01. I have the Extendid Movie Trilogies and it seems there were More Deleted Scenes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_film_trilogy#Deleted_scenes when do you guys think Jackson will Re-make the Trilogies and Add the Deleted Scenes in. 02. Why did they not use Real Small People to play Hobbits and Dwarfs. 03. Have you guys seen this, http://www.jackflannel.org/lotr it looks like Jackson dident Follow the Books and just made the Movies his way. Did you like the Movies the way Jackson made them, because i find the Person Nit-picking the Books much more Interesting and i Never read them. 04. A weird Question, what is the Diffrence between these Two Towers Movies, or are they the Same. Real http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Rings-Platinum-Special-Extended/dp/B00009TB5G/ref=sr_1_22?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1258919447&sr=8-22 Diffrent Covers http://www.take2.co.za/dvd-lord-of-the-rings-the-two-towers-extended-edition-4-disc-11134.html http://www.take2.co.za/dvd-lord-of-the-rings-the-two-towers-4-disc-extended-1369814.html
Questions about the Movies.
- Thread starter daventry
- Start date
Magpie
Immortal
01. I have the Extendid Movie Trilogies and it seems there were More Deleted Scenes, http://en.wikipedia.org/...ilogy#Deleted_scenes when do you guys think Jackson will Re-make the Trilogies and Add the Deleted Scenes in.
03. part 2 Did you like the Movies the way Jackson made them, because i find the Person Nit-picking the Books much more Interesting and i Never read them.
04. A weird Question, what is the Diffrence between these Two Towers Movies, or are they the Same. Real http://www.amazon.com/...58919447&sr=8-22 Diffrent Covers http://www.take2.co.za/...on-4-disc-11134.html http://www.take2.co.za/...xtended-1369814.html
No. In the brainstorming, creation stage... a lot of ideas will be considered and maybe even actively pursued. Many of those ideas might be abandoned. When some are cut to fit the time constraints of a movie theater format... they could get added in for other (DVD) formats. But some are surely abandoned because they did not work or did not serve the purpose of the final product. In those cases, they may be interesting as stand alone items, but it doesn't mean inserting them all back into the movie would work. Imagine trying to retrofit the discarded ideas of Tolkien's as found in the History of Middle-earth back into the books.
03. part 1: Have you guys seen this, http://www.jackflannel.org/lotr it looks like Jackson dident Follow the Books and just made the Movies his way.
Every person interpreting an existing work of art will put their own stamp on it. Some will take more liberties than others but just the act of reinterpreting a story (subcreation, Tolkien called it) means you are straying from the original creator's full vision. I think Jackson put his own stamp on the story. I don't think he 'just made the movies his way'. He, the other writers, and all the people working on the set, music, costumes, props, etc... all took great care to research Tolkien's original work and I think it was their intention, and I think they mostly succeeded, to honor and respect it.
This doesn't mean that they took no 'liberties' with it and fans of the book will find themselves on a broad continuum as to which of these liberties they liked or didn't like.. or could accept or not accept.
This doesn't mean that they took no 'liberties' with it and fans of the book will find themselves on a broad continuum as to which of these liberties they liked or didn't like.. or could accept or not accept.
03. part 2 Did you like the Movies the way Jackson made them, because i find the Person Nit-picking the Books much more Interesting and i Never read them.
Sorry, I'm not exactly following that last part. The person at that site is not nit-picking the books. They are nit-picking the movies. And you found it more interesting that 'what'? You never read 'what'? The books. Are you saying that you found the nit-picking list more interesting than the books? And if that's the case, how could you find anything more interesting than something you haven't read. I just need to follow your thinking a little better to address your question.
I did find this entry on the nit-picking site important to read:
02. Why did they not use Real Small People to play Hobbits and Dwarfs.I did find this entry on the nit-picking site important to read:
Why I Did This
A lot of the negative emails I get seemed interested in why I would waste my time tackling a project like this. I just finished responding to one fella, and this is what I had to say to him:
When I walked out of ROTK, I couldn't get the Frodo-sending-Sam-home bit out of my head. Why, I asked myself was that really necessary. I had forgiven Jackson all the other major changes, but I just didn't understand that.
A couple weeks later, I was preparing for a trip to Japan. I was looking at a 16 hour plane ride there and a 13 hour plane ride back (plus time in airport terminals). I figured that it'd be good to bring along something I knew I'd enjoy reading for such an extended period of time. True, I could have taken along some Chomsky or Paul Krugman's latest, but I didn't really think I could read something like that for such an extended sitting. The Lord of the Rings, however, seemed like the perfect choice. I'd read it many times before and felt that it might be a good idea to give it another run through after taking in Jackson's films (I hadn't read it since '98). Then the thought struck me (probably as a result of the Frodo/Sam thing just refusing to go away), why not make a list of deviations between the book and the film. I figured it might make said re-reading a little more interesting, and that it'd be kind of cool to have around as a reference (I am a librarian, by the way).
And so I made the list. I never thought it would end up being so long, but once I start a project, I see it through (and, I'm a stickler for detail--just my personality).
When it was done, I thought it might be fun to share. A pal thought that if I put it on the web, it might generate some interesting traffic. Being one who enjoys creating web pages to a degree, I humored him and put it together. He then posted it to SlashDot, etc., not me.
Anyway, this is all to say that the list started out as a way to keep myself busy on a long flight. Then, my obsessive side took over. As I stated, I understand that film lends itself to a different telling than text (and I've updated the webpage with a note to that effect). And I do enjoy the films though that may not be overtly apparent.
If anything, I put this together for other interested parties (i.e. other purists) to check out. It's not intended as an attack on Jackson...though I do rue a few decisions he made. I don't think that's such a crime.
This sounds exactly like something I would do... make a list. I love researching and making lists. I am obsessive. I enjoy creating web pages. A lot of the negative emails I get seemed interested in why I would waste my time tackling a project like this. I just finished responding to one fella, and this is what I had to say to him:
When I walked out of ROTK, I couldn't get the Frodo-sending-Sam-home bit out of my head. Why, I asked myself was that really necessary. I had forgiven Jackson all the other major changes, but I just didn't understand that.
A couple weeks later, I was preparing for a trip to Japan. I was looking at a 16 hour plane ride there and a 13 hour plane ride back (plus time in airport terminals). I figured that it'd be good to bring along something I knew I'd enjoy reading for such an extended period of time. True, I could have taken along some Chomsky or Paul Krugman's latest, but I didn't really think I could read something like that for such an extended sitting. The Lord of the Rings, however, seemed like the perfect choice. I'd read it many times before and felt that it might be a good idea to give it another run through after taking in Jackson's films (I hadn't read it since '98). Then the thought struck me (probably as a result of the Frodo/Sam thing just refusing to go away), why not make a list of deviations between the book and the film. I figured it might make said re-reading a little more interesting, and that it'd be kind of cool to have around as a reference (I am a librarian, by the way).
And so I made the list. I never thought it would end up being so long, but once I start a project, I see it through (and, I'm a stickler for detail--just my personality).
When it was done, I thought it might be fun to share. A pal thought that if I put it on the web, it might generate some interesting traffic. Being one who enjoys creating web pages to a degree, I humored him and put it together. He then posted it to SlashDot, etc., not me.
Anyway, this is all to say that the list started out as a way to keep myself busy on a long flight. Then, my obsessive side took over. As I stated, I understand that film lends itself to a different telling than text (and I've updated the webpage with a note to that effect). And I do enjoy the films though that may not be overtly apparent.
If anything, I put this together for other interested parties (i.e. other purists) to check out. It's not intended as an attack on Jackson...though I do rue a few decisions he made. I don't think that's such a crime.
My guess is that they just had a larger pool of actors to chose from by not going that route. Of course, you know that people of short stature did 'play' Hobbits and Dwarves. They just weren't the primary actors for those roles.
04. A weird Question, what is the Diffrence between these Two Towers Movies, or are they the Same. Real http://www.amazon.com/...58919447&sr=8-22 Diffrent Covers http://www.take2.co.za/...on-4-disc-11134.html http://www.take2.co.za/...xtended-1369814.html
I don't think there is any difference between them except for any differences there might be in DVD region or standard (you have to match what your DVD will play. If you order from the country of your residence, you should get what you need. If you order 'import', you might get something your DVD player can't play).
The other effect that region can play is in content. The actual content of the movies will be the same but the extras might be different. For example, the UK version of FOTR-EE (extended edition - the four disc sets), does not have one of the easter eggs on it. But that's a countrywide decision that has to do with age appropriateness ratings. You can't buy any UK version of the movie with that easter egg on it so you don't have to worry about choosing the 'one that has it' instead of the 'one that does'.
Did that make sense?
The other effect that region can play is in content. The actual content of the movies will be the same but the extras might be different. For example, the UK version of FOTR-EE (extended edition - the four disc sets), does not have one of the easter eggs on it. But that's a countrywide decision that has to do with age appropriateness ratings. You can't buy any UK version of the movie with that easter egg on it so you don't have to worry about choosing the 'one that has it' instead of the 'one that does'.
Did that make sense?
squire
Half-elven
Regarding daventry's second question: "Did you like the Movies the way Jackson made them, because i find the Person Nit-picking the Books much more Interesting and i Never read them."
I think daventry is saying "Did you like the movies the way Jackson made them? Because I find this person who was nit-picking the movies, compared to the books, was making some very interesting points; but I never read the books."
Yup, it is quite an eyeopener for a movie-firster/book-neverer, to read about all the changes that were made from the book to the movies! As to how a knowledge of the book affects our view of Jackson's films: you're dead on, it's been different for each of us.
I think daventry is saying "Did you like the movies the way Jackson made them? Because I find this person who was nit-picking the movies, compared to the books, was making some very interesting points; but I never read the books."
Yup, it is quite an eyeopener for a movie-firster/book-neverer, to read about all the changes that were made from the book to the movies! As to how a knowledge of the book affects our view of Jackson's films: you're dead on, it's been different for each of us.
OhioHobbit
Rohan
We have been discussing the DVD EE Appendices lately. Have you seen any of those yet? You might find a few answers to some of your questions in the Appendices for Fellowship of the Ring, Part One: From Book to Vision, in the section From Book to Script.
grammaboodawg
Immortal
Welcome! Great questions. Here are a few of my thoughts:
01. I have the Extendid Movie Trilogies and it seems there were More Deleted Scenes, http://en.wikipedia.org/...ilogy#Deleted_scenes when do you guys think Jackson will Re-make the Trilogies and Add the Deleted Scenes in.
We've been waiting a long time for Jackson to give us a dvd with the deleted scenes. A few years ago, he said he intended to do a dvd with those unused scenes, but there would be no music. Just the scenes. That would be fine with me!! There is no news about them being done right now.
Here a pictoral list of Unused scenes slideshow I've gathered.
02. Why did they not use Real Small People to play Hobbits and Dwarfs.
I'm sure they considered using Small People, but I think they needed to have the best actors they could find to portray these characters, and being limited to actors under 4 1/2 feet tall would be very difficult to do. The scale doubles for the Hobbits were very good, but could they act to the degree needed to be Frodo, Sam, Merry or Pippin? I don't think so. Jackson would have to find 4 very good Small actors, or 4 very good regular-size actors and deal with the scale issues. Same as for the Dwarf, Gimli. I think he made the right decision
03. Have you guys seen this, http://www.jackflannel.org/lotr it looks like Jackson dident Follow the Books and just made the Movies his way. Did you like the Movies the way Jackson made them, because i find the Person Nit-picking the Books much more Interesting and i Never read them.
Jackson is the first person to admit that he couldn't follow the book without changes. He says that he told the story his way and was not trying to follow the text word for word. All adaptations have changes. For years The Lord of the Rings has been said to be un-filmable. I think Peter Jackson did as well as could ever be expected in bringing this story to film while still maintaining the spirit of Tolkien's work and world.
I have read The Lord of the Rings at least once a year for the past 38 years, and I absolutely love Jackson's films! I do not focus on the nitpicking negative observations about the films. With everything Jackson, the actors, the composer, the writers, and everyone who brought this story to life... after everything the went through to make these magical films, I could never diminish them by focusing on any negatives.
We've made a list here of our own obervations. Please see the link at the bottom of my post if you'd like to see a list of observations for each of the films..
If you have never read the books, I strongly encourage you to do so. They are excellent, and you'd be able to judge the changes for yourself. You're in for a real treat. Please let us know what you think about the books I'd love to hear your thoughts!!!
04. A weird Question, what is the Diffrence between these Two Towers Movies, or are they the Same. Real http://www.amazon.com/...58919447&sr=8-22 Diffrent Covers http://www.take2.co.za/...on-4-disc-11134.html http://www.take2.co.za/...xtended-1369814.html
I'm sorry I can't tell you the difference between these dvd's as the second link didn't work for me.
01. I have the Extendid Movie Trilogies and it seems there were More Deleted Scenes, http://en.wikipedia.org/...ilogy#Deleted_scenes when do you guys think Jackson will Re-make the Trilogies and Add the Deleted Scenes in.
We've been waiting a long time for Jackson to give us a dvd with the deleted scenes. A few years ago, he said he intended to do a dvd with those unused scenes, but there would be no music. Just the scenes. That would be fine with me!! There is no news about them being done right now.
Here a pictoral list of Unused scenes slideshow I've gathered.
02. Why did they not use Real Small People to play Hobbits and Dwarfs.
I'm sure they considered using Small People, but I think they needed to have the best actors they could find to portray these characters, and being limited to actors under 4 1/2 feet tall would be very difficult to do. The scale doubles for the Hobbits were very good, but could they act to the degree needed to be Frodo, Sam, Merry or Pippin? I don't think so. Jackson would have to find 4 very good Small actors, or 4 very good regular-size actors and deal with the scale issues. Same as for the Dwarf, Gimli. I think he made the right decision
03. Have you guys seen this, http://www.jackflannel.org/lotr it looks like Jackson dident Follow the Books and just made the Movies his way. Did you like the Movies the way Jackson made them, because i find the Person Nit-picking the Books much more Interesting and i Never read them.
Jackson is the first person to admit that he couldn't follow the book without changes. He says that he told the story his way and was not trying to follow the text word for word. All adaptations have changes. For years The Lord of the Rings has been said to be un-filmable. I think Peter Jackson did as well as could ever be expected in bringing this story to film while still maintaining the spirit of Tolkien's work and world.
I have read The Lord of the Rings at least once a year for the past 38 years, and I absolutely love Jackson's films! I do not focus on the nitpicking negative observations about the films. With everything Jackson, the actors, the composer, the writers, and everyone who brought this story to life... after everything the went through to make these magical films, I could never diminish them by focusing on any negatives.
We've made a list here of our own obervations. Please see the link at the bottom of my post if you'd like to see a list of observations for each of the films..
If you have never read the books, I strongly encourage you to do so. They are excellent, and you'd be able to judge the changes for yourself. You're in for a real treat. Please let us know what you think about the books
I'd love to hear your thoughts!!! 04. A weird Question, what is the Diffrence between these Two Towers Movies, or are they the Same. Real http://www.amazon.com/...58919447&sr=8-22 Diffrent Covers http://www.take2.co.za/...on-4-disc-11134.html http://www.take2.co.za/...xtended-1369814.html
I'm sorry I can't tell you the difference between these dvd's as the second link didn't work for me.
In Reply To
__________________________________________________
03. part 2 Did you like the Movies the way Jackson made them, because i find the Person Nit-picking the Books much more Interesting and i Never read them.
I meant what he said. [blush]
__________________________________________________
03. part 2 Did you like the Movies the way Jackson made them, because i find the Person Nit-picking the Books much more Interesting and i Never read them.
Sorry, I'm not exactly following that last part. The person at that site is not nit-picking the books. They are nit-picking the movies. And you found it more interesting that 'what'? You never read 'what'? The books. Are you saying that you found the nit-picking list more interesting than the books? And if that's the case, how could you find anything more interesting than something you haven't read. I just need to follow your thinking a little better to address your question.
[/QUOTE]
I meant what he said. [blush]
Please give me the Direct Link, for i cant seem to find it and thanks for your Answers. [cool]
grammaboodawg
Immortal
And thank you for your response to our post! It's great to have you here!!
Here's the link to our lists. This page will take you to an explanation of how the lists were compiled (and why). You'll find an index on the left margin for each of the films. You won't find one single nit-pick in the bunch!
Cheers, daventry!!!
Here's the link to our lists. This page will take you to an explanation of how the lists were compiled (and why). You'll find an index on the left margin for each of the films. You won't find one single nit-pick in the bunch!
Cheers, daventry!!!
Magpie
Immortal
gramma is usually trying to cram one more post in before flying to some other task that needs her attention. I'm guessing she meant to link you to this list.
Appendices Discussion
Let me know if that doesn't work for you. This is a wiki set up we're beta testing.
Appendices Discussion
Let me know if that doesn't work for you. This is a wiki set up we're beta testing.
grammaboodawg
Immortal
Thanks from me, too, Magpie!! 
weaver
Half-elven
Looks like you got some good answers already, but I'll add my two cents on three of them...
1) I think Jackson is done with LOTR -- maybe we'll get a special super deluxe version with some of the unused footage in a special anniversary year edition of the films, but I doubt it will be reinserted into the films...
2) They wanted people who could act, not just be physically small
3) What we got in the films was the book seen through the eyes of a film maker who makes movies like PJ makes them -- he kept what made cinematic sense to him, ramped up parts that needed embelishment to work on screen -- or which would make great on screen moments -- and added things to make the story work on screen that replaced what Tolkien took pages and pages to do in the books, or which would not translate well to a modern or non-book audience (like Arwen doing nothing but making a banner and then showing up out of nowhere to marry Aragorn)
Welcome to the boards and make yourself at home!
1) I think Jackson is done with LOTR -- maybe we'll get a special super deluxe version with some of the unused footage in a special anniversary year edition of the films, but I doubt it will be reinserted into the films...
2) They wanted people who could act, not just be physically small
3) What we got in the films was the book seen through the eyes of a film maker who makes movies like PJ makes them -- he kept what made cinematic sense to him, ramped up parts that needed embelishment to work on screen -- or which would make great on screen moments -- and added things to make the story work on screen that replaced what Tolkien took pages and pages to do in the books, or which would not translate well to a modern or non-book audience (like Arwen doing nothing but making a banner and then showing up out of nowhere to marry Aragorn)
Welcome to the boards and make yourself at home!
Darkstone
Immortal
01. I have the Extendid Movie Trilogies and it seems there were More Deleted Scenes, http://en.wikipedia.org/...ilogy#Deleted_scenes when do you guys think Jackson will Re-make the Trilogies and Add the Deleted Scenes in.
Jackson has said he does not plan on making any new revisions to the Trilogy. He said there comes a point at which inserting additional scenes will destroy the pacing and dynamics of the existing versions. (Personally I feel the existing EEs already have done that, which is why I prefer the Theatrical Releases.)
While it is nice to imagine that there are whole sections of the books that were filmed and have yet to be seen, that is not really the case. Jackson shot an unprecedented 6 million feet of film (1100 miles). However, most of that is simply reshoots of the same scene (Jackson averaged around 3 shots for a scene) and/or different angles of the same scene. (Up to 5 or 6 cameras so that could be 15, 18, or even more shots of the same scene.) There’s also lots of second unit shots, such as hours and hours of Liv Tyler's riding double being chased by the Nazgul, almost 100 takes of the simbelmynë flower falling, and hours and hours of battle scenes of extras fighting at Helm’s Deep and the Pelennor. (Some people thought the battle scenes were already too long in the theatrical releases.) There’s also portions of scenes that were began but never completed, such as Eowyn’s sword fight with an Uruk in the Glittering Caves after she acts as a midwife. (There’s just some shots of her with bloody arms and a sword hiding behind a stalagmite. The midwife scene was never shot, nor was the subsequent fight.) There are scenes that they were just unable to make work on film, such as around 30 takes of Sam trying to get past the Watchers of Cirith Ungol. (There are already lots of scenes in the EEs which don't really work. It's well to keep in mind that there was a reason why they were cut.) Finally, there are also some dead ends, such as scenes with the actors (such as Gimli) in makeup or outfits that the filmmakers later discarded, Gandalf when they thought it would be more politically correct for him to eat toffees instead of smoking tobacco, and the Rohirrim speaking with Irish accents.
02. Why did they not use Real Small People to play Hobbits and Dwarfs.
Jackson said in an early “20 Questions” that they wanted the freedom of a large pool of actors to choose from. For example, they auditioned 150 actors for Frodo, out of hundreds and hundreds of applicants.
03. Have you guys seen this, http://www.jackflannel.org/lotr it looks like Jackson dident Follow the Books and just made the Movies his way.
You could take any movie adaptation of a book and make a similar list. There are some adaptations that went wrong by getting away from a book, and others that failed by following a book too closely. There are some adaptations that catch the spirit of the book while blithely tossing away major catalyzing incidents, radically changing the appearance and/or personality of all the major characters, and ignoring major themes of the original work. Yet fans of the book will declare that it’s absolutely "perfect". (For example, Peter Jackson’s Fellowship of the Ring.)
Did you like the Movies the way Jackson made them, because i find the Person Nit-picking the Books much more Interesting and i Never read them.
A lot of people start reading the book and stop halfway through the first volume. It can be very hard going. The main stumbling blocks seem to be Tom Bombadil and The Council of Elrond. But if you can get past those two it's very rewarding. And with subsequent rereadings even those two can become favorites.
04. A weird Question, what is the Diffrence between these Two Towers Movies, or are they the Same. Real http://www.amazon.com/...58919447&sr=8-22 Diffrent Covers http://www.take2.co.za/...on-4-disc-11134.html http://www.take2.co.za/...xtended-1369814.html
One is in Region 1 code, the other is in Region 2 code. Studios format dvds in different codes to control the areas of the world where a dvd can be played. This way a studio can make sure that a dvd is released in, say, the United States before people in Europe can see it. Or a studio can make sure that a dvd with content that one part of the world doesn’t object to can't be seen in a part of the world where the same content would spark protests. But mainly a studio does it to prevent a dvd that is sold cheaply in one region from being sold in a region of the world where that same dvd receives a huge markup in price
So the first dvd won't play on a Region 2 dvd player, while the second won't play on a Region 1 dvd player.
Jackson has said he does not plan on making any new revisions to the Trilogy. He said there comes a point at which inserting additional scenes will destroy the pacing and dynamics of the existing versions. (Personally I feel the existing EEs already have done that, which is why I prefer the Theatrical Releases.)
While it is nice to imagine that there are whole sections of the books that were filmed and have yet to be seen, that is not really the case. Jackson shot an unprecedented 6 million feet of film (1100 miles). However, most of that is simply reshoots of the same scene (Jackson averaged around 3 shots for a scene) and/or different angles of the same scene. (Up to 5 or 6 cameras so that could be 15, 18, or even more shots of the same scene.) There’s also lots of second unit shots, such as hours and hours of Liv Tyler's riding double being chased by the Nazgul, almost 100 takes of the simbelmynë flower falling, and hours and hours of battle scenes of extras fighting at Helm’s Deep and the Pelennor. (Some people thought the battle scenes were already too long in the theatrical releases.) There’s also portions of scenes that were began but never completed, such as Eowyn’s sword fight with an Uruk in the Glittering Caves after she acts as a midwife. (There’s just some shots of her with bloody arms and a sword hiding behind a stalagmite. The midwife scene was never shot, nor was the subsequent fight.) There are scenes that they were just unable to make work on film, such as around 30 takes of Sam trying to get past the Watchers of Cirith Ungol. (There are already lots of scenes in the EEs which don't really work. It's well to keep in mind that there was a reason why they were cut.) Finally, there are also some dead ends, such as scenes with the actors (such as Gimli) in makeup or outfits that the filmmakers later discarded, Gandalf when they thought it would be more politically correct for him to eat toffees instead of smoking tobacco, and the Rohirrim speaking with Irish accents.
02. Why did they not use Real Small People to play Hobbits and Dwarfs.
Jackson said in an early “20 Questions” that they wanted the freedom of a large pool of actors to choose from. For example, they auditioned 150 actors for Frodo, out of hundreds and hundreds of applicants.
03. Have you guys seen this, http://www.jackflannel.org/lotr it looks like Jackson dident Follow the Books and just made the Movies his way.
You could take any movie adaptation of a book and make a similar list. There are some adaptations that went wrong by getting away from a book, and others that failed by following a book too closely. There are some adaptations that catch the spirit of the book while blithely tossing away major catalyzing incidents, radically changing the appearance and/or personality of all the major characters, and ignoring major themes of the original work. Yet fans of the book will declare that it’s absolutely "perfect". (For example, Peter Jackson’s Fellowship of the Ring.)
Did you like the Movies the way Jackson made them, because i find the Person Nit-picking the Books much more Interesting and i Never read them.
A lot of people start reading the book and stop halfway through the first volume. It can be very hard going. The main stumbling blocks seem to be Tom Bombadil and The Council of Elrond. But if you can get past those two it's very rewarding. And with subsequent rereadings even those two can become favorites.
04. A weird Question, what is the Diffrence between these Two Towers Movies, or are they the Same. Real http://www.amazon.com/...58919447&sr=8-22 Diffrent Covers http://www.take2.co.za/...on-4-disc-11134.html http://www.take2.co.za/...xtended-1369814.html
One is in Region 1 code, the other is in Region 2 code. Studios format dvds in different codes to control the areas of the world where a dvd can be played. This way a studio can make sure that a dvd is released in, say, the United States before people in Europe can see it. Or a studio can make sure that a dvd with content that one part of the world doesn’t object to can't be seen in a part of the world where the same content would spark protests. But mainly a studio does it to prevent a dvd that is sold cheaply in one region from being sold in a region of the world where that same dvd receives a huge markup in price
So the first dvd won't play on a Region 2 dvd player, while the second won't play on a Region 1 dvd player.
Last edited:
Eldy
Tol Eressea
Others have answered your points, but I thought I'd take a try with this one:
I have seen that and I think it's a very comprehensive list of everything that was changed. I also don't think that everything on that list shows that Jackson had disregard for the book though as it is a given that changes will be made in the process of adaptation. At the same time, this doesn't mean that all changes are necessary. Simply put, Jackson had to make the story fit the medium of film but he didn't have to (and in my opinion, should not have) changed the story itself. Yet when he changes characters (such as Frodo, Aragorn, Faramir, Denethor, and others) or the plot (such as increasing the role of Helm's Deep to be the climax of The Two Towers; or omitting the Scouring of the Shire - essential, according to Tolkien) he changed the story itself. Since the entire purpose of adaptation is to adapt an existing story, I'm not sure how appealing to the necessities of adaptation can explain away or excuse these changes.
I think your assessment of Jackson's approach to making the films is accurate. While Jackson and his co-writers have claimed to try to stick to the book, their actions in adaptation speak otherwise. While they can claim to have honored the "spirit" of Tolkien, I have yet to see a working definition of spirit that is not too subjective to use in a discussion.
I actually did like the films as works of cinema - I think they were spectacular - but not as adaptations of the book. I don't nit pick all the details since I find it pointless, merely the big changes that were made.
I have seen that and I think it's a very comprehensive list of everything that was changed. I also don't think that everything on that list shows that Jackson had disregard for the book though as it is a given that changes will be made in the process of adaptation. At the same time, this doesn't mean that all changes are necessary. Simply put, Jackson had to make the story fit the medium of film but he didn't have to (and in my opinion, should not have) changed the story itself. Yet when he changes characters (such as Frodo, Aragorn, Faramir, Denethor, and others) or the plot (such as increasing the role of Helm's Deep to be the climax of The Two Towers; or omitting the Scouring of the Shire - essential, according to Tolkien) he changed the story itself. Since the entire purpose of adaptation is to adapt an existing story, I'm not sure how appealing to the necessities of adaptation can explain away or excuse these changes.
I think your assessment of Jackson's approach to making the films is accurate. While Jackson and his co-writers have claimed to try to stick to the book, their actions in adaptation speak otherwise. While they can claim to have honored the "spirit" of Tolkien, I have yet to see a working definition of spirit that is not too subjective to use in a discussion.
I actually did like the films as works of cinema - I think they were spectacular - but not as adaptations of the book. I don't nit pick all the details since I find it pointless, merely the big changes that were made.
mamph17
The Shire
In response to your first question, you can find an answer in the dvd commentary. Jackson continually says remind me to include that in the 25 anniversary addition. SO I feel that maybe someday we will see a version with more deleted scenes. It may be 5,6 hours long but it would be pretty cool.
Eldy
Tol Eressea
Jackson, Boyens, and Walsh joked a lot about the 25th Anniversary Edition but I think they were largely joking. If I recall correctly they mentioned filming additional scenes as well, which would be rather difficult with the actors (though they could do some scenes ... George Lucas pulled it off with the Original Star Wars Trilogy).
If they do include deleted scenes on future releases (perhaps the Blu-ray one) I doubt that they'll be integrated into the body of the film proper, but rather included as bonus features. The EEs are already incredibly long (I have yet to meet someone who did not laugh out loud upon first hearing that ROTK-EE is over four hours long) and five or six seems excessive even to me (though clearly some will disagree).
If they do include deleted scenes on future releases (perhaps the Blu-ray one) I doubt that they'll be integrated into the body of the film proper, but rather included as bonus features. The EEs are already incredibly long (I have yet to meet someone who did not laugh out loud upon first hearing that ROTK-EE is over four hours long) and five or six seems excessive even to me (though clearly some will disagree).
RaoulJ
Rivendell
You need a lot, a lot, of material to make another 2 hours. The material isn't there. There may be some scenes cut from the EE, but that will probably be about 10 minutes or even less per movie. Radagast, Ghan Buri Ghan (spelling?), some scenes in the Rivendell-talking-scene (not that interesting; the scene already slowed the pacing too much.. And PJ and crew have made that scene already enough informing), maybe some battle scenes and shots, but not much. These scenes will probably never be put into the EE, too much pacing problems.
What may be the possibility is that when they are recutting the EE, they will include other angles, and maybe new special effects, thus creating a new movie. But the films will not be 4,5 or 6 hours long.
What may be the possibility is that when they are recutting the EE, they will include other angles, and maybe new special effects, thus creating a new movie. But the films will not be 4,5 or 6 hours long.
Oscarilbo
Lorien
I would certainly like to see some scenes that PJ himself said he would love to have but there wasn`t enough time and money:
he said it referring on SHOWING different kingdoms in battle also, thus we can learn that evil has spread all over Middle Earth. I think that could just require seconds maybe, not an entire extra plot or something.
cheers!
he said it referring on SHOWING different kingdoms in battle also, thus we can learn that evil has spread all over Middle Earth. I think that could just require seconds maybe, not an entire extra plot or something.
cheers!