Comics, Art, and Fun!
Welcome to WCN Sign in | Join | Help
in
Home Top WebComics Blogs Forums Photos Links Downloads

books to movies, LoTR and others

Last post 01-23-2005, 7:59 PM by laslettfamily@optusnet.com.au. 21 replies.
Page 1 of 2 (22 items)   1 2 Next >
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  5/2/2004 9:04:00 PM 498134

    books to movies, LoTR and others

    Right, scifi probably isn't the place for this, but its as good a place as any.  i've been wondering exactly why people (who hate the new LoTR movies) hate them so much.  I think they bring a good deal of worthwhile material to the table.  Feel free to rebuke me.
  •  5/3/2004 11:40:00 AM 570204 in reply to 498134

    RE: books to movies, LoTR and others

    I don't think I've seen anything but enthusiasts here...
  •  5/3/2004 12:15:00 PM 569924 in reply to 498134

    RE: books to movies, LoTR and others

    Fellowship was excellent, the triage performed to shorten the length was appropriate. I have a few reservations with how Arwen overshadowed Frodo at the ford.

    Two Towers was not as good but still quite commendable. The triage was sloppy, pulling out the friendlier moments between Gimli and Legolas and emphasizing their differences. Frodo's capture by Faramir was another point of evil.

    Return of the King was disasterous. The entire movie was little more than an excuse to show off massive battles. The plot was shredded, the character development is a joke, and prior triage comes back to haunt the audiance as the ending is dischordant with the movies AND the book.


    Six inches of cute brooding war hero.
  •  5/3/2004 6:44:00 PM 568866 in reply to 498134

    RE: books to movies, LoTR and others

    I'll agree that Fellowship was good, and that i dislike how Arwen, in the interest of having a strong female character, subsumed the persona of Glorfindel and Frodo's defiance.  She became more of an action figure than an elf.
    Also, where were the barrow downs?  And Tom Bombadil?  And old man Willow?  I can understand that not having that section makes it easier for the people who haven't read the books, but it is downright jarring to have such a violent skip in time.
    I kinda hoped that by tagging Boromir's death on the end of Fellowship, that they'd use the extra time in Two Towers wisely.

    As far as i can tell, they did an excellent job on the movie.  I really like the way it came together, and the feel that it has to it.  I like Two Towers more than Fellowship (maybe thats because I've already seen Fellowship 30+ times, 19 of which were in a theatre.)  Two Towers has a problem of dual natures.  While it makes for an excellent and well rounded addition to the trilogy when fully fleshed out, it robs RotK of screen time that the larger book would need.  All in all, i think that they should have made Two Towers longer, so as to free up some screen time in RotK.

    RotK, being the final and largest of the trillogy, also bears the burden of incorporating the appendices and notes of JRR into the movie.  Aragorn's conversation with Elrond:
    Elrond: Let her bear away her love for you to the undying lands where it will bloom evergreen-
    Aragorn: But never more than memory...
    that is ripped from the appendices and put back in to RotK, a wise move in all (and a great line) but its an example of use of screen time that Jackson didn't have to begin with.  Not only did he work with that in mind, you spend two movies leading up to a climactic battle, and you'd better spend some serious time on it.  Return of the Jedi spent most of its time at the battle of Endor if i remember right.  Considering the situation that Jackson backed himself into (and partially because of the time constraints in the audience's attention span) I think Jackson did a fabulous job on RotK.  I think that to do it right, you'd need to tack on 2 more hours of material (oooh, for the extended edition DVD *drool*) but that would make it a 5 hour movie.  You'd have a whole 'nother set of complaints then...

  •  5/3/2004 9:00:00 PM 569892 in reply to 498134

    RE: books to movies, LoTR and others

    My complaint is that it focused on the plot to the point where the characters were barely relevent, whereas the books are almost the exact opposite. You do no favors comparing it to Star Wars; as a hero's journey myth it incorporates the two into a single progression. Tolkien presented the two as seperate entities, making a harder story which, by pulling it off, proves his quality as an author.

    You also reminded me of another element to that: Anduril. It wasn't that important in Fellowship or Towers and was ignored until needed, and in so doing caused a blemish in RoTK that they tried to cover with the Appendix. Strider's progression to Aragorn was summed in that one encounter, appropriate for a hero's journey but abhorrid in the far more complex legacy of LoTR.


    Six inches of cute brooding war hero.
  •  5/5/2004 2:38:00 PM 572891 in reply to 498134

    RE: books to movies, LoTR and others

    i think that the film trilogy was excellent, do you have any idea how much my imagination has grown from watching them, i get ideas all the time, oh god here comes one now

     

  •  5/5/2004 4:20:00 PM 570508 in reply to 498134

    RE: books to movies, LoTR and others

    I watched the first film before reading the books. I found the books to be too drawn out and boring. I never got into them.

    The first film was great. The second wasn't as much. The third I would say is the best.

  •  5/5/2004 4:24:00 PM 572519 in reply to 498134

    RE: books to movies, LoTR and others

    Books == classics

    Movies == Really good prolly soon to be considered classics

    just my opinion

  •  5/5/2004 4:45:00 PM 570332 in reply to 498134

    RE: books to movies, LoTR and others

    I saw Fellowship first, too. Picked up the book a few weeks later, one of the big ones with pretty movie scenes on the cover. Read it in a week, maybe two.

    Belth and Xan have expressed an unfortunatly prevelent opinion nurtured by a life of television rather than reading. Action, adventure, excitement drive the industry to the exclusion of character, innuendo, and subtlty(sp). LoTR is an enigma; the plot is very straightforward but the characters are vivid, dynamic, each with hopes, dreams, and loyalties not entirely commiserate with their station.

    The movie characters: two rangers (one human(hidden royalty) one elf), two warriors (human(traitor) and dwarf), one wizard, three comedic halflings and a whiny brat. As far as the movies are concerned, that's it. An unlikely group brought together by chance and miraculously function as a unit with a king and a traitor in their midst. Oooooo. There's a word for that: boring. The movies sucked the best parts of LoTR out and left a dry, fairly stereotypical husk that is exactly what the modern man wants out of his entertainment.

    Excuse me for having standards higher than what it takes to facinate my dog.


    Six inches of cute brooding war hero.
  •  5/5/2004 6:43:00 PM 570877 in reply to 498134

    RE: books to movies, LoTR and others

    You're too harsh Ryv.  The movies did an excellent job of portraying the classical tales of "the hero's journey", the "tale of becomming", and it even dealt with the race issue.  No part of that spells "sucked dry" to me...

    you even have a chance to see the character dynamics, and the way they react to other characters in different situations.  The movies did an excellent job of portraying through this, the minds of the characters.

    also, the LotR books are what STARTED the whole king, traitor, wizard, comidic halflings thing.  Don't blame it being copied by other people

  •  5/7/2004 11:49:00 AM 572526 in reply to 498134

    RE: books to movies, LoTR and others

    Show me a scene that was dedicated to character development in RoTK. The Elrond/Aragorn encounter fails because that was not part of the book and was put in as a poor disguise of "hey we needed Anduril anyway"

    As for accuratly portraying a Hero's Journey, that is my complaint. A mythic theme is infinatly simpler than LoTR, and relegating character development along those lines is a FAILING.


    Six inches of cute brooding war hero.
  •  5/7/2004 1:42:00 PM 571435 in reply to 498134

    RE: books to movies, LoTR and others

    Show me a scene that was dedicated to character development in RoTK

    Frodo rejecting Sam.

  •  5/7/2004 4:22:00 PM 572627 in reply to 498134

    RE: books to movies, LoTR and others

    Riiiight. On the stairs, with Gollum destroying the Lembas bread. Which also never happens in the book. Next!
    Six inches of cute brooding war hero.
  •  5/7/2004 6:15:00 PM 579315 in reply to 498134

    RE: books to movies, LoTR and others

    I like to read books. I prefere a good book to TV, but LotR were just plain boring. It sounded more like a history book than a novel.

  •  5/7/2004 6:16:00 PM 575069 in reply to 498134

    RE: books to movies, LoTR and others

    One problem I had with the movies is how cold and emotionless they made all the elves in it...(again, a stereotype) In the books, elves are more emotional then humans...

    KITTY KITTY DANCE GO

    **KNC Member**
    **B-Unit Minister of Warm Fuzzy Kawaii Things**

    DeviantArt site

    The Kitlings!
Page 1 of 2 (22 items)   1 2 Next >
View as RSS news feed in XML
Powered by Community Server (Personal Edition), by Telligent Systems