Was he right about the LOTR movies?
>>24111244Problems with the movies:- they should have used the ring to wish for better acting skills for Frodo and Legolas- ghosts were gay- Aragorn missing his rallying arc, being a self-doubting pussy, randomly falling into the river- missing a bunch of the Gondor chads- no Eomer going berserk as a last stand in pelennor fields- ending way too long in RoTK
>>24111244I can respect disliking the movies for seeming loud and bombastic in comparison when the book produces a different more meditative contemplative experience.
I liked the movies. Whatever.
>>24111244The movies ruin a ton of characters, rereading the books recently drove that home for me.The movies have a subpar portrayal of, at least:-Aragorn-Faramir-Denethor-Eomer-Merry-Celeborn-Gimli
The movies were pretty incredible considering that the same person who made them then went on to make the Hobbit.
>>24111244he said that the way his father imagined elves look like and the way they are in the movies are very different. Something like "elves dont look like orlando bloom" and ever since I've been wondering, how does tolkiens elves look like?
>>24111244Nah, he's just a bore. The Jackson movies are probably as good of an adaptation of LotR anyone could hope for and easily some of the best movies of all time.
Jackson’s movies improved every single character. Tolkien is shit at characterisation and character arcs. The only book he’s decent at it is Children of Huron.
>>24111299Giga tall Aryans. "Elves" of the movies look like anemic and ugly shit actresses.
>>24111413>Children of Huron
Yes.
>>24111583The books are tripe written for children, so I dont know why he's so angey. Hollywood is full of idiots but they realize they can't bore the audience to sleep with genealogies and bad poetry.
>>24111583Le Guin's take is more sensible.She understood that it was a different medium and needed a different structure. Thought the rhythm of the book is missing, it just doesn't work in cinema. See the latter as inferior all you like. It's okay.
>>24111752Yeah, you have to remember that Christopher Tolkein's idea of a good movie is something like Casablanca. He probably experienced action cinema of the 2000s the same way we experience Marvel slop.
The movies are pretty bad if you watch without nostalgia and pay attention. The character assassination of denethor was insane. I couldn't believe what I was watching. And so is the total lack of interest paid to gimli or legolas.Legoland.And thats just the start.
>>24111757Well, Marvel slop is bad. The same way Hobbit Slop gets.It's real difficult getting a film to work. Like putting on a very complex play exactly once.
>>24111803True, I just mean that it was probably overwhelming for his old eyes.
The movies are about the War and the One Ring. The books are about the Hobbits.
I don't see why the books couldn't work as prestige TV shows. Three seasons, make a season per book, end each season exactly where each book ends. You'd have the space to get EVERYTHING, including the nuances of characters like Eomer and Denethor, including the characters that were left out like Glorfindel and Beregond, including the parts that weren't in the movies like the time with Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire.They're remaking Harry Potter into a TV show, why not LOTR?I wouldn't trust modern Hollywood to do a good job with it, but it COULD be done.
>>24112159>once again Sean Bean dies after one season
>>24112159I've thought about how if I had a spare billion dollars, I'd want to film a 1:1 perfectly accurate TV adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. Not that it'd be a great show but I just want to see what it would look like.
>>24112159Why? I'd rather just read the books than suffer through black Eowyn girlbossing black Aragon. There is nothing that a tv show could offer that wasn't adequately approached by the Jackson films in terms of music and spectacle, everything else is better presented through Tolkien's words directly.
>>24111244Didn't understand the medium or its requirements. Without being an 'art film', it's as good as an adaptation could possibly be, made at just the right moment. To the son's credit, everyone loves the extended versions and would be up for five hour cuts even, just for that kind of exposition and being in the world longer.
>>24111267>ending way too long in RoTKHave you read the book? They cut at least 90% of the final 120 pages
>>24111356True. You can't ask for much more than the Jackson films. As a proper cinephile fartsniffer I can say it's almost a miracle that they're as decent as they are. But this is also true >>24111583. I also hate how the films turn Gimli and Legolas into these anime-tier two-dimensional cutouts that exist for comic relief as per >>24111760.
>>24111244Yes but even though they're not perfect adaptations they're still very good movies.
On the one hand, the trilogy is as good an adaptation as you could ask for from a commercial hollywood production, they're good films and could easily have been a billion times worse.On the other hand, the work doesn't really lend itself to that kind of adaptation, Christopher's view would undoudbtedly be that it shouldn't be adapted at all. The traditional, anti-industrial ethos of the books and their style are just incompatible with big-budget hollywood and streaming productions. Some people seem to think that a work getting a wider audience is always good, but sometimes it's better for the audience to stay small and in tune with what thr work is about.