What the fuck, over?
At least the first one sort of almost kept the main storyline similar to that of the book. This one doesn't even try. 5 minutes into it, and I'm just disgusted at the pointless changes.
One wonders why they even bothered with the Tolkein license.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
*Edit: I haven't noticed many or bad changes. But then, I have read the books over a decade ago.* [ 09-05-2003: Message edited by: Tarquinn ]
quote:
Tarquinn startled the peaceful upland Gorillas by blurting:
It's still a great Fantasy movie. Yep, even in german.
That's the thing: if they gave it a different name, and changed the characters' names, it would be a great fantasy movie. As it is, it's just a horribly confused rendition of the best fantasy ever written, produced by someone who fell asleep halfway through, and thinks he could do a better job telling the story, anyway.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Skaw absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
Yeah, any movie based on a book, don't go in expecting it to be a visual-based clone. You'll be upset.
Ah, but there's a difference between changes necessary to switch to a visual medium, and pointless bullshit.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
Edit for victory! 
Though I agree that a large part of the ents' story should've been kept, especially the Huorns. And Faramir just got screwed into being some quasi-evil minicharacter instead of the "saviour of man" that he was in the book.
Oh, and they really should've ended on the climax of Shelob. That would've been rather interesting to do.
You have to expect some changes between novel & movie, as you simply cannot fit all of the novel into the big screen and expect the masses to watch it.
They even had to cut TTT short of shelobs lair because it'd go over the 3 hour mark.
quote:
Drakkenmaw had this to say about Robocop:
Staying true to the novel itself would've been, frankly, irritating. The fact that they jumped viewpoints repeatedly instead of focusing on one, then the other, is personally preferable.Though I agree that a large part of the ents' story should've been kept, especially the Huorns. And Faramir just got screwed into being some quasi-evil minicharacter instead of the "saviour of man" that he was in the book.
Oh, and they really should've ended on the climax of Shelob. That would've been rather interesting to do.
They could have, but the movie would have been closer to 5 hours if they were to strictly adhere to the book.
quote:
Reynar spewed forth this undeniable truth:
They could have, but the movie would have been closer to 5 hours if they were to strictly adhere to the book.
And it would have sucked.
If I check my watch during my first viewing of a movie, that's my indication of how much it sucked. A five hour movie would have me chewing through my wrist.
I checked my watch three times in Matrix Reloaded, once in T3, and none in TTT.
If you think you can do better, then by all means go ahead. Otherwise stop crying because you aren't the center of the universe.
Edit: Omg stfu Kat, >:( [ 09-05-2003: Message edited by: Sean ]
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Sean said:
Otherwise stop crying because you aren't the center of the world.
<ahhhs and is sucked into orbit around the bald head of Sean's sigpic> Kitsune-Satellite!
quote:
Sean attempted to be funny by writing:
And it would have sucked.If I check my watch during my first viewing of a movie, that's my indication of how much it sucked. A five hour movie would have me chewing through my wrist.
I checked my watch three times in Matrix Reloaded, once in T3, and none in TTT.
If you think you can do better, then by all means go ahead. Otherwise stop crying because you aren't the center of the universe.
*Shrug.* They're including more with the ents, and the Huorns, and more of Gondor in the expanded edition to be released this November.
Obviously, they think enough people agree that it would be nice to include that - so they're releasing a version that does. Appease the purists and cater to the casual viewer. Y'know, none of that stupid "if you don't like it shut up" mentality that you want to avoid when trying to sell products.
quote:
Drakkenmaw had this to say about pies:
*Shrug.* They're including more with the ents, and the Huorns, and more of Gondor in the expanded edition to be released this November.
I'm all for extended version DVDs, but you don't want your theatrical release to be four, four and a half, or five hours long.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
We were all impressed when Sean wrote:
I'm all for extended version DVDs, but you don't want your theatrical release to be four, four and a half, or five hours long.
It wouldn't have to be. In fact, it'd be SHORTER if they did what Faramir was supposed to do - discover the ring, and reject it. He did that in the cave.
That bugged me. I actually liked the increased presence of the elves, but they really did screw him over. He was supposed to be the symbolism that, sometimes, humanity actually CAN do the right thing without a grand leadership compelling them.
*Shrug.* But then again, I didn't make any Oscar-winning films. Just my thoughts. [ 09-05-2003: Message edited by: Drakkenmaw ]
[ 09-05-2003: Message edited by: Drakkenmaw ]
quote:
Reynar startled the peaceful upland Gorillas by blurting:
Aside from Faramir, Ent, and the added love scene changes, I saw nothing else major.You have to expect some changes between novel & movie, as you simply cannot fit all of the novel into the big screen and expect the masses to watch it.
They even had to cut TTT short of shelobs lair because it'd go over the 3 hour mark.
Um, the entire Rohan thing was dorked up. As was the focus of the two towers--should've been Minus Tirith and Barad Dur. And the Arwen thing was totally out of left field.
And don't give me the crap about changes being necessary for the switch to visual media. Most of the changes are simply arbitrary, or PC, or--worst of all--to add extraneous drama.
They've turned Gimli into nothing more than comic relief.
Frodo is, frankly, a pussy. Not even likeable. They either skip or assign to other characters all of the things in the book that show his inner strength. You know, the whole key to the story.
And I'd rather they spent more time with each group, rather than the constant flashing-back-and-forth. Guess I'm just not the MTV generation, and can't appreciate such niceties.
I couldn't even sit through it. The visuals are nice--I especially like how they did Treebeard (visually)--but they've turned a fantastic story into cheap pulp fantasy.
"Ooh, ick," as Penfold used to say.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Quoth Lenlalron Flameblaster:
It tried to hard to be mainstream. It's a great movie (maybe that's because I haven't read the books) but I can imagine where some people have felt betrayed.
It probably is a good movie if you haven't read the books.
It's like being promised a yummy mint chocolate chip pie. . .and being given a delicious T-bone steak. It's still a good meal, as long as no one tries to tell me it's mint chocolate chip pie, only formatted to be served warm.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Um, the entire Rohan thing was dorked up. As was the focus of the two towers--should've been Minus Tirith and Barad Dur. And the Arwen thing was totally out of left field.And don't give me the crap about changes being necessary for the switch to visual media. Most of the changes are simply arbitrary, or PC, or--worst of all--to add extraneous drama.
They've turned Gimli into nothing more than comic relief.
Frodo is, frankly, a pussy. Not even likeable. They either skip or assign to other characters all of the things in the book that show his inner strength. You know, the whole key to the story.
And I'd rather they spent more time with each group, rather than the constant flashing-back-and-forth. Guess I'm just not the MTV generation, and can't appreciate such niceties.
I couldn't even sit through it. The visuals are nice--I especially like how they did Treebeard (visually)--but they've turned a fantastic story into cheap pulp fantasy.
"Ooh, ick," as Penfold used to say.
Gimli was great as comic relief, an awesome change. In the books Gimli was nothing more then an afterthought during most of it, they finally gave him purpose, even if it was only being the clown.
Frodo is supposed to be a pussy in TTT, it's when the ring is starting to wear him down, it'll happen again in RoTK also. Frodo's entire reason for leaving the rest of the group showed a good measure of courage. I think you're seeing things that aren't there.
But you're more then entitled to your own opinion, but I still think it was very well done, but I expected it to be somewhat different from the book, that's how movies go. Just look at every Tom Clancy novel that has been made into a movie, you simply must change them to 'fit' the big screen.
Whether or not they get changed for the better is simply up to each person. I for one cannot wait for RoTK.
quote:
Bloodsage attempted to be funny by writing:
I'm just getting around to watching The Two Towers, since, you know, it just wouldn't have been the same if I saw it in the theater--in German.What the fuck, over?
At least the first one sort of almost kept the main storyline similar to that of the book. This one doesn't even try. 5 minutes into it, and I'm just disgusted at the pointless changes.
One wonders why they even bothered with the Tolkein license.
The version of TTT you watched was the one Jackson thought broadest moive going audience would like. In december (I think its about then), he will relsease the directers cut like he did with Fellowship. Which I heard is 45 more minutes he could not fit in to the movie. It only improved the Fellowship perhapse the second version will be more to your liking.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
The same thing applies here. They could appeal to the hardcore fans of the book and keep everything the same, or they can appeal to the general moviegoing audience. Or they can strike a balance. This is something they had to do with Two Towers. More drama? Yes. How else are you going to place yourself into the shoes of the characters? This isn't a book and it isn't your imagination. Sometimes you need a little nudge, and a character's reaction to difficulty is probably the best way to do it.
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Suddar absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
There's this whole debate I remember hearing about, over the (supposed) next Fallout. Do they keep it true to Fallout 1 and 2, or do they add newer things to appeal to the next generation? While the Fallout games aren't that old, the technology is, and there are new things they can try now, with technology being more advanced.The same thing applies here. They could appeal to the hardcore fans of the book and keep everything the same, or they can appeal to the general moviegoing audience. Or they can strike a balance. This is something they had to do with Two Towers. More drama? Yes. How else are you going to place yourself into the shoes of the characters? This isn't a book and it isn't your imagination. Sometimes you need a little nudge, and a character's reaction to difficulty is probably the best way to do it.
So you totally make up shit, and you assign major actions to different characters, and you shift the focus of the entire story?
Again--why bother with the Tolkein license at all?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Now, I am going for my afternoon walk. Sorry the movie didn't do it for you though.
I don't know, guess I'm just more forgiving on this one.
Thinking about your posts
(and billing you for it) since 2001
However, in TTT, they didn't edit out things that were unnecessary. They rewrote the novel unnecessarily. Why in god's name did Arwen head out to go West? In the novel she never did. Now the only way to fix this shit is to write even MORE extraneous material to re-add her to the mix.
The fact Tolkien said in some bastard retrospective conversation that originally Aragorn was to be with Eowyn but he altered it to be Arwen after all? Nice footnote, but the fact is that the version Tolkien went to print with, the one he chose of his own volition, was that Aragorn be with Arwen. Pete Jackson and his wife don't, frankly, have the right to dick with that. It stopped being Tolkien's Lord of the Rings right there and turned into "Nerdy Hobbit Film Maker's Lord of the Rings".
And it only got worse from there!
There was never any question in the novel if the Ents were going to be involved. They just took a long time sorting out what to do. But to expand Merry and Pippin's role in TTT, they had them trick Treebeard into seeing what Saruman had done. Uhm...Treebeard knew that Saruman was falling from grace (or suspected as much) for years before Saruman turned. The Ents (and especially the Huorns) were pissed that Saruman had started tearing up the trees of Isengard.
Then the Huorns don't show up to eliminate their assailants, their tormentors, the very entities they hate most at the Battle of Helm's Deep? They were there. They were the suddenly-appearing, very angry, very pissed off forest that shredded part of the Orc/Uruk-Hai army.
In the movie, there's no mention of the Huorns at all. None. What's wrong, PJ? Got the ability to show off the mass-combat engine for the humanoids of Helm's Deep, but not for the Huorns? Moron.
And hold on to your butts, because it only got worse!
Faromir. Boromir was the first born, the eldest, the better treated of the two brothers. He was brave, he was noble, he tried to live up to the ideals his father laid down. UNFORTUNATELY, his desire to do good blinded him, and he fell to the temptation of the Ring.
Faromir, on the other hand, had seen things rougher. He was not, perhaps, as strong of arm as Boromir, nor was he as loved as his brother. But Faromir was far, FAR wiser than his brother, more of a tactician, more of a thinker. Boromir was a Marine, Faromir was Special Forces.
And instead, in the movie he's a roguey-rangery, sneaky, tempted-by-the-Ring mofo.
I could have done with less of the Gollum comic relief scenes and more of fidelity to the book.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Peter wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
I liked the movies, but I fear RotK Will get really messed up. Jackson seems to focus way to much on the epic battles, spending to long on them. And I predict that because he shoved Shelobs part in to the third movie, He will decide to minimize or cut out the battle of the shire, which I felt was probably the most important battle in the whole book. The first one was good, 2 and 3 I feel will end up in the same category as Starship Troopers; nice movies if you forget about the book.
The scourging of the shire has been confirmed to be cut.
I understand that in some parts they are identical, and in some parts, they are polar opposites.
I went into both FotR and TTT expecting just what they billed it as: a retelling, based on the Tolkien novels.
Was it the book? Pfft. Not in the least. Was it good, even great work? I don't think it can be denied that the cinematography and directing were top notch, and commendations could be rewarded for the acting and action. (the CGI, I presume, needs no mention.) Even the soundtrack, as in FotR, fit the scenes perfectly--and heck, at times it was even funny.
So the question is--is it a good movie? By all quantification, I think so. The most common complaint I've heard about it hasn't been "the acting sucked," "the direction was crap," "it was boring"--in fact, it's one of the few movies I've seen in my life for which I have heard none of the above. The most common complaint has been "it's not the book." And there really IS no defense for that: it is, decidedly, not the book.
It comes down to expectations, in my opinion. Can one acknowledge that the movie can be great, and tell the same basic story, without adhering to the book's specific plot? Simultaneously, can a fan of the books enjoy the less-detailed/more-dramatic Hollywood retelling?
I did. I love them both equally. They're not the same story--but they're both told convincingly, and that's what matters to me.
If you didn't like the movie itself, that's rather a different story. But I don't see the point in saying "the movie wasn't the book, so I don't like it."
[edit: hate keyboard, however] [ 09-05-2003: Message edited by: Leopold, the Voice of Reason ]
I have always loved the idea-story of LotR, I grew up with all the toon variations of the Hobbit and such. It was a great tale, and a great story, but I didn't really like the original execution of it in the books.
In fact I personally couldn't stand anything Tolkein wrote. Trying to read his works was like torture for me... I tried, I tried several times, in fact I tried again right before the first movie came out, and it STILL bored me to tears to no end. I'd be lucky if I didn't fall asleep just trying to get into it. It's a great story and idea, but I could never get into the books and found them droll. The movies, for me at least, took out a lot of the boring idealisms I couldn't handle in the books, and catered more to making a really good, really entertaining movie experience for me. While still getting the original intent in plots, at least close enough, to where the story progresses as expected, but without putting the viewer to sleep within the first few minutes.
It is also labeled an 'adaptation' and not a translation. So its been adapted to one persons ideals, but still using the same general overall plot and characters. It greatly entertains me at least, so thats good enough for me.
quote:
A sleep deprived Faelynn LeAndris stammered:
In fact I personally couldn't stand anything Tolkein wrote. Trying to read his works was like torture for me... I tried, I tried several times, in fact I tried again right before the first movie came out, and it STILL bored me to tears to no end. I'd be lucky if I didn't fall asleep just trying to get into it. It's a great story and idea, but I could never get into the books and found them droll.
I know exactly how you feel. Glad I'm not the only one who can't stand Tolkien's writings. =) Great imagination, but his writing style just bored me to tears.
quote:
Addy painfully thought these words up:
I know exactly how you feel. Glad I'm not the only one who can't stand Tolkien's writings. =) Great imagination, but his writing style just bored me to tears.
Same. I much prefer hearing about the books through friends and/or movies than reading them myself. Sooo boring.
quote:
A sleep deprived Addy stammered:
I know exactly how you feel. Glad I'm not the only one who can't stand Tolkien's writings. =) Great imagination, but his writing style just bored me to tears.
Don't mean to bandwagon, but I feel the same way.
quote:
Leopold, the Voice of Reason had this to say about dark elf butts:
...I went into both FotR and TTT expecting just what they billed it as: a retelling, based on the Tolkien novels.
....
However this is moving away from a retelling to a butchering of a great work. If He wants to tell a different story then go ahead and do it as an original work, or even as a crafty knock off, rather than alter someone elses hard work and vision cause you can't be as creative.
One thing that has been bugging me is Jackson is touting around how he has this end all be all CG effect studio and he is still using miniatures, and not even all that well. I spotted that in the first movie, Minis just seems to grate against the eye when used with anything else. I swear I want to beat this guy every time he says he is using cutting edge FX when he is using mostly dated stuff.
Every scene that involves Arwen and Aragon make me want to stab my eyes out. It like watching anime were you have a nicely flowing sequence and then smack dab in the middle of the Bad guy goes of into his diatribe on how the good guy and his beliefs are retarded, going on for 5 minutes ruing the whole sequence. [ 09-06-2003: Message edited by: Peter ]
