RotK has some of the hardest parts to get through if you ask me. I mean, the part where Frodo and Sam are going across Mordor it just seems to drag on forever (which I'm sure was the intent). They're thirsty, they're tired, and on and on it goes.
The last, long, slow march of Sam and Frodo across the Mordor is a reflection of something that, I think, was very important to Tolkien in the last book. Indeed, the movie version de-emphasizes somewhat Tolkien's portrayal of Frodo's suffering and decline, and the ultimate effect of the power of the Ring. Also, as a result, the movie does not show the full extent of Sam's heroism.
I agree that this part of the story is hard to get through -in both the book and, to some extent, in the film - but it is absolutely key to the story.
They were all crap---except maybe for parts of the first and second movies.
The transgressions of Faramir's treatment are COMPLETELY unforgivable.
Period.
.....Even worse than Aragorn going over a cliff---hell, I expected B.A., Hannibal, and Howlin' Wolf Murdock to show up with Crockett and Tubbs to finish the scene.
All three movies were dominated by SPECTACLE, and cannot be considered true drama. What the hell is some no-name gross-out-film director doing handling this kind of material?
Typical cheap pop crap.
These stories have yet to be done properly.
That?s a bit harsh. I have been a fan of the books for many years (like many, I?ve read them multiple times). I agree that there was a lot of spectacle in the films and that they did not capture the full flavour of the books. Especially, Tolkien?s full mythological vision for Middle Earth ? the understory, which, in the books, is at least as important as the particular story of the struggle against Sauron and the destruction of the Ring - is not captured.
The movies, however, would have had to have been a lot longer and a lot slower in order to capture the books fully. Realistically, there are limits to what you can do with films in the commercial genre. Within these limits, the movie trilogy did very well. Keep in mind that there was a lot of spectacle in the books themselves. And the movie did directly capture some of the understory, and did a good job of suggesting that there was more even when it did not have time to delve fully into it.
Bottom-line, within the limits of commercial movie-making, I thought the film trilogy was great.
.....often times when I talk to people about the movies(unwashed people that never read the books)....
Those people made it difficult to enjoy the last 2 movies. We were well into it being a social phenomenon, rather than the hardcore Tolkien geek fest it was in the first movie [wipes tear from eye in nostalgia] so every insipid office worker and their co-worker were loudly whispering what's going on, what did that elf/troll/whatever say?
Hilarity ensued during the "The Eagles are coming!!" part, most of the audience having zero idea what the hell was going on! People actually turned to eachother like WTF??? Giant eagles???
Ah well...nothing snuggling up to a continuous showing of all 3 sets of extended DVDs in the confort of my own home can't cure
You know, some people just do not understand that a motion picture is bound to different parameters than a book. Of course Jackson did not create a trilogy that exactly mirrors Tolkien's books... did you expect otherwise?
First constraint: the vast majority of movie-goers on this planet cannot sit still for even three hours. To make a movie that exceeds three hours can often be cinematic suicide. Jackson would've been forced to do this, had he told everything the same (sequence for sequence the same as the book). There's risk and then there's stupidity. Making these movies four hours each at the cinema would've been stupid from a variety of perspectives. There's no other word for it.
Second constraint: so, being forced to pick and choose certain scenes to exclude (to keep the running time manageable), Jackson has to find clever or interesting ways of bridging the gaps in order to maintain continuity in the storyline. If you think you can do better, sign up for duty and report back with your first production. We'll be sure to rate your film with the same ultra-critical eye you use for Jackson. Personally the cliff scene didn't bother me, though I agree it might've been more realistic to render the distance to the river a bit less.
Third constraint: actors still have personalities, even though they play other people in a film. Jackson has to somehow meld the character in question with the personality in question. While I agree Faramir seemed less "himself" in the movie than in the book, it was not completely inconsistent as you claim. Sure, we don't see him bonding with Frodo and sending him off to Minas Morgul with new provisions or the like... but we do see his better side when leaving Minas Tirith at his father's behest (which he knew was to be a slaughter).
It's called making compromises. If you think it's easy to make 2.5 to 3 hour epic theatre productions (and then 3.5 to 4 hour extended productions), have at it. But until I see your brilliant work, Jackon's will remain the best I've ever seen in the "deep fiction" category.
But I invested in a HT rig about 9 months ago and I have only been to 1 movie since.
I had a cheapo rig before that and even then, my movie going dropped significantly.
After paying for the movie and buying all the popcorn and soda crap, I just feel owning the movie to be the better investment.
Hell, I got around 360 movies on DVD now.
(and not one is pirated)
Well, maybe I have to experience one of the really good new home systems. Even if home theatre systems are starting to rival theatres - on which I'll reserve my judgment - I am not sure that I will ever buy an HT, as it is not a personal priority and there is so much else on which I could spend my money.
For example, a brand new G5 would be nice. I don't need one, but I want one.
Curious, have you an example where the movie was sufficiently faithful to the book - at least in your opinion?
(I'm not arguing that faithfulness is even required or desired in movie adaptations)
It is largely impossible anyway of course, since a reader invents and paints pictures beyond what is printed, that no one, not even the reader, could ever really accurately depict.
Off with Jackson's head!! Quick---before he does something unsavory to The Hobbit!!!
Just kidding. Sort of.
I guess I'm being too harsh, but the Cliff bit was WAY over the top---as well as Faramir's evil twin being put on screen. I don't really blame Jackson, Boyens, and Walsh---it was probably something the marketing people at Newline made them do.
As for books-to-movies, it can't be done realistically. At least not without about 16 hours of voiceovers.
The last, long, slow march of Sam and Frodo across the Mordor is a reflection of something that, I think, was very important to Tolkien in the last book. Indeed, the movie version de-emphasizes somewhat Tolkien's portrayal of Frodo's suffering and decline, and the ultimate effect of the power of the Ring. Also, as a result, the movie does not show the full extent of Sam's heroism.
I agree that this part of the story is hard to get through -in both the book and, to some extent, in the film - but it is absolutely key to the story.
Oh, I agree absolutely. But since I've read that section upteen billion times, I feel like I can skip it. Maybe. But usually not.
As for books-to-movies, it can't be done realistically. At least not without about 16 hours of voiceovers.
I think I agree. There was a series of books (The Wheel of Time) that I thought would make great movies... until I realized that 2/3 of the books are inner monologue or some other literary device that can't really be translated into film en masse.
Comments
Originally posted by Fangorn
RotK has some of the hardest parts to get through if you ask me. I mean, the part where Frodo and Sam are going across Mordor it just seems to drag on forever (which I'm sure was the intent). They're thirsty, they're tired, and on and on it goes.
The last, long, slow march of Sam and Frodo across the Mordor is a reflection of something that, I think, was very important to Tolkien in the last book. Indeed, the movie version de-emphasizes somewhat Tolkien's portrayal of Frodo's suffering and decline, and the ultimate effect of the power of the Ring. Also, as a result, the movie does not show the full extent of Sam's heroism.
I agree that this part of the story is hard to get through -in both the book and, to some extent, in the film - but it is absolutely key to the story.
Originally posted by dmz
They were all crap---except maybe for parts of the first and second movies.
The transgressions of Faramir's treatment are COMPLETELY unforgivable.
Period.
.....Even worse than Aragorn going over a cliff---hell, I expected B.A., Hannibal, and Howlin' Wolf Murdock to show up with Crockett and Tubbs to finish the scene.
All three movies were dominated by SPECTACLE, and cannot be considered true drama. What the hell is some no-name gross-out-film director doing handling this kind of material?
Typical cheap pop crap.
These stories have yet to be done properly.
That?s a bit harsh. I have been a fan of the books for many years (like many, I?ve read them multiple times). I agree that there was a lot of spectacle in the films and that they did not capture the full flavour of the books. Especially, Tolkien?s full mythological vision for Middle Earth ? the understory, which, in the books, is at least as important as the particular story of the struggle against Sauron and the destruction of the Ring - is not captured.
The movies, however, would have had to have been a lot longer and a lot slower in order to capture the books fully. Realistically, there are limits to what you can do with films in the commercial genre. Within these limits, the movie trilogy did very well. Keep in mind that there was a lot of spectacle in the books themselves. And the movie did directly capture some of the understory, and did a good job of suggesting that there was more even when it did not have time to delve fully into it.
Bottom-line, within the limits of commercial movie-making, I thought the film trilogy was great.
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
.....often times when I talk to people about the movies(unwashed people that never read the books)....
Those people made it difficult to enjoy the last 2 movies. We were well into it being a social phenomenon, rather than the hardcore Tolkien geek fest it was in the first movie [wipes tear from eye in nostalgia] so every insipid office worker and their co-worker were loudly whispering what's going on, what did that elf/troll/whatever say?
Hilarity ensued during the "The Eagles are coming!!" part, most of the audience having zero idea what the hell was going on!
You know, some people just do not understand that a motion picture is bound to different parameters than a book. Of course Jackson did not create a trilogy that exactly mirrors Tolkien's books... did you expect otherwise?
First constraint: the vast majority of movie-goers on this planet cannot sit still for even three hours. To make a movie that exceeds three hours can often be cinematic suicide. Jackson would've been forced to do this, had he told everything the same (sequence for sequence the same as the book). There's risk and then there's stupidity. Making these movies four hours each at the cinema would've been stupid from a variety of perspectives. There's no other word for it.
Second constraint: so, being forced to pick and choose certain scenes to exclude (to keep the running time manageable), Jackson has to find clever or interesting ways of bridging the gaps in order to maintain continuity in the storyline. If you think you can do better, sign up for duty and report back with your first production. We'll be sure to rate your film with the same ultra-critical eye you use for Jackson. Personally the cliff scene didn't bother me, though I agree it might've been more realistic to render the distance to the river a bit less.
Third constraint: actors still have personalities, even though they play other people in a film. Jackson has to somehow meld the character in question with the personality in question. While I agree Faramir seemed less "himself" in the movie than in the book, it was not completely inconsistent as you claim. Sure, we don't see him bonding with Frodo and sending him off to Minas Morgul with new provisions or the like... but we do see his better side when leaving Minas Tirith at his father's behest (which he knew was to be a slaughter).
It's called making compromises. If you think it's easy to make 2.5 to 3 hour epic theatre productions (and then 3.5 to 4 hour extended productions), have at it. But until I see your brilliant work, Jackon's will remain the best I've ever seen in the "deep fiction" category.
It's just not the same thing: theatre is still better.
Well, perhaps.
But I invested in a HT rig about 9 months ago and I have only been to 1 movie since.
I had a cheapo rig before that and even then, my movie going dropped significantly.
After paying for the movie and buying all the popcorn and soda crap, I just feel owning the movie to be the better investment.
Hell, I got around 360 movies on DVD now.
(and not one is pirated)
Originally posted by msantti
Well, perhaps.
But I invested in a HT rig about 9 months ago and I have only been to 1 movie since.
I had a cheapo rig before that and even then, my movie going dropped significantly.
After paying for the movie and buying all the popcorn and soda crap, I just feel owning the movie to be the better investment.
Hell, I got around 360 movies on DVD now.
(and not one is pirated)
Well, maybe I have to experience one of the really good new home systems. Even if home theatre systems are starting to rival theatres - on which I'll reserve my judgment - I am not sure that I will ever buy an HT, as it is not a personal priority and there is so much else on which I could spend my money.
For example, a brand new G5 would be nice. I don't need one, but I want one.
Curious, have you an example where the movie was sufficiently faithful to the book - at least in your opinion?
(I'm not arguing that faithfulness is even required or desired in movie adaptations)
It is largely impossible anyway of course, since a reader invents and paints pictures beyond what is printed, that no one, not even the reader, could ever really accurately depict.
Off with Jackson's head!! Quick---before he does something unsavory to The Hobbit!!!
Just kidding. Sort of.
I guess I'm being too harsh, but the Cliff bit was WAY over the top---as well as Faramir's evil twin being put on screen. I don't really blame Jackson, Boyens, and Walsh---it was probably something the marketing people at Newline made them do.
As for books-to-movies, it can't be done realistically. At least not without about 16 hours of voiceovers.
Originally posted by Chinney
The last, long, slow march of Sam and Frodo across the Mordor is a reflection of something that, I think, was very important to Tolkien in the last book. Indeed, the movie version de-emphasizes somewhat Tolkien's portrayal of Frodo's suffering and decline, and the ultimate effect of the power of the Ring. Also, as a result, the movie does not show the full extent of Sam's heroism.
I agree that this part of the story is hard to get through -in both the book and, to some extent, in the film - but it is absolutely key to the story.
Oh, I agree absolutely. But since I've read that section upteen billion times, I feel like I can skip it. Maybe. But usually not.
Originally posted by dmz
As for books-to-movies, it can't be done realistically. At least not without about 16 hours of voiceovers.
I think I agree. There was a series of books (The Wheel of Time) that I thought would make great movies... until I realized that 2/3 of the books are inner monologue or some other literary device that can't really be translated into film en masse.
Good thing I like reading.