RotK spoilers: The Sauruman Problem

[diaglo]

I'm not sure whether to treat this ...i didn't expect anything but crap from PJ. ;)

 

[TiQuinn]

One of my friends was very disapointed with TTT because it was not excatly like the book. His own words. I never read the book. But read summaries of it. I understand that PJ had to make changes to make it filmible. It was the hardest one to film. I hear the extras on the extended DVD will explan why they did what they did.

I don't know that TTT as written was exactly unfilmable. They felt the need to include a star-crossed lover side story, elves coming to the aid of Rohan scene which goes against the theme of the book, IMO, and comedic characters in the form of Gimli and Pippin just to give people a chuckle. Not to mention the entire Faramir sidetrack. I understand that the book didn't exactly offer a whole lot as far as Faramir was concerned (at least in terms of what would make for a good movie), but what they decided upon took the character in an entirely different direction. However, none of these were necessary for the movie. I'm sure they felt it was necessary in order to appeal to the broadest audience, but in doing so, I think they also insult the audience's intelligence.

Edit: As for cutting Saruman's scene, I don't get how a 5 to 10 minute sequence is so damaging in a film that's already over 3 hours long. A coda is neccessary here, I believe. And really, the Extended DVD's are great, but in the end, they aren't the measuring stick that the series is judged by. Some of the cuts have really damaged continuity in these movies.

 

[dravot]

*expletive deleted*

but heck i didn't expect anything but crap from PJ.

Look up 'luddite' in the dictionary and you'll find a cave drawing of diaglo

 

[diaglo]

Ned Ludd gets a bad rap. but what do you expect from someone from Leicestershire.

 

[Dimwhit]

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.

 

[TiQuinn]

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.

I think this is only partly true. A movie based upon another work is naturally going to be compared to the original, and though a great number of things may change, whether or not the movie stays true to the themes, and to a somewhat lesser extent, the characters of the original material is a potential point of criticism.

 

[diaglo]

I think this is only partly true. A movie based upon another work is naturally going to be compared to the original, and though a great number of things may change, whether or not the movie stays true to the themes, and to a somewhat lesser extent, the characters of the original material is a potential point of criticism.

esp. when the movie did such a hack job...:whistles:

 

[TiQuinn]

esp. when the movie did such a hack job...:whistles:

Oh, go back to coloring in your d20 with that little white crayon. ;-)

 

[Endur]

I agree that movies are a different medium, but a story is a story, whether it is written, on the radio, a movie, a play, a computer game, or in some other medium.

The story should not change even if the medium does change. The original author knew the story far better than any movie adaptation author, and the original author's vision should be "Gospel".

Fellowship of the Ring passed the test of faithfulness to a book. Yes, there were changes, but they were relatively minor. Glorfindel, Tom Bombadil, The Barrow Wight, etc. were removed.

The Two Towers failed the test. There were several changes to the story that detracted. A company of elves at Helm's Deep, Aragon being thrown off a cliff, Orcs with a time-bomb, Faramir's decision regarding Frodo, etc.

I think Return of the King will be true to the original story even if it deleted a few scenes regarding Sauruman. We shall soon see.

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.

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.

 

[kengar]

The Two Towers failed the test. There were several changes to the story that detracted. A company of elves at Helm's Deep, Aragon being thrown off a cliff, Orcs with a time-bomb, Faramir's decision regarding Frodo, etc.

TTT was definitely not as good a film as FOTR, though I liked it too. I agree that the "Aragorn off the cliff" scene was a bit weird and time will tell on the "adaptation" of Faramir (it is supposed to play into his relationship with his father). However, the orcs at Helm's Deep did have a bomb in the books. Saruman's "blasting fire."