[OT] Upon watching PJ butcher another's work.

[Mulkhoran]

Yep, yep, I reacted hastily and deleted sluggishly.

I can't be convinced of your opinion, so I shouldn't participate in this part of the discussion.

I shouldn't really be getting into this at all. I was just curious to see if there were people out there that were as bothered as I was by the changes to this character, since I'd seen *nothing* in my search so far. Didn't want to argue with people about this.

I hope you're right about the third movie, though. Thanks.

 

[Mulkhoran]

Okay, that makes more sense when elaborated upon in that way. I still disagree that this is a crippling flaw in the film in any sense. Remember that the real showcase for Theoden's heroism is when he rides to the rescue (and his own death) at the Pelennor Fields.

And the expanded version may change our perspective on the issue, of course.

Good points, of course. All in the long-term context, I suppose. It was just painful to watch those scenes.

Hopefully, EN is right, and we'll see the voice of Saruman scene in RotK, and that'll give him a chance to shine.

Really, the "painful" parts are over. There are very few things that are *essential* to the RotK story....................

"No living man am I......"

 

[Assenpfeffer]

All I'm saying is that if you reign in your personal changes for the first movie, you get more revenue from *two* movies. If you don't, you lose a lot of revenue from the second movie, from people that didn't like the first.

You're all right that this probably isn't happening, but I feel cheated. The first movie sent the message that the story would be treated in a certain way, and it was treated very differently for the second.

This sounds (and I suspect that Eric took it this way, too - thus his comments) suspisciously like "They intentionally made Film #2 lousy just to spite me!"

I doubt that's what you're trying to say, but that's how it's reading.

They're not three standalone movies, nor are they 2 sequels to FotR. They are an ensemble piece, and it's not too much to ask that they work together to set a tone.

You're right to expect that. But if you do, you ought to view the whole thing as one continuous unit. Since we haven't seen RotK yet, it's impossible for use to say how the characters of Faramir and Theoden will continue to be developed.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Re: Re: Laughing on the outside...

In my view Glorfindel had to go one way or the other. There was just no way for the character to be included and be someone other than some random guy in a bit part. There were thus only two options:

1) Cut the whole sequence entirely, or rewite it so completely that no new character needs to be introduced there. Considering that the scene at the Ford of Bruinen marks the defeat of the Ringwraiths from the first film, cutting this scene means you have them throughout the movie, or you have to cut them entirely. The changes cascade from there until we're looking at something which doesn't resemble LotR much at all.

2) Replace Glorfindel with another character. The obvious choice, which Ralph Bakshi took, is Legolas. You'd have to handwave at a reason for him being there, but it could be done.

Then again, Legolas has lots to do throughout the three movies. There's plenty of time to have the spotlight on him. So if we have another character to swap out with Glorfindel, a character who can credibly be dropped into that spot, a character who desperately needs more things to do, who would benefit the most from some additional screen time... who would that character be?

I dunno. This change seems so logical to me, it makes so much sense as far as the movie's story is concerned, that I'm continually surprised at its being pointed out as an example of "Hollywoodizing" the books, or, even more foolishly, as some kind of weak point in the film.

Look, as I've said, even on this thread, I understand the reasons he was cut. If you're trying to say it wasn't a "Hollywoodizing" point, though, that is not so. It most certainly is. Why couldn't Peter Jackson have made a 50 hour film project that stayed completely faithful to the books? Why would Glorfindel be replaced and a female character part get beefed up to replace him? Because of the way conventional filmmaking is done, the conventions of which have been determined by Hollywood over the past century. Hollywood has shaped our viewing habits to the point where we simply assume it's not possible to do a film that is true to any book. That's not true. It can be done, but it would have to be done outside the conventions of Hollywood-style filmmaking, at least for LotR.

 

[Assenpfeffer]

"No living man am I......"

I'll be damned if I didn't just get a chill just from you quoting that.

Now, if they mess that up, I will personally lobby for Peter Jackson to be tossed into a woodchipper.

 

[Assenpfeffer]

Re: Re: Re: Laughing on the outside...

Hollywood has shaped our viewing habits to the point where we simply assume it's not possible to do a film that is true to any book. That's not true. It can be done, but it would have to be done outside the conventions of Hollywood-style filmmaking, at least for LotR.

It can be done if you make assumptions that would make it impossible for the project to actually get made without some Sugar Daddy that'll throw a billion dollars at it.

So it's not just as simple as throwing out "Hollywood" conventions and not letting your film be locked into preconcieved notions of what films can and can't be, because somebody has to pay for it. Nobody would pay for a 40-hour Lord of the Rings.

Besides, nobody here has made the assertion that a book cannot be faithfully adapted to the screen. Look at the first Harry Potter. It's almost a word-for-word and image-for-image adaptation, meticulously faithful to the source material. And it's about as flat and soulless as a movie can be. It's an example of why it's not desirable to be too faithful.

 

[Mulkhoran]

I'll be damned if I didn't just get a chill just from you quoting that.

Now, if they mess that up, I will personally lobby for Peter Jackson to be tossed into a woodchipper.

You won't need a lobby. You think I'm p d? You should see my wife. She's foaming at the mouth for his blood, and has promised suffering quite remarkable, even for Hell, if he drops the ball on that one simple little thing I just mentioned.

Of course, she's a she, and she read the books as a kid, so the reasons should be pretty obvious.............

 

[Assenpfeffer]

You won't need a lobby. You think I'm p d? You should see my wife. She's foaming at the mouth for his blood, and has promised suffering quite remarkable, even for Hell, if he drops the ball on that one simple little thing I just mentioned.

If it happens, I'll buy the plane tickets. She can take care of the false papers.

You can't take guns on the airplane, but you can declare drums of industrial acid as luggage.

 

[Olorin]

It's funny how all these guys with screen names right from Tolkien "have no axe to grind."

Just saying.

I have been a fan of Tolkien for 20 years. I have used Olorin as my nick whenever possible for almost as long as I've been online. That has nothing to do with my views on the movie. *shrug*

If you are going to disagree with something I said, please address what I say. Thanks.

I liked many many things in TTT. Most of them have been mentioned by others. I enjoyed the movie overall very much.

I also disliked several things, among them Theoden's portrayal. The other chief things are Faramir's portrayal, the lack of attention paid to the Ents (and Treebeard's lobotomy) and the "Aragorn over the cliff" interludes.

I feel like some others that some of these changes/additions were ill-advised and lessened my enjoyment of the movie. I felt that the changes/additions to FotR were much better considered and executed. I don't feel that the more drastic changes to TTT were part of a plot by Peter Jackson and Co. to lure us in and then disappoint us, that's ludicrous of course. I think they struggled the most with trying to adapt TTT to film and it shows a bit.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Laughing on the outside...

It can be done if you make assumptions that would make it impossible for the project to actually get made without some Sugar Daddy that'll throw a billion dollars at it.

So it's not just as simple as throwing out "Hollywood" conventions and not letting your film be locked into preconcieved notions of what films can and can't be, because somebody has to pay for it. Nobody would pay for a 40-hour Lord of the Rings.

Really? A lot of people buy entire runs of episodic TV shows. What would be the difference?

And who is the Sugar Daddy that funds such projects? Almost without exception, part of the Hollywood establishment.

Hollywood conventions are so pervasive that they seem to be regarded as laws of nature, but they aren't. It's just that we've been conditioned over th past 100 years to accept them.