Chefelf.com Night Life: ROTK EE sucks (compared to FOTR) - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

  • (19 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19

ROTK EE sucks (compared to FOTR) HEAVY SPOILERS

#271 User is offline   Lord Aquaman Icon

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,976
  • Joined: 19-November 04
  • Location:Atlantis
  • Interests:Movies, comic books, some mythology... basically anything that's larger than life.
  • Country:United States

Posted 15 August 2006 - 08:30 AM

QUOTE (Just your average movie goer @ Aug 15 2006, 06:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Wow. I just saw that my favourite thread on this forum has been bounced back from the depths. How could I resist logging on to add my five cents worth?

Some great points there - especially your points about the editing decisions, Casual Fan. I felt the same way. Some really good material got cut from the theatrical cuts while a lot of mediocre things that could have been left out were kept in.

Take the history of Smeagol shown at the start of 'Return of the King'. It's interesting, sure - but truth be told, it wasn't that great and it didn't do anything to advance the story. Considering how much stuff had to be crammed into the film, it is surprising that this was left in.

Then on the other hand, really good scenes that seemed made for the cinema were cut. The death of Saruman is the most obvious example but there were others. There was a really nice scene between Merry and Eowyn for instance that not only helped to establish the bond between the two characters but was also one of Merry's most poignant scenes in the whole trilogy. Why that was left out, I have no idea. Ditto for the houses of healing and that scene between Eowyn and Faramir. The other puzzling thing about the exclusion of these scenes is that none of them were particularly long.

Anyway, I am certain that the audiences in the cinemas would have enjoyed watching these scenes more than Smeagol fishing or the very tedious Dunharrow scenes (has anyone mentioned them before in this thread? They really killed the movie's momentum).

However, I have to disagree with you, Casual Fan, about the Caradhas scene in "The Fellowship of the Ring". While it didn't advance the story, it was only a couple of minutes long and it really contributed to the epic feel that that movie had.

I think the extended editions are better films though. But having said that, I think they could be improved even further by leaving some things on the cutting room floor.

Now onto some new observations after more viewings of "Return of the King". I've really come to appreciate this movie more and more. It is a magnificent feat and a splendid film in so many ways. The impression it leaves on you after the credits roll is very strong. Giant cinema screens weren't made for Adam Sandler movies that would be just as unwatchable on a normal TV; they were made for films like this and I think I speak for a lot of people when I say I wish they'd make movies like this more often.

Now, without trying to detract from that, I did notice something a little odd on my last viewing of this epic. Something bothered me before about the scene where Frodo is captured by the orcs and this time, I put my finger on it. You see, in the book, the orcs find Frodo because Sam left him behind. He had made a very difficult decision and had began to continue on without him. However, what we get here borders on silly. Sam, crouched over Frodo, hears some orcs coming and then hides behind a rock. In doing so, he leaves Frodo out in plain view for the orcs and then watches like a dope as the orcs look Frodo over and take him away. And I'm sure I know what he must have been thinking:

"My old gaffer would have a thing or two to say if he could see me now."
And indeed he would. It would probably be something along the lines of "Samwise, you dope!"


Hey, Just Your Average Movie Goer! Good to see ya again! If we had a waving emoticon, I'd probably use it here.
I am the Fisher King.

I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an obi-wan to go.
0

#272 User is offline   Slade Icon

  • Full of Bombs and/or Keys
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 8,626
  • Joined: 30-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:United States

Posted 15 August 2006 - 02:25 PM

JYAMG is alive! Woot! I don't recall Saruman ever dying in the books or movies, though in reading up on him, apparently Grima "killed" him when the Shire was being taken back by the hobbits. I'm not going to get into the technicalities of attempting to kill the Istari or anything. pinch.gif

It's good to see you still puttering around at times, JYAMG, and you learn/remember something new every day.
This space for rent. Inquire within.
0

#273 User is offline   Casual Fan Icon

  • Mini Boss
  • PipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 118
  • Joined: 25-March 05
  • Country:United States

Posted 15 August 2006 - 07:41 PM

I'm also glad JYAMG is back.

ROTK definitely improved on a second viewing, though I think the extra footage had something to do with this. The charge of the Rohirrim is good in the theatrical edition, but in the extended edition, the camera pans back and shows the whole battlefield. It shows how this really disrupts Agmar's plans. You then get that great scene of Denother watching the battle and saying "Fools! Why do they run away? They are all going to die anyway?". Denother is another character who gets treated badly in the theatrical edition, but with more depth in the extended edition.

The extra footage also diminishes the impression that the Gondor army wasn't doing much, and that the dead could have just come in and cleaned up. Though I'm not sure if bringing the dead all the way to Minas Tirith really saved that much time, if Jackson was going to show them at Pelagir anyway. He could have cut back on that whole production in the Paths of the Dead, to show them literally scaring the pirates off their ships, so the good guys could board them.

JYAMG also points to the one scene Jackson left out completely and which never should have been left out: Sam being tempted by the ring. In the book, that is when Frodo begins to distrust Sam (so was that whole breadcrumb scene really necessary?). Also, later on, Sam spares Gollum, which he never would have done if he hadn't been exposed to the Ring. And we also get a close up view of how the Ring really operates, which we are never shown with the other hobbits. Plus, Mordor turning into a garden would have been a great visual, especially if it was shown being tended by orcs.
0

#274 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 16 August 2006 - 02:22 AM

1. yeah, in the books it showed how everyone envisioned themselves with the ring. Sams was just beutiful, and i thought it a shame they left it out.

2. literary deleted scenes. for some of the extra little things they threw in, it would have been nice to include the two scenes from unfinished tales. Saruman being confronted by the ringwraiths after they were washed away before rivendel, then wailing on grima wortounge before he makes it to isengarde. The other being the gimly fining the secret compartment in orthanc where Saruman kept Isildurs chain and the elessar which served as a mark of regency for the kings of gondor. I particularily would have like that scene, because it further incriminates Saruman, and adds duration to his trechery. Those two scenes would be far preferable to Farmir being a prick, the elves showing up at helmsdeep (where the hell were the wildmen?)etc....

3. Casual Fan, not to be picky but it gets a bit confusing...
Angmar was the city where the witchking was once king, not his name.

4. hey moviegoer... smile.gif

5. WTF was with Narsil? I don't care what PJ says about it looking comical but i would have prefered they stuck to the book on that one.
i like Strider pulling a broken sword on Sam, it gave him immediate character. I loved Narsil being reforged at Rivendel before the fellowship left, and further more Aragorn showing it off to Eomer when he meets him, and refusing to give it up at the Edoras. Running around all those years with a broken sword really shaped his character. while many people hassle tolkiens writing style and character developement, his characters were enriched and given depth by action and manerisms. And Aragorn running away from his birthright for so long but clinging to his anscestors sword (and ring) even though it was broken speaks volumes.

I mean you expect character depth to be somewhat undermined by the traslation to film. but there were many places it could have been avoided. Replacing Glorfindel, for example, with Arwen made sense to me, in that it gave an important character more screne time. although it added little to her profile, and they confused things by having elrond show up with Narsil instead of Arwen and her brothers showing up with the banners.

I think the loss of Prince Imrahil was a bit of a bugger too, as it helped shape the world a little. He was Denethors brother-in-law for starters...
0

#275 User is offline   Just your average movie goer Icon

  • -
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,140
  • Joined: 10-April 04
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 25 August 2006 - 01:49 AM

What was this wonderfully entertaining thread doing halfway down the page? Back it goes...

By the numbers here;

1. Hello all.

2. Casual Fan, that vision of Mordor as a garden tended by orcs does sound quite interesting. However, I think dreams and visions should really be avoided in movies. Every time someone's put a dream in a movie or a TV show, I've been really put off by it. It may be because it's using valuable screentime to show things that never happen but I think the main reason is I find it disrupts the story.

Actually, since we're on the subject, I wish they'd left out that vision Frodo had of Galadriel as well. It seemed rather pointless and a bit arthouse - in a bad way.

3. Barend, I think I prefer the treatment of Narsil from the book too. Also, having him leave Rivendell with the sword could have saved up screentime in 'Return in the King' that could have been used for better things. Or, we could have seen Arwen give him the banner when it still had some purpose (ie. giving the men of Gondor something to rally around).


Now, onto something different. This movie received many accolades, one of them for editing. To celebrate, I thought I'd make a list of all the exemplary editing work I saw when I watched it. Feel free to add more if you feel I've left something out. I'm just going to list my personal favourites:

- After Faramir's charge of the light brigade, we cut to a scene of trolls pushing siege towers. I love this for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it's showing something completely different from the scene we saw just a second ago but it is in the same location. But secondly, the real genius of this editing cut is the fact that this new scene lasts two seconds and then we are whisked away to Dunharrow: the 'actual' next scene.

- The charge of the Rohirrim delivers another one of my favourite moments. King Theoden shouts his orders to Grimbold, who then rides off to the side. We then cut to a different shot of Theoden and we immediately see Grimbold riding past again. I don't know how he managed it. I guess he must have ridden around the entire Rohirrim and come back again - no small feat when it's pulled off in little more than a second.

- Another great moment comes in the extended edition with Gandalf's confrontation with the witch king. It has the wonderful feeling of a scene that was filmed with no sense of where it would end up. I can imagine what it must have been like in the cutting room. One of the editors probably said something along the lines of "Um... this witch king confrontation. Where do you want it?"
To which, his senior must have replied. "I don't know. Just put it anywhere."

- The greatest editing in the entire movie however must be that which was associated with Eowyn, the great teleporting marvel. She slays the witch king one moment and she's down with an injured arm, next to her mortally wounded uncle. The next moment, she's crawling somewhere on the other side of the battlefield looking for Merry. This is a little odd because Merry was just next to her a moment ago - and if she hadn't teleported across the battlefield, he probably still would be.

Then after the battle is done, we see her with her uncle in his dying moments. Then quickly before they can be discovered together, she teleports across the battlefield again and pretends to be unconscious so that when her brother Eomer finds her, he'll think she's dead. Cheeky girl, isn't she?

- Also, while we're talking about abuse of the rules of time and distance, Legolas and the Oliphant should also get a mention. Here he is, standing next to Gimli, when the Oliphant charges in. Like an escaped acrobat from a Russian Circus, he leaps all over the crazed beast as it charges halfway to Osgiliath. Then as he brings it down, Legolas leaps off the beast to find Gimli waiting for him with a sly look in his eye. And I know exactly what he was thinking - "Well, maybe you can bring down an Oliphant and put on a circus at the same time, but can you teleport yourself a kilometre away?"

- Finally, my favourite piece of editing comes with the confrontation at the Black Gate. Setting out from Minas Tirith, we have an army of men on horseback. From behind the gates, legions of scraggly orcs and makeshift rubbish armour slowly move out to meet them - the dregs of the dregs, the Ben Afflecks of Mordor.

Then when each army arrives at the gate, something miraculous happens. The men of Gondor and Rohan are suddenly all on foot. In just a few frames, their horses have all vanished. Bad news for them.

The orcs on the otherhand are lucky - for as each scraggly reject ambles his sorry hide through the Black Gates, he changes into a straight-backed soldier with uniform mass-produced armour. Good for them.


And so, yes, in light of all this, I can certainly say that the oscar given to "Return of the King" for editing was well-earned indeed.

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 25 August 2006 - 01:53 AM

0

#276 User is offline   Just your average movie goer Icon

  • -
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,140
  • Joined: 10-April 04
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 06 February 2010 - 04:33 AM

I thought with Madam Corvax's reappearance on the forums, it seems like a good time to resurrect an old thread that was a favourite of mine. However, I think I'll make it more a general purpose Lord of the Rings thread.

Anyway, the thing is, I recently rewatched this extraordinary trilogy of films and just made a few more observations as to why it deteroriates in the second and the third installments. Yeah, I know. It sounds odd. I say extraordinary on the one hand and say that the trilogy deteriorated on the one hand. I still love the whole trilogy. Each movie is a far cut above average - but the last two had problems.

It occurred to me on this latest viewing that while the first one really transported me into the world of Middle Earth, the subsequent movies largely failed in this. I was conscious for the most part of the fact that I was watching big budget Hollywood films with those two.

In The Two Towers, for instance, I didn't enjoy the battle of Helms Deep this time at all. It's crass. It's a totally phoney looking battle with Hollywood nonsense gallore. Aragorn takes a ladder and falls down into the Urak-hai below - and rather than being skewered on a whole lot of pikes, he actually turns up back inside the keep moments later. Legolas goes skateboarding on a shield. There's a little side door next to the main door that Aragorn and Gimli use to surprise the Urak-hai outside (a stupid sequence). Why is there a little side door there? What purpose does it serve?

And pikes! Pikes have no effect in these movies. Aragorn charges at a line of pikes without so much as a scratch and his elf buddies too (more on elf buddies shortly). And what I noticed was that when deadly dangers are brushed over constantly, all the tension gets taken out of the movie. The audience goes "Huh. So this is a film where characters can just run into a line of pikes and have them magically part for him. Well, I'll just sit back and pretend I'm watching an old-school swashbuckler." And there's nothing wrong with those types of films - nothing wrong at all. They're good fun. But they don't have tension. And these movies should have.

This is why the fight at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring is such a good scene. It doesn't have the scale of the set pieces in the later movies and it doesn't have any innane action sequences... but the danger feels very real and consequently, there's a lot of tension in it.


Another thing that bothered me about these movies is that in the last two, the filmmakers seemed to forget that the hobbits were the main characters and for some silly reason, they decided that Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli had equal status. Well, the thing is, I've read the books again (enjoyed them a bit more this time as well) and the thing is that these three guys are really given no more page time than say Faramir or Eowyn. They are second-tier characters - and making them into main characters resulted in a lot of the movie trilogy's problems. Suddenly, they were having to invent things for these three clowns to do. So we get the pointless warg attack, Aragorn's fake death, a whole lot of boring Arwen/Aragorn scenes, the (shakes head in disbelief) Oliphant scene etc. Although I will say I appreciate the movie making Aragorn a better character. He is a total git in the books... "Me Strider. Strider talk about himself in the third person. Strider saw you earlier but decided to hide in the bushes and watch you go past. Actually, since you nearly got killed by a barrowight, Strider thinks in hindsight that might not have been the most helpful thing he could have done."

Also, on the subject of reading the books, I found that the first book was mind-numbingly dull and the third book finished about a quarter of the way in before embarking on the longest ending ever committed to paper* - and it was the second book, The Two Towers, that was the most engrossing and the most exciting.

*The books also had a tendency to leave out numerous key events and have characters refer to them after the fact - really poor narration. You don't know that the fellowship gets ambushed at the end of the first one, for instance. Aragorn goes to the bushes to relieve himself or something then comes back at the start of the second book and finds Boromir dying. "Oh hello, Boromir. Where is everyone?" Ditto for Saruman's betrayal and the Ents' attack on Isengard. Shoddy work by Tolkien there.

What really struck me about The Two Towers is that it had pace. For a short glorious stretch, Tolkien decided to leave off excessive details and dreary prose and actually let the story gain momentum. Things happen and they happen fast. I love the Rohan section in the book. Gandalf rides to Edoras, finds King Theoden - "Snap out of it. Helm's Deep is under attack!" -

Theoden goes "Right. Sorry about that, I don't know what came over me. Anyway, tally-ho!" Then they race to Helm's Deep and get there in time to help Erkenbrand and the Ents save the day. Then it's onto Isengard. Gandalf is saving the Rohirrim so he can get them ready in time to avert disaster at Minas Tirith. There's no mucking around here....

.... which is why it seems very strange that The Two Towers movie is slowwwww... with lots of moping around.... and time wasting.... and procrastinating. What a waste. Now, I'd be the first one to say that The Fellowship of the Ring movie improved on the book in basically every way you can imagine, turning drivel into cinematic magic, sludge into an epic masterpiece. However, when it comes to the second and the third parts, I think I have to say I prefer the books - although the jury's still out with me on Return of the King. I think endings should wait until a book is at least half finished, at least.


Now, another thing with the movies - Aragorn. This guy is supposed to be a king of men, the one who will reclaim the throne of Gondor but he is so bound to his elvern background in the films. He fights with the elf division in The Two Towers, he's always talking to Legolas in elvish so other people can't understand (which is actually incredibly rude as well - I hate in particular how Aragorn and Legolas always have their secret conversations and leave out Gimli)... and it really seems as if he believes that hanging around mere mortals is somewhat demeaning for him. Now I don't know about everyone else but that doesn't seem like a good candidate for governing a kingdom of men. Give me Faramir or Eowyn - or take a drastic change from the books and keep Boromir alive (he's more interesting than Aragorn anyway). No one wants a king who thinks men are beneath him.

I suppose he got this dispicable attitude towards his fellow men from that bigot of a surrogate father, Elrond. Although why he's so down on men in the movies is also a bit of an issue, since according to the books, he's half-human himself. What a jerk.

Man, I love this thread.

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 06 February 2010 - 04:39 AM

0

#277 User is offline   Madam Corvax Icon

  • Buggy Purveyor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,031
  • Joined: 15-July 04
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 06 February 2010 - 05:09 AM

View PostJust your average movie goer, on 06 February 2010 - 04:33 AM, said:

I thought with Madam Corvax's reappearance on the forums, it seems like a good time to resurrect an old thread that was a favourite of mine. However, I think I'll make it more a general purpose Lord of the Rings thread.

In The Two Towers, for instance, I didn't enjoy the battle of Helms Deep this time at all. It's crass. It's a totally phoney looking battle with Hollywood nonsense gallore.


How very, very true. The battles in TTT and ROTK are CGI to the core. They are just not believable. For example, the ROhan RIders riding to help Ondor. They brak about how few riders there are, and then - lo and behold - we get this wide andgle CGI of seemingly countless riders. It worked for FOTR (the intorduction Elvish battle) - it was like a dream, memory, a little hazy and blurred, here it is just too much. It is like this guy redlettermedia pointing out in his reviews of The Phantom Manace - every image is just dense with details. And putting more crap into the screen does not make for good filmaking.

Also - sets. FOTR CGI Rivendell somehow looked real - it was Elvish City. Erodas looked super, but it was a set. Sorry, but Minas Tirith looked completely fake. Ans the wors offender to me is - swamp in TTT. COmpared to scene cut from the final edition of FORT but apprealing in EE (where Aragorn and hobbits go through swmap), it is sooo fake.


View PostJust your average movie goer, on 06 February 2010 - 04:33 AM, said:

Now, another thing with the movies - Aragorn. This guy is supposed to be a king of men, the one who will reclaim the throne of Gondor but he is so bound to his elvern background in the films. He fights with the elf division in The Two Towers, he's always talking to Legolas in elvish so other people can't understand (which is actually incredibly rude as well - I hate in particular how Aragorn and Legolas always have their secret conversations and leave out Gimli)... and it really seems as if he believes that hanging around mere mortals is somewhat demeaning for him. Now I don't know about everyone else but that doesn't seem like a good candidate for governing a kingdom of men. Give me Faramir or Eowyn - or take a drastic change from the books and keep Boromir alive (he's more interesting than Aragorn anyway). No one wants a king who thinks men are beneath him.

I suppose he got this dispicable attitude towards his fellow men from that bigot of a surrogate father, Elrond. Although why he's so down on men in the movies is also a bit of an issue, since according to the books, he's half-human himself. What a jerk.


Ha, I can only refer you to a great book by Russian author Kiryl Eskow "The Last Ringbearer" Here is the lin to Wikipedia :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirill_Eskov
I once wanted to translate this into English, but nobody seemed to be interested.
In short, this guy re-tells the story of Aragorn. Aragorn in this book is an ambitious mercenary, chosen by Elves to conquer Mordor. His claim to the throne is hazy at best and he grabs the throne using poison, murder and treachery. I find this story much more believable..
0

#278 User is offline   Just your average movie goer Icon

  • -
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,140
  • Joined: 10-April 04
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 08 February 2010 - 03:12 AM

Nice. I had a look on the Internet for more information and came across a translation of a sample of it. Maybe there might be more online somewhere. The concept's certainly interesting though because you don't have to interpret events in the same way as an author wants you to. Authors use a number of techniques to present their preferred reading of events but you can read against the grain and come up with your own in some instances.

It's also interesting from an author's perspective too as no matter how you write something, you can't tell for certain how it will appear to a reader. Readers bring their own experiences, beliefs, values and ideas to a story and so how they interpret your work may be very different from what you had in mind. You might see your protagonists as noble. They may see them as cold, dislikeable people.

The sample chapter I read had a meeting between the wizards and Saruman was arguing against complete condemnation of Mordor, trying to get the others to separate the ordinary orcs from Sauron and his lieutenants. It was interesting. Good stuff.

Also, I kind of laughed at the idea of Aragorn's connection to the throne being hazy in this because it's fairly hazy in the original work too - that's a pretty watered-down lineage he's got. I think Denethor actually has a point in the Extended Edition when he calls him the 'last of a ragged line, long bereft of lordship."
0

#279 User is offline   Madam Corvax Icon

  • Buggy Purveyor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,031
  • Joined: 15-July 04
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 12 February 2010 - 11:51 AM

View PostJust your average movie goer, on 08 February 2010 - 03:12 AM, said:

Also, I kind of laughed at the idea of Aragorn's connection to the throne being hazy in this because it's fairly hazy in the original work too - that's a pretty watered-down lineage he's got. I think Denethor actually has a point in the Extended Edition when he calls him the 'last of a ragged line, long bereft of lordship."


There you are :) In the book it was said that "up north, everybody claimed to be from the line of Elendil, or at least Anarion".
And c'mon, how come guys of proven lineage just surrender their throne to an upstart from the North?

In the books, Aragorn won the battle of Minas Tirith by challenging the general of Mordor to one-to-one duel and then killing him trecherously
"You won by trechery" repeated the first commander" Even the knights of the West will not shake your hand".
"Of course they will not' laughed Dunadan 'Because they will be kneeling in fron of King of Gondor. I won fairly, in one-to-one battle - at least that is how it is going to be written in chronicles. And your name will not even be remembered. I will take care of that. Or, you know what- let us make it even more interesting, let us say that you ever killed by a halfling, yes-yes, a tinly little thing... with hairy paws. Or a wench... Yes, let's do it like that. "

Here you have Pipin and Eowyn killing Nazul. So much for that.

And Elves are pretty nasty characters as well. Funny how Glaldriel's husband was protrayed as a total doofus, too
0

#280 User is offline   Just your average movie goer Icon

  • -
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,140
  • Joined: 10-April 04
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 13 February 2010 - 07:34 AM

Quote

There you are :) In the book it was said that "up north, everybody claimed to be from the line of Elendil, or at least Anarion".
And c'mon, how come guys of proven lineage just surrender their throne to an upstart from the North?


Exactly. The line of stewards in Gondor is an older lineage than the royal house of Rohan. Denethor is quite right to ask how long a line of rulers has to be in place before they become royalty.

Also, I don't like that line in the extended edition of Return of the King when Gandalf tells Pippin that the line of kings failed and the rule of Gondor was given over to lesser men. I know Tolkien held ideas about class structures that were rather old fashioned but these movies, while reflecting the books, need to also reflect our times as well. That's why for instance, James Bond movies omit certain unsavoury aspects of Fleming's books... now if only the Casino Royale had omitted that vulgar and sadistic torture scene (bad call, Martin Campbell. A seriously bad call). However, I digress. The movies shouldn't be perpetrating those old ideas of class. It also is insulting to the audience because hey, we're not royalty either. Are we lesser then?

Actually, another point on Gandalf. Why is he a jerk to Pippin when they meet Denethor? Pippin's pledge to Denethor to repay his debt to Boromir is both touching and noble and then that jerk of a wizard hits him with his staff and tells him to get up. If anyone's acting of line in that scene, then I'm afraid to say it's Gandalf.


Lastly, I loved those concepts from the books you mentioned. They're great. I especially like the idea that everyone up north claims to be from the line of Elendil. It's great.

However, I also find it hard to swallow in the orginal book that Aragorn is the only one of that line. Doesn't he have any cousins - or even third cousins once removed? Tolkien had funny ideas about how family trees work.
0

  • (19 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size