I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Mine hasn't arrived yet, but I'm extremely excited (yes, I wear my geek badge proudly). I heard that much of the footage helped explained Faramir's motivation, etc, a great deal. Anybody want to buy a theatrical release disc, cheap?
Anyone wonder why IMAX films come out on DVD? Unless you've got a six story screen in your living room, it kind of loses its punch.
I'm still enjoying the Special Edition. I'm one of those geeks who listens to commentary, and there are some fun bits on the commentary tracks.
But there was one scene in LotR:tTT that was a complete and utter snoozer. Blue light in the background while Gandalf gives a monologue and Aragorn tries not to fall asleep as he nods portentiously. You'll recognize when you come across it - do yourself a favor and skip to the next bit.
Looking at the preliminary artwork that went into the creation of Gollum, all I could think was, "Oh, look! Ann Coulter got a haircut!"
Watched "Battleship Potemkin" yesterday ... man, they don't have directors like Eisenstein anymore. Hollywood basically rolls out the film equivalent of twinkies, only without the shelf life.
Now that is not fair, John D. Anyone can see that Gollum just bears the physical marks of being twisted by centuries of constant exposure to the embodiment of pure evil, which prolonged his life beyond reason. Whereas Coulter...
Hm. Let me think about this.
I bought the theatrical edition the day it came out. That's it. No more LOTR dvds for me until the complete, expanded trilogy is released a year or so after Return hits theaters.
This is such a sucker's game.
Oh, c'mon. Just one more hit. Just one more screenshot...
I'm bad enough off that I've got the Gollum statuette edition. And my 3-year-old has the Aragorn action figure. Yeah, it's hers, that's right. Which is why it's sitting on my computer desk up out of her reach. Just saving it for when she's older.
Is there a self-help group for us out there?
Nina:
Self-help for consumerism: start with annual Buy Nothing Day, which is today, the day after Thanksgiving, every year.
I recently got the extended version and must say I loved it. An amazing achievement both narratively and technically. I have to disagree with you Atrios and say the pacing was much better. To me, the theatrical version so truncated the Ents portions that they virtually made no sense. Still, could have lost the whole Arwen sequence, though. *yawn*
I thought the backstory for Faramir was a major improvement as well, as his decision to leave the ring with Frodo makes more sense. And how great to see Sean Bean again as Boromir!
By the way, I think we are comparing Coulter to the wrong LOTR character. Even though we haven't seen her yet, I'm definitely thinking Shelob...
Nina,
I don't think you're ever too young to appreciate a good man clad in mail and leather ... 
I am forever grateful to Peter Jackson for this at least: The Two Towers got me over the Gollum fear that has tormented me since I was eight, when my sadistic father insisted I watch the cartoon version of The Hobbit. I had nightmares about Gollum for years after that.
Now I just find him funny. "So juicy sweet!"
A.
There is so much disastrously wrong with TT that cannot be redeemed. Lets face it, he ruined the trilogy, for no good reason. The worst he did was to asassinate the character of Faramir, to make Gollum a comical figure, and to have Frodo showing the ring to the Wraiths. Awful, awful, awful. I will never forgive him for thinking he could alter a detail of LOTR. Abridging is one thing, altering the essential elements of the story is something else--a hanging offense.
Eesh, I find I'm falling into Hologlyph's camp. I wanted to love these movies so much, but I don't think they hold up to repeated watching - as either good interpretations of the books, or good movies unto themselves.
I don't mind Bombadil's absence or care that Arwen rescued Frodo (instead of Glorfindel). But I'll never forgive them for how Faramir and Treebeard were portrayed, the anachronistic jokes, the bad patches in the script. I know a lot of time, money and love went into making these movies. I think they were probably made too quickly, where problems could not be resolved in a timely manner. (I also think the director is far from perfect).
It's all Clinton's fault.
The book and the movie are separate in my mind....I am in the midst of my annual winter re-read (just now entering the Mines of Moria).
The movies retain just enough of Tolkein to make them acceptable to me, and I am continually awed by Peter Jackson's genius. Can't wait for ROTK - check out the Newsweek review, if you haven't read it already.
We too watched the extended TTT yesterday. It certainly made the thing *way* more coherent that's for sure. It also seemed to ameliorate some of the Gimli-as-comic-relief trope. However, there is just no good reason for changing Faramir the way he did nor altering the way the Ents entered the fray. I don't hate PJ for what he's done, most of the changes are ones demanded by the transfer from book to screen, but those 2 really rankle.
MKK
Own the book. Own the extended remix editions on DVD.
You have to take them both in terms of being different ways to tell the story. A literal version of the book put onscreen would be a godawful mess.
Sure, there are things that I wish were included in the film versions, but I'm in awe of what Peter Jackson and his insanely talented and driven crew has pulled off. If you get your hands on the extended DVD, check out the "making off" discs in the bundle and then say with a straight face that they didn't try their damnedest to keep the spirit of the original alive in their films (be sure to check out the whole section on bringing gollum to life)
For what it's worth, I thought the extended version of Two Towers "felt" more like the books than Fellowship. It flowed much better than the theater version. More stuff with Gollum and more with the Ents. To sit through a 4-hour film on DVD and still want more is a sign your watching something completely special. Says something
Big geek fan of the books, enjoyed the movies (already saw the TT DVD with both cast and director commentaries). I remember in the theater wondering why everyone had to be a jerk (Treebeard, Elrond, Faramir). PJ and the writers explained that they thought it would be more dramatic if Faramir had to make more of a journey, and I suppose that sort of explains Treebeard too, but I always liked that Faramir was always a good guy--it's not like he was sanctimonious or anything. PJ should have trusted that the audience didn't have to have Faramir make a "journey"--he was fine as he was in the book.
I agree that the books and the movies are distinct entities. I just finished my annual re-read of the 6 books (sorry, let's be precise), and actually just started The Hobbit again for some reason. I love the books, and I love the movies, despite their re-arranging/omitting/whatevering. Same way I'm sure I'll love Master and Commander--really, does anybody want to go to the movies to see people praising the tea and toasted cheese? Heck, I loved Lynch's Dune as well. No book will ever be made into a movie (yes, I've stated this exactly how I meant to). All movie adaptations are their own entities, and should be enjoyed as such.
If you want to see a faithful film adaptation of a book, see !984 with Richard Burton and John Hurt. 5 stars out of 5.
After that you have to go to the first Harry Potter- Faithful but boring. That picture shows why you always end up making changes as a book is made into a movie.
Count me as one who thinks all the Rings movies, and their trailers, the covers on accompanying books, the associated action figures and anything else linked to them, are completely sleep inducing.
Saw the first movie in theatrical release with my kid. He also found it to be passable action entertainment, but didn't bother to watch in on cable second time around and begged me not to make him see the second one. I didn't see the second, or third, or whatever we're up to now. I've never read the books and frankly I just don't get it. I've never understood why adults read them. Perhaps I just lack the "geek" bone every one is proudly displaying. Maybe I'm devoted to realism, and prejudiced against fantasy. But I think the reason I don't like LOTR is less poetic.
I thought the movie I saw was humorless, like if you stripped all the crowd pleasing dirty jokes from the most minor of Shakespearean plays.
Even a godawful superhero flick like Daredevil - just to n
No book will ever be made into a movie (yes, I've stated this exactly how I meant to). All movie adaptations are their own entities, and should be enjoyed as such.
NTodd
Wrong!
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Just as good as the book.
Most do fall short though. But with FALILV it was damn nice to see the characters and action.
Lifeforce the Steve railsback film is better than Space Vampires the book it was based on.
But the Dick stuff is better to read than the films are to see.
NTodd - Re: movies and books as separate entities -
I agree completely. The best example of that, in my mind, is "Lolita." The one starring James Mason and Sue Lyons and Peter Sellers. Even Nabokov, who could be famously prickly about anything to do with his works, liked the movie. He said it wasn't the book but was good in its own right.
The LOTR movies are not the books. I love the books, too, and wear my LOTR geek badge proudly, as well. I like the movies so far; I think Jackson has done a beautiful job. I like the Two Towers better than the FOTR. I can't wait to buy the entire trilogy in the extended DVD version.
But the movies are most definitely not the books. And I agree the Ents were very poorly done.
I have to go with librul--I don't think the movies will hold up as either adaptations or just as movies unto themselves--poor pacing, lame-ass injections of tension (remember the Uruk-Hai endlessly running through the forest in "Fellowshit?" Please. It wasn't even bad in a funny way), alterations to the book purely for the sake of stupidity (Faramir, the Ents, Elrond's evaluation of Aragorn's motivations. . . the list could go on for a long, long time. What the /sbin/fsck was PJ thinking?). Despite some good acting jobs and nice photography, I think film reviewers are going to be embarassed by their fawning if they watch the movies again in a few years. And I think the sobbling staircase scene from "Fellowshit" will be a ride at a Universal Studios theme park in a couple years. Peter Jackson's noblest achievement.
Uh, that would be "wobbling" staircase scene.
I enjoy the movies but... watching a handful of guys kill hundreds of orcs a minute gets very repetitive after the first 30 seconds. It looked like Sylvester Stallone directed the second one.
I'm no LOTR geek by any means, but
FWIW. I think PJ had to make some changes in order for the adaptation to be pallateable to todays short attention span generation. The hyperkinetic battle scenes are just one example, another would be the overly rapid pacing and hurried dialog in some scenes.
The sad fact is, unless a movie is paced and acted like 'Too Fast Too Furious' or hokey T&A shit like the Tomb Raider series. It doesn't stand a chance at theaters.
I have bought both extended DVD's. Didn't help overall because some of the new/extended scenes are bad, some are good; they balance each other out.
They should not have put in the thing with the tree roots trying to get Merry & Pippin; that was such an obvious sop to Old Man Willow (and Tom Bombadil by association). Just leave it out altogether. The entwives mention was nice though.
Fellowshit??? Now that's too harsh. Speaking as a lay movie critic, I would objectively give these movies 2 - 2 1/2 stars out of 4.
I did read the huge article about RotK in Newsweek or whatever. It confirmed my suspicions about the director. He is most definitely not a genius, just has an enthusiastic and capable grasp of special effects and logistics. His direction of individual actors is fairly spotty.
I think that many of the changes that Jackson's made are improvements, characterwise; in particular Faramir and Aragorn. I'm a fan of the books, but let's face it: in spite of the awe inspring events, settings and mythology, characterwise they are simply not that dramatic, for the most part.
The goody two-shoes Faramir of the books would be totally unbelievable on screen. The way the writers have crafted, through three films, the evolution of Aragorn is admirable and shows a great deal of thought and work -- to totally dismiss the added depth and complexity they've brought to Tolkien's often wooden characters really makes me wonder what films these folks DO like.
You may not like the fact that they've deviated from the letter of Tolkien, but I think the spirit is there in spades, and this was clearly a labor of love.
you can't satisfy everyone all the time.
i'm waiting for the 3rd movie with gleeful anticipation.
Am I the only person in the world that found the quality of Tolkien's writing unreadable? I got 60 pages into the first and had to put it down. It offended my aesthetic sensibilities.
I got 60 pages into the first and had to put it down. It offended my aesthetic sensibilities.
You have to get page 63 in the hobbit, it all begins when they leave hobbiton...
Read the books after I saw the animated movie.
Reread 'em again in college. Liked 'em fine until I got into the Silmarillon.
Gave it up for the Chronicles of Narnia and a series called "The Dark is Rising" (think Harry Potter as King Arthur) by an author called Susan Cooper.
Liked that best of all until I ran into something called Watership Down, which held my heart for decades; Gayle Greeno's "Ghatti" books are very good too.
LOTR is a fine story; the books do a good job of telling the tale, but not unlike Milton's Paradise Lost, you have to be awfully persistent to follow the story itself through the mindnumbing length and the myriads of detail.
But ... truth is hard to speak, and I still like Frodo best of all Tolkien's characters.
Film adaptations can do one of two things (if they're to be considered "good movies") -- they can follow the dearly beloved book to the letter, as in the Harry Potter series, and bore you to tears, or they will distill what is best and most important in the written work and make it work on the screen.
Another film adaptation of an unwieldy book that I find to be roughly analogous in quality to Jackson's LOTR stuff is L.A. Confidential. In order to put that up on the screen, the filmmakers had to almost rewrite the whole book, but somehow they managed to hold onto the richness of atmosphere and characterization that's in the book.
Faramir is a character that works well either on a page, in a poem, a ballad, or in an opera, but you can't have characters like that in a movie. They're just not believable. I was dissapointed that he was somewhat corruptable when I saw TT in the theater, but it works. If you reason it out, here you have Galadriel, for example, being tempted by
If you reason it out, here you have Galadriel, for example, being tempted by the ring in Fellowship... now she's a superior being to humans. It doesn't make sense, in light of the way that other characters who ARE tempted by the ring, to have this guy just come waltzing onto the scene and be 100% goody-goody, when a major portion of the film is caught up in the examination of how everyone is vulnerable to the ring's seductions. How you can get a believable, nuanced performance out of an actor playing a role like that is another concern.
And another thing to consider re Faramir is that if you have a guy who's so pure and incorruptable, why even have Aragorn come round to take over in Gondor?
I mean, the books work because they're books. They're steeped in the formality of a ballad, or mythology, but if you want to make them into movies, and reach an audience on an emotional, visceral level, you have to tell the story from a more humanistic point of view. That will skew some characters more toward the gray areas than they were before, but that's because you're removing the more archetypal, cypher-like element in favor of a more personal approach.
I do wish the theatrical version had more of Treebeard and the Ents in it, but the extended version has more, so it's all good.
I'm bummed that there wasn't much more of Christopher Lee than what was in the theater, though. He's just so cool. What with the voice and all. He really fleshed out Sauruman.
Screening report of ROTK here -
www.theonering.net
offhand, can anyone think of a better book to film adaptation than the Godfather? I think that was almost completely faithful, except that of course a lot of stuff had to be cut.
In my opinion, I think the best way to make LOTR into movie(s) would be to animate them. Looking at their casting choices and plot/dialogue decisions, I don't think the makers have done an extraordinary or inspired job, but they have put a lot of money and effort into it, and I find the movies very entertaining and fun.
Spent last night actually watching extended TTT with the commentary.
My take on this, is that Tolkien was a master worldbuilder, but as a storymaker, he was a bit off. The books lacked any real tension for the most part. They really do feel uneven.
They were absolutly right to change the Faramir scenes. They really did kill the whole idea of the ring as this ultra-corrupting force. Which is interesting, considering that for once the movie is being criticized for actually having more emotional depth than the book.
Very strange...
offhand, can anyone think of a better book to film adaptation than the Godfather?
Fear and Loathing in Las vegas.
To hell with this rules of storytelling bullshit. (SPOILERS FOLLOW). Faramir was a good guy, but an also-ran, who loses his kingdom to some hippie from the woods and has to beg for the hand of a woman who considers him 2nd best. Then there's the fact that his father hates him for all sorts of unfair reasons. His loserly status and family problems are what makes him "human". His life goes through a lot of changes although his character remains the same, and I really don't see anything wrong with that.
The hobbits and Sam particularly are resistant to the ring. I think it has something to do with humility and lack of ambition. (Galadriel was a very ambitious elf in her younger days, rejecting the paradise of Valinor in order to rule a land of her own). Given that Faramir is fairly humble and unambitious I don't see anything wrong with him being even less tempted by the Ring than Aragorn (who has that whole "I must become King before I wed the woman I love" thing going on)
I have enthusiastically watched both extended editions now numerous times. (And have read the early histories.) I am in the camp that thinks Fellowship is a much better movie. The TT, however, is much more interesting story, simply because things become more complicated, which is why the pacing is choppy, but remember the works themselves are choppy.
I think the additional scenes in both the first and second movies are essential.
What I think both movies lacked, however, is the dynamic tension of the Council, only eluded to in the character of Elron (unfortunately reducing him to more or less of a bridge for romantic tension). That Jackson left out the Council is the biggest disappointment for me, as it could have linked the Second and Third Ages; thereby explaining that the war has been going on for thousands of years as a result of choices and less a result of fate (Saurman and Saron). This I think, however, would have been a more difficult tale to tell. As it stands,
Well, what that EE explains is that Faramir wasn't tempted by the ring itself, even in the movie version; it was the idea of redeeming himself that attracted him, and he only thought of the ring as a tool.
Which is not to say the change didn't rankle with me, too, but there was logic behind it.
unless having read TLOR and the pre-histories, the movies portray most of what happens inversely--as a result of choices borne out of fate (“All you have to do is decide what to do with the time that is given to you.”)
I respect history and mind you, but I am not sure that all human decisions are the result of historic underpinnings. Hope in my mind is what both precedes and ensures history. I think that is Tolkin’s quintessential commentary and what makes him so impervious to critics.
Further, I thought what was interesting in the actors' commentary (see Extended Edition TT) is that some of the actors themselves did not see the movie as pro-war, while Tolkin himself was actually arguing that some wars are justified, which is essentially what Jackson's interpretation reinforces--intentional or not, box office driven or not.
In light of the current political mess, I think it is worth noting that culturally and politically the notion of a just war is the contention of our
time. Moreover, wars not completed are addressed one way or another (am thinking: Middle East Gulf I & II as an extension of Ottoman Empire). In view of this, aside from my opinion regarding the Council, I think "The Lord of the Rings" was not only beautifully executed, but perfectly timed.
I pity people who can't enjoy these movies. The Ring films are the first great movies of the 21st century. They will be watched and beloved long after the films that beat them out for Best Picture have been forgotten ("A Beautiful Mind" has already been forgotten, I think). I love the books and the movies. They are separate entities. Peter Jackson took Tolkien's books and used them as a springboard for his own vision. Jackson's vision happened to include Elves at Helm's Deep and a more flawed Faramir. Is Jackson's work automatically inferior because it is different from Tolkien? Of course not. I happen to think that Jackson's movies are better in many respects. Certainly the movie Faramir is much more interesting than his literary doppelganger. Jackson's films are genius. They work beautifully. Purists who moan and whine because Tom Bombadil was cut out need to get over theirselves and accept the films on their own terms, for what they are: classics.
"Purists who moan and whine because Tom Bombadil was cut out need to get over theirselves and accept the films on their own terms, for what they are: classics."
Don't confuse suspension of critical faculties with suspension of belief. I see flashes of brilliance, bad mistakes and errors of judgment. There's a serious case of the emperor's new clothes here when you don't notice that a lot of the characters just bulge their eyes out to convey strong emotions (open mouth optional) or that Aragorn's little tumble off the cliff was just kinda stupid.
And I don't give a crap about the always-embarrassing Tom Bombadil . . .
I see sustained brilliance.
No one could have done a better job adapting these books for the screen.
For myself, the whole joy of Tolkien's trilogy was in the names : of the people, strange places, and fantastic things in the story. It seemed his life spent as a linguist well prepared him for eliciting these poetic images just from the sounds of the names. Growing up with English as my native language, the reverberations were easily accessable.
Jackson is a very different beast, obviously. There are many images that don't get digested too quickly, but there is something very strange about seeing the "classic" images of the story rendered so faithfully on screen (first shot of Hobbition, hobbits hiding from Riders, etc) with the notable exception of Smeagol.
I still can't describe how bizarre it is to watch him in TT : he "acts" as well as the other actors, but moves in and out of believability: I mean when he upsets the suspension of disbelief it's still wild to watch, but when he's really done well (arguing with self) it makes my skin crawl. Don't understand it.
Best book-to-film is "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" directed by Chuck Jones...thekeez
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
