Message-ID: <20040210005533.30624.qmail@riot.eu.org> From: Igenlode Author-Supplied-Address: tethys blackhole riot eu org Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:01:24 GMT Reply-To: Igenlode_W@nym.alias.net Organization: The Ivory Tower ( http://curry.250x.com/Tower ) Subject: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien X-Abuse-Contact: abuse@bananasplit.info Lines: 273 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone.bc.net!news.alt.net!news.assertive.ca!news.bananasplit.info!nym2news Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:142940 On the vexed question of the accuracy of "Return of the King" as an *adaptation*, there is much to be said; as has been proved in the 3,000 or so posts I have just read. Though I have to confess that 'Rick' was killfiled about a third of the way through, reducing that figure considerably :-) However, despite the title, for the duration of this post I wish it to be understood that I have consciously laid aside my bookwraith's hat (or should that be cloak..?) and have attempted to consider the film as a production in its own right. In that process, I came to the startling conclusion above - that *as an amateur of film*, I would say Jackson did himself a disservice in attempting to adhere too closely to the content of Tolkien's plot. The film comes across as strangely 'bumpy'. It bears all the hallmarks of long erosion: isolated hummocks of plot stick up from the sweep of the narrative as relics of an older surface whose context has long since been erased. They are there because they served a purpose in Tolkien's plot - but they no longer have any true role to play in Jackson's story, save as token markers for what was once there. I have some familiarity with cutting long sections of prose down to a savagely reduced size - and I recognise in the RotK script the result of mistaken choices during this reduction process, where entire elements have been clung to, despite being reduced beyond true viability, simply because they were 'there' in the original. There comes a stage beyond which you can no longer successfully shorten without removing themes and sections altogether. Trying to retain too much results in a disjointed, rather than condensed, feel - the extra space can be better used in ensuring adequate treatment of what *is* kept. (I will repeat - again - at this point that I am not interested in pleading the existence of 'Extended Editions'. Peter Jackson was commissioned to produce a LotR treatment as three films of a *viable* length for normal commercial screening. It is his business to ensure that the material makes a coherent story within that time-frame, and it is on what he achieves within his stipulated limit that he is to be judged. Spilling over the allocated slot is less a sign of creativity than of lack of self-control... Arguably, the films *as shown in the cinema* could, and should, have been edited more tightly for pace as it was.) This film doesn't need to be three hours and twenty minutes long. Currently, it falls between two stools - it omits significant sections of Tolkien's plot (much of Faramir's part, for example, as in the previous film), and retains other sections which have no real significance without the context which has already been cut. There is a classic example of this at the very start; the arrival at Isengard. It's a year since I saw the previous film; I find myself with no idea where we are or why (or even, for a moment, who these riders in the woods were). They go to Isengard - then turn around and go back to Rohan again. Without an appearance by Saruman, there is no point in this scene at all. But it has to stay, because of the palantir... or so Jackson thinks... Be creative! Cut the palantir from the *whole script*. The 'possession' scene, where Pippin receives thousands of volts through the palms of his hands, is simply embarrassing. Far better to cut that. Sauron sees Pippin - oh yes? - but there are no further consequences. In fact, the palantir has no real remaining significance at all. In Tolkien's book it is a vital theme... but in the script as it now stands it is never used again for good or ill. Why not bite the bullet, take the logical decision, and excise it completely? Use the space elsewhere - to shorten the running time, if nothing else! Gandalf can still carry Pippin off to Minas Tirith, if required. It's an arbitrary decision. Since when has Gandalf explained himself? :-P Maybe he just has a premonition that the youngest of the hobbits has yet some part to play there, for good or ill :-) There is more to say on the subject of Pippin and Minas Tirith, but this leads me to the second major excision I felt would be justified, to improve the flow - Denethor and/or Faramir. (Interestingly, someone quoted an article by a non-book fan in America who pointed out that the entire Steward-plot forms a pointless digression from Jackson's storyline...) Basically, this part of the book has been cut to the bone and beyond, in the Two Towers and then here. It no longer bears its own weight. Neither character achieves anything; essentially, for all we see it is Gandalf alone who rules in Minas Tirith, who has any comprehension of strategy and any vestige of authority. Denethor is an oafish fool; Faramir is a weak incompetent. More to the point, with the loss of the Minas Tirith Stone and its theme of 'assault from within', this whole episode *serves no purpose*. I see three options: (a) Drastic, but perhaps preferable: cut both Denethor and Faramir from the film *entirely*. (Faramir has a brief cameo at the end of the Two Towers - but there is no indication at that point that it is anything more than a passing encounter.) Gandalf can now simply walk into a disorganised city under military threat and take over as war leader from the Town Council, or local equivalent. Gondor as seen in the film clearly didn't have much native leadership or fighting ability left. (b) Cut the Faramir role. (Assume, if you prefer, that he dies at some point during the fighting along with the rest of the Rangers.) Have Denethor take over Faramir's minimal military achievements (this needs to be the version of the aged Steward who lies down to sleep in full war-gear, obviously) - and possibly even pull off a decent fighting retreat against the odds, as described in the book. Either he succumbs in the fray or, if you retain the disgraceful 'suicide charge' tactic, kills himself in dishonour at having thrown away his remaining veteran troops. Either way, Gandalf replaces him in command. Or have the Steward simply incapacitated by grief for *Boromir* (as suggested briefly by his introduction), retaining the 'apathetic ruler' theme employed in the current script but omitting the extra complication of the Faramir material. (c) Cut the Denethor role. Have Faramir return from Osgiliath to organise the City's defence (?as deputy for an unseen father?) and sacrifice his life bravely during the street-fighting. Again, Gandalf steps into the breach (perhaps literally!) In all cases, ensure that Faramir is removed from the finale of the film, where his sudden confusing resurrection serves no purpose whatsoever - excising the secondary heir enables Aragorn to step directly into Boromir's shoes, so to speak, and makes him the natural and undisputed ruler of the city. Otherwise, the question naturally rises as to how he executes this /coup/. Now, changes on the scale I suggest above would have raised *howls* of protest among readers of the books - but might have made for a smoother film than what we saw. As it is, the entire Denethor/Faramir episode is an unexplained excrescence that serves no real purpose at all. In fact, Faramir could probably have been cut entirely from the end of the Two Towers as well (speaking as a bookwraith... for my own part I think I'd have preferred that), but even assuming that the editing of the previous film had already been set in stone, the material could have been removed from this film without loss. And with possible gain. The whole Minas Tirith sequence as it stands is very weak. Pippin, in particular, has no real part to play (especially if Denethor's pyre is cut) - I suspect Jackson inserted the stealth beacon sequence and the afterlife soliloquy simply in order to give the character something to do! I would omit the already-weakened Denethor-scenes altogether, as detailed above, and use the hobbit as Tolkien intended: to give us an outsider's view of the daily life of Minas Tirith. Let him meet Bergil, or some equivalent native guide. (More cute children - more comic relief!) Let us see at least as much of the folk of Gondor as we did of those of Rohan under threat in the previous film - give the audience some reason to care about the outcome of the battle. Flash back to Aragorn's promise to Boromir, perhaps. Allow the tension to slacken briefly, in a lull before the storm. It is actually more effective that way... Gollum - not a pacing issue, but he seems to have gone very one-dimensional in this film. A disappointment. Theoden's will-he/won't-he-help-Gondor act is resolved far too easily, and comes across as a gratuitous device for a brief heightening of tension - the equivalent of having your hero fall down a cliff-face (ouch!) Either cut this element altogether (saving time) or delay the resolution right up until they actually reach the fields of the Pelennor. Perhaps accompanied by the moment in which they realise that the enemy are too many, they can't win - and then charge anyway... Cut the mumakil, or at least cut all but a brief reference to this scene - it drags. Pace has been sacrificed here to SFX. (Just because you've paid for something once doesn't make it effective subsequently to overuse it - 'Pirates of the Caribbean' made this mistake, but it had a script largely good enough to carry it off. This film doesn't.) Some sort of rationale is needed, in my view, to justify the ridiculous way in which the earthquake of destruction after Sauron's fall just happens to leave a neat untouched ring where Aragorn's army is standing. Have it stop short at the boundary of the gates of Mordor as a marginally sensible cut-off point (Sauron's realm, and only Sauron's corrupt realm, is physically crumbling). Or else show Gandalf waving his hands and doing wizard-type things to protect the army and stabilise the earth on which they stand. Perhaps Gandalf could just whack it with his staff :-) The final begged question is Tolkien's fault, and not Jackson's (no, it's not the Eagles...) Admittedly, the film's decision to follow all the plot strands in strict chronological order exacerbates the issue. Tolkien more or less manages to get away with it by means of back-tracking several weeks between Books V and VI, and thus re-approaching the finale of his story by such an arduous route that the timing of the outcome seems almost inevitable rather than the most almighty coincidence - but the film's parallel timelines contrive to highlight the fact that the diversionary attack on the Morannon, pressed ahead with impetuous haste, actually depends on absolute split-second co-ordination between Frodo and his party and Aragorn and his: namely two allies who have had no contact since Rauros, and have no means of knowing even, against the odds, of the other's survival. A nod is given to this problem by having Gandalf, in the film, 'sense' that Frodo is still alive and has yet to cross the teeming plains. Perhaps this could have been extended, to depict the allied armies encamped and stalling before the gates of Mordor in order to draw the Orcs away from the interior, rather than pressing ahead a suicidal assault on the off-chance that Frodo might manage to destroy the Ring before they were completely annihilated? Perhaps Gandalf could be shown to 'sense' Sauron's near-detection of Frodo - the searchlight moment - and the consequent urgent need for distraction? Sacrificial tactics make a lot more sense when you know there is something specific to be gained by your loss, rather than just hoping vaguely that it might make some difference... The overall question of the two journeys' happening so neatly to coincide over such a long timespan still begs an answer. The only real solution I can see would be to have Gandalf, while still powerless to give aid, have some magical means of tracing Frodo's progress from afar from time to time; or at least post-Pelennor. This rather suggests the daring solution of introducing the palantiri *at this point* - having Pippin stumble upon and become entrapped by the Stone of Minas Tirith, rather than Saruman's stone at Isengard. Now, the howls of "travesty" that would have arisen from *that* piece of 'tidying-up' (not least from me) - Jackson *dares* to think he can improve on Tolkien! - are all too clear to be imagined; but the sequence as presented on screen really made no sense at all. Unless Aragorn's motivation was simply to ensure that Mordor remained drained of Orcs by getting all possible outside opposition slaughtered in one fell swoop, so that Sauron would not hesitate to to send all his troops out to overrun the undefended lands that remained, rather than retaining them behind the walls of Mordor? ;-) Seriously, the distraction tactic works only while the battle is delayed - they want to hold it off as long as possible, keep up the tension, keep the Eye straining in their direction, blind to all else. Once battle is actually joined, while the distraction is admittedly briefly somewhat greater it will all be over within hours if not minutes, after which the Orcs will go back to their barracks and Sauron will turn his attention to internal affairs; with fatal consequences. Given a journey of that length, Frodo's arrival date at Mount Doom couldn't have been accurately predicted within a window of *weeks*. Unless they have some means of knowing that now is the crucial moment, Aragorn and Gandalf want to keep the Dark Lord occupied for as long as they possibly can. So the film needs to provide such a means - whether by wizard's magic, by divine intuition, or by seeing-stone ;-) Personally, I should have bitterly resented such changes. But I honestly feel, considering it as a fantasy film in its own right and not as an adaptation, that Isengard and Faramir/Denethor had already been cut beyond the stage at which their presence was justified in the script at all, other than as a fillip to the knowing fans. I am torn between my film critic's hat and my bookwraith's garb... but I cannot be forever torn in two, and both sides agree on one thing at least; if you have not the resources to do a thing properly, better to cut it and show it by allusion than to present a crude version to the audience in full view. For most films, this applies to money for special effects. In this trilogy's case instead, it happens to affect screen time. There is only a limited amount of it available. Something more drastic needs to be done. -- Igenlode Bookwraith unabashed * The old that is strong does not wither * ###### From: PurePhilomath@aol.com (Alexandra) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Date: 10 Feb 2004 00:40:58 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 11 Message-ID: References: <20040210005533.30624.qmail@riot.eu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.148.151.250 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1076402458 18520 127.0.0.1 (10 Feb 2004 08:40:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:40:58 +0000 (UTC) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:142979 Has anyone ever made a psychological approach at the fact that it seems to be a given thing that people spend far far far *far* more time on proving they dont like something than anyone would ever spend on proving they like something? Or as my granny always said: If you know it hurts when you move, just dont move! ;) Alex ###### Lines: 32 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 10 Feb 2004 09:22:43 GMT References: <20040210005533.30624.qmail@riot.eu.org> Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Message-ID: <20040210042243.18858.00001856@mb-m28.news.cs.com> Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!news.octanews.net!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!ngpeer.news.aol.com!audrey-m2.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:142981 Igenlode wrote: >(I will repeat - again - at this point that I am not interested in >pleading the existence of 'Extended Editions'. Peter Jackson was >commissioned to produce a LotR treatment as three films of a *viable* >length for normal commercial screening. I would think that is a matter between Jackson and those who commissioned him. Do you know what their agreement was? It was probably well understood between them that the director's preferred longer version would be saved for DVD.. >It is his business to ensure >that the material makes a coherent story within that time-frame, and it >is on what he achieves within his stipulated limit that he is to be >judged. As a matter of general principle, that does not appear to me to be self evident. Why not judge them on the basis of the Extended Editions? >Spilling over the allocated slot is less a sign of creativity >than of lack of self-control... Arguably, the films *as shown in the >cinema* could, and should, have been edited more tightly for pace as >it was.) Arguably, this is true. Arguably, it will be equally true of the extended editions. But I would not infer from it the general principle you cite above - that films should necessarily be judged as art according to a version that was initially in wide cinematic release for a few months, even though another version is widely available to be seen for years thereafter. Films nowadays spend but a short fime in theaters. From then on, their availability is almost exclucively in other formats. ###### From: Chris Kern Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:57:47 +0900 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 10 Message-ID: <6qoh209jgec4b92grrcroaikiphvl4lg93@4ax.com> References: <20040210005533.30624.qmail@riot.eu.org> <20040210042243.18858.00001856@mb-m28.news.cs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-557.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews2 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:142995 On 10 Feb 2004 09:22:43 GMT, nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) posted the following: >As a matter of general principle, that does not appear to me to be self >evident. Why not judge them on the basis of the Extended Editions? Jackson has said numerous times that the theatrical versions are the definitive versions of the movies. -Chris ###### Lines: 14 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 10 Feb 2004 15:24:13 GMT References: <6qoh209jgec4b92grrcroaikiphvl4lg93@4ax.com> Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Message-ID: <20040210102413.13768.00001259@mb-m27.news.cs.com> Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!news.octanews.net!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!ngpeer.news.aol.com!audrey-m2.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:142997 >On 10 Feb 2004 09:22:43 GMT, nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) posted the >following: > >>As a matter of general principle, that does not appear to me to be self >>evident. Why not judge them on the basis of the Extended Editions? > >Jackson has said numerous times that the theatrical versions are the >definitive versions of the movies. Uh, So??? If someone were to tell you that he likes the Extended Editions better, would you say "No, you are wrong. You may not judge these films by the Extended Edition because Jackson says X"? ###### From: "Derek Wildstar" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <20040210005533.30624.qmail@riot.eu.org> <20040210042243.18858.00001856@mb-m28.news.cs.com> <6qoh209jgec4b92grrcroaikiphvl4lg93@4ax.com> Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Lines: 21 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.128.238.199 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s52 1076435641 24.128.238.199 (Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:54:01 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:54:01 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:54:05 GMT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn54feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s52.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143007 "Chris Kern" wrote in message news:6qoh209jgec4b92grrcroaikiphvl4lg93@4ax.com... > On 10 Feb 2004 09:22:43 GMT, nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) posted the > following: > > >As a matter of general principle, that does not appear to me to be self > >evident. Why not judge them on the basis of the Extended Editions? > > Jackson has said numerous times that the theatrical versions are the > definitive versions of the movies. Which is prima facie evidence of his incompetence in faithfully transposing the books to screen. He did a bang-up job of butchering them however, very entertaining in that regard. ###### Return-Path: Message-ID: <20040212195134.25292.qmail@gacracker.org> From: Igenlode Wordsmith Author-Address: fuku2 redneck gacracker org Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:31:28 GMT Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! References: <20040210005533.30624.qmail@riot.eu.org> Administrative-Comment: Send comments to X-Loop: mail2news@freedom.gmsociety.com Mail-To-News-Contact: mail2news-abuse@freedom.gmsociety.org Organization: GMS Freedom Project Lines: 17 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone.bc.net!news.alt.net!freedom.gmsociety.org!usenet-gateway Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143236 NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway. No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender. -------------------------------------------------------- [repost] > the arrival at Isengard. [snip] > Without an appearance by Saruman, there is no point in this > scene at all. Actually... there is; you've got to pick up the hobbits (and show the reactions of the others to finding them safe and sound). :-( -- Igenlode Bookwraith unabashed See my film reviews at http://comments.imdb.com/CommentsAuthor?1448185 ###### Message-ID: <20040211032743.19927.qmail@riot.eu.org> From: Igenlode Author-Address: tethys blackhole riot eu org Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:39:44 GMT Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! References: <20040210005533.30624.qmail@riot.eu.org> Reply-To: Igenlode_W@nym.alias.net Organization: The Ivory Tower ( http://curry.250x.com/Tower ) Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net Lines: 29 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!newsfeed.stueberl.de!newsfeeder1.noc.eunet-ag.at!news.eunet.at!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143062 On 10 Feb 2004 Alexandra wrote: > Has anyone ever made a psychological approach at the fact that it > seems to be a given thing that people spend far far far *far* more > time on proving they dont like something than anyone would ever spend > on proving they like something? > Some of us simply spend far far far *far* more time analysing what makes films 'work' when we like them (or not) than others - try http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0325980/usercomments-1255 (Pirates of the Caribbean), http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033076/usercomments-3 (Son of Monte Cristo) or http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036695/usercomments-16 (A Canterbury Tale) for examples of an enormous amount of verbiage spent on a *favourable* analysis. :-) And then be grateful I didn't post the thousand-word pure hatchet job I could have done ;-p (It wasn't *that* bad, as a film - setting adaptation and pacing issues aside - but it left me largely emotionally unengaged. If it hadn't been for the Tolkien connection I suppose I shouldn't have been watching that sort of thing anyhow... but it honestly didn't appeal to me any more than "Attack of the Clones", which I watched on Christopher Lee's account. Sheer spectacle is not enough, and the rest didn't hook me as it should.) -- Igenlode Bookwraith unabashed ** Sometimes change is improvement. Sometimes it is only change. ** ###### From: Chris Kern Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:29:06 +0900 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 22 Message-ID: <6pti205um6f3vkbgad6ja1elnik96f8sia@4ax.com> References: <6qoh209jgec4b92grrcroaikiphvl4lg93@4ax.com> <20040210102413.13768.00001259@mb-m27.news.cs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-659.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews3 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143044 On 10 Feb 2004 15:24:13 GMT, nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) posted the following: >>On 10 Feb 2004 09:22:43 GMT, nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) posted the >>following: >> >>>As a matter of general principle, that does not appear to me to be self >>>evident. Why not judge them on the basis of the Extended Editions? >> >>Jackson has said numerous times that the theatrical versions are the >>definitive versions of the movies. > >Uh, So??? If someone were to tell you that he likes the Extended Editions >better, would you say "No, you are wrong. You may not judge these films by the >Extended Edition because Jackson says X"? Of course not. But what it means is that you cannot simply dismiss flaws in the movie by saying "that's in the extended edition". Jackson intended the theatrical releases to stand alone, without the extra scenes in the EE. -Chris ###### Lines: 23 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 11 Feb 2004 03:46:59 GMT References: Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Message-ID: <20040210224659.24764.00001751@mb-m16.news.cs.com> Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!skynet.be!ngpeer.news.aol.com!audrey-m2.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143068 > >"Chris Kern" wrote in message >news:6qoh209jgec4b92grrcroaikiphvl4lg93@4ax.com... >> On 10 Feb 2004 09:22:43 GMT, nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) posted the >> following: >> >> >As a matter of general principle, that does not appear to me to be self >> >evident. Why not judge them on the basis of the Extended Editions? >> >> Jackson has said numerous times that the theatrical versions are the >> definitive versions of the movies. > >Which is prima facie evidence of his incompetence in faithfully transposing >the books to screen. It is prima facie evidence of nothing. What did you expect him to say? "Don't bother seeing the version currently in theaters. The definitive version is still do come." >He did a bang-up job of butchering them however, very entertaining in that >regard. With this, I have no argument. ###### Lines: 57 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 11 Feb 2004 04:19:34 GMT References: <6pti205um6f3vkbgad6ja1elnik96f8sia@4ax.com> Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Message-ID: <20040210231934.24764.00001752@mb-m16.news.cs.com> Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.stueberl.de!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!cycny01.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!ngpeer.news.aol.com!audrey-m2.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143073 >On 10 Feb 2004 15:24:13 GMT, nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) posted the >following: > >>>On 10 Feb 2004 09:22:43 GMT, nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) posted the >>>following: >>> >>>>As a matter of general principle, that does not appear to me to be self >>>>evident. Why not judge them on the basis of the Extended Editions? >>> >>>Jackson has said numerous times that the theatrical versions are the >>>definitive versions of the movies. >> >>Uh, So??? If someone were to tell you that he likes the Extended Editions >>better, would you say "No, you are wrong. You may not judge these films by >the >>Extended Edition because Jackson says X"? > >Of course not. But what it means is that you cannot simply dismiss >flaws in the movie by saying "that's in the extended edition". No. It does not mean that at all. Now, I agree that the film currenly in theaters is very flawed when judged by its own merits. I will even agree that many of its flaws cannot be explained away by saying that it is an abridged version of a longer "extended edition". But this does not follow from Jackson's statements you refer to. They have nothing to do with each other.. If a person has seen the EE, and likes it better, then he has every right dismiss, as irrelevant to him, criticisms of the theatrical version that do not apply to the EE. >Jackson intended the theatrical releases to stand alone, without the >extra scenes in the EE. Again, Jackson's intentions are utterly irrelevant. [BTW - and this is still irrelevant - what the heck did you expect him to say: "Don't bother giving this film any of the Oscars its up for - its not the definitive version. Don't bother going to see it in theaters - wait for the DVD." The man would never work again. His current job is to market the theatrical version. His tune may change later.] Currently, the theatrical version of ROTK is the only one available. Currently, that is the only version we can judge. There is nothing wrong with judging and reviewing this version of the film on its own merits. However, If a person has seen two versions, and likes one better, then he will recommend the better one. For him, that will be the definitive version, and he will be quite right to judge the film on the basis of the only version he thinks his friends should waste time watching. Popular consensus may even support him. I say that the definitive versions of Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back are the ones that were originally released. Why? Because, IMHO, they are better than the "Special Editions". I don't care what George Lucas thinks. ###### From: "All the News" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:16:39 -0500 Lines: 53 Message-ID: References: <20040210005533.30624.qmail@riot.eu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: 148.61.142.9 X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1076523486 39577907 I 148.61.142.9 ([63378]) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4920.2300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!148.61.142.9!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143118 > The film comes across as strangely 'bumpy'. It bears all the hallmarks > of long erosion: isolated hummocks of plot stick up from the sweep of > the narrative as relics of an older surface whose context has long > since been erased. They are there because they served a purpose in > Tolkien's plot - but they no longer have any true role to play in > Jackson's story, save as token markers for what was once there. I think you have a real point here, but I think you're prime example is a poor one: > There is a classic example of this at the very start; the arrival at > Isengard. It's a year since I saw the previous film; I find myself with > no idea where we are or why (or even, for a moment, who these riders in > the woods were). They go to Isengard - then turn around and go back to > Rohan again. Without an appearance by Saruman, there is no point in this > scene at all. > > But it has to stay, because of the palantir... or so Jackson thinks... > Be creative! Cut the palantir from the *whole script*. Well, there is also the matter that they don't KNOW that Saurman has been eliminated as a threat. I suppose you could say that Gandalf has some way of knowing this, but the more you play up Gandalf as this all powerful super being, the less a viewer, I think, buys into the idea that he, and he alone, couldn't have somehow saved the whole land on his own. Additionally, there is the matter of picking up Pippen and Merry. Again, I suppose it would be possible to just have them show up later in Rohan, though they don't know where they are suppose to go, nor do they know that Gandalf and all will be where their supposed to be at a specific time. > Gandalf can still carry Pippin off to Minas Tirith, if required. It's > an arbitrary decision. Since when has Gandalf explained himself? :-P > Maybe he just has a premonition that the youngest of the hobbits has yet > some part to play there, for good or ill :-) Again, I think this would made viewers to skeptical. Suddenly, for no reason he feels like he has to take Pippin, and has to take him right NOW! (Remember, they were headed there anyway...) I think if you want to look just at the movie, you do have a lot of good points. It doesn't flow very smoothly and if we decide to completely scrap the idea of staying too true to the book, then lots of things can and should've been changed. I just a little suprised that this is your first example. I think that this is one of the scenese that was okay. Chris ###### From: PurePhilomath@aol.com (Alexandra) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Date: 11 Feb 2004 11:22:51 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <20040210005533.30624.qmail@riot.eu.org> <20040211032743.19927.qmail@riot.eu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.227.248.222 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1076527372 29836 127.0.0.1 (11 Feb 2004 19:22:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:22:52 +0000 (UTC) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143119 Igenlode wrote in message news:<20040211032743.19927.qmail@riot.eu.org>... > Some of us simply spend far far far *far* more time analysing what > makes films 'work' when we like them (or not) than others - try > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0325980/usercomments-1255 (Pirates of > the Caribbean), http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033076/usercomments-3 (Son > of Monte Cristo) or http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036695/usercomments-16 > (A Canterbury Tale) for examples of an enormous amount of verbiage spent > on a *favourable* analysis. :-) > > And then be grateful I didn't post the thousand-word pure hatchet job I > could have done ;-p > ooooookay.... maybe its just not my nature to do that for either reason. (Or maybe its because, after neary 20 years, I have collected more than 1000 movies on video and if I kept talking on how much I like them or dislike the ones I dont have I wouldnt have time for breathing;)) I admit i did post something pro-film in my first post here, but that was more about me wondering what the heck it is that keeps everybody so angry at each other as it sometimes seems to be. After all, its just a film, and yes, just a book. Very good, but nothing to "kill" someone about. Alex >^.^< ###### From: "A Tsar Is Born" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <20040210005533.30624.qmail@riot.eu.org> Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Lines: 11 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:04:20 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.83.197.101 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrdny01.gnilink.net 1076533460 162.83.197.101 (Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:04:20 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:04:20 EST Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!199.45.49.37!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!nwrdny01.gnilink.net.POSTED!d1cafec9!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143128 Interesting suggestions. He could have tied up a loose end by having Eowyn actually die killing the Ringwraith, too. That would have permitted her a brief romance with Aragorn without ruining his prospects of a better match. Well, we all know how OLD Hollywood would have behaved.... Tsar P ###### From: Mark Landin Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:24:02 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 13 Message-ID: <6nal201q85fmrj3q0lejmfr3q30ugq0mog@4ax.com> References: <20040210005533.30624.qmail@riot.eu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-031.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews4 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143145 On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:01:24 GMT, Igenlode wrote: >Given a journey of that length, Frodo's arrival date at Mount Doom >couldn't have been accurately predicted within a window of *weeks*. Except they knew Frodo was in Ithilien two days prior to Faramir's return to Minas Tirith, and that they were taking the Cirith Ungol route over the mountains. I don't know about Aragorn, but that may have been enough information for Gandalf to determine about when Frodo would make Orodruin. Sure there are a lot of variables yet, but certainly it reduces uncertainty to far less than weeks. ###### From: "Kristian Damm Jensen" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:32:23 +0100 Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <20040210005533.30624.qmail@riot.eu.org> <6nal201q85fmrj3q0lejmfr3q30ugq0mog@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.142.44.10 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1076574981 40544767 D 129.142.44.10 ([146708]) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!129.142.44.10!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143190 Mark Landin wrote: > On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:01:24 GMT, Igenlode > wrote: > >> Given a journey of that length, Frodo's arrival date at Mount Doom >> couldn't have been accurately predicted within a window of *weeks*. > > Except they knew Frodo was in Ithilien two days prior to Faramir's > return to Minas Tirith, and that they were taking the Cirith Ungol > route over the mountains. I don't know about Aragorn, but that may > have been enough information for Gandalf to determine about when Frodo > would make Orodruin. Sure there are a lot of variables yet, but > certainly it reduces uncertainty to far less than weeks. Except that Frodo and Sam didn't take the direct route (luckily). In stead they used a roundabout that was nearly twice as long. As it was the journey from Cirith Ungol to Orodruin took 10 days, 4 of which were used going north, *away* from Orodruin. Using a direct line htey could probable have made it in 4 days, assuming that (a) they were more fit (i.e. more fit than when they escaped the orc-armies at Isenmouthe) at the outset since they still had water and food (b) they were not captured by orcs on their way. Not a difference of weeks, but quite large anyway. -- Kristian Damm Jensen damm (at) ofir (dot) dk "One of the troubles with the world is that so few laymen take an interest in science." -- Randall Garrett ###### From: "Derek Wildstar" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <20040210224659.24764.00001751@mb-m16.news.cs.com> Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Lines: 27 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: <4NPWb.14978$jk2.51239@attbi_s53> NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.128.238.199 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s53 1076611264 24.128.238.199 (Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:41:04 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:41:04 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:41:04 GMT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!newsfeed.stueberl.de!canoe.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn54feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s53.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143233 "Nystulc" wrote in message news:20040210224659.24764.00001751@mb-m16.news.cs.com... > It is prima facie evidence of nothing. What did you expect him to say? "Don't > bother seeing the version currently in theaters. The definitive version is > still do come." As you said, his tune will change in the coming years. He will tout the unimpeachable nature of the EE and he will dismiss the Theatricals as mere theatrics. I'll bet you a non-offensive-and-regionally-politically-correct dinner on that. :) > >He did a bang-up job of butchering them however, very entertaining in that > >regard. > > With this, I have no argument. Ah, common ground. Rare. ###### Message-ID: <20040213062259.14956.qmail@riot.eu.org> From: Igenlode Author-Address: tethys blackhole riot eu org Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:58:00 GMT Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! References: <6pti205um6f3vkbgad6ja1elnik96f8sia@4ax.com> <20040210231934.24764.00001752@mb-m16.news.cs.com> Reply-To: Igenlode_W@nym.alias.net Organization: The Ivory Tower ( http://curry.250x.com/Tower ) Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net Lines: 26 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!cyclone.bc.net!news.alt.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143277 On 11 Feb 2004 Nystulc wrote: [snip] > [BTW - and this is still > irrelevant - what the heck did you expect him to say: "Don't bother > giving this film any of the Oscars its up for - its not the > definitive version. Don't bother going to see it in theaters - wait > for the DVD." The man would never work again. His current job is to > market the theatrical version. His tune may change later.] > > Currently, the theatrical version of ROTK is the only one available. I was wondering - are both versions of the DVDs for the previous films on sale, or do they only sell 'extended' editions, on the grounds that anyone who is prepare to pay to own the film probably wants to own as much footage as possible? If both versions *are* available, does anyone know how the respective sales of each compare? (In other words - given the choice, *does* the general public buy lengthened versions, or does it prefer what it saw on the screen?) -- Igenlode Bookwraith unabashed * Ain't never gonna stop the rain by complainin'... * ###### Message-ID: <20040213011519.5045.qmail@riot.eu.org> From: Igenlode Author-Supplied-Address: tethys blackhole riot eu org Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:10:06 GMT Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! References: <20040210005533.30624.qmail@riot.eu.org> Reply-To: Igenlode_W@nym.alias.net Organization: The Ivory Tower ( http://curry.250x.com/Tower ) Mail-To-News-Contact: abuse@dizum.com Lines: 52 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!cyclone.bc.net!news.alt.net!news.dizum.com!sewer-output!mail2news Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143266 On 11 Feb 2004 All the News wrote: > I think you have a real point here, but I think your prime example is > a poor one: [snip Igenlode on Isengard] > they don't KNOW that Saruman > has been eliminated as a threat. I suppose you could say that > Gandalf has some way of knowing this, but the more you play > up Gandalf as this all powerful super being, the less a viewer, > I think, buys into the idea that he, and he alone, couldn't have > somehow saved the whole land on his own. It wasn't exactly made clear as it was, I have to say. The whole thing was so very cursorily done that it felt like a completely unnecessary dredging-up of a stray plot thread from the previous film that would have been better left to rest in peace; to be frank, given the year's lapse in between, I doubt I would have noticed if Saruman had not been mentioned at all. This material belonged in the Two Towers - it was definitely a wrong decision to postpone it. It doesn't fit here. > > Additionally, there is the matter of picking up Pippin and Merry. Yes, I think you're right on this. (I did post a follow-up to my own post on this very point, but the gateway seems to have eaten it as usual...) I was particularly annoyed by this scene because it managed to leave me completely disoriented at the beginning of the film even when I *knew* the book - so I think I may have been subconsciously influenced in my decision :-) [snip] > I think that this is one of the scenes that was okay. > I still feel that it was a prime example of something that needs far more context to work - if the plot prevents it from being cut, then it really needed a *lot* extra included. As it was, it came across as simply intrusive to the story. (Am I imagining things, or was there a speech later on that clearly implied that *Sauron's* Orcs were responsible for the attack on Helm's Deep? I think it was something along the lines of his having lost vast numbers in Rohan and still having overwhelming force with which to assault Gondor... I do remember thinking in the cinema "hang on, that's bad continuity" at the time, but I don't recall exactly what was said.) -- Igenlode Bookwraith unabashed We live in a culture in which being well-spoken is considered proof of insincerity. ###### Return-Path: Message-ID: <20040213093353.21943.qmail@riot.eu.org> From: Igenlode Author-Address: tethys blackhole riot eu org Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:33:05 GMT Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! References: <20040210005533.30624.qmail@riot.eu.org> Organization: The Ivory Tower ( http://curry.250x.com/Tower ) X-Loop: mail2news@freedom.gmsociety.com Mail-To-News-Contact: mail2news-abuse@freedom.gmsociety.org Lines: 29 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.alt.net!freedom.gmsociety.org!usenet-gateway Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143299 NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway. No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender. -------------------------------------------------------- On 11 Feb 2004 A Tsar Is Born wrote: > Interesting suggestions. > > He could have tied up a loose end by having Eowyn actually die killing the > Ringwraith, too. That would have permitted her a brief romance with Aragorn > without ruining his prospects of a better match. Oh, I say, I wish I'd thought of that! ;-) It would have made a beautiful 'character arc', as well... terribly 1940s... (And silenced the critics who complained that everyone the audience really cares about miraculously survives the battle, thus glorifying war - I resented that bitterly as I couldn't see any such message in Tolkien, but I have to admit after having seen it that Jackson's version does, after all, rather come across that way.) > > Well, we all know how OLD Hollywood would have behaved.... > Do tell! -- Igenlode Bookwraith unabashed Those who falter and those who fall must pay the price... ###### Message-ID: <402BFF5D.7090108@nospam.com> From: Chelsea Christenson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! References: <20040210224659.24764.00001751@mb-m16.news.cs.com> <4NPWb.14978$jk2.51239@attbi_s53> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 12 Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:34:05 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 138.1.19.214 X-Trace: news.oracle.com 1076625777 138.1.19.214 (Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:42:57 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:42:57 PST Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.he.net!chekhov.conxion.net!news.oracle.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143253 Derek Wildstar wrote: > As you said, his tune will change in the coming years. He will tout the > unimpeachable nature of the EE and he will dismiss the Theatricals as mere > theatrics. I'm guessing not. Jackson doesn't seem fond of the idea of a director's cut, which implies dissatisfaction with the theatrical release. He seems to be entirely happy with the movies he submitted to the studio. I doubt he's going to say anything which casts the extended editions as director's cuts. ###### From: "Derek Wildstar" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <20040210224659.24764.00001751@mb-m16.news.cs.com> <4NPWb.14978$jk2.51239@attbi_s53> <402BFF5D.7090108@nospam.com> Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Lines: 20 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.128.238.199 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s02 1076633551 24.128.238.199 (Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:52:31 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:52:31 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:52:31 GMT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn53feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s02.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143265 "Chelsea Christenson" wrote in message news:402BFF5D.7090108@nospam.com... > Derek Wildstar wrote: > > > As you said, his tune will change in the coming years. He will tout the > > unimpeachable nature of the EE and he will dismiss the Theatricals as mere > > theatrics. > > I'm guessing not. Jackson doesn't seem fond of the idea of a director's > cut, which implies dissatisfaction with the theatrical release. He > seems to be entirely happy with the movies he submitted to the studio. > I doubt he's going to say anything which casts the extended editions as > director's cuts. You'll be having those words for dinner, I take it? :) ###### Lines: 48 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 13 Feb 2004 09:36:13 GMT References: <402BFF5D.7090108@nospam.com> Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Message-ID: <20040213043613.13477.00001728@mb-m24.news.cs.com> Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!c03.atl99!news.usenetserver.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!audrey-m1.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143300 Chelsea Christenson wrote: >Derek Wildstar wrote: > >> As you said, his tune will change in the coming years. He will tout the >> unimpeachable nature of the EE and he will dismiss the Theatricals as mere >> theatrics. > >I'm guessing not. Jackson doesn't seem fond of the idea of a director's >cut, which implies dissatisfaction with the theatrical release. He >seems to be entirely happy with the movies he submitted to the studio. >I doubt he's going to say anything which casts the extended editions as >director's cuts. I don't know what you are trying to say. Seems to me, that Jackson is very fond of "directors cuts". So fond, that he made two separate "directors cuts" for each episode of the trilogy. I doubt that Jackson will ever say anything to cast aspersions on the (remakably successful) theatrical release. I can, however, imagine him saying at some point that he personally prefers the Extended Editions. I can also imagine him conceding what seems obvious - that the shorter versions are to some extent a artistic concession to time constraints and the shorter attention spans of the more casual film-goer. He has already indicated that the Extended Editions are intended for book-readers and other less-casual fans (a group he would presumably claim to identify with). In both cases, the artistic decisions to cut each film in such a manner as to appeal to the respective target audiences (die-hard vs. casual fan) lay with the director. Of course, the term "director's cut" can be misleading. Very often, the original cut was also a "director's cut", except that the director may have made a few artistic compromises in the interests of appealing to the widest possible audience (which is almost as important to the director as it is to the studio). Later, when there turns out to be an interested fan base, the director is allowed to recut a new edition so the studio can earn a few extra bucks. Sometimes the new edition is closer to the director's original artistic vision (as in Blade Runner, perhaps); other times it is just a marketing ploy for dubious afterthoughts (ie, Alien). The Extended Editions could easily be called "Director's Cuts". However, there is no reason to call them that, since they are instead being marketed under the perfectly adequate term "Extended Edition". And, of course, this terminology was chosen because, unlike Director's Cut, it does not imply that there was anything inferior about the theatrical edition in the opinion of the director. ###### Lines: 20 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 13 Feb 2004 09:57:10 GMT References: <20040213062259.14956.qmail@riot.eu.org> Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Message-ID: <20040213045710.13477.00001729@mb-m24.news.cs.com> Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!newsfeed.stueberl.de!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!ngpeer.news.aol.com!audrey-m1.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143303 Igenlode wrote: >I was wondering - are both versions of the DVDs for the previous films >on sale, or do they only sell 'extended' editions, on the grounds that >anyone who is prepare to pay to own the film probably wants to own as >much footage as possible? No. The theatrical version of each film became available on DVD as soon as it was pulled out of theaters (about 26 weeks after release). Then, the Extended Edition was released, on DVD, shortly before the theatrical release of the next episode. Both versions should still be available, the "theory" being that the theatrical version will be preferred casual fan.. >If both versions *are* available, does anyone know how the respective >sales of each compare? (In other words - given the choice, *does* the >general public buy lengthened versions, or does it prefer what it saw I don't know the answer to your question, but it seems to contain an illogical assumption: that if someone buys the theatrical version of the DVD, it means he prefers that version over the Extended Edition. ###### Message-ID: <20040215010851.16742.qmail@gacracker.org> From: Igenlode Wordsmith Author-Supplied-Address: fuku2 redneck gacracker org Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 22:14:29 GMT Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! References: <20040213062259.14956.qmail@riot.eu.org> <20040213045710.13477.00001729@mb-m24.news.cs.com> Reply-To: Igenlode_W@nym.alias.net Organization: The Ivory Tower ( http://curry.250x.com/Tower ) Administrative-Comment: Send comments to X-Abuse-Contact: abuse@bananasplit.info Lines: 23 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!newshosting.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!news.glorb.com!news.bananasplit.info!nym2news Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143429 On 13 Feb 2004 Nystulc wrote: [snip] > The theatrical version of each film became available on DVD as soon > as it was pulled out of theaters (about 26 weeks after release). > Then, the Extended Edition was released, on DVD, shortly before the > theatrical release of the next episode. Both versions should still > be available, the "theory" being that the theatrical version will be > preferred casual fan.. [snip] > I don't know the answer to your question, but it seems to contain an illogical > assumption: that if someone buys the theatrical version of the DVD, it means > he prefers that version over the Extended Edition. Ah, I see; in my innocence, I had assumed that there was actually an open choice available from the start. Clearly, there is far more money to be made by inducing the True Fan to buy *both* versions... -- Igenlode Bookwraith unabashed The world owes you nothing. It was here first. ###### Lines: 51 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 15 Feb 2004 09:18:27 GMT References: <20040215010851.16742.qmail@gacracker.org> Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Message-ID: <20040215041827.01270.00001028@mb-m13.news.cs.com> Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!199.45.49.37!cyclone1.gnilink.net!ngpeer.news.aol.com!audrey-m2.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143449 >On 13 Feb 2004 Nystulc wrote: >[snip] >> The theatrical version of each film became available on DVD as soon >> as it was pulled out of theaters (about 26 weeks after release). >> Then, the Extended Edition was released, on DVD, shortly before the >> theatrical release of the next episode. Both versions should still >> be available, the "theory" being that the theatrical version will be >> preferred casual fan.. > >[snip] > >> I don't know the answer to your question, but it seems to contain an >illogical >> assumption: that if someone buys the theatrical version of the DVD, it >means >> he prefers that version over the Extended Edition. > >Ah, I see; in my innocence, I had assumed that there was actually >an open choice available from the start. First the regular edition; then the Extended Edition four months later.. >Clearly, there is far more money to be >made by inducing the True Fan to buy *both* versions... Obviously, New Line will be very happy with anyone ("True Fan" or no) who buys *both* versions. That's a no-brainer! But my only point here was that one cannot judge, at this early stage, which is the "definitive" version based on DVD sales. It is very unlikely that a decision to purchase one or the other has been influenced by any sort of informed decision as to which is better. I myself own neither version. I did see the Extended Edition of Fellowship at one point, and IMHO it is significantly better than theatrical release. It contains most of the same bad points as in the theatrical version. But all the additions or changes were improvements (to a surprising extent).. Since these movies are a collaboration (for instance - three script writers), it is likely there are different artistic sensibilities involved. It is possible that many artistic differences were resolved by allowing one approach to prevail in the EEs, and another in the theatricals. It may well be true that Jackson means it when he says he regards the theatrical version as definitive. However, if this is so, there must be SOMEONE deeply involved in the film-making process who thinks otherwise, because the EEs seem to reflect that person's vision.. ###### From: "Christopher Kreuzer" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <20040210005533.30624.qmail@riot.eu.org> <6nal201q85fmrj3q0lejmfr3q30ugq0mog@4ax.com> Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Lines: 19 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:16:02 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.44.103.7 X-Complaints-To: abuse@blueyonder.co.uk X-Trace: news-text.cableinet.net 1076854562 82.44.103.7 (Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:16:02 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:16:02 GMT Organization: blueyonder (post doesn't reflect views of blueyonder) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!proxad.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!news-fe1!news-text.cableinet.net!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143457 Kristian Damm Jensen wrote: >> Igenlode wrote: >> >>> Given a journey of that length, Frodo's arrival date at Mount Doom >>> couldn't have been accurately predicted within a window of *weeks*. > Except that Frodo and Sam didn't take the direct route (luckily). In > stead they used a roundabout that was nearly twice as long. That was the book, not the films. That makes the timing problem worse in the books than in the films! :-( Christopher -- --- Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard ###### From: "Christopher Kreuzer" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <20040210005533.30624.qmail@riot.eu.org> <20040213011519.5045.qmail@riot.eu.org> Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Lines: 37 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: <1jLXb.4828$qh6.48324756@news-text.cableinet.net> Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:25:01 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.44.103.7 X-Complaints-To: abuse@blueyonder.co.uk X-Trace: news-text.cableinet.net 1076855101 82.44.103.7 (Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:25:01 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:25:01 GMT Organization: blueyonder (post doesn't reflect views of blueyonder) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!newshosting.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!news-fe1!news-text.cableinet.net!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143458 Igenlode wrote: [about Isengard scene in RotK] > It wasn't exactly made clear as it was, I have to say. The whole thing > was so very cursorily done that it felt like a completely unnecessary > dredging-up of a stray plot thread from the previous film that would > have been better left to rest in peace; to be frank, given the year's > lapse in between, I doubt I would have noticed if Saruman had not been > mentioned at all. This material belonged in the Two Towers - it was > definitely a wrong decision to postpone it. It doesn't fit here. But you have to remember that this is three films telling one story. I know that they should stand-alone to some extent and that there was a year's gap between each, but that is mainly due to the logistics of producing the films and seeing if the first one will be successful before paying for post-production on the other films. Nevertheless, the storyline is one continuous arc, and the films do need to be judged as a whole in many respects. *One* book. *One* film. :-) > Am I imagining things, or was there a speech later on that clearly > implied that *Sauron's* Orcs were responsible for the attack on Helm's > Deep? I think the implication here is a reference to the Sauron/Saruman alliance, which is a big deal in the film but much less clear in the book. So Saruman's armies could reasonably be talked about as also being Sauron's armies in that context. Christopher -- --- Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard ###### From: "Christopher Kreuzer" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <20040215010851.16742.qmail@gacracker.org> <20040215041827.01270.00001028@mb-m13.news.cs.com> Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Lines: 40 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:42:37 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.44.103.7 X-Complaints-To: abuse@blueyonder.co.uk X-Trace: news-text.cableinet.net 1076856157 82.44.103.7 (Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:42:37 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:42:37 GMT Organization: blueyonder (post doesn't reflect views of blueyonder) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!in2p3.fr!proxad.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!news-fe1!news-text.cableinet.net!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143459 Nystulc wrote: > Obviously, New Line will be very happy with anyone ("True Fan" or no) > who buys *both* versions. That's a no-brainer! I own both versions. Some only buy one or the other or none. It would also be difficult to assess which is most popular from DVD/VHS sales because of the time lag that induces some to buy both. DVDs also have special features, whereas the VHS versions don't. I would assume the theatrical releases sell more, but would be interested in the actual figures if anyone knows where to get them. > Since these movies are a collaboration (for instance - three script > writers), it is likely there are different artistic sensibilities > involved. It is possible that many artistic differences were > resolved by allowing one approach to prevail in the EEs, and another > in the theatricals. An interesting possibility. Jackson would still have responsibility for both. > It may well be true that Jackson means it when he says he regards the > theatrical version as definitive. However, if this is so, there must > be SOMEONE deeply involved in the film-making process who thinks > otherwise, because the EEs seem to reflect that person's vision.. I suspect what you mentioned earlier: that Jackson will change his tune about which is the definitive version after the awards season is over and the extended version of RotK is in the shops. But then, again, that may be to boost sales of the EE. Then again, I may be being too cynical. Wait a few years and see what Jackson says then. Christopher -- --- Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard ###### From: "Christopher Kreuzer" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <20040210005533.30624.qmail@riot.eu.org> Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Lines: 167 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:46:56 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.44.103.7 X-Complaints-To: abuse@blueyonder.co.uk X-Trace: news-text.cableinet.net 1076856416 82.44.103.7 (Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:46:56 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:46:56 GMT Organization: blueyonder (post doesn't reflect views of blueyonder) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!proxad.net!proxad.net!213.253.16.105.MISMATCH!mephistopheles.news.clara.net!news.clara.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!news-fe1!news-text.cableinet.net!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143460 Igenlode wrote: > have attempted to consider the film > as a production in its own right. In that process, I came to the > startling conclusion above - that *as an amateur of film*, I would > say Jackson did himself a disservice in attempting to adhere too > closely to the content of Tolkien's plot. Not that startling. A story always has to have its own flow and rhythm, and ignoring basic film and storytelling rules just to include certain 'must-have' scenes (for whatever reason) was always going to spell trouble. Making the decisions over what to include or not _is_ extremely difficult though. > The film comes across as strangely 'bumpy'. It bears all the hallmarks > of long erosion: isolated hummocks of plot stick up from the sweep of > the narrative as relics of an older surface whose context has long > since been erased. Nice description! > Spilling over the allocated slot is less a sign of creativity > than of lack of self-control... Arguably, the films *as shown in the > cinema* could, and should, have been edited more tightly for pace as > it was.) Absolutely. But not all the way through. You need some changes in pace as well, to have interludes throughout a very long film. > There is a classic example of this at the very start; the arrival at > Isengard. It's a year since I saw the previous film; I find myself > with no idea where we are or why (or even, for a moment, who these > riders in the woods were). They go to Isengard - then turn around and > go back to Rohan again. Without an appearance by Saruman, there is no > point in this scene at all. But it is nice. A film scene doesn't always have to be functional. This scene was a nice interlude and enjoyable to watch. > But it has to stay, because of the palantir... or so Jackson thinks... > Be creative! Cut the palantir from the *whole script*. Or be more creative and include the palantir properly? I'd cut other stuff to include the palantir, rather than cutting the palantir altogether. I'd include the Minas Tirith palantir and Aragorn's use of the Isengard palantir. But if you have to cut the palantir theme down to its bare bones, then I think the way Jackson did it was OK. What messed it up was no future references to Sauron thinking the Ring was in Minas Tirith or with Aragorn and the Army of the West. That would have been so easy to do. > the second major excision I felt would be justified, > to improve the flow - Denethor and/or Faramir. You still need Faramir or one of the Ithilien rangers to tell Gandalf about meeting Frodo. Losing one or both of these two characters is too major a change. There are better ways to repair the Faramir/Denethor storyline. The Faramir storyline (in RotK) started to go wrong when Osgiliath fell too soon. In the book, the Faramir-Denethor confrontation occurs before Osgiliath falls. Faramir has returned to report on the situation. He is in favour of retreating from Osgiliath, but Denethor sends him back to continue the defence of Osgiliath. Not a suicide mission to retake a lost position as in the film. The Denethor storyline went wrong when he was straightaway shown as not in control and overthrown with grief. We don't get to see any change, the descent into madness and despair that we see in the books. Some of the best Denethor scenes and lines from the book were just cut. They were really cinematic scenes and I missed them. > use the hobbit as Tolkien intended: to give us an > outsider's view of the daily life of Minas Tirith. > Let us see at least as much of the folk of Gondor as > we did of those of Rohan under threat in the previous film - give the > audience some reason to care about the outcome of the battle. Flash > back to Aragorn's promise to Boromir, perhaps. That is something else I missed from the books. > Gollum - not a pacing issue, but he seems to have gone very > one-dimensional in this film. A disappointment. Probably best to view TT and RotK together to properly judge the Gollum character arc. The scene at the end of TT where Gollum regains control over Smeagol is the key moment. I don't mind the characterisation of Gollum in RotK, but I do mind the plot changes (lembas scenes). > Theoden's will-he/won't-he-help-Gondor act is resolved far too easily, I'd cut the whole Theoden indecision bit anyway. From TT as well. I suppose this was only put in to make Theoden not appear more decisive than Aragorn. Those changes to Aragorn have a lot to answer for! > Cut the mumakil I have big problems with the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. Mainly with the order of events and the massive changes made. The initial siege, the charge of the Rohirrim and Eowyn's scene with the Witch-King. These were the only bits left mostly intact. Everything else was drastically changed. Things went wrong from the moment the mumakil appeared. They were too large and not accompanied by any army. The charge of the Rohirrim was not shown to be the reason the Witch-King left the gates of Minas Tirith (indeed he was never there in the film - and no near-confrontation with Gandalf). There was no army charging out from Minas Tirith to support the Rohirrim. The orcs actually entered Minas Tirith in the film. The mumakil appeared before the Witch-King attacked Theoden. There was no new charge by Eomer after Theoden's death. Merry's role in the slaying of the Witch-King is reduced to a incredibly brief cameo, with an annoying distraction of 'he may have been crushed by that oliphaunt'. The Merry-Theoden interaction is replaced by a Theoden-Eowyn scene. The chance was missed to see the reaction in Minas Tirith to the appearance of the Corsair ships. Finally, there was no Aragorn leading an army of men from southern Gondor and meeting Eomer in the midst of battle. Instead we got Green Soap-Suds (TM) Army of the Dead cleansing the battlefield. We got a battle, but it was definitely _not_ the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. [Sorry for the bookwraith rant. Back to your post.] > Some sort of rationale is needed, in my view, to justify the > ridiculous way in which the earthquake of destruction after Sauron's > fall just happens to leave a neat untouched ring where Aragorn's army > is standing. That was to avoid the book alternative where the enemy just run away. But the film still had the troll standing on Aragorn running away, so that it is silly to not have the rest of the army run away. Just having Barad-dur crumble should be enough to explain the army running away and/or surrundering. Would you carry on fighting if your leader's HQ had just crumbled into dust? These good guys must have powerful magic... > the film's parallel timelines contrive to > highlight the fact that the diversionary attack on the Morannon, > pressed ahead with impetuous haste, actually depends on absolute > split-second co-ordination between Frodo and his party and Aragorn and > his: namely two allies who have had no contact since Rauros, and have > no means of knowing even, against the odds, of the other's survival. > This rather > suggests the daring solution of introducing the palantiri *at this > point* - having Pippin stumble upon and become entrapped by the Stone > of Minas Tirith, rather than Saruman's stone at Isengard. That's not a bad idea. Would be needed in the storylines where even more drastic cutting is done and the whole Rohan/Fangorn storyline is cut... As for the timeline problems, it probably helps to think that the Sauron distraction theme is not as time-critical in the books as it is in the films. I agree that it is a problem in the films though. The whole 'emptying Mordor so that Sam and Frodo can cross Gorgoroth' thing is over-emphasized in the film, as is the awful Sauron searchlight thing. Remove or tone both of these elements down, and the problem is resolved, or at least much lessened. Christopher -- --- Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard "None saw her last meeting with Elrond her father, for they went up into the hills and there spoke long together, and bitter was their parting that should endure beyond the ends of the world." - Arwen's farewell (Many Partings - RotK) ###### Lines: 83 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 16 Feb 2004 16:44:33 GMT References: Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Message-ID: <20040216114433.27149.00002083@mb-m11.news.cs.com> Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!skynet.be!ngpeer.news.aol.com!audrey-m1.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143548 Christopher Kreuzer wrote: >Nystulc wrote: > >> Obviously, New Line will be very happy with anyone ("True Fan" or no) >> who buys *both* versions. That's a no-brainer! > >I own both versions. [...] Well, then, you are qualified to express an opinion as to which version (of Fellowship, anyway) is "definitive". >[...] I would assume the >theatrical releases sell more, but would be interested in the actual >figures if anyone knows where to get them. I don't know how to get them. Seems to me, though, that all the hype is focussed on box-office receipts (even though these are increasingly illusory as a indication of long-term profitability) , and that the industry has relatively little incentive to release to the public other financial data. There are some movies, like, say, "A Christmas Story" that achieve some measure of success or popularity *after* they leave theaters. I don't know how one would measure this success in financial terms, and it seems to me that members of the public, like myself, need not bother with such questions. We need only decide whether we like or dislike a movie, or (in this case) which version we like better. I would like to think that, in the long term, quality is financially rewarded to some extent. But I guess that this is minimally true, for the industry likes to make trash, and I have to assume it knows what it is doing, businesswise. >> Since these movies are a collaboration (for instance - three script >> writers), it is likely there are different artistic sensibilities >> involved. It is possible that many artistic differences were >> resolved by allowing one approach to prevail in the EEs, and another >> in the theatricals. > >An interesting possibility. Jackson would still have responsibility for >both. Well, Jackson is one of many people who have "responsibility" for both. As "director" he is the person traditionally designated within the industry as being the primary author (so to speak) of a film: the person most designated to accept credit or blame for a film's success or lack thereof. While this has some truth to it, it is mainly a convenient fiction, one of whose purposes is to help the industry to market and hype later films by a director who previously achieved success. The director is not "responsible" in the sense that he is the person with the final say in all decisions. That privilege belongs to his superiors, though they generally permit the director a fair amount of artistic freedom. Nor is he "responsible" in the sense that he does everything himself. Much, if not most, of that is done by those below him, and his contribution is often nothing more than giving the rubber stamp of approval. Rather, his status as "primary auteur" comes from the idea that he combines these two principles to the greatest extent. He is the highest-level manager who (customarily) directly involves himself to a major extent in the creative process. In this case, it was clear from the start that there would be tension between the goals of creating a film with mass appeal and one that would appeal to book fans. One purpose of the EE version was to help resolve this dichotomy. My brother's impression, from the commentaries, was that it was not Jackson, but one of his collaborators (Boyens?) whose comments reflected the greatest appreciation of the books. >> It may well be true that Jackson means it when he says he regards the >> theatrical version as definitive. However, if this is so, there must >> be SOMEONE deeply involved in the film-making process who thinks >> otherwise, because the EEs seem to reflect that person's vision.. > >I suspect what you mentioned earlier: that Jackson will change his tune >about which is the definitive version after the awards season is over >and the extended version of RotK is in the shops. But then, again, that >may be to boost sales of the EE. Then again, I may be being too cynical. > >Wait a few years and see what Jackson says then. I really don't think we should care what Jackson says, even if he is sincere. We, the audience, are the judges of the film. ###### Message-ID: <40312A6A.4000506@nospam.com> From: Chelsea Christenson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! References: <402BFF5D.7090108@nospam.com> <20040213043613.13477.00001728@mb-m24.news.cs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 35 Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:39:06 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 138.1.19.214 X-Trace: news.oracle.com 1076964479 138.1.19.214 (Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:47:59 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:47:59 PST Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.he.net!chekhov.conxion.net!news.oracle.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143568 Nystulc wrote: > Chelsea Christenson wrote: > > >>Derek Wildstar wrote: >> >> >>>As you said, his tune will change in the coming years. He will tout the >>>unimpeachable nature of the EE and he will dismiss the Theatricals as mere >>>theatrics. >> >>I'm guessing not. Jackson doesn't seem fond of the idea of a director's >>cut, which implies dissatisfaction with the theatrical release. He >>seems to be entirely happy with the movies he submitted to the studio. >>I doubt he's going to say anything which casts the extended editions as >>director's cuts. > > > I don't know what you are trying to say. Seems to me, that Jackson is very > fond of "directors cuts". So fond, that he made two separate "directors cuts" > for each episode of the trilogy. He might like making different cuts, but he doesn't like the term "director's cut." He has been very careful about avoiding anything that might cast aspersions on the original version, which he really is quite pleased with. I expect that he will continue to do so > I doubt that Jackson will ever say anything to cast aspersions on the > (remakably successful) theatrical release. I can, however, imagine him saying > at some point that he personally prefers the Extended Editions. What he has said thus far about them is that he enjoys the moments that have been added, but he thinks the film overall suffers due to the changes in pacing. ###### Lines: 47 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 17 Feb 2004 02:43:58 GMT References: <40312A6A.4000506@nospam.com> Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Message-ID: <20040216214358.24764.00002104@mb-m16.news.cs.com> Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!audrey-m2.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143625 Chelsea Christenson wrote: >Nystulc wrote: >> Chelsea Christenson wrote: >> I don't know what you are trying to say. Seems to me, that Jackson is very >> fond of "directors cuts". So fond, that he made two separate "directors >cuts" >> for each episode of the trilogy. > >He might like making different cuts, but he doesn't like the term >"director's cut." He has been very careful about avoiding anything that >might cast aspersions on the original version, which he really is quite >pleased with. I expect that he will continue to do so As I said, "Director's Cut" is a marketing term. New Line has chosen not to market the film under this term, and it is precisely for the reasons you have stated. Had New Line began to market these EEs years after the theatrical version had left theaters, there would be nothing preventing them from marketing them as "Director's Cuts", and it seems (to me) rather unlikely that Jackson would refuse to cooperate. But what I am trying to say is that it does not matter what Jackson says now; nor does it matter what Jackson says later. I raised the possibility that he might not be entirely sincere as only one of many reasons why we should treat his opinion as irrelevant. Even if he is entirely sincere my position remains the same: We the public, not Jackson, are entitled to decide which version of the film is "definitive". >> I doubt that Jackson will ever say anything to cast aspersions on the >> (remakably successful) theatrical release. I can, however, imagine him >saying >> at some point that he personally prefers the Extended Editions. > >What he has said thus far about them is that he enjoys the moments that >have been added, but he thinks the film overall suffers due to the >changes in pacing. Sounds like he is saying we should buy both versions :) If I were in his shoes I would say the same thing. New Line took an awful risk financing this film to the extent they did. I would owe it to them to back them up with marketing. And I would not even need to lie. "The EE suffers overall due to the changes in pacing" would just be my polite way of saying "It will be a bit too long for you jokers with short attention spans." Assuming he is sincere, I care not. Having seen both versions of Fellowship, I disagree. I think it is better that more time passes between the painfully-bad, painfully-obvious, over-the-top sequences that Jackson seems to prefer. The "pacing" has improved. ###### From: "Christopher Kreuzer" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <20040216114433.27149.00002083@mb-m11.news.cs.com> Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Lines: 52 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:37:28 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.43.163.4 X-Complaints-To: abuse@blueyonder.co.uk X-Trace: news-text.cableinet.net 1077061048 82.43.163.4 (Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:37:28 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:37:28 GMT Organization: blueyonder (post doesn't reflect views of blueyonder) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!newsfeed.stueberl.de!proxad.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!news-fe1!news-text.cableinet.net!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143700 Nystulc wrote: > Christopher Kreuzer wrote: > >> [...] I would assume the >> theatrical releases sell more, but would be interested in the actual >> figures if anyone knows where to get them. > > I don't know how to get them. Seems to me, though, that all the hype > is focussed on box-office receipts (even though these are > increasingly illusory as a indication of long-term profitability) , > and that the industry has relatively little incentive to release to > the public other financial data. There must be some data released to do those bestselling charts. I actually know someone who works in the film distribution industry. I'll ask them next time I see them. I wonder why all the hype is on box-office sales? Probably just more grist for the publicity machine. Also, if a movie does badly, that can be bad publicity. Also, a movie might be profitable in the long-term, but if it doesn't make back the money *now*, then someone is going to go bust! > it seems to me that members of the public, like myself, need not > bother with such questions. We need only decide whether we like or > dislike a movie, or (in this case) which version we like better. But I would also like to know how popular a movie is among the public. I guess those 'best film' surveys are another indicator, though I thought DVD sales figures might also have something to say as well. > The director is not "responsible" [...] Rather, his status as "primary > auteur" comes from the idea that he combines these two principles > to the greatest extent. He is the highest-level manager who > (customarily) directly involves himself to a major extent in the > creative process. A different way of putting it, but I would agree. > I really don't think we should care what Jackson says, even if he is > sincere. We, the audience, are the judges of the film. A very refreshing POV. Thanks. Christopher -- --- Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard ###### From: nystulc@cs.com (John B. Whelan) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Date: 20 Feb 2004 09:23:00 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <20040216114433.27149.00002083@mb-m11.news.cs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.168.123.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1077297781 2221 127.0.0.1 (20 Feb 2004 17:23:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 17:23:01 +0000 (UTC) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!takemy.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!feed.news.schlund.de!schlund.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!newspeer1.nwr.nac.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143960 "Christopher Kreuzer" wrote" > There must be some data released to do those bestselling charts. I > actually know someone who works in the film distribution industry. I'll > ask them next time I see them. A DVD magazine (Total DVD) that I browsed through, provided a list of top-selling DVDs for the month of November. No sales figures were given, merely a series of top-10 lists divided by category. Their source was "independent market research" implying to me that actual sales figures are not generally released. Their "Movie" top-ten list included both Fellowship (at #8) and Two Towers (at #1). Both were the Extended versions. Of course, this does not necessarily mean that the public has an informed preference the Extended version. I would guess that most of those ordering the Extended Version have not seen it yet. ###### Message-ID: <40366A78.7010803@nospam.com> From: Chelsea Christenson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! References: <40312A6A.4000506@nospam.com> <20040216214358.24764.00002104@mb-m16.news.cs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 18 Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:13:44 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 138.1.19.214 X-Trace: news.oracle.com 1077308560 138.1.19.214 (Fri, 20 Feb 2004 12:22:40 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 12:22:40 PST Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!HSNX.atgi.net!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!216.218.192.242!news.he.net!chekhov.conxion.net!news.oracle.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143962 Nystulc wrote: > Assuming he is sincere, I care not. Having seen both versions of Fellowship, I > disagree. I think it is better that more time passes between the > painfully-bad, painfully-obvious, over-the-top sequences that Jackson seems to > prefer. The "pacing" has improved. I didn't even notice the pacing. I recall comments about the whole Lorien sequence -- they (the film team) were saying that the plot just came to a dead stop while the party rested there, and so they wanted to move on as quickly as possible. To me, that was one of several "movies by the numbers" comments. The party has just had this long, harrowing experience in the mines of Moria, they've confronted a Balrog, they've lost Gandalf (their first (presumed) death), and they've been hunted by orcs. They need a respite. And if you're bringing the audience along on their journey, the audience needs a respite, too. So I don't see the Lorien interlude as a bad thing. ###### Message-ID: <20040221021508.16187.qmail@riot.eu.org> From: Igenlode Author-Supplied-Address: tethys blackhole riot eu org Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 22:53:05 GMT Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! References: <20040210005533.30624.qmail@riot.eu.org> Reply-To: Igenlode_W@nym.alias.net Organization: The Ivory Tower ( http://curry.250x.com/Tower ) Mail-To-News-Contact: abuse@dizum.com Lines: 455 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!pd7cy2so!shaw.ca!news-out1.nntp.be!propagator4-cogent.newsfeed.com!propagator2-sterling!news-in-sterling.newsfeeds.com!news.dizum.com!sewer-output!mail2news Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:143997 [repost] On 15 Feb 2004 Christopher Kreuzer wrote: > Igenlode wrote: > > > have attempted to consider the film > > as a production in its own right. In that process, I came to the > > startling conclusion above - that *as an amateur of film*, I would > > say Jackson did himself a disservice in attempting to adhere too > > closely to the content of Tolkien's plot. > > Not that startling. A story always has to have its own flow and rhythm, > and ignoring basic film and storytelling rules just to include certain > 'must-have' scenes (for whatever reason) was always going to spell > trouble. Making the decisions over what to include or not _is_ extremely > difficult though. Indeed. I've just been watching Graham Greene's adaptation of Shaw's "St Joan", and it's very interesting to compare that back to the original play... I have to say I think he improved it, but then I don't care over-much for Shaw. Likewise, the people who find Tolkien's writing insufferably pretentious feel that Peter Jackson has done an excellent job in making the story accessible as "a fable for our times". No; I found it a startling conclusion simply because most of my *own* objections to the films were caused by departures from Tolkien's plot. As I wrote, if Jackson had actually made one-half of the changes I proposed, I'm sure I should have been one of those crying out most loudly against it! > > > The film comes across as strangely 'bumpy'. It bears all the hallmarks > > of long erosion: isolated hummocks of plot stick up from the sweep of > > the narrative as relics of an older surface whose context has long > > since been erased. > > Nice description! For a fine turn of phrase, one should always keep a Wordsmith handy :-) > > > Spilling over the allocated slot is less a sign of creativity > > than of lack of self-control... Arguably, the films *as shown in the > > cinema* could, and should, have been edited more tightly for pace as > > it was.) > > Absolutely. But not all the way through. You need some changes in pace > as well, to have interludes throughout a very long film. Definitely. I actually felt that the last twenty minutes or so worked *better*, pacing-wise, than almost everything that had preceded it. But it's almost a totally different film - it might have worked better, for me, if he'd done rather more of it at that pace and in that style, rather than going full-out for frenetic grunge. But then I suspect one would have to cut an awful lot of plot... > > > There is a classic example of this at the very start; the arrival at > > Isengard. [snip] > > Without an appearance by Saruman, there is no > > point in this scene at all. > > But it is nice. A film scene doesn't always have to be functional. This > scene was a nice interlude and enjoyable to watch. I think the reunion with Merry and Pippin *is* essential... but I still feel that, given the rest of the film, the detour to Isengard for that purpose was both confusing and unnecessary. If I'd been asked where, after the events of the Two Towers, I expected to find Theoden and Aragorn, I think I'd have mentally placed them at Helm's Deep or perhaps back in Edoras. Having them show up for the first time riding through a bit of unidentified woodland completely threw me. > > > But it has to stay, because of the palantir... or so Jackson thinks... > > Be creative! Cut the palantir from the *whole script*. > > Or be more creative and include the palantir properly? I'd cut other > stuff to include the palantir, rather than cutting the palantir > altogether. I'd include the Minas Tirith palantir and Aragorn's use of > the Isengard palantir. But if you put the whole plot back, then the film has to be *much* longer... This goes equally for most of the elements I mentioned; to be treated in adequate detail, they require a lot more space. They can't *all* have it. (In fact, going on the assumption that making the film longer is a definite non-starter, none of them can have it...) > But if you have to cut the palantir theme down to > its bare bones, then I think the way Jackson did it was OK. What messed > it up was no future references to Sauron thinking the Ring was in Minas > Tirith or with Aragorn and the Army of the West. [snip] But because, as far as I can tell, it doesn't come in again, in effect, the whole 'palantir theme' becomes pointless. He doesn't do anything with it! What's the use? Just about the only purpose it serves is to wedge in a nice (well, dreadful, actually) special effects sequence, and an excuse to get Pippin to Minas Tirith. I don't know... it seems - gratuitous, somehow. It's there because it's there because it's there *in Tolkien* - but it no longer has the surrounding logic in which Tolkien subsequently embedded it. Not even the "seven stars and seven stones and one white tree". (At least I don't think so...) > > > the second major excision I felt would be justified, > > to improve the flow - Denethor and/or Faramir. > > You still need Faramir or one of the Ithilien rangers to tell Gandalf > about meeting Frodo. That's scarcely an insuperable imperative - one could dispose of it in a couple of lines of dialogue for Gandalf in that post-battle meeting with the rest of the Fellowship (the Last Debate that wasn't). He just says that he has heard from soldiers who were in Ithilien that Frodo was sighted crossing into Mordor a few days earlier, and then proceeds as before. :-) > Losing one or both of these two characters is too > major a change. There are better ways to repair the Faramir/Denethor > storyline. Well, as above, it needs a lot more *length*, for a start :-) > The Faramir storyline (in RotK) started to go wrong when Osgiliath fell > too soon. Yes, you're right; I hadn't even noticed that (Osgiliath not playing a major part in the book - the River, yes, the city, no). [snip] > Not a suicide mission to retake a lost position as in the film. That was... stupid. It made Denethor look stupid, and it made Faramir (who was responsible, after all, for working out how to implement that order) look even more stupid. (But then, frankly, movie-Faramir doesn't come across as a gentle scholar and strategist - more of a 'hack-it-if-it-moves' character). > > The Denethor storyline went wrong when he was straightaway shown as not > in control and overthrown with grief. > I'm not sure we even got that - though there was a suggestion of it in the first shot of the character. I saw him depicted as petty-spirited, slovenly and petulant, caring nothing for Gondor or Minas Tirith so long as he could score off a few points from those around him. Film-Denethor fails to act at all because he is too small-minded to perceive any danger, whereas book-Denethor summons the Riders of Rohan before Gandalf even reaches the City. Having film-Denethor supposedly show grief for Faramir ended up simply seeming inconsistent with the character, making an already-weakened scene even more implausible. Nobody could describe the character Jackson shows us as "proud and subtle", let alone "more kingly, beautiful and powerful" then Gandalf. Film-Denethor is despicable, and there is no tragedy in his fall. (And all too much 'fall', of course..!) > We don't get to see any change, > the descent into madness and despair that we see in the books. Some of > the best Denethor scenes and lines from the book were just cut. They > were really cinematic scenes and I missed them. Given that Denethor is one of my favourite characters, you can imagine how I felt! He's an almost pure-blooded Numenorean - brilliant, bitter and hard... so hard he can't bend until he breaks altogether. He is pretty much Aragorn's equal in will and in ability, and if he takes no personal part in the defence it is not through cowardice or lack of ability, but because he takes a much more 'modern' view of the logistics of command than simple warrior-leaders such as Eomer of Rohan: a commander's role is to plan and to oversee the organisation of the whole, not to indulge in mere personal heroics. "So do all great lords, if they are wise..." Oddly enough, he has more in common in the value of wisdom and lore with his younger son, Faramir, than he does with Boromir the favourite. One suspects he saw in Faramir a lesser, weakened likeness of himself that was more intolerable than the utter, confident difference of Boromir - the older son was 'his own man'. One can speculate also that Faramir bore all too much resemblance to his gentle dead mother... but that would be to venture onto dubious psychological ground where nothing is known for certain. [snip] > > Gollum - not a pacing issue, but he seems to have gone very > > one-dimensional in this film. A disappointment. > > Probably best to view TT and RotK together to properly judge the Gollum > character arc. The scene at the end of TT where Gollum regains control > over Smeagol is the key moment. I must have missed that. I was probably mapping it onto the corresponding moment in the book, which is presumably the point at which both halves of Smeagol's character agree to put off the decision by heading for Cirith Ungol instead - relieving Gollum of any necessity to raise a finger against Frodo himself, a point which is completely missed in the film! - after which episode Tolkien continues to depict him quite sympathetically. Thus I wouldn't have seen it as a turning point. I'm sorry, but the Gollum I saw in the film was obviously and unremittingly evil, which not only made him dull character-wise but made Frodo look like a fool for trusting him at all. In the book, he's essentially living *up* to Frodo's trust and *down* to Sam's mistrust - expectations affect outcome and the granting of trust can redeem. In the film he's clearly beyond all saving; like Faramir in the Two Towers, he's just another obstacle for our heroes to pass. > I don't mind the characterisation of Gollum in RotK, but I do mind > the plot changes (lembas scenes). That scene was just totally thrown away... and for no apparent reason. Oh, all right, there was a reason: to get Frodo into Shelob's cave alone, at a guess. But I'm not quite sure what the point of that was, either - and the whole spider-fighting scene went on far too long. Jackson likes throwing people around the scenery, doesn't he? And he's much too fond of sword-fighting - and I speak as a fan of 'Scaramouche' :-) [snip] > Things went wrong from the moment the mumakil appeared. They > were too large and not accompanied by any army. Well, would you want to march around at the foot of those? :-) They *are* in the fight in the book, actually - which is more than I could have sworn to, since my only clear memory was of the one Sam saw. And the Rohirrim do indeed have trouble dealing with them. But I have to confess I had no recollection of them as taking a significant part in the battle whatsoever. > The charge of the Rohirrim was not shown to be the reason the > Witch-King left the gates of Minas Tirith (indeed he was never there > in the film - and no near-confrontation with Gandalf). I must say I'd have thought the Nazgul could have been deployed better than in using them to grab up and kill soldiers one at a time - but I suppose that would have a demoralising effect, as men fled in the attempt not to become the 'one at a time'. And I suppose it's difficult to depict them flying out of sight and out of reach and yet horrible beyond all bearing, as Tolkien will have it. But I'd have thought one could do better than just showing them as nasty monsters... flying Velociraptors or giant Gremlins... I'd have thought it would be *easier*, special-effects-wise, to do them as indistinct, suddenly looming shapes that leer and gape from a swirl of dark, and show the men cowering and unwitted without ever having been touched. The uncanny Death that haunts Terry Gilliam's "Adventures of Baron Munchausen" had the hair up on the back of my neck without ever actually *doing* anything threatening... mainly through being used very sparingly. It's difficult, when Tolkien stipulates that the Nazgul became more, not less, terrifying at each new cry, and the effect on the audience of actually showing such a thing would inevitably be the opposite. > There was no army charging out from Minas Tirith to support the > Rohirrim. The orcs actually entered Minas Tirith in the film. To heighten the tension, presumably... but combined with all the other changes, it made the men of Gondor look very ineffectual. Oh, and the pathetic crumbling walls - even the *gate* stood up to more attacks than that stonework! Walls under attack by siege engines don't simply topple outwards like that; they splinter first and are eventually reduced to formless rubble. They don't spray apart like a child's building-blocks... [snip] > Merry's role in the slaying of the Witch-King is reduced to a > incredibly brief cameo, with an annoying distraction of 'he may have > been crushed by that oliphaunt'. The Merry-Theoden interaction is > replaced by a Theoden-Eowyn scene. Nothing *inherently* wrong in that... and since all the 'bonding' between Merry and Theoden has been cut, in favour of more Theoden/Eowyn scenes, in this context it actually makes more sense. But Merry's part inevitably suffers from no longer being the viewpoint character. And it's his Big Moment in the book :-( I rather missed the whole episode where Pippin finds him wandering blindly through the City, having been overlooked after the battle (echoes of Bilbo after the Battle of Five Armies); but I suppose if you're cutting the Houses of Healing you can't very well include that bit. [snip] > we got Green Soap-Suds (TM) Army of the Dead cleansing the battlefield. I think everyone agrees the way those were done was a mistake. Especially when they jumped up on the oliphaunt - that was just silly! The daft thing was that it gave the impression of cheap special effects - just stick in a few green lights moving across the city backdrop - and presumably wasn't, given the amount of money and effort that was spent on the rest. From an actual plot point of view, rather than the implementation angle... I think on the whole I'd agree with those who say that the Dead made victory look too easy. I can see why it was done that way (and after all, in the book they win a battle without anyone else striking a single blow - it's just that they're only good for one battle, so to speak!) but having them just mop up all the opposition devalues the earlier resistance. It's like a man who spends most of a day painstakingly sawing the end off a joist with a hand-saw, and has just scraped through the last dangling threads when another chap comes up with heavy-duty cutting equipment and reduces the rest of the iron-hard wood to a set of slices in about five minutes, in neat straight cuts without any expenditure of blisters. The first section just looks as if it's been hacked off badly, and the amount of pain and effort that went into it is of no account at all. [snip] > > Some sort of rationale is needed, in my view, to justify the > > ridiculous way in which the earthquake of destruction after Sauron's > > fall just happens to leave a neat untouched ring where Aragorn's army > > is standing. > > That was to avoid the book alternative where the enemy just run away. Yes, but the destruction didn't have to stop in quite such a neat and convenient line..! > But the film still had the troll standing on Aragorn running away, so > that it is silly to not have the rest of the army run away. I thought they *did* run away in the film - like anything? > Just having Barad-dur crumble should be enough to explain the army > running away and/or surrundering. Would you carry on fighting if your > leader's HQ had just crumbled into dust? These good guys must have > powerful magic... Or you could have them suddenly crumple like puppets with cut strings when the Eye winks out - implying that Sauron has been necromantically animating them from afar. That is more or less what Tolkien describes, after all - ants without a Queen running "hither and thither mindless". [snip] > > the diversionary attack on the Morannon, pressed ahead with impetuous > > haste, actually depends on absolute split-second co-ordination between > > Frodo and his party and Aragorn and his: [snip] > As for the timeline problems, it probably helps to think that the Sauron > distraction theme is not as time-critical in the books as it is in the > films. To be frank, it's something that has always worried me in the books; I looked it up among the Frequently and less-Frequently Asked Questions, but apparently it isn't a well-known issue, which rather surprised me. It's not so much that the distraction of Sauron from Frodo is time-critical, but that the destruction of Sauron is time-critical in order to save Aragorn and his entire army. If Frodo had reached the Cracks of Doom half an hour later, let alone a couple of days later (which could easily have been the case at the rate they were going; if, indeed, he survived to reach them at all) Aragorn's strategy would have been ruinous. His only value to Frodo is as a distraction - he knows that once battle is joined he hasn't a hope of winning - and once his army is destroyed its role as a distraction will be completely ended. Surely it would make more sense to march and counter-march outside the Morannon as if he has some deep plan in mind, keeping Sauron puzzled and entirely intent on what on earth Aragorn thinks he's up to, and delay the battle for as long as humanly possible? Instead, they ride right up to the Black Gate and push Sauron to an attack the moment they arrive. What if they had happened to arrive a day earlier? (And what, I wondered as I wrote the above, *would* have happened if Sam and Frodo had perished of natural causes on the barren plains of Mordor? Presumably the Ring would eventually have attracted itself a new bearer - some stray orc or wandering slave... assuming Gollum didn't get it, of course, which, unless he had perished too, would have been highly likely. If he *had* got it I suppose Sauron would have become aware of him and annihilated him at once...) > I agree that it is a problem in the films though. The whole > 'emptying Mordor so that Sam and Frodo can cross Gorgoroth' thing is > over-emphasized in the film, > I thought that was well brought-out, actually ;-) > as is the awful Sauron searchlight thing. Tolkien never makes Aragorn's logic particularly explicit - we hear quite a lot of 'we must make ourselves the bait' but only one allusion to "so that he shall empty his land", and that not in the context of a reference to Frodo. I'm pretty sure I didn't understand what they was trying to do on my first encounter with the story; I assumed they were setting some kind of trap for Sauron, and were going to spring a surprise during the battle, and that was why they were in such a hurry to have one... So I felt that the film did well in emphasising that the aim was basically to draw Sauron's forces out away from Orodruin, and to distract the attention of the Dark Lord, and I'm pretty sure the changes to which you object were made more or less specifically in order to avoid that particular point of confusion :-) *However*... I have to say that I've since had an experience that confirms that the film really did fail as entertainment, so far as I was concerned. Not a particularly life-changing one - I went to the cinema again, on my first visit since seeing "Return of the King", and watched a not-particularly-classic black and white silent film from 1927. A little esoteric, even by my standards, and I wasn't expecting much beyond a backstage glimpse into period film-making and a few broad visual gags. http://imdb.com/title/tt0018392/usercomments And then it turned out to have the emotional and physical impact that Jackson's oeuvre had somehow completely missed me out on. I cared more for the characters; I was more desperately afraid for the outcome; and the use of black humour to emphasise violence and tragedy was technically deeply impressive. (Movie-Gimli could take a few lessons in comic relief here, with profit...) Every so often a film will do that to me; not necessarily one that is particularly critically well-regarded, but one that for some reason evokes a sufficiently passionate suspension of disbelief. It doesn't always work so well on re-viewing, and Jackson started at a disadvantage there in that I knew beforehand the outline of the plot. But "Shooting Stars" managed to remind me, in the strength of my response - and in the fading clamour of my pulse when the final shot was over! - just what magic "Return of the King" should have held for me... and didn't. I expect that makes me a shocking elitist snob :-) But I honestly don't care - or even notice - how technologically advanced a story-telling technique may be, when the characters and the story have only once grabbed me. And just to prove that I'm not culturally biased - the last film to do that for me was Disney's 'Pirates of the Caribbean' ;-) -- Igenlode Bookwraith unabashed ** Sometimes change is improvement. Sometimes it is only change. ** ###### From: Shanahan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:03:28 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20040210005533.30624.qmail@riot.eu.org> <20040221021508.16187.qmail@riot.eu.org> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) trialware MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: max1-ra-34.redsuspenders.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: max1-ra-34.redsuspenders.com X-Trace: news.netacc.net 1077339374 208.3.188.96 (20 Feb 2004 23:56:14 -0500) X-Original-Trace: 20 Feb 2004 23:56:14 -0500, max1-ra-34.redsuspenders.com Lines: 43 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-out1.nntp.be!propagator4-cogent.newsfeed.com!propagator2-sterling!in.nntp.be!news.codefab.com!att541!ip.att.net!news.netacc.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:144007 On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 22:53:05 GMT, Igenlode wrote: >Oddly enough, he has more in common in the value of wisdom and lore >with his younger son, Faramir, than he does with Boromir the favourite. >One suspects he saw in Faramir a lesser, weakened likeness of himself >that was more intolerable than the utter, confident difference of >Boromir - the older son was 'his own man'. One can speculate also that >Faramir bore all too much resemblance to his gentle dead mother... but >that would be to venture onto dubious psychological ground where nothing >is known for certain. Loved your analysis of the movie, very to-the-point despite length. I was impressed by your ability to be so objective; moi, I have to see these films at least 4 times before I can push the echoes from the books from my mind long enough to watch them *as movies*... otherwise all I can perceive are the empty spaces where the rest of the words and story should be. BTW, I like the movies. No, they're not Tolkien, but I never expected them to be. Silly me, maybe... (and don't anyone jump on me for letting Tolkien's words fade from my mind in favor of the movies ... doesn't happen; I still have most of the book memorized.) Interestingly, the actor who plays Denethor actually says the same thing about Faramir possibly resembling Finduilas (although he mispronounces her name), in the cast commentary to TTT. He also says something utterly bizarre, (unless he's attempting a joke), that "There is a story running round, you've probably heard it, that she (Finduilas) died in childbirth". WTF? The paragraph above also reminded me of one of my favorite comments from the Appendices, (paraphrasing, IDHTBIFOM): "It did not seem possible to Faramir that anyone in Gondor could rival Boromir, Captain of the Tower of Guard; and of like mind was Boromir". Never fails to give me a chuckle! - Ciaran S. -------------------------------------- "Humans need fantasy to be human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape...You need to believe in things that aren't true. Else how can they *become*?" - t.pratchett ###### From: Doug McDonald Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:31:44 -0600 Organization: Usenet @ UIUC - http://www.killfile.org/usenet/ Lines: 127 Message-ID: <403A2AF0.E90C3836@scs.uiuc.edu> References: <20040210005533.30624.qmail@riot.eu.org> <20040221021508.16187.qmail@riot.eu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: marge.scs.uiuc.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.ks.uiuc.edu 1077553905 9257 130.126.228.6 (23 Feb 2004 16:31:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news+abuse@ks.uiuc.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:31:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!in2p3.fr!proxad.net!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!news.ks.uiuc.edu!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:144278 Igenlode wrote: > > > > > Not that startling. A story always has to have its own flow and rhythm, > > and ignoring basic film and storytelling rules just to include certain > > 'must-have' scenes (for whatever reason) was always going to spell > > trouble. Making the decisions over what to include or not _is_ extremely > > difficult though. > I have recently considered why I disliked the movies at gut level, while admiring their beauty. The basic problem is pacing: just where Jackson needs to slow down and let the actual PLOT proceed, he speeds up. Where there is no plot being advanced, such as in the many battle scenes, he slows down and drags out the battles. This is clearest in three places: one is in Lorien. Admittedly, doing this right would have made the first film even more plot-laden than it is. And perhaps he should have installed the material in one of the two later films, as a flashback .... but he left out a lot of stuff the NEEDS to be there to motivate things. Second, the whole Minas Tirith complex of scenes is far too abbreviated. HE does not, for example include Aragorn's visit to the Houses of Healing ... a truly crucial part of the plot, which proves Aragorn's right to be King. He also severely screws up Denethor: no Palantir scene. Third, after the ring drops into the lava, all is RUSHED to an extreme degree. Yet, place after place, he interposes tons of battle stuff that has no plot advancement value. The ultra-extended battle in Moria is one example, teh egregious Warg scene another. > > > > > > The film comes across as strangely 'bumpy'. It bears all the hallmarks > > > of long erosion: isolated hummocks of plot stick up from the sweep of > > > the narrative as relics of an older surface whose context has long > > > since been erased. > > > > Nice description! Exactly!!! > > Definitely. I actually felt that the last twenty minutes or so worked > *better*, pacing-wise, than almost everything that had preceded it. The last 20 minutes were the absolute WORST pace of the whole affair: horribly, terribly too fast. > > But if you put the whole plot back, then the film has to be *much* > longer... This goes equally for most of the elements I mentioned; to be > treated in adequate detail, they require a lot more space. They can't > *all* have it. (In fact, going on the assumption that making the film > longer is a definite non-starter, none of them can have it...) > There is tons of material in the film that can be cut: most battle scenes are far overdrawn. They do not advance the plot. Instead of vast amounts of rather blah computer graphics, what was needed was more tightly cut scenes with really first rate camera work. The camera work in these movies is BAD and pedestrain in teh extreme. > > But if you have to cut the palantir theme down to > > its bare bones, The Palantirs could have been totally excised. The Nazgul saw the Ring in Osgiliath. That's enough to get Sauron to attack too soon. Jackson could also have had Aragorn show the Sword Reforged to a Nazgul on the Pelennor Fields. > > > We don't get to see any change, > > the descent into madness and despair that we see in the books. Some of > > the best Denethor scenes and lines from the book were just cut. They > > were really cinematic scenes and I missed them. Yes indeed. > > Given that Denethor is one of my favourite characters, you can imagine > how I felt! He's an almost pure-blooded Numenorean - brilliant, bitter > and hard... so hard he can't bend until he breaks altogether. He is > pretty much Aragorn's equal in will and in ability, and if he takes no > personal part in the defence it is not through cowardice or lack of > ability, but because he takes a much more 'modern' view of the > logistics of command than simple warrior-leaders such as Eomer of > Rohan: a commander's role is to plan and to oversee the organisation of > the whole, not to indulge in mere personal heroics. "So do all great > lords, if they are wise..." > > > > I don't mind the characterisation of Gollum in RotK, but I do mind > > the plot changes (lembas scenes). > > That scene was just totally thrown away... and for no apparent reason. > Oh, all right, there was a reason: to get Frodo into Shelob's cave > alone, at a guess. But I'm not quite sure what the point of that was, > either - exactly .... what was the point. If you want Frodo in alone, just have Sam get involved with Gollum at the cave entrance. > > [snip] > > we got Green Soap-Suds (TM) Army of the Dead cleansing the battlefield. I thought it was not a bad idea: just that Jackson didn't spend enough money on it! CHEESY!!!! Doug McDonald ###### Message-ID: <20040224012046.27341.qmail@gacracker.org> From: Igenlode Wordsmith Author-Address: fuku2 redneck gacracker org Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 00:08:43 GMT Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! References: <20040210005533.30624.qmail@riot.eu.org> <20040221021508.16187.qmail@riot.eu.org> Reply-To: Igenlode_W@nym.alias.net Organization: The Ivory Tower ( http://curry.250x.com/Tower ) Administrative-Comment: Send comments to Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net Lines: 59 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!cyclone.bc.net!news.alt.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:144345 On 21 Feb 2004 Shanahan wrote: [snip] > Loved your analysis of the movie, very to-the-point despite length. Length is my besetting sin (the poster who commented that people don't spend enough time proving that they *like* something, as opposed to complaining about it, might raise a wry smile at http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20040220023141.8731.qmail@nym.alias.net which is what happens when I give something a genuine 'rave review', shorn of the IMDb's (very sensible) length constrictions...) I'm glad it was nonetheless to the point! > I was impressed by your ability to be so objective; moi, I have to see these > films at least 4 times before I can push the echoes from the books > from my mind long enough to watch them *as movies*... Oh, I'm not objective at all; I tried that with a second viewing of the first film, but found it neither good Tolkien nor good fantasy. I am a Bookwraith, after all! But because I wasn't particularly involved with this latest film, I found it interesting to consider it as an exercise in film-making, rather than an exercise in accurate adaptation - I was trying hard initially not to discuss the things I personally disliked about Jackson's work, but I seem of late to have slipped a little :-) [snip] > Interestingly, the actor who plays Denethor actually says the same thing > about Faramir possibly resembling Finduilas (although he mispronounces her > name), in the cast commentary to TTT. He also says something utterly > bizarre, (unless he's attempting a joke), that "There is a story running > round, you've probably heard it, that she (Finduilas) died in childbirth". > WTF? That does sound familiar, actually. I did read some Faramir fanfic recently, after someone on the group recommended it, and it might have been in that; or it might have been from Tolkien himself - one of the Appendices, posthumous fragments etc. Not that she died in childbirth, but that she never really recovered from Faramir's birth and eventually died as an indirect result. Thus, of course (although that *wasn't* said) giving Denethor the most powerful and illogical of reasons to resent the very existence of his younger son... [snip] > "It did not seem possible to Faramir that anyone in Gondor could rival > Boromir, Captain of the Tower of Guard; and of like mind was > Boromir". Never fails to give me a chuckle! > There must have been more to Boromir than we see in Tolkien, really - at least, Faramir was fond of him, and he was a good judge of men :-) I have to say that Tolkien never really characterises him very well; if you can have a stereotyped Man, then he's practically it. -- Igenlode Bookwraith unabashed The moment you stop being polite, you lose credibility in what you say. ###### From: Shanahan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:28:23 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20040210005533.30624.qmail@riot.eu.org> <20040221021508.16187.qmail@riot.eu.org> <20040224012046.27341.qmail@gacracker.org> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) trialware MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: max2-ra-27.redsuspenders.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: max2-ra-27.redsuspenders.com X-Trace: news.netacc.net 1077672041 208.3.188.137 (24 Feb 2004 20:20:41 -0500) X-Original-Trace: 24 Feb 2004 20:20:41 -0500, max2-ra-27.redsuspenders.com Lines: 37 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.stueberl.de!newsfeed.vmunix.org!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!nntp.abs.net!attws2!att542!att541!ip.att.net!news.netacc.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:144450 On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 00:08:43 GMT, Igenlode Wordsmith wrote: >On 21 Feb 2004 Shanahan wrote: >> "It did not seem possible to Faramir that anyone in Gondor could rival >> Boromir, Captain of the Tower of Guard; and of like mind was >> Boromir". Never fails to give me a chuckle! >> >There must have been more to Boromir than we see in Tolkien, really - >at least, Faramir was fond of him, and he was a good judge of men :-) I >have to say that Tolkien never really characterises him very well; if >you can have a stereotyped Man, then he's practically it. Great...I love a group where we can talk about a character in a book as if he was real! I think we are deliberately meant to see Boromir as a stereotyped example of (fallen) Man. He's quite one-dimensional (bet I start some argument with that one!). In my youth, I just thought of him as an ape; I never even cared much when he dies. Lately (OK, since seeing the FotR movie ), I've been thinking more about Boromir. It seems to me that Tolkien writes him as if he wants Boromir to be one-dimensional, and fairly unsympathetic. I'm not saying evil, just unsympathetic; my quote above is an example: Tolkien is being funny at Boromir's expense in that quote. Faramir and Denethor-before-he-goes-mad are unfallen Men, as is Aragorn of course. I think of Boromir, before he falls to temptation, as being a mediating figure between the Men of the Twilight and the High Men of Numenorean race. Once Boromir succumbs, he is a fallen Man, perhaps equivalent to the Black Numenoreans. In his final battle and redemption, it is as if he returns to a "heathen" or pagan state...the only way he can redeem himself is through indomitability in battle, fighting to the last in defense of the weak despite certain defeat. Now, whether there is more to him than that...I'm open to the possibility. As you say, Faramir loved and honored him, so there must have been *something* there. Unless it was just big-brother worship? ###### Message-ID: <20040226202721.11155.qmail@gacracker.org> From: Igenlode Wordsmith Author-Supplied-Address: fuku2 redneck gacracker org Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:11:45 GMT Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Jackson Too Faithful to Plot, says Bookwraith! References: <20040210005533.30624.qmail@riot.eu.org> <20040221021508.16187.qmail@riot.eu.org> <403A2AF0.E90C3836@scs.uiuc.edu> Reply-To: Igenlode_W@nym.alias.net Organization: The Ivory Tower ( http://curry.250x.com/Tower ) Administrative-Comment: Send comments to X-Abuse-Contact: abuse@bananasplit.info Lines: 96 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!news.radio.cz!195.85.130.72!feeder1.essentkabel.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!news.bananasplit.info!nym2news Xref: redlance.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:144656 [repost- ] On 23 Feb 2004 Doug McDonald wrote: > Igenlode wrote: [snip] > > I actually felt that the last twenty minutes or so worked > > *better*, pacing-wise, than almost everything that had preceded it. > > The last 20 minutes were the absolute WORST pace of the whole > affair: horribly, terribly too fast. Scarcely, surely, if they're the section I'm thinking of; although it may well be that they went by so slowly that I grossly overestimated their duration! I had in mind only the 'Scouring of the Shire' replacement, dating from the hobbits' return to the Shire. While one could argue that this material was terribly rushed in that it should have taken place over a period of more than a year and that the entire Scouring episode was omitted, the actual treatment of what remained was so languorous as to form a visual equivalent of Mantovani's shimmering strings. We saw long moments of quiet and reflection in contrast to the frenetic action of much of the rest of the trilogy. > > But if you put the whole plot back, then the film has to be *much* > > longer... This goes equally for most of the elements I mentioned; to be > > treated in adequate detail, they require a lot more space. They can't > > *all* have it. (In fact, going on the assumption that making the film > > longer is a definite non-starter, none of them can have it...) > > > > There is tons of material in the film that can be cut: most battle > scenes are far overdrawn. They do not advance the plot. I think the chances of that ever happening were zero - I was endeavouring to suggest changes that might have been in keeping with the rest of Peter Jackson's project, rather than those that involved making a totally different sort of film! These films were advertised - nay, promoted - as 'Contains extreme fantasy violence', and the battle scenes are clearly crucial to Jackson's vision. We book-lovers may well say "if you had not wasted time on adding X, you could have treated Y in more depth", but in practice, anything that was actually *added* they would clearly want to keep. Likewise, it is easy to say "we will show that in the Extended Edition", but I was attempting to make suggestions that would have improved the actual cinematic cut... > Instead of vast amounts of rather blah computer graphics, what was needed > was more tightly cut scenes with really first rate camera work. > The camera work in these movies is BAD and pedestrian in teh > extreme. I've seen other people say that; I'm not qualified to judge. My conscious appreciation of films is largely limited to matters of dialogue and plot- while my viewing of them may be subliminally influenced by the technical artistry used, I don't perceive it clearly enough to analyse, let alone appreciate it. When you say that the scenes should have been "more tightly cut", do you mean that they should have been shorter, or filmed in close-up, or something entirely different? > > > > > But if you have to cut the palantir theme down to > > > its bare bones, > > The Palantirs could have been totally excised. The Nazgul > saw the Ring in Osgiliath. That's enough to get > Sauron to attack too soon. > In fact, I'm not sure the theme of 'attacking too soon' is actually treated at all at this point in the films, is it? I certainly didn't get the impression that Pippin's palantir session sparked off the attack on Minas Tirith, if that is what was intended. > > > > > we got Green Soap-Suds (TM) Army of the Dead cleansing the battlefield. > > I thought it was not a bad idea: just that Jackson didn't spend > enough money on it! CHEESY!!!! > If that is true, it seems a strange omission, given the quantities of money that had already been spent on computer effects, not to mention costume detailing which was all but invisible in the finished product... -- Igenlode Bookwraith unabashed ** I 'grew up' once. Didn't like it, so I gave it up. **