Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
05-08-2004, 11:38 PM | #41 |
A Northern Soul
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Valinor
Posts: 1,847
|
The magic was lost to me in the corny gloss spread over a lot of the affair. Gimli's stupid "funny" comments in the face of the impending end of the world, Gollum's "split personalities" always talking to each other (real split personalities are unaware of each other usually, and it was just stupid), Pippin made out to be a 5 year old, some of Aragorn's "moving" speeches, the odd, misplaced emphasis on Arwen (the inserted scenes in movies 2/3), etc. The first movie was my favourite overall...most consistent in the 'enchantment' category. The third movie had some great parts, but fell in a couple of places that disrupted the flow. Some of the best lines from Gandalf in the book (some of the best lines in the book, period) were left out - they could've been used when he's talking to Pippin in Minas Tirith.
I thought Galadriel was done wonderfully. Susan Sarandon was/is too old looking. No matter how old she is, Galadriel was an elf, and I can't see Sarandon being made to work in either respect (age or elven-feel).
__________________
...take counsel with thyself, and remember who and what thou art. |
05-10-2004, 03:58 AM | #42 |
Animated Skeleton
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Belgrade
Posts: 43
|
Well, I don't know ant actor that could be beautifull enough to be an Elf, even with all the make up and effects. Maybe among the models...Anyway, I think that it's good that they used actors that are not too famous (like Pitt, or de Niro, or Clooney, or Julia Roberts and Sharon Stone for example). The cast was made very wise, out of good actors, but now we could really except them as characters from the book more easily.
|
05-11-2004, 09:37 PM | #43 | |
Hauntress of the Havens
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: IN it, but not OF it
Posts: 2,538
|
Quote:
|
|
05-13-2004, 06:37 AM | #44 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Essex, England
Posts: 886
|
Child, your post re jackson's visualisation:
Quote:
Or do you have a problem with the 'style' of the grey havens. I would say a harbour is a harbour. Does it really matter what it looks like? In my visulation, for some reason I always saw the grey havens in my mind's eye as a jetty on a beach. Jackson's was somewhat more grander, but I do not mind this. I think the havens look beautiful and melancholy. A second point on another post re your problem with character and plot. Where does Jackson deviate from the plot to its detriment? Yes, we have aragorn 'dying' and the hobbits taking a detour to osgiliath that I don't agree with, but the journey remains the same, and the plot (mainly) is not different from the book. ring found, ring goes on a journey, descision taken, ring taken south, frodo runs off with sam, the rest go their seperate ways, rohan saved, minas tirith sacked, treachery of gollum, spider dies, witch king defeated by hobbit and woman, victory on pellenor field, frodo taken by the Enemy, Frodo saved by Sam, King fights at the black gate, hobbits climb up mountain, Frodo assumes control of ring, Frodo's finger's bitten off, ring destroyed, hobbits honoured, king crowned, hobbits go home, ring bearers head West. ok, so we don't have old forest, tom, barrows and scouring, but these are no as much plot changes as deletions! |
|
05-13-2004, 02:15 PM | #45 | |
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
|
Essex,
Let me again underline that, for the most part, I was deeply caught up in the movies. I can not think of another film that has portrayed a different world with the depth and grace that PJ did. They were, for the most part, visually inspiring. For that, I am grateful. However, for a variety of reasons that have already been discussed here, I did not feel that the movie caught the magic of the book to the same degree that it might have. As far as the Grey Havens go, Son of Numenor has said it as well as I could, so I will quote him: Quote:
Please don't get the wrong impression. I have a treasured collection of Oscar ads that I have systematically gathered from the first film onward. RotK had me weeping at many points. Obviously, I would not have done that unless I cared for the movie. Even many of the plot deviations are understandable in the light of the other revisions that PJ made. But that doesn't mean I have to like them all! The omissions are less of a problem to me; it is the changes in character that bother me the most. And Faramir and Frodo head that list. Here I simply do not see the same characters that Tolkien wrote about.
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. |
|
05-14-2004, 02:53 AM | #46 |
Blithe Spirit
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,779
|
For me, the character changes to Aragorn and Theoden really rankled.
Having Aragorn reject his Numenoran heritage: "he has chosen exile". Grrr. And Theoden, still spouting lines from the Wormtongue era, *after* his freedom from enchantment by Gandalf. (which in itself was a very silly scene, the kind of ham-fisted special effects-fest that, like Galadriel's ring-temptation, dispels magic rather than creates it). The King of Rohan even questioning his allegiance to Gondor? Outrageous. |
05-16-2004, 10:58 AM | #47 | ||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,994
|
Lobelia, I suspect this comment was directed to me, as I think I am the only one here who has explicitly expressed disappointment with Galadriel's depiction.
Quote:
Have you ever seen a picture of someone who is beautiful in the light of day but who is not photogenic, who the camera betrays? Or the converse, someone who appears pleasant but perhaps rather ordinary in appearance but who on film becomes something more, a wholly other person or representation? This difference is what I am referring to: The measure of artistic creation. Ulmo/Legolas, Quote:
I can understand how people are happy with Galadriel's depiction in the movie. After all, if we have only LOTR to go on, not the Silm, nor Tolkien's post-writing commentary where he rewrites her back into the Legendarium, then we are left with the description, "No blemish or sickness or deformith could be seen in anything that grew upon the earth. On the land of Lórien there was no stain." Yet this power which Haldir says is "the power of the Lady of the Galadrim" is the power which Haldir also says, "perceives the very heart of the darkness." This power I did not feel, only the very lovely loveliness. Everything else was technical pyrotechnics. But tell me, did it not strike you as strange that Elrond should look older than his mother in law? Perhaps this is indeed a suggestion that the days of Rivendell are numbered but it remains a disappointment to me. So, in all, I agree with those here who feel that Jackson was better at capturing the magic of Tolkien's landscapes--Essex despite your acceptance of the Grey Havens it remains for me more a departure on a luxury Caribbean excursion than sailing away to another realm entirely. It is too happy and pleased with itself, too much the requisite happy Hollywood ending. Child, SpM has graciously asked permission to restore post # 37, which I deleted feeling it was off-topic. Subsequent posts have made it less so, but I would like to draw your attention to a comment I made to you at the end: there's a thread for you in the making, I think.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. Last edited by Bęthberry; 05-16-2004 at 11:05 AM. |
||
05-16-2004, 06:42 PM | #48 |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Scoring the magic ...
I was listening to the RotK soundtrack the other day, and it occurred to me that there is one way in which a representation of the book on film might, in some respects, convey more "magic" than the book itself. (Have you guessed? )
Unless you are an unfeasibly talented musician, I doubt that any of us imagines a score to accompany the words while we are reading the text. But, properly done, a film score can add greatly to the "magic" of the events being portrayed on film. And I think that Howard Shore acheived this "with bells on" throughout much of the trilogy. His Elven theme, for example, puts me directly in touch with that feeling of enchantment that I felt on first reading the book. For me, it stunningly evokes the sadness and the fading beauty of the Elves. It conveys sheer "Elvishness". And the score which accompanies the events at Sammath Naur is incredibly powerful, and serves to underline the gravity and the sheer significance of those events. There are, I think, many other examples of this too. I only have to listen to that overrriding theme which starts each film of the trilogy to feel a sense of marvel and wonder. So here, I think, is one area, where the film does have an added ability to convey the "magic" over the books. Although I still feel that the books win out because, even though we might not have our own score running in our head while we read, the sense conveyed by the score is still there, I think, while we read. For me, it was Shore's genius which actualised that sense in musical form.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
05-17-2004, 03:05 AM | #49 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Essex, England
Posts: 886
|
Bethberry, re your point on the Grey Havens "It is too happy and pleased with itself".
My point following has no doubt been discussed on other threads, so I suppose I'll be pointed to one of them, but why indeed do you think the Elves are so sad to be leaving middle-earth? Yes, leaving somewhere where they have lived for thousands of years would make them somewhat meloncholy, but they are returning to the Undying Lands. Are these not a more beautiful, tranquil place for them to reside? Shouldn't they be happy that they are returning 'home' (yes, I know the firstborn where born in the east of middle-earth, so not technically home for some of them) I await a pointer to particular threads! PS Bethberry, your PM folder has run out of space..... Last edited by Essex; 05-19-2004 at 02:30 AM. |
05-20-2004, 04:28 PM | #50 |
Gibbering Gibbet
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beyond cloud nine
Posts: 1,844
|
I suspect that some of the reason for the loss of 'magic' or wonder comes from the fact that we are all of us raised in a televisual age -- and are therefore extremely literate in the language and narrative structure of film: three acts, linear plot, character arch, field of vision, etc etc -- even if we don't know what these things are, we are so familiar with them that they are part of our viewing experience.
Part of the magical allure of LotR is that it is not 'really' a novel, but a tale told in a manner that is much older than modern storytelling techniques. It is presented in a way and according to rules that are not familiar, and so as we read it we are forced not only to move into the story, bu to adopt a way of thinking about story and narrative that is not the usual. This, I think, really makes the sense of being immersed in "another world" actually a reality, insofar as we have to give up the 'normal' or 'comfortable' ways we have of thinking about how our world is represented (i.e. in film or modern novels) and working within a wholly 'new' (to us) way of narration/creating an imaginary realm. It's not just a new and imaginary world, but a new and imaginary way of thinking - the medium of film is just too familiar to replicate that. |
05-20-2004, 09:43 PM | #51 | |
Shade of Carn Dűm
|
Peter Jackson said something along the lines of: I wasn't going for fantasy, I was going for history. I understand what he is talking about, but I think it was rather bold of him to say so. After all, LOTR is a fantasy.
Quote:
He twitched because I have my axe embedded in his nervous system! This line form TTT EE sickened me. NERVOUS SYSTEM!? COME ON! A huge part of taking away from the magic, i believe, was the lack of sinign. Except for a few songs by the hobbits, and Aragorn at the end, and Eowyn in TTT EE,( and possibly a few others that may have slipped my mind) the whole trilogy was missing the merry singing and folky spirit that was embodied in LOTR. Hey dol, thats all i have to say now i shall be on my way!
__________________
"'Eldest, that's what I am... Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn... He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless - before the Dark Lord came from Outside.'" |
|
05-21-2004, 04:52 AM | #52 |
Laconic Loreman
|
Good movies
FOTR seemed like the best, well put, organized movie. The others seemed choppy and a little less organized, maybe because FOTR focused on the fellowship and the other two movies the fellowship was split up.
I do agree, that a movie will never be able to show the "characters" like a book would. I believe part of it was because PJ focused on a very small aspect of the books, WAR. PJ didn't concentrate enough on the relationships or importances of certain people, I think if he had, then he would of included in Imrahil or Beregond. My biggest problem was Gondor's weakness. PJ downplayed Gondor to make it show that Gondor needed a king. Gondor probably would of lost if it wasn't for Aragorn but, Gondor just seemed way to weak. Denethor was a horrible father but PJ made him a complete ***. Denethor was a much wiser man than PJ showed and a much greater man. Excluding leaders like Imrahil, Beregond, Forlong, really take away the strength that Gondor did have. There were a lot of things missing from ROTK, and I know everything from the books can't be in the movie. I think PJ could of cut some of the fighting, some other things and added in more of the other themes to Tolkien besides war. From what I hear the ROTK extended edition, sounds very promising and could make me a lot happier. Final words, PJ did a great job with the movies, and I honestly believe no one else could of done what he did. |
05-21-2004, 11:12 AM | #53 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I agree with Essex on this one...the final film WAS almost perfect. Obviously, I'm a bit biased to to think that everything 'Sam' is awesome, but Sean Astin really hit me with RotK. I mean, he just gave to much to the emotions and thoughts of Sam...his facial expressions, the way he said the lines, everything. The first 2 films WERE great, but the magic is just really there for me in the last one. Know what I mean? I know this kinda doesn't make sense...but you just get this feeling watching it. I don't know how to describe it. It's the same feeling I get reading the books. It just really is~ magical.
|
05-22-2004, 05:03 AM | #54 |
Everlasting Whiteness
|
The problem is that there is no conceivable way that Peter Jackson could have made the films acceptable to every single person who watches them. If he had put in all the history of Middle Earth to explain why things are firstly the film would have been about a week long and secondly he'd have lost a large chunk of the audience. He had to sacrifice some things to give people who aren't familiar with the books a chance to experience it.
I agree that because of this some of the magic of the books was lost - like the missing Tom Bombadil scenes, that was a shame. However some of the things that he did do were absolutely perfect. For example the scene where Gollum was crawling down the Emin Muil with the moon behind him. I have had that picture in my head for years since I first read the books and to see it depicted on the screen like that really was a magical moment. And as for the Galadriel thing - I only skim read this thread so I don't know who it was - but the person who said: We don't have any real elves to act elves has a darn good point.
__________________
“If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.” |
05-24-2004, 02:43 AM | #55 |
Animated Skeleton
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Belgrade
Posts: 43
|
Bombadil said:
"A huge part of taking away from the magic, i believe, was the lack of sinign. Except for a few songs by the hobbits, and Aragorn at the end, and Eowyn in TTT EE,( and possibly a few others that may have slipped my mind) the whole trilogy was missing the merry singing and folky spirit that was embodied in LOTR." I agree with that. I missed party in ihe Hall of Fire, in Rivendel, and more elvish singing. It gives magic to ME, but in movies it's put far aside. |
05-24-2004, 04:14 AM | #56 | |
Hauntress of the Havens
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: IN it, but not OF it
Posts: 2,538
|
Quote:
|
|
05-26-2004, 05:43 AM | #57 |
Blithe Spirit
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,779
|
Regarding the singing: it's a tricky business to portray as I don't think we today are used to communicating through song the way our ancestors did.
Actually I thought Miranda Otto's singing in TTT EE *was* quite a magical moment, and one of the few times she seemed to be Tolkien's Eowyn. I wish they'd kept that in the movie edition. |
05-26-2004, 12:34 PM | #58 |
Everlasting Whiteness
|
But if they'd kept it in they would have had to put subtitles up and as there were already subtitles for the elvish conversations it would have been a little odd. If they had put it in without them it would have been good, though Eowyn never really seems upset by Theodreds death apart from when he actually dies.
__________________
“If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.” |
05-26-2004, 04:46 PM | #59 |
Wight
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Behind the hills
Posts: 164
|
For me, the magic simply did not ever exsist in the movies. After all, how can any movie ever hope to compare with what I saw the first time I read a book, any book? Even though I have a hard time imagining faces.
I think that they could have included some singing. Even nowadays, people still like to sing. I mean, lots of people sing around campfires when they're camping. The least they could've done was to NOT twist a hobbit walking song into something sad. I wouldn't like to walk to that, I can tell you! The first movie really did come the closest to the books, as has been said before. The Two Towers was WAY off the mark, and I really did enjoy the Return of the King, and wept through the entire thing (when I wasn't telling my brother to stop whining about Irmahil~and he doesn't even LIKE LOTR!), but it didn't come anywhere near to the magic of the books. In conclusion, I really do enjoy the movies, but they're just that: a movie. They are constructed so that everyone can understand in the shortest amount of time. The books can be more "confusing"~it's easier to go back and reread a few sentences than to rewind a movie. No one can reproduce what I have in my head, not even me.
__________________
"If we're still alive in the morning, we'll know that we're not dead."~South Park |
06-10-2004, 02:27 PM | #60 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wandering through Middle-Earth (Sadly in Alberta and not ME)
Posts: 612
|
For me the movies had magic, it was just different from the books. But I never tried to see the movies and books as one. I keep them seperate. I will be talking about just the movies or just about the books other than when I am comparing them of course.
I don't think the magic was gone in the movies, it justr felt different but usually that is what happens when a book is made into a movie. For me the feeling usually changes anyway.
__________________
Back again |
06-13-2004, 05:05 PM | #61 |
Registered User
|
You know, some things about the movie did bother me a bit, but I still loved it. I think the absence of some things improved the movie a bit.
|
|
|