Petition to fix Saruman problem in ROTK

[JRRNeiklot]

I guess it's some sort of mental illness on my part, but I will respond anyway

Sorry, 'fraid not. All Pippin says is "I wish Gandalf would do something quick!" because the wolves are starting to howl and Bill the pony is running away. In the book, the hobbits were totally uninvolved in the solving of the riddle.



Uhhh, I assume you meant to type "Eowyn."

Oops. Quite right, Eowyn it is!

 

[barsoomcore]

The thing is, they changed stuff for no other reason than to put their fingerprints on it.

Saying something like this just makes you look foolish.

I think we all know that you have no idea WHY they made these changes.

Exactly. Because the changes were not needed. But thanks for resorting to name calling.

Sorry if you felt like I was calling you a fool. That was not my intent, and let me say that I do not think you are a fool.

I'm just saying that pretending to knowledge you don't possess does you no favours, and doesn't help you to make your case. The fact that you can't see a purpose in the changes doesn't mean that they were made to serve ego-gratifying motives. If you want to say you don't understand why they made the changes, that's one thing.

But if you're going to pretend you have secret insight into the minds of others, I'm going to have trouble taking you seriously.

I posted my takes on the changes in TT over in the OTHER thread. Maybe these have become candidates for thread merging?...

 

[jdavis]

The feeling I got from the Documentaries was that tTTs was the hardest of the movies to make and it was a real chore for Jackson, there is all sorts of remarks in the documentaries from several of the people involved about how hard this one was and how unsure of it they were when it was finished, This part of the story just doesn't translate to film very well. They made just as many huge sweeping changes in the first movie and they didn't get near as much flack, this was just a much harder movie to make. Myself I have very high hopes for Return of the King as it seems to be the one that Jackson was almost giddy about getting to make and it's a much more straightforward story (although I can invision several huge changes they probably had to make). All and all I look for it to be much better than Two Towers.

 

[Orius]

Oh, boy more Tolkien purists....

I think Jackson has done a fair job with the movies. I've seen movie adaptations of books that were a hell of a lot worse, and had almost nothing to do with the original.s Anyone see the Time Machine movie that was made abouta year or so ago? That was virtually unrecognizable. At least Jackson got most of the plot right for the first two movies.

Even so, there are scenes that do irritate me, because they are outright changes, because they lack subtlety, or because they remind me of typical action-flick cheesiness. The biggest offenders are the collapsing stairs in Moria, Galadriel turning green, and Aragorn going over the cliff. It's not just that those things weren't in the book, it's also that too me, they don't really add anything to the movies either. Still, I'm not such a purist that I'm not going to see the last installment.

 

[kengar]

Even so, there are scenes that do irritate me, because they are outright changes, because they lack subtlety, or because they remind me of typical action-flick cheesiness. The biggest offenders are the collapsing stairs in Moria, Galadriel turning green, and Aragorn going over the cliff. It's not just that those things weren't in the book, it's also that too me, they don't really add anything to the movies either. Still, I'm not such a purist that I'm not going to see the last installment.

To me, the collapsing stairs at Moria was a great piece of film. That JRRT didn't write that individual scene is irrelevant. It was exciting, it was true to the spirit of that part of the book and looked cool on screen. Just as every step the fellowship took isn't described, why not have a fun "extra" in their flight from Moria? I didn't come across as cheesy to me, but I'm sure the film makers figured it didn't hurt to have some extra action snippets in the film.

Aragorn going over the cliff and the river was odd, IMO. Since TTT came out I've heard several explanations for that whole sequence, but I'd just as soon it was left out. That said, it wasn't a super-big deal to me. Or, have him go over the cliff, have Legolas, etc. looking down at the river after the fight, then cut to Aragorn washing up on the river bank & skip the Arwen stuff.

Galadriel turning green, well to quote the good Professor (from the scene at the mirror when Frodo offers her the One Ring):

"She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illuminated her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful."

To me, the "turning green" etc. is just PJ's interpretation of that scene from book to screen. I thought it worked quite well and the green even makes sense if you consider the Nenya is the ring of Water (though I honestly don't know if that was PJ's inspiration for the color scheme or not ).

 

[BSF]

Trying to resist replying ... must resist ... failing the tempation ...

OK, I will toss a few coppers in here. Let me be clear, I am a book purist. I generally re-read the books once a year or so. I find it unfortunate that there are others that do not enjoy the books as much as I do. But, I respect that everyone has completely different tastes. If you didn't like the books, or were unable to even read them through, that is one thing that I don't share in common with you. Of course, those differences can also help make the world an interesting place.

That being said, it is a monumental task to translate the books to a movie. I liked FotR, but I was prepared to hate Arwen's character. They introduced her and took out Glorfindel. He is one of my favorite unsung characters! We are talking about the guy that led the elves when they routed Angmar in the Battle of Fornost. This guy rocks! Oh yeah, that doesn't really come out in the main story. So, while I can understand why they cut him, I was still not sure if I would like it. It worked. Overall, they did a good job with FotR.

Then came the Two Towers. Blech. Admittedly, it is not an easy translation by any account. I could stomach most of it. But, the sullying of Faramir's character infuriated me. I'm glad that people like the movie. I'm glad that people felt empathy for Faramir. I understand what they were trying to represent by having Faramir fall under the influence of the ring. But, I still disagree with it.

To me, Faramir represents everything that the waning blood of the Stewards of Gondor should be. His relationship with his father was strained because Boromir always seemed to be far more noble. Boromir was willing to fight the good fight to defend his city. Borormir was willing to do nearly anything for victory. Boromir is the type of guy you want helping you when all the cards are on the table and you are fighting for your life. Faramir would stop and think before acting. In the eyes of Denethor, Faramir appeared to be timid in comparison to his older brother. Faramir had a closer relationship with Gandalf and loved lore instead of battle. Faramir had wisdom and nobility. He was a distant reflection of the nobility of the race of men, nearly on par with Aragorn himself. Faramir had the wisdom to discern what "Isildur's Bane" might be, to recognize that Boromir would have fallen prey to that temptation. Faramir resisted the lure of the ring because he did not thirst for battle victory. He focused his attention to merely helping Frodo and Sam. Boy, I could go on, but I am just rambling.

Faramir is a much deeper character than many people seem to give him credit for. That's fine. We each interpret the story in our own ways. Obviously, I disagree with the interpretation of the character on the screen. But, it would have been difficult to convey this depth in a movie. I don't like the interpretation, but I respect that the movie is focusing on specific aspects of the story. You can't possibly examine every character in depth in a movie the same way you can in a lengthy novel. I'll deal with my disappointment if it means that I can debate the finer points with more people later on. The movie is one interpretation of the story, that's all. And in that context, it is a pretty darn good one.

Personally, I would love to debate these points with Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens. It is clear that they put a lot of love into the movie. It would be an honor to try to sway them to my line of thinking. Who knows, maybe I will even have that chance someday. For that matter, I would like to discuss a lot of the changes that I disagreed with. There are many. But, I enjoy the movies and love the books. I will be seeing Return of the King on December 17th. I think it will be fun.

 

[drothgery]

Amen. I'm in the same boat. Every gamer I meet keeps saying what a classic the books are, and I keep thinking "I'd rather watch paint dry than attempt to read those books again*." I happen to think that a lot of the characters and scenarios in those books are frankly kinda hackneyed. I appreciate that Professor Tolkien wanted to build this mythology, this milieu to populate with peoples constructed from whole cloth. I just don't happen to think it makes particularly compelling reading.

I only made it through the books after I watched FotR the first time. I'd tried twice before, and given up. I reread the books before tTT, and am in the process of doing so before RotK, but if PJ had filmed FotR as written, I don't think I'd've been convinced there was something worth reading in there. JRRT gets a lot of respect for popularizing the genre and establishing many conventions, but there are a lot of people who I'd rather read.

 

[Vocenoctum]

That being said, it is a monumental task to translate the books to a movie. I liked FotR, but I was prepared to hate Arwen's character. They introduced her and took out Glorfindel. He is one of my favorite unsung characters! We are talking about the guy that led the elves when they routed Angmar in the Battle of Fornost. This guy rocks! Oh yeah, that doesn't really come out in the main story. So, while I can understand why they cut him, I was still not sure if I would like it. It worked. Overall, they did a good job with FotR.

While I'm sure it'd have been complained about anyway, I think if they'd left Glorfindel in, and had him be the elf at Helms Deep, it'd have been better. Someone more established as a warrior, from Rivendell, etc.

But, no one will give me a budget to make a movie, so I'll enjoy the one I'm given

 

[KenM]

Personally, I would love to debate these points with Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens. It is clear that they put a lot of love into the movie. It would be an honor to try to sway them to my line of thinking. Who knows, maybe I will even have that chance someday. For that matter, I would like to discuss a lot of the changes that I disagreed with. There are many. But, I enjoy the movies and love the books. I will be seeing Return of the King on December 17th. I think it will be fun.

Have you seen Two Towers EE DVD? There is a 20 minute feature: from book to film. PJ, FW and PB explain each change they made from the Two Towers novel to the movie, and the reasons behind them. After seeing that, I can see why they had to make the changes they did.
Back on topic, its is too late to do anything to put the Sauraman back into the theactical RoTK, the poremire is next week. It is being copied for distribution at this point. Check this out http://www.msnbc.com/news/996638.asp?0cb=-11e43816

 

[BSF]

Have you seen Two Towers EE DVD? There is a 20 minute feature: from book to film. PJ, FW and PB explain each change they made from the Two Towers novel to the movie, and the reasons behind them. After seeing that, I can see why they had to make the changes they did.
Back on topic, its is too late to do anything to put the Sauraman back into the theactical RoTK, the poremire is next week. It is being copied for distribution at this point. Check this out http://www.msnbc.com/news/996638.asp?0cb=-11e43816

I have seen it. But, I disagree with many of their reasons. I think they sold some of the characters drastically short and it would be fun to debate specific references with them. Perhaps I could present some perspective on the characters that they had not thought of. Certainly, I think they could provide me perspective I have not thought of. That is why it would be an honor and why it would be fun. For that matter, I would happily debate such things with any number of people. Regardless, I respect the interpretation of the filmakers. I also respect that they had to make decisions that are difficult. I wouldn't want to debate any of my dislikes to chastise them in any way, I would want to do it to share the love I have for the story with them.