Twice, now, I have been irritated by the stuff left out.
Twice, now, I have seen the Extended Editions, and said, “Well, that wasn’t EVERYTHING, but it’s better now.”
I’m willing to forgive. The very idea that this insane epic project ever got off the ground at all, much less finished, much less not sucking like a black hole that needs crack money for its pimp, is simply more than I could have asked for, so I ain’t gonna bitch.
At least, not until I see the ROTK EE.
THEN, maybe I’ll start pricing hit men or whatever…
Actually, I was thinking the same thing, but after seeing it again tonight, I noticed that she nailed it a good 3-4 times before the head came off. And even then, it looks kind of like she only got most of the way through and its own weight ripped off the rest. It’s the camera cuts that make it hard to follow her various blows.
But nothing can explain how she toppled the Oliphant by slashing at their legs with that little thing.
Speaking of Oliphants, the bit where Legolas climbs the Oliphant to nail the guys in it was the first moment in all the films when I couldn’t accept what was happening because the CGI was inadequate. It was worse than Spiderman. Who’s with me? Eh? Eh?
There are some things that I didn’t like. I missed some of the original dialogues and some of the minor scenes that I have grown to love. I really didn’t like the 9 endings. One or two would have sufficed. I miss the scouring of the shire. I miss mayor Samwise Gamgee. I miss a lot of stupid little things (I do not miss Tom or the songs).
All that however can’t compare to seeing all those things you imagined in real life or at least on a really really big screen. I never in my mind’s eye imagined Gandalf the White so magestic. Or the orcs so numbingly different. Or the pain on Frodo and Sam’s faces as they slowly trudge up mount doom.
PJ really embarked on an epic journey and delivered what most people never could have. I remember him commenting that he did the movie because no one else had and he felt there should be one. The reason the movies weren’t made is that they are enormous. One story, devided into three volumes or six books. More material than any other movie at the box office (counting all three as one). A brilliant but gigantic cast. Scenery that I didn’t know actually existed. Towns that were built, creatures that were created.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chavardz *
**There are some things that I didn’t like. I missed some of the original dialogues and some of the minor scenes that I have grown to love. I really didn’t like the 9 endings. One or two would have sufficed. I miss the scouring of the shire. I miss mayor Samwise Gamgee. I miss a lot of stupid little things (I do not miss Tom or the songs).
**
I sense a contradiction here: you say you didn’t like the 9 endings…and then you suggest a couple more!
I got the ‘epic’ feel especially when the City of the Dead awakened and then again at the Black Gates and the fall of Sauron (which was done excellently except for the comically ‘frantic’ eye movements as he fell).
The only complaint about the movie was that Strider’s becoming a king was not as fleshed out as it should have been. There should have been more of a reaction from the race of men like “Yes! The King has Returned! Rock-on!”
He just kind of stepped up and had the crown put on and the people were like “Yeah, ok.”
There was no “Oh Wow! He’s really the King?” or anything like that.
The Arwen story was shoe-horned in there pretty tight. The EE version will hopefully open that up better, too.
I loved the Crack of Doom scene, it was just how I had pictured it.
The only distraction to me was when Gollum was on Frodo’s invisible back. It looked silly and threw me out of my belief of the reality of the CGI character.
My issue is with Sam and Frodo. It’s been a while since I’ve read the books, but I had the distinct impression that Sam was more of a gruff stoic (in the movie see the battle with Shelob). Turning him into a weepy romantic just seemed very wrong (in the movie see almost every other scene). And Frodo – my god, one more heartfelt gaze into Sam’s eyes while breathlessly saying tender words of appreciation and I was out of there.
Basically, what dangerosa said in an earlier spoiler post – it was a movie for pervy hobbit fanciers. For me, give me more of Gandalf in the streets of Minas Tirith, swinging a sword in one hand and a staff in the other. (If nothing else, this movie should put to rest all of the “who would win, Gandalf or Dumbledore” questions!)
Still, even with all the soft lit hobbit eyelash batting, it was a great movie.
That aside, my chief complaint is with the screenplay, and the changes to the characters. I like to think that the following complaints are purely from a literary and plot analysis standpoint. If any Dopers disagree, and think that I’m being a curmudgeonly purist, I will consider your opinion with respect.
Anyway, Peter Jackson and his co-writers delight in weakening the dignity and resolve of many major characters. Let’s run down the list first, and then I will try to elaborate on why these changes gall me in particular.
With that aside, I ask myself:
So why these changes?
My theory is that the writers were buying into a trusted literary guideline that the story is more interesting if characters have a character arc, meaning they have to overcome some internal obstacle, whether it’s conquering a fear, or deciding to do the right thing in the end. My problems with Peter Jackson’s slavish overuse of this device are:
Just because it’s Hollywood fashion to use this device, doesn’t necessarily make it a good idea for all occasions, nor should you try to use this device for every character in your epic.
Most of the characters already did have obstacles to overcome, and did so neatly. For example, Faramir faced his test of quality right there in the cave when he learned that his prisoners carried the One Ring. Why elongate his test (and darken his character) to include a badly put-together and semi-incoherent scene in Osgiliath?
In fact, the new character arcs took screen time away from ones that were already there, and had to be cut (such as Eowyn’s spiritual recovery - “I no longer desire death” in the Houses of Healing). Because of facts like this, I don’t buy the explanation that characters had to be changed to cut down the length of the story.
It looks like Peter Jackson just didn’t trust the integrity and wonder of the original story and characters. He played the standard Hollywood trick of simplifying and exaggerating character traits. (eg Denethor: he prefers one son over the other? He tries to burn the other son? Why he’s a BAD MAN!! Let’s make him a REALLY BAD MAN! Let’s make him a weak-hearted, weak-minded semi-villain!)
Ahem. I’m ranting. Sorry. Truthfully, I really enjoyed the film. I just don’t like when screenwriters don’t trust their source, their medium, nor their audience, and have to insert modern formulas into the plots.
But here’s the deal - so? Why is that a departure from the book? Fine, in the book, and in that solitary scene, Gollum falls in. But people are very much forgetting Gollum’s sneak attack directly before they enter the Crack. Frodo says that if Gollum ever touches the Ring again, Gollum is commanded to take his own life.
Seems like PJ combined two related parts of the book into one concise part in the movie.
The movie was not “Eh” for me but it was inconsistent. ALrge protion of it was excellent, but then parts of it were “Eh” or even worse. First of all, way too much of the wide, high, panaoramic, wide-angle shots that must pound us over the head of how grand everything is. Second, the ending, but there were about five endings, and it seems that each one finished with a close-up of Frodo, except the last with just Samwise…Frodo at the coronation…Frodo in the bar…Frodo at the wedding…Frodo on the boat.
Also, the movie (I cannot speak of the books, where it is quite likely better explaine) there is too many cases of Deuxs Ex Machina or similar…the Eagles? Huh? Where did they come from?..the army of the dead? I got that there was a backstory, but it still seemed extremely convenient, like their only purpose was to be around to fight this last battle… Samwise showing up just in the nick of time to save Frodo…time and time again…from Orrcs, from Smeagol, etc…
Also, why couldn’t they re-forge the sword of the King earlier, did I miss something from one of the earlier movies (very likely)?
I don’t think you’re excessively purist… I agree with many of your points, and only a few detracted from my enjoyment of the three (one?) LOTR films:
quote:
Book Elrond: Wise and serene.
Movie Elrond: Wise, but bitter and defeatist.
Elrond’s attitude in the film, to me, is consistent with Galadriel’s compelling remark from the book about “the long defeat.”
The Elrond in the book is, IMHO, less interesting - a font of wisdom, but not as much a character. The conflicts with Arwen, and the subtextual anger with Aragorn, are alluded to in the book and the appendices, but you don’t really get to see it. And, I think, Elrond’s “bitterness” always advances the story.
quote:
Book Arwen: Steadfast and loyal to Aragorn. She’s made her choice; she sticks to it.
Movie Arwen: Allows herself to be persuaded to leave for the Grey Havens… would have left in the middle of the night without telling Aragorn.
“Bitter was (Elrond and Arwen’s) parting” was all it said in the book, and that to me wasn’t enough.
It’s a plausible change. Sometimes it’s better not to say goodbye, especially since Aragorn knew she had to make this choice and couldn’t wait for the war to end to make up her mind. And it’s much more believable for Arwen’s conflict to be illustrated than for her to abandon her father.
quote:
(Aragorn vs. Aragorn)
(Although, in all other ways he’s perfect: even in his arrogance against King Theoden in Edoras, which recalls his book scene at the doors of Meduseld, when he challenges Theoden’s authority to have him remove his Sword that was Broken.)
There are surely other ways to represent Aragorn’s maturing to kingship (at the age of 87!)… but I for one thought PJ made a good choice here.
quote:
Movie Eomer: Due to a (not unskillful) plot change, exiled thanks to Wormtongue. However, once exiled, Eomer, knowing of the dire threat against Rohan, decides that the best move is to simply run away with all his riders
I agree with you here. TTT, IMHO, had a good number of bad decisions. It was a tough movie to make, and on the director’s commentary there were a number of places where they all admitted they might have done better with a few things.
quote:
Movie Theoden:
In the third movie, he proves himself to be petty as well, wondering why he should help Gondor when Gondor didn’t help him, when he (and the writers) should have known that:
There’s no way Gondor could have helped; they were too far away to get there in time.
Theoden, in the Two Towers movie, turned down Aragorn’s advice to even send riders to Gondor, asking for aid.
I do hope they cut that line in the EE, because it’s un-necessary and it’s also remembered later when Theoden does indeed ride to Gondor. Even in the book, though, Theoden’s line about “now being worthy to lay beside my fathers without shame” puzzled me. He was a nice guy and all, and I’m also a great admirer of Bernard Hill, but I never saw Theoden as being exactly heroic.
quote:
Movie Faramir: This was my least favorite change from book to movie. Faramir is no better than his brother, except at the end. He carries Frodo and Sam along to the pointless and plot-hole-forming scene that is Osgiliath. (Aside: what plot hole? As in, if the Nazgul sees Frodo and the Ring, doesn’t that change everything?? I suppose you could argue that Sauron thinks the Ring is headed to Gondor and thus all the more reason to start the war, but still…)
The portrayal of Faramir in TTT was, I think, the only change that really bothered me. Again, the TTT EE commentary explains, plausibly, why they couldn’t just use the Faramir from the book - the ring would have been weakened. But one of the writers admitted that weakening Faramir might not have been the best answer.
OTOH, I think that Faramir of ROTK was done very well. Almost (I beg your pardon) well-done, too.
quote:
Movie Treebeard: Another Neville Chamberlain, like Theoden. Knows in a vague way that Orcs come to destroy but has to be tricked into realizing just how bad it’s gotten.
That was another really bad choice. I think this one might fit with what you say below about this need to have a dramatic arc for every character. Treebeard being moved to anger was so much more effective in the book… he didn’t even have to see the devastation to get put over the top. PJ didn’t exactly ruin Fangorn, but he did make him a bit tame.
quote:
Movie Denethor: Of all character changes, this was the worst! An ass. A buffoon. A ridiculously bad general. A messy eater. A terrified general who has to be beaten with a stick before he surrenders the whole city prematurely. And not even a Palantir and a subplot of Sauron’s deception to excuse his bad behavior. He is an unredeemable swine.
My hunch is that you’ll feel more satisfied with this when the EE DVD comes out next year. But even without… Denethor’s character in the movie is small but effective. I’m not sure if it’s necessary for him to play a bigger, or more morally complex part.
On the whole, I think the first and third films realized the characters beautifully, and most of the changes from the book were changes that helped in making a good movie that was generally faithful to Tolkien’s work.
TTT is less satisfying to me, because of the exact character changes that you talk about. I can’t even tell whether TTT’s even good because it suffers in comparison with the book.
But I can watch the other two films without thinking that much about the book.
I have to agree that having Gollum fall because of a struggle with Frodo is better than “Gollum does a silly dance and slips”. That would have been far, far too, well, Anakin-whee to work in the movie. The thing I was most excepting to see was how they’d handle that scene, and I have to say it was generally good, except Gollum’s final, triumphant “Preeecioouus!” was omitted and the ring’s actual melting was a bit hokily done.
We don’t see or hear anything about any attempts to escape, however meager. All we get is Gandalf saying that Saruman’s power is spent, which kind of cheapens the scene. All it needed was 10 seconds of Saruman looking miserable, or tired, or raging uselessly at the Ents, or something.
**
Tell me where in the movies this is explained. Also tell me why the elves were not so affected when they fought Sauron the first time, and why the elves who were given the rings were not corrupted like the human kings who became the Nazgul.
**
Is it more honorable to uselessly fling good knights at a foe that vastly outnumbers you, in order to gain territory of dubious strategic value at the moment, and neglecting the defense of the capital city which is about to besieged, because you hope to gain the favor of your father whose sanity slips more and more and who has never expressed anything but derision to you? Or is it more honorable to break your vows of service to serve the greater good, or at least to fight in a more intelligent manner?
**
There was a very clear shot of a tower fully collapsing from one hit. It wasn’t one of the larger towers, perhaps, but still.
**
I didn’t like the “no man of woman born” bit either. My point is the scene could have been done a little better.
**
See Gangster Octopus’s post about deus ex machina. I would have also preferred if the army of the dead didn’t completely dominate the battle like they did.
**
We see that Frodo is pretty jacked up by the Ring. Frodo was ultimately corrupted, but he had been carrying it nearly continuously for the entire journey from the Shire. I don’t see how Sam could fare so badly for a few minutes. OK, so he wouldn’t leave his friend laying around, but he still could have taken the Ring and tossed it in.
**
The scene where the 4 of them are sitting at the tavern staring at each other and obviously not fitting in was a good start at explaining Frodo’s departure. Yet the other 3 were able to start living in the Shire again. I know Frodo’s experience was more horrific, but until he ditches the others there’s no indication that he’s not beginning to adjust to normal life.
Nearly everything you question is answered in the books, and raises questions in the movie because of omitted material.
The scene where Gandalf breaks Saruman’s staff and casts him from the order of wizards was omitted from TTT because of something about the attention span of audiences after the climax of a movie, or some such balderdash. Then it wasn’t put in the beginning of ROTK because the new storylines needed to get going. It may be in the ROTK EE, I guess. In addition, Treebeard (in the book) expresses his delight at being able to tell Saruman just what he thinks of treekillers. At length. And ents are very, very, very longwinded.
The Arwen wasting away thing was invented hokiness on the part of PJ. Didn’t make any sense to me either, and I’ve read the books a couple dozen times at least.
Faramir’s actions don’t strike me as being as far out of line as they do you, apparently. Think of the Charge of the Light Brigade, or the defense of the Alamo, or various other military ventures in the face of insurmountable odds. These are more often celebrated than not. However, the book Denethor isn’t such a fool as to throw men away. Faramir’s return to the city precedes the taking of the river crossing at Osgiliath. He is sent back to take command of the defense there, not to attempt to retake a well-defended bridgehead. He commands the defense masterfully, bringing the bulk of his troops back to Minas Tirith in an orderly retreat after the crossing is forced, but is felled by an arrow within sight of the gates whilst holding together a tiny rearguard. His comatose body is rescued by Imrahil, Prince of Dol Amroth, who leads a cavalry sortie to cover the retreat. Sadly, if understandably, much of the tactical complexity in the battle is lost in the movie version. There has been much comment, most of it on the mark, imho, on the portrayal of Denethor. Not the strongest point of the movie, to say the least.
I thought the stonework was presented as scandalously fragile myself. Stone walls do succumb to catapults, but if they’re built well it takes a while. And we’re told in the book that the stonework is indeed high quality.
According to prophecy, the Witch King would not be slain by a man. Not could not. Would not. That he chose to interpret this as could not was his own arrogance.* I never pictured the fell beasts as being so gigantic, so Eowyn lopping off the critter’s head never seemed unreasonable, but I would agree that the movie scene stretched the bounds of believability. Nonetheless, it’s very close to the book version, except for leaving out some choice bits of dialogue on Eowyn’s part.
The book version of the dead army didn’t fight on Pelannor Fields. They defeated the Corsairs of Umbar (the pirates in the black ships) who had been marauding in the southern part of Gondor. Aragorn then released them, manned the ships with the troops that had been held back in the south to defend against the Corsairs, and sailed up the river, hitting the bad guys on the flank at the height of the battle. Moreover, the entire thing with the dead happens offstage - we only learn of what happened after the fact, as Gimli relates the story to Merry and Pippin after the battle. So it doesn’t feel at all deus ex machina. (The eagles do, but Tolkien had written himself into a corner on that one. He could have offed his heroes, I guess, which arguably might have made the story more believable, but then we’d have missed out on the Gaffer Gamgee dressing Frodo down for Sam’s wearing chainmail on their return. :D) I’d agree that the dead in the movie seem a tad overwhelming, though the line in the book is something like “None could stand before them”, so they’re not inaccurate. However, the way the battles were conflated exaggerated things. I thought it didn’t work too badly, all things considered, but again, not the strongest point of the movie.
Frodo’s wound that won’t heal is another indication that he won’t stay in the Shire. In addition, his ordeal has left him less able to be content with things. Remember, he carried an object of immense power for a long time, and it left an indelible mark on him. Life just isn’t the same afterwards. This could have been made more clear, but the end of the movie was already too long to judge by the complaints of the people sitting next to me.
*There’s an outside chance I’m misremembering this prophecy, but I’m pretty sure that’s how it goes. I’ll look it up in a minute.
