Question:
His review of TTT is up on his site today, and it makes strange reading.
He basically accuses Jackson of selling Tolkien out to a more mainstream action audience, and says he hasn't remained true to the story, by shifting the emphasis from the hobbits to the others and giving them more action scenes.
As he has read the books, albeit a long time ago, I thought this was a strange thing to say as that IS what happens in the book.
The last paragraph is the killer:
"The Two Towers" will possibly be more popular than the first film, more of an audience-pleaser, but hasn't Jackson lost the original purpose of the story somewhere along the way? He has taken an enchanting and unique work of literature and retold it in the terms of the modern action picture. If Tolkien had wanted to write about a race of supermen, he would have written a Middle-Earth version of "Conan the Barbarian." But no. He told a tale in which modest little hobbits were the heroes. And now Jackson has steered the story into the action mainstream. To do what he has done in this film must have been awesomely difficult, and he deserves applause, but to remain true to Tolkien would have been more difficult, and braver.
From - http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-lord18f.html
Unfortunately I wont see the film until Sunday, but can other people hopefully confirm that it is still following the book?
I can see his point though. I do think the way Jackson chooses to focus on the battles is a little excessive, particularly when it means losing out on some of the more in-depth character moments. That was always my biggest problem with the first film, and it sounds to me like the second one is more of the same.
Originally posted by The Bear
Unfortunately I wont see the film until Sunday, but can other people hopefully confirm that it is still following the book?
It apparently is close to the book but the prologue, with Gandalf at Hogwarts is a new, crowd-pleasing addition and the hologram of the Death Star that Saruman carries with him is a knowing nod to the fans of Star Wars.
I'm just kidding... I can't believe that Peter Jackson would stray too far from the book, although I believe there are some differences. Who knows, maybe the inevitable directors cut next year will bring it closer...
Originally posted by andrew_lee
[B]the prologue, with Gandalf at Hogwarts is a new, crowd-pleasing addition
:lol: :thumbs:
The way I see it, the books are a mixture of some very longwinded character bits where not much happens and some real action / excitement, push the plot along bits.
Now, if you've got to condense them down into three films of three hours each, which bits are you going to leave out?
Maybe they aren't completely true to the books in every aspect, but I certainly feel that they have all the important bits from the boots and certainly maintain the feeling and enjoyment that I got out of them.
He basically accuses Jackson of selling Tolkien out to a more mainstream action audience, and says he hasn't remained true to the story, by shifting the emphasis from the hobbits to the others and giving them more action scenes.
As he has read the books, albeit a long time ago, I thought this was a strange thing to say as that IS what happens in the book.
The last paragraph is the killer:
"The Two Towers" will possibly be more popular than the first film, more of an audience-pleaser, but hasn't Jackson lost the original purpose of the story somewhere along the way? He has taken an enchanting and unique work of literature and retold it in the terms of the modern action picture. If Tolkien had wanted to write about a race of supermen, he would have written a Middle-Earth version of "Conan the Barbarian." But no. He told a tale in which modest little hobbits were the heroes. And now Jackson has steered the story into the action mainstream. To do what he has done in this film must have been awesomely difficult, and he deserves applause, but to remain true to Tolkien would have been more difficult, and braver.
From - http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-lord18f.html
Unfortunately I wont see the film until Sunday, but can other people hopefully confirm that it is still following the book?
Answers:
I can see his point though. I do think the way Jackson chooses to focus on the battles is a little excessive, particularly when it means losing out on some of the more in-depth character moments. That was always my biggest problem with the first film, and it sounds to me like the second one is more of the same.
Answers:
Originally posted by The Bear
Unfortunately I wont see the film until Sunday, but can other people hopefully confirm that it is still following the book?
It apparently is close to the book but the prologue, with Gandalf at Hogwarts is a new, crowd-pleasing addition and the hologram of the Death Star that Saruman carries with him is a knowing nod to the fans of Star Wars.
I'm just kidding... I can't believe that Peter Jackson would stray too far from the book, although I believe there are some differences. Who knows, maybe the inevitable directors cut next year will bring it closer...
Answers:
Originally posted by andrew_lee
[B]the prologue, with Gandalf at Hogwarts is a new, crowd-pleasing addition
:lol: :thumbs:
Answers:
The way I see it, the books are a mixture of some very longwinded character bits where not much happens and some real action / excitement, push the plot along bits.
Now, if you've got to condense them down into three films of three hours each, which bits are you going to leave out?
Maybe they aren't completely true to the books in every aspect, but I certainly feel that they have all the important bits from the boots and certainly maintain the feeling and enjoyment that I got out of them.
1 2