Every book to movie translation is the worst thing ever made.

 

Case in point.   Queen of the Damned.

Originally posted by bingbongbros

Every book to movie translation is the worst thing ever made.

 

Case in point.   Queen of the Damned.

Shawshank Redemption....

Christopher was the editor of all his fathers posthumous work. Notably he put together The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, The History of Middle-earth and The Children of Húrin from his fathers old notes. He also helped his father prepare LOTR.

While I think his opinions on the movies is silly, he is undoubtably the most knowledgeable living person regarding his fathers work.

And what a mess of a book The Simarillion was too. His fathers influences for the Lord of the Rings were places like Moseley Bog, Sarehole Mill (known in The Hobbit as the Great Mill), Perrott's Folly, Edgbaston Waterworks which still exist today and are awesome to visit if you get the chance.  These were Tolkiens influences nothing to do with his son. Chri$topher is just after the dollars and the drama.

Jackon's LOTR and Hobbit is a f****** Indiana Jones on steroids. It's stupid, cheesy and childish. I'd be pissed as well if I were Christopher Tolkien regardless of the money.

Originally posted by kishe
Only thing "more" Peter Jackson could of done is include the songs from the books but there's so many of them that the movies would've became musicals!

I really like Jackson's portrayal of one of the most powerful charaters from the books, Tom Bombadil.  Err wait.

 

Edit: Post 666, I quit.

Originally posted by Scarfe

Originally posted by bingbongbros

Every book to movie translation is the worst thing ever made.

 

Case in point.   Queen of the Damned.

Shawshank Redemption....

Great example of another massively overrated film by viewers.

We should thank Jackson and the other people who made Lotr and Hobbit movies for what they did.

Lets face is, Lotr books were quite boring compared the other fantasy books nowdays (see "game of thrones" or  "Malazan Book of the Fallen"). Jackson made great movies thanks to him the lotr universe will live forever.

Originally posted by travamars

Hollywood always has to screw up a good story when they make a movie.

Just look what they did to "I am legend"

Jeezus, that was terrible. I was so pissed off when leaving the cinema my friends had to restrain me from physically attacking other viewers who thought the movie "a great flick." (They obviously haven't read the book and now, thanks to that turd, will forever have a certain idea what it's all about...) If there is such a thing as character assasination, that was nothing less than "book assassination."

As for PJ's Hobbit...

Loved Jackson from when he was just a kiwi nobody doing weird films on shoestring budget. Nowadays, however... wild horses couldn't drag me to see The Hobbit. I love the book too much. (Incidentally, I think that's the only really good novel JRR ever wrote. LoTR is many things, but good literature it's not, at least imo. The films may heve even improved some on the subject matter. The Hobbit, on the other hand... and spreading such a nicely tight, well rounded little book into this bloated epic... It's shameful, that's what it is.)

Originally posted by Pilnkplonk

Originally posted by travamars

Hollywood always has to screw up a good story when they make a movie.

Just look what they did to "I am legend"

Jeezus, that was terrible. I was so pissed off when leaving the cinema my friends had to restrain me from physically attacking other viewers who thought the movie "a great flick." (They obviously haven't read the book and now, thanks to that turd, will forever have a certain idea what it's all about...) If there is such a thing as character assasination, that was nothing less than "book assassination."

As for PJ's Hobbit...

Loved Jackson from when he was just a kiwi nobody doing weird films on shoestring budget, but nowadays...

I am sorry, but that is hilarious.

I disagree several movies are better than the books

Godfather trilogy
Starship troopers -horrible fascist book, great satirical film
Original star wars trilogy
Blade runner (although I really like Dick as an author)
Shawshank redemption
Misery
The davinci code (even though the film is shite, its less shite than the book)

And controversial - lotr movies

I like the trilogy and the hobbit.  I've read the books more than 10 times and thought Jackson did a great job with the movies.

Originally posted by ShakyMo
I disagree several movies are better than the books

Godfather trilogy
Starship troopers -horrible fascist book, great satirical film
Original star wars trilogy
Blade runner (although I really like Dick as an author)
Shawshank redemption
Misery
The davinci code (even though the film is shite, its less shite than the book)

And controversial - lotr movies

Someone once said (and I really can't bother finding the source) that it is much easier to make a good movie out of a mediocre book than out of a really good one. It's like remakes of classics.. How can one "improve" on perfection? Gus van Sant did the right thing when given to direct a remake of  "Psycho"... He meticulously copied Hitchcock's original shot by shot, almost frame by frame.

Additionally not all novels are fit to be made into movies; if nothing else, they wouldn't fit into the feature film time format. Only recently, with advent of mini-series and re-invention of theatrical serial we can see literary epics properly brought to screen. "The Game of Thrones" (which is a decent port to screen, at least until S2) wouldn't have been possible just 10 or 15 years ago because the format wasn't there. And LoTR's was made possible by the success (financial, at least) of the SW prequel trilogy which finally proved what Spielberg and Lucas were trying to say since the 80's - that theatrical serials can and do make financial sense.

However, The Hobbit is taking things too far... Just like many movie adaptations failed because they were screaming for a serial format but hollywood wouldn't listen, now when serials are all the rage they're trying to stretch everything into this new hot format, whether it fits or not. Sadly, I can see the otherwise quite valid and finally rediscovered form of theatrical serials vanish back into the black hole once a big production one flops because it was forced onto unsuitable original material. And The Hobbit "trillogy" might just turn out to be it. :(

Originally posted by Flaming_MMO

His opinion is meaningless to me.  Did he ever even write a book?  Did any of the Tolkien kids/grandkids take up J.R.R.'s legacy and start writing more books in the Lord Of the Rings universe? 

I would take his opinion seriously if he was like Brian Herbert (Frank Herberts son) who actually continued writing more Dune books (and still writes them) after Frank Herbert died.

I don't like Christopher Tolkien but you completely lost me here.  Tolkien took his fathers writings and fleshed them out into a readable format.  Herbert's son cashed in on his dads work by writing fan fiction in his fathers universe.  I'll take Chris Tolkien over Herbert's kid any day.

Originally posted by ShakyMo
I disagree several movies are better than the books

Original star wars trilogy
 

LOL.  You think Star Wars was first a series of books?

Yes see up this thread, didn't think so myself either.

I'm with a lot of the other posters in here. Were the LOTR movies missing things? Yes. We're they "action-ized"? No. It's not like Michael Bay got ahold of them. Jackson, I think, was very respectful to the theme and feel of the books and didn't stray far from the story.

To me it has nothing to do with the books; the LoTR series was at best 'okay' as movies...the Hobbit isn't even that. It is a badly done laughably frantic over-actioned monstrosity. It makes the Avengers look slow and deliberate.

As for the Tolkien family 'legacy' and the assorted legal BS, while they are not blameless, they have been rather badly handled over the years and it is all a convoluted mess...much more complicated than is worth rehashing here.

 

Originally posted by ShakyMo
I disagree several movies are better than the books

Godfather trilogy
Starship troopers -horrible fascist book, great satirical film
Original star wars trilogy
Blade runner (although I really like Dick as an author)
Shawshank redemption
Misery
The davinci code (even though the film is shite, its less shite than the book)

And controversial - lotr movies

Jesus wept. THis is just .....sad.

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Yes see up this thread, didn't think so myself either.

The Star Wars books are adaptations of the movies.  They weren't books first ...

Originally posted by rochrist

Originally posted by ShakyMo
I disagree several movies are better than the books

Godfather trilogy
Starship troopers -horrible fascist book, great satirical film
Original star wars trilogy
Blade runner (although I really like Dick as an author)
Shawshank redemption
Misery
The davinci code (even though the film is shite, its less shite than the book)

And controversial - lotr movies

Jesus wept. THis is just .....sad.

I doubt he's read even one of those books honestly.