TTT and FOTR

[Lily from Bree]

Okay, we all know that FOTR is a GREAT movie, but I have a friend who is e-mail buddies from a guy who is part of the LOTR cast (as Silinde at the Council of Elrond, as an Uruk-Hai, and as an elf in the Last Alliance), and according to one of his letters, he says TTT will be way better than FOTR. What do you guys think?:confused:

[ReadWryt]

..it all depends on what makes it better for you...if you mean bigger battles, more special effects and more footage of Arwen on horseback then yes, it most definately will be better. If you mean more invented stuff that wasn't in the books, No Shelob and expansion of roles beyond that which they had in the original story are good things then this should be a fantastic movie...

[Talimon]

Nothing like a good dose of RW's home-made cynicism to jump-start a thread... ;)

Here are the facts: Compared to FotR, TTT requires much less plot exposition. In fact, if PJ chooses to ratio his plot-exposition as he has so far, we might end up with less then 5 minutes of dialogue that serves the sole role of furthering the plot. The rest of the plot can be easily exposed visually.

This, if you ask me, is an extremely good thing. It means the dialogue can help develop the charachters (making up for the under-development in the first film), and more time can be spent on each individual scene. I think, due to the fact that the TTT in terms of Middle-Earth time is much briefer then FotR, PJ will be able to slow down the pace at certain points. FotR, even at 3 hours, often felt like a race. I think TTT will take it's time.

If done correctly, TTT can end up being leagues better then FotR. It has both a healthy dose of awesome battles and intimate charachter scenes. I think that sort of contrast has the potential to amount to an incredible movie.

The only part of the movie that I am actually somewhat fearing is the portrayal of the ents. I can imagine too many corny outcomes and very few decent ones, let alone good. I firmly believe that the portrayal of ents will be what makes/brakes this film. It's not that the ents are in every scene, but if done sloppy they will sit in the back the of viewers mind for the whole of the film.

[Lorien]

Yes RW is right. What makes a movie good I suppose is from the viewer's perspective. If you *love* seeing Arwen riding around in places that she isn't supposed to be in then yes its going to be a kicker of a flick. But then if you don't want to see Arwen where she isn't supposed to be this movie isn't going to be good.

[Talimon]

While the two of you are flipping through the script, can I submit a few burning questions?

[ReadWryt]

and you call ME sarcastic! Bahahaha! Shoot...

[Parrot]

Saying that the quality of these movies hinges on the character of Arwen is tantamount to saying that that the “Rocky” films hinged on Adrian. It simply makes no sense, IMO. She is not that vital to the essence of the story, one way or the other. Please, can't the NPWs open your minds, not to attempt to enjoy the next movie (of course), but to at least find some new gong to bang? The use of this already tired criticism on the, as yet, unseen sequel, has completely bypassed sublime and gone straight from ridiculous to über-ridiculous; saying much about the tunnel-vision mindset of said critics in the process, again IMHO.

So I was watching “Erin Brockovich” last night and it got me to thinking. Mainly, it got me to thinking “hey, you know, Julia has a really, really, nice rack” but it got me to thinking some other stuff too. I recall reading somewhere that the actual Erin Brockovich was hospitalized due to chromium poisoning while doing her research, and yet, Soderbergh chose to leave this significant point out of the movie, lest the martyrdom angle seem overplayed, and, are you ready for this? UNREALISTIC! Point being: these are judgment calls that filmmakers make everyday, even to the point of changing actual events to try to make a better movie.

“It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. “
- Theodore Roosevelt

“Everybody is a Monday morning quarterback.”
- probably not Theodore Roosevelt

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Parrot
Saying that the quality of these movies hinges on the character of Arwen is tantamount to saying that that the “Rocky” films hinged on Adrian. It simply makes no sense, IMO. She is not that vital to the essence of the story, one way or the other.

That's funny considering practically every argument I have said against Arwen in FoTR has been counteracted from the FADs that had PJ not taken such liberties with Tolkien's characters it would have been a dud....Maybe, Talimon, you have been exempt from these arguments, but a few have boosted the success of the movie because it strayed so much from Tolkien, especially in Arwen...Hogwash, and I'm glad you at least can see that...

With the exception of Saruman and Orthanc which I think PJ will royal-ly botch (especially with the invention of his death and the manner there-of in TTT), I would imagine that PJ would do a good job with this one. However, according to you, Tal, and others, apparently PJ is not out to be accurate but to make a GOOD movie! SO I don't know what all the FADs are concerned about. To them it doesnt' really matter whether PJ is accurate or not....If any choose to argue that, I can point them to all the foolish and illogical arguments I have been counteracting all this time that prove that as long as it's in the spirit of Tolkien, it is acceptable. So what's to judge how good it is? Of course it will be a good movie...But will it be close to Tolkien?

The Ents are a bit worrisome as well....

[Parrot]

Posted by Thorin
That's funny considering practically every argument I have said against Arwen in FoTR has been counteracted from the FADs that had PJ not taken such liberties with Tolkien's characters it would have been a dud....
I don't believe I have ever held out this argument either. Many have said that they can "understand" why PJ took the approach he did. This is vastly different from saying it was the only way he could have gone.

[ReadWryt]

She is not that vital to the essence of the story, one way or the other. This is interesting...if only someone could have reminded Jackson of this before he took such rediculous liberties with the character for the sake of appealing to demographics.

[Parrot]

Posted by ReadWryt
This is interesting...if only someone could have reminded Jackson of this before he took such rediculous liberties with the character for the sake of appealing to demographics.

Yes, because God forbid he try to appeal to demographics rather than intellectual elitism, which, in my opinion, is the real source of much of this sound and fury signifying nothing.

[ReadWryt]

"intellectual elitism" has nothing to do with it. Trusting that the story that has held so many rapt in mesmerized joy for so many decades without having to be adjusted for social mores could, without having to purposely make gratuitous appeal to an imagined wider audience and just presenting the characters as they were written into the story you claim you have such respect for...that is the heart of the matter.

[Parrot]

without having to purposely make gratuitous appeal to an imagined wider audience

While I admittedly had trouble deciphering much of that post, this part at least seems to me the very definition of said "elitism". I'm pretty sure the "wider audience" is not "imagined".

[ReadWryt]

...yeah, those 1200 people who wouldn't have gone to see it because it didn't have a woman racing to a creek on a horse...:eek:

[Parrot]

Right, all but 1200 of the millions of viewers share exactly your opinion; no presumptuous elitism evident there at all. :rolleyes: “LET THEM EAT CAKE!”
Have a nice Fourth.

[ReadWryt]

How convenient for you that we can never see how many of those millions would NOT have seen the movie had P.J. portrayed the character of Arwen as she was written. How lucky you are that you can accuse me of Elitism simply because there is no way to prove that people still would have gone to see the film even though there was no unbelievable luck on the part of the Elven Miss in finding a group that the Nazgul, with their supernatural ability to detect the Ring, could not themselves detect and raced for her life to beat them to the ford...what you fail to take into account is that you cannot prove that the movie would have definately been less successfull had it followed the book in this matter...so when it comes to Elitism I would say that your continued assumption that Film Goers are so completely shallow places you in a catagory of elitism all your own...

[Parrot]

Ouch, that hurt... wait, no it didn't...
what you fail to take into account is that you cannot prove that the movie would have definately been less successfull had it followed the book in this matter...
I would not attempt to prove this because I have never even suggested this. "Oh, you're the gourmet around here, Eddie". Sometimes I wonder what posts you are reading. Unassailable tactic though; this whole refuting arguments no one has proposed (have I said that before or was it just deja vu?). I can see my participation is no longer required for you to carry on this debate. Adios.

[ReadWryt]

because God forbid he try to appeal to demographics rather than intellectual elitism

I'm pretty sure the "wider audience" is not "imagined". all but 1200 of the millions of viewers share exactly your opinion; no presumptuous elitism evident there at all.

So the implication here is not that I am wrong about H(J)ackson's portrayal of Arwen because appealing to demographics instead of leaving the characters as they were written for what is not an imagined (At the time the scenes were shot) wider audience? The 1200 figure was tongue in cheek, but was also used to denote the really really small number of people who would have refrained from seeing the movie most likely simply because it didn't have a gratuitous "Sexy gal in action scenes" love interest in it. You can't tell me that Black Hawk Down was at all hurt because of the complete lack of this...

I actually fail to see where it is rediculous to ridicule the "The Two Towers" for it's inclusion of Arwen. My god, she's not even IN that book, and including her in it is simply altering a perfectly good story for the sake of getting a bit more milage out of the "Jiggle and Smile" assets. The very fact that the title of the next film and that character's name can be mentioned in the same sentence is ludicrous...What's next, a guest shot from Boromir?

[Talimon]

Funny you should mention that considering the fact that I remember Sean Bean saying he was returning to NZ this Spring. ;) I'd assume it's either for a flashback or for the Special Edition, though.

I maintain the opinion that the development of Arwen has nothing to do with political correctness. It's there for developing the story and the charachters. TTT and RotK may prove me wrong, but based on what I've seen from FotR that's my opinion and I am willing to defend it.

The only major change demographic-wise was modernizing the dialogue. While I think it would be enlightening to hear Tolkiens lines painted on the beautiful visual canvas the movie presents, PJ's solution is very adequate. In fact I'd argue that if the movies goal is to tell the tale to todays generation it took the best road possible in terms of changing the dialogue.

[Lily from Bree]

Thanks for responding you guys! Never expected to get you to say anything. :) :)

[Parrot]

Posted by Talimon
I maintain the opinion that the development of Arwen has nothing to do with political correctness. It's there for developing the story and the charachters. TTT and RotK may prove me wrong, but based on what I've seen from FotR that's my opinion and I am willing to defend it.

I agree fully Tal and if it seems otherwise it is because I somehow keep getting myself sucked into other avenues.

[ReadWryt]

Yeah, because in the light of the breakaway success of "Shakespeare in Love" we have seen what sure death "strange language" is to a movie...and goodness knows that DiCaprio flop "Romeo + Juliet" sure confused the kids!

[Thorin]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
My god, she's not even IN that book, and including her in it is simply altering a perfectly good story for the sake of getting a bit more milage out of the "Jiggle and Smile" assets

:D Hyuck, Hyuck..."jiggle and smile"....You kill me, RW...

From Talimon...
The only major change demographic-wise was modernizing the dialogue. While I think it would be enlightening to hear Tolkiens lines painted on the beautiful visual canvas the movie presents, PJ's solution is very adequate. In fact I'd argue that if the movies goal is to tell the tale to todays generation it took the best road possible in terms of changing the dialogue.

With the exception of ridiculous lines like "If you want him come and claim him", "Let's go hunt some orc", "I'll have at you, Longshanks" ad nauseum.(Which any self-respecting Tolkienist should cringe from) , I wasn't disappointed with the dialogue. I felt the dialogue was not too modern and included many direct lines from Tolkien even in more sophisticated language...I do think that all of Tolkien's lines would have appealed to an even broader audience and would have added more sophistication....I mean come one people, its not Old English/Shakespearean play language...Anyone could understand it and it adds mystique, flavor and authenticity.

[Talimon]

That's the way I look at it. There are a few exceptions, but for the most part Tolkiens dialogue is very powerful when spoken correctly. He didn't spend time developing his dialogues for nothing. You can even try playing scene out loud. It's literally written to be spoken.

[ReadWryt]

That's my theory anyways. I believe, Tolkien meant for these things to be read aloud anyways. The Oral Tradition thing...