<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>the movie has greatly shifted the focus from the tale of the hobbits to the tale of Aragorn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, I agree that it would be good to leave it out just for time references {as long as they at least mentioned something about it}, but I sort of disagree on the rest of it. <P>I feel that they unjustly "shifted the focus" of the Hobbits towards Aragorn. The Hobbits were still a major part of the story, and as so should have had more screen time. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Frodo and Sam did not accomplish a thing in all their on-screen time), so ending the movie with a small hobbit battle would not work<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Technically, the reason Frodo and Sam didn't accomplish anything in the 2nd movie, is because they didn't accomplish anything in the 2nd book. Peter couldn't have changed this around even if he wanted to. All they were ever doing is walking and walking and trying to tame Gollum and walking and walking and more exactly like that. Merry and Pippin, however, I feel did accomplish something...they befriended the Ents, which helps out later on when Gandalf, Aragorn, Gimli, Lego, etc come to Isengard, and they aided in the destruction of Isengard...well, sort of.<P>To add to that, how do we know that the focus on Aragorn will continue? Yes, in the third movie he will be made King, marry Arwen, etc. <B>But</B>, if you don't forget, Frodo is making a huge impact on everyone as well since in this movie he will be bit by Shelob, captured by Orcs, and have his finger bit off which eventually leads into destroying the ring. Sam, as well, has a big scene as he thinks to see Frodo dead, he rescues Frodo from the Orcs, and also practically has to carry Frodo to Mount Doom. And then, he and Sam are carried away by Eagles out of Mordor. Now doesn't that scream major focus right there? <P>And also, Merry and Pippin will become a huge part of the movie as well...even bigger than they were in the first movie. Pippin will become great in Gondor while he tries to save the King and Faramir from getting killed. Merry destroys the Witch King! That's enough right there to say major character. <P>My point is, yes, Aragorn had a large role in the 2nd movie, but in the third, I think his role will be no bigger than Frodo's. The rest of the Hobbits will come close in 2nd place in this movie. So, it wouldn't be so bad as to put in the <B>Scourging</B> of the Shire for I'm sure the audience will have not only a main focus on Aragorn, but on the Hobbits as well. <P>But more on a lighter note... <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>In the second movie, and this has been discussed countless times (probably more than all other aspects), I strongly disliked the portrayal of Faramir. No ifs, ands or buts, Peter Jackson changed his character completely, and the series of events that led to his change of heart made absolutely no sense (why would he finally allow Frodo and Sam to go off to Mordor alone when he had just seen Frodo offer up the Ring to a chieftain of the Enemy?). This was in my mind the absolute worst change by Peter Jackson.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I have to say that I agree with you on this one. I loved Faramir's character in the books, and it was one thing I was waiting to see in the movies. The only main thing that really upset me though was the fact that he didn't let Frodo and Sam go. I think that was done unjustly, however, it did give them room to shoot one of the best scenes I have ever seen...Sam's speech. The whole scene in Osgiliath was great, but Faramir should have stayed the same. <P>I think that's all the opinions I have for now though. You pretty much said everything else that I wanted to say...other than what is in my extremely long post, of course.<p>[ August 14, 2003: Message edited by: Eruwen ]
|