Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the wargs of fandom!
Read the article this discussion is about
- Dominator
- zn31
- zn31
- Wraithbane
- giRL2oo6
- Michael_Martinez
- Michael_Martinez
- akb
- HELSA
- cstevens164
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
« Previous 1 2 Next »
» Dominator - Applauses to P.J
I think that this movie is better (should I say far better) than the first one. However, Sauron was somehow silly (I can't think any reason why any Dark Lord would take the form of a huge eye composed of red energy) and Faramir's and Theoden's characters were altered all too much for my liking. Faramir was a noble, righteous and wise man, not some block-headed guy who wants to show to his father, that he found the One Ring of Power of Sauron. And Theoden was too pessimistic at times and at other times too sure of invincibility of Helm's Deep.But I must admit, I liked how Gandalf literally threw Saruman out of King Theoden's body and how ol' Christopher Lee had to jump to the ground.
-- posted by Dominator
» zn31 - interesting review
Some thoughts.#1, I don't care about literal book loyalty. In the least. To me, all the changes were fine. Jackson doesn't presenTolkienen---he presents a *vision* oTolkienen. That's unavoidable. Which, as I say, is fine.
Points:
* Theodenheoden does not come across as a "coward," as some implied---he comes across as someone who isn't quite up to the crisis, but means well, and is heroic in his own right. (He chargewargs wargs, for example.) He is, however, consumed with the idea of destruction. He laments being the last of his line. He thinks the situation might be hopeless but wants his people to make a heroic, memorable stand at Helms Deep (he is very Viking-like in caring a great deal about how his people will be remembered.) I thought he was an interesting character. His "task" in the film, it seems to me, is to show one dark side in the theme of hope. Throughout the film (as in the book) people are constantly tempted to abandon Legolasegolas does this in the film---"I was wrong to despair")Faramir Faramir. I have no problems, none, with changing him. I do have some cinematic problems with how his transformation occurs. It is way too movie convenient (which is to say, it was not properly grounded or well worked out). Basically, we are shown this potential absurdity: Frodoes Frodo nearly give the riNazgula Nazgul, and on that basis...decides tFrodost Frodo to wander (virtually) aloMordoro Mordor? It's as if heBoromir'soromir's warning---"what happeSauronn Sauron takes back what is his?" So, on what basis doeFaramir Faramir decide to forfeit his life in order to let this (to him) dangerously untrustworthy hobbit wander with the ring into the domain of the enemy?
In short, they don't script it well and don't give enough useful screen time to the decision, so you are left with two choices:
1. It looks absurd and convenient.
2. You as the viewer are supposed to supply on the inferences and suppositionsFaramir'slain Faramiies decision, ie. you are supposed to supply all the things the film DOESN'T. Even 15 more seconds of dialogue might have made this work. It doesn't work, IMO, as it stands.
As a whole, I think the film is magnificent. I only have problems with the last 20 minutes, where a lot of corners are cutFaramirding the Faramir "decision," as described above). (Also there'Osgiliatht that Osgiliath is supposed to be facing overwhelOrcs numbers of Orcs on the eastern sFrodo yet, when Frodo and Sam resume their Osgiliathwe see Osgiliath in the background..orcs there's no orcs anywhere and the two of them don't act as if they might encounter any. It's as if they left the sack of Rome for a picnic.)
The last 20 minutes don't work for me CINEMATICALLY---but they do not undermine the whole film, which works brilliantly.
-- posted by zn31
» zn31 - interesting review
PS I had trouble editing this because the spellcheck ravaged it---hence the multiple postings.Anyway.
Some thoughts.
#1, I don't care about literal book loyalty. In the least. To me, all the changes were fine. Jackson doesn't present "Tolkien"---he presents a *vision* of Tolkien. That's unavoidable. Which, as I say, is fine.
Points:
* Theoden does not come across as a "coward," as some implied---he comes across as someone who isn't quite up to the crisis, but means well, and is heroic in his own right. (He charges wargs, for example.) He is, however, consumed with the idea of destruction. He laments being the last of his line. He thinks the situation might be hopeless but wants his people to make a heroic, memorable stand at Helms Deep (he is very Viking-like in caring a great deal about how his people will be remembered.) I thought he was an interesting character. His "task" in the film, it seems to me, is to show one dark side in the theme of hope. Throughout the film (as in the book) people are constantly tempted to abandon hope (Legolas does this in the film---"I was wrong to despair")
Faramir. I have no problems, none, with changing him. I do have some cinematic problems with how he makes his final choice to release Frodo. It is way too movie convenient (which is to say, it was not properly grounded or well worked out, and I mean cinematically). Basically, we are shown this potential absurdity: Frodo nearly give the ring to the Nazgul, and on that basis...Faramir decides to let Frodo to wander (virtually) alone into Mordor? It's as if he forgot Boromir's warning---"what happens when Sauron takes back what is his?" So, on what basis does Faramir decide to forfeit his life in order to let this (to him) dangerously untrustworthy hobbit wander---with the ring---into the domain of the enemy? (?)
In short, they don't script it well and don't give enough useful screen time to the decision, so you are left with two choices:
1. It looks absurd and convenient.
2. You as the viewer are supposed to supply on the inferences and suppositions that explain Faramiies decision, ie. you are supposed to supply all the things the film DOESN'T. Even 15 more seconds of dialogue might have made this work. It doesn't work, IMO, as it stands.
As a whole, I think the film is magnificent. I only have problems with the last 20 minutes, where a lot of corners are cut. (Including the Faramir "decision," as described above). (Also t Osgiliath is supposed to be facing overwhelming numbers of Orcs, who hold the eastern shore, yet, when Frodo and Sam resume their journey, we see Osgiliath in the background... and there's no orcs anywhere, and the two of them don't act as if they might encounter any. It's as if they left the sack of Rome for a picnic.)
The last 20 minutes don't work for me CINEMATICALLY---but they do not undermine the whole film, which works brilliantly.
-- posted by zn31
» Wraithbane - CT repudiated The Silmarillion
Another great essay, but one line in particular intrigues me:…then why the heck are you people reading (and enjoying) The Silmarillion? It doesn't matter who composed the published The Silmarillion. Christopher Tolkien himself has repudiated the authority of the book.
I've read quite a bit about how TS cannot be considered a truly canonical text concerning ME, but what is CT's current thinking about the the relationship of TS and the body of work published in his father's lifetime? Maybe someone can point me to where this issue is more fully fleshed out.
Thanks.
-- posted by Wraithbane
» giRL2oo6 - gollum
*in your article, you said:In the scene where Frodo and Sam subdue Gollum, I had to ask myself several times, "How did they do that?
*i just wanted to let you know that andy serkis(sp?) who does the voice of gollum, did every scene. then the computer people added gollum over him. if that makes any sense.
-- posted by giRL2oo6
» Michael_Martinez - Re: gollum
In response to message posted by giRL2oo6:Many people contacted me about Andy Serkis. (Insert smile here).
I was aware of who acted out the role in blue-screen/green-screen and motion-capture technology. I'm afraid I failed to make the point I wanted to make in the article. Even knowing the basics behind the technology (and who the physical actor was), I was still impressed with the fact that they pulled off such a clean capture of multiple character perspectives (humans, human-model, and CGI).
Or, to put it more simply, I asked myself a rhetorical question while experiencing the fascination of the movie. But I appreciate all the good will my curiosity elicited from readers around the world.
-- posted by Michael_Martinez
» Michael_Martinez - Re: CT repudiated The Silmarillion
In response to message posted by Wraithbane:I've read quite a bit about how TS cannot be considered a truly canonical text concerning ME, but what is CT's current thinking about the the relationship of TS and the body of work published in his father's lifetime? Maybe someone can point me to where this issue is more fully fleshed out.
Other than the fact that he has stated that the published Silmarillion is not the book his father would have written, and is at best an approximation of one possible outcome of his father's efforts, I don't know what else Christopher could say on the subject.
-- posted by Michael_Martinez
» akb - Re: interesting review
In response to message posted by zn31:Re: Faramir
Actually, this was the one change I had a _real_ problem with. I could see the reasons for most of the others but this one seemed both dire and unsupported. In my understanding of LOTR, Faramir is supposed to be very different from Boromir. His own father considered him to be too much like Gandalf (he comes across as brooding, wise and farsighted), an irony because Faramir was actually more like Denethor than Boromir was and yet this is the reason that his father loves Boromir and rejects Faramir. I'm assuming that the whole 'forfeit his life' business must be how they're going to deal with the rejection in ROTR instead of the real reason in the book (twisted grief over the loss of the 'favourite' son in whom he'd placed his hope) - I just don't see why they decided to change it. There would have already been plenty of tension with the fact that, when Frodo & Sam meet Faramir & discover his relationship to Boromir, they don't know whether he is like Boromir or not, they don't know whether he will let them go on their way, Faramir appears to be able to read far more from the little they tell him than they would like, Sam gives the game away about the ring, and for a tense moment there, Faramir debates whether he should take the ring to Gondor or not (either way he's not happy about just letting them go on their way - especially not with Gollum as their guide).
Anyway, I'm yet to see the TTT for a second time but the Faramir business killed the first viewing for me. Hopefully, now that I know what to expect, I won't be so disappointed that they changed so much.
-- posted by akb
» HELSA - Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the Wargs of Fandom
I really enjoyed the 'Two Towers' film as well.I thought Gollum was really good especially when he was arguing with himself. His voice was really good too.
Every one seems to have it in for Faramir. I thought he was ok and I think he will become bolder in the third film.
Gandalf, Legolas and Gimli were great. I liked the humour around Gimli. I think it was needed as there was less opportunity with the hobbits.
It is good how the relationship between Legolas and Gimli has developed as in the book. However the visit to Fangorn was rather brief and Legolas did not show the fasination and reluctance to leave the forest. There was also no mention (as I recall) of the Glittering Caves, which makes me wonder how in the next film Legolas and Gimli will depart from the others.
My only real grumble with the film was the rather cockney voices of the orcs, I feel it was better when they did not say much. They came over too comical.
The story did seem to vary from the book more that the first, but incorporating the appendices was good and I liked the little bits that were definately straight from the book like the scene where Sam is cooking the rabbit and Gollum is discusted because it is not raw. Also keeping the horses names the same.
I am looking forward to seeing the film for a second time and probably catching a few more bits I missed first time round.
-- posted by HELSA
» cstevens164 - Re: Re: good review
In response to message posted by Michael_Martinez:Michael,
Just a quick thought on the "tobacco issue". Although my opinion on tobacco is not very different from yours, I view it's ues in the movie as part of Tolkien's landscape. In a similar way, I've heard discussions of the book Huck Finn where some would advocate deleting the use of the word "ni***r. In today's setting, that word is as poisonous in it's own way as tobacco-but it is part of the landscape that Twain wrote about, and I believe it would be wrong to change it.
While the comparison my not be perfect, I think it is the same idea. And I don't think the inclusion of smoking in the movie promotes smoking cigarettes.
On a far lighter note, I just recently came across your essays on Suite101 and am avidly reading all of them. As a long time Tolkien reader (almost 30 years), I found your speculations and commentary on your research to be facinating. I have tried to read the Histories of Middle Earth, but seem to get bogged down when I get beyond the Books of Lost Tales. I guess I need to get back into the text to see where you are getting all this great information. Keep up the good work.
Cheers
Chris Stevens
-- posted by cstevens164
« Previous 1 2 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.