|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 153 responses total. |
twenex
|
|
response 25 of 153:
| 
Feb 1 17:25 UTC 2006 |
Re: #22. Well in that case, The Italian Job wasn't a remake either, as it
would baffle anyone who's seen the original where they got the idea for the
second from!
|
richard
|
|
response 26 of 153:
|
Feb 1 18:36 UTC 2006 |
LOTR was based on the books, not on the earlier cartoon movie. Peter Jackson
may have never even seen that movie.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 27 of 153:
|
Feb 2 03:18 UTC 2006 |
Re #26: And rather _loosely_ based on the books, at that. (My
impression was that Jackson said something like "This could be a good
story if ...") The first one wasn't too bad, but it went downhill from
there.
|
richard
|
|
response 28 of 153:
|
Feb 2 15:29 UTC 2006 |
re #27 yeah that must be why die-hard LOTR fans loved the movies and they won
a boatload of awards...
|
jadecat
|
|
response 29 of 153:
|
Feb 2 15:34 UTC 2006 |
Gotta be.
|
aruba
|
|
response 30 of 153:
|
Feb 3 21:13 UTC 2006 |
Re #27: Jonathan - I was a big fan of the books, and I thought Peter Jackson
did a good job with the movies. He had to leave some things out, but there
just wasn't enough time to do everything. Why do you say "loosely"?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 31 of 153:
|
Feb 3 21:28 UTC 2006 |
The *additions* -- the elves at Helm's Deep, replacing Glorfindel with Arwen
(though that would have been under other circumstances a reasonable change;
_Fellowship_ wasn't too different). The unintended funniest line was either
Frodo or Sam in *Minas Tirith* with the Nazgul coming down at them: "We
shouldn't even be here!"
And then it's that they didn't just cut, they *truncated* the (IMO) most
important part of the story: the Scouring of the Shire. IMO, the whole War of
the Ring is just complications in the quest to keep the Shire pure and
innocent. The books are *about* something; the movies cut out most of the
meaning and replaced it with expanded versions of the "action" -- mainly battle
scenes, IIRC.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 32 of 153:
|
Feb 3 23:52 UTC 2006 |
re #31: I think you've got your fictional geography mixed up, or else you
saw a different movie than I did, as there was no Nazgul attack near Minas
Tirith (not on Frodo and Sam, anyways.) Perhaps you were thinking of a
scene near Minas Morgul?
I was a little miffed that they left out the Scouring of the Shire, but it's
understandable. I think they should have included it in a premium DVD issue.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 33 of 153:
|
Feb 4 00:30 UTC 2006 |
Re #32: Frodo and Sam were never attacked by a Nazgul at *all* in the book. (It
might have been some other city -- but a) Minas Morgul is only separated from
Minas Tirith by a bridge and b) the point is that in the book Faramir let them
go while in the movie he was turned into what Boromir was in the book,
succumbing to the temptation of the Ring.) It might not have been a Nazgul,
either, just some winged thing swooping down on them when they were on a bridge
and screaming at them.
I would say that it's perhaps "understandable" that the Scouring of the Shire
was left out -- but I still think that's cutting out the *point* of the story.
The War of the Ring was just a *plot complication*.
|
drew
|
|
response 34 of 153:
|
Feb 4 06:47 UTC 2006 |
I thought I saw a scene of the scouring of the shire in one of the movies.
|
bru
|
|
response 35 of 153:
|
Feb 4 13:53 UTC 2006 |
Frodo saw the scouring in Galadriels Pool. It was one possible outcome, one
possible future. We know it happened in the novel, but it was little more than
an echo of the war, Saurumans attempt to get even with the halflings. It
would have added nothing to the movie.
Yes Bobomir should have let the halflings go and not tken them to minas
morgul. It added nothing to the story to change it, except, it gave the
director a chance to show more indepth the relationship between the hobbits
and a certain Smeagol.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 36 of 153:
|
Feb 4 17:34 UTC 2006 |
The Scouring of the Shire was not "little more than an echo of the war" -- the
whole of the trilogy was Frodo's struggle to keep the Shire safe, and the movie
doesn't let you see how it turns out.
Boromir tried to steal the Ring in both the movie and the book. In the book,
however, there was a great difference between Faramir and Boromir; Faramir was
a Great Man, unlike his father and his brother, who could resist temptation. In
the movie there was no difference whatsoever. It *subtracted* from the story to
change it.
|
jep
|
|
response 37 of 153:
|
Feb 6 17:20 UTC 2006 |
re resp:33: In the book, Frodo, Sam, Pippin and Merry were surrounded
by some of the Nazgul when Strider went off scouting (I forget what
for). Frodo got a piece of a sword stuck in him. Strider came back
and chased the Nazgul away, then declared Frodo to be beyond his
healing powers. They went through the woods for a couple of days, then
encountered Glorfindel, who had been sent out by Elrond to try to find
them, along with "the other such who were powerful enough to ride
against The Nine" or words to that effect. Glorfindel sent Frodo on
his horse, "who will not drop any burden that I command him to carry"
(or, again, words to that effect) and then Frodo wakes up in bed.
Other than Pippin, riding with Eowyn when she kills the chief of the
Nazgul, that's the only time any of the hobbits directly confront a
Nazgul. Though Samwise and Frodo and Gollum shudder when one flies
over them on the edge of Mordor.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 38 of 153:
|
Feb 6 18:39 UTC 2006 |
s/Pippin/Merry/ in the "riding with Eowyn" sentence, but other than that that's
an excellent summation -- of the book, not the movie (for one thing, it's Arwen
not Glorfindel in the movie).
|
happyboy
|
|
response 39 of 153:
|
Feb 6 19:11 UTC 2006 |
lol!
|
jep
|
|
response 40 of 153:
|
Feb 6 19:27 UTC 2006 |
It seems to me to have been a very minor change, well explained and
with plenty of reason for it, to omit Glorfindel for Arwen in the
movie. While Glorfindel is one of my favorite minor characters in the
book, I didn't think the omission was any big deal.
I also thought that Saruman's Revenge on The Shire was extraneous in
the book. Tolkien needed some more pages and he stuck that on the
end. The book would have been just as great a story without it.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 41 of 153:
|
Feb 6 19:31 UTC 2006 |
Re #40: Glorfindel-to-Arwen was to me, also, a minor change.
The Scouring of the Shire, as I've said, seems to me to be the *most important*
part of the trilogy. For *story integrity* (that is, if you diagrammed the plot
with rising action, falling action, climax, exposition, denoument, etc.) it
would have been better to cut out the *whole War of the Ring* and left the
Scouring (you called "Saruman's Revenge on the Shire"; it wasn't revenge at
all, just him having been kicked out of his old realm and carving out a new one
where he could) *in* than to leave the War in and truncate the Scouring off.
|
tod
|
|
response 42 of 153:
|
Feb 6 19:32 UTC 2006 |
If only the LOTR experts would put some much depth of knowledge into the
hijacking of our Constitution by Xtian extremism.
|
jep
|
|
response 43 of 153:
|
Feb 6 19:42 UTC 2006 |
We did that last week, where were you?
|
jep
|
|
response 44 of 153:
|
Feb 6 19:43 UTC 2006 |
Anyway, no one has made a movie of the Constitution yet. If they do
so, we will go to war over the differences between the written and
cinema versions.
|
tod
|
|
response 45 of 153:
|
Feb 6 20:59 UTC 2006 |
re #44
Wasn't "National Treasure" about the Constiution?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 46 of 153:
|
Feb 6 21:06 UTC 2006 |
I believe it was about the DoI. But I think the sequel involves another
treasure map written on the back of the Bill of Rights.
|
bru
|
|
response 47 of 153:
|
Feb 6 22:04 UTC 2006 |
What about 1776!
|
aruba
|
|
response 48 of 153:
|
Feb 7 00:54 UTC 2006 |
Re #41: I was sorry not to see the Scouring of the Shire too. But I'm
puzzled why you think it's the whole reason that Frodo embarks on his quest.
As I recall, the Council of Elrond made clear that everyone was in danger,
and Frodo volunteered to go. So he was making a sacrifice for the whole
world, not just for the Shire. That it was a war which affected the Shire,
too, is driven home by the Scouring.
But why do you think the Scouring was more important than the whole war of
the Ring?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 49 of 153:
|
Feb 7 02:02 UTC 2006 |
Define "embarks on his quest." I put his quest -- the *thematic* driving force
of the book, where something that means most to *him* could be more important
than "saving the world" -- starting earlier. I get the wording of what the
quest is from Aragorn's statement about Butterbur (when Aragorn was still
"Strider") -- how there were things out there that would "freeze his blood"
that he was completely oblivious of, but "we would not have it any other way".
Thematically, the War is just plot complications. Getting rid of the Ring is
not the "quest" (whatever the technical literature term for the problem that
drives a story is -- the thing that the protagonist *must* do and *cannot* do);
protecting the Shire is. Frodo leaves it when the peace is invaded by the Black
Riders looking for the Ring. He only accepts what you thought was his "quest"
when *no one else takes it*.
Let me put it this way. Without the Scouring of the Shire, this is a feel-good
story. With it, Tolkien pulls a "double whammy" -- you get to what you *think*
is the end of the story, and then you find out that after going to all that
trouble, the main problem has worsened. After that, Frodo still isn't at peace
-- he's gone through all that pain to make the Shire a place where the hobbits
can live in innocence, and he doesn't fit there anymore.
|