Movie: Anticlimactic (Spoilers)
Russ
anticlimactic. With all the "wow" reviews it sort of left me expecting more
than I got. Which may be unfair but, thats the way it is.
There were three main weaknesses and several minor I saw. First, as others have
noted, Denethor. In the books, Denethor was probably one of Tolkien's most
complex characters - bad and good, noble and ignoble intertwined. It seems to
be a habit of PJ et al to weaken Tolkien's characters (Faramir and Aragorn).
What made Denethor so interesting was the dichotomy. He was of Numenorean
blood undimmed, he did set up a masterful defense that took Sauron aback, he
could intellectually parry with Gandalf, etc. Instead, one of the most
interesting and complex of Tolkien's characters was turned into a caricature.
Lost is the idea that Denethor provided as good a defense for Minas Tirith as
could be hoped; instead he was seen to have long ago abandoned his duties.
Lost is the Denethor who threw open his robes to reveal that he wore his armor
to maintain readiness for battle. Gone is the Denethor who was truly moved by
Pippin's gesture of fealty. Gone is any explanation of his descent into
madness and despair; instead he is replaced by simply a mean old crazy man. In
the book, Gandalf's words at his passing were ones of remorse and regret at
what could have been. In the movie they were words of contempt and spite -
which pretty much sums up my thoughts on what was done to Denethor. And oh
yeah: slobbering Denethor eating dinner and flaming Denethor running off the
cliff. Nuff said.
Second, the Dead Men of Dunharrow. Before seeing the movie, I understood why
PJ got rid of the attack on Pelargir and had the Dead Men show up at Pelennor
instead. Upon seeing the movie, it was a bad mistake. Why? Because it made
the Ride of Rohirrim virtually meaningless. If a virtually indestructible army
of undead were going to show up at Pelennor and wipe out the WK's entire army
then what was the point of the sacrifice of the Rohirrim? Their sacrifice
becomes meaningless because the WK's army would have been slaughtered anyway.
I also wasn't very impressed with the look of the Dead Men. IMPO, I think a
more substantial look like that found in the Pirates of the Carribbean would
have worked better. Side note of the Ride of the Rohirrim. This is only a
minor nit but I would have preferred their attack more of a surprise; rather
than show up on a knoll overlooking the battlefield and have Theoden give his
speech in full view of the WK's army. Once they got going however, the Ride
was absolutely stunning.
Third, the lack of explanation for Sauron's actions. In the book, it was
pretty well laid out what Sauron's maotivations and strategies were, especially
towards the very end: Sauron sees Pippin in the Palantir and assumes he is the
halfling with the Ring; then he sees Aragorn, heir of Isildur and assumes it is
Isildur's heir who now has the Ring and is headed for Minas Tirith. This is
important because it explains the battle at Morannon much more. The reason
Sauron perceived the Army of the King as such a threat is because he thought
Aragorn was there ready to wield his Ring. Although a non-reader might be able
to divine this (and a reader can simply insert these ideas freely) they are not
really found in the movie itself.
Now lets move on to the more minor nitpicks:
Stupid tactics. 1) When Grond breaks the Gate and the orc army starts pouring
in we hear calls to get the women and children out of there. Excuse me, but
considering the amount of warning they had of the attack, why the heck are
there any women an children in *any* of the lower levels of the city, never
mind the lowest level. 2) The Two Towers already established that a fairly
large and steep hill (the one Sam fell down) was pretty darn close to the Black
Gate. The hill disappeared in ROTK and if it was still really there why didn't
Aragorn array his army in front of it so he would not be surrounded.
Denouement: A real sleeper. I *do* certainly agree with the idea of going
back to the Shire and seeing the Havens but what happened in the movie simply
didn't work. This seems to be purely directorial. It's hard to explain
exactly why, but for me it simply didn't work.
Faramir's Charge: I think PJ's change didn't work. In the movie, Faramir's
hopeless charge was simply overly melodramatic. I feld like I was watching the
charge of the light brigade. It played into the whole problem with Denethor
who in the books would never have thrown away men like that, at least not at
that point. In the book, the fighting retreat of Faramir from the Rammas was
an excellent scene and I think would have played well on film. Instead the
horse dragging the limp body of Faramir on the ground not more than 50 yards
from the van of the WK's army bordered on the ludicrous.
Elrond: Ok, Elrond, great warrior according to the preface of the first movie,
shows up in Rohan as the Rohirrim are about to rescue Minas Tirith and Aragorn
et al are about to take the path of the dead. Then he apparently goes back
hope to pick up Arwen. Of course in the books it is Elrond's sons who show up
in the general vicinity and do the expected thing - accompany Aragorn on his
mission.
Galadriel: Let me get this straight: we lost the Voice of Saruman for the
dream of Galadriel?
That's all I can think of for now.
Russ
----------------------
"If you are in Iraq and there is an attack in America, you're going to look out
of position, and no one wants that, particularly during a sweeps month," Dan
Rather on why he won't visit Iraq.
pawn
> Took off work early and saw the movie. As the subject line says, it was
> anticlimactic. With all the "wow" reviews it sort of left me expecting more
> than I got. Which may be unfair but, thats the way it is.
But there was also a "heads up" on your biggest complaint below
(Denethor). I think one of the reasons I enjoyed the film this time, is
that there were no giant surprises that nobody talked about before hand.
> There were three main weaknesses and several minor I saw. First, as others have
> noted, Denethor. In the books, Denethor was probably one of Tolkien's most
> complex characters - bad and good, noble and ignoble intertwined. It seems to
> be a habit of PJ et al to weaken Tolkien's characters (Faramir and Aragorn).
> What made Denethor so interesting was the dichotomy. He was of Numenorean
> blood undimmed, he did set up a masterful defense that took Sauron aback, he
> could intellectually parry with Gandalf, etc. Instead, one of the most
> interesting and complex of Tolkien's characters was turned into a caricature.
> Lost is the idea that Denethor provided as good a defense for Minas Tirith as
> could be hoped; instead he was seen to have long ago abandoned his duties.
> Lost is the Denethor who threw open his robes to reveal that he wore his armor
> to maintain readiness for battle. Gone is the Denethor who was truly moved by
> Pippin's gesture of fealty. Gone is any explanation of his descent into
> madness and despair; instead he is replaced by simply a mean old crazy man. In
> the book, Gandalf's words at his passing were ones of remorse and regret at
> what could have been. In the movie they were words of contempt and spite -
> which pretty much sums up my thoughts on what was done to Denethor. And oh
> yeah: slobbering Denethor eating dinner and flaming Denethor running off the
> cliff. Nuff said.
Agreed, but: 1. Like I said, we knew this, so I was prepared, and, 2. I
think if you look at it as a pure film goer, the Denethor in the movie
wasn't bad. He was no Denethor from LotR, but he was pretty deplorable,
which was the intent. The audience I was in applauded when Gandalf took
him out, and I thought it was pretty satisfying. I'm trying more and
more to look at these movies as a pure movie experience, since they fall
utterly short as a true adaptation.
> Second, the Dead Men of Dunharrow. Before seeing the movie, I understood why
> PJ got rid of the attack on Pelargir and had the Dead Men show up at Pelennor
> instead. Upon seeing the movie, it was a bad mistake. Why? Because it made
> the Ride of Rohirrim virtually meaningless. If a virtually indestructible army
> of undead were going to show up at Pelennor and wipe out the WK's entire army
> then what was the point of the sacrifice of the Rohirrim? Their sacrifice
> becomes meaningless because the WK's army would have been slaughtered anyway.
I couldn't agree more. And it could have been fixed so easily: have
the Riders arrive just in time to stop some other catastrophe, or split
up the fight on the Pelennor so every ally is needed, whatever.
It really isn't a giant problem though. Rohan's valour isn't mitigated:
they still fought valiantly without knowledge of the army of the dead.
> I also wasn't very impressed with the look of the Dead Men. IMPO, I think a
> more substantial look like that found in the Pirates of the Carribbean would
> have worked better. Side note of the Ride of the Rohirrim. This is only a
> minor nit but I would have preferred their attack more of a surprise; rather
> than show up on a knoll overlooking the battlefield and have Theoden give his
> speech in full view of the WK's army. Once they got going however, the Ride
> was absolutely stunning.
>
I kind of got the feeling the computer generated army was an
afterthought. The first scene where Aragorn and Elrond discuss them,
Aragorn only refers to them as "murderers and thieves". I think it's
quite possible the decision to go with an actual army of the dead was
made late in production and kind of rushed. No backup on this.
> Third, the lack of explanation for Sauron's actions. In the book, it was
> pretty well laid out what Sauron's maotivations and strategies were, especially
> towards the very end: Sauron sees Pippin in the Palantir and assumes he is the
> halfling with the Ring; then he sees Aragorn, heir of Isildur and assumes it is
> Isildur's heir who now has the Ring and is headed for Minas Tirith. This is
> important because it explains the battle at Morannon much more. The reason
> Sauron perceived the Army of the King as such a threat is because he thought
> Aragorn was there ready to wield his Ring. Although a non-reader might be able
> to divine this (and a reader can simply insert these ideas freely) they are not
> really found in the movie itself.
Again, agreed. I'm not sure why this couldn't have been explained in
the movie. There was so much more dialog directly from the books in
this movie than the first two, but there were several exchanges where
any reference to Sauron fearing the Ring being used against him was
purposely removed. I don't get it. In fact, Gandalf actually says
"Sauron won't take the bait" when they decide to march to the Morannon.
This would have been a *perfect* opportunity for someone to insert
comments about Sauron assuming "the new Ring owner sticks his neck out
too far, too soon.".
-snip-
>
> Denouement: A real sleeper. I *do* certainly agree with the idea of going
> back to the Shire and seeing the Havens but what happened in the movie simply
> didn't work. This seems to be purely directorial. It's hard to explain
> exactly why, but for me it simply didn't work.
Yeah, I was uncomfortable. It could easily be explained this way:
there was such a gigantic series of climaxes, any attempt to have a soft
landing would have failed. I can't say I would be able to do it any
better. What can you do? End it ala Star Wars 5 minutes after the climax?
>
> Faramir's Charge: I think PJ's change didn't work. In the movie, Faramir's
> hopeless charge was simply overly melodramatic. I feld like I was watching the
> charge of the light brigade. It played into the whole problem with Denethor
> who in the books would never have thrown away men like that, at least not at
> that point. In the book, the fighting retreat of Faramir from the Rammas was
> an excellent scene and I think would have played well on film. Instead the
> horse dragging the limp body of Faramir on the ground not more than 50 yards
> from the van of the WK's army bordered on the ludicrous.
Don't agree. I think the Denethor/Faramir friction was done well and it
worked well.
> Elrond: Ok, Elrond, great warrior according to the preface of the first movie,
> shows up in Rohan as the Rohirrim are about to rescue Minas Tirith and Aragorn
> et al are about to take the path of the dead. Then he apparently goes back
> hope to pick up Arwen. Of course in the books it is Elrond's sons who show up
> in the general vicinity and do the expected thing - accompany Aragorn on his
> mission.
Disagree. Elrond finally shook the Agent Smith routine for me.
> Galadriel: Let me get this straight: we lost the Voice of Saruman for the
> dream of Galadriel?
I would have disagreed, since the entire argument offered by the
film-goblins was that the Voice wasn't removed due to time constraints,
but due to logistics (not wanting to end TTT, or start RotK with it).
But then I read this in the paper today:
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/Entertainment/2003/12/17/289435.html
"When he tried to include it in the theatrical cut of The Two Towers,
the film just got too long, Jackson says."
So, contrary to his earlier comments posted in this newsgroup, and
certainly contrary to the adamant arguments by the film-goblins, it was
dropped merely for time reasons, which is inexcusable given the miles of
invented fluff Jackson added to the first two movies.
> That's all I can think of for now.
No offence, but you missed everything positive. What about the mind
boggling scope of this movie, especially everything related to the
Pelennor and Minas Tirith? What about the excellent adaptations of the
Witch King exchanges, Shelob's lair, the Tower of Cirith Ungol and Mount
Doom?
And contrary to your comment above about PJ's habit of lessening
Tolkien's characters (which I agree with wholeheartedly regarding the
first two flicks), I thought *every* character was far more heroic in
this movie. Especially Theoden, Merry, Eowyn and Gandalf.
And of course, the acting was as good as that in the first two movies
(which I never had a problem with).
I was one of the worst critics of the first two shows, but there comes a
time when credit needs to be assigned. This was a damn good movie.
Aris Katsaris
"pawn" <pa...@hanneng.com> wrote in message news:3FE113FF...@hanneng.com...
> Russ wrote:
>
>
> > Third, the lack of explanation for Sauron's actions. In the book, it was
> > pretty well laid out what Sauron's maotivations and strategies were,
especially
> > towards the very end: Sauron sees Pippin in the Palantir and assumes he is
the
> > halfling with the Ring; then he sees Aragorn, heir of Isildur and assumes it
is
> > Isildur's heir who now has the Ring and is headed for Minas Tirith. This is
> > important because it explains the battle at Morannon much more. The reason
> > Sauron perceived the Army of the King as such a threat is because he thought
> > Aragorn was there ready to wield his Ring. Although a non-reader might be
able
> > to divine this (and a reader can simply insert these ideas freely) they are
not
> > really found in the movie itself.
>
> Again, agreed. I'm not sure why this couldn't have been explained in
> the movie. There was so much more dialog directly from the books in
> this movie than the first two, but there were several exchanges where
> any reference to Sauron fearing the Ring being used against him was
> purposely removed. I don't get it.
I haven't yet seen the 3rd movie but, as I've explained in detail elsewhere,
Peter Jackson goes of his way to tell us that the ring can't be used by the
good guys (or by anyone other than Sauron), PERIOD. Not that it would
corrupt them, but that they can't use it PERIOD.
They'd get possessed if they tried to do so, or something, because there's
only one who can master it, only one who can bind it to his will, etc, etc.
So, he can't now go back on the idea, and have us think that Sauron actually
fears that the ring will be used against him. That very crucial point of the
books, that Sauron fears the ring will be used against him, because he judges
all motivations based on his own... that's never there in the films.
It's quite intentional by Peter Jackson, this removal.... it subtly changes the
very moral core of Tolkien's story, turning the refusal to use the ring into the
simple *intelligent* choice, rather than into a moral one.
And he did this so subtly, that the guys who've read the books never get hit
over the head with this change -- and yet these words of yours removed any
last hope I had that perhaps in the third movie there'd be *something* that
nullified my estimation of how Peter Jackson treated this point.
> > Galadriel: Let me get this straight: we lost the Voice of Saruman for the
> > dream of Galadriel?
>
> I would have disagreed, since the entire argument offered by the
> film-goblins was that the Voice wasn't removed due to time constraints,
> but due to logistics (not wanting to end TTT, or start RotK with it).
> But then I read this in the paper today:
>
> http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/Entertainment/2003/12/17/289435.html
>
> "When he tried to include it in the theatrical cut of The Two Towers,
> the film just got too long, Jackson says."
*snicker* Told ya so.
If it had been something other than time constraints then we wouldn't be
seeing it in the extended DVD.
> So, contrary to his earlier comments posted in this newsgroup, and
> certainly contrary to the adamant arguments by the film-goblins, it was
> dropped merely for time reasons, which is inexcusable given the miles of
> invented fluff Jackson added to the first two movies.
Yup. That's why I had gone into a fit of rage a while back, and started calling
Jackson "that incompetent moron". *Anyone* could see that he'd have to
cut crucial bits out of ROTK, given all the bits he added in TT -- anyone but
Peter Jackson himself, it seems.
Aris Katsaris
pawn
> "pawn" <pa...@hanneng.com> wrote in message news:3FE113FF...@hanneng.com...
>>Again, agreed. I'm not sure why this couldn't have been explained in
>>the movie. There was so much more dialog directly from the books in
>>this movie than the first two, but there were several exchanges where
>>any reference to Sauron fearing the Ring being used against him was
>>purposely removed. I don't get it.
>
>
> I haven't yet seen the 3rd movie but, as I've explained in detail elsewhere,
> Peter Jackson goes of his way to tell us that the ring can't be used by the
> good guys (or by anyone other than Sauron), PERIOD. Not that it would
> corrupt them, but that they can't use it PERIOD.
>
> They'd get possessed if they tried to do so, or something, because there's
> only one who can master it, only one who can bind it to his will, etc, etc.
>
> So, he can't now go back on the idea, and have us think that Sauron actually
> fears that the ring will be used against him. That very crucial point of the
> books, that Sauron fears the ring will be used against him, because he judges
> all motivations based on his own... that's never there in the films.
>
> It's quite intentional by Peter Jackson, this removal.... it subtly changes the
> very moral core of Tolkien's story, turning the refusal to use the ring into the
> simple *intelligent* choice, rather than into a moral one.
>
> And he did this so subtly, that the guys who've read the books never get hit
> over the head with this change -- and yet these words of yours removed any
> last hope I had that perhaps in the third movie there'd be *something* that
> nullified my estimation of how Peter Jackson treated this point.
Well, there was Boromir's suggestion to use it, at the Council, retorted
with something along the lines of "it's altogether evil". But I can't
argue: PJ's avoidance of the issue may have been, as you say, subtle in
the first two movies...he hits you over the head in RotK. Every single
time I was expecting something about Sauron's fears over the Ring, there
was an obvious omission.
>>http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/Entertainment/2003/12/17/289435.html
>>
>>"When he tried to include it in the theatrical cut of The Two Towers,
>>the film just got too long, Jackson says."
>
>
> *snicker* Told ya so.
>
> If it had been something other than time constraints then we wouldn't be
> seeing it in the extended DVD.
There is no doubt. More:
"the Saruman scene was one of many scenes we cut. The longer the film
was, the less strong it got because you felt like you'd been there for
too long and it lost its impact."
I wouldn't rub this is, but the attitude of some of the film zealots,
particularly over this issue, has been a bit much to take.
>>So, contrary to his earlier comments posted in this newsgroup, and
>>certainly contrary to the adamant arguments by the film-goblins, it was
>>dropped merely for time reasons, which is inexcusable given the miles of
>>invented fluff Jackson added to the first two movies.
>
>
> Yup. That's why I had gone into a fit of rage a while back, and started calling
> Jackson "that incompetent moron". *Anyone* could see that he'd have to
> cut crucial bits out of ROTK, given all the bits he added in TT -- anyone but
> Peter Jackson himself, it seems.
Not just TT, there was the superfluous collapsing stair, the Wizard's
dual, the extended Cave Troll and the Arwen/Aragorn love story additions
in FotR. No excuse: PJ made his own bed on this issue. Any arguments
about timing were lost when he started replacing actual content with his
own.
.
.
.
All that said, please Aris: see this movie before drawing a conclusion.
And don't read too much into my initial opinions, lest the film be
built up too high, but again: I really liked this movie.
Louis Epstein
: I'm trying more and more to look at these movies as a pure movie
: experience, since they fall utterly short as a true adaptation.
I really,really,REALLY despise this attitude.
Let them write original screenplays if they don't
want to be judged by fidelity to source material!!
As it is,enjoyment of something that betrays its
source material is something to be deplored,not
emulated.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Dogger
> the Riders arrive just in time to stop some other catastrophe, or split
> up the fight on the Pelennor so every ally is needed, whatever.
>
> It really isn't a giant problem though. Rohan's valour isn't mitigated:
> they still fought valiantly without knowledge of the army of the dead.
Haven't seen the movie yet, but would just like to point out that this
sort of problem can normally be avoided by having the early fighters
acting to hold off imminent death and defeat for all the women and
children, et cetera, and then the late arrivals don't render their
efforts pointless. So one question: If the Rohirrim weren't there,
would Minas Tirith have held long enough for the Aragorn's host to
arrive? Because if not then they were certainly relevant. It really
depends on how much time passes between the two charges, which again I
have no idea about, but even if there were some question as to whether
the city could have held long enough for the dead to arrive, I would
probably give Jackson the benefit of the doubt, cuz that's just the
kind of film-goblin I am. 87
DB.
Aris Katsaris
"pawn" <pa...@hanneng.com> wrote in message news:3FE12AE6...@hanneng.com...
> Aris Katsaris wrote:
> > "pawn" <pa...@hanneng.com> wrote in message
news:3FE113FF...@hanneng.com...
>
> > fears that the ring will be used against him. That very crucial point of the
> > books, that Sauron fears the ring will be used against him, because he
judges
> > all motivations based on his own... that's never there in the films.
> >
> > It's quite intentional by Peter Jackson, this removal.... it subtly changes
the
> > very moral core of Tolkien's story, turning the refusal to use the ring into
the
> > simple *intelligent* choice, rather than into a moral one.
> >
> > And he did this so subtly, that the guys who've read the books never get hit
> > over the head with this change -- and yet these words of yours removed any
> > last hope I had that perhaps in the third movie there'd be *something* that
> > nullified my estimation of how Peter Jackson treated this point.
>
> Well, there was Boromir's suggestion to use it, at the Council, retorted
> with something along the lines of "it's altogether evil".
Nah, that's not what's said, not in the theatrical version atleast -- after
Bomomir's
suggestion, Aragorn replies "We can't use it, none of us can. The One Ring
answers to Sauron alone. It has no other master".
> > Yup. That's why I had gone into a fit of rage a while back, and started
calling
> > Jackson "that incompetent moron". *Anyone* could see that he'd have to
> > cut crucial bits out of ROTK, given all the bits he added in TT -- anyone
but
> > Peter Jackson himself, it seems.
>
> Not just TT, there was the superfluous collapsing stair, the Wizard's
> dual, the extended Cave Troll and the Arwen/Aragorn love story additions
> in FotR.
True... but atleast for the additions of FOTR one could say that the movie had
to end at that point (Boromir's death), therefore it didn't really matter that
much
timewise, if more scenes were before that point -- but in TT it matters a
*great*
deal, as Jackson cuts the movie far earlier (plot-wise) that he need have.
> All that said, please Aris: see this movie before drawing a conclusion.
I will.
My guess right now is that I will get the impression I got from TT itself
-- good movie as seen by itself, but bad when seen as a Tolkien adaptation.
Aris Katsaris
teepee
"Russ" <mcr...@aol.comnojunk> wrote
> Second, the Dead Men of Dunharrow. Before seeing the movie, I understood
why
> PJ got rid of the attack on Pelargir and had the Dead Men show up at
Pelennor
> instead. Upon seeing the movie, it was a bad mistake. Why? Because it
made
> the Ride of Rohirrim virtually meaningless. If a virtually indestructible
army
> of undead were going to show up at Pelennor and wipe out the WK's entire
army
> then what was the point of the sacrifice of the Rohirrim? Their sacrifice
> becomes meaningless because the WK's army would have been slaughtered
anyway.
You make a strong point, but I'm not so certain that's altogether
unarguable. With the Witch King still around, things could conceivably have
been different.
Justin Bacon
>Second, the Dead Men of Dunharrow. Before seeing the movie, I understood why
>PJ got rid of the attack on Pelargir and had the Dead Men show up at Pelennor
>instead. Upon seeing the movie, it was a bad mistake. Why? Because it made
>the Ride of Rohirrim virtually meaningless. If a virtually indestructible
army
>of undead were going to show up at Pelennor and wipe out the WK's entire army
>then what was the point of the sacrifice of the Rohirrim?
Plus, I would argue that Jackson screwed up the whole dynamics of that battle.
In Tolkien the battle works like this:
- Minas Tirith is besieged. They try to hold, but they fail. The gates fall and
the Witch King rides through them. It's only a matter of time now, the world of
man has end--
- Wait! The Rohirrim have come! The battle has been turned. The Witch King is
forced to turn away from the city.
- But it's not enough. Theoden is slain. And then the Eastern armies join the
fray, and Eomer is being pushed back, hope is fading... And crushed. The Black
Fleet is seen.
- And thus came Aragorn son of Arathorn, Elessar, Isildur's Heir, out of the
Paths of the Dead, borne upon a wind from the Sea to the kingdom of Gondor...
I mean, it's a beautiful progression -- hope and desperation mixed in equal
doses until the final, triumphant Return of the King.
In the film, Jackson turns this into:
- The battle starts. They fight. The gate falls. They fight some more. Nazgul
occasionally fly by and cause some problems.
- Oh, look! The Rohirrim have come. Great. They fight for awhile. Theoden gets
himself killed. Bummer.
- Oh, great. The unstoppable army of the undead has arrived. We can stop
fighting now, they'll take care of things for us.
Whether you want a faithful adaptation or not is irrelevant. This is just
sub-par.
>Their sacrifice
>becomes meaningless because the WK's army would have been slaughtered anyway.
>I also wasn't very impressed with the look of the Dead Men.
Fairly accurate to Tolkien's relatively brief description of them. So I can't
fault Jackson there. Plus their immaterial nature gave us the rather powerful
scene of Aragorn parrying with Anduril.
>Stupid tactics. 1) When Grond breaks the Gate and the orc army starts pouring
>in we hear calls to get the women and children out of there. Excuse me, but
>considering the amount of warning they had of the attack, why the heck are
>there any women an children in *any* of the lower levels of the city, never
>mind the lowest level. 2) The Two Towers already established that a fairly
>large and steep hill (the one Sam fell down) was pretty darn close to the
Black
>Gate. The hill disappeared in ROTK and if it was still really there why
didn't
>Aragorn array his army in front of it so he would not be surrounded.
The hill was still there. The angle isn't particularly good for Aragorn to ride
up to it. However, it is still pretty stupid for Aragorn to wait until his
force has been completely surrounded before charging.
We can also add to this list:
3) Riding up to the Black Gate so that you're within convenient arrow range.
4) Sneaking across the river to perform an ambush and worrying about the amount
of noise you're making... while having a lighted torch in every single ship.
5) Setting up a counter-ambush by running around right in front of the
approaching orcs in *gleaming* plate.
>Elrond: Ok, Elrond, great warrior according to the preface of the first
movie,
>shows up in Rohan as the Rohirrim are about to rescue Minas Tirith and Aragorn
>et al are about to take the path of the dead. Then he apparently goes back
>hope to pick up Arwen. Of course in the books it is Elrond's sons who show up
>in the general vicinity and do the expected thing - accompany Aragorn on his
>mission.
Chekhov once wrote that, if you put a gun on the mantlepiece in the first act,
it had better be fired before the end of the play. I don't understand why
Jackson, having gone out of his way to establish Arwen as a warrior princess in
the first film, fails to pull the trigger in the third: Arwen should have
brought the sword. And Arwen should have taken the place of her brothers and
ridden to war with Aragorn.
Instead, Jackson mires the film with an entirely pointless and ill-explained
sub-plot in which Arwen somehow becomes afflicted by the Ring as a result of
becoming mortal.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
teepee
"Justin Bacon" <tria...@aol.com> wrote
> Instead, Jackson mires the film with an entirely pointless and
ill-explained
> sub-plot in which Arwen somehow becomes afflicted by the Ring as a result
of
> becoming mortal.
Did he? I missed that.
Justin Bacon
>Agreed, but: 1. Like I said, we knew this, so I was prepared, and, 2. I
>think if you look at it as a pure film goer, the Denethor in the movie
>wasn't bad. He was no Denethor from LotR, but he was pretty deplorable,
>which was the intent. The audience I was in applauded when Gandalf took
>him out, and I thought it was pretty satisfying. I'm trying more and
>more to look at these movies as a pure movie experience, since they fall
>utterly short as a true adaptation.
Well, I think there are three complaints which can be made here:
(1) It wouldn't have taken any more time to handle Denethor in the highly
effective manner Tolkien does in the book. (When most people complain about
Jackson changing things, it's because he's changed them for the *worse* and for
no particular reason. That's why Arwen replacing Glordindel is generally
accepted by everyone except the Louis Epstein's of the world, whereas lots of
people complain about Denethor, for example.) Looking at the film as a film,
this isn't a problem -- but it's still frustrating.
(2) Gandalf beating the crap out of Denethor doesn't make any mistake. Why the
hell don't Denethor's guards *do* something? I mean, if you want to play "we're
little scared to take on a wizard" or "we're really glad someone's taking
charge", that would be one thing, but they just *stand* there -- as if people
knock out the Steward of Gondor every day of the week.
(3) Having Denethor fall of his pyre, run the length of the city on flame, and
then plunge off the cliff onto the battlefield below is just... stupid. On so
many levels.
>I couldn't agree more. And it could have been fixed so easily: have
>the Riders arrive just in time to stop some other catastrophe, or split
>up the fight on the Pelennor so every ally is needed, whatever.
Or just tone back the undead army. There's no reason why the undead have to be
an unstoppable killing machine.
>Again, agreed. I'm not sure why this couldn't have been explained in
>the movie. There was so much more dialog directly from the books in
>this movie than the first two, but there were several exchanges where
>any reference to Sauron fearing the Ring being used against him was
>purposely removed. I don't get it. In fact, Gandalf actually says
>"Sauron won't take the bait" when they decide to march to the Morannon
Yeah. Right there Aragorn could have said: "Ah, but he thinks I have the Ring."
Or the same info could have been seamlessly included in the council at Edoras
after Pippin looks into the palantir.
This isn't the first time I've been baffled by the complete absence of
something which could have been casually introduced at the expense of three
seconds of dialogue. The Council of Elrond in FOTR, for example, is
mind-bogglingly scant of detail -- despite the fact that it then necessitates a
very confusing stance for Gimli when it comes to Moria later in the film. (Why
film-Gimli would believe that Moria has never been the sight of a dwarven
massacre, despite the fact that Gandalf and Saruman seem to know that it
happened hundreds of years ago, is never explained.)
>What about the excellent adaptations of the
>Witch King exchanges,
I actually thought the Witch King's performance was pretty mediocre. I never
felt particularly menaced by him.
>Shelob's lair,
Excellent.
>the Tower of Cirith Ungol
Functional, but nothing spectacular.
>Mount Doom?
Very well done. Except for Frodo wrestling with Gollum after his finger has
been bitten off. Also: Gollum's fall was fine, but watching him sink into the
lava just didn't work for me.
>And contrary to your comment above about PJ's habit of lessening
>Tolkien's characters (which I agree with wholeheartedly regarding the
>first two flicks), I thought *every* character was far more heroic in
>this movie. Especially Theoden, Merry, Eowyn and Gandalf.
It's not so much a matter of heroic actions -- these characters were always
quite of taking heroic actions. But PJ doesn't want to accept a height on
either end of the character scale: Thus, Denethor's noble madness is
denigrated. Faramir is made fallible. Aragorn must struggle with whether or not
he wants to be king. And so forth.
>And of course, the acting was as good as that in the first two movies
>(which I never had a problem with).
Agreed. The casting on these films was fantastic.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
> So one question: If the Rohirrim weren't there,
>would Minas Tirith have held long enough for the Aragorn's host to
>arrive? Because if not then they were certainly relevant.
Well, the orcs hadn't even gotten through the second gate, yet. They have,
what? Five more after that?
>I would
>probably give Jackson the benefit of the doubt, cuz that's just the
>kind of film-goblin I am. 87
You would give Jackson the benefit of the doubt if Frodo had inexplicably
gained blue skin halfway through the film.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
That's how pointless and ill-explained it was. The only references to it are:
1. Aragorn's dream in which Arwen lays on a bed and then the Star shatters on
the flow.
2. One line delivered by Elrond during the scene in which he gives Aragorn the
sword.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
pawn
> pawn <pa...@hanneng.com> wrote in message news:<3FE113FF...@hanneng.com>...
>
>>I couldn't agree more. And it could have been fixed so easily: have
>>the Riders arrive just in time to stop some other catastrophe, or split
>>up the fight on the Pelennor so every ally is needed, whatever.
>>
>>It really isn't a giant problem though. Rohan's valour isn't mitigated:
>> they still fought valiantly without knowledge of the army of the dead.
>
>
> Haven't seen the movie yet, but would just like to point out that this
> sort of problem can normally be avoided by having the early fighters
> acting to hold off imminent death and defeat for all the women and
> children, et cetera, and then the late arrivals don't render their
> efforts pointless. So one question: If the Rohirrim weren't there,
> would Minas Tirith have held long enough for the Aragorn's host to
> arrive?
Not really, no. Minas Tirith was already pretty much overrun by the
time Rohan showed up.
pawn
> pawn <pa...@hanneng.com> wrote:
>
> : I'm trying more and more to look at these movies as a pure movie
> : experience, since they fall utterly short as a true adaptation.
>
> I really,really,REALLY despise this attitude.
So? I sai dI liked the movie on its own, what the hell else are you
looking for?
pawn
> Pawn wrote:
>
>>Agreed, but: 1. Like I said, we knew this, so I was prepared, and, 2. I
>>think if you look at it as a pure film goer, the Denethor in the movie
>>wasn't bad. He was no Denethor from LotR, but he was pretty deplorable,
>>which was the intent. The audience I was in applauded when Gandalf took
>>him out, and I thought it was pretty satisfying. I'm trying more and
>>more to look at these movies as a pure movie experience, since they fall
>>utterly short as a true adaptation.
> Well, I think there are three complaints which can be made here:
>
> (1) It wouldn't have taken any more time to handle Denethor in the highly
> effective manner Tolkien does in the book. (When most people complain about
> Jackson changing things, it's because he's changed them for the *worse* and for
> no particular reason. That's why Arwen replacing Glordindel is generally
> accepted by everyone except the Louis Epstein's of the world, whereas lots of
> people complain about Denethor, for example.) Looking at the film as a film,
> this isn't a problem -- but it's still frustrating.
I'm not sure it's that easy. I mean, it's easy for Tolkien to describe
in words a battle of ancient wills between Gandalf and Denethor, because
he doesn't have to describe what daggers passed back and forth between
their gazes might look like. How do you film that? You'd need a
narrator or something. Same goes for Pippin's assesment of how Denethor
looked more majestic. it's easy to say it when you have a narrator, but
how do you show it?
>
> (2) Gandalf beating the crap out of Denethor doesn't make any mistake. Why the
> hell don't Denethor's guards *do* something? I mean, if you want to play "we're
> little scared to take on a wizard" or "we're really glad someone's taking
> charge", that would be one thing, but they just *stand* there -- as if people
> knock out the Steward of Gondor every day of the week.
Because it's clear in the movie that Denethor has bwwn overthrown for
quite some time before Gandalf shows up, and the guards are likely happy
that somebody has finally taken command over the city.
>
> (3) Having Denethor fall of his pyre, run the length of the city on flame, and
> then plunge off the cliff onto the battlefield below is just... stupid. On so
> many levels.
I didn't like that part either. It gets worse when you see the length
he would have had to run to reach that cliff. How do you run half a
kilometre on fire (distance exaggerated).
>
>>I couldn't agree more. And it could have been fixed so easily: have
>>the Riders arrive just in time to stop some other catastrophe, or split
>>up the fight on the Pelennor so every ally is needed, whatever.
>
>
> Or just tone back the undead army. There's no reason why the undead have to be
> an unstoppable killing machine.
>
>
>>Again, agreed. I'm not sure why this couldn't have been explained in
>>the movie. There was so much more dialog directly from the books in
>>this movie than the first two, but there were several exchanges where
>>any reference to Sauron fearing the Ring being used against him was
>>purposely removed. I don't get it. In fact, Gandalf actually says
>>"Sauron won't take the bait" when they decide to march to the Morannon
>
>
> Yeah. Right there Aragorn could have said: "Ah, but he thinks I have the Ring."
> Or the same info could have been seamlessly included in the council at Edoras
> after Pippin looks into the palantir.
>
> This isn't the first time I've been baffled by the complete absence of
> something which could have been casually introduced at the expense of three
> seconds of dialogue. The Council of Elrond in FOTR, for example, is
> mind-bogglingly scant of detail -- despite the fact that it then necessitates a
> very confusing stance for Gimli when it comes to Moria later in the film. (Why
> film-Gimli would believe that Moria has never been the sight of a dwarven
> massacre, despite the fact that Gandalf and Saruman seem to know that it
> happened hundreds of years ago, is never explained.)
>
>
Can't argue with the last two points. It's perplexing.
>>What about the excellent adaptations of the
>>Witch King exchanges,
>
>
> I actually thought the Witch King's performance was pretty mediocre. I never
> felt particularly menaced by him.
Combine it with Merry and Eowyn. The entire exchange was powerful
(although I was terrified they were going to leave out Eowyn's "No
living man am I" line).
pawn
> Louis Epstein wrote:
>
>> pawn <pa...@hanneng.com> wrote:
>>
>> : I'm trying more and more to look at these movies as a pure movie
>> : experience, since they fall utterly short as a true adaptation.
>>
>> I really,really,REALLY despise this attitude.
>
>
> So? I sai dI liked the movie on its own, what the hell else are you
> looking for?
Sorry, I misinterpreted your post.
Radagast5
>pawn <pa...@hanneng.com> wrote:
>
>: I'm trying more and more to look at these movies as a pure movie
>: experience, since they fall utterly short as a true adaptation.
>
>I really,really,REALLY despise this attitude.
>
>Let them write original screenplays if they don't
>want to be judged by fidelity to source material!!
Straw Man alert! Where did Peter Jackson say he did not want to be judged?
>As it is,enjoyment of something that betrays its
>source material is something to be deplored,not
>emulated.
Hogwash. Steven Spielberg VASTLY improved upon Peter Benchley's JAWS, and I
cannot see how any sensible person could support the attitude that Spielberg
should be excoriated for betraying that source material.
Russ
<snip>
>No offence, but you missed everything positive.
I know I did. I was tired and will follow up I wanted to give the good its due,
which I will in another post.
> What about the mind
>boggling scope of this movie, especially everything related to the
>Pelennor and Minas Tirith? What about the excellent adaptations of the
>Witch King exchanges, Shelob's lair, the Tower of Cirith Ungol and Mount
>Doom?
All excellent.
>And contrary to your comment above about PJ's habit of lessening
>Tolkien's characters (which I agree with wholeheartedly regarding the
>first two flicks), I thought *every* character was far more heroic in
>this movie. Especially Theoden, Merry, Eowyn and Gandalf.
Agreed, all those characters, plus Sam rise to the occassion. I was simply
referring to Denethor who makes his first appearance in ROTK (not counting his
added appearance in the TT:EE)
>And of course, the acting was as good as that in the first two movies
>(which I never had a problem with).
>
>I was one of the worst critics of the first two shows, but there comes a
>time when credit needs to be assigned. This was a damn good movie.
I think I was expecting too much. And the problem is those last 20 minutes,
which really didn't work for me, are the last thigs you see. I hate to say it,
but I was actually getting impatient for the movie to end during the last 20
minutes.
Dogger
> You would give Jackson the benefit of the doubt if Frodo had inexplicably
> gained blue skin halfway through the film.
You again? If you want your behind served to you on a plate of logic
again, I'm here, anytime.
DB.
Radagast5
I'm not sure whether this points out a flaw in your argument (an argument which
I agree with to an extent), but re-read what you wrote.
Look at your choice of words in describing Tolkien's plot sequence: they're all
noble, well-chosen, very Tolkienesque words or turns of phrase. The plot
sequence seems enthralling.
Now for Jackson's sequence, everything marginalizes the movie: it's terse,
sarcastic, etc. See: "Thus came Aragorn, son of Arathorn... borne upon a wind
from the Sea to the kingdom of Gondor" vs. "Theoden gets himself killed.
Bummer." (Not that I mind the humor!) Given your choice of words, it's no
wonder Jackson's plot sequence pales in comparison.
Was this purposeful on your part?
[snip]
>Instead, Jackson mires the film with an entirely pointless and ill-explained
>sub-plot in which Arwen somehow becomes afflicted by the Ring as a result of
>becoming mortal.
I read about this minor sub-plot before I saw the movie and, even though I am
nowhere near as harsh on Jackson as some others are, I was appalled at this
shallow contrivance.
When I saw the movie, I realized this wasn't the intent. There's a bit of
confusion which stems from the wording of Elrond's dialogue. I'll paraphrase
here, but he essentially says, "Arwen is dying. Her fate is now bound to that
of the ring."
This very easily can be misinterpreted as "Arwen's sick, her vital signs are
plunging because of the ring, and she's going to flat-out die if the ring isn't
destroyed pronto."
Due to a poor choice of words, I think the intent gets misread. The way I
interpreted it was that Elrond was saying: Arwen was now dying, as in not
immortal, as in dying like the rest of mankind is, and that as member of
mankind and all races remaining in Middle-Earth her fate was bound to whether
or not Sauron would rule or be destroyed.
pawn
>
> I think I was expecting too much. And the problem is those last 20 minutes,
> which really didn't work for me, are the last thigs you see. I hate to say it,
> but I was actually getting impatient for the movie to end during the last 20
> minutes.
Same here. But again, if it had been a quick ending right after the
climax, we would have complained as well.
Pauline M Ross
>Due to a poor choice of words, I think the intent gets misread. The way I
>interpreted it was that Elrond was saying: Arwen was now dying, as in not
>immortal, as in dying like the rest of mankind is, and that as member of
>mankind and all races remaining in Middle-Earth her fate was bound to whether
>or not Sauron would rule or be destroyed.
Well done - I hadn't thought of that interpretation, but it makes a
lot more sense that way (well, it made *no* sense the other way).
--
Pauline Ross
RufusTFirefly
"Justin Bacon" <tria...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031218065835...@mb-m20.aol.com...
I would agree with you - that piece of information seems pointless, and out
of context. But I did like the sequence with Arwen on the Road to the Grey
Havens. That whole bit with her vision of her future ***** was magical.
Bryan S. Slick
[18 Dec 2003 11:29:40 GMT]
:film-Gimli would believe that Moria has never been the sight of a dwarven
:massacre, despite the fact that Gandalf and Saruman seem to know that it
:happened hundreds of years ago, is never explained.)
What are you talking about? The bodies found by the Fellowship when
they enter Moria are those from Balin's party that went there five years
before (or thereabouts) to "re-take" Moria.
--
Bryan S. Slick, bryan_s at slick-family dot net
"To those who have fought for it,
freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
Justin Bacon
>Now for Jackson's sequence, everything marginalizes the movie: it's terse,
>sarcastic, etc. See: "Thus came Aragorn, son of Arathorn... borne upon a
wind
>from the Sea to the kingdom of Gondor" vs. "Theoden gets himself killed.
>Bummer." (Not that I mind the humor!) Given your choice of words, it's no
>wonder Jackson's plot sequence pales in comparison.
>
>Was this purposeful on your part?
It reinforces the argument. The line you quote is actually Tolkien's line from
the book, and I think it illustrates the difference in tone and storytelling
between the book and the movie: There is a definite texture and *plotting* to
the battle in the novel, an ebb and flow between hope and desperation. The
drama also doesn't come to an end once the batle begins in the novel: The
battlefield serves as a place where characters grow and change.
In the movie, all of this seems watered down to a very basic set of
"reinforcements arrive" and "Theoden dies".
I don't want this to get confused with a "they changed things, so it sucks!"
argument. This is more a "they changed things, and the result is unnecessarily
inferior".
>Due to a poor choice of words, I think the intent gets misread. The way I
>interpreted it was that Elrond was saying: Arwen was now dying, as in not
>immortal, as in dying like the rest of mankind is, and that as member of
>mankind and all races remaining in Middle-Earth her fate was bound to whether
>or not Sauron would rule or be destroyed.
Your interpretation is kind. You are, however, ignoring Aragorn's dream which
comes immediately before the Aragorn/Elrond scene in Theoden's tent. If your
interpretation is correct, then that dream becomes meaningless -- which I would
consider a more dramatic condemnation of Jackson's filmmaking.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>I would agree with you - that piece of information seems pointless, and out
>of context. But I did like the sequence with Arwen on the Road to the Grey
>Havens. That whole bit with her vision of her future ***** was magical.
Agreed. I was wondering how Jackson was going to dramatize her change of mind,
and he found a great way to do it.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>> (1) It wouldn't have taken any more time to handle Denethor in the highly
>> effective manner Tolkien does in the book. (When most people complain about
>> Jackson changing things, it's because he's changed them for the *worse* and
for
>> no particular reason. That's why Arwen replacing Glordindel is generally
>> accepted by everyone except the Louis Epstein's of the world, whereas lots
of
>> people complain about Denethor, for example.) Looking at the film as a
>> film, this isn't a problem -- but it's still frustrating.
>
>I'm not sure it's that easy. I mean, it's easy for Tolkien to describe
>in words a battle of ancient wills between Gandalf and Denethor, because
>he doesn't have to describe what daggers passed back and forth between
>their gazes might look like. How do you film that? You'd need a
>narrator or something. Same goes for Pippin's assesment of how Denethor
>looked more majestic. it's easy to say it when you have a narrator, but
>how do you show it?
I'm not following your complaint here.
First, I thought Jackson (and the actor playing Pippin) did a very good job of
showing Pippin's reactions to Denethor's limited range of moods without having
a narrator explaining them. I don't see why they would have lost this ability
if Denethor's character had been more deeply drawn.
I'm also unsure what "battle of ancient wills" between Gandalf and Denethor
you're describing. Every confrontation I can think of in the book between
Gandalf and Denethor is couched in dialogue, not some sort of narrated tension.
For an example of what I'm talking about: Why does Jackson feel its necessary
for Gandalf to nonsensically punch out Denethor? Why can't Denethor just
withdraw to his son's sick bed and refuse to lead the defense, as he does in
the book? It would be trivial:
GANDALF: The city is at last besieged. We are needed.
DENETHOR: I sent my son forth, unthanked, unblessed, out into needless peril,
and here he lies with poison in his veins. My line, too, is ending. The House
of Stewards has failed. The race of men shall die.
GANDALF: Such counsels will make the Enemy's victory certain indeed. Come, my
lord. There is much that you can yet do.
DENETHOR: I will not come down. I must stay beside my son. [to his men] Follow
whom you will, even the Grey Fool, though his hope has failed. Here I stay.
Sure, that takes a few more seconds than "Denethor shouts out some stuff at the
top of his lungs and then Gandalf beats him up". But I think the time cost is
well paid in quality.
The other thing Jackson confuses, for no sensible reason, is Pippin's movement
through Minas Tirith. Pippin leaves the side of Denethor so many times (once to
ride out with Gandalf and again to briefly guard Gandalf's back) that it lacks
all meaning when he leaves Denethor's side to warn Gandalf of Denethor's pyre.
(It also lacks meaning because Jackson removes the *choice* Gandalf has to make
when Pippin comes to him. Which may be a necessary loss due to time
constraints, but was still *very* unfortunate, IMO.)
And then, at the actual pyre sequence, all you needed (again) was a fairly
simple sequence:
GANDALF: Stay this madness!
DENETHOR: Do as I have bidden!
[no one moves]
GANDALF: What is this, my lord? The houses of the dead are no place for the
living.
DENETHOR: Since when has the Lord of Gondor been answerable to thee? Or may I
not command my own servants?
GANDALF: What then would you have, if your will could have its way?
DENETHOR: I would have things as they were in all the days of my life, and in
the days of my fathers before me. But if doom denies me this, I will have
NAUGHT!
[ Denethor drops the flame. Pippin rushes forward to save Faramir. Denethor
stands proud in his immolation. ]
GANDALF: So passes Denethor, son of Ecthelion.
Although, actually, I'd probably try to preserve the revelation of the palantir
somehow -- although that would increase the length of the scene and probably
mandate some re-staging (leaving Denethor on top of the pyre for a longer scene
would be problematic). (I'd probably choose as a revelation either "your fool's
hope has fallen into the hands of our Enemy" or "a black fleet sails from the
south, bearing doom for the armies of men".)
>>I mean, if you want to play "we're
>> little scared to take on a wizard" or "we're really glad someone's taking
>> charge", that would be one thing, but they just *stand* there -- as if
people
>> knock out the Steward of Gondor every day of the week.
>
>Because it's clear in the movie that Denethor has bwwn overthrown for
>quite some time before Gandalf shows up, and the guards are likely happy
>that somebody has finally taken command over the city.
I addressed that. If you want that to be your story, then you need to *tell*
that story.
>I didn't like that part either. It gets worse when you see the length
>he would have had to run to reach that cliff. How do you run half a
>kilometre on fire (distance exaggerated).
I'm not sure it is exagerrated. We're talking about the length of the entire
city.
>Combine it with Merry and Eowyn. The entire exchange was powerful
>(although I was terrified they were going to leave out Eowyn's "No
>living man am I" line).
I think that's an insightful thing to say. By the time I got to the end of the
film I was *convinced* that Frodo would not be getting on the ship. I had lost
so much faith in Jackson, that I actually thought he was going to send Bilbo by
himself.
Justin Bacno
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
Nice try. The fact that you failed to respond to my post in any meaningful
sense rather belies your nonsensical claim, though.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Morgil
"pawn" <pa...@hanneng.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:3FE113FF...@hanneng.com...
> Russ wrote:
> > Second, the Dead Men of Dunharrow. Before seeing the movie, I
understood why
> > PJ got rid of the attack on Pelargir and had the Dead Men show up at
Pelennor
> > instead. Upon seeing the movie, it was a bad mistake. Why? Because it
made
> > the Ride of Rohirrim virtually meaningless. If a virtually
indestructible army
> > of undead were going to show up at Pelennor and wipe out the WK's entire
army
> > then what was the point of the sacrifice of the Rohirrim? Their
sacrifice
> > becomes meaningless because the WK's army would have been slaughtered
anyway.
>
> I couldn't agree more. And it could have been fixed so easily: have
> the Riders arrive just in time to stop some other catastrophe
Isn't this exactly what happens? The orcs are just about to
break through the defence in the Gate, when most of them
have to turn against Rohirrim? Seems meaningful enough to me.
Morgil
Morgil
"Radagast5" <rada...@aol.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:20031218121514...@mb-m29.aol.com...
> When I saw the movie, I realized this wasn't the intent. There's a bit of
> confusion which stems from the wording of Elrond's dialogue. I'll
paraphrase
> here, but he essentially says, "Arwen is dying. Her fate is now bound to
that
> of the ring."
>
> This very easily can be misinterpreted as "Arwen's sick, her vital signs
are
> plunging because of the ring, and she's going to flat-out die if the ring
isn't
> destroyed pronto."
>
> Due to a poor choice of words, I think the intent gets misread. The way I
> interpreted it was that Elrond was saying: Arwen was now dying, as in not
> immortal, as in dying like the rest of mankind is, and that as member of
> mankind and all races remaining in Middle-Earth her fate was bound to
whether
> or not Sauron would rule or be destroyed.
I saw it as "Sauron's power growing in the Middle-Earth is making
Arwen sick, and if the Ring (and thereby Sauron) is not destroyed,
it will cause her to die."
Morgil
Lord Jubjub
Louis Epstein <lep...@PUF.FCC.NET> wrote:
> pawn <pa...@hanneng.com> wrote:
>
> : I'm trying more and more to look at these movies as a pure movie
> : experience, since they fall utterly short as a true adaptation.
>
> I really,really,REALLY despise this attitude.
>
> Let them write original screenplays if they don't
> want to be judged by fidelity to source material!!
>
> As it is,enjoyment of something that betrays its
> source material is something to be deplored,not
> emulated.
hmmm. . .I would say you are overstating the case. A mediocre
adaptation that is able to be considered excellent on its own merits is
not something to be deplored.
It's just too bad that LOTR is way too expansive (and expensive) to be
remade within the next 20 years.
--
Lord Jubjub, ruler of the slithy toves.
If you want to contact me, remember I am a LORD.
Me Again
>What about the excellent adaptations of the
>Witch King exchanges
I beg to differ on that, of course. That scene was heavily,
needlessly butchered in my opinion. The sequence of events was wrong
(Eowyn is supposed to take her hemlet off before they fight and show
the witch king that 'she', not 'he', has the power to kill him, and
what the h-e-double-hockey-sticks is with him trying to choker her?),
the dialog was wrong (her lines are reduced to "I am no man"), the
witch king's appearance was wrong (where are those glowing eyes and
his crown? he is a king after all), and Eowyn looked like she was
scared out of her skin which is not at all how it was described in the
book. The best part of that scene was Eowyn telling the witch king
she would kill him if he touched Theoden.
But I know, I know, it doesn't have to be like the book...
Rick
"Me Again" <m...@home.now> wrote in message
news:5tp4uvkputd7r65he...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:42:07 -0500, pawn <pa...@hanneng.com> wrote:
>
> >What about the excellent adaptations of the
> >Witch King exchanges
>
> I beg to differ on that, of course. That scene was heavily,
> needlessly butchered in my opinion.
Your opinion is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
Dogger
I don't disagree with what you said except for the fact that you burst
in on an obviously and unserious whimsical musing in order to try to
zing me again. You are the one who abandoned rational argument for
insults and then fled a previous thread. You'll notice that I have
never nor will ever engage in your game of argument by insults. It's
beneath me.
DB.
Steuard Jensen
> pawn <pa...@hanneng.com> wrote:
> : I'm trying more and more to look at these movies as a pure movie
> : experience, since they fall utterly short as a true adaptation.
> I really,really,REALLY despise this attitude.
Why?
> Let them write original screenplays if they don't
> want to be judged by fidelity to source material!!
The goal of a filmmaker is to create a story that will be enjoyable
and compelling on the screen. If they find a good idea and make an
excellent movie out of it, that means they've succeeded, right? On
that level, it doesn't matter _where_ they got that idea.
That's not the whole story, I'll readily acknowledge; I can think of
two crucial caveats right away. First, there's a point that I've
raised repeatedly before: it's a real shame if a filmmaker adapting a
book doesn't make the most of the source material. To put it another
way, if the book is really good then careless changes are likely to
make the story worse instead of better. Thus, there's at least one
clear argument for fidelity to the source when possible. But failure
in this respect is merely disappointing, not deplorable.
And second, if the adaptation twists the source material so much that
the original author would be horrified by the "message" of the film,
that's certainly bad. Thus, making a film of LotR that replaced all
the Orcs with black people would be unforgivable. And for that
matter, I think there would even be something a bit icky about taking
some disgustingly racist adventure story and turning it into a parable
of racial equality and harmony: even though the motive is good, it
would probably be more ethical to simply let the original be forgotten
(or remembered despite its recognized flaws).
Given your reaction to the movies, I suspect that you would claim that
they fall into this second category. But then again, I have to doubt
that: years ago, before we knew anything at all about how Jackson
would handle the story, you were saying that "the true devotee has to
see ANY film as something to be denounced bitterly". So you seem to
have some other objection in mind.
But really, I'm not particularly interested in debating the films with
you. You have a firmly held opinion about them and you've stuck to it
for years; I entertain no notions that I will somehow shake you of it.
(Nor, for that matter, do I think that one person should try to
dictate what others should enjoy.) And I already know that I enjoy
the movies despite being disappointed by some parts of them, so your
abstract arguments would end up being pretty much moot in my case. :)
Live and let live, that's what I say. (In this case, anyway. :) )
Steuard Jensen
Trade Surplus
> "pawn" <pa...@hanneng.com> wrote ...
> > Again, agreed. I'm not sure why this couldn't have been explained in
> > the movie. There was so much more dialog directly from the books in
> > this movie than the first two, but there were several exchanges where
> > any reference to Sauron fearing the Ring being used against him was
> > purposely removed. I don't get it.
>
elsewhere,
> Peter Jackson goes of his way to tell us that the ring can't be used by
the
> good guys (or by anyone other than Sauron), PERIOD. Not that it would
> corrupt them, but that they can't use it PERIOD.
>
> They'd get possessed if they tried to do so, or something, because there's
> only one who can master it, only one who can bind it to his will, etc,
etc.
Since I first read this point of yours I watched Jackson's Fellowship and
Two Towers again and I can't agree with you. ISTM that Jackson's Gandalf and
Galadriel both believe that they could use the Ring but that it would
corrupt them and make them as evil as Sauron, i.e. the same as Tolkien's
Gandalf and Galadriel.
When Jackson's Frodo first offers the Ring to Gandalf he refuses it saying
(paraphrasing) "I want to use the Ring from a desire to do good, but through
me it would do great evil."
Similarly, in the Galadriel temptation scene (if you can bring yourself to
watch that again) Jackson has her say (again paraphrasing); "In place of a
dark lord you would have a queen, not dark but terrible and beautiful etc.
etc."
Both these scenes are strong indicators that the Ring could be used, at
least by someone of the power of Gandalf or Galadriel, but that such use
would corrupt the wielder, turning them into a tyrant as evil as Sauron.
Boromir also believes that he could use the Ring as a weapon against Sauron,
not that we need put too much faith in that.
Set against this we have only Aragorn saying that the Ring cannot be used.
He never says why it cannot be used though. Perhaps he is merely
abbreviating the argument that it canot be used because the user would
inevitably become as evil a tyrant as Sauron, not because it cannot
physically be used, period.
In my most recent viewing of the films, when I was keeping your argument in
mind, I couldn't see anywhere else where it is said that the Ring cannot be
used at all. In fact in Two Towers there is very little said about the Ring
one way or the other.
I still don't understand why no-one in Jackson's Return of King didn't
mention the ploy of pretending they had the Ring but I don't think, given
Gandalf's and Galadriel's statements above, that it can be because the Ring
was fundamentally unusable. Gandalf's and Galadriel's rejection of the Ring
was a moral choice, not simply an intelligent one, even in the film.
Trade.
Jussi Jaatinen
Justin Bacon wrote:
(removed rather biased comparison of the Battle of the Pelennor fields
in the book and film)
> Whether you want a faithful adaptation or not is irrelevant. This is just
> sub-par.
In the film, Theoden says explicitly that he doesn't have enough men to
defeat Sauron, but that he'll ride to Gondor nonetheless. This is why
the Rohirrim yell "Death" as they ride down the Orcs. As it happens, the
Rohirrim do come just in the nick of time to help Minas Tirith hold out
for a few hours more, which is when the Dead arrive. Of course, having
two separate groups of allies arriving to the City's defence in the
midst of a battle is melodramatic, but it's the way it happens in the
book. Also the Flying Nazgul and huge war-elephants represent a kind of
arms race that ruins some of the suspension-of-disbelief, but they too
are adapted from the book.
The name of Sauron's battering ram is in the film as a sort of
background chant when the contraption is onscreen, which is nice (and a
subtle reference to events of the First Age). Also the screams of the
Ringwraiths sound more lethal in RotK than they did in FotR, which is
precisely correct. Denethor does come across as somewhat inept as others
have noted, and he doesn't have a Palantir (at least in the theatrical
cut). Aragorn's confrontation with Sauron happens at Morannon and not
through the Orthanc stone. I'd have liked to see Frodo use the Ring to
cower Gollum, and also Sam use it indirectly to drive fear into Orcs in
Cirith Ungol. I'd also have liked to see the "great wheel of fire"
onscreen through Frodo's eyes - HUGE.
The very beginning (sans VoS) works fine with the exception that no
explanation is given why the Palantir is outside the tower. Well, the EE
should sort that one out.
Some aspects of the film IMO reveal that it's originally been a book.
There's just so much disparate material in it. I think the Army of the
Dead could have been removed, as could perhaps the Ents from TT. The
time saved could have been used to develop the other aspects in the
story. Similarly the trek over Gorgoroth and from MT to Morannon happen
rather quickly, and Cirith Ungol is a bit cursory - I suspect the EE
will have significantly more minutes. The Frodo/Sam/Gollum relationship
works great and is afforded the time it needs. Film-wise, Pippin on the
Beacon of MT works to foreshadow the Pyre of Denethor in a way that
supports the character of film-Denethor (Denethor should have lit the
Beacon, instead he lights himself).
Speaking of the EE, I wonder if the issue of bluffing Aragorn has the
Ring will be in it. I was a bit surprised it wasn't included - in fact
the only reference to this theme is Merry telling Pippin after the
Palantir sequence that Sauron now believes Pippin has the Ring.
Aragorn's crown looks like Gandalf found it in a cereal box. I don't
remember exactly how it was described in the book, but I'd imagine it
was adorned by gems brought from Numenor and Valinor. Similarly, the
"great hall" of Minas Tirith doesn't look all that great, in fact they
had to stage the coronation in the courtyard! I think St. Paul's in
London or, indeed, St. Peter's in the Vatican could have been prototypes
for how the great hall of Minas Tirith could have looked. But at least
the lawn is decent, which counts for a lot.
> Chekhov once wrote that, if you put a gun on the mantlepiece in the first act,
> it had better be fired before the end of the play. I don't understand why
> Jackson, having gone out of his way to establish Arwen as a warrior princess in
> the first film, fails to pull the trigger in the third: Arwen should have
> brought the sword. And Arwen should have taken the place of her brothers and
> ridden to war with Aragorn.
They did consider having Arwen show up in Helm's Deep with the sword,
but fans got wind of the plan and howled, so they axed it.
-JJ
Jussi Jaatinen
Jussi Jaatinen wrote:
>
(snip)
>
But overall, the film was spectacular and I did cry a bit at one point.
The Sammath Naur sequence was highly climatic, IMO.
-JJ
Kathy Cole
> So one question: If the Rohirrim weren't there, would Minas Tirith
> have held long enough for the Aragorn's host to arrive?
Not as far as I could see.
Kathy Cole
> I think I was expecting too much. And the problem is those last 20
> minutes, which really didn't work for me, are the last thigs you see.
> I hate to say it, but I was actually getting impatient for the movie
> to end during the last 20 minutes.
I think that's a root of a lot of the complaints; while it was a slight
damper on my first viewings of both Two Towers and ROTK, I heavily
spoilered myself so I would be less likely to be distracted by 'where is
x', 'oh, that's an interesting way to do that', 'hmm, not sure I like
that decision', which made it hard for me to get into my first viewing
of Fellowship until about mid-way through.
(I also went alone to TT, and with a friend from work to ROTK, so I
wasn't distracted by the kids or my hubby climbing out to pee.)
It's all about managing expectations, to me. I have been and will no
doubt continue to be stunningly impressed by how close the movie folks
came to the books, far closer than I'd ever hoped for. I know this
sounds anathema to quite a few people posting here (and I'm not talking
about Louis), but in spite of the numerous choices that were made that I
wouldn't have made, they did so well. I never expected them to pull in
as much of the book as they did, and knowing some of PJ's earlier work
(not to mention the tremendous gamble being taken) fully expected an
emphasis far more on rousing action at the expense of quieter time, and
was thus able to embrace what was realized on screen so well.
I'd really like to know which parts of Two Towers were hold-overs from
the two-script treatment (the fourth screenwriter credit, left over from
Miramax's involvement, is only on TT). I wonder if those are the
over-the-cliff parts that bother so many so much, for example. I don't
think Philippa had ever written a script before, which is another huge
gamble taken by PJ. I'm glad they kept changing the script they had as
they moved through production to bring it closer to the book, though
certainly once they were too far along it would have been nearly
impossible to do a significant shift from the plotted, pre-visualized,
costumed, art directed plans.
I'm babbling, sorry. I am looking forward to my second and future
viewings of the ROTK in front of us, and am excited for its extended
edition, hopefully in the August timing I've seen rumored, rather than
in November. I expect the dead will look somewhat more polished, since
as I understand it, the animators only had a few weeks to complete that
effect. I expect Denethor to be more noble, though still mad. I expect
to fully enjoy the voice of Saruman, more of Merry, Eomer and Faramir,
Gandalf vs. the Witch King, the Houses of Healing, the Mouth of Sauron,
and no doubt many other scenes set aside for now.
Justin Bacon
>I don't disagree with what you said except for the fact that you burst
>in on an obviously and unserious whimsical musing in order to try to
>zing me again. You are the one who abandoned rational argument for
>insults and then fled a previous thread. You'll notice that I have
>never nor will ever engage in your game of argument by insults. It's
>beneath me.
Bwahahahaha.
Tell you what: I'll forgive you for your previous idiocies. But you need to
shape up now.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>> I couldn't agree more. And it could have been fixed so easily: have
>> the Riders arrive just in time to stop some other catastrophe
>
>Isn't this exactly what happens? The orcs are just about to
>break through the defence in the Gate, when most of them
>have to turn against Rohirrim? Seems meaningful enough to me.
Yeah, but that's only the second gate. There are five more. And you could argue
that those additional gates aren't there... except for the fact that Jackson
went out of his way to affirm Tolkien's construction of the city[1] by showing
Gandalf Riding around it.
Plus, they didn't pull the orcs out of the city: We see the army of the dead
sweeping into the city and clearing out those orcs.
[1] Albeit on a smaller scale, along with the rest of Jackson's Middle Earth.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>> I beg to differ on that, of course. That scene was heavily,
>> needlessly butchered in my opinion.
>
>Your opinion is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
Well, his assessment that the scene was heavily altered is pretty much
incontrovertible, so you must be claiming that the scene *needed* to be heavily
altered. Why?
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>They did consider having Arwen show up in Helm's Deep with the sword,
>but fans got wind of the plan and howled, so they axed it.
Source for that? I guess I'm rather doubtful that they filmed at least two,
possibly three, new scenes to satisfy the obnoxious side of the fanbase... but
left the warg riders in the second movie.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Rick
There is a difference between "heavily altered" and "butchered." One states
a factual event, the other contains a value judgment. The scene DID need to
be altered because it would have been far too drawn-out with that dialogue
AND sounded incredibly hokey. Reading it here, I was reminded of a comic
book superhero fistfight, where the villain and hero trade paragraph-long
silliloquies inbetween punches.
Jussi Jaatinen
Justin Bacon wrote:
> >They did consider having Arwen show up in Helm's Deep with the sword,
> >but fans got wind of the plan and howled, so they axed it.
> Source for that? I guess I'm rather doubtful that they filmed at least two,
> possibly three, new scenes to satisfy the obnoxious side of the fanbase... but
> left the warg riders in the second movie.
It's on the TT EE DVD (now that's a real abbreviation) set extras, IIRC
Liv Tyler's interview. They filmed Arwen arriving in Helm's Deep with
the sword and kicking some Orc ass. Tyler remembers some fans calling
that "Xena the warrior princess" Arwen on the net, which caused them to
abandon the idea. In fact, I remember reading _in this ng_ that someone
called Arwen in Helm's Deep "Xena the warrior princess", so I'm
suspecting that the crew follows what goes on here.
They filmed tons of stuff. The first cut of RotK, for example, was 6
hours long, so there's plenty more than 2-3 scenes around. On the
commentary track to TT they give their reasons for the warg attack,
which have IIRC been discussed here.
-JJ
Aris Katsaris
"Trade Surplus" <trades...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oiwEb.42981$886....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> "Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote ...
> > "pawn" <pa...@hanneng.com> wrote ...
> > > Again, agreed. I'm not sure why this couldn't have been explained in
> > > the movie. There was so much more dialog directly from the books in
> > > this movie than the first two, but there were several exchanges where
> > > any reference to Sauron fearing the Ring being used against him was
> > > purposely removed. I don't get it.
> >
> > I haven't yet seen the 3rd movie but, as I've explained in detail
> elsewhere,
> > Peter Jackson goes of his way to tell us that the ring can't be used by
> the
> > good guys (or by anyone other than Sauron), PERIOD. Not that it would
> > corrupt them, but that they can't use it PERIOD.
> >
> > They'd get possessed if they tried to do so, or something, because there's
> > only one who can master it, only one who can bind it to his will, etc,
> > etc.
>
> Since I first read this point of yours I watched Jackson's Fellowship and
> Two Towers again and I can't agree with you. ISTM that Jackson's Gandalf and
> Galadriel both believe that they could use the Ring but that it would
> corrupt them and make them as evil as Sauron, i.e. the same as Tolkien's
> Gandalf and Galadriel.
> When Jackson's Frodo first offers the Ring to Gandalf he refuses it saying
> (paraphrasing) "I want to use the Ring from a desire to do good, but through
> me it would do great evil."
Better to not paraphrase. "Understand Frodo, I would use this ring from
the desire to do good. But through me, it would wield a power to
great and terrible to imagine."
At this point it's subtle still. But already we're moving away from references
that the ring would corrupt the user, and towards references that hint more
towards possession.
> Similarly, in the Galadriel temptation scene (if you can bring yourself to
> watch that again) Jackson has her say (again paraphrasing); "In place of a
> dark lord you would have a queen, not dark but terrible and beautiful etc.
> etc."
Yes, this is the best scene to support the argument that Jackson included the
idea -- but it also seems to contradict statements by Gandalf, that there's only
one who can bend the ring to his will. As such we can be left with the
impression that the ring is simply providing Galadriel with delusions of
grandeur, trying to tempt her.
> Boromir also believes that he could use the Ring as a weapon against Sauron,
> not that we need put too much faith in that.
> Set against this we have only Aragorn saying that the Ring cannot be used.
Also Gandalf's statement that "there's only who can bend it to his will." as
a rebuttal to Saruman's argument that he should "embrace the power of the Ring",
another absurd reference by Jackson to Starwars and Darth Vader urging
Luke to "embrace the power of the dark side".
Because what in the world does "embrace the power of the Ring" mean?
Saruman doesn't want Gandalf to use the Ring, it was Darth Vader and
the Emperor that wanted Luke to use the dark side.
> In my most recent viewing of the films, when I was keeping your argument in
> mind, I couldn't see anywhere else where it is said that the Ring cannot be
> used at all. In fact in Two Towers there is very little said about the Ring
> one way or the other.
"The Ring won't save Minas Tirith. It only has the power to destroy."
It's subtle, I grant you that -- but both the omissions *and* the additions
when the Ring's power is discussed, all point towards what I'm claiming.
Aris Katsaris
Bryan S. Slick
[Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:51:15 +0200]
:> Similarly, in the Galadriel temptation scene (if you can bring yourself to
:> watch that again) Jackson has her say (again paraphrasing); "In place of a
:> dark lord you would have a queen, not dark but terrible and beautiful etc.
:> etc."
:
:Yes, this is the best scene to support the argument that Jackson included the
:idea -- but it also seems to contradict statements by Gandalf, that there's only
:one who can bend the ring to his will. As such we can be left with the
:impression that the ring is simply providing Galadriel with delusions of
:grandeur, trying to tempt her.
I think the will in this case might be that of Morgoth, were Sauron's
innate Power (bound up in the Ring) pass to someone capable of using it,
such as Gandalf, Aragorn, Galadriel, Elrond, Cirdan.. etc.
So.. she wouldn't really be Galadriel for very long.. and would in fact
be corrupted and ruined.. but she would actually be in power in Sauron's
place.. in some respects, she would BE Sauron. He, after all, is
nothing more than an emissary of Morgoth, as Tolkien makes clear.
RufusTFirefly
"Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
news:brv764$1v3m$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
Saruman engages in a lengthy debate with Gandalf about the inevitability of
Sauron's victory. 'Embrace the power of the Ring' suggests Saruman's
identification of the Ring with that inevitable victory. Saruman wants the
ring for himself, so it seems that Saruman is deluded into thinking that he
can master the ring for his own use, so there is also an element of 'If I
have the ring, then I will be its lord".
Since Lucas was tapping in to the mythical nature of 'Good vs.Evil', 'Dark
vs. light', etc., the similiarities in themes should not be suprising.
Lucas version is not as subtle as Tolkien's, though.
As it is possed in the film, wizards and elves would make excellent hosts
for Sauron. As to whether that would be complete possission and replacement
of identity, or just the corruption of the spirit, who can say? That is
what Gandalf and Galadriel fear, that they would become Sauron eventually.
Morgil
"Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> kirjoitti
viestissä:brv764$1v3m$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
>
> "Trade Surplus" <trades...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:oiwEb.42981$886....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> > In my most recent viewing of the films, when I was keeping your argument
in
> > mind, I couldn't see anywhere else where it is said that the Ring cannot
be
> > used at all. In fact in Two Towers there is very little said about the
Ring
> > one way or the other.
>
> "The Ring won't save Minas Tirith. It only has the power to destroy."
>
> It's subtle, I grant you that -- but both the omissions *and* the
additions
> when the Ring's power is discussed, all point towards what I'm claiming.
And how about Galadriel saying that Ring *wants* Faramir
to claim it for his own, because that way Sauron would win!
"...the will of the Ring grows strong. It works hard now to find
its way back into the hands of men. Men, who are so easily seduced by its
power. The young captain of Gondor has but to extend his hand to take the
Ring for his own and the world will fall. He is close now, so close to
achieving his goal. For Sauron will have dominion over all life on this
Earth, even until the ending of the world."
Morgil
Aris Katsaris
"Morgil" <more...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:brvdln$7jlt1$1...@ID-81911.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> kirjoitti
> viestissä:brv764$1v3m$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
> >
> >
> > It's subtle, I grant you that -- but both the omissions *and* the
> > additions when the Ring's power is discussed, all point
> > towards what I'm claiming.
>
> And how about Galadriel saying that Ring *wants* Faramir
> to claim it for his own, because that way Sauron would win!
>
> "...the will of the Ring grows strong. It works hard now to find
> its way back into the hands of men. Men, who are so easily seduced by its
> power. The young captain of Gondor has but to extend his hand to take the
> Ring for his own and the world will fall. He is close now, so close to
> achieving his goal. For Sauron will have dominion over all life on this
> Earth, even until the ending of the world."
Nice catch.
Yup, this seems to make it definite. Movie-Sauron can never fear the
Ring being used against him, because he and the Ring are one, and someone
trying to use it will seemingly become possessed by Sauron's spirit. Or
something.
Aris Katsaris
Cheng-Jih Chen
Justin Bacon <tria...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>It reinforces the argument. The line you quote is actually Tolkien's line from
>the book, and I think it illustrates the difference in tone and storytelling
>between the book and the movie: There is a definite texture and *plotting* to
>the battle in the novel, an ebb and flow between hope and desperation. The
>drama also doesn't come to an end once the batle begins in the novel: The
>battlefield serves as a place where characters grow and change.
>
>In the movie, all of this seems watered down to a very basic set of
>"reinforcements arrive" and "Theoden dies".
>
>I don't want this to get confused with a "they changed things, so it sucks!"
>argument. This is more a "they changed things, and the result is unnecessarily
>inferior".
The horrible part is that the Bass-Rankin "Return of the King" actually
does the battle more or less right, with the sequence of alternating
despair and elation described by Tolkein. The Bass-Rankin Witch King
also sort of looked the part, with the red eyes and floating crown.
Could one reason why Jackson didn't do the Witch King/Gandalf
confrontation was because the Nazgul are as threatening as angry kittens
in these movies, and such a confrontation wouldn't have been credible?
I mean, outside of riding around on their mounts -- which do all the work
of snatching up random soldiers -- all that happens with the Nazgul is
that they get their asses kicked by everyone.
Kathy Cole
wrote:
> Could one reason why Jackson didn't do the Witch King/Gandalf
> confrontation was because the Nazgul are as threatening as angry kittens
> in these movies, and such a confrontation wouldn't have been credible?
What seems to be the confrontation has been highlighted in trailers, but
did not appear in the film. Presumably it will be on the DVD.
Me Again
<swtr...@NOSPAMtampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>There is a difference between "heavily altered" and "butchered." One states
>a factual event, the other contains a value judgment. The scene DID need to
>be altered because it would have been far too drawn-out with that dialogue
>AND sounded incredibly hokey. Reading it here, I was reminded of a comic
>book superhero fistfight, where the villain and hero trade paragraph-long
>silliloquies inbetween punches.
Butcheredly altered then. A matter of semantics does not change the
fact that it was. If you want to argue whether saying so is based on
fact or opinion (value judgment), you can't because that's your
opinion and you've already shown you don't care for opinions, only
facts.
Jussi Jaatinen
Aris Katsaris wrote:
> > And how about Galadriel saying that Ring *wants* Faramir
> > to claim it for his own, because that way Sauron would win!
> > "...the will of the Ring grows strong. It works hard now to find
> > its way back into the hands of men. Men, who are so easily seduced by its
> > power. The young captain of Gondor has but to extend his hand to take the
> > Ring for his own and the world will fall. He is close now, so close to
> > achieving his goal. For Sauron will have dominion over all life on this
> > Earth, even until the ending of the world."
> Yup, this seems to make it definite. Movie-Sauron can never fear the
> Ring being used against him, because he and the Ring are one, and someone
> trying to use it will seemingly become possessed by Sauron's spirit. Or
> something.
Another option is that G feels the Ring believes that should Faramir
claim it (in Ithilien) then Sauron would know where it is and reclaim
it. Aragorn would be a more dangerous proposition from Sauron's POV.
-JJ
Rick
"Me Again" <m...@home.now> wrote in message
Your paragraph makes no sense whatsoever, I'm afraid.
Kathy Cole
> Source for that? I guess I'm rather doubtful that they filmed at
> least two, possibly three, new scenes to satisfy the obnoxious side
> of the fanbase... but left the warg riders in the second movie.
I think fan howling as a cause for cutting Arwen at Helm's Deep is
exaggerated; what I recall from the DVD was that PJ et al felt her being
there was not working, so they took her out, digitally removing her in a
few scenes that made the final film.
There are a number of alternate treatments that were partially or
entirely filmed and then abandoned. Frodo attacked by an orc on the
shore before heading across the Anduin, and the Fellowship pursued by
orcs into Lorien are two examples off the top of my head.
(Liv did reference her feelings being hurt by online cranky Xenarwen
commentary.)
A Tsar Is Born
"Steuard Jensen" <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:zRvEb.27$_4.1...@news.uchicago.edu...
> Quoth l...@put.com in article <KL2dnaSQgOy...@fcc.net>:
> > pawn <pa...@hanneng.com> wrote:
> > : I'm trying more and more to look at these movies as a pure movie
> > : experience, since they fall utterly short as a true adaptation.
>
> > I really,really,REALLY despise this attitude.
> > want to be judged by fidelity to source material!!
>
> The goal of a filmmaker is to create a story that will be enjoyable
> and compelling on the screen. If they find a good idea and make an
> excellent movie out of it, that means they've succeeded, right? On
> that level, it doesn't matter _where_ they got that idea.
Backing Steuard up here, this attitude COULD be compared to those who say
(there must have been one or two over the years) that Tolkien shouldn't have
monkeyed with Norse mythology or Catholic theology (or Atlantis), but should
have invented something of his own....
And of course, Tolkien DID say something like that in criticizing Wagner,
who certainly twisted Norse mythology, Greek drama and Schopenhauer's take
on Buddhism into a creation that did not strongly resemble any of them. A
twist that JRRT did not care for at all. So he twisted it his own way.
(And I feel about Jackson's films pretty much the way I feel about some of
the hideous trashy stagings of Wagner's operas that one sees nowadays.)
Ah well: art is never QUITE pure or original.
Just as all religions are syncretistic.
Tsar Parmathule
A Tsar Is Born
"Jussi Jaatinen" <1...@1.au> wrote in message news:3FE2E0B6...@1.au...
> Aragorn's crown looks like Gandalf found it in a cereal box. I don't
> remember exactly how it was described in the book, but I'd imagine it
> was adorned by gems brought from Numenor and Valinor.
No gems from Valinor in Elendilic hands, aside from the palantiri.
The crown was made for one of the later kings (Atanatar Alcarin?) and is in
the form of a helm with wings -- pure Wagnerian opera,
>Similarly, the
> "great hall" of Minas Tirith doesn't look all that great, in fact they
> had to stage the coronation in the courtyard!
In the book, the coronation takes place on the Pelennor before the City, so
the entire city can attend and cry, "Yea!" when Faramir asks them if they
want a king again.
Tsar Parmathule
pawn
> Pawn wrote:
>>I'm not sure it's that easy. I mean, it's easy for Tolkien to describe
>>in words a battle of ancient wills between Gandalf and Denethor, because
>>he doesn't have to describe what daggers passed back and forth between
>>their gazes might look like. How do you film that? You'd need a
>>narrator or something. Same goes for Pippin's assesment of how Denethor
>>looked more majestic. it's easy to say it when you have a narrator, but
>>how do you show it?
>
>
> I'm not following your complaint here.
Well, I'm not sure I was complaining, but...
> First, I thought Jackson (and the actor playing Pippin) did a very good job of
> showing Pippin's reactions to Denethor's limited range of moods without having
> a narrator explaining them. I don't see why they would have lost this ability
> if Denethor's character had been more deeply drawn.
OK. I disagree. See below.
> I'm also unsure what "battle of ancient wills" between Gandalf and Denethor
> you're describing. Every confrontation I can think of in the book between
> Gandalf and Denethor is couched in dialogue, not some sort of narrated tension.
Without even checking them, I can remember about 10 parts of the books
where characters are merely described as powerful or having intangible
qualities, without any real description or dialog. Two such coupons
pertain to this topic:
(paraphrasing)
- "Pippin noticed that Denethor appeared more kingly than Gandalf, but
he knew deep down that Gandalf had the deeper power."
- "Pippin saw Gandalf and Denethor lock gazes again, but this time it
seemed as though daggers were being exchanged in their glances.
Eventually Denethor withdrew his gaze."
I have no doubt I could offer more if I had the energy to walk over and
get my books.
If you have some way of filming that, I'd love to hear it. Tolkien uses
this technique generously in the books: characters have intangible
qualities that are never overtly displayed, except for brief glimpses.
We only accept this as readers because of the slow development of the
characters. And it's narrated almost exclusively. Legolas and Gimli
are described by the narrator as noticing how Aragorn seems to grow in
stature and might under the shadow of the Argonath.
Gandalf is a demi-god, and yet the most overt display of his power is a
stab of white light from his extended palm. But the reader is left with
no doubt whatsoever of Gandalf's power.
My possible theory is that PJ chose to abandon the idea of hidden,
intangible
worth and power, since it would be difficult to convey on film. An
unfortunate
side effect of this is that subtlety is exchanged for, in some cases,
corny and crass displays of power, like Gandalf's Kendo routine on
Denethor. And I'm not saying I'm right either, just that it's one
possibility for many of the character changes.
> For an example of what I'm talking about: Why does Jackson feel its necessary
> for Gandalf to nonsensically punch out Denethor? Why can't Denethor just
> withdraw to his son's sick bed and refuse to lead the defense, as he does in
> the book? It would be trivial:
>
> GANDALF: The city is at last besieged. We are needed.
> DENETHOR: I sent my son forth, unthanked, unblessed, out into needless peril,
> and here he lies with poison in his veins. My line, too, is ending. The House
> of Stewards has failed. The race of men shall die.
> GANDALF: Such counsels will make the Enemy's victory certain indeed. Come, my
> lord. There is much that you can yet do.
> DENETHOR: I will not come down. I must stay beside my son. [to his men] Follow
> whom you will, even the Grey Fool, though his hope has failed. Here I stay.
>
> Sure, that takes a few more seconds than "Denethor shouts out some stuff at the
> top of his lungs and then Gandalf beats him up". But I think the time cost is
> well paid in quality.
It's an entire theme though. Your way requires a lot of background and
character development. PJ's way is much easier to quickly get the
audience on side. And BTW, it's a very common theme in many movies:
create an absolutely deplorable character then create some cheap and
easy applause when the hero knocks him/her down.
>
> The other thing Jackson confuses, for no sensible reason, is Pippin's movement
> through Minas Tirith. Pippin leaves the side of Denethor so many times (once to
> ride out with Gandalf and again to briefly guard Gandalf's back) that it lacks
> all meaning when he leaves Denethor's side to warn Gandalf of Denethor's pyre.
> (It also lacks meaning because Jackson removes the *choice* Gandalf has to make
> when Pippin comes to him. Which may be a necessary loss due to time
> constraints, but was still *very* unfortunate, IMO.)
Can't argue. I never really considered Pippin's freedom, but I was
disappointed when Gandalf wasn't forced to choose between facing the
Witch King and saving Faramir. Then again, I have always struggled with
the theme in the books that it was less of a tragedy for the gatekeepers
at Rath Dinen to die than for Faramir to die.
> And then, at the actual pyre sequence, all you needed (again) was a fairly
> simple sequence:
>
> GANDALF: Stay this madness!
> DENETHOR: Do as I have bidden!
> [no one moves]
> GANDALF: What is this, my lord? The houses of the dead are no place for the
> living.
> DENETHOR: Since when has the Lord of Gondor been answerable to thee? Or may I
> not command my own servants?
> GANDALF: What then would you have, if your will could have its way?
> DENETHOR: I would have things as they were in all the days of my life, and in
> the days of my fathers before me. But if doom denies me this, I will have
> NAUGHT!
>
> [ Denethor drops the flame. Pippin rushes forward to save Faramir. Denethor
> stands proud in his immolation. ]
>
> GANDALF: So passes Denethor, son of Ecthelion.
>
Can't argue.
> Although, actually, I'd probably try to preserve the revelation of the palantir
> somehow -- although that would increase the length of the scene and probably
> mandate some re-staging (leaving Denethor on top of the pyre for a longer scene
> would be problematic). (I'd probably choose as a revelation either "your fool's
> hope has fallen into the hands of our Enemy" or "a black fleet sails from the
> south, bearing doom for the armies of men".)
I was actually kind of relieved, since in such a short amount of film
time, I wondered if film goers that hadn't read the books would start to
confuse the Palantirs, kind of like they were too convenient and used to
close too many plot threads.
>>>I mean, if you want to play "we're
>>>little scared to take on a wizard" or "we're really glad someone's taking
>>>charge", that would be one thing, but they just *stand* there -- as if
>>
> people
>
>>>knock out the Steward of Gondor every day of the week.
>>
>>Because it's clear in the movie that Denethor has bwwn overthrown for
>>quite some time before Gandalf shows up, and the guards are likely happy
>>that somebody has finally taken command over the city.
>
>
> I addressed that. If you want that to be your story, then you need to *tell*
> that story.
>
I thought he did. Gandalf and Pippin both said he was mad in front of
the (some) guards.
>
>>I didn't like that part either. It gets worse when you see the length
>>he would have had to run to reach that cliff. How do you run half a
>>kilometre on fire (distance exaggerated).
>
>
> I'm not sure it is exagerrated. We're talking about the length of the entire
> city.
>
It's certainly bizarre.
>
>>Combine it with Merry and Eowyn. The entire exchange was powerful
>>(although I was terrified they were going to leave out Eowyn's "No
>>living man am I" line).
>
>
> I think that's an insightful thing to say. By the time I got to the end of the
> film I was *convinced* that Frodo would not be getting on the ship. I had lost
> so much faith in Jackson, that I actually thought he was going to send Bilbo by
> himself.
>
Same.
Finally: don't confuse me for an apologist for PJ. I personally
believe that the movies could have been much better with better
screenwriters and/or a better director. I don't think any of the movies
were masterpieces as some would suggest.
However, I will accept that this was a good movie, as movies go. At
least I left feeling pretty good about it, unlike TTT.
> Justin Bacno
> tria...@aol.com
pawn
> "Me Again" <m...@home.now> wrote in message
>
>
So was Eowyn, that's his point ;^)
pawn
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:42:07 -0500, pawn <pa...@hanneng.com> wrote:
>
>>What about the excellent adaptations of the
>>Witch King exchanges
>
>
> I beg to differ on that, of course. That scene was heavily,
> (Eowyn is supposed to take her hemlet off before they fight and show
> the witch king that 'she', not 'he', has the power to kill him, and
> what the h-e-double-hockey-sticks is with him trying to choker her?),
Maybe I liked it because I'm Canadian? You know: hockey and...never mind.
> the dialog was wrong (her lines are reduced to "I am no man"), the
> witch king's appearance was wrong (where are those glowing eyes and
> his crown? he is a king after all), and Eowyn looked like she was
> scared out of her skin which is not at all how it was described in the
> book.
It was certainly different, but I loved Eowyn portrayed as frail and
scared, yet brave. IMO, it worked well.
> The best part of that scene was Eowyn telling the witch king
> she would kill him if he touched Theoden.
>
> But I know, I know, it doesn't have to be like the book...
My complaints have always been of two types: unfaithful to the books
and badly written. If a scene's unfaithful, it had better not be badly
written. There were many, many examples in the first two movies, but
very few in this movie, all of course IMO.
Trade Surplus
> >
> > Since I first read this point of yours I watched Jackson's Fellowship
and
> > Two Towers again and I can't agree with you. ISTM that Jackson's Gandalf
and
> > Galadriel both believe that they could use the Ring but that it would
> > corrupt them and make them as evil as Sauron, i.e. the same as Tolkien's
> > Gandalf and Galadriel.
> > When Jackson's Frodo first offers the Ring to Gandalf he refuses it
saying
> > (paraphrasing) "I want to use the Ring from a desire to do good, but
through
> > me it would do great evil."
>
> Better to not paraphrase. "Understand Frodo, I would use this ring from
> the desire to do good. But through me, it would wield a power to
> great and terrible to imagine."
>
> At this point it's subtle still. But already we're moving away from
references
> that the ring would corrupt the user, and towards references that hint
more
> towards possession.
Even with the proper quote (thanks) this still seems to me more like Gandalf
setting himself up as a tyrant than becoming possessed by Sauron or handing
the Ring over to him. "Through me" it would wield a terrible power strongly
implies that Gandalf will be the one wearing the Ring while it is doing
these terrible things.
> > Similarly, in the Galadriel temptation scene (if you can bring yourself
to
> > watch that again) Jackson has her say (again paraphrasing); "In place of
a
> > dark lord you would have a queen, not dark but terrible and beautiful
etc.
> > etc."
>
> Yes, this is the best scene to support the argument that Jackson included
the
> idea -- but it also seems to contradict statements by Gandalf, that
there's only
> one who can bend the ring to his will. As such we can be left with the
> impression that the ring is simply providing Galadriel with delusions of
> grandeur, trying to tempt her.
>
> > Boromir also believes that he could use the Ring as a weapon against
Sauron,
> > not that we need put too much faith in that.
> > Set against this we have only Aragorn saying that the Ring cannot be
used.
>
> Also Gandalf's statement that "there's only who can bend it to his will."
as
> a rebuttal to Saruman's argument that he should "embrace the power of the
Ring",
<snip SW reference>
It's quite well established in Tolkien's ME that only a being of great power
could completely master the Ring. Gandalf could easily believe that neither
he nor Saruman has that power, even though Tolkien later revealed that he
had. "Bend it to his will" could be read as synonymous to "master it". After
all, unless the Ring is truly mastered then it will be the wearer doing the
bidding of the Ring rather than vice versa. The Ring would have bent the
wearer to its will.
> "The Ring won't save Minas Tirith. It only has the power to destroy."
This is a strange comment on the surface. The power to destroy the attacking
hordes of orcs, trolls and mumakil would have saved Minas Tirith, without
question. The way in which Minas Tirith would not have been saved would be
if the Ring corrupted the wielder such that Minas Tirith became perverted
into an image of Minas Morgul. Thus this comment makes sense under the
'corrupted wielder' premise at least as much as (if not more than) under the
'possessed wielder' premise.
So that I don't break up my reply into two, I'll include Morgil's quote here
as well. Morgil quoted Galadriel, referring to Faramir:
> > "...the will of the Ring grows strong. It works hard now to find
> > its way back into the hands of men. Men, who are so easily seduced by
its
> > power. The young captain of Gondor has but to extend his hand to take
the
> > Ring for his own and the world will fall. He is close now, so close to
> > achieving his goal. For Sauron will have dominion over all life on this
> > Earth, even until the ending of the world."
As you did with my earlier Galadriel quote I'll admit that this is the
strongest evidence for your position. It doesn't say how Sauron would have
dominion over all life though. Maybe it is just shorthand for saying that
Sauronic ideals would have dominion, though implemented through Faramir. Or
maybe it is an acknowledgement that a human Ring wielder would become
overconfident and challenge Sauron before the Black Gates with only a few
thousand men. Maybe this overconfidence would only apply to weak Men, not to
Gandalf or Galadriel or maybe not even to Aragorn - unless he wanted to
deliberately trick Sauron into believing he would fall into the trap of
overconfidence.
Furthermore, we know that three people have used the Ring, two of them often
and for a long time, without either becoming possessed by Sauron or wanting
to hand the Ring back to him. Indeed Gollum desperately wanted to keep the
precious out of Sauron's hands.
> It's subtle, I grant you that -- but both the omissions *and* the
additions
> when the Ring's power is discussed, all point towards what I'm claiming.
There are quotes from the movies to support both positions and workarounds
for the quotes that contradict each position. My impression, possibly
coloured by the books, is very much that the Ring can be used but that the
wielder would become as bad a tyrant as Sauron. However I'm willing to
concede that the other position - that a wielder would either become
possessed or hand the Ring to Sauron - is possible without creating an
incontrovertible movie internal error. Is it possible that Jackson
deliberately left things somewhat ambiguous so that he would have the
flexibility to cut RotK whatever way he wanted? Or is that giving him too
much credit for forward thinking?
One potential way to resolve this would be to poll a group of people who had
seen the movie but never read the books. They should have an unbiased
opinion.
Until then, and unless you can come up with a movie quote that says _how_
Sauron would get hold of the Ring from a wielder, whether by possession of
the wielder's body or by the wielder physically handing it over, I am going
to continue to see the movie Ring as having the same corrupting effect as
the book Ring. In a nice reversal of the Epstein lament, the book has
permanently coloured my image of the movie ;-)
Trade.
Sw...@nospam.com
>> Denouement: A real sleeper. I *do* certainly agree with the idea of going
>> back to the Shire and seeing the Havens but what happened in the movie simply
>> didn't work. This seems to be purely directorial. It's hard to explain
>> exactly why, but for me it simply didn't work.
>Yeah, I was uncomfortable. It could easily be explained this way:
>there was such a gigantic series of climaxes, any attempt to have a soft
>landing would have failed. I can't say I would be able to do it any
>better. What can you do? End it ala Star Wars 5 minutes after the climax?
I don't think it was a bad idea, and the direction taken was a good
one, I just think it was not well executed.
The explanations for Frodo leaving were vague and did not reference
his many injuries. There was one reference to the stab wound from
Weathertop, but not that it still pained him, nor that the other
injuries did as well. Not to mention the loss of the ring.
In the book he had to leave to seek some solace for his wounds, both
physical and spiritual, but in the movie he just appears bored and
ready to split for no apparent reason. Elijah Woods was not at his
best in that scene, which didn't help.
Swyck
Rick
news:vcc9uvk2lut6pklaj...@4ax.com...
> The explanations for Frodo leaving were vague and did not reference
> his many injuries. There was one reference to the stab wound from
> Weathertop, but not that it still pained him
Actually you're incorrect. He showed pain (rather than SAYING it...you
know, movie, show, don't tell?) and mentioned that it had never healed.
Justin Bacon
>> I'm also unsure what "battle of ancient wills" between Gandalf and Denethor
>> you're describing. Every confrontation I can think of in the book between
>> Gandalf and Denethor is couched in dialogue, not some sort of narrated
tension.
>
>Without even checking them, I can remember about 10 parts of the books
>where characters are merely described as powerful or having intangible
>qualities, without any real description or dialog. Two such coupons
>pertain to this topic:
>
>(paraphrasing)
>
> - "Pippin noticed that Denethor appeared more kingly than Gandalf, but
>he knew deep down that Gandalf had the deeper power."
>
>- "Pippin saw Gandalf and Denethor lock gazes again, but this time it
>seemed as though daggers were being exchanged in their glances.
>Eventually Denethor withdrew his gaze."
>
>I have no doubt I could offer more if I had the energy to walk over and
>get my books.
To sum this exchange up:
Pawn: There are some scenes like X in the book.
Justin: I can't think of anything like that in the book.
Pawn: I can.
Okay. That's nice. But until you can give me some details on what these
encounters actually *are*, there's not much to discuss.
>If you have some way of filming that, I'd love to hear it. Tolkien uses
>this technique generously in the books: characters have intangible
>qualities that are never overtly displayed, except for brief glimpses.
Sure. Here's another example:
"Thus Gandalf softly sang, and then suddenly he changed. Casting his tattered
cloak aside, he stood up and leaned no longer on his staff; and he spoke in a
clear cold voice. 'The wise speak only of what they know, Gríma son of Gálmód.
A witless worm have you become. Therefore be silent, and keep your forked
tongue behind your teeth. I have not passed through fire and death to bandy
crooked words with a serving-man till the lightning falls.'"
I thought they captured that sudden change in Gandalf rather well, although
they shifted its place in the scene to slightly later.
>My possible theory is that PJ chose to abandon the idea of hidden, intangible
>worth and power, since it would be difficult to convey on film. An
unfortunate
>side effect of this is that subtlety is exchanged for, in some cases,
>corny and crass displays of power, like Gandalf's Kendo routine on
>Denethor.
Oh, yes. I'd agree that Jackson frequently failed to even make the attempt. But
I'm not willing to go from "Jackson didn't do it" to "it can't be done".
>> GANDALF: The city is at last besieged. We are needed.
>> DENETHOR: I sent my son forth, unthanked, unblessed, out into needless
peril,
>> and here he lies with poison in his veins. My line, too, is ending. The
House
>> of Stewards has failed. The race of men shall die.
>> GANDALF: Such counsels will make the Enemy's victory certain indeed. Come,
my
>> lord. There is much that you can yet do.
>> DENETHOR: I will not come down. I must stay beside my son. [to his men]
Follow
>> whom you will, even the Grey Fool, though his hope has failed. Here I stay.
>>
>> Sure, that takes a few more seconds than "Denethor shouts out some stuff at
the
>> top of his lungs and then Gandalf beats him up". But I think the time cost
is
>> well paid in quality.
>
>It's an entire theme though. Your way requires a lot of background and
>character development.
I don't think I agree. IMO, that dialogue could be dropped into the movie as it
exists and it would work just fine. What information did you feel that dialogue
would require which the movie lacked?
>And BTW, it's a very common theme in many movies:
>create an absolutely deplorable character then create some cheap and
>easy applause when the hero knocks him/her down.
Well, sure. But, again, I'm not willing to go from "you can do this with a
character" to "you must do this with Denethor".
> I never really considered Pippin's freedom,
The first time I noticed Pippin's arbitrary movements around the citadel was
when Gandalf carried Pippin out to push back the Ringwraiths who were harrying
Faramir's retreat. I was utterly baffled at why Gandalf would have taken the
time to grab Pippin for that. And once I noticed it, it stood out like a sore
thumb.
>> Although, actually, I'd probably try to preserve the revelation of the
palantir
>> somehow -- although that would increase the length of the scene and probably
>> mandate some re-staging (leaving Denethor on top of the pyre for a longer
scene
>> would be problematic). (I'd probably choose as a revelation either "your
fool's
>> hope has fallen into the hands of our Enemy" or "a black fleet sails from
the
>> south, bearing doom for the armies of men".)
>
>I was actually kind of relieved, since in such a short amount of film
>time, I wondered if film goers that hadn't read the books would start to
>confuse the Palantirs, kind of like they were too convenient and used to
>close too many plot threads.
Another valid concern. And this is definitely an instance where I'm not
attempting to criticize Jackson's shortcomings: This is something which would
probably be very difficult to work into the movie effectively, and it may not
(probably isn't) worth the effort.
>> I addressed that. If you want that to be your story, then you need to *tell*
>> that story.
>
>I thought he did. Gandalf and Pippin both said he was mad in front of
>the (some) guards.
Are we talking about the same section of the movie? I'm talking about the first
time Gandalf knocks Denethor silly, not the pyre sequence.
>Finally: don't confuse me for an apologist for PJ. I personally
>believe that the movies could have been much better with better
>screenwriters and/or a better director. I don't think any of the movies
>were masterpieces as some would suggest.
I'd still argue that FOTR is possibly the best fantasy film ever made, although
it, too, has some inexplicable weaknesses. (And one explicable weakness.)
JB
Justin Bacon
>"Justin Bacon" <tria...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20031219094626...@mb-m18.aol.com...
>> Rick wrote:
>> >> I beg to differ on that, of course. That scene was heavily,
>> >> needlessly butchered in my opinion.
>> >
>> >Your opinion is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
>>
>> Well, his assessment that the scene was heavily altered is pretty much
>> incontrovertible, so you must be claiming that the scene *needed* to be
>> heavily altered. Why?
>
>There is a difference between "heavily altered" and "butchered." One states
>a factual event, the other contains a value judgment.
Rick, you really need to start reading my posts before hitting the Reply
button.
If you're still having problems figuring this out, here's a hint: Using the
term "butchered" does carry a value judgment. That value judgment,
specifically, is "this was heavily altered, and the result is bad".
>The scene DID need to
>be altered because it would have been far too drawn-out with that dialogue
>AND sounded incredibly hokey.
Strawman. The scene was altered in more than the dialogue. And simply cutting
back on the amount of dialogue is clearly not the original poster's complaint.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>Justin Bacon wrote:
>
>> >They did consider having Arwen show up in Helm's Deep with the sword,
>> >but fans got wind of the plan and howled, so they axed it.
>> Source for that? I guess I'm rather doubtful that they filmed at least two,
>> possibly three, new scenes to satisfy the obnoxious side of the fanbase...
but
>> left the warg riders in the second movie.
>
>It's on the TT EE DVD (now that's a real abbreviation) set extras, IIRC
>Liv Tyler's interview. They filmed Arwen arriving in Helm's Deep with
>the sword and kicking some Orc ass.
Well that sucks. That sucks a lot.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Rick
> Rick wrote:
> >There is a difference between "heavily altered" and "butchered." One
states
> >a factual event, the other contains a value judgment.
>
> Rick, you really need to start reading my posts before hitting the Reply
> button.
>
> If you're still having problems figuring this out, here's a hint: Using
the
> term "butchered" does carry a value judgment. That value judgment,
> specifically, is "this was heavily altered, and the result is bad".
>
> >The scene DID need to
> >be altered because it would have been far too drawn-out with that
dialogue
> >AND sounded incredibly hokey.
>
> Strawman. The scene was altered in more than the dialogue. And simply
cutting
> back on the amount of dialogue is clearly not the original poster's
complaint.
>
Yes, I am afraid it was, and Justin, I comprehend your posts just fine...I
simply disagree with you, and it is becoming more and more apparent that you
have a problem with anyone disagreeing with you.
The dialogue was the only major alteration in the scene and it indeed WAS
the original poster's main complaint.
The scene was not butchered IMO, and I am not going to suddenly agree with
you that it was simply because you say so.
Sw...@nospam.com
with me, even preferable.
I still feel that the reasons for Frodo's leaving at the end was vague
and unconnected. The whole final section needed more then "my old war
wound still pains me at times."
Swyck
Adrian Whapkaplet
<Sw...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:13fbuvsvl4vssv5u9...@4ax.com...
Yup, and rubbing his shoulder once hardly works as showing him in agony over
the old wound. It didnt do enough to make it a necessity to leave if all
the wound did was nag at him to a level that didnt even stop him from
writing.
Paul S. Person
>They did consider having Arwen show up in Helm's Deep with the sword,
>but fans got wind of the plan and howled, so they axed it.
If you check GoogleGroups, you should find some threads explaining
that, when they tried to film Liv Tyler fighting at Helm's Deep, she
cowered behind Viggo Mortensen, thus ending PJ's dream of "Arwen,
Elf-Warrior Princess".
Not that there wasn't a lot of agitation at the idea, mind you.
--
Five of my email addresses have been hijacked & used
by spammers since mid-September 2003! The email above is
invalid. All replies to the newsgroup, please.
Also: I still mostly download on Saturdays &
upload on Sundays. Patience is a virtue.
pawn
> Pawn wrote:
>
>
>
> Pawn: There are some scenes like X in the book.
> Justin: I can't think of anything like that in the book.
> Pawn: I can.
>
> Okay. That's nice. But until you can give me some details on what these
> encounters actually *are*, there's not much to discuss.
I'm pretty sure I've quoted them pretty close. They are tidbits of the
initial exchanges between Gandalf and Denethor when Pippin and Gandalf
arrive at Minas Tirith. And they were intended to show that Denethor's
power was shown through narration more than anything else.
>
>
>>If you have some way of filming that, I'd love to hear it. Tolkien uses
>>this technique generously in the books: characters have intangible
>>qualities that are never overtly displayed, except for brief glimpses.
>
>
> Sure. Here's another example:
>
> "Thus Gandalf softly sang, and then suddenly he changed. Casting his tattered
> cloak aside, he stood up and leaned no longer on his staff; and he spoke in a
> clear cold voice. 'The wise speak only of what they know, Gríma son of Gálmód.
> A witless worm have you become. Therefore be silent, and keep your forked
> tongue behind your teeth. I have not passed through fire and death to bandy
> crooked words with a serving-man till the lightning falls.'"
>
> I thought they captured that sudden change in Gandalf rather well, although
> they shifted its place in the scene to slightly later.
They did that in the movies though: in Bag End. I thought it was
pretty well done.
>>My possible theory is that PJ chose to abandon the idea of hidden, intangible
>>worth and power, since it would be difficult to convey on film. An
>
> unfortunate
>
>>side effect of this is that subtlety is exchanged for, in some cases,
>>corny and crass displays of power, like Gandalf's Kendo routine on
>>Denethor.
>
>
> Oh, yes. I'd agree that Jackson frequently failed to even make the attempt. But
> I'm not willing to go from "Jackson didn't do it" to "it can't be done".
>
I'm merely saying that 1. Tolkien's writing style included a certain
challenge to a film maker, in that he extensively used very subtle ways
to devlop his characters, and, 2. PJ is held to a higher standrd in
this regard because, unlike Tolkien, PJ can't merely just "say" that
Denethor is powerful and have the audience accept it, he must show it.
I'm not saying it couldn't have been done better, just that I understand
the challenge involved.
>>
>>It's an entire theme though. Your way requires a lot of background and
>>character development.
>
>
> I don't think I agree. IMO, that dialogue could be dropped into the movie as it
> exists and it would work just fine. What information did you feel that dialogue
> would require which the movie lacked?
Well, we've already covered this: much of the character development is
shown through narration, and not dialog. I would say most, but then I'd
be forced to finally get off my ass and grab the books. ;^)
>>And BTW, it's a very common theme in many movies:
>>create an absolutely deplorable character then create some cheap and
>>easy applause when the hero knocks him/her down.
>
>
> Well, sure. But, again, I'm not willing to go from "you can do this with a
> character" to "you must do this with Denethor".
>
True enough. But I'll say one more time: contrary to my worst fears
going into the movie, I enjoyed the scene.
>
>>I never really considered Pippin's freedom,
>
>
> The first time I noticed Pippin's arbitrary movements around the citadel was
> when Gandalf carried Pippin out to push back the Ringwraiths who were harrying
> Faramir's retreat. I was utterly baffled at why Gandalf would have taken the
> time to grab Pippin for that. And once I noticed it, it stood out like a sore
> thumb.
I forgot about that too, an it's hard to understand. Unless, he wanted
Pippin to have a more active part in the battle than he had in the book,
so all the hobbits could be honoured at the end the way they were. Who
knows what he was thinking.
>>
>>I was actually kind of relieved, since in such a short amount of film
>>time, I wondered if film goers that hadn't read the books would start to
>>confuse the Palantirs, kind of like they were too convenient and used to
>>close too many plot threads.
>
>
> Another valid concern. And this is definitely an instance where I'm not
> attempting to criticize Jackson's shortcomings: This is something which would
> probably be very difficult to work into the movie effectively, and it may not
> (probably isn't) worth the effort.
>
>
>>>I addressed that. If you want that to be your story, then you need to *tell*
>>>that story.
>>
>>I thought he did. Gandalf and Pippin both said he was mad in front of
>>the (some) guards.
>
>
> Are we talking about the same section of the movie? I'm talking about the first
> time Gandalf knocks Denethor silly, not the pyre sequence.
>
I can't remember exactly, and I'm seeing the movie again today, but I'm
pretty sure when Gandalf storms out of Denethor's chamber at their first
meeting, Gandalf loudy states that Denethor is "mad", for all to hear.
>>Finally: don't confuse me for an apologist for PJ. I personally
>>believe that the movies could have been much better with better
>>screenwriters and/or a better director. I don't think any of the movies
>>were masterpieces as some would suggest.
>
>
> I'd still argue that FOTR is possibly the best fantasy film ever made, although
> it, too, has some inexplicable weaknesses. (And one explicable weakness.)
I thought it was a great movie until the very moment they entered Moria,
where PJ's true creative leanings emerged. As a writer, he's dime a
dozen, IMO, and the movies were pulled out of the embers by fantastic
acting and mind boggling sets, costumes and special effects.
However, I think being able to manage a project of this scope shows PJ
is not entirely without skill.
Jussi Jaatinen
A Tsar Is Born wrote:
> No gems from Valinor in Elendilic hands, aside from the palantiri.
>
> The crown was made for one of the later kings (Atanatar Alcarin?) and is in
> the form of a helm with wings -- pure Wagnerian opera,
"... it was all white ... the wings at either side were wrought of pearl
and silverin the likeness of a sea-bird, for it was the emblem of kings
who came over the Sea; and seven gems of adamant were set on the
circlet, and upon the summit was set a single jewel the light of which
went up like a flame."
The last sentence always makes me think that the gem is from Valinor, a
gift from Noldorin exiles or Elves that visited Numenor.
-JJ
pawn
> Justin Bacon wrote:
>>>
>>> I thought he did. Gandalf and Pippin both said he was mad in front
>>> of the (some) guards.
>>
>> Are we talking about the same section of the movie? I'm talking about
>> the first
>> time Gandalf knocks Denethor silly, not the pyre sequence.
>>
> I can't remember exactly, and I'm seeing the movie again today, but I'm
> pretty sure when Gandalf storms out of Denethor's chamber at their first
> meeting, Gandalf loudy states that Denethor is "mad", for all to hear.
Just got back from the second viewing: I was wrong, but Gandalf does
say Denethor is mad in front of the guards, et al, when Faramir is
leaving to attack Osgiliath, which is before he takes out Denethor and
takes over command of the City.
Justin Bacon
>> "Thus Gandalf softly sang, and then suddenly he changed. Casting his
tattered
>> cloak aside, he stood up and leaned no longer on his staff; and he spoke in
a
>> clear cold voice. 'The wise speak only of what they know, Gríma son of
Gálmód.
>> A witless worm have you become. Therefore be silent, and keep your forked
>> tongue behind your teeth. I have not passed through fire and death to bandy
>> crooked words with a serving-man till the lightning falls.'"
>>
>> I thought they captured that sudden change in Gandalf rather well, although
>> they shifted its place in the scene to slightly later.
>
>They did that in the movies though: in Bag End. I thought it was
>pretty well done.
Actually, that would be a different example altogether. And you're making my
point for me: Jackson had already accomplished this effect in various ways at
least twice before. Why are you claiming he would have been incapable of
accomplishing it again?
>> I don't think I agree. IMO, that dialogue could be dropped into the movie as
it
>> exists and it would work just fine. What information did you feel that
dialogue
>> would require which the movie lacked?
>
>Well, we've already covered this: much of the character development is
>shown through narration, and not dialog. I would say most, but then I'd
>be forced to finally get off my ass and grab the books. ;^)
What are you talking about? The proposed dialogue was right there in my
message.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>> Strawman. The scene was altered in more than the dialogue. And simply
cutting
>> back on the amount of dialogue is clearly not the original poster's
complaint.
>>
>
>Yes, I am afraid it was, and Justin, I comprehend your posts just fine...
You're a very bad liar, Rick. From the Me Again's original message:
"I beg to differ on that, of course. That scene was heavily,
needlessly butchered in my opinion. The sequence of events was wrong
(Eowyn is supposed to take her hemlet off before they fight and show
the witch king that 'she', not 'he', has the power to kill him, and
what the h-e-double-hockey-sticks is with him trying to choker her?),
the dialog was wrong (her lines are reduced to "I am no man"), the
witch king's appearance was wrong (where are those glowing eyes and
his crown? he is a king after all), and Eowyn looked like she was
scared out of her skin which is not at all how it was described in the
book. The best part of that scene was Eowyn telling the witch king
she would kill him if he touched Theoden."
>I simply disagree with you, and it is becoming more and more apparent that you
>have a problem with anyone disagreeing with you.
Disagreeing with me? Are your truly this incapable of following a thread, Rick?
You see that "From:" field up above? You notice how it says "Justin Bacon" when
I'm posting and "Me Again" when Me Again is posting?
I know this is a tricky concept. But if you focus -- and perhaps ask your
Special Ed teacher's help -- you can figure it out.
>The scene was not butchered IMO, and I am not going to suddenly agree with
>you that it was simply because you say so.
Well, I'd accuse you (yet again) of needing to learn how to read English. But
since you've told me that you can "comprehend my posts just fine", I can only
conclude at this point that you're deliberately lying through your teeth. I
have never said that the scene with Eowyn was butchered.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Rick
> Well, I'd accuse you (yet again) of needing to learn how to read English.
But
> since you've told me that you can "comprehend my posts just fine", I can
only
> conclude at this point that you're deliberately lying through your teeth.
I
> have never said that the scene with Eowyn was butchered.
>
You weren't the ORIGINAL person who said it, Justin, but you've been arguing
in support of them...or, if you're not arguing in support of them, then
you're merely participating in this thread to personally attack me. So
either we disagree on the subject at hand, or you're simply being a
dickhead.
Justin Bacon
>> Well, I'd accuse you (yet again) of needing to learn how to read English.
But
>> since you've told me that you can "comprehend my posts just fine", I can
only
>> conclude at this point that you're deliberately lying through your teeth. I
>> have never said that the scene with Eowyn was butchered.
>
>You weren't the ORIGINAL person who said it, Justin, but you've been arguing
>in support of them...or, if you're not arguing in support of them, then
>you're merely participating in this thread to personally attack me. So
>either we disagree on the subject at hand, or you're simply being a
>dickhead.
You live in a very cynical, black-and-white world where someone must either be
for you or against you. I don't.
I also notice that you, yet again, managed to snip the actual content of the
message you're replying to in order to post a contentless snipe. You really are
a pathetic human being, Rick. But I'll give you another shot at it:
Rick wrote:
>> Strawman. The scene was altered in more than the dialogue. And simply
cutting
>> back on the amount of dialogue is clearly not the original poster's
omplaint.
>
>Yes, I am afraid it was, and Justin, I comprehend your posts just fine...
You're a very bad liar, Rick. From the Me Again's original message:
"I beg to differ on that, of course. That scene was heavily,
needlessly butchered in my opinion. The sequence of events was wrong
(Eowyn is supposed to take her hemlet off before they fight and show
the witch king that 'she', not 'he', has the power to kill him, and
what the h-e-double-hockey-sticks is with him trying to choker her?),
the dialog was wrong (her lines are reduced to "I am no man"), the
witch king's appearance was wrong (where are those glowing eyes and
his crown? he is a king after all), and Eowyn looked like she was
scared out of her skin which is not at all how it was described in the
book. The best part of that scene was Eowyn telling the witch king
she would kill him if he touched Theoden."
Both Me Again and I will accept the apologies you are no doubt preparing to
give us for lying about what we said in a public forum.
Thanks.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Yuk Tang
>
> My complaints have always been of two types: unfaithful to the
> books and badly written. If a scene's unfaithful, it had better
> not be badly written.
The best film criticism I've seen yet. Cross-posted to aft.
--
Cheers, ymt.
Email to: jim dot laker one at btopenworld dot com
pawn
> Pawn wrote:
>
>
> point for me: Jackson had already accomplished this effect in various ways at
> least twice before. Why are you claiming he would have been incapable of
> accomplishing it again?
Do you have a problem with being agreed with?
>
>>>I don't think I agree. IMO, that dialogue could be dropped into the movie as
>>
> it
>
>>>exists and it would work just fine. What information did you feel that
>>
> dialogue
>
>>>would require which the movie lacked?
>>
>>Well, we've already covered this: much of the character development is
>>shown through narration, and not dialog. I would say most, but then I'd
>>be forced to finally get off my ass and grab the books. ;^)
>
>
> What are you talking about? The proposed dialogue was right there in my
> message.
Rather than beat my head against a wall, I'll move on.
Enjoy!
>
> Justin Bacon
> tria...@aol.com
Me Again
<swtr...@NOSPAMtampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>Yes, I am afraid it was, and Justin, I comprehend your posts just fine...I
>simply disagree with you, and it is becoming more and more apparent that you
>have a problem with anyone disagreeing with you.
>The dialogue was the only major alteration in the scene and it indeed WAS
>the original poster's main complaint.
>The scene was not butchered IMO, and I am not going to suddenly agree with
>you that it was simply because you say so.
The dialog was not the only alteration as I stated in my original
post. The order of events was also wrong, as was Eowyn's demeanor and
the witch king's appearance and the not-yet-justified-by-anyone method
of killing Eowyn by CHOKING her. Choking... ugh.
Rick
"Me Again" <m...@home.now> wrote in message
> The dialog was not the only alteration as I stated in my original
> post. The order of events was also wrong, as was Eowyn's demeanor and
> the witch king's appearance and the not-yet-justified-by-anyone method
> of killing Eowyn by CHOKING her. Choking... ugh.
>
What in the HELL is wrong with some people????
How is it wrong to have the Witch King choke her to death?
Good Lord...
Me Again
<swtr...@NOSPAMtampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>What in the HELL is wrong with some people????
>How is it wrong to have the Witch King choke her to death?
>Good Lord...
You neglected my other points as usual, and I've already discussed the
choking bit at length before.
After having seen the movie again, however, I noticed a couple of
other things. One, he's choking her but is apparently making no
progress. He holds her in a choking position for several seconds with
no effect at all. If he's strong enough to wield that huge flail like
it were a twig he should be strong enough to pinch her head off in
less than a second.
For another, after Merry stabs him and Eowyn whips her helmet off and
says "I am no man", we see that the witch king is just sitting there
on his knees the whole time, hands at his sides, putting up no fight
whatsoever. He seems to be intensely interested now in what Eowyn has
to say, far more than any interest he had in choking her.
Both of these "enhancements" to this scene make absolutely no sense at
all. [insert EE hopes here]
Rick
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:18:56 GMT, "Rick"
> <swtr...@NOSPAMtampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >What in the HELL is wrong with some people????
> >How is it wrong to have the Witch King choke her to death?
> >Good Lord...
>
> You neglected my other points as usual
No, oh self important one, I didn't "neglect" them. I addressed the one I
wished to address.
Me Again
<swtr...@NOSPAMtampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>No, oh self important one, I didn't "neglect" them. I addressed the one I
>wished to address.
"Addressed" would infer that you submitted an argument in support of
your statements, which you did not.
Rick
"Me Again" <m...@home.now> wrote in message
No, you are again engaging in self-aggrandizement. You made a statement to
the effect of "He choked her...arggghhh."
How in the HELL does that require an argument to comment on it?
Me Again
<swtr...@NOSPAMtampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>No, you are again engaging in self-aggrandizement. You made a statement to
>the effect of "He choked her...arggghhh."
>How in the HELL does that require an argument to comment on it?
You wondered aloud how it was wrong for the witch king to choke Eowyn
yet offer no support for why you think it was OK in the movie. I
offered why it was wrong, you've offered nothing in return. Honestly
unless you can offer why you think it's OK since you chose to become
part of this thread, you have no say in this anymore.
CC
> The dialog was not the only alteration as I stated in my original
> post. The order of events was also wrong, as was Eowyn's demeanor and
> the witch king's appearance and the not-yet-justified-by-anyone method
> of killing Eowyn by CHOKING her. Choking... ugh.
What's wrong about Eowyn getting strangled to death? BTW, what did you think
of Deagol's death?
Jussi Jaatinen
Me Again wrote:
> The dialog was not the only alteration as I stated in my original
> post. The order of events was also wrong, as was Eowyn's demeanor and
> the witch king's appearance and the not-yet-justified-by-anyone method
> of killing Eowyn by CHOKING her. Choking... ugh.
How many times have you seen the film? I've seen it once, and don't
recall the WK trying to choke Eowyn. He hit her with a huge mace and
then went up close to finish the kill, which was when Merry hit him with
his sword (which sword evaporated, since in the film that sword wasn't
from Numenor).
-JJ
CC
> then went up close to finish the kill, which was when Merry hit him with
> his sword (which sword evaporated, since in the film that sword wasn't
> from Numenor).
In the FOTR EE - Galadriel gave Merry and Pippin two Elvish veteran swords.
Jussi Jaatinen
CC wrote:
> > his sword (which sword evaporated, since in the film that sword wasn't
> > from Numenor).
> In the FOTR EE - Galadriel gave Merry and Pippin two Elvish veteran swords.
However in FOTR TE, Aragorn gives the hobbits generic swords at
Weathertop. I don't think the evaporating of the sword will be changed
in ROTK EE (an Elvish sword might just as well evaporate IMO) but it is
possible. In FOTR EE Galadriel gives Sam rope, which is seen in TT EE
but not TT TE.
-JJ
Dogger
Actually it was seen around Gollum's neck in the TT TE, but it wasn't
explained where is came from or that there was anything special about.
It kind of put a more deceptive spin on Gollum's claim of "It burns
usss." And it's not the first time the Extended Editions have actually
changed the meaning of existing scenes: check out the FOTR EE in which
the extra footage in Rivendell between Boromir and Aragorn changes the
meaning of Boromir's embarrassed glance when he cuts himself.
As for the Noldorin daggers that Galadriel gives Merry and Pippin, I
don't think I have seen them *ever* use those daggers (which are too
small even for hobbits to use as swords) in a battle in the next two
movies. They always use Numenorean or Rohirric short swords. I would
very much like to see them stab something (anything!) with a Noldorin
dagger in the ROTK EE ... or at least cut a little steak with them.
Maybe Pippin will be asked to slice up Denethor's royal bird on his
plate for him and will interrupt his song and pull out his Noldorin
dagger, contemplating cutting Denethor's throat instead of the bird.
I'm just kidding!
DB.
Dogger
He definitely chokes her a little bit before Merry stabs his ankle. I
personally don't have a problem with it. But I really do wish that
Eowyn had finished him off quicker, and removed the helmet before the
kill instead of afterward. As it was shot I thought her actions were
rather reckless. The Witch King of Angmar is not helplessly awaiting
the killing stroke just because a halfling stabs him in the ankle with
an ordinary blade. Well, apparently he is, but Eowyn should never have
assumed he'd be and walk right up to him and THEN removed her helmet.
She should have expected to get smashed to little bits while her head
was turned. There was plenty of time for her to make her hair-flowing
feminist statement AFTER the killing blow but before the Witch-King
began to crumple up, and I would have applauded with fewer
reservations about her battle wisdom. That seems to bother me a little
bit more every time I see it. But I still love everything else about
the Witch-King confrontation. Including the choking.
DB.
Dogger
In the message I just posted in response to this (which I have no
access to for a little while since I posted it through Google), I
indicated that Eowyn should have removed her helmet before the kill
instead of after ... I meant the opposite of course. In the film, she
removes her helmet before the kill. It *should* have been afterward.
And this does bug me a little bit more everytime I see it, that the
Witch King just sits there like a calf to the slaughter as Eowyn takes
her time delivering the killing blow.
DB.
Tom Royer
> Jussi Jaatinen <1...@1.au> wrote in message news:<3FF15CB7...@1.au>...
> > CC wrote:
> >
> > > > his sword (which sword evaporated, since in the film that sword wasn't
> > > > from Numenor).
> > > In the FOTR EE - Galadriel gave Merry and Pippin two Elvish veteran swords.
> >
> > However in FOTR TE, Aragorn gives the hobbits generic swords at
> > Weathertop. I don't think the evaporating of the sword will be changed
> > in ROTK EE (an Elvish sword might just as well evaporate IMO) but it is
> > possible. In FOTR EE Galadriel gives Sam rope, which is seen in TT EE
> > but not TT TE.
>
> Actually it was seen around Gollum's neck in the TT TE, but it wasn't
> explained where is came from or that there was anything special about.
> It kind of put a more deceptive spin on Gollum's claim of "It burns
> usss." And it's not the first time the Extended Editions have actually
> changed the meaning of existing scenes: check out the FOTR EE in which
> the extra footage in Rivendell between Boromir and Aragorn changes the
> meaning of Boromir's embarrassed glance when he cuts himself.
>
> As for the Noldorin daggers that Galadriel gives Merry and Pippin, I
> don't think I have seen them *ever* use those daggers (which are too
> small even for hobbits to use as swords) in a battle in the next two
> movies. They always use Numenorean or Rohirric short swords. I would
> very much like to see them stab something (anything!) with a Noldorin
> dagger in the ROTK EE ... or at least cut a little steak with them.
>
Did they still have the daggers in ROTK? Didn't Gimli find two scabbards
in the pile of the slaughtered Uruk-Hai in TTT and identify them as
belonging to Merry and Pippin?
> Maybe Pippin will be asked to slice up Denethor's royal bird on his
> plate for him and will interrupt his song and pull out his Noldorin
> dagger, contemplating cutting Denethor's throat instead of the bird.
> I'm just kidding!
>
> DB.
--
Tom Royer
Lead Engineer, Software Test
The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road
Bedford, MA 01730
Voice: (781) 271-8399
Cell: (978) 290-2086
FAX: (781) 271-8500
tro...@mitre.org
"If you're not free to fail, you're not free." --Gene Burns
Josep
>
> How many times have you seen the film? I've seen it once, and don't
> recall the WK trying to choke Eowyn. He hit her with a huge mace and
> then went up close to finish the kill, which was when Merry hit him with
> his sword (which sword evaporated, since in the film that sword wasn't
> from Numenor).
>
I have not seen the film, but in the book, Merry's sword is of Numenorean
(Westernesse) origin, and nevertheless it evaporates
Pep
Dogger
> Dogger wrote:
> > As for the Noldorin daggers that Galadriel gives Merry and Pippin, I
> > don't think I have seen them *ever* use those daggers (which are too
> > small even for hobbits to use as swords) in a battle in the next two
> > movies. They always use Numenorean or Rohirric short swords. I would
> > very much like to see them stab something (anything!) with a Noldorin
> > dagger in the ROTK EE ... or at least cut a little steak with them.
> >
>
> Did they still have the daggers in ROTK? Didn't Gimli find two scabbards
> in the pile of the slaughtered Uruk-Hai in TTT and identify them as
> belonging to Merry and Pippin?
Thank you for reminding me about that! But as far as I can remember,
only one Noldorin dagger is found in the heap of burned stuff ... so
maybe one could still be carried by either hobbit.
DB.