Friday, December 28, 2012
What do folks like about Jackson's 'Lord of the Rings'?
...and third, having spoken somewhat at length about the series' flaws, I would very much like to know what it is people appreciate about the film versions of Tolkien's big old book. I have heard appreciation of Jackson for pulling such a big project together, but little else, specifically. For films so financially successful and with such an enthusiastic following...well, tell me, folks, what do you like about them? The world created? The characters, despite their angsty, vulnerable modernness? The visual effects? Sets? Costumes? Plot? Humor? What is it about these films (besides the Balrog scene, which almost everyone likes, I think), which deviate so markedly from their source material in both necessary (Tom Bombadil) and unnecessary (the strange dumbing down of characters and the changing of the dramatic end to the battle around Minas Tirith) ways, that makes everyone my age own the extended versions on DvD? I would love to hear your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When I saw The Fellowship of the Ring, I rather enjoyed it. It was visually impressive, yet emotionally rather shallow and inconsistently plotted, action movie. A lot of people also love the movie The Rock, which is impressive to watch (and even more, listen to), even if the story and the characters are basically nonsensical (although Ed Harris does have a standout moment before he gets fragged). Nevertheless, I considered the The Fellowship of the Ring a failure, for the same reason that I considered The Phantom Menace a failure.
ReplyDeleteThe reason is that the standards should be higher when there is preexisting material to which the film should rightfully be compared. For Star Wars Episode I, there were the other three films; for The Fellowship of the Ring, there was the novel it was based on. Creating the two films posed different challenges for the filmmakers (creating a whole new visual universe, versus creating a whole new storyline), but both of the efforts were seriously wanting.
If you didn't know anything about the background for either of those films, they could be watched as thin (but oddly ambitious) action adventure fare. I suspect a lot of people don't read serious fantasy or don't really take more sophisticated fantasy as seriously as it deserves, and so they don't judge the Lord of the Rings films as harshly as they deserve. In contrast, everyone knows how good the original Star Wars films were, and so the prequels are much more apt to get panned by people who care about such things even a little.
I think they made the epics more accessible -- it's hard to wade through the archaic language and setting, the battle scenes can be (surprisingly) boring, and I was constantly getting confused and lost because I had trouble following Tolkein's detailed descriptions of absolutely everything. It's possible to go too far with "accessible," of course, and at points Jackson clearly did so, but it was nice to get a visual picture of an epic fantasy landscape.
ReplyDeleteI think you're right, pfeng--but I think you can make fantasy accessible without dumbing it down (which I think Jackson does), and I'd like to see something closer to that sweet spot. You know?
ReplyDelete