Lord of the Rings: Did PJ lose the plot?

[Hypersmurf]

I heard the reason they took out the powersuits was that they could not get them to look/ move right.

I didn't care why they took them out.

I just remember hearing "Starship Troopers movie", and thinking "Powered Armour - yeah!"

And then seeing the trailers and thinking "You're kidding, right?"

It was a major letdown for the first viewing.

-Hyp.

 

[Wormwood]

My guess is that you 2 are doing exactly what Tolkein book-fans are doing with the LotR films: letting their handcuffed vision of the book blind them to a screen adaptation.

To be quite honest, that's exactly what I did.

My initial opinion of RotK was pretty low for just that reason. I spent the entire time eagerly anticipating my favorite scenes from the book, only to have disappointment mounted upon disappointment.

My appreciation of the movie increased greatly with later viewings, since I was no longer burdened with those expectations.

 

[buzzard]

I heard the reason they took out the powersuits was that they could not get them to look/ move right. IMO the movie still captured the themes/ spirit of the book.

Not that we haven't been over this before, but no. The movie was an intentional mockery of the books. I suppose it is possible that I would have liked the movie, had it not been named Starship Troopers, but I doubt even then it would be the case.

Let's look at commonality- plot not much in common (depending how much your strip from the book in rationalization, I suppose you might see something in common, but you would be grasping), themes- nothing in common, neato stuff- all dropped, I mean other than the overall name, and character names, what really was in common?

I'm no Heinlen fanboy. I like some of his works, and have no use at all for others. But when you have a director who hates a book make a movie out of it, I don't think you can expect a reasonable interpretation.

buzzard

 

[Dimwhit]

I'm of the opinion that:

a) Tolkien's LotR books aren't the bible, nor the greatest books ever written. They were very good fantasy books (I've read better) that are classics only because of WHEN they were written.

b) Tolkien worshippers both intrigue and frighten me.

c) Movies and books aren't the same thing. What works in a book doesn't necessarily work on film. They are two different media, and hold a movie to a book's standard, or vice versa, is pure lunacy.

d) The films were amazing. Not perfect, but amazing. (In fairness, I'm not sure there's a perfect movie out there--except may Shawshank Redemption.)

e) I can't wait for the EE RotK.

 

[Umbran]

I'm talking about things that Umbran conveniently omitted in his reply to KenM - that Frodo was told that he had the One Ring, and that he should pack and leave.... and he promptly waits months in packing and leaving.

Heh. I'm not the only one conveniently omitting things - like the fact that there was a method to that particular madness. Let us consider...

Bilbo, on his adventure, came into posession of the ring, and took it home ot the shire. Something like 77 years pass...

Then comes Bilbo's 111th (and Frodo's 33) birthday. Gandalf, having seen some very vague signs and portents, is a little suspicious, and gets Bilbo to leave the ring with Frodo. Note that Gandalf is not yet up in arms in panic. It's been 7 decades since he and his friends ousted the Necromancer from Mirkwood. He's only recently gotten the idea that the Enemy may have gone back to Barad Dur.

Three more years pass, as Gandalf does research, among other things. It is during this period that he really begins to suspect what the ring is, and comes upon Gollum and finds out that the Enemy may know about the Shire.

At this point, the ring has been sitting in the Shire quietly for about 80 years. And only now the Eye may be looking towards the Shire. If you're trying to be stealthy and stay hidden, the one thing you don't do is make sudden moves when the enemy is looking at you.

So, Frodo takes months (for two of which Gandalf is even hanging around!) to pack and leave because he's trying to not attract too much attention. The idea is for him to fade from the public eye before he leaves the Shire entirely - so there won't be any scuttlebutt about his disappearance that might raise a spy's eyebrow, so that nobody will know anything useful if questions are asked. Given the time that's already passed, a couple extra months don't seem particularly important, especially when time should provide cover. If everything had gone smoothly, Frodo would have quietly slipped away to Rivendell ahead of scrutiny in the Shire.

Unfortunately, that pesky Saruman turns out to have gone bad, and louses this up, causing Frodo to delay a bit too long, so he doesn't get to leave ahead of the scrutiny.

The movie compresses three years of events into mere weeks. With that compression, of course you can't have Frodo take his time leaving. But that's not a "mistake" in Tolkien. That's just a change for cinematic reasons.

 

[reapersaurus]

Hmmmm.... we're close to caught up on this, Umbran, but one thing:
KenM said this-

One of the changes that I think makes sense is in the movie, once they find out they have the ring, they immedatly start out for Rivendale. They don't wait years before taking action, like in the book, to me that did not make sense.

then you said:

In the books, it takes years for them to figure out that they have the One Ring, and Sauron was not making obvious moves at the time. Waiting until they are sure is a good thing, when you don't know where Sauron is or what he's up to. And in the books, Gandalf isn't sure until the ring gets put into the fire at Bag End....

Then I pointed out how you were omitted certain facts in your reply, instead solely concentrating on what you wanted to reply to. (In other words, you made an explanatory post that purposely covered only half the story, while ignoring the point: that there are problems with Tolkein's sequences.)

Now you still attempt to explain away the actions, without acknowledging either
a) that the actions are mistakes, AND are silly to the reader.
b) that you haven't been forthright in your explanations.

I'd like to clarify more, but I think you get my gist. That's all. No big deal.

edit: About you dodging point a) above-

Unfortunately, that pesky Saruman turns out to have gone bad, and louses this up, causing Frodo to delay a bit too long, so he doesn't get to leave ahead of the scrutiny.

Every reader can see clearly that this is a mistake by the characters, and paints Gandalf in a VERY bad light.
The need for haste in the light of Sauron's expanding strength and vision is ignored by the lazy hobbit and wizard.
They created their own problem with procrastination, even AFTER realizing they had the most powerful and dangerous artifact ever known to Middle Earth in their possession.

Galactically stupid decision there, and everyone can see it. It can't be explained away, and it lessens the stature of the heroes (a bad thing to do in an epic hero novel, by definition.
Unless the heroes' fatal flaw is procrastination, which it isn't in LotR).

THAT'S just one example of the things me and KenM are referring to, Umbran.
If you'd like to respond, please address our point(s), or acknowledge them.

 

[Nightfall]

reap,

No I just didn't enjoy a movie where Michael Ironsides shows up out of the blue and saves everyone's ass. That along with killer bugs, a show with more teen flesh than most romance flicks, and the fact it was cheesy period. Same with Battlefield earth. I've never read any Heinlein or Hubbard.

 

[blackshirt5]

reap,

No I just didn't enjoy a movie where Michael Ironsides shows up out of the blue and saves everyone's ass. That along with killer bugs, a show with more teen flesh than most romance flicks, and the fact it was cheesy period. Same with Battlefield earth. I've never read any Heinlein or Hubbard.

Trust me, in not reading Battlefield Earth, you didn't miss much.

 

[reapersaurus]

No I just didn't enjoy a movie where Michael Ironsides shows up out of the blue and saves everyone's ass. That along with killer bugs, a show with more teen flesh than most romance flicks, and the fact it was cheesy period. Same with Battlefield earth. I've never read any Heinlein or Hubbard.

This "review" makes no sense.

What does Michael Ironsides "saving everyon'e ass" have to do with it?
There was no deus ex machina that I remember in the film. All troop movements were within the realm of believability, including *gasp* Michael Ironside's character.

And you went to see Starship Troopers, yet you list KILLER BUGS as a reason that it was a bad film?
WTF?!
Didn't you WATCH the previews? Did you just stumble into the theater blind? The movie is a war movie, that happens to use humans vs giant killer bugs.
How'd you miss that?

And what the heck is "cheesy period"?

BTW: anyone who thinks Starship Troopers was a REALLY bad movie (with nothing to it) should revisit it again.
It, more than almost any movie I know, was misunderstood when it came out, and has subsequently gotten more respect every year, since the film is not a teen pro-war film, as it may seem on the surface to an unexamining eye.

The film is actually about how the populace can be manipulated into going to war for "patriotic" reasons, and the dangers of fascism. This is cloaked within a pretty-teen action film.
Many people, especially when it first came out, missed this.

Since then, most people who see the film are aware of its dual levels, and give it a big thumbs up.

 

[reapersaurus]

Also, re: Powered Armor suits.

IIRC, they mocked up some suits, and very quickly realized they wouldn't work on screen.

A rule of filmmaking is "never cover up the actors faces. It gets in the way of emoting, and the audience loses sympathy/understanding of the characters."