Interesting...?...
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I just read about this a few minutes ago on IGN.
My thoughts about it are as follows:
If they actually follow through with this, they'll need to keep the momentum up and focused primarily on Bilbo for the entire trilogy. Some people are saying that it will follow the appendices and serve to connect the two series, but I disagree. The movie will have to focus on Bilbo, just like the LotR focused on Frodo while, at the same time, telling several other stories. That's how I think it will play out.
They are going to have to keep the characters active through all three movies because you have to hold audiences through to the end, and the only way to do that is to give them a story and a set of characters to invest in. Bilbo is the main character in the first two films, so he's got to be the main character in the third. No one but the fans will care about the appendices if Bilbo is back in the Shire living out his life. They'll have to construct the trilogy into three distinct narratives: set up the characters in the first film, get them into a dire situation where all hope seems lost in the second film, then get them out of it in the third (this is otherwise known as: show the gun, aim the gun, and fire the gun). That's how trilogies work. At the same time, the story will have to be separated at points that can also feel contained. The first film will need its own arch that separates it from the second and third. For an example of that, look at the original star wars films or even the LotR trilogy. Each film in a trilogy covers something different and has its own conclusion, so they'll need to figure out a way to include the third film in this scheme, otherwise it will feel like a mess. There's a clear distinction in the middle of the Hobbit that makes it possible for them to divide it into two films, but three? They're going to run into some problems. Hopefully they can figure out a logical stopping point that doesn't leave the audience feeling cheated, because without a strong conclusion at the end of each of the acts, people will walk away feeling like nothing was resolved.
I think Jackson can do it, but his recent movies have left me jarred. King Kong was OK, but it made the mistake of being too long and bloated. Lovely Bones, as I understand it, was poorly received (I never watched it). But he did such a wonderful job with Lord of the Rings that I believe he can do it. The question is more, I suppose, of whether or not he still has the capability within him or if, like Lucas, he's been given too much freedom with no one to tell him "No".
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
If nothing else I can do what I did whenever I was coerced into seeing yet another Pirates of the Whatever movie, ignore what is going on and concentrate on how fantastic the production is. Bilbo's house looks beautiful in the trailer I saw.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Because Peter Jackson just hasn't pissed on Tolkien's corpse enough. He must stretch it so he can piss on it some more.
And Jackson really did *not* do an excellent job with Lord of the Rings. He brutally reversed characterizations and cut away crucial themes right and left just to put in his super-combat extravaganzas and his dwarf-belchings; showing us characters that displayed less dignity while debating life-and-death decisions than modern day business meetings do while debating their next product release.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Somebody is being a negative nancy.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: Because Peter Jackson just hasn't pissed on Tolkien's corpse enough. He must stretch it so he can piss on it some more.
And Jackson really did *not* do an excellent job with Lord of the Rings. He brutally reversed characterizations and cut away crucial themes right and left just to put in his super-combat extravaganzas and his dwarf-belchings; showing us characters that displayed less dignity while debating life-and-death decisions than modern day business meetings do while debating their next product release.
You may think that and that's cool and all. No problems there. You are objectively wrong, however, if you honestly feel that Jackson's intent was to "urinate" on Tolkien's corpse. Jackson has clearly demonstrated that he has a love and respect for Tolkien and his world. He might, in your opinion, have a love and respect for the wrong aspects of Tolkien's world. He may have, in your opinion, translated Tolkien's world to film poorly. To imply, however, that he is intentionally ruining the franchise because he drank too much water (or... whatever) is petty and childish. In my opinion.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm only nervous about this for the prospect of them having to invent too much to fill in the gaps. I don't mind bringing in material from the appendices and Histories, that's all fair game in my book.
But if they start BSing it because the narrative isn't whole enough, I'm going to cry foul.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I agree with you, Lyrhawn. I don't want to watch another spurious sequence like the one with Aragorn and the wargs.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Do you all need a waahburger to go with your french cries? They're just movies. And good ones at that. Regardless of their (ofttimes tenuous) connection to the books. At least it isn't Michael Bay that's making them.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm only nervous about this for the prospect of them having to invent too much to fill in the gaps. I don't mind bringing in material from the appendices and Histories, that's all fair game in my book.
But if they start BSing it because the narrative isn't whole enough, I'm going to cry foul.
This is how I feel exactly.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Can't say I'm surprised by Hollywood's greed or by Peter Jackson's willingness to go along with it.
Is there even enough material in there to justify two movies let alone three?
I hope they all bomb.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I actually think Peter Jackson is just a huge fan of the books who has been given essentially free reign in the sandbox he always wanted to play in, so I can't blame him for wanting to build as many sandcastles as he can while he can.
I think he's a very talented man. I just think he knows how talented he is, and the studio doesn't want to try to place any limits on him.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm only nervous about this for the prospect of them having to invent too much to fill in the gaps. I don't mind bringing in material from the appendices and Histories, that's all fair game in my book.
But if they start BSing it because the narrative isn't whole enough, I'm going to cry foul.
This is how I feel exactly.
Me, too.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm only nervous about this for the prospect of them having to invent too much to fill in the gaps. I don't mind bringing in material from the appendices and Histories, that's all fair game in my book.
But if they start BSing it because the narrative isn't whole enough, I'm going to cry foul.
This is how I feel exactly.
Me, too.
Me three.
However, I will say that I enjoy movies of beloved books much better if I view them as fanfiction. Like, say, Howl's Moving Castle book and movie were completely different in key ways, but now when I read it, I see Howl as he was drawn in the movie. I love the new BBC Sherlock for much the same reasons. These are all interpretations by artists (directors writers, whatevs) who have a great love for the source. I may not always agree with that interpretation, but I can still enjoy it.
PJ does really superlative fanfiction. The only thing in dispute is how much I will disagree with his interpretation.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Can't say I'm surprised by Hollywood's greed or by Peter Jackson's willingness to go along with it.
Is there even enough material in there to justify two movies let alone three?
I hope they all bomb.
I hate you.
You do realize if they did bomb it would kill the chances for other big budget high fantasy gambles yes?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Can't say I'm surprised by Hollywood's greed or by Peter Jackson's willingness to go along with it.
Is there even enough material in there to justify two movies let alone three?
I hope they all bomb.
There's enough...but it's not really well defined. A lot of what Tolkien wrote about some of the stuff that happens off camera is really broadly defined and described. If he tries to really go into detail and show the destruction of Dol Guldur, for example, he's going to have to make a lot of it up.
Personally I think it'd be really cool if he started one of the movies with a 20 minute flashback to the wars of the Dwarves and Orcs, which we actually do know about in pretty good detail. Tolkien wrote rather in-depth narratives of how Azog stamped his name on Thror's head after he was tortured in Moria and beheaded. That touched off the war that drove the Orcs back to Moria and culminated in Azog's death at Dain's hand. In the Battle of Five Armies, Dain and Bolg (Azog's son) are key players of the fight. Might have a little more resonance if they explain the background (perhaps with Galadriel as narrator).
They're already going to be stretched for detailed narratives from Tolkien that detail what happened around the time of The Hobbit, might as well use what they can, especially if they're eager for fight scenes.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Can't say I'm surprised by Hollywood's greed or by Peter Jackson's willingness to go along with it.
Is there even enough material in there to justify two movies let alone three?
I hope they all bomb.
I hate you.
You do realize if they did bomb it would kill the chances for other big budget high fantasy gambles yes?
Blayne: Alittle less hate please.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
quote: — As a sympathetic sop to despondent Sherlock fans waiting for Season Three to finally just @#!ing air, the scene where an invisible Bilbo and Smaug match wits flies off the rails so improbably that the duo opens a detective agency in Lake-town. Smaug has a terrific cocaine habit.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:However, I will say that I enjoy movies of beloved books much better if I view them as fanfiction. Like, say, Howl's Moving Castle book and movie were completely different in key ways, but now when I read it, I see Howl as he was drawn in the movie. I love the new BBC Sherlock for much the same reasons. These are all interpretations by artists (directors writers, whatevs) who have a great love for the source. I may not always agree with that interpretation, but I can still enjoy it.
I hadn't thought of it in those terms before, but it's pretty close to my take on it as well. Part of it is that I love Tolkien so much that I can forgive quite a lot from someone who makes me think they love it too, and I got that impression from Jackson. Particularly in the commentaries, which over the years I've all heard. Another part of it was that I went into this enormous set of work turned film remembering well many excellent or even superb movies-from-books that were much shorter, and just sort of committed as soon as I heard of them that they would go off the rails more than once, or twice, or even thrice. A serious effort at LotR would never, ever be made by anyone who wouldn't make such changes, and so the ravening hatred seen elsewhere and even here seems absurd to me. I'm as an authentic and 'serious' fan of Tolkien as just about anyone here, so complaints about purity and adherence don't ring especially sensible to me, never having expected religious levels of alignment from book to film anyway.
Loved the films in spite of finding many things irritating or obnoxious, and expect much the same from these three. Who knows? Maybe someday in the next decade there would be a Silmarillion trilogy, as such efforts become more and more mainstream.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
This reminds me of what OSC said about the Ender's Game movie. He said this wasn't his movie, it was Gavin Hood's. I don't know why people expect every detail to wind up in films. Movies have a different style of storytelling and require a different pacing. Sure, a few details might get scrambled sometimes, but as long as the message is still there and the movie is fun, who cares?
In the end, it's just a movie. The books will always be what they are, so they're not going to change. Everyone knows that in most cases "the book is better", anyway. It's always better because that's the original medium of the story.
I go into movies based on books (Stardust, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter) expecting a few things to be different. I'm also expecting a story that isn't as deep and imaginative as the one I spent three days reading. Why? Because it took me three days to read it and this is only a 2-3 hour movie.
Posted by Phillyn (Member # 12597) on :
Quote (from Lyrhawn) "Personally I think it'd be really cool if he started one of the movies with a 20 minute flashback to the wars of the Dwarves and Orcs, which we actually do know about in pretty good detail. Tolkien wrote rather in-depth narratives of how Azog stamped his name on Thror's head after he was tortured in Moria and beheaded. That touched off the war that drove the Orcs back to Moria and culminated in Azog's death at Dain's hand. In the Battle of Five Armies, Dain and Bolg (Azog's son) are key players of the fight. Might have a little more resonance if they explain the background (perhaps with Galadriel as narrator)."
I'm with Lyrhawn completely on this, I think that would be a perfect way to add material that's genuine and relevant, and exciting. The appendices are wonderful sources of stories that could be developed.
Posted by Phillyn (Member # 12597) on :
This is a quote I read in a book of Tolkien's letters, a long time ago, on his feelings re others creating independent works of a variety of sorts based in his world. This is enough justification for me for people to expand the stories in the appendices.
"Do not laugh! But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic to the level of romantic fairy-story... The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama. Absurd." —J. R. R. Tolkien
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Who knows? Maybe someday in the next decade there would be a Silmarillion trilogy, as such efforts become more and more mainstream.
You shut your mouth! How dare you get my hopes up like that?
Now I'm going to yearn, yearn, and it'll never happen!
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Jackson has clearly demonstrated that he has a love and respect for Tolkien and his world.
Did he respect Gimli's gravitas? Did he respect Faramir's wisdom? Did he respect Denethor's bad-assedness? No. No. No.
Some people see Jackson include elvish words in his films, and for them that automatically translates to "love and respect" for Tolkien. But that's just surface.
He also didn't respect Tolkien's complex views on war and pacifism. He also didn't respect the Scouring of the Shire. He reversed the meaning of Galadriel's mirror.
He respected Tolkien's elven languages. But there's not a single one of Tolkien's plot-points or themes or characters that he respected.
The *only* thing he respected of Tolkien is the use of elven-language.
It's not even just as if Jackson just *ignored* or omitted lots of what Tolkien put into his work -- he *reversed* most of it.
This is really not respect. This is what someone who disrespects Tolkien, but has to appear to respect him do. Keep (and increase) amounts of elven-language, keep surface story, but change all the characters and all the themes.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I think your objectively wrong here, your assigning malicious intent in circumstances where it is entirely unreasonable and uncalled for. Also ignoring that as the director Jackson has the right and obligation to adjust the source material to work as a film.
On a related note I think Jackson would be perfect for the Silmilirion (although I'm partial to a God of War styled game) as his propensity to adding things works to his benefit here, as the material could use a lot of fleshing out to make into a film.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I'm sorry, but the scouring of the shire? That part of the book just wouldn't work in a movie. It doesn't fit the structure of a film and it would add another half hour to a movie that has already essentially concluded its point. Out of all the things that Jackson changed, this one was the most necessary.
I mean, Jackson also took out Tom Bombadil, but not many people complained about that because that particular character is completely unnecessary to the plot (Tolkien admitting this himself in a letter). When you only have 3 hours to tell a story, you can't include everything. In fact, you're almost always going to end up changing a lot of it because this is a movie and it can't afford to be like a book.
Jackson had to make a good film and that does not always translate to making a 100% faithful retelling of a book. A book is a completely different form of storytelling and it can afford, unlike a film, to spend pages and pages on a single character's motivations and inner thoughts. It also needs to be accessible and entertaining and funny and dramatic. A 100% transfer of the Lord of the Rings just wouldn't do that because, in all honesty, Tolkien didn't know story structure. If you don't believe me, reread the council of Elron scene where a dozen people you've never heard of before are arguing and tell me you can keep track of everything. The fact is, Tolkien made some mistakes when he wrote his books (he wasn't a storyteller by trade, after all, and these books were only written because he needed a world with which to use his languages). You have to look at the movies as another version of the story, because that's what they are. This is Peter Jackson's interpretation. If you don't like it, then fine, but saying he did a horrible job and that he's urinating on Tolkien's work just shows an ignorance for how the film-making process works.
And I don't know what themes you are referring to that weren't in the movies. Gimli still comes off as a tough character. His friendship with Legolas is clearly established by the end (something that, at least to me, was one of the most important aspects of his character). Faramir is clearly wiser than his brother because he let's the ring go (and I believe Gandalf even calls him such at one point). But these are just little character aspects, not themes. A theme is something that spans the course of a work, so you will have to be more specific. You'll also have to ask yourself why the theme or character trait is so important to the story and if it would actually work within the context of an already bloated film.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:"I think your objectively wrong here, your assigning malicious intent "
I don't think he's pissing on Tolkien because he just maliciously delights to piss on Tolkien, I think he's pissing on Tolkien because he thinks that pissing on Tolkien will make him a better/more profitable movie than respecting Tolkien would.
I'm not attributing malice, just utter disrespect.
quote:Also ignoring that as the director Jackson has the right and obligation to adjust the source material to work as a film.
No, I'm not. I don't oppose alterations that were made in order to "work as a film". I never opposed e.g. the omission of Tom Bombadil or other side-adventures and minor characters.
I'm opposing Jackson's narrowminded parochial view of what it means for something to "work as a film". Jackson may think that he needs to have Aragorn fall of a cliff. Jackson may think that for something to work as a film, he needs have every character be weak-willed and change their minds in their last minute about everything. Jackson may think that a dwarf has to be a comical sidekick for it to work as a film. Jackson may think that visions of doom in Galadriels' mirror must serve as warnings of what it is to fail, for it to work as a film. Jackson may think that he needs magnify 4 pages of combat in Helm's Deep, to 1 hour and 30 minutes of screentime, and cut out 'The Voice of Saruman' instead.
Gimli a belching dishonorable dwarf, that actually advises Aragorn to go back on his promise! Does Gimli need to not have a shred of honor for it to "work as a film"?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I see the Similrilian as more of a "HBO Series" ala Game of Throwns
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:I'm sorry, but the scouring of the shire? That part of the book just wouldn't work in a movie.
It fits it about as well as it fits the structure of a novel. Yet Tolkien dared it and he had a *reason* for it.
And btw, have you seen No Country For Old Men? That something doesn't fit the structure of your typical Bruce Willis/Arnold Schwarzenegger film doesn't mean that *all* films need be like that.
quote:When you only have 3 hours to tell a story, you can't include everything
Please, that's an absurd argument, when my main objection is to the things that Jackson *added* to the story, instead of the things he took out.
Cut out Aragorn falling off a cliff, and cut out the elves arriving at Helm's Deep, and there: you have enough time for Scouring of the Shire.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: I see the Similrilian as more of a "HBO Series" ala Game of Throwns
That's how I've always seen it as well, but in the HBO version, it'd all be about elves having sex in the forest. Of all the things I've been looking forward to seeing out of the Silmarillion, Luthien performing sexual favors on Beren in the forests of Doriath isn't one of them.
Given their track record, I don't think it would work on HBO if they have to give it the HBO treatment. Not without totally changing the spirit of the book.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:I'm opposing Jackson's narrowminded parochial view of what it means for something to "work as a film". Jackson may think that he needs to have Aragorn fall of a cliff. Jackson may think that for something to work as a film, he needs have every character be weak-willed and change their minds in their last minute about everything. Jackson may think that a dwarf has to be a comical sidekick for it to work as a film. Jackson may think that visions of doom in Galadriels' mirror must serve as warnings of what it is to fail, for it to work as a film. Jackson may think that he needs magnify 4 pages of combat in Helm's Deep, to 1 hour and 30 minutes of screentime, and cut out 'The Voice of Saruman' instead.
The mirror part in the book doesn't seem necessary to keep. It's a narrative choice that in a film would serve no purpose but to tell the audience, "Frodo is going to do this at some point", which would be a waste of time. Instead, they chose to pay an homage to the Shire burning because they couldn't include it in the actual film. This also establishes a drive for Frodo, personalizing the mission even more than it already is.
Aragorn falling off a cliff keeps the pacing of the film steady. He fell, had some visions that refocused him, and it struck the audience. You can't spend the time explaining every feeling someone has in a movie like you can a book, so doing this allowed for some character development for Aragorn.
Saruman's voice serves almost no purpose and in a film would only slow things down. It would also be a little out of place in a movie.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:I'm sorry, but the scouring of the shire? That part of the book just wouldn't work in a movie.
It fits it about as well as it fits the structure of a novel. Yet Tolkien dared it and he had a *reason* for it.
And btw, have you seen No Country For Old Men? That something doesn't fit the structure of your typical Bruce Willis/Arnold Schwarzenegger film doesn't mean that *all* films need be like that.
quote:When you only have 3 hours to tell a story, you can't include everything
Please, that's an absurd argument, when my main objection is to the things that Jackson *added* to the story, instead of the things he took out.
Cut out Aragorn falling off a cliff, and cut out the elves arriving at Helm's Deep, and there: you have enough time for Scouring of the Shire.
You're missing the point. The end of the movie has already been lauded as having too many endings. Tacking on another 20-30 minutes just for another ending would be too much. The Hobbits have already won and achieved what they set out to do. What purpose would there be in including this scene? How was anything destroyed by not including it? Did the audience feel anything more or less about the characters because of its exclusion?
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:And I don't know what themes you are referring to that weren't in the movies.
Ah, let me mention one for starters:
Eowyn abandoning her warfighting and needing to be healed of the disease in her soul that sought for death to combat, Frodo reluctant to wear his sword even for ceremonial purposes, Faramir making it very clear that he believes the men of Gondor have become *lesser* since they started to honor warriors above artists.
And at the same time acknowledging that there's sometimes the *need* for war, that there exist fat tavernkeepers in Bree and silly hobbits in Shire whose peaceful lifestyle can only be ensured by the presence of armed guardians that are themselves nonetheless unjustly vilified.
This theme, present throughout the original work, can be summarized in both its aspects by Faramir's quote: "War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; 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"
This quote, is entirely omitted from the movies, as can be expected if it needs to be made into a war-glorifying movie.
quote:You'll also have to ask yourself why the theme or character trait is so important to the story and if it would actually work within the context of an already bloated film.
Because it turned Tolkien's work which had a understanding of the complex issues of both the goodness of peace and the occasional need for war, into a movie that merely glorified war, where women self-actualize by becoming warriors.
It turned it into a movie, that was getting quoted in American conservative forums to support their invasion of Iraq.
quote:Gimli still comes off as a tough character.
Ooh, "tough". Except when he's panting in their run -- so much for the untiring dwarven race. Except when he's falling off horses. Except when he needs to be "tossed".
More importantly does he come off as the character who's the most appreciative of both natural and man-made beauty, as in the original books? The one who sings poems about architectural marvels, drags Frodo off to see a beatiful lake, praises the beauty of Lothlorien and the Glimmering Caves?
Gimli's character in the books GREATLY APPRECIATED BEAUTY.
Only good thing you have to say about him in the movie is that he's "tough"? This goes back to my argument that the movie glorifies war and skill-in-war above all other qualities.
[ August 01, 2012, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:The end of the movie has already been lauded as having too many endings.
It did. But that's Jackson's fault: Because it was missing the real ending, the Scouring of the Shire, Jackson had to spread the impact of it into several other scenes.
quote:Tacking on another 20-30 minutes just for another ending would be too much.
I'm not asking it to be "tacked on". Changes would have to be made throughout all three movies, starting at least from the scene at Galadriel's mirror, but also with the handling of Saruman, and several other bits.
It would have to be integrated gracefully. In return you could omit and shorten scenes like the meaningless speech at the coronation of Aragorn, which said nothing and was nothing. A meaningless scene that could be made as short as the scene of Sam's wedding with Rosie.
quote:What purpose would there be in including this scene? How was anything destroyed by not including it?
Another theme in the books is that nothing can stay unaffected; in the mortal world there are no sanctuaries that can stay utterly ignorant of outside happenings. From the very first book Gildor says to Frodo, that the hobbits can shut themselves in, but they can't shut the outside world out. By the Scouring of the Shire that is *proven*.
That's why it's important that the Shire *gets* affected, that the war *does* reach the Shire.
It would also allow Frodo to display deliberate virtues of forgiveness and mercy yet again, even after his betrayal by Gollum, in a way that he never gets a chance to do in the movies. (His attitude towards Gollum in the 3rd movie is indeed portrayed side-by-side with his stupid dismissal of Sam -- as such his mercy towards Gollum is just foolishness in the movies, instead of the complicated moral dilemma of the books)
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:This also establishes a drive for Frodo, personalizing the mission even more than it already is.
This is a theme in the movies that is utterly *disgusting* and morally reprehensive, that Jackson seems to think that heroes can't just want to save millions of other people, they need to have personally loved ones to seek to save.
So in the movies Arwen will die if Aragorn fails, and the Shire will burn if Frodo fails. As if saving the whole rest of Middle-Earth isn't bloody-well enough motivation for an actually heroic person.
This "personalization" of the motivations is part of the moral decadence of the films, alongside their glorification of war. In the books, the characters can seriously argue that they can't throw the Ring into the Sea because that would just burden future generations (possibly thousands years in the future) with the conflict.
In the movies everyone needs to have a personal loved one in danger, eh? So much for a hero's responsibility to all peoples everywhere.
quote:Saruman's voice serves almost no purpose
No, what doesn't serve almost any purpose is Helm's Deep: that's why it's reduced to a couple pages in the books. But Saruman's Voice is a fundamentally crucial chapter, which shows Theoden resisting of his own will Saruman's tempting offer of peace, shows Gandalf extending both justice and mercy to Saruman, and shows Saruman actually having a moment of doubt. At least three characters have crucial moments there.
The moment of doubt and possible repentance before pride overcome is a another big theme throughout Tolkien. Gollum, Smeagol, Saruman all have one in the LOTR books -- and Ar-Pharazon, and even Sauron himself have one in the Silmarillion.
[ August 01, 2012, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The Scouring and readjusting scenes to include more of the background fluff like references to Faenor and the War for the Similirils would only work if the LotR didn't "end" when it did but continued on for a few more books like modern High Fantasy novels and dealt with other issues and problems.
Because then we could explore new characterizations, how does the Scouring affect people and so on? But no, the books ended then with everyone earning their happy ending (for the most part, life goes on for some people).
If it was more like Harry Turtledove in that we had a few more characters who stayed in the Shire who we occassionally switched to who resolved the Scouring with just a little help from Pippin and Merry at the end and was happening at the same time it would make more sense or something.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
Wow. That's a lotta ANGRY. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: I see the Similrilian as more of a "HBO Series" ala Game of Throwns
That's how I've always seen it as well, but in the HBO version, it'd all be about elves having sex in the forest. Of all the things I've been looking forward to seeing out of the Silmarillion, Luthien performing sexual favors on Beren in the forests of Doriath isn't one of them.
Given their track record, I don't think it would work on HBO if they have to give it the HBO treatment. Not without totally changing the spirit of the book.
Too true.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: You're missing the point. The end of the movie has already been lauded as having too many endings. Tacking on another 20-30 minutes just for another ending would be too much. The Hobbits have already won and achieved what they set out to do. What purpose would there be in including this scene? How was anything destroyed by not including it? Did the audience feel anything more or less about the characters because of its exclusion?
What the Hobbits originally set out to do was save the Shire. The Scouring of the Shire is the end of the quest.
[ August 02, 2012, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: . . . it would make more sense or something.
Would it make more sense? Or would it make breakfast?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I totally get why the Scouring of the Shire is important... and why it is sad that it wasn't included... but it was still the right decision not to make the movie another 20 minutes longer.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But, as has been pointed out, other things could have been trimmed.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
They could have just included the Scouring of the Shire in the extended versions at least.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: They could have just included the Scouring of the Shire in the extended versions at least.
This is the only alternative that I could see happening.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)