I was OK with the portrayal of Saruman as it was revealed in the books that he had been tempted by Sauron through his use of the Palantir.

My only real complaint was the expansion of the Liv Tyler character, who is peripheral at best in the books. Not only did she steal Frodo's thunder at the river crossing to Rivendell, but the gratuitous and useless filmy flashback scenes used the time could have been used to add the Taking of the Shire to the movie, which is one of my favorite parts of the books.

And yes, I realize that I have thought about this topic WAY to much.

Callooh! Callay! I chortle in my joy.


Re beefs with LOTR: I only wish Jackson could have taken some of the time Frodo and Sam spent gazing into each others' eyes and used it to show the Scourging of the Shire.

On a somewhat related topic, when is Sasha going to get around to giving us his review of the new Beowulf film? Surely he doesn't think that grading exams takes precedence over such urgent tasks?

Add me to the chorus complaining about Jackson's obsession with Hobbieroticism instead of dead Hobbits.

Jackson did an unbelievable job. I can't imagine the constraints in trying to turn the trilogy into film. This is excellent news.

/here's to hoping he doesn't Lucas it.

A movie based on The Silmarillion would hopefully be much, much better than the book.

As for the Hobbit, is there a natural break in the story where Jackson can end the first film?

The eagle rescue from the wolves might be a good place to break, although I'm not sure if that would be too early in the story.

I think the worst thing Jackson did to LOTR was make Frodo into a wimp, a weepy chip of flotsam swirled by turbulent waters of fate. In the books he's country gentry-- though he starts off rather naïve-- both courageous and capable of leading his party. Jackson didn't just swipe Frodo's courage at the ford of Bruinen and award it to Arwen, he pulled the same trick over and over. It's particularly bad after Frodo and Sam cross the river above the Falls of Rauros. In the books Frodo leads and disciplines his forlorn hope, especially after he picks up Gollum. In the movies? The closest he comes is misguided petulance on the secret stairs, an incident which Jackson (or his partner) created. I think the movies are mighty fine, but I think they could and would have been better if Jackson had avoided making an error akin to the one many villains in the books make-- deciding that since Hobbits are short they must behave like children.

(Though it would have to rank fairly low on the list of Jackson's bad decisions, I also think he did his viewers a disservice by giving all the male characters incredibly ratty hair even during comfortable parts of their journeys. Not only is it incongruous, when female characters all have beautiful hair, and off-putting, but it doesn't fit with the notions of pride we can impute to all these sword-bearing fellows.)

The eagle rescue? You're right, of course.

Cool! I always thought The Hobbit was an good book.

The Silmarillion? Good luck with that! He would have to cut out 90% I imagine, there is just so much. I went into that book very skeptical but was amazed at how good it was. A great work of art IMO, an excellent genesis.

I've found that people either love the Silmarillion or hate it. I probably belong to the "love" camp in spite of its flaws.

You can't make a movie out of it. I doubt you can even make a movie out of any of its episodes. The Lay of Leithian can't be extracted meaningfully from the surrounding context, unfortunately. Likewise Tuor and the fall of Gondolin, which becomes kind of pointless unless you carry the story out to Earendil.

Narn i Hin Hurin stands by itself. Unfortunately, it's so amazingly depressing that I can't see Hollywood picking it up.

You *might* make something of the Voyage of Earendil. You'd have to invent a lot to fill in the gaps, but then Jackson does have an inventive streak, for good or bad.

The Tolkien estate still retains rights to the Silmarilion, and as Christopher Tolkien reportedly hates the films, I don't see that happening any time soon. They might be able to do some of the stuff from the Appendicies, but Ungoliant breaking Morgoth out of prison and chopping down the trees, and Feanor going mad and leading his family into Middle Earth to wreak havoc, isn't in the cards.

The link said the only the first movie is The Hobbit. (Which is a good choice - there's only one movie in that book, not two.)

The second movie is, I guess, something that Peter Jackson will make up about the time period between the Hobbit and LOTR. I don't like that one bit. Let's stick to the Tolkien texts, please.

What all the previous detractors said (especially the omission of The Scouring of the Shire--no, make that especially the stuff with Arwen--no, make that...)

But also, where's Tom Bombadil?????


(To be fair, I can't be too unhappy with Jackson because the results are far less bad than I ever imagined a LOTR film could be.)

it's clear that whenever he writes his own material it's really bad; whenever he edits Tolkien it's usually great (I like his Fellowship of the Ring). At a few points (esp. with Faramir) he makes it clear that he's explicitly rejecting Tolkien for his own take on things, with awful results.

I agree completely. Faramir has to be one of the worst cases. The contrast between brothers Boromir and Faramir that was central to the Faramir character is completely missing in the movies.

While I'm happy that The Hobbit will be made into a film, I share the concern above about the Dwarves being comic relief. I didn't find Jackson's Saruman so bad, especially after the extended editions came out and we saw more of Saruman.

I did however find the movies' portrayal of non-Rohirrim humans to be quite a letdown. Faramir was turned into a weak character with his need to impress his father. Denethor was gluttonous crazed coot, whereas in the books he was much more noble and tragically misguided. Aragorn suffered the worst treatment though. In the books he was a man on a mission and while still suffering from some self doubt, knew his destiny and was not afraid of it. In the movies however, he was a shadow of what he could have and should have been.

Add me to the list of LOTR-movie detractors. In fact, I loathe the movies, and can't stand to watch them at all. Everything PJ did to change things, from making Frodo into a wimp, to changing Galadriel, to making the Ents change their mind so quickly, to expanding Arwen, to cutting the Scouring of the Shire, to making Saruman into a lacky, and to a host of other things - all make the movies a piece of crap in comparison to the books.

Reportedly, almost all of the actors, producers, and even PJ himself, had no idea of the underlying Catholic themes that pervade Lord of the Rings. They didn't know what they were doing at all. It probably explains why they screwed up Arwen and Faramir so much.

PJ, of course, will screw up the Hobbit also. To hell with him.

For all the complaints about Peter Jackson, just imagine what would have happened if someone like Brett Ratner had gotten his stubby fingers on the movies... So I give Peter Jackson a lot of slack (but not much, after the crap that was King Kong).

Maybe if he did make a movie out of the Silmarillion then I'd finally be able to figure out what in the hell is going on in that book. I think I've started reading it about three times now with no success.

While I love the movies and understand many of the cuts and departures from the text I was really disappointed that Jackson missed the chance to provide the full dramatic effect that the army of the dead had in the novels. Specifically, I can't understand why he cut out the moment when the Corsairs hijacked ships pull up next to the fields of the pelennor at which point everything seems lost for the armies of the west only to be followed by an unfurling of the flag of the White Tree of Minas Tirith. It wouldn't have taken up any more time than the scene already takes in the movies and would have been so much more satisfying for both the viewer and especially for aficionados of the books.

It will be interesting to see how PJ handles goblins if he does The Hobbit. People are now used to the LOR version, whereas in The Hobbit version they were more like comic relief.

oh yeah on the Arwen/Galadriel front, can't we all agree that neither Kate Blanchet nor Liv Tyler are remotely hot enough to play either part?

No, we can not. They both looked like hot elvish rune-hungry ring-crazed sluts to me.

While I agree with the criticisms many have expressed with regard to Jackson's departures from Tolkien, I think you have to cut the guy some slack. Film is a different medium from books, and if you want films like this to be made at all they necessarily have to be able to appeal to a moviegoing audience that hasn't read the books. Take the treatment of Faramir for example. I was initially aghast at the fact that the character had been robbed of his great "Not if I saw it on the highway" speech. But rather than merely harping on the departure let's do the filmmakers the courtesy of trying to understand their purpose. Why does the film have that scene with Frodo and the Nazgul in Gondor? Jackson thought the audience needed Faramir to see that in order to understand why he let Frodo go. Despite the loss of his best line, I think Faramir's character actually remains pretty intact in the film. He doesn't want the ring for himself--but he does have duties to Gondor and his father. Even in the book, he considers taking Frodo to Minas Tirith to be interrogated by Denethor. I think the reason they went this way in the film is that the relationship between Frodo and Faramir is too subtle to translate well to a movie audience. It's based on a series of verbal fencing matches, hints deciphered, and that dance of platonic flirtation engaged in by honorable men as they start up a mutual admiration society. Even at the end of all of it, Faramir doesn't explain his decision to let Frodo go. We read it between the lines. He knows that not everyone in Gondor would leave the ring lying in the highway. (We later suspect that he knew his father wouldn't.) He senses that Frodo is a person of immense character on a mission that must not be interfered with. How do you make this clear to an audience? Jackson has the same problem with Faramir that he does with Aragorn: to make virtue palpable to a movie audience, you have to show someone struggling with it. So the film is logical: Faramir, following his duty to the law, initially takes Frodo to Gondor. I think the scene with the Nazgul is supposed to dramatize the realization that Faramir in the book had deduced for himself long before Frodo showed up: that the tools of the Enemy are to be avoided at all costs. Having seen first-hand what hold the ring has on Frodo and what it does to him, Faramir knows that he doesn't want it in Gondor. He certainly doesn't want his father to be exposed to it. So he lets Frodo go. If I'm right, this explains why they dropped Faramir's line. It would have been inconsistent with the mental process Faramir is supposed to be going through. So I can appreciate why Jackson went this way. I'd still rather have seen Faramir deliver his speech, though.

OK, do I win the geek award for this evening?

The more I watch the LOTR movies the more I dislike them. They are very pretty and a lot of fun at first - but if you know the books at all the changes are appalling and, whether you know the books or not, the movies are disjointed, hamfisted, and overly sappy in any case.

Absolutely correct.

Speaking of the women, while weaving in and out of the mumakil hacking and slashing was a nice touch, what was the deal with the weepy weepy Eowyn?

And speaking of dramatic moments lost, what happened to Aragon's Big Moment? "But as the lead ship turned toward the Harlond, a great banner broke forth, bearing a white tree, and that was for Gondor, but above it seven stars and the high crown of Elendil, not seen for years beyond count."

Yeah, Geek question: if The Hobbit is two movies, how many should LOTR have been?

Chris Newman

Nah.

Why does the film have that scene with Frodo and the Nazgul in Gondor?

That requires us to believe that Sauron and the Nazgul are..stoopid.. Nazgul sees Frodo with the ring in plain view. Not to mention the ring attracts them. And we are then to believe that the entire army and all the Nazgul go off to assault the city instead of finding the little bugger?

Also, re the deletion of the "Scouring of the Shire" bits...the producers surprised me by saying that this was their least favorite part of the 3 books, and that they always agreed that this would not be in the movie[s]. As it was actually one of my fav bits, this surprised me, but at least it was nice to know that the ommission was not a result of Peter Jackson's vision, but rather, it came directly from the head producers.

The thing is, if they'd included the Scouring, it would've alleviated the complaints about the ending going on too long -- just as the audience starts to get restless, Saruman reappears to wreak havoc in the Shire. It's a formula that works for horror movies, so why not epic adventures.

I also agree with the complaints about the handling of the Corsairs. I can understand Jackson wanting to simplify the script by getting rid of the storyline about the cities in southern Gondor keeping back their troops to defend against the Corsairs, but it would've been simple enough to end the Paths of the Dead sequence on an ambiguous note so that when the Black Ships show up at Minas Tirith it looks like the good guys are doomed. Instead it's obvious what's about to happen.

While I'm happy that The Hobbit will be made into a film, I share the concern above about the Dwarves being comic relief.

Of course, that would be more faithful to the Hobbit than to LotR.

"oh yeah on the Arwen/Galadriel front, can't we all agree that neither Kate Blanchet nor Liv Tyler are remotely hot enough to play either part?

Yes I felt that way too. I think there was I time I thought Liv was hot but she didnt seem that way to me in the movies. Kate has never done it for me but I'm not exactly sure why."

I cannot share the boards with men who insult Kate Blanchet in that manner!

Pistols at 10 paces, sirs!

While I agree with the criticisms many have expressed with regard to Jackson's departures from Tolkien, I think you have to cut the guy some slack.

No, you don't.

First rule when adapting a hellaciously long story: don't make up extraneous crap &then cut the real story to fit.

And yet we get Aragorn's "getting lost," the silly Arwen-will-die subplot, the laughable "wizard duel," Legolas jumping up onto oliphaunts, etc., etc.

Someday, computer technology will allow a fairly inexpensive LOTR to be made, and people will find out that - surprise! - you can make a really good movie out of a really good book by FOLLOWING THE FREAKIN' BOOK.

(One of the cute things about the book is that the hobbits, like kids, never quite seem to flash on Aragorn's having the hots for Arwen, so that it's a surprise when she shows up at Minas Tirith.)

a movie based on The Silmarillion? hats next..a movie based on chronicles I.?

I was thinking something more along the lines of the Manhattan Phone Book, or US Code Title 30.

Liv Tyler is straight out plain and would not turn heads if you saw her walking on the street if she wasn't so tall.

You have no appreciation for elven hotties. None.

I would mention some horrible Tolkien-esque fate that should now befall you, but I don't know much about the books, and frankly I've always thought that fans of them were kind of geeky.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

As someone who fell in love with the LOTR books in fourth grade, I had waited nearly 25 years before the movies came out. Although I had a few small disappointments, I felt that the movies did an overall solid job of conveying the story as told in the books. No movie can ever convey as much as the book it's based upon, and certain liberties have to be tolerated for purposes of character and plot development. The part that sold me on the LOTR movies was part involving the Mines of Moria (including Gandalf's talk with Frodo about mercy, the Balrog, and Gandalf's death). Those scenes really made the books leap to life, and yet were quite faithful to the books.

Given that all the readers of the books have their own preconceived notions of the story and characters, I think Jackson did a pretty remarkable job translating the stories to the screen (and didn't try to condense it into a 2 hour glorified battle like 300).

Re: Liv Tyler
She gets beauty points simply for overcoming the genetic tendency to be a perfect orc (have you seen her father?).

Re: Silmarillion
If you think the LOTR was an unfaithful-to-the-book adaptation, a movie adaptaion of the Silmarillion would be either unwatchable (if it was true to the book) or SINO (Silmarillion in name only). In either case it would be awful since the book was so utterly dull. It was through sheer force of will that I was able to plod through it out of a misplaced feeling of obligation to Tolkien, since LOTR is so brilliant.

"Maybe he can do a better job with a less complicated story line. I detested LoTR; I walked out during the first one and have only watched bits and pieces of the other two, but it deleted the Barrow wights, Tom Bombadil and Glorfindal, had a company of elves at Helm's Deep, put Eomer outside oF HD leading the rescue forces instead of Erkenbrand of Westfold, had Faramir take Frodo to Osgiliath, and God only knows what else."

This reminds me of the NPR fan-interview comment I heard when the first Jackson movie arrived, something to the effect of "oh my God, they failed to name one of the principal character's weapons." Seriously, they're not perfect, but pretty good films, no? Who cares if hardcore geek/fandom is offended, did we really lose anything *essential* (maybe the eucatastrophe theme)? I think Jackson deserved the Best Picture nod, though maybe for the first one and not the third.

Must disagree. The Rankin/Bass Hobbit wasn't *good*, but it didn't sink to the Worst.Adaptation.Ever. level of the Bakshi abortion.

I think he means the 1980 Rankin/Bass version of Return of the King. Which is probably horrible but at 8 years old didn't seem so bad (even after reading the book).

I have a suspicion some Silmarillion haters haven't actually read the book. I think this because the reasons they say it sucked are the exact reasons I EXPECTED the book to suck, before I actually read it. I typically loathe books of that format but it was much better than I had imagined. I don't read music and poems in books though. Nope, I just move on by.

Chris Newman

I thought the point was supposed to be that the Nazgul saw Frodo while he was on route with Faramir to Minas Tirith, and thus would have assumed that's where he was going.

That is, of course, what the good guys were counting on Sauron believing - the ring going to Gondor - in the absence of information.

But in the movie, he had information - one of the Nazgul had the ring in sight right in front of him...it. Since the Nine had a psychic connection with each other and Sauron, no way Frodo gets away...unless they are stoopid.

My two bits. The Silmarllion is brilliant, but it isn't fantasy, it's mythology. People who go in expecting LotR don't deal with it. But people who enjoy the Iliad get it. I personally far prefer the Silmarillion, but it would be 20 or 30 different movies, not one. And most of those movies would only be watchable to people like me. That said, you could probably make a damn fine action movie out of the Battle of Unnumbered Tears or the Fall of Gondolin. Not happy movies, but hey.

And there were aspects of the LotR triology that I really liked. But I've found that I go back and watch specific parts and that's it. I found large sections of it... insulting, particularly since I read and enjoyed the Silmarillion and had the additional context from it. In addition to some of those mentioned (though the taking of the Shire was never really part of the books I enjoyed), Helm's Deep was unfortunate (adding the Elves to that was... unacceptable, and their treatment farcical), the Black Gate, Battle for Gondor, and Eowyn all struck false notes. Particularly the slaying of the Witch-king. Other parts, like Moria, Galadriel, and even Shelob, were done well enough. And some of the changes that I didn't like, for better or worse, were impressive.