Two Towers & Romance.....
W. Long
from imdb.......
Peter Jackson Injects Passion Into 'The Two Towers'
The next installment of The Lord Of The Rings trilogy will involve a love
triangle between three central character that does not appear in the book.
Tolkien purists already enraged by the passion between Viggo Mortensen's
Aragorn and Arwen, played by Liv Tyler, are set to be further upset by the
introduction of Miranda Otto's Lady Eowyn. The character will spice up the
clandestine relationship by diverting Aragon's attention from the Elvish
princess. A source says, "There's going to be a romantic triangle in the next
one. We sexed it up a bit. No, you won't get to see Viggo's butt. But there
will be plenty of tension between the three."
Why do you think they did this? Isn't there enough content in the books to not
have to do something like this?
Peace!
-----------------------------
- for film & music talk, art, mp3's,
dj mixes, discography, MIDI prod
& stuff -
visit http://www.wyndelllong.com/
Ronald O. Christian
wrote:
>
>from imdb.......
>
>Peter Jackson Injects Passion Into 'The Two Towers'
>
>
>The next installment of The Lord Of The Rings trilogy will involve a love
>triangle between three central character that does not appear in the book.
>Tolkien purists already enraged by the passion between Viggo Mortensen's
>Aragorn and Arwen, played by Liv Tyler, are set to be further upset by the
>introduction of Miranda Otto's Lady Eowyn. The character will spice up the
>clandestine relationship by diverting Aragon's attention from the Elvish
>princess. A source says, "There's going to be a romantic triangle in the next
>one. We sexed it up a bit. No, you won't get to see Viggo's butt. But there
>will be plenty of tension between the three."
>
>Why do you think they did this? Isn't there enough content in the books to not
>have to do something like this?
Go here:
http://roc85.home.attbi.com/lotr.html
...and check under "type 5" -- people who have never read the books
but nevertheless believe the film got major details wrong.
The Arwen/Aragorn/Eowyn triangle is a major part of the plot in The
Two Towers and The Return of the King. (The novels.) Eowyn's
heart-sickness over rejection by Aragorn leads to an pivotal moment in
The War of the Ring. (And incidentally, the realization of an age-old
prophecy)
As they say, "it's in there".
Ron
RogerM
>
> from imdb.......
>
> Peter Jackson Injects Passion Into 'The Two Towers'
>
> The next installment of The Lord Of The Rings trilogy will involve a love
> triangle between three central character that does not appear in the book.
> Tolkien purists already enraged by the passion between Viggo Mortensen's
> Aragorn and Arwen, played by Liv Tyler, are set to be further upset by the
> introduction of Miranda Otto's Lady Eowyn. The character will spice up the
> clandestine relationship by diverting Aragon's attention from the Elvish
> princess. A source says, "There's going to be a romantic triangle in the next
> one. We sexed it up a bit. No, you won't get to see Viggo's butt. But there
> will be plenty of tension between the three."
>
> Why do you think they did this? Isn't there enough content in the books to not
> have to do something like this?
>
> Peace!
Not enough to draw the chicks. Everyone wants to make the next 'Titanic'. Peter Jackson is an
arrogant jerk.
--
WARNING: The above message likely contains one or more generalizations.
Please do not attempt to disprove them with isolated exceptions.
"What? It IS personal! HE'S GOT OUR UNDERPANTS!" - Alec Baldwin
"We're wasting more energy than Ricky Martin's girlfriend." - Groundskeeper Willie
"Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Now THERE'S a useful invention." - Comic Book Guy
Reagen Sulewski
news:3gqcousvj38sr6ru3...@4ax.com:
That's what I was thinking as I read that.. "er, there *wasn't* sexual
tension in the book? What was I reading then?"
Ronald O. Christian
>"W. Long" wrote:
>>
>> from imdb.......
>>
>> Peter Jackson Injects Passion Into 'The Two Towers'
>>
>> The next installment of The Lord Of The Rings trilogy will involve a love
>> triangle between three central character that does not appear in the book.
>> Tolkien purists already enraged by the passion between Viggo Mortensen's
>> Aragorn and Arwen, played by Liv Tyler, are set to be further upset by the
>> introduction of Miranda Otto's Lady Eowyn. The character will spice up the
>> clandestine relationship by diverting Aragon's attention from the Elvish
>> princess. A source says, "There's going to be a romantic triangle in the next
>> one. We sexed it up a bit. No, you won't get to see Viggo's butt. But there
>> will be plenty of tension between the three."
>>
>> Why do you think they did this? Isn't there enough content in the books to not
>> have to do something like this?
>>
>> Peace!
>
>Not enough to draw the chicks. Everyone wants to make the next 'Titanic'. Peter Jackson is an
>arrogant jerk.
Annnnd, he says sweetly, in just exactly what way does this make Peter
Jackson an arrogant jerk, Roger?
Ron
David Johnston
> Why do you think they did this? Isn't there enough content in the books to not
> have to do something like this?
I like it. Aragorn rejecting Eowyn to marry a nonentity like Arwen left a
sour taste in my mouth. Making Arwen more than a piece of furniture will
make his choice much more palatable to me.
Miska
this based on your personal knowledge of the man? or just based on your
opinion of his work. If you don't like the films he directs there is a
simple way of dealing with it without launching into an attack on someones
name. Don't go to see them.
Apteryx
news:Xns928BC5CFDC04...@24.66.94.159...
> tension in the book? What was I reading then?"
Some people prefer not to read a book before they complain about
inconsistencies between the book and a film based on it. It helps, because
that way they greatly increase the number of possible inconsistencies they
can complain about.
--
Apteryx
"My advice to you is get married: if you find a good wife you'll be happy;
if not, you'll become a philosopher" Socrates
Ian McDowell
> Why do you think they did this? Isn't there enough content in the books to not
> have to do something like this?
Because Tolkein's Arwen is a virtual nonentity and this makes
Aragorn's choice of her over Eowyn more explicable. Because it gives
Aragorn more of an inner life, making him a conflicted character
rather than the one-dimensional paragon of the novels. Because it
gives the actors a chance to act rather than posture and declaim.
RogerM
>
> Upon what grounds do you have the right to call someone an arrogant jerk?
Before the first movie was released, Peter Jackson was on record as saying that he had kept the
movies as faithful to the book as possible. That was a lie. He has presumed to tell the story
better than the original author. That is arrogance.
> Is
> this based on your personal knowledge of the man? or just based on your
> opinion of his work. If you don't like the films he directs there is a
> simple way of dealing with it without launching into an attack on someones
> name. Don't go to see them.
>
Indeed, I may not go to the second film. In any case, given the liberties Jackson is taking
with the story, I will not be buying the deluxe DVD set coming out this fall.
Dave Mansell
> Before the first movie was released, Peter Jackson was on record as
> saying that he had kept the movies as faithful to the book as possible.
> That was a lie.
You are, I presume, a movie director and thus the arbiter of what
constitutes 'faithful to the book as possible' In the context of a three
hour movie condensed from the book that has to work for both people who
have read, and not read the original book.
You call someone a liar because his professional judgement doesn't agree
with yours is itself arrogance. Telling a story in a different medium, be
it film, stage or song always requires changes.
RogerM
>
> In article <3D87066B...@sprint.ca>, rog...@sprint.ca (RogerM) wrote:
>
> > Before the first movie was released, Peter Jackson was on record as
> > saying that he had kept the movies as faithful to the book as possible.
> > That was a lie.
>
> You are, I presume, a movie director and thus the arbiter of what
> constitutes 'faithful to the book as possible' In the context of a three
> hour movie condensed from the book that has to work for both people who
> have read, and not read the original book.
>
There is a difference between cutting material out, and changing the story.
> You call someone a liar because his professional judgement doesn't agree
> with yours is itself arrogance. Telling a story in a different medium, be
> it film, stage or song always requires changes.
Bullshit.
Arwen was a virtual non-entity in the book. MAJOR CHANGE. Gandalf figured out the secret to
opening the door to Moria, not Frodo. That's a change. Need more? Bakshi didn't make those
changes.
Ronald O. Christian
wrote:
How about: Because the material is IN THE APPENDICIES. Geeze, ever
wonder why there was a big chunk of pages still in your right hand
when the story ended? There are, you know, actual STORIES in there,
including most of the Aragorn and Arwen story, some prequel details to
The Hobbit, and most of Aragorn's early life.
I think we need to create a new Tolkien fan type: Type 7, "fans" who
haven't read the entire book, and hate Jackson for including details
from the parts they haven't read.
Ron
Ronald O. Christian
<a.m...@deletethistoreplyxtra.co.nz> wrote:
>Reagen Sulewski <r-sul...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:Xns928BC5CFDC04...@24.66.94.159...
>> Ronald O. Christian <ro...@europa.com> wrote in
>> news:3gqcousvj38sr6ru3...@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>> That's what I was thinking as I read that.. "er, there *wasn't* sexual
>> tension in the book? What was I reading then?"
>
>Some people prefer not to read a book before they complain about
>inconsistencies between the book and a film based on it. It helps, because
>that way they greatly increase the number of possible inconsistencies they
>can complain about.
But the complaints look foolish to everyone except those who haven't
read the books... Oh, I see...
Ron
Ronald O. Christian
>Arwen was a virtual non-entity in the book. MAJOR CHANGE. Gandalf figured out the secret to
>opening the door to Moria, not Frodo. That's a change. Need more? Bakshi didn't make those
>changes.
I've been trying to understand where you're coming from, Roger, and I
think I've finally figured it out. You've never read the novels, have
you, Roger? You've seen the Bakshi film, and assumed it was
canonical. You *say* you're upset that the latest film doesn't follow
the novels, but you really mean that the latest film doesn't follow
Bakshi's earlier film. You're going to be really upset when giant
balls of fire fail to erupt from Orthanc directed at Helm's Deep.
Amongst many other details.
Ron
RogerM
>
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 08:32:43 -0300, RogerM <rog...@sprint.ca> wrote:
> >Arwen was a virtual non-entity in the book. MAJOR CHANGE. Gandalf figured out the secret to
> >opening the door to Moria, not Frodo. That's a change. Need more? Bakshi didn't make those
> >changes.
>
> I've been trying to understand where you're coming from, Roger, and I
> think I've finally figured it out. You've never read the novels, have
> you, Roger?
Yes, I have. And I specifically re-read the parts I mentioned to be sure I was correct in my
claims.
> You've seen the Bakshi film, and assumed it was
> canonical.
Wrong. I listed changes that Jackson made which Bakshi did not. Comprehension is apparently not
your forte. Try reading the book again.
Who solved the riddle at the door to Moria? Gandalf, not Frodo. Who cast the spell which caused
the river to drown the Nazgul? Elrond and Gandalf, not Arwen. Who rode with Frodo to the ford?
Glorflindel, not Arwen.
Have you read anything BUT the appendices?
I never claimed to be an expert, but I can see when Jackson changes things I have read about.
If you cannot, that is your shortcoming, not mine.
> You *say* you're upset that the latest film doesn't follow
> the novels, but you really mean that the latest film doesn't follow
> Bakshi's earlier film. You're going to be really upset when giant
> balls of fire fail to erupt from Orthanc directed at Helm's Deep.
> Amongst many other details.
>
Wrong. I criticized Jackson for changing the story from the book, not Bakshi's movie (which had
its own flaws).
And the appendices are not THE STORY. If they had been, they would have been included in the
narrative. Tolkien excluded them, it's his story.
Jackson changed the story, despite his claim that he would not do so.
mc
MC
wynde...@aol.comTimelord (W. Long) wrote in message news:<20020916192705...@mb-bk.aol.com>...
Ronald O. Christian
>Gawd will the movie really be called that?
What, "the two towers"? It is the name of the novel, after all.
Ron
Ernest Tomlinson
> You call someone a liar because his professional judgement doesn't agree
> with yours is itself arrogance. Telling a story in a different medium, be
> it film, stage or song always requires changes.
Uh-huh. I'm sure that lines like "Never toss a dwarf!" and the Xena-
style Meet Cute where Arwen greets Aragorn by holding a knife to him
were "necessary changes".
Look, I rather liked the movie myself, and I'll be purchasing the
full-length DVD version eventually, but fidelity to the story was
hardly the movie's strong point. Of course Jackson needed to
condense the book drastically--but then that makes his decision
to _add_ scenes, sometimes quite ridiculous scenes (the worst
offender being that action set-piece on the crumbling staircase
in Moria which gives rise to the dwarf-tossing line) all the
more puzzling.
I didn't pay attention to Jackson's public statements preceding the
release of _Fellowship of the Ring_, so I don't know what sort of
claims he made.
Ernest Tomlinson.
David Johnston
>
> On 16 Sep 2002 23:16:30 -0700, mcdol...@hotmail.com (Ian McDowell)
> wrote:
>
> >wynde...@aol.comTimelord (W. Long) wrote:
> >
> >> Why do you think they did this? Isn't there enough content in the books to not
> >> have to do something like this?
> >
> >Because Tolkein's Arwen is a virtual nonentity and this makes
> >Aragorn's choice of her over Eowyn more explicable. Because it gives
> >Aragorn more of an inner life, making him a conflicted character
> >rather than the one-dimensional paragon of the novels. Because it
> >gives the actors a chance to act rather than posture and declaim.
>
> How about: Because the material is IN THE APPENDICIES.
Not exactly. It is clear that Arwen will be doing different things
in the film than the version of their romance that was in the
appendix. Tolkien would never have dreamed of letting Arwen fight.
David Johnston
>
> Gawd will the movie really be called that?
Why would they change the title?
Sean O'Hara
>
> Dave Mansell wrote:
> >
> > You call someone a liar because his professional judgement doesn't agree
> > with yours is itself arrogance. Telling a story in a different medium, be
> > it film, stage or song always requires changes.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> Arwen was a virtual non-entity in the book.
A major flaw of the book, I thought. However, she's only a non-entity
in the story proper; she receives a great deal of attention in the
appendices. (Admittedly, the movie version is closer to Luthien than
Arwen. Live with it.)
> MAJOR CHANGE. Gandalf figured out the secret to
> opening the door to Moria, not Frodo. That's a change. Need more? Bakshi didn't make those
> changes.
>
What book are you reading?
It's, IIRC, Merry who figures out the secret, though it takes Gandalf
a while to realize this.
--
Sean O'Hara
"It sure was strange to see something on Usenet about me that
didn't involve Klingon gang rape." -- Wil Wheaton
Ronald O. Christian
That's still a rumor. There was an early version of the script that
had Arwen taking on Orcs, but there was information later that the
scenes did not work out and the idea was scrapped. We will find out
for sure in December, of course.
On the other hand, it's entirely appropriate for Eowyn to kick ass.
She was in the Rohan calvary, after all, even though Tolkien pretty
much ignores this fact until a certain well-known climax.
Ron
Ronald O. Christian
Wow, that would be a controversy... As you probably know, Tolkien
didn't come up with that title, his publisher did, when his publisher
arbitrarily split his novel into three parts. I suspect that the
"single novel" camp wouldn't complain too much (especially if they
chose something like "Lord of the Rings, most of Book 3, all of Book
4, and a smidgen of Book 5") but the "The Trilogy" camp would insist
on the original title and would picket the theater if it was changed
to anything else.
It would make for some lively reading.
Ron
Ronald O. Christian
>And the appendices are not THE STORY. If they had been, they would have been included in the
>narrative. Tolkien excluded them, it's his story.
"Type 2: The film should be a literal translation of the stories,
including every word in the books and every syllable of the songs and
poems. The project, they usually estimate, should be at least a six
film series, and should use CGI for elves, as mere humans can not (by
definition) be beautiful enough.
Type 2a believes that the appendix is not the story, and no detail
revealed therein should be on the screen, no matter how germane. Type
2b considers the appendices as part of the story, and insists they be
filmed entire, including family trees and glossary."
...but this still doesn't explain the comment "Bakshi didn't make
those changes". Bakshi made many, many changes to the story, arguably
far more odious than Jackson's. Bakshi proponents usually haven't
read the book.
Let's try a small test: What Elf should have been at the Ford?
Ron
Jay G
"Ronald O. Christian" <ro...@europa.com> wrote in message
news:scpeouc7b00pv8rpu...@4ax.com...
> On 17 Sep 2002 10:12:24 -0700, mcsqu...@netzero.net (mc) wrote:
>
> >Gawd will the movie really be called that?
>
> What, "the two towers"? It is the name of the novel, after all.
Or, at least, the second volume. I really haven't heard of many people
complain about it. Most people seem sensible enough to know it's just
a title, and one that existed decades before 9/11
-Jay
-Jay
brad
: Go here:
: http://roc85.home.attbi.com/lotr.html
: ...and check under "type 5" -- people who have never read the books
: but nevertheless believe the film got major details wrong.
: The Arwen/Aragorn/Eowyn triangle is a major part of the plot in The
: Two Towers and The Return of the King. (The novels.) Eowyn's
: heart-sickness over rejection by Aragorn leads to an pivotal moment in
: The War of the Ring. (And incidentally, the realization of an age-old
: prophecy)
: As they say, "it's in there".
I just read the novels a few times (should I admit to that?) and I don't
recall the details you're talking about.
Didn't Eowyn develop misguided feelings for Aragorn independently of
any knowledge, possibly total ignorance throughout the story, of Arwen?
Eowyn had more of the "Mulan complex" for lack of a better word. She
was infatuated with battle and heroic deeds.
RogerM
>
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 12:57:02 -0300, RogerM <rog...@sprint.ca> wrote:
> >And the appendices are not THE STORY. If they had been, they would have been included in the
> >narrative. Tolkien excluded them, it's his story.
>
> "Type 2: The film should be a literal translation of the stories,
> including every word in the books and every syllable of the songs and
> poems. The project, they usually estimate, should be at least a six
> film series, and should use CGI for elves, as mere humans can not (by
> definition) be beautiful enough.
>
> Type 2a believes that the appendix is not the story, and no detail
> revealed therein should be on the screen, no matter how germane. Type
> 2b considers the appendices as part of the story, and insists they be
> filmed entire, including family trees and glossary."
>
> ...but this still doesn't explain the comment "Bakshi didn't make
> those changes".
Bakshi didn't make those changes. I never said he didn't make any changes, and I never said I
liked his version better than Jackson's.
> Bakshi made many, many changes to the story, arguably
> far more odious than Jackson's.
It's a long time since I saw the Bakshi film. Feel free to list them.
Jackson's insertion of Arwen into the plot was arrogant and vain. What did Bakshi change that
was on such a scale?
> Bakshi proponents usually haven't
> read the book.
>
I have, although, as I said, I'm not an expert. Have Jackson proponents read it?
If Bakshi had stated that he had kept as close to the original story as possible (I don't know
if he did or not, it WAS about 25 years ago), then he's also a liar. I'm here to criticize
Jackson, not to laud Bakshi.
> Let's try a small test: What Elf should have been at the Ford?
>
At the ford itself? Frodo was alone, on Glorflindel's horse.
Ronald O. Christian
>Ronald O. Christian <ro...@europa.com> wrote:
>: Go here:
>
>: http://roc85.home.attbi.com/lotr.html
>
>: ...and check under "type 5" -- people who have never read the books
>: but nevertheless believe the film got major details wrong.
>
>: The Arwen/Aragorn/Eowyn triangle is a major part of the plot in The
>: Two Towers and The Return of the King. (The novels.) Eowyn's
>: heart-sickness over rejection by Aragorn leads to an pivotal moment in
>: The War of the Ring. (And incidentally, the realization of an age-old
>: prophecy)
>
>: As they say, "it's in there".
>
>I just read the novels a few times (should I admit to that?) and I don't
>recall the details you're talking about.
>
>Didn't Eowyn develop misguided feelings for Aragorn independently of
>any knowledge, possibly total ignorance throughout the story, of Arwen?
(minor spoiler) She fell in love with Aragorn, discovered he was
betrothed to Arwen, and decided to end her life by joining the army
and seeking an end in battle.
>Eowyn had more of the "Mulan complex" for lack of a better word. She
>was infatuated with battle and heroic deeds.
Not really, she was brought up as a "warrior maid" but it wasn't until
Aragorn's (somewhat unwitting) rejection that she decided to seek
death in battle. My wife has my copy of Two Towers, or I'd give you
page numbers. When I get it back, I'll post references.
Ron
Ronald O. Christian
Roger, are you denying that there is a 3-way romance between Arwen,
Aragorn and Eowyn in the novels? Are you saying, like the original
article, that this is something Jackson has added?
Ron
RogerM
>
> RogerM wrote:
> >
> > Dave Mansell wrote:
> > >
> > > You call someone a liar because his professional judgement doesn't agree
> > > with yours is itself arrogance. Telling a story in a different medium, be
> > > it film, stage or song always requires changes.
> >
> > Bullshit.
> >
> > Arwen was a virtual non-entity in the book.
>
> A major flaw of the book, I thought. However, she's only a non-entity
> in the story proper; she receives a great deal of attention in the
> appendices. (Admittedly, the movie version is closer to Luthien than
> Arwen. Live with it.)
>
> > MAJOR CHANGE. Gandalf figured out the secret to
> > opening the door to Moria, not Frodo. That's a change. Need more? Bakshi didn't make those
> > changes.
> >
> What book are you reading?
>
> It's, IIRC, Merry who figures out the secret, though it takes Gandalf
> a while to realize this.
>
I've got my copy right in front of me, and Gandalf determines the solution. He is gracious
enough to give some credit to Merry.
<from the book>
With a suddenness that startled them all the wizard sprang to his feet. He was laughing! "I
have it!" he cried. "Of course, of course! Absurdly simple, like most riddles when you see the
answer."
Picking up his staff he stood before the rock and said in a clear voice: "Mellon!"
<snip>...
"I was wrong after all," said Gandalf, "and Gimli too. Merry, of all people, was on the right
track."
Jay G
"RogerM" <rog...@sprint.ca> wrote
>
> Jackson changed the story, despite his claim that he would not do so.
Can you cite a quote where he said this? I don't think he ever said he
wouldn't change the story at all. In fact, in what he said, from one of
your previous posts:
"RogerM" <rog...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:3D87066B...@sprint.ca...
> Before the first movie was released, Peter Jackson was on record
> as saying that he had kept the movies as faithful to the book as possible.
> That was a lie.
"faithful to the book as possible" is not the same as "completely
unchanged."
Now you may disagree with the changes his made, but you cannot
call Jackson a liar.
> He has presumed to tell the story
> better than the original author. That is arrogance.
No, he has retold the story through a different medium. It's called an
adaptation, or an interpretation. Jackson has created a different
version of the story. It's not meant as a "better" version, or replacement
of the original novel. Again, you may not agree with the changes made,
but to accuse Jackson of thinking his version is "better" is acutally
very arrogant on your part.
PS. If you really hate films that differ greatly from the original story,
I'd
suggest you stay away from the upcoming film "Adaption," based on
the book, "The Orchid Thief." Oh, and these films as well:
Minority Report
Mother Night
Adventures of Baron Munchausen
Young Frankenstein
The Shining
A Clockwork Orange
Total Recall
Memento
Cannibal! The Musical (based on a true story)
Disney's The Little Mermaid
Disney's Beauty and the Beast
.....(actually most of Disney's films)
Blade Runner
Jacky Brown
Solaris
Stalker
Soylent Green
Jurrassic Park
-Jay
RogerM
Checking the index to my 3-volumn 1978 Unwin Paperbacks edition, Arwen is not even listed as
being in Volume Two at all.
warchild
Anyone who has read the books know that Eowyn has an 'interest' in Aragorn.
Jackson develops a few scenes in the movie to highlight that for dramatic
purposes, but it ultimately goes where the books goes - nowhere. Eowyn
discovers Faramir by the end of the books, and by the end of the movies.
"RogerM" <rog...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:3D86732D...@sprint.ca...
> "W. Long" wrote:
> >
> > from imdb.......
> >
> > Peter Jackson Injects Passion Into 'The Two Towers'
> >
> > The next installment of The Lord Of The Rings trilogy will involve a
love
> > triangle between three central character that does not appear in the
book.
> > Tolkien purists already enraged by the passion between Viggo Mortensen's
> > Aragorn and Arwen, played by Liv Tyler, are set to be further upset by
the
> > introduction of Miranda Otto's Lady Eowyn. The character will spice up
the
> > clandestine relationship by diverting Aragon's attention from the Elvish
> > princess. A source says, "There's going to be a romantic triangle in the
next
> > one. We sexed it up a bit. No, you won't get to see Viggo's butt. But
there
> > will be plenty of tension between the three."
> >
> > Why do you think they did this? Isn't there enough content in the books
to not
> > have to do something like this?
> >
> > Peace!
>
> Not enough to draw the chicks. Everyone wants to make the next 'Titanic'.
Peter Jackson is an
> arrogant jerk.
warchild
of the book. He has been very faithful to the books, within the strictures
of making a commercially viable film. He has suceeded in spades.
You are faulting Peter for have the nerve to make a successful film of
'LOTR', as if that was a crime.
"RogerM" <rog...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:3D87066B...@sprint.ca...
RogerM
>
> Roger, are you denying that there is a 3-way romance between Arwen,
> Aragorn and Eowyn in the novels?
No. But see my recent post re: Arwen's absence from 'The Two Towers' volume.
> Are you saying, like the original
> article, that this is something Jackson has added?
>
No. As I've said, I'm not an expert. By my minimal research, though, it belongs in the third
movie, not the second, since Arwen isn't even listed in the index for the second volume.
And Jackson is still an arrogant jerk:
http://www.canoe.ca/JamLordOfTheRings/dec19_peterjackson-sun.html
Ernest Tomlinson
> wynde...@aol.comTimelord (W. Long) wrote:
>
> > Why do you think they did this? Isn't there enough content in the books to not
> > have to do something like this?
>
> Aragorn's choice of her over Eowyn more explicable. Because it gives
> Aragorn more of an inner life, making him a conflicted character
> rather than the one-dimensional paragon of the novels. Because it
> gives the actors a chance to act rather than posture and declaim.
Ian, what you say is true--I vividly remember one of my Latin teachers
saying that she didn't like Tolkien because he wrote his women
characters as though he'd heard about women but never met one--
but do you really think that Peter Jackson is going to do a good
job of making Aragorn et al. more than one-dimensional? The
extra romantic scenes in the _Fellowship of the Ring_ movie weren't
as laughably cliched as the pastoral and firelight scenes from
_Attack of the Clones_, but they were scarcely better.
Arwen isn't a nonentity, but you have to read one of the appendices
to find her story. I also think you misread Aragorn when you call
him a "one-dimensional paragon". In _Fellowship_, the book that is,
he betrays unseen depths from time to time--his flash of anger at
Bilbo's "cheek" in writing a poem about Earendil, the scene in
Lorien where Frodo finds Aragorn on a hill, and he seems suddenly
fifty years younger (we find later, much later, that this hill was
where Aragorn and Arwen got engaged), his disagreements with Gandalf
over where the Fellowship should go after leaving Rivendell. None
of this makes it into the movie, of course. I agree that, especially
by _The Return of the King_, Aragorn's character becomes shallower;
he was more interesting as a weary, travel-stained Ranger than he is
as the King returned. But that's a huge problem with this sort of
story in general.
Ernest Tomlinson.
W. Long
that you wouldn't need to sweeten things up for the sake of having "romance" in
a film.
Sois the romance is part of the book, or is it being made up?
Smaug69
> Dave Mansell wrote:
> >
> > In article <3D87066B...@sprint.ca>, rog...@sprint.ca (RogerM) wrote:
> >
> > > Before the first movie was released, Peter Jackson was on record as
> > > saying that he had kept the movies as faithful to the book as possible.
> > > That was a lie.
> >
> > constitutes 'faithful to the book as possible' In the context of a three
> > hour movie condensed from the book that has to work for both people who
> > have read, and not read the original book.
> >
>
> There is a difference between cutting material out, and changing the story.
Things that work on paper do not always work on the silver screen.
They are two different mediums requiring two different approaches.
> > You call someone a liar because his professional judgement doesn't agree
> > with yours is itself arrogance. Telling a story in a different medium, be
> > it film, stage or song always requires changes.
>
> Bullshit.
It's true whether you believe it or not, Sparky.
> Arwen was a virtual non-entity in the book. MAJOR CHANGE. Gandalf figured out the secret to
> opening the door to Moria, not Frodo. That's a change. Need more? Bakshi didn't make those
> changes.
Bakshi made far worse changes, IMHO. Plus, he didn't finish it!
In the future, don't inject Bakshi into an argument against changes
made by Peter Jackson for his films. You make yourself look like MORE
of an ass.
Smaug69
Ronald O. Christian
wrote:
>You are faulting Peter for have the nerve to make a successful film of
>'LOTR', as if that was a crime.
Some think it is. Visit rec.arts.books.tolkien sometime. :-)
Ron
RogerM
>
> "RogerM" <rog...@sprint.ca> wrote
> >
> > Jackson changed the story, despite his claim that he would not do so.
>
> Can you cite a quote where he said this? I don't think he ever said he
> wouldn't change the story at all. In fact, in what he said, from one of
> your previous posts:
>
It was on a TV special that was shown before the film was released.
> "RogerM" <rog...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
> news:3D87066B...@sprint.ca...
> > Before the first movie was released, Peter Jackson was on record
> > as saying that he had kept the movies as faithful to the book as possible.
> > That was a lie.
>
> "faithful to the book as possible" is not the same as "completely
> unchanged."
> Now you may disagree with the changes his made, but you cannot
> call Jackson a liar.
>
I can, and he is. He replaced Glorflindel with Arwen in the chase to Rivendell. Why?
Commercial considerations, most likely. Other than Galadriel, there are no strong female roles
in the first volume. He portrayed Frodo as the one who solved the riddle on the door. Why?
Presumably, he thought it made for a better story.
If he wanted to tell his own story, he shouldn't have co-opted someone else's work.
> > He has presumed to tell the story
> > better than the original author. That is arrogance.
>
> No, he has retold the story through a different medium. It's called an
> adaptation, or an interpretation. Jackson has created a different
> version of the story. It's not meant as a "better" version, or replacement
> of the original novel.
Bullshit. If Jackson didn't think it was a better version, why change it? Except to feed his
ego. Thus he was arrogant.
> Again, you may not agree with the changes made,
> but to accuse Jackson of thinking his version is "better" is acutally
> very arrogant on your part.
>
Do you think directors go around deliberately making inferior "interpretations" of famous
works? Perhaps, for monetary motives. But that's another reason to criticize Jackson, not a
defense.
> PS. If you really hate films that differ greatly from the original story,
> I'd
> suggest you stay away from the upcoming film "Adaption," based on
> the book, "The Orchid Thief." Oh, and these films as well:
>
> Minority Report
> Mother Night
> Adventures of Baron Munchausen
> Young Frankenstein
> The Shining
> A Clockwork Orange
> Total Recall
> Memento
> Cannibal! The Musical (based on a true story)
> Disney's The Little Mermaid
> Disney's Beauty and the Beast
> .....(actually most of Disney's films)
> Blade Runner
> Jacky Brown
> Solaris
> Stalker
> Soylent Green
> Jurrassic Park
>
You're missing the point. I liked the movie, and I even like some of the changes he made, but
he did lie and he is arrogant about it.
Ronald O. Christian
>I can, and he is. He replaced Glorflindel with Arwen in the chase to Rivendell. Why?
To reduce the number of characters in the story, a common thing when
bringing a novel to film. Bakshi replaced Glorfindel with Legolas for
the same reason.
Ron
David Johnston
> > Arwen was a virtual non-entity in the book.
>
> A major flaw of the book, I thought. However, she's only a non-entity
> in the story proper; she receives a great deal of attention in the
> appendices.
Movies only have appendices when they come out in DVD.
RogerM
>
> Peter Jackson has never said that his interpretation was superior to that
> of the book. He has been very faithful to the books, within the strictures
> of making a commercially viable film. He has suceeded in spades.
>
He has succeeded in making a lot of money. He has not been faithful to the books. All one has
to point to is Arwen.
> You are faulting Peter for have the nerve to make a successful film of
> 'LOTR', as if that was a crime.
>
Don't put words in my mouth. If I wanted to criticize him for that, I would. A faithful movie
would have made lots of money too. I would have preferred to see J.R.R. Tolkien's 'Lord of the
Rings' than Peter Jackson's. Cutting scenes is one thing, changing them is something else.
Ronald O. Christian
wrote:
>I never read the books. I just thought there was enough content in those books
>that you wouldn't need to sweeten things up for the sake of having "romance" in
>a film.
There is.
>Sois the romance is part of the book, or is it being made up?
The Aragorn and Arwen story is mostly in the appendices. Having it in
the body of the novel would have made more sense to me, as it wouldn't
have made Arwen's arrival at Minas Tirith and subsequent events so
jarring. I think Tolkien said (in one of his Letters) that he took
the romance out of the body of the story for pacing reasons.
Personally I'm glad it's back where it belongs, as it helps to fill
out the motivations of Aragorn, Elrond and Galadriel. But that's just
me, of course.
Ron
Ronald O. Christian
>A faithful movie
>would have made lots of money too.
Sadly, an utterly faithful movie would have been another Dune: The
Series. Except even more boring. Print often doesn't translate well
to film.
Ron
RogerM
As I have said before, I'm not here to defend Bakshi. It's been too long since I've seen his
version to do so, in any case. Having said that, Legolas was at least, a major character. Arwen
was not. Therefore Bakshi's change was less offensive and cynical.
Anyone who knows what changes Bakshi made, feel free to post them. I'm interested to know if he
really changed the story as much as Jackson did.
As I said before, I don't know if Bakshi made any claims to keep his version as faithful to the
original story as possible. I do know that Jackson did. He lied.
Ronald O. Christian
>
>"RogerM" <rog...@sprint.ca> wrote
>>
>> Jackson changed the story, despite his claim that he would not do so.
>
>Can you cite a quote where he said this? I don't think he ever said he
>wouldn't change the story at all. In fact, in what he said, from one of
>your previous posts:
>
>"RogerM" <rog...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
>news:3D87066B...@sprint.ca...
>> Before the first movie was released, Peter Jackson was on record
>> as saying that he had kept the movies as faithful to the book as possible.
>> That was a lie.
>
>"faithful to the book as possible" is not the same as "completely
>unchanged."
I guess it depends on what one considers "possible". To Jackson,
"possible" is closely linked to "acquiring financial backing to do the
project" and "commercial success". Many Tolkien fans disagree with
these criteria.
>[...]
>Minority Report
Especially Minority Report. Spielberg is a liar and a... er, sorry...
>[...]
>A Clockwork Orange
Kubrick is a liar and... wait, I liked the film more than the book.
Never mind.
>Total Recall
May Verhoeven baste in hell.
>[...]
>.....(actually most of Disney's films)
Offhand, I can't think of a single Disney film based on a novel that
didn't mangle the story.
>[...]
>Jurrassic Park
Hey, the book was dull. :-)
Ron
warchild
> "Ronald O. Christian" wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 08:32:43 -0300, RogerM <rog...@sprint.ca> wrote:
> > >Arwen was a virtual non-entity in the book. MAJOR CHANGE. Gandalf
figured out the secret to
> > >opening the door to Moria, not Frodo. That's a change. Need more?
Bakshi didn't make those
> > >changes.
> >
> > think I've finally figured it out. You've never read the novels, have
> > you, Roger?
>
> Yes, I have. And I specifically re-read the parts I mentioned to be sure I
was correct in my
> claims.
>
> > You've seen the Bakshi film, and assumed it was
> > canonical.
>
> Wrong. I listed changes that Jackson made which Bakshi did not.
Comprehension is apparently not
> your forte. Try reading the book again.
>
> Who solved the riddle at the door to Moria? Gandalf, not Frodo. Who cast
the spell which caused
> the river to drown the Nazgul? Elrond and Gandalf, not Arwen. Who rode
with Frodo to the ford?
> Glorflindel, not Arwen.
>
> Have you read anything BUT the appendices?
>
> I never claimed to be an expert, but I can see when Jackson changes things
I have read about.
> If you cannot, that is your shortcoming, not mine.
>
> > You *say* you're upset that the latest film doesn't follow
> > the novels, but you really mean that the latest film doesn't follow
> > Bakshi's earlier film. You're going to be really upset when giant
> > balls of fire fail to erupt from Orthanc directed at Helm's Deep.
> > Amongst many other details.
> >
>
> Wrong. I criticized Jackson for changing the story from the book, not
Bakshi's movie (which had
> its own flaws).
>
> And the appendices are not THE STORY. If they had been, they would have
been included in the
> narrative. Tolkien excluded them, it's his story.
>
Define 'change the story'. Jackson made many changes, all of which helped
make the movie successful. When did he ever say that he would make no
changes?
Bakshi didn't make changes? I beg to differ. He made the one inexcusable
change - he turned LOTR in to a boring piece of crap.
David Johnston
>
> I never read the books. I just thought there was enough content in those books
> that you wouldn't need to sweeten things up for the sake of having "romance" in
> a film.
>
> Sois the romance is part of the book, or is it being made up?
In general terms, yes the romance is there. It's just been rearranged and turned into
less of an afterthought.
David Johnston
> Arwen isn't a nonentity, but you have to read one of the appendices
> to find her story.
Actually, having read her story in the appendices...she's still a nonentity.
OK so her eyes met Aragorn's and violins began to play...big whoop. That's
why Tolkein pulled her in the first place, because she wasn't really part
of the story even in a minor way. All she does relevantly is marry
Aragorn at the end. She's the girl waiting at home for her man to
come back from the wars, no more.
David Johnston
>
> Jay G wrote:
> >
> > "RogerM" <rog...@sprint.ca> wrote
> > >
> > > Jackson changed the story, despite his claim that he would not do so.
> >
> > Can you cite a quote where he said this? I don't think he ever said he
> > wouldn't change the story at all. In fact, in what he said, from one of
> > your previous posts:
> >
>
> It was on a TV special that was shown before the film was released.
>
> > "RogerM" <rog...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3D87066B...@sprint.ca..
> > > as saying that he had kept the movies as faithful to the book as possible.
> > > That was a lie.
> >
> > "faithful to the book as possible" is not the same as "completely
> > unchanged."
> > Now you may disagree with the changes his made, but you cannot
> > call Jackson a liar.
> >
>
> I can, and he is. He replaced Glorflindel with Arwen in the chase to Rivendell. Why?
Because it was the right decision. It deleted a superfluous character and strengthened
a weak one. You can't go having a major character go and get married at the end
of the story to a character that hasn't even been introduced to the audience.
>He portrayed Frodo as the one who solved the riddle on the door. Why?
> Presumably, he thought it made for a better story.
He thought it made for a better _movie_. There's a difference.
>
> If he wanted to tell his own story, he shouldn't have co-opted someone else's work.
He didn't co-opt it. He licensed it.
>
> > > He has presumed to tell the story
> > > better than the original author. That is arrogance.
> >
> > No, he has retold the story through a different medium. It's called an
> > adaptation, or an interpretation. Jackson has created a different
> > version of the story. It's not meant as a "better" version, or replacement
> > of the original novel.
>
> Bullshit. If Jackson didn't think it was a better version, why change it?
Because things that work in books don't work in movies and vice versa.
> You're missing the point. I liked the movie, and I even like some of the changes he made, but
> he did lie and he is arrogant about it.
Oh my goodness. Someone in Hollywood didn't stick entirely to the unvarnished
truth. HOW SHOCKING!
David Johnston
>
> warchild wrote:
> >
> > Peter Jackson has never said that his interpretation was superior to that
> > of the book. He has been very faithful to the books, within the strictures
> > of making a commercially viable film. He has suceeded in spades.
> >
>
> He has succeeded in making a lot of money. He has not been faithful to the books.
Good for him.
All one has
> to point to is Arwen.
A distinct improvement.
>
> > You are faulting Peter for have the nerve to make a successful film of
> > 'LOTR', as if that was a crime.
> >
>
> Don't put words in my mouth. If I wanted to criticize him for that, I would. A faithful movie
> would have made lots of money too. I would have preferred to see J.R.R. Tolkien's 'Lord of the
> Rings' than Peter Jackson's. Cutting scenes is one thing, changing them is something else.
>
Cutting scenes without changing other scenes is a recipe for crap.
RogerM
>
> RogerM wrote:
> >
> > Jay G wrote:
> > >
> > > "RogerM" <rog...@sprint.ca> wrote
> > > >
> > > > Jackson changed the story, despite his claim that he would not do so.
> > >
> > > Can you cite a quote where he said this? I don't think he ever said he
> > > wouldn't change the story at all. In fact, in what he said, from one of
> > > your previous posts:
> > >
> >
> > It was on a TV special that was shown before the film was released.
> >
> > > "RogerM" <rog...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:3D87066B...@sprint.ca..
> > > > Before the first movie was released, Peter Jackson was on record
> > > > as saying that he had kept the movies as faithful to the book as possible.
> > > > That was a lie.
> > >
> > > "faithful to the book as possible" is not the same as "completely
> > > unchanged."
> > > Now you may disagree with the changes his made, but you cannot
> > > call Jackson a liar.
> > >
> >
> > I can, and he is. He replaced Glorflindel with Arwen in the chase to Rivendell. Why?
>
> Because it was the right decision. It deleted a superfluous character and strengthened
> a weak one. You can't go having a major character go and get married at the end
> of the story to a character that hasn't even been introduced to the audience.
>
She was introduced in the book. No reason to turn her into a Middle-Earth version of Xena.
Perhaps someday, you can go back in time and tell Tolkien to write it correctly.
> >He portrayed Frodo as the one who solved the riddle on the door. Why?
> > Presumably, he thought it made for a better story.
>
> He thought it made for a better _movie_. There's a difference.
>
Which is?
> >
> > If he wanted to tell his own story, he shouldn't have co-opted someone else's work.
>
> He didn't co-opt it. He licensed it.
>
> >
> > > > He has presumed to tell the story
> > > > better than the original author. That is arrogance.
> > >
> > > No, he has retold the story through a different medium. It's called an
> > > adaptation, or an interpretation. Jackson has created a different
> > > version of the story. It's not meant as a "better" version, or replacement
> > > of the original novel.
> >
> > Bullshit. If Jackson didn't think it was a better version, why change it?
>
> Because things that work in books don't work in movies and vice versa.
>
Perhaps because movie-goers aren't expected to actually be literate. Well, that makes sense
anyway.
> > You're missing the point. I liked the movie, and I even like some of the changes he made, but
> > he did lie and he is arrogant about it.
>
> Oh my goodness. Someone in Hollywood didn't stick entirely to the unvarnished
> truth. HOW SHOCKING!
Someone in Hollywood is an arrogant jerk. HOW SHOCKING! Yet I was taken to task for saying it.
David Johnston
> > Because it was the right decision. It deleted a superfluous character and strengthened
> > a weak one. You can't go having a major character go and get married at the end
> > of the story to a character that hasn't even been introduced to the audience.
> >
>
> She was introduced in the book.
When I read about her in the appendix I could not recall reading anything about her
from the book proper. That wasn't much of an introduction.
> > >He portrayed Frodo as the one who solved the riddle on the door. Why?
> > > Presumably, he thought it made for a better story.
> >
> > He thought it made for a better _movie_. There's a difference.
> >
>
> Which is?
That things that work in a book don't work nearly so well in a movie and vice
versa. Fight scenes work far better on screen than on the printed page, for
example. Frodo probably got the nod because you can't have the central character
of a movie just do absolutely nothing for half an hour. You can do it in a book,
because the reader controls the pace of their reading and rarely reads continuously
without a break but, pacing-wise, a movie that people sit and watch from start
to finish is a whole different breed of cat.
Ken Ream
"Ronald O. Christian" <ro...@europa.com> wrote in message
news:5r4foucfhkpaqnb22...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 17:38:17 -0300, RogerM <rog...@sprint.ca> wrote:
> >A faithful movie
> >would have made lots of money too.
>
> Sadly, an utterly faithful movie would have been another Dune: The
> Series. Except even more boring. Print often doesn't translate well
> to film.
>
And it would have been an 8 hour musical!
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Ronald O. Christian
wrote:
>
>"Ronald O. Christian" <ro...@europa.com> wrote in message
>news:5r4foucfhkpaqnb22...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 17:38:17 -0300, RogerM <rog...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>> >A faithful movie
>> >would have made lots of money too.
>>
>> Sadly, an utterly faithful movie would have been another Dune: The
>> Series. Except even more boring. Print often doesn't translate well
>> to film.
>>
>
>And it would have been an 8 hour musical!
Ooooh. <wince> Good point. Characters did have a tendency to
spontaneously burst into song, didn't they?
Ron
Jay G
"RogerM" <rog...@sprint.ca> wrote
> And Jackson is still an arrogant jerk:
>
> http://www.canoe.ca/JamLordOfTheRings/dec19_peterjackson-sun.html
Wow, what an intersting paradox. You state that Jackson's an arrogant jerk,
then post a link to an article that seems to disprove your assertion.
-Jay
Jay G
"W. Long" <wynde...@aol.comTimelord> wrote in message
news:20020917162701...@mb-fr.aol.com...
> I never read the books. I just thought there was enough content in those
books
> that you wouldn't need to sweeten things up for the sake of having
"romance" in
> a film.
>
> Sois the romance is part of the book, or is it being made up?
The romance is fleshed out in the appendices, so it is in the book, although
not
in the novel proper.
-Jay
Dave Roy
>Gawd will the movie really be called that?
Yes, it's a combination fantasy and French adult flick
Dave Roy
Jason Mulligan
> "Ronald O. Christian" wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 17:30:39 -0300, RogerM <rog...@sprint.ca> wrote:
> > >I can, and he is. He replaced Glorflindel with Arwen in the chase to Rivendell. Why?
> >
> > To reduce the number of characters in the story, a common thing when
> > bringing a novel to film. Bakshi replaced Glorfindel with Legolas for
> > the same reason.
> >
>
> As I have said before, I'm not here to defend Bakshi. It's been too long since I've seen his
> version to do so, in any case. Having said that, Legolas was at least, a major character. Arwen
> was not. Therefore Bakshi's change was less offensive and cynical.
>
> Anyone who knows what changes Bakshi made, feel free to post them. I'm interested to know if he
> really changed the story as much as Jackson did.
Well, from a script standpoint there isnt a large amount of changes that
spring to mind. Now the way it was animated, now thats a different story
(the first that springs to mind being depicting Boromir as a viking).
There's replacing Glorfindel with Legolas...not encountering Haldir or
Gollum on the edge of Lorien...there's the use of sorcery in the siege
of Helms Deep...and it all falls appart when the money dries up and
Bakshi is forced to end it very awkwardly.
Ironically my feelings for the Bakshi version have improved since seeing
the Jackson version.
Ian Galbraith
:warchild wrote:
:> Peter Jackson has never said that his interpretation was superior to that
:> of the book. He has been very faithful to the books, within the strictures
:> of making a commercially viable film. He has suceeded in spades.
:He has succeeded in making a lot of money. He has not been faithful to the books. All one has
:to point to is Arwen.
Tell me do you think a 6 hour film would have a chance of being made?
Because thats what it would take.
Warchild
wrote:
> warchild wrote:
> >
> > Peter Jackson has never said that his interpretation was superior to that
> > of the book. He has been very faithful to the books, within the strictures
> > of making a commercially viable film. He has suceeded in spades.
> >
>
> He has succeeded in making a lot of money. He has not been faithful to the
> books. All one has
> to point to is Arwen.
And you seem to harp on that issue of the expansion of Arwen's onstage
role. I say that moving Arwen to an onstage character in the films has
the positive benefit of humanizing Aragorn and giving him understandable
movites, rather than just iconizing him as some heroic paragon.
>
> > You are faulting Peter for have the nerve to make a successful film of
> > 'LOTR', as if that was a crime.
> >
>
> Don't put words in my mouth. If I wanted to criticize him for that, I would.
> A faithful movie
> would have made lots of money too.
No, it would not have. It would have been excruciatingly long, with
alot of voice over narration instead of action. What works on the
printed page does not work on the screen.
I would have preferred to see J.R.R.
> Tolkien's 'Lord of the
> Rings' than Peter Jackson's. Cutting scenes is one thing, changing them is
> something else.
The scences may have changes, but the sequences closely follow the books.
Ian McDowell
sture and declaim.
>
> Ian, what you say is true--I vividly remember one of my Latin teachers
> saying that she didn't like Tolkien because he wrote his women
> characters as though he'd heard about women but never met one--
> but do you really think that Peter Jackson is going to do a good
> job of making Aragorn et al. more than one-dimensional?
I think he already has. Aragorn's self-doubt struck me as effective
and convincing, and Boromir, in particular, came alive rather more
than he did on the page. Reading the novels, the most vivid
characters for me were Gandalf, Sam, Eowyn and Gollum (which, in all
fairness, is more than many post-Tolkien fantasies manage, and
characterization wasn't Tolkien's strongest point). Watching THE
FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, I had more of an emotional investment in
Aragorn and (particularly) Boromir than I'd expected.
The
> extra romantic scenes in the _Fellowship of the Ring_ movie weren't
> as laughably cliched as the pastoral and firelight scenes from
> _Attack of the Clones_, but they were scarcely better.
The extra romantic scenes in FotR struck me as a dramatic necessity,
so that Arwen wouldn't seem to come in from left field. Were they a
highlight of the film for me? No, although Liv Tyler was better than
I expected. What really worked for me were Aragorn's quieter moments
of self-doubt and Boromir's subtly developed bond with Merry and
Pippin (note that Jackson actually shows them _training_ -- as a
friend observed in an article she wrote for www.strangehorizons.com
about martial arts in fantasy and sf, Tolkien's hobbits, like C. S.
Lewis's children, seem to instinctively know what to do with a sword
when given one -- no drill is necessary).
> Arwen isn't a nonentity, but you have to read one of the appendices
> to find her story. I also think you misread Aragorn when you call
> him a "one-dimensional paragon". In _Fellowship_, the book that is,
> he betrays unseen depths from time to time--his flash of anger at
> Bilbo's "cheek" in writing a poem about Earendil, the scene in
> Lorien where Frodo finds Aragorn on a hill, and he seems suddenly
> fifty years younger (we find later, much later, that this hill was
> where Aragorn and Arwen got engaged), his disagreements with Gandalf
> over where the Fellowship should go after leaving Rivendell. None
> of this makes it into the movie, of course. I agree that, especially
> by _The Return of the King_, Aragorn's character becomes shallower;
> he was more interesting as a weary, travel-stained Ranger than he is
> as the King returned. But that's a huge problem with this sort of
> story in general.
No argument there. Even in someting as basic as the first STAR WARS
trilogy, Luke is more interesting as the impulsive farmboy than as the
saintly Jedi.
Sionnach
"Ronald O. Christian" wrote:
>
> Offhand, I can't think of a single Disney film based on a novel that
> didn't mangle the story.
First movie I ever saw- at age seven- was Disney's dreadful cock-up of
Kipling's "Jungle Book". It not only put me off Disney for life, but nearly
put me off of *movies* for life.
Sionnach
"Jay G" wrote:
>
> PS. If you really hate films that differ greatly from the original story,
> I'd
> suggest you stay away from
<snip>
>these films as well:
> Young Frankenstein
Erm- that's not a book adaptation, it's a spoof.
> Blade Runner
Bears little resemblance to the book, but doesn't have the same title....
and is, IMO, much more enjoyable. I found the book tedious and nearly
unreadable, but loved the movie.
Sionnach
"Sean O'Hara" wrote:
> It's, IIRC, Merry who figures out the secret, though it takes Gandalf
> a while to realize this.
Sorry, but you remember incorrectly... Merry doesn't "figure it out". All
he does is ask what "Speak, friend, and enter" means, to which Gimli replies
that it means "If you are a friend, say the password, and the doors will
open".
A good bit later, after trying all sorts of things to open the door,
Gandalf figures out the simple answer- he realises that he's mistranslated
it, and it actually says "SAY friend and enter", not "Speak, friend". He
does say that "Merry was on the right track", but it's not a matter of Merry
having figured it out, just of Merry asking a question which eventually put
Gandalf on to the correct answer.
Sionnach
"Ronald O. Christian" wrote:
>
> Ooooh. <wince> Good point. Characters did have a tendency to
> spontaneously burst into song, didn't they?
Well, the hobbits did. OTOH, that really isn't unusal in certain parts of
the U.K. (most notably Wales and Ireland), even nowadays.
Sionnach
"Jay G" wrote:
> >
> > What, "the two towers"? It is the name of the novel, after all.
>
> Or, at least, the second volume. I really haven't heard of many people
> complain about it. Most people seem sensible enough to know it's just
> a title, and one that existed decades before 9/11
In any case, weren't the WTC towers referred to as the "twin towers"? I
honestly don't recall seeing anything referring to them as "The two towers".
Miska
it. Whatever liberties PJ may have taken with the films adaptation of the
book - it is no worse than what has been done to countless other films that
are based on books. Something about artistic licence and all that..
"RogerM" <rog...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:3D87066B...@sprint.ca...
> Miska wrote:
> >
> > Upon what grounds do you have the right to call someone an arrogant
jerk?
>
> Before the first movie was released, Peter Jackson was on record as saying
that he had kept the
> movies as faithful to the book as possible. That was a lie. He has
presumed to tell the story
> better than the original author. That is arrogance.
>
> > Is
> > this based on your personal knowledge of the man? or just based on your
> > opinion of his work. If you don't like the films he directs there is a
> > simple way of dealing with it without launching into an attack on
someones
> > name. Don't go to see them.
> >
>
> Indeed, I may not go to the second film. In any case, given the liberties
Jackson is taking
> with the story, I will not be buying the deluxe DVD set coming out this
fall.
Miska
unvarnished
> > truth. HOW SHOCKING!
You might want to remember that Peter Jackson is NOT from Hollywood and
doesn't even buy into the whole Hollywood lifestyle - hence the fact he is
unshaven, has scraggly hair, is a down-to-earth New Zealand male, and simply
does what he does for the love of it. The money IS a bonus, yes, but unlike
most Hollywood big-wigs, Peter Jackson makes a film because he believes in
his work and believes people will enjoy it. If you don't then that's ok but
there is no need to critisise the man's personality because you think his
direction sucks.
Lulu The Cow
>
>"Ronald O. Christian" <ro...@europa.com> wrote in message
>news:scpeouc7b00pv8rpu...@4ax.com...
>> On 17 Sep 2002 10:12:24 -0700, mcsqu...@netzero.net (mc) wrote:
>>
>> >Gawd will the movie really be called that?
>>
>> What, "the two towers"? It is the name of the novel, after all.
>
>Or, at least, the second volume. I really haven't heard of many people
>complain about it. Most people seem sensible enough to know it's just
>a title, and one that existed decades before 9/11
umm...
I think 'mc' is asking, "Gawd, will the movie really be called 'Two
Towers & Romance'?" ...alluding to the header...
I could be wrong...
Cheers,
Todd "Brace yourselves... I'm coming back" McNeeley
.
email: mcneeley at enteract dot com
Dave Mansell
> There is a difference between cutting material out, and changing the
> story.
Indeed, and usually doing the first, requires doing the second to keep the
film consistent and flowing.
> Bakshi didn't make those changes.
I rest my case.
RogerM
I will say it one more time: I have no problem with stuff being cut out, that's unavoidable. I
do have a problem with stuff being CHANGED.
Dave Mansell
phila...@softhome.net (Ernest Tomlinson) wrote:
> I'm sure that lines like "Never toss a dwarf!"
According to an interview, some of Gimli's lines were suggested by John
Rhys Davies (and it's noone tosses a dwarf).
Dave Mansell
(Ronald O. Christian) wrote:
> That's still a rumor.
Brain Sibley in the SFX magazine article in the UK says that we will not
see any of Arwen at Helms Deep.
mc
> "Ronald O. Christian" <ro...@europa.com> wrote in message
> news:scpeouc7b00pv8rpu...@4ax.com...
> > On 17 Sep 2002 10:12:24 -0700, mcsqu...@netzero.net (mc) wrote:
> >
> > >Gawd will the movie really be called that?
> >
> > What, "the two towers"? It is the name of the novel, after all.
>
> Or, at least, the second volume. I really haven't heard of many people
> complain about it. Most people seem sensible enough to know it's just
> a title, and one that existed decades before 9/11
Sorry guess I'm not that sensible. And I'm sure there are countless
other dimwits as well.
MC
>
> -Jay
>
> -Jay
mc
Well it appears I'm alone in this camp but I just did a quick google
search and it has been discussed. Not everyone is a diehard Tolkien
fan. "Twin/Two", it's all I thought of.
MC
Ronald O. Christian
wrote:
I'm assuming you mean Disney's 1967 Jungle Book, as opposed to
Disney's 1994 Jungle Book (or, for that matter, Disney's 1997 Jungle
Book, or Disney's 1998 Jungle Book, or Disney's 2003 Jungle Book.
What, they're holding the Kipling family hostage or something?)
Ron
Ronald O. Christian
wrote:
>> > Oh my goodness. Someone in Hollywood didn't stick entirely to the
>unvarnished
>> > truth. HOW SHOCKING!
>
>You might want to remember that Peter Jackson is NOT from Hollywood and
>doesn't even buy into the whole Hollywood lifestyle - hence the fact he is
>unshaven, has scraggly hair, is a down-to-earth New Zealand male,
Not to mention his surfer-bum wardrobe. :-)
Ron
Ronald O. Christian
wrote:
Um, I was referring to Aragorn on the road to Rivendel, Gimli in the
halls of Moria, and the elves... practically everywhere. But Bilbo
and Sam were prone to it also. Must have been something in the water.
Ron
Ronald O. Christian
>Indeed, I may not go to the second film. In any case, given the liberties Jackson is taking
>with the story, I will not be buying the deluxe DVD set coming out this fall.
That's ok, I'll buy two for you.
Ron
Ronald O. Christian
>
>I will say it one more time: I have no problem with stuff being cut out, that's unavoidable. I
>do have a problem with stuff being CHANGED.
...and as many people are trying to get you to understand, one can't
cut stuff out without tying the remaining bits together. Else you're
left with a fragmented, moving illustration of the book; a film that
does not tell a coherent story. If the film doesn't stand on it's
own, only ME geeks will see it.
Ron
Ronald O. Christian
Very interesting! But that possibly leaves open a plot hole --
Aragorn receives the reforged Narsil at Rivendel in the book, but not
in the movie; ostensibly so that Arwen could bring it to him at Helm's
Deep. With Arwen not making the trip, how does he get the sword?
Ron
Ronald O. Christian
Todd! You bastard, where have you been?
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 04:42:07 -0400, Lulu The Cow <nu...@myserver.com>
wrote:
>I think 'mc' is asking, "Gawd, will the movie really be called 'Two
>Towers & Romance'?" ...alluding to the header...
>
>I could be wrong...
It's surreal enough to be true.
>Cheers,
>
>Todd "Brace yourselves... I'm coming back" McNeeley
>.
>email: mcneeley at enteract dot com
Seriously, Todd, what's up with you?
Ron (email is fine)
Aris Katsaris
> On 17 Sep 2002 20:27:01 GMT, wynde...@aol.comTimelord (W. Long)
> wrote:
>
> >I never read the books. I just thought there was enough content in those
books
> >that you wouldn't need to sweeten things up for the sake of having "romance"
in
> >a film.
>
> There is.
>
> >Sois the romance is part of the book, or is it being made up?
>
> The Aragorn and Arwen story is mostly in the appendices. Having it in
> the body of the novel would have made more sense to me, as it wouldn't
> have made Arwen's arrival at Minas Tirith and subsequent events so
> jarring. I think Tolkien said (in one of his Letters) that he took
> the romance out of the body of the story for pacing reasons.
No, actually he said that he would have included Arwen in more of the
narrative, had he thought her up back then. She was a late addition. Tolkien
also said that he considers the tale of Aragorn and Arwen an *essential*
part of the story. Not being in the main part of the narrative has to do
with the balance of the hobbit-centric material or something like that.
Aris Katsaris
Aris Katsaris
"RogerM" <rog...@sprint.ca> wrote in message news:3D8750CE...@sprint.ca...
>
> And the appendices are not THE STORY. If they had been, they would have been
included in the
> narrative. Tolkien excluded them, it's his story.
Tolkien disagrees with you.
"... I regard the tale of Arwen and Aragorn as the most important of the
Appendices; it is part of the essential story, and is only placed so, because
it could not be worked into the main narrative without destroying its structure:
which is planned to be 'hobbito-centric'..."
Do you now repent of your comments, Roger? Do you agree that this appendix
*should* be included in the movie?
Aris Katsaris
Aris Katsaris
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 17:58:14 GMT, David Johnston
> <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
> >mc wrote:
> >>
> >> Gawd will the movie really be called that?
> >
> >Why would they change the title?
>
> Wow, that would be a controversy... As you probably know, Tolkien
> didn't come up with that title, his publisher did, when his publisher
> arbitrarily split his novel into three parts.
I was under the impression that Tolkien did choose the title - though he
thought it kinda arbitrary, as he did with the division of the novel into three
volumes.
Aris Katsaris
Aris Katsaris
"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:3D868B...@telusplanet.net...
> W. Long wrote:
>
> > Why do you think they did this? Isn't there enough content in the books to
not
> > have to do something like this?
>
> I like it. Aragorn rejecting Eowyn to marry a nonentity like Arwen left a
> sour taste in my mouth.
One could also argue that they'd barely exchange a couple sentences before
Eowyn "fell in love" with him. As Aragorn tells to Eomer later on, her love for
him wasn't real, she was just in love with the *idea* of Aragorn, a glorious
warrior and king that could lead her to glory above the misery of her position
in Rohan, as she perceived it.
Aris Katsaris
RogerM
No. Read what you quoted: "it could not be worked into the main narrative without destroying
its structure". He left it out because it hurt the main story.
RogerM
Tolkien knew better than Jackson what made for the best story. Jackson should have respected
his judgment, rather than re-writing the story.
Ronald O. Christian
Aris, I don't have the Letters, and you obvious do, as you've quoted
them in other threads. I remember reading in the
rec.arts.books.tolkien newsgroup, on the discussion of "which two
towers did he mean?" controversy, that Tolkien admitted himself that
he didn't have any two particular towers in mind, and hadn't picked
the title anyway. You have the references -- true or false?
Ron
terry king
Christian <ro...@europa.com> wrote:
> dman...@cix.co.uk (Dave Mansell) wrote:
> >Brain Sibley in the SFX magazine article in the UK says that we will not
> >see any of Arwen at Helms Deep.
>
> Very interesting! But that possibly leaves open a plot hole --
> Aragorn receives the reforged Narsil at Rivendel in the book, but not
> in the movie; ostensibly so that Arwen could bring it to him at Helm's
> Deep. With Arwen not making the trip, how does he get the sword?
SPOILER
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
SPOILER
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
SPOILER
.
Spoiler
HERE...
Haldir brings Lorien Elves to Helm's Deep: there's a shot of him with
Aragorn and Theoden in the DVD TTT preview (screencap at FantasyPlanet:
http://www.fantasyplanet.cz/gfx/pictures_clanky/lotr_gal_velky_2002_7_30
_16_3_18.jpg - he's in the maroon cloak). Best guess is he gets tapped
to deliver Narsil.
BONUS SPOILER of the rumor variety:
The persistent rumor that Haldir dies in the battle has already spawned
"Haldir Lives (I don't care what Peter Jackson says)" shirts:
http://www.cafeshops.com/cp/store.aspx?s=haldirlives
| "I identify most with Smeagol. He has a brief moment
Terry King | of triumph, followed by years of disappointment,
preacher mit edu | heartbreak and disillusionment."
| - LotR screenwriter Philippa Boyens
GSS/H v3.0 c++@ W++ N+++ M+$ t+ 5++ X++ R* b+++ DI++++ x? <*>
DNRC: Sublime Guardian of Paradox, Anachronism, and the Absurd
Ashley Lambert-Maberly
>Tolkien knew better than Jackson what made for the best story. Jackson should have respected
>his judgment, rather than re-writing the story.
Oh, for Pete's sake.
Let's say I'm planning to do an etching or a ceiling mural or even a
series of ceramic tiles depticing the Lord of the Rings (i.e., I'm
reinterpreting an artistic work in different media.) How exactly
would I go about this without leaving something out or changing
something? OBVIOUSLY when translating artistic works into other
media, something's got to give.
Screenwriter William Goldman (The Princess Bride, Misery, Butch
Cassidy & the Sundance Kid) has said on the subject:
(1) You can't be totally faithful to the original source.
(2) You *shouldn't* be totally faithful to the original source.
(3) You ABSOLUTELY MUST BE faithful to the INTENTION of the original
source.
Clearly, Peter Jackson's version of LOTR was fine by me, one of the
best moviegoing experiences I had last year.
Ashley Lambert-Maberly
**********************
http://www.onceupon.org
Ashley Lambert-Maberly
>:to point to is Arwen.
>Ian replied:
>Tell me do you think a 6 hour film would have a chance of being made?
>Because thats what it would take.
I'm agreeing in principle, but only 6 hours? In your dreams.
To include everything Tolkein had in the Fellowship of the Ring alone
would be by my best guess 14 hours, and that's only if one condenses a
lot of the walking sequences into a montage rather than showing them
real time, a la Andy Warhol. I can imagine filming the first two
chapters rather faithfully in about 90 minutes if one went at a fast
clip, but after that it might get a wee bit draggy.
Ashley Lambert-Maberly
***************************
http://www.onceupon.org
Sionnach
"
>
> I'm assuming you mean Disney's 1967 Jungle Book,
I was born in November of 1959, and saw it the summer I was seven. <G>
> Disney's 1994 Jungle Book (or, for that matter, Disney's 1997 Jungle
> Book, or Disney's 1998 Jungle Book, or Disney's 2003 Jungle Book.
Ack. Since I ignore Disney as much as possible, I wasn't even *aware* of
any such thing. Please tell me you're making this up!!
> What, they're holding the Kipling family hostage or something?)
IIRC, the copyright has run out on Kipling's stuff...
Smaug69
MEPS. Middle-earth Parcel Service. Gwahir and company have to have
something to do when they aren't saving hobbits, dwarves and Gandalf.
Smaug69
Ronald O. Christian
wrote:
>
>"
>>
>> I'm assuming you mean Disney's 1967 Jungle Book,
>
> I was born in November of 1959, and saw it the summer I was seven. <G>
>
>> Disney's 1994 Jungle Book (or, for that matter, Disney's 1997 Jungle
>> Book, or Disney's 1998 Jungle Book, or Disney's 2003 Jungle Book.
>
> Ack. Since I ignore Disney as much as possible, I wasn't even *aware* of
>any such thing. Please tell me you're making this up!!
I wish I were. Go to www.imdb.com and search on "jungle book".
>> What, they're holding the Kipling family hostage or something?)
>
> IIRC, the copyright has run out on Kipling's stuff...
Ok... but it seems odd that there hasn't been a non-Disney Jungle Book
made in America since, well, I guess there never *has* been an
American-made non-Disney Jungle Book. (I think the 1942 version was
an English production.)
Ron
Jay G
>
> "Jay G" wrote:
>
> >
> > PS. If you really hate films that differ greatly from the original
story,
> > I'd
> > suggest you stay away from
> <snip>
> >these films as well:
>
> > Young Frankenstein
>
> Erm- that's not a book adaptation, it's a spoof.
A spoof is still an adaptation.
> > Blade Runner
>
> Bears little resemblance to the book, but doesn't have the same title....
> and is, IMO, much more enjoyable. I found the book tedious and nearly
> unreadable, but loved the movie.
I wasn't suggesting any of the movies were bad. In fact, I deliberately
picked films that were critically acclaimed or well-received. My
point was that film adaptations often differ wildly from the original
source. It's a testament to Jackson that he was able to keep the
film as faithful as he did.
-Jay
Jay G
> Aris Katsaris wrote:
> > Tolkien disagrees with you.
> > "... I regard the tale of Arwen and Aragorn as the most important of the
> > Appendices; it is part of the essential story, and is only placed so,
because
> > it could not be worked into the main narrative without destroying its
structure:
> > which is planned to be 'hobbito-centric'..."
> >
> > Do you now repent of your comments, Roger? Do you agree that this
appendix
> > *should* be included in the movie?
>
> narrative without destroying its structure". He left it out because it
> hurt the main story.
Yet it is also "essential." Maybe Jackson should've included the scenes
as an appendix to ROTK, during the credits and such. ;-)
-Jay