Predictable Matt wrote:

northman wrote:

In my opinion the exception is the first Hobbit movie which I think is their best take by far. I think their directing style and writing is most suited for lighter material and in this movie they kept it fun for the most part

I feel (or at least I felt, last time I watched them) that the LOTR films were a decent effort, but The Hobbit ones were just poor in terms of script and direction. But my biggest bugbear with The Hobbit films was that they maintained (in my view) more or less the same tone / style / idiom as LOTR. I would have LOVED it if they had tried to reflect the (very different from LOTR) aesthetic of The Hobbit as a book. But that was never on the cards of course, owing to the success of the LOTR films.

I think Guillermo Del Toro’s Hobbit was going to be quite different going by various comments on the making of stuff

I have always felt that Jackson lacks self-control and restraint. He always pushes things beyond where the audience can maintain suspension of disbelief. FotR was good, and then in Moria, we had physics that a 6 year old would face-palm at, and for me the movie was done. In each subsequent instalment we saw leas restraint and more poorly conceived comedy. I want to be immersed, not pulled out by idiotic anachronisms.

The Hobbit movies were utter dross. I tried and gave up (skim-watching the last one). Again, pure excess and idiocy. Floating around on molten metal on thin metal trays? What?

Finally, and this might be controversial - I don’t like Serkis in anything, and this is no exception. His ego is too big and it leads to an exaggerated performance. Peter Woodtborpe’s Gollum is a league ahead (albeit voicework only).

Aragorn - great actor with terrible writing. The extended edition of RotK has him cutting the head off the Mouth of Sauron. It shows just how poorly PJ and Boyens understood Aragorn’s character.

Lovely scenery and visuals (mostly), but overall a letdown. There is one good adaptation, and it was done by the BBC.

The late Stu wrote:

There is one good adaptation, and it was done by the BBC.

I will have to check my contract with Paul Corfield Godfrey but I'm sure that I am contractually obligated to disagree with that last point 😅

I think the LOTR films were great movies. Whether they were great adaptations is a more complex question.

Many readers/viewers equate "great adaptation" with "utterly faithful to the source material" (not LOTR readers/viewers specifically, just speaking in generalities here). The fantastical elements of LOTR essentially require a large budget to adapt them to a visual medium, which requires a studio backing the film, who is going to require the film to be highly profitable, which has a certain formula in Hollywood. That is why there was a greater emphasis on romance and action set-pieces compared to the books when neither of those things are central aspect of the books.

I can't find a quote but I think C. Tolkien's objections at the time were similar: they were action movies that were made to be widely popular, and succeeded in that, but in doing so de-emphasized/deviated from the core theme(s) and message(s) of Tolkien's story.

They were about the best adaptations that could be reasonably expected from a big-budget Hollywood production (in my opinion of course). There had not been a lot of fantasy novel adaptations in recent times around their release that were both critically well received and financially successful. The first Harry Potter movie came out around the same time.

The Hobbit films were lost on me. The first one was a decent enough movie per the standards of the original trilogy (action/adventure movies inspired by a Tolkien story) but I think it was the first movie that was filmed and shown in a higher-than-normal frame rate and it just looked so strange, the entire thing had this weird glow that made it look like a History Channel documentary (hopefully someone knows what I mean here). Then the next two were just a bit of a mess.

Great discussion!

onthetrail wrote:

The late Stu wrote:

There is one good adaptation, and it was done by the BBC.

I will have to check my contract with Paul Corfield Godfrey but I'm sure that I am contractually obligated to disagree with that last point 😅

Ha Ha. I suspect I was being a little narrower with my definition of adaptation!

My definition of adaptation is: ‘The BBC version’ :)

"I know a great deal about it," Wood said. "I've read it [the script]. It's really good. There are some wonderful people involved. The thing that is so exciting is that it is really getting the creative band back together.

"The brain trust behind Lord of the Rings, Fran, Peter, Philippa, they are heavily involved," he continued. "And then, the same production designers. It is going to be shot in New Zealand. So, it is going to carry with it such continuity with so many people who are a part of Lord of the Rings, and I am really excited about that. It feels like getting that old machine up and running again with all of the right people."




https://www.ign.com/articles/lord-of-t ... em_SnvDmlwfuC7Aylhz-Gc17Q

I am very fond of Peter Jackson's films since they introduced me to Tolkien and will always color my own interpretation of it (visually). Though, over the years a few things have crept up that I don't agree with. I even warmed up to the Hobbit movies.
I just disagree with this idea of making more until a "franchise" is bereft of its meaning. I used to love Star Trek and Star Wars and while the latter still has some highlights, the former has become totally bereft of anything that made it interesting to me. I'd hate to see this happen to LotR. Though War of the Rohirrim was something I did enjoy much more than I expected, which makes me a little hopeful for the future.
But I prefer new artistic energy over warming up all that old stuff, not much good comes from it in the long run.

onthetrail wrote:

The late Stu wrote:
There is one good adaptation, and it was done by the BBC.


I will have to check my contract with Paul Corfield Godfrey but I'm sure that I am contractually obligated to disagree with that last point 😅

Well I am NOT contractually obligated to disagree with Stu's point. In my opinion,my subjective opinion yet I know I'm right for all will serve me in the fullness of time;Paul Corfield Godfrey's operatic cycle of the legendarium is the most authentic,the most beautiful, the most moving,the most sublime,the most inclusive, the most artful adaptation(s),nay,artistic works relating to the writings of JRRT that I have come across. Corfield Godfrey's LOTR bookended gloriously by his immense Silmarillion and The Hobbit to follow with every sign that the unique peculiar tone and atmosphere of this singular book will be observed and respected,yet throughout the works Corfield Godfrey's immense musical personality shineth.
“Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time,” Christopher Tolkien sadly observed. “The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away.” Well,if Christopher is indeed looking down then I am positive that he would be staring fixedly in joy at what his dear friend,another Niggle,has produced.

P.S Forgive me Stu if you've yet to hear the works of Corfield Godfrey. Ignore at your peril my friend.

Predictable Matt wrote:

I feel (or at least I felt, last time I watched them) that the LOTR films were a decent effort, but The Hobbit ones were just poor in terms of script and direction. But my biggest bugbear with The Hobbit films was that they maintained (in my view) more or less the same tone / style / idiom as LOTR. I would have LOVED it if they had tried to reflect the (very different from LOTR) aesthetic of The Hobbit as a book. But that was never on the cards of course, owing to the success of the LOTR films.

So agree Matt although I would say that the LOTR films were a very decent effort for all its inherent faults.

Some lovely comments there about Paul's work, thank you Olorin.

I'm fine with the films, they serve a purpose and brought many people to the books. I don't treat the films as primary in any sense and can take or leave them. Some parts I enjoy and others I cringe at. I will add though that Paul is a great believer in adaptation and welcomes many different forms.

Paul was very lucky to share a fruitful correspondence with Christopher Tolkien who very much enjoyed what he heard of the music, going back over many years and he encouraged Paul immensely with enthusiasm and advice, as did Priscilla. They both were champions of Paul's work.

I will add though that even time will tell the same story, that opera is not for everybody. For many, Paul's work, no matter how unique and extraordinary, will not be for them. Thankfully there are many adaptations, none of them for all people, and there will always be the books.