{OT} The Return of the King
David Nakamoto
Yes, huge chunks of the story are left out, but we saw that happening in
the first two movies, so it's not unexpected. What is important is that he
told the main story, and told it well. Now I don't have to wish for a movie
version of the entire trilogy.
What a Christmas present for all Lord of the Rings fans !
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to Man.
It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity.
It is the middle ground between light and shadow,
Between Science and superstition
And it lies between the pit of Man's fears
and the Sunlight of his knowledge.
It is the dimension of imagination.
It is an area that might be called. . . The Twilight Zone.
david.n...@verizon.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bohn
> Peter Jackson has done it.
Why is everyone surprised at this? We've seen how he's done so
far, did you think he would go wonky at the end?
> Yes, huge chunks of the story are left out, but we saw that happening in
>the first two movies, so it's not unexpected.
Watching the extended DVDs for the first time to work up to the
last movie, happy with all the stuff they "put back."
Must put aside some time to reread the books for the first time
in twenty years.
--
-Jack
alan
> David Nakamoto wrote:
>
>
>> Peter Jackson has done it.
>
>
> Why is everyone surprised at this? We've seen how he's done so
> far, did you think he would go wonky at the end?
>
>
Chika
Maybe so, but one might question the thought behind making a trilogy out
of Matrix - it seemed fine with just one part, but it seems that it is
fashionable to make trilogies, and a trilogy for the sake of it is always
going to be a gamble, especially if the story looks like it won't last
that long, so it has to be panned out somehow. As for SW, you could look
at it in a couple of ways. Either this proves why it was better to release
parts IV, V and VI first, or it again shows how greedy some producers are
getting.
The difference with LotR is that it has so much in it. In every
dramatisation I have ever encountered, the biggest problem has always been
what to leave out. Some parts are easily dropped - Bombadil's bit is a
little pointless IMO, for example. Jackson would have been really stupid
to have run out of story before the end of the movie, because Tolkein put
so much into it.
If anything, my biggest gripe still remains that too much has been cut
(OK, a lot was put back in on DVD, but it still means that you don't get
the full story on the big screen which makes me wonder if it is worth
going) and the number of plot changes.
Movie 1, it had to be the overuse of Arwen and some of the changes made in
Moria. With the second movie it was the cutting of the Ents and the
wholesale change to the Ithilien section of Frodo's journey. I believe
they have removed the raising of the Shire from the theatrical release of
the third, which means that the story of Saruman, not to mention some of
the prophecies in Lothlorien, are left hanging.
I think this was what I feared when I first heard that wHollyWeird had got
its hooks into LotR. Certainly it will be fine for those of us that have
never read the books, and others will excuse the licence, but I can't. As
I've mentioned before, I've encountered other dramatisations, and though
it certainly scores large over Bakshi's half finished attempt, it
certainly does not rate as the best attempt IMHO.
--
//\ // Chika <miyuki at crashnet.org.uk>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... Only adults have problems with childproof caps.
Ethan Hammond
>
> Peter Jackson has done it.
>
> Yes, huge chunks of the story are left out, but we saw that happening in
> the first two movies, so it's not unexpected. What is important is that
he
> told the main story, and told it well. Now I don't have to wish for a
movie
> version of the entire trilogy.
1 hour and 5 minutes was cut and will be added back on the DVD.
Including all of Christopher Lee's scenes.
> What a Christmas present for all Lord of the Rings fans !
And it even had the eagles so a whole new generation of people
can bitch.
--
All Purpose Cultural Randomness
http://www.angelfire.com/tx/apcr/index.html
Chris Mattern
> David Nakamoto wrote:
>
>
>> Peter Jackson has done it.
>
>
> Why is everyone surprised at this? We've seen how he's done so
> far, did you think he would go wonky at the end?
>
long, difficult projects go "wonky at the end" is unfortunately
not that uncommon, and we're all relieved it didn't happen here.
Chris Mattern
Jorge Pratt
"Chika" <miy...@spam.no.way> wrote in message
news:4c62ba7a...@no.spam.here...
> I think this was what I feared when I first heard that wHollyWeird had got
> its hooks into LotR. Certainly it will be fine for those of us that have
> never read the books, and others will excuse the licence, but I can't. As
> I've mentioned before, I've encountered other dramatisations, and though
> it certainly scores large over Bakshi's half finished attempt, it
> certainly does not rate as the best attempt IMHO.
Hmm. So, which IS the best attempt?
I know that Tolkien has (well-deserved) legions of fans, but it always
struck me as silly to expect a cinematic adaptation to keep all scenes
intact. Even allowing for length, it's fairly standard for any book to be
slimmed-down for its theatrical version, not just LotR. As long as the plot
remains unchanged and the spirit of the world and characters is left alone,
I don't see what the problem is.
Sure, you *can* have hideous adaptations (look at me scream bloody murder at
how the Timeline movie massacred the book) but that's the result of altering
plot and characters to near-unrecongizable caricatures. And then, at the
other end of the spectrum, I've read many critics bash the Harry Potter
movies for being play-by-play recountings of the books (sans a couple of
scenes that, even then, were removed.)
What I mean to say is, I loved Tolkien's work, and still do. But when I go
to the theater to see the movies, I don't expect to see a live-action play
of this book --I expect to see the *director's interpretation* of this book.
That's why he's in the position of "director," and in this case,
writer/producer as well. He must have the ability to walk the tightrope
between offending long-time followers and confusing mainstream
audiences.This is not an easy feat, as proven by the Final Fantasy movie and
the recent Star Wars episodes.
The Zephyr
(Did you know that in The Ring/Ringu, the final signature scene wasn't even
in the book? The director, Hideo Nakata, came up with it himself, cutting
out important parts of Sadako's origin in the process as well as changing
Asakawa from a family man to a single mother. You don't see anyone
complaining.)
Chika
<0070...@academ01.ccm.itesm.mx> wrote:
> "Chika" <miy...@spam.no.way> wrote in message
> news:4c62ba7a...@no.spam.here...
> > I think this was what I feared when I first heard that wHollyWeird had
> > got its hooks into LotR. Certainly it will be fine for those of us
> > that have never read the books, and others will excuse the licence,
> > but I can't. As I've mentioned before, I've encountered other
> > dramatisations, and though it certainly scores large over Bakshi's
> > half finished attempt, it certainly does not rate as the best attempt
> > IMHO.
> Hmm. So, which IS the best attempt?
I have mentioned it before. In 1987, BBC Radio attempted an adaptation.
Dramatised by Brian Sibley and Michael Bakewell (hmmm... now where have I
heard that name? ^_^) it was broadcast on BBC Radio 4. It featured Ian
Holm as Frodo, Peter Woodthorpe as Gollum (Bakshi got something right!)
and a fair amount of other acting talent of the day including the late
Michael Hordern as Gandalf.
Certainly it had plenty of cuts, but its 13 hour run did managed to cram
in a hell of a lot, the only big cut really being the aformentioned
Bombadil segment which wasn't really missed.
You can still get it via Amazon.com (amongst other places) on CD (all 13
of them! Good package though).
> I know that Tolkien has (well-deserved) legions of fans, but it always
> struck me as silly to expect a cinematic adaptation to keep all scenes
> intact. Even allowing for length, it's fairly standard for any book to
> be slimmed-down for its theatrical version, not just LotR. As long as
> the plot remains unchanged and the spirit of the world and characters is
> left alone, I don't see what the problem is.
That's it though. The plot has been changed. OK, there are soe changes
that are worse than others, but that still means that the story changes. I
can forgive some of these changes (it would be silly to expect some of the
story to remain as per the book), but some of the changes smack of
wHollyWeird PC sensibilities whilst others just seem plain wrong.
Certainly, as far as this last movie goes, the cutting of the whole
raising really spoils it for me, making me wonder if it might be better
for me to wait for the special edition rather than going to see the cut
down version.
> Sure, you *can* have hideous adaptations (look at me scream bloody
> murder at how the Timeline movie massacred the book) but that's the
> result of altering plot and characters to near-unrecongizable
> caricatures. And then, at the other end of the spectrum, I've read many
> critics bash the Harry Potter movies for being play-by-play recountings
> of the books (sans a couple of scenes that, even then, were removed.)
I've really tried to take HP seriously, but I can't. Sorry. I know it has
its fans, but I just can't get into it.
> What I mean to say is, I loved Tolkien's work, and still do. But when I
> go to the theater to see the movies, I don't expect to see a live-action
> play of this book --I expect to see the *director's interpretation* of
> this book. That's why he's in the position of "director," and in this
> case, writer/producer as well. He must have the ability to walk the
> tightrope between offending long-time followers and confusing mainstream
> audiences.This is not an easy feat, as proven by the Final Fantasy movie
> and the recent Star Wars episodes.
True, but in doing that, he will probably have realised that whatever he
does, he will get criticism. As the producer, he has a right to interpret
the story any way he likes, but as a viewer and long time Tolkien fan, I
also have the right to express my view about his interpretation, which is
what I have done.
Don't get me wrong, I am not dismissing the entirety of the movie work.
There are some parts where I think Jackson and his people have done an
excellent job, especially with some of the creature renditions - Gollum,
Shelob, Treebeard and so on, but there are points where I believe that he
could have been a little more faithful to the book and, more importantly,
to its spirit. Not just in the major points I've given, but in some of the
minor points which, on occasion, have flatly contradicted the book.
It all reminds me of a movie about an author who has to put up with the
indignity of a wHollyWeird crew invading his town to film a version of a
book he had written, only to find that the book had been rewritten
wholesale to "please the viewing public" without his knowing. What JRRT
would have said in this situation is open to any amount of debate, and I
won't suggest what he might have thought. Interpretation is a funny thing,
after all.
> The Zephyr (Did you know that in The Ring/Ringu, the final signature
> scene wasn't even in the book? The director, Hideo Nakata, came up with
> it himself, cutting out important parts of Sadako's origin in the
> process as well as changing Asakawa from a family man to a single
> mother. You don't see anyone complaining.)
--
//\ // Chika <miyuki at crashnet.org.uk>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance.
Eric Schwartz
> If anything, my biggest gripe still remains that too much has been cut
> (OK, a lot was put back in on DVD, but it still means that you don't get
> the full story on the big screen which makes me wonder if it is worth
> going) and the number of plot changes.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I honestly don't mind any
of the stuff that was cut out. LOTR is way too long for any
reasonable trilogy of movies, and there's no way to do anything
closely resembling the whole thing justice. Every adaptation, as you
point out, has left stuff out, and I think every one will.
My problems have all been with the stuff PJ *added*. That lame-ass
duel in FOTR. The godawful stupid scene in TTT where Nentbea tenof
gur jnet naq tbrf bss gur pyvss, nybat jvgu gur vagrezvanoyl obevat
fprar jvgu Nejra naq Ryebaq. And I had a hard time forgiving him not
so much for Ilithien, but the violence he did to Faramir's character.
After TTT, I was not expecting very much.
That said, ROTK was WOW! FANTABULOUS! GORGEOUS! DAMN! Sure, quite a
bit stuff was cut, but it was stuff that didn't matter anyway, or if
it did, it didn't matter very much, much as in the first film. Some
things were changed, but again, it was (by and large, my purist
quibblings aside) for the betterment of the film. Yes, I'd have liked
to have seen Saruman, but if we're not going to have the Scouring of
the Shire, then honestly I'd rather not see him at all than see his
end done wrong.
The denoument was 100% perfect-- I couldn't believe how well the
coronation scene went, and when we got back to the Shire, I found to
my surprise I really didn't miss the Scouring after all. Gollum's
actions were different, but not materially so, and I will give
seriously mad props to all them who did Shelob. Damn, that was Nice
with a capital "Sa-WEEET".
FYI, I'm a die-hard Tolkien fan. I first read LOTR when I was 8.5,
and have reread it approximately every 18 months since then. I know
the characters and story by heart, but I love going back and
revisiting them-- I always seem to pick up something I missed before.
I taught myself to write with dwarven runes when I was wee as a sort
of secret code.
But I loved FOTR, for all its flaws, because it got the essence
*right*. TTT bothered me mostly because it seemed gratuitous in its
changes. But ROTK... ah, ROTK. It has redeemed PJ in my eyes, not
that he could give a shit. It is a thing of beauty. Not every moment
is perfect-- I think PJ has this fascination with slow-motion
blurrycams that doesn't always fit the action, but I Like It A Lot(tm).
Eric sez, check it out.
-=Eric
--
Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare.
-- Blair Houghton.
Isaac Kuo
>Peter Jackson has done it.
>Yes, huge chunks of the story are left out, but we saw that happening in
>the first two movies, so it's not unexpected. What is important is that he
>told the main story, and told it well. Now I don't have to wish for a movie
>version of the entire trilogy.
I understand that time constraints absolutely require leaving
out huge chunks of the story, but it boggles me why so much
unnecessary out-of-character nonsense has to be added
(i.e. Sam leaving Frodo, Faramir's angsty father/son
relationship, Gandalf beating up others with a pole). This was
a problem with the first two movies, of course, but it really
shocked me in the third movie nevertheless. I thought I had
lowered my expectations enough; I enjoyed PJ's TTT more than
PJ's FoR. But honestly, I enjoyed this third movie less
than either of the other two. However...
Eowyn's confrontation with the Witch King was excellently done.
It was powerful and exhilarating, and one of the few
powerful confrontations PJ decided to put in his RoK movie.
It was also faithfully done, proving Tolkien's work does NOT
require creative embellishment to produce a moving movie scene.
The omission which most surprised me was the lack of the Mouth
of Sauron. I can understand that PJ cares about devoting screen
time to cool AT-AT oliphants and trolls more than anything as
subtle as Denethor and Gandalf grappling wits and wills.
However, the Mouth of Sauron is just the sort of flashy
gruesome creature I'd have thought PJ would be all over.
Isaac Kuo
Eric Schwartz
> I understand that time constraints absolutely require leaving
> out huge chunks of the story, but it boggles me why so much
> unnecessary out-of-character nonsense has to be added
> (i.e. Sam leaving Frodo,
Technically PJ did it the other way around. It had the additional
benefits of making the Shelob scene easier to film, foreshadowing
Mount Doom, and making it simple for the audience who hadn't read the
books to understand why the two got separated.
> Faramir's angsty father/son relationship,
I intentionally left off re-reading the books, so I don't recall the
specifics, but this was true to the story, if not the actual plot.
There *was* a lot of angsty father/son stuff between them-- Boromir
was the favourite, and Faramir was being forced to do his best to live
up to his brother's reputation, when he was more of a diplomat than a
fighter.
> Gandalf beating up others with a pole).
He's mentioned as kicking serious ass on the battlefield, but most of
that's offscreen, so to speak, in the books. It doesn't bother me
that PJ put it onscreen, and it was quite fun to watch.
> I thought I had
> lowered my expectations enough; I enjoyed PJ's TTT more than
> PJ's FoR.
Given the sheerly massive quantities of OOC stuff in TTT compared to
FoTR, this baffles me. FoTR was *right*. Yeah, many of the details
were different, but they were not worse, just different.
> But honestly, I enjoyed this third movie less
> than either of the other two. However...
Well, more room for me in the theatre! :)
> Eowyn's confrontation with the Witch King was excellently done.
> It was powerful and exhilarating, and one of the few
> powerful confrontations PJ decided to put in his RoK movie.
> It was also faithfully done, proving Tolkien's work does NOT
> require creative embellishment to produce a moving movie scene.
I'll have to re-read (again, I intentionally refrained from doing so
specifically to give the movie a fair shake), but I believe there was
actually quite a bit of creative embellishment there, including the
whole dropping of Dernhelm (audience: "Who's THIS guy, and why do we
care?") in the first place.
> The omission which most surprised me was the lack of the Mouth
> of Sauron. I can understand that PJ cares about devoting screen
> time to cool AT-AT oliphants and trolls more than anything as
> subtle as Denethor and Gandalf grappling wits and wills.
> However, the Mouth of Sauron is just the sort of flashy
> gruesome creature I'd have thought PJ would be all over.
Time. They didn't besiege Gondor, because that would have taken
waaaaay too long in an already nearly 3.5-hour movie (I shudder to
think of how long the DC will be). If there's no siege, there's no
time for the Mouth to come out, not to mention that there's no point
to it either.
PJ's LOTR and Tolkien's LOTR are *different*. They are supposed to
be-- it is not *possible* to directly film Tolkien's story; as a huge
LOTR fan, I'd have to say that the result would be nigh-unwatchable.
I disagree with some choices PJ made, especially in TTT, but I respect
his right to do so, and I think that, by and large, he had some
valuable contributions to the mythos. Frex, his Boromir was more
human and more real than Tolkien's.
Someone in another newsgroup pointed out that Tolkien's characters and
story were incredible and powerful, but his pacing and oft times his
prose were downright tepid. I'm not sure I agree 100%, but I can see
some truth in that statement-- Tolkein himself said, for instance,
that he didn't really see that Bombadil made any sense in the story at
all, but he personally loved it so much that he wedged it in anyhow.
Isaac Kuo
>mec...@yahoo.com (Isaac Kuo) writes:
>>I understand that time constraints absolutely require leaving
>>out huge chunks of the story, but it boggles me why so much
>>unnecessary out-of-character nonsense has to be added
>>(i.e. Sam leaving Frodo,
>Technically PJ did it the other way around. It had the additional
>benefits of making the Shelob scene easier to film, foreshadowing
>Mount Doom, and making it simple for the audience who hadn't read the
>books to understand why the two got separated.
It was so completely out of character for Sam to leave Frodo
that I can't forgive it. It would have been better if after
Gollum's deception creating mistrust of Sam, Frodo had simply
snuck off with Gollum while Sam was sleeping.
Even just talking about movie Sam, he was absolutely insistent
throughout the movies that Frodo could never leave him behind.
>>Faramir's angsty father/son relationship,
>I intentionally left off re-reading the books, so I don't recall the
>specifics, but this was true to the story, if not the actual plot.
No, it was not. It's true that Denethor favored Boromir
over Faramir, but Faramir bore no ill feelings for this.
Faramir, for his part, was almost closer to Gandalf than
Denethor.
>There *was* a lot of angsty father/son stuff between
>them-- Boromir was the favourite, and Faramir was being forced
>to do his best to live up to his brother's reputation, when
>he was more of a diplomat than a fighter.
Actually, Faramir was NOT forced to do his best to live up
to his brother's reputation. In fact, his cunning and valor
in battle was equal to Boromir--a fact that his men knew if
not many others. That was enough for Faramir, because he
never sought fame and accepted that the greater glory SHOULD
go to his brother (being heir to the stewardship).
In fact, Faramir was the stereotypical humble-yet-beloved
leader. When he fell to the Witch King, the people's love
for him poured out openly.
>Gandalf beating up others with a pole).
>He's mentioned as kicking serious ass on the battlefield, but most of
>that's offscreen, so to speak, in the books. It doesn't bother me
>that PJ put it onscreen, and it was quite fun to watch.
Oh, Gandalf is a great swordsman, but I'm talking about him
just being a bully. When Pippin suddenly declared fealty to
Denethor, Gandalf was deeply touched, not moved to physically
abuse him for the interuption. When Gandalf matched wits and
wills with Denethor, it was with words, not sticks and stones.
Instead, he just bops him time and time again, which really
should have deserved SOME sort of violent retribution from
Denethor's ever present guardsmen.
>>I thought I had
>>lowered my expectations enough; I enjoyed PJ's TTT more than
>>PJ's FoR.
>Given the sheerly massive quantities of OOC stuff in TTT compared to
>FoTR, this baffles me. FoTR was *right*. Yeah, many of the details
>were different, but they were not worse, just different.
I had lowered my expectations for TTT a LOT.
>>Eowyn's confrontation with the Witch King was excellently done.
>>It was powerful and exhilarating, and one of the few
>>powerful confrontations PJ decided to put in his RoK movie.
>>It was also faithfully done, proving Tolkien's work does NOT
>>require creative embellishment to produce a moving movie scene.
>I'll have to re-read (again, I intentionally refrained from doing so
>specifically to give the movie a fair shake), but I believe there was
>actually quite a bit of creative embellishment there, including the
>whole dropping of Dernhelm (audience: "Who's THIS guy, and why do we
>care?") in the first place.
There were a lot of things dropped, but not much embellishment.
Some of it would have been really cool, like Eowyn's speech,
but there is the undeniable time constraint factor.
>>The omission which most surprised me was the lack of the Mouth
>>of Sauron. I can understand that PJ cares about devoting screen
>>time to cool AT-AT oliphants and trolls more than anything as
>>subtle as Denethor and Gandalf grappling wits and wills.
>>However, the Mouth of Sauron is just the sort of flashy
>>gruesome creature I'd have thought PJ would be all over.
>Time. They didn't besiege Gondor, because that would have taken
>waaaaay too long in an already nearly 3.5-hour movie (I shudder to
>think of how long the DC will be). If there's no siege, there's no
>time for the Mouth to come out, not to mention that there's no point
>to it either.
There's no point to a lot of what PJ put in, beyond it's a
cool looking special effect.
>PJ's LOTR and Tolkien's LOTR are *different*. They are supposed to
>be-- it is not *possible* to directly film Tolkien's story; as a huge
>LOTR fan, I'd have to say that the result would be nigh-unwatchable.
>I disagree with some choices PJ made, especially in TTT, but I respect
>his right to do so, and I think that, by and large, he had some
>valuable contributions to the mythos. Frex, his Boromir was more
>human and more real than Tolkien's.
I think PJ's Boromir was made weaker and less interesting by
the changes. Sean Bean was wonderful, nevertheless, and the
most memorable scene in PJ's FotR was an apocryphal scene
featuring him (when Sean Bean holds up the Ring and ponders it).
I can't think of any character change that actually improved
the character from the original.
>Someone in another newsgroup pointed out that Tolkien's characters and
>story were incredible and powerful, but his pacing and oft times his
>prose were downright tepid. I'm not sure I agree 100%, but I can see
>some truth in that statement-- Tolkein himself said, for instance,
>that he didn't really see that Bombadil made any sense in the story at
>all, but he personally loved it so much that he wedged it in anyhow.
Tolkien's pacing was irritating. Just when things got really
interesting, he'd switch tracks entirely and you'd have to
wait half a book for it to continue. Of course, by then, that
other track was finally getting interesting...
Isaac Kuo
Sea Wasp
I believe
> they have removed the raising of the Shire from the theatrical release of
> the third, which means that the story of Saruman, not to mention some of
> the prophecies in Lothlorien, are left hanging.
The Scouring of the Shire is not in existence at all. It was never
filmed, aside from the little scene shown in Galadriel's mirror.
It was one of the scenes that would OBVIOUSLY be left out of any film
version. It's a hideous anticlimax of at least an hour, hour and a
half duration to tell.
Sauruman meets his demise differently, that's all.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Chika
Isaac Kuo <mec...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Eowyn's confrontation with the Witch King was excellently done.
> It was powerful and exhilarating, and one of the few
> powerful confrontations PJ decided to put in his RoK movie.
> It was also faithfully done, proving Tolkien's work does NOT
> require creative embellishment to produce a moving movie scene.
Like I said before, Jackson would have really been silly to do anything
but go by the book for the majority of the Pelennor Field battle. I know
that the whole "Paths of the Dead" stuff has been mucked about with, but
it's a part of the story that always seemed a little bit tacked on, much
as the Bombadil bit was, but I'll wait and see how that turns out.
> The omission which most surprised me was the lack of the Mouth
> of Sauron. I can understand that PJ cares about devoting screen
> time to cool AT-AT oliphants and trolls more than anything as
> subtle as Denethor and Gandalf grappling wits and wills.
> However, the Mouth of Sauron is just the sort of flashy
> gruesome creature I'd have thought PJ would be all over.
It's another part of the story that seemed tacked on, but it did (in the
book) make it clear that Sauron had finally worked out for himself that he
had a conspiracy working against him, so it's a pity if they have left it
out. Maybe it's another scene to be added back in the special edition?
--
//\ // Chika <miyuki at crashnet.org.uk>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... Bad command or file name! Go stand in the corner.
Chika
Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
> The Scouring of the Shire is not in existence at all. It was never
> filmed, aside from the little scene shown in Galadriel's mirror.
So why is Christopher Lee agonising over it? The story I've heard is that
a whole load of film, covering that part of the story, was shot and
discarded, presumably for use in the subsequent special edition DVD.
As for the scene itself, it took about 15-20 minutes of the BBC version in
total (the whole story from Frodo and Sam getting out of Mordor, everyone
going to their various homes, the Shire battles and what happens after
took little more than one episode, about half an hour).
--
//\ // Chika <miyuki at crashnet.org.uk>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... Madness takes its toll - please have exact change
David Nakamoto
news:mp23uvgml8moh0tja...@4ax.com...
> David Nakamoto wrote:
>
> > Peter Jackson has done it.
>
> Why is everyone surprised at this? We've seen how he's done so
> far, did you think he would go wonky at the end?
Well, there are no guarentees in life you know. ^_^
> > Yes, huge chunks of the story are left out, but we saw that happening
in
> >the first two movies, so it's not unexpected.
>
> Watching the extended DVDs for the first time to work up to the
> last movie, happy with all the stuff they "put back."
But there's still a lot that was left out, but again not important to the
main story. I can live with the trilogy/movie in the extended version, or
even the theatrical version.
> Must put aside some time to reread the books for the first time
> in twenty years.
T W E N T Y Y E A R S ? ? ! ! !
H E R E T I C ! ^_^
David Nakamoto
news:brs39o$6kf$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
Ah yes, how soon we can forget . . . in both cases fortunately.
And then there's the Indiana Jones series.
And the Alien series.
And perhaps the Terminator series.
And . . .
David Nakamoto
news:4c62ba7a...@no.spam.here...
> If anything, my biggest gripe still remains that too much has been cut
> (OK, a lot was put back in on DVD, but it still means that you don't get
> the full story on the big screen which makes me wonder if it is worth
> going) and the number of plot changes.
>
> Movie 1, it had to be the overuse of Arwen and some of the changes made
in
> Moria. With the second movie it was the cutting of the Ents and the
> wholesale change to the Ithilien section of Frodo's journey. I believe
> they have removed the raising of the Shire from the theatrical release
of
> the third, which means that the story of Saruman, not to mention some of
> the prophecies in Lothlorien, are left hanging.
>
> I think this was what I feared when I first heard that wHollyWeird had
got
> its hooks into LotR. Certainly it will be fine for those of us that have
> never read the books, and others will excuse the licence, but I can't.
As
> I've mentioned before, I've encountered other dramatisations, and though
> it certainly scores large over Bakshi's half finished attempt, it
> certainly does not rate as the best attempt IMHO.
If they did it literally, you'd have long stretches of mostly talk, which
while it might fit well in the mind doesn't sit well in the theater, even
for many fans of the books. Also, each book would then be over 6 hours
long.
I like both versions, the books and the movies. The movies concentrated
on the primary story, which is the Quest of the Ring Bearer, with a strong
secondary emphasis for the rest of the Fellowship. The rest can and should
be left out in order to not pad a single movie to over 4 hours. If you
think otherwise, that's your viewpoint.
David Nakamoto
news:3FE22EC9...@wizvax.net...
> Chika wrote:
> I believe
> > they have removed the raising of the Shire from the theatrical release
of
> > the third, which means that the story of Saruman, not to mention some
of
> > the prophecies in Lothlorien, are left hanging.
>
> The Scouring of the Shire is not in existence at all. It was never
> filmed, aside from the little scene shown in Galadriel's mirror.
>
> It was one of the scenes that would OBVIOUSLY be left out of any film
> version. It's a hideous anticlimax of at least an hour, hour and a
> half duration to tell.
>
> Sauruman meets his demise differently, that's all.
I knew this was going to happen, and I knew it for sure when they
concluded the stuff at Minas Tirith and looked at my watch. The demise of
Saruman was one of the scenes in the book that I loved, but I knew it wasn't
part of the main story of either the Fellowship and the Quest of the Ring
Bearer, and I didn't feel like sitting for five hours, so I was not sorry it
wasn't included.
What was included, a departure from the book, is the scene after the four
hobbits come back to The Shire. That was worth presenting, but for the sake
of those that haven't seen the movie, I'll refrain from describing it.
Sea Wasp
> In article <3FE22EC9...@wizvax.net>,
> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>
>> The Scouring of the Shire is not in existence at all. It was never
>>filmed, aside from the little scene shown in Galadriel's mirror.
>
>
> So why is Christopher Lee agonising over it?
He's agonizing, if that's the word, over his scenes being left
out. NOT Scouring scenes, Sauruman At His Tower scenes.
8-Bit Star
>
> Yes, huge chunks of the story are left out, but we saw that happening in
> the first two movies, so it's not unexpected. What is important is that he
> told the main story, and told it well. Now I don't have to wish for a movie
> version of the entire trilogy.
>
> What a Christmas present for all Lord of the Rings fans !
Or, in my case, a birthday present, since it premiered in December 17th.
I must say, I really liked it. Though it still had parts of unintentional
comedy (though I didn't mind it or the intentional comedy for that matter)
it was the best of all three movies. Coincidentally, it was also the most
consistent with the books. What I really liked was how it dropped basically
everything that annoyed me about the first two films (it doesn't pile on
the angst needlessly and there's less in the way of scenes that seem like
they came right out of Hercules: The Legendary Journeys).
I didn't at all mind the leaving out of the Scouring of the Shire. In
fact, I had always thought the Scouring was pointless anyway.
8-Bit Star
>
> > Peter Jackson has done it.
>
> Why is everyone surprised at this? We've seen how he's done so
> far,
Exactly. In my opinion, Fellowship of the Ring was stupid, and
Two Towers was enjoyable but still flawed. Return of the King,
however, is the film where he finally gets it right. In short
they get progressively better.
8-Bit Star
Frankly I'm surprised the mouth and the scene where he shows them
Frodo's shirt was left out for the reason that it WAS in the video
game (and the video game is based on the movie).
Ethan Hammond
>
> The Zephyr
> (Did you know that in The Ring/Ringu, the final signature scene wasn't
even
> in the book? The director, Hideo Nakata, came up with it himself, cutting
> out important parts of Sadako's origin in the process as well as changing
> Asakawa from a family man to a single mother. You don't see anyone
> complaining.)
It dosen't have a HUGE fan base either.
Ethan Hammond
>
> indignity of a wHollyWeird crew invading his town to film a version of a
> book he had written, only to find that the book had been rewritten
> wholesale to "please the viewing public" without his knowing. What JRRT
> would have said in this situation is open to any amount of debate, and I
> won't suggest what he might have thought. Interpretation is a funny thing,
> after all.
Remember when Hollywood did Godzilla, but forgot to include Godzilla in the
movie. That was a good time.
Ethan Hammond
>
> It was so completely out of character for Sam to leave Frodo
> that I can't forgive it. It would have been better if after
> Gollum's deception creating mistrust of Sam, Frodo had simply
> snuck off with Gollum while Sam was sleeping.
I saw the movie tonight and the way I interpreted that scene was that
Frodo told Sam not to go with him. I didn't see it as Sam leaving
Frodo.
Ethan Hammond
> > they have removed the raising of the Shire from the theatrical release
of
> > the third, which means that the story of Saruman, not to mention some of
> > the prophecies in Lothlorien, are left hanging.
>
> The Scouring of the Shire is not in existence at all. It was never
> filmed, aside from the little scene shown in Galadriel's mirror.
Which was only used in the special edition of FOTR.
Ethan Hammond
And we won't know how until next November because
they cut that from the theater version so they could have
time for the hobbits to gaze tenderly into each others
eyes and laugh for no reason.
Fata Morgana
> Eric Schwartz <emsc...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:<etowu8u...@fc.hp.com>...
> >mec...@yahoo.com (Isaac Kuo) writes:
> >>I understand that time constraints absolutely require leaving
> >>out huge chunks of the story, but it boggles me why so much
> >>unnecessary out-of-character nonsense has to be added
> >>(i.e. Sam leaving Frodo,
>
> >Technically PJ did it the other way around. It had the additional
> >benefits of making the Shelob scene easier to film, foreshadowing
> >Mount Doom, and making it simple for the audience who hadn't read the
> >books to understand why the two got separated.
>
> It was so completely out of character for Sam to leave Frodo
> that I can't forgive it. It would have been better if after
> Gollum's deception creating mistrust of Sam, Frodo had simply
> snuck off with Gollum while Sam was sleeping.
>
> Even just talking about movie Sam, he was absolutely insistent
> throughout the movies that Frodo could never leave him behind.
Exactly.
But I believe it's equally out of character for Frodo to suggest Sam leave
him, especially replacing him with Gollum! Book Frodo knew *exactly* who to
trust, and though he protected Gollum out of pity, he never would have
doubted Samwise if he had told him something that Gollum said verbatim.
Frodo needed and loved Sam as much as Sam needed and loved Frodo.
Furthermore, by adding this scene, you turn Frodo's character into the
villan of the piece. I was almost surprised that PJ included the scene
where Shelob "kills" Frodo, because I knew it would have no emotional
impact - who cares if Frodo lives or dies at that point? He's obviously a
dick. From that scene on, I kept expecting Jackson to kill Frodo off in
some way. I'm still mildly surprised that he didn't. Seems to me he set
the guy up for death by making the audience not give a damn about him.
Fata Morgana
--
http://www.jazzmess.com - a veiwers' guide to Cowboy Bebop
http://www.cowboybebop.org - archive of CowboyBebop.com
Fata Morgana
RotK?
Fata Morgana ~ the only way they could have villified him more is if he had
actually tried to *kill* Samwise.
Ethan Hammond
FOTR was the most boring to watch in
the theater. TTT I went and saw 3 or 4 times.
I saw Return of the King once and that is enough until
I get the special edition DVD. It seems like the second
chapter in a series is often the best. I don't know why
that is. The thing that was great about TTT.
was that it was a character study of Gollum. ROTK
that way. The final 30 minutes of the movie
really drag. The thing I liked best about ROTK was
the creatures, like the eagles, Shelob, and the wraith
riders. The worst thing was the dead army. That
was cheese. I would rather than had been more
zombishy or something. Maybe the problem is
I don't like the hobbits that much. I liked Boromir
the best in FOTR and I liked Gollum the best
in TTT heh.
Ethan Hammond
>
> Furthermore, by adding this scene, you turn Frodo's character into the
> villan of the piece. I was almost surprised that PJ included the scene
> where Shelob "kills" Frodo, because I knew it would have no emotional
> impact - who cares if Frodo lives or dies at that point? He's obviously a
> dick. From that scene on, I kept expecting Jackson to kill Frodo off in
> some way. I'm still mildly surprised that he didn't. Seems to me he set
> the guy up for death by making the audience not give a damn about him.
Yeah that was a big problem for me. Is that I was never rooting for
Frodo.
Michael Borgwardt
> Am I the only one who loathes the violence done to *Frodo's* character in
> RotK?
>
> Fata Morgana ~ the only way they could have villified him more is if he had
> actually tried to *kill* Samwise.
The Ring corrupts. Not just shady types, also goody-goody characters (except
Tom Bombadil). Gotta make that glaringly obvious.
(And we like it, yes my preciouss!!!)
Chika
8-Bit Star <nes_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Why is everyone surprised at this? We've seen how he's done so
> > far,
> Exactly. In my opinion, Fellowship of the Ring was stupid, and
> Two Towers was enjoyable but still flawed. Return of the King,
> however, is the film where he finally gets it right. In short
> they get progressively better.
I wouldn't go that far. I might believe that all three are flawed in some
way, but without the first movie, the second would make no sense, and
likewise the third would have been pretty much pointless. Whatever might
be said about changes and cuts, the one thing that even Jackson needed to
avoid was overcutting, since that would have probably relegated the whole
project to the same fate as the Bakshi animated version.
The problem was, and always will be, that JRRT put a hell of a lot into
the whole story, some of it vitally relevant, some of it not so relevant.
That's before we even get as far as arguing over whether it would be
better with more action in such and such a part or more romance or
whatever. As I think most of us have admitted at one point or another, it
would be totally impossible to dramatise the book as it is. The argument
is whether the cuts and changes made are correct and whether they detract
from the whole story. Such as they are, it is all down to subjective
opinion. I could probably describe myself as more conservative from that
point of view.
However, I don't dismiss your comments completely. You say that FotR was
"stupid", but you don't say in what way. I know why I have my reservations
about it, and thankfully a lot of what I viewed as mistakes and
wHollyWeird PC meddling was not repeated in later films, so I can see why
it might be called "stupid".
Similarly you call 2T "flawed". Now I believe that one of the biggest
flaws in that movie was the cutting of the Ents, but that was restored in
the special edition, so it isn't such a big flaw. Certainly I wasn't keen
on a lot of the drawing out of the Helms Deep segment, and certainly it
would have been better to sling the women and children out to Dunharrow as
per te book and let the Riders of Rohan and allies do what they do, but in
a pinch I can accept it. The other flaw, IMO, I've already mentioned (i.e.
Frodo in Ithilien). However, overall, it isn't totally irretrievable.
I've always said that the third movie would probably be the biggest one,
given the amount of action in it and given the possible audience attracted
to it. Even going by the book, the battle of Pelennor Field, the journey
from Dunharrow via the Paths of the Dead and the burning of Denethor is
pretty compelling stuff, so even word for word, you can't go far wrong.
The difficult part was always going to be the segment following the end of
the major battles, with everyone going their own ways, and the Hobbits
returning home to a smouldering wreck and so forth. A lot of it isn't that
compelling, but to ignore it and excuse it is dangerous. It all comes back
to whether you are actually trying to dramatise and adapt the story (never
mind the books themselves) or you are merely trying to make a movie that
resembles the story. Once you have done it, however, it is up to the
viewers to make up their minds.
--
//\ // Chika <miyuki at crashnet.org.uk>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... Be Nice to Your Enemies, It Drives Them Nuts.
Chika
> > the book) make it clear that Sauron had finally worked out for himself
> > that he had a conspiracy working against him, so it's a pity if they
> > have left it out. Maybe it's another scene to be added back in the
> > special edition?
> Frankly I'm surprised the mouth and the scene where he shows them
> Frodo's shirt was left out for the reason that it WAS in the video game
> (and the video game is based on the movie).
Hmmm... that might be an indication of its residency on the cutting room
floor and a possible ressurrection. We shall see, I guess... :)
--
//\ // Chika <miyuki at crashnet.org.uk>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... I've used Basic so long, my brain has gonesub permanently
Chika
Ethan Hammond <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> "Fata Morgana" <nunyab...@fool.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Furthermore, by adding this scene, you turn Frodo's character into the
> > villan of the piece. I was almost surprised that PJ included the
> > scene where Shelob "kills" Frodo, because I knew it would have no
> > emotional impact - who cares if Frodo lives or dies at that point?
> > He's obviously a dick. From that scene on, I kept expecting Jackson
> > to kill Frodo off in some way. I'm still mildly surprised that he
> > didn't. Seems to me he set the guy up for death by making the
> > audience not give a damn about him.
> Yeah that was a big problem for me. Is that I was never rooting for
> Frodo.
I think that was something that struck me about the whole Jackson product.
In the books, the whole effect appeared to be a last gasp attempt by the
Hobbits to destroy the source of power whilst the rest of the peoples of
Middle Earth battled each other. It was a true conspiracy against Sauron,
signified first by the council at Rivendell, and later by the encounter at
Orthanc after the defeat of Saruman, and lastly by the confrontation at
the Morannon between the Mouth of Sauron and Gandalf, the humans pretty
much taking over after everything was finished while the rest dwindled or
went off in their boats.
The movies increasingly left me feeling that the whole story was about the
humans with an occasional other race, these other races not really being
that important. A token elf here, a dwarf there, never mind the hobbits,
the're just little folk. I know that Frodo doesn't die in the books or in
any other dramatisation I have encountered, and I suppose Jackson stopped
short of doing that to Frodo in the movies, but I wonder if he thought
about it, maybe with Frodo being pulled into the pit by Gollum rather than
just one finger.
--
//\ // Chika <miyuki at crashnet.org.uk>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... When I get a better mouse trap built, mice will be an endangered species.
Chika
If anything, Jackson hasn't done as much as the book did to make that
obvious, though this was something that became a little tedious in the
book, especially once Frodo hit Mordor.
> (And we like it, yes my preciouss!!!)
Fancy some lembas? ^_^
--
//\ // Chika <miyuki at crashnet.org.uk>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... Data, data everywhere, and not a byte to eat!
Jorge Pratt
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:AhBEb.490688$0v4.21...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Jorge Pratt" <0070...@academ01.ccm.itesm.mx> wrote in message
> >
> > The Zephyr
> > (Did you know that in The Ring/Ringu, the final signature scene wasn't
> even
> > in the book? The director, Hideo Nakata, came up with it himself,
cutting
> > out important parts of Sadako's origin in the process as well as
changing
> > Asakawa from a family man to a single mother. You don't see anyone
> > complaining.)
>
> It dosen't have a HUGE fan base either.
Japan (as a nation) held a funeral and memorial service for Sadako. I'd say
that's quite a broad fanbase, no? ^_^
The Zephyr
(Off-Topic Powaa!)
Isaac Kuo
>"Isaac Kuo" <mec...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>It was so completely out of character for Sam to leave Frodo
>>that I can't forgive it. It would have been better if after
>>Gollum's deception creating mistrust of Sam, Frodo had simply
>>snuck off with Gollum while Sam was sleeping.
>I saw the movie tonight and the way I interpreted that scene
>was that Frodo told Sam not to go with him. I didn't see it
>as Sam leaving Frodo.
In both Tolkien's and PJ's Fellowship of the Ring, Frodo tries
to tell Sam to leave and Sam refuses, saying that he will never
leave Frodo for any reason. Obviously, this includes the reason
of Frodo telling him to leave.
That was when Frodo wasn't under constant threat of a treacherous
murderer and when the journey ahead wasn't so blatantly
dangerous. Why would Sam refuse to leave Frodo in FotR but
then leave him when Frodo's need was clearly so much greater?
At the very least, Sam should have shadowed Frodo and Gollum
just outside eyesight after reluctantly agreeing to leave.
Isaac Kuo
Eric Schwartz
> I like both versions, the books and the movies. The movies concentrated
> on the primary story, which is the Quest of the Ring Bearer, with a strong
> secondary emphasis for the rest of the Fellowship. The rest can and should
> be left out in order to not pad a single movie to over 4 hours. If you
> think otherwise, that's your viewpoint.
Huh. It seems to me that the movies concentrated primarily on the
story of Aragorn becoming King of Gondor, with the Quest as a
tension-enhancing side note. Consider all the work PJ went to to make
the romance with Arwen a big deal, and the fact that he changed
Aragorn from "Hey, off my back Elrond, I'm working on it already" to
"Should I or shouldn't I? Oh, this is such a hard choice to make."
It's fairly obvious to me that while the books are all about Sam, the
movies are all about Aragorn. But both have plenty of the other stuff
to give you something to pay attention to if you want.
-=Eric
--
Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare.
-- Blair Houghton.
Eric Schwartz
> But I believe it's equally out of character for Frodo to suggest Sam leave
> him, especially replacing him with Gollum! Book Frodo knew *exactly* who to
> trust, and though he protected Gollum out of pity, he never would have
> doubted Samwise if he had told him something that Gollum said verbatim.
> Frodo needed and loved Sam as much as Sam needed and loved Frodo.
I can't believe I'm defending this scene, as I found it distracting
and wrong to, but...
It *did* do a couple of useful things. First off, it pointed out
clearly how much the Ring was taking over Frodo's mind. Without that,
the scene at Mt. Doom might have been less believable to an audience
who didn't know the books. Most of Frodo's corruption is internal,
which we can read in a book, but not really see in a movie. So having
him spurn Sam actually worked for me, because it was an external,
easily visible sign of the Ring working on Frodo's mind.
Mind you, I agree that Sam should've just shadowed the two just out of
sight, but OTOH, it's kinda hard on that stair where Gollum can just
look down and see Sam is still behind him.
> Furthermore, by adding this scene, you turn Frodo's character into the
> villan of the piece.
Not a villain, just a flawed hobbit, who's been carrying that Ring far
too long for his self to remain intact. Again, all that stuff we get
to see inside Frodo's head in the books, but there's really no good
way to do that on film, so you have to externalize it so the audience
can see it.
> I was almost surprised that PJ included the scene where Shelob
> "kills" Frodo, because I knew it would have no emotional impact -
> who cares if Frodo lives or dies at that point? He's obviously a
> dick.
Not at all.
> From that scene on, I kept expecting Jackson to kill Frodo off in
> some way. I'm still mildly surprised that he didn't. Seems to me he set
> the guy up for death by making the audience not give a damn about him.
That may have been your reaction, but it certainly wasn't mine, or any
of the other 30 people I saw the movie with on Wednesday. I think
most people saw it as I believe PJ intended-- Frodo goes temporarily
nutso, sends his best friend away, and then realizes his error when
Gollum abandons him. Sure, it's his own fault, but that makes it
worse for him, because he realizes briefly how far he's fallen, but he
can't let that stop him.
Chika
> >was that Frodo told Sam not to go with him. I didn't see it
> >as Sam leaving Frodo.
> In both Tolkien's and PJ's Fellowship of the Ring, Frodo tries
> to tell Sam to leave and Sam refuses, saying that he will never
> leave Frodo for any reason. Obviously, this includes the reason
> of Frodo telling him to leave.
> That was when Frodo wasn't under constant threat of a treacherous
> murderer and when the journey ahead wasn't so blatantly
> dangerous. Why would Sam refuse to leave Frodo in FotR but
> then leave him when Frodo's need was clearly so much greater?
> At the very least, Sam should have shadowed Frodo and Gollum
> just outside eyesight after reluctantly agreeing to leave.
Indeed, in the book and certainly in the BBC version (Bakshi never got far
enough for the scene in question), the one time that Sam *did* leave Frodo
(when he thought that Frodo had been killed by Shelob), as soon as he
found out that Frodo was just stunned, he soon went looking. "Never leave
your master!" It was made pretty clear how far Sam would go to stay by
Frodo, even to the extent of attending the Rivendell council, though he
wasn't invited, and one of the most poignant parts of the story came at
the very end, when Frodo left Sam at the Grey Havens.
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx - ROT13>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... Where you stand depends on where you sit.
Chika
Eric Schwartz <emsc...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Furthermore, by adding this scene, you turn Frodo's character into the
> > villan of the piece.
> Not a villain, just a flawed hobbit, who's been carrying that Ring far
> too long for his self to remain intact. Again, all that stuff we get
> to see inside Frodo's head in the books, but there's really no good
> way to do that on film, so you have to externalize it so the audience
> can see it.
It's always difficult to try to explain visually this sort of exposition,
and it's so easy to get it wrong. If anything, this was possibly the most
difficult thing in the whole movie to do, far more so than the relatively
pedestrian adaptation of the battles going on back in Gondor.
> > I was almost surprised that PJ included the scene where Shelob
> > "kills" Frodo, because I knew it would have no emotional impact -
> > who cares if Frodo lives or dies at that point? He's obviously a
> > dick.
> Not at all.
It's an important part of the story, though it is made less so by the
cutting out of the scene with the Mouth. Even so, it is a defining point
in the journey to Mt. Doom, and really shows Sam at his best too, not to
mention heightening the effect on what is happening to Frodo at this
point. To an extent, the journey between the watch tower at Cirith Ungol
and the Cracks doesn't really amount to much, and you wouldn't expect
Frodo and Sam to make it into Mordor without some resistance.
> > From that scene on, I kept expecting Jackson to kill Frodo off in
> > some way. I'm still mildly surprised that he didn't. Seems to me he
> > set the guy up for death by making the audience not give a damn about
> > him.
> That may have been your reaction, but it certainly wasn't mine, or any
> of the other 30 people I saw the movie with on Wednesday. I think
> most people saw it as I believe PJ intended-- Frodo goes temporarily
> nutso, sends his best friend away, and then realizes his error when
> Gollum abandons him. Sure, it's his own fault, but that makes it
> worse for him, because he realizes briefly how far he's fallen, but he
> can't let that stop him.
Much as I criticise PJ for some of the adjustments to the story, I can't
criticise this bit. It's a difficult section of the book to do, but the
idea of Frodo going crazy isn't too far from the story as JRRT had it. The
important bit is that Frodo, being a fallible hobbit under immense
pressure, nearly failed to do what was required, and it was only because
of the insane desire of Gollum that he succeeded. The Ring sent everyone
mad, one way or another...
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx - ROT13>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... File not found. I'll load something *I* think is interesting.
Eric Schwartz
> and one of the most poignant parts of the story came at the very
> end, when Frodo left Sam at the Grey Havens.
Which scene, by the way, I thought was very well done, particularly
the way Ian Holm doddered to the dock, then walked on his own onto the
ship. I thought PJ might have made more of the Rings of Power having
all left Middle-Earth, but he did show them all for those who knew to
look.
Fish Eye no Miko
> Michael Borgwardt <bra...@brazils-animeland.de> wrote:
>
> > (And we like it, yes my preciouss!!!)
>
> Fancy some lembas? ^_^
We don't likes nassty elf bread!
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
"A ship is not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails; that's what the
ship *needs*. What a ship really is... is freedom."
-Captain Jack Sparrow, _The Pirates of the Caribbean_.
Fish Eye no Miko
news:brusiu$7pk0f$2...@ID-161931.news.uni-berlin.de...
Besides, I think that might have arguably been balanced out by...
Spoiler ahead!
Something NOT in the books, so it's a spoiler for the MOVIE itself.
One
Ring
to
Rule
Them
All,
One
Ring
to
Find
Them,
One
Ring
to
Bring
Them
All
and
In
the
Darkness
Bind
Them
...Frodo trying to get the Ring back from Gollum. In the book, Gollum
takes the Ring and just dances around and falls into the Crack of Doom all
by his lonesome*. In the movie, Frodo tries to get the Ring back. Now,
you could argue that he just wanted to the Ring for himself, but still..
I, personally, thought this bit made Frodo more heroic than in the book,
as it made it look as though his actions caused Gollum's fall, and the
subsequent destruction of the Ring, instead of it just happening.
*Some fans have theorized that Gollum's fall in to the CoD was a
subconscious fulfillment of his promise not to let the Ring fall into
Sauron's "hands".
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
Right now you are reading my .sig quote.
Chris Mattern
>
> Much as I criticise PJ for some of the adjustments to the story, I can't
> criticise this bit. It's a difficult section of the book to do, but the
> idea of Frodo going crazy isn't too far from the story as JRRT had it. The
> important bit is that Frodo, being a fallible hobbit under immense
> pressure, nearly failed to do what was required,
He *did* fail to do what was required. What was required was done, but
Frodo didn't do it.
Eric Schwartz
That exactly what I thought-- that he was still possessed by lust for
the Ring, and hadn't come to his senses. If you watch the way he
moves in that scene, it's definitely rage and violence animating his
frame, not fear or concern. I totally agree that this adds to the
story, though, and I think the scene where he ditches Sam foreshadows
this nicely.
> I, personally, thought this bit made Frodo more heroic than in the book,
> as it made it look as though his actions caused Gollum's fall, and the
> subsequent destruction of the Ring, instead of it just happening.
Agreed, I always thought it was kinda silly that Gollum, who lived
centuries in pitch-dark, and got around only by his other senses,
should slip and fall. But I think it's even better that Frodo was
still nutso and even so help Gollum fall in. It's an extension, if
you will, of Tolkien's original theme that even Evil can serve Good,
albeit unwittingly. Sure, Frodo was possessed by the spirit of the
Ring, but even his corruption served the greater good there.
> *Some fans have theorized that Gollum's fall in to the CoD was a
> subconscious fulfillment of his promise not to let the Ring fall into
> Sauron's "hands".
That's not a horrible idea, but to me it's clearly in the realm of
applicability, not intention. That is, you can read that into it, and
it's not obviously wrong, but from what I've read, that's not what
Tolkien was trying to do with that scene. But hey, if it works for
you, feel free.
David Nakamoto
> Chika wrote:
> > In article <3FE22EC9...@wizvax.net>,
> > Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The Scouring of the Shire is not in existence at all. It was never
> >>filmed, aside from the little scene shown in Galadriel's mirror.
> >
> >
>
> He's agonizing, if that's the word, over his scenes being left
> out. NOT Scouring scenes, Sauruman At His Tower scenes.
As are all fans of the books. But this is INEVIDABLE to get this made to
a movie . . . so he'll get over it. ^_^
David Nakamoto
news:4327cb6c.03121...@posting.google.com...
> "David Nakamoto" <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<qsdEb.17837$G9....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
> > Peter Jackson has done it.
> >
> > Yes, huge chunks of the story are left out, but we saw that
happening in
> > the first two movies, so it's not unexpected. What is important is
that he
> > told the main story, and told it well. Now I don't have to wish for a
movie
> > version of the entire trilogy.
> >
> > What a Christmas present for all Lord of the Rings fans !
>
> Or, in my case, a birthday present, since it premiered in December 17th.
>
> I must say, I really liked it. Though it still had parts of
unintentional
> comedy (though I didn't mind it or the intentional comedy for that
matter)
> it was the best of all three movies. Coincidentally, it was also the
most
> consistent with the books. What I really liked was how it dropped
basically
> everything that annoyed me about the first two films (it doesn't pile on
> the angst needlessly and there's less in the way of scenes that seem
like
> they came right out of Hercules: The Legendary Journeys).
>
> I didn't at all mind the leaving out of the Scouring of the Shire. In
> fact, I had always thought the Scouring was pointless anyway.
Ah ha ! Another fan of the books that thought the scouring of the Shire
was something we could do less of. The only part about it, in fact, that I
liked was what happened to Saruman at the end, but I think this could have
been left in while leaving the scouring of the Shire out. Perhaps in the
expanded version, but I'm not holding my breath.
David Nakamoto
> In article <4327cb6c.03121...@posting.google.com>,
> 8-Bit Star <nes_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Why is everyone surprised at this? We've seen how he's done so
> > > far,
>
> > Exactly. In my opinion, Fellowship of the Ring was stupid, and
> > Two Towers was enjoyable but still flawed. Return of the King,
> > however, is the film where he finally gets it right. In short
> > they get progressively better.
>
> I wouldn't go that far. I might believe that all three are flawed in
some
> way, but without the first movie, the second would make no sense, and
> likewise the third would have been pretty much pointless. Whatever might
> be said about changes and cuts, the one thing that even Jackson needed
to
> avoid was overcutting, since that would have probably relegated the
whole
> project to the same fate as the Bakshi animated version.
Which we can now forget entirely, or better yet burn the VHS tapes, now
that we have this version.
We'll be arguing the merits of this movie at least as long as we've been
arguing the merits of, say, Evangelion ( ^_^ ), so let the battles
continue !
^_^
David Nakamoto
> In article <brusiu$7pk0f$2...@ID-161931.news.uni-berlin.de>, Michael
> Borgwardt <bra...@brazils-animeland.de> wrote:
> > Fata Morgana wrote:
>
> > > Am I the only one who loathes the violence done to *Frodo's*
character
> > > in RotK?
> > >
> > > Fata Morgana ~ the only way they could have villified him more is if
> > > he had actually tried to *kill* Samwise.
>
> > The Ring corrupts. Not just shady types, also goody-goody characters
> > (except Tom Bombadil). Gotta make that glaringly obvious.
>
> If anything, Jackson hasn't done as much as the book did to make that
> obvious, though this was something that became a little tedious in the
> book, especially once Frodo hit Mordor.
Which is why he left that part out, including that tedious journey once
Frodo and Sam were in Mordor, and am I glad ! That, and a couple of other
parts in the books, were tedious almost beyond endurance for me.
David Nakamoto
news:GCIEb.21720$gN.14801@fed1read05...
I didn't view it that way. Frodo was still under the sway of the Ring,
and he wanted it back from Gollum. Look at the way it had started taking
hold of Sam, when Frodo asked it back from the former. But I thought what
Jackson did, having that last battle between Frodo and Gollum, was a bit
better than what happened in the book, at least from a visual standpoint.
What hasn't been mentioned is that some of the edits and changes were made
because what takes dialogue and words to make clear in a book can be done
with a visual reference in a movie, often quicker and sometimes cleaner, if
not more obvious, and this also helps to keep the pace of the movie going.
And edits sometimes force other edits just to keep the feeling and
continuity of the movie's story going.
David Nakamoto
> Chika <miy...@spam.no.way> writes:
> > and one of the most poignant parts of the story came at the very
> > end, when Frodo left Sam at the Grey Havens.
>
> Which scene, by the way, I thought was very well done, particularly
> the way Ian Holm doddered to the dock, then walked on his own onto the
> ship. I thought PJ might have made more of the Rings of Power having
> all left Middle-Earth, but he did show them all for those who knew to
> look.
I was a little dismayed that Jackson didn't show that Gandalf had Narya,
the ring of Fire, given to him by Cirdan, but in the end I realize this
revelation needed an explanation, and there wasn't any time left (near FOUR
HOURS LONG! Sheesh ! ) so I missed it but understood why it had to be
cut.
Chika
Eric Schwartz <emsc...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Chika <miy...@spam.no.way> writes:
> > and one of the most poignant parts of the story came at the very
> > end, when Frodo left Sam at the Grey Havens.
> Which scene, by the way, I thought was very well done, particularly
> the way Ian Holm doddered to the dock, then walked on his own onto the
> ship. I thought PJ might have made more of the Rings of Power having
> all left Middle-Earth, but he did show them all for those who knew to
> look.
Well, the Three left. Very little was ever made of the Dwarfish rings...
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx - ROT13>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... Captain, the UARTs won't take this Speed!
Chika
wrote:
OK, OK, you know what I was getting at! Basically, if Gollum hadn't been
so driven to have a quick bite, the whole thing would have gone pear
shaped.
Hmm... it does make me wonder exactly what would have happened if Gollum
hadn't been there. But then why bother?
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx - ROT13>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... It's not so much how we stand as the direction we're moving.
Chika
<res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > So why is Christopher Lee agonising over it?
> >
> > He's agonizing, if that's the word, over his scenes being left
> > out. NOT Scouring scenes, Sauruman At His Tower scenes.
> As are all fans of the books. But this is INEVIDABLE to get this made
> to a movie . . . so he'll get over it. ^_^
Probably. That nice fat cheque will help... ^_^
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx - ROT13>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... Data, I thought you were dead! No, sir, I rebooted
Chika
David Nakamoto <res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Which we can now forget entirely, or better yet burn the VHS tapes, now
> that we have this version.
If only! Some idiot decided to put it onto DVD!!!
> We'll be arguing the merits of this movie at least as long as we've
> been arguing the merits of, say, Evangelion ( ^_^ ), so let the
> battles continue !
> ^_^
Very true... ^_^
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx - ROT13>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... See that Abacus, That's your hard drive that is.
Chika
<res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > If anything, Jackson hasn't done as much as the book did to make
> > that obvious, though this was something that became a little tedious
> > in the book, especially once Frodo hit Mordor.
> Which is why he left that part out, including that tedious journey
> once Frodo and Sam were in Mordor, and am I glad ! That, and a couple
> of other parts in the books, were tedious almost beyond endurance for me.
Even in the BBC version it was cut down by quite a bit. They did do a bit
where they hid in an orc troop marching to the barracks, and made some
other mentions, but it was heavily shortened over the book version. The
only point it has is to serve to emphasize the continuing decline of
Frodo, but trying to dramatise it would inevitably lead to long slow
sections that would bore the wotsits out of anyone.
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx - ROT13>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... Error - [A]bort, [R]etry, [F]ake like it's working...
Chika
<res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > Which scene, by the way, I thought was very well done, particularly
> > the way Ian Holm doddered to the dock, then walked on his own onto
> > the ship. I thought PJ might have made more of the Rings of Power
> > having all left Middle-Earth, but he did show them all for those who
> > knew to look.
> I was a little dismayed that Jackson didn't show that Gandalf had
> Narya, the ring of Fire, given to him by Cirdan, but in the end I
> realize this revelation needed an explanation, and there wasn't any time
> left (near FOUR HOURS LONG! Sheesh ! ) so I missed it but understood
> why it had to be cut.
It wasn't that important really, IMO. Vilya and Nenya were more important
as they maintained safe havens in Middle Earth, but Narya didn't really
get much mention, even in the book, probably because Gandalf realised that
it would be best to keep it hidden given Saurons' desires. The glimpse of
it at the end, when Gandalf was leaving Middle Earth, was enough.
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx - ROT13>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... Error - [A]bort, [R]etry, [F]ake like it's working...
Caeruleo
wrote:
> In article <acc26c07.03121...@posting.google.com>,
> Isaac Kuo <mec...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Like I said before, Jackson would have really been silly to do anything
> but go by the book for the majority of the Pelennor Field battle. I know
> that the whole "Paths of the Dead" stuff has been mucked about with, but
> it's a part of the story that always seemed a little bit tacked on, much
> as the Bombadil bit was, but I'll wait and see how that turns out.
>
> > The omission which most surprised me was the lack of the Mouth
> > of Sauron. I can understand that PJ cares about devoting screen
> > time to cool AT-AT oliphants and trolls more than anything as
> > subtle as Denethor and Gandalf grappling wits and wills.
> > However, the Mouth of Sauron is just the sort of flashy
> > gruesome creature I'd have thought PJ would be all over.
>
> It's another part of the story that seemed tacked on, but it did (in the
> book) make it clear that Sauron had finally worked out for himself that he
> had a conspiracy working against him, so it's a pity if they have left it
> out. Maybe it's another scene to be added back in the special edition?
Possibly, since Jackson is saying right now that it will be 90 mins.
longer than the theatrical version.
--
"During the school year I am a teacher, but during June & July I am a CIA
operative." - me, on 6-11-03.
Caeruleo
mec...@yahoo.com (Isaac Kuo) wrote:
> The omission which most surprised me was the lack of the Mouth
> of Sauron. I can understand that PJ cares about devoting screen
> time to cool AT-AT oliphants and trolls more than anything as
> subtle as Denethor and Gandalf grappling wits and wills.
> However, the Mouth of Sauron is just the sort of flashy
> gruesome creature I'd have thought PJ would be all over.
Hmmm, he's a man, not a "creature," so perhaps not? ;-)
Chris Mattern
> In article <3FE35857...@gwu.edu>, Chris Mattern <sys...@gwu.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>Chika wrote:
>>
>>>Much as I criticise PJ for some of the adjustments to the story, I
>>>can't criticise this bit. It's a difficult section of the book to do,
>>>but the idea of Frodo going crazy isn't too far from the story as JRRT
>>>had it. The important bit is that Frodo, being a fallible hobbit under
>>>immense pressure, nearly failed to do what was required,
>>
>
>>He *did* fail to do what was required. What was required was done, but
>>Frodo didn't do it.
>
>
>>>and it was only because of the insane desire of Gollum that he
>>>succeeded. The Ring sent everyone mad, one way or another...
>>
>
> OK, OK, you know what I was getting at! Basically, if Gollum hadn't been
> so driven to have a quick bite, the whole thing would have gone pear
> shaped.
>
> Hmm... it does make me wonder exactly what would have happened if Gollum
> hadn't been there. But then why bother?
>
showed mercy to the undeserving Gollum that the Quest, in the end, succeeded.
Not because Gollum was important, but because the mercy was.
Chris Mattern
Caeruleo
mec...@yahoo.com (Isaac Kuo) wrote:
> Eric Schwartz <emsc...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:<etowu8u...@fc.hp.com>...
> >mec...@yahoo.com (Isaac Kuo) writes:
> >>I understand that time constraints absolutely require leaving
> >>out huge chunks of the story, but it boggles me why so much
> >>unnecessary out-of-character nonsense has to be added
> >>(i.e. Sam leaving Frodo,
>
> >Technically PJ did it the other way around. It had the additional
> >benefits of making the Shelob scene easier to film, foreshadowing
> >Mount Doom, and making it simple for the audience who hadn't read the
> >books to understand why the two got separated.
>
> It was so completely out of character for Sam to leave Frodo
> that I can't forgive it. It would have been better if after
> Gollum's deception creating mistrust of Sam, Frodo had simply
> snuck off with Gollum while Sam was sleeping.
Perhaps so. Nevertheless I find myself disagreeing somewhat with the
notion that it would be "completely" out of character for even Tolkien's
Sam to let Frodo go on ahead, if Frodo himself *insisted* that Sam do
so. Sam never directly *defies* his "master" in the book. A further
clue to this is Sam "kneeling before [Frodo], his face wrung with pain,
as if he had been stabbed in the heart," with tears in his eyes, when in
the tower of Cirith Ungol Frodo has just called Sam a "thief" for
offering to "share" the burden of the Ring with Frodo (Sam has just
saved the Ring by carrying it while Frodo was taken by the Orcs). Here
is a good clue that, if Frodo were to order Sam to go away then & there,
Sam would indeed very sorrowfully do so. It is not in him to directly
defy Frodo.
> Even just talking about movie Sam, he was absolutely insistent
> throughout the movies that Frodo could never leave him behind.
Indeed, but here he was *ordered* by Frodo to go back.
> >>Faramir's angsty father/son relationship,
>
> >I intentionally left off re-reading the books, so I don't recall the
> >specifics, but this was true to the story, if not the actual plot.
>
> No, it was not. It's true that Denethor favored Boromir
> over Faramir, but Faramir bore no ill feelings for this.
He bears no ill feelings for it in the films either.
> >There *was* a lot of angsty father/son stuff between
> >them-- Boromir was the favourite, and Faramir was being forced
> >to do his best to live up to his brother's reputation, when
> >he was more of a diplomat than a fighter.
>
> Actually, Faramir was NOT forced to do his best to live up
> to his brother's reputation. In fact, his cunning and valor
> in battle was equal to Boromir--a fact that his men knew if
> not many others. That was enough for Faramir, because he
> never sought fame and accepted that the greater glory SHOULD
> go to his brother (being heir to the stewardship).
>
> In fact, Faramir was the stereotypical humble-yet-beloved
> leader.
And that's a clue to why he was "changed" in the movie, although the
"change" is more of a "surface" one, & not nearly so drastic &
fundamental as some make it out to be. I say this as one with
decades-long familiarity with not only this book, but indeed *all* by
now published writings of Tolkien on the subject of Middle-Earth.
Faramir in the book is simply too good to be true. It nevertheless
works in the book, because the author has the luxury of being able to
use many many many times more words than is available in a film, even
films much longer than these present ones, including words not uttered
by any character but instead by the narrator, to delineate his
character. Onscreen, however, were he to act *exactly* like in the
book, many in the audience would find him decidedly two-dimensional.
Here additional spice is added to his character which makes him more
plausibly human, with human failings which are nevertheless not serious
ones. He simply does not make the decision as *early* in the story to
let the Ringbearer go on to Mordor. The flashback to him, Boromir, &
Denethor in TTT discussing this very matter sheds light on why he
initially thinks the Ring ought to go to Gondor, but Famamir is still
noble enough to NEVER want the Ring for himself, unlike Boromir in both
book & movie, the latter of whom rather obviously develops a greedy
desire for the Ring itself. In the film, Faramir NEVER touches the Ring
or even TRIES to do so; it is instead quite significant that his
decision is to take Frodo himself WITH THE RING STILL ON HIS PERSON to
Gondor. Faramir is made more plausible as a cinematic character by
being initially misguided as to what should be done with the Ring, but
in the end, he *still* makes precisely the same decision about it as he
does in the book.
And the taking of Frodo to Osgiliath is NOT a mere willful interpolation
which serves no purpose in the plot. Even in the original, it is
absolutely CRUCIAL to the ENTIRE PLOT that Sauron never suspect that his
enemies intend to destroy the Ring; this is precisely why Frodo is able
to get the Ring to Orodruin undetected, because Sauron is not expecting
ANYONE to take it there. It is even said specifically in the book that
what Sauron is MOST LIKELY to suspect is that his enemies would
demonstrate the same sort of desire to use the power of the Ring as he
would were he in their place, & that it will be one of the most powerful
among them who will take the Ring & attempt to use it against Sauron.
Now, look very carefully at what happens in the book: Sauron is most
certainly aware that the Ring has been taken from the Shire to Rivendell
(as the Ringwraiths would have obviously reported this to him), from
there to Caradhras, & although it is not clear whether or not he is
additionally aware that it has passed through Lorien, he knows that it
is going south down Anduin, as he is aware of Frodo putting on the Ring
above Rauros, since his Eye almost nails Frodo, & fails to do so merely
because Frodo takes it off in the barest nick of time. But from the
breaking of the Fellowship onward, Sauron has lost all track of even the
general vicinity of the Ring, all the way until Frodo puts it on at the
edge of the fire in Sauron's own realm, at which point Sauron sees the
fatal folly of his assumptions. Now see what happens in the film: a
Ringwraith SEES Frodo HOLDING THE RING in Osgiliath. What is the MOST
LIKELY THING that Sauron is going to think when this is reported to him?
That the Ring is being taken to Minas Tirith, of course, almost
certainly to one of his prime enemies, Denethor, which is indeed EXACTLY
what Faramir himself is intending until that very moment. Thus this
further SUPPORTS what is said in the book, that Sauron believes one of
his most powerful enemies will attempt to use the Ring against him.
This makes it even MORE plausible that Sauron will not have the
slightest inkling that the Ring will instead be sent on into his own
land to be destroyed.
> >PJ's LOTR and Tolkien's LOTR are *different*. They are supposed to
> >be-- it is not *possible* to directly film Tolkien's story; as a huge
> >LOTR fan, I'd have to say that the result would be nigh-unwatchable.
> >I disagree with some choices PJ made, especially in TTT, but I respect
> >his right to do so, and I think that, by and large, he had some
> >valuable contributions to the mythos. Frex, his Boromir was more
> >human and more real than Tolkien's.
>
> I think PJ's Boromir was made weaker and less interesting by
> the changes.
Really? My impression is precisely the opposite: that he is an even
MORE interesting, & *plausible* character in the film. In the book it
is left as something of a mystery as to why Boromir, initially doubtful
of Aragorn's claim, comes to accept him as the heir to the Kingship, if
he even has for certain, since this also is not made clear even by his
death. He is specifically said to be doubtful in Rivendell, but after
the fall of Gandalf, accepts Aragorn unequivocally as leader of the
Fellowship, which may be a clue that he indeed *has* accepted Aragorn's
claim, but no character development which delineates this change is ever
done. In the film, however, his progression from disbelief to ardent
acceptance is quite clearly & plausibly shown, with moreover clear
motivations given for it.
> Sean Bean was wonderful, nevertheless, and the
> most memorable scene in PJ's FotR was an apocryphal scene
> featuring him (when Sean Bean holds up the Ring and ponders it).
Something which Faramir never comes close to doing in TTT. The most he
does is briefly lift it out of Frodo's shirt with the tip of his sword
pulling up on its chain. He never attempts to come even close to
touching it after that. He also, just as in the book, utterly refuses
to have Smeagol shot unless Frodo agrees that it should be done.
Boromir, however, demonstrates an almost sensual fascination with the
Ring in the scene you describe above. The brothers are still quite
obviously different from each other in the films, just as they are in
the book, in pretty much the same ways. Faramir is simply not as
profoundly "altered" in the film from what he is in the book as he
*seems* to be on the *surface*. His nobility of character is still
quite evident; it is merely given a harder sheen. And witness how in
the film he appropriates Sam's thoughts from the book, wondering aloud
if the man he just shot down from the back of the Mumakil is truly
"evil." That is a fine parallel to what he says in the book, about not
loving war for itself. This is really not so "different" a Faramir from
Tolkien's after all, & it is a more *complex* & *plausible* Faramir
onscreen.
> I can't think of any character change that actually improved
> the character from the original.
Heh. My opinion is that Aragorn, Boromir, & Faramir were indeed
actually "improved" in a cinematic sense that could be related to by
modern audiences. All of them are less idealistic, & more plausibly
human. It works fine in the book, where many many many more words can
be used, but onscreen they wouldn't be especially believable.
David Nakamoto
> In article <eto7k0s...@fc.hp.com>,
> Eric Schwartz <emsc...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Chika <miy...@spam.no.way> writes:
> > > and one of the most poignant parts of the story came at the very
> > > end, when Frodo left Sam at the Grey Havens.
>
> > Which scene, by the way, I thought was very well done, particularly
> > the way Ian Holm doddered to the dock, then walked on his own onto the
> > ship. I thought PJ might have made more of the Rings of Power having
> > all left Middle-Earth, but he did show them all for those who knew to
> > look.
>
> Well, the Three left. Very little was ever made of the Dwarfish rings...
Because they don't enter into the Lord of the Rings, because in the book
they are either destroyed or retrieved by Sauron, and so they're not
available to anyone; men, elves, or dwarves. Hence, there's no reason to
pursue their further in the narrative of a movie, where time is money.
The movies can be thought of as an advertisement for the books, which if
you want to find out most of the odds and sods, read the book.
David Nakamoto
> In article <3FE35857...@gwu.edu>, Chris Mattern <sys...@gwu.edu>
> wrote:
> > Chika wrote:
> > >
> > > Much as I criticise PJ for some of the adjustments to the story, I
> > > can't criticise this bit. It's a difficult section of the book to
do,
> > > but the idea of Frodo going crazy isn't too far from the story as
JRRT
> > > had it. The important bit is that Frodo, being a fallible hobbit
under
> > > immense pressure, nearly failed to do what was required,
>
> > He *did* fail to do what was required. What was required was done,
but
> > Frodo didn't do it.
>
> > > and it was only because of the insane desire of Gollum that he
> > > succeeded. The Ring sent everyone mad, one way or another...
>
> OK, OK, you know what I was getting at! Basically, if Gollum hadn't been
> so driven to have a quick bite, the whole thing would have gone pear
> shaped.
>
> Hmm... it does make me wonder exactly what would have happened if Gollum
> hadn't been there. But then why bother?
Why bother indeed, since this is taken directly from the book, aside from
one thing towards the end. So if you don't like the way the movie handled
it, you won't like the book.
David Nakamoto
> In article <57JEb.1812$GO2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
> David Nakamoto <res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > Which we can now forget entirely, or better yet burn the VHS tapes,
now
> > that we have this version.
>
> If only! Some idiot decided to put it onto DVD!!!
Oh ! Then this can get F U N !! Because if you put a DVD into a
microwave, sparks fly, literally !
^_^
David Nakamoto
> In article <IjJEb.1823$GO2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, David Nakamoto
> <res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > Which scene, by the way, I thought was very well done, particularly
> > > the way Ian Holm doddered to the dock, then walked on his own onto
> > > the ship. I thought PJ might have made more of the Rings of Power
> > > having all left Middle-Earth, but he did show them all for those who
> > > knew to look.
>
> > I was a little dismayed that Jackson didn't show that Gandalf had
> > Narya, the ring of Fire, given to him by Cirdan, but in the end I
> > realize this revelation needed an explanation, and there wasn't any
time
> > left (near FOUR HOURS LONG! Sheesh ! ) so I missed it but
understood
> > why it had to be cut.
>
> It wasn't that important really, IMO. Vilya and Nenya were more
important
> as they maintained safe havens in Middle Earth, but Narya didn't really
> get much mention, even in the book, probably because Gandalf realised
that
> it would be best to keep it hidden given Saurons' desires. The glimpse
of
> it at the end, when Gandalf was leaving Middle Earth, was enough.
There's more in the appendices of the books. Cirdan the Shipwright, who
originally owned the third Ring of the Elves, Narya, said to Gandalf when he
gave Gandalf the ring, that he can use Narya to inflame the hearts of those
he meets, to rekindle their desire to fight against the Darkness. I have no
doubt that this is the main purpose and power of the ring, because direct
force was not the real purpose of the Elven rings.
Rick
"David Nakamoto" <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:qsdEb.17837$G9....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Peter Jackson has done it.
>
> Yes, huge chunks of the story are left out, but we saw that happening in
> the first two movies, so it's not unexpected. What is important is that
he
> told the main story, and told it well. Now I don't have to wish for a
movie
> version of the entire trilogy.
>
> What a Christmas present for all Lord of the Rings fans !
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to Man.
> It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity.
> It is the middle ground between light and shadow,
> Between Science and superstition
> And it lies between the pit of Man's fears
> and the Sunlight of his knowledge.
> It is the dimension of imagination.
> It is an area that might be called. . . The Twilight Zone.
>
> david.n...@verizon.net
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Don't want to nit pick but it's summit of his knowledge not
Sunlight of his knowledge.I'm also a big twilight zone fan
and that's I think his best of his soliloquies.
>
>
8-Bit Star
> In article <4327cb6c.03121...@posting.google.com>,
> 8-Bit Star <nes_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Why is everyone surprised at this? We've seen how he's done so
> > > far,
>
> > Exactly. In my opinion, Fellowship of the Ring was stupid, and
> > Two Towers was enjoyable but still flawed. Return of the King,
> > however, is the film where he finally gets it right. In short
> > they get progressively better.
<Snip>
> However, I don't dismiss your comments completely. You say that FotR was
> "stupid", but you don't say in what way.
Then I will now. My problems with it were, as follows:
* The fight scenes were over-the-top and seemed like something straight out
of Hercules and Xena.
* The inconstant nature of it. One minute it's a sappy, soap-opera-esque
angst/love story, the next minute it's a camp comedy.
* The villains. Quite frankly, I was beginning to wonder why everyone was
acting why the situation was so hopeless. I mean, the ringwraiths themselves
were made out to be pathetic when Aragorn took on five of them single-handed
(the scene where one falls off the cliff in flames and screaming like a little
girl being the crowning achievement here) and Saruman is, basically, an old
guy who is adept at being full of himself and making overblown speeches, sort
of like a Marvel Comics villain.
* The first two movies had a tendancy to always have these scenes where the
camera pans around the characters while this heroic-sounding fare played. There
was one such scene directly after leaving Moria, if I remember correctly. But
it got used at least five times in both films (and was absent from Return of
the King altogether, I noticed).
* The magic duel between Gandalf and Saruman was probably the most pathetic
scene in the entire trilogy and made me feel like I was watching a made-for-TV
movie.
Quite simply, my problems with the films can be summed up as: If it wasn't
underblown, it was overblown. I'll be honest and say Return of the King
wasn't free of this--Denethor couldn't just fry, he had to run in a blaze
of fire and jump off the top of the tower! However it happened to a lesser
extent and wasn't as noticeable. Most of my problems with the series were
alleviated with Return of the King--the good guys finally seemed to realize
that they had the upper hand, for starters--and that is why I considered it
the best of the three.
All the above is in my opinion, of course.
You'll also notice that consistency with the book was hardly one of my
chief criteria, though it did annoy me when they made pathetically inept
changes (making Faramir an asshole--we did NOT need two Boromirs).
Fata Morgana
> "Fish Eye no Miko" <fis...@deadmoon.circus> writes:
>
> > "Michael Borgwardt" <bra...@brazils-animeland.de> wrote in message
> > news:brusiu$7pk0f$2...@ID-161931.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> > subconscious fulfillment of his promise not to let the Ring fall into
> > Sauron's "hands".
>
> That's not a horrible idea, but to me it's clearly in the realm of
> applicability, not intention. That is, you can read that into it, and
> it's not obviously wrong, but from what I've read, that's not what
> Tolkien was trying to do with that scene. But hey, if it works for
> you, feel free.
>
Well, remember that Tolkien often has Gandalf speak about another power
guiding things. Like when he says that Bilbo was meant to have the ring,
but not by the rings will (so there must be another will involved).
If anything, I believe that Gollum might have known in his heart that there
was not escaping his enslavement to the ring, yet he would not long be it's
owner. So if there was a subconcious motivation to fall, that might have
been it. But I believe it was Tolkien's intent the "will" that caused Frodo
to become possessor of the ring also made sure that it was destroyed.
As for Frodo's struggle with Gollum on the mountain after he lost the
finger, I figured it was just PJ's way of villifying Frodo even further than
he already had.
Fata Morgana
--
http://www.jazzmess.com - a veiwers' guide to Cowboy Bebop
http://www.cowboybebop.org - archive of CowboyBebop.com
David Nakamoto
news:reCdnSkU_a_...@comcast.com...
>
> "David Nakamoto" <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:qsdEb.17837$G9....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> > There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to Man.
> > It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity.
> > It is the middle ground between light and shadow,
> > Between Science and superstition
> > And it lies between the pit of Man's fears
> > and the Sunlight of his knowledge.
> > It is the dimension of imagination.
> > It is an area that might be called. . . The Twilight Zone.
> >
> > david.n...@verizon.net
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Don't want to nit pick but it's summit of his knowledge not
> Sunlight of his knowledge.I'm also a big twilight zone fan
> and that's I think his best of his soliloquies.
I hate to nitpick too, but if pick up the second edition of "The Twilight
Zone Companion" and read the section where they describe the pre-production
notes, you'll see that my version is closer to the original, but heard,
version of the opening soliloquy, the only differences are that I changed
"sixth" to "fifth" (yes, Serling had it as the sixth dimension in his
original), and retained the line "between science and superstition"
(included in the finally heard version). Also, I'm surprised you didn't
notice that the last line is also different from the version heard on the TV
series. That one also was the original line as penned by Serling.
Consider yourself counter-nitpicked ! ^_^
Julian Fong
>And we won't know how until next November because
>they cut that from the theater version so they could have
>time for the hobbits to gaze tenderly into each others
>eyes and laugh for no reason.
A couple of years ago, even before the FOTR movie was released, an on-set photo
was published that showed Saruman's body impaled on a spiked wheel. From this,
I would deduce that after Wormtongue throws down the palantir, Saruman
struggles with him and Wormtongue pushes him off the tower. So, the remaining
question is, what happens after that? Does somebody else kill Wormtongue, as
in the book after he stabs Saruman when they're leaving the Shire? Will PJ
include the bit where Saruman's spirit is dissolved by a wind from the West?
--
Julian Fong
jhf...@aol.comXYZZY
http://www.evilnet.net/~jhfong/
- Per ardua ad astra -
David Nakamoto
news:20031220030036...@mb-m26.aol.com...
If that is the case, then there is no need to show the Scouring of the
Shire, which would be another 30 to 60 minutes. But then it makes no sense
in the theatrical release for Gandalf to say to Treebeard that Saruman must
stay forever at Orthanc, since the scenes you describe would have to happen
before they arrive, in order for the Palantir to be on the ground for Pippin
to grab out of the waters.
We'll see in another 11 months.
Julian Fong
> If that is the case, then there is no need to show the Scouring of the
>Shire, which would be another 30 to 60 minutes. But then it makes no sense
>in the theatrical release for Gandalf to say to Treebeard that Saruman must
>stay forever at Orthanc, since the scenes you describe would have to happen
>before they arrive, in order for the Palantir to be on the ground for Pippin
>to grab out of the waters.
I haven't seen the ROTK movie yet; I'm going to wait until next week. But
except for Saruman's death, the scene doesn't have to deviate from the book
very much. Gandalf and company still have to travel from Helm's Deep to
Isengard to confront Saruman, during which Wormtongue will throw the palantir
at them, and Pippin can pick it up afterwards. Since the Ents couldn't do any
damage to Orthanc itself, and the last time we saw the palantir it was in
Saruman's throne room, this is the only way you can explain how the it ended up
outside the tower.
Speaking of Saruman's throne room, if PJ had really been on the ball, there
should have been a *prism* among all the books and papers on his workbench, but
I guess this is one detail the hardworking props department overlooked.
Ethan Hammond
>
> > It dosen't have a HUGE fan base either.
>
> Japan (as a nation) held a funeral and memorial service for Sadako. I'd
say
> that's quite a broad fanbase, no? ^_^
But they do event stuff like that for almost every movie or show in Japan,
heh.
--
All Purpose Cultural Randomness
http://www.angelfire.com/tx/apcr/index.html
Jack Bohn
>Jack Bohn wrote:
>> David Nakamoto wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Peter Jackson has done it.
>>
>>
>> Why is everyone surprised at this? We've seen how he's done so
>> far, did you think he would go wonky at the end?
>I think the word is more "relieved" than "surprised".
That's probably true. A radio commentator[1] sounded relieved
(or -to make the doubts in mind more minor- pleased).
>Having
>long, difficult projects go "wonky at the end" is unfortunately
>not that uncommon, and we're all relieved it didn't happen here.
I just wanted to point out that this was different from most
projects. We had the story (and had it for fifty years), Jackson
had the scripts at least in enough shape to film the actor's
bits. More than most other projects, this one was nearly
finished before we saw the beginning.
[1] Mitch Albom. Those in geekdom may recall he wrote a column
ridiculing guys who slept outside theaters for tickets to Star
Wars Episode 1. It's rather amusing to hear him defend his
enthusiasm for LotR to his co-hosts, who don't see it as any
different from the standard Hollywood blockbusters (one of them
got in a zinger: "If this movie makes 200 million dollars,
there's GOING to be a Lord of the Rings IV!")
--
-Jack
Ethan Hammond
>
> [1] Mitch Albom. Those in geekdom may recall he wrote a column
> ridiculing guys who slept outside theaters for tickets to Star
> Wars Episode 1. It's rather amusing to hear him defend his
> enthusiasm for LotR to his co-hosts, who don't see it as any
> different from the standard Hollywood blockbusters (one of them
> got in a zinger: "If this movie makes 200 million dollars,
> there's GOING to be a Lord of the Rings IV!")
Sure they could do the Hobbit or the Silmarrion, but that would
be harder I think.
Chika
<res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > Well, the Three left. Very little was ever made of the Dwarfish
> > rings...
> Because they don't enter into the Lord of the Rings, because in the
> book they are either destroyed or retrieved by Sauron, and so they're
> not available to anyone; men, elves, or dwarves. Hence, there's no
> reason to pursue their further in the narrative of a movie, where time
> is money.
They do get a mention in the book, but no more than that (can't quite
remember exactly where, it was probably during the Council. I do remember,
however, that it was said that although Sauron had influence over them, he
couldn't really do a lot with them or their bearers. I have vague memories
of someone mentioning that Thorin Oakenshield found one in Smaugs' hoard,
but I couldn't swear to that.)
> The movies can be thought of as an advertisement for the books, which
> if you want to find out most of the odds and sods, read the book.
I think that can be said of any literary adpatation. How many times have
you ever heard somebody say "the book is a lot better" (or for that
matter, dragging this thread back on topic, "it's better in the manga")?
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx - ROT13>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... Get your grubby hands off my tagline! I stole it first!
Chika
> Oh ! Then this can get F U N !! Because if you put a DVD into a
> microwave, sparks fly, literally !
> ^_^
Hmmm... you've seen Clarkson, then? ^_^
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx - ROT13>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... USAF : Usually Shooting At Friends
Chika
<nes_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Chika <miy...@spam.no.way> wrote in message
> news:<4c634268...@no.spam.here>...
> > In article <4327cb6c.03121...@posting.google.com>, 8-Bit
> > Star <nes_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Why is everyone surprised at this? We've seen how he's done so
> > > > far,
> >
> > > Exactly. In my opinion, Fellowship of the Ring was stupid, and Two
> > > Towers was enjoyable but still flawed. Return of the King, however,
> > > is the film where he finally gets it right. In short they get
> > > progressively better.
> <Snip>
>
> > However, I don't dismiss your comments completely. You say that FotR
> > was "stupid", but you don't say in what way.
> Then I will now. My problems with it were, as follows:
> * The fight scenes were over-the-top and seemed like something straight
> out of Hercules and Xena.
Hmm... fair enough, but then considering how close the story of
Hercules/Xena resembled LotR, is that surprising? LotR has influenced a
lot of modern fantasy writing since its release, and LotR itself drew on a
lot of ancient mythology and such, so there was always that possibility.
> * The inconstant nature of it. One minute it's a sappy,
> soap-opera-esque angst/love story, the next minute it's a camp comedy.
I think that's a problem that came about because of some of the
wHollyWeird interference. Certainly there is some comedy in the story
generally (the hobbits particularly), but the playing up of the
Aragorn/Arwen story did make for the soapy feel. I think this was a
problem I had with it, too.
> * The villains. Quite frankly, I was beginning to wonder why everyone
> was acting why the situation was so hopeless. I mean, the ringwraiths
> themselves were made out to be pathetic when Aragorn took on five of
> them single-handed (the scene where one falls off the cliff in flames
> and screaming like a little girl being the crowning achievement here)
> and Saruman is, basically, an old guy who is adept at being full of
> himself and making overblown speeches, sort of like a Marvel Comics
> villain.
A lot more was made of Saruman in the first movie than he actually
merited, but then whatever you did with him, it would all boil down to
presence. Saruman (and Gandalf for that matter) are not meant to be
balls-out musclemen or anything like that, they are meant to be wizards.
As such, they *are* old guys, but to project themselves as more than just
that is the trick, as though the old guy bit was a facade for something a
lot more sinister. Obviously this didn't work with you, but then I guess
that depends a lot on how you see it.
As for the Nazgul, whatever. They were meant to appear understrength at
that point, though perhaps they overdid that bit. I wasn't totally happy
with the way that scene was done, but it was a difficult scene anyway.
> * The first two movies had a tendancy to always have these scenes where
> the camera pans around the characters while this heroic-sounding fare
> played. There was one such scene directly after leaving Moria, if I
> remember correctly. But it got used at least five times in both films
> (and was absent from Return of the King altogether, I noticed).
Possibly they noticed it wasn't going down too well and decided not to use
it again.
> * The magic duel between Gandalf and Saruman was probably the most
> pathetic scene in the entire trilogy and made me feel like I was
> watching a made-for-TV movie.
I never saw a need for that scene. It wasn't part of the book (the most
Saruman ever did was to trap Gandalf in Orthanc) and always seemed to be
an afterthought in the movie, as if it was put there because of a lack of
any action. IMO anyway.
> Quite simply, my problems with the films can be summed up as: If it
> wasn't underblown, it was overblown. I'll be honest and say Return of
> the King wasn't free of this--Denethor couldn't just fry, he had to run
> in a blaze of fire and jump off the top of the tower! However it
> happened to a lesser extent and wasn't as noticeable. Most of my
> problems with the series were alleviated with Return of the King--the
> good guys finally seemed to realize that they had the upper hand, for
> starters--and that is why I considered it the best of the three.
> All the above is in my opinion, of course.
Of course. I've already said that a lot of what I have written here is
based on my own opinion.
> You'll also notice that consistency with the book was hardly one of my
> chief criteria, though it did annoy me when they made pathetically inept
> changes (making Faramir an asshole--we did NOT need two Boromirs).
That whole thing with Faramir never made any sense at all. One of the
things that drove Denethor to his death originally was that Faramir was
perceived by him to be a "wizards' pupil", which is why Faramir ended up
as dogmeat at the passage of Osgiliath. Denethor went over the edge
(though only metaphorically) as a result. Part of that was the treatment
of Frodo and Sam in Ithilien, which was why I didn't like that part of the
second movie.
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx - ROT13>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... Now where did I put that fire extinguisher?
Chika
Ethan Hammond <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> "Jack Bohn" <jack...@bright.net> wrote in message
> >
> > [1] Mitch Albom. Those in geekdom may recall he wrote a column
> > ridiculing guys who slept outside theaters for tickets to Star Wars
> > Episode 1. It's rather amusing to hear him defend his enthusiasm for
> > LotR to his co-hosts, who don't see it as any different from the
> > standard Hollywood blockbusters (one of them got in a zinger: "If this
> > movie makes 200 million dollars, there's GOING to be a Lord of the
> > Rings IV!")
> Sure they could do the Hobbit or the Silmarrion, but that would be
> harder I think.
ISTR someone mentioning that PJ was looking at the Hobbit as a possible
followup, though my worry about that is that it might end up as another
"Ewok Adventure" <cringe>. It would be almost impossible to do the
Silmarillion because of its incomplete nature, though maybe one or two of
the stories, if researched properly through other books that CJT has
released over the years since his fathers' death might yeald a story or
two worthy of a dramatisation.
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx - ROT13>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... Help! I'm parked diagonally in a parallel universe.
Chris Mattern
> In article <mgOEb.963$jG4...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, David Nakamoto
> <res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>>Well, the Three left. Very little was ever made of the Dwarfish
>>>rings...
>>
>
>> Because they don't enter into the Lord of the Rings, because in the
>>book they are either destroyed or retrieved by Sauron, and so they're
>>not available to anyone; men, elves, or dwarves. Hence, there's no
>>reason to pursue their further in the narrative of a movie, where time
>>is money.
>
>
> They do get a mention in the book, but no more than that (can't quite
> remember exactly where, it was probably during the Council. I do remember,
> however, that it was said that although Sauron had influence over them, he
> couldn't really do a lot with them or their bearers. I have vague memories
> of someone mentioning that Thorin Oakenshield found one in Smaugs' hoard,
> but I couldn't swear to that.)
>
>
he was tortured to death in Dol Guldur. At the Council of Elrond, Gandalf
states specifically, "The Seven are either taken or destroyed."
Chris Mattern
Isaac Kuo
> > Eric Schwartz <emsc...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> > news:<etowu8u...@fc.hp.com>...
> > >mec...@yahoo.com (Isaac Kuo) writes:
> > >>I understand that time constraints absolutely require leaving
> > >>out huge chunks of the story, but it boggles me why so much
> > >>unnecessary out-of-character nonsense has to be added
> > >>(i.e. Sam leaving Frodo,
> > >Technically PJ did it the other way around. It had the additional
> > >benefits of making the Shelob scene easier to film, foreshadowing
> > >Mount Doom, and making it simple for the audience who hadn't read the
> > >books to understand why the two got separated.
> > It was so completely out of character for Sam to leave Frodo
> > that I can't forgive it. It would have been better if after
> > Gollum's deception creating mistrust of Sam, Frodo had simply
> > snuck off with Gollum while Sam was sleeping.
> Perhaps so. Nevertheless I find myself disagreeing somewhat with the
> notion that it would be "completely" out of character for even Tolkien's
> Sam to let Frodo go on ahead, if Frodo himself *insisted* that Sam do
> so. Sam never directly *defies* his "master" in the book.
Yes he does. He does so when Frodo decides to leave everyone
else and go on alone. Frodo *insisted* for Sam to leave him.
Sam refused.
> > Even just talking about movie Sam, he was absolutely insistent
> > throughout the movies that Frodo could never leave him behind.
> Indeed, but here he was *ordered* by Frodo to go back.
I would find it plausible for Sam to eventually relent, seeing
that Frodo was beyond convincing, but for him to actually
be lying about his agreement--Sam would shadow Frodo and Gollum
nonetheless. I assumed this was what he was doing in the movie,
and it came as a real shock to me when in his next scene he
was actually complying and going the other way. I thought
that perhaps we wouldn't see Sam at all until he came in to
try to save Frodo from Shelob.
> > No, it was not. It's true that Denethor favored Boromir
> > over Faramir, but Faramir bore no ill feelings for this.
> He bears no ill feelings for it in the films either.
Yes he does, just not directed against anyone. It's a source
of angst for PJ's Faramir, and he feels a need to prove
himself.
> > Actually, Faramir was NOT forced to do his best to live up
> > to his brother's reputation. In fact, his cunning and valor
> > in battle was equal to Boromir--a fact that his men knew if
> > not many others. That was enough for Faramir, because he
> > never sought fame and accepted that the greater glory SHOULD
> > go to his brother (being heir to the stewardship).
> > In fact, Faramir was the stereotypical humble-yet-beloved
> > leader.
> And that's a clue to why he was "changed" in the movie, although the
> "change" is more of a "surface" one, & not nearly so drastic &
> fundamental as some make it out to be. I say this as one with
> decades-long familiarity with not only this book, but indeed *all* by
> now published writings of Tolkien on the subject of Middle-Earth.
> Faramir in the book is simply too good to be true.
I absolutely disagree, and this is the crux of the point.
If you accept Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, then you
must accept that bloodlines of truly great men--larger
than life in honor and grace--do exist in his world.
Faramir demonstrates that the greatness of the Numenorean
line is not yet entirely diminished. He isn't a flawed
modern human, he's a great man of the sort which has
long passed into forgotten legend in the modern age.
There is no shortage of fantasy stories with flawed modern
human characters. If that's what you want, do it with any
of those stories. Don't do it with Tolkien.
> It nevertheless
> works in the book, because the author has the luxury of being able to
> use many many many times more words than is available in a film, even
> films much longer than these present ones, including words not uttered
> by any character but instead by the narrator, to delineate his
> character.
No, it works in the book because thankfully Faramir is just
a side-character. Six volumes of Faramir Faramir Faramir
would have been a bore no matter what--we already have
Gandalf. Faramir is a great man put in the story to inspire
wonder, like Tom Bombadil, but due to circumstances he is
not one to do many great deeds.
> > I think PJ's Boromir was made weaker and less interesting by
> > the changes.
> Really? My impression is precisely the opposite: that he is an even
> MORE interesting, & *plausible* character in the film. In the book it
> is left as something of a mystery as to why Boromir, initially doubtful
> of Aragorn's claim, comes to accept him as the heir to the Kingship, if
> he even has for certain, since this also is not made clear even by his
> death. He is specifically said to be doubtful in Rivendell, but after
> the fall of Gandalf, accepts Aragorn unequivocally as leader of the
> Fellowship, which may be a clue that he indeed *has* accepted Aragorn's
> claim, but no character development which delineates this change is ever
> done. In the film, however, his progression from disbelief to ardent
> acceptance is quite clearly & plausibly shown, with moreover clear
> motivations given for it.
That particular issue was not important. Boromir may have been
accustomed to always being the leader before, but it's clear
from the outset that no one in the Fellowship will follow him.
He's a military warrior who doesn't need to be told the importance
of respecting command, which is why he continually swallows his
pride rather than incessantly defying Gandalf.
What is important is that Boromir's pride is still there, and
he's exactly the sort of great man most vulnerable to the Ring's
temptation. What is important is that he sees exactly one
correct course of action--for Gondor and for the world--and
that's to take the Ring to Gondor and use it to defend her from
Sauron directly. He'll use the first chance he gets to acheive
this goal, and everyone knows it.
> > Sean Bean was wonderful, nevertheless, and the
> > most memorable scene in PJ's FotR was an apocryphal scene
> > featuring him (when Sean Bean holds up the Ring and ponders it).
> Something which Faramir never comes close to doing in TTT.
So? Tolkien's Boromir and Faramir were a contrast in extremes.
PJ's Boromir and Faramir are less vibrant.
> > I can't think of any character change that actually improved
> > the character from the original.
> Heh. My opinion is that Aragorn, Boromir, & Faramir were indeed
> actually "improved" in a cinematic sense that could be related to by
> modern audiences. All of them are less idealistic, & more plausibly
> human. It works fine in the book, where many many many more words can
> be used, but onscreen they wouldn't be especially believable.
There is no shortage of fantasy stories which require no such
"improvement".
Isaac Kuo
Chika
wrote:
> > I have vague memories of someone mentioning that Thorin Oakenshield
> > found one in Smaugs' hoard, but I couldn't swear to that.)
> >
> No. The Ring of Durin was taken from Thorin's father by Sauron, when he
> was tortured to death in Dol Guldur. At the Council of Elrond, Gandalf
> states specifically, "The Seven are either taken or destroyed."
Like I said, I couldn't swear to it. Actually, now I think of it, didn't
it come up in a message to the dwarves? ISTR it was that which prompted
Gloin and Gimli to journey to Rivendell...
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx - ROT13>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... It is fatal to live too long.
David Nakamoto
> In article
<5EXEb.497776$0v4.21...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Ethan Hammond <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Sure they could do the Hobbit or the Silmarrion, but that would be
> > harder I think.
>
> ISTR someone mentioning that PJ was looking at the Hobbit as a possible
> followup, though my worry about that is that it might end up as another
> "Ewok Adventure" <cringe>. It would be almost impossible to do the
> Silmarillion because of its incomplete nature, though maybe one or two
of
> the stories, if researched properly through other books that CJT has
> released over the years since his fathers' death might yeald a story or
> two worthy of a dramatisation.
The only story I can remember from the Silmarillion that was both complete
enough to stand on its own and that took my fancy was the story of Beren and
Luthien. Although there are others that are just as complete, none stand so
well for me as this one.
I think doing the Hobbit isn't a good idea. The Hobbit is aimed more for
young folks, pre-teens and so, while the Lord of the Rings is more of an
adult fantasy, although not to say that adolescents and even some pre-teens
won't enjoy it, but the scope and majesty of the work makes the Hobbit pale
by comparison. Only the tale of the Numenoreans in the Second Age and the
before mentioned Beren and Luthien might compete.
It is said that a good artist knows when to stop, when he or she has said
enough about a topic. I think Peter Jackson will show this if he refuses to
participate in any more Tolkien projects, because it'll be hard to top this
one, flawed though it is.
David Nakamoto
> In article <BjOEb.1009$jG4...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
> David Nakamoto <res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > If only! Some idiot decided to put it onto DVD!!!
>
> > Oh ! Then this can get F U N !! Because if you put a DVD into a
> > microwave, sparks fly, literally !
> > ^_^
>
> Hmmm... you've seen Clarkson, then? ^_^
Clarkson? I've seen Mythbusters on TV, but the name doesn't ring any
bells, despite it being Yuletime. ^_^
Rick
Dualy noted and properly filed
in an area known as Twilight Zone!!!!
>
>
>
David Nakamoto
>
> I think that's a problem that came about because of some of the
> wHollyWeird interference. Certainly there is some comedy in the story
> generally (the hobbits particularly), but the playing up of the
> Aragorn/Arwen story did make for the soapy feel. I think this was a
> problem I had with it, too.
>
> Saruman ever did was to trap Gandalf in Orthanc) and always seemed to be
> an afterthought in the movie, as if it was put there because of a lack
of
> any action. IMO anyway.
>
> things that drove Denethor to his death originally was that Faramir was
> perceived by him to be a "wizards' pupil", which is why Faramir ended up
> as dogmeat at the passage of Osgiliath. Denethor went over the edge
> (though only metaphorically) as a result. Part of that was the treatment
> of Frodo and Sam in Ithilien, which was why I didn't like that part of
the
> second movie.
All of this might be explained by the difference between the written word
and the visual experience. What fits well on the page and in the mind is
harder to depict on the screen, and the producers of the movie cannot assume
that everyone who goes to the movie has read the book. My brother still
refuses to read the book even after he enthusiasically praised the movies.
Part of the translation process is to make visual what is hidden under the
surface without a spoken narrative being used or even spoken dialogue.
Knowing and ACCEPTING this has made it easier for me to accept the changes
and deletions from the book to the movie, since such changes are INEVIDABLE.
Even the original book had lots of passages in it that drove me nuts, but in
the case of the book you can skip those parts easily and move on. The same
will be true for the DVD, so when it comes out I expect a lot of the
criticism will have less weight.
David Nakamoto
> In article <3FE457D8...@gwu.edu>, Chris Mattern <sys...@gwu.edu>
> wrote:
> > > I have vague memories of someone mentioning that Thorin Oakenshield
> > > found one in Smaugs' hoard, but I couldn't swear to that.)
> > >
> > No. The Ring of Durin was taken from Thorin's father by Sauron, when
he
> > was tortured to death in Dol Guldur. At the Council of Elrond,
Gandalf
> > states specifically, "The Seven are either taken or destroyed."
>
> Like I said, I couldn't swear to it. Actually, now I think of it, didn't
> it come up in a message to the dwarves? ISTR it was that which prompted
> Gloin and Gimli to journey to Rivendell...
The dwarves went to Rivendell to learn more of what was going on, part of
which was the fate of the seven rings. It was at the council that they
learned the fate of the seven.
David Nakamoto
>
> "David Nakamoto" <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:R5QEb.2616$jG4...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> > "Rick" <videoj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:reCdnSkU_a_...@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "David Nakamoto" <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > > news:qsdEb.17837$G9....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> > >
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to Man.
> > > > It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as
infinity.
> > > > It is the middle ground between light and shadow,
> > > > Between Science and superstition
> > > > And it lies between the pit of Man's fears
> > > > and the Sunlight of his knowledge.
> > > > It is the dimension of imagination.
> > > > It is an area that might be called. . . The Twilight Zone.
> > > >
> > > > david.n...@verizon.net
> > >
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Don't want to nit pick but it's summit of his knowledge not
> > > Sunlight of his knowledge.I'm also a big twilight zone fan
> > > and that's I think his best of his soliloquies.
> >
[snip!]
> > Consider yourself counter-nitpicked ! ^_^
>
> Dualy noted and properly filed
> in an area known as Twilight Zone!!!!
OK. I'll give you this one. ^_^
P.S. Is "Twilight Zone" = electronic file 13?
Rick
Never heard of electronc file13 is it near the Outer Limets?
>
>
>
Chika
<res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
> The only story I can remember from the Silmarillion that was both
> complete enough to stand on its own and that took my fancy was the story
> of Beren and Luthien. Although there are others that are just as
> complete, none stand so well for me as this one.
That story did come to mind, especially as it has direct links to LotR
itself (it gets a mention in the main story, mostly during the dead period
before the attack of the Nazgul on Weathertop). Could be good.
> I think doing the Hobbit isn't a good idea. The Hobbit is aimed more
> for young folks, pre-teens and so, while the Lord of the Rings is more
> of an adult fantasy, although not to say that adolescents and even some
> pre-teens won't enjoy it, but the scope and majesty of the work makes
> the Hobbit pale by comparison. Only the tale of the Numenoreans in the
> Second Age and the before mentioned Beren and Luthien might compete.
I think that's why I have my doubts about it, and certainly why the Ewoks
sprang to mind.
> It is said that a good artist knows when to stop, when he or she has
> said enough about a topic. I think Peter Jackson will show this if he
> refuses to participate in any more Tolkien projects, because it'll be
> hard to top this one, flawed though it is.
I don't think it will necessarily depend on whether PJ wants to do more or
not. Even if he never has another Tolkien based project, it all depends on
the execs, how desperate they are to milk Tolkien for all it's worth and
who they might find to replace PJ if he says "no".
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx - ROT13>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... This is 1 FM. - Quick Mr. Worf close the bloomin' hailing frequencies.
Chika
> Clarkson? I've seen Mythbusters on TV, but the name doesn't ring any
> bells, despite it being Yuletime. ^_^
Jeremy Clarkson is a rather biased motor journalist who got a talk show of
his own at one point that included pointless but dangerous experiments
such as the CD in a microwave. The series only lasted one season before he
scuttled back to Top Gear from whence he came (see BBC's Top Gear). ^_^
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx - ROT13>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... Quick! Close your mind!! Something might get in.
Chika
<res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Knowing and ACCEPTING this has made it easier for me to accept the
> changes and deletions from the book to the movie, since such changes are
> INEVIDABLE. Even the original book had lots of passages in it that drove
> me nuts, but in the case of the book you can skip those parts easily and
> move on. The same will be true for the DVD, so when it comes out I
> expect a lot of the criticism will have less weight.
We shall see. I don't mind if that is the case, though I still don't like
the idea of having to wait for the special DVD. In some respects, it makes
seeing the movie a waste of time if it is incomplete.
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx - ROT13>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... WindowError:00F Unexplained error. Please tell us how it happened.
David Nakamoto
Nope . . . although it might be ! It's the electronic equivalent of the
trash can, the recycle bin, that place were all less-than-desireable files
are placed in. I guess it's the portal to The Outer Limits ! ^_^
Fata Morgana
>
> It is said that a good artist knows when to stop, when he or she has
said
> enough about a topic.
Which is all the proof we need to be sure that PJ will in fact make the
Hobbit; he has no idea when to stop.
Fata Morgana
--
http://www.jazzmess.com - a veiwers' guide to Cowboy Bebop
http://www.cowboybebop.org - archive of CowboyBebop.com
Chika
Morgana <nunyab...@fool.com> wrote:
> "David Nakamoto" <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:w90Fb.4632$GO2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> >
> > It is said that a good artist knows when to stop, when he or she has
> > said enough about a topic.
> Which is all the proof we need to be sure that PJ will in fact make the
> Hobbit; he has no idea when to stop.
Ouch!
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx - ROT13>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... H2SO4 : Help, Help! Searing! Ouch, Ouch, Ouch, Ouch
Christopher Fiore
> Sure they could do the Hobbit or the Silmarrion, but that would
> be harder I think.
PJ has said he wants to do "The Hobbit," if the rights issues can be
resolved. However, trying to make a movie out of "The Silmarillion" would
be impossible. It's far too long. Although "Akalabeth" (The Downfall of
Numenor) might make an interesting film...
--
Chris F.
Rick
Jeez and I spelled Limets wrong!
>
>
>