How did they turn out so perfect?

File: 1324241191_11d750dabc.jpg (29KB, 450x338px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 450x338px

>ywn watch them for the first time again

>>80324955
They're shit. Action films for 18-29 male demographic.

They don't capture the philosophy, the Chestertonian nature of the books.

The literacy of them, the mythological nature, the "faerie stories" that they are.

>>80325056
spotted the faglord

they didn't

>elves at Helm's Deep
>ghosts at Pellennor field

8/10 at best

File: 105710275_george_291042c.jpg (31KB, 620x413px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 620x413px

Why watch these childish banalities when based fatman put them in their place long ago?

Take it away, George

>Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it’s not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren’t gone – they’re in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?

>The war that Tolkien wrote about was a war for the fate of civilization and the future of humanity, and that’s become the template. I’m not sure that it’s a good template, though. The Tolkien model led generations of fantasy writers to produce these endless series of dark lords and their evil minions who are all very ugly and wear black clothes. But the vast majority of wars throughout history are not like that.

im reading the books right now and realizing jackson did a good job

>>80325166
taxposting is a patrician meme

>>80325056
The books are literally just a vehicle for having someone speak these made up languages. Don't give them more credit than they deserve.

The films are very good. They get less faithful as they go on and there's hints of the problems that would drag down The Hobbit later but Jackson did about as good a job as anyone else could do.

I still insist that the single best adaptation of LotR is the BBC radio drama. And if you listen to it you can easily tell that Jackson took inspiration from it especially in the casting of his film (not just that it has Ian Holm in it, but also that several of the film characters copy the radio versions down the voice and mannerisms).

>>80325384
How to spot the anti-intellectual.

>>80324955
Jackson really fucking cared about LotR. And he brought in other people who really cared about LotR. Watching the extended editions content about Weta digital, the costume design team, the Minatures department, which is where the difference was really made visually compared to the Hobbit, it was geniunly a labor of love.

You had based Viggo, who really got into the character, leading the film.

A lot of the actors put in extra work to get small things down.
They're not perfect. But the effort put into them shows.

Watching the extended edition content of the Hobbit, you don't get the same feel.

I would also think it's because the hobbit trilogy was pumped out a lot faster.
For LotR they had too much source material, compared to the Hobbit where they had too little for what they wanted to do.