Sagan Darkside
First Post
Celebrim said:
Well, at least you now know you don't have to see the last one.
SD
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
[OT] Upon watching PJ butcher another's work.
- Thread starter Celebrim
- Start date
Well, at least you now know you don't have to see the last one.
SD
Drew
Explorer
Oh, I see...you're INSANE. That clears it up.
In all seriousness, it sounds to me like you're letting your love for the original works cloud your opinion of the movies. Yes, there were changes, but I think that we need to wait until the final movie to wait and see if they worked or not.
If you haven't liked the last two movies, stick with the books my friend.
Flexor the Mighty!
18/100 Strength!
There were a few changes that I didn't like, but jeez they didn't even come close to ruining the story. As a movie it was fantastic, as an adaption of Tolkien it was still pretty good except for a few glaring errors.
kengar
First Post
Saw the movie last night. Felt there were a few rough patches and -frankly- a few parts that didn't even really make sense to have in. Overall,I enjoyed the film. I was BLOWN AWAY by the first movie, though. To be fair, I have seen FOTR several times now so it might be unjust to compare the two after seeing TTT only once.
As a film on its own merits, IMHO, it was quite good. It did deviate from JRRT significantly in a few places. Without getting into TOO many spoilers or "book v. film: which is better?", here are my good, bad & the ugly:
Good:
The sets at Helm's Deep, Edoras & Fangorn forest were terrific. I was especially impressed by the forest. I had always had difficulty imagining it, but PJ did a great job creating an image that fit perfectly.
Gollum was PERFECT. He avoided the JarJar syndrome and was a real character with feelings and conflicts. Slinker v. Stinker was done creatively and true to the spirit. (btw Celebrim, Faramir found out about the ring from questioning Gollum).
Elijah Wood's portrayal of the Ring's growing influence over him. As well as his desire to see Smeagol redeemed.
The action scenes were visually exciting. A bit over the top compared to FOTR in places, but the TTT book was more action-packed too. Battle of Helm's Deep set a new standard for film in battle scenes. The wargs were frightening, the Ents looked & moved like they should.
Gandalf v. Balrog: 'nuff said
Eowyn was a pleasant surprise. I expected cheesecake, but the actress did a great job bringing her character to life.
Theoden's scene at the grave was beautifully done.
The Black Gate. W
W!
The Bad:
Aragorn & the river. Why??
The whole scene with the Elves & Arwen, etc. It was confusing and deviated from the book in a major way without serving any easily understood purpose. Though the bit about what would happen if she married Aragorn and he got old was done very true to the appendices. (That & Liv Tyler in the gauzy gown were OK
)
Gimli was a little too comic, but John Rhys-Davies is a such an amazing character actor that he's fun to watch no matter what. At least the "counting game" was included.
The "healing" of Theoden was a little bit corny. But I had more difficulty with the whole bit where Aragorn, Legolas & Gimli beat up the guards than I did with Gandalf & Theoden.
Sam's little speech towards the end. It was useful to allow some scene-jumping I suppose, but seemed a bit preachy.
The Ugly:
Faramir. Without a doubt, the worst part of the film was the way Faramir was portrayed. No slam on the actor, but it was a major shift from the character as written in the book and not for any discernable reason.
PS: As far as some folks' concerns about Shelob: bah! I think the way PJ set it up with Gollum's muttering at the end was a much better choice for the films.
As a film on its own merits, IMHO, it was quite good. It did deviate from JRRT significantly in a few places. Without getting into TOO many spoilers or "book v. film: which is better?", here are my good, bad & the ugly:
Good:
The sets at Helm's Deep, Edoras & Fangorn forest were terrific. I was especially impressed by the forest. I had always had difficulty imagining it, but PJ did a great job creating an image that fit perfectly.
Gollum was PERFECT. He avoided the JarJar syndrome and was a real character with feelings and conflicts. Slinker v. Stinker was done creatively and true to the spirit. (btw Celebrim, Faramir found out about the ring from questioning Gollum).
Elijah Wood's portrayal of the Ring's growing influence over him. As well as his desire to see Smeagol redeemed.
The action scenes were visually exciting. A bit over the top compared to FOTR in places, but the TTT book was more action-packed too. Battle of Helm's Deep set a new standard for film in battle scenes. The wargs were frightening, the Ents looked & moved like they should.
Gandalf v. Balrog: 'nuff said
Eowyn was a pleasant surprise. I expected cheesecake, but the actress did a great job bringing her character to life.
Theoden's scene at the grave was beautifully done.
The Black Gate. W
W!The Bad:
Aragorn & the river. Why??
The whole scene with the Elves & Arwen, etc. It was confusing and deviated from the book in a major way without serving any easily understood purpose. Though the bit about what would happen if she married Aragorn and he got old was done very true to the appendices. (That & Liv Tyler in the gauzy gown were OK
)Gimli was a little too comic, but John Rhys-Davies is a such an amazing character actor that he's fun to watch no matter what. At least the "counting game" was included.
The "healing" of Theoden was a little bit corny. But I had more difficulty with the whole bit where Aragorn, Legolas & Gimli beat up the guards than I did with Gandalf & Theoden.
Sam's little speech towards the end. It was useful to allow some scene-jumping I suppose, but seemed a bit preachy.
The Ugly:
Faramir. Without a doubt, the worst part of the film was the way Faramir was portrayed. No slam on the actor, but it was a major shift from the character as written in the book and not for any discernable reason.
PS: As far as some folks' concerns about Shelob: bah! I think the way PJ set it up with Gollum's muttering at the end was a much better choice for the films.
Last edited:
WizarDru
Adventurer
Celebrim said:
Well, I can't speak for some, but I can speak for myself, those I saw the film with and my audience that was present. It was clear that they all enjoyed the film immensely.
Gollum did start out a little shaky, but there was plenty of pity for Gollum in my theatre...but an equal amount of fear and distrust. The scene where the split personalities argue started comical (intentionally), but by the middle of it, it was deathly quiet in the theatre from the tension of Gollum's inner conflict.
As for the dwarf-tossing joke, that and all the other jokes for Gimli went over very well in our showing. I realize you might find it a violation of the sanctity of the work, an opinion to which you're entitled, but most of us enjoyed it for bit of light humor it was intended to be, especially amid such scenes of darkness and death.
Personally, I think your distaste for the treatment of the material is distracting you from the quality of the movie itself. Most of your dissatisfaction comes from the handling of character and plot elements in contrast with the source material, not necessarily with the actual film-making. Much of the original dialogue, IMHO, simply would not work in a feature film without modification. Similarly, much of the pacing of TTT would be extremely off for cinematic presentation, as well. Complaining that Entdraught was missing or that the Entmoot should take three days or even that Treebeard's character is portrayed as much more relunctant and less wise than in the books are not problems with the film (I realize that you didn't cite such examples, of course, I'm just using such for illustration). An argument can be made for where the film does have weak points, but you haven't really made them, IMHO.
LightPhoenix
First Post
I saw it last night as well. My thoughts:
First was the audience, which at 6:30 was mostly middle/high school immature kids. VERY annoying, a definitely plan to go back and see it again without them. I had to explain to the kid who wouldn't stop talking to me that I'd read the books for the first time 15 years ago, and many times since then. Ugh.
This I think gives an explanation for the laughter - people just hadn't read the book, or weren't invested in the story enough. I hardly think this is PJ's fault - some people just went because it's the next big thing - they're not even fans. Of course, my gf cried during the scenes with Gollum fighting with himself, and she never read the books.
As for people mock-dying... that happens a fair deal in the book too. Can't blame PJ.
First was the audience, which at 6:30 was mostly middle/high school immature kids. VERY annoying, a definitely plan to go back and see it again without them. I had to explain to the kid who wouldn't stop talking to me that I'd read the books for the first time 15 years ago, and many times since then. Ugh.
This I think gives an explanation for the laughter - people just hadn't read the book, or weren't invested in the story enough. I hardly think this is PJ's fault - some people just went because it's the next big thing - they're not even fans. Of course, my gf cried during the scenes with Gollum fighting with himself, and she never read the books.
As for people mock-dying... that happens a fair deal in the book too. Can't blame PJ.
KnowTheToe
First Post
Celebrim said:
I am glad he did. While I love the stories, I did not like Tolkien's writing style. Enjoy the movie for what it is, an adaption, not a translation. I thought it was excellent and you should have known it would be different than the books, did you see the first one?
KnowTheToe
First Post
I have read many people's comments onthe love/dream sequences with Aragorn and the river sceen as well. I think these were added for pacing. It forced the movie to slow down a few times so we could catch our breath and enjoy the next major sceen. You may not have liked them or would have chose a different way to break up the action and drama, but they were neccessary for pacing. It is the same when you play D&D. You don't want to go from battle to battle without any RP in between because the battles get muttled together and are less fun.
Face it, I am right
Face it, I am right
Celebrim
Legend
WizardDru: If you liked the film, fine. What I find particularly annoying is complaining about a film and people like you trotting out tired old anti-purist arguements without understanding a bit of what I'm saying. For instance:
"Complaining that Entdraught was missing or that the Entmoot should take three days or even that Treebeard's character is portrayed as much more relunctant and less wise than in the books are not problems with the film..."
And how does this have to do with anything I said? Why make a straw man out of my complaints by comparing me to a bunch of purist nit pickers that don't understand how to tell a story? Did I make any complaints like that? No, quite the contrary, I said, PJ actually put too much of this purist nit picky stuff in the movie just to be able to say he did so - and it hurt his movie.
If I was a nit picker, I might complain about the design of the black gate, but no that was fine. Not the book, but accomplishes the same purpose of being 'impressive'. I'm not complaining about changes wholesale and without thought. In fact, my favorite part of FotR was the first 15 minutes or so when PJ/Boyens actually showed some decent ability at rewriting, addition, and arrangement when establishing Frodo/Bilbo/Gandalf as characters. That wasn't 'from the book word for word', but it certainly was in the spirit of the book.
I don't claim to have 'made' my arguement. I DO claim that the sort of things I have brought up as being really weak are the sort of things that alot of people agree as being really weak, even if I haven't bothered to fully justify my appraisal of these things as weak.
When people trot out the 'Tolkien Purist' argument, that I'm misjudging the movie based on its treatment of the material, I tend to feel that I'm dealing with a 'Movie Purist' who is afraid to critically judge that popcorn epic he just watched.
"Oh, the movie was great, I wouldn't change a thing! It was perfect! It was the best movie I ever saw!"
Please. It started out as 'not Tolkein but at least the very best D&D movie ever made', but before the end of the movie PJ had completely lost his way in the story. Only his good use of fantasy action and borrowed Tolkien grandeur was really keeping people in the story. Judged on its own merits, this wasn't even the movie that Gladiator or Braveheart was.
I'm not necessarily the one here with a misplaced attachment to a peice of artistic material. If you think it was so well written, trot out some examples of PJ's well written original lines. If you think it was so good, you defend the work - and try to avoid doing it with 'well it seemed to be well received' because so was the Dumb and Dumberer treaser.
kengar: Please, don't get me started on PJ's treatment of the healing scene, and Aragorn & Co. whooping @$$ with his bare hands to protect Gandalf from attack JUST after Gandalf efffectively demonstrated that even Aragorn couldn't lay a sword on him.
"Complaining that Entdraught was missing or that the Entmoot should take three days or even that Treebeard's character is portrayed as much more relunctant and less wise than in the books are not problems with the film..."
And how does this have to do with anything I said? Why make a straw man out of my complaints by comparing me to a bunch of purist nit pickers that don't understand how to tell a story? Did I make any complaints like that? No, quite the contrary, I said, PJ actually put too much of this purist nit picky stuff in the movie just to be able to say he did so - and it hurt his movie.
If I was a nit picker, I might complain about the design of the black gate, but no that was fine. Not the book, but accomplishes the same purpose of being 'impressive'. I'm not complaining about changes wholesale and without thought. In fact, my favorite part of FotR was the first 15 minutes or so when PJ/Boyens actually showed some decent ability at rewriting, addition, and arrangement when establishing Frodo/Bilbo/Gandalf as characters. That wasn't 'from the book word for word', but it certainly was in the spirit of the book.
I don't claim to have 'made' my arguement. I DO claim that the sort of things I have brought up as being really weak are the sort of things that alot of people agree as being really weak, even if I haven't bothered to fully justify my appraisal of these things as weak.
When people trot out the 'Tolkien Purist' argument, that I'm misjudging the movie based on its treatment of the material, I tend to feel that I'm dealing with a 'Movie Purist' who is afraid to critically judge that popcorn epic he just watched.
"Oh, the movie was great, I wouldn't change a thing! It was perfect! It was the best movie I ever saw!"
Please. It started out as 'not Tolkein but at least the very best D&D movie ever made', but before the end of the movie PJ had completely lost his way in the story. Only his good use of fantasy action and borrowed Tolkien grandeur was really keeping people in the story. Judged on its own merits, this wasn't even the movie that Gladiator or Braveheart was.
I'm not necessarily the one here with a misplaced attachment to a peice of artistic material. If you think it was so well written, trot out some examples of PJ's well written original lines. If you think it was so good, you defend the work - and try to avoid doing it with 'well it seemed to be well received' because so was the Dumb and Dumberer treaser.
kengar: Please, don't get me started on PJ's treatment of the healing scene, and Aragorn & Co. whooping @$$ with his bare hands to protect Gandalf from attack JUST after Gandalf efffectively demonstrated that even Aragorn couldn't lay a sword on him.
Assenpfeffer
First Post
Celebrim said:
Actually, "a lot" of people don't feel that way at all. You're in the minority.
You're the one who's making the statement. And it's clear that, by and large, most disagree with you. The burden of proof is on you.
Sounds to me like you'd pretty much decided not to like the movie before going in. Which is fine, but why you'd then bother to waste money going to see it is a mystery to me.
Similar Threads
