Does this really have black and white morality?

Does this really have black and white morality?

Attached: LordOfTheRings.jpg (1978x2936, 2.42M)

You aren't funny

That's what happens when you remove any and all nuance, Jackson just wanted to make a big budget action/adventure movie and he succeeded but that's not what LOTR is about
He really should have just made a totally original movie rather than coat tailing off the back of the most popular book of all time

The entire story is that humans are destined to sin no matter what. The entire thing is grey.

i remember crying when i saw the first film for the first time
they stole a beloved story and made it a popcorn bubblegum hollywood nonsense movie
if you love the real tolkien you hate this films

Nope it's clearly one side good other side bad, there is nothing about heros or villan that was grey.

I thought it was weird when Frodo turned to the camera at the end and said "I am the Lord of the Rings the return of the king"

Tolkein's prose doesn't translate well to film. The studio wanted a big blockbuster and dumped a lot of money into it. It was still better than anything you'd see today

Orcs are born evil

It has Aryan morality.

>Christopher Tolkien's criticism of the movies are pages and pages long, and not complimentary. At. All. In very broad terms CT felt that all the themes that to him make the Lord of the Ring important are completely submerged in the movie behind frenetic motion, chases, fights and shrieking choirs (and in one major case, poor casting). But he also has some very cogent things to say about the alteration of characters and the poor rendering of particular scenes stemming from PJ's apparently poor understanding of the book

You don’t understand what morality is.

Which casting did he think was wrong?

Not enough African dwarves and moorish elves

Who gives a fuck? They're good movies in their own right. I've never understood the idea that an adaptation into a different medium needs to be slavishly faithful to its source material. It's a new product by different people subject to different influences and external factors that also has to make changes to fit what will be most effective given the strengths of the new medium.

>Cope cope cope

Attached: Tuvix.jpg (220x184, 12.61K)

What am I coping with? I reject the assumptions beneath this entire critique . I can understand why Christopher Tolkien would have taken such a thing personally, but you have no reason to.

If I had to guess, Frodo

>who cares?directors should do what they want
>BLACK PEOPLE IN MY FANTASY?IM GOING INSANEEEEEEEEEEE

you people are buffons

They can do what they want and I have no obligation to like it.

Because it's inherently the IP in name only.

And yet you will never be white.

If a series is a specific series in name only, why are you using that specific series at all?
For another example, I'll use a quote nearly a quarter century old:
>"By the time the La-La Land hacks are done with their 10th script punch-up, Spiderman will be a retarded beetle that farts fire."
Yes, you *CAN* write Spider-Man in such a way that he is no way resembling any previous Spider-Man or carrying any of the similar traits or features or aspects of Spider-Man. But WHY?
No. Stop. Don't prattle about corporate branding or how there's nothing "wrong" with it. Answer the question.
The only meaningful answers are to either capitalize on the recognition of the previously existing series or to purposely destroy series.

Do you think that the Lord of the Rings films are so utterly different from the source material that they can be said to only be related to it in name only?
>or to purposely destroy series.
This is not possible. The source material is not affected by the creation of an adaptation. What you are referring to is, at most, the perception of it that exists in your mind.