|
I was doing a bit of surfing and found that New Line Cinema, who produced the LotR movies, are planning on doing the Hobbit movie without Peter Jackson due to an unresolved legal dispute. There has been a lot of breast-beating about how Jackson is the only man to do the Hobbit, and a lot of comment going the other way too.
Personally, I fall into the latter camp. I loved the first LotR movie, absoluted hated the second, and was pretty indifferent about the third. King Kong was OK, but nothing special. Jackson strikes as a somewhat self-indulgent movie maker who has problems in the editing suite. Many of the changes he made to the LotR for his adaptation were misguided in my opinion (putting Shelob in the third movie instead of finishing the second with her, making Frodo a big girl's blouse, Faramir a half-wit, Gimli the comic relief and the Nazgul really dumb and inept, the creeping and cloying sentimentality, leaving out the orc characters). Not to say that there weren't some great visuals and moments in the films, very high production values, and some of the changes were worthwhile (like seriously trimming down the meeting in Rivendell and the fight scene with the goblins on warg-back) and casting sublime (Ian McKellern, Andy Serkis and Sean Bean in particular). But overall I didn't really care for them - he lost me when, instead of judiciously editing the story as he did in the first film, he (and his script writers) started making silly changes to things in the second film simply to pad out the story, while leaving out loads of good stuff from the original book.
As such, I'm not really bothered if they make this film without Jackson as I don't see him as a unique talent. I suspect I won't much care for the Hobbit film either unless they try and stick more closely to the source. I'm just curious what others feel about this.
Allow me to argue several of those points. Gimli is written as comic relief in the books, perhaps not so blatantly but it is there everything from the "How many orcs did you kill?" to the "I don''t want to go into the Path of the Dead but I'll do it so as not to be showed up." There are definately orc characters. Perhaps they don't get as many lines, but they are each very distinct. By "girl's blouse" I assume you mean the ancient Celtic-looking mithril shirt? Faramir to me doesn't come across so much as a half-wit to me in the movies (he does manipulate/intimidate Frodo into confirming his rather nebulous suspicions all of which are borne out of a prophetic dream). The fact that he isn't as genteel as he is in the book I think works well for the movie. I think Shelob works well in the third installment. You wouldn't have had much for Sam and Frodo to do in the last flick. Also it works structurally in that the Cirith Ungol portion follows quickly on its heels. That and the "Return of the King" is the shortest of the books after you pull out the Scouring of the Shrire and the Appendices. As for his scripts they often (as he even admitted) found themselves spiralling back to the source material. And that "sentimentality" is part of the trilogy, which to many people is written like history or a rememberance (strongly linked Tolkien's war experiences).
I will agree that Peter Jackson does do a bit of self-indulging (but really who wouldn't be with a three-year shoot), sometimes the editing is a bit off, and I would also agree that he like many many many other directors occasionally lets the special effects handle the acting rather than letting the actors themselves do it, but on the whole I will say that he has pulled off the impossible and did a excellent job on all three movies. I don't think I could name another (crazy-enough) director who could have pulled it off as well.
I'm honestly curious though, where did you see padding in "Two Towers" and "Return of the King." Even the extended cuts go by far too fast for me.
GGG
PS Perhaps there is still hope for that Hobbit script I have tucked away.
I'm with Aubrey all the way. "Fellowship" was great fun; the other two absolutely bored me to tears. I would have happily traded 2 hours and 27 minutes of hobbits whining, plus six hours' worth of White Ships boarding, just to see fifteen minutes of the Shire turned into an industrial complex (and, as an added bonus, fifteen more minutes of the always-excellent Christopher Lee in that case!). Is John Boorman ("Emerald Forest," "Deliverance," etc.) still directing? He'd be perfect to do "The Hobbit!"
I think all three were above par for fantasy movies in general.
Not that the par for fantasy movies are too high.
I don't have a bad thing to say about any of them. Found them all rousing, moving, and breathtaking. They're easily in my top ten for favorite fantasy movies.
That said, I'm not in the cult of Jackson.
|
Even though i was glad he put The Lord of The Rings trilogy on the map, i must admit that i was glad to hear that he was cut loose. Truth be known, i am not a real Peter Jackson fan. He had his chance to sway me, but it will take more than big Hollywood budgets(special effects)to get my nod.
Thoth-Amon
Just so long as they don't get a director who's credits includes a line that reads "That movie based on the popular video game/role-playing game."
GGG
Just so long as they don't get a director who's credits includes a line that reads "That movie based on the popular video game/role-playing game."
GGG
Usually a sure sign of inherent awfulness, though I was rather surprised by the Resident Evil films.
|
|
Allow me to argue several of those points. Gimli is written as comic relief in the books, perhaps not so blatantly but it is there everything from the "How many orcs did you kill?" to the "I don''t want to go into the Path of the Dead but I'll do it so as not to be showed up." There are definately orc characters. Perhaps they don't get as many lines, but they are each very distinct. By "girl's blouse" I assume you mean the ancient Celtic-looking mithril shirt? Faramir to me doesn't come across so much as a half-wit to me in the movies (he does manipulate/intimidate Frodo into confirming his rather nebulous suspicions all of which are borne out of a prophetic dream). The fact that he isn't as genteel as he is in the book I think works well for the movie. I think Shelob works well in the third installment. You wouldn't have had much for Sam and Frodo to do in the last flick. Also it works structurally in that the Cirith Ungol portion follows quickly on its heels. That and the "Return of the King" is the shortest of the books after you pull out the Scouring of the Shrire and the Appendices. As for his scripts they often (as he even admitted) found themselves spiralling back to the source material. And that "sentimentality" is part of the trilogy, which to many people is written like history or a rememberance (strongly linked Tolkien's war experiences).
I will agree that Peter Jackson does do a bit of self-indulging (but really who wouldn't be with a three-year shoot), sometimes the editing is a bit off, and I would also agree that he like many many many other directors occasionally lets the special effects handle the acting rather than letting the actors themselves do it, but on the whole I will say that he has pulled off the impossible and did a excellent job on all three movies. I don't think I could name another (crazy-enough) director who could have pulled it off as well.
I'm honestly curious though, where did you see padding in "Two Towers" and "Return of the King." Even the extended cuts go by far too...
GGG, always a pleasure to read your posts. First a spot of terminology: “big girl’s blouse” is English slang for a wimp. Sorry to confuse.
Secondly, as someone points out above, the films are far superior to the run of the mill fantasy flick, but that isn’t saying much. The films are watchable, but not really that much of an event, I suppose, for me: they took a book I find amazing and made a sort-of-OK film.
I think that the main problem for me is Frodo. In the books, he isn’t a “big girl’s blouse”, he’s a doughty little fellow. Yes, he suffers a bit of corruption from the Ring, but he doesn’t wander about with all this irritating self-doubt. Now, I appreciate that the impact of the Ring upon his personality was always going to be a tricky one to pull off, since it would be all in the acting. But I don’t believe Elijah Wood really pulls it off. And as Jackson doesn’t seem the sort of director to really deal well with the intimate moments – he likes big CGI spectacle – the rather lacklustre moping that counts for being the bearer of a semi-sentient artefact of complete evil seems to have been accepted.
The Faramir bit which annoyed was the completely idiotic cavalry charge to doom. Not in the book, obviously stupid for a strategic sense. Yes, I know he was ordered to do it by his dad, who had been corrupted by his palantir-gazing. But even so, it didn’t strike me as “tragic”, which was the effect I presume they were going for, just dumb. Even Denethor didn’t seem quite right – they simply made him out to be a bastard, rather than a man cracking under the terrible strain of psychic assault from Sauron and the siege of orcish hordes. (And his final run, while on fire, of what looked like about half a mile or so before he jumped of the ledge, was a tad comical. And why didn’t they have a chain across that gap he jumped through – has no one heard of Health and Safety?)
Shelob: in the books, it makes a great-cliffhanger. Frodo is hauled off by the orcs, Sam is left with the ring and in a quandary. He finally resolves to go and save his pal/master. TO BE CONTINUED….. (Queue music and closing credits.) Even Tolkien worked out how well that worked, which is why it was written that way.
And the sentimentality bit is really in the relationship between Sam and Frodo, and mainly emanates from Frodo’s wimpiness. And I feel it rather ruined the Mount Doom sequence with where Sam gets all tear-y because Frodo won’t destroy the Ring. Yes, LotR is not especially gritty. But it was written by a Victorian chap (cold baths and stiff upper lip) who had been through WW1. Frodo’s attitude isn’t the sort of thing that won an empire, and in the books Frodo is most definitely a quintessential Englishmen underneath the furry feet. And to this Englishman, it doesn’t really work in the on-screen version.
Padding: mainly in the Two Towers, but here goes (from memory – I saw the film years ago): the warg attack (admittedly, a fun sequence, but not really achieving much); Aragorn floating down the river, and Arwen sort of summoning a horse or something (what was all that about?); Faramir seizing Sam and Frodo to take them back to Minas Tirith, and the Osgiliath sequence where Frodo tries to give the Ring to a Nazgul AND IT DOESN’T TAKE IT!!!! (that really annoyed me – the Nazgul are not that big in the LotR outside the Fellowship, but I can’t believe Sauron’s chief lieutenants can be that inept). Not only did these sequences, by and large, not exist in the books, but they actually deviated in such a way as to make characters look stupid or irritating. There is no way Frodo would be offering the Ring to the Nazgul – if nothing else he wanted to keep it for himself. It doesn’t make sense, and this scene at the end of the film just rang so untrue it wrecked the entire cinematic experience for me.
Now, I’m not saying that there are not great moments in the LotR trilogy. They are probably the best fantasy movies ever made. But since the second best is probably Willow or something, that isn’t saying much. My view of the films is informed by a regular re-reading of the books, and as such I have a defined view of the characters which may not be shared by others (like, for example, Jackson). And I accept that adapting a book, any book, to the screen will involve alterations. Even so, I don’t think Jackson is really all that as a cinematic auteur – he’s more in the George Lucas mould than, say, Kubrick or Kurosawa or someone. He’s good, but he’s not that good. So I don’t really think whether he or anyone else makes the Hobbit is going to make much difference.
Well I, for one, hope that it is Peter Jackson that makes The Hobbit. One of the main reasons for that is that I want the same 'feel' as the trilogy.
You know what happens when a new director takes the reigns; He has to put his OWN style in the movie. The last thing I want is a Hobbit movie with blacklights and neons like in the third and forth Batman movies (yuk!).
Ultradan
Best Fantasy Movie ever = Conan the Barbarian
I agree Peter Jackson is not exactly a wizard when it comes to script. Also, IMO, the relationship between Frodo and Sam is gratingly homosexual. Not there is anything wrong with homosexuality; I just don't want to see it in my fantasy movies. Gimme some kind of heads up like Brokeback Mountain.
I can commend the man on his setting and piecing together the fantastic world of Tolkien. I remember seeing the Fellowship in theatre for the first time and being awestruck by some of those scenes. When I read the book, Jackson managed to paint those clips just like my imagination did at the time. Loved the battle scenes in Return of the King. Great stuff.
The Hobbit without Peter Jackson? Great. With CG the way it is now, anybody can do it. We gotta get someone who can write good script and dialogue for that was the weakest link of the LOTR series. Bryan Singer would be a great choice.
I think I will reserve judgment on the whole thing till I can see a trailer.
|
|
big girl's blouse=wimp
I love learnin' new stuff.
We Brits have all sorts of slang that you would love...
On a related note; how long did it take before one of Puff Daddy's creeping sycophants summoned up the courage to take him to one side, and inform him he had been parading his meagre talents for years under a name that, to us, meant "The F@ggot Father"?
|
And Harvey Keitel as Gollum.
And the voice talents of Gilbert Goddfried as Smaug.
Hey, this is shapin' up to be the kinda flick I'd enjoy.
Now if they'd just replace those pesky dwarfs with fiendish dire werewolf dwarves.
Can we get all of the N*Sync guys to be dwarves? We could even have a musical number.
|
|
And Harvey Keitel as Gollum.
And the voice talents of Gilbert Goddfried as Smaug.
Hey, this is shapin' up to be the kinda flick I'd enjoy.
Now if they'd just replace those pesky dwarfs with fiendish dire werewolf dwarves.
I still can't stop laughing at this post. Everybody at work thinks I'm insane.
Kinda off topic, kinda not...I heard an animated movie of Conan: Red Nails was in the works and Ron Pearlman was doing the voicework of Conan. Anyone know anything about this?
|
|
Ahem...
Back to the thread...
By "girl's blouse" I assume you mean the ancient Celtic-looking mithril shirt?
Big Girl's Blouse=powder-puff; wooly woofter; puddle-jumper; driver of the other bus; player for the other team; etc.
And that "sentimentality" is part of the trilogy, which to many people is written like history or a rememberance (strongly linked Tolkien's war experiences).
I am fully in agreement with Aubrey; I acknowledge the effect on Tolkien of trench warfare and the other horrors of the Western Front, and that he hearkened back to a more genteel time (that may not have truly existed), where chaps could bond with other chaps, far from the dehumanising influences of technology, or wars in foreign lands that had little to do with them...
However, nowhere in the books do I ever remember Frodo and Sam gazing into each others eyes like lovelorn puppies. I had to fight the urge to scream at the screen "GET A ****ING ROOM, YOU TWO!!!!". I certainly don't believe this subtext was ever implied in the original text, and believe Tolkien would have been horrified if he had heard it suggested.I don't know if it's quite as apparent to U.S. readers, but Frodo is most definitely a toff, an aristocratic hobbit from a Good Family with Old Money. Admittedly, hobbits are a very rustic people, with simple tastes, so he doesn’t live in a huge castle, or swan around dripping in jewellery, but it is clear that Bag End is a very desirable residence, with all mod cons, and filled with heirlooms of the finest craftsmanship.
Sam, meanwhile, is most definitely a lower class of hobbit, whose family has been in service to the Baggins’ for generations, and whose entire hobbit-hole is probably little more than a dirty, spade-filled shed, that would fit inside Bilbo’s/Frodo’s living room.
The pair most certainly would not be ‘best friends’ at the start of the story, in fact, it is debatable whether they would have any relationship at all, beyond discussing the garden at Bag End.
Sam starts off as very subservient to Frodo, even in awe of him, and Frodo begins with a very patronizing attitude to Sam, but by the end, they have both come to rely on each other so much, that they both gain respect and understanding for each other. Once they return home, they can no longer go back to the old master/servant relationship. Sam has the confidence to successfully run for Mayor, and Frodo can no longer relate to his relatives and their stifling traditions (hence, his leaving the Shire for good).
Tolkien would have seen this pattern repeated often by the survivors of the war; friendships made between people who would previously have never exchanged a word, officers who kept in touch with the enlisted men, maybe offered them a token job as a valet to get around the disapproving mutterings of polite society.
This illustrates one of the key messages of the story; that ordinary people can achieve extraordinary deeds, not just in the sense that hobbits succeed where the elves and men fail, but in the sense that the working class Sam is every bit as much a hero as the upper-class Frodo. Tolkien saw the rise of Nazism and Bolshevism, both of which can be inferred in the examples of the crude, barbaric, ugly uniformity and philistinism of the orcs, and may well have feared that such concepts may take root in England. In order to avoid this, there has to be a new respect for nature, for the common man, a new way of doing things that diffuses the feelings of resentment that blew up in Russia and Germany. The aristocracy have to lose their smug superiority; after all it didn’t help the elves…
This, I believe, is why the story struck a chord with so many left-wing readers, students and hippies in the 60’s, despite having, on the surface, a very old-fashioned, nostalgic tone.
Just my 2 cents, of course…
Faramir to me doesn't come across so much as a half-wit to me in the movies (he does manipulate/intimidate Frodo into confirming his rather nebulous suspicions all of which are borne out of a prophetic dream). The fact that he isn't as genteel as he is in the book I think works well for the movie.
I have also heard the director’s commentary, which states that, by showing Faramir as tempted by the Ring, but overcoming it, this makes him more of a hero than if he were totally oblivious of its nature, and offers a contrast with his brother.
I tend to agree; having him go “Ring? Magic Ring? Duh, what magic ring? I can’t feel nuthin’” would imply he is barely sentient enough for the Ring to bother with him.I think Shelob works well in the third installment. You wouldn't have had much for Sam and Frodo to do in the last flick. Also it works structurally in that the Cirith Ungol portion follows quickly on its heels. That and the "Return of the King" is the shortest of the books after you pull out the Scouring of the Shire and the Appendices.
I agree; ROTK is indeed the shortest book, containing a large appendix.
Also, the events in the later 2 books are organized into separate blocks of several chapters each, between the hobbits and the remaining characters, blocks which do not occur simultaneously, which is fine for a reader, who can flip about, cross-referencing, but would make a confusing film.I'm honestly curious though, where did you see padding in "Two Towers" and "Return of the King."?
Any scene involving Arwen (yes, she’s gorgeous, but if I wanted to look at her static face staring vapidly into nothingness for several minutes at a time, I can buy a poster, or watch an Aerosmith video on freeze-frame).
Any scene involving Elrond (Weeeeellllllllccooooooommeeeee toooooooo Riveeeeenndeelllllll, Miiiiiiisteeeeerrrrr Aaaaaaandddddeeeeerrrrrrssssooooonnn……).Any scene involving an elf (the lazy useless bastards even DIE in slow motion!), with the exception of Legolas, who must have been exiled from Mirkwood for serious cocaine or amyl nitrate abuse, since he is the only elf not to take several minutes to perform the simplest task…
The Grey Havens (did anyone else wish the boat pilot had leaned over the side and shouted “Oy! Are you getting on this boat or WHAT?”. Or, better still, run down to the dockside and dragged Frodo off by his hair, before flinging him on board, like an old sack…instead we get what seems like half an hour of hobbits gazing at each other, shuffling their feet, while Gandalf leers at them like a kiddy-fiddler at the school gate).
The scene should have taken 10 seconds, top.
(voiceover)…Frodo’s wound still troubled him, and he was weary of Bag End, so we traveled to the Grey Havens, where Frodo sailed to join the Elves…
(scene of Frodo waving from boat)
…and I returned to Rosie….
(scene of Sam & family)…
I was expecting to see the Scouring of the Shire, having seen a teaser in Galadriel’s scrying bowl. Whilst occurring after the main battles and the crowning of the King, it further reinforces the theme of the original books, being a warning against those who would pursue short-term power with no regard for other’s lives, health or environment, and shows Saruman and Grima reduced to a wretched state by their own greed.
It is galling that such episodes were cut, allegedly for lack of time, yet we sit though ten minute close-ups of Hugo Weaving nostril hairs, Elijah Wood’s manga-eyes, Liv Tyler’s trembly lip, Haldir’s slo-mo death, etc.
Which is not to say that I didn’t enjoy the films, because I did.
Some cuts were absolutely essential (anybody miss Tom Bombadil?)
They captured the visuals that I had envisioned when I read the books.
The work on costumes, sets, make-up was above and beyond the call of duty.
I just wish I’d have seen more of the actual book, and less of the peripheral scenes.
Ahem...
Back to the thread...
You brushing me off, Brit? What, is it against the rules to discuss other fantasy related movies on this thread or is Conan too barbaric for your hoity-toity tastes?
Maybe he needs a big girl's blouse...
Ahem...
Back to the thread...
You brushing me off, Brit? What, is it against the rules to discuss other fantasy related movies on this thread or is Conan too barbaric for your hoity-toity tastes?
Maybe he needs a big girl's blouse...
He may have meant that everyone before you was beginning to twist it away from the original content, content he still wanted to speak to. Either that or he truly does harbor a dislike of Conan mentioners in which case...
FIGHT! FIGHT! A Hyberborian and an Islander of Wight!
He may have meant that everyone before you was beginning to twist it away from the original content, content he still wanted to speak to. Either that or he truly does harbor a dislike of Conan mentioners in which case...
FIGHT! FIGHT! A Hyberborian and an Islander of Wight!
(lol) Ah Jade, your reputation precedes you! I have no desire to turn this into a saga. Maybe you're right, maybe he was referring to everyone.
WRT Red Nails---I looked around; nothing conclusive. I guess there's a movie site under construction. IMDB doesn't say much more about anything other than the voice cast.
Hey , thanx for looking into it Heathansson. Here's hoping it happens.
As for the thread's topic, I really liked all the LOTR movies. Especially the first one but I thought they were all really good. As films. Sure Jackson's a little self-indulgent with his film making, so was Tolkien with his writing. Jackson even said he wasn't trying to make the movies completely faithful to the books, just movies people would enjoy.
As for The Hobbit, sure I'd like to have seen a Jackson version but there are plenty of other great directors. Besides, not all of Jackson's films are great (anyone remember The Frighteners?) I just hope they don't get Ridley Scott. Blade Runner and Alien are awesome movies but anytime this guy gets too close to swords (Gladiator) and sorcery (Legend) he churns out dreamy snoozers.
Well I, for one, hope that it is Peter Jackson that makes The Hobbit. One of the main reasons for that is that I want the same 'feel' as the trilogy.
You know what happens when a new director takes the reigns; He has to put his OWN style in the movie. The last thing I want is a Hobbit movie with blacklights and neons like in the third and forth Batman movies (yuk!).
Ultradan
Funny. I was thinking about Joel S. too.
Breastplates with nipples. That's all I'm gonna say.
GGG
Well I, for one, hope that it is Peter Jackson that makes The Hobbit. One of the main reasons for that is that I want the same 'feel' as the trilogy.
You know what happens when a new director takes the reigns; He has to put his OWN style in the movie. The last thing I want is a Hobbit movie with blacklights and neons like in the third and forth Batman movies (yuk!).
Ultradan
Funny. I was thinking about Joel S. too.
Breastplates with nipples. That's all I'm gonna say.
GGG
Okay, make that two guys I hope they don't get to direct The Hobbit.
|
Or John McTiernan? Those sweaty, bruised dwarves working their way through Mirkwood - it would be Predator all over again!Maybe Tim Burton will direct it.
Christopher Walken could be Gandalf, and Johnny Depp could be Bilbo.
I'd buy that for a dollar.
It's hard to believe that two actors from that movie ended up state governors. Truth...fiction...steeranger than...
Jim Jarmusch is going to direct it in black and white with a single camera, a shoulder harnessed mike, and no crew. I saw some of the early scenes... trippy bleak would be my only description. Beladonna Took, indeed.
Henry Jaglom was going to direct but no studio wanted to touch his idea that Smaug WAS the camera eye itself. He decided that it would be a brilliant stroke to emulate Sam Fuller's style and have everyone look into the camera for one full minute, eyes full of the emptiness of war, before one man shoots into the camera with an arrow. Fade to black. Roll red credits.
Okay, Ridley Scott, Joel Schumacher and Michael Bay are out...
...and Uwe Boll. God please don't let that happen.
|
...and Uwe Boll. God please don't let that happen.
Dude, don't you think this one is going to be great? C'mon, it has Leelee Sobieski in it!!
Dude, don't you think this one is going to be great? C'mon, it has Leelee Sobieski in it!!
And a stellar Mathew Lillard...the ultimate sidekick!
EDIT: Haha! I copied my post before the messageboard ate it!
Secondly, as someone points out above, the films are far superior to the run of the mill fantasy flick, but that isn’t saying much. The films are watchable, but not really that much of an event, I suppose, for me: they took a book I find amazing and made a sort-of-OK film.
One thing I will say about the going to see the movies after haveing read the books over and over again once every few years since grade school, I had a really tough time enjoying myself on the first view of "Fellowship." I remember standing in line for a second viewing with about 10 of my closest gaming bud and saying it was "okay." To which my friend said "So it will be great." He and oddly enough some of my more well-read friends had never read the books (or worse dropped them during the opening of Fellowship). They came away all loving it. There where parts that grated on me and even still give me a niggle to this day because they are not as I had imagined them. I have never been a big fan of Kate Blanchet's drowned woman scene. I thought the special effects sort of rode over the scene like a monster truck. I wanted it to be a nice quite but deathly serious sceen as I had always imagined it. However as you have even pointed out somewhere on these boards the written word can only give so much info and the rest is for your imagination and intelligence to deduce. A movie is whole other kettle of fish as even subtle things like a person's body language can add a whole bunch of stuff to a scene that you as a reader of the peice might not have orinally inferred. Perhaps I am too accepting or maybe jaded by my pouring over the original texts, but either way for every scene that chafes me there is a scene that makes me weep for its delicate beauty. Boromir holding the ring on a snowy peak "such a little thing"; of Saruman summoning the storm over the Misty Mountains; "They are coming"; The Bridge of Khazad Dum; The charge of the Rohirrim; Gollum's fight with himself "thief...murderer...."; Faramir doing his Father/King's will even to death; or one of Theoden's men proclaiming that they will never be able to break Mordor's lines and the King agrees, but says they will go nonetheless; "I know your face."
I think that the main problem for me is Frodo. In the books, he isn’t a “big girl’s blouse”, he’s a doughty little fellow. Yes, he suffers a bit of corruption from the Ring, but he doesn’t wander about with all this irritating self-doubt. Now, I appreciate that the impact of the Ring upon his personality was always going to be a tricky one to pull off, since it would be all in the acting. But I don’t believe Elijah Wood really pulls it off. And as Jackson doesn’t seem the sort of director to really deal well with the intimate moments – he likes big CGI spectacle – the rather lacklustre moping that counts for being the bearer of a semi-sentient artefact of complete evil seems to have been accepted.
I not know about that. He really doesn't want to be the bearer. He keeps trying to give it to people he feels are more qualified than he. I imagine it to be like going to a police man or doctor and saying "Please could you take over for me I really don't know anything about arresting people or performing brain surgery." and then being told that it is really "much too dangerous" for even these trained professionals. If that wouldn't make a person feel a bit insecure I don't know what would. The Frodo in the books mopes a lot near the end of the journey ("it's so heavy", etc...). Hence the need for Sam to "lighten the load" and be Frodo's crutch, practicallity, and a constant reminder of why he is doing what he's doing. He's doing it to protect folks like Samwise.
The Faramir bit which annoyed was the completely idiotic cavalry charge to doom. Not in the book, obviously stupid for a strategic sense. Yes, I know he was ordered to do it by his dad, who had been corrupted by his palantir-gazing. But even so, it didn’t strike me as “tragic”, which was the effect I presume they were going for, just dumb. Even Denethor didn’t seem quite right – they simply made him out to be a bastard, rather than a man cracking under the terrible strain of psychic assault from Sauron and the siege of orcish hordes. (And his final run, while on fire, of what looked like about half a mile or so before he jumped of the ledge, was a tad comical. And why didn’t they have a chain across that gap he jumped through – has no one heard of Health and Safety?)
I'm not a big fan of the "so passes Denethor son of Ecthellion" scene either. But the futile charge works better within the context of the extended cut of the second movie where you get the scene with Faramir, Boromir and their dad.
Shelob: in the books, it makes a great-cliffhanger. Frodo is hauled off by the orcs, Sam is left with the ring and in a quandary. He finally resolves to go and save his pal/master. TO BE CONTINUED….. (Queue music and closing credits.) Even Tolkien worked out how well that worked, which is why it was written that way.
Actually Tolkien's editors chopped up his one book to rule them all into a trilogy, something I understand he was quite mad about for a while. I think the second movie ended pretty well. Just enough hope in Middle-Earth to get you going to the next movie.
And the sentimentality bit is really in the relationship between Sam and Frodo, and mainly emanates from Frodo’s wimpiness. And I feel it rather ruined the Mount Doom sequence with where Sam gets all tear-y because Frodo won’t destroy the Ring. Yes, LotR is not especially gritty. But it was written by a Victorian chap (cold baths and stiff upper lip) who had been through WW1. Frodo’s attitude isn’t the sort of thing that won an empire, and in the books Frodo is most definitely a quintessential Englishmen underneath the furry feet. And to this Englishman, it doesn’t really work in the on-screen version.
Frodo suffers a lot in my read of the books. He's the hero but it is never something he wants. I would suspect that lots of folks want a Victorian Rambo to save the day by throwing his magic sword to impale the villain at the end, but the fact is that the hero is one guy who comes back from the war wounded in more ways than physical.
As for padding most of the Arwen story actually happens in the Appendix, and needed to be put into the movie to make the movie. No studio would have touched it sans romance in my estimation. The real genius (and it is in its own way) was playing it as long distance relationship after the break up (something you once again only see in the extended cut). I agree that the Nazgul should have been a bit tougher/scarier though they do come around a bit by the siege of Minas Tirith. I also agree that Denethor took too many whackings from Galdalf. I don't mind the elves being elves. Really what's the hurry -some of them are older than the Ents and look at how slow they are. What I did mind was Elrond's occasional flashes of Agent Smith from the Matrix. "Mr Baggins." Hugo really doesn't become Elrond for me until the second movie.
Also I liken reading Tolkien to eating chocolate mousse. His writing style is very dense in that he told the entire Lord of the Rings in what amounts to what, one and a half Robert Jordon novels. Modern writers just sort of spoon feed readers drool, but Tolkien just crams it down your throat, but in a very polite and thoroughly English way.
Well Aubrey, I'm glad you like reading my posts cause this one is damn long.
;)
GGG
Back to the original point did Peter Jackson have positive influence on movie version of several million people's favorite fantasy trilogy? Well, I liked em. And judging by the box office returns and generally good vibes from Tolkien scholars and fans I would say yes.
Whomever gets the nod now will have to fill some pretty big and hairy prostetic feet.
;)
Trilogy of G
|
|
Back to the original point did Peter Jackson have positive influence on movie version of several million people's favorite fantasy trilogy? Well, I liked em. And judging by the box office returns and generally good vibes from Tolkien scholars and fans I would say yes.
Whomever gets the nod now will have to fill some pretty big prostetic feet.
;)
Trilogy of G
Well it beats the crap out of Beastmaster and The Sword and the Sorcerer anyway.
...Even ::gasp:: D&D the Movie? That was a movie right?
GGG
|
|
It is galling that such episodes were cut, allegedly for lack of time, yet we sit though ten minute close-ups of Hugo Weaving nostril hairs, Elijah Wood’s manga-eyes, Liv Tyler’s trembly lip, Haldir’s slo-mo death, etc.
I think this sums up my basic gripe with the movies. The Two Towers and especially the Return of the King were going to be a little bit more challenging, as the books varied in length dramatically. But it seemed to me HUGE chunks of both were not included, yet duff made-up bits (i.e. by the script writers as opposed to Tolkien) did. Now, I appreciate that seeing a movie is not the same as reading a book, and changes through adaptation are inevitable. I guess I reckon the bits they changed in films 2 and 3 (I really liked film 1) were poor changes.
Ah well.... Probably really a question of taste more than anything.
|
|
Actually Tolkien's editors chopped up his one book to rule them all into a trilogy, something I understand he was quite mad about for a while.
True. However, the "book" (call it book 4 if you wish) still ends, and then "cuts scene" back to Aragorn and chums, so it was still a cliff hanger unless (like I did when I first read it) you immediately cut to book 6 to find out what happened. So I think Tolkien was still working it as a cliff-hanger.
(Aragorn and Chums - New Line are looking for a "post-Hobbit/pre-LotR" prequel film to do after the Hobbit - maybe I've got a title here.)
Re your longer post: you are quite right: there are some moments of great beauty in the films where Jackson gets in just right. Unfortunately for me, these happen almost exclusively in the first film. Jackson's temptation to get a bit ham-fisted with the effects (which first reared it's head in Galadriel getting all hot and bothered after being offered the Ring, and got pregressively worse) tended to obscure some of the quieter scenes where a bit of good acting might have sufficed. The one effect that they really pulled off well, of course, is Gollum. But he was rather the exception, in my view.