Advanced Search Protips

Guts Cosplayer With An Impossibly Huge Sword On His Shoulder Inspires Redraws
What's Up With Memes About A 'Leopards Eating People's Faces' Political Party? Memes About Face-Eating Leopards Explained
What Is 'OCDA,' AKA 'Occupational Cares Diversity Affairs'? TikToker Calimar White's Boss-Hating Complaints Company Explained
What's A 'Cleveland Steamer'? The Gross Slang Term Popularized By 'Family Guy' Explained
What's The 'You Digging In Me' Meme? The TikTok Sound From A LoveAndLightTv Video Explained

0

Karen - Literal Karen calls Peter Jackson a fake fan, writes a scathing 2-star review of The Fellowship of the Ring with book annotations (movie totally holds up btw) | /r/FuckYouKaren

PROTIP: Press the ← and → keys to navigate the gallery, 'g' to view the gallery, or 'r' to view a random image.

Reviewed in the United States on January 21, 2012 ✰✰✰ The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of Peter Jackson's "Fellowship of the Ring" Verified purchase If I were asked by the author's nemesis to adapt the author's popular novel for the screen, I could ask for no better model than Peter Jackson's film The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. With its loving attention to costumes, set design, locations, and casting, the film has mesmerized even self-acknowledged Tolkien fans with its soulless charms. Of Tolkien's 394-page book (not including the 4- page Forward and 15-page Prologue, none of the former and only four pages of the latter to which the film even alludes), less than 22%, or material from only 86 of the 394 pages, appears in the film. What better way to undermine an author than to use less than 22% of his book? Peter Jackson might answer, by using less than 22% and then distorting and even making-up characters and plots to fill the three- hour running-time of a film that purports to tell J.R.R. Tolkien's beloved tale, but in fact tells that tale as though captured by Saruman. Karen It's especially ironic that the end credits include the claim "based on the book by J.R.R. Tolkien" (2:50:45). That's quite a stretch. Unlike the Harry Potter movies, Peter Jackson, despite his purported love for Tolkien's work, makes very free with it, apparently considering his own imagination superior to the author's. I certainly understand that film adaptations of books often need to leave out subsidiary plots and such, in the interest of making the film a standard length. While I'm disappointed with the absence of the Old Forest and Tom Bombadil chapters, for example, it's reasonable that they would be absent, since they are unnecessary to the primary plot of destroying the Ring. What I object to is the invented plots -- including a great deal of Saruman and orc nonsense -- and altered characters -- cf. feminist Arwen and wishy-washy Aragorn --added at the expense of Tolkien's wonderful writing. It's a pity, because everything but the screenplay and score are done so well in the film. As a book adaptation, the film earns 2 of 5 stars. If it were a film from an original screenplay I'd give it an extra star. A scene by scene analysis appears below, comparing the film to the book. Chapter and page references are taken from the Second Edition (4th Printing) published by Houghton Mifflin (Ⓒ 1965). Scene 1 - Prologue 0:00-7:15 - The CGI battle of the alliance versus Sauron is so very artificial looking. The bodies flung by Sauron's mace seem insubstantial, as do the countless numbers of pixel soldiers. In the film, Isildur cuts three fingers from Sauron (-4:00), thus defeating him. His army (orcs and all) dissolve. In the book, Sauron is defeated, then Isildur cuts the Ring from his finger. In the film, Isildur is ambushed as orcs leap upon him and slay him (~5:00), apparently dumping him in the river, now shot full of arrows. In the book, Isildur is ambushed, tries to escape by wearing the Ring and is betrayed by it when he swims in the river (Anduin), whereupon he is shot full of arrows. Despite the falseness of the CGI battle, and the liberties taken with the story, the Prologue does provide a quick and reasonably solid background for the story that follows - not that this background is necessary at this point, since Tolkien provides all we need as his story unfolds. It should be mentioned that the film prologue bears no resemblance to Tolkien's own (pp.10-25), except for touching upon part 4: Of the Finding of the Ring (pp.20-23). Scene 2 - The Shire 7:15-11:35 - Hobbiton looks wonderful. The set design is impressive, and it's remarkable how well the film-makers seamlessly mingle the "big people" with the hobbits. Scene 3 - Very Old Friends - Book I: Chapter 1: A Long Expected Party (pp.29-50) The first 4 pages (29-32) and the last 5 (45b-50) of this chapter are omitted. The middle 12 (p.33-44) are nicely used, however. 11:35-15:35 - This scene between Bilbo and Gandalf is nicely handled, with warm touches of compassion and humor. Bag End is simply beautiful, and little things like Gandalf bumping his head against the chandelier - add to the overall effectiveness of the scene. It's nice to hear lines straight from the book, such as Bilbo's complaint that he feels like "butter scraped over too much bread." I do dislike the pseudo- Irish turn to the film score here, with the tiresome penny whistle. The film scoring is so sadly cliché, and there is far too much music throughout the film in general, vet this scene isn't badly marred by the music. It really is a fine little portrait of Gandalf and Bilbo, Scenes 3.

View Gallery Random Image

+ Add a Comment

Comments (0)

There are no comments currently available.

Display Comments

Legal Information: Know Your Meme ® is a trademark of Literally Media Ltd. By using this site, you are agreeing by the site's terms of use and privacy policy and DMCA policy.
© 2007-2024 Literally Media Ltd.