The Beard of Théoden

[Brinniel]

Originally posted by mormegil:
For the reading audience we have many pages, a chapter perhaps, to get an understanding of the true condition, you can be told the emotions of the character in the book but are not visually shown. That is the major problem in translating literature into cinema, there are certain emotions or thoughts that cannot be acted. This scene is a prime example of that point. There is no way for Bernanrd to 'act' possessed or poisoned as we learn in the book so to make up for it PJ must do some special effects to compensate.

Couldn't be better said.

For years now, I've read and understood others' complaints about changes in the movies, but as a future filmmaker myself, I can't help but view the situation from PJ and the writers' perspectives. In the process of adapting a novel to screen, there is almost always a reason why something has been changed, even as much as we hate it.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

It is not that the scene ruins the movies for me in any way and I fully understand that you cannot be true to the book, but I still think it looks kind of ridcules when ever I watch that scene.

As I am not a film maker I do not know how to make it different, but is that not what characterize us critics. Never ever pressenting an alternative. . .

[Essex]

and that has been one of my main gripes over the last few years on this site

in my honest view you shouldn't criticise a particular movie scene against the book unless you have an alternative. just to say a scene is rubbish is not really much of a statement

to say WHY it was rubbish at least takes you part way to coming up with an alternative and I must concede that at least this is better than just saying 'it's useless'

I always find myself fighting the corner for the movie makers because of the constant bad press the movie gets from quite a few avid book readers. For me the films will never beat the books, but they are still 3 of the best movies ever made. The filmakers make bad decisions, but at least in some ocasions in the commentary they try to explain their reasoning behind the 'changes' - some I agree with some I do not, but I still try to see it from a movie maker's perspective.

this is the main thing I've learnt about movie adaptation over the past few years critiquing the movies on this site - its given me a broader view of what issues/problems movie makers have with adaptations.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

I'm not a fan of this scene persay, but like most of the ones changed from the book, I've grown to like it and appreciate it. My dad is a bigger purist than I am, and he loves it; can't figure out why. I think it effectively shows how deeply Saruman's claws are in Rohan, and it also gives an opportunity to show the enhancing of Gandalf as the new White Wizard. For the theatrical editions, this scene really takes the place of the Voice of Saruman scene, in terms of showing that a Gandalf who was beaten and imprisoned by Saruman, is now more powerful than him.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Essex

in my honest view you shouldn't criticise a particular movie scene against the book unless you have an alternative. just to say a scene is rubbish is not really much of a statement

I agree that it is preferable to have an alternative, but the matter of fact is that PJ chose to make his interpretation of LotR. When he do so, I and everybody else has the right to criticise the interpretation. We did not chose to make our interpretation, therefore you cannot ask of us to have an alternative way to make the scene.

Originally Posted by Essex

to say WHY it was rubbish at least takes you part way to coming up with an alternative and I must concede that at least this is better than just saying 'it's useless'

Agreed

Originally Posted by Essex

I always find myself fighting the corner for the movie makers because of the constant bad press the movie gets from quite a few avid book readers. For me the films will never beat the books, but they are still 3 of the best movies ever made. The filmakers make bad decisions, but at least in some ocasions in the commentary they try to explain their reasoning behind the 'changes' - some I agree with some I do not, but I still try to see it from a movie maker's perspective.

this is the main thing I've learnt about movie adaptation over the past few years critiquing the movies on this site - its given me a broader view of what issues/problems movie makers have with adaptations.

It never hurts to see it from the movie makers perspective. . . I try to do so. But I do not accept all changes the movies, just because it would be difficult to make them work on film.

When you make a book into a movie, then you should try very hard to be true to it. If you just make changes when it becomes difficult, then what is the point in making the movie.

I believe that everybody is entitled to having an opinion about the films and to state this. Even if they don’t have the faintest Idea about how to make a movie and what works well in a book, but is rubbish in a movie.

(general statements)

[Essex]

yes, you need to be tru to the book as possible. But let's take the first Harry Potter movie as an example.

Almost exactly the same as the book (but abridged of course) - and in my opinion the movie suffers greatly because it's a lift and shift from the book.

My answer to this criticism is that they should have made it more like the last couple of movies that were much more entertaining (in my opinion)

I would love to try a lift and shift from the lotr books to a visual mode. But this would require 54 hours of work (ive taken that from the amount of time the audio unabridged version is)

that is impossible in 3 movies. So what should we do - cut huge swathes of the story out or abridge it and try to stay true to the story?

In the vast majority of cases, the movie makers got it right. yes, there are a few occasions where I grimace (mainly at how they show gimli esp in rotk) - then I say they did a marvellous job.