|
Relayer posted:Like Elrond's monologue in the Two Towers about Aragorn dying and Arwen being stranded alone, please tell me that is straight out of the book because it's just an amazing scene. Yes. It was from the appendix. Not in the official LOTR story, but definitely canon in the story of Arwen and Aragorn. Arwen, iirc, left Gondor after the death of Aragorn and spent her time with Celeborn in Lorien until all the elves were gone and then died alone :c ...but she was reunited with him in the Middle Earth afterlife!
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2012 05:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:01 |
|
|
I think it'd sound pretty cool if they had the talking birds sound like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lohzE75PwW8&feature=related It's such a cool, creepy, almost-human kind of speech sound. I think that'd be neat.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2012 19:25
|
|
|
ClothHat posted:Didn't Frodo try to stab the Witch King with one of the same barrow swords when they were at Weathertop? I think all it did was rip his cloak, and then Aragorn specifically tells him his sword wasn't good enough to do anything. Not quite. The Fellowship of the Ring posted:This was the stroke of Frodo's sword," he said. "The only hurt that it did to his enemy, I fear; for it is unharmed, but all blades perish that pierce that dreadful King. More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth." So it's not that the blades are useless - just that using them against the wraiths ruins them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2012 07:19
|
|
|
An observer posted:I like this kind of snakey Smaug: This looks like a re-do of Tolkien's own drawing of Smaug:  ...you can see the shadow-Bilbo in the lower right area
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2012 02:24
|
|
|
I can't recall where, but I seem to remember it being stated basically that the stronger a person was, the less likely they would be to turn invisible wearing the ring. Like, if you were strong enough to wield the ring, you could just wear it, but since the hobbits and the average man didn't have the strength of will/spirit to control it, it turned them invisible, into the wraith world. Or maybe I made that up!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2012 00:02
|
|
|
A lot of those kind of things in the movie are the opposite from the book. In the book, it was Gandalf who thought Moria was a good idea, but Aragorn who thought it would be a huge mistake.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2012 17:24
|
|
|
Well I do know that 9/11 at the very least impacted the way they presented the scene where Sauron's tower falls. I recall in the behind-the-scenes interviews the creators mentioning that they didn't want the tower's collapse to have much in common with the way the WTC towers fell and went to some lengths to create that difference.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
Vigilance posted:I think it was that all of the Rings were bound by the One Ring's power. Even the Elven Rings. So when Sauron's ring got destroyed, all the other rings lost their power as well, because he had bound all the other rings to his when he made it so that he could control them, so their powers would end when his ring ended. The elven rings' power was bound to the one ring, but Sauron didn't actually ever touch them, or help make them, so he had no direct control over them like he did with the other rings.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2012 02:00
|
|
|
I do think the increasing number of cameos as the trilogy goes on is a sign of the filmmakers ceasing to see LOTR as the work they're adapting and coming to see it as their story to do what they want with. Like, they've read the story x number of times, so it's theirs now. I think that's also why additions (not just changes) to the story get bigger and more grievous (to me) as the films go on. They stopped having a reverence or respect for the story as something created by Tolkien and more something they were authorized to gently caress with. And in a sense I guess they were, but I think that adaptation gives one license to take away and alter, but not to add excessively. Especially with such a huge story as LOTR. How many cool moments that were actually in the text were cut out so that, for instance, Sam could abandon Frodo at shelob's lair? Or so that Aragorn could fall off a cliff and make out with a horse? Adding action sequences or shuffling characters for brevity/tension is one thing, and fabricating story elements (sometimes ruining characters) kind of crosses a line for me, when there's no reason they couldn't have taken that same amount of time to tell the actual story. edit: i love the movies, but I also think the quality lessens overall as they go, in part due to the unnecessary liberties they take with the story.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2012 18:44
|
|
|
Geekboy posted:I hope they felt like it was their movie on the first day they decided they would maybe like to adapt it. Look I said I liked the movies. I feel like they lost track of where they were going with them. The first movie is amazing, and in the behind-the-scenes interviews, they mention how, if they ever felt the film was getting to confusing or bogged down, they'd take it back to the way the book had it and it suddenly got less messy. In the interviews from the last two movies, it was more "and I felt like Tolkien wouldn't mind if I did X and Y to this scene," or even worse, "I felt like Tom Bombadil wouldn't mind me giving his lines to Treebeard..." I don't care that they changed poo poo, with a book that big you have to change poo poo. but I feel they got careless about the poo poo they added unnecessarily. All together they're amazing films, I just think they sort of went a bit astray toward the end. It's not like they had a set script in mind from day one, there were literally rewrites constantly, every week, throughout the whole production. I guess that makes me a crazed fan clawing at my keyboard? I just think that if they hadn't invented their own weird storylines, it'd have left room for the actual original storylines and that would have been better. It was amazing. It might have been better. v  vfake edit: like for instance the Anne of Green Gables films changed poo poo around constantly, especially by combining characters, but I'd call them incredibly true to the books. You can tell they did their best to keep everything as close to the books and the events therein as they could, without inventing anything of their own at the expense of the story unless they really had to. Real edit: I didn't mean they lost respect for Tolkien as in they started literally wiping their asses with the book. I'm saying they lost some of that original respect as they got more comfortable editing the story. Obviously they respected it a great deal or there wouldn't have been such immense work put into it. Maybe "reverence" would have been a better word choice, but oh well. But nobody will ever convince me that Sam leaving Frodo was in any way worth the screentime it took to show it. There were better things to have done with that time, is my point. Rat Patrol fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Feb 19, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
DEAD MAN'S SHOE posted:Allow me to try; in the film the development and resolution of the Sam-Frodo-Gollum triangle is at the heart of their journey. Frodo's switch of allegiance, betrayal and continued forgiveness makes his character stand out, as does Sam's reaction to being sent away. It's a unique moment of character development. Right. I never said I had a problem with Frodo sending Sam away. In the book, most of Frodo's trauma is all in his head so that was a great way of outwardly showing that Frodo was losing his grip. What I have a problem with is Sam Leaving. From the very first movie, Sam was always "I made a promise. Don't you leave him, Samwise. And I don't mean to." To have Frodo send Sam away made sense as an alteration. To have Sam leave, in my opinion, undercut his entire character. Yeah, he would have sat and cried, but he would then have continue to follow in secret, because he made a promise and he wasn't the kind of loving moron who needs to find some bread on a rock before he remembers who the bad guy is.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:Yeah, I can see that. Still it's "more human" if he cries and runs away like a little goon in a fit of passion before remembering. I guarantee that's the kind of rationale behind it. Yeah but I'd argue it would have been "more badass" for him to follow behind and pop out just when needed. Honestly, having him find the bread and suddenly  oh yeah...gollum was lying! I guess I didn't eat the bread after all, we've been horribly tricked!edit: furthermore, how in the hell was he going to get home? It just made him seem retarded. Honestly most the changes made in the story only kind of bothered me, but this one came mighty close to ruining rotk for me. Sam's character was always steadfast and loyal, from his first scenes. To rip that away was really a terrible decision, especially considering how important a character Sam is. edit: yes, he's also my favorite character from the books. Rat Patrol fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Feb 20, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2012 01:57
|
|
|
Presto posted:I'm re-reading the books right now, and as far as I can tell the answer to your question is: None. I'd say what actually happened at Shelob's lair was way, way cooler and more dramatic and tense and awesome. So there's at least that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2012 04:40
|
|
|
Ooookay. But I'm still going to say that taking a character that - in the books AND in the movies - from his very first development was introduced as having made a promise to stick with Frodo and not to leave him, and having him just straight up leave him, was a terrible choice. There was no indication before this or after this that Sam wanted to leave or was resenting/wanting to break his promise. He was just told to leave and welp ok then, guess I'm off! If it had been in the book it would have been a terrible storytelling choice, and in the movies it was a terrible storytelling choice. Yes. I LIKE THE MOVIES. I think they did a GOOD JOB, and that the filmmakers were TALENTED. But I also think, objectively, some of the poo poo they altered was a terrible idea. Because that guy who wrote some poo poo in that notebook did so painstakingly and deliberately and maybe if it wasn't a good story to start with nobody would have wanted to adapt it and make those films anyone could enjoy. Jesus, you guys act like I've been calling for the films to be banned. I love them, I own the extended bluray set, I watch them in marathons with my friends and enjoy all the extra DVD content. As wonderful as the movies are, there are instances where they just missed the mark.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2012 07:05
|
|
|
^^^ Sure, but Frodo was literally at the doorstep of a deadly trap, and Sam knew it (even though he didn't know specifically what it was). I think in that instance, any good friend worth his salt would know better. I'd still call it a mistake. What happened in the book was such an awesome badass moment and they traded it in for making a character look like an idiot. For all that these movies are great, even for people who haven't read the book, I've had friends who haven't read the book call Sam a dumbass for that scene (mostly for the "angrily strangles lembas" moment). I think that whole plot device was kind of clumsily handled. In a production that huge, some things just aren't going to hit the high note, and that scene among others just falls really flat for me, and I'm not the only one who feels that way. With all the corrupt, confused, evil, and misled characters in that film (and in the book for that matter), Samwise was the one you could count on to make the right choice even at his personal risk. I think it was a really bad error of judgment to switch it up with regards to his character like that, especially without more explanation of WHY his promise to Gandalf suddenly doesn't matter at the exact moment the bad guy is literally leading Frodo into a trap (which Sam is aware of).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2012 07:36
|
|
|
And I mean I'm not saying he wouldn't have sat down and cried about it. Even the Sam in the books would have done that. I'm saying that actually having him turn and go, knowingly abandoning his friend was not great storytelling. Especially considering that Sam absolutely knew that Frodo was not well, that Frodo was being manipulated, that Frodo was being led directly into a trap, and that Gollum was trying to get rid of him to facilitate said trap...I don't think it would have been so unrelatable to have him follow in secret.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2012 07:45
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:What are we talking about here? How are we managing to argue and agree at the same time? I dunno man I just said the movies are great but some parts don't work for me and I got called a rampaging nerd sperging out about Tom Bombadil or something I don't know  But for real I like hearing the other side of this - I've yet to meet anyone before now who thinks that scene is anything but terrible. I get what people are saying, but ultimately in the context of the scene I don't think it was the right choice for the filmmakers to make. But again, in a movie trilogy this huge, quality is gonna lapse occasionally. I'm just sore about this more than other things because Sam is my favorite character.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2012 07:52
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:I am forgetting the specifics, but I remember on the commentary for that scene Philipa and Fran talk about how it was necessary for Frodo to send Sam away. They felt that it was needed to show the film audience just how much control Gollum and the Ring have over Frodo. I have never totally agreed with it, but I remember watching the commentary and at least understanding their reasons. And I agree. My issue is not with Frodo's actions, but with Sam's (who was not under gollum's control)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2012 14:31
|
|
|
^^^ Thanks, thats what I've been trying to say. It's not like Gollum convinced even Sam that Sam had eaten the bread. Sam knew what was up.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2012 19:04
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:I think I would have liked it best if they just removed the scene were Sam finds the bread, and have him just inexplicably come back at Shelob's lair. Leaves it ambiguous as to Sam's character and still allows for the dramatic tension of having Frodo alone as Shelob sneaks up. I agree. I've actually always thought this.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2012 01:23
|
|
|
TOOT BOOT posted:What exactly DID they eat in Mordor once the bread was gone? In the movie, nothing I suppose. In the books, they had enough provisions to get them just to the mountain, iirc
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2012 02:00
|
|
|
boogs posted:Purist. Haha I think you're only teasing, but I love this thread because if you come in saying you disliked something about the movies they call you a nerdy, frothing purist, but it's guaranteed in about two days they'll all be gushing over how super amazing beren and luthien are and what a rad story the children of Hurin are and talking in elvish like that's not about the nerdiest thing in the world.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2012 12:18
|
|
|
I think I may have mentioned it before, but for the birds talking, crows and ravens actually can mimic human speech so that'll be simple. I'm hoping they make the thrush sound something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtQCHD1TuHo just the right amount of speech/gibbery chirping/creepiness
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2012 01:08
|
|
|
Viridiant posted:The only part of the portrayal of Radagast I'm a bit uncomfortable with is the sled pulled by giant rabbits. I agree. The Hobbit is more whimsical than the Lord of the Rings for sure, but it's still Tolkien's Middle-Earth. I'm a bit worried the Hobbit films aren't going to mesh with the world created by the LOTR films. A new look is one thing, but it still has to be the same world.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2012 05:12
|
|
|
loving dammit, no sooner than I get to see something that makes me excited about these films, something else comes right away to make me anxious about it again: http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/06/10/56931-total-film-reveals-hobbit-romance-spoiler-in-their-summer-2012-future-100/ Basically according to this article they've decided to add a love story between Kili and an elf maiden. I sure do loving wish Hollywood would realize that the way to make a female audience enjoy your film is to make a loving enjoyable film, not to shoehorn in tacked on romances! I know it's been hinted at before, but I'm still kind of disappointed they've gone this way. I am not a fan of this.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:Hopefully it won't actually be a romance at all, but more like the scenes between Gimli and Galadriel in Fellowship of the Ring, most of which were cut(it was almost all in the Extended version), and kept very short to begin with. This is pretty much what I'm hoping for. I resent the idea that as a woman I neeeeed a woman shoehorned in as a love interest to be invested in this story. Tolkien didn't write a lot of female characters in his stories, but I already know that and don't need a romance bone weakly tossed my way to make me want to see the movie.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2012 07:43
|
|
|
I don't think the romance was out of place in LOTR (though I do think it was frequently clumsily handled). Aragorn's relationship with Arwen was a big deal for his character. I DO however think that a romance is out of place for the Hobbit and it feels like pandering, which I do not like.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Maybe SHE will fall in love with him, and beg him for one hair from his mighty beard? Oh god and then a sappy "sad elf single tear" at his grave when he dies at the end 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
Haha, I don't think the reason Hollywood panders with two dimensional love interest roles for women because the majority of women aren't tired of it yet. Just like how Hollywood generally either kills, cures, or ignores disabled people despite the fact that disabled people are probably pretty sick of that poo poo (to be fair, It's better than it was, but not great) I don't think there's a thing women could do to make the bullshit tired old plot devices suddenly stop.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
arioch posted:The Aragorn/Arwen romance plot is literally cobbled together out of actual LotR text and some stuff out of the Silmarillion. Aside from entirely replacing Glorfindel at the Ford (and given that they backed off the Helm's Deep thing), why is including their arc so objectionable? More people are upset about the romantic undertones coming up in the Hobbit film, not as many are upset about the Aragorn/Arwen stuff, because that stuff was true to source. I liked that it was there, I just thought it was handled a bit poorly at times. Can we all calm down with the "sperg" poo poo? What's the fun in a thread like this if it's nothing but page after page of "I am excited about this." "I too am excited about this." "I like the book but I also like the movie and have nothing to say about either but that I like them." I think being able to critique something you like is fun. I'm nervous about the upcoming romantic Hobbit stuff. It's implied that it wont' actually GO anywhere, but the fact that they've cast a fairly well known actress and given the character a name and a slot in the previews, I don't think it's going to be brushed past as quickly as I hope it will. edit: I get that I could be wrong, but it just makes me nervous! Rat Patrol fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Jun 12, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
There already was ambiguity, though. Thorin's orders were starving them in the mountain. They weren't happy with the situation I don't know that we need to introduce a whole new character if all she's doing is meeting a need that's already been met.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
FrensaGeran posted:But that's not an emotional connection. They're hungry and annoyed. That doesn't resonate nearly as strongly as being told you're going to do battle with someone you care about. You mean like if Bilbo suddenly changed sides and was kicked out by Thorin, to their dismay? Yes something like that might be effective, and stir up more feelings of conflict as they realize they're out of food and their leader isn't showing signs of relenting Rat Patrol fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Jun 13, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
But Neither is this new elf lady? You said "someone they care about." the point is Bilbo's become their companion, multiple times their savior, and their good friend, only to suddenly turn sides at the height of their uncertainty and get banished by their leader who is ignoring their needs for his pride. Just as effective without the nonsense pandering. And if you're teasing my spoilers, I'm only doing it because I thought that's what we were doing, for the sake of those who haven't read the book but want to talk about the movie.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
That's just another thing that gets to me. I hate the idea of taking a story that, I acknowledge, is sorely short on ladies, and introducing a character solely so that we can give a bigger poo poo about one of the main guys. It doesn't solve a thing. Like you said, it's two whole films. They don't have to pander and toss more tired bullshit and two dimensional pretty faces to fill it out with character moments if they want to.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2012 03:20
|
|
|
So then what is the thread for? You could say the same thing to all the people talking about how excited they are. It's not out yet. Talk about how much you like it once you've seen it? I get that talking about elements they're introducing that make you feel nervous is a personal affront to the skills of Peter Holy Jackson and his Infallible Judgement, but I really don't get why this thread seems so anxious to shush up any pre-movie comparisons between the text and what they've given us with the film. Some people see the previews and think, oh boy. Some people see them and think, oh dear. I don't see why this thread can't be host to both.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
I'm basing my judgements on past Hollywood decisions to randomly stick a woman character into a male-oriented story. These characters are typically 2 dimensional, forced into tired, bullshit romantic subplots for the "women audiences." That's what this looks like. It's what it very likely is. They've introduced a woman character and their only justification so far is: she's a romantic interest. From afar, maybe? Still unnecessary. But even let's say it's not. Let's say she's going to be a richly developed character with a ton of her own backstory and we're all going to care about her. How is that not blatant fluffing for time. We have thirteen dwarves to learn about who actually have bearing on the plot. If they didn't somehow dig up enough from the appendices to fill two movies, why make two movies? I get that I haven't seen it yet, but if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, I've a reasonable basis to assume it's going to quack like one too. And I am thinking "oh dear." I'm thinking, "oh dear, another loving random rear end insertion of a cardboard cutout girl for the audience to look at in case nobody wants to watch two movies of sausage fest  "
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
^^ I said we have thirteen dwarves to learn about. That's the same thing you said. We have a lot of dwarves and a lot of time to learn. So many dwarves in fact, that I'd be hesitant to introduce any extra characters who don't have any bearing on the plot to clutter things up!FrensaGeran posted:No, we don't. It's the very lack of any bearing on the plot that makes adding characters for them to interact with, yes even gross female ones, a good thing. It's the very thing that started this discussion off to begin with. They do almost nothing. They're just names. Having new characters and love interests and enemies isn't "fluffing" the plot. It's creating one. The book is too short with too few characters to fill out two films. This is not a typical "addition just for the sake of pandering to a female market". This is expansive storytelling. They're pulling from the appendices. There's MORE than enough in there for more plot. Even backstory about the dwarves! I get that I haven't seen it, please stop condescending. I'm saying even the legit excuses you are giving don't quite justify (for me!) the introduction of yet another character in a sea of characters, especially given Hollywood's tendency to just kind of place extra ladies into places so the audience can look at a pretty person for a moment. edit: I'm not even saying the whole movie is ruined for me! I'm saying that this particular element is very worrying for me because it strikes a couple of nerves. Just like how earlier in the last loving "how dare you criticize PJ" clusterfuck I said that the movies were done as well as anyone could ever do them and that they are a work of art, but I think certain decisions made were terrible ones for the story. I can like a thing and still have a problem with parts of it, holy moly. Rat Patrol fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Jun 13, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2012 05:14
|
|
|
FrensaGeran posted:This was condescension: Hey at least I didn't order you what to loving think. Rat Patrol fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Jun 13, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:You know, it is an elf character, so it's not too unreasonable that she should be pretty. You missed my point, but okay. quote:I'm also not bothered by having a little more of lives of the woodelves fleshed out- bilbo was sneaking around there for weeks (months?). Some of the exposition about the elves and their king may have to come via dialog in the movie, so why not make some actual recognizable elven characters too? I'm not bothered by the idea having woodelves, but I do think it would be a bit of a bunnytrail to introduce a rich cast of elves to get attached to in this particular story. I mean to spend days or weeks with them in the film would be a bit like having left Tom Bombadil in the FOTR: fun, but where would it get us?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2012 05:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:01 |
|
|
^^ Holy poo poo, you guys ARE just in love with Peter Jackson! And personal insults to too, NOW who's upset? It's all the same, you're free to talk about the film and speculate UNLESS YOU'RE DISSING PETER JACKSON. HE HAS A RIGHT TO DO WHAT HE WANTS. I've said it again and again, I'm excited for the movie. I can like a thing without liking every part of the thing. I can look forward to something and still be worried about it. Holy poo poo dude. BetterLekNextTime posted:We are clearly going to get more perspectives in these films than just Bilbo and the dwarves, definitely from the white council, and very possibly the woodelves and Dain's dwarves too. Having one or two additional characters beyond the two woodelf characters we "have" to have (Thranduil and by virtue of the LOTR, Legolas) doesn't seem like overload to me. That's fine, but it does seem, if not like "overload," like "extra padding" or "pandering" to me. It's just a shame they can't introduce a female character (aside from Galadriel, very possibly the only one in the films with a name) as a character, but instead as a love interest. It feels like pandering, and while I'd love to be proven wrong and am looking forward to the chance, I have this hunch Hollywood is going to do what it always does and pander. That is my worry. Rat Patrol fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Jun 13, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2012 05:43
|
|