RotK spoilers: The Sauruman Problem

[Flexor the Mighty!]

OK, I'm going to make a comment, and it will probably tick people off. But it's not directed at anyone in particular.

I think that people who expect/demand that a movie adapted from source material (like a book) be strictly true to the book should be doomed to despise every movie adaptation ever made. Or be forbidden to actually see any of them.

A movie should only be judged on its own merits, not on how it stacks up to the book upon which it is based. It's just not a fair comparison, and its unreasonable to expect such dedication from a movie.

The best movie adaptation ever made (IMHO) still deviated from its book. That being The Shawshank Redemption. And it's source book was only a 100-page novella. The movie was well over 2 hours long.

Movies are a different medium. Just because you think a scene in a book would make a great scene in a movie, doesn't mean that's the case. Books are allowed to do a lot of things with a story that a movie can't.

Anyway, I'll end my rant. It's all just my opinion, but I think I'd like to actually see RotK before I slam PJ and the gang for leaving out a scene or two.

I accept that some changes that keep the flow of the story going in a different medium. But why is Theoden made to be an incompetent fool of a king in the movie? To build up Aragorn is my only guess. Why is Helms Deep an act of folly in the movie while it's a solid tactical idea in the book? To build up Aragorn when he opposes the idea?

Why is Faramir made to be more like his father and Boromir in the movie when in the book he is clearly unlike them both in mindset. He doesn't try to take the ring back to his father in the book, he knows better, he's a wiser man than either of them. But in the book he has to be scared into doing what is right, what he knew he had to do in the book.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

damn site timeouts!!!!!!

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

oops

 

[diaglo]

Why does Flexor the Mighty post the same thing 3 times....

 

[Dark Jezter]

I'm firmly in the camp that believes that a movie does not have to be true to the novel it's based on to be good. Somebody mentioned the Shawshank redemption already, but I'd like to mention a few more.

Forrest Gump was a mediocre novel that was made into a good movie. There was a lot of stuff in the movie that wasn't in the novel, and vice-versa. However, the movie remains much more enjoyable than the novel (if it is a little over-melodramatic at times).

The Thomas Harris novel Red Dragon has two movies based on it: Manhunter and Red Dragon. There can be little question that Red Dragon is the better movie of the two, despite the fact that Manhunter is more true to the novel.

MASH started out as a novel, but was adapted into a movie. Soon after, MASH became one of the longest-running and funniest sitcoms in television history (even though the show really did go downhill after they put Alan Alda in charge and it got all depressing and preachy).

 

[kengar]

gahh! double post

 

[kengar]

Why is Faramir made to be more like his father and Boromir in the movie when in the book he is clearly unlike them both in mindset. He doesn't try to take the ring back to his father in the book, he knows better, he's a wiser man than either of them. But in the book he has to be scared into doing what is right, what he knew he had to do in the book.

Because in the book, Aragorn is a two-dimensional character at best. He has no conflict or anything to overcome other than external challenges. As a personality, he's static. In the movies, PJ made the decision to make Aragorn more conflicted and -therefore- interesting, IMO. I'm not saying that it's better than the book, but the fact is Strider gets more copy than Frodo, at least for scenes that it makes sense to show in a film. So it made sense to have him be a more "3D" personality.

If you make Aragorn "less perfect", then Faramir needs to be less perfect too. In the books, Faramir is as good as human gets, next to Aragorn. He's better than Boromir, better than his father, better than Eomer or Theoden or Eowyn or anyone except Elessar. They also decided to play up the relationship -and conflict- between Faramir & Denethor in the films. Sadly, most of this was cut from the theatrical release of TTT. Remember, Faramir's temptation wasn't to wield the Ring (he never takes the Ring away from Frodo), but to deliver it in order to earn Denethor's respect. An interesting distinction, I think.

 

[Pants]

Theoden is incompetent in tTT? I never noticed that and I still don't...

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Theoden is incompetent in tTT? I never noticed that and I still don't...

Well based on his "folly" in taking the people to Helm's Deep he is. He is told by Aragorn not to take them there, but he does anyway, and in the movie it is a disasterous decision. He nearly dooms his enter nation because he is too proud to listen to Aragorn. Somthing that isn't in the book, and somthing that really weakens his character IMO.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

The Thomas Harris novel Red Dragon has two movies based on it: Manhunter and Red Dragon. There can be little question that Red Dragon is the better movie of the two, despite the fact that Manhunter is more true to the novel.

Hmmm...While I haven't seen either movie I've heard from several people that Manhunter is better than Red Dragon.