Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Lord of the Rings:
A review of ROTK
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Thor 'n' Oakenshield
Rohan

Jan 4, 10:56pm

Post #26 of 54 (4461 views)
Shortcut
That's very true [In reply to] Can't Post

And just his sheer decision to choose to film that story is commendable, considering how emotional it was for everyone involved.

I love The Hobbit. Always will.

(This post was edited by Thor 'n' Oakenshield on Jan 4, 10:58pm)


squire
Half-elven


Jan 4, 11:10pm

Post #27 of 54 (4459 views)
Shortcut
That stretches 'adaptation' beyond usefulness as a term, I think. [In reply to] Can't Post

If writing an original screenplay about a true story is adaptation, why might we not say that an original screenplay of a fictional story is 'adapted' to the shooting script format from the looser, more fluid ideas in the writer's mental concepts and handwritten notes for the story?

'Adaptation' is rightly held to mean taking a narrative work of art and recasting it into a new narrative medium. It is a significantly different kind of writing than original scripts, whether based on history or not. In adaptation, the basic plot, characters, themes, and episodes have been laid out, and the problem is getting them translated into a different form. It doesn't just apply to book-to-screen scripts; anything from Biblical and historical paintings, to screenplays based on plays and plays based on screeplays, to operas composed from plays and movies of operas, are all examples of the difficult feat of adaptation. I think we should stick to that.

"Heavenly Creatures" is an original screenplay, and speaks to Jackson's abilities purely as a screenwriter, not an adaptive one.



squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Archive: All the TORn Reading Room Book Discussions (including the 1st BotR Discussion!) and Footerama: "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
Dr. Squire introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.


Chen G.
Rohan

Jan 4, 11:20pm

Post #28 of 54 (4454 views)
Shortcut
It is and isn't [In reply to] Can't Post

The main issue with any adapted screenplay is that you have a plot laid out, which you now have to shape such that it flows as a movie would; whereas when you do a perfectly original screenplay, you're essentially making up the story to conform with the structure of your choice.

So a "based on a true story" film is kind of an adaptation, and kind of not.


Ethel Duath
Half-elven


Jan 4, 11:54pm

Post #29 of 54 (4458 views)
Shortcut
My goodness, no. And I strongly prefer the books. [In reply to] Can't Post

I have seen those traits Jackson is supposed to be missing in some of his other movies as well. My guess is the reviewer has his/her own "take" or inner experience with romance, poetry, etc., and when Jackson's movies don't portray such things in ways he/she personally and most naturally experiences them him/herself, perhaps the reviewer doesn't think they're there at all?

Just a guess. I'm rather puzzled.



squire
Half-elven


Jan 5, 12:28am

Post #30 of 54 (4449 views)
Shortcut
I do see your point, but... [In reply to] Can't Post

When one approaches a 'true story', although there may be an established sequence of events in time, and a known set of central characters, those don't actually make a plot - yet. They are the raw materials for any number of plots. A screenwriter tackling a real-world episode, like the journalist that preceded him or her, and the historians that follow, really has to make a set of decisions as to "what the story is" that best presents the events. Who is the protagonist? What is the central conflict? How do any number of subplots fit in? What must be left out, and accounted for all the same in how the omitted material affected the actual events? It's quite tricky, of course, and parallels the creative work an 'original story' writer performs from a rough idea or outline that came from some place inside the head.

I think that makes all the difference between rendering into narrative form a 'true events' situation for the first time, and adapting an existing story whose plot and main characters have already been delineated by another artist. The latter problem, actual 'adaptation', is primarily one of accommodating and taking advantage of medium differences, not of original, from-the-beginning, pure story-telling.



squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Archive: All the TORn Reading Room Book Discussions (including the 1st BotR Discussion!) and Footerama: "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
Dr. Squire introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.


Paulo Gabriel
Rivendell

Jan 5, 1:17am

Post #31 of 54 (4452 views)
Shortcut
Yes... [In reply to] Can't Post

That's a rather radical review. Haha.


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Jan 5, 4:13am

Post #32 of 54 (4435 views)
Shortcut
Does that make "Minor Murder" an adapted play? [In reply to] Can't Post

I remember my sister starring in a high school production of that one more than 30 years ago.


Treachery, treachery I fear; treachery of that miserable creature.

But so it must be. Let us remember that a traitor may betray himself and do good that he does not intend.


-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.


Starling
Half-elven


Jan 5, 4:35am

Post #33 of 54 (4433 views)
Shortcut
So [In reply to] Can't Post

is this based on Parker & Hulme as well?




Paulo Gabriel
Rivendell

Jan 5, 5:27am

Post #34 of 54 (4420 views)
Shortcut
At how far did you get in the review?// [In reply to] Can't Post

 


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Jan 5, 10:10pm

Post #35 of 54 (4342 views)
Shortcut
The Wiki article on the Parker-Hulme murder says it is. [In reply to] Can't Post

I remember trying to confirm this some years ago to no avail, because I had been struck by how much the plot of Heavenly Creatures, gleaned from reviews (I've never seen it), reminded me of the play. Minor Murder is not explictily set in New Zealand, and the cast didn't try to play it with any accents; as I recall, my impression was that it was set in Australia, but that was very possibly me failing to understand the cultural references. I was a sophomore and the leads were played my sister and her best friend, both in the eighth-grade (our high school included five grades rather than the four years most common in the U.S.); one of my best friends played the mother-victim. My English teacher directed, and I remember that she tried to tone down some lesbian elements, but enough hints of that remained that there was controversy in our local suburban newspaper.


Treachery, treachery I fear; treachery of that miserable creature.

But so it must be. Let us remember that a traitor may betray himself and do good that he does not intend.


-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.


Starling
Half-elven


Jan 6, 12:12am

Post #36 of 54 (4326 views)
Shortcut
Yes I think you are right [In reply to] Can't Post

about the source material. Quite shocking for a school play!
It still astounds me that this actually happened in Christchurch in the 50's. And the life of Juliet Hulme as an adult I find quite bizarre.By coincidence, last night I watched a very good short film about Christchurch on film. A number of films shot here are now a valuable record of how we used to be, pre-earthquakes. Christchurch Girls' High features prominently in Heavenly Creatures, and like so many of our historic buildings it is now dust. The Frighteners was shot in Lyttelton, and also serves as a good record of what the town looked like prior to the earthquake in 2011.




Paulo Gabriel
Rivendell

Jan 7, 1:43am

Post #37 of 54 (4261 views)
Shortcut
Did not understand you... [In reply to] Can't Post

I think both ''count'' and ''accounts'' are correct.


(This post was edited by Paulo Gabriel on Jan 7, 1:52am)


Eruonen
Valinor


Jan 7, 1:48am

Post #38 of 54 (4260 views)
Shortcut
Think of a criminal charge [In reply to] Can't Post

On count 1.....guilty
On count 2.....innocent

We would not say On Account 1

"As nouns the difference between count and account is that count is the act of or tallying a quantity or count can be the male ruler of a county; also known as an earl, especially in england the female equivalent is countess while account is (accounting) a registry of pecuniary transactions; a written or printed statement of business dealings or debts and credits, and also of other things subjected to a reckoning or review.
As verbs the difference between count and account is that count is to enumerate the digits of a numeral system while account is to provide explanation. "

https://wikidiff.com/count/account


(This post was edited by Eruonen on Jan 7, 1:49am)


Paulo Gabriel
Rivendell

Jan 7, 1:54am

Post #39 of 54 (4250 views)
Shortcut
Thanks for letting me know that... [In reply to] Can't Post

English is not my native language, so I make mistakes sometimes.....


Eruonen
Valinor


Jan 7, 1:58am

Post #40 of 54 (4246 views)
Shortcut
I understand, English would be very confusing to try and learn. [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Paulo Gabriel
Rivendell

Feb 1, 5:45pm

Post #41 of 54 (3575 views)
Shortcut
To quote the author... [In reply to] Can't Post

it is said: ''My prediction? Within five years it will be obviously dated and the flaws in it impossible to overlook, once the bloom has worn off (or the mass hypnotism) and there will be a similar embarrassment to the ones that followed the euphoria over Titanic and the Godzilla remake, followed eventually by someone setting out to do it right and make a version faithful to the books, without the hubris of thinking they can improve upon it by H'wood conventions''.

Do you think his prediction was correct?


Darkstone
Immortal


Feb 5, 10:04am

Post #42 of 54 (3503 views)
Shortcut
Well [In reply to] Can't Post

I recall a few unfavorable reviews of SW when it first came out. Oddly enough, when the film became a big hit most of those reviewers came out with positive reviews acting like the first reviews didn't happen. Our local newspaper critic was one of the revisionists.

******************************************
Character is what we do on the internet when we think no one knows who we are.


Chen G.
Rohan

Feb 5, 11:13am

Post #43 of 54 (3499 views)
Shortcut
That happens a lot [In reply to] Can't Post

When The Silence of the Lambs first came out, Siskel and Ebert - as an example - weren't particularly full of praise for it. Siskel didn't like it at all (calling it a "trashy project", if you can believe it) and Ebert was more sympathetic but not particularly enthusiastic, pointing that he didn't think the climax worked.


squire
Half-elven


Feb 5, 6:29pm

Post #44 of 54 (3467 views)
Shortcut
When? [In reply to] Can't Post

Reading Ebert's review just now, I get a lot more than "sympathetic but not particularly enthusiastic." As you say, he feels the climax is flawed, but that's stated in this final three paragraph wrap-up of a thoughtful and highly positive review of a genre film:

"Against these [fine] qualities, the weak points of the movie are probably not very important, but there are some. The details of Foster's final showdown with Buffalo Bill are scarcely believable.
"Unless you look closely, you may miss the details of how Lecter deceives his pursuers in one grisly scene. The very last scene in the film is hard to follow.
"But against these flaws are balanced true suspense, unblinking horror and an Anthony Hopkins performance that is likely to be referred to for many years when horror movies are discussed." - 2/14/1991 review.


Well, if for the sake of the discussion we call this a poor review, when did Ebert change his mind and later claim the film was much better than he'd originally written -- as per Darkstone's comment that first reviews are often worse than hypocritically revisionist critics ever acknowledge, and to which you agreed with this example?



squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Archive: All the TORn Reading Room Book Discussions (including the 1st BotR Discussion!) and Footerama: "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
Dr. Squire introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.


Chen G.
Rohan

Feb 5, 7:24pm

Post #45 of 54 (3461 views)
Shortcut
I was thinking more of their review that aired on TV [In reply to] Can't Post

Siskel disliked the film, and Ebert - while he did like it - wasn't nearly as amazed by the picture as you'd except.

Siskel didn't care for Fellowship of the Ring, either.


Silverlode
Forum Admin / Moderator


Feb 5, 9:26pm

Post #46 of 54 (3457 views)
Shortcut
Um... [In reply to] Can't Post

Siskel died in 1999. He never saw LOTR. Maybe you're remembering Richard Roeper, who took his seat next to Ebert for a while. Roeper loved Harry Potter but didn't have the attention span for LOTR and gave it a poor review. Ebert was lukewarm about it, and I got the impression that he'd read the book once in the distant past and had mistaken expectations. They both did some backpedaling later, particularly Roeper.

Silverlode

Roads go ever ever on
Under cloud and under star
Yet feet that wandering have gone
Turn at last to home afar.
Eyes that fire and sword have seen
And horror in the halls of stone
Look at last on meadows green
And trees and hills they long have known.




(This post was edited by Silverlode on Feb 5, 9:28pm)


Chen G.
Rohan

Feb 5, 9:32pm

Post #47 of 54 (3447 views)
Shortcut
Right [In reply to] Can't Post

Ebert likened it at the time to films like Star Wars, which I think is diametric to what both Tolkien and Jackson were trying to achieve.

I have a dislike for people labeling these films under the "adventure" genre (like Star Wars), because in many ways they try to up-end the concept of an adventure story. Tolkien and Jackson tried to represent "adventures" as they truly are: terrifying, harrowing, violent and often tragic.

I think Frodo puts it best, when he says that his quest is about losing a treasure.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Feb 5, 9:37pm)


Darkstone
Immortal


Feb 6, 5:17am

Post #48 of 54 (3417 views)
Shortcut
Here [In reply to] Can't Post

https://www.rogerebert.com/...ce-of-the-lambs-1991

But this is a 10 years later critical reassessment rather than the quickly backtracking and jumping on the bandwagon re-review that I was talking about.

******************************************
Character is what we do on the internet when we think no one knows who we are.


CuriousG
Half-elven


Feb 6, 6:10pm

Post #49 of 54 (3344 views)
Shortcut
I remember that with "Titanic" [In reply to] Can't Post

Though I can't cite specifics, just that I remember lots of negative buzz about how it was over-budget, over-schedule, had problems with the ship sinking too early, etc, and how ridiculous it was that it missed the summer blockbuster season and was doomed to failure. Then [sound of furious pencil erasing and whiting out] when it was a success, critics started talking about what a great movie it was. I kept thinking, "That wasn't your conclusion 6 months ago."


Chen G.
Rohan

Feb 6, 6:26pm

Post #50 of 54 (3335 views)
Shortcut
In a way, though, its understandable [In reply to] Can't Post

There is something to be said for gaining perspective on a film, which includes viewing it two or three times (most professional reviews are written after a single viewing) and reading other people's opinions, as well.

Although I'm not a huge fan of Titanic, specifically, so its also worth noting that sometimes perspective works the other way, and a film that's initially praised to no end, goes under a magnifying glass. Look at the way people look at the racism in The Searchers today.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.