So a little while ago another thrall and I were discussing differences between The Hobbit and The Desolation of Smaug. I was then told to take it to the forums. So go ahead! Discuss your hatred of the movies to your hearts content! Plot errors, discrepancies, awkward moments, and things that just get on your nerves. Azog, Lurtz, Tauriel, go ahead! Because let's face it, the movies are wonderful, but who can forget the truck?
-
Welcome to MCME! Minecraft Middle Earth is a Minecraft community that recreates the world described by JRR Tolkien and his writings. Everyone can participate in organized events in which we collaborate to create major landmarks, terrain, caves, castles, towns, farms and more.
To get started, visit The New Player GuideJoining the server
Joining the server can be done straight away, but you will have to pass the New Player Quiz. Use the The New Player Guide to get acquainted with our community.
IP: build.mcmiddleearth.com
Curse You Peter Jackson!
- Thread starter 4phoenix
- Start date
pourtugueseguy
Slab Fanatic
- Credits
- 0
- XP
- 0
What Truck?
When Fellowship of the Ring was first shown in theaters, a truck could be seen in the background of a shot done in the Shire. You won't find any images of it, it was edited out before release on DVD, but if you look closely you can still see a dust cloud where it used to be.
pheonixsang
Worthy of Mordor
- Credits
- 0
- XP
- 0
You do realize that movie goofs do happen and are sometimes unavoidable right?
At least Peter Jackson had the sense of mind to erase it before the DVD release. There are plenty movies that don't do this, the one that comes to mind the most is Terminator 2: Judgment Day. If you sit down and watch just the Theatrical version, you'll be able to spot over 100 goofs before the end of the movie. During one of the action scenes a crewmember walks into the camera shot, quickly realizes he's made a mistake, and ducks out of view.
Some things just can't be helped, but why does this one error make both movies bad?
There are a multitude of things that go into making a film, and you can't make one thing absolutely perfect. It is going to be messed up, continuity-wise or other goofs, in some step along the process. Most commonly in editing. The camera will show someone with their hand in a certain position during a conversation, the camera will cut to another angle and the actors hand will be in an entirely different direction or position alltogether.
At least Peter Jackson had the sense of mind to erase it before the DVD release. There are plenty movies that don't do this, the one that comes to mind the most is Terminator 2: Judgment Day. If you sit down and watch just the Theatrical version, you'll be able to spot over 100 goofs before the end of the movie. During one of the action scenes a crewmember walks into the camera shot, quickly realizes he's made a mistake, and ducks out of view.
Some things just can't be helped, but why does this one error make both movies bad?
There are a multitude of things that go into making a film, and you can't make one thing absolutely perfect. It is going to be messed up, continuity-wise or other goofs, in some step along the process. Most commonly in editing. The camera will show someone with their hand in a certain position during a conversation, the camera will cut to another angle and the actors hand will be in an entirely different direction or position alltogether.
Because we are a "Tolkien" related forum, not a "Jackson" related forum. And un-surprisingly Chris Tolkien is rather pissed off with Peter Jackson for the things he's done to his father's work. Not to mention JRR himself is probably rolling over in his grave.
My friends were mad at my complaints about the Hobbit DoS (we got to go watch it in school). Some I found not inaccurate to book, but really just physically impossible (and rather funny) like when one of the dwarves is in a barrel and is rolling around hitting every Orc exactly. I really didn't like how they added all of the stuff with Gandalf and the Necromancer. I mean, ok, it's cool, but it isn't really important to the storyline. Then my absolute least favorite mess-up: Beorn. I don't like how he tries to KILL them. Then Jackson takes away all of the mystery by making him explain why he can turn into a bear, and then they go away right when Beorn comes in (another that's a bit dumb is his hair, it isn't BLOND it's BLACK, thank you very much).
well, as i'm sure you would agree, its immensely important to lore, although not necessarily to the storyline of the hobbit itself. Although even then i would say it (gandalf going to dol guldur) is important from a literary perspective, because it shows character development progressing without the aid and/or tutelage of wizard gandalf. About that jackson chose to actually show this happening, I was quite happy. I would rather deviate from the plot of the book and show what gandalf is doing there than leave it as such a mystery like in the book; besides, the design for dol guldur is awesome (not exactly lore accurate though).
because movies, because audience, because we can't read the mind of the director, because because because
just a voice gets boring after a while
- Credits
- 0
- XP
- 0
Chris Tolkien was pissed off about LOTR? Ya I would be pissed about the film getting 11 Oscars....oh wait no I wouldn't.
arcusthehero
Another Moria Worker
- Credits
- 0
- XP
- 0
don't be hatin
Winning Awards doesn't mean all too much in my opinion. That being said, i though the Lotr films were great. And i was able to look past most lore discrepancies because they were minor, and generally necessary in most cases. But i also i understand the Tolkien estates frustration with the changes.
The Hobbit however is a completely different matter to me. I dont enjoy them as films that much (too much cgi, over the top cliches, and some really weird, pointless, and ridiculous scenes). Moreover, the lore changes in lotr were more minor (elves instead of Erkenbrand/cutting out things such as bombadil/druedain/etc.). Whereas Jackson has totally changed the nature of the story of the Hobbit. Going from a children's story, that i always considered more a folks tale in nature, to some really obscure violent action movie where the dwarves are ninja-action heroes, having love triangles with elves. Not to mention the introduction of completely new antagonists that just change the atmosphere entirely.
But again, that's just my opinion on the matter. I understand movies are never going to be what we imagined from the book. But in this case it was an intended Butchery. But, whatever, complaining doesn't change anything.
The Hobbit however is a completely different matter to me. I dont enjoy them as films that much (too much cgi, over the top cliches, and some really weird, pointless, and ridiculous scenes). Moreover, the lore changes in lotr were more minor (elves instead of Erkenbrand/cutting out things such as bombadil/druedain/etc.). Whereas Jackson has totally changed the nature of the story of the Hobbit. Going from a children's story, that i always considered more a folks tale in nature, to some really obscure violent action movie where the dwarves are ninja-action heroes, having love triangles with elves. Not to mention the introduction of completely new antagonists that just change the atmosphere entirely.
But again, that's just my opinion on the matter. I understand movies are never going to be what we imagined from the book. But in this case it was an intended Butchery. But, whatever, complaining doesn't change anything.
Christopher Tolkien dosen't care how many Oscars the movie won, he merely wanted an accurate interpretation of his fathers work in the cinema. Can you really blame him for being annoyed about someone unfaithfully editing his fathers work?
Furthermore, Chris doesn't approve of the commercialisation of Middle-earth.
Last edited:
- Credits
- 0
- XP
- 0
Check this link out.
http://goo.gl/p0bZXH
http://goo.gl/p0bZXH
Very good reas, strongly recomend it, especially to those of you who insist on building everything exactly to the movies.
- Credits
- 0
- XP
- 0
I think the awards the movie won were very important, more than all the little discrepancies. With all the awards ROTK won, it just shows you they did pretty much everything right they possibly could have done making the movie. You could argue it is one of the best movies out in a long time and you would be right to say so. I understand his father wrote the book and all, but there are reasons Jackson did what he did, and a version exactly like the book would have been garbage on film. It's very unfair to the people who wrote the story to say they were unfaithful to the book. Watch all the extra footage, see how much work and research they did to make the movies and then say they are unfaithful.
No one here is arguing they were bad movies, in fact, I'm willing to bet that the majority of people loved the movies. But that doesn't mean there weren't problems with them from a lore perspective (i have seen all the additional footage btw and it's very good), I think the main issue with the movies is that they laid the road for more non-canonical horrors in other areas. As Chris rightfully said, people no longer use the books as their primary source, they use the movies.
pheonixsang
Worthy of Mordor
- Credits
- 0
- XP
- 0
As someone who can't read the books, I'm not a fan of his writing style, but loves the story and the world; the films are what opened my mind into fantasy in books. To say that they (the films) are crap because they aren't 100% faithful to the books is absurd. Take Harry Potter for instance, all of the films are wonderful; but are they all 100% accurate to the books? No. Even the first two, which are far closest to the books than any other film.
I take my leave from this thread before the discussion gets anymore heated, but I'll just let this remain here. Some very wise and thoughtful words by Film-Critic Roger Ebert upon watching the first LOTR film. He still, by the end of the trilogy, marked them all with very positive remarks.
"If the books are about brave little creatures who enlist powerful men and wizards to help them in a dangerous crusade, the movie is about powerful men and wizards who embark on a dangerous crusade, and take along the Hobbits. That is not true of every scene or episode, but by the end "Fellowship" adds up to more of a sword and sorcery epic than a realization of the more naive and guileless vision of J. R. R. Tolkien.
The chapter "The Bridge of Khazad-Dum" provides the basis for perhaps the most sensational action scene in the film, in which Gandalf the wizard stands on an unstable rock bridge over a chasm, and must engage in a deadly swordfight with the monstrous Balrog. This is an exciting scene, done with state-of-the-art special effects and sound that shakes the theater. In the book, I was not surprised to discover, the entire scene requires less than 500 words.
Reading it, I remembered why I liked it in the first place. It was reassuring. You could tell by holding the book in your hands that there were many pages to go, many sights to see, many adventures to share. I cherished the way it paused for songs and poems, which the movie has no time for. Like The Tale of Genji, which some say is the first novel, "Lord of The Rings" is not about a narrative arc or the growth of the characters, but about a long series of episodes in which the essential nature of the characters is demonstrated again and again (and again). The ring, which provides the purpose for the journey, serves Tolkien as the ideal MacGuffin, motivating an epic quest while mostly staying right there on a chain around Frodo Baggins' neck.
Peter Jackson, the New Zealand director who masterminded this film (and two more to follow, in a $300 million undertaking), has made a work for, and of, our times. It will be embraced, I suspect, by many Tolkien fans and take on aspects of a cult. It is a candidate for many Oscars. It is an awesome production in its daring and breadth, and there are small touches that are just right; the Hobbits may not look like my idea of Hobbits (may, indeed, look like full-sized humans made to seem smaller through visual trickery), but they have the right combination of twinkle and pluck in their gaze--especially Elijah Wood as Frodo and Ian Holm as the worried Bilbo.
That "Fellowship of the Ring" doesn't match my imaginary vision of Middle-earth is my problem, not yours. Perhaps it will look exactly as you think it should. In a statement last week, Tolkien's son Christopher, who is the "literary protector" of his father's works, said, "My own position is that 'The Lord of the Rings' is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form." That is probably true, and Jackson, instead of transforming it, has transmuted it, into a sword-and-sorcery epic in the modern style, containing many of the same characters and incidents."
I take my leave from this thread before the discussion gets anymore heated, but I'll just let this remain here. Some very wise and thoughtful words by Film-Critic Roger Ebert upon watching the first LOTR film. He still, by the end of the trilogy, marked them all with very positive remarks.
"If the books are about brave little creatures who enlist powerful men and wizards to help them in a dangerous crusade, the movie is about powerful men and wizards who embark on a dangerous crusade, and take along the Hobbits. That is not true of every scene or episode, but by the end "Fellowship" adds up to more of a sword and sorcery epic than a realization of the more naive and guileless vision of J. R. R. Tolkien.
The chapter "The Bridge of Khazad-Dum" provides the basis for perhaps the most sensational action scene in the film, in which Gandalf the wizard stands on an unstable rock bridge over a chasm, and must engage in a deadly swordfight with the monstrous Balrog. This is an exciting scene, done with state-of-the-art special effects and sound that shakes the theater. In the book, I was not surprised to discover, the entire scene requires less than 500 words.
Reading it, I remembered why I liked it in the first place. It was reassuring. You could tell by holding the book in your hands that there were many pages to go, many sights to see, many adventures to share. I cherished the way it paused for songs and poems, which the movie has no time for. Like The Tale of Genji, which some say is the first novel, "Lord of The Rings" is not about a narrative arc or the growth of the characters, but about a long series of episodes in which the essential nature of the characters is demonstrated again and again (and again). The ring, which provides the purpose for the journey, serves Tolkien as the ideal MacGuffin, motivating an epic quest while mostly staying right there on a chain around Frodo Baggins' neck.
Peter Jackson, the New Zealand director who masterminded this film (and two more to follow, in a $300 million undertaking), has made a work for, and of, our times. It will be embraced, I suspect, by many Tolkien fans and take on aspects of a cult. It is a candidate for many Oscars. It is an awesome production in its daring and breadth, and there are small touches that are just right; the Hobbits may not look like my idea of Hobbits (may, indeed, look like full-sized humans made to seem smaller through visual trickery), but they have the right combination of twinkle and pluck in their gaze--especially Elijah Wood as Frodo and Ian Holm as the worried Bilbo.
That "Fellowship of the Ring" doesn't match my imaginary vision of Middle-earth is my problem, not yours. Perhaps it will look exactly as you think it should. In a statement last week, Tolkien's son Christopher, who is the "literary protector" of his father's works, said, "My own position is that 'The Lord of the Rings' is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form." That is probably true, and Jackson, instead of transforming it, has transmuted it, into a sword-and-sorcery epic in the modern style, containing many of the same characters and incidents."