caligulathegod

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> TTT<BR>This, in my opinion, is really the best of the series, even though there seem to be major loopholes to be taken care of. <BR> By the way, I don't think I like to see those elves coming down at Helm's Deep. I would indeed have preferred seeing the dwarves and the elves fighting and defending their own cities. The Ents were really quite excellent in the siege of Isengard, but Pippin and Merry never grew any taller. Now we come to what everyone hates: Faramir. I don't think I want to repeat what everyone had to say. The thing that disturbed me however, is the scene where Frodo tried to offer the ring to the Nazgul of winged beast. Let me assure everyone that after the incident of Weathertop and the river, the Nazgul NEVER came into close contact with the ring for once. If I am that Nazgul on the dragon, I would not have waited so long for Frodo to show me the ring. I would have grapped him at once and left. There are NINE Nazgul, and they were SO close to the ring... And they bailed out because of a few arrows?!? I am so utterly disappointed with this scene that I left for the restroom to recover from my shock. <P> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Everyone seems to hate the Elves at Helm's Deep departure. I've really thought about it a lot and I don't mind it. Firstly, they really aren't going to have scenes depicting the Elves and Dwarves defending their own cities nor even the Elves battle at Dol Guldor. They just don't fit into the narrative. Why cut to battles that don't involve any of our characters? Even Tolkien didn't do that. He saved that for the appendices. Fans sometimes forget that a lot of the stuff we take for granted is actually in the ancillary material. Stuff like the Elves attack on Dol Goldur and the Elves and Dwarves defending their own cities, Sam joining Frodo in the West, and Gimli joining Legolas going into the West. None of that stuff is even <I>in</I> the books. We can't fault the filmmakers for not including stuff that even Tolkien put only in the Appendices (Tolkien's own EE, as it were). Also, when you think about it, who are the most important creatures in Tolkien's entire legendarium? Hobbits? Nope. Elves. The books have a great unspoken presence of Elves because they are mentioned a lot, but they really don't appear in The Two Towers at all. We know from the Appendix that they were indeed active during the period, so why not take a bit of dramatic license and involve them in the story? Also, we are supposed to be so sad because the Elves are leaving but other than a 2 minute segment at the beginning of the first film, we never really get to see what makes them so great. So, here, we get to bring in a bit of the appendix into the main story and also give the film an Elvish presence that would otherwise be missing. I think it was inspired to bring in the Elves. <P>Merry and Pippin do indeed get taller. It's in the EE of the Two Towers. That adds nothing to the plot but it's a nice scene, so it's in the EE. Faramir. Again, see the EE. They really make the character much more interesting than he is in the books. They give him a more dynamic arc and he never really does anything the book Faramir wouldn't do. They just made him more conflicted on how he arrives at the decision. I love the bit how he's just trying to please his father but then he realizes that there is more at stake than his own situation. Again, quite inspired. Also, the Fell Beasts that Faramir shot with the arrows are not magical. They are living animals. Why wouldn't they be affected by an arrow in the throat? All it took was one well placed arrow to kill Smaug in The Hobbit.<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> RoTK:<BR>By now I knew what to expect from our esteemed director when it comes to the Nazguls. The third movie, I guess, couldn't be worse. I was not disappointed by the Nazgul this time (though they are still wusses). Saruman! Just where did Saruman disappeared to?!? Treebeard did not say he is dead, Gandalf just said that he had no power. But WHERE is Evil Wizard that every one loves? Those of us who read the book knew that Saruman was killed by Wormtongue in the Shire, but the rest of the audience are going to think that there would be a sequel to this book just because they did not see Saruman die. Now, if I remember correctly, the director said that the action is going to be even more full then the TTT. I do not think so, unless you considered the closeups of rocks slung by trebuchets to be exciting. The Oliphaunts were good, but the Riders of Rohan are definitely stupid. I had no problem with the undead or even Elrond riding and giving Anduril to Aragorn. I was however, extremely disappointed to not see the parley scene between Gandalf and the Witchking. (Yet another slap on the face for the Nazgul) In actual fact, I am very much shocked to see that Gondor is so unprepared for invasion in the very first. Why would Boromir go down to Rivendell if not to seek allies in war? Why would his brother be ambushing Oliphaunts if Gondor is not prepared for war already? It may have been just me, but I really feel that there was something fundamentally fake about the whole war... Denethor refusing to light the war beacons, the way he send Faramir off, and Faramir just charging back to battle with twenty(?) horsemen?!? That would probably do wonders with the audience if you are targeting uninformed junkies, but even the atmosphere is wrong... I remembered that a cock called after the Witchking broke the gate down... which showed that it saw light amidst the darkness. Why do they managed to portray the darkness in Helm's Deep but want light for the Pelenor fields? Now, interestingly, the duel between the Witchking and Eowyn with Merry is excellent, and in my opinion the best scene in the entire show. Aragorn's invincible ghost army simply didn't cut any ice with me, I'm afraid. If they must portray the undead Nazgul as sissies, I don't see why the ghosts can be so powerful. I feel that Shelob is the second best scene in the film but Gollum should appear more in the scene to show his involvement. The history of Gollum, by the way, is another most memorable scene. Now after all is said and done, we had the grand finale... in which Frodo claimed the ring and stuff. They just couldn't let evil disolve itself: Frodo HAD to be a hero and shove Gollum down the volcano. I guess Hollywood hate to see bad guys die by their own hand... After this last insult, I am pretty much bored with all the dallyings and dillies. The Shire is intact; not surprising. Saruman just vanished into thin air. But nobody explained why Frodo could go across the sea with Bilbo and the Elves. By that time, though, nobody cared...<P> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, most of your disappointments will be dealt with in the EE coming in November. If you didn't know about most of those scenes, you wouldn't have missed them. So since you do care about them, you will be catered to with a version that is not required to stay within a certain running time. <P>I really don't understand your reaction to the Nazgul. Even in the books they aren't very proactive. Their main weapon is supposed to be to inspire fear. PJ actually made them more imposing than in the book. In the book they have conversations with Shire hobbits that don't seem much threatened by them. They just think that they are "Funny customers". They think it's odd that they wear all black but aren't particularly frightened of them. I think you might have just built them up a bit too much in your imagination.<P>Saruman's story was over. Since they didn't include the Scouring of the Shire, then his denouement would be irrelevant. We'll get to see what happened to him in the EE. In the Theatrical version it doesn't matter. He's no longer a threat in the story. I agree that it's regrettable that we missed the scene, but I understand why it's gone. It really would have been anticlimactic after the high note that The Two Towers ended on and he's irrelevant to the proceedings in The Return of the King. <P>Darkness at Pellenor fields is problematic. Yeah, it would have been cool and true to the book. However, as a practical matter, it would be a nightmare to light a set like that. Even in the dark, you must have lighting to see the action. The set/location was just too big to do it effectively. They had to compromise so that the scene would read on film.<P>Was Gollum even that much of a presence in that scene of Shelob? Seems like I remember him pretty much disappearing in that section of the book only to come back as a surprise. Also, Frodo did not shove Gollum in the Crack of Doom. He was fighting to get the Ring. It was just them ramping up the emotion in a scene. It was indeed the grand climax of the saga and they felt it needed a bit more emotion than just a guy dancing and slipping. Like that or not it's your decision and you have your right to your opinion but you shouldn't mischaracterize what actually happened. <P>Yeah, the Shire was intact. They made a decision to not include the Scouring of the Shire. How many complaints have you heard about the protracted ending? Imagine if they had gone onto another 20 plus minutes of the hobbits going back to fight the Shire foes? The film's primary story was the destruction of the Ring. Other subplots and sub-themes unfortunately have to be sacrificed. There's no way they could possibly include the entire book experience in a three hour film. They had to decide what was the most important story and themes to include and that, unfortunately was one of the ones that didn't make it. <P>As to Frodo going to the West. Well, maybe that could have been explained better, and perhaps it will in the EE. But considering that it happens after the climax, they are just trying to get out of the story as quickly as possible. People resent the scene anyway. I'm just happy that PJ stuck to his guns and included as much as he did, Tolkien bereft audiences be damned. How could you really explain it satisfactorily, anyway? Go into an explanation on why the Elves are going into the West and why Men aren't allowed to go? You have to bring in the Silmarillion to really get into that. Tolkien gets enough superficial criticism for supposed racism. Imagine if they had gone into less than thorough explanation of why Elves get to sit in the front of the bus and get to go to cool places like the West while men are segregated. There's just so much backstory that there's just no way to include it all in a three hour film. You, as a book reader understand why, so why do you need the film to tell you? All the non bookreading public need to know is that he is going to paradise with Bilbo and the Elves. They really don't need long explanations on why it is so unique that Frodo is allowed to go.<P><BR>Please don't think I am attacking you specifically. Most of what you are saying has been said before and I'm just addressing these quite common opinions from the book fans. I love the books as much as anybody, but I understand why they did the things that they did and it grieves me every time I read some book fan being so disappointed because the films did not match their imagination. There's no way it ever could. What they did come up with is so magical in its own way that it is such a joy to watch. It's just such a shame that people can not get over such minor deviations from the Scripture and enjoy the films for what they are. No film has ever made it to the cinema as intact as some people seem to believe that these should have. The films could have been soooooo much worse. If you had seen them before reading the books, then you would love them and then upon reading the books, your experience would be enriched. Don't think of the films so much as compromised versions of the book. Look upon the books as just deeper and more rewarding experiences of their own. The glass is half full.<p>[ 11:06 PM February 07, 2004: Message edited by: caligulathegod ]