|
Post by Gormonghast on Dec 15, 2004 16:15:18 GMT 1
I just watched the extended version of Return of the King, and was wondering what others felt about the movies? I think, overall, the three films are a great visualisation of the books, but some of those plot changes drive me nuts. In particular, they left out The Scouring of the Shire which, I believe, is the most important chapter in the entire work. Whatever adventures the hobbits get involved in, when they return to the Shire as men their greatest responsibility is to weed out corruption in their own homeland. I will always regard the films as seriously flawed because of this omission.
|
|
|
Post by Krieghund on Dec 15, 2004 17:25:24 GMT 1
I am pretty happy overall with the movies. I agree about the plot changes, but I understand why they were made. Some stuff just had to be left out completely for time considerations (Tom Bombadil, the Scouring of the Shire, etc.). It would have been nice if they had made 6 movies instead of 3! The things I did not like occurred mostly in ROTK. I think they just went a little special effects happy in that one. Am I the only one who thinks that whole Legolas/oliphant thing was taken directly out of The Empire Strikes Back?
|
|
|
Post by andypalmer on Dec 15, 2004 18:07:25 GMT 1
I haven't seen the extended RotK yet, but my biggest beef, to date, is the company of Elves in Helms Deep. high "cool factor," but "Yuck!"
|
|
|
Post by Alexfrog on Dec 15, 2004 19:27:21 GMT 1
imo, after the destruction of the ring, the scouring of the shire is anti-climactic. The story needs to wind down at that point, as in the movies.
I actually think its a better *story* that way.
I generally think that most of the significant changes from books to movies actually improved the story.
Of course, other things are cut out due to length considerations. Obviously, I'd love to have those things in the movie too, if it were longer...
However, the scouring of the shire is not one that I would put into it if I could include a few more things.
|
|
|
Post by darkman on Dec 16, 2004 15:25:35 GMT 1
I actually liked the elves showing up at HD (I wouldn't have minded some dwarves either). It showed they were still involved in the war (which they were) without having to switch the focus to another site. I just wish they hadn't used the "message from Elrond of Rivendel" line. It was all Galadriel's doing and there wasn't a Rivendel elf in the bunch. Agreed.
|
|
steveowen
Ranger of Ithilien
PlayTester
Posts: 70
|
Post by steveowen on Dec 16, 2004 18:17:18 GMT 1
There were lots of liberties taken with the film version, some for rather inexplicable reasons. The elves at Helm's Deep has already been mentioned but also Aragorn falling off his horse and making Faramir into a replica of his brother rather than the one half that wasn't tempted by the ring (and previously a pupil of Mithrandir) as Tolkien intended. Then the ringbearers visited Osgiliath and were menaced by the flying beast which was rather silly. And also the very odd part in slow motion with Faramir sacrificing himself and his men at Denethor's behest. And, of course, Arwen saving frodo at the Fords rather than Glorfindel. The crumbling staircase in Moria was good though.
|
|
|
Post by Alexfrog on Dec 16, 2004 18:40:18 GMT 1
I agree on the Faramir thing, I didnt really like that change. Many of the changes in what character did something, served to remove a minor character, and replace their action with that of a major characer. I think this is important, when making a movie, its harder to keep a larger number of characters straight.
Using arwen to save frodo at the ford is a good change, imo, as it increases the role her character plays (obviously, Steve Jackson wanted to give her a much bigger role, and I think it worked well).
|
|
|
Post by darkman on Dec 17, 2004 15:24:56 GMT 1
I initially didn't like the changes to Faramir either for the above reasons. But as they added footage in TT-EE and then more in RotK-EE, it seemed they were saying that Faramir was never actually tempted by the ring (he could have taken it easily enough in the caves - he even said so). Rather his every action was motivated by trying to win his father's approval. I thought it was handled rather well. And Denethor did call him 'wizard's pupil' in the EE. Is she going to be featured in a new SJ game?
|
|
|
Post by Gormonghast on Dec 22, 2004 16:10:10 GMT 1
imo, after the destruction of the ring, the scouring of the shire is anti-climactic. The story needs to wind down at that point, as in the movies. I actually think its a better *story* that way. I generally think that most of the significant changes from books to movies actually improved the story. Of course, other things are cut out due to length considerations. Obviously, I'd love to have those things in the movie too, if it were longer... However, the scouring of the shire is not one that I would put into it if I could include a few more things. I used to think the same way. When I first read the books, I skimmed through the Scouring as it did seem almost irrelevant compared to the cataclysmic events in Mordor and Minas Tirith. But, on reflection, the story is primarily concerned with Hobbits and, for them, the Scouring is the real climax of the story. It is here that they really show they've grown up and are able to take responsibility whereas, in the rest of the story, they're always under the leadership of Gandalf or Aragorn.
|
|
|
Post by nigel on Dec 22, 2004 17:17:55 GMT 1
imo, after the destruction of the ring, the scouring of the shire is anti-climactic. The story needs to wind down at that point, as in the movies. I actually think its a better *story* that way. I generally think that most of the significant changes from books to movies actually improved the story. Of course, other things are cut out due to length considerations. Obviously, I'd love to have those things in the movie too, if it were longer... However, the scouring of the shire is not one that I would put into it if I could include a few more things. Each to their own - for me the leaving out of the Scouring of the Shire was a major omission. I consider the book to be a 'growing up' of the Hobbits - a journey to independance, a rite of passage (whatever). At the start the hobbits are blissfully unaware of the big world and that they are defended by the remenants of Northern Relm (the rangers), by the end of the book they have developed enough to deal with Sharky & the big-men all on their own. My impression from Lost Tales, History of Middle Earth etc, is that Tolkien had this event in mind quite early on - and other parts of the book tie it in, such as longbottom leaf in Orthanc, Galadriel giving Sam the box with the earth and the mallorn nut. That Frodo is unable to recall memories of 'home', and that eventually it's revealed Frodo has 'saved' the Shire but not for himself. I wish that the scouring of the shire, the building of the new mill, cutting down of the trees etc, and the destruction of Saruman had been handled as in the book. Saw the extended DVD for RoTK and the Saruman end is pretty lame (can see why it was cut out of the theatre release). What would I have cut out to make room for the Shire? Tough, probably the Osgiliath stuff, just eye candy - why take the hobbits there to show the 'power' of the ring - the dialog between Frodo/Faramir is fine as in the book. Aragorn 'dying' by falling off the cliff - again not in the book and it doesn't add anything much IMHO. Nigel
|
|
|
Post by Marc Grad on Dec 30, 2004 18:38:59 GMT 1
While I would have enjoyed seeing something about the Scouring of the Shire, it doesn't bother me that it was missing. Peter Jackson and crew had to make some tough decisions, and ultimately the SotS was not as important in the realm of things as other parts of the story.
The biggest disappointment for me was that Tom Bombadil was missing from the FotR. Of course TB was left out for the same reason as SotS. I mean really, how much longer could the movies of been?
|
|
|
Post by committedhero on Jan 18, 2005 21:15:16 GMT 1
Whatever the gripes people have with the changes, the writer/director commentaries tend to address the major departures they made. That's a sign of good faith, and while I don't agree with all of their choices I really appreciate the willingness to discuss it.
Faramir is an excellent example. Before his appearance it has taken nearly 5 hours of screen time to show that the ring can corrupt men - potentially at first glance. It's much easier to convey the quality that Faramir shows in prose. But PJ points out in the 2T commentary that if the first person to come across the ring other than Frodo is unaffected by it, all the tension established prior to this scene is dissipated.
Having Saruman come back after the ring is destroyed would come across really corny in a movie like RotK - like the standard villian that takes three actual killshots to die.
|
|
steveowen
Ranger of Ithilien
PlayTester
Posts: 70
|
Post by steveowen on Jan 18, 2005 22:28:21 GMT 1
Not to labour the point but wasn't Boromir sorely tested by the ring in the film and Galadriel offered the ring prior to Frodo running into Faramir? Clearly Boromir failed the ring test and I always felt that the whole thrust of Tolkein's work in this area was that his brother, Faramir, in contrast to Boromir's craving, was not particularly interested in the ring and certainly not swayed by it - Peter Jackson belittled all of this in his so-called interpretation for a global audience.
|
|
|
Post by dougadamsau on Jan 18, 2005 22:41:42 GMT 1
I think we have to be grateful that the movie ended up as close as it did to the books. My main beef was the whole Faramir/Osgiliath/Chopper Nazgul thing. My minor beef was Aragorn should have looked a little more beaten up, with grey in his hair!
|
|
|
Post by cheup on Jan 19, 2005 10:50:48 GMT 1
I think that Jackson did his best and produced a wonderful trilogy.
My main beefs were: - skateboarding Legolas - Gimli the jerk - of course, cutting out the Saruman sequence in the third movie - the Dead Men in Minas Tirith
But there were also changes which I liked very much, like the study of the Theoden character.
|
|