LOTR: TTT - Platinum Series Special Extended Edition (1 Viewer)

[Jonny K]

Of course, keep in mind that you guys are getting all upset about a movie nobody has even seen yet. Perhaps it would be more effective to reserve judgement until after it's release?


Jonny K.

 

[Marvin Richardson]

Perhaps it would be more effective to reserve judgement until after it's release?

Never! I refuse to reserve judgment! Return of the King will be my favorite movie of the year!

 

[Mark Zimmer]

To respond to Lou's question on the prior page re Aragorn's fake death and Brego the Wonder Horse:

I found the many fake deaths in Tolkien to be annoying. When Jackson keeps all of those and adds a BUNCH of his own, as a viewer I'm left with the sensation, "Oh, shit, not this again." He just completely loses me, and others that I've discussed this with, when he does it. It's not effective, and it doesn't even have the merit of a cheap thrill. It was old already back in Moria, for Pete's sake. He has already shown the bond with Gimli and Legolas through the hunt for the hobbits, and could have easily done so more if he had wanted with the fighting at Helm's Deep (e.g., the Toss Me scene).

Brego the Wonder Horse I find just stupid. I can't imagine how the EE will make it either plausible or palatable. The one merit is that it reveals that kissing Liv Tyler is not dissimilar to kissing a horse. So we need not wonder on that point....

In any event, once the warg fight begins I'll be skipping chapters to avoid this whole subplot.

 

[Alex Spindler]

I thought it was effective just because the heatfelt reactions from Eowyn, Gimli, and Legolas, as well as the great reception he receives from Legolas on return. Made it worth it, in my opinion.

 

[Gary->dee]

Maybe Peter Jackson added Aragorn's fall from the cliff in order to mirror Gandalf's fall in Moria with the Balrog. Since Aragorn and Gandalf are such pivotal characters perhaps they both needed near-death experiences or events in which the other characters thought they had died in order to strengthen the bonds between them. Two important characters that take a great plunge and return from the depths with a renewed sense of vigor and purpose. Just guessing here...

 

[Carlo_M]

To my mind there are several acceptable reasons for making changes to the novel. These are:

1. The part in the novel just does not translate well to screen.
2. Time considerations assuming they've budgeted a good amount of time already for the translation (i.e. I don't think that trying to cram a 600 page novel into 2 hours of film should even be attempted).
3. Not important in the overall storyline/can be cut without majorly affecting characters or plot (this can be very subjective though)

As others have said, I was very okay with the lift of Bombadil, the Barrow Downs, and Glorfindel (though I do find Liv Tyler herself, not "Arwen", annoying - so that was my personal issue, the casting of Liv Tyler). FOTR, despite its changes and omissions, I thought was quite a good adaptation.

That said TTT had a few changes that I thought 1) did not add to the overall story, 2) did not need to be changed as the part written in the book could have translated fine to film, and 3) hurt major characters in the movie. Here they are listed in order of how much they bother me:

1) The Ents having to be tricked by Hobbits to fight. Many scholars have agreed that a major influence for Tolkien writing the book was that his beloved countryside was being taken over by industrialization. As such, he makes the Ents the wisest, oldest creatures in the novel. Slow to act, very deliberate and analytical, but when finally moved by the transgressions of Saruman and his Orcs, their decision is agreed upon and their action is swift and terrible. They come to this decision though they know it may very well be the Last March of the Ents. As it was written, this was a very moving scene and could have EASILY translated onscreen. Some have said that the Hobbits would have had little to do onscreen. True! And that's the way it should have been! Every little goings-on in Middle Earth need not be caused by a Hobbit! Tolkien's respect for nature and the Ents has been totally watered down for the movie.

2. Faramir, aka Boromir-Lite. One of the main tragedies of the latter part of the novel is that Denethor grieves over the loss of his first-born son, who was the rightful heir (being eldest) and was the apple of his father's eye. The tragedy is that the eldest was a very flawed man but his father manages not to see it. At the same time, the father manages not to see the younger son as the pure, true, Son-Of-Kings that he is. A man who would not pursue the ring, nor pick it up were it lying on the side of the road! The reader (and the viewer too, if it had been kept that way onscreen) feels the pain of Denethor's loss, but is infuriated that he cannot see the true son he has in Faramir, and is in awe of the ability of Faramir to accept his position in his father's eyes while still striving to do the right thing, be pure of heart, and be everything that Denethor thought Boromir was. Again, this could have been brought onscreen and the story would not have suffered. I did not get anything out of the "Drag Frodo to Osgiliath for a Nazgul Showdown" scene that was just another in a long series of action pieces (Helm's Deep was enough for that movie) and the impetus of letting the Ringbearer go turned from a conscious decision from Faramir while resisting the urge of the ring, to something he was forced to do when he saw the gravity of the situation Frodo was in.

3. Theoden's Exorcism - I agree that Bernard Hill is a quality enough actor to have conveyed the poisoning of his mind by Wormtongue's words (coupled with the failing days of his realm) rather than to have it seem like he was possessed by Saruman. The beauty of the scene as written was that Theoden was rescued from his despair, and redeemed by his later actions, as opposed to just being freed from the control of a wizard (and thus he can hardly be blamed given Saruman's power). There is no exercise of free-will and strength that Theoden makes in the novel.

4. The additional faux deaths, as someone already pointed out in the previous page.

Those are my major gripes. And I don't think it's fair to say to people "the film is not the book, get over it" because just by the very act of making a movie BASED on a novel they are open to discussion about how true they stay to the novel, and if they stray away, the merits/detriments of what they did.

I think the people who have taken issue with changes have at least explained cogently why they take have a problem, and thus their complaints are legitimate.

For those who thoroughly enjoyed the movie and never read the books, they may not understand or agree with those complaints, but that does not invalidate those opinions.

Those who have read the books and are fine with the changes also are entitled to feel that way.

But I think most of us who have issues with PJ's changes, especially in scenes where the original story could have been brought to screen and been equally if not more effective, have at least presented our arguments coherently.

 

[Matt Stone]

There were definite benefits, as Alex and Gary point out, to Aragorn's fake death. I tend to believe that Tolkien (and Jackson) used too many "fake death" scenes, but when reading the book and watching the movies, they've never bothered me. In fact...I thought I was going to be pissed when I read about Aragorn's fake death in TTT, but when I saw the movie, I was completely indifferent. After a few more viewings, I began to like the change because of Legolas, Gimli, and Eowyn's reactions to believing him dead, and then seeing him alive again.

 

[Tomoko Noguchi]

I will be happy to say I enjoyed the movie, know the changes (I read the books 3 times), and yet say this is not meant to be a literal translation of the book to movie. It's a totally different thing and I don't mind it at all. Peter Jackson should be commended, not condemned.

 

[Carlo_M]

I thought I was going to be pissed when I read about Aragorn's fake death in TTT, but when I saw the movie, I was completely indifferent.

Well when I saw this, I thought it was reminiscent (maybe even highly derivative) of the scene with that one knight (forgot his name) who discovers the holy grail and how the river washes away his past sins/transgressions/whatever in Excalibur.

And while Lou did a great job presenting the benefits of that fake death, I personally do not feel those benefits added too much (I think the fellowship-bond should be evident without the need of another faux death).

As I said, I have no problems with changes or omissions, it's just when changes are made that are unnecessary, or would have been better if left alone (true to the source material) that I have issues with.

 

[Ben Seibert]

I hate to enter this, but....

That being said I'll still be eagerly be picking up the DVD, and chapter skipping the parts I find offensive

Ah, Jeff, I know how you hate dubs. Why is that? Because they aren't the director's original work. I've seen you make some very strong statements against the use of dubbing, but now, you are going contradicting the idea of director's original work. So since you like a particular anime movie, the movie/art in question must be defended vehemently, but you don't like the adaptation of LOTR, so who cares what PJ wants or how he intended the film to be viewed?

If you defend the right of the director to prevent soundtrack or aspect ratio alterations, I cannot see how you would cut out scenes in your personal viewing to make the movie you want.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Ah, Jeff, I know how you hate dubs. Why is that? Because they aren't the director's original work. I've seen you make some very strong statements against the use of dubbing, but now, you are going contradicting the idea of director's original work

There was a smiley after that. I was kidding

 

[Holadem]

I know quite a few people who have never read the book, and yet told me that they felt the Aragorn "death" thing was too much.

PJ did a great job.

He does fuck up once in a while. Yes, it happens!

--
Holadem

 

[Jeff D Han]

November 18-

I am not familiar with the books yet (I have them and
not read them yet because I want to see the films with
no hints at what will come next) and I LOVE Jackson's
work. The FOTR EE is my favorite DVD and I'm sure I'll
be very happy with TTT EE. It's great that we are getting
more of the same as far as the quantity of information
and entertainment in the supplemental material. Can't
wait to see the battle at Helm's Deep again!

 

[Richard Stammer]

Thank God that I read these books in 1967 and experienced their magic at a very necessary point in my life. I feel sorry for anyone who must see the movie first and then read the books as the movie will very probably forever influence the reading of the trilogy. As much as I enjoy Jackson's work, which I think will go down as the greatest screen fantasy of all time, the book's will always remain the highlight of Middle Earth for me.

 

[Brenton]

This sounds similar to the people who watch before they read because they don't want the book to "spoil" the movies. I just can't understand how this approach is better.

The Lord of the Rings is a classic work of fiction of staggering magnitude, and has been voted novel of the century. If anything, the movies will spoil the book!

I had never heard of The Lord of the Rings before I heard that the movies were coming out. I think I vaguely knew of The Hobbit, but I had never read it, or seen the animated movie.

But as soon as I realized the huge hubbub concerning the making of the movies, I went to my school library and checked out the book. (A paperback edition with all three parts bound as one volume) I tried to read it, but only tackled about the first five chapters. Some of the hardest reading I had ever faced. I turned it back into the school library once the due date arrived with only about five chapters under my belt.

Then came summer vacation, so I didn't get a chance to try again until that fall (the fall before The Fellowship of the Ring hit theaters). This time, I checked out a copy that was JUST The Fellowship of the Ring. Wanting to get the whole Lord of the Rings under my belt before I saw the movie, I "speed-read", and I was able to read the whole thing before I saw the movie. Unfortunately, I'm not much of a speed-reader, and I only vaguely comprehended the plot and characters. I missed out a lot.

I saw the movie, and loved it.

A year later, when The Two Towers was about to be released, I decided that I needed to go through The Lord of the Rings again, carefully this time. I wanted to fully understand and know the story when I saw The Two Towers in the theater. So this time I bought all three volumes, and sat down and read it carefully.

I tell you, I was blown away. I couldn't put it down. And then when I saw The Two Towers in the theater, I knew what Tolkien had written. This didn't cause a distraction whenever I encountered a change. It only gave me a deeper understanding of how and why certain things happened. And it gave me a deeper understanding of the obvious reverence that Peter Jackson and his crew have for Tolkien's work. Sure they change things. But they're allowed to. In my opinion, these movies are so stinking good that they're above my likes and dislikes (as Sam says of the Elves in the book of FOTR!). Seriously, there are things that if changed, could have made the film perfect (the use of Gimli for comic relief, for example). But the film is so near-perfect in my eyes, that why should I worry about its imperfections? It could have been far worse!

Tolkien's novel is my favorite book, and the film trilogy thus far are my favorite movies. And I'm so glad I didn't let the movies spoil the book!

 

[Lou Sytsma]

I have to repeat the question - does anyone believe that after showing the water at the bottom of the cliff that the audience believed Aragorn was really dead?

I don't - it was a device to get the film characters to believe not the audience.

 

[Matt Pelham]

That's been my approach so far. The Fellowship and Towers novels were good, but they lacked the overall magic of the movies. I plan on following a similar "watch then read" pattern for the last film.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Matt, here's the problem. You're letting an adaptation become your internal "gospel" for how things go. Therefore you're losing out on the books

 

[Alex Spindler]

As opposed to reading the books and then you're letting an source become your internal "gospel" for how things go. Therefore you're losing out on the movies.



My reasoning behind viewing the movies before the books is that I find reading the book afterward provides a much more detailed view, almost feeling like an expanded directors cut of the film. In that way, the movie remains an enjoyable experience while the following exposure to the book lets me explore the scenes, characters, and themes that were absent or less prevalent in the movie. It has, so far, been a win-win for me.

The only real liability of this is that you are predisposed to cast the actors in the characters positions, which is really hard to move away from.

 

[Kevin Leonard]

My apologies, I'm a bit confused--is this the thread where people discuss the upcoming DVD's, or where they argue over the changes made to TTT yet again?