[QUOTE=Princhester]
Thank Og someone brought this up. A lot of people say the changes made from LOTR to the movies of the same name were cinematically necessary. This is simply untrue, and this particular segment is the kicker.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know if I’d say it’s cinematically unnecessary. I’d have to review that section of the movie to get some idea where the scene fits into the overall narrative, but even off the cuff, it accomplishes a few things. It establishes that Orcs are a danger — a danger that hasn’t really been emphasized sufficiently in the film up until that point. (Our exposure to Orcs thus far has been 1) they’re scary to Hobbits, and 2) a company of unnamed extras on horses wiped them all out.)
If Aragorn & Company ride straight for Helm’s Deep to hide, they look like like cowards, because everybody knows (based on prior scenes) that a company of Orcs isn’t dangerous to armed Men. A couple guys on horses wiped out a whole pile of 'em, after all.
If Aragorn & Company meet Orcs and Wargs, and they win handily without any casualties (except for a few unnamed extras whom nobody pays attention to), then you undermine the seriousness of the Helm’s Deep battles; the Orcs are not presented as a realistic threat.
Aragorn falling over a cliff, rescued by his horse, riding along behind, catching a glimpse of the approaching army? Well, that accomplishes a few things: it sort of foreshadows Aragorn’s arrival to Minas Tirith, similarly invested by enemies; it gives you a chance to show how frightened the Rohirrim are; it gives Aragorn a moment of demonstrable leadership; it lets the audience see the Orc army through the eyes of a central character. Imagine how flat it would have been if they’d never run into the Enemy, and instead they all rode off bravely to Helm’s Deep together, stoically awaiting the army, never flinching. It would have been accurate to the book, but cinematically uninteresting.
Did Tolkien do these things in the book? No. Because books work differently. He could have accomplished the same thing in a few lines. On the other hand, he spent paragraphs describing landscape that takes a few seconds to show. Because books work differently.
[QUOTE=Scissorjack]
[blah blah blah Alan Moore blah blah]
On the subject of Moore adaptations, in The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, I was grievously disappointed, although not altogether surprised, that Edward Hyde buttfucking the Invisible Man to death while humming a polka tune was not depicted. That would have been the most awesome movie scene ever.
[/QUOTE]
You have a far stronger stomach than I do. If I never see a faithful cinematic adaptation of anything drawn by Kevin O’Neill, I’ll be relieved.
[QUOTE=foolsguinea]
You have a far stronger stomach than I do. If I never see a faithful cinematic adaptation of anything drawn by Kevin O’Neill, I’ll be relieved.
[/QUOTE]
I, on the other hand, would kill babies to see a Guillermo del Toro adaptation of Nemesis The Warlock.
First Blood The movie trashed the novel so badly that Rambo could have been recast as an ice cream man and kept as close to the novel. In the movie John Rambo is suffering a combat stress reaction and does his best to not kill anyone while raising hell in the mountains outside a small town. He even becomes a somewhat hero after he is reigned in by Col. Troutman.
In the novel, the characters are much more developed. The fighting more personal. Rambo is a war hero who has gone over the edge. He was trained in killing as a Special Forces Soldier. He learned how to survive in combat.
Teasle was also a war hero, in Korea. It was a war between Rambo and Teasle. Rambo didn’t fire warning shots or try to disable people. He killed, often and bloody.
There was no talking Rambo down. He fatally wounded Teasle just before Troutman blew his head off with a shotgun. There could be no other ending for someone like Rambo. The whole idea was that all he knew was killing.
[QUOTE=SSG Schwartz] First Blood The movie trashed the novel so badly that Rambo could have been recast as an ice cream man and kept as close to the novel. In the movie John Rambo is suffering a combat stress reaction and does his best to not kill anyone while raising hell in the mountains outside a small town. He even becomes a somewhat hero after he is reigned in by Col. Troutman.
In the novel, the characters are much more developed. The fighting more personal. Rambo is a war hero who has gone over the edge. He was trained in killing as a Special Forces Soldier. He learned how to survive in combat.
Teasle was also a war hero, in Korea. It was a war between Rambo and Teasle. Rambo didn’t fire warning shots or try to disable people. He killed, often and bloody.
There was no talking Rambo down. He fatally wounded Teasle just before Troutman blew his head off with a shotgun. There could be no other ending for someone like Rambo. The whole idea was that all he knew was killing.
SSG Schwartz
[/QUOTE]
:eek: That is SO awesome! Even though I know the ending, I’m getting that book!
One (dislike): in the book, Faramir has the same strength that Gandalf possesses, to reject the Ring. But you know, after they made such a big deal with Galadriel freaking out (and what was that?) about the Ring, they couldn’t just have a mere Human say, “Ring? No thanks.”
[/QUOTE]
Well, Galadriel has a big streak of rebelliousness in her (going way back in her history), and she was actually seriously tempted to take it for a moment. There was never really any question that Gandalf would take it.
Honestly? I like the changes they made to Faramir. For me, in the book, Faramir is basically Aragorn when Aragorn is off somewhere else. In the movie he’s much more human–he’s got a little bit of that fatal arrogance Boromir had, and he’s fed up with constantly being in Boromir’s shadow and he wants his dad’s approval so badly, and ultimately he triumphs over all of that. It’s much more interesting.
My own vote (this may be cheating a bit): the C.S. Forester books are about as fun as gargling bleach. The TV series based on the books adds the character of Archie Kennedy, and that makes all the difference.
[QUOTE=Fish]
I don’t know if I’d say it’s cinematically unnecessary. I’d have to review that section of the movie to get some idea where the scene fits into the overall narrative, but even off the cuff, it accomplishes a few things. It establishes that Orcs are a danger — a danger that hasn’t really been emphasized sufficiently in the film up until that point. (Our exposure to Orcs thus far has been 1) they’re scary to Hobbits, and 2) a company of unnamed extras on horses wiped them all out.)
If Aragorn & Company ride straight for Helm’s Deep to hide, they look like like cowards, because everybody knows (based on prior scenes) that a company of Orcs isn’t dangerous to armed Men. A couple guys on horses wiped out a whole pile of 'em, after all.
If Aragorn & Company meet Orcs and Wargs, and they win handily without any casualties (except for a few unnamed extras whom nobody pays attention to), then you undermine the seriousness of the Helm’s Deep battles; the Orcs are not presented as a realistic threat.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t believe any of this. It’s after the fact justification. It wasn’t “a couple guys on horses” who killed the orcs at Fangorn, it was a company, as you say earlier. We’ve had the battle in which Boromir is killed, in which it is pretty obvious that orcs aren’t pussycats.
If PJ needed to establish that the orcs heading for Helm’s Deep were a threat, all it would take is a single line spoken by a character (maybe some sort of scout reporting in) establishing that there is a massive army of them coming, with a few scary shots of what they look like (ie big, armed to the teeth and badass as hell) and of gigantic battalions of them marching towards battle. Plus perhaps reaction shots of serious and knowledgeable guys like Aragorn and so on when learning that the orcs are coming.
Furthermore, if there was any real concern that orcs were not known to the audience as sufficiently badass, PJ just needed to *show * the battle at Fangorn, and have the orcs put up a good fight before being defeated.
The prime example of a movie that did it better than the book is Jaws. The movie is a classic. The book pretty much sucks. The most glaring example is the Matt Hooper character. In the book he is a rich arrogant asshole with no redeeming qualities. And he bangs the sheriff’s wife. In fact all the characters are much better done in the movie.
[QUOTE=Princhester]
I don’t believe any of this. It’s after the fact justification. It wasn’t “a couple guys on horses” who killed the orcs at Fangorn, it was a company, as you say earlier. We’ve had the battle in which Boromir is killed, in which it is pretty obvious that orcs aren’t pussycats.
[/quote]
That was in the previous movie. Yes, if you watch them all end to end, the Orcs are set up as a threat. No, they aren’t sufficiently set up as a threat within the second movie.
Cinema is a prime example of when you should “show, don’t tell.”
[QUOTE=sulamith]
The story of Forrest Gump that we all know and love was not written by Winston Groome. It was written by who ever did the screen play.
[/QUOTE]
Forrest Gump, the book, is a viciously biting satire; a brilliantly nasty book. The movie is braindead feelgood hokum, with almost nothing in common with the book. It’s like the filmmakers SO didn’t get the book, that they made exactly the kind of movie that is a target of the book’s satire.
[QUOTE=Fish]
That was in the previous movie. Yes, if you watch them all end to end, the Orcs are set up as a threat. No, they aren’t sufficiently set up as a threat within the second movie.
[/quote]
There is a flashback at the commencement of the second movie to the events of the first. If it doesn’t show Boromir being killed by badass looking orcs (I don’t remember) it could. You are also completely ignoring what I said about being able to show the battle at Fangorn that (should PJ have chosen to show it if he wanted to establish the orcs as badass) would logically have been at the beginning of TTT.
Yes. That’s why I suggested the scout’s report merely as a setup line to showing vast dangerous looking armies of orcs marching, and reaction shots from key characters. Heck, one 30 second sequence of showing (not telling) orc armies driving across the countryside, burning, pillaging and slaughtering would have done everything you say was required to set them up. Instead we have a tedious and cliched additional sequence in a movie where good stuff had to be cut because it was all too long!
[QUOTE=Mahaloth] Did not like: Anyone remember the movie Sphere based on Micahel Crichton’s book? In the book, it appears that Beth has kept her powers, while they eliminated that in the movie.
[/QUOTE]
I came in to comment on Sphere but for a different reason - reading the book, the whole element of suspense and mystery is built around what happens in the sphere and the moment when the protagonist finally goes inside the sphere and sees for himself is the resolution of that suspense. In the movie, when he finally goes inside the sphere himself, we don’t see it from his point of view! We still have no idea what it’s like to be in the sphere.
I was comfortable for the most part with the adaption of Contact, but the bit about the secret of pi at the end might have been neat to include.
Most of the Philip K Dick novels made decent if often very loosely related to the original source material movies. Although the ones that were more faithful were also good.
I’d say The Princess Bride is probably the gold standard for book and movie both being excellent works.
Gandalf & Theoden in The Two Towers. As Tolkien wrote it, it would not have been good cinema: They walk into the hall. Grima insults Gandalf. Gandalf insults Grima. Suddenly, Theoden fires Grima, and starts taking Gandalf’s advice, based solely on Gandalf’s uplifting oratory. Now, Ian Mckellan is a good actor, but I don’t know if he is good enough to make that seem believable.
[/QUOTE]
It makes me think of something related that disappointed me a lot. In the book, Saruman is known to be incredibly charismatic. I was impatiently waiting for the first scene of “The return of the king” , where he displays his talents , wondering how it would be rendered in the movie. Well…it wasn’t at all. He makes some unconvincing speech, and of course leaves the crowd he’s addressing unconvinced. And, yes, you can’t expect an actor to become inhumanly charismatic, but you can make the film’s audience understand that he is with regard to the other characters.
Generally speaking, I think they downplayed Saruman a lot and it’s possibly the main beef I’ve with the movie. They made an extremely cunning, wise, knowledgeable and powerful wizard, someone who basically is second to no one until Gandalf comes back as the white wizard, into a frightened fool who makes himself a slave of Sauron. Did they think the audience would be confused if they depicted him as the bright deceiver he is supposed to be?
[QUOTE=Omniscient]
All this talk about LotR and no one is raving about the utter idiocy that was Aragorn falling off the cliff? Jesus, I love those movies but that scene makes me want to start throwing things.
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t like this scene either, but contrarily to other critics made thus far, this wasn’t a change made to the plot. It was just an unimportant scene gratuitously added for…well, I’m not sure why, but unimportant nevertheless.
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
It makes me think of something related that disappointed me a lot. In the book, Saruman is known to be incredibly charismatic. I was impatiently waiting for the first scene of “The return of the king” , where he displays his talents , wondering how it would be rendered in the movie. Well…it wasn’t at all. He makes some unconvincing speech, and of course leaves the crowd he’s addressing unconvinced. And, yes, you can’t expect an actor to become inhumanly charismatic, but you can make the film’s audience understand that he is with regard to the other characters.
[/quote]
How could I forgot this scene! It was badly handled in the extended version - I am so glad that it wasn’t in the release.
When Saruman says “So you would come to me for information”, I groan. Hello - that’s a modern word! I still rather he leaning out from a balcony, instead from the top of the tower.
(Though when watching the behind the scene videos, the scene was filmed in absence of all other casts except Gandalf and was put together by CG magic…goes to show that how hard it is to act convincingly when you have nothing but blue screen around you)
[QUOTE=Princhester]
There is a flashback at the commencement of the second movie to the events of the first. If it doesn’t show Boromir being killed by badass looking orcs (I don’t remember) it could.
[/quote]
It didn’t show it: it showed Gandalf and the Balrog. And yes, they could have shown Boromir falling again.
If they had, as you said, shown the entire battle at Fangorn, involving one character we barely care about (Eomer) and a bunch of no-names, I’m not sure it would have the same impact. We have no emotional investment in a bunch of nameless Rohirrim.
I don’t like the change, but I understand why they made it. You just don’t like the change and you won’t accept any cinematic justification.
We did get that: they were burning and slaughtering against no-name unarmed peasants. Impact: very small.
It’s gotta be a main character. Otherwise the emotional impact is lessened. Do you not see why cinema works this way?
[QUOTE=dalej42]
Yes, I was. Sorry for the confusion.
I didn’t like the political correctness change in Clear and Present Danger changing the captain of the Panache from the tough male character in the book (Red?) to a female.
[/QUOTE]
I knew I was going to dislike the movie for this very reason. What possible reason for that change?
Also the former Cuban intelligence agent who worked for drug lord Escobar. Sorry but in the book you did not kill Moira. Actually that was a great ending of the book, her watching him shackled and heading back to Cuba, no doubt understanding his fate. And her finding closure.
Fish I suspect that the basic issue here, regarding which I suspect we will never see eye to eye, is that you think movies must be cliched, and cinemagoers must be spoonfed because they are emotionally stunted. When you say “cinematically necessary” what you really mean is “conforming to standard Hollywood cliche”.
I don’t believe for a moment that movies must be aimed so low that if you don’t have a major character nearly die at the hands of the bad guys first, the audience is too emotionally stupid to understand the fear that characters would feel at waiting, outnumbered, in a fortress marched upon by an incredibly vast, well armed, horde of evil looking guys.
My opinion is that PJ sucks as a writer. He’s OK as a purveyor of spectacle and his movies of LotR are saved by that and the fact that he has good material written by a brilliant author. When however PJ is required to have anything to do with actual writing, he falls back on tired cliche because he isn’t capable of anything better.