Lord of the Rings

I'm sorry, just how could the live-action films have been better?

And if you say "Tom Bombadil/Scouring of the Shire/original Faramir", then I'm gonna cut you.

It's not over. Not yet.

There are days I feel like the only one who really likes both Faramirs...

The Scouring of the Shire was pretty badass I thought, but I don't mind it not being in the film. I really like Bombadil too, but his not being in the film doesn't bug me either.

What does bug me about the movies is Arwen. Most of her scenes are boring and I think her actress is ugly.

edited 22nd Jan '11 11:55:42 PM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

How could the live-action films have been better?

1) less Gimli-as-comic-relief

2) The Battle at the Ford as it originally happened, not with Arwen doing everything.

3) Having the Hobbits stay out of sight of the Ringwraiths until Weathertop as happened in the books, rather than being under their feet every five seconds as in the movie.

4) Less dwelling/hamming shit up, more subtlety (thinking about Gollum's inner conflict in particular here).

5) Leave out the romance subplot.

6) Denethor on fire should've been toned down or cut (in all honesty the animated Return of the King handled this far better)

7) EVERY WAY IMAGINABLE

visit my blog!

I like both Faramirs, but the addition of conflict is something that I appreciated.

In the book he's all "oh, here's the Ring of Power, but I don't actually want it. Off you go!" The whole thing is basically filler, just like Tom Bombadil. "Oh, here's a man who isn't affected by the Ring in any way. I didn't think that was possible! You want to come with us and save the world? No? Oh, well thanks anyway."

The movies made him a much more interesting character.

Ruined FOREVER!

It's not over. Not yet.

Oh someone else who likes both! I've met people who dislike one or the other. I must say I preferred movie Faramir. His conflict made him more interesting though I am very fond of book Faramir. His change was for the better I think though.

As for Ed: I agree with none of that save the romance subplot. The Battle of the Ford was the only time Arwen did anything remotely interesting in the movies.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

I was with you there until #7. (ie I at least saw where you were coming from even if I didn't agree.) Then I remembered that you're contractually obligated to remind us at least once every six months that reading the LotR books is a religious experience for you.

edited 23rd Jan '11 12:54:49 AM by Ironeye

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.

I used to fast-forward through the Arwen segments.

Honestly I'm not surprised Tolkien originally intended to have Aragorn hook up with Eowyn.

But hey, Faramir was a pretty good trade! ;)

edited 23rd Jan '11 7:18:08 PM by Medicus

It's not over. Not yet.

I liked the films, and even think they improved on the books slightly (making Boromir more well-rounded and sympathetic), but I don't like the over-use of Arwen and the romance subplot (a little bit of it wouldn't have been so bad, but it became almost a Romantic Plot Tumor in the third film. Did Aragorn really need an Ill Girl fiancée to convince him to fight harder to save the world?). There was too much emphasis on action, at least in the last two films. I didn't like how Faramir was turned into a shallow jerkass who got a Face–Heel Turn. I didn't like how Denethor was turned into a one-dimensional bad guy instead of the frighteningly strong Well-Intentioned Extremist of the book.

The movies had enough good characterisation, performances and scenes to work for me in spite of that.

Also, the movie version of the Mouth of Sauron scene was FAIL in every possible sense (dramatic and moral), and I'm just happy it was relegated to the Extended Edition.

I don't fastforward through any of it though I have thought of skipping the Arwen parts.

On the Mouth of Sauron: I was too busy staring at his mouth to really care about any changes to that scene or what was happening really. That thing has a mesmerizing mouth...

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

Oh, no, that found be far to easy.

But I'll pick a rather easy target for now: Arwen. I wouldn't have a problem with her inclusion in the film if she wasn't so haphazardly handled — especially in the third film. The whole "Arwen is dying" bit is particularly bad. This is not an issue of "never happened in the books"; this is an issue of "makes no sense whatsoever in either the book or movie universe". Why is she dying? Why has her life suddenly and arbitrarily become tied to the fate of the ring?

I do like the films quite a bit, but I can also know there are a lot of things I would have done differently. I find Jackson's style (in most places) to be too bombastic, operatic and not terribly subtle, while the tone of the books was more contemplative, inward-looking, and somewhat melancholic. I'd be curious to know what Lord Of The Rings would be like in the hands of another director and writers. I'd love to see Lord Of The Rings done as a quieter film, and see some of the more complex themes of the book tackled.

Aondeug: You're not alone, as I also like both book and movie Faramir.

I just assumed she was dying from grief because...well...um. You know what? No. It just doesn't make sense and it was stupid in execution.

Also I too would like to see another movie adaptation of the books. One that is much different from the Jackson films in how it is directed. I like them a lot, but it'd be neat to see another interpretation. Especially visually speaking. One thing I really like is that artists and people can have such different views of how Middle Earth and the people and things in it look.

edited 23rd Jan '11 7:07:49 PM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

I guess I subconsciously ignored it.

Or Elrond was lying. Yeah, let's go with that.

It's not over. Not yet.

Sigh. Is there a Jackson-defender on this planet who can go five minutes without resorting to strawmen stereotypes and The Complainer Is Always Wrong mentalities?

visit my blog!

You don't exactly leave much room for us to manoeuvre when you list six valid points then say "THEY WERE AWFUL IN EVERY SINGLE WAY IMAGINABLE".

edited 23rd Jan '11 7:03:29 PM by Medicus

It's not over. Not yet.

Your list would have been fine without the seventh item. That last thing screams "Far too obsessed with the book". I may not agree with you on those points, Edmond but I probably wouldn't view your list so negatively if seven wasn't there. You'd just be another person with a different opinion and I would be fine with that.

edited 23rd Jan '11 7:09:30 PM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

You guys are kind of missing the point.

My problem isn't that he disagrees with my complants re: Jackson. After all, so do the two of you. My problem is that he follows it up with a sort of "hey wait, you're that guy. Fuck you" attitude. It's natural to take offense at that.

In all fairness to Ironeye, I do recall saying once, precisely once, that the first time I read LOTR, it was like a religious experience. So his stereotype is at least based on something, even if that something is the Telephone Game version of something I said in a now-deleted post over a year ago. That's better than the "Edmond hates Batman" stereotype, in any case.

visit my blog!

I would have changed a few things about the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.

First, Gandalf and the Witch-king should have had a better fight. Correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't read in a while, but didn't it last longer in the book?

Second, what the HELL was Eomer thinking by having the Rohirrim charge head-on at the Haradrim with their Mumakil? Fix that shit.

Third, include the full dialogue that occured with Eowyn and the Witch-king. That was just awesome in the book.

Fourth, don't have Denethor run off the damned tower like a moron. Have him on the pyre like he's supposed to be.

Swordplay and writing blog. Purveyor of weeaboo fightin' magic.

Then don't do things that make you sound like that guy, Edmond. That seventh point is a very good way to come off as that guy which is what we are trying to tell you. "When I first read it it was like a religious experience" coupled with "The movies suck in every way imaginable" does nothing but perpetuate that.

edited 23rd Jan '11 8:41:19 PM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

For the record, the first post I ever saw Dantes make (back before he was Dantes, and even back before he had an avatar) was in defense of the characterization in the LotR novels and in which he more or less claimed that the other novels mentioned all had bad characterization because it wasn't like the characterization in LotR. I probably would have forgotten that if Dantes hadn't reminded me of it in every LotR topic I've read since then. I keep joking about the "religious experience" because Dantes provides one of the more extreme examples of fanboying that I've seen.

Anyway, Dantes, my response was somewhere along the lines of:

1. Yes.

2. Yes! Glorfindel was one of my favorite characters in the books.

3. Could be interesting.

4. Perhaps.

5. Yes!

6. I need to see the animated version.

7. *sigh* This again?

Totals:

• Strongly agree: 2
• Agree: 1
• Disagree: 2
• Strongly Disagree: 1
• Requires additional research: 1

Point is, I'm not dismissing your arguments . . . not the first six, anyway. Point #7 just interferes with a productive discussion. Besides, there's no need for me to stereotype you since you did all the work yourself this time.

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.

The dialogue was pretty atrocious in the books.

Well, not really. But the lines wouldn't have worked on film. A comparison: in Order of the Phoenix, the Slytherins come up with a chant to distract Ron during Quidditch:

Weasley cannot save a thing / He cannot block a single ring / That's why Slytherins all sing: / Weasley is our King.

Weasley was born in a bin / He always lets the Quaffle in / That's why Slytherins all sing: / Weasley is our King.

Weasley is our King / Weasley is our King / Weasley will make sure we win / Weasley is our King.

In the film, on the other hand, the chant is:

Lo-ser! Lo-ser! Lo-ser!

The difference? One is something an author came up with. The other is something a bunch of teenagers came up with. Which is more realistic? Which is going to sit better with a movie-going audience?

As to Moe Dantes' points:

1. Eh. Gimli-as-comic-relief isn't awful... because in the books he has virtually no personality whatsoever. I think he gets a few extra scenes with Galadriel in the Extended Editions.

2. Eh. The Battle of the Ford really wasn't that different, except for Arwen. And Glorfindel, while an interesting character, was superfluous. Better to have Arwen do it rather than some elf that never appears again outside of Rivendell.

3. The encountered one extra Ringwraith. They dropped the Old Forest and the Barrow-Downs, it was a compromise. Also damn creepy.

4. Gollum's scenes are painful to watch for me. Agree, to an extent. Do you have any other examples?

5. Agree, at least in regards to Arwen. ;)

6. It was a weird scene, I'll give you that.

7. OMG THEY DIDN'T INCLUDE BILBO'S SONG IN RIVENDELL?! RUINED FOREVER!

edited 23rd Jan '11 9:34:29 PM by Medicus

It's not over. Not yet.

Some of the film-only dialogue was pretty awful too. See: many of Legolas' lines.

My opinions of Moe Dantes' points:

1) less Gimli-as-comic-relief. I agree for sticking closer to the book.  ^*

2) The Battle at the Ford as it originally happened, not with Arwen doing everything. Agreed. This was one of Frodo's main moments to shine. I don't have a problem with Arwen taking Glorfindel's role, but she took Frodo's part in this sequence as well, which is a no-no.

3) Having the Hobbits stay out of sight of the Ringwraiths until Weathertop as happened in the books, rather than being under their feet every five seconds as in the movie. Meh. Would probably be a better choice, but it didn't bother me too much.

4) Less dwelling/hamming shit up, more subtlety (thinking about Gollum's inner conflict in particular here). Agreed. Like I said before, Jackson tends to get carried away and his style can be overly bombastic and/or saccharine. (The Fellowship bed scene. That is all that needs to be said.)

5) Leave out the romance subplot. But then when when I take my bathroom breaks? I wouldn't mind losing the Arwen/Aragorn subplot as I think it was mishandled. Can we have more Eowyn/Faramir, though? That's one of my favourite chapters.

6) Denethor on fire should've been toned down or cut (in all honesty the animated Return of the King handled this far better) Yes please.

7) THE BALROG HAS WINGS!

edited 23rd Jan '11 10:05:35 PM by apassingthought

*BRO FIST*

JACKSON DIDN'T INCLUDE THE SEVENTEEN-YEAR TIME SKIP?!

It's not over. Not yet.

The Lot R films are awesome because it was a semi-independent, hands-on film that took lots of risks and successfully captured the core atmosphere of Middle Earth. The biggest issue with Hollywood is Hollywood, so taking Lot R away from there, putting it in New Zealand and giving it to PJ almost entirely was a series of brilliant moves.

Besides, a deviation from the original source material doesn't count as evidence of a flaw. One has to be able to prove that said deviation removes from the final product in a meaningful way. The exclusion of Tom Bombadil and such may be considered a good move because it cut out some pointlessness in a film already packed to the brim. Although by extension it did cut out the Barrow Wights, too, and they were kinda badass.

In fact, the biggest flaw of the films is probably thematic. The book comes across very much like an epic poem, but the films doesn't quite live up to that level of badassitude.

Also, number one reason why making Gimli comedy relief was a fantastic idea:

He was a non-character in the book. At best, he was an angry and aggressive Proud Warrior Race Guy but he honestly contributed roughly shit all to the plot or anything. Same with Legolas. The films made those two a bit silly together to give them a purpose in the film, because without characterisation or contribution to the plot, they're dead narrative weight. Especially in a format like cinema which requires levels of narrative efficiency books aren't bound by.

Balrogs have wings.

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

But they can't fly.  ^*

^{To elaborate, I am saying Balrogs have wings, but can't use them to fly.}

And I have never understood why this was such an issue.

edited 24th Jan '11 4:20:04 AM by Medicus

It's not over. Not yet.

I think that's the joke these days.

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch