Spoilers from the Photo Guide

What do you think of Tolkien on the silver screen...? Whether Bakshi, Jackson, Amazon, BBC radio play, or whoever else, come on in and discuss your reflections, opinions, and memories...

Postby Iavas_Saar » Thu Nov 07, 2002 7:18 am

<i>In Legolas' case it certainly is. He explains that he has full understanding of the Elves position, and gives two arguments. He has reconciled with the facts of the world at that time. That is an emotion.</i><BR><BR>I don't agree. Understanding isn't an emotion. Understanding can <i>trigger</i> an emotion, but isn't an emotion in itself. You are reading between the lines and seeing emotion there. He is simply stating what he believes to be straight facts, that does not require emotion.<BR><BR><BR><i>Having Legolas feel utterly betrayed is contradictory.</i><BR><BR>Enough of this "utterly" crap!<BR><BR><BR><i>Depends on the way you say it. The way Legolas says it is clear that he has perfect understanding and doesn't feel betrayed at all.</i><BR><BR>How do you know how Legolas says it? It's just words on a page, you say it how you personally want to say it when you read it.<BR><BR><BR><i>It has to be a Legolas who feels betrayed. Nonsense. There is no reason why this *has* to be so or why his opinion isn't interesting.</i><BR><BR>Where have I said it *has* to be done this way? That's putting words in my mouth. I have given reasons why I think it will be interesting to see and why it might not be huge stretch, that does not add up to insisting it has to be done that way.<BR><BR><BR><i>That doesn't make sense. He's Legolas right? He knows that the Elves have wars of their own. If he doesn't he's not Legolas, he's someone else. There's no reason to make yet another invention by having Legolas not aware of the Elves' position. He knows.</i><BR><BR>And how, pray tell, would it damage Legolas's character for him to simply not have a piece of knowledge that he has in the books??? How would it affect his personality? Why can't he be a Legolas who simply has not received as much news of the wars elsewhere? I don't understand the mentality that if a character does or knows something they didn't in the book, it means they're a different person. It's how they <i>act</i> that determines their character, how they react to a certain situation, not the situation itself.<BR><BR><BR><i>The siege of Minas Tirith actually takes up a small portion of the third book, and many, many other things are in there, as someone who's actually read and recalls the books would know.</i><BR><BR>Okay, I said it badly, I meant everything that occurs at MT in total, not just the actual siege itself.<BR><BR><BR><i>Think of all those scenes that are important, impressive and absolutely required. RoTK sees Tolkien, IMHO, reach his peak with LoTR. Nearly every passage is solid gold.</i><BR><BR>Well, if you work on the premise that it will be a harder book to compress then yes, you have a point. But what evidence do we have that PJ found this to be the case? If you wrote ROTK in synopsis form, it would be the shortest, there are fewer events. But what events do occur are, as you say, solid gold and may be hard to compress. But I still think with Shelob instead of the Scouring ROTK will work out to be the right sort of length.
User avatar
Iavas_Saar
Mariner


 
Posts: 9145
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2001 7:39 pm
Top

Postby Dances-With-Shrapnel » Thu Nov 07, 2002 7:19 am

Go Iavas.. I pretty much agree with everything you say! I think in some ways those who are getting tied up in knots over particular scenes can't see the forest for the trees. And even then they would be forced to admit they don't even see the trees to well at this point.<BR><BR>I'm all for the 'big picture' and regardless of the number of spoilers we get this is something we will never see until we're watching the movie- Return of the King, that is. <BR><BR>I am making a prediction: At the end of ROTK we will all (well, most of us) be marvelling at how the Elven Fading theme was hammered home to great effect. <BR><BR>I think reactions to the Legolas comment are a bit exagerated. Hell, PJ completely remodelled the character of Aragorn, remember. Here he is only changing one opinion. I suggest those that are offended by this change develop thicker skin, cause I'm sure in retrospect there will be far more sweeping changes elsewhere. <BR><BR>One line from the photo guide that I found particularly pleasing was:<BR><BR><i>"Take back the lands they stole from you. Burn every village!"</i> <BR><BR><BR><BR>
User avatar
Dances-With-Shrapnel
Rider of the Mark
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2002 4:40 am
Top

Postby AsGoot » Thu Nov 07, 2002 7:42 am

For the sake of my psychological well-being, a little venting.<BR><BR>That horse-whisperer thing sounds so crap I cannot believe it. Now a battle with wargs on the way to HD, sure, plausible, but "left for dead, saved by a horse"???????? Ooo, he's dead, sniff sniff. How on earth does this advance the plot one itsy bitsy tiny bit? Destination cutting room floor, anyone? I certainly hope the scene is short. <BR><BR>Also, Shelob in ROTK, fine, I can see that there's more room for F & S in there, but VoS? Grruummph.<BR><BR>However, <BR><BR><i>Irony, it appears, is alive and kicking.</i><BR><BR>It's only alive and kicking in LE's appreciation of LB's typical commentary (i.e. an insult is funny if one agrees I guess). However, if Iavas would have said what Balto said, now THAT would've been funny and, indeed, ironic in taking the pss out of oneself kinda way (or Balto had said what Iavas says, the mind boggles!).
User avatar
AsGoot
Servant of the Secret Fire

 
Posts: 1358
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2001 3:31 am
Top

Postby saruonsfinger » Thu Nov 07, 2002 7:49 am

Having spent vast portions of the last 36 hours reading and examining all four of the TWO TOWERS books, it is fairly obvious that they were produced as much as teaser books as anything else. There are huge holes in storyline, character development and the absence of scenes that we know were filmed and will be in the film. Just like the first series of books (FOTR) held back on things like the Cave Troll and the Balrog, these books hold back mightily. The MAKING books was advertised as including all three films - and one would think we would get huge chunks of ROTK info. But the ROTK stuff is very sparse and the photo's - like the one of Grond - are so small that they give away almost nothing.<BR>I think it is a big mistake to take the content of the photo guide and suppose that is the entire film. No more than the first childrens photo guide gave you a complete scene by scene guide to the first film which it did not.<BR>Like others, I do not like the omission of Faramirs display of good character before Sam in Ithilien. Will that one omission destroy a three hour film? I am willing to suspend my judgment until I see the entire TT film on Dec 18. I loved the first one and have no doubt that the second one will deliver in spades. As has often been said, there are fundamental differences in what makes a good book and what makes a good film. Rushing to a snap judgment based on incomplete information does no one any good.
User avatar
saruonsfinger
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2079
Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 7:55 am
Top

Postby Anarianar » Thu Nov 07, 2002 7:58 am

<i>Legolas is worried: the defenders are frightened, and he fears three hundred of them cannot hold out against an army of ten thousand Uruk-hai. <b>He feels betrayed by his own people and believes that the Elves should not have left the men to stand alone</b>.</i><BR><BR>I think we shouldn't read to much into this description. "Betrayed" is a very strong word; and the person who wrote this may simply have used the wrong word to describe how Legolas feels. Or he has misunderstood the feelings of Legolas in the movie. It simply doesn't make sense that Legolas would feel "betrayed" by his own people. The word "unhappy" or "sad" (that none of his people are at Helms Deep) is probably more correct. I think this is what we will see in the movie.<BR><BR>Remember these words from the book?<BR>Legolas to Gimli: <i>"I wish there were more of your kin among us. But <b>even more would I give for a hundred good archers of Mirkwood. We shall need them</b>. The Rohirrim have good bowmen after their fashion, but <b>there are too few here, too few"</b>.</i><BR><BR>I think this clearly establishes that Legolas would have liked elves to be there, aiding the Rohirrim. He obviously is frustrated. <BR><BR>So, if PJ chooses to portray Legolas as unhappy about not having a few elven bowmen at his side, that doesn't contradict the book. Then there is no problem.<BR>Only if Legolas starts raving about how his people have betrayed him, will there be a problem. And this, I think, will not happen. Because it simply makes no sense whatsoever.
User avatar
Anarianar
Shield Bearer
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2002 4:48 am
Top

Postby Iavas_Saar » Thu Nov 07, 2002 8:03 am

<i>That horse-whisperer thing sounds so crap I cannot believe it. Now a battle with wargs on the way to HD, sure, plausible, but "left for dead, saved by a horse"???????? Ooo, he's dead, sniff sniff. How on earth does this advance the plot one itsy bitsy tiny bit?</i><BR><BR>We don't know that the <i>audience</i> will be led to believe Aragorn is dead, even if the characters are. And I think we need to see it fully before we decide whether it advances the plot. The reactions to the news could give some interesting character development for those who think he's dead, especially Eowyn. Also, we know it allows Aragorn to spot the approaching Uruk army, that knowledge may prove important. And even if the plot advancements are minor, it will still emphasize Tolkiens nature theme and how it pays to be respectful to it.<BR><BR><BR>edit: Anar, you could well be right.
User avatar
Iavas_Saar
Mariner


 
Posts: 9145
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2001 7:39 pm
Top

Postby legolas_the_fair » Thu Nov 07, 2002 8:04 am

Well I think I should just add some more positive vibes to this thread. I know it's fun debating how the story will turn out and how PJ will handle it and all, but some of this is getting ridiculous. Don't some of the debates pre-FOTR seem silly now? Is it really that important about how Legolas feels at Helms Deep? I guess I'm in the minority here as nearly all of those spoiler pieces excited me. Some of the dialogue seemed perfect and very Tolkien-esque. Even little additions make it great, for instance mentioning the Balrog of Morgoth. <BR><BR>There's very little I dislike. Mainly the whole sewer thing, but I'm sure that was just worded badly and in actual fact it will be more of a dank passageway. I quite like what was done with Faramir. As long as he doesn't physically take the ring from Frodo then I will be happy. It doesn't say here that he does.<BR><BR>As for the ending, I'd like to see the VoS, and I think it could be done. I think this describes my feelings best:<BR><BR><i>I too hope that the ending of TTT is simply being kept under wraps. The Voice Of Saruman simply wouldn't work effectively in ROTK. And it would give a good sense of closure to the end of TTT (putting Saruman to the side and so giving focus to Sauron in ROTK), possibly before cutting to a quick scene of Frodo, Sam & Gollum (ala FOTR).</i>
User avatar
legolas_the_fair
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2189
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 3:15 pm
Top

Postby Saranthir » Thu Nov 07, 2002 8:12 am

Gungnir - I'm surprised you find the sewer bit so Erk, as you put it, considering <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR><BR>And yes, I suppose you would find Gary Lineker a tad strange, being an honest, decent bloke. Don't imagine you've met many up there <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0><BR><BR>But enough...........<BR><BR>Iavas - I do think RoTK will be hard to compress, chiefly because the scenes it contains all require a fair amount of time. There aren't so many quick and easy scenes. Lifting the Scouring gives PJ some time, but not an enormous amount.
User avatar
Saranthir
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 5:46 am
Top

Postby Lord_Baltimore » Thu Nov 07, 2002 8:14 am

Anarianar:<BR><i> And this, I think, will not happen. Because it simply makes no sense whatsoever.</i><BR><BR>Oh, now THAT is something that is going to stop PJ from meddling with the story...//<BR><BR>BT<BR>
User avatar
Lord_Baltimore
Ranger of the North
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 11:10 am
Top

Postby Anarianar » Thu Nov 07, 2002 8:48 am

<i>And this, I think, will not happen. Because it simply makes no sense whatsoever.<BR><BR>Oh, now THAT is something that is going to stop PJ from meddling with the story...//<BR><BR>BT<BR></i><BR><BR>Yeah, but usually there is a method to his madness that makes sense... <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0>
User avatar
Anarianar
Shield Bearer
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2002 4:48 am
Top

Postby Mithfânion » Thu Nov 07, 2002 8:56 am

Shrapnel<BR><BR><i>I think in some ways those who are getting tied up in knots over particular scenes can't see the forest for the trees. And even then they would be forced to admit they don't even see the trees to well at this point.</i><BR><BR>I'm unsure of how anyone could make the leap from seeing people who think of a change to the story as bad and unwelcome, to them being incompetent and not being able to see the forest for the trees. If Cerin were here she'd put you and the attached derogatory comments firmly in your place <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0><BR><BR><i><BR>I think reactions to the Legolas comment are a bit exagerated. Hell, PJ completely remodelled the character of Aragorn, remember. Here he is only changing one opinion. I suggest those that are offended by this change develop thicker skin</i><BR><BR>The reason this grates so much is that it is yet again an example of unnecessary meddling with the story and not bringing him faithfully to the screen in this particular aspect. Inventing something is one thing, contradicting what is specifically said in the book is one step further, but obviously a step Jackson, for all his claims of faithfulness and fandom, is more than willing to make (over and over again I might add).I totally agree that it's not something that should keep anyone awake at night, I just dislike the change to the character itself, much in the same way that other people strongly detest the Faramir's new reaction to the Ring.<BR><BR>
User avatar
Mithfânion
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11589
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2000 8:35 am
Top

Postby Mithfânion » Thu Nov 07, 2002 9:23 am

About the sequence dealing with Saruman's demise, and how it would be not only a fantastic scene for TTT but also a great way to close it off. This is from the mid October interview:<BR><BR><i>We go other places during the course of the battle. The battle finishes about 10 minutes before the end of the film. Over the course of the last 30 minutes, there is probably 15 minutes of battle. That would be my guess.</i><BR><BR>Now, theoretically this does leave some room for a VoS, but it would have to be done pretty hurried would it not? Over the course of the last 30 minutes, there is 15 minutes of battle. This interview is very recent and seems therefor to refer to the locked cut. Perhaps Gandalf leaves the battle prematurely to go to Isenguard? To deal with Saruman while the Helm's Deep battle still continues?<BR><BR>I guess it doesn't look good for VoS in TTT.
User avatar
Mithfânion
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11589
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2000 8:35 am
Top

Postby llyr_ap_cenydd » Thu Nov 07, 2002 9:23 am

I remember PJ saying on quite a few occasions that one of the main reasons why the Scouring would be absent from his adaptation of LOTR was the fact that The Two Towers needs an ending. I am absolutely certain I have read this. He said that he wanted to get Saruman and Isengard out of the way so that RoTK could focus on Sauron and Mordor (as it SHOULD be).<BR><BR>The VoS was definetely in the older scripts. I remember reading the 'Will you not come up/down' stuff. Prehaps it was Leo, I can't remember.<BR><BR>
User avatar
llyr_ap_cenydd
Ranger of the North
 
Posts: 1658
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 7:18 pm
Top

Postby Saranthir » Thu Nov 07, 2002 9:31 am

Mith - haven't spoke to my friend since returning from Portugal. This weekend is a possible. Maybe he has seen the locked cut by now?<BR><BR>What he did say to me was that VoS was in the rough cut he saw - but that was when TTT looked like a 3hr + deal. Now PJ seems to have thrown in the towel and gone with the 2hr 43min cut.<BR><BR>I would be amazed if the Saruman issue was not resolved in TTT to some degree. It makes little sense dragging out into RoTK.<BR>
User avatar
Saranthir
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 5:46 am
Top

Postby Lord_Baltimore » Thu Nov 07, 2002 9:37 am

The Scouring of the Shire? Who needs it? The Voice of Saruman? It's over-rated.<BR><BR>You want to tie up the Saruman sub-plot? Just have the Ents over-run his postion when they beseige Orthanc and have him killed or taken prisoner during the action. If he's killed, so be it. If he's taken prisoner, then Gandalf can "cast him from the order" (whatever that will mean to newbie fans who havent read the books) and kick him the hell out of Isengard to wander aimlessly in poverty and ruin.<BR><BR>Of course, not killing off Saruman leaves things open for a sequel.//<BR><BR>BT<BR><BR>I am now going to go and beat myself repeatedly about the neck and head for engaging in Revisionism. What on earth was I thinking? <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0> Nevermind everything I said: just stick with the story, and you cant go wrong, PJ.//<BR><BR>BT
User avatar
Lord_Baltimore
Ranger of the North
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 11:10 am
Top

Postby Mithfânion » Thu Nov 07, 2002 9:46 am

Saranthir, it would be great if you would ask, yes. Perhaps you could also ask about the Palantir controversy, in other words PJ shifting the Aragorn/Sauron duel to RoTK as well. These two issues in particular make little sense to me if they are moved to the final film, stuffed like a fat turkey as that already is.<BR><BR><i>What he did say to me was that VoS was in the rough cut he saw - but that was when TTT looked like a 3hr + deal. Now PJ seems to have thrown in the towel and gone with the 2hr 43min cut.</i><BR><BR>That doesn't bode well at all. That cut of 15-20 minutes is about the time a VoS scene would take, going to Isenguard with the company of Theoden and Eomer included. Ouch.<BR><BR>
User avatar
Mithfânion
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11589
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2000 8:35 am
Top

Postby NiennaSorrowing » Thu Nov 07, 2002 10:24 am

Iavas:<BR><BR><b>What part of <i>Legolas stood before the gate and turned his bright eyes away north and east, and his fair face was troubled. "I do not think any would come," he answered. "They have no need to ride to war; war already marches on their own lands."</i> don't you understand?????</b><BR><BR>PJ:<BR><BR><b>What part of <i>"Not if I found it on the highway would I take it, I said. Even if I were such a man as to desire this thing, and even though I knew not clearly what this thing was when I spoke, still I should take those words as a vow, and be held by them. But I am not such a man. Or I am wise enough to know that there are some perils from which a man must flee."</i> don't you understand??????</b><BR><BR><BR>*Nienna goes and bashes her head against the wall several times*<BR><BR>Sorry. I apologize for yelling at everyone (except maybe PJ). I'm feeling better now, really. <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0>
User avatar
NiennaSorrowing
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3516
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2001 9:34 pm
Top

Postby Eanneling » Thu Nov 07, 2002 10:40 am

Just a quick comment on the length.. I thought the latest info on this (according to Bernd from a Yahoo source and Norwegian ticketholders) is that it is closer to 179mins + credits, i.e. 2:59 now.. Apparently norwegian tickets say 3:15, though another norwegian source said 3:10, which would seem a more realistic credits length (11mins).. Or has this been disproven yet again?
User avatar
Eanneling
Shield Bearer
 
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 12:06 pm
Top

Postby Iavas_Saar » Thu Nov 07, 2002 10:57 am

Nienna dear, I perfectly understand that statement. My point is, what would Legolas's attitude be if he <i>didn't</i> know that "war already marches on their own lands"? What if he actually believed it *was* possible for the elves to send re-enforcements, would he then be disappointed that they hadn't? I don't see it as much of a change if Legolas simply has less knowledge of whats been going on "back home", and to explore what he would then feel in that situation.
User avatar
Iavas_Saar
Mariner


 
Posts: 9145
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2001 7:39 pm
Top

Postby EcthelionII » Thu Nov 07, 2002 11:06 am

Hi all, first time poster, so forgive any glaring errors I make. I have been lurking for a while, so I'll try to avoid stepping on any toes.<BR><BR>I think we simply need to accept the fact that the medium on which PJ is trying to deliver this epic tale does not allow for all the elaboration and detail of the book. The film (I loved FotR) can, however, never measure up to my personal vision for each scene as Tolkien described it.<BR><BR>As soon as I accepted this, I got over the small changes made to FotR. I will enjoy the book as one thing, and the films as another, and will refrain to simply say the one is better than the other. I love the books, but, again, I think the medium of film makes some changes to the tale neccesary.<BR><BR>However, I will admit my dismay at the entire Osgiliath thing. IMHO (and mind you, this is only MY opinion) Faramir was also influenced by the Ring in the book: he overcame it easily though, and shows he is a man of great character, but, I still think Faramir was to an extent (though it may be small) tempted by the Ring. So, Faramir is not my major issue.<BR><BR>Going to Osgiliath, however, is dislike, because from my perspective, it serves no purpose. Granted, it may be needed to set it up for RotK, but it still would have preferred the non-sewer version.<BR><BR>In the end, I think each must judge whether he wants an exact duplicate of the books, or an interpretation of them. As a Tolkien-nut, I would of course *want* an exact represantation, but the average film-goer might not, which is why I view the films and books as seperate entities.<BR><BR>I say, wait and see. A lot of concern was raised about FotR last year, and most of it was unwarranted. TTT may yet deliver beyond our expectations.
User avatar
EcthelionII
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 10:43 am
Top

Postby Diamond of Long Cleeve » Thu Nov 07, 2002 11:16 am

Lord Baltimore,<BR><BR>You said: <i>You want to tie up the Saruman sub-plot? Just have the Ents over-run his postion when they beseige Orthanc and have him killed or taken prisoner during the action. If he's killed, so be it. If he's taken prisoner, then Gandalf can "cast him from the order" (whatever that will mean to newbie fans who havent read the books) and kick him the hell out of Isengard to wander aimlessly in poverty and ruin.</i><BR><BR>You might be interested in the following comments from JRRT himself, from a letter he wrote to Forrest Ackerman in 1958 on the proposed film treatment of LOTR at that time (it was going to be a cartoon).<BR><BR><i>If Z wants Saruman tidied up (I cannot see why, when so many threads are left loose) Gandalf should say something to this effect: as Saruman collapses under the excommunication: 'Since you will not come out and aid us, here in Orthanc you shall stay till you rot, Saruman. Let the Ents look to it!'</i><BR><BR>Z refers to Zimmerman, who wrote the screenplay. Tolkien found it appalling. Here are some of Z's crimes:<BR><BR>- He had Tom Bombadil in the script but Tolkien hated the treatment of Tom, who got called an 'old scamp'!<BR>- Barliman asked Frodo to register. This made Tolkien blow a gasket.<BR>- The Fellowship rode everywhere on eagles! 'Nine Walkers', said Tolkien, 'and they immediately go up in the air!'<BR>- Z put beaks and feathers on the Orcs. <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0> <BR>- The Balrog laughed and sneered. <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0><BR>- Lothlorien had become a fairy castle (ack!)<BR>- And there was no temptation of Galadriel. Tolkien said that 'everything of moral import had disappeared from the story.' <BR>- and lots more hilarious stuff which gave the poor Professor a heart attack.<BR><BR>It all sounds perfectly ghastly, and boy am I glad it never got made!<BR><BR>Now, granted that some of Tolkien's criticisms could also apply to PJ (Weathertop in particular!) but blimey, at least PJ's film is both serious and intelligent! And despite PJ's plot tamperings, he has paid attention to the moral import of the story. <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR><BR>-edit-<BR><BR>Ecthelion II, welcome. <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR><BR>I agree with just about everything you say, actually. I do accept the book and film as separate entities because literature and film are two different art forms. I do think PJ has a moral obligation to represent Tolkien's story, esp. its moral depth, as closely as he can. I also think LOTR is a damn difficult book to bring to screen ... and I am full of admiration for PJ for his tenacity and vision in doing so. I loved the film, despite a few little puristy quibbles here and there. <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR><BR>And yes, Hama is right, we were all panicking and hyperventilating over the FOTR rumours last year. <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0> Same old story! <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0><BR><BR><BR><BR>
User avatar
Diamond of Long Cleeve
Mariner

 
Posts: 6643
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 12:00 am
Top

Postby vynaca_of_mirkwood » Thu Nov 07, 2002 11:34 am

I feel like I'm coming in a week late with all the posts that have sprouted overnight. Hama's words were reassuring but I have to back what Mith and EuroGollum said earlier. Voice of Saruman is one of the highpoints of The Two Towers and it absolutely should NOT be cut from the film let alone moved to ROTK. I never particularly cared about how Saruman's dies but I do care about what precedes it. And I have it on good authority that there will be no spiky wheel. <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR>Saruman's arc needs to be wrapped up neatly at the end of TTT. Presuming VoS remains (it better had) you certainly don't open a film with it. <BR><BR>I'm_this_close to starting a thread entitled, "Why I'm becoming a purist." <BR><BR>I was just thinking - wouldn't it be kewl if they filmed ROTK like an episode of 24. Paths of the Dead, Shelob, Merry and Dernhelm, and Gandalf and Pippin meeting Denethor on 4 squares with the Middle Earth clock ticking. <BR><BR>GANDALF<BR>Who do you work for???//<BR><BR>DENETHOR<BR>Go to hell, scum!<BR><BR>GANDALF<BR><i>Shoots Denethor in the chest.</i><BR><BR><BR>taht wuld b sooo kewl!!1<BR><BR>
User avatar
vynaca_of_mirkwood
Mariner

 
Posts: 6375
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 11:12 am
Top

Postby EcthelionII » Thu Nov 07, 2002 11:37 am

Thanks for the welcome, Diamond. Much appreciated.<BR><BR><BR>Just to comment on what you posted above...<BR><BR><BR>I by no means think that PJ has made perfect versions of the books, but they are the best and most faithful yet made, and at least tries to take itself serious and convey the moral message that Tolkien wanted to. For that I respect PJ, and I'm very enthusiastic about TTT. I'm not simply going to dislike the films because they differ from the books: I am supremely confident that the films will be very enjoyable, when all are finally released, and that even the Tolkien Purists will acknowledge that, if nothing else, it made Tolkien accesible to a whole new generation of people who may pick up the books and read the story as Tolkien intended it.
User avatar
EcthelionII
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 10:43 am
Top

Postby Diamond of Long Cleeve » Thu Nov 07, 2002 11:51 am

Ecthelion, hear hear! <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR><BR>Most of the changes in FOTR were a case of PJ simply moving material around, as it were, or of compressing stuff. Chronologically that film basically followed the book (allowing for the compressed timeline). And I love that film. <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR><BR>This whole Faramir/Ring/Osgiliath thing has me worried because it is a much MUCH more major part of TTT than the Arwen/Glorfindel/Asfaloth thing could ever be in FOTR. But then I was all worried about Nuclear Galadriel before I went into my first viewing of FOTR, and goodness me, if ultra-purist Cerin didn't actually <b>like</b> the Nuclear Galadriel scene because she felt it was a valid interpretation of Gladys's temptation. So I accepted Nuclear Galadriel on those grounds (although I still think it's very over the top and PJ shouldn't have meddled with Cate's voice). <BR><BR>If Dave Wenham nails Faramir's nobility and Numenorean sensibility (by which I mean wisdom and 'far seeing', among other things), then I will be forgiving ... <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR><BR>Don't let me down PJ, I've followed you thus far. <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0>
User avatar
Diamond of Long Cleeve
Mariner

 
Posts: 6643
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 12:00 am
Top

Postby ElfStar » Thu Nov 07, 2002 11:57 am

<i>GANDALF<BR>Who do you work for???//<BR><BR>DENETHOR<BR>Go to hell, scum!<BR><BR>GANDALF<BR>Shoots Denethor in the chest.<BR><BR><BR>taht wuld b sooo kewl!!1</i><BR><BR>ROTFL!!!<BR><BR>I agree with everyone who said moving the VOS to the beginning of ROTK makes no sense. I very much doubt these rumors that say otherwise.
User avatar
ElfStar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3186
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 8:25 pm
Top

Postby EuroGollum » Thu Nov 07, 2002 12:13 pm

Hama speaks wise words... I think we all need to calm down... We are basing things on very limited and perhaps misleading information.<BR><BR>If Saranthir's source claims the the VOS is in TTT before the supposed cut to 2hr 43min, I really doubt that it got cut in the process. Why? When you edit down a movie, you never remove the ending, only parts in the middle.<BR><BR>PJ has clearly shown that character arcs are very important to him. What sense would there be in having the Isengard forces defeated, and not having the top guy, Saruman, confronted in the same movie? VOS is great drama, and PJ sure loves drama. <BR><BR>Just like FOTR, I'm sure all (or most) of us will be pleasantly suprised once we actually see TTT.
User avatar
EuroGollum
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 11:34 am
Top

Postby Foghorn » Thu Nov 07, 2002 12:44 pm

If VoS is what begins ROTK, I don't think that's a problem whatsoever. The issue to me has always been the post-Mt. Doom arc. <BR><BR>The following assumes a 3 hour movie.<BR><BR>If you think that post-Mt. Doom is at most 20 minutes long, then you have 150 minutes to get to Mt. Doom (allowing 10 minutes for the ring's destruction). [Whoops, forgot the spoiler warning. Hope I didn't ruin the ending for you].<BR><BR>The Frodo/Sam/Gollum arc could be told in 35 minutes--say 25 with Shelob and Frodo's capture, 5 on Sam's rescue, and another 5 about the final march to Mt. Doom. That leaves 115 minutes to:<BR><BR>Wrap up Isengard/VoS--10 minutes<BR>Pippin looks in the Palantir, Gandalf/Pippin break for MT--5 minutes<BR>Aragorn reveals himself to Sauron--5 minutes<BR>Aragorn goes to Path of the Dead--15 minutes (including travel time)<BR>Mustering of Rohan--5 minutes<BR>Gandalf in MT--5 minutes<BR>Siege of Gondor--15 minutes (Pyre of Denethor, Gandalf/Witch King)<BR>Arrival of Aragorn--5 minutes<BR>Arrival of Rohan--5 minutes<BR>Huge Battle climaxing with Merry/Eowyn and Witch King--20 minutes<BR>Healing Eowyn/faramir/Merry--5 minutes<BR>Last Council--5 minutes<BR>MoS--10 minutes<BR>Battle--5 minutes<BR><BR><BR>Whew, that's hauling some serious backside to get everything in. Now this doesn't leave extra time for the story arcs that aren't in the book--Arwen/Elrond, anything else PJ wants to throw in.<BR><BR>Question--when MoS brings out the mithril coat and other items taken from the "spies", will the audience know Frodo/Sam are OK? If PJ wants to keep the suspense, then the last thing of Sam/Frodo we would see is the orcs carrying Frodo away. In other words, while the Sam and Frodo arc is basically just their encounter with Shelob (and betrayal of Gollum), we get Flotsam and Jetsam through Mouth of Sauron for the other arc. Kind of one sided, no?<BR><BR><BR>
User avatar
Foghorn
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 141
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2001 11:13 am
Top

Postby Iavas_Saar » Thu Nov 07, 2002 1:09 pm

<i>Question--when MoS brings out the mithril coat and other items taken from the "spies", will the audience know Frodo/Sam are OK? If PJ wants to keep the suspense, then the last thing of Sam/Frodo we would see is the orcs carrying Frodo away. In other words, while the Sam and Frodo arc is basically just their encounter with Shelob (and betrayal of Gollum), we get Flotsam and Jetsam through Mouth of Sauron for the other arc. Kind of one sided, no?</i><BR><BR>There's no way it will cut away from Frodo and Sam for so long, so I'm guessing the audience will know they're OK.
User avatar
Iavas_Saar
Mariner


 
Posts: 9145
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2001 7:39 pm
Top

Postby jsavfusco » Thu Nov 07, 2002 1:26 pm

<i>I was just thinking - wouldn't it be kewl if they filmed ROTK like an episode of 24. Paths of the Dead, Shelob, Merry and Dernhelm, and Gandalf and Pippin meeting Denethor on 4 squares with the Middle Earth clock ticking. </i><BR><BR> But where would we put Kiefer? <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0><BR><BR> Seriously, though, it doesn't seem to make sense that PJ would put Voice of Saruman in Rotk, and I hope that he doesn't. There would be too much going on in Rotk, and it wouldn't be a great way to start a movie.
User avatar
jsavfusco
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4071
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2000 7:42 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Top

Postby Errin-of-Westbrook » Thu Nov 07, 2002 1:41 pm

I didn't see this specific comment addressed...<BR><BR>Iavas said-<BR><i>Ethel, why should Faramir be so special in relation to the Ring? I look at the Ring as something that you're only safe from if you are totally at peace with yourself, with no internal conflicts or insecurities for it to prey on. Now, Faramir is not at peace with himself. His brother has recently died, his relationship with his father is not good. Is it so bad that these insecurities make him atleast slightly at risk from the Ring?</i><BR><BR>The defining element of Faramir is his Numenorean nobility, his realization that the end does not justify the means, and thus seemingly easily dismisses temptation. The fact that his own brother, Boromir, is betrayed by his love of his country and people, his sense of duty and ultimately his willingness to use the tools of the enemy against him, while he, Faramir, who has the exact same love of county, people, and sense of duty, has the eyes and understanding to penetrate the power of the ring without pause is not an element to toy with.<BR><BR>Faramir is not at peace, but he has the strength of character to rise above that. It is easy to portray "innocent hobbits" who are not tempted by the powers of evil. But rather than focus on the risk created by the insecurities in his life, it would be much more Tolkienesque to focus on the nobility and selflessness of someone who without question can rise above those insecurities.<BR><BR>I realize that is not a concept that we often come face to face with in our modern world, but it is a nice thought.<BR><BR>
User avatar
Errin-of-Westbrook
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 5:02 pm
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Movies and Media: Tolkien

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests