[OT] The Two Towers
John C.
can't even really describe it yet, that's how good it was. The theater was
packed but I was so focused on the film that I didn't even notice anyone else
there. The only problem I saw was that, like the last one, it was too short.
The three hours breezed by like they were 30 minutes. Has anyone else here seen
it yet?
-John (sorry for being so decomposed (for lack of a better word at the moment),
I'm still a bit spaced out from the experience)
--
"The Arch-Lich flips the birdie at you!
You are like totally dead man!
Do you want me to tell you about the junk you're carrying?"
-The finger of death attack from nethack.
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> I just got back from seeing it. I'm so flooded with awe and exhilaration that I
> can't even really describe it yet, that's how good it was. The theater was
> packed but I was so focused on the film that I didn't even notice anyone else
> there. The only problem I saw was that, like the last one, it was too short.
> The three hours breezed by like they were 30 minutes. Has anyone else here seen
> it yet?
Hell, yes. Took the day off work (my one vacation day), caught the 3:30
matinee.
Glorious.
I remember wondering how they were going to start it as we were headed for
the movie theatre, and I think that's the best beginning they could have
had; it really captured what was (for me) one of the most powerful scenes
from The Fellowship of the Ring. And it actually got me *caring* about the
epic battles, which is pretty rare; too often they're just flashy
background for the heroes.
Poor Gollum.
Bring on the Ents.
For the Shire. For all that's green and good in that world. For the
first light on the fifth day. For falling into darkness, and coming out
crucible-reborn. For standing with the others while your kin are
preparing to sail into the west--it never really hit me until Legolas gave
the jewelry back to Aragorn, that the elves are preparing to leave and
he isn't there with them. For three-to-one-hundred odds in the raining
night.
I'm giddy with it, and I don't care.
Love and coffee,
Frances
Haxot
news:atrhg2$lv8$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> John C. (tigersh...@aol.com) writes:
Snip< John's matinee
>
> Hell, yes. Took the day off work (my one vacation day), caught the 3:30
> matinee.
>
> Glorious.
>
> I remember wondering how they were going to start it as we were headed for
> the movie theatre, and I think that's the best beginning they could have
> had; it really captured what was (for me) one of the most powerful scenes
> from The Fellowship of the Ring. And it actually got me *caring* about
the
> epic battles, which is pretty rare; too often they're just flashy
> background for the heroes.
>
> Poor Gollum.
>
> Bring on the Ents.
>
> For the Shire. For all that's green and good in that world. For the
> first light on the fifth day. For falling into darkness, and coming out
> crucible-reborn. For standing with the others while your kin are
> preparing to sail into the west--it never really hit me until Legolas gave
> the jewelry back to Aragorn, that the elves are preparing to leave and
> he isn't there with them. For three-to-one-hundred odds in the raining
> night.
>
> I'm giddy with it, and I don't care.
>
> Love and coffee,
> Frances
I haven't seen any of the hobbit movies yet.
I have, frankly, avoided them, as I didn't want to ruin the images I think
of and see when I think *hobbit**Ringwraith**orc* etc.
But I think I might actually try it now, listening to you guys rave.
It's enough to proseletyze a man.
Haxot
Dino62
>
> I haven't seen any of the hobbit movies yet.
> I have, frankly, avoided them, as I didn't want to ruin the images I think
> of and see when I think *hobbit**Ringwraith**orc* etc.
> But I think I might actually try it now, listening to you guys rave.
> It's enough to proseletyze a man.
>
> Haxot
>
>
story, but it certainly is worth seeing.... Even my parent who are not
sf nor fantasy fans did like the firs part as a good film. No generation
lap :-0 Go and see.
MegaMole
<dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes
[ker-shnipp]
As I said elseweb, TTT is the film of a story. It's a good film of a
good story. Whether or not it is a film of Tolkien's story is
debatable.
I'm still waiting for the Shaolin Temple of Legolas-fu, too.
--
MegaMole, the Official Enrico Basilica
\\\\\ laaa! mo...@lspace.org mo...@music.slut.org.uk
\\\\\\\_o / "I'll sit in the U-bend and think about death."
__ \\\\\'c/__ Hitting the high notes with hedgehogs since 2001
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> I haven't seen any of the hobbit movies yet.
> I have, frankly, avoided them, as I didn't want to ruin the images I think
> of and see when I think *hobbit**Ringwraith**orc* etc.
I hadn't ever really thought of that. They pretty much matched what I
thought of as hobbits and elves and dwarves--though I confess that a
profound forming influence in my perception of "hobbits" was the cover of
The Hobbit that had Biblo holding Sting and Gollum coming up behind him--
*shiver* And they really do get a handle on the essential
The orcs and uruk-hai looked nastier than what I think of when I think
"orc", but that is again probably due to profound forming influences; when
I think "orc" I think "*D&D race" not "elf tortured and broken by the evil
of the Dark Lord", and when it comes to portraying the latter I think they
work quite nicely.
The Ringwraiths work for me on both levels--physical appearance and
intangible ghostly men appearance--though their physical appearance does
remind me a little of Johnny Bartlett's ghostly-Reaper appearance in
_The_Frighteners_. This is not a bad thing, I don't think. :)
Mind you, my conceptions are not your conceptions, YMMV, all such good
things.
> But I think I might actually try it now, listening to you guys rave.
> It's enough to proseletyze a man.
*nods* FWIW, I liked the first movie better, I think. More of the
personal, the epic taking up less of the foreground. Definitely worth
seeing in order. But I'm still planning on picking up _The_Two_Towers_
when it comes out on video, and on going to see it at least once more in
the theatres. Hopefully the local second-run theatre will double-bill
them at some point. :)
Love and coffee,
Frances
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> "Haxot" (ha...@softhome.nixnet) writes:
>> I haven't seen any of the hobbit movies yet.
>> I have, frankly, avoided them, as I didn't want to ruin the images I think
>> of and see when I think *hobbit**Ringwraith**orc* etc.
> I hadn't ever really thought of that. They pretty much matched what I
> thought of as hobbits and elves and dwarves--though I confess that a
> profound forming influence in my perception of "hobbits" was the cover of
> The Hobbit that had Biblo holding Sting and Gollum coming up behind him--
> *shiver* And they really do get a handle on the essential
Argh.
A handle on the essential hearth-and-homeness of the hobbits.
Love and coffee,
Frances
Mart Kuhn
> "Haxot" (ha...@softhome.nixnet) writes:
>
> > I haven't seen any of the hobbit movies yet.
> > I have, frankly, avoided them, as I didn't want to ruin the images I
think
> > of and see when I think *hobbit**Ringwraith**orc* etc.
>
> I hadn't ever really thought of that. They pretty much matched what I
> thought of as hobbits and elves and dwarves--though I confess that a
> profound forming influence in my perception of "hobbits" was the cover
of
> The Hobbit that had Biblo holding Sting and Gollum coming up behind
him--
> *shiver* And they really do get a handle on the essential
> of the hobbits.
Was that the picture where Bilbo's really portly, and Sting is pretty
tiny, and Gollum is skinny and purple? Black background on the book, "JRR
Tolkien" written in gold embossed letters, "The Hobbit" written in teal?
I'm frankly horrified that I just remembered so many extraneous details
about the cover of the version of The Hobbit I read in sixth grade, but it
does seem like we could be talking about the same edition... ;)
By "hearth-and-homeness" I assume you mean "English gentlemanness"? The
hobbits really are Tolkien's paean to the Englishman.
--
kuhn@@nyc..rr..com <-- Halve the punctuation
"Ask not for whom the bone bones; it bones for thee."
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> "Frances Kathleen Moffatt" <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>> > I haven't seen any of the hobbit movies yet.
>> > I have, frankly, avoided them, as I didn't want to ruin the images I
>> > think of and see when I think *hobbit**Ringwraith**orc* etc.
>> I hadn't ever really thought of that. They pretty much matched what I
>> thought of as hobbits and elves and dwarves--though I confess that a
>> profound forming influence in my perception of "hobbits" was the cover
>> of The Hobbit that had Biblo holding Sting and Gollum coming up behind
>> him-- *shiver* And they really do get a handle on the essential
>> hearth-and-homeness of the hobbits.
> Was that the picture where Bilbo's really portly, and Sting is pretty
> tiny, and Gollum is skinny and purple? Black background on the book, "JRR
> Tolkien" written in gold embossed letters, "The Hobbit" written in teal?
> I'm frankly horrified that I just remembered so many extraneous details
> about the cover of the version of The Hobbit I read in sixth grade, but it
> does seem like we could be talking about the same edition... ;)
Yes. Exactly. :)
> By "hearth-and-homeness" I assume you mean "English gentlemanness"? The
> hobbits really are Tolkien's paean to the Englishman.
...hrm. Not quite. There are other characters who echo the qualities of
the English gentleman, and none of them resist the Ring nearly so well.
Further bits may be spoily, so
One
Ring
to
rule
them
all,
One
Ring
to
find
them
They're such *homebodies*, is the thing. I think the impression starts
when Bilbo is talking to Gandalf, describing how he feels--stretched thin,
like butter scraped over too much bread. He's being slowly drained by an
ancient artifact of immeasurable power, and he uses a food analogy. But
it's not just the surface flavour or descriptions.
I was talking to John (Rowat) about the way hobbits resist the Ring--Bilbo
gave it up after sixty years, Frodo tries to give it away several times
after admittedly less time but in a situation where it's working on him a
lot harder, Sam throws it away. As opposed to, say, Gandalf, that
millenia-old avatar of good and order who doesn't even dare touch it and
who nearly panics when Frodo tries to give him the Ring, because he might
take it and then it would take him.
And what I think it boils down to is that hobbits, in a sense a lot broader
than the carnal, don't lust. They don't obsess. The Ring promises them
phenomenal cosmic power, and they say "Oh, really?" and stick it into a
pocket and forget about it. They've got almost nothing for it to get its
hooks into; they're too innocent or too prosaic for it to own them. They
think of food and home and riddles, and the Ring can't handle them.
This isn't to say that they're weak, or petty, or shallow; they're
consistently prosaic, but they seem to approach certain death the same way
they'd approach cooking bacon. Sam, who can't swim, goes into the river
after Frodo. Merry and Pippin figure out that Frodo needs a distraction
and get a horde of uruk-hai charging after them. There's no waffling. A
hobbit might happily stay at home in the Shire all his life, and look
oddly at anyone who didn't, but apparently all you have to do is stick him
in a situation where he's going to be part of the battle deciding the fate
of the world and he gears up to it.
They're homebodies. They're uncomplicated. They're *cosy*, for some
weird definition of cosy that allows them to handle dragons and orcs and
encroaching madness.
Love and coffee,
Frances
Haxot
> "Mart Kuhn" (kuhn@@nyc..rr..com) writes:
> > "Frances Kathleen Moffatt" <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> >> "Haxot" (ha...@softhome.nixnet) writes:
> One
> Ring
> to
> rule
> them
> all,
> One
> Ring
> to
> find
> them
Ring
to
bring
them
all
And
in
the
Darkness
bind
them
(Couldn't resist. It's so nasty sounding when pronounced or
writen, it makes the *perfect* spoily space)
Snip< Beginning of analogy
> And what I think it boils down to is that hobbits, in a sense a lot
broader
> than the carnal, don't lust. They don't obsess. The Ring promises them
> phenomenal cosmic power, and they say "Oh, really?" and stick it into a
> pocket and forget about it. They've got almost nothing for it to get its
> hooks into; they're too innocent or too prosaic for it to own them. They
> think of food and home and riddles, and the Ring can't handle them.
LOL
Yeah, I think you put the finger right on it.
I love how you state this.
> They're homebodies. They're uncomplicated. They're *cosy*, for some
> weird definition of cosy that allows them to handle dragons and orcs and
> encroaching madness.
Perfect.
Sometimes I find my self thinking"Damn this plumbing. Wish I were a hobbit"
Haxot
Sam Blanning
"Frances Kathleen Moffatt" <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote...
> "Mart Kuhn" (kuhn@@nyc..rr..com) writes:
> > By "hearth-and-homeness" I assume you mean "English gentlemanness"? The
> > hobbits really are Tolkien's paean to the Englishman.
>
> ...hrm. Not quite. There are other characters who echo the qualities of
> the English gentleman, and none of them resist the Ring nearly so well.
>
> Further bits may be spoily, so
>
> One
> Ring
> to
> rule
> them
> all,
> One
> Ring
> to
> find
> them
>
> gave it up after sixty years, Frodo tries to give it away several times
> after admittedly less time but in a situation where it's working on him a
> lot harder, Sam throws it away. As opposed to, say, Gandalf, that
> millenia-old avatar of good and order who doesn't even dare touch it and
> who nearly panics when Frodo tries to give him the Ring, because he might
> take it and then it would take him.
>
was a hobbit himself (called Sméagol), or at least of a race very close to
hobbits, before he was corrupted by the Ring. And he was corrupted by the
ring from the very beginning: he murdered his cousin, Déagol, to get it.
Olli Wilkman
rec.games.roguelike.adom:
>FWIW, I liked the first movie better, I think. More of the personal,
>the epic taking up less of the foreground. Definitely worth seeing
>in order. But I'm still planning on picking up _The_Two_Towers_
>when it comes out on video, and on going to see it at least once more in
>the theatres. Hopefully the local second-run theatre will double-bill
>them at some point. :)
If you only can, see the extended version of the Fellowship. My friend
has the four-DVD box (two DVD's for the movie and two for documentaries
and other goodies) and I saw it last weekend (I saw Two Towers
yesterday). They've added several scenes and extended a few and the
whole thing makes much more sense IMO.
If I had a DVD player and some extra cash, I'd definitely go buy it.
Btw, Two Towers has been re-written much more than the Fellowship, I
think. It's more than a year now since I last read the books, but I
think there were several things (more than in the first film) that had
been changed (mostly shortened).
Amusing note: It probably took me less time to read the battle of Helm's
Deep in the book than what it lasted in the film :)
--
Olli Wilkman
"Ken vaivojansa vaikertaa on vaivojensa vanki.
Ei oikeutta maassa saa ken itse sit' ei hanki."
The Wanderer
> dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Frances Kathleen Moffatt) wrote in
> rec.games.roguelike.adom:
>
>>FWIW, I liked the first movie better, I think. More of the personal,
>>the epic taking up less of the foreground. Definitely worth seeing
>>in order. But I'm still planning on picking up _The_Two_Towers_
>>when it comes out on video, and on going to see it at least once more in
>>the theatres. Hopefully the local second-run theatre will double-bill
>>them at some point. :)
>
> If you only can, see the extended version of the Fellowship. My friend
> has the four-DVD box (two DVD's for the movie and two for documentaries
> and other goodies) and I saw it last weekend (I saw Two Towers
> yesterday). They've added several scenes and extended a few and the
> whole thing makes much more sense IMO.
> If I had a DVD player and some extra cash, I'd definitely go buy it.
Agreed. I intend to pick it up once I have the money - I'd have it
already, but funds are very tight.
My rant below is noticeably spoily, so...
Ash One
nazg ring
durbatuluk, rulethemall,
ash one
nazg ring
gimbatul, findthem,
ash one
nazg ring
thrakatuluk bringthemall
agh and
burzum-ishi (? darkness-in?)
krimpatul! bindthem!
(In case you couldn't tell, I've rather dissected this - with the
exception of "burzum-ishi", I could tell you exactly what each element
appears to mean.)
> Btw, Two Towers has been re-written much more than the Fellowship, I
> think. It's more than a year now since I last read the books, but I
> think there were several things (more than in the first film) that had
> been changed (mostly shortened).
*Much* more.
They added in a lot of extraneous and inappropriate humour (mainly to do
with Gimli - they treated him seriously in the first movie, why not in
the second?.
They added in the whole flashback/flash-side bit with Arwen (and
mischaracterized Elrond still more in the process - the miscasting and
mischaracterization of Elrond having been the one major flub of the
first movie).
They drastically altered the scene in Theoden's throne room, to which I
had been looking forward with anticipation; they made Theoden's ailment
less a matter of the deception and poisonous advice of Wormtongue and
more a matter of magical compulsion/possession by Saruman.
They inexplicably dropped Eomer from the battle of Helm's Deep when he
was supposed to have been there pretty much tne entire time; they gave
one of his memorable lines to Theoden, but removed the earlier exchange
which would have made it important.
The Horn of Rohan (or of Helm, if you really want) was blown by a
*Dwarf*, rather than by the King?
They almost, but not entirely, removed Grishnakh, leaving just enough of
him to not quite make sense.
They juggled about Gollum's important scenes (though they *did* get most
of the important stuff... on the flip side, they also added in some
weird stuff that has no business being there).
They altered the impression and outcome of Entmoot almost *entirely*
(and damaged plausibility considerably in the process).
Perhaps worst of all in my opinion, they utterly altered Faramir for no
other apparent purpose than to be able to bring Osgiliath onscreen.
And to top it all off, they ended the movie one major sequence too early
on each side of the River.
Frodo and Sam still needed to sneak through Cirith Ungol (site of the
*real* "other Tower"; many people, including apparently the makers of
the movie, appear to think that the titular towers are Orthanc and
Barad-dur when in fact the pair is Orthanc and Minas Morgul) - Frodo
needs to get poisoned by Shelob and captured by Orcs; Sam needs to take
the Ring, Sting and the phial of Galadriel beforehand, but be unable to
follow the Orcs into the guardpost Tower to rescue Frodo.
The others need to confront Saruman at Orthanc in Isengard; Gandalf
needs to break Saruman's staff, Grima Wormtongue needs to throw the
Palantir at them, Pippin needs to have his midnight
interview-by-Seeing-Stone with Sauron, and the band needs to split up
again with Gandalf and Pippin heading for Gondor and the others
returning, at least temporarily, to Edoras.
On the bright side:
They probably did Gollum about as well as they could have (and I'll
admit, until he showed up for the first time I have *never* considered
the question of Gollum and clothes), leaving aside the minor
characterization issues referred to above.
The Ents were, visually, just about dead on except for being too lean;
the voices were mostly right too, though the characterization (mostly in
terms of the outcome of Entmoot) was decidedly off and there was no
mention of the missing Entwives.
The Orcs were better done in this movie than in the previous one, for my
money. Still not dead on, but quite good.
The "vanishing in the rocks, hidden by the Elven-cloak" bit was very nice.
Aside from a few minor issues like the height of the walls (which didn't
even seem entirely consistent from one scene to another), Helm's Deep
looked just about exactly right.
And of course, I *loved* the scene at the beginning with the Balrog and
Gandalf. I could see it exactly as they fell - "Ever he smote me, ever I
hewed him" - although the defeat of the Balrog came in the depths of
Khazad-dum, what was ruined when he was thrown down was stairs and the
like which the Dwarves had constructed, and Gandalf didn't climb the
Endless Stair (from the deepest pits of Moria to the top of the highest
mountain above them, all on one stair) till afterwards. Still, for my
money the best part of the movie.
Which considering that it comes at the very beginning may not be a very
positive comment...
In short, I was amazed by how well they did the first movie, but in the
second one they appear to have started doing the things everyone was
afraid they were going to do in the first one - most prominently,
unwarranted rewriting.
--
The Wanderer, who could rant on and on... even more so, if he
went and watched it again
I feel I should warn you I'm slightly mad.
Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.
A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much
liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
- Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791. ME 8:276
John Rowat
>>
>> One
>> Ring
>> to
>> rule
>> them
>> all,
>> One
>> Ring
>> to
>> find
>> them
>>
>> I was talking to John (Rowat) about the way hobbits resist the Ring--Bilbo
>> gave it up after sixty years, Frodo tries to give it away several times
>> after admittedly less time but in a situation where it's working on him a
>> lot harder, Sam throws it away. As opposed to, say, Gandalf, that
>> millenia-old avatar of good and order who doesn't even dare touch it and
>> who nearly panics when Frodo tries to give him the Ring, because he might
>> take it and then it would take him.
>>
> Just one nit to pick: the exception is Gollum, who as far as I can remember
> was a hobbit himself (called Sméagol), or at least of a race very close to
> hobbits, before he was corrupted by the Ring. And he was corrupted by the
> ring from the very beginning: he murdered his cousin, Déagol, to get it.
Does "Smeagol" sound like a Hobbit name to you?
Hobbits are a new race. They arose, claimed their place in the Shire, and
became "Hobbits" as the term tends to apply *after* Smeagol took the One
Ring. Sure, he might be from the same proto-race, but he wasn't a Hobbit
in the same was that Bilbo, Frodo, and Sam are.
But it's still remarkable. Nobody who is a non-Hobbit who touches the
Ring can ever resist it. We see two Hobbits (Merry and Pippin) who never
even *think* about taking the Ring for themselves, and another *three* who
hold it, use it, and then voluntarily give it up.[1]
-John
--
On the other hand, I am not dead. I get much mail, indignantly,
telling me flat out that I am. . .
The day I actually do die no one will believe it.
-Jim "The Ultimate Warrior" Hellwig
[1]: Okay, Frodo *tries* to give it up to anyone and everyone for 2 books
straight, but nobody will take it from him.
John Rowat
> My rant below is noticeably spoily, so...
> Ash One
> nazg ring
> durbatuluk, rulethemall,
> ash one
> nazg ring
> gimbatul, findthem,
> ash one
> nazg ring
> thrakatuluk bringthemall
> agh and
> burzum-ishi (? darkness-in?)
> krimpatul! bindthem!
> (In case you couldn't tell, I've rather dissected this - with the
> exception of "burzum-ishi", I could tell you exactly what each element
> appears to mean.)
Burzum being "darkness" in one of the Scandahoovian languages...
> They added in a lot of extraneous and inappropriate humour (mainly to do
> with Gimli - they treated him seriously in the first movie, why not in
> the second?.
He was played for laughs in the first one, too, just not as well.
<snippage>
> They juggled about Gollum's important scenes (though they *did* get most
> of the important stuff... on the flip side, they also added in some
> weird stuff that has no business being there).
Really? What did they miss for Gollum? I always agreed with Jackson,
incidentally, and found the whole "Frodo and Sam walk, a lot" sections
interminably boring.
> They altered the impression and outcome of Entmoot almost *entirely*
> (and damaged plausibility considerably in the process).
Plausibility? No. Damaged translation, yes - it's a significant change
to those characters from the book - but the only continuity problem is
that Fangorn Treebeard really should have known about the devastation
sooner - after all, the trees can talk.
> Perhaps worst of all in my opinion, they utterly altered Faramir for no
> other apparent purpose than to be able to bring Osgiliath onscreen.
That annoyed me. Faramir is a throwaway character, but he's not supposed
to be "Boromir, but with fewer arrow-holes". He's supposed to realise
Boromir's mistakes and not make the same ones.
Still, the biggest annoyance about him was the fact that they're missing
about *TEN SECONDS* of critical dialogue that would establish that this is
the secret hideout next to Mordor of the Gondor army, and THAT is why it's
illegal for them to let Frodo and Sam walk, and why Gollum has earned a
death sentence for being in the pool - he's too close, and knows too much.
The sequences made no sense without that.
> And to top it all off, they ended the movie one major sequence too early
> on each side of the River.
No, they didn't.
> Frodo and Sam still needed to sneak through Cirith Ungol (site of the
> *real* "other Tower"; many people, including apparently the makers of
> the movie, appear to think that the titular towers are Orthanc and
> Barad-dur when in fact the pair is Orthanc and Minas Morgul) - Frodo
> needs to get poisoned by Shelob and captured by Orcs; Sam needs to take
> the Ring, Sting and the phial of Galadriel beforehand, but be unable to
> follow the Orcs into the guardpost Tower to rescue Frodo.
This is a bad way to end a movie, especially when it makes a *brilliant*
start to the next one. Gollum's conspiratorial duet to set this up ("let
HER kill them?") is a much better way to leave the audience hanging.
> The others need to confront Saruman at Orthanc in Isengard; Gandalf
> needs to break Saruman's staff, Grima Wormtongue needs to throw the
> Palantir at them, Pippin needs to have his midnight
> interview-by-Seeing-Stone with Sauron, and the band needs to split up
> again with Gandalf and Pippin heading for Gondor and the others
> returning, at least temporarily, to Edoras.
Bah, horrible anticlimactic crap. Again, it's better to put this at the
start of the third film, where it doesn't take away from the drama of the
battle at Helm's Deep and the terror Frodo is finally starting to
experience about the Ring.
My biggest disappointment was that we had Gandalf, Saruman, and Haldir in
the middle of battles, more than once, and the only *magic* in the entire
movie was the lightning against the Balrog and Galadriel's sending to
Elrond. Dammit, I was hoping for at least *some* flash out of one of
them.
> On the bright side:
> The Ents were, visually, just about dead on except for being too lean;
> the voices were mostly right too, though the characterization (mostly in
> terms of the outcome of Entmoot) was decidedly off and there was no
> mention of the missing Entwives.
The Entwives served no purpose, and were deservedly cut, like Tom
Bombadil. As interesting as the Ents were, Jackson simply did not have
enough time to give characterisations for all of them, or even anything
more than the bare bones of Treebeard. Lots of things *had* to be cut to
fit the holy Three Hour Limit, and the Entwives were a good thing to lose.
> And of course, I *loved* the scene at the beginning with the Balrog and
> Gandalf. I could see it exactly as they fell - "Ever he smote me, ever I
> hewed him" - although the defeat of the Balrog came in the depths of
> Khazad-dum, what was ruined when he was thrown down was stairs and the
> like which the Dwarves had constructed, and Gandalf didn't climb the
> Endless Stair (from the deepest pits of Moria to the top of the highest
> mountain above them, all on one stair) till afterwards. Still, for my
> money the best part of the movie.
It made for a better scene.
> In short, I was amazed by how well they did the first movie, but in the
> second one they appear to have started doing the things everyone was
> afraid they were going to do in the first one - most prominently,
> unwarranted rewriting.
The only unwarranted rewriting I saw was Faramir, and that served it's
purpose of getting Faramir to Osgiliath on-camera. The rest, well,
Tolkien had a brilliant story and terribly writing. A lot of it was
*bad*, and couldn't be filmed without rewriting it, or the audience would
be bored to tears. A lot of the rest was good stuff but unecessary, and
thus had to go to fit all the necessary things in.
Every complaint I've heard about the movie so far is the same stuff I
heard about the first one. With the exception of the *terrible* casting
and miserably bad acting of Liv Tyler, the first movie was excellent. Did
it match the book perfectly? No. Was the book much more detailed?
Yes. Did it improve on the book, especially given the media change,
greatly? Oh, hell, yes.
Stop looking at it as an adaptation of a book, and start looking at it as
a different version of the same story, in the same way that Tim Burton's
Planet Of The Apes is a different version of the same story as the
original.
Translating Tolkien's books to film unchanged would be utterly, unbearably
lame.
Espen Wiborg
> As roses wither, so does The Wanderer:
>> My rant below is noticeably spoily, so...
>> Ash One
>> nazg ring
>> durbatuluk, rulethemall,
>> ash one
>> nazg ring
>> gimbatul, findthem,
>> ash one
>> nazg ring
>> thrakatuluk bringthemall
>> agh and
>> burzum-ishi (? darkness-in?)
>> krimpatul! bindthem!
>> (In case you couldn't tell, I've rather dissected this - with the
>> exception of "burzum-ishi", I could tell you exactly what each
>> element appears to mean.)
> Burzum being "darkness" in one of the Scandahoovian languages...
Do you have a reference for this? As far as I know, the word is an
original Tolkien invention for the Black Speech (which is *not* the
same as orcish, BTW). A web search show nothing to contradict this...
--
Espen Wiborg <esp...@grumblesmurf.org>
A goldfish has a memory span of three seconds.
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
Because it came to him on his birthday, yes, and he thought it should be
his, his preciouss. (That's something I think they also cut out, but
honestly, I can live with it. Morgenstern-ing does have its place. :) ).
OTOH, I thought Smeagol was only "not so very different" from a hobbit
once, not an actual hobbit. (He doesn't *sound* like a hobbit.) Maybe
the little differences are enough.
Love and coffee,
Frances
Malte Helmert
> John Rowat <jro...@prince.carleton.ca> writes:
>
>>As roses wither, so does The Wanderer:
>>
>>>My rant below is noticeably spoily, so...
>>>Ash One
>>>nazg ring
>>>durbatuluk, rulethemall,
>>>ash one
>>>nazg ring
>>>gimbatul, findthem,
>>>ash one
>>>nazg ring
>>>thrakatuluk bringthemall
>>>agh and
>>>burzum-ishi (? darkness-in?)
>>>krimpatul! bindthem!
>>>(In case you couldn't tell, I've rather dissected this - with the
>>>exception of "burzum-ishi", I could tell you exactly what each
>>>element appears to mean.)
>>
>>Burzum being "darkness" in one of the Scandahoovian languages...
Isn't "Scandahoovian" a derogatory word? But then again I read a lot of
posts about "Merkins", so...
> Do you have a reference for this? As far as I know, the word is an
> original Tolkien invention for the Black Speech (which is *not* the
> same as orcish, BTW). A web search show nothing to contradict this...
"burzum" certainly doesn't sound like a word from a Germanic language
(Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic), and it certainly doesn't sound
Finnish. In fact, I don't know a single Finnish word with "z". Finnish
guys out there, can you think of any? (I'm not talking about imported
words like pizza, of course).
Malte
Jukka Kuusisto
>In fact, I don't know a single Finnish word with "z". Finnish
>guys out there, can you think of any? (I'm not talking about imported
>words like pizza, of course).
There aren't any, apart from the imported words. Letters that don't
appear in originally Finnish words: b, c, f, q, w, x, z (and å, which is
part of our alphabet but not used in Finnish).
-Jukka
--
Jukka Kuusisto
Antti Tuominen
Nope, can't think of any. I opened the dictionary to look for words
starting with 'z' and found only four: "Zaire, zairelainen, zeniitti,
zeppeliini." The first two are for nationalities, the third (zenith) can
be thought as an imported word, and so can the fourth one. (I found some
more, but they're also all imported)
I'd say there aren't any words in Finnish that have a 'z' unless it's
imported. (mmm, pizza...)
--
Antti
Fatal Error: Found [MS-Windows] System -> Repartitioning Disk for Linux...
(By cbb...@io.org, Christopher Browne)
Malte Helmert
Interesting. Actually I'm a bit surprised about the f, that never
occured to me. What about g? This appears to be pretty rare too, and in
many imported words it's replaced by k ("kaasu", "kartiini").
Malte
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> once, not an actual hobbit. (He doesn't *sound* like a hobbit.) Maybe
> the little differences are enough.
Right. I plead a correction.
Smeagol and Deagol are both Stoors. The Stoors are historically or
ancestrally hobbits, who came over the Redhorn pass and moved to either
Dunland or the Angle around year 1150 of the Third Age. (Appendix B)
However, when Tolkein is discussing the language of hobbits, he observed
that while most hobbits spoke a Mannish language of the upper Anduin upon
arriving at Bree, the southern Stoors apparently spoke a Dunlandish
language. The Stoors of the Angle had returned to Wilderland, and while
they spoke common, the names Smeagol and Deagol are names in the Mannish
language of the region near Gladden. (Appendix F)
I can't find Wilderland, but is seems like the sort of place you'd find
around the Misty Mountains and Mirkwood, which is what the Gladden River
and the Gladden Fields (a.k.a. Str Ninglor and Loeg Ningloron) are between
on the map. If that is it, then apparently the Stoors settled around
there. If that isn't it, then apparently Smeagol, Deagol, and their
grandmother are even further removed from the rest of the hobbits.
At this point, I'm going to conclude:
* Mr. Tolkein's love of detail surpasses mine. I am in awe.
* I can live with Smeagol and Deagol, whose ancestors apparently split
off from the rest of the hobbits over 1300 years before Smeagol killed
Deagol for the Ring, and who live halfway to Mordor, not being quite as
hobbity as 'real' hobbits.
* Damn him. I picked up _The_Hobbit_, and I was just flipping through
the first few pages, when I found the beginning of the dwarven song:
"Far over the misty mountains cold
To dungeons deep and caverns old"...
I'm hooked all over again. I think my weekend and the week to come has
been determined for me. It's a good thing I picked up all three books on
Wednesday, it is. :)
Love and coffee,
Frances
Antti Tuominen
Kartiini? That's a new word for me =)
What did you mean with it?
'g' is actually very common. It is in every word that has the "äng-äänne"
in it. (the 'ng' phoneme, like in "kengät" (shoes) and many other words
that have an 'nk' in singular form)
--
Antti
The chat program is in public domain. This is not the GNU public license. If
it breaks then you get to keep both pieces.
(Copyright notice for the chat program)
Jukka Kuusisto
>'g' is actually very common. It is in every word that has the "äng-äänne"
>in it. (the 'ng' phoneme, like in "kengät" (shoes) and many other words
>that have an 'nk' in singular form)
Yes. The letters 'g' and 'd' only appear in inflected words:
kenkä (shoe) -> kengät (shoes)
äiti (mother) -> äidit (mothers)
... and many other examples.
So 'g' and 'd' aren't really part of the 'original' Finnish
alphabet, but they have come later to these inflections.
-Jukka
--
Jukka Kuusisto
Malte Helmert
I see... this also explains why I couldn't find a suitable word
*starting* with g.
Malte
Malte Helmert
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 16:08:40 +0100, Malte Helmert
> <hel...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
>
>>Interesting. Actually I'm a bit surprised about the f, that never
>>occured to me. What about g? This appears to be pretty rare too, and in
>>many imported words it's replaced by k ("kaasu", "kartiini").
>
> Kartiini? That's a new word for me =)
> What did you mean with it?
The English word is "curtain". There might be several finnish words for
that, but unless my dictionary is very wrong, "kartiini" should be one
of them. :-)
Malte
Antti Tuominen
To my knowledge, curtain is either "verho" if it is covering the window,
or "esirippu" when on a stage.
I must say your dictionary is wrong, or maybe it is the dialects that
Finns use. I don't know much about the words that appear in the Karelian
dialects.
--
Antti
"Problem solving under linux has never been the circus that it is under
AIX."
(By Pete Ehlke in comp.unix.aix)
Juho Julkunen
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 18:23:30 +0100, Malte Helmert
> <hel...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
> > Antti Tuominen wrote:
> >> On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 16:08:40 +0100, Malte Helmert
> >> <hel...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Interesting. Actually I'm a bit surprised about the f, that never
> >>>occured to me. What about g? This appears to be pretty rare too, and in
> >>>many imported words it's replaced by k ("kaasu", "kartiini").
> >>
> >> Kartiini? That's a new word for me =)
> >> What did you mean with it?
> >
> > The English word is "curtain". There might be several finnish words for
> > that, but unless my dictionary is very wrong, "kartiini" should be one
> > of them. :-)
>
> To my knowledge, curtain is either "verho" if it is covering the window,
> or "esirippu" when on a stage.
>
> I must say your dictionary is wrong, or maybe it is the dialects that
> Finns use. I don't know much about the words that appear in the Karelian
> dialects.
Kartiini is a word in Finnish, indeed meaning curtain. Comes from
Swedish "gardin." It's getting to be a bit archaic, though. "Verho" is
the commonly used word, these days. Not surprising young dudes wouldn't
recognize it.
Watch some old (Finnish) movies, Antti.
Or ask your mother. That's what I did.
JTJ
--
God made the world in six days and was arrested on the seventh.
_The Unauthorized Version_
John Rowat
> John Rowat <jro...@prince.carleton.ca> writes:
>>> (In case you couldn't tell, I've rather dissected this - with the
>>> exception of "burzum-ishi", I could tell you exactly what each
>>> element appears to mean.)
>> Burzum being "darkness" in one of the Scandahoovian languages...
> Do you have a reference for this? As far as I know, the word is an
> original Tolkien invention for the Black Speech (which is *not* the
> same as orcish, BTW). A web search show nothing to contradict this...
Only my memory of the story of a musician who calls himself "Burzum", who
produces music from his jail cell while he serves a sentence for murder,
mentioning that it's darkness in his native language.
I could be mistaken about the "native" bit, and since I can't remember
where he's from, "Scandahoovian" seemed like a good word to apply to mean
"From northern Europe somewhere in the frozen bits."
The Wanderer
> As roses wither, so does The Wanderer:
>
>>My rant below is noticeably spoily, so...
>
>>Ash One
>>nazg ring
>>durbatuluk, rulethemall,
>>ash one
>>nazg ring
>>gimbatul, findthem,
>>ash one
>>nazg ring
>>thrakatuluk bringthemall
>>agh and
>>burzum-ishi (? darkness-in?)
>>krimpatul! bindthem!
>
>
>>with Gimli - they treated him seriously in the first movie, why not in
>>the second?.
>
> He was played for laughs in the first one, too, just not as well.
Well then. He shouldn't have been. I personally didn't notice it in the
first movie, but it was blatantly obvious in the second - it being
almost all they *did* with him.
>>They juggled about Gollum's important scenes (though they *did* get most
>>of the important stuff... on the flip side, they also added in some
>>weird stuff that has no business being there).
>
> Really? What did they miss for Gollum? I always agreed with Jackson,
> incidentally, and found the whole "Frodo and Sam walk, a lot" sections
> interminably boring.
I did have something in particular in mind...
...but somehow, it's not coming back to me. If I remember it later, I
may interject it someplace.
(Personally I liked much of those sections - they provided a sense of
distance, made passage of time match up on both sides of the River (an
issue over which Tolkien agonized quite a bit), and provided a lot of
detail and scenery which helped flesh out the world just that much more.)
>>They altered the impression and outcome of Entmoot almost *entirely*
>>(and damaged plausibility considerably in the process).
>
> Plausibility? No. Damaged translation, yes - it's a significant change
> to those characters from the book - but the only continuity problem is
> that Fangorn Treebeard really should have known about the devastation
> sooner - after all, the trees can talk.
What I find implausible is:
Ents moot, for the first time in who-knows-how-long.
They discuss things and come to a conclusion, then disperse again.
One single Ent takes the visitors off to start them on their way, and
finds the destroyed part of the Forest.
Not only does he immediately change his mind about the conclusion they
had arrived at, but immediately *all the other Ents*, including ones who
don't even appear to have *been* at Entmoot, are there around him to
make the charge to Isengard.
It would have at the *least* been necessary to let them know about it
(the same sort of long-distance calls used to call Entmoot might have
done), since presumably they wouldn't have known previously any more
than Treebeard would have, and then wait for them to get there - if not
hold another Entmoot and consider things again with the new information
incoporated.
Does that make more sense as a claim of "implausibility"?
>>Perhaps worst of all in my opinion, they utterly altered Faramir for no
>>other apparent purpose than to be able to bring Osgiliath onscreen.
>
> That annoyed me. Faramir is a throwaway character, but he's not supposed
> to be "Boromir, but with fewer arrow-holes". He's supposed to realise
> Boromir's mistakes and not make the same ones.
Yes. Exactly my point.
> Still, the biggest annoyance about him was the fact that they're missing
> about *TEN SECONDS* of critical dialogue that would establish that this is
> the secret hideout next to Mordor of the Gondor army, and THAT is why it's
> illegal for them to let Frodo and Sam walk, and why Gollum has earned a
> death sentence for being in the pool - he's too close, and knows too much.
> The sequences made no sense without that.
I agree that that's a noteworthy issue, but in my opinion it's not as
bad as the drastic character and continuity alteration that whole
sequence entails.
>>And to top it all off, they ended the movie one major sequence too early
>>on each side of the River.
>
> No, they didn't.
Yes, they did.
>>Frodo and Sam still needed to sneak through Cirith Ungol (site of the
>>*real* "other Tower"; many people, including apparently the makers of
>>the movie, appear to think that the titular towers are Orthanc and
>>Barad-dur when in fact the pair is Orthanc and Minas Morgul) - Frodo
>>needs to get poisoned by Shelob and captured by Orcs; Sam needs to take
>>the Ring, Sting and the phial of Galadriel beforehand, but be unable to
>>follow the Orcs into the guardpost Tower to rescue Frodo.
>
> This is a bad way to end a movie, especially when it makes a *brilliant*
> start to the next one. Gollum's conspiratorial duet to set this up ("let
> HER kill them?") is a much better way to leave the audience hanging.
Irrelevant. The Two Towers ends after the sequences I described, not
before. Therefore any movie claiming to be The Two Towers must do the
same, or have a *damn* good explanation for it.
(I did have another comment I was going to make here, but I seem to have
completely forgotten what its thrust was.)
>>The others need to confront Saruman at Orthanc in Isengard; Gandalf
>>needs to break Saruman's staff, Grima Wormtongue needs to throw the
>>Palantir at them, Pippin needs to have his midnight
>>interview-by-Seeing-Stone with Sauron, and the band needs to split up
>>again with Gandalf and Pippin heading for Gondor and the others
>>returning, at least temporarily, to Edoras.
>
> Bah, horrible anticlimactic crap. Again, it's better to put this at the
> start of the third film, where it doesn't take away from the drama of the
> battle at Helm's Deep and the terror Frodo is finally starting to
> experience about the Ring.
As a minor side note, one of my brothers noted that it would have made
more sense to place Gollum's self-dialogue about Her at the beginning of
the third movie - in that many or most people who don't know the books
are likely to have forgotten about it by next year, and the ensuing
events will make that much less sense.
I'd like to also point out that the movie does not *need* to end on a
climax; this isn't the end, it's a break in the middle.
I'm also not sure that the ending qualifies as anticlimactic, at least
not on the East side of the river (which is the true end to the book)
and possibly though arguably not on the West side; but I'm in a bit of a
hurry and I'm not prepared to defend the point just now.
> My biggest disappointment was that we had Gandalf, Saruman, and Haldir in
> the middle of battles, more than once, and the only *magic* in the entire
> movie was the lightning against the Balrog and Galadriel's sending to
> Elrond. Dammit, I was hoping for at least *some* flash out of one of
> them.
That was one of the alterations I noted, or at least I should have -
there was supposed to be quite some noticeable flash on Gandalf's part
(without Saruman's direct involvement) in Theoden's throne room, which
constituted I think the first major not-really-supportable alteration I
noticed.
(There's another possible complaint I'm reminded of by your comment, but
since I'm not absolutely sure it isn't based in the book I don't plan to
bring it up just yet.)
>>On the bright side:
>
>>The Ents were, visually, just about dead on except for being too lean;
>>the voices were mostly right too, though the characterization (mostly in
>>terms of the outcome of Entmoot) was decidedly off and there was no
>>mention of the missing Entwives.
>
> The Entwives served no purpose, and were deservedly cut, like Tom
> Bombadil. As interesting as the Ents were, Jackson simply did not have
> enough time to give characterisations for all of them, or even anything
> more than the bare bones of Treebeard. Lots of things *had* to be cut to
> fit the holy Three Hour Limit, and the Entwives were a good thing to lose.
Yes, I'm not objecting there - they were one of the details I loved, but
I'm not surprised they were cut and I mentioned it only because this
seemed like a good spot for it.
>>And of course, I *loved* the scene at the beginning with the Balrog and
>>Gandalf. I could see it exactly as they fell - "Ever he smote me, ever I
>>hewed him" - although the defeat of the Balrog came in the depths of
>>Khazad-dum, what was ruined when he was thrown down was stairs and the
>>like which the Dwarves had constructed, and Gandalf didn't climb the
>>Endless Stair (from the deepest pits of Moria to the top of the highest
>>mountain above them, all on one stair) till afterwards. Still, for my
>>money the best part of the movie.
>
> It made for a better scene.
It may well have, and I'm not seriously objecting; this is one of the
class of supportable changes, and my "although" above is more of a
nitpick. As I said, I really liked the scene. ^_^
>>In short, I was amazed by how well they did the first movie, but in the
>>second one they appear to have started doing the things everyone was
>>afraid they were going to do in the first one - most prominently,
>>unwarranted rewriting.
>
> The only unwarranted rewriting I saw was Faramir, and that served it's
> purpose of getting Faramir to Osgiliath on-camera. The rest, well,
> Tolkien had a brilliant story and terribly writing. A lot of it was
> *bad*, and couldn't be filmed without rewriting it, or the audience would
> be bored to tears. A lot of the rest was good stuff but unecessary, and
> thus had to go to fit all the necessary things in.
A: Osgiliath is not *supposed* to come onscreen till the army goes East
in the third book; even that is only a "just passing through" bit, not a
major sequence in any way.
B: I would also point out all of the sequences with Arwen, Elrond and
Galadriel, as well as (in association) the "Aragorn fell off a cliff"
sequence, and the alterations with respect to the Ents (including the
bit about how Merry and Pippin found out about the survival of Gandalf),
and I think a few others I'm not remembering offhand.
C: I would very strongly object to the claim of "terrible writing", but
I'm not in a position to defend the point at the moment, and I don't
want to find myself in a corner without any handy ammunition any more
often than I have to. All I can say at this point is that *I* like his
writing style, with very few exceptions - none of which I can think of
offhand.
> Every complaint I've heard about the movie so far is the same stuff I
> heard about the first one. With the exception of the *terrible* casting
> and miserably bad acting of Liv Tyler, the first movie was excellent. Did
> it match the book perfectly? No. Was the book much more detailed?
> Yes. Did it improve on the book, especially given the media change,
> greatly? Oh, hell, yes.
I've heard no complaints that I recall about the first movie, and
certainly have made none (aside from objecting to the miscasting and
mischaracterization of Elrond - and, briefly, to the pronunciation of
"Moria", before I realized that pronouncing it that way rather than the
way I had always heard it made a particular poem fit its own meter much
better); however, I object quite strongly to much about the second
movie, and have heard comparatively few people (aside from myself and my
family) complain about it.
The first movie, with minor exceptions, was a good, faithful translation
of the book. The second, after a point at most about halfway in, was
much more spotty in its fidelity to the original and in my opinion
rather less because of it.
And taking your questions, for the first movie:
No, yes, and *no*. It was excellent, and did things the book could not
(mostly in the visual aspect), but it was not an *improvement*.
For the second movie:
No, yes, and *NO*. It was quite passable as itself, but it was *not*
what it should have been, and was of considerably less total worth as a
consequence.
> Stop looking at it as an adaptation of a book, and start looking at it as
> a different version of the same story, in the same way that Tim Burton's
> Planet Of The Apes is a different version of the same story as the
> original.
Two things.
One, a "different version of the same story" is not what I am *after*;
what I want is a translation of book to film, as directly as possible,
and *certainly* not with "just because we can" rewriting. (Thinking
specifically though not exclusively of the rewriting which was done
simply because they wanted to bring Osgiliath onscreen...)
Two, one reason that doing a different version of the same story is bad
is the people who have never read the books and are not going to - who
will think, almost certainly, that the movies are *what it is*. If the
movies are a faithful adaptation of the books, to within reasonable
limits (as the first one was), then this phenomenon is acceptable. But
if the movies are too much *different*, then it is very much *not*
acceptable.
> Translating Tolkien's books to film unchanged would be utterly, unbearably
> lame.
Completely unchanged? Maybe. Faithfully, rather than approximately? I
very much disagree.
--
The Wanderer, who could see a six-plus-hour version of the first
movie which did it even better...
John Rowat
> John Rowat wrote:
>> As roses wither, so does The Wanderer:
>>
>>>My rant below is noticeably spoily, so...
>>
>>>Ash One
>>>nazg ring
>>>durbatuluk, rulethemall,
>>>ash one
>>>nazg ring
>>>gimbatul, findthem,
>>>ash one
>>>nazg ring
>>>thrakatuluk bringthemall
>>>agh and
>>>burzum-ishi (? darkness-in?)
>>>krimpatul! bindthem!
>>
>>
> Well then. He shouldn't have been. I personally didn't notice it in the
> first movie, but it was blatantly obvious in the second - it being
> almost all they *did* with him.
He didn't do much in the book, either. He killed orcs, bantered with
Legolas, and followed Aragorn everywhere. Legolas also was pretty
one-dimensional in the book - he kills orcs, banters with Gimli, and
follows Aragorn everywhere.
Giving the two of them a little more character, with the buddy-comic
dynamic, is a good improvement, I think. They were *boring* before.
> (Personally I liked much of those sections - they provided a sense of
> distance, made passage of time match up on both sides of the River (an
> issue over which Tolkien agonized quite a bit), and provided a lot of
> detail and scenery which helped flesh out the world just that much more.)
Yes, but don't forget - it's a movie. They have three hours, and only
three hours, to build excitement to a climax and end it. Putting in
chunks of mood-breaking boredom is a *bad* thing.
>> Plausibility? No. Damaged translation, yes - it's a significant change
>> to those characters from the book - but the only continuity problem is
>> that Fangorn Treebeard really should have known about the devastation
>> sooner - after all, the trees can talk.
> What I find implausible is:
> Ents moot, for the first time in who-knows-how-long.
> They discuss things and come to a conclusion, then disperse again.
> One single Ent takes the visitors off to start them on their way, and
> finds the destroyed part of the Forest.
> Not only does he immediately change his mind about the conclusion they
> had arrived at, but immediately *all the other Ents*, including ones who
> don't even appear to have *been* at Entmoot, are there around him to
> make the charge to Isengard.
> Does that make more sense as a claim of "implausibility"?
Yes, perfectly.
>> This is a bad way to end a movie, especially when it makes a *brilliant*
>> start to the next one. Gollum's conspiratorial duet to set this up ("let
>> HER kill them?") is a much better way to leave the audience hanging.
> Irrelevant. The Two Towers ends after the sequences I described, not
> before. Therefore any movie claiming to be The Two Towers must do the
> same, or have a *damn* good explanation for it.
I think "Those are anticlimactic, don't fit in the three hour time limit,
and work much better as the start of the next movie" are DAMN good
explanations, myself.
> I'd like to also point out that the movie does not *need* to end on a
> climax; this isn't the end, it's a break in the middle.
Star Wars comparison.
After the escape from Cloud City and the scene at the medical frigate,
imagine if "Empire" showed Luke and the rest arriving on Tattoine and
sneaking into Jabba's palace before ending the movie. In fact, to get the
comparison right, imagine if they did the whole scene up until they
leave Tatooine before ending Empire.
Pretty lame, hmm?
>> The only unwarranted rewriting I saw was Faramir, and that served it's
>> purpose of getting Faramir to Osgiliath on-camera. The rest, well,
>> Tolkien had a brilliant story and terribly writing. A lot of it was
>> *bad*, and couldn't be filmed without rewriting it, or the audience would
>> be bored to tears. A lot of the rest was good stuff but unecessary, and
>> thus had to go to fit all the necessary things in.
> A: Osgiliath is not *supposed* to come onscreen till the army goes East
> in the third book; even that is only a "just passing through" bit, not a
> major sequence in any way.
Not "showing Osgiliath" - getting Faramir to Osgiliath. Faramir is at the
border of Mordor, in the Sooper Sekrit Hiding Spot. Showing up in Minas
Tirith with no explanation is a big no-no if you're a continuity director
in Hollywood.
Then again, I think "Osgiliath is under attack. They've called for
reinforcements" would be a great place to add that. Have Faramir make his
decision and let them go from right there.
> C: I would very strongly object to the claim of "terrible writing", but
> I'm not in a position to defend the point at the moment, and I don't
> want to find myself in a corner without any handy ammunition any more
> often than I have to. All I can say at this point is that *I* like his
> writing style, with very few exceptions - none of which I can think of
> offhand.
I loved the story. I hated the style. It always seemed... forced.
I've been reading "The Stand" recently. Tolkien's writing always seemed
to me to be like the way Harold talks - flowery for no reason other than
to be flowery.
>> Stop looking at it as an adaptation of a book, and start looking at it as
>> a different version of the same story, in the same way that Tim Burton's
>> Planet Of The Apes is a different version of the same story as the
>> original.
> Two things.
> One, a "different version of the same story" is not what I am *after*;
> what I want is a translation of book to film, as directly as possible,
> and *certainly* not with "just because we can" rewriting. (Thinking
> specifically though not exclusively of the rewriting which was done
> simply because they wanted to bring Osgiliath onscreen...)
A direct translation is certainly possible, and would make a lousy film.
I think the real verdict has to be what I keep hearing from people who've
never read the books - the phrase "best movies ever" keeps coming up, and
while I disgree, I really think that their only "flaws" lie in changes
from the source material, and I've already said that I think a lot of
those changes were good.
> Two, one reason that doing a different version of the same story is bad
> is the people who have never read the books and are not going to - who
> will think, almost certainly, that the movies are *what it is*. If the
> movies are a faithful adaptation of the books, to within reasonable
> limits (as the first one was), then this phenomenon is acceptable. But
> if the movies are too much *different*, then it is very much *not*
> acceptable.
People who think that a film is exactly the same as the book are either
idiots or watching a Steven King TV Movie. I'm surprised you didn't
complain about the bigger changes in the first movie, too, like Frodo
taking *20* *years* to get off his ass and move with the Ring, instead of
a matter of weeks.
The Wanderer
> As roses wither, so does The Wanderer:
>>>>My rant below is noticeably spoily, so...
>>>
>>>>Ash One
>>>>nazg ring
>>>>durbatuluk, rulethemall,
>>>>ash one
>>>>nazg ring
>>>>gimbatul, findthem,
>>>>ash one
>>>>nazg ring
>>>>thrakatuluk bringthemall
>>>>agh and
>>>>burzum-ishi (? darkness-in?)
>>>>krimpatul! bindthem!
>>>
>>>
>>>He was played for laughs in the first one, too, just not as well.
>
>>Well then. He shouldn't have been. I personally didn't notice it in the
>>first movie, but it was blatantly obvious in the second - it being
>>almost all they *did* with him.
>
> He didn't do much in the book, either. He killed orcs, bantered with
> Legolas, and followed Aragorn everywhere. Legolas also was pretty
> one-dimensional in the book - he kills orcs, banters with Gimli, and
> follows Aragorn everywhere.
But they were serious characters nonetheless. Making one of them into
comic relief, at odds with the apparent character of a dwarf, it rather
objectionable in my mind.
> Giving the two of them a little more character, with the buddy-comic
> dynamic, is a good improvement, I think. They were *boring* before.
I didn't particularly find them so, but that may just be me. It's worth
noting that the lack of significance of Legolas, as a proxy for the
Elves, is actually somewhat intentional on Tolkien's part - the time of
the Elves is over, they've been becoming less important for centuries;
this is their last thing remotely resembling a hurrah in Middle-earth.
>>(Personally I liked much of those sections - they provided a sense of
>>distance, made passage of time match up on both sides of the River (an
>>issue over which Tolkien agonized quite a bit), and provided a lot of
>>detail and scenery which helped flesh out the world just that much more.)
>
> Yes, but don't forget - it's a movie. They have three hours, and only
> three hours, to build excitement to a climax and end it. Putting in
> chunks of mood-breaking boredom is a *bad* thing.
Except for the fact that I don't think those chunks are particularly
boring, I know, and I generally agree.
<snip>
>>>This is a bad way to end a movie, especially when it makes a *brilliant*
>>>start to the next one. Gollum's conspiratorial duet to set this up ("let
>>>HER kill them?") is a much better way to leave the audience hanging.
>
>>Irrelevant. The Two Towers ends after the sequences I described, not
>>before. Therefore any movie claiming to be The Two Towers must do the
>>same, or have a *damn* good explanation for it.
>
> I think "Those are anticlimactic, don't fit in the three hour time limit,
> and work much better as the start of the next movie" are DAMN good
> explanations, myself.
I don't think they're necessarily anticlimactic (as I think I indicated;
if not, I meant to); they could have fit it into the three-hour time
limit if they hadn't added in some of the invented sequences; and I
don't necessarily agree that they work better as the start of the next
movie, though I can see your argument there.
>>I'd like to also point out that the movie does not *need* to end on a
>>climax; this isn't the end, it's a break in the middle.
>
> Star Wars comparison.
>
> After the escape from Cloud City and the scene at the medical frigate,
> imagine if "Empire" showed Luke and the rest arriving on Tattoine and
> sneaking into Jabba's palace before ending the movie. In fact, to get the
> comparison right, imagine if they did the whole scene up until they
> leave Tatooine before ending Empire.
>
> Pretty lame, hmm?
Reasonably. The difference is that the Star Wars movies were not based
on previously-written, previously-released, previously-successful
material of any sort (that I'm aware of); these movies *are*. There's
also a considerable time gap between the end of "Empire" and the
beginning of "Jedi", whereas there is no such gap between The Two Towers
and The Return of the King, but that's not necessarily relevant.
>>>The only unwarranted rewriting I saw was Faramir, and that served it's
>>>purpose of getting Faramir to Osgiliath on-camera. The rest, well,
>>>Tolkien had a brilliant story and terribly writing. A lot of it was
>>>*bad*, and couldn't be filmed without rewriting it, or the audience would
>>>be bored to tears. A lot of the rest was good stuff but unecessary, and
>>>thus had to go to fit all the necessary things in.
>
>>A: Osgiliath is not *supposed* to come onscreen till the army goes East
>>in the third book; even that is only a "just passing through" bit, not a
>>major sequence in any way.
>
> Not "showing Osgiliath" - getting Faramir to Osgiliath. Faramir is at the
> border of Mordor, in the Sooper Sekrit Hiding Spot. Showing up in Minas
> Tirith with no explanation is a big no-no if you're a continuity director
> in Hollywood.
The explanation used in Book Three would work quite well, I think.
> Then again, I think "Osgiliath is under attack. They've called for
> reinforcements" would be a great place to add that. Have Faramir make his
> decision and let them go from right there.
And I would not have objected to that, if that happens when I think it does.
>>C: I would very strongly object to the claim of "terrible writing", but
>>I'm not in a position to defend the point at the moment, and I don't
>>want to find myself in a corner without any handy ammunition any more
>>often than I have to. All I can say at this point is that *I* like his
>>writing style, with very few exceptions - none of which I can think of
>>offhand.
>
> I loved the story. I hated the style. It always seemed... forced.
It did not seem so to me; it was and is different from most things I've
read, but I don't find it a bad difference; indeed, I find the tone,
style and flavour of the books one of the more interesting things about
them. (My father has been objecting rather persistently to the almost
complete absence, in the movies, of the poetry and song that is so
common in the books... he understands why, as do I, but it's still a
very noticeable lack which somewhat alters the feel of things.)
> I've been reading "The Stand" recently. Tolkien's writing always seemed
> to me to be like the way Harold talks - flowery for no reason other than
> to be flowery.
All I can say is, it does not strike me that way. Having read the
entirety of the sequence called "The History of Middle-earth", which is
the complete or near-complete previously-unpublished fictional works of
Tolkien, I've seen some of the forms the entire thing went through; it
makes sense to me. Then again, I may just be weird.
>>>Stop looking at it as an adaptation of a book, and start looking at it as
>>>a different version of the same story, in the same way that Tim Burton's
>>>Planet Of The Apes is a different version of the same story as the
>>>original.
>
>>Two things.
>
>>One, a "different version of the same story" is not what I am *after*;
>>what I want is a translation of book to film, as directly as possible,
>>and *certainly* not with "just because we can" rewriting. (Thinking
>>specifically though not exclusively of the rewriting which was done
>>simply because they wanted to bring Osgiliath onscreen...)
>
> A direct translation is certainly possible, and would make a lousy film.
I agree on the first point, and disagree on the second.
(Side note: my brother has developed the rule of thumb that when
translating a novel, or for that matter a short story, to the big screen
you should budget approximately one hour for every hundred pages. Each
of the novels in The Lord of the Rings is from 400-some to 600-some
pages, depending on which edition and printing you're looking at. I'm
halfway hoping that the success of the LotR movies leads to more long
movies, whether made from books or not, including perhaps the
reintroduction of the *intermission*....)
> I think the real verdict has to be what I keep hearing from people who've
> never read the books - the phrase "best movies ever" keeps coming up, and
> while I disgree, I really think that their only "flaws" lie in changes
> from the source material, and I've already said that I think a lot of
> those changes were good.
Except for the bit about the changes being good (most of them - though I
don't recall any offhand, I remember thinking a few points were very
nice), I agree with you on this one.
>>Two, one reason that doing a different version of the same story is bad
>>is the people who have never read the books and are not going to - who
>>will think, almost certainly, that the movies are *what it is*. If the
>>movies are a faithful adaptation of the books, to within reasonable
>>limits (as the first one was), then this phenomenon is acceptable. But
>>if the movies are too much *different*, then it is very much *not*
>>acceptable.
>
> People who think that a film is exactly the same as the book are either
> idiots or watching a Steven King TV Movie. I'm surprised you didn't
> complain about the bigger changes in the first movie, too, like Frodo
> taking *20* *years* to get off his ass and move with the Ring, instead of
> a matter of weeks.
The trouble there is that many if not most people either *are* idiots,
or just don't bother to think about the question. It's true that not
even I expect the movies to be *exactly* the same as the books, purist
though I may be; but the changes made in roughly the latter half of The
Two Towers, including though not limited to the Faramir bit and the
premature ending, are considerably more than just minor or cosmetic
changes. There were many of the latter in the first movie, to which I
had no serious objection.
As to the "twenty years" versus "a few weeks" - that's a matter of time
compression; while I noted it, I didn't object seriously to it, any more
than I objected in the second movie to it not taking a month or three
for Frodo and Sam (and Gollum, most of the way) to reach the Black Gate
and then get most of the way to Minas Morgul. While I can envision ways
to address the "this is taking a long time" bit in movie form, I don't
think it's required and I'm not surprised that they just compressed the
timeframe involved. It isn't a huge thing storyline-wise; in the first
movie, it's not even as big a thing as the playing up of Arwen and the
expected omission of Tom Bombadil and the Old Forest. (Though I am glad
to see that they apparently left in the Elves-in-the-woods scene for the
half-hour of extra footage on the DVD....)
--
The Wanderer
Espen Wiborg
> As roses wither, so does Espen Wiborg:
>> John Rowat <jro...@prince.carleton.ca> writes:
>>>> (In case you couldn't tell, I've rather dissected this - with the
>>>> exception of "burzum-ishi", I could tell you exactly what each
>>>> element appears to mean.)
>>> Burzum being "darkness" in one of the Scandahoovian languages...
>> Do you have a reference for this? As far as I know, the word is an
>> original Tolkien invention for the Black Speech (which is *not* the
>> same as orcish, BTW). A web search show nothing to contradict
>> this...
> Only my memory of the story of a musician who calls himself
> "Burzum", who produces music from his jail cell while he serves a
> sentence for murder, mentioning that it's darkness in his native
> language.
> I could be mistaken about the "native" bit, and since I can't
> remember where he's from, "Scandahoovian" seemed like a good word to
> apply to mean "From northern Europe somewhere in the frozen bits."
Ah, you're thinking of Varg Vikernes (a.k.a. Count Grishnakh), an
entity[1] currently serving time for, as you say, murder (and arson,
BTW). Unfortunately, he is a Norwegian citizen (much as I'd like him
not to be), so you're right about the Scandahoovian bit, but not about
the language. Unless, of course, Norwegian has dark corners that I
don't know about...
[1] I remember reading transcripts of the murder trial and thinking
"Is it humanly possible to be this stupid?", so I won't call him a
person.
--
Espen Wiborg <esp...@grumblesmurf.org>
A dragonfly has a life span of 24 hours.
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> John Rowat wrote:
>> This is a bad way to end a movie, especially when it makes a *brilliant*
>> start to the next one. Gollum's conspiratorial duet to set this up ("let
>> HER kill them?") is a much better way to leave the audience hanging.
> Irrelevant. The Two Towers ends after the sequences I described, not
> before. Therefore any movie claiming to be The Two Towers must do the
> same, or have a *damn* good explanation for it.
Because ending it the way the books ended would suck horribly.
Lord of the Rings, to a great degree, is amazing because there's this
small hearth-and-home creature setting out into horrible danger, slowly
being taken over by the Ring, knowing that he's likely to never see his
home again, and still going on. This is cool.
Ending the movie as it did means you know that he's going to be put in
even more danger, but he's still alive to care about when you walk out of
the theatre.
Ending the movie as the book ends means that the brave and possibly doomed
hero is apparently dead, that you're going to AFAYK watch the sidekicks
for three hours next year, and that you just spent the price of a movie
ticket and three hours of your life to come out of the theatre on a
horrible downer. You'd come away with an impression of icky boring angst
rather than brave heroics against overwhelming odds.
That is a damned good reason not to end the movie the way the book was ended.
> As a minor side note, one of my brothers noted that it would have made
> more sense to place Gollum's self-dialogue about Her at the beginning of
> the third movie - in that many or most people who don't know the books
> are likely to have forgotten about it by next year, and the ensuing
> events will make that much less sense.
I am willing to bet good money with your brother that it will be made
perfectly clear, either with a recap or with further action/dialogue from
Gollum/Smeagol. Does your brother want to take my bet?
> I'd like to also point out that the movie does not *need* to end on a
> climax; this isn't the end, it's a break in the middle.
The movie does need a climax, because while it's not the end of the story,
it's the end of an installment. Leaving people on a flat note or a bad
note would suck, and would tend to produce an "Eughh, Tolkein" reaction,
when quite honestly he deserves better.
Love and coffee,
Frances
Stephen Mackey
>The movie does need a climax, because while it's not the end of the story,
>it's the end of an installment. Leaving people on a flat note or a bad
>note would suck, and would tend to produce an "Eughh, Tolkein" reaction,
>when quite honestly he deserves better.
Am I the only person in the world who doesn't object to stories with sad or
depressing endings?
Not that I'm commenting on the ending of the second movie one way or another,
since I haven't seen it yet, of course.
--
Signing off as Stephen Mackey, the Multi-Threaded RFE Database Liaison.
"And with that out of the way, I'm sending your Christmas present, you rotten
bastard."
-Jen D.
The Wanderer
> The Wanderer (inverse...@comcast.net) writes:
>
>>John Rowat wrote:
>
>>>This is a bad way to end a movie, especially when it makes a *brilliant*
>>>start to the next one. Gollum's conspiratorial duet to set this up ("let
>>>HER kill them?") is a much better way to leave the audience hanging.
>>
>>Irrelevant. The Two Towers ends after the sequences I described, not
>>before. Therefore any movie claiming to be The Two Towers must do the
>>same, or have a *damn* good explanation for it.
>
> Because ending it the way the books ended would suck horribly.
I'm not sure I agree, but you *may* have a point there.
> Lord of the Rings, to a great degree, is amazing because there's this
> small hearth-and-home creature setting out into horrible danger, slowly
> being taken over by the Ring, knowing that he's likely to never see his
> home again, and still going on. This is cool.
>
> Ending the movie as it did means you know that he's going to be put in
> even more danger, but he's still alive to care about when you walk out of
> the theatre.
>
> Ending the movie as the book ends means that the brave and possibly doomed
> hero is apparently dead, that you're going to AFAYK watch the sidekicks
> for three hours next year, and that you just spent the price of a movie
> ticket and three hours of your life to come out of the theatre on a
> horrible downer. You'd come away with an impression of icky boring angst
> rather than brave heroics against overwhelming odds.
Point: The final sentence of The Two Towers is "Frodo was alive, but
taken by the Enemy.". Thus, your "apparently dead" argument doesn't hold
water. However, the rest of it is more reasonable.
> That is a damned good reason not to end the movie the way the book was ended.
>
>>As a minor side note, one of my brothers noted that it would have made
>>more sense to place Gollum's self-dialogue about Her at the beginning of
>>the third movie - in that many or most people who don't know the books
>>are likely to have forgotten about it by next year, and the ensuing
>>events will make that much less sense.
>
> I am willing to bet good money with your brother that it will be made
> perfectly clear, either with a recap or with further action/dialogue from
> Gollum/Smeagol. Does your brother want to take my bet?
I haven't asked him, but I'm fairly sure he wouldn't. The problem (such
as it remains) lies in the fact that recaps in movies, by and large, are
lame and "further action/dialogue" would almost certainly be more
invented, added stuff, which is the larger problem to begin with.
>>I'd like to also point out that the movie does not *need* to end on a
>>climax; this isn't the end, it's a break in the middle.
>
> The movie does need a climax, because while it's not the end of the story,
> it's the end of an installment. Leaving people on a flat note or a bad
> note would suck, and would tend to produce an "Eughh, Tolkein" reaction,
> when quite honestly he deserves better.
On your first point, I disagree; that's why I made the statement you
quote. On the point that he deserves better than that kind of reaction I
do of course agree, but I don't think that it would be impossible to end
the movie there in such a way as to not induce that sort of reaction.
Part of my problem with the decision to cut The Two Towers short that
way is that now they've got even *more* to cover in the third movie,
which was liable to either leave out a *huge* amount of stuff (probably
post-victory) or be jam-packed anyway. It'd have been hard enough to do
The Return of the King justice in three hours anyway; having to include
part of The Two Towers in there as well makes it even harder.
--
The Wanderer
Malte Helmert
>
> Part of my problem with the decision to cut The Two Towers short that
> way is that now they've got even *more* to cover in the third movie,
> which was liable to either leave out a *huge* amount of stuff (probably
> post-victory) or be jam-packed anyway. It'd have been hard enough to do
> The Return of the King justice in three hours anyway; having to include
> part of The Two Towers in there as well makes it even harder.
I'm almost willing to bet that the "Return to the Shire" bit will be
removed or drastically shortened. It's not very Hollywood-ish, although
I quite like it.
Malte
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> Frances Kathleen Moffatt said:
>>The movie does need a climax, because while it's not the end of the story,
>>it's the end of an installment. Leaving people on a flat note or a bad
>>note would suck, and would tend to produce an "Eughh, Tolkein" reaction,
>>when quite honestly he deserves better.
> Am I the only person in the world who doesn't object to stories with sad or
> depressing endings?
No. And if my recollection of your earlier comments on the adaptation of
Tolkein was correct, I will help you bitch if they leave out the scouring
of the Shire.
A depressing ending isn't a bad thing; an ending which leaves you feeling
depressed and leaves you feeling like the interesting bits are over
two-thirds of the way through because the most sympathetic character is
dead, and you'll have to wait a year for the last third, is a bad thing.
This wasn't nearly so much of a problem in the book, since you did not
have to wait a year for the next installement and the characterization was
perhaps more even.
> Not that I'm commenting on the ending of the second movie one way or another,
> since I haven't seen it yet, of course.
Of course.
Gollum has 300 facial muscles, BTW.
Love and coffee,
Frances
Malte Helmert
>
> A depressing ending isn't a bad thing; an ending which leaves you feeling
> depressed and leaves you feeling like the interesting bits are over
> two-thirds of the way through because the most sympathetic character is
> dead, and you'll have to wait a year for the last third, is a bad thing.
> This wasn't nearly so much of a problem in the book, since you did not
> have to wait a year for the next installement and the characterization was
> perhaps more even.
*We* didn't have to wait. When the book was originally published in
1954, people did have to wait a year for the sequel.
Of course, the book does make it clear that Frodo is still alive.
Malte
Stephen Mackey
Yeah, that's what Jackson decided to do. Unfortunately that was the whole
point of the book... it's like doing a movie of Till We Have Faces, and then
leaving out the main character's death and last words. But I sort of expected
it anyway. As you say, stories that end on downers aren't Hollywoodish. Le
sigh.
Stephen Mackey
>A depressing ending isn't a bad thing; an ending which leaves you feeling
>depressed and leaves you feeling like the interesting bits are over
>two-thirds of the way through because the most sympathetic character is
>dead, and you'll have to wait a year for the last third, is a bad thing.
>This wasn't nearly so much of a problem in the book, since you did not
>have to wait a year for the next installement and the characterization was
>perhaps more even.
I'm glad I read Malte's post before replying to this one, as I wasn't sure of
the publication dates of the books. :) As he pointed out, the readers DID have
to wait when it was initially published. Although I do see your point... books
can be dependant on each other to some extent. Movies cannot be nearly so
much, they must be able to stand on their own.
>Gollum has 300 facial muscles, BTW.
>
Ooohhhhh. Aaaaahhh.
::shiny eyes::
I think I'm gonna cry when he dies... I cried the first time I read about him
dying in the book.... ;_; I wuv Gollum.
R Dan Henry
<inverse...@comcast.net> declared:
>Perhaps worst of all in my opinion, they utterly altered Faramir for no
>other apparent purpose than to be able to bring Osgiliath onscreen.
And out of chronology. Osgiliath fell before Boromir set out.
The Two Towers was like watching a rather good American Civil War
film, with a fist fight between Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis
thrown in because the Civil War didn't have enough action in it.
--
R. Dan Henry
rdan...@earthlink.net
R Dan Henry
olli.snip_t...@mbnet.fi (Olli Wilkman) declared:
>Btw, Two Towers has been re-written much more than the Fellowship, I
>think. It's more than a year now since I last read the books, but I
>think there were several things (more than in the first film) that had
>been changed (mostly shortened).
Faramir is a completely different character. Similarities to the book:
found in Ithilien, brother of Boromir, same name. That's pretty much
it.
Different cast at Helm's Deep.
Fall of Osgiliath completely out of proper chronology.
A fight scene in Theoden hall. Nope. Just a little magic by Gandalf.
*Nobody* except Theoden had any real trust in Wormtongue. I always
suspected Hama let Gandalf keep his staff in the hopes that it *would*
be a sort of weapon.
Theoden was bewitched by *words* and *cunning* not a blatant spell.
Movie version was more like a Conan story than Tolkien.
Elrond still bitchy from first movie.
Entmoot actually ends in decision to march on Isengard.
Treebeard appears less bright in the movie than in the books. He does
*not* mistake Hobbits for Orcs, although he does say "if I had seen
you before I heard you, I should have just trodden on you, taking you
for little Orcs". He knew damn well what was going on around the
borders of his woods without Hobbits pointing it out.
Several action sequences are too silly to image in Middle-Earth
outside the Shire.
The internal division between the orcs based on *loyalty* (too
positive a trait to show in movie orcs, I guess) to different masters
(Sauron vs. Saruman -- but that distinction is blurred in the films as
well) is turned into a simple food fight.
Eomer was actually quite clear that there had been none but Orcs among
those they had slain.
Hobbits had no more heard of Ents than Ents had of Hobbits.
Aragorn was not the only one reading the signs at the site of the
battle on the edge of Fangorn. Both Legolas and Gimli find evidence
and piece things together. This is one of the more understandable
changes, as it shows off Aragorn's l33t R4ng3R skills.
Gimli's warning to strike the wizard right away is given to Aragorn,
who rejected the "shoot first, check the Istari ID card later"
approach. It was only when they saw his white clothing clearly that
they decided it was Saruman and tried to attack.
Gandalf and the Balrog was edited down pretty faithfully (although
getting a better look at the Balrog I'm less satisfied with the
appearance). Still, I missed the parts of Gwaihir and Galadriel,
although I understand the limits of the film's time constraints.
Aragorn did not give up Anduril at Edoras without a fuss. It would
have taken a few seconds to at least indicate some hesitation. That
the sword was *special*.
Eomer is not only *not* in exile, Wormtongue has his report to use
against Gandalf during their debate. He *was* a prisoner for having
made death threats against Grima Wormtongue.
Eowyn seems too soft. "strong she seemed and stern as steel"
Wormtongue left of his own choice, rather than ride with the recovered
Theoden as he went to war.
Edoras was not abandoned, but the men went to war with Eowyn left
behind to rule. The warriors rode to Helm's Deep in order to reinforce
Erkenbrand, Marshall of the West, who had retreated there -- although
Erkenbrand himself came late to the Deep; it was *his* force that came
with Gandalf.
The forces of Isengard at Helm's Deep had their retreat cut off by a
mysteriously appearing wood. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see it in
the movie.
I'll admit I did have to turn pages to check a few of these, but most
of them I picked up during the movie in spite of not having actually
read through the trilogy in years. Some didn't bother me. Reworking
the action of battles to make a better filmed scene, for example, I
understand. What they did with Faramir only seems to make sense if
they just *had* to include Osgiliath as a set. But this sequence
actually wasted a fair amount of time that could have been spent on
cut details. An actual explanation of what Faramir was doing would
have been shorter and done as good a job as making it clear that the
might of Mordor was pressing Gondor hard.
John Rowat
> olli.snip_t...@mbnet.fi (Olli Wilkman) declared:
>>Btw, Two Towers has been re-written much more than the Fellowship, I
>>think. It's more than a year now since I last read the books, but I
>>think there were several things (more than in the first film) that had
>>been changed (mostly shortened).
<snip>
> Aragorn did not give up Anduril at Edoras without a fuss. It would
> have taken a few seconds to at least indicate some hesitation. That
> the sword was *special*.
Aragorn is not CARRYING Anduril at Edoras in the movies. Narsil is still
in fragments in Rivendell, at the end of the second movie. Elrond has not
yet reforged it and given it to Aragorn.
> The forces of Isengard at Helm's Deep had their retreat cut off by a
> mysteriously appearing wood. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see it in
> the movie.
It didn't happen. The Ents attacked Isengard directly and left the army
to to it's own devices.
I imagine those orcs wouldn't have had a happy reception if they'd
gotten home, but the Ents didn't go after them in the field, in the movie.
R Dan Henry
<jro...@prince.carleton.ca> declared:
>But it's still remarkable. Nobody who is a non-Hobbit who touches the
>Ring can ever resist it. We see two Hobbits (Merry and Pippin) who never
>even *think* about taking the Ring for themselves, and another *three* who
>hold it, use it, and then voluntarily give it up.[1]
Well, the One Ring was meant by Sauron to bind Men, Elves, and
Dwarves. While Hobbits are technically Men, they are a unique subrace
and were not the intended targets of the whole ring scheme. Even then,
it's just a slower process with them. And it's harder for the One to
tempt a Hobbit with power in part because a Hobbit with the One
*still* wouldn't have much power. Look at poor Gollum. Hardly the
mighty new Dark Lord/Lady that Gandalf or Galadriel would become with
the One.
And the one individual who handles the Ruling Ring without *any*
temptation is *not* a Hobbit. Hint: He got cut from the movies, just
like Faramir, but without being replaced by a completely different
character with the same name.
R Dan Henry
<inverse...@comcast.net> declared:
>Irrelevant. The Two Towers ends after the sequences I described, not
>before. Therefore any movie claiming to be The Two Towers must do the
>same, or have a *damn* good explanation for it.
It isn't that it is wrong to move the breaks between the movies from
where they are in the published volumes. It's just that it's
incredibly stupid to rewrite the timing so that you lose *the* best
cliffhanger *ever* in the movie version.
>I'm also not sure that the ending qualifies as anticlimactic, at least
>not on the East side of the river (which is the true end to the book)
>and possibly though arguably not on the West side; but I'm in a bit of a
>hurry and I'm not prepared to defend the point just now.
The end of the story on the West side is Pippin and Gandalf riding for
Minas Tirith. It's not a bad place to end, but it isn't the
cliffhanger of Book IV.
>That was one of the alterations I noted, or at least I should have -
>there was supposed to be quite some noticeable flash on Gandalf's part
>(without Saruman's direct involvement) in Theoden's throne room, which
>constituted I think the first major not-really-supportable alteration I
>noticed.
He knocks down Grima in a big display of light and thunder and
darkness.
>>>And of course, I *loved* the scene at the beginning with the Balrog and
>>>Gandalf. I could see it exactly as they fell - "Ever he smote me, ever I
>>>hewed him" - although the defeat of the Balrog came in the depths of
>>>Khazad-dum, what was ruined when he was thrown down was stairs and the
>>>like which the Dwarves had constructed
>
>It may well have, and I'm not seriously objecting; this is one of the
>class of supportable changes, and my "although" above is more of a
>nitpick. As I said, I really liked the scene. ^_^
Actually, you misremembered this one. The final scenes of the battle
were atop the Endless Stair and the Balrog fell upon the mountain.
Gandalf was in no shape to go climbing the Endless Stair at this
point, as he survived barely longer than the Balrog.
R Dan Henry
<jro...@prince.carleton.ca> declared:
>Not "showing Osgiliath" - getting Faramir to Osgiliath. Faramir is at the
>border of Mordor, in the Sooper Sekrit Hiding Spot. Showing up in Minas
>Tirith with no explanation is a big no-no if you're a continuity director
>in Hollywood.
How is showing up to report *major* goings on the same as showing up
with no explanation? Or was it your thought that in the next movie
we'll just cut out the part where Denethor and Gandalf get to find out
what the heck is going on with the Ring?
>People who think that a film is exactly the same as the book are either
>idiots or watching a Steven King TV Movie. I'm surprised you didn't
>complain about the bigger changes in the first movie, too, like Frodo
>taking *20* *years* to get off his ass and move with the Ring, instead of
>a matter of weeks.
Bilbo's farewell feast and the passing of the Ring to Frodo comes in
3001. Gandalf reveals the truth of the One Ring to Frodo and makes
plans in April 3018. Frodo leaves Bag End the 23rd of September, 3018.
He does so because the Black Riders are already sniffing around
Hobbiton. It takes 17 years for Frodo to get off his ass and move with
the Ring, although only a matter of months (not *weeks* except in the
sense that even 20 years is a matter of weeks) once he knows just what
it is... and even then he moves without Gandalf largely because he
obviously cannot afford to wait any longer.
R Dan Henry
(Stephen Mackey) declared:
>Frances Kathleen Moffatt said:
>
>>The movie does need a climax, because while it's not the end of the story,
>>it's the end of an installment. Leaving people on a flat note or a bad
>>note would suck, and would tend to produce an "Eughh, Tolkein" reaction,
>>when quite honestly he deserves better.
>
>Am I the only person in the world who doesn't object to stories with sad or
>depressing endings?
Actually, it would be neither. It would be a cliffhanger and they used
to be fairly popular in serial movies. Of course, I believe the wait
between films was much shorter between the old serials. Still, it
might increase the number of viewers who decide they can't wait to see
how it ends and go ahead and read the books.
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
>>But it's still remarkable. Nobody who is a non-Hobbit who touches the
>>Ring can ever resist it. We see two Hobbits (Merry and Pippin) who never
>>even *think* about taking the Ring for themselves, and another *three* who
>>hold it, use it, and then voluntarily give it up.[1]
> Well, the One Ring was meant by Sauron to bind Men, Elves, and
> Dwarves. While Hobbits are technically Men, they are a unique subrace
> and were not the intended targets of the whole ring scheme.
*blinks* Which-what? Everything I've seen suggests that hobbits are a
different race, like dwarves or elves, definitely not "big people".
Reference?
> Even then,
> it's just a slower process with them. And it's harder for the One to
> tempt a Hobbit with power in part because a Hobbit with the One
> *still* wouldn't have much power. Look at poor Gollum. Hardly the
> mighty new Dark Lord/Lady that Gandalf or Galadriel would become with
> the One.
Look at Gollum, indeed; he's not much with the Ring, and yet he murders
his brother within hours of seeing it. That kind of puts a hole in the
theory that it doesn't work well on people that it can't make great.
> And the one individual who handles the Ruling Ring without *any*
> temptation is *not* a Hobbit. Hint: He got cut from the movies, just
> like Faramir, but without being replaced by a completely different
> character with the same name.
I'm missing it. Who?
Love and coffee,
Frances
The Wanderer
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 17:09:01 -0500, in a fit of madness The Wanderer
> <inverse...@comcast.net> declared:
>>That was one of the alterations I noted, or at least I should have -
>>there was supposed to be quite some noticeable flash on Gandalf's part
>>(without Saruman's direct involvement) in Theoden's throne room, which
>>constituted I think the first major not-really-supportable alteration I
>>noticed.
>
> He knocks down Grima in a big display of light and thunder and
> darkness.
I know, yes. I was looking forwards to the scene with "the room goes
dark, with Gandalf just about the only thing visible", and was rather
disappointed by their turning it into an exorcism instead.
>>>>And of course, I *loved* the scene at the beginning with the Balrog and
>>>>Gandalf. I could see it exactly as they fell - "Ever he smote me, ever I
>>>>hewed him" - although the defeat of the Balrog came in the depths of
>>>>Khazad-dum, what was ruined when he was thrown down was stairs and the
>>>>like which the Dwarves had constructed
>>
>>It may well have, and I'm not seriously objecting; this is one of the
>>class of supportable changes, and my "although" above is more of a
>>nitpick. As I said, I really liked the scene. ^_^
>
> Actually, you misremembered this one. The final scenes of the battle
> were atop the Endless Stair and the Balrog fell upon the mountain.
> Gandalf was in no shape to go climbing the Endless Stair at this
> point, as he survived barely longer than the Balrog.
Hm. I don't have the book handy, so I can't check it (without getting up
and going upstairs, anyway ^_^), but I had the impression that he
climbed the Endless Stair alone - or if not alone, then certainly not in
the middle of a pitched battle.
This whole scene is where it is perhaps most valuable to know who and
what Gandalf really is; it provides some background to what's going on,
and it allows one to figure out where he went and what happened to him
between the defeat of the Balrog and the arrival of Gwaihir. ^_^
--
The Wanderer
Juho Julkunen
I'm shocked.
"Fellowship of the Ring: Scene 3
Bombadil's House
Narrator: Our four intrepid hobbits wander lost within the confines of
the Old Forest.
Sam: And then you sort of mash the mixture of cow droppings and hay into
the tilled soil before planting. It really increases the harvest yield!
Frodo: This new learning amazes me, Sam. Explain again about that
process you call "mulching".
Sam: Oh, gladly, sir.
Merry: Look!
[A dark river of brown water, bordered and arched with ancient willows,
and flecked with thousands of faded willow- leaves stretches lazily
before them]
Frodo: Withywindle!
Sam: Withywindle!
Merry: Withywindle!
Pippin: It's only a river.
Frodo: Shh! Fellow hobbits, I bid us make haste to the home of he who
was known to the men of Arnor as Orald, he whom the dwarves call Forn,
and who is known to hobbits as Tom Bombadil! Let us hasten... to...
Bombadil's!
[dancing along the river]
Tom Bombadil: [singing]
I'm Tom Bombadil, Oh, Bombadillo!
By the water, reed, and willow.
Hear me sing, water-lilies bring,
For my Goldberry's pillow.
Come merry dol! Hey, by the water,
To see the River-woman's daughter.
[dancing]
I'm Bombadil, a merry fellow;
Blue jacket and boots of yellow.
On many days I'm in a craze,
With my songs I love to bellow.
For none have caught the master,
Tom's songs and feet are faster.
[in Bombadil's house]
Goldberry: [clap, clap, clap, clap]
[back at the river]
Tom Bombadil: [tap-dancing]
Hey now! Hear me singing?
With your ears a'ringing.
Spend the day and prance away,
my songs I'll keep on winging.
'Cause I can't let my rhymes get lax,
Goldberry: [fingers in ears]
I have to stuff my ears with wax.
[back overlooking the river]
Frodo: Well, on second thought, let's not go Bombadil's. It is a silly
place.
Sam: Right.
Merry: Right.
Pippin: Right."
http://www.lawisewoman.com/MontyPython.html?1023205384150
Although the message board original was better. It had pictures.
JTJ
--
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
--Stephen Crane
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> Frances Kathleen Moffatt (dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote...
>> R Dan Henry (rdan...@earthlink.net) writes:
>> > And the one individual who handles the Ruling Ring without *any*
>> > temptation is *not* a Hobbit. Hint: He got cut from the movies, just
>> > like Faramir, but without being replaced by a completely different
>> > character with the same name.
>> I'm missing it. Who?
> I'm shocked.
[snip Bombadil]
This, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when I somehow manage to
miss the key word "without" in Mr. Henry's post, above.
*sigh*
Love and coffee,
Frances
John Rowat
> And the one individual who handles the Ruling Ring without *any*
> temptation is *not* a Hobbit. Hint: He got cut from the movies, just
> like Faramir, but without being replaced by a completely different
> character with the same name.
Bombadil doesn't count as a real character. You need personality, or
purpose in the story, or at least something remarkable other than being an
immortal all-powerful singing hippy freak to be a character.
-John (The movie was better
without him, oh, yes, indeed)
Julian C Day
> As roses wither, so does R Dan Henry:
> Bombadil doesn't count as a real character. You need personality, or
> purpose in the story, or at least something remarkable other than being an
> immortal all-powerful singing hippy freak to be a character.
> -John (The movie was better
> without him, oh, yes, indeed)
Thank you! I always found him to be annoying and rather pointless in the
book, and I was quite pleased to hear that he was cut from the movie.
Julian
LizM7
> As roses wither, so does R Dan Henry:
>
> > And the one individual who handles the Ruling Ring without *any*
> > temptation is *not* a Hobbit. Hint: He got cut from the movies, just
> > like Faramir, but without being replaced by a completely different
> > character with the same name.
>
> Bombadil doesn't count as a real character. You need personality, or
> purpose in the story, or at least something remarkable other than being an
> immortal all-powerful singing hippy freak to be a character.
>
> -John (The movie was better
> without him, oh, yes, indeed)
Hear, hear. Bombadil irritated me. Far too cheerful. Far too happy.
Far too powerful.
All throughout the scenes with him, I was just waiting for the Nazgul
ambush to occure. Someone that nice had to be in league with the
Enemy, thought I.
But it never happened.
In general, I think, the movie was better without the singing and
dancing. [1]
- Liz
[1] I recently watched the Bakshi animated LotR (which is a trully
god-awful movie, btw - so awful that I can watch it alone and find it
funny), and at some points it's truer to the book than Jackson's is.
For example, the inn scene actually includes the part where Frodo gets
up on the table and sings, and the part where Merry goes out into the
streets and encounters two riderless Nazgul. The problem is, in
including the singing-on-the-table part, the Bakshi version manages to
ruin any sort of tension that's built up previously; and the scene
with Merry encountering the two Nazgul manages to turn these two
incredibly powerful undead warriors into two common leperous
criminals. While Tolkien managed to make the situation reasonably
coherent, in the movie the story makes a lot more sense *without*
these scenes included.
LizM7
> Olli Wilkman wrote:
> > dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Frances Kathleen Moffatt) wrote in
> > rec.games.roguelike.adom:
> >
> >>FWIW, I liked the first movie better, I think. More of the personal,
> >>the epic taking up less of the foreground. Definitely worth seeing
> >>in order. But I'm still planning on picking up _The_Two_Towers_
> >>when it comes out on video, and on going to see it at least once more in
> >>the theatres. Hopefully the local second-run theatre will double-bill
> >>them at some point. :)
> >
> > If you only can, see the extended version of the Fellowship. My friend
> > has the four-DVD box (two DVD's for the movie and two for documentaries
> > and other goodies) and I saw it last weekend (I saw Two Towers
> > yesterday). They've added several scenes and extended a few and the
> > whole thing makes much more sense IMO.
> > If I had a DVD player and some extra cash, I'd definitely go buy it.
>
> Agreed. I intend to pick it up once I have the money - I'd have it
> already, but funds are very tight.
>
> My rant below is noticeably spoily, so...
>
> Ash One
> nazg ring
> durbatuluk, rulethemall,
> ash one
> nazg ring
> gimbatul, findthem,
> ash one
> nazg ring
> thrakatuluk bringthemall
> agh and
> burzum-ishi (? darkness-in?)
> krimpatul! bindthem!
>
> exception of "burzum-ishi", I could tell you exactly what each element
> appears to mean.)
>
> > think. It's more than a year now since I last read the books, but I
> > think there were several things (more than in the first film) that had
> > been changed (mostly shortened).
>
>
> They added in a lot of extraneous and inappropriate humour (mainly to do
> with Gimli - they treated him seriously in the first movie, why not in
> the second?.
The best humor, I thought, was completely situation - e.g. the scene
with Faramir, Frodo, and Sam: "Who are you, his bodyguard?" "No, his
gardener."
But the comment about humans not being able to tell dwarvish men and
women apart came across to me as an inappropriate Pratchett reference
(even when I looked it up later and found that Tolkien *does* mention
this point in the appendix at the end of RotK, it *still* feels
non-Tolkien). And --
Oh, gods, I had other complaints, I just need to remember what.
> They added in the whole flashback/flash-side bit with Arwen (and
> mischaracterized Elrond still more in the process - the miscasting and
> mischaracterization of Elrond having been the one major flub of the
> first movie).
One day (probably after I become Evil Overlord), I will conduct an
experiment. I will find a nice tall cliff overlooking a river and I
will throw Hollywood film directors, producers, and scriptwriters off
of it in an attempt to discover just what really is the chances of
someone surviving such a fall. I suspect that it is nowhere near as
high as we might be led to believe.
> They drastically altered the scene in Theoden's throne room, to which I
> had been looking forward with anticipation; they made Theoden's ailment
> less a matter of the deception and poisonous advice of Wormtongue and
> more a matter of magical compulsion/possession by Saruman.
They made Wormtongue almost unnecessary.
> They inexplicably dropped Eomer from the battle of Helm's Deep when he
> was supposed to have been there pretty much tne entire time; they gave
> one of his memorable lines to Theoden, but removed the earlier exchange
> which would have made it important.
>
> The Horn of Rohan (or of Helm, if you really want) was blown by a
> *Dwarf*, rather than by the King?
What was the point of that, anyway? I didn't get it - you're losing
the battle, and so only *now* do you blow the horn?
> They almost, but not entirely, removed Grishnakh, leaving just enough of
> him to not quite make sense.
>
> They juggled about Gollum's important scenes (though they *did* get most
> of the important stuff... on the flip side, they also added in some
> weird stuff that has no business being there).
>
> They altered the impression and outcome of Entmoot almost *entirely*
> (and damaged plausibility considerably in the process).
The Entmoot, I felt, was the most boring part of the movie. Here's
Frodo and Sam being chased by Nazguls; here's Aragorn and Legolas and
Gimli and Gandalf and everyone at Helm's Deep ... and here's Merry and
Pippen, walking through the woods. Again.
*yawn*
> Perhaps worst of all in my opinion, they utterly altered Faramir for no
> other apparent purpose than to be able to bring Osgiliath onscreen.
>
> And to top it all off, they ended the movie one major sequence too early
> on each side of the River.
> Frodo and Sam still needed to sneak through Cirith Ungol (site of the
> *real* "other Tower"; many people, including apparently the makers of
> the movie, appear to think that the titular towers are Orthanc and
> Barad-dur when in fact the pair is Orthanc and Minas Morgul) - Frodo
> needs to get poisoned by Shelob and captured by Orcs; Sam needs to take
> the Ring, Sting and the phial of Galadriel beforehand, but be unable to
> follow the Orcs into the guardpost Tower to rescue Frodo.
> The others need to confront Saruman at Orthanc in Isengard; Gandalf
> needs to break Saruman's staff, Grima Wormtongue needs to throw the
> Palantir at them, Pippin needs to have his midnight
> interview-by-Seeing-Stone with Sauron, and the band needs to split up
> again with Gandalf and Pippin heading for Gondor and the others
> returning, at least temporarily, to Edoras.
I find it interesting - FotR was great mostly because they had so much
book material that they couldn't fit it all in; no one could think of
really padding it out. But then TTT? Let's pad it out, people.
But then again, they altered the ending of FotR, to good effect,
really. So one shouldn't really criticize them solely for altering
the ending. Let's just criticize them for the fact that they padded
out the story when they had book material they could've worked with.
> On the bright side:
>
> They probably did Gollum about as well as they could have (and I'll
> admit, until he showed up for the first time I have *never* considered
> the question of Gollum and clothes), leaving aside the minor
> characterization issues referred to above.
>
> The Ents were, visually, just about dead on except for being too lean;
> the voices were mostly right too, though the characterization (mostly in
> terms of the outcome of Entmoot) was decidedly off and there was no
> mention of the missing Entwives.
I didn't find the Ents too impressive. Were they really supposed to
be that short? I mean, they're probably about the size of an
oliphant.
> The Orcs were better done in this movie than in the previous one, for my
> money. Still not dead on, but quite good.
>
> The "vanishing in the rocks, hidden by the Elven-cloak" bit was very nice.
>
> Aside from a few minor issues like the height of the walls (which didn't
> even seem entirely consistent from one scene to another), Helm's Deep
> looked just about exactly right.
Ehh.... I had a few complaints with it (e.g. the doors are about to
be broken down; we need a distraction, fast. What do we do? That's
right - we send *two* fighters out *the back door*. They should've
just skipped all the fortifications and sent Aragorn and Gimli out to
deal with the army in the beginning.), but a lot of them were actually
in the book. They just don't really make that much sense.
> And of course, I *loved* the scene at the beginning with the Balrog and
> Gandalf. I could see it exactly as they fell - "Ever he smote me, ever I
> hewed him" - although the defeat of the Balrog came in the depths of
> Khazad-dum, what was ruined when he was thrown down was stairs and the
> like which the Dwarves had constructed, and Gandalf didn't climb the
> Endless Stair (from the deepest pits of Moria to the top of the highest
> mountain above them, all on one stair) till afterwards. Still, for my
> money the best part of the movie.
My cousin and I watched the Bakshi LotR the night before seeing TTT,
and my first reaction when seeing the bit about his mind wandering
through space and time was to think of the fight between Gandalf and
(S)aruman in the Bakshi movie with horror. Oh gods - no more nebulas!
> Which considering that it comes at the very beginning may not be a very
> positive comment...
>
> In short, I was amazed by how well they did the first movie, but in the
> second one they appear to have started doing the things everyone was
> afraid they were going to do in the first one - most prominently,
> unwarranted rewriting.
*sigh* Well, at least the *first* movie was good.
Maybe the next time they try filming it - what, maybe twenty or forty
years from now? - they'll get TTT right.
- Liz
The Wanderer
> The Wanderer <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Olli Wilkman wrote:
>>
>>>dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Frances Kathleen Moffatt) wrote in
>>>rec.games.roguelike.adom:
>>Ash One
Liked that myself, yes.
> But the comment about humans not being able to tell dwarvish men and
> women apart came across to me as an inappropriate Pratchett reference
> (even when I looked it up later and found that Tolkien *does* mention
> this point in the appendix at the end of RotK, it *still* feels
> non-Tolkien). And --
>
> Oh, gods, I had other complaints, I just need to remember what.
With you there...
>>They added in the whole flashback/flash-side bit with Arwen (and
>>mischaracterized Elrond still more in the process - the miscasting and
>>mischaracterization of Elrond having been the one major flub of the
>>first movie).
>
>
> One day (probably after I become Evil Overlord), I will conduct an
> experiment. I will find a nice tall cliff overlooking a river and I
> will throw Hollywood film directors, producers, and scriptwriters off
> of it in an attempt to discover just what really is the chances of
> someone surviving such a fall. I suspect that it is nowhere near as
> high as we might be led to believe.
That depends both on how high the cliff is and on what,exactly, we're
talking about at the bottom - what kind of river? How deep? How
fast-flowing? What have we in the way of rocks or other uncomfortables
upon which to land or with which to collide? Not to mention the question
of maybe hitting something on the way down...
>>They drastically altered the scene in Theoden's throne room, to which I
>>had been looking forward with anticipation; they made Theoden's ailment
>>less a matter of the deception and poisonous advice of Wormtongue and
>>more a matter of magical compulsion/possession by Saruman.
>
> They made Wormtongue almost unnecessary.
And then attacked him even more than the book did - perhaps to make up
for it, or to cover it up?
>>The Horn of Rohan (or of Helm, if you really want) was blown by a
>>*Dwarf*, rather than by the King?
>
> What was the point of that, anyway? I didn't get it - you're losing
> the battle, and so only *now* do you blow the horn?
Not entirely sure, myself. I really need to sit down and reread the
book, if I'm going to be participating in these debates... I think there
was a reason, but I've been wrong before.
>>They altered the impression and outcome of Entmoot almost *entirely*
>>(and damaged plausibility considerably in the process).
>
> The Entmoot, I felt, was the most boring part of the movie. Here's
> Frodo and Sam being chased by Nazguls; here's Aragorn and Legolas and
> Gimli and Gandalf and everyone at Helm's Deep ... and here's Merry and
> Pippen, walking through the woods. Again.
>
> *yawn*
It is, in part, *supposed* to be at a remove from all of the action, at
least up until the actual attack on Isengard - but I do agree with you;
I don't think it needed to be as much that way as it was, but with the
alterations to that side of the movie it ended up being so. (Admittedly
it might have been as bad or worse with *no* alterations, but even if so
then these alterations appear to have been the wrong ones to make.)
>>And to top it all off, they ended the movie one major sequence too early
>>on each side of the River.
>>Frodo and Sam still needed to sneak through Cirith Ungol (site of the
>>*real* "other Tower"; many people, including apparently the makers of
>>the movie, appear to think that the titular towers are Orthanc and
>>Barad-dur when in fact the pair is Orthanc and Minas Morgul) - Frodo
>>needs to get poisoned by Shelob and captured by Orcs; Sam needs to take
>>the Ring, Sting and the phial of Galadriel beforehand, but be unable to
>>follow the Orcs into the guardpost Tower to rescue Frodo.
>>The others need to confront Saruman at Orthanc in Isengard; Gandalf
>>needs to break Saruman's staff, Grima Wormtongue needs to throw the
>>Palantir at them, Pippin needs to have his midnight
>>interview-by-Seeing-Stone with Sauron, and the band needs to split up
>>again with Gandalf and Pippin heading for Gondor and the others
>>returning, at least temporarily, to Edoras.
>
> I find it interesting - FotR was great mostly because they had so much
> book material that they couldn't fit it all in; no one could think of
> really padding it out. But then TTT? Let's pad it out, people.
This represents *exactly* my view of the matter.
> But then again, they altered the ending of FotR, to good effect,
> really. So one shouldn't really criticize them solely for altering
> the ending. Let's just criticize them for the fact that they padded
> out the story when they had book material they could've worked with.
I don't recall too much alteration to the ending of The Fellowship of
the Ring... except for a few fairly-small details (mostly to do with
timing and sequence), it seemed reasonably dead on. Admittedly not as
much so as some parts of the movie, but nothing like as bad as omitting
an entire major segment of the book...
>>On the bright side:
>>The Ents were, visually, just about dead on except for being too lean;
>>the voices were mostly right too, though the characterization (mostly in
>>terms of the outcome of Entmoot) was decidedly off and there was no
>>mention of the missing Entwives.
>
> I didn't find the Ents too impressive. Were they really supposed to
> be that short? I mean, they're probably about the size of an
> oliphant.
Actually, from a newspaper review I was expecting them to be much
shorter (about seven feet tall), and was pleased to find that they
weren't; they seemed close to the right height for trees, to me, as
compared to the trees around them. (Though I've only seen the movie the
once, and wasn't looking *specifically* for height comparisons at the
time...)
>>Aside from a few minor issues like the height of the walls (which didn't
>>even seem entirely consistent from one scene to another), Helm's Deep
>>looked just about exactly right.
>
> Ehh.... I had a few complaints with it (e.g. the doors are about to
> be broken down; we need a distraction, fast. What do we do? That's
> right - we send *two* fighters out *the back door*. They should've
> just skipped all the fortifications and sent Aragorn and Gimli out to
> deal with the army in the beginning.), but a lot of them were actually
> in the book. They just don't really make that much sense.
<shrug> No comment. I'd need to do a more direct comparison of book
versus movie on that one, and I don't have the movie handy to compare
against.
>>And of course, I *loved* the scene at the beginning with the Balrog and
>>Gandalf. I could see it exactly as they fell - "Ever he smote me, ever I
>>hewed him" - although the defeat of the Balrog came in the depths of
>>Khazad-dum, what was ruined when he was thrown down was stairs and the
>>like which the Dwarves had constructed, and Gandalf didn't climb the
>>Endless Stair (from the deepest pits of Moria to the top of the highest
>>mountain above them, all on one stair) till afterwards. Still, for my
>>money the best part of the movie.
>
> My cousin and I watched the Bakshi LotR the night before seeing TTT,
> and my first reaction when seeing the bit about his mind wandering
> through space and time was to think of the fight between Gandalf and
> (S)aruman in the Bakshi movie with horror. Oh gods - no more nebulas!
Actually, though a little off (and it could be argued censorishly so -
though it wouldn't be a very plausible argument), that's not too bad a
representation of his situation. He did, in fact, die, and went where
everyone (with the possible exceptions of Man and those who share his
fate) goes when they die: the halls of Mandos, in (or perhaps to the
north of - the boundaries are unclear) Valinor. Which latter is where he
came to Middle-Earth from anyway. They apparently reviewed the situation
and sent him back to finish the job ("until my task is done"); this also
explains his apparent power-up.
>>Which considering that it comes at the very beginning may not be a very
>>positive comment...
>>
>>In short, I was amazed by how well they did the first movie, but in the
>>second one they appear to have started doing the things everyone was
>>afraid they were going to do in the first one - most prominently,
>>unwarranted rewriting.
>
> *sigh* Well, at least the *first* movie was good.
*Hai*.
> Maybe the next time they try filming it - what, maybe twenty or forty
> years from now? - they'll get TTT right.
If no one else does it, *I* plan to give it a shot one of these decades.
Maybe even take advantage of high-end computer animation techniques (not
yet even available) to fake the actors and redo these movies,
properly.... I still have hope of RotK being acceptable, but the changes
forced upon it by the alteration to the ending of TT make that
unfortunately less likely.
William Tanksley Google
doing reading Usenet if you haven't??? GO! Buy a plane ticket if you
don't live somewhere where it's showing!
;-)
Seriously, I don't think you'll be that spoiled by anything here. The
movie's good and enjoyable in how it portrays the things we already
know; there are no real surprises.
The Wanderer <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote:
[about Faramir:]
Faramir needs a lot more characterization, and it is a huge pity that
Jackson portrays him so weakly. He definitely emphasises his devotion
to duty, and it's actually admirable that he doesn't touch the One
(although the movie fails to make that clear, which it honestly
should). But his devotion to justice and strength of character only
show indirectly through a single sentance from one of his men stating
that if he releases the hobbits he'll be under penalty of death.
As I said, he needs a LOT more characterization. I hope Jackson will
find the time to provide it... I suspect that we'll be seeing it in
the Platinum edition. I for one am definitely looking forward to it. I
think I have a little feel for which scenes will be expanded, thanks
to the first Platinum edition (which, by the way, is AWESOME).
>Irrelevant. The Two Towers ends after the sequences I described, not
>before. Therefore any movie claiming to be The Two Towers must do the
>same, or have a *damn* good explanation for it.
Nonsense. T2T isn't Tolkien; there's only one story, and the
"publisher" split the story without Tolkien's complete approval. A
movie depicting the middle of the LOTR epic can begin and end anywhere
-- and so it did.
>As a minor side note, one of my brothers noted that it would have
made
>more sense to place Gollum's self-dialogue about Her at the beginning
of
>the third movie - in that many or most people who don't know the
books
>are likely to have forgotten about it by next year, and the ensuing
>events will make that much less sense.
There will be NO problem making Gollum recap. He talks to himselves,
you know.
>That was one of the alterations I noted, or at least I should have -
>there was supposed to be quite some noticeable flash on Gandalf's
part
>(without Saruman's direct involvement) in Theoden's throne room,
which
>constituted I think the first major not-really-supportable alteration
I
>noticed.
Hmm. No, I don't mind a lack of flash -- I like it. I guess I was too
disappointed by Harry Potter II, where almost every single spell (I
can only recall one exception, the slug curse) has the effect of
lighting up the front of the target and throwing him backwards into
the air. Only one spell, the memory charm (aside from the exception I
mentioned) has any side effect (aside from tossing the victim
backwards).
I do find Sauruman's overinvolvement to be a bit annoying, though. I
hated replacing Carhedras (don't spellcheck me on that!) with
Sauruman...
>>>hewed him" - although the defeat of the Balrog came in the depths
of
>>>Khazad-dum, what was ruined when he was thrown down was stairs and
the
>>>like which the Dwarves had constructed, and Gandalf didn't climb
the
>>>Endless Stair (from the deepest pits of Moria to the top of the
highest
>>>mountain above them, all on one stair) till afterwards. Still, for
my
>>>money the best part of the movie.
>It may well have, and I'm not seriously objecting; this is one of the
>class of supportable changes, and my "although" above is more of a
>nitpick. As I said, I really liked the scene. ^_^
"I threw down my enemy, and he fell from the high place, and broke the
mountain-side where he smote it in his ruin." (LoTR I: 5)"
What do you mean here? Am I totally misreading this? How are the
depths of Moria a "high place", and how is the "side of the mountain"
some stairs beneath the bottom of Moria? Don't forget, the fight with
the Balrog took place far below where the Dwarves ever delved!
I did want to see more of the Balrog as "a thing of slime and
darkness", though. I guess that's asking too much; Jackson did such a
brilliant job of portraying him as a being of fire and shadow.
> B: I would also point out all of the sequences with Arwen, Elrond and
> Galadriel,
Utterly brilliant. Well, okay, I'm not entirely SURE about what's
going to happen with Arwen, but the rest was brilliant.
>as well as (in association) the "Aragorn fell off a cliff"
>sequence,
UGH! That was horrible. Doesn't Tolkien do the "he's dead, let's
ignore him" thing too much already, without Peter writing in a whole
additional one? That strongly diminishes the tragedy of Frodo vs.
Shelob, IMO. Heck, it may even ruin Gollum's part at the end (people
who haven't read the book will be surprised and _cruelly_ disappointed
when the movie ends without the "expected" denouement...).
>and the alterations with respect to the Ents
Double-UGH. That was the one unsupportable change in the movie -- I
didn't mind Gimli's destruction half as much, since he was already
essentially a non-character due to the first movie. (I was really
hoping that the personality he started displaying in the Platinum
Edition would come out more in the theaters, but it was not to be.)
>C: I would very strongly object to the claim of "terrible writing",
Well... I wouldn't. I really enjoy the books, but the writing's just
about the weakest point.
> (aside from objecting to the miscasting and mischaracterization of Elrond
Really? I liked it, aside from my very strong identification of the
character as Agent Smith. Where do you see mischaracterization?
[Someone asked:]
>>it match the book perfectly? No. Was the book much more detailed?
>>Yes. Did it improve on the book, especially given the media change,
>>greatly? Oh, hell, yes.
>For the second movie:
>No, yes, and *NO*. It was quite passable as itself, but it was *not*
>what it should have been, and was of considerably less total worth as
a
>consequence.
I'm willing to claim *one* improvement: Gollum. He was SO much more of
a character in the movie than he was in the book; true, everyone
cracked up during his "mono"logues, but he nonetheless evoked powerful
empathy in everyone I've talked to. The Gollum in the books was almost
irrelevant; his conversions from Slinker to Stinker and back were mere
footnotes. In the movie, his final decision felt truly tragic, and all
the little personality shifts built his character.
Some have joked that Smeagol may become the first nonhuman to win an
Oscar. I consider this a joke just because there's so many excellent
actors out there, but at the same time it would only take a touch of
"affirmative action" to deliver the award to "him"...
>One, a "different version of the same story" is not what I am
*after*;
>what I want is a translation of book to film, as directly as
possible,
>and *certainly* not with "just because we can" rewriting.
Can't be done. Simply impossible; the book uses its medium too well,
and the movie has to use its medium equally so. Shouldn't be done;
would be disrespect for the story and Tolkien's work.
>(Thinking
>specifically though not exclusively of the rewriting which was done
>simply because they wanted to bring Osgiliath onscreen...)
Are you *sure* that's the only reason? Doesn't seem plausible.
Although one more comment: everyone I've talked to believed that
Osgiliath was Gondor. Several professional critics I read were annoyed
that "Gondor looked too small." I had no problem knowing that they
were in Osgiliath, but it seems that almost everyone else did, whether
or not they'd read the books.
>Two, one reason that doing a different version of the same story is
bad
>is the people who have never read the books and are not going to -
who
>will think, almost certainly, that the movies are *what it is*. If
the
>movies are a faithful adaptation of the books, to within reasonable
>limits (as the first one was), then this phenomenon is acceptable.
But
>if the movies are too much *different*, then it is very much *not*
>acceptable.
Why not?
-Billy
sqweek
> [1] I recently watched the Bakshi animated LotR (which is a trully
> god-awful movie, btw - so awful that I can watch it alone and find it
> funny), and at some points it's truer to the book than Jackson's is.
> including the singing-on-the-table part, the Bakshi version manages to
> ruin any sort of tension that's built up previously; and the scene
> with Merry encountering the two Nazgul manages to turn these two
> incredibly powerful undead warriors into two common leperous
> criminals.
I felt the movie also did something to this effect. I mean, Aragorn
fought off 4 Nazgul at once... all you need is about 2 Aragorns (I
suspect Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas would suffice) and you woulnd't have
to worry about the Nazgul at all. So why are they so scary, again?
Stephen Mackey
>I felt the movie also did something to this effect. I mean, Aragorn
>fought off 4 Nazgul at once... all you need is about 2 Aragorns (I
>suspect Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas would suffice) and you woulnd't have
>to worry about the Nazgul at all. So why are they so scary, again?
That scene was in the book originally. The strength of the Nazgul is in fear
and terror, in their "black breath" and their little magics, not in direct,
butt-kickin' combat. Also, I think it was pretty much a huge statement on just
how powerful Aragorn really is... being of the blood of kings, he does have a
small spark of magic in him as well as other stuff. That was a big deal; you
wouldn't find Boromir or Gimli or Legolas defeating half Nazgul all by their
lonesomes. Of course, maybe you wouldn't have to worry about the Nazgul if you
did have two Aragorns, but the whole point of the books is that all the old
power is fading, and that's why there's only one of his kind left in the world.
LizM7
> LizM7 wrote:
> > The Wanderer <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>Olli Wilkman wrote:
> >>>dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Frances Kathleen Moffatt) wrote in
> >>>rec.games.roguelike.adom:
Just to note, this now contains spoilers not only for TTT but for bits
of RotK as well. (The book, not the movie.)
> >>Ash One
> >>nazg ring
> >>durbatuluk, rulethemall,
> >>ash one
> >>nazg ring
> >>gimbatul, findthem,
> >>ash one
> >>nazg ring
> >>thrakatuluk bringthemall
> >>agh and
> >>burzum-ishi (? darkness-in?)
> >>krimpatul! bindthem!
> >>
> >>(In case you couldn't tell, I've rather dissected this - with the
> >>exception of "burzum-ishi", I could tell you exactly what each element
> >>appears to mean.)
> >>
> >>>Btw, Two Towers has been re-written much more than the Fellowship, I
> >>>think. It's more than a year now since I last read the books, but I
> >>>think there were several things (more than in the first film) that had
> >>>been changed (mostly shortened).
[snip bit about humor]
> >>They added in the whole flashback/flash-side bit with Arwen (and
> >>mischaracterized Elrond still more in the process - the miscasting and
> >>mischaracterization of Elrond having been the one major flub of the
> >>first movie).
> >
> > One day (probably after I become Evil Overlord), I will conduct an
> > experiment. I will find a nice tall cliff overlooking a river and I
> > will throw Hollywood film directors, producers, and scriptwriters off
> > of it in an attempt to discover just what really is the chances of
> > someone surviving such a fall. I suspect that it is nowhere near as
> > high as we might be led to believe.
>
> That depends both on how high the cliff is and on what,exactly, we're
> talking about at the bottom - what kind of river? How deep? How
> fast-flowing? What have we in the way of rocks or other uncomfortables
> upon which to land or with which to collide? Not to mention the question
> of maybe hitting something on the way down...
True. If you ask me, though, between that and the battle at Helm's
Deep, Aragorn has more lives than Buffy - and that says a *lot*.
> >>They drastically altered the scene in Theoden's throne room, to which I
> >>had been looking forward with anticipation; they made Theoden's ailment
> >>less a matter of the deception and poisonous advice of Wormtongue and
> >>more a matter of magical compulsion/possession by Saruman.
> >
> > They made Wormtongue almost unnecessary.
>
> And then attacked him even more than the book did - perhaps to make up
> for it, or to cover it up?
The problem here is that they've then screwed up Eowyn's motivation
for going off and fighting the Nazgul. One could probably justify it
solely out of a desire to win Aragorn -- hell, I'd do something
simular myself if I thought I could pull it off -- but still the
motivation there is somewhat screwed up. It's one thing to go out and
perform a Desperate Act of Glory for the sake of doing so, and another
thing entirely to do it in hopes of gaining the attention of a guy
who's already promised to someone else.
> >>The Horn of Rohan (or of Helm, if you really want) was blown by a
> >>*Dwarf*, rather than by the King?
> >
> > What was the point of that, anyway? I didn't get it - you're losing
> > the battle, and so only *now* do you blow the horn?
>
> Not entirely sure, myself. I really need to sit down and reread the
> book, if I'm going to be participating in these debates... I think there
> was a reason, but I've been wrong before.
Ok, quoting from the book:
Theoden to Aragorn: "I will not end here, taken like an old badger in
a trap. Snowmane and Hasufel and the horses of my guard are in the
inner court. [1] When dawn comes, I will bid men sound Helm's horn,
and I will ride forth...."
This doesn't say much - and it still doesn't answer the really crucial
question here, which is, why didn't they do this on the *first* day?
I mean, again, if an armored knight on a lightly armored horse can
force a whole horde of orcs off the path, then why didn't they try
this in the beginning?
[1] This is a key line of dialogue, without which the entire scenario
is incoherent. And I think they left it out of the movie.
> >>They altered the impression and outcome of Entmoot almost *entirely*
> >>(and damaged plausibility considerably in the process).
> >
> > The Entmoot, I felt, was the most boring part of the movie. Here's
> > Frodo and Sam being chased by Nazguls; here's Aragorn and Legolas and
> > Gimli and Gandalf and everyone at Helm's Deep ... and here's Merry and
> > Pippen, walking through the woods. Again.
> >
> > *yawn*
>
> It is, in part, *supposed* to be at a remove from all of the action, at
> least up until the actual attack on Isengard - but I do agree with you;
> I don't think it needed to be as much that way as it was, but with the
> alterations to that side of the movie it ended up being so. (Admittedly
> it might have been as bad or worse with *no* alterations, but even if so
> then these alterations appear to have been the wrong ones to make.)
Had they shown it in one or two chunks - preferably towards the
beginning of the movie, before the pace has really picked up - it
might have been tolerable. But as it stands? Boring. Really boring.
As compared to, say, eliminating the part with Bombadil? Or
*completely* altering the pace of the first part of the story? (Until
I went and reread the book, I felt it absurd that Frodo dances and
sings at the inn in FotR. It still doesn't *feel* right, but I
suppose that's the downside to filming a movie.)
> >>On the bright side:
>
> >>The Ents were, visually, just about dead on except for being too lean;
> >>the voices were mostly right too, though the characterization (mostly in
> >>terms of the outcome of Entmoot) was decidedly off and there was no
> >>mention of the missing Entwives.
> >
> > I didn't find the Ents too impressive. Were they really supposed to
> > be that short? I mean, they're probably about the size of an
> > oliphant.
>
> Actually, from a newspaper review I was expecting them to be much
> shorter (about seven feet tall), and was pleased to find that they
> weren't; they seemed close to the right height for trees, to me, as
> compared to the trees around them. (Though I've only seen the movie the
> once, and wasn't looking *specifically* for height comparisons at the
> time...)
They were shorter than the surrounding trees.
> >>Aside from a few minor issues like the height of the walls (which didn't
> >>even seem entirely consistent from one scene to another), Helm's Deep
> >>looked just about exactly right.
> >
> > Ehh.... I had a few complaints with it (e.g. the doors are about to
> > be broken down; we need a distraction, fast. What do we do? That's
> > right - we send *two* fighters out *the back door*. They should've
> > just skipped all the fortifications and sent Aragorn and Gimli out to
> > deal with the army in the beginning.), but a lot of them were actually
> > in the book. They just don't really make that much sense.
>
> <shrug> No comment. I'd need to do a more direct comparison of book
> versus movie on that one, and I don't have the movie handy to compare
> against.
The book does include the part about going out the back door, which is
what I thought was fairly ridiculous. They take a group of swordsmen
along, however, which makes a lot more sense. I mean, this isn't D&D,
people. Characters shouldn't be able to take on an entire army by
themselves, no matter what sort of blood they have running in their
veins.
[snip]
> > Maybe the next time they try filming it - what, maybe twenty or forty
> > years from now? - they'll get TTT right.
>
> If no one else does it, *I* plan to give it a shot one of these decades.
> Maybe even take advantage of high-end computer animation techniques (not
> yet even available) to fake the actors and redo these movies,
> properly....
Actually, at one point, I was going to say something along those lines
myself.... :P
> I still have hope of RotK being acceptable, but the changes
> forced upon it by the alteration to the ending of TT make that
> unfortunately less likely.
Ideally, I think what Jackson ought to do is go in and retcon the
Aragorn/cliff scene out of the movie (along with, I hope, most of the
Ents), then produce a four-hour-long RotK to make up for it. We'll
still have a nine-hour-total movie, but we'll have a *good*
nine-hour-long movie.
- Liz
joeru
<inverse...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> The only unwarranted rewriting I saw was Faramir, and that served it's
>> purpose of getting Faramir to Osgiliath on-camera. The rest, well,
>> Tolkien had a brilliant story and terribly writing. A lot of it was
>> *bad*, and couldn't be filmed without rewriting it, or the audience would
>> be bored to tears. A lot of the rest was good stuff but unecessary, and
>> thus had to go to fit all the necessary things in.
>
>A: Osgiliath is not *supposed* to come onscreen till the army goes East
>in the third book; even that is only a "just passing through" bit, not a
>major sequence in any way.
Haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't really comment on how it was
or anything, but just thought I might bring this up ...
Faramir does go to Osgiliath before the army goes East at the command
of his father, it doesn't happen until in RotK, and only after Gandalf
arrives in Minas Tirith, quotations from RotK;
" He [Denethor] turned to Faramir. 'What think you of the garrison at
Osgiliath?'
'It is not strong,' said Faramir. 'I have sent the company of
Ithilien to strengthen it, as I have said.'
'Not enough, I deem,' said Denethor. 'It is there that the first
blow will fall. They will have need of some stout captain there.' "
< snipped a few pages, to an another conversion between Faramir and
Denethor>
" 'Much must be risked in war,' said Denethor. 'Cair Andros is manned,
and no more can be sent so far. But I will not yield the River and the
Pelennor unfought - not if there is a captain here who has still the
courage to do his lord's will.'
Then all were silent, but at length Faramir said: 'I do not oppose
your will, sire. Since you are robbed of Boromir, I will go and do
what I can in his stead - if you command it.'
'I do so,' said Denethor. "
Further quotations from Appendix B, in particular the timeline:
March, 11: "Denethor sends Faramir to Osgiliath."
March, 12: "Faramir retreats to the Causeway Forts."
March, 13: "Faramir is wounded."
March, 18: "The Host of the West marches from Minas Tirith."
So, Faramir does go to Osgiliath before the army marches out, what
happened there is never told in the books from his point of view, and
it's moved (like so many other things, from what I've heard) in the
film, but it happened.
The Wanderer
> sqweek said:
>
>>I felt the movie also did something to this effect. I mean, Aragorn
>>fought off 4 Nazgul at once... all you need is about 2 Aragorns (I
>>suspect Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas would suffice) and you woulnd't have
>>to worry about the Nazgul at all. So why are they so scary, again?
>
> That scene was in the book originally. The strength of the Nazgul is in fear
> and terror, in their "black breath" and their little magics, not in direct,
> butt-kickin' combat. Also, I think it was pretty much a huge statement on just
> how powerful Aragorn really is... being of the blood of kings, he does have a
> small spark of magic in him as well as other stuff. That was a big deal; you
> wouldn't find Boromir or Gimli or Legolas defeating half Nazgul all by their
> lonesomes. Of course, maybe you wouldn't have to worry about the Nazgul if you
> did have two Aragorns, but the whole point of the books is that all the old
> power is fading, and that's why there's only one of his kind left in the world.
You're talking about the battle at Weathertop, I presume? It's stated in
the books somewhere that part of the reason those particular Nazgul gave
back so easily was that they knew all they needed to do was wait, once
Frodo was injured - the piece of the blade which broke off in his wound
would soon enough reach his heart, at which point he would become a
wraith and subject to their control in much the same way as they are
subject to the control of Sauron. Or something along those lines - I may
be off on a detail or two,though not by much.
The Wanderer
> Still spoily, if you haven't seen the movie yet. But what ARE you
> doing reading Usenet if you haven't??? GO! Buy a plane ticket if you
> don't live somewhere where it's showing!
>
> ;-)
>
> Seriously, I don't think you'll be that spoiled by anything here. The
> movie's good and enjoyable in how it portrays the things we already
> know; there are no real surprises.
>
> The Wanderer <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> [about Faramir:]
>
> Faramir needs a lot more characterization, and it is a huge pity that
> Jackson portrays him so weakly. He definitely emphasises his devotion
> to duty, and it's actually admirable that he doesn't touch the One
> (although the movie fails to make that clear, which it honestly
> should). But his devotion to justice and strength of character only
> show indirectly through a single sentance from one of his men stating
> that if he releases the hobbits he'll be under penalty of death.
He is *also* supposed to decline the Ring *on the spot*, not first
decide to take it and then change his mind later. As more than one
person has pointed out, that make him so much more like Boromir that
it's not even funny, and another Boromir is not what he's supposed to be.
> As I said, he needs a LOT more characterization. I hope Jackson will
> find the time to provide it... I suspect that we'll be seeing it in
> the Platinum edition. I for one am definitely looking forward to it. I
> think I have a little feel for which scenes will be expanded, thanks
> to the first Platinum edition (which, by the way, is AWESOME).
>
>>Irrelevant. The Two Towers ends after the sequences I described, not
>>before. Therefore any movie claiming to be The Two Towers must do the
>>same, or have a *damn* good explanation for it.
>
> Nonsense. T2T isn't Tolkien; there's only one story, and the
> "publisher" split the story without Tolkien's complete approval. A
> movie depicting the middle of the LOTR epic can begin and end anywhere
> -- and so it did.
Have you read the parts of "The History of Middle-Earth" dealing with
the creation of "The Lord of the Rings"? I have, and I did not get
anything like this impression from the various alterations and rewrites
the story went through (and the accompanying commentary by his son
Christopher). You may still be right, but I would have thought that such
an issue (splitting the story without the author's full approval) would
have had enough impact to be worth a mention...
This remains, however, not entirely relevant. Regardless of whether or
not the story was supposed to be split exactly there, the book "The Two
Towers" extends to there and no farther. Therefore anything which leaves
off short or extends farther is not "The Two Towers". Therefore it
should not claim to be. That is a large part of my complaint: this
claims to be "The Two Towers", but does not live up to the
(responsibilities? not quite) that implies.
>>As a minor side note, one of my brothers noted that it would have made
>>more sense to place Gollum's self-dialogue about Her at the beginning of
>>the third movie - in that many or most people who don't know the books
>>are likely to have forgotten about it by next year, and the ensuing
>>events will make that much less sense.
>
> There will be NO problem making Gollum recap. He talks to himselves,
> you know.
As may be. The events ought, of right, to happen only once. Recapping
would essentially require Gollum to repeat to himself all of the things
he said at the end of the second movie (barring the arguments, perhaps),
which is somewhat problematic - and would also degrade Gollum's cunning;
having once established the plan (in Sam's hearing, I might add, which
IIRC is the only reason we know about it to begin with), he doesn't
appear to have taken any chances on giving it away later on.
>>That was one of the alterations I noted, or at least I should have -
>>there was supposed to be quite some noticeable flash on Gandalf's part which
>>constituted I think the first major not-really-supportable alteration I
>>noticed.
>
> Hmm. No, I don't mind a lack of flash -- I like it. I guess I was too
> disappointed by Harry Potter II, where almost every single spell (I
> can only recall one exception, the slug curse) has the effect of
> lighting up the front of the target and throwing him backwards into
> the air. Only one spell, the memory charm (aside from the exception I
> mentioned) has any side effect (aside from tossing the victim
> backwards).
Irrelevant. Not only did they eliminate the flash (which IIRC didn't
have too much of the sort of thing you describe), but they almost
entirely altered the tone and character of the scene, and reduced
Wormtongue from his former position of prominence as the poisonous voice
in Theoden's ear (and the source of the 'spell' of words which were the
*only* thing keeping Theoden down) to a mere adjunct to Saruman's direct
control of Theoden, which should not have been there at all.
> I do find Sauruman's overinvolvement to be a bit annoying, though. I
> hated replacing Carhedras (don't spellcheck me on that!) with
> Sauruman...
I didn't much like it myself, but it did allow them to bring in Saruman
in some other way than by Gandalf's "this is where I've been" flashbacks
- which would have been somewhat harder to pull off, given the degree to
which they shortened the time things took.
(For future reference, the name is "Caradhras". I'll admit to being
uncertain whether or not that is also the same peak referred to as
Zirak-zigil or the Redhorn, though I think it is.)
>>>>hewed him" - although the defeat of the Balrog came in the depths of
>>>>Khazad-dum, what was ruined when he was thrown down was stairs and the
>>>>like which the Dwarves had constructed, and Gandalf didn't climb the
>>>>Endless Stair (from the deepest pits of Moria to the top of the highest
>>>>mountain above them, all on one stair) till afterwards. Still, for my
>>>>money the best part of the movie.
>
>>It may well have, and I'm not seriously objecting; this is one of the
>>class of supportable changes, and my "although" above is more of a
>>nitpick. As I said, I really liked the scene. ^_^
>
> "I threw down my enemy, and he fell from the high place, and broke the
> mountain-side where he smote it in his ruin." (LoTR I: 5)"
>
> What do you mean here? Am I totally misreading this? How are the
> depths of Moria a "high place", and how is the "side of the mountain"
> some stairs beneath the bottom of Moria? Don't forget, the fight with
> the Balrog took place far below where the Dwarves ever delved!
No, I got this one wrong - the fight did take place on the peak of the
mountain. I just didn't manage to reconcile the image of "pitched battle
for his life with the Balrog" with "endless hours climbing the Endless
Stair from the deepest pits of Moria". I'm not positive that the battle
with the Balrog was in fact below the delvings of the Dwarves - for one
thing, the Endless Stair was accessible from wherever they ended up at,
and for another thing, the Balrog was released in the first place by the
Dwarves having delved so deep that they broke into his hiding place.
> I did want to see more of the Balrog as "a thing of slime and
> darkness", though. I guess that's asking too much; Jackson did such a
> brilliant job of portraying him as a being of fire and shadow.
Which is the original concept of the Balrogs to begin with, of course.
I'd have liked to see more of the "extinguished" Balrog myself, but it
worked out well enough as it was...
>>B: I would also point out all of the sequences with Arwen, Elrond and
>>Galadriel,
>
> Utterly brilliant. Well, okay, I'm not entirely SURE about what's
> going to happen with Arwen, but the rest was brilliant.
Except that unless I'm utterly missing something, they were *not*
supposed to be there; the only 'essential' purpose they served, as far
as I can tell, was to allow them to bring Arwen and Elrond onscreen in
the second movie. They do provide useful characterization, which isn't
necessarily even properly developed in the books, but having them there
in the middle where they aren't supposed to be is just too much "wrong"
to me for me to be able to remotely enjoy it.
>>as well as (in association) the "Aragorn fell off a cliff"
>>sequence,
>
> UGH! That was horrible. Doesn't Tolkien do the "he's dead, let's
> ignore him" thing too much already, without Peter writing in a whole
> additional one? That strongly diminishes the tragedy of Frodo vs.
> Shelob, IMO. Heck, it may even ruin Gollum's part at the end (people
> who haven't read the book will be surprised and _cruelly_ disappointed
> when the movie ends without the "expected" denouement...).
I didn't even consider the "doing it too much" possibility until other
people started suggesting it, though it may well be valid; my major
objection to that was that it was invented *completely* out of whole
cloth, for no other immediately apparent purpose than as a segue to
bring in the Arwen-and-Elrond scenes (of which I have already made my
opinion marginally clear).
>>and the alterations with respect to the Ents
>
> Double-UGH. That was the one unsupportable change in the movie -- I
> didn't mind Gimli's destruction half as much, since he was already
> essentially a non-character due to the first movie. (I was really
> hoping that the personality he started displaying in the Platinum
> Edition would come out more in the theaters, but it was not to be.)
I hadn't noticed his mangling particularly in the first movie, but then
I think I was specifically trying to ignore him out of disgust on other
issues which I don't recall at the moment. But the "panting for breath,
can't keep up" bit and the "butt of every near-slapstick joke" fight
scene (same battle with Aragorn and the cliff) were worse to me than the
short jokes. They seem to just utterly trivialize him and turn him into
nothing other than a source of comedy.
But I do agree wholeheartedly about the Ents.
>>C: I would very strongly object to the claim of "terrible writing",
>
> Well... I wouldn't. I really enjoy the books, but the writing's just
> about the weakest point.
As I indicated, I don't think I agree. I like it.
>>(aside from objecting to the miscasting and mischaracterization of Elrond
>
> Really? I liked it, aside from my very strong identification of the
> character as Agent Smith. Where do you see mischaracterization?
For one thing, Elrond is not *nearly* that harsh or bitter. HIs
characterization in the second movie (with respect to his not wanting
Arwen to choose her human side) is considerably more supportable, but
he's still done far too harshly to suit me.
Not to mention that that choice is strongly mis-presented in the movie -
it's not "come to Paradise and live forever without him" against "live
with him for his lifespan, then live out the natural lifespan of an Elf
without him and without Paradise"; it's "come to Paradise and live
forever without him" against "live with him until he dies, then live out
the rest of the natural lifespan of a golden-era Numenorean and follow
him to whatever unknown place Men go when they die". (It's worth noting
that Aragorn is at least eighty years old when the hobbits first meet
him....)
> [Someone asked:]
>
>>>it match the book perfectly? No. Was the book much more detailed?
>>>Yes. Did it improve on the book, especially given the media change,
>>>greatly? Oh, hell, yes.
>
>>For the second movie:
>>No, yes, and *NO*. It was quite passable as itself, but it was *not*
>>what it should have been, and was of considerably less total worth as a
>>consequence.
>
> I'm willing to claim *one* improvement: Gollum. He was SO much more of
> a character in the movie than he was in the book; true, everyone
> cracked up during his "mono"logues, but he nonetheless evoked powerful
> empathy in everyone I've talked to. The Gollum in the books was almost
> irrelevant; his conversions from Slinker to Stinker and back were mere
> footnotes. In the movie, his final decision felt truly tragic, and all
> the little personality shifts built his character.
I'll grant the point; though I do have my own problems with the way
those bits were handled, they are mostly "but that's not exactly how it
happened", and are far less supportable than some of the other
objections I've made; certainly the problems I have with the handling of
Gollum are no worse than some of the problems I have with some of the
things in the first movie.
> Some have joked that Smeagol may become the first nonhuman to win an
> Oscar. I consider this a joke just because there's so many excellent
> actors out there, but at the same time it would only take a touch of
> "affirmative action" to deliver the award to "him"...
I don't think he's on that level, but he's closer than anything else
I've seen...
>>One, a "different version of the same story" is not what I am *after*;
>>what I want is a translation of book to film, as directly as possible,
>>and *certainly* not with "just because we can" rewriting.
>
> Can't be done. Simply impossible; the book uses its medium too well,
> and the movie has to use its medium equally so. Shouldn't be done;
> would be disrespect for the story and Tolkien's work.
Not disputing that. I disagree that it would be impossible to do the
movie well by adhering quite strictly to the book, but I agree that some
changes would be for the better (given enough computing technology, I
plan to do the job myself as pure photorealistic CG one of these
decades). I do *not*, however, agree that as many or as drastic changes
as they made even to the first movie are necessary, and *certainly* not
the sort of "just because we can" rewriting that they did for much of
the second movie. (People may well object to that phrase, but I've used
it before and I stick to it. There may be justifications, but much of
the rewriting in the second movie was purely gratuitous use of an
artistic license they do not have.)
>>(Thinking
>>specifically though not exclusively of the rewriting which was done
>>simply because they wanted to bring Osgiliath onscreen...)
>
> Are you *sure* that's the only reason? Doesn't seem plausible.
Not absolutely so, but it's the only reason I can think of for them to
have altered the Faramir sequence so completely.
> Although one more comment: everyone I've talked to believed that
> Osgiliath was Gondor. Several professional critics I read were annoyed
> that "Gondor looked too small." I had no problem knowing that they
> were in Osgiliath, but it seems that almost everyone else did, whether
> or not they'd read the books.
Especially surprising to me considering that I believe they specifically
mentioned that they were going to fight at Osgiliath... but I've heard a
number of people with that same impression myself. Don't they know that
Gondor isn't a *city*, it's a *kingdom*? The city they're talking about
is *Minas Tirith*, the former Minas Anor.
(Of course, since Osgiliath is supposed to have been the original
capital of that Kingdom way back when, it could be argued that it's too
small anyway... but that's another point.)
>>Two, one reason that doing a different version of the same story is bad
>>is the people who have never read the books and are not going to - who
>>will think, almost certainly, that the movies are *what it is*. If the
>>movies are a faithful adaptation of the books, to within reasonable
>>limits (as the first one was), then this phenomenon is acceptable. But
>>if the movies are too much *different*, then it is very much *not*
>>acceptable.
>
> Why not?
As you put it, disrespect for Tolkien's work. If someone's going to have
an impression of Middle-earth and the stories set therein, accurate or
otherwise, it should at least be *based* in the works of Tolkien. (Many
or most people are likely to get an inaccurate impression - I certainly
had a sharply inaccurate one, before I first read anything of the
Silmarillion and such other works as the Lost Tales. And for some time
thereafter.)
--
The Wanderer
The Wanderer
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 17:09:01 -0500, The Wanderer
> <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>The only unwarranted rewriting I saw was Faramir, and that served it's
>>>purpose of getting Faramir to Osgiliath on-camera. The rest, well,
>>>Tolkien had a brilliant story and terribly writing. A lot of it was
>>>*bad*, and couldn't be filmed without rewriting it, or the audience would
>>>be bored to tears. A lot of the rest was good stuff but unecessary, and
>>>thus had to go to fit all the necessary things in.
>>
>>A: Osgiliath is not *supposed* to come onscreen till the army goes East
>>in the third book; even that is only a "just passing through" bit, not a
>>major sequence in any way.
>
> Haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't really comment on how it was
> or anything, but just thought I might bring this up ...
> Faramir does go to Osgiliath before the army goes East at the command
> of his father, it doesn't happen until in RotK, and only after Gandalf
> arrives in Minas Tirith, quotations from RotK;
<snip substantiating quotes - I really need to start grabbing some of my
own>
> So, Faramir does go to Osgiliath before the army marches out, what
> happened there is never told in the books from his point of view, and
> it's moved (like so many other things, from what I've heard) in the
> film, but it happened.
Yes, I know it happened. But it happened *after Frodo and Sam had
already left*, and - as I said - it was never shown on screen. I never
claimed he didn't go there; he *has* to have gone there, in order to get
back from Ithilien. But he does not do so onscreen, and certainly not
with hobbits present.
The Wanderer
>>>One day (probably after I become Evil Overlord), I will conduct an
>>>experiment. I will find a nice tall cliff overlooking a river and I
>>>will throw Hollywood film directors, producers, and scriptwriters off
>>>of it in an attempt to discover just what really is the chances of
>>>someone surviving such a fall. I suspect that it is nowhere near as
>>>high as we might be led to believe.
>>
>>That depends both on how high the cliff is and on what,exactly, we're
>>talking about at the bottom - what kind of river? How deep? How
>>fast-flowing? What have we in the way of rocks or other uncomfortables
>>upon which to land or with which to collide? Not to mention the question
>>of maybe hitting something on the way down...
>
> True. If you ask me, though, between that and the battle at Helm's
> Deep, Aragorn has more lives than Buffy - and that says a *lot*.
Oh, I wouldn't be so sure - but it's not a point worth arguing, at least
not here. ^_^
>>>>They drastically altered the scene in Theoden's throne room, to which I
>>>>had been looking forward with anticipation; they made Theoden's ailment
>>>>less a matter of the deception and poisonous advice of Wormtongue and
>>>>more a matter of magical compulsion/possession by Saruman.
>>>
>>>They made Wormtongue almost unnecessary.
>>
>>And then attacked him even more than the book did - perhaps to make up
>>for it, or to cover it up?
>
> The problem here is that they've then screwed up Eowyn's motivation
> for going off and fighting the Nazgul. One could probably justify it
> solely out of a desire to win Aragorn -- hell, I'd do something
> simular myself if I thought I could pull it off -- but still the
> motivation there is somewhat screwed up. It's one thing to go out and
> perform a Desperate Act of Glory for the sake of doing so, and another
> thing entirely to do it in hopes of gaining the attention of a guy
> who's already promised to someone else.
I did have a comment here, to do with her apparent death wish at that
point, but it's not coming out.
>>>>The Horn of Rohan (or of Helm, if you really want) was blown by a
>>>>*Dwarf*, rather than by the King?
>>>
>>>What was the point of that, anyway? I didn't get it - you're losing
>>>the battle, and so only *now* do you blow the horn?
>>
>>Not entirely sure, myself. I really need to sit down and reread the
>>book, if I'm going to be participating in these debates... I think there
>>was a reason, but I've been wrong before.
>
> Ok, quoting from the book:
>
> Theoden to Aragorn: "I will not end here, taken like an old badger in
> a trap. Snowmane and Hasufel and the horses of my guard are in the
> inner court. [1] When dawn comes, I will bid men sound Helm's horn,
> and I will ride forth...."
>
> This doesn't say much - and it still doesn't answer the really crucial
> question here, which is, why didn't they do this on the *first* day?
> I mean, again, if an armored knight on a lightly armored horse can
> force a whole horde of orcs off the path, then why didn't they try
> this in the beginning?
They didn't do it on the first day because they thought they had a
better chance doing things the other way. I forget the details - I still
haven't gone and picked up the book again - but that's the basic
explanation for it. Whether or not they were *right* in thinking that,
or whether it makes any sense at all for them to have thought that, is
another question which I'm not presently up to addressing.
> [1] This is a key line of dialogue, without which the entire scenario
> is incoherent. And I think they left it out of the movie.
They did, yes.
>>>The Entmoot, I felt, was the most boring part of the movie. Here's
>>>Frodo and Sam being chased by Nazguls; here's Aragorn and Legolas and
>>>Gimli and Gandalf and everyone at Helm's Deep ... and here's Merry and
>>>Pippen, walking through the woods. Again.
>>>
>>>*yawn*
>>
>>It is, in part, *supposed* to be at a remove from all of the action, at
>>least up until the actual attack on Isengard - but I do agree with you;
>>I don't think it needed to be as much that way as it was, but with the
>>alterations to that side of the movie it ended up being so. (Admittedly
>>it might have been as bad or worse with *no* alterations, but even if so
>>then these alterations appear to have been the wrong ones to make.)
>
> Had they shown it in one or two chunks - preferably towards the
> beginning of the movie, before the pace has really picked up - it
> might have been tolerable. But as it stands? Boring. Really boring.
Passably, perhaps. I'm not really in any position to speak to it, having
only seen the movie the once and having been too eagerly looking at it
for matchup with the book to notice any such problems. And they couldn't
really have done it half with flashbacks, the way the book did...
especially since the scene where the flashbacks come wasn't even *in*
the movie; it was in the omitted final sequence.
>>>But then again, they altered the ending of FotR, to good effect,
>>>really. So one shouldn't really criticize them solely for altering
>>>the ending. Let's just criticize them for the fact that they padded
>>>out the story when they had book material they could've worked with.
>>
>>I don't recall too much alteration to the ending of The Fellowship of
>>the Ring... except for a few fairly-small details (mostly to do with
>>timing and sequence), it seemed reasonably dead on. Admittedly not as
>>much so as some parts of the movie, but nothing like as bad as omitting
>>an entire major segment of the book...
>
> As compared to, say, eliminating the part with Bombadil? Or
> *completely* altering the pace of the first part of the story? (Until
> I went and reread the book, I felt it absurd that Frodo dances and
> sings at the inn in FotR. It still doesn't *feel* right, but I
> suppose that's the downside to filming a movie.)
Agreed, by and large. But though there were a number of things wrong
with it, the first movie was astoundingly good. (Or, as I've put it in
the contexts of a number of other things, astoundingly non-bad.)
>>>>On the bright side:
>>
>>>>The Ents were, visually, just about dead on except for being too lean;
>>>>the voices were mostly right too, though the characterization (mostly in
>>>>terms of the outcome of Entmoot) was decidedly off and there was no
>>>>mention of the missing Entwives.
>>>
>>>I didn't find the Ents too impressive. Were they really supposed to
>>>be that short? I mean, they're probably about the size of an
>>>oliphant.
>>
>>Actually, from a newspaper review I was expecting them to be much
>>shorter (about seven feet tall), and was pleased to find that they
>>weren't; they seemed close to the right height for trees, to me, as
>>compared to the trees around them. (Though I've only seen the movie the
>>once, and wasn't looking *specifically* for height comparisons at the
>>time...)
>
> They were shorter than the surrounding trees.
But not by much, if I remember right. They weren't perfect, no, but they
were about as good as could be expected - they were certainly more
tree-like than I'd ever managed to vizualise them.
>>>>Aside from a few minor issues like the height of the walls (which didn't
>>>>even seem entirely consistent from one scene to another), Helm's Deep
>>>>looked just about exactly right.
>>>
>>>Ehh.... I had a few complaints with it (e.g. the doors are about to
>>>be broken down; we need a distraction, fast. What do we do? That's
>>>right - we send *two* fighters out *the back door*. They should've
>>>just skipped all the fortifications and sent Aragorn and Gimli out to
>>>deal with the army in the beginning.), but a lot of them were actually
>>>in the book. They just don't really make that much sense.
>>
>><shrug> No comment. I'd need to do a more direct comparison of book
>>versus movie on that one, and I don't have the movie handy to compare
>>against.
>
> The book does include the part about going out the back door, which is
> what I thought was fairly ridiculous. They take a group of swordsmen
> along, however, which makes a lot more sense. I mean, this isn't D&D,
> people. Characters shouldn't be able to take on an entire army by
> themselves, no matter what sort of blood they have running in their
> veins.
Agreed.
>>>Maybe the next time they try filming it - what, maybe twenty or forty
>>>years from now? - they'll get TTT right.
>>
>>If no one else does it, *I* plan to give it a shot one of these decades.
>>Maybe even take advantage of high-end computer animation techniques (not
>>yet even available) to fake the actors and redo these movies,
>>properly....
>
> Actually, at one point, I was going to say something along those lines
> myself.... :P
Care to join the project? It likely won't get started for years if at
all, but I'm sure I'd appreciate help whenever I get around to it... and
alternately, if you get to it before I do, don't hesitate to call me in
on it!
>>I still have hope of RotK being acceptable, but the changes
>>forced upon it by the alteration to the ending of TT make that
>>unfortunately less likely.
>
> Ideally, I think what Jackson ought to do is go in and retcon the
> Aragorn/cliff scene out of the movie (along with, I hope, most of the
> Ents), then produce a four-hour-long RotK to make up for it. We'll
> still have a nine-hour-total movie, but we'll have a *good*
> nine-hour-long movie.
Retcon the Aragorn/cliff scene out, yes, along with perhaps a few other
things, but the Ents don't need to be taken out - they just need to be
rewritten, or rather *un*rewritten to at least some degree. (And maybe,
yes, made taller.)
--
The Wanderer
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
>> There will be NO problem making Gollum recap. He talks to himselves,
>> you know.
> As may be. The events ought, of right, to happen only once. Recapping
> would essentially require Gollum to repeat to himself all of the things
> he said at the end of the second movie (barring the arguments, perhaps),
> which is somewhat problematic - and would also degrade Gollum's cunning;
> having once established the plan (in Sam's hearing, I might add, which
> IIRC is the only reason we know about it to begin with), he doesn't
> appear to have taken any chances on giving it away later on.
Given that Gollum is still limping around in one piece, it obviously
wasn't done within Sam's hearing.
That said; what is wrong with a recap? Gandalf only said "Fly, you
fools." once--does that mean it shouldn't show up in Frodo's dream
sequence, as it does at the beginning of the movie? You don't ahve to
repeat *all* the things; just enough to indicate that Gollum has got
something nasty planned for Sam and Frodo. That could happen with a
little ominous music and an evil look or smile, if you wanted to get
minimalistic.
>>>Two, one reason that doing a different version of the same story is bad
>>>is the people who have never read the books and are not going to - who
>>>will think, almost certainly, that the movies are *what it is*. If the
>>>movies are a faithful adaptation of the books, to within reasonable
>>>limits (as the first one was), then this phenomenon is acceptable. But
>>>if the movies are too much *different*, then it is very much *not*
>>>acceptable.
It is perhaps worth observing at this point that if someone has not
noticed that the movies are frequently different from the books, it
implies either a vast indifference to details (at which point they might
not notice any difference) or a serious unlikeliness to ever read the book
a movie is based on (at which point they're not going to read Tolkein,
anyway, so let them have their nifty fantasy movie).
If they start insisting that Tolkein wrote something in such-and-such a
way when he didn't, hit them over the head with the Appendices until they
go away.
Otherwise--hrm. I think my attitude on this is largely similar to my
attitude about cheating on ADOM.
Peter Jackson has created a reasonable facsimile of a world (Tolkein's).
It is not exactly as the original was, but it is still enjoyable. People
may contrast it with the original, or only interact with it (and not read
the books), or watch it as interesting light fluff. Either way, other
people's reactions will not affect my enjoyment of it; I am satisfied with
Jackson's efforts to bring the world to a new medium, and think he has
done very well.
Thomas Biskup has created a reasonable facsimile of a world (generic
largely AD&D-influenced fantasy). It is not exactly as the original was
(since no tabletop game or book ever destroyed itself via signal 291, or
prevented protagonists from actually conversing), but it is still
enjoyable. People may contrast it with the original ("You can't do that
in <foo> book/my tabletop"), or only interact with it (and not play or
read fantasy), or treat it as interesting light fluff (and scum to hell
and back). Either way, other people's reactions will not affect my
enjoyment of it; I am satisfied with TB's efforts to bring the world to a
new medium, and think he has done very well.
>> Why not?
> As you put it, disrespect for Tolkien's work. If someone's going to have
> an impression of Middle-earth and the stories set therein, accurate or
> otherwise, it should at least be *based* in the works of Tolkien.
Why? I'm sorry, but you're tossing around words like "should" and
"right", which definitely imply a moral aspect to this whole issue, and
I'm curious about your basis for it.
Love and coffee,
Frances
William Tanksley Google
>>Faramir needs a lot more characterization, and it is a huge pity
that
>>Jackson portrays him so weakly. He definitely emphasises his
devotion
>>to duty, and it's actually admirable that he doesn't touch the One
>>(although the movie fails to make that clear, which it honestly
>>should). But his devotion to justice and strength of character only
>>show indirectly through a single sentance from one of his men
stating
>>that if he releases the hobbits he'll be under penalty of death.
>He is *also* supposed to decline the Ring *on the spot*, not first
>decide to take it and then change his mind later.
He does decline the ring on the spot, and never goes back on that. As
for refusing to have anything to do with the ring -- well, we already
have enough characters who do THAT. Gandalf, Galadriel, and so on...
We didn't need another impassioned ring-rejection, especially from
someone who had almost no reason to do so.
When the time to reject both the ring and his standing orders came,
Faramir took it -- and in the process gave Frodo a chance to
demonstrate courage beyond that given him in the book (standing up in
front of a ringwraith while holding the One???). Without, I might add,
having to violate the plot of the book -- it'll now be perfectly clear
why Sauron will want to immediately attack Minas Tirith, and why he'll
fall for Gondor's feint to distract him from Frodo.
>As more than one
>person has pointed out, that make him so much more like Boromir that
>it's not even funny, and another Boromir is not what he's supposed to
be.
Ah, but here you're wrong. He IS another Boromir, and that's just the
point. He's got all the same weaknesses, desires, and strengths as
Boromir; but unlike Boromir, he rises above them before they destroy
him. The book portrays him differently and, IMO, more effectively; but
the movie's portrayal (of him, not of his actions) is not unfaithful,
simply incomplete and a bit rushed.
>>>Irrelevant. The Two Towers ends after the sequences I described,
not
>>>before. Therefore any movie claiming to be The Two Towers must do
the
>>>same, or have a *damn* good explanation for it.
>>Nonsense. T2T isn't Tolkien; there's only one story, and the
>>"publisher" split the story without Tolkien's complete approval. A
>>movie depicting the middle of the LOTR epic can begin and end
anywhere
>>-- and so it did.
>Have you read the parts of "The History of Middle-Earth" dealing with
>the creation of "The Lord of the Rings"? I have, and I did not get
>anything like this impression from the various alterations and
rewrites
>the story went through (and the accompanying commentary by his son
>Christopher).
No, I haven't. I confess that all my info comes from Usenet quotations
of Tolkien's letters, but I thought that it was pretty well-known that
first, Tolkien considered the whole thing a single story (and not any
number of books), and second, when he did divide it into books, he
made twelve books which were supposed to be parceled into something
like six volumes.
>This remains, however, not entirely relevant. Regardless of whether
or
>not the story was supposed to be split exactly there, the book "The
Two
>Towers" extends to there and no farther. Therefore anything which
leaves
>off short or extends farther is not "The Two Towers". Therefore it
>should not claim to be. That is a large part of my complaint: this
>claims to be "The Two Towers", but does not live up to the
>(responsibilities? not quite) that implies.
This argument is simply incomprehensible to me. Why again does it
matter?
>>>As a minor side note, one of my brothers noted that it would have
made
>>>more sense to place Gollum's self-dialogue about Her at the
beginning of
>>>the third movie - in that many or most people who don't know the
books
>>>are likely to have forgotten about it by next year, and the ensuing
>>>events will make that much less sense.
>>There will be NO problem making Gollum recap. He talks to himselves,
>>you know.
>As may be. The events ought, of right, to happen only once. Recapping
>would essentially require Gollum to repeat to himself all of the
things
>he said at the end of the second movie (barring the arguments,
perhaps),
No. He'll only have to mutter about Her, and how She'll get it back
for him.
>which is somewhat problematic - and would also degrade Gollum's
cunning;
>having once established the plan (in Sam's hearing, I might add,
which
>IIRC is the only reason we know about it to begin with), he doesn't
>appear to have taken any chances on giving it away later on.
The movie doesn't limit itself to what Sam hears; I suspect that the
time Sam hears anything specific is in the future. I think THAT will
make the best place for a "recap", since it'll give the movie a chance
to examine Sam's forebodings, and possibly look more closely at the
meaning of what Gollum meant (it was only one paragraph, and quite a
bit rushed!).
>>>That was one of the alterations I noted, or at least I should have
-
>>>there was supposed to be quite some noticeable flash on Gandalf's
part which
>>>constituted I think the first major not-really-supportable
alteration I
>>>noticed.
>> Hmm. No, I don't mind a lack of flash -- I like it. I guess I was
too
>>disappointed by Harry Potter II, where almost every single spell (I
>Irrelevant. Not only did they eliminate the flash (which IIRC didn't
>have too much of the sort of thing you describe), but they almost
>entirely altered the tone and character of the scene, and reduced
>Wormtongue from his former position of prominence as the poisonous
voice
>in Theoden's ear (and the source of the 'spell' of words which were
the
>*only* thing keeping Theoden down) to a mere adjunct to Saruman's
direct
>control of Theoden, which should not have been there at all.
Agreed here. Although there may have been more power at work than
Grima's, the power was cast off by Theoden, not exorcised by Gandalf.
And the lack of "flash" made it harder for them to really complain
about the staff Gandalf smuggled in.
>>I do find Sauruman's overinvolvement to be a bit annoying, though. I
>>hated replacing Carhedras (don't spellcheck me on that!) with
>>Sauruman...
>I didn't much like it myself, but it did allow them to bring in
Saruman
>in some other way than by Gandalf's "this is where I've been"
flashbacks
>- which would have been somewhat harder to pull off, given the degree
to
>which they shortened the time things took.
Good point, good point. It also made for fewer introductions in a
movie which was already too long... "Mountain, this is the moviegoers;
moviegoers, this is a sentient mountain. Greetings all around. You'll
never see it again in the series."
>Stair from the deepest pits of Moria". I'm not positive that the
battle
>with the Balrog was in fact below the delvings of the Dwarves - for
one
>thing, the Endless Stair was accessible from wherever they ended up
at,
Well, the fact that they climbed the endless stair after an
already-long fight indicates that "accessible" could mean almost
anything.
>and for another thing, the Balrog was released in the first place by
the
>Dwarves having delved so deep that they broke into his hiding place.
That's not what the book says -- it only says that they delved too
deep, and awakened him. Not released, merely awakened.
But regardless, the book seems to imply that they were deeper than any
had been before -- in the presence of many "nameless things". I even
seem to recall (but could be wrong about) Tolkien stating that they
were deeper than the dwarves had ever delved. But I can't check that
right now (unless I were to download a pirated copy... Hmm...).
>>I did want to see more of the Balrog as "a thing of slime and
>>darkness", though. I guess that's asking too much; Jackson did such
a
>>brilliant job of portraying him as a being of fire and shadow.
>Which is the original concept of the Balrogs to begin with, of
course.
>I'd have liked to see more of the "extinguished" Balrog myself, but
it
>worked out well enough as it was...
Yup. In fact, it was utterly brilliant, if you'll pardon my overuse of
the word.
Although I had originally gotten the impression from the book that the
Balrog was more a creature of shadow than of flame; note that there's
no mention of him burning until the fire ignites his mane. But the
sheer majesty and terror of the movie's portrayal makes it hard to
retain images like that... Especially in the presence of passages like
the one in the Sil, about balrogs running down the slopes of
Thangorodrim like lava.
>>>B: I would also point out all of the sequences with Arwen, Elrond
and
>>>Galadriel,
>>Utterly brilliant. Well, okay, I'm not entirely SURE about what's
>>going to happen with Arwen, but the rest was brilliant.
>Except that unless I'm utterly missing something, they were *not*
>supposed to be there; the only 'essential' purpose they served, as
far
>as I can tell, was to allow them to bring Arwen and Elrond onscreen
in
>the second movie. They do provide useful characterization,
Bingo. That's the essential purpose they serve there; developing
characterization and motive. Such building MUST occur over the course
of the movie, not in 1-hour-long chunks at the beginning and end. (And
it must occur; the books almost entirely skipped it in favor of
letting people guess, or having other, similar stories that
researchers could read, or even putting details in an appendix.)
Oh, and their presence there also heightened the tension of the
attraction of Eowyn for Aragorn.
>which isn't
>necessarily even properly developed in the books, but having them
there
>in the middle where they aren't supposed to be is just too much
"wrong"
>to me for me to be able to remotely enjoy it.
Well, this may not be entirely the _movie's_ problem, honestly.
>>>as well as (in association) the "Aragorn fell off a cliff"
>>>sequence,
>I didn't even consider the "doing it too much" possibility until
other
>people started suggesting it, though it may well be valid; my major
>objection to that was that it was invented *completely* out of whole
>cloth, for no other immediately apparent purpose than as a segue to
>bring in the Arwen-and-Elrond scenes (of which I have already made my
>opinion marginally clear).
I can't even see THAT as a purpose; he could have segued at any time
for any reason.
>>>(aside from objecting to the miscasting and mischaracterization of
Elrond
>>Really? I liked it, aside from my very strong identification of the
>>character as Agent Smith. Where do you see mischaracterization?
>For one thing, Elrond is not *nearly* that harsh or bitter. HIs
>characterization in the second movie (with respect to his not wanting
>Arwen to choose her human side) is considerably more supportable, but
>he's still done far too harshly to suit me.
I don't see him as bitter, although he's perhaps a bit harsh; but
then, after what he'd been through, his reactions were portrayed quite
reasonably. The book simply fails to develop him.
>Not to mention that that choice is strongly mis-presented in the
movie -
>it's not "come to Paradise and live forever without him" against
"live
>with him for his lifespan, then live out the natural lifespan of an
Elf
>without him and without Paradise"; it's "come to Paradise and live
>forever without him" against "live with him until he dies, then live
out
>the rest of the natural lifespan of a golden-era Numenorean and
follow
>him to whatever unknown place Men go when they die". (It's worth
noting
>that Aragorn is at least eighty years old when the hobbits first meet
>him....)
Now THIS is doubtlessly true. It not only contradicts the book, it
contradicts the first movie.
>>>One, a "different version of the same story" is not what I am
*after*;
>>>what I want is a translation of book to film, as directly as
possible,
>>>and *certainly* not with "just because we can" rewriting.
>>Can't be done. Simply impossible; the book uses its medium too well,
>>and the movie has to use its medium equally so. Shouldn't be done;
>>would be disrespect for the story and Tolkien's work.
>Not disputing that. I disagree that it would be impossible to do the
>movie well by adhering quite strictly to the book,
Hmm. We'll have to disagree, possibly.
>but I agree that some
>changes would be for the better (given enough computing technology, I
>plan to do the job myself as pure photorealistic CG one of these
>decades).
I hope to see it -- please post to the Angband group when you get your
NV30 card farm. (That card looks like it could possibly render Shrek
in realtime.)
>I do *not*, however, agree that as many or as drastic changes
>as they made even to the first movie are necessary, and *certainly*
not
>the sort of "just because we can" rewriting that they did for much of
>the second movie.
Why do you imply that there was more rewriting in the second than the
first?
>(People may well object to that phrase, but I've used
>it before and I stick to it.
Sure, I'll object to it. But that's okay :-).
>There may be justifications, but much of
>the rewriting in the second movie was purely gratuitous use of an
>artistic license they do not have.)
Why do you deny them artistic license?
>>>(Thinking
>>>specifically though not exclusively of the rewriting which was done
>>>simply because they wanted to bring Osgiliath onscreen...)
>>Are you *sure* that's the only reason? Doesn't seem plausible.
>Not absolutely so, but it's the only reason I can think of for them
to
>have altered the Faramir sequence so completely.
I can think of a few more:
1. To allow Frodo a heroic, daring role
2. To spend more time building Faramir's character by watching his
actions rather than speaking, making him clearly Boromir's brother but
still master of his own destiny
3. To provide a rationale for compressing the time frame a little --
Sauron now knows that the One is in the hands of Gondor, and will
immediately attack Osgiliath first, then Minas Tirith.
#3 is the most dubious reason, since Jackson didn't use any reason at
all when he shortened the flight from the Shire (I found that
disappointing, since it made the pursuit SO improbable).
>>Although one more comment: everyone I've talked to believed that
>>Osgiliath was Gondor. Several professional critics I read were
annoyed
>>that "Gondor looked too small." I had no problem knowing that they
>>were in Osgiliath, but it seems that almost everyone else did,
whether
>>or not they'd read the books.
>Especially surprising to me considering that I believe they
specifically
>mentioned that they were going to fight at Osgiliath... but I've
heard a
>number of people with that same impression myself. Don't they know
that
>Gondor isn't a *city*, it's a *kingdom*? The city they're talking
about
>is *Minas Tirith*, the former Minas Anor.
I forgot that myself.
>>>Two, one reason that doing a different version of the same story is
bad
>>>is the people who have never read the books and are not going to -
who
>>>will think, almost certainly, that the movies are *what it is*. If
the
>>>movies are a faithful adaptation of the books, to within reasonable
>>>limits (as the first one was), then this phenomenon is acceptable.
But
>>>if the movies are too much *different*, then it is very much *not*
>>>acceptable.
>>Why not?
>As you put it, disrespect for Tolkien's work. If someone's going to
have
>an impression of Middle-earth and the stories set therein, accurate
or
>otherwise, it should at least be *based* in the works of Tolkien.
And the movies are, with flying colors.
I mean seriously, if you can even get time to complain about where one
movie ends, you've got nothing to complain about.
>(Many
>or most people are likely to get an inaccurate impression - I
certainly
>had a sharply inaccurate one, before I first read anything of the
>Silmarillion and such other works as the Lost Tales. And for some
time
>thereafter.)
I had an inaccurate impression after I read the LoTR three times. I
still had it after I finally read the Sil. Only when I'd read debates
online and re-read the books again did I catch anything close to the
full depth.
The LoTR books are HORRIBLE at showing the elves' weaknesses, except
for very brief passages. The movies are comparatively excellent,
especially the Elrond passages which you dislike so much.
For a beautiful use of the phrase "conservation of ringular momentum",
please read:
http://bookshelved.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ReturnOfTheKing
-Billy
LizM7
> >>>>had been looking forward with anticipation; they made Theoden's ailment
> >>>>less a matter of the deception and poisonous advice of Wormtongue and
> >>>>more a matter of magical compulsion/possession by Saruman.
> >>>
> >>>They made Wormtongue almost unnecessary.
> >>
> >>And then attacked him even more than the book did - perhaps to make up
> >>for it, or to cover it up?
> >
> > The problem here is that they've then screwed up Eowyn's motivation
> > for going off and fighting the Nazgul. One could probably justify it
> > solely out of a desire to win Aragorn -- hell, I'd do something
> > simular myself if I thought I could pull it off -- but still the
> > motivation there is somewhat screwed up. It's one thing to go out and
> > perform a Desperate Act of Glory for the sake of doing so, and another
> > thing entirely to do it in hopes of gaining the attention of a guy
> > who's already promised to someone else.
>
> I did have a comment here, to do with her apparent death wish at that
> point, but it's not coming out.
Well, let me know if it does. :P
> >>>>The Horn of Rohan (or of Helm, if you really want) was blown by a
> >>>>*Dwarf*, rather than by the King?
> >>>
> >>>What was the point of that, anyway? I didn't get it - you're losing
> >>>the battle, and so only *now* do you blow the horn?
> >>
> >>Not entirely sure, myself. I really need to sit down and reread the
> >>book, if I'm going to be participating in these debates... I think there
> >>was a reason, but I've been wrong before.
> >
> > Ok, quoting from the book:
> >
> > Theoden to Aragorn: "I will not end here, taken like an old badger in
> > a trap. Snowmane and Hasufel and the horses of my guard are in the
> > inner court. [1] When dawn comes, I will bid men sound Helm's horn,
> > and I will ride forth...."
> >
> > [1] This is a key line of dialogue, without which the entire scenario
> > is incoherent. And I think they left it out of the movie.
>
> They did, yes.
They seem to have done this a *lot*. Did they switch screenwriters?
> >>>The Entmoot, I felt, was the most boring part of the movie. Here's
> >>>Frodo and Sam being chased by Nazguls; here's Aragorn and Legolas and
> >>>Gimli and Gandalf and everyone at Helm's Deep ... and here's Merry and
> >>>Pippen, walking through the woods. Again.
> >>>
> >>>*yawn*
> >>
> >>It is, in part, *supposed* to be at a remove from all of the action, at
> >>least up until the actual attack on Isengard - but I do agree with you;
> >>I don't think it needed to be as much that way as it was, but with the
> >>alterations to that side of the movie it ended up being so. (Admittedly
> >>it might have been as bad or worse with *no* alterations, but even if so
> >>then these alterations appear to have been the wrong ones to make.)
> >
> > Had they shown it in one or two chunks - preferably towards the
> > beginning of the movie, before the pace has really picked up - it
> > might have been tolerable. But as it stands? Boring. Really boring.
>
> Passably, perhaps. I'm not really in any position to speak to it, having
> only seen the movie the once and having been too eagerly looking at it
> for matchup with the book to notice any such problems. And they couldn't
> really have done it half with flashbacks, the way the book did...
> especially since the scene where the flashbacks come wasn't even *in*
> the movie; it was in the omitted final sequence.
The attack on Isengard, at least, is okay - the problem is the
hurry-up-and-wait scenes *before* that.
> >>>>On the bright side:
>
> >>>>The Ents were, visually, just about dead on except for being too lean;
> >>>>the voices were mostly right too, though the characterization (mostly in
> >>>>terms of the outcome of Entmoot) was decidedly off and there was no
> >>>>mention of the missing Entwives.
> >>>
> >>>I didn't find the Ents too impressive. Were they really supposed to
> >>>be that short? I mean, they're probably about the size of an
> >>>oliphant.
> >>
> >>Actually, from a newspaper review I was expecting them to be much
> >>shorter (about seven feet tall), and was pleased to find that they
> >>weren't; they seemed close to the right height for trees, to me, as
> >>compared to the trees around them. (Though I've only seen the movie the
> >>once, and wasn't looking *specifically* for height comparisons at the
> >>time...)
> >
> > They were shorter than the surrounding trees.
>
> But not by much, if I remember right. They weren't perfect, no, but they
> were about as good as could be expected - they were certainly more
> tree-like than I'd ever managed to vizualise them.
Yeah, but they looked CGish if you ask me. Really, for all the
improvements, CG has yet to look trully realistic.
Give it a few years, I suppose.
> >>>Maybe the next time they try filming it - what, maybe twenty or forty
> >>>years from now? - they'll get TTT right.
> >>
> >>If no one else does it, *I* plan to give it a shot one of these decades.
> >>Maybe even take advantage of high-end computer animation techniques (not
> >>yet even available) to fake the actors and redo these movies,
> >>properly....
> >
> > Actually, at one point, I was going to say something along those lines
> > myself.... :P
>
> Care to join the project? It likely won't get started for years if at
> all, but I'm sure I'd appreciate help whenever I get around to it... and
> alternately, if you get to it before I do, don't hesitate to call me in
> on it!
Oh, why not. I'll bite, if I have time when the technology comes out.
It ought to be more of a project than the edited no-Jar Jar version
of TPM that's floating around online, but hey. We could manage.
> >>I still have hope of RotK being acceptable, but the changes
> >>forced upon it by the alteration to the ending of TT make that
> >>unfortunately less likely.
> >
> > Ideally, I think what Jackson ought to do is go in and retcon the
> > Aragorn/cliff scene out of the movie (along with, I hope, most of the
> > Ents), then produce a four-hour-long RotK to make up for it. We'll
> > still have a nine-hour-total movie, but we'll have a *good*
> > nine-hour-long movie.
>
> Retcon the Aragorn/cliff scene out, yes, along with perhaps a few other
> things, but the Ents don't need to be taken out - they just need to be
> rewritten, or rather *un*rewritten to at least some degree. (And maybe,
> yes, made taller.)
Coherency is the name of the game, really. All else - including
agreeing with the book - is secondary. And the Entmoot wasn't
coherent.
- Liz
R Dan Henry
hsel...@hotmail.com (LizM7) declared:
>Theoden to Aragorn: "I will not end here, taken like an old badger in
>a trap. Snowmane and Hasufel and the horses of my guard are in the
>inner court. [1] When dawn comes, I will bid men sound Helm's horn,
>and I will ride forth...."
>
>This doesn't say much - and it still doesn't answer the really crucial
>question here, which is, why didn't they do this on the *first* day?
Because it's hopeless. Because it's a choice of ways to die. On the
*first* day, there was still hope the defenses would hold. It's only
Gandalf showing up (right on schedule in the movie; when he could
manage it in the book) with Erkenbrand's/Eomer's (book/movie) forces
(plus the Huorn forest, omitted from the film -- but it's this detail
that makes the charge of Theoden and company so successful, they
strike the enemy from the rear as they've all turned to look at the
new forest) that turns defeat into victory.
--
R. Dan Henry, Creative Heretic
rdan...@earthlink.net
R Dan Henry
hsel...@hotmail.com (LizM7) declared:
>The Wanderer <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Ash One
>> nazg ring
>> durbatuluk, rulethemall,
>> ash one
>> nazg ring
>> gimbatul, findthem,
>> ash one
>> nazg ring
>> thrakatuluk bringthemall
>> agh and
>> burzum-ishi (? darkness-in?)
>> krimpatul! bindthem!
>The best humor, I thought, was completely situation - e.g. the scene
>with Faramir, Frodo, and Sam: "Who are you, his bodyguard?" "No, his
>gardener."
Yes, that was good.
>But the comment about humans not being able to tell dwarvish men and
>women apart came across to me as an inappropriate Pratchett reference
>(even when I looked it up later and found that Tolkien *does* mention
>this point in the appendix at the end of RotK, it *still* feels
>non-Tolkien). And --
It felt wrong to have Gimli talking about it. The dwarves were a
private people, even by old standards.
>I find it interesting - FotR was great mostly because they had so much
>book material that they couldn't fit it all in; no one could think of
>really padding it out. But then TTT? Let's pad it out, people.
FotR had padding, too. The one part of the movie I started getting
bored was all the fall-rock stuff in Moria. But it was worse in TTT.
All the added Faramir scenes were (IMO dull) padding. The time used
for that could have been used for the extra four lines or so to
explain who Erkenbrand was, allowing him to have his part back and let
Eomer have his proper place in Helm's Deep and remove the otherwise
unnecessary changes regarding his situation in Edoras.
>But then again, they altered the ending of FotR, to good effect,
>really. So one shouldn't really criticize them solely for altering
>the ending. Let's just criticize them for the fact that they padded
>out the story when they had book material they could've worked with.
I don't criticize solely for altering. Some of the changes work, but
most were poorly chosen. Substituting Arwen for Glorfindel made sense
in that consolidation of the roles simplified the character list and
gave us a good look at Arwen, who shouldn't seem to come out of
nowhere in RotK. Not that she was handled perfectly, but I'm not the
sort of purist who objects to letting her take Glorfindel part just
because its a change.
>I didn't find the Ents too impressive. Were they really supposed to
>be that short? I mean, they're probably about the size of an
>oliphant.
Treebeard is described as being "at least fourteen feet high". So
maybe a bit more than that... but there are trees that go much higher.
The Ents were certainly less treelike than in the film, but the film
treatment was quite tolerable visually. I have no complaints with how
the Ents looked. Only with how they behaved.
"Duh... tell me again how you aren't orcies..." [Yes, let's make one
of the oldest and wisest beings an unobservant dullard to create a
sense of danger.]
Now the *oliphants* I complain about the size, as in *too much*.
>> The "vanishing in the rocks, hidden by the Elven-cloak" bit was very nice.
Already saw it in Harry Potter.
>*sigh* Well, at least the *first* movie was good.
So was the second, considered as an action-adventure movie. As an
adaptation of Tolkien, it's a failure, with a few high points. Gollum
is the one movie feature that will influence my own visualizations.
R Dan Henry
dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Frances Kathleen Moffatt) declared:
>I can't find Wilderland, but is seems like the sort of place you'd find
>around the Misty Mountains and Mirkwood, which is what the Gladden River
>and the Gladden Fields
Wilderland is (the translation of) the Westron name for Rhovanion
(which is the Sindarin name). Everything between the Misty Mountains
and the River Running.
R Dan Henry
<inverse...@comcast.net> declared:
>You're talking about the battle at Weathertop, I presume? It's stated in
>the books somewhere that part of the reason those particular Nazgul gave
>back so easily was that they knew all they needed to do was wait, once
>Frodo was injured - the piece of the blade which broke off in his wound
>would soon enough reach his heart, at which point he would become a
>wraith and subject to their control in much the same way as they are
>subject to the control of Sauron.
There was no battle at Weathertop (well, there was, but not that
night). The Nazgul show up, the mortals wave flaming sticks a bit,
Pippin and Merry are overcome with terror, Frodo puts on the One Ring,
pokes at the Witch-King, gets stabbed in return, the wraiths leave.
That's hardly a battle. Aragorn does leap at them with fire in his
hands, but they just leave. Aragorn is gone looking for them when
Frodo wakes.
Aragorn says: "They are only waiting, because they think that their
purpose is almost accomplished, and that the Ring cannot fly much
further. I fear, Sam, that they believe your master has a deadly wound
that will subdue him to their will."
Even then, the Nazgul most likely retreated because of Frodo's defiant
cry "O Elbereth! Gilthoniel!" Invoking two of Varda's names was
repellant to the Nazgul; as the Vala of light she was the being in
Middle-Earth most dreadful to them. Aragorn says: "More deadly to him
was the name of Elbereth."
In the books, it's a genuinely terrifying sequence. In the movie, it's
just another action sequence.
Stephen Mackey
>>But the comment about humans not being able to tell dwarvish men and
>>women apart came across to me as an inappropriate Pratchett reference
>>(even when I looked it up later and found that Tolkien *does* mention
>>this point in the appendix at the end of RotK, it *still* feels
>>non-Tolkien). And --
>
>It felt wrong to have Gimli talking about it. The dwarves were a
>private people, even by old standards.
>
Bleh. I hated almost all of the Gimli humor... the only joke I liked was
Gimli's "You could have picked a better spot!", which was good simply because
it was so unexpected and would have been just as amusing without the line as
with.
>All the added Faramir scenes were (IMO dull) padding.
I agree, except that it was almost all worth it just to get that wonderful
imagery of Frodo about to hand the Ring over to the flying wraith.
>The time used
>for that could have been used for the extra four lines or so to
>explain who Erkenbrand was,
Who was he again? ;) Seriously, I've read the books three times over and I
still can't remember that guy very well.
--
Signing off as Stephen Mackey, the Multi-Threaded RFE Database Liaison.
"There is no sig. There is only Zuul."
R Dan Henry
hsel...@hotmail.com (LizM7) declared:
>They seem to have done this a *lot*. Did they switch screenwriters?
In the credits, I noticed there were *four* screenwriters for TTT.
More than two almost always a bad sign.
R Dan Henry
(Stephen Mackey) declared:
>R Dan Henry said:
>>The time used
>>for that could have been used for the extra four lines or so to
>>explain who Erkenbrand was,
>
>Who was he again? ;) Seriously, I've read the books three times over and I
>still can't remember that guy very well.
Master of Westfold. If he hadn't foreseen the coming war and prepared
Helm's Deep, there wouldn't have been a viable stronghold on Rohan's
west at which to meet Saruman's forces. He was in the field when
Theoden led his forces to Helm's Deep. He was the leader of the men
who come with Gandalf at the end of the battle (and they're on foot,
too, another detail changed in the movie). He's briefly a very
important figure at the time of the Battle of Helm's Deep, but he gets
no further mention.
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
>>I can't find Wilderland, but is seems like the sort of place you'd find
>>around the Misty Mountains and Mirkwood, which is what the Gladden River
>>and the Gladden Fields
> Wilderland is (the translation of) the Westron name for Rhovanion
> (which is the Sindarin name). Everything between the Misty Mountains
> and the River Running.
*nods* Something I could have picked up, except I didn't think to check
The Hobbit for details. *sigh* Thanks.
I spent an hour and a half last night trying to explain to someone that I
really didn't think it was likely that if orcs were created by Morgoth
doing horrible things to elves several thousand years ago, that orcs had
slowly evolved as a split-off branch of elves over millions of years.
Dammit, "Because" is not a suitable answer when you want someone to
explain why they think evolution must occur in Middle-Earth.
Love and coffee,
Frances
Stephen Mackey
>Dammit, "Because" is not a suitable answer when you want someone to
>explain why they think evolution must occur in Middle-Earth.
::grins::
Some people just have to fit everything into a little square box. This guy
sounds like he'd have a heart attack if he ever partook of the Silent Planet
Trilogy....
The Wanderer
> The Wanderer <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>William Tanksley Google wrote:
>>
>>>The Wanderer <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>Faramir needs a lot more characterization, and it is a huge pity that
>>>Jackson portrays him so weakly. He definitely emphasises his devotion
>>>to duty, and it's actually admirable that he doesn't touch the One
>>>(although the movie fails to make that clear, which it honestly
>>>should). But his devotion to justice and strength of character only
>>>show indirectly through a single sentance from one of his men stating
>>>that if he releases the hobbits he'll be under penalty of death.
>
>>He is *also* supposed to decline the Ring *on the spot*, not first
>>decide to take it and then change his mind later.
>
> He does decline the ring on the spot, and never goes back on that.
No, he doesn't - he decides to take the Ring and use it (in the same way
that Boromir did - "take it to Minas Tirith, and let it be used in the
war aganst Sauron"). He doesn't take it himself, true, but he does make
the decision to use it rather than let it be destroyed. (Admittedly
there is the "risk of capture" bit, but I think that was hashed out a
while before.)
> As
> for refusing to have anything to do with the ring -- well, we already
> have enough characters who do THAT. Gandalf, Galadriel, and so on...
> We didn't need another impassioned ring-rejection, especially from
> someone who had almost no reason to do so.
For one thing, the rejection in the book was not "impassioned". For
another thing, the recurring theme of the temptation of and rejection of
the Ring is one of the more important, albeit somewhat subtle, points of
the series; Gandalf is tempted and rejects it, Bilbo is tempted and
almost doesn't reject it (twice), Aragorn is tempted and rejects it (or
at the least, rejects it - Frodo offers it to him, early on), Galadriel
is tempted and rejects it, Boromir is tempted and tries to take it,
Faramir is tempted and rejects it, Sam is tempted and rejects it (in the
omitted sequence), Gollum is tempted and comes amazingly close to
rejecting the things it stands for (and it is, ironically, in no small
part Sam's fault that he doesn't), Frodo is tempted and manages for a
*very* long time to reject it - and then succumbs, albeit briefly, on
the very edge of the Crack of Doom. There may even be a few others I
don't presently remember - but the point is that Tolkien did this on
purpose, and the few occasions of people not rejecting the Ring prove
pivotal in the end (Boromir, Gollum, Frodo).
> When the time to reject both the ring and his standing orders came,
> Faramir took it -- and in the process gave Frodo a chance to
> demonstrate courage beyond that given him in the book (standing up in
> front of a ringwraith while holding the One???). Without, I might add,
> having to violate the plot of the book -- it'll now be perfectly clear
> why Sauron will want to immediately attack Minas Tirith, and why he'll
> fall for Gondor's feint to distract him from Frodo.
Actually, I took Frodo's action to be a demonstration of either weakness
of will (beyond what is shown a few times in the books) or abject idiocy.
The time to reject the Ring and those orders (which may not have been
the same in the books - I don't have my copy handy, and in fact it
appears to have gone missing) was *immediately* upon his becoming aware
that this halfling bore Isildur's Bane.
I don't understand your final sentence at all - no such thing is clear
to me, and I don't know where you get the idea that such a thing might
be the case.
>>As more than one
>>person has pointed out, that make him so much more like Boromir that
>>it's not even funny, and another Boromir is not what he's supposed to be.
>
> Ah, but here you're wrong. He IS another Boromir, and that's just the
> point. He's got all the same weaknesses, desires, and strengths as
> Boromir; but unlike Boromir, he rises above them before they destroy
> him. The book portrays him differently and, IMO, more effectively; but
> the movie's portrayal (of him, not of his actions) is not unfaithful,
> simply incomplete and a bit rushed.
Er... no, he's not. I recall its being stated rether specifically that
where Boromir is the epitome of the Men of Gondor (or something like
that - the term escapes me), Faramir is something of a throwback to the
earlier stages of the line and the Men of Numenor. They are similar,
true, but there are also profound differences, and those differences are
not all non-superficial.
I think, however, that I can agree with your final sentence.
>>Have you read the parts of "The History of Middle-Earth" dealing with
>>the creation of "The Lord of the Rings"? I have, and I did not get
>>anything like this impression from the various alterations and rewrites
>>the story went through (and the accompanying commentary by his son
>>Christopher).
>
> No, I haven't. I confess that all my info comes from Usenet quotations
> of Tolkien's letters, but I thought that it was pretty well-known that
> first, Tolkien considered the whole thing a single story (and not any
> number of books), and second, when he did divide it into books, he
> made twelve books which were supposed to be parceled into something
> like six volumes.
Yes, Tolkien considered the whole thing a single story; it ended up
about three or four times longer than he initially expected it to be.
(I'll admit that I haven't read his letters - I suppose I ought to get
to that next....) The other part, though, is news to me, and doesn't
seem particularly consistent with the things I have read.
>>This remains, however, not entirely relevant. Regardless of whether or
>>not the story was supposed to be split exactly there, the book "The Two
>>Towers" extends to there and no farther. Therefore anything which leaves
>>off short or extends farther is not "The Two Towers". Therefore it
>>should not claim to be. That is a large part of my complaint: this
>>claims to be "The Two Towers", but does not live up to the
>>(responsibilities? not quite) that implies.
>
> This argument is simply incomprehensible to me. Why again does it
> matter?
A longer answer would be better, but much harder to make; the handy
short answer is, purism.
>>>>As a minor side note, one of my brothers noted that it would have made
>>>>more sense to place Gollum's self-dialogue about Her at the beginning of
>>>>the third movie - in that many or most people who don't know the books
>>>>are likely to have forgotten about it by next year, and the ensuing
>>>>events will make that much less sense.
>
>>>There will be NO problem making Gollum recap. He talks to himselves,
>>>you know.
>
>>As may be. The events ought, of right, to happen only once. Recapping
>>would essentially require Gollum to repeat to himself all of the things
>>he said at the end of the second movie (barring the arguments, perhaps),
>
> No. He'll only have to mutter about Her, and how She'll get it back
> for him.
Which means pretty much repeating the same things he said at the end of
the second movie, barring perhaps the arguments. Unless I'm managing to
forget something more than what I think I am.
>>which is somewhat problematic - and would also degrade Gollum's cunning;
>>having once established the plan (in Sam's hearing, I might add, which
>>IIRC is the only reason we know about it to begin with), he doesn't
>>appear to have taken any chances on giving it away later on.
>
> The movie doesn't limit itself to what Sam hears; I suspect that the
> time Sam hears anything specific is in the future. I think THAT will
> make the best place for a "recap", since it'll give the movie a chance
> to examine Sam's forebodings, and possibly look more closely at the
> meaning of what Gollum meant (it was only one paragraph, and quite a
> bit rushed!).
Quite possibly - and this could help i tmake sense and help eliminate
some objections. However, it remains that the decision was apparently
made on the occasion when Sam was listening - this is a more minor
issue, but still possibly worth wincing at.
>>>>That was one of the alterations I noted, or at least I should have -
>>>>there was supposed to be quite some noticeable flash on Gandalf's part, which
>>>>constituted I think the first major not-really-supportable alteration I
>>>>noticed.
>
>>>Hmm. No, I don't mind a lack of flash -- I like it. I guess I was too
>>>disappointed by Harry Potter II, where almost every single spell (I
>
>>Irrelevant. Not only did they eliminate the flash (which IIRC didn't
>>have too much of the sort of thing you describe), but they almost
>>entirely altered the tone and character of the scene, and reduced
>>Wormtongue from his former position of prominence as the poisonous voice
>>in Theoden's ear (and the source of the 'spell' of words which were the
>>*only* thing keeping Theoden down) to a mere adjunct to Saruman's direct
>>control of Theoden, which should not have been there at all.
>
> Agreed here. Although there may have been more power at work than
> Grima's, the power was cast off by Theoden, not exorcised by Gandalf.
> And the lack of "flash" made it harder for them to really complain
> about the staff Gandalf smuggled in.
Agreed.
>>>I do find Sauruman's overinvolvement to be a bit annoying, though. I
>>>hated replacing Carhedras (don't spellcheck me on that!) with
>>>Sauruman...
>
>>I didn't much like it myself, but it did allow them to bring in Saruman
>>in some other way than by Gandalf's "this is where I've been" flashbacks
>>- which would have been somewhat harder to pull off, given the degree to
>>which they shortened the time things took.
>
> Good point, good point. It also made for fewer introductions in a
> movie which was already too long... "Mountain, this is the moviegoers;
> moviegoers, this is a sentient mountain. Greetings all around. You'll
> never see it again in the series."
Which makes for good background and sense of depth, but that's about
all. (Incidentally, whether Caradhras is in fact sentient is arguable -
it could be simply a metaphor of some sort; there's nothing that I
recall in Tolkien's cosmology to allow for any part of Arda itself to be
sentient.)
>>Stair from the deepest pits of Moria". I'm not positive that the battle
>>with the Balrog was in fact below the delvings of the Dwarves - for one
>>thing, the Endless Stair was accessible from wherever they ended up at,
>
> Well, the fact that they climbed the endless stair after an
> already-long fight indicates that "accessible" could mean almost
> anything.
I don't quite understand what you mean.
>>and for another thing, the Balrog was released in the first place by the
>>Dwarves having delved so deep that they broke into his hiding place.
>
> That's not what the book says -- it only says that they delved too
> deep, and awakened him. Not released, merely awakened.
I didn't say that they "released" him. (Well, yes, I did, but that's not
the point. My intent was along the lines you indicate.) The Balrog had
fled and hidden there from the sack of Angband (ha! Almost an on-topic
reference!), and had slept the intervening Age or two away. But it is
indisputable that his hiding place had been reached by the dwarves in
their delvings, and that he had then taken action for the first time in
all those years.
> But regardless, the book seems to imply that they were deeper than any
> had been before -- in the presence of many "nameless things". I even
> seem to recall (but could be wrong about) Tolkien stating that they
> were deeper than the dwarves had ever delved. But I can't check that
> right now (unless I were to download a pirated copy... Hmm...).
You might be right... and I have such a copy (alongside our legitimate
one), I just haven't unzipped it yet. Despite that, I would point out
that the presence of "nameless things" A) might be hyperbole (given the
full cosmology) and B) does not necessarily indicate that no one had
been there before, just that either the things had not been there or
that if they had then they had not ben given names.
>>>I did want to see more of the Balrog as "a thing of slime and
>>>darkness", though. I guess that's asking too much; Jackson did such a
>>>brilliant job of portraying him as a being of fire and shadow.
>
>>Which is the original concept of the Balrogs to begin with, of course.
>>I'd have liked to see more of the "extinguished" Balrog myself, but it
>>worked out well enough as it was...
>
> Yup. In fact, it was utterly brilliant, if you'll pardon my overuse of
> the word.
>
> Although I had originally gotten the impression from the book that the
> Balrog was more a creature of shadow than of flame; note that there's
> no mention of him burning until the fire ignites his mane. But the
> sheer majesty and terror of the movie's portrayal makes it hard to
> retain images like that... Especially in the presence of passages like
> the one in the Sil, about balrogs running down the slopes of
> Thangorodrim like lava.
Yes... Balrogs were originally conceived as beings of flame of one
degree or another. (There were also originally supposed to be hundreds
or thousands of them, each far weaker than they ended up being after
Tolkien reduced their numbers to seven.)
My father looks at "fire" and "of the same order as the Wizards, who are
Maiar" (the "Maiar" being, essentially, lesser angels) and equates the
Balrogs with - I think it was seraphim; angels of fire.
>>>>B: I would also point out all of the sequences with Arwen, Elrond and
>>>>Galadriel,
>
>>>Utterly brilliant. Well, okay, I'm not entirely SURE about what's
>>>going to happen with Arwen, but the rest was brilliant.
>
>>Except that unless I'm utterly missing something, they were *not*
>>supposed to be there; the only 'essential' purpose they served, as far
>>as I can tell, was to allow them to bring Arwen and Elrond onscreen in
>>the second movie. They do provide useful characterization,
>
> Bingo. That's the essential purpose they serve there; developing
> characterization and motive. Such building MUST occur over the course
> of the movie, not in 1-hour-long chunks at the beginning and end. (And
> it must occur; the books almost entirely skipped it in favor of
> letting people guess, or having other, similar stories that
> researchers could read, or even putting details in an appendix.)
>
> Oh, and their presence there also heightened the tension of the
> attraction of Eowyn for Aragorn.
Agreed, pretty much across the board; but that doesn't mean I have to
like it.
>>which isn't
>>necessarily even properly developed in the books, but having them there
>>in the middle where they aren't supposed to be is just too much "wrong"
>>to me for me to be able to remotely enjoy it.
>
> Well, this may not be entirely the _movie's_ problem, honestly.
I'm not entirely disputing that. It's just that, as a purist, any
alterations beyond the minor grate on me to a rather extreme degree,
and... y'know, I feel sure I had something to say here, but I have no
idea what it might have been.
>>>>as well as (in association) the "Aragorn fell off a cliff"
>>>>sequence,
>>
>>I didn't even consider the "doing it too much" possibility until other
>>people started suggesting it, though it may well be valid; my major
>>objection to that was that it was invented *completely* out of whole
>>cloth, for no other immediately apparent purpose than as a segue to
>>bring in the Arwen-and-Elrond scenes (of which I have already made my
>>opinion marginally clear).
>
> I can't even see THAT as a purpose; he could have segued at any time
> for any reason.
Still, it's the only reason I can think of for why it might have been done.
>>>>(aside from objecting to the miscasting and mischaracterization of Elrond
>
>>>Really? I liked it, aside from my very strong identification of the
>>>character as Agent Smith. Where do you see mischaracterization?
>
>>For one thing, Elrond is not *nearly* that harsh or bitter. HIs
>>characterization in the second movie (with respect to his not wanting
>>Arwen to choose her human side) is considerably more supportable, but
>>he's still done far too harshly to suit me.
>
> I don't see him as bitter, although he's perhaps a bit harsh; but
> then, after what he'd been through, his reactions were portrayed quite
> reasonably. The book simply fails to develop him.
Hmm. We may have to agree to disagree on this one.
>>Not to mention that that choice is strongly mis-presented in the movie -
>>it's not "come to Paradise and live forever without him" against "live
>>with him for his lifespan, then live out the natural lifespan of an Elf
>>without him and without Paradise"; it's "come to Paradise and live
>>forever without him" against "live with him until he dies, then live out
>>the rest of the natural lifespan of a golden-era Numenorean and follow
>>him to whatever unknown place Men go when they die". (It's worth noting
>>that Aragorn is at least eighty years old when the hobbits first meet
>>him....)
>
> Now THIS is doubtlessly true. It not only contradicts the book, it
> contradicts the first movie.
I'd just like to note that I left out a couple of small points. The
"natural lifespan of an Elf" is in fact the same as the lifespan of
Arda; what's more, if an Elf dies (whether of violence or disease (if
they are subject to disease - I forget, but it is specifically stated)
or grief, those being about the only things which can kill one), they go
to the halls of Mandos in or near Valorim and live there until they
either leave and live in Valorim itself or are reborn as Elves can be.
>>>>One, a "different version of the same story" is not what I am *after*;
>>>>what I want is a translation of book to film, as directly as possible,
>>>>and *certainly* not with "just because we can" rewriting.
>
>>>Can't be done. Simply impossible; the book uses its medium too well,
>>>and the movie has to use its medium equally so. Shouldn't be done;
>>>would be disrespect for the story and Tolkien's work.
>
>>Not disputing that. I disagree that it would be impossible to do the
>>movie well by adhering quite strictly to the book,
>
> Hmm. We'll have to disagree, possibly.
Probably.
>>but I agree that some
>>changes would be for the better (given enough computing technology, I
>>plan to do the job myself as pure photorealistic CG one of these
>>decades).
>
> I hope to see it -- please post to the Angband group when you get your
> NV30 card farm. (That card looks like it could possibly render Shrek
> in realtime.)
I'll make a note... and hope I remember to check the notefile when the
time comes. ^_^
>>I do *not*, however, agree that as many or as drastic changes
>>as they made even to the first movie are necessary, and *certainly* not
>>the sort of "just because we can" rewriting that they did for much of
>>the second movie.
>
> Why do you imply that there was more rewriting in the second than the
> first?
A variety of reasons, but they all probably boil down to "because I
noticed far more significant alterations in the second movie than I did
in the first". (The definition of "significant" is important here. It's
also worth noting that I haven't re-watched the first movie yet - I've
been rather busy recently. I should probably take a few hours and watch
the DVD release we got for Christmas...)
>>(People may well object to that phrase, but I've used
>>it before and I stick to it.
>
> Sure, I'll object to it. But that's okay :-).
<grin>
>>There may be justifications, but much of
>>the rewriting in the second movie was purely gratuitous use of an
>>artistic license they do not have.)
>
> Why do you deny them artistic license?
Because they are remaking someone else's work. Alterations beyond the
minor (and even "minor" can be problematic, as witness Gimli) are - I
want a different term, but I find myself saying "disrespectful" (or
perhaps "offensive", though it's hard to tell that without asking) to
the original creator.
If they were specifically intending to re-make it, rather the way many
people redo fairy tales or the works of Shakespeare, it would be one
thing. But since they are claiming, as best I can tell, to be doing the
same story Tolkien did, the alterations they may acceptably make are
far, far fewer.
>>>>(Thinking
>>>>specifically though not exclusively of the rewriting which was done
>>>>simply because they wanted to bring Osgiliath onscreen...)
>
>>>Are you *sure* that's the only reason? Doesn't seem plausible.
>
>>Not absolutely so, but it's the only reason I can think of for them to
>>have altered the Faramir sequence so completely.
>
> I can think of a few more:
>
> 1. To allow Frodo a heroic, daring role
Eh? I don't remember seeing any such thing...
> 2. To spend more time building Faramir's character by watching his
> actions rather than speaking, making him clearly Boromir's brother but
> still master of his own destiny
Heh. The effect it had on me was more of the reverse (WRT Boromir, at
least). I still think it could have been done without the drastic
alterations, but that argument isn't going to get anywhere.
> 3. To provide a rationale for compressing the time frame a little --
> Sauron now knows that the One is in the hands of Gondor, and will
> immediately attack Osgiliath first, then Minas Tirith.
He isn't supposed to 'know' that until late in the pre-victory part of
the third book; he attacks Gondor because he's been planning to, and
attacks sooner than he would otherwise have because of his Palantir
interviews with Pippin (who he thinks may have the Ring) and Aragorn
(who, by what we are told, rather frightens him in the process).
> #3 is the most dubious reason, since Jackson didn't use any reason at
> all when he shortened the flight from the Shire (I found that
> disappointing, since it made the pursuit SO improbable).
I didn't find it disappointing for that reason, but did for other
reasons; still, I put it down to "time compression", which I was more or
less expecting. I think there are ways to do a movie reasonably well
without shortening the timespan involved like that, but I didn't really
expect them to do it.
>>>>Two, one reason that doing a different version of the same story is bad
>>>>is the people who have never read the books and are not going to - who
>>>>will think, almost certainly, that the movies are *what it is*. If the
>>>>movies are a faithful adaptation of the books, to within reasonable
>>>>limits (as the first one was), then this phenomenon is acceptable. But
>>>>if the movies are too much *different*, then it is very much *not*
>>>>acceptable.
>
>>>Why not?
>
>>As you put it, disrespect for Tolkien's work. If someone's going to have
>>an impression of Middle-earth and the stories set therein, accurate or
>>otherwise, it should at least be *based* in the works of Tolkien.
>
> And the movies are, with flying colors.
(I knew I didn't want to put it that way, but I couldn't think of any
other way to put it.)
Not to the extent and in the sense that I meant the term.
> I mean seriously, if you can even get time to complain about where one
> movie ends, you've got nothing to complain about.
I disagree. (At least I think so.)
>>(Many
>>or most people are likely to get an inaccurate impression - I certainly
>>had a sharply inaccurate one, before I first read anything of the
>>Silmarillion and such other works as the Lost Tales. And for some time
>>thereafter.)
>
> I had an inaccurate impression after I read the LoTR three times. I
> still had it after I finally read the Sil. Only when I'd read debates
> online and re-read the books again did I catch anything close to the
> full depth.
You may want to read the "History of Middle-earth", all - I think it's
thirteen volumes (beginning with tbe Book of Lost Tales); it provides
some very interesting insights into the development of the world, and
helps the reader understand where some ideas came from and hence what
they mean.
It also provides corrections for some parts of the published
"Silmarillion" - things which the editors decided should be one way, and
then later (whether because of discovering more papers, or because of a
new analysis of the chronology or meaning of known papers) realized
should be another way. The major downside is that you end up going
through the first half of the cosmology/chronology something like five
or six times along the way. (I read through all of that, but ended up
skipping most of the "Lays of Beleriand", which I think is something
like book five.)
> The LoTR books are HORRIBLE at showing the elves' weaknesses, except
> for very brief passages. The movies are comparatively excellent,
> especially the Elrond passages which you dislike so much.
No comment. I may agree with you on the point, or I may not, but I don't
plan to discuss it, because I just don't feel the debate is worth it.
> For a beautiful use of the phrase "conservation of ringular momentum",
> please read:
>
> http://bookshelved.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ReturnOfTheKing
I'll have to have a look at that...
The Wanderer
>>>>>>The Horn of Rohan (or of Helm, if you really want) was blown by a
>>>>>>*Dwarf*, rather than by the King?
>>>>>
>>>>>What was the point of that, anyway? I didn't get it - you're losing
>>>>>the battle, and so only *now* do you blow the horn?
>>>>
>>>>Not entirely sure, myself. I really need to sit down and reread the
>>>>book, if I'm going to be participating in these debates... I think there
>>>>was a reason, but I've been wrong before.
>>>
>>>Ok, quoting from the book:
>>>
>>>Theoden to Aragorn: "I will not end here, taken like an old badger in
>>>a trap. Snowmane and Hasufel and the horses of my guard are in the
>>>inner court. [1] When dawn comes, I will bid men sound Helm's horn,
>>>and I will ride forth...."
>>>
>>>[1] This is a key line of dialogue, without which the entire scenario
>>>is incoherent. And I think they left it out of the movie.
>>
>>They did, yes.
>
> They seem to have done this a *lot*. Did they switch screenwriters?
Don't know, but I noticed quite a bit of it myself.
>>>>>The Entmoot, I felt, was the most boring part of the movie. Here's
>>>>>Frodo and Sam being chased by Nazguls; here's Aragorn and Legolas and
>>>>>Gimli and Gandalf and everyone at Helm's Deep ... and here's Merry and
>>>>>Pippen, walking through the woods. Again.
>>>>>
>>>>>*yawn*
>>>>
>>>>It is, in part, *supposed* to be at a remove from all of the action, at
>>>>least up until the actual attack on Isengard - but I do agree with you;
>>>>I don't think it needed to be as much that way as it was, but with the
>>>>alterations to that side of the movie it ended up being so. (Admittedly
>>>>it might have been as bad or worse with *no* alterations, but even if so
>>>>then these alterations appear to have been the wrong ones to make.)
>>>
>>>Had they shown it in one or two chunks - preferably towards the
>>>beginning of the movie, before the pace has really picked up - it
>>>might have been tolerable. But as it stands? Boring. Really boring.
>>
>>Passably, perhaps. I'm not really in any position to speak to it, having
>>only seen the movie the once and having been too eagerly looking at it
>>for matchup with the book to notice any such problems. And they couldn't
>>really have done it half with flashbacks, the way the book did...
>>especially since the scene where the flashbacks come wasn't even *in*
>>the movie; it was in the omitted final sequence.
>
> The attack on Isengard, at least, is okay - the problem is the
> hurry-up-and-wait scenes *before* that.
Which are actually reasonably close, in that aspect, to the book; the
Ents don't do things hastily. ^_^ That may be part of the intent of
doing those sequences that way, on Tolkien's part. Or it may not; the
commentary I've seen doesn't address the matter.
>>>>>>On the bright side:
>>
>>>>>>The Ents were, visually, just about dead on except for being too lean;
>>>>>>the voices were mostly right too, though the characterization (mostly in
>>>>>>terms of the outcome of Entmoot) was decidedly off and there was no
>>>>>>mention of the missing Entwives.
>>>>>
>>>>>I didn't find the Ents too impressive. Were they really supposed to
>>>>>be that short? I mean, they're probably about the size of an
>>>>>oliphant.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, from a newspaper review I was expecting them to be much
>>>>shorter (about seven feet tall), and was pleased to find that they
>>>>weren't; they seemed close to the right height for trees, to me, as
>>>>compared to the trees around them. (Though I've only seen the movie the
>>>>once, and wasn't looking *specifically* for height comparisons at the
>>>>time...)
>>>
>>>They were shorter than the surrounding trees.
>>
>>But not by much, if I remember right. They weren't perfect, no, but they
>>were about as good as could be expected - they were certainly more
>>tree-like than I'd ever managed to vizualise them.
>
> Yeah, but they looked CGish if you ask me. Really, for all the
> improvements, CG has yet to look trully realistic.
>
> Give it a few years, I suppose.
Though Gollum came out quite well... and I've seen a few other excellent
examples in the past year or two, though they're not coming to mind. The
Ents did look a tad CG-ish, but not by much; I found it easy enough to
ignore, especially given the reasonably horrendous other alterations
going on at the time. ^_^
>>>>>Maybe the next time they try filming it - what, maybe twenty or forty
>>>>>years from now? - they'll get TTT right.
>>>>
>>>>If no one else does it, *I* plan to give it a shot one of these decades.
>>>>Maybe even take advantage of high-end computer animation techniques (not
>>>>yet even available) to fake the actors and redo these movies,
>>>>properly....
>>>
>>>Actually, at one point, I was going to say something along those lines
>>>myself.... :P
>>
>>Care to join the project? It likely won't get started for years if at
>>all, but I'm sure I'd appreciate help whenever I get around to it... and
>>alternately, if you get to it before I do, don't hesitate to call me in
>>on it!
>
> Oh, why not. I'll bite, if I have time when the technology comes out.
> It ought to be more of a project than the edited no-Jar Jar version
> of TPM that's floating around online, but hey. We could manage.
<nods> I'll start making a list. I've got several shows and/or movies
I'm planning to rework some decade or another, at varying levels of
priority; this one will probably be more important than most. ^_^
>>>>I still have hope of RotK being acceptable, but the changes
>>>>forced upon it by the alteration to the ending of TT make that
>>>>unfortunately less likely.
>>>
>>>Ideally, I think what Jackson ought to do is go in and retcon the
>>>Aragorn/cliff scene out of the movie (along with, I hope, most of the
>>>Ents), then produce a four-hour-long RotK to make up for it. We'll
>>>still have a nine-hour-total movie, but we'll have a *good*
>>>nine-hour-long movie.
>>
>>Retcon the Aragorn/cliff scene out, yes, along with perhaps a few other
>>things, but the Ents don't need to be taken out - they just need to be
>>rewritten, or rather *un*rewritten to at least some degree. (And maybe,
>>yes, made taller.)
>
> Coherency is the name of the game, really. All else - including
> agreeing with the book - is secondary. And the Entmoot wasn't
> coherent.
I agree with you pretty much entirely, albeit grudgingly and in a very
circumscribed fashion on the second sentence. Coherency (or is that
"coherence"?) is one of the *very* few things which I would not argue
"agreeing with the book" to be at least as important as and probably
more important than; I don't know of any others offhand.
(Incidentally, unless I'm rather mistaken that's "Entmoot", not "the
Entmoot". I'm uncertain of the rules of grammar surrounding this, but I
believe it's specifically and somewhat consistently referred to that way
in the book...)
The Wanderer
> On 30 Dec 2002 18:36:15 -0800, in a fit of madness
> hsel...@hotmail.com (LizM7) declared:
>
>
>>The Wanderer <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>Ash One
>>>nazg ring
>>>durbatuluk, rulethemall,
>>>ash one
>>>nazg ring
>>>gimbatul, findthem,
>>>ash one
>>>nazg ring
>>>thrakatuluk bringthemall
>>>agh and
>>>burzum-ishi (? darkness-in?)
>>>krimpatul! bindthem!
>>I find it interesting - FotR was great mostly because they had so much
>>book material that they couldn't fit it all in; no one could think of
>>really padding it out. But then TTT? Let's pad it out, people.
>
> FotR had padding, too. The one part of the movie I started getting
> bored was all the fall-rock stuff in Moria. But it was worse in TTT.
> All the added Faramir scenes were (IMO dull) padding. The time used
> for that could have been used for the extra four lines or so to
> explain who Erkenbrand was, allowing him to have his part back and let
> Eomer have his proper place in Helm's Deep and remove the otherwise
> unnecessary changes regarding his situation in Edoras.
Nice. <makes note>
>>But then again, they altered the ending of FotR, to good effect,
>>really. So one shouldn't really criticize them solely for altering
>>the ending. Let's just criticize them for the fact that they padded
>>out the story when they had book material they could've worked with.
>
> I don't criticize solely for altering. Some of the changes work, but
> most were poorly chosen. Substituting Arwen for Glorfindel made sense
> in that consolidation of the roles simplified the character list and
> gave us a good look at Arwen, who shouldn't seem to come out of
> nowhere in RotK. Not that she was handled perfectly, but I'm not the
> sort of purist who objects to letting her take Glorfindel part just
> because its a change.
Neither am I - I thought that that was a reasonable alteration, given
the goal of making Arwen visibly something other than a "deus ex
machina" love interest at the end of the road. (She was in fact
conceived of only late in the writing, and written into the earlier book
in a small way after that - Tolkien originally intended to match Aragorn
with Eowyn.)
>>I didn't find the Ents too impressive. Were they really supposed to
>>be that short? I mean, they're probably about the size of an
>>oliphant.
>
> Treebeard is described as being "at least fourteen feet high". So
> maybe a bit more than that... but there are trees that go much higher.
> The Ents were certainly less treelike than in the film, but the film
> treatment was quite tolerable visually. I have no complaints with how
> the Ents looked. Only with how they behaved.
Agreed. The Ents aren't visually perfect, but they're much better than
might have been expected, and more tree-like than I'd ever managed to
envision them.
> "Duh... tell me again how you aren't orcies..." [Yes, let's make one
> of the oldest and wisest beings an unobservant dullard to create a
> sense of danger.]
>
> Now the *oliphants* I complain about the size, as in *too much*.
(Technically, that's "oliphaunt".)
Am I to understand that you're objecting to the size of the oliphaunts
we see? (And wasn't there only supposed to be *one* in that sequence?)
>>>The "vanishing in the rocks, hidden by the Elven-cloak" bit was very nice.
>
> Already saw it in Harry Potter.
Irrelevant.
>>*sigh* Well, at least the *first* movie was good.
>
>
> So was the second, considered as an action-adventure movie. As an
> adaptation of Tolkien, it's a failure, with a few high points. Gollum
> is the one movie feature that will influence my own visualizations.
Agreed, across the board. (Except that I'd remove the word "the" from
the final sentence.)
R Dan Henry
dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Frances Kathleen Moffatt) declared:
>Frances Kathleen Moffatt (dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> OTOH, I thought Smeagol was only "not so very different" from a hobbit
>> once, not an actual hobbit. (He doesn't *sound* like a hobbit.) Maybe
>> the little differences are enough.
>
>Right. I plead a correction.
>
>Smeagol and Deagol are both Stoors. The Stoors are historically or
>ancestrally hobbits, who came over the Redhorn pass and moved to either
http://www.daimi.aau.dk/~bouvin/tolkien/gollumhobbit.html
The Wanderer
> The Wanderer (inverse...@comcast.net) writes:
>
>>>There will be NO problem making Gollum recap. He talks to himselves,
>>>you know.
>>
>>As may be. The events ought, of right, to happen only once. Recapping
>>would essentially require Gollum to repeat to himself all of the things
>>he said at the end of the second movie (barring the arguments, perhaps),
>>which is somewhat problematic - and would also degrade Gollum's cunning;
>>having once established the plan (in Sam's hearing, I might add, which
>>IIRC is the only reason we know about it to begin with), he doesn't
>>appear to have taken any chances on giving it away later on.
>
> Given that Gollum is still limping around in one piece, it obviously
> wasn't done within Sam's hearing.
But it *was*. Sam was lying half-awake, having been asleep, and heard
Gollum having this debate with himself - from the first "Smeagol
promised" through the final "Yes! We wants it! We wants it!" with a
mention of "She might, yes" along the way. He interrupted just as Gollum
(Stinker) was reaching out again towards the Ring, and looked likely to
not stop himself this time.
> That said; what is wrong with a recap? Gandalf only said "Fly, you
> fools." once--does that mean it shouldn't show up in Frodo's dream
> sequence, as it does at the beginning of the movie? You don't ahve to
> repeat *all* the things; just enough to indicate that Gollum has got
> something nasty planned for Sam and Frodo. That could happen with a
> little ominous music and an evil look or smile, if you wanted to get
> minimalistic.
To the second question: yes, and no. It shouldn't have happened again,
and recaps in the course of a story are generally bad (it's better to
have a "previously" section, which in fact the original trilogy did),
but since it added scenes and told previously unshown pieces of the tale
(which would have come later in the book, though the move is acceptable
in the minor-changes line) without being obtrusive it gets a pass.
And you *do* have to recap enough of it for a mention of "She" or "Her",
unless you want to leave things out despite referring to them. Which
they've done enough of already that I wouldn't put it past them....
>>>>Two, one reason that doing a different version of the same story is bad
>>>>is the people who have never read the books and are not going to - who
>>>>will think, almost certainly, that the movies are *what it is*. If the
>>>>movies are a faithful adaptation of the books, to within reasonable
>>>>limits (as the first one was), then this phenomenon is acceptable. But
>>>>if the movies are too much *different*, then it is very much *not*
>>>>acceptable.
>
> It is perhaps worth observing at this point that if someone has not
> noticed that the movies are frequently different from the books, it
> implies either a vast indifference to details (at which point they might
> not notice any difference) or a serious unlikeliness to ever read the book
> a movie is based on (at which point they're not going to read Tolkein,
> anyway, so let them have their nifty fantasy movie).
Minor differences are acceptable, remotely-major differences are by and
large not. And I suspect that I disagree with you on your final comment.
I'm a purist, and not particularly ashamed of the fact.
> If they start insisting that Tolkein wrote something in such-and-such a
> way when he didn't, hit them over the head with the Appendices until they
> go away.
Given that they haven't read the books and aren't going to, they are
unlikely to assert that "Tolkien wrote such-and-such" when that isn't
the case. However, they may well assert that "The Lord of the Rings does
such-and-such" or "Middle-earth involves such-and-such" or something
similar when it is not the case. I object to facilitating this.
> Otherwise--hrm. I think my attitude on this is largely similar to my
> attitude about cheating on ADOM.
>
> Peter Jackson has created a reasonable facsimile of a world (Tolkein's).
> It is not exactly as the original was, but it is still enjoyable. People
> may contrast it with the original, or only interact with it (and not read
> the books), or watch it as interesting light fluff. Either way, other
> people's reactions will not affect my enjoyment of it; I am satisfied with
> Jackson's efforts to bring the world to a new medium, and think he has
> done very well.
I don't. It would have been possible for him to do far, far worse, but I
do not think that it was done close enough to perfect for me to use the
phrase "very well" in any general sense.
> Thomas Biskup has created a reasonable facsimile of a world (generic
> largely AD&D-influenced fantasy). It is not exactly as the original was
> (since no tabletop game or book ever destroyed itself via signal 291, or
> prevented protagonists from actually conversing), but it is still
> enjoyable. People may contrast it with the original ("You can't do that
> in <foo> book/my tabletop"), or only interact with it (and not play or
> read fantasy), or treat it as interesting light fluff (and scum to hell
> and back). Either way, other people's reactions will not affect my
> enjoyment of it; I am satisfied with TB's efforts to bring the world to a
> new medium, and think he has done very well.
The difference is that TB is creating a new instance of a general thing
in the new medium, whereas Jackson is creating a new instance (if
that's even the appropriate phrase) of a *specific* thing in the new medium.
Put another way: "generic largely AD&D-influenced fantasy" (which is not
a specific world, it's a collection of loosely similar worlds) is, as
indicated, generic and non-specific. "Tolkien's", as you put it, *is* a
specific world (or rather, one of several specific worlds - but we're
only talking about one of them here). What is allowed when instantiating
a class (as TB has done) is considerably looser than what is allowed
when copying an instance (as Jackson is apparently attempting to do). I
use the term "copy" in a somewhat loose sense here - not intending to
indicate that it must have no alterations whatsoever.
>>>Why not?
>>
>>As you put it, disrespect for Tolkien's work. If someone's going to have
>>an impression of Middle-earth and the stories set therein, accurate or
>>otherwise, it should at least be *based* in the works of Tolkien.
>
> Why? I'm sorry, but you're tossing around words like "should" and
> "right", which definitely imply a moral aspect to this whole issue, and
> I'm curious about your basis for it.
I'm a purist.
If you're going to call a thing by the same name as something good, and
base it along vaguely the same lines as that something, it should not be
significantly different in any important way from that something.
The fact that I hold the view expressed by second statement (in some
form - I have not managed to express it perfectly) is one of the
consequences of the former.
The Wanderer
He (like a few other characters) was more important in an earlier
revision, but lost some of his significance by the final rewrites. I
seem to recall that there were originally plans to have Helm himself (or
perhaps a descendant thereof?) present for the battle, but that didn't last.
R Dan Henry
dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Frances Kathleen Moffatt) declared:
>R Dan Henry (rdan...@earthlink.net) writes:
>> <jro...@prince.carleton.ca> declared:
>
>>>But it's still remarkable. Nobody who is a non-Hobbit who touches the
>>>Ring can ever resist it. We see two Hobbits (Merry and Pippin) who never
>>>even *think* about taking the Ring for themselves, and another *three* who
>>>hold it, use it, and then voluntarily give it up.[1]
>> Well, the One Ring was meant by Sauron to bind Men, Elves, and
>> Dwarves. While Hobbits are technically Men, they are a unique subrace
>> and were not the intended targets of the whole ring scheme.
>
>*blinks* Which-what? Everything I've seen suggests that hobbits are a
>different race, like dwarves or elves, definitely not "big people".
>Reference?
http://www.daimi.aau.dk/~bouvin/tolkien/hobbitssubhuman.html
and, in general, those interested may want to bookmark the
hypertextualized Tolkien FAQ:
http://www.daimi.aau.dk/~bouvin/tolkienfaq.html
>> Even then,
>> it's just a slower process with them. And it's harder for the One to
>> tempt a Hobbit with power in part because a Hobbit with the One
>> *still* wouldn't have much power. Look at poor Gollum. Hardly the
>> mighty new Dark Lord/Lady that Gandalf or Galadriel would become with
>> the One.
>
>Look at Gollum, indeed; he's not much with the Ring, and yet he murders
>his brother within hours of seeing it. That kind of puts a hole in the
>theory that it doesn't work well on people that it can't make great.
Only if you can show that Gollum was corrupted by the Ring's magic,
rather than it's being a shiny gold pretty. There have been plenty of
murders over those. I've always suspected Smeagol wasn't really *that*
nice a guy to begin with. Not that the Ring isn't at work on him from
the beginning, but Bilbo also covets it almost immediately and lies
about the legitimacy of his claim to the it. (This is one of the clues
that got Gandalf on the right track.) But the willingness to murder
for a thing desired, that I do not ascribe to the Ring, but to
Smeagol.
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
>>Frances Kathleen Moffatt (dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>> OTOH, I thought Smeagol was only "not so very different" from a hobbit
>>> once, not an actual hobbit. (He doesn't *sound* like a hobbit.) Maybe
>>> the little differences are enough.
>>Right. I plead a correction.
>>Smeagol and Deagol are both Stoors. The Stoors are historically or
>>ancestrally hobbits, who came over the Redhorn pass and moved to either
> http://www.daimi.aau.dk/~bouvin/tolkien/gollumhobbit.html
*Neat*. Thank you.
Perhaps only hobbits who have properly settled down and occasionally smoke
pipeweed are resistant to the One Ring? (Yes, the pipeweed bit is
silliness.)
Love and coffee,
Frances
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> Frances Kathleen Moffatt said:
>>Dammit, "Because" is not a suitable answer when you want someone to
>>explain why they think evolution must occur in Middle-Earth.
> ::grins::
> Some people just have to fit everything into a little square box. This guy
> sounds like he'd have a heart attack if he ever partook of the Silent Planet
> Trilogy....
I can understand wanting to box stuff. It's the lack of words after
"Because" that tend to drive me batguano. (I suppose that's my own
square-boxing coming through...)
Love and coffee,
Frances (hasn't read the Silent Planet stuff yet)
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> Frances Kathleen Moffatt wrote:
>> The Wanderer (inverse...@comcast.net) writes:
[snip Gollum recap]
>> Given that Gollum is still limping around in one piece, it obviously
>> wasn't done within Sam's hearing.
> But it *was*. Sam was lying half-awake, having been asleep, and heard
> Gollum having this debate with himself - from the first "Smeagol
> promised" through the final "Yes! We wants it! We wants it!" with a
> mention of "She might, yes" along the way. He interrupted just as Gollum
> (Stinker) was reaching out again towards the Ring, and looked likely to
> not stop himself this time.
Hrrm? I seem to recall the planning been done as Gollum hopped ahead of
them through the forest.
*shrug* IAC, if Sam listened, but he did not hear. Come on, can you
imagine Sam letting Gollum hop around free and not telling Frodo that he
was plotting murder if he thought that he'd heard a plan, rather than a
serious of vaguely ominous rambles?
>> That said; what is wrong with a recap? Gandalf only said "Fly, you
>> fools." once--does that mean it shouldn't show up in Frodo's dream
>> sequence, as it does at the beginning of the movie?
>> [snip own comments about how Gollum's plan can be foreshadowed]
> To the second question: yes, and no. It shouldn't have happened again,
> and recaps in the course of a story are generally bad (it's better to
> have a "previously" section, which in fact the original trilogy did),
> but since it added scenes and told previously unshown pieces of the tale
> (which would have come later in the book, though the move is acceptable
> in the minor-changes line) without being obtrusive it gets a pass.
Euugh. Actually, I'm really glad they didn't do a "previously in LoTR"
section; they always come across as so cheesy. I honestly can't think of
another way to start TTT that would have brought back the memory of all the
glory and heroism and tragedy/pathos from the first movie, all at once, and
let me get right back into the mood so quickly. Ancient and powerful
adversary. Defiance against a very real threat, so that the Ring-Bearer
may carry on. Victory. Near-escape. Falling into darkness, an image and
a phrase that resonates, always. Grief, and the urgency of the quest
forcing them on regardless.
(But hey, I loved that scene in the first movie. I <tear> when Gandalf
died--okay, when Frodo's crying for him. Also Glen Bateman, but that's a
whole 'nother book.)
I do wonder at this point if the "previously" section in the original
trilogy was there at the behest of Tolkein or the publisher. If it was
there at the behest of the publisher, would you object to it? :)
> And you *do* have to recap enough of it for a mention of "She" or "Her",
> unless you want to leave things out despite referring to them. Which
> they've done enough of already that I wouldn't put it past them....
I disagree. All you have to do is toss in enough body language/ominous
shading to make it clear that Gollum is setting up Frodo and Sam. No-one
has to know anything about Shelob specifically for there to be drama or
tension about the impending betrayal.
A mere gleeful yelp from Gollum along the lines of "Yessss! She has
killed/will kill the thief/tricksy hobbitses!" at an appropriate moment
will tie the betrayal in with his mention of She/Her at the end of TTT
for those who remember (though I doubt most people will forget).
And it's not at all going to be out of character for Gollum to go on about
his precious, which given his well-portrayed obsession with it neatly
provides reasonable motivation for anyone who wasn't paying attention and
is wondering why he'd betray the hobbits. (Yes, I know he made up the
plan after he felt betrayed and got captured; he's still doing it to get
his precious back.)
>> It is perhaps worth observing at this point that if someone has not
>> noticed that the movies are frequently different from the books, it
>> implies either a vast indifference to details (at which point they might
>> not notice any difference) or a serious unlikeliness to ever read the book
>> a movie is based on (at which point they're not going to read Tolkein,
>> anyway, so let them have their nifty fantasy movie).
> Minor differences are acceptable, remotely-major differences are by and
> large not. And I suspect that I disagree with you on your final comment.
> I'm a purist, and not particularly ashamed of the fact.
Fair enough. I've long since come to the conclusion that there's no way
to make people pay attention to details even if they do read the books,
and am trying desperately not to care what people who don't pay too much
attention to detail think of stories that are important to me, since I'll
never be able to get all of them to pay attention to the details and my
life is too short anyway.
> Given that they haven't read the books and aren't going to, they are
> unlikely to assert that "Tolkien wrote such-and-such" when that isn't
> the case. However, they may well assert that "The Lord of the Rings does
> such-and-such" or "Middle-earth involves such-and-such" or something
> similar when it is not the case. I object to facilitating this.
Fair enough (and yes, they likely will).
>> Peter Jackson has created a reasonable facsimile of a world (Tolkein's).
>> It is not exactly as the original was, but it is still enjoyable. People
>> may contrast it with the original, or only interact with it (and not read
>> the books), or watch it as interesting light fluff. Either way, other
>> people's reactions will not affect my enjoyment of it; I am satisfied with
>> Jackson's efforts to bring the world to a new medium, and think he has
>> done very well.
> I don't. It would have been possible for him to do far, far worse, but I
> do not think that it was done close enough to perfect for me to use the
> phrase "very well" in any general sense.
I do. Our mileage obviously varies; given "a Dark Lord, and a Ring, and
the end of the world", to quote Sam, and the easily recognizable
characters, and the similarity of events, and the fact that I can
recognize scenes and places and events and know pretty well what's going
to happen, I think it was close enough to say "very well".
>> Thomas Biskup has created a reasonable facsimile of a world (generic
>> largely AD&D-influenced fantasy). It is not exactly as the original was
>> (since no tabletop game or book ever destroyed itself via signal 291, or
>> prevented protagonists from actually conversing), but it is still
>> enjoyable. People may contrast it with the original ("You can't do that
>> in <foo> book/my tabletop"), or only interact with it (and not play or
>> read fantasy), or treat it as interesting light fluff (and scum to hell
>> and back). Either way, other people's reactions will not affect my
>> enjoyment of it; I am satisfied with TB's efforts to bring the world to a
>> new medium, and think he has done very well.
> The difference is that TB is creating a new instance of a general thing
> in the new medium, whereas Jackson is creating a new instance (if
> that's even the appropriate phrase) of a *specific* thing in the new medium.
Yes. And given that it's a very different medium and that even without it
Jackson is operating under constraints that Tolkein didn't have, I think
he's done very well.
> Put another way: "generic largely AD&D-influenced fantasy" (which is not
> a specific world, it's a collection of loosely similar worlds) is, as
> indicated, generic and non-specific. "Tolkien's", as you put it, *is* a
> specific world (or rather, one of several specific worlds - but we're
> only talking about one of them here). What is allowed when instantiating
> a class (as TB has done) is considerably looser than what is allowed
> when copying an instance (as Jackson is apparently attempting to do). I
> use the term "copy" in a somewhat loose sense here - not intending to
> indicate that it must have no alterations whatsoever.
Would this be a good time to point out that Jackson has said "I've made a
*film*, where I felt my primary responsibility was as a filmmaker hopefully
making a good movie. I didn't want to be a totally slavish Tolkien
interpreter and I didn't feel that was my primary job." which would tend
to indicate that he's not trying to copy the books, even in a somewhat
loose sense, but to tell the story in a way appropriate for film?
>>> If someone's going to have
>>>an impression of Middle-earth and the stories set therein, accurate or
>>>otherwise, it should at least be *based* in the works of Tolkien.
>> Why? I'm sorry, but you're tossing around words like "should" and
>> "right", which definitely imply a moral aspect to this whole issue, and
>> I'm curious about your basis for it.
> I'm a purist.
> If you're going to call a thing by the same name as something good, and
> base it along vaguely the same lines as that something, it should not be
> significantly different in any important way from that something.
I don't think it is.
But we have different definitions of what constitutes differing in an
important way.
Love and coffee,
Frances
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Frances Kathleen Moffatt) declared:
>>R Dan Henry (rdan...@earthlink.net) writes:
>>*blinks* Which-what? Everything I've seen suggests that hobbits are a
>>different race, like dwarves or elves, definitely not "big people".
>>Reference?
> http://www.daimi.aau.dk/~bouvin/tolkien/hobbitssubhuman.html
> and, in general, those interested may want to bookmark the
> hypertextualized Tolkien FAQ:
> http://www.daimi.aau.dk/~bouvin/tolkienfaq.html
*bows* I do thank you, again. I'd read the prologue, but it didn't
strike me as conclusive, seeming to put the hobbits as "related to us the
same way Elves or Dwarves are, except closer" rather than "specifically a
sub-race, rather than a different related race". Tolkein's letter is very
clear, though.
>>> Even then,
>>> it's just a slower process with them. And it's harder for the One to
>>> tempt a Hobbit with power in part because a Hobbit with the One
>>> *still* wouldn't have much power. Look at poor Gollum. Hardly the
>>> mighty new Dark Lord/Lady that Gandalf or Galadriel would become with
>>> the One.
>>Look at Gollum, indeed; he's not much with the Ring, and yet he murders
>>his brother within hours of seeing it. That kind of puts a hole in the
>>theory that it doesn't work well on people that it can't make great.
> Only if you can show that Gollum was corrupted by the Ring's magic,
> rather than it's being a shiny gold pretty. There have been plenty of
> murders over those. I've always suspected Smeagol wasn't really *that*
> nice a guy to begin with. Not that the Ring isn't at work on him from
> the beginning, but Bilbo also covets it almost immediately and lies
> about the legitimacy of his claim to the it. (This is one of the clues
> that got Gandalf on the right track.) But the willingness to murder
> for a thing desired, that I do not ascribe to the Ring, but to
> Smeagol.
I'll continue to ascribe it to the Ring. As the link you gave points out,
hobbits are abnormally free from ambition or greed; the worst thing we
ever see one do (in circumstances where the Ring isn't involved) is become
a smug and throughly nasty bureaucrat. It's a far cry from that to
murder (and, for what it's worth, Deagol presumably knows Smeagol fairly
well and apparently doesn't expect him to turn into a murderer over a
shiny).
Love and coffee,
Frances
John Rowat
> Frances Kathleen Moffatt wrote:
>> Given that Gollum is still limping around in one piece, it obviously
>> wasn't done within Sam's hearing.
> But it *was*. Sam was lying half-awake, having been asleep, and heard
> Gollum having this debate with himself - from the first "Smeagol
> promised" through the final "Yes! We wants it! We wants it!" with a
> mention of "She might, yes" along the way. He interrupted just as Gollum
> (Stinker) was reaching out again towards the Ring, and looked likely to
> not stop himself this time.
See, here is where you realise that you're not talking about the same
thing as everyone else, that nobody else cares about what you're talking
about because it's been SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED from this discussion, and
you go back and come up with a new reply based on those two little facts.
*In the movie*, Gollum does his plotting *far away* from Sam and Frodo,
while hopping thorugh the woods, while they're looking for him and, since
they have no idea where he is until he steps out and yells at them,
obviously they can't overhear him. He does it this way instead of right
in front of Sam because the movie assumes that the character of Sam, who
is a suspicious bastard when it comes to Gollum at this point, should not
suddenly break character and completely ignore a diabolical monologue
obviously involving his forthcoming death.
The movie makes this assumption because, unlike Tolkien, it was edited for
continuity and consistency of characterisation, and also unlike Tolkien,
it assumes that the audience will take it badly when a character suddenly
switches from brilliant to moronic as the story requires him to ignore the
obvious.
Tolkien's story was excellent. His world was obscenely detailed. His
writing was passable at best and terrible for the most part. If it hadn't
been improved on at least somewhat, we'd be stuck with the fantasy
equivalent of Jake Lloyd using lines like "Yippee!" and Gollum saying
"Yousa thinka people gonna die?".
> I'm a purist.
I agree. This is, in the area of movie adaptations of literary works, not
something to be proud of. It is, in fact, something to be suppressed with
the zeal normally reserved for starving pit bulls chasing fat chihuahuas
that have been dipped in barbecue sauce and lightly seasoned.
To do otherwise here would lead to the horrors of Ralph Bakshi.
-John
--
On the other hand, I am not dead. I get much mail, indignantly,
telling me flat out that I am. . .
The day I actually do die no one will believe it.
-Jim "The Ultimate Warrior" Hellwig
John Rowat
> Yeah, but they looked CGish if you ask me. Really, for all the
> improvements, CG has yet to look trully realistic.
> Give it a few years, I suppose.
Ahem.
Simone, anyone?
Alternately, check out the fictional British newscaster babe.
R Dan Henry
<inverse...@comcast.net> declared:
>William Tanksley Google wrote:
>> But regardless, the book seems to imply that they were deeper than any
>> had been before -- in the presence of many "nameless things". I even
>> seem to recall (but could be wrong about) Tolkien stating that they
>> were deeper than the dwarves had ever delved. But I can't check that
>> right now (unless I were to download a pirated copy... Hmm...).
>
>You might be right... and I have such a copy (alongside our legitimate
>one), I just haven't unzipped it yet. Despite that, I would point out
>that the presence of "nameless things" A) might be hyperbole (given the
>full cosmology) and B) does not necessarily indicate that no one had
>been there before, just that either the things had not been there or
>that if they had then they had not ben given names.
Gandalf sez:
'We fought far under the living earth... Far, far below the deepest
delvings of the Dwarves... Now I have walked there..."
-- The Two Tower, "The White Rider"
Juho Julkunen
> As roses wither, so does LizM7:
>
> > Yeah, but they looked CGish if you ask me. Really, for all the
> > improvements, CG has yet to look trully realistic.
> > Give it a few years, I suppose.
>
> Ahem.
>
> Simone, anyone?
I don't think a human actress playing a CG character counts.
JTJ
--
A child of five could understand this! Fetch me a child of five.
The Wanderer
> The Wanderer (inverse...@comcast.net) writes:
>
>>Frances Kathleen Moffatt wrote:
>>
>>>The Wanderer (inverse...@comcast.net) writes:
>
> [snip Gollum recap]
>
>>>Given that Gollum is still limping around in one piece, it obviously
>>>wasn't done within Sam's hearing.
>>
>>But it *was*. Sam was lying half-awake, having been asleep, and heard
>>Gollum having this debate with himself - from the first "Smeagol
>>promised" through the final "Yes! We wants it! We wants it!" with a
>>mention of "She might, yes" along the way. He interrupted just as Gollum
>>(Stinker) was reaching out again towards the Ring, and looked likely to
>>not stop himself this time.
>
> Hrrm? I seem to recall the planning been done as Gollum hopped ahead of
> them through the forest.
That's in the movie. I was referring to the book - sorry if I didn't
make that sufficiently clear.
> *shrug* IAC, if Sam listened, but he did not hear. Come on, can you
> imagine Sam letting Gollum hop around free and not telling Frodo that he
> was plotting murder if he thought that he'd heard a plan, rather than a
> serious of vaguely ominous rambles?
It *is* a series of vaguely ominous rambles in the book, albeit perhaps
rather dangerous-sounding ones; still, the "why doesn't Sam say/do
anything?" question is a reasonable one. There may be a reason and there
may not, I don't know offhand.
>>>That said; what is wrong with a recap? Gandalf only said "Fly, you
>>>fools." once--does that mean it shouldn't show up in Frodo's dream
>>>sequence, as it does at the beginning of the movie?
>>>[snip own comments about how Gollum's plan can be foreshadowed]
>>
>>To the second question: yes, and no. It shouldn't have happened again,
>>and recaps in the course of a story are generally bad (it's better to
>>have a "previously" section, which in fact the original trilogy did),
>>but since it added scenes and told previously unshown pieces of the tale
>>(which would have come later in the book, though the move is acceptable
>>in the minor-changes line) without being obtrusive it gets a pass.
>
> Euugh. Actually, I'm really glad they didn't do a "previously in LoTR"
> section; they always come across as so cheesy. I honestly can't think of
> another way to start TTT that would have brought back the memory of all the
> glory and heroism and tragedy/pathos from the first movie, all at once, and
> let me get right back into the mood so quickly. Ancient and powerful
> adversary. Defiance against a very real threat, so that the Ring-Bearer
> may carry on. Victory. Near-escape. Falling into darkness, an image and
> a phrase that resonates, always. Grief, and the urgency of the quest
> forcing them on regardless.
In this instance I suspect I agree. However, I am by and large opposed
to the 'recap in the course of the story' in general unless there's a
very good in-story reason for it.
> I do wonder at this point if the "previously" section in the original
> trilogy was there at the behest of Tolkein or the publisher. If it was
> there at the behest of the publisher, would you object to it? :)
Depends, but probably not, and the point is difficult to judge it was
present when I first encountered the work and so my judgement may well
be clouded on the matter.
>>And you *do* have to recap enough of it for a mention of "She" or "Her",
>>unless you want to leave things out despite referring to them. Which
>>they've done enough of already that I wouldn't put it past them....
>
> I disagree. All you have to do is toss in enough body language/ominous
> shading to make it clear that Gollum is setting up Frodo and Sam. No-one
> has to know anything about Shelob specifically for there to be drama or
> tension about the impending betrayal.
>
> A mere gleeful yelp from Gollum along the lines of "Yessss! She has
> killed/will kill the thief/tricksy hobbitses!" at an appropriate moment
> will tie the betrayal in with his mention of She/Her at the end of TTT
> for those who remember (though I doubt most people will forget).
Possibly. All of this, however, is still a matter of more alteration
than I would prefer to countenance, so I don't like to discuss it much
anyway.
> And it's not at all going to be out of character for Gollum to go on about
> his precious, which given his well-portrayed obsession with it neatly
> provides reasonable motivation for anyone who wasn't paying attention and
> is wondering why he'd betray the hobbits. (Yes, I know he made up the
> plan after he felt betrayed and got captured; he's still doing it to get
> his precious back.)
Admitted.
>>>It is perhaps worth observing at this point that if someone has not
>>>noticed that the movies are frequently different from the books, it
>>>implies either a vast indifference to details (at which point they might
>>>not notice any difference) or a serious unlikeliness to ever read the book
>>>a movie is based on (at which point they're not going to read Tolkein,
>>>anyway, so let them have their nifty fantasy movie).
>>
>>Minor differences are acceptable, remotely-major differences are by and
>>large not. And I suspect that I disagree with you on your final comment.
>>I'm a purist, and not particularly ashamed of the fact.
>
> Fair enough. I've long since come to the conclusion that there's no way
> to make people pay attention to details even if they do read the books,
> and am trying desperately not to care what people who don't pay too much
> attention to detail think of stories that are important to me, since I'll
> never be able to get all of them to pay attention to the details and my
> life is too short anyway.
I can go along with that, I think. My problem is a matter of general
impression rather than of detail, since I don't have the same "this is
*wrong*" bit about the obscure details that I do with the more general
matters, but nonetheless.
>>>Peter Jackson has created a reasonable facsimile of a world (Tolkein's).
>>>It is not exactly as the original was, but it is still enjoyable. People
>>>may contrast it with the original, or only interact with it (and not read
>>>the books), or watch it as interesting light fluff. Either way, other
>>>people's reactions will not affect my enjoyment of it; I am satisfied with
>>>Jackson's efforts to bring the world to a new medium, and think he has
>>>done very well.
>>
>>I don't. It would have been possible for him to do far, far worse, but I
>>do not think that it was done close enough to perfect for me to use the
>>phrase "very well" in any general sense.
>
> I do. Our mileage obviously varies; given "a Dark Lord, and a Ring, and
> the end of the world", to quote Sam, and the easily recognizable
> characters, and the similarity of events, and the fact that I can
> recognize scenes and places and events and know pretty well what's going
> to happen, I think it was close enough to say "very well".
The points you cite might perhaps be enough for me to say "well enough",
but by themselves they don't reach the level of "very well".
>>>Thomas Biskup has created a reasonable facsimile of a world (generic
>>>largely AD&D-influenced fantasy). It is not exactly as the original was
>>>(since no tabletop game or book ever destroyed itself via signal 291, or
>>>prevented protagonists from actually conversing), but it is still
>>>enjoyable. People may contrast it with the original ("You can't do that
>>>in <foo> book/my tabletop"), or only interact with it (and not play or
>>>read fantasy), or treat it as interesting light fluff (and scum to hell
>>>and back). Either way, other people's reactions will not affect my
>>>enjoyment of it; I am satisfied with TB's efforts to bring the world to a
>>>new medium, and think he has done very well.
>>
>>The difference is that TB is creating a new instance of a general thing
>>in the new medium, whereas Jackson is creating a new instance (if
>>that's even the appropriate phrase) of a *specific* thing in the new medium.
>
> Yes. And given that it's a very different medium and that even without it
> Jackson is operating under constraints that Tolkein didn't have, I think
> he's done very well.
No comment.
>>Put another way: "generic largely AD&D-influenced fantasy" (which is not
>>a specific world, it's a collection of loosely similar worlds) is, as
>>indicated, generic and non-specific. "Tolkien's", as you put it, *is* a
>>specific world (or rather, one of several specific worlds - but we're
>>only talking about one of them here). What is allowed when instantiating
>>a class (as TB has done) is considerably looser than what is allowed
>>when copying an instance (as Jackson is apparently attempting to do). I
>>use the term "copy" in a somewhat loose sense here - not intending to
>>indicate that it must have no alterations whatsoever.
>
> Would this be a good time to point out that Jackson has said "I've made a
> *film*, where I felt my primary responsibility was as a filmmaker hopefully
> making a good movie. I didn't want to be a totally slavish Tolkien
> interpreter and I didn't feel that was my primary job." which would tend
> to indicate that he's not trying to copy the books, even in a somewhat
> loose sense, but to tell the story in a way appropriate for film?
It might, and I think it is indeed possible to act in a way consistent
with what he indicated and still produce a good and reasonably-accurate
work. If I were insisting on the level of adherence which he indicates
he's not aiming for, then I would object to the omission of - oh, the
stone-troll scene, the presents for the guests at the Birthday Party,
the entire Tom Bombadil sequence, the full common-room sequences at
Bree, the visit of the Black Riders to the house to which Frodo was
ostensibly moving, the "incurable dint in my hat" line with Gandalf's
reappearance, and a slew of other things both major and minor; not to
mention all the alterations which I left out of the above list because
the relevant scenes technically weren't *omitted*.
I do not insist on that level of adherence, though I think it *might* be
possible to make a good movie or set of movies while adhering that
closely to the original; what I *do* insist on is that the major points
be done, and done both well and accurately. The first movie was, despite
numerous small flaws of one degree or another, reasonably acceptable by
that latter set of criteria; the second movie was not.
>>>>If someone's going to have
>>>>an impression of Middle-earth and the stories set therein, accurate or
>>>>otherwise, it should at least be *based* in the works of Tolkien.
>>>
>>>Why? I'm sorry, but you're tossing around words like "should" and
>>>"right", which definitely imply a moral aspect to this whole issue, and
>>>I'm curious about your basis for it.
>>
>>I'm a purist.
>>If you're going to call a thing by the same name as something good, and
>>base it along vaguely the same lines as that something, it should not be
>>significantly different in any important way from that something.
>
> I don't think it is.
>
> But we have different definitions of what constitutes differing in an
> important way.
Apparently so.
I hope you'll still be interested enough in this to take a look at
whatever version I end up producing, if I do end up creating one which
is not so terrible that I don't want anybody to see it who I can prevent
from doing so...
--
The Wanderer, not sure you'll still be alive by then
The Wanderer
> As roses wither, so does The Wanderer:
>
>>Frances Kathleen Moffatt wrote:
>
>>>Given that Gollum is still limping around in one piece, it obviously
>>>wasn't done within Sam's hearing.
>
>>But it *was*. Sam was lying half-awake, having been asleep, and heard
>>Gollum having this debate with himself - from the first "Smeagol
>>promised" through the final "Yes! We wants it! We wants it!" with a
>>mention of "She might, yes" along the way. He interrupted just as Gollum
>>(Stinker) was reaching out again towards the Ring, and looked likely to
>>not stop himself this time.
>
> See, here is where you realise that you're not talking about the same
> thing as everyone else, that nobody else cares about what you're talking
> about because it's been SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED from this discussion, and
> you go back and come up with a new reply based on those two little facts.
I do not recall its having been specifically excluded. I may not have
indicated sufficiently clearly that I was referring to the book; I
certainly intended to do so, and if I did not then I apologize for that.
I also think that you are being unnecessarily rude and (possibly)
offensive here, but that's another issue entirely.
> *In the movie*, Gollum does his plotting *far away* from Sam and Frodo,
> while hopping thorugh the woods, while they're looking for him and, since
> they have no idea where he is until he steps out and yells at them,
> obviously they can't overhear him. He does it this way instead of right
> in front of Sam because the movie assumes that the character of Sam, who
> is a suspicious bastard when it comes to Gollum at this point, should not
> suddenly break character and completely ignore a diabolical monologue
> obviously involving his forthcoming death.
I can conceive of possible reasons for him to have not done anything
discernibly different because of having overheard it, though not
necessarily good ones, but I don't care to attempt to convey them
because I don't think I could do so successfully and I don't want to
violate my personal "truth in advertising" rule.
> The movie makes this assumption because, unlike Tolkien, it was edited for
> continuity and consistency of characterisation, and also unlike Tolkien,
> it assumes that the audience will take it badly when a character suddenly
> switches from brilliant to moronic as the story requires him to ignore the
> obvious.
This sort of comment might be appropriate in a forum for the in-depth
analysis, debate and discussion of Tolkien and his works. In a
more-or-less casual discussion of a subset of that subject, with little
if any of the complex conversational background such a comment requires
to be appropriate, it seems rather out of place.
> Tolkien's story was excellent. His world was obscenely detailed. His
> writing was passable at best and terrible for the most part. If it hadn't
> been improved on at least somewhat, we'd be stuck with the fantasy
> equivalent of Jake Lloyd using lines like "Yippee!" and Gollum saying
> "Yousa thinka people gonna die?".
I agree, I agree, I disagree, and I disagree.
A point you seem to miss is that I, along with at least some other
people, *like* Tolkien's writing style; it's a good part of why I like
his works. Just because some people (perhaps the majority - I have no
evidence one way or another, and I suspect neither have you) dislike it,
or just because it is (*if* it is - I have yet to be convinced of this
point) in a formal sense passable to terrible, does not make the least
bit of difference to that point.
>>I'm a purist.
>
> I agree. This is, in the area of movie adaptations of literary works, not
> something to be proud of. It is, in fact, something to be suppressed with
> the zeal normally reserved for starving pit bulls chasing fat chihuahuas
> that have been dipped in barbecue sauce and lightly seasoned.
I disagree.
> To do otherwise here would lead to the horrors of Ralph Bakshi.
I had never heard of him before this thread, but I infer (perhaps
mistakenly) that he is responsible for the earlier animated LotR series;
I admit that that series (which I have seen virtually nothing of) is
reasonably execrable. I fail to see how this can be considered to be
derived from or based on or in any way related to an excessive degree of
purism on the subject.
The Wanderer
Point conceded. This still leaves a couple of points that don't make
sense to me, but I suspect that at least one of them would resolve
itself if I were to go back and actually reread the book with the
questions in mind.
William Tanksley Google
> *bows* I do thank you, again. I'd read the prologue, but it didn't
> strike me as conclusive, seeming to put the hobbits as "related to us the
> same way Elves or Dwarves are, except closer" rather than "specifically a
> sub-race, rather than a different related race". Tolkein's letter is very
> clear, though.
Humans are not, of course, related to dwarves at ALL; in Tolkien's
story we have different creators (although the same life). Our
relationship to elves is not clear to me; in fact, I don't recall how
Tolkien explained the appearance of Man. I seem to recall man just
wandering into the story in the Sil.
> Frances
-Billy
John Rowat
> John Rowat (jro...@prince.carleton.ca) wrote...
>> As roses wither, so does LizM7:
>>
>> > Yeah, but they looked CGish if you ask me. Really, for all the
>> > improvements, CG has yet to look trully realistic.
>> > Give it a few years, I suppose.
>>
> I don't think a human actress playing a CG character counts.
Heh. You know, I saw the movie, was sure she was real, checked the
credits, didn't see the character listed with a credit, and was duly
shocked and amazed.
A cursory web search proves that my shock and amazement is entirely
unjustified.
John Rowat
>>>I'm a purist.
>>
>> I agree. This is, in the area of movie adaptations of literary works, not
>> something to be proud of. It is, in fact, something to be suppressed with
>> the zeal normally reserved for starving pit bulls chasing fat chihuahuas
>> that have been dipped in barbecue sauce and lightly seasoned.
>> To do otherwise here would lead to the horrors of Ralph Bakshi.
> I had never heard of him before this thread, but I infer (perhaps
> mistakenly) that he is responsible for the earlier animated LotR series;
There was no series, just Fellowship. Nobody wanted more out of him.
> I admit that that series (which I have seen virtually nothing of) is
> reasonably execrable. I fail to see how this can be considered to be
> derived from or based on or in any way related to an excessive degree of
> purism on the subject.
His translation of book to film was excellent, almost word-for-word
perfect. Some of his tricks, like showing the orcs in reversed-colours,
were very impressive. What made the movie terrible, though, wasn't the
animation, (which I don't like, being Bakshi) but the TERRIBLE DIALOGUE,
miserable pacing, nonsensical side twists and wooden characters are what
make it completely unwatchable.
All of those are taken directly from the book.
Tolkien was a horrible writer in desperate need of an editor. His genius
was in his world and his story, in his attention to detail, and it's a
tribute to those that despite his failings as a writer he's considered a
legendary one.
Just consider Jackson to be a long-overdue editor. Try watching the
movies while forgetting everything you know about the books - in fact, if
you can, get the extended director's cut versions and watch THOSE with
this in mind. Which of those has more background and history? The
books. Which has better dialogue, more interesting characters, fewer plot
holes, and better pacing?
Arwen must die. The Ents made no sense. Falling off a cliff was a waste
of time and really didn't do anything for The Two Towers. I will still
happily accept all of these things if only to get rid of Little Dancing
Frodo, Tom The Useless Hippy Bombadil, characters who ignore the obvious
because The Plot Needs It, and the endless, nonstop singing at every
opportunity by characters for whom it is completely out of character.
joeru
<inverse...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>Yes, I know it happened. But it happened *after Frodo and Sam had
>already left*, and - as I said - it was never shown on screen. I never
>claimed he didn't go there; he *has* to have gone there, in order to get
>back from Ithilien. But he does not do so onscreen, and certainly not
>with hobbits present.
Ah, my apologies for misreading your words. *embarrassed look*
But now I have to ask (for I still haven't seen the movie, yes, I know
I should go watch it), does Faramir hold (the quoted but now-snipped)
discussions with his father before going to Osgiliath? If not, that's
another great potential situation lost in showing Faramir's true
personality.
-- joeru