<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Having her ride with Frodo to Rivendell gave them a chance to introduce her as a central character and to increase her involvement in the story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I have no problem with introducing her before the Ford and her being part of the general flight but the key moment of Frodo on his own has no bearing on Arwen having joined them any more than in the book it was dependant on Glorfindel.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> You may disagree with the decision to increase Arwen's role, but there was a cinematic reason for it (and, in my view, it was a good one).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I could have lived with it if it had been done well but Arwen is a total flop; no one I have talked to - man or women - cares a jot whether he character lives or dies. I am aware of the reality that the producers may not have thought that way and Jackson probably was forced into trying to amplify the character. It could have been far worse: she could have been dropped in to replace Legolas!<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> A new sub-plot and second mini-climax would (on screen) totally destroy the major climax of Sauron's defeat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yes, I agree. To get the Scouring in would have been very difficult indeed but I think it could have been done if less time was spent on the big battle (I admit that I'm going by what I've been told of the time spent on the Seige of Minas Tirith). I'll return to this below in reference to Eurytus' remarks.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I am not at all sure how it can disrupt the flow of the film when it is at the beginning. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>We start off with a major battle and then move to the tranquility of the Shire and then try to build back up. Why not go straight into the Shire and start the long, slow but with moments of action like the balrog, build up to the high drama of the third film? The Last Alliance could be put in almost anywhere that Aragorn or Gandalf has a chance to talk about the "olden days". Putting it at the start is pretty weak, like showing the Germans marching into Paris at the start of Casablanca; it fits better after we have established some rapport with the characters and setting.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But surely it was absolutely necessary to bring audiences <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Just the opposite is true: for those that do not know the book the building up and unveiling of the dreadful danger of the "funny magic ring" is better than simply handing out a potted history at the start.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Personally I thought that it was very well-paced, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Just what took the balrog so long?!<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The direction may not have been to your taste, but I can see no grounds whatsoever for claiming that they were badly directed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I don't think theres a single scene in the first film that wasn't badly handled and some ranked alongside the worst in any film I've ever seen.<P>Surely no one can watch the Gandalf/Saruman scene and not feel deeply embarassed for JRRT?<P>The second film is better but not much. The plot is further disrupted by Arwen's increased role, Osgiliath is a blunder, Legolas' surfing, <I>more</I> "He's dead. No, wait: there he is" scenes (like LotR needs more of those!). It's generally just bland but pretty. <P>On to Eurytus:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> So if we stick rigidly to the book you think audiences would be happy to see a confrontation with a character they have never even seen? Don't think so? In the book Saruman only gets a couple of mentions and is never seen before this confrontation so how exactly are they going to make him seem like a big villain.<BR>Answer, they can't and wouldn't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Please, please, please try reading what I've said before posting pointless comments like this. I never said, and will never say that the film should have stuck rigidly to the book.<P>In fact I think that bumpping Saruman's role up was not only a good idea but an absolute necessity. His unseen presence in the book would not have worked in a film.<P>The problem is that he <B>has</B> been promoted only to be dropped completely at the end. That's BAD.<P>PJ: "Here's Saruman, he's our major on-screen bad guy. We've got Christopher Lee to play him."<P>Exec: "Oh, good stuff. I expect he get's bumped off at the end after a titanic struggle with the forces of good?"<P>PJ: "Whatever."<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> As someone else has already mentioned it is actually impossible to disrupt the flow of a film when it has not even had a flow established yet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I should have said the flow of the story, I suppose. The act of jumping from the prologue to the Shire makes for a pointless change in setting and mood and undermines the later build up of tension since a lot of the possible mystery is destroyed by what is just a load of exposition.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> From a story point of view it was imperative to establish background to the story and having a half hour story telling session from Gandalf in front of the fire at Bagend was not likely to cut it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>First of all it was not imperative any more than knowing the Roman History of Britain is imperative to understanding Excalibur. The story is about people under threat. The audience knows about people already and understands the concept of threat. You can go from there and gradually reveal the nature and magnitude of the threat. The exact same footage could have been faded in once the logical place for the flashback was reached; no long vocal story-telling is needed.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Um, in the book there basically isn't one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>There isn't much of a fight but there is a hell of a good bit of scene-setting and the establishment of the Nazgul as something much more sinister than a bunch of hunckbacks on horses. Big visual oppertunities await the right director.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And so you are somehow qualified to approve deviations from the text now? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>First of all, it's not a deviation. Secondly, I'm at least as qualified as Jackson. Thirdly, deviations are unavoidable.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And yet the majority of the public and critics do not seem to agree with you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yet no one ever offers any evidence of why they are well directed. All I ever hear is apologies: "You have to do that in a film", or "Jackson had to appeal to women", or "There's not enough time to show that".<P>So: what great strokes of directorial genius have I missed. Where did Jackson show the skills of a new Hitchcock, Scott, Ford, Capra, Hawkins, Huston, or Kurosawa?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> So now you are trying to attach "morals" to making changes in the story of LOTR? And equating PJ's version with Porn? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Unless you are a complete idiot you know that the point he was making was that there is no connection between quality and success. The "equating" was that you would claim that if a porn film is successful must therefore be a great movie. <P>After all:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The proof is in the box office<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
|