Members One Bad Monkey Posted November 7, 2007 Members Share Posted November 7, 2007 I can kinda understand where G?????? is coming from as the LOTR movies needed to drop lots from the books in order to fit into a US attention span length movie. Certain stories like the events leading up to meeting Tom Bombadihl just disappeared. The books were so dense it'd probably take 9 hours to do a meaningful screen adaptation of "The Fellowship of the Ring" by itself.That being said, I still found the movies entertaining. I'm certainly glad I read the books first though. Let's not forget that if they adapted "Fellowship" verbatim, it would've probably turned into a musical. How many songs can Hobbits sing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members skatalite Posted November 7, 2007 Members Share Posted November 7, 2007 I can kinda understand where G?????? is coming from as the LOTR movies needed to drop lots from the books in order to fit into a US attention span length movie. Certain stories like the events leading up to meeting Tom Bombadihl just disappeared. The books were so dense it'd probably take 9 hours to do a meaningful screen adaptation of "The Fellowship of the Ring" by itself.That being said, I still found the movies entertaining. I'm certainly glad I read the books first though. The thing is, no novel adaptation will be perfect, especially with a series like the Lord of the Rings. While I don't think the average American attention span had a whole lot to do with it, I think it mostly comes down to money and sense. To bring the full trilogy to the screen could take up days, honestly, with all the flash backs and in-depth discussions/character-per-character interaction. I think Fellowship would take more than nine hours, considering they go in-depth about the first War of the Ring (which had a seige of, I think, 16 years? Something insane.) BUT it would cost a dumb amount of money to do that, and only insanely hardcore fans with all the time in the world would watch it. Plus, you have to make films for moviegoers, not fans of the books. While you and I and thousands of other people would recognize Tom, you can't have a character like him in a movie that a wide range of people will be watching. He's so esoteric, not even hardcore fans can put a finger on who Tom actually is. Just my two cents, though I, too, found the movies incredibly entertaining. Probably my favorite fantasy trilogy of all time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GRANKOR Posted November 7, 2007 Members Share Posted November 7, 2007 That's the most ignorant statement I've ever heard anyone make. yeah because I'm the one who {censored}ed up the books, and changed the ending etc... out fool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members skatalite Posted November 7, 2007 Members Share Posted November 7, 2007 yeah because I'm the one who {censored}ed up the books, and changed the ending etc... out fool I'm not trying to jump you here, but honestly: please, take the trilogy and condense it down to about 12 hours total, then let me know what you'd leave out. You have to pick and choose man, and if you watch the special features on the extended DVDs, the writers were like, "Damn, I wish we didn't have to leave this and this out, but we had to." You know they kick themselves for leaving certain things out, but even fans of the books (mostly) understand why they did what they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members J. Posted November 7, 2007 Members Share Posted November 7, 2007 I actually preferred the LOTR movies to the books. *gasp* The books were okay, but I've always found Tolkien's writing to be a bit too dry for my tastes. ... OUT FOOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Captain Fathead Posted November 7, 2007 Members Share Posted November 7, 2007 They're not really fantastic movies, but I don't mind sitting down on a rainy night and watching them. Fellowship is really the only one with any character development. The rest is just frodo whining and aragorn kicking stuff. I'm not bashing the original literary texts, just pointing out the biggest shortcoming (IM0, of course) of the movies. Return of the King won an oscar, sure, but they should have given it to Fellowship. King was kinda crappy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GRANKOR Posted November 7, 2007 Members Share Posted November 7, 2007 I'm not trying to jump you here, but honestly: please, take the trilogy and condense it down to about 12 hours total, then let me know what you'd leave out. You have to pick and choose man, and if you watch the special features on the extended DVDs, the writers were like, "Damn, I wish we didn't have to leave this and this out, but we had to."You know they kick themselves for leaving certain things out, but even fans of the books (mostly) understand why they did what they did. ok fair point. Now explain the butchering of the end of The Return of The King on the cinema release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members skatalite Posted November 7, 2007 Members Share Posted November 7, 2007 ok fair point. Now explain the butchering of the end of The Return of The King on the cinema release. I'm not sure I'd call it a butchering. But let's look at the book then the film: Book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sunburstbasser Posted November 7, 2007 Members Share Posted November 7, 2007 I want an armored polar bear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dragon9666 Posted November 7, 2007 Members Share Posted November 7, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lokidecat Posted November 7, 2007 Members Share Posted November 7, 2007 I actually preferred the LOTR movies to the books. *gasp* The books were okay, but I've always found Tolkien's writing to be a bit too dry for my tastes. ... OUT FOOL! For LOTR movies to match the books, it would've had to been a musical with how many times they broke out into song. ung Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GRANKOR Posted November 7, 2007 Members Share Posted November 7, 2007 I'm not sure I'd call it a butchering. But let's look at the book then the film: Book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members WillPlay4food Posted November 7, 2007 Members Share Posted November 7, 2007 Let's not forget that if they adapted "Fellowship" verbatim, it would've probably turned into a musical. How many songs can Hobbits sing?Depends on how much beer is at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MrJoshua Posted November 7, 2007 Members Share Posted November 7, 2007 The movies obviously had to leave out lots of stuff, but that doesn't excuse some of the changes they made. While I was happy with them in general, there were a few things that I thought should have been left alone. For example, at the end of Fellowship. In the movie, Frodo tells Aragorn that it's time for them to part ways, and Aragorn is very understanding. That's not what happens in the book at all. In the book, Frodo and Sam have vanished. Merry and Pippin have been carried off by orcs. Boromir is dead. Aragorn is left with only himself, Legolas, and Gimli. And now he faces a choice - follow the ring and Frodo, or go to save Merry and Pippin. It's the first real test of Aragorn's leadership. To this point, most of the leadership of the group came from Gandalf. Now is when Aragorn really takes over. In addition, this crucial decision is a huge insight into the underlying character of Aragorn. He's unwilling to sacrifice Merry and Pippin to chase after Frodo and Sam. Changing this was a mistake, IMO. Where did the elven bigotry come from? This was a rather silly addition to the character of Elrond. So was the way they played up Arwen and Aragorn's relationship. And the complete reworking of Faramir was ridiculous. In the book he's a more heroic character than any other human except Aragorn. In the movie he decides to bring Frodo and the ring back to his father ... what? In the book, Faramir is wise enough to recognize that the ring must be destroyed, and to let it go. They absolutely ruined this character, IMO, in the movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members skatalite Posted November 7, 2007 Members Share Posted November 7, 2007 And the complete reworking of Faramir was ridiculous. In the book he's a more heroic character than any other human except Aragorn. In the movie he decides to bring Frodo and the ring back to his father ... what? In the book, Faramir is wise enough to recognize that the ring must be destroyed, and to let it go. They absolutely ruined this character, IMO, in the movies. This made me chuckle. Because I agree with you about dumbing the character down. I think, despite the changes, they did it, again, for dramatics. They made him desperate for his father's approval, and, due to some of his actions, made him heroic, nonetheless. Sure, he took Frodo, Sam, Gollum and the Ring to dad, but the acting gave the audience a sense of "he's really usnure of what to do, so it'll be interesting to see how he responds to things in the future." Also, I'd argue that Faramir was dumbed down because he was TOO strong of a character in the books, and it wouldn't translate well to film. You need a lead in every aspect, and working with a large group already makes that difficult. Aragorn and Gandalf had their places, as did Faramir, in the films. I think, in the end and all things considered, it worked out fine. Though I completely see where you're coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fretless Posted November 7, 2007 Members Share Posted November 7, 2007 cats that don't speak catspeak WTF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members willsellout Posted November 7, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 7, 2007 You guys are all such nerds!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKB8LHunvdY Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Psilocybin Posted November 7, 2007 Members Share Posted November 7, 2007 It's called Northern Lights in the UK I thought that was weed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.