Originally Posted by max
re the Lord of the Rings movies. Just MY take:
I didn't think the sequence of movies worked; the entire last one was kind of anticlimactic, just a battle.
Gollum was overly ugly.
The dwarf (Gimil?) just didn't look the part. Too hairy, too scary, too rough. The elf was effeminate.
I guess overall I think there were too many hard visual contrasts between men, elves, dwarfs, hobbits.
I also think one MAJOR reason for the book's success was simply its descriptions of landscapes and natural settings. I'm not sure enough of this came into the movie. ALSO, one big reason for Tolkein's overall success is the whole language and history developed for the books; this needs to be brought out somehow.
I also dislike battle scenes looking as if they're from some unreal computer game (this happens a lot in movies, where people can magically jump 20 feet).
Did you also read the LOTR books, Max? I'm asking because I'm surprised that you don't remember "Gimli's" name and refer to Legolas as "the elf".
And, did you watch the films on the big screen? I'm asking this because I thought Jackson's take on New Zealand's locales was pretty darn breathtaking. Having read the books, I felt that Jackson's landscape sets were quite competent. I can imagine that watching those films on a TV screen could rob them of their grandeur.
That said, Hobbit has quite a different tone from LOTR. The "scale" seemed somehow smaller, and the intended readership was also younger. So, I'm hoping Jackson kept that in mind.