Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Refia. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
I HATE THEM MOVIES!!!!!!!; Someone's bitter...
Topic Started: Jan 11 2011, 03:59 AM (576 Views)
jules14
Member Avatar
(Wo)man on a Mission
I'm totally drunk now and thought itd be funny to post this rant on Jacksons' movies from someone on a GRRM forum. It's actually pretty terrifying.

Quote:
 
Read the books. Ignore the movies

The movies are horrible, apart from the first one.

For two reasons:

1)It ignores a lot of stuff about the work itself

2)It fails a lot as movies goes.

Now the first part, is for fans of the books, and I'm not complaining about removing Tom Bombadil and elves showing up where they shoulnd't and all that shit.

No I'm talking about, how Peter Jackson and pals, fucking ruined half the characters and big moments of the books.

-Frodo is not a pussy. He is suppose to be brave and strong. In the books Frodo is believable as your hero. He takes up the ring because he feels confidant that he can destroy it.(And cause the ring was starting to influence him but whatever) He did not cower, nor stand behind is friends. In Moria his the first after Aragorn to charge the goblins. He gets speared cause he was busy taking ass and kicking names.
When he talks to Gollum, he is extremely severe that he manages to domesticate Gollum, for awhile. In the movie that's all phoned in. Fucking hated it.

Frodo is a hero in the books, which makes his failing more hard to take. That was the point of Frodo, the hero that fails the journey. Frodo is a pussy in the movies. way to missed the point there!

-Aragorn. In the movies his just Strider the Helping Ranger That Tags Along. Though I'll admit this is also Viggo's fault, he does a great Strider not so good King Elessar.
In the book there's two different type of Aragorn. There's Strider then there's King Elessar.
When Aragorn is hiding behind the ranger attitude, he is avoiding his duties. He is not ready to lead Gondor, so he hides. He is a ranger with no name hoping no one really notices him. He doesn't think he is ready to lead Gondor.

When he takes up the sword he finally faces his purpose in life. Aragorn takes up the sword in Fellowship of the Ring not in Return of the King!

He goes with the Fellowship cause that's the path and journey he must take, to prove himself that he IS the King of Gondor. IT WAS HIS PERSONAL JOURNEY! Not because Frodo needed pals.

He also did not take up the Path of the Dead cause Elrond told him, he took it cause he was finally ready to become King. The journey made him believe himself as King. The Path of the Dead was the final challenge.

While we at it.

-They ruined the Path of the Dead! One my favorite parts of the book, the one t I really wanted to see turned into film, THEY RUINED IT!

That part of the book is suppose to be dark, oppressing and close to a horror novel and most of all, a moment of true courage and will. The movie version? Gimli's stand up comedy act, fucking green ghosts and landslide of skulls.

Worst of all the whole section(even in EE) is like 3 minutes! Such an important moment in the trilogy and they almost cut it from the movie!
I can live fine with Tom Bombadil out. Less Tree Beard was good. Small Uruk Hai section in TTT was okay. No Beregond was fine. But the Path of the Dead?

It's when Aragorn and the Grey Company muster courage to face all fears, they even drag the scared shitless horses through a mountain, cause they must.
They pass through forgotten cities, dead people on thrones, it's such an awesome moment and Jackson makes it bloody tunnels and unfunny Gimli jokes!

Where's the dark foreboding? Where's the creepy feeling? Where's the ultimate test of courage? WHERE?

Also the imagery in the final of that chapter is awesome. Aragorn and the Gery Company riding and the dead following them. What we get? SKULLS RAINING ON THEM! ABSOLUTE FUCKERS!

SSSSSSSSLYNNT RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE!


-Denethor in the books is a noble man that he is trying to do everything in his reach to save Gondor against impossible odds. His descent into madness is a sad one, he was just trying to do the right thing. In the end he fails cause Sauron got the best out of him. In the whole trilogy, Denethor is when we see how trully twisted Sauron is. Not the armies, or that he is an eye atop of a tower, but that his lies and deceit can pierce through even the most noble of heart, and make a desperate man a misguided fool. He preys on the weakness of man. Not play lighthouse.

In the movies Denethor is an awful person, power hungry and already mad.
Way to miss the point there people.

John Noble does a great job though, one of the best actors of the trilogy, but he could do so much more and give an even more powerful performance, if they sticked with the material!

-Boromir. Another character in which Peter Jackson and crew did not understand! At all.
In the books he is brave, noble blah blah. He cracks under the pressure of the journey and is possessed by the power of the Ring.
In the movies he always wanted the ring, making him greedy and selfish. Kinda the bad guy of the group, when in the books he isn't. His flawed. He symbolizes mankind at his core.

Like his father he tries to do the right thing but in the wrong way. The Ring ends up bringing his worst qualities at his greatest moment of doubt. CAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE RING DOES!

His last stand shows that mankind is not always greedy and selfish, they can be altruist and honourable, that's why he saves Merry and Pippin, even though he was destined to fail. His strength in wanting to redeem itself at the end, is what made Boromir a great character. In the movie that subtlety is lost, cause during the whole movie his an asshole!

-Faramir. Gawd they managed to fail all the family!

Faramir is the opposite of Boromir and Denethor. He tries to do the right thing, and manages to do it. Which is let Frodo go. Not drag him to Minas Tirith and regret halfway through. I get why they did it, they needed a climax for Frodo and Sam in TTT, cause Shelob would ruin the timeline. But they should not trample Faramir's character development.

In the book he is not swayed by the Ring, he resists the power of the ring. He is the only person on the whole trilogy that refuses the Ring. He doesn't refuse cause the ring would turn him into a monster, he refuses cause that's the right thing to do. He doesn't take it cause it wouldn't bring anything good to him or his people.

He is the shining beacon of hope in the novels. He is mankind at his best. Not Aragorn, but the one of the secondary characters. Again they miss this, and the whole point!

They keept ruining message after message, theme after theme.
Lord of the Rings is rich with themes and important messages, subtle messages and themes. Yet the movies don't get one right. NOT ONE!

Worst of all Faramir was the avatar of Tolkien. Tolkien saw himself in Faramir. If he ever comes back from the dead he would murder Peter Jackson and Frank Walsh.

They kinda screwed his relationship with Eown to. Not even in the EE. But whatever.

-The confrontation between Saruman and Gandalf the White. I was okay with this part being cut from the theatrical release, even if didn't made much sense, cause I knew it was going to feature in the Extended Edition. So I was a happy cat. Till I watched what they did in the EE.

What.The.Fuck?

Not only they filled that scene with bad CGI but they also ruined Gandalf's crowning moment of awesome.

The reveal that Gandalf was now White was why that Saruman got owned.

In the books Gandalf proves that he is stronger than Saruman when he reveals himself that he is White. It's a "Say hello to my little friend!" moment.
He shows that he is now superior and breaks Saruman's staff, meaning that from now on Saruman is of the Shit. There's no fireballs, or people falling from towers to get impaled.It's all words and will.

Saruman gets humiliated not killed, cause that would do no good, is a bigger fall to Saruman and that Gandalf still believes that he can be redeemed. WAY TO MISS THE POINT FOLKS!

-The siege of Minas Tirith was also poorly conceived. A case they went with the BIG ACTION MOMENT and neglect the subtle parts of the book!

There is no big battle in the books. It was a days long siege. The Orc army just puts the Fear of Sauron into the mens of Gondor. It was dark and hope there is not. The end was nigh and the Great Deceiver was about to win. This was all done with no battle. No armies clashing. Just description and mood.

The hopeless of it it all was almost heartbreaking. There was only Gandalf, cause when the battle starts the defenses don't hold.

When the gate comes down, only Gandalf waits for the army. The Witch King comes, boasting and laughing and lighting is sword on FIRAH! That was the end there. Poor Gandalf knew he was no match for the Witch King at that time, and he was the last man standing in a hopeless defense.

Then the horn blows, and the Rohirim arrive. Hope is regained and a new dawn breaks.

The movie doesn't capture any of this. It does however capture the great charge. But not enough.

-No Harrowing of the Shire? This was also well removed from the theatrical release, but what the fuck! You have the EE, no reason why you couldn't shoot and add it later!

The Harrowing of the Shire is not pointless, it's what completes the themes of the trilogy! That no place is safe from War and Change. The coming of the four Hobbits back to the Shire to find it broken is a sad moment.

All they wanted was to return home, to their friends to their peaceful live, away from business of men. But when they arrive, they find their home broken, their friends slaves and the Hobbit lifestyle ruined.
It's the what the book is all about!

No matter how small or unimportant you are, WAR AFFECTS ALL AND EVERYONE!

How did Peter Jackson and crew miss this? Did he even read the books? What the fuck? WHAT THE FUCK?!

Okay in the theatrical release, NOT OKAY on the EE.

-Shelob. I'll admit Sam vs Shelob saves it. But wheres chill down your spine that the book gives? The hobbits trapped in dark corridors, alone, Gollum's creepy lines in the dark, trapped in a maze with something. Then you find out that something is GIANT SPIDER. Holy fuck Giant Spider! Sam desperately trying to find Frodo. only to found him almost being food to a GIANT SPIDER!
It was a pure horror moment, that the movies don't capture.

I was hoping for an Alien moment, and I got nothing. Lame.

Also it would be impossible for the movie to capture this, but this is one of the best lines of the trilogy.

Shelob was gone, and whether she lay long in her lair, nursing her malice and her misery, and in slow years of darkness healed herself from within, rebuilding her clustered eyes, until with hunger like death she spun once more her dreadful snares in the glens of the Mountains of Shadow, this tale does not tell.

This is part is so haunting. This is something you will never see Martin or Erikson or whatever write. The final "This tale does not tell" is so chilling. She might still be out there, still hungry, forever waiting.

Like we are for A Dance with Dragons! Har Har Har....

-The ending. This is kinda of my interpretation of the ending of the movie but they made it to "happy", when in the book is not. It's bittersweet, almost heartbreakingly sad.

Frodo, Bilbo, the Elves and Gandalf sailing to the west signals the end of the magic and the wonder of Middle Earth. That's why Tolkien axed the idea of making a sequel. The magic had left Middle Earth. That's why the place they sail west is called the Grey Havens. The world is left with less wonderful.

The beautiful woods and cities of the elves would die, the wisdom of the great Wizards was no more, all those lovely places of mystery and wonder lost forever. Middle Earth became...our earth. Which it is. In centuries, the hobbit's would be driven by barbarians, the Ents would be cut down, ages of wonder and magic forgotten and the world of Arda would become ours.

The sailing into the Sunset in the movies kinda robs that moment of sadness. They kinda nailed it between characters but not overall, and that was the point. Bah!


Now the parts that fail internally as movies.

-"Go away Sam". Excuse me what?

This, is what this awful movie is telling it's audience.
Frodo, just sends Sam away. Sam. The guy who almost drowns trying to get to his friend. Sam. The guy that he builds an everlasting friendship with. Sam. The guy that decided to go into a volcano even though he doesn't need to. SAM?!?!?!

I don't care if you say that it was the ring or Gollum. No. You know why? Cause it's horrible character development.
I don't care. No. No. No. No. No.

Just awful. These guys are suppose to be buddies now! The movies build a relation between these guys just to piss over it in 10 seconds. Absolute Fuckers.

When Sam does has his heroic/homoerotic moment I'm suppose to feel what? That these guys are true friends? Sam and the ass"My new friend tells me I'm not suppose to like you, so bye!"hole? Absolute Fuckers.

This is also is a Book-Movie complaint. It just makes poor sense in a adaptation and in a movie sense.

-Aragorn falls, people think his dead, but he isn't! Why? What's the point of this scene? Everyone knows that he doesn't die. So why are you wasting time on this plotpoint. For more Arwen flashbacks? Couldn't you add that when he was in Helm's Deep doing nothing on the stairs? Come on...

Instead of wasting time on that, you could used it to send off Saruman properly, you twats.

-The best CGI ever....and the WORST CGI ever. Watching these movies is very pleasing to the eye. The sets are beautiful, the special effects great and Gollum is the best technological feat, since cloning real dinosaurs for a movie. What? They were CGI Dinos? Well...I learned something new today!
Anyway, it's amazing really.

And then you see the Army of the Dead. What the fuck? Did the same company who made Gollum do these CGI aberrations? THEY LOOK AWFUL! Also why did they chose vomit green for colouring them? Did you run out of time or something? The budget was over? What? EXPLAIN WHY THEY LOOKED LIKE THE SHIT!

You can make a total virtual character and a bloody giant spider, but can't make proper ghosts? Did the guys who designed and created Gollum and Shelob have brainfarts when they made the Army of the Dead?
I mean...what happened!

Also that fireball in the final Saruman scene. What was up with that. It looked awful! And Denethor falling from Minas Tirith?
Who the fuck was in charge of the visual effects of Return of the King anyway? It wasn't Weta that I'm sure...

-----

I adored Fellowship of the Ring. When I watched the movie it filled me with wonder and made a little kid again. I guess it was my A New Hope.Then The Two Towers came and the magic was not all there, in some parts in shined, but in others there was so much wrong. When Return of the King came it wasn't the same thing. No magic, no wonder, no passion. It was my Phantom Menace if we still on the Star Wars metaphor.

The Shire was wonderful, Moria impressive, the Nazgul were scary, I let go a single manly tear when Gandalf fell from the bridge even though I knew he would come back. I did it when I first read the book, and repeated when watched it on film.

The other movies fail in a lot of the big scenes. Strange they manage to make a small one in the books(Helm's Deep) a huge bonus. But the rest. I'm not feeling it. So not there.

The movies are okay and really I doubt someone is going to do better, and if you never read the books they are probably great.

That's why when I see people saying that the movies are better than the books I can only assume they:

A)Are high on cocaine.

B)Never read the books or never watched the movies.

C)Are named Peter Jackson.

As for the books which what you wanted, they are lovely books.


No Tolkien doesn't take 3 pages to describe a tree. He doesn't take 3 words to describe a tree really, unless the tree is relevant. He does take time and words describing the world around you.

It seems very boring at first, I did think it was boring when I read it back 15 or so years ago. But later you will find little details and meanings that didn't seem relevant at first. Those descriptions of places lost and endless roads will take up a new meaning.

Like in Frank Herbert's epic, Arrakis is THE Character of Dune. Not Paul or Leto II, but the planet.
So is Middle Earth the character of Lord of the Rings. Tolkien created a stage and he wants his readers to learn about that stage. Not something where the characters just walk around, but where the reader could be part of. I'll admit that describing how many miles places are, is not that important but doesn't drag the book that much.

Most of the trilogy is mood and setting. The characterization is light in modern standards, but they are perfect for the story and thematic.

You just have to let the books take you into those mountain peaks, lost valleys and forests. Cause that's what is about, the world.

Is it mandatory? Ehh...Yes? No? Maybe? I will say The Hobbit IS mandatory. Cause it's just a great tale made for kids, teens, adults and old "should already be dead so stop leeching social security" folk.

If you do get around Lord of the Rings and enjoy it, get Silmarillion. I'm not the craziest fan of it, but the book is the true testament to someone's imagination. It was also his life work, that he never managed to complete. One life time wasn't enough to complete one book.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MackenzieW
Member Avatar
Resident Time Lady
Oh Jonas. I can only imagine what will happen once that guy (?) sees The Hobbit.
You are the music while the music lasts--T.S. Eliot

"Stop the damn texting and pick up a book!"--Grandmama, "The Addams Family" (Musical)

"Tomorrow will be better for as long as America keeps alive the ideals of freedom and a better life." —Walt Disney

"I wake in the loneliness of sunrise
When the deep purple heaven turns blue
And start to pray
As I pray each day
That I’ll hear some word from you

I lie in the loneliness of evening
Looking out on a silver-flaked sea
And ask the moon
Oh how soon, how soon
Will my love come home to me"--"Loneliness of Evening," Cinderella


"Thank you, Lord
You have brought us
Safe to shore
Be our strength and protection ever more.
A Thiarna dean trocaire
A Chriost dean trocaire
A Thiarna dean trocaire
A Chriost dean trocaire"--Heartland, as performed by Celtic Thunder


I'm writing a novel!

A Guide to Fanfiction for Dummies!

My Little Corner

I'm on Book Country!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Refia
Member Avatar
Paying Tribute to the Past
That's a lot of whining. :blink:

I've said it before and I'll always say it: Tolkien's book can not literally be put in a movie because it would make a terrible, incoherent movie. Changes were in order to make it flow, to add suspension and to give even Tolkien-nuts moments of "What's going to happen now? I'm on the edge of my seat!". As far as movie-adaptions of LOTR go, Peter Jackson did the best possible. Sure, there are flaws, but they do not take away from the quality of the movies. They did what they could.

The Return Of the King was already long in the theatre version, even longer in the Extended... If they added everything from the book like the Scourging of the Shire (my favourite part of the book, too, but do you see me raging?), TROTK would be 5 hours or more. No human being can keep his attention on 1 thing for that long. Critics already complained about the theatre version taking so damn long to end!

The movies are Peter Jackson's version of LOTR. Recognizable as LOTR, familiar, but with differences, because it's a movie, and not a book, and what works in a book can't always work in a movie, and the other way around.

That's not to say I don't have gripes with the movies or some changes that PJ made, of course I do. Mostly because the changes he made to for example Denethor, Boromir and Gimli have had disastrous results for those three in badfiction, making us have to suffer through Sue-fics full of ebul!Denethor, Rapist!Boromir and Retarded!Gimli.

Not adding certain characters like Halbarad or Glorfindel I have less problems with. The movies are chuck-full of characters, mythology and plotlines already as they are, adding ALL characters from the book would not make the movies better. It would make them a complete unwatchable mess. People already had problems following the plot and characters of Pirates 3, what makes anyone think an audience could take the full, unedited version of Tolkien's book turned movie? Aside from the Tolkien nuts.

Some character changes were even inevitable. Legolas in the book, for example, was just there. I mean, he had no character! So of course they had to try and spice him up. It just backfired on them by having him be captain obvious (because he had no lines noteworthy of in the book, they had to give him something to say in the movies) and casting a pretty-boy as him meaning we have to suffer through countless Sues with bad Legomance.

Then there's of course Sauron, on who opinions are divided. Some like having him visually represented in the movies, others (like the Nostalgia Critic) prefer him to be a looming presence, a shadowy figure of utmost evil like in the animated version. Me, I didn't really mind the flaming eye of Doom. The collapse of Barad Dûr was cool! And as for his tall-evil-knight look, I am SO glad that was in the movie. Why?

Because it's as close as we'll ever get to having a movie version of Morgoth. Sauron's design was based on Morgoth's, after all. And I don't think we'll ever see a movie based on the Morgoth storyline.
[align=center]“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
[/align]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jules14
Member Avatar
(Wo)man on a Mission
Quote:
 
Oh Jonas. I can only imagine what will happen once that guy (?) sees The Hobbit.


That'll probably result in a five-page rant.

Quote:
 
The movies are Peter Jackson's version of LOTR. Recognizable as LOTR, familiar, but with differences, because it's a movie, and not a book, and what works in a book can't always work in a movie, and the other way around.


Have to say I agree. I was just drunk when I posted this. Do you want to delete it?

Quote:
 
Mostly because the changes he made to for example Denethor, Boromir and Gimli have had disastrous results for those three in badfiction, making us have to suffer through Sue-fics full of ebul!Denethor, Rapist!Boromir and Retarded!Gimli.


I agree with you on Denethor and Gimli, but I don't think Jackson really changed Boromir much. I don't know why people say he did. Makes the Suethor portrayal of Boromir more incomprehensible.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Refia
Member Avatar
Paying Tribute to the Past
Nah Jules, leave it! It's fine to discuss this. :)

With Boromir, I think the changes were more subtle, the way he spoke, the words he said, stuff like that.
[align=center]“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
[/align]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ariel
Member Avatar
Professional Nutcase
Quote:
 
-Aragorn. In the movies his just Strider the Helping Ranger That Tags Along. Though I'll admit this is also Viggo's fault, he does a great Strider not so good King Elessar.
In the book there's two different type of Aragorn. There's Strider then there's King Elessar.
When Aragorn is hiding behind the ranger attitude, he is avoiding his duties. He is not ready to lead Gondor, so he hides. He is a ranger with no name hoping no one really notices him. He doesn't think he is ready to lead Gondor.

When he takes up the sword he finally faces his purpose in life. Aragorn takes up the sword in Fellowship of the Ring not in Return of the King!

Actually I was under the impression that he didn't try to take the throne was because he knew it would be suicide what with Sauron inhabiting Mordor and all.

Quote:
 
-Denethor in the books is a noble man that he is trying to do everything in his reach to save Gondor against impossible odds. His descent into madness is a sad one, he was just trying to do the right thing. In the end he fails cause Sauron got the best out of him. In the whole trilogy, Denethor is when we see how trully twisted Sauron is. Not the armies, or that he is an eye atop of a tower, but that his lies and deceit can pierce through even the most noble of heart, and make a desperate man a misguided fool. He preys on the weakness of man. Not play lighthouse.

Again, I was under the impression that he started going a little loopy after his wife died and losing battles against orcs and losing his son didn't help much.

Quote:
 
You can make a total virtual character and a bloody giant spider, but can't make proper ghosts? Did the guys who designed and created Gollum and Shelob have brainfarts when they made the Army of the Dead?

Erm, the ghosts were done better than the spider. Seriously, when's the last time you saw a spider with a stinger on it's arse. What is it, half hornet?

Dude, if they were to do everything exactly as they happened in the book, you'd be sitting there for days trying to watch it. I like it and all, but I do not want to see the entire thing on the big screen. (Especially not Tom. Seriously, what was the point of that scene?)

I don't think he changed Boromir much either. He was still the one that was corrupted the most by the ring, and he still redeemed himself for it. Saying that he was not corrupted by it in the book just says that you haven't read it in awhile.

I do agree with the issues on Frodo and Aragorn. Aragorn struck me as a whiny idiot who spent the entire trilogy going 'I don't wanna be king' in the movies. That annoyed me since that wasn't what he was like in the books.

Frodo, in the books, had a chance of destroying the ring if he hadn't met Shelob without carting Sam along. He was that way in the animated version as well. In Jackson's version on the other hand, he wouldn't have gotten to Shelob without Sam's help. Seriously, the next time you watch the trilogy, count how many times Sam keeps him from putting the ring on when there's a Ringwraith nearby. It'll astound you.

Despite the mischaracterizations, I still love the movies and I am eagerly waiting for The Hobbit to come out.
[align=center]Posted Image[/align]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jules14
Member Avatar
(Wo)man on a Mission
Quote:
 
Again, I was under the impression that he started going a little loopy after his wife died and losing battles against orcs and losing his son didn't help much.


You're right. And actually, Sauron DIDN'T get the best of him. Sure, he was desperate, and insane from looking into the palantir, but Sauron didn't get control over him. In fact, it was Jackson who portrayed him as being taken over by Sauron.

Quote:
 
(Especially not Tom. Seriously, what was the point of that scene?)


I still can't figure it out. It feels like something from another book pasted in to Lord of the Rings.

Quote:
 
Aragorn struck me as a whiny idiot who spent the entire trilogy going 'I don't wanna be king' in the movies. That annoyed me since that wasn't what he was like in the books.


What bothered me about Aragorn was that Viggo Mortensen did the Ranger part of his personality well, but not the king part. As king, Aragorn just seemed...boring. If I'd been in the movies, I would have preferred to have Gandalf, Boromir, or Theoden as my king.

Quote:
 
In Jackson's version on the other hand, he wouldn't have gotten to Shelob without Sam's help. Seriously, the next time you watch the trilogy, count how many times Sam keeps him from putting the ring on when there's a Ringwraith nearby. It'll astound you.


I'll have to try that sometime. Though I love the movies, I still love to make fun of Elijah Wood's portrayal of Frodo. I have the feeling Bilbo will be a lot better in The Hobbit.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Caranthol
Member Avatar
At Journey's End
Well, whoever wrote that rant has some good points, e.g. the portrayal of Denethor. And he/she was spot on when it comes to the Paths of the Dead. I remember that I was horribly disappointed when I saw that scene in the movie theatre. I mean, glowing ghosts that look like they've been ripped out of a cheesy cartoon? Oh please! The damn ghosts also made parts of the Battle of the Pelennor Fields downright laughable. They wouldn't have been half so bad if they hadn't the neon-green glow around them, but obviously someone decided that the movie wasn't The Return of the King but rather "Lord of the Rings: The Lights of Las Vegas".

Then there's the last complaint I have about the RotK: The Orcs. In the first two movies they were just perfect, so I can't fathom why they suddenly changed their appearance for the third. I know the Orcs are supposed to be mutilated and twisted, but in RotK some of them looked just like lumps of melted Play-Doh! I really preferred the designs of, for instance, the orcs of Moria and the Uruk-Hai.

Otherwise, I loved the movies and think they are the definite movie adaptation of LotR for a long time to come. There are many flaws, big and small, but the movies still IMHO capture the "feel" of Tolkien's world and that's the main thing. Besides, on a personal note, without the movies I maybe wouldn't have ever read Tolkien's works. It was the Fellowship of the Ring (to seeing which my brother had almost to drag me) that fired my interest.

Quote:
 
I agree with you on Denethor and Gimli, but I don't think Jackson really changed Boromir much. I don't know why people say he did. Makes the Suethor portrayal of Boromir more incomprehensible.


If I remember correctly, there is more and more marked foreshadowing of Boromir's fall in the movies than in the book. Perhaps it's because of that. I've seen that especially the scene where Boromir utters the line "It is a strange fate we should suffer so much fear and doubt… over so small a thing" is portrayed in most of the Suefics (except for Boromances, of course).

Quote:
 
Then there's of course Sauron, on who opinions are divided. Some like having him visually represented in the movies, others (like the Nostalgia Critic) prefer him to be a looming presence, a shadowy figure of utmost evil like in the animated version.


I have to say that's another thing that bugged me. I've come to think that the Eye of Sauron in the books is very much symbolic, and there are hints that Sauron actually has a body. The eye thing, however, was only a minor nuisance and I have to admit that it's visually effective. Perhaps movies can't always be as subtle as books, but I can see why they portrayed Sauron as they did.

Edit: Oh, and about Faramir. I have to agree almost completely with the ranter, Faramir was pretty much spoiled in the movie. In the books, his nobility of character makes Denethor's favouring of Boromir all the more glaring and unfair. Besides, it makes the scenes where he gets wounded and is on the brink of death more tragic and suspenseful. At least when I read the book I sincerely hoped he would live because he was such a good guy.
"Ha! Wonnige Glut! Leuchtender Glanz!
Strahlend nun offen steht mir die Straße.
Im Feuer mich baden!"
- Siegfried, Act Three, Scene Two.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ariel
Member Avatar
Professional Nutcase
Quote:
 
I have to say that's another thing that bugged me. I've come to think that the Eye of Sauron in the books is very much symbolic, and there are hints that Sauron actually has a body. The eye thing, however, was only a minor nuisance and I have to admit that it's visually effective. Perhaps movies can't always be as subtle as books, but I can see why they portrayed Sauron as they did.

Yeah, I kinda got that feeling to. It would be rather inconvenient to be a giant eyeball all the time, plus where's the logic in it? It could have just as easily have been a giant nose or something.

Quote:
 
Then there's the last complaint I have about the RotK: The Orcs. In the first two movies they were just perfect, so I can't fathom why they suddenly changed their appearance for the third. I know the Orcs are supposed to be mutilated and twisted, but in RotK some of them looked just like lumps of melted Play-Doh! I really preferred the designs of, for instance, the orcs of Moria and the Uruk-Hai.

I never noticed that. Huh. I need to watch RotK again, I guess. I mean I know there was that one that looked like his brain was coming out of the side of his face, but other than that....

Quote:
 
I'll have to try that sometime. Though I love the movies, I still love to make fun of Elijah Wood's portrayal of Frodo. I have the feeling Bilbo will be a lot better in The Hobbit.

I never noticed it myself until I saw Jackson's and Bakshi's version back to back. Then I realized how much of a wimp Jackson portrayed him as.

I could understand the Barrowight scene because that's where they got their weapons from (which Jackson never explained, incidentally), but Tom served no purpose and was mentioned in passing about three times after that.
[align=center]Posted Image[/align]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jules14
Member Avatar
(Wo)man on a Mission
Quote:
 
Oh, and about Faramir. I have to agree almost completely with the ranter, Faramir was pretty much spoiled in the movie.


See, it's a bit strange, but the changes to Faramir's character never bothered me that much, except for the pacing problems and extra scenes. Then again, I always thought Boromir was a lot more interesting.

Quote:
 
I know the Orcs are supposed to be mutilated and twisted, but in RotK some of them looked just like lumps of melted Play-Doh! I really preferred the designs of, for instance, the orcs of Moria and the Uruk-Hai.


Yeah, I'll have to watch the movie again. I think the effects in general were worse in RotK than the other two movies. I have no idea why.

Quote:
 
It would be rather inconvenient to be a giant eyeball all the time, plus where's the logic in it? It could have just as easily have been a giant nose or something.


So Sauron could sniff out the Ring, huh? :A

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ariel
Member Avatar
Professional Nutcase
Actually I was just thinking of the boogers....
[align=center]Posted Image[/align]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Caranthol
Member Avatar
At Journey's End
Quote:
 
Yeah, I'll have to watch the movie again. I think the effects in general were worse in RotK than the other two movies. I have no idea why.


Well, I forgot to specify that I meant the faces of the orcs. Especially the Orc leader at Pelennor is more laughable than terrifying. As for bad effects, perhaps the budget was running low at that point? But then again, one could suppose film companies know how to prioritize.

Quote:
 
See, it's a bit strange, but the changes to Faramir's character never bothered me that much, except for the pacing problems and extra scenes. Then again, I always thought Boromir was a lot more interesting.


For me that's been nearly the opposite. I know Faramir in the books is a little Gary Stuish, but I can't but like the character.
"Ha! Wonnige Glut! Leuchtender Glanz!
Strahlend nun offen steht mir die Straße.
Im Feuer mich baden!"
- Siegfried, Act Three, Scene Two.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MackenzieW
Member Avatar
Resident Time Lady
Quote:
 
I know Faramir in the books is a little Gary Stuish, but I can't but like the character.


Of course he's a bit Gary Stuish--as the ranter pointed out, he IS Tolkien's author avatar. Eowyn was originally supposed to end up with Aragorn, but then Tolkien pretty much fell in love with her and made Faramir to be him (and get the girl). Of course, I don't mind. I love their relationship and think he's better for Eowyn than Aragorn anyway.
You are the music while the music lasts--T.S. Eliot

"Stop the damn texting and pick up a book!"--Grandmama, "The Addams Family" (Musical)

"Tomorrow will be better for as long as America keeps alive the ideals of freedom and a better life." —Walt Disney

"I wake in the loneliness of sunrise
When the deep purple heaven turns blue
And start to pray
As I pray each day
That I’ll hear some word from you

I lie in the loneliness of evening
Looking out on a silver-flaked sea
And ask the moon
Oh how soon, how soon
Will my love come home to me"--"Loneliness of Evening," Cinderella


"Thank you, Lord
You have brought us
Safe to shore
Be our strength and protection ever more.
A Thiarna dean trocaire
A Chriost dean trocaire
A Thiarna dean trocaire
A Chriost dean trocaire"--Heartland, as performed by Celtic Thunder


I'm writing a novel!

A Guide to Fanfiction for Dummies!

My Little Corner

I'm on Book Country!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Amarth
Member Avatar
Rising Again
I wouldn't mind removal of some scenes - if they hadn't put uncanonical scenes to replace them. Paticularly the Warg battle scene in TTT and its aftermath. What was the point of that? Or inserting romance in general? In book, it's in the background - and for a good reason : what does it matter, when the whole world is at stake? Eowyn's attraction for Aragorn was important, for it was behind her decision to disguise herself and ride to Pelennor, and it was given due attention in the book - but I really don't think there was any hanky-panky in Rivendell, particularly given much lauded sharp Elven senses. Laws and Customs of the Eldar aside, I'd like to think that Aragorn has more honour and responsibility than to risk staining Arwen's reputation when he isn't sure not only if he will be able to meet requirements to marry her, but whether he'll be alive by the end of it all. And why must the expression of their love be physical? To adapt the story for modern audience? But hasn't kissing been degraded to nearly nothing, isn't it but a prize in games today? Wouldn't meaningful looks mean so much more? What's wrong with courtly love?

And let's not get started with the whole rescue scene in FOTR. There is a self-assertive warrior princess in the story, no need to create another.

Honestly, if Jackson had to have romance, strong female characters, ebul!fathers, supposed allies gone antagonist (Faramir), and hot blonde elves with cool abilities and tear-jerking death scenes, he should have filmed Beren and Luthien. There the father is opposing and maiden does go out to save the day, and she actually possesses special powers. We also have love rivals/supposed to help but gone ebul! for "dramatic tension". Main charcaters include hunky man and his friend the golden-haired Elven lord who, canonically AND fanonically, pwns Legolas and Haldir, together (Down, Inner Noldor Fangirl! Down!). Seriously, he almost defeats a much more powerful Sauron than the one in LOTR. Sure, he does die, but it is stated that he is soon re-embodied, and I'm sure PJ wouldn't mind inserting a redemption-renewal-rebirth scene for the sake of fangurls, so we get both the tear-jerking death scene and a promise of future. And there is also a scene where aforementioned hunky man, elven lord AND his elven entourage get naked. In a dungeon.

As for those who wonder about Tom - perhaps he is a part of another story Tolkien thought of, which ties in with the rest of his legendarium, but has never been written. For Lord of the Rings is not a stand-alone, it's merely a part of a great legend which spans millenia. Or, perhaps, it's supposed to give us hope - for Men, Elves, and Wizards may be tempted by the ring, but there is someone who isn't affected by it at all. Thus, it is not omnipotent. Thus, it may be resisted and destroyed. Something to remember, when Boromir's actions and Frodo's despair cause us to wonder if the whole task isn't pointless.

But I can understand his removal from the film. I cannot, however, understand inserting nonexisting events, with hardly any importance to the main plot. I can understand fleshing-out characters who are not detailed (Legolas), but why warp wonderful, well-rounded characters? Denethor and Faramir are the the most cited examples, but I think Elrond, "kind as summer", has also been wronged for the sake of Jackson's vision of drama. You may not have space to put in the arrival of the Grey company, but why did you bring elves of Lothlorien to the battle? You left out Glorfindel, but "Figwit" gets a completely unnecessary scene?

I'll probably regret this rant later, but I've read one "I've read the books. Pippin threw the skeleton down the well. Aragorn disappeared during the battle with wargs. Haldir comes to Helm's Deep" fic too many (they've even gotten "cunning" enough to replace Arwen with Glorfindel). And I've finally recieved illustrated Silmarillion in English. So I guess I'll be in Canon-Nazi mode for a while.
"I dance the dance of the fool
and pray you find me mad
for if you lay hands upon the root
you'll know me, without illusion
and find me guilty of the truth."
-Malkav's Words

"LEGOLAS! YOU ARE HEIR TO THE THRONE OF MIRKWOOD! YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HAVE YOUR WAY WITH RANDOM GIRLS IN CLOSETS!"-Glorfindel, "Never Leave Fanfiction Lying Around" by crazyroninchic

"Dear Harry,

If Voldemort kills us, we turn into sparkly vampires. Can we panic NOW?

Sincerely, Ron"


“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.E- Albert Einstein

My Tolkien fanfic recs

Anime and manga fanfic recs

Book and game fanfic recs

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
« Previous Topic · Lord of the Rings - General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply