Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
06-06-2005, 12:10 PM | #41 |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Theoden was certainly fey, or seemed so, as the Riders charged towards the enemy. I would imagine that those following him were similarly "charged" (*groan*). It seems to have been the way of the Rohirrim in battle.
In the book, the coming morning seems to have played its part in inspiring the fear in the Orcish army. I cannot recall whether this was a feature of the film (although the rising sun and Gandalf's dazzling brightness was portrayed as the reason for the Uruks failing to hold firm as Helm's Deep). Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, davem. I think that it's a wonderful moment in the film and it brought (and still brings) tears to my eyes. Enchanting, even. But if you want to bring your book-reading, tactically aware "baggage" to the film, then so be it.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
06-06-2005, 12:49 PM | #42 | |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Quote:
I liked FotR the best of all the films too, but I have a theory about it... I think that as it was the first film, and bearing in mind that PJ had spent huge sums of money and it had to be a success, it was much more carefully made than the following two films. The story seemed more coherent and it was clear that more attention had been paid to this. It was also important to establish this as a trilogy which had quality, and not least of all, to appeal to the Tolkien fans. Let's face it, LotR was an unusual prospect for a film and if the Tolkien fans did not like it then it was not likely that everyone else would go to see it. There have been several cases of big money adaptations of cult stories and comic books which have not met with the approval of the fans of the originals, and have therefore been deemed not to be good (e.g. Tank Girl, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen). After success was assured, PJ was free to add a little more of his own vision.
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
|
06-06-2005, 01:01 PM | #43 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
I find it difficult to choose between FotR and RotK as my favourite. FotR amazed me when I saw it and, as others have said, it was our first experience of Jackson's screen adaptations. But RotK, for me, has a lot more powerful and tear-jerking moments. I would agree with the majority, though, that TTT was the weakest. Partly because it is the "middle of the story" and so has no real beginning or end. But also because the changes made in TTT were the ones that bothered me the most, in the sense that many were either gratuitous, introduced internal inconsistencies or just didn't work as well as the original story. That said, I still greatly enjoyed all three films.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|
06-06-2005, 01:09 PM | #44 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Just as in the discussion on Gandalf & the WK there is no internal logic to the event. These events are there for cinematic reasons - there is no thought about whether what happens on screen makes sense, only about whether it looks good. I could pick out others - when Frodo falls off the High Seat on Amon Hen he falls, given his size, the equivalent of about 18-20 feet onto his back & just gets up a little winded. He would probably have broken every bone in his body! Or when Boromir is hurled across the Chamber of Mazarbul into a stone pillar only to end up a bit dazed. These scenes may look good on screen but they are plainly silly & shatter the internal logic of the world. It turns the characters into cartoon figures (sorry if either of those examples have been used - haven't had time to read the whole thread yet). |
|
06-06-2005, 01:40 PM | #45 | |
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
|
Quote:
|
|
06-06-2005, 02:10 PM | #46 | |||
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
|||
06-06-2005, 02:33 PM | #47 | |
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
|
Quote:
Something that I've had to learn while working is to plan and design more, and 'react' less. And not that I don't procrastinate, nor require negative incentives to gain momentum... |
|
06-06-2005, 02:59 PM | #48 |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
I don't actually like that argument myself! But it is a possibility.
Where the difference lay could be in that as the films took so long to make, PJ could have begun (or at least supervised from a distance) work on the editing while the filming process was underway. Wasn't RotK originally as seen in the extended edition and then cut for the cinema, while FotR and TT extended editions actually had added material?
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
06-06-2005, 02:59 PM | #49 |
Maundering Mage
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,646
|
Does anyone else feel that insufficient time was given to Frodo and Sam in their actual journey through Mordor? When the book is read it's impossible not to see how desperate and pathetic their plight is. Contrasting the movie, it seems that the come over the mountain, the orcs move and they are near Mt. Doom all happens very quickly. Now I realize that in the EE it's a bit better but not up to par with the book. In reading the book, every time I do, I just feel is Frodo going to make it? or how can they endure this?
It may have been too boring to put in the movie but I would like to see their situation a bit more desperate. Maybe I'm not remembering enough of it but I would like other opinions. As far as Theodens rousing speak, I am in full agreement with SpM on this. I find it probably the most moving part of the movie (just after Aragorns first kiss with Arwen ). Every time that I hear that I want to get up and jump into the battle with them. Edit: I need to add that at the end when Frodo gives his speech it's a bit more desperate but at that point they are already at Mt Doom. (Also a very moving moment) I guess I just wanted to see more of their actual traveling
__________________
I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo. "So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us. |
06-06-2005, 03:16 PM | #50 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
|
Still on the topic of how wonderful FOTR was...
The EE of Fellowship was a disapointment. Of course, aside from all the new information that was released to non-book fans and how great it was to know a bit more of what was going on, the EE, well, it sucked (for lack of a better term).
Please feel free to argue with me. I didn't see the EE until about 2 years after I fell in love with the original. I'd read the books by then many times and still appreciated Fellowship whilst patiently awaiting Return. I was hoping that the EE would give me a better insight into what I was to expect for ROTK. So I watched it from front to back and I was horrified. The original flowyness, the perfect dialog, sounds, and characters, destroyed with the few new added scenes. The movie suddenly became Two Towers like, klunky, awkward and cheesy at too many points. The momentum was gone. Of course, this could just be because of how I feel about the original and books aside, thought it was very detailed and carefully made. Like I said, feel free to argue, I'd like to hear other's perspectives.
__________________
Solus... I'm eating chicken again. I ate chicken yesterday and the day before... will I be eating chicken again tomorrow? Why am I always eating chicken? |
06-06-2005, 05:39 PM | #51 | ||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
I think that it's much easier to get away with this in films, "bloskbuster" films at least, because they are much more immediate. One can get swept up in the action and have less time to think about the logic of the situation. It is far more important for books to maintain credibility because the reader has time to pause for thought. But you are right. There are things in the films that don't make sense when you stop and think about them (although I would not necessarily include the Gandalf/Witch-King scene in that category, for the reasons that I have stated on that thread). What can I say? Maybe I just don't think about these things so deeply. I don't think that one is supposed to with these kinds of films. Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
||
06-06-2005, 07:09 PM | #52 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Many posts back there was discussion about FotR being more 'magical'. I do think that it is; but I think there is a good reason. FOTR is about Frodo's flight from Ringwraiths, rescued by elves, taken to the home of elves, traveling thence through Moria to another Home of Elves, Lorien. It's a very elvish movie, I think the most elvish of the three. As lmp would say, it's good fairy-tale. (Well, okay, not genuine, REAL Faerie, but... *cough* to continue.)
Despite the appearance of Haldir & Co at Helm's deep, TTT is very much about men; men, and orcs. Ents too, but they evoke (in the movie) less Magic than the elves do. They are Neat and Cool, but not magical. Aragorn talks about "The world of Men." Gandalf does too. Saruman does too. The elves are already half forgotten; bah, they're leaving anyway, right? Gandalf and Saruman don't provide the atmosphere of enchantment like the elves do; and besides, they are both obsessing about men, as they must. A few hobbits and wizards can't turn TTT into a non-mannish film. Meanwhile, Frodo travels through Ithilien: more dealings with Men. RotK isn't about magic or enchantment anymore; it's not even just about Men; it's about guts and glory, loyalty, duty, perseverance and, well, perseverance. And isn't the whole point of the ending of RotK, the departing of the eold enchantment? I guess that's one reason why most of my daydreaming took place either pre-war or early war. Who wants to go there when the elves are gone? |
06-07-2005, 07:08 AM | #53 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Maybe I've just read & thought about the books too much - & I may be going against my argument in other threads here - I'm not sure. I think, though, that my problems aren't caused by dragging in too much primary world baggage, but rather by my increasing awareness of the deeper themes Tolkien was dealing with. the accusation I read in one review keep coming back into my mind - that PJ seemed to think LotR was an action movie in book form. He touches on some of the themes I'm talking about, but never goes into them in the kind of depth necessary. Either he doesn't understand them or isn't interested in them. Then, as I've pointed out elsewhere, he (or the other writers) give speeches or experiences to one character that belong to another (Eowyn being given Faramir's dream of the Great Wave for instance) which remove the deeper meaning or significance of them. He also doesn't seem to know where to stop. There's a nice interchange between Aragorn & Eowyn about Dwarf women ('Its the beards.') which would have been fine of he'd stopped there, but he couldn't & has to have Gimli falling off his horse! Or later where he takes one of my absolute favourite scenes from the book - Gimli's rescue of Aragorn at HD - 'Baruk Khazad! Khazad Aimenu!' ('Axes of the Dwarves! The Dwarves are upon you!' - even writing that brings tears to my eyes!) & replaces it with Gimli falling into a puddle & having to be lifted up by Aragorn. LotR isn't an action novel, & so shouldn't be turned into an action movie. It reminds me of the 'Hamlet' skit in Last Action Hero. I think what I missed was the sense of loss that pervades the book. Its almost (in one way at least) a meditation on loss & bereavement - perhaps coming out of Tolkien's own experience of loss - of his parents, of friends in the war, of the countryside he loved, of the values he held, & I suppose we respond to it because we've all experienced some such loss ourselves & become more aware of it as we grow older - though I'm not going back on my statements that we should try & leave the specific baggage we carry with us at the door when we enter the secondary world. Our own experience of loss will enable us to empathise & connect & be enchanted by the story, specific memories will pull us out of the secondary world. I suppose LMP's points about the loss of Eden are significant, I think, because the deeper feeling of loss - the loss of wonder & beauty & magic which we all feel (more & more as we get older) is perhaps not down to personal experiences of loss, but due more to a sense of 'exile' from we know not what, but symbolise for ourselves as 'Eden' or the Elves. Along with that sense of loss & exile goes the 'belief' (if its not more than that) that its possible to find our way 'home' again: 'Still rond the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate, & though I oft have passed them by, a day will come at last when I, shall take the hidden paths that run, West of the Moon, East of the Sun.' This is what I feel overwhelmingly when I read LotR - loss & hope (even if that hope lies 'beyond the circles of the world'). I also get it when I listen to the BBC radio adaptation, but not from the films. Perhaps that's the faut of the medium, the (inevitable) fact that the events are presented in real time, & with a sense of immediacy, as though its all happening as I watch, rather than, as with the book & the radio series (which is more of a dramatised reading), it being something that happened a very long time ago to people who have long since passed into the West. |
|
06-07-2005, 07:20 AM | #54 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
And if the book can be read, on one level, as an action novel, why shouldn't it be capable of being made into an action film? Provided that one recognises that this is, in essence, what these films are (albeit beautifully made ones), one can derive great enjoyment from them. And, should a film be made that explored the deeper meanings of the book, then I am sure that I would enjoy that too, provided that it was well done.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|
06-07-2005, 08:09 AM | #55 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
I don't want to come across as someone who just dislikes the films on principle - I so wanted to love them. I just can't. I'm simply not moved by them. I wish I could be. It would be nice to have more of Middle earth. I've watched them a good few times - FotR maybe a dozen times, the others a bit less. I even spent a whole Sunday a few months back watching all three EE's. Afterwards I suppose I felt that I didn't really dislike them a great deal, I just didn't care. I don't think I'll watch them again. There's something I can't really define clearly that's just not there. Its not 'Middle earth' for me. |
|
06-07-2005, 08:31 AM | #56 |
Maundering Mage
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,646
|
Davem if I may interject here it seems that you apply different standards of what art is to different mediums. The movies failed in your mind because of obvious primary world ideas you had of them, however you are very vocal against doing that when reading a book. You further say that if anybody is pulled out of the book enchantment than it is his own fault. You suggest that PJ failed--while the film appealed to many--and yet the book didn't because you weren't pulled out and those who were "well there just not reading it correctly".
There is a great inconsistency in the way you are judging the two. Admittedly I love the books far more than I do the movies. However I think the movies are more or less great in their own medium. Sadly we tend to compare the movies to the books too much (I am guilty of this at times) but the book cannot be translated perfectly into film. It is too deep, too powerful, and too well written to do such a feat. Not if we had 6 films could it even be done. The difference being that books have a way of evoking our imagination and we are able to see, in a way, what we want. Whereas with the movie we are shown what we are seeing and little imagination is left. It's not that PJ per se but that he is operating under a different medium.
__________________
I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo. "So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us. |
06-07-2005, 08:35 AM | #57 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Davem, I disagree with you profoundly when you seek to devalue your early reading experience (or so it seems to me), but that is to be expected given our differing views on the reader v author debate.
Quote:
For someone who dislikes, or at least is ambivalent towards the films, you seem to have watched them (FotR at least) many more times than me. Edit: Quite mormegil. It seems that, if one were to replace the reader v author debate with a watcher v director debate, davem and I would find ourselves in agreement.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! Last edited by The Saucepan Man; 06-07-2005 at 08:39 AM. |
|
06-07-2005, 09:41 AM | #58 | |
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
|
Quote:
What absolutely kills me is when the writers assert that they were being true to the "vision" and "theme" when they have added scenes, storylines, have mixed up dialogue and generally show limited understanding for the deeper themes. They just had to do it the way that it was done for reason x. It was almost like saying that it was completely out of their hands and also that no other idea would have worked. |
|
06-07-2005, 10:52 AM | #59 | |||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
I can't see the films as things in their own right, only as attempts at telling a pre-existing story, so what I'm referring to here is where & how (for me) the films fail to communicate the story, where they stop making sense in terms of Middle earth. The films are not an equal but different ways of telling the same story - what I mean by that is that we're not dealing with a pre existing myth or legend that Tolkien wrote a version of & PJ filmed a version of. LotR is Tolkien's story, as Tolkien told it. Any adaptation should be judged on whether it communicates the spirit & essence of the story well or badly. It doesn't have to put everything on screen exactly as it is in the book, but it must remain true to the source. If you're not going to do that, why adapt at all - why not write & tell your own story? In essence this is my chief quibble. They didn't have to make these movies. You are absolutely right as regards anyone watching the movies as movies - either because they don't know the books or because they are able to leave that 'baggage at the door. So, as I say, I am probably guilty of double standards in my criticism. I can only say though, that what the movie makers have done is to tell their own story not Tolkien's but by using so many of Tolkien's names & his basic storyline they make it inevitable that anyone who knows the original will be forced, whether they want to or not, to make comparisons between the book & the films. This is the risk all adaptors take. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
06-07-2005, 03:17 PM | #60 |
La Belle Dame sans Merci
|
I think that I can explain the lapse in "flowiness". In The Fellowship of the Ring (book), it truly does flow. You begin with a few characters, and as the story continues, you meet more, but they are continually working together, doing new things, and headed off to save the world. That sort of thing. It's one group (growing, though it may be), that's got one agenda. And so, easily enough, the movie can follow that same idea.
I'll post more later (my ride just got here early) but it'll be along the lines of "and then in book/movie two, the plot lines split which makes for inevitable choppiness in the flow of the film". You can't expect flow when you have two separate plots going on.
__________________
peace
|
06-07-2005, 03:48 PM | #61 | ||
Everlasting Whiteness
|
Going back to a much earlier point of davem's, I just wanted to disagree slightly.
Quote:
What broke the illusion to me was then Aragorn leaping off the same Seat to face the orcs. Using the previous argument it should not have been possible for him to do this with no ill effect, and for it to look as though it was the same distance for him to 'fall' as it was for Frodo. Then there was this Quote:
__________________
If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. |
||
06-07-2005, 09:44 PM | #62 | ||
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
|
Quote:
Have considered testing this out using me and my son, but then figured that it would only land me in the hospital either due to:
As long as the world is internally consistent, then I can go along for the ride. As posted elsewhere, inconsistencies like Saruman's fireball took me out of the movie. In regards to cats, I think that they can 'fall' further due to (1) less mass, (2) instinctively decreasing the rate of descent by cupping their bodies, and (3) having anatomy more suited to such fun. A cat falling on its back will be hurt. Anyway, on the other hand, ME is a fantasy world, and in a world of magic rings, wizards, incarnate evil, etc, a little fudging of reality can be expected. Quote:
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
|
||
06-09-2005, 10:26 PM | #63 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wandering through Middle-Earth (Sadly in Alberta and not ME)
Posts: 612
|
I have to disagree with the people who say that ROTK has less magic. As soon as I read that I had to think of Gandalf on Shadowfax, leaving Minas Tirith to drive away the ringwraiths from the Gondorian army.
I was also thinking of the lighting of the beacons, Galadriel's phial, the charge of the Rohirrim, the Ring's destruction, and the grey havens. Those moments all had a magical feel for me.
__________________
Back again |
06-10-2005, 08:43 AM | #64 | |
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
|
Quote:
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
|
|
06-10-2005, 10:03 AM | #65 | |
Sword of Spirit
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oh, I'm around.
Posts: 1,401
|
Well, PJ, being the expert Tolkien scholar that he is, decided that Pippin didn't have a big enough part, and so had him do many more things, like light the beacons. There is definitely reasoning behind it, if very faulty reasoning.
Originally posted by Lathriel Quote:
It's not that FotR had more magic, per se, it just didn't have those things that paused the magic and clouded the plot.
__________________
I'm on a Mission from God. |
|
06-10-2005, 10:16 AM | #66 | |
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
|
Quote:
It made no sense, but it looked good.
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
|
|
06-10-2005, 03:22 PM | #67 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Sorry if this has been pointed out before, but did anyone else get the feeling from the writers/directors commentaries on films 1&2 that on the first one they all seemed to be very pleased with themselves & their achievement while on the second one they seemed to spend a lot of time apologising & making excuses for the changes they'd made to the story?
Don't know if this was self doubt creeping in or whether they were just trying to placate the book fans, but either way they seemed a lot more defensive on the second one. |
06-10-2005, 03:40 PM | #68 | |
Memento Mori
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Past The Point Of No Return
Posts: 1,117
|
Quote:
I can clearly remember sitting in the cinema and feeling the 'goosebumps' at that running shot of each beacon being lit, one after the other. It brought tears to my eyes. The next time I saw it, however, I was struck by more practical considerations, like how on Earth the beacon-lighters (for want of a better title) managed to cling to the top of those extremely high peaks! Maybe it's just a case of changes being made purely to elicit an emotional reaction. Like the Elves arriving at Helm's Deep, it didn't happen in the book, but it makes me want to cheer every time
__________________
"Remember, hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies." |
|
06-10-2005, 04:56 PM | #69 |
Everlasting Whiteness
|
This isn't so much a 'mistake' it just broke the mood of the film for me. We have the amazing tracking shot of the beacons being lit and we see the final being lit on the outskirts of Rohan and then we focus in on Aragorn - who immediately gets up and runs like some kind of crazed, I don't even know what, to the king. It's just such a mad movement! It made me laugh out loud in the cinema and I still giggle at it even now!
__________________
If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. |
06-11-2005, 09:50 PM | #70 |
Sword of Spirit
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oh, I'm around.
Posts: 1,401
|
Hey, that's another one! It really disturbed me how Theoden initially said he would not go to Gondor's aid. Even putting the book aside, I hated that part!
__________________
I'm on a Mission from God. |
06-12-2005, 01:43 PM | #71 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wandering through Middle-Earth (Sadly in Alberta and not ME)
Posts: 612
|
I guess they added that part in to add suspense but I didn't like it either. There seemed to be no good reason for it, and they could have used those few seconds to show something else that was much more important. (Maybe an extra scene of Minas Tirith etc.)
However, I didn't mind Aragorn sprinting up the steps to tell the others that the beacons had been lit.
__________________
Back again |
06-15-2005, 10:02 AM | #72 |
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
|
Was listening to the FOTR soundtrack this morning, and realized yet another reason why I prefer this movie over the other two.
The end song, "May it be" by Enya, is just great as it is just melancholy enough for me to think about my fellowship (the group of people with which I survived my teenaged years). TTT has Gollum's Song (performed by Emiliana Torrini), which is hauntingly good, yet it only brings to surface all of those 'other' personalities clamoring inside my head that I'd thought that I'd shouted down years ago. And I can't even remember the ROTK Annie Lennox song.
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
|
06-15-2005, 01:15 PM | #73 |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Oh, I love Gollum's Song! It's not enough to make me like TT more than FotR but it's wonderful. I actually thought it was Bjork singing it when I first heard it and had to hang around watching the credits in the cinema to check. I've heard some of Emiliana Torrini's other songs on i-Tunes though, and they're worth checking out, if only for the amusing lyrics.
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
06-15-2005, 03:07 PM | #74 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
|
The Soundtracks were a huge influence on each movie for sure. I'd forgotten about that.
FoTR's was very, very noticable the first time I saw it. It just totally added beautiful depth and emotion and it kind of let you along by the hand into which situations were dangerous, sweet, funny or perilous. I think by the time TTT roled around I was less impressed by the original themes for each character group. Though the theme for Rohan was beautiful and the best of TTT. You could begin to get the story roughly through the music as well. Frodo and Sam's theme was now truly their own and the Fellowship theme had pretty much died. Come to think of it, the main Fellowship theme (I think it was called "The Ring Goes South" on the CD), especially right when the Fellowship top that hill one by one was the biggest emotional spill-over in the movie, one that was so unique to Fellowship.
__________________
Solus... I'm eating chicken again. I ate chicken yesterday and the day before... will I be eating chicken again tomorrow? Why am I always eating chicken? |
06-16-2005, 09:49 AM | #75 |
Everlasting Whiteness
|
The soundtrack was a reason I liked RotK less than the others because the 'theme' music wasn't there anymore in some places. For example in FotR and I think TTT there was a specific bit of music that came on everytime the Nazgul appeared that was really creepy and dark, and then in RotK it suddenly wasn't there anymore!
But I did love the song at the end of RotK - the Annie Lennox one, it was beautifully haunting and descriptive.
__________________
If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. |
06-16-2005, 10:19 AM | #76 |
Sword of Spirit
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oh, I'm around.
Posts: 1,401
|
Yes, I agree thoroughly! This brings to mind one specific scene from FotR. Sam and Frodo are just starting off on their journey. I don't think that Pippin and Merry have joined them yet. (sorry, it's been a little while) Well, anyway, Frodo and Samwise are walking through the lush green fields of the Shire, beautiful mountains are in the background, and that just-started-out-on-a-fantastic-journey music is playing. The camera shows another view of scenery from atop a hill, but without Frodo and Sam in the picture. Suddenly, the music grows dark and a black horse steps into view.
That part really says a lot. It's so subtle yet very meaningful. Sam and Frodo are really excited about the journey and have little thought for danger, and so the music is cheerful. But then that tone changes. This change is completely smooth; it suddenly went from cheerful to haunting without simply ripping the viewer from one side to the other. It really just let the audience know that the pair were in far more danger then they thought. That part says a lot. I really enjoy watching that each time, because it is so unexpected and yet flows seemlessly.
__________________
I'm on a Mission from God. |
06-16-2005, 12:18 PM | #77 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
|
That's it! Subtely! It's like why Jaws was such a great movie. The crew couldn't get the gigantic mechanical shark to work for most of the shooting so the movie ended up with less actual cheesy shark scenes and just heart-gripping suspence. It's why FOTR was so magical for me. I didn't know what any of the creatures were or where they came from and my imagination just latched onto anything different.
__________________
Solus... I'm eating chicken again. I ate chicken yesterday and the day before... will I be eating chicken again tomorrow? Why am I always eating chicken? |
07-03-2005, 06:13 PM | #78 |
Sword of Spirit
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oh, I'm around.
Posts: 1,401
|
I agree with you Aina, but that's not all. I too had only just read the Hobbit when I watched FotR, so the movie was completely new to me.
But now that I've seen all the movies, read all the books, I still have that feeling of awe when watching the Fellowship. That's just not there with the other two movies.
__________________
I'm on a Mission from God. |
|
|