No real discussion of Lord Of The Rings?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 20:03
VIEWED: 9473
PAGE 2 of 5
My son has a book on writing by Orson Scott Card. One of the chapters has an essay on character development where he describes LOTR as one of the greates character studies ever written. This caught my attention since my principal gripe with the books was the rather one dimensional nature of its characters.
He goes on to explain. The 'character' in LOTR is Middle-Earth itself. The book is a study of the land and its history as the principle character. The more I thought about it, things began to make sense. Both of my friends who love the book have a tremendous appreciation, which I lack, for the grandeur and drama of history. I'm wondering if that's a common trait of LOTR fans?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by CALLMEATH:
What didn't you like about Faramir? It's been too long since I've read the books. Again.
Faramir from the books:
Quote:
"I would not take this thing if I found it by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No, I do not wish for such triumphs, Frodo son of Drogo."
"...but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend..."
"But I am not such a man [to desire the ring]. Or I am wise enough to know that there are some perils from which a man much flee."
-The Two Towers
Faramir from the movie:
Quote:
"The ring goes to Gondor!"
-The Two Towers
Faramir was never tempted by the ring, because he knew who he was and what he wanted out of life, and he realized his own limitations. He was not jealous that his family were Stewards instead of Kings as Boromir was. He did not desire power. He fought only to protect his people and his land, but if he never had to draw sword again he would have been happy. He never thought about taking the ring for himself (or his father). He was a true man of Numenor, however far removed.
They started getting him right in the third movie, but the desecration of his character in the second was a hard pill for me to swallow. I generally skip it when I'm watching because it gets me too worked up.
If you can be an idiot, I can be an idiot. - D'Argo
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My mind exists in Middle-Earth.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Engineer - USS SereniTREE.
http://www.jed-soft.com Gamer Rigs, Budget Prices
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com
Real Fans Wait - 09/30/05
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have to agree - the books are fabulous.
OK, very long and involved, but so worth it!
Perhaps it's a symbol of the "modern age" but there doesn't seem to be a lot of patience to take the time it needs to read them now.
One of the problems with the movies was the difficulty in bringing that kind of depth to the screen. All things considered, I reckon they did a good job, but hey, that's just me.
And I'm not saying that you can't have character depth in movies - just that the LOTR was written in a different era, and I doubt Tolkien ever envisaged it on screen, so a lot of it is mental, rather than visual stuff.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I liked LOTR, because I accepted the fact that it's an interpretation of Tolkiens work for visual media, and not so much an attempt to completely and perfectly recreate his genius on the silver screen.
So as a loose interpretation of the basic storyline, I don't think Petey did so bad a job, even if he did veer a little too much into the whole action thing and not quite enough into character development.
Good Stuff
===================
Uber-scary nazgul, total creepification.
Andy as Gollum was just plain miraculous.
The casting for Saruman and Galdalf was perfect, and each actor did the character, and interplay between them, extremely well... of course, I might be a lil biased cause I *always* imagined Gandalf as Ian, even before this film was conceived.
One place I felt the movie did better than the book, was Boromir - whom I never felt one ounce of sympathy for till I saw the movie, because the book did not carry across the awful pressures he was under, nor his basic humanity and courage.
They portrayed Elrond for the hostile, somewhat racist brickhead that he was, which was a pleasant suprise.
Bad Stuff
===================
As mentioned above, Faramir really got slighted.
There are a couple of bad scene cuts, but you'd have to have watched it 'too damn many' times like a firefly fan for those to become obvious and annoying.
Shelob was a wuss, sorry, but she just did NOT cut it for scary evil thing factor, which she damn well shoulda since she's older and nastier than Sauron.
Poor Glorfindel, his part in the piece has been repeatedly usurped by others, in this case Arwen.
(Side note: Comparing wussy little Arwen to badazz Luthien is an insult to Luthiens memory..)
There'd be more, but I gotta get off to work and stuff...
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have been a huge LOTR fan for many, many years. I was extremly worried about these films being made, but I followed the production reports on and off, as well as the casting. And then the first one came out and I loved it. And the second and the third, yes I had gripes - Faramir, as mentioned above,no Tom, and adding the whole Aragorn - Arwen story, it worked though. The casting was pretty much genius all thru, although I think initially Stuart Townsend was supposed to be Aragorn, so glad they changed that one. I have all the extended versons and most of the minor niggles I had dissappeared with those.
"This movie may be a beautiful butterfly, but I loved that damn caterpillar." Joss Whedon.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I was in a Tolkien class in college when I first heard about the movies being made. Computer-srunk hobbits? This is going to suck! Well, I was wrong, because the computer-shrinking didn't happen that often (it wasn't great when it did, but it will do) and the trick photography was well done.
I agree that Andy Serkis was incredible! He really brought that character to life.
After seeing the movies, I had to go back to the Hobbit and rethink my minds-eye view of the wood-elves, since it was Legolas' dad and such. They always seemed dark and nasty to me before seing the movies. It made that part of the book that much better!
Someone mentioned the Two Towers being boring - well, I have to admit, that part of the book is hard to get through too! Books 3 and 4 are a little boring, but still excellent work!
My biggest beef is people who dare to compare other fantasy to Tolkien. Harry Potter, for example (but I won't get into that - let's just say it's nowhere near Tolkien) The Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan is fair, but it's taking Jordan 11+ books to do what Tolkien did in "three"
(I say three sarcastically, because it was intended as a single book, but publishers split it in to the threee, and sometimes six books we have now!)
My two cents, plus change!
No good deed goes unpunished.
--from the Ferengi Rules of Aquisition
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
If they were gonna put that much time into it, I feel they should have included everyone.
Plus, the orcs had physical abilities they didn't have in the books( spiderman-like wallclimbing and such).
Word for word Chrisisall
Exactly! I loved the books but I'm a purist and I hated the stupid divergence - expecially Faramir and the whole 2nd film's "Lets scrap a perfectly good plot and replace it with a shit one".
The books a pretty fab in terms of a whole highly developped and imagined other world, but making it into a film sucked.
Possibly cos I knew who should play all the characters in my head and it wasn't who they cast!!
Having said that I did go see all 3 in a row on Janaury 1st at the Barbican - although I ate the feet of the person next to me during the "how the hell do we get to Mordor?" scenes . . .
***************************************
Okay, I'm lost, I'm angry, and I'm
armed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well I had never heard of Lord of the Rings until I saw the movies which are now my top three all time favorite movies.
I liked them so much I read The Hobbit and then The Lord of the Rings. I like the book even better!
Given that it was a movie I think they did very well in adapting it.
One big complaint, been said many times, Faramir. I just love the guy in the book!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The only way this would have worked is if it had twice the films budget on a mini series format. Perhaps make it as long as the series Taken. Although I cannot complain, I did like the movies for what they are. A dedication to the work of Tolkien and splendid eye candy. Frankly I have read the books several times. The first time, I was in elementary school. Once in High School, and once while working at The United States Disciplinary Barracks, In Fort Leavenworth. I'm sure I will read them again, maybe to my three year old daughter this time.
Go sign my Guest Book,
http://www.geocities.com/thisbrownhouse
Then download Serenity,
http://homepage.mac.com/rocketplane/FileSharing8.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME