Boromir's Death [Archive] - THE TOLKIEN FORUM

lilhobo

08-11-2002, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Gamil Zirak
PJ ruined the scene by having Aragorn find Frodo after the attack by Boromir. The way Tolkien wrote it was with only Aragorn and Frodo knowing of the attack. By Aragorn not telling anyone, Tolkien shows Boromir's grief and repentance. Also Boromir's valient defence of Pippin and Merry was done better in the book. Boromir's reciliance as a fighter is shown more by dieing only because his back was full of arrows, not because one orc kept shot him a few times.

i agree with you on only the first line...i cant understand the second, coz it seems that only the two of them would know anyways....

the way tolkien wrote it was that Frodo made up his mind to go it alone and Aragorn respected it. PJ made it out that they had a conference and decided that frodo should go alone....PJ had to do it that way coz he messed up the Prancing Pony scene where Aragorn should have had already won over Frodo with his sincerity and "look foul feel fair" speech

Ancalagon

08-11-2002, 08:46 PM

A mile, maybe, from Parth Galen in a little glade not far from the lake he found Boromir. He was sitting with his back to a great tree, as if he was resting. But Aragorn saw that he was pierced with many black-feathered arrows; his sword was still in his hand, but it was broken near the hilt; his horn cloven in two was at his side. Many Orcs lay slain, piled all about him and at his feet.

I think one of the very best parts of the film was PJs ability to capture Boromirs brave departure. Sean Bean played the role without flaw in my opinion and this particular scene was extremely well done. The sound of the arrows hit Boromir is one of the lasting moments I have from watching it in the cinema.

Aragorn knelt beside him. Boromir opened his eyes and strove to speak. At last slow words came. 'I tried to take the Ring from Frodo ' he said. 'I am sorry. I have paid.' His glance strayed to his fallen enemies; twenty at least lay there. 'They have gone: the Halflings: the Orcs have taken them. I think they are not dead. Orcs bound them.' He paused and his eyes closed wearily. After a moment he spoke again.
'Farewell, Aragorn! Go to Minas Tirith and save my people! I have failed.'
'No!' said Aragorn, taking his hand and kissing his brow. 'You have conquered. Few have gained such a victory. Be at peace! Minas Tirith shall not fall!'
Boromir smiled.
'Which way did they go? Was Frodo there?' said Aragorn. But Boromir did not speak again.

Don't really see how this was drwan out in the film. Sorry, but I have no complaint about this part of the film at all. I will agree, the part of Frodo meeting Aragorn is rather pointless, but minor in reality.

As for which version was better; Tolkien had the idea and scripted the story, PJ was able to add sound and vision to that idea and create this cinematic version. Tolkien of course is the genius, PJ brought it to life.

lilhobo

08-11-2002, 08:56 PM

what was really pointless was the Orc trying to shoot Boromir with the bow at 2 feet lol....it would have made an impact if the orc had dropped the bow and slowly draw out a blade in preparation for beheading......

the only good thing about the dying of Boromir (all the other things seem standard fare) was the way the orc just ignored Boromir and went their merry way after seeing him shot....the silence was poignant

Turgon

08-11-2002, 09:04 PM

I agree with Anc wholeheartedly - Boromir's death was one of the highlights of the film. On first viewing I was disappointed that Boromir wasn't shot-full of arrows (much like Washizu in Kurosawa's Throne of Blood) but on second viewing, it got me... the part with the orcs filing past the kneeling Boromir was wonderful... PJ captured Boromir's tragedy perfectly.

Talimon

08-12-2002, 12:09 AM

There is actually a good reason why Aragorn met Frodo before Frodo left, and it has nothing to do with Aragorn letting Frodo go on his own. In Rivendell (in the movie) Arwen tells Aragorn, when talking about Isildurs lust for the ring, "You will face the same evil, and you will defeat it." This brought it around full circle. Besides that, it was great how, when Aragorn is tempted, you can almost subliminally hear voices saying "Aragorn...Aragorn...". You could really see how hard it was for him to let go of it.

As for Aragorn letting Frodo go, I suppose you are reffering to the line where he says, "I would have followed you to the end, to the very fires of Mordor." It would have been possible to have the orcs approach and not have Aragorn let Frodo go, and so later Frodo could make the decision himself. But I don't think this hurts the movie, and in many ways enhances it. And the main point of Frodo leaving, him not telling Sam, was kept intact, and so the scene lost nothing for me emotionally.

As for Boromirs actual death, Tolkien perhaps wrote the more "realistic" version, if that word even applys here, but not the most entertaining or emotional one. PJ, understandably, used Boromirs death as a vehicle to leave the audience in an emotional high by the end of the film. The ending of the movie, in my opinion, is the strongest part of the film. You can literally feel the tides turning when Frodo stands there by the water contemplating his fate, and the fate of all of Middle Earth. And Aragorns lines to Boromir foreshadow the epic struggle to come,

"I do not know what strength is in my blood, but I swear to you that I will not let the white city fall, nor our people fail."

Parrot

08-12-2002, 07:19 PM

While I won’t go so far as to say the movie version was the superior of the two, I would agree wholeheartedly with Anc’s statements that it was extremely well done and was in no way a detriment to the story. I would really disagree with GZ’s assertion that Boromir’s resilience or fighting spirit were not well shown; the scene where he is hit by the first arrow (or two) and drops to his knees and yet then goes on fighting tenaciously was superbly played by Bean and was especially powerful, IMO. I don’t think only taking three arrows, and big-ass arrows too, exactly makes you a wuss.

I would also echo Talimon’s statements that a main reason for having the meeting between Aragorn and Frodo was to have Aragorn pass the “ring test” very directly and unmistakably and thus overcome some of his nagging doubts about his lineage and his own moral mettle. PJ added emphasis to this scene by presenting Aragorn’s test after the “unread” audience has had a chance to see Boromir’s failing firsthand and thus gain more understanding of the lure and corrupting nature of the ring. It also gets us around the old “Why did Aragorn let him go?” conundrum.

Originally posted by Lilhobo
what was really pointless was the Orc trying to shoot Boromir with the bow at 2 feet lol....it would have made an impact if the orc had dropped the bow and slowly draw out a blade in preparation for beheading......

the only good thing about the dying of Boromir (all the other things seem standard fare) was the way the orc just ignored Boromir and went their merry way after seeing him shot....the silence was poignant
This is uhh…. a little thin, IMO. I don’t see why your way would have more impact and it seems to me, nothing would have been more “standard fare” or a hackneyed cliché than having the orc “drop his bow” (speaking of lol, he might still need that baby) and take the time to “slowly draw a blade”, rather than just pumping another arrow into him. Why does the orc care how he dies, especially when they have the halflings and are supposed to be making a hasty departure?

Mad Adski

08-13-2002, 11:15 AM

I falt that the use of the bow was actually more dramatic, particularly as PJ played upon the sound of the bow being drawn back. I don't think it really mattered the method with which Lurtz was attempting to kill Boromir, just the fact that he was not able to finish him, thanks to Aragorn - set up for a confrontation that helped give the film more of an actual conclusion.

While it is true that it doesn't stay true to Tolkien's work, you must take into account the difference in formats - what works in a book does not always work in a film.

Lhunithiliel

08-13-2002, 06:50 PM

I VOTE FOR PJ's work!

This is one of the favourite scenes in the movie! So tragic! So touching!
Such strong feelings!!!!
In the book, though I have read it THREE times, I can't feel the tragedy. Only in the grief of Faramir and Denethor it can be really felt!
I think PJ, just like me, has felt the real human tragidy in the character of Boromir! That is why he has chosen to make this scene the way he did - SPLENDID!

And if you still can't feel it, here is smth. for you:

Bombadillo

08-19-2002, 05:43 PM

you thought that the dead of boromir was great??
the first time i was bored after the second arrow, and the guy lives on for about FIFTEEN (!!!!) minutes!!
the other times i just looked at the audience gazing at the screen, my only thought about that scene was "Die, you fool!!"
it just looked like a childrens play, where a little boy dies and rises and dies and rises and dies and rises and dies and rises and dies and rises and dies and rises...
this is ony my personal modest opinion....

Melian Le Fay

08-19-2002, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by Bombadillo
you thought that the dead of boromir was great??
the first time i was bored after the second arrow, and the guy lives on for about FIFTEEN (!!!!) minutes!!

Don't forget that Boromir was one of the descendants of Numenoreans, who were much stronger and could take more than other men. They were imagined to be much better than us!

Melian Le Fay

08-19-2002, 11:23 PM

Did any of you notice that Boromir speaks of the Hobbits as "the little ones", especially at the end of the film?
I think that was very sweet, and really showed a more tender side of him... and his affection towards Merry and Pippin..
He just felt like a "deeper" personality in the film...
As someone on this thread posted, JRRT was a genious, but PJ knew how to take the best of it and give it life...(concerning Boromir)

Precious

08-20-2002, 05:42 AM

I have to agree. It gave him depth and definately fleshed him out. I loved the scene where he's practicing sword fighting with Merry and Pippin. I think PJ did a top notch job on the death scene....made me cry:( :D

lilhobo

08-20-2002, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by Parrot
IThis is uhh…. a little thin, IMO. I don’t see why your way would have more impact and it seems to me, nothing would have been more “standard fare” or a hackneyed cliché than having the orc “drop his bow” (speaking of lol, he might still need that baby) and take the time to “slowly draw a blade”, rather than just pumping another arrow into him. Why does the orc care how he dies, especially when they have the halflings and are supposed to be making a hasty departure?

have you people done any archery?? an arrow picks up momentum as it leaves the bow, and it has maximum damage at optimum distance. This distance IS NOT point blank range.

aragil

08-20-2002, 08:03 AM

I'm not sure Lurtz was an understander of the fine points of physics (that was Ugluk's domain). The arrow might not have made as much of an impact at 2 feet, but certainly the cinematic impact was greater, IMO.

Mindy_O_Lluin

08-20-2002, 03:16 PM

It looked to me like the bow was 4 or 5 feet away from Boromir. What 'optimum' distance would that be, before air resistance kicks in. How could the force be any greater at a distance, well, unless you are shooting up so that gravity could accelerate the object? I'm no archer, so perhaps I too don't know the finer "physics" laws that come into play here, but my guess would be an arrow at 2-4 feet would be more forceful that an arm with a dagger at the end.

This reminds me of the fact that, in the movie in Moria, each time I see it, when Legolas lets go of that arrow from the bridge, which finds it's way into an Orc's forhead, I think to myself, ooh, 'smart arrows' - I didn't know they had smart weapons back then!

Parrot

08-20-2002, 05:52 PM

have you people done any archery?? an arrow picks up momentum as it leaves the bow, and it has maximum damage at optimum distance. This distance IS NOT point blank range.

Uhh, yeah Lilhobo, I've been shooting a bow for about twenty years, and have put kill shots through elk and deer at roughly the same range as the shot on Boromir. Know what?? It works. I wish I could remember my physics classes better because I recall momentum being a function of mass and velocity and velocity would seemingly be at its highest the instant the arrow the leaves the string, so, mass being constant at less than the speed of light, momentum should also be maximum at that point, or maybe I am missing something? Of course Lurtz was shooting somewhat downhill so he may be getting some acceleration from gravitational pull, but then again he was using that fat shafted arrow with the big fletchings making for a much greater drag coefficient and…. Okay, I’m officially lost …. what does any of this have to do with “cinematic” impact again?
Posted by Aragil
I'm not sure Lurtz was an understander of the fine points of physics (that was Ugluk's domain).
-LMAO

lilhobo

08-20-2002, 06:04 PM

yeah sure you can kill a elk or deer, coz they have soft hide and the arrow has sharp point. at two feet the arrow has had hardly any time to "accelerate", it has nothing to do with drag or gravitational pull till the optimum range.

as for "cinematic" impact, i and many others know that the impact is less at that range. SO watching Lurtz *****-footin with an "elven" weapon, rather than an orcish weapon to do the messin bit, is rather less "manly" :D

much like watching Lurtz putting lipstick on Boromir out of spite :D

Gamil Zirak

08-20-2002, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by lilhobo
yeah sure you can kill a elk or deer, coz they have soft hide and the arrow has sharp point. at two feet the arrow has had hardly any time to "accelerate", it has nothing to do with drag or gravitational pull till the optimum range.

as for "cinematic" impact, i and many others know that the impact is less at that range. SO watching Lurtz *****-footin with an "elven" weapon, rather than an orcish weapon to do the messin bit, is rather less "manly" :D

much like watching Lurtz putting lipstick on Boromir out of spite :D
Actually an elk or a deer has tougher hide than us humans.

On the velocity of the arrow, gravity slows it down. If we were in a vacum it would continue on forever without slowing down, but we're not. The arrow might hit an optimum height/arc, but it doesn't hit an optimum speed.

Parrot

08-20-2002, 06:14 PM

Right on about height/arc GZ but the effect of gravity depends on whether the arrow is climbing or falling. Lilhobo, acceleration is imparted by the action of the string, once the arrow leaves the string, acceleration is a done deal. Everything I have every read or seen indicates that deceleration and resultant energy loss begins IMMEDIATELY.

Why would an orc care to be "manly"?

lilhobo

08-20-2002, 06:24 PM

what the heck are you people talking about??? if you shoot an arrow horizontally, it will go horizontally for a while coz it can defy gravity with its acceleration and momentum. Once it has reached max velocity then gravity will come into play.

Again on cinematic impact, the arrows that hit boromir and the orc in Moria were in flight for some time. You can feel the accleration while u ride with them....and the thud

think about it lol, would you want to be hit by a car thats travleling at 60 mile/hr or 10 mile/hr. an arrow is not going go at max velocity in two feet

PS. a ferrari can acclerate to 60 mile/hr in 6 sec, in one sec obviously its still accelerating so it wont hit maximum velocity

PSS."manly" refers to the audience's perception and understanding of manliness lol.. For some, closed ranged hand to hand combat is more "manly" than hitting someone from 30 feet, much like see Arnold schwazeenegger and Peewee Herman. You can relate to the muscle bound Arnie as more manly :D

Parrot

08-20-2002, 06:38 PM

okay, you win.:rolleyes:

lilhobo

08-20-2002, 06:45 PM

resistance is futile :D

PS. for a moment, i thought you would have have been Harad :D.....but you didnt throw in anything about logiv but threw in the towel...

ah well them's are the days :D :D

Parrot

08-20-2002, 07:22 PM

Lilhobo, I shudder to even consider the carnage had you posted a statement like "coz it can defy gravity with its acceleration and momentum. Once it has reached max velocity then gravity will come into play." with Harad lurking about. It would make Lurtz' treatment of Boromir seem posititively cordial. ;)

Ancalagon

08-20-2002, 07:41 PM

Hmmm, I have visions of an unladen and laden African Swallow flying past my screen;)

Parrot

08-20-2002, 07:47 PM

Well, you have to know these things when you're a bird, you know.

Precious

08-21-2002, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by Ancalagon
Hmmm, I have visions of an unladen and laden African Swallow flying past my screen;) Not European??;)

Mindy_O_Lluin

08-21-2002, 10:14 AM

PS. a ferrari can acclerate to 60 mile/hr in 6 sec, in one sec obviously its still accelerating so it wont hit maximum velocity

What does this have to do with anything.
This is comparing apples and oranges. A car has a thrust force continuosly accelerating it.

It compares more to AFTER you get to 60 mph, THEN take your foot off the accelerator. The car will NOT continue to speed up.

(Vote me Off Topic if you want, I just had to say this.)

Gamil Zirak

08-21-2002, 07:17 PM

Compare it to shooting a gun. If I shoot you at point blank rage (excluding a shotgun because it spreads the farther away it goes), it does just as much damage if not worse because it will go clean through you.

lilhobo

08-21-2002, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Mindy_O_Lluin

What does this have to do with anything.
This is comparing apples and oranges. A car has a thrust force continuosly accelerating it.

It compares more to AFTER you get to 60 mph, THEN take your foot off the accelerator. The car will NOT continue to speed up.

(Vote me Off Topic if you want, I just had to say this.)

an arrow does not fly at MAX velocity straight after leaving the string duh :D it takes time to accelerate to max velocity, more than two feet (dependent on the strength of user of course)

ANd a bullet can accelerate to max more quickly so it can shoot at point blank...

God i give up lol, if u have done archery for 20 years go ask the instructor

Melian Le Fay

08-22-2002, 08:00 PM

Hey, ya guys, don't you think you're a little bit off the topic...?
Anyway, if you think Lurtz was too close to Boromir to kill him with that shot, maybe he wanted to shoot him in the neck...a not so fierce wound would have killed him anyway...But this is a stupid theory, I guess the people who made the film never thought of the audiance that are experts in physics or archery....or both...
What do you think, how many of those people there are in average audiance ( in percentage) ?
Why was Lurtz standing so close? Maybe just for the effect...

joxy

08-27-2002, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by Mindy_O_Lluin
I like the book better because I thought the scene in the movie was embarrasingly drawn out and sentimental. Sorry, I just don't like mushy-ness, and I hate over-dramatizing for the purpose of manipulating the audience's emotions. That makes it in-genuine. That's just my personal opinion.
The thread seems to have got lost in the physics of archery,
but Mindy has the right idea-
Tolkien wrote the scene of Boromir dying with Aragorn at his side as a very brief one, but still full of emotion, with the words "Be at Peace".
PJ adds a lot of dialogue that is quite out of character to both, as Mindy says- mushy, but thankfully finishes with that poignant original phrase.

Dark_wraith

08-27-2002, 01:21 AM

Well 2 be honest although i loved the books, i thought the boromir death in the movie was amazing!!!! In the book it was pants but in the movie it was really kool. Plus sean bean is my favoritew actor and i think that his casting as boromir was perfect casting.

Precious

08-27-2002, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by Dark_wraith
Well 2 be honest although i loved the books, i thought the boromir death in the movie was amazing!!!! In the book it was pants but in the movie it was really kool. Plus sean bean is my favoritew actor and i think that his casting as boromir was perfect casting. :D :D dude, you rock!

Dark_wraith

08-27-2002, 01:36 AM

hehe

ta. :D

=BeZ=

Boromir's Lady

08-27-2002, 01:41 AM

It is hard for me to say which version I liked best but I agree totally with what Ancalagan posted earlier:

As for which version was better; Tolkien had the idea and scripted the story, PJ was able to add sound and vision to that idea and create this cinematic version. Tolkien of course is the genius, PJ brought it to life.

Sean Bean played this part perfectly!

I also noticed other scenes (along with the sword lessons with Merry & Pippin & refering to them as 'The Little Ones', tousling Frodo's hair) in which Boromir showed his kindness. He comforts Gimli at Balin's Tomb by putting his hand on his shoulder as he wept, he did about the same after leaving Moria & Gandalf's fall into shadow - even asking Aragorn to 'Give them a moment for pity's sake'. I loved the scene in which he opens up to Aragorn in Lothlorien, showing his vulnerability. Then of course the ending (his death scene) was just outstanding.

Dark_wraith

08-27-2002, 01:48 AM

i totally agree.

A little off toipic but did anyone else find the part where legolas grabbed gimli's beard to be really really funny??? When he says something like "noone grabs the beard of a dwarf" i was cryin with laughter!!

=BeZ=

Precious

08-27-2002, 04:02 AM

yes!!..that and the " no one tosses a dwarf" line were great!! I'm going to watch it again!!.:D

Dark_wraith

08-27-2002, 12:25 PM

lol. Yeah dwarves rule.

Thorin

08-28-2002, 12:11 AM

As much as this purist thought that about 65 percent of the movie was dreck, I must say that the final scene of battle with Boromir was done perfectly in presenting Tolkien's written word to the screen.

Sean Bean did a a great job throughout the movie, but scored hugely on his "save the hobbits" campaign. His running into the scene, his fighting despite his wounds, and his redemption with Aragorn were just excellent. It was enough to wipe the sneer off my face that I wore pretty much through the entire movie.

I didn't vote because I didn't like the choices given. Neither Tolkien, nor PJ's were better than the other, because they were pretty much the same thing in a different medium.

Two thumbs up for the Gondorian's battle scene! :)

joxy

08-28-2002, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by Boromir's Lady

I also noticed other scenes (along with the sword lessons with Merry & Pippin & refering to them as 'The Little Ones', tousling Frodo's hair) in which Boromir showed his kindness. He comforts Gimli at Balin's Tomb by putting his hand on his shoulder as he wept. Then of course the ending (his death scene) was just outstanding.

Tolkien gave a perfetly good account of Boromir's character without inventing new scenes like the sword practice.
PJ's characterisation of Boromir is not too bad, but the scenes you mention completely distort the characters of Pippin, Merry, and Gimli, just as the change at the Ford distorts Frodo's. The hobbits and dwarves are not little children who need to be played with, caressed, and consoled.
As for the death scene it is not too bad when it sticks to Tolkien's dialogue, but as soon as new dialogue appears it stands out like a sore thumb, and makes what COULD have been an outstanding scene mushy.

joxy

08-28-2002, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by Thorin
As much as this purist thought that about 65 percent of the movie was dreck, I must say that the final scene of battle with Boromir was done perfectly in presenting Tolkien's written word to the screen.

The battle was fine, but then came the dialogue with Aragorn- only parts of it "perfectly..presented Tolkien's work to the screen". Part of it was lifted from a scene before the attack, part from the real death scene, part from PJ's imagination. The first two were fine, the last was completely out of character in language and substance- the guys would not say things like that, in words like those!

Talimon

08-28-2002, 07:22 AM

I'm not salesman or anything, and so I won't spend too much effort in trying to sell you my opinion, joxy. I'm just going to mention the fact that the movies goal was not about staying absolutely true to the book. Charachters were altered not because the film-makers didn't understand Tolkien, but rather because they had a different vision. So you can go on critiquing every change you like, but you are fighting the wrong war. The film-makers will surely agree with you %100 that the movie didn't stay true to the book. You have no need trying to convince them (or anyone else, for that matter) that the two are different, or that one tried to imitate the other. It's not so. I think your argument is really what the movie should have been, or what the film-makers vision should have been. That makes more sense to me. That is also an argument that is far more open-ended. Should Peter Jackson have made an adaptation that stayed as close to the book as possible? That is a question I find interesting, and far deeper. There is very little about naming changes and pointing fingers that does anything.

Dark_wraith

08-28-2002, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Talimon
I'm just going to mention the fact that the movies goal was not about staying absolutely true to the book.

I dont wanna sound harsh but how can ANYONE save PJ know the goal of the movie?? What would be the point in doing the movie of the book if the movie does not follow the same plot??? PJ may have well have made a totally new movie. But even though i have just said that, i do believe that PJ's movie was very good towards the book and followed the same path (if a few lines and scenes were added/taken away).

And on the subject of boromirs death, i have to admit that the book version of it was terrible. It had no emotion or feeling. PJ's version was excellent and conveyed boromir's guilt much more effectively.

=BeZ=

Talimon

08-28-2002, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by Dark_wraith

I dont wanna sound harsh but how can ANYONE save PJ know the goal of the movie?? What would be the point in doing the movie of the book if the movie does not follow the same plot??? PJ may have well have made a totally new movie. But even though i have just said that, i do believe that PJ's movie was very good towards the book and followed the same path (if a few lines and scenes were added/taken away).

And on the subject of boromirs death, i have to admit that the book version of it was terrible. It had no emotion or feeling. PJ's version was excellent and conveyed boromir's guilt much more effectively.

=BeZ=

Obviously the movie sticks to the book in many places, but it's not as if that was the driving force behind PJ's vision. In other words, if he thought a certain scene should be done a certain way, he did it, regardless of the book. I doubt he'd go too far in violating the book for the sake of his vision, but certain changes were certainly made, and not out of necessity.

Dark_wraith

08-28-2002, 11:35 PM

But i thought that the changes WERE out of necessity. If he added EVERY scene and EVERY bit of narrative that was in fellowship then he would most certainly have a movie in excess of 12 hours. So he had to shorten this down but still give the viewers a clear idea of what is goin on. Remember this movie wasnt made just for fans of the book. As with boromir's death, american audiences LOVE that ****. He probably put that in because it would be (and IS) an excellent end to the first part of the story. If he kept boromir's death as it was in the book, it would have made the ending to the film pants.

joxy

08-29-2002, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by Dark_wraith
If he kept boromir's death as it was in the book, it would have made the ending to the film pants.

1: Boromir's death isn't the ending of the film.
2: I don't know what you mean by "pants" but it would have made the scene a lot better. PJ quite reasonably combines dialogue from the scene BEFORE the orcs' attack with the short dialogue of the book's death scene- OK so far, but then he mixes in with both the dialogue about "my captain" etc which is completely out of tone with the rest, and comes near to making the scene what other people here have called "mushy"- for me keeping the final words "Be at peace" just about keeps it the right side of sloppy sentimentality.

joxy

08-29-2002, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by Talimon
I doubt he'd go too far in violating the book for the sake of his vision, but certain changes were certainly made, and not out of necessity.

The problem here is that PJ has said in interviews that he spent loads of time reading the books over and over again and that made him determined, and able, to keep true to them - yet in that 5% which is awful and of his own invention he didn't!

joxy

08-29-2002, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by Dark_wraith
And on the subject of boromirs death, i have to admit that the book version of it was terrible. It had no emotion or feeling. PJ's version was excellent and conveyed boromir's guilt much more effectively.
=BeZ=

If the combined dialogue from the book's scene before the orcs' attack and at the actual death had been left without any additions from PJ it would have conveyed the emotions and feeling, and Boromir's guilt, perfectly- Tolkien knew what he was doing, and how you can call his words describing Boromir's guilt and death "terrible" really beats me! What went wrong was that PJ added dialogue of his own, that other people here have called "cheesy" and "mushy"- luckily there was enough left of the original to redeem the scene, which remained very moving.

joxy

08-29-2002, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by Talimon
I'm not salesman or anything, and so I won't spend too much effort in trying to sell you my opinion, joxy. I'm just going to mention the fact that the movies goal was not about staying absolutely true to the book.

As I've said, the problem here is that before the film was made PJ claimed that the goal WAS about staying true to the book- obviously not absolutely, that would be impossible.

Dark_wraith

08-29-2002, 12:50 AM

well i guess it must just be me who thought that the book version of boromir's death was boring then. i didnt find the death of boromir in the film to be mushy or sloppy at all.

Just cos PJ ISNT tolkien doesnt mean that everything he gets the characters to say is Demon spawn!! I thought the line about "my captain" etc was brilliant. The movie version really portayed boromir's guilt with excellence and i thought much better than the book. The book version of boromir's death was turd cos the narrative wasnt even focused on boromir as he was getting shot at with arrows. Boromir chose to defend the hobbits with pride and died with honour.

Boromir's Lady

08-29-2002, 01:01 AM

Okay, PJ's Movie isn't perfect, but when you write a screenplay adaption from a book you still have to stick to the STUDIO's writing format for a movie production. I take screenwriting classes and have had my first screenplay requested by paramount studios so I know how strict this format is. I used to get VERY angry when I would go see a movie that was adapted from a book I loved and it turned out to be different, with added or deleted scenes. But I now realize why. The script has to be kept to a three act structure (Introduction, Conflict, Resolution) along with trying to add 'beats' (or action sequence) about every 10 pages or 10 minutes of film. To take such a phenomenal book (or books) and have to MOLD this story to what Hollywood format demands is a huge task! I think PJ did a great Job. No one is ever going to be able to perfectly portray Tolkiens great literary works.

I still stand by what I said about how Boromir's character was portrayed in the movie - it was great!

joxy

08-29-2002, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by Dark_wraith
well i guess it must just be me who thought that the book version of boromir's death was boring then. i didnt find the death of boromir in the film to be mushy or sloppy at all.

Just cos PJ ISNT tolkien doesnt mean that everything he gets the characters to say is Demon spawn!! I thought the line about "my captain" etc was brilliant. The movie version really portayed boromir's guilt with excellence and i thought much better than the book. The book version of boromir's death was turd cos the narrative wasnt even focused on boromir as he was getting shot at with arrows. Boromir chose to defend the hobbits with pride and died with honour.
I don't know what "demon spawn" is, but when PJ gets people to write new dialogue it very rarely fits in with Tolkien's- given better writers maybe it would, but Tolkien says so much already that I don't see the need to add anything. "My captain" etc is completely out of character- it would be fine in another film said by someone else.
I don't know what "turd" is (in this context!) but if you mean "bad" then you're reading a different book- most of the film's death scene dialogue is from the book- the scene before the orcs' attacks, combined, quite reasonably, with the actual death scene- it's just the 20% or so that's added that jars so badly.
In the book Aragorn tells Boromir to look after the hobbits, and of course, he does. In both book and film he indeed dies with honour, and the film reverts to Tolkien's dialogue just in time for him to die with dignity.

Talimon

08-29-2002, 05:58 AM

I hate to bug you on this, but if you could explain to me specifically at what point the dialogue jars then I'll respond. Quite frankly there is nothing there that doesn't fit. I assume your memory of the book is so ingrained that any minor change, good or bad, is immediately used against the movie. You have to consider the fact that there is room for the movie to make changes that actually improve (!!!) on Tolkien's tale, at least for the movie context.

Thorin

08-29-2002, 04:14 PM

Though I do not agree with Darkwraith, I must say that this scene is one of the few places in the movie that PJ succeeded when taking a few liberties. Compared to the glaring errors and stand-out cheesy dialogue in other places that jarred my Tolkien loving senses, I noticed nothing out of the ordinary in this scene...It was one of the only places in the movie that choked me up and made me think, "Man, I wish Tolkien could have seen this!" (Aack! Talimon, what are you doing to me? Soon I will end up being a PJ apologist! :D. Not soon, though, especially if he botches TTT!)

However, in saying that, Darkwraith, the only benefit that the movie has over Tolkien in this part is that it shows Boromir coming to the hobbits aid in all of the glory that I'm sure Tolkien would have intended had he shown it.

Talimon

08-29-2002, 07:15 PM

Haha!!!

Mindy_O_Lluin

08-29-2002, 07:53 PM

Your discussion has kind of swayed me now from my first post, in that I have a better appreciation for the scene than I did before. Even though I still do like the way Tolkien discribes the death through the detective work of the others, after the fact. And, I still cringe a little bit at the over-dramatizing, I do admit that even the first time I saw it, I was so happy that this scene in the movie came so close to Tolkien's vision, and mine. Other than putting it in the wrong book, PJ didn't butcher it too much, like he did other parts of the book. And it is always great to hear dialog straight out of the book, as in the scene of Borimir and Frodo at their last meeting. I was more annoyed that they didn't put Sam's self talk when looking for Frodo, trying to follow his thought pattern to figure out where he went - The 'screwing himself up to leave' monolog. And, seeing the boat move with no one in it. Well, I guess I didn't hate the movie because the trueness to the books was there much more than not.

joxy

08-29-2002, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by Talimon
I hate to bug you on this, but if you could explain to me specifically at what point the dialogue jars then I'll respond. Quite frankly there is nothing there that doesn't fit. I assume your memory of the book is so ingrained that any minor change, good or bad, is immediately used against the movie. You have to consider the fact that there is room for the movie to make changes that actually improve (!!!) on Tolkien's tale, at least for the movie context.

This is a reply to my posting, and that posting gave a very specific example of my point about the dialogue that jars! You say there is nothing there that doesn't fit; I say there is something, approximately 20%, that doesn't fit- stalemate!
I said: "most of the film's death scene dialogue is from the book- the scene before the orcs' attacks, combined, quite reasonably, with the actual death scene- it's just the 20% or so that's added that jars so badly."
That's it- the "my captain" etc that is added would be fine in another film, but Tolkien's characters would not have said them, and if they had said the ideas they would not have used those words- they simply do not fit with Tolkien's style. It is not a matter of memory at all- my memory for words is not good, but as soon as I heard that 20% I knew instantly that they were added- they are so different from Tolkien. I had to go back to the book to check, and someone in another post has shown that they are added in the middle of the 80% that is almost word for word the same as the book. All the best writers have a recognisable style, and it is easy for anyone who has read much to realise when that style changes- the same would apply to J Austen, or J Joyce!
Tolkien gives so much text that I find it hard to see why PJ ever needs new dialogue- I am sure he could find something original to fit his new ideas, and he is happy with the original most of the time. I agree that films have to make changes from the books, but they need to make them well !

joxy

08-29-2002, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by Mindy_O_Lluin

I still cringe a little bit at the over-dramatizing, I do admit that even the first time I saw it, I was so happy that this scene in the movie came so close to Tolkien's vision, and mine. Other than putting it in the wrong book, PJ didn't butcher it too much, like he did other parts of the book. And it is always great to hear dialog straight out of the book

It IS over-dramatised, by the addition of 20% of new dialogue, but the 80% that is original made me as happy as you- I just wish I could have been 100% happy with it instead of 80%!
It was fine putting it in chronological position instead of in TTT, and I agree it wasn't butchered much- I just wish it hadn't been butchered at all- then it would have been perfect.
I have to agree also that there is some more savage butchery of the book elsewhere in the film.
As you say, it is great to hear dialogue straight from the book, and I am sure I am not alone in being able to detect the difference between it and the often (not always) poor quality writing that is added to it.

Talimon

08-30-2002, 03:45 AM

Ok, here is the scene from the movie word for word. I'm trying to be completely objective and just cannot see where it jars. I think you are just too embedded in Tolkiens dialogue:

Boromir: They took the little ones!

Aragorn: Stay still.

Boromir: Frodo! Where is Frodo?

Aragorn: I let Frodo go.

Boromir: Then you did what I could not.
I tried to take the ring from him.

Aragorn: The Ring is beyond our reach now.

Boromir: Forgive me, I did not see.
I have failed you all.

Aragorn: No Boromir. You fought bravely.
You have kept your honor.

Boromir: Leave it. It is over. The world of men will fall and all will come to darkness, and my city to ruin.

Aragorn: I do not know what strength is in my blood, but I swear to you, I will not let the White City fall, nor our people fail.

Boromir: Our people... our people.

I would have followed you my brother, my Captain, my King.

Aragorn: Be at peace, son of Gondor.

Even if with the aid of some above-average perception (which I assure you the average movie goer does not have, at least not for what you claim to percieve in this particular scene), there is nothing here that ruins the scene. Again I make the point: not every change from the book is necessarily a bad one. By adding those lines the scene is much more emotional. It ties in with an earlier scene in the movie (which, by the way, isn't Tolkien, but is just as powerful as anything else in the film):

Aragorn: Take some rest. These borders are well protected.

Boromir: I will find no rest here. I heard her voice inside my head. She spoke of my father and the fall of Gondor. She said to me, even now, there is hope left, but I cannot see it. It is long since we had any hope. My father is a noble man, but his rule is failing, and our people lose faith. He looks to me to make things right and I would do it. I would see the glory of Gondor restored.

Have you ever seen it, Aragorn? The White Tower of Ecthelion, glimmering like a spike of pearl and silver, it's banners caught high in the morning breeze. Have you ever been called home by the clear ringing of silver trumpets?

Aragorn: I have seen the White City, long ago.

Boromir: One day, our paths will lead us there and the tower guard shall take up the call: The Lords of Gondor have returned!

This is a deep bonding scene between Boromir and Aragorn, and that's why the death scene dialogue that isn't from the book is there. So you are going to say why add the early scene in the first place? Because it adds to the movie. It makes the charachters deeper. This is just one instance where I don't care if it's Tolkien or not: the point is that it's good, adds depth, hightens the emotions of the movie.

I am a big opponent of the school of thought that says every change and addition needs to automatically be shunned, regardless of it's quality. That seems to me what you are doing. In other words, even if, by some miraculous chance, PJ manages to make a scene better then how Tolkien wrote it, you'd still shun it. Also, you have to keep the term "out of charachter" in context. Out of charachter for the books charachters is one thing. Out of charachter for the movies charachters is another thing entirely. They are completely separate.

Mindy_O_Lluin

08-30-2002, 07:36 AM

Wow. What an interesting and civil battle being waged from 5371 miles apart. I can't help but agree with each of you as you speak. Nations should take a lesson here, in that there can exist two separate points of view on a matter, and both can be good. (Let me now step back out of the way.)

Talimon

08-30-2002, 08:11 AM

California and Britain are a little more then 5371 miles apart, I think. :) I thought it was something like 5000 miles just to New York from here. So it would be more like 10-15 thousand to Britain I'd assume.

Mindy_O_Lluin

08-30-2002, 07:06 PM

Our expansive country has always been @ 3000 miles wide. 5371 miles was the distance an internet point-to-point calculation site told me it was, as the crow flies. (If he doesn't die first) ;)

joxy

08-30-2002, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by Talimon
Here is the scene from the movie word for word. I'm trying to be completely objective and just cannot see where it jars....Even if with the aid of some above-average perception (which I assure you the average movie goer does not have.... there is nothing here that ruins the scene. By adding those lines the scene is much more emotional....So you are going to say why add the early scene in the first place? Because it adds to the movie. It makes the charachters deeper.... even if, by some miraculous chance, PJ manages to make a scene better then how Tolkien wrote it, you'd still shun it....Out of charachter for the books charachters is one thing. Out of charachter for the movies charachters is another thing entirely. They are completely separate.

Thanks Talimon for confirming what I said, as you helpfully did once before, in printing out the dialogue from the film. I haven't counted word for word but I estimate that the new material is 20% as I have claimed, and is not worthy of the rest of the text. It jars, and as people have said it is mushy and cheesy. I don't believe it takes above-average perception to hear the difference, and I don't accept your "assurance" (based on what knowledge?) that "average" film-goers are imperceptive.

You claim the new words make the scene more emotional-
I claim it had plenty of emotion already and the new dialogue is OTT.

You again confirm my opinion about the quality of the new writing being so mixed by quoting the earlier added scene. There my opinion is that the writing DOES fit Tolkien's style and the film; this time it has been done well. Presumably different writers do different parts, and some are better at it than others.
Of course I DO say why add that scene at all, but if it had to be done it was done well.
Why do I say why add the scene at all? Because Tolkien had plenty of material to "deepen the characters" to "add to the film", if PJ had looked for it.
PJ, or the writers he chose, couldn't make a scene BETTER than Tolkien's - though I have just said that earlier scene is pretty good.
PJ used to claim he wanted the film to be faithful to the books, and read the books over and over again to make sure it did. Now the two are "completely separate". What caused the change?

joxy

08-30-2002, 08:32 PM

I have been feeling a little inferior in discussing matters with a resident of that hive of intellectualism Berkeley, so I am pleased to find, Mindy, that he slips up on at least his geography- your distances may have been taken direct from the Net but they are pretty close and T's are way out! 3000 miles across the USA then 3000 across the Atlantic plus a couple of hundred to my corner of the wild northeast coast (I exaggerate!) of England is much nearer to your 5371, and I guess that hard-working crow would find you and your Net source completely accurate. Thank you for your appreciation of our exchanges of- what shall I call it-? opinion.

Mindy_O_Lluin

08-31-2002, 02:20 AM

Quite welcome! I've enjoyed it. I just wish someone could gather up all of the good "Tolkien" stuff that hit the cutting room floor to make room for the 20%, and make it into an annotation volume, or something. (That's, additional to the extra 30 minutes of the extended version.) :(

Dark_wraith

08-31-2002, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by joxy
PJ, or the writers he chose, couldn't make a scene BETTER than Tolkien's - though I have just said that earlier scene is pretty good.

Why couldnt he make a better scene????I am still in my opinion that the movie version was much better but i wont argue! Its been a while since ive read LOTR's and until i have finished re-reading it i will not get drawn into a word battle between two who obviosly know much more than i do!! :rolleyes:

joxy

08-31-2002, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Dark_wraith

Why couldnt he make a better scene????I am still in my opinion that the movie version was much better but i wont argue! Its been a while since ive read LOTR's and until i have finished re-reading it i will not get drawn into a word battle between two who obviosly know much more than i do!! :rolleyes:

Why not? Because he, or the writers he chose, are not as good writers as Tolkien was!
It's not so much about knowing more, but about noting, from general experience of reading, of literature, what a style of writing is, and being able to see, almost instinctively, when something jars, clashes, with it.

joxy

08-31-2002, 01:38 PM

If there really is a lot of material made but not used it would be great to see a film better even than the promised extended DVD version. It would not even have to be all that much longer- just leave out the worst of the new invented scenes, add in some scenes of original material to make the plot easier to follow and to establish characters better, and you could have a near-perfect film still lasting little more than three hours.

Talimon

09-01-2002, 11:00 AM

Considering PJ's 'free' style don't be surprised if in 15-20 years PJ releases a 'directors cut' that changes a bunch of stuff. But I get the impression that the reason those scenes you despise were added was not just a 'mistake'.

joxy

09-01-2002, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by Talimon
But I get the impression that the reason those scenes you despise were added was not just a 'mistake'.

The added scenes aren't important enough to deserve the word despise,
and I don't think mistake is the right word for them either!

lilhobo

09-05-2002, 08:10 AM

i hate these mushy "civilised" battles bw the US and britain, it always seems like Blair is kissing the other's behind lol.

Lets not forget how much PJ ripped from the Bakshi version, and that version had better dialogue and better scripting.

i mean, i dare anyone to go back and listen to Gandlaf and frodo discussing the ring. Some lines are just repeated and repeated again here, there and everywhere. Its as if they didnt know what to make of the dialogue

Talimon

09-05-2002, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by lilhobo

Lets not forget how much PJ ripped from the Bakshi version, and that version had better dialogue and better scripting.

i mean, i dare anyone to go back and listen to Gandlaf and frodo discussing the ring. Some lines are just repeated and repeated again here, there and everywhere. Its as if they didnt know what to make of the dialogue

Do you really want me to rip that claim apart? I can't believe you are standing by this. You are actually saying Bakshi had a better script. I'm sure you enjoyed these prime parts of it. Talk about butchering the most beautiful lines in FotR:

Frodo: I wish it need not have happened in my time

Gandalf: So do I.

Even better:

Frodo: What a pity that Bilbo didn't kill that vile creature (Gollum) when he had the chance!

Gandalf: Yes, it was pity. Pity and Mercy.

But lets not stop there. Is there any way to possibly respect Gandalf's portrayal in this movie? He looks like a hobo, a complete stoner. When he says "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them..." he is spinning around like a happy flower child. Instead of comforting Frodo he is completely unemotional and lofty. This isn't the Gandalf we know.

I'll admit: Some of the animation was fantastic, as was a good deal of the voice acting. But you can't possibly say it's better then PJ's film, not as an adaptation, and by no means as a movie. To me, that argument regarding truth to the dialogue is completely unfounded. True, more lines are kept. But which lines are those? Bakshi's version rarely rises much if any emotion out of you. When it is over you quickly forget it. Sorry, but I look for more in a movie/adaptation then just sheer volume of kept dialogue. The one reason I love Bakshi's film is that it is testament to how dialogue alone can't carry a movie: you need the right actors, the right look, the right direction, the right pacing, and the right emotion.

I sent Bakshi an email about 4 months ago asking him what he thought of PJ's movie. Guess what he said? He hadn't even seen it. Guess why? He didn't want it to hurt his own vision. C'mon, give me a break. You can only go so far.

joxy

09-05-2002, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by lilhobo
i hate these mushy "civilised" battles bw the US and britain, it always seems like Blair is kissing the other's behind lol. Lets not forget how much PJ ripped from the Bakshi version, and that version had better dialogue and better scripting.
What's "mushy" about them? or is that another US word I don't understand?!
And, do anything, but don't link me in the remotest way with T Blair, the most unpleasant political leader the UK (not britain) has ever had!
I thought this Bakshi thing was an animation- can it be compared with PJ's? If it really does stick to Tolkien's dialogue I'll have to try to find it.

Talimon

09-06-2002, 06:47 AM

It's an animation, but as you can see to some it's apparently comparable. The main argument supporters of Bakshi's version offer is that, had it had more money and time, it could have been incredible. For one I don't buy that for a second, but more importantly it didn't have them, and if that's it's excuse, then it just shouldn't have been made. I don't know, maybe you'll like it, I can't say anything with surety any longer. It's visual style, compared to other animations of the time, was arguably original. I say "arguably" because the Japanese have been doing some mindblowing animation for a long time now, very stirring stuff. It does have an original look though, and while I don't personaly love it %100 of the time, it has it's moments. But none-the-less it can't hold anything to PJ's movie, visually, much less aurally.

The only front where there is any sort of dicussion here is whether it was truer to Tolkien. To me there is no question about this. Does it have more dialogue, line for line? Perhaps. But does it capture the integrity of Tolkien, or rise any sort of feeling compared to PJ's movie? Hardly. The movie somehow manages to tell the tale of FotR, but the moment it crosses into TTT things just get ugly. I don't know what the original plan was with the creation of these movies, but even if there was ever supposed to be another episode this first one would be tainted by complete randomness. The way Treebeard alone is introduced and handled is worse then all the criticisms regarding PJ's movie combined. I'll accept your opinion if you think it's better then PJ's movie, but lets just say that we'll be at the opposite ends of the spectrum regarding what we expect from an adaptation. You have to really be skewed regarding your view of Tolkien to simply say that the best adaptation is the one that sticks closest to Tolkiens dialogue and plot, regardless of how well it does that. But I still stand by the fact that PJ's movie is closer to Tolkien, in it's feel at the very the least.

Grond

09-06-2002, 07:10 AM

Look at Bakshi's Lord of the Rings and you will see a director that hadn't a clue how Middle-earth should be portrayed visually. PJ has that part of the story down pat.

Look at Bakshi's Lord of the Rings and you will see a director who didn't really understand the story. PJ understood the story and chose to change it in ways he felt would better relate to today's audience. I don't agree with a lot of PJ's actions but I like his version and his vision much better.

joxy

09-06-2002, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Talimon
It's an animation, but as you can see to some it's apparently comparable.
From your account of the animation, I don't see that comparing it with the present FOTR makes much sense; they sound like two different things, done in different ways, with different intentions. I understood the animation covered only FOTR; does it extend into TTT also?

Talimon

09-06-2002, 07:36 PM

Well, I don't know about "different intetions". They are both movies, and they are both based on Tolkiens tale. You can compare them as adaptations and as movies. As movies I don't think there is any argument which is better. As an adaptation there is perhaps some sort of discussion here.

You should rent it, if you can. It's deffinitely worth a look. It's not utterly abyssimal, and you will get a few laughs out of it. And the animation does get your attention innitially. I just don't think, in terms of quality, it's comparable to PJ's movie.

Yes, it extends into TTT, which ends up working against it. Frodo, Sam, and Gollum are left without an ending, as are Merry, Pippin, and Treebeard. The only plot point that really gets wrapped up is the one in Rohan. The movie climaxes with Helm's Deep. I was actually surprised at how good the battle scene was done. I doubt it will hold anything to PJ's version, but it has some nice moments. So yes, it goes into the middle of TTT.

Melian Le Fay

09-06-2002, 11:13 PM

.......and what about the rest of the story? Does Bakshi's film show ROTK?

Diamond Took

09-07-2002, 07:09 AM

crikey i've voted, and i havent even posted here yet.
I didn't get to find a
'I liked them both the same but in different ways' option.
and i totally agree with what Anglacon said way back on page two.
lol, that should be tuned into a quote.

ltas

09-08-2002, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by joxy

The battle was fine, but then came the dialogue with Aragorn- only parts of it "perfectly..presented Tolkien's work to the screen". Part of it was lifted from a scene before the attack, part from the real death scene, part from PJ's imagination. The first two were fine, the last was completely out of character in language and substance- the guys would not say things like that, in words like those!

I just HAVE to pick on this "the guys would not say things like that, in words like those".
I'm not sure if joxy meant to say that A. and B. would not say things like that or that guys in general would not say things like that? The latter made me thinking if that's what's bothering many people about that dying scene - average action heroes do not say things like that even when they're dying...

However, the "My brother, my captain, my king" part did seem perhaps a bit lengthy and overemotional. "My captain" would have been enough and would have sounded more natural (since this mode of address is used quite often in epic films) and also more plausible as something the characters in the book would say.

joxy

09-09-2002, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by ltas
I just HAVE to pick on this "the guys would not say things like that, in words like those".
Why pick on it?! I think we pretty well agree on this one!
I did mean specifically that A&B wouldn't use those added words- I compare them with the words they are mixed up with, that are from Tolkien, and that have a different tone about them.
But I take your point about guys in general as well. Of course our heroes are not "average" (well not to Tolkien fans anyway, they're above average!), but I agree about the guys in general!
Lengthy and overemotional is just what I found the extra words to be- there was more than enough already in the words taken right from Tolkien that WERE used.

Talimon

09-09-2002, 01:38 AM

I can't help thinking that had there been less dialogue you would be complaining now about the fact that it wasn't emotional enough. I don't see where you are going by saying that the scene was very emotional. It was far from being mushy. I get the impression that the only scale you are judging this movie by is authenticity to the book. In other words, were I to make a movie that was 40 hours long and was boring to the bone, but kept every last bit of detail from the book, you would praise it. To me that is a very limited way of looking at an adaptation.

Diamond Took

09-09-2002, 02:41 AM

I loved Borimir's endearing last words, as they very much sum up his charactar IMO.

Forgive me for not remembering this part in the book, but did he originally say that line?

Talimon

09-09-2002, 05:41 AM

He never says the "My brother, my captain, my king" line in the book, but I agree that it was an incredible line to put in there. There is a shot there of Aragorn that, combined with the music, is just incredible. His look is one of resolve and courage.

Diamond Took

09-09-2002, 06:08 AM

- And the looks on the faces of the other two:
*sob*:(

Grond

09-09-2002, 06:33 AM

It is a beautiful line and both a beautiful and touching scene. The book never makes it clear whether Boromir actually recognised Aragorn as Brother, Captain, and King... but it does portray Boromir laying the charge on Aragorn to save his city.

The scene was touching and not out of character. The movie says what I have always wished that the book said, but didn't. :(

joxy

09-09-2002, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Talimon
He never says the "My brother, my captain, my king" line in the book, but I agree that it was an incredible line to put in there. There is a shot there of Aragorn that, combined with the music, is just incredible. His look is one of resolve and courage.
Yes it was incredible, unbelievable, that he should be saying it!
It would be a fine line in another film or book, but it is so out of tone with the Tolkienian part (80%) of the scene's dialogue that it stands out a mile as being wrong in the scene and in the film. I couldn't believe the line was there, it seemed incredible, but I listened again, and there it was so I had to believe it!

joxy

09-09-2002, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Grond
It is a beautiful line and both a beautiful and touching scene....The scene was touching and not out of character...The movie says what I have always wished that the book said, but didn't. :(
It may be a beautiful line, but it isn't a line that Aragorn could ever have said alongside the Tolkienian lines that he says- it does not fit with them- they're like from two different films, or books.
The scene was indeed touching, 80% of it was original so it should be, but yes, those few words were out of character, for both book and film.
And what else did you want the book to say?- for many people it says far too much already, they can't read it all!

joxy

09-09-2002, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Diamond Took
I loved Borimir's endearing last words, as they very much sum up his charactar IMO. Forgive me for not remembering this part in the book, but did he originally say that line?
Another contributor has helpfully provided the full dialogue. Most of it is taken from TWO scenes in the book, the actual death scene, and one BEFORE the orc attack; combining them was quite a good idea.
My problem is that PJ was not satisfied with that; he wanted more, and got someone to write new lines, and my opinion is that the writer simply got the tone of the original wrong, and did not match it. As a result the scene now has 80% of original dialogue, and 20% which might be fine in another film, but doesn't fit in with the rest. Others have described the added words as mushy and sentimental, and I agree with that.

Grond

09-09-2002, 07:26 PM

The book lacked a clear recognition of Aragorn as the rightful heir to Gondor until, in the end, it is provided by Faramir. It wasn't clearly provided by Boromir and it was clearly not provided by Denethor; yet, the author made it clear that Boromir did not begrudge Aragorn leading the Fellowship after Gandalf's fall. His entire being was bent on saving his city. He charged the one person he felt could handle the job to do it... both in the book and in the movie. The movie just added the lines Brother, Captain, King to confirm Aragorn's standing as the rightful heir to Gondor. It is not in the book but doesn't distort the character in my opinion.

But we all have our own opinons, joxy... and I certainly respect yours. :)

Vilya

09-10-2002, 12:10 AM

Damn, I registered just so that I could have a say in this thread. It's what I get for being a big movie-Boromir fan. =)

Okay, I love Boromir's death scene, it's one of my favorite scenes in the movie. His last line of "my brother, my captain, my king" I felt was a perfect end, when you look at the whole movie, not just the scene it was in. To me, there's three defining Boromir-scenes in the movie: the Council scene, his scene in Lothlorien, and his death scene. You look at those three scenes and you see the progression of Boromir throughout the movie and his attitude towards Aragorn. In the Council scene, you get "Gondor has no king. Gondor needs no king." Then, in Lothlorien, Boromir tells Aragorn, "and the tower guard will take up the call, 'the Lords of Gondor have returned!'" And, finally, in his death scene, comes the now infamous "I would have followed you, my brother, my captain, my king." At first, he denies Aragorn his heritage, but then, he slowly comes to accept it before finally naming him his king and giving him his loyalty. And, to me, that's powerful. Boromir has accepted that he was wrong and he's basically admitting that to Aragorn. Perhaps when you're taking it into the context of the books it doesn't fit, but when you look at the movie and how Boromir was developed there, to me, the line fit perfectly.

joxy

09-10-2002, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by Grond
The movie just added the lines Brother, Captain, King to confirm Aragorn's standing as the rightful heir to Gondor.It is not in the book but doesn't distort the character in my opinion.But we all have our own opinons, joxy... and I certainly respect yours.
Yes it was a good idea to establish Aragorn's standing, and no it doesn't distort his character- you know, we do agree a lot and thanks Grond!
My opinion is that those particular words just aren't Aragorn's style either in the book or in the rest of the film; that they were written badly, and if they were written better they would have been good, useful, and moving. My opinion is based on a long time of getting used to Tolkien's writing style, and on finding those words wrong, like a wrong note played in a piece of music- but it IS only my opinion- so thanks again G for respecting it, as I do yours.

joxy

09-10-2002, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by Vilya
Perhaps when you're taking it into the context of the books it doesn't fit, but when you look at the movie and how Boromir was developed there, to me, the line fit perfectly.
It's a matter of opinion of opinion, of course, and also of taste. My opinion: The film stays close to the book most of the time, in content and in style, but those few added lines in the death scene just aren't good enough, aren't well enough written, to put over their useful message and at the same time to fit in with the original dialogue that surrounds them. Other contributors have called them mushy, sentimental, corny, OTT; I'll venture to add rhetorical and melodramatic. Of course PJ can't expect his writers to be perfect all the time, though they're pretty good most ot it; it's just a pity that one of the poorer ones was let loose on such a vital scene.

Mindy_O_Lluin

09-10-2002, 01:42 AM

I think this line for the movie was OK and concisely brought a balance to the movie as indicated by Vilya, especially for movie goers who might possibly NOT see the next two films (Is that even thinkable? :rolleyes: ) If the movies had been based on the books, the end of FOTR would have Borimir and Aragorn more as equals - "brothers." But Aragorn, in my opinion, would not have promoted his higher status (Captain and King) until meeting Eomer on the plains on Rohan and displaying Anduril.
This would not have worked too well in a trilogy of movies coming a year apart.
As for the over-dramatization by Sean Bean, I have noticed that ALL of his scenes are excessively dramatized by him, and so his style is consistant. Some times its mushy and creepy, and sometimes its moving, depending on the mood of the viewer (me). His acting verges on OTT, but it's growing on me.

Vilya

09-10-2002, 02:09 AM

Yes, of course, it's all a matter of opinion and taste. =) With that said, let me go even more in-depth as to why I love the scene and why I think everything fits. (Warning: Long!) Okay, basically, what we have in the book goes like this, condensed to what's spoken between Aragorn and Boromir:
Boromir: 'I tried to take the Ring from Frodo. I am sorry. I have paid. They have gone: the Halflings: the Orcs have taken them. I think they are not dead. Orcs bound them.
Boromir: Farewell, Aragorn! Go to Minis Tirith and save my people! I have failed!'
Aragorn: 'No! You have conquered. Few have gained such a victory. Be at peace! Minas Tirith shall not fall!'
Aragorn: 'Which way did they go? Was Frodo there?'

And this is from the movie:
Boromir: 'Frodo. Where is Frodo?'
Aragorn: 'I let Frodo go.'
Boromir: 'Then you did what I could not. I tried to take the ring from him."
Aragorn: 'The ring is beyond our reach now.'
Boromir: 'Forgive me. I did not see it. I have failed you all.'
Aragorn: 'No, Boromir. You fought bravely. You have kept your honor.'
Boromir: 'Leave it. It's over. The world of men will fail. All will fall into darkness, and my city to ruin.'
Aragorn: 'I know not what strength lies in my blood, but I swear to you I will not let the White City fall, nor our people fail.'
Boromir: 'Our people. Our people.'
Boromir: 'I would have followed you, my brother, my captain, my king.

Looking at these two, it's obvious that the biggest difference is that Aragorn doesn't know what's happened to Frodo, but let's not get into that since that's a whole 'nother discussion. =) Now, let's see. Boromir is dying and he believes that he's failed in both, and, in both, Aragorn denies such a thing happening. And in both, Boromir asks Aragorn to save the people of Minas Tirith, which Aragorn swears to do both times. But what was added was Aragorn's line about the strength of his blood, which goes back to the scene in Rivendell when Aragorn and Arwen were in front of the shards of Narsil and Aragorn told her that "the same blood flows in my veins, the same weakness." Before, I talked about the progression of Boromir. Now, I'll talk about the progression of Aragorn, which these two lines show. Aragorn was afraid of the past and sharing Isildur's fate because of the "weak" blood they share. But with the line he says to Boromir (and after the scene with Frodo and the Ring), it shows that, yes, he and Isildur may share the same blood, but he is most definitely not Isildur. He's come to accept Arwen's words, for his time had come, and he had faced the same evil that Isildur faced and he was able to resist it. Elrond said to Gandalf that Aragorn turned from the path of Gondor a long time ago, choosing exile instead. In the book, Aragorn agreed to go to Minas Tirith with Boromir; however, he never agreed to such a thing in the movie--they were going to Mount Doom and that was it, no talk of either going East or West or breaking up the Fellowship, with one group going one way and the other another. So with that one line added into the movie, Aragorn steps away from the path of exile and onto another path, the one that will eventually lead to Gondor.

Then come the last two of Boromir's lines, which were, of course, added to the movie. First, 'Our people. Our people.' Everytime I watch that part of the movie, I think of how easily Boromir could have denied Aragorn his heritage in that one moment. But he doesn't. Instead, he acknowledges what has become the truth for him: the people of Gondor are also Aragorn's people. Aragorn is no longer just a mere ranger...he truly is the man who would be King of Gondor. And the last line I've already given my piece on, so I'll not repeat myself.

With (all =) that said, I don't see how the dialogue jars at all; instead, I think it conveys so very much using just a few words. The added lines not only referenced other parts of the movie, but also showed how very well the two characters grew during the course of their journey together.

Also, I was wondering. joxy, you said in another post (on page 4) that "the film reverts to Tolkien's dialogue just in time for him to die with dignity." The scene in the movie ends with Aragorn saying "Be at peace, son of Gondor," while, in the book, Aragorn goes, "Alas! Thus passes the heir of Denethor, Lord of the Tower of Guard! This is a bitter end. Now the Company is all in ruin. It is I that have failed!..." and so on. So I don't see how the end of film reverted to Tolkien's dialogue...? Unless you're talking about how they sent Boromir's body over the falls?

Grond

09-10-2002, 02:30 AM

Now Vilya. I remember in the movie that Elrond still gives the charge that no one is 'bound' by the quest save the Ringbearer. I even think there is allusion that Aragorn is to go to Minas Tirith. Maybe I'm confused. Let me go FF on my DVD right now. I'll be back.

Vilya

09-10-2002, 02:57 AM

Originally posted by Grond
Now Vilya. I remember in the movie that Elrond still gives the charge that no one is 'bound' by the quest save the Ringbearer. I even think there is allusion that Aragorn is to go to Minas Tirith. Maybe I'm confused. Let me go FF on my DVD right now. I'll be back.
Hmmm...how odd. After I read your post, had the feeling that that was something I'd forgotten (as I suddenly recieved a memory of Elrond mentioning something about being "bound") and went to look at the copy of the script I have. All I've been able to find, though, is his line at the beginning of the Council scene: "Strangers from distant lands, friends of old. You are summoned here to answer the threat of Mordor. Middle-Earth stands on the brink of destruction. You will unite or you will fall. Each race is bound to this fate, this one doom." And he doesn't mention anything about that at the end, after the Fellowship have all volunteered themselves to the task. He does say "One of you must do this" near the beginning, but he doesn't mention that the rest of the Fellowship can all leave if they wish to.

And I think the allusion you're looking for concerning Aragorn going to Minas Tirith occurs in Lothlorien, when Boromir says, "One day, our paths will lead us there, and the tower guard will take up the call, 'the lords of Gondor have returned!'" But like Boromir said, that's going to happen one day. Not, "Soon, we shall reach the White City..." It's a very fine distinction, but that's the way I've always looked at the line; it's all in the interpretation. =)

Talimon

09-10-2002, 03:13 AM

He actually does say that line, but it's not in the theatrical edition. Look at the preiview for the Extended Edition and you will see Elrond saying that line.

Vilya

09-10-2002, 03:19 AM

Originally posted by Talimon
He actually does say that line, but it's not in the theatrical edition. Look at the preiview for the Extended Edition and you will see Elrond saying that line.
Ahhh, okay then, thanks. =) 's what I get for not paying too much attention to the extras on the disks. *grins sheepishly* Now I can't wait until November so that I can take the whole thing into account, not just the theatrical edition, when formulating these little things of mine. *taps foot impatiently as she waits for November to arrive*

Diamond Took

09-10-2002, 09:01 AM

What I can't wait for is december!!!
'cuz thats when TTT comes onto the big screen!
YayYayYay!!!

joxy

09-10-2002, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by Vilya
I don't see how the dialogue jars at all....Also, I was wondering. joxy, you said in another post (on page 4) that "the film reverts to Tolkien's dialogue just in time for him to die with dignity." The scene in the movie ends with Aragorn saying "Be at peace, son of Gondor,"
I am really impressed with your knowledge of the books, and even more with your accurate interpretation of them.
The full dialogue of the film death scene has been given to us here before, together with the dialogue from the TWO scenes in the book that it (quite reaonably) combines.
When I first saw the film the "brother,captain,king" line jarred immediately; I didn't have a memory of the words in the book at all, but I just knew that line could never have been written by Tolkien, and also felt it was not worthy either of other parts of new writing in the film. There must be one more than one writer on the team, and I felt that the one who wrote that line was not on the same high level as the others. It sounded like a take-off of "friends, Romans, countryman", a line that has, sadly, become almost a joke, the sort of thing that any "ham" actor loves to declaim. VM did his best with it, but as others here have suggested it must have been an effort for him to take it seriously.
You've quoted what I meant by "reverting to the book": "Be at peace", those simple words, are Tolkien's, and they end that scene with quiet unmelodramatic dignity and sincerity.

Talimon

09-10-2002, 09:38 PM

I think the most you can say, seeing as how some like it and some don't, is that it's a personal issue. Try as I might, I cannot objectively see how it jars from the rest of the dialogue. If you keep the book in mind, then obviously it jars from the book. But compared to how the dialogue is said in the movie, and to the mood and pacing of the scene, nothing there sticks out cinematically.

joxy

09-11-2002, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by Talimon
I think the most you can say, seeing as how some like it and some don't, is that it's a personal issue. Try as I might, I cannot objectively see how it jars from the rest of the dialogue. If you keep the book in mind, then obviously it jars from the book. But compared to how the dialogue is said in the movie, and to the mood and pacing of the scene, nothing there sticks out cinematically.
Most of the dialogue in the death scene IS from the book, some of the added material fits the style, that line and one or two others don't fit- they do "stick out", like a wrong note in a piece of music. Some have called them mushy and sentimental, I've called them melodramatic. A personal issue certainly, but one with plenty of support, on both sides.

Talimon

09-11-2002, 03:30 AM

Out of curiousity, do you think the scene between Frodo and Sam at the end of the movie was melodramatic as well?

The only scene in the movie that I found melodramatic was Arwen crying by Frodo's side. Other then that the parts that were supposedly more dramatic then the book were cinematically incredible. I think our main disagreement here is a result of the fact that I'm looking at it as a movie and you are looking at it as an adaptation. Both are valid points of view, and I can see why you would feel the way you do seeing the movie by those standards.

ltas

09-11-2002, 06:24 PM

Old things first:
Originally posted by Talimon
./.../ I get the impression that the only scale you are judging this movie by is authenticity to the book. In other words, were I to make a movie that was 40 hours long and was boring to the bone, but kept every last bit of detail from the book, you would praise it. /.../
I really do not understand how can an admirer of Tolkien's works suggest that if the film would contain every detail from the book it would be boring?!!! (even if it would take 40 hours to watch it ;) )

---
Someone somewhere (not here) noted that"It was Sean Bean who gave Boromir a soul" and in my opinion that view about SB's portrayal of Boromir is quite appropriate. Though I do not claim that the original character lacked inner depth, SB certainly did add a lot.

Vilya, I appreciate your observations about the character development through the entire film. It makes one understand the value of some added scenes and even (<wink>), in some places, justifies the dialogue changes.

However, what I found disturbing in those lines of the "last dialogue" was not the new content of it, but rather the way it was expressed and presented (both wording and acting).

---
Out of curiousity, do you think the scene between Frodo and Sam at the end of the movie was melodramatic as well?
Not melodramatic or mushy, but certainly for my taste too... sweet, though I do not criticise Peter Jackson for this. But that's off subject, we can continue somewhere else :).

Talimon

09-11-2002, 10:26 PM

I really do not understand how can an admirer of Tolkien's works suggest that if the film would contain every detail from the book it would be boring?!!! (even if it would take 40 hours to watch it )

That is because first and foremost I am an admirer of good art. Yes, that supercedes even my admiration of Tolkien. Even the majority of "purists" agree here: PJ couldn't and shouldn't have attempted to stick every last bit of Tolkien into the movie. It wasn't possible, and had he created the movie with that goal in mind I'm positive the movie we have today wouldn't be nearly as good.

All I am saying is that if the only way you are judging the film is by comparing it to the details in the book then the actual quality of the movie matters very little to you. To me the first goal any film-maker should have is to create a good movie. That is the first thing I look at. Because if it's a bad movie then it's not even worth watching, regardless of what else it does.

joxy

09-11-2002, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by Talimon
Out of curiousity, do you think the scene between Frodo and Sam at the end of the movie was melodramatic as well?
The only scene in the movie that I found melodramatic was Arwen crying by Frodo's side. Other then that the parts that were supposedly more dramatic then the book were cinematically incredible.
No, I liked the way it looked, and the dialogue didn't "jar"- I don't know how much is Tolkien but if some of it is new writing then it's well done.
Of course I would have liked it to be nearer the book- F being invisible etc, but in filmic terms it was good enough for me!
Melodramatic isn't the right word at all for it- I only used the word about the "captain.." line, which sounded to me like something taken straight from some bad melodrama that had nothing to do with FOTR. Others agree! I didn't mean to apply "melodramatic" to any whole scenes, but....
I totally agree about the Arwen scene of course, pure invention and badly done, again in filmic terms.
I don't follow your next sentence- which other parts more dramatic than the book are you referring to, and in what sense do you use the word "incredible"- "unbelievable", or "incredibl(y good)"?

Talimon

09-12-2002, 07:00 AM

I use "incredible" as a complement 99% of the time.

I guess I am just reffering to the general feel of the movie. The events at the council, Bree, Lorien, Saruman... It all seems to be tighter and tenser then the book. For the kind of movie it tries to be these changes are very effective.

joxy

09-12-2002, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Talimon
I use "incredible" as a compliment 99% of the time.

I guess I am just reffering to the general feel of the movie. The events at the council, Bree, Lorien, Saruman... It all seems to be tighter and tenser then the book. For the kind of movie it tries to be these changes are very effective.
You see how confusing that usage of "incredible" makes your sentence "Other then that the parts that were supposedly more dramatic then the book were cinematically incredible". It could easily be read as meaning you couldn't believe in those parts, which I now gather is the opposite of what you meant!
I understand your reference now to scenes being more dramatic, and I agree with you: the film, simply for lack of time, has to be tighter and tenser than the books, and it succeeds in doing that.

Ariana Undomiel

09-13-2002, 08:10 PM

Hello, this thread is supposed to be about the discussion of the death of Boromir in the movie and in the book. We seem to be heading down rabbit trails.

Did anyone notice that in the film when Boromir is fighting to defend the hobbits almost every time the camera is on him, you can see the statue of a king standing behind him. I don't know if that was done on purpose, but if it was, very nice touch.

~Ariana

joxy

09-13-2002, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Ariana Undomiel
this thread is supposed to be about the discussion of the death of Boromir in the movie and in the book. We seem to be heading down rabbit trails.
We were discussing how the scene compares with other scenes in the film, for example how it compares in terms of melodrama. Not 100% to the point but not too far off it, imho.
There were old buildings on the site, so I suppose there could be statues.

Melian Le Fay

09-13-2002, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by Ariana Undomiel

Did anyone notice that in the film when Boromir is fighting to defend the hobbits almost every time the camera is on him, you can see the statue of a king standing behind him. I don't know if that was done on purpose, but if it was, very nice touch.

How do you guys notice all those details?!
Well done for that!
And you're right, it really is a nice touch...<sigh>

Ariana Undomiel

09-14-2002, 12:45 AM

I know. When I noticed like the 7th time I was watching the movie I was like "sacred bovine!" that is sooooo neat. It's as if the kings were watching him make his final defense against darkness. And in some ways, he won because he let go of his desire for the ring and turned his passion to protecting his friends until the very last moment. And then he dies calling on Aragorn as his brother, his captain, and his king. WOW!

~Ariana

joxy

09-14-2002, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Ariana Undomiel
It's as if the kings were watching him make his final defense against darkness. And in some ways, he won because he let go of his desire for the ring and turned his passion to protecting his friends until the very last moment. And then he dies calling on Aragorn as his brother, his captain, and his king. WOW!
All fine, all agreed, until the end of your entry and almost the end of the scene - "brother-captain-king" - melodramatic, mushy, over-the-top, out of character both for the book and the film - others have offered those various opinions, and WOW, I agree with them!

Ariana Undomiel

09-14-2002, 06:42 PM

All fine, all agreed, until the end of your entry and almost the end of the scene - "brother-captain-king" - melodramatic, mushy, over-the-top, out of character both for the book and the film - others have offered those various opinions, and WOW, I agree with them!

I personally feel that that part was neither over-the-top or mushy! It was an excellent touching scene that redeems Boromir entirely. He confesses his wrong, repents, and then honors Aragorn by calling him his brother, his captain, and his king.

I think it was one of the best scenes in the entire film.

~Ariana

Antolle ulua sulrim, joxy.

Melian Le Fay

09-14-2002, 09:52 PM

I think they had to do it liek that in the film, because the film lasts only 2-3 hours, while book offers much more information... And some things, like Boromir's repent, or Aragorn feelings toward him, etc. had to be done in a more "obvious" way... It's different when you read the book, and really "get into" characters, but when you watch a 3-hour film, the same impression about characters has to be done in a way PJ did... I suppose. And I think that's why some people consider that scene mushy, overdramatic... but, tastes are different, and everyone has a right on opinion of his own... I personally liked the scene, and sort of understood Boromir's character, and what he was going through a bit better then when I was reading the book... Though, I did read the books after I've seen the film, so, I suppose I was influenced by it...:rolleyes:

joxy

09-15-2002, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by Ariana Undomiel
I personally feel that that part was neither over-the-top or mushy! It was an excellent touching scene....then honors Aragorn by calling him his brother, his captain, and his king.
I think it was one of the best scenes in the entire film.
It's not the scene that many people have used those adjectives about- it's the few lines that aren't by Tolkien, and don't fit with T's style, especially "brother-captain-king", like a sort of third rate "friends-romans-countrymen".
It IS an excellent scene, and touching, and certainly among a top ten for best scene. If it had been left at the 80% of it that is pure Tolkien (from two different scenes combined, but that's OK) it would have been in the top five.

joxy

09-15-2002, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by Millena
I personally liked the scene, and sort of understood Boromir's character, and what he was going through a bit better then when I was reading the book.
Most of the scene is taken straight from the book, and is very good. It is only a few lines that have been added that are not so good. A matter of opinion, of course, but based on a thorough knowledge of Tolkien's style.

Flame of Anor

09-16-2002, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by joxy

Most of the scene is taken straight from the book, and is very good. It is only a few lines that have been added that are not so good. A matter of opinion, of course, but based on a thorough knowledge of Tolkien's style.

Yes, joxy, that is your own opinion and you are entitled to your own opinion. I on the other hand thought that it was excellent and the new lines that where put in the scene accented it more than took away from it. but of course this is just my opinion.

btw, did you read the elvish that Ariana said to you a couple posts back? I wonder what that person said.

-Flame

Melian Le Fay

09-16-2002, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by joxy

Most of the scene is taken straight from the book, and is very good. It is only a few lines that have been added that are not so good. A matter of opinion, of course, but based on a thorough knowledge of Tolkien's style.

Well, I suppose you're right... but still somehow I've got the feeling that scene in book lacked something.... But if you say most of it is taken from the book, I'll just have to check it out! Nah, I better start reading the book all over again... but I don't have the time...
To read or no to read? Hmmmzzz....:rolleyes:

joxy

09-17-2002, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by Millena
But if you say most of it is taken from the book, I'll just have to check it out!....I better start reading the book all over again....
Someone earlier in this thread kindly gave us all the text of that scene, and it's really easy to see which lines are from one of the two Tolkien scenes, and which are by some scriptwriter who, I think, was having an off-day when he wrote them! Most of the original is from the time when B returns to the group after trying to take the ring and is deeply sorry for what he tried, the rest from the actual brief death scene. Fortunately the film scene goes right again, with the original phrase "Be at peace", and even the sign that A makes on himself.
Do read the books again though! Remember T has a Beo-Grad also, a White City! Prijatel Joxy.

joxy

09-17-2002, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by Flame_of_Anor
....the new lines that where put in the scene accented it more than took away from it. but of course this is just my opinion.
btw, did you read the elvish that Ariana said to you a couple posts back? I wonder what that person said.

I can't see why it needed any accenting at all; Tolkien's degree of accenting is quite enough for me! But, yes, your opinion is as valuable as everyone else's, whether they agree or disagree with it.
Thanks- I did see the Elvish- and I too wonder what it meant- I hope she will tell me/us!:-)

Ariana Undomiel

09-18-2002, 02:45 AM

Ahhhhh ... the mysterious beauty of the Elvish language. I am sorry but if you wish to know what it means, you will have to discover that for yourself.

~Ariana

joxy

09-18-2002, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by Ariana Undomiel
the mysterious beauty of the Elvish language.
Beauty indeed! But WHICH Elvish language? Give me a clue! :-)
It is surprising how much Elvish speech there is in the film,
but does anyone know if it is genuine, AND what it means?
Is there a translation sheet somewhere?!
Unfortunately it is always so unclear on the soundtrack (deliberately or not?) that I have made out only a very few words. Namarie!

Talimon

09-18-2002, 09:32 PM

Here you go:

http://www.elvish.org/gwaith/movie_news.htm#as

Melian Le Fay

09-18-2002, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by joxy

Fortunately the film scene goes right again, with the original phrase "Be at peace", and even the sign that A makes on himself.
Do read the books again though! Remember T has a Beo-Grad also, a White City! Prijatel Joxy.

What sign?! Man, I have the memory of a 60 year-old!!! Could you please remind me?:)
And, yes, about the White City...when we were watching the film (it was the premiere), and when Boromir spoke of it, the entire audiance was thrilled when we heard "The White City"!!!
And I've changed my location desription - it's white City, Yugoslavia now!:D

Ariana Undomiel

09-19-2002, 12:32 AM

Aragorn makes a certain sign that he gives when he wishes to potray respect. He touches his forhead and then his lips, and at the part with Boromir he then kisses his fallen companion's forehead.

~Ariana

Flame of Anor

09-19-2002, 02:31 AM

Ahh.....that is very interesting. I never would have associated that. Very nice to know. Thnx for sharing.

-Flame

Melian Le Fay

09-19-2002, 11:11 PM

Ahhh... It's a beautifull sign! (what in LOTR isn't beautiful?)
It reminds me a lot of Arabic sign of respect : they first touch their heart(bosom), than the lips and then their forhead...

joxy

09-20-2002, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by Millena
It's a beautiful sign! (what in LOTR isn't beautiful?)
It certainly is, and adds just the right note to the words at the very end of the scene. I take it as a combination of the sign of the cross with the arabic greeting, and probably with others from hinduism and buddhism. I don't think it's original, from the book, but I hope Tolkien, a life-long christian, would have approved!

Melian Le Fay

09-22-2002, 09:55 PM

I also liked when Aragorn kissed Boromir's forhead (brow?)...Taht seemed so noble, but kind... Today guys would consider men kissing a bit... well... should I say gay? Maybe a word to strong, but certainly wouldn't do it. but I think that was also beautifull...

joxy

09-23-2002, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by Millena
I also liked when Aragorn kissed Boromir's forhead (brow)
Yes, forehead, or brow (usually the lower part of the forehead).
It was a natural extension of the gesture he made, and I don't think it would be seen as anything erotic.

Melian Le Fay

09-23-2002, 08:29 PM

Nah, nothing erotic in that. It was so noble, like he recognised him as his brother...
I was complainig on todays man, who are too "manly" to kiss another man, although it has nothing to do with eroticism...

Ariana Undomiel

09-27-2002, 05:12 AM

In this film and in the setting and the idea that was portayed, the kiss on the forehead was well suited.

~Ariana

Flame of Anor

10-01-2002, 06:10 AM

I do think that it is entirely appropriate. I also think that it was a sign of respect towards Boromir and a promise to him also. IMO

-Flame

falcolite

11-02-2002, 01:01 AM

Well, I believe that since Tolkien was a Writer, he did a better job than PJ on writing it. But I also think since PJ was a director, he did a better job capturing it on film than Tolkien.

Its like comparing a Vet and Doctor. Sure they relate in the work they do, but its not the same job. Tolkien was a writer, PJ was a director. They both did great in the form they created it in.

I also admired very much so the motion that Aragorn made after Boromir died. Where he touchs his forehead, then his mouth. Very honourable like:).

Flame of Anor

11-02-2002, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by falcolite
Its like comparing a Vet and Doctor. Sure they relate in the work they do, but its not the same job. Tolkien was a writer, PJ was a director. They both did great in the form they created it in.
You put that very elloquently falconite. Great analogy.

-Flame

Grond

11-02-2002, 05:56 AM

J. R. R. Tolkien created the world of Middle-earth. I liken his creation of Middle-earth to the classic Chevrolet Corvette. P. J. has modified that Corvette so that it still looks like a sports car but instead of being packed with a 422 cubic inch turbo charged V-8 engine... it is now run by a 1.6 liter 4 cylinder. It kinda looks like a sports car but now its get up and go has got up and went.

By the way, J. R. R. Tolkien never made any movies that I know of, so your analogy really makes no sense. My analogy makes sense. ;)

Talimon

11-02-2002, 09:25 AM

Grond, your analogy doesn't make sense either. Because they aren't both cars to begin with (one is a movie and the other is a book). Maybe have it be two completely different vehicles. ;)

Grond

11-02-2002, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by Talimon
Grond, your analogy doesn't make sense either. Because they aren't both cars to begin with (one is a movie and the other is a book). Maybe have it be two completely different vehicles. ;) Good Talimon... that is where you fail to understand the purist mind. There is only one vehicle... it can be equalled but never surpassed. To me, there is no such thing as a Lord of the Rings book and a Lord of the Rings book. There is only the world in my mind that was put there by my readings of the works. I, as a purist, measure Jackson's work by how well his efforts on film match the world already created in my mind.

That is why I try to completely divest myself of all my "real" Tolkien thoughts before I watch the films. If I didn't, I would feel almost identically to Thorin and Mrs. M.

Talimon

11-03-2002, 05:21 AM

There is only the world in my mind that was put there by my readings of the works.

I know that all too well. I can't comment on "real" Tolkien thoughts, as that is a very subjective idea. But if the only way for you to enjoy the movie is to completely forget about Tolkien, I commend you for doing as much. At least you are making an attempt to enjoy the movie. :)

Ariana Undomiel

11-22-2002, 03:58 AM

Yeah, and overall we should remember something very important here. LOTR is just a book and it is just a movie. It has really no impact upon reality and even though it is something that we can enjoy and discuss, we shouldn't get carried away about it. :)

- Ariana

Athelas

11-30-2002, 06:59 PM

I have to agree that Boromir's death scene does convey a deep sense of redemption; it's almost like witnessing the infamous death of a saint. The slo-mo and the muted sound give that feeling of the senses going into shock.

"our people...our people." He finally realizes that he and Aragorn are countrymen; and more than that. He hails him as King; important in the development of Aragorn's character, and his decision to claim his birthright. Having someone die in your arms swearing fealty to you might do that. I lose it when he reaches for his sword and Aragorn helps him, because I know what he's doing. He wants to die holding onto it, and that strikes something in me deep and long ago.

joxy

11-30-2002, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Athelas
....the infamous death of a saint.
What do you mean?

Beruthiel

11-30-2002, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by joxy
What do you mean?

Mrs. Maggott

12-01-2002, 01:32 AM

Actually, as far as the number of arrows are concerned, both movie and book were about the same. Boromir is "shot full of arrows" in the book; he doesn't just take one "hit" and die. Of course, the film is going to play this event to the hilt as it can hardly afford to do otherwise. In the book, Aragorn comes upon the scene when all is over and he can do nothing. He is not even able to determine from the dying Boromir if Frodo was taken captive by the orcs along with Merry and Pippin.

Actually, the film version is much more exiting than the book's but it had to be for obvious reasons! Films are not designed for the type of low-key "death scene" that Tolkien provided in the book and the fight between Lurtz and Aragorn was exciting. Also, by the time the fight occurred, the Director had already deviated so far from the book that it hardly mattered that he deviated in this area as well.