Tarrasque Wrangler
First Post
Classy Diaglo, very classy...
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Petition to fix Saruman problem in ROTK
- Thread starter jdavis
- Start date
JRRNeiklot
First Post
kkoie said:
He hasn't shown me anything except the fact that he knows how to butcher someone's life work.
The movies are good, I'll grant, but to say they are anything but remotely based on the actual novels is just a clever ploy to sell tickets.
Berandor
lunatic
I'll try to phrase it carefully.
Yes, the LotR trilogy is based on the books by Tolkien. Yes, that is apparent at nary a glance. Yes there are differences and departures. These differences and departures have been explained by the filmmakers who believe they have a very good reason to do so.
Do the changes make sense? Most of them, speaking in cinematic terms, do. Are they necessary? You could argue about that. Perhaps the unchanged version would have gotten even better, perhaps it wouldn't have worked. We don't know.
There's also no sense in argueing. We are watching Peter Jackon's Lord of the Rings, his interpretation of a book he obviously holds in high regard, as seen by the generally respectful approach of the movies.
Also, the Extended Versions come very close to the books, even with many minor changes (who says what and when, etc.).
This is not a book. Things that work in a book don't necessarily work in a movie. There were no elves at Helm's Deep? But was it a cool scene, and did the elves bring a shimmer of hope to the hopeless situation? Yes on both accounts. It worked for me.
The movies can't butcher anyone's life work who hasn't worked on them. Tolkiens books are still there for us to relish, and the movie is there for us to relish as well.
From a purely technical standpoint, the movies are awesome, masterfully done. Casting, cinematography, score, effects, everything is excellent. You must admit at least that.
So the book is better in your opinion. That's fine, and probably true to me as well. But they're not the same. And, frankly, when someone puts out the fantasy movie everybody I know has always dreamed of, based on one of the greatest works in (fantasy) literature, producing some of the best movies period, then I can forgive a few misconceptions - especially if it will be redeemed by the Extended Cut.
Jackson had his reasons for leaving the Saruman scene out of TT, and thought it'd work better in RotK. Now he finds it doesn't and also thinks it might work without it. Let's find out if he's right in the cinema in one month's time.
I honestly think it even a little insulting, some of the imo anal complaints ("Theoden didn't say that! That's Aragorn's line!" - not necessarily the Saruman argument). I mean, I also didn't like TT at first, but now I can sort of understand his reasons for most of the changes, and I certainly can live with them, especially in the EE. Peter Jackson really tries to do his best adaption, and I think he's earned a little trust.
Finally, it is an old saying that if it don't bleed, than you didn't really cut - especially in film-making.
Berandor
getting a little riled up
Yes, the LotR trilogy is based on the books by Tolkien. Yes, that is apparent at nary a glance. Yes there are differences and departures. These differences and departures have been explained by the filmmakers who believe they have a very good reason to do so.
Do the changes make sense? Most of them, speaking in cinematic terms, do. Are they necessary? You could argue about that. Perhaps the unchanged version would have gotten even better, perhaps it wouldn't have worked. We don't know.
There's also no sense in argueing. We are watching Peter Jackon's Lord of the Rings, his interpretation of a book he obviously holds in high regard, as seen by the generally respectful approach of the movies.
Also, the Extended Versions come very close to the books, even with many minor changes (who says what and when, etc.).
This is not a book. Things that work in a book don't necessarily work in a movie. There were no elves at Helm's Deep? But was it a cool scene, and did the elves bring a shimmer of hope to the hopeless situation? Yes on both accounts. It worked for me.
The movies can't butcher anyone's life work who hasn't worked on them. Tolkiens books are still there for us to relish, and the movie is there for us to relish as well.
From a purely technical standpoint, the movies are awesome, masterfully done. Casting, cinematography, score, effects, everything is excellent. You must admit at least that.
So the book is better in your opinion. That's fine, and probably true to me as well. But they're not the same. And, frankly, when someone puts out the fantasy movie everybody I know has always dreamed of, based on one of the greatest works in (fantasy) literature, producing some of the best movies period, then I can forgive a few misconceptions - especially if it will be redeemed by the Extended Cut.
Jackson had his reasons for leaving the Saruman scene out of TT, and thought it'd work better in RotK. Now he finds it doesn't and also thinks it might work without it. Let's find out if he's right in the cinema in one month's time.
I honestly think it even a little insulting, some of the imo anal complaints ("Theoden didn't say that! That's Aragorn's line!" - not necessarily the Saruman argument). I mean, I also didn't like TT at first, but now I can sort of understand his reasons for most of the changes, and I certainly can live with them, especially in the EE. Peter Jackson really tries to do his best adaption, and I think he's earned a little trust.
Finally, it is an old saying that if it don't bleed, than you didn't really cut - especially in film-making.
Berandor
getting a little riled up
Last edited:
JRRNeiklot
First Post
The thing is, they changed stuff for no other reason than to put their fingerprints on it. By "they" I mean Peter Jackson and his crew. He did a pretty thourough character assassination on both Theoden and Faramir. For no reason, whatsoever. Faramir was one of the most noble heroes in Middle Earth. There was no reason to make him as bad, or worse than, Boromir. He made Theoden look like an idiot for going to Helm's Deep. Then the elves come to Helm's Deep. Why? Their leaving Middle Earth set the tone that this was MAN'S war. The hobbits have to talk the Ents into attacking Saruman. That made these ancient beings as dumb as a rock. Now they leave Saruman's downfall out. Hell, even in FOTR, Frodo solves the riddle to get into Moria instead of Gandalf? Why? All those except possibly the Saruman closure were needless changes. They were not cut for time, nor did they improve the film one iota. It's just a hack job for PJ to try and improve on an already terriffic piece of work. It's like someone copying the Mona Lisa and turning her smile into a frown.
Berandor
lunatic
Possible Spoilers ahead!
Also, I use "PJ" to mean Peter Jackson & crew (notably Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens)
1) Faramir is a noble character from beginning to end. He's got no personal journey in him. He is not conflicted, and doesn't have to make difficult decisions, because he is who he is. In cinema terms, he is boring, a cutout character. Now, he's got a development towards being the hero he becomes. This is much more gratifying and interesting for both the actor and the audience.
2) The danger of the ring would be downplayed, to PJ's thinking. Spending two whole movies trying to show its power, showing how much Frodo suffers from it, to bring up a character who is immune to its influence harms the overall story. Why doesn't Frodo give Faramir the ring to bring to Mt. Doom? He seems better suited. Not now.
3) As they put Shelob into film 3, they needed an obstacle for Frodo's journey. They decided Faramir would be that obstacle, a sound choice in connection with the reasons above. Did it have to be that way? No. Do I agree with their choices? Not necessarily. Does it work? Yes.
2) Theoden also clearly resents being told what to do, shortly after being dominated by Saruman/Wormtongue.
3) Also, in the book, Aragorn is a much less conflicted character (again, see Faramir), and therefore Theoden can be, too, without harming his character. Now, they use Theoden as a means for Aragorn to find his confidence as a leader, a king.
4) Theoden suffers from the domination. At first, he is rather weak still, but gradually through the film, he gains more and more strength and confidence, even as he is losing hope. To PJ, this is a more believable approach.
2) It is reminiscent of the battle in the beginning of the movie, when the forces of elves and man stood together.
3) It brings a shimmer of hope into the dark situation.
4) They are used to great cinematic effect, or "cool scenes".
2) Also, it's soemwhat boring when you cut back and forth between an Entmoot where Ents are discussion sssllllooooowwwlllyyy, and then come to the decision of helping. You don't get to see drama in the decision, which is what he wanted to provide. I agree, though, that this is a change that likely could have been avoided without much harm. However, PJ had his reasons for it.
BErandor
Also, I use "PJ" to mean Peter Jackson & crew (notably Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens)
Reasons:JRRNeiklot said:
1) Faramir is a noble character from beginning to end. He's got no personal journey in him. He is not conflicted, and doesn't have to make difficult decisions, because he is who he is. In cinema terms, he is boring, a cutout character. Now, he's got a development towards being the hero he becomes. This is much more gratifying and interesting for both the actor and the audience.
2) The danger of the ring would be downplayed, to PJ's thinking. Spending two whole movies trying to show its power, showing how much Frodo suffers from it, to bring up a character who is immune to its influence harms the overall story. Why doesn't Frodo give Faramir the ring to bring to Mt. Doom? He seems better suited. Not now.
3) As they put Shelob into film 3, they needed an obstacle for Frodo's journey. They decided Faramir would be that obstacle, a sound choice in connection with the reasons above. Did it have to be that way? No. Do I agree with their choices? Not necessarily. Does it work? Yes.
1) But he wasn't. With 10,000 Uruks, Theoden's army would have been destroyed on the field, elves or no elves.
2) Theoden also clearly resents being told what to do, shortly after being dominated by Saruman/Wormtongue.
3) Also, in the book, Aragorn is a much less conflicted character (again, see Faramir), and therefore Theoden can be, too, without harming his character. Now, they use Theoden as a means for Aragorn to find his confidence as a leader, a king.
4) Theoden suffers from the domination. At first, he is rather weak still, but gradually through the film, he gains more and more strength and confidence, even as he is losing hope. To PJ, this is a more believable approach.
1) Why not? How many are they? Not much. It shows that some elves see that there is something worth fighting for, and indeed, in the books the elves fight against Morder, even if they don't do it at Helm's Deep.
2) It is reminiscent of the battle in the beginning of the movie, when the forces of elves and man stood together.
3) It brings a shimmer of hope into the dark situation.
4) They are used to great cinematic effect, or "cool scenes".
1) Well, I sort of agree. However, PJ wanted to give Merry and Pippin a more active role, to show the fundaments of heroism even before they are squired (Well, sort of, when riding in disguise instead of staying home counts). Instead of only waking the Balrog and stealing fireworks, they actually acted instead of reacted to something.
2) Also, it's soemwhat boring when you cut back and forth between an Entmoot where Ents are discussion sssllllooooowwwlllyyy, and then come to the decision of helping. You don't get to see drama in the decision, which is what he wanted to provide. I agree, though, that this is a change that likely could have been avoided without much harm. However, PJ had his reasons for it.
Yes, and I believe PJ when he says he miscalculated the effect of the scene.
You probably mean, instead of Pippin, right? Isn't it he who thinks of the solution? It's because they wanted to bring Frodo a little more to the foreground, instead of just being the ringbearer giving him something useful to do, and clearly show him as a/the main character of the series (I know, Sam may be regarded as even more important).
As you can see, I feel different.
BErandor
Last edited:
Similar Threads
