Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

223 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fizzirst Chrizzistmas Pizzoist! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11180812)

Happy festivus, you pagan nerds!

Re:Fizzirst Chrizzistmas Pizzoist! (1)

CloudyPrison (821861) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180822)

Begin the feats of nitpickie strength! Nobody leaves until we decide who among us cannot simply enjoy a movie! =D Oh and Happy Holidays!

I would like to make the following statement (-1, Flamebait)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180817)

I think I speak for myself, and the other 6 billion+ human beings resident on this massive ball of petroleum and rocks when I say

Nobody gives a flying fuck.

I don't care if the book deviates from the movie in tiny, pointless ways. If the movie deviates from the plot insanely, as in the case of this [imdb.com] atrocity for example, I care. Not when there are just thousands upon thousands of teeny tiny ways which nobody cares about.

Has it ever occurred to you to just sit back, enjoy the movie and (this is the important bit) get a life?

(Although I guess posting on Slashdot on Christmas day means I don't have a life :)

Re:I would like to make the following statement (4, Interesting)

theefer (467185) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180871)

Agreed. Whereas some movie adaptations of great novels do suck (Lynch's Dune), some are good enough to make us forgive the changes required by the new medium (Cuarón's Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban). Jackson's Lord of the Rings is simply a perfect interpretation of the books, keeping all the mood, atmosphere and imagination from the original material. Having watched ROTK:EE yesterday, and as a big cinema addict, I can say that few movies have moved me as this trilogy. It transpires the passion of its makers and the soul of Tolkien is omnipresent, in the images, the elvish language, the characters, the epic atmosphere of the whole story.

Nitpicking about adaptation changes is pointless (though the author does somehow acknowledge it is). I cannot imagine anyone making (a) better "Lord of the Rings movie(s)".

Peter Jackson did it, along with an extraordinary film crew, so let's all praise them for it and enjoy these fantastic movies.

Re:I would like to make the following statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11180921)

Whereas some movie adaptations of great novels do suck (Lynch's Dune)

A rewatchable sci-fi classic, by all accounts. It failed at the box office, but if that's your criterion for quality, I guess the Star Wars prequels are the best sci-fi movies of all time.

some are good enough to make us forgive the changes required by the new medium (Cuarón's Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban)

An utterly forgettable movie; ABC; average banal crap. Unlike the 'suck'y Dune, in 20 years I don't expect anyone to remember this film as anything except "the third Harry Potter movie".

Jackson's Lord of the Rings is simply a perfect interpretation of the books

"Perfect interpretation" is an oxymoron. Perfection is an objective ideal while interpretation relies on incomplete perceptual information (see Plato for more).

Nitpicking about adaptation changes is pointless

The publisher thought differently. In the end, isn't that all that really matters? Consumers will take it from there. If you're right, it won't sell and natural selection will prevent there being any more "Nitpicker's Guide"s. But seeing as how there are a whole series of these things, I think you're just ignorant, myopic and wrong. Merry Christmas.

Re:I would like to make the following statement (1)

theefer (467185) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181108)

Dune: A rewatchable sci-fi classic, by all accounts.

Have you read the book? I doubt it, because it is so much inferior to the original material in every possible way that it has become the top example for horrible adaptations. The book is as rich and deep as the movie is badly paced, acted and has bad SFX (compare to Blade Runner for instance, released two years earlier).

An utterly forgettable movie; ABC; average banal crap. Unlike the 'suck'y Dune, in 20 years I don't expect anyone to remember this film as anything except "the third Harry Potter movie".

It did adapt the original material rather faithfully to the big screen, though, keeping the atmosphere and ideas and cleverly translating them into an enjoyable movie. In other words, if you liked the book, it is a good visual adaptation.

As for people remembering Dune, it is only because it was such a miserable and failed attempt.

Now if you have nothing better to do on Christmas Day than nitpicking on a comment on nitpicking, I suggest that you take as a New Year resolution to learn how to discuss politely on slashdot. Disagreeing does not have to result in lack of respect.

Re:I would like to make the following statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11181259)

You forget, though, that Herbert had a big hand in the film adaptation. So don't blame just Lynch for the film, blame the books author as well.

Re:I would like to make the following statement (1)

theefer (467185) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181356)

Did he? I didn't know, I must admit. However, even David Lynch himself had lost the control of the movie in the end, and it was the producer Dino de Laurentiis who put pressure on the director to finish the movie, change the storyline and make a lot of things the way they appeared on the screen. Lynch only really realized and acknowledged that a few years later, but this remained the only movie he is openly "ashamed" of.

I am still hoping for a new adaptation that would be as rewarding as Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings. Time will tell...

Re:I would like to make the following statement (1)

zzyzx (15139) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181278)

"It did adapt the original material rather faithfully to the big screen, though, keeping the atmosphere and ideas and cleverly translating them into an enjoyable movie. In other words, if you liked the book, it is a good visual adaptation."

Disagree. While I found the first two to be a little flat, the third is easily my least favorite Harry Potter movie despite being one of my favorites of the book. The look was fine but all of the reasons why a character behaved in a particular way were left on the cutting room floor.

Re:I would like to make the following statement (4, Insightful)

Ubergrendle (531719) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180944)

Atmosphere, costume and set design, cinematrography...all are top notch for this triology. Brilliant adaptations of LOTR, perfectly visualised -- a very difficult task indeed.

However...characterisations, plot development and pacing, and dialogue to a large extent are typical hollywood fare, losing alot of the subtley and nuance of the novels.

I couldn't understand why my parents and sister didn't enjoy the movies...they felt it was all noise and action, and a 'typical fantasy hackneyed plot'. I was incredulous, until I rewatched the movies while conciously ignoring what I knew from the novels...and then I realised they were right -- it WAS just another noisy, loud, action-packed, paper-thin plot turned into big-budget spectacle. All the subtley of the novels were not translated to screen. This is particularly apparent in ROTK which moves from action sequence to action sequence for 3+ hours...

I don't blame Jackson too much. At 12+ hours it already is perhaps the longest trilogy filmed by Hollywood. And yet there's so much lost in the film translation... I suspect only an extended 30-60 episode TV series, not worrying about ratings or demographics, could give the novels justice. And the chances of that happening are negligible.

Appreciate the movies for what Jackson contributed to LOTR lore, but recongise its still a minor effort in comparison to the brilliance of the source material.

Re:I would like to make the following statement (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11181027)

However...characterisations, plot development and pacing, and dialogue to a large extent are typical hollywood fare, losing a lot of the subtley and nuance of the novels.

Those were actually the areas where the novels were weakest. Peter Jackson really didn't add any significant flaws to the work, or make the ones that were already there any worse. He did the best job anyone could with the (yes, Virginia, flawed) source material. We are lucky as hell that somebody like Steven Spielberg or Michael Bay didn't land the rights to the books. Then all the teeth-gnashing would be justified.

Re:I would like to make the following statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11181104)

The movie is not so much an interpretation of the book as a retelling of (mostly) the same events from a different perspective.
Many people don't seem to perceive that this is a fundamental difference between the books and the movie. The movie is told from the perspective of an omniscient narrator (though Galadriel is sometimes presented as a narrator, which doesn't work very well IMO). The book is written entirely from the perspective of the Hobbits. Tolkien posed as a translator of the original manuscripts of Frodo and Bilbo (and Sam at the end), the Red Book of Westmark. The LOTR is translated from the part titled
THE DOWNFALL OF THE LORD OF THE RINGS
AND THE RETURN OF THE KING
(as seen by the Little People; being the memoirs of Bilbo and Frodo of the Shire,
supplemented by the accounts of their friends and the learning of the Wise.)

This difference in perspective is why in Jackson's tale there is no Scouring of the Shire, but for the book, it was a crucial part.

Re:I would like to make the following statement (2, Interesting)

alib001 (654044) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180885)

FTFA:

If anything, I put this together for other interested parties (i.e. other purists) to check out. It's not intended as an attack on Jackson...though I do rue a few decisions he made. I don't think that's such a crime.

I enjoyed the movies. I enjoyed reading this list. There's no need to start telling people to "get a life".

Because, frankly, I don't care that you (or the six billion plus you speak for) don't care. I liked it.

Re:I would like to make the following statement (3, Interesting)

LOTR Nitpicker (843455) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180975)

Thank you. That's all I'm saying. We all waste time in our own special ways. I did this. I had fun doing it. And, yes, it's not an attack; it's just food for thought.

Re:I would like to make the following statement (1)

alib001 (654044) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181427)

Hey - exactly. It's a long time since I read the books and I don't think I ever really completed them or even appreciated them fully at that age. I'll get round to the Tolkien canon some time but I've got quite a pile of books forming so I look to these articles to fill in and summarise until I have the time.

Thanks for publishing your list. There are more than a few areas you mention where I was thinking along the same lines but didn't have a reference to hand. None of which greatly detracts from my enjoyment of the films, but as a fan, it's interesting to see how much license the director takes and another fan's informed opinions.

Re:I would like to make the following statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11181511)

agreed. I enjoyed it as well. Ignore the morons who have nothing better to do (no life?) than bitch on the net.
good job.

Re:I would like to make the following statement (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11180887)

You don't get it. The Nitpicker's Guides are fun to read in and of themselves. You don't have to be an anal-retentive nerd to enjoy one; in fact, it's postmodern surrealist anti-humor in that the joke is that anyone would notice and catalog such an array of minute flaws. They're something to marvel at, but are also incidentally filled with interesting trivia - like a Guinness Book of Records for dweebs. Lighten up.

Re:I would like to make the following statement (1)

Kurrurrin (790594) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181076)

it's postmodern surrealist anti-humor

What ever happened to something being just funny?

Re:I would like to make the following statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11181142)

What ever happened to something being just funny?

But the Nitpicker's Guides aren't just funny on the face of it. The lighthearted tone doesn't mask the fact that it is a serious and thorough compilation of actual nitpicks. I call it antihumor because it's only funny to a third party, and necessarily in a context where it can't be funny to the first and second party. It's the difference between laughing at a clown and laughing at a burn victim...

Re:I would like to make the following statement (1)

Kurrurrin (790594) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181340)

Sarcasm. Missed. Yes.

The oversimplification of your comment into just the word funny was an attempt at humor, poking fun at your obtuse attempt at description. Try not to take things so seriously ;)

Re:I would like to make the following statement (1)

UserGoogol (623581) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181212)

But anti-humor is funny. Very much so.

Re:I would like to make the following statement (1)

Khuffie (818093) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181252)

that's like saying anti-fun is fun, and the anti-christ is christ.

postmodern surrealist anti-humor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11181292)

"that's like saying anti-fun is fun, and the anti-christ is christ." Hence the postmodern surrealist qualifiers! I know this is flamebait- but I thought if we're nitpicking a nitpicker's nitpicking, I might as well add my 2 cents. Actually the phrase "postmodern surrealist anti-humor" is itself funny. Oh, the ironic irony.

Re:I would like to make the following statement (2, Interesting)

gustgr (695173) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180892)

I give. And I am not alone...

The deviations are not tiny nor pointless. I indeed agree there are a lot of worse cases around, but for true and purist Tolkien fans the differences between the book and the movie are important issues.

If you don't like just stop trolling and flaming around... stay quiet.

Re:I would like to make the following statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11180909)

differences between the book and the movie are important issues

Yeah, I think his point was, important relative to what? Frankly, I can't imagine what you spend the rest of your time on if this is relatively important.

Re:I would like to make the following statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11180923)

Agreed 100%. You would think that Jackson had ordered every copy of the trilogy books seized and burned, or something.

Hello? You can still read the books, people. The films complement the books, they don't replace them.

Re:I would like to make the following statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11180983)

If I had mod points I'd help take that 0, Flamebait off of there for you.

...and you thought... (4, Funny)

djplurvert (737910) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180818)

...that building an Apollo guidance computer was a waste of time... ....yawn...

Re:...and you thought... (1)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180880)

As is slashdotting on Christmass ;)

Funny, but still... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11181208)

Its enjoyable for me to pick up the book again and check out a reference or two... Now, it's true that both projects are appealing only to a small number of geeks- but there are probably a lot more Tolkein fans who'll get a kick out of this then recreating ancient electronics. "Nationalism is an infantile disease, the measles of mankind. ~A. Einstein" John Nash pursued a similar philosophy, and it wasn't muc appreciated

I'm watching ROTK extended DVD now... (5, Funny)

gentoo_user (843424) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180819)

on my gentoo box. Gentoo makes the film sooo much faster, you hardly notice the additional footage at all.

Re:I'm watching ROTK extended DVD now... (1)

agraupe (769778) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180824)

But they all sound funny... better file a bug report.

Merry Holocaust (-1, Offtopic)

after (669640) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180821)

Christmas gives me a bonner

LoL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11180823)

Fuckin' yambags.

In Jackson's version... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11180827)

...the one ring is the Pepsi One ring. AND the ring shoots first. Highly dubious, if you ask me.

Nitpicking indeed (5, Insightful)

Smiffa2001 (823436) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180830)

Now am I the only person in world that thinks that nitpicking, whilst a fine sport, starts to drag after just a bit. I mean, stuff that had been removed/changed seemed to me like it made the films. True, I'd have loved to have seen the Barrow-Wight (amongst all the others) sequences in the films but hey, you can't have everything.

Whats wrong with just watching the film, and enjoying it...?

(Post not intentionally flame-bait and yes, I DO count myself as a fan).

Re:Nitpicking indeed (4, Insightful)

gustgr (695173) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180865)

Hey, this is Slashdot! Nerds don't simply "watch and enjoy" things...

Re:Nitpicking indeed (1)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180925)

I didn't enjoy the films. So can I nitpick?

Actually, I don't think that the director injected enough of his own ideas. He should have strayed farther from the books. And it would have been nice to see a director with more talent than money instead of vice-versa.

Re:Nitpicking indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11180973)

you can't have everything

Yes you can. Using the books as a script would've cost them very little money over what they spent making the movie anyway, but now someone'll have to redo the movies at some point in the future. Movie adaptations of books always end up smoothing out the wrinkles/complexities, but to the unaverage reader, it's the complexities that made a book great in the first place. Ender's Game will flop the same way LotR did, unless they make it as an anime with around fifty episodes. LotR could've used several hundred episodes, but wouldn't have been very good as an anime.

Whats wrong with just watching the film, and enjoying it...?

How am I supposed to enjoy it when it's wrong. I've seen FotR. I probably won't see the other two films.

Re:Nitpicking indeed (4, Insightful)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181147)

Seeing as you're an anime fan, its amazing that you can't accept a derivative work based on an original. Isn't half of all manga unlicensed derivatives off a common theme (sorry, I don't know much about it, but someone explained that to me one time and it seemed really cool that the publishers don't crack down on that and instead allow it to flourish, thus making their works even more popular)?

Anyways, its an _adaptation_, i.e. someone else's interpretation of the work. No one said they were making LotR: The Book: The Movie. Just like how the Superman movies and new books are retellings of a common story. This is not J.R.R. Tolkien's LotR. This is Peter Jackson's LotR. Its not WRONG because that's how he decided to tell it. With a story as powerful and as epic as the trilogy, it can stand to have multiple points of view.

Did you really want to see 50 characters that have two lines and never come back? Did you really want a musical? Did you really want them to chill out for a whole movie at the council of Rivendell?

Also, as a final point, you should think about how many people were exposed to the work through the movies, and then decided to read the books afterwards. If anything, the books delve into a much richer setting, and the reader gets a lot more out of the books after seeing the movie. If they were the exact same, there would be no reason to read the books, and THAT would be a true tradgedy.

Re:Nitpicking indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11181270)

Its not WRONG because that's how he decided to tell it
No. But Peter Jackson's version isn't as good as Tolkien's, by a long way.

Re:Nitpicking indeed (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180994)

well.. suppose you have a quiz or something.. with questions about lotr, and then some jerk claims to have read the books when in reality he just fastforwarded through the movies and bought the books just for show.

and however you put it, the saruman deathscene in rotk:ee just sucks. it's not a wonder that they cut it off...

Re:Nitpicking indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11181008)

Whats wrong with just watching the film, and enjoying it...?

Nothing.

What's wrong with making lists of the ways in which the film deviates from the books, and commenting on which of those one thinks were good changes and which bad?

Nothing.

Forgive me for not quite seeing your point.

Re:Nitpicking indeed (1)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181148)

Yeah, who cares???

It is a movie for crying out loud.. Movies are never or at least almost never identical to a book. If you have a problem with that, don't watch movies based on books you have read.

Re:Nitpicking indeed (1, Insightful)

MtViewGuy (197597) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181548)

Obviously, the person who wrote the nitpicking guide didn't listen to the commentary tracks on the Extended Edition DVD's or watch the Appendices supplemental discs from the three EE sets. Producer/Director Peter Jackson went to considerable detail on why he chose to do the films this way.

What is the purpose of this list? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11180832)

Those who read the books know the deviations Those who didn't don't care

This is nothing new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11180834)

Neither Alexander (movie) nor newsreel (Fox, et al) are totally accurate. Even when stories are passed by word of mouth they get changed a little.

Not just not new, the nature of the game (2, Insightful)

Cappy Red (576737) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181018)

"Even when stories are passed by word of mouth they get changed a little."

The very process of encoding a story into words alters it. The job of the writer is to try and tell you what happened. Good writers bring you closer to all the truths of the story(as there are many).

Movies and books function differently. They have different constraints, and rules about pacing. You can far more easily lay a book down, and continue it later, than you can a movie. Thus, movies generally have to be watched in one shot, but you can only sit in one place for so long -- no matter how good the movie may seem, or how comfy the seats your ass will begin to hurt after a while. Most people can comfortably sit through an hour and a half, and most of them can make it to three hours.

Most people can't read any of the LotR books in three hours. Even condensing the more static descriptions to pictures, as the movies have the advantage of doing, three hours going to cut it. Certain parts must be taken out, in favor of capturing the overall essence of the story as told by the book. With only one change in the LotR series do I feel the essence was missed, but not it is not enough for me to throw a fit over it.

*honk*

How to get a story submitted on slashdot (4, Funny)

j0kkk3l (778886) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180840)

1. Wait for a slow news day like christmas and resubmit an old story. Even mention, that your story is old. 2. ??? 3. Profit!!!

Re:How to get a story submitted on slashdot (1)

trezor (555230) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181383)

Oh come on! It is a slow day. And this is an update because the nitpick-list in the old story is updated to nitpick the new extended edition.

And I love to use the <I>-tag.

And the biggest deviation of all... (4, Funny)

Faust7 (314817) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180844)

They're 21st-century movies, not 20th-century books.

"Pirannha to Scurfy".. Similar situation (2, Interesting)

Gopal.V (532678) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180847)

Piranha to Scurfy [amazon.com] by Ruth Rendell has a lead character who is a lonely man who vents pleasure from nitpicking on other people's literature ... I didn't actually notice it wasn't "Scurry" and didn't until I read quite a bit into the book :). Very similar character ?.

The inaccuracies are obvious when you read some books (especially books written with decades between them , read in a week or so). For example, I did pickup on the color differences of the lasers in the Dune series written by the son of Brian Herbert... (ie purple to orange) or the Bastardization of Holtzmann as a person (read Dune encyclopedia).

Slow news day, eh ?.

Why? (0)

maximilln (654768) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180853)

Okay, now that we've compiled a list of a billion little things that were changed the more important question is... Why? Were the movie producers a bunch of self-serving flaming juice-boxes who couldn't make a movie without putting their grubby little fingers over every little thing or was there some deeper significance to changing some of this stuff? Really. Some of these details are so insignificant one has to wonder how Jackson, et al. convinced themselves they were improving the story line by changing Tolkein's nearly perfect work.

Re:Why? (1)

nagora (177841) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180868)

Were the movie producers a bunch of self-serving flaming juice-boxes who couldn't make a movie without putting their grubby little fingers over every little thing

Yep.

Basic rule of thumb on Jackson's versions: what they took out for time pressure generally was sensible, what they kept was done well, what they added, changed or amplified stunk. Unfortunately the last category covers much of the actual script so as a story the result is a wash out, but it still looks great if you turn the sound off.

TWW

Re:Why? (1, Interesting)

mankey wanker (673345) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180959)

Arwen's role was critically important and was rightly amplified in the films. Without his relationship with Arwen I find Aragorn a pretty flat character taken as a whole. Placing that relationship in an appendix was hardly a stroke of genius on Tolkien's part. Sorry, but failing to grasp this fundamental point is to fail to understand a primary motive for most human beings: the protection of our loved ones.

BTW, the books are hardly perfect. I personally find them poorly written (see above) and quite hard to get through. And no, it's not that I can't handle my literature (I have a degree in English) it's more that I well understand and know all of Tolkien's primary sources. Given the wealth of world mythology, of which Tolkien's work is part redaction and part recreation, I'll take the mythology myself.

"Das Rheingold" anyone?

Frankly, given the enormous amount of fantasy material out there before and after Tolkien, I am quite surprised that Tolkien is revered as highy as he is today. To me, it's pretty much all "ho hum." I find his use of lengthy appendices and created languages fatuous and self-congratulatory.

Tell your fucking story, Tolkien - don't make us hunt around for it.

Re:Why? (1)

maximilln (654768) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181029)

Placing that relationship in an appendix was hardly a stroke of genius on Tolkien's part

I don't remember that it was exclusively in the appendices. Surely the betrothal of Aragorn and Arwen is mentioned whenever Aragorn is in Rivendell and perhaps directly alluded to in other places.

I'll take the mythology myself

Personal preference of storyteller and style doesn't justify bashing Tolkien.

To me, it's pretty much all "ho hum."

After you read enough fantasy and mythology it's all ho hum. The themes are common, the trials are predictable, even solutions can often be seen coming a mile off. Many people who've read enormous amounts of material from a particular genre develop this sort of disillusionment. You can say you've earned your degree in English when you get past the ho hum feeling and get back to enjoying it, no longer for the surprises, but for the appreciation.

I find his use of lengthy appendices and created languages fatuous and self-congratulatory.

It would be if he had written all of it over the course of a few months. In reality it was a work in progress which he devoted significant parts of his life to. I'd be disappointed if it hadn't been this thorough.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11181055)

And no, it's not that I can't handle my literature (I have a degree in English) it's more that I well understand and know all of Tolkien's primary sources. Given the wealth of world mythology, of which Tolkien's work is part redaction and part recreation, I'll take the mythology myself.

"Das Rheingold" anyone?


Er, are you seriously claiming that Wagner is a primary source for Tolkien's mythology? I don't know where you got that literature degree you're so proud of, but I suspect you were ripped off.

Das Rheingold, and more generally the whole Ring des Niebelungen is just a tedious 19th-century recycling of parts of the Niebelungenlied. Tolkien was heavily influenced by the Mabinogion, the Beowulf and Old English fragments (Finnsburh etc), and the Norse Eddas; I see nothing in his works that draw heavily on Wagner of all people.

Placing that relationship [between Aragorn and Arwen] in an appendix was hardly a stroke of genius on Tolkien's part. Sorry, but failing to grasp this fundamental point is to fail to understand a primary motive for most human beings: the protection of our loved ones.

Again, you claim to know Tolkien's sources, and yet you demonstrate complete ignorance of them. Have you actually read any of the medieval chronicles, romances, and histories on which he based his style? You know, the ones that in fact do largely gloss over romance in favour of men with big swords chopping bits off each other?

I find his use of lengthy appendices and created languages fatuous and self-congratulatory.

Once more I question the quality of your education. The appendices, and details of invented languages and writing-systems, are exactly the sorts of details that appealed to educated minds of the sort that Tolkien prized; the number of new alphabets invented by medieval monks should illustrate that. It is not "fatuous" (a word which does not, I suspect, mean what you think it means); it is authentic.

by mankey wanker

Yup, I guess you chose the right user name.

Re:Why? (1)

Have Blue (616) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181060)

He doesn't make you hunt around for the story; the story of LOTR is very simple and directly told. What you get for hunting around is the backstory- the reasons things are the way they are when the characters encounter them, a better understanding of character motivations and histories, explanations of offhand references made in dialogue, and so on, but all of this is optional. You don't need to read the appendices and Silmarillion to enjoy LOTR any more than you need to read the dozens of Expanded Universe novels and comics that later appeared to enjoy Star Wars.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11181062)

(I have a degree in English)

Why do people always feel like they have to be qualified to hold an opinion?

Re:Why? (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181134)

Das Rheingold is opera, not the same medium at all and thus cannot be compared to LoTR.

As an English major you should realize that Tolkein's work redacts not just mythology, but much of literature including a heavy influence by Shakespeare.

You also seem to miss the point that LoTR is held in high esteem simply because it has outpaced all other efforts in this genre. There is nothing out there that comes close in scope or imagination. Perfect? What work of man is? You can always find some flaw. But is the the best we have? Yes. By far.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11181268)


Arwen's role was critically important and was rightly amplified in the films. Without his relationship with Arwen I find Aragorn a pretty flat character taken as a whole.

Quite possibly, but I did find myself groaning inwardly during the movies everytime I saw yet another shot of the bland, expressionless Liv Tyler lying on a bed with leaves falling around her.


Arwen might have been an important character, but the portrayal of her in the movies was lacklustre to say the least - particularly in contrast to Eowyn who managed to display a far greater variety of emotions during her screen time.

Re:Why? (1)

Sin Nombre (802229) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181339)

I believe the reason Tolkein was so revered was because he created a world with a depth to it rarely seen before. The made up languages and lengthy appendices werent there for the story in itself, so much as the people who read the book and wanted to be more fully immersed in the world of Middle-Earth.

Re:Why? (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181573)

given the enormous amount of fantasy material out there before and after Tolkien, I am quite surprised that Tolkien is revered as highy as he is today.

Almost every fantasy story since has been a rewrite of Tolkien's work...

I find his use of lengthy appendices and created languages fatuous and self-congratulatory.

...Mostly because of the richness of the world he crafted.

Re:Why? (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181061)

I agree 100%. The strength of the movies was the look which was true right back to Tolkein's original illustrations. The adaptions in plot and script writing were horrid. Beastly. Despicable.

No "begone foul dwimmerlaik?" What! And this line "I am No Man", that's from the Odessey for criminy sakes. Not LoTR.

worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11180857)

8. Eomer threatens to cut Gimli's head off in response to Gimli's statement in defense of Galadriel and about Eomer having little wit (TTT p.42). Jackson has Eomer threaten Gimli in response to his "Give me your name, horsemaster" statement.

Peter Jackson makes it worse by giving Gimli the "Give me your name, horsemaster" without giving Eomer the line that it was supposed to be a response to. In the book Eomer demands Gimli's name, and Gimli turns around and demands Eomer's. In the movie version, Gimli says "Give me your name, horsemaster, and I shall give you mine." without even being asked for his name, which just makes me think "Who asked you, Gimli?". Very poor adaptation.

My nitpicks (5, Interesting)

Xpilot (117961) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180861)

1) I see Saruman throwing fireballs. Now I believe Peter Jackson didn't want to make *that* kind of movie with wizards casting fireballs when I see the original theatrical releases, but now this? Come on. If they wanted awesome effects they could have gone with something that's actually *in* the books, like Gandalf casting lightning from his staff (Gandalf vs. 9 ringwraiths, on Weathertop).

2) This isn't The Return Of The King, it's "Half Of The Two Towers And The Return Of The King". They could have cut out most of the extraneous scenes from the TTT (like the Arwen ones) and kept stuff from TTT in TTT. Then they could use the Extended Release of ROTK to include the Scouring of the Shire. I realize the reason for not including it in the theatrical release (audience would get tired of a second battle etc.), but come on, the DVD release doesn't have those problems (after all, it's the fans who are gobbling up these Extended Editions).

That said, I welcome the new scenes. I always wanted to see the part where Aragorn calls up Sauron with the Palantir, and gives him the finger.

Seriously. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11180930)

Think about how the Scouring of the Shire would play out on film. Like ass. Peter Jackson's little "moment" in the Inn replaces it nicely. And shows one of the strenghts of the medium of film over that of a book. All the lessons manifest in the Scouring of the Shire in the book, are appearent in the body language of the actors in the film. Now factoring in the rest of the film, it's an epilogue too many to boot.

Dare I say if you want the book, true to every letter, there are two choices. Having someone read it to you while sitting in a solo spotlight. Or a crappy mini-series with ass special effects, stiff acting, lame looking props, plain cinematography, and horribly stilted dialogue that has to fill for a viewer, what a reader does for themself.

Re:Fireballs are cool, but not enough T&A! (1)

xtermin8 (719661) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181102)

For a fantasy film afficienado, maybe, fireballs are trite, but for the majority of the audience its still cool. And they're well done in ROTK- as opposed to the countless badly done fireball effects in *those* films. Also, fire is a very primal fear- You might as well say- "Oh, no nudity in a movie again, what a drag!" My nitpick- not enough skin in these movies!

Re:My nitpicks (1)

MrP- (45616) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181216)

#2 isn't really a good nitpick.. theres no scouring ever, he had no plans to film it. it was never written or filmed, even if he releases some super duper extended edition in 25 years with every minute of footage they have, a 30 hour movie, there will be no scouring. he hates that chapter in the book and doesnt think it would ever work in the film

i of course disagree, i really loved that chapter, but i can live without it because i love the rest of the films so much.

Re:My nitpicks (1)

RealNitro (776928) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181286)

"This isn't The Return Of The King, it's "Half Of The Two Towers And The Return Of The King". They could have cut out most of the extraneous scenes from the TTT (like the Arwen ones) and kept stuff from TTT in TTT. Then they could use the Extended Release of ROTK to include the Scouring of the Shire." This is discussed in the appendixes. P. Jackson thought that including the Scouring of the Shire would give the movie too many endings...

Contrary to popular belief... (4, Funny)

Paiway (842782) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180869)

... shields can not be used as skateboards.

Re:Contrary to popular belief... (0, Troll)

Trespass (225077) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180905)

Thanks for ruining the movie with spoilers, dude. ;^P

Re:Contrary to popular belief... (1)

PoopJuggler (688445) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181447)

What about snowboards?

His results are spectacular - boy, was I wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11180889)

I haven't read the books, so I have no fanboy perspective for bashing. I managed to avoid all the fuss thinking I had no interest in this fairy tale. FOTR has recently run on TV and I watched it every time. EVERY TIME. Twice in a row sometimes. Couldn't take my eyes off it. The production values, music and actors are stunning. Totally kept my interest. Drew me right in and make me love this followship of odd characters. Now I just bought the DVDs and can't wait to follow the rest of the story. I assume where Jackson took liberties, it worked. He even has "nobody tosses a dwarf" which puts a modern spin for the better. I assume the original makes no reference to dwarf tossing. Whatever the changes, these films are epic and wonderful and so honour the original works despite whatever changes.

He's lucky... (2, Funny)

kirun (658684) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180895)

He's lucky he didn't try to list the inconsistencies between the various Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy editions. Now *there's* a task to drive you insane.

Re:He's lucky... (1)

-kertrats- (718219) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181222)

but how do you know what's an inconsistency and what's the way it's supposed to be? and what of the items that are how they are supposed to be and an inconsistency? My head asplode.

Uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11180901)

OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG

A Christmas Wish... (5, Funny)

WwWonka (545303) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180922)

Dear Santa,

After nearly spending half an eon watching the extended versions of LOTRs and comparing the text of our beloved JRR Tolkein to each and every sound and syllable of the movies, I am writing you in hopes that you deliver to me this very Christmas the following gifts:

1. A life
2. Liv Tyler
3. Liv Tyler naked
4. The Extended version of Dune on DVD
5. The Dune books

Sincerely,
The LOTR Nitpicker

Re:A Christmas Wish... (1)

bhima (46039) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181193)

Rather than Liv wouldn't mean Barbora Kodetová?

After all you seem to have moved on to Dune...

Re:A Christmas Wish...Orlando Bloom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11181245)

You're making an big assumption... There's a lot more scenes with Orlando Bloom than Liv Tyler in LOTR!

Re:A Christmas Wish... (1)

MrP- (45616) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181300)

My list is better

1. A sex life
2. Miranda Otto
3. Miranda Otto naked
4. #1 mixed with #3
5. #1 mixed with #3 + your #3

Why again? (1)

northcat (827059) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180929)

This story originally appeared on Slashdot back in January.

Not only do you post duplicates, now you also acknowledge that its a dupe in the summary itself?

Re:Honesty is the best policy... So shut it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11181226)

Try checking out how many news sites/news shows post crap straight outta Rueters. Slashdot is a fountain of orginality by comparison. I don't see a practical way for /. to avoid dupes all together, So I appreciate the effort made to reference and even link to dupes

Virgin Alert (0, Troll)

chyllaxyn (592599) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180932)

With no prospects, and no hope. Did you notice in scene three of RTOK where Frodo looked to the right, NOT IN THE BOOK ! Phil Eskew, if you had 1/10th the passion for this story as Jackson you would have more respect than to stand on the shoulders of a giant and piss on his head. You're a dip shit. /Lord of the Bad Karma

to nitpick the nitpicky... (3, Informative)

cliffiecee (136220) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180941)

The site author makes reference to four "Major Mistakes" that Jackson made in his adaptation, but then fails to list them together, so they'd be easier to find.

1. Expanding Arwen's role
2. Changing Faramir's storyline
3. Frodo sending Sam home
4. Saruman's destruction of the Shire

Of these, I sort of agree with #2, and that didn't bother me as much as the Elves showing up at Helm's Deep- that was just SO WRONG. In the introduction of Jackson's FOTR, the narrator refers to the LAST ALLIANCE of elves... not the PENULTIMATE alliance, or NEXT-TO-THE-LAST alliance! Grrr.

And I TOTALLY disagree with #4. Jackson already had, like, SIX endings in ROTK. What works so well in the book would just be *torture* on the screen, as much as I'd like to have seen it.

Re:to nitpick the nitpicky... (1)

cliffiecee (136220) | more than 9 years ago | (#11180990)

Correction: #4 should read "The omission of Saruman's destruction..."

And Jackon had FIVE endings in ROTK, not six:
1. Frodo awakens (after rescue from Mt. Doom), everyone's glad
2. Arwen and Aragorn marry
3. Hobbits return to the Shire (Sam & Rosie, happy times, etc.)
4. Frodo & Bilbo sail away
5. Sam goes back home to his family

Oh, and Happy Holidays.

Re:to nitpick the nitpicky... (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181041)

I cannot see how any account of the worst nits can omit the butchery of the role of the sword reforged.

Along with 2 and 3 from the above, I consider it the worst deviation from the book. It has all sorts of side effects - for example it leaves Galadriel with no gift to give to Aragorn.

The effects of this permiate and distort all 3 of the movies.

The elves at Helm's Deep are annoying, but hardly anywhere nearly as bad as 2, 3 and business of the sword.

I did see it... (3, Insightful)

solios (53048) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181466)

ROTK was the only one of the three I saw on the big screen, and let me tell you- after nearly three hours, I had to piss like a frigging racehorse. The multiple endings with the super-long fades in between them were torture. Agonizing. Annoying as FUCK. I'm a picky bastard, but some of the audience was groaning by the third fade... and absolutely nobody stuck around for the credits.

The multitude of endings would have worked great on DVD, but it was pure torture in the theater, at least for me and several of my friends. :|

I hate nitpicking (3, Insightful)

Hyksos (595814) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181011)

I don't like it how people see the books as the ultimate truth of how to tell the story... I mean if Jackson didn't make these changes, let's face it... it would be boring. Douglas Adams was still alive when they started making the movie version of his books, and he happily accepted changes, and often made some changes himself. Art should be viewed as something living and organic, not something static.

Re:I hate nitpicking (1)

Reducer2001 (197985) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181122)

Art should be viewed as something living and organic, not something static.

Mr. Lucas is that you?

STOP BELIEVING HOLLYWOOD'S BULLSHIT! (5, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181554)

Douglas Adams was still alive when they started making the movie version of his books, and he happily accepted changes

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Really not!

He rewrote the screen adaptation many times, never finding a balance between his genius and the hollywood lowest-common-denominator dogma, and wrote one last draft that he believed was the best compromise.

He then died, and the studio REWROTE the script, AGAIN, probably to re-insert the stupid changes he fought against.

Do NOT let yourself be fooled when the vultures say he would have liked it. It is their contractual obligation to bullshit us and hype the project as much as they can. When they say it's going to be good, ask yourself: Is it in their financial best interest to lie to us about the quality of the product? Does this person stand to make MILLIONS from those lil' white lies?

Look at the EarthSea thing that happened recently, the producers made a comment that the author really wanted to say what their bastard monstrosity says, forgetting that she's alive and able to tell the world otherwise. She was able to defend herself and her original works from the slander it was subjected to, but Asimov can't, Adams can't, Roddenberry can't...

Look at the hype for Will Smith'S I, Robot! The fresh prince was actually saying in interviews that is was very faithfull to the spirit of Asimov's robot stories, and then he explains "everyone on earth trusts the robots, but my character is the only one that suspects the truth: they are up to no good", followed by rampaging hordes of killbots. That is the OPPOSITE of Asimov's stories! Only the USRobots people trusted their creation, the mundane people of earth didn't trust 'em one bit! They had laws forcing them to be manually operated, and to not be within a certain distance of schools, etc! And not only that, but the whole "robots are not to be trusted and will turn on their masters" is exactly the precise sort of stories that Asimov did NOT write. He made up the 3 laws to get away from that frankenstein crap, dammit!

Enjoying a movie for what it is is fine, really. But you can do it without the delusion that they are faithfull to the spirit of the original when they are virtually raping the author's corpse.

Here's a tip: If you hear of a movie being made that is based on a book, and you haven't yet read that book, wait until you've seen the movie, then read the book. The book is always better, so this way you get to like the movie, then love the book. If you read the book first, you like the book, then hate the movie.

Movie, like. Then: Book, love.
The other way only leads to disapointment.

#27 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11181075)

"Frodo remains defiant up to the point when the Black Riders are unhorsed by the river (FOTR p.285-286). Jackson has Frodo barely able to breathe and half-dead...and defended by Arwen. Bah!"

I love reading a strongly felt opinion.

Why? It's a movie (1)

The Foo (794948) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181105)

Nitpickers, just watch the movie like your supposed to. If you want to have book accuracy read the book.

Major mistake... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11181136)

Making Aragorn less hot than he was in the book was a bad thing. He was such a wimp in the movie. They should have let a chick cast the role of Aragorn. The movie would have been much better, and the Legolas/Aragorn gay jokes would have been more amusing.

I had a huge crush on Aragorn when I read the book. The movie was.. disappointing.

Flesh is denser than lava? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11181265)

You want a nitpick?

Gollum (meat: mean density approx. 1g/cm^3)
lava (mean density perhaps 8g/cm^3)
the Ring (gold: about 14 g/cm^3)

Which would float, and which would sink in the lava?

But it does look great, as the ring gets hotter and hotter, the writing starting to shine and then the final melting. Oh well.

Re:Flesh is denser than lava? (2, Informative)

Marc_Hawke (130338) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181481)

The ring didn't 'float' on the molten lava. It instantly 'cooled' a section of the lava, so there was a solid portion it was sitting on. Then, as the 'coolness' went out of the ring, it's little float-tube re-melted and it sank.

Gollum didn't sink, he melted...but it certain looks like sinking. :)

Dupe (1)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181309)

"This story originally appeared on Slashdot back in January."

Ah, so now they just say its "updated". Least they admit its a dupe, and admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery!

Update (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181565)

they just say its "updated". Least they admit its a dupe

Now includes comparison of the extra special edition DVD footage, which wasn't there to be nitpicked a year ago.

bad changes (1)

ziggles (246540) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181394)

It's kinda funny. When I tried to read the books I gave up after I fell asleep the 26th time, about halfway through FOTR. But I read these nitpickings and it turns out that most of the things I thought sucked about the movies were things that were changed from the books. Peter Jackson just sucks that much, it was obvious to me what he changed without even having read the books. :P

Really people.... (1)

binderhead126 (809883) | more than 9 years ago | (#11181498)

Maybe Iam the only erson with this opinion, but I didn't like the books or the movies, I thought they were really boring. The ring is evil, everyone wants it, no one should have it, and how do we monitor the person who does have it??? Let's go find more pipe-weed!!! Seriously, I thoght the entire story should have been a short film. It also maes an annoying amount of drug references. Seriously. "We smoked weed, and now this tree is walking and talking?!?!? What the hell!?!?!"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>