The books are magnificent. On the other hand I saw some passages of the series and did not see anything there exciting. If we remove the financial means, the fact remains that the achievement is trivial, the actors not very charismatic for the most part and the whole looks like a sub-"Lord of the Rings" without the talent of Jackson.
Obviously I have not seen enough to make me a definitive opinion, but at first glance it is far from being the series that attracts me the most. And yet I devour the books right now …
I don't understand, you say reading books but you stop at the front to judge a work. In the crowd, you take the worst example of a storyline massacre suitable for cinma with Tolkien …. (the hobbit is just blatant)
Let me guess, did you like Transformers though?
You're nice but before judging the tastes of others starts by questioning yourself, because your com makes no sense. I never talked about the Hobbit, as for "Transformers", your remark is just a big joke.
And cinphilie question, I don't think I have a lesson to receive from you. If this is the worst example you know of film adaptation, you must not have seen a lot of movies. Have you only heard of Matheson's "Je Suis Une Lgende" which is just a real example of a work whose main theme has just been replaced. It's still something other than a few twists on Tolkien's work. Do you want us to talk about just shameful series or BD adaptations? There's a bunch of them and it's something other than "Lord of the Rings". Besides, "The Lord of the Rings" regularly returns in the votes for the best film adaptations, so …
Let's move on. The "Lord of the Rings" is nowhere near as shocking as you say. The adaptation is a real adaptation, not a simple stupid transposition. The authors of the films are real enthusiasts who have managed to surround themselves with the best and it shows. Visually it's just a slaughter, and very faithful to the original work whatever you say (John Howe's presence at Jackson's coast for you, doesn't that count I imagine?). The production is just sublime, the music is one of the most beautiful compositions in the history of cinema, and the performance is excellent. When we listen to you, it looks like we are dealing with a dung. Seriously …
So yes I said it, it's a real adaptation. The story is reworked, and that's good. Personally I found Tolkien's writing painful to read. Bulb, excessively contemplative, multiplying the more or less useful additional descriptions and the digressions which seal the rhythm. For me Tolkien is a great storyteller but not a great writer. The film crew was able to get rid of that and that's good. not to see the beings of the Galgals or Tom Bombadil rather relieved me, as I had not appreciated these passages in the books. Other passages are more questionable, such as the Saroumane vs Gandalf fight. But you have to be in bad faith to pretend that it ruins the show. The set was "optimis" (very ugly term I grant you) for the cinma. The adventure is all the more beautiful in cinema, and looks like a real film, not a transposed book. And if it displeases the usual Guardians of the Temple, and bah in fact it is all the better. Let them learn what an adaptation is before saying anything.
And again "The Hobbit" has nothing to do with the subject. Otherwise it is the perfect counter example of what I said. The betrayal with the original work is obvious and difficult to justify. The films are pleasant, but have very little to do with the childish tales that Tolkien wanted. They are just trying to ride the wave of "Lord of the Rings" so successful in the eyes of millions of spectators around the world. As frèzetagada said, there was just not enough to make three films. the project was artistically dishonest from the start.