I went to see ROTK for the 2nd time yesterday and aside from the myriad of minor flaws, want to concentrate on major issues surrounding Jackson's character development.
ARAGORN is the first big problem. In the book he is both a ranger from the north, but also a man destined to be king. He knows who he is, and he has an expectation of that destiny. Likewise in the book he has 'spiritual' awareness. Aragorn is descended, not merely from men, but from Numenor: so he already has in him some of the blood of the Elves. Now Jackson gives all foresight to the Elves - making the men merely, men. But the whole point is that the-man-born-to-be-king has the spiritual awareness of the great kings of old. Thus, in book II at the river it is Aragorn, not Legolas (as in Jackson's version), who is aware of a shadow growing in his heart. And, more significantly, it is Aragorn who in the book takes the palantir by his right (Gandalf actually bows to give it to him). Gandalf counsels him not to use it, but Aragorn knows who he is. So he looks in the palantir and shows Sauron the sword. He challenges Sauron, and then wrenches the palantir away from the Eye to use as HE wills, not as Sauron wills. In so doing he sees the black fleet, and so knows the threat. That's why he takes the path of the dead. And when he goes under the Dimholt he REALLY summons the dead. The exchange in the film between Aragorn and the Geoffrey-Rush-Pirates-of-the-Caribbean-look-alike ghost is feeble in the film. In the book Aragorn does not doubt who he is: he calls them, not barters with them.
Now Aragorn's action here is part of a much larger cohesion in Tolkien that is entirely absent in Jackson. As a result we're left with a desperately anti-climactic coronation. Why? There's simply been no character development of Aragorn. He's been denuded of a sense of who he is.
SAURON is the next big problem. It's true that in the book he is mostly referred to as the Eye. But he also has personality. In the film, apart from the opening sequence to film I (which was brilliant) all we have is a plasma lamp sometime searchlight. Since in the book Gandalf has told Frodo that 'Sauron is taking shape again' why on earth didn't Jackson then develop Sauron from the figure in film I? In the book, we are told of Sauron's gnawing doubt. We hear of reports about 'spies' entering Mordor. We know that he is consumed by fear of the upstart heir of Elendil. None of this is developed in the film. (And the Ring seems to lose power on entering Mordor, not gain it!) Result? There was no sense of elation at the fall of Barad'dur.
Now this is a serious theological error that I suspect Tolkien would have detested. Personify good, and you must also personify evil. Tolkien's epic was all about those forces being personified: and how you discern them. Sauron is a personification of evil. He's not actually the worst - that belongs to Morgoth (of whom the Balrog is a servant). Whilst Tolkien rightly loathed allegory, he nonetheless never would have countenanced such a weak and ineffectual portrayal of the enemy. The whole point, and if this isn't obvious in the world today then Jackson is even less astute than I imagined, is that evil in many guises takes human form.
OTHERS
The same lack of characterisation in Aragorn and Sauron goes on with many of the others. Notable exceptions are GANDALF and SARUMAN (both well acted). Jackson made a mistake in cutting Saruman out of III having made so much of him in I and II (more than the book). ARWEN is drippy throughout. EOWYN is changed in the film. Miranda Otto was excellent. But Jackson plays up the love between her and Aragorn so much that we are left wondering how Eowyn is apparently beatifically happy to see him with Arwen. On the subject of Eowyn it's such a shame Jackson didn't do the slaying of the witch-king better. In the book the battlefield pauses - a cloud goes up and everyone in Minas Tirith is happy. It's one of the truly great moments, lost by Jackson. The reports even leak back to the orcs in the tower above Shelob's lair so that Sam and Frodo hear that 'No.1. has been done in'.
As for the HOBBITS . I think this may be a question of preference. Personally I think Sean Astin's acting as SAM is execrable, but some like it. For me, the simple gardener becomes a mini-philosopher and I find his soliloquy both at the end of film II in Osgiliath (to which they never go in the book) and on the mountain (twice) truly toe-curlingly dreadful: pap I'm afraid. And, oh dear, we even veered towards Titanic-music-moments at the end of film I and again on the mountain. BILBO was fine until the end. Yes, we know he ages fast now he's lost the ring, but the Salieri-style prosthetics are poor. Jackson loves the slow-motion work so much that we have to endure some particularly dreadful sequences with the Hobbits (most notably the already infamous bed scene) and at the end (where I really thought Frodo was going to give Sam a full-on smacker!). A similarly tacky piece of directing occurs when the elves appear - the soft focus lens is deployed with 'celtic' singing. Argh - this is kindergarten film production.
I expect the film will garner the Oscars ceremony. But I hope some people in Tinsel town have the courage to acknowledge that whilst some of the visuals are outstanding (though many are not - e.g. the oliphaunt descent by Legolas, the Merrick-style leader of the orcs, and the Army of the dead), the film is not actually very good.
Peter - I'm afraid you've let us, and J.R.R. Tolkien, down.
ARAGORN is the first big problem. In the book he is both a ranger from the north, but also a man destined to be king. He knows who he is, and he has an expectation of that destiny. Likewise in the book he has 'spiritual' awareness. Aragorn is descended, not merely from men, but from Numenor: so he already has in him some of the blood of the Elves. Now Jackson gives all foresight to the Elves - making the men merely, men. But the whole point is that the-man-born-to-be-king has the spiritual awareness of the great kings of old. Thus, in book II at the river it is Aragorn, not Legolas (as in Jackson's version), who is aware of a shadow growing in his heart. And, more significantly, it is Aragorn who in the book takes the palantir by his right (Gandalf actually bows to give it to him). Gandalf counsels him not to use it, but Aragorn knows who he is. So he looks in the palantir and shows Sauron the sword. He challenges Sauron, and then wrenches the palantir away from the Eye to use as HE wills, not as Sauron wills. In so doing he sees the black fleet, and so knows the threat. That's why he takes the path of the dead. And when he goes under the Dimholt he REALLY summons the dead. The exchange in the film between Aragorn and the Geoffrey-Rush-Pirates-of-the-Caribbean-look-alike ghost is feeble in the film. In the book Aragorn does not doubt who he is: he calls them, not barters with them.
Now Aragorn's action here is part of a much larger cohesion in Tolkien that is entirely absent in Jackson. As a result we're left with a desperately anti-climactic coronation. Why? There's simply been no character development of Aragorn. He's been denuded of a sense of who he is.
SAURON is the next big problem. It's true that in the book he is mostly referred to as the Eye. But he also has personality. In the film, apart from the opening sequence to film I (which was brilliant) all we have is a plasma lamp sometime searchlight. Since in the book Gandalf has told Frodo that 'Sauron is taking shape again' why on earth didn't Jackson then develop Sauron from the figure in film I? In the book, we are told of Sauron's gnawing doubt. We hear of reports about 'spies' entering Mordor. We know that he is consumed by fear of the upstart heir of Elendil. None of this is developed in the film. (And the Ring seems to lose power on entering Mordor, not gain it!) Result? There was no sense of elation at the fall of Barad'dur.
Now this is a serious theological error that I suspect Tolkien would have detested. Personify good, and you must also personify evil. Tolkien's epic was all about those forces being personified: and how you discern them. Sauron is a personification of evil. He's not actually the worst - that belongs to Morgoth (of whom the Balrog is a servant). Whilst Tolkien rightly loathed allegory, he nonetheless never would have countenanced such a weak and ineffectual portrayal of the enemy. The whole point, and if this isn't obvious in the world today then Jackson is even less astute than I imagined, is that evil in many guises takes human form.
OTHERS
The same lack of characterisation in Aragorn and Sauron goes on with many of the others. Notable exceptions are GANDALF and SARUMAN (both well acted). Jackson made a mistake in cutting Saruman out of III having made so much of him in I and II (more than the book). ARWEN is drippy throughout. EOWYN is changed in the film. Miranda Otto was excellent. But Jackson plays up the love between her and Aragorn so much that we are left wondering how Eowyn is apparently beatifically happy to see him with Arwen. On the subject of Eowyn it's such a shame Jackson didn't do the slaying of the witch-king better. In the book the battlefield pauses - a cloud goes up and everyone in Minas Tirith is happy. It's one of the truly great moments, lost by Jackson. The reports even leak back to the orcs in the tower above Shelob's lair so that Sam and Frodo hear that 'No.1. has been done in'.
As for the HOBBITS . I think this may be a question of preference. Personally I think Sean Astin's acting as SAM is execrable, but some like it. For me, the simple gardener becomes a mini-philosopher and I find his soliloquy both at the end of film II in Osgiliath (to which they never go in the book) and on the mountain (twice) truly toe-curlingly dreadful: pap I'm afraid. And, oh dear, we even veered towards Titanic-music-moments at the end of film I and again on the mountain. BILBO was fine until the end. Yes, we know he ages fast now he's lost the ring, but the Salieri-style prosthetics are poor. Jackson loves the slow-motion work so much that we have to endure some particularly dreadful sequences with the Hobbits (most notably the already infamous bed scene) and at the end (where I really thought Frodo was going to give Sam a full-on smacker!). A similarly tacky piece of directing occurs when the elves appear - the soft focus lens is deployed with 'celtic' singing. Argh - this is kindergarten film production.
I expect the film will garner the Oscars ceremony. But I hope some people in Tinsel town have the courage to acknowledge that whilst some of the visuals are outstanding (though many are not - e.g. the oliphaunt descent by Legolas, the Merrick-style leader of the orcs, and the Army of the dead), the film is not actually very good.
Peter - I'm afraid you've let us, and J.R.R. Tolkien, down.