[Max Leung]

Tyler, it seems like you want it both ways...you say you understand that not everything from the books can be put into the movies, but later on you mention all the little things from the book that should have been added and scenes that should not have been changed! I for one didn't mind the detail changes, as I believe the movie kept the "spirit" of the book intact.

I think in your case, the movie didn't move you, as you were still high on the feeling the books gave you. My advice: Avoid reading the book a movie is based on until after you see the movie. If the book was not interesting enough for you to take it up without requiring months of hype from fans and the movie studio, then don't even bother. Wait for the movie!

I was not even remotely interested in the Harry Potter books when they were first published. Why is it that when the movie is announced, people suddenly have to read the books? People are just setting themselves up to be disappointed! There is absolutely no way that anyone else will have the same vision as you. Absolutely impossible. People still hotly debate the meaning of the bible a thousand years after its publishment. Do you think a movie adaptation of the Old Testament by David Fincher will even remotely match your vision of it? Hell no! (Sure would be fun to watch though... )

A book is always open for interpretation, whereas a movie, by necessity, must choose an interpretation, as the visuals and sound are decidely more objective mediums. Two people can agree that Tom Cruise on the silver screen moves and talks like Tom Cruise. But the character in the book, described only by more abstract letters, words, and sentences, will sound completely different in each person's head. The person must choose his own (unique) interpretation!

I find I always have a far more satisfying experience when I patiently wait to see the movie before pouring over the books. Sure, I risk having visions of a particular actor locked in my head when the character walks into the book, but so far it hasn't bothered me much...if the character as portrayed in the movie strays too far from the book, my mind automatically finds a suitable replacement (i.e. Sting didn't appear in my head when I read Dune a few years after seeing the movie! ).

With that said, here are my experiences with movies that are adaptations of books:

Dune: Didn't read the book until 3 years after the movie came out. I found the movie entertaining enough. Enough that I wanted to read the books later, for I found some of the concepts interesting.

The Princess Bride: Loved the movie. Still don't feel like reading the book.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's stone: Disappointed with the movie. Dry, unemotional, by-the-numbers rendition you'd expect from an ABC-after-school special or a costume-drama-type BBC miniseries. Still don't feel like reading the books yet, but I'll probably get around to it.

Contact: Incredible movie. Raised issues I thought I'd never live to see in a science-fiction film. I was aware of Sagan's work at the time, but never read any of his books. I gobbled up his work starting with The Demon Haunted World, and finally read Contact beginning of this year. Sagan and his wife, Ann Druyen, rewrote the screenplay for the movie, and I thought it was bloody brilliant. The movie and the book complement each other perfectly...taken together they are much much more than the sum of their parts. One of the few cases where the movie and the book actually improve each other.

Fight Club: I didn't appreciate the movie until the 2nd viewing. Never heard of the book, and did not know of the book until after the movie. I would never have read the book anyways. Still don't feel like reading the book.

[Max Leung]

Ooops, I forgot to mention that I had read Lord of the Rings 12-14 years earlier. I purposely did not reread the books again before seeing the movie...I'd rather forget the details from the book instead of being distracted by how PJ's interpretation differs from my own. However, I did retain the book's overall tone and feeling (something that can never be totally shed anyways), and happily me and PJ are on the same wavelength.

[Chuck Mayer]

Marvin,
Excellent post. Many people seem to be mad that PJ omitted "this" scene or "that" scene. I am certain that the scenes in question were personal favorites from the book. So I understand their opinions, but that is reality. The end result of PJ's is far superior to anything I could have imagined. Other points...

1) PJ admitted to being in Bree in a short interview at onering.net (one of the premiere stories).

2) Saruman claims to be working for Sauron, and everyone completely buys that? As Christopher Lee has more familiarity with the trilogy than most (he reads it once a year, at least for the last two DECADES), I imagine he understands his character. I felt he was "serving" Sauron to eventually meet his own ends. He told Lurtz to bring the halflings unharmed to HIM. Do you think he'll hand the ring over to Sauron?????

3) I am biased with regards to the passage of time. I have read the books, and to be honest, it was murky there. PJ handled it well enough for me; I can't speak for everyone else.

4) The effects...people will complain or praise. As long as the effects serve the story, they work. FOTR served the story more admirably than any movie in my lifetime, IMO. Were they TECHNICALLY perfect? No. Were they wondrous and inventive? They were to me. WETA might not have the budget and technical abilities of ILM, but they more than make up for it with ingenuity, passion, and creativity.

5) Forgot this one I thought the Nazgul were handled excellently. They were quite scary to me. The sound, the creepy crawlies, everything. Great stuff!

Take care,
Chuck

[Joseph Young]

Wow... and I thought [rant]I[/rant] was a perfectionist...

I consider myself a pretty harsh critic of missteps in performance and editing technique, and aside from a couple of moments where I felt the pacing felt 'rushed,' I was not 'disappointed' in any way. Peter Jackson's decisions for the film, they were all methodically decided upon long ago as the best possible way to interpret the novels in a cinematic fashion without losing pace or becoming tedious.

Of course, in short, we all have a right to our opinions, and I'm sorry that a few of you were unable to enjoy the film because it didn't hit the right notes for you.

I'm hearing criticisms about no '3 weeks later, 1 day later, 4 months later, one hour later' title cards. All I should say is, if the film didn't sweep you away already, a couple of these additions would not have made the difference for you. Jackson and his team deliberated over these and other decisions long before the film was released. We need to give him credit for understanding that any decision deviating from the book would draw criticism from someone, but said decisions were necessary to turn Lord of the Rings into a cinematic experience. Had some of these inclusions been made, there would have been other criticisms leveled at the film ("I mean, why did Jackson have to insert those title cards every five minutes! They were distracting!")

The sets of rules that exist in the respective mediums of books and films are different. They must be different. It's why such epic adaptions are rarely attempted.

The thing about Tolkien's trilogy... for those of us who have read it multiple times, in many ways it's essentially unfilmable. The fact that Jackson managed to tackle this interpretation with the budget and the time constraints, it's simply remarkable. I consider myself a film snob and in my opinion Jackson hit all the right notes with this one. There were a few very specific moments when I cringed (they all involved fade-outs mixed with slow-mo shots) but when I looked back, had these difficult passages been attempted more literally, the film would not have worked for me.

In short, Jackson's decisions did not give us a note-perfect adaption of the books. Over a year ago, any of us following the project knew that we should not expect that.

I think we HT enthusiasts sometimes suffer a little needlessly. I guess, who can really blame us for wanting a perfect experience... I know sometimes I get distracted and bothered by my uneven brightness problems on my set, or when the sound system in the theater cuts out right as the Balrog appears (like last night).

A film that had followed the book, footnote by footnote, day by day, would not have succeeded as film entertainment, but rather a tedious travelogue, an endless parade of reminders, names, and dates. We read books for this steady rush of information. We watch films to be entertained and moved in a different way, and for me LOTR succeeded.

Cheers,

Joseph

[Hayes Preston]

Thanks for the prompt and thurough answers to my questions Kenneth.

[Tino]

Opening Day Gross..$18.2 million.

Now..is that good or disappointing?

[Tyler Stranik]

I think Max probably hit the nail on the head when he said I was probably still high on the feeling from reading the books. I specifically read the books when I heard about the movie coming out, in hindsight I should have done it the other way around. Don't get me wrong, I DID enjoy the movie, I was "Disappointed" because I was just expecting too much than was possible to deliver in a single film. As impratical as it is, I would have loved a 10 hour Fellowship of the Ring, but that's probably the only way I could have felt satisfied so soon after reading the books. I agree with what the director said that you have to seperate the movie from the book to fully enjoy it. They are not the same, and each should be appreciated for what it is. I really should have known better than to expect any movie to be a perfect transfer from the book. Although I still don't see how reviewers can describe the movie as "Perfect" and "Flawless".

[brian a]

Seeing the film yesterday brought up a question that I never noticed in the books:

How did gandolf get his staff back?


brianca..

[Graham Perks]

Spoilers ahead!

I'm done with complaing about the handing of Lothlorien... (Galadriel's part was the only part of the movie that didn't ring true to me).

My favourite scenes:

Sauron! Wow! Awesome rendition. His fighting, the reaction of the allied army (you can almost hear the collective "oh shit!" they must be saying), and his slaying was marvellous. Great shockwave!

Elrond's "I was there, three thousand years ago" and the subsequent scene in Mount Doom. No Agent Smith to be seen!

Bilbo running around Bag End, making Gandalf's tea.

Frodo's view while he has the ring on - especially when Aragorn comes jumping in with flaming brand. Great effect!

Anytime Frodo gets poked with something sharp :-)

The Council of Elrond was handled very well. In the book it's a long scene with plenty of exposition, and one of my favorites. Nothing like that in the film; excellently done however.

The sense of fear in Moria.

The tree felling.

The pacing in the first half was spot-on. The pacing at the end was great too. It's the trip from Rivendell to the Argonath where the timing falls off - but we get the Moria sequence so that's OK :-)

Hobbiton - just the right amount of time spent there; the party, Gandalf talks with Frodo and Bilbo, all just great!

Aragorn quietly watching Boromir in Rivendell (by the sword).

The Balrog, short on screen time, is rendered wonderfully.

The ending; Sam and Frodo's last few minutes around the boat and looking out towards Mordor.

The timing really bothers me. Having to wait a whole year! Argh!!! :-D

[Kenneth]

Quote:

Opening Day Gross..$18.2 million.

Now..is that good or disappointing?

Wow! Pretty impressive for a midweek opening, especially since not everyone is on holiday yet. With positive word of mouth this could definitely bode well for hitting the $100 million mark in the first 5 days.

Kenneth