If you were offended by my post, I deeply apologize. It was not my intention and my post was uncalled for in retrospect.
But I never said the books weren't superior. I never said the movies were better. I never even mentioned CGI. Special effects are not cgi. I made this thread because I love the books. And I have in fact read the books.
You assume too much. "Someone who has never read the books" Is a lie. I wouldn't argue based on lies.
I wasn't offended, UW might've been, so the apologize should go to him. I just pointed it out as it was completely unnecessary and out of place, but it's all right now, I suppose.
You're right, special effects are not CGI only. And special effects are fine, sure. I like the film visually, more or less. Some parts bother me, but I like some others. But to me, special effects, as impressive as they are, cannot save the film.
I'm sorry, my assumption was wrong, based on the fact that you inquired about the books here.
I agree with you. I never, ever, said that the movies even come CLOSE to the majesty of tolkien's writing. It was brought down to a level where modern uneducated teenagers could understand it, in most parts. Some small passages still remain alive with the addition of good acting, becoming less frequent as the series goes on. Which is why I've always held return of the king in the least regard of the film trilogy, and fellowship movie in the highest in comparison. You say these things as though the movies having a bad story is somehow a blemish on the book. That's just taking offense for the sake of taking offense, silly.
I'm not saying that.
But yes, I'm saying that they have a bad, overly live-action story that is too watered down for my taste and is not a very faithful representation of the books. Is it that bad? Yes it is, and no, could've been way worse. Do I hate it? Not really, but if it weren't for the fact that I liked those films as a kid, I probably wouldn't like them at all now.
Let me say this: Just as much thought as tolkien put into the lord of the rings books (not his whole work/middle-earth as whole, mind you), was put into the extensive visual aspect of the movie. Every single thing put on screen was deliberate, made for the movie and made with tolkien's writings of it in mind. You can't put the script writers' faults on the visual crew's heads. (Which includes the two most renowned tolkien artists, John Howe and Alan Lee.) The visual process took place longer than the entirety of the rest of production.
You could brush that all aside, when you condemn movie fans for the same thing where the book is concerned.
And while you don't need to put anything from the book into a post to prove it's story, I'm sure you won't accept my opinion without hearing how exactly it is so and what examples I could give. Well, the making of documentary is your answer there. And yes, it is an actual documentary. Don't assume that a making of is just interviews and production stills/videos. They brought in tolkien scholars, had special segments on tolkien's life and life works, and held it in high regard throughout.
All right, this could sound wrong, but I'll try to elaborate...
If I would "hate" visual design, I'd say how Witch-King was done awfully. I'd say that Battle of Pelennor Fields was done idiotically wrong. I'd say how Uruk Hai and their creation was misrepresented.
Do I do that?
No.
It was their vision of the story, different than mine, and in parts different than Tolkien's, but that's all right. A film based on another source is, after all, an interpretation.
There were some great design moments. Gollum, for example, is absolutely brilliant and Serkis, along with the crew around him who worked on that character, deserve every praise.
But in the end, it's an interpretation, parts of which were right, parts of which were wrong, at least in my opinion. Is their effort praise-worthy? Yes, I suppose. But just because they tried hard and invested a lot of money, time etc. in it doesn't mean it's automatically good, nor does it mean I'm supposed to like it (completely).
As for the documentary, I believe I've seen bits and pieces of it, a long time ago, but I'm not sure.
Still, I'm repeating myself. Their effort is in place, but the end result is not that appealing to me.
That is as far from my opinion as you can get, but listing things (the wrong things at that), then dismissing them, is not an argument.
I'd hardly call that an argument on my behalf. In any way, it wasn't intended as much than a blatant listing of...stuff. Which is wrong, yes.
The point of the whole thing is that I don't like the way they evolved and presented the story, and how they made the film overly "Hollywood" for my taste (I'm aware how this sentence sounds, and I'm aware it's a good deal wrong, but it's a simplest way to put it). I suppose I should have presented my opinion in a better fashion earlier, as I should now, but I believe you understand it by now.
'I'll always find it intriguing how biggest fans and defenders of the book trilogy are those who have actually never seen the making of, of the movies. (nothing personal here)' You see, I could say the same thing on the other spectrum of arguments.
No, that's not comparable.
A comparative would be if I said I know how much time, devotion, research etc. Tolkien put into his works, and therefore, had the good end result.
I don't say that.
Nor do I see the reason why the making of the film should make me change my opinion.
Like I said, all their effort is praise-worthy, I suppose, and it that means anything to you, now I'm somewhat intrigued to see that documentary, but it doesn't change the end result. It doesn't make the film any better. It may raise my opinion about the crew, but it won't change my opinion about the film.
And the opinion is, that, in the end of the day, LOTR is an mediocre, blockbuster adaptation of Tolkien's work which tried to balance between the faithfulness to the book and the industry's demands.
Given the circumstances, expecting anything more than that would be overstretching it, if you ask me. I do sincerely believe the effort of some of these people was in right place, and I appreciate that.
But I do not overly appreciate
the end result, and that's the main thing that matters here after all. Their main goal was to have a great film, not a great testimony of their effort.
I really hope you won't take this as a 'fanboy' backlash in defence of every aspect the movie or something, but more as my reaction to your post and an explanation of my legitimite liking of a part of the movie you seem to know little of, in my opinion.
I do not consider you a fanboy, not at all.
Unlike a fanboy, you try to have a normal discussion.
One can like a thing and hate parts of it, still.
I'd say this concludes the whole thing.
Terms "hate" and "like" are overused though, and this discussion is no exception.
If I were to sum up my opinion, I'd say I'm ambiguous to the films.
There is good in them, there is bad in them. There are parts I do "like", there are parts I "hate".
The film earned much, left a mark, was awarded and is considered a success. Fine by me, I don't have a problem with that. But I don't have a need nor any real reason to appreciate it that much.
