|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Jan 15 2015, 9:23pm
Post #27 of 37
(708 views)
Shortcut
|
You mean you didn't memorize the entire dialogue? For shame! A 'real fan' would have it all committed to memory by now! Nah... I just feel slightly less intelligent now....
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
BlackFox
Half-elven
Jan 15 2015, 9:27pm
Post #28 of 37
(702 views)
Shortcut
|
But it does take some skill to know where to look.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Jan 15 2015, 9:31pm
Post #29 of 37
(707 views)
Shortcut
|
I always thought...There was an extra day of travel from Lake-town to the Mountain, thus the travel montage. Or did Thorin say that Durin's Day was the same as the one they left Lake-town? BlackFox has it covered (thanks, BF!).
"The Great Scaly One protects us from alien invaders and ourselves with his fiery atomic love. It can be a tough love - the “folly of man” and all that - but Godzilla is a fair god. "Godzilla is totally accepting of all people and faiths. For it is written that liberal or conservative, Christian or Muslim or Jew, straight or gay, all people sound pretty much the identical as they are crushed beneath his mighty feet." - Tony Isabella, The First Church of Godzilla (Reform)
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Jan 15 2015, 9:31pm)
|
|
|
RosieLass
Valinor
Jan 16 2015, 11:12pm
Post #30 of 37
(705 views)
Shortcut
|
"Changing characters and their motivations are the worst changes, I find. That is done far too much and always for the worst" I could have accepted everything else, I think, if they had just not tinkered with Aragorn. And Faramir. And Denethor. And Elrond. And...
"BOTH [political] extremes are dangerous. But more dangerous are team fanboys who think all the extremists are on the OTHER side." (CNN reader comment) It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)
|
|
|
MatthewJer18
Rohan
Jan 18 2015, 2:08pm
Post #31 of 37
(680 views)
Shortcut
|
I found Aragorn and Elrond to be more interesting characters in the films than they were in the books. Perhaps that comes down to the performances making the characters "click" more for me, though, especially in Aragorn's case. Elrond never made much of an impression on me either way, but strengthening his connection to Arwen in the films provided a satisfying, emotional arc. *prepares to duck the tomatoes*
(This post was edited by MatthewJer18 on Jan 18 2015, 2:09pm)
|
|
|
Gwytha
Rohan
Jan 18 2015, 5:05pm
Post #32 of 37
(679 views)
Shortcut
|
Ultimately I have felt much the same way about Aragorn
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
though my initial reaction was "wait, that's not the Aragorn I know! Who is this wimpy stranger refusing his destiny?" But as I got to know PJ's version better I came to appreciate him and find him, yes, more interesting than the original Aragorn.
Growth after all is not so much a matter of change as of ripening, and what alters most is the degree of clarity with which we see one another. -Edith Pargeter
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Jan 19 2015, 5:27pm
Post #33 of 37
(671 views)
Shortcut
|
I think that really touches on the fundamental differences between book and film..
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
though my initial reaction was "wait, that's not the Aragorn I know! Who is this wimpy stranger refusing his destiny?" But as I got to know PJ's version better I came to appreciate him and find him, yes, more interesting than the original Aragorn. For me if I was going to sum up the one fundamental difference between Tolkiens books and Jacksons films I would be that the latter do not have the same separation between the Hobbits and everyone else. In the books we only get an "inner view" of the Hobbits and they tend to be the most "humanised" of the characters with an outside perspective similar to the reader and a lot of emotional growth. In the films this literally device was always going to be very hard to repeat and I think Jackson and co made a conscious decision that the other characters should be less "high fantasy" and more humanised. We see it most clearly with the likes of Aragorn, Théoden and Faramir who have much more clearly defined emotional journeys that a modern audience can relate to.
|
|
|
RosieLass
Valinor
Jan 19 2015, 5:45pm
Post #34 of 37
(676 views)
Shortcut
|
...that Aragorn, at least, isn't meant to be "human." His character is written as an archetype, and that by making him more like everyone else, they missed the point. And Faramir, by extension, is supposed to be reflective of the Numenorean "type." So making him Boromir, Jr. also misses the point. Plus, I admire book Aragorn and his high principles, but I do not admire wimpy movie Aragorn. On the other hand, I like movie Boromir better, because they made him nobler and more sympathetic. So it's also simply that I hate to see characters weakened.
"BOTH [political] extremes are dangerous. But more dangerous are team fanboys who think all the extremists are on the OTHER side." (CNN reader comment) It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)
|
|
|
Gwytha
Rohan
Jan 20 2015, 12:06am
Post #35 of 37
(660 views)
Shortcut
|
I think they wanted to create more dramatic tension and pathos
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
now that you mention it, I don't recall Tolkien giving us an inside view of many of the characters' minds other than the hobbits. The only time I can recall getting n inner view of Gandalf was when he was sitting by Frodo's bedside in Rivendell and thinking he looked a bit transparent around the edges; the only time I recollect seeing into Aragorn's mind was when he was trying to track Frodo down in the first chapter of TT. Certainly the films gave us deeper insights into the non hobbit characters. And I agree audiences nowadays expect a lot more emotional journey than they used to.
Growth after all is not so much a matter of change as of ripening, and what alters most is the degree of clarity with which we see one another. -Edith Pargeter
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Jan 21 2015, 2:59pm
Post #36 of 37
(648 views)
Shortcut
|
I think a large part of it is the difference in medium.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
now that you mention it, I don't recall Tolkien giving us an inside view of many of the characters' minds other than the hobbits. The only time I can recall getting n inner view of Gandalf was when he was sitting by Frodo's bedside in Rivendell and thinking he looked a bit transparent around the edges; the only time I recollect seeing into Aragorn's mind was when he was trying to track Frodo down in the first chapter of TT. Certainly the films gave us deeper insights into the non hobbit characters. And I agree audiences nowadays expect a lot more emotional journey than they used to. I would say a big issue is that a book can be much more effective in creating the kind of divide Tolkien has between the Hobbits and the rest of the characters in LOTR. Its not that LOTR on the page is at all lacking in terms of an emotional journey its that the journey is more focused on certain characters
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Jan 22 2015, 7:40am
Post #37 of 37
(704 views)
Shortcut
|
The pacing of FOTR was really what it needed to be for a single film
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
There are definitely aspects of FOTR that having read the book feel a little rushed BUT in terms of creating something that could work as a film I think we really got what we needed on screen. I'm not just talking about runtime either, TTT and ROTK were obviously both longer but rather about focus. You look at those two film and events are for the most part linked into the larger story were as if you extend FOTR a lot of the extra time would likely be devoted more to sidetracks like the Old forrest/Tom/Barrows or more detail around locations like Moria, Lorien and Arnor. The best way to include more of that detail would I'd say have been to simply spilt FOTR into two films. With two films I think it would be easier to add in more detail without distracting from the main narrative. In FOTR as it is I think Frodo's story is really at the centre of it and the Nazgul chase isn't really a climax for him so much as a "prooving ground", the climax is really desiding to leave the fellowship, if you add in the Old Forrest/Barrows its really just more of the same thing dramatically. If one the other hand you spilt FOTR into two films I think its easy to see that the Nazgul chase at the end of film 1 becomes more heroic for Frodo standing up to them more(even if Elrond/Gandalf actually defeat them). In that film I think its easier to see some or all of the Old Forrest/Barrow material working as the same kind of "proving ground". Equally in the second half of FOTR I think it would be easier to see more Moria/Loiren detail included by building it into the plot a bit more, for example introduce the idea of Balin entering Moria earlier and having Gimli and Legolas be fleshed out much earlier rather than waiting until TTT. Much harder to do that partway though a one film FOTR than it would be to do it at the start of a two film version
(This post was edited by moreorless on Jan 22 2015, 7:42am)
|
|
|
|
|