# Consign Peter jackson's LOTR to the dustbins of bad cinema???



## fadhatter (May 15, 2006)

i know ya'll miss me so i come back with a good headline punch


----------



## Alcuin (May 15, 2006)

No. And I don’t like them: I’ve seen them through only once (_Fellowship_ at least twice), and partially (on television) several other times; but even so, I can’t bear to sit through them again. Personally, I find them increasingly horrid as the story progresses. (Except Shelob. Peter Jackson is an old horror movie-maker; he set out to make the best monster spider ever, and he succeeded brilliantly. Oh, and Gollum. Gollum is awesomely … evil. And psychotic.) There are just too many changes in the storyline; the characters and their motives; and the themes and morality of the tale. But these films are not headed for the dustbin – not yet, at any rate.

First of all, the movies are outstanding spectacles. Not the kind you wear to improve your vision, but the kind you attend for entertainment. People enjoy spectacles, and that – and the capital they provide those who host them – are why they are held. 

Second, whether I enjoy them or not, there are many die-hard Tolkien fans who love them. 

Third, for many Tolkien fans, the movies were their introduction to Tolkien’s work. For these good folk, Frodo will always look like Elijah Wood and Gandalf will always look like Ian McKellen, and so forth. Besides the fact that it’s wonderful that people who might otherwise never have read the books or enjoyed the stories now know them – and we already enamored of the tales welcome you all! – this must be an improvement over seeing Bilbo and Frodo as animated cartoon characters who sound like Orson Bean. (Orson Bean and John Huston are excellent actors – consider Huston’s performance in _Chinatown_. The cartoons are eminently suitable for 6-year olds, and there’s nothing wrong with that.)

Fourth, Jackson made a number of notable cinematic achievements. His method of simultaneously filming three movies at once was a breakthrough in cost control. The computer animation of Andy Serkis’ excellent performance is a major milestone in cinematography. 

Finally – and this important – the movies are one more step in making a strong cinematic version of the story. Eventually, someone will do that. Anyone who has seen the 1984 David Lynch version of _Dune_ and the 2000 John Harrison version can see the same progression. It will be years, perhaps decades and several more essays in filmmaking, before there is a cinematic _Lord of the Rings_ that generations will treasure. (Think about Franco Zeffirelli’s 1968 _Romeo and Juliet_. I still see Olivia Hussey as 15 years old playing Juliet, no matter whatever else she does, and she’s an outstanding actress.) 

Jackson has created a stepping-stone to some final achievement. I recall how disappointed many people were with Bakshi’s 1978 version of _Lord of the Rings_; then one of my more thoughtful friends remarked on how difficult it would be for _anyone_ to bring to life a story so rich, so variegated, with so many cross-stories and with such a deep wellspring of back-stories that ultimately spring from the real-world tales Tolkien brought to his narration from his lifelong study of language, history, and the human condition. It is a bold attempt, and for all its many flaws, Jackson deserves credit for making the essay.

Is it in any way a “definitive” cinematic version of the telling of the tale? Definitely not. Is it true to Tolkien’s narrative? I don’t think so. Is it worthy essay and great step forward? I believe it is. Is it a financial success, one that will encourage another such attempt in the future? Definitely so.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 15, 2006)

By God Alcuin, you have made a silk purse (a highly intelligent and thoughtful post) out of a sow's ear (the ridiculous premise of the thread). I must say that I too rarely watch the movies anymore, but have gone back to the books for the most part (in which I now envision the characters looking like the screen characters). On the other hand I have a recording of ROTK in hi-def on my tuner box's hard drive. 

You make the interesting point that PJ's stuff comprises a but stepping stone to some ultimate screen version somewhere down the line. Alas, methinks _very far_ down the line — possibly not in the average TTFer's lifetime. I highly doubt if _anyone_ will be making another attempt at a movie LOTR until someone invents another quantum leap in movie technology — perhaps with the introduction of smellovision, feelovision and taste-ovision... 

Barley


----------



## Halasían (Jun 16, 2006)

Alcuin has hit it on the spot.


Alcuin said:


> ...for many Tolkien fans, the movies were their introduction to Tolkien’s work. For these good folk, Frodo will always look like Elijah Wood and Gandalf will always look like Ian McKellen, and so forth.


This can be seen by the many amateur artists who sketch a nic penciling of "Boromir", but looks almost exactly like Sean Bean, or "Faramir" who looks exactly like David Wenhem. The movies took away the imagination of so many, and its too bad.


----------



## Varokhâr (Jun 16, 2006)

NO. They are fine films. They are not flawless, since PJ isn't flawless, and cannot be expected to produce perfection. They were fairly faithful to the novels, and even though they veered off track in places I wasn't happy with, I loved the films overall. They are the way I visualize Middle-earth, and shall always be as if a sort of "visual guide" for the novels, IMO.

I saw each one multiple times in the theatre (saw FOTR once a week for eight straight weeks till it got pulled from the local theatres), and if I had to do it all again, I'd have seen them more often. It was worth every penny and every minute, and I am quite pleased with PJ's work


----------



## Eledhwen (Jun 18, 2006)

The films aren't bad cinema, they are excellent cinema as Varokhâr has said; however, they are not a faithful interpretation of the books. There are numerous threads written at the time of their release arguing the merits or otherwise of this, so I won't add anything here. What I will say is that I have the books and the extended DVDs. If I want Tolkien I read the books. If I want spectacle I watch the films. I usually prefer Tolkien over spectacle. In my desire for more, the films wear off. Tolkien doesn't.


----------

