Boromir88 said:
Quote:
|
What bothers me is when people try to take book occurences and explain why a particular scene doesn't work in the movie. I think if one is going to say why this scene doesn't fit well, they have to explain it within the movie's context.
|
I too agree with this,
Boromir88. And with the example of Aragorn and the Mouth of Sauron fresh in my mind... as you and others have pointed out in your
Was it out of character? thread, it's rather absurd to be angry about it because 'Aragorn in the book wouldn't do such a thing,' when we're dealing with Aragorn in the movie, who is in many ways different.
But there's another sort of anger that doesn't bother me, and that I indeed feel myself when watching the movies. Considering that the movies were based off of the books, it's not very unreasonable to be upset because the movies strayed from the books in one way or another. Using the same example, one of the reasons I don't like Aragorn's disposal of the Mouth of Sauron is because Aragorn of the books wouldn't do it. But I think there is a lack of absurdity in this because my complaint is not with this one scene 'because it wasn't in this books,' but with this one scene coupled with others that shows what my real problem with it is.
Aragorn wasn't like this in the books, and I think there's a problem with the translation of his character from book to film.
To be brief, it's not a nit-picky little anger that says this scene is wrong because it wasn't in the books (that is, as
Boromir88 said, trying to argue against the movie from the books' context, which can easily be out of context with the movie), but this character is wrong and so causes this scene to be wrong.
I have a slight fear that I'm not being exactly clear, so I'll try to phrase it once more to make sure.
From this my very post:
Quote:
|
it's rather absurd to be angry about it because 'Aragorn in the book wouldn't do such a thing,' when we're dealing with Aragorn in the movie, who is in many ways different.
|
My anger is not that 'Aragorn in the book wouldn't do such a thing,' but 'Aragorn in the book
isn't such a thing, and so wouldn't do such a thing, and I don't think it was necessary for that to be different in the movies.'
Another example is Frodo. From the
Fellowship, one little thing that bothered me was the scene on Weathertop, where he trembles, drops his sword, and falls helplessly to the ground, whereas in the book he actually took a shot at the Nazgul. My reason is not: 'Well, in the context of the book Frodo wouldn't have done such a thing,' because, if my memory serves me correctly, Frodo very well could have done such a thing even in the books, and the scene in the movie actually isn't even out of context. But Frodo is out of character, and
that's the problem. It's only one of a few scenes where he trembles and falls back, when, in the books, he stood straight and fought.
For me, and perhaps for others, it isn't a problem of the scene being out of character (and book's context), but the character being out of character. And the anger from the point of view of the book, not from the point of view of the book's
context, seems excusable.