ozoneocean
It took all that huge, fantasic, massiveness, and put it in a smaller, more ordinary scale.

I think it actually achieved the opposite. It took the grand scale of the war and the impact of evil and doubled it, just with the fact that it was not now some huge realm or expanse that got trashed and defiled, but their own land, which they could recall how it was before and compare it with the now. It gives the feel of sullying, like when a person feels violated after a burglar has been in the house- even if it is no different that other burglaries that may have been encountered and /or dealt with. There are also many things that are discussed there such as what Ozone mentioned. Also people's shortsightedness, unconcern to look into any matter, quickness to tag people and shun or accept them... a quick review of all of society's workings is in there, punching you in the gut and not allowing you to entirely recover. I think the Scouring of the Shire was not only not stupid, but a stroke of true genius.

When you guys are done praising the Scouring, I'll come around to remind you guys that Jackson agrees with me and the movie agrees with me, and regardless what you think is best there will be no Scouring in the Jackson trilogy. Not even on the DVDs.

mlai
When you guys are done praising the Scouring, I'll come around to remind you guys that Jackson agrees with me and the movie agrees with me, and regardless what you think is best there will be no Scouring in the Jackson trilogy. Not even on the DVDs.

I don't think that matters all that much since here we're primarily discussing the original novels. What someone does in a recent film adaptation isn't as important as what's in the actual literary work.
There have been plays, parodies, song projects and even and animation; they all depict the story in slightly different ways. What's always been supreme and what will continue to be supreme are the novels.

Ragarding Jackson's movies though, to be perfectly frank, after the stupidity of the second one I quit (I don't want to ever see shield surfing in any film!). I've never bothered to see the last one.

ozoneocean
Ragarding Jackson's movies though, to be perfectly frank, after the stupidity of the second one I quit (I don't want to ever see shield surfing in any film!). I've never bothered to see the last one.

Yeah, there were some rather stupid moments in all three films, but overall I rate them as a success. I would have done a number of things differently, but nobody gave me millions of dollars to make it happen (and probably with good cause). I think the Scouring would have been a valuable coda, I would have restaged Weathertop to be more like in the book, I would have dumped the silly Mumakil stampede from ROTK (used them as mobile missile towers, like in the books, rather than giant rampaging bulls) etc.

But despite all my disappointments, there are some classic moments which make up for them: The Ents emerging from Fanghorn and marching on Isenguard (a scene so breathtaking that it actually brought me to tears), the death of Boromir (more tears there), Frodo crawling up the barren slopes of Mt Doom (always one of my favourite scenes from the book)... for these moments, and more, I will always be grateful to Mr Jackson.

The Novels, however, are my first love and nothing else will ever quite be the same.

mlai
When you guys are done praising the Scouring, I'll come around to remind you guys that Jackson agrees with me and the movie agrees with me, and regardless what you think is best there will be no Scouring in the Jackson trilogy. Not even on the DVDs.

Like Ozone said, what Jackson says is not more valuable than what any other reader says. To use that as an argument proving the Scouring was useless is... well... let's say it does not prove anything but Jackson's estimation of what he thought (or his fund people thought) was going to be lucrative. Of course, Jackson was also aiming to allure pre-teens much more than the already well-established fandom of Tolkien himself. I can understand why the Scouring may not appeal to a younger audience. That only means it is meant for an audience developed enough to see what there is to be seen in it.

Plus, using what a blockbuster (or any other type of) movie has chosen to portray as argument or rule of thumb about a book's quality can only imply rather alarming facts about culture as a whole.

To let the world know that you did not watch a movie such as LOTR 3, because you're so in love with yourself and what you think the books represent... is to... well... actually I don't care. I'm not the one missing out on some fantastic imagery.

It's like swearing off moving pictures because you think books are a more fulfilling medium. Heh, go knock yourself out.

And it's too late now. Watching it on the TV is nothing compared to watching it in the theatre.

Dis Jackson all you want. I'm not saying I worship him and his decisions, even tho they do coincide with mine. I'm just saying that at the end of the day, he didn't film Scouring. So no amount of "Oh he's such a sell-out oh we're so smart oh we're the TRUE fans of Tolkien" will change the fact that there is no Scouring in Jackson's trilogy.

Someone
I would have done a number of things differently, but nobody gave me millions of dollars to make it happen (and probably with good cause).

I couldn't agree more. And not just regarding you. But regarding every single person under the sun who thinks he/she could've done better than Jackson because he/she read the books too.

mlai
I couldn't agree more. And not just regarding you. But regarding every single person under the sun who thinks he/she could've done better than Jackson because he/she read the books too.

Meh, this isn't the first time that LOTR has been turned into a motion picture anyway. There was an animated movie made in 1978, which had some merits but was mostly a dreadful mess. I'm hoping there'll be another adaptation in 25 years or so, by another director, so we can see another visual interpretation of the books.

mlai
To let the world know that you did not watch a movie such as LOTR 3, because you're so in love with yourself and what you think the books represent... is to... well... actually I don't care. I'm not the one missing out on some fantastic imagery.

wha-ha??????? Yeah, I love myself enough not to subject my eyes to sillyness... I think you trailed off there because you realised your point was a bit too bizarre to actually apply to the what it was meant to be addressing. lol!
Whatever, it's a consumer's prerogative to decide for themselves which media they consume.

The argument isn't really about what Jackson did, because I don't really care since I never saw, the argument is about what part of the books are germane to the story. ;)

Hmm.. LOTR was massively well known and popular before the movies were ever concieved. Just not by our generation. Sadly, it is true that it is only getting a lot of attention because of the new movies, but only because our generation has not grown up with the books. "The Hobbit" used to be one of the books schools used for novel studies in English, but not anymore.

The actual writing in LOTR is actually quite sophisticated and detailed, giving you tons of info, history and imagery of another world. But then, that's just my opinion. :)

No, the point is not whether Scouring is germane to the story. Of course it is. It's Tolkien's book. His style isn't exactly a page turner. There's tons of boring passages in LOTR. Compared to those, Scouring is like Die Hard.

My disagreement was over whether the Jackson trilogy was lesser for it because it didn't include Scouring. In terms of the Jackson version of the story, adding Scouring would be like Lucas adding Amidala into original SW - it's stupid. I kept quiet until all the holier-than-thous started resonating off each other, going on about how Jackson trilogy sucks because there's no Scouring, how he's such a sell-out, and how THEY would have added Scouring because they're REAL FANS.

Yeah, it's true it's your freedom what you choose to watch. But, being a visual artist, not watching LOTR 3 is such a disservice to yourself.

mlai
To let the world know that you did not watch a movie such as LOTR 3, because you're so in love with yourself and what you think the books represent... is to... well... actually I don't care. I'm not the one missing out on some fantastic imagery.

It that was being addressed to me, it's a moot point: I did watch all three movies. In the theatre. I did enjoy them. I did feel disappointed at the end of LOTR movie 3 and I will forever consider them inferior to the books. That is no earthshattering statement. All movie adaptations tend to be inferior to the literary original.

It's like swearing off moving pictures because you think books are a more fulfilling medium. Heh, go knock yourself out.

To each his own :) I prefer my imagination unhindered. However, I am a movie buff and have no problem enjoying both mediums, fully aware where the true quality is, at least when it comes to adapting books. Original scripted movies- or at least ones based on books I haven't read- are considerably more possible to score high marks.

Dis Jackson all you want. I'm not saying I worship him and his decisions, even tho they do coincide with mine. I'm just saying that at the end of the day, he didn't film Scouring. So no amount of "Oh he's such a sell-out oh we're so smart oh we're the TRUE fans of Tolkien" will change the fact that there is no Scouring in Jackson's trilogy.

No argument there. Fact is fact. The point was not that, as far as I recall. But if you want, you may just stick to that- it's true enough! :D

But regarding every single person under the sun who thinks he/she could've done better than Jackson because he/she read the books too.

The fact that one was not chosen to make a movie does not mean that one can't do it better. I do see all the value and merit in Jackson's movies- they are true pioneering ones and hopefully have opened the way for more (better) ones to be created. But that's one thing, and to worship this as the paragon of all possible movie adaptations is another. Jackson did well; but it's up to anyone to say whether he did well enough. Being funded (and NOT being funded) does not necessitate capacity, capability or intelligence- do I need to give examples?

In any case, this is a world of pluralism- that means several opinions, nonetheleast where taste is concerned. I can't judge what you find awesome, and neither can you regarding me. Certain objective aspects can be discussed, but in the end it comes down to whether you like it or not. That's why there are so many people in the world, so many directors, and so many different ways to adapt a single book ;)

Those statements were aimed at the author of Pinky.

I do not consider Jackson's trilogy to be inferior to the books, seeing as how they're 2 separate mediums and shouldn't be compared in such a fashion. Comparing movies to books only leads to elitism such as the one the author of Pinky demonstrated, going so far as to miss out on the theatrical release of LOTR 3.

Edit:
If you think I'm being obsessively antagonistic, it's because the elitism demonstrated in this thread has loud echos of the prejudice faced by the comics/manga medium in America, and by the older generation. It's extremely annoying to a comics/manga lover/artist such as myself.

Edit 2:
You may agree or disagree with the above. But it's what I feel.

I'm not elitist. :(
I'm just not the kind of person that enjoys gratuitous 'romantic' subplots and sheild-surfing arrow firing elves...

I mean, I'm not 15 years old anymore... That sort of thing just doesn't hold it's appeal for me any longer. You grow up, you know? I don't know, for some reason I saw Mortal Kombat with a friend when it came out at the movies (years ago) and I thought that it was complete and utter used toilet paper, does that make me elitist? If it does, well then I won't mind being elitist because it'll mean it's something good. :)

I like manga. I just finished reading all the Silent Mobius comics I bought 4 years ago! And eventually I'll read my new Cowboys and Aliens comic, when I'm feeling that way inclined.

But again, the whole thread is mainly about Tolkien's famous trilogy and the fact that TheRucoon and Rich thought they sucked. But I don't even think they were being elitist. What do you really mean by that anyway? Someone who doesn't like the things you do?

mlai
Comparing movies to books only leads to elitism such as the one the author of Pinky demonstrated, going so far as to miss out on the theatrical release of LOTR 3.

Comparing movies to books is inevitable and rewarding. It helps us understand the differences between the mediums, and see the strengths and weaknesses inherent in each. I've already mentioned some of my highlights from the films, and these were moments which I think work better on screen than in print because film can evoke images and sound. But I think there a also a lot of things which work better in print - a series of novels is much better at fleshing out a vast world like Middle-Earth, and giving a sense of the truly epic scale of everything that happens.

OzoneOcean never said that books were a fundamentally superior format to film, that *would* have been elitism, rather he said that he decided not to watch ROTK because he didn't like the previous two films. That's just a sensible decision. No-one in their right mind is going to make an effort to see the third film in a trilogy when they haven't enjoyed the first two parts.

mlai
I do not consider Jackson's trilogy to be inferior to the books, seeing as how they're 2 separate mediums and shouldn't be compared in such a fashion. Comparing movies to books only leads to elitism such as the one the author of Pinky demonstrated, going so far as to miss out on the theatrical release of LOTR 3.

I beg to differ. I don't think it leads to elitism. Elitism means that you shun a medium merely on principle. That would be really very wrong indeed. Plus I really don't think Ozone is elitist. After all, he did try two out of three movies, saw they were not to his tastes and decided not to watch the third one. Nothing wrong with trial and error, right? That is not elitism, that is assertion. To watch a movie merely because it is hailed by everyone as a masterpiece when you think otherwise would mean weakness of character to hold your own opinion, especially after you have actually sampled the thing. Comparing books and their adaptions to film is very constructive. After all, it is what creators need to elevate their creation to stand on the same level (or even higher, if they can manage it) than the original source. That can only be achieved through comparison.

Edit:
If you think I'm being obsessively antagonistic, it's because the elitism demonstrated in this thread has loud echos of the prejudice faced by the comics/manga medium in America, and by the older generation. It's extremely annoying to a comics/manga lover/artist such as myself.

I do think you were venting some things here that may not necessarily have been entirely pertinent to this discussion, yes. :) That's fine, really. But the source of your anger (shunning manga as a medium) is really not the same with critiquing or stating opinions on a single creation within a medium such as film-making. In the case of the comparison of the novels and Jackson's movies, the point was not to shun adapting books to film as a whole, but whether this was achieved effectively (and to what purpose/level) in this particular case. This is a matter of opinion, of course; but whether for or against any statement pertaining to this discussion, no opinion on this issue constitutes elitism. Elitism requires sweeping AND absolutist remarks about a whole category, which is not the case here.

Now, regarding your real gripe: It is definitely wrong to shun manga, and those who are really dedicated to art know not to. However, as my personal opinion, I think this shouldn't be that annoying to you if those turning up their nose to manga are not actually forbidding you to enjoy (reading or drawing) what you like. If you like manga, no American or representative of the older generation will stop you from enjoying it, correct? What others like should not be really that much your concern. Especially if the comments are confined to pejorative remarks with no real value as to the artwork concerned. This of course is a digression of the thread's topic, and there are others discussing manga and discrimination against it or lack thereof.

Edit 2:
You may agree or disagree with the above. But it's what I feel.

There is nothing to agree or disagree with, really. Do you think there is? :D

*warning, biased, possibly retarded rant*

Screw Peter Jackson and his long-ass movies.

Is it really neccesary to have them be so bloody long? All his movies are comprised of big action scene followed by long fluffernutter dramatics and then another big action scene. I read all three LOTR books in the time it took for one movie. Why, what is he trying to accomplish by making such a tedious movie? Is he gettting paid by the minute? That would make sence.

I bet you they're gonna churn out LOTR uber-special-pimptastic-bubblicious edition with at least 100 hours of added footage which will be the same pointless dribble.

But I am an impatient little brat so this it all just a pointless rant but yeah...

I am grateful for what LOTR did for fantasy.

I am pissed at what it did for movies and Peter Jackson. He irritates me almost as much as that Michael Moore dude.

Wow, I sound like an ass.

If it makes you feel any better I just jotted down those titles at the start to seek out on a somewhat later date.

i did like his movie "The Frighteners"

i especially like the ending song
http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/LJI0yUbjtVY

hollywood kills my inner child... I'v read lord of the rings (all of them) when I was like 9 or 10, loved em then like a year or 2 later I saw Lord of the Rings playing in pictures and I was like. "ooo I gotta see this" needless to say... I think they suck... but then again who am I to say >_>

(I think star wars sucks, but its the best straight through sci-fi I can find so whatever)

i hated star wars, but i like farscape...go figure

I love Star Wars. I hate the new Battlestar Galactica . I DID like the first Mortal Kombat movie. I am also a fan of Tron, Dune, Conan, Masters of the Universe and Thundercats.
I chose to say this first to give you an idea of my tastes so you can decide if my opinions are worth reading to you or not.
I liked the movie adaptations of LOTR and liked them a lot, and I mean A LOT more than the books. I actually forced myself to read The Fellowship of the Ring, and got to about the first quarter of The Two Towers before quitting. I mean, how many pages of these guys running am I going to have to endure? When are they going to get ANYWHERE?
I believe Tolkien was a creative genius and a master world builder, but his storytelling simply sucks. It is too damn slow, and the fact that everybody sings just IRKS me. It felt like reading the screenplay of a Disney movie.
Not surprisingly, The Two Towers is the movie I like the least of the three. I, however, loved the trilogy, and although I don't believe Jackson is God's gift to cinema as many movie fans think, I think he made mostly right choices regarding what to show, how to show it and what not to show. For example, Tolkien treated fight scenes as a necessary evil, as if he tried to get past them as fast as he posibly could, while Jackson makes them important and exciting, if a little overdone. Tolkien fanatics always complain about the Tom Bombadil part. Well, there is a reason it has not survived any film adaptation of the novels: it does absolutely NOTHING to advance the story. Same for the Scouring: it is a redundant and anticlimatic epilogue to an otherwise epic story.

beastmaster
Tolkien fanatics always complain about the Tom Bombadil part. Well, there is a reason it has not survived any film adaptation of the novels: it does absolutely NOTHING to advance the story. Same for the Scouring: it is a redundant and anticlimatic epilogue to an otherwise epic story.

I disagree. That's silly. Besides, you don't have to be a Tolkien fanatic to like those bits, just an ordinary reader like me, and I'll tell you right now those outnumber the "fanatics". The amount of people who've read the books probably easily outnumbers the drones who saw the movies too- since the films just came out a few years ago and the readership over the decades since the novels were released has been IMMENSE (a lot of the early readership is probably dead by now anyway). They were a literary phenomena in their time and long after it, which a lot of callow young people these days just don't seem to realise... It's like the whole world was invented in their teens and everything before that is just made up.

-The fantaics loved the film more than you did, I'll guarantee that. Stupid "elvish" speaking weirdos... :)

Agree with Beastmaster. LOTR novels were slow and devoid of action. Probably even for Tolkien's time. I had excused it as "well it's the old days of fiction writing, maybe they don't write action." Well, I'm currently reading Le Morte D'Arthur, and it has 100x the action of LOTR novels. So, it's prolly just Tolkien.

I did like Hobbit, though. Even Simarillion and Lost Tales had some action.

TTT was actually the movie I liked best, if I had to pick. FOTR and TTT are tied for me, with ROTK below.

yeah, I confess I did like the hobbit over the lotr series...

mainly because the Hobbit's story seemed more easy-going, natural and not quite as.. forced.

yah, I think the lotr series seemed "forced" in the fact that some chapters didn't quite flow into other chapters very easily. it was almost like a choppy transition.
it almost seemed like it was written as an play script more than as an novel like the hobbit, espeically with all the "singing" bits.