No real discussion of Lord Of The Rings? by chrisisall

Tell me about it.
My best friend thinks I'm gonna buy the gorram 20 disk boxed ultra special edition or whatever. When he starts talkin' about LOTR, I try to change the subject, though I 'spect I sound maybe a little overboard to him when I start on Firefly.

But that's different!

To each his own Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 12:24 PM

PHOEBE

I probably wouldn't get on with your friends so well, LOL. I have a very intense dislike (maybe hatred? not sure if it's that strong) of LOTR. The first movie was passable. The second, good lord. I'm not trying to disrespect you guys here, cause I know it's popular and the series is considered excellent. But it is my humble opinion, that I had to get up twice in TTT and walk around just to stay awake. The third I could enjoy, but overall I found it to be lackluster and boring, stretched far too much over far too long to interest the casual viewer such as myself. IMHO.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 12:36 PM

IMEARLY

I honestly liked the films, however I adored the books. I have not read the written version of our favorite victim of Fox, however I can’t imagine that anything written can compare to the shear depth and characterization in those novels. Tolkien spent his entire life creating the world The Hobbit, LOTR and The Silmarillion took place within. The movies on the other hand were focused too much on stars, as most movies are. They failed to deliver the tale the original novels depicted.

Plus they cut out Tom Bombadil.

Go sign my Guest Book,
http://www.geocities.com/thisbrownhouse
Then download Serenity,
http://homepage.mac.com/rocketplane/FileSharing8.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 12:45 PM

If they were gonna put that much time into it, I feel they should have included everyone.
Plus, the orcs had physical abilities they didn't have in the books( spiderman-like wallclimbing and such).

Word for word Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 12:47 PM

0REAVER0

Yep I really liked the books read'em all J.R.R. Tolken is a great writer in my opionion the movies I liked them all but the first one was by far the best I think and I think they should make a The Hobbit movie because that was alaways my favorite Book of his. and for ur other question i belive u cant really compare these 2 pieces becasue they are so diffrent.

0Reaver0

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 3:11 PM

MONTANAGIRL

Quote:
Originally posted by ImEarly:
Plus they cut out Tom Bombadil.

Which was painfully obvious when they had Treebeard saying Tom's lines to Old Man Willow.

Now I love the movies. I own three versions of each- the regular DVD, the special edition DVD, and a VHS tape so I could watch it when I went home because up until a few months ago Mom and Dad didn't have a DVD player.

BUT, they completely screwed up my Faramir!!! I have an entire rant about it somewhere in this thread.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=8&t=8358
I haven't quite forgiven Jackson for that.

If I had to choose, though, I'd take the books over the movies any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Nothing compares to Tolkein's actual vision, and his wonderful language.

If you can be an idiot, I can be an idiot. - D'Argo

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 3:20 PM

I kinda liked Bakshi's cartoon (woulda liked it a LOT more ifin' he made the sequel!!!)

That Frodo lovin' Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 3:51 PM

CALLMEATH

Wow, I thought my sister was nuts about LOTR. The Christmas I gave her Fellowship she watched (or should I say listened to?) all the commentaries. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the books and movies, but the extended version of each is enough for me.

What didn't you like about Faramir? It's been too long since I've read the books. Again.

"Invader's blood marches through my veins like giant radioactive rubber pants. The pants command me! Do not ignore my veins!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 4:36 PM

SERGEANTX

My son has a book on writing by Orson Scott Card. One of the chapters has an essay on character development where he describes LOTR as one of the greates character studies ever written. This caught my attention since my principal gripe with the books was the rather one dimensional nature of its characters.

He goes on to explain. The 'character' in LOTR is Middle-Earth itself. The book is a study of the land and its history as the principle character. The more I thought about it, things began to make sense. Both of my friends who love the book have a tremendous appreciation, which I lack, for the grandeur and drama of history. I'm wondering if that's a common trait of LOTR fans?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 5:42 PM

MONTANAGIRL

Quote:
Originally posted by CALLMEATH:
What didn't you like about Faramir? It's been too long since I've read the books. Again.

Faramir from the books:

Quote:
"I would not take this thing if I found it by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No, I do not wish for such triumphs, Frodo son of Drogo."

"...but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend..."

"But I am not such a man [to desire the ring]. Or I am wise enough to know that there are some perils from which a man much flee."
-The Two Towers

Faramir from the movie:

Quote:
"The ring goes to Gondor!"
-The Two Towers

Faramir was never tempted by the ring, because he knew who he was and what he wanted out of life, and he realized his own limitations. He was not jealous that his family were Stewards instead of Kings as Boromir was. He did not desire power. He fought only to protect his people and his land, but if he never had to draw sword again he would have been happy. He never thought about taking the ring for himself (or his father). He was a true man of Numenor, however far removed.

They started getting him right in the third movie, but the desecration of his character in the second was a hard pill for me to swallow. I generally skip it when I'm watching because it gets me too worked up.

If you can be an idiot, I can be an idiot. - D'Argo

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 8:07 PM

THEGREYJEDI

My mind exists in Middle-Earth.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Engineer - USS SereniTREE.
http://www.jed-soft.com Gamer Rigs, Budget Prices
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com
Real Fans Wait - 09/30/05

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 12:24 AM

ADELE

I have to agree - the books are fabulous.

OK, very long and involved, but so worth it!

Perhaps it's a symbol of the "modern age" but there doesn't seem to be a lot of patience to take the time it needs to read them now.

One of the problems with the movies was the difficulty in bringing that kind of depth to the screen. All things considered, I reckon they did a good job, but hey, that's just me.

And I'm not saying that you can't have character depth in movies - just that the LOTR was written in a different era, and I doubt Tolkien ever envisaged it on screen, so a lot of it is mental, rather than visual stuff.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 2:40 AM

FREMDFIRMA

I liked LOTR, because I accepted the fact that it's an interpretation of Tolkiens work for visual media, and not so much an attempt to completely and perfectly recreate his genius on the silver screen.

So as a loose interpretation of the basic storyline, I don't think Petey did so bad a job, even if he did veer a little too much into the whole action thing and not quite enough into character development.

Good Stuff
===================
Uber-scary nazgul, total creepification.

Andy as Gollum was just plain miraculous.

The casting for Saruman and Galdalf was perfect, and each actor did the character, and interplay between them, extremely well... of course, I might be a lil biased cause I *always* imagined Gandalf as Ian, even before this film was conceived.

One place I felt the movie did better than the book, was Boromir - whom I never felt one ounce of sympathy for till I saw the movie, because the book did not carry across the awful pressures he was under, nor his basic humanity and courage.

They portrayed Elrond for the hostile, somewhat racist brickhead that he was, which was a pleasant suprise.

Bad Stuff
===================
As mentioned above, Faramir really got slighted.

There are a couple of bad scene cuts, but you'd have to have watched it 'too damn many' times like a firefly fan for those to become obvious and annoying.

Shelob was a wuss, sorry, but she just did NOT cut it for scary evil thing factor, which she damn well shoulda since she's older and nastier than Sauron.

Poor Glorfindel, his part in the piece has been repeatedly usurped by others, in this case Arwen.
(Side note: Comparing wussy little Arwen to badazz Luthien is an insult to Luthiens memory..)

There'd be more, but I gotta get off to work and stuff...
-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 3:16 AM

MRSKBORG

I have been a huge LOTR fan for many, many years. I was extremly worried about these films being made, but I followed the production reports on and off, as well as the casting. And then the first one came out and I loved it. And the second and the third, yes I had gripes - Faramir, as mentioned above,no Tom, and adding the whole Aragorn - Arwen story, it worked though. The casting was pretty much genius all thru, although I think initially Stuart Townsend was supposed to be Aragorn, so glad they changed that one. I have all the extended versons and most of the minor niggles I had dissappeared with those.

"This movie may be a beautiful butterfly, but I loved that damn caterpillar." Joss Whedon.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 3:33 AM

AERONSTORM

I was in a Tolkien class in college when I first heard about the movies being made. Computer-srunk hobbits? This is going to suck! Well, I was wrong, because the computer-shrinking didn't happen that often (it wasn't great when it did, but it will do) and the trick photography was well done.

I agree that Andy Serkis was incredible! He really brought that character to life.

After seeing the movies, I had to go back to the Hobbit and rethink my minds-eye view of the wood-elves, since it was Legolas' dad and such. They always seemed dark and nasty to me before seing the movies. It made that part of the book that much better!

Someone mentioned the Two Towers being boring - well, I have to admit, that part of the book is hard to get through too! Books 3 and 4 are a little boring, but still excellent work!

My biggest beef is people who dare to compare other fantasy to Tolkien. Harry Potter, for example (but I won't get into that - let's just say it's nowhere near Tolkien) The Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan is fair, but it's taking Jordan 11+ books to do what Tolkien did in "three"
(I say three sarcastically, because it was intended as a single book, but publishers split it in to the threee, and sometimes six books we have now!)

My two cents, plus change!

No good deed goes unpunished.
--from the Ferengi Rules of Aquisition

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 3:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
If they were gonna put that much time into it, I feel they should have included everyone.
Plus, the orcs had physical abilities they didn't have in the books( spiderman-like wallclimbing and such).

Word for word Chrisisall

Exactly! I loved the books but I'm a purist and I hated the stupid divergence - expecially Faramir and the whole 2nd film's "Lets scrap a perfectly good plot and replace it with a shit one".

The books a pretty fab in terms of a whole highly developped and imagined other world, but making it into a film sucked.

Possibly cos I knew who should play all the characters in my head and it wasn't who they cast!!

Having said that I did go see all 3 in a row on Janaury 1st at the Barbican - although I ate the feet of the person next to me during the "how the hell do we get to Mordor?" scenes . . .

***************************************

Okay, I'm lost, I'm angry, and I'm
armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 3:38 AM

DIETCOKE

Well I had never heard of Lord of the Rings until I saw the movies which are now my top three all time favorite movies.

I liked them so much I read The Hobbit and then The Lord of the Rings. I like the book even better!

Given that it was a movie I think they did very well in adapting it.

One big complaint, been said many times, Faramir. I just love the guy in the book!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 3:56 AM

IMEARLY

The only way this would have worked is if it had twice the films budget on a mini series format. Perhaps make it as long as the series Taken. Although I cannot complain, I did like the movies for what they are. A dedication to the work of Tolkien and splendid eye candy. Frankly I have read the books several times. The first time, I was in elementary school. Once in High School, and once while working at The United States Disciplinary Barracks, In Fort Leavenworth. I'm sure I will read them again, maybe to my three year old daughter this time.

Go sign my Guest Book,
http://www.geocities.com/thisbrownhouse
Then download Serenity,
http://homepage.mac.com/rocketplane/FileSharing8.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 4:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dietcoke:
Well I had never heard of Lord of the Rings until I saw the movies which are now my top three all time favorite movies.

I liked them so much I read The Hobbit and then The Lord of the Rings. I like the book even better!

The books have a grand and thick sense of history to them, the movies went more for the action, as mentioned above. Now I love action, but some of LOTR came off a little like Aliens. Great action, but that's not why I liked the books.

It got done, and it was done well. But I still like Bakshi's cartoon better.

And as far as best TRILLOGYS go (ooooh I'm gonna get it for this...), I think Back to the Future has it for continuity, solid characterization and satisfactory conclusion.

Pullin' out my umbrella for the s@*tstorm Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 5:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

And as far as best TRILLOGYS go (ooooh I'm gonna get it for this...), I think Back to the Future has it for continuity, solid characterization and satisfactory conclusion.

Pullin' out my umbrella for the s@*tstorm Chrisisall

You are so gonna get it for that!! Although, having said that I do have a serious appreciation for the BTTF trillogy! (or maybe I just have a thing for cute small guys . . . *lost in Michael J Fox moment* . . .

But gotta ask - have you seen Raiders, Temple of Doom and Last Crusade?? - may not be so good on the ol' continuity chestnut - but I'd rate them the best on the basis of three very solid films - none of which is significantly weaker than the others (c.f. Return of the Jedi - Note to self - sounding a lot like Return of the King now I think about it) . . . But then am 'weak and feeble woman' and this preference may just be down to liking strong manly rugged types more than small men . . .

**************************************

Okay, I'm lost, I'm angry, and I'm
armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 6:11 AM

Zoot, I own 'em, I love 'em, but even though the Indy trillogy is great (yes, I loved Temple of Doom too), it's the profound sense of friendship between Marty and Doc Brown that puts BTTF on a slightly higher level for me.
As Bruce Lee would say "We need emotional content". It's definitly there in Last Crusade, but it's not a characteristic of all three installments.

That Delorean lovin' Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 6:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by montanagirl:
BUT, they completely screwed up my Faramir!!! I have an entire rant about it somewhere in this thread.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=8&t=8358
I haven't quite forgiven Jackson for that.

i completely agree. in the movies, he comes off as such a power hungry character but in the books, he is quite kind and understanding of what his place is in the world.

i recently (on monday) finished the trilogy (books) and here are some of my big complaints (forgive some lapses in recounting the books! i only read them once!):

Select to view spoiler:

1. there is not enough explanation of the tight relationship that gandalf and aragorn have before the whole ring quest begins. in the book, it is explained that gandalf and aragorn have been working together for a long time. in the movie, it would have helped to understand why aragorn happened to be at the inn of the prancing pony.

2. there is absolutely no sense for how long gandalf is gone from the shire after he discovers the ring and bilbo leaves. in the book it is an enormous amount of time (something like 12 years) but in the movie, it feels like only a week. this is a minor complaint, but still!

3. what is up with the addition of the elves at helm's deep? was my book missing a few pages? the elves are perfectly happy to help rohan but when gondor could really use more soldiers, the elves are content to leave them to their own devices?

4. it makes sense but the subplot with arwen and aragorn in the movies kind of bugs me. there is very little about it in the books that i can recall. this is just my opinion, though.

the cutting out of certain characters does not bother me so much (like farmer tom or the guy (i forget his name) who is leading the rohirrim (not eomer)). adding the stuff with tom in the first movie would have made it much longer.

my overall opinion was that the movies were great to watch visually. the effects were great and the battle scenes were stunning in scope. the books were fun to read, but i sure did get lost sometimes because the author had so many places made up that everytime a character would mention a new place, i would have no idea what he/she was talking about! still, if you have not read the books but seen the movies, the books are worth a read.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 6:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Zoot, I own 'em, I love 'em, but even though the Indy trillogy is great (yes, I loved Temple of Doom too), it's the profound sense of friendship between Marty and Doc Brown that puts BTTF on a slightly higher level for me.
As Bruce Lee would say "We need emotional content". It's definitly there in Last Crusade, but it's not a characteristic of all three installments.

That Delorean lovin' Chrisisall

I get ya (and I own the BTTF box set my own self) but part of me can't help thinking that, were I Marty, I'd have to be wondering just how bright the Doc really is - its seems to take him an awfully long time to get with the programme sometimes... I mean, certainly the man can turn a pretty slinky car into an impressive piece of time travelling equipment, but how long does it take him to believe Marty is from the future? A pretty damn long time, is how long.... (as I recall, I haven't watched them since last year)...

Plus, emotional content aside, Raiders has Nazis!! Nazis, I mean come on - as the big bad they beat Biff and Lybian terrorists hands down, surely?

Nazis. I hate these guys.

***************************************

Okay, I'm lost, I'm angry, and I'm
armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 7:06 AM

Oh yeah, Zoot, the Indy series DEFINITLY wins on all other levels ('cept continuity), his adventures are so BIG!
It's Just BTTF gets me to bein' all tear stricken and such by the last reel of the third film. Like I'm sayin' by to good friends.

And everyone loves to hate a Nazi!

Needin' to get my Adolph signature Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 7:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Oh yeah, Zoot, the Indy series DEFINITLY wins on all other levels ('cept continuity), his adventures are so BIG!
It's Just BTTF gets me to bein' all tear stricken and such by the last reel of the third film. Like I'm sayin' by to good friends.

And everyone loves to hate a Nazi!

Needin' to get my Adolph signature Chrisisall

AW bless!! Am gettin' a bit teared up myself now!!

"Are you trying to develop a sense of humor or am I going deaf?" Ah Temple o' Doom!!! Sigh!!

****************************************

Okay, I'm lost, I'm angry, and I'm
armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2005 2:56 AM

FREMDFIRMA

>>or the guy (i forget his name) who is leading the rohirrim (not eomer)<<

That would have been Erkenbrand, I do believe.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2005 5:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
>>or the guy (i forget his name) who is leading the rohirrim (not eomer)<<

That would have been Erkenbrand, I do believe.

-F

ah. thanks for the clarification!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2005 5:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoot:
"Are you trying to develop a sense of humor or am I going deaf?" Ah Temple o' Doom!!! Sigh!!

i loved those movies too. just a side note, the actor who played mola ram passed away recently. :(

that is a great line you quoted. too funny.

"that belongs in a museum."
"so do you."

"well jones, at least you haven't forgotten how to show a lady a good time."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2005 8:58 AM

Quote:

BUT, they completely screwed up my Faramir!!! I have an entire rant about it somewhere in this thread.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=8&t=8358
I haven't quite forgiven Jackson for that.

I chimed in on Montanagirl's previous thread about the same things. Farimir was utterly violated in the Two Towers. His character was the stronger in will where Boromir was the greater in battle and leadership. But Boyens, Walsh, and Jackson totally compromised that by allowing him to succumb to the temptation of the ring. I get so angry every time I revisit this issue. That along with the "Sam go Home" sequence in RoTK makes me want to tear my hair out.

Do not fear me. Ours is a peaceful race, and we must live in harmony.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2005 9:18 AM

NXOJKT

I disagree that Faramir comes across as power hungry in the movie. His interest is not in power at all. Faramir's one interest in the movie is pleasing his father. He so wants to please his father, that he's willing to die in order to do so.

My reading of Faramir in the book is that he is a dutiful and loyal servant of his father. He's not tempted by the ring, and that shows him to be of great virtue.

I don't see how that was changed that much in the movie. Yes, he orders that the ring be taken to to his father... not because he wants it, but because that is what he feels his father would want. HOWEVER, once he sees the true effect of the ring he understands the power involved, and he turns it down. To me, that shows even more virtue.

As it is in the books, "Isildur's Bane" and "The Ring of Power" has reached the status of legend... some don't even believe that it exists.
Faramir shows virtue by letting Frodo go.

In the movie, pon hearing that it does exist, he wants to do his duty and bring it to his father -- the duty that his brother died trying to accomplish. After seeing its true power, Faramir shows virtue by letting Frodo go.

Which is more virtuous-- letting something go that you've only heard of; that could possibly help your kingdom? Or letting something go that you've seen the power it possesses?

Think back to the flashback where we see Boromir's victory at Osgiliath-- one can assume this to be the greatest victory in Boromir's life. We see his father's pride over this physical victory by his oldest son. This sets up beautiful visual symmetry for Faramir -- his greatest victory also comes at Osgiliath. His victory isn't one of physcial strength, however. It is one of strength of character and strength of virtue. And this goes to not only strengthen the character of Faramir, IMO, but to strengthen the importance of Osgiliath as a thematic location.

How does the entire LOTR movie begin? With the physical victory over Sauron. The victory is one of strength, while at the same time, a loss because of Isildur's lack of character. The same way that Isilur couldn't turn away from the ring, Boromir couldn't turn away.

Move to end... Frodo and Sam are able to get the ring to Mount Doom because of a strength of character... the same strength of character demonstrated by Faramir in Osgiliath when he allows Frodo to leave.

If you see LOTR as the tale of Middle Earth passing from the Second Age to the Third Age, this makes perfect sense. Boromir represents the Second Age man- who wants to rule by power. Faramir represents the Third Age man, who wants to rule by strength of character (much like Aragorn).

By having Faramir's "victory over the ring" come in Osgiliath, rather than in a secret mountain hiding place, the Boromir/Faramir relationship is put into a more mirror-like representation to the Isildur/Aragorn story-line of strength of arms vs strength of character.

I, for one, feel like the characters of both Boromir and Faramir were fleshed out more in this way on screen than in the book. Faramir had other things in the book - a lot more at the houses of healing in specific - that were sadly left from the book.

As for the Arwen/Aragorn stuff added for the movie -- almost all of this is actually located in the Apendix to the LOTR. I believe it is appendix #2.

The addition of the Elves at Helm's Deep I don't have an explanation for. It was just a decision made by the filmmakers. I don't like or dislike the change either way, because I don't think it really impacts things. If men had not won the battle of the Pellenor Fields that would be different.

As for the difference in the amount of time Gandalf is gone from the Shire before returning with news for Frodo to leave with the ring... I think this is the best change made. My biggest complaint about the book is that it seems for its first 150 pages that there is no urgency. The ring that could allow Sauron to take power and control all of Middle Earth has resurfaced, but it takes years for anyone to do anything about it. That doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense to me. Regardless, it works okay in the book, mainly owing to the fact that Tolkien likely expected you to have read the Hobbitt, and he's setting you up to think this will be a similar tale. In the movie, they had to create a sense of urgency. We, as viewers, needed to understand the power of the ring, and the need to destroy it, immediately. The best way to do this is to speed up the timeline from the discovery of the ring by Gandalf to the meeting of Aragorn at the Prancing Pony.

I enjoy the film and the book on different levels, because they are different things. The same way that no director could have ever captured all of the depth of history and culture Tolkien squeezed into the book (though Jackson and company did a great job), no writer on page could give us the way Sean Astin delivers the line, "I might not be able to carry it for you, but I can carry you." I don't mind changes to the book that don't change the theme or meaning of the story or the characters... because I can still read the book.

Brian

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2005 10:54 AM

And I thought I was the only person who wrote long posts. I have written long ones in the buffy and angel forums about strong feelings I've had regarding issues in those series. If I can get worked up about those shows, in comparision I go totally insane when I discuss the things about LOTR that upset me. I have held this series up in my mind as perhaps the greatest fiction work in the 20th century. I've studied it since childhood and I've even role-played in it under the old rules for MERP in the 80's. I know a LOT about it. This post is about many things. True, it's about the series itself but it's also about what the heart of good storytelling is. It's about the responsibility of authors and filmakers. And ultimately, I'm writing this on a site dedicated to a work of Joss Whedon's, a man I feel has honored his duty to his readers and fans.

The greatest sin a writer or filmmaker can commit is to violate a character. I rant on and on about Willow in season 7 buffy (refer to the buffyverse board if you care) as having been violated in buffy season 7. Here I'm going to focus on LoTR. I understand that filmmakers are forced to make choices when adapting a book to film. They have to avoid "pitfalls" or rather events that transpire in the book they're adapting that would not work well in a film verson. I know LoTR was a supreme challenge to make, I understand and respect that. But I cannot abide violations of core character values. In the 3 films there exist exactly 2 moments when core character traits are compromised.
1. When Faramir succumbs to the temptation of the ring in what I term the "Ring goes to Gondor" scene.
2. When Frodo orders Sam to leave in what I term the "Sam, go home" scene.

Tolkien had carefully established character developments twixt Farimir and his brother. The two TOGETHER represented what a man of Numenor was in the early second age. Strength of body & a leader of men(Boromir), and Strength of will & humility combined with purity of heart(Faramir). Apart they represent what the men of Numenor became after Sauron corupted their hearts and their island was cast into the sea by the Valar after the king dared to set foot on Valinor. We see these traits expressed in their reactions to the Ring of Power, the physical expression of corruption. Boromir is tempted and succumbs to the ring. Ultimately this leads, indirectly, to his death, though he repents at the end. Faramir too is tempted, but read carefully his statement to Frodo in the book(see Montanagirl's post above for exact wording). He does not seek the glory that the ring could bestow. He sees the ring for what it is: the physical expression of evil in the world that must be destroyed. It is because he represents the purity of the men of old that he sees the ring truely. To say that Farimir's actions in the film to "do his duty and take the ring to his father" was honorable is incorrect. To argue that Boromir's actions to likewise take the ring to Denethor were honorable are also incorrect. Boromir was not seeking the ring for Gondor, he was seeking it for himself, regardless of how he lied to himself about it. That is the power of the ring and what it does to the hearts of those who seek glory. Farimir's purity in the book is correctly protrayed. His actions in the film to take the ring to his father are not.

Farimir's intentions aside, what one has to completely understand is not what Farimir's character is doing, but rather why Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens had him do it. They explain in the film's commentary that this change was made because TTT is a book that moves slowly for Frodo and Sam. Also, since the events of the hidden stair and Shelob's lair occur during the events of RoTK for everyone else, they had a major writing pitfall to overcome. The change was made, NOT because Faramir wanted to take the ring to his father, but because the film needed more screen time devoted to Frodo and Sam. It's a book-to-film translation issue. My response to that problem? They should have still done nothing. This film is a trilogy after all, the viewers will understand. They could have simply spaced out the Frodo/Sam sequences more and dealt with them not being uber-active. The film was so centered on the Helm's Deep events anyway, it would have worked out just fine. As for rationalizations about how taking the ring then letting go of Frodo shows greater quality, I don't agree. One does not take the ring of power for someone else (Farimir taking ring for his father), he takes it for himself. Gandalf expresses this perfectly in the first film when he pleads "Don't...TEMPT me Frodo!" This Istari wizard knows all to well what would happen should he ever take possession of the ring, which is why he NEVER NEVER touches it after his first suspicious encounter with it on Bilbo's livingroom floor. Allowing Faramir to take possession of the ring by taking possession of Frodo then allowing it to escape opens up a whole new subset of philosophical issues.

Now, the "Sam Go Home" scene, an issue not previously mentioned on this thread, was a worse mistake. Sam represents many things in the tale. "Loyality unto Death" is one of them. Sam is a reflection of a Batmen, an enlisted attendant to a WWI british officer. Tolkien's own Batmen was a man of great loyality and is reflected in the character of Sam. Sam always shows respect (Mr. Frodo instead of just Frodo), he attends to Frodo's needs (cooking for example, also allowing Frodo to sleep more often), and is ever alert for dangers that would harm his master, (his ever watchful eye on Gollum). To change the story on the hiden stair to say that Gollum tosses the waybread off the mountain thus setting up a confrontation was infuriating and absurd. It never happens in the tale and there is no reason for it in the film. No pitfall is being avoided by the writers. There is utterly nothing redeaming about it at all. And when I am forced to sit and watch as Frodo enters Shelob's lair alone, I want to cry. Would Tolkien's batmen have abandoned his officer when it was time to charge out of the trenches and into German machinegun fire? Would he have left a wounded officer to fend for himself? To watch as Frodo suffers through the horror of Shelob's lair, then endures an encounter with the demon spider herself all alone was a terrible misdeed committed against the author of the book.

When I recieved my copy of the extended RoTK I jumped directly to the hidden stair sequence to listen to the writers commentary about the situation and I sat unbelieveing at what I heard. Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens did not change things for any reason at all, they just did it on a whim. And not a one of them expresses any sort of regret over it. At least with the Farimir situation I can achieve a semi-logical closure related to adapting a book to film. But with this....terrible alteration of character....I just feel sick.

I have a laundry list of things I think the 3 films did right, and about an even list of things done wrong. But with the issues of Faramir and Sam, I figured they warrented their own post.

Do not fear me. Ours is a peaceful race, and we must live in harmony.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2005 11:24 AM

NXOJKT

I think you misunderstood my point regarding Faramir deciding to take the ring to his father out of duty. It's my assertion that he gave no real thought to the ring... it was simply what his father wanted. He wasn't taking "it" for himself because he was giving no consideration to what "it" was... only to the desire of his father to have "it," and his duty to provide his father what he wanted. In the scene where Frodo is confronted by the Nazgul, Faramir sees the ring as the ring, as what it actually is. As you put it, "the physical expression of evil in the world that must be destroyed." Upon actually being confronted with the ring as what it is, he maintains his purity from the book, by letting it go.

I understand why people get upset at the idea that Faramir's character has been ruined if he wants the ring. I just don't see it as him wanting the ring. I see it as Faramir wants simply to please his father... no consideration is given to the ring, because he doesn't really have an understanding of what the ring is. He knows of it through legend. I would say Faramir's decision to take Frodo to Gondor is done out naivety more than anything. A naivety removed in Osgiliath by actually seeing the ring for what it is.

The other thing that has to be taken into consideration is that this movie had to be accesible for those had not read the book. My guess is that the real reason for this, as well as the "Sam go home" scene is simply to create tension for those who are not familiar with the book. If you think Faramir wants the ring, it creates tension. If you think Sam is leaving Frodo, it creates tension. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with the idea of changing things for the sake of creating tension...

I didn't much care for the "Sam go home" scene. But I had no problem with the way Faramir was dealt, because, as I said, the way I see it, when Faramir was actually faced with the decision of what to do with the ring, he let it go. Whether that takes place at Osgiliath or in the secret cave doesn't matter (to me). And, to me, he wasn't actually making a decision as to what to do with the ring in the cave... he was making a decision to please his father with no consideration given to something that he didn't understand.

Certainly there are things that could have been done better by the filmmakers. I personally think that it is not made clear why Denethor has gone insane. In the book we know that the palantir is responsible. Why not show him using the palantir? The houses of healing is one of my favorite scenes in the book. Why is it glossed over? Ultimately I concentrate on the things done well, which is a lot... because for me, the book is still the book (and Peter Jackson says this a lot), and I can go read my copy any time I'd like. The movie is a cliff's notes version, done better than I could possibly have imagined. I understand the idea of wanting to protect the intent and character of a story. I think there are ways of accomplishing that goal that differ from the way they are in the book. And I feel that is how Faramir's character is dealt with.

Brian

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2005 11:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by nxojkt:
I just don't see it as him wanting the ring. I see it as Faramir wants simply to please his father... no consideration is given to the ring, because he doesn't really have an understanding of what the ring is. He knows of it through legend. I would say Faramir's decision to take Frodo to Gondor is done out naivety more than anything. A naivety removed in Osgiliath by actually seeing the ring for what it is.

I get what you are saying. I guess I can accept that as an explaination and I don't begrudge it. But honestly, I really think the film would have been a better experience had Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens not changed things.

One thing I marveled at though was the incredible similiarities between Sean Bean and David Wenham. When you see them together there in the Flashback sequence in the extended Two Towers, it actually FEELS like they truely are brothers. What great casting.

Do not fear me. Ours is a peaceful race, and we must live in harmony.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2005 10:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by est120:
Quote:
Originally posted by Zoot:
"Are you trying to develop a sense of humor or am I going deaf?" Ah Temple o' Doom!!! Sigh!!

i loved those movies too. just a side note, the actor who played mola ram passed away recently. :(

that is a great line you quoted. too funny.

"that belongs in a museum."
"so do you."

"well jones, at least you haven't forgotten how to show a lady a good time."

"Street Vendor: Water?
Marcus Brody: No thank you, fish make love in it."

You know I could quote these all day….

What was the name of the actor who played Mola Ram – he looked kinda familiar?

Have you see a site:
www.findadeath.com/

Its run by a friend of mine, Scott Michaels, (well, I say friend, I met him a few times at the pub while he lived in England – Haven’t seen him for a couple of years)!! Its very good and he always likes to be told if actors die….

And now back to the in depth discussion of Faramir’s psychological motivation ….

“You're gonna get killed chasing after your damn fortune and glory!”

***************************************

Okay, I'm lost, I'm angry, and I'm
armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2005 1:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoot:
"Street Vendor: Water?
Marcus Brody: No thank you, fish make love in it."

here is a link to the actor:
http://imdb.com/name/nm0700869/

does anybody here speak english? or even ancient greek, how about that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2005 2:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by est120:
Quote:

does anybody here speak english? or even ancient greek, how about that?

Thanks for link!

And for quote - as classicist myself, well schooled in Ancient Greek - know just how he feels!!

I'm going home to Missouri where they never feed you snakes before ripping your heart out and lowering you into hot pits!

***************************************

Okay, I'm lost, I'm angry, and I'm
armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2005 3:00 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

LOTR is it. Period. That's my view, anyway. And yes, I do own all 3 box DVDs. And then some. But between FF and LOTR, I don't like to say one is 'better' than the other. Perhaps because the story is finished is why we don't continue to hear more ongoing chatter.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2005 6:02 AM

BLACKOUTNIGHTS

Montanagirl,

I agree with you totally. Most of the changes and/or exclusions between the book and movie didn't bother me, but screwing Faramir's charcter was out of line and missed, in my opinion, one of the main points about humanity Tolkein was trying to make — that is, we're all tempted by different things.

Power hungry men were tempted by the ring, but those with no desire for power, like our boy Faramir, did not desire it. The one thing that sort-of makes up for this betrayal in the movies is in the extended version (it may be in the original too, but I don't remember for sure) of TTT when Faramir releases Frodo and Sam and Sam says he's shown his true character. THAT's Faramir.

I don't blame Jackson for it since he didn't write the script, but it's a shame the writers didn't get it. It's a real shame.

I've also got to say that Tolkein wasn't really that great of a writer. Don't misinterpret what I'm saying. He was one of the best storytellers, but as a writer in general I don't like his style and prefer George R.R. Martin. But Tolkien's story beats Martin's.

"You're either in or you're out, and I'm playing to the in."—Greg Dulli.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2005 6:21 AM

NXOJKT

There are a lot of things that we can say would have made LOTR better had they not been changed -- because we read the book first. I have friends who had not read it until seeing the movie, and they prefer some of the movie ways. Like I said, there are some changes I liked and some I didn't.

The physical similarities between Sean Bean and David Wenham in the film are even more shocking to me when I see them out of makeup. The technical achievements in makeup, costuming, set design, music, etc... those are the things that made this adaptation work. Which is how it should be. The book works because of the small details. It makes sense that the film should work for the same reason.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 10:03 AM