A movie

[twyrch]

FantasyFan said:

Oh, definently, the houses of healing was a great part, but looking at the total length of RoTK, even the original version, you've gotta cut something.... especially with Shelobs lair in there.

another part I was dissapointed with was Treebeard. In the books, I loved the chapters with him, Merry, and Pippen. In the movie, however, his part sucked.

The part I missed the most was Mery and Pippen growing taller from the Entwash and the Scouring of the Shire. I listened to Jackson tell us why he did it the way he did and I can see his reasoning, but it still pisses me off.

[CynanMachae]

well y'know the scourging was great in the book, but i don't think it would have gone over very well with the VIEWING audience...

And merry and pippen growing taller IS in the ext. Two Towers

[Child of Immanuel]

One thing I hate about the EE is how Treebeard recites his poems to fish for compliments and ends up boring the hobbits to sleep. ARGHHHHHH!!! lol I'm done now.

That's just an example of how the movies, while well done and very enjoyable, do not have the exquisite depth and beauty of the books.

[CynanMachae]

Child said:

That's just an example of how the movies, while well done and very enjoyable, do not have the exquisite depth and beauty of the books.

Well, it is tough - not impossible, tough - to find a movie that betters the book... especially a movie based on a classic or just a darn-well written book... thats one reason I'm not looking forward to the Narnia movie this Dec....

[twyrch]

FantasyFan said:

Well, it is tough - not impossible, tough - to find a movie that betters the book... especially a movie based on a classic or just a darn-well written book... thats one reason I'm not looking forward to the Narnia movie this Dec....

Oh I Know!!! I own the originals done by BBC but this one sounds like it will be a LOT better.

[Child of Immanuel]

My sisters have some dorky made-for-TV versions... but at least they seem to follow the books. I love those books... read my dad's old copies literally to pieces and had to buy new ones.

[laurelin]

Oh, definently, the houses of healing was a great part, but looking at the total length of RoTK, even the original version, you've gotta cut something.... especially with Shelobs lair in there.

I just want to say this, and then you can move on:
My qualm with cutting that scene does not, however much I love it, come simply from me wanting to see it. I wanted to see the scouring of the Shire, as well, but, as you said, some things have to be cut. However: without the houses of healing, the last we see of Faramir is him nearly dead from an arrow wound and the last we see of Eowyn is her nearly dying from killing the Nazgul, and without any resolution for her suicidal depression. Without something, there isn't any closure to their plotline. They also completely added a plotline with Sam, Frodo and Gollum which was unecessary, overdone, and used up time that was cut out in scenes actually from the book

Now that I've gone on forever ><

Oh, and this is the first I've heard about a Narnia movie. Completely expected, though

[twyrch]

laurelin said:

Oh, and this is the first I've heard about a Narnia movie. Completely expected, though

Narnia Movie

[dinadan]

As to the LotR movies...I think that "Fellowship" was the best, depsite the cutting of Tom Bombadil and the compression of the story at that point, but PJ got insane with the wild success of the EE for it and that influenced a lot of what got cut for the "theatrical" versions of the next two films. He knew that he could play around with the releases of them, because he could fix what die-hard fans didn't like with an EE release just before the next film came out.

I have high hopes for Narnia--time will tell.

As to SoA movies--I think I said on here once before I'd be cool with a (relatively) low-budget tv mini-series, along the lines of Children of Dune or Gormenghast.

[CynanMachae]

twyrch said:

Narnia Movie

I've never heard of any of these actors...

[dinadan]

Well, all the kids are new--which is good. McAvoy has been in some Brit stuff but he starred in the Scifi Channel's Children of Dune, and Tilda Swinton recently played Gabriel in Constantine. And, of course, Brian Cox, who is voicing Aslan, has been in more movies than I can count--recently X-Men II as Stryker.

[CynanMachae]

[quote author=dinadan link=board=Wild&thread=1107190342&start=85#5 date=1111445587And, of course, Brian Cox, who is voicing Aslan, has been in more movies than I can count--recently X-Men II as Stryker.[/quote]

okay... i have seen him at least...

[amodman]

dinadan said:

As to the LotR movies...I think that "Fellowship" was the best, depsite the cutting of Tom Bombadil and the compression of the story at that point, but PJ got insane with the wild success of the EE for it and that influenced a lot of what got cut for the "theatrical" versions of the next two films. He knew that he could play around with the releases of them, because he could fix what die-hard fans didn't like with an EE release just before the next film came out.

I have high hopes for Narnia--time will tell.

As to SoA movies--I think I said on here once before I'd be cool with a (relatively) low-budget tv mini-series, along the lines of Children of Dune or Gormenghast.

Fellowship huh? I dunno...I'd give ya yes and no. Fellowship was the only one that seemed to have an actual beginning and ending of a movie to it, so perhaps it is the best, but at the same time it was also sort of the dullest. However, the opposite could be said of the other two that they tried to do too much. The biggest folly of the LOTR movies I thought, though, was the bloody f***ing up with Faramir. What happened to Faramir the wise? What was the point of this little exscursion to the city with Frodo and Sam? Why was Faramir such an unimportant little female dog? Well, that and ROTK's ending. It was very convoluted and I thought the movies was over like 5 or 6 different times (thinking PJ had taken even more liberties then he did, of course).

p.s. the scene where the hobbits were jumping in the bed with Frodo and Gimli got all happy and teary eyed and everything was just so...bad. I felt inclined to mention that as well.

[dinadan]

Yes, a more strictly textual ending would have been better--the five fade outs really bothered me. And yes, Faramir was horribly mistreated by the film; hell, even Saruman wasn't treated right (imo)--he wasn't a sell out in quite the way the movie painted him. He never wanted to be Sauron's lap dog, he wanted to BE Sauron; it's not quite the same thing. Anyway, yes, the movies are flawed and imperfect, but then, they could never have pleased all the die-hard fans, so I'm just content to have gotten what I got.

Oh, and, btw, the Elves at Helm's Deep really screw up the overall theme that now Men can handle things on their own--which is pretty much what the book boils down to.

[Riothamus]

Jumping right in,

Except for the "Houses of Healing" part mentioned above, and the Frodo-Sam-Gollum triangle of ROTK, most of the changes don't actually bother me (though the skull-stampede in the ROTK EE was pretty rotten.) What bothers me is the way that characters are adulterated for the quick and easy thrill. Exibit: Aragorn. The more I think about him, the more I dislike how they added angst to the mix. The characters in LOTR (and I've gotten in trouble for saying this before, so prepare to pounce,) aren't actually all that complex, because they're bigger than life. (Hobbits excluded.) Aragorn is important, not because he is trying to decide whether to be king, but because he is king. The attempt to add "humanity" (whatever that is,) only waters down the story. Same with Gimli (and I know people that actually think the drinking scene in ROTK EE is funny....), Legolas, Treebeard, Theoden, Denethor, Faramir, Saruman, and every other character in the whole trilogy. Jackson dumbed 'em all down by either (a) making 'em angsty, or (b) turning them into one-note villians/heroes. Jackson just doesn't get LOTR.

That said, there's a lot to like about the movies. However, true to form, I won't bother to put 'em all down. The look, the music, most of the acting, some of the directorial sense, a little of the feel, is all pretty much right. And I do enjoy them. Occasionally. (Incidentally, this opinion is not the one I held at first, as anyone who's been on the Rotunda knows.)