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

[Ricardo C]

End of rant.

Promise?

 

[Jonny K]

Hmmm...one thing of interest. Have the film makers ever actually stated that the movie would follow the book?


Jonny K.

 

[Marvin Richardson]

To be honest, the only scenes in Two Towers that bothered me were Gimli becoming the pratfall comic relief, especially at Helm's Deep. I really didn't need his jokes to interrupt the tenseness of the scene. But that's a minor quibble.
Faramir works for me in the movies. I like the book version too, but the movie version worked as well. My big hope is that the Extended Edition of Two Towers will do for Faramir what the Extended Edition of Fellowship did for Galadriel.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Hmmm...one thing of interest. Have the film makers ever actually stated that the movie would follow the book?

Well, they did use the titles of the books and the film credits state that they were "based on" the books, so presumably one wouldn't expect them to, say, make a film about a US helicopter crashing in Somolia and rescuing the soldiers involved.

DJ

 

[Jonny K]

Ah, but to be "based on" and to "follow" are different things. They could have made a story about totally different characters and their adventures in the world, and it would still be "based on" the book, since it's the same world and the same style fantasy. But it certainly doesn't follow it.


Jonny K.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

I have no problem with condensing or merging 2 minor characters(Arwen/Glorfindel). I just object to INVENTION.

The Birdcage had it right: "Don't add....SUBTRACT"

If they wish to invent, write your own story

My last post on the subject. That being said I'll still be eagerly be picking up the DVD, and chapter skipping the parts I find offensive

 

[Lou Sytsma]

I just object to INVENTION.

And that's why the world has 2 very dull Harry Potter movies!

Honestly - if PJ has deviated so much from the books - and who said that the books are perfect - move on and watch something else.

I appreciate the overall effort that PJ and the boys have put forth.

The book is not gospel. The movies have still captured the essence of the story. You're stuck on details that do not alter the story.

Is PJ batting .1000? Course not. He has made many more good hits than fouls though. He has attempted to give women a bigger role in the story. He has given us an immensely better Boromir and Aragorn! A wonderful Gandalf! Middle Earth brought to life! So many images in film that could be paintings and are breathtaking.

So he wanted to show some Wargs and Osgiliath? So he had made some concessions to reach a broader audience. Big deal.

I much prefer his approach than the dullness that Columbus has inflicted upon us with the HP movies.

He is creating something that expands upon the original story and enhances it. Putting the two together creates something greater than when the book existed by itself.

Relax, enjoy, marvel in a trilogy that is going down in movie history. Don't fuss the little things and miss the bigger spectacle that is going on.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

People seem to be confused. The problem is not that things have been changed. The problem is that the changes hampered the flow, characterizations, and internal logic of the film. We forgive the positive changes made without thought. It is only the negative changes which cause controversy.

(Unless you're Jeff, in which case all change is bad)

 

[Matt Stone]

I agree with Adam. The problems that I had with TTT (initially at least) had nothing to do with the deviation from the book. It just happened to be that the problems I had could have been fixed (in my opinion) by handling certain things the way Tolkien did. Of course, now I've grown to live with the flaws and appreciate the film more than I did initially.

That being said, for Fellowship, I commended PJ's changes to the source. I thought they were all large improvements that took advantage of the film medium. In fact, I wrote a 20 page paper about it for an english class I took a couple semesters ago. So, don't accuse me of saying that I believe all change is bad.

 

[Kirk Tsai]

Lou, PJ isn't batting .10000, he's better than that.

Since we're on the subject of ROTK, is the Grey Havens in? I can deal with the Scouring, but the Grey Havens is a must.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Sorry Kirk not much of a baseball fan.

Grey Havens is definitely in.

BTW any internal logic problems that the TTT had will probably be corrected in the EE - much like with FOTR.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

...or we'll just get more redundant Helm's Deep shit. Many of the problems with TTT are not what was left out as what was put in.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Also agreeing with Adam. There are many changes that Jackson has made, of which I wholeheartedly approve because they work as film: among these are the Elves at Helm's Deep, which I find a tremendously affecting sequence and Haldir's death scene still brings a tear to the eye.

Others I don't approve because they don't work as film: Aragorn's fake death and Brego the Wonder Horse being the most notable instance of this.

I love the novels and have read them 7 or 8 times, plus the entire 12 volume History of Middle Earth, but I recognize that cinema and literature are two different beasts. So changes, even additions, are acceptable, so long as they work within context. As far as changes I'd say Jackson is batting about .750....which if you're a ballplayer puts you in the hall of fame. But really, when I first heard that a film was being made of Lord of the Rings I fully expected a much worse abomination than the actually very effective and highly entertaining pictures that we've received thus far. I'm still disappointed about the Scouring, though. :frowning:

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Others I don't approve because they don't work as film: Aragorn's fake death and Brego the Wonder Horse being the most notable instance of this.

Expand please. PJ used Aragorn's fall to show the strength of Leoglas' and Gimli's friendship with Aragorn, also used it to show to Eowyn the depth of Aragorn's love for Arwen.

The point is PJ took that moment - which I don't like either BTW - and used it to good effect for the other characters in the movie. In lesser hands it would have been a cheap thrill.

Brego will be addressed in the EE.

Curious when you saw TTT and saw Aragorn go over the cliff and then saw Legolas et al looking over the cliff to see the water below - did you or anyone in the audience really believe Aragorn was dead? I highly doubt it.

 

[Craig W]

Is anyone else a little concerned that the bonus DVD "The Evolution of Gollum" is only going to be available with the Gift Set?

If it's only on the creation of the statue, then it does not bother me, but if this is on his transformation from page to screen then I feel that this should have be included in the appendices of discs 3 and 4.

The FOTR EE Gift Set included a newer version of the Natural Geographic disc that was available separately so you were not getting any new exclusive content.

Gollum is a big part of TTT. Any material on his creation should be included in the EE not made exclusive to people who buy the GS. I don't need a statue of Gollum's ass hanging out on my shelf.

 

[Alex Spindler]

All I would ask is that people refrain from using "unnecessary" as if it were fact instead of opinion. Your issues with changes/additions as being unnecessary are completely opinions (which you have the right to voice). I have little doubt that all involved looked at the source material and tried to make the best filmed adaptation that they could, with their primary goal to capture the spirit of the novels. Their path to that goal (in their mind) involved making changes and additions, some of which you agree with and some you don't. But to call those changes and additions as "unnecessary" as though Peter went back to his Wheel of Content Invention (tm) and spun it until "fake death" came up seems a bit wrong to me.

There are those who will think of changes like the cliff fall as being unnecessary. There are those who thought it brought something good to the film, as Lou has detailed in his post. I just wish it would be possible to discuss them as to how they affect the film and not how they deviate from the source material. If you didn't like the Faramir character from the film because you didn't believe his motivations, then fine. But not liking him because his personality was different in the novel just predisposes you to dislike the filmed adaptation, regardless of how well the change translates.

All my opinion, of course.

 

[Gary->dee]

Can someone explain what exactly is the 'Scouring'? Shed some light on this thing for people like me that aren't going to be reading the books any time soon.

 

[Jaxon's Dad]

Gary,

The "Scouring" referrs to the near destruction of the Shire caused by Saruman and is recounted in great detail near the end of ROTK in the chapter entitled "The Scouring of the Shire."
PJ mentions in the FOTR EE director's/writer's commentary that what Frodo sees in the mirror of Galadreal is the only cinematic reference to the Scouring that we will see.

 

[Gary->dee]

Ah ok. Thanks, Doug.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I am with Alex. Not naming names, members have speculated as to PJ's MOTIVATION to make the changes. Why? He's explained why he has made the changes he's made. Filtering that through the possibility he's not being honest (very little), I'll just believe him. Without hesitation. I understand:

1) Why the Scouring is out.
2) Why that really bothers some folks. Simple. It's their favorite part, it's the purity of the theme they carried with them. My favorite part is elsewhere, and I'll be sad if it isn't in the film, but I ADMIT it doesn't need to be. The thematic elements have already been captured.

It doesn't mean I always agree. But it does mean I don't act like I have been wronged or that the man responsible isn't doing a fine job. I don't care if no one likes the results, but questioning why is silly.

He says he serves two audiences. I believe him. So does New Line, apparently.

Can't wait to get the set.

Take care,
Chuck