I enjoyed the films 20 years ago when I watched them in theaters, but now I wish there had been a more faithful adaptation. I don't think it was ever really possible, but it's fun to dream.
Lord of The Rings
I enjoyed the films 20 years ago when I watched them in theaters, but now I wish there had been a more faithful adaptation. I don't think it was ever really possible, but it's fun to dream.
No one is insane enough to do what Jackson did. You’ll have to wait until ai gets better and spergs use Jackson’s and Howe’s creative assets to make a faithful rendition
Jackson is a hack who changed things for no reason. I hope he gets ass cancer.
I imagine a good 80-90% of these types of posts are made by people who have never read anything Tolkien wrote.
nta, but I have read The Lord of the Rings multiple times and I agree 100%: Jackson is a hack. Most of the changes were pointless at best and he flat out ruined several characters. Ass cancer is probably too good for him, but it's acceptable.
>he flat out ruined several characters
what characters were ruined and how where they ruined?
Based on what? You either haven't read the books and are projecting, or you have read the books and are up your own ass.
The scenes mostly lifted directly from the book are the ones that hold up, the scenes mostly invented/modified by jackson are the ones that have issues. His pre/post-LoTR filmography is all the proof you need he is/was a hack, it was only by directly adapting Tolkien's writing did he ever achieve greatness.
>the scenes mostly invented/modified by jackson are the ones that have issues.
you think the movies would have been better paced if sam and frodo's battle with shelob happened in Two Towers instead of Return of the king?
Studio probably makes you add stupid stuff to a point as well.
It's very sad to think that the statement "this is the best we are going to get" is completely accurate when it comes to the Jackson movies.
You will never see a great adaptation of Lord of the Rings.
Who would be the director of your ideal adaptation? For me it's Peter Weir.
Akira Kurosawa.
The animation is still the best adaptation.
For the Hobbit, absolutely.
wtf are you on about? the 3 movies are considered one of the greatest movies of all time, jesus christ you homies have some insane standards
>the 3 movies are considered one of the greatest movies of all time
lol no, not outside of your favourite subreddit anyway.
They are not even considered in the top100 films of the 21st century
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20160819-the-21st-centurys-100-greatest-films
oh yeah because the israelites at bbc who, by the way destroyed the doctor who franchise, would know what a good movie looks like
>bbc
>Boyhood at #5
Wow great list BBC
Huh? We have maybe 2 years at best until Ai can create an animated video simply by feeding the book. You couldnt be more wrong. The days of pozzed adaptations are coming to an end
Im looking forward to being able to swap actors
I want to the movie with the cumtown boys, gay actor michael douglas, and jeff goldbloom
I love the movies, but could never get into the books. Sell me on what makes them great.
>sell me
No. You don't "have to" like everything.
The movies are not Lord of the Rings
Jackson just piggy backed off the success of one of the most beloved British novels of all time to make a 21st century American action movie.
The characters you see in the movies do not appear in the books, all of them are vastly different people. The only connection they have is by name, same as the movies itself.
/thread
Thank you for restoring in me a tiny shred of hope for Humanity, Anon.
Peter Jackson isn’t American
These books are unreadable. Needlessly long, too much random bs and singing, and a dull cliched plot
How is it cliched you stupid homosexual? It set the tropes it doesn't follow them. And how is 300 pages "needlessly long" you ADHD addled zoomer moron.
Stick to Harry Potter and Eragon, homosexual.
You being a moron is the problem. Not the books.
>hating songs in LotR
don't worry anon, i did not like them too when i was a kid.
Now I know by heart song of durin, song of earendil or about beren and luthien.
Pseuds will disagree, but Tolkien prose and poetry both was the slickiest shit.
?si=VOhtsdK9gpLmExfX
They hate him for he spoke the truth
Are they the best adaptations of the books: No
Are they the best adaptations given the way the movie industry works: Yes
In a perfect world, Stanley Kubrick would've made them, and they would've been ethereal. At least we got great LOTR movies, it could've been worse.
I am the biggest kubrick fanboy out there, but I cannot imagine a good Kubrick adaptation. This kind of wonder and whimsy fascination with magical forces just isn't the kind topic Kubrick would have been interested in
Agreed. I hate to even bring him up, but you'd need some hyper-autist like Zack Snyder to even *attempt* a straight adaptation, and then you just have to worry about the execution, so yeah....prolly never getting a good one.
>In a perfect world, Stanley Kubrick would've made them, and they would've been ethereal.
Certainly that would have been beautiful.
However it would not have been a perfect adaptation.
Kubrick made god-like films and part of the reason for that was drawing on great novels to work with. However he would ALWAYS put his own spin on things. If he adapted LOTR it would be radically different from the book.
Personally I think the ideal adaptation for LOTR would be a high-budget mini-series (with competent directors, etc.)
Then we are no longer bound to the requirements of films for length, pacing... so that we can take time to let things go slow, or have the Bombadil and Scouring chapters, and so on.
Cinemaphile always invokes the "it would be better as a miniseries" but I don't think ~3 hour movie per book is not enough. Jackson massively inflated the action sequences and put in shit he made up. Two Towers is like 50% bloat. Even Fellowship, while the least messy, has a drawn out video game fight against the cave troll, the breaking bridge on the way out of Moria, and the Uruk-hai attack. Shit that could be taken out entirely or cut down to just the important moments. Even the opening narration and flashback to the second age, which was Jackson telling the impatient audience that there will be epic action later if they just sit through all the "boring" hobbit stuff.
I agree entirely on the there being too much focus on action.
> Two Towers is like 50% bloat
Yes it's funny to me how because of all the made up stuff, they moved a ton of actual Two Towers material into RotK, creating more problems for that movie in terms of density.
I totally agree it would be possible to make cleaner set of movies.
However I still think a mini-series would be best. There are many scenes and whole chapters which are not in the movies. I really don't care if they "can" be condensed away, I think they should be seen anyway. Now I don't mean every single thing, but there are many aesthetically and thematically interesting moments which I think would be great to see on screen.
I just don't like the idea of cutting the narrative arcs in each book into two or three parts. A book being split into chapters that you can read at your own pace works because it's a different medium, but film has innate "rhythm". Like if you split Fellowship into however many episodes they won't individually have satisfying arcs or pacing as films unless you take as many liberties as Jackson did.
The books are already split into two parts each, you simpleton.
>1h per episode
>producer demands at least one action scene and one (interracial) sex scene per episode
How come nobody pays for anything in Middle Earth?
Same. I think whatever we have in our imaginations will always be the best adaptation. Jackson's movies are fun and the dedication to detail and the huge effort put into them shows they were made with love, but they're not Tolkien, but just a small part of a dream. I wish they didn't become the "face" of Tolkien's works though, if I see one more art nouveau Elf in plate...
Seeing as how shitty the adaptation for the netflix series went, we were lucky to get LotR movies made when they were. It really would have been just marvel quips and all cgi like the Hobbit movies or black Aragorn and Frodo fighting Nazi Sauron to save the alphabet people
Although it would have been nice if Gimli didn't get the short end of the stick, they really messed with his character a lot and lumped him in as the comic relief. Making him oblivious to the state of Moria for some reason was really odd.
A lot of the characters got done dirty by Jackson and whoever else was the screenwriter for the trilogy. Frodo got turned into a complete pussy and a fool. Merry got turned into Pippin. Gimli was turned into a drooling moron. Sam lost his education and wisdom. Aragorn became afraid of being a king. Treebeard became an oblivious idiot. Faramir became a b***h. It just goes on like that.
I can kinda understand what they did to Gimli. They are making these movies for the average popcorn-muncher. You hace Aragorn, the wise and future king, you have Gandalf, the wise wizard, you have Legolas, who's also wise on matters. Gimli would be totally forgettable if he was just another wise and stoic dude.
Also Denethor, Isildur, Elrond in a lesser degree.
And Denethor was completely butchered. It genuinely pisses me off seeing how much they botched it when all they need to do was film a scene with him being consternated as he looks at the palantir.
book Denethor is based, he BTFO'd Gandalf's secret strategy even though he still got beat in the end.
Yeah, Denethor is a very tragic figure and he really should've had some explanation as to why he was the way he was. He was damaged through the use of a palantir and an ongoing a battle of wills with Sauron.
A more faithful adaptation is possible, it would just require an additional 2 or 3 movies. Simply getting to rivendel could be a movie all on its own with a proper old forest and barrow downs sequence.
>a proper old forest and barrow downs sequence
its a pacing killer. None of those scenes add to the plot. Not everything in a book translates to the screen.
>He was damaged through the use of a palantir and an ongoing a battle of wills with Sauron.
yeah, i think just putting another palantir in the minas tirith throne room and have gandlaf throw some suspicious glances at it would have fixed all of that. But all in all, its relatively minor.
>Are they the best adaptations of the books: No
>Are they the best adaptations given the way the movie industry works: Yes
this is what everyone needs to swallow. If they were made by any one other than Jackson, there would have been Black folk everywhere.
>>a proper old forest and barrow downs sequence
>its a pacing killer. None of those scenes add to the plot. Not everything in a book translates to the screen.
That's where merry and Pippin actually got their westernesse weapons, one of which actually killed the witch king. I think that adds to the plot significantly.
Ah i see, you are an autist that doesn't even know what a plot is. opinion discarded.
No, and if all you have to add is shit post the trash can is thattaway.
The plot of a hypothetical first movie would center around the discovery of the true nature of Bilbos ring and the journey to rivendel to seek guidance from the elves.
There are many facets of the story that were left out entirely and could've been leveraged.
Where the hobbits got some swords isnt a plot point ya fricking ESL.
>The plot of a hypothetical first movie would center around the discovery of the true nature of Bilbos ring and the journey to rivendel to seek guidance from the elves.
how many movies have you made since you are trying to claim to being an authority here?
>There are many facets of the story that were left out entirely and could've been leveraged.
14 hours aint enough for you ESL? I swear shit skins should be banned from this site.
i accept your concession.
This and Tom Bombadil is exactly the kind of stupid shit I knew people meant when they complained about Jackson. Just random jerkoff lore bullshit and a random tonally inconsistent character that should be removed from the books rather than added to the movies.
The barrow sword enables Merry to get the assist on the Witch King so it has plot relevance. Putting the barrow scene after Brie but before Weathertop would be best. Just make some excuse to get rid of Aragorn for a while.
>so it has plot relevance.
Three questions for you.
1. Was is a plot?
2. What is the plot to LotR?
3. Is where Merry gets the sword part of the story or part of the plot?
I think the bigger problem is the fact that book Gimli is unironically one of the best characters in the series. Out of all the book fellowship members Gimli honestly might be the best written after Aragorn, and that is mainly because Tolkien had a clear fondness for Dwarves.
i'm reading the Silmarillion right now and it's straight fire homies. the way this wordsmith conjures his world for our care is reminiscent of the Lord Jesus Christ pitying our strife and subsequently giving us salvation in our time to come, probably because the graces emanate from Our Father who art in Heaven, without whom we would not be able to enjoy splendors such as these.
I enjoyed the movies before the books. I read the silmarillion first that was hard to get going but as soon as it started going it was actually better than lotr. Lotr was fine too, I enjoyed it, but it felt so much smaller. Having read the books I think they could've rather easily been made into movies and tv shows. Maybe not in the 00s when shit was just corny as hell, but right about now would've been a great time. I guess the biggest problem now is that they would be under pressure from other israelites to put Black folk and homosexuals in it but ignoring that media has gotten a little more gritty now, so where as media in the 90s and 00s was quite naive and infantile, soft and glittery like music of that age pretty much was, there is way more dynamics to be achieved now with what technology can provide. There was a lot of filler shit in the Jackson films but with the runtime it had, all the filler could've been cut out and replaced with material from the books like Tom Bombadil. He plays a small role in the books but is actually one of the oldest, perhaps the oldest being in existence of that universe.
A faithful adaptation would be possible to do now and it should be done now. The Amazon series showed everyone, even the greasy israelites who ruined it, that putting in Black folk and depraving everything will not produce good results. No money to be made, no one saw it so they cannot demoralize people further, the israelites got nothing.
Lotr is a very refreshing contrast to the gritty meme
>doesn't know about silmarillion
I liked the movies but the books put me to sleep. I just don't give a shit about troop movements, genealogies, nonsensical poems, and all the ancillary shit. 'Worldbuilding' bores me to tears
Imagine if homies starting singing every 10 minutes
Literally just imagine that shit
A faithful adaptation of LOTR is a musical
People did this before they started spending all their time with electronic devices.
>All the dwarves get out instruments and start playing and singing after dinner
god imagine how great things would be if we were like that
Yeah that would be so cringe frfr no cap, they should make Tolkien more modern like RoP, now that shit was bussin.
id like a snyder directed silmarillion movie tbh
For me, it's The Children of Hurin. Something that's way easier to adapt to either the silver screen or a limited run series.
In a decade or so though. When people aren't shoehorning PoC into everything to challenge beauty standards or something.
>sophoclean tragedy in the Arda setting
yeh it could be good but I doubt a bunch of heebs would be interested in adapting that
WHERE ARE IS THE HOURS LONG ENTMOOT????? AAAAH JACKSON MAN IM GOING INSANE!!!!!!!!
You are all so fricking stupid.
The only way to adapt LotR is as a musical piece.
Because that's what the LotR story and reality is, it's a reality made of music.
So you can't adapt it to visuals because it's only faithful to adapt it through the divine song of God.
Jackson's movies do not convey the biblical mythicality of the Lord of the Rings and instead are just that, movies. Moving pictures projected on a screen with a sound recording. It has no spiritual value, unlike Lord of the Rings which is the western creation mythical epic that elevates the european collective soul and deserves better.
>Jackson's movies do not convey the biblical mythicality of the Lord of the Rings
I disagree. I think the movies do a fine job in this aspect.
You're burger-brained nincompoops and nothing more. False faithful, soulless consumers.
Lets see your adaption of Lord of the Rings since it would be so much better.
Jackson's movies do have a spiritual aspect and contain the European spirit. Rivendell comes to mind, and Enya's contributions. The very nature of the story is hard to depict without that, the triumph of simple good natured folk over insurmountable evil with the help of providence.
Even, I think, Jackson's humor doesn't detract from that. His action scenes are too much though, I do agree with that criticism some people have.
This shit is for kids.
Tolkien's literature is foundational - "for kids" misses the entire point of it.
Based book appreciator, and same. Have you read the Silmarillion OP? I found an ebook copy of it but have yet to read it.
A faithful LoTR adaptation woould be the bees knees.
It's no accident that the best parts of the movies are when the characters are directly speaking dialogue from the books.
morons think adapting a book means filming page 1 then filming page 2 then filming page 3 lmao
Bro you were lucky as hell it was as good as it was. We will never get better.
Schlock for women and gays
Gaaaaayyyyyy