My God, It Was Horrible (Part III)

Foe-Hammer said:

Why am I not surprised that you continue to rag a film you haven't even seen?

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that those who have posted are lying? If they are telling the truth, then I really don't have to "see it for myself" to know that I'm not going to like it. After all, I haven't seen the surface of Venus either, but I have read enough about it to know that I wouldn't go there.

Mrs. Maggott, i really think you should see the movie. Take your favourite enemy with you and complain throughout(sic?) the whole movie. Its fun! Try it.
A purist that hasn't seen the movie is not much help to our cause.

About the Frodo breaking up with Sam scene: Other than what others pointed out, where the heck did Sam think he was going to? Was he heading home?
"go home, Sam" -- how ridicullus(sic?) is that?
and then when he finds the lembas, he doesn't take them. That isn't like Sam

Mrs. Maggott said:

Are you suggesting that those who have posted are lying? If they are telling the truth, then I really don't have to "see it for myself" to know that I'm not going to like it. After all, I haven't seen the surface of Venus either, but I have read enough about it to know that I wouldn't go there.

Click to expand...

How can you put others' experiences above your own? If you go see ROTK and hate it, then at least you'll be able to criticize it from the standpoint of your own personal reasons. And if you see it and LIKE it, well...

Lotho

Saermegil said:

Mrs. Maggott, i really think you should see the movie. Take your favourite enemy with you and complain throughout(sic?) the whole movie. Its fun! Try it.
A purist that hasn't seen the movie is not much help to our cause.

About the Frodo breaking up with Sam scene: Other than what others pointed out, where the heck did Sam think he was going to? Was he heading home?
"go home, Sam" -- how ridicullus(sic?) is that?
and then when he finds the lembas, he doesn't take them. That isn't like Sam

Click to expand...

When it becomes possible for me, I probably will. However, as I pointed out, I am merely responding to what has been posted, not what has been filmed. If those posting are not being accurate, then surely someone should say so and point out where they are mistaken. If they are in fact accurately representing the matter, then it hardly takes a "first hand" look at it to know what I think. After all, one doesn't have to be in an automobile accident to know that they are unpleasant and even fatal. One simply needs to read the statistics (and those aren't even descriptive!).

Finally, do you seriously believe that my opinions are going to be granted more credibility by some FADs even had I seen the film 100 times? It will be enough that they are critical of the film to be dismissed out of hand no matter how many times I viewed it.

Odo Proudfoot said:

PJ has managed to convey some of Tolkiens moments and brought them to life on screen in a way that surpasses their emotional impact in the book, and at such moments I do feel he has improved on the book....

Click to expand...

He has indeed conveyed some of those moments, many of them in fact.
We're perilously close to agreeing here: I'd just put the feeling in a different way - the film conveys those moments in cinema equally well as Tolkien conveyed them on the page. There was no need to look for improvement, and, given the vast difference between the two mediums, the search for it would pointless anyway.

Thorin said:

It is in fact that way, Maggot. Gollum plays the lying school bully....
Overall it was a good film and a much better adaptation then the other two.

Click to expand...

If anyone can defend that, and say that PJ had a grain of sense left in him when he perpetrated it, let him speak now, or forever hold his peace.
And if you really find the film good, and a better adaptation, than the others, then it must have some mighty fine stuff in it to cancel out the effects of that farrago of nonsense!

"Lothlorien was sacked three times. Is it mentioned? No. Who gives a rat's hindquarters (as I believe RD put it once) about the Elves? Apparently Peter Jackson doesn't. If he doesn't, I suppose it doesn't matter."

Why would Jackson leave the Elves in Middle Earth, and have them fighting for it, when the whole plot of things is the fading of elves and the coming of Men. As a rule, Directors have to spell everything out for the audience. Not everyone has read Tolkien who is seeing the movie.... They would be all too confused to have the last boat of the elves leave and then there's all of a sudden thousands of Elves in Lothlorien...

That's why I have such a hard time with the Elves at Helm's Deep. Cinematicaly PJ wanted to give the idea that the Elves are going to help Men "One. Last. Time", so why not in Return of the King? Part of it is because PJ wanted to make it seem impossible for the 300 men to defeat all the Uruk-hai, and then all of a sudden have there be a fighting chance; thus granting cinimatic pleasure for the viewers. Another is because of the 'last boats' were already leaving and you couldnt have thousands of elves still in middle earth and so few boats.

None-the-less, I still don't agree with the Elves coming to Helm's Deep, but I am fine with Lothlorien not mentioned in RotK.

joxy said:

He has indeed conveyed some of those moments, many of them in fact.
We're perilously close to agreeing here: I'd just put the feeling in a different way - the film conveys those moments in cinema equally well as Tolkien conveyed them on the page. There was no need to look for improvement, and, given the vast difference between the two mediums, the search for it would pointless anyway.

Click to expand...

No, joxy, when I say 'improved' I mean improved. Note my particular examples: these are situations that are somewhat underplayed in the books, and PJ has managed to give them more depth and emotional impact in his films. Come to think of it, the flooding of Isengard is also more dramatic and momentous on film than in the book.

Other, more famous scenes from the book like Weathertop, Gandalf against the balrog on the Bridge, the Argonath, the arrival of the Rohirrim on the Pelennor, Eowyn slaying the Witch King, the final moments at the Crack of Doom, the Grey Havens, are conveyed in the films equally well as in the books - their impact in both book and film is equally enormous.

And of course there are a lot of moments which are still better in the book than in the films, or do not appear in the films at all. No argument there.

Odo

Odo Proudfoot said:

Other, more famous scenes from the book like Weathertop, Gandalf against the balrog on the Bridge, the Argonath, the arrival of the Rohirrim on the Pelennor, Eowyn slaying the Witch King, the final moments at the Crack of Doom, the Grey Havens, are conveyed in the films equally well as in the books - their impact in both book and film is equally enormous.

And of course there are a lot of moments which are still better in the book than in the films, or do not appear in the films at all. No argument there.

Odo

Click to expand...

My opinion on these:

Weathertop: the book made much more sense. Frodo is not a wimp in the book, he defies the wraiths. He shouts the name of Elbereth (and according to Aragorn this was more painful to the Witch-King than Frodo's stab at his clothes). And of course we get an explanation on the reason for just 5 wraiths.

Gandalf x Balrog: the movie is better. It was beautifully done, both in FotR and in TTT. I think even JRRT would be moved by those scenes (except perhaps if the Balrog did not have wings )

Argonath: again, a plus for the movies. The book is incredibly moving, but that's the magic of movies... to see those statues was amazing.

Rohirrim at Pelennor: no way . The book is much better. We don't have the darkness in the movie! The lack of Sauron's darkness spoiled the Battle of Pelennor for me. Associated with the lack of Sauron's darkness is the lack of any sense of ominousness; there was no moment in which I feared that the good guys would lose -- and don't tell me this was because I had read the book! No, in Helm's Deep (TTT) the feeling of despair was much better conveyed. 300 vs 10,000, Aragorn and Legolas arguing about it, only old guys and children... it was much more moving than the Siege of Minas Tirith. And this is a big minus for the movies.

As for the charge of the Rohirrim, where is the c*ck (male of hen) that sang, greeting the unexpected dawn that was too early for Sauron's plans?

Éowyn vs. Witch-King: books are better, again -- and very noticeably. I think the Fell Beasts are too huge in the movie, for one thing (Éowyn beheaded one with a single blow in the books). But the Witch-King is simply... not scary. The whole scene is badly timed (compared with the book).

Crack of Doom: a tie here. That means I agree with you Odo .

Grey Havens: it's nice in the movies, but in the books it is better. This is because the ending of the movie is too rushed. We don't get the sense of the ending of the Fellowship. The other guys (Gimli, Legolas) simply disappear. Hopes for the EE...

You earlier talked about the beacons, and F&S in the rock after the Ring was thrown. Frankly, the beacons were... ridiculous, for me. They ruined my "suspension of disbelief". There are magical things, and non-magical things. The non-magical things are, well, non-magical. It is impossible to assume beacons placed like that, on the top of outrageously high mountains. As well as being a useless maneuver by Gandalf at that moment -- assured to annoy Denethor only. The rock is poignant, but so is the portion of the book dealing with it (the "old Frodo" resurfacing, and being glad to be with Sam, "here at the end of it all"). I'll give it a tie.

These are my thoughts on comparing book and movie. Looking at the movies on their own, my favorite is still FotR. But I'll wait for the EE of RotK to give my final verdict.

Mrs. Maggott said:

Are you suggesting that those who have posted are lying? If they are telling the truth, then I really don't have to "see it for myself" to know that I'm not going to like it. After all, I haven't seen the surface of Venus either, but I have read enough about it to know that I wouldn't go there.

Click to expand...

Really? Judging from what you write here, I thought you were from Venus....

MM, the people surveying the surface of Venus don't have an ax to grind.

I need an excuse to bring this thread to the top of page 1!

Eriol said:

My opinion on these:
Gandalf x Balrog: the movie is better. It was beautifully done....
Argonath: again, a plus for the movies. The book is incredibly moving, but that's the magic of movies... to see those statues was amazing.

Click to expand...

You've only given these two straight out to the films, so I suppose it's a bit unkind of me to knock them down also!
The fall of Gandalf and the Argonath ARE splendid parts of the film, but they are also splendid parts of the books.
The film scenes are first quality apples; the book scenes are first quality oranges.
I suppose I risk my case by adding a couple of niggles, even here, to the film scenes: the film Balrog finishes up as a bundle of sticks in the snow - compare the book Balrog that "smote the mountain" and blocked Gandalf's way down; some have pointed out technical details of the statues that aren't consistent - a really small niggle that!

Eriol said:

Gandalf x Balrog: the movie is better. It was beautifully done, both in FotR and in TTT. I think even JRRT would be moved by those scenes (except perhaps if the Balrog did not have wings )

Click to expand...

And never mind the fact that balrog's were only about 14 feet high and not what looked like a 25 foot balrog. And that Gandalf didn't seem burnt by the flames of the balrog when they were falling. (But that's just the NPW in me speaking).

Had Gandalf been more cool in the face of the balrog like the book instead of screaming out 'YOU SHALL NOT PAAAAAAAAS!!!!!!!!!', It would have been nearly perfect.

Regardless, I did enjoy all the balrog/Gandalf scenes.

Thorin said:

And never mind the fact that balrog's were only about 14 feet high and not what looked like a 25 foot balrog. And that Gandalf didn't seem burnt by the flames of the balrog when they were falling. (But that's just the NPW in me speaking).

Click to expand...

From the book:
What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it.

Click to expand...

14' is just speculation based on this passage. 25' is also speculation, but I don't think either speculation is 'more correct'. The NPW in joxy might argue that a 'mere' 14 ft tall Balrog would hardly be expected to break the mountainside with its fall!

Thorin said:

Had Gandalf been more cool in the face of the balrog like the book instead of screaming out 'YOU SHALL NOT PAAAAAAAAS!!!!!!!!!', It would have been nearly perfect.

Click to expand...

"like the book"? How was it in the book?

From the book:
'You cannot pass! ' he said.

Click to expand...

What do you know? An exclamation point in the book! This leetle piece of punctuation is as much emotion as Tolkien ever allows his characters to show. It is the same punctuation Gollum uses once he finally recovers the Ring. Was that scene also overplayed in the movie?

Morgaphry said:

The beacons must be seen from all views of the mountain, both from Rohan and from Lebennin etc. so we can assume that they would put the beacons on the very summit.

Click to expand...

This makes no sense. There is no need for Lebennin to see the beacons, they were used to warn Rohan only.

I'll say it again. The Lighting of the Beacons was an outstanding piece of cinema and was a visual feast for the eyes (and ears.)

Click to expand...

Glad you feel that way . I still disagree, though.

This makes no sense. There is no need for Lebennin to see the beacons

Click to expand...

By Lebennin etc., I meant all of Gondor like Dol Amroth, Pelargir and Lebennin.
Why wouldn't the beacons be used to send out a distress signal to the other cities of Gondor.
Each town would have had it's own army or garrison and they could use the beacons to signal the garrisons to march to Minas Tirith rather than send a horse which would take longer.

Thanks
Morgaphry

P.S If any mods read this could they please try and restore my original post. There were two of the same post, so I deleted one but they were both deleted.

Actually Eriol, the book agrees with Morgraphy:

Minas Tirith:
Pippin became drowsy again and paid little attention to Gandalf telling him of the customs of Gondor, and how the Lord of the City had beacons built on the tops of outlying hills along both borders of the great range, and maintained posts at these points where fresh horses were always in readiness to bear his errand-riders to Rohan in the North, or to Belfalas in the South. ‘It is long since the beacons of the North were lit,’ he said; ‘and in the ancient days of Gondor they were not needed, for they had the Seven Stones.’ Pippin stirred uneasily.

Click to expand...

The beacons extend along both the Northern and Southern Borders, and only the Northern ones (i.e. the ones going to Rohan) have been unused for long! Good thinking, Morgraphy.

aragil said:

Actually Eriol, the book agrees with Morgraphy: The beacons extend along both the Northern and Southern Borders, and only the Northern ones (i.e. the ones going to Rohan) have been unused for long! Good thinking, Morgraphy.

Click to expand...

???

I never saw a clearer quote to establish that the beacons of the North were used to warn Rohan only. The quote says that there are two sets of beacons, and that the beacons of the North were unused. If they were "visible by Rohan and Lebennin" there would be only one set of beacons.

Actually, a look at the map settles this. There is no way a single set of beacons could be used to warn both the coastal provinces and Rohan. Hence, no need to set the beacons in the impossibly high mountains.

Actually, I have absolutely no problem with Jackson using beacons to warn everybody - including Rivendell - if he wished to do so. I can see that cinematically it would be quite compelling and since most people would be woefully ignorant regarding Middle-earth's geography, it hardly matters anyway.

After all, given that someone posted that a scene in ROTR has Frodo telling Sam (or vice-versa) that they had been journeying for years(!) rather than months, I would say that the beacon situation (vis a vie accuracy) is by this time moot!

Mrs. Maggott said:

After all, given that someone posted that a scene in ROTR has Frodo telling Sam (or vice-versa) that they had been journeying for years(!) rather than months, I would say that the beacon situation (vis a vie accuracy) is by this time moot!

Click to expand...

I remember no such dialogue (though I have only seen the movie twice, the last time a few weeks ago). I think I would have noticed it, but who knows mayb I did miss it. It is possible that Frodo says to Sam that it feels like years, but this is hugely different. I may see the film again this weekend. I will watch for this alleged dialogue.

This is an example of what I have pointed out before: the danger of making judgements based on second-hand reports and the tendency of some "purists" to automatically accept any negative report of the films.

Greenwood said:

....the danger of making judgements based on second-hand reports and the tendency of some "purists" to automatically accept any negative report of the films.

Click to expand...

This small detail sounds rather unlikely, and I wouldn't have accepted it right away. I think, and hope, you are probably right in saying the quotation should be "feels like" or "seems like" years, which would be very appropriate.
It's reports of much more substantial matters of fact, good AND bad, that I'll believe, and comment on, without seeing them.