To offer a slightly different take than most with regards to (the first) hobbit movie:
I think this team of ppl in general has done a bad job of bringing Tolkien to the screen so far and i expect this will not change. 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 (the 2 follow-up movies were terrible and i didnt sit through the last one). In general I think their LotR was a failiure - they made light action entertainment out of a rather profound book. There are scenes here and there that made the movies worthwhile to see: the arrival at the pelennor, the bridge of Khazad-dum but of course the former ended in some uninteresting oliphant-surfing CGI mess and the latter ended in several of Jacksons countless slow-mo close-ups of suffering-hobbit-faces that are meant to be moving i guess. I can't but think that we are getting closer and closer to a LotR tv-series (or a movie) made with a fresh set of eyes.

You mean that you didn’t like them.

To call the various accomplishments the LotR films had a failure is incredibly erroneous.

Eye_of_the_Black_Tower wrote:

You mean that you didn’t like them.

To call the various accomplishments the LotR films had a failure is incredibly erroneous.

It's erroneous to write "i think the LotR movies were failiures" (and qualify it)? You are free to disagree with me of course, but I dont think you can tell someone their taste is wrong.

northman wrote:

Eye_of_the_Black_Tower wrote:

You mean that you didn’t like them.

To call the various accomplishments the LotR films had a failure is incredibly erroneous.

It's erroneous to write "i think the LotR movies were failiures" (and qualify it)? You are free to disagree with me of course, but I dont think you can tell someone their taste is wrong.

Everyone has their opinions on the various and ever growing Jackson adaptation empire. I agree with northman no one should be singled out in having that opinion. Eye_of_the_Black_Tower is already treading on thin ice here anyway so any other comments like these from him will get deleted.

The Jackson team's involvement will guarantee that the films will look and sound a certain way. I'm afraid that it will further intrench the causal fan's myopic view of Middle-earth.

Eye_of_the_Black_Tower wrote:

You mean that you didn’t like them.

To call the various accomplishments the LotR films had a failure is incredibly erroneous.

northman gave his take on it, noted at the very top of the comment. There is nothing erroneous in that.

Northman I tend to agree on the failings of the films, and feel very much, like I said earlier that the world they built was great, but that characters were not especially memorable.

I feel that the movies have seen a reassessment from some corners of the Fandom who use them to bash other more recent adaptations (read RoP), especially with regards to characters, which is kind of ironic when we have film Aragorn (a tragedy beyond words in my own opinion).

onthetrail wrote:

I feel that the movies have seen a reassessment from some corners of the Fandom who use them to bash other more recent adaptations (read RoP), especially with regards to characters, which is kind of ironic when we have film Aragorn (a tragedy beyond words in my own opinion).

Well, that's easy when RoP is just a adaptation of the Jackson adaptations IMO

That is an interesting take and one I had not considered. I'll let that stir around for a while before I comment further.

Mr. Underhill wrote:

onthetrail wrote:

I feel that the movies have seen a reassessment from some corners of the Fandom who use them to bash other more recent adaptations (read RoP), especially with regards to characters, which is kind of ironic when we have film Aragorn (a tragedy beyond words in my own opinion).

Well, that's easy when RoP is just a adaptation of the Jackson adaptations IMO

Mr. Underhill wrote:

onthetrail wrote:

I feel that the movies have seen a reassessment from some corners of the Fandom who use them to bash other more recent adaptations (read RoP), especially with regards to characters, which is kind of ironic when we have film Aragorn (a tragedy beyond words in my own opinion).

Well, that's easy when RoP is just a adaptation of the Jackson adaptations IMO

That's an interesting thought. To me, The Rings of Power felt quite different from how Peter Jackson approached and interpreted The Lord of the Rings. In fact, they almost felt like stories from entirely different universes — though that may simply be because RoP is set in the Second Age.

Naturally, the RoP writers had far less established narrative to build on, which led to a great deal of creative interpretation — some of it most definitely being “fan fiction”.

Still, I appreciated several of their interpretations, especially the forging of the Rings and Sauron’s role in that, which I hadn’t fully pieced together myself before watching. Not that it was written as Tolkien would have wanted, but I did appreciate their take on it.

SamwiseTheBrave wrote:

Mr. Underhill wrote:

onthetrail wrote:

I feel that the movies have seen a reassessment from some corners of the Fandom who use them to bash other more recent adaptations (read RoP), especially with regards to characters, which is kind of ironic when we have film Aragorn (a tragedy beyond words in my own opinion).

Well, that's easy when RoP is just a adaptation of the Jackson adaptations IMO

That's an interesting thought. To me, The Rings of Power felt quite different from how Peter Jackson approached and interpreted The Lord of the Rings. In fact, they almost felt like stories from entirely different universes — though that may simply be because RoP is set in the Second Age.

Naturally, the RoP writers had far less established narrative to build on, which led to a great deal of creative interpretation — some of it most definitely being “fan fiction”.

Still, I appreciated several of their interpretations, especially the forging of the Rings and Sauron’s role in that, which I hadn’t fully pieced together myself before watching. Not that it was written as Tolkien would have wanted, but I did appreciate their take on it.

I don't see how it could feel quite different, it was easy to catch many of the one liners and dialogue that was lifted directly from Jackson. Not to mention the characters speak exactly how the characters speak and sound in his films. Season one was shot in NZ, costumes very similar, etc...

The forging of the Rings was very much not how Tolkien wrote it, which has been pointed out many times.

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.