New scenes -- new stuff to complain about!

[aragil]

The difference? Apparently Tolkien's individual Orcs are OK because they only appeared "when the circumstances demanded it", which was apparently for the entirety of the chapter 'The Uruk-hai', as well as a good part of 'The Choices of Master Samwise' and 'The Tower of Cirith Ungol'. By contrast PJ only shows individual Orcs when it will most contrast with JRRT's intent, all part of his nefarious plan to ruin the books for the purists.

MM- read JRRT's letter to his Catholic Bookstore friend (I'd like to say Milton Waldman, but I'm not sure that's right). This is the letter made famous to me by the fact that Tolkien says 'Treebeard is a character in my story, not me'. In any case, in this letter Tolkien takes pains to describe the Orcs as rationale incarnate beings, and hence redeemable. He even recants the ant analogy from the beginning of 'The Fields of Cormallen', by saying that it is others (besides Orcs, e.g. Trolls) that would be running around as if their queen had been killed- this comes from p. 195 of my copy of Letters. There's good bits too in Morgoth's Ring (HoME v. 10) about how Orcs should be treated- implying that they are not too different from the other children of Illuvatar. IMO this means that they are entitled to close-ups, provided their ugly mugs don't break the camera, of course.

Nóm- I absolutely agree that showing close-ups of a fallen race is far scarier than leaving them as faceless masses. The horror of what Morgoth (and Sauron and Saruman) did to the children is that they were able to corrupt individual Elves/Men into an almost beast-like state. The junta of evil could not corrupt an entire race, therefore (if you ask me, and I note that nobody has) the race of Orcs really does start with the corruption of the individual. If the close-ups are not shown then the audience is never confronted with that evil, it might as well be a bunch of ants. And as you pointed out, Saruman's speech to Lurtz about where Orcs originated shows the audience that these creatures have fallen from a 'higher' origin, any audience member who thinks Orcs are evil because they're different is swimming up De Nile.

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
But Jackson's orcs are, in fact, "monsters".

I'm with you in the discussion about their nature; but about their appearance I have to disagree: they're monsters in the sense of being large, otherwise, when seen individually or in small numbers, they're comical- well, they make me laugh! Except for the big one being dug out of mud, of course- he just makes me feel sick.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

I'm afraid I did not make myself clear. When I said "monsters", I meant that because they are so "other", we can comfortably put them in the "evil" category without ever having to consider what relationship such alien creatures might have with us and our humanity. In fact, Tolkien's orcs are both horrible and pitiful because we CAN relate to them, even in their misshapenness.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the dialogue between the two orc captains as Frodo is carried to the Tower of Cirith Ungol. It is obvious that they both want to just "get away" from their horrible life - not that they want to be "good", but they just want to be "left alone". Of course, a very short time later, the two groups of orcs have slaughtered each other, ending in the one captain cutting the throat of his wounded counterpart. So even with a common desire, the orcs cannot overcome their conditioning EVEN for self-preservation.

On the other hand, Jackson's orcs, although technologically impressive (except for the one who tippy-toes down the stairs in the Parth Galen scene), are not close enough to occasion in us the emotion that Tolkien WANTED us to feel - that is, a certain unease in the way that "absolute overlords" are able to dehumanize those over whom they have complete control.

 

[aragil]

Originally posted by joxy
Except for the big one being dug out of mud, of course- he just makes me feel sick.

Perfect! Tolkien's own description is that it was Saruman's Blackest deed (from Morgoth's Ring). I hope you aren't complaining that this scene was obscene, as that seems to be exactly the point that JRRT was trying to get across in his own words!


ps. see this post for the full quote.

 

[aragil]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
So even with a common desire, the orcs cannot overcome their conditioning EVEN for self-preservation.

Of course, we get another result when Ugluk is in charge of things, but that's a topic for a different thread.
Regarding the way that the Orcs are portrayed by Jackson- do you honestly think that the Gorbag-Shagrat episode will be cut out of the movies? Or are you just unfairly comparing 3 books by Tolkien with the treatment in the first of three movies by Jackson?

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
On the other hand, Jackson's orcs, although technologically impressive (except for the one who tippy-toes down the stairs in the Parth Galen scene), are not close enough to occasion in us the emotion that Tolkien WANTED us to feel - that is, a certain unease in the way that "absolute overlords" are able to dehumanize those over whom they have complete control.

Your evidence for this is what again? That we see faces of Orcs in the various split-seconds that Orcs are threatening the party? In the Fellowship of the Rings? In just what way does Saruman's speech fail to convey to you how the Orcs are dehumanized (in this case) Elves? Tolkiens own quote is that the Uruks/Uruk-hai/Orcs in general are good folk made bad. Again, this is exactly what Saruman's speech establishes- and that is what is scary about Orcs, not whether you see a few individual faces or not.

 

[MacAddict]

The New and Extened Scenes

I have nothing to complain about whatsoever!! The Extened Version was Great!! Its filled in a lot of stuff like why-this-person-said-this-the-way-he-did type stuff and this-is-how-we-got-from-here-to-there-this-way. All in all I loved watching it. it was like seeing it for the first time all over again.

~MacAddict

 

[Alcfalath]

The Extended Version

To everyone here who is devoted to the writings of Tolkien, and who have complained about the Extended Version and the Extra scenes;

BE VERY ASHAMED WITH YOURSELVES, AND WAKE UP TO YOURSELVES .

The original movie was a below average movie to stand up to Tolkien's writings, and missed too many things, and half the scenes done had faults as the extended one has. If you have a problem with the EE, too bad, dont ruin what was a magnificent remake of the movie.

Heres some points;

1) Prologue.
The New scene of Isildur's death is better than the original due to the fact that it shows his escape, and how the ring betrayed him. This is consistent with "Unfinished Tales", and portrays the facts.

2) Concerning Hobbits.
The New view on Hobbits and Hobbiton give new light to the fact that hobbits were a simple and recluse species, and are much more like men, as they should be, with selfishness and also bilbo's frantic part when he though he lost the ring adds the control the ring has on him, after 60 years.

3) The Long Expected Party.
The Introduction of the Sackville-Bagginses sets up RotK and adds a part that is touching where Frodo and Bilbo have a heart to Heart.

4) The Green Dragon.
This scene shows that hobbits were lively and even included a song (Sung by Merry and Pippin) which was sung just like Tlolkien described in the chapter. Also shows how much Sam cares for Rosie, and it shows the Gaffer as a character, not as a thought for imagination.

5) The passing of the Elves.
Added extra emotions to the characters and the passing of the elves to the grey havens was important to mention as frodo and the ring bearers end up there anyway.

6) The Added scenes with Aragorn and The Hobbits going the extra distance could have been done in order, as Midgewater is before the Weather mountains, so the scenes should have been: Midgewater, Lay of Luthien, Weather Mountains, then Weathetop, not Weather Mountains, Midgewater, Lay of Luthien then Weathertop.
BUT having the extra scene is good as it shows why the ringraiths didnt follow them directly on horse.

These are just a few, to cut them short, but one which deserves mentioning is the extra scene with Gollum, which shows how he catched up to the hobbits in TTT, and shows his past when Aragorn says he was a skilled waterman, leading back to when gandalf says in Moria that Gollum was Smeagol once, a creature unlike a hobbit.

So if u have any problems still with the EE, read the book, then watch the EE, then the original, and then, and only then you can make a decision on whether you enjoyed the EE or the Original better, but dont defile Tolkiens writings and his magnificent works by badmouthing the EE just because it isnt like the original.

These are my two cents, and if anyone has a problem with this decision, or has taken offence to anything i have said, I appologise and PM me and i'll rectify the problems.

 

[Thorin]

Well said Alcfalath.

My attitude change on the movie is a direct result of the EE's impressiveness. If you ask around or look at some old threads on my opinions about the movie, you'll see that I am one of the oldest and most staunchest purists on this forum. To be honest, special effects and music aside, I thought the movie was lousy, as a movie and as a Tolkien adaptation. Why? Other than the obvious things like Arwen and Saruman, the movie was hugely lacking in terms of it's rushed speed, character development and scene transition.

The EE however, changed so much of that that it became not only a good movie, but a much closer adaptation. Many of the scenes and character changes still irk me, but the impact of the EE was 10 times what the original movie was on me.

I am going to look at all the extras this weekend. Welcom to the forum!

 

[joxy]

Re: The Extended Version

Originally posted by Alcfalath
To everyone here....who have complained about the....<EE>
....Gollum, which shows how he caught up to the hobbits in TTT....
Gollum was Smeagol once, a creature unlike a hobbit.
....dont defile Tolkiens writings and his magnificent works by badmouthing the EE....
....if anyone has a problem....I apologise....

I haven't seen many complaints about it; like most contributors I think it's made a big improvement to the film.
What's that about catching up?
Smeagol always WAS a hobbit.
How does commenting on the film affect the books?
No problem at all, nothing to apologise for!
Just those little explanations, as above, maybe?

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

To everyone here who is devoted to the writings of Tolkien, and who have complained about the Extended Version and the Extra scenes;
BE VERY ASHAMED WITH YOURSELVES, AND WAKE UP TO YOURSELVES .
The original movie was a below average movie to stand up to Tolkien's writings, and missed too many things, and half the scenes done had faults as the extended one has. If you have a problem with the EE, too bad, dont ruin what was a magnificent remake of the movie. <quote Alcfalath>

It would seem to me that most of those who "complained" regarding the above, were doing so about the fact that the things that made the EE great were left out of the film to make room for things that diminished rather than strengthened it. In fact, many of the things edited out were not lengthy but constituted only a few extra lines of dialogue in an already existent scene but their inclusion would have gone far in clarifying the situation at that time in the story.

No, I would be willing to hazard a guess that if one went back through all the posts which refer to the EE, the comments are generally favorable to the new material added to the film and only questioned why they were omitted and other more questionable scenes retained in the finished film.

 

[PRH]

Re: The Extended Version

Originally posted by Alcfalath
To everyone here who is devoted to the writings of Tolkien, and who have complained about the Extended Version and the Extra scenes;

BE VERY ASHAMED WITH YOURSELVES, AND WAKE UP TO YOURSELVES .

Oh for the love of....It's pretty obvious that you didn't even bother to read through this thread. You just went off the thread title and set to bashing us. Don't take the thread title at face value please...

The thread title was a little tongue-in-cheek. I was just getting down to the brass tax, people were inevitably going to dislike certain aspects of the new scenes so I just titled the thread frankly. A huge amount of the content of this forum is critiquing the movie itself and the changes and adapatations from Tolkien. If the forum were all praise, praise, praise it would be an extremely boring place. I started 2 threads at the same time, one about things I didn't like and the other about things I did like about the EE.

Holding true to Tolkien does not AUTOMATICALLY make for a good movie (ahem...Bakshi). Certainly the bulk of the EE additions are book derived, but that doesn't automatically make them good cinema (I've explained myself in earlier posts).

...oh, and welcome to the forum!

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by PRH
I was just getting down to the brass tax

If only tax was only on brass!

 

[Alcfalath]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Alcfalath
To everyone here who is devoted to the writings of Tolkien, and who have complained about the Extended Version and the Extra scenes;

BE VERY ASHAMED WITH YOURSELVES, AND WAKE UP TO YOURSELVES .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To rephrase this to be more correct;

This is for everyone here who is devoted to the writings of Tolkien to all those who have complained about the Extended Version and the Extra scenes which have "allegedly" been a waste of time;

WAKE UP AND TAKE ANOTHER LOOK.

I appologise to all that have been offended by this, BUT , who here has confronted ppl who have completely badmouthed Tolkien and have said he was a deluded old idiot who even be understood. Nearly everybody i know has done this, with a few exceptions, naming one of my closest friends who liked Harry Potter until recently. He kept an open mind and saw the benefits. This is why I reacted the way I did and why I still will when the works of Tolkien, or their recreations by PJ, are bad-mouthed.

Thanks Thorin for your support, and I see that you have noticed the good points shine through those parts you disagree with. I agree that the movie could have been done a lot better, but who here is able to judge someone who has gone out of his way to create Tolkiens visions into a text we all can relate with, and for a younger less civilised generation who cant appreciate the most basic of luxuries (no offence to current company).

Joxy, heres your answers.

What's that about catching up? Gollums obsession with the ring and his bearing it for so long could not be broken, and the ring pulled on gollums mind and will, forcing him to follow frodo. In the Original, he is seen once following the fellowship, in moria, which could have meant he was just hiding there, whereas in EE, its explained that he was following the ring.

Smeagol always WAS a hobbit. Which is yet to be proven. Tolkien wrote that he was MOST PROBABLY an ancestor of the shire hobbits, but was never proven. But taking this into account, when Smeagol stole the ring, the ring twisted him into a deformed and twisted form of life shown as in the movie, in which he ceased to be a hobbit, and became Gollum.

How does commenting on the film affect the books? Many ppl have come on this forum, and many are just looking for a reason to hate Lord of the Rings because of the movie length, and many ppl I kno are included in this. Plus who are we to judge what mistakes PJ made. Watch the cartoon version of the Lord of the Rings, and then compare.

Mrs Maggot, you bring up a good point, but I have to relay back to the last few sentences of the last paragraph. BUT, the added dialogue and scenes make the people who watch the movie understand what Tolkien and PJ were trying to get across to their audiences.

PRH, I see that you are a Realist, who sees good and bad in all of the Movie, but;

"Oh for the love of....It's pretty obvious that you didn't even bother to read through this thread. You just went off the thread title and set to bashing us. Don't take the thread title at face value please..."

I did read the thread and i saw the positive and the negative posts, but I did not know that you had created a positive thread on this. I appologise for any bad attitudes that had filtered through. I had just completed my Year 12 TEE exams and has on a headhunt, especially after seeing someone burn The Lord of the Rings Bound Hardback Book because they thought the movie was a waste of time due to it being too long and "Stupid", but what i said had to be said.

Apart from that I will resign and maybe contribute my positive attitudes and values to somewhere where they can be accepted by ppl of the same opinion.

So long for now,

 

[joxy]

1]Gollum....in EE, its explained that he was following the ring.
2]Smeagol....Tolkien wrote that he was MOST PROBABLY an ancestor of the shire hobbits, but was never proven....
3]....he ceased to be a hobbit, and became Gollum.
4]....many are just looking for a reason to hate Lord of the Rings because of the movie length
5]....who are we to judge what mistakes PJ made. ....
6]....seeing someone burn The Lord of the Rings Bound Hardback Book because they thought the movie was a waste of time...
So long for now

1]I suppose it was reasonable to introduce Gollum in FOTR, earlier than he should appear, and in that case you are right that his purpose had to be explained - and that should not have been omitted from the TC.
2]I thought T wrote that he WAS a Stoor hobbit, but I can't cite the reference right now.
3]Is "a Gollum" distinct from "a hobbit", or whatever the wearer began as? The one ring may be a different matter, but are "men" and "ring-wraiths" two different things, in a similar sense?
4]I haven't seen anyone wanting to hate the books, or even to mildly dislike them, for that or any other reason!
5]Who are we to judge?? We are the paying customers! If we buy anything and we are not satisfied with it, we are fully entitled to say so, and why; indeed some would say it is our duty to do just that.
6]You really saw that??
Don't go; you bring an interesting new feel to these exchanges!

 

[Isenho]

aragorn breaking up the fight between M&P and boromir was not needed. this showed that Aragorn later on was angry that they attacked Boromir. why!

 

[Talimon]

3) Read "Teach yourself Elvish in 30 days" from the beginning, don't jump to the middle!: Frodo can grasp clearly the meaning of the Lay of Luthien that Aragorn sings softly to himself, but he doesn't know how to say 'friend' in Elvish? Nice little inconsistency they threw in there.

I hate to raise the dead, but I was reading the book and came over this quote at the doors of Moria:

'What does this writing say?' asked Frodo, who was trying to decipher the inscription on the arch. 'I thought I knew the elf-letters, but I cannot read these.'

'The words are in the elven-tongue of the West of Middle-earth in the Elder Days,' answered Gandalf.

 

[PRH]

Good find. Scratch that one from my complaint list. It still doesn't make much sense in the movie's context though, he knew 'elvish' and the door was written in 'elvish.' There was no knowledge to the viewer of multiple Elvin languages. But to the viewer with background knowledge, this does basically make sense now.

I assume this means Frodo knew Quenya and the door had Sindarin letters?

 

[Gorbag]

I just finished watching the original DVD rlease and there seems to be a very cool scene missing. The scene was a battle scene, Legolas suddenly
appears from out of frame and shoots 3 or more arrows in quick succession at
the oncoming onslaught. They used special effects to make it appear as if he
does this with an impossible swiftness. I think it was the last battle with
the Orcs at the riverside, but I couldn't find it anywhere.

Do you know what scene I'm talking about? Do you know where this scene
takes place? I can't believe they would have taken any scene out in a DVD
release, much less this particular scene.

 

[Confusticated]

Welcome to the forum Gorbag.

I think I do know which scene you are talking about. Happens shortly before Aragorn finds Boromir, right?
If I remember correctly this scene where Legolas does the rapid fire is in the original DVD too, but in the Extended Edition the scene is longer... he shoots off more like 6 or 7 arrows rather than 3 or 4.
Perhaps you missed it... were you watching closely?

 

[gandalfthegreat]

Adaptation People...Adaptation.

-*Gandalf*-