Lord of the Rings rating?

You are right about that Halfy, Faramirs relationship with Denethor in the films make no sense- in the flashback they portray a large part of his bond with Bormonir as being a mutual understanding about their father- they tolerate him, they roll their eyes about him behind his back, they pll faces at his approach.
There is no respect there as there is in the book, and certainly no signs of the love that is clear in the book which Faramir has for his father.
He is just a mad bad guy in the film with no depth or development save o go from mad to barking mad. He just froths more.
He is incompetent as a ruler, as Halfy pointed out he wont even call his own allies, and when it is eventually done by someone else, ludicrously Pippin climbing a hundred feet up a tower to do it, he just grumps! What? Either he is the Ruler and ordered them not to be lit, in which case someone just broke his commandment and he should punish them, or he wanted them lit, so why not order it himself? And why look so pissed off? It makes no sense at all from any angle.
And why did no one light them? If everyone knows Sauron is amassing an army and that he has already attacked Osgiliath once when Boromir defended it, why does no one seem bothered that their Ruler sits all alone and talks to know one, has no Councils, no helpers, no staff beyond some doorwards and refuses to defend his people?
It beggars all belief.

Book Denethor is active- when Pippin and Gandalf cross into Gondor they dont ride across an empty field, they pass through the outer defences of the Rammas which are being repaired and bolstered- its a land preparing for war. Denethor sleeps in his armour as a symbol to his people of his readiness and preparedness. The beacons are lit before Gandalf reaches Minas Tirith. Denethor has Captains, Councillors, he holds meetings, makes tactical and strategical decisions- he could not be more different to the pathetic shadow of a character presented to us in the film.

  I think Denethor is pretty good in the film.

Are you toying with me Mrs Figg?  

One or both of us. She knows Don'tethor is my pet peeve.  

 

What I'm confused about is they said Faramir needed a character arc, so that's why they made him a jerk in TT, but what I can't fathom is why they didn't do the same for Denethor? He did have a character arc and they decided to strip him of it. I suppose it was because they wanted him to seem bad, that or they honestly didn't give two shits about the character, and wanted to kill him off so they could dispose of him. The tragedy of his character is lost on his insanity and how rude he's being to an already rude Faramir.
Maybe they made Denethor a dick to show where Faramir gets it from. A lame excuse for Faramir to try and act like his father, making him look weak.

I think the Faramir and Denethor angle is the weakest part of the Lotr adaptation.

I have resolved to exercise self control and not explode all over the page about Denethor in the film.

Might be easier to just hold my breath until I pass out.

Geez I have such vivid memories of reading, for the first time, the passage about Denethor burning himself alive on the pyre clutching the palantír.

What did we get in the movie? Fucking marathon man leaping from the top of Minas Tirith.

No matter how bad AUJ, DOS, and TABA turn out to be, I refuse to put on nostalgia goggles for the LOTR movies. Sure they're pretty good, but fuck there are some dumbass moments in them.

I liked the fire jump, it was just scenographic and symbolic of his fall from grace, I dont understand the problem with that scene.

It was physically impoosible and completely ludicrous for a start, but it was not the worst thing about that scene, not by a long way- that would be Gandalf activaly participating in Denethors death by ensuring he ends up back on the pyre after being knocked to safety off it (and thats besides the impossibility of being kicked from a prone position on the ground several feet up onto a pyre) thus Gandalf is in PJ's doing exactly what Denethor accuses him off- trying to remove him and replace him with Aragorn- in PJ's this is actually what Gandalf does- he murders the rightful ruler of Gondor and then replaces him on the throne with his choice of ruler. That's wha'ts really wrong with that scene- by the fire jump point in it, it is just the shitty lump pretending to be a cherry on a cake of shit.

in your imagination.

Care to explain that scene in another way accounting for everything Pj has happen in it and especially Gandalf's actions in it?

How anyone can think the pathetic fire jump is better drama than Denethor dying in the flames his hands withering in fire clutching the palantir which has filled his mind with despair and brought him to this point, its beyond me.

Agree with Petty on this one, Denethor and everything about him is just a big miss by Jackson. Denethor would have fainted/died pretty soon after he ran out of those doors, and looong before he ever reached that jump ramp of his. And Gandalf being made into Denethor's killer is about as bad as Gandalf being made into the Witch King's bitch

Yep, even in madness Denethor had the nobility to take his own life, and Gandalf had no part in it. At least in the book. The film version of the pyre just further drags the character of Denethor through the mud. The film-makers hated Denethor, there was no tragedy whatsoever in killing off who in their mind was a villain. What, were we supposed to cheer when Gandalf knocked him back on the fire?

well I liked it.

What, were we supposed to cheer when Gandalf knocked him back on the fire?- Halfy

Sadly I think the answer there is yes Halfy. And in that one thing you have everything that was wrong about their portrayal of Denethor, striped of all nobility, of all poignancy, of all tragedy, of all humanity. A disgraceful hard to comprehend writing decision given the power and strength of the template character Tolkien gave them to draw on.

well on the plus side Theoden was made more interesting than in the book.

   

 



trollolollo

Well firstly I read the book after seeing the film, so I guess I am rather more lenient than some.

Anyway my rating- as films:

FOTR 9/10
TTT 8/10
ROTK 8/10

As adapations:

FOTR 8/10 (Yes, alot was cut but personally I really think what was included as accurate to the tone and spirirt of the story, and in most cases I can see reasons for the changes)
TTT 5/10
ROTK 5/10

Admittedly I haven't seen the films or read the book in rather a long time so perhaps I'm not being entirely fair. In general with the films, what was jettisoned from the books I can see good reasons for with the constraints of 3 films there wasn't really any place for Scouring, T-Bomb, the Rangers of the North, Glorfy, Crickhollow, Bilbo's song about Earendil or Aragorn's backstory (all parts I LOVED in the book incidently) and I frankly dread to think how Jackson and co would explain or justify these in realation to the tone of there films.

I have a bigger problem with what was changed-Elves at Helms deep, , Gimli the dick, Legolas the plot point spouting ninja plank, Frodo the wuss, Denethor the other dick,Frodo basically telling Sam to piss off ('Oh sure Frodo mate I will just walk very slowly back home through the mountains of Mordor let's hope I don't get killed or caught, even though I'm very heavily featured in all the promotion and my death or absence this late in the story wouldn't make sense...) and Aragorn being rather too reluctant for my liking. Admittedly many of these are opinions I only came to have after reading the book (Though I never liked Bloom or Elijah Wood, and ROTK sags in the middle) so when I finally do get around to watching the films again I might have a more open mind.

For me the reason as an adaptation FoTR tends to score higher for almost everyone is that PJ has a template to follow for it, Bakshis film, which PJ's FotR echoes almost scene for scene, many of the changes included- The Black Rider encounter, the attack on Bree, substituting Glorfindel for someone else who reappears in the story later ect
In terms of adapting they get more and more lost and seem to have less and less a sense of where they are going, and more of making it up as they go along, as the films progress.

I've tried putting a number on the films' qualities as adaptations a couple times, but I don't have a metric that I could use to quantify it. And even if I did, I doubt I could get everyone else to agree that it was a good one. I've more or less made my peace with the changes in the LOTR movies, though. I'll discuss them on forums and point out stupid things, but it doesn't actively bother me when watching the films. That's largely due to my history with the story and the impact its had on me in both book and movie form, but it's also because the good parts of the movies are able to overshadow most of the flaws.

(And before Petty jumps on me, I need to stress that I mean good points purely in terms of the movies working on their own terms as pieces of cinema, not as adaptations).

At the end of the day, the LOTR movies are probably in the middle as far as adaptational faithfulness goes, IMO. They didn't go out of their way to follow the book very closely, but at the same time, they didn't completely throw it out like plenty of filmmakers have done. I think PJ's faithfulness is often drastically overestimated because he and the Coven were much better (or, possibly simply more interested in) carrying over the superficial elements of the story like individual lines of dialogue and of course the design work, than capturing the nuances of the plot or characterization. Heck, in terms of characterization, both Frodo and Aragorn are different in some fundamental ways and they're the lead protagonists, but if you're not watching the films with an analytical eye you could miss most of the changes.

Agree with most people here in terms of enjoyment, but probably also for the same reason in that I saw the films first.

There are, frankly, some really shit bits that should not be in any film. But generally as films go (if we assume this was PJs made up world and the books didnt exist - which was pretty much how I first saw them) then they are very entertaining.

Adaptation wise, I'm with Petty in that I think they are poor. I also think they would have been much better films if so much hadn't been altered. Some scenes cut, ok, but not most of the alterations.

I feel a little guilty I like the LOTR films so much when in comparison to AUJ the changes weren't really that different.

Since The Hobbit is probably my fave book by Tolkien, it's a relief I read the book first, as (Yeah I know this will get me kicked) I somewhat doubt my rather modern ignorant of Tolkien self would appreciate a tonely messy old fashioned childrens book.