the drama and threat that drives the story and thirdly, robbing Pippin of the enchanted blade he lifts from the Barrow Wight’s tomb gives Eowyn her Warrior Princess™ moment with the Witch King, which is meant to please the female audience, which is probably pretty small but needs to be catered to in our times, regardless of whether this makes sense or not.

[grantinvanman 2246xp 0]

Ironically, Tom Bombadil in TROP is VERY good. Probably one of the most fun characters, absolutely as he brings out the character of Gandalf and helps him find the perfect stick.

I would have liked to have seen the barrow wights on film, as well as the Scouring, and I could have done without the elves magically and robotically showing up at Helm’s Deep – which was literally for me the most cringeworthy of all the movie scenes. It was almost as bad as all of the The Hobbit trilogy – which is nearly unwatchable.

[onlyonepinman 18072xp 0]

I don’t think Lord of the rings is heavily influenced by Eastern Martial arts at all, and indeed a number of scholars within the field believe that the fighting styles are fairly good.  At a push you could maybe say that the Elves possibly have a hint of the orient about them, but I do not think this is the primary influence for them.

I also think the way the Elves are portrayed,  the way they are acted through their motions and speech is quite good – very otherworldly.

[wolfie65Participant 1240xp 0]

I guess we’ll have to disagree on Elves….

Don’t get me started on the barf fest masquerading as The Hobbit, I’ll have to restock my supply of paper bags before I tackle that one.

This guy does a very good and in-depth analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ExhYBN9qA

[limburger 21772xp 0]

I won’t say it was a ‘barf fest’, but the things that they changed really made me go ‘hmmm’ … especially the love interest bit.

It’s as if the studio demanded it be there because no movie can’t exist without one.
It wasn’t annoying in LotR because it sort of existed in the background, but in the Hobbit they had to add another character just so they could do it.

[onlyonepinman 18072xp 1]

The biggest issue with the Hobbit wasn’t the Romance, or even the inclusion of Tauriel to facilitate said romance. Romance in LotR was over exaggerated as well. It’s presence does not diminish the story, nor does it diminish the story in The Hobbit.

Nor was the problem the way they strung it out into 3 films by including material from the appendices to turn it into a true LotR prequel. Tolkien did that himself by including all notes in the appendix in the first place.

No. Neither of these things are a problem. The problem with the Hobbit is that It doesn’t seem able to decide whether it’s a kids film or a dark, foreboding prequel to LotR. As a result it flits from farcical comedy to serious drama and tension, often quite suddenly. Furthermore it relies far too much on CGI, far more than LotR – a great deal of which was done with practical effects and makeup. Prime examples of this are the White Orc, Azog, and Dain Ironfoot, both of whom are CGI characters. In LotR, all the Orcs were done with prosthetics and makeup.

[Author]

Posts