I don't recall the 'background' parts being boring at all. The boring parts were the descriptions of the landscape, and it was easy to skim over those parts without really missing anything. Gollum's 'soliloquies' were never remotely boring.

After seeing all three movies(TTT and RotK in the theater, which really is a different experience, especially when you sit right underneath a speaker ), and all three Extended Versions, I'd say that the movies are better than the books in many ways, but not all(that wasn't a poll option, so I went with 'movies are better').

And this is what we like to call differing opinions.

I've seen the extended editions of Fellowship and Two Towers (and even after sitting through the damned standard one in theaters, arg), and I'll never bother seeing RoTK. I own the trilogy and The Hobbit in book form, I love them, I essentially grew up on them, and I cannot stand what's been done to such a great story. I'll choose only one item on my list of crap changes; Faramir. If you've only seen the movies, you haven't met Faramir. In the film, he is a one-dimensional, useless person, serving only to advance the plot and deepen Frodo's paranoia; something Tolkien easily did without creating a simplistic, gutless version of Boromir. Faramir also seems to assist proving the inability of mere men to be honorable and just and to defend their home (a theme I found myself noticing throughout The Two Towers), Tolkien never even implied that.

Hm, perhaps I went into two complaints there. Oh well...

I see a deep, complicated story, full of very real characters who live in a land rich in history and tradition, turned into a visual spectacular with little thought and too much slow motion. Sorry, I can't hold much respect for that.

I have a problem with things that offer instant gratification, and offer nothing beyond that. That is why I have a problem with the Lord of the Rings. It's fun at first, and afterward it's got nothing more to offer. There's nothing else there. It's just a movie with really bad editing and cinematography.

Tolkien was primarily a linguist, his primary aim was to create language. But he knew that a language implies a people to speak it, and a people implies stories that reflect the style and views of that language, and created a mythology of a people based around their language. It is the language that is the primary importance, Tolkien wasn't trying to write nice little stories that'd make you feel all fuzzy inside, Tolkien was trying to create an entire mythology. To truly understand this, you must look far beyond the individual 'stories' and understand the mythology as a whole, and the language behind it. The Lord of the Rings serves only really as an introduction to an introduction to the mythology.

If you are well versed in fantasy, then you should know that Tolkien is the father of the high fantasy genre. And there is a reason for this.

The problem is that you're going about reading Tolkien the wrong way.

Beowulf is the single most important piece of Anglo-Saxon literature, but if you picked it up expecting a light romance novel you'd be thoroughly dissapointed with it. That doesn't make Beowulf any less important.

Why don't we all just agree that the books are very important, yes.. but you don't have to like them.

Dude, Beowulf is sweet.

I love how points are being backed up.

You cant just say "the cinemetography sucks" if you cant think of a better way to explain it.

I love how my thread is gradually being derailed.

There's no way to "back it up" because you can't explain why it is bad really. The shots are flat. It's the same reason RotJ is visually lame in comparison to ESB. LotR has horrible editing. The movies don't know what pacing is. They're just plain flawed.

Hm. so far im seeing opinions.

If you were a film student, you could at least describe what you felt wrong with specific shots.

you have crituiqed things before, right?

There are far more important things than the quality of a few shots. (Not that I think there is anything wrong with them) Story, character development, music, atmosphere.. etc.. Oh and i find the way you say "it's bad, but i cant tell you why" amusing. How about saying how it could have been better?

If I had directed the LotR movies I would have focused more on the important parts, i.e. Frodo/Sam and Merry/Pippin shipping.

Man, the movies would have rocked then 8)

I loved the movies, but I never read the book. I own the Extended Edition for Two Towers and Return of the King, but only a regular edition for Fellowship of the Ring.

Mort-Hog's last post is absolutely correct and stole just about everything I had to say.

Most people who dislike the books aren't approaching them in the right way. The story and histories shown in LotR go back long before he imagined writing the books. His earliest envisioned images of Middle Earth go back to around World War I, when he started drafting his language Qenya. The world of Middle-Earth evolved along with his conceptions about the language (which eventually became an entire family of languages). At this point, Tolkien was creating an entire world, not just some story that he was planning to become famous for.

The books of Lord of the Rings were first proposed to capitalize on the success of The Hobbit. So Tolkien elaborated on that period in the history of Middle-Earth, presenting the story we know today. As a philologist, he wasn't supposed to be the greatest literary (or commercial) writer in Western cannon; he was just sharing a glimpse of the world he'd imagined.

People who complain about LotR complain because they're missing the point: it's not about the story, or the character development, but about the entire setting, history, cultures, language, and the mythos that existed in his mind. The scenery descriptions and historical accounts are, in this respect, just as important as the plot, and if they seem boring, you're not approaching them with the correct mindset.

Now, if you want cheap entertainment, Tolkien may not be the right thing; go ahead and read Robert Jordan or what you may, but don't criticize Tolkien for not doing what they do. That wasn't his intention.

And that is why, although I enjoy them, I am no great fan of the movies. They turn the focus of LotR from Tolkien's artistic world creation to entertainment derived from orc slaying.

[edit- wow.. that ended up sounding a lot more fanatical than it should have. meh]

None of the shots have depth whatsoever. Which is why I said they're flat. The lighting is ok at times, but most of the time everything seems... well... flat.

For examples of good lighting, see the following:

Any Ridley Scott movie.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000631/

Any Tony Scott movie.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001716/

Any David Fincher movie.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000399/

The general cinematography in LotR is just basic. Everything tends to be in the center of the screen. It is VERY hard to create positional relationships like that. There is a rule of thirds. You are supposed to divide the frame into 9 equal sections, three up and three across. Each of the intersecting lines are where you're supposed to put things. Jackson's DP does not do this, and it is a problem.

For examples of good cinematography see:

Any Robert Richardson movie.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0724744/

The editing in LotR is bad as well. Many scenes do not transition well at all. This is very apparant in the RotK EE. The scenes just change. Look at the end of the third movie. You'll see what I mean.

For examples of good editing see:

Any Pietro Scalia movie.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0768817/

A movie should be paced well. There shouldn't be periods of several minutes when nothing really happens. There generally should be an event of some kind once every 20 minutes or so. LotR doesn't really do this. It doesn't have to be a big event, it just has to be an event. There are periods in TTT when nothing happens for nearly 45 minutes. It gets really boring. It's not a staple of filmmaking, because if character development is going on, it is generally better than an event, but there is nearly no character development anywhere in any of the 3 movies. The characters are simply characters. That's just how they are. They are not developed at all. This is bad.

Another piece of excellence (sarcasm) that LotR delivers due to the lack of any sort of character development, is the fact that as soon as you see a bad guy, you know he's a bad guy. He's so bad, and so wicked that there's no way you could possibly like him. In the case of the Nazgul, or Denethor people don't seem to mind. In the case of Darth Maul in TPM, people seem to think it's stupid.

Merry and Pippan are completely unneccesary. They could have been serious characters and still done the things they did. They are completely interchangable and throwaway. Most of the time they're only in the story for comic relief. They're 'funny' but Jar Jar is stupid and annoying. Note my sarcasm.

Gollum is a completely cg character that speaks in an annoying voice and serves as a major plot point about 2/3 the way through the story. This is great, and again, Jar Jar is stupid. Note my sarcasm.

Female characters are not even characters. They lack character SO much that they have to be shot with a soft focus filter at all times that way we know they're kind and friendly. The same goes with all kind and friendly characters. They're shot with a soft focus filter and a warm white balance to show they're friendly. Mean and despicable characters are shot with a blue white balance and a ton of sharpness. This shows that they're obviously not good. This allows Jackson to totally forget about developing characters and throw in another bit of people walking around new zealand.

For god's sake, I don't want to go on anymore, it's simply pissing me off to think that so many people like these movies. Most of it isn't even Peter Jackson's fault. Tolkein's books are severely flawed. If Jackson hadn't stayed so true to the books, the movies would have been far better.

EDIT: And don't tell me I should read the books. "If I read the books, it'll be alot better, right? Wrong. Any movie which requires additional reading to appreciate is a bad movie.

I like the movies but never read the books . . . perhaps, I should.

First, I want to get a chance at reading all the Michael Chrichton books, because he is an awesome writer.

Crichton's books are pretty good. Spielberg should make more of them into movies, even though the tone of the story is hugely changed in his movies. And the lost world is a completely different story.

And if a movie is bad, it doesn't matter how good the cinematography is. You could do this cinematography bit on a jar of mayonaisse for two hours--it wouldn't make it any more interesting.

The converse is true--if the movie is really good, then it doesn't really matter about the cinematography. You see, all those things you mentioned help to ENHANCE the experience, not create it, though it can do both at the same time (see: Quentin Tarentino. His cinematography makes his films what they are. That and the great dialogue, and twisted plot).

Vornskr and Mort--I'm sorry, but last I checked books were meant as devices of entertainment, not things which make you seem smarter because you 'get' them. I want to draw enjoyment from a book, and to me, enjoyment is good plot, good dialogue, good setting, and most of all, DOES NOT READ LIKE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. Do you think I care if that's what Tolkein meant? No. That's like saying Farenheit 9/11 was MEANT only for those who don't like Bush. Both sides saw it already, and for the most part, both sides agree it was a horribly biased and stupid film.

oh man. you're post makes me want to cry... seriously


Its not where you're "supposed" to put things, but its good to have things in that area. Just because you dont line things up perfectly doesnt make it bad.

its almost exactly like that in the book. deal with it.

What do you mean by nothing? 45 minutes of nothing? I dont recall anything like that

since when is it bad to make a bad guy look bad? I mean... a nazgul isnt supposed to be friendly... It's the freaking servant of Sauron. And wtf do you mean by Darth Maul? you lost me there.

[/b] except for the fact that they were important for the story? Do you not remember them going into Fangorn forest? It was essential to the story, you couldnt just take another character and do that. It would have been stupid.


Uhm. So you're saying that he should not be in the story? so what if he comes in 2/3 of the way through? Thats what happened in the book.


Oh no! someone call the police! they used a subtle effect to give a character a certain appearence!




Wait wait wait... you're calling the books severely flawed and you havent even freaking read them?


Oh but wait, I cant explain any more because a girl is calling me lololol

So if its true that Jackson did not follow the rules of cinematography, Bill, why do so many people like them?

Aren't these rules supposed to help the viewer relate to the picture better? If they can still relate without it following the rules, maybe that means if it doesn't follow the rules - it does not mean it's bad.


Look at Pearl Harbor. Director Michael Bay is known for his cliche's and his different style of directing that lots of teachers of film hate. Yet I saw MANY people crying at the end of Pearl Harbor. So while he breaks these rules - he can create a level of emotion with the audience.

Once again, I prefer to be entertained. If you sit there in the movie looking at the screen in sections of 9, you have major mental issues and should evaluate why you goto the movies.

9/10 the people out there don't care about these 'rules' you quote. If you're going to get into film - realize this'll be your main audience unless you're doing indie films or something.

And I can realte with it too. My focus is music. There is all this music theory and mumbo jumbo that goes along with music. Yet I can hear a song written by someone with no music theory who does not follow the 'rules' per se, yet it can be a much more emotional piece than one following techniques in music theory.

In regards to music and movies, why do so many people feel that if something is liked by the masses, it has to suck? Half your arguments Bill seem to be because so many people liked it. And lots of your arguments have to do with Tolkien, not Jackson.

Oh look here MB, looks like you're wrong again.

1. Things should not be in the center of the screen. It makes creating positional relationships very hard. PJ doesn't have to worry about his cinematographer sucking because he'll just use a huge establishing shot laced with bad cg.

2. It's almost exactly like that in the book? That's the ****ing problem! The story sucks!

3. 45 minutes of characters just kind of walking around and telling us things we already know. We get plenty of "oh look. there's that thing" type ****, but we already knew about that thing, or it could have been put in there in a useful way that actually matters. "Look there's the black gate of mordor. **** it, let's take the back way in."

4. It's bad for a bad guy to just be bad because it's called a 2 dimensional character. Watch Heat. The "bad guys" are not all bad. Watch Unforgiven. The bad guys are the good guys in that movie. These are 3 dimensional characters. Once again, this is a problem with the original story, and the fact that it is cliche. Darth Maul relates because so many people seem to think the PT sucks and LotR is great, and if the PT sucks, LotR sucks alot more.

5. Note the fact that I said they could have been serious characters and still do what they did...

6. I'm simply comparing the fact that Gollum is loved by everyone, and Jar Jar is hated by everyone. They are very similarly presented, yet different characters. But people hate Jar Jar not because he's a crap character, but because he's annoying, or he's all cg or some other ****.

7. I was mentioning it because they use a subtle effect to create a character's personality, because none of the characters have personality, except for Gollum.



Yoshi,

A good movie is an all around good movie. If it just has a good story, then it's not a good movie. If it's presented badly, then it's not good. It's like saying Bob Dylan is a great singer. He obviously is not. He's a great song writer, and a great poet, but he can't sing. If it's poorly presented, it could be alot better. Editing is very important too, because if a movie is not paced well then it gets boring and it's uncomfortable to watch.

My god you people make me want to cry.

First things first, Pearl Harbor is one of the worst movies ever.

And yeah, my arguements are about Tolkien's story, and why it's not very good. If Jackson had changed it more, it would have been better.

And you make us want to cry because, wait for it...



All you've given us is crap we don't care about because really, all it does is enhance a movie, not make it, and opinions on tolkein's and jackson's point of view. Step off if you don't have anything of worth to bring to the table.

Just so you know, you obviously haven't taken anything past 9th grade literature otherwise you'd know that there are static and dynamic characters for a reason. You also don't realize that most of the characters are dynamic--Saruman was good, once, Gandalf is iffy, Boromir...obvious... The Nazguls WERE elves. Those few that are static and unchanging serve a purpose to show the differences between the two.

You see, art students judge the quality of a film only by the types of shots they use, etc etc. People judge the quality of a film by how entertaining it is. Why? BECAUSE THAT'S WHY PEOPLE WATCH MOVIES.

I hate Pearl Harbor as well, but I can still admit the cinematography was beautiful at times.

The Nazgul were men, I believe, not elves.

Cinematography important to the viewing experience. It creates moods. It's neccesary.

I judge a movie by whether it's actually good or not. You judge a movie by how many horses the SFX crew can fit on screen at once.

1. http://x2.putfile.com/1/2921194397.gif << Just as an example. Nothing in there is in the dead center of the screen.
This scene had very little CG used in it. Most of it was just for the background scenery. You also have to realize, you cant not have CG in this movie. I mean, where the hell are you going to find things like Minas Tirith or Rivendell.

2. Dont like the story? thats your OPINION

3. There were never 45 minutes in the movie that were all just people walking. Not once. and the black gate thing? Why did they have to do that differently? I fail to see why that was so wrong. And if I recall correctly, action happens in this scene. Isnt that what you were looking for?

4. wtf is pt?

5. okay...

6. then why the hell are you complaining about him?

7. Then you must not have been paying attention when you watched the movies. They had alot of character development. In fact, they took out scenes of character development so the movie wasnt longer htan it was.

and I'm going to say it again:


Wait wait wait... you're calling the books severely flawed and you havent even freaking read them?

But all of Bay's movies have good cinematography....

It's not what made people cry at the end of Pearl Harbor. They cried because they felt sorry for a guy who nailed his best friend's woman because he thought his best friend was dead.

This discussion is over.

Okay cool. Keep being ignorant.

I dont believe you're a film student.

You don't believe I'm a film student?

What the **** difference does it make to me whether you believe I'm a film student. I don't believe you have an IQ above 75. Ooh look now I'm childish too.

PJ is a good director because he doesn't make films by the books (Heavenly Creatures is by far his best film). You seem to have a problem with movies not made by the books (ie. your dividing a shot into different sections rather than taking it at face-value).

I don't have a problem if it's not made by the books... My favorite movies are not made by the books. LotR isn't made by the books either, but that's a bad thing in this case.

No, the plot was predictable at the end, it was the way Bay shot the scene which made it work.

Having the one guy come out of the plane first, and than the casket with the camera angle. It worked well, as the audience was hoping and than realized he was dead in fact.

If Bay had shot that scene different, it would've been completely ineffective and far less tears. Plus Bay is very good about having the music interact with the scene.

"I judge a movie by whether it's actually good or not. You judge a movie by how many horses the SFX crew can fit on screen at once."

No, it seems like you judge a movie by its mechanics, while everyone else judges a movie on whether they like it or not.

Because if you were, you would at least accept some of the freaking comments Im making.

Right now you're just doing this:

MBeggar: comment

Bill: You're wrong

MB: explanation

Bill: You're a fanboy, this conversation is over.

Bill's just kidding, people. He's not really this absurdly bitter and reasonless! Can't you see the humour?

One questions why he bothers posting at all.

Uh, MB you asked me to explain what I said. I did. To me, you're wrong, and very ignorant.

And Flirbnic, I only act like an ******* if someone else acts like an idiot. Cut down on the daily ignorance, and I'll cut down on the bitterness.

I post because this place can occasionally be a good ground to have a discussion about things. I also post out of boredom.