Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
03-02-2005, 11:33 AM | #201 |
Gibbering Gibbet
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beyond cloud nine
Posts: 1,851
|
Perhaps another analogy would be useful at this point:
I think I'm most like Saucy here. I just don't see the film and the book as the 'same' in any way; they are separate works, best regarded as separate. To claim that the movie is a dumbed down version of the book is like saying that an apple is a dumbed down version of an orange. Yes, the film is based on the book, but it is not the book itself. The differences between the two mediums is simply too great to make comparison possible except upon lines that are only and can ever be purely subjective: "I like this about the book but not this about the movie"; "I think this could have been done better in the movie"; "I enjoyed the book more." OK, wonderful opinions, but that's all they are and can ever be: these do not constitue some kind of objective means whereby we can establish whether or not the film is "successful" in any way beyond it's "success" in evoking (or not) these same subjective responses. But to my analogy: I adore Hamlet. It is a wonderful play. One of the things that I like most about it is its infinite variety (to quote another Shakey play. . .) It is such a rich text that there is just no way to do "all" of it in any one production or version -- the "definitive" performance of Hamlet is just not possible as there is too much, well, potential in the text for any single performance to bring out. That is why it is such a successful play in theatre history -- well, one of the reasons. Every Hamlet is different, and every one brings out different elements of the text. I like some productions and not others; some I think are brilliant and others are appallingly bad, but I never make the mistake of conflating the performance of the play to the text: they are different. Nor do I make the mistake of claiming that a performance of the text necessarily "dumbs it down" -- in the written version, all the potential and possible Hamlets are there, but for it to work on stage, there can only be one Hamlet. This is the nature of drama. PJ and crew had it even tougher than directors who put on Hamlet, however, insofar as Shakespeare was writing a text that was meant for performance, when Tolkien most emphatically was not. The 'distance' between the text and the performance in the case of Tolkien's work is vastly greater than with anything by Shakespeare, which does even more to short-circuit any attempt to meaningfully or objectifiably compare them to one another in any way other than, again, through the purely subjective. In a perfect world, there would be a dozen other film makers out there with the money, time and vision necessary to make their own versions of LotR. As has been happening with Hamlet for 400 years now, these different versions would bring out different views and aspects of the text, develop its different potentials, and slowly a dynamic, fuller view of it would be available in performative/dramatic form, but none of them would be in any way definitive or complete. To attempt such a thing is hubris. To demand such a thing of a performance is naive. To condemn a performance for not accomplishing it is unfair and entirely misled.
__________________
Scribbling scrabbling. |
03-02-2005, 11:42 AM | #202 |
Auspicious Wraith
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 4,992
|
That's dedication Saucepan, or maybe it's just addiction...
Anywho, I'd like to bring up a point championed by myself on a couple of other threads. That being: why not talk about it? I love these discussions that may seem to some people to go around in circles. However, they are interesting. Please don't try and end them by saying "Live with it" or "Stop complaining." I get the feeling this thread will roll on for a while yet. Page 5 is just as interesting as page 1.
__________________
Los Ingobernables de Harlond |
03-02-2005, 11:45 AM | #203 | |
Dead Serious
|
I find many of your points fascinating, Mr. 'Edgethistle, but I have to object to this:
Quote:
As has been pointed out so many times, the movie is derived from the book. It isn't an evolutionary journey, because that would make it a throwback. The story was not improved to adapt to its new environment, it was, at best, a step sideways. And many would say not even that. Comparisom to the book is inevitable. It has to happen, just a portrait is inevitably compared to the subject. Until such time as the subject and everyone that knew it dies, the portrait cannot be seen except in the light of the subject. In this case, I think we all agree that the subject (the book) will outlive the portrait (the movie).
__________________
I prefer history, true or feigned.
|
|
03-02-2005, 11:58 AM | #204 | ||
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: dor-lomin, of course
Posts: 169
|
Quote:
Quote:
And I also agree with what Eomer said. If you aren't enjoying this thread then just don't read it. I am enjoying all of the back-and-forth action. I get to see people's thoughts on something that I'm interested in. I like it. I say we keep this going for a million pages.
__________________
I used to be indecisive. Now, I'm not so sure. |
||
03-02-2005, 02:29 PM | #205 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
|
This new piece on TORN seems quite relevant:
http://greenbooks.theonering.net/anw...es/030105.html Quote:
I do wonder what LotR would be like if Tolkien had written it recently - would he have taken for granted that his book would be optioned & so have written it with that in mind & done some things differently? Its interesting how many pro movie contributors have argued that novels & films work differently & that a book cannot be translated to the screen exactly as it is. It strikes me that many current novels are written so as to be as easy as possible to adapt to other mediums. I think this is perhaps what CT means by LotR being inherently unsuitable for dramatisation in visual form. It was never intended by the author that the story would have any other form. Hence the language (I don't just mean the dialogue)is central. Perhaps that's why I much prefer the radio series, because it not only retains most of the original dialogue but also place the narrator centre stage, & he uses Tolkien's original words. This means that the 'mood' of the tale, so much of which depends on the language & turns of phrase Tolkien used, is retained. In short, listening to the radio series feels like reading LotR, whereas watching the movies doesn't. The radio series is much more like a dramatised reading than a dramatiastion per se. Perhaps that's the only way it can work in terms of dramatisation..
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 03-02-2005 at 02:32 PM. |
|
03-02-2005, 03:20 PM | #206 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Essex, England
Posts: 887
|
Davem, yes the readio dramatisation was good, and worked well in the way you said above, but it also tinkered with tolkien's text and added stuff in where Brian Sibley felt appropriate. i.e. just 2 examples off the top of my head, he added in the witch king meeting up with wormtounge, and more text at the havens to make it even more weepy than it is. so it's not as faithful as one may seem. I was lucky enough to meet Mr Sibley at a london howard shore concert, and thanked him for a great adaptation. He's a nice, cordial fellow, and can dramatise a book very well, it seems.
PS the baski cartoon was a lot more faithful than PJ's versions. Are you saying this is a better adaptation????? PPS to those I annoyed by saying Live with it. We have to, it's as simple as that. I have to live with the constant dissing of these movies by a seemingly large percentage of barrow-down movie thread writers, and the people greatly annoyed by PJ's interpretation have to Live with the Film itself. But we are going around in circles here (but I can't stop either as I can't resist an argument) PPPS Don't get me wrong, the books are far better than the movies, but the films themselves are the best films ever made. you can therefore work out my feelings towards the book. |
03-02-2005, 03:33 PM | #207 | ||
Dead Serious
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I prefer history, true or feigned.
|
||
03-02-2005, 04:13 PM | #208 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
|
Quote:
I did have a lot of problems with the Bakshi version - not in terms of content but in terms of quality. I can't help wishing Bakshi had had Jacksons financial backing & access to CGI because it would have been interesting to see what he would have produced. |
|
03-02-2005, 04:21 PM | #209 | ||
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,814
|
Quote:
Yes, my main gripe with the films is indeed the textual changes, the changes of plot and character, and the use of too much modern idiom. I call this dumbing down because the sheer audience numbers showed that had these changes not been made or indeed, not made quite so clumsily, and more of the original and beautiful language used at the expense of some naff lines, there would have been no diminishing box office figures. Yet again, I must pull up things that those who have not read the books have said to me, and one of those things is that they comment on how some of the lines are incredibly moving and they cannot forget them. These, strangely enough, are Tolkien's own lines. It does just frustrate me so much, when they made such a good job of everything else, that the main drive of the films, the scripts, could have been so much better, and it is in Two Towers in particular where they go noticeably astray. A double shame because that is the film where they portrayed the people of Rohan so beautifully. Quote:
Anyway...what's wrong with discussing things over and over? It reminds me of those long, smoky, drunken conversations of my student days when you would sit up all night arguing the same point over and over and suddenly look at the clock and realise it is in fact 5am and you had better go to bed. And though I may disagree with some people's points, I learn much from what they have to say!
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
||
03-02-2005, 05:46 PM | #210 | |
Laconic Loreman
|
I hope I don't get stoned to death....
Quote:
|
|
03-03-2005, 05:29 AM | #211 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Essex, England
Posts: 887
|
Quote:
PS thinking of the UT book, wasn't the wormtounge scene incompatible with the final plot and changed inasmuch as the witch king did NOT meet up with wormtounge, but went straight to saruman instead? (ie wormtounge did not give gandalf away) - that's the problem in adding in work from the UT into any adaptation of LOTR Last edited by Essex; 03-03-2005 at 05:33 AM. |
|
03-03-2005, 08:18 AM | #212 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
|
Quote:
Whatever you think of the movies as opposed to the radio series I defy anyone to compare them both to the book & say the films were more faithful to the book , or comunicated the spirit of it more effectively. |
|
03-03-2005, 09:41 AM | #213 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Essex, England
Posts: 887
|
I didn't say that. I said that the radio series wans't as faithful to the lotr text as
I thought you implied. just to say one piece of work is better because it uses more of the actual text from tolkien is one sided. I personally would have loved the films to have used more direct text from the books, and one of my pet hates is the changing of someone's line to other characters (which doesn't bother some people). But it's not just the text itself. It's the feeling and the emotions that PJ's version stirs up. If someone said to me I was only allowed to view the films or listen to the radio adaptation I would pick the films every time. |
03-03-2005, 11:11 AM | #214 | ||
Shade of Carn Dűm
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Washington, D. C., USA
Posts: 302
|
Essex:
Quote:
This brings up a point about this adaptation and about the 'knock-on' effect that Saucepan mentioned (though, of course, that scene itself has nothing to do with it since it was in neither the book nor the movie!) Tolkien crafted his story with as much care as was possible, and to make changes risks creating problems down the line that need even more explanation, thus creating more changes etc. In the commentary for "The Fellowship of the Ring," I believe it's Phillippa that says "we don't know for certain that [the hobbits] DIDN'T pass through the Old Forest and visit Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs, it's just not shown." (or something to that effect.) Then, just a few scenes later, Strider gives the hobbits their weapons, a plot change to cover the deletion of those scenes. Later, (in the extended edition) Galadriel gives Merry and Pippin weapons instead of just silver belts, probably to enhance the weapon's specialness (is that a word?) so that a 'special' weapon can be used two movies later to stab the Witch-King. Another change from the original. (Please note that I delberately chose an apparently non-controversial change.) Obviously, there are basically three things you can do to any story to adapt it into a different art form. You can add to it, you can change it or you can delete from it. In 'Fellowship,' the primary tool used was deletion, excepting, of course, Arwen's part which was enhanced for reasons that, I believe, were previously discussed. For the most part, in 'Fellowship' this works well, and only seems to disappoint because we look forward to favorite scenes and characters that are now missing. For example, I would have loved to have seen the Barrow-downs scenes intact, ("intact" is a dangerous word on this thread,) but I didn't expect to. My disappointment came and went before the movie was even released. In 'Two Towers' we have a different animal altogether. "Wargs attack the people of Edoras!" "Aragorn dragged off a cliff!" "Elves at Helm's Deep instead of Eomer!" "Frodo shows the Ring to the Nazgul! (in Osgiliath, no less)" etc. I know these changes seem gratuitous, and some of them are, but imagine a truly loyal telling of the plot of 'Two Towers.' The entire battle of Helm's Deep would have to be over and done with in the first forty-five minutes to an hour, and we'd spend the first ninety minutes without knowing what may have become of Frodo and Sam. In the book, this delay helps to build tension and enhance the epic qualities of the story. On the screen, it would have had even loyalists like us walking out of the theatre. Many of the structural changes were necessary simply because film is a completely different language than literature. In a movie theatre, we spend nearly half our time sitting in complete darkness staring at a blank screen, waiting for the next frame to pop up. We just don't notice the gaps, because they happen so fast. A book can be studied and reviewed and re-read for detail that is simply not available to a film audience sitting in a theatre. Fordim: Quote:
__________________
But all the while I sit and think of times there were before, I listen for returning feet and voices at the door. |
||
03-03-2005, 11:37 AM | #215 | ||
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,814
|
Quote:
But a thought has occurred to me here. In actually taking the care to do this, it is as though the scriptwriting team could have created something of an entirely new version of LotR, one which covers the plot holes, and creates new events which will have an effect on events further down the line. But by not carrying this through in all of the films, they missed a great opportunity. Did they become over confident, I wonder? Quote:
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
||
03-03-2005, 12:16 PM | #216 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Essex, England
Posts: 887
|
radagastly, totally agreee, especially
Quote:
I find it interesting that a lot (perhaps most) people say that the Fellowship is the closest adaptation to the book. if we're talking about the number of deletions and changes, I would hazard a guess that it is the LEAST faithful to the books, even more so that TT (yes in TT we had the 'biggest' ones, faramir, etc). for example, at the begining we have gandalf meet Frodo. no he doesn't! but this is the curse of trying to be faithful to the books. How can we, unless we have a narrator talk over the film, which DEFINATELY wouldn't work for film. But the scene itself with gandalf and frodo was excellent, just transposing the narration to the characters instead. (Just like Frodo infront of the Nazgul at Osgilliath was transposed from the scene in the book where Frodo is tempted to show the Witch king the ring at Minas Morgul) Last edited by Essex; 03-03-2005 at 12:19 PM. |
|
03-03-2005, 12:20 PM | #217 | |
Dead Serious
|
Quote:
Another major inconsistency in the movies. Obviously, in converting a book to a movie, there will be a reduction in the time you have to show something. Obviously, you can't convey nearly as well the enormous amounts of time spent doing nothing. It isn't important to the film that there are 17 years between the Farewell Party and Gandalf's return. Nor is it important that Frodo "really" leaves Bag-End half a year later, and not the next morning. And yet.... and yet.... It doesn't feel right. The Lord of the Rings is a great, world-changing epic, and like most world-changing events (by world-changing I mean in middle-earth, not the real world), it takes TIME. Does it feel right that a Ring that lay lost for 3000 years, and then right under Gandalf's nose for 60+ years is discovered by Gandalf to be THE One Ring in the course of, what the movie shows, as about 3 months? It doesn't feel right. However, this is rather piddly stuff, and as such, it isn't much of an issue for me. Jackson does a great job in moving the Fellowship along its course to show the passage of time. Two weeks from Rivendell to Caradhras feels right. Three days in the Mines feels right. A month in Lorien feels possible (especially in light of Sam's queries on the River). A good job was done in the Two Towers of showing the elapsing of time. Then, in the Return of the King, Jackson shoots his own work down, and has Elrond make it to Dunharrow in what appears to be a matter of a couple days, after establishing how long it took Aragorn to get there (if by a slightly longer route) from Rivendell. The journey of Frodo and Sam across Mordor, and the parallel journey of Aragorn's army also doesn't work in the same way the previous movies did. And the journey back to the Shire? What journey? It isn't even HINTED at. Then, what REALLY baffles me: the amount of time from Frodo's return to the Shire until his departure to the Grey Havens. Jackson LENGTHENS the amount of time. After his shortening of time elsewhere, why on earth is he doing this? (Evidence: as Frodo is leaving for the Havens, we have a voiceover by him that it is four or five years, I forget which, since some event at the start of his quest. I apologise for the vagueness of the quote, but it was very clearly TOO much time. Frodo left in 1421. His quest occurred in 1418-1419. It wasn't four years since ANYTHING in his life. Let alone five.) Has this distortion of time, more especially the inconsistency in its usage, and the lack of any apparent reason in some places, annoyed anyone other than me? I think that it constitutes a very genuine "dumbing down" of movies. Not because it was a change from Tolkien, but because it was done inconsistently, sometimes with no real reason, and quite often for the benefit of "the audience".
__________________
I prefer history, true or feigned.
|
|
03-03-2005, 12:25 PM | #218 | |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: dor-lomin, of course
Posts: 169
|
Quote:
__________________
I used to be indecisive. Now, I'm not so sure. |
|
03-03-2005, 12:57 PM | #219 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Essex, England
Posts: 887
|
Formendacil
Quote:
About the Time factor, the way we have Frodo have to hunt deep down into his treasure chest to find the ring for Gandalf seems to be the way the director shows the passage of time from Gandalf leaving and coming back. Of course this isn't 17 years, but I think this is his nod to it being a 'long' time. lord of dor-lomin, your point re Merry. totally agree, but to me Im able to pretend in most cases that what doesn't happen in the film that SHOULD do, does happen. i.e. I can marry both film and book together whilst watching the film, so when I watch the WK scene, Merry gets the Witch King with the sword that Tom gave him. |
|
03-03-2005, 01:15 PM | #220 |
Wight
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 153
|
First of all I think that the problem with the swords could have been cleared up by Aragorn saying that they were heirlooms of his people and were magic.
Anyway, I was watching some of the commentary in RotK the other day and noticed something that made me very angry. Several times Peter Jackson stumbled when trying to remember how things happened in the book as opposed to his changes. It became quite clear after he was corrected several times by the other commentators that he didn't know Tolkien's stories all that well. LotR is Tolkien's story, not Jackson's. If he wanted to create a story of his own then he should have done so rather than adapting someone elses work. The most damning thing he said was something like, "I'm not really sure how it was supposed to work, we were just making stuff up as we went along, it doesn't really matter anyway". To be fair he was talking about a very minor change at the time, one which I didn't mind when I saw it, but even so it made me very angry. Making a mistake is one thing but to not care at all? I think that if you are going to write an adapted screenplay then you must first go through the work with as much, or nearly as much, detail as is being done in the CbC forum. Only then will you be able to create the best adaptation possible.
__________________
If you would convince a man that he does wrong, do right. Men will believe what they see.~Henry David Thoreau |
03-03-2005, 01:47 PM | #221 | |
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,499
|
Quote:
I understand (somewhat) adaptation, but adding to the story was just wrong. |
|
03-03-2005, 01:58 PM | #222 | ||
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: dor-lomin, of course
Posts: 169
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I used to be indecisive. Now, I'm not so sure. |
||
03-03-2005, 02:07 PM | #223 | |
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,499
|
Quote:
The boy's (Haleth?) sword at Helm's Deep gets more attention and scrutiny. And why did PJ have Merry's blade wither? Was this to show that something important happened? I don't think that Eowyn's blade suffered so. |
|
03-03-2005, 02:13 PM | #224 | |||
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: dor-lomin, of course
Posts: 169
|
Quote:
Quote:
Makes sense to me. Quote:
You're right on! That's exactly what it was like!
__________________
I used to be indecisive. Now, I'm not so sure. |
|||
03-03-2005, 02:32 PM | #225 |
Gibbering Gibbet
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beyond cloud nine
Posts: 1,851
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the film, doesn't Merry stab the WK with the dagger he was given by Galadriel in Lorien?? There's not much of a big deal made of that blade, but it was from the White Lady. . .
Or did he use the sword of the Rohirrim given him by Eowyn. . .? Either way, I too would have liked a bit of an explanation as to the magical provenance of Merry's blade, but I don't think it's necessary. The WK is not diminished by the lack of magic-blade in anyway -- just look at the size of his mace!!! WHAZZOK!
__________________
Scribbling scrabbling. |
03-03-2005, 02:44 PM | #226 | |
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,499
|
Quote:
We readers all know how he gets his sword back, but what assumption did the average movie-goer make, or wasn't it that important as seemingly any sharp object wielded by a Hobbit will do? |
|
03-03-2005, 03:23 PM | #227 | |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: dor-lomin, of course
Posts: 169
|
Quote:
...but then he gets killed in a weak, dumb way. That is definitely getting "diminished". No doubt about that. You can't argue it. As someone said a few pages ago, he gets poked by a knife and proceeds to kneel down in front of Eowyn for ten minutes and allows her to take off her helmet, say her line, and stab him in the face. How stupid is that? That's the same way you'd kill some little orc that got on your nerves. The only difference was that TWK's face crumpled up before he died. Ooh, aah, nice visual effect... that cool face crumple action sure makes up for his weak death now, doesn't it? Almost makes me forget he went out like a punk.
__________________
I used to be indecisive. Now, I'm not so sure. |
|
03-03-2005, 09:54 PM | #228 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wandering through Middle-Earth (Sadly in Alberta and not ME)
Posts: 612
|
After reading this thread I began to understand something about why I like the movies so much.
Although I compare the books to the movies like anybody else, I enjoy them appart. (As has been said already) However, I also look at the movies like a piece of art. It is very difficult not to. I think you guys are forgetting that this movie does represent the view of the people who worked on it, which happens with any play/movie that you see, You can't expect the movie to be exactly as you imagined it because the people who made it are different from you. They live differently and have different point of views so they will see the book differently as well. In this thread it seems that you guys believe it isn't allowed to look at things i from another point of view.So if you want the movie the way you imagined it, go ahead, make it. Of course I also see there are faults but I just let it lie and accept that everyone sees things from another perspective. P.S. You also have to remeber that PJ couldn't just focus on the script alone. he had other things to do like directing a movie! Which means overseeing the art department, WETA, the costumes, the sets etc.
__________________
Back again |
03-03-2005, 11:53 PM | #229 | ||
Beloved Shadow
|
Oh, don't give me all that "different point of view/perspective" stuff. I already addressed that a few pages back when I said this-
Quote:
Such things have no relation whatsoever to PJ's different "point of view". Quote:
__________________
the phantom has posted.
This thread is now important. |
||
03-04-2005, 03:50 AM | #230 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Essex, England
Posts: 887
|
lord dor-lomin,
Take a close look at the text of the WK scene. as important as merry's blade is (as I've said countless times) it's not just the blade itself that helps defeat the witch king. It's the point that Merry is OVERLOOKED by everyone (except eowyn) which works exactly as it does in the book. Merry was able to sneak up on the witch king and attack him from behind, hitting him just below the knee (perhaps a play on Achilles' heel?) and dealt a BITTER blow. No matter whether he had a great sword or not, if he was a great Warrior etc, he would have NOT GOT NEAR the WK to attack him. It was becuase he was a 'lowly' hobbit, totally disregarded, that he was able to help defeat the WK. This theme is EXACTLY the same in the film as it is in the book, and is highly important. If PJ could have somehow fit in the Barrowdown scenes with the Numenorean sword then this scene would have been perfect. On top of this, why wouldn't the WK kneel there for a matter of seconds after taking the blow from Merry? Yes, eowyn removes her helmet and says her line at this point in the film, but the WK had been dealt a BITTER blow as Tolkien tells us. Indeed, in the book, Eowyn slowly gets up from her knees, "tottering, struggling up", so this would take longer than removing her helmet and saying her world famous line at this point. The reason PJ makes his helmet wither like it does, is because HE WAS BEING FAITHFUL TO THE BOOK. Read the scene from the book closely and you will see. Neithan, re Quote:
|
|
03-04-2005, 11:24 AM | #231 | ||
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: dor-lomin, of course
Posts: 169
|
Yes yes, Essex, Merry was "overlooked" in the movie, just like in the book. I never complained about that.
Quote:
The movie blow wasn't a "bitter blow". It was a hobbit with a very ordinary weapon. Why should TWK fall down because of it? I mean- in The Fellowship, that big orc that Aragorn fought- Aragorn stabbed him in the leg and the orc didn't even come close to falling down. That orc didn't even stop when he got impaled! So if an orc doesn't fall down after getting stabbed twice by a great warrior, we would expect that the ultimate bad guy would be able to withstand a hobbit induced leg wound just a little bit better than what he did! Quote:
There is NO WAY that this scene works for someone who doesn't already know about Merry's sword. PJ's partial adherence to the text only makes the scene worse. He should've just come up with his own thing for TWK's death if he wasn't going to explain Merry's sword.
__________________
I used to be indecisive. Now, I'm not so sure. Last edited by lord of dor-lomin; 03-04-2005 at 05:14 PM. |
||
03-04-2005, 01:58 PM | #232 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
|
There's some interesting stuff here:http://tolkien.slimy.com/faq/History.html (sections 2-4). The references to lines in the books:
Quote:
This is another example of how you excise parts of Tolkien's text at your peril. At least in the radio series the adaptors take into account their exicision of the Bombadil/Barrow Downs episode by having the WK exclaim, when Merry stabs him 'Halfling, you sting like a gnat' or something. In other words they have him dismiss Merry's strike as meaningless & it serves merely as a distraction for Eowyn to find time to deal the death blow. This also diminishes Merry's part in his death, but it does get round the problem of Merry using a normal weapon. At least they take the story seriously enough to understand that if Merry's blow is to have any serious effect on the WK it would only be if it was struck by the Barrow Blade. Quote:
I think LoDL makes the central point - you can't pick & choose which bits you will faithfully reproduce from the book & which you'll change without a lot more thought for the implications than the movie writers seem to have put in... |
||
03-04-2005, 10:15 PM | #233 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wandering through Middle-Earth (Sadly in Alberta and not ME)
Posts: 612
|
Although the withking in the movie does seem to have helm it also has a crown. It is a helm and crow combined. Besides if you folowed some of the descriptions of Tolkien precisely as he wrote them they might not have worked on screen. Some of the people from the art department continually complained about the difficulty of the helmets with wings for the Gondorian soldiers. It was very easy to make the gondorian armour look extremely gaudy or just plain ridiculous.
__________________
Back again |
03-05-2005, 08:21 PM | #234 | ||
Animated Skeleton
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 38
|
I'm pretty sure Merry stabs Wiki with the sword he got at Dunharrow, he had lost the other two by that point.
Quote:
Quote:
No doubt the timeline would have made more sense if they had left the scrapped "Arwen at Helm's Deep" storyline in. ttbk |
||
03-05-2005, 09:17 PM | #235 | |
Laconic Loreman
|
Quote:
I love on the FOTR EE when Jackson and crew are asked why didn't you have Glamdring shine when orcs are around like Sting? Jackson sort of squirms in his chair, and I believe it is Boyens who responds "budget restraints," and Jackson quickly agrees. It doesn't make a difference whether Glamdring shines or not, however you get the feeling Jackson wasn't as well learned as some of our very own downers. Of course who got everything the first time they read it...or even repeated readings? There's something new to find out each time you read it. Very fascinating. |
|
03-06-2005, 10:52 AM | #236 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
My first time posting here. Thought I'd jump in on something a little less intimidating than the chapter-by-chapter forum.
Alot of the changes in the films didn't bother me... Some seemed necessary in the interests of dramatic action...something which the book, with it's pages of pages of expositions(one of my favorite things about it, ironically!) would have needed more of to be directly "translatable" to a visual medium. Nevertheless the films have much more exposition that most films, albeit in a simplified way. However there were some changes I didn't like, or was disappointed by, to wit: over-simplification of the History of the Numenorean Kingdoms...though I realize that such a complex history would have had to have been simplified, the fact that there's no mention of Arnor, and little mention of Numenor bugs me...I got the impression that all the world knew of Aragorns identity...witness Boromirs awe during the Council of Rivendell...in the book, he seems unaware of Aragorns hereditary status until Aragorn dramatically draws the stub of Narsil... No warg attack in Hollin! Pity, would've made a good battle scene. GROSS oversimplification of the political situation in Rohan...it made no sense at all in the film...why would all of Eomers men follow Eomer in his "exile"? And how the hell do they travel "three hundred leagues" in a few days? Elven archers at Helm's Deep. A crime!! And where do they go AFTER Helm's Deep? Why do they not continue to Gondor? "Evil" Faramir. While I appreciated seeing the ruins of Osgiliath, it made no sense whatsoever to me to do it the way Jackson et al did it: why let the halfling go after he's JUST offered the Ring to a Nazgul?? Sam's speech was moving, but no intelligent military commander would've done that. Much more credible in the book. Simplified Denethor. IMO, Denethor and Faramir are two of the most interesting human characters of the book...they seem much more competent in the books than the movie...Denethor's madness and destructive pride seem much more of a tragedy... Bombadil being cut, okay. Why cut the Woses out? Didn't like Pippin's "tricking" of Treebeard into warring on Isengard. Elrond delivering Anduril to Aragorns hand...where does he go afterwards? No Scouring. |
03-06-2005, 01:56 PM | #237 | ||
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,814
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
||
03-06-2005, 02:25 PM | #238 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
|
Just as an aside, what about this idea (for those who haven't watched the Appendices for RotK this was for a proposed 'addition' to the Battle before the Black Gates. Sauron was to appear to fight Aragorn but he first appeared in his earlier form of Annatar. The idea was that he would appear this way in an attempt to win over Aragorn & when that didn't work he was to adopt his earlier form from the Last Alliance)
http://img236.exs.cx/img236/9499/d117hn.jpg Would this have worked? Did the writers change their minds because they wanted to stay faithful to the books or because they feared the reaction of the fans? The reason I ask is that I think this goes to the heart of why certain things from the books were left in despite changes in the storyline which made them seem at best incoherent & at worst nonsensical. How much freedom did they feel they had in making changes to the story? If the books had had a less devoted following would they have gone further than they did? And if they had felt they had complete freedom to 'adapt' the story as they wished, how different or how faithful would it have been? Perhaps what we've ended up with is bits of two movies awkwardly stuck together - a 'faithful' adaptation of the book & another one which just uses the book as a starting point. Could this be the reason for all the 'back & forthing' we've been going through here - they simply couldn't decide whether they wanted to make a movie of Tolkien's LotR or their own? |
03-06-2005, 09:38 PM | #239 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wandering through Middle-Earth (Sadly in Alberta and not ME)
Posts: 612
|
At first I was horrified by the idea of Sauron appearing on the battle field and I'm glad it never appeared on film. However, when I heard the ideas behind it I thought it was very neat.
I think the filmmakers left it out for two reasons. One: it wasn't faithful to the book and would horrify the book fans Two:It would have confused the whole audience
__________________
Back again |
03-06-2005, 10:11 PM | #240 | |
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,499
|
Quote:
Plus, it wasn't Glamdring... After flying out of Orthanc, Gandalf either forgot his luggage or it was shipped to a different destination, never catching up with him, and so Saruman got to keep both his staff and Glamdring. Luckily, on the way to Rivendell, Gandalf stopped at a 'Staff 'R' Us' shop (opening a new location in Gondor soon!) and purchased a 72" brown driftwood model. He 'acquired' a new sword from one of the ones sitting around on display in Rivendell. |
|
|
|