Would you say these are good adaptations of the source material? I watch the whole trilogy once a year and I love it, but I never got to read the books (I only read the first half of The Fellowship) so I feel like I can't fully appreciate what Jackson and his team did here.
Would you say these are good adaptations of the source material? I watch the whole trilogy once a year and I love it...
Adam Nelson
Other urls found in this thread:
Justin Foster
Yes.
Blake Jenkins
Easton Bell
no
Cooper Peterson
Yes. People have to keep in mind that movies and books are entirely different forms of entertainment, especially with expansive fantasy books like LotR. He did an excellent job bringing it to the screen, though some aspects could have been done better such as the dumb Arwen-Aragorn-Eowyn love triangle
Alexander Gonzalez
Yes*
*Yes in that it's a good representation of a very small part of the universe. The entire LotR story is like whip cream on a big ass 6 scoop Sunday, it's important, but there is a whole lot more to deal with.
Asher Wood
Yes, jackson (for the most part) had a great sense of what to leave and what to cut out to get a coherent narrative.
Jace Johnson
The problem with Tom was you need to remember that the average movie goer is of the potato mentality. Tom was a self insert, or highly theorized he was, of tolkin, and would be questioned as to why he did not destoryed the thing, which would requier probably another 30min in the movie explaining why he can't and why is has the powers he does which would requier explaining the God's and ordering of the tolkin universe.
Caleb Robinson
For the most part, yeah. Some shit had to be changed to make it work as a movie and there was the occasional change that didn't really work but it honestly felt like the pages of the book had come to life, as cliche as it sounds
Nolan Johnson
They are great movies but the books have a much slower, more thoughtful vibe. They aren't action/adventure oriented like the movies are.
Peter Jackson and the rest did a good gob in taking parts that worked for the movies but they did leave HEAPS of stuff out. I've only read the books once but they was a lot of exposition about things that happened hundreds of years ago and don't really have anything to do with the story. It was just world-building. The movies couldn't have put that stuff in or they would have gone for 6 hours each.
They are both great in their own medium but it's hard to compare them without starting arguments.
Oliver Miller
Too much action scenes but they got the heart of the story right, which is the important part of adaptations.
Austin Cox
Yes, especially Fellowship
Wyatt Bennett
It would be nice to see the CG effects touched up at some point as they have started to age noticeably badly, especially in Two Towers and RotK.
Mason Perez
yes, he did an excellent job translating the story from the book to the screen. I loved how the extended editions adds little special scenes from the books, like the part with Frodo, Sam and Smeagol and the elven rope.
Brody Russell
Eru origin story when?
Grayson Turner
Jackson made the right decision. If they do a new adaptation in the form of a tv series they can keep it in.
Eli Lee
No. Just let it be. Modern Hackson will go full Lucas if you let him.
Jayden Reed
>made frodo a naive fuccboi
>made faramir an asshole
>made theoden an asshole
>made denethor a crazier asshole
>got rid of based glorfindel for arwen warrior princess
>had aragorn cut off the mouth of sauron's head for reasons
Grayson Reed
Only autists say no. Any adaptation of a book will have to leave some things out. The movies really did a great job of capturing the essence or tone of the books as best as possible, and the significant changes they made were to improve story structure (eg, characterization of Aragorn, Faramir)
Luke Rivera
They're amazing adaptations.
Carson Roberts
Absolutely not. They're great movies in their own right, however.