"It's kind of where Bilbo really felt his confidence, where he tried the ring for the first time and rescued the dwarves, and they snuck out down the river to the city"

Great great, and do you remember the battalion of orcs trying to kill them while they went downstream with Legolas and Tauriel doing sweet kick flips over them, while Bombur bounced around jokingly killing a dozen of them, and then Fili having a moment of weakness for his elf princess love while he opened the gate and then he gets shot with a poisoned arrow?

........no

Well there you go.

They took one of the most endearing moments of the book and made it a joke. No, they cannot recreate the Lord of the Rings. Even if you don't like PJ's version, there's just no way modern Hollywood can do to improve on it.

[–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 9 points 11 months ago (3 children)

It's not "modern" Hollywood. Hollywood has been pretty consistently trash over the decades, most adaptations in the '90s were shit as well.

Of course no-one's going to beat PJ at LOTR. Because no good creative is going to be interested in the challenge when PJ already did the thing perfectly so only soulless corpo-ghouls think a remake is a good idea.

But there are still flukes like LOTR from time to time when the moons align and funding goes to actually talented creators. Two years ago we got Dune, this summer we got Barbie.

[–] Obi@sopuli.xyz 4 points 11 months ago

I wouldn't put either of those in quite the same category as LOTR but I do agree that good stuff is still being made here and there, I think people just like to complain and also only think about the best bits of the past, while LOTR came out a million shitty movies also did you just don't remember them.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 months ago

Dune is arguable. And PJ's LOTR is arguable too. Barbie I haven't seen.

[–] CordanWraith@aussie.zone 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I agree that it's unlikely that we'll ever get a better adaptation. But to say that PJ's adaptions were perfect is a bit insulting to the books. They weren't great adaptions. Good movies on their own, but PJ was very opinionated and they weren't super faithful.

[–] Klear@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago

Great adaptations are never super faithful. Adapting means changing stuff around to make it work on a new medium.

I do agree the PJ movies have some issues, but for other reasons.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

while people will still rewatch LOTR in decades.

Ah, I prefer "reread". LOTR movies too have quite a lot of downsides. Like ignoring the whole of the Old Forest. And they lack the lore feeling which I can't describe easily.

[–] itsprobablyfine@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I like doing a reread/rewatch. Read the hook then watch it come to life. Honestly going back after all these years I find it like the movies more than when they released even. At the time I was young and wanted them to be more like the books, but as an adult I can understand and even agree with a lot of the changes. For instance, aragon is pretty different in that he's given more of an arc in the films, and I like that. But of course there's a thousand things I wish they had time to flesh out more. If they are going to do a remake I wish they'd do a series that allow them to slow down and really get into a lot of that. That's really the only way I can see them even possibly living up to the Jackson films

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

At the time I was young and wanted them to be more like the books, but as an adult I can understand and even agree with a lot of the changes.

This sentence seems a bit manipulative, as if taking that point of view made one "more adult". I'd understand resistance to movies themselves waning, as a separate thing of art of their own, being a sign of that.

is pretty different in that he’s given more of an arc in the films

Really?

Aragorn and elves, Aragorn and Gandalf, Aragorn and Arwen, Aragorn and the Rangers, Aragorn and Sauron even, Aragorn and Denethor, Aragorn and Boromir, Aragorn and Frodo, Aragorn and Sam, Aragorn and travel, even Aragorn and Gollum, Aragorn and Gimli, Aragorn and Eomer ...

Wouldn't seem so for me.

Sorry for the Reddit-ish tone.

If they are going to do a remake I wish they’d do a series that allow them to slow down and really get into a lot of that.

At this point I'd just want to live till the IP expires and see fans try.

[–] itsprobablyfine@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I can only speak for myself. I think personally I have a better perspective on things now than when I was 14, but I guess I could be wrong.

I think you've misinterpreted what I mean by arc. I guess I meant the character undergoes more personal growth in the films. In the books aragon knows what he's about from day one. He is stoic af. And I get why he's written that way and why some would prefer that. In the films he's much more unsure about himself and over the course of the trilogy you see him kind of grow into being the king so that by the time he takes the crown it feels like you saw the internal journey that got him there. In the books of course we know that this period is what, like, a couple years of his very long life so that would feel more out of place.

Anyway, those kinds of changes bothered me as a teenager, but looking back at them now I feel differently. That's not to say I like all the choices Jackson made, but I've come around on some, understand others better, and have seen enough other material jump from book to film to be super grateful for the effort that whole team put in to try and do these films right.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 months ago

I guess I meant the character undergoes more personal growth in the films. In the books aragon knows what he’s about from day one.

Not entirely, if you remember Dunharrow and the Palantir. And then his other transformations, in Rivendell, in Lorien, in Rohan, and after the coronation, and more. Other than those, where would a 70 years old man grow?

In the films he’s much more unsure about himself and over the course of the trilogy you see him kind of grow into being the king so that by the time he takes the crown it feels like you saw the internal journey that got him there.

Well, in the books it was a 50 years long journey.

In the books of course we know that this period is what, like, a couple years of his very long life so that would feel more out of place.

Yes, I think we understand each other.

those kinds of changes bothered me as a teenager,

For me personally they felt strange because, ahem, Aragorn seemed simply unfit for his role. A person which wouldn't end up on that track.