Tolkien was the inspiration for many of the modern fantasy tropes.Solo Tetherball Champ said:Yes and no. Is it all outstanding design? Yep. does some direction of the design feel lazy to me? Yep. Key example: Elves and Dwarves. They made them polar opposites of each other. Does it make identifying either of them simple? Sure. But those designs owe far more to modern fantasy tropes than anything Tolkien wrote.Chase McGuire said:
Something the movie makers probably don't get enough credit for is nailing the aesthetic of Middle-earth. All the cultures and places feel distinct but also mesh so well visually. Rivendell, Minas Tirith, Cirith Ungol, Isengard. Gondorians, Rohirrim, elves, dwarves, hobbits. All of these and more are so immediately recognizable due to outstanding production design, costuming and art. And, of course, inspiration from Tolkein himself. I love the movies as much for bringing this world to life in the way they did as for the adapted story.
***** The Lord of the Rings: Official Thread *****
239,044 Views |
1956 Replies |
Last: 10 days ago by Brian Earl Spilner
You should learn to enjoy things. I feel like he did an amazing job bringing the story to life, to the point where I no longer have my own vision of the stories (aside from how he handled the army of the dead at the end)Solo Tetherball Champ said:Yes and no. Is it all outstanding design? Yep. does some direction of the design feel lazy to me? Yep. Key example: Elves and Dwarves. They made them polar opposites of each other. Does it make identifying either of them simple? Sure. But those designs owe far more to modern fantasy tropes than anything Tolkien wrote.Chase McGuire said:
Something the movie makers probably don't get enough credit for is nailing the aesthetic of Middle-earth. All the cultures and places feel distinct but also mesh so well visually. Rivendell, Minas Tirith, Cirith Ungol, Isengard. Gondorians, Rohirrim, elves, dwarves, hobbits. All of these and more are so immediately recognizable due to outstanding production design, costuming and art. And, of course, inspiration from Tolkein himself. I love the movies as much for bringing this world to life in the way they did as for the adapted story.
But he didn't make those tropes. Many of those took a life of their own long after him. The crazy flowing curves of the elves and the harsh angular designs of the dwarves don't have a source in Tolkien. This is fresh in my mind since I'm currently rereading the books, but the columns in Moria of all places are described as being shaped like trees.powerbelly said:Tolkien was the inspiration for many of the modern fantasy tropes.Solo Tetherball Champ said:Yes and no. Is it all outstanding design? Yep. does some direction of the design feel lazy to me? Yep. Key example: Elves and Dwarves. They made them polar opposites of each other. Does it make identifying either of them simple? Sure. But those designs owe far more to modern fantasy tropes than anything Tolkien wrote.Chase McGuire said:
Something the movie makers probably don't get enough credit for is nailing the aesthetic of Middle-earth. All the cultures and places feel distinct but also mesh so well visually. Rivendell, Minas Tirith, Cirith Ungol, Isengard. Gondorians, Rohirrim, elves, dwarves, hobbits. All of these and more are so immediately recognizable due to outstanding production design, costuming and art. And, of course, inspiration from Tolkein himself. I love the movies as much for bringing this world to life in the way they did as for the adapted story.
How is any of it lazy? Now this just seems like blind hatred for the movies.Solo Tetherball Champ said:Yes and no. Is it all outstanding design? Yep. does some direction of the design feel lazy to me? Yep. Key example: Elves and Dwarves. They made them polar opposites of each other. Does it make identifying either of them simple? Sure. But those designs owe far more to modern fantasy tropes than anything Tolkien wrote.Chase McGuire said:
Something the movie makers probably don't get enough credit for is nailing the aesthetic of Middle-earth. All the cultures and places feel distinct but also mesh so well visually. Rivendell, Minas Tirith, Cirith Ungol, Isengard. Gondorians, Rohirrim, elves, dwarves, hobbits. All of these and more are so immediately recognizable due to outstanding production design, costuming and art. And, of course, inspiration from Tolkein himself. I love the movies as much for bringing this world to life in the way they did as for the adapted story.
Where did I say I didn't enjoy it?PatAg said:You should learn to enjoy things. I feel like he did an amazing job bringing the story to life, to the point where I no longer have my own vision of the stories (aside from how he handled the army of the dead at the end)Solo Tetherball Champ said:Yes and no. Is it all outstanding design? Yep. does some direction of the design feel lazy to me? Yep. Key example: Elves and Dwarves. They made them polar opposites of each other. Does it make identifying either of them simple? Sure. But those designs owe far more to modern fantasy tropes than anything Tolkien wrote.Chase McGuire said:
Something the movie makers probably don't get enough credit for is nailing the aesthetic of Middle-earth. All the cultures and places feel distinct but also mesh so well visually. Rivendell, Minas Tirith, Cirith Ungol, Isengard. Gondorians, Rohirrim, elves, dwarves, hobbits. All of these and more are so immediately recognizable due to outstanding production design, costuming and art. And, of course, inspiration from Tolkein himself. I love the movies as much for bringing this world to life in the way they did as for the adapted story.
However, I honestly think that most decent directors, given a blank check to make three movies from three books, could have at least done what Jackson did. As the movies went on, Jackson increasingly lost sight of what makes this world tick in favor of forced pathos and action. A
I give far more credit to the cast, the cinematograpy, Howard Shore, and the art team. Howard Shore, in particular, bailed Jackson out of some terrible narrative choices that he made. He deserves that Oscar.
Quote:
However, I honestly think that most decent directors, given a blank check to make three movies from three books, could have at least done what Jackson did.
There's a chance a different director's fan fiction would be better than PJs
Considering the weakest parts of LOTR are when Jackson went off-script plus the glaring flaws and shortcomings of The Hobbit trilogy.... I don't think that's a stretch.shaynew1 said:
There's a chance a different director's fan fiction would be better than PJs
He can't go "off-script" when it's HIS script.
Adapting a book is not a simple task, my good man.
I challenge you to watch the six-part appendices of the making of the LOTR trilogy, then call any aspect of that trilogy "lazy".
Adapting a book is not a simple task, my good man.
I challenge you to watch the six-part appendices of the making of the LOTR trilogy, then call any aspect of that trilogy "lazy".
You're being deliberately obtuse.Brian Earl Spilner said:
He can't go "off-script" when it's HIS script.
Adapting a book is not a simple task, my good man.
I challenge you to watch the six-part appendices of the making of the LOTR trilogy, then call any aspect of that trilogy "lazy".
The "script" I'm referring to are the books.
He was handed a blank check to turn three of the most beloved and best stories of the 20th century into three movies.
I called his design aesthetics for the elves and dwarves lazy, and I will continue to do so: he took tropes from modern fantasy, that are distortions at best of what Tolkien actually wrote and used those in these movies.. A few pages back, I've called out dumb plot points the he injected into the narrative.
And I have watched the appendices. I've also watched his director commentaries. There was a point in Two Towers, I forget the scene but it was fairly early on when Jackson stated: "oh, this upcoming scene was one of my favorites in the books". There was a long pause then Fran or Phillipa responded "I don't think this was in the books, Peter".
I'm not saying that Jackson's movies are awful. I just look forward to the day they're remade, preferably in streaming format.
If it's so easy to do because the source material is so beloved then why have so many others failed miserably or done mediocre jobs. Harry Potter movies are borderline a complete **** show but I still find them entertaining. Those are arguably so much easier to adapt but failed in so many ways.
The only other fantasy movie that was on the same level of Jackson's LOTR was the first Chronicles of Narnia. That was very well done but I can see where some might not enjoy the source material as much.
Most adaptations are failures, the Hobbit included, so I think Jackson definitely deserves credit for what he put out there.
The only other fantasy movie that was on the same level of Jackson's LOTR was the first Chronicles of Narnia. That was very well done but I can see where some might not enjoy the source material as much.
Most adaptations are failures, the Hobbit included, so I think Jackson definitely deserves credit for what he put out there.
And you seem to think that writing a script based on an existing book is a simple, straightforward task that doesn't deserve much credit in and of itself.
These books were considered unfilmable for many decades. If it was so easy to so, it would've been done back in the 60's when the Beatles wanted to make it.
These books were considered unfilmable for many decades. If it was so easy to so, it would've been done back in the 60's when the Beatles wanted to make it.
Quote:
I called his design aesthetics for the elves and dwarves lazy, and I will continue to do so: he took tropes from modern fantasy, that are distortions at best of what Tolkien actually wrote and used those in these movies.
So the fact that it wasn't 100% as described makes it lazy? How about the countless other things that weren't direct translations?
That doesn't make it lazy. If anything, it's the opposite of lazy.
Gandalf's hat wasn't blue, and he didn't wear a scarf. I suppose that too was lazy?
Brian Earl Spilner said:How is any of it lazy? Now this just seems like blind hatred for the movies.Solo Tetherball Champ said:Yes and no. Is it all outstanding design? Yep. does some direction of the design feel lazy to me? Yep. Key example: Elves and Dwarves. They made them polar opposites of each other. Does it make identifying either of them simple? Sure. But those designs owe far more to modern fantasy tropes than anything Tolkien wrote.Chase McGuire said:
Something the movie makers probably don't get enough credit for is nailing the aesthetic of Middle-earth. All the cultures and places feel distinct but also mesh so well visually. Rivendell, Minas Tirith, Cirith Ungol, Isengard. Gondorians, Rohirrim, elves, dwarves, hobbits. All of these and more are so immediately recognizable due to outstanding production design, costuming and art. And, of course, inspiration from Tolkein himself. I love the movies as much for bringing this world to life in the way they did as for the adapted story.
This. If you can't appreciate the movie adaptation of LotR, you're going to be disappointed with every adaptation you'll ever see. (Eragon, anyone? Or Ender's Game?) Does the trilogy have some flaws? Of course. But the films garnered a total of 30 Oscar noms and won 17. All three movies are epic in scale, and not just any director could have pulled that off.
The movies are a different telling of the story.
Even the books were written as one telling of events. I think Tolkien would have been very comfortable with the idea that old legends get told and retold, and not always in the same way.
Even the books were written as one telling of events. I think Tolkien would have been very comfortable with the idea that old legends get told and retold, and not always in the same way.
You're putting words in my mouth. When have I ever said that?Brian Earl Spilner said:
And you seem to think that writing a script based on an existing book is a simple, straightforward task that doesn't deserve much credit in and of itself.
Have you read any of those scripts? A big chunk of the reason it was considered unfilmable was that every attempt at adaptation was going to fit all three books into one movie. I've looked at those scripts; aside from being LOTR in name only they were awful.Quote:
These books were considered unfilmable for many decades. If it was so easy to so, it would've been done back in the 60's when the Beatles wanted to make it.
Opinions like these are why you have to play tetherball all alone.
I submit all of your posting history on this thread as evidence.Solo Tetherball Champ said:Where did I say I didn't enjoy it?PatAg said:You should learn to enjoy things. I feel like he did an amazing job bringing the story to life, to the point where I no longer have my own vision of the stories (aside from how he handled the army of the dead at the end)Solo Tetherball Champ said:Yes and no. Is it all outstanding design? Yep. does some direction of the design feel lazy to me? Yep. Key example: Elves and Dwarves. They made them polar opposites of each other. Does it make identifying either of them simple? Sure. But those designs owe far more to modern fantasy tropes than anything Tolkien wrote.Chase McGuire said:
Something the movie makers probably don't get enough credit for is nailing the aesthetic of Middle-earth. All the cultures and places feel distinct but also mesh so well visually. Rivendell, Minas Tirith, Cirith Ungol, Isengard. Gondorians, Rohirrim, elves, dwarves, hobbits. All of these and more are so immediately recognizable due to outstanding production design, costuming and art. And, of course, inspiration from Tolkein himself. I love the movies as much for bringing this world to life in the way they did as for the adapted story.
However, I honestly think that most decent directors, given a blank check to make three movies from three books, could have at least done what Jackson did. As the movies went on, Jackson increasingly lost sight of what makes this world tick in favor of forced pathos and action. A
I give far more credit to the cast, the cinematograpy, Howard Shore, and the art team. Howard Shore, in particular, bailed Jackson out of some terrible narrative choices that he made. He deserves that Oscar.
Quote:
You're putting words in my mouth. When have I ever said that?
Easily inferred from your posting. You said any competent director could've adapted those books with a blank check.
C'mon, do you really think he'd re-watch the trilogy several times if he hated it? Solo simply doesn't revere the trilogy like y'all do, and has well thought-out reasons for doing so. And because of that, he plays rough with his language when he talks about the trilogy. And apparently that's bad, because the Internet thinks you must address Jackson's movies with the same sentiment you would reserve for your elderly grandmother.
"Oh don't say that about Grandma Jackson! She's so delicate!"
Grow some thicker skin you LOTR nerds
"Oh don't say that about Grandma Jackson! She's so delicate!"
Grow some thicker skin you LOTR nerds
Render said:
C'mon, do you really think he'd re-watch the trilogy several times if he hated it? Solo simply doesn't revere the trilogy like y'all do, and has well thought-out reasons for doing so. And because of that, he plays rough with his language when he talks about the trilogy. And apparently that's bad, because the Internet thinks you must address Jackson's movies with the same sentiment you would reserve for your elderly grandmother.
"Oh don't say that about Grandma Jackson! She's so delicate!"
Grow some thicker skin you LOTR nerds
Or learn to read
You should really avoid any Star Wars thread if you think anybody in this thread so far needs thicker skin.
This is about as cordial a debate as you'll ever see on this board.
This is about as cordial a debate as you'll ever see on this board.
The movies also get credit for the existence of r/lotrmemes. Can't ignore that contribution.
I freely admit TLJ broke me.Brian Earl Spilner said:
You should really avoid any Star Wars thread if you think anybody in this thread so far needs thicker skin.
This is about as cordial a debate as you'll ever see on this board.
And I'm simply observing that Solo seems pretty knowledgeable on the subject. He's not being arbitrary.
Knowledgeable for sure. He obviously has a deep love for the source material. But saying the movies are "LotR in name only" is either blatant trolling or silly.
Expecting a 12 hour book-to-film adaptation to get everything right and not take any liberties with the story is asking to be disappointed. The movies have near universal acclaim from fans and critics alike and represent one of the best examples of adaptation we have. They were also an achievement from a technical and manpower standpoint at the time and have one of the most beloved soundtracks of all time. We have a basis to argue with him a bit.
Expecting a 12 hour book-to-film adaptation to get everything right and not take any liberties with the story is asking to be disappointed. The movies have near universal acclaim from fans and critics alike and represent one of the best examples of adaptation we have. They were also an achievement from a technical and manpower standpoint at the time and have one of the most beloved soundtracks of all time. We have a basis to argue with him a bit.
Not to mention that the movies brought this beloved series to the mainstream anyway. LotR as a property owes a lot to the work Peter Jackson did, as does the fantasy genre. Without those movies, we don't get Game of Thrones, The Witcher, the upcoming Wheel of Time adaptation and lots of other movies, video games and TV shows made in the last decade-plus.
It seems pretty clear that the design choices for both the dwarves and the elves were informed by the writing Tolkien created for each.Solo Tetherball Champ said:But he didn't make those tropes. Many of those took a life of their own long after him. The crazy flowing curves of the elves and the harsh angular designs of the dwarves don't have a source in Tolkien. This is fresh in my mind since I'm currently rereading the books, but the columns in Moria of all places are described as being shaped like trees.powerbelly said:Tolkien was the inspiration for many of the modern fantasy tropes.Solo Tetherball Champ said:Yes and no. Is it all outstanding design? Yep. does some direction of the design feel lazy to me? Yep. Key example: Elves and Dwarves. They made them polar opposites of each other. Does it make identifying either of them simple? Sure. But those designs owe far more to modern fantasy tropes than anything Tolkien wrote.Chase McGuire said:
Something the movie makers probably don't get enough credit for is nailing the aesthetic of Middle-earth. All the cultures and places feel distinct but also mesh so well visually. Rivendell, Minas Tirith, Cirith Ungol, Isengard. Gondorians, Rohirrim, elves, dwarves, hobbits. All of these and more are so immediately recognizable due to outstanding production design, costuming and art. And, of course, inspiration from Tolkein himself. I love the movies as much for bringing this world to life in the way they did as for the adapted story.
The Angerthas of the dwarves, very harsh and angular, were reflected in the architecture in the mines and the graceful Tengwar helped inspire the places shaped by the elves. While they don't exactly match the descriptions by Tolkien, neither does Gandalf, but they both work in this adaptation.
I was clearly talking about the scripts for the (rightfully) aborted adaptations. If you want to read something bonkers, just look up John Boorman's script. It's nuts. It's LOTR in name only.Chase McGuire said:
Knowledgeable for sure. He obviously has a deep love for the source material. But saying the movies are "LotR in name only" is either blatant trolling or silly.
If you're going to argue, at least argue with the points that I'm making.Quote:
Expecting a 12 hour book-to-film adaptation to get everything right and not take any liberties with the story is asking to be disappointed. The movies have near universal acclaim from fans and critics alike and represent one of the best examples of adaptation we have. They were also an achievement from a technical and manpower standpoint at the time and have one of the most beloved soundtracks of all time. We have a basis to argue with him a bit.
I've never once made the argument for a page by adaptation. I understand that some things in a written narrative are very hard to bring to life on screen.
What I have said is that Jackson made some poor and even stupid narrative choices in the adaption and my attitude towards these ranges from eh to irritation, but never reaches nerdrage. I also think he tends to favor set pieces and the rule of cool over actual intimacy moments. Of my five favorite moments in the book, only two made it in the film, and one of those was so warped that it wasn't even included in the theatrical version.
I'm not stating that Peter Jackson is the directorial equivalent of a Gene Chizik, who struck gold with a special cast and collection of talent and is worthless without them. I'm just saying that many directors if given the same blank check and resources, could do something similar. Maybe better.
Just food for thought: Imagine someone like Ridley Scott adapting this.
I don't revere these movies as a pinnacle of Cinema... therefore I don't enjoy them?PatAg said:I submit all of your posting history on this thread as evidence.Solo Tetherball Champ said:Where did I say I didn't enjoy it?PatAg said:You should learn to enjoy things. I feel like he did an amazing job bringing the story to life, to the point where I no longer have my own vision of the stories (aside from how he handled the army of the dead at the end)Solo Tetherball Champ said:Yes and no. Is it all outstanding design? Yep. does some direction of the design feel lazy to me? Yep. Key example: Elves and Dwarves. They made them polar opposites of each other. Does it make identifying either of them simple? Sure. But those designs owe far more to modern fantasy tropes than anything Tolkien wrote.Chase McGuire said:
Something the movie makers probably don't get enough credit for is nailing the aesthetic of Middle-earth. All the cultures and places feel distinct but also mesh so well visually. Rivendell, Minas Tirith, Cirith Ungol, Isengard. Gondorians, Rohirrim, elves, dwarves, hobbits. All of these and more are so immediately recognizable due to outstanding production design, costuming and art. And, of course, inspiration from Tolkein himself. I love the movies as much for bringing this world to life in the way they did as for the adapted story.
However, I honestly think that most decent directors, given a blank check to make three movies from three books, could have at least done what Jackson did. As the movies went on, Jackson increasingly lost sight of what makes this world tick in favor of forced pathos and action. A
I give far more credit to the cast, the cinematograpy, Howard Shore, and the art team. Howard Shore, in particular, bailed Jackson out of some terrible narrative choices that he made. He deserves that Oscar.
I absolutely love Jackson's LOTR trilogy. One of my favorite of my life. I think each is a masterpiece.
I say that as someone that is not a fantasy fan. At all. And I didn't like the books. I tried, I really tried.
I thought the first two in the Hobbit trilogy were decent, serviceable, but not that great. The third was just flat out terrible sans a few cool battle scenes.
The Rohan (sp) cavalry charge in ROTK is honestly one of my favorite scenes in my cinematic history. ROTK is and easy top 10 all time for me.
Not a fantasy fan, as noted, but cautiously optimistic about the series.
I say that as someone that is not a fantasy fan. At all. And I didn't like the books. I tried, I really tried.
I thought the first two in the Hobbit trilogy were decent, serviceable, but not that great. The third was just flat out terrible sans a few cool battle scenes.
The Rohan (sp) cavalry charge in ROTK is honestly one of my favorite scenes in my cinematic history. ROTK is and easy top 10 all time for me.
Not a fantasy fan, as noted, but cautiously optimistic about the series.
I think it's interesting to compare LOTR to some other trilogies or tv series and compare the complaints. LOTR comes off pretty well.
If anything, Jackson should be criticized for not making Gandalf's sword glow around Orcs because he f-cking forgot it was supposed to!
yeah, that's one of those minor gripes I have with it.redline248 said:
If anything, Jackson should be criticized for not making Gandalf's sword glow around Orcs because he f-cking forgot it was supposed to!
redline248 said:
If anything, Jackson should be criticized for not making Gandalf's sword glow around Orcs because he f-cking forgot it was supposed to!
I just figured it was on purpose so that Sting was the only one that did it.
Featured Stories
See All
2026 Lakewood (CA) tight end Caleb Tafua commits to Texas A&M
by Jason Howell
Presenting Texas Aggies United's 'Battle At Reed' Sweepstakes!
by Texas Aggies United
22:08
1d ago
4.9k
Hefner scores 19 as No. 12 A&M overpowers HCU in Friday matinee
by Olin Buchanan
Ar'maj Reed-Adams announces his return to Texas A&M for 2025
by Richard Zane