• Welcome to The Tolkien Forum! Connect with fellow Tolkien enthusiasts and join a community that is over two decades old, and still going strong. We look forward to meeting you.  Register

Arrrrrrrrrgh!!!!!!!!!

Boromir's Lothlorien statement about Denethor was also an invention of the film makers. It was also film-Boromir's opinion, without the backing of a scene showing Denethor to be the leader that Boromir wanted Aragorn to believe he was.

All the visual evidence showed Denethor to be unreasonably biased against Faramir whilst glorying in Boromir's successes. (The quote given by aragil shows the contrast between the Tolkien reality and the Jackson portrayal).
 
Eledhwen said:
Boromir's Lothlorien statement about Denethor was also an invention of the film makers. It was also film-Boromir's opinion, without the backing of a scene showing Denethor to be the leader that Boromir wanted Aragorn to believe he was.

All the visual evidence showed Denethor to be unreasonably biased against Faramir whilst glorying in Boromir's successes. (The quote given by aragil shows the contrast between the Tolkien reality and the Jackson portrayal).

The claim was made that he was presented as a crackpot and insane from the beginning. Now that I have forced the issue, those words are not being used anymore and that was my whole point. He was not portrayed as insane until after boromirs death. voila tout. :)
 
Foe-Hammer said:
Why are you in RoTK thread then?
If I read two of the three books and then pronounced it "crude", would you acceopt it?
How can you sit there an argue a whole movie when you have only seen 2/3rds of it?

Are you going to finish the topic from post #65....the point was made that PJ had portrayed denathor as a crack-pot from the get go. I disputed that claim and use the lothlorein scene as evidence.

The claim was made that he was presented as a crackpot and insane from the beginning.....He was not portrayed as insane until after boromirs death. voila tout.

I'm in this thread to read other people's opinions of the film, to hear accounts of specific scenes, to believe those accounts, and to comment on those accounts. If I find later that any of those accounts have been false, and I have made comments based on those false accounts, then I will withdraw my comments. I do not believe, however, that I shall be doing that, as I have full confidence in the truthfulness and accuracy of every contributor here! :cool:
I haven't pronounced a whole film "crude"; I've accepted someone else's "pronouncement" that a small part of it is "crude".
I don't argue, or discuss, the whole of ROTK: see above.

I've been referring to Denethor only as he appears on the screen, not as Boromir, or anyone else, reports on him. I regard his behaviour on the screen, from his first appearance in TTT, and throughout that appearance, to be done in a wildly over-the-top manner, which others have called "crude". I accept the "crude", as a matter of cinematography, but I don't say "insane" or "crackpot"; I just think PJ's characterisation of him is so far-fetched as to be undeserving of comment. I've read only a little about D in ROTK, from which I gather he is rather better at first, but then goes out in an absurd conflagration - back to "crude" again?!
 
joxy said:
I'm in this thread to read other people's opinions of the film, to hear accounts of specific scenes, to believe those accounts, and to comment on those accounts. If I find later that any of those accounts have been false, and I have made comments based on those false accounts, then I will withdraw my comments. I do not believe, however, that I shall be doing that, as I have full confidence in the truthfulness and accuracy of every contributor here! :cool:

It is clear to me wny you are so off-base with most of your opinions. They really are not yours and to debate an issue with you that you haven't experienced yourself is destined to go nowhere.

joxy said:
I haven't pronounced a whole film "crude"; I've accepted someone else's "pronouncement" that a small part of it is "crude".

The point is that until you see the rest of denathors scenes, you are basing your opinion on half of how he was represented.

joxy said:
I've been referring to Denethor only as he appears on the screen, not as Boromir, or anyone else, reports on him. I regard his behaviour on the screen, from his first appearance in TTT, and throughout that appearance, to be done in a wildly over-the-top manner, which others have called "crude". I accept the "crude", as a matter of cinematography, but I don't say "insane" or "crackpot"; I just think PJ's characterisation of him is so far-fetched as to be undeserving of comment. I've read only a little about D in ROTK, from which I gather he is rather better at first, but then goes out in an absurd conflagration - back to "crude" again?!

You cannot ignore parts of PJ's vision of denathor and then add extra signnificance to other parts. His presentation of denathor by boromir is as valid and demands consideration as much as his actual scenes do.
 
No one is asking for your to like it, damn!, its a great trilogy, based on book or not :)
 
Witch-King said:
No one is asking for your to like it, damn!, its a great trilogy, based on book or not :)

You forgot to add In My Opinion :p . In the book Denethor had a reason for disliking Faramir (jealousy of Gandalf). In the movie he didn't. That being said, Faramir taking leave of his father and the city is, IMHO, one of the best scenes of ROTK.
 
Foe-Hammer, in his/her wisdom, wrote:

The claim was made that he was presented as a crackpot and insane from the beginning. Now that I have forced the issue, those words are not being used anymore and that was my whole point.

That claim was made by moi, and the reason I don't make the claim anymore is because you're so blinkered into your hostile polemic against those who disagree with you that I really can't be bothered with arguing with you. I welcome debate, but you argue, and I just can't be bothered.

Anyonnghi kaseyo?

(That's Korean for 'good-bye.')
 
Iluvatar said:
Foe-Hammer, in his/her wisdom, wrote:



That claim was made by moi, and the reason I don't make the claim anymore is because you're so blinkered into your hostile polemic against those who disagree with you that I really can't be bothered with arguing with you. I welcome debate, but you argue, and I just can't be bothered.

Anyonnghi kaseyo?

(That's Korean for 'good-bye.')


HAHAHA! Yeah, OK. Ya convinced me. :rolleyes:
 
Just thought I'd add an extra "Arrgh"!
This is an anonymous quotation from a Harry Potter appreciation forum, but it's relevant, oh so relevant!:

"Arrgh!! The WB needs to get some pointers from New Line...There they
go screwing up the film for the sake of larger recipt returns, when
if they just made the final edit true to the spirit of the story
*cough*LOTR*cough*, they would get even larger returns in the long
run..."
 
???
I don't see that as relevant, or even correct, joxy. HP is not selling more tickets than LotR, and there is no indication that changes in LotR were made strictly for ticket sales.

Here is something that I find to be relevant, especially since it has a quote my Ms. Rowling herself (a majority of the article has been 'snipped' for space concerns):
from LATimes 20040118

Teen angst at Hogwarts
The stars are older, the issues darker as "Harry Potter" reappears under the director of the sexy "Y Tu Mamá También." This time, the monsters are within.


By John Horn, Times Staff Writer

Time works its magic

...

Rotating directors

Hollywood has a successful tradition of giving different directors a chance to reinterpret established movie titles. Fox selected Ridley Scott, James Cameron, David Fincher and Jean-Pierre Jeunet to make its "Alien" movies, and Paramount has enlisted Brian De Palma, John Woo and Joe Carnahan to direct its "Mission: Impossible" films.

Selecting Cuarón to take over "Harry Potter" seems both entirely reasonable and provocatively daring, especially for a studio that has played conservatively with the young wizard at every step. The stakes are arguably even higher with the third film, as it will be released amid the highly competitive summer (it opens June 4) rather than the shelter of November, when the first two movies debuted.

Out of caution, Warners nixed Rowling's personal petition to hire "Brazil's" Terry Gilliam to direct the first movie, 2001's "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." The studio instead picked "Home Alone's" Chris Columbus, who also directed the first sequel, 2002's "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets."

Both films were runaway global blockbusters, grossing more than $1.8 billion worldwide, yet critics said they lacked the creative audacity and spark that empower movies like Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings" series and that make Rowling's books so memorable for kids and adults alike. The movies were hits, but they weren't hip: They needed some PG-13, "Pirates of the Caribbean" pizazz.

Warners wasn't trying to replace Columbus, but the director — who first fantasized about making all seven movies (the number of books Rowling plans for the series) — was ready for a change. He had lived in London for more than three years preparing, filming and editing his "Harry Potter" films, long enough that his American children were starting to speak with British accents. Columbus wanted to move back to Northern California and pursue other movie ideas.

The studio contemplated several options to fill his spot in the director's chair: actor-director Kenneth Branagh, who played the self-important professor Gilderoy Lockhart in "The Chamber of Secrets"; Callie Khouri, who had just co-written and directed Warners' "Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood"; comedy director Ivan Reitman; and a 42-year-old from Mexico City whose last movie was so explicit that half the "Harry Potter" cast was too young to attend.

Warners knew Cuarón's work quite well. Even though it admits to bungling the release, the studio had distributed Cuarón's 1995 film, "A Little Princess," an adaptation of Frances Burnett's novel about a young girl who, not unlike Harry Potter, ends up in an unusual boarding school.

"That movie confirmed to me that he could live in the world of fantasy and children and not be treacly and also be a little bit dark," says Alan Horn, president of Warner Bros. "And in 'Y Tu Mamá,' he got such performances out of those two young boys. Now our protagonists in 'Harry Potter' are 13, entering puberty, and he understands that. The question was: Could he handle something of this size? It can be daunting."

Horn wasn't the only "Little Princess" fan. Rowling too had loved the film and even had ranked Cuarón just behind Gilliam among her preferences to direct the first film. Warners decided to take a chance and offered Cuarón the gig.

He didn't immediately say yes. Thanks to "Y Tu Mamá," which was an art house hit nominated for an original screenplay Oscar, Cuarón was by his own admission Hollywood's "flavor of the month" and was swimming in potential deals, including a shot to make a James Bond movie.

"I have to confess, I was a bit ignorant about the Harry Potter thing," Cuarón says as a murder of trained crows swoops through the air, rehearsing for the director's next shot. "Then they started to talk about it, and I was like, 'Yeah, well ... I don't know.' Then someone said, 'Please, look at the material, because I really want you to give an answer.' So I read [screenwriter] Steve Kloves' script. And it was great. And then I immediately read the book. And I was, frankly, amazed by the book and the script."

Cuarón also saw there were significant advantages to directing a film in a series already underway. First, you inherit recognized characters and settings as well as actors familiar both with the roles and to the audience.

"Everything is established, so I don't need to do exposition," Cuarón says. "Chris crafted with [production designer] Stuart Craig a really eloquent universe. And Chris already established all the rules, so pretty much I don't have to get into the matter of 'OK, Hogwarts is this. And you're a Muggle. And you're a wizard.'

"By not having to do all this exposition, I can concentrate on character and the psychology of the characters."

At the same time, Cuarón knew he was not at liberty to reimagine the film from the ground up. While he wasn't exactly constrained to paint by the numbers, much of his filmmaking canvas already had been sketched in.

Even if he wanted to, for example, Cuarón couldn't hire a new composer — he was obligated to use John Williams, who provided the score for the first two "Harry Potter" films. Similarly, Cuarón couldn't redesign Hogwarts, overhaul Diagon Alley, or recast any lead roles (outside of replacing Richard Harris, who played Hogwarts' head of school, Albus Dumbledore, in the first two films but died in October 2002). And finally, Columbus would be looking over Cuarón's shoulder, as he remained in London as one of the film's executive producers.

"I wanted to make sure that the film didn't stray too far from the world that the audience and the fans have sort of fallen in love with over the course of the first two movies," Columbus says at the Leavesden studios on the outskirts of London, where many of the film's sets were built and still reside. "It's like putting nipples on the 'Batman' suit: It can get a little strange and a little weird to the audience…. If [the fans] have to adjust to too much change, they could have been turned off by the film."

Before Cuarón made his decision on "The Prisoner of Azkaban," he turned to his longtime filmmaking friend Guillermo del Toro for guidance.

"Guillermo had just finished directing 'Blade 2,' " Cuarón says. "And he said, 'Man, if you do it, I have only one piece of advice to give you: Don't try to do an Alfonso Cuarón movie. Try to serve the franchise. And by serving the franchise, you may end up doing an Alfonso Cuarón movie.' "

Cuarón told Warners he would take the job.


The principals' favorite

...

A 'distinct piece of work'

...

Long shoot, mammoth budget

Even though he's just taken several days off for a Christmas break, fatigue creeps into Cuarón's voice on a telephone call from London.

On "Y Tu Mamá," Cuarón had just a few weeks and a mere $5 million to make the movie. For "The Prisoner of Azkaban," his shooting schedule stretched over eight months and his budget swelled to $200 million.

"No matter how much money you have, you are always 20 percent short," says Cuarón, who worked without his favorite cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki ("The Prisoner of Azkaban's" director of photography is Michael Seresin, longtime collaborator of director Alan Parker). "You can be on a low-budget movie or a big-budget movie, but you always wish you had 20 percent more. There was a point where you just dream, do whatever you want to do. And working with Steve Kloves was about dreaming. And then there was the window of frustration, where you are told, 'This is the budget, and you can't do that.' But it was always about figuring out which movie we wanted to do with these resources and trying to fit everything into what I must say is a very healthy budget."

The production was without any major mishaps, if you don't count the raging Scottish brush fire sparked by a stray piece of burning coal from the Hogwarts Express train.

"It has been insane, but it has been good," Cuarón says. "These kinds of films are not so much about filmmaking. They are about endurance. They just go on forever. And you have to keep up the pace all the time. If you fall behind in editing, it affects all the other departments. It's like a marathon. Sometimes you're in a zone. But sometimes, all of your tendons ache." The next installment, "Goblet of Fire," will be directed by "Mona Lisa Smile" filmmaker Mike Newell.

"The whole goal of taking a franchise in a new direction is what keeps them alive," Cuarón says. "Jo Rowling said to me, 'Don't be literal. Just be faithful to the spirit.' You might have hits and misses. But it's always going to be fresh."

What do you know? Critics say that HP's literal take from the books has left the filims somewhat lacking, and Rowling herself says it is more important to be true to the spirit of the work than to be literal. Wonders never cease.
 
aragil said:
What do you know? Critics say that HP's literal take from the books has left the filims somewhat lacking, and Rowling herself says it is more important to be true to the spirit of the work than to be literal. Wonders never cease.

Ooooopsie! Be careful. The next thing you know, ole foe-hammer will be claiming that the closer to the book the movies get the less appealing they are.

:)
 
aragil said:
I don't see that as relevant, or even correct, joxy. HP is not selling more tickets than LotR, and there is no indication that changes in LotR were made strictly for ticket sales.
Rowling herself says it is more important to be true to the spirit of the work than to be literal.

....the creative audacity and spark that empower movies like Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings"....The movies....needed some PG-13, "Pirates of the Caribbean" pizazz.
It didn't say that HP was out-selling TLOTR.
I see two relevancies.
The writer was making a point that has often been made here, and that has been questioned - as you question it now! I don't think anyone suggests PJ's changes were made strictly for ticket sales, though the idea has certainly been offered, to some extent, in explanation for them - and, of course, we are still awaiting some alternative reason for them or explanation of them.
He claims that TLOTR would have had even larger returns in the long run if it had been made "true to the spirit of the story". This leaves open the definition of "spirit", and the assessment of how that truth has been maintained - the contention here is that some of PJ's changes are NOT true to the spirit of his source material, and I can add that I find the HP changes ARE true to theirs.

That's a very interesting part of the quotation, that you choose actually to underline. Now we know it all: the "creative audacity and spark", that this imaginative writer has somehow managed to discover in PJ's LOTR, actually consists of "some PG-13, "Pirates of the Caribbean" pizazz"! I don't think that's what he meant, but he DID say it!
 
joxy said:
That's a very interesting part of the quotation, that you choose actually to underline. Now we know it all: the "creative audacity and spark", that this imaginative writer has somehow managed to discover in PJ's LOTR, actually consists of "some PG-13, "Pirates of the Caribbean" pizazz"! I don't think that's what he meant, but he DID say it!
This writer is not all that imaginitive. He is merely reporting what he perceives to be the prevalent opinion in the movie-going public. The HP films are popular, especially among pre-teens and their parents. Other people may enjoy them, but not to the extent that 'other people' generally enjoy the LotR series. This is an established 'fact', that can be shown in many different manners- critical reaction, awards, box-office, or review-based web-sites. In comparing LotR, HP and PotC the author is simply stating what he believes to be the reasons for the relative levels of the excitement towards these films- nothing too crazy about it.
 
It is very easy for the npw to reject everything that they dislike about this film and insist that their version would have been more successful. They haven't had to create anything. They are standing on the shoulder of a giant (jrr) and looking into the eyes of another giant (pj) and claiming they (the npw) are equal to PJ. I have yet to see one of them claim, or prove that they understand the processes of filmaking, writing screenplays, direction, and everything else PJ has the experience in, to bolster their arguments one iota.

And apparently trying to illustrate to them what does and did work on film, and why, is lost on them because they continue to make the same unsupported claims that have been defeated by those explanations time and time again.
 
aragil said:
In comparing LotR, HP and PotC the author is simply stating what he believes to be the reasons for the relative levels of the excitement towards these films.
I thought he was stating that, particularly in respect of "pizazz", TLOTR and POTC had more in common with each other than with HP. I haven't seen POTC and I can only guess at what he meant by "pizazz", but my guess it that what he would have liked in HP is more of the worse aspects of TLOTR.

I hadn't realised that you were one of those on the band wagon of "critical reaction, awards, box-office, or review-based web-sites". History has proved time and time again how unreliable the first of those is in determining the true value of any form of entertainment, and I see no reason to believe that the other three more recent indicators will prove to be more reliable.
 
Foe-Hammer said:
I have yet to see one of them claim, or prove that they understand the processes of filmaking, writing screenplays, direction, and everything else PJ has the experience in, to bolster their arguments one iota.
This particular drum is taking an awful lot of hammering these days.
There are innumerable areas in which it is possible to see faults in a product, and to offer suggestions as to how those faults could be corrected, without having the technical knoweldge involved in its manufacture - or crafting. I can see those barrels disappear; and hear those lines that clash with their context; and it's easy to suggest how those faults could, and most certainly should, have been avoided. I don't think, either, that it would be all that difficult, or that it would take all that much education, to avoid the confusing actions, visuals, characterisations, even appearances, that PJ's expertise has offered us.
Give me the money and I'll happily check the continuity, and the dialogue, of PJ's next film - unless it is King Kong. :D
 
joxy said:
I hadn't realised that you were one of those on the band wagon of "critical reaction, awards, box-office, or review-based web-sites". History has proved time and time again how unreliable the first of those is in determining the true value of any form of entertainment, and I see no reason to believe that the other three more recent indicators will prove to be more reliable.
I wasn't speaking to intrinsic value of a piece of art- beauty is in the eye of the beholder, that's my philosophy. However, the reviewer was speaking about how popular the LotR films were- and I consider that those four items are pretty good indicators of popularity.
 
I am an artist. Occasionally I work in what is called a "mixed medium" - that is, fabric with paint or glass or something else that isn't strictly one type of art or craft. Well, to my mind, Jackson used a "mixed medium" in these films. On the one hand, he worked so very hard to create Middle-earth; indeed, TOLKIEN's Middle-earth! He brought in artists who had done work based upon Tolkien and who would have read and studied enough to see and know if something were egregiously out of place. He brought in actors who physically matched (as far as possible) Tolkien's frequently incomplete descriptions of the characters - even going so far as to fire an actor who did not have the maturity necessary to play Aragorn and getting a fine but little known actor who had both the ability and the physical appearance to do justice to the role. He built sets, crafted armor, apparently listened to those knowledgeable about Tolkien and the book - and led us all to believe that finally LOTR was coming to the screen as truly as it would be possible to do given the change in medium.

And then, after all of that, Jackson fell back on his previous film experience and gave us "modern" and sometimes quite crude humor, out of place in the very world he had labored for so long and with such effort to construct. As the films progressed, no sooner did he manage to build up tension then he set about knocking it down with some stupid "in joke" or pratfall by one of the characters. Gasp! Frodo is dying (or wraithing!)! His eyes are turning strange colors and rolling back in his head!!! His breathing sounds like an old vacuum!!!! Aragorn and Sam are rushing about in the dark trying to find athelas to save him!!!! And the next thing you know, a sweet young thing has a knife at the throat of the hero making jokes! Please, O please! WHY???? Why break up the tension that you are building with a silly, sophomoric bit of nonsense that was nothing less than irrational within the context of the story? And thus it went for three films. Least in the first but getting worse until there was too much action in ROTK for Jackson to have the time for such idiocy.

I have always found that the trouble with using a "mixed medium" technique is that it frequently leads to "mixed results". In my opinion, that's what happened here.
 
Looking back at that scene, I might tend to agree with you IF I chose to hack the film into little pieces for criticism. We do not know who is holding the sword against frodos neck until after that scene is over AND arwen is shown as an elven princess. This is the impression I had of her after seeing the movie in spite her challenge of the nazgul at the ford. That is why I was so totally surprised at the puriests condemnation of PJ for showing her as a xena-warrior type. His obvious plan for her was as an elven princess who happens to be able to wield a sword.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top