OT: Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers - SPOILERS!
kyla at sccs.swarthmore.edu
Fri Dec 20 09:20:19 EST 2002
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Michelle Thomas wrote:
> I'm really hoping that New Line will have a limited theatrical release of
> the extended editions of all three movies.
Ooh, that'd be nifty. I saw the extended version of Fellowship a couple of
weeks ago, and I really think the extra bits, short though they were, made
a huge difference.
> Fellowship I thought captured the spirit of the novel and kept most of the
> important detail, as well as working well as an exciting film.
Definitely yes. I know lots of people who were disappointed about Tom
Bombadil being left out, but it's a really big, self-contained chunk of
the book, and so it was easily excised. I thought the 18 years that Frodo
lived in the Shire with the ring could have been put in the movie just
fine, with an "18 years pass. Frodo doesn't do anything with the
ring. *Then* Gandalf shows up saying that stuff is bad" sort of voiceover,
but I'm also okay with it being cut. And the visuals were just so
beautiful--Tolkien wrote so many pages of description of scenery, and so
it works really well as a movie with shots of beautiful scenery.
> But in The Two Towers - SPOILERS - the behaviour of several characters
> is radically different to the source, and at this point I can't
> understand why they made the changes. Faramir was the biggest
> disappointment - in the book, he is presented as being wiser and more
> sensitive than his bossy big brother. He finds out that Frodo has the
> ring but, true to his word, lets Frodo and Sam go. But in the film he
> insists that Frodo come with him to Gondor, and plans to take the ring
> - then a Nazgul attacks - but is driven off by an arrow! - one arrow!
> - and then Sam makes this impassioned speech about there being some
> things worth fighting for - and then Faramir says oh sorry I've
> changed my mind you can go... it just doesn't make sense. And I've
> reread the Two Towers since and the way those chapters are written is
> just fine.
That is the biggest problem I and my friends had with the movie. Faramir
is a total good guy in the book. Even before he knows what Frodo has, he
says something like "I don't know what you're carrying, but I won't take
it from you." Maybe Peter Jackson wanted to differentiate Faramir from
Aragorn a bit more, since movie-Aragorn is more human and "no! do not
tempt me!" than book-Aragorn, but, well, I don't like movie-Aragorn's
reluctance so much either.
And what was with Aragorn's near-death experience and vision of Arwen? And
what was with Arwen even *being* in this movie? Actually...my friends who
have read the book think that Arwen shouldn't have been in the movie. A
friend who hasn't read the book said "who's this new blonde chick? [Eowyn]
She should go away. But Arwen's bit was great!"
> But Gollum... Gollum is fantastic. Exactly as I imagined, and really well
Yes. I read an article
(http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/cl-fi-gollum17dec17.story) about how
Gollum is, really, played by an actor, down to the movement, and then the
animation was based on the actor's body and face movements. So, yay for
Andy Serkis, and the Gollum/Smeagol distinction was very well done and was
everything I could have hoped for.
Ms. Calendar: It's kind of warm and fuzzy for a message of doom.
--"Prophecy Girl," "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at suberic.net with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at http://suberic.net/dwj/list/
More information about the Dwj