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

Celebrim said:

I think ,however, that alot of the reason that LotR is being so well recieved is not because it is particularly well done, but because there is a huge population out there that is literally starving for a good epic fantasy movie and will cling to anything that comes close to satisfying that need.

:lol:

Seeing how many people I know who have never liked movies that are in the fantasy genre but who loved FOTR I'd have to say this is completely against my experiences.
Just for reference could you list a few movies that you think are good? Braveheart if one of my favs, but you are right on Gladiator. I'm wondering what fits your defination of a good flick since LOTR seems to be a crime against cinema to you.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Celebrim said:
I also think that the critics are afraid to criticize the movies openly for fear of being lumped with the critics that now sound so foolish for snidely dismissing Tolkien's books and the Star Wars movies as juvenelia simply because they were fantasy. Would you want to take the risk of being the only critic who just doesn't 'get it'....snip

Hello Celebrim. I haven't see the 2nd film yet, but I had to comment on this...

I think you're really mistaken on the mindset of mainstream film critics... While fantasy {and SF} is far more mainstream than in the past, its hardly to the point of being sacrosanct in the eyes of the nations critics. Wildly ambitious fantasies that get treated with the seriousness of Jackson's work would seem to me to be juicy targets for non-fan critics, looking to put fantasy 'in its place' as rank juvenalia.

Critics are a fractious lot {no offense to any critics here}. For every ten touting a brave new work/filmaker, there are ten in the opposite camp aiming to invalidate it/them. I can't think of any filmaker that's above criticism. Nor any movement, school or genre.

Consider the reaction to films by people like David Lynch. Critics don't seem to fear "not getting" his work. Unless I'm mistaken, his films usually wind up both on critics Best Of and Worst Of lists... And look at the far more mixed critical response to Scorcese's "Gangs of New York". I can't believe that Peter Jackson's "Rings" is beyond reproach whereas a major new work by Scorcese is not... Even hotshot new directors like Wes Anderson --a personal fav-- have their share of detractors.

I think the near-universal positive response to The Two Towers is quite an achievement. I'm surprised more critics looking to make a name for thmselves haven't slammed it. Far from being in some inviolate place, its a big fat target out in plain sight...

And however successful you may feel Jackson's films are, I find it hard to imagine thinking of him in terms of a Chris Columbus or later-day Ridley Scott. He's far more ambitious, even when directing splatter films. And far more serious about the craft of filmaking. He may have, in your eyes, butchered a beloved work, but he did so with a love and attention to his own medium that can't be faulted...

He reminds me, in a way, of another filmaker that I like: John Boorman. From his highs --like Excalibur-- to his fascinating lows --like Zardoz, which I personally love-- there's this singularity of vision, and level of technical prowess that I take much enjoyment from...
 

I'm going to have to side with Celebrim on this one. While I think it was a "good" movie and worth the price of admission, it could have been so much better.

My gripes: Gimli is a joke, the Jar-Jar of the film. He was my favorite character in LOTR and he was reduced to comic relief.

The meeting of the three hunters with the riders of Rohan. What happenned to the mention of Galadriel? Gimli and Eomer make a pact to postpone their fight until after Eomer has looked upon Galadriel. This is one of the defining moments of Gimli's character. Of course, if you're nothing more than a court jester, your character needs no defining.

Faramir. They dropped the ball on this big time. Who the hell was that? Faramir was the most noble character in the whole damned book. Sam even said he had an air about him similar to that of Gandalf. In the movie he was more akin to Saruman. I can't believe that the noble Eowyn can ever fall for such a creep as Faramir.

The journey to Osgilath. Why add this? It serves absolutely no purpose but to further demean Faramirs character. Then the ringwraith. Sauruman knows who has the ring now, wtf was that all about?

Aragorn's fall from the cliff. Redundant. Served no purpose.

The Elves at Helm's Deep. Why?

Gollum. He started off fine, but at moments diressed into too much of a Jar-Jar.

The sudden kung-fu-esque abilities of Arragorn, Gimli, and Legolas at Edoras. Again, should be axed.

The disarmament at the gates. Gimli's axe was worth a king's ransom, The Bow of Galadriel, which has yet to be mentioned, and where is Anduril? This was a great scene that was cut for no purpose except to allow time to screw over Faramir and make Gimli fall down a couple more times.

Where was Erkenbrand?

Why was Hama never mentioned by name, except in reference to his girly-like son?

Merryand Pippin. No mention of the Entwash. No mention of the way they tricked the orcs into believing they had the "precious."

The Ents had to be talked into attacking Saruman? Wtf? And they did more than tear down a dike. They redirected the course of an entire river, for christ's sake! And no Quickbeam.


Shadowfax. He just appears out of nowhere at Gandalf's call. Explain, please.


I'm sure there are many more discrepancies. Some of these could be disregarded as minor, but if they had cut the more stupid crap out, there would have been time for all of the proper characterization and then some.

Tolkien must be rolling over in his grave.
 

Flexor: Sure. Some quick and highly incomplete list of movies I like:

"Lawrence of Arabia"
"Chariots of Fire"
"Casablanca"
"The Empire Strikes Back"
"The Sound of Music"
"High Noon"
"Friendly Persuasion"
"Harvey"
"Clerks"
"Little Big Man"
"Amelie"
"When Harry Met Sally"
"Gataca"
"Sense & Sensibility"
"Wings"
"Metropolis"
"Citizan Kane"
 

JRRNeiklot said:
The meeting of the three hunters with the riders of Rohan. What happenned to the mention of Galadriel? Gimli and Eomer make a pact to postpone their fight until after Eomer has looked upon Galadriel. This is one of the defining moments of Gimli's character. Of course, if you're nothing more than a court jester, your character needs no defining.

The Gimli-Galadriel scene wasn't in the theatrical version of FotR; putting a reference to that scene in the theatrical version of TTT would've been nonsensical. I'd wager that the scene might show up in TTT's extended edition.
 

SHARK said:
Greetings!

Joshua and others:

I think that when Grima is next to Saruman and he is taken to the balcony to see the vast armies below, and a tear falls, is because I interpreted the tear as one of mixed awe and terror.


I interpreted it as something like "y'know, I really would rather like to get wormy with Eowyn. Beardy wizard here promised me he'd arrange it. Now he's sending 10,000 genetically engineered Uruk-Hai to wipe out all humanity in Rohan.

Eowyn's human.

F***. No f***."
 
Last edited:

Mytholder said:
I interpreted it as something like "y'know, I really would rather like to get wormy with Eowyn. Beardy wizard here promised me he'd arrange it. Now he's sending 10,000 genetically engineered Uruk-Hai to wipe out all humanity in Rohan.

Eowyn's human.
Surprised it took someone else this long to post it. That was my thought as well... I could just see the words in Wormtongue's head...

"But you're sending this army to wipe out Eowyn, too!

This army is friggin' huge.

It's going to win.

Eowyn is good as dead."

*tear*

--The Sigil
 

JRRNeiklot said:
My gripes: Gimli is a joke, the Jar-Jar of the film. He was my favorite character in LOTR and he was reduced to comic relief.
I thought Gimli bordered on falling into comic relief myself, BUT it seemed to flow naturally from a gruff but good-natured character who isn't full of his own self-importance. I could live with it, though I would have preferred the "comic relief" to have been cut - except for the "Toss Me" line - that was GREAT!

The meeting of the three hunters with the riders of Rohan. What happenned to the mention of Galadriel? Gimli and Eomer make a pact to postpone their fight until after Eomer has looked upon Galadriel. This is one of the defining moments of Gimli's character. Of course, if you're nothing more than a court jester, your character needs no defining.
Answer: Must cut movie down to three hours.
Faramir. They dropped the ball on this big time. Who the hell was that? Faramir was the most noble character in the whole damned book. Sam even said he had an air about him similar to that of Gandalf. In the movie he was more akin to Saruman. I can't believe that the noble Eowyn can ever fall for such a creep as Faramir.
Here, I agree with you.
The journey to Osgilath. Why add this? It serves absolutely no purpose but to further demean Faramirs character. Then the ringwraith. Sauruman knows who has the ring now, wtf was that all about?
I won't quote EN's response in another thread, but it may 'splain this fine... we need to cut down the time it takes to represent the fall of Osgiliath and why Sauron is attacking it and we need a clear reason for Sauron to fall on Gondor (he thinks the ring is there). More "streamlining" cuts for a quicker movie in RotK. We'll see if EN is right, but that is a plausible and acceptable reason.
Aragorn's fall from the cliff. Redundant. Served no purpose.
Not quite sure on this one - we need him "presumed dead" to help the development of the Eowyn/Aragorn romance angle. Would have preferred to have seen it done differently, but it worked.
The Elves at Helm's Deep. Why?
Agree.
Gollum. He started off fine, but at moments diressed into too much of a Jar-Jar.
WTF? I found Gollum to be by FAR the biggest piece of excellence in the entire movie. Where, exactly, does he become like Jar-Jar?
The sudden kung-fu-esque abilities of Arragorn, Gimli, and Legolas at Edoras. Again, should be axed.
*shrugs* I was indifferent on this one.
The disarmament at the gates. Gimli's axe was worth a king's ransom, The Bow of Galadriel, which has yet to be mentioned, and where is Anduril? This was a great scene that was cut for no purpose except to allow time to screw over Faramir and make Gimli fall down a couple more times.
Where is Anduril? For goodness' sake, I have thought this was incredibly obvious from the time they didn't re-forge Anduril in FotR. It seems to have been made more obvious with Galadriel and Elrond's conversation in TTT. The (to me) obvious answer is that Arwen will replace her brothers in RotK. She will show up for Aragorn with Anduril. We'll see if my hunch is right, but this was my hunch a year ago. And again, some things NEED to be cut, and this, to me, qualified as one of them.
Where was Erkenbrand?
Obviously you want the fifteen-hour edition, which you're not going to get. Erkenbrand's role was absorbed by Eomer for the same reason Glorfindel's role was absorbed by Arwen... in the movie, you positively MUST cut down the number of (minor) characters or you'll never get the story told. Remember that every character you introduce has to be developed a bit, and that takes time.
Why was Hama never mentioned by name, except in reference to his girly-like son?
See above. Cuts down on number of characters and thereby time. Something HAS to go.
Merryand Pippin. No mention of the Entwash. No mention of the way they tricked the orcs into believing they had the "precious."
My guess - extended edition. And for practical reasons, TIME!
The Ents had to be talked into attacking Saruman? Wtf? And they did more than tear down a dike. They redirected the course of an entire river, for christ's sake! And no Quickbeam.
Quickbeam - one less character, time considerations. I was disappointed that they had to be "tricked" into going after Sauruman.
Shadowfax. He just appears out of nowhere at Gandalf's call. Explain, please.
Gandalf whistles. Shadowfax comes. Never had a problem with this, especially when the book describes them as almost "soul mates" and Shadowfax as inequinely fast.
I'm sure there are many more discrepancies. Some of these could be disregarded as minor, but if they had cut the more stupid crap out, there would have been time for all of the proper characterization and then some.
Bah. Explain, exactly, what "Stupid Crap" could have gone. Then explain what you would have put in its place. I myself would have cut out the trip to Osgiliath and portrayed a wise/noble Faramir and would have cut out the Elvish reinforcements to Helm's Deep. Finally, I would have cut Legolas' "surfing" scene and a couple of the "short dwarf" jokes. That would have cut about 15 minutes. I would have added that time to Merry & Pippen's thread - a little more about their interaction with the orcs and goblins and a little more about the ent battle and the entwash.

But given the massive amount of ground that had to be covered, it was inevitable that some things had to go. It sounds to me like you're griping just because cuts had to be made and they happened to cut things you liked. That's fine, but admit it!

Yes, I would have loved a 15-hour version so that everything could be included, too... but only the SUPER hard-core fans have enough patience for that and that group of fans is not enough to recoup the cost of the movie. :(

Again, offer constructive criticism - don't say, "this sucked" without saying, "I would have preferred to see this instead." Then we can understand what your vision was and compare it to PJ's. One last time, if you want something added, tell me what you're willing to cut. You seem to want to cut very little and add a lot... and there just flat simply ISN'T enough time in 3 hours.

My initial reaction was that TTT was not quite as good as FotR - I thought TTT was about a B+ with FotR earning an A+. But I have only a midnight showing where I was admittedly fatigued to base that on, and reserve the right to change my opinion.

--The Sigil
 

The Sigil said:


Bah. Explain, exactly, what "Stupid Crap" could have gone. Then explain what you would have put in its place. I myself would have cut out the trip to Osgiliath and portrayed a wise/noble Faramir and would have cut out the Elvish reinforcements to Helm's Deep. Finally, I would have cut Legolas' "surfing" scene and a couple of the "short dwarf" jokes. That would have cut about 15 minutes. I would have added that time to Merry & Pippen's thread - a little more about their interaction with the orcs and goblins and a little more about the ent battle and the entwash.


--The Sigil



The "stupid crap" I was referring to is most of the stuff in my previous post. The bizarro Faramir, et al.

The entire Oz-gilath scene could go, the elves at Helm's Deep, Arragorn going over the cliff, Gimli's antics. That's about an hour right there.



Edit: Didn't mean to quote the entire post.
 
Last edited:

JRRNeiklot said:
The entire Oz-gilath scene could go, the elves at Helm's Deep, Aragorn going over the cliff, Gimli's antics. That's about an hour right there.

No. It's maybe ten minutes. Maybe. So you'd have cut five or ten minutes from the film and put in Erkenbrand, who would need at least a half hour to develop the background neccessary for his presence to make any sense.

Then you're going to add Hama (who, just to clarify, IS in the movie - he's just not called by name,) another forty minutes of Merry and Pippin in Fangorn, a twenty-minute disssertation on Gondorian history by Faramir... need I go on?

All this would be cool to see, mind. But it'd have made the movie grind to an utter stop for the audience.
 

Remove ads

Top